That's a very interesting question.
First of all, I think you have to know that for IDRC, having staff on the ground for over 46 years and being in contact with people is the first line of defence.
Second, we do institutionally, as many other institutions do, a very firm and thorough internal review before engaging with a partner in a country about their capacity to manage the funds. If they don't have it—not because of reasons of corruption, but it's weak—then we're going to reinforce that as part of the research process.
Thirdly, the moment we smell something that is wrong we can stop the funding. But in 46 years I think that it has been extremely rare that the IDRC has done this. We have also assessed our programming externally through the Office of the Auditor General, and in 46 years we have always had, and I touch wood, a clean slate vis-à-vis a special examination or our annual review of financials.
There is a strong accountability that comes with the expertise of the staff. It's not only about the money and giving the money, it's about following and tracking that the money is used for the purpose that it was established within the research context. That's how we have done it over the last 46 years.