That is a very good question. I think it points to a big problem that we currently have in making the best use of our volunteers and our volunteer organization.
Germany has a system in place through which the federal government basically guarantees that you do not have any negative effects as a volunteer for this organization. It also guarantees something called the wage reimbursement program. That means that, if you are in a full-time job and your expertise is needed to respond in your region, your employer may ask the federal government for somebody to replace you and for the government to pay for that person.
In reality, that is very rarely used, as you can imagine, because the private sector makes use of their corporate social responsibility that way and they're proud to have their employees helping. Usually, because these disasters are local, the region is probably impacted anyway, which impacts the private sector, so there is no issue with that.
If I may, I would also like to link it to the mitigation piece, because we try to see this in silos. However, I also think mitigation always happens in the response, and we don't have that capability to prevent the response from escalating if we don't have the civil protection capabilities in place locally.
Another point is that I totally agree that we need as much mitigation as we can have, but then all of those mitigation projects are not a guarantee that they're not going to fail. If we build dams or dikes, we need people who will service them and who can defend or protect them if something happens. All those things link together, but the availability of staff or volunteers is what is crucial and what is missing at the moment.