That's a very good point. The truth is that, for most of our partner countries, each one is doing it in a slightly different way. Sometimes that's because they're governed by different legislation within their own frameworks, and they're required to do things differently, but they are all facing the same challenge. We all function in more or less the same way, which is the fundamental project is the unit of account. They all have that issue.
For some countries, such as the Nordic ones, for the most part they've decided to not try. They've decided that the best approach is to focus on an effective discussion and reporting on results at the project level. Other countries, I believe the Netherlands—I don't have my notes in front of me—also use country-level reports. For example, you not only have country programs, but you have investments in multilateral organizations that operate in countries and you roll up the results at the country level. What does your contribution contribute to?
Even there, that's where it starts to fall apart. The reason it starts to fall apart is this: How do you determine exactly what your contribution is vis-à-vis other donors who are acting in the same space vis-à-vis the national government itself? Canada works in Tanzania, for example. We provide direct support to the health sector in that country. We're not the only country that provides support to the health sector. Also, we're working to support local organizations that are working in the health sector, with all of them looking to achieve a KPI result on something like reducing child mortality and reducing maternal mortality.
You can sometimes get into games of methodologies where you try to account for what the Canadian contribution could be. Given that we provided 17% of the total program funding for this project, does that mean we get 17% of the results? It's there where you start trying to figure out whether it makes a lot of sense to do that.
It's a real conundrum, how to do it at strategic levels—