I'm familiar with many of them, and in my presentation I tried to go to the core of some of the key lessons that we keep in mind. I can't emphasize political commitment enough; I can't emphasize the diverse role of actors who have to be engaged in this process.
One of the earlier speakers said let's not, in effect, get distracted about gender-responsive budgeting; what is at the heart of this is implementing policies that do remove poverty, that do promote gender equality, and so on.
The other thing about these probably 60 or 70 initiatives—we have trouble counting them--is that they're incredibly diverse. Part of it is that they're diverse in style, diverse in terms of who's involved, their politics, and so on. But they're also diverse in what they're trying to achieve, which requires each country to ask, what is it that we're trying to achieve here?
You already have examples in your country that are trying to achieve certain things by gender-responsive budgeting. Take the earlier presentation on engaging poor women and trying to raise awareness about housing; that is an initiative. You might in your country end up with a multiplicity of initiatives that could be backed by your treasury, your ministry of finance—I'm not sure what you call them in Canada—being required to assess new expenditures.
New expenditures aren't a big proportion of the budget, so it's not such a big exercise. But it is interesting, if you have large budget surpluses, to be able to focus on where the surplus money is going. I think that's politically crucial, because it at least looks as though—it's not true—you're not taking it away from anybody else but are distributing the benefits.