Maybe I'll speak to the first one briefly.
Ms. Neville, we haven't had an opportunity to know what underlies or motivates the change in language, so it's unfortunate when you see who is being impacted--that is, women. You think, could this be a sexist decision? With the DRC, it's about Africa, so you think, is it about women in Africa? So I wonder if it's an attempt, as I say, to maintain the status quo.
I don't know. It's a hard one to judge, but if you look at the patterns of some of the decisions that are being made, it's hard not to draw other conclusions. If we look at the G-20 decisions about women not having opportunities around choice with some of the funding, and at some of these language changes over time, it's hard not to say that there's some kind of underlying issue around power relations and that African women aren't important. I don't know, but that's what I extract from it.
Second, regarding the issue of women not leading any proposal, we had submitted a region-wide agricultural proposal, an organic gardening thing in the Caribbean. We were specifically told that because women were at the centre of this leadership farming proposal, it would not be accepted, because women could not lead a proposal. It had to be in the three thematic areas. We had incorporated one of the thematic areas, economic development, but we had to revamp the proposal. I think it was the director who told us that women cannot lead any proposal, because it wasn't a priority. So that was the particular experience we encountered.