 Good morning everyone. Thank you for all coming at 9 o'clock. First thing of our annual meeting of new champions and so welcome to everyone. My name is Alex Wong with the World Economic Forum and I'm very pleased to make a brief introduction to the session. I oversee our initiative at the forum called the Global Strategic Infrastructure Initiative. We've been spending the last three years focusing on this very important topic. The various work streams include first of all a series of knowledge reports on how to do everything from prioritize and select infrastructure to how to create PPPs to how to operate and maintain and how to finance. So we have a whole series of reports and I have a couple here. Secondly we have a whole work stream on creating working groups between business and government and the MDBs, the multilateral development bank community, to see if we can actually demonstrate infrastructure project implementation including a very deep work stream in Africa working in partnership with the African Development Bank, the NEPAD agency and the African Union Commission. And finally we have a very dedicated track which is part of this session related to all of the challenges on advancing infrastructure financing. So how do you actually get that 60 odd trillion dollars worth of money floating around in institutional investors and pension funds, insurance companies, more directed to infrastructure investments. And we're very excited in this regard to have this session go deeper into this particular topic but in general overall. And in that regard I'm very pleased to introduce our moderator, Vikram Sangra from NDTV who will lead us through the session. Thank you. So I think that governments and countries can do the exact more investment in infrastructure being better. Is that the problem? Is it the problem that funds are not available, that capital structures are inadequate, do we need more human resources? So those are some of the issues that we're going to try and tackle during the course of the next hour or so. And what we are going to do is to lead us to the rather pre-leaning session of brainstorming in life. Let me start off by welcoming our panelists. And it's a privilege to have you with us. President Ketah was the president of the Republic of Mali. Thank you so much for being with us. Mark Nation is the president of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Asia. We'll be trying to get some sense of where the will be and how the money can come in. Today is the executive vice president of the SNC 11 group in France. And the global vice president of the smart community division in Japan. So thank you all so much for being with us. President Ketah, why don't I start off with you. If you look at Africa, look at Asia, so many countries around the world lack the most basic of infrastructure. And it's not just the flyovers and the expressways. There's infrastructure all the way down to drinking water, to sanitation, to toilets. Those are some of the most basic of infrastructure that's still missing. What can countries do differently? Thank you very much. Well, infrastructure is a very important topic, particularly in Africa. Today everybody pays a lot of attention to this topic. Dear friends, infrastructure is a core issue for all of us in Dhaka, Senegal. Most of the tension goes to infrastructure. There are serious problems in financing infrastructure projects in energy transportation environment. That is to say only with money can we properly deal with this infrastructure issue. So financing is really a key issue for us. We need billions of dollars of money to build up infrastructure. Now we need 45 billion US dollars, which is a great deal of money. But a fundamental issue still lies in the energy sector. The key issue for us is the shortage of energy and shortage of investment. If there is not enough energy, it's almost impossible to have advancement for any country. If there is no transportation infrastructure, even if you transport your goods to the port, it cannot transport those goods into hinterlands. Now we have been clearly aware of this problem. So Africa needs to establish an effective mechanism to rise to this challenge, which is to finance these infrastructure projects. Mr. President, Mark, if I can take that to you then. So a lot of money is required, 35 billion dollars. If you take the number of projects that need to be rolled out, it's a great deal of money, potentially could also be a great deal of profit for somebody. Why is it that it should be there for a very simple day, because there are large pools of capital which are lying around, which are not getting that high interest rates. It should be possible to deploy them. But it's not quite as simple as that, is it? Yeah, so step back for a second and look at the role of the international investors, like ourselves, just to understand the challenge. And I think if you look from our perspective, we have a responsibility, the Canada Pension Plan for example, a responsibility to our 18 million beneficiaries and contributors to maximize the returns on investments without undue risk of loss. And it's as simple as that. So different sovereign wealth funds and pension funds have slightly different nuance and variation around that, but essentially their goal is to find the best investments, risk adjusted around the world. So every time there's an opportunity to invest in an infrastructure project in a country, we look at it versus the opportunity to invest in infrastructure projects anywhere else in the world. And also we look at it versus investing in anything else that we could invest in, whether it's private equity or it's public markets. And so that's the challenge that we face. We need to find the best risk adjusted returns globally. So I think the challenge for governments is to provide the framework that actually creates competitive risk adjusted returns for investors. Because while the projects clearly have an enormous amount of social good to the countries concerned, which is helpful for investors to know they're investing in something that's worthwhile, ultimately they're looking at the financial return. So that's the challenge is to create the framework that for very long-term investments creates a stable, predictable, regulatory environment and returns for investors. So in most cases what's the bigger problem? The risks are too high or the returns are too low? Often it's the risks are unquantifiable and that's the challenge. There's risk that is difficult to put a number on that whether it's an unpredictability of the particular project, how much usage is the project going to get and who's going to own that risk. Or it's an unpredictability of whether it's the tax regime around the project or the concession agreements. So it's that in I think for countries that are just starting a development program of infrastructure, that's the challenge. When you're looking at it from the point of view of being a developer, those risks, is that what worries you the most? Are we not quite sure what the risks are that we're going to get in here? We like this project, we'd like to do it. There's clearly a requirement for these infrastructure projects, but who knows what's going to happen. The government may change its mind, something dramatic could happen on the ground. I would say yes and no. I think while developing projects, we are spending a lot of time to try to find together a mechanism, between the public and the private sector, to try to find a mechanism to mitigate the risk that we can anticipate. And I think one of the difficulties, as you said, is what I call non-excel risk, is the risk that you cannot put on the Excel file and on any model. And I think probably what is really missing in all of this project is at the early stage of the project, we should probably spend a week together, meaning the public, the financial party and the developers, the engineering or the equipment supplier, and say exactly what are the risks that we are ready to consider. For instance, we spend a lot of time in some concession contract to have risk being mitigated inside the contract. But we have, during the 30 or 35 years of the contract, we have external events coming into the contract that are really not being anticipated and not even in the risk mitigation process. So I think the transparency at the early stage of the project, what is the political acceptance of the project? What is the political acceptance of the price to the end user? What is the expected profit from the company? And when is it at the development phase or is it during the execution of the contract? What is the margin of the financial institution? This kind of thing, we spend a lot of time to me in the development to hide that and to try to put that behind the scene to really avoid the discussion. But I think we should be, if we want to develop partnership, it has to be a transparent partnership. Where is our margin? What are the risks that we are going to take? What is the acceptability by the public of the project and so on and so forth? And we should save a lot of time. And I think at the end of the day, there is nothing to hide because we are a partner in this kind of concession project. But at the end of the day, some of the political risks, for example, that you're talking about, you could have a particular government or a particular regime that says, yes, we want to do this and the government comes in and says, we want this. Then what do you do? Exactly. So that's why, I mean, the problem is more the, I mean, the solution, I would say, is more the spirit of the project than really the document. Because we have seen, for instance, in the water business, we have seen projects in South America in the 90s with very good, very clever closes written by the best lawyer in the world saying that prices will be escalated according to the forex. And this is not acceptable by the public. This is not acceptable by any government. So either you have the clause in the contract, but I mean, in terms of return, it means nothing. So it's more a matter of spirit. And to really understand the spirit, that's the reason why I say we need transparency at the early stage of the project. And in my view, we don't want to hide the basic of each party. What are the fundamental for us? What are the fundamental for the public? What is the, where do we want to make money? And same for the financial, same for the equipment supplier. And if we say in one week, just going through that, I think we'll probably save some development costs because, I mean, we will see whether the project is bankable or not, because the spirit is bankable more than the document. Okay, so I'll come back to that spirit in just a couple of minutes. Let me just get your opening comments on what you think are the real problems and issues. I think for the infrastructure investment, the original plan is the most important. For my experience, usually public sector determines everything. The specification and any plan will be decided by the government. But in order to succeed, the functions allocation should be different. Private sector should determine the specification or give some ideas to how to develop the realisation of the project. And say PPP or PFI, there are some cases which is very unsuccessful, but to understand the private sector's allocation is large. And that specification should be determined by the private sector, not by the public. In that case, a good idea is coming from the public sectors, private sectors, and sometimes it's a very good project, I think. Let me come back to you on the point about risk, about the fact that, as you said, a lot of money is required to build out infrastructure. And if I understood correctly, he said that the money would be ready to come in. But there's always a slight concern about the risk. At the end of the day, their investors, they're looking at the risk return ratio. What can countries do to assure investors that their money will be saved, that at the end of the day, there won't be policy flip-flops changes? Thank you very much. You know, even a country like mine needs someone who doesn't want to be ridiculous. As the other panelists said, the investment in infrastructure is already halfway down. So, like, five billion dollars is being made. And we've had some discussion among ourselves. We had our strengths. Our country is not as poor as everyone else thinks it is. So we're actually the third largest gold miner in Africa. We also have a lot of other minerals to offer. So in Africa, we are probably among the richest countries. And we also have a very strong labor force. Our agricultural sector is also very strong. We are next to a nigger. And in 1939, we already built the Gavara Water Dam to irrigate the farmland. So about one million hectares of the land is properly irrigated. In Mali, we also have other strengths to play to our advantage. At the political level, for a country like Mali, we're trying to reduce the risk factors for the investors. As I said previously, we've actually convened meetings to talk about project feasibility, how to create a peaceful, safe environment for investors, and also how to develop a vision for the country. So there's a lot of support that Mali is gleaning from around the world. And this would be good for private investment to come in. And private investors are more willing to share the risk. We are also discussing transfers and at the society level, we are also doing research. If we want to build a bridge with Senegal, we see this as a public infrastructure project. So the government needs to chip in. We had a very extensive discussion in the very early stage and now the project is going on very smoothly and we have the willingness to follow through so that the investors will get their returns. That's very critical to us and investment is still in short supply in Mali. In the energy sector, for example, we welcome very much private investment in our energy mining and other sectors and also the cross-border projects with Senegal, the development along the river, water projects. We are also working with the United States, some of the biggest companies from the United States. Also the WHO and Senegal together are working with us, especially in the area of energy. There's a lot of projects, there's a lot on our plate. In December, there will be a dam leading to Senegal, which will break ground in December. So we had very good collaboration with Chinese investors and builders. So we do have some strengths to play to our advantage. You're talking about, there's a lot of, clearly there are governments who may say, look, we want investors to come and we're going to do whatever it takes. What would you say to President Kedav? What are the sort of things that you would be looking to hear or to see actually implemented, which makes it much easier to build out infrastructure? To caveat, first of all, Canada Pension Plan, my own institution so far is not invested in Africa. And that's not necessarily a comment on Africa, it's more just a statement on our development. We're a relatively new institution in terms of doing direct investments. So we've been doing direct investment in-house for the last eight years. So North America, obviously we started with Europe and then developed markets, particularly Australia and Asia, is where we developed our expertise. So Africa will come in time. So that's the first caveat. Having said that, I think as we look at markets like Africa, like Mali, when we do that, I think the roles of the international development finance, the multilateral agencies have a huge part to play in this. And so whether it's the World Bank or the IFC or the risk insurance and political risk insurance, MIGA and others, these can significantly provide comfort for both credit and equity investors in projects. That's the first thing I'd say. They clearly have a very big part to play. Second thing is I think the putting where if countries can put decisions about infrastructure, the concessions, key decisions, beyond the reach of political parties and changing political parties. So it requires a very big step to change something. For example, some countries have changed the constitution to provide protection around certain major infrastructure projects. Or they've said that it will require a super-majority vote of houses of parliament or whatever government there is. And so it puts it beyond the reach of normal change of political whim. And I think that's helpful in removing political temptation over time to readjust things. The third thing is, fundamentally, is developing the quality, the maturity and the independence of the regulators. So the authorities that regulate to the extent that they can be separated from politics and provided constitutional statutory strength and independence then. And that clearly takes time, takes years to develop. But that's very powerful. So for example, India is the National Highways Authority of India. We think has moved towards a lot of best international practices over the last 19, 20 years of its establishment. And gave us, as CPPIB, a lot of comfort when we looked at India and decided to make an investment in the toll road sector in India. So that's one example. The risks, of course, come in both sides, also. And you could have major changes taking place even in the company. Your own company's seen some pretty dramatic changes over the last, in the recent past. Also, what investors want, what companies' own approaches could also change. So the risks will happen on both sides. Yes, of course. And that's the reason why one of the things that was mentioned by President Keta is very important to me is this kind of sub-region perspective in terms of development of projects because it's really creating some dynamic different from the local political institution and creating a bigger picture in terms of risk mitigation and to us as private investors. This kind of sub-region agreement such as in South African region or the Mano River, as you mentioned, and so on and so forth. It's very good to really reinsure the private investor about the political risk and any risk mitigant which is becoming natural between the partner. In terms of political change, this is creating some kind of natural risk mitigant. For the private sector, I mean, at the end of the day, whatever happened to the financial institution or to the equity investor, I mean, it's not really important because at the end of the day, it's a long-term agreement, long-term project, and it's just a matter of, I mean, it's like a company. I mean, someone is wanting to change the shareholding structure. I mean, the project and the value of the project remains. So if the project has a value, there is a great future for the project, whoever are the shareholder. If you just built a project with a kind of, I would say, bad consensus or weak consensus, then you have difficulties and you might be impacted by changes in the financial institution, in the political part or in the private sector. But again, if you built the best project, you get the best stakeholder into the project from day one up to the end of the project. So I mean, it's, again, it's a matter of transparency and a matter of building the best project altogether. All right, so the selection of projects, I'm going to dwell on that in just a couple of minutes. But one thing which we haven't yet mentioned is the C word, which is corruption. Is that still a big problem you think in a large number of countries when you're going into that you have to pay money or to pay bribes and as a result of that, it's difficult to do business? I mean, it's, well, concession is a beauty for that because I mean, definitely, to me, concession project is out of this corrupted world because it's obvious that nobody would accept to be corrupted to put their own money in the project. So the rationale of a concession project is very different than a public awarded project. And I think we are talking about risk mitigant. The best risk mitigant against corruption is concession because there is no room for corruption in the concession. You are putting your own money, so I mean, it's... Somebody could still ask for a bribe to allow the money, the project to proceed. You won't give permission for it if you don't pay a bribe. I think the, well, I don't really see the risk because again, the rationale of such a project is very different. The rationale of the project is that of a concession project is that you will be long-term local partner. You will not just come into the country to get the project, get the money from the project and leave the country as most of the construction company we are doing before. When you are working on the PFI or on the PPP and so on, you are in the country for 30, 30, 40 years, so you are part of the local community. So that's totally different. And again, the allocation of margin is clearly shown in the business plan. So to me, concession is definitely the best risk mitigant against corruption because you become as either as investor or as a lender, you become part of the local community. And you are not there just to get the project and leave the country. You are part of the local business community. Right. President Gettner, one of the other issues though that comes up increasingly in many countries is also security. We've seen not just the places where obviously there's a lot of violence taking place even now, but in other areas, including your part of the world, we've seen these people being kidnapped, held hostage, ransom being asked for. The minute something like that starts to happen, then concessioners or anybody coming to invest in infrastructure start to get a bit concerned. Now, we're concerned of all these risks. You made a very valid point on security. If a country cannot maintain the security of the country and the security on the project, then it will not work. That is why we put a lot of emphasis on security and fairness and justice in our system. Say in Canada, the regulatory measures are very rigorous. In France, the same. So we are benchmarking towards these countries in establishing our regulatory framework. Say we have a government unit that is controlling all government expenditures. So on the regulatory side, we are doing quite well. Say if a Canadian investor comes in and invests in a project in Mali, we need to assure the investor that it's safe to invest in the country. We also see political risks. As we have discussed before in this globalized world, terrorism, the situation in Middle East, for us, the international politics will have some impact on some regions, for example, Mali, because in Mali, there is also terrorism. Many of the problems of Islam and also some other problems. At present, we have adopted some effective measures either under the framework of the United Nations or under other frameworks. So we need to make concerted effort to prevent it from happening. For example, under G5, we have established some mechanism. Of course, our G5 is different from other G countries, and G5 consists of five poor countries. So for us, the key issue is stability and Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, Mauritania, these five countries. And we have spent lots of efforts ensuring a good investment climate. So we have to make sure that we've got good legal framework for investment, which I think is very, very important. And for us, we have done lots of work in this regard. We have also fought against corruption. It's the same in other areas. We will spare no effort in doing well in every aspect. At present, some competent authorities are reading through around 2,000 documents on anti-corruption. So the more resolve we have on anti-corruption, the more guarantee we will give to foreign investment. And of course, the foreign investors will see what we are doing. We are very open and flexible to foreign investors. And we will offer some concrete guarantee so as to make sure they've got a good return. Yes, many people are worried that they won't be able to do the technical project because they often have to find a way to solve this problem or give money. Sir, just now I listened to both your questions in Chinese. So could you repeat your question? Sorry, there's some... So considering terrorism, are there any effective measures to fight against terrorism? I would say there are risks of terrorism. We do have some measures, and we will take measures to ensure the security of foreign investment. Just now, I touch upon G5, group of five, to make concerted efforts to make sure that each and every government can try its best to prevent these risks from happening. And we're also being candid to investors and to tell them the truth. So if we have aware some of the risks, we will tell the investors. So I don't think there is such a thing as absolute security. I just want to turn now to the point of project selection that was being spoken about right now. What sort of projects have you been... You're looking at an infrastructure project. Do you want to see which one it is, as was being said, there are certain projects that are easier, simpler to roll out, no real risk, and so those are more attractive for that reason? I'm belonging to the smart community division and for the... All over the world, the smart community project will be done right now, but many of them are only the stage of the employment trial project. But anyway, what comes first for the investment? I think the key word is safety and security. For the... One of the natural disasters is increasing every year, especially in Japan, for the flood and earthquakes and volcanoes explosion. And we have to invest something to prevent from the disasters. But the key word, technical word is focused, predicting. How to... In advance, how to know the earthquakes and how to know whether heavy rain is coming from. So the focused technology will be applied to the natural disasters. It's very applicable. And that kind of investment could be first, I think. And what's more, regarding the healthcare investment, if we keep on continuing on every day's life as it is, then we will be seriously disaster, seriously disease, disease. In that case, if we could prevent or focus how to prevent the serious disease, then maybe medical costs will be decreasing rapidly. And that kind of investment should be coming first, I think. Then this kind of idea will be applied to another country, such as Africa and Maori. Is that part of what you were saying? So therefore, if there are projects which are to do with technology, to do with disaster prevention, to do with clean drinking water, sanitation, the likelihood of there being too many risks associated with them or maybe lower than, for example, a highway project where you have to acquire land or mining projects by local communities could get displaced. Unfortunately, I think it's not that simple. I mean, and again, our job as developers is not to avoid the risk, is to manage the risk. And it is obvious that the more risk we know how to manage, the better is the margin on the project because the competition is lower. So of course the point is rather to have the right people inside the company but as well with our partnership to find all the risk mitigants. But to me, the risk is not a photo, it's more a movie. Because what is right today is probably not right tomorrow. So to me, the most important thing is the dynamic between the values stakeholder and if they really want the project because of safety reason or security reason and because we think that politically speaking, the leaders of the country once need and can convince the people that the project is needed, then we can take more risk because we know that this has value for everybody. If it is easy, well, it's difficult to find out value. It's difficult to find out margin. So, I mean, the answer is not that simple. I prefer difficult project where I have the right people to manage all the risk. And when we know the risk, the risk are not hidden. Right, so that's one way of looking at it. Go for the more difficult ones because the margins will be higher out there. Project identification, how important is that? Or you want to respond to what you said? I agree wholeheartedly that it's investing in those projects that are complicated where you have an edge in understanding the risk and where you understand the risks better than other people and that's how to make returns in excess of what you could do otherwise. So that's the critical thing. So it's exactly what we try to do because we have developed in-house capability to assess infrastructure projects, to own them for the long-term, to manage them for the long-term. We do think our edge is slightly more complicated projects. At the moment, generally, more developed markets, but we're also expanding into more developing markets. So the recent investment in IDPL with Lusner and Tupro in India is reasonably complex the way we've structured that. The more interesting one is in Peru recently where we've invested in the gas pipeline, we call it TGP, where we've made about $800 million investment in one of the key gas pipelines in Peru. And that was fairly complicated in how we got to make the investment. There were a whole series of different transactions that got us to it. So I think that just to resonate that point, we think we understand the complexities or the risk around a project better than others. That's where we typically will find the returns. The other challenge here is while in developing markets, there's not enough capital going. In developed markets, there is almost too much capital chasing core infrastructure. So core infrastructure, there's more and more global investors who are trying to allocate money to infrastructure. Whether it's through funds or direct, prices have got very, very extended in core infrastructure in developed markets. So there's a different challenge for us. So we're trying to find more interesting opportunities away from just pure core infrastructure in developed markets. So going forward, is it possible for there to be new and more innovative capital structures, ways of doing this so that at the end of the day, you get a decent risk return ratio and at the end of the day, that capital you're talking about actually moves to the areas which require it the most from where obviously the return will also be more. Are there intelligent ways of doing this? I know you don't tell us all your secret source, but maybe there are some ways. I'm not sure we have a secret source on capital structures. The two sweeping things on that are one that I think the, what we want is the cash flows from the project and if it's a very complicated capital structure, then that actually will probably inhibit the refinancing of it in the long term and will just cause additional complexity in the long term. So we prefer a more simple capital structure where ownership is clear and risk mitigation is clear and risk insurance is clear and it's going to be stable for a very long term. So that's one thing I'd say to, I don't think it's all about financial engineering. I think it's about the mitigation of the risks and the ownership of the clear ownership of the risk so the government owns some risks, private sector owns the other risks, the very clear mitigation and the framework stays in place for the very long term. So I think that's the major point I make on that. All right. Would you like to add something to that or are they in a way to financial structures that you can pingo? No, I mean it's, we more or less all have the same fundamentals and basic around that. So I mean I concur with what you said. Nothing to add. Lacanaka? Are there new financial and other structures that you can see which would make an impact? Besides safety and security, besides I think the old buildings, the old bridge would be increasing rapidly in all over the world and if we could use a robot, very difficult to see directly instead of human beings, we could use a robot or we could use X-ray to see the inside and that kind of innovation should be applied to the old infrastructures replacing and that could be a good investment for the security and safety in the world. All right. Professor Keter, any new financial other ways, any, what example of an investor has come to meet you, you're in China, somebody was to come and meet you, what essentially is the final key message that you are already giving them? When we meet with Chinese investors, we usually had a good talk. So we congratulate China on being our good partner. If they are involved in the concession project in our country, the project usually moves ahead with a little headwind and for us, we need to identify for the concession holder and the non-concession holder what is their motivation to be involved in the project. It's not friendship. We need to be economic. We need to make sure everyone else also gets a piece of the profit. So that's the first structure we need to consider. Also, we need to think about what we need. Is it the money, say five billion, every day we need to mobilize funds. So if you add everything up, it's a lot of money. So the investment need for Mali, as I said, we are still an England country, landlocked country. So we need to find a way to get to the coast. So we should remain vigilant and we need a lot of capital supply. Of course, if there's more that you invest, then there's more, likely more return for you. So we put a lot of hope on developing private sector as a partner to us and we are trying to innovate with the investment model to attract more private investment. For countries in Africa as a whole, our banks also want to work with you to replenish their capital so that they can also get more money to fund growth in Africa. In Mali, I want to say we have the river nigger and ships can cross the river. So it's a very important transportation link. So we're working with countries such as China. We're trying to rehabilitate the river and make it more productive and also irrigation because of the sludge which is building up on the riverbed. The river is getting shallower and narrower so the land that we have, the farmland that we have, cannot be sufficiently irrigated. Also, hydropower is another thing that we want to focus on. So all these projects are related to people's livelihood and they are long term and that's why we want to find different solutions and use a variety of innovative models to fund the projects. Despite all the challenges that we have we believe we will be able to find more investment. As my colleague said maybe we can think about some of the innovative structures and how do we work with nigger and Senegal to build cross border railways from Dakar to nigger. Railways are also very important and they are the lifeline of our country because the railways can help us transport minerals iron ore so Chinese and French investors are very much encouraged to talk to us and we are also breaking down the investment projects into two phases and in each phase we are exploring the feasibility of bringing more investment from abroad. The competition for capital has already started because across Africa there is a lot of capital that is being sold. Countries like India, we hear that it could be 1.7 trillion dollars required in infrastructure over the next few years. So clearly there is a lot of demand there. Is there enough capital going around? No. I think... This is the 60 trillion dollar question. So theoretically there is enough capital but sovereign wealth funds and pension funds are not going to put all of their money into infrastructure and all their money into developing market infrastructure. I am optimistic that given the right risk mitigation techniques and I think what governments have to do is develop the pipeline. We have been working on that for the last two years a lot. So I think if governments can create well thought out, well supported, shovel ready, financing ready projects and work with the multilateral development banks, the World Bank, IFC, all these agencies and political risk insurance to put in place proper financing structures then I am quite optimistic the money will flow. I think governments also need to just pool their expertise. There are lots of ministries if they can be pooled in one place, one center of excellence that really understands how to put together these infrastructure projects. That again makes life a lot easier for investors. And then also, as was talked earlier, the collaboration with the private sector allowing a process where private sector investors can come and make proposals. And Chili's held out as an example of this where Chili, if the proposal actually is adopted, then all those costs of developing that idea of repaid and the person who's also developed it gets extra points when they're bidding for the project as well in their assessment. So that type of collaboration and actually formalizing is very good. I think the World Economic Forum documents give Alex again a shout out on this. I think they're absolutely excellent in summarizing best practice for infrastructure development for governments. Alex is going to even tackle them around for all of us to take out with us. We almost out of time, maybe a quick final thought. You know, enough capital you feel and enough good projects going around as well? Yeah, I mean, I'm sharing what Mark said just now. I mean, I think there is enough capital in terms of equity for the project. But what is really very expensive today is to finance the development cost and the development costs are higher and higher because we try to make things very complex. And if we keep, if we try to find a mechanism between the public and the private sector to keep things very simple at the development phase, I fully agree that we have enough equity for the capital cost of the project itself. And the only thing is that we need to reduce the development cost not to increase unduly the capital cost of the project. So I think it's one of the key for the development of the infrastructure project in the coming years. Okay, the budget is limited. So how to decrease the investment is quite important and Toshiba is, so in that case, innovation is a very, very important role. So Toshiba could be helpful for that. So please use Toshiba's products. All right. Thank you all so much for being out here. It's a $60 trillion question or whatever. We certainly hope that infrastructure continues to roll out in all countries around the world. It's a pleasure having you with us. Thank you so much.