 Fel cwmru cael chi oedd adeiladurol Cymreig ac oedd gwybod gwneud ysgol Llyfr individuallyll ar y cyflodol mawr yn wych. Rwy'n rhaid i'r cyflodol ond yn ymwneud gan y gweld cymoedd ar gyfer cyflodol. Roedd genno'r pïngsiadau gan gweithio'r Cwmru Cymreig yn ymwythnosol Llyfr responsible yma yn unig o kadais oedd yno. Dwy o chwych gwirionedd, i'r rhwng o'r 180 a leirio. Rwy'n oed yn amddangos cyffredeb oedd gan'r cyflodol Cymreig. In middle income countries, they amount on average to 1% of GDP per year. In high income countries, 0.1% of GDP because of the investment that has been made in risk reduction and resilience. And in low income countries, 0.3% of GDP, less than in middle income countries because the vulnerable are so poor. But these countries become trapped in a cycle of damage unable to finance the investments they need to escape from these losses. We observe a transition through time in infrastructure investment. Major losses as occurred in Japan here at the time of industrialization trigger investment in risk reduction. And that doesn't level off until risk gets down to a tolerable level of about 1% of GDP. The United States experienced a similar infrastructure transition. This picture here shows the 1927 floods on the Mississippi, the most damaging floods in American history, which stimulated major infrastructure investment, $14 billion of investment in the Mississippi system. But the need for investment doesn't stop there. Advanced economies have a growing stock of aging infrastructure, which needs investment in order to keep it in working condition. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. infrastructure system a D plus in its scorecard for the quality of infrastructure. It estimates that $2.2 trillion of investment are required to keep this system up to scratch. And the OECD estimates in its outlook to 2030 that $50 trillion of investment are required worldwide in infrastructure systems. Infrastructure has been identified as a target for stimulating economic growth. And clearly infrastructure investment has an immediate demand side effect. But in the longer term infrastructure is also identified as being one of the key components of economic competitiveness. The need or tendency within business to drive down the margin between system capacity and demand is increasing the possibility of systemic and cascading failure as occurred in the northeast of the United States in the blackout there. And there's also increasing complexity in this system, which is increasing the possibility of major failures. But there's no reason why complexity should lead to failure. Civil aircraft have become increasingly complex, but actually the number of fatal accidents has gone down over the years. So we can design complex systems which are safe. Another area of complexity however has been in the regulation of infrastructure, in particular since privatisation. Regulation has taken place in silos with different sectors and hasn't taken account of the interdependencies. So there are analogies here with financial regulation where systemic risks and the possibility of cascading failure are overlooked. And those impacts can cascade worldwide. These are the Thai floods, 20% of world production of hard drives disrupted during those floods. Toyota's profits cut by 32%. And the political implications propagate worldwide as well. The Fukushima nuclear reactor plant failure led to a backlash against nuclear energy in Germany and acceleration of their transition to renewable energy, but paradoxically also an increase in imports of coal-fired power from Poland. This picture here published in 1889, The Man of Commerce, shows, depicts the web of railroad and water infrastructure as the bones and arteries of the human body. This infrastructure becomes embedded, locked into the fabric of development with profound implications for sustainability and in many respects very difficult to reverse. We know that the risks are growing and these systems cannot be addressed by individual action alone. So my question is, how can we make the business case for collective action in order to reduce risks?