bond markets instead of relying solely on their relationship banks. credit or risk guarantees provided by multilateral development banks or export credit agencies may also need to be adapted for use in the capital markets. banks need to be innovative and develop a broader suite of financing instruments beyond bank lending in order to meet the financing needs of their clients. mdbs / ecas are important risk mitigants and could explore new ways to make efficient use of their funds this brings me to the next point – the role of multilateral development banks, or mdbs, and export credit agencies in catalysing broader private sector participation. given the scale of financing required for infrastructure, discussions at international fora have started to focus on how the multilaterals can further support the sector. for example, part of the g20 agenda for 2013 involves getting multilaterals to increase their lending capacity. post global financial crisis, these entities have in fact stepped up and filled project financing gaps when bank liquidity is constrained. between 2009 and 2012, they doubled their lending to infrastructure projects globally from us $ 22b to us $ 44b. however, is more lending the solution? despite a doubling of their lending in the last three years, they only contributed 16 % of project debt financing volumes globally in 2012. conceptually, a more efficient way to utilise their financial resources may be in the form of risk mitigants such as credit or risk guarantees. the g30 working group on long - term financing has in fact recommended that governments and mdbs should provide risk mitigation instruments to help lower the higher risks involved, especially during the early phases of long - term projects. bis central bankers ’ speeches this is definitely worth considering. given their status, mdbs and export credit agencies are seen as very credible counterparties that can provide risk mitigants. it is probably harder for the private sector to play such a role, especially given the long tenor of project finance. i would add that mdbs and export credit agencies already have guarantee products that mitigate credit and political risks for project loans. the issue at hand is how to extend these products to say capital market instruments to “ crowd in ” participation by a broader group of institutional investors. for instance, the credit guarantee & investment facility or cgif, established by the asian development bank and asean + 3 nations, recently completed its first guarantee transaction on a 3 - year thai baht bond issuance by noble group. there must also be a concerted effort by

project developers to make project delivery more cost - efficient, productive and financially viable to mitigate risks for investors while considerable attention has been focused on increasing the supply of infrastructure financing, we also need to think about how we can “ get more for less ” by optimising the project delivery value chain. improving project implementation processes mckinsey has estimated that productivity of the infrastructure value chain could be increased to achieve 40 % savings, if project sponsors globally adopt proven best practices. this would translate to an average of us $ 1tn per annum in infrastructure cost savings over the next 18 years. such best practices may include having processes in place to select projects that best address infrastructure needs, finding innovative ways to structure and execute these projects, as well as maximising the use of existing capacity. this is not just a regulatory or public sector issue. on the part of project developers, greater attention has to be paid to productivity improvement across the entire value chain. put simply, project developers must find ways to deliver projects on time and on budget, boost asset utilisation and undertake proper maintenance. if investors have confidence that there is “ less leakage ” from cost overruns, this will help to reduce financial buffers and in turn the required hurdle rate. there are various ways in which sponsors can enhance their delivery of projects. they could invest in project design at an early stage to avoid costly subsequent changes. they could invest in technology and leaner construction methods to lower costs. for example, prefabrication and modularisation techniques enabled 14 bridges in the us state of massachusetts to be replaced over just 10 weekends. these improvements across the entire value chain will ultimately make infrastructure projects more “ bankable ” and less costly to finance. this will create a virtuous cycle of enhanced efficiency leading to lower costs for governments, the project sponsors and the financiers. capability building can help improve ppp standards and the “ bankability ” of projects, as well as assist companies in developing their talent pool across the infrastructure value chain capability building for governments finally, i would like to talk about knowledge sharing and capability building. formalising public - private partnership ( ppp ) frameworks is an important pre - requisite in enhancing project delivery. given the long - term nature of infrastructure investments, private investors also have to be assured that projects have been properly evaluated on economic viability, that there is strong political commitment to ppp, and that the broader legislative frameworks beyond ppp are conducive