We have been invited to talk about coherence.

That's why I will talk about coherence at least

from three approaches.

1. The coherence at the global policy agenda.

The SDGs, the Paris Agreement, the New Urban Agenda, the Sendai Framework and else.

All that are agendas to be built with systemic lens, with inter-institutional strategies, at all
levels of government, knowing that good plans must be based in good data, made in
participatory and inclusive processes.

Facing complex challenges, we must develop complex and coherent responses. We need to
move away from segmented planned and implementation, to collaborative approaches.

We, as governments, need to understand the social, ecological and economic dimensions of
exposure and vulnerability. The risks are social constructed. Our plans need to be focus on
inclusion and equality. The risk needs to be managed balancing the compensatory, corrective
and prospective perspectives.

As it’s said in the GAR19, “development planning must be risk informed to create sustained
change”.

2. Second approach: The coherence between public investment and resilient

development

Disasters are costly due to losses and damage, especially to public infrastructure. Apart from
direct expenditures for emergency relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and the provision of
alternative services, disruptions in public services and infrastructure have long-term impacts
on economic development.

Economic growth often drops in the wake of large-scale events: this is due to a reduced
demand on the one hand, as private investment in recovery, asset protection and insurance
inhibits investments in value creation, and due to insufficient supply on the other hand, as a
lowered provision of public services and private goods interrupts the value chain thus slowing
down or inhibiting value creation. This is particularly true for Latin America, where such risks
are exacerbated due to both the high degree of urbanisation (80%) and the effects of climate
change.

The protection and the development of resilient critical infrastructure is a priority in Disaster
Risk Managment. Therefore, the key challenge is to acknowledge that risk reduction and
climate change adaptation are currently too little considered in the prospective and
corrective management of public investments and should be made visible through their
incorporation into public investment planning.

In Latin America, the so-called Network of National Public Investment Systems –SNIP network-
consists of heads of those administrative units in 19 countries in Latin America and the
Caribbean who are responsible for the public investment policies of their countries and
examine proposals for infrastructure projects according to standardised criteria with regard to
their socio-economic impact.
The network was founded in 2010 with the aim of increasing the efficiency and efficacy of
public investments through regional exchang. The UN Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), the Inter-American Development Bank (BID) and GIZ support
these efforts as the "Executive Secretariat".

Due to the high damage and losses to public infrastructure because we were unable to move
away from a vicious cycle of disaster respond-rebuild and repeat in Latin America and the
Caribbean, the SNIP network has developed an increasing interest in methods for considering
disaster and climate-related risks more systematically in the planning, implementation and
maintenance of public infrastructure projects.

After increasing informal regional exchange on this topic that included both Disaster Risk
Managment actors and SNIP network members since 2014. In April 2018, these were
integrated formally in the SNIP network as a working group on Disaster Risk Management and
Climate Change Adaptation in Public Investment, with GIDRM/GIZ moderating the working
group. The work of the group over the years 2018-2020 has undertaken to publish a practical
handbook on coherence and DRM in public investment, which will enter the international
debate as a recommendation of the network.

3. And why not: The coherence between what is said and what is done

In Uruguay, we still have a lot to do, but in the last decade we have made deep changes.

I could talk about economic growth with wealth distribution, which has allowed poverty and
indigence figures to fall to historic lows and if I do I would be talking about Uruguay reducing
vulnerability.

I Could speak of the of territorial order laws and relocation plans of families exposed to floods
and pollution that have allowed in the of January 2019 flood, there were 40% less people
displaced by the flood than there would have been if not mediate these policies, and If I do I
would be talking about Uruguay reducing exposure.

But I want to talk about an example of public investment that has allowed that in the face of
recurrent droughts in the country, the generation of electricity ceases to be a greenhouse gas
emitter with strong impact on the economy, to be clean energy that far from affect the
economy in times of drought, makes us sovereign and allows us the income around 50 million
dollars per year. I am talking about the transformation policy of the energy matrix by
incorporating wind, biomass, solar, as well as the historical hydro generation.

Uruguay does not produce oil and therefore is the international price taker. When hydraulic
energy was not enough to cover the required energy, Uruguay produced electricity based on
petroleum or bought energy from neighboring countries at high costs.

Today the plant that used fuel oil has been dismantled, so much energy is produced that the
hydraulics is sold or stored. Hydroelectric plants are no longer pressured by demand and when
floods occur, they have a clear flood graduation role to mitigate the impact downstream.

Finally we were called to Foster Global, regional and national coherence.