Recent flooding events in Europe, as well as reports that insurers globally are becoming reluctant to offer homeowners protection against natural catastrophe losses in certain regions, have fuelled discussions about the role of insurance coverage in limiting the economic and societal consequences of climate risks.
The increasing uncertainty surrounding such risks has caused insurance premia to rise, putting further pressure on already low protection levels. The so-called protection gap, the difference between economic and insured losses, is hence likely to widen unless measures are taken to reduce it.
In addition to measures to mitigate climate change, private and public risk-sharing models can play a role in making the economy more resilient to climate risks, through reducing the insurance protection gap.
This blog discusses how private and public schemes can reinforce each other, thus reducing the fiscal burden of natural catastrophe losses. The principles that underpin the design of the ESM backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) may serve as a blueprint for developing a public scheme. (...)
The increasing uncertainty surrounding such risks has caused insurance premia to rise, putting further pressure on already low protection levels. The so-called protection gap, the difference between economic and insured losses, is hence likely to widen unless measures are taken to reduce it.
In addition to measures to mitigate climate change, private and public risk-sharing models can play a role in making the economy more resilient to climate risks, through reducing the insurance protection gap.
This blog discusses how private and public schemes can reinforce each other, thus reducing the fiscal burden of natural catastrophe losses. The principles that underpin the design of the ESM backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) may serve as a blueprint for developing a public scheme. (...)
Post
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento