PRA published a report that presents the six-stage framework for assessing the financial impact of physical climate change. This framework is intended for practitioners in the general insurance sector and has been written by a cross-industry working group. Insurers can follow the framework, using existing tools and associated metrics to better assess, manage, and report exposure to physical climate risks, including extreme weather events, which in turn will lead to action. The working group is requesting comments on the framework by November 22, 2019.
The report demonstrates how expert judgement, hazard maps, footprints, and catastrophe models can be tailored to address the needs of practitioners, depending on the data available, the business need in question, and the required output metrics. The report also contains several case studies that illustrate how different stages of the framework could be used. The six stages of the framework are as follows:
- Identify business decision(s). A physical climate change study would typically aim to inform a business decision or activity. This stage of the framework will decide the time horizon and metrics that need to be considered.
- Define materiality. This stage enables the firm to focus on the business areas where the physical risk from climate change could have a material impact on business decisions.
- Conduct background research. The firm will need to review existing scientific publications to understand better how climate change could influence the relevant areas identified. The likely outcome is a range of projected changes in frequencies or intensities for specific perils.
- Assess available tools. A decision will need to be made on which catastrophe tool(s) will provide the most suitable analysis.
- Calculate impact. This stage involves using the tools selected to assess the financial impact from the projected changes to the perils in question. Key considerations could include the appropriate communication of both the output and the uncertainty in the results.
- Reporting and action. Output from the use of the framework needs to be communicated to decision makers in a manner that can inform the business decision(s) in question, highlighting the limitations and uncertainty related to the analysis.
The framework outlined in the report is intended as a possible starting point for firms to assess the impact in the context of their business decisions and disclosure requirements. Although the results from such an analysis will have inherent uncertainty, the insurance industry is uniquely placed to manage this due to its existing expertise in dealing with uncertainty when assessing climatic extremes. While this report acknowledges that tools assessing physical climate change risk are evolving rapidly, it puts emphasis on outlining the tools and methodologies that are available to the general insurance sector to assess the potential impact of climate change on their insurance liabilities. The report discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each tool. The report also sets out recommendations for how the catastrophe analytics industry can contribute further, suggesting that it can play an important role in interpreting existing scientific studies; combined with existing tools, it can assess the financial impact from physical climate change while making recommendations for improving both future research and catastrophe tools development.
Comment Due Date: November 22, 2019
Keywords: Europe, UK, Insurance, Physical Climate Change, Climate Change Risks, Climate-Related Disclosures, Assessment Framework, PRA
Previous ArticleCFPB Proposes Changes to Data Points Required by 2015 HMDA Rule
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is consulting on the draft Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628), or FIRO, Code of Practice chapter on liquidity and funding in resolution, until March 14, 2022.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).