The Financial Stability Institute (FSI) of BIS published a paper that examines the regulatory approaches being used for climate risk assessment in the insurance sector, in particular through enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks. The paper describes how some supervisory authorities have undertaken climate risk assessment exercises, focusing on the stress test and the scenario analysis approaches. The paper finds that risk-quantification techniques and models that consider climate risks are more advanced for physical risks, but are still at an early stage for transition and liability risks. Other key policy issues that require consideration include the impact of climate risks on access and affordability of insurance products and the potential use of capital requirements to address climate risks.
Although efforts have been made by insurance supervisors and insurers in some jurisdictions to better understand climate risks, further efforts are needed. This paper covers climate risk assessment from both regulatory and supervisory perspectives. Based primarily on a survey of 18 insurance authorities, the paper describes the range of regulatory approaches that specify how insurers are expected to assess their climate risk exposures and techniques that supervisors can use to conduct their own assessment of climate risks. Using tools such as stress testing and scenario analysis, supervisors can take steps to better understand how climate risk could impact the financial and solvency position of insurers as well as the financial system.
The paper highlights that undertaking climate risk modeling and the associated governance processes can facilitate helpful discussion on risk strategy within an insurer, which some may argue as being more important than the numerical results from the models. Although, at present, few authorities undertake supervisory or system-wide stress tests that explicitly cover climate risk, supervisors appear to have a growing interest in including climate-related events in such exercises. Despite technical and operational challenges in undertaking climate risk assessment by insurers and supervisors, it is important to take the first step while recognizing that initial efforts will not be perfect. It remains unclear if capital adequacy requirements are appropriate to address climate risk exposures of insurers. Climate risk scenario analyses or stress tests undertaken by supervisors are not aimed at determining any capital buffers that might be required against longer-term climate risk exposures. Rather, they are used as a learning tool to help insurers prepare themselves for potential future climate scenarios.
As climate risk quantification techniques mature and insurer risk assessment becomes more accurate, certain policy issues will need to be carefully considered. Looking ahead, there is room to enhance international cooperation among insurance supervisors and other climate-related forums to improve understanding of climate risks and their potential impact on insurers, policyholders, and financial stability. Such initiatives can build on the work done by IAIS, the Sustainable Insurance Forum, and the Network for Greening the Financial System. Supervisors can enhance their technical expertise by taking advantage of the capacity building efforts offered by various international bodies.
Related Link: Paper
Keywords: International, Insurance, Stress Testing, Capital Requirements, Governance, ERM, Physical Risks, Transition Risks, Climate Change Risks, FSI, BIS
Previous ArticlePRA Publishes XBRL Taxonomy for Capital+ and Ring-Fencing Reporting
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.