In its response, the industry highlights a number of points:
Promoting local risk awareness tools
Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all EU-wide tool, the most effective way to enhance citizens’ understanding of the local impact of climate change is to strengthen existing best practices and national tools (eg, HORA, DiGeo, Géorisques, GOTOWI) and supporting the development of new region-specific solutions tailored to each EU member state. To further improve accessibility, EIOPA could establish a centralised EU platform to showcase these resources.
Concerns over data availability and reliability
Before developing any tool, EIOPA should assess the availability and quality of data across member states, while public authorities should ensure the data is reliable and reflects local conditions. Given these challenges with data availability and quality, insurers’ capacity to support such a tool would be very limited. Any data-sharing requirement would also be inefficient, as it would impose additional administrative burden bringing little benefit.
Expectations on the impact of investing on prevention on premiums
In most cases, the main incentive for implementing prevention measures should not be the reduction of insurance premiums, as these are unlikely to offset the associated costs. Instead, citizens should be encouraged to invest in prevention measures that reduce both the risk and impact on their lives and properties. An excessive focus on premium reduction may raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits of investing in prevention.
Prevention is a collective responsibility
Risk mitigation is primarily the responsibility of property owners and public authorities, with insurers providing risk assessment and advice. Strengthening building codes and public infrastructure is key to long-term resilience.
Clarifying implementation and financing
EIOPA should provide further clarification on governance, financing, and interaction with national platforms to avoid potential redundancy.
Key requirements for a risk assessment tool
The tool should present clear and accessible information on all relevant natural hazards at member state level. To ensure consistency and usability, information on each hazard should be structured in a standardised format.
Maintaining independence and trust
A risk awareness tool should remain independent and free from commercial influence, ensuring credibility and GDPR compliance. Insurance information should be managed by insurers, as policy conditions vary.
|
