Insurance as a Response to Loss and Damage?
Insurance as a Response to Loss and Damage?
复制标题
保险作为对损失和损坏的应对措施？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Mechler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Linnerooth‐Bayer;S. Surminski;L. Bouwer;Ilan Noy;R. Mechler
本章询问保险工具，特别是微型保险和区域保险池，是否可以作为减少风险和公平的补偿性应对措施，以应对发生在发展中国家的气候极端事件造成的气候造成的损失和损害，因此，保险工具是否可以为华沙国际损失和损害机制的预防和治疗目标服务。讨论强调了小额保险计划和区域保险池的巨大好处，同时详细说明了它们的巨大成本。除了成本和收益，一个主要信息是，如果在其设计和实施过程中不进行重大干预，基于市场的保险机制很可能无法充分满足WIM减少损失和公平赔偿的愿望。干预措施可包括使贫穷客户负担得起保险的补贴和其他类型的支助；干预措施还可促成真正促进减少风险和适应的公私安排。许多此类干预措施已经到位，本章重点介绍了服务于最弱势群体的保险工具的两个潜在成功案例：非洲R4小额保险计划和非洲风险能力(ARC)区域保险池。虽然对这些和其他保险方案的支持仍然被视为基于团结原则的人道主义援助，但关于G7为弱势家庭提供保险的倡议以及ARC将国际支付与气候风险联系起来的倡议的讨论提出了一个问题，即这种说法是否会从团结演变为基于发达国家问责原则的责任。
This chapter asks whether insurance instruments, especially micro-insurance and regional insurance pools, can serve as a risk-reducing and equitable compensatory response to climate-attributed losses and damages from climate extremes occurring in developing countries, and consequently if insurance instruments can serve the preventative and curative targets of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM). The discussion emphasises the substantial benefits of both micro-insurance programs and regional insurance pools, and at the same time details their significant costs. Beyond costs and benefits, a main message is that if no significant intervention is undertaken in their design and implementation, market-based insurance mechanisms will likely fall short of fully meeting WIM aspirations of loss reduction and equitable compensation. Interventions can include subsidies and other types of support that make insurance affordable to poor clients; interventions can also enable public-private arrangements that genuinely catalyse risk reduction and adaptation. Many such interventions are already in place, and the chapter highlights two potential success stories for insurance instruments serving the most vulnerable: the African R4 micro-insurance program and the African Risk Capacity (ARC) regional insurance pool. While support to these and other insurance programs continues to be framed as humanitarian aid based on the principle of solidarity, discussions on the G7 initiative to insure vulnerable households, as well as on ARC’s initiative to link international payments to climate risks, raise the question whether the narrative will evolve from solidarity to responsibility based on the principle of developed country accountability.