14 April 2014

PwC examine the implications of the IPCC report on climate change mitigation (WG3)

The IPCC Working Group 3 (WGIII) have released the third section of the Fifth Assessment Report on the mitigation of climate change.   As with the first two reports, the PwC Sustainability & Climate Change team considers the implications of the WGIII for government and business in the UK.

If the Working Group 2 report on climate change impacts describes a potential train wreck and Working Group 1 identifies the driver, theWorking Group 3 report on mitigation explains how to avoid the crash. But it also suggests that the brakes are not working.

Dr Celine Herweijer, Leo Johnson, Jonathan Grant, Sam Bickersteth, Lit Ping Low and Jim Stevenson examine the key findings and what it means for business, the climate negotiations, and our prospects for limiting global warming to 2C.

Download IPCC AR5 - Working Group 3 Summary and Analysis 1404

Urbanisation: The city of dreams or an urban nightmare?

Over the last few months, PwC have been working with clients to understand the big changes that are disrupting their organisations - and the economy as a whole. We've distilled what we've learned down into five global shifts - the megatrends which are already driving change, and will continue to do so over the coming decades. Leo Johnson, partner, PwC sustainability and climate change, and co-author of Turnaround Challenge discusses the megatrends in Urbanisation.

What is a city? A city is a collection of preferences. It’s the place where people have voted with their feet and the places that thrive, the places that people want to live in, want to work in will be the places that satisfy those two primordial human instincts to make stuff and to be with each other.

I believe we’re at a turning point when it comes to urbanisation.

Globally, we've got 200,000 people per day, that’s 1.5 million a week, coming from the countryside to the city in a pattern of distressed migration that is swamping the megacity. That's the equivalent of three cities the size of the UK's third largest city Manchester, packing up and moving every week. What are we going to do with that?

By 2030 there is going to be 4.9 billion people living in African and Asian slums alone. Less than three decades ago, 4.9 billion was the population of the whole world. If we carry on our current pathway from people that were 2% urban in 1800 to a group that is already 51%, but is going to be 70% by 2050, it’s like we as a species collectively woke up one morning and said, “Wow, let’s change habitat. Let’s try something different” and we haven’t got a clue how to make that habitat work for ourselves.

So, one of the defining challenges of the 21st century which is what are we going to do with these people? Where are the jobs going to be? How is it going to work? How are we going to avoid the megacities getting swamped?

People want place. They want a place that they’re emotionally attached to, a place that they live in and, at the same time they want the job opportunities.

I believe we’re going to see a shift in what a city looks like and it’s not going to be a place that’s built for cars and built for machines. It’s going to be a place that’s built for people and in that place we’re going to be doing what we as human beings know that we love to do which is we love to make things.

We are about to move from the model that competitive advantage is secured by having really good, really expensive machines and really cheap people pushing the buttons on them to a model where it’s really valuable, really creative people, and ubiquitously cheap machines that are capturing and harnessing the potential of those people. The companies that do that will thrive. The cities that do that will thrive.

For me urbanisation is the outcome. It’s the outcome of a whole set of megatrends interacting and it’s the dominant challenge of the 21st century.

View Leo's interview on urbanisation and megacities
Find out more about PwC's megatrend analysis here


Megatrends-urbanisation-inforgraphic

 

11 April 2014

Behind the scenes of preparations for COP20 in Lima

Kinga Lodge from PwC's Climate & Development Knowledge Network team led a workshop this week in Peru to support negotiators preparing for this year's COP 20 in Lima.

The international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are an increasingly complicated and demanding process, particularly for delegations from developing countries where there may be more limited resources to draw on.
The Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) – an NGO alliance led by PwC, that supports developing countries planning and adapting to climate change – offers a programme to support negotiating teams participate effectively in the process.

During COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Peru took on the role of President of the COP in 2014. It’s a vital year in the run up to the Climate Agreement that is expected to be delivered in Paris during 2015.
This week, we held a two-day workshop with around 45 people in Lima, supporting Peru’s preparations both as negotiators and as COP president as part of the team’s negotiations support programme for developing countries.  It was one of the COP delivery team’s key gatherings in their preparations for hosting the negotiations in November.

The workshop drew on CDKN’s wider work in supporting developing countries’ preparations for the COP process. It was designed to bring everybody within the Peruvian delivery team up to speed with the key negotiating tracks and themes, structures and relationships between different bodies of UNFCCC, and the context/ meaning of the past agreements.

The agenda was broad taking in the top topics of mitigation, adaptation, finance, REDD+.  There was also a lot of emphasis on the process of UNFCCC, inter-linkages between different themes, and the practicalities of how the Presidency addresses deadlocks.

One issue which was underlined over and over again was the responsibility for the Presidency to build consensus. With the deadline for a global climate deal just over 18 months away, Peru’s role as a facilitator of a future agreement will be vital, and members of the delivery team that were newer to the UNFCCC negotiating process had training to support them in how to find a balance between the interests and positions of the different parties.

Guest speakers from the UNFCCC, the US, Chile, Granada, Barbados and Brazil had an estimated 100 years collective experience of UNFCCC. They shared their experiences and stories of what happened at different COPs and how the respective hosts managed their Presidencies in Bali, Durban or Copenhagen. Locally here in Lima, a lot of effort is being invested by the COP delivery team, particularly on stakeholder engagement – both public and private sector. Local civil society organisations were involved in developing and taking part in the workshop, and are members of the delivery team.    

Peru workshop 006

Plaza de Armas in Lima, Peru

This was the third face-to-face workshop that CDKN have delivered, part of a broader range of negotiations support projects the team have delivered over the past two years with developing nations internationally. So far around 160 people have completed online training, and 80 attended face to face meetings. While that might not sound like much, the negotiating teams of developing nations can be small, sometimes as few as three–four  people, so the support programme can cover a lot of ground in getting the knowledge of developing nations’ representative up to speed on the basic process, positions and ways to contribute to a global negotiating process.

Supporting developing nations at the COPs, CDKN also provides independent legal advice, independent climate finance advice or tailored technical or legal advice to specific groups such as the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group or Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS).

Such support is vital to negotiators from developing countries, because it helps level the playing field in assisting developing countries to be able to negotiate more effectively by being more prepared and informed. Helping developing countries prepare and understand the process and how to contribute effectively means the voices of developing countries are heard.

Some people at the workshop this week have already coined the phrase the “Amazonian COP” for this year’s meeting. There is a general feeling of pride to be hosting negotiations and determination to be a successful Presidency of the COP, particularly given the clear understanding of its importance as a stepping stone pre Paris.  

Find out more about CDKN’s negotiations support programme here.

    

31 March 2014

Climate change risk - British public unprepared

As the IPCC report on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability is released, PwC commissioned a survey of public attitudes to climate change and Britain’s ability to cope with extreme weather, based on their experience with the recent floods and storms. 

28585-YouGov-weather-infographic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more thoughts on climate change and recent UK flooding, contact Jon Williams.

jon.d.williams@uk.pwc.com

Questions for the answers that IPCC Working Group II present

Celine Herweijer, partner, PwC sustainability and climate change, and a specialist in climate science and adaptation comments on the implications of the IPCC Working Group II report on climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation.

The latest IPCC report paints a picture of future impacts - from loss of health, life, land and GDP, to food security, conflict and migration - demonstrating the issues inherent in carbon emissions remaining unchecked.

Future homeowners, consumers, shareholders, employees, and politicians are all affected, not just the poorest and those beyond our borders. The impacts are not just one off events but have broad and systemic implications for economic development, equality and security.

Unlike the financial crisis, there is no climate bailout option. As the IPCC report on impacts shows, a world of 4C warming is not one of viable adaptation strategies.

To respond means nothing less than a energy and technology revolution. But this is also about opportunity, and the groundwork is there with renewable energy now a $1 trillion sector, the cost of solar panels decreasing by 80%, a green jobs market employing millions globally, and multi-national corporations emerging with commitments around zero deforestation supply chains, and zero emissions electricity.

2014 was always going to be a pivotal year for climate action - with the unequivocal need to up the ante in the global climate talks so that we have a realistic chance for Paris 2015 to deliver a global climate deal. The latest IPCC report reiterates the business case for bold action, both at home and internationally, at the climate talks and in parliaments and boardrooms. It will be interesting to test the pulse at the upcoming Secretary General's (SG's) New York Climate Leaders Summit this September. The SG has called on leaders to take a strong and positive public position on climate change before the Paris Summit, the IPCC report reiterates why, so what will they deliver is the key question now.

Read further comments from the PwC team here
http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2014/03/ipcc-findings-pwc-comments-.html
For media enquiries, contact Rowena Mearley + 44 7841 563 180

30 March 2014

PwC preview the Intergovernental Panel on Climate Change - Working Group II report

PwC Sustainability & Climate Change team preview the IPCC Working Group II report on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. We focus on what could stand out from this report, what could have economic or business implications, and what it means for the UK. For reaction and comment tomorrow follow @pwcclimateready.

PwC Preview of IPCC Working Group II report

Climate risks are not as far out as some people think: Dr Celine Herweijer, Partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)
Future impacts are exacerbated by global links: Dr Celine Herweijer, Partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)
Developing countries: "The early drafts give little room for optimism": Sam Bickersteth, Director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
The domino affect: PwC’s analysis of the knock on impacts from trade disruption to the rest of the UK economy: Lit Ping Low, climate economist, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
Business responses to climate risks:Larger UK-listed companies have sophisticated approach but what about the smaller ones? Jonathan Grant, director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
Impact on Climate Policy and Climate Negotiations: Jonathan Grant, Director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
The Climate and the CEO - Business leader views of implications of climate change: Dr Celine Herweijer, partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)

For media enquiries, please contact Rowena Mearley +44 7841 563 180

18 March 2014

Working with stakeholders - engaging, not enraging!

This month we’ve seen performance drivers like profit and ROI hit the headlines. Malcolm Preston, PwC Global Sustainability leader, reflects on the pressure CEOs are under to do business in the right way.  He cites the results of our on-line vote, in which we asked you to step into the shoes of a CEO, to show decisions are not always clear cut and that it’s hard to keep everyone happy all of the time.

You would think it would be a CEO’s ruthless pursuit, all £ signs in his eyes, that’s hit the headlines.  But no … Tim Cook, CEO Apple, took a grilling at his latest shareholder meeting from a NCPPR representative looking for more transparency.  Apple is committed to source all its power from renewable energies, something the NCPPR didn’t see as the best ROI for its money. Tim’s response was to reinforce that his company does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive” and that “we want to leave the world better than we found it.” Allegedly he was heard to say, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”

First Energy, one of the country’s biggest utility companies in the US, faced the opposite experience bowing to shareholder pressure to commit to working toward reducing its carbon emissions. First Energy now say “What we’re trying to ensure is that in the long run that profitability is sustainable. We do see tremendous risk if issues of climate change are not incorporated into corporate strategy.”

Sometimes it’s hard to please everyone all the time.  Back to Apple for a minute for a quote from Steve Jobs – once asked “what keeps you awake at night?”, he replied “shareholder meetings”.  They are a great opportunity for stakeholders to come together to have their say, to question and to challenge business strategy.  But how can you keep your stakeholders on your side… engaged, rather than enraged? Enthused rather than bemused?

In September, we launched TIMM, our total impact framework.  It’s all about putting a value on the social, economic, environmental and tax impacts of your business so that you can compare the total impact of your strategic and investment choices, and manage the trade-offs that result.  It gives business leaders the full picture (going beyond the usual financial analysis) to make more informed decisions, helping them to identify potential reputation and trust risks along the way.  If they want to, it’s information to share with their stakeholders to explore the available choices.

To show how it works, we asked you, to step into the shoes of a CEO and decide what to do.  We posed a decision any brewer might face – to grow crops locally to support expansion into Africa or to ship in crops from abroad. 

At this level, there’s never a clear cut decision. And there are numerous perspectives. Growing crops locally in a country with a water scarcity issue creates problems in itself, not only for crop vitality, but also for the local communities who see their own water sources depleted.  There are issues too from the loss of valuable ecosystems as land is cleared for agricultural purposes and less advanced waste management that might result in water pollution. Set-up costs are greater for the Brewer – investment is needed to develop the supply chain and the community, increased staff and offices. But, on the upside, local farmers benefit from access to a secure market, the economy receives support to develop a better business infrastructure, and livelihoods, health and education are all improved. Greenhouse Gas emissions are lower too and, from the brewer’s perspective, it’s a lot cheaper in the longer run to grow locally and committing to the local community enhances the brewer’s reputation and drives up demand and loyalty.

So how did everyone vote?  Interestingly, 76% voted for growing the crop locally.* It’s an interesting choice as there’s a clear trade-off between the environment and people’s wellbeing.  It’s a real dilemma.  So with no obvious answer and no clear win-win scenario, it’s about agreeing the optimal solution with the best stakeholder engagement which will help make implementation successful. It means there’s greater transparency and that stakeholders can be engaged, rather than enraged.

*Source: PwC Brewery Trade-off On-Line Vote March 2014 (708 votes)

For more information: visit www.pwc.com/totalimpact

UK Budget 2014 - What's on the agenda for energy, environment and carbon?

PwC's UK specialists in energy, environmental tax and regulation and carbon policy preview the UK Budget taking place on Wednesday 19 March.

UK Carbon Price Support Mechanism
The Carbon Price Support Mechanism was launched in 2011, to provide a stronger carbon price signal to investors to encourage investment in low carbon power generation. But the collapse in European carbon prices since 2011 means that consumers in the UK now face much higher carbon prices than elsewhere in Europe. So the focus of the attention has shifted from investment incentives for renewables to the impact of this mechanism on UK competitiveness.

The Carbon Price Support Mechanism is an additional tax, payable by power generators on the carbon content of fuels used in energy generation including gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, coal and oils. The support level is determined two years in advance, and is the difference between the government-set ‘carbon price floor’ and the price of EU Allowances (carbon permits) in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme futures market. Carbon price support  was payable from 1 April 2013 and is collected through the UK’s climate change levy regulation. Coal, which currently accounting for around 40% of the UK’s generation needs, attracts the highest levy.

It wouldn’t be surprising if Chancellor freezes the Carbon Price Floor at the current level, as the price in the UK has grown increasingly out of line with the rest of Europe. While there has been a slight rise in EU carbon price recently, following some minor market reforms in Brussels, it is still languishing at 7 Euros (£5.75), with an additional £4.95 per tonne charged in the UK via carbon price support.  From 1 April 2014, the additional carbon price support rate increases to £9.55 and escalates again in 2015, to £18.08.  

Some energy generators have raised concerns that the UK price floor results in carbon leakage. This happens because of the way the EU Emissions Trading Scheme works – the overall number of Allowances is fixed in advance – any allowances not used in the UK as a result of energy savings here will be available for use elsewhere in Europe. Other electro-intensive companies argue that it impacts on their competitiveness. However, freezing the price floor would undermine confidence in the policy, and unless there is long term policy stability, it is unlikely to attract the investment needed to make the transition to a low carbon economy.

Landfill tax – aka the “skip” tax.
Management of where the compliance obligations for tax on landfill waste is a difficult balancing act.  The whole of the obligations currently rest with the landfill site operator. While a customer may appear to be taking reasonable steps to segregate waste when the landfill site operator undertakes an audit, the landfill site operator does not know, and cannot control, what steps are taken by the customer between audits. With the level of tax differential between the lower rate of tax and standard rate of tax at £69.50 (increasing to £77.50 from 1 April 2014), the landfill site operator cannot afford to fund the difference in the event that it is later assessed for the standard rate of tax because of customer actions which they cannot control.

In other environmental taxes, such as aggregates levy and climate change levy, it is the responsibility of the customer to issue a certificate to claim the application of a relief or exemption from the tax.  There are civil penalties for customers who issue incorrect certificates. The introduction of a similar certification system for the application of the lower rate of landfill tax, would reduce the risks placed on the landfill site operator by the current system and put the responsibility for the declaration in the hands of the person who is responsible for the relevant activities.

Aggregates Levy – what lies beneath….
A temporary suspension of exemptions and reliefs on the use of aggregate and spoils from rock, sand, gravel, and clay quarries in construction takes effect from 1 April 2014, pending the results of the linked European Commission state aid investigation.  Following referral from the European Court of Justice, which overturned the EC General Court’s earlier decision, the EC General Court held that the UK’s exemption of certain geological material from aggregates levy (AGL) constitutes fiscal state aid (however the exemption of exports of aggregates from the UK was found not to be State aid.). A temporary change to exemptions and reliefs in this area featured briefly in December’s Autumn Statement, with the draft legislation following a week later.

The results of the EC investigation are critical, as the tax changes will significantly restrict the available market for use of some waste materials, and there is a risk of claw back of underpaid tax on those who have benefitted from the exemptions and reliefs back to 2002 if the Commission finds against the UK on this. The introduction of the tax on china clay spoil is widely expected to cause the market for that material to shrink significantly. This could result in accumulations of waste china clay spoil to be sent to surface tip, and customers switching to using the higher quality primary aggregate if there is no price differential between spoil and primary aggregate. In that case, some primary aggregate quarry operators in the south west may consider re-opening closed quarries to meet the demand for primary aggregate. This would impact habitat, wildlife and increase traffic in the area of the closed quarries. Other regions which may be affected in a similar manner are areas of North Wales affected by changes to slate tips, and areas close to coal spoil tips around the UK.

The British Aggregates Association (BAA) have mounted a legal challenge against exemptions for spoils resulting from the extraction of certain minerals, including slate, shale, ball clay and china clay.

Energy efficiency  
While the government has already announced changes on the green levies, it's worth remembering that the reduced rate VAT on energy saving materials is creating some frustration amongst installers and suppliers of energy efficiency products and services. The VAT relief (5% vs 20%) is effectively being denied in lots of circumstances due to HMRC Policy and interpretation by the Courts of what products can be used - the links are not entirely logical. You pay 20% on an energy efficient boiler, but 5% on its heating controls.  In practice, the boiler and the heating controls are normally installed together, and HMRC insist that 20% applies to the heating controls as well as the boiler in that situation. Anything that can be done to simplify or joins up the myriad policies on energy efficiency to better incentivise consumer behaviour on energy consumption would be welcomed by industry and bill payers alike.

Follow PwC's reaction to the budget @PwC_UK or our dedicated environment, energy and climate change feed at @pwcclimateready. For media enquiries, please contact Rowena Mearley on +44 7841 563 180.

10 March 2014

The power behind the policy

Developers recently pulled the plug on a £300m biomass plant in the north of England, despite encouraging signs for low carbon electricity generation in the UK. Daniel Guttmann, director, PwC renewables and clean tech examines the issues.

In general the UK has become a lot better at providing certainty for renewables and clean tech investment. In the final quarter of 2013, low carbon’s share of electricity generation in the UK represented 35.5%, 7% higher than the same time last year, thanks mainly to much higher renewables energy generation, in particular bioenergy.

Electricity Market Reform, designed to provide more certainty for investors on energy policy and support low carbon energy investment, means that compared to three years ago, there are less surprises and more certainty.

But the ongoing squabbling about green levies, climate change, and debates about the potential of renewables versus other technology investments like shale gas, have introduced some concerns. As ever, for a developer, uncertainty makes it difficult to allocate investment and make these decisions.

Developers recently pulled out of plans for a 100MW biomass plant in Northumberland, in the north west of England, which was estimated to create around 300 jobs during its development. While they cited ‘inconsistent’ policy decisions, at least part of the decision will have been uncertainty created around the 400MW capacity cap put in place last year in the UK on new biomass generation projects.

Currently there’s around 2GW of biomass generation operational in the UK, with 260MW under construction, and a further 2.8GW approved for construction. So a 400MW cap is relatively low and creates a lot of risk for developers because this effectively creates a race for developers to get their plant online, with limited room for error. If you miss your operational goal, your project does not qualify for support, and you may need to mothball a project that has just been built, until the following year, when you can fit back into the 400MW limit.

At the same time, the government stipulated that new biomass capacity needs to have a Combined Heat and Power element – which is sensible, as it effectively let’s no energy go to waste, recycling the heat and steam that the plant creates. But the absence of district heating networks does limit the building of such plants to certain locations such as industrial sites that require heat or those (few) areas that have district heating networks in place. Capturing the heat doubles the efficiency of the plants, so it does make sense.

These projects have reasonably long planning horizons in years, rather than months - finding land, surveying, development – so in truth you’ll not get all 2.8GW in the same year. But even with a well paced market roll out, the pipeline of approved and ready to build projects is four and a half times the annual cap, so is there room for more projects to be developed? In the case of Northumberland, a 100MW biomass investment, with 65% of the annual capacity already used up, makes the planning horizon more risky.

Bioenergy technologies are an important part of the low carbon energy mix, and despite their trusted status and scale, they can’t get off the ground with the scale of private investment needed without the subsidies offered by Renewable Obligations Certificates.

As ever, stability and consistency of messaging from all parts of government will continue to remain key, as is clear guidance and establishment of mechanisms / bodies around contracts for difference as part of the wider Electricity Market Reforms in the UK. A whole system approach to low carbon policy design is essential to facilitate the target, the incentive, the investment and the delivery.

14 February 2014

Five lessons from the UK floods - Dr Celine Herweijer

Five lessons from the floods

Dr Celine Herweijer, a partner in PwC's sustainability and climate change team, leads the firm’s climate policy & international development teams. She is a specialist in climate risk modelling, and reflects on the experiences of flooding in the UK.

1. The world can’t insure its way out of climate change. Insurance does not reduce total risk, it just helps us deal with the financial cost of the impact of that risk. The only way to reduce risk is through investment in adaptation and risk-informed development planning. Without the latter two, the long term affordability and availability of insurance could be under threat.

2. Strategies exist for adapting our homes and infrastructure to flood risk. Robust and enforced building codes that take into account present and future risk are 'no regret' strategies. Limiting development in high risk areas, and repairing damaged properties to make them more resilient to extreme weather events present no downside. Even in the face of higher storm surges and more intense rain events, the right adaptation investments, including flood defences, elevated buildings, engineered foundations and reinforced cladding, can reduce future risk below present day levels. For example, studies have shown that adaptation could reduce annual losses from storm surges for individual properties in high risk coastal communities in the 2030s to below present-day levels(3). 

3. Insurance and the housing market must foster action to reduce risk. It is incumbent on those insured to take all reasonable steps to minimise loss. Just as it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure that their cars are roadworthy, otherwise they may not recover the full amount of their claim because of contributory negligence, the obligation is the same for home owners exposed to flood or any other risk.

4. Property owners and investors need the right support and incentives to act. Alongside government investment in hard defences and better and tougher planning controls, we need financial incentives for home owners and property developers in higher risk areas. Whether tax rebates, loans, or insurance premium reductions that reward action, people in high risk areas need help to make the right short term investment decisions. With climate change increasing risk levels over the long term in the UK’s coastal and riverine floodplains, those most at risk need help transitioning to better buildings and at the most extreme, to better locations. Gradual support is far better than waking up one day and to find your property is uninsurable, and un-sellable.

5.It’s not just a rainy day problem.Year to year we are experiencing record breaking extremes and weather events in many areas – headlines of the record-breaking US drought,  Australian open heatwave, and wettest UK winter all in the past few months. Whilst here in the UK we may be consumed with the devastation of floods today, it won’t be long before the UK experiences another record breaking summer extreme of prolonged drought and water bans, and/or heatwaves or cold spells, crippling our transport systems and the business interruption and price volatility that will ensue. We are loading the dice all around on extreme weather events, and the story is the same for all perils – plan and invest for the risks of the future, not for the risks of the past.

PwC estimated the cost of continuing UK Floods to the insurance industry at up to £500m for the January and December weather impacts, and the economic damage at £630m.
http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2014/02/pwc-revise-estimated-cost-of-continuing-uk-floods-to-630m.html

For media enquiries or further comment contact Rowena Mearley - PwC media relations + 44 7841 563 180

Notes:

1. In the US, private insurers have largely refused to offer policies to cover flood damage to homeowners since the 1920s, after recognising the risk of large correlated losses from events, which ultimately led to the National Flood Insurance Programme in 1968.

2. In France, property insurance includes a mandatory extension to cover damage by natural hazards, including some extreme weather events. Insurers can purchase reinsurance from a publically funded reinsurer - the Caisse Centrale de Reassurance (CCR) - which the Government provides an unlimited guarantee to, to meet claims that exceed the capital reserves of the CCR.

3. In a 2008 study by Lloyds of London and Risk Management Solutions (RMS) co-authored by Dr Herweijer, it was shown that adaptation could reduce average annual losses from storm surges for individual properties in high risk coastal communities in the 2030s, to below present-day levels. Coastal Communities & Climate Change: Maintaining future insurability: Lloyds.com