Discussions at this National Roundtable session opened with the observation that, due to its natural characteristics and anthropological factors, Italy may be considered as being exposed to a high level of disaster risk. As a preliminary step towards putting the phenomenon in context, the participants felt it useful to cite a number of statistics. Since 1900, earthquakes have caused around 160,000 deaths in Italy, while since the Second World War alone, there have been 1,061 lethal landslides, and at least 672 fatal floods. Hydrogeological events have claimed over 9,000 lives, with over 700,000 people left displaced and homeless.
During the course of the debate, a number of crucial issues were addressed, which may be summed up as relating to the two main actors in this field, the first of these being the state. There was broad consensus on the importance of the role played by the state, though certain questions were raised concerning the nature and strategic orientation of its intervention.
The participants underlined the serious burden placed on the public finances – estimated at around 8% of GDP – simply to deal with earthquakes, to which must be added the cost of other disasters, in particular those resulting from hydrogeological factors. The issues discussed ranged from ways of dealing with this burden through taxation policy to the desirability of establishing a special fund for natural disasters. Among the topics touched upon, special attention was paid to the question of whether it would be advisable to introduce compulsory insurance. The clear advantages of such a move were examined, such as the resultant lowering of the burden on the public purse and the speeding up of compensation pay-outs, but several potential downsides were also highlighted, particularly in a country marked by a currently unfavorable economic climate and a high level of taxation.
Emphasis was similarly placed on the importance of stepping up prevention efforts, especially in light of the historical accumulation of illegal constructions and a medium to low level of land conservation. A case was also made for undertaking a review of administrative constraints, which in certain circumstances hinder the disbursement of otherwise available financial resources for these purposes.
Turning to the second key actor, the private sector, the participants pointed to some characteristic features which take on particular importance in the management of natural disasters. Among these are the phenomena of moral hazard and adverse selection. It was further noted that while industry may be considered to be protected by established insurance coverage, the situation is less straightforward for small and medium-sized enterprises, and especially for households, giving rise to calls for new and effective solutions to address this gap.
Lastly, the participants stressed the need for greater awareness-raising efforts aimed at fostering a firmer understanding of insurance risk. It was likewise recommended that new ways be identified which would enable more fruitful collaboration between the public and private sectors in covering disaster risks, as well as allowing reinsurance activities to be integrated within a wider transnational framework.