Natural disasters are a source of economic risks in many countries, especially in smaller and lower-income states, and ex-ante preparedness is needed to manage the risks. The paper discusses sovereign experience with disaster insurance as a key instrument to mitigate the risks; proposes ways to judge the adequacy of insurance; and considers ways to enhance its use by vulnerable countries. The paper especially aims to inform policy decisions on disaster insurance. Through simulations of natural disasters and various insurance options, we find that sovereign decisions on optimal risk transfer involve balancing trade-offs between growth and debt, based on government risk preferences and country risk exposure. The choice of optimal insurance for smaller countries turns out to be more constrained by cost considerations due to their higher exposure, likely resulting in underinsurance; donor grants could help them achieve a more optimal protection. We also find that optimal insurance packages are those that are least costly relative to expected payouts (i.e. have the lowest insurance multiple), which are also the packages that insure less severe (more frequent) disasters.

When and how do natural disasters worsen within-country income inequality? We highlight the channels through which natural disasters may have distributional effects and empirically analyze when and which type of disasters affect inequality in advanced economies (AEs) and in emerging and developing economies (EMDEs). We find that in AEs inequality increases after severe disasters. We also find that inequality increases if severe disasters are associated with growth slowdowns or there are multiple disasters in a year in AEs and in EMDEs. Descriptive evidence for the US also suggests that adverse labor market effects of disasters are likely to fall on vulnerable groups.

This Supplement provides additional guidance to IMF and World Bank staff on the implementation of the Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries (LIC-DSF) approved in 2017 by the IMF and World Bank Boards. It complements the 2018 Bank-Fund Guidance Note on the LIC-DSF. Since the publication of the 2018 Guidance Note, several issues have increased in significance, requiring more tailored guidance on the implementation of the LIC-DSF to address these issues, including: • Greater prominence of risks from climate change. • Further increase in borrowing on commercial terms and in domestic markets. • Increased number and complexity of debt restructurings. This Supplement to the 2018 Guidance Note on the LIC-DSF provides further guidance on how to address these issues within the current framework. All aspects of the 2018 LIC-DSF Guidance Note remain in effect, except as modified in this Supplement.

This paper discusses how countries vulnerable to natural disasters can reduce the associated human and economic cost. Building on earlier work by IMF staff, the paper views disaster risk management through the lens of a three-pillar strategy for building structural, financial, and post-disaster (including social) resilience. A coherent disaster resilience strategy, based on a diagnostic of risks and cost-effective responses, can provide a road map for how to tackle disaster related vulnerabilities. It can also help mobilize much-needed support from the international community.

The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) region is highly exposed to natural hazards, particularly earthquakes and floods, and the adverse economic impacts of climate change. A regional disaster risk transfer facility could help CAREC countries diversify risk, reduce costs, increase access to international insurance and capital markets, and coordinate risk analysis and modeling. This report draws on lessons from other regions to explore opportunities and options for developing a CAREC Risk Facility. It suggests next steps in establishing a facility and considers the role of stakeholders including the Asian Development Bank.

This Staff Climate Note is part of a series of three Notes (IMF Staff Climate Note 2022/001, 2022/002, and 2022/003) that discuss fiscal policies for climate change adaptation. A first Note (Bellon and Massetti 2022, henceforth Note 1) examines the economic principles that can guide the integration of climate change adaptation into fiscal policy. It argues that climate change adaptation should be part of a holistic, sustainable, and equitable development strategy. To maximize the impact of scarce resources, governments need to prioritize among all development programs, including but not limited to adaptation. To this end, they can use cost-benefit analysis while ensuring that the decision-making process reflects society’s preferences about equity and uncertainty. A second Note (Aligishiev, Bellon, and Massetti. 2022, henceforth Note 2) discusses the macro-fiscal implications of climate change adaptation. It reviews evidence on the effectiveness of adaptation at reducing climate change damages, on residual risks, and on adaptation investment needs, and suggests ways to integrate climate risks and adaptation costs into national macro-fiscal frameworks with the goal of guiding fiscal policy. It stresses that lower-income vulnerable countries, which have typically not contributed much to climate change, face exacerbated challenges that warrant increased international support. This third Note considers how to translate adaptation principles and estimates of climate impacts into effective policies.

We present a dynamic small open economy model to explore the macroeconomic impact of natural disasters. In addition to permanent damages to public and private capital, the disaster causes temporary losses of productivity, inefficiencies during the reconstruction process, and damages to the sovereign's creditworthiness. We use the model to study the debt sustainability concerns that arise from the need to rebuild public infrastructure over the medium term and analyze the feasibility of ex ante policies, such as building adaptation infrastructure and fiscal buffers, and contrast these policies with the post-disaster support provided by donors. Investing in resilient infrastructure may prove useful, in particular if it is viewed as complementary to standard infrastructure, because it raises the marginal product of private capital, crowding in private investment, while helping withstand the impact of the natural disaster. In an application to Vanuatu, we find that donors should provide an additional 50% of pre-cyclone GDP in grants to be spent over the following 15 years to ensure public debt remains sustainable following Cyclone Pam. Helping the government build resilience on the other hand, reduces the risk of debt distress and at lower cost for donors.