Learnings on efficacy: Insurance supervisors’ responses to COVID-19

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document outlines a regulatory response framework consisting of four phases: identifying the impact of a systemic risk, implementing a response, monitoring efficacy, and adapting for future risks. Based on research across 31 sub-Saharan African countries during COVID-19, it emphasizes the importance of proactive engagement, the use of Suptech for data collection, and the balance between regulatory certainty and flexibility. It identifies future systemic concerns including climate risks and cyber-security.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The proposed regulatory response framework consists of four distinct phases: identifying and understanding the impact of the systemic risk, responding based on mandate and capabilities, monitoring the efficacy of the response, and adapting and evolving for future risks.
  • Regulators utilize three primary avenues of response depending on the need for legal enforceability: informing and engaging with the public/industry, making non-binding recommendations, or issuing legally binding documents which may require legislative action via a gazette.
  • Digitalization and Suptech are critical for efficient data collection and analysis; while most supervisors had online submission platforms before the pandemic, some still face delays of nearly 1.5 years to identify trends due to small dedicated analysis teams.
  • Effective risk management requires a balance where regulators are proactive in communicating to create market certainty but avoid overreacting with overly restrictive or directive statements too quickly.
  • Phase 3 (monitoring efficacy) is not consistently implemented across regulators in sub-Saharan Africa, representing a major area for development following the COVID-19 experience.
  • Insurance supervisors have identified several critical future systemic risks that require preparedness and stress-testing, specifically climate risks, cyber-security and data protection, terrorism, and political unrest.

Cite the original document

APA
FSD Africa (n.d.). Learnings on efficacy: Insurance supervisors’ responses to COVID-19. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Insurance-supervisors-regulatory-response-infographic-08.02.22.pdf
Chicago
FSD Africa. Learnings on efficacy: Insurance supervisors’ responses to COVID-19. n.d. https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Insurance-supervisors-regulatory-response-infographic-08.02.22.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=FSD Africa |title=Learnings on efficacy: Insurance supervisors’ responses to COVID-19 |url=https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Insurance-supervisors-regulatory-response-infographic-08.02.22.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{fsdafricandlearnings, author = {{FSD Africa}}, title = {{Learnings on efficacy: Insurance supervisors’ responses to COVID-19}}, institution = {FSD Africa}, url = {https://fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Insurance-supervisors-regulatory-response-infographic-08.02.22.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated