Development of New Products for Climate Change Resilience in South Africa—The Catastrophe Resilience Bond Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change has brought several natural disasters to South Africa in the form of floods, heat waves, and droughts. Neighbouring countries are also experiencing tropical cyclones, almost on a yearly basis. The insurance sector is faced with an increased level of climate change risk with individuals, corporates, and even the government approaching it for financial cover. However, with an increased level of competition in the insurance sector, (re)insurers must engage in massive product research and development. Therefore, this paper looks at the possibility of the insurance industry developing new products in the form of catastrophe resilience bonds (CAT R Bonds). A qualitative approach is used following content analysis of (re)insurers’ product development policies, marketing documents, company reports, and risk management reports as well as the Conference of Parties 27 and 28 resolution papers. The findings reveal that (re)insurers’ underwriting capacity, reinsurance protection, and innovative and creative product development increase because of CAT R Bonds. CAT R Bonds enhance the interaction between the capital market and money market, thereby giving speculative investors another investment option. Increased investment into new product development such as CAT R Bonds must continue in South Africa in pursuit of climate change resilience goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".