Australia ranks second globally for extreme weather losses over 45 years – Beinsure

Report on Australia’s Extreme Weather Losses and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Economic and Social Impact of Climate-Related Disasters

Recent data indicates that Australia has consistently ranked second among developed nations for per-capita economic and insured losses from extreme weather events over the past 45 years, surpassed only by the United States. This trend underscores the urgent need for comprehensive strategies aligned with SDG 13 (Climate Action) to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The financial burden of these events has escalated dramatically, posing a significant threat to national economic stability and community well-being.

• Data from Munich Re’s NatCatSERVICE, published by the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA), confirms this long-standing vulnerability.
• The costs associated with floods, bushfires, and storms have nearly tripled since the 1990s.
• In the 2020s, average annual insured claims from extreme weather have reached $4.5 billion.
• Events in 2025 alone have generated almost $2 billion in claims, predominantly for housing damage.

Vulnerabilities and Challenges to Sustainable Development

Several interconnected factors exacerbate Australia’s vulnerability to climate-related disasters, directly challenging the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals. The failure to address these issues undermines progress towards creating resilient and equitable communities.

• Climate Crisis: The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are the primary drivers of rising losses, highlighting a critical gap in achieving SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• Infrastructure Deficits: Ageing infrastructure, not designed for a changing climate, fails to provide adequate protection, directly impacting SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), which calls for building resilient infrastructure.
• Unsustainable Urban Growth: Continued population growth in high-risk regions increases exposure and complicates efforts to build SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Social Inequality: The disproportionate financial and social burden placed on lower-income communities impedes progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty).

Analysis of Recent Insured Losses

The insured losses from three major catastrophe events in the past year provide a clear illustration of the escalating financial impact on communities and the economy. These figures demonstrate the tangible costs of inadequate climate adaptation and resilience, directly affecting the stability targeted by SDG 11.

1. Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred: $1.43 billion
2. North Queensland Floods: $289 million
3. Mid North Coast and Hunter Floods: $248 million

Policy Recommendations for Achieving Climate Resilience and SDG Targets

The ICA has put forward policy recommendations aimed at strengthening national resilience. These proposals are directly aligned with achieving specific SDG targets and emphasize proactive investment in mitigation to avert future economic and social costs.

1. Protect Critical Infrastructure: A primary recommendation is to invest in safeguarding essential infrastructure, a core objective of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).
2. Enhance Planning and Building Codes: Tightening land-use planning regulations and improving building resilience are crucial actions for making human settlements safer and more sustainable, as mandated by SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
3. Establish a National Flood Defence Fund: The proposed $30 billion fund is a strategic initiative to protect the most vulnerable communities, directly supporting the resilience targets of both SDG 11 and SDG 13.

According to ICA CEO Andrew Hall, under-investment in resilience places an unsustainable financial load on households and governments. Accelerating investment in mitigation is essential to reinforce the built environment and ensure long-term progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article connects to this goal by highlighting how the financial burdens of extreme weather events disproportionately affect poorer communities.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure – This goal is relevant due to the article’s focus on the vulnerability of ageing and critical infrastructure to climate events and the call for investment in building resilience.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – The article directly addresses this goal by discussing the impact of natural disasters on communities, particularly regarding housing, and the need for better land-use planning and resilient urban environments.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – This is the central SDG, as the article explicitly links the increase in extreme weather events, economic losses, and natural disasters to the “climate crisis” and “climate-linked damage.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.
  • Explanation: The article explicitly states that “poorer communities [are] disproportionately burdened” by the costs of extreme weather, directly aligning with the focus of this target on protecting vulnerable populations from climate-related disasters.
• Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
  • Explanation: The article points to “ageing infrastructure” and infrastructure “that wasn’t built for a shifting climate” as key vulnerabilities. The Insurance Council of Australia’s (ICA) recommendations to “protecting critical infrastructure” and “lifting building resilience” directly support the objective of this target.
• Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
  • Explanation: The article is centered on the rising economic losses from disasters, noting that costs “have nearly tripled in Australia since the 1990s” and detailing billions in insured claims. The focus on losses related to housing and the impact on communities directly relates to this target’s aim of reducing the economic and social impact of disasters.
• Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
  • Explanation: The entire article discusses the consequences of failing to adapt to climate-related hazards like floods, bushfires, and storms. The ICA’s “Insurance Catastrophe Resilience Report” and its recommendations for a “$30 bn Flood Defence Fund” are direct calls to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity, which is the core of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Direct economic loss from disasters: The article provides several specific data points that serve as indicators for Targets 11.5 and 13.1.
  • Examples: The article quantifies losses, stating that in the 2020s, “extreme weather has been responsible for $4.5bn in claims annually on average.” It also cites specific event costs, such as the “$1.43 bn” from Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred and the fact that three events in 2025 “generated nearly $2bn in claims.” The trend of inflation-adjusted losses climbing each decade is another key indicator.
• Investment in disaster risk reduction and resilience: The article implies that current investment is insufficient (“Under-investment in resilience”) and proposes a specific measure for future investment, which can be used as an indicator for Targets 9.1 and 13.1.
  • Example: The proposal for a “$30 bn Flood Defence Fund” is a quantifiable indicator of planned government spending on disaster resilience. Tracking the allocation and use of these funds would measure progress.
• Per-capita economic losses: This is a specific metric mentioned in the article that can be used to track the impact of disasters relative to population size.
  • Example: The article notes that Australia “typically ranks No. 2 for per-capita economic and insured losses” among six developed countries, providing a comparative indicator of the country’s vulnerability.
• Disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups: While not quantified with a specific number, the article’s statement that “poorer communities [are] disproportionately burdened” serves as a qualitative indicator for Target 1.5. Measuring the economic impact of disasters across different income levels would be a way to track progress on this issue.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: beinsure.com