Cedric E. Stephens | Promoting resilience in an age of climate risk – if the regulator can keep up

Today’s comments should be read and interpreted in the context of Christopher Burgess, PhD, civil engineer, land developer, climate change scientist, and managing director of CEAC Solutions, who penned the November 16, 2025 Sunday Gleaner article, ‘Hurricane Melissa: Unprecedented and underprepared’.

Excerpts are reproduced below: ‘“Jamaica had enough time to prepare for Hurricane Melissa but failed to use it wisely. Schools and offices closed five days before landfall … Cuba was prepared for Melissa … Melissa was not beyond Jamaica’s capacity to prepare – it was beyond the current technical leadership’s capacity to organise and coordinate quickly and respond equitably. Three decades after Hurricane Gilbert, Melissa proved that while technology has advanced, our preparedness and coordination have not  - even with days of advanced warning. True readiness demands more than press briefings - it requires (wise and) experienced technical (aka professional) leadership.”

When the Financial Services Commission (FSC) finally broke its silence on insurance claims arising from Hurricane Melissa, nearly nine months after the event, its statement was notable less for what it said than for what it omitted. For example, the phrase ‘climate change’ did not appear once in the half-page-long public statement. Melissa was historic but was not unexpected, given scientific consensus about the threats facing small island developing states like Jamaica. Similar events like Melissa are forecast. The 2025 storm was the first Category 5 hurricane to make a direct landfall in the country’s history. 
The island endures storms about once every four to five years. Earthquakes also occur regularly. Each event has the potential to leave behind not only physical damage, but also a trail of policyholder dissatisfaction. In an era of intensifying climate risks and seismic threats, an insurance regulator’s role cannot be reactive or episodic. It must be proactive, equipped with expertise, and committed to protecting consumers when they are most vulnerable.
Governance and accountability 
The FSC’s public statement last Sunday reflects a reactive posture rather than a proactive governance framework that recognises the hazards to which the island and its citizens are exposed. Catastrophes are not anomalies; they are recurring features of Jamaica’s risk landscape. Yet, time and again, policyholders have been left frustrated by opaque processes, payment delays, inadequate oversight, and uncertain outcomes.
A regulator’s first duty is to ensure accountability. That means embedding mechanisms such as enforceable claims deadlines, transparent and frequent reporting, independent audits, and other strategies –like deploying technologies to reduce waiting times – to deal effectively and efficiently with catastrophes. Without these tools, insurers will continue to operate without meaningful checks, leaving consumers exposed and thwarting national efforts to achieve resilience. Hurricane Melissa should have been the moment for insurers and the FSC to demonstrate that they had learnt from past disasters. Instead, the silence until now and limited response suggest a regulator still struggling 55 years after Jamaica passed the landmark Insurance Act of 1971. 
Expertise and capacity 
The commission’s search for a director to oversee its ‘regulatory methodologies’ to join its executive ranks highlights a deeper issue: the absence of insurance and other subject‑matter expertise. Effective regulation requires technical knowledge of claims processes, catastrophe modelling, and consumer protection standards. Without this knowledge base, strategy execution and compliance with International Association of Insurance Supervisors (The FSC is a member) standards will remain weak, and performance management will be superficial. Furthermore, the commission will find itself with its hands tied behind its back when it seeks to investigate, manage, and resolve consumer complaints.
India’s insurance regulator recently introduced regulations requiring insurance companies to disclose and publish details of the remuneration and incentives of key management persons – including MDs, CEOs, directors, and other senior officials – and the extent to which they were aligned to the companies’ claim responsiveness indicators. Would the introduction and enforcement of similar measures by the FSC go some way in finding a solution to the persistent problems locally?
The recruiting of seasoned insurance professionals is not optional – it is essential. A regulator that lacks in‑house expertise cannot credibly supervise a business as complex, consequential, and constantly changing as the risk transfer industry. The FSC’s acknowledgement of structural weaknesses in strategy execution and performance management is a tacit admission that its current capacity is insufficient. But recognition alone is not reform. The commission must act decisively to strengthen its technical insurance base if it is to fulfil its mandate to policyholders. 
Consumer outcomes and the common good 
Perhaps most troubling is the suggestion that the FSC plans to increase supervision costs across the industries it regulates substantially. Raising the cost of regulation without demonstrable improvements risks shifting burdens onto consumers through higher premiums. Policyholders, already struggling with the financial and emotional toll of disasters, should not be asked to pay more to a regulator that has yet to prove its effectiveness.
The true measure of regulatory success is not the size of its budget but the quality of outcomes for policyholders: timely claims settlement, fair treatment, and resilience in the face of disasters. By publishing claims performance data and enforcing service standards, the FSC can align its reforms with the common good – ensuring insurance fulfils its role as a social safety net. Anything less risks eroding public trust and undermining the very purpose of regulation.
A call to reform
The commission’s recent acknowledgement of structural weaknesses and its search for new leadership are steps in the right direction, but they will mean little if not accompanied by genuine reform. Recruiting insurance subject‑matter experts, enforcing claims deadlines, and publishing transparent performance metrics are not optional – they are essential to restoring trust.
Raising the cost of supervision without improving outcomes risks burdening consumers twice: once through higher premiums, and again through delayed claims. True regulatory success will be measured not by bureaucratic restructuring, but by whether policyholders receive timely, fair, and reliable protection when disaster strikes. That is the common good to which the FSC must now commit.
If you require assistance managing risks or solving insurance problems, Cedric E. Stephens offers free counsel and advice. To obtain information and counsel, please write to The Business Editor at business@gleanerjm.com or contact Mr Stephens directly at aegisja@gmail.com. Letters and emails will be edited for clarity and length.