Only a few days after the publication in the Official Journal of the implementing decree on policies against disasters and natural catastrophes that companies must take out, with the obligation taking effect on 31 March, Angelo Camilli, vice-president in charge of credit, finance and taxation, explains the association's position in an interview on the Sole 24 Ore.

Camilli emphasises the existence of too many aspects still to be clarified on the application of the new rules and the risk that, especially in the first phase when coverage has not yet spread, companies will find themselves in pay exorbitant premiumsup to tens of thousands of euros even for small entities, if they are located in more disaster-prone regions.

"The implementing decree was published on 28 February. Until that date we were unaware of the content of the measure,' the vice president reiterates. "A legal obligation to take out insurance in the event of natural disasters and catastrophes such as floods, landslides and earthquakes has been introduced. When there is an obligation for companies is never good. Accordingly, a company may also decide not to take out these policies. But there are a number of consequences that are so important that in fact it becomes an obligation. This obligation will certainly result in greater burdens for companiesto which, however, must correspond greater state commitment in terms of prevention. Otherwise it will be only of an additional corporate tax which, however, will not solve the causes of the fragility of our territory'.

"It is true that underlying the obligation is the need to ensure the principle of mutualityIf all companies take out policies, insurance premiums will be reduced and will also be affordable for the companies most exposed to risk. We understand the technical motivation". Camilli acknowledges that the idea behind the regulation is to reduce the burden on the state in terms of reimbursements to citizens in the event of disasters and to ensure business continuity. "In this regard, the recently approved provision requiring insurance companies to immediately liquidate the 301T5T of the damage is important".

What is most worrying, however, is the lack of clarity on many aspects of implementation. "We have submitted a request to the Ministry of Enterprise for clarification on an extensive list of aspects, some very technical, others more worrying. We have no information, for example, on the level of premiums, what the contractual arrangements will be, and what commitments will be asked of companies in the case of investments in risk mitigation. These are all elements that do not allow us to have a clear and transparent picture of the application of the rule'.

For these reasons, Confindustria once again calls for an extension of at least 90 days. "We hope that the ministry can set up a series of working tables to clarifyeven if the extension is absolutely essential,' Camilli reiterates. "One of the most worrying aspects is the prospect that the company without cover can no longer access any form of public subsidy or incentive. We have requested that tax and contribution subsidies should not be included in these instruments; it is not clear from the implementing decree whether they are included or not and in our opinion they should be excluded'.

And on the prospect that the rule might have retroactive effects or have an immediate impact on access to credit Camilli says: 'I rule out retroactivity, that would be unacceptable. It is inconceivable that from 1 April existing incentives could be called into question. I am also thinking of access to credit and the extensive use of loan guarantees by SMEs. L'impact on the production system would be devastating".

While on the mechanisms that will lead to the determination of premiums, the vice-president explains: 'The first companies that will take out policies from 1 April, when the mutuality mechanism will not yet be in place, risk paying very expensive premiums. We have no idea how large the prizes will be. We know from the first signs coming in from the associates that these figures could be very high even for small production activities, especially for companies in the areas most at risk. Several thousand euros, even tens of thousands, even for small businesses. In this case we would need to know how much the insurance company may charge for security measures to the company to mitigate the risks. In that case there would not only be a premium to pay, but also investments to be made, and this in a decidedly difficult phase of the economic environment'.

Camilli went on to emphasise that "aid through fiscal leverage in the case of further investments in safetybut we have had no response'. Another proposal put forward by Confindustria is that of earmark tax revenues from insurance policies for investments in securing the territory and prevent the costs of hydrogeological risk, for example, from being borne by companies. "If in some territories there is no investment in safety, as President Orsini has repeatedly pointed out, companies may make location choices depending on this, and this would trigger a process of industrial desertification of certain areas".

"We are not asking for an extension to circumvent the issue - concludes Camilli - It is a rule approved in the budget law, it must be applied. We are not satisfied with an obligation, but if it serves to have mutuality and therefore a reduction in premiums, it is fine. But there must be clarity in the application, whereas at the moment we have no answer'.