##ted by the impact of the pension savings withdrawals. at the end of 2019, the bank accommodated its monetary policy, by reducing the monetary policy rate ( mpr ) to allow for further stimulus. but most important were probably the measures to promote the proper functioning of markets, including the november 2019 intervention in the foreign exchange market ( figure 1 ). we were addressing idiosyncratic challenges when the covid - 19 pandemic emerged. the rapid spread of the disease in the world and the doubts about its scope in many dimensions placed a signiﬁcant blanket of uncertainty on the world economy. the abrupt closures of various activities and the destruction of jobs posed a signiﬁcant challenge for the world's economic authorities. as the debate began among specialists about the duration of the crisis and its potential scars on the economy, the central banks reacted promptly with a substantially expansionary monetary policy. in our case, that reaction was early. by mid - march 2020, we were already reducing the monetary policy rate to its technical minimum and implementing a signiﬁcant package of measures to ensure the proper functioning of markets and to avoid an ampliﬁcation of the crisis through a contraction of credit. today, all these measures are no longer active. the evaluation of their effects, together with other measures adopted by the government, indicates that a drop - in activity that could have been more than 7 percentage points higher was prevented 1. as a society adapted to operating in a pandemic, the economy began to open up and the measures adopted bore fruit, activity began to show greater resilience than expected. in the second half of 2020, gdp levels were already beginning to recover. was in this context that a series of household income support measures began to be added. thus, as supply restrictions were lifted, a large - scale demand shock was generated. during the ﬁrst half of 2021, demand began to grow strongly, and signiﬁcant macroeconomic imbalances were created, pushing inﬂation upwards. during this period, both external forces and the high levels of domestic uncertainty, depreciated our currency, putting additional pressure on prices. in addition, at the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022, global factors had an even stronger impact on inﬂation. global supply bottlenecks, the effect of the russian invasion of ukraine on energy and commodity prices, and the tightening of sanitary restrictions in china hit our country in this environment of already

the industry is involved in testing techniques to adapt buildings to clay shrink - swell risk. drawing up a shared map of natural hazards could also be a powerful prevention tool, helping to better control the loss ratio through land - use planning. the recent langreney report iv draws similar conclusions and puts forward other ideas that we should explore jointly, such as an annual re - evaluation of the cat nat surcharge and its modulation according to climate risk exposure. public - private partnerships? the incorporation of climate considerations shows the importance of striking the right balance when splitting responsibilities between the insurance industry and government intervention. the ccr v public - private partnership has proved particularly fruitful in this regard and needs to be preserved and reinforced. it maintains the incentive to prevent and manage risks ( via the insurance premium ), and relies on various layers of mutualisation, with the government only providing a guarantee as a last resort. thanks to this specific national scheme, france is doing particularly well, with 32 % of the effects of climate disasters insured, compared with just 23 % for europe as a whole. clearly, we must not transfer risks too easily to public finances, which are already too constrained. but, going forward, could we not envisage, in some cases, a system of a government guarantee of last resort – clearly delineated in advance – to address other challenges, such as systemic cyber threats or legitimate social solidarity imperatives? page 6 of 9 these debates on the frontier of insurability are nothing new : as far back as in 1921, vi the american economist frank knight famously distinguished between risks – which are measurable and therefore insurable – and uncertainty – which is neither measurable nor insurable. in 2024, our world is undoubtedly more “ knightian ”, notably due to geopolitical uncertainties. but if we fail to work together to maintain the right level of protection, or even push back the boundaries of insurability, the industry could be increasingly criticised for turning away from certain geographical areas, certain risks or certain economic sectors. this has been made clear in many recent debates, on dealing with operating losses during covid, on the french overseas territories and on insuring homes against climate risks. what ’ s at stake here for the future is not only the new development opportunities, but also the role insurers should play in this new paradigm. iii. a need for increased dialogue between supervisors and supervisees the insurance industry ’ s ability to support and assimilate these