Your catastrophe models are better than ever. You know exactly which ZIP codes will burn, which watersheds will flood, which coastal properties will take storm surge.
And your loss ratios keep climbing.
Better models don't reduce risk. They measure it more precisely while you watch it grow. Premium increases and market exits are defensive moves—they protect your book, but they don't change the underlying exposure.
What if you could invest in reducing the losses before they hit your policies?
the defensive playbook isn't working
The standard insurer response to climate-driven losses:
| Action | What It Does | What It Doesn't Do |
|---|---|---|
| Premium increases | Prices risk more accurately | Reduces the risk |
| Non-renewals | Removes worst exposures from book | Reduces the risk |
| Market exits | Eliminates entire geographies | Reduces the risk |
| Tighter underwriting | Selects better risks | Reduces the risk |
| Improved models | Measures risk more precisely | Reduces the risk |
Every tool in this playbook is about managing exposure to risk, not reducing the risk itself. (For more on why better models aren't enough, see why better cat models aren't fixing your loss ratios.)
Meanwhile:
- California insurers have non-renewed 2.8 million policies since 2020
- Florida's property insurance market faces existential pressure
- Wildfire losses have increased 10x in real terms over 50 years
- Flood losses routinely exceed NFIP projections
The risk isn't going away. It's compounding.
what actually reduces losses
Ecological infrastructure reduces physical risk at the landscape level:
| Investment | Risk Reduced | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Fuel reduction | Wildfire severity | Less fuel = lower fire intensity, slower spread, more defensible structures |
| Wetland restoration | Flood damage | Natural detention, peak flow attenuation, reduced downstream flooding |
| Floodplain reconnection | Flood extent | Water spreads into natural floodplains instead of developed areas |
| Forest health | Watershed stability | Reduced erosion, sedimentation, post-fire debris flows |
| Coastal buffers | Storm surge | Mangroves, marshes, and dunes attenuate wave energy |
This isn't theoretical. Denver Water has invested $33 million in forest health because healthy forests mean clean water and reduced wildfire risk to their infrastructure. New York City invested $1.5 billion in watershed protection to avoid $10 billion in filtration plant costs. (See why utilities invest in watersheds for more on this model.)
The question for insurers: Why aren't you funding the fuel reduction that protects the properties you insure?
the math works
Consider a simplified wildfire scenario:
| Metric | Before Treatment | After Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Acres in WUI exposure | 50,000 | 50,000 |
| Expected annual burned acres | 2,000 | 800 |
| Average loss per burned acre | $500,000 | $300,000 |
| Expected annual losses | $1 billion | $240 million |
| Treatment cost (one-time) | — | $50 million |
Even with conservative assumptions, fuel treatment delivers 15:1 return in avoided losses over a 10-year period. The math improves when you factor in:
- Reduced severity (not just fewer fires, but less destructive fires)
- Community defensibility (structures survive fires they would have lost)
- Avoided market exit (you can keep writing in treated areas)
- Premium stability (less volatility in loss experience)
why insurers haven't done this (and why that's changing)
Historical objections:
| Objection | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Not our job" | Your losses are determined by landscape conditions you can influence |
| "Free rider problem" | Syndicate structures solve coordination; you fund your exposure areas |
| "Can't measure impact" | MRV systems now quantify treatment effectiveness at parcel level |
| "Too long payback" | 3-5 year payback on avoided losses; faster than most capital investments |
| "Regulatory uncertainty" | Treated acres are increasingly recognized in rate filings |
What's changing:
- California's Wildfire Fund and related mechanisms create precedent for insurer-funded mitigation
- Reinsurers are asking about portfolio-level resilience investments
- Regulators are more receptive to rate credits for demonstrated mitigation
- FEMA's BRIC program provides matching funds for nature-based solutions
how to structure the investment
Ensurance turns mitigation from a cost center into an investment. All instruments are tradable onchain. Specific certificates are yield-bearing. Your capital works while it protects.
ensurance syndicates
Multiple insurers pool capital into a syndicate focused on a specific geography or hazard type. The syndicate funds treatment, monitors outcomes, and allocates benefits proportionally.
Example: A Northern California wildfire syndicate funds fuel reduction across the Sierra Nevada WUI. Participating insurers contribute based on premium volume in the region and receive:
- Documented treatment in their exposure areas
- MRV data for rate filings and regulatory engagement
- Reduced loss expectancy in their models
- Portfolio-level resilience story for reinsurance negotiations
direct investment via agents
For insurers who want direct exposure to specific treatment areas, ensurance agents can be configured to:
- Hold assets dedicated to specific geographies
- Fund ongoing fuel management (not one-time treatment, but continuous stewardship)
- Report outcomes in real-time via MRV integration
- Provide documentation for regulatory and reinsurance purposes
proceeds from coins and certificates
General ensurance coins and specific certificates generate proceeds that flow to natural asset stewardship. Insurers can participate by:
- Holding ensurance instruments as part of investment portfolio
- Receiving proceeds that fund treatment in relevant geographies
- Gaining exposure to natural capital asset class with loss-reduction co-benefits
what BASIN provides
| Service | What You Get |
|---|---|
| Wildfire & Flood Resilience | Treatment planning, prioritization, contractor coordination |
| Syndicate Formation | Structure, governance, capital coordination across insurers |
| MRV & Monitoring | Continuous measurement of treatment effectiveness |
| Risk Modeling Integration | Connect treatment data to your cat models |
| Regulatory Support | Documentation for rate filings and compliance |
See our full services overview.
the timeline
This isn't a multi-year research project. This is deployment:
| Phase | Timeframe | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Scoping | 2-4 weeks | Exposure analysis, treatment prioritization, syndicate structure |
| Formation | 4-6 weeks | Capital commitment, governance, contractor engagement |
| Treatment | Fire season dependent | Acres treated, documented, verified |
| Monitoring | Ongoing | MRV reporting, loss tracking, model updates |
Before next fire season, you can have boots on the ground treating the acres that will otherwise burn into your loss ratios.
no lead time for existing instruments
While new syndicates and treatment programs take weeks to stand up, existing ensurance instruments are available today:
- Ensurance agents — active accounts already funding natural capital stewardship
- General ensurance coins — tradable today, proceeds flow to ecosystem protection
- Specific ensurance certificates — yield-bearing, direct funding to named natural assets
- Markets — live trading, immediate participation
No formation period. No capital call. Invest today, fund nature today.
frequently asked questions
won't this benefit my competitors too?
Yes, if they write in the same areas. That's why syndicate structures work—everyone contributes proportionally to shared benefit. The alternative is everyone losing to fires that could have been prevented.
how do I get credit for this in rate filings?
MRV documentation provides parcel-level treatment verification. Regulators are increasingly receptive to demonstrated mitigation, especially with third-party verification. We can help structure the documentation for your jurisdiction.
what about moral hazard—won't policyholders reduce their own mitigation?
Landscape-level treatment and structure-level defensibility are complements, not substitutes. You can require both. In fact, treated landscapes make structure-level mitigation more effective (defensible space works better when the approaching fire is lower intensity).
is this just greenwashing with extra steps?
No. This is loss reduction. The primary benefit is reduced claims. The secondary benefit is a better story for stakeholders. If you're investing to reduce losses and it happens to also be good for ecosystems, that's alignment—not greenwashing.
is there a minimum commitment?
No minimum. You can start with existing instruments today—coins, certificates, agents—at any scale. For custom syndicates and treatment programs, sizing works best when proportional to your exposure and the mitigation costs in that geography. We can help right-size the structure.
the bottom line
Better models measure the fire coming. Investment in fuel reduction stops it.
You can keep raising premiums and exiting markets, watching your exposure shrink while losses mount. Or you can fund the ecological infrastructure that actually reduces the physical risk.
The insurers who figure this out first will have a structural advantage: lower loss ratios in geographies their competitors had to exit.
related reading:
- why better cat models aren't fixing your loss ratios — the limits of measurement without action
- why utilities invest in watersheds — the precedent from water utilities
- utility wildfire liability and fuel reduction — how electric utilities are addressing similar exposure
- your asset is uninsurable — how to fix it — the property owner perspective