“The fact that the payment modalities of the disaster fund vary from state to state naturally creates incomprehension,” says Peter Bußjäger to the KURIER.
Bußjäger is director of the Institute for Federalism and points to the fact that the federal states have budgetary sovereignty.
“From this perspective, it is simply consistent that there are differences between the individual countries.
In the end, the state governments have to answer to their populations “why they see or handle things differently”.
This does not mean, of course, that Bußjäger sees no need for action at all.
When it comes to the disaster fund, it is certainly worth considering whether the public sector should provide insurance for flood protection with private insurers – which the state supports. “The question of whether a simple legal claim should be made possible for aid payments is also worth considering.” At present, victims can claim possible unequal treatment. However, this is a complex process.
Compulsory insurance
For Expert Franz Prettenthalerone of the most pressing problems is that the damages suffered are not being compensated or compensated anywhere near 100 percent. What would be the solution?
As director of the Centre for Climate, Energy and Society LIFE at Joanneum Research in Graz, Prettenthaler has studied the disaster fund in depth. He sees two options: “The state provides compulsory insurance against flood damage. This also exists in other EU countries.”
Or you could require holders of existing household insurance to extend their coverage to include flooding.
The advantage: In Austria, most property owners already have household insurance.
