Modelling Expert Consultancy

For the past four decades, the United Nations University (UNU) has been a go-to think tank for impartial research on the pressing global problems of human survival, conflict prevention, development, and welfare. United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) established in December 2003, is part of the UNU system, a worldwide network of Research and Training Institutes. Its mission is to advance human security through knowledge-based approaches to reducing vulnerability and environmental risks. Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) was initiated as a charitable organisation by representatives of insurers, research institutes and NGOs in April 2005 in response to the growing realization that insurance solutions can play a role in adaptation to climate change, as suggested in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

This TOR refers specifically to the peer review of the extreme precipitation and wind modules which underpins the micro insurance policies issued by the consortium. The peer review is a technical review of:

• The model assumptions of the Hazard Module of the CRAIC model, including:
• Different scenarios on accumulation periods
• Different scenarios on areal averaging of the hazard
• Assumptions made in the extreme value analysis of hazard data;
• A technical report explaining the assumptions and methodology followed to build the CRAIC model.

The expected services from a successful Peer Reviewer are the following:

• Read the Model Documentation (3b) and evaluate the related deliverables of the Hazard Module as indicated in section (3a).
• Interaction with the model Developer.
• Interaction with the consortium.
• The Peer Reviewer is expected to deliver the following reports:
  • Interim Reports after the review of the material specified in 3(a) and 3(b)
  • A concise letter report of five or fewer pages with an executive summary of the findings.
  • A Final Report for internal use of the consortium, where all the findings are reported at the level of detail necessary for the implementation of ameliorating actions in the successive releases of the catastrophe risk model by the developer.

The report should include an analysis to determine (i) the quality, robustness and level of calibration of the hazard model and (ii) the implications for basis risk.