Updated review by WB - March 2026 - Guidance Note Review #59
Description
Guidance Note Review
- Naming of tools / WB team
- Confirm that the ‘analytics package’ is called the ‘Disaster Risk Pooling Tool’ with two sub-tools the ‘Loss Simulator” and the ‘Risk Pool Structuring Tool’. In some places the Risk Pool Structuring tool is referred to as the risk pooling tool which is confusing. See below. Consistent naming needed.
- Also note it’s now the “World Bank Disaster Risk Finance team under the Financial Services global department” not FCI.
- And remove the hyperlink.
- Correct typo highlighted and review for other misnaming to make sure consistent Tool name.
- More explanation on the structure of the input data is needed (for advanced mode). i.e. show two examples in the template, one for years and one for simulations (and explain any zero entry is assumed no event, not blank).
- Comment on zeros not explicitly referenced step 2 of the guidance, the tool itself or the data template. Data template shows data format with both year and events in template.
- For the avoidance of doubt, recommend adding a sentence in the data template to confirm that a ‘zero’ entry will be accounted for in the distribution fitting as an event with no losses. Rather than a year with no event.
- Missing image for step 8? In phase 4 instead of 3.
- Same with step 10 – should be in Phase 4
- Typo – ‘later’ should be ‘layer’
- Typo ‘add’ should be ‘adding’
The column headers in point 2 below (and the corresponding visual) no longer match the tool. Should be Event year, Event ID, Country etc.
- update in text
- update image
- Solvency / 'how solvent' - explain further, link to exhaustion probability.
- Typo to correct, promotion should be portion - 'The promotion of risk where all three layers have been exhausted is the risk you have decided to retain after the risk pool has covered lower losses.'
-
Add to introduction an example for request / audience for this tool, as well as details on the limitations of tool (such as no premium calculations or risk correlation analysis). Edit the text to be correct (point 1 and 3).
-
Text added: 'The tool guides those responsible for emergency funding allocations to take them through the steps of constructing structured disaster financing, exploring what the tool and technical calculations can support in terms of understanding and the additional decision-making required.'
-
Step 2 text on limitations should be updated for typos and corrections, as the following text doesn’t make sense, and is referring to two different tools when focused on the section for the Loss Simulator only “Limitations: The Loss Simulator runs only type of input at a time. For example you cannot combine historical events and modelled events for earthquake for a country. There is no consideration or estimation of correlation of losses between countries or perils in the Disaster Risk Pooling tool.**” Update to: “Limitations: The Loss Simulator runs only type of input at a time and will not consider or estimate of correlation of losses between perils. ”
-
For Step 10 a note has been added that the tool doesn’t enable premium amounts to be entered. We still think this is a severe limitation to the tool as budget review is not possible. For now no change expected as RMSG team confirmed it wouldn’t be included in tool.
[Issue moved to #60] The text on the user guide tab of loss simulator tool doesn’t make sense. (“Current limitations…”). These issues are related to the Risk Pool Structuring tool instead and should be updated.
- Clarify scaling data not used if using occurrence rather than aggregate.
- Not explicitly mentioned. Sentence to be added. “If the input to the tool uses simulation data on an occurrence basis rather than an annual aggregate basis, the values are not scaled, and any scaling would need to be applied outside of the tool.”
- Typo – ‘Popualation’ should be ‘population’.
- Functionality removed from excel, remove text from guidance.:
No action needed
- Integrate original WB technical user guide into the new less technical guide on risk pools. RMSG feedback was that this was low priority given time available, and WB broadly agree at this stage.
- Improve visual structure of guide. To improve structure, we suggested:
- ensure visual separation of user guide and context but keep them in the same documentation
- check and correct any naming inconsistency
- Move up the 'two kinds of catalogue' text
- primary user guide, not decision-making consideration
- check and make clear the naming of the tools and the two packages Some of this has been done, but the rest considered low-priority by RMSG