Expertise in action: Meet Conor Meenan, Lead Risk Finance Advisor

Author: Centre for Disaster Protection

With a background in earth sciences and geophysics, plus six years consulting experience at catastrophe risk management company RMS (now Moody’s RMS), Conor Meenan’s move to the Centre for Disaster Protection four years ago was a natural progression for his career. In this Q&A, Conor shares some insight into why he was inspired to work at The Centre and what projects he is involved in.

Can you tell us a little bit about your career so far and what inspired you to join the Centre?

After graduating from university, I worked in the capital markets team at Moody’s RMS, focusing on bespoke and technical advisory for the insurance sector and risk modelling for catastrophe bond transactions. During this time I was also able to apply catastrophe risk modelling methods and metrics to resilience challenges in the public and development sectors.

The world of disaster risk financing has always interested me, and while at RMS I was fortunate enough to work on a disaster risk financing toolkit, which had been commissioned by the German institution for international cooperation, GiZ. During this time, I was introduced to the niche world of risk financing, and had the opportunity to collaborate with the Centre while I was at RMS -  the Centre commissioned research investigating new finance approaches for resilient infrastructure. It was a fascinating report to support, and piqued my interest in the application of risk insight in development activities. 

The thinking around risk financing is an evolving school of thought, and we can imagine how dynamic discussions around this specialist field must be. Can you explain more about your role at the Centre and how your work reflects the changing needs of society?

In today’s climate, much of the focus is around resilience and pre-arranged finance. Over the last few years we have worked alongside several humanitarian organisations in both a review and advisory support capacity; this ensures they understand the good characteristics of disaster risk financing (DRF) before they go ahead with any transactions. 

Often, in the world of DRF, buyers aren’t experienced in terms of interrogating what is being offered. Our role, therefore, is to ensure that during the transaction process they know what questions to ask about what is being offered to them. Most recently we supported the Red Cross Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF) in this advisory capacity. For us it is about assuring the process with an impartial, independent, trusted voice. It is as much about offering support, acting as a critical friend and providing technical insight and a second pair of eyes. For these organisations, this is invaluable. 

It is clear you are driving for more transparency, traceability, and consistency in DRF, by helping secure deals that have been interrogated, and can importantly be audited, traced, and are legitimate. Can you tell us what other initiatives and projects you are working on in this field?

A project I recently worked on was a paper titled Measuring the Crisis Protection Gap. Instigated in response to a campaign the Centre led a few years ago named the Crisis Lookout Coalition, the paper explores how we could better predict crisis protection needs at a global scale. 

Technically, answering this could be seen as impossible, taking into consideration data gaps and the complex task of measuring and comparing all crisis risks, especially in lower income and vulnerable settings. Our response, therefore, was to explore approaches that would allow policy or decision-makers to factor in different scenarios across different geographies and risk types, to enable them to make more information-based choices to close the crisis protection gap for different subsets of population. 

It is important to note here that we refer to the ‘crisis protection gap’, and not the ‘protection gap’, a term which has been adopted by the reinsurance industry and essentially only refers to insurable risks where physical damage is assessed. 

Focusing, therefore, on the crisis protection gap, our paper suggests how physical modelling tools can be used to draw a line of sight to those people who might otherwise have been overlooked from decisions about pre-arranged financing. It is about using data to measure risks and measure subsequent protection costs for those in lower-income settings, where risks such as droughts and floods have more of an impact on welfare and poverty than assets and the built environment. 

This global comparator of protection costs will always evolve, but for now it is the type of tool that could be used to set realistic ambitions as to how much pre-arranged financing is needed, where that finance needs to go, and importantly, that the right amount is reaching those who need it most. 

How do you envisage advancing the mission of the Centre and what impact would you like to make in the next year?

Another interest of mine is the use of risk transfer tools like catastrophe bonds in a development context. There has been a surge in interest from governments in the use of risk transfer instruments over the past decade. The application of these tools in a development context is particularly interesting, as their costs and benefits need to be considered against other available options, in the context of government priorities.

Unpicking this balancing act can be quite complex, but it’s important to know whether the right balance has been struck. This question is also now relevant for donors who are supporting governments and humanitarian organisations to purchase risk transfer using premium subsidies.

I have previously written about catastrophe bonds, most recently as part of the Centre’s inaugural annual report The State of Pre-Arranged Financing for Disasters 2023, and it will be interesting to see how the field develops and evolves over the next few years. 

The Centre for Disaster Protection is committed to transparent knowledge sharing. We work to prevent disasters devastating lives, by helping people, countries, and organisations change how they plan and pay for disasters, so that those most vulnerable people are better protected. We focus on more impactful and more equitable disaster risk finance that leaves no one behind. 

To discuss any of the aspects raised in this article, or for further information about the work of the Centre, please get in touch.