Programmes that prepare institutions together.
The Global Risks Forum (GRF) offers risk governance programmes for public authorities, operators, researchers and civil society: dialogues that leave a record, council years with reviewed results, policy cooperation on shared risks, controlled exercises, and the governance of the annual programme in which they are tested.
- For
- Public authorities, regional bodies, operators, research institutions, civil society and leaders
- Open now
- Information and enquiries, each with a reference
- Accountable
- GRF for convening and programme governance; competent authorities for every decision
- Never
- A regulatory approval, a certification, procurement or finance
Annual cycleIllustrative interface; placeholder values, not results.
The short answer.
GRF risk governance programmes are the dialogues, council programmes and exercises GRF offers institutions that share a risk, from mapping decision rights to testing arrangements in Nexus Universe. Each offer states who it is for, its terms and how to leave, and none replaces the authority of the institutions taking part.
Five offers, one year of cooperation.
Each offer below answers the same twelve questions, from who it is for to how to leave it. The offers connect: dialogues set the agenda, councils carry the work, policy cooperation and exercises test it, and Nexus Universe brings the year together.
Leadership dialogues and convenings
Structured dialogues that end in a published record.
Offer 02Council programmes
A structured year for institutions, leaders and experts.
Offer 03Risk governance and policy cooperation
Five areas where institutions share a risk.
Offer 04Exercises and simulation
Controlled scenarios with independent evaluation.
Offer 05Nexus Universe programme governance
The annual mandate, admission and gate decisions.
PathwaysNot sure where you fit?
Start from your capacity: institution, leader, expert or host.
No fee schedule is published for any offer. A contribution, where one applies, is set in written terms with the issuer, currency and effective date before anything is payable. Public authorities never need to buy a membership tier to take part.
Leadership dialogues and convenings.
Dialogues through the year between institutions that share a risk, run to a documented method so that every voice is recorded and nothing is presented as consensus that was not reached.
| Who it is for | Leaders of public authorities, regional bodies, operators, research institutions, civil society and communities |
|---|---|
| The problem | Institutions meet, but agreements, dissent and follow-up are rarely recorded |
| The work | A stated question, a fair inclusion procedure, facilitated sessions and a dialogue record |
| You receive | The agenda, the record of agreements and dissent, and a log of commitments |
| You contribute | Your institution's position, an authorised participant and follow-up on your commitments |
| Cost | Set in the written terms for each dialogue; no published fee |
| Accountable | GRF for convening and the record; each institution for its own commitments |
| Access and rights | Records are published only as participants agree; restricted sessions stay restricted |
| Available now | Enquiries open; dialogues are announced only with a date and host on record |
| Next step | An enquiry receives a reference, and the acknowledgement names the next step; proposals for a dialogue can go to dialogues@globalriskforum.com |
| If it fails | Where no agreement is reached, the record says so and states the open questions |
| Leave or raise a concern | Withdraw at any time; challenge a record through Governance and trust |
Council programmes.
A structured year in the constituency councils (the National Nexus Consortium, NNC), the Leadership Council (the National Leadership Council, NLC) or the working groups (the National Working Groups, NWG).
| Who it is for | Institutions, individual leaders, and experts, practitioners and students |
|---|---|
| The problem | Leadership and expertise are scattered, and contributions leave no reviewable trace |
| The work | Baselines, contribution plans, quarterly work, mentoring and mission contribution |
| You receive | A capability baseline, a contribution record, supervised work products and a reviewed next step |
| You contribute | Time, competence and, for institutions, authorised representatives and a contribution plan |
| Cost | None for ordinary working-group participation; any council contribution follows selection and written terms |
| Accountable | GRF for council conduct; selection panels for selection; supervisors for assignments |
| Access and rights | No council standing buys office, employment, a board seat or restricted data |
| Available now | Enquiries open; applications open when terms and review capacity exist |
| Next step | Write to councils@globalriskforum.com; the acknowledgement gives a reference, and nominations follow the published procedure once open |
| If it fails | A year that does not meet its plan produces a reviewed next state, not a sanction or an automatic renewal |
| Leave or raise a concern | Step down by notice; complaints are designed to be reviewed by someone not responsible for the decision |
Risk governance and policy cooperation.
Cooperation among the institutions responsible for a shared risk: who holds which mandate, where responsibilities fall between them, and which policy options deserve testing. GCRI supplies the evidence; decisions stay with the competent authorities.
Risk management and preparedness
Are national and institutional risk oversight, continuity plans, early warning and anticipatory action connected, and do the roles hold under pressure?
Boards, ministries, operators and warning services, to map roles and agree what to test. Warnings stay with the authorities that issue them.
Disaster and crisis governance
How do public authorities, operators and humanitarian actors coordinate across response and recovery, and where do mandates leave gaps?
Whole-of-society dialogues and coordination reviews. GRF is not an emergency service and holds no incident command.
Climate and nature
Which institutions govern adaptation, nature and transboundary environmental priorities, and how can they act on shared evidence?
Environment agencies, basin bodies and regional organisations, with the Diplomacy Nexus community.
Digital and AI governance
How should institutions keep human oversight, accountability and rights in the use of AI and digital public systems?
Public authorities, technologists and rights specialists, with the Innovation Nexus and Governance Nexus communities.
Health security
How are cross-border and public health responsibilities shared, and how do health systems stay running when power, water and supply chains fail?
Health authorities, operators and researchers, to agree responsibilities and design exercises.
| Who it is for | Ministries, agencies, regional bodies, operators and the researchers who advise them |
|---|---|
| The problem | Shared risks fall between mandates, and policy options are rarely compared across institutions |
| The work | A responsibility map, a cooperation dialogue and a set of policy options for testing |
| You receive | A mapped set of roles, a dialogue record and options with their limits stated |
| You contribute | Your mandate, your institution's experience and a named counterpart |
| Cost | Set in written terms for the cooperation; public authorities need no membership tier |
| Accountable | GRF for convening; GCRI for evidence; each authority for its own decisions |
| Access and rights | Your institution keeps its data and decisions; nothing is shared without agreement |
| Available now | Enquiries open |
| Next step | An enquiry receives a reference, and the acknowledgement names the next step, which may be a scoping conversation |
| If it fails | Options that do not hold are recorded as findings, not dropped |
| Leave or raise a concern | Withdraw at any time; your lawful contributions remain attributed to you |
Exercises and simulation.
Controlled exercises designed to test whether roles, information and decisions work together under degraded conditions, mostly in the Nexus Universe action week. Each exercise is designed with:
- Scenario lists with controllers and simulation cells
- Independent evaluators who test objectives, not attendance
- Safety holds and a real-world emergency override
- Containment, so simulated warnings never reach live audiences
- Dissent and adverse findings kept in the after-action record
| Who it is for | Authorities, operators, humanitarian organisations and preparedness teams |
|---|---|
| The problem | Arrangements that have never been exercised fail when they are first needed |
| The work | Exercise design, controlled scenarios, independent observation and an after-action review |
| You receive | Exercise observations, an after-action record and an improvement plan |
| You contribute | Participants with authority to act in the scenario, and an exercise owner |
| Cost | Set in the written exercise terms; no published fee |
| Accountable | GRF for exercise governance; GCRI for exercise control and evidence capture |
| Access and rights | Exercises are designed never to touch live systems without approval; restricted results stay restricted |
| Available now | Enquiries open; exercises run once an edition is authorised |
| Next step | An enquiry receives a reference; exercise scoping follows mission admission |
| If it fails | A failed test is a finding; a safety hold stops the exercise and is recorded |
| Leave or raise a concern | Any participant may call a safety hold; concerns go to Governance and trust |
Nexus Universe programme governance.
GRF governs the annual programme within its instruments: the mandate, the admission of missions, the gate decisions from G0 to G7 and the authorisation of what is published.
The cycle and its gates are set out on the Nexus Universe gateway, and the programme has its own Nexus Universe website.
| Who it is for | National and regional programmes, mission teams, hosts, contributors and evaluators |
|---|---|
| The problem | Annual work needs a neutral owner for admission, gates and publication |
| The work | Setting the annual mandate, admitting missions, recording gate decisions and authorising publication |
| You receive | A reasoned admission decision, gate records and published outcome records |
| You contribute | A mission proposal, qualified inputs and an accountable owner |
| Cost | Set per edition in written terms; neither membership nor sponsorship secures admission or computing |
| Accountable | GRF for governance; GCRI technical office for the build; GRA for finance-readiness dialogues |
| Access and rights | National structures keep agenda authority and may decline participation or data sharing |
| Available now | Edition not yet on record; enquiries open |
| Next step | An enquiry receives a reference; mission calls open once an edition is authorised. Questions about GRF's governance of the programme can go to universe@globalriskforum.com |
| If it fails | A mission that fails a gate does not proceed, and the reason is recorded |
| Leave or raise a concern | Withdraw a mission before or during the cycle; appeal through the complaint route |
Fig.The year as a gated graph: gates as decision nodes between preparation, build, action week and close-out, with the run timeline showing where an edition would stand. Gates are decisions, not dates.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this institution uses it on this page.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Controlled exercise | A test of whether roles, information and decisions work together under degraded conditions, with marked simulated messages and a safety hold that can stop it. |
| Gate | One of eight recorded decisions, G0 to G7, by which GRF moves the annual programme from authorisation to publication; work moves on only when the record allows it. |
| Nexus Universe | The annual operating, integration, exercise and learning programme of Nexus Consortiums, governed by GRF. |
Questions about GRF programmes.
How much do GRF programmes cost?
Can GRF run an exercise on our live systems?
Does a GRF programme approve our policy or plan?
Who provides the evidence for policy cooperation?
What can we do today?
Related programme pages.
Tell us the risk your institutions share.
The Secretariat confirms what is possible now and names the next step. An enquiry receives a reference; it does not create membership, registration or a commitment.