Public-private-planet cooperation
Nexus Consortiums are built on a public-private-planet partnership: public authorities, private operators and civil institutions working together, with explicit attention to the natural systems on which all of them depend. Collaboration of this kind is only legitimate if roles are clear and no party can buy influence. The Global Risks Forum (GRF) sets out the safeguards that keep it so. This page explains the three parts of the partnership, the roles each plays and the rules that apply to every collaboration GRF convenes.
- Institution
- The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
- Service level
- R0: information and enquiries
Policy tracker
Public-private-planet cooperation · Working tables · Session 1
Items
Items by region
GRF · Policy trackerPolicy tracker, in outline: domain structure with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record.
The short answer.
Public-private-planet cooperation is the partnership on which Nexus Consortiums are built: public authorities, private operators and civil institutions working together with explicit attention to the natural systems they all depend on. GRF sets out the safeguards that keep it legitimate, with clear roles and no party able to buy influence.
Jurisdictions in the Mekong Basin.
The jurisdictions that hold authority over this question: countries, their first-level divisions and capitals, shown for the Mekong Basin as an example geography for this subject.
Who takes part, and why.
Authority and mandate
Governments and public bodies hold the decisions and the accountability to citizens. They take part through their own authorised instruments.
Operation and capability
Operators, enterprises and financial institutions run the systems at risk and hold much of the capability to change them.
Natural systems
Basins, ecosystems and climate systems are treated as dependencies in their own right, with communities and rights-holders who live with them.
Collaboration models and their governance safeguards.
| Model | Example of the type | Safeguard that keeps it legitimate |
|---|---|---|
| Public-private dialogue on critical infrastructure | Sector coordinating councils for infrastructure resilience | Information-sharing rules and competition-law review |
| Multi-stakeholder standard-setting | Bodies that write voluntary standards with industry and civil society | Balanced representation and public comment |
| Nature-related disclosure | The TNFD framework built with market participants and scientists | Science-based metrics and public consultation |
| Blended public and private finance | Development finance structures with concessional layers | Transparency of subsidy and of who bears loss |
Representing natural systems in the room.
Natural systems cannot speak for themselves, so their interests are carried by evidence and by the people who depend on them. In practice that means ecological evidence prepared by GCRI's Biodiversity Nexus, the participation of Indigenous and local communities under free, prior and informed consent, and attention to rights of nature where a jurisdiction recognises them.
Rules that keep collaboration legitimate.
| Safeguard | In practice |
|---|---|
| Decisions stay public | Programme outputs are evidence for competent actors; they never substitute for public decisions |
| No bought influence | No contribution buys an appointment, a finding, consent or a procurement advantage |
| Precompetitive only | Industry work never shares competitors' confidential information |
| Rights-holders first | Community and Indigenous knowledge is used only under an agreed schedule and never enters public examples without consent |
| Disclosure | Support and interests are disclosed and kept apart from editorial and scientific decisions |
| Exit | Any party can withdraw by notice without erasing others' lawful work |
What GRF does in a collaboration.
GRF convenes the parties, records what they agree and governs the annual programme within its instruments. It does not regulate, finance, procure or certify, and it does not select investments. Evidence and methods come from The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI), and finance-readiness questions from The Global Risks Alliance (GRA), which never lends, underwrites or invests. GCRI describes the same model on Public–Private–Planet.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Public-private-planet | The Consortium's term for cooperation that brings public institutions, private actors and the condition of natural systems into the same decision, so that costs to nature are counted. |
| Public-private partnership | A long-term contract between a public body and a private party to provide a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility and is paid by performance. |
| Sponsor neutrality | The principle that a campaign's funder does not control its findings, claims or editorial decisions. |
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Does private participation mean private control?
Why include the planet as a partner?
Can a company propose a collaboration?
Around GRF.
Start with an enquiry.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.