Skip to content

GRF · Climate and Nature Governance

Dialogues and cooperation

Institutional dialogues in climate and Nature Governance: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.

Make an enquiry Back to Climate and Nature Governance
01Workspace

The workspace for dialogues and cooperation.

Exercise control

Justice hearing · Example exercise interface, not a record

Example interfaceGRF · Climate and Nature Governance

What the screen records

Injects delivered
count against the planned injects
Median response
minutes, per player cell
Observer notes
count, observers first
Stand-down
planned day and hot wash

Inject timeline

example sequence

  1. 09:00INJ-1Scenario opens: Justice hearing
  2. 10:30INJ-2Disclosure regulator receives first signal
  3. 12:15INJ-3Escalation: second system affected
  4. 14:00INJ-4Media query and public message
  5. 16:30HOTHot wash, observers first

Player cells

Adaptation councilinjects, response time, state
Basin commissioninjects, response time, state
Disclosure regulatorinjects, response time, state
Indigenous councilinjects, response time, state
Exercise control.Illustrative interface; not live data.

Climate and Nature Governance · Exercise control. Exercise control: example names and illustrative values, not a record.

02Status

Dialogues are listed when confirmed.

Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to the registration form.

03The climate and nature dialogue

One territory, four conventions, several ministries.

The governance problem this community is designed to address is fragmentation. Adaptation is reported to the UNFCCC, biodiversity to the CBD, land degradation to the UNCCD and disaster losses to the Sendai Framework, often by different ministries working to different calendars. Dialogues bring those focal points together around one landscape, basin or coastline.

FormatQuestionOutput
Synergy dialogueWhere do NAP, NBSAP and DRR strategy commitments overlap on the same land?Overlap map with owners
Basin dialogueHow do riparian institutions share drought and flood decisions?Options paper on basin arrangements
Indicator clinicHow can the Belém adaptation indicators be reported from existing data?Data-owner table
04Process

How the process runs.

Process explorer · Process

Dialogues and cooperation: Programme through eight gates

11 steps4 stages8 gates

Process

Dialogues and cooperation: Programme through eight gates

The Global Risks Forum (GRF) records eight yearly gates, each a programme decision; a gate not passed stops its work, and the competent authority decides outside.

  1. 01 Q1 · Planning

    1. 01G0 · Annual programme authorisedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF authorises the annual mandate. It never sets a national agenda.
    2. 03Route the candidate mission to standardsStep · Nexus StandardsNexus Standards routes each candidate mission to the standards and profiles that apply.

  2. 02 Q2 · Readiness and build

    1. 04G1 · Missions admittedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF admits missions with reasons recorded. It cannot admit a mission without an accountable owner.
    2. 05G2 · Data and resources qualifiedGate · The Global Risks ForumReadiness preparation closes when data, people and resources are qualified.
    3. 06G3 · Build accepted for exerciseGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF records whether the build is accepted for exercise. A gate not passed stops the work it governs.

  3. 03 Q3 · Action Week

    1. 07G4 · Controlled live operation authorisedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF authorises controlled live operation for Action Week.
    2. 08G5 · Evidence sealed and stand-down recordedGate · The Global Risks ForumThe evidence is sealed with its provenance and the stand-down is recorded.

  4. 04 Q4 · Reporting and renewal

    1. 02Competent authority decides and actsActor · The competent authorityThe competent authority decides and acts under its own rules. The programme informs it and never decides for it.
    2. 09Scientific and editorial reviewStep · Reviewers and the publisherQualified, conflict-managed reviewers and the publisher decide what is accepted. Institutions cannot decide a scientific conclusion.
    3. 10G6 · Publication authorisedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF authorises publication of results that have passed scientific and editorial review. It cannot publish personal data.
    4. 11G7 · Renewal reviewedGate · The Global Risks ForumGRF reviews renewal and sets the next cycle’s mandate.

The programme year · The Global Risks Forum · Decision rightsDesigned programme process, not a record of operation. No cycle has run and every programme is at service level R0. A gate is a programme decision, never a public-authority approval, certification or deployment authorisation.

06Sources

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.

07Questions

Questions and answers.

Are dialogues public?
Each dialogue states its format. Outcome notes are published with participants’ consent.
Climate and Nature Governance

Bring a governance question to the Forum.

Information and enquiries are open today. 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.

Propose a dialogue See all contact routes
Legal
Show all 18 legal documents

Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.