The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Climate risk governance is how an institution assigns ownership of climate risk, sets objectives, takes decisions and answers for them. In government it runs through climate framework laws, independent advisory bodies, carbon budgets and audit. In companies and financial institutions it runs through boards, risk committees and supervisors. This page sets out the mechanisms that make climate risk governance hold or erode, the records that show it, and who holds each decision.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Climate signals, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For climate risk governance, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, daytime surface heat and night lights with a 15-day forecast chart at the centre and surface air temperature from NASA GIBS, framed on the Andes; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Climate risk governance is how an institution assigns ownership of climate risk, sets objectives and answers for its decisions. In government it runs through framework laws, independent advisory councils and audit; in companies through boards and supervisors. Courts increasingly test whether duties are met.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Climate risk governance · National adaptation council · Plan year 3
| No drought allocation rule | Water | Mandate unclear | Basin commission |
| Heat plans missing | Health | Funding | Line ministry |
| Coastal setback unenforced | Cities | Capacity | Province D |
Risk science translation into governance. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Climate framework laws can fix targets, carbon budgets, reporting duties and independent advisory councils. Where targets lack interim milestones or enforcement, they shift effort to later governments and courts become the route for holding them to account.
Advisory councils and audit institutions publish progress assessments that ministers must answer. Their influence depends on their mandate, independence, data access and whether governments must respond formally.
Climate risk reaches strategy, credit, underwriting and assets. Where no board committee or executive owns it, climate becomes a disclosure exercise and is absent from capital allocation and risk appetite.
Cases against governments and companies test whether duties are met. Judgments can require stronger targets or disclosures, and the risk of litigation itself changes how institutions document their decisions.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Carbon budget | A cap on cumulative emissions over a period, set in some climate framework laws to steer policy towards a long-term target. |
| Independent climate advisory body | A statutory body that assesses government climate policy and progress and advises parliament and ministers. |
| Climate litigation | Court and tribunal cases that raise climate change law, policy or science, against governments or companies. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate framework law in force | yes or no, with legal citation | on change | Legislation databases | OFFICIAL |
| Independent climate advisory body | existence and statutory basis, categorical | on change | National legislation | OFFICIAL |
| Interim emissions targets in law | count of legally set milestones | on change | Legislation databases | OFFICIAL |
| Government responses to advisory reports | count and timeliness, days | annual | Parliamentary records | OFFICIAL |
| Climate cases filed | count by jurisdiction and type | annual | Climate litigation databases | REPORTED |
| Board-level climate oversight disclosed | share of large listed companies | annual | Company disclosures | DECLARED |
| Supreme audit institution climate audits | count of published audits | annual | Audit institution records | OFFICIAL |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Climate Change Laws of the World | Framework laws, targets and institutional arrangements by country | Free to use with attribution, terms to check |
| Sabin Center climate change litigation databases | United States and global climate cases with documents | Free to read, terms to check |
| National climate advisory council reports | Progress assessments and government responses | Public records, terms per body |
| INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing records | Environmental and climate audits by supreme audit institutions | Public records, terms to check |
| IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group III | Assessment of climate governance, institutions and policy instruments | Free, IPCC terms |
| SEC EDGAR and national filing registers | Company governance and climate risk disclosures | Public domain or public records, terms per register |
Climate and Nature Governance prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Legislatures | Whether to enact or amend a climate framework law, and what duties it sets | Comparative framework designs and the record of independent review |
| Heads of government and cabinets | How climate risk ownership is assigned across ministries | Decision-rights maps and advisory body assessments |
| Company boards and risk committees | Who owns climate risk and how it enters strategy and risk appetite | Governance practice in comparable institutions and supervisory expectations |
| Courts | Whether a public or private duty concerning climate has been breached | Governance records and filings presented by parties; the page serves context only |
Risk arises from the combination of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Governance can influence all three: land-use planning limits exposure, building codes and social protection reduce vulnerability, and mitigation policy influences long-term hazard. Yet risk assessments are often produced by technical agencies and do not reach the ministries that set budgets.
Uncertainty is a governance problem in itself. Design standards based on historical climate may be inadequate, but future projections come as ranges. Adaptive approaches, which set decision points and triggers for revisiting plans, are one way institutions handle that uncertainty.
Comparing how countries assess and use climate risk, drawing on climate and atmospheric science and policy, institutional and decision science. Methods differ, limiting comparison.
Identifying which institutions own each risk and where ownership is missing.
Examining how institutions set decision points and triggers. Few have been tested over long periods.
Structured exchanges between scientists and decision-makers through dialogues, recorded with their limits.
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.