Institutional dialogues
The Global Risks Forum (GRF) convenes institutional dialogues so that public authorities, operators, researchers, civil society and communities can work through a shared risk and leave with a record. Each dialogue is designed to start from a stated question and to end with what was agreed, who committed to what and where participants disagreed. This section lists dialogues only once they are on record, and explains the methods and the outcome records that make them useful.
- Institution
- The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
- Service level
- R0: information and enquiries
Deliberation desk
Council of members · Round 3 of 5
Deliberation
- Frame the questionagreed
- Evidence briefindependent
- Hear positionsall members
- Optionswith trade-offs
- Recommendreasons
- Decidemandate holder
Positions
| Member state A | Support | Neutral | Object | Funding concern |
| Member state B | Neutral | Support | Support | |
| Regional body | Support | Support | Neutral | Prefers phasing |
| Civil society | Object | Support | Support | Equity |
Rules
- Quorum
- 3 thirds
- Dissent
- recorded with reasons
- Evidence
- brief EB-38
- Decision
- not GRF's
GRF · Deliberation deskDeliberation desk, in outline: domain structure with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record.
The short answer.
GRF institutional dialogues are structured exchanges in which public authorities, operators, researchers, civil society and communities work through a shared risk and leave with a record. Each starts from a stated question and ends with what was agreed, who committed to what and where participants disagreed; dialogues are listed only once on record.
Scoping to review.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
Jurisdictions in East Asia.
The jurisdictions that hold authority over this question: countries, their first-level divisions and capitals, shown for East Asia as an example geography for this subject.
Shared risks need a place where mandates meet.
A drought that empties a reservoir touches water utilities, power generators, farmers, health services and several ministries at once. None of them can resolve it alone, and the arrangements between them are often agreed only after a crisis begins. A GRF dialogue gives those institutions a neutral, documented setting in which to clarify roles before they are tested.
A stated question
Every dialogue is designed around a question that participants can answer, not a theme for speeches.
Those who share the risk
Invitations follow the dependency: who holds authority, who operates the system, who is affected and who has the evidence.
A published record
Agreements, commitments and dissent are recorded and, where participants consent, published.
Choosing the format to fit the question.
| Format | Best suited to | Attribution | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Track 2 expert dialogue | Exploring options before institutions take positions | Chatham House Rule by default | Summary of options without attribution |
| Mixed institutional dialogue | Officials in a personal capacity alongside experts and operators | Agreed per session | Outcome note reviewed by participants |
| Expert panel | Testing a specific evidence question | Attributed | Panel statement with dissent |
| Deliberative session | Bringing affected people into a choice with trade-offs | Participant consent per contribution | Deliberation report following OECD good practice |
| Policy lab | Prototyping an arrangement against evidence | Agreed per lab | Option sheets and test plan |
How the three institutions meet in one dialogue.
A dialogue question usually arrives with an evidence need. GRF sets the question and participants; GCRI prepares an evidence brief with labelled sources; GRA is asked only where the question has a financial dimension, such as who bears a residual loss. The record states which statements rest on which input. Methods and outputs are set out on their own pages.
Three forms of institutional exchange.
| Form | Purpose | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| Consultation | Gather the views of institutions on a defined question or draft | A consultation record with the positions received and how each was handled |
| Forum dialogue | Bring several institutions together on a shared risk | A dialogue record of agreements, open questions and dissent |
| Bilateral or small-group exchange | Prepare a mission, a council agenda or a cross-border question | A short note of scope and next steps, shared with participants |
A dialogue is listed on this site only when its convening record exists. Until then, no dialogue, date or participant is presented as confirmed.
What a dialogue is, and what it is not.
- It is a structured exchange with a record. It is not a negotiation on behalf of any government.
- Participation is not endorsement of any outcome, and silence is never reported as agreement.
- GRF convenes and records. It does not regulate, finance, procure or certify, and decisions stay with the competent institutions.
- Hosting or sponsorship of a dialogue confers no authority over its agenda, participants or record.
What is open today.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. Institutions can propose a dialogue question or ask how to take part by writing to dialogues@globalriskforum.com. The acknowledgement gives a reference and names the next step. To host a dialogue, read Host a programme dialogue. The technical evidence that dialogues draw on is described by The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) on GCRI policy research.
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 |
|---|---|
| Deliberative forum | A structured process in which participants weigh evidence and arguments together before reaching a view, the approach the OECD describes for representative deliberative processes. |
| Chatham House Rule | A rule under which participants may use information received but may not reveal the identity or affiliation of speakers. |
| Track two dialogue | Informal dialogue among non-official participants, such as experts, that can explore options officials cannot. |
| Science-policy interface | The arrangements through which scientific evidence reaches public decisions, including advisory committees, chief scientific advisers, academies and intergovernmental assessments. |
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.
Pages in Institutional dialogues.
Questions and answers.
Can my institution propose a dialogue question?
Are dialogue records public?
Does GRF speak for participants after a dialogue?
How are dialogues different from events?
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.