The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Institutional dialogues in foresight Nexus: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
Foresight Nexus dialogues are structured conversations in which those who govern foresight as well as risk management and systemic risk compare evidence and options on a question with an accountable owner. Each runs under agreed attribution rules, often the Chatham House Rule, and its outcome note is published with participants' consent. A dialogue is listed only once it is confirmed.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on the Arctic; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards and exposure, 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 dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on the Arctic; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer 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
Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to dialogues@globalriskforum.com.
Foresight dialogues use scenarios to loosen assumptions that institutions do not know they hold. A ministry that plans for one climate pathway, one demographic projection and one technology trajectory is asked to walk through futures where each breaks. The useful output is not a forecast but a list of decisions that look robust across futures and decisions that only work in one.
| Format | Use |
|---|---|
| Scenario workshop | Build or use a scenario set and test a strategy against each |
| Wind-tunnelling session | Run an existing plan through several scenarios |
| Horizon-scanning panel | Discuss weak signals collected in advance |
| Futures-literacy laboratory | Examine how participants use the future in their thinking, following UNESCO practice |
Quantitative climate and hazard scenarios come from GCRI climate hazards; financial scenario practice such as the NGFS scenarios is read with GRA.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Chatham House Rule | A rule under which participants may use information received but may not reveal the identity or affiliation of speakers. |
| Science-policy interface | The arrangements through which scientific evidence reaches public decisions, including advisory committees, chief scientific advisers, academies and intergovernmental assessments. |
| Track two dialogue | Informal dialogue among non-official participants, such as experts, that can explore options officials cannot. |
| 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. |
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
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.