GRF · Governance Nexus
Risk governance
Risk governance asks who decides which risks are acceptable, on what evidence, and how those choices are answered for when outcomes are uncertain. It covers the identification, assessment, ownership, treatment and communication of risk across organisations and governments, and the accountability that follows. Compounding and cascading risks strain this system because they cross mandates. This page sets out how risk governance fails, how its quality can be read, and which decisions belong to cabinets, legislatures, boards and regulators.
Risk governance in seven parts.
- 01The questionRisk governance: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsThe questions experts ask
- 06MechanismsFrom assessment to accountable choice
- 07Methods and dataMethods and their limits
Risk governance: how the risk develops.
Accountable choices under uncertainty. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Risk falls between mandates
Systemic risks cross sectors, borders and levels of government. Each agency governs its own part, no one owns the interaction, and the interdependencies that drive the largest losses sit outside every risk register.
Appetite stays implicit
Where risk appetite and tolerance are never stated, they are set by default through budgets, delays and precedent. Trade-offs are made without being recorded, and accountability after an event has nothing to measure against.
Assessment and decision fuse
When those who assess a risk also manage it or benefit from accepting it, findings bend toward the preferred option. Separating appraisal from evaluation, and independent review, protect the evidence base.
Warnings fail to become action
Risks are often identified and documented before they materialise. Failure lies in escalation, ownership and funding: the warning sits in a register, the decision is deferred, and preparedness lags the assessment.
People and hazards in Asia.
Population density, night lights and flood water over Asia, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, 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.
People and hazards, framed on Asia.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · U.S. Geological Survey · NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColorSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). doi:10.7927/H49C6VHW. CC BY 4.0
- VIIRS Black Marble night-time lights, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; distributed by the NASA Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- MODIS land products (vegetation indices, gross primary production, land cover), NASA LP DAAC and LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: U.S. Geological Survey Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColor (CIRA). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (5 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Population density, 2020: Population: CIESIN, Columbia University, Gridded Population of the World v4.11 (2018), NASA SEDAC, CC BY 4.0 · static
- Night-time lights, daily: VIIRS Black Marble (VNP46A2), NASA LAADS DAAC · 12 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Land cover type (IGBP), yearly: MODIS Terra and Aqua land cover (MCD12Q1), NASA LP DAAC · 2024
What is measured, and how well.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National risk assessment published | yes, partial or no; date of last review | per review cycle | Government publications and OECD survey responses | Published statistics |
| Designated lead body for critical risk coordination | named institution and legal basis | per change | Legislation and government orders | Published statistics |
| Risk appetite statement approved by the governing body | yes or no, with approval level | annual | Governance statements and public body reports | DECLARED |
| Sendai Framework reporting status | reporting status by target | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor | REPORTED |
| Implementation of audit recommendations on risk management | share of recommendations implemented by their due date | annual | Supreme audit institution follow-up reports | Published statistics |
| Post-event review published | published, unpublished or not undertaken, per major event | per event | Inquiry and after-action reports | Published statistics |
| Government effectiveness estimate | standardised score with standard error | annual | Worldwide Governance Indicators composite | ESTIMATED |
Deliberation and decision desk.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Deliberation and decision desk
Risk governance · Council A · Meeting 8
Agenda
| Risk appetite statement | P-363 | Approve | None | Discussing |
| New member admission | P-276 | Approve | Declared | Next |
| Safeguards annual review | P-119 | Note | None | Next |
| Data charter | P-792 | Consult | None | Done |
Anti-capture safeguards
in place, of 12
Decision record
- M-18DECAppetite statement approved with two dissents recorded
- M-12ACTSecretariat to publish reasons within 30 days
- M-13REVReview date set
Where the evidence comes from.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| OECD survey on the governance of critical risks | Country responses on risk assessment, coordination, preparedness and resilience financing | Free and open, attribution (OECD terms) |
| Sendai Framework Monitor | National reporting against Sendai targets and indicators, including national and local strategies | Free, attribution and UNDRR terms |
| World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators | Composite estimates of government effectiveness, regulatory quality and four other dimensions, with standard errors | Free and open, CC BY 4.0 |
| INFORM Risk Index | Composite of hazard, vulnerability and lack of coping capacity, including institutional components | Free and open, attribution (European Commission JRC) |
| Supreme audit institution performance audits | Audits of risk management, preparedness and emergency spending by national audit offices | Public records, terms per audit institution |
| Public inquiry and after-action reports | Reconstructions of how risks were assessed, escalated and handled before and during events | Public records, terms per publisher |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast. The map on this page shows Asia; the model itself is not tied to a place.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Governance Nexus 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cabinets and centres of government | Which body leads on each critical risk, and how cross-sector risks are coordinated and funded | Risk ownership maps, OECD Recommendation benchmarks, comparative coordination arrangements |
| Legislatures and their committees | Whether risk mandates, reporting duties and budgets are adequate, and how the executive answers for them | Audit findings, published national risk assessments, post-event reviews |
| Boards and risk committees | What risk appetite to set, and when a risk must be escalated, accepted or treated | Appetite statements, escalation paths, cases of comparable failures |
| Supreme audit institutions | Which risk management arrangements to audit and what to recommend | Recommendation follow-up records, gaps in risk ownership, prior audit coverage |
Outputs this topic produces
- Risk ownership maps that show which body owns each risk and each interdependency
- Case studies of warnings that did and did not become decisions
- Guidance on stating risk appetite and tolerance for public bodies
- Comparative notes on national risk assessment and coordination arrangements
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction. The map on this page shows Asia; the model itself is not tied to a place.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Governance Nexus in Foundry
- Tested at Governance Nexus in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Governance Nexus in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
The questions experts ask.
- Who frames the problem, and whose concerns are included or excluded?
- How is acceptable risk decided, and by whom?
- How are scientific uncertainty and value disagreement handled differently?
- How are precaution and innovation balanced?
- How does the institution learn from near misses and failures?
Exercise a cascade in risk governance with the people who decide.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Political and governance risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-H112Hazard family: Governance and institutional failure (NHS-1 soc.governance)NRS-U9Universe platform profile: Financial Regulation NexusNRS-H59Hazard family: Economic shocks and governance failure (NHS-1 soc.economic)NRS-H118Hazard family: Organised crime and illicit economies (NHS-1 soc.crime)NRS-A5Built-in licensing and rightsNRS-U24Universe platform profile: Policy Nexus
Observation
- Worldwide Governance Indicators (listed for reference)
- V-Dem dataset (listed for reference)
- Global SDG Indicators Database (listed for reference)
- Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
- Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive
- Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework
From assessment to accountable choice.
Risk governance frameworks separate several functions: pre-assessment and framing, scientific assessment, evaluation of acceptability, management and communication. Separating assessment from decision protects the integrity of evidence while keeping value choices with accountable decision-makers. Problems arise when assessment is shaped to support a preferred decision, or when decision-makers hide behind experts for choices that are really about values.
Risks differ in character. Simple risks with clear cause and effect can be managed through routine procedures. Complex risks with many interacting causes need integrated expertise. Uncertain risks, where knowledge is limited, call for precaution and resilience. Ambiguous risks, where people disagree about what matters, need broad deliberation. Applying the wrong process, such as treating an ambiguous risk as a technical one, is a common cause of controversy and failure.
Learning is part of governance. Institutions that record near misses, investigate failures without blame and revise their practices show better long-run performance than those that treat incidents as individual errors.
Communication runs through every stage. How a risk is described, and by whom, shapes public responses and trust, and communication that hides uncertainty or disagreement tends to backfire when events contradict it.
Why now: systemic risk has moved from reports to operating decisions, and frameworks such as the IRGC risk governance framework are being applied to compound events. Governance Nexus compares how institutions assign risk ownership and tests decision rights in Universe exercises.
How risk governance is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on risk governance, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
Methods and their limits.
Structured choice
Decision analysis makes objectives, options and trade-offs explicit; it cannot settle value conflicts on its own.
Participatory processes
Structured engagement with affected groups; quality depends on design and power balance.
After-action and inquiry
Learning from events; findings depend on independence and candour.
Limits: frameworks describe good process, but institutions operate under political and resource pressures that frameworks cannot remove. Evidence that a process was followed is not evidence that the decision was right.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Decision analysis under uncertaintyRisk appetite and tolerance setting · Multi-criteria appraisal of institutional optionsApplied here
- 02Policy, institutional and decision scienceInstitutional role mapping · Comparative governance case studiesApplied here
- 03Systems engineeringDecision-rights and interface mapping · Assurance and control designApplied here
Questions and answers.
How is risk governance different from risk management?
What does the IRGC framework add to ISO 31000?
Why are systemic risks hard to govern?
Can a governance index measure risk governance?
Is risk governance the same as risk management?
Does the platform set acceptable risk levels?
How does precaution fit?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
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.
Legal documents.
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.