GRF
Institutional dialogues
At The Global Risks Forum (GRF), institutions that share a risk work through one stated question and leave with a record: what they agreed, who committed to what, where they still disagree. Heat, drought, grid stress, cyber incidents and supply disruption now arrive together. Too many arrangements are still settled mid-emergency. GRF builds the shared picture first. See the methods and the outcome records.
01Workspace
The workspace for institutional dialogues.
GRF · GRF · Deliberation deskIllustrative
Deliberation desk
Council of members · Round 3 of 5 · Example interface, not a record
Options under deliberationGRF · GRF
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 desk. Deliberation desk: example names and illustrative values, not a record.
02Why dialogue now
Shared risks need a place where mandates meet before a crisis does.
A drought that empties a reservoir reaches water utilities, power generators, farmers, health services and several ministries at once. None can resolve it alone. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) asks for all-of-society risk governance. The political declaration on its midterm review (UN General Assembly, 2023) found progress too slow on systemic and cascading risk. The Pact for the Future (2024) committed states to prepare for complex shocks. A dialogue turns those commitments into one question named institutions can answer together.
Question first
A stated question
Every dialogue is designed around a question participants can answer, such as who calls a drought emergency across two utilities, not a theme for speeches.
Right participants
Those who share the risk
Invitations follow the dependency: who holds authority, who operates the system, who is affected and who holds the evidence.
Record last
A checked record
Agreements, commitments and dissent are recorded, checked by participants and, where they consent, published.
03Formats
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 | Public servants 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 |
04Process
How the process runs.
Process
Institutional dialogues: Source to evidence record
A source is registered and assessed, its record labelled and classified, and a Digital Evidence Passport carries provenance; a correction reaches every dependent record.
01 Intake
- 01Identify the sourceSource · The source stewardDiscovery is not ingestion. Source identification records the source class, steward, institutional role and jurisdiction.
- 03Register the sourceStepRegistration makes a discovered source a governed participant in the evidence lifecycle. It implies no endorsement or certification.
02 Assessment
- 04Jurisdiction and rights classificationGateRights classification identifies licence, consent, confidentiality and reuse limits. The result determines access and routing.
- 05Evidence quality assessmentStepQuality assessment decides whether a record is fit for a defined use. Quality is multidimensional and never a single score.
- 06Evidence labelStepEvery finding carries one of nine evidence labels. Missing data is shown as missing, never as zero.
03 Record
- 07Evidence classificationRecordClassification gives records lifecycle states, such as source-verified, public-safe or restricted. States can coexist and set evidence use.
- 08Source release and identifierRecord · NXS-GRX (canonical data, provenance and risk)A source release records rights, temporal coverage and source lineage. A UNI is allocated through a catalogue and never typed by hand.
- 09Digital Evidence PassportRecordThe passport records provenance, quality, rights, jurisdiction, permitted use and history, so evidence keeps its context when it travels.
04 Use and correction
- 02Correction reaches dependent recordsStep · NXS-GRX (canonical data, provenance and risk)A source correction propagates to dependent cuts and products without rewriting old results.
- 10Public-safe reviewGatePublic-safe review decides whether a record can be shared publicly. It is a distinct stage and is not validation.
Data protocols: evidence lifecycle · Data protocols: core data objects and evidence records · The Global Risks Index (NXS-GRX)Designed 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. The data-protocol pages describe a design, not a running system.
05From question to record
How the three institutions meet in one dialogue.
A dialogue question usually arrives with an evidence need. GRF sets the question and participants; the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) prepares an evidence brief with labelled sources; the Global Risks Alliance (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.
06Forms
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.
07Where records go
From a dialogue record to the annual programme and the reports.
- 01
Dialogue record
Checked by participants and released with their consent, with dissent kept and restricted parts withheld.
- 02
Exercise proposal
Where a gap needs testing, participants can propose it as a mission for the annual Universe programme, admitted only at gate G1 against published criteria.
- 03
Reports
Consented findings can inform the Reports programme, for example the Universe Annual Synthesis, under its editorial review and with the record cited.
- 04
Nexus Standards
Where a dialogue shows institutions lack a common record format or method, the gap can be filed as a change proposal under the Nexus Standards development process. Its own council decides.
Each step is a separate record owned by its own body. GRF does not decide report findings or standards. See GRF and Reports and the Nexus Standards development process.
08Take part
What you can do today.
Information and enquiries are open today. Propose a dialogue question to the registration form: the question, the institutions that share the risk and why it matters now. The acknowledgement gives a reference and names the next step. A proposal is not a scheduled dialogue. Hosts read Host a programme dialogue. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) describes the evidence behind dialogues on GCRI policy research.
- A dialogue 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 confers no authority over the agenda, the participants or the record.
09Sources
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.
10Pages
Pages in Institutional dialogues.
11Questions
Questions and answers.
Can my institution propose a dialogue question?
Yes. Write to the registration form with the question, the institutions that share the risk and why it matters now. The acknowledgement gives a reference and names the next step. A proposal is not a scheduled dialogue.
Are dialogue records public?
Records are designed to be published where participants agree. Parts that contain restricted information or protected community knowledge are withheld, and the record says that something was withheld.
Does GRF speak for participants after a dialogue?
No. GRF publishes what was recorded. It does not represent any participant, and each institution remains responsible for its own positions and decisions.
Is a dialogue the same as an exercise?
No. A dialogue clarifies roles and questions through discussion. An exercise tests an arrangement against a scenario under controlled conditions, as described on Exercises and learning. Neither is incident command or a warning.
How are dialogues different from events?
A dialogue is defined by its question and its record. Some dialogues take place at events, but an event listing alone is not a dialogue outcome. Scheduled activities appear on the events calendar only when they are on record.
The Global Risks Forum
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
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.