The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Institutional dialogues in policy Nexus: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
Policy Nexus dialogues are structured conversations in which those who govern policy, governance and institutions, and 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.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Africa; 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
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.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Africa; 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.
Policy dialogues on this platform take one policy problem and lay out the realistic options with their evidence, costs, distributional effects and implementation demands. Participants are officials who will advise on the choice, implementers who will carry it out and people who will live with it. The dialogue stops before choosing.
| Format | Use |
|---|---|
| Options dialogue | Several options compared against agreed criteria |
| Regulatory impact review | A draft rule examined using impact assessment practice |
| Implementation clinic | Implementers identify what will break when a policy meets practice |
Evidence comes from GCRI; fiscal implications can be read with GRA's public finance platform.
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.