Governments around the world have not adequately developed policies that reduce global catastrophic risk (GCR). The concrete actions required would ensure that the government can better understand, prevent and prepare for GCR. To the extent that governments are attempting to reduce GCR, their efforts are focused on specific threats, such as asteroid detection or pandemic preparedness.
As a result, governments do not look to reduce GCR with a strategic or holistic policy approach. Comprehensive global catastrophic risk reduction is not a priority, and there are no mechanisms to oversee, develop and implement GCR policy. Indeed, for most countries, national-level risk is not prioritized or managed in a strategic or holistic manner. The basic foundation for risk management – risk governance – is missing.
Risk governance is a standard part of any risk management program. The UN Office of Disaster Risk Reduction defines risk governance as “the system of institutions, mechanisms, policy and legal frameworks and other arrangements to guide, coordinate and oversee disaster risk reduction and related areas of policy.” The US Department of Homeland Security defines it as “Actors, rules, practices, processes, and mechanisms concerned with how risk is analyzed, managed, and communicated”.
In short, risk governance encompasses the organizational functions of government that guide, coordinate and oversee risk reduction efforts. It ensures that risk management across government is appropriately organized, structured, managed, resourced and delivered. It ensures that risk management is not just a siloed activity but a strategic and coordinated effort that supports the government’s objectives
Governments should consider global catastrophic risk (GCR) as a priority. Policymakers should be incentivized to focus on the future or uncertain outcomes, including potential global crises and catastrophes. Political and public officials should have the adequate skills to deliver highly capable and effective policy implementation for GCR. Government officials should have the right guidance, frameworks, tools, capabilities and resources to manage national risk.
National governments often struggle with governing risk of national significance, which extends to poor governance of global catastrophic risk, due to a number of factors. There is little political accountability for the future, especially for risk. Political systems, and the government establishment that supports it, respond poorly to evolving, emerging or chronic risk and challenges. Ownership of risk across government is often either lacking or unclear. Many countries, governments and government agencies lack a risk culture. And governments generally do not consider how legislation, policies, regulations and government practices might cause unintended consequences on national risk, including GCR.
Governments must establish risk governance to ensure that risk reduction, including prevention and preparedness, are maximally effective.
Governments must establish risk governance to ensure that risk reduction, including prevention and preparedness, are maximally effective.
Simple option: Include consideration of global catastrophic risk within key strategic guidance or documents, such as national security and defense strategies.
Advanced option: Develop legislation or a proclamation from the head of government that specifically outlines GCR as a government priority and tasks government agencies to consider GCR in their policymaking.
Simple option: Develop an overarching national risk framework and synthesize strategic policy documents (such as for security, defense, intelligence, health, the economy and foreign policy) within this framework, along with a plan to update the underpinning strategies in a coordinated manner.
Advanced option: Develop an all-hazard national risk and resilience strategy, with a view to outlining the objectives for national risk reduction and whole-of-government direction for treating national risk, including GCR.
Case study 1: National risk and resilience strategy
National governments employ various strategic documents to guide policy, set priorities and allocate resources to advance or protect national interests. For threats to the nation, governments typically develop documents such as national security strategies.
However, a national security strategy remains an awkward guiding policy when the threat or hazard comes from outside the traditional security domain. Policy-makers are increasingly recognizing that threats to national well-being and security can come from many non-traditional security sources, such as climate change, disease outbreaks, space weather, economic instability and demographic shifts. For example, the US National Security Strategy of 2022 has sections on climate and energy security, pandemics and biodefense, and food insecurity.
Developed by security, defense and intelligence agencies, these strategies suffer from a lack of expertise in areas like public health, the environment or economics. It therefore might undervalue or ignore the risk from those global threats. Security frameworks might also be biased towards certain actions, such as surveillance or use of force, that are illegal, inappropriate or counterproductive for addressing non-security threats.
A “national risk and resilience strategy” would consider all potential threats and hazards to national interest. Although no country has developed such a strategy, the UK’s Integrated Review considered foreign policy, security, defense and development in a holistic manner. Published in March 2021, and refreshed in March 2023, it took a more holistic view to the UK's role in the world. It also committed the UK Government to a new National Resilience Strategy and National Resilience Framework, which aims to set out “the plan to 2030 to strengthen the frameworks, systems and capabilities which underpin the UK’s resilience to all civil contingencies risks.” Laudably, it sets out that, by 2030, “there will be clear ownership of all risks, including complex and catastrophic risks, underpinned by sharpened governance and accountability.”
Simple option: Develop and implement an agency-level risk management process that covers risks to policy and programmatic delivery within the portfolio.
Advanced option: Develop a whole-of-government risk management framework.
Simple option: Appoint a senior official as ‘National Chief Risk Officer’, supported by an organization that is responsible for conducting the national risk assessment process, commissioning and conducting analysis and early warning, overseeing that risk preparedness and resilience, and coordinating responses across government for national emergencies.
Advanced option: Appoint a Cabinet-level ‘National Chief Risk Officer’, who, in addition to the above, develops strategies to reduce and manage risk, coordinates responses across government when crises emerge, engages with civil society and industry, and leads a detailed risk review for major policy decisions.
Case study 2: National chief risk officer
Proposals to appoint a country risk officer role were made by multilateral financial institutions following the global financial crisis. The concept was based on Chief Risk Officer roles and Audit and Risk Management Committees in banking and financial services companies.
The World Economic Forum first introduced the idea of a country risk officer in its Global Risks 2007 report and delved deeper into the concept in its 2008 report. The OECD also discussed this concept in their Symposium on Managing Risk in the Public Sector. The World Bank, in its World Development Report 2014, suggested that every country establish a national risk board to analyze threats, assess risk management policies, define risk management priorities and make policy recommendations.
To date, it is not clear if any countries have implemented these proposals. However, establishing dedicated roles and structures for coordinating national risk efforts has garnered support in the UK. A 2021 House of Lords report titled "Preparing for Extreme Risks" advocated creating an Office for Preparedness and Resilience led by a Government Chief Risk Officer. This report also emphasized the need for enhanced parliamentary oversight, ministerial governance and specialized risk structures. The UK Government pushed back on this proposal because of the creation of a head of resilience role established in the Cabinet Office.
Simple option: Establish an independent oversight function for national risk efforts across government that functions in an advisory capacity, reviewing and assessing government policy on the degree to which it exacerbates or reduces national and global risk.
Advanced option: Establish an independent auditory body, which provides impartial evaluations of government policy towards national risk, provides regular reporting to the legislature to ensure transparency in how the government is addressing national risk, and conducts continuous monitoring and evaluation of risk management policies and practices to identify gaps and areas for improvement.
Case study 3: Government oversight functions
A range of independent and impartial functions can hold government actions to account. These functions play an important role in ensuring accountability, transparency and efficiency in public sector operations. They can be standing institutions or ad-hoc arrangements, as well as sit within the legislative branch or executive branch.
Supreme audit functions are typically independent functions established by constitutional or legislative authority outside normal government operations. For example, the US’s Government Accountability Office is an independent agency that works for Congress to audit federal spending and advise on how to improve government effectiveness and efficiency. National audit offices, such as in the UK, Canada and Australia, are tasked with auditing and evaluating government functions, and providing recommendations to enhance transparency and accountability.
On a more targeted or ad-hoc basis, commissions and investigations can be established, such as Congressional Commissions in the US and Royal Commissions in the Westminster systems. Commissions are typically established in response to specific circumstances, particularly when an in-depth, independent investigation is required, perhaps due to national crisis, government mismanagement or a call for reform for long-term systemic challenges.
In some instances, a specific individual is appointed to carry out investigations and maintain internal accountability. Inspectors General, for example, can serve as an internal control mechanism to help ensure that large or complex agencies operate with integrity and efficiency.
An independent oversight function for policy on national and global risk is required because governments are not inherently focused on long-term, complex or uncertain risk. Similar to the audit and risk committees of corporate boards, this function would serve as the last line of defense for global catastrophic risk, which is the most ignored or dismissed aspect of national risk. A somewhat analogous institution is the UK’s Climate Change Authority, which provides specialized oversight and recommendations to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Simple option: Create interagency policy coordination committees to lead the development, coordination and implementation of whole-of-government policy for each of the key emerging and catastrophic threats, such as nuclear risk, climate risk, pandemic risk or technological risk.
Advanced option: Establish a Catastrophic Risk subcommittee of Cabinet or National Security Committee, with the head or deputy head of government as chair of the committee, to direct government actions on all-hazards risk policy.
Simple option: Require that new policies receive a “Risk Impact Assessment”, which would evaluate the impact of major policy decisions on the likelihood or consequence of national and global risk, potentially conducted by the Chief Risk Officer.
Advanced option: Legislate the need for a “Risk Impact Assessment” for all new legislation, potentially conducted by the independent risk oversight function.
Case study 4: Impact assessments
Governments around the world conduct impact assessment of policy decisions on various issues. With varying levels of enforcement, scope, detail and process, government agencies are tasked with evaluating the impact of new policy or actions on other government priorities, including social issues, health outcomes and gender equality.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most common and well-established type. EIAs are tools that most countries require, especially in regards to the impact of a physical development like infrastructure. Strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) require that the impacts of adopting a government program or policy on the environment is assessed. Almost all countries have legislated some form of EIA, and at least 40 countries have SEA systems in place, including all European Union members. These forms of assessment have varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on the application of the process and the mechanism for it to shape policy decisions.
A “Risk Impact Assessment” in the vein of the EIA or SEA would be a powerful tool to evaluate how new legislation, policy or government programs would contribute to national or global risk, including global catastrophic risk. The assessment would provide policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of how new policies might directly or indirectly influence risk to the nation, and provide a mechanism for the public to hold the government to account on its impact on global risk.
Legislating or mandating both the delivery of the assessment and the consideration of the assessment on policy will be critical to success. Otherwise, these types of assessments are likely to become ignored and poorly delivered.
Simple option: Establish a fund which disburses a predetermined amount to risk reduction proposals put forward by federal agencies or state and local governments.
Advanced option: Dedicate a portion of each year’s national budget to policies that reduce national and global risk, with specific percentages earmarked for risk prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts, and for global catastrophic risk in general.
Simple option: Conduct a long-term fiscal analysis that considers a range of shocks, crises and catastrophes.
Advanced option: Use “Risk-Based Budgeting” for integrating risk considerations in the government budget cycle to inform budget planning, contingency funding, and infrastructure and investment decisions.
Case study 5: Disaster risk-based budgeting
Disaster risk-based budgeting (DRRB) is an emerging practice to incorporate disaster risk considerations during various stages of government budgeting processes. In general, governments have poor processes for managing the financial aspect of disaster response, let alone considering disasters across the budget cycle. For example, disasters should be considered when preparing budgets to identify and quantify costs, inform management of public assets, and forecast shocks to revenue. In managing budgets and government finances, mechanisms are needed to allocate, track and audit expenditure and disbursements.
The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 created the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (NDRRMF). It is funded annually under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for the prevention, preparedness, recovery and reconstruction efforts of disasters, both natural or human-induced.
This concept could be broadened to apply to nationally significant risk, including global catastrophic risk. By integrating risk into government budgets, governments can better manage the economic and fiscal impacts of risk, ensure more efficient and transparent use of resources during and after disasters and crises, and incentivize government agencies and other actors to reduce risk. A more holistic approach to budgeting risk would better capture all the types of global crises that might severely impact national finances or require government support, including pandemics, supply chain breakdowns and conflict.
Simple option: Create a ‘risk management in public policy’ course (covering broad risk management frameworks and approaches) which is delivered as mandatory training to all incoming civil servants.
Advanced option: Create a “national risk college” that builds the knowledge of government officials at all levels on risk management and facilitates sharing of experiences, lessons learned and best practices across government.
Advanced option: Develop a regulatory sandbox – to test and deploy solutions and technologies under relaxed regulatory oversight – for innovative risk management solutions provided from civil society, startups and innovators, and state and local governments.
Advanced option: Establish a risk management incubator that serves as a focal point for driving innovation, research and solutions related to national risk, including GCR.
Global Shield is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, fiscally sponsored by Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE). Our organization’s growth and international outreach will depend on continued support from donors, and we appreciate any support you can provide.
Privacy Policy | Branding & Website by Yes Creative | © Global Shield 2024
