 Coming in late, welcome to everyone joining us on the web stream. My name is Adrian Monk from the World Economic Forum, and this is a press conference to launch our Global Risks Report for 2018. I'm joined here with our panellists, my colleague Margareta Drenyuk-Khanous, who is going to be explaining some of the key points of this year's report by two of our partners in producing the report from Marsh and Zurich Insurance Group, John Drizzyk, who's president of Global Risks and Digital at Marsh, Allison Martin, who's the group chief risk officer at Zurich Insurance, and also by my colleague Rick Sammons, who is responsible for taking all of the insights in the Global Risks Report and transferring them into something meaningful at our annual meeting, which is days away. So thanks also to our kind hosts at Bloomberg for having us in their lovely new building. One of the risks that we haven't mentioned in this year's report is spilling coffee, red wine, or anything else on their lovely upholstery. I trust no one is snuck in a cup of tea that they're going to be waving around to ruin the look of this lovely room. I'm going to start by asking Margareta just to take us through some of the key highlights, and because another risk I haven't identified was of me sitting in front of all of the highlights as they come through, I'm going to drag my chair to one side in a good old-fashioned way and let Margareta take you through the report. Here to present the 2018 Global Risks Report, it has been a tradition in the past years. I'm going to take you through some of the main results of this year's Global Risks Report, highlighting high-level findings before we delve into the details, which are going to be presented by the other panelists. And of course it doesn't work. So this year actually focuses on four key topics, and these are important because they've been building up over the past years, but obviously they came up very strongly. First of all, the environment, and I'm going to talk about this a little bit more. Cybersecurity, which has been building up also in the past year, we had a number of cyberattacks and it's been gaining in prominence. Economics, where we see an interesting story because the risks are reduced. This year we see less of a probability likelihood and less of a potential impact of economic risk at the same time that trends speak against this assessment. And then also geopolitics, which has been obviously of everybody's mind over the past years. I think what's challenging about this year's Risks Report and the situation we are currently in is that there are a number of factors that make it very hard to act about these risks and that make actually those risks significantly stronger than we saw it in the previous years. And I think what's coming together is that the pace of change has been accelerating and also that the interconnections between those risks have been accelerating. This is something we've seen over the past years. At the same time, many of those risks are increasingly systemic in nature and this is also not new, but I think as we advance and as this process continues we're increasingly reaching tipping points across a number of systems that could really bring the systems to a brink and that could have potentially systemic and catastrophic consequences for humanity and for the economy as a whole. So examples of this cyber attacks, for example, last year, have spread across not just impacted the corporate sector but also spread into the governments have affected infrastructure as well which is novelty in terms of the long-term development in this space but also it spills over into the geopolitical sphere and into affecting economies and societies in an entirely different way. We see at the same time, and I'm sure you're aware of this news, the global economy has been picking up. This could lead to complacency about many of those risks. At the same time, this is a great opportunity to act on many of those risks because there's a cushion, there's a window of opportunity that leaders can, and you cannot see this here, of course, because I'm sitting in front of it, but that leaders can take advantage of this current upswing in order to address many of those risks investing into different systems in terms of environmental addressing the environmental challenges addressing some of the economic challenges. This is a global risks map, and if you've been here in the past years, you know we've been publishing this for a number of years. It shows impact and likelihood of the 30 risks that we assess. This year, what's striking is that actually the environmental risk, all of them are in the top upper right quadrant, so they're considered as highly likely and potentially very impactful, and this is the new finding this year. They were moving up into the direction of the past years, but in particular in terms of extreme weather events, natural disasters, fail-off climate change, mitigation, adaptation, so a lot of the climate change-related risks are really up there in the upper right quadrant, considered highly impactful and highly likely, but also biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, and here in particular, we've seen the numbers and the underlying data is really scary and is very concerning. We see over the past 27 years, only in Germany, 75% loss of insect populations that are really important for the systemic nature of biodiversity of the ecosystems. We also see increased environmental disasters, increased concern about environmental disasters at the same time. In terms of climate change, mitigation, adaptation, 2017 again, one of the three hottest years on record, the temperature continues to rise, and we do not have solutions in place in order to address those that are becoming increasingly clear. The second set of risks that we look at, the economic risks, and actually when we look at the map, the economic risks, they're losing slightly in importance in terms of impact and likelihood, however the data tells us a different story, so this may be influenced to some extent by the fact that the economy has been picking up, and we just tend to see the positive side of the picture and the negative side, but we also see that there's a lot of debt that's been building up, especially in Asia and China, but also across the G20 economies, since 2007 it actually doubled in terms of the debt, and already in 2007 we were worried about the debt. We see that inequality is still a persistent issue, 53% of the countries, according to the IMF, have increased inequality over the past 30 years, so it's an issue that, and actually in our own inclusive development index that we'll be launching next week, we see that the countries have not advanced in terms of addressing inequalities, despite progress on economic growth. Then last but not least, there is one particular set of risks that is depicted by this dot that is really important. Cyber attacks are moving up very strongly, certainly also the result influenced by the events of the past year. We had Petia, not Petia, want to cry, that have affected the corporate sector, but it also spilled over into infrastructure, into government operations as well, and that affecting society and the economy in entirely new ways and in much more broader ways. When we move to the next slide, and this is the interconnection map that we see here, and by the way, this data is based on a survey that we run every year approximately August to September of our communities, about 1,000 respondents across the World Economic Forum communities. So we see here that the concerns really persist, and this is very clear out of this interconnection map, about whether the economic model really contributes to society. The interconnection between unemployment and unemployment and profound social instability has been very strong for the past years. It's been one of our key messages in the past years. And this year, what's particularly interesting is that it's augmented by this, you know, triangulated together with adverse consequences of technological advances. So the respondents clearly see this connection between unemployment and under-appliance and adverse consequences between technological advances, and it could amplify the societal issues that we are already facing today as a result of an economic model that just did not contribute right now to the rise of living standards, and that has been perpetuating inequality and has been not translating into wage growth over the past years. And then last but not least, we also asked the respondents this year about what are their risk trajectories, what do they foresee as a risk trajectory in 2018, and actually here, the results are very striking. First of all, 59% of the respondents think that we'll have higher risk in general or a more dangerous risk landscape in 2018 than in previous years. So they see 2018 really as a year where risk is increasing. But at the same time, and we asked them across a range of risks, the ones that came on top were really related to geopolitical developments. So political economic confrontations, state-on-state military conflict, regional conflict drawing in major powers. These are the top three, and really the top one. So political economic confrontations, 93% of the respondents thinks that they will increase or significantly increase, somewhat increase or significantly increase. You can see this unfortunately here in the coming year. So there's significant concern that persists about the geopolitical risk for the coming year. Thank you. Mark Retta, thank you, and I'm going to shuffle myself neatly back. You won't even notice I'm so good at it. You saw cyber attack up there as one of the risks that's made it into the upper quadrant. I'm going to ask John to just take us through a little bit of a deeper dive on what some of that means and what the consequences of it are. John. Thanks, Adrienne, and good morning, everyone. As Mark Retta said, as we entered 2018, there's a positive outlook for the global economy and we see global growth forecast is up. Stronger business confidence. However, this is no time for complacency. I think as you've seen with the risk outline that Mark Retta presented, this is a very positive operating and investment environment for businesses and a wide array of risks that they're facing in the coming year that could create shocks to their businesses. So premium on resilience in the strategy. And before I turn to cyber and focus on that, just one statistic which I think summarizes the accelerating change in the environment is the length of time companies spend in the S&P 500. If you look at that lifespan stat, in the 1950s, companies spent about 60 years on average in the S&P 500. As of now, it's about 12 years. I think if you look at the forward environment, both the opportunity side and the risk side suggest that will continue to shorten and there's certainly going to be pressure to remain at the top of the league tables. So with that in mind, let me turn and focus on cyber risk which I think is an area where I think some of the threads in the global risk environment come together. And also cyber was very prominent in this year's global risk report surveys. It was the number one risk across the business leadership that responded to our executive survey in advanced economies. It was also noted as the risk most likely to get worse in 2018, to intensify in 2018 in the overall global risk perception survey. So why is cyber coming into focus? Obviously there's been a lot of attacks in 2017 with WannaCry, Petia, not Petia, but looking forward, the scale and sophistication of attacks is going to grow and fueled in part by some of the geopolitical trends that Margarita highlighted which could lead to more state-sponsored attacks to add to the financially motivated attacks that are already out there. At the same time as this increasing suite of attackers, you have cyber risk growing or cyber exposure growing in companies. Think about the proliferation of interconnected devices. There's currently today 8.4 billion of those out there, so already greater than the global population of 7.6 billion, and projected to grow to 20 billion in 2020. So that just widens the attack surface for companies to potential attacks. The use of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies is also leading to greater cyber exposure for companies. So I think, looking forward, both business and government need to think about increasing investment in cyber risk management. So even as this risk has become more visible, I think we're still under-resourced in the amount of effort being put into trying to mitigate this risk. And just as a point of comparison, I thought I'd compare the scale of cyber risk to something that perhaps is more familiar in terms of its numbers, which is the damages from extreme weather events or natural catastrophes. And so to compare the degree of economic cost, the estimates now are that if the attacker took down a major cloud provider, the damages could be 50 to 120 billion. So something in the range of a Sandy event to a Katrina event. The aggregate cost of cyber is now estimated in a number of sources at more than a trillion dollars per year of economic cost, versus the roughly 300 billion experienced in 2017 from losses to natural catastrophes, and that was a record year. So you think about the comparative scale. Cyber is at or above the scale of natural catastrophes, and yet the comparative infrastructure against it I think is much smaller in scale. Think about the government agencies as well as voluntary organizations that focus on response to natural disasters versus national cyber agencies are much less resourced. They have some capacity, but not enough to deal with what is a significantly growing risk. Also, international protocols have yet to really emerge in dealing with cyber risk, so it's going to be needed as well. And in the geopolitical climate wherein it's harder to get to multilateral agreements. So all of this, I think, paints a challenging picture for the defense against cyber risk. From a business standpoint, there also I think needs to be more focused on response in addition to prevention. Again, comparing to natural catastrophes, most businesses that live in or that are based in at-cat-prone zones have very extensive business continuity plans to respond to that type of emergency. Only about one-third of companies have a cyber incident response plan to respond to a major attack. So again, by comparison, we're under resourced against cyber, and I think the growing potential gap between the economic losses that could be occurred and the insured losses, the detection gap in the context of natural catastrophes, again, was very big in 2017, could be even bigger for cyber. So it's a cyber risk I wanted to draw attention to in this specifics, but again, coming back to my opening comment, I think this is an environment in general where businesses could face a wide number of shocks, cyber, and beyond cyber. And as Margaret pointed out, the economic risk in this environment is not decreasing. We have debt-equity ratios in the corporate sphere that are double what they were in 2010, so businesses are more vulnerable to these types of shocks, cyber, and otherwise, and it presents a very challenging environment, so plans need to go after the growth opportunity present in the global growth outlook, but at the same time look to build resilience. John, thanks very much. Alice, I'm going to turn to you. I think everyone noticed that all of the risks in the top half are almost all environmental, and you're going to tell us a bit more about those. Thanks, Adrian. I'm an optimist by nature, and I do still find things to be optimistic about. We live in an unprecedented era of technological, scientific, and financial resources. We see great innovations, gene-editing techniques, possible cure blindness, be a radical solution to the terrifying prospect of antimicrobial resistance. Yet, the risks to the world as you've seen are increasing, they're not reducing. They're systemic in nature, and they require collective will. This comes at a time of rising nationalism, populism, and protectionism, and a decline, and a retreat from the kind of rules-based multilateralism that will be so important. I fear that we may squander the opportunity we have to build a more inclusive, sustainable future. And as a leader in business, as a member of our society, and as a parent, I do worry about what future we're shaping for the generations to come. We can make a difference, but we need to act. An area of particular concern is the environment, and you've seen all five environmental risks have grown in prominence over the 13-year history of the Global Risks Report. This is a particular focus and concern. These are rising temperatures and extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity, pollution of our air, land, and sea, adaptation or failure to adapt to climate change and its mitigation, and then the transition risks that will come with that mitigation. It's not surprising that extreme weather events rank as the number one risk on likelihood and impact. We've seen intense months on record for natural catastrophes, and as John said, we've seen more than $300 billion of economic losses in the North Atlantic hurricane season. It wasn't just the US and Caribbean islands saw their worst storm in more than 50 years last year. Extreme temperatures have also reached new record highs. So in fact, last year was the hottest El Nino year on record, and now the second hottest year as a consequence we saw lots of wildfires last year in many countries. So US, Chile, Portugal, a lot of economic costs, but sadly also more than 100 deaths in Portugal alone. It's important to note rising temperatures are a risk for our agricultural systems. We see now that there's a 5% probability in any decade that we could have a catastrophic simultaneous failure of the US and China's maize production, which together account for more than 60% of global supply. Over the last decades we've seen a drastic loss in biodiversity caused by human destruction of habitat, raising fears of an ecological Armageddon. And if we look at pollution, indoor and outdoor pollution now accounts for 1 in 10 deaths globally. More than 90% of the world's population live in conditions and pollution levels that exceed the World Health Organization's recommendations. And as we move to more mega cities this trend will only increase. The emissions of CO2 unfortunately last year increased for the first time in four years and rising temperatures combined with extreme drought led to a switch from hydro to fossil fuel power generation again. Our oceans are getting warmer and their inability to absorb this additional CO2 we should all be concerned about. Now despite this admittedly gloomy picture there are still some rays of light. We see the most investment into renewable energy. Recent reports suggest that it's possible that within just two years renewable energy supplies could cost less than fossil fuel equivalents. But we are going to need to manage the risks as we transition to a low carbon renewable energy society. This will cause significant economic geopolitical and societal risk. But these are risks we must take action on. Another risk that we need to be very aware of and manage is that relating to new technologies. As Margarita mentioned we see significant concerns around growing inequalities as a result of advances in new technologies and high structural under or unemployment. Technology doesn't have to be for bad. We see plenty of examples in history where technology has been a great evolution. We see examples of drone technology where perhaps this could be used in agriculture, conservation biodiversity management yet there is also the risk that short term incentives may lead to it being used for significant harm. For example, uncontrolled use of AI piloted drones in global fishing. The key to the beneficial development of artificial intelligence will be the development of global governance norms and institutions to manage it. Global risks nowadays are so interconnected that they can threaten the very systems on which our societies economies and international relations are based. There is an opportunity in this era of scientific, technological and financial resources to do something about it. If we truly care about our society our future and our business we will think about everything that could impact on it. Effective risk management means taking into account interdependencies taking a truly holistic approach and being very aware of the cognitive biases we have to think and how we act. Unfortunately, we currently observe a too little too late response to climate change and our own research suggests that the probability of hitting the Paris Agreement target is less than the probability of meeting it. But we can still meet it. It will take urgent action on policy and significant technology developments and most importantly a change in our sentiment and our behavior. Over the coming decades as we transition to a new climate change environment how we navigate that transformation is going to mean we need to do whatever is possible to support transition to renewable energy leverage our knowledge about the risks involved and to help society mitigate and adapt to climate change. It's not too late to build a more resilient tomorrow but we need to take action much more urgently. Thank you. Alison, thanks very much. Rick, we are a week away from what some people have said is a schmooze fest in the Alps but actually you're in charge of kind of ensuring that some of the stuff in this report gets turned into sessions, actions, initiatives. Can you just explain a little bit more about how this report feeds into the work that the World Economic Forum does? Sure. Good morning everybody. And thanks very much to our two partners for helping us drive the intellectual framework as well as the data behind this important overview of where the world stands in respect of a number of the important flashing lights on people's radar screens. Just a word or two about some of the economic aspects of this and then to the point that Adrian has prompted which is what's going to happen next week with respect to action on some of these problems. One good thing I've just put a finer point on is the positive evolution overall of the world economy. The IMF World Economic Outlook which came out recently has targeted projected about 3.7 percent annual growth rate for the year which is up from 30 percent growth in 2016. You can underestimate the significance of a half a point worldwide of GDP growth for creating a greater space for exactly the kind of action and investment institutions and cooperation that my colleagues have just articulated here with respect to cyber environment and other issues. That said there are still serious concerns in societies about whether that growth is translating into broad-based progress and living standards has been indicated by Margarita inequality has been rising in a majority of countries over the last several years despite the fact that we have been on a positive trajectory in terms of growth. But it's not simply that the ILO in its global wage report has identified paradoxically that as growth has been progressing actually a wage and compensation levels have been modestly declining. And we in our own gender gap report which we issue each year found last year for the first time that in fact the gap is widening for the first time since we've been calculating this index. I'd also want to just flag here indebtedness. Global debt to GDP ratio has been actually rising despite the fact that we've been climbing out of the financial crisis. G20 non-financial sector debt increased from 80 trillion in 2007 to 135 trillion in 2016. Corporate debt to equity ratios have almost doubled since 2010. And finally a word on asset prices. There has been of course in the last several weeks a lot of focus on the stratospheric defying increase in Bitcoin asset prices. But whatever the particularities of that particular asset it is a bit emblematic of asset prices more generally and you can see it in the valuation of stock market indices around the world which have increased quite considerably. And so in the US for example the cyclically adjusted price ratio is at its highest level since 1929 and also 2000. So we have some flashing lights even in the economic sector despite the overall positive evolution of the macroeconomic environment. There are now let me turn to the basic issue what's happening on the forums platform what do we expect to see next week in respect of some of these important risks. The forum it's important to understand is an international organization for the express purpose of stimulating and facilitating public-private cooperation and as you look at cyber, you look at environment, you look indeed at inequality none of these major secular risks can we see progress really improve on in the absence of a secular improvement in in fact public-private cooperation and when we talk about public-private cooperation we define private not just as the corporate sector we define private as non-state actors that's to say civil society the scientific community academia as well as indeed the private sector and so next week we are planning for our annual meeting in Davos to be the focal point and the punctuation mark for a wide range of work processes that we facilitate all the way around the year on a number of these dimensions and I'm just going to give you a few examples in each of the primary risk areas that we've highlighted today first on the economy we will next week be launching a two-year global dialogue on the future of economic progress and that is intended as a thought process that is multidisciplinary not just among former economic policy makers or leading macroeconomists we believe that society is telling us that there needs to be some rethinking and restructuring of our economic and growth model in the global risk reports for the last couple of years there has been a specific suggestion that there needs to be some structural improvements and reform of market capitalism to deal with some of the pulling dissatisfaction in society about the failure of growth to diffuse as widely as it should in living standards so we are going to be issuing a call a clarion call across different disciplines for a dialogue and thought leadership in this area and a process that will be co-chaired by Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate and Zhu Min a leading Chinese policy maker who was a deputy managing director of the IMF in addition we will be issuing what I would term an alternative to GDP next week. It is our inclusive development index and this will be a response to what has been identified for many years as the need for policy makers to have a wider dashboard than simply the production of goods and services in the recent period which is what GDP is if the bottom line of the way societies evaluate economic success is where there are median living standards basically people's livelihoods and economic security improve well then GDP is not a sufficient measure of that and we need a wider dashboard and we will be issuing that along with a ranking of countries not by the traditional GDP measure but by this wider metric secondly with respect to cyber risk as John has indicated this is really rapidly emerging as a major headache in board rooms of all sorts of institutions around the world and as he also articulated there has been a weakness in investing in the institutions the capabilities to be able to preempt and get ahead of these risks in response to that the forum next week will be formally getting under way formally launching a new global center for public private cooperation on cyber security and this will be a framework in which there will be a better opportunity for leaders of institutions across the public and private sectors to be able to pool their information and their intelligence and the response capabilities to get ahead of the curve on a number of these cyber risks and this is being done in cooperation with Interpol and there will be a wide number of companies and governments engaged in that measure. We also have issued a cyber tool best practice guidebook if you will for boards of directors of various institutions because this needs to be on the boardroom agenda going forward. Then let me say a word or two about the environment as well. The forum for several years has been seeking quietly but very pragmatically to encourage there to be much better public-private cooperation on some of these solutions. The UN processes including the Paris Climate Accord has been very important in setting goals for the international community. It's very important to have a universal direction of travel identified as necessary, certainly not sufficient and what's going to be needed is a transformation of industrial and energy systems at least with respect to climate and that requires some practical work on changing behaviors and improving incentives and the enabling environment for that. So we have organized as a few examples an alliance of CEO climate leaders which now consists of 74 CEOs of companies in various sectors around the world which has been involved in trying to spot specific areas where the corporate community's engagement could make a meaningful difference. Most recently the sitting here in the city of London I should mention the FSB's recent task force in fact we're sitting in Bloomberg's headquarters here there was an industry task force created by the FSB a chair, Mark Carney chaired by Michael Bloomberg to lay out for the first time a set of a framework essentially for how companies should reflect in their mainstream annual reports their climate related risks as well as performance and we have organized through this alliance 100 CEOs who have indicated they're prepared to take this forward. Also in June of last year at the UN's Historic Ocean Summit we and other stakeholders led the way in organizing a TUNA 2020 traceability declaration involving 50 major companies 20 NGOs and several governments that are committed for this very important fish source of nutrition but also important element of the health of our seas to undertake an effort to ensure that TUNA is traced and so that we can avoid TUNA capture which is illegal unreported or unregulated fishing. Similarly on tropical forest which represent 30% of the climate mitigation that is needed we have a tropical forest alliance which is engaged about 100 different partners of companies, governments and the like who are looking at specific jurisdictions to try to find a holistic solution to removing virgin timber from supply chains of various types of products and also in the last several months we have organized a global battery alliance which is an effort to try to improve the social sustainability take child labor out of the supply chains of some of the precious metals that are required for battery production as well as inject a recycling element so that this critical technology of the fourth industrial revolution is produced in a more sustainable fashion. Finally let me say that the fourth industrial revolution is an area a construct that the forum has attempted to ring the bell on and when we talk about this we are not just talking about marveling at the technologies though they are impressive indeed we essentially have laid out a framework which argues that there are risks that are building up in societies in respect of how fast some of these technologies are developing and how they are being applied in various ways that could change our lives and that are raising different kinds of concerns whether it has to do with privacy whether it has to do with public safety or the like and we have created as of March of last year and there will be announced a series of additional openings around the world a worldwide center for the fourth industrial revolution which is a framework for engaging in a discussion a multi stakeholder discussion about what are the norms the frameworks the expectations for how these technologies should be governed governed in a small g because in many respects you don't need hard regulation what you need is early in the development process of the technology to be applied in a particular business model for there to be an understanding of what the social risks are and therefore what kinds of steps can be taken through standards frameworks best practices or in some cases public policies to help ensure that we hard wire in those risk considerations in the technologies and so that will be another manifestation of the way in which the form is attempting to use its public private cooperation platform to address some of the important risks that colleagues have identified here in this year's global risk report thank you. Thank you very much thanks to all our panelists. I've got time for some questions if I could ask you to pop a hand in the air and also to I know you're all famous tell us your name and your organization that would be super handy we have a microphone perhaps we can go there and then there and then there and then we'll take in any questions as they pop up. Larry Elliott of The Guardian one of the speakers next week at the forum is Donald Trump from the United States what could he say that would help mitigate some of the risks that you've identified today particularly with regard to the environment and geopolitical risk. Can we take Lady down there as well? I think my question has just been asked. Okay Bill. It's just about the plans to reform market capitalism that Mr. Salmons just spoke about if I just wonder if you could broaden out what kind of reforms the WEF would like to address as a matter of priority I mean obviously one of the big issues is which people get exercised about with Dallas is the executive pay and the divisions there's a lot of talk about inequality but there isn't a lot of action you talked about some action groups that you're forming I wondered if there's anything on that aspect of reforming market capitalism that is being addressed. Great. Rick I'll turn to you on Philip's question but also obviously in respect of the present United States the US is 25% of global GDP so there's a whole range of things that the US impacts the world economy and those issues on. Rick I don't know if you want to address Philip's question and also some of the hopes regarding not just President Trump but many of the other people who are participating in the annual meeting. On that point the forum seeks to stimulate and inspire cooperation, international cooperation we think there it's a multi-dimensional issue international cooperation it's not just an intergovernmental or UN approach and I think the US remains an absolutely critical player in a wide range of the areas we're talking about here and proceeds itself as such for example on cyber the US is acutely conscious of this issue and I think what would be constructive of course is to hear from the new United States administration that it is interested it understands that there are serious risks of the ilk that we're discussing today and it sees that there's an important role for international cooperation including with respect to the private sector and that's where it's not just the US government I think it's all stakeholders that the forum is seeking to engage in a deeper level of cooperation to address some of the fractures which we've highlighted as the overarching theme of the annual meeting. With respect to your question on the global risk reports a call over the last few years for some significant reform to market capitalism as I indicated we have been not just trying to stimulate a discussion and break it out of the classic circle of macro-economists and encourage a more interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder thought process we have been trying to stimulate that debate by laying out a new policy framework on inclusive growth and development and in a word this framework which was issued in Davos last year and about which we'll see a new GDP measure laid out next week the anchor of this concept as I alluded to earlier is that we need a bit of a new north star or compass setting which is to understand that growth is a top line measure we're here in a business and financial community growth is critically important but it is if you will in business language a top line matter you need it but it isn't sufficient the bottom line is how societies evaluate the success of their economies which is whether living standards broadly throughout society are progressing robustly and sustainably and we have laid out we've identified 15 different areas of institutional strength and structural policy incentives which we suggest each of which will be a stimulus simultaneously for the level of growth and the extent to which it translates into broader progress and living standards and we've laid out numbers for every country in this area so that countries can compare each other to see how strong their institutions and policy incentives relative to their peers are in each of these areas and then as I say we'll be issuing a broader than GDP metric on countries level of economic development as a function of how inclusive their growth model is and this is one way in addition to some other much more concrete on the ground ways including with respect to supply chain practices around the world where we are seeking to stimulate some action in this area including with respect to the environmental and sustainability fields I mentioned earlier trying to engage the business community to look at its business processes to move away from looking at this as a philanthropic or corporate responsibility issue but to see it more as a business model issue just very briefly to bring Alison and John is there a willingness to engage with that those bigger questions about market capitalism and the report mentions them it has mentioned them in the previous years is the business community ready to take on some of that? So in short yes and I think there's the possibility across multiple areas by trying to bring it back to sustainability we just look at responsible investing and the work that's being done there to encourage the long term investors like the insurers, the pension funds that we use our capital to encourage investment into areas like renewable energy and perhaps if I was going to put an ask to the world leaders who are coming to the world economic forum it would very much be that the current promises the unconditional commitments given in the Paris Agreement will still lead to a 3.2 degree increase by 2100 that is a long way from the 2 degrees or below that we're trying to reach we need to think about what we are going to do so if as business we're very happy to invest in renewable energy we think it makes sense and I think to Rick's point it's so important it makes sense business it doesn't, it's not just it makes sense because it's the right thing to do but actually economically it does as I said earlier reports suggest that renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels in just a couple of years this makes economic sense for us to do I would just underscore a different point that Rick made which is that it would be great to see a constructive multi-stakeholder dialogue on some of these complex issues which require that type of cooperation to solve so whether climate or cyber these are boundary risks and just looking at cyber I mean looking at it from a company perspective I know that you can be affected by the risk through your vendors, through your customers through a lot of different ways so your own security depends on the security of others taking that to a global scale it's really the same issue so I think looking ahead to the forum it would be great to see both the public-private sector cooperation but also multilateral cooperation across different countries to try to address these issues I turn over to a neglected corner of the room sorry gentlemen over there and then some questions down the front sorry, sending you from side to side yeah Bernard from the insurance insider question for John and Alison how much of these risks are insurable especially on the cyber side you mentioned the impact of knocking out one data centre would be the equivalent of a hurricane what can you do as an insurance industry to mitigate against that is that something that we can insure against obviously we've got cyber insurance already but it's quite a small scale compared to what's actually needed what do you guys need to do great question, I'm just going to squeeze in the three folks at the front here as well Ivana Kutosava from CNN a follow up on President Trump the message from Davos that we get every year is more cooperation more confidence in collective security more action on the environment his message in the first year was pretty decisively against all these things so are you expecting him to continue or are you hoping that putting him in that environment where everyone is saying pretty much the same things will change his opinions what would you like him to do on that stage I think you both asked an answer to your own question there just the two gentlemen there as well thank you, Tim Wallace at the telegraph when you coming up with these solutions to reforming capitalism do you think you'll have much weight globally given ordinary voters are rejecting the current model are you going to listen to a group of millionaires getting together in Davos and coming up with answers on their behalf you talked about the risk of populism Labour's current leadership obviously has some very strongly anti-capitalist rhetoric at the moment do you see Labour as a risk and do you hope to persuade John McDonald to change his stance thank you it's interesting that you say a group of millionaires gathering in Davos when you try and have a multi-stakeholder approach which is what you've been hearing from here people like telegraph columnist Jeremy Warner a part of that multi-stakeholder group of people so we very much hope that the voice of some media outlets will be heard amongst that group the idea is that Davos brings together diverse and concerned individuals be they from NGOs be they from trade unions like our co-chair Sharon Burrow Channa Sinhar in India who runs a huge fund that helps women in most deprived areas of India to get a leg up all of those kind of voices are injected into the conversation at Davos so if you look at the actual percentage of NGOs academics and other people it's something like 55-60% of participants in Davos so those are the voices that counterweight some of the business voices and I'm sure as you'll hear from both Alison and John's there are also CEOs and people running big social enterprises so I think all of that will be on our agenda and I'll let the folks here speak a bit more to it on the insurance issue just to bring in both Alison and John how insurable are those big risks that you referred to so let me touch on cyber I think as you point out the cyber insurance market is small in relation to the risk it has been growing it's about 3-3.5 billion dollars of premium today so it covered a few hundred billion dollars of risk and the market has been growing in three different dimensions it primarily was a US data breach market a couple of years back so covering that type of risk I think it's been expanding in terms of the coverage of risk so more what we call first party risk property damage business interruption sort of critical infrastructure can be covered now in the markets limits have been growing individual companies can get up to a billion dollars of cover now in the market and I think it's been growing internationally so we see our fastest growing cyber insurance areas being outside the US now although the US market is still quite robust in growth but you're right to point out that even within the projected growth to be about 10 billion of premium by 2020 it's still relatively small-scale in comparison to the risk and small-scale in comparison to the property insurance market so I think lots of demand is out there I think the insurance companies are starting to respond with capacity but I think there's a long way to go Alison? Maybe I just add to that a bit I think the insurance industry really add value here is in risk assessment if you think what is our business our business is risk we need to understand it so we need to understand where people are exposed we need to be able to get data we need to be able to model it to be able to price it so through doing a risk assessment service that I think is where the insurance industry can actually start to add even more values and just the exposure protection in of itself and just James to your point the changes in market capitalism that Rick talked about are changes that affect not just the UK but almost all advanced and emerging economies and those are things that you see reflected in politics right across the world there's going to be some 340 political governmental leaders in Davos and they're all grappling with a lot of these issues and what we hope is that we've got some of the resources to add to their decision making process Rick do you want to just add a little bit of context here about 60 65% of the participants in the forums annual meeting are from the business community so that means you've got over a thousand about a thousand or so people who are from governments we got 70 heads of government coming this year so you've got we've got about 160 or 70 people under the age of 40 who are leaders in various domains we've got 70 plus heads of civil society organizations that is to say non-governmental organizations labor union heads and indeed faith based religious leaders if you will so the caricature of the forum is basically a global rich coming together is a caricature it's just not doesn't recognize the fact that this is essentially the world's summit of multi-sector multi-stakeholder leaders of various kinds of institutions coming together then in respect of the questions regarding the United States I think most people would recognize and indeed people of various countries that there is nothing inherently in contradiction between national interests on the one hand and the pursuit of cooperation with other countries on the other much of the progress in the world that we've seen over the last century is understanding in fact and acting upon the intersection of national interest and international cooperation and that is in effect I think what is going to be very interesting about the discussions next week is in finding those areas it's not just the United States but many countries of where in helping to have through dialogue trust enhancing dialogue a widening understanding of various stakeholders and people from various countries where their national interest and there even need their community interest can be furthered by not shouldering all the responsibility themselves but trying to find coalitions and communities of interest that will want to work together on issues lastly on the labor issue we agree with the premise of the question that in fact the global risk reports indicated that one of the signal new flashing lights is identified by our sample of respondents is the growing concern about the intersection of technology on the one hand and structural challenges to employment and livelihoods on the other and we have a major institutional effort underway called our system initiative on education gender and work that through a variety of different interventions is trying to take a look at the whole life cycle of skills development of human capital formation if you want to put it in those kinds of business terminology where technology and integration of markets and migration and other disruptions impel countries to make structural modernizations of their enabling environment for skills development and acquisition in their populations and we have an initiative for example on the action side which has set a target of five million young people trained over the next couple of years through public-private partnership and we're well on our way toward meeting that target but this is not the whole solution but it's the kind of thing where to my earlier point you really need some degree of cross-sectoral cross-industry but also public-private cooperation to try to do right by our workforce just a quick sense is there anyone who feels they've got something it's probably going to be a sort of yes-no style answer gentleman there and I think I saw a hand yeah great just behind just in terms of regional differences is Asia any more exposed can you just tell us who you are I'm sorry Paul Barber from Channel News Asia in terms of regional differences is Asia any more exposed to these risk factors than others okay and gentlemen just there just on the end keep your hand up then we can see you for the microphone fantastic and there's one more question over there just in terms of participation can you just tell us your name Damian McElroy from the national from the national national thanks in terms of you say 70 world leaders coming is there a trump factor there in that people really want to get their messages as well as his messages and then just on the regional engagement issue is there a large increase in regions like the Middle East that are coming and what are they getting out of it okay there's a kind of suite of questions probably just lady there Sanivas global trade review in the report you have a section about future shocks and one of them talks about the death of trade and the risk of a breakdown in the global trade system what could trigger such a scenario and what can businesses to mitigate the risk that are connected to this warning okay thanks very much Margaret I'm just going to turn to you on those couple of things on trade and also maybe on the regional aspects of it and I would just say Damian I think everyone is interested in listening to all of the folks who are going to be speaking you can see from the the advanced booking system we have already that almost all our sessions are filling up and are over but I don't think there will be any fear of people not being heard Margaret Sure maybe on the Asia question first and generally the regional split of risk so first of all we don't see any region that is more exposed to risks than other and we don't really measure it that way but we measure which risks each region is exposed to so there are significant regional differences and actually we even have country level data we go on the website this country level data from a business perspective about the risks each country is exposed to from a regional level Asia more exposed to geopolitical risks and natural catastrophes than other regions Latin America is more on the governance side so the societal risks very strong in Latin America Europe is traditionally very strong on economic risks so there are significant regional differences that we see that paint a very interesting picture and also at the country level there are very significant regional differences then maybe on the death of trade so first of all those future talks it's the new feature that we introduced this year and that are future scenarios so that paint what if type of story what could happen if something what type of structural impact could happen if we had if it could happen from a very small development I think some of the political developments that we have seen if countries really continue closing down and if we do not find this balance of national interest and international interest and how we distributed this balance internationally then it really it may really happen that we have a breakdown of the multilateral trading system and that the institutions are weakened over time and that those structures that we've been relying on and the international institutions that we've been relying on do not work the way they have they have been working in the past they rely very strongly on the WTO structures on the applet body they have a lot of WTO has a lot of functions that it plays in order to keep it up so if this institution is weakened then we could really see a breakdown of the trading system Thank you very much the big hand has passed the 12 so I'm going to say a big thank you to all of our panelists and to you for being here if you've got any further questions each of them be happy to stay on and discuss them individually there's more information at www.weforum.org you can find all of that info that Margretto referred to and thanks for joining us this morning thank you