The Global Risks Alliance (GRA)
Evidence prepared on this platform is useful only if its handoff is clear: who receives it, under which mandate, what independent diligence remains, and what the evidence cannot support. In development finance, approval rests with boards, credit and investment committees and ministers, after diligence by their own staff and appointed advisers. This page sets out how handoffs work, where authority sits, and how labels and limitations travel with the evidence.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
People and exposure, 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 handoffs and authority, in GRA's spatial-finance reading, the map opens on night lights and population density with night lights tonight from NASA GIBS, framed on Southern 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
An evidence handoff is the transfer of prepared evidence to an institution that holds the authority to decide, with its labels, data age, open questions and limitations attached. In development finance, approval rests with boards, credit committees and governments, and independent due diligence remains their own; this platform approves and certifies nothing.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Handoffs and authority · Country programme D · Pipeline review 1
| Irrigation rehabilitation | Food and water | Medium | Clear | Appraisal |
| Port expansion | Infrastructure | High | Finding | Preparation |
| SME credit line | Finance | Low | Clear | Board |
| Mini-grid programme | Energy | Low | Clear | Implementation |
red: high hazard exposure
Receivers, independent diligence and limitations. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
A project passes ministry clearance, parliamentary authorisation for borrowing where the law requires it, lender management review, credit or investment committee and board approval. Each layer holds a distinct decision.
Lenders appoint their own technical, legal, insurance and environmental and social advisers, whose reports are addressed to the lenders. Evidence prepared elsewhere is an input to that diligence, never a substitute.
When evidence is condensed into a board paper or an information memorandum, the labels that mark values as estimated, modelled or declared are easily lost. A claim stripped of its label reads as fact.
Every dataset and model has a scope, a date and known gaps. If limitations are not handed on, a decision can rest on evidence beyond what it is able to support.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Due diligence | The independent investigation a lender or investor carries out before committing finance. |
| Credit committee | The body within a lender that approves or declines financing decisions. |
| Evidence label | A tag naming the kind of evidence, such as observed or modelled, that should survive every summary. |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence items carrying an evidence label at handoff | percent of items in the dossier | per dossier | Dossier register | DECLARED |
| Age of the latest data in each evidence item | months | per dossier | Source metadata | REPORTED |
| Open diligence questions at handoff | count | per dossier | Dossier question register | DECLARED |
| Limitations stated per evidence item | count | per dossier | Dossier register | DECLARED |
| Time from handoff to acknowledgement by the receiver | days | per dossier | Handoff log | OBSERVED |
| Disclosure status of project documents | status (disclosed, pending, exempt) | per document | MDB disclosure portals | OFFICIAL |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| MDB access to information policies and disclosure portals | Rules and records on what project and board documents are disclosed and when | Public, terms per institution |
| Equator Principles (EP4) independent review requirements | When independent environmental and social review is required and what it covers | Public, Equator Principles Association terms |
| IATI Standard | Data fields for activities, documents, conditions and results | Open standard, free to use |
| Open Contracting Data Standard | Data fields for planning, tender, award, contract and implementation | Open standard, free to use |
| National PPP unit registers and disclosure frameworks | Approval records, contracts and fiscal commitments of partnerships | Public records, terms per government |
| Board and committee documents where disclosed | Decisions, conditions and management responses | Public under each institution's policy |
Development Finance 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 |
|---|---|---|
| MDB boards of executive directors | Whether to approve an operation on the terms presented by management | Management's assessment and its evidence, with labels and limitations visible |
| DFI credit and investment committees | Whether to commit capital and under which conditions precedent | Independent adviser reports, open diligence questions, labelled evidence |
| Finance ministers and debt management offices | Whether to authorise borrowing or a guarantee | Debt and fiscal risk evidence, approval history, disclosure status |
| Guarantors and political risk insurers | Whether to underwrite and how much cover to provide | Contract structure, country and counterparty evidence, independent reviews |
Shared evidence can save time and cost, but it can also create false confidence if receivers treat it as a substitute for their own diligence or as an endorsement. Clear handoff rules protect programme owners, receivers and the integrity of the evidence: who may see a file, on whose instruction, for what purpose, and what the receiver must still verify.
Handoffs depend on ownership, independence and clear limits.
A readiness file is released only at the programme owner's written direction, to a party the owner chooses.
Each receiver carries out its own diligence, appraisal and approval under its own rules. Shared evidence informs but does not replace it.
GRA does not introduce counterparties, negotiate terms or take any fee tied to a transaction.
The design follows a simple principle: evidence moves, authority does not. A readiness file can travel from a country to a lender, but the decision to lend stays with the lender, the decision to borrow stays with the country and the decision to approve stays with whoever is legally responsible. GRA's role ends where evidence has been made understandable.
Each release is recorded with the owner's direction, the receiver and the purpose.
Claims carry labels such as Observed, Estimated, Modelled or Expert judgement, so receivers know what they are relying on.
People involved declare interests before handling a file.
Aggregated data only, no discussion of pricing or terms, as designed in the written competition policy that counsel reviews before membership opens. See competition and antitrust.
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.