Project summary

• We want to advance four lines of work related to improving global risk management.

First, we want to promote the report we co-wrote with ALLFED on Food Security during Abrupt Sun Reducing Scenarios (ASRS) among policymakers in Argentina and start the process of legislating an emergency plan in these scenarios.

Second, we want to promote our report on improving the implementation of the EU AI Act in the European sandbox in Spain and connect regulators in the sandbox to auditing experts such as ARC Evals and Apollo.

Third, we want to write a report on biological surveillance in Guatemala, highlighting some cost-effective opportunities for engagement such as news surveillance.

Fourth, we want to write a report on improving risk management in Latin America. This ties with our previous work on risk management in Spain, and would focus on the use of cost-benefit analyses as a tool for risk prioritization and analysis.

Project goals

For each of our projects, the goal is to advance the creation of relevant policy and connect policy-makers to relevant experts. We will know we are succeeding in a given project if our reports are used as support material for drafting policies or if we are credited with connecting policy-makers and relevant experts.

SPECIFIC PROJECT GOALS:

1. FOOD SECURITY

   • Goal: The Argentinian government invests in assessment reports and planning guidance to improve the chances of an adequate response to nuclear winter

   • How we know we achieved it: report on response strategies incorporated into governmental agencies, the government includes the recommendations in the national five-year risk management plan.

2. AI

   • Goal: Incorporate critical policy recommendations contained in the attached report such as external auditing and red-teaming into Spanish AI legislation, ideally influencing other countries inside Europe via the AI sandbox or even outside Europe through the Brussels effect.

   • How we know we achieved it: government promotes the amendments based on our proposals to the EU AI Act inside the European Parliament.

3. BIORISK

   • Goal:  Incorporate policy recommendations in the National Epidemiological Surveillance System (SINAVE) of the Guatemala government.

   • How we know we achieved it: The health ministry and other government offices promote the modification of the manuals and procedures of SINAVE.

4. Improving Risk management 

   • Goal: Promote the improvement of risk management plans at the Latin American level from the perspective of GCR.

   • How we know we achieved it: with the integration in the discussion of GCR terminology and the improvement in ECLAC's risk management indicators.

How will this funding be used?

Concept

Percent

Wages 

65%

Conferences and travel

4.2%

Other operational expenses (People Operations, Workshop expenses & Miscellaneous)

16.4%

Margin of operations

8.4%

Fiscal sponsorship fee

6%

What is your (team's) track record on similar projects?

Here are some relevant past outputs of the organization:

• An investigation of risk management in Spain that culminated in a collaboration agreement with Madrid’s city hall.

• A report on  Food Security in Argentina in the event of an Abrupt Sunlight Reduction Scenario (ASRS). We are currently discussing with Argentina policy makers the implementation of an emergency plan to mitigate this risk.

• A Report on AI regulation for the EU AI Act Spanish sandbox. We have published two excerpts as standalone articles: 1) Proposals for the AI ​​regulatory sandbox in Spain, 2) Survey of specific risks derived from artificial intelligence.

• Some other minor outputs include an article about the new US GCR law, and the co-drafting with the Simon Institute of two responses to the policy briefs from the UN’s Our Common Agenda.

• Overall, our website sports the largest collection online of GCR articles in Spanish, with over 46,000 visits from Spanish-speaking countries.

• Our team has also built a strong network of advisors and collaborators. Interim director Jaime Sevilla is also director of Epoch, and Director board member Juan García works as a research manager at ALLFED. Between them they have ample experience with management, founding organizations and GCR policy. We also have a close relationship with ALLFED, the Simon Institute and CSER (Centre for the Study of Existential Risk).
  

How could this project be actively harmful?

• We could be crowding out other efforts from more trustworthy sources, though we consider this unlikely and we are committed to collaborating with complementary efforts. 

• Some of our policy recommendations might be harmful and hard to correct. We are however erring towards recommendations with broad support and backed up by other experts in the GCR community, which should diminish the chances. We also focus more on creating connections and facilitating infrastructure for evidence based decision making than in pursuing specific agendas.
  

What other funding is this person or project getting?

• We are currently operating through a grant from Effective Venture’s donor lottery and other individual donations