Thanks everyone for joining and first thing to you almost the end of the open source summit. So one of the last sessions and yeah, it's about projects on set. So what a good ending or close to the ending of the Osprey con sessions. And what I will be telling you about, my name is Devkanimitrava, I'm a senior program manager in the Ospo which in VMware. So I'll be giving some steps and some hints on how to sunset open source project and what I've learned. I learned actually many things in this open source summit. I hope you all can confirm that. But I've been reminded not to use so to be careful by using words simple, especially when I give some guidelines or restrictions because what's simple now to me after doing that for three years or more driving that program that I called getting orders of about sunsetting around a Hiving in Active project might be or not be so simple for anyone else who is new to the topic. So I'll start with quick introduction about myself. I already mentioned my position and my role within VMware where I'm part of the open source community strategy team and the one foster here is my manager, which I'm really happy with. And actually I have a financial and business background, although I'm already for 10 plus or minus years into the software development industry, I tend to still think in terms of costs and benefits. So you can see why this topic is so important also for me to be clear about what to archive or what to keep active. And I have also many other passions like climbing, mountaineering, experiential education, working with kids on different topics. And after all, I need to balance it all. So that's why I like really to keep things simple. And that's also the only way for me in some case to keep doing what I love doing. So the agenda is actually the steps that I will guide you through, which I've developed through developing the program and then experimenting, adapting, which are, yeah, of course, start with know why you need to have some setting process or why you need to duplicate a project than what you have. So it's not easy to understand always what you're starting with in terms of projects or who to contact, especially within Ospo's context when we're dealing with more projects or larger portfolios, then decision making point where, whether to do that, who is depending on that, who needs to prove it and communicate it all and do the actual archiving. Be prepared to an archive. And all of this, it's actually the presentation, but why I need the other 35 minutes. It's because like with every beautiful sunset, it's usually before and after a storm that's coming around. So you might expect things to go wrong or on the way. And as I've experienced that, I can just share some of the learnings that I have. So starting with the why should we be proactively checking on inactive projects and by we I mean either Ospo's. So just checking who is a member of an open source program office here in the room. Yeah, OK. And then if not in a program office, maybe working for more than one project or interested in more than one project, then this makes it monitoring and looking into the activity of open source projects a bit harder when you're not responsible for only a single one. So being proactive is also because what I've found out not only based on experience within the company, but also researching some more information and simply looking into GitHub data. And I invite you to do that for every project that you're interested in or every organization that you're interested in. Just check how long projects remain active after they're newly created. And by looking into a thousand plus repositories in some major companies within open source, you can easily find out looking at the last commit date or the push that date that 16 percent of them wouldn't be active. I don't say they are abundant because, yeah, that's further investigation needed to really confirm whether they're abundant or not. But they wouldn't be so active within after 12 months. And this trend continues and just over the first five years, you will see then 10 more percent will not be active than 9 more percent. So in the fifth year, half of the projects that have been started will remain to be actively maintained. There will be still contributors to that. So what does it mean is that if we are not prepared for that and if we are working with a larger portfolio of projects, soon we might end up with not really knowing what we need to prioritize and what not. And I was, as I said, I learned a lot during this week and I hope we all did. But I was also inspired heavily, like looking through the word of open source open source Europe data and I must admit I've not read it through because, yeah, hanging out with colleagues and with people I met here was a bit more important for me this week. But checking on the data of the research, it was really obvious that with larger companies, with the increase of the size of the companies, at first the freedom and the encouragement to contribute openly goes down. But then it increases again with the 10,000 plus employees and it's, or that's my interpretation again, it's mostly because of, and that's also what I've heard in the presentations about this research, it's because of declarative policies. So at first no policies needed, then the lack of policy gives people a bit of uncertainty whether they can or cannot contribute. And then with the larger companies, there is again the need of policies and the need of hospitals. So I could really relate that to the fact that within the larger companies, 10,000 plus, which is also shown in the research, there is higher possibility or higher needs to have hospital or a dedicated person with open source contribution. So what I conclude out of that is in a way this circle, so more freedom to contribute is of course related to more creativity, more source, more projects. But this then drives the need to prioritize these projects and then be able to have better clarity and better policies. And I relate that to the sunsetting of projects again by being actively and developing more and contributing more and open sourcing more. At some point we really need to have a clear policy of how also we are doing that in terms of how we will manage it and whether we will sunset some of it or not. And it's here to know why it's also important, especially if you are like me or the person who needs to convince others that they need to consider deprecating some of their work. And it's hard conversation sometimes because it's a work that someone might be emotionally attached to. So knowing why and the benefits behind and being able to justify, of course, adapt the reasons because at first when I started this program I thought that it will be a great source of knowledge base to prevent deprecating projects. But after all, not everything can be prevented and it shouldn't be because this part of innovation that companies allow their employees or that individual contributors to experiment more and not everything will eventually succeed or become adopted. So having some of the projects being archived is just part of the life cycle and knowing that we will be more, yeah, less attached to having that necessary remain active. So one of the other reasons maybe just reducing costs of course and maintaining but also cleaning up space and by that I don't mean only like the space between GitHub or space as something material but also space in terms of having time to consider some alternatives and don't have the stress or space in the to-do list can be as well. So now when you're certain why you start to approach on some setting a project, it's tricky sometimes and it's again most for OSPOS or for people dealing with many projects to know so where to start with, so which are the projects that might be potentially inactive or I call them sometimes archive candidates and who to contact for in different cases. And yeah, and actually the picture might be pretty complex but what can help you to identify the potentially inactive repositories would be just sorting them out at first and that can be as simple as especially if you have a large amount of repositories like hundreds or thousands of repositories that's responsible for in any way, you can filter them out first by the last commit date or the pushed at date which is information you can easily see in GitHub. Then of course that just shortens the list, still there is a lot of work to be done because that can be the simple indicator. If the list is short enough to reach out to each of the projects individually that's the best option and that's sometimes always what I prefer to because then in conversation with the teams I don't not only understand the background of why certain projects that doesn't have commits in the past year or what the plans are, where they're going, do they need any assistance guidance from the open source program office but it also just speed up the process because everything else is kind of an investigation which takes more time if I do it offline than with talking with people. But sometimes there is a larger number of projects and then it's harder to really reserve the time to individually contact each person. So another filter would be checking on open PRs, issues, security alerts, so anything that might be an indicator that the team or the person who were working on that project were not actively or they might not have the resources. So that's actually the most common case from my observation and for the research on deprecated projects and I've talked about that in open source submit I think it was two years ago because it was virtual. That were some of the common reasons, so either lack of resources, lack of time, shifting priorities, but also it just doesn't hasn't been adopted. So here it's the link on the bottom is actually the script that Dawn has worked on as among many scripts, of course one of them were again to just have some of these data attend especially when you're working with more projects and I will reference to that also a minute later because it also helps when you're taking the decision of whether or not and checking on dependencies. Which is actually one of the next steps but first if you have decided or you have a short list or one project that you know you need to archive or to reprecate next question would be whether to keep that separate or not so is it is it enough to just click the button and say archive the project if that's on github or github or any other instances or is some more work or preparation needed and again in our experience in my experience as I was working with more project this was the better option was to keep things separate keep active any active project separate and there might be various reasons to do so some might be just costs because creating a new github organization that has no members and no activity there might be much more costly efficient than keeping all that on an older organization that can help you also easier to sort out members that are no longer active or and just just help you deal with access to these repositories although archiving can give up actually gives on read it on access so that that's pretty simple and doesn't break any links but we decided and and I'm happy to that went to that direction to create an organization that's called in our case VMware dash archive and this isn't also easier way to show to the community that this is an archived project and this was a one of the goals that I might have not mentioned but it's one of the main goals actually where you want to archive a project it's not all only because you don't have the resources or don't want to spend any resources on the project but you need to want to be transparent to the community around that so it wasn't the slide but I didn't mention but it's a transparency of what's active and what's inactive and and making sure that the community that will rely or might rely on that project will know that you'll not have the resources to actively maintain it which is the next point before the decision is taken whether to archive it or not and this is the again checking on and they are well even in cases where maintainers have confirmed so happily or happily that they they would want to deprecate their projects have you experienced such cases so who has experienced such cases then you needed to close up to close up or deprecate project that they've been actively working for some time on just curious yeah okay so where yeah it's a well it's not an easy decision but if even if you've taken that decision you can't always do it you need to check first who is depending on on that project and yeah some again some of the easy ways to check this contributors users forks criticality score that's a Linux foundation score so you can check it it helps a lot it goes through all this and also other indicators and can give you a score showing whether that's high again it's a probability that it's it would be critical if you deprecate that project or not whether that project is critical for others and I'm again referencing to to the to the viewpoint the script just if you are interested to help you check on certain repositories that are you are interested in and then yeah depending on the organization approval might not be needed or not where you go to the next step which is okay I decided I confirmed to deprecate a project I have all the approvals if I need any for example of the chief open source officer in the company if there is such a role or or simply by the maintainer or the other maintainers or within the community what what I do next do I just archive it again not always the best option just because it's better to communicate it first with the community in a way update read me reference to another project if there is such a project that you have moved on that's doing similar and that would be useful for the users of your project just reference it also use mailing click slack slack channels other media that would would be relevant for your project update web pages and wikis where that project is mentioned and this is important here to talk with companies again with branding marketing team because they know best where and for for more strategic larger projects in the companies there might be materials around that or information spread around that they need to consider if that project is no longer active to not advertise it openly and then we archive it which is probably the easiest steps well github provides the option to archive for repository I mentioned and it becomes read only access so it takes care of the access similarly in other I would advise to create a separate space to move it somewhere separate and this is also in a way to to make sure that if you and again I encourage you actively working into project health metrics monitoring the status of your active projects then you shouldn't have all this data for projects that are not active any longer it just saves time and and also security alerts or any other waste any other activities that actually take time and take energy to monitor you couldn't exclude all the unactive archive the deprecated whatever you call it project from that activities and this will save your energy for what's really prioritized for you and as I mentioned having all this done in some cases you need to be prepared to undone it and try to bother so much to do all the steps where you're allowing the door to be open back and to revive the project so at first it happens so it might happen that you have missed important dependency or that someone who is interested in that project want to pick them up and would be willing to revive it so it's good to have a process that will follow you through the steps and say it will be similar to the process if if you have some in mind about creating new projects going through a compliance check a license file there is it contributing contributing file is it up to date code of conduct do you have any code of conduct do I need to work on something else it's just similar checklist as if this is a completely new project because it might have been archived for a long time so there might have been things that have changed in between and also again check on security check on any other issues make sure that when you're bringing it back to life it will be a good healthy project and the other reason to have such a process what I've experienced it that's sometimes the tipping point when I talked with with a team that's considering whether to archive or not so they're me that they don't have the resources they admit that they won't be working on that for probably in the next year even but they hope someday they'll have the time that's usually that hope that so I if you are like me I still have that pair of jeans that I keep that I hope that I will wear someday but it's still there and takes takes place so it's like similar hope that okay I will find the time and I work on that or I will hire another engineer that will help me and to be honest that has hardly ever happened to bring a project back but giving that back door open and giving that promise to myself also because that's I've I've tricked myself also when I want to clean up things in my life in my work so more work or just in some other areas that I'm interested in allows me to better take that decision and yeah and with doing these steps what you next do is repeat them and that's that's really important because it's not one of activity it's not like okay I do a cleanup and and I also was naive enough when I first started the program to call it getting order because I thought okay I will I will put everything in order and that will stay in this way but no I do that every quarter mostly mostly of course there is ad hoc activities like merges acquisitions onboarding of teams companies that would require this check just just initial check and when you do that initial work is always harder than when you do that follow-up and only only check on certain projects that you have highlighted maybe or you've talked with the teams and they said well maybe I'll come back to it but I'll tell you next quarter and then check with them again next quarter so it's an iteration every time so go back through the process adapt some of it of course and yeah be really be be open to that conversation of costs and benefits I come back to the yeah to the finance background but it's again it costs not monetarily only but in terms of time energy spent just again to the freedom to experiment with something new or to to take more yeah to to to take or to prioritize some of the other projects which which someone would expect that they will bring more value and with that I'm actually uh yeah I've repeated the steps so I'm actually open to any questions that you might have yeah sure well I've I've actually experimented around that so at first I was considering having 18 months as like the date so if there was no commit 18 months so within 18 months then probably it's an active and then I started shortening the period because at first within these 18 months when I had like initial reviews it was sometimes too long ago to find out who has who has last work on the project so I just out of experience learned that like 12 months it's a better short frame so like with 12 months it's good to check it's not it doesn't mean that projects become inactive or are really inactive if they have not have any there are there are many many libraries that they're just stable so we don't really need to do much work on them if teams work on the issues and the PRs they don't really need to commit any code but with all this also security and other versions dependent dependencies updates it's just like kind of a red lamp and it says okay check with that project and yeah and maybe I will short on the time frame if I see that it's 12 months it's a bit too long it's also the way also the community develops and now how the projects work yeah yeah the contributor comparing to the user of this project when they are uh because they would spend the time and the passion in it but like this contributor have uh have enough passion to continue this project but there uh maybe programming still is not enough maybe they just focus on the documentation part of work but you the who well mainly control the program cannot continue do you think what is the good way to do with that contributor uh so I forgot to repeat the question but now I will try to rephrase it so the question is where uh what is the best way to work with the contributor if the project uh if they probably don't have uh the skill base or there are some other reasons that they don't work on the project I mean that how can you communicate with them yeah these well these are in the different projects and in different communities instead of settled in different ways so there are there are projects that they have have worked on the communities have worked on governance governance documents on how to exactly for these cases how to onboard new people how to teach them into maintain a role in other projects mostly when they're smaller or new and they've not considered that then you can learn actually from other people's example and see and just develop and use some of these examples because uh what I've seen is that uh everyone is happy when they decide to give up the project for whatever reason the maintainer or the originator or yeah the current maintainer or the originator that they don't have the resources to work on them they're happy if anyone else is interested so uh yeah it might not be always the case that they have time to onboard that person but they would at least be happy to to start that conversation and then individually to decide it so so I would encourage to uh for everyone such a situation to reach out to the maintainers say that they're interested and then they can negotiate in some time to work through that onboarding process okay continue your project but maybe one day you want to continue your project again well this again depends because in open source and in upstream philosophy so forking it's not always the the best option so if they can come along and continue working but if the company policy doesn't allow that that external person is a maintainer of a project that's being originated by the company forking might be the only option yeah as as you mentioned so again depends on the use case thank you and I think you had a question or well that factors in a lot and that's actually the step that I was uh previously going through in the decision making whether to do that so if it's and that's also our role as an open source program office is also to to to help in these conversations because it's not always everyone in the company understands the importance of a certain uh piece of open source software so then uh program office is supportive yeah we we need to help with that conversation and to to make sure that uh yeah this is really considered into the decision whether to continue or not and I completely forget to repeat the questions but I would try to try to summarize actually what Adam shared as an example was that when he started Harold project as part of the yeah as an open source project originated with the company but as you mentioned it's uh not a project that it's like strategic in terms of the VMware strategy in terms of open source it was also so he continues working on that it was donated to um to uh to the foundation so uh he could continue and he does really actively continue working uh on the project as a VMware employee yeah yeah yeah that's that's another case so what uh so what we actually also uh well it's it's different in each company so I try to I would try to generalize because there will be different use cases but uh uh you might be uh contributing to as part being in the company you might be contributing or someone might be contributing to a project in their personal time but still needing some um approval from the company to do that contribution and it's not only company policy it's sometimes country policy and through country legislation so that's that gets complicated when the work has started within the company and the company doesn't want to deprecate it then it's it's it's always best to advise within the certain uh program office or whatever uh experts in that environment is to and as I said it's always advised to if there is the interest to continue working on that project and to encourage a person to continue working that project and uh and again it's a conversation not all managers would understand if they don't have the open source background but yeah you can work with some data and justification why that's important for the community and help them understand that it's uh it's in the uh it's the win-win case so actually we're looking for the win-win game in uh in open source but those in all business that's the only game that it drives people forward any questions I think we only have two minutes or one minute three minutes okay so if not I really thank you all and uh I just wanted to share by putting so much pictures of sunsets that I that mostly I did well actually all of the pictures were mine the other sunsets some of them had sunrises so you can hardly tell what what the sunset and what the sunrise is and that's usually what happens with the beautiful sunset we have then there is a beautiful sunrise so we can't have the one without the other so don't be afraid to close something that's not active when you have the energy enthusiasm for something else so thanks everyone


Over the last several decades, medicine has waged a major war against cancer, concentrating on earlier diagnosis and improved therapy. The war is not being won. Nevertheless, medicine shows a few signs of admitting that its strategy may be flawed. In this, it resembles a world war general who stated casualties, huge, ground-gained, negligible conclusion, press on. If you look at the contribution of cancer-killing chemo to 5-year survival in cancer patients, it's on the order of only about 2%. Now, there are some pediatric cancers we've gotten good at treating, and testicular cancer, and Hodgkin's disease are exceptions. But if you look at our most common cancers, colon, long breast, prostate, the success rate is only about 1%, meaning like out of nearly 14,000 colon cancer patients, only 146 lived out 5 years thanks to the chemotherapy. So the chance of survival benefit is like 1 in 100. But doctors don't tell patients that. New chemotherapy drugs are promoted as major breakthroughs only to be later quietly rejected. The minimal impact on survival and the more common cancers conflicts with the perceptions of many patients who feel they're receiving a treatment that will significantly enhance their chances of cure. In view of the minimal impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on 5-year survival and the lack of any major progress over the last 20 years, it follows that its main role is really in palliation. It can shrink tumors down, relieving pain and pressure, but that doesn't tend to translate into living any longer. The failure of therapy, coupled with the realization that the overwhelming majority of cancer is related to environmental, particularly lifestyle factors, dictates that prevention should be our foremost aim. Cancer is largely a preventable disease, but it does require major lifestyle changes. Of the millions diagnosed with cancer every year, as many as 90 to 95% of cancers are caused by lifestyle factors and only 5 to 10% caused by bad genes. We know this because of enormous differences in the incidence of different forms of cancer around the world, which then change when people move from one place to another. So for example, breast cancer rates differ by an order of magnitude, with the lowest rates in parts of Africa and Asia, until they move and start eating and living like Americans, Argentinians, Europeans, or Australians. So there's a need for a major reappraisal of how the problem of cancer is approached. The key to winning the war on cancer is prevention, which not only works better, but has the great advantage that entails nothing worse than nicotine or jelly bean withdrawal symptoms. On the other hand, cancer treatment, even when successful, often exposes the patient to much suffering, both physical and psychological. Indeed, some cancer treatments are considered worse than the disease. Most importantly, though, a healthy lifestyle can nip it in the bud, whereas early diagnosis and treatment, by definition, doesn't change the cancer rate. It doesn't change the number of people getting cancer in the first place. In terms of cancer prevention and treatment with nutrition, the consumption of animal-based food components has been historically associated with increased cancer risk, both certain plant-based food components associated with decreasing risk. So it's not enough to just avoid the bad stuff. Eating is pretty much a zero-sum game. Everything we put in our mouth is a lost opportunity to put something even healthier in our mouths. So it's not just avoiding foods with cancer-promoting properties. We need to eat foods with active cancer-suppressing mechanisms. By holistic nutrition, we're talking about whole foods. Yes, these are some of the purported active ingredients of healthy things like turmeric or green tea or broccoli, but this is how we should get them, not from pills. Yes, ultimately, cancer development may primarily be a nutrition-responsive disease, but we're not talking about nutritional supplements, but rather whole, intact food.


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