International Policy Coordination

New report on "The future of international scientific assessments of AI’s risks" by Hadrien Pouget, Claire Dennis, and many others! Download the report here: https://lnkd.in/ecYMtwwP Abstract: Effective international coordination to address AI's global impacts demands a shared, scientifically rigorous understanding of AI risks. This paper examines the challenges and opportunities in establishing international scientific consensus in this domain. It analyzes current efforts, including the UK-led International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI and emerging UN initiatives, identifying key limitations and tradeoffs. The authors propose a two-track approach: 1) a UN-led process focusing on broad AI issues and engaging member states, and 2) an independent annual report specifically focused on advanced AI risks. The paper recommends careful coordination between these efforts to leverage their respective strengths while maintaining their independence. It also evaluates potential hosts for the independent report, including the network of AI Safety Institutes, the OECD, and scientific organizations like the International Science Council. The proposed framework aims to balance scientific rigor, political legitimacy, and timely action to facilitate coordinated international action on AI risks. The report is a joined effort by several researchers from leading research organizations, especially the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative in partnership with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

𝗨𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 '𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀': 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 In the rapidly evolving landscape of AI regulation, international coordination is paramount. The report, '𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀,' delves into the intricacies of AI rules across the globe, providing key insights and actionable takeaways for policymakers and stakeholders. Here are some unique highlights from this extensive analysis: 1️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹: over 600 regulatory developments targeting AI providers since January 2023 underline the urgent need for a unified global approach to AI regulation. 2️⃣ 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀: while varied AI rules can lead to challenges in interoperability, they also offer a chance for governments to learn from each other and enhance their regulatory frameworks. 3️⃣ 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀: the report provides an in-depth comparison of 11 advanced AI rulebooks from seven jurisdictions, shedding light on commonalities and differences in global AI regulation. 4️⃣ 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗮𝘅𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: the report developed a single taxonomy to bridge terminological gaps, translating five OECD AI Principles into 74 regulatory requirements, paving the way for international alignment. 5️⃣ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗟𝗮𝗶𝗥𝗞 𝗦𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀: these findings are accessible via the CLaiRK suite of tools, designed to help stakeholders navigate, compare, and interact with AI regulations seamlessly. A/C: Tommaso Giardini Johannes Fritz Nora Fisher Onar Philine Jenzer Gian-Marc P. Nicolà Seeli Anna Pagnacco Suzanne Dvorak Leo Schall Felix R. Ehrat Rachelle Pino Katja Roth Pellanda Tommaso Giardini Reto Foellmi Dr. Rehana Harasgama-Zehnder Jacqueline Gasser-Beck Join us in exploring this groundbreaking report and contribute to the dialogue on effective and coordinated AI regulation worldwide. #AI #Regulation #Policy #GlobalStandards #Innovation #Technology

🌍 European Central Bank paper: The Intersection of Climate Transition and Geoeconomics: Challenges and Opportunities   As the world faces the dual challenge of accelerating the green transition while navigating rising geoeconomic fragmentation, the ECB paper, "The Intersection Between Climate Transition Policies and Geoeconomic Fragmentation", explores how these forces interact and reshape global economies. Key insights from the report: 1️⃣ Uncoordinated Climate Policies and Geoeconomic Fragmentation - Transition policies, such as carbon pricing and renewable subsidies, are often uncoordinated, leading to unintended global frictions. - Subsidy races, trade protectionism, and even "green trade wars" risk amplifying geoeconomic fragmentation. - For instance, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have triggered concerns over trade distortions and equity in global climate efforts. 2️⃣ Critical Raw Materials: A Bottleneck - The green transition is heavily reliant on critical raw materials like cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. However, supply is highly concentrated in a few geopolitically sensitive countries. - Geoeconomic fragmentation could exacerbate supply chain vulnerabilities, creating bottlenecks that hinder the production of green technologies and increase price volatility. 3️⃣ Financing the Green Transition - EMDEs face significant financing gaps for sustainable investments. - Geoeconomic fragmentation and fragmented ESG regulations add barriers, limiting cross-border capital flows and widening disparities in access to green finance. 4️⃣ Policy Coordination: A Way Forward - International cooperation is critical to harmonizing transition policies and addressing geoeconomic fragmentation risks. - Collaborative approaches, such as climate clubs, shared standards for sustainability finance, and improved access to green capital for developing countries, are essential to achieving a just and inclusive transition. This report sheds light on the urgent need for aligned policies to mitigate risks and unlock opportunities in the global green transition. Tackling climate change is not just an environmental priority but a geoeconomic challenge requiring shared action. #ClimateChange #GreenTransition #Geoeconomics #GlobalCooperation #Sustainability #NetZero #CriticalRawMaterials #SustainableFinance #Trends #ESG

Converging Strategies, Diminishing Returns Middle Powers are reacting to the consolidation of the global system around the G2 by pursuing outward-facing trade diversification, often through highly visible diplomatic campaigns. Mark Carney, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and many other leaders are all attempting the same maneuver at the same time: reduce dependence on the United States by finding alternative export markets elsewhere. The problem, as outlined in my previous Game Theory essay, is structural rather than tactical. If all players pursue the same trade and investment strategy simultaneously, most cannot succeed. These efforts are not additive. They are competitive. Middle Powers are largely trying to sell similar products to one another, while remaining politically resistant to opening their own markets to imports. In aggregate, this reshuffles market share rather than creating new demand. This exposes a deeper irony. For decades, many of these governments deprioritized trade realism in favor of values-based diplomacy, emphasizing human, gender and indigenous rights, environmental standards, and emissions targets, often at the expense of domestic competitiveness, energy security, and industrial scale. Trade relationships were treated as secondary. Structural economic reform was postponed. Higher public debt made possible by the Great Moderation filled the gap. Now, with both superpowers deliberately importing less and using trade as a strategic tool, those same governments are forced by necessity to pursue deals with states that never shared those values in the first place. What was once framed as moral leadership has quietly given way to transactional pragmatism. This is not a question of bad faith. Most leaders involved are acting rationally within the constraints they inherited. However, the convergence of strategies is precisely the problem. Good intentions do not resolve coordination failures. When everyone is chasing the same shrinking pool of buyers, the outcome is not diversification, but congestion. Whereas oil rich Gulf States are spoiled for choice where they deploy their capital. The central takeaway is that trade and investment diplomacy cannot substitute for decades of neglected domestic reform. In a world where net import demand is flat-lining, competitiveness must be rebuilt at home. Without that foundation, Middle Powers are not escaping dependence on the G2. They are merely competing with one another for diminishing room to maneuver.

PIMCO - The Real Lessons From the Plaza and Louvre Accords "The Plaza and Louvre Accords provide valuable historical lessons. While coordinated currency intervention can signal policy intent and temporarily influence exchange rates, sustainable adjustments require supportive monetary and fiscal policies. The proposed Mar-a-Lago Accord, while conceptually similar, faces distinct contemporary challenges, including limited monetary policy flexibility, uncertain fiscal consolidation prospects, and complex geopolitical considerations. Policymakers must recognize that successful international coordination requires credible commitments across monetary, fiscal, and geopolitical dimensions, rather than relying solely on currency intervention." https://lnkd.in/e9UQnKTa

Experts claim that rising geopolitical tensions are reshaping the global economy, potentially further dividing the international order into competing economic blocs. As such, trade, investment, and financial linkages could be fundamentally redrawn.   This CEPR report (Geneva Report 28) observes that these geopolitical tensions are bringing forward multiple fault lines.   (i) Concentration in foreign direct investment (FDI) within geopolitical blocs (particularly in strategic sectors). Yet, the costs of fragmentation for FDI could be salient: FDI plays a pivotal role in the global allocation of production, technological spillovers across countries, and the control of key natural resources, and has closer ties to trade than to portfolio investment or other investment. With it, also higher capital flows volatility.   (ii) A potential fragmentation of cross- border payment systems, also prompted by rapid technological innovation. The so-called “geopolitical neutrality” of payment systems infrastructure could begin to shift.   (iii) Geopolitical factors could begin to alter the landscape of international currencies.   (iv) Escalating geopolitical tensions among advanced economies could pose a greater risk to global financial stability, given their deep financial interconnectedness   Combined, the report claims that competing economic blocs will bring forward some benefits (i.e. diversification, re-arrangement of supply chains) but mostly risks: financial fragmentation and macroeconomic instability. On the one hand, a weakening the global financial safety net, complicating crisis coordination. On the other hand, increased vulnerability to external shocks, capital flow volatility, and/or the risk of financial crises. Notably, the implications for developing countries could be paramount: they will be disproportionately affected (not only less access to capital at a higher cost, but also propension to financial crisis, instability, etc), dragged in a crisis not of their own making.   Against this background, the report calls for policies that preserve openness, strengthen resilience, and reform international institutions to foster stability in an increasingly multipolar world. Regional cooperation is deemed essential:   “Regional cooperation can serve as a buffer against the effects of global fragmentation. Strengthening regional institutions, trade agreements, and financial safety nets can help sustain the benefits of economic integration and policy coordination, even when global consensus falters”.   All in all, the report’s findings underscore that the costs of financial fragmentation will be borne unevenly. The policy challenges will be formidable. A new multi-polar order carries significant risks, particularly if it is rooted in fragmentation. The pursuit of avenues for global cooperation remains critical.   See the report here https://lnkd.in/eeP7_Fk3

Internationally coordinated #climate mitigation policies can effectively put the world on a path toward achieving the agreed Paris temperature goals. Such coordination could be initiated by large players, such as #China, the #US, #India, the #AfricanUnion, and the #EuropeanUnion. This International Monetary Fund working paper finds that the implications for fiscal revenues over time will be shaped by a combination of rising #carbon prices, the gradual erosion of existing fuel tax bases, and possible revenue sharing arrangements. Public spending rises during the transition to build #green public infrastructure, promote #innovation, and support #cleantechnology deployment. Countries will also need financing for compensating vulnerable households and industries, and to transfer funds to poor countries. With well-designed climate-fiscal policy relying on carbon pricing, global #decarbonization will have anything from moderately positive to moderately negative impacts on fiscal balances in high-income countries. For middle and low-income countries, net fiscal impacts are generally positive and can be significant. Revenue sharing at the global level would make an historical contribution to breaching the financial divide between rich and poor countries.

International organisations report explores scope for coordinated approaches on climate action, carbon pricing, and policy spillovers by World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, OECD-OCDE, UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Mitigation policies are on the rise, including carbon pricing policies, with 75 carbon taxes and emission trading schemes currently in effect worldwide, covering approximately 24% of global emissions. The report ▶️ provides a common understanding of carbon pricing metrics to improve transparency on how countries are shifting incentives for decarbonization. ▶️ examines the composition of climate change mitigation policies, emphasizing the important role of carbon pricing as a cost-effective instrument that also raises revenues. ▶️ outlines how international organizations can support the coordination of policies to foster positive and limit negative cross-border spillovers from climate change mitigation policies. The report also analyses the advantages and disadvantages of carbon border adjustment policies, including their impact on developing countries. ▶️ shows how such coordination can help to scale up climate action by closing the transparency, implementation and ambition gaps. See link to the report in the comments.

🏛️ One of the most under-discussed challenges in #AI #governance is #policy #coherence. 💡 #Innovation policy aims to accelerate development. ⚖️ #Regulatory policy aims to manage risk. When these operate in isolation, they can create contradictory incentives: ♦️ Funding #AI development while restricting its deployment ♦️ Encouraging #startups while imposing complex compliance burdens ♦️ Promoting global expansion while introducing fragmented regulations The result is friction within innovation systems. ➡️ A more integrated approach treats #governance and innovation policy as interdependent, requiring coordination across ministries, agencies, and institutions. 🌍 This is particularly relevant in international contexts, where misalignment across jurisdictions can amplify uncertainty for firms and investors. 🎤 Can AI innovation scale effectively without greater coherence between innovation policy and regulatory governance? #AIGovernance #PolicyCoherence #InnovationPolicy #TechStrategy cc Michael Fribus, ARXIVE ECCCH, PLATOON DigitalEnergy Project, TRUSTS Trusted Secure Data Sharing Space, MediaFutures.EU