Currently, government bodies play a four-part role in risk management at the national level. (1) Action: from identification of risks to crisis management and risk communication (2) Regulation: the use of legislation to help prevent the emergence of risks and to protect against the consequences of risks should they arise (3) Economic continuity: the use of measures (such as release of financial reserves or strategic energy reserves) which ensure economic robustness in the face of a wide range of risk events (4) Insurance: acting as an insurer of last resort. The group established five principles of country risk management which could be applied across the spectrum of governments to guide country risk officers, whether the officer is an individual, a coordinating committee or takes some other institutional form. (5) Accountability: The need for accountability of risk assessment is seen as a fundamental condition of the legitimacy of assessment as a basis for concerted government action both vertically (within departments of government) and horizontally (across branches of government). Clarity of accountability would increase the incentives for effective mitigation measures. (6) Integrated assessment: Establishing common procedures across government departments to assess risks, cross-disciplinary scenarios and the language of risk would provide a basis not only for better crisis management but also for defining more effective prevention and mitigation of global risks. Too often positive externalities are overlooked and negative externalities are exaggerated by lack of an integrated assessment of risk. (7) Devolved implementation: Integrated assessment should not imply centralized implementation. Devolved implementation of risk mitigation strategies should allow flexible and adaptive responses to common risks. (8) Separation of analysis and policy: The case for devolved implementation is strengthened by the argument in favour of separation of analysis and policy. Analysis is better kept within a separate structure, so as to prevent bureaucratic pressures impinging upon independence of analysis. (9) Disclosure and transparency (if possible): Governments are constantly caught between pressure to disclose risk assessments and the need to keep some assessments confidential so as to avoid panic, protect sources and maintain resilience. But even the maintenance of confidential information can create the conditions for incomplete or inaccurate information leading to an infodemic situation in a crisis, where the consequences of popular reaction to a perceived risk far outweigh the risk itself. The development of much more granular risk communication strategies will ensure a culture of maximum disclosure and transparency, while safeguarding against information overload. (World Economic Forum, Global Risks 2008: A Global Risk Network Report. January 2008, pp. 36-37)