Key Details
The United Nations Global Risk Report 2026 compares how 1,300 respondents assessed 28 political, economic, environmental, societal and technological risks—and how those perceptions have changed since 2024.
Measure | Leading risks in 2026 |
|---|---|
Most important globally | Climate change inaction, misinformation and disinformation, geopolitical tensions, large-scale war |
Most imminent | Misinformation and disinformation, geopolitical tensions, rising inequalities, rule-of-law collapse, large-scale war |
Sharpest rise in imminence | Large-scale war, up 16 places |
Most interconnected | Geopolitical tensions, rule-of-law collapse and large-scale war |
Lowest preparedness | Space-based events, geoengineering disasters, cybersecurity breakdown, state-sovereignty erosion, AI and frontier technologies |
Central and South Asia | Large-scale war, geopolitical tensions, large-scale pollution, rule-of-law collapse and global financial crisis |
Funding was considered inadequate by 66% of respondents for risk identification, 86% for mitigation and reduction, 76% for disaster response, and 79% for recovery and reconstruction.
The survey was conducted between 19 February and 24 April 2026. Central and South Asia accounted for 97 respondents, or 7.5% of the sample. Its regional rankings should not be treated as findings about India alone.
Political Risks Have Moved from the Periphery to the Centre
Climate change inaction remains the most important individual global risk, but the wider risk map has shifted decisively towards conflict and geopolitical instability.
Large-scale war rose six places in importance and 16 places in imminence between the 2024 and 2026 surveys. It now ranks fourth in importance, fifth in imminence, third in interconnectedness and sixth in lack of preparedness. No risk occupied such a central position across all four measures in the previous survey.
The change extends beyond war. Geopolitical tensions, misinformation and disinformation, and rule-of-law collapse are all regarded as both likely to occur soon and capable of triggering wider economic and social disruption.
Central and South Asia Places War Above Climate Risk
Regional assessments reinforce the political shift. Respondents from Central and South Asia ranked:
Large-scale war
Geopolitical tensions
Large-scale pollution
Rule-of-law collapse
Global financial crisis
Climate change inaction placed seventh in the region, followed by natural-resource shortages, rising inequalities and natural hazards.
This does not establish India’s national risk ranking: the report publishes a regional aggregate rather than country-level results. It nevertheless indicates the risk environment within which India must manage trade, energy security, defence preparedness, fiscal pressures and regional diplomacy.
AI Risks Are Rising Faster Than Governance Capacity
Concern about AI and frontier technologies and technology-driven concentration of power increased substantially since 2024. Yet respondents placed preparedness for these risks near the bottom of the 28-risk list.
The weakness is not simply regulatory delay. The survey identifies inadequate data and information as a major obstacle to managing fast-moving technological risks. It also links AI and frontier technologies to misinformation, which can then feed social instability and geopolitical tension.
This connection is central to the report’s analysis: technological risk does not remain confined to the technology sector. It can affect political trust, information integrity, cybersecurity and the distribution of economic power.
Declining Attention Does Not Mean Declining Danger
Environmental risks received less relative attention than in 2024, but climate change inaction still ranks first globally. The report also identifies it as one of the strongest drivers of other risks, including natural hazards, resource shortages, displacement and biodiversity loss.
The distinction matters. These rankings measure perceptions during a particular survey period, not an objective reduction in environmental danger. Risks can move down the ranking because geopolitical events command greater attention, even when the underlying threat remains unchanged.
Risk Identification Is Stronger Than Risk Reduction
Respondents viewed multilateral institutions as better able to identify and monitor risks than to reduce them. Even areas with relatively established international mandates—climate action, debt and geopolitical tensions—showed a gap between recognising a threat and preventing its escalation.
The report’s network analysis illustrates how that gap can compound:
Climate inaction → resource shortages → geopolitical tensions → large-scale war
Financial crisis → economic fragmentation → geopolitical tensions → large-scale war
AI and frontier technologies → misinformation → geopolitical tensions → large-scale war
Rule-of-law collapse → institutional breakdown → geopolitical tensions → large-scale war
These pathways are a foresight exercise, not forecasts. They demonstrate how decisions in apparently separate policy areas can accumulate into systemic instability.
Policy Relevance
For India, the report points to three connected tests.
First, national risk assessment must cover spillovers rather than isolated hazards. Conflict can disrupt energy imports, shipping, capital flows and critical-mineral supplies simultaneously. Climate stress, misinformation and financial instability can also reinforce one another. Scenario planning across ministries is therefore more useful than risk registers maintained in separate administrative silos.
Second, technological preparedness requires more than an AI regulatory framework. India’s AI, cyber, competition, election-integrity and information-governance systems must address the same underlying problem: how concentrated technological capacity or manipulated information can affect public trust, markets and national security.
Third, shifting political attention should not weaken long-term resilience spending. Climate adaptation, disaster-risk reduction, public-health surveillance and social protection remain necessary even when war and geopolitical tensions dominate the immediate agenda. The survey’s funding results suggest that the largest weakness lies in moving from risk recognition to sustained prevention.
Follow the Full Report Here: United Nations, Global Risk Report 2026