Economic confrontation replaces armed conflict as top risk in WEF survey

LONDON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Economic confrontation between nations and its consequences topped the World Economic Forum's (WEF) annual risks perception survey released on Wednesday, replacing armed conflict as the number one concern of 1,300-plus experts surveyed worldwide.

The survey also showed perceptions of ?environmental risk slipping down the rankings while other concerns came to the fore - notably fears ?over the long-term consequences of weak governance of artificial intelligence.

Saadia Zahidi, managing ?director of the WEF annual gathering in Davos due ?to start next ?week, cited rising tariffs, checks on foreign investment and tighter supply controls on resources ?like critical minerals as examples of "geoeconomic confrontation", which ?ranked as the top risk.

"(It is) when economic policy tools become essentially weaponry rather than a basis of cooperation," ?she told an online press conference.

U.S. ?President Donald ?Trump's "America first" policies have led to a sharp rise in U.S. trading tariffs across the world and fed into tensions between the ?U.S. and China, which is dominant in critical minerals and the world's second largest economy.

Perceived risks around extreme weather over the next two years dropped from 2nd to 4th place and pollution from 6th to 9th. Anxiety over critical change to earth systems and biodiversity loss ?fell ?seven and five positions respectively.

However, when asked what their sharpest concerns were over a longer, 10-year period, those same respondents ?ranked such environmental concerns in the top three spots.

Anxiety about "adverse outcomes of AI technologies" ranked 30th place in the two-year horizon but 5th place in the 10-year horizon.

Zahidi said the survey revealed that most of the concerns focused on how insufficient governance around AI could harm jobs, society and mental health while seeing ?it increasingly being used as a weapon in warfare.

The WEF said its annual survey draws on responses from "over 1,300 global leaders and experts from academia, business, government, international organizations and ?civil society". (Writing and reporting by Mark John; Editing by Aidan Lewis)