A problem-focused and action-oriented workshop bringing scientific, social, institutional and diplomatic perspectives together to develop a defensible pathway for action.
This is a problem-focused and action-oriented workshop, not a sequence of presentations. The one-day workshop design uses six components and should produce a defensible pathway plus a small set of actions to pursue and learn from before the January 2027 follow-up.
Diagnosis → Conditions, Capacity & Constraints → Decision Pathway → Tools & Processes → Metrics → Actionability
Supported by defensible evidence and reasoning.
Responsive to relevant interests and more likely to gain agreement.
Politically, institutionally, technically and practically possible.
| Component | Core question | Workshop output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Diagnosis of the Problem Space | What problem are we actually trying to solve, and why does it persist? | Clear problem statement |
| 2. Conditions, Capacity & Constraints | What enables, limits, or shapes possible action? | Key conditions, capacities, and constraints |
| 3. Decision Pathway | Given those realities, what should Bangladesh consider doing? | One or more defensible pathways |
| 4. Tools & Processes | What tools or processes could make the pathway work? | 1-2 appropriate tools/processes |
| 5. Metrics | How would we know whether we are making progress? | Small set of measurable indicators |
| 6. Actionability | What can realistically be done next, by whom, and what should we learn from doing it? | 90-day actions + responsibility/facilitation + observable progress + learning |
25 August 2026 · BUET, Dhaka
Opening remarks featuring the CERM Director, BUET VC, Special Guest and Chief Guest.
Overview (30 min): Dr. Islam, Tufts University. Provide an overview of engineering diplomacy framework. Focus on decision-relevant scientific, social, political, uncertainty, and ambiguity context.
Opening framing for Water Session (10 min): Dr. Hassan and Dr. Ishtiaque.
Guiding question: What practical negotiation pathway can Bangladesh pursue to renew the Ganges Water Treaty in a way that improves dry-season reliability, protects equity, and remains politically feasible under climate uncertainty?
Structured Q&A (30 min): Facilitated by Dr. Islam; clarify implications for the decision space with a focus on actionability.
Small-group work. No presentations. Each group is comprised of eight members (ideally, two from each of the stakeholder groups: knowledge community, decision-making community, resource community, and impacted community), a facilitator and a transcriber. Each group will prepare a summary of their conversation. This summary will be presented by the group facilitator at the beginning of Session 4.
Task 3a (30 min): What is contested (access, allocation, use, risk)? What is scientifically known, societally contested, and economically and politically feasible?
Task 3b (30 min): What capacities, constraints, and enabling conditions matter most? What helps explain why the problem persists?
Expected output: A short list of key conditions, capacities, constraints, and stakeholder considerations that can facilitate or hinder actionability of the decision space.
Each group gives a 5-minute report from Session 3, then works on Tasks 4a-4c.
Small-group work. No presentations.
Task 4a - Decision Pathway (30 min)
Question: Given the capacity and constraints, what decision pathway is actionable now? Who needs to act, for whom, and through what process?
Important: Do not pre-judge the choice architecture. Fixed allocation, flexible allocation, conditional renewal, or other formulations are candidate pathways to assess, not prescribed answers.
Expected output: One or more defensible pathways with a brief rationale.
Task 4b - Tools & Processes (30 min)
Choose one or two tools/processes that could make the pathway more actionable and explain how they would change interaction, learning, coordination, or decision quality.
Illustrative options: joint fact-finding; augmentation options; flexible/adaptive treaty clauses; scenario modeling; mutual-gains negotiation.
Expected output:One or two tools/processes to explore, use, or test before January 2027.
Task 4c - Metrics (30 min)
Identify a small number of measurable, trackable indicators linked directly to the proposed pathway and expected outcomes.
Illustrative metrics: flow reliability, equity, political feasibility, environmental health, and near-term progress.
Each group will prepare a summary of their conversation. This summary will be presented by the group facilitator at the beginning of Session 4.
Expected output: A small set of measurable indicators showing whether the pathway is moving in a desirable direction.
Each group gives a 5-minute report summarizing findings from Tasks 3 and 4:
Our proposed pathway
Why we think it is defensible
The main obstacle/constraint
Three actions over the next 90 days (late November 2026)
What we need to learn before January 2027?
The facilitator then works with the audience to synthesize the workshop findings and next steps that are credible, acceptable, and feasible.
A. Where do the groups agree?
What pathway, constraints, tools, or actions have broad support?
B. Where do they genuinely disagree?
What important alternatives or assumptions remain unresolved?
C. What will we carry forward?
Agree on no more than three actions, who needs to lead/facilitate them, and what evidence or learning should be available by January 2027.
Expected output:An actionable decision-pathway summary with no more than three near-term actions that are credible, acceptable, and feasible. This will be used as a summary to be presented at the Gala Dinner on August 27 evening.
The January workshop should continue the process, not repeat the August 2026 discussion.
Concise synthesis report of thematic area discussions and final findings.
Concise reports prepared for wider dissemination to media, decision-making and resource communities.
Press release followed by an op-ed from resource persons, panel members and engaged participants.