The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Institutional dialogues in diplomacy Nexus: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
Shared basin dialogue · Round 6
| Art. 3 | Data exchange | 1 | Agreed ad ref |
| Art. 5 | Low-flow sharing | 5 | Open |
| Art. 7 | Notification of works | 3 | Open |
| Art. 9 | Dispute avoidance | 5 | Not discussed |
Diplomacy Nexus · Negotiation track deskNegotiation track desk, in outline: domain structure with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record.
Diplomacy Nexus dialogues are structured conversations in which those who govern diplomacy and cooperation, water, and climate and hazards compare evidence and options on a question with an accountable owner. Each runs under agreed attribution rules, often the Chatham House Rule, and its outcome note is published with participants' consent. A dialogue is listed only once it is confirmed.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
The jurisdictions that hold authority over this question: countries, their first-level divisions and capitals, shown for World as an example geography for this subject.
Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to dialogues@globalriskforum.com.
Diplomacy distinguishes official negotiation between states (Track 1) from unofficial dialogue among experts, former officials and civil society (Track 2), and community-level exchange (Track 3). Track 2 dialogue lets participants explore options their governments cannot yet propose, under the Chatham House Rule or full confidentiality. Diplomacy Nexus convenes Track 2 and Track 3 formats only; it never negotiates for any state.
| Format | Typical question | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Track 2 expert dialogue | What data-sharing arrangement could riparian states accept? | Non-attributed options paper |
| Joint fact-finding | Can parties agree on the facts before arguing about meaning? | Agreed fact base with disputed points listed |
| Community exchange | How do border communities experience a shared hazard? | Record of community perspectives, with consent |
Joint fact-finding depends on evidence no party controls. Hydrological and ocean evidence comes from GCRI Water Nexus and GCRI oceans and coasts; see shared water and energy systems.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Chatham House Rule | A rule under which participants may use information received but may not reveal the identity or affiliation of speakers. |
| Science-policy interface | The arrangements through which scientific evidence reaches public decisions, including advisory committees, chief scientific advisers, academies and intergovernmental assessments. |
| Track two dialogue | Informal dialogue among non-official participants, such as experts, that can explore options officials cannot. |
| Deliberative forum | A structured process in which participants weigh evidence and arguments together before reaching a view, the approach the OECD describes for representative deliberative processes. |
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.