Phase 5: Communication of results

Communication is about the transmission of knowledge acquired during this case study and within this evaluation exercise, in the process and results.

Communication is present in all Integraal phases. As this study case is developed through a non-participative deliberation, communication was based on discussions and exchanges with the Reeds team, and some EJOLT partners to clarify and consolidate information on the evaluation process and on the Yasuní case study.

In a participative deliberation, participants (EJOs) would have the opportunity to obtain training on this deliberation method and get better understandings of case studies through multi-criteria evaluation debates (and future multi-actors multi-criteria evaluations) online in the KerDST Deliberation Support Tool.

The Forest of Brocéliande allows training online, with supporting information about case studies that users can study by themselves. It is available to everybody interested in learning about evaluation process and global environmental justice social problems.

A participatory debate would permit stakeholders to express themselves by giving judgement and justification for their votes online, visualising and comparing scenarios. Within a participatory debate, communication would also assist in the identification and exchanges on values, on indicators propositions, and in the diffusion of the evaluation results.

As participants might normally have different opinions, communication could be a challenge within complex issues of social choice. Participants need to show their best qualities to be open-mindedness and awareness of other participants’ judgements and their justifications. Through the practice of this evaluation exercise (with different variations) participants can improve in the way they give their judgement, having a wider view of important aspects of the evaluation through the time.

Hence, constant communication withinin the Integraal framework facilitates the involvement of all participants in the case study. Information exchanges and constant reflections on judgement provide people with the same level of knowledge, as well as better understanding of complex issues.