Selection of the final set of indicators was based on the principle of "representative diversity".  This aims at highlighting, as much as possible, the diversity of (1) issues and (2) viewpoints of the stakeholders, without drowning them in a majority opinion.  The idea is that, where possible, deliberative procedures should attenuate contradictory opinions without eliminating them, providing the opportunity to all parties, even minorities, to be represented and thus to make them feel involved in the final result.  In fact, this selection process of the final data set amounted to requiring the four categories of stakeholders to participate in a negotiation activity, with the objective of reaching an equilibrium between consensus and strong expressions of interest, while attempting to preserve the entire diversity of stakes. 

 

With the objective of selecting 5 indicators by issue category, four rules were applied in a non-linear and non -exhaustive manner:

 

 

Overall, at the end of this selection work, 45 indicators were retained, homogeneously distributed within the nine issue categories.  A quick comparison between this approach and a selection based on majority opinion (viz. selecting the most popular indicators among all stakeholders groups) shows a 10% divergence in the results.  Thus, most of the indicators that would be retained by the majority opinion approach could equally have been chosen in our ―representative diversity selection procedure.  But, the application of diversity criteria has enriched the selection with coverage of more issues in a more varied way.  

 

Among the 45 indicators selected in the final set, 35 were chosen by enlarged external stakeholders, 34 by the traditional external stakeholders, 34 by the internal stakeholders and the coordinating authorities.  These figures show that equity in the respect of diversity across viewpoints has been assured by the process that was chosen.