Methodology - Site-specific trialogues - Introduction
The local trialogue is to helping balance information imbalances by providing options for retrieving information (i.e. EO methods)
The site-specific trialogue will start with the evaluation of available data and information concerning their relevance for the particular site. In any case, the participants of the site-specific trialogues will be provided with the results of the interviews made during the site visits within WP1, and/or the results of application of the Deliberation Matrix tool (if feasible).
The result of the evaluation process will be a document describing something like the current situation specific for the particular site which will also include problems identified. If all stakeholders/participants share the views expressed in the document, we only need to initiate exchange of information and suitable actions to solve the problems. However, if the views are different – and this is most likely – we have to identify a sub-set of problems, which shall be tackled in the trialogue workshop because we likely cannot discuss all problems in one workshop. A prioritisation of problems will then be necessary to cope with their wide variety. Still, such a selection process is somewhat risky as the selection can already affect the perception of different problems by the EO-MINERS project, and thus be in conflict with the assessment of single stakeholders.
We will also provide a selection of the indicators identified and established in WP1 (D1.8). Results of EO measurements (ALERT, remote sensing, etc.) will be prepared for presentation as well as EO-MINERS products - if available at that time. The set of actions will be completed with a moderated discussion to retrieve the general perception of the stakeholders and their perception of indicators, suitability of EO measurements and EO products.
All this will serve as input for the trialogue workshop and help the moderator(s) to give an introduction into the problems to be tackled and to moderate the discussion. The workshop itself should run to 100% in local language (simultaneously translated to English and vice versa).
It may be an option to communicate all the mentioned information with all stakeholders beforehand and ask for something like a position paper from the diverse stakeholders. These position papers should highlight again the related point of view, and should also provide ideas for possible solutions. Such position papers might be very helpful for the preparation of the workshop by the moderator(s).
We believe that the general structure of the site-specific trialogue events needs to be adjusted to the specific site and the composition of participating stakeholders. Cultural factor need to be taken into account as well.