It is rarely the role of those who carry out the assessment to make decisions about how to respond in the light of the results.  The outcomes of integrated assessments, however, are often relatively complex, and therefore need to be provided to decision-makers in a form that they can understand.  In many cases, also, the end-users may request help in interpreting the findings, and in further assessing the possible consequences of their decisions.  For these reasons, the boundary between assessment and decision-making is neither absolute nor impervious, but instead involves a dialogue between scientists, decision-makers and the other stakerholders concerned.   The purpose of appraisal is to bring together, communicate and interpret the results of the assessment as an input to this dialogue.   This involves two key steps:

1. Reporting the assessment results - i.e. delivering them to the end-users in a synthesised and understandable form;
2. Comparing and ranking outcomes - i.e. identifying and interpreting the messages that the results imply.

Neither of these is a wholly objective process.  Each involves some degree of selection of what matters, and the methods (and even the langauge) used in each case almost inevitably act to shape the conclusions.  In the apprtaisal stage, as much as at any other stage in an assessment, it is therefore important to guard against bias.  To ensure this:

• appraisal procedures need to be set out well in advance, ideally as part of the assessment protocol, and these procedures need to be adhered to;
• appraisal should be an open process, involving the stakeholders;
• access should always be available to the underlying, more detailed data (i.e. the assessment results) on which the appraisal is based.