Aims and methods of the expert group review

1IRD conducts expert group reviews when and as requested to do so to enlighten political decisions and public debate about social issues. Sharing researcher findings and insights with the community, in other words, is one of any public-research agency’s duties.

2Scientist bodies, however, are not in the business of mapping out action plans for public authorities: action plans belong in the political arena and stem from factors lying outside the scientific realm. IRD reviews serve a humbler goal: they compile available information about a given topic in specialised literature, measure its relevance to the case at hand, and draw a line between facts (which the scientific community collectively endorses), opinions (which are still the subject of some scientific debate) and gaps (areas in which research, at this point, is inconclusive and therefore unfit to derive conclusions).

3Useful and reliable expert reviews encompass three aspects:

• decision-making timeframes and research timeframes rarely tally. Decisions often need to be taken fast. Or indeed sometimes citizens prompt immediate decisions. Expert group reviews distil facts from existing international literature: they do not involve gathering new information or processing available data in new and/or complex ways;
• the issues are rarely one-dimensional. So we review every one of an issue’s many facets in the light of the latest publications. Expert panels, it follows, span a broad base of disciplines and usually pool input from around a dozen specialists. These specialists debate and assume full responsibility for their conclusions. IRD also asks qualified independent experts to review its reports to ensure their content is complete, clear and compatible with international literature. Expert groups retain control over their conclusions;
• lastly, the decision-makers who peruse scientist and expert analyses and conclusions, and citizens in general, may find scientific language impenetrable. So scientists have two goals: to present their analysis in standard scientific language substantiating their reasoning, and to provide a simple and fairly concise synopsis that laypeople will understand.

4These factors shape review goals and presentation (in particular, the first and last phases):

• before gathering the experts, sponsoring organisations (which typically want to work with directly-concerned stakeholders) and scientists hold a preliminary workshop to draw up a list of questions. Both parties need a clear understanding of what the other expects. On the one hand, some decision-critical questions do not involve scientific input, and are thus best avoided. On the other, scientists need to understand the issues surrounding the decision-making process if they want to provide relevant conclusions;
• then expert scientists gather available data and analyses from their specific field. They subsequently pool their findings into group conclusions which they draft and publish in the form of a synopsis targeting a fairly wide readership. Such summaries involve a substantial workload and are rare. But their scientific and practical bearing often stretches far beyond the region or country in question. That is why they are systematically published in English and French.

5This survey on the Niger River’s future was conducted from this perspective.

6This expert group review was conducted by IRD and sponsored by the European Development Fund (EDF), World Conservation Union (UICN), GTZ (International Cooperation Enterprise for Sustainable Development) and France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Before deciding whether and how to facilitate and encourage natural-resource management on the Niger River, the agencies responsible for administrating this river’s resources wanted currently-available scientific, technical and financial information about development opportunities and about the foreseeable advantages and disadvantages of tapping those opportunities in Mali.

7The preliminary workshop provided six questions (see appendix 1). A group of twelve scientists convened under Minister Ousmane Sy’s presidency (see the group listing at appendix 2).

8The key conclusions were presented in Bamako in June 2005, sponsored by Gilles Fédière (IRD’s representative in Mali) and IER Director Bino Témé. This presentation provided an opportunity for experts to note down further questions, which they have endeavoured to address herein. Lastly, this report was read by two independent experts who helped authors improve its presentation.

9As in other publications in this collection, readers will find a summary of the expert group’s conclusions in English and French. The enclosed CD-ROM contains the six analytical chapters underlying and underpinning this synthesis.

10Heartfelt thanks go to all the people who contributed to this publication. First of all to Marianne Bethod-Wurmser who used to run the Expertise and Consulting Department and without whose help this report would have been incomplete, Caroline Weill-Giès and Olivier Monga who instigated this project. The experts are responsible for the findings and for the bulk of the hard work they conducted under Jérôme Marie, Pierre Morand and Hamady N’Djim.

11Lastly, heartfelt thanks go to Yveline Poncet (IRD) and Philippe Mangé (Conseil général du génie rural, des eaux et des forêts/general council for agriculture) for their expert perusal of this work.