The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 86

Center-based projects. “That is not to question these projects' merits but rather
to question the impact of CP funding as opposed to the operation of the
CGIAR Centers in a 'business as usual' setting” (Biswas et al., 2007, p. 41).
Many in the Centers believed that the Challenge Programs competed with
them for funding. The CPWF secured new funding of almost US$70 million
for Phase 1, but Centers believed they were losing out. The belief was so
strong that a 2004 study by the CGIAR Secretariat and Science Council
investigated the claim. The study concluded that the Challenge Programs had
generated new funding from both existing and new sources that most likely
would not have been raised in the absence of the Challenge Programs. The
study also noted that funding to Centers in 2003 and 2004 had not declined as
a result of the Challenge Programs being established (CGIAR, 2004, p. 15).
In early 2009, the CPWF conducted an online survey to which 76 Project
Leaders and staff responded. Most feedback was positive, but respondents
identified several weak aspects in Phase 1. Some thought that too many meet-
ings were uncoordinated, and neither time nor money had been budgeted for
them. Others thought that initial planning was optimistic, leading to shortages
of both time and money as projects wound down.
Many respondents agreed that the CPWF research model worked well and
over three-quarters said that the CPWF provided useful training. Eighty-four
percent said that in CPWF projects they worked with more and different
partners, which three-quarters thought contributed to different science and
outcomes. Three-quarters of respondents felt that they achieved different
research results, outcomes and impacts than they would have done in business-
as-usual research (Sullivan and Alvarez, 2009). This is contrary to the External
Review criticism that many CPWF projects were indistinguishable from
Center-led projects. The CPWF's approach was resource-intensive and
demanding but, according to its researchers, it worked.
Origins of Phase 2
In Phase 1, the CPWF identified options to produce more food with less
water through innovations that emerged from its emphasis on diverse
partnerships. Through these partnerships, the CPWF redefined how to do
effective agricultural research in the face of institutional challenges. The
CPWF continued to refine how to operate an R4D program as it prepared for
Phase 2.
The results of the BFPs that were released in 2007 called into question the
idea that water scarcity was the defining crisis of the new century. They
confirmed the importance of increasing water productivity, but emphasized
that it was more complex than “more crop per drop.” BFP research also
showed that the links between water scarcity and poverty were more subtle
and complex than previously thought. The BFP results reinforced the reasons
for the CPWF to increase its focus on R4D as it headed into Phase 2 (see
Chapter 2 for more detail).