The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 87

As it prepared for Phase 2, the External Review in August 2007 prompted
reflection on the CPWF's future direction. The Review found that the nine
basins of Phase 1 were too diverse in terms of scale and transboundary politics
because the selection criteria were too broad (Biswas et al., 2007, p. 26). The
Review also found that most projects lacked a cohesive vision for the basins in
which they operated, making basin coordination difficult (Biswas et al., 2007,
p. 37). It recommended a re-evaluation of the best way to achieve impact
within basins (Biswas et al., 2007, pp. 37-38). On the programmatic level, the
Review found that the CPWF lacked “a realistic . . . understanding of its
potential impacts,” because the original objectives were “visionary rather than
[those] against which [program] success can be measured” (Biswas et al., 2007,
pp. 54-55). It urged the CPWF to revisit its vision and mission statements.
Overall, the Review was positive and it praised the CPWF's ambitious
partnership approach. The Review gave the CPWF's non-traditional approach
to research credibility within the CGIAR. In September 2007 the CGIAR
Science Council released the External Review and its commentary on it. The
Council agreed that the strengthened linkages among CGIAR Centers,
NARES, advanced research institutes and NGOs were the most important
“added value” of the CPWF (Science Council of the CGIAR, 2009, pp. 2-3).
It agreed with the Review's suggestion that the CPWF should re-evaluate its
objectives and develop a more cohesive approach to research in river basins.
The Science Council (SC) recommended approval for Phase 2:
In sum, subject to the development of a well-conceived and more tightly
focused strategy and implementation and monitoring plan for Phase 2, as
well as a clear exit strategy and timeline, the SC endorses continuation of
the CPWF. As a next step the SC looks forward to reviewing and
endorsing a Phase 2 plan at the SC '09'.
(Science Council of the CGIAR, 2009, p. 4)
Priorities for Phase 2 were set based on lessons learned from Phase 1, the
External Review's recommendations, the Science Council commentary and
consultation with colleagues at IWMI. The groundwork for Phase 2 planning
took place prior to the release of the External Review report at a meeting in
January 2007 with the CSC, MT and Basin Coordinators. A second planning
meeting in October 2007 with a more limited attendance consolidated the
CPWF's plans for Phase 2. Participants agreed that it was necessary to reduce
the number of basins and refocus the work within some of them. They also
agreed that the CPWF needed to invest more heavily in communications,
which was weak in Phase 1. They noted the need to distinguish between
different audiences and to build relationships with policymakers. They
emphasized the need to use impact pathways and network maps to identify
key stakeholders to ensure the CPWF's success (CPWF, 2007, pp. 1-8).
Some Phase 1 projects were important in the design of Phase 2. With no
explicit R4D framework they had produced research outputs that could