The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 92

and behavior, and in doing so produce outcomes. The CPWF's knowledge
management team worked with the BDCs to ensure that they incorporated
impact pathways and theories of change. Communications, monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) and information management formed the basis for the
CPWF's knowledge management work.
The Phase 2 knowledge management framework emphasized com-
munications, aiming to communicate better and publicize the programs.
Communication strategies introduced at the program level proved useful in
some basins, and less useful in others. Due to the decentralized nature of the
CPWF, each basin program developed its own communication plan and
strategy, which resulted in varying levels of success across basins. Basin-level
communication activities did achieve impact when they were able to translate
science results into the “languages” of different target stakeholders.
In February 2010 the CGIAR announced its plans to create a series of
CGIAR research programs (CRPs). The CRPs were intended to align the
research of the 15 CGIAR Centers and their partners into efficient, multi-
disciplinary programs. In April 2010 the CGIAR Consortium Board (CB)
recommended that the CPWF be integrated into the newly formed, IWMI-
led CRP on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). It was agreed that the
CPWF would continue to operate independently through the end of 2013, in
the process contributing to the WLE program. In August 2011 the CPWF
Consortium Steering Committee was dissolved and the boards of the CPWF
and IWMI merged (CPWF, 2011b, p. 1). This was a major turning point for
the CPWF from both a programmatic and governance perspective, and
reduced the CPWF's programmatic independence.
WLE took a thematic approach to program design and centered the program
on five thematic strategic research portfolios (SRPs) operating in ten river basins
(including the six BDC basins) (WLE, 2011). R4D with an outcome orienta-
tion was featured in the WLE strategy for partnerships and capacity building.
WLE was launched in February 2012. Over the next year and a half,
strategies for the closure or continuation of BDC activities post-CPWF varied
a great deal. In some basins, WLE is likely to provide continuity for impact-
generating research on the CPWF basin challenges while in other basins
regional networks have offered to provide continuity.
The CPWF's Phase 2 was designed to move from outputs to outcomes,
followed by Phase 3, which was intended to move from outcomes to impact as
the Program's exit strategy. The CGIAR CB decided to integrate this exit
strategy into WLE. This decision was presented as a fait accompli in a meeting
of the CB with Center Directors General and Board Chairs. In taking this
decision, the CB appears to have judged that integration with WLE would
yield a similar result as the CPWF's planned exit strategy. The CPWF has
continued to work with WLE to build on the CPWF's successes where
appropriate so as to keep generating outcomes and impact.
With plans for a Phase 3 (2014-2018) canceled, the CPWF found itself in
an awkward situation. It had entered into Phase 2 recognizing that R4D and