The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 95

CPWF is a story of institutional change and the lessons it provides offer insight
for future R4D efforts. Some of the key lessons follow.
The strengthened capacity of individuals who took part in CPWF is a
key outcome of the CPWF, and is an important legacy
The success of an R4D project is as much about strengthening capacities to
respond to the needs of stakeholders as it is about water productivity, food
production or improved livelihoods. There were various wins in influencing
scientific thought in the direction of development outcomes over the course
of the CPWF. The multi-disciplinary nature of the CPWF's research raised
researchers' awareness of the value of working in diverse teams, and sometimes
they were more willing to do so. Sometimes the CPWF succeeded in breaking
down the barriers and silos that surround the agricultural and water disciplines,
but in other instances it failed to do so. Yet the CPWF's legacy is a vision of
what successful R4D looks like. That vision was adopted by many who
worked with the CPWF, and they will be the ones to carry it forward in their
future work.
Institutional challenges to pursuing research for development initiatives
within the CGIAR are not new. As discussed in Chapter 7, the CGIAR has a
history of initiating institutional reform, beginning in the 1970s when it
recognized the need to tackle commodity-based farming systems. The creation
of the GCPs was the third round of CGIAR reform, and the CRPs in 2010 is
the fourth 5 (CGIAR, 2011). We suggest that the proponents of reform con-
sider this repeating story.
R4D approaches and lessons must be communicated in languages that
are logical and relatable to their intended audiences
The CPWF spent more than a decade learning about the science of water,
agriculture and poverty as well as the science of R4D and innovation. Some of
the things it did worked better than others, but it learned useful lessons.
Throughout this time the CPWF sought to articulate these lessons in such a
way as to sway skeptics. During the transition to the WLE CRP, the CPWF
did not effectively communicate the virtues of its approach—nor its difficulties.
Now, however, WLE is confronted with the same challenge as that faced by
the CPWF 10 years ago: how to translate research outputs into development
outcomes.
Science can, and must, inform and complement development processes
If scientific research is to be useful, it must produce information (outputs) that
can be used to influence people to change what they do or how they do it
(generate outcomes). In Phase 2, it became clear that those BDC programs that
became conveners were most successful in achieving outcomes. Convening
BDCs were able to use research outputs in engagement processes to change