Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 142

Participation in decision support
All three projects succeeded in spanning the boundaries between different
sources of knowledge and between sources (researchers) and users (decision
makers). In many cases, these links already existed since researchers had worked
together before and had previous experiences living in the region (as nationals
or expatriates) and working on the issues. Personal connections with policy-
makers at different levels were important, enhanced in some cases by recog-
nition associated with international organizations (IWMI or CPWF). In some
cases the projects were strengthened by these relationships—e.g., researchers
and local authorities in Colombia and Peru in PN20.
Facilitating factors were strong mutual understanding, mutual interest and
flexibility in the use of resources for activities of mutual benefit. As Clark et al.
(2011) conclude, one-off interactions between researchers and policymakers
could lead to useful outcomes but the potential for longer-term impact at scale
seems less likely. Sustained collegial relations—formal or informal—between
senior researchers and policymakers are important for achieving policy
influence.
Accountability in decision support
The CPWF hypothesized that mutual accountability in setting the research
agenda was critical for policy influence. While research organizations were the
project leaders in all cases, CPWF did require letters of support from local
partners, which gave them some leverage over the agenda. Planning workshops
and regular feedback, formal and informal, were part of the processes for these
three projects. More important, however, seems to be the fact that project
teams and partners had worked together in the past and would continue to do
so in the future. This provided researchers with a strong incentive to make sure
that key stakeholders, including policymakers, were on board and were happy
with the way work was progressing. The best example of this could be the
MUS South Africa Project where it was concluded that despite the fact that
IWMI led it, there really was no leader: all partners including DWAF worked
together and complemented each other.
Boundary objects in decision support
Two of the three projects produced bioeconomic models that incorporated
input from local stakeholders and were intended to support decisions made by
local policymakers. Building the model was an opportunity for close inter-
action, and afterwards researchers provided policymakers with the results
(presentations and policy briefs), tools, and training in how to use them. The
way the models were used varied across the projects. The results of the model
were applied directly in PN10, and were adapted when designing the
PES schemes in PN22.