Partnerships, platforms and power - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 159

poverty). Another set of partners might develop drought-management strate-
gies (drought-tolerant varieties, soil-cover strategies, market innovations for
no-till farm equipment). Yet a different set of partners could assess the con-
sequences (returns to investment in conservation agriculture, distribution of
benefits across social groups) or engage with policymakers to explore policy
alternatives to encourage drought-management practices. In study basins, the
CPWF often represented just one piece of a larger agenda in which partner
organizations had already invested. This led to questions and long discussions
about attribution of results and outcomes.
Roles for CPWF in R4D
Key features of the CPWF's R4D were its roles as convener, negotiator,
enabler, space provider and trusted broker (see Chapter 3). They promoted
dialogue between key people in research, policy and development. With
CPWF research outputs intended to contribute to development outcomes,
partners brought quality research to the attention of policymakers and were
able to engage them in its development.
R4D requires a mix of skills and partners with clear mandates, roles,
perspectives and linkages, plus the ability or flexibility to work in partnerships
toward longer-term goals. At the same time, it is important to maintain focus
on research-based evidence for better-informed decision-making. The Basin
Development Challenges (BDCs) of Phase 2 focused on local realities and
people, took account of national policy frameworks and included relevant,
knowledgeable partners across scales.
Partnerships in the CPWF
Partnerships and collaboration were central to the concept of the Challenge
Programs (CPs) when they were proposed in 2001, and they continued to be
so in the development of R4D in Phase 2 of the CPWF. Despite this, an
informal survey in March-April 2013 indicated no common definition of
partnerships within the CPWF. Individual Basin Leaders and research teams
had their own definitions of partnerships, which guided their practice. This
led the CPWF to ask, “Is it necessary to have a common definition of partner-
ships and collaboration within a program like the CPWF? Would that lead to
more effective partnerships, or is partnership entirely a matter of individuals
in context?” The literature suggested that while context is an important driver,
there are underlying commonalities and best practices.
One way to distinguish different kinds of partnerships is by the functions they
perform. Some partners helped the CPWF understand development challenges.
Some partners worked with it to develop strategies to address these challenges.
In some cases the CPWF was just one of several partners in a platform of which
it was not the convener. In other cases, partners helped with engagement and
negotiations where there were political, social and other sensitivities.