Messages and meaning - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 205

The CPWF was designed as a CGIAR reform program with an innovative
governance and business model. As structured, however, the host Center
retained legal responsibility for the hosted program. The CPWF sought flexi-
bility in implementing its plans while the International Water Management
Institute (IWMI) sought to maintain close supervision over CPWF activities.
The unstated assumption was that IWMI would be willing to relinquish
authority over the CPWF while retaining responsibility for its actions. In the
end, this arrangement proved difficult to maintain.
The CPWF was designed with a Phase 2 aimed at moving from outputs to
outcomes and a Phase 3 aimed at moving from outcomes to impact, which was
termed the “exit strategy.” The CGIAR Consortium Board (CB) took the
decision to transform this exit strategy into integration with the new CGIAR
Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE), probably judging
that integration with WLE would yield a similar result as the originally planned
exit strategy. The CPWF continued to work with WLE to build on CPWF
successes where appropriate to generate outcomes and impact (Chapter 4).
Technical and institutional innovation go together, but
innovation is long-term, non-linear and risky
Continuous learning mechanisms can evolve better ways to meet water and
food challenges through change that is relevant, appropriate, sustainable and
at scale. Farm- and catchment-level technical and institutional innovations have
greater impacts when they are widely adopted. Moreover, high-level policy
and institutional changes also have greater impacts when they affect large
numbers of people over a large area. Some innovations spread spontaneously,
but others often need strategies for scaling out. When there is wide-scale
adoption of an innovation, however, there may be unexpected positive and
negative consequences.
Technical innovation and institutional and policy innovation go hand
in hand
In all six basins of Phase 2, the experience from CPWF project teams was that
technical innovation and institutional and policy change often go together.
One without the other does not usually get to outcomes (Chapter 5). How
people collectively manage river systems through adequate institutions and
policy often makes the difference between poor and adequate health of the
river ecosystem.
This may sound obvious, but it remains counterintuitive to many. The
Limpopo team observed that “technology and infrastructure development can
be laid out according to timelines and calendars but corresponding institutions
are more difficult to establish.” R4D consciously aims at integrating mutually
reinforcing technical, institutional and policy innovations. Basin teams found
that this made some researchers uncomfortable.