The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 77

4 The institutional history of the

CGIAR Challenge Program on
Water and Food

Ilse Pukinskis

CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food CPWF, Vientiane, Lao
PDR; Corresponding author, [e-mail].

Introduction
From its inception, the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) was
meant to do things differently. In 2002, the CGIAR (formerly the Consultative
Group for International Agricultural Research) created three Global Challenge
Programs (GCPs) to respond directly to pressing global development concerns.
The GCPs were envisioned as pilot programs for the “reinvention of the
business model of the CGIAR” (CPWF Consortium, 2002, p. vii). They were
to be characterized by their focus on specific outputs, reliance on new
partnerships and an inclusive approach to priority setting (CDMT, 2001, p. 6).
The CPWF was born into this environment of anticipated change and
learning.
In the decade since it started, the CPWF has evolved a set of research-for-
development (R4D) approaches. These are processes for undertaking agricul-
tural research aimed at achieving tangible development outcomes (see Chapter
3 for processes and Chapter 8 for examples of outcomes).
Evolution of R4D in the CPWF is best understood through its institu-
tional history. An institutional history is a narrative of how new ways of insti-
tutional working evolved to achieve goals better (Prasad et al., 2006).
Institutional histories support learning by making knowledge explicit and
examining the institutional context within which change occurred. The
CPWF's institutional history tells of successes and failures of institutions and
individuals.
What can we learn from the CPWF's new way of working to achieve
outcomes? In this chapter I analyze how interactions among different players
influenced the CPWF's ability to achieve its goals. Successful R4D requires
specific capacities at three levels: individual, organizational and institutional
(Hawkins et al., 2009). Through good practices at these three levels, R4D can
add value to existing research and development processes. Interaction among
these levels determined the institutional capacity of the CPWF and shaped its
trajectory. The lessons and conclusions I draw from the CPWF's story provide
institutional insights for future R4D work.