CPWF Phase 2 Basin Development Challenge (BDC) research programs have been designed around a specific challenge in the river basin. In CPWF Phase 1 (2003-2008), the projects 
focused on thematic problem sets rather than locally identified problems. When we began designing Phase 2 programs around 2008, one of the lessons we learned was that partners and key stakeholders have to be directly involved in the development of the research proposals.
The first basins programs were designed by a smaller group of stakeholders; as a result, there was less buy-in during project start-up. In these basins (such as the Mekong), projects needed to build trust and social capital as they initiated their projects. Other BDCs, such as the Ganges, built upon this lesson and stakeholders were involved from the beginning, ensuring more buy-in and a more demand-driven approach.
The CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (CRP5) inception workshop in Nairobi was an excellent time to get feedback from participants who worked with CPWF on their lessons learnt—feedback that could help guide CRP5’s inception. I counted around 10 participants who had participated in CPWF research and some others who were knowledgeable of CPWF activities.
So, what did they say?
Most of the participants felt that the BDCs were demand-driven in regards to project design and partner input. Some of their reflections included:
- Moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2, CPWF analysed what people need in terms of livelihoods, food and ecosystems, so as to focus and narrow-down its research to the most pressing problems.
- By focusing its attention on basin problem sets as opposed to thematic ones, CPWF has acquired greater legitimacy with basin actors.
- The CPWF value chain approach in basins helps connect markets with people and their livelihoods.
- Social research has been shown to be very important to understand the processes of change.
- The CPWF multi-stakeholder platforms connect with local organizations and communities, hence providing a space to address local development challenges and to provide evidence-based lessons for decision-makers.
In addition, participants pointed out a few other lessons that might be useful for CRP5:
- The CPWF has provided a unique opportunity to have CGIAR projects led by National Agriculture Research Systems (NARS). Fourteen of the 29 CPWF projects in Phase 2 are lead by non-CGIAR centers. To get greater buy in from the partners, CGIAR centers must give up some control in order to gain more impact.
- Since each CPWF project comprises lead partner institutions, competitive calls for research projects have proven complex and less effective than commissioning research. Yet the administrative requirements for commissioning research and partnership can be easily streamlined while still complying with CGIAR regulations.
- Research into Use projects are a model worth exploring in the reformed CGIAR and in CRP5.
- Like CPWF in Phase 1, CRP5 has found it challenging to properly coordinate thematic and regional approaches.
What other key lessons learnt by CPWF can help guide the emerging CRP5? I am interested to hear your thoughts.
Alain Vidal, CPWF Director
March 2012
Facebook
Twitter
RSS Feed
Email
Youtube
Flickr
SlideShare
Knowl. Tree
3 Comments
This is a great question to be asking as CRPs are launched and the CGIAR is forced into demonstrating its relevance in a changing and evolving world.
I would argue that CPWF is demonstrating (with all its warts) that agriculture research for development not only should but can be demand driven – and that this demand emanates from a wide range of actors (farmers, researchers, rural women, policy makers, donors, etc) with weight given to addressing real if complex problems and contributing to real development. Where this becomes problematic is that this process of contributing to change through applied scientific research is messy, complex and takes us out of our comfort zone. Not to everyone’s liking!
I would like to challenge us further – to move from what I consider to be undoubtedly demand and problem driven R4D to R4D that truly integrates a rights based approach, giving us even greater relevance, potential for contribution to sustainable and equitable impact and providing a consistent and widely accepted framework.
Now is the time to be visionary and ambitious while rigorous in the quality of our research.
Looks like you are on the right track. Well done.
Dear Allan:
Congratulation for your new blog discussion and thanks for the opportunity to express our experiences and points of view.
I fully agree that CPWF projects respond to a great extent to demands from the influence areas they intend to cover. Demands may not be explicitly voiced but real conditions and major limiting factors are the drivers of most projects designs, at least in Latin America, which is the region I understand better. Precisely based on this general knowledge, I would like to add to your argument that CPWF’s projects designs are also driven by the urgent and sensible need to alleviate poverty in Latin America.
Poverty is one of the major challenges middle-income countries are facing. On the one hand, there is the danger to get into the so-called middle-income trap. On the other hand, there is an active social movement at all society levels realizing how living conditions affect human dignity and claiming for a better distribution of growing wealth while constitutions and laws oblige national, regional and local governments to guarantee basic living conditions and internationally recognized human rights.
In fact, if one looks at most of Latin American development programs of current governments, it is easy to observe that poverty alleviation is one of the top priorities of national developmental agencies. This certainly reflects population’s demands that in most cases are quite current (no older than four years).
We at CPWF family have the opportunity –should I say the obligation- to contribute alleviating poverty by including, encouraging and strengthening agency among groups of poor with which we implement development-research projects. It means that poverty alleviation should switch from an implicit goal to an explicit set of activities and advocating positions to pursuing impact on vulnerable and poor groups with water-related benefits and mechanisms to share those benefits.