CPWF & TWG presentation VBDC 2011


Published on

Presentation on CPWF global and on TWG communities of practices made at the Volta BDC project leaders' meeting held in Ouagadougou on 28-29 March 2011

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Points to make (from Boru):Why our core principles? Learned from experience that:Partnership -- Research won’t be relevant nor research outputs put into use without partnership; networkingCapacity development -- Making change happen often requires changes in peoples’ knowledge, attitudes and skills, through capacity developmentAdaptive management -- Real world problems are complex and dynamic, goal post shift, opportunities emerge. Projects, BDCs and the Program must be able to learn, spot opportunity and take advantage of it to really make a differenceGender and diversity -- We work to benefit women, youth, socially excludedInterdisciplinary integration -- Real world problems are complex and multifaceted and unlikely to fall to single disciplinary researchAccountability – we ensure our accountability to our stakeholders while also working to improve accountability systems impacting on water productivity and livelihoods[Suggest don’t go through all, pick your top two]Linking research to impact:We carefully chose compelling basin development challenges to motivate people to get on the busWe then invest early-on in mapping out pathways to the desired outcomes and impact. These pathways, or road maps (for the bus) link the research we do, how we do it (guided by core principles) to changes in next user and end user knowledge, attitude, skills and practice. Agreeing these outcome pathways, and who needs to do what, when, helps ensure programmatic coherence and helps set priorities. The road map can change, indeed we expect it to change, once the journey begins (adaptive management). We manage our program to allow that to happen (part of what makes us different).We systematically seek insight across our projects and basins by:Being guided by conceptual frameworks the CPWF sees useful to guide practice and to which it seeks to help develop (e.g., Resilience, MUS, Innovation Systems)Setting up and supporting Topic Working Groups as a mechanism for doing 1)Setting up our 28 projects as experiments into how research does (and does not) foster innovation and developmental changeOther key elements to add (left in from Amanda) here by speaking to the slide (if not mentioned before)Projects contribute to achieving the BDC (hence should adhere to core principles)Basin focus but mechanisms in place to ensure cross basin learning (covered by the previous slide if needed)Team in place to make integrated process workAbility to scale up, replicate, influence and contribute to policy change
  • BL workshop tentatively 30. Nov., 1st – 2nd of Dec.
  • CPWF & TWG presentation VBDC 2011

    1. 1. The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and FoodWhere it is, where it is going, why it is different<br />Alain VIDAL, CPWF Director<br />
    2. 2. 2<br />Re-greening the Uganda “Cattle Corridor”<br />Community corralling of cattle for 2 weeks permits pasture establishment<br />Local organizations invest in up-scaling of pasture regeneration <br />Termites destroy any attempt to reseed degraded pasture <br />
    3. 3. Global food crisis: a poverty “countdown”<br />3 billion poor below US$2.5/day<br /> 2 billion suffer from malnutrition<br /> 1 billion suffer from hunger <br /><ul><li>75% of them are rural poor
    4. 4. Alleviating hunger means reducing rural poverty</li></ul>Reducing rural poverty<br /><ul><li>Increase the income of the rural poor to enable food security and investment into productivity
    5. 5. Ensure they can cope with short-term and long-term changes</li></ul>3<br />
    6. 6. The resilience challenge<br /> Food production communities and ecosystems should be able to cope with local and global changes (climate, economy, demography, migrations…), ie becomemore resilient<br /><ul><li>Achieved through improved water productivity (more food with less water) together with empowerment, equity, market access, health and ecosystemservices </li></ul>4<br />
    7. 7. Mobilize triggers for change between alternate resilient states<br />5<br />Manure applied through night corralling provides a preferred diet for the termites <br />S<br />Wet Season:<br />Dry matter 4.5 T/ha<br />9 species / m²<br />S<br />Water depletion, grazing pressure, loss of soil organic matter<br />Wet Season:<br />Dry matter 0 T/ha<br />0 species / m²<br />
    8. 8. CPWF aims to increase the resilience of social and ecological systems through better water management for food production<br />Through its broad partnerships, it conducts research that leads to impact on the poor and to policy change <br />6<br />
    9. 9. CPWF Phase 2(2009-2014)Focusing on achievable impacts in 6 river basins <br />
    10. 10. Focusing the CPWF strategy<br />Focusing on science content found most promising and with development impact within the 15 year CPWF time frame, and contributing to emerging CGIAR CRPs (CRP5 Land, Water & Ecosystems)<br />Addressing 1-2 development challenges in specific parts of each basin <br />1 basin development program = USD 5-6 million investment into 4-5 linked projects<br />8<br />
    11. 11. Six basin development challenges<br />Andes – Benefit-sharing mechanisms<br />Mekong – Dams and livelihoods<br />Nile – Rainwater management in Ethiopia<br />Volta – Small reservoirs, rainwater and livelihoods<br />Limpopo – Small reservoirs, rainwater and livelihoods<br />Ganges – Floods and salt in the Delta<br />9<br />
    12. 12. Operationalizing Phase 2 - BDCs<br />Proposals approved<br />Start May 2011<br />Operational<br />Operational<br />Operational<br />Operational<br />2<br />1<br />
    13. 13. Operationalizing Phase 2 - Program<br />
    14. 14. How we work<br />Guided by core principles: <br /><ul><li>working in partnership
    15. 15. adaptive management
    16. 16. capacity development
    17. 17. gender and interdisciplinary integration
    18. 18. accountability</li></ul>Linking researchtoimpactthrough compelling basin development challenges and ‘outcome pathways’ <br />Seeking insightacross projects and basins<br />
    19. 19. In other words…<br />Projects contribute to achieving the BDC - hence should adhere to core principles<br />Basin focus but mechanisms in place to ensure cross basin learning - TWGs<br />Our whole Program Team in place to make integrated process work<br />Ability to scale up, replicate, influence and contribute to policy change<br />13<br />
    20. 20. Topic Working GroupsThe example of resilience<br />
    21. 21. What are Topic Working Groups?<br />Communities of practice that address specific, well-defined issues of water and food in several CPWF basins<br />Aims <br />Facilitate cross-basin learning through various interactive ways, including virtual communication<br />Help build capacity of basin teams through sharing of experiences and mentoring<br />Facilitate cross-basin research<br />Produce topic-specific syntheses and other generic outputs<br />
    22. 22. Status of TWGs<br />TWG on Multiple Use Systems - stand-by JP<br />Met in Feb 2010 - Lead: Vacant<br />TWG on Resilience – operational Alain<br />Launched in March 2011 - Lead: Line Gordon and Elin Enfors, SEI/SRC<br />TWG on Global Drivers Amanda<br />To be launched soon - Lead: Simon Cook, former BFP coordinator<br />TWG on Learning to Innovate (Basin Leaders) Funke<br />Launched during BLs workshop, Vientiane, Jan 2011 - Lead: Boru Douthwaite, Innovation and Impact Director<br />Other TWGs under discussion<br />Spatial Analysis<br />Modeling<br />Research to Policy (Africa)<br />Benefit-sharing Mechanisms<br />Rainwater Management<br />
    23. 23. Resilience ?<br />Ability to maintain functioning despite stress, shocks or disturbance<br />Reflects ability of system to self-organize; build capacity for learning and adaptation<br />17<br />
    24. 24. Resilience Analysis: looking at our BDCs with a “resilience lens”<br />Describing the system <br />Structure – scales, boundaries, governance/institutions <br />Values/importance - goods and services, threats and shocks<br />Historical profile – events and responses<br />System dynamics<br />Specified resilience <br />Resilience of specific parts<br />Thresholds, feedbacks <br />Slow and fast drivers<br />General resilience – system coping capacity<br />Adaptive cycles <br />Options for intervention<br />
    25. 25. Restoring ecosystem services in the Andes<br />19<br />Conservation agriculture and paramo restoration supported by revolving fund <br />Annual net income:<br />2,183/ha<br />Farmers‘ insufficient gain and risk aversion: only 11% converted<br />Revolving fund credit: <br />+180 farmers /year<br />Potato cropping, grazing pressure, degradation of paramo<br />S<br />Annual net income:<br />US$ 1,870/ha<br />
    26. 26. Volta possible questions for the Resilience TWG<br />What is the resilience ‘status’ of the Volta social-ecological system (SES)?<br />Can resilience framing help us find ‘leveraging points’ in systems ex-ante? if so, how?<br />If only find ex-post; can we collect information that can build generic knowledge of ‘leveraging points’? how do we do that? <br />What scale is more relevant (basin, catchment, agroecozones, country, community, household?) especially for the CPWF basin goals and boundary partners?<br />How can we improve and measure livelihood resilience?<br />
    27. 27. Thank you<br />a.vidal@cgiar.org<br />www.waterandfood.org<br />www.slideshare.net/cpwf<br />