LEGACY BRIEF 3 Reflections on a decade of innovative research-for-development Capturing lessons and insights from the implementation of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) – to help inform the development of future research programs and the transition to One CGIAR. This synthesis brief captures insights and lessons from the implementation of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) over the past decade. By assessing the program’s performance, thematic scope and its management, governance and structure, as well as the ways in which the program has monitored and communicated its research outputs, this brief aims to consolidate WLE’s experiences and inform the transition to One CGIAR and the development of future research-for-development initiatives. Over the course of its 10-year journey WLE developed practical and science-driven innovations that countries and farming communities can adopt to address critical development challenges and transition to more productive, sustainable and resilient food systems. These ranged from, for example, affordable and inclusive insurance for flood-prone farmers to landscape restoration, soil spectroscopy and business models that strengthened pro- poor solar irrigation initiatives. The program’s emphasis on the importance of ecosystem health as a foundation of agricultural systems has also contributed to a global paradigm shift in agricultural research-for-development – reflected during discussions at COP26 and the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The content of this brief captures discussions held during two reflection workshops held in November 2021. These workshops provided a space for people intimately involved in WLE – members of the program’s Management Committee, Independent Steering Committee, and senior researchers and staff of WLE’s Program Management Unit (PMU) – to offer perspectives on what the program achieved, and the processes, systems and structures that enabled the program to navigate the challenges it faced. Photo: Tadesse Desalegne / IWMI Reflecting the honest and self-critical nature of Program performance the discussions, participants also identified where improvements could have been made. From these observations it was possible to develop a series of This section assesses whether the program addressed actionable recommendations for future research-for- key challenges in the water, land and ecosystem development programs, including the Initiatives to be space, identifies which research areas have advanced implemented during the 2030 Research and Innovation through and because of WLE, and considers the Agenda of One CGIAR. program’s influence on global discourse. It also looks specifically at the performance of the program’s The brief is divided into the following sections: Gender, Youth and Inclusion (GYI) activities and assesses whether WLE’s Commission on Sustainable Program performance assesses how effectively the Agriculture Intensification (CoSAI) complemented the n program influenced global discourses and addressed program’s wider research-for-development agenda. key challenges in the water, land and ecosystems space. Influencing One CGIAR n Program integration and cross-sectoral collaboration explores WLE’s flagship structure and The program’s focus on integrated approaches to water, whether it enabled or constrained integration and land and ecosystem management has contributed to a cross-sectoral collaboration. paradigm shift in agricultural research-for-development – both within CGIAR and beyond. Previously dominated n Program management and governance considers by crop breeders and agronomists with a limited how effectively management and governance consideration of integrated or ‘systems’ approaches, the supported the program to deliver on its mandate. CGIAR responded positively to WLE’s research and the research of other ‘systems-focused’ CGIAR Research n Reporting, monitoring, evaluation and learning Programs (CRPs), subsequently embracing their wider assesses to what extent monitoring and evaluation research agenda. supported programmatic learning. One CGIAR’s mission and vision (See box ‘One CGIAR’s n Communications considers how effectively and mission and vision’) – which focus on food, land and water strategically the program’s research outputs were systems – clearly demonstrate the organization’s efforts communicated to external audiences. to more tightly embed systems thinking into its research Photo: Hamish John Appleby / IWMI 2 Beyond One CGIAR: Influencing a One CGIAR’s mission and new global paradigm vision (2021) WLE’s emphasis on the importance of ecosystem health Mission: “To deliver science and innovation that as an essential foundation of agricultural systems, and advance the transformation of food, land and the program’s belief that agricultural landscapes can water systems in a climate crisis.” – and should be – productive ecosystems, has also resonated beyond One CGIAR. WLE can be considered Vision: “A world with sustainable and resilient a pioneer in this field. The shift to prioritizing ecosystem food, land and water systems that deliver diverse, health is only now coming to the fore – reflected, for healthy, safe, sufficient and affordable diets, instance, during the UN’s Food Systems Summit and UN and ensure improved livelihoods and greater Conferences of the Parties (COP) for climate change, social equality, within planetary and regional biodiversity and desertification. At COP26 in Glasgow at environmental boundaries.” the end of 2021 discussions adopted a wider systems perspective and moved beyond the energy sector to consider implications for all sectors, including food and agriculture as well as water, land and ecosystems. portfolio. This shift is also illustrated by the Action Area on There is clear evidence to suggest that WLE has Systems Transformation; three out of the four units within informed – and will continue to inform – the work of this Action Area integrate the work of the WLE program donors, farmers, investors, governments and other and its researchers. Moreover, all One CGIAR initiatives relevant public and private institutions such as basin (including the Action Areas ‘Resilient Agri-Food Systems’ organizations and companies. Examples of the program’s and ‘Genetic Innovations’) need to show demonstrable influences are provided below: improvements in ecosystem health and biodiversity, and several directly build on the work WLE has implemented n A major outcome during the program’s final year over the past decade. was an evidence review produced with the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office One CGIAR initiatives that most directly reflect WLE’s which suggested how the agricultural sector could research include: move towards more nature-positive production through the delivery of integrated agricultural solutions n Mitigation and Transformation Initiative for GHG on climate, biodiversity, nutrition and livelihoods. Reductions of Agri-food Systems Related Emissions (MITIGATE+) n A 2016 paper produced by WLE chartered the way for sustainable agricultural intensification and n Transformational Agroecology Across Food, Land and remains one of the most cited papers on the subject. It Water Systems helped place sustainable intensification within a broader context of ecosystem-based approaches n Nexus Gains: Realizing Multiple Benefits Across and influenced FAO’s approach to agroecology and Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystems ecosystem-based approaches.1 n Nature-Positive Solutions: Enhancing Productivity n WLE research influenced UN-Water to incorporate and Resilience, Safeguarding the Environment, and environmental flows into the Sustainable Development Promoting Inclusive Community Growth Goal (SDG) water stress indicator (SDG 6.4.2); contributed to UN-Water’s water use efficiency efforts Although these developments demonstrate that One through the development of methodologies and SDG CGIAR is committed to building on the solid foundation target monitoring; and persuaded UN-Water to that WLE and other cross-cutting programs have emphasize the importance of nature in its World Water developed, additional work will still be needed to shift Development Report, Nature-Based Solutions for mindsets and more tightly embed systems research within Water. The report’s definition of nature-based solutions, One CGIAR moving forward. and the relationship between infrastructure and ecosystems services, was informed by WLE research. 1 Statement made by Prof. Olcay Unver, former Deputy Director of the Land and Water Division, UN FAO, and a former member of WLE’s Independent Steering Committee, 2014-2019. 3 Addressing key challenges and profitability, gender and nutrition benefits that arise from advancing research scaling small-scale irrigation. n Mainstreaming agrobiodiversity in food systems: In addition to influencing the global discourse on Building an evidence-base and developing tailored agriculture and food systems, the reflection workshops decision-support tools with public and private sector helped consolidate thinking on the added value of WLE partners to leverage the potential of agrobiodiversity for research in specific thematic areas. Discussions helped multifunctional agriculture and food systems. focus attention on the solutions and innovations that WLE generated over the past decade – which would not have The workshops also acknowledged the critically important been possible without the funding and research that the work of the CoSAI, which investigates the current state of program was able to mobilize. These include: investments in agricultural innovation and explores how constraints limiting such investments can be overcome. n Affordable and inclusive insurance for flood- However, WLE researchers felt that, although the CoSAI prone farmers: Addressing the increasing demand for asked the right questions, it was initiated too late and affordable, pro-poor flood insurance products that therefore most of its impact will only become apparent protect farmer assets and strengthen resilience. This after the program has closed. includes index-based flood insurance schemes that use flood modelling data to estimate flood depths and duration and satellite data to help assess flood Gender, Youth and Inclusion damage; and a bundled insurance product that provides compensation alongside agricultural inputs WLE initiated important work to improve equity and such as fertilizers and submergence-tolerant seeds. enhance outreach to marginal groups. The program’s cross-cutting theme of Gender, Youth and Inclusion (GYI) n Pro-poor solar irrigation business models: produced valuable work and established an important Promising frameworks for realizing the transformative foundation, including frameworks and proven tools potential of solar irrigation pumps – without over- and solutions, that can now be utilized by others. The pumping and exacerbating groundwater depletion. WLE program was also able to merge more technical approaches with social science and gender-focused work, n Developing and promoting nature-based solutions: which helped, for instance, to identify scaling opportunities Pursuing development within critical environmental and for land restoration and develop gender-equitable flood risk natural resource limits by recognizing how the integrity insurance schemes. A focus on labor-saving solutions and of natural systems or managed ecosystems, such as innovations emerged to become an important gender entry constructed wetlands, can help agriculture flourish point. Additionally, GYI enhanced the capacity of some while at the same time support water, land and researchers to ensure that systems research became ecosystems. more gender-sensitive and gender-transformative – an important development that will need to be given continued n Business models that drive circular economies attention during future CGIAR programs and initiatives. for food systems: Identifying opportunities for resource, recovery and reuse using numerous technical However, funding for GYI research at the sub-program and institutional solutions for recovering water, nutrients level was often limited, resources were stretched, and and energy from domestic waste streams. available expertise was not always aligned with the needs n Restoring degraded landscapes: Reversing degradation at scale and enhancing ecosystem services and related benefits such as food, energy, clean water, carbon sequestration and livelihoods. n Soil spectroscopy: Groundbreaking technology using soil spectral analysis enables ecosystem health evaluation on a massive scale, paving the way for better targeting of land restoration and more sustainable agriculture. n Farmer-led irrigation: Developing a strong research foundation to consolidate the multiple productivity, Photo: Nana Kofi Acquah / IWMI 4 of researchers. In fact, not all researchers felt they were Furthermore, although WLE will be remembered for given sufficient guidance on how gender sensitivity could its landscape approaches some researchers felt that be included in their work, suggesting that the program’s the program’s shift from watersheds and basins to GYI component was insufficiently integrated across the landscapes as a unit of analysis was less specific and whole program. much harder to define. Some felt it may have been better to focus on specific basins to show linkages When funding did become more widely available in from the farm to basin level or instead to focus recent years, most GYI research was allocated to analysis at the community and catchment/basin level gendered research and this generated significant to better understand linkages with farming systems. achievements. However, as a result, research on youth and other marginalized social groups such as indigenous There were also concerns that some of the advances communities tended to be overlooked, with some achieved by WLE may be lost in the transition to One exceptions. Furthermore, the increased gender research CGIAR, specifically research on soil management capacity worked mainly at programmatic level and often for restoration and ecosystem services and work did not connect sufficiently with projects. on landscape approaches. There is a risk that the expertise WLE has developed will not be carried Thematic gaps forward and built upon, and additional efforts may therefore be needed to engage bilateral projects and Although the thematic scope of the program was wide external organizations. and WLE was able to successfully address a large number of challenges and needs, researchers identified several thematic areas they felt on reflection did not receive sufficient attention. Thematic gaps that could Recommendations for have been addressed more, if resource availability would One CGIAR have allowed, included: n Adopt an integrated systems approach: n Land tenure and land management, including its links Consolidate the shift away from research in to water tenure. silos and a narrow focus on single commodities and productivity; stress the n Social sciences, human behaviors and the drivers importance of considering a holistic of human behaviors that influence the management of perspective of food systems within water, land water, land and ecosystems. and ecosystems; and act on the importance of ecosystem health as a foundation of n Hydrology, which played a relatively small role, agriculture and food systems. particularly in the program’s second phase, since the focus was on landscapes rather than river basins n Build on WLE’s foundation: Refine, adapt or hydrological processes. and strategically promote and scale-up the proven solutions and technologies that WLE n The interests and needs of consumers and larger has developed with partners to strengthen producers, and marginal communities such as the climate resilience of communities across indigenous communities, youth and disempowered the Global South. social classes and castes. n Invest sufficient time and resources in n Connecting research at the landscape/watershed/basin gender, youth and inclusion: Ensure that levels to communities and livelihood enhancement. CGIAR research and the solutions it develops reach and improve the lives of marginal n Analyzing different scaling approaches to facilitate the communities. dissemination and uptake of WLE solutions. n Consider research themes that WLE Although there was a lot of continuity between Phase 1 overlooked: Allocate resources to the study of (2012-2016) and Phase 2 (2017-2021), this was not the land and water tenure, social sciences case in all areas of the program. For instance, the CGIAR and human behavior, hydrology and scaling WLE Ecosystem Services and Resilience Framework, approaches. and research conducted in basin focal regions, were not carried forward into Phase 2. 5 Program integration and The ‘flagship’ approach cross-sectoral collaboration As with other CRPs, the WLE program was divided into subprograms – referred to as ‘flagships’ – which focused This section assesses whether the program’s on specific themes: enhancing sustainable agriculture; flagship structure enabled integration and cross- restoring degraded landscapes; land and water solutions; sectoral collaboration to help the program deliver rural-urban linkages; and variability, risks and competing on its promise to develop integrated water, land and uses. While cross-flagship collaboration led to new ecosystem solutions. It also assesses the strengths insights (for example a joint publication on ‘impact and weaknesses of the program’s broad and complex tracking’ in Ethiopia), experience over the course of the research agenda. past decade revealed several weaknesses associated with this approach. The subprograms too often worked WLE was able to collaborate effectively with other in silos which undermined the program’s stated aims CRPs and CGIAR research centers which enabled the of enhancing collaborative and cross-sectoral research program to work across sectors and achieve greater and developing integrated approaches and solutions to impact. Effective collaboration was also evident in water, land and ecosystem challenges. This sometimes several of the countries WLE was active in. Ethiopia is meant that opportunities to create and further develop an example that stands out. Here, WLE partners were synergies were missed, for instance when related work able to work together to achieve significant results and was undertaken in different locations. policy impact. Furthermore, as the program evolved, members of WLE’s Management Committee developed Additionally, the core integrating flagship of WLE – strong relationships and levels of trust amongst Flagship 5 on Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture, themselves, which meant that the committee operated intended to be a convening mechanism or umbrella for with the interests of the program at heart rather than the program’s other flagships – was asked to change the individual centers that members represented. and delay its start-up and therefore did not have These positive developments occurred despite several sufficient time, resources or broader buy-in to fully fulfil challenges that the program had to navigate. its mandate. Photo: Fani Llauradó / WorldFish 6 The overall structure of the results framework established The challenges of a broad for CRPs also made cross-sectoral collaboration challenging. No guidance for cross-sectoral collaboration research agenda was established, patterns initiated during the first year were subsequently difficult to change, and the annual WLE was not afraid of tackling complexity and the CGIAR plans of work and budget and reports were strictly challenges faced by farmers on the ground. The organized by flagship, which made it difficult to plan or program supported work at the interface of disciplines report on cross-sectoral results. to try and deliver new, innovative, integrated and cross- scale solutions. This required the adoption of a broad Funding mechanisms were an additional impediment. and complex research agenda which made it difficult The limited amount of CGIAR funding available under to develop a more succinct conceptual framing – a CRPs was carefully planned and agreed between partner concise ‘elevator pitch’ – that was capable of effectively centers, Flagship Leaders and CRP management communicating this complexity to external audiences. each year. While there are some good examples of Research agendas within the individual flagships were also collaboration across centers, often CGIAR funding tended broad and this was complicated even further when already to support the core areas of water, land and ecosystem existing bilateral projects were assigned to flagships. Each research of each WLE partner. had their own research agendas and questions and were sometimes difficult to align with WLE’s broader objectives. Early on in the program there were few resources This was a challenge that all CRPs experienced. allocated for joint planning and knowledge sharing. When additional funds became available in the last two Additionally, time poverty was raised as a challenge, years of the program, cross-flagship collaboration was and it has grown worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. encouraged and included as a criterion for funding. Several researchers felt they were asked to do too much There were some successful efforts to encourage in too little time. collaboration, for example bringing researchers together during science meetings before travel became limited in 2020-21 due to COVID-19. These inspiring meetings facilitated knowledge sharing and quality assurance Recommendations for and led to various follow-up activities such as joint One CGIAR publications. However, the structure of the annual report and CGIAR’s MARLO (‘Managing Agricultural Research n Develop structures, incentives and for Learning and Outcomes’) reporting system still meant frameworks: Embed collaborative working results tended to be reported under a single flagship, across different research themes, issues and and the amount of funding allocated to team building and data management and sharing. collaborative activities tended to vary across flagships. n Allocate sufficient resources to enhance The fact that approximately 80 percent of funding collaboration: Organize regular meetings, remained bilateral also made it difficult to develop workshops and field trips that provide the collaborative approaches across flagships and funding space for researchers to share knowledge and streams, since strict rules determined by individual develop more integrated ways of working. donors often governed how this funding could be allocated, limiting the autonomy and decisions of n Reform rules governing the allocation of individual CRPs. Although there are several examples funds: Allocate funds from pooled resources of successful project collaborations between WLE to provide program managers with more partner centers, these restrictions could often make flexibility and autonomy when implementing it difficult for WLE to collaborate with other research programmatic activities. programs. Future One CGIAR initiatives are intended to only link to pooled resources, without linkages to n Invest time in developing a succinct bilateral funds. This might help develop a more coherent conceptual framing: Apply the framing to research program and could make it easier to support programs with complex research agendas to collaboration within and between the new CGIAR help broaden understanding of the program and initiatives, providing that funding allocation, results promote it more strategically to target groups. frameworks and reporting structures are built in such a way that fosters working together. 7 Program management and governance Recommendations for One CGIAR This section reflects on the effectiveness of the program’s management and governance, n Provide a framework to guide governance specifically the efficiency and effectiveness of structures and processes: Support the research support services (human resources and adoption of proven structures and processes capacity, coordination, administration and financial but allow sufficient space for flexibility and management) and the program’s management adaptation so research-for-development structure. It also explores how the program’s internal initiatives can respond to challenges enabling environment could have been improved. more effectively. An initial challenge during the early implementation of n Ensure PMUs are given sufficient the program was the fact that each CRP had to define resources and staff: Ensure they provide their management structure and process without any researchers with the support they require. framework or guidance to follow. This created difficulties at the beginning of the program but, as governance n Address short-term contracts and high structures and processes evolved over the course of staff turnover: Help reduce additional the program, WLE was able to function effectively and pressures on PMUs. efficiently. This was partly attributed to WLE Program Directors who successfully navigated challenges and n Give Flagship Leaders sufficient time: focused on practicalities and what could realistically be Ensure they can fully execute their achieved on the ground. Their management styles also responsibilities to the research program. tended to be encouraging, transparent and inclusive. Research support services were perceived positively. But the PMU was relatively small and embedded in challenging structures related to funding allocation and a meticulous CGIAR reporting process which added to its workload. Researchers also felt that requests from the PMU were often raised at short notice, creating additional pressures. Moreover, staff turnover for some positions was high and time was needed to help new staff members adjust. Leadership at the flagship level was also constrained by funding structures. Flagship Leaders had little to no influence over bilateral projects, other than approving whether or not these projects would contribute to flagship outcomes and could be considered part of the program. Flagship Leaders were responsible for reviewing and approving proposed plans and budgets for each center’s contribution to the flagship each year, although in practice it was not easy for Flagship Leaders to propose major adjustments to the portfolio of activities of contributing centers supported by CGIAR funds. Finally, the number of days allocated to flagship leadership varied for each center – harmonizing this to ensure adequate time allocation for executing the extensive responsibilities of a Flagship Leader would have been useful. Photo: WLE 6 Reporting, monitoring, the program’s implementation. It was felt that the end of Phase 1 was a missed opportunity to reflect on progress evaluation and learning and identify where improvements were needed to enhance WLE’s performance moving forward into Phase 2. This section analyzes how effectively reporting, monitoring and evaluation were used for assessing CGIAR external evaluations were in some cases also progress and supporting programmatic learning, and considered to be a missed opportunity. Researchers explores whether external reviews and evaluations felt there was limited engagement with evaluators and supported adaptive management and course that they were given insufficient time to implement correction. It suggests how learning could have recommendations after an evaluation was completed, been improved to strengthen WLE’s impacts, and limiting any learning potential. The opportunity to facilitate also identifies the efforts needed to enhance the learning and influence the planning and implementation of management of research data. One CGIAR initiatives was also limited because the most recent evaluation was published towards the end of the The reporting process and system program when the planning of One CGIAR initiatives was already well underway, restricting the time available to digest findings and, if needed, change tack. WLE adopted one of the two available CGIAR planning and reporting systems, MARLO, in 2016. MARLO came Monitoring progress and learning was further limited by under criticism from users across the CGIAR for several the theory of change, which was developed at the outset reasons, including its slowness, awkward interface of the program and reviewed or adapted only infrequently and difficulty analyzing large quantities of data. WLE’s by some flagships. There were also too few opportunities approach when setting up MARLO was to use individual during the course of the program for researchers to share projects as the level of activities to report on. As a result, knowledge and learn from one another – which needs to WLE researchers reported on more than 100 projects be addressed and integrated into programmatic activities each year, all with multiple deliverables. This approach during the transition to One CGIAR, including more proved burdensome for researchers, as well as for the informal networking opportunities. Additionally, there were PMU and Flagship Leaders, with insufficient time available few opportunities to analyze important lessons from the for reporting, review and quality control. WLE’s approach work being implemented by partners, and limited time to to mitigate this and support researchers was to ensure think through how this learning could be captured. full-time MARLO support from within the PMU. The timing of the annual reporting and planning process also meant Opportunities for learning could have been facilitated that plans for the year ahead had to be formulated before through the allocation of additional resources to follow performance had been reported on for the previous year. up and assess programmatic activities. Fortunately, One This made adaptive management and implementing CGIAR plans to address this shortcoming through regular corrective measures challenging. stage gating and allocating more resources to monitoring, evaluation and learning. Future research initiatives Despite these frustrations, however, the system was an could also benefit from outcome evaluations that were improvement on previous efforts to capture the outcomes of undertaken by WLE. Evaluations in India and Ethiopia and CGIAR initiatives, and facilitated a more disciplined, rigorous those assessing resource, recovery and reuse initiatives and harmonized approach to reporting on outputs and in Ghana and Sri Lanka were useful and demonstrated outcomes, all of which are publicly available on the CGIAR impressive outcomes that informed high-level policy Dashboard. A particularly important advancement was the and decision making. These could potentially serve as a development of Outcome Impact Case Reports – or OICRs template for One CGIAR evaluations. – which documented the outcomes of CRPs and have been used by funders, the CGIAR system and researchers to demonstrate the reach and impact of CRPs. Data management challenges Improvements were also needed to strengthen data Accountability versus learning management. Responsibility for research data officially lay with CGIAR research centers. Each had its own data While the CGIAR has placed more emphasis on management system in place – and over the course of monitoring and evaluation, it now needs to ensure that the WLE program these varied from more advanced learning becomes an integral part of this process to ensure systems to those still being developed or undergoing impact. Monitoring within WLE was often more about regular change. While WLE produced data, centers compliance rather than becoming more introspective provided the infrastructure to manage the data, meaning and reflecting on critical lessons to adapt and improve that it was difficult for the program’s management team 7 to understand and control processes of research data Communications management. This included WLE attribution to data originating from the program. This section assesses the effectiveness of WLE’s communication function, and the dissemination Guidance on data attribution or metadata and wider and promotion of the program’s research outputs. information sharing was inconsistent across WLE projects, It also identifies what the program could have and the program was not able to implement a core set done differently to further enhance its visibility of data management strategies to assess programmatic and performance, and any additional support performance and ensure wide dissemination of data. communications could have provided. Generating consistent metadata under these conditions proved difficult and the program occasionally lost or was left with non-curated datasets. In order to address these Changing the discourse on food, challenges in future research-for-development programs, agriculture and the environment WLE has produced a brief to capture lessons learned on the collection, management and use of research data. WLE communications successfully translated and Recommendations are also provided in the text box below. repackaged WLE science and was ahead of the communication departments in many CGIAR centers, and other CRPs, in terms of developing new methods for promoting and disseminating research. This included Recommendations for the Thrive blog, which was designed to change the One CGIAR discourse around food, agriculture and the environment, and provided a space for scientists to think out loud, even n Develop a more effective and efficient when they held contradictory opinions. reporting system: Remove the need to focus on every output and integrate rewards and The website was also perceived favorably and the incentives to enhance the quality and program was able to build impressive networks on social timeliness of programmatic reporting. media. The communications team consistently produced quality content that did a good job of translating research n Clarify responsibilities: To more effectively concisely without oversimplifying the science. manage research data and support data exchange. n Provide guidance: To help researchers more effectively manage and attribute data. n Allocate sufficient resources and capacity: To manage, document and publish research data. Budgets must enable projects to ensure that all research data – regardless of its scale, form or topic – are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. n Ensure that learning is an integral part of monitoring and evaluation: Be prepared to admit failure and reflect on the lessons that can help initiate positive changes and enhance programmatic implementation. n Maximize learning opportunities: Ensure external evaluations are timely and involve researchers working alongside evaluators, and provide formal and informal opportunities for knowledge exchange. Photo: WLE 6 Lessons learned of communications staff during the planning and initial implementation of the WLE program could have helped However, resources and capacity constraints limited develop a more concise conceptual framing – thereby impact and reach. Despite being well organized and helping to more effectively position the program with target producing quality content, there was insufficient investment audiences such as donors, investors and policymakers. in communications within the CRP and significant turnover of staff. Additionally, researchers felt that communications A more strategic direction might also have involved less could have been more innovative and strategic in emphasis on blogging – given the amount of content on some areas, for example engaging with external media the internet and the increasing competition for people’s more frequently and effectively and developing more attention. With hindsight, the program could have focused multimedia knowledge products and infographics. less on quantity and more on producing in-depth quality Communications could also have become better aligned content – thereby freeing up time to focus on alternative with the communication departments of CGIAR centers knowledge products and promotional activities that could to maximize the reach of WLE knowledge products and have delivered greater impact with key audiences. Finally, promotional campaigns. the program could have developed key performance indicators to measure the reach of WLE communications – There was also some frustration that communications supporting a process of learning that would have enabled did not always align with the needs of researchers. For communicators to strengthen their impact and more instance, by focusing on news and compelling stories, the effectively adapt to changes in target audience behaviors. program may have overlooked the importance of research synthesis products – a need which has been addressed in recent months to help secure the program’s legacy and influence future research, investments and polices Recommendations for (See box ‘Science-driven solutions’). During the transition to One CGIAR it is vitally important that researchers One CGIAR develop a closer and more collaborative relationship with communications staff to ensure both are working towards n Ensure communication becomes more the same goals. innovative: Invest more in external media engagement and more multimedia products and infographics. n Ensure communications works more Science-driven solutions strategically with researchers: Contribute to proposals and concept framing to position A synthesis of research and innovations that programs more effectively. address the world’s critical water, land and ecosystem challenges. Science-driven solutions n Develop key performance indicators: highlight key insights, recommendations and Measure the reach and impact of promotional solutions produced during the past decade of activities and implement a learning agenda WLE research, with the aim of influencing future that would enable communications to decisions, investments and research. strengthen its impact and adapt to changes in target audience behaviors. n Invest in communications: Ensure future research-for-development programs are A more strategic direction given sufficient support to strategically target key audiences. A closer relationship could have helped researchers approach communications more strategically to ensure their research targeted the right audiences. However, researchers may need incentives to do so, given the time and energy needed to invest in communications activities. A more collaborative relationship could have involved communicators supporting research in alternative ways, for instance contributing to and writing proposals to enhance their appeal. Additionally, the involvement 7 Source WLE Reflection Workshop of the Management Committee and Independent Steering Committee, November 10 and 12, 2021. Acknowledgments This research was carried out as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) and supported by funders contributing to the CGIAR Trust Fund (www.cgiar.org/funders/). CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. WLE would like to thank members of the program’s Management Committee and Independent Steering Committee for their contributions, in particular Pay Drechsel, Roseline Remans and Anthony Whitbread who commented on early drafts of this brief. Contacts CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (wle@cgiar.org). Suggested citation Durrell, J.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Ringler, C.; Greatrix, E. 2021. Reflections on a decade of innovative research-for-development: Capturing lessons and insights from the implementation of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) – to help inform the development of future research programs and the transition to One CGIAR. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 12p. (WLE Legacy Brief Series 3) Photo: Hamish John Appleby / IWMI CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems International Water Management Institute (IWMI) The CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) is a global research-for- 127 Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatta development program connecting partners to deliver sustainable agriculture solutions that enhance our natural resources – and the lives of people that rely on them. WLE brings together 11 CGIAR centers, the Battaramulla, Sri Lanka Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the RUAF Global Partnership, and national, Email: wle@cgiar.org regional and international partners to deliver solutions that change agriculture from a driver of environmental degradation to part of the solution. WLE is led by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and Website: wle.cgiar.org partners as part of CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Thrive blog: https://wle.cgiar.org/thrive