Oasis’ strategy
is described in more detail in two attached
documents. The
‘Research
Lessons and Opportunities’ paper (51 pages, over
200 references) provides a global overview of the
topic. The 5-page
Oasis
Concept Note gives in brief the rationale for
Oasis, more description of the KStreams, and how
Oasis will be implemented if approved to become a
Challenge Programme.
Oasis’ strategy
is briefly summed up by its motto, ‘Building Lives,
Saving Lands.’ This motto reflects Oasis’
recognition that land users must find more
prosperous yet sustainable livelihoods if dryland
degradation is to be halted. It is not enough to
simply address narrow biophysical or institutional
problems in isolation of other factors that
simultaneously affect how people survive from the
land. Research is needed to open new opportunities
that reward land-users for better land care.
Based on initial discussions, the following five
areas, which we call ‘Knowledge Streams’ or KStreams
for short, are proposed for emphasis:
KStream 1. Understanding and assessing human-induced
degradation of dryland agricultural and natural
ecosystems
KStream 2. Improving dryland landscape, soil, water,
nutrient and biodiversity management
KStream 3. Improving dryland policy, market, and
institutional options to combat desertification
KStream 4. Development pathways and livelihood
options that lead to more sustainable, diverse,
remunerative, and resilient dryland management
KStream 5. Improving co-learning by linking sources
of local and scientific knowledge in the drylands
Oasis is
confident that by integrating environmental
considerations into agricultural research, and
taking holistic approaches that include land-user
and community motivations and knowledge resources,
innovative win-win solutions can be found that
benefit both people and the environment. This is
called the 'integrated ecosystem approach', derived
from the ecosystem approach pioneered by the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD
2004).
Integrated
Ecosystem Approach
The Table below (evolved from the concepts of White
et. al. 2002) illustrates some ways in which this
integrated ecosystem approach is distinguishable
from conventional agricultural research approaches.
Conventional versus the integrated ecosystem
approach
|
Aspect
|
Conventional
Approach |
Integrated
Ecosystem Approach |
|
Perspective |
Natural
ecosystems seen as input suppliers (land, fertility etc.) for
current or future commodity production |
Natural and
managed ecosystems viewed as part of one interdependent whole,
providing a wide range of goods and services |
|
Products |
A few commodities
or products |
A wide array of
both managed and natural goods and services |
|
Strategy |
Maximize yield,
production, and net present value by intensifying the use of
land, labor, and capital |
Optimize total
ecosystem goods and services output over time |
|
Methodology |
Reductionist:
high-resolution measurement of a small number of
factors |
System-oriented,
including both quantitative and qualitative assessments with
close attention to interactions, flows, asset balances,
tradeoffs |
|
Approach to
diversity |
Reduce diversity
for more predictable results, more targeted interventions, and
greater economies of scale |
Take advantage of
diversity to exploit niche potential, meet a wider range of
needs, preserve future options, and reduce total system
risk |
|
Scales of
work |
Political and
ownership boundaries |
Ecosystem and
landscape, societal plus biophysical |
|
Role of
science |
Applied science
focused on biophysical resources, geared towards simple
one-size-fits-all technology solutions |
Combine
biophysical with social and policy analysis, create prototypes
to be customized differently in different
locations |
