Department of Food and Resource Economics

De-domestication is the deliberate establishment of a population of domesticated animals or plants in the wild. In time, the population should be able to reproduce, becoming self-sustainable and incorporating 'wild' animals. Often de-domestication is part of a larger nature restoration scheme, aimed at creating landscapes anew, or re-creating former habitats. De-domestication is taken up in this paper because it both engages and raises questions about the major norms governing animals and nature. The debate here concerns whether animals undergoing de-domestication should be looked upon as wild or non-wild and the affect this has on questions about how they should be treated. It also concerns the value of nature, and the kind and degree of nature management considered appropriate.

Increasingly, ethical concerns are being raised regarding bioenergy production. However, the ethical issues often do not stand out very clearly. The aim of the present paper is to improve on this situation by analyzing the bioenergy discussion from the perspective of land use. From this perspective, bioenergy production may give rise to ethical problems because it competes with other forms of land use. This may generate ethical problems mainly for two reasons. First, bioenergy production may compete, directly or indirectly, with food production; and as consequence the food security of poor people may be adversely affected (social aspects arguments). Secondly, the production of bioenergy may directly or indirectly lead to deforestation and other changes of land use that have a negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions (environmental arguments). So from this perspective the main challenge raised by bioenergy production is to secure responsible land use. The purpose of the paper is not to advocate, or promote, a specific ethical position on bioenergy, but to structure the main arguments found. The paper falls in two parts. One part addresses social aspects arguments for using agricultural land for bioenergy-where food insecurity, malnourishment, and significant food poverty are the main concerns. The second part scopes environmental implications-notably greenhouse gas emissions impact, as affected by deforestation and other (indirect) land-use changes. Alongside showing some of the current dilemmas presented by wider land-use changes, arguments are analyzed from two ethical angels: a consequentialist and a deontological.

This chapter examines some of the main research methodologies for studying traditional forest-related knowledge (TFRK). Initially, we address ethical issues, asking, for example, what constitutes proper handling of research results. The relationship between TFRK and modern science is then discussed from a methodological perspective, after which an account of some of the main methods used for studying such knowledge-including participant observation, interviews, cultural domain analysis, questionnaires, and workshops-is provided. Ethnographic approaches are recommended for documenting both verbal and tacit knowledge embedded in skills and practices, while the tools of cultural domain analysis allow for both quantitative and qualitative analysis of individual variation in knowledge. Finally, recurring elements of best practice are presented. If ethical and methodological questions are not addressed in a consistent and systematic manner from the outset of the research, the rights of TFRK owners may well be

Animal breeding was, until the beginning of the twentieth century, a relatively uncontrolled activity based mainly on the animal's physical appearance. The early animal breeders did not really have the knowledge and tools to predict and control what they were doing. This changed in the first half of the twentieth century, when Mendelian genetics was applied in farm animal breeding.

This paper is about the value conflicts that lie behind ecological restoration initiatives. We focus on a case of beaver reintroduction in southern Scandinavia. We ask: what assumptions 5 about the value of nature and biodiversity underpin nature restoration, and in particular species restoration? Beavers have been reintroduced not only to ensure their long-term survival as a species, but as agents that foster biodiversity and promote variation in the natural environment. In the paper, we show that appeals to biodiversity are made by both advocates and opponents of species restoration, but with very different results. We suggest that this is 10 because two quite different conceptions of biodiversity are at stake. On one conception, biodiversity is constituted by certain "end-states". On the other, it is defined by a certain kind of "historical" process.

This paper is about the value conflicts that lie behind ecological restoration initiatives. We focus on a case of beaver reintroduction in southern Scandinavia. We ask: what assumptions 5 about the value of nature and biodiversity underpin nature restoration, and in particular species restoration? Beavers have been reintroduced not only to ensure their long-term survival as a species, but as agents that foster biodiversity and promote variation in the natural environment. In the paper, we show that appeals to biodiversity are made by both advocates and opponents of species restoration, but with very different results. We suggest that this is 10 because two quite different conceptions of biodiversity are at stake. On one conception, biodiversity is constituted by certain "end-states". On the other, it is defined by a certain kind of "historical" process.

This paper is about the value conflicts that lie behind ecological restoration initiatives. We focus on a case of beaver reintroduction in southern Scandinavia. We ask: what assumptions 5 about the value of nature and biodiversity underpin nature restoration, and in particular species restoration? Beavers have been reintroduced not only to ensure their long-term survival as a species, but as agents that foster biodiversity and promote variation in the natural environment. In the paper, we show that appeals to biodiversity are made by both advocates and opponents of species restoration, but with very different results. We suggest that this is 10 because two quite different conceptions of biodiversity are at stake. On one conception, biodiversity is constituted by certain "end-states". On the other, it is defined by a certain kind of "historical" process.

Animal breeding was, until the beginning of the twentieth century, a relatively uncontrolled activity based mainly on the animal's physical appearance. The early animal breeders did not really have the knowledge and tools to predict and control what they were doing. This changed in the first half of the twentieth century, when Mendelian genetics was applied in farm animal breeding. Later, the second half of the twentieth century saw the development of new forms of animal biotechnology such as the freezing of semen, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization, gene transfer and cloning -all of which allow scientists and breeders even greater control over future animals.

The article focuses on the interplay between two factors giving rise to friction in bioenergy governance: profound value disagreements (e.g. the prioritizing of carbon concerns like worries over GHG emissions savings over non-carbon related concerns) and regulatory complexity (in terms of regulatory measures and options). We present ethical and legal analyses of the current stalemate on bioenergy governance in the EU using two illustrative cases: liquid biofuels for transport and solid biomass-based bioenergy. The two cases disclose some similarities between these two factors, but the remaining differences may partly explain, or justify, contrasting forms of governance. While there seems to be no easy way in which the EU and national governments can deal with the multiple sustainability issues raised by bioenergy, it is argued that failure to deal explicitly with the underlying value disagreements, or to make apparent the regulatory complexity, clouds the issue of how to move forward with governance of bioenergy. We suggest that governance should be shaped with greater focus on the role of value disagreements and regulatory complexity. There is a need for more openness and transparency about such factors, and about the inherent trade-offs in bioenergy governance.

In this paper, we examine a trend in forestry which may be dubbed 'back to nature' and ask if it offers a sustainable future for forestry. We analyze what is actually meant by 'back to nature', which type of nature we want to 'get back' to, and how ensuing silvicultural philosophies can be defined. 'Back to nature' can be understood in a temporal sense referring to a certain composition or structure of a forest at a given time. But it can also refer to the processes taking place in an actual forest. Thirdly-in a broader sense-'back to nature' may represent the wish to revert to a more 'simple' way of silviculture and forestry in general, doing away with habitual thinking and the creation of dogmatic approaches. Currently, there is no consensus on an interpretation of 'back to nature'. Moreover, quantitative data from long-term empirical field trials are still limited. Sound science is needed to underpin the claims of the advocates of various interpretations of back to nature silviculture. It might be difficult to pinpoint what a sustainable future for forestry entails, but it is clear that a sustainable future for forestry to a greater extent than previously will require balancing commodity and environmental and nature values both against one another and against any concerns felt to be relevant by the various stakeholders. #