No abstract

In 2005, The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) developed four new ethical principles of organic agriculture to guide its future development: the principles of health, ecology, care, and fairness. The key distinctive concept of animal welfare in organic agriculture combines naturalness and human care, and can be linked meaningfully with these principles. In practice, a number of challenges are connected with making organic livestock systems work. These challenges are particularly dominant in immature agro-ecological systems, for example those that are characterized by industrialization and monoculture. Some of the current challenges are partly created by shortages of land and manure, which encourage zero-grazing and other confined systems. Other challenges are created in part by the conditions for farming and the way in which global food distribution systems are organized, e.g., how live animals are transported, how feed is traded and transported all over the globe, and the development of infrastructure and large herds. We find that the overall organic principles should be included when formulating guidelines for practical organic animal farming. This article explores how the special organic conceptions of animal welfare are related to the overall principles of organic agriculture. The aim is to identify potential routes for future development of organic livestock systems in different contexts and with reference to the specific understanding of animal welfare in organic agriculture. We include two contrasting cases represented by organic livestock systems in northwestern Europe and farming systems in tropical low-income countries; we use these cases to explore the widely different challenges of organic livestock systems in different parts of the world.

The paradox of multifunctionality is that, on the one hand, the specialized functionalities of agriculture only arise because of the functional differentiation of social systems and scientific disciplines and, on the other hand, multifunctionality can only enter as a way to mediate between conflicts, interests and fragmented knowledge when different functions and observations of functions combine. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a theoretical and methodological platform for multidisciplinary research on multifunctional farming. With the notions of polyocular cognition and polyocular communication we introduce a second order, interdisciplinary communication process that can meet the challenge of creating a shared view on multifunctional farming. Polyocular communication must be based on other rules than the rules of the involved disciplines. Whereas disciplinary communication is about providing consistent, efficient and precise knowledge in the context of a sharply delimited research world, polyocular communication is about extending a multidimensional space of understanding.

Abstract:Questions have been raised on what role the knowledge provided by sustainability science actually plays in the transition to sustainability and what role it may play in the future. In this paper we investigate different approaches to sustainability transformation of food systems by analyzing the rationale behind transformative acts-the ground that the direct agents of change act upon-and how the type of rationale is connected to the role of research and how the agents of change are involved. To do this we employ Max Weber's distinction between instrumental rationality and value-rationality in social action. In particular, we compare two different approaches to the role of research in sustainability transformation: (1) Performance-based approaches that measure performance and set up sustainability indicator targets and benchmarks to motivate the agents in the food system to change; (2) Values-based approaches that aim at communicating and mediating sustainability values to enable coordinated and cooperative action to transform the food system. We identify their respective strengths and weaknesses based on a cross-case analysis of four cases, and propose that the two approaches, like Weber's two types of rationality, are complementary-because they are based on complementary observer stances-and that an optimal in-between approach therefore cannot be found. However, there are options for reflexive learning by observing one perspective-and its possible blind spots-from the vantage point of the other, so we suggest that new strategies for sustainability transformation can be found based on reflexive rationality as a third and distinct type of rationality.Keywords: complementarity; food systems; perspectives; rationality; sustainability assessment; sustainability transformation; sustainability transition; sustainability science "Like any action, social action may be determined as: (1) instrumentally rational through expectations of the behavior of objects in the environment and of other human beings, and the use of these expectations as "conditions" or "means" to attain one's own rationally pursued and calculated ends; (2) value-rational through a conscious belief in

ABSTRACT. The focus of the Special Feature on "Multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability" is on the complex challenges of making and communicating overall assessments of food systems sustainability based on multiple and varied criteria. Four papers concern the choice and development of appropriate tools for making multicriteria sustainability assessments that handle built-in methodological conflicts and trade-offs between different assessment objectives. They underscore the value of linking diverse methods and tools, or nesting and stepping their deployment, to help build resilience and sustainability. They conclude that there is no one tool, one framework, or one indicator set that is appropriate for the different purposes and contexts of sustainability assessment. The process of creating the assessment framework also emerges as important: if the key stakeholders are not given a responsible and full role in the development of any assessment tool, it is less likely to be fit for their purpose and they are unlikely to take ownership or have confidence in it. Six other papers reflect on more fundamental considerations of how assessments are based in different scientific perspectives and on the role of values, motivation, and trust in relation to assessments in the development of more sustainable food systems. They recommend a radical break with the tradition of conducting multicriteria assessment from one hegemonic perspective to considering multiple perspectives. Collectively the contributions to this Special Feature identify three main challenges for improved multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability: (i) how to balance different types of knowledge to avoid that the most wellknown, precise, or easiest to measure dimensions of sustainability gets the most weight; (ii) how to expose the values in assessment tools and choices to allow evaluation of how they relate to the ethical principles of sustainable food systems, to societal goals, and to the interests of different stakeholders; and (iii) how to enable communication in such a way that the assessments can effectively contribute to the development of more sustainable food systems by facilitating a mutual learning process between researchers and stakeholders. The wider question of how to get from assessment to transformation goes across all three challenges. We strongly recommend future research on the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of taking a values-based rather than a performancebased approach to promoting the resilience and sustainability of coupled ecological, economic, and social systems for ensuring food security and agroecosystem health in the coming millennium.

ABSTRACT. Nature quality in relation to farming is a complex field. It involves different traditions and interests, different views of what nature is, and different ways of valuing nature. Furthermore there is a general lack of empirical data on many aspects of nature quality in the farmed landscape. The present paper looks at nature quality from the perspective of organic farming, which has its own values and goals in relation to nature -the "Ecologist View of Nature." This is in contrast to the "Culturist View" characteristic of much conventional agriculture and the "Naturalist View" characteristic of the traditional biological approach to nature quality. This threefold distinction forms a framework for exploration of nature quality criteria in the farmed landscape. The traditional work on nature quality has mainly focused on biological interests based on a Naturalist View of Nature. In this paper we will explore how criteria for nature quality based on the Ecologist View can be developed and thereby feed into the ongoing discussion of the development of the organic farming practices. We suggest additional criteria for nature quality based on an Ecologist View of Nature: biodiversity; habitat diversity, extent and structure; functional integrity of habitats and agroecosystems; and landscape integrity, accessibility, and experientiality. The larger set of Naturalist and Ecologist criteria can provide a wider and more balanced basis for developing nature quality indicators that are relevant in the farmed landscapes. This broader approach to nature quality is also expected to benefit the general societal discussions and decisions on farming and nature.

Many different actors have hopes and aspirations for the future of organic agriculture. They have different perspectives on organic agriculture with different understandings of what it is and what makes it move. Each perspective entails a certain understanding of organic agriculture featuring certain concepts and values and a particular logic or rationality. It is important to acknowledge this heterogeneity when investigating the dynamics and governance of organic agriculture. We suggest a polyocular approach that facilitates a comprehensive and balanced understanding of organic agriculture by enabling us to handle different perspectives reflexively. To illustrate this approach we describe three significant perspectives on organic agriculture based on protest, meaning and market. No perspective is the 'right' one and, we claim, different perspectives on organic agriculture cannot be merged to one. We hope that polyocularity as a general analytical tool, and the three specific perspectives, will be helpful in understanding the future development of organic agriculture and how it may be influenced.Keywords: organic farming, regulation, perspectives, reflexive, actor network, semiotics, conventionalisation, values. Biographical notes: Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe is a Senior Scientist at the Danish Research Centre forOrganic Food and Farming. He holds a graduate degree in horticulture and a Ph.D. in systemic research methodology and ethics from the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. His main research interests are in philosophy of science with a focus on crossdisciplinary research, research communication, the role of reduction and values and the systemic involvement of science in its subject areas; systems theory; semiotics; and ethics and value inquiry in relation to sustainability, precaution, ecological justice and organic agriculture. He has written numerous research articles in these areas and recently co-edited the book "Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects". Currently, he is manager of a work package on identifying and integrating values in the EU research project "Organic Revision" that is to support the revision of the EU regulation on organic agriculture.

Population models in ecology are often not good at predictions, even if they are complex and seem to be realistic enough. The reason for this might be that Occam's razor, which is key for minimal models exploring ideas and concepts, has been too uncritically adopted for more realistic models of systems. This can tie models too closely to certain situations, thereby preventing them from predicting the response to new conditions. We therefore advocate a new kind of parsimony to improve the application of Occam's razor. This new parsimony balances two contrasting strategies for avoiding errors in modeling: avoiding inclusion of nonessential factors (false inclusions) and avoiding exclusion of sometimes-important factors (false exclusions). It involves a synthesis of traditional modeling and analysis, used to describe the essentials of mechanistic relationships, with elements that are included in a model because they have been reported to be or can arguably be assumed to be important under certain conditions. The resulting models should be able to reflect how the internal organization of populations change and thereby generate representations of the novel behavior necessary for complex predictions, including regime shifts.