Implications of Commons Act 2006 for the registration of land as a town or village green

This paper describes the main changes of Commons Act 2006 for the registration of land as a town or village green. The purpose of the Commons Act 2006 is to protect common land and promote sustainable farming, public access to the countryside and the interests of wildlife. The changes under s15 of the Commons Act 2006 include the additional 2-year grace period for application, discounting statutory period of closure, correction of mistakes in registers, disallowing severance of rights, voluntary registration, replacement of land in exchange and some other provisions. The transitional provision contained in s15(4) Commons Act 2006 is particularly a cause for controversy as DEFRA has indicated buildings will have to be taken down where development has gone ahead and a subsequent application to register the land as a green is successful, obliging the developer to return the land to a condition consistent with the exercise by locals of recreational rights, which sums up that it would be harder in future to develop land which has the potential to be registered as a town or village green.

Free-range village chickens on the Accra plains, Ghana: Their contribution to households

A cross-sectional survey investigating the contribution of free-range village chickens to household economies was carried out in four administrative districts within 60km of Accra. Answers were provided by 101 men and 99 women. Nearly all respondents claimed to keep chickens for meat, with a far smaller percentage claiming to keep them for egg production. Over 80% of respondents kept chickens to supplement their incomes. The proportion of the flock eaten varied between administrative areas (p=0.009 and p=0.027), although this was possibly a consequence of differences in consumption patterns between occupation of the respondent, land area cultivated and flock size. The proportion of chickens sold varied as a result of differences in flock size (p=0.013), the proportion sold increasing with number of birds in the flock. Respondents generally agreed that chickens could be sold without difficulty. A majority of chicken sales were from the farm gate, directly to consumers or traders. Sales were on demand or when the owner needed money. Money from the sale was kept by the owner of the chicken and the money was spent on personal needs. The proportion of the flock sold varied between administrative areas (p=0.025) and occupation of the respondent (p=0.040). Respondents describing animal production as their main occupation tended to have greater reliance on chicken sales for their income. Consideration is given to estimating the offtake from the flock and the financial contribution to the household.

Livelihood diversification and moneylending in a Rajasthan village: what lessons for rural financial services?

The complexity of rural economies in developing countries is increasingly recognised, as is the need to tailor poverty reduction policies according to the diversity of rural households and their requirements. By reference to a village in Western India, the paper examines the results of a longitudinal micro-level research approach, employed for the study of livelihood diversification and use of informal finance. Over a 25-year period, livelihoods are shown to have become more complex, in terms of location, types of non-farm activities, and combinations of activities. Moreover, livelihood pathways taken continue to be critically affected by economic and social inequalities implicit in the caste system and tribal economy. A longitudinal micro-level research approach is shown to be one that can effectively identify the many complexities of rural livelihoods and the continued dependence on the informal financial sector, providing important insights into the requirements for rural financial products and services.

Lesbian and gay parents and reproductive technologies: The 2008 Australian and UK reforms

This article analyses the laws that govern the allocation of parental responsibility for children conceived through non-coital reproduction by lesbians and gay men in England/Wales and Australia. In 2008 both jurisdictions introduced important reforms affecting this area of law, providing new options for the legal recognition of parent–child relationships in lesbian and gay households. However, the practical usefulness or effectiveness of the reforms may be limited by the excessive complexity or obscurity of the system of parental responsibility thus introduced. Furthermore, the reform Acts encourage the formation of some family structures—especially homonuclear families—while discouraging the emergence of more imaginative and cooperative parenting configurations at odds with heteronormative parenting scripts. Only through a clearer commitment to intentionality as a ground for the allocation of parental responsibility will future reform be likely to adequately protect the interests of lesbian and gay parents and their children.