Partnership in the provision of recreational access: the reconstruction of the public interest in private land in England and Wales

This paper examines the evolution of public rights of access to private land in England and Wales. Since the Eighteenth Century the administration and protection of these rights has been though a form of public/private partnership in which the judiciary, while maintaining the dominance of private property, have safeguarded de facto public access by refusing consistently to punish simple trespass. While this situation has been modified, principally by post-World War II legislation, to allow for some formalisation of access arrangements and consequent compensation to landowners in areas of high recreational pressure and low legal accessibility, recent policy initiatives suggest that the balance of the partnership has now shifted in favour of landowners. In particular, the new access payment schemes, developed by the UK Government in response to the European Commission's Agri-Environment Regulations, identify the landowner as the beneficiary of the partnership, financed by tax revenue and justified on the spurious basis of improved 'access provision'. As such the State, as the former upholder of citizen rights, now assumes the duplicitous position of underwriting private property ownership through the commodification of access, while proclaiming a significant improvement in citizens' access rights.

Articulating ‘public interest’ through complexity theory

The ‘Public interest’, even if viewed with ambiguity or scepticism, has been one of the primary means by which various professional roles of planners have been justified. Many objections to the concept have been advanced by writers in planning academia. Notwithstanding these, ‘public interest’ continues to be mobilised, to justify, defend or argue for planning interventions and reforms. This has led to arguments that planning will have to adopt and recognise some form of public interest in practice to legitimise itself.. This paper explores current debates around public interest and social justice and advances a vision of the public interest informed by complexity theory. The empirical context of the paper is the poverty alleviation programme, the Kudumbashree project in Kerala, India.

For the public without the public

How is the notion of public interest operationalised in the regulatory practices of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB)? A fundamental objective in setting international accounting standards for both the private and public sector is to serve the ‘public interest’. Who or what constitutes ‘public interest’ however remains a highly complex and controversial issue. Private sector financial reporting research posits that users (of financial information) are used as a proxy for the ‘public’ and users are further refined to current and potential investors - a small proportion of the public. The debates surrounding public interest are even more contentious in public sector financial reporting which deals with ‘public’ (tax payers’) money. In our study we use Bourdieu’s notion of semi-homogenous fields to show how autonomous and heteronomous pressures from the epistemic community of the accounting profession and political/government interests compete for the right to define the public interest and determine how (by what accounting solutions) this interest is best served. This is a theoretical study grounded in the analysis of empirical data from interviews with the board members of the IPSASB. The main contribution of the paper is to further our understanding of the perceptions of the main decision makers from the ‘inner regulatory circle’ with regards to the problematic construct of public interest. The main findings suggest a paternal and un-reflexive attitude of the board members leading to the conclusion that the public have no real voice in these matters.

PGR forum: serving the crop wild relative user community

The Euro-Mediterranean region is an important centre for the diversity of crop wild relatives. Crops, such as oats (Avena sativa), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris), apple (Malus domestica), annual meadow grass (Festuca pratensis), white clover (Trifolium repens), arnica (Arnica montana), asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), lettuce (Lactuca sativa), and sage (Salvia officinalis) etc., all have wild relatives in the region. The European Community funded project, PGR Forum (www.pgrforum.org) is building an online information system to provide access to crop wild relative data to a broad user community; including plant breeders, protected area managers, policy-makers, conservationists, taxonomists and the wider public. The system will include data on uses, geographical distribution, biology, population and habitat information, threats (including IUCN Red List assessments) and conservation actions. This information is vital for the continued sustainable utilisation and conservation of crop wild relatives. Two major databases have been utilised as the backbone to a Euro-Mediterranean crop wild relative catalogue, which forms the core of the information system: Euro+Med PlantBase (www.euromed.org.uk) and Mansfeld’s World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de). By matching the genera found within the two databases, a preliminary list of crop wild relatives has been produced. Around 20,000 of the 30,000+ species listed in Euro+Med PlantBase can be considered crop wild relatives, i.e. those species found within the same genus as a crop. The list is currently being refined by implementing a priority ranking system based on the degree of relatedness of taxa to the associated crop.

Supporting multi-organisational collaborative groups in the public sector

In this paper, the issues that arise in multi-organisational collaborative groups (MOCGs) in the public sector are discussed and how a technology-based group support system (GSS) could assist individuals within these groups. MOCGs are commonly used in the public sector to find solutions to multifaceted social problems. Finding solutions for such problems is difficult because their scope is outside the boundary of a single government agency. The standard approach to solving such problems is collaborative involving a diverse range of stakeholders. Collaborative working can be advantageous but it also introduces its own pressures. Conflicts can arise due to the multiple contexts and goals of group members and the organisations that they represent. Trust, communication and a shared interface are crucial to making any significant progress. A GSS could support these elements.