Suchergebnisse

Despite a number of adverse court rulings and amendments to the legislation as a consequence, the system of disclosure in relation to criminal records in England and Wales still gives cause for concern. As other studies have pointed out, the disclosure system in England and Wales is out of step with other jurisdictions in that it permits disclosure of information which is out of date, relates to matters which do not result in criminal conviction, and is largely irrelevant to the activity which triggered the request for disclosure. Such a system is said to be justified in order to protect the public. Human rights concerns dictate that public protection is balanced against an individual's right to respect for his/her private and family life and the opportunity to rehabilitate oneself. In an attempt to achieve such a balance the disclosure regime in England and Wales provides for a 'two-tier' system of 'ordinary' and 'enhanced' disclosure, with the latter providing information on an individual beyond convictions and cautions. The Disclosure and Barring Service, which operates the disclosure system, reports that 'Enhanced' Disclosure is the norm for employers and regulators to seek, even where that level of disclosure is not justified under the statutory provisions. In this study I analyse data from existing research, court decisions, publicly available police policies and records from state and professional regulators, to examine how the police exercise their discretion on disclosure and how regulators exercise their discretionary powers in the light of the information disclosed. The findings of this study suggest that the amendments to the disclosure regime in the light of adverse rulings are inadequate to achieve the appropriate balance between public protection and rehabilitation or privacy. The study proposes ways of structuring police and regulatory discretion in order to achieve a fairer balance.

International audience ; Food security concerns and the scarcity of new productive land have put productivity enhancement of degraded lands back on the political agenda. In such a context, salt‐affected lands are a valuable resource that cannot be neglected nor easily abandoned even with their lower crop yields, especially in areas where significant investments have already been made in irrigation and drainage infrastructure. A review of previous studies shows a very limited number of highly variable estimates of the costs of salt‐induced land degradation combined with methodological and contextual differences. Simple extrapolation suggests that the global annual cost of salt‐induced land degradation in irrigated areas could be US$ 27.3 billion because of lost crop production. We present selected case studies that highlight the potential for economic and environmental benefits of taking action to remediate salt‐affected lands. The findings indicate that it can be cost‐effective to invest in sustainable land management in countries confronting salt‐induced land degradation. Such investments in effective remediation of salt‐affected lands should form part of a broader strategy for food security and be defined in national action plans. This broader strategy is required to ensure the identification and effective removal of barriers to the adoption of sustainable land management, such as perverse subsidies. Whereas reversing salt‐induced land degradation would require several years, interim salinity management strategies could provide a pathway for effective remediation and further showcase the importance of reversing land degradation and the rewards of investing in sustainable land management.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later 20th and early 21st centuries prioritised unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions toward sustainability and equity. Here we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally-formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on 1) integrated pest management; 2) forests; 3) land; 4) water; 5) pastures; 6) support services; 7) innovation platforms; 8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.5M (at 2000) to 8.54M (2020). The area of land transformed by the 170-255M group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...

Non-technical summary: Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary: For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and earlytwenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and manyrural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements,networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability andequity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborativegroups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest man-agement; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation plat-forms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that thenumber of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). Thearea of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly inless-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers workingwith scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomesand agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supportedthis growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now supportfurther transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.