4th November 2008, 02:37 PM
Posted by Troll:
However, what I would say is that high standards under any structure are dependent on resources. The pre-PPG16 state-controlled system in the UK had a very poor record on standards, mainly because the resources available from the responsible public authorities were very inadequate, both for curatorial services and field archaeology.
The introduction of developer funding resulted in a huge increase in resources, and therefore in standards, in the following ways:
- far more projects were funded;
- far more work went into each project, on average;
- the work was done to a higher standard, on average.
The competitive-tendering system is simply a corollorary of developer funding, which is itself based on the 'polluter pays' principle.
Now, I know nothing about the Cypriot system for dealing with the archaeological implications of development. Before considering whether it would benefit from a change to a competitive, commercial system, I would need to know the following about the existing system:
- how are the archaeological implications of development considered in the Cypriot planning system?
- who funds the work, and how well-funded is it?
- how are projects selected for funding, and is funding given to all projects that need it or just to the highest-priority ones?
- when development-related projects are funded, does the existing system give the opportunity for high professional standards (by opportunity, I mean is adequate time and funding available)?
- are high professional standards actually achieved, and how are they policed?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Here in Cyprus for example, archaeology is exclusively carried out by the State with the exception of visiting universities undertaking "training/research" excavations. With Cyprus now a full and embedded member of the EU, it may be the case that Cyprus may be required by the EU to implement an appropriate system akin to competitive tendering.I'm not aware of anything in EU law that enforces a competitive/commercial structure in the archaeological profession, and so far as I am aware such a structure isn't necessarily present in every 'old' EU country (but, I'm not an expert in this field and I am willing to be corrected).
However, what I would say is that high standards under any structure are dependent on resources. The pre-PPG16 state-controlled system in the UK had a very poor record on standards, mainly because the resources available from the responsible public authorities were very inadequate, both for curatorial services and field archaeology.
The introduction of developer funding resulted in a huge increase in resources, and therefore in standards, in the following ways:
- far more projects were funded;
- far more work went into each project, on average;
- the work was done to a higher standard, on average.
The competitive-tendering system is simply a corollorary of developer funding, which is itself based on the 'polluter pays' principle.
Now, I know nothing about the Cypriot system for dealing with the archaeological implications of development. Before considering whether it would benefit from a change to a competitive, commercial system, I would need to know the following about the existing system:
- how are the archaeological implications of development considered in the Cypriot planning system?
- who funds the work, and how well-funded is it?
- how are projects selected for funding, and is funding given to all projects that need it or just to the highest-priority ones?
- when development-related projects are funded, does the existing system give the opportunity for high professional standards (by opportunity, I mean is adequate time and funding available)?
- are high professional standards actually achieved, and how are they policed?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished