Advice and offerings

[troll]

Hypothetical situation time again...Don`t worry, no leaping out of the wardrobe in a batman suit with nasty surprises this time...:face-approve:
With more and more nations edging their way closer to the EU, what advice or suggestions would you offer to those nations without a competitive tendering system? To clarify, it seems to be the case that new members of the EU are given a breathing space of 4 to 5 years before they have to implement EU laws and guidelines. For this exercise, imagine a nation that does not have a planning control system and does not have a competitive tendering system for archaeology in place. It asks you for your opinion on the success or otherwise of the current status quo in the UK. What would you offer by way of advice?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[beamo]

Sign up to the Valetta Convention. Set up some form of licencing / registration scheme for archaeologists (but not one based on the Irish system). Establish a body to set out the appropriate standards - then and only then use competitive tendering. Do not use a levy on all developments to subsidise the ones that impact on archaeological sites.

Beamo

[beamo]

Oh - forgot to say - welcome back Troll


Beamo

[Unitof1]

I cant stand nations, troll, give them any advise which will allow the individual to dig what they like for their own reasons.

[troll]

Superb start! How I`ve missed you guys! Having been out of the UK scene for over a year now and have yet to read all the topics and associated documents on here....just how much of the Valetta Convention has been "hardwired" into the UK planning/heritage motherboard? Greetings Unit...you have managed to describe a number of current European countries and their heritage policies to a "T". Greetings Beamo, good to hear from you! I would agree with the establishment of a body to set appropriate standards but with an important caveat....to give said body the remit of policing said standards. No point in making it a legal requirement to wear seatbelts if theres no police about to enforce it:face-approve:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Greetings Troll,welcome back!!-bet you never thought that you'd see me using a computer,let alone posting on BAJR:face-approve:

[troll]

Hello mate! Not THE dirty Dave surely!!! Good to hear from you sire!

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

The one and the same my dear Sir! :face-approve:

[Austin Ainsworth]

Troll, are you back? Hopefully this is more than a fleeting visit?

[1man1desk]

Posted by Troll:

quote:For this exercise, imagine a nation that does not have a planning control system and does not have a competitive tendering system for archaeology in place. It asks you for your opinion on the success or otherwise of the current status quo in the UK. What would you offer by way of advice?

Welcome back Troll! Good question.

If asked for such advice, I would identify key strengths and weaknesses of the UK system and advise them to learn from these in setting up their own system.

The developer funding system has two key advantages -

1. It means that those making planning decisions about archaeology don't also have to find a budget to implement their decisions, so they are freer to decide on archaeological grounds;

2. It means that developers have a financial incentive to avoid or minimise archaeological damage.

However, fairness to the developer means that developer funding also implies competitive tendering. Opinions are very sharply divided on whether this is a good thing. My own opinion is that it can be a good thing, if sufficient weight is given to quality factors in the tender-assessment process, and a bad thing if price is the only criterion. This does vary a lot between developers.

I would flag up two key weaknesses:

1. The curatorial system in the UK is too weak, because the curators are often under-resourced and insufficient weight is given to their advice.

2. There is no compulsory system of registration/accreditation for archaeologists, that can hold them to a defined set of quality standards and discipline them for breaches (barring them from practicing for serious or repeat offences).

The basis for such a system does exist in the form of the IfA, but because membership is not compulsory the IfA is weak and any sanction from it does not prevent archaeologists from continuing to practice.

Given some thought, I could come up with a lot more, but that will probably be enough for the moment.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished