The ragged trousered archaeologist

[diggingthedirt]

I once worked with a Project Manager whose stock response to all requests for more resources was uncompromising.

'People live, people die, get over it,' he'd grumble in his thick Scottish accent, like a Yorkshire man with all the generosity squeezed out of him.

When it came to the crunch this PM was one of the good guys, and could often be found arguing the case for more resources and more time if that were needed. But many a true word is said in jest, and the joke acknowledged an uncomfortable reality. What we want to do as archaeologists is limited by what our clients can reasonably afford to pay.

With that in mind I'd like to ask the forum a simple question:
What happens to the polluter pays principle when the polluter can no longer afford to pay?

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, commercial archaeology becomes a viable prospect when the state enforces an obligation to consider the potential impact of a proposed development on the archaeological heritage. This is enforced and supported through a legal or planning framework, with all the costs met by the developer. Developers have normally offset this increased cost against the profit levied from their final product, meeting their obligations as part of a wider social responsibility. But in the last six months we've seen a dramatic write-down in asset value to the point where commentators are speculating 'what is the new normal?' Where it was once normal to recover 10-20% profit on development projects is it now going to be normal to recover a profit of 1-2%?

If this is the new normal, it represents not just another turn in the economic cycle, but a restructuring of the economic order in a way that potentially no longer makes commercial archaeology viable. Rather than tinker with PPG 16, might it be time for a radical rethink for how we undertake development-led archaeology?

If society is tasked with achieving something for the common good, this activity can be carried out as a public service (the socialist approach) or alternatively activities can be left to the market, to be provided as services by suppliers (capitalist approach). Breaking the financial link between developers and archaeologists was proposed by Yannis Hamilakis on the recent
Radio four programme, clearly advocating the socialist approach, and argued against by Kenny Aitcheson, with support from many on this forum, advocating the capitalist approach. With the collapse of the economic framework on which the polluter-pays principle is founded, I'd like to hear from those who think the present model is worth defending (and their reasons why), and those who'd like to tear the whole thing down and start again from scratch (and their plans for an alternative).


http://www.diggingthedirt.com

[Oxbeast]

Good questions. I think that the polluter pays framework is still sound, however. If your principle is that the polluter should pay, and they can no longer afford to pay, the solution is to stop polluting. Archaeology is only one of many conditions that developer has to meet to obtain planning permission. Any model that argues that the taxpayer should pick up that tab for private developers getting their planning permission is going to fail, in my opinion.

Perhaps we'll just see less development as the economy is not growing as fast as it used to; in fact it is shrinking. YOu might also get developments more tailored to the market, as cheap credit is no longer available to flood the market with more new build flats, for example.

[gonetopot]

Under the polluter pays principle I believe that the amount of money (resources) a developer should be legally obliged to commit to archaeology should be a percentage of their project budget just as architects, groundworks etc. We and they must get over the fact that archaeology is an unfair burden on their profits. It should be no more of a burden than any other aspect of their project. It should also have a provision that the amount set aside for archaeology may increase if something exceptional is found (and should probably be covered by their insurance). Sensible and/or ideal developers already factor most of these things in. They don't like it, but they do it.

If the polluter can't pay, then it should mean he cannot afford the project, not just that he cannot afford the archaeology. The archaeology must be seen as a non-negotiable part of the project.

I agree that using a socialist approach to fund archaeology is a good idea, but don't know wheter this should be a levy/tax on a project, or that deveopers should be legislatively obliged to commit a percetage of their budget to archaeological investigation.

I hope that made sense

I can't believe I just agreed to a socialist approach...its friday... i'm tired... hope you all have a happy bank holiday

[oldgirl]

A 'polluter pays' principal means that developers have to pay for archaeology damaged/disturbed by their development. I think that if it's too expensive, don't develop that site.

There aren't that many complete and utter suprises if the initial work has been done properly......

[Bier Keller]

If a developer cannot afford the archaeology then maybe their idea needs a rethink. How many Prols can afford a luxury newbuild anyway? You never see "Basic but sound buildings for people with a lower income" being advertised. If the archaeology means that a developer has to up his/her price on the flats or whatever - then so what? I am pretty sure that the developer (and his/her monied customers) could not give a toss about how people at the lower end of the finacial spectrum make ends meet. Not my problem if a developer has to cut the profit margin to cover the archaeology.

Beer is your friend

[diggingthedirt]

Hi Bier Keller, Old Girl, Gonetopot and Oxbeast. Welcome and thanks for your comments. At the moment you?re thinking in terms of individual developers not being able to pay for their projects.

quote:Originally posted by oldgirl

A 'polluter pays' principal means that developers have to pay for archaeology damaged/disturbed by their development. I think that if it's too expensive, don't develop that site.

There aren't that many complete and utter suprises if the initial work has been done properly......

That's fair enough - planning guidance is administered on a case-by-case basis, but I'd like to broaden the discussion here to consider the wider business environment. I'm talking about the economic factors that influence the procurement of archaeological services, and the implications for a restructuring of the economic model underpinning the polluter-pays principle.

I started this thread to hear from any strong advocates for either socialist or capitalist models of development-led archaeology, following the arguments made in the Radio Four programme about breaking the link between archaeologists and developers. To get the ball rolling I'll present one of the arguments against a fully privatised sector.

If we take the plummeting demand for archaeology as a yard stick, the polluter already can't afford to pay. Of course, houses, roads, hospitals, and schools must all still be built, and the cultural heritage environment still assessed in advance, but in the current economic climate developers can only maintain profitably by reducing their cost base considerably. In this extreme situation where there is little to no work available, competition between archaeological suppliers favours the stupid ? those willing to take short-term financial risks or those failing to cost jobs appropriately. As all organisations (stupid and intelligent) are forced to adapt to these new realities, we've seen massive lay offs throughout the sector, a reduction in pay, working time and benefits. The pain (borne mostly by staff) is manageable in the short-term whilst we all look desperately for signs of 'green shoots' in the economy. But if, as commentators are speculating, this is 'the new normal' rather than just another turn in the economic cycle, we need a radical rethink.

There may well have been great gains made in the name of commercial archaeology over the last 19 years that make this the least worst option for development-led archaeology, but the fact remains that the sector is particularly vulnerable to extreme market swings, and this is a direct consequence of the capitalist model.

Peter Hinton writes in the forward the 2009 IFA year book: "It doesn't help that the present market structure fails to discriminate effectively between accredited providers of high quality archaeological services and the rest, and so provides a disservice to the public, to the clients who commission archaeology and of course the archaeologists themselves." It might be argued that the monitoring framework of development control archaeologists and archaeological consultants provides a buffer to ensure standards are maintained irrespective of financial pressure (and if this is what you believe, let?s hear from you). But contractors are still ultimately responsible to their clients and not the wider society in whose interests they work.

Even the very terms of this debate are open to question. Who's the polluter here? The developer? The new building itself? Or the people of the past, whose material trace requires cleaning and processing by specialist environmental risk managers?



http://www.diggingthedirt.com

[historic building]

I am just going to flag up preservation in situ. If a developer is developing a site where the costs of the archaeology are likely to make it unprofitable then there is much they can do to save cash by designing a scheme to preserve remains in situ and reduce the extent of excavation. Obviously there are very few sites where this would be the case.

If a developer is too stupid to undertake pre-determination evaluations or introduce archaeological information to inform their design process then why the hell should any money be provided from any other pot to dig them out of the financial hole of their own creation. Archaeological work represents a minimal financial cost to the vast majority of developments. What it does represent is a delay and a potential reorganisation of a timetable if the developer has not followed policy and ppg16 and instigated a pre-determination evaluation prior to obtaining their consent.

[drpeterwardle]

Historic Building said;

"If a developer is too stupid to undertake pre-determination evaluations ...."

There are many good reasons for delaying an evaluation there is nothing stupid about it. Similarly preservation in situ is often a cheaper option and is possible on many developments but not all.

The costs are often a good percentage of the project and more to the point a lot of the profit.

Peter Wardle

[YellowPete]

agreed on a landscape perspective for the volume of material and machine time involved often determines the most cost effective point at which to dig things so many times to expose whatever.

remeber that archaeologists are often termed as stupid for not knowing what is there before we go in.

kettle and pot come to mind

the fact remains that your askin about an 'acting' proffession in regards to a 're-active' situaltional practicality.

the only problem then s that whoever runs the job will need to have the ability to deal with the potential stress and spiralling costsin a manner by which they can justify a certain standard for the body of work produced.

and where hat comes in is from people who really know what they are doing and have been around long enough to have thought about it and their staff to go right. The staff need to have faith in that people are trying their best, while they try and fullfill the tasks they are set by their bosses.

Mike


the balances maybe
Mike




txt is
Mike

[YellowPete]

it really comes down to the project organisation being prepared for eventualities and the gaffers being able to deal with the pinches.

Mike



txt is
Mike