Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Polluter Pays
#21
I think "difficult" would be an understatement CK. I would add that there is broad acceptance that if you interfere with a waterlogged (or other extreme condition) site, you'll disturb the equilibrium resulting in medium or long term damage whereas other sites are left after the investigation without any consideration. It's quite sad, as you say, that we simply don't know how effective the preserve in situ route is because of lack of study Sad It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.

(I really have worked in the field)
Reply
#22
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.

I agree - but covering the funding is the big problem as you say. Working within the system we have, the "second look" seems to be the only way. Waterlogged sites can be effectively and fairly cheaply monitored via augering (if you can get to them...), although quite what you'd do with a site that had a piled foundation building on it, that suddenly started deteriorating and was about to be lost, is another question entirely!
Reply
#23
The PARIS conferences of 1996 and 2001 addressed this issue. Case studies included a wide range of examples including piled buildings. The proceedings were published by MoLAS

1996 conference
http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicatio...asp?pid=36

2001 conference
http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/publicatio...asp?pid=49
Reply
#24
Quote:quote:Originally posted by muddy

It is only right and fair that the polluter pays. However, a fairer system (and one that I know has been mooted in the past) is that all applications are judged upon archaeological merit. The developer would then be charged a fee dependant upon size and archaeology to central body (EH for the sake of arguement), with a contingency for emergence work. The central body would then be responible for paying for the work.

This scheme would the effect that larger developments would, in general pay more; there would be funds available for rescue; and units would have to apply seperately to the central organisation for funds for post-ex , not the developer (quality control)

Some recent changes in France may highlight the problems with this approach.

Prior to around 1998 excavations had been undertaken by AFAN (association pour les fouilles archaeologiques nationales) founded by the central government. The Competition Council decided that since developers financed archaeology, it was an economic activity covered by the rules of commercial competition. AFAN was subject to competition and private units encouraged.
This was eventually rejected by the French Government.

In 2001 the INRAP (National Institute for Preventative Archaeological research) was set up to undertake investigations prior to development. This instate is obliged under law to work with other bodies such as universities, CRNS etc.

Assessments (evaluations)are funded by a tax of 0.30 euros per square meter, while excavations are funded by a tax of 100 euros per cubic metre for sites containing archaeological layers, or according to the density of the remains.

Problems quickly arose. The main problems were:
Widescale developer dissatisfaction
tax was too high for some small developers, but too low overall.
INIAP was forced to recruit more archaeologists at a time when the country was attempting to reduce the size of the civil service.

With the change in government in 2002, the whole process became politically sensitive. Some MPs questioned the validity of pre development archaeology

In 2003 the 2001 was amended and a dual process proposed. Assessment is to be undertaken by the INRAP (founded by the development tax) while excavation will be subject to CT.

Based on "Preventive archaeology, public utilities amd commercial competition; the Franch Example" by Jean Paul Demoule in Naturopa No 99 2003.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)