25th January 2006, 12:43 PM
In terms of ' what the IFA is doing', there is this paper from Pete Hinton
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...on2004.doc
which I have shamelessly lifted from here
English Heritage, working on behalf of DCMS with Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service, has been fine-tuning the voluntary ?statement of principles? (based on the IFA Code of conduct) to move the UK towards compliance with Article 3 of the Valletta Convention. Non-IFA members signing up to the statement of principles will not be bound by them and there is no obvious mechanism for enforcement. For this reason there is a good argument for requiring something stronger for commercial work (while ensuring that addressing the problems of the profession places no additional obstacles in the way of voluntary sector fieldwork, which should be encouraged), and so English Heritage is taking forward internally proposals for requiring appropriate accreditation (based on the principles of registration or IFA membership) for projects that it commissions or for which it advises on scheduled monument consent. We hope that guidance to planning authorities will extend this practice into the majority of commercial work. Only if there are clear commercial disadvantages in not being registered can RAOs cope with the kinds of cost increases that the profession needs, and the IFA must require.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...on2004.doc
which I have shamelessly lifted from here
English Heritage, working on behalf of DCMS with Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service, has been fine-tuning the voluntary ?statement of principles? (based on the IFA Code of conduct) to move the UK towards compliance with Article 3 of the Valletta Convention. Non-IFA members signing up to the statement of principles will not be bound by them and there is no obvious mechanism for enforcement. For this reason there is a good argument for requiring something stronger for commercial work (while ensuring that addressing the problems of the profession places no additional obstacles in the way of voluntary sector fieldwork, which should be encouraged), and so English Heritage is taking forward internally proposals for requiring appropriate accreditation (based on the principles of registration or IFA membership) for projects that it commissions or for which it advises on scheduled monument consent. We hope that guidance to planning authorities will extend this practice into the majority of commercial work. Only if there are clear commercial disadvantages in not being registered can RAOs cope with the kinds of cost increases that the profession needs, and the IFA must require.