4th January 2007, 02:46 PM
Hi Folks- I think that you will find that the IFA has nothing to do with monitoring at all
The IFA decided right from the outset in its âStandardsâ to put the onus on the curators (who*) to undertake the monitoring of the âBriefâ, the IFA even suggested that the curators arrange their charges for doing the monitoring (not that the curators seem to take this up that often which I find intriguing-have they nothing to charge for because they are not doing any monitoring?). I would suggest the intentions out lined in the âStandardsâ negates any purpose for the IFA in maintaining standards for compulsory archaeology that result from planning laws.
* the IFA recommends the national conservation agency (I havenât a clue who they are- tried google), planning archaeologist and commissioning body, or their nominated representatives. All a bit fuzzy- presumably the commissioning body is the client?
The IFA decided right from the outset in its âStandardsâ to put the onus on the curators (who*) to undertake the monitoring of the âBriefâ, the IFA even suggested that the curators arrange their charges for doing the monitoring (not that the curators seem to take this up that often which I find intriguing-have they nothing to charge for because they are not doing any monitoring?). I would suggest the intentions out lined in the âStandardsâ negates any purpose for the IFA in maintaining standards for compulsory archaeology that result from planning laws.
* the IFA recommends the national conservation agency (I havenât a clue who they are- tried google), planning archaeologist and commissioning body, or their nominated representatives. All a bit fuzzy- presumably the commissioning body is the client?