Due to the experiences of those below, my personal impression of the viability of biobanking, and concerns aired at the recent ECA conference, I am in no rush to become a Biobanking Assessor. I will be spending my money on buying another ZCAIM I think, as it will get much more use.

I'm a tad shocked and concerned. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but $2K is a substantial amount of money for me to fork out in one hit. To enrol in the TAFE course, go through the assessor accreditation process , pass the exams and find out I not be accredited is, in my opinion, wrong. I know its unrelated, but if I was to do a First Aide Certificate through TAFE, and pass the relevant exams, I am qualified to do first aide. Similarly, when I passed my Uni exams and meet those requirements, I got my degree. Why should the Biobanking assessor accreditation process be any different? To do the course and not get qualified, with my money being taken, is not right. I agree with Kath, the basic requirements (e.g. necessary experience for qualification) should be specified up front. Kath, have you tried to complain and get you money back ? You’re a consumer, why pay for a product you can’t use??!!

Biobanking does not clearly state to me that we are encouraging the protection of our habitats. There is a commercial bent to it that can easily be misinterpreted and taken advantage of. My take is that we are granted leeway from govt and councils to expand our business practices...just not at the expense of our heritage.

In Turkey, 90% of their land has been logged. Farmers receive unlimited water subsidies for growing sunflowers. 2 subsidies a year for anything else.

Don't worry about not gaining accreditation! 

In regards to the Biobanking assessor accreditation, I completed the Biobanking course before Christmas and applied for accreditation as required (I also passed all of the exams during the course!!). I’m new to the ecology/consulting industry, having finished an enviro science degree 18 months ago, and had some concerns about meeting the criteria for accreditation. I aired these concerns with the DECC guys who were present during the delivery of the course that I attended, in the hope that they’d shed some light on what exactly they would accept in terms of “experience”. I’ve been in the ecology industry for about a year, but have about 3.5 years of full time bush regen experience as well as additional experience from my time at uni. I explained my position to the guys there, and received vague assurances that it should all be fine. A friend of mine in a similar situation was also attending the same course, and we had similar concerns about accreditation. Following the application process, we were both unsuccessful in gaining accreditation, due to a lack of experience.

Now while I’m disappointed not to have been accredited, I can understand the rationale behind only accrediting the senior ecologists that now appear on the Biobanking website. I’m more annoyed that they allow people like me to enrol in the course, when they must know full well that graduates are unlikely to possess enough experience to be successful in achieving accreditation. Surely it would be more useful for everyone involved if it was made clear exactly what will constitute suitable experience prior to enrolment? That way, the backlog of senior ecologists keen to become involved in the program will be able to attend the courses (rather than having places taken up by inexperienced people like me), and graduates wont be spending $2K on trying to achieve accreditation which they are likely to be unsuccessful in gaining!

I think there needs to be a better format for setting out exactly what is suitable experience prior to accepting enrolments for this course to avoid disappointment, frustration and wasted time and resources in the future.

But congratulations to those who have been accredited!

I am one of the successful assessors adn I have a ocmment to make.

I have no argument with the process but even if I had been unsuccessful, I would still defend the process. I am also rather cross at the slur that is implied by Danny's posting in regards to the integrity of the panel.

The success rate quoted by Danny is 62% and I think before anyone can comment sensibly on that as being low, high, appropriate or inappropriate, we need to know the reasons the remaining minority of 38% were rejected. Also, against what other process and / or statistics is it being compared by Danny?

Perhaps some applicants failed the examination - surely you agree that such people should not be accredited until they prove they can use the methodology reliably. Perhaps the panel needs to be convinced that the experience relied upon by some applicants is not only adequate in quantitative terms but also in qualitative terms. Having many years of experience does not necessarily mean that one is good at what one does (we could all quote examples).

There is no evidence that the process was "inappropriately managed" - the list of accredited assessors tells me that DECC are setting a rather high bar as all of the people with whom I am acquainted on that list are very astute ecologists / botanists / zoologists.

I would vehemently oppose any guarantees being given prior to attending the course or sitting for the exam. For BioBanking to work, it must be handled well by enthusiastic and competent accredited assessors that will apply the process without fear or favour.

Further, there is nothing to stop the non-accredited but trained assessors in applying the methodology under the tutorship of an accredited assessor. As long as the accredited assessor is convinced that the mehtodology has been applied correctly, they are entitled to sign off on the unaccredited assessor's behalf. This of course will be under a commercail arrangement, but we are all in this business to make a living, are we not?