It takes money to set up, administer, and operate any such certification system. And generally when it comes to such programs, I would argue that it's often not for the sake of the students, but really for the benefit of the instructors. The certification then becomes a way to exclude instructors with differing ideas or a way to limit the number of instructors. Material that doesn't fall neatly into some "standard" curriculum can too easily be labeled "wrong" or "dangerous" or whatever. I think certain topics are amenable to a certification process and make a lot of sense, but I personally don't think "survival training" (whatever gazillion possible teaching points that includes) is one of those topics.

Of course, no one wants totally unqualified mall ninja types to be teaching a survival course with their own wacky survival mumbo jumbo, but I would think word of mouth would quickly weed those schools/instructors out without any sort of organization required to do it. And there's no reason why someone needs to be ex-military or had to have trained at certain survival schools or certain other pedigree to be a competent instructor with good information to pass along. A housewife who is into scouting and the outdoors, for example, could be an excellent "survival" instructor and the perfect teacher for many folks.

But hey, caveat emptor and if someone still wants to fork over their hard earned money to be taught by a particular instructor, that should be their right to do so. And if those students like the class and recommend it to others, then more power to that school/instructor, even if others may disagree with what is being taught.