Is EIA scoping in England effective?

13th January 2014


Related Topics

Related tags

  • Consultancy ,
  • Construction ,
  • Local government

Author

Antony Gerken

Eva Hansen, from Peter Brett Associates, describes her research into scoping practices in environmental impact assessment (EIA) and why they are not delivering to their full potential

Scoping is a fundamental stage in the EIA process. If carried out effectively, it arguably contributes to the quality and value of the EIA in the decision-making process.

During scoping, the involved parties agree the extent and focus of the assessment. Therefore the environmental statement (ES), the document presenting the results of the EIA, should inform the decision maker of those effects of a planned development that are relevant when deciding the planning application.

While scoping, as it is currently practiced in England, works well to identify potential impacts, its substantive aim of focusing the scope of the EIA on the likely significant effects is rarely achieved. Previous research shows that although practitioners generally understand the purpose and benefits of effective scoping, the scoping procedure is rarely implemented at a level that accomplishes its goals appropriately.

Effective scoping

Aspects of effectiveness are analysed distinguishing three dimensions: procedural, substantive and transactive. As two components of effectiveness, the dialogue between stakeholders and approaches to scoping are discussed in detail. Further, barriers in practice and theory are examined to gain a better understanding of effective scoping from the practitioner’s perspective.

There appears to be a mismatch in practitioners’ understanding of effective scoping between “substantive effectiveness”, in terms of focusing the EIA, and “procedural effectiveness”, such as saving resources.

Practitioners’ understanding of effective scoping generally coincides with what is described as “substantive effectiveness”. They believe that scoping is effective, when the assessment is focused on likely significant effects.

However, there are some differences regarding the benefits of effective scoping in “transactive” terms, ie achieving the “substantive” aims of scoping in the minimum cost and time.

From the consultants’ perspective, theoretically effective scoping does not save resources nor does it save time. On the contrary, the process of focusing the scope of an EIA through discussion is often regarded as more time and resource consuming than opting for a broader scope.

Time and resources, however, are main concerns of consultants, who compete in the private sector to act on the developer’s behalf. Different interests between stakeholders may also imply different perspectives of effectiveness, particularly regarding the issue of weighing the cost of time invested in discussing the scope of an EIA versus the cost of carrying out an assessment. For many consultants the latter option is more cost efficient. Consequently they accept the fact that “substantive effectiveness” of scoping is reduced to achieve “transactive effectiveness” in terms of time and resource efficiency.

A continuous, flexible system

To address this gap between effective scoping in theory and in practice, there are two aims that the scoping system should ensure: continuity and flexibility.

There are cases where public engagement and stakeholder dialogue only play a minor role in a development’s planning application. In these cases the scoping stage is reduced to an exercise of confirming the content of an EIA rather than identifying and discussing potential impacts. Yet consultants see a benefit in this reduced exercise as a way of providing confidence regarding the contents to be covered in the assessment. The value of such a reduced scoping exercise should be acknowledged.

Any changes to the current EIA system should aim to achieve improved engagement and discussion for controversial schemes, as well as to maintain sufficient flexibility to ensure that there will be no additional, unnecessary administrative burden for less complex schemes. The option of a scaled scoping system with more requirements for controversial schemes and flexibility for smaller developments should be considered further.

Barriers, such as lack of information about the proposed development; a lack of knowledge among local planning authorities; and generic scoping advice, could be overcome by enforcing a more continuous approach to scoping.

Such an approach could also contribute to further reducing the risk of subsequent requests for further information, because later changes in the design or new information about the proposed development could be considered before the scoping process is concluded. Experts have demanded a more iterative scoping process for decades, but in practice it is rarely seen nor do the EIA Regulations provide for such an approach.

Despite the demand for a continuous approach, few clear suggestions have been made as to how to implement such a system effectively. IEMA’s proposal to incorporate the scoping report as terms of reference for the EIA may be regarded as an approach to an iterative process.

Any formalised, iterative scoping process would also have to provide sufficient flexibility to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and enhance “substantive effectiveness” while ensuring “transactive effectiveness”. However, there is need to further develop these concepts.

Despite an apparent lack of “substantive effectiveness” in scoping, some elements of the scoping procedure are successfully achieved and valued by practitioners.

Scoping, as it is currently regulated and practiced, is a useful procedure to identify potential impacts and reduce the risk of significant effects being missed because statutory consultees, the local planning authority and other potential stakeholders are engaged at an early and reasonably informal stage in the project definition.


This article was submitted by WYG, a registrant on IEMA’s EIA Quality Mark scheme.

This article describes research that was undertaken with the support of PBA, as part of Eva Hansen’s MSc in Environmental Management and Assessment at Oxford Brookes University.

Subscribe

Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.


Transform articles

New guidance maps out journey to digital environmental assessment

IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network is delighted to have published A Roadmap to Digital Environmental Assessment.

2nd April 2024

Read more

Lisa Pool on how IEMA is shaping a sustainable future with impact assessment

27th November 2023

Read more

IEMA responded in September to the UK government’s consultation on the details of the operational reforms it is looking to make to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process as put forward in the NSIP reform action plan (February 2023).

24th November 2023

Read more

Members of IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network Steering Group have published the 17th edition of the Impact Assessment Outlook Journal, which provides a series of thought pieces on the policy and practice of habitats regulations assessment (HRA).

26th September 2023

Read more

In July, we published the long-awaited update and replacement of one of IEMA’s first published impact assessment guidance documents from 1993, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic.

1st August 2023

Read more

Are we losing sight of its intended purpose and what does the future hold for EIA? Jo Beech, Tiziana Bartolini and Jessamy Funnell report.

15th June 2023

Read more

Luke Barrows and Alfie Byron-Grange look at the barriers to adoption of digital environmental impacts assessments

1st June 2023

Read more

Susan Evans and Helen North consider how Environmental Statements can be more accessible and understandable

1st June 2023

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close