This paper examines the role of screening and scoping and how legislation, standards and risk aversion can undermine proportionate impact assessment and our role in addressing this.
The process we follow for impact assessment is well established, first screening to determine if we need to do an impact assessment and to identify the key environmental, social or cultural matters that need consideration, then scoping to refine the matters for assessment which may lead to terms of reference or similar, and then the preparation of the impact assessment for these matters.
That is the theory, however, along the way the path can be lost with impact assessments casting a much wider net than the key matters identified during screening and scoping, leading to a disproportionate assessment effort for the nature, type, risk profile and scale of the project. This can result in higher costs and more time required for reporting on matters which may have no or little impact from a project.
This paper will explore why impact assessment may take the path of being more complex than the project needs. It will look at some case studies and explore legislative frameworks and international standards and guidelines which can lead to the concept of proportionality of impact assessment and reporting being lost. It will also look at how we can respond as impact assessment practitioners.
Tracey is a Senior Principal Environmental Scientist at Stantec in New Zealand. She is a specialist impact assessment practitioner with extensive experience across the Asia/Pacific region.