Yes scoping is necessary before detailed EIA study. In our practice, any developmental project centrally conduct feasibility study with detailed engineering design. After feasibility study proponent propose EIA study by developing   terms of reference (ToR). ToR is based upon scoping study so before ToR preparation for EIA study Scoping exercise is necessary by identifying issues and prioritize them for EIA study. After approval of Scoping document and ToR of the project, Detail EIA study commenced for approval. After EIA approval project goes for construction. Thus, in our practice Scoping is legal requirement for EIA study. 

Try the EIA documents for Ghana. They are quite comprehensive.

 I used Guidance on EIA Scoping - European Commission

you can find it here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-guidelines/g-scoping-full-text.pdf

In Spain the EIA is governed by European legislation, the problem is that the study and evaluation of environmental impact of a project should be done by the project developer, so if you have to pay, will try that evaluation is always positive. This completely undermines the process.

Kenyan legislation has a comprehensive scoping as a requirement for EIA.The scoping outcome determines if the project should undergo full EIA or not. It will be better to bench mark with economies in the same development stage as they share similar constrains in terms of capacity and implementation

Hello

I suggest you to perform a review in documents of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), as well as in papers published in the journals Environmental Impact Assessment Review, and Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Surely you will find high quality content on what you are looking for. Best regards.

Hello-

The link to the answers to the forty most asked questions about the USA's National Environmental Protection Act that involves scoping is:

http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/NEPA_Handbook/40_Asked_Questions.pdf

These questions/answers may provide another perspective on the outcomes and decisions that result from the scoping process evaluating the environmental impacts from a large project. 

Looks like they (EPA) don't scope much.  Too many lawyers, too few solutions on the ground.

 Thank you so much for your wonderful responses...

I suggest you read my article titled 'Environmental Impact Assessment in Bangladesh: A Critical Review'. This is my first article on the topic. I have published a number of articles recently along the same vain. They may be of interest to you. Best wishes.

Despite of what have been suggested to you, but the EIA process is formally designed and all countries follow it. The difference is on how to apply in the country! Most importantly, the EIA shall be managed by a national committee from several concerned governmenta; orgnanizations and NGOs. The public partcipation shall be invlved in the scoping and reporting sessions

Dear Charles,

Our government of Vietnam regulates EIA in two chapters in the national law on environmental protection that were released in 2005. These two chapters clearly define what types of projects need to conduct EIA report. 

In addition, the ministry of environment released some fundamental guidelines such as Circular.... for EIA based on the law.

Regards,

Thanh

The Namibian EA Regulations prescribe a Scoping report and consultation of affected and interested parties on a draft Scoping report as component of the EA process. However, scoping is not defined in the current version of the Regulations.

Conference Paper Web-based biodiversity geodatabases for environmental assess...

Conference Paper How often and why are alternatives absent in environmental i...

Thanks for the responses so far 

Greetings senior colleagues here...

I wanted to know if I will get a Conceptual framework for my research on Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment which I will apply to my work.  I want to be guided thanks

Dear Charles,

This is quite an interesting topic, considering the relevance that the phase of Scoping should have in EIA, SEA, and other forms of Impact Assessment.

I see you have already received really valuable indications. I might add some documents related to the guidance about how 'Scoping' should be developed. Coming from an Italian background, I suggest you another document developed by the European Commission (please see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-guidelines/g-scoping-full-text.pdf ). This is an old document, but could be helpful to compare how Scoping was addressed almost 25 years ago, and how this is considered now.

Speaking about the development of this tool, I can tell you how this evolved in Italy (again, this is my background and I would not feel comfortable speaking about countries where I have not worked or studied).

The main issue that has affected the use and the efficacy of EIA in Italy has probably been the lack of 'ex-ante' (or 'a priori', if you prefer) evaluations to the project to be developed. This is one of the main reasons why -at least in Italy- we have welcomed the introduction of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

Another issue that has affected (and it is still affecting) a wide acceptance of this tool (I mean EIA, but also SEA. However, I won't focus on SEA as this is not relevant here. Please let me know if this raises your interest), is the lack of periodic computing of the ecosystem services (or, generally speaking) that we have in each context (e.g. water quality and availability, air quality and pollution, etc.).

Why is this? Because, since EIA has a strong 'baseline-led' approach (please see, among the others, 'Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action' By Riki Therivel), we could say (simplifying the definition) that EIA can achieve good results if it is clear what is the environmental scenario featuring the area where the project (subjected to EIA) will be developed.

As Francisco Belmonte Serrato was saying, in a previous message in this conversation, EIA has to be developed by the same company which is responsible to draft the project. Of course, at least in Italy (I don't know about other countries within or outside the EU), the report of the EIA has to be validated by a government  agency deputy to assess the compliance between overarching planning schemes and what is proposed with the project examined.

This opens anther issue, about the identification of suitable agencies with environmental competences (but this is another topic).

To my understanding (and this is one of the reasons why I am now focusing on SEA instead of EIA) EIA can achieve results only if connected with SEA or to performance /based approaches to planning. Otherwise, lacking a clear statement about how the environment is currently stressed by human activities, each EIA developer will have the chance to 'cheat' while stating the current environmental scenario (in the Scoping phase), thus falsifying the real impacts that the project is going to have on the environment.

Speaking about the reasons why EIA is so difficult to implement, I would focus on the following issues:

- It is probably because of the lack of a tiered and connected system (between local, regional, and state level) that EIA is currently seen as a waste of time, just another bureaucratic step which does not really achieve any result, if not to consume some resources (and we all know how public administrations struggle finding time and personnel for these environmental assessments). Because of this, the risk of 'cutting green tape' (Middle et al. 2013) is a real threat.

- Saying that we need to calculate the current availability and features of ecosystem services (I use this term just to refer to all the natural components that we find in the environment, such as water, air, soil, etc.) is not that easy, especially in countries and continents where other priorities are far more relevant for people's health and survival. Hopefully, technology is developing in a direction that will allow a computation of natural resources in real time and without extra costs (use of satellites, etc.). Meanwhile, data collection is one of the issues that are affecting a full understanding of the real benefits brought by impact assessment tools (not only in developing countries, but also in Europe (or at least in Italy).

This answer is only partial, as many issues have been left unanswered.

However, I hope this can be of any help to you.

Please let me know if this raised your interest in any way. I will be glad to give you further information.

All the best for your research and work.

Kindest regards,

Umberto

Thanks so much Dr. Umberto... Your input is duly considered. they are factual and helpful as well. Then the issue of agencies in charge of the impact assessment, I put up a recommendation, where there will be independent panel reviewers such that their training and development will yield more dynamic growth and environmental protection. Thanks.  I am also looking at EIA and EMP/ EMS to link them appropriately in my research work  more especially looking at the Brazilian EMP and also review of institutional framework in certain countries in regards to EIA legislation as have been adopted in such countries