ABSTRACT

Since the in troduction o f EIA regulations in the UK, m ost practice and published research has concen tra ted on the earlier stages o f the process, up to the po in t o f decision. This is partly because relatively few o f the projects subject to EIA have gone ahead on the g round yet. However, it could also be due to how form al EIA activity has been adop ted in the UK. Being incorpora ted into existing consent procedures, EIA’s procedural na tu re has perhaps been overem phasised, and there has been less concern over both the EIA m ethods used and the substantive outcom es, projects on the ground. A preoccupation with the production and quality o f ESs has also deflected a tten tion from the real outcom es and m uch less a tten tion has been given to what happens after a pro ject is given consent, even though it is widely accepted tha t the full EIA process should include m onitoring and aud it so tha t some feedback can be achieved. It is alm ost as if those involved with EIA would ra th e r concentrate on the procedures than dare to look at the end results. T he developm ent o f strategic environm ental assessment (SEA) could also contribute to a continu ing neglect o f EIA follow-up work.