Scottish Government

ISBN 0 7559 1216 0 (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (110k)

We are inviting your views on proposals to introduce new Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations.

The proposed new EIA (Agriculture) Regulations will:

• Apply new EIA rules to projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings. They might cover operations such as certain large-scale removal or addition of hedges, walls and ditches. They might also apply to certain recontouring of agricultural land, including the creation or filling-in of lochs or reservoirs;
• Supercede the existing EIA (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 which apply to projects for the use of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes.

The purpose of the Regulations would be to protect the environment by applying an EIA process to relevant projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. A person wishing to undertake a relevant project would be required to make an application to SEERAD to see whether EIA is required. If it is not required, the project would be allowed to proceed. If EIA is required, the assessment would inform a decision by SEERAD on whether the work should be allowed to proceed.

The attached consultation paper discusses the various issues raised and asks some specific questions on which we would particularly appreciate your views.

If you have any queries contact:

Jim Johnstone
Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
Land Use and Rural Policy Division
Mail Point 1D
Pentland House
47 Robbs Loan
Edinburgh
EH14 ITY

Telephone number: 0131 244 6115

We are inviting written responses to this consultation paper by 5 December 2005. Please send your response to:

eia-uncultivated@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or Jim Johnstone at the above address.

This consultation, and all other Scottish Executive consultation exercises, can be viewed online on the consultation web pages of the Scottish Executive website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations. You can telephone Freephone 0800 771234 to find out where your nearest public internet access point is.

The Scottish Executive now has an email alert system for consultations ( SEconsult: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/seconsult.aspx). This system allows stakeholder individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly email containing details of all new consultations (including web links). SEconsult complements, but in no way replaces SE distribution lists, and is designed to allow stakeholders to keep up to date with all SE consultation activity, and therefore be alerted at the earliest opportunity to those of most interest. We would encourage you to register.

Handling your response

We need to know how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are happy for your response to be made public. Please complete and return the Respondent Information Form enclosed with this consultation paper as this will ensure that we treat your response appropriately. If you ask for your response not to be published we will regard it as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly.

All respondents should be aware that the Scottish Executive are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would therefore have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to responses made to this consultation exercise.

Next steps in the process

Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public (see the attached Respondent Information Form), these will be made available to the public in the Scottish Executive Library by 12 January 2006. We will check all responses where agreement to publish has been given for any potentially defamatory material before logging them in the library or otherwise publishing them. You can make arrangements to view responses by contacting the SE Library on 0131 244 4565. Responses can be copied and sent to you, but a charge may be made for this service.

What happens next?

Following the closing date, all responses will be analysed and considered along with any other available evidence to inform the drafting of the Regulations. The intention is to introduce regulations by Spring 2006.

Comments and complaints

If you have any comments about how this consultation exercise has been conducted, please send them to Jim Johnstone at the above address. Requests for additional copies or material in large print or in other languages should be directed to Jim Johnstone in the first instance.

In the meantime if you have any queries please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours faithfully

Jim Johnstone
9 September 2005

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CONSULTATION PROCESS

Consultation is an essential and important aspect of Scottish Executive working methods. Given the wide-ranging areas of work of the Scottish Executive, there are many varied types of consultation. However, in general, Scottish Executive consultation exercises aim to provide opportunities for all those who wish to express their opinions on a proposed area of work to do so in ways which will inform and enhance that work.

The Scottish Executive encourages consultation that is thorough, effective and appropriate to the issue under consideration and the nature of the target audience. Consultation exercises take account of a wide range of factors, and no two exercises are likely to be the same.

Typically Scottish Executive consultations involve a written paper inviting answers to specific questions or more general views about the material presented. Written papers are distributed to organisations and individuals with an interest in the issue, and they are also placed on the Scottish Executive web site enabling a wider audience to access the paper and submit their responses ¹. Consultation exercises may also involve seeking views in a number of different ways, such as through public meetings, focus groups or questionnaire exercises. Copies of all the written responses received to a consultation exercise (except those where the individual or organisation requested confidentiality) are placed in the Scottish Executive library at Saughton House, Edinburgh, (K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD, telephone 0131 244 4565).

All Scottish Executive consultation papers and related publications (eg, analysis of response reports) can be accessed at: Scottish Executive consultations ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations).

The views and suggestions detailed in consultation responses are analysed and used as part of the decision making process, along with a range of other available information and evidence. Depending on the nature of the consultation exercise the responses received may:

Final decisions on the issues under consideration will also take account of a range of other factors, including other available information and research evidence.

While details of particular circumstances described in a response to a consultation exercise may usefully inform the policy process, consultation exercises cannot address individual concerns and comments, which should be directed to the relevant public body.

RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM

INTRODUCTION

This consultation paper seeks views on the introduction of new Environmental Impact Assessment(Agriculture)(Scotland) Regulations. The new Regulations will apply to Scotland. Similar rules will be implemented separately in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Summary of Main Issues

The new EIA (Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations will cover two aspects of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) Directive. First, they will apply new rules under which certain projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings will have to be made subject to the EIA process. Secondly, in doing so, they will use the existing tried and trusted procedures already in place by merging with Regulations that apply EIA procedures to projects for the use of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes. (The Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2002) ( ULSNA).

The paper is divided into four chapters. In summary:

Chapter 1 gives consultees an overview of what EU directives are, and gives an overview of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It looks at general issues which apply to later chapters. For instance, it looks at how we propose to use 'thresholds' and 'case-by-case assessment' to separate innocent projects from restructuring projects that need environmental assessment.

Chapter 2 covers the introduction of new 'light touch' EIA rules on projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings. It looks at the sorts of project that might be caught by the new rules. It gives an assessment of the risks that the new rules are designed to address.

Chapter 3 covers a review of the existing EIA ( ULSNA) Regulations in Scotland since they came into force in 2002.

Chapter 4 covers the proposed effect of the implementation of the aspect of this Directive.

We are seeking consultees views on anything arising from the issues discussed in the paper. To help this process, at the end of the Chapters we have included lists of questions that consultees may like to consider when deciding what to say. However, consultees should not be constrained by these questions.

CHAPTER 1 - THE EIA DIRECTIVE

This chapter introduces consultees to what EU directives are, and the rules of good practice we must apply when implementing them.

The EIA Directive

The Directive was introduced in 1985 and applies to a very wide range of projects, split into two categories. Annex I of the Directive lists about 70 types of large, high-impact projects which always need an EIA and Annex II lists over 100 types of projects which are less likely to have significant effects on the environment. Member states must decide when these projects need an EIA. The latter category contains the two types of projects we are looking at in this consultation.

EU member states, including the UK, have agreed in EU treaties to promote certain broad principles and goals in areas such as trade, agriculture, food and the environment. EU directives are one of the main legislative instruments by which these principles and goals are put into practice.

The following gives consultees an overview of the Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) Directive ². It covers what it requires us to do, and some of the key issues it raises. These matters are relevant to both the 'rural restructuring' and 'uncultivated land' aspects of EIA discussed later in the paper.

What does the Directive require?

The Directive requires that we introduce laws to ensure that specified types of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment ( e.g. because of their nature, size or location) are made subject to an EIA process before they are allowed to proceed. It says that member states must determine for themselves when projects should be subject to EIA. In doing this, we may use case-by-case examination and/or thresholds or criteria. These two mechanisms help member states separate acceptable projects from those likely to have significant effects on the environment.

If a project is found to need an EIA, the assessment must be conducted by the person wishing to do the project. It must take account of factors such as direct and indirect effects on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, material assets and cultural heritage. The competent authority appointed by the member state to run the EIA rules will check to see that the Environmental Assessment has been done properly, and decide whether or not the project should be allowed to proceed. In Scotland the competent authority is SEERAD.

'Significant effects on the environment'

The Directive does not define what it means by significant effects on the environment and so it is for each member state to decide. In defining significance we need to strike a balance between (i) implementing the Directive adequately; and (ii) avoiding 'gold-plating'. We can do this by understanding the likely intention of the Directive, and making sure our implementation is proportionate to the risks we are trying to address. We can also look at how other member states interpret significance.

Case-by-case assessment and thresholds

The way we use case-by-case assessment and/or thresholds establishes the EIA "screening system". The twin aims of screening should be (i) to identify potentially damaging projects that need to be subject to EIA; and (ii) to sift-out innocent projects as soon as possible, and allow them to proceed with the minimum amount of "red-tape".

Case-by-case assessment

Case-by-case assessment involves each relevant project being screened individually by SEERAD to assess whether it needs to go through the EIA process. (i) a person who wants to do a project must apply to SEERAD for screening; (ii) SEERAD may conduct site-visits, performs tests, and consults as necessary; (iii) SEERAD decides whether the project needs EIA or not. Case-by-case assessment provides a rigorous way of assessing projects.

Thresholds

Thresholds and/or criteria are commonly used in EIA screening systems in the EU. Thresholds can be used to sift-out harmless projects, which allows assessment of larger projects to be processed more cost-effectively. Thresholds 'cut-off points' under which projects are considered unlikely to have significant effects, are allowed to proceed without being caught by the EIA screening requirements. For instance, they might say that projects can go ahead without screening if they are below a certain size, or if they have certain characteristics, meet certain criteria or if they are in certain locations. Thresholds allow us to target EIA processes and rules at potentially harmful projects. The drawback of thresholds is that, if they are applied too bluntly, they could cause some significant projects to be missed.

ECJ rulings on threshold setting

In deciding how to define significance and where to set thresholds, we are guided by recent rulings of the European Court of Justice ( ECJ). These are that member states may set thresholds as they see fit, provided the following rules are adhered to:

Experience in Scotland

Under the current uncultivated land and semi-natural areas Regulations the case-by-case assessment system has worked well and in three years only 12 cases have been considered by Agricultural Staff under the screening with none requiring a full assessment. We are planning to add the new requirements to the existing process and operate a single screening process system. This should avoid confusion over new procedures where not necessary.

Questions on Chapter 1

• Do you have any views on the principle of setting thresholds under the proposed new Regulations?
• Do you have views on the use of screening notices to disapply thresholds in certain cases?
• Would you prefer us to continue with a case-by-case assessment?

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECTS FOR THE RESTRUCTURING OF RURAL LAND HOLDINGS

This Chapter looks at the proposed introduction of new EIA rules applying to projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings.

Why are we introducing new EIA rules on rural restructuring?

Among the many types of projects covered by the EIA Directive are ' projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings'. From the late 1980's onwards the UK did not implement this aspect of the Directive. The European Commission questioned this approach in October 2003. Following discussions with the Commission, and in light of legal advice, the UK has accepted that we are obliged to implement this aspect of the Directive. We have agreed to do this by early 2006.

The Directive does not define what it means by projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings. It is likely that the Directive intended to apply EIA procedures to large-scale rural restructuring projects. This view is supported by the way that other EU member states implement EIA rural restructuring rules. For instance, Ireland applies its rules only to projects involving land parcels over 100 hectares; the Netherlands over 500 hectares; and Belgium over 1,000 hectares.

In the new restructuring rules, we intend that the term ' projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings' will apply to physical works that give a significantly different physical structure to the arrangement of the constituent parts of one or more agricultural land holding. The constituent parts would include fields, water bodies and other areas of land. The types of work that might constitute relevant projects might include;

• the removal or addition of substantial lengths of field boundaries such as hedges, walls, fences, ditches or tracks on agricultural land;
• the recontouring of agricultural land;
• filling-in or excavating water bodies such as ponds, lochs or reservoirs.

Types of project that will not be considered to be projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings include:

• any work which is already subject to the planning system, or other EIA legislation;
• maintenance work on existing structures or boundaries such as fixing a dry stane dyke, replacing a fence, or clearing a blocked ditch;
• work on non-agricultural rural land, for instance non registered moor land, or any other non-agricultural land or gardens;
• work through which non-agricultural land is changed into agricultural land and vice versa.

Generally, such projects are already covered by other EIA legislation.

What risk would the new rules be intended to address?

Historically, activity that could be described as restructuring of rural land holdings has been shaping and reshaping the rural environment for thousands of years. The restructuring was one of the major factors that created the present rural environment. It could be argued that some restructuring in the 20 ^th Century had a negative impact on environmental factors such as biodiversity. For instance, the mechanisation of agriculture led to larger fields, which often meant the removal of boundary features.

Factors we have taken into consideration in our risk assessment for environmental risks posed by restructuring of rural land holdings from 2005 onwards include:

On balance, we consider the risk posed to the environment in 2005 by projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings is low, and we would expect it to become lower as CAP reform and stewardship increasingly take effect. There is a possibility that some restructuring could have negative effects, but the general trend is likely to be positive, and we need to be careful not to deter beneficial restructuring.

What will the key aspects of the new rules be?

The key aspects of the new regime will be how we set the 'entry tests' that answer the questions:

Applying Thresholds

In Scotland, since the introduction of the uncultivated and semi-natural area Regulations, where a case-by-case approach is used, only a handful of cases have come forward. SEERAD staff advise on procedures and consider any formal screening requests on whether any proposal requires an EIA. SEERAD staff consider screening requests against the Regulations and to date, of the 12 applications, 4 were outwith the scope of the Regulations, 1 was withdrawn and the remainder were found to have no significant effect on the environment. On that basis, it might be argued that there is little need for thresholds.

Nevertheless, for restructuring projects, it is considered that applying the thresholds would simplify the system for land managers whilst continuing to protect potentially sensitive areas.

We have set out below threshold options which we feel are in line with risk assessment which meet the likely intention of the Directive and which are in line with recent rulings of the European Court of Justice. We feel that these thresholds would guard against potentially negative effects of large-scale restructuring and minimise the chance that acceptable and beneficial projects may be caught inadvertently.

Categories of restructuring projects

Restructuring work falls into two broad categories. Some operations are area based projects, e.g. they primarily affect areas of land, for instance through recontouring of land and filling-in/excavation of lochs and reservoirs. Other operations are linear feature based projects that primarily involve the addition or removal of boundary features such as fences, ditches and hedges. We propose to apply different thresholds for each broad type of project.

Sensitive areas

We propose to apply different levels of threshold depending on whether the land on which a project will take place has been identified as a sensitive area by the Regulations. To aid transparency and compliance these areas should be readily identifiable to land managers ( i.e. they should be able to find out easily if land they manage is in a sensitive area or not). Types of land which could be classed as sensitive might include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and similar environmental designations and designated archaeological sites. These will be the same as currently referred to in the ULSNA Regulations procedures. We are interested in consultees' views on what types of land should be considered to be sensitive areas and why.

Thresholds

Possible threshold options might include:

higher option

Lower option

We would welcome consultees' views on the threshold options above. It would be possible to make the thresholds more sophisticated, e.g. to avoid deterring the creation of hedgerows we could make the threshold for adding hedges higher than the threshold for removing hedges but this might come at the expense of simplicity and transparency.

Given that we expect much beneficial restructuring work to be conducted under agri-environment schemes and the possibility that the new rule might deter such work where it is taking place on a larger scale it might be reasonable to exclude such work from the new rules altogether. We would be interested in consultees' views.

It is intended that screening notices should operate in conjunction with thresholds (if the decision is to introduce thresholds into the process). SEERAD would be able to issue a screening notice if Scottish Ministers considered that a project (which would fall under the threshold) is likely to take place and that it may have a significant effect on the environment. The screening notice would require that such a project must go through EIA screening. Similarly, if SEERAD become aware of potentially significant cumulative effects of many small projects in an area (possibly due to be undertaken by many different land managers, possibly over many months or years) they might issue a number of screening notices.

We suggest that screening notices will be:

• targeted and proportionate - SEERAD would have the flexibility to design each screening notice to focus it on the risk it is addressing, whilst minimising side-effects. In all cases, the screening notice would have to specify the types of project to which it applies. We would specify in guidance that screening notices should only be used when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that significant effects may be likely on all or a large proportion of a particular site. It would not be acceptable to apply a screening notice to a large area of land just because a small proportion of it might be environmentally valuable;
• transparent, accountable and enforceable - SEERAD would be obliged to ensure the landowner/manager is fully aware of why the screening notice has been issued and what it requires. The transparency and focus of screening notices would encourage compliance and make enforcement more straightforward. Landowners/managers will be fully aware of the rules and there is a high chance that a breach of a screening notice would be discovered;
• joined-up with other environmental policy - screening notices alone will not ensure future good management of land, so wherever possible, they should be used alongside other solutions. For instance, the land might be suitable for entry into an agri-environment scheme;
• time limited - each screening notice would have a "sunset clause" limiting its duration to a maximum of five years, although when a screening notice expires Scottish Ministers would be able to issue another. This would help with transparency and compliance, e.g. if successive screening notices are applied, the landowner/manager gets a reminder at least every five years;

Screening notices would be used sparingly to deal with specific risks. The Regulations and accompanying guidance would stipulate that screening notices may only be issued if Scottish Ministers has good reason to consider that significant effects on the environment may be likely. This decision should take due account of the thresholds. For instance, normally a project below the threshold would be considered so unlikely to have a significant effect that it would not require case-by-case screening assessment. So there would have to be a good reason to issue a screening notice.

Questions on Chapter 2

• do you have views on what is included and excluded from restructuring projects?
• would it be reasonable to exclude beneficial restructuring projects taking place under agri-environment schemes from the rules?
• are the proposed new rules proportionate to the problems/risks they are designed to address?
• do you have views on the level at which thresholds should be set? Do you prefer one of the threshold options set out above?
• do you consider that within sensitive areas, thresholds should be subject to screening notices or be disapplied?
• do you have views on how screening notices would/should work in relation to restructuring projects?
• what should be included as sensitive areas? Are you content these remain the same as in the current ULSNA procedures?
• do you agree with the split between linear based projects and area based projects?
• are the new rules likely to be relatively straightforward for land managers to comply with? How could they be made more straightforward?
• do you have comments on how the new rules will relate to other legislation, e.g. the planning system and other EIA rules?

CHAPTER 3 - REVIEW OF THE EXISTING EIA ( ULSNA) REGULATIONS

The Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 came into force in Scotland on 4 February 2002. The Regulations constrain the commencement of work which might result in significant environmental effects occurring to uncultivated or semi-natural land which it is intended to convert to intensive agricultural use.

The Regulations derived from the Executive's commitment to implement EC requirements on potential environmental effects on land use change. SEERAD's aim is to seek wherever possible to operate the requirements of the Regulations in co-operation with land managers, farmers and crofters and also with any bodies, such as SNH, SEPA or Historic Scotland, which have an interest in any development on uncultivated and semi-natural land.

The EIA process is there to make sure that the effects of a project on land with particular environmental importance are taken into account before work can begin. The procedures involving 'environmental statements' only apply where a proposed operation, to bring uncultivated land into intensive agricultural use, would be likely to have significant effects on the environment.

The EIA procedures involves the land manager discussing his proposals with SEERAD and if appropriate apply for a screening decision who will consider if the proposal is a project that is likely to have significant environmental effects. If such effects are likely, SEERAD will consult with the above bodies to assess the environmental impacts.

A review was conducted by SEERAD in 2004 in consultation with stakeholders and concluded that as the operation of the Regulations in Scotland is generally acceptable it would be appropriate to wait until CAP Reform had been completed and the regulations had been in place for a longer period of time before undertaking a fuller review.

The Scottish review found that application of the Regulation in Scotland had gone relatively well. The position in Scotland is relatively quiet. There has been a total of twelve applications for a screening decision in the three years to June 2005. Of these twelve applications, four were outwith the scope of the Regulations, one was withdrawn and seven projects were found to have no significant effect on the environment. While concerns have been voiced that the Regulations are not widely known. In Scotland, farmers generally work closer with SEERAD staff and discuss proposed projects with them at an early stage.

As a result of the above we propose to make no changes and to use these established procedures as the basis for the new Regulations.

Questions on Chapter 3

• Any comments on the working of the current Regulations?
• Do you think any projects are slipping through the net?
• Would you like to see any changes to the current Regulations?

CHAPTER 4 - DRAFT PARTIAL REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Title

Transposition of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/ EEC) in relation to 'projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings' in Scotland.

Purpose and intended effect of measure

The Objective

The objective is to transpose this aspect of the EIA Directive in a way that:

• ensures we meet the requirements of the Directive, but avoids going beyond its minimum requirements unless there is a compelling reason to do so;
• ensures that implementation complements, and does not hinder, wider Government objectives on the protection of natural resources and the promotion of sustainable development as it regards agriculture and the rural economy;
• takes full account of regulatory good practice, for instance implementation should be proportionate, consistent, targeted, transparent and accountable;
• to safeguard areas which may be environmentally significant, by providing a mechanism to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings.

Risk Assessment

A potential risk exists of significant damage to environmentally sensitive land through restructuring developments without environmental effects being considered first. In addition, non implementation or failure to implement EU obligations properly may be expected to lead to infraction proceedings being brought against us at the European Court of Justice which could in turn lead to a significant fine being imposed. Following infraction pressure the UK has agreed to transpose this aspect of the EIA Directive.

Many areas of environmentally sensitive land is already protected under EC and National legislation, e.g.SAC's, SPA's, SSSI's, etc. However not all potentially sensitive areas are so protected. In any event, Environmental Assessment will provide an up front mechanism for assessing the potential effect and identify significance before damage occurs.

Options for Implementation

The UK has already given assurances that it will implement the provision by Regulation.

Issues of Equity or Fairness

The Regulations would apply equally to all those proposing projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings. Whilst this may have a dis-proportionate effect on smaller businesses although it is expected that generally, developments will be proposed by large businesses

Benefits

Identifying the Benefits

The main benefit would be to environmentally significant land, which was not already protected by an environmental agreement or designation. The measures would help to safeguard Scotland's natural and cultural heritage, biodiverstity, wildlife and landscape.

The benefits of EIA are hard to qualify but better designed projects with less environmental impact; more structured public participation and better decision making not only offer benefits to the developer, competent authority and public but are likely to smooth the formal decision making process. Measures intended to reduce the impact of a development on the environment are likely to be cheaper and more effective if considered at the design stage.

Quantify and Value Benefits

A regulatory approach can be expected to help ensure that the likely environmental impacts of proposed projects are fully considered before work on them may start. The number of restructuring projects are impossible to predict with accuracy. It will depend on the nature of a particular project, the expected impacts to which it might give rise, and the meaning to be given to significant effects on the environment.

Compliance Costs for Business

Businesses Affected

Potentially, any farming business or land management concern intending to restructure land holdings which may give rise to environmentally significant effects will be affected. The overall impact should therefore be minimal except where significant effect is indicated.

In reality, the number of businesses affected is likely to be small given our experience with the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas Regulations. There are already a number of regulatory controls, voluntary schemes and incentives in place to conserve and help some of the most fragile and/or important sites.

Compliance Costs for a Typical Business

Indicative costs are as follows:

Implementation costs - might include the cost of preparing an application form (say two hours, depending on the level of detail required), and if required the cost of employing a consultant to complete an Environmental Assessment where there is a risk of significant affect (assuming the farmer does not have the technical expertise to complete a Statement to a reasonable standard). Depending on the project, the cost of producing a Statement may vary between £500 - £800 for a small scale project with relatively simple albeit significant impacts and around £10,000-£15,000 for a complex or large scale project with a number of inter relating impacts. It would not be necessary for a consultant to be employed for each and every project as it would be expected that the developer would be able to complete an Environmental Statement for small, straight forward projects using relevant data supplied by authorities.

Implementation costs in total for Scotland might be in the range of £2,000-£4,000 per annum for enquiries and applications, with anything between £2,000-£180,000, depending on the number and content of environment statements produced.

Impact on Small Business

An Environmental Statement required under the proposed regulations may represent a significant part of a farmer's development costs if significant environmental effect is suspected, these will be monitored and reviewed.

Other Costs

Resource implications for the competent authority and statutory consultees will depend on the options chosen following the consultation.

Monitoring and Review

We would aim to review the Regulations within three years of coming into force and report to Scottish Ministers on their effectiveness, suggesting amendments and improvements where necessary.

Summary and Recommendations

Costs as a result of these Regulations are considered to be reasonable and appropriate with regard to implementing Directive 85/337/ EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/ EC and Directive 2003/35. The Scottish Executive's approach has been to implement the Directive with the minimum burden on businesses and public authorities.