Current Issues Relating to the Professional

Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe

David Norbury

Secretary General, European Federation of Geologists

and Associate Director, CL Associates, UK
[email protected]
Tel: +44 118 932 8888
Fax: +44 118 932 8383

Abstract. The continuing internationalisation of the construction industry in which Engi-

neering Geologists work has resulted in significant changes in the way we work, in the way
we demonstrate to others our ability to do the work, and the environment in which we carry
out our work. The pace of these changes is increasing and, shortly, few of us will be able to
recall the relatively relaxed and informal ways in which we worked, even as recently as the
beginning of the1990s.
The formalisation of engineering geologists' work and reporting has come about through
increasing codification of technical activities, in description of soils and rocks, in field and
laboratory testing. This codification has also seen the introduction of minimum qualifica-
tions for practitioners, and this links with moves towards the international recognition of
professional qualifications. The Directives on recognition have been around for comment
since about 2001, and are likely to appear in European Law towards the end of 2004. This
then begs the question of the need for Registration, and whether such a step would offer
sufficient advantages to be of overall benefit.
This paper seeks to outline some of these recent changes, suggest how they might affect
professional practice, and to try to look forward to implications for the future.

Keywords: Registration, competent person, codes of practice, standards, professional

practice.

Introduction

Over recent years there has been a major shift in attitudes towards more transpar-
ent professionalism, in particular in the areas of competence and responsibility.
There is an increasing need for professionals delivering to the public (senso lato)
to set, measure and demonstrate attainment of acceptable standards. Development
of the necessary levels of competence and responsibility has been enshrined in
national professional qualifications. The maintenance of these levels has been
rather more informally attained through life long learning, generally termed CPD
(Continuous or Continuing Professional Development). Increasingly there is also
now a need to demonstrate that the required competence has been achieved and is
being maintained. These trends are occurring at national level but are also appear-
ing in proposals emanating from the European Parliament in Brussels.

Robert Hack, Rafig Azzam, and Robert Charlier (Eds.): LNES 104, pp. 15–30, 2004.


c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004
16 David Norbury

Engineering Geologists belong to the profession of Ground Engineering that

practices engineering with, on or in geological materials. Ground engineering is of
considerable economic importance and benefits society in providing the means of
efficient structures and sustainable use of resources and space. This is frequently
not appreciated by the general public as most geo-engineered solutions are hidden
in the ground. Nevertheless, ground-engineered structures are testament to sub-
stantial technological and intellectual achievements.
This fundamental input to the welfare and protection of society includes:
! the safety of residential, commercial and industrial structures,
! the essential supply of energy and mineral resources,
! the mitigation of geological hazards,
! the alleviation of human-induced hazards,
! the efficient functioning of the engineering infra-structure, and
! the contribution towards a sustainable environment.
Ground Engineering is based on the professional input of geologists and engi-
neers, and specifically includes the scientific disciplines of engineering geology,
soil mechanics, rock mechanics, hydrogeology and mining geomechanics. The
execution of such projects requires the input of a range of scientific and engineer-
ing specialities, and these specialists have to be able to communicate between
themselves in order to agree on theoretical models, and parameters within the
models. In addition, and perhaps even more important is the need to communicate
with other interested parties, not least the owner of the project.
Thus, the practice of Engineering Geology requires the communication of ob-
servations, test results and a ground model. This communication has to be unam-
biguous and clearly understood if the works are to proceed smoothly. In these days
of engineering projects becoming increasingly international this clear communica-
tion also needs to take place between practitioners from different countries using a
common international language. National codification of description terminology
and field and laboratory test procedures has been appearing over the last thirty
years, but the next step forward is for these national standards to be overridden by
international standards. This process is reaching fruition in the first decade of the
21st century.
As with other professionals, Engineering Geologists need to demonstrate that
they have obtained sufficient and suitable training and experience to act as compe-
tent professionals. The ultimate demand for such recognition is from clients and
the society as a whole, but the recognition of such attainment levels comes from
peer review within the profession. Peer reviewed titles have been available
through national institutions in a number of countries for several years. Although
the titles may be similar, it is not easy for others such as clients in one country to
appreciate a qualification from another country. These practical difficulties limit
mobility and international professional practice, and it has long been an aspiration
to have some form of international qualification or professional passport. This
concept is being brought forward by the European Parliament with the upcoming
Directive on Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications. This Directive
defines the Common Platform concept of professional competence, with the inten-
tion of achieving genuine mobility of professionals.
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 17

The History of Codification

Engineering Geology as a professional practice has been in existence for some 70

years, although others may argue that the practice has been around as long as man
has been carrying out engineering works in and on the ground. In the early days
the few practitioners readily communicated amongst themselves in terms of stan-
dard procedures and meanings of words and results, but this became increasingly
difficult as the industry grew.
From the early days when there was no published guidance, there has been an
increasing range of publications offering the opportunity for standardisation of
practice in two distinct areas. Many of the procedures to be used in the field and in
the laboratory became standardised, if informally at an early stage. Most such
guidance has been prepared at a national level, but there has historically been
limited co-ordination of these standards between countries. However, the descrip-
tion of soils and rocks, which is arguably the basis of all engineering geological
studies and investigations, did not achieve the same early progress in this sense.
Most guidance has been advisory rather than compulsory, possibly because geolo-
gists have tended to be independently minded practitioners.
As construction projects and engineering geology have become increasingly in-
ternational, the need for common procedures and practices increases. Over the last
25 years so, in committee rooms around the world, work has been going on at an
accelerating pace to prepare international standards. The Standards bodies respon-
sible for co-ordinating and delivering this work are the Comité Européen de Nor-
malisation (CEN) and the International Standards Organisation (ISO).
The intention by ISO and CEN in preparing international standards is to help
raise levels of quality, safety, reliability, efficiency, compatibility and communica-
tion, and to provide these benefits at an economical cost. They contribute to mak-
ing the development, manufacturing and supply of products and services more
efficient, safer and cleaner. They make trade between countries easier and fairer
and safeguard consumers, and users in general, of products and services.

Why Codify Engineering Geology?

The geologist has to collate and interpret the geological information and to com-
pile a realistic geological model, and to include realistic assessments of the degree
of uncertainty within the model. The key aspect of the Engineering Geologists'
role then comes into play – the communication of all aspects of this model to other
members of the design team and the project owner / client and, increasingly, the
public.
This communication of information using normal geological nomenclature in a
qualitative sense has often left listeners confused. As even standard geological
nomenclature is usually qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, defined, even
other geologists can be left uncertain as to the meaning intended. Over the years, a
language of better defined terms has grown up which should enable the geologists
18 David Norbury

better to communicate, not least because there is now a core of standard terminol-
ogy with which the listeners will be familiar. It is the derivation and definition of
this standard terminology which is one of the main reasons for recent advances in
the drafting and implementation of codes in Engineering Geology.
The history of the development of codes in the practice of Engineering Geology
is outlined here, largely by reference to publications in the United Kingdom, being
the author's base of experience. This is not to ignore the many significant devel-
opments in other countries but, as the developments have been along similar lines
at similar times, by way of illustration in one country. Examples of Standards
from other countries are included in the References. Nationalist attitudes are now
superseded, and we are in a profession where the guidance has become interna-
tional and normative.

Codification of Description

Before about 1970, there was no standard terminology allowing communication of

descriptions of geological materials or their properties. This limitation was not too
severe initially as the small number of practitioners were all known one to the
other, and the early pace of life allowed and the embryonic nature of the science
required much closer co-operation than is possible in these increasingly hectic
times of international practice. Through the initial decades, most of the practitio-
ner's efforts were directed at establishing systems of recording field data, storing
samples, designing and building testing machines, and evaluating methods of
foundation analysis. There was little time left to worry about preparing Codes of
Practice.
Nevertheless, the first Code of Practice (CP 2001) was published in the UK in
1957. This Code laid down key underlying precepts for the description of soils in
that soils should be described in accordance with their likely engineering behav-
iour but little in the way of defined terminology.
The use of undefined terminology caused confusion and ambiguity in commu-
nication and, as a result frequent contractual arguments and claims based on unex-
pected ground conditions. This can hardly be surprising as, if the terminology is
variable and undefined, there will always be someone who could misread the
ground conditions being predicted. For instance, terms such as highly fissured, or
moderately jointed were not defined and therefore meant different things to differ-
ent readers. This situation was untenable, and the nettle was grasped by the Engi-
neering Group of the Geological Society of London who published, in the early
1970's, Working Party Reports on Core Logging and on Preparation of Maps and
Plans (Anon 1970, 1972). These Reports formed the basis of UK practice and, as
it turned out, international practice in many regards. Similar activities on the inter-
national scene resulted in a number of publications by 1981 on field investigation,
geological mapping and soil and rock description, Anon (1977), IAEG (1981) and
ISRM (1978). At the same time, in the UK this decade of guidance culminated in
BS 5930 (1981), the seminal National Standard in site investigation and engineer-
ing geological activities. It is important to note however, that even at this stage
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 19

this British Standard was designated as a Code of Practice, meaning that the guid-
ance was advisory rather than normative (compulsory). This designation was
maintained through to the update in BS 5930 (1999). However, the Codes are
referenced in contract specification documents, and so become binding, and in
legal arguments about claims or failures, the courts will expect the national guid-
ance to have been followed. Therefore the practice, at least by default, is that the
Codes of Practice are Standards.
Despite the codification in various countries proceeding separately, there has
been a good deal of inclusion of practices from one country into that of another
country. For this reason, the preparation of international codes has not been as
difficult as might have been anticipated, at least as far as the description of soils
and rocks is concerned (ISO 2003 a, b, c). However, the historic development of
local codes has tended to reflect and emphasise local geological conditions, and
the classifications were rather more difficult to bring together into an international
standard. This proved particularly difficult in the classification of soils, and re-
sulted in the need for a simple and separate ISO Standard on this topic (ISO
2003 b).
For example, the Scandinavian countries have different soils (coarse glacial de-
posits and quick clays) and Japan (volcanic soils, silts and sands liable to liquefac-
tion) which, national practice has, for sound technical reasons, needed to incorpo-
rate (SGS, 1981; JGS, 2000). Other National Standards on the description and
classification of soil include ASTM D2487(1993), D3282(1993), DIN 4022
(1987) and DIN 18196 (1988). Guidance on the description and classification of
rocks for use in engineering applications include Anon (1995), ASTM
D5878(19995) and D4879(1989).

Codification of Field and Laboratory Testing

Just as important as the codification of the primary communicator – the descrip-

tion – is the standardisation of field and laboratory procedures. This includes all
aspects relating to forming the hole or exposure, the execution of field tests and
the recovery of samples as well as the carrying out of laboratory tests. If the re-
sults of any of these activities are to be applicable and relevant in the minds of
others, the procedures used need to be clearly identifiable and standard.
The codification of laboratory testing on soils was started at an early stage of
the industry. By the late 1940's, the early practitioners and young specialist com-
panies were formulating procedures and practice from scratch. The procedures
required included everything from how to drill a borehole, to the basic field tests,
to the taking and description of samples, their storage and transport and laboratory
testing. In fact, even the design of the testing machines needed to be evolved
along with the test procedures. Methods of field investigation vary from country to
country (influenced in part by geology) but, with the basic principles having be-
come common over the years, standardisation is possible.
In laboratory testing, however, national practices became well advanced before
the concept of formal international standardisation were recognised. As a result
20 David Norbury

there are differences between countries. Although most of the differences are not
great, the time taken to work all differences through in international committee
would have delayed the achievement of the Eurocodes particularly as a change in
test method now would require reconsideration of historically measured properties
and correlations. The ISO and CEN work under way at the time of writing is
therefore to prepare Technical Specifications which will not be normative.
The testing of rocks in commercial practice on the other hand started slightly
later, by which time the potential need for international co-operation was better
appreciated. In the meantime, national practices had not developed in the same
way as for soils. It was therefore possible for the rock testing procedures to be
better organised with the International Society of Rock Mechanics taking the lead
by producing a series of Suggested Methods (ISRM, 1978). As there were no
precedent procedures in place, these were rapidly taken up by the professional
community and became internationally recognised without the involvement of
national standards bodies. It would therefore be comparatively straightforward,
but not necessarily easy, to prepare normative international standards for most
rock tests.

Codification of Qualifications

A further aspect of codification that applies in any subject is the identification of

qualifications and experience necessary for those who plan, execute and interpret
ground investigations. The guidance documents and codes prepared up to the end
of the 1980's did not try to lay down rules on the qualifications and experience
needed from those working as specialists in engineering geology. In the very early
days, this was felt to be unnecessary, after all everybody knew everybody else and
their capabilities and limitations. This has been increasingly not the case, and it is
now necessary to define the roles and the allowable practitioners. It is interesting
to consider who benefits most from such codification. Is it the client, who can feel
better protected with proper professional advisors, is it the insurers who feel they
have lower exposure, is it the individual practitioners who feel this improves their
status in society, is it the employers who can recognise a qualified practitioner, or
is it the companies who can see a market with fair competition? The truth is
probably a bit of all of these. The position taken by the Standards institutions is
based on the latter views, and Standards documents currently in preparation in-
clude definitions of specialist practitioners. These definitions will therefore be-
come normative requirements in the practice of Ground Engineering.

The Future of Codification

After 25 years in preparation, the suite of Eurocodes is, in late 2003, becoming a
reality. These Eurocodes bring together codes of practice for building and civil
engineering structures, and provide a world class standard for all aspects of con-
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 21

struction. Included with Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical Design are elements of codes

on the description and classification of soils and rocks, field investigation meth-
ods, field and laboratory testing, assessment of engineering parameters and design
procedures. For the first time, engineering geologists throughout Europe will be
talking a common language in reporting the findings of their work. The improve-
ment of the position is even more widespread than Europe as, in accordance with
the Vienna agreement, the standards drawn up by CEN and ISO undergo parallel
voting procedures for common adoption. Thus, for example, the proposals for the
description of soils and rocks, prepared by ISO (2003a, b, c), will be incorporated
also into Eurocode 7. Thus, it will now be the case that Engineering Geologists
around the world will be able to pass on their geological information, without
misunderstanding and ambiguity. The brown sandy clay of the Japanese will be
the same as the brown sandy clay of the Swedish geologist. Similarly, the results
of field or laboratory testing will be transferable around the world. Major excep-
tions to this rule are China and the USA, who are not members of either of these
Standards bodies, and who have had no input to the drafting of the Codes.
A Schedule of the Codes and Specifications being prepared by ISO and CEN in
engineering geological investigation areas is given in Table 1. A Technical Com-
mittee of ISO prepared the Codes on the description and classification of soils and
rocks. The reason this work item was proposed initially was, in accordance with
the ISO mission, to encourage and allow international communication in applied
science, and therefore to allow more and fairer competition for international trade.
This enshrines therefore the concept of engineering geologists the world over all
having a single reading of a ground model, and therefore competing for contracts
and co-operating in design briefs on an equal footing.
The Eurocodes do not however, completely subsume national practices built up
over the years. This is right and proper given that variations in engineering geo-
logical practice have a base in the different geological conditions in different
countries. For instance the geological conditions in Scandinavia, with extensive
shield rocks and quick clays, vary widely from the liquefaction prone sediments of
the Pacific rim, and the deep weathering profiles of the tropics. These conditions
require different approaches to investigation and testing. The description of the
materials can however be based on a single standard approach.
The national differences in approach required can be incorporated into National
Annexes, which allow key safety and technical issues to remain a national respon-
sibility, and allow geological and climatic variations to be taken into account.
However, these National Annexes are enhancements of, rather than local rewrites
of, the overarching international codes.

The Professional Profile of a Geologist

Much of today’s geological practice affects the health, safety and welfare of the
public, the environment, and the economy and feasibility of engineered works.
Mining, quarrying, construction, geotechnics, development of water resources,
waste disposal and flood avoidance measures are just a few examples of activities
22 David Norbury

Table 1. Codes in preparation by CEN/TC 341 and ISO/TC 182/SC 1 on Geotechnical

investigation and testing.
ISO Reference Title Publication as
Number EN / ISO standard
14688-1 Identification of soil 2002-06
14688-2 Classification of soil 2002-12
14689 Identification of rock 2002-12
22475-1 Sampling methods 2006-06
22475-2 Sampling – Qualification criteria 2006-06
22476-1 Cone Penetration tests 2006-06
22476-2 Dynamic Probing 2004-12
22476-3 Standard Penetration test 2004-12
22476-4 Menard Pressuremeter test 2006-06
22476-5 Flexible Dilatometer test 2006-06
22476-6 Self-boring Pressuremeter test 2006-06
22476-7 Borehole Jack test 2006-06
22476-8 Full Displacement Pressuremeter 2006-06
22476-9 Field Vane test 2006-06
22476-10 Weight Sounding test 2002-12
22476-11 Flat Dilatometer test 2002-12
22477-1 Testing of piles 2006-06
22477-2 Testing of anchorages 2006-06
22477-3 Testing of shallow foundations 2006-06
22477-4 Testing of nailing 2006-06
22477-5 Testing of reinforced fill 2006-06
17892-1 Water Content 2003-06
17892-2 Density of fine grained soils 2003-06
17892-3 Density of solid particles 2003-06
17892-4 Particle Size distribution 2003-06
17892-5 Oedometer test 2003-06
17892-6 Fall Cone test 2003-06
17892-7 Compression test 2003-06
17892-8 Unconsolidated Triaxial test 2003-06
17892-9 Consolidated Triaxial test 2003-06
17892-10 Direct Shear test 2003-06
17892-11 Permeability test 2003-06
17892-12 Atterberg Limits 2003-06

that may significantly change the landscape and the quality of life of local inhabi-
tants. It is essential in fulfilling these roles that the professional work of the geolo-
gist is always of the highest possible standard.
During the 19th and 20th century much of the world was explored, mapped, sur-
veyed and its resources identified by geologists who qualified in European
universities. Although this trend continues today, our industry is becoming
increasingly international. Technical and financial assistance comes from a range
of sources, training and research facilities are available in all countries, and
consultants from across the world fly in to provide advice to clients and funders.
In addition, many modern infrastructure projects traverse national boundaries, e.g.
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 23

modern infrastructure projects traverse national boundaries, e.g. Channel Tunnel,

Storabelt Link, Rhinebraun Coal and its dewatering effects.
This globalisation requires professionals of equal training, experience and
status to meet and deal with the technical and professional issues on an equal foot-
ing. Thus, it essential that some form of international technical passport is recog-
nised, that will allow practice in a range of jurisdictions.
Recent developments internationally within the natural resource and finance
sector increasingly require that technical reports, particularly those reporting on a
company’s mineral resource assets, must be signed off by a “qualified person”.
The Canadian Securities Administrators specify (Toronto Stock Exchange, 1999,
National Instrument 43, 2001) that a qualified person:
• must be a geologist or engineer;
• must be an individual, not a firm;
• must have at least five years of experience relevant to the particular project;
and
• must belong to a self-regulatory organisation with disciplinary powers that is
recognised by statute (a “professional association”).
Similar requirements are insisted upon by the Australian Stock Exchange and
by various government bodies responsible for the licensing and regulation of min-
eral exploration and development.
These institutions have published lists of professional titles that they recognise.
In many jurisdictions the EurGeol and EurIng titles are so recognised, subject to
the individual having the relevant experience. Certain national organisations are
similarly recognised
The Reporting Code (2001) set new and specific definitions for Competent Per-
sons, as follows.

DEFINITION OF A COMPETENT PERSON

A Competent Person is a corporate member of a recognised professional body

relevant to the activity being undertaken, and with enforceable Rules of Conduct.
A Competent Person should have a minimum of five years experience relevant to
the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration. If the Compe-
tent Person is estimating or supervising the estimation of Mineral Resources or
Mineral Reserves, the relevant experience must be in the estimation, evaluation
and assessment of Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves respectively.

In addition to the normally understood academic training followed by profes-

sional and technical training, the experience required from the signatory to a re-
port has to be in a field directly relevant to the report being signed off. The impli-
cation of this precedent is that all professionals signing off reports will have to
examine their competence to do so. A reasonable test might be whether the signa-
tory would feel comfortable justifying their competence to their peers or under
cross examination by an aggressive lawyer.
24 David Norbury

Access to employment in another Member State is a fundamental aspect of the

free movement of persons within the European Union. The European Union policy
objectives are:
• increasing the community's workers' chances of finding work and adding to
their professional experience;
• encouraging the mobility of workers, as a way of stimulating the human re-
source response to the requirements of the employment market;
• developing contacts between workers throughout the member states as a way
of promoting mutual understanding, creating a community social fabric and
hence "an ever closer union among the peoples of europe,
Regrettably, this policy is still largely an aspiration. This was recognised by the
Commission in the Veil Report (European Commission, 1996) which concluded
that “free movement is not yet a daily reality for Europe's citizens”, and noted that,
in the case of the non-regulated professions, “the reality and size of the problem of
the recognition of qualifications have been underestimated” (European Commis-
sion, 1997):
The profession of geology is regulated in only two countries within the Euro-
pean Union, namely Italy and Spain. Where Member States do regulate, each one
does so by reference to the diplomas and other qualifications obtained in its na-
tional system of education and training. The situation in a selection of countries is
summarised in Table 2. In Greece the situation is more serious as, although these
problems do not arise, geological reports are only accepted by the statutory au-
thorities when engineers sign them. It is difficult to reconcile this requirement
with the Competent Person concept outlined above.
In an attempt to overcome, or at least to minimise, these problems the European
Commission has encouraged national professional organisations to co-operate at
the European level (European Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC). For exam-
ple, the Commission has welcomed the contribution that Common platforms and
initiatives taken by the private sector can make to genuine mobility of profession-
als. It has also been noted that such initiatives might be particularly valuable in the
field of non-regulated professions, which includes both geology and engineering.

The European Professional Titles in Practice

The development of defined professional roles is closely linked with development

of Directives in the European Union. In order to facilitate mobility of workers, the
availability of internationally recognised qualifications is essential. The Directive
on this subject is being amended in 2003 and will probably be enacted within a
year or two thereafter. The position for practitioners to be able to practice, at least
for limited periods, in any EU country, is the holding of a recognised qualification.
This qualification is likely to be the Common Platform of the European Federation
titles of European Engineer (EurIng) awarded by the European Federation of En-
gineers (FEANI) and European Geologist (EurGeol) awarded by the European
Federation of Geologist (EFG). These titles show that the bearer has undertaken
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 25

Table 2. Summary of the regulatory position in a selection of European countries.

Italy • each region has its own Order of Geolo- It is virtually impossible
gists who administer the system for qualified professional
• geologists must be a member of the Order geologists from other EU
to legally practice States to practice in Italy
• foreign academic qualifications have no
legal validity
Spain • there are two systems for a EU citizen to On receipt of official
legally practice authorisation, the Official
• one is to obtain recognition of academic Association of Spanish
title by the Ministry of Education, Culture Geologists (ICOG), regis-
and Sports ters all geologists. In
• second is governed by the terms of the order to practise the pro-
free movement directive and operated by fessional must register in
the Ministry of Science and Technology the association. Persons
holding the EurGeol title
are recognised by ICOG
as national geologists
United • the regulated title “Chartered Geologist” is Market forces reign, and
Kingdom conferred by The Geological Society of no qualifications are
London required to practice
• application for this title can be made from
a migrant who is a national of a Member
State
Ireland • A “qualified person” has a recognised Reports submitted to
geoscience degree government under the
• at least 5 years experience in the relevant requirements of the Min-
field, and ing Act and to the Envi-
• is a member of a relevant recognised ronmental Protection
“professional association” that admits Agency will only be
members on the basis of academic qualifi- accepted if signed off by a
cations and experience, requires compli- suitably “qualified per-
ance with professional codes of ethics, and son”.
has disciplinary powers
Other • market forces govern the situation Problems have arisen in
• anybody can call himself a geologist and Belgium, Germany and
practice as such without professional Denmark where qualifica-
qualifications tions from other countries
• Where qualified employment is involved have not been recognised
however, non-nationals may come up for minor reasons, and
against the problem of the de facto recog- with no allowance being
nition of their qualifications and diplomas made for professional
experience

appropriate tertiary level study, carried out appropriate training and gained suffi-
cient experience, all over a combined minimum total of eight years, to be able to
act as a professional engineer or geologist, and that this record has been submitted
to his or her peers for validation. The holder of such a title agrees to work within
the Code of Conduct operated by the awarding Federation and will be able to work
26 David Norbury

in any European country, at least for limited periods, without the need to qualify
separately in that country. These are major developments in providing commonal-
ity of professional standards, and represent development exactly as hoped for by
ISO and CEN, but driven forward by the European Commission.
The European Commission recognises the value of such titles in facilitating the
free movement of geologists within the Community. To guarantee wider interna-
tional recognition the Federations have entered into reciprocal recognition agree-
ments with kindred professional associations outside Europe.
The titles of EurIng and EurGeol currently have no legal status and confer no
rights to work in any country. However, it is increasingly clear that possession of
the title will speed the Engineering Geologist's application to work outside their
home base. The national member geological associations of the European Federa-
tions have agreed that any professional holding the title will be automatically
given the same rights and privileges as a national geologist, up to the legal and
competency limits that each National Association might have. In those cases
where the National Association is the office in charge of the recognition of foreign
titles, the recognition will be automatic. In those where its role is assisting a statu-
tory registration authority, its recommendation will be favourable to the recogni-
tion, mentioning explicitly that the applicant bears the title of European Geologist.
The EU Directive on Recognition of Professional Qualifications is likely to be
implemented shortly. The European Federations are already preparing to apply for
recognition as the Competent Authority and for their awarded titles to be accepted
within as the Common Platform within the Competent Person concept.
It is for these reasons that a Joint European Working Group on the professional
competencies of engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers was formally
established in 2002 by the Presidents of the ISRM, ISSMGE and the IAEG. Over
recent years, and across several European countries, there has been an ongoing
debate on the particular contribution and responsibilities of engineering geologists
and geotechnical engineers in solving problems in ground engineering. The inter-
active elements of this debate are the triangles of engineering geology, geotechni-
cal engineering proposed by Knill (2002) and the triangle of geomechanics. This
need is also underlined by differing professional definitions and accreditation rules
that exist for geologists and engineers within different European countries, and by
the growing demand for geologically and technically sustainable, cost effective
and safe geo-engineering solutions. Internally, the Joint Working Group is seen as
a means of strengthening the co-operation across the three international societies
and to identify common ground. The output from the Working Group and related
discussions are covered by other papers in the opening session of this conference.

Registration

There is still uncertainty as to what Registration, or Licensing, is, and what it

might mean to professional practitioners. Not least of the uncertainties is whether
it is the professional practice that should be regulated, or whether it is simply
another form of protectionism towards the title Engineer or Geologist. One of the
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 27

most common justifications in favour of registration is on the basis of enhance-

ment of status. This appears spurious, as status comes from performance, not from
imposition of title, and probably reflects the long term downward trend in num-
bers of engineering graduates in the industry, and moving towards chartered
status. Licensing exists in various forms (for example Canada, USA and parts of
Australia), but there is little evidence that this introduces any financial benefits to
the professions.
A recent meeting considered the difference between statutory title and volun-
tary regulation (Davies, 2003). As most governments are anti-regulation, legisla-
tors are unlikely to be persuaded of the benefits of statutory imposition, unless on
grounds of public safety, value for public money or national wealth. Imposition
will certainly not be introduced just to possibly enhance the salaries of practitio-
ners.
The current arrangement of self policing, by competent nominated authorities
(such as the EFG or FEANI) provides little or no regulation. Members are re-
quired to practice in accordance with the Code of Ethics, but this will only be
challenged when a complaint is made or in the courts. The European Federation of
Geologists has put in place a system of mandatory CPD, with the records of indi-
vidual members being audited on a regular basis (annual or triennial). A higher
level of regulation, on the other hand, would require a bureaucracy to police the
industry, and individuals would have to provide any required self-justification to
that policing body. One logical suggestion is that this could be the existing profes-
sional Federations, but there is a view in government circles that this should be
removed from self control and transferred to civil servants. Although this would
remove the direct cost from the institutions (but not from the individual members),
most professionals would view this possibility with some alarm. In fact, the cost
implications mean that this scenario is unlikely to arrive. This leaves the current
institutions with the need to consider how they might operate Registration if the
need arises.
The potential impact of Regulation on the industry could be very substantial,
but it is less certain that it would benefit the industry. The key questions to ask
include who should pay for Registration, and by whom and how would it be oper-
ated? In the UK the Science and Engineering Councils currently control the pro-
fessions of geology and engineering respectively, providing umbrella control
above the national title awarding bodies. The level of Regulation remains low
however, and the focus of specialisation is broad. To increase the level of regula-
tion would probably require narrower focus, and there is therefore a possibility of
geology and engineering becoming rather more fragmented across the disciplines
than is currently the case.
At present, an individual will carry the title Chartered / Professional / European
Geologist or Engineer as appropriate, and would be required to operate within his
or her competence as discussed above. One possibility would be for there to be a
proliferation of titles such as Chartered Geophysicist, European Hydrogeologist
and so on. There are those who might favour such moves, but the secretariat nec-
essary to manage this will be expensive. The most important point however is the
dilution of the impact and importance of the current titles. We can sell the compe-
28 David Norbury

tence and relevance of geology or engineering to the public without having to

explain the subtle difference between different types of practitioners. The experi-
ence of other professions can readily illustrate the right approach. For instance
barristers’ rights of audience cover every practice area, but for an admiralty law-
yer to appear in a murder prosecution could be breaching the code of ethics, and
therefore this would not happen. There is absolutely no reason why ground engi-
neers could not similarly be relied upon to work within their competence, so that
each specialist would restrict themselves to the areas in which they demonstrably
have the requisite experience.
Recent correspondence on the subject in the UK has tended towards the greater
use of titles to show the public that they are dealing with a competent professional.
Thus, all work would need to be signed off as suitable in terms of the core design
and safety requirements by a titled Engineer or Geologist. These professionals
would need to meet the requirements of a Competent Person. This is similar to the
requirements that already exist in the UK for dams and nuclear structures, so this
could be readily extended to encompass the signing off of ground engineering
aspects of projects. It is not clear why this is not routinely required already. This
also comes close to the requirements of those countries, such as Italy and Spain, in
which the industry is currently regulated.

Concluding Remarks

Over a remarkably short span, engineering geology has gone from the early pro-
fessionals who managed without codes, to today's world where we are being in-
creasingly controlled by codes. The codes coming into place in the 2000's define
how we drill holes, take and test samples, describe soils and rocks. Perhaps the
biggest change however is reserved for the fact that we will have to carry interna-
tionally recognised qualifications if we want to be able to practice wherever we
want, and that this will be possible.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the many people with whom I have held discussions with, sat
in meetings with and generally evolved the ideas presented in this paper. In par-
ticular, I would identify fellow members of the EFG Board, John Clifford particu-
larly, and Helmut Bock and Rodney Chartres from the Joint Working Group. The
ideas presented in this paper are mine, and do not necessarily represent the views
of either the EFG or my employer, both of whom I thank for permission to publish
this paper.
Current Issues Relating to the Professional Practice of Engineering Geology in Europe 29

References

Anon (1970). The logging of rock cores for engineering purposes. Geological Society Engi-
neering Group Working Party Report of the Engineering Group of the Geological Soci-
ety of London. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 3(1), 1-25.
Anon (1972). The preparation of Maps and Plans in terms of Engineering Geology. Work-
ing Party Report of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society of London. Quar-
terly Journal of Engineering Geology, 5, 297-367.
Anon (1977) The description of rock masses for engineering purposes. Working party
report of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society of London. Quarterly Journal
of Engineering Geology, 1977, 10, 355-388.
Anon (1995). Description and classification of weathered rocks for engineering purposes.
Working Party Report of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society of London
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 28(3), 207-242.
ASTM : D2487-93 (1993). Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System). ASTM, PA, USA.
ASTM : D3282-93 (1993). Standard Classifications of soils and soil aggregate mixtures for
highway construction purposes. ASTM, PA, USA.
ASTM : D5878-95 (1995). Standard Guide ofr using Rock Mass Classification Systems for
Civil Engineering Purposes. ASTM, PA, USA.
ASTM : D 4879-89 (1989). Standard Guide for Geotechnical Mapping of Large Underground
Openings in Rock.
BS CP 2001 (1957) Site Investigation. BSI, London.
BS 5930 (1981) Code of Practice for Site Investigations. BSI, London.
BS 5930 (1999) Code of Practice for Site Investigations. BSI, London
Davies, Sir David (2003) Note summarising Discussion on Engineering Registration. Engi-
neering and Technology Board. June 2003.
DIN 4022 (1987) Classification and Description of soil and rock. DIN 4022, Part 1.
DIN 18196 (1988). Soil Classification for civil engineering purposes. Deutsche Norm.
European Commission (1997): Report of High Level Panel on Free Movement of Persons,
Chaired by Mrs. Simone Veil, presented to the Commission on 18 March 1997.
European Commission Press Release (1997): Free movement of people: Commission out-
lines follow-up measures to High Level Panel report.
European Directive 89/48/EEC (1989): publ OJ L 9.24.1.1989, p.16.
European Directive 92/51/EEC (1992): publ OJ L 209.24.7.1992, p.25.
IAEG (1981) Rock and soil description and Classification for Engineering Geological
Mapping. Report by IAEG Commission on Engineering Geological Mapping. Bulletin
IAEG Vol 24, pp 235 – 274.
ISO (2003a). Geotechnical Engineering – Identification and classification of soil – Part 1
Identification and Description. EN 14688 – 1. ISO/TC 182/SC 1.
ISO (2003b). Geotechnical Engineering – Identification and classification of soil – Part 2
Classification. EN 14688 – 2. ISO/TC 182/SC 1.
ISO (2003c). Geotechnical Engineering – Identification and classification of rock. EN
14689. ISO/TC 182/SC 1.
ISRM (1978). Rock Characterisation, Testing and Monitoring. ISRM Suggested Methods
Editor E T Brown. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
JGS (2000). Method of classification of geomaterials for engineering purposes. Japanese
Geotechnical Society 0051-2000.
Knill, Sir John (2002). Core Values: The First Hans Cloos Lecture. – Proceed. 9th Con-
gress, IAEG, Durban, 16 – 20 Sep. 2002.
National Instrument 43-101 (2001): Canadian Securities Administrators.
30 David Norbury

The Reporting Code (2001): The Code for the Reporting of Mineral Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Minerals Reserves. Publ. by European Federation of Geologists,
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Institute of Geologists of Ireland, and The Geo-
logical Society of London.
SGS, Swedish Geotechnical Society (1981) Soil Classification and Identification D8:81.
Laboratory Committee of Swedish Geotechnical Society. SGF Laboratory Manual, Part 2.
Byggforskringsrådet.
Toronto Stock Exchange (1999): Setting New Standards – Final Report by the Mining
Standards Task Force.