(a) Identification of alternative solutions
The first task is to review possible alternatives that could exist for achieving the objectives of the plan or project. Crucial is the consideration of the ‘do nothing’ scenario, also known as the ‘zero’ option, which provides the baseline for comparison of alternatives. The alternatives may consist of different: ways to achieve the objectives of the proposed development; locations that may be available for the development having regard to protected habitats and species, for example, by defining different land transportation corridors in master plans for roads and motorways or different housing development zones; scale and size of the development; design solutions for the development; techniques, methods of construction or operational methods for the implementation of the development; timetable of the various activities and tasks at each of the implementation stages, including during construction, operation, maintenance and, if applicable, decommissioning or reconditioning. Nature-based solutions (as opposed to traditional ‘grey infrastructure’) can often be equally viable and less detrimental to Natura 2000 sites. For example restoring a more natural river bed with adjacent wetlands can ensure similar or better flood protection than artificial dykes and/or reservoirs, while at the same time exerting significantly less impact on protected habitats and species or even improving their condition. Hence such alternatives should be given due consideration during the analysis of available options. In the case of plans, national or regional policies and strategies, and other documents setting out sectoral policies (e.g. on renewable energy or other infrastructure development) provide a framework for assessing the range and type of possible alternative solutions. The plan-making process is particularly suitable for analysis of alternatives, as it is an iterative process capable of providing solutions that protect Natura 2000 sites and ensure the sustainable development of activities to meet society’s needs. Alternatives should be considered for all components, activities and operations of the plan which have been identified as adversely affecting the integrity of Natura 2000 site(s). As discussed in section 3.2.6, in the case of plans, certain components or actions of the plan may be insufficiently defined, placing limitations on the assessment of alternatives. Nonetheless, reasonable alternatives should still be identified, described and evaluated, taking into account the plan or programme’s objectives and geographical scope. This is also required by the SEA Directive (Article 5). It can be easier to implement Article 6(4) procedures if the plan or project developers discuss possible alternatives with the competent authorities and/or statutory nature authorities at an early stage in the process. A suitable framework for finding alternatives is provided by the procedures for public consultation such as those laid down in the SEA and EIA Directives.
Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.