§3.3.1 Step 1: Examining alternative solutions

It is for the competent national authorities to ensure that all feasible alternative solutions that meet the plan/project aims have been explored to the same level of detail. This assessment should be made against the species and habitats for which the site has been designated and the site’s conservation objectives. The absence of alternatives must be demonstrated before examining whether the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of public interest (Court ruling in Castro Verde Case C-239/04 paragraphs 36-39). See further details in the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.1. The first obligation of the Article 6(4) procedure is to examine whether there are alternative solutions to the plan or project. Alternative solutions could refer to an alternative design of the project (e.g. different routing of a road or different number of lanes). They could also refer to broader options to achieve the same overall objective, e.g. a rail connection improvement could be considered as an alternative to a new road, a wind energy development as an alternative to a hydro power plant. Examining alternative solutions under Article 6(4) involves the following tasks: — identification of alternative solutions; — comparative assessment of the alternatives considered; — justification of the absence of alternatives that are feasible for consideration under Article 6(4) (if applicable). 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. Comparative assessment of the alternatives considered It is the responsibility of competent authorities to evaluate the relative impact of the alternative solutions with a view to justifying a decision under Article 6(4). The competent authorities must determine whether the alternative put forward for approval is the least damaging for habitats and species and for the integrity of the Natura 2000 site or sites concerned. The assessment of alternative solutions is necessary even if the investment is already justified in advance for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, e.g. through national law. The various alternatives must be compared in light of their effects on the habitats and species significantly present on the site as well as their conservation objectives, and on the integrity of the site and its importance for the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network. The identified impacts of each alternative must be fully and precisely described and quantified as far as possible in terms of the following (non-exhaustive list) and in view of the site-specific conservation objectives: — Natura 2000 sites affected; — area of habitat loss and degradation; — population numbers of affected species; — deterioration of important functions; — disturbance; — displacement of species populations. This should provide the basis for comparing alternatives and for determining which alternatives are the least damaging for Natura 2000 sites and the species and habitats that are significantly present therein, in view of the site-specific conservation objectives. This needs to be identified based on a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria. In a second phase, other criteria such as social considerations and the economic cost of the alternatives analysed may be considered in the choice of alternative solutions. The economic cost of the steps that may be considered in the review of alternatives cannot be the sole determining factor in the choice of alternative solutions. In other words, a project developer cannot claim that alternatives have not been examined because they would cost too much. (See the Article 6 Guide – section 5.3.1) Tasks to be carried out in assessing alternatives are summarised in Box 17. Box 17 How to assess alternative solutions — consult relevant agencies and organisations; — make use of the information gathered to complete the screening and appropriate assessment stages of the Article 6(3) assessments; — identify and characterise the key objectives of the plan or project, also in broad (strategic) terms (35); — identify all alternative means of meeting the objectives of the project or plan; — provide as much information as possible, acknowledge gaps in information, and provide sources of information; — assess the impacts (in a qualitative and quantitative way) of each alternative on the conservation objectives of the site. A matrix for the identification and assessment of alternatives is presented in Table 10 below. The matrix can also be used to report on the results of the assessment of alternatives. Assessment of alternative solutions The description and objectives of the plan or project The ‘do nothing’ scenario Predicted adverse effects of the plan or project on the Natura 2000 site based on the appropriate assessment Comparison with plan or project Possible alternative solutions Evidence of how the alternative solutions were assessed Describe the relative effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 (greater or less adverse effects) Alternative locations/routes Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative size and scale Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative means of meeting objectives (e.g. demand management) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Comparison with plan or project (cont.) Possible alternative solutions Evidence of how the alternative solutions were assessed Describe the relative effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 (greater or less adverse effects) Alternative methods (construction, operational, decommissioning) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative timescales Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Conclusions on assessment of alternatives Box 18 below summarises examples of alternatives that have been considered in the context of notifications for Commission opinions in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (36). Box 18 Examples of alternatives considered under Article 6(4) procedure Case 1. Deepening and widening of the ship fairway of a river The project involved the deepening and widening of the ship fairway of the River Main along the Wipfeld, Garstadt and Schweinfurt sections in Bavaria, Germany. The appropriate assessment concluded that there would be significant impact on two Natura 2000 sites and two habitat types would be damaged directly, involving a surface loss of 9 460 m2 for priority habitat 91E0* and 6 440 m2 for habitat 6510. Three alternatives were examined in addition to the zero alternative. The latter showed the importance of the river transportation objectives. One of the alternatives was discarded because it would negatively affect another Natura 2000 site and would lengthen both the construction time and the spatial extent of the project. Another alternative was rejected because, although it would have less adverse ecological impact, it would not improve the river’s nautical characteristics, which is one of the project’s objectives. The alternative selected would create a continuous navigation channel with uniform minimum width and depths and was mainly limited to the existing riverbed. Although it would affect the two habitat types of Community interest mentioned above, the competent authorities considered that the proposed solution achieved the best balance between ecological and river transportation objectives. The loss of the habitats would be adequately compensated. Case 2. Long-distance and suburban railway connection The project concerned a long-distance and suburban railway connection from Bad Cannstatt to Stuttgart (Germany). It would significantly affect a Natura 2000 site, which holds an important habitat for the hermit beetle (Osmoderma eremita), a protected priority species. The authorities examined route alternatives covering the entire section, parts of the section and the ‘zero’ option. The latter would not meet the project criteria of linking Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt stations and renovating the railway bridge over the River Neckar. All the other alternative solutions would significantly affect the Natura 2000 site, including zones with the priority species, and their comparison showed that some would cover a larger area of the Natura 2000 site than the one selected or would lead to clearing a larger number of trees which provide potential habitats for the species. The proposed solution therefore offered the best balance between ecological and economic objectives. Case 3. Construction of a new port The project concerned the construction of a new port in Granadilla, Tenerife, Canary Islands. The project would adversely affect two Natura 2000 sites designated for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), a priority species, and for a priority habitat type 2130 (fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ‘grey dunes‘). The Spanish authorities studied several alternatives, including the option of not developing more port capacity (the ‘zero option’) as well as the further expansion and development of the existing port in Santa Cruz. The zero option was discarded because the existing port facilities would not be able to handle the expected increase in maritime traffic and because increased port capacity was necessary for the island’s economic development. Expansion of the existing port facilities in Santa Cruz would not be possible for a number of technical reasons. Other alternative locations could not be chosen because of different factors such as the depth of the seabed at the shore, the lack of a quarry close enough to the envisaged site, availability of free adjacent land for handling and logistics operations, adequacy of transport connections with the hinterland and proximity to port users. Outcomes – justification of the absence of alternatives Once the assessment of alternative solutions is complete, a record should be made of all the alternatives that have been considered, the results of their assessment and the agencies and other bodies that were consulted. The purpose is to determine whether or not it can be objectively concluded that there are no alternative solutions. If alternative solutions have been identified that will either avoid any adverse impacts or result in less severe impacts on the site, it will be necessary to assess their potential impact through an appropriate assessment. On the other hand, if it can be reasonably and objectively concluded that there are no alternatives, it will be necessary to proceed to the next step in the Article 6(4) procedure.

← 3.3 · All articles · 3.3.2 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07