Box A4.1: Alternatives in SEA

The Protocol deals with alternatives in the same way as it deals with the draft plan or programme. As suggested by the EC Guide, ‘the essential thing is that the likely significant effects of the plan or programme and the alternatives are identified, described and evaluated in a comparable way’ (para. 5.12). The EC Guide goes on to suggest that ‘it is essential that the authority or parliament responsible for the adoption of the plan or programme as well as the authorities and the public consulted, are presented with an accurate picture of what reasonable alternatives there are and why they not are considered to be the best option. The information referred to in [the annex] should thus be provided for the alternatives chosen’.

The term ‘alternative’ is not defined in the Protocol (or in the Directive). Various categories of alternative might be considered:

• An alternative plan or programme to that originally proposed, perhaps meeting the same set of objectives
• Alternative elements within a plan or programme, again perhaps meeting the same set of objectives

Types of alternatives might also include alternative locations, land uses, technologies, timing, development paths or even sets of objectives.

In deciding what is reasonable, various constraints might be considered: geographical, financial or in terms of the objectives (e.g. an alternative that would clearly be incompatible with the objectives might not be considered reasonable). Alternatives must be realistic: ‘a deliberate selection of alternatives for assessment, which had much more adverse effects, in order to promote the draft plan or programme would not be appropriate for the fulfilment of the purpose of this paragraph. To be genuine, alternatives must also fall within the legal and geographical competence of the authority concerned’ ( para. 5.14).