Offshore wind - compensating for adverse effects on Protected European Sites: statutory guidance 2026

10. Risk Management

Compensatory measures must be designed, delivered and managed in a manner that appropriately addresses risk and uncertainty, and ensures that the intended ecological benefits are achieved and sustained over time.

Risk management must be achieved through safeguards, including, where appropriate:

• over‑compensation, to account for uncertainty in ecological effectiveness or delivery; and

• adaptive management frameworks, enabling measures to be modified in response to monitoring outcomes.

These approaches must be applied in a proportionate, transparent and evidence‑based manner, taking account of the nature and magnitude of the predicted adverse effects, the characteristics of the compensatory measure, and the ecological pathways through which benefits are expected to be delivered.

Where compensatory measures are developer‑led, the developer retains responsibility for ensuring that all agreed risk management arrangements are implemented and maintained, including where delivery has been contracted to a third party or partner organisation. This includes responsibility for ensuring compliance with agreed success criteria, monitoring requirements and adaptive management actions.

10.1 Overcompensation

Overcompensation refers to the deliberate provision of compensatory measures at a greater scale or extent than the minimum level initially assessed as necessary to address the predicted adverse effect. This may involve:

• delivering a larger scale of an individual compensatory measure; and/or

• implementing a broader package of measures that collectively exceeds the minimum compensatory requirement.

Overcompensation is intended to act as a precautionary safeguard where uncertainty exists, ensuring that the compensatory plan remains capable of delivering the required ecological outcomes. It must, however, be proportionate and should not extend beyond what is justified to manage the identified risks and uncertainties.

Overcompensation may be considered where one or more of the following apply:

• high levels of uncertainty are associated with the likely effectiveness or success of the compensatory measure, for example where measures are novel, untested or being applied at an unprecedented scale;

• temporal risk exists, such that compensatory measures cannot reasonably be delivered and fully functional in advance of the predicted adverse effects, resulting in a potential lag between impact and benefit (see section 9); and/or

• there is limited empirical evidence linking the proposed measure to the anticipated ecological benefit, increasing the risk that outcomes may fall short of those required.

Overcompensation is not intended to substitute for robust measure design, monitoring, or adaptive management. Rather, it provides a buffer against uncertainty, helping to ensure that the overall compensation plan can still meet its defined success criteria and deliver outcomes that are reasonably proportionate to the predicted adverse effects.

Any proposal for overcompensation must be:

• clearly evidenced and justified, explaining why it is necessary considering the identified uncertainties;

• proportionate, with the scale of overcompensation aligned to the level of risk and ecological importance of the affected feature; and

• integrated with monitoring and adaptive management, allowing adjustments to be made as evidence of effectiveness emerges over time.

10.2 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the structured process by which a compensatory measure is adjusted, augmented, or replaced where monitoring demonstrates that it is not functioning as intended and agreed success criteria are not being met, as linked to its monitoring plan. Adaptive management applies to all compensatory measures, regardless of tier.

Adaptive management ensures that where compensatory measures underperform, timely and proportionate corrective action can be taken to secure the intended ecological outcomes. It represents a clear commitment by plan or project promoters to respond proactively, transparently, and in accordance with agreed procedures where monitoring identifies emerging risks or failure.

Where monitoring indicates a material deviation from expected performance including delayed establishment, reduced effectiveness, or unforeseen ecological responses adaptive management actions such as changes in scale, implementation of additional measures, or replacement of measures must be implemented without undue delay, in line with the approved adaptive management plan.

All compensation plans must include an adaptive management plan, in line with existing regulatory processes. Adaptive management plans must be developed in advance of implementation of compensatory measures and form an integral part of the overall compensation plan.

Plan or project promoters are expected to identify potential adaptive management actions at an early stage, alongside the design and selection of compensatory measures, to support effective delivery and risk management.

Adaptive management plans must include, as a minimum:

• clearly defined success criteria against which performance will be assessed;

• pre‑agreed trigger points that specify when adaptive management actions will be initiated (for example, failure to meet interim performance thresholds);

• a description of the adaptive actions that may be taken, including scaling up, modifying, or replacing measures; and

• indicative timescales for implementation of adaptive actions.

Where adaptive management is required, the timing of compensation delivery may need to be reviewed to ensure that ecological outcomes remain achievable and reasonably proportionate.

The outcomes of adaptive management must be monitored and reported at agreed intervals. Reporting must be sufficiently detailed to enable regulators and decision‑makers to assess:

• performance against success criteria;

• whether any trigger points have been reached;

• the adaptive management actions taken or proposed; and

• any residual risks to achieving the intended outcomes.

Reporting must be clear, comprehensive and transparent, and clearly set out whether further intervention is required.

Where changes to an agreed adaptive management plan are proposed, these must be submitted to Scottish Ministers for approval prior to implementation.