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

Annex B: Examples of Measures – Compensation Hierarchy

The examples set out in this Annex are provided for illustrative purposes only. They are intended to demonstrate how the compensation hierarchy and associated principles may be applied in practice but do not prescribe specific measures or approaches for any individual plan or project. They should not be interpreted as exhaustive, definitive, or automatically suitable in any given context.

Example - Tier 1 Compensation – Predator Control

Impacted feature: Atlantic puffin, qualifying feature of a SPA.

Predicted impact: Residual adverse effects on the SPA Atlantic puffin feature identified through the Appropriate Assessment.

Compensation identified: Tier 1 compensatory measures comprising targeted predator control, designed to deliver direct ecological benefit to Atlantic puffin populations by improving breeding success and survival. Measures may be implemented:

• at the impacted SPA; or

• at another designated site within the European site network supporting the same feature, where this is ecologically justified.

This approach aligns with tier 1 principles by delivering compensation that benefits the same protected feature affected by the plan or project.

Success criteria:

• Success criteria must relate to the effective delivery and ecological outcomes of the predator control programme and must be supported by monitoring and adaptive management.

Appropriate success criteria may include:

• confirmation that the predator eradication or control programme has been implemented successfully, in accordance with agreed methods and biosecurity standards;

• evidence of sustained predator absence or suppression at levels consistent with protecting breeding puffins;

• a measurable improvement in puffin breeding success, population size, or productivity at the benefitting site, relative to baseline conditions, within ecologically appropriate timescales; and

• monitoring arrangements capable of detecting both positive ecological outcomes and any unintended effects, with defined trigger points for corrective action.

Success criteria should be proportionate, site‑specific, and grounded in the best available scientific evidence.

Example - Tier 2 Compensation – Predator Control for an Ecologically Similar Feature

Impacted feature: Atlantic puffin, qualifying feature of a SPA.

Predicted impact: Residual adverse effects on the SPA Atlantic puffin feature identified through the Appropriate Assessment.

Compensation identified: Tier 2 compensatory measures comprising targeted predator control for an ecologically similar auk species razorbill delivered at an alternative designated site within the European site network.

Razorbill is ecologically similar to Atlantic puffin, sharing comparable breeding ecology, habitat requirements and vulnerability to introduced predators. Predator control at a site supporting razorbill may therefore deliver a broader ecological benefit to auk species within the European site network.

This measure may:

• form part of a package of compensatory measures, alongside tier 1 predator control measures for Atlantic puffin at the impacted site;

or

• where tier 1 measures are demonstrated to be insufficient or not feasible at the required scale, be deployed as a stand‑alone tier 2 measure, subject to appropriate justification in accordance with this guidance.

Success criteria: Success criteria must relate to the effective delivery and ecological outcomes of the predator control programme and be supported by monitoring and adaptive management.

Appropriate success criteria may include:

• confirmation that the predator reduction or eradication programme has been implemented successfully at the benefitting site, in accordance with agreed methods and biosecurity standards;

• evidence of sustained reduction or absence of target predators at levels compatible with protecting ground‑nesting seabirds;

• a measurable improvement in razorbill breeding success, productivity or population size relative to baseline conditions, within ecologically appropriate timescales; and

• monitoring arrangements that can detect ecological outcomes and any unintended effects, with clearly defined trigger points for corrective action.

Success criteria must be proportionate, feature‑specific, and grounded in the best available scientific evidence, demonstrating how the measure contributes to compensating for the residual impact on the Atlantic puffin feature through benefit to an ecologically similar feature.

Example - Tier 3 Compensation – Marine Litter Reduction

Impacted feature: Atlantic puffin, qualifying feature of a SPA.

Predicted impact: Residual adverse effects on the SPA puffin feature arising from the offshore wind plan or project, identified through the Appropriate Assessment.

Compensation identified:

Tier 3 compensatory measures focused on reducing pressures from marine litter at the UK MPA network scale, including actions to prevent, remove and reduce marine litter in coastal and marine environments. Measures may include delivery of actions under the Scottish Marine Litter Strategy at a national or strategic scale.

This type of measure does not provide site‑specific compensation but is intended to address wider, network‑level pressures that affect protected seabird features, including Atlantic puffin, across the UK MPA network through improved habitat quality, reduced ingestion and entanglement risk, and enhanced ecosystem condition.

Success criteria:

Success criteria must relate to the effective delivery and ecological relevance of the measure, recognising that tier 3 compensation delivers benefit through broader ecological pathways.

Appropriate success criteria may include:

• demonstrated removal of marine litter from the marine and coastal environment (e.g. quantities or categories of litter removed, spatial coverage of clean‑up activities);

• evidence of secure recycling, disposal or circular management of collected litter;

• delivery of preventative measures (e.g. source‑reduction initiatives, interception schemes, fishing‑gear management actions) in line with the Scottish Marine Litter Strategy;

• evidence that actions are targeted to areas or pathways relevant to seabird exposure, including foraging zones or migration routes; and

• defined monitoring and reporting arrangements demonstrating progress over time.

Success criteria should be supported by an adaptive management framework, with clear reporting milestones and corrective actions where delivery is not meeting expected outcomes.