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

9. Timing of Compensation Requirements

Plan or project promoters should ordinarily deliver compensatory measures in advance of any predicted impact on the protected feature wherever possible. This remains the preferred approach.

There may be circumstances where Scottish Ministers allow an adverse effect to occur before the compensatory measures are fully functional or before benefits are realised. Any such departure from advance delivery must be justified, evidenced, and consistent with the precautionary principle.

Some compensatory measures, particularly those that are novel, strategic, or large‑scale, may require extended lead‑in periods for design, establishment or delivery. There may also be instances where a measure is predicted to deliver greater or more sustainable long-term benefits for the target feature or features or the UK MPA network more widely, than alternative compensatory measures that could be implemented more quickly.

If plan or project promoters consider that delayed functionality is justified, the timing, rationale, and expected delivery profile of the measure should be established early in the HRA process. This information must be clearly set out in any outline or detailed compensation plan and should include:

• a clear explanation of why advance delivery is not achievable;

• evidence demonstrating that delayed delivery will not undermine the effectiveness or proportionality of compensation or result in an irreversible harm to the feature or network;

• evidence that delayed delivery will still deliver the required reasonably proportionate benefit despite the delay;

• a defined timetable showing when the measure will be implemented and when ecological benefits are expected to be realised; and

• any interim safeguards or risk management measures proposed to manage risk.

In all cases, compensation proposals must be sufficiently developed and approved before construction works commence and must be secured through appropriate agreements.

Where compensatory measures are proposed to be delivered after impacts have occurred, safeguards must be considered, which may include but not be limited to:

• demonstrating a high level of confidence that the measure will achieve its intended outcomes once implemented;

• providing a clear justification explaining why earlier implementation is not feasible;

• accounting for the ecological implications of the delay such as any additional adverse effects arising from the delay, for example by incorporating overcompensation or implementing appropriate interim measures;

• developing additional adaptive management triggers supported by an effective monitoring framework;

• establishing clear and effective monitoring processes to assess the implications of delivery delays including, where appropriate, population modelling to quantify potential effects of lag times;

• considering potential unintended consequences of delayed compensation, including cumulative or compounded impacts on the environment, other sectors, or local communities;

• putting in place robust delivery plans designed to minimise time-lags wherever possible;

• ensuring that the detailed implementation plan and timeframe describe and account for the delay; and

• ensuring appropriate reporting mechanisms are in place.