Offshore wind - strategic compensation policy: consultation analysis report

4 Strategic Compensation Policy consultation analysis results

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The consultation posed 17 questions on the Strategic Compensation Policy and its supporting assessments, which are discussed below.

4.2 Reforming the Habitats Regulations

4.2.1 The Scottish Government proposes to amend the current requirement in the Habitats Regulations that necessary compensatory measures must be secured to ensure the overall coherence of the network is protected, in order to enable a wider range of measures. Wider measures are defined as compensatory measures that provide an ecological benefit to the protected site network as a whole rather than the specific feature impacted.

4.2.2 To enable wider measures, Scottish Government is considering amending the Habitats Regulations to require that:

• Compensatory measures which benefit the protected site network overall must be secured for relevant offshore wind activities (as defined in the Energy Act 2023); and
• The ecological benefit of those compensatory measures must be reasonably proportionate to the level of damage to the protected site network.

4.2.3 Consideration is also being given to the introduction of a Compensation Hierarchy which could be referenced in the EAR SSI with the detail included in guidance.

4.2.4 The consultation asked, "Question 1 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to reforming the Habitats Regulations as they apply to offshore wind activities as defined in the Energy Act 2023, in order to make wider compensatory measures available for offshore wind development?"

4.2.5 The total number of responses in relation to reforming the Habitats Regulations was 39 from 2 individuals and 37 organisations.

4.2.6 Table 2 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 2: The summary of responses in relation to reforming the Habitats Regulations

Respondent Type/Sector	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0	1	1	2	2
Organisations	18	12	4	34	37
Offshore Wind Sector	10	0	0	10	10
Fishing Sector	0	4	2	6	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
ENGOs	0	5	1	6	6
Public Sector	4	0	1	5	5
Science and Research Communities	3	3	0	6	7
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	18	13	5	36	39
Percentages of Yes/No/ I don’t know	50%	36%	14%	NA	NA

4.2.7 Mirroring the short answer question, the responses to the long answer section of the question were divided by those who thought the legislation would be effective, and those who felt that the legislation would be ineffective and not adequately tackle environmental decline or cause the displacement of other fishing activities.

4.2.8 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• Mixed Support for Strategic, Ecosystem-Scale Compensation (29 responses)
  • Many contributors agreed with the principle of strategic, ecosystem-scale compensation, especially when it leads to habitat restoration or long-term biodiversity gain (e.g., recovery of marine species, expansion of seagrass or kelp beds).
  • There was support for the sustainable expansion of offshore wind to help meet the UK’s Net Zero ambitions.
  • There was a strong emphasis that compensatory measures must not be shortcuts or workarounds, but part of a robust, evidence-led system that genuinely enhances biodiversity.
  • There was debate about moving away from "like-for-like" compensation towards broader measures. For example, one respondent noted that opening up to wider measures could ‘weaken the ecological coherence of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) network’. Some contributors saw this as a retrograde step, risking biodiversity decline and undermining international commitments (e.g., 30x30, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was also noted that there are no compensatory measures for marine mammals.
  • Others supported broader measures, provided they are evidence-based and do not undermine site-specific protections. One contributor noted that ‘the proposed reforms would enable a broader range of compensatory measures to be deployed, which would deliver biodiversity and ecosystem benefits that are not currently available through the available measures’.
• Safeguards and Criteria (22 responses)
  • Contributors called for clear criteria on when and how compensation is permitted, enforceable long-term monitoring, community engagement, transparent reporting, and alignment with Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy and climate adaptation goals.
  • There was concern that without rigorous safeguards, reforms could allow the loss of biodiversity based on future benefits that may never materialise.
  • Considering practical implementation and effectiveness, contributors sought clarity on how the Scottish Portfolio of Strategic Compensatory Measures will be established, used, and monitored for effectiveness.
  • There was concern about the practical implications of reforms, especially for ornithology, where current impact assessments may overestimate impacts, leading to excessive compensation requirements.
• Scientific Robustness and Monitoring (8 responses)
  • The need for proper assessment, with the suggestion of an independent monitoring body, and assessment based on sound scientific knowledge, was repeatedly highlighted. Contributors urged that compensatory measures must be based on direct evidence of ecological benefit, with robust monitoring and Adaptive Management.
  • Some respondents called for an independent technical advisory group to review and recommend measures for inclusion in the Scottish Portfolio of Strategic Compensatory Measures.
• Legal and Policy Concerns (15 responses)
  • Some responses expressed concern that relying on compensation risks undermining compliance with UK and European Union (EU) environmental law, as well as the precautionary principle.
  • Fishing representatives challenged the need for such extensive environmental harm questioning the pace and scale of offshore wind deployment, whilst other responses supported the facilitation of the expansion of offshore wind to accelerate consenting to meet the UK’s net zero ambitions
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement (10 responses)
  • Several responses highlighted the lack of stakeholder engagement in the consultation process, especially from the fishing community, and stressed the importance of involving affected communities in the design and implementation of compensatory measures.
• Risks and Recommendations (7 responses)
  • Risks raised included ecological dilution, weakening of protections, marine spatial squeeze and the impact on other marine industries, and failure to deliver genuine ecological benefits.
  • Recommendations included maintaining coherence across protected site networks, explicit assessment of cumulative impacts, and ensuring compensation measures are additional, measurable, and durable.

4.2.9 The mix of support and concern from 39 responses has highlighted that reforms must be carefully designed, rigorously monitored, and transparently implemented to ensure they deliver genuine ecological and community benefits rather than facilitating development at the expense of the environment before impacts are fully understood.

4.3 Proposed Compensation Hierarchy approach

4.3.1 The Scottish Government proposes a Compensation Hierarchy which offshore wind developers would be required to step through. This Compensation Hierarchy approach has been developed through collaborative work with the UK Government and with input from Scottish stakeholders from targeted workshops held in Summer 2024. The hierarchy outlines a three-tiered Compensation Hierarchy that describes the types of compensatory measures that should be considered at each tier and includes high level examples.

4.3.2 The three-tiered Compensation Hierarchy is structured as follows:

• Tier 1 – Benefit to the Impacted Feature: compensatory measures that provide ecological benefit(s) for the impacted feature in a measurable way, i.e., where there is clear evidence that the intervention will be effective in benefiting the impacted feature.
• Tier 2 - Benefit to a Similar Feature: compensatory measures that provide sufficient evidence of ecological benefit(s) to features, or groups of features which are ecologically similar to the impacted feature.
• Tier 3 - Benefit to Protected Site Network: compensatory measures that provide sufficient evidence of ecological benefit(s) to the protected site network more widely.

4.3.3 The Scottish Government also proposes permitting some flexibility in the Compensation Hierarchy. Specifically, it would be permissible to use Tier 2 measures even if there are Tier 1 measures available or Tier 3 measures even if there are Tier 1 or 2 measures available, if there is evidence that a wider measure would have a greater ecological benefit on the protected site network than a measure above it in the Compensation Hierarchy.

4.3.4 The consultation asked, "Question 2 - Do you agree with the proposed Compensation Hierarchy approach, for inclusion in subsequent guidance, including the type of compensation within each tier and when to move down the hierarchy?"

4.3.5 The total number of responses in relation to the proposed Compensation Hierarchy approach was 39 from 2 individuals and 37 organisations.

4.3.6 Table 3 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 3: The summary of responses in relation to the proposed Compensation Hierarchy approach

Respondent Type/Sector	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	1	0	2	1
Organisations	19	12	3	34	37
Offshore Wind Sector	10	0	0	10	10
Fishing Sector	1	6	0	7	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
ENGOs	2	2	2	6	6
Public Sector	4	0	1	5	5
Science and Research Communities	2	3	0	5	7
Political parties	0	1	0	1	1
Total	20	13	3	36	38
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	56%	36%	8%	NA	NA

4.3.7 Prominent topics that arose in long answer responses included:

• General support for a Tiered Compensation Hierarchy (12 responses)
  • Stakeholders agreed with the principle of a formal, tiered Compensation Hierarchy (Tier 1: direct, Tier 2: similar features, Tier 3: broader measures) for offshore wind impacts on marine environments.
  • The hierarchy was seen as a way to bring structure and discipline to compensation, but only if applied with rigor and transparency.
  • There was a call for more detailed guidance on how the hierarchy should be applied, including definitions for each tier, criteria for moving between tiers, and examples of acceptable compensation measures.
• Strict Safeguards and Sequential Progression (5 responses)
  • It was raised that movement down the tiers (from direct to broader compensation) should only occur when robust, transparent evidence shows higher tiers are infeasible or insufficient.
  • Stakeholders expressed that like-for-like (Tier 1) compensation must be prioritised, with broader measures (Tiers 2 and 3) used only as a last resort and never for convenience or cost-saving.
  • Respondents flagged that each tier should include minimum standards of evidence, timescales for delivery, and expectations for monitoring and outcome tracking.
  • Some responses called for a legislative requirement to ensure the hierarchy is followed sequentially. It was proposed that Tier 2 measures should relate to features within the National Site Network, so that benefits to the National Site Network are considered first and foremost.
• Need for Clarity, Guidance and Standardisation (23 responses)
  • Stakeholders requested clearer definitions and guidance on:
    • What constitutes "similar features" in Tier 2 and how equivalence is determined.
    • The criteria and evidence required to justify moving down the hierarchy.
    • How to measure and monitor the effectiveness of compensation, especially for broader Tier 3 measures.
  • Clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability for implementing the appropriate tier and monitoring compensation was raised.
• Risks of Ecological Dilution and Unintended Consequences (10 responses)
  • There was concern that allowing flexibility in the hierarchy could lead to ecological dilution, where site-specific protections are weakened and compensation becomes less meaningful. This in turn risks weakening the ecological coherence of the MPA network.
  • Stakeholders warned that Tier 3 measures, if not tightly controlled, could become a "catch-all" for less effective or easier-to-implement actions, undermining the ecological purpose of compensation.
  • There were worries about negative impacts on vulnerable species, fishing communities, and the risk of shifting burdens onto other sectors. Concern was raised regarding the use of wider measures which may move the burden of responsibility away from offshore renewable energy sites into surrounding spaces occupied by other marine users, such as fishermen.
• Importance of Evidence, Monitoring and Adaptive Management (17 responses)
  • The need for robust, evidence-based decision-making was a recurring theme.
  • Monitoring and Adaptive Management were seen as essential to ensure that compensation measures deliver real, measurable ecological benefits over time.
  • Some suggested the use of standard methods, ratios, and adaptive triggers to ensure accountability and effectiveness.
• Stakeholder and Community Engagement (7 responses)
  • Many responses highlighted the importance of involving communities, coastal interests, and nature organisations in the design, approval, and monitoring of compensation measures.
  • Transparency and public scrutiny were seen as vital for trust and legitimacy.
• Legal and Policy Alignment (10 responses)
  • Respondents stressed the need for the Compensation Hierarchy to align with existing legal frameworks (e.g., Habitats Regulations, Marine Scotland Act, EU standards) and broader policy goals (e.g., Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy, Net Zero, National Marine Plan).
  • There was concern about potential inconsistencies or conflicts between different regimes and the risk of undermining site integrity or network coherence.
• Flexibility vs Rigour (19 responses)
  • While some respondents supported flexibility to allow innovative or more effective measures, others cautioned that too much flexibility risks undermining the hierarchy’s intent.
  • The balance between enabling innovation and maintaining strict ecological safeguards was a recurring debate.
• Operational and Practical Considerations (12 responses)
  • There were calls for clear operational guidance on how to apply the hierarchy in practice, including:
    • How to handle cross-border impacts and compensation;
    • How to avoid double-counting or unintended consequences; and
    • How to ensure compensation is proportionate, additional, and well evidenced so it is not just a bureaucratic exercise.

4.3.8 In the 38 responses to this question a variety of views were expressed, with calls for clarity, evidence, legal rigour, and meaningful stakeholder engagement as some respondents felt there will be the displacement of stakeholders such as fisheries. The main risks identified were ecological dilution, loss of site-specific protections, and insufficient safeguards for vulnerable species and communities. The success of the hierarchy was raised to depend on robust guidance, transparent processes, and a commitment to measurable, additional ecological benefits.

4.4 Evidencing ecological benefit of wider measures

4.4.1 The Scottish Government proposes setting out in guidance how wider measures can benefit the protected site network and how this benefit can be demonstrated.

4.4.2 For wider measures, Scottish Government propose clarifying that the protected site network can be benefited via action that:

• enables the network, or a feature or features within it, to recover more quickly from damage and/or improve its current condition; or
• alleviates key pressures impacting the network; or
• improves the networks resilience to climate change and other stressors; and
• can be monitored for effectiveness (monitoring could be action-based or outcomes-based).

4.4.3 If concluding that a wider measure is appropriate, the Scottish Ministers should ensure there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Compensation Hierarchy approach has been followed (Tier 1 to Tier 3).

4.4.4 The consultation asked, "Question 3 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to how to demonstrate evidence that a wider measure has an ecological benefit to the protected site network?"

4.4.5 The total number of responses detailing whether they agreed with the proposed approach to demonstrate evidence of ecological benefits from wider measures was 39 from 2 individuals and 37 organisations.

4.4.6 Table 4 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 4: The summary of responses in relation to the evidencing ecological benefit of wider measures

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0	1	1	2	1
Organisations	15	15	5	35	36
Offshore Wind Sector	6	2	2	10	10
Fishing Sector	1	4	2	7	7
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	0	6	0	6	6
Public Sector	4	0	1	5	5
Science and Research Communities	4	2	0	6	7
Political parties	0	1	0	1	1
Total	15	16	6	37	37
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	41%	43%	16%	NA	NA

4.4.7 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Definition and Evidence of Ecological Benefit (19 responses)

• There was widespread concern that the threshold for demonstrating "ecological benefit" is not clearly defined or set high enough to maintain public and scientific confidence.
• Stakeholders called for robust, peer-reviewed evidence and independent scientific review (e.g., by statutory agencies like NatureScot) to support claims of ecological benefit.
• Stakeholders raised that guidance should set clear expectations for timescales, geographic relevance, and equivalence of ecological function when wider measures are proposed.
• Several stakeholders requested greater clarity, and where uncertainty is high, additional safeguards were recommended, including:
  • higher compensation ratios;
  • longer monitoring;
  • Adaptive Management triggers; and
  • the option for overcompensation.
• Some stakeholders warned that requiring absolute proof of benefit could create barriers to deployment, but others cautioned that too low an evidential bar risks sanctioning ecological damage on the promise of future benefits.

Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Data Sharing (28 responses)

• Long-term monitoring and Adaptive Management were seen as essential, especially where outcomes are uncertain or depend on ecological succession.
• There was a call for better data sharing—data collected for one project should be accessible for others to avoid duplication and strengthen the science base.

Clarity and Guidance on Compensation Hierarchy (26 responses)

• Stakeholders welcomed guidance on how and when to move down the Compensation Hierarchy, but stressed that compensatory measures must remain ecologically relevant, not just procedurally compliant.
• There was concern that, especially for Tier 3 (wider) measures, the risk of compensation becoming disconnected from actual ecological pressures is higher, and that these measures may take considerable time to deliver measurable outcomes.

Baseline, Measurement, and Success Criteria (26 responses)

• Many responses highlighted the lack of empirical baseline data for the Scottish MPA network, making it difficult to demonstrate ecological benefits or measure success.
• It was raised that there is a need for clear, measurable targets and robust monitoring to ensure compensation delivers genuine ecological improvement, not just theoretical or procedural compliance.

Legal and Policy Alignment (4 responses)

• There was concern that the proposed approach is too vague and flexible, lacking the legal certainty needed to secure the coherence of the protected site network and meet national/international obligations.
• Some responses urged retention of a rigorous, legally binding test (comparable to the current "coherence test") to ensure compensation is genuinely effective.
• There was also one response that asked for alignment with other Scottish proposed policies. They noted ‘we would welcome further consideration of strategic compensation opportunities as part of the finalisation of the Scottish Government’s Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan’.

Case-by-Case Assessment and Role of Expert Judgement (11 responses)

• Most agreed that case-by-case assessment is essential, but there was concern about consistency and transparency in how decisions are made, especially when relying on expert judgement or intuition.
• Regular review of the effectiveness of available measures, and updates to the portfolio of measures, were recommended to ensure best practice.

Risks of Dilution and Unintended Consequences (7 responses)

• Respondents raised that allowing wider measures (especially Tier 3) risks diluting responsibility and weakening site-specific protections, particularly for rare or vulnerable species.
• There was concern that compensation could become a "box-ticking exercise" or default to cheaper, less effective measures if not tightly controlled.

Community, Transparency, and Local Benefits (4 responses)

• Transparency, public reporting, and community involvement were seen as vital for trust and legitimacy.
• Respondents raised that wider measures should deliver visible, local ecological gains and involve local expertise in monitoring and Adaptive Management.

4.4.8 Overall, while flexibility and innovation in compensation are needed, the responses detailed that this must be underpinned by scientific rigour, robust evidence, legal certainty, and transparent, accountable processes. Without these, it was felt there is a risk of undermining both ecological outcomes and public trust.

4.5 Monitoring the effectiveness of wider measures

4.5.1 Whether a wider measure has a greater ecological benefit than measures available for the impacted feature is likely to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This would include consideration of the ecological benefit to the protected site network and factors such as whether the wider measure can:

• Provide a direct or indirect benefit, via the improvement of conservation objectives, to a larger proportion of the network. This may be by number of protected sites, area of benthic habitat, number, or proportion of species population, that would benefit from available compensatory measures that would be targeted at the impacted feature.
• Alleviate pressure on more than one site within the network, or on a number or population of species than would benefit from available compensatory measures for the impacted feature.

4.5.2 It is proposed that extra contingency be built in for more uncertain measures where there is limited scientific evidence. This could include a higher compensation ratio, enhanced Adaptive Management plans, enhanced monitoring or building in additional time to allow for measures to show effectiveness.

4.5.3 The consultation asked, "Question 4 – How do you think the effectiveness of wider measures could be monitored?"

4.5.4 The total number of responses relating to the monitoring of wider measures was 38.

4.5.5 Table 5 shows the number of respondents from the long answer responses, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 5: The summary of responses in relation to monitoring the effectiveness of wider measures

Respondent Type	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1
Organisations	37
Offshore Wind Sector	10
Fishing Sector	8
Other Marine Industries	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	6
Public Sector	5
Science and Research Communities	7
Political parties	1
Total	38

4.5.6 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Robust, Long-Term, and Transparent Monitoring (22 responses)

It was raised that:

• Monitoring of wider compensatory measures must be science-based, long-term, and built into project design from the outset.
• Clear, measurable ecological indicators relevant to the affected habitat or species are essential. and reporting should be done in a timely and consistent manner.
• Monitoring should extend well beyond construction, reflecting the decades-long timescales of marine restoration.
• Long term monitoring requires significant human and financial resources.
• Investment in training, capacity building, and dedicated roles for data analysis and ecological interpretation is recommended.
• Monitoring should be coordinated with wider marine and environmental monitoring programs to avoid duplication and maximise learning.
• Data should be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and uploaded to platforms like the Marine Data Exchange and the Marine Environmental Data and Information Network (MEDIN).
• Monitoring should go beyond compliance and demonstrate real ecological effectiveness over time.
• Strategic, holistic biodiversity monitoring is needed to identify further action and target receptors across the UK National Site Network.

Independent Oversight and Public Accountability (20 responses)

Stakeholders highlighted that;

• Independent review by trusted bodies (e.g., NatureScot) is crucial; self-monitoring must be audited.
• All monitoring data should be made publicly available in a central register, enabling scrutiny by communities, NGOs, and researchers.
• Public reporting and independent audits are recommended to ensure accuracy and compliance.
• Reporting should be done in a timely and consistent manner.

Adaptive Management and Corrective Action (12 responses)

• It was felt that monitoring must be tied to Adaptive Management: if outcomes fall short, corrective actions should be triggered, and compensation requirements strengthened.
• Stakeholders flagged that hard triggers and contingency planning (e.g., overcompensation buffers) are needed where evidence is uncertain.
• Respondents also mentioned the need for action to be reviewed on a case by case basis. For example, one respondent detailed that ‘to obtain meaningful data, we believe that the effectiveness of wider measures should be monitored on a case by case basis, rather than through a generic approach’.

Clear Baselines, Metrics, and Success Criteria (32 responses)

It was raised that:

• Establishing robust ecological baselines before deploying measures is critical.
• Standardised indicators (population-level, habitat condition, ecosystem function, pressure reduction) and counterfactual scenarios are needed to assess additionality and effectiveness.
• Success criteria should be strategic, not just project-specific, and monitoring should be case-by-case but within a national framework.
• Monitoring effectiveness is difficult due to dynamic marine ecosystems, climate change, and lack of coherent baseline data for many sites.
• There was concern that, without robust frameworks, monitoring could become a procedural exercise rather than a tool for genuine ecological improvement.

Role of Technology and Innovation (5 responses)

• Responses raised that technological tools (satellite imaging, acoustic monitoring, eDNA, underwater robotics) can support efficient, scalable monitoring but should be combined with on-site surveys.
• It was also noted that there should be mechanisms for rapid review and adoption of new monitoring approaches.

Community Involvement and Local Benefits (5 responses)

• Stakeholders highlighted that local and community knowledge, including citizen science, should help verify outcomes and identify unintended consequences.
• It was also noted that monitoring should create local skills, jobs, and visible ecological benefits, especially in regions like the Highlands.

4.5.7 The responses emphasised that the credibility and effectiveness of wider compensatory measures depend on rigorous, transparent, and adaptive monitoring. This requires independent oversight, robust baselines, clear metrics, public accountability, and meaningful community involvement. Without these, it was felt that it will not be possible to demonstrate that compensation is working or delivering lasting environmental benefits.

4.6 Marine Irreplaceable Habitats or features

4.6.1 The Scottish Government is aware that the UK Government is consulting on a proposal to clarify in guidance circumstances where Marine Irreplaceable Habitats (MIHs) would not be permitted to be compensated for via wider measures.

4.6.2 Scottish Government is not minded to introduce a similar requirement in Scotland. Scotland’s Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB), NatureScot have advised that MIHs have not been used in the regulatory or planning context for the Scottish marine environment and there is no intention to introduce such a concept. However, Scottish Government welcomed views on this or similar approaches.

4.6.3 The consultation asked, "Question 5 - We are aware that UK Government are consulting in its concurrent consultation on reforms to environmental compensation for offshore wind on a proposal to clarify in guidance circumstances where wider measures would not be suitable for impacts to locations with Marine Irreplaceable Habitats or features. Do you agree with our proposal not to include a similar approach within our guidance?"

4.6.4 The total number of responses in relation to not having a similar approach was 36 from 1 individual and 35 organisations.

4.6.5 Table 6 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 6: The summary of responses in relation to MIH or features

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	13	14	6	33	35
Offshore Wind Sector	9	0	0	9	10
Fishing Sector	2	4	1	7	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	0	6	0	6	6
Public Sector	2	1	2	5	5
Science and Research Communities	0	2	3	5	5
Political parties	0	1	0	1	1
Total	14	14	6	34	36
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	41%	41%	18%	NA	NA

4.6.6 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• The Status and Definition of MIHs (14 responses)
  • There was widespread recognition that certain marine habitats (e.g., maerl beds, flame shell reefs, blue mussel beds) are irreplaceable—once damaged, they cannot be restored.
  • Many contributors argued that Scottish guidance should clearly state that wider compensatory measures are generally not appropriate for MIHs, except in the most exceptional circumstances and with strict safeguards.
  • Some responses highlighted that MIHs are not yet formally defined in Scottish waters, and there was a call for clarity and consistency in definitions across UK jurisdictions.
  • Some suggested using the existing list of PMFs as a practical starting point for identifying features where wider compensatory measures are unsuitable, pending further scientific advice.
  • Responses advocated for a precautionary approach, arguing that MIHs should be strictly protected and not subject to trade-offs for development or compensation.
• Policy Alignment and Consistency (12 responses)
  • Several responses stressed the need for Scottish policy to align with UK Government guidance, particularly to avoid confusion and inconsistency for cross-boundary projects.
  • There was concern that differing approaches between Scotland and the rest of the UK could undermine ecological protection and create legal and regulatory uncertainty.
  • Omitting explicit safeguards for MIHs was seen as increasing legal risk and undermining the credibility of the Scottish consenting system. Conversely, there was concern that introducing MIH to Scotland may add confusion to the current site protection hierarchy.
• Fairness and Sectoral Consistency (3 responses)
  • Responses highlighted perceived double standards: fisheries face strict closures for food security, while developers might be allowed more flexibility for energy security.
  • There was a sentiment that protection of irreplaceable habitats should apply equally to all sectors, including offshore wind and fishing.
  • One respondent commented that offshore wind development must not leave island and coastal communities with irreversible ecological losses while wider measures are delivered elsewhere.
• Divergent Views on Flexibility vs. Strict Protection (6 responses)
  • While some responses advocated for strict protection of MIHs, some responses supported the Scottish Government’s more flexible approach, arguing that it allows for a wider set of compensation measures and avoids unnecessary regulatory complexity.
  • There were concerns that introducing new categories (like MIHs) could add confusion and delay, especially if not clearly defined.
  • A contributor raised concerns that designating certain features as "irreplaceable" could inadvertently weaken protection for other (non-irreplaceable) features, creating a "second division" of less-protected habitats.
• Call for Further Clarification and Stakeholder Engagement (10 responses)
  • Responses requested clearer rationale and guidance from NatureScot and the Scottish Government regarding the inclusion or exclusion of MIHs in policy.
  • There was a desire for ongoing dialogue and refinement of policy based on robust scientific evidence and stakeholder input.
  • Clear, consistent guidance was viewed as essential for maintaining public trust and providing certainty to developers and regulators.

4.6.7 Overall, there was consensus on the need for robust protection of MIHs, with many stakeholders urging the Scottish Government to adopt clear, precautionary safeguards to align with UK policy. However, there was also recognition of the need for clarity, consistency, and proportionality in regulation, with some support for a more flexible, case-by-case approach.

4.7 Application of the additionality principle to offshore wind

4.7.1 Under the Habitats Regulations, the principle of additionality means that compensation must be additional to the normal practices required for the protection and management of protected sites.

4.7.2 Actions already planned or carried out by government bodies to maintain favourable conservation status do not qualify as compensation. SNCBs are responsible for informing developers about existing management activities to help avoid conflicts with the additionality principle.

4.7.3 The UK Government is working to clarify what counts as "additional" by defining standard site management practices. This aims to support conservation goals and provide clearer guidance for offshore wind developers.

4.7.4 The Scottish Government already allows investment in site management where public delivery is not feasible. Further clarification—through guidance or legislation—is being considered to give developers and stakeholders greater certainty.

4.7.5 The consultation asked, "Question 6 - Do you agree with our interpretation of the application of the additionality principle to offshore wind, and our proposal to provide further clarity as part of guidance?"

4.7.6 The total number of responses in relation to the interpretation of the application of the additionality principle was 36 from 1 individual and 35 organisations.

4.7.7 Table 7 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 7: The summary of responses in relation to the additionality principle

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	27	3	3	33	33
Offshore Wind Sector	10	0	0	10	10
Fishing Sector	3	2	2	7	6
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	3	1	1	5	5
Public Sector	4	0	0	4	5
Science and Research Communities	6	0	0	6	6
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	28	3	3	34	34
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	82%	9%	9%	NA	NA

4.7.8 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• Centrality of the Additionality Principle (14 responses)
  • The additionality principle was seen as essential for the credibility and environmental integrity of compensatory measures, especially in the context of offshore wind development.
  • It was raised that compensation must deliver outcomes that are genuinely "additional" to what would have happened anyway (i.e., not already required by law, policy, or public funding).
• Avoiding Double Counting (6 responses)
  • There was strong concern that re-labelling existing or planned actions as "compensation" amounts to double counting and legal misrepresentation. For example, one response noted that ‘Re-labelling actions already mandated under biodiversity strategies as 'compensation' amounts to double-counting and legal misrepresentation’.
  • Stakeholders raised that measures already required for site management, biodiversity strategies, or other statutory obligations should not be counted as compensation.
• Need for Clarity and Guidance (25 responses)
  • Many responses called for clear, practical guidance on how to apply and evidence additionality, including:
    • What constitutes "normal practice" or baseline management.
    • How to distinguish between statutory obligations and genuinely additional measures.
    • The need for published lists of planned management activities for protected sites.
• Transparency, Attribution, and Oversight (2 responses)
  • There was a call for transparent public registers of compensatory measures to prevent overlap and ensure accountability.
  • Independent scrutiny and validation by SNCBs (e.g., NatureScot) was recommended.
• Flexibility vs. Rigor (4 responses)
  • Some supported a degree of flexibility, allowing compensation to include measures that are not currently delivered due to funding or capacity limitations.
  • Others argued for a tighter, more limited criterion to ensure only truly additional measures are accepted. For example, one response noted that ‘If additionality is defined too rigidly, measures that clearly accelerate environmental gain could be excluded on technical grounds’.
• Implications for Policy and Practice (11 responses)
  • It was felt that the principle should be applied in a way that supports ecological gain, avoids undermining legal obligations, and maintains public trust.
  • There was concern that if additionality is defined too rigidly, it could exclude beneficial measures; if too loosely, it could undermine ecological outcomes.
• Practical Considerations (7 responses)
  • The need for clear baselines and management plans for all Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was highlighted.
  • Stakeholders raised that compensation measures should be new, directly attributable to the impact, and deliver benefits over a timeframe equivalent to project impacts (often 25–35 years).
  • It was felt that overcompensation may be warranted where additionality is uncertain.
• Community and Stakeholder Trust (1 response)
  • Clear rules and transparency were seen as vital for maintaining public confidence, especially in communities affected by offshore wind development.
  • It was noted that additionality should also support local benefits, such as new employment and restoration roles.

4.7.9 There was broad consensus that compensatory measures must be genuinely additional, with strong calls for clear, practical guidance, transparency, and independent oversight. The balance between flexibility and rigor was debated, but the need to avoid double counting and maintain public trust was seen as paramount.

4.8 Compensation functioning after the impact of offshore wind development

4.8.1 The Scottish Government proposes to clarify in guidance the circumstances in which an offshore wind developer or a plan authority can deliver compensation that may not become fully functional until after the impact of the project occurs.

4.8.2 Under current regulations, it is already possible to deliver, in certain circumstances, compensation after the impact to a protected site has occurred. This understanding stems from the European Commission’s Habitats Regulations guidance.

4.8.3 If offshore wind developers or plan authorities believe there is a justification for using a compensation measure that becomes functional after impacts have occurred, the timings and rationale should be established early in the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) process and set out in any outline or detailed compensation plan(s). Plans should specify how the measure will be delivered.

4.8.4 The consultation asked, "Do you agree with our proposed approach, for inclusion in subsequent guidance, that in certain circumstances, compensation can be functioning after the impact of the offshore wind development occurs?"

4.8.5 The total number of responses in relation to compensation functioning after the impact of offshore wind development was 38 from 1 individual and 37 organisations.

4.8.6 Table 8 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 8: The summary of responses in relation to compensation functioning after the impact of offshore wind development

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0	0	1	1	1
Organisations	19	11	5	35	37
Offshore Wind Sector	9	0	1	10	10
Fishing Sector	2	3	3	8	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	1	5	0	6	6
Public Sector	3	1	0	4	5
Science and Research Communities	4	2	0	6	7
Political parties	0	0	1	1	1
Total	19	11	6	36	38
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	52.8%	30.6%	16.7%	NA	NA

4.8.7 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• Whether post-impact compensation is appropriate (16 responses)
  • There was significant debate about whether compensatory measures for offshore wind impacts must be fully functional before impacts occur, or if they can be implemented after.
  • Many responses supported flexibility, acknowledging that ecological restoration and compensation often require long lead times and may not be immediately effective.
  • Others argued that compensation should be in place before impacts to maintain ecological integrity and public trust, especially for highly sensitive or irreplaceable habitats. Some strongly opposed post-impact compensation, arguing it amounts to "damage first, fix later," which is ineffective for irreversible losses.
  • Some responses suggested that compensation should only be delayed in exceptional cases, with strong evidence and safeguards in place.
• Safeguards and Governance (14 responses)
  • Where compensation is delayed, strict safeguards were recommended, including:
    • Clear justification for why early implementation is not feasible;
    • Use of time-lag multipliers (higher compensation ratios) to account for ecological debt and uncertainty;
    • Front-loaded preparation (physical works, legal agreements, funding) before consent;
    • Adaptive Management triggers and robust monitoring; and
    • Independent oversight and transparent reporting.
• Risks of Delayed Compensation (10 responses)
  • It was raised that delayed compensation can result in irreversible losses, especially if impacted populations or habitats become critically depleted before benefits are realised.
  • There was concern that promises of future compensation may not materialise, especially if projects are abandoned or developers are unable to deliver.
  • Some stakeholders warned that this approach could undermine the purpose of compensation and fail to deliver meaningful conservation outcomes.
• Practical Considerations and Project Realities (10 responses)
  • Stakeholders raised that offshore wind projects, especially floating wind farms, have long construction timelines, making it impractical to have all compensation measures fully functional before impacts begin.
  • Flexibility was seen as necessary to avoid unnecessary delays and to allow for more effective, scalable ecological interventions.
  • Some responses highlighted the need for clear milestones, early indicators of failure, and ongoing Adaptive Management.
• Community Trust and Local Benefits (2 responses)
  • It was felt that temporal flexibility is only acceptable if accompanied by transparency, oversight, and visible local ecological improvements.
  • Stakeholders raised that communities need assurance that delayed compensation will not be used as a shortcut and that ecological function and resilience are maintained.
  • Concerns were raised regarding impacts to fishing grounds whilst waiting for compensation to become effective.
• Legal and Policy Implications (12 responses)
  • Some stakeholders referenced case law and regulatory requirements that compensation must be effective before consent is granted.
  • There was a call for clear guidance on acceptable timeframes, definitions of "functioning" and "effective," and mechanisms for enforcement and accountability.

4.8.8 In the 38 responses there was broad recognition of the need for flexibility in the timing of compensation measures for offshore wind impacts, but only if accompanied by strict safeguards, transparency, and robust governance. The debate centred on balancing practical project realities with ecological integrity and public trust. Some stakeholders advocated for strict pre-impact compensation, while others accepted post-impact measures in exceptional cases, provided risks are managed and benefits are clearly demonstrated.

4.9 When compensation is required for projects or plans with small levels of impact to a protected site

4.9.1 The Scottish Government proposes to clarify in guidance, circumstances where compensation is required for small levels of impact to a protected site.

4.9.2 Depending on the circumstances, offshore wind developers or plan authorities may be required to provide mitigation, or possibly, compensation for small, predicted levels of impact either alone or in combination. The scale of any mitigation/compensation would however reflect the scale of the impact.

4.9.3 These circumstances could include, but not be limited to the following:

• The site or feature is already in poor condition and failing to meet conservation objectives for the impacted feature.
• The site or feature is highly sensitive.
• There are high levels of uncertainty over predicted mortalities due to poor data availability in relation to the proposed plan/project and others impacting the site.
• There are unavoidable contributions to a significant in-combination impact from multiple projects on the same site (and uncertainty about the impact of projects in application stage at the site that are yet to be consented). Many seemingly small contributions at a site can result in a significant in-combination effect.

4.9.4 The consultation asked, "Question 8 - Do you agree with our proposed approach, for inclusion in subsequent guidance, to clarify circumstances where compensation is required for projects or plans with small levels of impact to a protected site?"

4.9.5 The total number of responses in relation to the approach to clarify circumstances where compensation is required was 35, from 1 individual and 34 organisations.

4.9.6 Table 9 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 9: The summary of responses in relation to when compensation is required for projects or plans with small levels of impact to a protected site

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	23	7	4	34	33
Offshore Wind Sector	7	2	1	10	10
Fishing Sector	4	3	1	8	7
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	3	1	2	6	6
Public Sector	4	1	0	5	5
Science and Research Communities	4	0	0	4	4
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	24	7	4	35	34
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	69%	20%	11%	NA	NA

4.9.7 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• Proportionate Approach to Small Impacts (13 responses)
  • There was broad support for a proportionate, case-by-case approach to compensating for small impacts, rather than setting arbitrary thresholds that could normalise repeated minor damage.
  • There were conflicting views on when compensation should be required, with some respondents raising that compensation should be required where even small impacts could contribute to cumulative or long-term harm, and other respondents raising that where impacts are very small, compensation should not be required.
  • Some suggested a simplified compensation mechanism (e.g., contributions to a Marine Recovery Fund) for very small impacts, to avoid unnecessary administrative burden.
• Cumulative Effects and Strategic Planning (12 responses)
  • Many responses highlighted the risk that multiple small impacts, if not addressed, can add up to significant degradation of protected sites and marine ecosystems.
  • There was a call for clear mechanisms to record, monitor, and aggregate small impacts across projects, ensuring cumulative effects are captured and addressed strategically.
  • It was raised for cumulative assessments to be undertaken in accordance with Policy GEN9 of Scotland’s National Marine Plan.
  • It was recommended that cumulative impacts also factor in the additional pressures from other offshore industries.
• Clarity, Consistency, and Guidance (18 responses)
  • Stakeholders requested clear, scientifically informed, and transparent definitions and thresholds for what constitutes a "small impact."
  • Responses raised that guidance should clarify when compensation is required, how thresholds are set, and ensure decisions are consistent, fair, and evidence-based.
• Precautionary Principle vs. Pragmatism (9 responses)
  • While the precautionary principle is supported, there was concern that overly strict or precautionary approaches could create unnecessary barriers to project delivery, especially when predicted impacts are negligible or uncertain.
  • Some responses argue that compensation should not be required for truly negligible impacts, particularly when these arise from precautionary assumptions in impact assessments.
  • Some responses highlighted that longer term implications can sometimes only be identified after several years of monitoring, and these will need to be assessed and considered for any future mitigation.
• Community Trust, Local Benefits and Fairness Across Sectors (2 responses)
  • Highland and coastal communities emphasised the importance of not overlooking cumulative small impacts. It was raised that clear guidance that even small impacts require compensation will strengthen public confidence that all ecological effects are properly managed.
  • There was a call for proportionality and fairness in how small impacts are treated across different maritime sectors (e.g., offshore wind vs. fishing).
• Need for Legislative and Policy Clarity (3 responses)
  • Several responses highlighted the need for legislative change or clearer statutory guidance to ensure that small impacts are addressed consistently and effectively.
  • It was raised that SNCBs should be required to "act in accordance with" the guidance, not just "take account of" it.
  • Due to the importance of MPAs, a respondent recommended that the circumstances are extended to include all protected sites.

4.9.8 Across the 33 responses, there was support for a proportionate, transparent, and strategic approach to compensating for small impacts, with clear definitions, cumulative assessment, and fairness across sectors. It was raised that guidance should avoid arbitrary thresholds, ensure consistency, and maintain public trust, while not creating unnecessary barriers for projects with truly negligible impacts.

4.10 When overcompensation may be appropriate

4.10.1 The Scottish Government proposes to clarify in guidance the instances where overcompensation for the adverse effects of an offshore wind plan or project may be optional and or advisable.

4.10.2 These instances could include the following:

• Where there is uncertainty in relation to the efficacy of the proposed compensatory measure(s) at the commencement of a project (one of the core purposes for overcompensation early in a project).
• Implementing multiple measures which are all aiming to compensate for the same level of impact simultaneously could be considered as overcompensation and potentially reduce the resource burden of Adaptive Management.
• Where measures being in place and effective in advance of predicted impacts is not fully achievable overcompensation could be required in these instances.
• Overcompensation could involve implementing a primary and an alternative measure from the beginning rather than waiting, potentially reducing the resource burden of Adaptive Management.

4.10.3 Scottish Government welcomed views on when overcompensation should be required, in light of the proposal to enable wider measures including strategic compensation.

4.10.4 The consultation asked, "Question 9 – Do you agree with our proposal to clarify through guidance when overcompensation may be appropriate, and do you have a view on the instances in which it should be required?"

4.10.5 The total number of responses in relation to overcompensation was 37 from 1 individual and 36 organisations.

4.10.6 Table 10 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 10: The summary of responses in relation to overcompensation

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	22	9	3	34	35
Offshore Wind Sector	4	5	1	10	10
Fishing Sector	2	3	2	7	7
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	5	0	0	5	5
Public Sector	4	1	0	5	5
Science and Research Communities	6	0	0	6	7
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	23	9	3	35	36
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	65.7%	25.7%	8.6%	NA	NA

4.10.7 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Purpose and Circumstances for Overcompensation (22 responses)

• Overcompensation was viewed as a risk management tool, not a bonus used to ensure environmental outcomes are achieved even if some measures underperform.
• It was raised that guidance should specify when overcompensation is appropriate, including (amongst others):
  • Significant time lags between impact and compensation effectiveness;
  • High uncertainty or difficulty verifying ecological outcomes;
  • Off-site or ecosystem-scale compensation;
  • Cumulative impacts or impacts on vulnerable/declining species/vulnerable habitats or those with slow recovery rates; and
  • Situations where public confidence may be at risk.
• Stakeholders highlighted that measures that should have been implemented (but have not) should be considered as appropriate compensation. It was not felt appropriate, however, for those measures to then be increased/over-delivered because it is a compensation measure rather than a management measure.

Evidence-Based and Proportionate Approach (14 responses)

• Respondents raised that the scale of overcompensation should be evidence-based, proportionate to uncertainty, and transparently justified.
• It was noted that clear criteria and transparent decision-making are needed, especially regarding how uncertainty is assessed and how compensation ratios are set.
• Respondents raised that direct empirical evidence around effectiveness is difficult to establish.

Adaptive Management vs. Overcompensation (11 responses)

• Some stakeholders argued that Adaptive Management is preferable to speculative overcompensation, which can be arbitrary and difficult to quantify.
• It was raised that overcompensation should complement, not replace, Adaptive Management, and should be used sparingly and strategically.

Monitoring, Flexibility, and Adjustment (10 responses)

Respondents raised that:

• Ongoing monitoring is essential; if impacts are less than predicted or compensation is more effective, obligations should be reduced.
• Conversely, if measures underperform, additional compensation should be triggered.
• Consideration should be given to the mechanics which would enable a developer to sell the excess compensation to another developer seeking compensation of a similar nature.
• Mandatory scientific monitoring should be carried out by an independent institute.

Challenges and Risks (8 responses)

Concerns were raised regarding:

• Commercial and logistical challenges, especially if overcompensation becomes a default requirement.
• Overcompensation may drain resources, slow project delivery, and discourage innovation if not applied judiciously.
• If requirements are vague and difficult to quantify, overcompensation could lead to measures that have little or no positive impact.
• The risk of overcompensation will disincentivise efforts to better understand the real effects of compensatory measures.
• Overcompensation measures may cause economic damage to other maritime businesses and coastal communities. Disproportionate requirements could undermine the scope of The Scottish Marine Environmental Enhancement Fund (SMEEF).

Community and Ecosystem Benefits (2 responses)

Stakeholders highlighted:

• Overcompensation can help protect biodiversity, build public trust, and deliver local ecological benefits, especially in areas with cumulative pressures.
• For Highland communities, overcompensation ensures that risks and uncertainties are addressed up front, and that offshore wind development leaves a positive legacy for both climate and nature.
• Ecological outcomes will be dependent on the right governance, monitoring, and agreement on whether measures have been effectively delivered.

Calls for Clear Guidance (16 responses)

• There was strong support for explicit, transparent guidance and criteria for evaluating uncertainty, including when and how overcompensation should be applied.

4.10.8 In the 36 responses, overcompensation was broadly supported as a safeguard against uncertainty and time lags, but it was felt it should be evidence-based, proportionate, and transparently justified. Respondents raised that it must complement Adaptive Management, not replace it, and be accompanied by robust monitoring and clear guidance to ensure ecological outcomes, public trust, and efficient project delivery. Concerns were raised that overcompensation could result in logistical challenges, and that if requirements are vague and difficult to quantify, overcompensation could lead to measures that have little or no positive impact.

4.11 Maintaining the current approach to Adaptive Management

4.11.1 Adaptive Management of compensatory measures is an approach to the delivery of compensatory measures where, if a measure is not functioning as expected or delivering what it is intended to, an adjustment is made to the measure, or the measure is replaced with a different measure. Having Adaptive Management measures identified early as part of developing appropriate compensatory measures supports effective and efficient delivery of compensation. Adaptive Management is an important tool in the identification and delivery of compensatory measures to ensure that compensation has adequately delivered against its objectives.

4.11.2 The Scottish Government is minded to maintain the current approach to Adaptive Management. However, they propose to provide additional guidance on Adaptive Management, particularly in relation to the implementation of wider measures.

4.11.3 The consultation asked, "Question 10 – Do you agree with our proposed approach to maintain the current approach to Adaptive Management but to include in subsequent guidance?"

4.11.4 The total number of responses in relation to maintaining the current approach to Adaptive Management was 35 from 1 individual and 34 organisations.

4.11.5 Table 11 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 11: The summary of responses in relation to maintaining the current approach to Adaptive Management

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	26	4	4	34	33
Offshore Wind Sector	9	1	0	10	10
Fishing Sector	3	3	2	8	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	4	0	1	5	5
Public Sector	4	0	1	5	4
Science and Research Communities	5	0	0	5	5
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	27	4	4	35	34
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	77.1%	11.4%	11.4%	NA	NA

4.11.6 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Requirements for Effective Adaptive Management (14 response)

It was raised that:

• Guidance should set clear expectations for:
  • Baseline setting and robust monitoring protocols;
  • Regular review intervals and decision points for intervention;
  • Defined triggers and contingency plans for corrective action; and
  • Governance arrangements, including responsibility and funding.
• Adaptive Management must be transparent, long-term, and subject to independent oversight.
• It should not be a substitute for robust project design or pre-impact measures, but a binding, enforceable mechanism for responding to underperformance or unexpected impacts.
• Adaptive Management should not be retracted in the event that a developer had overcompensated.

Triggers, Indicators, and Accountability (10 responses)

• There was a strong call for binding triggers (e.g., ecological indicators, thresholds) that require automatic adaptive actions if objectives are not met.
• Pre-agreed response plans and independent verification by statutory bodies (e.g., NatureScot) were recommended.
• It was raised that funding for Adaptive Management should be secured up front (e.g., through bonds).

Transparency, Learning, and Community Trust (4 responses)

Responses highlighted that:

• Actions, triggers, and performance data should be published in a public compensation register.
• Lessons learned from Adaptive Management should inform future measure selection and policy.
• Adaptive Management should deliver visible local benefits and support long-term monitoring and employment opportunities.

Integration with Wider Measures and Cumulative Impacts (9 responses)

• Stakeholders felt that guidance should clarify how Adaptive Management applies to wider measures and the Marine Recovery Fund.
• It was noted that Adaptive Management must account for cumulative impacts across multiple projects, not just isolated cases.
• Some respondents highlighted that similar approaches for UK/cross border measures are important in managing the National Site Network.

Challenges and Caveats (4 responses)

• Respondents raised that Adaptive Management must not be used to justify vague or speculative measures up front.
• There were concerns about monitoring challenges, especially for wider measures and the national MPA network.
• It was felt that guidance should be regularly reviewed and updated as experience grows.
• It was noted that the process for practically altering an already permitted compensation method needs to be clear.
• Stakeholders raised the risk that Adaptive Management becomes a procedural formality rather than a mechanism to ensure measurable ecological benefit.

4.11.7 The 34 responses to this question explained that Adaptive Management is essential for effective, accountable, and resilient compensation. It was raised that guidance must set clear, enforceable triggers, robust monitoring, transparent reporting, and independent oversight, ensuring that compensation measures adapt to real-world outcomes and deliver ecological and community benefits.

4.12 Guidance for monitoring and governance

4.12.1 Monitoring and evaluation are important components of evidence-based policy making, to ensure that policies are achieving their purpose and aims. To ensure successful implementation of the policy, the Scottish Government proposes a framework be developed to monitor and evaluate the policy against its purpose and aims.

4.12.2 The following approaches are being considered:

• EAR SSI and Guidance Review Clause – the Scottish Government are considering options on the method and regularity of reviewing the EAR SSI and guidance;
• Governance Framework for Strategic Compensation in Scotland – the Scottish Government are considering the establishment of a technical advisory group which could provide advice and support on the selection and implementation of strategic compensation for offshore wind in Scotland;
• Role of SNCBs – the Scottish Government proposes clarifying in guidance the roles and responsibilities of SNCBs in implementing this policy and proposed legislative reforms in Scotland; and
• Public Compensation Register – the Scottish Government supports collaboration on a UK-wide register rather than the establishment of a Scottish-specific register.

4.12.3 The consultation asked, "Question 11 - Do you agree with our proposed approach, for inclusion in subsequent guidance, for monitoring and governance of the proposed policy?"

4.12.4 The total number of responses in relation to guidance for monitoring and governance was 36 from 1 individual and 35 organisations.

4.12.5 Table 12 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 12: The summary of responses in relation to guidance for monitoring and governance

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	26	5	2	33	35
Offshore Wind Sector	9	0	1	10	10
Fishing Sector	4	2	1	7	8
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	4	2	0	6	6
Public Sector	3	0	0	3	4
Science and Research Communities	5	1	0	6	6
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	27	5	2	34	36
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	79%	15%	6%	NA	NA

4.12.6 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Robust Monitoring for Real Outcomes (18 responses)

Stakeholders raised that:

• Monitoring must go beyond compliance, tracking real ecological improvements using meaningful, site-specific indicators.
• Long-term monitoring should be embedded in project design, with regular reviews, public reporting, and clear responsibilities for follow-up actions.
• Further detail is required regarding who would undertake the monitoring programme, and against what standards and thresholds.

Strong, Transparent Governance (25 responses)

Responses noted:

• Governance frameworks should clarify roles and responsibilities among developers, regulators, marine managers, communities, and statutory bodies.
• Effective governance requires independent oversight, public reporting, and mechanisms for Adaptive Management and enforcement.
• There was support for a technical advisory group with balanced representation (industry, SNCBs, NGOs, academia, and community stakeholders).
• Governance frameworks must include statutory representation of the fishing industry, consistent with co-management principles under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Governance must include statutory representation affected sectors such as the fishing industry to ensure fairness and legitimacy.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement (7 responses)

• It was felt that communities, especially those in energy-hosting regions, should have a voice in governance and oversight.
• Regional transparency and public compensation registers were raised as essential for building trust and ensuring local benefits.

Integration with Adaptive Management (6 responses)

• Responses noted that monitoring results must feed directly into Adaptive Management, triggering corrective actions when needed.
• Legal and financial safeguards (e.g., bonds) are seen as needed to ensure compensation measures are sustained over the long term.

Review and Iteration (5 responses)

• Guidance and governance frameworks were raised as needing regular review (ideally more frequently than every five years) to adapt to new evidence, climate impacts, and practical experience.
• There was a call for iterative, adaptive guidance as the policy matures.

Fairness and Representation (11 responses)

Responses raised:

• Governance must include statutory representation of affected groups as detailed under ‘Strong, Transparent Governance’ to ensure the fairness of newly introduced policies.
• Developers should have a minimal role in governance to avoid conflicts of interest.

Resourcing and Capacity (2 responses)

• It was seen that delivering robust monitoring and governance will require additional resources for statutory bodies and technical advisory groups.
• Funding mechanisms (cost recovery, consenting fees, government support) were raised as needed to ensure effective implementation.

4.12.7 From the 36 responses for this question, there was support for robust, transparent monitoring and governance frameworks that ensure compensation measures deliver ecological outcomes, adapt to new evidence, and involve communities and stakeholders at every stage. Independent oversight, regular review, and adequate resourcing have been raised as essential for building trust and ensuring long-term success.

4.13 Public register of compensatory measures across the UK

4.13.1 The aim of this register would be to track the impacts of proposed compensation being delivered across the UK on the protected site network. This would help inform decision-making on the choice of measures to be taken forward as strategic compensation, as well as help to identify areas of synergies for delivery of measures and any cost savings that may be able to be made.

4.13.2 Such a register could align with monitoring plans for data collection and sharing, contributing to a better understanding of effective measures and informing future decisions.

4.13.3 The Scottish Government welcomed views on the benefit of such a register, and whether stakeholders consider a Scotland-specific register is required.

4.13.4 The consultation asked, "Question 12 - We are aware that the UK Government are consulting on a proposal to introduce a public register of compensatory measures across the UK. The Scottish Government supports collaboration on a UK-wide register rather than the establishment of a Scottish-specific register. Do you agree?"

4.13.5 The total number of responses in relation to a UK wide register was 37 from 1 individual and 36 organisations.

4.13.6 Table 13 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 13: The summary of responses in relation to a UK wide register

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	1	0	0	1	1
Organisations	28	5	2	35	35
Offshore Wind Sector	9	1	0	10	10
Fishing Sector	4	2	2	8	7
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	5	0	0	5	5
Public Sector	5	0	0	5	5
Science and Research Communities	5	1	0	6	7
Political parties	0	1	0	1	1
Total	29	5	2	36	36
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	80.6%	13.9%	5.6%	NA	NA

4.13.7 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• UK-wide vs. Scotland-specific Public Compensation Register (20 responses)
  • There was broad support for a UK-wide register to track compensatory measures for offshore wind and marine impacts, citing benefits like transparency, efficiency, and strategic planning.
  • Many responses stressed the need for regional transparency and the ability to disaggregate data by geography (e.g., Scottish waters, Highland communities) to ensure local accountability and visibility.
  • There was concern that a shared UK register risks obscuring Scotland’s distinct legal frameworks, strategic priorities, and its commitment to the Scottish public to lead on nature recovery and climate action.
• Safeguarding Scottish Interests (13 responses)
  • Concerns were raised that a UK-wide register could obscure Scotland’s distinct commitments, unique features, and communities.
  • There was a call for Scotland-specific requirements and the ability to reserve compensatory capacity for Scottish projects, preventing external projects from "using up" measures in Scottish waters.
  • Some respondents commented that while the register itself could be UK-wide, its application must allow for jurisdictional flexibility and ensure that decision-making remains aligned with Scotland’s specific ecological and policy landscape.
• Transparency, Accountability, and Public Trust (13 responses)
  • It was felt that the register should be publicly accessible, presented in plain language, and include comprehensive data: project details, developer, impacted features, location, outcomes, monitoring results, and adaptive actions.
  • Independent validation and regular updates were seen as essential for building trust and ensuring effectiveness.
  • Respondents detailed that there should be regular reporting, perhaps on an annual basis, and that this should be shared in spaces such as MEDIN. Suggestions also included hosting the register with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), ensuring independent scientific monitoring, and integrating with Scotland’s monitoring and governance frameworks.
  • There were concerns regarding deviating from established practice for conservation across the UK and Scotland.
  • A UK wide register was raised as useful for transparency, but it must not mean that Scottish waters are used to offset damage from projects elsewhere.
• Collaboration and Cross-border Coordination (12 responses)
  • Collaboration across the UK was seen as sensible, especially for mobile species and transboundary impacts and potential benefits.
  • Technical collaboration (e.g., data standards and infrastructure, cross-border queries) was welcomed, but it was raised that it must not compromise Scotland’s autonomy or visibility in environmental governance, and existing Scottish legal commitments.
• Annual Reporting and Cumulative Accounting (5 responses)
  • Annual reporting on the cumulative impacts of offshore wind and compensation measures was recommended to assess the overall condition of MPAs and ecosystem functioning. It was raised that reporting can inform where greater interventions are required.
• Stakeholder Engagement and Fairness (6 responses)
  • Responses raised that representatives of the sectors concerned, particularly commercial fishing, must be able to access the information, be consulted on its interpretation, and contribute to feedback.
  • There was concern about compensation measures being taken up in Scottish waters from projects occurring elsewhere in the UK. This includes in remote Scottish communities, highlighting the need for fairness and local benefit.
  • Regional transparency, independent validation, enforceable links to consents, and cumulative accounting were raised as essential to maintain trust and ensure fairness.

4.13.8 From the 36 responses, overall, there was support for a UK-wide public compensation register instead of a solely Scottish register, provided it delivers regional transparency, safeguards Scottish interests, and includes robust mechanisms for accountability, stakeholder engagement, and cumulative impact assessment. Collaboration was raised as essential, but Scotland’s autonomy, unique features, and local benefits must be protected.

4.14 Applying a common framework for compensation

4.14.1 The Energy Act 2023 gives the Scottish Ministers powers to amend the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 in addition to the Habitats Regulations. Taking this approach would potentially mean that the Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB) test underpinning Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NCMPA) assessments would be removed and aligned with the proposals to enable wider measures to support a consistent approach to compensatory measures across Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for offshore wind.

4.14.2 The Scottish Government is not currently minded to extending the policy set out in this consultation (including proposed legislative amendments) to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. However, the Scottish Government welcomed views on whether this approach should be taken.

4.14.3 The consultation asked, "Question 13 - Scottish Government are assessing the option of applying a common framework for compensation of offshore wind by extending the proposed amendments set out in this policy to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Do you think the reformed approach should be extended to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010?"

4.14.4 The total number of responses in relation to applying a common framework was 30 from 1 individual and 29 organisations.

4.14.5 Table 14 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 14: The summary of responses in relation to applying a common framework

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0	0	1	1	1
Organisations	11	11	7	29	27
Offshore Wind Sector	8	0	1	9	9
Fishing Sector	0	4	3	7	6
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	0	4	0	4	4
Public Sector	2	2	0	4	3
Science and Research Communities	1	1	2	4	4
Political parties	0	0	1	1	1
Total	11	11	8	30	28
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	37%	37%	26%	NA	NA

4.14.6 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

• Consistency and Integration Across Frameworks (20 responses)
  • Some stakeholders supported extending the approach for consistency and strategic delivery, while others opposed it, fearing loss of site-specific protections and increased complexity.
  • Risks of legal uncertainty were raised and over-complication, without protecting fishermen.
  • Responses highlighted the benefits of a common compensation framework across offshore wind and marine licensing, citing clarity, consistency, and efficiency for developers, regulators, and communities.
  • Alignment with the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, Blue Economy Vision, and Just Transition principles was seen as a way to create a more integrated, forward-looking system of marine governance.
• Safeguarding Scotland’s Distinctive Approach (3 responses)
  • There was strong emphasis on preserving the distinctive commitments of the Marine (Scotland) Act, including sustainable development, ecosystem-based management, and protection of marine natural heritage.
  • It was raised that any extension of the compensation framework must reflect Scotland’s devolved policy priorities and not weaken environmental safeguards or make compensation a default for enabling damaging development.
  • Respondents felt that reforms must be responsive to the specific needs and values of Scotland’s people and nature.
• Precautionary and Strategic Use of Compensation (4 responses)
  • It was seen that compensation should only be used when avoidance and mitigation are insufficient, and must deliver measurable, long-term ecological gains.
  • There was concern that extending the framework could dilute site-specific protections, especially for MPAs, by allowing "wider measures" that may not directly benefit the impacted feature. It was felt that wider measures must not be used to justify permanent loss of habitat or species.
  • Some respondents noted that the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 already provides provision for MEEB.
• Safeguards and Oversight (3 responses)
  • Responses raised that reforms must remain transparent and science led.
  • If extended, it was noted that reforms must include:
    • No weakening of existing standards;
    • Independent oversight by statutory nature bodies;
    • Regional transparency and public registers;
    • Developer-pays principle for compensation and monitoring; and
    • Integration with marine planning and local ecological benefit.
  • Current MEEB requirements were raised as providing an important safeguard by ensuring that compensation for damage to MPAs is targeted directly at the specific feature impacted.
  • There was a call for further consultation, clarity, and evidence before making legislative changes.

4.14.7 In the 28 responses, there was broad recognition of the value in a consistent, integrated compensation framework for marine licensing, but strong caution that any extension must preserve Scotland’s distinctive environmental safeguards, maintain site-specific protections, and include robust oversight and transparency. The debate centred on balancing efficiency and strategic delivery with the need to protect local ecosystems and community interests.

4.15 Effects on island communities

4.15.1 Islands face particular challenges around distance, geography, connectivity and demography. It is therefore important that policy making considers the effects on island communities.

4.15.2 The consultation asked, "Question 14 - Do you think that this policy will have an effect on an island community which is different from its effect on other communities (including other island communities)?"

4.15.3 The total number of responses in relation to the effect on island communities was 28 which was from 28 organisations. No individuals responded to this question.

4.15.4 Table 15 shows the number of respondents from both the short and long answer parts for this question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 15: The summary of responses in relation to the effect on island communities

Respondent Type	Yes	No	I don’t know	Total Short Answer Responses	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0	0	0	0	0
Organisations	6	3	14	23	22
Offshore Wind Sector	0	2	3	5	6
Fishing Sector	2	0	5	7	5
Other Marine Industries	0	0	0	0	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	0	0	2	2	2
Public Sector	2	1	2	5	5
Science and Research Communities	1	0	2	3	3
Political parties	1	0	0	1	1
Total	6	3	14	23	22
Percentages of Yes/No/I don’t know	26%	13%	61%	NA	NA

4.15.5 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Disproportionate Impacts on Island Communities (6 responses)

• Responses noted that island residents may experience both positive and negative effects from marine policy changes and compensatory measures for offshore wind.
• Opportunities raised included local jobs, engagement, and biodiversity recovery, but risks involved competition for marine space, disruption of traditional practices (e.g., fishing, seaweed harvesting), and decision-making that feels remote or imposed.
• Responses highlighted that island communities play a disproportionate role in hosting renewable energy infrastructure and are also often the centre of ecological sensitivities (e.g., seabird colonies). It was therefore raised that the policy has a disproportionate effect on island communities compared with mainland communities.

Barriers to Participation and Governance (2 responses)

Responses raised:

• Island communities face greater barriers to participating in consultations and governance due to remoteness, digital connectivity issues, or limited access to administrative or technical capacity.
• Additional funding should be provided to enable island communities to engage meaningfully in governance, monitoring, and stewardship.

Ecological and Socio-economic Sensitivities (6 responses)

Stakeholder flagged:

• Island ecosystems and economies are often closely tied to specific marine features and designated sites (e.g., SPAs, SACs), which may be directly exposed to offshore wind related pressures.
• Compensation measures may have outsized ecological and socio-economic impacts, both positive (e.g., tourism, restoration) and negative (e.g., loss of species, impacts to fishing, disruption of local economies).
• There may be a significant socio-economic value of an MPA and its qualifying features to an island community (e.g., revenue from tourism associated with bird watchers). Wider compensatory measures may not be suitable in such cases.
• Siting of compensation projects or habitat restoration in island waters may bring opportunities for local engagement, jobs, and biodiversity recovery.
• Island communities are often heavily reliant on the maritime economy, and if an economic activity (e.g., fishing) is likely to be impacted by the compensatory measures, then the impact will potentially be larger than elsewhere.
• Compensation should be designed with island contexts in mind, supporting community-led stewardship, economic resilience, and biodiversity co-benefits.

Transparency, Fairness, and Just Transition (2 responses)

• Views expressed that the public register of compensation measures should clearly identify those applied to island environments, ensuring transparency and accountability.
• Responses raised that policies must reflect the greater exposure and vulnerability of island communities, supporting fairness and the principles of a Just Transition.
• To enable local economic benefits, it was highlighted that priority should be given to commissioning local contractors, community organisations, and research groups based on the islands.

Case-by-case Assessment and Ongoing Engagement (3 responses)

• It was felt that the impact on island communities will vary and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Ongoing engagement with island communities was recommended to ensure that compensation measures are appropriate and beneficial.

4.15.6 From the 22 responses to this question, there was a view that island communities are likely to be affected differently—and often more intensely—by offshore wind compensation policies. To ensure fairness and maximise benefits, it was raised that policies must be tailored to island contexts, support local capacity and stewardship, and provide transparent, accountable mechanisms for tracking and delivering compensation. Ongoing engagement with island communities was recommended to ensure that compensation measures are appropriate and beneficial.

4.16 Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

4.16.1 A BRIA has been completed to assess the potential impacts of the Strategic Compensation Policy on businesses and regulatory processes.

4.16.2 The consultation asked, "Question 15 - Do you have any comments on the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment?"

4.16.3 The total number of responses in relation to the partial BRIA was 29.

4.16.4 Table 16 shows the number of respondents to the long answer question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 16: The summary of responses in relation to comments on the partial BRIA

Respondent Type	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0
Organisations	29
Offshore Wind Sector	8
Fishing Sector	8
Other Marine Industries	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	5
Public Sector	5
Science and Research Communities	2
Political parties	1
Total	29

4.16.5 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Local Economic Opportunities & Just Transition (2 responses)

It was raised that:

• Compensation projects should generate local economic benefits (e.g., habitat restoration contracts, monitoring roles, eco-tourism), and these should be intentionally built into the strategy as part of a Just Transition.
• The BRIA should reflect the principle that Scotland’s natural environment is a shared public asset, delivering clear, equitable, and lasting benefits for biodiversity and people.
• The BRIA should highlight the green skills and economic opportunities for host regions like the Highlands.

Transparency, Trust & Public Engagement (5 responses)

• Strong regulatory design and community engagement, alongside biodiversity gains, were raised as essential for long-term public and investor confidence.
• There was concern that lack of transparency or meaningful engagement (especially with fisheries) risks eroding trust in environmental governance and net zero delivery.
• Some respondents commented that the BRIA acknowledges potential harm to fisheries but failed to involve fishermen in policy development, undermining fairness and transparency.

Impacts on Fisheries & Coastal Economies (7 responses)

• Impacts on stock health, revenues, and community viability were highlighted to remain unquantified, leaving fishing communities exposed.
• Respondents felt that the assessment should consider not just vessel-level impacts but also knock-on effects for shoreside businesses, ports, and the broader supply chain.
• Concern was raised that the potential impact of compensatory measures on the fishing industry had not been given proper consideration.

Regional & Community-Specific Effects (2 responses)

Responses raised that:

• The Highlands and island/coastal communities bear disproportionate exposure to both impacts and opportunities from offshore wind infrastructure.
• The BRIA should better reflect regional distribution of impacts, support Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) and community capacity, and ensure monitoring and compliance costs remain with developers.

Monitoring, Governance & Resource Needs (4 responses)

• Concerns about whether the BRIA fully accounts for the level of monitoring and enforcement required were raised, and whether there are sufficient resources for agencies like the Marine Directorate and NatureScot.
• Respondents flagged that costs of independent monitoring, audits, and register maintenance must not be transferred to communities or local authorities.

Balancing Biodiversity & Energy Policy (4 responses)

• It was highlighted that there must be a balance between biodiversity protection and energy policy; compensation should not disguise or justify adverse effects on species or habitats.

Strategic Compensation & Cumulative Burden (3 responses)

• Stakeholders noted that the BRIA should consider the benefits of strategic compensation in reducing cumulative regulatory burdens and project delays, while ensuring ecological effectiveness.

4.16.6 The 29 responses showed that the BRIA was a positive step, but stakeholders felt that it needs to be strengthened to fully capture local economic opportunities, regional needs, and the impacts on fishing and coastal communities. Responses dew out that it must ensure transparency and fair engagement, and that costs and risks should not be shifted to communities. A need to balance biodiversity protection with energy policy goals was highlighted.

4.17 Strategic Environmental Assessment

4.17.1 A SEA has been completed to assess the potential impacts of the Strategic Compensation Policy on the environment.

4.17.2 The consultation asked, "Question 16 - Do you have any comments on the Strategic Environmental Assessment?"

4.17.3 The total number of responses in relation to the SEA was 27.

4.17.4 Table 17 shows the number of respondents to the long answer question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 17: The summary of responses in relation to comments on the SEA

Respondent Type	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0
Organisations	27
Offshore Wind Sector	8
Fishing Sector	7
Other Marine Industries	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	4
Public Sector	4
Science and Research Communities	3
Political parties	1
Total	27

4.17.5 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Emphasis on Ecological Outcomes & Climate Resilience (3 responses)

• It was recommended that the SEA should focus more on delivering net benefits to biodiversity, climate resilience, and strategic environmental gain.
• Contributors raised that compensation measures should align with Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and climate commitments, supporting habitat connectivity, species recovery, and blue carbon storage.
• One public body explicitly outlined their support for the implementation of robust safeguards to ensure that the essential and diverse range of features found in UK waters continue to be adequately protected within the network, so the environment does not become homogenous.

Cumulative Impacts & Time-Lag Risks (6 responses)

• Respondents raised that the SEA must better assess cumulative impacts from multiple offshore wind projects and time-lagged benefits of compensation, as delayed ecological outcomes or overlapping pressures can lead to net environmental decline.
• Use of the precautionary principle, overcompensation, and robust long-term monitoring was recommended to ensure positive environmental balance.

Potential Negative Effects of Compensation Measures (8 responses)

• There was concern that compensatory measures themselves (e.g., bioengineering projects) can have unintended adverse ecological impacts.
• It was raised that the SEA should explicitly consider risks such as spatial squeeze (competition for marine space), displacement of activities, and impacts on fisheries data collection and sustainable management.

Holistic & Strategic Policy Alignment (3 responses)

• Stakeholders felt the SEA should more clearly align with broader marine policy objectives, including Scotland’s Blue Economy Vision, MPA commitments, and nature-positive goals.
• Strengthening cross-referencing with the Climate Change Plan and Biodiversity Strategy was flagged.

Governance, Transparency & Community Interests (2 responses)

Responses raised:

• Transparent monitoring, public registers, and community participation in monitoring are essential for accountability and trust.
• The SEA should recognise the cultural, recreational, and economic value of healthy marine ecosystems, especially for coastal and island communities.
• The SEA should highlight opportunities for local communities, universities, and SMEs to participate in monitoring and restoration, turning compensation into tangible local benefit.
• Fairness and transparency are vital for community confidence, especially in regions with high development intensity.

Alternatives, Options Appraisal & Baseline Data (4 responses)

• It was noted that the SEA should consider alternative policy options and ensure robust comparison of scenarios.
• Investment in baseline science (e.g., seabird, prey, and benthic habitat data) was raised as being needed for credible compensatory measures.
• Inclusion of a comparative analysis of strategic versus project level compensation was encouraged.

4.17.6 Overall, the 27 responses welcomed the preparation of the SEA, recognising it as a valuable tool to support the development of policy and guidance. Some respondents commented that it could be strengthened to address cumulative impacts, time-lag risks, potential negative effects of compensation, and the need for robust governance, transparency, and local engagement.

4.18 Other comments

4.18.1 The consultation asked, "Question 17 - Do you have any other comments on our proposals described in the consultation paper?"

4.18.2 The total number of responses in relation to any further comments was 32.

4.18.3 Table 18 shows the number of respondents to the long answer question, as well as the breakdown of responses per sector.

Table 18: The summary of responses in relation to any other comments

Respondent Type	Total Long Answer Responses
Individuals	0
Organisations	32
Offshore Wind Sector	9
Fishing Sector	8
Other Marine Industries	0
Environmental Non-Government Organisations	3
Public Sector	5
Science and Research Communities	6
Political parties	1
Total	32

4.18.4 Prominent topics that arose in the long answer responses included:

Strategic Compensation as a Tool for Net Positive Outcomes (5 responses)

• There was support for positioning compensation not just as legal compliance, but as a means to deliver climate mitigation, biodiversity enhancement, and public benefit.
• Respondents felt that compensation should deliver measurable net positive outcomes, prioritise multi-benefit actions (e.g., habitat restoration supporting fisheries, carbon storage), and align with national priorities like the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and Just Transition goals.
• If wider compensation measures are to be used it was expressed that they will need to be delivered at large scales, in order to be effective at delivering greater ecological benefit to the MPA network.

Equity, Inclusion, and Community Benefit (5 responses)

It was raised that:

• Policies must embed equity and inclusion, ensuring coastal and island communities are engaged and receive tangible economic and environmental benefits.
• Community wealth building, local participation in monitoring and stewardship, and regional fairness are emphasised, especially for the Highlands and other areas hosting significant infrastructure.
• Commercial fishing must be integrated fully as a stakeholder in the defining, implementation, and monitoring of compensation measures.
• Proposals should include regional fairness safeguards, ensuring that measures tied to Highland impacts are delivered within Highland waters wherever ecologically coherent.

Legal, Procedural, and Governance Challenges and Implementation Consideration (17 responses)

• There was uncertainty about how new compensatory measures will be incorporated into existing consents and how the Compensation Hierarchy will be enforced for projects already in progress.
• There were calls for clear, statutory guidance, robust safeguards, and transparent, democratic decision-making, especially regarding the role of SNCBs and Scottish Ministers.
• Some respondents commented that there should be legal guarantees of compensation for fishing losses, aligned with EU precedents.
• Respondents raised the criticality of Scottish and UK policy aligning and for guidance to be very clear on the application for projects outwith 12 NM which come under the UK legislation.
• It was felt that project-led compensation should continue in parallel with the development and implementation of strategic, government-led Marine Recovery Fund (MRF) delivery to ensure no delays in the offshore wind project pipeline. Conversely, it was raised that delivery of compensation outside of the MRF may bring complications in terms of tracking availability and measuring success.
• Stakeholders expressed that measures that accelerate government action should not replace the need for developer-led compensation.

Precaution, Scientific Rigour, and Mitigation Hierarchy (10 responses)

• Many responses highlighted the need for robust application of the mitigation hierarchy, with compensation as a last resort.
• Concerns about excessive precaution in impact assessments leading to disproportionate compensation requirements were flagged, especially for seabirds, and the need for more pragmatic, evidence-based approaches.
• A moratorium on further offshore renewable energy licensing was raised until scientific baselines and monitoring frameworks are established.
• Harms to cetaceans and cetacean MPAs were discussed as being possible to manage through avoidance and reduction measures.
• There was a call for no uncertain measure to be validated as compensation until its effectiveness had been demonstrated.

Collaboration, Flexibility, and Plan-led Approaches (10 responses)

• There was support for collaborative, plan-led, and strategic approaches to compensation, including mechanisms for sharing or reallocating surplus compensation between projects.
• A need for clear guidance on transboundary impacts, cross-jurisdictional compensation, and collaborative delivery of measures was raised.
• It was expressed that compensation cannot be seen in isolation; there must be a broader Government-led strategy for marine spatial planning and seabird recovery.

Resourcing, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management (8 responses)

• There were concerns about the capacity of SNCBs and the need for additional funding and resources to avoid project delays.
• Emphasis on binding Adaptive Management triggers, long-term financial security (e.g., bonds), and robust monitoring frameworks was discussed. It was seen that monitoring the effectiveness of measures should also be strategic in nature.

Environmental Risks and Safeguards (6 responses)

• There were strong calls to retain like-for-like compensation wherever possible and avoid using "wider measures" as a substitute for effective mitigation or site-based protection.
• Compensation for highly mobile species (e.g., cetaceans) was seen as unviable and that avoidance and mitigation should be prioritised.
• One respondent saw Offshore Wind Environmental Standards as an essential tool in limiting the impacts on protected sites and features from offshore wind and associated infrastructure.
• Potential was raised for the European site network to be negatively impacted if moves to Tier 3 wider measures are normalised as a first step.
• There was caution against wider measures being proposed, developed or delivered by individual projects, or industry.
• Safeguards to protect the MPA network to be stipulated in legislation was called for.

Integration with Broader Policy and Climate Goals (4 responses)

Responses raised:

• Compensation policy should integrate with marine spatial planning, climate and nature targets, and ensure that measures contribute to restoration and resilience, not just offsetting loss.
• There is a need for a national cumulative management framework and for compensation to support broader ecological and social outcomes.
• Guidance must clarify how compensation interacts with Biodiversity Net Gain, Marine Net Gain, and marine planning obligations.

Transparency, Trust, and Stakeholder Engagement (13 responses)

• It was felt that the consultation process and policy implementation must be transparent, inclusive, and responsive to stakeholder input, especially from fisheries and local communities.
• There were concerns about rushed consultations, lack of engagement, and the risk of undermining trust if decisions are pre-announced or not evidence-based.
• Strengthened marine governance frameworks were called for with statutory fishing sector representation.

4.18.5 The 32 responses to this question presented support for a strategic, flexible, and community-focused approach to compensation for offshore wind impacts; one that delivers net positive outcomes for climate, biodiversity, and people. However, there were concerns about legal clarity, procedural fairness, resourcing, and the risk of undermining marine protections or community trust if reforms are not carefully designed and implemented. It was raised that the consultation process and policy implementation must be transparent, inclusive, and responsive to stakeholder input, especially from fisheries and local communities.