Offshore wind - strategic compensation policy: strategic environmental assessment - post adoption statement
Strategic environmental assessment post adoption statement for strategic compensation policy for offshore wind.
5 How the Opinions Expressed Have Been Taken into Account
5.1.1 Scottish Government held a consultation on the proposal from 22 July to 1 September 2025[16]. Views were invited on 17 questions in relation to the Strategic Compensation Policy (see Appendix B for full details).
5.1.2 In total, 43 respondents provided responses to the consultation, representing two individuals and 41 organisations. The respondent categories comprised: Offshore Wind Sector; Fishing Sector; Other Marine Industries; Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGOs); Public Sector; Science and Research Communities; and Political Parties.
5.1.3 The public consultation results regarding the proposed reformed approach to the Habitats Regulations for offshore wind to enable strategic and wider measures ranged from supportive, to supportive with conditions, to challenging. For the 13 short answer (‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘I don’t know’ responses), mixed views were present (Table 2). Support was greater (i.e., >70% ‘Yes’ responses) for the proposed approach to the additionality principle, adaptive management, monitoring and governance, and collaboration on a UK wide register.
| Question | Yes | No | I don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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? | 50% | 36% | 14% |
| 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? | 56% | 36% | 8% |
| 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? | 41% | 43% | 16% |
| 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? | 41% | 41% | 18% |
| 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? | 82% | 9% | 9% |
| 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? | 52.8% | 30.6% | 16.7% |
| 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? | 69% | 20% | 11% |
| 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? | 65.7% | 25.7% | 8.6% |
| Do you agree with our proposed approach to maintain the current approach to Adaptive Management but to include in subsequent guidance? | 77.1% | 11.4% | 11.4% |
| Do you agree with our proposed approach, for inclusion in subsequent guidance, for monitoring and governance of the proposed policy? | 79% | 15% | 6% |
| 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? | 80.6% | 13.9% | 5.6% |
| 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? | 37% | 37% | 26% |
| 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)? | 26% | 13% | 61% |
5.1.4 The following themes were highlighted across the responses:
5.1.5 Strategic, Evidence-Based Compensation
- There was broad support for compensation that delivers measurable, long-term ecological and community benefits—not just legal compliance or procedural box-ticking. It was felt that compensation should be strategic, ecosystem-scale, and aligned with Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy, climate goals, and marine policy frameworks.
5.1.6 Compensation Hierarchy & Additionality
- There was general support for a tiered compensation hierarchy which prioritised like-for-like (direct) compensation, with broader measures only as a last resort and never for convenience or cost-saving. It was seen that compensation must be genuinely “additional” - not relabelling existing obligations or double-counting.
5.1.7 Robust Monitoring, Adaptive Management & Governance
- Stakeholders expressed that monitoring must go beyond compliance, tracking ecological outcomes with clear, site-specific indicators and public reporting. Adaptive management was seen as essential with binding triggers, contingency plans, and regular reviews to ensure compensation adapts to real-world outcomes was called for. Responses raised that governance frameworks should be transparent, inclusive, and provide independent oversight, with clear roles for statutory bodies, communities, and technical advisory groups.
5.1.8 Community, Equity & Local Benefit
- It was felt that policies must embed equity and inclusion, ensuring coastal, island, and fishing communities are engaged, are not displaced, and receive tangible benefits (economic, environmental, stewardship roles). Stakeholders indicated that special attention is needed for island and remote communities, which face unique challenges and disproportionate impacts.
5.1.9 Transparency, Trust & Stakeholder Engagement
- Transparent processes, public registers, and thorough and proactive engagement with stakeholders (especially with fisheries and local communities) were seen as vital for building trust and legitimacy. There were concerns regarding the short time period for the consultation, perceived lack of engagement, and the risk of undermining trust if decisions are not evidence-based or are predetermined.
5.1.10 Legal Clarity, Policy Alignment & Safeguards
- A need for clear, statutory guidance and robust safeguards to avoid legal uncertainty, ecological dilution, or weakening of site-specific protections was flagged. Alignment with UK and Scottish policy frameworks was recognised as beneficial for cross-border projects and Marine Irreplaceable Habitats (MIHs).
5.1.11 Cumulative Impacts & Proportionate Responses
- There was a strong emphasis on assessing and managing cumulative impacts, including from multiple small or time-lagged effects, to avoid net environmental decline. Proportionate, case-by-case approaches were favoured, with clear definitions and thresholds for when compensation is required.
5.1.12 Overcompensation & Risk Management
- Overcompensation was generally supported as a risk management tool in cases of high uncertainty, time lags, or cumulative pressures, but it was felt that it must be evidence-based and not a default requirement.
5.1.13 Resource Needs & Capacity
- Responses highlighted that delivering robust compensation, monitoring, and governance will require additional resources for statutory bodies, technical groups, and communities. It was indicated that funding mechanisms should ensure costs are not shifted to communities or local authorities.
5.1.14 Regarding the SEA, 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.
5.1.15 Following the public consultation, in response to stakeholder feedback received, further policy development and detailed assessment of potential options was taken forward in collaboration with the UK Government, other Devolved Governments and UK-wide Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs). The finalised policy approach to be taken forward into the development of the legislation and guidance was agreed and informed the drafting of the OW EAR SSI and associated guidance.
5.1.16 Following consideration of the range of feedback on the content of the Strategic Compensation Policy, the proposed Habitats Regulations reforms for offshore wind will be taken forward largely as outlined in the consultation. A large amount of feedback received was in relation to calls for greater clarity and detail on elements of the policy proposals, which has been fully considered and will be addressed in the guidance.
5.1.17 The Scottish Government remains committed to progressing with the Habitats Regulations reforms for offshore wind at pace. The reforms will support meeting Ministerial commitments of delivering Scotland’s offshore wind ambitions, of combatting the climate and nature crises, and realising the significant economic opportunities of Scotland’s path to net zero. To achieve these ambitions, a reformed approach to the application of the Habitats Regulations for offshore wind will allow for a more practical and strategic approach to the delivery of environmental compensation.