Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 3 December 2025

As part of its ambition to make Britain a clean energy superpower, the government has committed to radically accelerate the deployment of offshore wind by 2030. An important step to achieving this will be helping to de-risk and accelerate planning decisions for offshore wind developers while protecting the marine environment. This is essential to the UK’s net zero ambitions and will play a vital role in addressing the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. By enabling faster deployment of offshore wind, these reforms will help deliver clean energy at scale while safeguarding marine ecosystems. The Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package (OWEIP) proposes reforms to help achieve these objectives. These include environmental compensatory measures reforms that will help provide developers with greater flexibility in fulfilling their environmental obligations while maintaining overall environmental protections.

From 22 July 2025 to 2 September 2025, Defra ran a 6-week public consultation on these environmental compensatory measures reforms. Concurrently, the Scottish Government ran a public consultation on associated proposed reforms for Scotland.  

This document provides a summary of the responses received, sets out the UK government’s response to the proposals and confirms the intended policy approach.

In the consultation, we asked people for their views on the proposed environmental compensatory measures reforms for offshore wind, including environmental safeguards and clarifying other aspects of compensatory measures for offshore wind development.

The consultation was hosted on the online platform Citizen Space, and responses could also be submitted by post and email.

Defra received 74 responses to the consultation. There were responses from:

• offshore wind developers
• offshore wind industry representatives
• statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) and other arm’s length bodies
• environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs)
• consultants
• academic organisations
• fishing industry representatives
• other, non-offshore wind, marine industries representatives
• individuals

Defra sought the advice of SNCBs when developing this policy and worked with devolved governments throughout the process to ensure UK-wide policy alignment. We have also worked closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).

About this analysis of responses

The consultation included 27 questions, with a mixture of:

• binary questions (‘yes’ or ‘no’)
• scale of agreement questions
• open text box questions

Most binary questions also included a text box where respondents could explain their answer.

In addition to responses through Citizen Space, we also received responses by email. The emailed responses were uploaded to Citizen Space, and the thematic analysis included those responses. 

This analysis did not only count how many respondents held a certain view. It also included thematic analysis of additional comments from respondents. This is to understand the range of important issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons for holding these views.

Defra used open coding to process and summarise the ideas submitted in the open text responses. This means themes were developed as they emerged directly from the responses. The approach involved reading each response line by line and capturing the points covered. It assigned the same level of specificity and importance to each point raised.

Each section of this document summarises the most common views and reflects where the views of respondent types were similar or different. The document is not an exhaustive list of all ideas provided by respondents, but it summarises the most common concerns and opinions. A range of qualitative terms are used, including:

• ‘most’ – when a majority of respondents have a similar view
• ‘many’ – when a substantial number of respondents have a similar view
• ‘some’ – when a reasonable number of respondents have a similar view
• ‘a few’ – when a small number of respondents have a similar view

These terms relate to the number of responses to the relevant question, rather than the total number of responses. Some respondents did not answer all questions, and some respondents answered closed questions but did not add more detail. These terms do not correspond numerically to the total number of respondents.

1. Enabling wider compensatory measures

Summary of responses

Most respondents supported the proposal to enable wider compensatory measures, recognising their potential to enhance the UK marine protected area (MPA) network and improve flexibility in offshore wind environmental compensation. Many felt that wider compensatory measures could enable strategic opportunities for nature recovery and better address the scale of ecological pressures on the UK MPA network. However, some respondents disagreed and did not support the use of wider compensatory measures, stating that compensatory measures should always focus on the impacted feature or location.

Some respondents stressed the importance of maintaining environmental principles and ensuring reforms do not compromise existing environmental protections. This is addressed further in section 4 ‘Environmental safeguards’. Some also requested a clearer distinction between processes under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) and processes under the Habitats Regulations and whether the reforms would be extended to Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). Others requested further guidance about the application of measures of equivalent environmental benefit (MEEB) under MCAA.

Many respondents called for clearer information on what would constitute a level of action with positive benefits ‘reasonably proportionate’ to the level of damage to the UK MPA network. Some felt the term ‘reasonably proportionate’ was vague and open to interpretation and suggested that guidance should include criteria based on ecological significance, rarity, and condition of the impacted feature. A few respondents proposed using alternative terms instead, such as ‘reasonably commensurate’, to deal with their concern that the term ‘proportionate’ would bring in socio-economic factors rather than only environmental considerations.

There was broad agreement that ecological benefit should be demonstrated through scientific evidence, with many respondents highlighting the importance of long-term monitoring, baselines, and adaptive management. Some respondents noted the difficulty of quantifying ecological benefit and suggested a more qualitative approach supported by quantitative elements. There was widespread support for using ‘best available’ scientific evidence to assess wider measures, but many felt that further guidance was needed to set out what this involves. A few respondents called for a ‘test and demonstration’ model to trial innovative measures.

Government response

Overarching approach to enabling wider compensatory measures

Defra acknowledges the mixed views received in response to our proposed approach to environmental compensatory measures. We also recognise the points raised by respondents regarding the need for clearer guidance. In developing these reforms, Defra remains committed to a proportionate and balanced approach that supports offshore wind deployment while protecting the marine environment. We believe that enabling greater flexibility in the design and delivery of compensatory measures, alongside re-emphasising the application of the mitigation hierarchy for offshore wind developments, will help enable environmental benefits without introducing unnecessary delays to consenting. Our approach is intended to be transparent, responsive to ecological need and supportive of broader nature recovery across jurisdictions.

Defra is firmly committed to protecting the UK’s MPA network and upholding our domestic and international environmental commitments. We recognise the importance of the marine environment both within and beyond MPAs. Our reforms are designed to support a more pragmatic and strategic approach to nature protection, while ensuring we are able to move towards more renewable energy which will in turn help protect marine environments by mitigating climate change and its associated impacts. While views on enabling wider compensatory measures were mixed, we maintain that such evidence-based flexibility can create new opportunities for ecological benefits and strengthening the overall resilience of the MPA network.

Offshore wind developers will continue to be required to assess their environmental impacts under existing regulatory regimes. These include Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs) for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and Ramsar sites, and MCZ assessments under the MCAA. This will ensure that protections remain robust. As set out in the Clean Power Action Plan, the government sees the clean energy transition as a critical opportunity to address the twin climate and nature crises. Our approach reflects this dual ambition.

Defra acknowledges the concerns raised by some respondents about the reforms to enable wider compensatory measures. We remain committed to implementing these changes, as they are essential to the government’s clean power mission and achieving net zero. Offshore wind provides us with secure, domestically generated electricity, and represents a core part of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Enabling offshore wind development accelerates the transition to renewable energy, which is critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lower emissions help mitigate climate change, a major driver of marine ecosystem degradation and habitat loss. The Clean Power Action Plan sets a capacity range for between 43 to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030 and we estimate that the offshore wind sector could support up to 100,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2030. Up to 24 GW of this capacity is likely to be dependent upon the environmental compensatory measures reforms. The reforms are essential to support clean power delivery by de-risking offshore wind consenting

However, we recognise the importance of ensuring that such reforms do not compromise environmental protections. To this end, we are putting in place robust safeguards that will be embedded in both legislation and guidance. These are discussed further in section 4 ‘Environmental safeguards’.

Demonstrating an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network

Defra has taken into consideration the requests for further clarity on how to demonstrate an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network. It has also addressed concerns over how to demonstrate the ecological benefit of a wider compensatory measure, particularly where it is difficult to quantify that benefit. There will be no changes to the overarching policy that wider compensatory measures must benefit the UK MPA network. Defra is reviewing suggestions on how to amend the criteria to demonstrate ecological benefit, and will respond by putting revised criteria in  guidance. For example, there will be a clearer distinction between necessary requirements, such as monitoring all measures for effectiveness, and optional approaches to demonstrate ecological benefits, like showing that a measure reduces pressures on the UK MPA network.  

Demonstrating that a compensatory measure delivers benefits ‘reasonably proportionate’ to the level of damage to the UK MPA network

Several consultation respondents asked for further information on how to demonstrate that a compensatory measure will deliver benefits reasonably proportionate to the level of damage to the UK MPA network. Defra does not anticipate that this test will be set out in the statutory instrument. However, we will include further information in guidance and outline a non-exhaustive list of considerations when demonstrating that a compensatory measure will deliver an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network. This could include:

• considerations of the scale of predicted impact and benefit
• the likely effectiveness of measures
• the conservation status of the relevant species and habitats
• any relevant conservation or action plans already in place

Defra has considered the suggestions for alternative terms to use, such as ‘reasonably commensurate’. However, the term ‘reasonably proportionate’ that was consulted on will be the concept that we base guidance on to help inform the statutory instrument. Defra recognises the specific concern raised by a few respondents that this term potentially brings in socio-economic considerations. The guidance will therefore be explicit that the test is only based on environmental considerations. Defra recognises both the calls for a precautionary approach to assessing whether a measure is reasonably proportionate and the calls to avoid a disproportionate approach that is overly burdensome to developers and plan promoters. What is reasonably proportionate will be case-specific, but guidance will provide a clear framework on how this will be assessed. Defra will expand on this in guidance, together with further information on how to demonstrate an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network.

Evidence requirements

Defra understands the potential difficulties in quantifying the benefit of certain compensatory measures. The proposal to use a compensatory measure (including a wider compensatory measure) must be informed by best available scientific evidence. This could be based on scientific and ecological principles, and the expert judgement of SNCBs. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments of benefit will be relevant to decisions on wider compensatory measures. Defra is aware that the standard or availability of evidence is expected to vary significantly depending on the measure, as is currently the case. Evidence requirements will therefore be measure-specific. Defra will not define in the guidance a set strict standard or threshold of evidence needed. However, the guidance will provide information to help developers and plan promoters understand what is needed to justify moving through the compensation hierarchy to wider measures.

Amendments to the Habitats Regulations only

Defra notes the requests for further certainty over whether the proposed reforms would make changes to the requirement for MEEBs in MCAA, in relation to damage to MCZs. The proposed legislative changes will only be made to the requirement for compensatory measures in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations (known collectively as the ‘Habitats Regulations’). There will be no changes to the MCZ MEEB approach under MCAA. We intend to cover this in our guidance.

Approach to guidance

Defra agrees with the calls from some respondents for an innovative and flexible approach to compensatory measures. The purpose of these reforms and the guidance is to enable such an approach without imposing rigid requirements. For example, the considerations on how to demonstrate an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network will not be limited to those listed in guidance. This will ensure a flexible approach that can evolve over time and guidance can be updated as needed.

Defra will continue to work with devolved governments in identifying important considerations and developing guidance in relation to how to demonstrate an ecological benefit to the UK MPA network.

2. Compensation hierarchy

Summary of responses

Respondents broadly supported the principle of a compensation hierarchy, with many recognising its value. However, views varied on how prescriptive the hierarchy should be and how it should be applied in practice.

Most of the respondents agreed with the proposal to introduce a compensation hierarchy through the statutory instrument requiring that measures benefiting the impacted feature be considered first. There were mixed views on the hierarchy’s flexibility and allowing tier 2 or 3 measures where tier 1 options are available. Many advocated for a sequential approach, with tier 1 measures exhausted in the first instance, and tier 3 measures only used in exceptional circumstances or as part of a package. However, many respondents preferred greater flexibility, supporting progressing to tier 2 or 3 measures provided a reasoned case is made and where there is greater ecological benefit to the UK MPA network. Some respondents saw flexibility as essential to support and not constrain offshore wind delivery. Others expressed concern that this could lead to bypassing more appropriate direct measures, citing their issues with the suitability of wider compensatory measures for impacts to protected sites. This is addressed further in section 3 ‘Approval and selection of wider measures’ and section 4 ‘Environmental safeguards’.

Many respondents requested detailed guidance on how the hierarchy should be interpreted and applied, including more clarity on the process for moving through the hierarchy. For example, the consultation set out that it may be appropriate to move through the hierarchy where there was a lack of available compensatory measures for that tier of the hierarchy. We outlined that measures would be considered available if they are considered feasible and likely to be effective. However, a few respondents found this ambiguous and requested additional information on how applicants could demonstrate that there are no measures available at the specific tier of the hierarchy.

More information was requested on how applicants could demonstrate that a wider compensatory measure delivers greater ecological benefit to the UK MPA network (including the evidence requirements). There were further calls for more information about the specific tiers of the hierarchy. Many respondents from multiple sectors requested detail about what could be considered a ‘similar’ feature at tier 2 and asked for clearer parameters around tier 2. There were also requests for further information around the governance and roles and responsibilities in assessing the appropriateness of progressing through the hierarchy. For example, in assessing a reasoned case that a wider measure will provide greater ecological benefit to the UK MPA network.

Government response

There was broad support for a compensation hierarchy. The compensation hierarchy is an important safeguard to ensure compensatory measures are appropriately applied. Developers will need to consider tier 1 measures first but can move to a wider measure when there is a greater ecological benefit to the MPA network or a measure is not available. Defra will include a legislative requirement for a compensation hierarchy in the statutory instrument with further detail set out in guidance.

Defra will include more detail on how the hierarchy should be interpreted and applied in guidance, including examples of acceptable compensatory measures. We will provide an updated case study that will demonstrate how the compensation hierarchy should be applied, as well as information on what happens at each tier of the hierarchy. We will also provide information on what might qualify as a reasonable case for proposing a tier 2 or tier 3 measure, even when a tier 1 measure is available.

Defra will provide further information on when a specific compensatory measure should be considered not available. Compensatory measures that are targeted towards the impacted feature (tier 1) must always be considered first. It may be appropriate to move to the next tier of the compensation hierarchy where there are no available compensatory measures at the previous tier (or where there is a reasoned case that a tier 2 or 3 measure would deliver greater ecological benefit to the UK MPA network). If there are no tier 1 measures available (either project-led measures or measures in the library of strategic compensatory measures (from now on referred to as ‘the library’) or equivalent repository of strategic compensatory measures) then the applicant should consider progressing through the hierarchy. Defra will outline in guidance when a measure may be considered as not available. We will also provide some non-exhaustive considerations related to feasibility and ecological effectiveness for understanding what could make a measure not available.

Defra acknowledges the request for further information about how applicants should demonstrate that a compensatory measure at tier 2 or tier 3 delivers greater ecological benefit than a measure higher up the compensation hierarchy. We have taken on board the feedback indicating that the quality of measures needs to be given greater consideration in this process as well as the concerns about potential difficulties in comparing benefit across tiers of the hierarchy. As outlined in section 1 ‘Enabling wider compensatory measures’, both quantitative and qualitative assessments of benefit will be relevant to decisions on wider compensatory measures. Defra will include in guidance a non-exhaustive list of factors that could be considered when determining whether a measure will have a greater ecological benefit. The quality of a measure, such as its contribution to recognised environmental objectives, is one of the considerations we are assessing. Guidance will also provide information on what should be included as part of a reasoned case and how to compare benefits across tiers.

Defra is aware that many respondents called for greater clarity on the terminology used to describe the tiers of the compensation hierarchy, and for a common cross-UK approach to this.  Defra has agreed with devolved governments to continue to work together to seek to align on the terminology around tiers, and the description and detail on these will be published in guidance.  Defra will also provide more detail on how to determine what qualifies as a ‘similar feature’ at tier 2. We recognise there is some complexity with defining ecologically ‘similar features’. We will include considerations for determining this in guidance, such as ecological function. We will also explain that similarity will be determined on a case-by-case basis using expert judgement.  SNCBs have indicated that they could develop principles to consider when informing how a measure would fall under a tier 2 ‘similar feature’ and this will be used to inform expert judgement and to facilitate decisions on when a measure would be considered ‘similar’.

Many respondents also called for greater clarity on other important terms, including ‘compensation’, ‘strategic compensation’, and ‘wider compensatory measures’. Defra will work with devolved governments to align and clarify terminology.

3. Approval and selection of wider compensatory measures

Summary of responses

Many respondents supported a structured process for developing new wider compensatory measures, but emphasised the need for transparency, stakeholder involvement, and scientific credibility. There were calls for a clear process for how new measures are proposed, assessed, and approved, including timelines and criteria.

The Marine Recovery Fund (MRF) was generally welcomed as a mechanism to support delivery of wider compensatory measures. However, there were different views on its governance and scope. Some respondents wanted greater transparency on how funds would be allocated and prioritised. Others raised concerns about transparency, developer influence, and alignment with strategic objectives.

Respondents were interested in how developers could propose wider compensatory measures, particularly in relation to the Collaboration on Offshore Wind Strategic Compensation programme (COWSC). COWSC brings together government representatives, SNCBs, eNGOs, offshore wind industry representatives, and devolved governments to work together in partnership to identify compensation measures. There was support for enabling developers to contribute ideas, but within a coordinated framework to avoid duplication or misalignment. Some called for a formal mechanism for submitting proposals and receiving feedback.

Government response

Defra notes the interest from respondents in understanding how new compensatory measures will be developed and how developers will be able to propose measures. We are in the process of finalising the approach, and we acknowledge the importance of providing clarity on these processes. Our current intention in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to use existing structures wherever possible, including COWSC. We will ensure that stakeholders, including offshore wind industry representatives, have the opportunity to be part of the development of measures. We are also considering how to engage best with affected users not currently represented on COWSC, such as the fishing industry. Final decisions on measures in the library will remain with the Secretary of State (or the Welsh Ministers or DAERA, in certain circumstances). Further information will be set out in due course, including our approach to developing new measures. We remain committed to ensuring that these processes are both transparent and inclusive and will continue to engage with stakeholders as the framework evolves.

Defra notes respondents wanted more information on the MRF and how it will work in practice, including how the how funds would be allocated and prioritised.  Further guidance on the MRF will be published when the fund is launched.  As set out in the consultation document, we continue to expect that wider compensatory measures will normally be delivered through the MRF.

The Scottish Government will operate and manage their own MRF and the details of this will be set out in due course.

DAERA is considering options for how wider compensatory measures could be delivered in Northern Ireland. The approach will be developed following public consultation.

4. Environmental safeguards

Summary of responses

Most respondents did not agree that the proposed environmental safeguards for wider compensatory measures are suitable. Of those who did support the safeguards, many indicated support for the safeguards provided that they are proportionate and not overly precautionary, as it was felt that excessive safeguards could hinder development and innovation. A few respondents emphasised the importance of compliance with international environmental obligations, including the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). There was concern about environmental regression, with some respondents warning that compensatory measures must not lead to a net loss in biodiversity or undermine existing protections. Some called for explicit safeguards to ensure that wider measures enhance, rather than just offset, environmental outcomes.

Most of the respondents agreed with the proposed approach to marine irreplaceable habitats (MIH) and supported the use of bespoke compensatory measures for MIH. Some responses also highlighted the various caveats associated with the criteria included in Natural England’s report which was referenced in the consultation, for example the risks associated with publishing a list of MIH. This led some respondents to emphasise that any list of MIH must be based on robust scientific evidence. In contrast, some respondents disagreed with the approach on the basis that existing legislation already provides sufficient protection. Many respondents called for consistency across UK jurisdictions.

The mitigation hierarchy was frequently referred to as a fundamental principle, with many respondents noting that compensatory measures should only be considered after avoidance and mitigation options have been fully explored. Some respondents felt that the mitigation hierarchy is not always fully exhausted in current practice.

Government response

International obligations

Defra has listened to the concerns raised by some respondents regarding the potential for environmental regression and the compatibility of the proposed reforms with international obligations, including those under the TCA. We are strongly committed to protecting the marine environment.  We are confident that our reforms will maintain environmental levels of protection and uphold our international obligations, including under the TCA. The reforms, which are part of the wider OWEIP, have been designed to ensure that compensatory measures are delivered in a more effective and strategic way while continuing to deliver positive outcomes for the environment. These reforms are also central to the UK’s net zero ambitions and the clean power mission, both of which are critical for protecting the marine environment from future impacts caused by climate change. Defra remains committed to continuing to protect and maintain the MPA network, which will involve ensuring full compliance with all relevant international obligations.

Marine irreplaceable habitats

Defra notes the strong support for protecting our most sensitive marine habitats and for a consistent UK-wide approach. Following discussions with SNCBs and devolved governments regarding the risks and challenges associated with publishing a fixed list of MIH, Defra has concluded that it would not be immediately practicable to do so. Given these challenges and to increase flexibility, there will be no prohibition on the use of wider compensatory measures for MIH. Instead, Defra will develop an approach to MIH for guidance which will set out how MIH should be factored into compensatory measure decisions. Among other considerations, this will focus on avoiding and mitigating impacts to MIH and will include SNCBs providing advice on appropriate compensatory measures for MIH on a case-by-case basis. In response to calls for consistency across jurisdictions, Defra will work with the Welsh Government to develop this approach. This approach will not apply in Scottish or Northern Irish waters.

Mitigation and Offshore Wind Environmental Standards

We agree that the mitigation hierarchy is a critical safeguard for offshore wind developments and the government expects developers and plan promoters to apply it fully and sequentially before the derogation stage. The requirement to first consider whether damage can be avoided, then reduced, then mitigated, remains essential and helps minimise the need for compensatory measures. We will set out in guidance that when a developer designs a plan or project, they must apply the mitigation hierarchy at all stages of its lifecycle. They must exhaust the possibilities of one level before moving to the next. Once established, Offshore Wind Environmental Standards (OWES) will provide standardised measures to support the avoidance, reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts of offshore wind developments in England and Wales. OWES will be an important way for developers to show they have effectively followed the mitigation hierarchy before exploring any required compensatory measures. OWES will be designed to target environmental impacts specific to each offshore wind leasing round and will be applicable to projects from Leasing Round 5 onward.

Furthermore, for the first time, government has given a strategic steer to The Crown Estate (TCE) on the key risks and issues associated with areas for potential future offshore wind development in the English waters. This strategic steer will help guide TCE in identifying suitable areas for future offshore wind lease areas which avoid the most environmentally sensitive areas (including birds).

5. Governance, role of SNCBs, monitoring and adaptive management

Summary of responses

Many respondents emphasised the importance of robust governance and transparency in decision-making. This consisted of calls for clearly defined roles and responsibilities, particularly regarding Ministerial approval of compensatory measures and monitoring.

Many respondents supported continued SNCB involvement in offshore wind planning and consenting. However, many also highlighted challenges around resource constraints and the capacity of relevant bodies to provide timely and effective advice to support the proposed reforms. Some respondents also called for a strong SNCB role in assessing the suitability of wider compensatory measures. Many requested clearer guidance on SNCB responsibilities, especially in relation to compensatory measures and the mitigation hierarchy, and for early engagement to help avoid delays.

Many respondents emphasised the importance of enhanced monitoring to ensure that wider compensatory measures achieve their ecological aims. Some respondents also encouraged a strategic approach to monitoring to understand cumulative impacts and track environmental recovery over time. There was support for developing OWES to guide consistent monitoring approaches across projects and regions.

There were calls for flexible regulatory mechanisms that allow for adjustments to compensatory measures based on monitoring outcomes. A few responses cautioned that adaptive management must not be used to justify under-delivery or delay in implementing agreed measures. Adaptive management was widely supported as a way to respond to uncertainties and evolving evidence. Some respondents also stressed the need for clear governance structures to oversee adaptive decisions.

Some respondents saw the MRF as a potential enabler of strategic monitoring and adaptive management. However, there were concerns about continuity of funding, prioritisation, and transparency in how MRF resources would be allocated to monitoring efforts.

Some respondents highlighted the need for alignment across UK nations. Concerns were raised about policy divergence, regulatory complexity, and potential barriers to cross-border projects. Some respondents called for greater alignment or at least clarity on how differing systems would interact. In particular, some respondents expressed interest in ensuring monitoring standards and adaptive management requirements are aligned. There were also some calls to link these broader initiatives such as the COWSC programme in England and Wales, to ensure coherence and avoid duplication.

Government response

Roles and responsibilities

Defra notes the calls for clearly defined roles and responsibilities and confirms that wider compensatory measures must be approved by the relevant Minister. This includes approval into the library. In response to respondents’ interest in clarifying the role of SNCBs under the proposed reforms, Defra recognises their important role throughout the offshore wind planning and consenting process and confirms that their existing statutory functions will remain unchanged. SNCBs will continue to provide advice on the mitigation hierarchy as well as on the design and ecological effectiveness of compensatory measures. Defra will re-confirm these responsibilities in guidance, including the importance of early engagement with SNCBs at the pre-application stage. Applicants and plan promoters will be expected to demonstrate how they have considered SNCB advice when applying the compensation hierarchy and proposing wider compensatory measures. In England and Wales, SNCBs will also contribute to the development of measures included in the library, advising on their ecological effectiveness. This will be laid out in guidance. Defra recognises concerns about resourcing and will work closely with their SNCBs to support effective delivery, and take prioritisation decisions where needed.

Monitoring

Defra agrees that strategic monitoring is essential for improving understanding of wider impacts of offshore wind, and thereby informing appropriate mitigation and compensation measures to provide positive impacts for biodiversity. Strategic monitoring will primarily be focused on improving spatial and temporal integration of data across offshore wind projects. Strategic monitoring will be implemented through an iterative approach, with the first phase aiming to provide strategic monitoring for the post-consent stages of development in time for Leasing Round 5 projects. Defra also recognises the importance of the monitoring of compensatory measures and will provide further information on this aspect of monitoring in guidance. We are not proposing changes to the way in which planning conditions are currently monitored.  We acknowledge there is considerable interest in making available the data from monitoring of compensatory measures.  We are exploring options for potential mechanisms for doing so, including potentially linking this data to the compensation register (which is covered in section 6).

Adaptive management

We note the request for further advice on adaptive management. The current process for adaptive management will continue to apply. For the avoidance of doubt, we will set out the existing process in the guidance and will explain how it is proposed to work with the MRF.

6. Review and public compensation register

Summary of responses

Most of the responses supported our recommendation that the legislation and guidance should be regularly reviewed. A few respondents would like the first review to take place earlier than the suggested date of 1 January 2032 to ensure any issues that arise in the meantime are addressed promptly.

There was broad support for a centralised register to track compensatory measures, with respondents highlighting benefits such as improving transparency for regulators, developers, and the public, avoidance of duplication and improved coordination, and monitoring of effectiveness and long-term outcomes.

Most respondents agreed the register should cover UK-wide measures, but some raised concerns. This included the need for clear delineation of responsibilities and data-sharing protocols across devolved governments.

Views varied on who should host the register. Some favoured a government department or statutory body for neutrality and authority. A few suggested a collaborative model, involving regulators, industry, and conservation bodies. A few responses proposed the MRF as a potential host or contributor.

There were some practical concerns, including the resource requirements for maintaining and updating the register and ensuring data quality and consistency across projects and regions. Some respondents recommended aligning the register with existing environmental databases or planning systems to reduce duplication and improve usability. There were also calls for interoperability with marine spatial planning tools and biodiversity monitoring platforms.

Government response

Defra welcomes consultees’ agreement that a review of the legislation and associated guidance in the future is necessary to assess the efficacy of the reforms. The review represents an important environmental safeguard, and Defra will therefore include a review clause in the statutory instrument. We anticipate that the first review will be scheduled for at least 5 years after the commencement date of the statutory instrument, with the option to conduct a review earlier if deemed necessary.

Defra notes the widespread support for a public register of environmental compensatory measures and is carefully reviewing the suggestions made on who should operate it and the data it should capture. The aim of a register would be to provide clarity to offshore wind developers on the compensatory measures already being delivered. It would also allow the government to maintain an overview of the deployment of compensatory measures across offshore wind projects and the MPA network. We will be exploring options for delivering the register, including holding discussions with potential operators, estimating the cost of different solutions, and identifying information the register should contain. Defra’s ambition for the register is to bring together information from across the UK while respecting the devolution of power. The Scottish Government also consulted on an approach that would be supportive of collaboration on a UK-wide compensation register.

7. Additionality

Summary of responses

Many respondents agreed that our proposals provide clarity on how to assess whether environmental compensatory measures are considered additional. However, responses also called for more detailed guidance on the definition and criterion of additionality, including:

• clarity on terminology
• more detail on who authorises and monitors the measures and how the effectiveness of compensatory measures will be assessed
• clear examples and baselines of what are considered normal site management measures

Some respondents said that the reforms risk creating blurred boundaries between statutory duties and compensatory measures. These included concerns about allowing measures already required for existing pressures to be used as environmental compensation to offset the new additional pressures created by offshore wind developments (also known as double counting).  

Some responses emphasised the need for better access to information on current management measures of MPAs and relevant duties and measures to establish whether their proposals would be considered additional.  

Government response 

Defra agrees that further clarity is needed on additionality and will provide this through guidance. This will include further information on what measures can be considered ‘additional’. For instance, additional measures:

• must be agreed with the public authority responsible for managing MPAs, as appropriate
• have regard to SNCB advice
• should go over and above existing government actions

Guidance will also clarify how measures can be delivered. For example, where compensatory measures could include additional funding to make normal site management measures effective more quickly. The guidance will also include definitions for terminology used and further information about normal site management measures, including examples.

Regarding concerns raised on double counting, Defra agrees that it is essential that conservation measures to manage existing pressures continue. However, the guidance will make clear that compensatory measures which may help MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives more quickly should be enabled. For example, this may include compensatory measures that cover normal site management but go beyond what government is able to do.

8. Timing of compensation

Summary of responses

Most respondents agreed that, in certain circumstances, it is acceptable for environmental compensatory measures to be operational after the impact has occurred. However, some disagreed with this, stating that compensatory measures should always be in place before the impact has occurred. Many respondents said there is a need for further clarity around this principle and the circumstances where post- impact compensatory measures can be allowed. Some responses also noted that terminology should be made clearer - such as defining what is meant by ‘operational’ and suggestions for alternate wording such as ‘functional’ to be used.  

Responses discussed the proposed approach for overcompensation, that is requiring a higher than one-to-one ratio of compensation. Many respondents highlighted the importance of this approach on the basis that a time lag in compensatory measures being operational increases environmental risk and so may require a higher compensation ratio. On the other hand, some respondents raised concerns that using an overcompensation approach would compound the perceived over-precautionary nature of approaches already being used.   

Some respondents stated that any time limits on environmental compensatory measures implementation should be placed in the guidance instead of the legislation. They stated the limits should not be set out in Developer Consent Orders (DCOs) or permits, citing fears of risks where compensatory measures are being delivered by third parties such as the MRF Operator (MRFO).  

A few respondents asked for clarity on whether both MRFO and developer-led measures would be able to become operational post-impact. Some noted the importance of enhanced monitoring and adaptive management, with a few noting the importance of transparency of monitoring and data. Some respondents from different stakeholder groups requested further consultation on applying this approach, including time limits, overcompensation ratios and monitoring for compensation post-impact, before these are agreed in the legislation or guidance. Additionally, a few respondents wanted more information about how the reforms would apply to live projects.

Government response

Defra agrees with feedback stating that provisions around setting time limits should not go in the statutory instrument. We have worked with DESNZ and SNCBs to understand existing legislation and practice and we are satisfied that there is already sufficient flexibility to enable the reforms to achieve their intended objectives. The guidance will therefore clarify existing regulations that the consenting authority may set a time limit on any time lag between the impact and environmental compensatory measures being in place. In response to concerns raised about when compensatory measures should be in place, we will be setting out further detail in guidance about what circumstances would be acceptable for post-impact compensatory measures, as well as clearer definitions of terminology. This will include identifying the most appropriate wording for compensatory measures being delivered (such as operational or functional) and defining what is meant by ‘secured’ and ‘in place’.

Regarding overcompensation, Defra is not changing the proposed approach that higher ratios of compensation may be required where a time-lag occurs or for measures that are less certain are necessary. This is to account for interim environmental losses between the impact occurring and the environmental compensatory measures being in place and operational. The guidance will set out that at the pre-application stage the applicant should engage with the relevant SNCB who will be able to advise on the ratio. In England and Wales, the SNCB will include this advice in their written representation to the examining authority.

Defra confirms that the reforms will be available to applicants and plan promoters who are already in the planning process.

9. Small impacts

Summary of responses

Many respondents asked for greater clarity regarding the proposed approach to small impacts. In particular, there were suggestions to provide more detailed guidance and to set clear thresholds. Some respondents felt that requiring compensatory measures for small impacts was overly precautionary and imposed a disproportionate regulatory burden, calling for legislative change to resolve this. Others acknowledged that although individual small impacts may seem negligible, their cumulative effect across multiple projects could be significant and therefore the impact still needs to be addressed. Some respondents agreed that paying into the MRF is a suitable delivery route for small impacts. However, concerns were raised that the MRF is not currently designed to accommodate small impacts.

Government response

Defra agrees with the suggestions for improving the effectiveness of compensatory measures for small impacts but does not consider that legislative changes are necessary to achieve this. Instead, the guidance will set out how small impacts should be compensated for. We have worked with DESNZ and SNCBs to explore ways to provide greater clarity. However, these discussions confirmed that, because small impacts are assessed on a case-by-case basis, setting fixed thresholds is not practical.  To ensure these impacts continue to be appropriately addressed whilst reducing the burden on applicants, guidance will set out how projects with small impacts will be able to apply to the MRF to discharge their compensation requirements. Defra recognises, however, that the MRF application process is currently tailored for larger scale impacts and will therefore explore options to make it more accessible for those wishing to use the MRF to compensate for small impacts. This is subject to a review of the projected small impacts of future offshore wind projects pipeline which will be carried out by the consenting authorities and SNCBs.

10. Interactions with other marine industries

Summary of responses

Fishing industry stakeholders expressed significant concerns about the cumulative spatial pressures from offshore wind and other marine activities. Amongst these stakeholders, the issue of spatial squeeze was mentioned frequently, with fears that compensatory measures, such as habitat creation or exclusion zones, could further restrict access to traditional fishing grounds. Fishers called for greater recognition of socio-economic impacts on coastal communities and small-scale fisheries. Fishing industry representatives also told us that they felt there had been limited engagement with the fishing industry during the consultation process.

Some participants from the wider marine industry, including representatives from the ports, aggregates, as well as the fishing sectors, asked why the proposed reforms apply only to offshore wind, and not to other marine industries. A few respondents warned that sector-specific reforms could lead to fragmentation and regulatory complexity, particularly where there is divergence across jurisdictions.

Government response

Spatial squeeze

Defra acknowledges the concerns raised by fishing industry representatives about cumulative spatial pressures from offshore wind and other marine activities.  We recognise that accelerating development of marine activities, and environmental protection and restoration measures, such as designating new MPAs, is intensifying spatial tensions.

More integrated decision making is essential to help reduce spatial pressures on marine users and this approach is integral to the Marine Spatial Prioritisation (MSPri) process. The government has used the MSPri process to provide direction to TCE on the significant risks and issues, including for fisheries, associated with areas for potential future offshore wind development in English waters. TCE has been actively engaging with the fishing industry to give them an opportunity to feedback on the areas identified as important by the government. This is helping TCE to identify future offshore wind areas, while avoiding the most environmentally sensitive areas and minimising impacts on other priority marine activities. It will also help to minimise overlaps between future offshore wind projects and other users of the sea.

Defra recognises that designating new MPAs, or extending existing MPAs as strategic compensation, may have an impact on the fishing industry. As outlined in Defra’s written ministerial statement published in January, we have committed to supporting the fishing sector to adapt to increased pressure in the marine space, and to work collaboratively with the industry to ensure sustainable development and long-term viability. We expect that the total area of new and extended MPAs required to compensate will be small in comparison to the tranches of MPAs previously designated and will work openly with the fishing sector as we move through the project. This includes a public consultation currently planned for late 2026.

Socio-economic impacts

Defra wants to work with the fishing industry to listen to their concerns throughout the MPA designation process. This will help us ensure their expertise and insights are represented, including to determine what support for the affected industry and coastal communities could look like. Through the Joint Fisheries Statement, the UK fisheries policy authorities are committed to collecting social data to inform decision making and management of marine and fisheries issues. The first Fishing Industry Social Survey (FISS) started in 2025, which includes data on the impacts of spatial squeeze. In addition, building on Marine Management Organisation scoping work, participatory mapping is currently being piloted with fishermen to assess social and cultural importance of England’s fishing grounds. As soon as these data collection exercises begin to report, the outputs will be considered in all relevant decisions and management (where appropriate).

Regulatory and sector coordination

Defra is also aware of concerns raised by EU member states whose fleets might be affected by the proposals and will ensure any future fisheries management measures are in compliance with our TCA obligations. This includes having regard to the principle of applying management measures that are proportionate and non-discriminatory.  

As set out in its draft updated Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy, the Scottish Government is also working with both the offshore wind and fisheries sectors to balance the interests of fishers and offshore wind energy developers.

DAERA has commissioned Seafish to evaluate the potential cumulative impact from offshore renewable energy development, MPAs, and other activities that may lead to displacement in the Irish Sea due to a reduction in available fishing grounds. The findings will contribute to the identification of suitable areas for offshore wind.

Sector specific reforms

The scope of the reforms was limited to offshore wind by the powers in the Energy Act 2023. The reforms are directed at the specific challenges related to environmental compensatory measures facing offshore wind developments in the context of the clean power mission.

11. Other themes

Summary of responses

Many respondents raised concerns about policy divergence across UK nations, particularly between Scotland and the rest of the UK. There were calls for greater alignment in how compensatory measures are developed, approved, and monitored across jurisdictions. Many respondents highlighted the risk of confusion or inefficiency for developers operating in multiple regions and called for clear guidance on cross-border coordination and responsibilities.

A few responses made forward-looking suggestions, suggesting that lessons from new approaches to offshore wind compensatory measures could inform broader marine policy reforms for wider marine industries. There was interest in exploring cross-sector funding models, shared mitigation strategies, and joint ecological enhancement projects.

Government response

Defra has worked closely with the devolved governments and their respective SNCBs throughout the development of environmental compensatory measures reforms. This collaboration aims to ensure that the UK statutory instrument and the Scottish statutory instrument and associated guidance align as far as possible.

While we have worked towards ensuring consistency across the UK, full alignment has not been possible in all areas due to differences in environmental governance and regulatory frameworks across administrations. In such cases, we have worked with the devolved governments to understand these differences while aiming for consistency in policy outcomes. Details of any policy divergence will be clearly set out in the accompanying guidance to ensure transparency and support consistent implementation across the UK.

12. Next steps

The UK government will draft and lay the secondary legislation required to implement the reforms to the Habitats Regulations, using the regulation making power in section 293 of the Energy Act 2023.

Defra will also publish guidance to accompany the legislation.