Summary of responses and government response
Updated 13 October 2025
From 31 March 2025 to 12 May 2025, Defra ran a 6-week public consultation on the establishment of the Marine Recovery Fund (MRF).
The MRF will deliver industry-funded, strategic measures to compensate for unavoidable adverse effects of offshore wind developments on marine protected areas. The MRF will be an important part of streamlining the consenting process for offshore wind projects, while maintaining environmental protections. This will support the government’s clean power mission and its ongoing commitments to nature and domestic and international environmental obligations.
In the consultation, we asked people for their views on whether the proposed model for the MRF is a feasible and attractive option for offshore wind developers seeking strategic compensatory measures. We also wanted to know whether respondents thought the proposed operating model would speed up the consenting process for offshore wind developers whilst simultaneously protecting the marine environment.
The consultation was hosted on the online platform Citizen Space, and responses could also be submitted by post and email.
Defra received 43 responses to the consultation in total. There were responses from:
- industry
- environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs)
- statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs)
- other arm’s length bodies (ALBs)
- fishing trade bodies and research bodies
This document provides a summary of the responses received and sets out the UK government’s responses to each section of proposals.
About this analysis of responses
Our consultation included 35 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 through email. The emailed responses were uploaded to Citizen Space, and the thematic analysis included those responses. Not everyone answered all of the questions.
It is important to keep in mind that public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. As the MRF is only applicable to the offshore wind sector, the consultation was unlikely to engage the interest of the wider population or other industries. Because of this, this analysis does not only count how many respondents held a certain view. Instead, it also includes 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 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. The MRF application process
1.1 The application process and entry requirements
Summary of responses
The majority of responses supported the expression of interest (EOI) process. However, respondents also asked for more clarity on the process for:
- projects that do not require a Development Consent Order (DCO)
- projects that are already mid-way through the examination stage
- plan-level applicants
Respondents also asked for further streamlining of entry criteria.
Many respondents agreed with the elements of the process designed to deter speculative applications and prevent the ‘banking’ of compensatory measures. However, some respondents felt that parts of the process, specifically the entry requirements, duplicated other stages in the consenting process. They were concerned about extending the role of SNCBs beyond their current advisory function.
Most respondents agreed with the:
- timing of reservation fees prior to receiving development consent on a plan or project
- need to pay a deposit after receiving development consent
- requirement for a lease agreement from the Crown Estate (or equivalent for projects that do not require a DCO)
- requirement for applicants to seek non-statutory advice from relevant SNCBs on the suitability of their plan or project to use measures available in the Library of Strategic Compensatory Measures (LoSCM)
Most respondents were supportive of the requirement for applicants to demonstrate adherence to the mitigation hierarchy when applying to the fund. However, many respondents also flagged that it could be difficult to demonstrate agreement between SNCBs and an applicant on adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. This could cause delays if agreement cannot be reached efficiently and the applicant is unable to progress with their MRF application.
The majority of responses agreed with the proposal for applicants to provide Defra with an estimated time by which they will aim to apply for development consent. Some respondents noted that it will help the Marine Recovery Fund Operator (MRFO) with planning and resource allocation and that it will help to align the delivery of strategic compensatory measures (SCMs) with project timelines. Some respondents thought the timeframe will stop speculative applications ‘buying up’ SCMs that they then will not use. A few respondents suggested that timescales should be indicative, considering the uncertain nature of the development process.
On the suggested 60 day timeframes for each stage of the application, many respondents agreed that having indicative turnaround times would reduce delays in the application process. Some respondents asked for MRFO turnaround times to be statutory, to help developers’ planning and reduce potential delays. Most respondents stated that the turnaround time for returning the EOI form part B was too short (within 60 days of consent). They said this does not account for potential delays beyond the developer’s control, such as judicial review or legal challenge.
A few respondents disagreed with including Offshore Wind Environmental Standards (OWES) in the list of entry requirements. OWES are standardised measures to support the avoidance, reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts of offshore wind developments. Those disagreeing noted that the standards have not yet been formally agreed, and not every project seeking compensation will need to adhere to them. OWES will apply to projects in specific leasing rounds (beginning with Leasing Round 5).
Overall, the most recurring themes in this section were:
- the application process could be streamlined, although respondents did not specify which elements could be removed
- clear guidance is needed for developers and decision-makers, outlining the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties
Government response
The government notes the overall support for the proposed application process. It plans to issue guidance to provide greater clarity on the process for all types of prospective applicants, including for plan promoters and projects that do not require a DCO.
The government notes the concerns that the MRF application process, specifically the information required as entry requirements, might duplicate parts of the current consenting process. The MRF application process is intended to align with current consenting processes and to use existing information where already available. To prevent additional burden on applicants, the information required during the application process will be clearly specified in guidance that will be published before applications to the MRF open.
The government also acknowledges the requests for further streamlining of the application process. To respond to concerns raised through the consultation about potential delays arising from seeking SNCB advice, the MRF will be introducing an SNCB advice template. This will include space for SNCBs to detail their advice on the suitability of the SCM for which the applicant is applying. Applicants will give the template to SNCBs before submitting their EOI form part A. This template is intended to provide clarification for all parties on the evidence required to demonstrate suitability of the SCM, and the quantities for which the applicant is applying. Defra (as the MRFO) will use the SNCB’s estimate to inform how much SCM the applicant needs to reserve. This quantity will be without prejudice to the final amount required by the consenting authority. Defra (as MRFO) will identify opportunities for further streamlining and improvement as part of routine evaluations.
It is essential that every applicant to the MRF complies with the mitigation hierarchy to minimise each project’s environmental impacts and reduce the amount of compensation needed. The consenting authority decides whether compliance with the hierarchy has been satisfactory. Following feedback in the consultation responses, Defra will no longer require applicants to provide evidence of SNCB agreement of their adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy should be demonstrated in relevant DCO and marine licence applications, and it will be considered through existing routes.
Once established, OWES will provide a mechanism to support the avoidance, reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts of offshore wind through the mitigation hierarchy. Defra considers OWES to be an important way for developers to show they have effectively followed the mitigation hierarchy before exploring any required compensation. However, the relevant OWES guidance will not be published before the MRF becomes operational. Because of this, projects before Leasing Round 5 will not need to follow OWES or demonstrate adherence to OWES as part of any MRF application. Projects in Leasing Round 5 and beyond that are required to follow OWES, will be expected to demonstrate adherence as part of any MRF application. Defra will update MRF guidance with more information on how to do this once OWES guidance is published.
Consultation responses indicate that there is some concern regarding the 60 day turnaround time for applicants to return the EOI form part B to the MRFO after they receive consent for their plan or project. This timeframe will provide Defra (as MRFO) with financial and logistical certainty to progress with the delivery of SCMs. A clear timeframe will also incentivise projects that are ready to proceed at pace. Therefore, the requirement for applicants to return the EOI form part B 60 calendar days after they receive consent will remain unchanged. However, there will be flexibility to consider exceptions to this on a case by case basis, where a developer has a strong case for an extension. Defra will provide further information in guidance.
1.2 Reserving compensation
Summary of responses
Some respondents raised concerns about the suggestion that the quantity of compensation reserved should be based on SNCBs’ upper estimates. Some respondents thought that SNCBs may be over-precautionary regarding a project’s compensation requirements, and developers may not agree with their assessment. There were also concerns that applicants could be ‘locked-in’ to one type of SCM, with no flexibility to change later in the application process.
Most responses supported the proposal not to allow SCMs to be transferable between plans or projects to deter speculative applications. In contrast, many responses also requested flexibility to allow SCMs to be transferred:
- if development plans change but the adverse effect remains the same
- when a project is allocated more SCMs than is required in the final consent decision
Government response
Defra notes the support for proposals on the non-transferability of SCMs between plans or projects. Read section 3.2 for the government response to concerns raised by respondents on the role of SNCBs.
1.3 Costs and charges
Summary of responses
Overall, respondents were supportive of the proposals on costs and charges. Most respondents were supportive of the proposals for reservation fees and deposits to deter speculative applications and prevent individual applicants over-reserving measures. The most recurring theme across all the costs and charges proposals was the need for fees to be reasonable and proportionate with transparency in how they have been calculated.
On reservation fees, a few respondents suggested that Defra introduces a lower band to accommodate smaller projects.
On the non-refundable nature of all payments into the MRF, responses were mixed. Respondents agreed with the benefits of a non-refundable reservation and deposit fee, including:
- deterring speculative applications, streamlining the process
- avoiding delays
- securing compensation for projects with a high likelihood of delivery and covering upfront costs
Many respondents expressed the need for flexibility and the possibility of refunds in cases where changes occurred that are outside of the developer’s control and where the developer is acting in good faith. Some respondents felt that a no-refund approach could unintentionally deter genuine applicants to the MRF.
Responses were mixed on whether the breakdown of costs provided sufficient information for applicants to decide whether to pay into the MRF. Respondents re-emphasised the need for full transparency and clear justification for the calculation of costs, as well as how costs would be divided between applicants. A few respondents requested more clarity and justification for the adaptive management charge calculations.
Most respondents agreed that payment should be taken after a final investment decision has been made, and before the adverse impact occurs. Many respondents also noted that some projects might prefer to make payment before the final investment decision, and that flexibility is needed to suit the project. For example, when projects do not require a DCO or when a final investment decision is not necessary.
On the preferred approach to paying the remaining balance, many respondents recognised the need for a flexible approach to account for individual project requirements. There was a significant consensus from industry, eNGOs and SNCBs that it would be preferable to allow annualised payments or instalments instead of a one-off payment.
The overwhelming majority of responses from industry and eNGOs agreed with the proposal to use surplus funds to develop further SCMs. Respondents also emphasised the need to ringfence funds for this purpose and for transparency in how surplus funds are used. A few respondents stated that overpayments should be refunded if compensation is more effective than predicted, and that the current proposal was unfair to applicants.
Government response
Defra notes the support for the proposals on costs and charges and recognises the need for greater transparency in how costs have been calculated. Defra intends to provide a detailed breakdown of costs for each measure published in the LoSCM and will include any further detail in guidance.
In response to requests for the MRFO to introduce further reservation fee bands for smaller projects, the government intends to introduce additional bands to accommodate those projects requiring lower quantities of compensation. Defra will provide more information in guidance.
Defra acknowledges the range of views on the proposal for all payments to be non-refundable, and the suggestions that refunds should be considered in certain circumstances. However, the MRFO will continue to incur costs from processing and progressing an application, even if it is later withdrawn. For this reason, the MRFO will not provide refunds, but applicants will retain the right to make a representation for a refund in exceptional circumstances.
To address the need for flexibility about when applicants make their final payment into the MRF (or first payment instalment of an agreed schedule of payments), Defra has revised the policy. Applicants will be able to state a suitable payment date within their submission of the EOI form part B, according to their own project timeline. References to a final investment decision for a project have been removed.
Defra notes the support for proposals on the use of surplus funds to develop further SCMs and acknowledges the need for ringfencing and transparency around the use of such funds.
1.4 Discharging of liability
Summary of responses
The majority of respondents supported the proposal outlining when responsibility for the delivery of compensation is discharged. Some respondents raised concerns about liability arrangements, with requests that all liability for the delivery of compensation be completely discharged upon the first payment of an agreed payment plan.
The majority of responses were supportive of the proposal for the MRF to own and be responsible for any assets or SCMs. There were comments relating to the delivery of the SCMs, emphasising the need for robust governance, clear responsibilities, and effective oversight of SCM implementation. Many stakeholders called for Defra to ensure well-resourced management systems, transparent timelines for compensation delivery, and greater accountability – potentially through a multi-stakeholder steering group. Many responses stated that Defra is well placed to draw together multiple bodies using existing contacts.
Government response
Defra acknowledges the support for the proposals on discharging of liability. There will be no changes to the proposal that the MRF will be responsible for any assets or SCMs. Liability for providing compensation will be discharged upon proof of full payment to the MRF, if opting to pay in one lump sum, or the first of payment instalments. Adherence to a payment schedule will be managed and enforced through contractual arrangements between the applicant and the MRFO.
2. MRF delivery
2.1 Delivering compensation
Summary of responses
Most respondents agreed that the process for delivering compensation would enable the MRF to deliver ecologically feasible compensation. Some respondents mentioned the need to prioritise ecological benefits and to prioritise measures close to the site of impact when selecting which measures to deliver.
A clear recurring theme in the responses was that the LoSCM must be expanded with further measures. Another recurring theme was that the Collaboration for Offshore Wind Strategic Compensation (COWSC) process of identifying measures and drafting implementation and monitoring plans should be faster. COWSC is a collaborative governance group which brings together industry, eNGOs, SNCBs, the UK government, devolved governments and other relevant stakeholders.
A few respondents argued that the most effective way to deliver SCMs was at the plan-level, if aligned with seabed leasing rounds. A few respondents also wanted more detail on how SCMs would be delivered.
Government response
Defra notes the overall agreement that the MRF would be able to deliver ecologically feasible SCMs. The expansion of the LoSCM is beyond the scope of this consultation. COWSC continues its programme to expand and diversify the contents of the LoSCM for delivery through the MRF.
We have recently consulted on reforms to the current environmental compensation process for offshore wind, which may change the type of compensatory measures that could be used through the MRF in the future.
2.2 Adaptive management
Summary of responses
Many responses agreed with the proposal for adaptive management. Some commented on the adaptive management charge, and those in favour considered it reasonable to ensure adequate funds are available for adaptive management. Some respondents challenged the proposed universal 30% adaptive management charge, with a few requesting a proportionate and evidence-based approach. A few respondents argued that an adaptive management charge should reflect the specific risks and characteristics of each SCM and be reassessed where measures overperform or do not require adaptive management. A few respondents requested more clarity and justification for the 30% adaptive management charge. A few respondents thought the charge should be higher to reflect the uncertainty in measures.
The majority of respondents agreed that the adaptive management hierarchy provided in the consultation was clearly defined. However, many responses emphasised the need for flexibility, transparency, and ecological coherence. Some responses advocated for a mechanism to adjust or reallocate compensation when a measure overdelivers or if impacts are lower than expected. There was some support for a more flexible adaptive management process, allowing learning and refinement over time, rather than a fixed hierarchy.
Many respondents called for clearer decision-making protocols in the adaptive management process, especially around new measures. A few respondents requested guidance for decision-makers, outlining the roles and responsibilities of those involved. Further guidance was requested on how smaller corrective actions will be managed, and how adaptive management decisions align with DCO requirements and marine protected area (MPA) protections.
Many respondents emphasised the importance of ring-fencing and reviewing funds collected by the adaptive management charge, ensuring clarity on their use, especially when measures succeed without intervention. There was also some support for using adaptive management actions to improve future SCM development and support informed offshore wind planning.
Government response
Defra notes the support for the adaptive management hierarchy, and the suggestions for how it could be improved. The adaptive management charge is an important component of the MRF model, to allow for the complete discharging of an applicant’s consent requirements at the point payment is made into the MRF. Further details on the adaptive management charge to be applied to each strategic compensatory measure will be published alongside the fees and charges once the MRF is operational.
Defra will provide more information on the roles and responsibilities within the adaptive management process in guidance.
3. Cross-cutting considerations
3.1 Cross boundary adverse effects
Summary of responses
The feedback on the proposed approach to cross-boundary impacts included requests for detail on how this would work in practice and made some suggestions for Defra to consider when refining the policy. In response to our proposals on which fund an applicant should apply to if their project has impacts on both English and Scottish protected sites, some respondents supported the proposal for the applicant to choose which fund they apply to, to compensate for cross-boundary impacts.
The majority of responses highlighted the importance of alignment between the funds, with some saying that there should be either a collaborative, or UK-wide, approach. Many were concerned that lack of alignment would lead to competition between funds, for example if more measures were available in one fund, or if they were cheaper in one fund.
Many respondents requested additional detail on how this proposal would work in practice.
Government response
Defra notes the suggestions provided to improve the policy and is working in collaboration with the Scottish Government to ensure that both funds align sufficiently to maximise efficiency and ecological effectiveness, and to prevent competition. Recognising the separate planning and consenting process in Scotland, having 2 separate funds that are tailored to each nation’s unique constitutional, legal and sectoral needs will maximise their effectiveness and value. Guidance will include more detail on compensating for cross-boundary impacts.
3.2 Role of SNCBs and other relevant bodies
Summary of responses
Many responses expressed concern that SNCBs are not sufficiently resourced to handle an increased workload from providing advice to MRF applicants, which could cause delays for consent applications.
Many responses also raised a concern that the proposal enhances the SNCB role beyond their advisory function. There were mixed views on the proposal to use the SNCB’s upper estimate of the amount of compensation needed. Overall, eNGOs felt that this would reduce the risk that the MRFO would not allocate enough compensation per project, while some industry representatives thought it could lead to too much of a measure being allocated to a project.
Some responses requested guidance and a transparent process for how to resolve potential disagreements between applicants and SNCBs on the amount of compensation required.
Government response
As in section 1, Defra notes the concerns raised by respondents on the role of SNCBs in the MRF application process. The intention of this policy is not to change the role of SNCBs in the consenting process but instead reflect their current role and responsibilities as an advisory body.
The MRF will use SNCB advice in determining the amount of compensation to be reserved. While several respondents raised concerns that SNCB estimates may be higher than those of the developers, Defra continues to consider that this is the most appropriate approach. The SNCB’s upper estimate will primarily be used to inform the projected demand for each measure and ensure that Defra (as MRFO) has sufficient compensation available for each applicant. In scenarios where the consenting authority decides less compensation is needed, applicants can revise their requirements with the MRFO. While the SNCB’s upper estimate is used to calculate an applicant’s reservation fee, fees that have already been paid are deducted from the final charge to applicants. As a result, applicants will not be negatively affected if their final compensation needs are less than the SNCB’s initial estimate.
In contrast, if the MRFO were to rely on a lower estimate of an applicant’s required compensation, there is a risk that the consenting authority could decide at the examination stage that the applicant requires more compensation than the MRFO has reserved. If the MRFO has no further compensation available, then the applicant would have to source this compensation independently and may face challenges in securing appropriate compensation in the time required. Relying on the SNCB’s upper estimate will therefore prevent the MRFO from experiencing a shortfall in compensation and ensure that applicants can discharge their consent requirements more efficiently.
The advice and amount of compensation reserved will be without prejudice to the decision made by the consenting authority and will not be taken to imply agreement by the developer. Defra will clarify this in guidance and any publicly available information about the amount of compensation reserved.
4. Final comments
Summary of responses
The responses to questions in the final comments section re-emphasised and repeated many of the themes in responses to previous questions. There was overall support for the approach and intent of the MRF. However, respondents highlighted that they would like more information on a range of elements, including:
- plan-level application process
- how measures will be delivered
- how the MRF and the Scottish MRF will interact
Respondents approved of the clear and definitive point where liability is transferred, but many were concerned that there was still potential for legal challenge if compensation was not delivered.
The majority of respondents said that the MRF had the potential to speed up consenting of offshore wind developments, if changes were made in line with their comments on the fund’s design. Some respondents agreed that the MRF as designed was an attractive alternative to delivering compensation independently, for both commercial and environmental reasons. However, many respondents shared that changes were needed before the MRF could be considered an attractive alternative. The suggested changes had all been raised in responses to previous questions. They included:
- more measures in the LoSCM
- further clarity on the role of SNCBs
- a review of the application process
- a flexible payment process
Some respondents noted that the MRF did already provide an attractive route to deliver benthic compensation.
The consultation included a question box at the end for any points that fell outside the scope of the specific proposals. A lot of responses to this question also re-emphasised themes from previous questions. Some respondents sought further clarification on a range of issues, including:
- links between the MRF and the Nature Restoration Fund
- how the MRF and Scottish MRF will work together
- what happens if the MRF does not deliver enough compensation
Some respondents suggested ways for the MRF to provide greater benefits for the environment. A range of specific changes to the MRF design were also proposed, including:
- allowing applications to the MRF from other sectors, such as fisheries
- the need for wider measures
- the need for legal certainty post-payment
Government response
The government welcomes the full range of responses provided, and the suggestions to make the MRF more effective.
Defra will publish guidance alongside the launch of the MRF. The guidance intends to provide greater clarity on the application process, and transparency in costings. We also intend to publish more information regarding the outstanding themes raised in the final comments section, such as how the MRF and Scottish MRF will work together and the distinction between the MRF and the Nature Restoration Fund.
In response to calls for legal certainty, Defra (as MRFO) intends to provide legal certainty of the transfer of liability for compensation through the contract between the MRFO and applicant.
With regard to allowing other sectors to access the MRF, the MRF is being established using powers in the Energy Act that restrict its use to offshore wind related activities. The MRF will not be available for sectors beyond the offshore wind industry. In response to calls for the activation of wider measures, the MRF will provide access to measures in the LoSCM. The exact scope of measures available in the LoSCM will depend on the outcome of the consultation on environmental compensatory measures reform, which was published in summer 2025.
Defra is currently unable to comment on raised concerns that were beyond the scope of the MRF.
5. Next Steps
The UK government will continue to draft the secondary legislation required to establish the MRF, using the regulation making power in section 292 of the Energy Act 2023.
Defra will publish guidance alongside the launch of the MRF.