2271 PROGRESS OF OFFSETS IN PERU: ANALYSIS OF LOCAL REGULATIONS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCORPORATE INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES *H, Quintana1, A. Coz1, M. Ly1, V. Chipollini1 1 Earth and Environment Sector, WSP Perú, (*Presenting author: heidi.quintana@wsp.com) ABSTRACT In Peru, biodiversity offsets have made relevant progress over the last decade, driven by the consolidation of a specific regulatory framework and the development of ecosystem-specific technical guides. Within the mitigation hierarchy, offset plans are triggered only when avoidance, minimization and restoration measures fail to address significant residual impacts. This study analyses (i) the SEIA Environmental Offsetting Guide (R.M. 00421-2024-MINAM), (ii) the ecosystem guides applicable to high-Andean ecosystems, wetlands (bofedales), relict forests, yunga, humid and dry forests, and páramo, and (iii) their convergence with international standards (IFC PS6, BBOP, CSBI) and emerging frameworks (Nature Positive, SBTN and TNFD). To complement the regulatory analysis, publicly available evidence from mining projects approved between 2019 and 2026 was systematized. Results show that, in the cases reviewed, offsets are designed with an explicit ecological gain approach; in wetlands—the predominant ecosystem—reported gains are approximately 0,8 to 2,15 ecological value units, and a non-linear relationship is observed between ecological gain and required area, confirming the importance of the initial ecological condition and the functionality of the receiving ecosystem in offset design. However, verification of outcomes over time remains limited due to gaps in standardization and public access to baseline metrics, quantified targets and monitoring results. We conclude that integrating minimum Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) mechanisms and aligning reporting and traceability of results with the TNFD LEAP approach would strengthen traceability, comparability and credibility of the system, contributing to no net loss and Nature Positive objectives. KEYWORDS Offset, Indicators, Ecosystem, Ecological value, Mitigation hierarchy, Net gain 1. INTRODUCTION The development of environmental offsets in Peru has experienced significant progress over the last decade, becoming a key component to be considered in environmental management instruments and, particularly, within Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the mining sector. This progress responds to the need to manage biodiversity impacts comprehensively through the sequential application of the mitigation hierarchy, an internationally recognized principle that requires avoiding, minimizing and restoring before considering offset measures (IFC, 2012; BBOP, 2012). In this context, biodiversity offsets are triggered only when prior measures are insufficient to address significant residual impacts, aligning with global frameworks such as IFC Performance Standard 6 and the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) guidance. Peru has established a robust set of regulatory tools that guide the design and implementation of offset plans. Among them, the SEIA Offsetting Guide (R.M. 00421-2024-MINAM) stands out, complemented by guidelines for high-Andean ecosystems, wetlands, relict forests, yunga, dry forest, humid forest and páramo. These guides enable estimation of the ecological value of affected ecosystems through reference indicators, facilitating the identification of ecologically equivalent areas and ideally promoting no net loss or net gain of biodiversity (MINAM, 2016; MINAM, 2019; MINAM, 2021; MINAM, 2023). Despite these advances, important challenges remain, especially in aquatic ecosystems, for which no specific national guide on offsets is available. This requires National Service for Environmental Certification for Sustainable Investments (SENACE) and the National Water Authority (ANA) to adapt
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2