2272 criteria developed for terrestrial ecosystems. ANA, for example, considers offsets when there are significant residual impacts on water resources, requiring measures aimed at restoring or improving key hydrological functions such as storage and regulation, in line with hydro-ecological approaches in the literature (Acreman & Holden, 2013; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2015). In parallel, the international community has developed standards to guide the assessment of residual impacts, the definition of equivalences and the assurance of additionality. Among the most influential frameworks are IFC PS6, the BBOP principles, the Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI) guidance, and the emerging Nature Positive and Science-Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) frameworks, which emphasize traceability, robust measurement and independent verification (IUCN, 2023; CSBI, 2015). The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework complements these developments by providing guidance for organizations to identify, manage and disclose their nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. TNFD promotes financial and management decisions oriented toward nature-positive outcomes and uses the LEAP (Locate–Evaluate–Assess–Prepare) approach to improve spatial assessment, traceability and response planning. These tools can strengthen technical coherence, comparability and transparency of offsets, aligning them with the objectives of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and enabling verifiable no net loss or net gain standards. Integrating these international experiences with national guides offers an opportunity to strengthen technical coherence, improve comparability and move toward global environmental performance standards. Analyses by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reinforce the importance of strictly applying the mitigation hierarchy before considering offsets as an alternative. The IPBES Global Assessment identifies five direct drivers of biodiversity loss— land and sea-use change, direct exploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species—that must be addressed as a priority to avoid irreversible impacts. The report notes that restoration rarely fully recovers the ecological functionality of complex ecosystems; therefore, offsets should be considered only as a last resort for truly significant residual impacts. In addition, the recent IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment argues that biodiversity loss constitutes a global systemic risk, affecting economic and financial stability. These analyses show that all productive sectors depend directly or indirectly on ecosystem services, reinforcing the need for robust traceability, monitoring and verification mechanisms for offsets. Peru’s mining sector plays a leading role in this context because it operates in areas where fragile ecosystems such as wetlands (bofedales) are present. Environmental information generated by this sector— such as detailed baselines—provides an essential input for designing effective and verifiable offsets to achieve net gain (Bull et al., 2013; Maron et al., 2018). Nevertheless, challenges remain related to methodological standardization, data availability and the effective verification of outcomes in ecologically heterogeneous contexts. Overall, aligning national regulatory advances, international standards and the mining sector’s operational experience represents a strategic opportunity to consolidate a more consistent, transparent offsetting approach aligned with global commitments. Implementing replicable and verifiable solutions will enable progress toward more robust biodiversity management and effectively contribute to the conservation and restoration of ecosystems. 2. METHODOLOGY The methodology combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, integrating regulatory analysis, comparison with international standards, and review of operational experience from mining projects. This enables a holistic assessment of the development of biodiversity offsets in Peru and their coherence with global best practices. The methodological structure was organized into four complementary components, described below: A. Critical review of Peru’s regulatory framework A comprehensive analysis of regulations related to environmental offsets was conducted, with emphasis on the SEIA Offsetting Guide (R.M. 00421-2024-MINAM) and the ecosystem-specific guides for high-Andean ecosystems, wetlands, relict forests, yunga, dry forest, humid forest and páramo. The review considered: § principles for defining significant residual impacts § reference and additional indicators to estimate condition and ecological value
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2