2282 that is internationally comparable and capable of effectively contributing to the conservation and restoration of Peruvian ecosystems. In this context, integrating recent advances from TNFD and IPBES represents a strategic opportunity to strengthen technical consistency, traceability and independent verification of the SEIA offset system. TNFD encourages organizations to incorporate nature into planning processes and financial decision-making, directing economic flows toward activities with positive outcomes for biodiversity (nature positive) and providing methodologies to assess dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities in a comparable and transparent way. IPBES, in turn, warns that biodiversity loss constitutes a global systemic risk, underscoring the need for transformative approaches that directly reduce the drivers of loss and that complement—but do not replace— impact prevention and minimization strategies, especially in fragile ecosystems with high functional complexity. In addition, its assessments show that ecological restoration rarely fully recovers the functionality of complex ecosystems, reinforcing the need to apply the mitigation hierarchy strictly and to use offsets only for truly significant residual impacts. Integrating these two frameworks—TNFD and IPBES— would strengthen alignment with emerging international standards, improve technical transparency, and facilitate adoption of verifiable no net loss and net gain of biodiversity approaches, ensuring that environmental offsets contribute in a real, measurable and verifiable way to national and global conservation objectives. Regarding the question of whether the Peruvian framework has delivered measurable biodiversity gains, the publicly available evidence (resolutions, fact sheets and evaluation summaries) confirms that PCA requirements are enforceable, but it does not always demonstrate ecologically verifiable outcomes and, in some cases, it enables quantification of impact magnitude (e.g., wetlands impacts reported). However, this information alone is not sufficient to demonstrate comparable ecological outcomes (loss/gain) across projects, due to the lack of standardized public reporting of baselines, condition/EV metrics, quantified targets, and Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) results over time. Therefore, strengthening transparency mechanisms and a minimum common framework is recommended to verify performance and close the gap between regulation and field results. Under this methodological logic, the quantitative results obtained from the case studies make it possible to link the Peruvian offset system with the emerging Nature Positive framework and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). In particular, the explicit estimation of pre-impact ecological values, ecological values of the ecosystem to be offset and ecological gains constitutes a technical basis consistent with TNFD’s approach to identify, evaluate and manage impacts and dependencies on nature. From the perspective of TNFD’s LEAP approach, ecological values enable: (i) locating impacts in specific ecosystems (Locate), (ii) evaluating residual-impact magnitude through quantitative metrics (Evaluate), (iii) assessing risks and opportunities associated with the loss or recovery of ecosystem functions (Assess), and (iv) preparing responses through offset plans oriented toward ecological gain (Prepare). Likewise, evidence of positive ecological gains at the PCA design stage represents a first step toward Nature Positive objectives, insofar as offsets seek to reverse degradation trends through measurable functional improvements. However, the absence of standardized public information on post-implementation monitoring outcomes limits the ability to demonstrate verifiable and sustained contributions over time, reinforcing the need to strengthen Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems, as well as information transparency. In this context, integrating ecological value metrics with reporting schemes aligned with TNFD would help close the gap between regulatory design and field outcomes, facilitating traceability, comparability and verification of offsets as real contributions to no net loss and net gain of biodiversity. These advances position the Peruvian system at a key transition stage—from regulatory enforceability to the verifiable demonstration of biodiversity outcomes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and collaboration received during the development of this work. We thank colleagues from the Earth and Environment Sector at WSP Perú for technical discussions and internal review, as well as the institutions that make environmental information publicly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2