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 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 143
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2