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 ▪ criteria for ecological equivalence and additionality ▪ assumptions and constraints related to tenure and long-term permanence. Key gaps were also identified -especially regarding aquatic ecosystems- and the way SENACE and ANA integrate technical criteria in the absence of specific guidelines was assessed. B. Comparative assessment of international standards A structured analysis compared the Peruvian framework with widely accepted global reference frameworks: ▪ IFC Performance Standard 6 (PS6) ▪ Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) ▪ Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI) 144
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2