o dry forests and relict forests → structure and connectivity. o páramo → hydrological services. ▪ Additionality and permanence: avoid “business as usual” actions and ensure adequate verification horizons (BBOP, 2012; IFC, 2012). ▪ Transparency and QA/QC: georeferencing, metadata, version control and explicit assumptions (MINAM, 2024). ▪ Alignment with emerging standards: Nature Positive and SBTN for traceability and measurement of verifiable contributions (IUCN, 2023; SBTN, 2024). 3.1.5 Coherence between residual impacts, equivalence and territorial feasibility of offsets The analysis shows that coherence between reported residual impacts, ecological equivalence and offset measures depends critically on territorial and operational constraints, including limited availability of suitable areas for offsetting and challenges related to surface land ownership, which condition feasibility and long-term permanence of interventions. Ecological connectivity is also confirmed as a determining factor: even when an equivalent ecosystem is identified, the absence of functional connectivity may limit the effectiveness of offsets in sustaining key ecological processes. In this context, it is essential to distinguish between tolerable and non-tolerable impacts. The former may be offset in a verifiable manner, whereas the latter—due to magnitude, irreversibility or lack of minimum conditions (available space, connectivity, social or legal feasibility)—cannot be addressed through offsets, requiring strengthened prevention, avoidance and minimization within the mitigation hierarchy. 3.2 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS The quantitative analysis of the case studies (2019–2026), based on approved environmental management instruments, shows that all evaluated projects apply an explicit offset approach oriented toward ecological gain (Table 1). The reported ecological values for the impacted ecosystems and for the offset areas indicate that the design of measures is consistently aimed at achieving ecological improvement, rather than a simple replacement of area. In wetland (bofedal) ecosystems—which represent most of the cases—the ecological value of the ecosystem to be offset is consistently higher than the pre-impact ecological value, with design-stage estimated ecological gains ranging approximately between 0,8 and 2,15 ecological value units (Table 1). This pattern confirms that offsets are not limited to a superficial replacement of the affected ecosystem but rather seek to improve its functional and structural condition. The relationship between ecological gain and the offset area is not linear: extensive offset areas are observed (e.g., >90 ha and even >200 ha) associated with moderate gains, while equal or higher gains are achieved in substantially smaller areas (<10 ha). This variability suggests that offset sizing depends on the initial condition and functional status of the receiving ecosystem, rather than on the application of fixed area ratios. 149
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2