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. 5. 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 available, which enabled the compilation of the evidence analyzed. This work also reflects our commitment to advancing science-based, nature-positive solutions for ecosystem conservation. 157
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2