Image by Nick Page from Unsplash.
On February 18, 2025, the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) introduced the Baseline Development Guide Project through RM 00041-2025-MINAM. This guide aims to provide a common reference framework for conducting baseline studies and to assist users in interpreting data to define key environmental impact variables.
From my perspective as a user of baseline information for the economic valuation of environmental impacts, this document presents some improvements but also key challenges. In particular, variables related to ecosystem services and social aspects require special attention.
This article analyzes four critical points of the guide and explores how we can make baseline studies more efficient and adaptive.
Efficiency vs. exhaustiveness in baseline studies
The guide adopts an approach where the baseline should not only reflect the current state of the study area but also its historical evolution and previous trends.
While this has a solid theoretical foundation, in practice, it significantly increases the time and resources required to gather information on certain components (physical, biological, or social).
Moreover, based on experience in the evaluation of environmental permit applications, failing to present data that shows past trends could delay project approvals unnecessarily.
This raises key questions:
✔ Is this level of detail viable for all projects?
✔ Does the additional cost justify the benefits in impact assessment?
✔ How can we optimize data collection without compromising precision?
Flexibility in the social baseline
The new guide has reduced the number of variables considered in the social baseline compared to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for detailed EIAs in mining (MINEM 2015).
While the guide loosens some requirements, it still suggests how certain variables should be analyzed in the social impact assessment. From my perspective, this approach is problematic. Social impact analysis should be tailored to the specific context of each project rather than relying on a fixed set of variables. Flexibility is key to ensuring an efficient and realistic environmental assessment.
Comparison of variables between MINEM (2015) and MINAM (2025) in spanish: Download here.
The complexity of baseline studies and applying “First Principles Thinking”
Among professionals in environmental impact assessment, there is a consensus that baseline studies are unnecessarily complex and overloaded with redundant information that does not add real value to decision-making. This also expressed in the government project “Public Base Line“.
This is where the First Principles Thinking approach becomes relevant. This method involves breaking a problem down into its fundamental principles rather than relying on existing assumptions. Instead of incrementally improving current models, this approach questions the core structure of a problem and reconstructs solutions from the ground up.
If we apply this method to baseline development, we should ask ourselves:
✅ Why is it necessary to present all these variables in baseline studies within the context of environmental management instruments (IGAs)?
✅ What are the fundamental objectives of the data presented?
✅ Are there incorrect or outdated assumptions in how variables are presented?
✅ Have these variables been effective in practice, or do they create unnecessary obstacles?
If we aim for more efficient baselines, we must reduce unnecessary data collection and focus on what truly adds value to environmental assessments.
Cross-cutting factors: a step forward that needs more depth
One of the most innovative aspects of this guide is the inclusion of cross-cutting factors, such as: Ecosystem services, ecological water flow, visual landscape.
From an economic valuation perspective, particularly for environmental impacts and ecosystem services, this represents progress. However, a recurring challenge in economic valuation is the lack of field data that accurately reflects the value and quantity of ecosystem services utilized. A proper assessment requires data that quantifies both the magnitude of the service and its economic significance, yet the guide does not provide clear guidelines on how to collect this information.
While it would not be ideal for the guide to define specific variables, since projects occur in diverse contexts, it should have included general recommendations for field data collection.
Download Annex 4-2 on Cross-Cutting Factors (Spanish) here.
Towards more efficient and adaptive baseline studies
The Baseline Development Guide introduces improvements but still poses challenges regarding efficiency and real-world applicability.
To advance toward better environmental management, we should:
✔ Make information requirements more flexible without compromising analysis quality.
✔ Apply First Principles Thinking in the design of guidelines and regulations.
✔ Include recommendations for field data collection on ecosystem services.
If we truly want Environmental Impact Assessments to contribute to better decision-making, we must continuously question the information we collect and ensure that it adds real value to an effective and practical evaluation process.
