LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines ......• Simon Lord, Sime Darby • Daniel Spethman,...

LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines

LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines

A New Approach for Assessing and Communicating Sustainability Performance at Landscape Scale

August 2019

LandScale is a collaborative initiative which includes the following organizations:

Secretariat

Global Partners

The LandScale initiative is funded by:

For more information on LandScale, please visit www.landscale.org.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 All or portions of this report may be used, reprinted or distributed, provided the source is acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes.

Version: 0.1

Released: August 2019

Email for comments: [email protected]

Language: English

This document is publicly available at www.landscale.org.

Photo Credit (Cover): Icon0.com on Pexels.com

http://www.landscale.org/

mailto:[email protected]


Table of Contents

1. Introduction: What Is LandScale and Why Do We Need It? ........................................... 1 1.1. The Need for LandScale .................................................................................... 1

1.2. What Is LandScale? .......................................................................................... 1 1.3. How Can LandScale Help You? .......................................................................... 2 1.4. Who Is Behind LandScale? ................................................................................ 6

1.5. Overview of LandScale Development Process and Timeline ................................... 7

2. The LandScale Assessment Framework ........................................................................ 9 2.1. Structure of the LandScale Assessment Framework .............................................. 9 2.2. Pillar 1: Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 10 2.3. Pillar 2: Human Well-Being .............................................................................. 14

2.4. Pillar 3: Governance ........................................................................................ 17 2.5. Pillar 4: Production ......................................................................................... 20

3. Guidelines for Using LandScale ................................................................................... 23 3.1. Getting Started: Designing a LandScale Assessment .......................................... 23 3.2. Conducting a LandScale Assessment ................................................................ 30

3.3. Verification .................................................................................................... 34 3.4. Claims ........................................................................................................... 35

4. Data and Reporting Platform ....................................................................................... 37

Annex 1. Terms and Definitions .......................................................................................... 38

Annex 2. LandScale Assessment Framework Summary Table............................................ 43

Annex 3. Landscape Situation Analysis .............................................................................. 50

Acknowledgments

The document authors would like to thank the following external experts who generously contributed their ideas and time on early drafts of this document:

• Louise Buck, EcoAgriculture Partners • Robin Chazdon, PARTNERS and WRI • Amy Duchelle, CIFOR • Fabiano Godoy, Conservation International • Jessica Grillo, On-Up LLC • Mark Hirons, Oxford University, Environmental Change Institute • Marc Mayes, University of California Santa Barbara, Earth Research Institute • Eleanor Milne, Colorado State University • Tuyeni Mwampamba, UNAM Mexico • Marco Van der Linden, World Bank

Additional invaluable feedback towards improving this document was received from members of the LandScale Advisory Group (AG) including:

• Jonas Dallinger, GIZ • Raphaele Deau, WWF Landscape Finance Lab • Stephen Donofrio, Forest Trends, Supply Change • Ernest Dwamena, Touton • Kim Frankovich, Mars • Axel Hebel, independent consultant • Jan-Kees Vis, Unilever • Simon Lord, Sime Darby • Daniel Spethman, Working Lands Investment Partners • Christopher Stewart, Olam • Ruth Thomas, Global Agribusiness Alliance • Greg Watson, Inter-American Development Bank

Finally, development of the LandScale initiative and of this document would not have been possible without the generous financial support of our funders:

• BHP Foundation • International Climate Initiative (IKI), German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature

Conservation and Nuclear Safety

https://www.bhp.com/community/bhp-foundation

https://www.international-climate-initiative.com/en/

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFOLU agriculture, forestry and other land use

ESG environmental, socioeconomic and governance

Ha hectare

GHG greenhouse gas

ILO International Labour Organization

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KBA Key Biodiversity Area

LSA Landscape Situation Analysis

MSP multi-stakeholder partnership

NGO non-governmental organization

PA protected area

UN United Nations

UN SDGs United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

SLM sustainable land management

VCS Verified Carbon Standard

Yr year

LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines 1

1. Introduction: What Is LandScale and Why Do We Need It?

1.1. The Need for LandScale

The climate crisis, water depletion, biodiversity loss, and entrenched poverty are far-reaching and complex issues that affect us all. Yet no individual, community, business, or government can tackle them alone. We need to look beyond our own borders—be that of a farm, village or supply chain—to fully understand these challenges and implement actions that will be effective in addressing them. We need to think bigger and collaborate between sectors and across entire jurisdictions and landscapes. Fortunately, business, government, and civil society leaders are responding to this urgent need with both independent actions and multi-stakeholder collaborations designed to drive improvements in sustainability at landscape scale. LandScale is a new tool to support these efforts.

1.2. What Is LandScale?

As the saying goes, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” LandScale provides a standardized approach for assessing and communicating the sustainability performance of landscapes where key commodities are produced. Unlike traditional certification standards, LandScale does not prescribe practices. Instead, LandScale is designed to provide reliable information about the outcome of efforts to protect ecosystems, promote human well-being, improve governance, and optimize productivity at landscape scale. This information can be verified and made available via an online platform to enable credible communication of landscape sustainability performance. LandScale assessments help drive improvements in sustainability performance by informing locally relevant policies and management interventions, guiding sustainable sourcing and investment decisions, and creating market incentives for landscape sustainability.

Box 1. Components of LandScale

• An assessment framework: a set of indicators and performance metrics to assess progress towards critical landscape sustainability goals relating to ecosystems, human well-being, governance, and production. The goals reflect the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and are considered globally applicable. Assessments can be tailored to different landscapes and the needs of diverse stakeholders by selecting the most appropriate indicators and performance metrics in relation to each goal. The results of assessments will provide information about the status and trends of assessed indicators across a given landscape. For further information see Section 2. The LandScale Assessment Framework.


1.3. How Can LandScale Help You?

LandScale is designed to provide the private sector, governments, and civil society with objective and credible information about the status of and trends in sustainability performance at landscape scale. It is particularly relevant to sectors that are highly dependent on natural resources, including agribusiness, forestry, extractives, and infrastructure (see Figure 1). LandScale aims to help organizations involved in implementing landscape or jurisdictional management initiatives as well as those sourcing commodities from or investing in rural landscapes. Sections 1.3.1. through 1.3.3. illustrate three concrete ways in which LandScale can help foster sustainability at landscape scale.

• A verification mechanism: a process for evaluating compliance with the guidelines for LandScale use and the accuracy of LandScale assessment results. In cases where LandScale users seek to make credible public claims about the results of LandScale assessments, LandScale will provide a process for verification by an independent, third-party entity. For situations where LandScale assessment results will be used for risk assessment or internal decision making, other verification options will be provided that offer assurance of assessment results but with additional flexibility. For further information see Section 3.3. Verification.

• A data and reporting platform: an online platform to store data and communicate the results of LandScale assessments. The platform may provide access to existing sources of data that can inform LandScale assessments and will likely have private and public access areas. A beta version of the platform is expected to be available to trial in time for the second public consultation, currently scheduled for Quarter 2 of 2020. For further information see Section 4. Data and Reporting Platform.

• Supporting tools: Additional tools to support the various uses of LandScale are being explored. This may include tool(s) to assess a specific actor’s contribution to or participation in a specific landscape or tools to support scenario modelling or risk assessment.

Figure 1. Who Can LandScale Help?


1.3.1. Identify and monitor landscape scale sustainability risks

LandScale assessments will highlight critical environmental, socioeconomic, and governance (ESG) issues and trends at landscape scale that may not be apparent at the site level. This can alert companies, investors, and governments to issues that pose a threat to the sustainability of forestry, agriculture or natural resource extraction, and the livelihoods of people within the landscape, spurring timely action to address them proactively.

Box 2. LandScale Scenario: Comprehensive Risk Assessment Catalyzes Collaborative Efforts to Protect a Watershed and Increase Access to Education

A pension fund is considering investing in a large avocado producer in Colombia. They have undertaken their usual site-focused due diligence process and have found nothing of concern with the avocado farms themselves: land tenure is secure; the land was cleared years ago; and the soil is healthy. However, the fund’s sustainability manager remains uneasy knowing that avocado production requires large volumes of water, the supply of which is shared with a number of communities and businesses in the watershed. To allay these concerns, the pension fund asks the avocado producer to undertake a LandScale assessment focused on the surrounding watershed.

The results of the assessment highlight a number of troubling issues, most notably high rates of deforestation and the fact that only a small percentage of the population within the watershed has access to education. Neither issue was identified during the site-focused due diligence process. Although there is no evidence to suggest that these issues are directly linked to the avocado farms, their existence makes for a higher risk investment. High deforestation rates in the watershed may lead to decreased water availability and quality in the long term. This brings into question the long-term viability of this business, which is highly dependent on irrigation. Water stress is also associated with increased social tension and conflict. In addition, the low levels of access to education in the region may increase the risk of child labor in the avocado producer’s workforce - just one reported case of which could spell reputational disaster for the pension fund, which prides itself on being a leader in sustainability.

Although it was the pension fund who suggested conducting a LandScale assessment, the avocado producer also found the results very useful because it flagged some potential risks to their business that they were previously unaware of. Cognizant that these are issues that they cannot tackle alone, they decide to share the results of the LandScale assessment with the relevant government agencies as well as other avocado, passion fruit, and palm oil producers in the watershed. The head of the local environment department decides to set up a meeting with all relevant stakeholders—including local community leaders, civil society organizations, and industry—to discuss the interventions needed to manage the watershed more sustainably. Together they agree on a shared action plan and decide to undertake LandScale assessments annually to determine if their efforts are effective.

To ease the pension fund’s concerns about reputational risk, the avocado producer agrees to implement a more rigorous system for monitoring child labor on their farms. They also decide to expand the capacity of the schools on their farms so more children from local villages can attend them. The pension fund also agrees to contribute funding towards these efforts as part of their corporate social responsibility program.


1.3.2. Support collaborative landscape management

LandScale provides an internationally recognized framework for assessing the most critical indicators of landscape sustainability. By not prescribing practices, but providing a common set of best practices for assessing the results of measures developed by local actors, LandScale can help diverse groups of stakeholders to monitor progress towards shared targets, adapt management interventions as needed, and hold each other accountable.

1.3.3. Communicate landscape sustainability

LandScale's standardized approach and independent verification mechanism enables credible and consistent communication of landscape sustainability performance. This can help those participating in landscape or jurisdictional approaches to communicate the impact of these

Box 3. LandScale Scenario: Evidence of Positive Impact of Public-Private Partnerships Results in Expansion to Other Sectors

The cocoa industry in West Africa has historically been linked to child labor, poverty, and deforestation. But this may be poised to change as a result of important new commitments from the major cocoa traders, chocolate brands, national governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to collaborate in addressing these systemic issues. A public-private partnership has formed in one of the major cocoa-producing landscapes of Côte d’Ivoire, spearheaded by the National Coffee and Cocoa board and involving cocoa cooperatives, NGOs, representatives of international cocoa traders, and community leaders. The group has identified a series of actions that will help them better understand and start to address these issues. This includes rehabilitation and replanting of old cocoa farms, regular patrols of protected areas to detect encroachment, and activities to help cocoa farmers to diversify their sources of income. Several of the companies sourcing large volumes of cocoa from this landscape have agreed to fund these actions, but they are keen to know if these activities will have the desired impact.

One member of the group has heard of LandScale and suggests using this assessment framework to monitor the effects of the interventions agreed upon. The indicators considered most relevant to the landscape, as well as best fit performance metrics associated with each, are selected and targets established. The group agrees to conduct LandScale assessments on an annual basis and meet regularly to review the results. Not only does this help the companies funding these interventions to track the impact of their investments; it also helps the group to adapt the management interventions as time goes on to ensure they are effective.

After the initiative has been operational for five years, the results of LandScale assessments start to show that productivity is increasing, whilst poverty and deforestation are decreasing in the landscape. News of the positive impact of this initiative starts to spread. Learning of this, a palm oil company with plantations in the same region approaches the group and asks to join. While such cross-sectoral collaboration is relatively unusual, it proves to be extremely beneficial for the palm oil company. In addition to learning from the cocoa industry’s longstanding experience of working to tackle child labor in the region, the palm oil company also succeeds in securing a new contract with a large international buyer who is impressed by their contribution to this initiative.


efforts to key stakeholders. Credible reporting on landscape sustainability can also reassure investors and buyers that activities in a particular landscape will be sustainable. This may help to create incentives and rewards for improvements in landscape sustainability performance.

1.4. Who Is Behind LandScale?

LandScale is being developed and field-tested by a growing coalition of global partners, led by the Rainforest Alliance, Verra, and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA). To date, partners include EcoAgriculture Partners, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC), ProForest, and Solidaridad. A global advisory group, representing both subject matter experts and potential LandScale

Box 4. LandScale Scenario: With Credible Evidence of Performance, a Jurisdictional Approach Pays Off for Its Participants

When the Bupati (governor) of a district in East Kalimantan came into power, she was determined to establish it as one of the leading regions in Indonesia for green growth. As a district long associated with corruption and the destruction of orangutan habitat for palm oil production and mining, this would be no easy feat. To succeed, she would need to sell the concept of green growth to a diversity of stakeholders in the district. Policy changes alone would not be sufficient to achieve the transformation she envisioned.

Three years later, there is an active green growth platform in this district, facilitated by a local NGO. This platform comprises: representatives of all relevant ministries; the most progressive palm oil, rubber, and mining companies; the head of a rubber cooperative; several village heads; and both local and international NGOs. After conducting LandScale assessments annually for three consecutive years, the platform is building a body of evidence to show the fruits of their labor. For example, the orangutan population has stabilized, deforestation rates have slowed, access to education has increased and water quality in the district’s largest rivers has improved.

Gaining confidence that the initiative is working, various members of the platform start to use data from the LandScale assessments to tell their story. The Bupati decides to include the assessment results, which have been independently verified, in her re-election campaign. Being able to demonstrate that there have been improvements in issues that affect the day-to-day activities of both communities and businesses proves to be a powerful way to garner support for her re-election.

The rubber company and cooperative also consider sharing information about the sustainability performance of the wider landscape in which they operate as an opportunity to market themselves to the international tire companies, many of whom are increasingly focusing on sustainability when looking for new suppliers. Although the company recognizes that improvements in the overall sustainability of the landscape does not guarantee that their own business practices are perfect, such changes do demonstrate that their operations are more likely to be sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, independent verification of the fact that the rubber company has restored 100 hectares of forest in the surrounding landscape helped them to secure a five-year sourcing contract with a leading international tire company which is eager to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability.


users, provides strategic input and guidance on the development of the LandScale initiative to help ensure it makes a significant contribution to driving improvements in landscape sustainability. The initiative is enabled through support from the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and the BHP Foundation’s Environmental Resilience Global Signature Program.

1.5. Overview of LandScale Development Process and Timeline

1.5.1. Timeline for Development

This document is Version 0.1 of the LandScale assessment framework and associated guidelines. It is available for public consultation until October 15, 2019. Version 0.2 is expected to be released for a second public consultation in Quarter 2 of 2020. The first full version of LandScale is targeted for release for wider use by December 2020. The verification mechanism, data and reporting platform, and a variety of supporting tools will also be available for use at this time.

1.5.2. Pilots

Early versions of the LandScale assessment framework will be tested in several landscapes, representing a range of different landscape management initiatives, geographies, and commodities. Pilot-testing activities are led by LandScale partners, who are providing critical input into the development of the LandScale tool to ensure that it meets the needs of all key stakeholders.

Figure 2. LandScale Pilots


2. The LandScale Assessment Framework Section 2.1. provides an overview of the structure of the LandScale assessment framework. The framework itself is presented in Sections 2.2. through 2.5., with one section dedicated to each of the framework’s four pillars.

2.1. Structure of the LandScale Assessment Framework

The LandScale assessment framework is structured hierarchically by pillars, goals, indicators, and performance metrics. The pillars and goals provide a holistic foundation for assessing sustainability that can be tailored to different landscape contexts by selecting the appropriate indicators and performance metrics. The framework also shows where it aligns with specific targets within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).1

2.1.1. Pillars

Pillars are the main category of sustainability within the LandScale framework. They comprise the primary themes of sustainable development—environmental, socioeconomic, governance, and production—and are universally relevant in rural landscapes where agriculture, forestry, extractives, and/or other natural-resource based economic sectors are present.

2.1.2. Goals

LandScale goals represent the desired sustainability outcomes within each pillar. They are based on key sustainability concerns as defined and understood by scientific research and elaborated in major international conventions, frameworks, and commitments, such as the UN SDGs, New York Declaration on Forests, Bonn Challenge, and several international instruments related to human rights.

2.1.3. Indicators

LandScale indicators represent the conditions and processes within the landscape that are indicative of performance related to the LandScale goals. LandScale indicators are based on their importance to global sustainability concerns and on their ability to provide meaningful information at the landscape scale.

1 A summary table of the full LandScale assessment framework is provided in Annex 2. LandScale Assessment Framework Summary Table.


The LandScale assessment framework includes three categories of indicators:

1. Core indicators are deemed critical to landscape sustainability in all contexts and are therefore required as part of all LandScale assessments.2

2. Landscape-dependent indicators should be included in LandScale assessments in contexts where they are deemed applicable. For example, water quantity-related indicators should be included in water-stressed landscapes.2, 3

3. Optional indicators may be included in the LandScale assessment at the user’s discretion (in addition to the core and applicable landscape-dependent indicators). LandScale users may want to assess optional indicators because they provide additional context on landscape sustainability or address priorities of either landscape actors (e.g., governments, producers, or civil society) or external actors (e.g., private companies or investors).

These LandScale indicator categories are designed to create a standardized yet tailored approach to sustainability assessment: core indicators uniformly assess sustainability concerns that are relevant across all landscapes; landscape-dependent indicators assess sustainability concerns in the context of the given landscape; and optional indicators assess LandScale users’ own sustainable landscape objectives.

2.1.4. Performance Metrics

Performance metrics are the quantitative or qualitative measures of status or progress related to each indicator. They are assessed at regular intervals (e.g., annually, once every 3 years, etc.) to determine trends related to each indicator. If LandScale users have chosen to set targets, then the metrics serve to demonstrate progress towards or fulfillment of these targets. LandScale includes two categories of performance metrics: best-fit and alternate metrics.4 Further information on these categories as well as guidelines on selecting metrics is provided in Section 3.1.3. Step 3: Select performance metrics to assess indicators.

2.2. Pillar 1: Ecosystems

The biosphere is home to a diverse set of natural ecosystems spanning forests, savannas, grasslands, mangroves, and others. These ecosystems are repositories of biological diversity, and they provide critical ecosystem services that benefit humans such as food, clean water, clean air, climate regulation, nutrient cycling, as well as aesthetic and cultural values.

2 When conducting assessments, LandScale allows for certain exceptions for assessing core and/or landscape-dependent indicators that would otherwise be required, where data are unavailable or of poor quality. See Section 3.2.3. Completeness of assessment. 3 Guidelines on determining the applicability of landscape-dependent indicators are provided in Section 3.1.2. Step 2: Determine applicability of landscape-dependent indicators. 4 The designation of best-fit metrics for core and landscape-dependent indicators will be finalized in the next version of LandScale. In this current Version 0.1, proposed best-fit metrics for each indicator are listed first in the performance metric column in the tables in sections 2.2. through 2.5.


Yet, the world’s natural ecosystems are rapidly vanishing and what remains is being degraded. As a result, biodiversity loss is occurring at increasing rates, terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions are contributing significantly to the global climate crisis, and the capacity of ecosystems to provide essential services, such as clean water, is diminishing.

This pillar covers elements of sustainability related to healthy ecosystems such as conserving and restoring natural ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, and maintaining or enhancing key ecosystem services.

Table 1. Pillar 1: Ecosystems

Goal 1.1 Protect and Restore Ecosystems Natural ecosystems are critical for addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, and for maintaining the ecosystem services on which humans depend. Where ecosystems have been converted or degraded, restoration can revitalize their productive capacity and biodiversity value.

Indicator Description Applicability Performance Metrics UN SDG Targets

1.1.1 Natural Ecosystem Conversion

Conversion of natural ecosys-tems to other land uses, dis-aggregated by land cover type5

Core • Natural ecosystem conversion rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• Total area of natural ecosystem converted (ha), disaggregated by land cover type

15.1; 15.2; 15.4

1.1.2 Natural Ecosystem Degradation

Degradation of natural ecosystems, disaggregated by land cover type6

Landscape- dependent

• Natural ecosystem degradation rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• Degradation severity (e.g., low, medium, high), disaggregated by land cover type

• Total area natural ecosystem degraded (ha), disaggregated by land cover type

• Natural ecosystem fragmentation (index)

• Status (e.g., abundance) of indicator species that are associated with intact ecosystems

15.1; 15.2; 15.3; 15.4; 15.5

5 LandScale recommends disaggregation of land cover types using globally accepted land cover classifications such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Land Cover Classification System (LCCS). Further information on LCCS is available here: http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1036361/. 6 Restoration types will be classified according to the IUCN Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) Options Framework which can be found here: https://infoflr.org/index.php/what-flr/types-flr

http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1036361/

http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1036361/

https://infoflr.org/index.php/what-flr/types-flr


1.1.3 Ecosystem Restoration

Restoration of degraded ecosystems, disaggregated by restoration type7


• Restoration rate (ha/yr) or total area restored (ha), disaggregated by restoration type

• Total area restored (ha), disaggregated by restoration type

6.6; 15.1; 15.2; 15.3; 15.5

Goal 1.2 Protect Biodiversity Biodiversity is central to ecosystem functioning and provides humans with myriad economic and social benefits such as nutrient cycling, soil fertility, pollination, and pest protection. Yet, biodiversity is rapidly diminishing across the earth’s ecosystems, in large part due to habitat loss. Protecting species’ habitats is thus key to conserving biodiversity.


1.2.1 Threatened Species

Changes in threats to threatened species


• Changes in populations of or threats to threatened species8

• Changes in populations of or threats to indicator species8

15.4; 15.5; 15.7

1.2.2 Biodiversity Habitat Conversion

Conversion of natural ecosys-tems in areas classified as im-portant for biodi-versity including Protected Areas (PAs) and Key Biodiversity Ar-eas (KBAs)


• Natural ecosystem conversion rate within PAs and KBAs (ha/yr)

• Natural ecosystem conversion rate in other areas designated as important for biodiversity (ha/yr)

15.1; 15.4; 15.5

1.2.3 Biodiversity Habitat Degradation

Degradation of ecosystems in ar-eas classified as important for bio-diversity including PAs and KBAs

Optional • Natural ecosystem conversion rate within PAs and KBAs (ha/yr)

• Natural ecosystem degradation rate in other areas designated as important for biodiversity (ha/yr)

15.1; 15.4; 15.5

7 Restoration types will be classified according to the IUCN Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) Options Framework which can be found here: https://infoflr.org/index.php/what-flr/types-flr. 8 LandScale is exploring the use of the Species Threat Abatement and Recovery (STAR) Metric which apportions the relative contribution of threats (pressures) to each threatened species’ extinction risk. The STAR Metric is still under development and is anticipated for release in the near future. Further information can be found here: https://www.iucn.org/regions/washington-dc-office/our-work/species-threat-abatement-and-recovery-star-metric.

https://infoflr.org/index.php/what-flr/types-flr

https://www.iucn.org/regions/washington-dc-office/our-work/species-threat-abatement-and-recovery-star-metric

https://www.iucn.org/regions/washington-dc-office/our-work/species-threat-abatement-and-recovery-star-metric


Goal 1.3 Maintain and Enhance Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are the goods and services that are furnished by ecosystems and that sustain human well-being. Maintenance and enhancement of these services is thus key to sustaining commodity production, livelihoods, and resilience in rural landscapes.


1.3.1 Water Quantity

Provisioning capacity of water resources for human and agricultural consumption and for ecosystem function


• Flow rate of key water sources (volume/time)

• Water withdrawals (for production or processing) from surface or groundwater sources versus recharge (ratio)

• Extent of "green infrastructure" e.g., riparian corridors and wetlands (ha)

6.3; 6.6; 15.1

1.3.2 Water Quality

Quality of water resources for human and agricultural consumption and for ecosystem function


• Total suspended solids in key water bodies (load/volume)

• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

• Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) (load/volume)

• Concentration of metals or other toxins (load/volume)

3.9; 14.1; 15.1

1.3.3 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector GHG Sources and Sinks

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (sources) and sequestration (sinks), restricted to the AFOLU sector

Optional • GHG emissions rate from land use change (tCO2e/yr)

• GHG emissions rate from agricultural production and primary processing (tCO2e/yr)

• Terrestrial (above- and below-ground) C sequestration rate (tCO2e/yr)

13.2

1.3.4 Soil Health

Status of soil health including fertility, erosion, and soil organic carbon (SOC)

Optional • Average soil erosion rate (t/ha/yr)

• Soil health (% SOC) in a representative sample of production sites across the landscape

12.4 15.3


1.3.5 Other Ecosystem Services

Status of other ecosystems services of interest to the LandScale user or landscape actors

Optional • Metric(s) determined by LandScale users on case-by-case basis

6.5; 11.4; 11.5; 13.1; 15.8; numerous others

2.3. Pillar 2: Human Well-Being

Sustainable landscape management is critical to human well-being and development. Frequently, the economic benefits derived from land use activities are inequitably distributed, with local communities often realizing little value from their contributions (e.g., labor and land), especially in developing countries. As a result, high rates of poverty, food insecurity, poor health, and other social ills are common.

Improved distribution of benefits and sustainable landscape management can increase human well-being: a general state of health, happiness, and prosperity which broadly encompasses the elements of a decent standard of living as well as basic human rights inalienable to all persons.

This pillar covers elements of sustainability related to advancing human well-being by increasing the standard of living and respecting, protecting, and fulfilling basic human rights, especially for vulnerable and/or marginalized groups.

Table 2. Pillar 2: Human Well-Being

Goal 2.1 Improve Standard of Living, Especially for Vulnerable and/or Marginalized Groups All people have essential needs including food, water, housing, and basic services (e.g., sanitation, education, and health care). Having these needs met ensures that individuals and households can maintain a decent standard of living. Yet, in many regions widespread poverty limits access even to the most basic needs, resulting in high rates of malnutrition, disease, conflicts over natural resources, and other negative outcomes, a situation that is exacerbated for vulnerable and/or marginalized groups. Reducing poverty and food insecurity are two of the most critical elements for ensuring that landscape residents advance towards a decent standard of living.



2.1.1 Poverty

Rate of poverty (relative to national poverty line), disaggregated by population segment


• Percentage of (rural) population living on <$1.90/day (or below national poverty line)

• Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)9

• Poverty Probability Index (PPI)10

• Extent of nighttime lights (e.g., % of area in settlements)

• Extent of improved roof material (e.g., % of area in settlements)

• Locally relevant measures of economic development (e.g., livestock ownership, land ownership, access to credit/ financial services)

1.1; 1.2; 2.3; 15.c

2.1.2 Food Insecurity

Rate of food insecurity, disaggregated by population segment


• Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)11

• Household Hunger Scale (HHS)12

• Percentage of children < 5 years old suffering from malnutrition/ stunting/wasting

2.1; 2.2

2.1.3 Access to Basic Services

Population with access to basic services considered essential needs13 including clean water and sanitation, education, and health care, disaggregated

Optional WASH (water and sanitation): • Percentage of (rural) population

with safe drinking water access

• Percentage of (rural) population with adequate sanitation access

Education: • School enrollment/attendance rate

(% children)

• Primary/secondary school completion rate (% children)

1.4; 4.a; 6.1

9 The Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) identifies multiple deprivations at the household and individual level in health, education, and standard of living. Further information can be found here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/faq-page/multidimensional-poverty-index-2019-mpi#t406n3031. 10 The Poverty Probability Index (PPI®) is a poverty measurement tool for organizations and businesses with a mission to serve the poor. Further information can be found here: https://www.povertyindex.org/. 11 The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) is an experience-based food insecurity scale that assesses difficulties in accessing food due to resource constraints. Further information can be found here: http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/. 12 The Household Hunger Scale (HHS) is a simple indicator to measure household hunger in food-insecure areas. Further information can be found here: https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-hunger-scale-hhs. 13 Essential needs according to the Global Living Wage Coalition https://www.globallivingwage.org/.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/faq-page/multidimensional-poverty-index-2019-mpi#t406n3031

https://www.povertyindex.org/

http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/

https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-hunger-scale-hhs

https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-hunger-scale-hhs

https://www.globallivingwage.org/


Health: • Distance to health care facilities

• Percentage of (rural) population within threshold distance of appropriate facilities

Energy: • Percentage of (rural) population

with electricity access

Goal 2.2 Respect, Protect, and Fulfill Human Rights While human rights are considered inalienable to all people, in reality human rights abuses are widespread and include modern slave labor,14 child labor, discrimination, persecution, and other unfair labor practices. Working towards elimination of child and forced labor, and reducing adverse impacts on other core human rights is thus key to advancing universal human rights.


2.2.1 Child Labor

Rate of child labor relevant to the production activities of interest

Core • Number of child laborers in production activities of interest

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest composed of child laborers

8.7; 8.8

2.2.2 Forced Labor

Rate of forced labor relevant to the production activities of interest

Core • Number of forced laborers in production activities of interest

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest composed of forced laborers

8.7; 8.8

2.2.3 Workers' Rights

Status of other workers' rights including freedom of association, working hour restrictions, protection from discrimination, and safe working environments


• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest with freedom of association

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest with working hour restrictions in line with International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions

• Frequency of work-related injuries in production activities of interest

• Frequency of work-related deaths in production activities of interest

8.5; 8.6

14 According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), in 2016 nearly 25 million people were victims of modern slave labor. See https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labor/statistics/lang--en/index.htm, accessed June 2019.

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/statistics/lang--en/index.htm


2.2.4 Other Human Rights

Status of other human rights potentially impacted by production activities


• Context-appropriate metrics on other human rights15

10.3; numerous others

2.4. Pillar 3: Governance

Societies organize to make and implement decisions through the process of governance. Good governance relates to the decision-making and institutional processes required to achieve social and economic development goals. It entails minimizing corruption, ensuring the voices of all stakeholders—including vulnerable and/or marginalized groups—are heard, and being responsive to the current and future needs of society.

Of particular importance to commodity-producing landscapes are the elements of governance that relate to land and resource use. In many regions, land and resource rights and tenure lack clarity, resulting in rights abuses, particularly of vulnerable and/or marginalized groups. Further, land use decisions and activities are often uncoordinated between affected stakeholders, leading to poor resource use and management as well as resource depletion, degradation, and conflicts.

This pillar covers elements of sustainability related to good governance by promoting clear and secure land and resource tenure, and by advancing sound, participatory, and transparent land use policies, planning, and management.

Table 3. Pillar 3: Governance

Goal 3.1 Recognize and Protect Rights to Land and Resources, and Reduce Related Conflicts Rights to access, use, and manage land and resources are critical to people that depend on land use activities for their livelihoods. In many regions, however, land and resource tenure lack clarity, contributing to resource depletion and degradation, and, in some instances, expropriation of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ lands and resources, sometimes through violence.


3.1.1 Land and Resource Tenure Security

Land for which rights to own, access, use, and manage land and resources are

Core • Percentage of landscape with formalized land tenure rights that has clearly defined boundaries shown in publicly accessible maps

• Percentage of landscape without

1.4

15 There are numerous human rights potentially relevant to the production activities of interest in any given landscape. These can be tracked and assessed by reviewing widely accepted normative frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are complemented by frameworks oriented specifically to contexts in which LandScale will be applied, including the International Labour Organization core conventions for human rights in the workplace and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.


clear and secure through formal recognition by statutory or customary norms, are not overlapping, and are protected through legal or other means

formalized land tenure rights, disaggregated by tenure insecurity status16

3.1.2 Land and Resource Conflicts

Incidence of unresolved conflicts related to land and resource rights

Core • Number of new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts or grievances including land grabbing

• Amount of land subject to new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts or grievances including land grabbing

• Percentage of grievances or conflicts related to land and resource rights registered in a grievance mechanism that were resolved within one year

• Number of persons (e.g., environmental and human rights defenders) murdered or receiving death threats as a result of conflicts over land and resources

• Percentage of landscape with overlapping land and resource rights (e.g., mining and forestry concessions)

16.3

Goal 3.2 Promote Transparency, Participation, Inclusion, and Coordination in Land Use Policy, Planning, and Management Unplanned and/or illegal land use can result in detrimental environmental and social outcomes arising from conflicting policies, governmental inaction, and land and resource disputes. Land use planning can help ensure that affected stakeholders agree on management activities and that governments adopt supporting policies and regulations. Coordination amongst government agencies as well as an inclusive land use planning process that brings together all stakeholders and is informed by traditional uses and knowledge is thus key to successful land use planning.

16 A consistent typology of tenure insecurity status will be provided in the next version of LandScale.



3.2.1 Land Use Plan Adoption and Enforcement

Status of land use or zoning plan, with respect to agreement by stakeholders, formal adoption, and enforcement

Core • Percentage of landscape covered by land use or zoning plans that are formally adopted and enforceable

• Percentage of landscape for which land use or zoning plan(s) exist but are not formally adopted or enforceable

• Geographic extent of overlapping or competing land use plans (ha)

• Extent of land use change inconsistent with land use plan(s) over a given time period (ha/time)

11.b;

15.9

3.2.2 Coordination of Government Agencies in Land Use Policy, Planning and Management

Status of intergovernmental coordination of land use policy, planning and management across relevant government sectors including agriculture, forests, environment, mining, energy, transport, planning, and/or interior


• Percentage of relevant government sectors/agencies that participate in active mechanism(s) for inter-sectoral coordination on land use planning, policy, and management

15.9

3.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Inclusion in Land Use Policy, Planning and Management

Status of participation and inclusion in landscape-level land use planning and management for those stakeholders involved in or affected by production activities

Core • Percentage of stakeholder groups formally represented in multi-stakeholder committees or other mechanisms for coordination, input, and agreement that effectively influences landscape-level land use planning, policy, and management

15.6

3.2.4 Illegality and Corruption Related to

Levels of illegality and corruption in the allocation of rights, management and


• Incidence of corruption (e.g., bribes or undocumented payments) related to land and resource allocation and use (based on surveys of stakeholder

16.5


Land and Resources

use of land and resources

perception, media reports, and other landscape-appropriate information sources)

• Incidence of illegality related to land and resource use and management (based on surveys of stakeholder perception, media reports, and other landscape-appropriate information sources)

2.5. Pillar 4: Production

Goods produced or extracted from the earth and its ecosystems constitute a significant portion of the world’s economy. These goods—destined for local, national, and international markets—contribute to local livelihoods and help meet growing global demand for food, fiber, minerals, and other essential products.

In recent years, however, the planetary resources underpinning increased production of agricultural, forest products, and extractive commodities have been overexploited, resulting in widespread negative social and environmental externalities. Among other impacts, soil and water resources are depleted and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are destroyed, degraded or polluted to the detriment of local people and communities.

This pillar covers elements of sustainability related to promoting regenerative and sustainable production systems, especially in agriculture, agroforestry, and plantation forestry. Note that the LandScale assessment framework is designed to also address the effects of production activities in other sectors including extractives, timber harvest from natural forests, and fisheries. Production outcomes associated with those sectors are best measured by context-specific indicators, for instance, timber or fish harvest rates that do not exceed the ecosystem’s long-term regenerative capacity. Effects of production systems on the environment and human well-being are addressed by indicators in LandScale’s other pillars. For example, the effects of mineral extraction activities on water quality would be captured by the landscape-dependent Indicator 1.3.2 Water Quality. Stakeholders are invited to provide input on this approach to assessing landscape-scale effects of production activities within the LandScale assessment framework.

Table 4. Pillar 4: Production

Goal 4.1 Promote Regenerative Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Production Systems In many landscapes, existing production systems result in the degradation of natural resources such as arable land, soil, and water. Yields are often well below achievable optima for the respective region, resulting in low farmer incomes, particularly for smallholders lacking access to improved tools and technologies. At a broader scale, yield gaps can also increase pressure to convert additional land to meet consumer demand. Increasing productivity and resource use efficiency in tandem, while avoiding unsustainable use of external inputs, is thus key to meeting global demand for goods from existing production lands.



4.1.1 Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Plantation Productivity

Productivity of agricultural (crop and livestock), agroforestry, and tree production systems

Core17

• Average crop productivity (yield/ha) for key crops

• Average livestock productivity (livestock units/ha)

• Average forest plantation productivity (timber volume/ha)

2.3

4.1.2 Input Use Efficiency in Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Production Systems

Efficiency of input use in agricultural, agroforestry and tree production systems

Core18

• Fertilizer use efficiency (quantity of product produced per unit of nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium (NPK) use)

• Water use efficiency (quantity of product produced per unit of water use)

• Percentage of land under Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices

2.4; 6.4; 12.3; 12.4

4.1.3 Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices

Adoption of sustainable land management (SLM) practices in agricultural and forest plantation operations19

Optional • Percent adoption of SLM practices in agricultural and/or forest plantation operations

• Percentage of land area under SLM practices in agricultural and/or forest plantation operations

• Economic sustainability: average producer’s net income per ha for production activity/activities of interest

• Financial incentives provided for SLM practices (total $/year)

• Extent of fire resulting from agricultural land management (ha burned/year)

2.4

17 Required in landscapes where agriculture, agroforestry, or tree production systems are significant production activities. 18 Required in landscapes where agriculture, agroforestry, or tree production systems are significant production activities. 19 The next version of LandScale will provide a framework to identify practices that qualify as SLM under different production systems as well as indicative examples in different contexts.


4.1.4 Adoption of Sustainable Waste Management Practices

Adoption of sustainable waste management practices across all land use activities

Optional • Context-appropriate metrics on adoption of sustainable waste management practices20

6.3; 12.4; 12.5

20 Options for measuring adoption of sustainable waste management practices at landscape scale are being assessed and will be included in the next version of LandScale.


3. Guidelines for Using LandScale First-time users of LandScale should conduct a scoping process to determine how best to tailor LandScale to the context in the landscape of interest; this process is described in Section 3.1. Getting Started: Designing a LandScale Assessment below. Following this initial scoping stage, users are ready to conduct their first LandScale assessment as described in the subsequent Section 3.2. Conducting a LandScale Assessment. Thereafter, assessments may be conducted at regular intervals.

3.1. Getting Started: Designing a LandScale Assessment

Designing a LandScale assessment starts with a four-step scoping process to define the landscape boundary and determine how best to apply LandScale within this context. These steps include:

1. Setting landscape boundaries, which could be defined by jurisdiction or catchment (i.e., watershed) boundaries, or by LandScale users;

2. Determining applicability of landscape-dependent indicators to establish which of these indicators should be assessed;

3. Selecting performance metrics to assess indicators; and

4. Describing the multi-stakeholder process for landscape assessment and management (optional)

When carrying out these steps to determine how best to apply LandScale, it is helpful to note that LandScale is most applicable in rural landscapes where natural resource-based sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, inland fisheries, minerals, and infrastructure) constitute the majority of land use and/or the economy. Additionally, LandScale may be most helpful in advancing sustainability in landscapes where there is interest from both local actors (e.g., governments, producers, or civil society via a multi-stakeholder process) and external actors (e.g., commodity buyers, investors, or donors) in identifying sustainability issues and managing for improvements at landscape scale.

3.1.1. Step 1: Set landscape boundaries

Once users have identified a general area of interest to apply LandScale, the precise boundaries of the landscape need to be defined. These boundaries determine the area in which the LandScale assessment will be conducted.

In general, the optimal area for applying LandScale ranges from hundreds to thousands of square kilometers. This size is generally appropriate to provide meaningful insights into landscape sustainability performance and to facilitate actions to improve it. If the landscape is too small, it may not sufficiently capture the breadth of land uses that influence, or are impacted by, sustainability within the landscape. If the landscape is too large, the results of LandScale assessments might not provide useful information for driving action to make improvements.


To enable users to tailor the assessment to meet their needs; there are three options for landscape boundary setting:

1. Jurisdictions,

2. Catchments, or

3. User-defined landscapes set by LandScale users based on considerations such as company sourcing areas, investment or project areas, and ecoregions or other geographic parameters of primary interest to LandScale users.

Because the boundaries of jurisdictions and catchments are pre-defined and generally already accepted as land use management units, either of these boundaries can be used without restrictions or need for further justification. For user-defined landscape boundary setting, additional guidelines provided below are intended to help ensure consistency of LandScale’s application and to account for key interactions and potential impacts in the boundary zone that borders the user-defined landscape.

As previously noted, LandScale is most applicable for rural landscapes where natural resource-based sectors comprise a major part of the land base and economy. If LandScale is applied in landscapes where urban areas comprise a major portion of the land use or population, then many of the indicators may be skewed to reflect conditions in these urban areas. Therefore, users are encouraged to define landscapes that consist predominantly of rural lands and the small population centers that are embedded within or directly associated with these lands. Finally, to ensure that the outputs of LandScale assessments can help drive sustainability improvements, landscape boundary setting should be informed by a clear understanding of how and by whom the assessment results will be used.

Additional considerations for jurisdiction, catchment, and user-defined boundaries are provided below.

Option 1: Jurisdiction

A jurisdiction is a political administrative territory within which government authority is exercised. For LandScale, the appropriate level of jurisdiction matches the optimal landscape size—approximately hundreds to thousands of square kilometers. In most countries, this will correspond to a second- or third-level jurisdiction such as a municipality, district, county, or canton.21

The use of jurisdictions as landscape boundaries can facilitate collaboration with and coordination amongst government bodies operating within the jurisdiction. LandScale can provide information about how to monitor impact, support management, and attract investment to jurisdictional approaches through which governments, producers, commodity-sourcing companies and other stakeholders are collaborating to strengthen policies and plans for sustainable production. Further, publicly available datasets corresponding to LandScale

21 Note that the terms used for second- and third-level jurisdictions as well as the corresponding size vary from country to country. For example, municipalities in Brazil are generally many times larger than cantons in Costa Rica, even though both are second-level jurisdictions.


indicators—particularly related to socioeconomic variables—often collate data to the level of jurisdictions and thus may facilitate LandScale assessments.

Option 2: Catchment

A catchment (also known as a drainage basin or watershed) is the area of land from which all precipitation flows to a common outlet. Similar to jurisdictions, the appropriate catchment size matches the optimal LandScale landscape size—approximately hundreds to thousands of square kilometers. The volume of water flowing out of catchments within this size range will vary widely depending on topography, climate, geology, and other factors.

The use of catchments as landscape boundaries can facilitate understanding of ecological performance given the ecological connectivity within catchments, particularly for water-related indicators. Catchment boundaries can also support LandScale users reliant on water such as agricultural producers, extractives industries, government water authorities, or hydroelectric power suppliers.

Option 3: User-defined landscapes

Because landscapes can be defined by multiple ecological, political, historical, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions, LandScale permits users to define landscapes according to locally relevant combinations of these parameters.

User-defined landscapes may be appropriate for a variety of LandScale users. Examples include companies using LandScale to assess sustainability performance in their supply sheds; governments or other donors using LandScale to assess areas impacted by large-scale infrastructure projects; or companies or investors aiming to conduct risk assessment in a specific area of interest.

To ensure LandScale assessments include a sufficiently broad scope of sustainability issues related to the production activities of primary interest, the user-defined landscape boundary should encompass the most significant environmental, social, and economic features (i.e., land cover/land uses) that influence, or are impacted by, such activities. These may include, for example, protected areas, critical conservation values, major water bodies, human settlements, or major production areas and processing facilities.

There is a risk that land uses with significant linkages to the production activities of primary interest are deliberately excised from the user-defined landscape boundary to avoid them being considered as part of the LandScale assessment. To address this risk, the user should conduct an adjacency analysis as part of the process of establishing user-defined boundaries. This analysis should include:

• Information on land uses adjacent to the proposed user-defined landscape.

• Identification of features outside of but proximate to the proposed landscape that could have significant impacts on the landscape, such as major human settlements, mineral or hydrocarbon extraction sites, or major production or processing operations.


• Identification of potentially sensitive areas outside of but proximate to the proposed landscape that could be significantly impacted by activities within the landscape, such as protected areas, sensitive natural ecosystems, or human settlements.

Where the adjacency analysis reveals that significant impacts are likely to occur on or from areas that are outside of the originally proposed user-defined landscape, the boundary of that landscape should be extended to incorporate these adjacent areas.

Such an adjacency analysis will help ensure consistency of LandScale’s application and account for externalities or negative impacts in surrounding areas.

3.1.2. Step 2: Determine applicability of landscape-dependent indicators

With the landscape boundaries set, LandScale users can proceed to determining applicability of landscape-dependent indicators within the landscape. To determine applicability, LandScale users should review each landscape-dependent indicator according to the following evaluation criteria:

• Existing problems: Are there existing documented concerns or impacts related to the indicator? For example,

o if a significant number of species within the landscape are listed on the IUCN Red List, then Indicator 1.2.1 Threatened species is applicable in the landscape;

o if there are existing conflicts related to water access and use, then Indicator 1.3.1 Water quantity is applicable in the landscape; or

o if there are documented cases of illegal land grabbing, then Indicator 3.2.4 Illegality and corruption related to land and resources is applicable in the landscape.

• Trends and drivers: Do trends (e.g., increasing resource scarcity or competition) and drivers (e.g., market forces or government policy shifts) suggest the possible development of future risks? For example,

o if a large downstream supply chain company has signaled its intent to invest in a new large agricultural processing facility in the landscape, then Indicator 2.2.3 Workers’ rights is applicable in the landscape; or

o if the regional government has recently restructured its government agencies, then Indicator 3.2.2 Coordination of government agencies in land use policy, planning and management is applicable in the landscape.

Information sources that can support review of the above criteria include: 1) reports, scientific papers, newspaper articles, or other published documents from credible institutions or authors, and 2) input from recognized expert bodies on the respective topic as well as from local landscape stakeholder groups. Seeking input from the latter is especially important because the local landscape perspective may offer insights on sustainability concerns that are not documented verbally or in writing by experts.


There are three possible outcomes for the analysis of applicability for each landscape-dependent indicator:

1. The indicator is determined to be applicable in the landscape. It should then be included in the LandScale assessment.

2. The determination of applicability is inconclusive due to ambiguous or insufficient information. To be conservative, the indicator should be included in the initial LandScale assessment. If the initial assessment establishes that the preceding criteria (related to existing problems, trends, and drivers) are not met, then the indicator can be dropped as a requirement from subsequent assessments.

3. The indicator is determined to be not applicable in the landscape. In this case, LandScale users should issue a written statement explaining why it is deemed not applicable. The indicator is not required in the LandScale assessment, but it may be included as an optional indicator if LandScale users or other landscape stakeholders consider it a priority in the landscape.

In all instances, LandScale users should document the process used to determine the applicability of landscape-dependent indicators. Future versions of LandScale will include further guidelines on determining applicability, particularly as it relates to independent verification.

3.1.3. Step 3: Select performance metrics to assess indicators

The LandScale framework includes two categories of performance metrics to promote the use of the most credible and appropriate metrics while also ensuring flexibility:22

• Best-fit metrics: Core and landscape-dependent indicators each have one or more best-fit metrics. In most landscapes, these metrics are the best direct measure of the corresponding indicator. Best-fit metrics should be the first choice for application in an assessment and may be used without further justification.

• Alternate metrics: In instances where it is not feasible or appropriate to use the best-fit metric (e.g., due to a lack of data), users may apply alternate metrics as a proxy or indirect measure of core or landscape-dependent indicators. For example, where poverty rates cannot be measured directly to assess Indicator 2.1.1 Poverty, metrics such as the extent of nighttime illumination or type of residential roofing material may serve as a proxy for the prevalence of poverty. In cases where an alternate metric is used, justification should be provided describing why the best-fit metric is not feasible and/or why there is a more appropriate alternate metric.

22 The designation of best-fit metrics for core and landscape-dependent indicators will be finalized in the next version of LandScale. In this current Version 0.1, proposed best-fit metrics for each indicator are listed first in the performance metric column in the tables in Sections 2.2. through 2.5.


In addition, LS users may propose their own alternate metrics if deemed a better fit than the LandScale-listed metrics. When proposing alternate metrics, the following metrics selection criteria should be applied:23

• Relevant: The metric should provide relevant information on the indicator at landscape scale.

• Precise: The metric should provide reliable information on the indicator.

• Sensitive: The metric should be capable of detecting changes.

• Easy to understand: The metric should provide intuitive information to LandScale stakeholders.

LandScale users should provide a brief description of how the proposed alternate metric addresses each of these criteria. Additionally, suggested data sources24 should be identified and indicated in the description.

The following decision tree illustrates the guidelines for determining the applicability of landscape-dependent indicators and the subsequent process for selecting performance metrics for all indicators (i.e., core, landscape-dependent, and optional) that will be used in a given LandScale assessment:

Figure 3. Decision Tree Illustrating the Guidelines for Landscape-Dependent Indicators and the Subsequent Process for Selecting Performance Metrics for All Indicators

23 Adapted from Understanding Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring Landscape Performance (Buck et al., 2006). 24 Information on data sources and other data-related considerations is provided below in Section 3.2.5. Data considerations.

Is the landscape-dependent indicator

applicable in the landscape context?

Landscape-dependent indicator should be included

in initial assessment.

Landscape-dependent indicator not required in initial

assessment.

Is the indicator a top priority for

LandScale Users?

Is Land-Scale best-fit metric feasible and appropriate to

landscape context?Review potential data

sources.

Review indicator for applicability at

2nd assessment.

Include as optional indicator in initial

assessment. Follow steps for metric

selection.

Use LandScalealternate metric in initial assessment.

Propose and use landscape-specific alternate metric in initial assessment.

Use LandScale best-fit metric in initial

assessment.

Is/are LandScale alternate metric(s) feasible and

appropriate to landscape context? Review potential

data sources.

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO


3.1.4. Step 4: Describe multi-stakeholder process for landscape assessment and management (optional)

LandScale assessments may be led by a single organization or by a group of actors interested in sustainable landscape management. The latter may be an existing multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP) or a more informal or incipient process or partnership.

As an outcomes-based system, LandScale does not mandate a single approach or set of practices for engaging stakeholders to work together toward sustainability objectives. Nevertheless, LandScale recognizes the importance and value of intentional efforts to convene multiple actors (or groups of actors) to participate in joint planning, implementation, and monitoring toward clear and commonly-held goals. The way that a landscape or jurisdictional initiative is run lends credibility and helps sustain the social capital needed for long-term success. A clear understanding of each party’s interests and capabilities as well as the assets and liabilities each group brings to the table can help to clarify roles and actions. Further, engaging multiple stakeholders both strengthens the legitimacy of the landscape or jurisdictional initiative, and increases opportunities to learn and manage the effort adaptively and methodically.

LandScale users are therefore encouraged to describe the actions taken to engage multiple stakeholders and facilitate their participation, regardless of whether there is a formal MSP or a more informal arrangement for collaborating in place. To this end, LandScale users should describe:

• the history of their own engagement in the landscape;

• the first movers and catalysts who facilitated a coordinated management effort;

• the range of stakeholders involved in the landscape-level effort, as well as their specific current and potential roles;

• the objectives, goals, strategies, and actions for the landscape or jurisdictional initiative agreed by the stakeholders; and

• the process for how and when stakeholders communicate and collaborate to agree on shared objectives and strategies, to assess progress, and to adjust plans and tactics (e.g., regular meetings, forums, or cross-departmental government functions).

Box 5. Good Practices and Resources for Landscape-Level Multi-Stakeholder Engagement, Platforms, or Partnerships

Collaborating to achieve change is not easy. Different landscape stakeholders often have different goals, strengths, and resources. Given these challenges, much research has gone into understanding the elements of successful collaborations. One demonstrated approach to multi-stakeholder collaboration is known as collective impact, which entails the following:

1. A clear common agenda

2. Shared measurement systems

3. Mutually-reinforcing activities

4. Continuous communication

5. Backbone support organizations


3.2. Conducting a LandScale Assessment

With the preceding scoping steps completed, LandScale users are ready to conduct the LandScale assessment. Assessment begins with the initial round of collecting data on metrics in the LandScale framework. These data, along with the design steps, can be independently verified if the LandScale user wishes to make credible claims about landscape performance or validate the results for other reasons. The following subsections provide further detail on the assessment process, data considerations, verification, and claims.

The LandScale team advocates for the use of a collective impact approach when establishing and running a landscape initiative, be it a formalized MSP or other platform. More information on collective impact can be found at https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/what-collective-impact.

Building on the general collective impact guidance, a recent discussion paper co-published by ISEAL and WWF lays out the potential roles and responsibilities of a variety of entities including NGOs, local government, communities, enterprises, landscape management entities, data providers, and sourcing companies. It also describes how these actors can engage in three key stages in the development of landscape initiatives:

1. Management framework development: A multi-stakeholder process reaches agreement on sustainability goals and an action plan to get there.

2. Measurement framework development: A measurement framework and monitoring metrics are defined and baseline data is collected.

3. Implementation: The plan is put into action, and progress against the sustainability goals is being monitored and verified.

Note that LandScale is designed to explicitly fulfill the second and third stages, measurement framework and implementation, respectively. Further, LandScale guidance on multi-stakeholder processes for landscape assessment and management can assist in the first stage, management framework development.

Additional information can be found in Credible Assurance at a Landscape Scale: A discussion paper on landscape and jurisdictional assurance and claims available for download at https://www.isealalliance.org/about-iseal/our-work/landscape-assurance.

Finally, LandScale recommends these additional references for consideration:

1. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book: Achieving sustainable development through integrated landscape management. https://www.globalcanopy.org/publications/little-sustainable-landscapes-book

2. The MSP Guide: How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. http://www.mspguide.org/msp-guide

3. IUCN’s ROAM Tool animation series

https://www.collectiveimpactforum.org/what-collective-impact

https://www.isealalliance.org/about-iseal/our-work/landscape-assurance

https://www.globalcanopy.org/publications/little-sustainable-landscapes-book


http://www.mspguide.org/msp-guide

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE_scKstDhz4N7dUVUR7EmYHyUdBJ9QXG


3.2.1. Assessment scope

The scope of LandScale assessment includes all core indicators, any landscape-dependent indicators deemed applicable in the landscape, as well as any optional indicators that were selected for inclusion in the assessment.

In addition, where users wish to contextualize the results of LandScale assessments, they may choose to conduct an optional Landscape Situation Analysis (LSA), an analysis of the internal and external factors that affect and are affected by sustainability within the landscape. Further information on how to conduct an LSA is provided in Annex 3. Landscape Situation Analysis.

3.2.2. Frequency of assessment

Where results of LandScale assessments are used to justify claims about landscape status or trends (see Section 3.4. Claims), they should be conducted at least once every three years.

3.2.3. Completeness of assessment

Gaps in data availability and other constraints may, in practice, limit the ability of LandScale users to conduct a complete assessment (i.e., provide up-to-date data on all core and applicable landscape-dependent indicators) every three years. Further, a key goal of LandScale is to promote sustainability improvement within landscapes, which may include generating new and more accurate information over time.

Where LandScale assessments will be used to make public claims about sustainability, LandScale allows for the following exceptions for assessing core and/or landscape-dependent indicators over time:

• Up to 25% of these indicators may be omitted from the initial assessment (i.e., Year 0)

• Up to 10% may be omitted from the 2nd assessment (i.e., Year 3)

• All should reported by the 3rd assessment (i.e., Year 6)

Allowing some exceptions in the early stages enables allocation of resources to fill data gaps, leading towards a holistic assessment of landscape sustainability over time. In instances where one or more indicators are left out of the initial or second assessment, LandScale users should clearly document the constraint(s) and describe how the indicator(s) will be brought into future assessments.

3.2.4. Displaying results

Results of LandScale assessments will offer a multidimensional view of sustainability within the landscape. The initial assessment will provide a snapshot of current performance25 while subsequent assessments will provide both an updated snapshot of performance and infor-mation

25 Where historical information is available it may be used to offer insights into past trends on one or more indicators.


on trends over time. In addition to showing status and trends, LandScale assessment results could be used to compare performance with other landscapes or larger regional or national datasets. Further, comparisons within the landscape could be made through disaggregation of results data, for example by production activity (e.g., type of agriculture) or population segment. Results could be displayed in various formats including in maps for geospatially explicit data, or in tables, charts, and other graphics.

To facilitate visualization and interpretation of results, LandScale will develop an online data and reporting platform (see Section 4. Data and Reporting Platform). Prior to development of the platform, early LandScale users26 may report results using the format presented in the table below.

Table 5. Hypothetical Example of a Results Table for a LandScale Assessment Conducted over a 6-year Period27

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Indicator

Core


Performance metric (best-fit)

Initial Assessment (Year 0) including historic reference levels, where available

Second Assessment (Year 3)

Third Assessment (Year 6)


Natural ecosystem conversion rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• 750 ha/yr avg natural forest converted (since 2012)

• 181 ha/yr avg natural forest converted

• 104 ha/yr avg natural forest converted


Natural ecosystem degradation rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• 500 ha/yr avg natural forest degraded (since 2012)

• 100 ha/yr avg natural forest degraded

• 33 ha/yr avg natural forest degraded


Restoration rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by restoration type

• No data available • 17 ha/yr avg natural regeneration

• 188 ha/yr avg natural regeneration

• 352 ha/yr avg agroforestry land


Changes in threats to threatened species per the STAR Metric

• 0.15 STAR assessment score




Natural ecosystem conversion rate within PAs and KBAs (ha/yr)

• 16 ha/yr avg natural ecosystems converted within PAs (since 2012)

• 0 ha/yr natural ecosystems converted within PAs

• 0 ha/yr natural ecosystems converted within PAs


River discharge (m3/second)

• 23 m3/second avg river discharge



26 A prospectus for those interested in applying an early version of LandScale will be available for download by late August 2019 at www.landscale.org. 27 Note that only a subset of the indicators are used in this example. A full assessment would include all core indicators, all applicable landscape-dependent indicators, and any optional indicators included in the assessment.



ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Indicator

Core


Performance metric (best-fit)

Initial Assessment (Year 0) including historic reference levels, where available

Second Assessment (Year 3)

Third Assessment (Year 6)

2.1.1 Poverty

% of population living on <$1.90/day

• 11% total population • 13% women • 18% youth • No data available on

indigenous groups

• 10% total population • 12% women • 17% youth • 40% indigenous groups

• 7% total population • 8% women • 10% youth • 35% indigenous

groups

2.2.1 Child Labor

% of workforce (in production activities of interest) composed of child laborers

• No data available • 5% child labor in banana workforce

• No data available on sugarcane or oil palm

• 3% child labor in banana workforce

• No child labor in sugarcane and oil palm workforces

2.2.2 Forced Labor

% of workforce (in production activities of interest) composed of forced laborers

• No data available • No forced labor in banana workforce

• 7% forced labor in sugarcane workforce

• No forced labor in oil palm workforce

• No forced labor in banana workforce

• 6% forced labor in sugarcane workforce

• No forced labor in oil palm workforce


% of landscape with formalized land and resource tenure rights that have clearly defined boundaries shown in publicly accessible maps

• 29.1% of landscape with formalized land tenure rights

• No data available on resource tenure rights


• 12.0% of landscape with formalized resource tenure rights


• 20.5% of landscape with formalized resource tenure rights


Number of new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts or grievances including land grabbing

• 5 continuing unresolved land conflicts

• 2 continuing unresolved land conflicts

• 1 new unresolved resource conflict

• 0 new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts

4.1.1 Agricultural, Agroforestry and Tree Plantation Productivity

Avg crop productivity (yield/ha) for key crops

• 21.1 tonnes/ha avg banana yield

• 51.8 tonnes/ha avg sugarcane yield

• 6.2 tonnes/ha avg crude palm oil yield







4.1.2 Resource Use Efficiency in Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Production Systems

Fertilizer use efficiency (quantity of product produced per unit of nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium (NPK) use)

• 70 kg banana/kg nitrogen applied in banana systems

• No data available on other crops

• 85 kg banana/kg nitrogen applied

• 558 kg sugarcane/kg nitrogen applied

• No data available on palm oil

• 141 kg banana/kg nitrogen applied

• 540 kg sugarcane/kg nitrogen applied

• No data available on palm oil

3.2.5. Data considerations

Data are central to the LandScale assessment process; they form the basis for understanding sustainability trends across the landscape. Data should accurately provide quantitative or qualitative information in relation to the selected performance metrics. We provide further


information below on data sources, data quality, and other considerations for LandScale assessment.

3.2.5.1 Data sources

To the extent feasible, LandScale encourages the use of datasets that are already collected in order to limit costs and leverage the burgeoning availability of earth observation data, “big data,” and other data and data-related platforms. In some instances, new data may need to be collected to fill gaps.

Potential data sources can be categorized as follows:

1. Secondary data are those that have already been collected. These include raw, unprocessed datasets such as household census microdata, agricultural production and trade data, and remotely sensed data collected by government agencies, multilateral institutions, and others. Some processing and cleaning may be required to utilize these data. Within secondary data there are also existing “off-the-shelf” datasets that are pre-processed and made available for ease of use within tools or applications such as Global Forest Watch or the IUCN Red List.

2. Primary data are those that are newly collected and used for LandScale assessments through field measurements (e.g., water quality, crop yields), surveys, interviews, focus groups, or other means. At times, secondary datasets may not be available or adequate for a given indicator. In these instances, primary data collection for the purpose of conducting LandScale assessments is permitted and may be necessary. To help ensure the credibility of these data and avoid unintended consequences of their use, LandScale will develop guidelines for primary data collection including aspects such as methodology, sampling scheme and intensity, data privacy, protection of interviewees and data providers, and documentation including metadata.

3.2.5.2. Data quality

Given the central role of data to LandScale assessments, LandScale will provide clear and standardized guidelines on data quality, collection, processing, analysis, and reporting. Factors related to reliability, completeness, geographical and temporal coverage and frequency, user-friendliness, costs, and others will be considered. Further, LandScale’s standardized definitions for indicators and performance metrics will aid in data comparability. These considerations and others will be further elaborated in the next version of LandScale, particularly in relation to the data and reporting platform.

3.3. Verification

LandScale offers insights into indicators of landscape-scale sustainability performance over time. The level of confidence in these insights hinges on various factors including fidelity to the guidelines for LandScale use, data quality, temporal and spatial resolution of data, and others. Assurance of LandScale assessment results can be achieved through verification—the process of evaluating compliance with the guidelines for LandScale use and of evaluating the accuracy of LandScale assessment results.


In cases where LandScale users seek to make credible public claims about the results of LandScale assessments, LandScale will require verification by an independent third-party entity that has no commercial or other ties to the LandScale user.28 Third-party verification may be conducted by:

• Accredited verification entities, which may include entities accredited by certification programs that are members of the ISEAL Alliance and entities that are in compliance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) verification requirements.29 Accreditation rules for LandScale-approved verification bodies will be developed in the next version of LandScale.

• Peer reviewers who have expert knowledge of the local landscape context but are not formally accredited to perform verifications. LandScale will develop a robust process of oversight and quality control to ensure that peer reviewers maintain independence and rigor when conducting third-party verification of LandScale assessments.

For situations where LandScale assessment results will be used for risk assessment, decision-making by individual organizations, or other internal purposes, LandScale will develop a separate verification process that offers credible assurance of assessment results but with additional flexibility. This is expected to include an option for second-party verification conducted by entities with a relationship to the LandScale user but not directly responsible for conducting the assessment. Second-party entities may include consultants, supply chain actors, or others.

Under all scenarios, verification will include oversight systems including quality control and other components such as grievance redress mechanisms to ensure that LandScale assessments are accurate and trusted. Guidelines on how, when, and where to use the different verification options will be developed in the next version of LandScale.

The focus of the above-described verification process is on the status and trends of landscape sustainability performance as assessed by LandScale. The LandScale team is also investigating the possibility of developing an additional module for assessing and potentially verifying an organization’s involvement in or contribution to sustainability in a landscape that has undergone a LandScale assessment. This could include verification of activities or business transactions associated with the given landscape, such as the volume of a particular commodity sourced or the amount and nature of investment in activities to improve sustainability.

3.4. Claims

Many LandScale users will want to communicate the results of LandScale assessments via simple statements to their stakeholders, be they donors, investors, buyers, civil society

28 Note that if the LandScale user is simply granting public access to LandScale results via the data and reporting platform, this does not constitute a claim and will not require third-party verification. However, any affirmative or proactive public communication of LandScale assessment results constitutes a claim (as defined in Annex 1. Terms and Definitions) and will require third-party verification. See Section 3.4 for further information on claims. 29 For example, ISO/IEC 17011:2017 Conformity assessment – criteria for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies https://www.iso.org/standard/67198.html..

https://www.iso.org/standard/67198.html


organizations, local communities, or consumers. The next version of LandScale will therefore include guidelines on translating the results of assessments into accurate, yet easy to understand, claims regarding the performance of a landscape.

LandScale intends to support the following types of claims:

1. Claims about landscape performance in relation to a single LandScale indicator

a. Snapshot claims: For some indicators, it may be useful to make statements about the performance level at a given point in time, e.g., in 2018, 20% of the rural population in the subject landscape were living below the poverty line.

b. Trends: For some indicators, it may be more meaningful to convey the performance trajectory over a certain number of years, e.g., between 2014 and 2019, the average rate of soil erosion increased from 5 tonnes/ha/yr to 6.5 tonnes/ha/yr.

2. Claims about landscape performance in relation to multiple LandScale indicators

Some individuals and organizations may want to make more general claims about the sustainability performance of a landscape, which reflects either progress, or the achievement of targets, across a range of indicators. Given the significant variation between landscapes, it is challenging to compare progress and targets between landscapes in order to create a universal “rating” of landscape sustainability that is both credible and meaningful. However, the LandScale team will be exploring innovative ways to aggregate and communicate results at the level of LandScale goals, pillars, or across the entire framework.

All claims should state the year or time period that the results of the LandScale assessment(s) relate to.


4. Data and Reporting Platform The data and reporting platform will be an online tool with multiple functionalities. One main objective of the platform is to help LandScale users conduct LandScale assessments by furnishing guidelines, datasets, and methods for data collection and processing. The other main objective is to enable data entry, management, analysis, and visualization with differential access to these features based on user credentials. Specifically, the platform will likely include a website that provides certain generalized or aggregated information but masks user-specific data, as well as areas for LandScale users to enter data and manage workflow for LandScale assessments. The platform may also give users the ability to compare their performance against local, regional, and/or national averages or trends. Specific features may include the following:

• Information on and access to diverse datasets to support LandScale assessments. The platform will incentivize data sharing by companies and other actors; it will also have mechanisms to upload data, and protect data privacy and intellectual property through anonymization and other means.

• Data-processing capabilities that can be used where datasets require transformations or other types of processing to be used for LandScale assessments (e.g., up/downscaling, data scraping, geospatial analysis).

• Visualization of results and trends using maps, tables, charts, and/or other graphics that support interpretation and decision-making.


Annex 1. Terms and Definitions • Adjacency analysis: An analysis of land uses, features, and potentially sensitive areas

adjacent to user-defined landscape boundaries to identify areas that could have significant impacts on the user-defined landscape or be significantly impacted by it.

• Agroforestry: Land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence.

• Basic services: The essential needs that all human populations have, including clean water and sanitation, education, health care, and electricity. (Adapted from Global Living Wage Coalition)

• Biodiversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, as well as marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. (Adapted from the Convention of Biological Diversity)

• Boundary setting: The process of selecting and setting the geographic boundaries that will define the scope of the LandScale assessment.

• Catchment: The area of land from which all precipitation flows to a common outlet.

• Child labor: Work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. (Adapted from ILO)

• Claim: A proactive message used to communicate or promote the sustainability attributes of a landscape, or components thereof, based on the results of a LandScale assessment.

• Conversion: Change of a natural ecosystem to another land use or a profound change in a natural ecosystem’s species composition, structure, or function.

○ Deforestation is a form of conversion (conversion of natural forests).

○ Conversion includes severe degradation or the introduction of management practices that result in substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem’s former species composition, structure, or function.

○ Change to natural ecosystems that meets this definition is considered to be conversion regardless of whether or not it is legal. (Adapted from Accountability Framework)

• Degradation: Changes within a natural ecosystem that significantly and negatively affect its species composition, structure, and/or function and reduce the ecosystem’s capacity to supply products, support biodiversity, and/or deliver ecosystem services. Degradation may be considered conversion if it

o is large-scale as well as progressive or enduring;

o alters ecosystem composition, structure, and function to the extent that regeneration to a previous state is unlikely; or

o leads to a change in land use (e.g., to agriculture or other use that is not a natural forest or other natural ecosystem). (Adapted from Accountability Framework (AFi))



https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02

https://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/lang--en/index.htm

https://accountability-framework.org/definitions/?definition_category=17




• Ecosystem services: Services provided by the environment or ecosystems, which provide benefits to humans, e.g., water provisioning or carbon storage. (Adapted from Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR))

• Food insecurity: A situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development, and an active and healthy life. (Adapted from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO))

• Forced labor: All work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered herself or himself voluntarily. (Adapted from Rainforest Alliance (RA) 2020 Agriculture Standard)

• Forest landscape restoration (FLR): The ongoing process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes. FLR is more than just planting trees, it is restoring a whole landscape to meet present and future needs and to offer multiple benefits and land uses over time. (Adapted from IUCN)

• Goal: The desired sustainability outcomes within each LandScale pillar.

• Governance: A comprehensive and inclusive concept of the full range of means for deciding, managing, implementing, and monitoring policies and measures. Whereas government is defined strictly in terms of the nation-state, the more inclusive concept of governance recognizes the contributions of various levels of government (global, international, regional, sub-national, and local) and the contributing roles of the private sector, nongovernmental actors, and civil society in addressing the many types of issues facing the global community. (Adapted from IPCC)

• Greenhouse gas: Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. (Adapted from US Environmental Protection Agency)

• Habitat: The locality or environment in which an animal, plant, or other organism lives. (Adapted from IUCN)

• Human rights: The rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. (Adapted from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)

• Human well-being: The key components that humans need for a good life, including basic material needs, freedom and choice, health, good social relations, and personal security. (Adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)

• Indicator species: An animal or plant that serves as a measure of the environmental conditions that exist in a given locale. (Adapted from Britannica)

• Indicators: The conditions and processes within the landscape that are indicative of achieving the LandScale goals.

• Indigenous peoples: There is no universally agreed definition of indigenous peoples, although some international legal instruments provide definitions. According to the United Nations, rather than define indigenous peoples, the most useful approach is for them to identify themselves according to the fundamental right to self-identification set out in declarations of human rights. (Adapted from CIFOR)

https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen1801f.pdf



http://www.fao.org/faoterm

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/annex-1-draft-glossary.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/theme/forests/our-work/forest-landscape-restoration

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions

https://www.iucn.org/downloads/en_iucn__glossary_definitions.pdf

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx

https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html

https://www.britannica.com/science/indicator-species

https://www.cifor.org/redd-case-book/glossary/


• Input use efficiency: A measure of the amount of output produced for a given amount of input, typically agrochemical (e.g., fertilizer) or water use.

• Jurisdiction: A political administrative territory within which government authority is exercised.

• Jurisdictional approaches: Government-led, comprehensive approaches to forest and land use across one or more legally defined territories. Jurisdictional sustainability approaches seek to protect forests, reduce emissions, and improve livelihoods across entire political administrative territories. (Adapted from CIFOR)

• Key Biodiversity Area (KBA): Sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. (Adapted from A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas)

• Land and resource tenure: The social relations and institutions regulating access to and use of land and resources (e.g., water, minerals). It includes who owns the land and resources, and who uses, manages, and makes decisions about them. The concept refers to both formal (legal) and informal (customary) rules. (Adapted from CIFOR)

• Land cover: The observed biophysical cover on the earth's surface. (Adapted from FAO)

• Land use: The arrangements, activities, and inputs undertaken in a certain land cover type (a set of human actions). The term ‘land use’ is also used to denote the social and economic purposes for which land is managed (e.g., grazing, timber extraction, conservation, and city dwelling). (Adapted from IPCC)

• Land use plan: A plan that includes the objectives and policies for future land use development in a given locale. In the context of LandScale, a land use plan can be developed and adopted through formal (legal) and informal (customary) means.

• Land use policy, planning, and management: The process by which a society, through its institutions, decides where within its territory different socioeconomic activities such as agriculture, housing, industry, recreation, and commerce should take place. This includes protecting well-defined areas from development due to environmental, cultural, historical, or similar reasons, and establishing provisions that control the nature of development activities. (Adapted from World Bank)

• LandScale assessment: The process of collecting information on metrics linked to LandScale indicators that results in an assessment of sustainability status and trends within the landscape boundary.

• LandScale user: Any stakeholder that contributes to and/or uses the results from a LandScale assessment.

• Landscape: A geographical mosaic composed of natural and/or human-modified ecosystems resulting from the influence of geological, topographical, soil, climatic, biotic factors, as well as human interactions in a given area. (Adapted from IUCN and Little Sustainable Landscapes Book)

• Landscape Situation Analysis: An optional analysis of the internal and external factors that affect and are affected by sustainability within the landscape, and which can be used for communications purposes as part of LandScale assessments.

• Multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP): A structured collaboration in which different groups of stakeholders can work together to make decisions and take action to conduct

https://www.cifor.org/redd-case-book/glossary/

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-048.pdf

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-048.pdf


http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e01e.htm#P213_18188


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETENVIRONMENT/Resources/244351-1279901011064/GovLandUsePlanning.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/downloads/en_iucn__glossary_definitions.pdf




LandScale assessments and make advances towards improving landscape sustainability outcomes. (Adapted from MSP Guide)

• Natural ecosystem: An ecosystem that substantially resembles—in terms of species composition, structure, and ecological function—one that is or would be found in a given area in the absence of major human impacts. This includes human-managed ecosystems where much of the natural species composition, structure, and ecological function are present. (Adapted from AFi)

• Performance metrics: The quantitative or qualitative measures of LandScale indicators that assess how a landscape is performing over time.

• Population segment: The groups of human populations within a landscape that are differentiated by gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, culture, language, and/or other features.

• Primary data: Data collected in the field through measurements, surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc., and used for the purpose of LandScale assessments.

• Production activities: Any activity that involves producing, distributing, or manufacturing products or services. In the context of LandScale, these products and services are related to the agriculture, forestry, and/or extractive industries as well as infrastructure development.

• Productivity: In the context of LandScale, productivity is the crop, livestock, or timber yield per area of land (e.g., tonnes per hectare).

• Protected area: An area of land and/or sea that is a) especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, as well as of natural and associated cultural resources; and b) managed through legal or other effective means equivalent to IUCN Protected Area Management Categories I-VI. Also areas that have been proposed for protected area status by the relevant statutory body but have not yet been officially declared as such, as well as areas protected under international conventions. (Adapted from Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standards Program and IUCN)

• Regenerative agriculture: A system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, enhances ecosystem services, and contributes to climate resilience and vitality for farming and ranching communities, while maintaining or enhancing agricultural yields. (Adapted from Terra Genesis International)

• Restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem, as well as its associated conservation values, which has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. (Adapted from AFi)

• Risk assessment: The qualitative and/or quantitative scientific estimation of risks. (IPCC)

• Secondary data: Data that have already been collected and made available by other data sources and that can be used for the purpose of LandScale assessments.

• Stakeholders: A person, group, or other entity who has interests or concerns related to landscape sustainability; this includes those who can influence decisions as well as those affected by decisions. (Adapted from UNDP)

• Standard of living: The levels of wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities available to an individual or group. The elements of a decent standard of living include

http://www.mspguide.org/sites/default/files/case/msp_guide-2016-digital.pdf


https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCB_Program_Definitions_v3.0.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories

http://www.regenerativeagriculturedefinition.com/



https://www.sdfinance.undp.org/content/sdfinance/en/home/glossary.html


food, water, housing, education, health care, transportation, clothing, and other essential needs, including provision for unexpected events. (Adapted from RA)

• Sustainable land management practices: Land management practices that meet the changing human needs for the production of goods while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of land resources, including soils, water, animals, and plants, as well as the maintenance of their environmental functions. (Adapted from UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit)

• Sustainable waste management practices: Waste management practices that emphasize reducing, reusing, and recycling waste in order to minimize environmental impacts and protect dwindling resources.

• Threatened species: Any species classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable according to the IUCN Red List. (Adapted from IUCN)

• User-defined landscape: A landscape boundary defined by LandScale users based on their primary geographic parameters of interest such as a company sourcing areas or ecoregion.

• Verification: The process of evaluating the accuracy of LandScale assessment results by evaluating compliance with the guidelines for the use of LandScale.

• Vulnerable and/or marginalized groups: Those segments of the human population that are relegated to the fringes of society due to a lack of access to rights, resources, and/or opportunities. In the context of LandScale, vulnerable and/or marginalized groups may include indigenous communities, smallholders, women, and/or youth. (Adapted from INWORK)

• Workers’ rights: The fundamental principles and rights at work, which include access to freedom of association and collective bargaining, working hour restrictions, protection from discrimination, and safe working environments. (Adapted from ILO)

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/decent-standard-of-living-for-all

https://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

https://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

https://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://inworkproject.eu/toolbox/index.php/glossary-resources/glossary/marginalised-and-vulnerable-groups

https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm

Annex 2. LandScale Assessment Framework Summary Table INDICATOR INDICATOR DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY PERFORMANCE METRICS UN SDG

TARGETS

1. E

CO

SY

ST

EM

S

1.1 Protect and Restore Ecosystems


Conversion of natural ecosystems to other land uses, disaggregated by land cover type

Core

• Natural ecosystem conversion rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• Total area of natural ecosystem converted (ha), disaggregated by land cover type

15.1; 15.2; 15.4


Degradation of natural ecosystems, disaggregated by land cover type


• Natural ecosystem degradation rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by land cover type

• Degradation severity (e.g., low, medium, high), disaggregated by land cover type

• Total area natural ecosystem degraded (ha), disaggregated by land cover type

• Natural ecosystem fragmentation (index) • Status of indicator species that are

associated with intact ecosystems

15.1; 15.2; 15.3; 15.4; 15.5


Restoration of degraded ecosystems, disaggregated by restoration type


• Restoration rate (ha/yr), disaggregated by restoration type

• Total area restored (ha), disaggregated by restoration type

6.6; 15.1; 15.2; 15.3; 15.5

1.2 Protect Biodiversity


Changes in threats to threatened species Landscape- dependent

• Changes in populations of or threats to threatened species

• Changes in populations of or threats to indicator species

15.4; 15.5; 15.7


Conversion of natural ecosystems in areas classified as important for biodiversity including Protected Areas (PAs) and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)


• Natural ecosystem conversion rate within PAs and KBAs (ha/yr)

• Natural ecosystem conversion rate in other areas designated as important for biodiversity (ha/yr)

15.1; 15.4; 15.5

Degradation of ecosystems in areas classified as important for biodiversity including PAs and KBAs

Optional

• Natural ecosystem degradation rate within PAs and KBAs (ha/yr)

• Natural ecosystem degradation rate in other areas designated as important for biodiversity (ha/yr)

15.1; 15.4; 15.5

1.

EC

OS

YS

TE

MS

1.3 Maintain and Enhance Ecosystem Services


Provisioning capacity of water resources for human and agricultural consumption and for ecosystem function


• Flow rate of key water sources (volume/time)

• Water withdrawals (for production or processing) from surface or groundwater sources versus recharge (ratio)

• Extent of "green infrastructure" e.g., riparian corridors and wetlands (ha)

6.3; 6.6; 15.1

1.3.2 Water Quality

Quality of water resources for human and agricultural consumption and for ecosystem function


• Total suspended solids in key water bodies (load/volume)

• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L)

• Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) (load/volume)

• Concentration of metals or other toxins (load/volume)

3.9; 14.1; 15.1

1.3.3 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector GHG Sources and Sinks

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (sources) and sequestration (sinks), restricted to the AFOLU sector

Optional

• GHG emissions rate from land use change (tCO2e/yr)

• GHG emissions rate from agricultural production and primary processing (tCO2e/yr)

• Terrestrial (above- and below-ground) C sequestration rate (tCO2e/yr)

13.2

1.3.4 Soil Health

Status of soil health including fertility, erosion, and soil organic carbon (SOC)

Optional

• Average soil erosion rate (t/ha/yr) • Soil health (% SOC) in a representative

sample of production sites across the landscape

15.3, 12.4

1.3.5 Other Ecosystem Services

Status of other ecosystems services of interest to the LandScale user or landscape actors

Optional

• Metric(s) determined by LandScale users on case-by-case basis

6.5, 11.4, 11.5, 13.1, 15.8; numerous others

INDICATOR INDICATOR DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY PERFORMANCE METRICS UN SDG TARGETS

2. H

UM

AN

WE

LL

-BE

ING

2.1 Improve Standard of Living, Especially for Vulnerable and/or Marginalized Groups

2.1.1 Poverty

Rate of poverty (relative to national poverty line), disaggregated by population segment


• Percentage of (rural) population living on <$1.90/day (or below national poverty line)

• Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

• Poverty Probability Index (PPI) • Extent of nighttime lights • Extent of improved roof material • Locally relevant measures of economic

development (e.g., livestock ownership, land ownership, access to credit/ financial services)

1.1; 1.2; 2.3; 15.c

2.1.2 Food Insecurity

Rate of food insecurity, disaggregated by population segment


• Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

• Household Hunger Scale (HHS) • Percentage of children < 5 years old

suffering from malnutrition/ stunting/wasting

2.1; 2.2

2.1.3 Access to Basic Services

Population with access to basic services considered essential needs30 including clean water and sanitation, education, and health care, disaggregated by population segment

Optional

WASH (water and sanitation): • Percentage of (rural) population with

access to safe drinking water access • Percentage of (rural) population with

adequate sanitation access Education: • School enrollment/attendance rate (%

children) • Primary/secondary school completion

rate (% children) Health: • Distance to health care facilities • Percentage of (rural) population within

threshold distance of appropriate facilities

1.4; 4.a; 6.1

30 Essential needs according to the Global Living Wage Coalition https://www.globallivingwage.org/.


Energy: • Percentage of (rural) population with

electricity access 2.

HU

MA

N W

EL

L-B

EIN

G

2.2 Respect, Protect, and Fulfill Human Rights

2.2.1 Child Labor

Rate of child labor relevant to the production activities of interest

Core

• Number of child workers in production activities of interest

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest composed of child laborers

8.7; 8.8

2.2.2 Forced Labor

Rate of forced labor relevant to the production activities of interest

Core

• Number of forced workers in production activities of interest

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest composed of forced laborers

8.7; 8.8

2.2.3 Workers' Rights

Status of other workers' rights including freedom of association, working hour restrictions, protection from discrimination, and safe working environments


• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest with freedom of association

• Percentage of workforce in production activities of interest with working hour restrictions in line with International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions

• Frequency of work-related injuries or deaths in the sector

8.5; 8.6

2.2.4 Other Human Rights

Status of other human rights potentially impacted by production activities


• Context-appropriate metrics on other human rights

10.3; numerous others


3. G

OV

ER

NA

NC

E

3.1 Recognize and Protect Rights to Land and Resources, and Reduce Related Conflicts


Land for which rights to own, access, use, and manage land and resources are clear and secure through formal recognition by statutory or customary norms, not overlapping, and are protected through legal or other means

Core

• Percentage of landscape with formalized land and resource tenure rights that have clearly defined boundaries shown in publicly accessible maps

• Percentage of landscape without formalized land and resource tenure rights, disaggregated by tenure insecurity status

1.4


Incidence of unresolved conflicts related to land and resource rights

Core

• Number of new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts or grievances including land grabbing

• Amount of land subject to new or continuing unresolved land or resource conflicts or grievances including land grabbing

• Percentage of grievances or conflicts related to land and resource rights registered in a grievance mechanism that were resolved within one year

• Number of persons (e.g., environmental and human rights defenders) murdered or receiving death threats as a result of conflicts over land and resources

• Percentage of landscape with overlapping land and resource rights (e.g., mining and forestry concessions)

16.3

3.2 Promote Transparency, Participation, Inclusion, and Coordination in Land Use Policy, Planning, and Management

3.2.1 Land Use Plan Adoption and Enforcement

Status of land use or zoning plan, with respect to agreement by stakeholders, formal adoption, and enforcement

Core

• Percentage of landscape covered by land use or zoning plans that are formally adopted and enforceable

• Percentage of landscape for which

11.b; 15.9

land use or zoning plan(s) exist but are not formally adopted or enforceable

• Geographic extent of overlapping or competing land use plans (ha)

• Extent of land use change inconsistent with land use plan(s) over a given time period (ha/time)

3.

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

3.2.2 Coordination of Government Agencies in Land Use Policy, Planning, and Management

Status of intergovernmental coordination of land use policy, planning and management across relevant government sectors including agriculture, forests, environment, mining, energy, transport, planning, and/or interior


• Percentage of relevant government sectors/agencies that participate in active mechanism(s) for inter-sectoral coordination on land use planning, policy, and management

15.9

3.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Inclusion in Land Use Policy, Planning, and Management

Status of participation and inclusion in landscape-level land use planning and management for those stakeholders involved in or affected by production activities

Core

• Percentage of stakeholder groups formally represented in multi-stakeholder committees or other mechanisms for coordination, input, and agreement that effectively influences landscape-level land use planning, policy, and management

15.6

3.2.4 I llegality and Corruption Related to Land and Resources

Levels of illegality and corruption in the allocation of rights, management and use of land and resources


• Incidence of corruption (e.g., bribes or undocumented payments) related to land and resource allocation and use (based on surveys of stakeholder perception, media reports, and other landscape-appropriate information sources)

• Incidence of illegality related to land and resource use and management (based on surveys of stakeholder perception, media reports, and other landscape-appropriate information sources)

16.5


4.1 Promote Regenerative Agricultural, Agroforestry and Tree Production Systems

4.1.1 Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Plantation Productivity

Productivity of agricultural (crop and livestock), agroforestry, and tree production systems

Core

• Average crop productivity (yield/ha) for key crops

• Average livestock productivity (livestock units/ha)

• Average forest plantation productivity (timber volume/ha)

2.3

4.1.2 Input Use Efficiency in Agricultural, Agroforestry, and Tree Production Systems

Efficiency of input use in agricultural, agroforestry and tree production systems

Core

• Fertilizer use efficiency (quantity of product produced per unit of nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium (NPK) use)

• Water use efficiency (quantity of product produced per unit of water use)

• Percentage of land under Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices

2.4; 6.4; 12.3; 12.4

4.1.3 Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices

Adoption of sustainable land management (SLM) practices in agricultural and forest plantation operations

Optional

• Percent adoption of SLM practices in agricultural and/or forest plantation operations

• Percentage of land area under SLM practices in agricultural and/or forest plantation operations

• Economic sustainability: average producer’s net income per ha for production activity/activities of interest

• Financial incentives provided for SLM practices (total $/year)

• Extent of fire resulting from agricultural land management (ha burned/year)

2.4

4.1.4 Adoption of Sustainable Waste Management Practices

Adoption of sustainable waste management practices across all land use activities

Optional

• Context-appropriate metrics on adoption of sustainable waste management practices

6.3; 12.4; 12.5


Annex 3. Landscape Situation Analysis Some LandScale users may choose to compile additional landscape-related information for the purpose of communicating with external audiences. This can be achieved through a Landscape Situation Analysis (LSA)—an analysis of the internal and external factors that affect and are affected by sustainability within the landscape. The LSA can provide deeper insights into the historical and current mosaic of land use activities; actors and markets; major commodities produced; relevant stakeholder groups; and top sustainability issues, threats, and initiatives.

The LSA should be informed by the LandScale user’s understanding of the local landscape context and be supplemented by information from web-based research, interviews with government, private sector, or other stakeholders, and other sources of information. LandScale users should aim to collect at least some information in each of the following LSA categories to get a holistic picture of the current landscape context:

• Geographic location and jurisdictions: Geographic location as shown on maps; jurisdictions including national and appropriate sub-national levels; and approximate land area.

• Ecosystems and land use: Current land cover and land uses (if precise quantifications are challenging, documentation should at minimum include a breakdown of natural vs. managed ecosystems), and historical land use change and drivers.

• Climatic conditions: Especially extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, and temperature extremes which represent departures from historic average climatic conditions.

• Demographics: Population size; rural/urban composition; ethnic groups including presence of indigenous peoples and/or traditional communities; and historical trends in human migration.

• Governance structures: Structures and bodies that create rules on social contracts and their enforcement, especially linked to land and resource use. These may include a) government and multi-stakeholder structures and their composition, roles, and responsibilities; b) non-government structures relevant to land and resource use—applicable where customary or traditional norms play a strong role in shaping society decisions on land as well as resource use and allocation; and c) other structures such as producer groups, cooperatives, civil society coalitions, etc. The latter can be particularly relevant for cases in which a landscape boundary is user-defined.

• Economy, livelihoods, and markets: Main economic sectors and activities focusing on those that depend on land and resource use; basic socioeconomic data that are readily available such as poverty rates, food security, literacy, education, etc.; information about commodities or goods and services that are exported such as agricultural production, yield, or export data, etc.

• Land and resource tenure: Types and prevalence of land and resource tenure e.g., smallholder ownership, short-/long-term leases, sharecropping, temporary/usufruct arrangements, communal ownership, etc.


• Sustainability issues and risks: Known sustainability issues and risks within the landscape (i.e., reviewing issues and risks using the LandScale pillars, goals, and indicators).

• Key stakeholders: Main stakeholder groups who are affected by or who influence landscape sustainability that should be consulted (at minimum) or brought into the process according to those operating within and outside the landscape.

o Internal landscape stakeholders who may be motivated to use LandScale to demonstrate performance of sustainability actions to collaborate towards improved landscape sustainability, or to attract and secure new markets or financing:

▪ Producers: individuals and/or groups, cooperatives, associations, public and private sector companies, etc. that produce important commodities, as well as goods and services for domestic or export consumption

▪ Local/subnational governments: elected and/or appointed officials representing local/regional agencies with domain over agriculture, forestry, natural resources, development, planning, etc.

▪ Landscape “changemakers”: community groups, NGOs, or other organizations whose objective is to advance one or more aspects of sustainability within the landscape

o External landscape stakeholders who may be motivated to use LandScale to assess and potentially make claims regarding sustainable sourcing to meet supply chain sustainability commitments, demonstrate the performance of sustainability investments, or to increase sourcing from or engagement with the landscape:

▪ Companies: based outside the landscape (nationally or internationally) and sourcing from within the landscape

▪ National governments: national ministries of agriculture, forestry, natural resources, development, planning, etc.

▪ Development finance institutions (DFIs): DFIs investing in production, infrastructure, or other development projects within the landscape

▪ Investors: private (e.g., impact funds) or institutional (e.g., banks) investors investing in the landscape

▪ Donors: private or public donors (e.g., foundations, bilateral donor agencies) supporting sustainability projects in the landscape

• Preexisting sustainability initiatives in the landscape: These initiatives may take the form of: multi-stakeholder dialogues; jurisdictional approaches; green economy; sector-specific investments; livelihood, conservation, and restoration investments; and others. The focus of preexisting initiatives may be on: improving sustainability in environmental outcomes (e.g., biodiversity conservation, water protection); commodity production (e.g., agriculture, forestry, extractives, infrastructure); livelihoods and social well-being; or any combination of these. Preexisting initiatives may have established work in place and require careful coordination to avoid any perceived conflicts. At the same time, preexisting initiatives may be leveraged during LandScale application, for example, to facilitate stakeholder coordination or access to data.


Information gathered by the LSA can be used to create a landscape profile. The primary purpose of the landscape profile is for use as external communications collateral with landscape stakeholders and potential LandScale users.

LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines ......• Simon Lord, Sime Darby • Daniel Spethman,...

Documents

Transcript of LandScale Assessment Framework and Guidelines ......• Simon Lord, Sime Darby • Daniel Spethman,...