LAYER 2: LANDSCAPES & JURISDICTIONS
Landscapes & Jurisdictions
Where planetary systems meet human activity – the places where outcomes happen.
L2 organises around three interconnected questions:
In 30 Seconds
Layer 2 is where sustainability outcomes actually happen. Global targets, corporate commitments, and policy frameworks all trace back to specific places – forests, farmland, watersheds, coastlines – where ecosystems, communities, and economies intersect.
We organise this space around three interconnected pillars:
- Landscape Types – The natural substrate: forests, peatlands, wetlands, grasslands, coasts
- Sectors & Practices – Human activities layered on top: agriculture, forestry, mining
- Methodology & Frameworks – How coordinated action happens at scale
Why it matters: Every carbon credit, every supply chain claim, every nature commitment depends on what happens in specific landscapes with specific people. Without L2 integrity, everything above is conjecture.
The L2 Architecture
Understanding landscapes requires three lenses: the natural systems that form the substrate, the human activities that shape them, and the methodologies that coordinate action at scale.
PILLAR 1: WHERE
Landscape Types
The natural substrate
Five distinct landscape types form the ecological foundation where all sustainability outcomes occur. Each has unique carbon dynamics, biodiversity patterns, and intervention opportunities.
PILLAR 2: WHAT
Sectors & Practices
Human activities on landscapes
Human economic activities overlay natural systems. How we farm, harvest, and extract determines whether landscapes regenerate or degrade.
PILLAR 3: HOW
Methodology & Frameworks
Coordinating action at scale
Project-level action isn't enough. These frameworks enable multi-stakeholder coordination, credible claims, and systemic transformation.
Why Landscape Scale?
Landscape scale (typically 100,000 – 1,000,000+ hectares) is the “Goldilocks zone” for corporate sustainability action:
Too Small
Farm or project level
Protecting one farm while neighbours deforest doesn't solve the problem. Leakage undermines impact.
Just Right
Landscape scale
Big enough to address systemic drivers. Small enough to coordinate stakeholders and see change.
Too Big
National or biome level
Too complex to coordinate. Too distant from ground realities. Policy domain, not action domain.
The business case: Over 150 companies are now engaging with SBTN's framework to set science-based targets for nature. Landscape-scale approaches show 20-50% better outcomes in emissions and biodiversity versus site-level interventions alone.
Landscape vs Jurisdictional
Both work at scale beyond individual projects. The key distinction: how boundaries are defined and who leads governance.
| Aspect | Landscape Approach | Jurisdictional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Boundary | Ecological/social – watershed, ecosystem, sourcing area | Political/administrative – province, state, district |
| Governance | Multi-stakeholder coalition | Government-led with high government involvement |
| Use Case | Supply chain transformation, commodity sourcing | REDD+ nesting, regulatory alignment, certification |
| Examples | Cocoa & Forests Initiative, IDH programmes | LTKL (Indonesia), PCI (Brazil), RSPO Jurisdictional |
The Credibility Challenge
Companies increasingly report landscape and jurisdictional engagement – but quality varies dramatically.
50%
of disclosures fail CDP credibility criteria
80%
fail on monitoring frameworks
69%
fail on multi-stakeholder governance
309
LA/JA disclosures in 2023 (up from 27 in 2020)
The 4 Core Criteria (agreed by ISEAL, CDP, and 18 other organisations in 2024) define credible engagement: Scale, Multi-stakeholder Governance, Collective Goals, and Monitoring & Reporting.
Where This Fits
L2 is the bridge between planetary science and corporate action:
L2 is where MRV happens – Measurement, Reporting, Verification. The evidence base for every claim made at L3-L5 comes from ground-level data in specific landscapes.
Key Actors
The landscape and jurisdictional space spans coordination, standards, data, and implementation.
Global Coordination
- • Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA)
- • Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU)
- • Consumer Goods Forum Forest Positive
- • WBCSD Nature Action
Standards & Frameworks
- • ISEAL Alliance Core Criteria
- • LandScale (RA + Verra + CI)
- • Accountability Framework (AFi)
- • Rainforest Alliance
Data & Transparency
- • Trase supply chain mapping
- • Global Forest Watch
- • Climate TRACE
- • CDP Forests questionnaire
Regional Platforms
- • LTKL (Indonesia districts)
- • PCI Produce, Conserve, Include
- • Cocoa & Forests Initiative
- • IDH Landscape Programmes
Technical Support
- • Proforest
- • Global Canopy
- • Earthworm Foundation
- • Conservation International
Livelihoods
- • Living Income CoP
- • Fairtrade
- • Voice Network
- • Farmer Income Lab
Forest-Risk Commodities
Most landscape programmes focus on commodities driving deforestation. Understanding commodity dynamics is essential for effective intervention.
Palm Oil
Indonesia, Malaysia
Highest deforestation driver. ISPO, RSPO jurisdictional.
Soy
Brazil, Argentina
Amazon Moratorium. Cerrado high-risk. EUDR driving traceability.
Cocoa
Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire
Cocoa & Forests Initiative. Living income critical.
Beef & Cattle
Brazil, Paraguay
Largest land footprint. Direct/indirect sourcing complexity.
Timber & Pulp
Indonesia, Brazil
FSC/PEFC certification. Plantation vs natural forest.
Rubber
SE Asia, West Africa
Emerging frontier. GPSNR platform. Less mature.
See Traceability for supply chain data and Supply Chain for corporate sourcing.
The Pandion View
Layer 2 is where sustainability gets real. Spreadsheet targets become field interventions. Policies become livelihoods. Data becomes evidence.
The quality of MRV, the legitimacy of tenure arrangements, the inclusion of communities – these determine whether corporate commitments translate to real outcomes. Without L2 integrity, everything above is conjecture.
As a hybrid professional, we connect landscape realities to corporate strategy. We understand both the complexity of on-the-ground implementation and the requirements of boardroom decision-making. This bridge is where value is created – and where greenwashing is exposed.