LAYER 2: LANDSCAPES & JURISDICTIONS
Landscape Approaches
The methodology for working at scale – beyond individual projects to systemic change.
In 30 Seconds
A landscape approach is a framework for managing land at scale, balancing competing land uses and stakeholder interests across a defined geography. Unlike project-level interventions (one farm, one forest plot), landscape approaches address systemic drivers of environmental degradation.
Project Approach
Protect one forest while neighbouring forest is cleared. Address symptoms, not causes.
Landscape Approach
Coordinate all actors across the landscape. Address root causes – land use planning, governance, incentives.
Key insight: Landscape approaches are about how you work, not where you work. They're defined by multi-stakeholder coordination, integrated planning, and collective goals – not just geographic scale.
Where This Fits
This page explains the methodology – what makes a landscape approach, the credibility criteria, and how coalitions work. Related pages cover specific models and applications:
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned model – LTKL, PCI, REDD+ nesting
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – sourcing, investment, coalitions
Assessment & Verification
Tools & credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP
Regenerative Agriculture
Farming as landscape approach – soil, carbon, biodiversity
What Makes a Landscape Approach
The term “landscape approach” is widely used but often poorly defined. Multiple frameworks exist, but core elements are consistent. A genuine landscape approach includes:
Geographic Scale
Works across a defined landscape (typically 100,000+ hectares) rather than individual sites
Multi-Stakeholder
Involves diverse actors: government, business, communities, NGOs, smallholders
Integrated Planning
Considers competing land uses together, not in silos (forest, agriculture, water, communities)
Collective Goals
Shared objectives beyond individual actor interests (conservation, livelihoods, climate)
Adaptive Management
Responds to changing conditions through monitoring and adjustment
Long-term Commitment
Multi-year engagement, not one-off projects (typically 10+ year horizon)
The Defining Question
Are you solving for the landscape, or just your own footprint within it? Project-level action optimises one actor's position. Landscape approaches optimise the system – even when that requires compromise from individual actors.
The ISEAL Core Criteria
In October 2024, 20 leading organisations agreed on four essential criteria for “mature” landscape initiatives. This represents the closest thing to an industry standard for what credible landscape engagement looks like.
Signatories include: ISEAL Alliance, CDP, Proforest, WWF, Gold Standard, Tropical Forest Alliance, LandScale (Rainforest Alliance + Verra + CI), SourceUp, IDH, Consumer Goods Forum Forest Positive Coalition, and others.
This is industry self-regulation through consensus – influential through adoption, not enforcement.
Scale
Landscape-level boundaries, not individual farms or plots
The initiative operates at a scale that can influence systemic drivers (typically 100,000+ hectares, often aligned with watershed, ecosystem, or administrative boundaries).
CDP 2023: 67% of disclosures failed this criterion
Multi-Stakeholder Governance
Platform with diverse participation
A governance structure that includes multiple stakeholder groups (government, private sector, civil society, communities) with genuine voice in decision-making.
CDP 2023: 69% of disclosures failed this criterion
Collective Goals & Action
Beyond individual sourcing objectives
Shared goals that benefit the landscape as a whole, not just individual actors' supply chain interests. Includes conservation, livelihood, and governance objectives.
CDP 2023: 64% of disclosures failed this criterion
Monitoring & Reporting
Credible collective framework
A system for tracking progress against collective goals, with transparent reporting accessible to stakeholders. The hardest element to get right.
CDP 2023: 80% of disclosures failed this criterion
The Credibility Gap
Of 309 LA/JA disclosures in 2023, 50% failed CDP's credibility assessment against these criteria.
Monitoring & reporting is the biggest challenge (80% failure rate). Most companies struggle to demonstrate genuine multi-stakeholder governance and collective goals beyond their own sourcing objectives. This creates both greenwashing risk for companies and a credibility problem for the landscape movement.
Multi-Stakeholder Governance Models
How do you coordinate actors with competing interests? Different models suit different contexts. The common thread: shared decision-making, not just consultation.
Coalition Model
Pre-competitive collaboration between companies in the same supply chain. Companies share information, align approaches, and coordinate investment in shared sourcing landscapes.
Examples: Forest Positive Coalition (CGF), Cocoa & Forests Initiative, Soft Commodities Forum
Jurisdictional Model
Government-led initiative aligned with administrative boundaries. Government sets policy framework and convenes stakeholders. Higher legitimacy, but depends on government capacity.
Examples: LTKL (Indonesia), PCI (Brazil), GCF-TF initiatives
Platform Model
Independent platform (often NGO-convened) that brings together stakeholders without any single actor controlling the agenda. Useful where government capacity is limited.
Examples: IDH Sustainable Landscapes, SourceUp compacts, TFA regional platforms
Compact Model
Formal agreement between specific actors (often buyers and producers) with defined commitments and accountability. More binding than coalitions, but narrower scope.
Examples: SourceUp compacts, Verified Sourcing Areas, landscape agreements
The Governance Challenge
Who has a seat at the table? Effective MSPs include community voices, not just corporates and NGOs. Who makes decisions? Consensus-based models are inclusive but slow; voting models are efficient but risk marginalising minority interests. Who funds the platform? Corporate-funded platforms may prioritise corporate interests; donor-funded platforms may not survive funding cycles.
Landscape Coalitions in Practice
Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA)
Global convener
Multi-stakeholder partnership (170+ partners) focused on reducing commodity-driven deforestation. Convenes regional platforms and facilitates collective action on palm oil, soy, beef, cocoa.
Role: Convening, knowledge sharing, collective action coordination
Cocoa & Forests Initiative
Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire
Joint commitment by cocoa companies and governments to eliminate deforestation from cocoa supply chain. Framework of action with shared implementation plans and progress tracking.
Role: Commodity-specific landscape coordination
IDH Sustainable Landscapes
Multiple countries
IDH facilitates landscape programmes in 20+ regions across commodities (palm, cocoa, coffee, soy). Provides technical support, convenes stakeholders, and channels investment to landscapes.
Role: Implementation support, investment facilitation
Forest Positive Coalition
Consumer Goods Forum
22 major consumer goods companies ($1.8 trillion market worth) committed to forest-positive supply chains. Shared commodity roadmaps and joint landscape engagement.
Role: Corporate pre-competitive coordination
Soft Commodities Forum
Cerrado, Brazil
Major soy traders coordinating on deforestation-free sourcing in the Cerrado. Farmer-first clusters approach with $5.2M+ invested in landscape programmes.
Role: Trader coordination, farmer support
WBCSD Nature Action
Global
Business coalition focused on nature-positive transformation. Provides frameworks, tools, and convenes working groups on landscape approaches and nature strategy.
Role: Business engagement, framework development
Financing Landscape Action
Landscape approaches require sustained investment over long timeframes. Multiple funding mechanisms can be combined – the challenge is aligning incentives across diverse actors.
| Mechanism | How It Works | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate Supply Chain Investment | Companies invest in sourcing landscapes (farmer support, capacity building, monitoring) | Direct supply chain risk mitigation |
| Blended Finance Facilities | Public/philanthropic capital de-risks private investment (TLFF, &Green Fund) | Large-scale landscape programmes |
| Carbon Finance | Revenue from carbon credits (REDD+, soil carbon, ARR) funds landscape activities | Landscapes with carbon potential |
| PES / Biodiversity Credits | Payments for ecosystem services or emerging biodiversity credit mechanisms | High-biodiversity landscapes |
| Government & Development Finance | Public sector investment (GCF, bilateral donors, national budgets) | Jurisdictional programmes |
| Premium Pricing | Price premiums for verified landscape-sourced commodities | Consumer-facing supply chains |
The Living Income Challenge
Landscape approaches only work if they address livelihoods. Farmers living below the poverty line cannot afford to conserve. ISEAL identified 112 landscape initiatives with publicly declared livelihood targets – but most lack reliable baseline data and monitoring. Living income is Core Criterion territory, not just a nice-to-have.
Success Factors & Common Pitfalls
What Works
Clear geographic focus
Defined boundaries that stakeholders recognise and can coordinate around
Government engagement (not just private sector)
Policy alignment and regulatory support amplify impact
Smallholder inclusion from the start
Not designed at headquarters and imposed on farmers
Long-term corporate commitment
Multi-year agreements, not annual budget cycles
Independent monitoring
Third-party verification builds credibility
Realistic timelines
Systemic change takes 10+ years, not 2-3
What Fails
Calling sourcing programmes "landscape approaches"
Individual supply chain optimisation is not landscape coordination
Token community participation
Consultation without decision-making power is not multi-stakeholder governance
No collective monitoring
Company-level reporting without landscape-level tracking
Short-term project thinking
3-year projects that don't build lasting institutional capacity
Corporate-only coalitions
Companies coordinating without government, community, or civil society
Ignoring living income
Conservation targets without addressing farmer livelihoods
The Pandion View
Landscape approaches are necessary but not sufficient. Protecting one plot while the landscape degrades doesn't work. But claiming “landscape engagement” without meeting credibility criteria doesn't work either.
The 50% failure rate on CDP disclosure tells the story. Most companies haven't yet figured out how to do this well. Those that do – with genuine multi-stakeholder governance, collective monitoring, and long-term commitment – will differentiate themselves as verification requirements tighten.
There's also a deeper question: are we measuring the right things? The ISEAL Core Criteria tell you whether an initiative is well-organised. They don't tell you whether it's achieving enough. That's where SBTN and science-based targets come in – connecting process credibility (good governance) with outcome credibility (sufficient impact).
We help organisations navigate both dimensions: building claims that meet current credibility standards while preparing for outcome-based requirements ahead. The bridge between “well-organised” and “scientifically sufficient” is where future value lies.
Where To Go Next
Assessment & Verification
Tools for credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP, and how to build verifiable claims.
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned landscape models – LTKL, PCI, REDD+ nesting.
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – coalitions, sourcing, investment.
SBTN & Science-Based Targets
From process credibility to outcome credibility – connecting landscape work to science.