LAYER 2: LANDSCAPES & JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned sustainability at scale – working within administrative boundaries for systemic change.
In 30 Seconds
A jurisdictional approach is a landscape approach where the boundaries align with administrative units (district, province, state, or country) and implementation happens with high government involvement. This isn't just a geographic choice – it's a governance model.
Landscape Approach
Boundary defined by ecological or social factors (watershed, ecosystem, production region). Multi-stakeholder governance, NGO/company often convenes.
Jurisdictional Approach
Boundary defined by administrative unit (district, state, province). Government-led with policy alignment. Higher legitimacy, longer timeline.
Key insight: Jurisdictional approaches trade flexibility for legitimacy. Working within government boundaries means slower start-up but stronger foundations – policy alignment, regulatory support, and scalable verification.
Where This Fits
This page covers the government-aligned model – how jurisdictional programmes work, leading examples, and how companies engage. Related pages cover other aspects of landscape action:
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – sourcing, investment, coalitions
Assessment & Verification
Tools & credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP
Carbon Markets & REDD+
Financing mechanisms – carbon credits, REDD+ architecture
What Makes It Jurisdictional
The ISEAL Alliance defines jurisdictional approaches as landscape initiatives where “the selected landscape is delineated by administrative boundaries of subnational or national government and are implemented with a high level of Government involvement.”
Administrative Boundaries
District, province, state, or national level – not watersheds or ecosystems
Matches existing governance structures, enabling policy integration and regulatory alignment.
Government Leadership
Government convenes and coordinates – not just participates
Higher legitimacy, but depends on political will and government capacity.
Policy Integration
Sustainability embedded in development planning
Land use plans, spatial planning, agricultural policies align with sustainability goals.
Regulatory Framework
Government enforcement and incentives
Compliance mechanisms, permits, incentives built into existing regulatory systems.
Whole-of-Jurisdiction Coverage
All producers, not just certified ones
Addresses leakage by covering the entire administrative area, not just participating farms.
Long-term Horizon
Political cycles and institution-building
Typically 10-20 year timeframes required for systemic change.
The Trade-Off
Speed vs Legitimacy: Jurisdictional approaches take longer to establish than NGO-convened landscape initiatives, but build on existing governance structures. When they work, they create systemic change – not just pockets of sustainability within a broader context of degradation. The government endorsement also strengthens corporate claims about supply chain sustainability.
REDD+ and Jurisdictional Approaches
Jurisdictional approaches gained prominence through REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). The UNFCCC designed REDD+ to work at national or subnational scales – inherently jurisdictional.
The Nesting Challenge
REDD+ creates a tension: the UNFCCC architecture is jurisdictional (national accounting), but the voluntary carbon market is project-based. “Nesting” is the process of integrating project-level credits into jurisdictional accounting systems.
Project-Level
Individual REDD+ projects with their own baselines. Risk: leakage, double counting.
Jurisdictional
Government-level accounting for entire jurisdiction. Stronger integrity, harder to implement.
Nested
Projects integrated into jurisdictional framework. Combines benefits, requires coordination.
Key Jurisdictional Standards
ART/TREES
Architecture for REDD+ Transactions
The leading standard for high-integrity jurisdictional REDD+. Sets requirements for baselines, MRV, safeguards, and credit issuance at national or subnational level.
- • Jurisdictional scale (national or large subnational)
- • Government-endorsed carbon accounting
- • Strong safeguards requirements (REDD+ Cancun)
- • Emerging standard for high-integrity REDD+
VCS Jurisdictional & Nested REDD+
Verra
Verra's framework for nesting project-level activities into jurisdictional programmes. Allows existing VCS REDD+ projects to integrate into government-led systems.
- • Jurisdictional baseline and monitoring
- • Project nesting with allocation mechanisms
- • Government approval required
- • Transition pathway for existing projects
LEAF Coalition
Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance
Public-private initiative channelling corporate finance to jurisdictional REDD+ through ART/TREES credits. Major buyers include Amazon, Salesforce, Unilever.
- • $1.5 billion mobilised
- • ART/TREES standard required
- • Tropical forest countries focus
- • Results-based payments
Article 6.2 & ITMOs
Paris Agreement
Bilateral agreements between countries for Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes. Inherently jurisdictional – government-to-government with corresponding adjustments.
- • Country-to-country transactions
- • Corresponding adjustments required
- • Switzerland, Singapore early movers
- • Growing importance post-COP29
The Direction of Travel
The carbon market is moving from project-level to jurisdictional. ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles favour jurisdictional approaches. Article 6.2 ITMOs are inherently governmental. LEAF Coalition only purchases ART/TREES jurisdictional credits. Companies investing in standalone project REDD+ face growing reputational and integrity risk.
Certification Pathways
Traditional certification works at farm or concession level. Jurisdictional certification extends this to whole administrative areas – creating pathways for non-certified producers to access sustainable markets through regional performance.
RSPO Jurisdictional
Palm Oil
Subnational governments implement RSPO standards at jurisdictional level. Certified jurisdictions can issue credits to smallholders who meet criteria without individual certification.
Sabah (Malaysia) and Central Kalimantan (Indonesia)among active jurisdictional applicants.
FSC Landscape Approach
Timber & Forest Products
FSC is exploring jurisdictional and landscape approaches as pathways for areas that struggle with individual certification. Focus on government policy alignment and regional improvement.
FSC Landscape Solutions programme testing regional approaches.
Rainforest Alliance Landscapes
Multiple Commodities
Rainforest Alliance (co-developer of LandScale) supports landscape and jurisdictional certification pathways that complement farm-level certification.
LandScale assessment tool supports jurisdictional monitoring.
Why Jurisdictional Certification Matters
The smallholder problem: Individual certification is expensive and complex for smallholders. Jurisdictional approaches can create pathways to marketfor uncertified producers in well-performing jurisdictions. This addresses leakage (uncertified production doesn't just move elsewhere) and inclusion (smallholders aren't left behind).
Leading Jurisdictional Programmes
LTKL
Lingkar Temu Kabupaten Lestari – Indonesia
A network of 18+ Indonesian districts committed to sustainable development. Member districts implement sustainability standards and share progress through district-level verification and monitoring.
Model: District-level membership with shared standards. Districts commit to deforestation-free, sustainable commodity production.
Commodities: Palm oil, rubber, cocoa, coffee – multi-commodity approach covering major Indonesian exports.
Corporate links: Companies like Unilever, Nestlé, Mars engage with LTKL districts for verified sourcing.
PCI
Produce, Conserve, Include – Mato Grosso, Brazil
A state-level strategy integrating agricultural production, forest conservation, and social inclusion. Mato Grosso is Brazil's largest agricultural state and a global soy and beef exporter.
Targets: 6 million hectares of degraded pasture restored, eliminate illegal deforestation, increase forest cover.
Model: State government strategy with multi-stakeholder coalition. Aligns with GCF Task Force commitments.
Challenges: Political shifts, federal-state coordination, financing gaps. Progress slowed under federal political changes.
GCF Task Force
Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force
Coalition of 43 states and provinces across 11 countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, and others) committed to reducing deforestation and promoting forest-smart development.
Model: Peer network of subnational governments. Shared frameworks, technical assistance, South-South learning.
Coverage: Member jurisdictions contain approximately one-third of the world's tropical forests.
Link to REDD+: Many GCF members developing jurisdictional REDD+ programmes with ART/TREES alignment.
Verified Sourcing Areas
IDH & SourceUp
A framework for formalising buyer commitments to specific jurisdictions. Companies sign compacts with producing regions, committing to sourcing and investment in exchange for verified sustainability performance.
Model: Formal compacts between buyers and jurisdictions. Defined KPIs, monitoring, and accountability.
Platform: SourceUp provides the digital infrastructure for compact management and progress tracking.
Link to certification: Can complement or provide pathway to traditional certification schemes.
60+
Jurisdictions with active programmes globally
~300M ha
Tropical forest in GCF Task Force jurisdictions
$1.5B+
LEAF Coalition commitment to J-REDD
Corporate Engagement with Jurisdictions
How do companies engage with jurisdictional programmes? Multiple pathways exist, from sourcing commitments to direct investment and carbon credit purchase.
| Engagement Type | How It Works | Corporate Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Verified Sourcing | Commit to sourcing from jurisdictions meeting sustainability performance thresholds | Supply chain risk mitigation, EUDR compliance pathway |
| Investment in Programmes | Direct investment in jurisdictional capacity (monitoring, extension, governance) | Influence, relationship-building, differentiation |
| J-REDD Credit Purchase | Buy ART/TREES or other jurisdictional REDD+ credits (e.g., via LEAF Coalition) | Carbon offsetting with higher integrity, nature investment |
| SourceUp Compacts | Formal agreements with jurisdictions through the SourceUp platform | Verified claims, structured accountability |
| Coalition Membership | Join platforms like TFA, Forest Positive Coalition that engage with jurisdictions | Pre-competitive coordination, shared learning |
| Government Partnership | Direct engagement with jurisdictional governments on policy and implementation | Regulatory alignment, market access |
EUDR and Jurisdictional Sourcing
The EU Deforestation Regulation creates new incentives for jurisdictional engagement. Companies must demonstrate products are deforestation-free and produced in compliance with local laws. Jurisdictions with strong governance and monitoring systems offer lower risk profiles – the EU's benchmarking system will categorise jurisdictions by risk level. Sourcing from well-performing jurisdictions simplifies compliance.
Challenges & Risks
Implementation Challenges
Government capacity and will
Jurisdictional approaches depend on government effectiveness. Weak institutions, corruption, or political opposition can derail programmes.
Political cycles
Elections change priorities. Programmes launched by one administration may not survive political transitions.
Federal-subnational coordination
Subnational jurisdictions may conflict with national policies. Legal frameworks, enforcement authority, and benefit-sharing require alignment.
Financing sustainability
Initial programme costs are high; revenue flows (carbon, premiums) take time. Financing gaps can collapse momentum.
Monitoring at scale
Whole-of-jurisdiction monitoring is expensive and technically challenging. Data gaps undermine credibility.
Smallholder inclusion
Benefits often flow to larger producers first. Ensuring smallholders benefit requires deliberate design.
Risks for Companies
Reputational association
Engagement with a jurisdiction that later fails (deforestation spike, human rights violations) creates reputational exposure.
Greenwashing accusations
Claims about jurisdictional engagement without verifiable impact can attract scrutiny. Need robust monitoring and evidence.
Slow progress
Jurisdictional change takes years. Companies under pressure for quick results may find timelines frustrating.
Limited direct control
Unlike direct supply chain certification, companies have limited ability to control jurisdictional programme outcomes.
Competing standards
Multiple jurisdictional frameworks (ART/TREES, VCS JNR, national systems) create complexity and potential conflicts.
Market access uncertainty
Will buyers and regulators accept jurisdictional approaches as equivalent to individual certification? Still evolving.
Mitigating Risk
Companies can reduce jurisdictional risk through: diversified engagement across multiple jurisdictions; independent monitoring (not relying solely on government data); phased commitments tied to milestones; and coalition participationto share risk and coordinate engagement. The CDP credibility assessment and ISEAL Core Criteria provide frameworks for due diligence.
The Pandion View
Jurisdictional approaches represent the future of landscape-scale sustainability. The direction of travel is clear: REDD+ moving to jurisdictional accounting, EUDR favouring well-governed jurisdictions, certification schemes developing jurisdictional pathways. Companies still focused solely on project-level certification are looking backwards.
But jurisdictional engagement requires patient capital and realistic expectations. You're betting on government effectiveness and political stability. The payoff is access to scalable, systemic solutions that individual certification can never provide – but the timeline is decades, not years.
The smartest strategies layer jurisdictional engagement on top of direct supply chain work. Individual supplier certification provides near-term assurance; jurisdictional engagement builds the enabling environment for long-term systemic change. Neither alone is sufficient.
We help organisations navigate this complexity: identifying which jurisdictions align with your sourcing footprint, assessing programme credibility, designing engagement strategies that balance risk and impact, and building claims that will survive scrutiny as verification requirements tighten.
Where To Go Next
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models, and what makes landscape action credible.
Assessment & Verification
Tools for credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP, and how to build verifiable claims.
Carbon Markets & REDD+
Financing mechanisms – voluntary and compliance carbon markets, credit quality, ICVCM.
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – coalitions, sourcing, investment strategies.