Log into your LandScale account and click 'Create a new landscape' to get started.
| Cover image | ||
|---|---|---|
Visit the websiteExplore the LandScale website for more detailed information and additional resources. | https://landscale.org/ | website screenshot.png |
Access the platformLog into the LandScale platform to use tools and features designed to support your landscape initiative. | https://platform.landscale.org/ | platform screenshot.png |
Help resourcesBrowse FAQs, user guides, and troubleshooting tips to navigation the LandScale ecosystem smoothly. | Help center | Platform_Illustrations_Assessment guidance.png |
Contact usIf you have any questions or need personalized assistance, feel free to reach out via email. We’re here to help! | mailto:landscale@ra.org | Platform_Illustrations_Landscape supporter Guidence-Landscape supporter guidance.png |
Log into your LandScale account and click 'Create a new landscape' to get started.
Example of a landscape initiative profile on LandScale.
To import an existing Terraso profile, navigate to 'Settings' and click 'Import profile.'
Example of the landscape initiative maturity wheel on a LandScale profile.
| Cover image | ||
|---|---|---|
ScaleEnsure the landscape boundary is appropriately scaled. | Scale | Platform_Illustrations_Artworked_New 2026_Scale.png |
Multi-stakeholder governanceClarify the initiative's governance structure and decision-making procedures. | Multi-stakeholder governance | Platform_Illustrations_Artworked_New 2026_Multi-stakeholder governance.png |
Collective goals and actionsEstablish the initiative's sustainability goals and plan for achieving them. | Collective goals and actions | Platform_Illustrations_Artworked_New 2026_Collective goals and actions.png |
Collective monitoringConfirm the initiative's monitoring and reporting framework for tracking progress. | Collective monitoring | Platform_Illustrations_Artworked_New 2026_Collective monitoring.png |
To begin an evaluation, navigate to the 'Maturity' section and ensure it is in 'Edit Mode.'
Click on the arrow next to the sub-criterion you want to evaluate to open its corresponding form.
Fill in the corresponding form with all relevant information to ensure a comprehensive evaluation.
Click 'Make changes' to edit a sub-criterion that was previously submitted for validation.
Confirm that you would like to edit the previously submitted sub-criterion to reopen the form and enter edit mode.
Review the publish toggle to control whether the data is public or private.
Click 'Save' on each section where you have added or updated data.
After saving any updates to the form, the 'Last Saved' date will automatically update.
Before submitting, review the eligible sub-criteria and confirm you are satisfied with their content.
Review the list of sub-criteria eligible for validation and confirm the submission.
Example of a sub-criterion submitted for validation.
Example of an approved sub-criterion with a validation remark.
Example of a rejected sub-criterion with a validation remark indicating what requires attention.
| Core criteria | Sub-criteria |
|---|---|
| Scale |
The landscape initiative operates at a scale that:
|
| Multi-stakeholder governance process or platform |
Includes active participation from key stakeholders in the landscape, including local community representatives in particular.
Engages directly with local government actors and seeks to align with progressive local, sub-national, and/or national government priorities and policies.
Has clear, transparent operating procedures and decision-making processes that support effective and inclusive stakeholder participation.
Plays a coordinating role in implementation for actions and monitoring across the landscape.
Implements safeguards that minimize the risks of negative human rights or environmental impacts, while enhancing positive results for people and nature within the landscape. |
| Collective goals and actions |
The collective sustainability goals:
The collective action plan:
The initiative is supported by a funding and finance strategy that:
|
| Collective monitoring |
A locally validated baseline assessment of ecological and socio-economic conditions across the landscape, supported by robust and transparent reporting.
Locally validated monitoring of landscape-level performance against defined metrics and milestones linked to the collective sustainability goals, supported by robust and transparent reporting.
Monitoring of progress in implementing activities outlined in the collective action plan, supported by robust and transparent reporting. |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Landscape boundary file. | The landscape boundary is submitted in the required format (.shp or .kml), forms a single contiguous area, and covers at least 10,000 hectares (or the size is otherwise justified). |
| Boundary type. | The boundary type is indicated as one of the provided delineation options:
|
Evidence to demonstrate that the boundary is appropriately scaled to support the landscape initiative's goals. | Based on the selected boundary type, evidence should demonstrate that the boundary is appropriately scaled:
In all cases, the rationale for the selected boundary is clearly explained and supported by:
|
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Stakeholder mapping. |
|
| Collaboration agreement. |
|
| Evidence of stakeholder participation. | Optionally, documentation demonstrating regular stakeholder meetings and participation is uploaded. This could include meeting agendas, minutes, attendance records, or reports demonstrating ongoing engagement. |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Identification of aligned policy objectives or targets. | A clear description is provided of the policy objectives or targets with which the initiative aligns, how the initiative contributes to them, and the levels of government (local, sub-national, national) whose priorities and policies are supported by the initiative's goals and actions. |
| Evidence of alignment. | The policy objectives or targets that align with the initiative are documented. Evidence of alignment between the landscape initiative’s goals and actions and public policies at local, sub-national, and/or national levels. This could include policy documentation, reports, press releases, or other supporting materials. |
| Engagement with government actors. | Indication of the level of engagement with government actors to align with their priorities and policies. |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Governance structure. | A clear description or relevant documentation (e.g., Terms of Reference, organigram of governance structure, Memorandum of Understanding, or partnership agreements outlining governance agreements) of the governance structure is provided. It should cover:
If no formalized governance structure is in place, any informal governance procedures are adequately described, as well as details of plans to progress toward a formal structure. |
| Representation of marginalized groups. | Indication of whether marginalized groups are represented in governance and decision-making procedures. This may include Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and/or other marginalized groups, depending on the context. |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Coordination of actions and monitoring. | A clear description or relevant documentation (e.g., Terms of Reference, organigram of governance structure, Memorandum of Understanding, or partnership agreements outlining coordination responsibilities) of how coordination is structured is provided. It should cover:
|
| Coordinating body. | If applicable, confirmation and supporting evidence that the initiative has a dedicated coordinating body responsible for these functions. Examples of coordinating bodies include a secretariat, technical working group, or center of excellence. |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Safeguarding plans or policies. | Documentation of safeguarding plans or policies is uploaded, or a description is provided of how safeguards are integrated into the governance process to minimize risks of negative social and environmental impacts. This may include:
If no safeguards are in place yet, an explanation and details of plans for their development and implementation are provided. |
| Involvement of relevant marginalized groups. | Optionally, indication of whether marginalized groups (e.g., Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and/or other context-relevant groups) were engaged in the development of safeguards. Where marginalized groups are indicated to have been engaged in the development of safeguards, supporting evidence is provided (e.g., signed agreements, written correspondence, workshop summaries, meeting notes). |
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Collective sustainability goals. | A list of the landscape initiative's long-term collective sustainability goals is provided, including start and end years for each goal. At least three goals should be identified and should cover social, environmental, and economic priorities. |
| Alignment with targets, metrics, and milestones. | The collective sustainability goals are clearly supported by targets, measurable metrics with baseline data, and short- and medium-term milestones. |
| Goal definition process. | A clear description of how the sustainability goals were defined is provided, including:
|
| Goal review and update process. | A clear description of the process for reviewing and updating the goals over time is provided, including:
|
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Collective action plan. | Documentation of the initiative's multi-year action plan is uploaded, including evidence that it has been agreed to by participating stakeholders and aligns with the collective sustainability goals and associated milestones. The action plan should:
Include an indication of the time period covered by the action plan. |
| Action plan review and update process. | A clear description of the process for reviewing and updating the action plan over time is provided, including:
|
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Funding and finance strategy. | A clear description or relevant documentation of the landscape initiative's funding and finance strategy is provided. The strategy should:
Include an indication of the time period covered by the funding and finance strategy. |
| Progress toward funding goal. | Indication of the total funding goal and the amount of funding secured to date, demonstrating progress toward the overall financing target. |
| Baseline performance assessment. | If conducted outside of LandScale, documentation of the baseline performance assessment report is provided. The report should:
|
| Validation by local experts. | If validated outside of LandScale, indication of whether local experts were involved in validating the baseline performance assessment. Examples of local validation approaches may include:
Where local expert involvement in validation is indicated, supporting evidence is provided, including the entities responsible for validation and a summary of the feedback or review comments provided. |
| Validation by an independent party. | Optionally, if validated outside of LandScale, indication of whether the baseline performance assessment was validated by an independent party. Where independent validation is indicated, supporting evidence is provided, including the validating entity and a summary of the feedback or review comments provided. |
| Transparent reporting. | If published outside of LandScale, indication of whether the baseline performance assessment has been publicly reported, including:
|
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Systems or tools used for performance monitoring. | A clear description of the system or tools used for performance monitoring is provided, including:
|
| Most recent performance monitoring assessment. | If conducted outside of LandScale, documentation of the most recent performance monitoring assessment is provided. It should:
|
| Validation by local experts. | If validated outside of LandScale, indication of whether local experts were involved in validating the performance monitoring assessment. Examples of local validation approaches may include:
Where local expert involvement in validation is indicated, supporting evidence is provided, including the entities responsible for validation and a summary of the feedback or review comments provided. |
| Validation by an independent party. | Optionally, if validated outside of LandScale, indication of whether the performance monitoring assessment was validated by an independent party. Where independent validation is indicated, supporting evidence is provided, including the validating entity and a summary of the feedback or review comments provided. |
| Transparent reporting. | If published outside of LandScale, indication of whether the performance monitoring assessment has been publicly reported, including:
|
| Requirements | Validation criteria |
|---|---|
| Systems or tools used for activity monitoring. | A clear description of the system or tools used for activity monitoring is provided, including:
|
| Most recent activity monitoring results. | Documentation of the most recent activity monitoring results is provided (e.g., progress reports or activity logs), demonstrating how implementation is tracked and providing updates on the status of actions defined in the collective action plan. |
| Transparent reporting. | Indication of whether the activity monitoring results have been publicly reported, including:
|
.JPG?alt=media&token=d6cf0dbc-fa1c-4b7d-ad08-56d20307e186)
*Image © Rainforest Alliance.*
*Image © WLRC.*
*Image © RECOFTC. Members of the Shree Chhap Deurali Community Forest in Sindhupalchok, Nepal, collaborate to create a resource map, illustrating their participatory approach to sustainable forest management.*
Snapshot of the LandScale assessment framework.
Login portal to the LandScale platform.
| Metric | Supplemental measurement guidance |
|---|---|
| 1.1.3.5 Total area (ha) & percentage (%) of managed lands in the landscape that are currently degraded | This metric captures areas of managed land that were once designated for economic activity but are now degraded, unproductive, and not actively being restored. Refer to footnote 5 in the indicator package document at the top of this section for the definition of managed land. |
| 1.1.3.6 Managed land degradation rate | This metric requires a baseline year and annual measurements to show how the degradation rate has changed over a minimum three-year period. Refer to footnote 5 in the indicator package document at the top of this section for the definition of managed land. |
| 1.2.6.1 Richness (number of unique species and varieties) of cultivated crop and livestock species across managed lands in the landscape | This metric captures the diversity of species and varieties in the landscape; therefore, there is no single prescribed reporting method, and results will depend on the available data. To ensure richness is fully represented, include both commercial and non-commercial crop and livestock varieties. Applying a biodiversity index (E.g., Simpson or Shannon) is the recommended methodology. If an index is used, the full list of species and varieties and their relative abundance should be included. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.2.6.2 Area (ha) and percentage (%) of managed land under multispecies or multifunctional production systems, disaggregated by type (e.g., agroforestry, intercropping, crop-livestock integration, silvopasture, polyculture) | To avoid duplication when multiple production systems are present in the same area, identify the primary (most representative) production system and use it to define the category. Document the rationale used to determine representativeness, and note any additional production systems present so they are acknowledged without creating duplicate categories. |
| 1.2.6.3 User-defined metric(s) on associated biodiversity in managed areas, such as presence, abundance, or habitat suitability of key functional groups (e.g., pollinators, soil fauna, beneficial insects, birds, nitrogen-fixing organisms) | Biodiversity in managed areas can be measured in multiple ways, and there is no single prescribed reporting method for this metric. The chosen approach will depend on data availability, scope, and the functional groups relevant to the landscape. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. Examples of acceptable methods include:
The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.1.4 User-defined metric(s) on water usage distribution across the landscape | There are multiple approaches to measuring water usage distribution; the choice should reflect the data available and the assessment’s objectives. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. Approaches may include:
Metrics should be reported consistently using the same parameters to enable aggregation and comparability over time. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.2.5 Concentration of agricultural contaminants (pesticide residues, nitrate, phosphate) (load/volume) in key water bodies | Monitoring agrochemical contaminants in water bodies requires advanced techniques carried out by specialized, often certified, laboratories. Sampling is the most common approach; however, when results are aggregated at the landscape level, they may not accurately reflect localized contamination levels. In such cases, reporting sampling points on a map is recommended. Because agrochemical application varies over time and space—depending on the crop, growth stages, and management practices—contaminant concentrations in water bodies also fluctuate. These factors must be considered when monitoring this metric and interpreting results. Therefore, the chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.2.6 Distribution of algal blooms in key water bodies | There are multiple methods for monitoring algal blooms in water bodies. The most practical approach is remote sensing using satellite imagery, which can be complemented by aerial or ground-based sensors and laboratory analyses to improve the accuracy of results. Coordination with local agencies and institutions responsible for water quality monitoring is recommended. Because algal blooms fluctuate over time, monitoring should account for seasonal and temporal variation. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.3.1 (Sinks) Rate of terrestrial carbon sequestration (tCO2e14/ha/yr) in aboveground and belowground biomass (litter, dead wood, harvested wood products and soil are optional) | Rate of carbon sequestration is an estimated measurement derived from field data and modeling. It is recommended to engage an expert to guide the estimation of carbon dynamics—either by using established software and calculators or by developing a tailored model suited to the landscape context. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.3.2 (Sources) Rate of GHG emissions (tCO2e/yr) from deforestation and (optionally) forest degradation | The supplemental measurement guidance for this metric mirrors that of metric 1.3.3.1. |
| 1.3.3.3 (Sinks) Rate of C sequestration in above and below ground biomass in woody perennials in forest plantations, agroforestry & lands under restoration (tCO2e/yr) | The supplemental measurement guidance for this metric mirrors that of metric 1.3.3.1. |
| 1.3.3.4 (Sinks) Rate of C sequestration in soil organic carbon pool within agriculture, forest plantations, and other production land uses (such as agroforestry) & lands under restoration (tCO2e/yr) | The supplemental measurement guidance for this metric mirrors that of metric 1.3.3.1. |
| 1.3.3.5 (Sources) Rate of GHG emissions (tCO2e/yr) from agricultural production & primary processing per unit of production15 (including crops and livestock) | The supplemental measurement guidance for this metric mirrors that of metric 1.3.3.1. |
| 1.3.5.1 Soil erosion rate (tons/ha/year) | There are multiple methods for measuring the soil erosion rate in a landscape. Direct measurements are the most accurate but require field sampling and are labor-intensive at the landscape scale. Indirect methods rely on modeling and estimation using geospatial data such as soil erodibility, slope steepness, and land cover, typically derived from satellite imagery and existing soil datasets or maps. The FAO recommends the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model, which is well-suited for landscape-scale measurements. Alternatively, soil erosion rate potential may be used to report this metric when direct or indirect measurements are not available. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.2 Soil water holding capacity | There are two recommended methods for measuring soil water holding capacity:
The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.3 Organic carbon concentration | Organic carbon concentrations are best measured by analyzing soil samples. It is recommended to coordinate with local agencies or research organizations that may already have soil data for the landscape, and to follow a standard procedure (e.g., the Soil Health Institute's standard operating procedure) as a reference. Sampling locations should be documented and reported on a map. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.4 Carbon mineralization potential | Carbon mineralization potential is best measured by analyzing soil samples. It is recommended to coordinate with local agencies or research organizations that may already have soil data for the landscape, and to follow a standard procedure (e.g., the Soil Health Institute's standard operating procedure) as a reference. Sampling locations should be documented and reported on a map. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.5 Aggregate stability | Soil aggregate stability can be measured by analyzing soil samples or through smartphone-based methods (e.g., collecting soil aggregates and using applications like the Slakes app to test them). It is recommended to coordinate with local agencies or research organizations that may already have soil data for the landscape, and to follow a standard procedure (e.g., the Soil Health Institute's standard operating procedure) as a reference. Sampling locations should be documented and reported on a map. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.6 User-added metric(s) on soil biological activity | Soil biological activity is best measured by analyzing soil samples. It is recommended to coordinate with local agencies or research organizations that may already have soil data for the landscape. Sampling locations should be documented and reported on a map. If direct soil sampling is not feasible, indirect measurements may be used as proxies. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 1.3.5.7 Percentage (%) of farms that report perceived improvements in soil health | Primary data may be collected to report this metric. Alternatively, partnering with other actors in the landscape who have access to farmers—such as certifiers, NGOs, agencies running workshops, farmers' associations, or government bodies—can provide valuable data. Because this metric reflects qualitative perceptions, the methodology—including all factors and parameters used to define it—must be described in detail. |
| 3.1.2.3 User-defined metric(s) of presence and quality of grievance mechanisms or other safeguards for land-related conflicts | Grievance mechanisms and safeguards implemented by all relevant actors in the landscape should be reported in this metric, as appropriate to the local context. Examples include Indigenous or communal land tenure legal frameworks, or farmers’ associations’ land and resource conflict resolution mechanisms. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. |
| 3.2.6.1 Number of government incentive programs for land management practices in the landscape, disaggregated by incentive type (e.g., direct payments, subsidies, training, technical assistance) and by land management practice (e.g., conventional, sustainable, regenerative) | Report a list of all incentive programs in the landscape, capturing those implemented by different levels or agencies of government. Complementary information about incentive program quality can be reported in metric 3.2.6.2. |
| 3.2.6.2 User-defined metric of quality of government incentive programs | Report supporting data on the quality of incentive programs listed in metric 3.2.6.1. This may include measurable results, number of recipients (disaggregated by relevant groups), and observed impacts. The chosen methodology used to collect and report this information must be described in detail. |
| 3.2.6.3 Number of non-governmental actors promoting improved land management practices in the landscape, disaggregated by type (e.g., civil society, NGOs, research institutions, certifiers and standard-setting bodies) | Report a list of non-governmental actors operating in the landscape (do not include government entities). The metric should focus on the presence and number of actors. Additional information on their quality or effectiveness may optionally be included as supplemental context, but is not required. |
| 4.1.1.4 User-defined metric(s) on productive loss attributed to biotic, abiotic, and novel stressors | Productive loss calculations vary by crop and are influenced by multiple factors. Representative crops can be selected, and the stages of productive loss should be clearly defined (e.g., during harvest, transportation, processing, storage). It is recommended to collaborate with farmers' associations, traders, and/or other relevant actors, and to engage an expert in productive loss calculations. When possible, productive loss should be disaggregated by stressor type and production system. Avoid double-counting (e.g., scenarios such as extreme weather events that increase vulnerability to disease must be carefully accounted for). User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 4.1.2.3 Area (ha) and percentage (%) managed lands using irrigation systems, disaggregated by type (e.g., rainfed, gravity-fed, drip, pumped) | It is recommended to consult with actors in the landscape responsible for monitoring irrigation (e.g., agricultural councils, government agencies, water districts). Results for this metric should be reported for a specified timeframe, ideally using multi-year data (e.g., the past two to five years), since irrigation patterns and volumes fluctuate over time and vary by crop type and their respective water requirements. |
| 4.1.5.1 Average net farm income per farming household across the landscape | It is recommended to consult with relevant actors and agencies that produce data on farm income, such as government bodies (e.g., agricultural departments), research institutions, or international organizations (e.g., the FAO, the World Bank, etc.). Where available, use official statistics or recent reports specific to the landscape or country context. Alternatively, primary data may be collected. |
| 4.1.5.2 Percentage (%) of households with 3 or more distinct income sources (e.g., crops, livestock, off-farm employment, nature-based activities, governmental subsidies) | The supplemental measurement guidance for this metric mirrors that of metric 4.1.5.1. |
| 4.1.5.3 Percentage (%) of households earning income from at least one nature-based source, disaggregated by type (e.g., PES schemes, agrotourism, carbon or biodiversity credits, other ecosystem service-related payments) | It is recommended to consult with relevant actors in the landscape who may have access to nature-based income data (e.g., local NGOs, producer organizations, government agencies). If a household earns income from multiple nature-based sources, it should be counted only once to avoid duplication. Assign the household to the primary (most representative) income source, based on the highest annual income contribution and, where relevant, the longest duration or continuity of income, and document the criteria used to determine representativeness. Because many nature-based income sources are temporary or seasonal, their duration and timing should also be recorded and described. |
| 4.1.5.4 Percentage (%) of households earning income from governmental subsidies | It is recommended to consult with the local government agencies that issue subsidies, as well as regional partners who can provide information about the types of subsidies present in the landscape. Results should reflect the percentage of households receiving any form of subsidy income. Where relevant and useful, subsidies may be disaggregated by type (e.g., agricultural, conservation, energy, social support) to provide additional context, following the disaggregation rules outlined in metric 4.1.5.3. |
| 4.1.5.5 User-defined metric(s) on access to reliable markets | There are multiple ways to report this metric, depending on data availability and context. Approaches may include quantitative methods (e.g., a market reliability index) or qualitative assessments that describe the physical, economic, and social structures enabling market access in the landscape. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 4.1.5.6 Percentage (%) of producers with access to business or technical support services (e.g., cooperatives, processors, extension agents, finance) | It is recommended to consult with actors in the landscape who may have access to support services data (e.g., producer organizations, NGOs, extension agencies, government programs). Results should reflect the percentage of producers with access to at least one form of business or technical support service. Where relevant and useful, services may be disaggregated by type to provide a more comprehensive view of support availability across the landscape. Each producer should be counted only once when calculating the overall percentage, even if they access multiple service types. When disaggregating by service type, producers may appear in more than one category, but the overall percentage should reflect unique producers only. |
| 4.1.5.7 User-defined metric(s) for economic resilience and diversification | There are multiple ways to report this metric, depending on data availability and context. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
| 4.1.6.1 User-defined metric(s) on the health & welfare of farmed and working animals | There are multiple ways to report this metric, depending on data availability and context. User-defined metrics must be described with specific units of measurement. The chosen methodology must be described in detail. |
Click on 'Add landscape' to create a new landscape initiative.
Click on 'Create assessment' to start a new assessment of the landscape.
Sui landscape boundary in Ghana, visualized on the LandScale platform.
Sample of a completed adjacency analysis.
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Landscape introduction | Provide a general introduction to the landscape (~400-800 words). It should cover:
|
| Demographic information | Enter the total population of the landscape. This information provides essential context for understanding the human footprint, demand on natural resources, and potential social dynamics within the landscape. Population size is also a key factor in assessing the scale and impact of economic activities, infrastructure needs, and service delivery. |
| Economic activities of interest | Select key economic activities or sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, infrastructure, tourism, etc.) relevant to the LandScale assessment. The selection informs the assessment scope for Goals 2.2, 3.2, and 4.1. The assessment team is encouraged to review the metrics and requirements for these goals to determine whether the necessary data for the selected activities or sectors is available or can be obtained. Identification of economic activities will not limit the assessment scope for other goals, which are intended to be evaluated more broadly across the landscape. |
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Landscape trends and risks | Provide a narrative (~400 words or more) describing key sustainability-related trends, threats, and/or risks that affect or are likely to affect the landscape. It should cover the following themes to the extent relevant:
|
| Landscape maps | Submit the following two maps as image files (e.g., jpeg, pdf):
These maps are valuable additions for visualizing information in the final report, should you choose to create one. |
| Demographic information | Add a brief description of past and current human migration trends relevant to land use activities (e.g., transient agricultural workers, out-migration to urban areas or to bordering countries). Then, enter population breakdowns using the corresponding data entry fields in the platform. This data will be used to automatically generate a landscape statistical overview to be included in the landscape report. Breakdown options include:
If landscape-specific data is unavailable for the population breakdowns, estimated figures from larger regions (e.g., jurisdiction-level) can be used, provided this is documented accordingly. |
| Production context | Describe the agricultural and forestry production systems found within the landscape, including:
|
| Governance structures | Provide a list and brief description of relevant governance bodies and structures relevant to land use and resource management, including:
|
| Land use and land allocation | Provide information on recent land use changes and their drivers, such as:
|
| Land use and land cover breakdown | Provide a breakdown of land use or land cover that align with the CORINE Land Cover guidelines as closely as possible. The categories should be mutually exclusive and total 100% of the landscape. If appropriate, a finer level of disaggregation may be provided (e.g., the 'agriculture' category in the land cover map may be disaggregated by crop type or livestock production system). |
Sample assessment team registration.
| Role | Description |
|---|---|
| Owner | The individual(s) responsible for the landscape profile and the associated assessment(s). Owners have full control and access to the landscape profile and can transfer ownership to another individual at any time, if necessary. Owners can also add new users. Multiple owners may be designated for a single landscape. |
| Assessment lead | The individual responsible for leading the assessment team and ensuring the successful execution of the assessment. The assessment lead also has the authority to edit the landscape profile and can add new users. Only one lead can be assigned per assessment. |
| Assessor specialist | A subject matter expert who provides specialized knowledge and expertise for specific aspects of the assessment. Specialists should collectively cover all topics within the scope of the assessment. They can view the landscape profile, but must be granted permission to make edits. |
The assessment lead is responsible for nominating local reviewers. Once approved by LandScale, each local reviewer must complete a Conflict of Interest Declaration prior to beginning the review.
Local reviewers must not be affiliated with the organization or entity that owns or collected the data used in the indicator being reviewed.
For example, if agricultural production data from the Ministry of Agriculture were used for Goal 4.1 (Promote regenerative, agricultural, agroforestry, and tree production systems), no affiliate of that ministry may review this goal.
However, a ministry employee with expertise in a different area, such as water resources, may serve as a local reviewer for a goal unrelated to their employer’s data contribution, such as Goal 1.3 (Maintain and enhance ecosystem services).
| | Conflict of interest disclosure |Local reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could impede, or appear to impede, their ability to conduct an objective review.
Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed before the reviewer participates in the local review. The assessment team will evaluate disclosed conflicts to determine if they are disqualifying.
| Once local reviewers are selected and invited to participate, they must review and complete the LandScale Conflict of Interest Declaration for Local Reviewers to confirm they understand and adhere to the independence requirements. These declarations must be uploaded by the assessment team as supporting documentation in the assessment, enabling the LandScale team to access and review them.
All local reviewers must complete a Conflict of Interest Declaration for each assessment they participate in.
The five elements of integrated landscape management from the “The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book”: WWF, EcoAgriculture Partners, The Nature Conservancy, IDH The Sustainable Trade Initiative, & The Global Canopy Programme. (2015). The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book.
When uploading documentation to the LandScale platform, either upload a file directly or provide a link to your external storage system.
Sample of selected indicators and metrics on the LandScale platform.
Use the checkboxes to select or deselect indicators for the assessment.
| Indicator category | Description and requirements |
|---|---|
| Core | Topics essential to holistic landscape sustainability and applicable in all contexts. These indicators are strongly advised for all Validated by LandScale assessments and cannot be edited. Any deselection must be adequately justified.
|
| Additional (LandScale) | Sustainability topics that may present significant risks or opportunities in some landscapes but not others. These indicators are optional, though recommended in landscapes where they are relevant to the assessment’s goals. They are included at the discretion of the assessment team and cannot be edited.
|
| Additional (user-added) | Indicators not currently included in the LandScale assessment framework but chosen to reflect the specific interests or objectives of the assessment owner and/or landscape stakeholders. These indicators are defined and included at the discretion of the assessment team, and will appear as additional indicators. User-added indicators can be validated by LandScale for an additional fee, contingent on the team having the necessary expertise. This determination is made upon submission of Step B. If LandScale lacks the required expertise to validate a user-added indicator, the indicator can still be utilized within the assessment on the platform but will not be validated and will not appear on the public profile. |
When deselecting a core indicator, a justification must be provided in the comments section.
Example of a user-added additional indicator.
Use the checkboxes to select or deselect metrics within each indicator.
| Metric category | Description and requirements |
|---|---|
| Essential | Essential metrics are required for all core indicators. To complete the assessment of a given indicator, all essential metrics must be measured, and there must be at least one essential metric per indicator. Any deselection of a LandScale-defined essential metric must be clearly justified. These metrics are typically the best-fit measures for the indicator and are often based on reliable global data. When more than one essential metric exists for an indicator, all are important for assessing the indicator and often rely on the same data, requiring little additional effort.
|
| Complementary | Complementary metrics may be included at the user's discretion. These metrics provide additional information to assess the relevant indicator and are not substitutes for essential metrics.
|
| User-added | User-added metrics are those not already defined in the LandScale assessment framework. These metrics are created by the assessment team to address measurement needs for either existing indicators or user-added indicators. User-added metrics can be categorized as either essential or complementary. User-added metrics may be used in place of an essential metric if it is not feasible or appropriate to use the essential metric (e.g., due to data limitations), or if the assessment team believes that the user-added metric provides more reliable information. In such cases, the assessment team must provide a justification explaining why the essential metric is not feasible and/or why the user-added metric is a superior measure of the indicator. This justification should address the four criteria outlined in the following section. The LandScale team will review this justification as part of the validation process for Step B. Each user-added metric must be tied to an indicator. When a user-added metric relates to an existing indicator within the LandScale framework, it should be associated with that indicator. If the metric does not align with any existing indicator, the assessment team must establish a new indicator during the indicator selection process. User-added metrics can be validated by LandScale, contingent on the team having the necessary expertise. This determination is made upon submission of Step B. If LandScale lacks the required expertise to validate a user-added metric, the metric can still be assessed as a part of the assessment but will not be validated and will not appear on the public profile. |
Example of a user-added essential metric.
Example of selected assessment data, shown by dataset view on the platform.
The Data Manager visualizes data selection and enables the management of all datasets included in the assessment.
Assessment teams can contribute data resources to the Data Resources Library for use by other teams.
Whenever possible, we recommend collecting primary data for metrics that lack sufficient existing data.
Example of data limitations analysis on the LandScale platform.
| Criteria | Considerations |
|---|---|
| Relevance: How is this resource thematically relevant to a LandScale assessment? | The dataset should be thematically relevant to the metrics it is intended to measure. It does not necessarily need to provide a full or direct measure the metric, but it should address the overall topic. When using proxy datasets, consider how closely the proxy measure aligns with the intended metric. If only proxy data is available, you may need to revisit the metric and consider proposing an alternative metric. |
| Reputability: Does the author of this resource have a good track record of producing unbiased, high-quality datasets? Is the resource accompanied by sufficient documentation? | To evaluate the reputability of a dataset, assess whether it was collected and assembled using standardized or widely accepted methods. Check for potential conflicts of interest or biases from the data owner or developer that could affect the dataset's validity. Ideally, the developer should have a proven track record of producing unbiased, high-quality datasets. Consider the organization hosting or providing the dataset as well. Large data providers and clearinghouses often have well-established criteria for selecting and vetting datasets, which can be a positive indicator of reputability. However, each dataset should still be evaluated on its own merits, rather than relying solely on the reputation of the provider. The dataset should also include adequate documentation (e.g., metadata) explaining the data fields, attributes, collection methods, and any limitations or disclaimers regarding data quality. Review this documentation to determine whether the dataset reflects reasonable attention to accuracy, precision, and quality control. |
| Spatial coverage: Does this dataset provide adequate geographic coverage? | Ideally, a dataset should cover the entire landscape. However, when no single dataset provides full coverage for a given metric, multiple datasets may be combined, each covering a portion of the landscape. This approach is particularly useful when the landscape boundary (e.g., a municipality) does not align with the units of measurement for a given metric (e.g., water-related outcomes measured at the catchment level). When combining datasets, ensure that they are comparable and create a coherent picture of the entire landscape. Remote sensing data may have gaps due to factors like cloud cover. The assessment team should evaluate how these gaps might impact the representativeness and accuracy of the entire dataset. If gaps significantly affect the dataset's quality, the assessment team should explore ways to mitigate this—such as finding supplemental data for the 'no data' areas—or, if the gaps are too large, may need to reject the dataset entirely. |
| Spatial resolution: What resolution (pixels, meters) is this dataset applicable at? | The spatial resolution of the data must be fine enough to accurately measure the metrics for which it is used. For example:
If the dataset does not meet these criteria, use the data with the best available spatial resolution and document the limitations. In some cases, data can be down-scaled to the landscape level using advanced analytical models, but this should only be done if the necessary expertise is available. |
| Temporal coverage: Is this dataset sufficiently recent, and does it cover the necessary timespan? | Currentness refers to the date of the most recent observations within a dataset. The dataset should be current enough to provide an accurate representation or approximation of the present conditions at the time of the LandScale assessment. Thresholds for currentness depend on the nature of the phenomenon being measured, particularly its rate of change in the context of the landscape. If the metric requires time-series data, the dataset must provide sufficient temporal resolution (e.g., daily, monthly, seasonally, annually) and consistency in data collection over time to ensure accurate analysis of status and trends. Preference should be given to datasets that are expected to be regularly updated so that they will continue meeting these temporal criteria in subsequent assessments. Such datasets will ensure continuity and relevance for ongoing and future trend analyses. The assessment team should consider potential trade-offs between temporal characteristics and other criteria. While the most current data is generally preferred, there may be trade-offs with other characteristics such as spatial resolution and degree of disaggregation. In some cases, an older dataset may be preferable: in landscapes with little conversion of natural ecosystems, an older ecosystem map may offer higher spatial resolution and more detailed ecosystem classifications than a more recent map that lacks these qualities. |
| Disaggregation: What level of disaggregation does this dataset provide? | The dataset should include at least the degree of disaggregation specified within the metric description and associated explanation in the Performance Metrics Descriptions Table. This means the dataset should break down the data into categories or units that are necessary for the given metric. For example, if the metric requires disaggregation by region or demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, income), the dataset should include this level of detail. If the assessment team identifies secondary datasets that do not provide sufficient disaggregation but are otherwise suitable, it may be worth contacting the data provider to inquire if disaggregated data are available. Some datasets are published with aggregated data but the disaggregated source data might be available upon request or special arrangement. If the dataset lacks the desired degree of disaggregation but is otherwise the most or only suitable dataset, the assessment team may decide to use it, but they should document the disaggregation limitation. Alternatively, they may propose an alternative metric that the available dataset is better suited to measure. |
| Sampling: Does this dataset have adequate (or the best available) sampling of the given population or phenomenon? | For datasets that rely on sampling and statistical methods to infer population values, the assessment team should evaluate the sampling frame, design, methods, and sample size to determine if they are appropriate. What constitutes 'appropriate' will depend on the metric, the degree of heterogeneity of the metric within the landscape, and adherence to data collection best practices. For example:
Consult the dataset’s documentation (metadata) to evaluate its sampling scheme, representativeness, and any limitations. No sample-derived dataset will perfectly represent the full population. By understanding the sampling approach, the assessment team can avoid processing the data beyond its credible limits of inference. |
| Accessibility and cost: Does this dataset have adequate or better accessibility and cost relative to alternative datasets, or will it limit publication of the results? | It is generally preferred to select datasets that are in the public domain, as these can be referenced in LandScale assessment reports and examined by any interested user of the results. However, in some cases, the most suitable datasets may be unpublished, proprietary, or confidential. If this is the case, the dataset may be used, provided its source and attributes can be reviewed by the assessment team (and, if validation is being sought, by the LandScale team and local reviewers). This review ensures that the data are appropriate for the metrics they are intended to measure. If the best dataset for a given metric is unpublished, proprietary, or private, the assessment team should explore whether a data-sharing agreement or another arrangement can facilitate the dataset’s use. Such agreements can meet the data owner’s needs while enabling the necessary LandScale quality reviews and validation. Before seeking validation, the assessment team must ensure they have permission from the owner of any non-public datasets to publish results derived from them. |
During Step B submission, select the indicators you want to submit for validation. Submitted indicators can be edited later, but they will revert to 'in progress' status and must be resubmitted for validation.
For each metric, complete the context information (methodology and limitations) and enter the result of the data processing. Optionally, upload visualizations and set targets and milestones.
Document the result year, methodology, and limitations for each metric.
Example results for a metric under the human well-being pillar.
If data is unavailable and a result cannot be provided, a justification must be included.
Example of insights and interpretations derived from a result.
The LandScale team may request additional documentation or clarification prior to finalizing the first review.
Local reviewers will provide feedback in the comments section, which must be addressed by the assessment team.
Example of a completed local review process.
When serving as a scribe, enter the username in a way that clearly identifies the individual acting as scribe and the local reviewer they are representing.
Local reviewer feedback can be made in the local language
Example of final assessment results submitted for Step C validation.
](https://www.linkedin.com/company/landscale/) [Follow us on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/landscale/)
{% hint style="info" %}
**Need support with writing a report and communicating impact?**
The LandScale team is available to assist with preparing reports and communicating key findings. [Contact us](mailto:landscale@ra.org) for more information.
{% endhint %}
## Next steps
With this milestone achieved, attention can now shift to advancing initiative maturity and planning for the future.
* **Fill in the** [**Landscape Initiative Maturity (LIM) evaluation**](/landscape-initiative-maturity/get-started-with-landscape-initiative-maturity)**:** LIM offers insights into the current status of the landscape initiative—the scale it operates at, details about its multi-stakeholder governance process or platform, its collective goals and actions, and its collective monitoring and reporting framework—and serves as a roadmap to support the identification of opportunities for strengthening impact and effectiveness.
* **Update the landscape profile:** Add any active interventions or investment opportunities in the landscape. Capturing these efforts promotes transparency, supports collaboration, and may attract future funding.
* **Plan for reassessment:** Scheduling the next assessment supports ongoing monitoring, helps measure progress over time, and informs strategic decision-making.
The LandScale team remains available to support further activities and provide guidance on subsequent phases.
{% hint style="success" %}
**Further reading and resources**
* For more information on integrated landscape management, refer to resources provided by the [1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People](https://landscapes.global/guide/intro/) initiative, including their comprehensive guide on integrated landscape management practices.
* For support in navigating systemic change and working with complex systems, refer to the [Positive Tipping Points Toolkit](https://ptptoolkit.notion.site/), which provides guidance on understanding, identifying, and working towards tipping points.
{% endhint %}
# Report and publish results - delete for now, save for later
Once the assessment has been completed and validated, the final step is to produce, validate, and publish the landscape profile and, optionally, a PDF report. The landscape profile is automatically filled out and published once the results--whether one or many--have successfully gone through the Step C validation process. At the end of Step C, the assessment team may choose to carry out the following additional tasks to generate a PDF report:
1. **Build the landscape report:** Create a detailed report that summarizes the assessment process, methodology, key findings, and results.
2. **Translate the landscape report:** If needed, the report can be translated into other languages to ensure accessibility for a wider audience.
3. **Publish the landscape report:** Once the report is finalized (and possibly translated), it can be published on the platform and distributed publicly.
If the assessment team chooses to generate a PDF report, it will need to go through validation by the LandScale team.
## Build the landscape report
The landscape report is created on the LandScale platform using a standard format and design, ensuring consistency and ease of navigation for all landscape reports. The content of the report consists of a combination of:
* **Automatically populated content:** Information gathered and submitted during previous steps.
* **Standard text provided by LandScale:** This text can be edited or customised by the assessment team as needed.
* **Custom text and images:** Additional content added by the assessment team.
If the assessment team wishes to revise any auto-populated content that has been generated from prior steps, this may require LandScale to validate the new information, which could delay the completion and publication of the report.
### Language requirements for the landscape report
The landscape report must be written in English. The LandScale platform allows the use of tools to help the assessment team check for grammar, spelling, and other language-specific issues. The clarity and quality of the report’s language will be assessed during the Step C validation process. LandScale will not correct or edit the report content but, as part of the validation process, may require the assessment team to revise or improve content that is unclear, illogical, or not written in proper English.
For tips on writing, assessment teams may refer to our report writing guide, linked below:
{% file src="/files/snp9FBqx1UEjn7puRW6I" %}
### Landscape report format
The landscape report follows a standard format, including the following sections:
* Front page.
* About this report, acknowledgments, and logos.
* Table of contents.
* Executive summary.
* Featured results.
* Conclusion.
* References.
* Appendices:
* Validated metric results.
* Landscape overview.
* Indicator and metric selection.
* Data evaluation.
* Stakeholder engagement plan.
* Local review summary.
* Adjacency analysis (if applicable).
* Custom appendices (optional).
The executive summary section should provide a holistic overview of the results at the goal level, while the featured results section highlights key findings, with the full set of metric results available as an appendix.
### Key characteristics of a landscape report
A well-crafted landscape report should meet the following criteria:
* **Objective:** The narrative must be based on the assessment results validated by LandScale and be presented in a representative and balanced manner. The assessment team should avoid introducing material that is not objective or not based on validated results, such as undocumented information, unsubstantiated assertions, personal opinions, speculation about causes or trends, or future predictions. Both favorable and less favorable results should be discussed without undue emphasis on either.
* **Engaging:** The landscape report should be concise, accessible, and visually appealing to effectively communicate the assessment results. The use of data visualizations is recommended to highlight key results and make complex data easier to understand.
* **Holistic:** The landscape report should include assessment results from all segments of the assessment scope (e.g., all pillars and goals).
In addition to the auto-generated components, the assessment team is responsible for creating custom content for three key sections of the landscape report's main body ([executive summary](#executive-summary), [featured results](#featured-results), and [data visualizations and other graphics](#data-visualizations-and-other-graphics)). Detailed guidance for crafting content for these sections are provided below.
### Executive summary
The executive summary should provide a clear and concise overview of the assessment results, offering a holistic portrait of the landscape’s sustainability performance. It should:
* Cover all goals included within the report’s scope.
* Include both favourable and less favourable results to present a balanced and accurate depiction of the landscape's performance.
* Highlight areas of progress or strong performance alongside areas in need of improvement.
The executive summary serves as a key entry point for readers, ensuring they grasp the overarching outcomes and critical insights from the assessment.
### Featured results
The featured results section allows the assessment team to present selected results in greater detail. These results may focus on those that are particularly noteworthy or significant for landscape sustainability management, as well as topics or trends of special interest to the assessment proponent, landscape stakeholders, or other target users. However, the featured results must include information on all goals within the report scope and provide a balanced perspective by covering both favorable and less favorable results. Featured results are typically presented and synthesized at the goal or indicator level.
Assessment teams are encouraged to use the 'featured results' narrative to provide useful interpretation and contextualization of the raw metric results. This may include:
* Highlighting relationships between different goals, indicators, or metrics, including any apparent synergies or tradeoffs among multiple landscape objectives.
* Identifying connections and/or apparent contradictions in results (e.g., natural ecosystem conversion decreased yet threats to biodiversity increased significantly).
* Identifying specific events or circumstances widely accepted as causal factors for the observed trends in individual or multiple results (e.g., recent wildfires leading to significant declines in forest cover).
* Providing comparative analysis of related metrics (e.g., whether the pace of restoration is commensurate with the pace of ecosystem conversion and degradation).
* Evaluating metric results against any established [targets and milestones](/assessment-guidelines/step-c/set-targets-and-milestones-optional) to assess progress towards the desired sustainability outcomes defined by landscape stakeholders.
* Explaining data sources, methodologies used to assess metrics, and any limitations that are important for understanding and interpreting the published results.
* For repeat assessments, providing a synthesis and interpretation of previous assessment results, current results, and observed trends. If changes in data quality, methodologies, or metric definitions (e.g., due to updates to the [LandScale assessment framework](/assessment-guidelines/get-started/introduction-to-the-landscale-system/landscale-assessment-framework)) significantly affect trend data and their interpretation, such aspects should be discussed as well.
{% hint style="danger" %}
**Prohibited practices**
When building the landscape report, assessment teams must avoid:
* Over-extrapolating results to come to conclusions that cannot be supported by validated, published results and their underlying data. For example, it is not appropriate to claim that water quality is excellent across the entire landscape based on results from only a limited number of water bodies.
* Suggesting that the landscape is 'sustainable', as LandScale does not define a specific threshold for what constitutes 'sustainable'.
* Attributing results, either in part or in full, to specific actors, actions, policies, or programs. While contribution claims based on validated LandScale results are possible, these should not be included in the landscape report itself. Instead, any such claims should be pursued separately, following the [LandScale claims guidelines](https://www.landscale.org/claims/).
{% endhint %}
### Data visualizations and other graphics
The landscape report should include data visualizations, such as graphics, charts, tables, and other visual devices, to present assessment results in a clear and intuitive manner. Note that the landscape report does not need to include a comprehensive set of data visualizations for all published results, as the full results will automatically be compiled in an appendix to the report.
Due to the variety of visualizations that may be useful, these are not automated within the LandScale platform. Instead, visualizations should be created off-platform and uploaded to the platform’s image library. Refer to the Data Visualization supporting document for guidelines and resources to create effective visualizations.
Key considerations for data visualizations include:
* **Focus on key patterns:** The assessment team should focus on developing data visualizations that best illustrate the broad patterns discussed in the [executive summary](#executive-summary) and the conclusions presented in the [featured results](#featured-results).
* **Synthesize information:** Where appropriate, the assessment team should synthesize data from multiple metrics to reflect performance at the indicator level, or even at the goal level, where feasible. For example, synthesizing data across the three metrics for human health and nutrition (indicator 2.1.2) can make the results more relevant and actionable for landscape actors.
* **Pillar-level synthesis (optional):** At the executive summary level, pillar-level synthesis can be useful to provide an overview of sustainability performance across the landscape.
In addition to data visualizations, the assessment team can include additional visuals, such as photographs and maps, to help engage the audience and convey information that may be difficult to communicate in text alone.
LandScale allows assessment teams to reference external materials by providing links to documents or websites. For example, a landscape partnership website or a published landscape action plan can be linked in the landscape report. However, please note that LandScale will not validate the content of external publications linked on the platform. If there are concerns about the credibility of external content, LandScale reserves the right to prohibit its reference on the platform.
### Appendices
The appendices of the landscape report serve to document the work conducted during prior steps of the assessment process. This includes the complete set of validated metric results for publication, along with supporting information related to the data used to generate those metrics.
Content for all appendices is auto-generated from inputs in earlier steps. Some of this content may be edited, as specified in the platform instructions for each appendix.
If the assessment team wishes, they may revisit optional components of the assessment process that were previously skipped. However, any new content must be validated before it can be published.
### Custom appendices (optional)
The assessment team may choose to add custom appendices to the landscape report to provide additional relevant information. Examples of custom appendices could include a landscape theory of change, landscape action plan, or supplementary maps and photos.
While LandScale does not validate custom appendices, they may be reviewed as part of the overall report validation process. LandScale reserves the right to require modifications or removal of any custom content deemed incorrect, unsubstantiated, or misleading prior to publication.
Since custom appendices are not validated, they will be clearly labeled in the report to differentiate them from validated content.
{% hint style="info" %}
**Recommended stakeholder input**
LandScale recommends that assessment teams invite landscape partners, stakeholders, and experts to review the draft landscape report. This step helps to socialize the assessment results and provides stakeholders an opportunity to comment on how the results are presented, contextualized, and interpreted.
The review of the draft report is optional but offers the assessment team a chance to refine the report based on stakeholder feedback before seeking validation. This process is distinct from the [local review](/assessment-guidelines/step-c/address-comments-from-local-review), which takes place in Step C.
If stakeholders are invited to review the draft report at this stage, it is not expected nor required that all stakeholders agree with every result or interpretation. Nevertheless, feedback at this stage can help improve the report and enhance its relevance and acceptance by key stakeholders.
{% endhint %}
## Translate the landscape report (optional)
Assessment teams may choose to translate the landscape report into local language(s). The translated report should contain the same content as the original English report built on the platform, with no additions or exclusions (appendices may be excluded from the translation). LandScale permits the publication of translated landscape reports on the platform.
Translated reports will not be validated by the LandScale team. However, LandScale reserves the right to prevent the publication of a translated report, or to request revisions, if there are concerns about its fidelity to the validated English content.
## Validate and publish the landscape report
Validation of the landscape report involves reviewing the report itself, as well as any changes made to the assessment in relation to items that were already validated in prior steps. Validation of the landscape report can only be pursued after all previous steps have been successfully validated.
Once Step C is validated, the assessment team may decide if and when to publish the landscape report. Documentation requirements and validation criteria for the process are outlined below.
### Documentation requirements
The following materials must be submitted through the LandScale platform for validation:
* Documentation of any changes made to the assessment relative to items that were already validated in prior steps.
* The landscape report, including data visualizations and additional graphics.
* The landscape report appendices.
* Landscape report appendix, with the full list of local reviewers and the indicators that they reviewed. Refer to the [local review guidance](/assessment-guidelines/step-a/identify-and-register-local-reviewers#balancing-transparency-and-confidentiality-in-local-reviews) for more information on how local reviewers should be identified in the landscape report - (move to next).
### Validation criteria
Validation will confirm whether the following requirements have been fulfilled:
* Any changes made to the assessment relative to previously validated items are appropriate and do not necessitate re-validation based on the validation requirements of prior steps.
* The landscape report is complete and accurately represents the findings, ensuring no misrepresentation through means such as (but not limited to):
* Stating or implying attribution to or contribution of specific actors to particular outcomes. While contribution claims based on validated LandScale results are possible, these should not be included in the landscape report itself. Instead, any such claims should be pursued separately, following the [LandScale claims guidelines](https://www.landscale.org/claims/).
* Failing to include less favorable results, or otherwise misrepresenting the balance between favorable and less favorable results, as indicated by the results and underlying data.
* Drawing conclusions or inferences that are not supported by the underlying results and data.
* The landscape report is written in proper English suitable for publication.
# Human rights assessment guidelines
Human rights violations often extend beyond individual projects, plantations, and concession boundaries. Their causes and consequences relate to complex interactions involving multiple levels of government, diverse sectors, and a wide array of stakeholders. Therefore, assessing human rights at the landscape scale is a useful contribution to managing sustainability across larger geographic and governance areas.
Historically, human rights assessments have either been broad risk evaluations at the national level or in-depth, context-specific studies at the project, plantation, supply chain, or community level. These approaches, while valuable, often lack scalability and replicability. LandScale’s landscape-level human rights assessment is a pioneering step towards bridging this gap. However, it is not exhaustive and should not replace the obligations of companies, governments, and other stakeholders to undertake smaller-scale human rights assessments. Instead, it offers a complementary perspective, helping to identify systemic human rights issues, their root causes, and the enabling conditions required to address them effectively.
Download our Human Rights Assessment Guidelines below:
{% file src="/files/E6nDbcY7HRNV85kbbarv" %}
# Climate mitigation project guidance
This climate mitigation project guidance was developed to provide support for landscape initiatives using LandScale in attracting corporate funding through the implementation of high-integrity climate mitigation projects, whether within or beyond the value chain.
The guidance outlines clear, actionable themes, principles, and steps to help initiatives build institutional and technical capacity and gain access to corporate funding through high-integrity action. It addresses common questions regarding the development of climate mitigation projects, including:
1. How can climate interventions be embedded in the landscape context, and how should initiatives differentiate between corporate claim pathways?
2. How can stakeholders and communities be engaged to improve carbon outcomes, maximize co‑benefits, and reduce risks?
3. How can the feasibility, cost, and commercial potential of climate interventions be assessed?
4. How should an appropriate monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) approach be selected, and what trade-offs should be considered?
5. Which standards, implementation partners, and funding sources are most relevant for climate mitigation projects, and how can they be leveraged?
By outlining the characteristics of high-quality climate mitigation projects, the guidance reflects many of the core principles of effective landscape initiative design. Its added value is a dedicated climate mitigation and carbon lens, offering targeted guidance to support informed decision-making when collaborating with third parties to develop projects within landscapes.
## Access the guidance
The climate mitigation project guidance was developed in partnership with 3Keel. Download the guidance below to learn more:
{% file src="/files/ZfEr84XVenDpXuxvULHH" %}
Alongside the development of the guidance, we hosted a webinar with support from 3Keel to walk through the key themes and answer participant questions. Watch the recording below:
{% embed url="
Find the assessment you want to reassess and click the three dots next to it.
From the menu, select “Start reassessment” to begin.
Open the reassessment where you need to confirm the landscape initiative details.
Review and verify the details, including the landscape name, reassessment name, lead organizations, and the purpose of the reassessment.
Review and update the landscape overview to ensure it reflects the current conditions of the landscape.
Use the ‘Compare results’ feature to understand changes between assessments.
Sample assessment team registration.
| Role | Description |
|---|---|
| Owner | The individual(s) responsible for the landscape profile and the associated assessment(s). Owners have full control and access to the landscape profile and can transfer ownership to another individual at any time, if necessary. Owners can also add new users. Multiple owners may be designated for a single landscape. |
| Assessment lead | The individual responsible for leading the assessment team and ensuring the successful execution of the assessment. The assessment lead also has the authority to edit the landscape profile and can add new users. Only one lead can be assigned per assessment. |
| Assessor specialist | A subject matter expert who provides specialized knowledge and expertise for specific aspects of the assessment. Specialists should collectively cover all topics within the scope of the assessment. They can view the landscape profile, but must be granted permission to make edits. |
The assessment lead is responsible for nominating local reviewers.
Local reviewers must not be affiliated with the organization or entity that owns or collected the data used in the indicator being reviewed.
For example, if agricultural production data from the Ministry of Agriculture were used for Goal 4.1 (Promote regenerative, agricultural, agroforestry, and tree production systems), no affiliate of that ministry may review this goal.
However, a ministry employee with expertise in a different area, such as water resources, may serve as a local reviewer for a goal unrelated to their employer’s data contribution, such as Goal 1.3 (Maintain and enhance ecosystem services).
| | Conflict of interest disclosure |Local reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could impede, or appear to impede, their ability to conduct an objective review.
Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed before the reviewer participates in the local review. The assessment team will evaluate disclosed conflicts to determine if they are disqualifying.
| Once local reviewers are selected and invited to participate, they must review and complete the LandScale Conflict of Interest Declaration for Local Reviewers to confirm they understand and adhere to the independence requirements. These declarations must be uploaded by the assessment team as supporting documentation in the assessment, enabling the LandScale team to access and review them.
Once approved by LandScale, each local reviewer must complete a Conflict of Interest Declaration prior to beginning the review.
Select which sections of Step A to submit for validation.
When comparing indicators between assessments, a red X indicates the indicator was not selected, while a yellow checkmark indicates it was selected.
Example of data selected for metric 1.1.1.1.
| Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Source | Confirm consistency in dataset origin and justify if sources change. |
| Definition | Ensure datasets describe the same phenomena (e.g., "forest cover" vs. "forest extent"). |
| Spatial and temporal resolution | Match resolution wherever possible. If adjustments are needed, apply systematic down-sampling or up-sampling. |
| Temporal adjustments | Justify differences in timeframes, such as using monthly versus annual averages. |
| Units | Maintain consistency in measurement units; apply normalization or conversion if necessary. |
| Projections | Ensure data use the same projection; re-projection may be required. |
| Disaggregation and aggregation factors | Maintain consistency in classification levels (e.g., land cover categories, crop types). If merging data, ensure groupings are methodologically sound. |
| Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Spatial scale | Ensure the spatial scale of participants remains consistent across the landscape (e.g., selecting participants from the same regions or adjusting sampling techniques appropriately). |
| Temporal scale | Conduct data collection at similar times of the year to account for seasonal variations. |
| Sample size and demographics | Maintain a similar number of participants and match demographic breakdowns to the baseline. Subsampling or weighting adjustments may be necessary. |
| Survey questions | Ensure consistency in wording, response scales, and data collection methods. |
| Units | Maintain consistency in measurement units; apply normalization or conversion as needed. |
| Statistical analysis | Apply the same statistical methods for downstream calculations and indices. Provide justifications for any differences. |
During Step B submission, select the indicators you want to submit for validation. Submitted indicators can be edited later, but they will revert to 'in progress' status and must be resubmitted for validation.
In Step C, open the metric you are assessing to document how it was processed.
For each metric, fill in the context details, including result year, methodology, and limitations.
Enter results for each metric. If data is unavailable and a result cannot be provided, a justification must be included.
The LandScale team may request additional documentation or clarification prior to finalizing the first review.
Local reviewers will provide feedback in the comments section, which must be addressed by the assessment team.
Example of a completed local review process.
When serving as a scribe, enter the username in a way that clearly identifies the individual acting as scribe and the local reviewer they are representing.
Local reviewer feedback can be made in the local language.
Once approved for validation, results are automatically published to the corresponding landscape profile.
Example of validated results shown on a landscape profile.
](https://www.linkedin.com/company/landscale/) [Follow us on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/landscale/)
{% hint style="info" %}
**Need support with writing a report and communicating impact?**
The LandScale team is available to assist with preparing reports and communicating key findings. [Contact us](mailto:landscale@ra.org) for more information.
{% endhint %}
## Next steps
With this milestone achieved, attention can now shift to advancing initiative maturity and planning for the future.
* **Update the landscape action plan and finance strategy:** Revisit the landscape action plan and associated finance or funding strategy in light of the reassessment findings. Incorporate key learnings to refine priorities, adjust timelines, or reallocate resources as needed to better align with current needs and opportunities.
* **Fill in the** [**Landscape Initiative Maturity (LIM) evaluation**](/landscape-initiative-maturity/get-started-with-landscape-initiative-maturity)**:** LIM offers insights into the current status of the landscape initiative—the scale it operates at, details about its multi-stakeholder governance process or platform, its collective goals and actions, and its collective monitoring and reporting framework—and serves as a roadmap to support the identification of opportunities for strengthening impact and effectiveness.
* **Update the landscape profile:** Add any active interventions or investment opportunities in the landscape. Capturing these efforts promotes transparency, supports collaboration, and may attract future funding.
* **Plan for the next reassessment:** Scheduling the next assessment supports ongoing monitoring, helps measure progress over time, and informs strategic decision-making.
The LandScale team remains available to support further activities and provide guidance on subsequent phases.
{% hint style="success" %}
**Further reading and resources**
* For more information on integrated landscape management, refer to resources provided by the [1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People](https://landscapes.global/guide/intro/) initiative, including their comprehensive guide on integrated landscape management practices.
* For support in navigating systemic change and working with complex systems, refer to the [Positive Tipping Points Toolkit](https://ptptoolkit.notion.site/), which provides guidance on understanding, identifying, and working towards tipping points.
{% endhint %}
# About LandScale
LandScale is a collaborative initiative committed to delivering greater impact at scale by making credible information about landscape initiative maturity and sustainability performance accessible to all.
{% embed url="
| Download our refresh booklet (English version) to learn more. | Landscale_Refresh Booklet.pdf | Screenshot 2025-05-08 103651.png |
| Download our refresh booklet (French version) to learn more. | Landscale_Refresh Booklet (French Version).pdf | Screenshot 2025-05-08 104001.png |
| Download our refresh booklet (Spanish version) to learn more. | Assessment framework, version 1.0 (Spanish).pdf | Screenshot 2025-05-08 104453.png |
| Download our refresh booklet (Indonesian version) to learn more. | Landscale_Refresh Booklet (Indonesian Version).pdf | Screenshot 2025-05-08 104540.png |
The Help Center will always be accessible on the right-hand side of your screen.
Access the Help Desk from anywhere on the platform to quickly report an issue.
Use the satisfaction survey to tell us about your experience.
