Engaging landscape stakeholders throughout the reassessment process is essential to ensure the accuracy, credibility, and local relevance of results. It also ensures that local perspectives are incorporated effectively into the reassessment process.
During Step A, the assessment team must document a plan for how stakeholders will be engaged throughout the entire reassessment process, indicating the focus and forms of stakeholder engagement that are anticipated during each step. The plan should also identify which stakeholders or stakeholder groups will be prioritized for engagement and what kinds of engagement modalities will be used.
Guidance on engagement approaches, recommended engagement activities, and LandScale’s role in landscape management can be found in the .
Stakeholder engagement for different reassessment types
Full reassessment: The assessment team must complete a full stakeholder engagement plan covering all relevant steps and indicators.
Performance tracking of a limited set of indicators: A stakeholder engagement plan is required only for the indicators being reassessed that are included in the section. For all other indicators, developing a stakeholder engagement plan is optional. However, the local review in Step C is still required.
Required stakeholder engagement activities
The following activities define the required stakeholder engagement points for Goal 2.2, Goal 3.2, and the local review in Step C.
Goal 2.2: Respect, protect, and fulfill human rights.
Human rights data at the landscape level is often limited, necessitating extensive stakeholder consultation. The consultation process has two objectives:
Assessing indicator applicability (Step B): Engage stakeholders to confirm the continued relevance of existing indicators and determine whether new human rights issues (e.g., child labor, women’s rights, forced labor, Indigenous Peoples’ rights) have emerged.
Designing and evaluating performance metrics (Steps B and C): Collaborate with stakeholders to confirm or revise context-specific metrics, and assess their performance based on updated data and input.
Relevant stakeholders include rights holders (e.g., affected communities) and duty bearers (e.g., government agencies). Full details of the stakeholder engagement requirements for Goal 2.2 are available in the .
This consultative process is required for the indicators and metrics within Goal 2.2 and is also recommended for any additional human rights-related indicators that the assessment team defines. During reassessment, engagement efforts should be proportionate to the scope of indicators being reassessed or tracked.
Goal 3.2: Promote transparency, participation, inclusion, and coordination in landscape policy, planning, and management.
Assessing indicators 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and optionally 3.2.4 requires the use of the . This tool relies on participatory rating exercises to generate metric results, ensuring diverse stakeholder input.
Stakeholders involved may include:
Government entities, including representatives from various ministries, agencies, and administrative levels.
Producer organizations, including those representing smallholders.
Private sector organizations involved in land use activities.
Social and environmental NGOs.
Civil society organizations, including those representing the interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Optionally, indicator 3.2.4 (illegality and corruption related to land and resources) may also involve stakeholder consultations, for instance, if surveys on local perceptions are carried out to assess the performance metrics for this indicator.
Step C: Local review
The local review ensures that stakeholders with in-depth knowledge of the landscape provide feedback to validate the credibility and accuracy of the source data and reassessment results prior to publication. This feedback helps:
Identify and inform any necessary improvements to the results.
Document any limitations in data accuracy or result interpretation.
The local review takes place during Step C and requires the participation of at least one local reviewer per indicator for which validation is sought. Further details on the local review can be found in .
