The global REDD+ framework rewards countries that reduce deforestation and enhance forest carbon sinks. It includes a mechanism for results-based payments to national and sub-national governments, communities, and private investors. The architecture for providing these payments is complex and evolving. However, sub-national jurisdictional initiatives are a particularly promising focus for REDD+ investment and carbon credits because they combine government involvement and oversight with supply chain and community actions to stop deforestation and may generate payments for all these actors. For carbon finance investors, L/JIs may offer economies of scale relative to individual, site-specific projects within a jurisdiction, while also enabling private investment more readily than national-scale government programs.

Companies can invest in landscape/jurisdiction-scale carbon offsets in three ways, ranging from simple to complex:

• 1. Source carbon credits from an existing L/JI that has an established mechanism for carbon finance. This option is a relatively easy one for a company that wishes to support an L/JI and gain carbon credits, but does not seek to become directly involved in the initiative. It may also be a way for a company to become engaged in an L/JI as a first step that might lead to greater involvement over time.
• 2. Integrate carbon finance into an existing L/JI (as Touton is doing with cocoa suppliers in Western Ghana, see “Co-design jurisdictional goals, key performance indicators (KPIs), and implementation strategies”). This approach may be attractive to companies looking for additional long-term financing for an L/JI and can work with other stakeholders to link the initiative to public and private carbon markets to obtain credits. The company itself can be (but does not have to be) an investor in carbon offsets. It may be equally valuable to the company to have other investors financially supporting the L/JI in the form of carbon finance, so that the company can contain its costs in supporting the initiative.
• 3. Co-initiate and co-finance a carbon credit program at the scale of a landscape/jurisdiction. This option requires substantial company involvement and investment, generally with NGO and/or private partners with specialized expertise in REDD+ carbon finance. It may be an appropriate pathway for companies with substantial commitments to reducing carbon emissions, and equally substantial opportunities to work with suppliers and other stakeholders in a landscape/jurisdiction from which it sources commodities linked to deforestation. The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES) provides one vehicle for countries and eligible subnational jurisdictions to generate verified emissions reduction credits through actions to reduce deforestation and degradation.

For Options 2 and 3, a company must understand the carbon finance possibilities available to the L/JI, as well as the risks and price volatility associated with the carbon market. Companies should engage with the government and other stakeholders to identify current and potential sources of funding, and to discuss benefit sharing mechanisms and the carbon claims companies could make.

If REDD+ carbon finance is shown to be feasible to support an L/JI, companies can advocate for and/or support a REDD+ program that is in line with good practice for carbon offsets from land use projects.

Adoption: Adopt clear and consistent criteria for preferential sourcing at the landscape/jurisdictional level. These criteria will define levels and types of preference in sourcing, and the conditions under which the company will reduce or discontinue sourcing from suppliers in a given landscape/jurisdiction.

• Criteria for measuring the quality of L/JIs should address their social, environmental, and economic goals; strategic plans; role of governance and policy; and M&E system. The Commodities/Jurisdiction Approach is one tool that provides predetermined criteria for assessing L/JIs.

Implementation: Seek new suppliers within landscapes/jurisdictions that meet selected criteria and/or expand sourcing from existing suppliers in these regions. For early stage L/JIs, companies may still need to assess and verify whether individual suppliers comply with social and envi-ronmental targets. As more advanced L/JIs can demonstrate a high level of effectiveness in stopping deforestation and exploitation, companies may be able to rely on monitoring done at landscape/jurisdictional scale to ensure suppliers meet their sourcing criteria. Companies should publicly specify their use of landscape/jurisdictional preferencing, criteria, and preferred sourcing regions. This sends a clear market signal that progress at that level of the landscape/jurisdiction strongly informs sourcing decisions.

• Link decisions to decrease purchases from jurisdictions struggling to meet sustainability criteria with ongoing dialogue and engagement with other purchasers, and with the government, suppliers, and other stakeholders in the region. This incentivizes improvement, rather than just letting these jurisdictions default to supplying purchasers with lower standards.

Growing support: Engage directly with L/JIs to help them achieve and maintain their qualifications for preferential sourcing. Brands and retailers with purchasing power can profoundly influence suppliers and governments within a landscape/jurisdiction and should coordinate on preferential sourcing approaches through industry platforms such as the Consumer Goods Forum. The combined influence of several major downstream purchasers can have far greater influence than when purchasers act alone.

Review the L/JI’s goals and targets. These vary by landscape/jurisdiction, but often include economic, environmental, and social components.

• In Mato Grosso, Brazil the “Produce, Conserve, Include” initiative has formulated a set of targets that nest within the three categories represented in the initiative’s name. ‘Produce’ targets include ambitions for grain, livestock, and timber yields and for land area under cultivation. ‘Conserve’ targets include land area covered with native vegetation, percentages in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes being converted, and the area of degraded land being restored. ‘Include’ targets include percentages of families receiving technical assistance and rural extension, proportion of smallholders with market access, and amount of credit available to family farms.

Translate the L/JI’s targets into a demand signal for suppliers. This can be accomplished in a few ways:

• Incorporate landscape/jurisdictional targets into the terms of supplier contracts to ensure that supply is produced in accordance with the targets. For example:
  • One of Mato Grosso’s targets is that 90% of rural properties be registered in the environmental rural registry. To support this target, a company could write supplier contracts to require that supply originate only from registered farms.
  • Mato Grosso is one of many L/JIs that include a target to reduce deforestation or conversion of other ecosystems. Companies can drive this target by aligning their own deforestation/conversion-free sourcing policies with Accountability Framework guidance, and linking the demand they make of suppliers for commodities produced without deforestation or conversion with the L/JI’s targets.
• Create positive incentives for suppliers by offering long-term contracts, price premiums, and/or additional payments for environmental services to suppliers who demonstrate they are meeting the L/JI’s goals by producing sustainably, restoring, and/or conserving forest areas.
• Incorporate jurisdictional targets into corporate policies to guide the company’s decisions within the landscape/jurisdiction. In Mato Grosso, for example, one target is to reduce conversion of the Cerrado biome by 95% below historical levels. A company could support this target by a principle ensuring its commodity sourcing does not originate from recently converted land in the Cerrado. That policy could then guide how supplier contracts are drafted, where investments are directed, and advocacy priorities with the government.

Ask suppliers what incentives they need to achieve landscape/jurisdictional objectives. Such outreach better ensures the desired outcomes and also creates a sense of shared commitment and ownership.

An L/JI’s targets may lack enough detail to easily or immediately incorporate them into company policies or contracts. In such cases, reach out to the government or entity leading the L/JI to clarify the target that the company should support.

Based on its supply chain priorities or where it wields greatest market influence, a company should choose landscapes/jurisdictions in which to take on co-responsibility for sustainability progress alongside other stakeholders. This selection should reflect the strength of the company’s commitment to the achievement of specific results at the landscape/jurisdictional level, and the company’s ability to contribute to those results.

Incorporate some or all of the L/JI’s sustainability targets within the company’s and ensure internal buy-in to be co-accountable for meeting them. A company may commit itself to those targets where it can make the greatest contribution, even while recognizing that the outcome largely depends on stakeholders and forces beyond the company’s control.

Announce the company’s intention to be co-responsible for progress on sustainability, jointly publicized through the L/JI’s external outreach, corporate communications, and any national and global platforms in which it participates. Leverage high-profile gatherings focused on forest and climate issues (e.g. UN Climate Week, the UNFCCC COP, the TFA annual meeting) to amplify a company’s message about claiming a degree of responsibility for an L/JI’s progress.

Ensure a local M&E system is in place to assess progress at the landscape/jurisdictional level. LandScale and Verified Sourcing Areas are systems being developed to measure landscape progress in standardized ways, and track actors’ contributions toward this progress.

• Lacking a credible and effective monitoring system, work with other stakeholders to design and build one that is transparent, impartial (assured via third party verification), generates relevant and high quality data, and tracks performance regularly over time. To that end, ISEAL Alliance and WWF have developed guidance on creating credible monitoring systems for L/JIs.

Integrate reporting on the L/JI’s progress into the company’s own sustainability reporting, using specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound (SMART) indicators that capture what results the company has set out to achieve.

Determine whether the target landscape/jurisdiction has set a goal around enhancing smallholder finance in support of sustainable production. If so, companies should align their efforts with the L/JI’s goals and geographic priorities. Alignment could mean adjusting their own existing efforts or investing in programs delivered by others. Upstream companies with capacity to engage smallholders should take the lead; downstream companies can provide funding to support financing programs.

Identify which smallholders need to participate to meet landscape/jurisdiction-level conservation and sustainable production goals, and determine what they need to succeed:

• If not already organized into groups, encourage smallholders to do so, with help from local civil society organizations.
• Identify the financial hurdles that prevent smallholders from earning a living in a way that protects forests and meets other conservation goals.
• Design interventions in a way that links financial access to forest protection and/or soil conservation, better cropping practices, etc.
• Ask smallholder participants to provide geo-coordinates (an effort eased by technical assistance) for their plots, thus enabling remote sensing to monitor performance and ensure compliance with forest conservation agreements.

Tailor the specific form of a company’s intervention should to the identified financial hurdles:

• If farmers lack capital to invest in sustainable practices, a company could provide long-term contracts to help them access loans with reasonable terms. That would enable smallholders to make the needed investments yet maintain their livelihoods for the loan’s duration.
• If farmers lack experience or comfort dealing with banks, a company could help train them to engage in the formal financial market. Smallholders could especially benefit from assistance in creating the formal business plans that lenders require before deciding to extend credit. A company could also foster relationships between smallholders and a microfinance, regional, or national financial program/institution. They are uniquely positioned to show the big picture of how access to finance can build financial security, and can help smallholders gain saving, borrowing, and repayment experience.
• If farmers can’t provide lenders with a loan guarantee, or collateral, a company could step in to guarantee loans on smallholders’ behalf. It could also negotiate long-term offtake agreements with smallholders for the commodities they produce, which could serve as collateral for their loans.
• If farmers are so small or remote, they can only access disadvantageous loan terms, a company can offer supply chain financing, extend other forms of credit, or offer small loans to these farmers directly. Such alternative loans should offer terms on par with traditional financial institutions, structured flexibly enough to account for the more challenging environments smallholders face. Alternatively, a company might advocate and work with government to create or improve a development fund designed to finance smallholders that have difficulty accessing credit from traditional lenders. In both cases, the company should streamline the loan process, for example by creating a way for smallholders to prequalify their business plans with potential funders.

Consider both up-front financing to support a transition to sustainable production, and results-based payments that reward smallholders and communities for maintaining forest cover and other valuable natural resources in the landscape. Results-based payments can take the form of: renewable offtake guarantees, where renewal is contingent on forest protection; periodic direct payments to households, cooperatives, and/or community funds for forest protection; and/or contributions to jurisdiction-level or national funds (for example, REDD+ funds) that are allocated to communities and smallholders by an L/JI in exchange for forest protection.

• Where local laws provide payment for environmental services, companies can connect smallholders with information about how to access these funding streams.

Foremost, companies should rapidly address negative impacts associated with their own operations and sourcing, and credibly report their progress. Although L/JIs need to generate excitement, momentum, and support, companies risk the “greenwashing” label if they champion an L/JI while still driving deforestation.

Companies should share how they are advancing an L/JI’s objectives as well as what progress the initiative is making overall, communicating to both internal and external stakeholders.

• Within the landscape/jurisdiction, companies can help to explain the purpose of, local benefits from, and rationale for the L/JI. They can also share with potential participants the reasons why they are engaging, how committed the government is, what current participants are doing, and how other stakeholders can get involved.
• Outside the landscape/jurisdiction, companies can indicate where the L/JI is succeeding, and where it still needs support from donors or other businesses.

All storytelling efforts should be based on a clear, shared understanding of the target audiences, their languages, trusted media, understanding of forest and commodity sustainability issues, and what narratives and messages will most likely motivate them to support the L/JI and engage with it over time.

If a company communicates specific actions taken to support an L/JI, these should be put in context by providing a sense of the relative scale and intensity of the contribution. ISEAL Alliance has developed recommendations for ensuring that such communications and claims are made clearly, precisely, and credibly:

• Describe the nature of the actions clearly, specifically, and truthfully.
• Quantify and contextualize the extent of the actions in relation to the entity’s full operations, to allow proper interpretation of their scale and scope. For example, if a company claims that it supports 10,000 oil palm smallholders to become certified, it should also state the total number of oil palm smallholders in its full supply chain.
• Define and document the timeframe for implementing the actions, along with implementation progress.
• If an action is a partial contribution to a broader effort under an L/JI, specify the extent and nature of the specific contribution.

Messengers are as important as messages. Companies and their L/JI partners should identify who among their staff are most appropriate to contribute stories and examples. If several companies participate in the L/JI, find ways for each to gain public visibility. Company representatives can best present the L/JI jointly with suppliers, community members, NGOs, and government officials so it is clear that the companies are full partners in the L/JI.

Developing public messages, stories, and events will encourage L/JI stakeholders to discuss the overall purpose of the initiative and what is/is not working. Companies can use discussions about public communications as a way to raise concerns with their partners and positively influence what other partners say and do.

Identify which company data other stakeholders could use to improve landscape/jurisdiction-level sustainability. Local stakeholders often lack a complete picture of land-related ecological, ownership, and use characteristics or dynamics, which impedes the ability to plan, execute, and monitor progress. Companies that possess these data or that have influence with those who do can fill important gaps in information.

• The data need not be proprietary. Companies can bring even relevant public information to the attention of other stakeholders unaware of it. For example, Global Forest Watch provides data on tree cover loss and instances of fire, which can be analyzed within any jurisdiction to determine where there may be deforestation hotspots or risk. Such data help inform land use planning decisions as well as monitoring and enforcement activities.

Data might be held by farm/concession managers if the company is a commodity producer, by the procurement or sustainability teams if the company is an upstream commodity buyer, or by producers and traders in the company’s supply chain that operate in the jurisdiction.

Relevant data could include:

• Boundaries of farms, ranches, forest management units, or concessions – including those managed by the company and by independent smallholders
• Coordinates of mills or other processing facilities
• Geological, water, or other biophysical data
• Maps of community lands and areas with important environmental attributes (e.g. High Conservation Value areas or High Carbon Stock areas)
• Management plans for land overseen by the company or by its suppliers
• Historical maps or other records of ground cover and land use that could help establish trends over time
• Non-competitive information on crop production, soil productivity, and/or conservation needs that could help identify good production practices

Data sharing can pose challenges both for local actors and to the companies that share. To mitigate these risks in advance, companies should:

• Follow national guidelines, particularly when sharing farm boundaries, and apply proper social and environmental safeguards to minimize impacts on local communities
• Draft agreements that define who can use the shared data, and how
• Aggregate contributions so that only consolidated data are made publicly available, with identifying information stripped out
• Limit sharing of the most sensitive or controversial data with only those government actors engaged in land use planning or enforcement (e.g. ministries of agriculture, forestry, environment, rural development), using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to ensure confidentiality of data that informs landscape/jurisdiction-level planning efforts.

Data should be shared with the multi-stakeholder body representing key actors in the landscape/jurisdiction to guide discussions about setting targets, planning land use, and implementing decisions (see “Co-design jurisdictional goals, key performance indicators (KPIs), and implementation strategies” and “Support development of a robust landscape/jurisdictional land use plan”). A robust conservation or restoration plan will take into account data about the relationship between priority conservation areas, production areas, and processing facilities. Likewise, access to these data will enable the government or other stakeholders to monitor implementation of landscape/jurisdictional action plans and progress toward achieving KPIs.

Share data in formats that match those used to develop or monitor progress toward meeting landscape/jurisdictional outcomes (ideally digital; sometimes printed maps or written descriptions are handy).