SCIENCE BASED TARGETS FOR LAND VERSION 0.3

SCIENCE BASED TARGETS FOR LAND

VERSION 0.3

The user must ensure that the following citation is used in any publication or analysis involving the SBTN methods

in any derived form or format:

Science Based Targets Network (2023). Step 3: Measure, Set, Disclose: LAND (Version 0.3)

All references, data, and tools should be cited according to their respective terms and conditions.

This guidance is intended for use to assist companies in preparing to set science-based targets for nature and is

provided in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International license (“CC BY-

NC”), the full text of which is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.

The SBTN, a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, provides the guidance documents “as is”

without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to the implied warranties of title, noninfringement,

merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. SBTN disclaims all liability with respect to the misuse, loss,

modification, or unavailability of the guidance documents or of any content. SBTN does not warrant that the

guidance documents will meet your requirements; that the guidance documents will be uninterrupted, timely,

secure, or error-free; that the information is accurate, complete, reliable, or correct; that any defects or errors will

be corrected; or that the guidance documents are free of viruses or other harmful components. SBTN makes no

representation that the guidance documents are appropriate or will be available for use at all times or locations.

Access to the guidance documents from territories where their use is illegal is prohibited.

PILOT VERSION

DISCLAIMER

Please keep the following disclaimers in mind as you view this content.

i. The scope of this guidance is confined to SBTN Step 3: Measure, Set, and Disclose of the five-step SBTN

Framework. Step 4: Act and Step 5: Track will be addressed in later versions of SBTN’s guidance.

ii. This is guidance to direct voluntary corporate actions in line with company commitments to science-based

targets for nature and is not a regulatory framework.

iii. Companies outside the Initial Target Validation Group are not able to set science-based targets for land

using this method until 2024 when the pilot phase of Version 0.3 is complete and the methodology refined

and released, at which point SBTN will release “science-based targets for land, version 1.0”. SBTN will not

recognize claims, public statements, or any targets coming from the use of this guidance outside the Initial

Target Validation Group.

iv. The guidance document is written in technical language; the primary audience of this document should

have the technical knowledge necessary to engage with this content. A more corporate-friendly version of

this guidance will be published later in 2023.

Acknowledgments

This guidance was developed by the Science Based Targets Network’s Land Hub as a contribution to the Science

Based Targets Network (SBTN), which aims to transform economic systems and protect the global commons—our

air, water, land, biodiversity, and ocean. SBTN unites experts from more than 80 NGOs, business associations and

consultancies to collectively define what is necessary to do “enough” to stay within Earth’s limits and meet

society’s needs.

Within SBTN, the Land Hub is a collaboration between World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International (CI),

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Resources Institute (WRI), and Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). The

objective of the SBTN Land Hub is to develop and promote a methodology that will allow companies to set, track,

and measure progress on quantifiable targets that are representative of the progress required in land systems to

sustain nature and people. The Land Hub is responsible for developing the technical content of these targets for

inclusion as part of SBTN's multi-stakeholder, multi-year initiative to provide companies with comprehensive

science-based targets for nature.

This guidance is primarily funded by the in-kind contributions of the core organizations that comprise the SBTN

Land Hub and the organizations with which we collaborated on this work. In addition, Rockefeller Philanthropy

Advisors (RPA) and SBTN provided funding to support the Food and Land Use Coalition/Systemiq. The development

of Land targets is also funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Norway’s International Climate

and Forest Initiative, and Robert Bosch Stiftung.

As a core partner of FOLU, the Land Hub engaged Systemiq as our primary consultant partner to collaborate and

lead the development of this version. We would like to acknowledge the outstanding support of Systemiq as an

organization, specifically including Marco Daldoss Pirri, Alessandro Passaro, and Scarlett Benson.

For this guidance, we received invaluable insights and deep technical review from the following NGOs and other

experts on biodiversity and land, including: Conservation International (Dr. Alex Zvoleff, Dr. Jordan E. Rogan, Susan

Mathew); Science Based Target Network (Dr. Varsha Vijay, Samantha McCraine, Oscar Sabag); The Nature

Conservancy; World Resources Institute (Timothy Searchinger, Jessica Zionts, Clara Cho); The Biodiversity

Consultancy (Leon Bennun, Katie Fensome, Graham Prescott, Malcolm Starkey); United Nations Environment

Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); and World Wildlife Fund. Finally, Elise Mazur,

Michelle Sims, Liz Goldman, Martina Schneider, and Fred Stolle from WRI’s Land and Carbon Lab facilitated the

technical development of the SBTN Natural Lands Map and its technical documentation in collaboration with World

Wildlife Fund and FOLU/Systemiq.

We also convened experts from the following organizations in support of the technical development of these

methods: The Accountability Framework Initiative (Rainforest Alliance: Leah Samburg); ISEAL (Patrick Mallet);

Tropical Forest Alliance (Leony Aurora); CDP (Norma Pedroza, David Kosciulek); Rainforest Alliance (Marie Valee);

Proforest (Target 1: Jane Lino, Target 3: Tharic Galuchi, Mike Senior, Veronique Bovee). We are grateful for their

time and insights.

Throughout the development and consultation process we received active input from a broad range of stakeholders.

These dedicated experts from industry, academia, and NGOs provided detailed input during the planning phase and

on various drafts of the guidance and tools. An internal consultation took place in December 2022 and January 2023

followed by a public consultation in February and March 2023 to acquire a wider range of input on key

methodological choices from all stakeholders. We are grateful for all the contributions of time and expertise to

improve this version of the Land science-based targets. We would specifically like to acknowledge the support of

the SBTN Land Hub’s Critical Perspectives Review Committee, chaired by Dr. Adriana Molina Garzon; the expert

technical review of the methods from the Expert Review Panel including Dr. Samuel Partey (UNESCO), Dr. Ariane de

Bremond (Future Earth Programme), and Dr. Gwen Icacona and Dr. Leah Gerber (Arizona State University); and the

support of Jess McGlyn and Sarah Bausmith and the SBTN Corporate Engagement Program members who represent

companies from most major sectors.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the leadership of SBTN’s Executive Director, Erin Billman, The SBTN Council,

and the guidance and support of the Network Hub’s Technical Team under the direction of Dr. Varsha Vijay,

including Technical Coordinator Samantha McCraine, Oscar Sabag, Erin O’Grady, Jess McGlyn, Arabella Stickels,

Sarah Bausmith, and Paola Delgado, as well as the program support team to the Network Hub from Boston

Consulting Group including Belinda Hu, Vincent Lequin, Lucyann Murray, Emma Pearson, Adrien Portafaix, and

Hubert Remillard.

Primary authors:

Marco Daldoss Pirri, Craig R. Beatty, Alessandro Passaro, Richard Waite, Leah Samberg, Scarlett Benson, Amelia

Meyer, and Martha Stevenson.

Foreword

Land underpins human and non-

human life through the provision of

habitats and ecosystem services

such as climate regulation, oxygen

production, water filtration, fibre,

and food production. It is one of our

most precious resources and yet

population growth and rising

consumption are placing it under

increasing pressure, weakening

both human and planetary health.

In the last six decades alone, we

have converted almost a third of the

global land area for crop and

livestock production, forestry and

other human land uses such as

mining and infrastructure.

How we use land is not only

unsustainable, but also inefficient

and unequal. Approximately one

third of land is degraded to some

extent, meaning that it is depleted

of natural resources such as soil

fertility, water, and biodiversity.

Land degradation has significant

economic costs and undermines

food security across the world. The

European Commission estimates

that soil erosion costs European

countries €1.25 billion in

agricultural productivity loss and

€155 million in the gross domestic

product (GDP) loss each year.

The transformation of land systems

is a pre-requisite for addressing the

climate and nature crises and

delivering on the Sustainable

Development Goals. And yet the

scale of the challenge is immense.

We must prevent any further

destruction of natural ecosystems.

We must free up hundreds of

millions of hectares of land so that

it can be restored to a natural state.

And we must do this all while

supporting the needs of a growing

human population, notably,

ensuring access to affordable and

nutritious food.

On the face of it there is a trade-off.

How can we possibly produce more

food, on less land without

unsustainable forms of agricultural

intensification (such as overuse of

fertilizers and chemical inputs) that

further degrade land and reduce its

productivity in the long-term?

Science tells us that it is both

possible and necessary. We do not

have a choice between protecting

the environment or human

wellbeing. The two can and must

go together. This

means changing

how we produce and how we

consume natural resources to

deliver human needs. It means

investing in innovation and

supporting the transition towards

productive practices that

regenerate rather than deplete land.

It means shifting towards healthier,

more sustainable and less land-

intensive diets. And it means

reducing food loss and waste across

value chains and developing

systems and infrastructure for

more circular use of natural

resources. We cannot achieve this

without urgent deployment of the

full toolkit of measures.

In my time as European

Commissioner for the

Environment, I championed the

package on the Circular Economy.

It was and remains my strong

belief that by changing the way

we produce and consume, and by

delivering human needs in the

most energy and resource

efficient way, we can build our

resilience and competitiveness in

the global economy and can

thereby promote wellbeing and

create jobs.

In my current role as the Co-Chair

of the International Resource

Panel, I lead a scientific panel of

experts that aims to help nations

use natural resources sustainably

without compromising human

wellbeing and prosperity. Land is

where the limits are most obvious

and visible, best summarised by

Mark Twain saying, "Buy

land, they're not making it

anymore". The mission of the

Science Based Targets Network is

therefore close to my heart. The

Science Based Targets Network’s

first set of Land targets represent a

leap forward for corporate

accountability and action on nature.

The three land targets get to the

heart of the challenge that we face

and provide a north star for leading

companies as they embark upon

this transformation journey.

Given the inherent complexity of

land-use decision making and

management, the diversity of

stakeholders and the immensely

high stakes, it is critical that the

transformation of land systems is

underpinned by social and

environmental safeguards and

strong global, national, and local

governance. Corporate voluntary

action on nature must not be seen as

a replacement for policy action and

I therefore urge companies setting

science-based targets for land to

complement action on the ground

with a progressive approach to

advocacy in support of nature-

positive policy.

We need to find new ways of doing

things, to think outside the box, and

promote innovation at all levels; to

do this we need the broadest

collective of stakeholders to come

together for the common cause. We

need to ensure our policies and

regulations enable and encourage

innovative change, removing any

entrenched barriers. This is no easy

task, and the scale of the challenge

calls for an abundance of courage,

humility, innovation, and

leadership. I look forward to

learning from the leading

companies embarking on the

piloting of these first methods –

they will have valuable insights for

us all, corporates, land managers,

academics, and policymakers alike.

The future will be green or there will

be no future at all.

Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair of the

International Resource Panel and Former

European Commissioner for Environment,

Oceans and Fisheries.

Executive Summary

This version of SBTN’s Step 3 Land guidance will allow

a selected group of companies to pilot Science Based

Targets for Land and to align their commitments to

nature with the necessary speed and scale of action as

determined by science. Land use and land use change

continues to be one of the most persistent threats to

nature and climate. It undermines land’s contributions

to people, business, economies, and societies.

The targets set forth here are the next step in voluntary

corporate accountability for impacts and dependencies

on land and represent the SBTN collaborative

partnership, which spans business, industry

associations, academia, research institutes,

intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental

organizations, and the breadth of diverse views and

perspectives represented by these groups.

The three land targets work together to:

• avoid the loss of nature in land systems by

addressing land conversion and the main

driver of biodiversity loss in land.

• reduce the production pressure of large

agricultural areas whose expansion and

ongoing impact has far exceeded the resilient

capacity of the natural ecosystems on which

these human systems rely.

• Cast company actions into landscape contexts

that will improve the ecological and social

conditions of the landscapes in which

companies operate and/or from whence they

source.

THE LAND TARGETS ARE

applicable to any company that determines that they

have material impacts on the main pressures to nature

through land from a company’s operations or supply

chain. Within Land systems the targets are used to

operationalize and define a consistent path for

companies that will align their commitments and

actions with what nature needs:

• Target 1: No Conversion of Natural

Ecosystems Avoids one of the primary drivers

of biodiversity loss and source of GHG

emissions.

• Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction Reduces

one of the most globally persistent and highly

degrading processes that impacts

biodiversity, climate and land.

• Target 3: Landscape Engagement puts

company action and effort within the context

of collaborative stakeholder groups at the

landscape scale to regenerate working lands,

restore degraded or converted ecosystems,

and transform the ways that they act in, and

source from, landscapes.

ES Figure 1:

The land targets are designed to work together to

incentivize the most important actions needed to achieve nature

goals in land systems: halting conversion of natural ecosystems

(Target 1), freeing up agricultural land for increased ecological

productivity (Target 2), and improving the ecological condition of

landscapes, including working lands, to enhance ecosystem

structure, composition, and function and the social systems that

depend on such landscapes (Target 3).

THE LAND TARGETS ARE NOT

Nature does not have a recognized and functional

global assessment framework, such as the Greenhouse

Gas Protocol. Assessing company impacts on land and

determining quantifiable targets for land systems and

biodiversity is a scientific pursuit that is relatively new

and still dynamic. Ultimately, the SBTN Land Hub will

provide spatially explicit, place-based thresholds for

what nature needs in different places. This science will

be the backbone of the next version of Science Based

Targets for Land.

In developing the current targets, the organizations

that represent the SBTN Land Hub (World Wildlife

Fund, Conservation International, World Resources

Institute, and The Nature Conservancy, and the Food

and Land Use Coalition) have balanced the ambition of

science-based targets for nature, the availability of

science to support land targets, and the feasibility of

companies to comply with target requirements across

all sectors.

This has required a reliance on several ongoing

corporate sustainability initiatives including the long-

standing work on deforestation and conversion free

commodities through the Accountability Framework

Initiative as well as corporate commitments to

emissions reductions under the Science Based Targets

Initiative for Climate, both of which root the SBTN Land

targets in ongoing work within companies.

However, Land targets, as a voluntary corporate

initiative may accelerate the ambition of these

processes both by elevating nature to pair with

corporate climate objectives and uniting company

actions across multiple landscapes, communities, and

natural realms.

SETTING LAND TARGETS

In assessing their materiality to the pressures on land,

companies that identify terrestrial ecosystem use or

change OR soil pollution as material during their SBTN

STEP 1 assessment must set Land targets. The

conditions around which of the three land targets must

be set and the required target dates will depend on the

unique qualities and composition of each company.

Generally, it is expected that companies work on all

targets for which they are responsible simultaneously,

though target dates may differ among or within the

three targets.

Regardless of whether a company identifies one or both

terrestrial ecosystem use or change OR soil pollution,

the Landscape Engagement target will apply. In either

case a company will need to follow the target guidance

for how to engage and contribute to 1-2 materially

relevant landscape initiatives that cover an estimated

10% of their land footprint in the first 1-2 years.

The Land Footprint Reduction target applies only to

large agricultural companies at this stage – primarily

due to data constraints, but also due to their outsized

impact on nature. It asks companies to reduce their

absolute land footprint or intensity of existing

footprint in line with the global estimated agricultural

land reduction that is required to meet global nature,

climate and sustainable development goals, totalling

500 million hectares by 2050.

The No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems Target

includes the greatest diversity of potential options for a

Land target due to the differentiation of the target

based on value chain position, the sourcing of global or

regional conversion-driving commodities, and the

geographic origin of the commodities.

ES Figure 2 demonstrates the aim of the SBTN Land No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems Target to stabilize landscapes.

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

This guidance is structured to present the Land targets and the conditions and data requirements around setting

them upfront. It prioritizes the details that will be most relevant for companies looking to understand the target

requirements, data needs, and key exceptions. Readers who are interested in more detail and rationale around the

targets can find this information in the target-specific annexes, associated technical documents, and

supplementary materials

listed throughout this guidance.

Contents

Glossary of terms and acronyms ............................................................................................................... 11

About this guidance .................................................................................................................................... 17

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 18

i. How to determine if your company must set Land targets ........................................................... 21

How to determine if your company must set Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems ..... 24

How to determine if your company must set Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction .......................... 26

How to determine if your company must set Target 3: Landscape Engagement .............................. 27

ii. Data requirements to set Land targets .............................................................................................. 28

Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 28

Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction ............................................................................................................ 29

Target 3: Landscape Engagement ................................................................................................................ 29

Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems ..................................................................................... 31

1.1. Details of No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target ................................................................ 32

1.2. How to set a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target ........................................................... 34

1.2.1. Using the SBTN Natural Lands Map ................................................................................................... 35

1.2.2. Core Natural Lands .................................................................................................................................40

1.3. Accounting for conversion of natural ecosystems .......................................................................... 42

1.3.1. Land Use Change – Scale ...................................................................................................................... 42

1.3.2. Land Use Change – at production unit level ..................................................................................... 43

1.3.3. Land Use Change – at sourcing area level .........................................................................................44

1.3.4. How to assess compliance with target requirements .....................................................................44

1.4. Target validation and disclosure ......................................................................................................... 45

1.5. Template statement for No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target ..................................... 46

1.6. Why is the No Conversion target needed? ......................................................................................... 47

Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction ......................................................................................................... 48

2.1. What is the Land Footprint Reduction target? ................................................................................ 49

2.2. How to set a Land Footprint Reduction target ................................................................................ 49

2.2.1. Calculate baseline agricultural land footprint ................................................................................. 50

2.2.2. Select a method for the allocation of Land Footprint Reduction ................................................. 51

2.2.3. Calculate the Land Footprint Reduction Target ............................................................................... 51

2.3. Target validation and disclosure ......................................................................................................... 52

2.4. Template statement for Land Footprint Reduction targets .......................................................... 53

2.5. Why is the Land Footprint Reduction target needed? .................................................................... 54

3. Target 3: Landscape Engagement.................................................................................................... 55

3.1. What is a Landscape Engagement target? ......................................................................................... 56

3.2. How to set a Landscape Engagement target ..................................................................................... 58

3.2.1. Selection of material landscapes – two approaches ....................................................................... 58

3.2.2. Screening of landscape readiness – Maturity Matrix ................................................................... 60

3.2.3. Criteria for validated landscape initiatives ....................................................................................... 63

3.2.4. Establishing and improving landscape initiatives .......................................................................... 63

3.2.5. Relationship with other land, climate and freshwater targets .................................................... 64

3.3. Target validation and disclosure ......................................................................................................... 65

3.3.1. List of potential metrics – baselining for ecological and social conditions .............................. 65

3.4. Template statement for Landscape Engagement targets .............................................................. 67

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................... 68

ANNEX 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 69

a. Conversion-driving commodities list ..................................................................................... 69

b. First point of aggregation ............................................................................................................ 73

c. Accounting for land use change ................................................................................................. 74

d. How to consult the SBTN Natural Lands Map ......................................................................... 77

ANNEX 2: Land Footprint Reduction ............................................................................................................... 78

a. The relative merit of absolute versus intensity approaches ................................................ 78

b. Managing trade-offs and unintended consequences ............................................................ 81

ANNEX 3: Mapping of incentivized response options ................................................................................. 86

Table 1: Science-based targets (SBTs) for land. ................................................................................................. 19

Table 2: Pressure categories covered by SBTs for nature, from SBTN Step 1. ............................................. 21

Table 3: Sector target-setting requirements for Land SBTs. .......................................................................... 22

Table 4: Value chain definitions ............................................................................................................................ 28

Table 5: Version 0.3 SBT for land, specific data requirements ....................................................................... 30

Table 6: No-conversion targets: stages of the value chain and their defined target dates. ..................... 33

Table 7: Examples of ecosystem types ................................................................................................................. 39

Table 8: Appropriate measures of land-use change and associated emissions .......................................... 43

Table 9: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems: target-setting guidance ................................................... 45

Table 10: Amount of conversion of global ecosystems ..................................................................................... 47

Table 11: Absolute and intensity approaches to Land Footprint Reduction ................................................. 51

Table 12: Formula for calculating the Land Footprint Reduction target ...................................................... 52

Table 13: Two approaches for selecting material landscapes ......................................................................... 58

Table 14: Landscape and jurisdictional maturity matrix ................................................................................. 62

Table 15: List of potential metrics for ecological and social conditions ...................................................... 66

Table 16: Global land conversion-driving commodities that are relevant across biomes ...................... 69

Table 17: Regional land conversion-driving commodities .............................................................................. 70

Table 18: STBN's suggestion for first point of aggregation............................................................................. 73

Table 19: GHGP approaches to allocation of land use change at the level of a sourcing area. ................. 75

Table 20: Characteristics of the absolute reduction approach........................................................................ 79

Table 21: Characteristics of the intensity reduction approach ....................................................................... 80

Table 22: Considerations for choosing denominator for intensity target ................................................... 80

Table 23: Considerations regarding absolute vs. intensity targets for land footprint reduction ............ 81

Table 24: Response options incentivized by Land Footprint Reduction targets ........................................ 83

Table 25: Potential trade-offs with other response options ........................................................................... 84

Table 26: Mapping of incentivized response options ....................................................................................... 87

Figure 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target-setting requirement decision tree. ................... 24

Figure 2: Land Footprint Reduction target-setting requirement decision tree. ........................................ 27

Figure 3: Landscape Engagement target-setting requirement decision tree. ............................................ 27

Figure 4: Land-cover classes of the SBTN Natural Lands Map ...................................................................... 37

Figure 5: Natural Lands Map .................................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 6: Delineation of the areas representing core natural lands .............................................................. 41

Figure 7: Components of Agricultural Land in FAOSTAT . ............................................................................... 50

Figure 8: Summary of key criteria of landscape initiatives - adapted from CDP....................................... 61

Figure 9: SBTi's allocation approaches (adapted from SBTi) ......................................................................... 78

Figure 10: SBTN Method for Absolute Land Footprint Reduction .................................................................. 79

Box 1: SBTN biodiversity target-setting methods ............................................................................................. 20

Box 2: Overlaps and differences between SBTi FLAG and SBTN Land methods. ........................................ 23

Box 3: Adherence to IFC PS6 as part of a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystem target ............................. 25

Box 4: Note for statistical data for Land Footprint Reduction ........................................................................ 29

Box 5: Defining cut-off dates and target dates .................................................................................................. 32

Box 6: Information on traceability from the latest AFJ guidance .................................................................. 42

Box 7: Formulation of No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target ........................................................... 46

Box 8: Formulation of Land Footprint Reduction target. ................................................................................ 53

Box 9: Example for selection of landscapes using approach 1 ....................................................................... 60

Box 10: Formulation of No Conversion of Landscape Engagement target ................................................... 67

Box 11: Comparison with cut-off dates for land-use change (LUC) emissions accounting ..................... 76

Box 12: Land sparing and land sharing ................................................................................................................ 82

Glossary of terms and

acronyms

AFi

Accountability Framework initiative.

Agricultural land

Cropland and land under permanent meadows and pastures.

Allocation

Assignment of a given company’s portion of effort toward issue/impact mitigation.

Avoid

Prevent impact happening in the first place, eliminate impact entirely.

T/ARRRT

SBTN’s Action Framework is named AR

T because it covers actions to avoid future impacts, reduce current

impacts, regenerate and restore ecosystems, and transform the systems in which companies are

embedded.

Bare land

Areas with exposed rock, soil, or sand with less than 10% vegetated cover.

Baseline

Value of impacts (on nature) or state (of nature) against which an actor’s targets are assessed, in a

particular previous year.

Biodiversity

The variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and

other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity

within species, between species, and of ecosystems. (Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Article 2)

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity.

CGF

Consumer Goods Forum.

Composition of an ecosystem

This refers to the biotic constitution of ecosystems—the pattern of the makeup of species communities

and the interactions between them. It refers to the identity and variety of life.

Conversion

A change of a natural ecosystem to another land use or profound change in a natural ecosystem’s species

composition, structure, or function. Deforestation is one form of conversion (conversion of natural

forests). Conversion includes severe degradation or the introduction of management practices that result

in substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem’s former species composition, structure, or function.

Change to natural ecosystems that meets this definition is considered to be conversion regardless of

whether or not it is legal.

Core Natural Lands

Places with acknowledged ecological importance that require immediate action to prevent conversion

due to:

• Existing legislation and/or initiatives, which include commitments to deforestation and

conversion-free commodities.

• Extinction/collapse risk, irreplaceability, or natural uniqueness.

• Maintaining natural ecosystem contiguity or intactness.

• The provision of critical natural assets or contributions to people.

Cut-off dates

The cut-off date provides a baseline for the target. After this date, any conversion of natural ecosystems

on a given site renders the materials produced on that site non-compliant with a no-conversion target.

Degradation

Changes within a natural ecosystem that significantly and negatively affect its species composition,

structure, and/or function and reduce the ecosystem’s capacity to supply products, support biodiversity,

and/or deliver ecosystem services. Degradation may be considered conversion if it is large-scale and

progressive or enduring; alters ecosystem composition, structure, and function to the extent that

regeneration to a previous state is unlikely; or leads to a change in land use (e.g., to agriculture or other use

that is not a natural forest or other natural ecosystem). (Accountability Framework Initiative)

Direct operations

All activities and sites (e.g., buildings, farms, mines, retail stores) over which the enterprise has

operational or financial control. This includes majority-owned subsidiaries.

Downstream

This covers all activities that are linked to the sale of products and services produced by the company

setting targets. This includes the use and re-use of the product and its end of life to include recovery,

recycling, and final disposal.

DPSIR Causal Framework

Describes causal relationships in social-ecological systems between driver (D), pressure (P), state (S),

impact (I) and response (R) indicators.

Ecological/habitat connectivity

The degree to which the landscape facilitates the movement of organisms (animals, plant reproductive

structures, pollen, pollinators, spores, etc.) and other environmentally important resources (e.g.,

nutrients and moisture) between similar habitats. Connectivity is hampered by fragmentation. (IPBES

2019)

Ecosystem

A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the non-living environment

interacting as a functional unit. Within this definition, the term “unit” relies on the identification of a

distinct function as well as a “dynamic” grouping of biotic and abiotic factors. When using an ecosystem

approach to conservation, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) suggests an

ecosystem can refer to any functioning unit, regardless of scale. Thus, the term is not necessarily

synonymous with “biome” or “ecological zone” and is better determined by the problem that is being

addressed.

Ecosystem condition

The quality of an ecosystem measured by its abiotic and biotic characteristics. Condition is assessed by an

ecosystem’s composition, structure, and function which, in turn, underpins the ecological integrity of the

ecosystem, and supports its capacity to supply ecosystem services on an ongoing basis. (UN SEEA (2021)

System of Environmental Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting: Final Draft)

Ecosystem function

The flow of energy and materials through the biotic and abiotic components of an ecosystem. This includes

many processes such as biomass production, trophic transfer through plants and animals, nutrient

cycling, water dynamics, and heat transfer. (IPBES 2019)

Ecosystem integrity

Ecosystem integrity encompasses the full complexity of an ecosystem, including the physical, biological,

and functional components, together with their interactions, and is measured against a “natural” (i.e.,

current potential) reference level. It is the extent to which the composition, structure, and function of an

ecosystem fall within their natural range of variation.

Embedded or highly transformed commodities

Volumes of high-impact commodities that are integrated into complex products. In this case, companies

do not purchase a commodity in its raw or processed forms, but they purchase a product that contains

them.

FLAG

The Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) Guidance of the Science Based Targets initiative.

FOLU

Food and Land Use Coalition.

Forests

Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than

10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under

agricultural or other land use.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a specific right that pertains to Indigenous Peoples and is

recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. FPIC is a mechanism

that safeguards the individual and collective rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, including their land

and resource rights and their right to self-determination. The minimum conditions that are required to

secure consent include that it is “free” from all forms of coercion, undue influence, or pressure, that it is

provided “prior” to a decision or action being taken that affects individual and collective human rights,

and that it is offered on the basis that affected peoples are “informed” of their rights and the impacts of

decisions or actions on those rights. FPIC is considered to be an ongoing process of negotiation, subject to

an initial consent. To obtain FPIC, “consent” must be secured through an agreed process of good faith

consultation and cooperation with indigenous and tribal peoples through their own representative

institutions. The process should be grounded in a recognition that the indigenous or tribal peoples are

customary landowners. FPIC is not only a question of process, but also of outcome, and is obtained when

terms are fully respectful of land, resource, and other implicated rights. (UN Food and Agriculture

Organization (2016): Free Prior and Informed Consent - An Indigenous Peoples’ Right and a good practice

for local communities)

GBF

Final Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

GHGP

Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Goal

In global (e.g., UN) sustainability framings, a high-level statement of ambition, including a time frame.

Example: By 2030, ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (Sustainability

Development Goal 3).

High-impact commodities

Raw and value-added materials used in economic activities that are known to have material links to the

key drivers of biodiversity loss, resource depletion, and ecosystem degradation. Activities associated with

high-impact commodities include: extraction of these commodities (e.g., mining, farming), clearing of

lands for extraction, processing of commodities (into refined or value-added forms), manufacturing

commodities into complex products (with additional inputs), distribution of commodities, and the

procurement of commodities (in their raw, value added, or final form). For more information, please see

SBTN Step 1 Guidance.

IFC

International Finance Corporation.

Impacts

These can be positive or negative contributions of a company or other actor toward the state of nature,

including pollution of air, water, or soil; fragmentation or disruption of ecosystems and habitats for

nonhuman species; and alteration of ecosystem processes.

Impacts on nature

A change in the state of nature, which may result in changes to the capacity of nature to provide value to

business and society and/or instrumental, relational, and intrinsic value. (Taskforce on Nature-Related

Financial Disclosures)

Indicator

A measurable entity related to a specific information need, such as the state of nature, change in a pressure,

progress toward a target, or association between two or more variables. Example: Red List Index (SDG

Target 15.5; Aichi Target 12).

ISIC

International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities.

Land cover

The observed physical and biological cover of Earth’s land.

Land footprint/land occupation

A company’s land footprint, known in life cycle assessment terms as “land occupation,” is defined for the

land footprint target as the amount of agricultural land required per year to produce the products produced

or sourced by a company, and it is reported in hectares per year.

For crops, land occupation is also referred

to as “harvested area” in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s data portal FAOSTAT.

Importantly, “land footprint” or “land occupation” for the purpose of target-setting related to Land

science-based targets refers to “working lands” used to produce agricultural products in corporate supply

chains—not necessarily all land owned or controlled by companies. Please note as well that “land

footprint” and “land occupation” are referred to as terrestrial ecosystem use in the SBTN Technical

Guidance for Steps 1 and 2. Terrestrial ecosystem use is one of the eight main environmental pressures that

SBTN companies are required to assess in Step 1.

Land footprint intensity/land occupation intensity

Land footprint (or occupation) intensity is essentially the reciprocal of yield, referring to the amount of

land needed to produce a given unit of product. The unit of product in the denominator of this calculation

can vary (e.g., weight, kilocalories, protein).

Landscape

A socio-ecological system that consists of natural and/or human-modified ecosystems, and which is

influenced by distinct ecological, historical, economic, and socio-cultural processes and activities. For the

purpose of this guidance, the landscape is the area where a landscape approach is being implemented. In

ideal cases, the landscape will have been defined through a broad stakeholder-led process in which a

company may begin its participation. This may not always be the case for areas that are relevant for

companies. In these cases, a more prescriptive approach to landscape identification may be required. Here

it may be possible to utilize water basin boundaries identified through the SBTN Freshwater target

methodology or through SBTN’s Step 2: Prioritize process.

Landscape approach

Collaboration of stakeholders within a defined natural or social geography, such as watershed, biome, or

company sourcing area. This approach seeks to reconcile competing social, economic, and environmental

goals through “integrated landscape management”—a multi-stakeholder approach that builds consensus

across different sectors with or without government entities.

Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance, forthcoming.

Land use

All the arrangements, activities, and inputs undertaken in a certain land-cover type (a set of human

actions) or the social and economic purposes for which land is managed (e.g., grazing, timber extraction,

conservation).

Land use change

Land uses can change over time due to both natural and anthropogenic causes. Such changes can be

represented by land use change categories (e.g., forest land converted to cropland). Where the land use

category remains the same but the land use subcategory changes, for example conversion from a primary

forest (natural forest) to a plantation forest (planted forest), this should be accounted for as land use

change.

Materiality

Significance of an entity’s environmental impact.

Measurement

The process of collecting data for baseline setting, monitoring, and reporting.

Monitoring

Tracking progress toward targets.

Natural ecosystem

An ecosystem that substantially resembles—in terms of species composition, structure, and ecological

function—what would be found in a given area in the absence of major human impacts. This includes

human-managed ecosystems where much of the natural species composition, structure, and ecological

function are present.

Natural ecosystems include:

• Largely “pristine” natural ecosystems that have not been subject to major human impacts in recent

history;

• Regenerated natural ecosystems that were subject to major impacts in the past (for instance by

agriculture, livestock raising, tree plantations, or intensive logging) but where the main causes of

impact have ceased or greatly diminished and the ecosystem has attained species composition,

structure, and ecological function similar to prior or other contemporary natural ecosystems;

• Managed natural ecosystems (including many ecosystems that could be referred to as “semi-

natural”) where much of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and ecological function are

present—this includes managed natural forests as well as native grasslands or rangelands that are, or

have historically been, grazed by livestock;

• Natural ecosystems that have been partially degraded by anthropogenic or natural causes (e.g.,

harvesting, fire, climate change, invasive species, or others) but where the land has not been

converted to another use and where much of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and ecological

function remain present or are expected to regenerate naturally or by management for ecological

restoration.

Natural forests

Natural forests possess many or most of the characteristics of a forest native to the given site, including

species composition, structure, and ecological function.

Nature

All non-human living entities and their interaction with other living or non-living physical entities and

processes (IPBES Global Assessment 2019

). This definition recognizes that interactions bind humans to

nature, and its subcomponents (e.g., species, soils, rivers, nutrients), to one another. This definition also

recognizes that air pollution, climate regulation, and carbon are part of “nature” more broadly—

therefore, when we talk about acting for nature, we are talking about acting on issues related to climate

change as well.

Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs—also known as “ecosystem services”)

All the beneficial and detrimental contributions that we obtain from and with nature (IPBES Global

Assessment: 26). In general NCPs are categorized as material NCPs (e.g., wild-harvested foods), regulating

NCPs that govern biophysical processes (e.g., carbon storage, flood regulation), and non-material NCPs

that provide cultural services.

In total, the different categories of NCP recognized by IPBES are: habitat creation and maintenance (NCP

1); pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules (NCP 2); regulation of air quality (NCP 3);

regulation of climate (NCP 4); regulation of ocean acidification (NCP 5); regulation of freshwater quantity,

location, and timing (NCP 6); regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality (NCP 7); formation,

protection, and decontamination of soils and sediments (NCP 8); regulation of hazards and extreme events

(NCP 9); regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes (NCP 10); energy (NCP 11); food and

feed (NCP 12); materials, companionship, and labor (NCP 13); medicinal, biochemical, and genetic

resources (NCP 14); learning and inspiration (NCP 15); physical and psychological experiences (NCP 16);

supporting identities (NCP 17); maintenance of options (NCP 18).

Nature loss

The loss and/or decline of the state of nature.

https://accountability-framework.org/the-framework/contents/definitions/

https://ipbes.net/global-assessment

Nature positive

A high-level goal and concept describing a future state of nature (e.g., biodiversity, nature’s

contributions to people) that is greater than the current state.

Pressures

A human activity that directly or indirectly degrades nature. Following IPBES, five key pressures contribute

most to the loss of nature globally: land and sea use change; direct exploitation of organisms; climate

change; pollution; and invasion of alien species. SBTN considers “direct exploitation” to include both

biotic and abiotic resources, such as water use—we thus use the term “resource exploitation.”

Primary data

Data collected specifically for the assessment being undertaken. Generally, primary data will be collected

from site-level measurement on a specific issue area through the use of direct measurement (e.g., volume

of freshwater used for irrigation each month).

Reduce

Minimize impacts, from a previous baseline value, without eliminating them entirely.

Regenerate

Actions designed within existing land uses to increase the biophysical function and/or ecological

productivity of an ecosystem or its components, often with a focus on specific nature’s contributions to

people (e.g., on carbon sequestration, food production, and increased nitrogen and phosphorus retention

in regenerative agriculture (adapted from FOLU, 2019

Reporting

Preparing of a formal written document typically connected to desired objectives, outcomes, or outputs,

such as those connected to targets and goals.

Restore

Initiate or accelerate the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability

with a focus on permanent changes in state (adapted from the Society of Ecological Restoration

SBTi

Science Based Targets initiative.

Science-based targets

Measurable, actionable, and time-bound objectives, based on the best available science, that allow actors

to align with Earth’s limits and societal sustainability goals.

Secondary data

Data that was originally collected and published for another purpose or a different assessment, e.g.,

derived from modelled or proxy-level data.

Short vegetation

Areas of land with vegetation shorter than 5 meters, can include areas of land dominated by grass/shrubs.

Site(s)

Operational locations within a company’s value chain/spheres of control and influence (including direct

operations). Sites can include operations from any phase of a product’s life cycle, from extractive

operations (e.g., mines), material processing (e.g., mills), production facilities (e.g., factories), logistics

facilities (e.g., warehouses), wholesale and retail (e.g., stores), and recycling/end of life (e.g., material

recovery).

Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement involves interactive processes of engagement with relevant stakeholders,

through, for example, meetings, hearings, or consultation proceedings. Effective stakeholder engagement

is characterized by a two-way communication and depends on the good faith of the participants on both

sides. (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures)

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are persons or groups who are directly or indirectly affected by a project, as well as those who

may have interests in a project and/or the ability to influence its outcome, either positively or negatively.

States

Unless otherwise specified, we use the term “state” to mean “state of nature” in three key categories:

species (abundance and extinction risk), ecosystems (extent, integrity, and connectivity), and nature’s

contributions to people.

State of Nature Indicators

State of nature indicators describe the general conditions of nature in physical, chemical, or biological

terms. These change in response to pressures. Throughout the target-setting methodology SBTN utilizes

the DPSIR causal framework . Important state indicators in the SBTN methods include water availability,

terrestrial ecosystem intactness, net primary productivity, soil organic carbon content, water quality, and

ecosystem extent or connectivity

https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SBTN-initial-guidance-for-business.pdf

https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Regenerative-Agriculture-final.pdf

https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SBTN-initial-guidance-for-business.pdf

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/docs/standards_2nd_ed_summary.pdf

Terminology note: While SBTN uses the term “state” in alignment with the DPSIR framework, other initiatives, such as TNFD and the Capitals Coalition,

use the term “changes in natural capital” to describe these same factors within the causal chain of environmental change.

Structure of an ecosystem

This comprises the three-dimensional aspect of ecosystems—the biotic and abiotic elements that form

the heterogeneous matrix supporting the composition and functioning. Structure is dependent on habitat

area, intactness, and fragmentation.

Target

In global (e.g., UN) sustainability framings, a more specific quantitative objective, usually nested under a

goal, with defined measurement and an associated indicator. Example: By 2020, pollution, including from

excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and

biodiversity (Aichi Target 8).

Target boundary

The corporate scope of the target, specific to each issue area. The target boundary may be defined in terms

of the value chain aspect covered, as well as the specific locations, products, brands, etc., that will be in

focus in a given time period.

Target dates

Target dates are the time by which companies must achieve their Land targets.

Threatened ecosystems

Ecosystems that are classified as threatened by the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. This includes

“Vulnerable,” “Endangered,” or “Critically Endangered” ecosystems. While Red List of Ecosystem

assessments are not yet global in coverage, they provide an additional buffer against the conversion of

threatened ecosystems for those areas that have been assessed.

Transform

Actions contributing to system-wide change, notably the drivers of nature loss, e.g., through

technological, economic, institutional, and social factors and changes in underlying values and behaviors

(adapted from the IPCC and IPBES 2019

Threshold

Level of an environmental indicator representing attainment of the desired state of nature.

Upstream

This covers all activities associated with suppliers, e.g., production or cultivation, sourcing of commodities

of goods, as well as transportation of commodities to manufacturing facilities.

Validation

An independent process involving expert review to ensure the target meets required criteria and methods

of science-based targets.

Value chain

Production of 'economic value' along a series of activities, sites, and entities. The value chain can be

divided into three ‘segments’ upstream, direct operations and downstream. Each of these segments

involve places where economic activities managed or relied upon by the company occur. Most value chain

frameworks cover a suite of activities starting with the raw materials and extending through end-of-life

management, that (a) supply or add value to raw materials and intermediate products to produce final

products for the marketplace and (b) are involved in the use and end-of-life management of these

products.

Verification

An independent third-party confirmation of either or both of: (a) baseline values of a target indicator (e.g.,

a company’s water or GHG inventory), and (b) progress made toward achieving the target.

Water

Surface water present 20% or more of the year, outside wetlands.

Wetlands

Transitional ecosystems with saturated soil that can be inundated by water either seasonally or

permanently, and can be covered by short vegetation or trees.

Working lands

Human modified lands that can include farms, forests, rangelands, and infrastructure that are managed

to provide goods and services for humanity.

WWF

World Wildlife Fund, or World Wide Fund for Nature.

Yield

This refers to intensity of production per unit of land area. It is defined as the amount of product produced

in a year divided by the amount of land occupied by that product. For crops, it refers to the amount

produced divided by the harvested area. For livestock products, it refers to the amount produced divided

by the total area needed for livestock production (both to house the animals and to produce the crop-

and/or pasture-based animal feeds).

https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/Initial_scoping_transformative_change_assessment_EN.pdf

About this guidance

The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) was established to develop methods for companies and cities to set

integrated targets across all Earth systems—water, land, biodiversity, ocean, and climate—building on the

progress of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which enables companies to set science-based climate

mitigation targets.

This guidance document represents the first contribution of the individuals and representative organizations

focused on land systems within SBTN (hereafter referred to as “SBTN Land”).

The document forms part of SBTN’s

first release of Science-Based Targets for Nature—the first set of comprehensive nature targets that will raise the

bar of corporate ambition on nature in line with the scientific evidence on what nature needs. By using the methods

in this document, companies can prepare for adoption of more comprehensive and integrated targets to be

published by SBTN in due course.

This document covers:

● Why the world needs Land targets

● Target approach and alignment with existing initiatives

● The process for setting Land targets

● Guidance on each Land target.

SBTN Land Hub is led by World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US) and Conservation International (CI) and includes representatives from The Nature Conservancy

(TNC), World Resources Institute (WRI), and the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) through Systemiq.

Introduction

The world is in the midst of a climate and nature emergency. Global mean temperatures are on track for an increase

of more than 2.5˚C—far above the defined “safer upper limit” of 1.5˚C.

10F

11,

11F

And at the same time, our society is

witnessing what scientists describe as “the sixth mass extinction since the beginning of life on Earth”

12F

with around

half of the Earth’s nature having been destroyed since the industrial revolution and most in less than half a century,

along with the elimination of two thirds of global animal populations, including mammals, birds, fish, amphibians,

and reptiles.

13F

The nature and climate crises are deeply intertwined in terms of:

● Common drivers: Human use now directly affects more than 70% of the global, ice-free land surface.

14F

Land-use change and direct exploitation of resources on land are the main causes of human-induced loss

of nature in all terrestrial regions globally. These pressures are precursors to each of the remaining drivers,

including climate change, invasive alien species, and pollution.

15F

● Interactions (both positive and negative): Biodiverse soils sequester more carbon and healthy ecosystems

support climate adaptation. At the same time, climate change itself is a primary driver of biodiversity loss

with rising temperatures resulting in species and ecosystem redistributions and extinctions.

● Solutions: Avoiding the conversion of natural ecosystems and changing the way working lands are used,

while protecting and restoring nature, can halt and reverse these damaging processes while delivering

multiple wins for climate mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity, and people.

16F

The importance of land and its use is supported by its inclusion as a key topic in nearly every major international

global convention, assessment, and report, including those on biodiversity, desertification, climate, freshwater,

and oceans.

Introducing Land targets

The aim of SBTN is to develop a methodology for science-based targets that will enable the corporate sector to align

their own commitments to nature with the necessary speed and scale of action as determined by science. The first

release of SBTN’s Science-Based Targets for Nature—which covers land and freshwater systems—is an important

step toward achieving this goal.

This document focuses on explaining the methodology to set SBTs for land. Throughout this document, the terms

“Land SBTs” and “land targets” are also used to refer to the methodology.

Version 0.3 of the methodology for Land SBTs comprises three distinct targets, which are shown in Table 1.

Companies should adopt these targets depending on the materiality of pressures generated by the company’s

activities, as well as the sector, size, and land footprint of the company (see section ii, “Data requirements to set

Land targets”).

Table 1: Science-based targets (SBTs) for land.

Science-Based Targets for Land*

Target 1 No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems

Target 2 Land Footprint Reduction

Target 3 Landscape Engagement

*SBTN Land has complemented the three Land targets with a requirement for Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) companies to set

a sister target on land greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions following the SBTi FLAG methodology requirements (note: for companies

required to set climate targets as per FLAG’s guidance).

The land targets are designed to work together to incentivize the most important actions needed to achieve nature

goals in land systems: halting conversion of natural ecosystems (Target 1), freeing up agricultural land for increased

ecological productivity (Target 2), and improving the ecological condition of landscapes, including working lands,

to enhance ecosystem structure, composition, and function and the social systems that depend on such landscapes

(Target 3). As such, this methodology lays out not only how to set targets – what parts of the business to manage,

what metrics to use, and what

changes need to be seen over what time periods – this methodology also provides

https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. and Dirzo, R. 2017. ‘Population losses and the sixth mass extinction’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul

2017, 114 (30) E6089-E6096; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1704949114))

https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2020-09/20200910_Rapport_Living-Planet-Report-2020_ENGLISH_WWF-min.pdf

IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,

sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-

Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J.

Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.001

Jaureguiberry, P., Titeux, N., Wiemers, M., Bowler, D. E., Coscieme, L., Golden, A. S., ... & Purvis, A. (2022). The direct drivers of recent global

anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Science Advances, 8(45), eabm9982.

Vijay, V., Fisher, J. R., & Armsworth, P. R. (2022). Co‐benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection

policies in the contiguous United States. Conservation Letters, 15(5), e12907.

companies with prescriptive guidance at a high level on how to contribute toward enhancement and protection of

land and terrestrial biodiversity.

In particular, the Landscape Engagement target (Target 3) works to ensure that companies appropriately balance

the need to use land more efficiently while avoiding unsustainable forms of agricultural intensification (e.g.,

overuse of fertilizers and chemical inputs, irrigation practices that deplete freshwater resources) and building

resilience through the restoration of ecosystems and within working lands. It also provides a vehicle to guide the

implementation of the other two land targets through landscape level engagement.

The three land targets have been developed according to their capacity to address the following criteria:

• Maximum coverage of pressures that are responsible for most companies’ impacts on land.

• Availability of quantifiable and measurable metrics that can be feasibly impacted by company activities to

make progress against the target.

• Alignment with active and relevant corporate sustainability standards and initiatives.

• Ability to incentivize action across SBTN’s AR

T mitigation hierarchy.

The targets are built with the information and data that are currently available. They allow companies to set targets

today that will enable quantifiable contributions at the company and landscape level. They are designed to increase

the clarity, ambition, and/or scope of existing initiatives that, despite intent, have not yet led to the

transformational changes required to address climate change and nature loss at a global scale.

These targets complement climate science-based targets by addressing many of the impacts that climate targets

cannot, incentivizing actions related to wider, non-GHG impacts on land. The broader set of actions these methods

incentivize include the reduction and treatment of pollution and effluents, reduced pesticide use, erosion control,

and other actions that promote biodiversity and ecosystem integrity that may not be captured by corporate actions

that prioritize carbon sequestration.

Critically, these methods expand the focus beyond forests to include all natural, terrestrial ecosystems (e.g.,

grasslands, wetlands, shrublands) especially as they relate to the working lands (e.g., cropland, rangeland, pasture,

managed forest) that facilitate the production of goods used by companies and consumers.

Moreover, while firmly rooted in directing companies to assess, avoid, or mitigate their impacts on nature, Land

targets will go further by incentivizing companies to deliver on regenerative, restorative, and transformative

actions in collaboration with multiple stakeholders at the landscape scale—including actions that underpin broader

issues of sustainable development and are in line with a nature-positive future.

This beta version of the land methods is being released to enable such action at scale from companies. The world

cannot wait for the changes called for in these methods. However, companies should note that SBTN will ultimately

revise version 1.0 of the SBT Land methods during 2023 and 2024 as land system science and methods for accounting

for impacts and dependencies on nature progress. The ambition of the SBTN Land Hub is for the next version of

Land targets to reflect what nature needs at a place-based level, based on regionally defined and spatially explicit

thresholds. Version 2.0 will also cover a broader range of material land indicators.

Box 1: SBTN biodiversity target-setting methods

SBTN is committed to developing more complete biodiversity coverage in the next release of

target-setting methods. This includes addressing pressures on biodiversity not currently included in the Step 3

methods for land and freshwater as well as the inclusion of other biodiversity target indicators to more

comprehensively address dimensions of biodiversity loss. The targets proposed in this document explicitly

consider biodiversity themselves (including through prioritizing actions on science-based targets in locations

where they will have the most impact on mitigating biodiversity loss in line with Steps 1 and 2) and

demonstrate alignment with goals and targets outlined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (see

supplementary material).

Following the ﬁnal revision of this beta version and the launch of version 1.0 of Land targets, the SBTN

Biodiversity Hub will complete a detailed analysis and roadmap to better understand and document the

capacity of existing methods to adequately address the main drivers of biodiversity loss. It is anticipated that

this will be published shortly after the ﬁrst release of the SBTN targets. In addition to formalizing SBTN’s

forthcoming and more comprehensive biodiversity-speciﬁc target-setting methods, the report will also

include additional guidance on how companies may optimize biodiversity outcomes when implementing the

existing land and freshwater targets.

Companies can be confident that there will be consistency between the first land targets (including v0.3 in 2023 and

v1 in 2024) and the next major update to the Land targets. Most importantly, this version of the land targets is

designed to incentivize corporate actions that will align with the delivery of the next generation of Land targets, and

the data that companies will collect and analyze for this target guidance will be directly relevant as Land targets

evolve with the developing science.

i. How to determine if your company must set Land targets

Setting Land targets is part of the five-step process for setting science-based targets for nature. Before using the

Step 3 land methods, companies must complete Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Interpret & Prioritize.

These steps of the

SBTN target-setting process enable companies to determine which pressures on nature they must address with

targets, and which parts and locations of their business may represent the highest priority starting point.

Companies will be required to adopt each of the three Land targets depending on a combination of:

1. Their material pressures on terrestrial ecosystem use and change or soil pollution as determined

by using the Step 1 guidance from SBTN.

2. The company’s designated sector(s), as defined by the International Standard Industrial

Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC). See Table 3 below.

3. The size of the company as measured by full-time equivalent employees (Land Footprint

Reduction target only).

4. The company’s GHG emissions and/or land footprint (No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems and

Land Footprint Reduction targets only).

Depending on the above criteria, each target will be one of the following:

a. Required

b. Recommended

c. Not required

d. Not applicable

Companies must address the applicability of each Land target independently. Each target section in this guidance

displays these requirements as a flow chart and provides more details around their scope across direct operations,

and sourcing from different stages of the value chain.

Table 2: Pressure categories covered by SBTs for nature, from SBTN Step 1.

Pressures in bold and marked with a * are those covered in the SBTs for land methods. Companies that have material

contributions to these, as identiﬁed in Step 1, will be required to set and validate targets to make claims about SBTs for nature.

IPBES Pressure Category SBTN Pressure Category

Ecosystem use or change

Terrestrial ecosystem use or change

Freshwater ecosystem use or change

Marine ecosystem use or change

Resource exploitation Water use

Other resource use (minerals, ﬁsh, other animals, etc.)

Climate change GHG emissions

Pollution Non-GHG air pollutants

Water pollutants

Soil pollutants*

IPBES stands for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Companies that meet the materiality thresholds for land pressures in SBTN Step 1: Assess can use Table 3 as a quick

guide to understand which Land targets are required, recommended, not required, or not applicable based on their

ISIC sector(s). For cross-referencing the major sector classification systems, please refer to the crosswalk sector

classification guidance in the supplementary material

To have Land targets validated, companies will need to meet the requirements under each of the targets for which

they are responsible. Companies that are unable to meet these requirements will not be able to validate nor make

claims on SBTs for land or SBTs for nature.

The sector requirements table (Table 3) represents the SBTN Land Hub’s interpretation of the materiality screening

from Step 1. In the table, targets are highlighted as required if this is the case for either the company’s direct

operations or upstream activities. Consulting Table 3, companies can determine, based on their sector, which land

targets they are required to set. However, that determination must be made consistent with Steps 1 and 2 (the

information introduced in Step 1b and reflecting the target boundary and prioritization determined within the Step

2 methods). The company-specific impacts relative to each pressure category within the current scope of SBTs for

nature must be reflected in the extent of their requirements for setting and validating targets.

Please note that because the tools used for the Step 1a materiality screening are based on global sectoral

performance, some companies may find that they have lower contributions to pressures than would require them

to set science-based targets for land. In these cases, companies will be required to submit a rationale to SBTN to

justify the exclusion of activities from the scope of their targets.

Table 3: Sector target-setting requirements for Land SBTs (direct operations and upstream impacts).

Sector (ISIC)

No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems

Land Footprint

Reduction

Landscape

Engagement

Manufacture of food products

Required

Manufacture of beverages

Required

Manufacture of tobacco products

Required

Manufacture of textiles

Required

Manufacture of wearing apparel

Required

Manufacture of leather and related products

Required

Biofuel*

Required

Agriculture

Required by FLAG

Required

Wholesale trade

Required by FLAG

Required

Retail trade

Required by FLAG

Required

Accommodation and food service

Required by FLAG

Required

Fishing and aquaculture

Required

Real estate activities

Required

Not required

Required

Forestry and logging

Required

Not required

Required

Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities

Required

Not required

Required

Support activities for crop production

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of furniture

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of rubber and plastics products

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of machinery and equipment...

Required by FLAG

Required

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

Required IFC PS 6

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of refined petroleum products

Required

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of wood and of products of wood ...

Required

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of paper products

Required

Not applicable

Required

Other consumer goods manufacturer*

Required

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of basic metals

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Manufacturing, other

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Manufacture of fabricated metal products, non-machinery

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Mining of coal and lignite

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Mining of metal ores

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Other mining and quarrying

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Construction

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

Civil engineering

Required IFC PS6

Not applicable

Required

All other sectors*

Not required

Not applicable

Recommended

*Not yet an ISIC sector classification

For a crosswalk between ISIC sectors and other sector classification systems please see the supplementary material.

FLAG is the guidance from SBTi on for Food, Land and Agriculture impacts on climate. “Required by FLAG means that if a company is required under the FLAG

guidance to set a target, here they would also be required to set a no conversion of natural ecosystems target.

IFC PS6 is the International Financial Corporation Performance Standard 6 on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural

Resources. The IFC PS6 requirements are detailed in the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems section.

Mandatory alignment with climate targets

Climate and nature goals can, and must, be achieved holistically. As a result, SBTN requires companies that are

required to set Land targets to complement those targets with a target on land-based GHG emissions and removals

following the SBTi FLAG methodology requirements (see

SBTi FLAG). Therefore, a company that wants to set Land

targets must also be committed to emissions reductions through SBTi should they qualify based on SBTi guidance

(see Box 2).

Correspondingly, companies required by SBTi to set FLAG climate targets are required by SBTN to set a No

Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target and a Land Footprint Reduction target (in this case, if they meet the

company size requirement).

Box 2: Overlaps and differences between SBTi FLAG and SBTN Land methods.

SBTi requirements for setting a FLAG target. Companies that meet these requirements must also set a No

Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target under SBTN:

I. Companies from the following SBTi-designated sectors:

a. Forest and paper products (forestry, timber, and paper)

b. Food production (agricultural production)

c. Food production (animal source)

d. Food and beverage processing

e. Food and stapes retailing

f. Tobacco

II. Companies in any other sector with FLAG-related emissions that total more than 20% of overall

emissions across scopes. The 20% threshold should be accounted for as gross emissions, not net

(gross minus removals).

How to determine if your company must set Target 1: No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems

The No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target is consistent with existing zero deforestation commitments set

within the soft commodity supply chains of companies and consistent with the Accountability Framework initiative

guidance.

There are two criteria that companies should assess to understand if they are required to set this target:

1. Terrestrial ecosystem use or change is material according to Step 1’s materiality screening; OR

2. 20% or more of their GHG emissions come from a specific sector as listed in Table 3 that has land

sector activities (e.g., agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) emissions).

Additionally, for specific sectors, the No Conversion target is required but applies only to “Critical Habitat” or “High

Conservation Value” areas (as per the International Financial Corporation Performance Standard 6 (IFC PS6) see

Box 3).

Built on the sector requirements of Table 3, the decision tree below guides companies in understanding their target-

setting requirements as they relate to No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems.

Figure 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target-setting requirement decision tree.

•

see here for SBTi FLAG requirements

• see here for SBTN’s Interim Target Framework requirements

Box 3: Adherence to IFC PS6 as part of a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystem target

Sectors that must set a No Conversion target but who belong to the list of sectors in Figure 1 List C must commit

to No Conversion of areas identified through the PS6 or environmental assessment process as “Critical

Habitat” or “High Conservation Value” areas.

The International Financial Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6) on Biodiversity Conservation and

Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources is a familiar industry standard regarding the conversion

of natural ecosystems. This standard helps companies plan for and address their impacts on biodiversity at a

project level.

While companies setting science-based targets for nature may not be required to adhere to the IFC’s

performance standards as their operations may not be contractually tied to IFC financing, this standard still

provides a useful outcome for how companies that cannot avoid land conversion can avoid impacts on natural

ecosystems.

It is also likely that companies that have performed a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ahead of

considering Land targets will be better placed to significantly avoid and reduce impacts on natural ecosystems.

These Land targets internalize the outcomes of the IFC PS6 guidance with a notable exception on biodiversity

offsets, which are not permitted. A key requirement under SBTN is that biodiversity offsets will not be accepted

as compliant with a science-based target after the target dates required (see Table 6). This applies to all sectors.

However, remediation for past conversion between the cut-off date and target validation is required. This

differs from offsetting, as the intent is not to convert natural ecosystems and offset impacts elsewhere, but to

remedy past conversion of natural land.

Companies seeking to utilize IFC’s PS6 to comply with the SBTN No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

must use PS6 and its guidance note (GN6) as implementation guidance. This applies regardless of whether PS6

requirements are officially triggered by PS1 requirements under the IFC process. Companies must complete all

relevant environmental and social management system activities included in the IFC PS6 guidance, including a

strategic environmental assessment and declarations on compliance with PS6 criteria, and submit their initial

and ongoing results to SBTN for validation.

As PS6 is an ongoing process, this documentation will vary based on the stage of company actions (e.g., before

impacts occur, for ongoing sites, following activities). This includes demonstrating, where applicable within

the target boundary, that no viable alternatives to the conversion of natural land exist. Where IFC PS6 guidance

conflicts with SBTN guidance (e.g., supply chain) priority will be given to SBTN guidance. SBTN will develop a

standardized reporting template that can be supported by full documentation necessary to demonstrate PS6

compliance with the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target for the affected sectors.

How to determine if your company must set Target 2: Land Footprint

Reduction

A company is required to set a Land Footprint Reduction target if it meets the following criteria:

1. Terrestrial ecosystem use or change is material according to Step 1a materiality screening; AND

2. It produces or sources agricultural products, i.e., it is included in Land Footprint Reduction—List

A in Figure 2; AND

3. It is required to set an SBTi FLAG target; AND

4. One or both of the following applies:

g. It has a baseline agricultural land footprint of 50,000 hectares or more as calculated

using Chapter 7 of the draft Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals

Guidance;

b. It has 10,000 or more full-time-equivalent employees.

The decision tree in Figure 2 visualizes these requirements and guides companies in understanding their target-

setting requirements as they relate to Land Footprint Reduction. Companies that meet all criteria for this target,

except for point 4, are recommended to set a Land Footprint Reduction target but are not required to. Further

considerations for smaller companies are found in Chapter 2.

Figure 2: Land Footprint Reduction target-setting requirement decision tree.

How to determine if your company must set Target 3: Landscape

Engagement

A company is required to set a Landscape Engagement target if:

1. Terrestrial ecosystem use or change OR soil pollution are material according to Step 1a materiality

screening; AND

2. Table 3 indicates that a Landscape Engagement target is required for all ISIC designated sector(s),

except for “manufacture of machinery and equipment” and “other sectors”.

For those companies that are not required to set a Landscape Engagement target, SBTN still recommends that these

companies set such a target. Engaging in landscape initiatives will be a positive contribution to the transformation

needed in our economic systems and the way these interact with the people and places where they operate and can

generate benefits for the company.

The decision tree below visualizes these requirements and guides companies in understanding their target-setting

requirements as they relate to the Landscape Engagement target.

Figure 3: Landscape Engagement target-setting requirement decision tree.

Step 2 Interpret & Prioritize

For prioritization of locations and the selection of landscapes, which is required for setting Target 3 on Landscape

Engagement, please see section 3.2.1.

ii. Data requirements to set Land targets

Setting Land targets requires data collection and management. Data requirements vary according to the stages of

the value chain where a company operates and according to those from which it is sourcing.

Please refer to Table 4 for the definitions of stages of the value chain.

Table 4: Value chain definitions

Value chain Definitions

Operational site

Operational locations within a company’s value chain/spheres of control and influence

(including direct operations). Sites can include operations from any phase of a product’s

life cycle, from extractive operations, production facilities, logistics facilit

ies, wholesale

and retail, and recycling/end of life.

Direct operations

All activities and sites (e.g., buildings, farms, mines, retail stores) over which the

enterprise has operational or financial control. This includes majority-

owned

subsidiaries.

First point of aggregation Commodity-specific “first points of aggregation” are listed in Annex 1.b

Upstream Sourcing separated into:

- Sourcing from producers and from “first point of aggregation”, and

- Sourcing from stages of the value chain that are downstream from the first

point of aggregation.

The headline data requirements for Step 3: Land are outlined below and summarized in Table 5. These requirements

build on those previously introduced for Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Interpret and Prioritize. Companies that have

already collected data and completed these initial steps should have much of the data and data structure needed for

setting SBTs for land.

Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems

To set a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target, companies need to collect data on:

• Location and delineated area of production units of high-impact commodities that they own or manage

(see definitions for ownership and high-impact commodities in Step 1 methods).

• Project site areas (e.g., farms, mining, infrastructure, and construction sites) that they own or manage.

• Geographic origin and volumes of high-impact commodities in their supply chains at the production unit

level or subnational sourcing area level (see Annex 1a for more information on conversion-driving

commodities).

a. When the origin of all commodities is not yet known at this scale, companies must disclose the

volumes of each commodity that is known only at the resolution of the country level. Companies

must also disclose the volumes of each commodity that is of unknown origin and hence included

in target boundary B as per Step 2 requirements.

• For producers, site owners, site operators, and companies sourcing from producers or from first point of

aggregation, the amount of natural ecosystem conversion that occurred after the company’s cut-off date

on sites it owns or manages, on production units known to be in its supply chains, or in sourcing areas

from which it sources commodity volumes.

The information below provides further guidance on how to meet data requirements for setting the target (in Year

0), which must not be confused with data requirements for meeting target requirements by target dates (i.e., the

date when deforestation and conversion-free status must be proved).

Direct operations

Data requirements for target setting are met when all production units and project sites are demarcated by

georeferenced boundaries (i.e., polygons), with the exception of small sites (less than 10 ha), for which one point

coordinate near the center of production is sufficient.

Around this point coordinate, a circular buffer with a 12.75-ha area must be drawn to identify potential conversion

occurring within the buffer. Should conversion events be detected in this buffer area, further assessment will be

required to identify the real extent of conversion linked to direct operations of the company.

Companies are required to account for conversion post cut-off date(s) for their direct operations.

Upstream

Data requirements for target setting are met when all volumes of high-risk, land conversion-driving commodities

purchased directly from suppliers or from first point aggregators are identified and communicated following these

requirements:

• Volumes are disaggregated per commodity and per traceability level

• Volumes are linked to production unit, sourcing area/jurisdiction/subnational level of origin, or country

of origin (with ability to obtain sub-national data)

• Inclusion in Step 2: target boundary B (global sourcing data);

AND/OR

• Volumes are physically certified using a scheme that delivers no-conversion assurance based on physical

chain of custody systems.

Companies that are purchasing directly from raw material producers or the aggregators of these goods are also

required to account for conversion that occurred post cut-off date(s) in the production units or sourcing areas from

which they source. For all volumes included in target boundary A, companies are required to provide spatial data for

production units or sourcing areas linked to those volumes with an assessment of post-cut-off date(s) conversion.

For companies that are purchasing further downstream than the point of aggregation, data requirements for target

setting are met when all volumes of high-risk, land-intensive commodities purchased are identified and

communicated following these requirements:

• Volumes are disaggregated per commodity and per traceability level

• Target boundary A (production unit, sourcing area/jurisdiction/subnational level of origin, national level

of origin)

• Target boundary B (global sourcing data);

AND/OR

• Volumes are physically certified using a scheme that delivers no-conversion assurance based on physical

chain of custody systems.

Please see section 1.1 for an overview of target requirements and section 1.3.4 on how to assess compliance with

target requirements by target dates.

Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction

To set a Land Footprint Reduction target, companies need to collect data on:

• Hectares of agricultural land in direct operations or upstream (in company supply chain).

• Volume of all material agricultural commodities produced or sourced.

• Primary or statistical data on yields (production per hectare) of those commodities.

Target 3: Landscape Engagement

To set a Landscape Engagement target, companies need to collect data on:

• Location and delineated area of operational sites or sourcing areas pertaining to high-impact commodities

and locations prioritized in Step 2.

• Origin and volumes at the production unit level or sourcing area level.

• Baselining for ecological and social condition of the landscape (see list of potential metrics in section 3.3.1

below).

All companies that select a landscape initiative will have to acquire data required by the Maturity Matrix in section

3.2.2 to demonstrate that the landscape initiative meets the minimum criteria for target validation.

Note that for statistical data, if the company has already calculated GHG emissions associated with its land-

based operations (scope 1) and/or upstream activities (scope 3), in line with reporting via the GHGP and/or

target setting via SBTi, the company is likely to already have its “activity data” on quantities of agricultural

products produced or sourced well-organized for calculating the associated land footprint. The company may

even be able to use the same environmental database that it used to calculate GHG emissions (e.g., Ecoinvent) to

also calculate land footprint. Companies should follow the accounting guidance in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Land Sector and Removals Guidance (sections 7.3 and 17.3 on “land occupation”) to calculate the land footprint

associated with the products they produce or source.

Box 4: Note for statistical data for Land Footprint Reduction

Table 5: Version 0.3 SBT for land, specific data requirements

Target Data Data Type

Stage of the value chain

relevant to requirement

Unit

Spatial data

requirements

(Georeferenced

polygons of production

units or sourcing areas)

No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems

REQUIRED

Location of all sites where high-impact commodities are produced

Producers and site

owners/operators

Hectares

Required

Areas converted after cut-off date

Producers and site

owners/operators

Hectares

Required

Areas converted after cut-off date (for traceable volumes; full coverage required only by

target date)

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Hectares

Required

Sourcing area and volumes of high-impact commodities purchased

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Hectares and

Metric tons or

equivalent from

each area

Recommended

Sourcing area of high-impact commodities purchased

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Hectares Recommended

Volumes of high-impact commodities

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Metric tons (or

equivalent)

Recommended

Production unit

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Hectares Recommended

Production unit or sourcing areas of high-impact commodities purchased

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Hectares Recommended

Land Footprint

Reduction

REQUIRED

Volumes of agricultural commodities produced by production location (primary or statistical

data)

Producers and site

owners/operators

Metric tons Recommended

Data on operational sites where commodities are produced (spatial or statistical)

Producers and site

owners/operators

Hectares Recommended

Volumes of agricultural commodities purchased (primary or statistical data, differentiated to

the extent possible by sourcing location)

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Metric tons Not required

Yield of each product purchased (statistical data, matched to the extent possible with the

sourcing locations linked to the purchasing volume data above (e.g., national or subnational

yield data)

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Metric tons per

hectare per year

Not required

Sourcing downstream from first point of aggregation

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Metric tons Not required

Yield of each product purchased (statistical data, matched to the extent possible with the

sourcing locations linked to the purchasing volume data above (e.g., national or subnational

yield data)

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Metric tons per

hectare per year

Not required

Landscape

Engagement

REQUIRED

Location of all operational sites (at ecosystem level) prioritized in Step 2

Producers and site

owners/operators

Hectares Required

Sourcing area and volumes of high-impact commodities purchased and volumes of high-

impact commodities

Sourcing from producers or first

point of aggregation

Hectares and

Metric tons or

equivalent from

each area

Recommended

Sourcing area of high-impact commodities purchased

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Hectares Not required

Volumes of high-impact commodities

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Metric tons (or

equivalent)

Not required

Recommended

Operational site

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Hectares Not required

Production unit or sourcing areas of high-impact commodities purchased

Sourcing downstream from first

point of aggregation

Hectares Recommended

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Target 1:

No Conversion of Natural

Ecosystems

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

To set and validate science-based targets for land, companies in sectors with material land pressures on terrestrial

ecosystem use or change (see Figure 1 and Table 3) are required to commit to No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems.

The target dates for achieving conversion-free operations and supply chains are differentiated according to the

level(s) at which a company operates along supply chains, the type of commodities sourced, and the origins of those

commodities.

This chapter of the SBTN Land Guidance sets out:

1. The details of the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target.

2. How companies will set the target.

3. How companies will account for and communicate about conversion.

4. Technical annexes and supplementary material articulating the scientific bases of the target and other

supporting materials.

1.1. Details of No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

The intention of the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target is to avoid the wholesale change of a natural

ecosystem to another land use, or a profound change in a natural ecosystem’s species composition, structure, or

function.

For this method, conversion is defined as including severe degradation or the introduction of management practices

that result in substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem’s former composition, structure, or function or

that of the species that inhabit it. Changes to natural ecosystems that meet these criteria are considered conversion

within the scope of these methods regardless of whether the conversion itself is legal.

Companies in certain sectors, with material land pressures on terrestrial ecosystem use or change, will commit to

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems after a fixed cut-off date (see Box 5).

Box 5: Defining cut-off dates and target dates

Cut-o dates: To assess whether land conversion has occurred, land use change events are considered over an

assessment period lasting from a cut-o date until the present.

The cut-o date provides a baseline for the target; after this date, any conversion of natural ecosystems on a

given site renders the materials produced on that site non-compliant with a no-conversion target.

As recommended by the Accountability Framework initiative (AFi), cut-o dates should align with existing

sectoral or regional cut-o dates where they exist, such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium, and cut-o dates

associated with certiﬁcation should not be later than 2020.

Target dates: Target dates are the time by which companies must achieve their Land targets.

For SBTN Land Target 1 (No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems), companies must use cut-off dates no later than

2020 as the reference for assessing conversion of natural ecosystems (forests and non-forests). Where other cut-

off dates earlier than 2020 exist, companies must use those earlier dates (e.g., sectoral and regional cut-off dates).

Target dates for deforestation

Please note that the target dates for achieving the no-conversion requirements are for the combined objective of no

deforestation and no conversion together. However, companies must meet the no-deforestation component of

these requirements by 2025, for all stages of the value chain. This requirement is aligned with the

Accountability

Framework and the SBTi FLAG requirements.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Table 6: No-conversion targets: stages of the value chain and their defined target dates. “Global conversion-driving commodities”

and “Regional conversion-driving commodities” are outlined in Annex 1a.

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems: Target requirements

Stage of value chain

Location of

operation

Deforestation and

conversion free (DCF) target*

Cut-off dates must not be later than 2020

Site owners/operators All natural lands 2025: 100% DCF across all sites

Producers All natural lands

2025: 100% DCF across Global and Regional conversion-

driving commodities (Annex 1)

Stage of value chain

Origin of

commodities

“Global conversion

-driving

commodities”

“Regional conversion-

driving commodities”

Sourcing from producers and from first

point of aggregation

Core Natural Lands 2025: 100% DCF

All natural lands

2027: 80% DCF

2030: 100% DCF

Sourcing from stages downstream of

first point of aggregation

Core Natural Lands

2025: 80% DCF

2027: 100% DCF

2027: 80% DCF

2030: 100% DCF

All natural lands

2027: 80% DCF

2030: 100% DCF

*Notes:

1. Companies must meet no-deforestation by 2025 for all stages of the value chain, in alignment with AF

i and the SBTi FLAG requirements.

2. Companies can and should deﬁne target dates that are more ambitious than those required should they be

able to meet the requirements

in less time, if a regional or place-based initiative has a more ambitious target date, or should global progress on conversion-

free

commitments for a speciﬁc commodity exceed these target requirements. For example, if a company has an existing zero-

deforestation

commitment and/or are working in support of the Accountability Framework initiative’s 2025 target date ambition for high-risk

commodities.

Materiality threshold for high-impact commodities of both global conversion- and regional conversion-driving

commodities

Companies sourcing high-impact commodities must set targets to manage all impacts associated with these. For

the land targets, companies should focus on the commodities that are major drivers of conversion. These can be

found in the Step 1 High Impact Commodity List, which covers commodities relevant for all pressures, and in Annex

1a of this document.

Target dates in adherence to IFC PS6

Sectors that must set a No Conversion target but who belong to the list of sectors in Figure 1 List C must commit to

No Conversion of areas identified through the PS6 or environmental assessment process as “Critical Habitat” or

“High Conservation Value” areas.

These sectors must achieve zero conversion in these areas by 2025 and remediate all post-cut-off date(s)

conversion (see section 1.3). In addition, these sectors must clearly demonstrate that in areas identified as “natural

land” that there are no viable alternatives before conversion—as defined by the SBTN Natural Lands Map.

Companies sourcing commodities extracted and produced by these sectors must comply with the following

requirements:

- sourcing from producers/extractors must ensure no conversion of Critical Habitat and High Conservation

Value areas by 2025.

- sourcing from further downstream must ensure compliance by 2027.

The target dates listed above follow an analogous approach to those defined in section 1.2.2 for Core natural lands.

General disclaimer – Consideration of local rights and needs when setting conversion targets.

Comprehensive guidance for companies on where to avoid the conversion of natural ecosystems is incomplete

without a consideration of natural ecosystems that have cultural or social importance for people. In any guidance

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

on decisions regarding the conversion of natural ecosystems are made, companies should ensure that they have

understood and respected the rights of Indigenous People, particularly the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent

(FPIC), and have engaged in collaborative land use planning processes with local stakeholders for that conversion,

and that their actions during the tenure of their operations and beyond ensures respect for the land and human

rights of those communities.

It is beyond the scope of this guidance to provide global data for how conversion may or may not affect cultural or

social importance. In this regard, companies should assess the potential adverse impacts of conversion on the

human and land rights of affected stakeholders as part of a landscape initiative, especially as it relates to their

Landscape Engagement targets and following SBTN Stakeholder Engagement Guidance. Additional guidance is

available through the

United Nations General comment No. 26 (2022) on Land and Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

1.2. How to set a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

All companies required to set a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target according to section ii, “How to

determine if you must set Land target,” must follow the procedure below to identify target requirements and

prepare all required materials to be submitted to SBTN for target validation.

Target dates and requirements differ according to the level at which a company operates along supply chains, the

type of commodities sourced, and the origins of those commodities. See Table 6 for the target requirements, and

section 1.2.2 for the definition of Core Natural Lands for the No Conversion target.

Note on Step 2 - Interpret & Prioritize.

All locations and activities within the target boundaries (for direct operations

and upstream target boundary A) must be included to avoid leakage between locations. Companies may follow the

prioritization approach in Step 2, but all locations must be included within the scope in the first year that targets

are set.

1. Understand target dates and requirements

• There are multiple pathways companies may need to follow to be compliant with the No Conversion

method. For example, a company may follow requirements for volumes of high-impact commodities

that are sourced directly from producers or from the first point of aggregation and follow a different

approach for their no conversion target regarding sourcing from companies further downstream in

the value chain.

2. Prepare baseline data

• Pinpoint direct operations sites and upstream activities on the Natural Lands Map

• Assess 2020 Natural Land baselines against target setting date (year 0) conversion

3. Prioritize locations

• Use Core Natural Lands to determine the required and phased approach to target setting

4. Set targets

• Use requirements specific to value chain locations and commodities sourced to set targets

5. Submit for validation

• Once a company is ready to submit its data for target validation (see section 1.4) and the target is

approved, a company can make a public statement as outlined in the SBTN claims guidance.

The process and conditions around measuring the conversion of natural ecosystems, allocating responsibility for

such conversion, and setting targets will be divided into:

• Methods for setting no conversion targets on direct operations; and

• Methods for targets on upstream sourcing of goods or services that lead to natural ecosystem conversion.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

How to prepare baseline data

Producers, site owners, and site operators must:

a. Map production units (and other operational areas) and locate them within the Natural Lands Map (see

section 1.2.1 below).

b. Account for any conversion of natural ecosystems at the level of production unit that occurred after the

cut-off date(s), consulting the Natural Lands Map.

c. Set a no-conversion target for all production units and operational areas.

Those engaged in sourcing from producers or from first point of aggregation must:

a. Map the value chain and identify the origin of volumes of all material global and regional conversion-

driving commodities (Annex 1a) to the production unit or sourcing area (see traceability requirements in

Step 2 and Annex 1c).

b. Account for conversion of natural ecosystems at the level of production unit that occurred after the cut-

off date(s), consulting the Natural Lands Map.

c. Calculate the percentage of commodity volumes in compliance with deforestation- and conversion-free

requirements.

d. For volumes that are not yet traceable, engage the supply chain to enhance traceability and increase the

percentage of volumes in compliance with deforestation- and conversion-free requirements in line with

target dates.

Those engaged in sourcing from stages of the value chain downstream the first point of aggregation must:

a. Map the value chain and identify the origin of volumes of all material global and regional conversion-

driving commodities (Annex 1a) to the production unit or sourcing area.

b. Account for the percentage of commodity volumes in compliance with deforestation- and conversion-free

requirements.

c. For volumes that are not yet traceable, engage the supply chain to enhance traceability and increase the

percentage of volumes in compliance with deforestation- and conversion-free requirements in line with

target dates.

See Annex 1b for details on distinguishing between activities situated at different points of the value chain.

1.2.1. Using the SBTN Natural Lands Map

For all companies setting No Conversion targets, the newly created Natural Lands Map must be used to:

● Estimate natural ecosystem conversion since 2020 (or earlier) that is associated with the company’s

operations or commodity volumes in its supply chains.

● Provide the data necessary for companies to operationalize a 2020 cut-off for no-conversion calculations.

Details on how to use the Natural Lands Map are included in Annex 1d.

The process and conditions around measuring the conversion of natural ecosystems, allocating responsibility for

such conversion, and setting targets will be divided into:

• methods for setting no-conversion targets on direct operations; and

• targets around upstream sourcing of goods or services that lead to natural ecosystem conversion.

In this process, preventing the conversion of natural ecosystems starts with defining natural lands and estimating

where they exist by delineating them on a map.

For the map, natural lands are defined in line with AFi’s definition of a natural ecosystem as “one that substantially

resembles—in terms of species composition, structure, and ecological function—what would be found in a given

area in the absence of major human impacts” and can include managed ecosystems as well as degraded ecosystems

that are expected to regenerate either naturally or through management (AFi, 2019).

17F

According to AFi, natural ecosystems include:

https://accountability-framework.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Definitions.pdf

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

• Largely “pristine” natural ecosystems that have not been subject to major human impacts in recent

history.

• Regenerated natural ecosystems that were subject to major impacts in the past (for instance by agriculture,

livestock raising, tree plantations, or intensive logging) but where the main causes of impact have ceased

or diminished, and the ecosystem has attained species composition, structure, and ecological function

similar to prior or other contemporary natural ecosystems.

• Managed natural ecosystems (including many ecosystems that could be referred to as “semi-natural”)

where much of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and ecological function are present; this includes

managed natural forests as well as native grasslands or rangelands that are, or have historically been,

grazed by livestock.

• Natural ecosystems that have been partially degraded by anthropogenic or natural causes (e.g., harvesting,

fire, climate change, invasive species, or others) but where the land has not been converted to another use

and where much of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and ecological function remain present or are

expected to regenerate naturally or by management for ecological restoration.

While natural forests are of course part of natural ecosystems, a detailed forest definition is also provided by AFi:

Forests are defined as “land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of

more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly

under agricultural or other land use” (AFi, 2019).

Natural forests are defined as possessing “many or most of the characteristics of a forest native to the given site,

including species composition, structure, and ecological function.”

Natural forests include primary forest, regenerated second-growth forests, managed natural forests, and forests

that have been partially degraded but still retain their composition, structure, and ecological function or are

expected to regenerate naturally or by management for ecological restoration. Natural forest and tree plantations

are mutually exclusive (AFi, 2019).

AFi’s conversion definition is used also in anticipation of utilizing the Natural Lands Map for future monitoring

purposes, which includes “a change to another land use or profound change to composition, structure, or function”

(AFi, 2019). Such changes are considered ecosystem conversion regardless of whether or not the change was legal.

In the context of this guidance the SBTN Natural Lands Map is not intended to:

● Be a resource for scientific research and analysis.

● Supplant existing research and biophysical mapping and analysis on ecosystem science.

● Define ecosystems and/or working lands.

● Be used to assess the quality of ecosystems, including value for biodiversity.

This map demonstrates a conservative approach to mapping non-natural lands, meaning that decisions were made

with the aim of being precautionary in assigning a non-natural classification.

Due to the lower resolution and variation in accuracy of some of the input data, additional data were used, where

available, to apply additional conditions before removing non-natural classes as an added precautionary step. As a

result of the conservative approach, the final dataset may overestimate the area of natural lands in some regions.

Due to this, it is essential that this map be strictly applied to setting a corporate No Conversion of Natural

Ecosystems target within SBTN Land Methods and not used to assess the extent of natural or non-natural

ecosystems.

To develop this map, the approach for identifying natural lands across the globe has been to combine the best

available global spatial data on land cover/land use into a single harmonized map at a 30-meter resolution. The

land cover data that were best for distinguishing between natural and non-natural land covers have been assessed

and selected, using additional data where necessary (see: technical documentation of Natural Lands Map

Where available, local/regional data will continue to be incorporated and prioritized to ensure that local and regional

knowledge is best reflected in the map.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

The AFi definition of natural ecosystems has been operationalized based on existing landcover/land use data in the

Natural Lands Map. Table 1 in the technical documentation

of the map shows the AFi operational guidance and

describes how it was used to develop the mapping approach. Specific data and methods used are described in section

2.2 and 2.3 of the technical documentation.

In the absence of specific definitions for other ecosystems from AFi, the Natural Lands Map is built on other

definitions from available data. Here, natural grasslands are defined as areas of land with vegetation shorter than 5

meters and a livestock density based on the top 5% of cattle (>45.15 per km

) and top 1% of buffalo, goats, and sheep,

and can include areas of land dominated by grass or shrubs.

18F

Water is defined as surface water present 20% or more

of the year. Snow and ice include any permanent snow and ice. Wetlands are transitional ecosystems with saturated

soil that can be inundated by water either seasonally or permanently and can be covered by short vegetation or trees.

The land-cover classes included in the map are largely drawn from two maps of global land cover for 2020:

(1) WorldCover, a 10-meter resolution dataset created by the European Space Agency (Zanaga et al.,

2021)

19F

(2) Global Land Use and Land Cover Change, a 30-meter resolution dataset created by the Global Land

Analysis and Discovery Lab at the University of Maryland (Hansen et al., 2022

20F

; Potapov et al.,

2022

21F

Both share a similar classification scheme and were compared to decide which made a “best fit” for this map.

(See Table 2A and 2B of the full technical documentation of the Natural Lands Map

)

Figure 4: Land-cover classes of the SBTN Natural Lands Map and the classification categories of natural ecosystems.

Note: This figure outlines the range of what is considered “natural” for inclusion in the SBTN Natural Lands Map. Core Natural Lands

are a priority designation within Natural Lands. Here they are indicated as primarily pristine or regenerated ecosystems, though the

data in the Map may identify Core Natural Lands within managed or partially degraded ecosystems as well.

Natural short vegetation has livestock density lower than this threshold, as the high-density threshold was used to classify non-natural areas.

https://worldcover2020.esa.int/download

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac46ec

https://glad.umd.edu/users/Potapov/GLCLUC2020/frsen-03-856903.pdf

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Natural Lands Map: https://wri-datalab.earthengine.app/view/sbtn-natural-lands

Technical documentation

Figure 5: Natural Lands Map

Note: There is no data on the glaciers of Greenland. The global scale of the map obscures data at a smaller scale, meaning that areas that look

entirely natural or non-natural at the global level will likely have significantly more diversity in classification at a 30-meter resolution of

the map.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Table 7: Examples of ecosystem types that may be included under the map’s natural land-cover classes22F

Natural

land-cover

class

Class definition Ecosystem examples

Forest

Areas with tree cover greater than or equal to 5

meters in height spanning more than 0.5 hectares.

Rainforests, dry forests, montane rainforests,

heath forests, temperate forests, boreal

forests, woodlands, some types of savannas.

Short

vegetation

Areas of land with vegetation shorter than 5 meters,

including areas of land dominated by grass or

shrubs.

Grasslands, shrublands, heathlands, steppes,

vegetated deserts and semi-deserts, some

types of savannas.

Wetlands

Transitional ecosystems with saturated soil that can

be inundated by water either seasonally or

permanently and

can be covered by short

vegetation or trees.

Peatlands, mangroves, inland, coastal, saline,

freshwater, brackish.

Water Surface water present 20% or more of the year,

where water is the dominant class.

Rivers, lakes, coastal inlets, bays, lagoons.

Snow/ice Areas covered by permanent snow or ice. Glaciers, perennial snowfields.

Bare land

Areas with exposed rock, soil, or sand with less than

10% vegetated cover.

Sparsely vegetated deserts, lava flows,

screes, alpine rocky outcrops, sandy

shorelines.

Note: The ecosystem examples included in this table are not an exhaustive list of all ecosystems included within each land-cover class but are

illustrative examples of some types of ecosystems that may be included. Land-cover classes are defined based on the biophysical presence

and coverage of certain types of vegetation or landforms, and thus a similar type of ecosystem in different regions may fall into different

land-cover classes depending on the biophysical characteristics present. In cases where local data was incorporated, we adopted the local

definition of the land cover; therefore, there may be inconsistencies in how land-cover classes are defined (e.g., tree height threshold for

forests).

For a full description of land cover classes, please see table 8 in the technical documentation of the map.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

1.2.2. Core Natural Lands

The guidance outlining how a company sets Land targets in support of No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems will

require a phased approach. While immediate action is intended to eliminate the conversion of ecosystems, many

companies contend with the realities of complex operations and supply chains. In many supply chains, the degree

of traceability needed to set a science-based target is currently lacking. To stop ecosystem conversion and set a

validated science-based target for land, companies will be required to make investments in traceability in key

supply chains where it is lacking.

The phased approach of the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target requires companies to undertake a spatial

prioritization of natural land, focusing no conversion efforts on the most immediate needs. For many companies

that have deforestation-free commitments, this process will be familiar, and all natural forests are a key component

of Core Natural Lands for this reason. However, for this target, deforestation is included as one of many types of

natural ecosystem conversion, which includes all natural, terrestrial lands.

Termed “Core Natural Lands” in this guidance, these areas represent a spatial prioritization that will help

companies determine where to focus their initial efforts on eliminating ecosystem conversion within natural lands

identified by the SBTN Natural Lands Map that may not be entirely covered by the prioritization approach in Step 2.

“Core Natural Lands” refers to places with acknowledged ecological importance that require immediate action to

prevent conversion due to:

1. Existing legislation and/or initiatives, which include commitments to deforestation and conversion-free

commodities.

2. Extinction/collapse risk, irreplaceability, or natural uniqueness.

3. Maintaining natural ecosystem contiguity or intactness.

4. The provision of critical natural assets or contributions to people.

Core Natural Lands compiles several relevant datasets to highlight areas of natural land that exhibit exceptional

ecological importance. These include the minimum land areas for conserving terrestrial biodiversity (Allan et al.,

2022

23F

), natural ecosystem areas that have been assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s

Red List of Ecosystems as “threatened,”

24F

hotspots for the ecological conservation of soils (Guerra et al., 202225F

irrecoverable carbon,

26F

and Critical Natural Assets identified as the 30% of global land area that is needed to provide

90% of the total current magnitude of 14 different types of nature’s contributions to people (Chaplin-Kramer et al.,

2022

27F

). For a detailed description of these layers please see the Natural Lands Map technical documentation.

Core Natural Lands prioritization does not apply to producers, site owners, or site operators. It is expected that

this stage of the value chain does not have data gaps related to the location of operations or production units.

Producers of commodities listed in Annex 1a (global conversion- and regional conversion-driving commodities)

must eliminate conversion of natural ecosystems, including forests, by 2025. Site owners and site operators of other

business sectors required to set a no-conversion target will similarly be required to eliminate natural ecosystem

conversion by 2025.

Core Natural Lands prioritization applies to sourcing of commodities listed in the global- and regional conversion-

driving commodity/activity list in Annex 1a. For companies sourcing any of these commodities, a Core Natural Lands

prioritization must be applied to the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target. Please note that this prioritization

step is separate from and additional to the spatial prioritization companies complete in Step 2.

Sourcing from producers and from first point of aggregation of any of the Annex 1a commodities will require 100%

conversion-free of Core Natural Lands geographies by 2025.

For sourcing from downstream the first point of aggregation of global conversion-driving commodities (Annex

1a), companies are required to eliminate ecosystem conversion from 80% of these volumes associated with Core

Natural Lands by 2025 and 100% by 2027.

For sourcing from downstream the first point of aggregation of regional conversion-driving commodities (Annex

1a), 80% of volumes must be conversion-free by 2027 and 100% of volumes associated with Core Natural Lands

must be conversion-free by 2030.

It is important here to remember that areas identified as “natural” in the SBTN Natural Lands Map represent a

continuum of “natural ecosystems” based on the AFi definition of natural ecosystems. This includes “pristine”

lands, regenerated ecosystems, managed natural land, and partially degraded areas that maintain many

characteristics of natural ecosystems. As such, a no-conversion target focuses on maintaining existing land use and

Allan, J.R., Possingham, H.P., Atkinson, S.C., Waldron, A., Di Marco, M., Butchart, S.H.M., et al. (2022). The minimum land area requiring conservation

attention to safeguard biodiversity. Science, 376, 1094–1101. https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061%2Fdryad.qfttdz0k3 CC0 1.0 Universal

Public Domain Dedication license.

Threatened includes ecosystems classified as “Vulnerable”, “Endangered”, or “Critically Endangered”. While Red List of Ecosystem assessments are

not yet global in coverage, they provide an additional buffer against the conversion of threatened ecosystems for those areas that have been assessed. See

https://assessments.iucnrle.org/

Guerra, C.A., Berdugo, M., Eldridge, D.J., Eisenhauer, N., Singh, B.K., Cui, H., et al. (2022). Global hotspots for soil nature conservation. Nature, 610,

693–698.

Noon, M.L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J.C. et al. Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat Sustain 5, 37–46 (2022).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6

Chaplin-Kramer, R., Neugarten, R.A., Sharp, R.P. et al. Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 51–61 (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01934-5

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

land cover—which may span many different uses. Core Natural Lands highlight that existing natural land cover and

its representative ecological productivity should remain intact. However, as better data become available, and

degradation can be better defined as part of landscape initiatives in the Landscape Engagement target, the natural

land classification will become more refined, adding greater clarity to the natural/non-natural designation—

especially for non-forest ecosystems.

Of direct relevance to Core Natural Lands is the inclusion of all natural forests since many companies have existing

deforestation-free commitments with a 2025 target date, which is also a requirement for SBTi FLAG climate targets.

Natural forest that is converted to plantation forests is considered as conversion for the purpose of this guidance,

aligning with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance.

[Additional step-by-step guidance will be provided on the steps involved in using the Natural Lands Map to identify

Core Natural Lands areas in the final version]

Figure 6: Delineation of the areas representing core natural lands for use in the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems Target.

Note: Data at this global scale obscure the variability of data at finer scales. The delineation of the areas that comprise Core Natural Lands is

based on several datasets and analyses that provide a way to better understand the priority of different areas of natural ecosystems for no

conversion. In this regard, Core Natural Lands will always be a subset of the SBTN Natural Lands Map

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

1.3. Accounting for conversion of natural ecosystems

This section provides guidance on how companies must or should account for conversion.

The following guidelines on accounting are informed by AFi’s guidance and adapted to the scope of this target-

setting methodology.

The term “land use change” (LUC) is kept here in alignment with the GHGP’s accounting guidance but is

synonymous with “conversion” and “terrestrial ecosystem change”.

To effectively set and achieve targets to end deforestation and conversion from operations and supply chains,

companies must measure and account for LUC in credible and consistent ways. This process is also key to accounting

for LUC emissions in setting SBTi FLAG targets. After having completed the accounting exercise, companies will

then use the SBTN Natural Lands Map to understand which portion of LUC constitutes conversion of natural

ecosystems.

1.3.1. Land Use Change – Scale

Land use change may be assessed based on production unit-level information for direct operations and/or estimated

based on the attribution of LUC occurring at the level of the sourcing area for upstream activities.

The parallel processes for calculating LUC emissions are called direct (dLUC) and statistical land use change (sLUC),

respectively (see Chapter 7 of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance).

Box 6: Information on traceability from the latest AFJ guidance

For companies that purchase agricultural or forestry commodities, traceability is necessary to determine the

origin of the materials in their supply chains and ascertain when land-use change (LUC) took place in these

locations of origin. Traceability may be facilitated by internal company systems, business-to-business

disclosure by suppliers, third-party certiﬁcation programs, or other methods for attaching information about

origins to product volumes. Traceability to the production unit of origin is preferable in most cases and allows

for the highest level of supply chain control and the most precise LUC accounting. However, recognizing that

full traceability to production units is not always available, and that in some contexts a sourcing area or

jurisdiction may be the most relevant scale for managing deforestation and conversion risks, this guide also

explains how deforestation/conversion and associated emissions can be estimated at an area level.

The determination of the appropriate scale of analysis will largely depend on the ability of the company to trace

products through the supply chain to their origin, as well as the extent to which that origin is associated with risk

of deforestation or ecosystem conversion and the appropriate scale of management given the context of production

and sourcing.

There are three primary scales at which LUC can be assessed:

1. Traceability to the production unit of origin

• This means that companies are able to trace commodity volumes to specific mapped production

units (e.g., farms, ranches, mines, fields, plantations, forest management units).

• AFi defines a production unit as a discrete land area on which a producer cultivates crops,

manages timber, or raises livestock. In the context of this guidance, the understanding of

production units is expanded to the extraction sites of hard commodities listed in Annex 1a.

• A production unit will generally be a contiguous land area or proximate group of plots managed

by the same owner, regardless of any internal subdivisions.

• Production units should be demarcated by georeferenced boundaries (i.e., polygons), with the

exception of small sites (e.g., less than 10 ha), for which one point coordinate at the geographic

center of the production and a circular buffer around the point that represents 10 hectares will be

sufficient. The same approach explained for production units can be used for project sites (e.g.,

mining sites, construction sites).

2. Traceability to the sourcing area

• This means that products are traceable to a known area or region where the material was

produced or extracted, but that the specific production unit of origin is not known.

• Sourcing area-level boundaries could include a sourcing radius from a first point of collection or

processing facility (e.g., a radius from a palm oil mill), a defined production landscape (e.g., the

area covered by a smallholder cooperative), or a subnational jurisdiction (e.g., municipality).

3. Limited or no current traceability

• This means that products can currently only be traced to a country of origin or that the origin of

products is unknown.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Table 8: Appropriate measures of land-use change and associated emissions

Level of

traceability and

monitoring

Position in the

supply chain

Unit of analysis Accounting methods and metrics

for:

Deforestation and

conversion

(disaggregated by

commodity)

Emissions from land

use change

Production Unit

Own operations

(Scope 1 emissions)

Own farms/

plantations

Hectares of

deforestation or

conversion in

operations since cut-

oﬀ date

% of total hectares

owned or managed

that this represents

Scope 1 dLuC (tons

equivalent)

Supply chain (scope 3

emissions)

Known supply chain

farms/plantations

Hectares of

deforestation or

conversion on

production units in

supply chain since cut-

oﬀ date

% of totally hectares

on known farms that

this represents

Scope 3 dLuC (tons

equivalent)

Sourcing area

Supply chain (scope 3

emissions)

Known sourcing (e.g.,

mill sourcing radius,

production

landscapes, or

subnational

jurisdictions)

Hectares of natural

ecosystem conversion

in sourcing areas since

cut-oﬀ date that may

be attributed to the

company

Scope 3 sLuC (tons

equivalent)

Supply chain (scope 3

emissions)

Country of origin Volume of materials

(and proportion of total

sourced from each

country*)

Unknown origin

Volume of materials

(and proportion of

total

sourced for which

region is unknown*)

*Where there is limited to no traceability, hectares of deforestation and conversion cannot be estimated.

Source: Accountability Framework Initiative.

1.3.2. Land Use Change – at production unit level

Monitoring conversion change at the level of production units (e.g., farms, ranches, mines, fields, plantations,

forest management units) provides the greatest amount of precision about the impact of commodities in company

operations and supply chains. It is the best way to determine whether products are linked to recent deforestation or

conversion.

When accounting for deforestation and conversion at the site level, all conversion in the production unit that has

occurred since the cut-off date (for deforestation/conversion) or during the assessment period (for LUC emissions)

must be included, regardless of the current use of that land (i.e., whether it is used to produce the commodity of

interest, to produce another commodity, has not yet been used to produce a commodity, or is not currently being

used for production).

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

1.3.3. Land Use Change – at sourcing area level

Accounting for deforestation and conversion associated with commodities at the scale of a sourcing area may be

appropriate in a range of circumstances, including when:

● Companies do not yet have physical traceability to the production unit level.

● Sourcing area is the most relevant scale for managing deforestation and conversion risk.

● Companies source from jurisdictions or landscapes where it can be shown that there has been no recent

conversion.

When allocating LUC at an area level to specific commodity volumes, all LUC related to agriculture (for crop or

livestock products), forestry (for forest products), and hard commodities for relevant sectors must be included in

the analysis. Consideration of all commodity-related LUC allows companies and others to best account for varied

LUC trajectories or indirect LUC pressures, providing an appropriately conservative approach to allocation.

The GHGP provides two recommended approaches for allocating LUC in a given area (see AFi guidance

28F

and

Chapters 7 and 17 of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance

29F

1. Allocation based on land footprint.

2. Allocation based on commodity expansion.

In all cases, the method and data sources used to allocate LUC and associated emissions to products within a

sourcing area must be clearly disclosed.

Please consult Annex 1c Accounting for land use change at the level of production unit for additional information on

accounting.

1.3.4. How to assess compliance with target requirements

Detailed guidance on the implementation of actions to achieve targets will be released by SBTN as guidance on Step

4: Act and Step 5: Track. This section provides a brief anticipation of how companies can assess their progress

toward deforestation- and conversion-free status of sourced commodities.

Building on the Accountability Framework’s Operational Guidance on Supply Chain Management

, companies can

assess the deforestation- and conversion-free status of the commodities they source by:

1. Tracing commodities back to the production or processing units of origin and ensuring that conversion

events did not occur after the relevant cut-off date.

2. Tracing commodities back to an intermediate supplier that itself has effective control mechanisms in

place and can demonstrate the ability to trace its supplier to the production or processing units of origin

and can demonstrate compliance with target requirements.

3. Utilizing credible assurance systems (e.g., credible certification systems based on physical chain of

custody systems) capable of linking raw material supplies with production units in compliance with

target requirements.

4. Tracing materials to jurisdictions or landscapes where it has been demonstrated that conversion did not

occur after the relevant cut-off date.

https://accountability-framework.org/

https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

Table 9: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems: target-setting guidance for direct operations and sourcing companies

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target setting

Stage of

value chain

How to account for conversion

in the value chain

Options available to meet target

requirements

Direct operations

Coverage:

All production

units and project

sites with a no-

conversion

target.

Account for conversion at the level of

production unit.

Producers of conversion-driving

commodities (Annex 1) and companies

owning and managing mines and project

sites must account for natural ecosystem

conversion at the production unit/project

site.

Conversion must be accounted for

starting from the cut-off date to the year

before submitting the target for

validation.

The target is met when direct operations are conversion-

free (at the latest by 2025; see Table 6)

AND

All conversion occurred after cut-off date is remediated.

Conversion must not occur after target date (i.e., after

2025). If conversion occurs, a company will not be in

compliance with No Conversion target.

Sourcing from

producers or first

point of

aggregation

Coverage:

All volumes

sourced of

material high-

impact

commodities

with a no-

conversion

target.

Account for conversion at the level of

production unit or sourcing areas known

to be in the company’s supply chain.

Companies directly sourcing conversion-

driving commodities (Annex 1) must

account for natural ecosystem

conversion at the production unit/project

site or at the sourcing area levels.

Conversion must be accounted for

starting from the relevant cut-off date(s).

The target is met when sourcing from producers and

from first point of aggregation are deforestation- and

conversion-free.

All volumes must meet the requirements by target dates

(see Table 6).

Directly join or support producers in their remediation

efforts from converted natural lands after the cut-off

date(s).

Suppliers providing non-compliant volumes must be

engaged in and following time-bound improvement

plans to ensure that further conversion will not occur, as

well as to remediate past conversion as appropriate.

Sourcing from

downstream first

point of

aggregation

Coverage:

All volumes

sourced of

material high-

impact

commodities

with a no-

conversion target

ompanies are recommended to account

for conversion at the level of production

unit or sourcing areas.

Companies sourcing conversion-driving

commodities (Annex 1) are

recommended to account for natural

ecosystem conversion at the production

unit/project site or at the sourcing area

levels (for all volumes traceable).

Conversion should be accounted for

starting from the relevant cut-off date(s).

The target is met when sourcing is deforestation- and

conversion-free.

All volumes must meet the requirements by target dates

(see Table 6)

Suppliers providing non-compliant volumes must be

engaged in and following time-bound improvement

plans to ensure that further conversion will not occur.

Remediation of post-cut-off date(s) conversion

Please note that while accounting for conversion is required for target validation, the remediation of conversion

post cut-off date(s) is part of Step 4: Act, hence companies can start the remediation process after target validation.

SBTN Land is currently developing a cross-sectoral common approach to remediation of conversion of natural lands

on the basis of the Accountability Framework’s Restoration and Compensation Guidance

During the pilot of Land targets Version 0.3, SBTN Land and partners will collaborate with the SBTN Target

Validation Team and the piloting companies to define target requirements regarding remediation.

1.4. Target validation and disclosure

To begin the target validation process, companies must submit:

• ISIC sector classification(s) describing their direct operations and upstream activities.

• Data required in section ii, “Data requirements to set Land targets”.

• Accounting of conversion between the cut-off date and the year before targets are submitted (e.g., 2020–

2023) disaggregated by ecosystem type.

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

SBTN is assessing reporting requirements for companies that will set a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target,

which will be defined in the SBTN Step 5’s upcoming guidance.

In the interim, and in alignment with AFi, this guidance recommends that companies disclose the above

information by using the CDP’s forests questionnaire

30F

and by following the Global Reporting Initiative’s

Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fisheries Sector Standard.

31F

The suggested reporting requirements are:

● Deforestation and conversion footprint in their operations disaggregated by ecosystem type.

● Commodity volumes in their supply chains, disaggregated per level of traceability as follows:

o Traceable to production unit

o Traceable to sourcing area/jurisdiction/subnational level

o Traceable to country of origin

o Not yet traceable

● For all volumes, the percentage that is assessed to be deforestation- and conversion-free must be

indicated.

● For companies that must comply with IFC PS6 and associated hard commodities listed in Annex 1a,

reporting will include their completed and ongoing PS6 processes and progress (as outlined in section ii) .

1.5. Template statement for No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems targets will be stated in the format illustrated in Box 7.

Box 7: Formulation of No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

Direct operations

[Company name] will have zero conversion of natural ecosystems by [target year],

compared with a 202o* baseline.

[Company name] will remediate all past conversion occurring between 2020* and [target

year].

Both targets are required.

Upstream (sourcing from producers or ﬁrst point of aggregation)

[Company name] will source 100% of volumes of commodities (Annex 1a Global or

regional conversion-driving commodities) from areas known to be conversion-free from

2020*.

[Company name] will remediate all past conversion occurring between 2020* and [target

year] (associated with its share of volumes sourced).

Both targets are required.

Upstream (sourcing from companies downstream of the ﬁrst point of

aggregation)

[Company name] will source 100% of volumes of commodities (Annex 1a Global or

regional conversion-driving commodities) from areas known to be conversion-free from

2020.*

*Or other earlier cut-off dates (e.g., regional or sectoral cut-off dates).

https://guidance.cdp.net/en/guidance?cid=31&ctype=theme&idtype=ThemeID&incchild=1&microsite=0&otype=Guidance&tags=TAG-646%2CTAG-

609%2CTAG-600

https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/sector-standard-for-agriculture-aquaculture-and-fishing/

Land targets: No conversion of natural ecosystems

1.6. Why is the No Conversion target needed?

The contributions of natural ecosystems are critical to planetary and human health. They provide protection,

livelihoods, materials, food, fresh water, and a sense of cultural identity to billions of people, including Indigenous

Peoples, local communities, and many others.

32F

33,

33F

They store vast quantities of carbon. Forests alone provide

habitats for about 80% of amphibian species, 75% of bird species, and 68% of mammal species.

34F

Yet humans have converted between one third and one half of habitable land for crop and livestock production,

undermining these critical ecosystem services on which we rely.

35F

Deforestation and land degradation cost as much

as US$6.3 trillion a year through their impact on forest and agricultural productivity.

36F

In sub-Saharan Africa, over

two thirds of productive land is degraded, compromising its capacity to support people and nature and undermining

the livelihoods of at least 450 million people.

37F

The conversion and degradation of forest land has been given significant attention via dedicated initiatives and

private sector commitments to end deforestation. Over one third of forests has been lost globally due to

deforestation since it first became a pervasive threat in temperate zones between the 18

and 20

centuries, and the

problem has drastically increased in the tropics over the past 50 years (Hansen et al., 2013; Haddad et al., 2015).

Since 2010, the global net loss of forests is estimated to be 4.7 Mha per year.

38F

The rates of tropical deforestation are

now particularly dire: they are estimated to account for more than 97% of global deforestation in the past century

and more than 90% of global deforestation between 2000 and 2018.

39F

40,

40F

Across the tropics, 90% of recent

deforestation has been driven by agriculture, the majority of which is caused by seven commodities: cattle, palm

oil, soy, cocoa, rubber, coffee, and plantation wood fiber, with cattle having by far the largest impact.

41F

Less attention has been given to the loss of non-forest natural ecosystems, although they too are critically

important. Non-forest ecosystems are suffering conversion rates as high or higher than those of forests.

42F

For example, natural grasslands—which hold high levels of biological diversity, are crucial for the mitigation of

climate change, and provide significant value to people—are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world.

43F

Efforts toward avoiding the conversion of forests should be broadened to incorporate the conservation of non-

forest natural ecosystems,

44F

and this guidance walks that path.

Table 10: Amount of conversion of global ecosystems, grouped by their vegetation/land cover attribute45F

Vegetation/land

cover

Current (actual) area

(thousand ha)

Converted (potential) area

(thousand ha)

Conversion

(%)

Forestlands 4,377,500

1,501,203

25.5

Shrublands 1,632,918

202,040

Grasslands 1,267,528

891,752

41.3

Sparsely or non-vegetated 2,967,203

58,316

1.9

Snow and ice 228,479

0.005

For additional information on the importance of natural ecosystems and for the scientific evidence supporting the

choice of the no-conversion target, please refer to the supplementary material

Beatty, C.R., Stevenson, M., Pacheco, P., Terrana, A., Folse, M., and Cody, A. 2022. The Vitality of Forests: Illustrating the Evidence Connecting Forests

and Human Health. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, United States

Chaplin-Kramer et al.: Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Rachel A. Neugarten, Richard P. Sharp, Pamela M. Collins, Stephen Polasky, David Hole, Richard

Schuster, et al. “Mapping the Planet’s Critical Natural Assets.” Nature Ecology & Evolution, November 28, 2022, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-

022-01934-5.

https://www.fao.org/3/cb9360en/cb9360en.pdf

https://www.fao.org/food-agriculture-statistics/en/

Sutton, P.C., S. Anderson, R. Costanza, and I. Kubiszewski. 2016. “The Ecological Economics of Land Degradation: Impacts on Ecosystem Service

Values.” Ecological Economics 129: 182–192.

UNEP. 2015. The Economics of Land Degradation in Africa. Bonn: ELD Initiative. Available online at:

https://www.nmbu.no/sites/default/files/pdfattachments/eld-unep-report_05_web_b-72dpi_1.pdf

https://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf

https://research.wri.org/gfr/latest-analysis-deforestation-trends

https://www.fao.org/3/cb9360en/cb9360en.pdf

Pendrill, F., Gardner, T. A., Meyfroidt, P., Persson, U. M., Adams, J., Azevedo, T., ... & West, C. (2022). Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-

driven tropical deforestation. Science, 377(6611), eabm9267.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989419307231

Lark, T. J. (2020). Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands. Land Use Policy, 97, 104727.

Gonçalves-Souza, D., Verburg, P.H. & Dobrovolski, R. (2020). Habitat loss, extinction predictability and conservation efforts in the terrestrial

ecoregions. Biological Conservation, 246, 108579.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989419307231

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

Target 2:

Land Footprint Reduction

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

This chapter of the SBTN Land Guidance sets out:

1. The details of the Land Footprint Reduction target.

2. How companies will set the target.

3. How companies will account for and communicate about land footprint reduction.

4. Technical annexes and supplementary material articulating the scientific bases of the target and other

supporting materials.

2.1. What is the Land Footprint Reduction target?

Given the need to free up significant amounts of land for natural ecosystem restoration, the Land Footprint

Reduction target works to incentivize companies that produce or source agricultural products (e.g., food, animal

feed, fibers, bioenergy feedstocks) to reduce the amount of agricultural land needed to produce the products in their

value chain over time. The scientific basis of this target, including the focus specifically on agricultural land, is

articulated in the supplementary materials

for this target.

“Land footprint”46F

for the purpose of this target refers to the amount of agricultural land required per year to

produce the products produced or sourced by a company (reported in hectares per year). It does not necessarily

include all land owned or controlled by companies. Agricultural lands that are not attributable to direct operations

or upstream value chain activities should not be counted within the Land Footprint Reduction target and thus

reductions cannot be applied to extensive land holdings held in reserve.

There are two methods for setting a Land Footprint Reduction target: the absolute reduction approach and the

intensity reduction approach. SBTN provides a decision tree in section i and supplementary information in Annex

2a to support companies in choosing which approach to follow.

As a safeguard to ensure that smaller companies producing less-land-intensive products are able to grow their

market share, SBTN only requires companies over a certain size (measured via full-time-equivalent (FTE)

employees or by land footprint in hectares) to set a Land Footprint Reduction target. See section i, “How to

determine if you must set Target 2” in the Introduction for information on which companies are required to set a

Land Footprint Reduction target.

Given the fact that companies will not necessarily have ownership rights over any land freed up through their Land

Footprint Reduction target, SBTN does not require companies to necessarily restore that land. Instead, the

mechanism for driving restoration linked to this target is through the Landscape Engagement target (see Chapter

3) which will always be paired with a Land Footprint Reduction target.

2.2. How to set a Land Footprint Reduction target

All companies required to set a Land Footprint Reduction target must follow the procedure below to identify target

requirements and prepare all required materials to be submitted for target validation.

Note on Step 2: Interpret & Prioritize - All locations and activities within the target boundary must be included to

avoid leakage among locations. It is recommended that companies follow the prioritization approach of Step 2 to

guide the implementation and achievement of the target, but all locations must be included within the scope in the

first year that targets are set.

1. Calculate baseline agricultural land footprint

• The company calculates its baseline agricultural land footprint following the process explained in the

SBTN Technical Guidance for Steps 1 and 2 (sections 3.1-3.2), and in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land

Sector and Removals Guidance (in the draft version for pilot testing and review, this can be found in

sections 7.3 and 17.3 on “land occupation”). The baseline calculation method is summarized below.

2. Select a method for the allocation of land footprint reduction

• The company determines which of two target setting approaches to use:

a. Absolute land footprint reduction approach

b. Intensity land footprint reduction approach

3. Calculate the Land Footprint Reduction target

• The company uses the following information to calculate its percentage reduction target:

o Preferred reduction approach (absolute or intensity)

o Base year and target year

4. Target validation

We use “land footprint” interchangeably with agricultural “land occupation” as defined by life cycle assessment approaches. The land footprint refers

to the portions of a company’s “terrestrial ecosystem use” (as per the SBTN Technical Guidance for Steps 1 and 2) that are working agricultural lands.

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

• The company submits its data for target validation (see section 2.3). Once the target is approved, the

company can make a public statement as per the SBTN claims guidance.

2.2.1. Calculate baseline agricultural land footprint

This target applies to all agricultural land (cropland and land under permanent meadows and pastures) used to

produce the products produced or sourced by a company (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Components of Agricultural Land in FAOSTAT .

Source of the figure: Land statistics and indicators: Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2020. FAO 2022.

The process to calculate a company’s agricultural land footprint (whether to set a baseline or an updated annual

inventory) is described in the SBTN Technical Guidance for Steps 1 (section 3), and in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Land Sector and Removals Guidance (in the draft version for pilot testing and review, this can be found in sections

7.3 and 17.3 on “land occupation”).

To calculate baseline agricultural land footprint, companies may collect spatial or statistical data as follows:

• For purchasing companies with an upstream agricultural land footprint: statistical (non-spatial) data on

quantities of land-based products sourced, locations (e.g., countries and/or subnational jurisdictions) if

known, and yield (output per hectare) of each product for each location.

• For producing companies with an agricultural land footprint in direct operations: statistical (non-

spatial) data on quantities of land-based products produced, and statistical or spatial data allowing for

calculation of total surface area of working lands producing those products.

• When using statistical data with quantities of products produced or sourced (e.g., in metric tons),

companies can use the simple equation of:

     









ℎ 







  







 

 ℎ





 



= Land footprint (ha)

for each product. Companies would sum all estimates across all products to have their complete land

footprint “inventory” (GHGP forthcoming, Equation 17.12).

• When using spatial data, companies should sum the hectares in all their active agricultural production

areas to estimate total land footprint.

When using statistical data, following the GHGP guidance, companies should use the most spatially explicit data

available for each commodity produced or purchased, and seek to improve traceability and data quality over time.

If a product’

s origin is not yet known, a default assumption (e.g., production assumed to be from the same world

region as company headquarters) may be used to select the appropriate yield data if well justified to SBTN.

When estimating land footprint of purchased mixed products, companies should either try to back-calculate the

amounts of raw products for the purpose of estimating land footprint (e.g., using product formulation or recipe

data) or use reasonable assumptions to simplify the exercise without unduly sacrificing accuracy (e.g., categorizing

each mixed product according to its primary ingredient or its top three ingredients). Because estimating land

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

footprint using statistical data can never be perfect, emphasis should be given to estimating the land footprint

related to products containing high-impact commodities (e.g., meat stews versus vegetable-based condiments).

Companies ma

y refer to the Step 1 Toolbox and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance

(in the draft for pilot testing this can be found in section 17.3) for lists of tools and databases that include yields (in

tons/hectare/year) and/or land occupation factors (essentially the reciprocal of yields, in square meter-year (m

a))

that can be used when companies have statistical activity data.

2.2.2. Select a method for the allocation of Land Footprint Reduction

There are two methods for setting a Land Footprint Reduction target: the absolute reduction approach and the

intensity reduction approach (see Table 11). Absolute and intensity targets each have advantages and disadvantages.

Table 11: Absolute and intensity approaches to Land Footprint Reduction

Absolute land footprint reduction target Intensity land footprint reduction target

Companies reduce their absolute land footprint at a linear

rate of 0.35% per year compared to the base year.

Companies reduce the land footprint per kg of agricultural

products produced at a linear rate of 1% per year compared

to the base year.

Absolute targets can be simpler to calculate and communicate and are more likely to result in global absolute

agricultural footprint reductions at the scale required. However, they can limit smaller companies that produce or

purchase land-efficient products gaining market share by constricting their ability to grow.

Intensity targets, on the other hand, can be more complex to calculate and communicate, and do not guarantee that

total agricultural land use will decline even if companies hit the targets. That said, intensity targets can be

appropriate for companies that produce food by helping them set a clear target for sustainable productivity gains,

and intensity targets can also be appropriate for the smaller companies mentioned above.

For both types of Land Footprint Reduction targets, there is a risk that they incentivize unsustainable types of

agricultural intensification, and/or that these targets incentivize consumer companies to shift their sourcing from

lower- to higher-yielding areas. Annex 2b helps companies manage trade-offs and unintended consequences

through response option planning, setting of complementary environmental targets, and social safeguards.

Given the benefits and challenges with both approaches, for this version of Land targets, SBTN has left open the

option for producer and consumer companies to set either type of target. However, absolute targets are

recommended for large consumer companies such as retailers given their greater ability to reduce land footprint

through demand-side measures such as shifting their portfolios to less-land-intensive products.

For companies where SBTN recommends either the absolute or intensity approach in the decision tree in section i,

the company should consult Annex 2a to better weigh the pros and cons of each target-setting approach for their

specific context. They may also consult Table 3 in the SBTi FLAG guidance;

the “sector approach” in SBTi FLAG

corresponds to the absolute approach for this target, and the “commodity approach” corresponds to the intensity

approach for this target.

2.2.3. Calculate the Land Footprint Reduction Target

In alignment with climate targets, for both absolute and intensity Land Footprint Reduction targets:

• The choice of base year must be no earlier than 2015. (The base year does not need to align with the cut-

off date(s) used as the reference for assessing conversion of natural ecosystems in the No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems target.)

• S

BTN Land recommends companies to choose a base year that is representative of the company’s activity

(e.g., a year greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic should not be chosen as a base year).

• La

nd Footprint Reduction targets must cover a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10 years from the

date the target is submitted to the SBTN for an official validation.

Companies are encouraged to develop

long-term targets (e.g., to 2050) in addition to near-term targets.

The formula for calculating the targets depending on the approach selected is shown in Table 12. See Annex 2a for

the scientific justification for the reductions needed for both target approaches.

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

Table 12: Formula for calculating the Land Footprint Reduction target

Absolute Land Footprint Reduction target Intensity Land Footprint Reduction target

Number of years between base year and target year *

0.35% per year

Number of years between base year and target year * 1%

per year

As shown in Table 12, companies setting absolute Land Footprint Reduction targets would reduce their absolute

land footprint at a linear rate of 0.35% per year, or by 3.5% by 2030, from a 2020 base year, and 10.6% by 2050

from a 2020 base year.

If a company uses the intensity approach using a 1% intensity reduction per year, it must also express the target in

absolute terms. For example, if a company has a target to reduce its agricultural land footprint intensity by 8% by

2030 from a 2022 base year, if it projects 5% growth during that time, then its absolute land footprint reduction by

2030 would be 3.4%, because 0.92 * 1.05 = 0.966 or a 3.4% reduction from a 2022 base year.

Recalculation of baseline land footprint

Companies should seek to improve the quality of the data they collect over time, especially due to changes within

the company. Based on such internal changes (outlined below and mirroring the GHGP), a recalculation of baseline

land footprint shall take place (even while keeping the base year and target year constant). Recalculations must also

take place based on any new versions of the Land targets.

Following the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, recalculation is required when the following changes occur and have a

significant impact on the total land footprint calculated:

• Structural changes in the reporting organization, such as mergers, acquisitions, divestments, outsourcing,

and insourcing.

• Changes in calculation methods, improvements in data accuracy, or discovery of significant errors.

• Changes in the categories or activities included in the land footprint “inventory”.

Purchasing companies should seek to work with their current suppliers to improve performance over time, rather

than shifting to more-efficient (higher-yielding) suppliers. A strategy of shifting to higher-yielding suppliers

carries social risks (potentially harming livelihoods of current suppliers), and/or potentially will not affect global

agricultural land demand if other buyers just switch to purchasing from the company’s current suppliers.

Companies should consult Annex 2b and SBTN’s Stakeholder Engagement Guidance to better understand how their

actions or priorities may impact local stakeholders and how they can support and facilitate right-based approaches

to the implementation of the Land Footprint Reduction target.

2.3. Target validation and disclosure

To begin the target validation process, companies must submit to SBTN:

• ISIC sector classification(s) for activities within their direct operations and upstream.

• Number of employees (FTE).

• Disclosure of agricultural land footprint (from direct operations and/or from upstream impacts) in the

base year.

• Activity amounts (quantities of land-based products produced or purchased) in the base year.

• Calculation details for base year land footprint (e.g., yield estimates used and sources; spatial data used

and sources; any other statistical data used and sources).

• Calculation details for Land Footprint Reduction target (e.g., number of years in the target period between

base year and target year; use of 0.35% linear annual absolute reduction rate; use of 1% linear annual

intensity reduction rate).

• A rationale for the choice of absolute or intensity target.

• A narrative description of their strategy and potential response options for achieving their Land Footprint

Reduction target, including the proposed approach to addressing potential risks associated with

unsustainable intensification (e.g., focusing on areas with opportunities to sustainably improve

agricultural productivity, reducing food loss and waste, shifting toward less-land-intensive agricultural

products) and unintended social consequences (e.g., prioritizing work with existing suppliers—including

smallholders—to improve yields and productivity rather than shifting away to higher-yielding suppliers).

• Companies submitting both Land Footprint Reduction targets and Landscape Engagement targets are

required to submit information to the SBTN Target Validation Team that specifies whether and how

locations and/or commodities prioritized for Land Footprint Reduction overlap with landscapes selected

for the Landscape Engagement target. As noted above, given the fact that companies will not always have

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

ownership rights over any land freed up through the Land Footprint Reduction target, SBTN has not

established requirements for companies to restore that land. Instead, the mechanism for driving

restoration is through the Landscape Engagement target.

SBTN is assessing reporting requirements for companies that will set a Land Footprint Reduction target, which will

be defined in upcoming guidance.

In the interim, in alignment with the draft Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance, SBTN

recommends the below list of disclosure requirements for companies tracking their agricultural land footprint

(called “land occupation” in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance) over time:

• Companies shall account for and report their agricultural land footprint on an annual basis.

• Companies shall apply their land footprint accounting methods consistently across their entire land

footprint “inventory.”

• Companies shall report agricultural land footprint of direct operations and of upstream impacts separately.

• Companies shall disclose the data sources, methods, and assumptions used to quantify agricultural land

footprint.

• Companies may separate out their land footprint reporting by type of land use (e.g., cropland, pastureland),

products produced or sourced, location, and/or ecoregion.

2.4. Template statement for Land Footprint Reduction targets

Land Footprint Reduction targets will be stated in the following form:

Box 8: Formulation of Land Footprint Reduction target.

ABSOLUTE TARGET:

[Company name] commits to reduce absolute agricultural land footprint, from direct

operations [and upstream impacts], [percent reduction]% by [target year] from a [base year]

base year.

INTENSITY TARGET:

[Company name] commits to reduce agricultural land footprint intensity, from direct

operations [and upstream impacts] [reduction]% per [unit] by [target year] from a [base

year] base year. This corresponds to a % change in absolute land footprint by [target

year] from the [base year] base year.”

Land targets: Land footprint reduction

2.5. Why is the Land Footprint Reduction target needed?

Expansion of agriculture, forestry, and other human land uses (e.g., mining, infrastructure) is the leading driver of

natural ecosystem conversion, which in turn drives biodiversity loss and global warming and ultimately undermines

the critical ecosystem services on which humans rely for protection, livelihoods, materials, food, and

freshwater.

47F

48,

48F

49,

49F

Expanding human activity at the expense of natural ecosystems and biodiversity has historically been considered a

precondition for economic development. However, there is an abundance of evidence that it is both possible and

necessary to halt conversion of natural ecosystems and free up hundreds of millions of hectares of agricultural land

for ecosystem restoration, all while providing affordable and nutritious food for the growing global

population.50F

51,

51F

52,

52F

53,

53F

54,

54F

55,

55F

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets, the Paris Agreement, and

the Sustainable Development Goals all rely upon transformation of land systems at this scale.

SBTN Land’s Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems is therefore fundamental for delivering nature, climate,

and sustainable development goals. However, it is also important to set targets to limit or decrease pressure on

natural ecosystems by reducing the amount of land occupied by human activities and to free up land for ecosystem

restoration. This is what the Land Footprint Reduction target seeks to achieve.

SBTN has focused this Version 0.3 Land Footprint Reduction target solely on agricultural land (including cropland

and pastureland) since it is the world’s largest use of land, and there is strong evidence (as summarized in Annex

2a) demonstrating the scale of reductions required in agricultural land occupation for nature and climate goals that

provides a scientific basis for the target.

There is less clear evidence about the extent to which other land-intensive sectors would need to reduce their land

footprints. SBTN will explore the applicability of this target-setting methodology for other major land users in

Version 2.0.

All of these studies show that transformation of land systems at this scale is only possible through more efficient

and sustainable use of land, driven primarily by increased agricultural productivity, reduced food loss and waste

across value chains, and more circular use of natural resources, and—in higher-income regions—shifts toward

healthier, more sustainable and less-land-intensive diets.

Critically, the world will need to use all of the response options to avoid unintended consequences and to manage

potential trade-offs between nature, climate, and sustainable development goals. For example, the need to free up

agricultural land for natural ecosystem restoration to achieve biodiversity and climate goals could either put local

(or even global) food security at risk or lead to unsustainable forms of agricultural intensification that degrade land

or water resources (e.g., through overuse of fertilizers and chemical inputs). Company strategies must therefore be

underpinned by social and environmental safeguards and strong global and local governance. Annex 2b provides a

more detailed discussion of how companies can manage trade-offs and unintended consequences through response

option planning and social safeguards.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2

https://www.fao.org/food-agriculture-statistics/en/

IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 1148

pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/creating-sustainable-food-future_2_5.pdf

https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15873

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2705-y

Land targets: Landscape engagement

3. Target 3:

Landscape Engagement

Land targets: Landscape engagement

This chapter of the SBTN Land Guidance sets out:

1. Information on what is the Landscape Engagement target.

2. Information on how to set, report, and communicate on landscape engagement.

3. Technical annexes and supplementary material articulating the scientific bases of the target and other

supporting materials.

3.1. What is a Landscape Engagement target?

The intention of landscape engagement is to enable regenerative, restorative, and transformational actions in

landscapes that are relevant for a company’s operations and supply chains. The third Land target therefore

complements Target 1 and Target 2, which are focused on avoiding and reduction of impacts. This trio of Land

targets incentivizes actions that span all categories of the SBTN AR

T Framework. Section 3.2.5, “Relationship with

other land, climate, and freshwater targets” presents a more detailed overview of the interconnection that exists

between the three Land targets, and with climate and freshwater science-based targets

56F

The importance of landscape-scale engagement is that it allows for the consideration of multiple objectives of

multiple stakeholders, including nature. Since most landscapes that are material to a company involve a matrix of

different working and natural land cover and use, a landscape-scale engagement helps to determine larger-scale

impacts and dependencies among land use types and the stakeholders (including nature) that rely on natural

resources or processes. Working at the landscape scale to understand the landscape condition, constraints, and

trajectory is the prevailing approach to a theory of change that will allow for a safe and just future for humanity and

nature.

While all the targets included in the current version of this guidance will evolve based on the more-refined methods

of the next version of science-based targets for land (Version 2.0), the Landscape Engagement target will evolve to

include much greater specificity for companies in directing actions considering place-based characteristics. The

Landscape Engagement target allows companies to make progress now on the next version of the Land targets.

Future versions will include quantitative metrics for selected land extent and condition indicators that will be

regionally emergent and relevant. For each of the indicators of land condition, SBTN will identify spatially explicit,

place-based thresholds that will provide the scientific basis on which companies will set locally and globally

relevant Land targets.

While the development of this science continues, the current Landscape Engagement target is focused on company

commitment in landscapes linked to their direct operations or supply chains that will result in a substantial increase

in ecological and social benefits, while creating the enabling environment for achieving these goals. The current

Landscape Engagement target uses existing landscape initiatives as a vehicle to guide the implementation of

corporate actions that must be deployed collectively and at scale to support corporate Landscape Engagement

targets. The urgency of biodiversity loss and land degradation, and the need for collective action at a landscape scale,

now outweighs the importance of precise measurement in the interim.

For this reason, the Landscape Engagement target is broad by design and encompasses a variety of potential actions

that companies and other stakeholders can implement for achieving holistic, multi-objective environmental,

biodiversity, and social outcomes.

The Landscape Engagement target requires companies to:

1. Engage in either

o One landscape initiative that is equivalent to a 10% coverage of the company’s estimated land

impact area footprint.

 The 10% coverage is recommended following the SBTN Step 2 Guidance, which

recommends companies to use the outcome of their land use target boundary rankings

(combined with biodiversity) and to address the top 10% of areas within the target

boundaries for land use or change and/or soil pollution

 The prioritized list of Step 2 should include, for each target boundary, sites that cover at

least 10% of the total direct operations and upstream target boundaries (respectively).

 Two landscape initiatives, regardless of their size, in materially relevant landscapes.

2. Select landscapes following the three approaches to selection of material landscapes listed in section 3.2.1.

3. Evaluate the prioritized landscape initiatives ensuring that these initiatives comply with the minimum

criteria for validated landscape initiatives identified in section 3.2.3.

4. Calculate the baseline status of ecological and social conditions in the selected landscapes using the list of

potential metrics listed in section 3.3.1.

5. Commit to a substantial improvement of the ecological and social condition and metrics of the landscape.

6. Develop an action plan for engagement in the landscape(s).

The landscape engagement target requires elements that are fully compatible and complementary with the LEAP approach and guidance of the TNFD.

Nature target setting is a step in the LEAP process and TNFD recommends Science-based Targets for Nature where applicable. Critically, the SBTN

Landscape engagement target-setting is a means for companies to go beyond assessment and implement their learnings from the LEAP process, to act on

the risks and opportunities identified and track impacts and improvements at landscape scale—beyond their individual supply chains. Furthermore,

landscape engagement can help companies going through the LEAP assessment process as it enables access to existing data from monitoring and

information landscape systems, identifies best practices for targeted landscapes, and builds upon previously established conservation/ restoration efforts.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

For companies that are already investing in landscape initiatives, landscape engagement may provide a simplified,

integrated framework for quantifying and recognizing such contributions. However, the extent to which existing

company actions within landscape initiatives contribute toward their science-based target depends first on their

materiality to the landscape. Actions taken in landscapes that are not materially relevant to a company cannot

satisfy the requirements of the Landscape Engagement target.

Additional guidance for companies on what constitutes a landscape investment or action that could be recognized

by SBTN is provided by ISEAL

and outlines that the landscape investment or action:

1. Addresses critical sustainability issues in the landscape and contributes to agreed landscape goals.

2. Aims to have impacts beyond individual supply chains.

3. Includes support to multi-stakeholder landscape coordination processes.

4. Is embedded in collective action plans, ensuring complementarity with other activities and interventions

in the landscape.

5. Contributes to broader systems level change, helping to create the enabling conditions for achieving

agreed landscape goals.

Therefore, companies that are already involved in selected landscape initiatives must demonstrate both the

materiality and quality of landscape initiatives in which they are currently engaged as well as the minimum land

impact area coverage. It is also important that a commitment to Landscape Engagement under SBTN represents an

acceleration of ambition, not only a recognition of the existing engagement of companies in landscape initiatives.

Here, demonstrating additionality is also key, but not prescriptive, such that increased engagements in existing

material landscapes would likely qualify.

When landscape initiatives are not present in any of the prioritized locations or they do not meet the criteria laid

out in section 3.2.3,“Criteria for validated landscape initiatives”, a company can either present an action plan and

engage existing landscape initiatives for achieving compliance against the criteria and working toward an

improvement plan along the Maturity Matrix (see section 3.2.2, “Screening of landscape readiness”.) or they can

develop new landscape initiatives following the principles laid out by ISEAL.

Social, human, land rights

All actions proposed within a landscape initiative must adhere to social safeguards and follow best practices with

respect to human rights and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and other impacted/affected stakeholders.

Companies must, for example, respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and

engage with stakeholders as equals rather than only as beneficiaries. Companies engaged in science-based targets

must attempt to include all relevant stakeholders in the process, since the respect for human rights and effective

and informed participation is crucial for any landscape initiative’s success (see also Proforest, 2023)

57F

. For

additional guidance please see SBTN’s Stakeholder Engagement Guidance.

SBTN also recognizes that ambitious land targets may bring with them risks of limiting vulnerable producers’ and

smallholders’ opportunities to benefit from corporate supply chains and associated resources. For this reason, it is

important that desired conservation/regeneration outcomes and the equity and rights of local producers and

smallholders in their access to markets are recognized, and potential perverse social outcomes are continuously

evaluated as part of the target validation process.

Therefore, companies should include a preliminary assessment of the potential consequences of their actions to be

implemented in landscape initiatives in their target documentation, to identify any potential for negative or

unintended impacts on people and the environment. Engagement within a multi-stakeholder process can expose

companies to stakeholders that may more clearly see such risks and is a clear benefit of broad stakeholder

engagement within a landscape context as part of a landscape initiative. Here companies can be more aware of

potential trade-offs and consider whether these trade-offs are acceptable or not within the context of the landscape

initiative and land targets.

In the latter case, steps need to be taken to avoid or mitigate these unacceptable outcomes. The company should

then be able to better communicate about any trade-offs and the steps taken to avoid or mitigate any unacceptable

outcomes (see also ISEAL, 2023)

58F

Respecting Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Landscape Initiatives: A Guide for Practitioners on Minimum Safeguards and Evolving Best Practices. 2023.

https://www.proforest.net/fileadmin/uploads/proforest/IPLCs_in_Landscape_Initiatives.pdf

https://www.isealalliance.org/get-involved/resources/joint-landscape-position-papers-20222023

Land targets: Landscape engagement

3.2. How to set a Landscape Engagement target

All companies required to set a Landscape Engagement target (see section i, “How to determine if your company

must set Land

targets”) must follow this summarized procedure to identify target requirements and prepare all

required materials to be submitted for target validation.

1. Selection of landscapes for engagement

a. Use one of two approaches (outlined in more detail in section 3.2.1 below) for prioritization of

landscapes:

Approach 1: Choosing landscapes for engagement in connection with SBTN Steps 1 & 2 and

in connection with Land Footprint Reduction target.

Approach 2: Choosing landscapes for engagement in connection with No Conversion of

Natural Ecosystems target.

b. Evaluate existing candidate prioritized landscape initiatives against the Maturity Matrix and

minimum criteria for landscape investments and actions.

c. Calculate % coverage of land-use impact of selected initiatives.

d. If, while selecting landscapes for engagement, companies are not able to find an existing

landscape initiative in prioritized landscapes, they can set up new initiatives following the key

minimum criteria to be validated in the target validation process.

2. Calculate baseline information of selected landscapes

Using a subset from the list of metrics from section 3.3.1, “List of potential metrics”, calculate the

required baseline information of selected landscapes.

3. Commit to substantial improvement of ecological and social conditions in the landscape

This commitment must be in line with the selected landscape initiative objectives and material land

impacts. Companies commit to substantially increase ecological and social conditions at the landscape

level for the selected landscapes using recommended metrics and stakeholder-defined landscape

initiative objectives.

4. Develop an action plan for engagement in the landscape

a. Companies commit to develop and/or contribute to collective actions within landscape initiatives.

b. Companies assess the potential negative social or environmental impacts from their potential

engagement in the landscape.

c. Companies should choose appropriately aligned indicators to measure and track progress in their

landscape initiatives.

5. Target validation

A company is ready to submit its data for target validation (see section 3.3, “Target validation and

disclosure”). Once the target is approved, a company can make a public statement as outlined in the

SBTN claims guidance.

3.2.1. Selection of material landscapes – two approaches

Two main approaches are outlined below. They provide guidance on how a company will prioritize landscapes for

engagement:

Table 13: Two approaches for selecting material landscapes

Approach 1

Choosing landscapes for engagement in connection with

SBTN Steps 1 & 2 and in connection with Land Footprint

Reduction target.

This approach is for companies who have low levels of

conversion in their operations or supply chains and for

those who have to set a Land Footprint Reduction target.

This approach links back to analysis carried out in Steps 1 &

2 of the SBTN methodology.

Approach 2

Choosing landscapes for engagement in connection with

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

This approach is suitable for companies with signiﬁcant

amounts of conversion within their operations or supply

chain.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

Approach 1. Choose landscapes for engagement in connection with SBTN Steps 1 & 2

For companies who have low levels of conversion in their operations or supply chains, landscape engagement

should be prioritized using Steps 1 & 2 of SBTN’s guidance. This approach must be followed also by companies that

are required to set a Land Footprint Reduction target.

After using the SBTN methods for Step 1: Assess and Step 2: Interpret & Prioritize, companies will have already

estimated their value chain pressures and know where these are occurring.

Using the pressure estimates generated for those sector activities or high-impact commodities for Land Use (km

)

and the associated states in Step 1b: Value chain assessment, companies can choose the landscapes within which to

set Landscape Engagement targets in several ways.

1. For companies who are only setting SBTN Land targets, it is recommended that they use a combination

of Impact of Land Use area and State of Nature assessment approach to determine the top-ranked

landscapes for which to set Landscape Engagement targets.

a. Using the outputs of Step 1b and Step 2, rank landscapes using:

i. Land Use area (km

) and

ii. any combination of terrestrial ecosystem State of Nature (pressure-sensitive and

biodiversity) metrics (e.g., % tree cover, Species Threat Abatement and Restoration

(STAR) metric, etc.) to rank landscapes for potential engagement.

b. Choose a % land area coverage based on the Land Use area for the company supply chain as

appropriate to the company supply chain position.

i. We recommend at least 10% coverage out of the Land Use area of the supply chain of a

company for a validated target.

ii. The number may be higher for production-side companies and lower for demand-side

companies.

iii. In the validation form, companies should disclose the approach to landscape selection

and % coverage including a justification statement for each.

iv. As noted in target validation requirements, when the percentage of coverage is 10% or

more of the total Land Use area, then the requirement on coverage is satisfied.

Otherwise, a company must engage in an additional landscape initiative, for a total of

two, and will satisfy the requirement regardless of the coverage.

2. For companies who are setting multiple targets across water, land, and climate, we recommend an Impact

on Multiple Pressures with State of Nature assessment.

a. Companies should follow the same approach as outlined above, but also add priority water basins

or climate impact landscapes to the analysis.

b. Companies will need to concentrate resources across multiple areas of activity—this approach

allows them to get to scale.

c. Companies should still be transparent about the % coverage and rationale of their Land Use

estimates and State of Nature assessment; however, we recognize that the coverage may be lower

if choosing to focus on places that provide multiple outcomes.

Note: Land Footprint Reduction target does not mandate that the lands taken out of production are restored to

natural lands since these methods cannot hope to capture the tenure and rights contexts of all such lands and due

to data constraints. That said, restoring lands taken out of production to nature is a worthy goal in many contexts,

including as a contribution to a Landscape Engagement target. In addition, a Landscape Engagement target can help

companies and other stakeholders link goals to sustainably boost productivity with goals to protect and/or restore

natural ecosystems in critical landscapes.

Companies who set a Land Footprint Reduction target must use the Landscape Engagement target to align lands

removed from production with local or regional landscape initiatives, as well as the biodiversity (CBD), climate

(UNFCCC), and land degradation (UNCCD) agendas over time.

Companies should report on the % of their land footprint that each landscape initiative is estimated to cover in their

validation submission and track and disclose changes in land footprint related to those landscape initiative(s) over

time.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

Box 9: Example for selection of landscapes using approach 1

For companies who have a low land footprint or already have advanced signiﬁcant sustainability improvements

on their sourcing lands (e.g., 100% Forest Stewardship Council certiﬁcation on ﬁber sourced), it may be more

appropriate for them to prioritize landscapes using the State of Nature assessment.

To comply with this approach, companies should complete the assessment in Steps 1b and 2, and document for

each landscape the improved land management practice or landscape investments already completed in that

landscape. Then use the State of Nature criteria to select landscapes for engagement and document rationale.

Please note that this approach will be accepted for the next 1-2 years of SBTN Land targets.

Once Version 2.0 is launched with the thresholds and translational science to link outcomes to corporate

actions, a company may need to come back and assess whether the sustainable management activities it has

implemented on its sourcing lands are, in fact, enough. This could result in a re-calibration of activities on

sourcing lands to align them with the necessary global biodiversity and nature outcomes.

Approach 2. Choose landscapes for engagement in connection with a No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target

The No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target requires companies to commit to achieving no-conversion across

their operations and supply chain volumes and to make and disclose progress toward that goal. Following this

approach companies will select landscapes based on the assessment of conversion that occurred between the cut-

off date and the date their No Conversion Target is set. These should be landscapes that exhibit the highest levels of

ecosystem conversion.

Landscape initiatives and collaboration between multiple stakeholder groups can help companies in their efforts to

achieve Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems.

Additionally, collective action in landscape initiatives, such as between producers of conversion-driving

commodities, sourcing companies, and local communities and administrations can support the remediation of land

that was converted post cut-off date.

Please see section 3.2.5 for further elaboration on how landscape initiatives can support the achievement of Target

1 on No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems.

3.2.2. Screening of landscape readiness – Maturity Matrix

The Maturity Matrix (see Table 14), produced by CDP in collaboration with SBTN Land Hub, ISEAL, Proforest, and

Tropical Forest Alliance, is built on the core principles of landscape and jurisdictional initiatives

59F

and the key

characteristics of effective corporate engagement.

The key criteria outlined in the Matrix guide companies setting a Landscape Engagement target in assessing and

prioritizing landscape initiatives in which companies will engage.

More broadly, the Matrix can guide company investment and action in landscape initiatives and stimulate the

adoption of transparent reporting systems through which a company can demonstrate its contribution to the

actions and processes that form the core of the initiative.

The key criteria are based on:

1. The scale of the initiative

2. The involvement of multi-stakeholder groups in the process

3. The identification of collective goals and action and investments to be deployed collectively to achieve the

goals

4. The presence of a transparent reporting or information system.

Figure 8 summarizes the criteria in a nested way, recognizing that the scale of an approach is a prerequisite to other

elements of a mature, effective landscape initiative.

Sayer, J., T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J.-L. Pfund, D. Sheil, E. Meijaard, M. Venter, A. K. Boedhihartono, M. Day, C. Garcia, C. van Oosten, and L. E. Buck.

2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 110:8349–8356.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

Figure 8: Summary of key criteria of landscape initiatives - adapted from CDP

Three broad levels of maturity have been defined, considering the four criteria outlined above with more detailed

descriptions of each in Table 14:  

Comprehensive  

• The landscape or jurisdictional initiative is robust enough or at a stage of maturity to deliver lasting

sustainability outcomes based on the collective goals in the landscape or jurisdiction in question.

• Companies engaging in “comprehensive” landscape and jurisdictional initiatives should demonstrate

that the initiatives have adequate conditions for the maintenance/permanence of those elements

secured in time.

Partial

• The landscape or jurisdictional initiative is in an early/mid stage of development and demonstrates that

it is progressing steadily toward maturity.

• These initiatives should comply with the first criteria of scale and companies should demonstrate that

actions/investments are supporting the progress and maturity toward complying with the three

additional criteria.

Uncertain  

• The landscape or jurisdictional initiative is not considered qualifying or mature.

• Initiatives not considered qualifying either do not operate at the scale of a recognized geographic,

administrative, or ecological boundary, or do not demonstrate evidence of addressing or planning to

address the additional three criteria. In these cases, companies are encouraged to set/support the

creation of a landscape initiative that considers the overarching key criteria. 

Land targets: Landscape engagement

Table 14: Landscape and jurisdictional maturity matrix

Criteria Operation at the scale of a

landscape or jurisdiction

Multi-stakeholder

process/platform

Collective goals and actions Transparent reporting or

information system

Comprehensive

Scale of initiative corresponds to a

recognized geographic, administrative,

or ecological boundary.

E.g., the initiative works in a subnational

jurisdiction partnership between three

municipalities that support the

management of a watershed.

Several local stakeholder groups

(civil and government) are

organized and involved in the

design, implementation, and

monitoring. Gender, age and local

and I

ndigenous community

representativity is ensured and

effectively included.

E.g., NGOs, local and Indigenous

communities, local governments,

private sector regularly meet to

collaborate and discuss the

progress and next steps on the

initiative.

Stakeholders have defined collective

goals related to human well-being,

sustainable production (e.g., of high-

impact commodities), and landscape

conservation. Collective actions and

investments are making progress against

the defined goals.

E.g., the landscape stakeholders have

agreed on their collective goals and

actions for sustainable development,

using collaborative workshops for goal-

and target-setting in early project stages.

Assessment baseline and progress

at the landscape scale is tracked by

several involved stakeholders and

is publicly reported through an

information system.

E.g., the company

supported the

establishment assessment

baseline using a recognized global

assessment is now supporting an

independent monitoring system for

the initiative that transparently

tracks progress against the

collective goals.

Partial Scale of

initiative corresponds to a

recognized geographic, administrative,

or ecological boundary.

E.g., the initiative works in a subnational

jurisdiction partnership between three

municipalities that support the

management of a watershed.

Some stakeholder groups are

involved.

E.g., the company collaborates with

an NGO that is supporting the

landscape partnership, with no

local representation or

collaboration with government.

Actions go beyond internal company

objectives and are determined by some

stakeholders, o

r are planned to be

developed collaboratively.

E.g., a company supports the initiative to

improve its traceability and certification

strategy, while also having a designated

conservation area.

Actions are reported by some

stakeholders.

Uncertain Area of

initiative is limited to specific

sourcing plots/plantations of company

interest, covers several geographically

distinct and separate boundaries, or

does not describe any boundary.

Only the reporting company is

involved in the initiative. No

additional sta

keholder groups

participate in the initiative.

Only internal company objectives are

included, or holistic goals have not yet

been determined.

E.g., selected goals and qualitative

responses only address

production/productivity goals.

Only the reporting company carries

out monitoring and internal

reporting for its own goals; there is

not a collective information system

in place.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

3.2.3. Criteria for validated landscape initiatives

The key criteria of landscape initiatives presented in the previous section inform the minimum requirements that

the landscape initiative selected for engagement and presented for target validation must fulfil.

The minimum requirements of landscape initiatives for target validation are:

1. Every landscape or jurisdictional approach must operate at the scale of a recognized ecological area (such

as watershed or land ecosystem) or administrative area (such as states, provinces, municipalities,

districts).

2. T

he visions and needs of relevant stakeholder groups must be included in the design, implementation, and

monitoring of an initiative.

3. There are collective goals and actions for nature and people.

4. There are transparent reporting and presentation/information systems sharing the actions/investments

made in the initiative.

Please note that while these minimum requirements are necessary for the validation of the one or two landscape

initiatives selected for setting a Landscape Engagement target, SBTN recommends companies to:

• engage in initiatives that are not yet mature and follow the guidelines provided in this chapter and in

supplementary material

for improving the maturity of the initiatives; and

• establish new landscape initiatives beyond target requirements, as multi-stakeholder, collective action will be

crucial in achieving science-based targets for nature at scale.

3.2.4. Establishing and improving landscape initiatives

In situations where the landscape initiatives prioritized do not meet the criteria for validation or when landscape

initiatives are not present in the prioritized locations, companies can either present an action plan and work toward

changing the initiatives for compliance against the Maturity Matrix, or they can develop new landscape initiatives

by following a list of mandatory criteria and working toward an improvement plan along the Maturity Matrix.

Considering ISEAL’s position papers

60F

and CDP’s Maturity Matrix, a new landscape initiative needs to be set up

following these principles:

1. Operation at the scale of a landscape or jurisdiction

o Every landscape or jurisdictional approach should operate at the scale of a recognized ecological

area (such as watershed or land ecosystem) or administrative area (such as states, provinces,

municipalities, districts).

2. Goals are defined with local multi-stakeholder input

o Companies should focus their investments and actions on the sustainability issues and goals that

are most relevant in the respective landscape. Companies should not define in isolation which

issues and goals are most relevant but be informed by input from an inclusive and representative

cross-section of stakeholders in the landscape, including, where present, Indigenous Peoples and

local communities.

3. Demonstration of contribution to collective goals and actions

o Companies should be able to set up the new initiative in a way that they can demonstrate a

reasonable and substantial link between their investments or actions and one or more of the

agreed landscape goals.

o An effective landscape or jurisdictional initiative should determine and act on multiple goals

shared among relevant stakeholders, addressing sustainable production (such as commodities),

human well-being, and landscape conservation.

4. Transparent reporting or information system

o It is expected that companies provide transparent reporting on their contribution in landscape

initiatives or present an information system on the actions/investments made in the initiative.

SBTN acknowledges that the monitoring of performance in landscape initiatives is more often

implemented by the initiatives and their implementing partners.

o According to CDP disclosure insights, this criterion is usually the least developed on corporate

engagements in landscape initiatives due to the level of coordination it requires with all of the

above criteria.

o An indicator of progress on this criterion includes using specific landscape-level assessment

tools such as LandScale, Source-up, and the activity framework of the Forest Positive Coalition,

among others.

In general, companies should seek to improve conditions in the landscape as a whole, rather than work only for a

specific set of producers or enterprises. Landscape investments and actions should complement supply chain

investments by creating a more resilient environment and better conditions for the long-term well-being of local

communities.

To make sure landscape initiatives achieve their objectives, companies can initiate or contribute to a varied range

of activities and actions in collaboration and alignment with a landscape initiative. Companies’ actions can range

from avoidance and reduction of pressures on nature loss, to restoration and regeneration of the state of nature

https://www.isealalliance.org/get-involved/resources/joint-landscape-position-papers-20222023

Land targets: Landscape engagement

(e.g., the extent and integrity of ecosystems and species extinction risk), and the transformation of underlying

socio-economic systems at multiple levels to address the drivers of degradation and nature loss. All of these

approaches will be instrumental in successfully achieving landscape scale objectives.

3.2.5. Relationship with other land, climate and freshwater targets

All of the SBTN Land targets are designed to work together to incentivize the action and engagement that companies

will implement to contribute to regional and global nature goals. These actions span all categories of the SBTN AR

Framework. Companies that engage in material landscapes will avoid the conversion of natural ecosystems in line

with the first land target and Approach 2. Large agricultural companies that are required to set a Land Footprint

Reduction target will link the land taken out of production with the broader landscape goals as defined by landscape

initiatives in which they engage. Companies that are required to set all three of the Land targets should be able to

demonstrate how these targets work together within a landscape scale, even if additional actions on No Conversion

of Natural Ecosystems and Land Footprint Reduction take place across their entire value chains.

Landscape Engagement and Target 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems

Engaging in landscape initiatives through collective actions will help companies in their efforts to achieve Target 1:

No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems.

Landscape engagement is widely considered to be a key success factor for tackling deforestation and conversion of

natural ecosystems

61F

62F

by addressing local drivers of conversion, driving collective action, ensuring that efforts to

halt the conversion of natural ecosystems also deliver outcomes for local communities, and reducing the risk of

leakage, for example by:

• Bringing together companies from different sectors

• Expanding action beyond the scale of individual operational sites

• Building partnerships with local communities and with local administration

• Considering local needs

• Protecting livelihoods and human rights

• Planning collectively for land-use

• Providing choices that protect remaining natural ecosystems

• Remediating conversion since cut-off date

Landscape Engagement and Target 2: Land Footprint Reduction

Companies that set a Land Footprint Reduction target must appropriately balance the need to use land more

efficiently with avoiding unsustainable forms of agricultural intensification (e.g., overuse of fertilizers and chemical

inputs) that would reduce the ecological integrity of the landscape and would therefore conflict with outcomes of

the Landscape Engagement target.

Landscape engagement offers a framework in which the land freed up to achieve a Land Footprint Reduction target

is used for achieving broader nature and climate goals. For instance, it may be possible to restore land removed

from agricultural production, which can have positive impacts on ecological integrity, biodiversity, soil quality, and

freshwater quality, and can increase carbon sequestration.

It follows, that in the context of landscape engagement, a company’s efforts to reduce its land footprint and/or

increase agricultural productivity can support the achievement of other environmental goals for which it can gain

recognition. For instance, where data are available and where there is a clear link to a landscape-level initiative,

companies can report how many hectares are liberated for nature, for the establishment of ecological corridors, the

increase of ecosystem connectivity, the support of human rights to cultural heritage, the restoration or historical

tenure, in support of human health, or many other possibilities. The company can also show how its actions are

contributing to food security while simultaneously contributing to ecosystem protection and restoration in

important landscapes.

Landscape Engagement and climate targets

The Land targets can support the achievement of climate targets (see Annex 3 for a preliminary overview of action

that can positively contribute to the achievement of multiple targets) and limit trade-offs and unintended

consequences that could emerge from the implementation of climate action without the consideration of impacts

that this may have on nature. The integration of climate and nature at the target-setting level incentivizes

approaches that can assess trade-offs and find optimal solutions to corporate investments in nature and climate

targets. For example, a climate-only lens might lead to fast-growing, monoculture, non-native tree planting for

rapid carbon sequestration where land is relatively cheap (i.e., the biodiversity-rich tropical belt). This may have

disastrous impacts on water availability, biodiversity loss, and resilience.

The Landscape Engagement target can ensure that activities such as restoration are linked with what nature and

people need in a specific landscape.

Relationship with Freshwater targets

https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/news_updates/landscape-engagement-is-key-to-tackling-deforestation-says-cgf-sustainability-

director/

http://forestsolutions.panda.org/solutions/landscape-approaches

Land targets: Landscape engagement

The Landscape Engagement target can also form an integral part of the target-setting process of the SBTN

Freshwater targets. If a company is planning to set a Landscape Engagement target in the same basin where it is

using a local model to set Freshwater Quantity/Quality targets, then it should first follow the necessary steps for

setting a Freshwater target, by following sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the SBTN Freshwater Guidance. When using a

local model for Freshwater targets, in fact, a company is setting freshwater targets that are based on hydrological

and/or freshwater quality models specific to a given basin (i.e., developed for that basin). These are paired with

locally based thresholds, emphasizing those which are recognized by the local basin management authority or water

resources management agency. Stakeholder engagement is a critical part of ensuring that the model and threshold

chosen are appropriate and compatible with corporate data, and it therefore strongly aligns with and complements

several requirements of the Landscape Engagement target in this guidance.

Companies should make sure they provide the necessary Freshwater documentation as part of their validation

submission, before continuing with the Landscape Engagement target.

3.3. Target validation and disclosure

To begin the target validation process, companies must submit to SBTN:

1. ISIC sector classification(s) describing their direct operations and upstream activities.

2. Data required in section ii, “Data requirements to set Land targets”.

3. Demonstrated engagement with one landscape initiative that covers 10% of land use impact (as defined in

Step 2) OR demonstrated engagement in two landscape initiatives.

4. Descriptive rationale of the process chosen for the selection of priority landscapes.

5. Results of the screening of readiness status of landscape initiatives selected using the Maturity Matrix (see

section 3.2.2). Landscape initiatives must satisfy the following minimum requirements:

i. Operate at the scale of a recognized ecological area (such as watershed or land

ecosystem) or administrative area (such as states, provinces, municipalities, districts).

ii. Include the needs of relevant stakeholder groups in the design, implementation, and

monitoring of an initiative.

iii. Have clear collective goals that go beyond a company’s objectives and are determined

through a multi-stakeholder process.

iv. Have transparent reporting and presentation/information systems sharing the

actions/investments made in the initiative.

6. Demonstrated engagement within an iterative process of stakeholder consultation that includes relevant

parties as needed.

7. Evidence that an adequate and impartial assessment of needs of local communities has taken place within

this stakeholder consultation.

8. Alignment of corporate actions with community needs and objectives resulting from the stakeholder

consultation process.

9. Measurement of the baseline status of landscape ecological and social conditions.

3.3.1. List of potential metrics – baselining for ecological and social conditions

SBTN acknowledges the variety of indicators, metrics and indexes that can be used to assess ecological and social

conditions in landscapes. While further scientific development and ground testing are needed to identify a specific

set of indicators to inform the next version of Land targets based on spatially explicit thresholds, companies setting

a Landscape Engagement target will assess the use of an appropriate set of metrics to be selected according to the

needs of specific locations and in collaboration with other stakeholder groups involved in the initiative. Companies

should therefore be able to define and select local metrics to report on key issues for the local context.

Below in Table 15 a non-exhaustive list of potential metrics is presented.

The list has been compiled based on availability and usability, and it is the outcome of a selection from SBTN

methods and several commonly used landscape assessment frameworks, such as LandScale Assessment

Framework

63F

, Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM)64F

, and Landscape Reporting

Framework from GCF

65F

. The list also includes metrics from the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework monitoring

guidance.

https://www.landscale.org/assessment-framework/

https://www.wri.org/research/restoration-opportunities-assessment-methodology-roam

https://www.proforest.net/fileadmin/uploads/proforest/Documents/Landscape_Action_Progress_Reporting_Framework_2022.pdf

Land targets: Landscape engagement

Table 15: List of potential metrics for ecological and social conditions

Indicator Topic Metric

1.1

Ecosystems

Proportion of target boundary A land area under productive and

sustainable land management.

1.2

Ecosystems

Total area (ha) within the engaged landscape (s) of natural lands

converted since 2020 (SBTN Natural Lands Map).

1.3

Ecosystems

Total area (ha) of land classified as Core Natural Lands for the No

Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target.

1.4

Ecosystems

Total area (ha) “under restoration” in the landscape.

1.5

Ecosystems

Coverage (in % out of total area in the landscape) of protected

areas and other effective conservation measures (OECMs).

1.6

Ecosystems

Total area (ha) and percentage (%) of natural ecosystems in the

landscape that are currently degraded

1.7

Ecosystems

Biodiversity risk assessment including dependencies and impacts

using WWF’s Biodiversity Risk Filter.

1.8

Ecosystems

Water risk assessment using the WWF Water Risk Filter or WRI

Aqueduct.

1.9

Ecosystems

Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) score at the

landscape scale (using freely available 5 km2 resolution data).

1.10

Ecosystems

Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) score at the

landscape scale (using finer resolution data through data

purchased through an Integrated Biodiversity A

ssessment Tool

subscription).

1.11

Ecosystems

Services provided by ecosystems or an assessment of critical

natural assets.

1.12

Ecosystems

Total climate regulation services provided by ecosystems by

ecosystem type (System of Environmental Economic Accounts).

1.13

Ecosystems

Carbon stocks and annual net GHG emissions, by land-use

category, split by natural and non-natural land cover.

2.1

Governance

Number of stakeholder groups involved, (i.e.: Representatives of

local communities; Representatives of producers;

Representatives of government; Representatives of Indigenous

Peoples (if applicable); others.)

2.2

Governance

Type of governance implemented in the landscape initiative does

- full, equitable, inclusive, effective, and gender-

responsive

representation and participation in decision-

making, including a

gender-action plan.

2.3

Governance

Number of unresolved land and resource conflicts or

grievances

66F

, and the area of land (ha) subject to such conflicts

2.4

Governance

User-defined metric(s) on access & use rights for key natural

resources in the landscape

2.5

Governance

Number of stakeholder organizations with full, equitable,

inclusive, effective, and gender-

responsive representation and

participation in decision-making, including a gender-action plan.

2.6

Governance

Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to

land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who

perceive their rights to land as secure, by gen

der and type of

tenure.

3.1

Health and Wellbeing

Percentage (%) of female and male population living below the

local poverty line (or, if this is not specified, earning <$1.90/day)

3.2

Health and Wellbeing

Percentage (%) of girls and boys that are undernourished

3.3

Health and Wellbeing

Percentage (%) of households without electricity

3.4

Health and Wellbeing

Number of farmers realizing additional benefits and income

streams

3.5

Health and Wellbeing

Percentage (%) of households without access to safe drinking

water within a 15-minute walk from home

For good practice of grievance mechanism, please also see: https://www.isealalliance.org/get-involved/resources/grievance-mechanisms-briefing-

note-twentyfifty-bonsucro-rjc

Land targets: Landscape engagement

In addition to the potential metrics listed above, companies may also consider the use of composite indexes to

measure the ecological condition in landscapes, such as the Ecosystem Integrity Index (EII) and SEED

Biocomplexity Index, among others.

EII is being developed by UNEP-WCMC

67F

and provides an index of the structure, composition, and function of

ecosystems within a defined boundary.

68F

SEED is a multi-composite index that monitors and measures biodiversity at scale and it attempts to put together

the variation that exists within species (genetic diversity), between species (species diversity) and across

ecosystems (ecosystem diversity). Both indexes are currently under development and further guidance will be given

in future versions of the guidance.

3.4. Template statement for Landscape Engagement targets

Landscape Engagement targets will be stated in the following form:

Box 10: Formulation of No Conversion of Landscape Engagement target. “substantial improvement” will be explored during the

pilot phase

[Company name] is engaged in [initiative name] and committed to a substantial improvement in

ecological and social conditions by 2030.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.21.504707v1.full

Please see the supplementary material for more information about the use of the EII in landscapes.

Land targets: Landscape engagement

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems

a. Conversion-driving commodities list

Table 16: Global land conversion-driving commodities that are relevant across biomes

Soft commodities

Source

Cassava

Phalan, 2013

69F

; Jayathilake, 2021

70F

Pendrill, 2022

71F

Cattle pasture (beef/ dairy/ leather)

Multiple sources

Cocoa Multiple sources

Coﬀee

Hoang, 2021

72F

Maize

Multiple sources

Oil Palm

Multiple sources

Rice

Multiple sources

Rubber

Multiple sources

Sorghum

Phalan, 2013

73F

Soybeans

Multiple sources

Sugarcane Phalan, 201374F

; Dryad, 202075F

Timber/wood ﬁber

Multiple sources

Wheat

Multiple sources

Activities/applications

Source

Biofuels (ethanol, solid biomass, etc.)

Multiple sources

Feed for animal protein—cattle, pork, chicken, aquaculture,

etc.

Multiple sources

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

Pendrill, F., T. A. Gardner, P. Meyfroidt, U. M. Persson, J. Adams, T. Azevedo, M. G. Bastos Lima, M. Baumann, P. G. Curtis, V. De Sy, R. Garrett, J. Godar,

E. D. Goldman, M. C. Hansen, R. Heilmayr, M. Herold, T. Kuemmerle, M. J. Lathuillière, V. Ribeiro, A. Tyukavina, M. J. Weisse, and C. West. 2022.

Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377:eabm9267.

Hoang, Nguyen Tien and Kanemoto, Keiichiro. ‘Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests,’ Nature

Ecology & Evolution, VOL 5, June 2021, 845-853.

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020 as part of project for WWF contract identifying

the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

Table 17: Regional land conversion-driving commodities that are relevant to a particular region or biome

Soft commodities Source

Avocados Dryad, 202076F

Banana Meyfroidt, 2014

77F

; Jayathilake, 202178F

Beans Phalan, 201379F

Buckwheat Plowprint, 202280F

Camelina Plowprint, 202281F

Canola Plowprint, 202282F

Charcoal, commercial Jayathilake, 202183F

Coconut Dryad, 202084F

; Jayathilake, 202185F

Cotton Dryad, 202086F

Cowpeas Phalan, 201387F

Grapes Plowprint, 202288F

Groundnut Phalan, 201389F

Millet Phalan, 201390F

Mustard Plowprint, 202291F

Onions Plowprint, 202292F

Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020 as part of project for WWF contract identifying

the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

Meyfroidt, Patrick, et al. ‘Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes,’ Environmental Research Letter, 9 (2014)

074012 (13pp).

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020 as part of project for WWF contract identifying

the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020 as part of project for WWF contract identifying

the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS

ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

Pineapple Meyfroidt, 2014

93F

Potato Plowprint, 202294F

Radishes Plowprint, 202295F

Rye Plowprint, 202296F

Safflower Plowprint, 202297F

Speltz Plowprint, 202298F

Sugar beets Plowprint, 202299F

100

; Dryad, 2020100F

101

Triticale Plowprint, 2022101F

102

Vetch Plowprint, 2022102F

103

Hard commodities Source

Bauxite Luckeneder, 2021103F

104

Coal, surface mining Yu, 2018104F

105

Copper Luckeneder, 2021105F

106

Gold Luckeneder, 2021106F

107

Iron Luckeneder, 2021107F

108

Lead Luckeneder, 2021108F

109

Manganese Luckeneder, 2021109F

110

Nickel Luckeneder, 2021110F

111

Palladium SBTN HICL, 2022111F

112

Meyfroidt, Patrick, et al. ‘Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes,’ Environmental Research Letter, 9 (2014)

074012 (13pp).

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

100

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

101

Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020 as part of project for WWF contract identifying

the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

102

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

103

WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022

104

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

105

Yu, Le, et al. ‘Monitoring surface mining belts using multiple remote sensing datasets: a global perspective,’ Ore Geology Reviews, Volume 101, October

2018, Pages 675-687.

106

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

107

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

108

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

109

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

110

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

111

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

112

McCraine, Samantha, et al. SBTN High Impact Commodity List, draft form 2022. Excel file shared via email.

Platinum SBTN HICL, 2022

112F

113

Silver Luckeneder, 2021113F

114

Zinc Luckeneder, 2021114F

115

Activities/applications Source

Urban/settlement and infrastructure development Jayathilake, 2021115F

116

Hydroelectric dam development WWF, Deforestation Fronts

116F

117

Oil and gas exploration Jayathilake, 2021117F

118

References

● Henders, Sabine, et al, ‘Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production

and exports of forest-risk commodities,’ 2015 Environ. Res. Lett. 10 125012.

● Hoang, Nguyen Tien and Kanemoto, Keiichiro. ‘Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals

growing threat to tropical forests,’ Nature Ecology & Evolution, VOL 5, June 2021, 845-853.

● Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation

landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

● Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global

Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

● McCraine, Samantha, et al. SBTN High Impact Commodity List, draft form 2022. Excel file shared via email.

● Meyfroidt, Patrick, et al. ‘Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes,’

Environmental Research Letter, 9 (2014) 074012 (13pp).

● Pendrill, Florence, et al. ‘Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation

emissions,’ Global Environmental Change, 56 (2019) 1-10.

● Phalan B, Bertzky M, Butchart SHM, Donald PF, Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2013) Crop Expansion and

Conservation Priorities in Tropical Countries. PLoS ONE 8(1): e51759. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051759

● Quantis, Dryad model for deforestation based on FAO production and crop expansion data. Accessed 2020

as part of project for WWF contract identifying the deforestation driving commodities for Project Gigaton.

● WWF, 2022 PlowPrint Report, 2022.

● WWF, Pacheco, P., Mo, K., Dudley, N., Shapiro, A., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Ling, P.Y., Anderson, C. and

Marx, A. 2021. Deforestation fronts: Drivers and responses in a changing world. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

● Yu, Le, et al. ‘Monitoring surface mining belts using multiple remote sensing datasets: a global

perspective,’ Ore Geology Reviews, Volume 101, October 2018, Pages 675-687.

113

McCraine, Samantha, et al. SBTN High Impact Commodity List, draft form 2022. Excel file shared via email.

114

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

115

Luckeneder, Sebastian, et al. ‘Surge in global metal mining threatens vulnerable ecosystems,’ Global Environmental change, 69 (2021) 102303.

116

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

117

WWF, Pacheco, P., Mo, K., Dudley, N., Shapiro, A., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Ling, P.Y., Anderson, C. and Marx, A. 2021. Deforestation fronts: Drivers

and responses in a changing world. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

118

Jayathilake, H. Manjari, et al. ‘Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes,’ Royal Swedish Academy of Science.

Ambio 2021, 50:215-228.

b. First point of aggregation

The data requirements within the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems target differ based on a company’s value

chain position(s) and proximity to the site of soft commodity harvest/production or hard commodity extraction

(e.g., “the cradle” in life cycle assessment (LCA) terminology).

While “producers and site owners/operators” are clearly defined, as they own and/or operate the land where

production/harvest and extraction occur, companies sourcing from producers and from “first point of aggregation”

are less defined. These actors are key for spatially explicit target setting, as they should theoretically have

traceability to the production or extraction site (where targets will be implemented). We understand that not all

companies at the first point of aggregation have traceability for all supply chains at this time—the intention is for

this to be a stretch goal for companies to implement over time. Increased transparency at the front end of supply

chains will benefit companies further down the supply chain (closer to retail, consumers, and asset management)

who can assess risk and take actions to align their supply chain with their stated goals.

Table 18 defines SBTN first point of aggregation for global conversion-driving commodities. For regional

conversion-driving commodities, a consultation is currently ongoing. The proposed commodity-specific first point

of aggregation will be tested during the upcoming piloting phase with the help of the companies within the initial

target validation group that are piloting the land methods.

Table 18: STBN's suggestion for first point of aggregation

Global conversion-driving

commodities

First Point of Aggregation

(The suggested point of aggregation will be tested and refined during the pilot

phase with the support of piloting companies)

Cattle pasture (Beef/Dairy/Leather) Meat Packing & Processing Facilities, Milk & Dairy Processing Facilities

Cocoa Refineries and Grinders

Coffee Processing (Drying to Grinding beans)

Maize Wet & Dry Milling

Oil Palm Palm oil mill and collection port

Rice Rice Mill (Cleaning & Husking)

Rubber Rubber Dealer/First Processing

Sorghum Milling

Soybeans Crushing Facilities

Sugarcane Sugar mills

Timber/Wood Fiber Timber Mill/Pulp Production Facility

Wheat Milling Facilities

Biofuels (Ethanol, Solid Biomass, etc.)

Depending on feedstock, align with first point of aggregation above by

commodity

Feed for Animal Protein –

Cattle, Pork, Chicken, Aquaculture, etc.

Feed Mixing & Pellet Processing Facility

c. Accounting for land use change

Accounting for land use change at the level of the production unit

Monitoring land use change (LUC) at the level of production units (e.g., farms, plantations, and forest management

units) or project sites (e.g., mining sites, construction sites) provides the greatest amount of precision about the

impact of company operations and supply chains and is the best way to determine whether products or sites are

linked to recent deforestation or conversion. Accounting for LUC at this level requires known and mapped locations

of the given production units, demarcated by georeferenced boundaries. The role of any given company in

monitoring and accounting for LUC at the site level may differ depending on its position(s) in the supply chain.

Upstream supply chain actors (i.e., producers, primary processors, and traders with visibility to the production unit)

are in a position to monitor on-the-ground conditions. They should directly monitor and document LUC and

furnish downstream buyers with information about LUC associated with the products being sold. Downstream

companies that purchase commodities or derived products may assess recent deforestation and conversion at the

site level by gathering data collected by their suppliers, monitoring known production sites directly using spatially

explicit remote sensing data, or using third-party certification schemes with chain of custody models that provide

traceability to origin.

Companies should apply the following steps to account for LUC and associated emissions at the scale of the

production unit:

1. Identify the spatial boundaries of production units owned or managed by the company or known to produce

materials in a company’s supply chain.

2. Identify LUC events that have occurred within the spatial boundary since the cut-off date and during the

emissions assessment period. Deforestation and conversion identified since the cut-off date should be reported

through appropriate indicators. If there has been no deforestation or conversion on a production unit since the cut-

off date, then product volumes from that production unit may be considered deforestation/conversion-free.

Accounting for land use change at an area level

It is sometimes not possible or appropriate to assess conversion of natural ecosystems at the scale of specific

production units in a company’s supply chain. In these cases, both supply chain deforestation/conversion and scope

3 LUC emissions may be accounted for at the scale of a sourcing area in which production units are located.

Depending on the location, production context, and commodity, a sourcing area may be the supply-shed of a

processing facility (such as a radius surrounding a palm oil mill), a production landscape (such as the area

encompassing a smallholder cooperative), or a subnational jurisdiction.

Assessments at an area level serve as a proxy for direct LUC, and emissions accounting uses statistical LUC (sLUC)

methods. By providing an estimate of LUC potentially allocated to a given product, sLUC inherently also considers

some amount of indirect LUC—that is, pressure by expansion of one commodity that may lead to LUC for another

commodity (see section 4.5 of AFi’s guidance

When land use change may be assessed at the level of a sourcing area

Accounting for deforestation and conversion associated with agricultural and forest commodities at the scale of a

sourcing area may be appropriate in a range of circumstances, including when:

• Downstream companies do not have physical traceability to the production unit level and may therefore

need to monitor LUC at the sourcing area level as the best available option. In this case, the sourcing area

should be the smallest geographic area from which commodity volume is known to originate, and

companies should also take steps to increase traceability of these volumes.

• A sourcing area is the most relevant scale for managing deforestation and conversion risk, for example

where:

o Upstream companies such as primary processors source commodity volumes from a specified

radius or source-shed around their facilities without maintaining long-term buying

relationships with specific producers.

o Companies source from smallholder producers whose materials are aggregated at the level of a

co-op or collection point and where further traceability is not possible.

• Companies source from jurisdictions or landscapes where it can be shown that there has been no or

negligible recent conversion. In these cases, companies may find it cost-effective to monitor

deforestation/conversion at the level of such areas. Doing so requires regular monitoring to assess or

confirm the risk status of these jurisdictions and identify any changes in risk status.

Methods to allocate land use change in a sourcing area to commodity volumes (AFi Guidance)

There are many approaches to allocating area-level data on LUC to commodity volumes sourced from that area, and

improved data and methodologies are rapidly being developed. All such methods utilize remote sensing data

repeated over the relevant time frames as well as statistics about agricultural production and land use in the area.

Land use change included in the allocation process: It is recommended that, when allocating LUC at an area level to

specific commodity volumes, all LUC that may be related to agriculture (for crop or livestock products) or forestry

(for forest products) is included in the analysis. Consideration of all agriculture- or forestry-related LUC allows

companies and others to best account for varied LUC trajectories or indirect LUC pressures, providing an

appropriately conservative approach to allocation.

Time frame of land use change included in the allocation process: When accounting for LUC emissions, the 20-year

or longer assessment period should be used to calculate LUC to be allocated. When accounting for deforestation and

conversion, the cut-off date should be used to calculate the LUC to be allocated. When a sectoral or commitment

cut-off date does not exist, a fixed reference date should be specified that is not later than 2020 and is recommended

to be at least five years prior to the reporting year.

Allocation approaches

The GHGP provides two recommended approaches for allocating LUC in each area:

1. Allocation based on land occupation

2. Allocation based on commodity expansion.

Table 19 provides descriptions of these two approaches, and Chapters 7 and 17 of the draft Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Land Sector and Removals Guidance provides additional detail on applying allocation methods to LUC emissions.

Table 19: Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s approaches to allocation of land use change at the level of a sourcing area.

Basis for allocation

Method

Data needs specific to

allocation approach

Data needs common to both

allocation approaches

Relative land occupation

Called “shared responsibility

approach” by GHG Protocol

Allocate recent land use

change across products

based on the relative land

area occupied by each

product

Total land area in agriculture

and/or forestry in sourcing

area

Amount of land area in

production for commodity of

interest in sourcing area

Area of LUC in sourcing area

• Deforestation/conversion

associated with agriculture

and/or forestry since

cuto date

• Associated LUC emissions

for each year of

assessment period

Quantity of commodity of interest

produced in the area

Quantity of commodity of interest

sourced by the company from the

area

Relative product expansion

Called “product expansion

approach” by GHG Protocol

Allocate recent land use

change across products

based on the relative area

of expansion for each

product

Total area of expansion of

agriculture and/or forestry

production since cuto date

and in each year of the

assessment period

Expansion of production area

of commodity of interest

since cuto date and in each

year of the assessment period

Other allocation methods may be used if they meet the above criterion of considering all agricultural- or forestry-

related LUC in the sourcing area. In particular, when commodities are a relatively small component of land use in

an area, other more context-specific approaches may be warranted. Allocation approaches based on product-

specific conversion—those which only consider LUC on land currently used for the production of a given

commodity—may not effectively account for LUC trajectories in a sourcing area and therefore may not be credible.

Such methods may be assessed through the piloting process of the GHGP Land Sector and Removals Guidance, and

determination of whether this approach (called “spatially explicit sLUC approaches” by the GHGP) will be

acceptable for LUC emissions accounting will be made following that period. In all cases, the method and data

sources used to allocate LUC and associated emissions to products within a sourcing area should be clearly disclosed.

Steps for accounting for land use change at the level of a sourcing area

Companies should apply the following steps to account for LUC and associated emissions at the level of a sourcing

area:

1. Select an appropriate spatial boundary based on physical traceability of the product to a given area, for

example a sourcing region or subnational jurisdiction.

2. Use suitable data products to identify all areas within the spatial boundary where land use has changed

from a forest or other natural ecosystem to agriculture or plantation forestry since the cut-off date (for

deforestation/conversion accounting) and within the assessment period (for LUC emissions

accounting).

3. Allocate deforestation and conversion identified since the cut-off date to product volumes, using one of

the approaches identified in Table 19 or a similar credible method.

● Deforestation/conversion footprint should be reported through appropriate indicators (see

section 1.4), along with information on allocation methods and data sources.

● If no LUC is identified within a given sourcing area, then volumes sourced from that area may be

considered deforestation/conversion-free (see section 4.6 of AFi’s guidance

Box 11: Comparison with cut-off dates for land-use change (LUC) emissions accounting

LUC emissions accounting and target setting (guided by the GHG Protocol and SBTi FLAG, respectively)

requires companies to measure LUC and corresponding emissions based on a retrospective assessment period

of 20 years or longer, starting from the reporting year and looking back in time.

If products have a crop cycle or rotation period greater than 20 years, then the assessment period should be at

least as long as the crop rotation period. The length of the assessment period reﬂects the average time that it

takes for soil carbon stocks to reach a new equilibrium following land use or conversion, and takes into

consideration diverse LUC trajectories.

The GHG Protocol and SBTi FLAG guidance allows for ﬂexibility in the approach used to allocate the total LUC

emissions over the assessment period. Speciﬁcally, companies may choose to apply either linear discounting or

equal discounting over time. See Chapter 7 of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance

for more detail.

The longer time frame included in LUC emissions for GHG accounting is based on how long emissions from

ecosystem conversion remain in the global emissions budget. However, this calculation does not provide

guidance on when that land conversion should stop, only the length of time that emissions must be reﬂected in

the GHG inventory. The 2020 cut-o for SBTN Land’s no-conversion target acts independently of this GHG

accounting guidance and provides a cut-o date for conversion of natural ecosystems aligned with the (draft)

Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

d. How to consult the SBTN Natural Lands Map

How to use the map to calculate conversion of natural ecosystems after 2020

This section provides guidance on how a company can consult the map to calculate conversion of natural ecosystems

based on direct measurements or statistical calculation of conversion. There are different prerequisites and

associated pathways for companies at different stages of supply chains.

Producers and project site owners and operators

Producers and project site owners/operators are required to collect data (as per section ii, “Data requirements to set

Land targets”) on their production units and recent conversion occurring after the 2020 baseline year.

With the data collected, companies can overlap the spatial data displaying recent conversion with the map. The map

will allow a company to identify whether the conversion that occurred is of natural ecosystems or other non-natural

land.

The conversion of natural ecosystems that has occurred must be disclosed to SBTN and transparently reported via

CDP Forests (as best practice) or following Global Reporting Initiative requirements.

All conversion of natural ecosystems that has happened after 2020 must be remediated based on forthcoming

remediation guidance.

Sourcing from producers or from first point of aggregation

Companies who are sourcing commodities and products driving conversion from producers or from the first point

of aggregation (Annex 1b) are required to collect data (as per section ii, “Data requirements to set Land targets”) on

production units or sourcing areas. When accounting directly for conversion through a production unit’s spatial

data, companies can consult the map following the same procedure used by producers.

Companies using data on sourcing areas must follow the accounting guidance for estimating the area converted

using statistical LUC methods.

For a given sourcing area, data on conversion must be retrieved. All conversion must be assessed through the map

to understand the hectares of natural ecosystems converted. Allocation methods presented in the accounting

guidance must be used to allocate responsibility of conversion to a given company.

Sourcing from downstream the first point of aggregation

Companies who are sourcing commodities or products driving conversion downstream from the first point of

aggregation are required to collect data (as per section ii, “Data requirements to set Land targets”). For volumes

traceable to production units, companies can consult the map using the same procedure defined for producers. For

volumes traceable to sourcing areas, companies can consult the map following the same procedure used by

producers.

For volumes that are not yet traceable and/or highly transformed, companies cannot use the map to assess and

quantify conversion of natural ecosystems. In this case, companies are asked to collect data on the volumes

purchased of all commodities and products containing them and disclose them following best practices in disclosure

(section 1.4).

ANNEX 2: Land Footprint Reduction

a. The relative merit of absolute versus intensity approaches and justification for SBTN Land’s

approach for version 0.3

This section provides information on the scientific basis of the absolute and intensity Land Footprint Reduction

target options and explores the benefits and challenges of each approach.

The Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) approach

SBTi allocates responsibility for climate mitigation based on convergence or contraction approaches (see Figure 13).

For the convergence approach, all companies in a given sector reduce their emissions intensity to a common value

by a given year as dictated by a global temperature pathway. For example, power sector companies reduce their

emissions intensity per kWh produced to the same value. For the contraction approach, all companies reduce their

absolute or economic intensity emissions at the same rate, regardless of baseline performance. For example, the

power companies may each reduce their emissions intensity by a common percentage but arrive at different

absolute values.

118F

119

Source for the figure: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations-of-SBT-setting.pdf

Absolute contraction approach for Land Footprint Reduction

Applying this concept to Land Footprint Reduction, all companies reduce their agricultural land footprint at the

same rate (determined by the global IPCC target for agricultural footprint reduction), regardless of sector baseline

performance (see Figure 10).

119

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations-of-SBT-setting.pdf

Figure 9: SBTi's allocation approaches (adapted from SBTi)

Figure 10: SBTN Method for Absolute Land Footprint Reduction

Companies setting absolute land footprint reduction targets would reduce their absolute land footprint at a linear

rate of 0.35% per year, or by 3.5% by 2030, from a 2020 base year, and by 10.6% by 2050 from a 2020 base year.

This method is a simple, straightforward approach to set and track progress toward targets that is applicable to

the agriculture sector. Table 20 summarizes the inputs and outputs of the method.

Table 20: Characteristics of the absolute reduction approach

Method

Company Input

Method Output

Absolute Reduction

♦ Base year

♦ Target year

♦ Base year agricultural land

occupation (“land footprint” or

“terrestrial ecosystem use”),

disaggregated by direct

operations versus upstream

impacts (SBTN Step 1 output)

Overall reduction in the agricultural

land footprint of

the company by the

target year, relative to the base year,

using a rate of 0.35% annual linear

reduction

Intensity contraction approach for Land Footprint Reduction

SBTi also includes an intensity contraction approach where companies in a given sector reduce their emissions

intensity by a common percentage by a given year.

119F

120

With global food demand projected to grow by 45% between 2017 and 2050 (Searchinger et al., 2021), it follows that

if productivity in terms of food produced per hectare were also to grow at this rate (a 1.4% annual linear rate), no

further agricultural land expansion would be needed to meet projected demand. When these productivity increases

are coupled with changes to consumption (e.g., reduced food loss and waste, shifts to healthy and sustainable diets),

it would free up an amount of land greater than the 500 Mha goal of global agricultural land footprint reduction in

the SSP1 scenario in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.

120F

121

In a similar vein, the Food and Land Use Coalition (2019)’s “Better Futures” scenario also exceeds this global 500

Mha agricultural land footprint reduction goal, and includes annual linear productivity growth of 1.1%, along with

demand-side measures.

121F

122

To be precautionary and ambitious, SBTN Land proposes that the land footprint intensity reduction method is based

on the higher productivity growth (1.4% annual linear rate; 45% growth between 2017 and 2050). This level of

productivity growth also corresponds to roughly a 1% reduction in land occupation per kg of agricultural products

120

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations-of-SBT-setting.pdf

121

http://www.sustainablefoodfuture.org.

122

https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf

produced per year.

122F

123

Table 21 summarizes the inputs and outputs of this intensity reduction (contraction)

method.

123F

124

Table 21: Characteristics of the intensity reduction approach

Method

Company Input

Method Output

Intensity Reduction

♦ Base year

♦ Target year

♦ Base year agricultural land

footprint, disaggregated by

direct operations versus

upstream impacts (Step 1

output)

♦ Activity level in the base year

(e.g., amount of agricultural

products produced or

purchased)

♦ Projected change in activity

by target year

A reduction in the agricultural land

footprint of the company by the target

year per kg of agricultural products,

relative to the base year, using a rate of

1% annual linear reduction, and its

translation to absolute change in land

footprint

For this version of Land targets, SBTN has chosen weight (tonnes or kilograms) of agricultural products produced

as the denominator (i.e., how the “unit” of food or agricultural product is expressed) for intensity targets. However,

there are other potential denominators that could be considered for future target-setting methods, drawn from

food and agriculture LCA studies. The benefits and challenges of different denominator options are articulated in

Table 22 below. SBTN recognizes that a nutritional quality denominator would be preferable to the weight of

agricultural products produced; however, there is no universally accepted metric that captures overall nutritional

quality.

124F

125

This is an area for further research.

Table 22: Considerations for choosing denominator for intensity target

Denominator

Benefits

Challenges

Weight (e.g., kg or t)

Relatively easy to measure and

communicate

Does not capture food functionality or

nutrition; incentivizes commodities high

in water content, including land-

intensive ones (e.g., milk)

Spend or sales (e.g., US$)

Most businesses already measure this,

easy to communicate

Commodity prices ﬂuctuate which can

hide true trends in land footprint

intensity, it is therefore less accurate as

land footprint indicator

Kilocalories

Moderately easy to measure with

conversion ratios from weight; covers all

foods

Does not describe nutrition more broadly

than energy content; incentivizes

energy-dense commodities, including

nutrient-poor ones (e.g., sugar,

vegetable oils)

Protein

Moderately easy to measure with

conversion ratios from weight; covers all

land-intensive foods

Does not describe nutrition more broadly

than protein content; is not meaningful

for protein-poor foods and can

disincentivize some healthy ones (e.g.,

vegetables)

Combined nutrient quality metric or

index

Potentially most meaningful in terms of

balancing resource use with health and

nutrition

Most complex to measure and

communicate; lack of consensus about

which metric or index is most

appropriate to use

(Adapted from FAO (2021), Table 10)

Pros and cons of absolute versus intensity land footprint reduction targets

Absolute and intensity targets each have advantages and disadvantages, which are shown in Table 23. For both sets

of targets, there is a risk that they incentivize unsustainable agricultural intensification or incentivize consumer

companies to shift away from lower-yielding smallholder farmers if not appropriately balanced with social and

environmental safeguards (see Annex 2b below).

123

This is because a 45% growth in productivity per hectare corresponds to a 31% reduction in land occupation per unit of food (1 / 1.45 = 0.69), which

over a period of 33 years is roughly a 1% reduction in land occupation per unit of food per year.

124

Because yields of different foods vary so widely (both between food types and across countries and regions), a “convergence” land occupation

intensity reduction approach would be very complex to design.

125

https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb8054en/

Given the benefits and challenges with both approaches, for this version of Land targets, SBTN has left open the

option for companies to set either type of target. In general, absolute targets are recommended for large consumer

companies such as retailers given that they have greater ability to reduce land footprint through demand-side

measures such as shifting their portfolios to less-land-intensive products.

Table 23: Considerations regarding absolute vs. intensity targets for land footprint reduction

Aspect Absolute target Intensity target

Simplicity

Simpler to calculate and communicate

Can be more complex to calculate and

communicate. If targets are

dierentiated by geography or

commodity in future versions, it would

increase complexity, but could also

introduce clarity about where there are

yield gaps and sustainable intensiﬁcation

opportunities.

Link to global 500 Mha land footprint

reduction goal

Clear link; company can say they are

reducing land pressures in line with

global goal.

Needs additional step to convert into

absolute target and link to global goal.

Leakage risks

A company could hit an absolute target

by reducing agricultural production; if

not made up in eciency elsewhere then

other actors’ agricultural land footprints

could expand

A company could hit an intensity target

even while their absolute land footprint

continues to increase

Equity

Bias toward large producers and

purchasers; unfair for small landowners;

unfair for small companies producing

less-land-intensive products (similar to

SBTi for absolute GHG emissions)

Can accommodate both large and small

producers and purchasers; could be more

appropriate for companies based in

Global South

Link to business growth projections

No link; no guarantee that company will

be “doing its fair share” of contribution

to global productivity growth; targets can

be met for wrong reason (business

failure)

Company “does its fair share” of

contribution to global productivity

growth, regardless of its size and

projected business growth

Risk of unintended consequences for

nature (note: risk mitigated in version

0.3 through the No Conversion of Natural

Ecosystems and Landscape Engagement

targets)

Could incentivize unsustainable

agricultural intensiﬁcation; safeguards

needed (company must also set SBTi

FLAG climate and SBTN water targets;

future SBTN land targets could include

soil health); could disincentivize forms

of agriculture that are lower yielding but

have lower local environmental impacts

Could incentivize unsustainable

agricultural intensiﬁcation; safeguards

needed (company must also set SBTi

FLAG climate and SBTN water targets;

future SBTN land targets could include

soil health); could disincentivize forms

of agriculture that are lower yielding but

have lower local environmental impacts

b. Managing trade-offs and unintended consequences through response option planning and

social safeguards

Global models indicate that agricultural land footprint reduction of the scale required is possible through a

combination of sustainable crop and livestock productivity gains where there are yield gaps,

reduced food loss and

waste across value chains, more circular use of natural resources, and—in high-income countries—shifts toward

healthier, more sustainable, and less-land-intensive diets.

Critically, all of these levers are needed to avoid unintended consequences and to manage potential trade-offs

between nature, climate, and sustainable development goals. There is the risk that efforts to take agricultural land

out of production could put local (or even global) food security at risk if not balanced with productivity gains and

demand-side measures such as dietary shifts and reducing food loss and waste across value chains.

Land footprint reduction could also lead to unsustainable forms of agricultural intensification (such as overuse of

fertilizers and chemical inputs) that degrade soil and water resources, emit GHGs unnecessarily, and undermine

long-term productivity and resilience.

125F

126

On the other hand, shifting from higher-yielding to lower-yielding

agricultural systems to reduce local environmental impacts could increase land-use demands and pressures on

natural ecosystems elsewhere—negatively impacting the biodiversity and carbon stocks of those off-farm

ecosystems (Box 12). That said, there is evidence that both “technological” and “agroecological” approaches can

increase agricultural productivity while reducing environmental impacts and building resilience, and companies

should consider the range of options they have to sustainably boost productivity of the commodities they produce

or source.

126F

127,

127F

128

126

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

127

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1760

128

https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Aligning-regenerative-agricultural-practices-with-outcomes-to-deliver-

for-people-nature-climate-Jan-2023.pdf

Box 12: Land sparing and land sharing

The Land Footprint Reduction target seeks to help companies sustainably boost productivity on working lands, so as to

reduce the global agricultural land footprint and allow some areas to be restored into natural ecosystems. As it

encourages increased eﬃciency of land use, it is associated with a “land sparing” approach.

An alternative or complementary perspective, “land sharing,” seeks to maximize biodiversity, natural processes, and

carbon stocks on farms and other working lands (Phalan 2018)128F

129

. In some scenarios, ambitious changes to food

consumption patterns (e.g., reduced food waste, dietary changes), pursued with "land sharing" measures, can lead to a

reduction in agricultural land use.

A balance between the two perspectives is needed. On the one hand, high-yield farming can be unsustainable and

degrade soil and water resources, undermining long-term productivity and resilience (IPCC 2019)129F

130

. On the other hand,

if boosting on-farm biodiversity and carbon stocks lowers agricultural productivity, overall land requirements for food

production can increase, increasing pressure to convert natural ecosystems elsewhere. This latter point is likely why the

Global Biodiversity Framework acknowledges the need for sustainable forms of agricultural intensiﬁcation.

While setting a Land Footprint Reduction target acknowledges the need to spare land for nature while meeting

humanity’s need for food, the three SBTN Land targets work together to help companies ﬁnd the appropriate balance

of “land sparing” and “land sharing” approaches—along with changes to food consumption patterns—that collectively

avoid further ecosystem conversion, reduce agricultural land use while feeding more people, and improve ecological

integrity on working lands and across broader landscapes.

There are also potential unintended social and/or ethical consequences, for example if companies purchasing

agricultural products switch their purchasing from lower-yielding farmers—including smallholders who may be

highly dependent on revenue from a single company to support their livelihoods—toward higher-yielding farmers.

Intensification of animal agriculture systems can also lead to worsening of animal health and welfare, high

antibiotic use, and increased risk of zoonotic disease.

130F

131

Similarly, certain agricultural systems such as extensive

ruminant livestock systems in arid lands are not well suited to land footprint reduction measures given their

importance for food security and local livelihoods.

Given the potential for unintended consequences, SBTN provides additional guidance on the types of response

options companies can focus on in their delivery of the Land Footprint Reduction target; it also highlights some

social and environmental safeguards that should be considered in their implementation.

Response options for managing trade-offs and unintended consequences

There is no one correct approach to agricultural production across the nearly 5 billion hectares of global agricultural

land: companies should plan response options thoughtfully. Sustainable agricultural intensification—in a changing

climate—involves a combination of efficiencies in agricultural inputs, including not only land but also freshwater

and nutrients. Changes to production practices often involve changes to costs, profitability, and/or labor needs.

Setting multiple SBTN targets (e.g., land, water, climate) for nature should also help companies think through

potential trade-offs across response options, and how such trade-offs can be managed.

The SBTN Landscape Engagement target (Target 3) also works to ensure that companies avoid unsustainable forms

of agricultural intensification and instead improve the ecological integrity of working lands and surrounding

landscapes.

A table of potential response options is provided in Table 24 below (as well as a more comprehensive mapping across

the three Land targets in Annex 3), but they are summarized at a high level here:

• Increasing yields and production efficiency. Crop and livestock yields vary widely across the globe.

Increasing yields and achieving higher crop and livestock productivity—especially where yields are

low and yield gaps are high—is necessary to reduce agriculture’s land footprint even as global food

demand continues to grow, and even as the climate changes. Indeed, increased agricultural

productivity is a common assumption across all of the scenarios of reduced agricultural land

occupation listed in the modelling studies in Table 1 of the supplementary materials

provided for this

target. However, these productivity gains need to occur with a broader view toward optimizing use of

inputs, managing runoff, safeguarding freshwater and soil resources, improving animal health and

welfare, and building resilience. If increased yields are achieved by overuse of fertilizer and

agricultural chemicals, or by large-scale irrigation expansion, GHG emissions and water scarcity

and/or pollution are likely to increase. Improved soil and water management practices such as

agroforestry, especially in low-yielding areas, can increase yields while reducing reliance on chemical

inputs. In addition, pairing agricultural improvements with ecosystem protection and/or restoration

in the same landscape (via combination with the No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems and Landscape

129

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1760

130

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

131

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add6681

Engagement targets) will be essential to counteract the “rebound effect” that can occur when

increased productivity leads to higher profitability and pressure to clear more land.

131F

132,

132F

133

This category of response options is clearly well aligned with the Global Biodiversity Target 10:

“Ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, in

particular through the sustainable use of biodiversity, including through a substantial increase of the

application of biodiversity friendly practices, such as sustainable intensification, agroecological and

other innovative approaches contributing to the resilience and long-term efficiency and productivity

of these production systems and to food security, conserving and restoring biodiversity and

maintaining nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services.”

133F

134

• Reducing loss and waste. Approximately one third of global food production is lost or wasted between

the farm and the plate, with the latest estimates being about 13% of food production lost between the

farm gate and the processing stage of the supply chain

134F

135

and 17% of food at the retail level is wasted

in households, retail, and food service.

135F

136

Rates of loss and waste vary by commodity, region, and

supply chain position, with losses “near the farm” generally being higher in lower-income countries,

and waste “near the fork” generally being higher in higher-income countries. Reduction of food loss

and waste is a popular and necessary response to reduce land requirements of agricultural supply

chains.

• Producing or sourcing foods that are less land intensive. More than three quarters of agricultural land

globally is used to produce meat, dairy, and other animal-based foods, including both pasture land

for grazing and cropland for animal feeds. While the majority of global pasture lands cannot grow

crops or trees, and while grazing lands can be an important buffer to natural habitats, nearly a billion

hectares of pasture land was formerly forest

136F

137

and cattle pastures represent a leading driver of recent

tropical deforestation.

137F

138

In higher-income countries, shifting meat-rich diets toward plant-rich

diets can be an effective path to reducing agricultural land footprint. Companies should take a holistic

approach when considering these options based on the commodities and places where they operate or

source. In addition, if a company sourcing meat or dairy shifts its sourcing to more extensive livestock

production systems—for animal welfare or other reasons—they would need to balance this with a

reduction in the amount sourced to avoid increasing the associated land footprint.

• Establishing riparian buffer zones, scaling up agroforestry/silvopasture, and restoring lands into

natural ecosystems. Taking lands out of direct production and increasing on-farm, set-aside areas

can contribute to climate mitigation, water filtration, and soil stabilization on working lands. That

said, if yields fall, this response option can lead to leakage of agricultural land occupation elsewhere

(and, potentially, other companies’ land occupation increasing) given the ongoing growth in global

food demand.

Table 24: Response options incentivized by Land Footprint Reduction targets

Response option category

Comment

Avoiding deforestation and conversion of natural habitat

and ecosystems

At the global scale, deforestation and conversion of natural

habitat and ecosystems cannot be avoided until the area

under productive use (e.g., agriculture, forestry,

infrastructure, mining) ceases to expand.

Certifying deforestation- and conversion-free sector, supply

chains, places, and commodities

Without freezing and reducing agriculture’s land footprint,

the likelihood of leakage (of deforestation and conversion

occurring elsewhere) remains high, even when companies

have obtained certiﬁcations for their own value chains.

Providing ﬁnancial, material, or in-kind support to landscape

restoration

At the global scale, landscape restoration cannot happen

at scale until the area under productive use is reduced.

Improving land management and other practices Many practices to increase land-use eﬃciency can be net

land management improvements, although productivity

and eﬃciency must be enhanced in ways that safeguard

soil, water resources, local and global biodiversity, and

132

Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y

133

Phalan BT. What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model? Sustainability. 2018; 10(6):1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061760

134

https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/

135

FAOSTAT 2023

136

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35280/FoodWaste.pdf

137

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0757-z

138

https://www.wri.org/research/estimating-role-seven-commodities-agriculture-linked-deforestation-oil-palm-soy-cattle

natural ecosystems—and in ways that increase rather than

undermine resilience.

Increasing material or procedural eﬃciencies in sourcing

and supply chains

Reducing losses and waste across supply chains,

improving eﬃciency of wood harvests and use, and

sourcing products that are less-land-intensive (e.g., plant-

based foods), can reduce the amount of land needed to

meet human demands for land-based products.

Increasing participation in jurisdictional land-use planning Linking eﬀorts to use working lands more productively and

eﬃciently with eﬀorts to protect and restore nearby lands

in landscapes can be a powerful way to incentivize

progress against both a No Conversion of Natural

Ecosystems target and a Land Footprint Reduction target

(for example, public support for agricultural improvement

can increase political support for ecosystem protection in

high-priority jurisdictions).

Depending on how the response options to reduce a company’s agricultural land footprint (and/or land footprint

intensity) are implemented, there are potential trade-os with other response options that must be managed and

avoided wherever possible. Setting the full range of version 0.3 SBTN targets for land and water, in addition to

climate targets through SBTi FLAG, will help companies strike the correct balance.

Table 25: Potential trade-offs with other response options

Response option category

Comment

Improving land management and other practices

If done poorly, eﬀorts to increase land-use eﬃciency can

create trade-oﬀs with other aspects of land management

and environmental protection. For example, overuse of

fertilizer leads to water and air pollution and excessive

GHG emissions. Large-scale irrigation expansion can

deplete scarce freshwater resources and damage aquatic

ecosystems. In addition, productivity gains can make

farming and forestry more economical and spur new land-

clearing.

Mitigation strategy: Setting not only Land Footprint

Reduction targets, but also other v 0.3 Land targets (No

Conversion of Natural Ecosystems, Landscape

Engagement), as well as climate and water targets, can

help companies strike the correct balance. SBTN’s Version

1.0 of Land targets will also help ensure that productivity

gains that reduce the intensity of agriculture’s land

footprint do not undermine other land management goals.

Response options linked to SBTN Freshwater methods

See above.

Mitigating sources of environmental pollution

See above.

Safeguards for managing trade-offs and unintended consequences

The following social and environmental safeguards should be considered in companies’ implementation of Land

Footprint Reduction targets:

1. Pu

rchasing companies should seek to work with their current suppliers to improve performance over time,

rather than just shifting to more-efficient (higher-yielding) suppliers. A strategy of shifting to higher-

yielding suppliers carries social risks (potentially harming livelihoods of current suppliers), and/or

potentially will not affect global agricultural land demand if other buyers just switch to purchasing from

the company’s current suppliers.

2. C

ompanies should make all efforts to reduce land footprint while ensuring free, prior, and informed

consent (FPIC) and respecting the land and human rights of local communities.

3. Companies should assess the potential adverse impacts of conversion on the human and land rights of

affected stakeholders when implementing response options for land footprint reduction and follow SBTN

guidance on stakeholder engagement. Additional guidance is available through the

United Nations General

comment No. 26 (2022) on Land and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Guiding

Principles on Business and Human Rights.

With regard to reporting on safeguards, SBTN Land requires that companies submitting Land Footprint Reduction

targets for validation provide the following information:

1. A narrative description of their strategy and potential response options for achieving their Land Footprint

Reduction target, including the proposed approach to addressing potential risks associated with

unsustainable intensification (e.g., focusing on areas with opportunities to sustainably improve

agricultural productivity, reducing food loss and waste, shifting toward less land-intensive agricultural

products) and unintended social consequences (e.g., prioritizing work with existing suppliers—including

smallholders—to improve yields and productivity rather than shifting away to higher-yielding suppliers).

2. Companies submitting both Land Footprint Reduction targets and Landscape Engagement targets are

required to submit information to the SBTN Target Validation Team that specifies whether and how

locations and/or commodities prioritized for Land Footprint Reduction overlap with landscapes selected

for the Landscape Engagement target. As noted above, given the fact that companies will not always have

ownership rights over any land freed up through the Land Footprint Reduction target, SBTN has not

established requirements for companies to restore that land. Instead, the mechanism for driving

restoration is through the Landscape Engagement target.

ANNEX 3: Mapping of incentivized response options

In addition to the target-setting process, this guidance will also explore some examples of corporate response

options. This is a preliminary effort that anticipates more comprehensive “Step 4: Act” guidance. In this context,

response options describe the actions that a company could take to improve the state of nature on land that would

likely be reflected in the indicator used to measure progress on its targets.

This section provides a suite of response options that shows actions that companies can implement to make

progress toward land targets. Consulting the table below, companies can explore the response options that may

have positive contributions toward multiple targets. This framing can be a useful to inform target implementation

strategies for the achievement of land and freshwater targets under SBTN and emissions reductions under SBTi

FLAG.

These response options are derived from an original list including publications, projects, and initiatives such as:

● IPBES Global Outlook

● IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land

● Forest Landscape Restoration assessments using the Restoration Opportunities Assessment

Methodology

● The Fashion PACT

● Nature-Based Solutions Benefits Explorer

● World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Forest Production, Processing &

Manufacturing, Downstream)

● SBTN Water Hub

● FLAG SBTi.

The response options have been categorized into a Land response typology of corporate response options and finer

resolution options. These include land include specific interventions and example actions for companies to take.

Table 26 contains 65 consolidated response options classified to the SBTN’s AR3T Framework.

The Land response options have been assigned direct, indirect, or unknown designations for SBTs that span the

land targets (No Conversion of Natural Ecosystems, Land Footprint Reduction, and Landscape Engagement), SBTi

FLAG, and the SBTN Freshwater Targets.

Information from SBTi FLAG guidance was used in assigning these benefits. Synergies across the different targets

resulting from individual response options can support robust company strategies with multiple benefits. This

analysis demonstrates the potential trade-offs for nature of certain actions. With this matrix of response options

companies will be able better evaluate decisions for nature and their business.

These interventions provide a foundation for companies to prioritize actions and places to make a difference for

nature on the ground. These projects should include comprehensive actions to meet established targets. The Land

Hub seeks to expand on this response option matrix based on future targets and to measure progress on them in

Version 2.0 of SBTN’s Land target-setting guidance.

Below it is presented a non-exhaustive list of possible response options companies may consider in their efforts to

meet the Land SBTs they have set. Many response options have benefits across land, freshwater, and climate targets.

These actions are organized according to the ARRRT framework and should be implemented in that order to achieve

progress on your targets in the most efficient way according to what nature needs.

These response options should be put together and packaged into an action plan that directly addresses your

companies impacts on nature and how best to reach your company specific targets. This list will be expanded over

time to align with the latest targets, science, tools, and data collect

TARGET BENEFITS

Direct

Indirect

Unknown

Conversion

of Natural

Ecosystems

Land

Footprint

Reduction

Landscape

Engagement

Freshwater

Quantity

Freshwater

Quality

SBTi

Climate

FLAG

Response Option

ARRRT

classification

Avoid, Reduce,

Regenerate,

Restore, Transform

Avoid pollution, effluents, and runoff, including acidification

Avoid

Avoid illegal logging through monitoring/patrolling and regulating forest use of all timber

and non-timber products

Avoid

Manage invasive alien species (IAS)/species encroachment through practice and multiple

policy instruments (e.g. monitor silvicultural interventions, remove aggressive Indigenous

species, remove invasives)

Avoid

Achieve zero conversion of natural lands in direct operations and supply chains

Avoid

Protect Critical Natural Habitat and areas of High Conservation Value

Avoid

Commodity production is not implemented on newly converted natural ecosystems or Core

Natural Lands (especially avoid global and regional land conversion-driving commodities in

Annex 1a)

Avoid

New operations, landfills, or recycling facilities are not implemented in or adjacent to newly

converted natural ecosystems or Core Natural Lands

Avoid

Avoid persistent organic pollutants and chemicals with demonstrated negative impacts on

biodiversity including harmful chemicals and hazardous substances

Avoid

Support reduced impact logging (RIL) with different techniques

Reduce

Reduce impact through conservation-agriculture practices

Reduce

Increase food productivity and close the gap between actual and potential yield (e.g. shade-

cover system, forage improvement, improve technology and tools)

Reduce

Use land, fertilizers, and pesticides more efficiently in agriculture (e.g. minimize use of

chemical-based pesticides and fertilizers)

Reduce

Reduce agricultural land footprint in direct operations and supply chains

Reduce

Improve sustainable forest management (e.g. enrichment planting, acahuales, diversified

vertical forest structure and age composition, seasonal planning, continuous cover forestry,

high-stumps, retention trees, maintenance of decaying wood, silviculture, social forestry,

sustainable woodlands, mature forest, natural forest, secondary forest, improved woodlots)

Reduce

Improve cropland management (e.g. brush control, crop residue management, contouring,

cover crops, ground cover management, improved fallow, re-vegetation)

Reduce

Improve grazing land management (e.g. tree range plantings, prescribed grazing)

Reduce

Improve livestock management (e.g. agropastoral, agro-silvopastoral, silvopasture, natural

pasture, perennial pastures and grains, silvopasture intensification, alterative feed)

Reduce

Table 26: Mapping of incentivized response options

TARGET BENEFITS

Direct

Indirect

Unknown

Conversion

of Natural

Ecosystems

Land

Footprint

Reduction

Landscape

Engagement

Freshwater

Quantity

Freshwater

Quality

SBTi

Climate

FLAG

Response Option

ARRRT

classification

Avoid, Reduce,

Regenerate,

Restore, Transform

Reduce disturbances (e.g., light, noise, vibration) from operations on surrounding

environment (e.g., installation of silencers)

Reduce

Monitor risks in regions of resource extraction and minimize resource exploitation of over

extracted, threatened, or CITES listed species

Reduce

Reduce off-site impacts of food and nonfood production (e.g. consolidate shipments and

suppliers, ensure proper waste disposal, safe disposal of hazardous waste, food storage

transformation)

Reduce

Improve distribution and transport (e.g. localizing food systems, optimizing road network to

avoid pressures on Core Natural Lands)

Reduce

Reduce food waste (post-harvest, along production and supply chains, customer, and retailer

levels)

Reduce

Implement water-efficient agricultural practices (e.g. minimize use of water-intensive

species in water stressed areas, reduce water use in nurseries, upgraded irrigation system,

rainwater harvesting, contour farming, terracing, managed drainage, protect groundwater

and surface water, reestablish hydrologic connection)

Reduce

Implement fire management practices (e.g., prescribed burns)

Reduce

Reduce soil erosion through sustainable practices (e.g. plant vegetation buffers, conservation

tillage, no-till, strip tillage, progressive or radical terraces)

Reduce

Implement agroforestry (e.g. rainfed, cereal-dominated, hinterland, shade-grown coffee,

flood plain, improved Milpa, irrigation, perennial crops with trees, Quesungual system, staple

grains alley farming)

Reduce

Prevent/reduce soil compaction and/or salinization

Reduce

Avoid establishing new water-intensive operations in water stressed areas. Protect, create,

restore and reduce conversion of watersheds and coastal wetlands for habitat conservation,

clean water supply and stormwater control (e.g. coastal green belt)

Avoid & Restore

Avoid conversion and implement restoration of peatlands

Avoid & Restore

Promote, implement, and improve agricultural certification schemes including organic

agriculture (e.g. RTRS, RSPO, organic cotton standards)

Reduce & Transform

Promote and improve forest certification schemes (e.g. FSC, deforestation and conversion

free; sector, supply chains, places and commodities)

Reduce &Transform

Encourage and invest in a circular economy (e.g., paper sludge for bioenergy and fertilizer

producers, paper fibers and fillers for the brick industry)

Reduce & Transform

Increase soil organic carbon content (e.g. organic matter input through harvesting residues,

biochar)

Regenerate

Table 26: Mapping of incentivized response options

TARGET BENEFITS

Direct

Indirect

Unknown

Conversion

of Natural

Ecosystems

Land

Footprint

Reduction

Landscape

Engagement

Freshwater

Quantity

Freshwater

Quality

SBTi

Climate

FLAG

Response Option

ARRRT

classification

Avoid, Reduce,

Regenerate,

Restore, Transform

Expand and enhance sustainable intensification on agricultural lands (e.g. mixed crop-

livestock production models)

Regenerate

Improve soil health (e.g. stabilize substrates, soil conservation, rice straw management,

fertility management, mulching)

Regenerate

Regenerate existing plantations with sustainable practices (e.g. annual crops, agroforests,

commercial trees, bamboo, enrichment strips, open field, renewal coffee, perennial crops and

trees, extended rotation system, and timber outside of livestock areas)

Regenerate

Improve ecological productivity in working lands in line with landscape scale objectives and

stakeholder needs (e.g. ecological agriculture, silvopasture, agroforestry, boarder plantings,

ecological corridors)

Regenerate

Switch emphasis of food production towards enhancing working lands (e.g. organic

agriculture, sustainable production, sustainable rate of harvest, regenerative agriculture)

Regenerate

Ecosystem and/or landscape restoration (e.g. natural regeneration, habitat fragmentation,

native vegetation, pollinator habitat)

Restore

Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (e.g. protective forests, trees along

roads, buffer zones, wildlife corridors)

Restore

Engage in forest landscape restoration

Restore

Restore and establish riparian buffers (e.g. streamside management, buffer zones, floodplain

habitats)

Restore

Restore wetlands (rivers, lakes, floodplains, coastal areas, and others)

Restore

Support the ecological restoration of deforested and degraded land

Restore

Stewardship for the provision of multiple benefits

Transform

Reward sustainable land management practices

Transform

Leverage supply chains to transform productive systems in line with science-based targets

for nature

Transform

Champion nature positive policies

Transform

Implement practices using a place-based project as part of a jurisdictional approach

Transform

Reform subsidy systems

Transform

Advocate for integrated production systems, inter-sectoral coordination and cooperation

Transform

Table 26: Mapping of incentivized response options

TARGET BENEFITS

Direct

Indirect

Unknown

Conversion

of Natural

Ecosystems

Land

Footprint

Reduction

Landscape

Engagement

Freshwater

Quantity

Freshwater

Quality

SBTi

Climate

FLAG

Response Option

ARRRT

classification

Avoid, Reduce,

Regenerate,

Restore, Transform

Establish land-use zoning, community mapping, spatial and environmental integrated

landscape planning, decentralization and co-management of land resources

Transform

Establish community forests and gardens

Transform

Implement actions aimed at improving access to markets for inputs, outputs, and financial

services

Transform

Participate in agricultural conservation easement programs

Transform

Advocate for and implement risk sharing and transfer mechanisms

Transform

Support local community rights and social safeguards (e.g. collective action pathways, respect

of customary land tenure, access and ownership, and/or social protection and adaptive safety

nets)

Transform

Adopt weather and health insurance

Transform

Improve policies relating to Payments for Ecosystem Services and Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Degradation, esp. to encourage multifunctional land management (e.g.

payment for enrichment plantings)

Transform

Introduce environmental incentive structures (e.g. provide financial material or in-kind

support for landscape restoration)

Transform

Develop and apply methods that measure farm output in terms that are more than just yield

per area, but include nutritional value and wider values in terms of both costs to the

environment and society and benefits of a healthy landscape

Transform

Encourage dietary transformations (towards plant-based, whole-food diets)

Transform

This is a non-exhaustive list of possible response options companies may consider in their efforts to meet the Land SBTs they have set. Many response options have benefits across land,

freshwater, and climate targets. These actions are organized according to the ARRRT framework and should be implemented in that order to achieve progress on your targets in the most

efficient way according to what nature needs. These response options should be put together and packaged into an action plan that directly addresses your company’s impacts on nature and

how best to reach your company-specific targets. This list will be expanded over time to align with the latest targets, science, tools, and data collected.

Table 26: Mapping of incentivized response options

SCIENCE BASED TARGETS FOR LAND

VERSION 0.3

2023