Land use planning and management 1.1 Land use plan/zoning 1.1.1 Formally adopted Adopted by law and regulations require that it is respected. Agreed by government and stakeholders but not fully legally adopted. Does not yet exist. May be in development. 1 Example (please delete): For example, “A because an economic land use zoning plan (add link) was adopted by the regional assembly in 2015 and/or was adopted by Decree number xxx (add link)”. Or “B because a land use zoning plan was validated at a regional workshop in 2016 (add link to workshop report) but has not yet been formally adopted by the government.” Or “C because land use planning is underway with expected completion in 2018 (link to action plan).” 1.1.2 Covers entire jurisdiction Covers entire jurisdiction land area Covers 50% or more of jurisdiction land area Covers less than 50% of jurisdiction land area 1 1.1.3 Developed through a participatory process Consultations were held with all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present), comments have been published with evidence they influenced the plan/zoning, and the land use plan/zoning was Consultations have been conducted with some but not all groups of stakeholders about the land use plan/zoning and/or not meeting all other conditions for A. There is no evidence of consultations with stakeholders about the land use plan/zoning. 1 Guidance (please delete): Provide a reference for the analysis of stakeholder groups used for the rating and evidence of stakeholder groups that were invited to and participated in consultations. Evidence that stakeholder input influenced the plan/zoning may include a written statement or minutes of a meeting explaining of how stakeholder input was taken into account or other relevant documentation.
validated by stakeholders. 1.2 Social and environmental impact assessments and plans to mitigate risks 1.2.1 Required by government regulations All affecting land use are required by government regulations to undergo screening to identify those that require social and environmental impact assessments and plans to mitigate significant negative impacts. Some but not all affecting land use are required by government regulations to undergo screening to identify those with significant impacts that require social and environmental impact assessments and plans to mitigate significant negative impacts. There is no regulatory requirement for screening and for those with significant impacts to implement a social and environmental impact assessment and a plan to mitigate significant negative impacts. 1 Guidance (please delete): Note that regulations that only require environmental or social impact assessment and mitigation plans get C rating. 1.2.2 Address impacts on indigenous peoples, communities and vulnerable people Government regulations require that impacts on indigenous peoples, local communities and vulnerable people (identified through stakeholder analysis and/or regulations), must be identified and specific measures developed and implemented to Government regulations require that impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities people are identified with no definition or special attention for vulnerable people and/or no specific requirement for measures to address these impacts. No regulatory requirement to identify and address impacts on indigenous peoples and/or local communities, including smallholders. 1 Guidance (please delete): Note that ‘vulnerable people’ are either identified through stakeholder analysis and/or regulations. Where there is no existing definition of vulnerable people, this indicator should focus on indigenous peoples and local communities.
land use activities assessments and mitigation plans are conducted in practice for affecting land use in nearly all cases, including for agriculture. assessments and/or mitigation plans are conducted in practice in some cases but not all, e.g. not typically conducted for agricultural activities. assessments and/or mitigation plans are rarely conducted in practice. 1.3 Process for delivering authorizations for land use activities and changes 1.3.1 Consistent with land use plan/zoning Process for delivering authorizations for land use change respecting land use plan/zoning is clearly defined by law for all types of land use change. Process for delivering authorizations for land use change is clearly defined by law for some types of land use change but not all, and/or does not require the land use plan/zoning to be respected. Process for delivering authorizations for land use change is not clearly defined by law. 1 1.3.2 Depends on impact assessment Process for delivering authorizations for affecting land use requires taking into account results of impact assessment for all types of land use change Process for delivering authorizations for affecting land use does not require taking into account results of impact assessment or not for all types of land use change Process for delivering authorizations for affecting land use does not require taking into account results of impact assessment and is not for all types of land use change. 1 1.3.3 Respects land use Land use change authorizations respect the land use plan/zoning Land use change authorizations respect the land Land use change authorizations rarely respect 2
plan/zoning in practice in nearly all cases. use plan/zoning in some the land use plan/zoning. 1.4 responsible for land use planning and management 1.4.1 Roles and responsibilities are defined Clearly defined for all land use types in documents accessible on government website, without confusion in responsibilities (e.g. from overlaps). Not fully defined, and/or defined for some but not all land use types, and/or not fully accessible in government documents and/or with confusion in responsibilities. Not clearly defined in government documents. 1 1.4.2 Have resources for implementation responsible for land use planning and management have sufficient budget and personnel for inspection, surveillance and enforcement effective implementation. responsible for land use planning and management have limited budget and/or personnel for inspection, surveillance and enforcement which reduces the effectiveness of implementation. responsible for land use planning and management do not have budget or personnel for on-site inspection, surveillance and enforcement or no published information exists and/or implementation is greatly affected by lack of resources. 1+2 Guidance (please delete): Evidence for this rating may be provided by published evidence in the form of institutional budget indicating level of resources available for on-site inspection, surveillance and enforcement (for Level 1) and/or through confidential surveys of people directly involved in implementation of land use regulations and people affected by them (for Level 2). The justification should provide information on the number of people surveyed from different stakeholder groups and organizations and should explain how bias was avoided and confidentiality maintained. 1.4.3 Enforce land use regulations Enforcement of compliance with land use regulations is regularly conducted throughout the jurisdiction for all Enforcement of compliance with land use regulations is sometimes conducted and/or only in some parts of Enforcement of compliance with land use regulations is rarely conducted and/or 1+2 Guidance (please delete): Evidence for this rating may be provided by records of infractions and fines or other penalties levied or by reports of surveillance conducted (for Level 1) and/or through confidential surveys of people outside government directly involved in land use activities (for Level 2). For Level 2, the justification should provide information on the number of people surveyed from different stakeholder groups and organizations and should explain how bias was avoided and confidentiality maintained.
relevant private sector organizations, large and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present), comments have been published with evidence they influenced the goals, and the goals were validated by stakeholders. 1.6 Data and spatial analysis of land use change 1.6.1 Spatial analysis of past conversion of major habitat types Spatial analysis of conversion of major habitat types, including all significant activities and habitat types, across entire jurisdiction, with at least 3 data points in the last 10 years is endorsed by government. Partial spatial analysis of conversion of major habitat types in the past and/or 2 or fewer data points over last 10 years and/or not endorsed by government. Data may be available but no spatial analysis of land use change affecting major habitat types. 1 1.6.2 Projection of future land use change Forest or other reference level projecting expected future land use changes based on historical changes has been endorsed by government Forest or reference level exists (but not meeting all conditions for A). No forest or other reference level exists projecting future land use change. 1
and validated by independent experts covering entire jurisdiction, using internationally recognized methodology and consistent with any existing official national reference level. 1.7 Data and analysis of drivers of deforestation and other habitat changes 1.7.1 Available for deforestation Comprehensive analysis in last five years of direct and indirect drivers of deforestation in the jurisdiction and endorsed by government. Partial or preliminary analysis of direct and indirect drivers of deforestation. No analysis of direct and indirect drivers of deforestation. 1 1.7.2 Available for conversion of non-forest habitats Comprehensive analysis of direct and indirect drivers of conversion of non-forest ecosystems in the jurisdiction in last five and endorsed by government Partial or preliminary analysis of direct and indirect drivers of conversion of non-forest ecosystems. No analysis of direct and indirect drivers of conversion of non-forest ecosystems. 1 1.8 Strategy and action plan to address drivers of deforestation/ 1.8.1 Formally adopted Strategy specific to the jurisdiction addresses all significant drivers and is Strategy addresses only some drivers and/or not specific to the jurisdiction No progress, or strategy is in development. 1
formally approved and adopted by government. and/or agreed by government but not formally adopted. 1.8.2 Developed through a participatory process Consultations were held with all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present), comments have been published with evidence they influenced the strategy/plan, and the strategy/plan was validated by stakeholders. Consultations have been conducted with some but not all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction about the strategy/plan and/or not meeting all other conditions for A. There is no evidence of consultations with stakeholders about the strategy/plan. 1 Guidance (please delete): Provide a reference for the analysis of stakeholder groups used for the rating and evidence of stakeholder groups that were invited to and participated in consultations. Evidence that stakeholder influenced the analysis may include a written statement or minutes of a meeting explaining of how stakeholder input was taken into account or other relevant documentation. 1.8.3 Includes action plan Action plan for the jurisdiction includes targets, schedule, roles, responsibilities, budget and secured finance Action plan exists but does not meet all conditions in A. Action plan does not May be under development. 1
conversion of habitats for next five years. 1.8.4 Implementation Implementation reports are available on results (e.g. progress towards targets). Implementation reports are available on activities conducted. Implementation reports are not yet available. 1 1.9 Monitoring and reporting systems 1.9.1 Forests Forest monitoring system is in and providing government endorsed reports of deforestation, reforestation, afforestation and other forest changes in the jurisdiction. Forest monitoring system in place but has not yet provided a report and/or is providing partial forest change information for the jurisdiction and/or not endorsed by government. Not in May be under development. 1 1.9.2 GHG emissions from land-use MRV system is in place and providing government endorsed reports on land use GHG emissions in the jurisdiction that have been periodically verified by an independent third party. Preliminary or partial MRV in (e.g. only for forests) and/or report has not been verified by an independent third party and/or not endorsed by government. Not in place. May be under development. 1 1.9.3 Biodiversity and ecosystem services Monitoring system is in and providing government endorsed reports on changes in biodiversity and ecosystem Monitoring system is in place but report not produced within last three years and/or covers part of changes in biodiversity Not in May be under development. 1
services in the jurisdiction. and ecosystem services in the jurisdiction and/or not endorsed by government. 1.9.4 Economy and human development Monitoring system is in place and providing government endorsed reports annually on GDP and changes in human development and other relevant indicators for the jurisdiction. Monitoring system is in place but reporting is less frequent than annual and/or not specific to the entire jurisdiction and/or not endorsed by government. Not in place. May be under development. 1 1.9.5 Monitoring information is available and used Monitoring systems provide information to local actors, organizations and/or subnational governments that is used for local planning and management activities. Monitoring systems provide limited information or only to some actors, organizations or subnational governments and/or these stakeholders do not have the capacity or resources to use it. Monitoring information is not provided or used within the jurisdiction. 1 Guidance (please delete): Note that this indicator relates to all the information systems identified and used to assess indicators 1.9.1-4 above. If no monitoring systems exist then this indicator is not automatically rated C. 1.10 Policies across sectors that affect land use 1.10.1 Policies exist for relevant sectors Policies exist at national and/or at sub-national level for all relevant sectors that affect land use Policies exist for some but not all the key sectors that affect land use. Policies are under development or do not exist for nearly all of the relevant sectors that affect land use. 1
E.g. national development plan, forests, agriculture, mining, infrastructure development, energy, tourism, urban planning etc. 1.10.2 Coherence of policies across sectors Sector policies are mutually reinforcing with no major conflicts. There are some conflicts between sector policies. There are major conflicts between sector policies. 2 Guidance (please delete): Explain thresholds used for rating (e.g. whether there are some conflicts for a B rating or major conflicts for a C rating) 1.10.3 Coherence of national and sub-national policies Any applicable sub-national land use policies are approved by national government and/or confirmed as consistent with national policies. There are some conflicts between land use policies at sub-national and national levels. are major conflicts between land use policies at sub-national and national levels. 2 Land and resource tenure 2.1 Inventory and maps of land rights 2.1.1 Cover the entire jurisdiction Inventory and maps of land rights updated in last 5 years cover all resource rights (including private land and public land with different resource rights e.g. concessions, collectively owned land, protected areas) in the entire Inventory and maps of land rights covers only some resources and/or some of the jurisdiction and are publicly available. Inventory and maps of land rights do not exist or are not publicly available. May be under development. 1 Guidance (please delete): Different land tenure rights for different resources may be on different maps, e.g. for forest, mining, petroleum and other resources)
jurisdiction and are publicly available. 2.1.2 Include overlapping rights Inventory and maps of land rights in the jurisdiction include all overlapping rights. Inventory and maps of land rights include some types of overlapping rights. Inventory and maps of land rights do not include overlapping rights. 1 2.2 Clarity of land and resource tenure and use rights 2.2.1 Land and resource tenure, management, exclusion and use rights are clearly defined Land and resource tenure, management, exclusion and use rights are clearly defined by law (private and collective property, public property, concession, etc.). Land and resource tenure, management, exclusion and use rights are clear for some property types but not all. Land and resource tenure, management, exclusion and use rights are not clearly defined by law. 1 2.2.2 Absence of overlapping rights Management and use rights for land and resources are consistent with land tenure, including for above ground and belowground resources (no overlapping rights). Land and resource management and use rights are consistent with land tenure for all above ground resources but not for below ground resources (some overlapping rights). Land and resource management and use rights for above ground rights and for below ground resources are often not consistent with land tenure. (significant overlapping rights). 1 2.2.3 Process to address conflicts related A public report of conflicts registered and resolved over the last five years demonstrates A process to address conflicts related to land and resource rights exists but public reports of There is no evidence of a process to address conflicts related 1
to land and resource rights existence and functioning of an accessible, transparent process to resolve conflicts related to land and resource rights. conflicts registered and resolved over the last five years are lacking. to land and resource rights. 2.3 Customary rights to land and resources 2.3.1 Collective customary rights are recognized Rights to land and resources established through customary use are recognized and protected by law including collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Customary rights to land and resources including collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities are recognized in guidelines approved by government. Customary rights to land and resources including collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities are not recognized in any particular form. 1 2.3.2 Free, prior and informed consent is required for activities affecting indigenous peoples Free, prior and informed consent is required by law for activities that affect indigenous peoples’ collective customary and statutory rights to lands and resources. Free, and informed consent is required by guidelines recognized by government and/or only for some activities but not all that affect indigenous peoples’ collective customary and statutory rights to lands and resources. Consultation is required by law but not consent, or no consultation or consent is required for activities that affect indigenous peoples’ collective customary and statutory rights to lands and resources. 1 Guidance: Note that this indicator considers whether regulations require FPIC for activities that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to lands and resources, and 2.3.3 does the same for non-indigenous communities’ collective rights to lands and resources whereas 2.3.4 uses interviews to assess whether their rights are respected in practice which would relate to whether regulations requiring FPIC are implemented. 2.3.3 Free, prior and informed Free, prior and informed consent is Free, prior and informed consent is Consultation is required by law but not consent, 1
2.5.3 Measures are implemented Measures are being fully and consistently implemented to protect people from involuntary resettlement and restrictions on access to resources important for livelihoods – no known cases with little or no compensation. Measures are partially implemented or are sometimes implemented to protect people from involuntary resettlement and restrictions on access to resources important for livelihoods – some cases with little or no compensation. Measures are almost never implemented to protect people from involuntary resettlement and restrictions on access to resources important for livelihoods cases with no compensation. 2 3. Biodiversity and other ecosystem services 3.1 Map and strategy to maintain biodiversity and other ecosystem services values 3.1.1 Map and assessment exist An assessment and a map of spatial distribution exist of areas important for different biodiversity and other ecosystem service values including water regulation across the entire jurisdiction. The map and assessment are based on national and global data but not on data and analysis from the jurisdiction and/or a map exists but does not identify areas important for biodiversity and all also ecosystem services including water regulation. Map and assessment of areas important for biodiversity and other ecosystems services do not exist for the jurisdiction. 1 3.1.2 Strategy and/or action plan exists A strategy and/or action plan to maintain biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities has been The strategy and/or action plan for biodiversity and ecosystem service priorities has been Does not exist. May be under development. 1
validated by stakeholders. 3.2 Protection of important for biodiversity and other ecosystem services 3.2.1 Legally protected Legally designated protected areas ensure some protection for all major biodiversity and ecosystem service priorities. Some major biodiversity and ecosystem service priorities are not included in legally protected areas but are protected by other measures established by government (e.g. payment for ecosystem services). Some major biodiversity and ecosystem service priorities are not protected by measures established by government. 1 3.2.2 17% or more of the jurisdiction land area in protected areas 17% or more of the jurisdiction area is legally protected (in line with Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 8.5% or more of the jurisdiction area is legally protected. Less than 8.5% of the jurisdiction area is legally protected. 1 3.2.3 Sufficient resources for management and protection Management and protection of protected are little affected by availability of financial and other resources. Management and protection of protected areas are somewhat affected by availability of financial and other resources. Management and protection of protected areas are greatly affected by availability of financial and other resources. 2 Guidance (please delete): This rating should be assessed through confidential surveys of people outside government with direct experience of protected The justification should provide information on the number of people surveyed from different stakeholder groups and organizations and should explain how bias was avoided and confidentiality maintained. 3.2.4 Effectively protected Forest cover and/or other relevant priority habitat type has mostly been maintained in the protected areas. Forest cover and/or other relevant priority habitat type is reducing in protected areas but at lower levels than the Forest cover and/or other relevant priority habitat type is reducing in protected areas at the same or greater levels 1
average reduction in all areas outside protected areas. than the average reduction in all areas outside protected areas. 3.3 Protection from pollution and contamination 3.3.1 Laws or other legal measure Regulations to protect against pollution and contamination and to clean up any damage. Guidelines to protect against and clean up pollution and contamination. No requirements to protect against and clean up pollution and contamination. 1 3.3.2 Implementation evidence exists of investigation of complaints and enforcement of regulations protecting against pollution or contamination and of clean up in the last five years. There has been some response to complaints related to pollution or contamination but public evidence is lacking demonstrating enforcement of regulations and clean up in the last five years. There have been complaints of pollution or contamination in the last 5 years without official government response. 1 Guidance (please delete): Note that rating should be C there have been any complaints with no government response and should be B if government has responded officially but there is no public evidence of clean up or measures to alleviate contamination would get a B. If insufficient information is available on official complaints or responses, then this indicator can be assessed at Level 2 using interviews. 4. Stakeholder coordination and participation 4.1 Coordination of land use policies, planning and management across sectors levels, and jurisdictions 4.1.1 Includes government responsible for all sectors affecting land use An commission or other structure representing all sectors affecting land use is in place and functioning (public reports show regular meetings and There is a mechanism for government cross-sectoral coordination but not for all sectors and/or lacking evidence of effective functioning. Only ad-hoc coordination. 1
relevant decisions). 4.1.2 Includes government institutions at national and sub-national level A commission or structure is in place and functioning for coordination on policies affecting land use between national and levels (public reports show regular meetings and relevant decisions). There is coordination between and national level on some but not all issues affecting land use and/or lacking evidence of effective functioning Only ad-hoc coordination. 1 4.1.3 Includes government institutions across jurisdictions A commission or other structure mechanism is in place and functioning for coordination of government institutions across jurisdictions, where relevant for landscape sustainability goals. (public reports show regular meetings and decisions). There is coordination on specific issues through platforms or coordination meetings. Only ad-hoc coordination. 1 4.2 Consultations with stakeholders for land use policies, 4.2.1 All stakeholders for land use change have been identified A comprehensive stakeholder mapping of all relevant stakeholders potentially affected by, or Stakeholders have been identified for some sectors affected by, or that can Stakeholders potentially affected by, or that can influence, land use are not 1 jurisdictional
planning and management that can influence, land use has been developed or updated in last 5 years. influence, land use but not all. clearly identified. 4.2.2 Including indigenous peoples, local communities and other marginalized groups Women, indigenous peoples, local communities and other potentially marginalized groups have consistently participated in consultations and there is evidence of their influence on land use policies, planning and evaluation. and/or indigenous peoples and/or local communities and/or other potentially marginalized groups have participated intermittently in consultations or there is no evidence of the influence of each group on land use policies, planning and evaluation. Women, indigenous peoples, local communities and/or other potentially marginalized groups have not participated in consultations or there is no evidence of any influence from these groups on land use policies, planning and evaluation. 1 Guidance (please delete): Provide a reference for the analysis of marginalized stakeholder groups used for the rating. Evidence input from these stakeholders influenced the land use policies, planning and evaluation may include a written statement or minutes of a meeting explaining of how stakeholder input was taken into account or other relevant documentation. 4.2.3 Influenced land use policies, planning and management Input from consultations with all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, large and small producers, NGOs, local communities and There is incomplete public documentation of stakeholder input from all consultations with all stakeholder groups and evidence of the resulting influence. No consultations were conducted or no evidence of influence. 1 Guidance (please delete): Provide a reference for the analysis of stakeholder groups used for the rating and evidence of stakeholder groups that were invited to and participated in consultations. Evidence that stakeholder input influenced the policies, plans and evaluations may include a written statement or minutes of a meeting explaining of how stakeholder input was taken into account or other relevant documentation.
indigenous peoples where present) draft policies, plans and evaluations was published with evidence of the resulting influence. 4.2.4 Perceived as effective by stakeholders Representatives from all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, large and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present) confirm that their input influenced land use policies, plans and evaluations. Representatives from some but not all groups of stakeholders in the jurisdiction (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, large and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present) confirm that their input influenced land use policies, plans and evaluations. Representatives from one or more stakeholder groups (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, large and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present) affirm that their group was not consulted or that their input has not influenced land use policies, plans and evaluations. 2 Guidance (please delete): This rating should be assessed through confidential surveys of people in all stakeholder groups (including all levels and relevant departments of government, relevant private sector organizations, and small producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present) who have been involved in consultations on land use policies, plans and evaluations. The justification should provide information on the number of people surveyed from different stakeholder groups and organizations and should explain how bias was avoided and confidentiality maintained. 4.3 structure(s) exists for 4.3.1 structure(s) exist platform or other structure for platform or other structure for platform or other structure 1
coordination on policies, planning and management structure(s). 4.3.4 Support coordination at local level structure(s) enable coordination among stakeholders (government, producers, NGOs, local communities and indigenous peoples where present) at local level (smallest units) and are functioning across more than 90% of the jurisdiction. structure(s) enable coordination among stakeholders at local level and are functioning across 50% or more of the jurisdiction. structure(s) enable coordination among stakeholders at local level and are functioning across less than 50% of the jurisdiction. 2 4.3.5 Influences land use policies, planning and management Output from the structure(s) is published, with evidence of influence on land use policies, planning and management. Some output from the structure(s) is published but no evidence of influence. No information is published about output of the structure(s). 1 Guidance (please delete): Evidence that the multi-stakeholder structure influenced the policies, planning and management may include a written statement or minutes of a meeting explaining how input from the committee was taken into account or other relevant documentation. Where several structures were identified in 4.3.1, provide a separate rating for each structure. 4.4 Access to Information related to land use 4.4.1 Land use information is publicly disclosed All information related to land use policies, planning, and management is publicly disclosed. Some but not all non-confidential information related to land use policies, planning, and management is publicly disclosed. No information related to land use policies, and/or planning, and/or management is publicly disclosed. 1 Guidance (please delete): Recognizing that a comprehensive review of accessibility of all information would be time consuming, provide a justification for conclusions drawn about the relative availability of information based on what is readily accessible. 4.5 Feedback and grievance 4.5.1 Mechanisms Mechanisms exist and are Mechanisms but information Mechanism(s) addressing 1
4.6.3 Laws and regulations protect from discrimination Protection from discrimination is in place with evidence of effective enforcement. Protection from discrimination covers some but not all of gender, race, creed, ethnicity etc. or no evidence of effective enforcement. Laws and regulations do not exist or no evidence of enforcement. 1 5. Commodity production systems 5.1 Commodity 1 (repeat these indicators for other commodities) 5.1.1 Organizations exist representing and coordinating producers including smallholders Organizations exist representing and coordinating all types of producers across the jurisdiction, including smallholders, local communities, indigenous peoples where relevant. Producer organizations exist but not representing and coordinating all types of producers across the jurisdiction (such as smallholders). No organizations exist representing and coordinating producers. 1 5.1.2 Data available on trends in productivity compared with norms Comprehensive data on trends in productivity in the jurisdiction compared with norms are available. Partial or preliminary data on trends in productivity in the jurisdiction compared with are available. No data on trends in productivity compared with norms are available. 1 5.1.3 Data and analysis available on impacts on landscape sustainability goals Data and analysis on impacts of the production system (positive and negative) on landscape sustainability Partial or preliminary data and analysis on impacts (positive and negative) on sustainability goals No data and analysis on impacts (positive and negative) on sustainability goals 1
goals services, economic and social) are available, including data on extent of sustainability certification. services, economic and social) are available. services, economic and social) are available. 5.1.4 Data and analysis available on potential for growth in adoption of sustainable practices Data and analysis are available on potential for growth in adoption of sustainable practices including potential increases in productivity, investments needed, time frame and limitations, (including potential impacts of climate change). Partial or preliminary data and analysis are available on potential for growth including limitations. No data and analysis are available on potential for growth including limitations. 1 5.1.5 services available for sustainable practices services for sustainable practices are widely available including for smallholders. services for sustainable practices are available for some producers. services for sustainable practices are not generally available. 1 5.1.6 Financial support and incentives available for Financial support (credit, tax breaks) and other incentives (incl. contractual, Financial support (credit, tax breaks) and other incentives (incl. contractual, Financial support (credit, tax breaks) and other incentives (incl. 1