Frequently asked questions

• Should companies continue setting targets using the V1 methods?

  Yes, absolutely. Land Version 1 (V1) targets are active for company adoption until 6 months after the full launch of Version 2 (V2), which will happen in 2026, and companies are encouraged to start using V1 now to take action on their land impacts. Companies can be confident that there will be consistency between different versions of the Land targets, including V1 to V2. The V1 Land targets were designed to incentivize corporate actions that align with future generations of Land targets, and V2 targets have been designed to ensure alignment with V1.

• What are the main changes being explored as part of the V2 consultation process?

  The V2 targets build on V1 with the latest science and greater specificity. The main changes are in Target 2, with new land quality targets to enable companies to set targets to tackle land degradation, and a natural land cover target. Other changes include the introduction of:

  • Place-based land thresholds across more than 800 ecoregions to support target-setting with greater science-based specificity
  • New Accounting Guidelines to support companies in taking robust and consistent approaches to understanding and measuring their impacts on land
  • Improved feasibility measures, such as options that support target-setting in low-data contexts.
• Who should provide feedback during the public consultation period, and how can they get involved?

  We are looking for feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including but not limited to companies, consultancies, industry coalitions, financial institutions, NGOs, academics, Indigenous Peoples, faith-based groups, youth organizations, and interested individuals without affiliations.

  To get involved with the public consultation, review the draft guidance and share your feedback using this form by May 27, 2025.

• Who is developing the V2 land methods and what has the consultation process been so far?

  The V2 consultation methods are grounded in a robust multi-stakeholder process and developed through SBTN’s Land Hub including World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute, and the Food and Land Use Coalition, with support from KPMG and Systemiq. Land V2 strives to reflect a balance between scientific rigor and practical feasibility, grounded in a robust multi-stakeholder process. The consultation is a key part of ensuring we strike the right balance.

• How do the V2 updates enhance the business case for action?

  Land V2 provides a rigorous, place-based approach that enables companies to take credible action on land-related risks. With expanded impact coverage and more flexible target-setting, it helps companies better allocate resources efficiently, safeguard operational continuity, and build resilience.

  Land targets complement climate science-based targets by addressing impacts that carbon targets may not, such as land degradation, biodiversity loss, and pollution, enabling a more comprehensive nature and climate strategy.

• Are there any areas we are particularly looking for feedback on during the public consultation?

  Yes – we are interested in hearing stakeholders’ views on how we have balanced the need for scientific rigor with practical usability of the methods, in particular in regards to:

  • Additional elements added to Target 2 – Natural Land Cover and Land Quality sub-targets
  • Updates to the No Conversion target
  • The New Accounting Guidelines (AGILE)
  • Ecoregional Thresholds
  • Land Environmental Assessment Factors (LEAF)
• What is the difference between land area and land quality targets within Target 2?

  Land area targets help companies adopt approaches to reducing their impacts on land through alternative approaches to increasing the extent of natural lands. They can do this either through reducing the total area of land that they operate in and source inputs from (Land Footprint target), or by working to maintain and increase the extent of natural lands in the landscapes they operate in and source from (Natural Land Cover target).

  Land quality targets, on the other hand, are more focused on preserving the integrity of working lands by avoiding land degradation. This can be done by focusing on place-specific thresholds for soil organic carbon, soil erosion, and terrestrial acidification.

• Why has the Natural Land Cover target been added, and how does this affect company approaches to reducing impacts through land-sparing vs land-sharing approaches?

  A Natural Land Cover target works to increase the quantity of natural and semi-natural lands across landscapes to support delivery of nature’s contributions to people (NCP). The scientific basis for this target comes from a body of evidence from the Earth Commission which demonstrates that increasing natural and (semi-) natural habitat increases the delivery of NCP. It specifically draws on work demonstrating that, in working lands in particular, the provision of NCP significantly declines when the quantity of (semi-)natural habitat cover per km2 falls below 20-25%.

  Together with the Land Footprint target, these reflect different but complementary strategies for reconciling production processes with nature protection in land systems. In a land sparing model (Land Footprint reduction target), production is intensified in some areas to “spare” other land for nature. In land sharing (Natural Land Cover target), nature is embedded within farmland or other production units, reducing the separation between production and conservation zones, and enhancing the ecological integrity across landscapes.

  Agri-food companies may choose between setting a Land Footprint target or a Land Cover target. This flexibility recognizes that agri-food companies operate in diverse production systems. While some may pursue a land sparing approach by improving yields to reduce overall land footprint, others operating in extensive or low-yield systems, such as pastoralism or rainfed agriculture, can prioritize land sharing strategies by embedding nature within working lands.

• Why has SBTN introduced changes to the No Conversion target?

  SBTN acknowledges that, due to insufficient collective global progress, not all companies will achieve the 2025 deforestation and conversion free (DCF) target date. Instead of shifting target dates, SBTN is retaining the urgency of 2025 targets while taking a pragmatic approach. Where companies cannot meet their 2025 target date, they can commit and publish the specific date by when they will be DCF, within a defined target window. Paired with disclosure of DCF commodity volumes, this approach enables more companies to engage in meaningful action for nature and encourages transparency, while maintaining the integrity of science-based targets.

• Will companies need to set all three land targets?

  Yes, companies that have materiality to terrestrial ecosystem use or change in their materiality assessment (Step 1) are required to set all three land targets. Companies with materiality only to soil pollution are not required to set a No Conversion target (Target 1), but are required to set a Working Lands Regeneration and Restoration Target (Target 2) and a Landscape Engagement Target (Target 3).

• What are Land Environmental Assessment Factors (LEAFs), and how do they relate to the methods and Accounting Guidelines?

  LEAFs are a set of numerical factors and land quality indicators that help companies translate their activities into different environmental impacts. For example, companies can use given numerical factors to estimate their contribution towards terrestrial acidification in different places. This is particularly helpful where traceability and data limitations prevent companies collecting this data directly.

  LEAFs are predominantly used in the methods towards setting Land Quality targets (Target 2.2), and the Accounting Guidelines outline how LEAFs should be used when calculating a company’s land impacts. LEAFs can also help companies estimate how interventions they make on the ground (their “response options”) could reduce their impacts.