Restoration 
Plantations and tree crop commodities 
Enhanced nutrition and food security 
Biodiversity, safeguarding and conservation 
Nationally determined contributions 
Bioenergy and biomaterials 
Blue carbon and peatlands 
Climate change adaptation 
Landscape governance 
Gender 
Silvopastoral systems 
Market-based agroforestry-forestry 
Farm-forest policy interface 
Agroecology 
Livelihood trajectory modelling and assessment 
Inclusive finance and business models 
Innovating finance for sustainable landscapes 
Public and private commitments to zero deforestation 
Orphan tree crops 
Effectiveness of approaches to sustainable supply 
Quality of FTA research for development 
Sentinel landscapes 
Foresight 
Seeds and seedlings delivery systems 
Smallholder tree-crop commodities 
As the concept and principles of integrated landscape approaches (ILA) become increasingly popular, researchers and practitioners must consider not only their considerable potential to address socio-economic and environmental trade-offs facing people and nature, but also how to monitor and report on ILA outcomes to construct an evidence base that shows us what works and what doesn’t when such approaches are implemented in real life.
Key conclusions from a newly published paper highlight the lack of evidence in the scientific literature concerning the effectiveness of ILA, making it difficult to demonstrate where, and under what conditions, landscape approaches are successful in achieving multiple objectives – or whether such approaches are even feasible.
