27. Percentage of verified assets that demonstrate improvement in biophysical conditions as confirmed through remote monitoring from space (LCI)

27. Percentage of verified assets that demonstrate improvement in biophysical conditions as confirmed through remote monitoring from space (LCI)

VERSION

V4.0 - 2026.03 — Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

27

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGR

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific indicator used to monitor outcomes of FFA activities

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is recommended against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes: Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Food Assistance for Assets (FFA)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage

DEFINITION

Remote Sensing Monitoring & Verification (RSMV) Indicator measures the extent to which WFP supported assets can be remotely verified and monitored through satellite imagery and demonstrate improved, maintained or declined biophysical conditions—including vegetation & soil—when compared to statistically selected control site over time. It combines two complementary dimensions of evidence: (1) confirmation that an asset is present and visible in very high resolution (VHR) satellite imagery, and (2) quantification of landscape‑level environmental changes within the asset area relative to the surrounding non‑intervention landscape or control site. By integrating remote verification and biophysical impact assessment into a single indicator, WFP can consistently monitor implementation quality and environmental outcomes across diverse ecological and operational contexts.

Below are some key definitions for this indicator:

Asset: As supported assets can be very different in terms of area, for the purpose of this indicator one asset is equivalent to one hectare supported by FFA programmes under the following groups of indicator T.10:

• Group 1. Hectares of land with new and rehabilitated irrigation systems

• Group 2. Hectares of land under improved afforestation management

• Group 3. Hectares of land rehabilitated with soil and water conservation practices

• Group 10. Hectares of land, infrastructure, and facilities cleared and reopened after disasters

Verified assets: They correspond to a subset of assets built, restored or maintained with WFP support (Under groups 1–3 and 10), for which their existence and area in hectares can be confirmed through remote verification (AIMS).

Remote Verification: Confirmation that an asset submitted by the Country Office is clearly identifiable in VHR satellite imagery, indicating that the physical structure exists at the reported coordinates.

Biophysical Conditions: Measurable environmental characteristics—such as vegetation vigor, soil moisture, or related ecological indicators—that can be quantified through Earth Observation data.

Improved: A category indicating that biophysical conditions within the asset area show a positive contrast relative to the control area and pre‑implementation baseline, reflecting enhanced performance.

Maintained: Biophysical conditions remain broadly stable relative to the control site and baseline conditions. This refers exclusively to landscape conditions and does not indicate physical maintenance or functionality of the asset.

Declined: Biophysical conditions show a lower contrast relative to the control site or baseline. This may result from climatic shocks, land‑use dynamics, or other external factors and does not necessarily reflect project failure.

Control Site: A statistically selected non‑intervention area with similar pre‑intervention biophysical characteristics to the asset site, used to isolate the effects of the intervention from background climatic variability.

Very High Resolution (VHR): Satellite imagery with a spatial resolution of less than 1 meter, enabling the identification of objects such as structures or vehicles, but not detailed enough to reveal personally identifiable information (PII) such as addresses or license plate numbers.

RATIONALE

This indicator is used to determine whether WFP‑supported asset creation activities have been successfully implemented and whether they are contributing to improved environmental conditions that strengthen community resilience under Strategic Outcome 2. It responds to the need for an objective, scalable, and consistent approach for monitoring both the existence of assets and their environmental effects, especially in contexts where field verification is limited by access, insecurity, remoteness, or resource constraints.

Remote sensing enables WFP to monitor large geographic areas and long time periods using independent, repeatable evidence. Very high‑resolution imagery confirms whether an asset has been implemented as planned, while landscape‑level biophysical indicators—such as vegetation greenness and soil moisture—help determine whether the asset is producing the intended effects on natural resources, land productivity, and environmental stability. Comparing the asset area to a statistically selected control site further isolates the impact of the intervention from background climatic variability, ensuring that improvements, stability, or declines observed in the landscape reflect meaningful programme results.

The underlying principle of this indicator is that effective resilience programming depends on both implementation quality and environmental outcomes. Remote verification provides confidence that communities and partners have completed the planned works, while biophysical impact assessment provides evidence of how these assets support climate adaptation, ecosystem restoration, improved soil and water management, and productive landscapes. These are core elements of WFP’s commitments under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)—particularly sustainable food systems, land restoration, and resilience to climate shocks—as well as WFP’s Climate and Environmental Sustainability Policy and the Corporate Results Framework.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The primary data source for this indicator is the asset information submitted by Country Offices (COs) for remote sensing verification & monitoring. This includes the asset’s location in decimal degrees, boundaries (required assessment of biophysical indicators), asset type, and implementation year, recorded in the AIMS DataBridges module. These inputs allow AIMS analysts to identify the asset area and carry out remote monitoring. Biophysical conditions are assessed using satellite imagery and Earth Observation (EO) datasets routinely processed by AIMS, harnessing infrastructure in the Geospatial & Intelligence Unit. These data enable verification of whether an asset is visible from space and whether the surrounding landscape shows signs of improved, stable, or declining biophysical conditions over time. No additional fieldwork is required from COs for this standard remote‑sensing analysis.

COs subscribed to AIMS Soil Monitoring, which enables a more detailed assessment of soil conditions—including Soil Organic Carbon (SOC). COs collect soil samples using a simple sampling strategy supported by AIMS guidance, and samples are analyzed in accredited laboratories. The resulting soil data are used to calibrate and validate the satellite‑based assessments (e.g. RothC model) and improve the reliability of soil‑related indicators. This enhanced soil monitoring is optional and not required for reporting against the indicator. All satellite‑based analyses and, where relevant, soil monitoring results are compiled and shared with COs through AIMS dashboards and reports.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

This indicator does not require COs to conduct any field sampling for the standard satellite‑based assessment. All remote monitoring is carried out directly by the AIMS team.

For COs that choose to participate in the optional Soil Monitoring workflow, a small number of soil samples may be collected to improve estimates of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) and above‑ground biomass (AGB). A simple stratified sampling approach is available to guide this process.

AIMS will provide the support needed for the sampling strategy, including guidance on where to sample, how many samples to take, and how to apply a simple stratified sampling approach based on landscape characteristics. Soil samples should be analysed in accredited laboratories. Participation in soil sampling remains optional and is not required for reporting against this indicator.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated using the following steps:

Step 1: Remote Verification (VHR imagery)

AIMS uses very high‑resolution satellite imagery to confirm whether each asset submitted by the Country Office:

• is visible at the reported coordinates, and

• corresponds to the expected footprint (area in hectares or length in kilometers, depending on the asset group reported under the following output indicator “Number of assets built, restored or maintained by targeted households and communities, by type and unit of measure.”

This step ensures that only correctly geolocated and clearly identifiable assets are included in the subsequent landscape assessment.

Step 2: Biophysical Assessment (Landscape Impact Monitoring)

For asset types where biophysical change can be detected (Groups 1–3 and 10), AIMS evaluates the condition of the landscape at the asset site after implementation.

This involves comparing:

1. Post‑implementation vegetation or soil conditions at the asset site, to

2. The long‑term pre‑intervention average for the same site, with

3. Comparison to statistically selected control area with similar pre‑intervention characteristics (to reduce background noise from climate variability).

Based on this comparison, each verified asset is classified into one of three categories:

• Improved condition

• Maintained condition

• Declined condition

Step 3: Indicator Calculation

Let:

D = Total number of verified Has in Groups 1–3 and 10 that underwent biophysical assessment

E = Number of hectares classified as Improved

F = Number of hectares classified as Maintained

G = Number of hectares classified as Declined

This indicator is calculated as:

This value represents the proportion of verified assets that demonstrate a measurable improvement in vegetation or soil conditions during the reporting year.

These additional percentages help Country Offices understand performance patterns across asset types but are not part of the corporate CRF indicator.

Final Value Reported in the Annual Country Report (ACR)

The ACR reports:

The percentage of verified assets (Groups 1–3 and 10) that show improved biophysical conditions, and

The absolute number of verified assets, consistent with output indicators T.10 (Assets built, restored or maintained).

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values to be recorded in COMET are highlighted in yellow in the following table:

For each asset group/row, COs must enter 3 percentages (from 0% to 100%) to confirm the proportion of assets that have increased/maintained or reduced contrast in vegetation or soil conditions. Values of gray columns are recorded under FFA output indicators and values of the white columns are provided by the AIMs analysis and remote verification.

The sum of values E%, F% and G% should add up 100%.

BASELINE

The indicator baseline is zero in the first year of the CSP.

From the second year, the baseline is the most recent (follow-up) value from the previous year.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Targets in COMET are entered for the ‘Maintained’ and ‘Improved’ categories.
Annual targets and CSP targets are country specific. Whenever feasible, targets should aim to improve biophysical conditions otherwise; targets should aim to maintain the current conditions or to reduce their decline. 

Note: The annual targets are only informative due to (i) the multi-year nature of FFA programmes and (ii) the fact that some assets take time to mature and generate benefits.

Annual targets are expected to be revised every year to be consistent with the baseline value and with progress achieved during previous years.

End of CSP target:

Both annual and CSP targets are country specific. Depending on programme objectives, targets could focus on achieving gradual improvement and/or maintaining baseline conditions.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

This indicator is collected once annually, in line with the AIMS remote‑sensing analysis cycle and the availability of complete satellite‑derived biophysical data for each reporting year. Annual collection ensures that:

• Full‑season vegetation and soil moisture trends are available for each asset site and its corresponding control site;

• classification of improved, maintained, or declined biophysical conditions is based on a complete year’s landscape signal rather than short‑term variability;

• Asset verification (visibility in VHR imagery) is conducted before and after implementation, based on the dates supplied by the Country Office. This confirms that the asset is physically present, correctly geolocated, and consistent with the reported footprint at the time of completion.

• After initial verification, annual follow‑up verification is conducted to confirm that the asset continues to be visible and identifiable in satellite imagery.

• Results feed directly into the Annual Country Report (ACR) and annual programme planning.

• Country Offices participating in the optional Soil Monitoring workflow may collect soil samples every 1–3 years, but this does not affect the required annual reporting frequency for the indicator. Only the satellite‑based annual assessment is mandatory for reporting.

INTERPRETATION

How to interpret an increase

An increase in the percentage of assets showing improved biophysical conditions suggests that:

• assets are performing as intended in enhancing vegetation cover, soil moisture, or land productivity;

• communities and cooperating partners are successfully implementing and maintaining interventions;

• environmental benefits are evident despite normal climate variability; and

• the programme is contributing effectively to resilience and ecosystem restoration goals.

Rising trends over multiple years can be expected, especially where assets require time to mature (e.g., afforestation, check dams, soil and water conservation structures).

How to interpret stable values

A stable percentage may indicate:

• landscape conditions are being maintained, even in contexts of climatic stress;

• the environmental benefits of assets are steady but not increasing (which may be appropriate for mature assets);

• external factors such as droughts or extreme weather may be limiting observable improvements.

Maintained conditions are still considered a positive result in fragile ecosystems where preventing further degradation is an important outcome.

How to interpret a decrease

• A decrease in the proportion of assets showing improvement does not necessarily indicate poor project performance. It may reflect:

• severe climatic shocks (e.g., drought, flooding, unseasonal rainfall);

• natural variability in vegetation cycles;

• land‑use changes in surrounding areas affecting contrast measurements;

• the young age of assets that have not yet matured;

• incomplete or inconsistent maintenance efforts by communities or partners.

In these cases, examining the distribution of improved, maintained, and declined categories—broken down by asset group—helps identify which asset types are performing well and where additional support or follow‑up may be needed.

Disaggregated interpretation

Interpreting this indicator by T.10asset group, ecological zone, or implementation year provides more meaningful insights. For example:

• soil and water conservation assets may show quicker improvements in arid zones;

• afforestation projects often require multiple years before measurable gains appear;

• irrigation systems may show seasonal or crop‑cycle‑dependent improvements.

Understanding these patterns supports better planning, targeting, and design of FFA activities.

Overall interpretation guidance

The indicator should be viewed as:

• a reflection of environmental performance, not operational volume;

• a measure of landscape‑level outcomes rather than asset physical condition;

• sensitive to climate shocks and therefore most meaningful when viewed as a multi‑year trend;

• a complement to other FFA indicators (e.g., T.10and outcome indicators on livelihoods and environmental benefits).

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In 2026, the Country Office submitted 210 assets (AIMS) from T.10 Groups 1–3 and 10 for AIMS remote monitoring. Using very high‑resolution satellite imagery, AIMS analysts verified that 198 assets were visible at the reported coordinates and corresponded to the footprints provided by the CO.

These 198 verified assets were then assessed for biophysical change using satellite‑derived vegetation and soil indicators compared with their long‑term baseline and a statistically selected control site.

Results showed that:

112 assets demonstrated improved biophysical conditions,

61 assets maintained pre‑intervention biophysical conditions, and

25 assets showed declined conditions.

The indicator value reported in the ACR was therefore:

Percentage improved=(112/198)×100=56.6%

In the ACR, the CO reported:

56.6% of assessed assets demonstrated improved biophysical conditions; and the absolute number of assets assessed (198), consistent with T.10reporting and AIMS verification outputs.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• 101. Percentage of population in targeted communities reporting benefits from an enhanced livelihoods asset base (ABI)

• T.10 Number of assets built, restored or maintained by targeted households and communities, by type and unit of measure

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Outcome indicator 101 “Percentage of population in targeted communities reporting benefits from an enhanced livelihoods asset base (ABI)“ can be collected and analysed at the same time to complement data from the LCI.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

This indicator provides objective, satellite‑derived evidence that can inform decisions specifically related to asset status, environmental performance, and data quality. The data can support:

Confirmation of Asset Existence and Accuracy of Reporting:

• Assets submitted by the Country Office are visible, correctly geolocated, and consistent with their reported footprint.

• Assets continue to be detectable in VHR imagery during annual follow‑up verification.

Identification of Assets Demonstrating Positive Biophysical Change

• Which assets show improved vegetation or soil conditions relative to baseline and control sites.

• Which asset groups (1–3 and 10) are showing measurable landscape‑level benefits.

Identification of Assets Not Showing Improvement

• Assets classified as maintained or declined, signaling where environmental conditions remain stable, or landscape performance is weakening relative to baseline and controls.

Portfolio‑Level Trends

• Year‑on‑year trends in the proportion of assets improving, maintaining, or declining.

• Distribution of performance across different T.10 groups and ecological settings.

• These indicator results can be used to inform asset planning, design and adaptive management. Assets with improved conditions may be used to guide other programming and advocacy, while maintained and declined conditions of the indicator may inform the asset managers about the need for adjustments of the asset and its management. The indicator and assessment outputs can be used to inform the relative importance of the asset for local resilience in the surrounding areas, as well as the impact of the surroundings on the risks towards the asset. The outputs can be used to assess the performance and impact of the asset intervention relative to the environmental conditions, differentiating between performance relative to environmental changes and intervention-related changes. Allowing relevant staff to distinguish between the root cause of the observed change in conditions. The very-high resolution images accompanying the indicator results can be used to gain insights into field-level conditions for non-field staff and to identify actions on the ground that may be in accordance with or in conflict with the project description. The combination of the biophysical indicators and perception-based indicators can be used to better identify and interpret the results of the ABI and EBI, and to what extent the perception-based indicator results are due to environmental performance or non-environmental reasons, e.g., complementary activities or external reasons.

VISUALIZATION

LIMITATIONS

Asset age: Newly created assets may show limited or no detectable biophysical change in the first years after implementation, as many interventions require time to mature before improvements become observable.

Location and cloud cover: Some regions—particularly tropical areas—experience persistent cloud cover, reducing the availability of clear satellite imagery and limiting the ability to assess biophysical conditions reliably

Scope of satellite monitoring: While satellite imagery can detect land‑cover and landscape‑level environmental changes, it cannot capture social, economic, or other non‑environmental benefits of FFA activities. These outcomes must be assessed through complementary monitoring tools.

Asset size: Very small assets or highly fragmented interventions may be too small to be reliably detected or assessed through remote sensing, especially in complex landscapes.

FURTHER INFORMATION

AIMS Support Team 
global.assetmonitoring@wfp.org