Sustainability Standards in Agri‐Food Value Chains: Impacts and Trade‐Offs for Smallholder Farmers

Wollni, Meike et al. Article — Published Version Sustainability Standards in Agri‐Food Value Chains: Impacts and Trade‐Offs for Smallholder Farmers Agricultural Economics Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Wollni, Meike et al. (2025) : Sustainability Standards in Agri‐Food Value Chains: Impacts and Trade‐Offs for Smallholder Farmers, Agricultural Economics, ISSN 1574-0862, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 56, Iss. 3, pp. 373-389, https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70005 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323828 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Agricultural Economics SPECIAL ISSUE ICAE 2024 Special Issue Article ORIGINAL ARTICLE Sustainability Standards in Agri-Food Value Chains: Impacts and Trade-Offs for Smallholder Farmers Meike Wollni1,3Sophia Bohn1Carolina Ocampo-Ariza2Bruno Paz1Simone Santalucia1 Margherita Squarcina1Françoise Umarishavu1Marlene Yu Lilin Wätzold1 1Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany 2Functional Agrobiodiversity and Agroecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany 3Campus Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany Correspondence: Meike Wollni ([email protected]) Received: 1 August 2024 Revised: 21 January 2025 Accepted: 31 January 2025 Funding: This research was supported through funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under the RTG 2654: Sustainable Food Systems. Keywords: biodiversity conservation | cocoa | coffee | certification | dietary quality | food security | gender equality | impact evaluation | sustainable food systems ABSTRACT The global agri-food system faces major challenges in meeting the growing demand for food in an equitable way while mitigating environmental impacts such as deforestation, soil degradation, and climate change. Over the past few decades, voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) have proliferated as a potential instrument to promote more sustainable global value chains and sourcing practices. Although the body of impact evaluations on VSS has grown, most studies focus on single outcome dimensions, leaving interactions between dimensions underexplored. In this study, we use a conceptual framework to assess the relationships between VSS interventions and key sustainable food system outcomes across multiple dimensions. Our study focuses on economic prosperity, healthy ecosystems, gender equality, and food security, with a particular emphasis on identifying potential trade-offs and synergies between these dimensions. To illustrate the interactions identified in our framework, we present empirical data from three case studies in Ghana, Rwanda, and Peru. Our findings underscore the importance of balancing trade-offs and fostering synergies to advance sustainability across multiple dimensions. This study contributes to ongoing discussions on the effectiveness of VSS in promoting sustainability by highlighting their potential impacts, as well as the trade-offs that must be managed, to achieve more sustainable food systems. JEL Classification: Q01, Q13, Q57, J22 1 Introduction The global demand for tropical cash crops, such as coffee, cocoa, palm oil, and soybeans, continues to rise, driven by consumer preferences and international trade (Kastner et al. 2021). However, the rapid expansion of agricultural production has significant environmental and social costs, including deforestation and biodiversity loss (Curtis et al. 2018). While cash crop farmers often fare better economically than subsistence farmers (Achterbosch et al. 2014), they still face substantial challenges, including market exclusion, poor livelihoods, inadequate working conditions, and vulnerability to highly volatile prices (Garrett et al. 2021; Meemken et al. 2021; Starobin 2021). These issues are further exacerbated by climate change, which threatens to make many current growing areas unsuitable for production (Ariza-Salamanca et al. 2023;Grüteretal.2022). This places immense pressure on the environment and rural livelihoods, disproportionately affecting women (Andrijevic et al. 2020). This paper was presented at a Plenary Session of the 32nd International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE) 2024, held from 2–7 August, 2024 in New Delhi, India. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Agricultural Economics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Association of Agricultural Economists. Agricultural Economics, 2025; 56:373–389 https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70005 373 In light of these challenges, a transition towards more sustainable food systems ranks high on the policy agenda and is central to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Ambikapathi et al. 2022). Sustainable food systems aim to ensure food security and nutrition for all without compromising the economic, environmental, and social capacity to do so in the future (FAO 2018b). However, achieving sustainable food systems requires balancing often competing goals in multiple dimensions of sustainability. Trade-offs between economic and environmental outcomes are well-documented, particularly in the context of agricultural intensification (Phalan et al. 2011), and have been explicitly analyzed in tropical cash crop agriculture (Daum et al. 2023; Wenzel et al. 2024). Although less studied, interactions between other dimensions, such as social and equity outcomes, are also relevant for sustainable food systems (Rubio-Jovel 2023). In this context, voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) have emerged as a promising tool to promote more sustainable food systems and reconcile competing sustainability outcomes (Traldi 2021). A growing body of literature evaluates the impact of VSS on economic, environmental, and social outcomes. Yet, most studies focus on a single dimension at a time, which risks overlooking the potential trade-offs and synergies that exist between sustainability outcomes (Barbier and Burgess 2019; Garrett et al. 2021; Rubio-Jovel 2023; Rubio-Jovel et al. 2024). This study seeks to address this gap by examining whether VSS can effectively support sustainable food system outcomes for smallholder farmers in international cash crop sectors, considering multiple dimensions of sustainability and exploring the interactions between them. We conceptually illustrate the mechanisms through which VSS influence multiple dimensions of sustainability, highlighting key trade-offs and synergies between them. Using primary data from three case studies—Ghana, Rwanda, and Peru—we provide empirical evidence on how VSS can balance these multiple and often competing goals. Most VSS relevant for tropical cash crops, such as Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, or Organic, were initially developed with a specific goal in mind focusing, for example, on environmental or social aspects only. In recent decades, VSS have been further developed and have gradually converged in their objectives to encompass comprehensive sustainability goals in multiple dimensions (Lambin and Thorlakson 2018; Meemken et al. 2021). Traldi (2021) provides an overview of 13 major international agricultural VSS, including, for example, Fairtrade, Organic, and Rainforest Alliance, and their key characteristics, principles, and criteria covering environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Garrett et al. (2021) review eight VSS that pursue conservation and livelihood objectives simultaneously, including Rainforest Alliance, Bird Friendly, and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), among others. All of these VSS encourage the adoption of sustainable farming practices to improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and reduce environmental impact. They also facilitate access to inputs or price premiums to increase agricultural productivity and economic prosperity of farming households. Furthermore, VSS typically commit to social and equity goals, for example, supporting gender equity by enacting human and labor rights and offering gender-sensitive training (Garrett et al. 2021; Meemken and Qaim 2018; Traldi 2021). While VSS have become more comprehensive in the sustainability dimensions they address, most evaluation studies still focus on only one outcome dimension, thereby overlooking these complexities. Numerous studies assess the impact of VSS on economic outcomes, including yields, prices, net crop income, and total household income (Beuchelt and Zeller 2011; Boonaert and Maertens 2023; Iddrisu et al. 2020; Meemken 2020). Recent reviews by Meemkenetal.(2021) and Oya et al. (2018) conclude that the overall economic impacts of VSS on farm households appear to be moderately positive. However, the underlying mechanisms that lead to the improvements in economic outcomes, in terms of the services provided and practices promoted, often vary between VSS (Boonaert and Maertens 2023;Meemkenetal.2021), and, accordingly, may affect environmental outcomes in different ways. Yet, few studies examine economic and environmental outcomes simultaneously (Garrett et al. 2021). One of the few studies to collect both economic and environmental data from the same farm households is Vanderhaegen et al. (2018), who analyze certification among coffee farmers in Uganda. This study finds trade-offs between economic and environmental dimensions that vary by VSS. Fairtrade/Organic double certification has positive effects on shade tree crown cover, shade tree diversity, and invertebrate diversity, but negative effects on coffee yields, labor productivity, and income. In contrast, UTZ/Rainforest Alliance/4C triple certification has positive effects on the economic outcomes, but negative effects on most environmental outcomes, except for shade tree diversity. Another example is Haggar et al. (2017), who find positive effects of VSS on many, but not all, environmental outcomes and on some economic outcomes for coffee farmers in Nicaragua. They find general trade-offs between tree diversity and economic outcomes, but these trade-offs are somewhat mitigated for certified farmers who receive higher prices. Lastly, a study by Thompson et al. (2022) assesses the effects of VSS for cocoa farmers in Ghana on economic and environmental outcomes. They find mixed effects on yields, depending on the type of VSS and regional context, but no effects on shade tree cover or diversity. In general, VSS seem to perform well in either economic or environmental dimensions, but rarely in both, which may partly be due to the original focus of the VSS under study or the local context. Overall, there is still too little evidence to draw firm conclusions. Evidence on the impact of VSS is even more limited for social sustainability dimensions such as gender equality, worker health, child labor and education, and food security (Akoyi et al. 2020; Schleifer and Sun 2020; Sellare et al. 2020). From a sustainable food systems perspective, ensuring food security is a key objective, but a recent review by Schleifer and Sun (2020) concludes that evidence on the impact of VSS on food security is relatively scarce and mixed. While some studies show a positive relationship between VSS, income, and food security (Becchetti and Costantino 2008;Meemkenetal.2017; Schleifer and Sun 2020), several others show no or even negative effects on food security and dietary quality, despite positive effects on yields and income (Dompreh et al. 2021; Iddrisu et al. 2020; Knößlsdorfer et al. 2021; Meemken et al. 2017). A key insight from these studies is that higher incomes associated with certification do not automatically translate into better food security outcomes. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and 374 Agricultural Economics,2025 interactions between economic, environmental, and social outcomes is therefore needed. This requires that VSS evaluation studies consider multiple sustainability outcomes, including those that have received less attention to date. In a recent article, Rubio-Jovel (2023)systematically reviews the evidence on the contribution of VSS to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) and identifies research gaps in key sustainability dimensions, in particular, gender equality (SDG 5) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10). Similarly, Traldi (2021), in her systematic review of VSS impacts on different sustainability dimensions, concludes that evidence on gender outcomes is scarce. While gender equality is a goal in its own right, it is also instrumental in achieving food security and healthy diets for all. For example, Chiputwa and Qaim (2016) show that certification is associated with higher intra-household bargaining power of women, which is positively related to improved nutritional intake. Although other important social dimensions remain under-researched, we focus on gender equality in our study to illustrate the importance of considering trade-offs and synergies between different sustainability dimensions. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, it highlights the importance of considering multiple dimensions of sustainability when evaluating VSS. While the relevant outcomes and indicators may vary from case to case, we argue that assessing sustainable food system outcomes requires an interdisciplinary approach that looks beyond a narrowly defined outcome dimension. Second, our study provides illustrative evidence of trade-offs and synergies between relevant food system dimensions, including economic, environmental, and social dimensions. In the next section, we introduce our conceptual framework, which brings together relevant dimensions of sustainable food systems—healthy ecosystems, economic prosperity, gender equity, and food security—and identifies key trade-offs and synergies between them. We then present data from Ghana, Rwanda, and Peru to provide empirical evidence on how VSS balance these multiple and often competing objectives inherent in sustainability efforts. The final section discusses implications for future certification efforts and for future research evaluating such efforts. 2Conceptual Framework In this study, we aim to assess whether VSS can contribute to more sustainable food systems. A central objective of sustainable food systems is ensuring food security and nutrition for all, which is represented as the ultimate outcome in our conceptual framework (Figure 1). In addition to food security, we examine other key sustainability dimensions: healthy ecosystems, economic prosperity, and gender equality. These dimensions are not only goals in their own right but also play an instrumental role in achieving food security. For example, healthy ecosystems are essential for resilience to extreme weather events and are critical for sustaining long-term agricultural productivity (Tscharntke et al. 2024). Similarly, economic prosperity ensures that food remains affordable and accessible to all. Gender equality is crucial for providing equal opportunities in accessing food, as well as in the control over resources and decision-making related to food production and consumption. While our study focuses on these selected dimensions, we acknowledge that sustainable food systems encompass a broader range of outcomes and therefore do not claim our framework to be exhaustive. VSS can influence sustainable food system outcomes through various types of interventions (Boonaert and Maertens 2023), which are depicted on the left side of our conceptual framework. These interventions encompass the rules, regulations, requirements, and support measures implemented by VSS. We categorize these interventions into three broad sustainability dimensions: environmental, economic, and social, and provide several examples. Environmental interventions include zerodeforestation regulations, training on sustainable practices, and the provision of native tree seedlings, all of which generally aim to improve ecosystem health (Garrett et al. 2021;Krumbiegel and Tillie 2024). Economic interventions range from training and agrochemical input provision to price premiums and are designed to improve economic outcomes (Boonaert and Maertens 2023). Social interventions cover a wide range of different measures aimed at improving social aspects of sustainability, such as equity, working conditions, and health (Krumbiegel et al. 2018; Schuster and Maertens 2017). As outlined above, in this study we focus on gender equality as one aspect of social sustainability. Relevant interventions include providing gender awareness training, supporting women’s farmer groups, and strengthening women’s representation in cooperatives,1which aim to contribute to better gender equality outcomes (Meemken and Qaim 2018;Morgan and Zaremba 2023). It is important to note that interventions are often delivered as bundled packages (e.g., training on multiple practices) or serve multiple purposes (e.g., credit that supports both production and livelihood improvement). As a result, a single intervention may ultimately affect multiple sustainability outcomes simultaneously. The middle part of our conceptual framework illustrates the impact pathways through which VSS, with their specific sets of interventions, influence food system outcomes. It is important to emphasize that these are examples chosen for illustrative purposes and do not cover all potential impact pathways. In addition, contextual factors such as the landscape and policy context, market environment, and climate conditions (as represented by the background illustrations in Figure 1) shape the linkages between VSS interventions and sustainable food system outcomes. Within each sustainability dimension, the impact pathways are relatively straightforward. In the environmental dimension, for example, training in sustainable practices and provision of native tree seedlings are expected to lead to the adoption of sustainable practices, more shade trees, and more diversification on farms (Gather and Wollni 2022; Haggar et al. 2017; Ibanez and Blackman 2016), leading to healthier soils and more biodiversity, contributing to healthier ecosystems that are more resilient to weather extremes, thus helping to ensure food security (Poppy et al. 2014). In the economic dimension, access to inputs and credit as well as price premiums is expected to lead to higher input use (Sellare et al. 2020), output prices, and profitability (Boonaert and Maertens 2023). As a result of increased profitability, farmers may choose to specialize in the certified crop (Vellema et al. 2015), allowing them to take advantage of economies of scale 375 FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework. Graphical design by Visuals in Science LAB (www.visualsinscience.com). and thus achieve higher yields and incomes, contributing to household food security and dietary quality (Sibhatu et al. 2015). In the social dimension, interventions such as capacity building, promotion of equal pay and leadership opportunities for women, and mandatory formation of gender committees in cooperatives are expected to influence perceptions of gender roles in the household and community. This can improve women’s participation in decision-making and increase their time agency and control over income, which are associated with women’s empowerment and more equal access to resources within the household, including equal access to food security and dietary quality. However, changes in one dimension are likely to interact with outcomes in other dimensions, as shown by the cross-dimension arrows in Figure 1. These interactions can be positive, implying synergies between sustainability goals, where achieving one goal makes it easier or more likely to achieve another. But interactions can also be negative, implying trade-offs between sustainability goals, where an improvement in one goal is associated with a decrease in another (Rubio-Jovel et al. 2024). In the following, we discuss potential trade-offs and synergies between sustainability outcomes that may arise in the context of VSS interventions, with a focus on the examples outlined in Figure 1. Previous studies examining both economic and environmental impacts often find that VSS improve only one of the two dimensions (Haggar et al. 2017; Vanderhaegen et al. 2018). This outcome may stem from inherent environmental-economic trade-offs. For instance, most VSS promote sustainable agricultural practices, such as agroforestry, in cash crop plantations to enhance ecosystem health (Thompson et al. 2022). However, these practices can sometimes reduce yields, as shade trees and cash crop trees may compete for nutrients (Asitoakor et al. 2022;Blaseretal.2018). Conversely, VSS that encourage the use of agrochemical inputs to boost agricultural yields (Sellare et al. 2020) may inadvertently harm biodiversity. Despite these trade-offs, synergies are also possible. For example, promoting sustainable practices like composting can simultaneously improve soil health and enhance long-term productivity. Most evaluation studies of VSS are conducted at the household level, leaving the intra-household distribution of certificationrelated costs and benefits largely unexplored (Traldi 2021). Yet, from an equity perspective, understanding distributional outcomes is critical. For example, when VSS promote laborintensive sustainable agricultural practices, trade-offs can arise between environmental and gender objectives. Labor-intensive practices can disproportionately increase women’s workloads and limit their time agency, particularly in contexts where social norms prescribe a gendered division of labor (Arora and Rada 2020;Bolwig2012;Lyonetal.2017). Evidence, though limited and mostly qualitative, suggests that women often bear a higher time burden due to their responsibility for many laborintensive tasks associated with certification (Bolwig 2012;Lyon et al. 2017, 2010). However, synergies are also possible. Greater involvement in certified crop production can empower women by enabling more active participation in decision-making and greater control over crop income (Meemken and Qaim 2018). This is particularly significant in contexts where cash crop income is typically controlled by men (Chiputwa and Qaim 2016). 376 Agricultural Economics,2025 Potential trade-offs and synergies between economic and gender objectives are particularly relevant when considering food security. For instance, increased profitability of the certified crop can encourage specialization and the reallocation of resources toward these crops (Vellema et al. 2015). However, this shift may exacerbate intra-household inequalities, as resource distribution within households often reflects existing gender dynamics (Doss 2013; Malapit and Quisumbing 2015). Research shows that positive income effects of VSS do not always translate into improved food security. Knößlsdorfer et al. (2021) highlight the critical role of gender in this context, noting that income controlled by women has been found to contribute more significantly to food security and nutrition than income controlled by men (Doss 2013; Malapit and Quisumbing 2015). Consequently, it is important to consider equity-related outcomes and assess whether income gains benefit all household members equitably. While the literature on the links between certification, female empowerment, and nutrition remains limited, notable exceptions exist. For example, Chiputwa and Qaim (2016) demonstrate that women’s empowerment serves as an important pathway through which VSS can enhance household dietary quality. This underscores the need for further research on the interplay between certification, gender dynamics, and food security. The different examples discussed here underscore the need for further research on the interplay between certification and various food system outcomes, including economic prosperity, ecosystem health, gender dynamics, and food security. In line with Barbier and Burgess (2019), our conceptual framework emphasizes the importance of explicitly considering trade-offs and synergies between different sustainability goals. 3Empirical Evidence From Three Case Studies In the following sections, we present data from three case studies, namely Ghana, Rwanda, and Peru, to explore the interactions between sustainability dimensions identified in our conceptual framework. All three case studies were designed to assess the relationships between VSS and sustainable food system outcomes but with varying key aspects in mind. We therefore refrain from a joint analysis of the data, but rather present particular insights that can be gained from the respective studies. For example, the studies in Ghana and Rwanda both collected economic and ecological data from the same subset of households, whereas the study from Peru provides in-depth insights into gender equality outcomes. More detailed analyses and case study descriptions are provided elsewhere (Bohn et al. 2024; Paz et al. 2024; Santalucia and Wollni 2024; Wätzold et al. 2025). The focus here is on describing and comparing a selection of indicators, guided by our conceptual framework. 3.1 Description of Data and Case Study Contexts In Ghana, our data covers 814 cocoa-cultivating households in five main cocoa-producing regions. The survey design followed a multi-stage random sampling procedure, first selecting 46 villages within the five regions based on existing population census data. The number of villages in each region was chosen based on their 2019 production volumes (Ghana Cocoa Board 2025). We then randomly selected 17 to 18 cocoa households per village based on existing lists provided by extension officers. Our survey was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Since the survey was not stratified by certification status, the share of certified (n=338) and non-certified (n=476) households in the sample is representative of the research area. In addition to socio-economic household data, we collected ecological plot-level data on vegetation structure and animal diversity for a subset of 119 households in our sample (54 certified and 65 non-certified). In Ghana, certification is implemented and operationalized by government-licensed buying companies (LBCs) that are typically linked to an international trader or chocolate company and are responsible for sourcing cocoa in Ghana. To reach out to farmers, LBCs hire purchasing clerks who collect cocoa from farmers and manage the certification process at the farm level. To get certified, farmers need to fill out a registration form provided by the purchasing clerk, and subsequently their farms are geomapped and inspected by LBC staff. Generally, there are several purchasing clerks in each village working for different LBCs. Purchasing clerks working for a certified LBC also collect cocoa from non-certified farmers. Thus, farmers can choose which purchasing clerk(s) to deliver their cocoa to and whether to undergo the process of certification. The relevant sustainability standards in our research area include Rainforest Alliance, Cocoa Life, Cocoa Horizon, Cargill Cocoa Promise, and Fairtrade. In Rwanda, our data cover certified and non-certified coffee farm households in five major coffee-producing districts. The survey was conducted between November 2022 and January 2023. The Western districts, in particular, are characterized by high levels of poverty and malnutrition. For example, Nyamasheke, Karongi, and Rutsiro have poverty rates of 69.3%, 52.7%, and 49.5%, respectively (NISR 2018). Data was collected based on a multi-stage stratified random sample. In the first step, we randomly selected 24 certified and 15 non-certified coffee washing stations (CWSs). In the second step, we selected a random sample of about 20 households from each CWS, resulting in a total sample of 515 certified and 327 non-certified farm households for the socio-economic survey. Similar to the Ghana case study, we additionally collected ecological plot-level data for a subset of 100 households in our sample (62 certified and 38 non-certified). In Rwanda, certification is implemented at the CWS level, meaning that the certified CWS must operationalize certification criteria with their farmers. This situation is unique because the government of Rwanda implemented a zoning policy in 2016 to reduce competition between CWS and improve services to farmers (Gerard et al. 2022). The zoning policy assigns coffee farmers to a particular CWS based on geographic location and requires farmers to sell their coffee cherries only to the designated CWS. The zoning policy was lifted in mid-2023 (van Kollenburg and van Weert 2024), implying that farmers will again be able to choose which CWS to deliver their coffee to in the future. The relevant sustainability standards in our research area include Rainforest Alliance, Café Practices, Fairtrade, and, to a lesser extent, Organic and 4C. In Peru, cocoa production has expanded rapidly over the last two decades due to coca eradication programs jointly implemented by the Peruvian government and the United States Agency for International Development (Nash et al. 2016). This initiative, through public-private partnership, supported the specialization 377 of smallholder farmers in cocoa production by strengthening cooperatives, providing inputs and training, and facilitating access to market channels. As a result, sustainability standards like Fairtrade and Organic have proliferated, with around 56% of the land under cocoa cultivation now certified organic or in transition to organic certification (Willer et al. 2022). Our survey was conducted in three cocoa-producing regions targeted by the cocoa expansion program, which together represent about 60% of total cocoa production in Peru. We first selected ten cooperatives in our research area and then applied stratified random sampling to select around 30 male members and 30 female members from each cooperative. The survey was implemented at the household level between April and July 2023, resulting in a total sample of 566 cocoa-producing households. To collect gender-disaggregated data and information on participation in decision-making and access to resources, we interviewed both spouses separately whenever applicable. All cooperatives in our sample have obtained Fairtrade and Organic certification. Since Fairtrade certification is implemented exclusively at the cooperative level, all farmers are automatically Fairtrade certified. Organic certification, however, requires registration and adaptation of production practices at the farm level, and hence, organic certification status varies in our household sample. Overall, 74% of the households in our sample have at least some of their land under organic certification. 3.2 Methods To test associations between certification and food system outcomes, we use inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) that allows us to take a range of confounding factors into account (Manda et al. 2018). This is important since certified and non-certified households are likely to differ systematically with respect to certain characteristics that may at the same time influence their performance in economic, environmental, gender, and food security outcomes (Gather and Wollni 2022). It is important to note that the IPWRA method relies on observable covariates to reduce selection bias, and thus estimates may still be vulnerable to systematic bias in unobserved characteristics (Hörner and Wollni 2021). The relationships presented in the following sections should therefore be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects. The same applies to the results on animal diversity that are obtained using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). GLMMs are considered more appropriate for estimating animal diversity outcomes, which are likely correlated across nearby plots, because they can account for the hierarchical structure of the data (Krumbiegel et al. 2018; Rana and Sills 2024). More detailed descriptions of the GLMM estimator and the IPWRA method are provided in Appendix A. 4Comparative Results 4.1 Certification and Farm Management in Ghana, Rwanda, and Peru VSS interventions such as training, input provision, or environmental regulations (see Figure 1) are expected to lead to changes in agricultural practices among certified farmers (Thompson et al. 2022). We use descriptive statistics to compare certified and non-certified households in the three case studies in terms of agricultural practices (Table 1). In Ghana, certified farmers tend to use inputs more intensively. On average, a higher proportion of certified farmers use conventional fertilizer, organic fertilizer, and mulching than non-certified farmers. Also, a significantly higher proportion of certified farmers adopt sustainable agricultural practices like pruning and integrated pest management, compared to non-certified farmers. Regardless of certification status, almost all cocoa farmers in Ghana have shade trees on their cocoa farms. In Rwanda, a significantly smaller proportion of certified farmers apply conventional fertilizer, but a significantly higher proportion of certified farmers adopt sustainable practices like organic fertilizer, mulching, shade trees, and integrated pest management on their coffee plots, compared to non-certified farmers. In Peru, a smaller proportion of certified organic farmers use conventional fertilizers and mulching than non-certified farmers. Overall, conventional fertilizer use is low in the Peruvian sample: even in the non-certified sample, only 14% of the farmers use it. For other practices, such as shade trees and organic fertilizer, there are no significant differences between certified and non-certified farmers in Peru. 4.2 Certification and Economic Outcomes We use IPWRA to analyze how certification relates to economic outcomes (Table 2). Despite differences in the agricultural practices used in the three case studies (Table 1), certification is associated with significantly higher yields in all three case studies. However, only in the case of Ghana and Rwanda is certification also associated with higher net cash crop income per hectare. These results are generally in line with the literature, which finds largely positive, albeit moderate, economic effects of certification at the farm level (Meemken 2020). Our data do not provide strong evidence that certification is associated with substantial income gains at the household level (total household income) nor with pronounced agricultural specialization (share of cash crop income in total income, share of cash crop land in total land) across the case studies. The observed increases in net cash crop income associated with certification in Ghana and Rwanda translate into higher total household income for certified households only in the case of Rwanda. In the case of Ghana, the share of cocoa income in total income is positively and significantly associated with certification, but the magnitude of the effect is small. This suggests little evidence of agricultural specialization in the certified crop among certified farmers, which is also supported by the finding that there is no significant difference in the share of land devoted to cocoa between certified and non-certified farmers in Ghana and Peru (data not available for Rwanda). Rather than agricultural specialization, certification in Ghana and Rwanda is associated with a significant increase in agricultural diversification (measured as the number of different agricultural activities at the farm level). 4.3 Certification and Environmental Outcomes As illustrated in the conceptual framework, a critical question is whether the economic gains are achieved at the expense of healthy ecosystems. Tables 3and 4present associations between 378 Agricultural Economics,2025 TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics of agricultural practices. Certified farmers Non-certified farmers Mean difference Mean SD Mean SD Ghana N =338 N=476 Conventional fertilizer (0/1) 0.65 0.51 0.15*** Organic fertilizer (0/1) 0.07 0.02 0.05*** Mulching (0/1) 0.36 0.26 0.10*** Shade trees (0/1) 0.99 0.98 0.01 Pruning (0/1) 0.81 0.77 0.04 Manual weeding (0/1) 1.00 0.99 0.01 Integrated pest management (IPM) (number of IPM practices, 0–4) 2.15 0.88 2.04 0.86 0.11* Rwanda N =515 N=327 Conventional fertilizer (0/1) 0.86 0.93 −0.07*** Organic fertilizer (0/1) 0.75 0.64 0.11 *** Mulching (0/1) 0.96 0.91 0.04** Shade trees (0/1) 0.98 0.74 0.24*** Pruning (0/1) 0.94 0.91 0.04 Manual weeding (0/1) 0.94 0.95 0.03 Integrated pest management (IPM) (number of IPM practices, 0–4) 3.39 0.69 3.11 0.88 0.28*** Peru N =421 N=145 Conventional fertilizer (0/1) 0.03 0.14 −0.12** Organic fertilizer (0/1) 0.47 0.42 0.05 Mulching (0/1) 0.84 0.91 −0.07* Shade trees (0/1) 0.77 0.77 0.00 Pruning (0/1) 0.94 0.94 0.00 Manual weeding (0/1) 0.99 0.98 0.01 Note: SD =standard deviations (not reported for binary variables). *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. IPM refers to the following four practices: monitor insects before treatment, maintain habitat for insects/predators, cut and burn infested material, sanitary harvest and pruning. certification and ecological plot-level data on vegetation structure and animal diversity for Ghana and Rwanda. As indicators of vegetation structure, we chose the number of shade trees per hectare and the number of different shade tree species counted in each plot. As indicators of animal diversity, we chose the bioacoustics index and biological control rates. The bioacoustics index is based on animal sounds recorded in the plot (Dröge et al. 2021), and biological control rates are based on predation rates of fake caterpillars that were deployed in each plot (Howe et al. 2009). In Ghana, the differences in vegetation structure between certified and non-certified plots are small and not significant (Table 3). Conversely, in Rwanda, certified farmers have significantly more shade trees per hectare and a greater number of shade tree species. However, these positive results for vegetation structure in Rwanda are not reflected in higher animal diversity on certified plots (Table 4). In the case of Ghana, certified plots have, on average, a lower bioacoustics index and lower biological control rates compared to non-certified plots, but these differences are not statistically significant. The finding that the positive associations between certification and vegetation structure in Rwanda do not translate into higher animal diversity on certified plots may be explained by the important role of landscape factors in shaping environmental outcomes at the plot level (Ocampo-Ariza et al. 2024;Tscharntke et al. 2015). Our data reveal positive correlations between the bioacoustics index and the surrounding landscape. In Ghana, the bioacoustics index increases with the proximity of plots to primary forests. In Rwanda, we observe a positive correlation between the bioacoustics index and the Enhanced Vegetation Index, a satellite-based measure of vegetation health and density measured within a 500-meter radius of the plot. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating VSS performance within the broader context of national and regional policies that influence the landscape conditions in which VSS operate. To what extent can VSS in Ghana and Rwanda simultaneously achieve economic and environmental improvements at the farm level? Our data confirm positive associations between certification and production-related economic outcomes for the two 379 TABLE 2 Association between certification and economic outcomes. Non-certified PO ADPOCpvalue N Ghana Yield (kg/ha) 355.79 64.83 0.02 814 Net cocoa income (GHC/ha) 2298.86 663.86 0.02 814 Total household income (GHC) (IHS-transformed) 9.01 0.05 0.88 814 Share cocoa income in total income 0.63 0.04 0.03 814 Share cocoa land in total land 0.85 −0.00 0.84 814 Agricultural diversification (range: 1–19) 6.14 0.31 0.07 814 Rwanda Yield (kg/ha, fresh cherries) 6693.57 790.62 0.05 842 Net coffee income (RWF/ha) 2,788,649.69 847,177.91 0.00 842 Total household income (RWF) (IHS-transformed) 14.40 0.13 0.00 842 Share coffee income in total income 0.32 0.02 0.18 842 Agricultural diversification (range: 0–16) 7.04 0.76 0.00 842 Peru Yield (kg/ha) 683.94 153.03 0.02 566 Net cocoa income (PEN/ha) 2723.87 263.50 0.24 566 Total household income (PEN) (IHS-transformed) 10.48 −0.06 0.35 566 Share cocoa income in total income 0.52 0.02 0.46 566 Share cocoa land in total land 0.82 −0.03 0.33 566 Agricultural diversification (range: 0–23) 5.51 0.12 0.76 566 Note: IPWRA estimates; PO stands for “predicted outcome”; ADPOCstands for “average difference in predicted outcomes” for certified farmers under certification and hypothetical non-certification. 1 GHC ≈0.071 EUR, 1 RWF ≈0.00093 EUR, 1 PEN ≈0.244 at the time of the data collection (as of Nov 1. 2022 for Rwanda and Ghana, May 1 2023 for Peru). IHS refers to inverse hyperbolic sine transformation; approx. percentage changes of IHS-transformed values are calculated as described in Bellemare and Wichman (2020). Agricultural diversification is measured as the number of different agricultural activities at the farm-level. This includes all crop species (including intercrops) and animal species (where each animal species is counted as one). TABLE 3 Association between certification and plot-level data on vegetation structure. Non-certified PO ADPOCpvalue N Ghana Shade trees per hectare 68.0 −2.71 0.65 119 No. of shade tree species 14.5 0.23 0.84 119 Rwanda Shade trees per hectare 163.9 21.6 0.09 96 No. of shade tree species 3.27 0.78 0.00 100 Note: IPWRA estimates; PO stands for “predicted outcome”; ADPOCstands for “average difference in predicted outcomes” for certified farmers under certification and hypothetical non-certification. case studies (Table 2). In Ghana, where certified households are characterized by higher levels of intensification (Table 1), there is a tendency for environmental outcomes to be lower for certified than for non-certified households, although the differences are not significant. Overall, the trade-offs are not very strong, and in the case of Rwanda, there seems to be a balance between achieving higher yields and better environmental outcomes, at least in terms of plot-level vegetation structure. 4.4 Certification and Gender Equality Outcomes Many of the agricultural practices promoted by VSS, such as organic fertilization, mulching, and integrated pest management, aim to improve soil health and increase the sustainability of agricultural production, but they are also very labor intensive (Nkamleu and Kielland 2006). As highlighted in the conceptual framework (Figure 1), when certification is associated with the adoption 380 Agricultural Economics,2025 2We do not consider gender here, as our data do not allow us to define a reasonable cut-off or “minimum level” of gender equality. The food security indicators used assess access to food at the household level (“did youor any household member...”),and thusconsider, at least to some extent, equal access. 3We focus here on Rwanda, since the differences between certified and non-certified households in Ghana and Peru are mostly not significant (Table 8). References Achterbosch, T., S. van Berkum, and G. Meijerink. 2014. Cash Crops and Food Security: Contributions to Income, Livelihood Risk and Agricultural Innovation. LEI Report: 2014–15. LEI Wageningen UR. Akoyi, K. T., F. Mitiku, and M. Maertens. 2020. “Private Sustainability Standards and Child Schooling in the African Coffee Sector.” Journal of Cleaner Production 264: 121713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 121713. Alkire, S., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, G. Seymour, and A. Vaz. 2013. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” World Development 52: 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06. 007. Ambikapathi, R., K. R. Schneider, B. Davis, M. Herrero, P. Winters, and J. C. Fanzo. 2022. “Global Food Systems Transitions Have Enabled Affordable Diets but Had Less Favourable Outcomes for Nutrition, Environmental Health, Inclusion and Equity.” Nature Food 3, no. 9: 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00588-7. Andrijevic, M., J. Crespo Cuaresma, T. Lissner, A. Thomas, and C.-F. Schleussner. 2020. “Overcoming Gender Inequality for Climate Resilient Development.” Nature Communications 11, no. 1: 6261. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-020-19856-w. Ariza-Salamanca, A. J., R. M. Navarro-Cerrillo, J. L. Quero-Pérez, et al. 2023. “Vulnerability of Cocoa-Based Agroforestry Systems to Climate Change in West Africa.” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1: 10033. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-023-37180-3. Arora, D., and C. Rada. 2020. “Gender Norms and Intrahousehold Allocation of Labor in Mozambique: A CGE Application to Household and Agricultural Economics.” Agricultural Economics 51, no. 2: 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12553. Asitoakor, B. K., P. Vaast, A. Ræbild, et al. 2022. “Selected Shade Tree Species Improved Cocoa Yields in Low-Input Agroforestry Systems in Ghana.” Agricultural Systems 202: 103476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy. 2022.103476. Attuquayefio, D. K., E. H. Owusu, and B. Y. Ofori. 2017. “Impact of Mining and Forest Regeneration on Small Mammal Biodiversity in the Western Region of Ghana.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189, no. 5: 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5960-0. Barbier, E. B., and J. C. Burgess. 2019. “Sustainable Development Goal Indicators: Analyzing Trade-Offs and Complementarities.” World Development 122: 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.026. Barrett, C. B., and M. I. Gόmez. 2025. “Fostering healthy, equitable, resilient, and sustainable agri-food value chains.” Agricultural Economics Should be forthcoming in the same Special Issue of Agricultural Economics. Becchetti, L., and M. Costantino. 2008. “The Effects of Fair Trade on Affiliated Producers: An Impact Analysis on Kenyan Farmers.” World Development 36, no. 5: 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007. 05.007. Belco. 2024. “Three Levels of Agroforestry.” https://www.belco.fr/en/ agroforesterie. Bellemare, M. F., and C. J. Wichman. 2020. “Elasticities and the Inverse Hyperbolic Sine Transformation.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 82, no. 1: 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12325. Beuchelt, T. D., and M. Zeller. 2011. “Profits and Poverty: Certification’s Troubled Link for Nicaragua’s Organic and Fairtrade Coffee Producers.” Ecological Economics 70, no. 7: 1316–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.01.005. Blaser, W. J., J. Oppong, S. P. Hart, J. Landolt, E. Yeboah, and J. Six. 2018. “Climate-Smart Sustainable Agriculture in Low-to-Intermediate Shade Agroforests.” Nature Sustainability 1, no. 5: 234–239. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41893-018-0062-8. Bohn, S., M. Wollni, and B. Paz. 2024. “Cultivating Change: Exploring the Link between Certification, Dietary Quality and Women’s Empowerment Among Coffee Farmers in Rwanda.” Sustainable Food Discussion Paper 9. Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen. Bolwig, S. 2012. “Poverty and Gender Effects of Smallholder Organic Contract Farming in Uganda.” USSP Working Paper 8 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://forskning.ruc.dk/en/publications/ poverty-and-gender-effects-of-smallholder-organic-contract-farmin. Boonaert, E., and M. Maertens. 2023. “Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Farmer Welfare: The Pathways to Success?” Food Policy 121: 102543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102543. Chiputwa, B., and M. Qaim. 2016. “Sustainability Standards, Gender, and Nutrition Among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda.” Journal of Development Studies 52, no. 9: 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016. 1156090. Coates, J., S. Anne, and B. Paula. 2007. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide: Version 3. United States Agency for International Development. https://pdf.usaid. gov/pdf_docs/Pnadk896.pdf. Curtis, P. G., C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M. C. Hansen. 2018. “Classifying Drivers of Global Forest Loss.” Science 361, no. 6407: 1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445. Daum, T., F. Baudron, R. Birner, M. Qaim, and I. Grass. 2023. “Addressing Agricultural Labour Issues Is Key to Biodiversity-Smart Farming.” Biological Conservation 284: 110165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023. 110165. Dompreh, E. B., R. Asare, and A. Gasparatos. 2021. “Sustainable but Hungry? Food Security Outcomes of Certification for Cocoa and Oil Palm Smallholders in Ghana.” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 5: 55001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abdf88. Doss, C. 2013. “Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries.” World Bank Research Observer 28, no. 1: 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkt001. Dröge, S., D. A. Martin, R. Andriafanomezantsoa, et al. 2021. “Listening to a Changing Landscape: Acoustic Indices Reflect Bird Species Richness and Plot-Scale Vegetation Structure Across Different Land-Use Types in North-Eastern Madagascar.” Ecological Indicators 120: 106929. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106929. FAO. 2018a. “Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES).” Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www.fao.org/policy-support/toolsand-publications/resources-details/en/c/1236494/. FAO. 2018b. Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework. Food and Agriculture Organization. Garrett, R. D., S. A. Levy, F. Gollnow, L. Hodel, and X. Rueda. 2021. “Have Food Supply Chain Policies Improved Forest Conservation and Rural Livelihoods? A Systematic Review.” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 3: 33002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe0ed. Gather, J., and M. Wollni. 2022. “Setting the Standard: Does Rainforest Alliance Certification Increase Environmental and Socio-Economic Outcomes for Small-Scale Coffee Producers in Rwanda?” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 44, no. 4: 1807–1825. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp. 13307. Gerard, A., M. C. Lopez, N. M. Mason, and A. R. Bizoza. 2022. “Do Government Zoning Policies Improve Buyer-Farmer Relationships? Evidence from Rwanda’s Coffee Sector.” Food Policy 107: 102209. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.foodpol.2021.102209. 387 Ghana Cocoa Board. 2025. “Regional Cocoa Purchases 2024.” https:// cocobod.gh/cocoa-purchases. Global Diet Quality Project. 2022a. “Indicator Definitions.” https://www. dietquality.org/indicators/definitions. Global Diet Quality Project. 2022b. Measuring What the World Eats: Insights From a New Approach. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.36072/dqq2022. Grüter, R., T. Trachsel, P. Laube, and I. Jaisli. 2022. “Expected Global Suitability of Coffee, Cashew and Avocado due to Climate Change.” PLoS ONE 17, no. 1: e0261976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261 976. Haggar, J., G. Soto, F. Casanoves, and E. D. M. Virginio. 2017. “Environmental-Economic Benefits and Trade-Offs on Sustainably Certified Coffee Farms.” Ecological Indicators 79: 330–337. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.023. Herforth, A., E. Martínez-Steele, G. Calixto, et al. 2019. “Development of a Diet Quality Questionnaire for Improved Measurement of Dietary Diversity and Other Diet Quality Indicators (P13-018-19).” Current Developments in Nutrition 3, no. S1: nzz036.P13-018-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cdn/nzz036.P13-018-19. Hörner, D., and M. Wollni. 2021. “Integrated Soil Fertility Management and Household Welfare in Ethiopia.” Food Policy 100: 102022. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102022. Howe, A., G. L. Lövei, and G. Nachman. 2009. “Dummy Caterpillars as a Simple Method to Assess Predation Rates on Invertebrates in a Tropical Agroecosystem.” Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 131, no. 3: 325– 329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00860.x. Ibanez, M., and A. Blackman. 2016. “Is Eco-Certification a Win–Win for Developing Country Agriculture? Organic Coffee Certification in Colombia.” World Development 82: 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev. 2016.01.004. Iddrisu, M., R. Aidoo, and C. Abawiera Wongnaa. 2020. “Participation in UTZ-RA Voluntary Cocoa Certification Scheme and Its Impact on Smallholder Welfare: Evidence From Ghana.” World Development Perspectives 20: 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100244. Initiative for Sustainable Cocoa. 2020. “Monitoring for 2020 Data— Definitions.” https://gisco-pilot.tc.akvo.org/definition. Kastner, T., A. Chaudhary, S. Gingrich, et al. 2021. “Global Agricultural Trade and Land System Sustainability: Implications for Ecosystem Carbon Storage, Biodiversity, and human Nutrition.” One Earth 4, no. 10: 1425–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.006. Knößlsdorfer, I., J. Sellare, and M. Qaim. 2021. “Effects of Fairtrade on Farm Household Food Security and Living Standards: Insights From Côte d’Ivoire.” Global Food Security 29: 100535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs. 2021.100535. Krumbiegel, K., M. Maertens, and M. Wollni. 2018. “The Role of Fairtrade Certification for Wages and Job Satisfaction of Plantation Workers.” World Development 102: 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.09. 020. Krumbiegel, K., and P. Tillie. 2024. “Sustainable Practices in Cocoa Production. The Role of Certification Schemes and Farmer Cooperatives.” Ecological Economics 222: 108211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024. 108211. Lambin, E. F., and T. Thorlakson. 2018. “Sustainability Standards: Interactions Between Private Actors.” Civil Society, and Governments. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43, no. 1: 369–393. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025931. Lyon, S., J. A. Bezaury, and T. Mutersbaugh. 2010. “Gender Equity in Fairtrade–Organic Coffee Producer Organizations: Cases From Mesoamerica.” Geoforum 41, no. 1: 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2009.04.006. Lyon, S., T. Mutersbaugh, and H. Worthen. 2017. “The Triple Burden: The Impact of Time Poverty on Women’s Participation in Coffee Producer Organizational Governance in Mexico.” Agriculture and Human Values 34, no. 2: 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9716-1. Malapit, H. J. L., and A. R. Quisumbing. 2015. “What Dimensions of Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Matter for Nutrition in Ghana?” Food Policy 52: 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.02.003. Manda, J., C. Gardebroek, E. Kuntashula, and A. D. Alene. 2018. “Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Food Security in Eastern Zambia: A Doubly Robust Analysis.” Review of Development Economics 22, no. 4: 1709–1728. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12516. Marx, A., C. Depoorter, and S. Fernandez de Cordoba, et al. 2024. “Global governance through voluntary sustainability standards: Developments, trends and challenges.” Global Policy 15: 708–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1758-5899.13401. Meemken, E.-M. 2020. “Do Smallholder Farmers Benefit From Sustainability Standards? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Global Food Security 26: 100373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100373. Meemken, E.-M., C. B. Barrett, H. C. Michelson, M. Qaim, T. Reardon, and J. Sellare. 2021. “Sustainability Standards in Global Agrifood Supply Chains.” Nature Food 2, no. 10: 758–765. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016021-00360-3. Meemken, E.-M., and M. Qaim. 2018. “Can Private Food Standards Promote Gender Equality in the Small Farm Sector?” Journal of Rural Studies 58: 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.030. Meemken, E.-M., D. J. Spielman, and M. Qaim. 2017. “Trading off Nutrition and Education? A Panel Data Analysis of the Dissimilar Welfare Effects of Organic and Fairtrade Standards.” Food Policy 71: 74–85. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.010. Morgan, M., and H. Zaremba. 2023. “The Contribution of Voluntary Sustainability Systems to Women’s Participation and Leadership in Decision-Making: A Strategic Evidence Review.” Working Paper. Bioversity International. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/132142. Nash, J., U. Grewer, L. Bockel, G. Galford, G. Pirolli, and J. White. 2016. Peru Cacao Alliance: Carbon Sequestration as a Co-Benefit of Cacao Expansion.CCAFSInfoNote.https://www.fao.org/3/i6502e/i6502e.pdf. NISR. 2018. “The Rwanda Multidimensional Poverty Index Report.” National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. December 2018. Niyonkuru, P., and H. Barrett. 2021. “Gender and Intergenerational Challenges to Women’s Economic Empowerment Initiatives in Rwanda.” World Development Perspectives 23: 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp. 2021.100340. Nkamleu, G. B., and A. Kielland. 2006. “Modeling Farmers’ Decisions on Child Labor and Schooling in the Cocoa Sector: A Multinomial Logit Analysis in Côte d’Ivoire.” Agricultural Economics 35, no. 3: 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2006.00165.x. Ocampo-Ariza, C., T. Hanf-Dressler, B. Maas, et al. 2024. “Regional Differences of Functional and Taxonomic Bird Diversity in Tropical Agroforests of Peru.” Conservation Science and Practice 6, no. 6: e1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13123. Oya, C., F. Schaefer, and D. Skalidou. 2018. “The Effectiveness of Agricultural Certification in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review.” World Development 112: 282–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.001. Paz, B., B. Dalheimer, and M. Wollni. 2024. Total Factor Productivity, Deforestation, and Voluntary Sustainability Standards: Evidence from Rwandese Coffee Farmers. Sustainable Food Discussion Paper 8. Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R. E. Green. 2011. “Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared.” Science 333, no. 6047: 1289–1291. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.1208742. Poppy, G. M., S. Chiotha, F. Eigenbrod, et al. 2014. “Food Security in a Perfect Storm: Using the Ecosystem Services Framework to Increase Understanding.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 369, no. 1639: 20120288. https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rstb.2012.0288. 388 Agricultural Economics,2025 Rana, P., and E. O. Sills. 2024. “Inviting Oversight: Effects of Forest Certification on Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.” World Development 173: 106418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106418. Rubio-Jovel, K. 2023. “The Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Their Contribution Towards the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Review on the Coffee Sector.” Journal of International Development 35, no. 6: 1013–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3717. Rubio-Jovel, K., J. Sellare, Y. Damm, and T. Dietz. 2024. “SDGs TradeOffs Associated With Voluntary Sustainability Standards: A Case Study From the Coffee Sector in Costa Rica.” Sustainable Development 32, no. 1: 917–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2701. Rwanda Ministry of Environment. 2019. “Rwanda Forest Cover Mapping.” https://www.environment.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/ Moe/Publications/Reports/Forest_cover_report_2019.pdf. Rwanda Ministry of Lands and Forestry. 2018. “Rwanda National Forestry Policy 2018.” Published February 2018. https://www. environment.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Moe/Publications/Policies/ Rwanda_National_Forestry_Policy_2018__1_.pdf. Santalucia, S., and M. Wollni. 2024. “Behind Organic Cocoa There Stands Women’s Time”: Organic Cocoa Production and Women’s Empowerment in Peru, Unpublished Manuscript. University of Göttingen. Schleifer, P., and Y. Sun. 2020. “Reviewing the Impact of Sustainability Certification on Food Security in Developing Countries.” Global Food Security 24: 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100337. Schuster, M., and M. Maertens. 2017. “Worker Empowerment through Private Standards. Evidence From the Peruvian Horticultural Export Sector.” The Journal of Development Studies 53, no. 4: 618–637. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1199858. Sellare, J., E.-M. Meemken, and M. Qaim. 2020. “Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment.” Ecological Economics 176: 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020. 106718. Sibhatu, K. T., V. V. Krishna, and M. Qaim. 2015. “Production Diversity and Dietary Diversity in Smallholder Farm Households.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, no. 34: 10657–10662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510982112. Starobin, S. M. 2021. “Credibility Beyond Compliance: Uncertified Smallholders in Sustainable Food Systems.” Ecological Economics 180: 106767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106767. Thompson, W., W. Blaser-Hart, J. Joerin, et al. 2022. “Can Sustainability Certification Enhance the Climate Resilience of Smallholder Farmers? The Case of Ghanaian Cocoa.” Journal of Land Use Science 17, no. 1: 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2022.2097455. Traldi, R. 2021. “Progress and Pitfalls: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Agricultural Sustainability Standards.” Ecological Indicators 125: 107490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107490. Tscharntke, T., P. Batáry, and I. Grass. 2024. “Mixing Onand Off-Field Measures for Biodiversity Conservation.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 39, no. 8: 726–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.04.003. Tscharntke, T., J. C. Milder, G. Schroth, et al. 2015. “Conserving Biodiversity Through Certification of Tropical Agroforestry Crops at Local and Landscape Scales.” Conservation Letters 8, no. 1: 14–23. https://doi.org/10. 1111/conl.12110. Vanderhaegen, K., K. T. Akoyi, W. Dekoninck, et al. 2018. “Do Private Coffee Standards ‘Walk the Talk’ in Improving Socio-Economic and Environmental Sustainability?” Global Environmental Change 51: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.014. Van Kollenburg, G., and P. van Weert. 2024. “Coffee, Climate, Community: A Holistic Examination of Specialty Coffee Supply Chains in Rwanda.” Sustainable Development. advance online publication, April 17. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3000. Vellema, W., A. Buritica Casanova, C. Gonzalez, and M. D’Haese. 2015. “The Effect of Specialty Coffee Certification on Household Livelihood Strategies and Specialisation.” Food Policy 57: 13–25. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.003. Wätzold, M., I. Abdulai, A. Cooke, et al. 2025. “Do Voluntary Sustainability Standards Improve Socioeconomic and Ecological Outcomes? Evidence From Ghana’s Cocoa Sector.” Ecological Economics 229: 108474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108474. Wenzel, A., C. Westphal, J. Ballauff, et al. 2024. “Balancing Economic and Ecological Functions in Smallholder and Industrial Oil Palm Plantations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, no. 17: e2307220121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2307220121. Willer, H., J. Trávníček, C. Meier, and B. Schlatter. 2022. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2022. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL; IFOAM-Organics International. Supporting Information Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section. 389