Climate change and ecosystem degradation have caused large-scale and rapid changes to the environment over the past century. These changes threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems and perturb the dynamics of several functional groups that are vital to agriculture, including decomposers and pollinators, which ultimately compromises food security (IUCN, 2008). The conversion of tropical forests by agricultural intensification is considered a major cause of tropical biodiversity loss (Laurence et al., 2014; Milder et al., 2015), while conserving these natural ecosystems can promote food security and buffer the effects of natural disasters and disease outbreaks (IUCN, 2008). The certification of agricultural products can be an extremely useful tool to promote ecologically sustainable food production.

The basic concept of the agricultural certification system can be described as follows: 1) a third-party auditor evaluates whether a product meets the standards set by a certification agency and a certification label is linked to products that pass the audit, 2) the certification label allows consumers to choose environmentally friendly products, and 3) conservation is indirectly promoted by incentivizing ecologically friendly farming practices (Fujimoto and Urashima, 2012). In addition, since certified products can enhance traceability, they are considered safe and reliable, and these consumer perceptions increase their market value (Fujimoto and Urashima, 2012).

Several environmental non-governmental organizations, including the Rainforest Alliance (RA), have developed third-party certification programs to promote the conservation of shade-providing trees on coffee farms (Perfecto et al., 2005). The RA, founded in 1987, is an international non-profit organization that aims to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable livelihoods in agriculture. The RA certifies agricultural products by evaluating the impacts of production, mainly according to: 1) forests and ecosystems, 2) soil and water resources, and 3) conditions of the work environment and job creation. The RA certification program provides farmers with the opportunity to sell products at premium prices, given that their practices conform to various socio-economic and environmental standards (Alliance, 2020). Products made from ingredients sourced from RA-certified farms are allowed to carry the RA logo. The RA Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm Requirements 2020 consist of a wide variety of standards that involve aspects of management, traceability, farming, social, and the environment (Alliance, 2020). The environmental standards are comprised of requirements in conservation of forests, biodiversity, riparian buffers, water and other natural ecosystems, as well as waste and wastewater management, energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas reduction (Alliance, 2020). RA is one of the most widely used environmental certification programs, and audits 5.4% of the world’s coffee producers (Sustainable Agriculture Network, 2015; Bose et al., 2016). Moreover, in a comparison of forestry, agriculture, and biofuel sustainability standards, Englund and Berndes (2015) concluded that the RA is one of the most stringent certification programs in terms of biodiversity conservation.

A number of studies have assessed the effectiveness of agricultural certification in ecosystem conservation by comparing ecological status between certified and non-certified forests. Haggar et al. (2015) found that certified organic coffee farms in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua had higher levels of tree species richness, shade, and stratification than conventional coffee farms. Higher survival rates have been confirmed for migratory birds in RA-certified coffee farms in El Salvador (Komar, 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2015). Hughell and Newsom (2013) found higher species richness of arthropods and aquatic invertebrates in RA-certified coffee farms in Colombia (Tscharntke et al., 2015). Takahashi and Todo (2013) showed that the RA coffee certification program alleviated the conversion of forestland into agricultural lands in Ethiopia. Pico-Mendoza et al. (2020) found that certified agroforestry systems in Costa Rica provide more ecosystem services (i.e., habitat maintenance, water quality, erosion control, and carbon stocks) than non-certified systems. RA-certified coffee farms in Colombia appear to have a significantly larger area of tree cover than non-certified ones (Rueda et al., 2015). Furthermore, organic certification reduced the overall use of chemicals on Costa Rican coffee farms (Blackman and Naranjo, 2012), and promoted better environmental management practices on certified farms in Colombia (Rueda and Lambin, 2013) and Mexico (Martínez-Torres, 2008). Thus, the majority of the literature suggests that certified farms are better for conservation than non-certified farmlands, and a few studies have reported the negative impacts of certification (Tscharntke et al., 2015). One study of Costa Rican banana farms found that RA-certified farms had less insect diversity than non-certified farms. This is one of the few studies indicating that certification may not always benefit biodiversity.

On the other hand, researchers have also evaluated the effectiveness of certification programs in terms of welfare and livelihood improvements (Barham and Weber, 2012). Certification schemes provide economic incentives by allowing farmers to sell their products at premium prices (Ferraro et al., 2005) and access foreign markets (Tscharntke et al., 2015). Mitiku et al. (2018) showed that RA-certified semi-forest coffee generates higher returns compared to non-certified semi-forest and garden coffee, owing to increased demand. In contrast, Barham and Weber (2012), in a study of fair trade/organic and RA-certified coffee farms, found that yield was more important than price in determining profits. Fenger et al. (2017) reported that RA-certified cocoa plantations showed greater sustainability and financial returns compared with conventional producers due to increased access to resources and skilled labor. Other studies have also suggested that certification promotes better agricultural management and crop quality (Clough et al., 2011; Rueda and Lamblin, 2013; Tscharntke et al., 2015). Generally, some major challenges related to certification schemes include limited market advantages, high costs, and complex administrative procedures (Englund and Berndes, 2015).

Below we review some of the few reports of monitoring or auditing systems of certified farmlands. In Ghana, Ansah et al. (2020) revealed that the frequency of inspections for cocoa certification programs (including RA and fair trade) was less than 50% of the level specified, which reduces accountability for certified farmers that do not follow standard practices (Ansah et al., 2020). Bose et al. (2016) highlighted that RA certification neither changed the farmer’s awareness of sustainable production nor their behavior, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the certification scheme in contributing to conservation. Some of the most commonly found issues in reports of Forest Stewardship Council certified forests are the lack of monitoring for forest management indicators and the poor maintenance of high conservation value forests (Ehrenberg-Azcárate and Peña-Claros, 2020). Based on a review of corrective action requests for Forest Stewardship Council certified forests in Mexico, the majority of the requests focused on social, economic, or legal issues, and required small rather than fundamental changes (Blackman et al., 2017).

Traditional shaded coffee plantations are considered an ecologically sound approach to coffee production that can integrate and maintain local biodiversity (Perfecto et al., 2005). However, traditional shaded coffee systems are relatively inefficient in terms of yield and are vulnerable to pests and disease (Rappole et al., 2003). Intensive coffee production systems achieve high yields of coffee, though they require forest conversion and agrochemicals, resulting in forest degradation, soil erosion, and pollution (Rappole et al., 2003). An increasing number of coffee farmers are reducing canopy cover in intensive monocultures to increase yield and short-term profits (Tscharntke et al., 2011), which has an overall negative impact on biodiversity (Perfecto et al., 2003; Mas and Dietsch, 2004).

Environmental certification programs, including certification of shade coffee agroforestry systems, have been applied worldwide to promote ecologically sustainable agriculture; however, a general lack of consensus exists regarding their conservation success (Takahashi and Todo, 2013; Haggar et al., 2015; Bose et al., 2016). Very few studies have conducted long-term monitoring of biodiversity responses to certified land-use practices (Tscharntke et al., 2015). The socio-economic outcomes of these programs are also normally reported over a short period of time or soon after the program was initiated, with relatively little consideration of potential inadvertent impacts. Furthermore, few studies have analyzed the collective socioeconomic and ecological status of certified farms from a holistic perspective.

This paper assesses the long-term outcomes of the RA certification program through a case study of a RA-certified coffee forest in southwestern Ethiopia, established in 2007. The objective of this study was to identify potential obstacles in successfully implementing certification schemes and to suggest recommendations to further improve long-term practices in forest ecosystem conservation. Therefore, our research question is: Has the RA certification scheme been effective in preventing deforestation and conserving forest ecosystems in the long-run?

The following section describes the relevant background information, including the forest ecosystems and native coffee of southwestern Ethiopia and the donor-funded participatory forest and coffee management project implemented in the area. We then discuss the methodology and results of our assessment. The subsequent section interprets the study findings with reference to the RA standards, as well as the latest articles and official reports. Finally, we conclude by suggesting recommendations and policy implications.

The aim of the assessment was to examine whether the requirements (particularly related to forest ecosystem conservation) listed on the RA Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm Requirements 2020 are fully satisfied or not, in the RA-certified coffee forest which was initially certified in 2007. The assessment combined field observations, qualitative interview surveys, and secondary data collection. Our study locale was an RA-certified coffee forest that extended 61,029 ha inside the Belete-Gera forest (97,332 ha) in Jimma, Oromia State, Ethiopia (JICA, 2020). Field observations were conducted in February 2019 at two study sites (one in the Gera district and another in the Shebe Sombo district). Both sites were FC systems that were certified with the FCCP since the initial stages of the project. We recorded forest conditions, with a particular emphasis on the levels of human disturbance.

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in February 2019 with 10 key informants involved in the FCCP, including farmers, project coordinators, and JICA experts, all of whom played an important role in project functioning. Additional interviews were conducted in October 2021 with seven JICA experts and project staff members actively involved in the project. Informed consent was obtained from all the interviewees. The interviews considered the ecological conditions of the certified coffee forest, the recent status of FMAs, forest monitoring and management practices, auditing processes, and related changes in socio-economic circumstances. To verify our findings, secondary data were collected from recent official reports as well as academic publications related to coffee and forests in southwestern Ethiopia.

Combining in-depth interviews with field observations and secondary data, we found that RA-certified coffee forest areas in the Belete-Gera forest have been gradually deforested or degraded over 12 years after the initial certification approval. Interview respondents expressed concerns about the changing conditions of the coffee forests, where canopy cover and large trees were removed, and understory vegetation was cleared to promote the growth of coffee trees. Respondents also noted that farmers were planting non-native coffee seedlings inside certified coffee forest areas. Similarly, Castro-Tanzi et al. (2012) suggested that coffee farmers replace biodiverse shade coffee systems with more simplified and unshaded coffee farms to increase yields and meet market demands. As coffee yield is maximized between 35% and 65% shade cover, coffee producers have little incentive to maintain more than 70% shade tree cover, unless premium prices are sufficiently high (Perfecto et al., 2005).

Although we did not collect primary data to quantify the impacts of coffee production, various studies conducted in the coffee grown Belete-Gera forest area, namely, the RA-certified area, found that coffee production negatively impacted the forest biodiversity (Hundera et al., 2013; Hylander et al., 2013; Mengist et al., 2013), regeneration (Hundera et al., 2013; Mengist et al., 2013), and water bodies (Gemmechis and Tura, 2023). The studies indicated that cutting large trees and clearing understory vegetation reduced species diversity, simplified the forest structure and retarded the regeneration of late-successional species, which also caused a reduction of water bodies. Although our data analysis on the annual rate of deforestation imply that the RA certification played a role in reducing deforestation, it was not strong enough to stop them, and our field observations generally concurred with the changes observed by other researchers in many parts of the RA-certified area.

Below, we review the relevant standards stated under the RA certification scheme, based on the RA Sustainable Agriculture Standard Farm Requirements 2020. RA standards 6.1.1 “From 1 January 2014 onward, natural forests and other natural ecosystems have not been converted into agricultural production or other land uses” and 6.2.2 “Farms maintain all remnant forest trees, except when these pose hazards to people or infrastructure. Other native trees on the farm and their harvesting are sustainably managed in a way that the same quantity and quality of trees is maintained on the farm” are likely not being satisfied in some certified areas, as some interview respondents acknowledged the clearing of certified coffee forests by young and unemployed individuals aiming to maximize short-term coffee yields.

Based on our findings, we propose that the following four factors caused deforestation or degradation of the certified coffee forests. First, a rapid increase in population could facilitate and exacerbate the other emerging issues. Second, the government’s agricultural development policies and the establishment of Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority incentivized farmers (including those who had previously practiced ecologically sustainable coffee farming) to maximize yield and shift their practices to intensive coffee production. Third, farmers who do not join the FCCP (including unemployed young farmers) may have little incentive to conserve forest ecosystems. Fourth, the RA’s auditing system was not stringent enough to fully detect the social and ecological changes in a timely manner. Although OFWE and JICA have made enormous efforts to establish FMAs, develop forest conservation plans, designate boundaries, provide incentives through FFS and FCCP, establish Internal Control System, and raise awareness, these efforts might have been overwhelmed by the above-mentioned societal circumstances.

In order to ensure successful implementation of certification schemes, we propose the following recommendations. First, population growth rates as well as industrial structure and educational opportunities in the targeted areas should be well considered when introducing certification schemes. The Oromia State had high population growth rate and less educational opportunities, while its industrial structure was highly dependent on agriculture. Due to the limited employment opportunities, scarcity of lands, and insufficient access to higher education, the increased number of local people had no choice but to expand agricultural lands to sustain their livelihoods. As the government accelerated coffee production, and since coffee provided good income generation opportunities for forest dwellers in the Belete-Gera forest (Mengist et al., 2013), we presume that more individuals were incentivized to practice coffee production to earn their living expenses. Farm/garden expansion may have also obscured the boundaries between certified and non-certified areas or protected forest and farmlands, thereby facilitating further expansion of human settlements.

Resilience is an important aspect to consider when pursuing to build sustainable communities. “Community resilience” is the capability of a community to prepare for, recover from, or adapt to adverse events (Cutter, 2022). It is often evaluated by measuring various capitals, including human capital (i.e., age, educational levels, shared beliefs), financial capital (i.e., employment, livelihood, wealth), natural capital (i.e., natural resources, environmental conditions), social capital (i.e., social networks and connectivity among individuals and groups), built environment capital (i.e., material assets, buildings, infrastructure), and political capital (i.e., access to the power to influence distribution of resources) (Cutter, 2022). Though the communities of Oromia State had relatively good access to forests (natural capital), they lacked opportunities for education (human capital) and employment (financial capital), which made them less resilient. Due to the lack of human and financial capitals, it appeared that the population increase directly expanded the pressure on the forest resources (natural capital), since their livelihood options were limited to agricultural land expansion or coffee production in the forest. Negative impacts on the natural capital may further reduce the levels of community resilience since degradation of forest ecosystems would deprive of their economic and livelihood opportunities (Kelly et al., 2015; Jarzebski et al., 2016). Therefore, when the government or other practitioners introduce certification schemes in areas experiencing high population growth rates, it is important for them to concurrently provide support to enhance opportunities for higher education and alternative employment without causing negative impact on natural capital. Previous study suggests that human capital, particularly learning ability and flexibility, play a significant role in strengthening community resilience, as it provides opportunities to seek for alternative income sources (Arai et al., 2022). Assisting vulnerable communities to enhance human capital and financial capital may eventually reduce the risks of negative impacts on the natural capital through provision of alternative livelihood options, while increasing the potentials for building ecologically sustainable and resilient communities.

Second, government policies should be made consistent with the objectives of the certification schemes. The Ethiopian government have enforced conflicting policies in the same forest area since 2010: Where the OFWE aimed to protect forest ecosystems, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development accelerated agricultural commercialization and agro-industrial development. Moreover, Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority promoted intensive coffee production to maximize yields for exports. These double-standard policies may have confused both agricultural extension officers and local farmers, and could have encouraged farmers to pursue intensive coffee production instead. Government authorities in charge of environmental conservation and agricultural development should collaborate and develop an integrated policy that can facilitate the simultaneous achievement of ecosystem conservation and sustainable livelihood development. Practitioners who plan to introduce certification schemes should always be aware of government policies in relevant sectors and should help coordinate to establish cooperating relations among the local and national government bodies to align the objectives of the relevant stakeholders.

Third, it is recommended that farmers residing in forest areas be provided with direct incentives for forest conservation. FFS was introduced as an incentive for all FMA members to participate in the project. Forest coffee certification was added as another incentive for FMA members who were already harvesting coffee beans. However, based on our findings, these efforts were insufficient to encourage all FMA members to conserve the forest resources. The FCCP incentivizes the participants to conserve forest ecosystems and gain access to premium prices. If the forests are degraded, the certification will be cancelled and farmers will not be able to sell coffee at a premium price. On the other hand, although FFS appeared to be attractive for farmers who wished to improve their agricultural skills and knowledge, it might not have encouraged conservation efforts, as FFS in itself is not a forest conservation practice. In other words, even if farmers do not make any efforts to conserve forests, they can still benefit from joining FFS. This is different from the FCCP, where farmers would not be able to obtain benefits if they deviate from environmentally sustainable practices. Although we can appreciate the goal of the FFS component (i.e., reducing agricultural land expansion by increasing productivity), our results imply that more direct incentives might have been necessary to keep all FMA members compliant with the Forest Management Agreement.

Finally, we would like to recommend the RA to oblige a more stringent on-site inspection that can comprehensively assess the ecological conditions of the certified area. As indicated by the respondents, some local inspectors may not be reliable. In addition, local hosts may attempt to minimize the duration of inspection to reduce the travel expenses of auditors. We suggest that the RA should bear the travel costs of auditors, and that the auditors should ensure that the selected sites for inspections appropriately represent the ecological and social conditions of the entire certified area.

While agricultural certification programs are being introduced around the globe, reports have mainly focused on the outcomes of a single aspect of certification (e.g., ecological or economic) within a short time frame, and few studies have paid sufficient attention to the long-term outcomes of certification programs. This case study attempted to explore the realities of an RA-certified coffee forest based on the perceptions of stakeholders who have been involved in the program for over 10 years. Combining in-depth qualitative interviews with key informants with field observations and secondary data collection, we recorded some possibilities of incompliance, particularly in terms of forest ecosystem conservation, and several social factors that may have led to deforestation and forest degradation inside the RA-certified coffee forest areas. Although our study findings cannot be generalized, they still highlight the following concerns.

1) Farming practices in certified coffee forests may not satisfy the core requirements of the RA Sustainable Agriculture Standard (2020), especially in terms of clearing large trees and understory vegetation and planting non-native coffee seedlings.

Our findings suggest that practitioners who introduce certification schemes should consider population growth rates as well as employment and educational opportunities, since they may ultimately influence the effectiveness and sustainability of the certification program. Understanding the latest government policies and promoting collaboration among relevant government authorities is also important to avoid unnecessary confusion among stakeholders. Practitioners should also provide direct incentives for environmental conservation to all farmers living in or near the certified areas in order to ensure collective action. RA is also recommended to conduct a more stringent and comprehensive on-site inspection.

Further research is necessary to evaluate the long-term ecological impacts of certification programs compared to non-certified areas. Effective monitoring can be achieved by combining field data with satellite image analysis of species richness and canopy cover, respectively. Additionally, social surveys considering different certification programs in various socio-economic and ecological contexts can be used to determine the major barriers and enabling factors of conservation success. Needless to say, a combined analysis of relevant ecological and socioeconomic factors is necessary to obtain a more holistic understanding of the effectiveness of certification schemes and allow practitioners to establish a more adaptive conservation management approach.