Effectiveness of agricultural certification schemes for improving socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, how, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policy-relevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews examine available high-quality evidence on the effects of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous review methodologies, such as using theory-based designs, for combining different types of evidence suited to respond to the complex and dynamic contexts and challenges of development. 3ie also publishes summary reports based on the full reviews that are designed for use by policymakers and programme managers. About this summary reportThis summary report, Effectiveness of agricultural certification schemes for improving socioeconomic outcomes in low and middle-income countries, 3ie Systematic Review Summary 9, is based on a full review that is available on the 3ie website. Funding for this report was provided by 3ie's core donors, which include UK aid, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or the 3ie Board of Commissioners. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or comments about this review should be directed to the corresponding author, Carlos Oya, at co2@soas.ac.uk. The main function of certification schemes (CS) in agriculture is to set voluntary standards with specific requirements, monitor their compliance (through independent auditors) and support producers to meet them, with the goal of making agricultural production economically, socially and environmentally more sustainable and agricultural trade fairer for producers and workers. The rise of voluntary standards and their respective CS has been an important aspect of the process of globalisation of agriculture over the past three decades.The growth of certified production networks has accelerated in recent years, by expanding the range of products and the number of countries, producers and workers on a global scale. There is now a large number of standards and CS for agricultural production. Yet, the proportion of total agricultural trade that carries some certification of social sustainability remains small for most CS and products.What do certification schemes aim to achieve, and how?There are various objectives associated with CS. The range of activities they engage in is also significant. Standard-setting and monitoring and associated interventions are expected to contribute to a wide range of socio-economic ...

What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development?

“…3ie publishes a series of Systematic Review Summary reports, which present review evidence structured around the theory of change, and focus more clearly on how the interventions themselves work and the reasons underlying heterogeneity in findings. Examples of these summaries are in Table 1 (De Buck et al 2017;Kristjansson et al 2016;Oya et al 2017;Snilstveit et al 2016;Stewart et al, 2016; 3. Keeping reviews up to date Systematic reviews need to be kept up to date.…”

“…• Certification schemes are effective in raising prices and income from agriculture, but do not usually improve household income and wages (Oya et al 2017). Costs of implementing standards can prevent poor farmers joining the schemes, and training is often not oriented to the needs of smallholders and workers.…”

Examining the interface of sustainability programmes and livelihoods in the Semendo highlands of Indonesia

“…This clearly hints at the complex way the target commodity is contextually embedded within livelihood strategies, and Oya et al . (: iii) further suggest the potential of ethnographic research to better ‘grasp the complexity of the local dynamics and explain successes and failures in more depth’. Our study addresses this challenge and contributes to the broader literature on assessing the impacts of sustainability programmes on rural livelihoods in the Global South.…”

“…Another recent systematic review of the effectiveness of certification schemes for improving socioeconomic outcomes (Oya et al, 2017) found that, although there was evidence for improvements in intermediate outcomes (producer prices and agricultural income), there was less evidence of impacts on endpoint outcomes (wages, household income and assets). This clearly hints at the complex way the target commodity is contextually embedded within livelihood strategies, and Oya et al (2017: iii) further suggest the potential of ethnographic research to better 'grasp the complexity of the local dynamics and explain successes and failures in more depth'. Our study addresses this challenge and contributes to the broader literature on assessing the impacts of sustainability programmes on rural livelihoods in the Global South.…”

“…While some evidence indicates capacity building can improve livelihoods more effectively than price mechanisms (Ortiz-Miranda and Moragues-Faus, 2014), VSS tend to encourage farmers to specialise in coffee production (Vellema et al, 2015), which is problematic if it occurs at the expense of food production, diversified (and resilient) livelihoods or agro-diversity (Barham and Weber, 2012;Stoian et al, 2015). Another recent systematic review of the effectiveness of certification schemes for improving socioeconomic outcomes (Oya et al, 2017) found that, although there was evidence for improvements in intermediate outcomes (producer prices and agricultural income), there was less evidence of impacts on endpoint outcomes (wages, household income and assets). This clearly hints at the complex way the target commodity is contextually embedded within livelihood strategies, and Oya et al (2017: iii) further suggest the potential of ethnographic research to better 'grasp the complexity of the local dynamics and explain successes and failures in more depth'.…”