Evaluating Rural Farming Livelihood Outcomes from Sustainability Standard Certification Practices by Smallholder Tea Growers in Sri Lanka

Evaluating Rural Farming Livelihood Outcomes from Sustainability Standard Certification Practices by Smallholder Tea Growers in Sri Lanka | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluating Rural Farming Livelihood Outcomes from Sustainability Standard Certification Practices by Smallholder Tea Growers in Sri Lanka Tarin Siriwardane, Barbara Freytag-Leyer, Johann Janssen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Recent rapid transformations have shaped the development and use of voluntary sustainability standard initiatives that seek to address critical issues along global commodity supply chains. Smallholder farming communities that form an integral part of these supply chains have often been left exposed to increased livelihood insecurity. We explore how certification interventions of the Rainforest Alliance programme in Sri Lanka impact various classes of farming livelihood assets of smallholder tea growers and identify how these assets are combined and transformed to achieve their desired livelihood outcomes. A research framework was developed that integrates the ‘sustainable livelihoods' approach and the ‘theory of change’ to assess 36 indicators for the five capitals and the vulnerability context using mixed method techniques. We conducted household surveys to evaluate the asset levels for the indicators between 45 certified and 45 non-certified smallholders. In addition, we performed in-depth interviews with several extension specialists and held two focus group discussions with non-certified society leaders and their smallholder members. The findings of the Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that a total of 16 of 36 indicators were statistically significant, indicating increased levels in these assets for certified smallholders. Of the 15 livelihood outcomes evaluated, certified smallholders had seven ‘fully achieved’ outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three ‘fully achieved’ outcomes, while nine were ‘not achieved’. Our findings support evidence that the certification programme has contributed to improving only some of the sustainable farming livelihood outcomes of the certified tea smallholder community. Agricultural Economics & Policy Environmental Policy Sustainable Livelihoods approach 1 Theory of change 2 Rural livelihoods 3 Smallholder Tea farmers 4 Sustainability standards 5 Group certification 6 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1 INTRODUCTION The rapid expansion of food and agricultural trade in recent decades has been associated with the proliferation of several new and progressive international voluntary sustainability standards, labels and regulations that have increasingly governed the way commodities are sourced, produced and consumed (Byerlee and Rueda, 2015 ; Oya et al., 2018 ). Trends for standard-compliant production have witnessed exponential growth between 2008 and 2012 for coffee (15–40%), cocoa (3–22%), tea (6–12%), palm oil (2–15%) and banana (2–3%) (Potts et al., 2014 ; DeFries et al., 2017 ). Sri Lanka currently ranks as the third largest tea exporter and the fourth largest producer worldwide (Tea Exporters Association Sri Lanka, 2017 ). The smallholdings sector is the country’s highest contributor to national tea production, accounting for approximately 75% of the total production share (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, 2022 ). Civil society and private sector actors have increasingly adopted sustainability standards as key drivers in seeking to achieve positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes across supply chains for several reasons. Some of the world’s most ecologically rich areas are located in the Global South and are recognised as biodiversity hotspots for the conservation of ecosystems and habitats. Consumers have also been more aware of their ecological footprint in their overall consumption habits, while manufacturers continue to ensure uninterrupted long-term supply (Bray and Neilson, 2017 ). Although smallholder farmer production accounts for more than 70% of global agricultural commodities, it plays an integral role in conserving crop diversity (FAO, 2014; Ricciardi et al., 2018 ). However, it is also reported that more than 50% of the world’s largest food-insecure population consists of smallholders and rural farming communities (FAO, 2019; Bacon et al., 2021 ). Adverse climatic impacts, conflicts, price fluctuations, pandemics, unsustainable natural resource and land use have often exasperated rural livelihood vulnerabilities within these communities (Bacon et al., 2021 ). Most farmers are caught in a vicious circle between poor economies of scale, higher transaction costs, weaker bargaining power, and restricted market access (Blackmore et al., 2012 ). As such, governments and multilateral donors have been required urgently to understand the transformative potential of sustainable supply chains on their landscapes and livelihoods (Rueda and Lambin, 2013 ; DeFries et al., 2017 ). While numerous sustainability standards have opened new export markets for farmers who adopted sustainable agricultural practices, there have been ongoing debates as to whether these standards actually lead to increased market accessibility while lifting poorer producers out of poverty (Loconto and Dankers, 2014 ; Meemken, 2020 ). Current empirical evidence, particularly from low and middle-income countries, has reported to show a considerable degree of variability (Blackman and Rivera, 2011 ; Bray and Neilson, 2017 ; Oya et al., 2018 ; Meemken, 2020 ). Studies conducted previously have often yielded mixed results, where some identifying sustainability standards continue to keep farmers in poverty (Valkila, 2009 ; Beuchelt and Zeller, 2011 ; Jena et al., 2017 ), while others suggest marginalised farmers benefiting through standards that have improved their production capacities and livelihoods (Jones and Gibbon, 2011 ; Kleemann et al., 2014 ; Qiao et al., 2016 ). As most value addition in the final product occurs further downstream, the distribution of power and governance is often asymmetric and results in unequal benefits across the value chain (Rueda and Lambin, 2013 ; Pinto et al., 2014 ). This has raised questions about the potential impacts these newer segmented markets could have on smallholders and whether they receive the appropriate support to develop their farming livelihoods (Ruben and Zuniga, 2011 ). An approach taken by sustainability standards to improve economies of scale and incentivise responsible smallholder production practices is group certification. Some of the more prominent certification programmes for the global tea industry include Fairtrade, Forest Stewardship Council, Organic, Ethical Tea Partnership, UTZ and Rainforest Alliance (Rueda and Lambin, 2013 ; Meemken, 2020 ). Although certification, in general, can take numerous conceptualised meanings, often having multiple pathways that have specific impacts on different value chain actors, it has been best described as a ‘bundle of interventions’ that combines standard setting and compliance, capacity building and training, organisational and market integrations to achieve sustainability goals (Oya et al., 2018 ). As a subset of certification, group certification allows independent small-scale producers who are not organised into formal producer organisations to undertake certification as a group (Pinto et al., 2014 ; Potts et al., 2014 ). Therefore, the overall operational costs of each group member’s certification is said to be considerably lower than if it were obtained as an individual certificate (FSC, 2020). In theory, financial incentives for producers that meet specific sustainability criteria are usually in the form of price premiums and increased market accessibility (Blackman and Rivera, 2011 ). However, there has been an overall low level of understanding of how value is captured and assigned across certified supply chains. For the Global South in particular, previous studies have often failed to identify how certification interventions in smallholder communities have direct and indirect impacts on different immediate short-term outcomes (e.g, crop quality, soil fertility, health and safety, market information and farm revenues) and the broader long-term outcomes (e.g, biodiversity conservation, farm family well-being, farm productivity and profitability) (Oya et al., 2018 ). Our comparative study aims to establish a foundational understanding of how certification initiatives logically impact different farming livelihood asset classes of smallholders who would combine and transform them to derive their desired livelihood outcomes at the farm and household levels. The study focuses on the Rainforest Alliance (RA) certification programme that is administered by the local consulting programme coordinator in Sri Lanka. Its central research question explores the transformative potential the certification programme may have in shaping the rural livelihoods and landscapes of certified tea smallholders in the country. We integrate the ‘sustainable livelihoods’ approach of the Department for International Development (DFID, 1999) with the ‘theory of change’ from RA to collect empirical data and evaluate the findings based on the research objectives. 1) Develop a research framework for assessing rural farming livelihoods. 2) Evaluate the pathways through which the group certification programme could impact the livelihood outcomes of certified tea smallholders. 2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The theory of change was jointly developed by RA and the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) to map and define the pathways taken by the targeted certification activities to achieve the intended outcomes and broader impacts (Milder and Newsom, 2015 ). This outcome-based approach allows critical reflection to the design, implementation, and evaluation of initiatives and programmes (Vogel, 2012 ; Wijaya et al., 2018 ). The basic cause and effect logic flow includes support strategies, outputs, direct results and intermediate results, which occur at both field level and the level of its enabling environment (Milder and Newsom, 2015 ). The combined activities at both levels are essential to achieve the desired outcomes of the theory and broader impacts of creating and maintaining sustainable and resilient rural landscapes (Milder and Newsom, 2015 ). Instead of being used as a prescribed methodology, the theory is reported to be most reliable when applied through pre-existing processes to support visions, ideas and conceptions throughout a programme cycle (Vogel, 2012 ). As it encourages ongoing questions, the theory’s way of thinking inspires improvements that can be applied through more feasible and realistic institutional interventions (Vogel, 2012 ). The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework illustrates the assets (material and social), skills and approaches adopted by individuals and communities for ensuring their survival needs (Elizondo, 2017 ). It applies a people-centric approach that conceptualises: a) the goods or capital which people need, b) the ways in which asset bases are utilised to develop livelihood strategies essential for achieving desired livelihood outcomes, c) the vulnerability context that depicts the external environment in which people operate (including moments of stress and shock), and d) the roles played by institutions and processes that can strengthen subsistence resilience during times of crisis (GLOPP, 2008; Elizondo, 2017 ). As livelihood outcomes in this context involve both smallholder livelihoods and their farming systems, we use the term ‘sustainable farming livelihoods’ to combine both outcomes for this study. Table 1 presents the desired sustainable farming livelihood outcomes that are adapted from the intermediate outcomes given by the RA’s theory of change. These outcomes fall under four broad categories: biodiversity conservation, natural resource conservation, farm family well-being and community welfare, and finally, farm productivity and profitability (Milder and Newsom, 2015 ). From a total of 40 indicators, only 36 indicators were tested for statistical significance, as the data for indicators representing crop diversification and type of energy (electricity, gas and wood) were either continuous or failed to fulfil the test assumptions. Table 1 Analytical framework representing the corresponding indicators to be assessed against the five capitals, the vulnerability context and the sustainable farming livelihood outcomes. Natural capital Human capital Social capital Physical capital Financial capital Vulnerability context Crop yield Agro-farming skills Gender equity for women Access to safe water Access to financial services Trends Shocks Crop quality Personal protective equipment Participation in farmer society and community Access to sufficient food Household income from tea cultivation Waste management Health and safety levels Transparency on market information Structure of housing Agricultural income from tea cultivation Water quality Medical and health services Grower-buyer business relations Status of housing completion Productivity of tea cultivation Water quantity Training-Farm administration Access to extension and support services Access to clean energy Profit margin from tea cultivation Soil conservation Training-Good Agricultural Practices - Type of energy available-electricity - Soil fertility Training-Health and safety - Type of energy available- gas - Seasonal shifts Vegetation density Training-First aid - Type of energy available- wood - Forest reserve Awareness-child labour prevention - - - Animal and insect prevalence Awareness-family nutrition - - - Crop diversification Schooling of children - - - Sustainable farming livelihood outcomes Biodiversity conservation 1. Growers are likely to protect forests and other natural ecosystems 2. Growers increase the amount and diversity of vegetation 3. Growers experience increased abundance and coexist better among beneficial animals and insect species Natural resource conservation 4. Soil fertility is likely to be maintained and improved 5. Soil conservation is performed to minimize erosion 6. Water pollution is minimized 7. Water is conserved efficiently and used within natural limits Sustainable farming livelihood outcomes Farm family wellbeing and community welfare 8. Grower’s family secure their farm health and safety 9. Grower’s family essential needs are met: energy, clean water, food, health care, housing and education 10. Growers are likely to gain good farming knowledge and develop sustainable agricultural skills 11. Growers are supported through effective and transparent management systems 12. Growers actively participate within their societies and have good community involvement Farm productivity and profitability 13. Growers increase the productivity and quality of crops. 14. Growers receive higher margins and better income returns. 15. Growers are less vulnerable to shocks, trends and shifts Source: Author’s own adaptation from COSA, 2013; Milder and Newsom, 2015 . 2.1 The National Land Development and Extension Services Programme The Tea Small Holdings Development Authority (TSHDA) is organised as a five-layered structure at the field level comprising of the tea inspectors at the lowest divisional level, sub-offices, district offices and the head office at the national level. A schematic representation of this structure is shown in Fig. 2 . The main functions of the TSHDA at the field level can be broadly classified into land development activities and the provision of extension and advisory services. Land development activities are primarily aimed at improving the standard and productivity of tea land. Such activities include government subsidies for fertiliser, crop and soil rehabilitation, replanting, and new planting activities (tea inspector, February 2018, in-depth interview). Furthermore, accessibility to various support services, such as the provision of fertiliser and planting materials from maintained mother bush nurseries, has also been aimed at improving tea productivity (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, 2016 ). Extension and advisory services, in contrast, have aimed to improve the level of knowledge and skills of smallholders. These are administered as training programmes, demonstrations and field trips on best practices for tea cultivation, leaf quality maintenance, resource management, nursery management and farm administration. In addition to the above extension services, soil tests and pH tests are also performed according to the annual action plan (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, 2016 ). The price of raw green leaves is determined primarily by the auction prices for the finished product. The volatility in prices in the world market significantly affects smallholder earnings and profit margins (Abeygunawardena, 2015 ). In most cases, smallholders sell their leaves to factories through privately operated leaf collectors who transport and supply the leaves. The current Tea Control Act No.51 of 1957 mandates the ‘Reasonable Price Formula’ , which assures a 68% price share for a kilogram of processed tea from a particular factory to be given to the smallholder and 32% to be retained by the factory owner to cover processing and operational expenses (Sri Lanka Tea Board 2011 ; Abeygunawardena 2015 ). As an example, if a kilogram of processed low country black tea were sold at auctions for an average price of Rs 650/kg; under the current pricing formula, the smallholder would receive approximately Rs 442/kg to produce one kilogram of processed tea. As approximately 4.65 kilograms of green leaves are required to produce one kilogram of processed tea, the smallholder would receive a farm gate price of Rs 95/kg for a single kilogram (Rs.442/4.65 kg). 3 METHODS The study was carried out during February and March 2018 within the Kahawatta Divisional Secretariat area in the Ratnapura district of Sri Lanka (Fig. 3 ). The Ratnapura district, which is one of the 25 districts in the country, is located in the south-western part of the island, also known as the wet zone (Hydrodynamics and Geophysical Survey-HGS Pvt. Ltd., 2016). The agricultural sector of the district is well developed, with 72.9% of the total land used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 27.1% as forested land. Home gardens, tea and rubber represent the highest share of agricultural land (20.51%, 13.31% and 12.23%, respectively) (HGS Pvt. Ltd, 2016). Other types of crops grown to a lesser extent include paddy, coconut, pepper, cinnamon, cardamom and fruits such as papaya, avocado and banana. The Ratnapura district has been an important region for the agricultural earnings of the country. It represents the highest national contributor to the tea sector in terms of total productivity and the total number of tea smallholdings present (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, 2016 ). The total number of tea smallholders and the total extent of tea land for the district is 92,038 and 30,441 ha, respectively (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, 2016 ). The total number of tea trees in the district varies between 10,000–12,500 trees/ha. The district encompasses several forest reservations within its region. One of them includes a section of the country’s last viable primary tropical rainforests, the Sinharaja Forest Reserve , which spans partly across the district. The Sinharaja Forest Reserve, listed as a UNESCO world heritage site, is home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna species endemic to Sri Lanka (HGS Pvt. Ltd, 2016). To evaluate the outcomes of the certification programme between the different smallholder groups, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods was used for the study. Loconto and Dankers ( 2014 ), who reviewed large amounts of literature in which a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods were used, emphasised the need to adopt more mixed method approaches. This allows a clearer understanding of the complex relationships between sustainability standards and their outcomes in value chains. The data collected as shown in Table 2 , was triangulated using quantitative household surveys, qualitative interviews and focus group discussions, as well as secondary data from farm records, certification programme material and annual reports. The interviews, focus group discussions and surveys were conducted in Sinhalese as it was the preferred mode of communication with the participants. The household survey questionnaires were self-administered and consisted of closed-ended questions with three-point Likert scales and a few open-ended questions to provide figures and simple answers. Identical questionnaires were administered to different groups of certified and non-certified smallholders with the exception that the certified group was questioned for outcomes both before and after certification and the non-certified group for their current outcomes. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions allowed for a deeper interpretation of the findings gathered by the household surveys. In-depth interviews allowed to explore past and present experiences of participants and how they attribute meaning to perceived farming outcomes. Two interviews were held with two society leaders (chairman and secretary) who each represented their non-certified smallholders in their societies. Being smallholder growers themselves, they were considered key informants due to their authoritative roles played within the societies and their general knowledge regarding past significant events. Additionally, interviews were held with three certified smallholders who each supplied tea leaves to their respective certified factories. Interviews were also held with a TSHDA tea inspector and a management executive of a certified factory. The in-depth interviews were semi-structured in nature, following a series of predetermined open-ended questions, which were organised around their given set of indicators. Table 2 Summary of the mixed method approaches used for data collection. *FGD-Focus group discussion. Certified group (factory) Non-certified group (society) Factory 1 Factory 2 Factory 3 Society 4 Society 5 Society 6 15 household surveys 15 household surveys 15 household surveys 15 household surveys 15 household surveys 15 household surveys In-depth interview with grower In-depth interview with grower In-depth interview with grower In-depth interview with chairman *FGD with chairman and group members FGD with chairman and group members Certified group (factory) Non-certified group (society) In-depth interview with management executive from plantation company. In-depth interview with TSHDA tea inspector. In-depth interview with secretary of Society B (non-certified). -Field data from record books of two certified farmers. -Programme material of RA certification activities, RA programme coordinator website. -Field data from non-certified growers (not available). - Tea inspector’s records, TSHDA annual reports. Although the focus group discussions were less in-depth, they allowed gathering insight into some of the broader views, perceptions and suggestions collectively shared by some members of the smallholder community. Two focus group discussions were held with the chairman and their non-certified group members (6–8 participants) from two societies. Prior consent was received for participation and audio recording during interviews and focus group discussions from all participants. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was carried out to identify significant differences in the distribution of asset level scores before and after the certification programme. Data analysis for the test was coded and analysed with Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 23. Data collected from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were subjected to content analysis outlined by Elliott and Timulak ( 2005 ) where the audio recordings from the discussions in Sinhalese were translated and transcribed into English scripts using Microsoft Word and Excel packages. The verbal data was initially divided and condensed into distinctive meaning units with a unique code allowing them to be sorted into the principal domains of the analytical framework. The coded and labelled meaning units were then categorised and compared until all the data was completely sorted within each of their domains. In addition to uncovering the similarities and differences of already established categories, the process also allowed deciphering subcategories and delineating the relationships between them. Therefore, the description of thematic relationships and patterns identified during the interpretation process provided a clearer understanding of the quantitative data. The final outcome achievement levels were derived from the proportions of smallholders who had access and availability to the highest asset levels for the indicators. Where multiple indicators were required to derive an outcome, the average proportion were calculated and represented on a three-point scale: (below 33% = not achieved), (33–66% = partially achieved) and (above 66% = fully achieved). The corresponding indicators used for deriving the achieved outcomes for the two groups of farmers have been shown in Appendix B . 4 RESULTS 4.1 Impacts of Group Certification on Smallholder Livelihood Outcomes The results of the household survey (shown in Appendix A ) were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (for paired data) to identify significant differences in the distribution of asset score levels for certified smallholders before and after they received certification. The findings of the analysis presented in Table 3 show a total of 16 of the 36 indicators tested to be statistically significant. Table 3 Results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test for the corresponding assets for certified growers (before and after certification). Capital Indicators Z score p value Significance Effect size Natural Crop yield -5.990 0.549 Not significant - Natural Crop quality -2.633 0.008 Significant -0.277 Natural Waste management -3.164 0.002 Significant -0.333 Natural Water quality -1.027 0.305 Not significant - Natural Water quantity -1.508 0.132 Not significant - Natural Soil conservation -0.366 0.714 Not significant - Natural Soil fertility -1.981 0.048 Significant -1.981 Natural Vegetation density -1.000 0.317 Not significant - Natural Forest reserve 0.000 1.000 Not significant - Natural Animal and insects -4.875 1.0x10 -6 Significant -0.513 Human Farming skills -1.633 0.102 Not significant - Human PPE* -4.400 1.1x10 -5 Significant -0.463 Human Health and safety -2.07 0.038 Significant -0.218 Human Medical services -1.633 0.102 Not significant - Human Training-farm administration -3.873 1.08x10 -4 Significant -0.408 Human Training-GAP* -3.606 3.11x10 -4 Significant -0.380 Human Training-OHS* -3.317 0.001 Significant -0.349 Human Training-first aid -3.162 0.002 Significant -0.333 Human Awareness-child labour -3.162 0.002 Significant -0.333 Human Awareness-family nutrition -2.449 0.014 Significant -0.258 Human Schooling of children -1.342 0.180 Not significant - Physical Access to energy -2.309 0.021 Significant -0.243 Physical Access to water -2.000 0.046 Significant -0.210 Physical Access to food -0.447 0.655 Not significant - Physical Housing structure -2.07 0.038 Significant -0.218 Physical Housing status -1.000 0.317 Not significant - Social Gender equity for women -1.000 0.317 Not significant - Social Society participation -1.000 0.317 Not significant - Social Market information -1.179 0.238 Not significant - Social Business relations -1.414 0.157 Not significant - Social Extension services -1.994 0.046 Significant -0.210 Financial Financial services -1.342 0.180 Not significant - Financial Household income share from tea -1.000 0.317 Not significant - Financial Agri-income share from tea -0.707 0.480 Not significant - Financial Productivity -0.334 0.739 Not significant - Financial Profit margin -1.660 0.097 Not significant - Indicators for the Wilcoxon signed rank test were tested for significance at the α level = 0.05. *PPE- Personal Protective Equipment. *GAP- Good Agricultural Practices. *OHS- Occupational Health and Safety. The 15 sustainable farming livelihood outcomes evaluated for the study and their levels of achievement for the categories of the grower groups are presented in Table 4 . The final calculated achievement levels show that out of fifteen outcomes, where one was inconclusive, certified smallholders had seven ‘fully achieved’ outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three ‘fully achieved’ outcomes, while nine outcomes were ‘not achieved.’ It should also be mentioned that certified smallholders already had a higher number of six ‘partially achieved’ outcomes before certification, largely attributed to higher initial levels of existing assets compared to non-certified smallholders who had two ‘partially achieved’ outcomes. Table 4 The results summary of the derived sustainable farming livelihood outcomes achieved for the certified and non-certified grower categories. Sustainable Farming Livelihood Outcomes Biodiversity Conservation CG-B CG-A NC-G 1. Growers are likely to protect forests and other natural ecosystems Inconclusive Inconclusive Inconclusive 2. Growers increase the amount and diversity of vegetation 🗴 🗴 🗴 3. Growers experience increased abundance and coexist better with beneficial animals and insect species 🗴 ✓ 🗴 Natural Resource Conservation CG-B CG-A NC-G 4. Soil fertility is likely to be maintained and improved ⯊ ✓ 🗴 5. Soil conservation is performed to minimize erosion ✓ ✓ ✓ 6. Water pollution is minimized ⯊ ⯊ 🗴 7. Water is conserved efficiently and used within natural limits ⯊ 🗴 ⯊ Farm Family Wellbeing and Community Welfare CG-B CG-A NC-G 8. Grower’s family secure their farm health and safety 🗴 ⯊ 🗴 9. Grower’s family essential needs are met: energy, clean water, food, health care, housing and education ✓ ✓ ✓ 10. Growers are likely to gain good farming knowledge and develop sustainable agricultural skills ⯊ ✓ 🗴 11. Growers are supported through effective internal management systems ✓ ✓ ⯊ 12. Growers actively participate within their societies and have good community involvement ✓ ✓ ✓ Farm Productivity and Profitability CG-B CG-A NC-G 13. Growers increase productivity and quality of crops ⯊ ⯊ 🗴 14. Growers receive higher margins and better income returns ⯊ ⯊ 🗴 15. *Growers are less vulnerable to shocks, trends and shifts 🗴 🗴 🗴 CG-B (Certified growers- before certification), CG-A (Certified growers-after certification), NC- G (Non-certified growers). Key for the sustainable farming livelihood outcome levels achieved: (0-33.3% = 🗴 not achieved), (33.3–66.7% = ⯊ partially achieved), (66.7–100% = ✓ fully achieved) between certified growers (before and after certification) and non-certified growers. *Outcomes for vulnerability are based on the qualitative data from the interviews and focus group discussions. 4.1.1 Leaf Quality Certified smallholders improved their leaf quality levels through stringent and standardised seven-day plucking cycles while adopting good handling practices. As the standard, the supply of plucked leaves had to be in the form of ‘two leaves and a bud’. The main quality criteria for hand-plucked leaves depend largely on the maturity of the leaf at the time of supply. The highest quality leaves had a plucking cycle of precisely seven days. As these leaves are of optimal maturity and size, they are selected, screened and processed as main-grade leaves by the factories. ‘The best grades of leaves are usually plucked on the seventh day. But these days, due to drought, we are unable to do this’. (In-depth interview, leader of non-certified society A, February 2018). The main-grade leaves with smaller surface areas have better rolling efficiencies in the machines and ultimately are processed into higher quality ready-made teas, which in turn are sold at higher prices at the auctions. Leaves plucked and supplied between the eighth and tenth day are more mature with larger surface areas and therefore considered lower in quality (In-depth interviews, certified growers of factory E and G- February 2018 and certified factory executive- March 2018). The improvement in leaf quality following the certification was also confirmed by the factory executive. ‘A major improvement was that the amount of off-grades (matured or crushed leaves) arriving at the factory was significantly reduced. Earlier some growers used to supply leaves between the eighth and tenth day which were too mature and had four leaves on the stalk’ (In-depth interview, factory executive, March 2018). These views were also reflected in the results of the household survey, which showed an increased proportion of certified growers who believed their leaf quality levels became ‘high’ following the certification were 4.4% (before certification) and 31.1% (after certification) while non-certified farmers were 28.9%. The interviewees also mentioned that the ideal weight of the leaf collection bag should be between 20–22 kg. ‘When the leaf matures, the flavor and quality of the tea is lost. The ideal weight of the tea collection bag is about 20 kg. If we pack more than this, the leaves can get pressed, bruised and heated against each other’. (In-depth interview, leader of non-certified society A, February 2018). Avoiding excess weight was said to minimise leaf deterioration when subjected to crushing and high temperatures during storage and transport. 4.1.2 Leaf Yield Interviews with both non-certified and certified growers confirmed a significant reduction of yield levels for the region. A non-certified society leader said: ‘Earlier a harvesting cycle used to yield 450kg/month. Now it has dropped to 200 kg/month’ (in-depth interview, leader of society B, February 2018) and (farmer record books, secondary data). All interviewed growers shared similar sentiments attributing the low yield levels to several factors that included: drought conditions experienced, lack of fertiliser subsidies and poor quality fertiliser available in the markets. The factory executive said that it became difficult to attribute any direct changes in yield to the certification programme, as its effects occur over a gradual long-term period. As the factories received the RA certification in March 2017, the factory was unable to identify immediate changes in the yield levels. 4.1.3 Soil Fertility Interviews with the tea inspector and the two non-certified society leaders of A and B revealed that there has been a steady declining trend in soil fertility over the years. For soil rehabilitation, the grass species Tripsacum laxum (up to one year) and Cymbopogon confertiflorus ( up to one and a half years) are grown. Certified smallholders were trained on herbicide-free manual weeding techniques that require the manual removal of identified harmful hard weeds with stronger root systems, which competes aggressively for nutrients, water, space and sunlight. Beneficial soft herbs (Desmodium triflorum, Desmodium heterophyllum, Drymaria cordata and Centella asiatica) retained in the fields have weaker root systems and compete for fewer resources. Overgrown soft herbs were slashed and reused back as organic matter (mulched), which helps to enrich nutrients, protect the top soils, retain water, and increase the presence of beneficial natural predatory insects and animal species. (In-depth interviews, certified growers of factory E, F and G- February 2018 and certified factory executive, March 2018). The soil conservation practices adopted by both groups of growers included the growth of the grass species Chrysopogon zizanioides along slopy lands and the edges of drains. 4.1.4 Water Quality Several non-certified society leaders and their members expressed concern over the quality levels of adjacent water bodies. Members of society C mentioned ‘There is a river that runs through close to the lands of the inhabitants. As there are no designated forest reservations, farmers encroach these areas and grow crops near these water bodies and reservations. Another issue concerns the irresponsible use of water by inhabitants, as pipes are now being used to draw water from these springs and rivers. When this happens, the downstream water is dried up and there is not much left. The water drawn from these sources for farming is also dried if it is not stored properly’ (Members of society C, February 2018, focus group discussion). Water contamination prevention measures by certified growers included vegetation growth in buffer zones along both sides of the river banks, the use of soakage pits and bioremedial plants ( Lasia spinosa and Colocasia esculenta) as wastewater management systems (RA programme leaflets, secondary data). 4.1.5 Animal and Insect Prevalence The most abundant forms of local wildlife common to all growers included: wild boars, porcupines, mongoose, giant squirrels, rabbits, peacocks, jungle fowls, coucals and a number of other smaller birds. Bird species (egrets, bulbuls, jungle fowls and coucals) and beneficial insects (dragonflies, damselflies, ladybird bugs and grasshoppers) are particularly important natural predators that control pest populations (mites, borers, moths and aphids) (RA programme leaflets, secondary data). Certified growers who were encouraged to use manual weeding practices instead of powerful weedicides experienced an increased prevalence of these beneficial animal species. The factory executive also stated that the growers understood how agrochemicals could disrupt the natural interaction between predators and their prey. 4.1.6 Training and Awareness Programmes The certified growers who received training on farm administration from factories E, F and G had maintained formal field record books administered through the certification programme. Extracts of their formal records that were obtained included: list of plants and animal species, frequencies of fertiliser application, weeding, pruning, plucking, input costs, cost versus income and training topics received (farmer field record books, secondary data). As a part of the TSHDA extension programme, the tea inspector has a planned schedule for administering a number of training sessions which included: crop and soil rehabilitation, soil conservation, tea planting, pruning, weeding, plucking, shade management, nutrient management, nursery management, machinery use and leaf quality (tea inspector field records, secondary data). 4.1.7 Market Information The tea inspector and the non-certified farmers strongly acknowledged the lack of existing mechanisms for growers and societies to receive up-to-date market information (changes in leaf pricing, buyer-grower transaction costs from leaf weight adjustments, transport and handling). Several non-certified leaders and farmers shared similar views. ‘The level of information received is low for us because once we sell our leaves to private suppliers, they (suppliers) have direct dealings with factories. As different factories and suppliers have different unit prices at which they buy raw leaves, the information we receive is always poorly disseminated. The farmers in this society receive limited information only through their respective leaf suppliers’ (members of society D, February 2018, focus group discussion). ‘If the factory owners in the region can provide a copy of the updated price listings to the societies or the tea inspector once every month, this will be very beneficial. The views shared by some of the certified growers indicated better levels of information dissemination among them. Growers from factories E and G revealed that they receive written notifications from the factories when changes in pricing or market situations occur. They acknowledged that although there were still some shortfalls, the overall efficiency with which information was received had improved after the certification. 4.1.8 Profit Margins There was insufficient evidence to support that certified smallholders for this study received higher leaf prices through premiums or a certification label. However, some indications showed that they were likely to receive increased price margins by providing higher quality leaf supplies. The factory executive explained that although a slightly higher price could be expected for RA certified tea, their margins as premiums for growers were often very small and not significant. ‘So far, we have observed that brokers in auctions bid faster for RA certified tea and there is a small internal competition between them during the bidding process… So invariably due to this competition, there is a slight increase in the price for RA certified tea’ (factory executive, March 2018, in-depth interview). However, he further explained that the variations in pricing at the auctions could not be attributed to certification alone. ‘We are unable to provide an absolute amount or proportion for this increase…the factory never records the auction prices between RA and non-RA tea…the price can increase or decrease due to many inter-relating factors…we cannot be certain that the difference in price was purely due to certification’ (factory executive, March 2018, in-depth interview). Factories that received higher quality leaves would incentivise their leaf suppliers to offer slightly higher margins (Rs 2–5 more) to growers. However, several growers believed that the current pricing was insufficient to cover their basic input costs (members of society C, growers of factories G and F). 4.1.9 Vulnerability Context : Shocks, Trends and Seasonal Shifts Factors of vulnerability that had the most influence on growers' farming livelihood assets were discussed for shocks (floods and droughts), trends (hired labor) and seasonal shifts (pricing).Views shared by the tea inspector and the factory executive suggested that growers of both groups within the region were highly vulnerable to the effects of climate extremes that caused flooding, landslides, and prolonged periods of drought. The intervention strategies adopted by growers often focused on safeguarding their natural farm assets. Before periods of drought, growers were advised to perform additional pruning, weeding and shade management. Strategies adopted during floods often aimed to increase soil conservation efforts and minimise soil erosion. These included the use of cover crops, grasses, stone bunds, drainage lanes (lock and spill drains) and terracing to control surface runoff. However, the tea inspector mentioned, these strategies were often insufficient to prevent damage to crops and farmland during periods of intense flooding or extreme droughts. The declining trends of hired labour had significantly reduced productivity levels across the entire tea industry. The tea inspector accounted that, the labour shortages were mainly due to the preference of the younger generation to work in more rewarding industries. Seasonal shifts in pricing were also influenced by the prevailing weather patterns throughout the year. Supplied tea leaves that become wet during the monsoon season or become yellow during the drought are more likely to lower the quality of the final product and result in reduced prices at auctions. 5 DISCUSSION Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Outcomes from Group Certification Previous studies that have assessed the impacts of the RA certification programme on smallholder farming systems have reported a greater mobilisation of farm-level livelihood assets after certification (Rueda and Lambin, 2013 ; Pinto et al., 2014 ; Fenger et al., 2016 ). Rueda and Lambin ( 2013 ) demonstrated that certified farmers prioritised their non-premium benefits and gained more access to stable markets, information, technology, social networks, and resources while enhancing their local agro-ecosystems. Fenger et al. ( 2016 ) identified that certified farmers experienced positive impacts on their natural and financial capitals for their yield, production and income, which were attributed by increased access to information and knowledge, technical assistance, farm inputs, financial support and credit. In addition to gaining access to more value-added markets, Pinto et al. ( 2014 ) found that group certification strengthened social connections and knowledge transfer networks by creating more avenues for engagement with various actors along the supply chain. Studies investigating the broader sustainability outcomes of certification programmes have, however, reported to show a much greater degree of variability. DeFries et al. ( 2017 ), who conducted an extensive literature review of studies that evaluated the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of certified and non-certified small-scale producers, found that of a total of 347 response variables, certification was associated on average with 34% positive outcomes, 58% without significant differences and 8% negative outcomes. Moreover, Bray and Neilson ( 2017 ) who assessed the impacts of certification schemes on smallholder livelihoods by also reviewing existing empirical studies, identified that although certification, in general, was more likely to generate positive impacts rather than negative ones, the greater number of neutral or mixed findings indicate a considerable degree of uncertainty still persisted. Integrating the elements of the SL approach with the RA’s theory of change has demonstrated its usefulness in developing more insights onto the highly dynamic nature of the pathways taken by the certification programme to reach broader sustainability outcomes. In particular, the DFID identifies strong interdependences between a) the structures-processes and the vulnerability context; b) the livelihood assets and livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999). The study framework provides an initial basis for more empirical studies to progressively build upon the SL approach and expand its scope using a broader range of potential outcomes for future analyses. Small ( 2007 ) underscored the importance of the SL approach on participatory approaches, multi-faceted livelihoods and their links with the environment, which have been common themes for impact pathways envisaged by advocates of certification programmes. The study framework has a number of features that allow data collection across different contexts of rural livelihoods and agriculture. First, its systematic nature enables a more holistic assessment of a broader range of asset classes for diagnosing how their interactions could either enhance or deplete the capitals concerned. Second, its versatility allows for integration with a variety of quantitative, qualitative and participatory research techniques that should consider both the intended and unintended changes of sustainability interventions. Third, it is suited for assessments that require rigorous matching procedures and the construction of counterfactual control groups at landscape scales. Previous studies have rarely presented reliable baseline data or realistic control groups for comparison, ideally at the start of such programmes, making causation difficult to establish (Bray and Neilson, 2017 ; DeFries et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, Tscharntke et al. ( 2015 ) recommend a more robust evidence-based generation of certification impacts by credible counterfactuals and the use of standardised indicators of sustainability. As the implementation of standards is gradual and continuous processes over long periods and since this analysis merely offers a snapshot of the situational period in a localised area of the district, it remains meaningful to assess the broader long-term impacts of the certification with longitudinal measurements (Loconto and Dankers 2014 ). Most studies have concentrated primarily on coffee, giving little attention to other export and biofuel crops. Given the predominance of studies on organic and fair trade, additional research is needed to evaluate the outcomes of RA and UTZ certification programmes that have a far greater reach, especially in the Global South (Bray and Neilson, 2017 ). Organisational Structures and Management Systems The establishment of farmer groups that are organised in the cultivation, supplying and administration processes becomes an important component towards the certification of smallholders and their engagement with buyer companies. The group structure and its management will vary according to the business model and are key factors for successful participation in certified value chains (Beall, 2012 ). The certified farmers in this study were organised jointly by the factories and the RA programme coordinator. There is fair potential for implementing group certification with the involvement of the TSHDA at the farmer society levels. Preparation for group certification at farmer society levels could include an initial assessment to define, map out and classify different groups of smallholder profiles based on their capacity gaps. This can enable targeted training and capacity building objectives that best respond to their specific agronomic needs and practices (RSPO, 2017). By doing so, farmer groups can receive ongoing resources and derive value to their members through more effective outreach, coverage and participation that adopts best practices for improved quality, yields, social and environmental sustainability outcomes. Furthermore, economies of scale are expected to reduce individual upfront investments, indirect compliance and transaction costs shared among group members (Loconto and Dankers, 2014 ). The training of society leaders and members on the guiding principles of the RA’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard and their compliance requirements to meet the criteria of the standard are key objectives. Training can be administered by local RA trainers and the factory extension staff for all smallholders within a society to achieve certification as a group. The internal management system and internal auditing services could be managed by the respective certified factories receiving leaf supplies from the certified smallholder societies. Studies by Raynolds et al. ( 2004 ), Ruben et al. ( 2009 ), and Ruben and Fort ( 2012 ) have shown that smallholders and the functioning of their farmer cooperatives benefited from the impacts of fair trade and that the capacity building nature of the certification had important contributions to producer empowerment, which resulted in the gradual improvement of social capital. Certified societies that can run their own internal management systems could have the ability to operate independently of the leaf suppliers. They could be responsible for collecting and delivering the leaf supply of their members directly to factories to gain better bargaining positions and strengthen the relationships. RA trained TSHDA tea inspectors and society leaders who are supported by the consulting programme coordinator and factories could also facilitate in the training, advisory services and conducting internal inspections at farm level. Utting ( 2009 ), Lyon et al. ( 2010 ), and Jena et al. ( 2012 ) found that good management and leadership capabilities in producer organisations facilitated the introduction and implementation of certification schemes more successfully. The TSHDA and its tea inspector have so far limited involvement in the RA certification programme. However, it is important to note that the certification of societies that have the capacity to do so should be supported by the relevant private and public institutions to participate in certified markets. Additionally, certification at the society level must ensure inclusion and compliance among all members to avoid introducing new market barriers against those who are unable or do not choose to become certified. Training at the society level is expected to allow more marginalised farmers to develop sustainable farming knowledge and skills that could potentially lead to greater innovation and empowerment of farming systems. Farm Gate Prices and Certified Value Chain Factors The evaluation of the complex financial calculations associated with the net benefits of certification has been reported to be challenging (Weber, 2011 ). Blackmore et al. ( 2012 ) argue further that, unlike certification initiatives that have dedicated price margins for premiums, it becomes difficult to attribute whether these price margins could result from the certification label or from higher quality produce. The factory executive explained that comparing auction prices between certified and non-certified ready-made teas was not indicative due to several variable factors. These included differences in origin mixes/grades of teas, processing methods by factories (variable production costs), final quality, bidding environments and global markets during the auctions (groups of brokers can differ). The factory placed greater importance on improving its quality levels and its environmental and social sustainability outcomes through the certification programme. Loconto and Dankers ( 2014 ) suggested that these higher price margins could result from standard implementation itself, where improved training and skills in good agricultural practices could lead to higher quality crops. Several studies have reported revenue increases associated with improved yields (Barham and Weber, 2012 ; Jena et al., 2012 ) and lower input costs (Valkila, 2009 ) rather than from price premiums. Bolwig et al. ( 2009 ), Valkila and Nygren ( 2010 ) and Valkila ( 2014 ) identified producers who could supply higher yields and were already more resilient to socio-economic shocks were invariably more favoured to receive such premiums. Most of the smallholders in the study acknowledged that they had limited interaction with the factories on business transactions and market information. This could be due to smallholders not having formal contractual agreements with factories and instead relying on their private suppliers to distribute their leaf supply. The negotiating position often impacts how value is passed and distributed across the supply chain and is largely influenced by internal and external actors responsible for driving the business model and the certification process (Beall, 2012 ). Furthermore, the organisation of farmer groups, supply and demand of crops, land tenure security and policy environments also have an impact on negotiations (Beall, 2012 ). The study identifies the information asymmetry of market information, and the lack of sufficient representation of smallholder interests has hindered them in making informed decisions surrounding several issues and their overall potential to receive adequate farming revenues. As Jayasinghe ( 1984 ) explains, private leaf suppliers have the option to sell the best quality leaves at increased prices to factories that demand higher standards, and the balance unsold lot to other factories that pay a lower rate. This results in smallholders having limited control over which factory receives their leaf supply and often leaves them vulnerable to ambiguous pricing and transaction costs set by their leaf suppliers. It invariably places smallholders at poor bargaining positions within the value chains, as the leaf suppliers have closer direct dealings with the factories. Benarjee ( 2011 ) points out further that such smallholder systems ‘are left to the vagaries of an unorganised imperfect market’ when there is no enforcement through regulation and institutions. Multi-stakeholder fair and transparent partnership models that could review and address issues with existing crop pricing mechanisms, sales contracting, transaction costs, access to finance and inputs would prove useful in closing loopholes across the value chain (RSPO, 2017). Additionally, a dedicated platform that would consist of a stronger representation of smallholder interests can be achieved through an adapted governance structure (Beall, 2012 ; RSPO, 2017). This would enable farmers to have stronger negotiation positions while minimising risk through improved decision-making and access to finance. The government-mandated ‘Reasonable Price Formula’ is only a share-based formula that determines the price ratio received between smallholders and manufacturers and does not represent a guaranteed minimum price. Abeygunawardena ( 2015 ) explains that implementing such a guaranteed minimum price scheme into the existing price formula is quite complex, as there will be both winners and losers. Therefore, it requires careful consideration in accordance with the due shares among all actors under the price formula and must have links to leaf quality. Although fair trade has been the only initiative to offer a base price, such premiums at the farm level have generally been witnessed to be absent when global prices have a greater tendency to be associated with improved quality and, as such, give the producers no guarantees that they can reap the benefits from fair trade markets (Raynolds et al., 2004 ; Sick, 2008 ; Valkila and Nygren, 2010 ). Institutional Support for Sustained Participation Although the institutional structures and processes from the SL approach were not covered within the scope of this study, they remain important components that can be decisive in smallholder participation in certified markets and in achieving livelihood outcomes. Loconto and Dankers ( 2014 ) recognised that both government policy and institutional frameworks that work synergistically create the most positive results for enabling an environment that allows greater inclusion of farmers in certified markets. The proper delivery and coverage of extension and support services for farmers requires greater efficiency to improve vital asset bases such as crop yield, crop quality, training and awareness, and agro-farming skills. Currently, the TSHDA tea inspector has to administer the land development programme (regulatory functions) in addition to the extension services (advisory/training). Jayasinghe ( 1984 ) explains that the role of the tea inspector in disseminating research findings and providing advice becomes less effective when they have to carry out additional regulatory functions. He further explains that the two conflicting roles make it difficult for the tea inspector to maintain a good relationship with smallholders and gain their confidence. Therefore, limiting the role of the tea inspector to provide only extension services while designating land development activities to another officer becomes meaningful. Most smallholders could not maximise their farming outcomes due to several vulnerabilities. The lack of fertiliser subsidies and the poor quality of commercially available fertiliser have further reduced productivity. Jayasinghe ( 1984 ) stresses that it might be a worthy option to use state and private sector estates as supply centres that could provide and distribute relevant farm inputs (such as fertiliser) on a credit basis to smallholders to avoid large delays. The resulting costs and operational expenses can be deducted from the farmers on future leaf sales and reimbursements can be arranged through the TSHDA. This would also ensure that farmers receive good quality farm inputs for the correct application timings. The study findings are in line with Bray and Neilson ( 2017 ), who agree that certification schemes are not implemented on a ‘blank canvas’ and often overlay complex sets of pre-existing institutional settings involving economic, social, cultural and political institutions. Furthermore, they note that the dynamics between these institutional settings and certification schemes determine which households and individuals within a community have positive outcomes and which are excluded. More knowledge in this area could improve our understanding of the inherent interactions between these settings and for certification initiatives to be more inclusive. Smallholders and their civil society organisations need to have a larger stake in the governance and activities of certification programmes. Blackmore et al. ( 2012 ) emphasise that while farmer organisational participation would facilitate the design of more inclusive and fairer standards for compliance, it would also ensure a more leveled playing field that brings greater accountability, transparency and a more balanced influence in the standard-setting process. Bose et al. ( 2016 ) share similar views for more farmer-friendly and flexible implementation designs of certification schemes that need to be sensitive and responsive to local effects if they are to sustain large numbers of producers. Sustainability standard-setting bodies, therefore, need to place more importance on developing commodity and region-specific standards taking into account the diversity and heterogeneity of different smallholder groups. In particular, they should consider the contextual and situational factors that affect local farming and trading systems to increase the transformative potential of certification programmes. There was fair potential for implementing group certification programmes at farmer society levels where training objectives could be aligned to meet the RA’s standard compliance requirements. Beyond the focus on yielding direct benefits, the long-term broader outcomes of sustainability certification initiatives should ultimately result in smallholders being able to safeguard their farming systems, which brings greater adaptive capacity and reduced vulnerability. Sustainability initiatives that build on existing efforts should maximise on past experiences so that they are scalable and have greater outreach among diverse smallholder farming communities with varying levels of livelihood assets. It also calls for reassessing and re-evaluating the current rural farming development goals and agendas that need to create more inclusive environments, transparent engagement and accountable commitment among all public/private sector and civil society actors so that smallholder communities could be ultimate recipients of more resilient and sustainable farming livelihoods. 6 CONCLUSION We explore how certification interventions of the Rainforest Alliance programme in Sri Lanka impact various classes of farming livelihood assets of smallholder tea growers and identify how these assets are combined and transformed to achieve their desired livelihood outcomes. We developed a framework that integrates the elements of the ‘sustainable livelihoods’ approach and the ‘theory of change’. A total of 36 indicators were assessed for the five capitals (natural, human, social, physical and financial) and the vulnerability context using mixed method techniques. Our findings from the Wilcoxon signed rank test show that 16 of 36 indicators tested statistically significant, indicating increased levels in these assets for certified smallholders after certification. These improvements were found for crop quality, waste management, soil fertility, beneficial animal and insect species, usage of personal protective equipment, health and safety, access to training and awareness programmes, access to extension and support services, access to household energy, access to safe water and housing structure. Evidence gathered from in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and other secondary field data was consistent with these quantitative findings. Of the 15 sustainable farming livelihood outcomes evaluated for the study, the certified smallholders had seven ‘fully achieved’ outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three ‘fully achieved’ outcomes, while nine were ‘not achieved’. A noteworthy observation was that certified smallholders had an already higher number of six ‘partially achieved’ outcomes prior to certification, largely attributed to the higher initial levels of existing assets compared to non-certified smallholders who had two ‘partially achieved’ outcomes. The findings support evidence that the certification programme has contributed to improving only some of the livelihood outcomes of the certified tea smallholder community. Although notable increases were observed for some assets, most smallholders were unable to achieve the expected financial returns due to reduced crop yields and productivity. Their vulnerabilities include periods of drought and flood, delays in receiving government subsidies, poor quality of commercial fertilizer, and shortages of hired labour. Although there was evidence to suggest that certified smallholders enjoyed slightly higher tea leaf prices by supplying higher quality leaves, these vulnerabilities coupled with uncertain markets outweighed the overall economic benefits. Our findings also indicate that the ability of smallholders to participate in certified value chains and their likelihood of achieving positive farming livelihood outcomes were dependent on several key preconditions and not just through standard compliance alone. Most of the non-certified smallholders in the study found it challenging to comply with the standards criteria and were excluded from certified markets. These were mainly attributed due to limited farm level assets that allow initial investments required for standard adoption, absence of formal organisational structures (either at factory or society levels) that supported their participation through internal management systems, absence of pre-existing relations and links with certified factories and leaf suppliers, limited access to extension and support services and inability to meet certified market requirements for crops such as quality. Declarations DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors have no competing interests to disclose. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The datasets generated for this study are available on request from the corresponding author. References Abeygunawardena P (2015) Guaranteed price for tea leaves. The Island. -details&page=article details&code_title = 118968, Available online at. http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article Bacon CM, Sundstrom WA, Stewart IT, Maurer E, Kelley LC (2021) Towards smallholder food and water security: Climate variability in the context of multiple livelihood hazards in Nicaragua. World Dev 143:105468. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105468 Barham BL, Weber JG (2012) The economic sustainability of certified coffee: Recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Dev 40(6):1269–1279. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.005 Beall E (2012) Smallholders in global bioenergy value chains and certification. Evidence from three case studies. Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper, 50. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/3/i2597e/i2597e.pdf Benarjee B (2011) Contribution of Small Holders to the Tea Sub–Sector and Policies require to enhance their Livelihood. A document prepared for 19th session of Committee on Commodity Problems of FAO held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Tea/Documents/IGG_20/12-4-Smallholders.pdf Beuchelt TD, Zeller M (2011) Profits and poverty: Certification's troubled link for Nicaragua's organic and fairtrade coffee producers. Ecol Econ 70,(7):1316–1324. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.005 Blackman A, Rivera J (2011) Producer-level benefits of sustainability certification. Conserv Biol 25(6):1176–1185. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x Blackmore E, Keeley J, with Pyburn R, Mangus E, Chen L, Yuhui Q (2012) Pro poor certification: assessing the benefits of sustainability certification for small-scale farmers in Asia, Natural Resource Issues, No. 25. IIED, London. Available online at: https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14604IIED.pdf Bolwig S, Gibbon P, Jones S (2009) The economics of smallholder organic contract farming in tropical Africa. World Dev 37(6):1094–1104. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.012 Bose A, Vira B, Garcia C (2016) Does environmental certification in coffee promote business as usual? A case study from the Western Ghats, India. Ambio 45(8):946–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0796-3 Bray JG, Neilson J (2017) Reviewing the impacts of coffee certification programmes on smallholder livelihoods. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 13(1):216–232. 10.1080/21513732.2017.1316520 Byerlee D, Rueda X (2015) From public to private standards for tropical commodities: a century of global discourse on land governance on the forest frontier. Forests 6(4):1301–1324. 10.3390/f6041301 Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) (2013) The COSA Measuring Sustainability Report: Coffee and Cocoa in 12 countries. Philadelphia. Available online at: https://thecosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-COSA-Measuring-Sustainability-Report.pdf DeFries RS, Fanzo J, Mondal P, Remans R, Wood SA (2017) Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ Res Lett 12(3):033001. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa625e Department for International Development (DFID) (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London, United Kingdom. Available online at: https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288-cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877 Elizondo D (2017) Guidance Note- Application of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework in Development Projects. United Nations Development Programme. Panama. Available online at: https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/poverty/guidance-note--application-of-the-sustainable-livelihoods-framew.html Elliott R, Timulak L (2005) Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In: Miles J, Gilbert P (eds) A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology. Oxford University Press, pp 147–159 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2014) The State of Food and Agriculture 2014: Innovation in Family Farming. Rome. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/422251/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. Rome. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf Fenger N, Bosselmann AS, Asare R, Neergaard A (2016) The impact of certification on the natural and financial capitals of Ghanaian cocoa farmers. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst 41(2):143–166. 10.1080/21683565.2016.1258606 Forest Stewardship Council (2020) Group Certification. Available online at: https://us.fsc.org/en-976 us/certification/group-977 certification#:~:text = Group%20certification%20is%20a%20way,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20gro978 up Globalisation and Livelihood Options of People living in Poverty (GLOPP) (2008) DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and its Framework. Available online at: http://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf Hydrodynamics and Geophysical Survey (HGS) (Pvt.) Ltd. (2016). Fuel-wood Resource Survey of Sri Lanka- Final Report. Sri Lanka. Available online at: http://deepthika.com/biomass/files/Rathnapura%20%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf Jayasinghe HD (1984) The problems and constrain affecting the tea small holder in Sri Lanka. Officer in Charge, Southern Province Extension Centre, Tea Research Institute, Kottawa, Sri Lanka. Available online at: http://tri.nsf.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/1/1468/TB-4(1-2)-17.pdf?sequence=2 Jena PR, Chichaibelu BB, Stellmacher T, Grote U (2012) The impact of coffee certification on small-scale producers’ livelihoods: a case study from the Jimma Zone. Ethiopia Agricultural Econ 43(4):429–440. 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00594.x Jena PR, Stellmacher T, Grote U (2017) Can coffee certification schemes increase incomes of smallholder farmers? Evidence from Jinotega. Nicaragua Environ Dev Sustain 19(1):45–66. 10.1007/s10668-015-9732-0 Jones S, Gibbon P (2011) Developing agricultural markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: Organic cocoa in rural Uganda. J Dev Stud 47(10):1595–1618. 10.1080/00220388.2011.579107 Kleemann L, Abdulai A, Buss M (2014) Certification and access to export markets: Adoption and return on investment of organic-certified pineapple farming in Ghana. World Dev 64:79–92. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.005 Loconto A, Dankers C (2014) Impact of international voluntary standards on smallholder market participation in developing countries - A review of the literature. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nation (FAO), Rome. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3682e.pdf Lyon S, Bezaury JA, Mutersbaugh T (2010) Gender equity in fairtrade–organic coffee producer organizations: Cases from Mesoamerica. Geoforum 41(1):93–103. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.006 Meemken EM (2020) Do smallholder farmers benefit from sustainability standards? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Food Secur 26:100373. 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100373 Milder JC, Newsom D (2015) SAN/Rainforest Alliance Impacts Report-Evaluating the effects of the SAN/Rainforest Alliance certification system on farms, people and the environment. Rainforest Alliance. New York. Available online at: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2016-08/SAN_RA_Impacts_Report.pdf Milder JC, Newsom D (2018) Rainforest Alliance Impacts Report 2018- Partnership, Learning and Change. Rainforest Alliance. New York. pp. 7–12 Oya C, Schaefer F, Skalidou D (2018) The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review. World Dev 112:282–312. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.001 Pinto LFG, Gardner T, McDermott CL, Ayub KOL (2014) Group certification supports an increase in the diversity of sustainable agriculture network–rainforest alliance certified coffee producers in Brazil. Ecol Econ 107:59–64. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.006 Potts J, Lynch M, Wilkings A, Huppé GA, Cunningham M, Voora VA (2014) The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg-Manitoba, Canada. Available online at: https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf Qiao Y, Halberg N, Vaheesan S, Scott S (2016) Assessing the social and economic benefits of organic and fair trade tea production for small-scale farmers in Asia: a comparative case study of China and Sri Lanka. Renewable Agric Food Syst 31(3):246–257. 10.1017/S1742170515000162 Raynolds LT, Murray D, Taylor PL (2004) Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks. J Int Dev 16(8):1109–1121. 10.1002/jid.1136 Ricciardi V, Ramankutty N, Mehrabi Z, Jarvis L, Chookolingo B (2018) How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Global food security. 17, 64–72. 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (2017) RSPO Strategy for Smallholder Inclusion: Objectives, Outputs and Implementation. RSPO Secreatriat SDN BHD. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Available online at: https://rspo.org/smallholders/rspo-smallholder-strategy Ruben R, Fort R, Zúñiga-Arias G (2009) Measuring the impact of fair trade on development. Dev Pract 19(6):777–788. 10.1080/09614520903027049 Ruben R, Zuniga G (2011) How standards compete: comparative impact of coffee certification schemes in Northern Nicaragua. Supply Chain Manage 16(2):98–109. 10.1108/13598541111115356 Ruben R, Fort R (2012) The impact of fair trade certification for coffee farmers in Peru. World Dev 40(3):570–582. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.030 Rueda X, Lambin EF (2013) Responding to globalization: impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecol Soc 18(3):21. 10.5751/ES-05595-180321 Sick D (2008) Coffee, farming families, and fair trade in Costa Rica: New markets, same old problems? Latin Am Res Rev 43(3):193–208. 10.1353/lar.0.0042 Small LA (2007) The sustainable rural livelihoods approach: a critical review. Can J Dev Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement 28(1):27–38. 10.1080/02255189.2007.9669186 Sri Lanka Tea Board (2011) : Sri Lanka Tea Board-Reasonable Price e-Service. Online in internet.URL: https://www.gov.lk/services/sltb_rp/es/reasonableprice/index.action?appcode=cp⟨=en&gen_from=men%20%20%20 . [Date of access: 19/04/2018] Survey Department of Sri Lanka (2021) District Map of Ratnapura. Colombo 5, Sri Lanka Tea Exporters Association Sri Lanka (2017) Ceylon Tea. Available online at: https://teasrilanka.org/ceylon-tea Tea Small Holdings Development Authority (2016) Tea Small Holdings Development Authority Annual Report 2016. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Available online at: https://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AnnualRepport2016English.pdf Tea Small Holdings Development Authority (2022) Tea Small Holdings Development Authority Annual Report 2022. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Available online at: https://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Annual-Report-2022-English.pdf Tscharntke T, Milder JC, Schroth G, Clough Y, DeClerck F, Waldron A, Rice R, Ghazoul J (2015) Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales. Conserv Lett 8(1):14–23. 10.1111/conl.12110 Utting K (2009) Assessing the impact of fair trade coffee: Towards an integrative framework. J Bus Ethics 86(1):127–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9761-9 Valkila J (2009) Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua-Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecol Econ 68(12):3018–3025. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.002 Valkila J, Nygren A (2010) Impacts of Fair Trade certification on coffee farmers, cooperatives, and laborers in Nicaragua. Agric Hum Values 27(3):321–333. 10.1007/s10460-009-9208-7 Valkila J (2014) Do fair trade pricing policies reduce inequalities in coffee production and trade? Dev Policy Rev 32(4):475–493. 10.1111/dpr.12064 Vogel I, (DFID) (2012) Review of the use of ‘theory of change’ in international development . Department for International Development. Available online at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf Weber JG (2011) How much more do growers receive for Fair Trade-organic coffee? Food Policy 36(5):678–685. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.05.007 Wijaya A, Glasbergen P, Leroy P, Darmastuti A (2018) Governance challenges of cocoa partnership projects in Indonesia: seeking synergy in multi-stakeholder arrangements for sustainable agriculture. Environment. Dev Sustain 20:129–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9874-8 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7476384","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":506685884,"identity":"e7e07419-a2b9-4a26-b6bd-bcb78c5e8fc3","order_by":0,"name":"Tarin Siriwardane","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7204-0082","institution":"Fulda University of Applied Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tarin","middleName":"","lastName":"Siriwardane","suffix":""},{"id":506686001,"identity":"28cf86b9-a20d-4194-a6e9-d27b38e9fedd","order_by":1,"name":"Barbara Freytag-Leyer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fulda University of Applied Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barbara","middleName":"","lastName":"Freytag-Leyer","suffix":""},{"id":506686046,"identity":"7a51b70f-36ea-4a80-a794-d9d089ffda1e","order_by":2,"name":"Johann Janssen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fulda University of Applied Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Johann","middleName":"","lastName":"Janssen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-28 05:08:43","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90172730,"identity":"3a96ca09-b615-4421-8f39-47d78c07b85d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-29 11:42:19","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLogic flow diagram of the *Rainforest Alliance theory of change. Source: Adapted from Milder and Newsom, 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7476384/v1/dedf35541ec0dae4db2f0ab0.png"},{"id":90172731,"identity":"0024ec3d-e4f5-49cb-a4aa-975530bbeafe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-29 11:42:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33177,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic representation of the tea smallholdings structure at field level in Sri Lanka. Source: Author’s own compilation based on in-depth interviews with the tea inspector. Figures from the Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, TSHDA annual report 2016.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7476384/v1/4a8b07def67f9ccca13c6159.png"},{"id":90172732,"identity":"c72e9120-37ba-4b69-80e9-d905ecd44e46","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-29 11:42:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":267973,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Ratnapura district map and Kahawatta extension range area map demarcating the non-certified tea smallholder societies and certified factories for the study. Sources: Adapted and printed with permission from the TSHDA and the Survey Department of Sri Lanka.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7476384/v1/81f6e511cff4fc5d547566cd.png"},{"id":90174319,"identity":"66b96461-f003-4372-b34d-4a36fb360653","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-29 12:06:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1450766,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7476384/v1/31fef08c-28ae-4ead-a1f3-06d738c5049a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eEvaluating Rural Farming Livelihood Outcomes from Sustainability Standard Certification Practices by Smallholder Tea Growers in Sri Lanka\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid expansion of food and agricultural trade in recent decades has been associated with the proliferation of several new and progressive international voluntary sustainability standards, labels and regulations that have increasingly governed the way commodities are sourced, produced and consumed (Byerlee and Rueda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Oya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Trends for standard-compliant production have witnessed exponential growth between 2008 and 2012 for coffee (15\u0026ndash;40%), cocoa (3\u0026ndash;22%), tea (6\u0026ndash;12%), palm oil (2\u0026ndash;15%) and banana (2\u0026ndash;3%) (Potts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; DeFries et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Sri Lanka currently ranks as the third largest tea exporter and the fourth largest producer worldwide (Tea Exporters Association Sri Lanka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The smallholdings sector is the country\u0026rsquo;s highest contributor to national tea production, accounting for approximately 75% of the total production share (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCivil society and private sector actors have increasingly adopted sustainability standards as key drivers in seeking to achieve positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes across supply chains for several reasons. Some of the world\u0026rsquo;s most ecologically rich areas are located in the Global South and are recognised as biodiversity hotspots for the conservation of ecosystems and habitats. Consumers have also been more aware of their ecological footprint in their overall consumption habits, while manufacturers continue to ensure uninterrupted long-term supply (Bray and Neilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough smallholder farmer production accounts for more than 70% of global agricultural commodities, it plays an integral role in conserving crop diversity (FAO, 2014; Ricciardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is also reported that more than 50% of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest food-insecure population consists of smallholders and rural farming communities (FAO, 2019; Bacon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Adverse climatic impacts, conflicts, price fluctuations, pandemics, unsustainable natural resource and land use have often exasperated rural livelihood vulnerabilities within these communities (Bacon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Most farmers are caught in a vicious circle between poor economies of scale, higher transaction costs, weaker bargaining power, and restricted market access (Blackmore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). As such, governments and multilateral donors have been required urgently to understand the transformative potential of sustainable supply chains on their landscapes and livelihoods (Rueda and Lambin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; DeFries et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile numerous sustainability standards have opened new export markets for farmers who adopted sustainable agricultural practices, there have been ongoing debates as to whether these standards actually lead to increased market accessibility while lifting poorer producers out of poverty (Loconto and Dankers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Meemken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Current empirical evidence, particularly from low and middle-income countries, has reported to show a considerable degree of variability (Blackman and Rivera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Bray and Neilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Oya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Meemken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Studies conducted previously have often yielded mixed results, where some identifying sustainability standards continue to keep farmers in poverty (Valkila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Beuchelt and Zeller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Jena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), while others suggest marginalised farmers benefiting through standards that have improved their production capacities and livelihoods (Jones and Gibbon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Kleemann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Qiao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). As most value addition in the final product occurs further downstream, the distribution of power and governance is often asymmetric and results in unequal benefits across the value chain (Rueda and Lambin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Pinto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This has raised questions about the potential impacts these newer segmented markets could have on smallholders and whether they receive the appropriate support to develop their farming livelihoods (Ruben and Zuniga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn approach taken by sustainability standards to improve economies of scale and incentivise responsible smallholder production practices is group certification. Some of the more prominent certification programmes for the global tea industry include Fairtrade, Forest Stewardship Council, Organic, Ethical Tea Partnership, UTZ and Rainforest Alliance (Rueda and Lambin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Meemken, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although certification, in general, can take numerous conceptualised meanings, often having multiple pathways that have specific impacts on different value chain actors, it has been best described as a \u0026lsquo;bundle of interventions\u0026rsquo; that combines standard setting and compliance, capacity building and training, organisational and market integrations to achieve sustainability goals (Oya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As a subset of certification, group certification allows independent small-scale producers who are not organised into formal producer organisations to undertake certification as a group (Pinto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Potts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the overall operational costs of each group member\u0026rsquo;s certification is said to be considerably lower than if it were obtained as an individual certificate (FSC, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn theory, financial incentives for producers that meet specific sustainability criteria are usually in the form of price premiums and increased market accessibility (Blackman and Rivera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). However, there has been an overall low level of understanding of how value is captured and assigned across certified supply chains. For the Global South in particular, previous studies have often failed to identify how certification interventions in smallholder communities have direct and indirect impacts on different immediate short-term outcomes (e.g, crop quality, soil fertility, health and safety, market information and farm revenues) and the broader long-term outcomes (e.g, biodiversity conservation, farm family well-being, farm productivity and profitability) (Oya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur comparative study aims to establish a foundational understanding of how certification initiatives logically impact different farming livelihood asset classes of smallholders who would combine and transform them to derive their desired livelihood outcomes at the farm and household levels. The study focuses on the Rainforest Alliance (RA) certification programme that is administered by the local consulting programme coordinator in Sri Lanka. Its central research question explores the transformative potential the certification programme may have in shaping the rural livelihoods and landscapes of certified tea smallholders in the country. We integrate the \u0026lsquo;sustainable livelihoods\u0026rsquo; approach of the Department for International Development (DFID, 1999) with the \u0026lsquo;theory of change\u0026rsquo; from RA to collect empirical data and evaluate the findings based on the research objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e1) Develop a research framework for assessing rural farming livelihoods.\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Evaluate the pathways through which the group certification programme could impact the livelihood outcomes of certified tea smallholders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe theory of change was jointly developed by RA and the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) to map and define the pathways taken by the targeted certification activities to achieve the intended outcomes and broader impacts (Milder and Newsom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This outcome-based approach allows critical reflection to the design, implementation, and evaluation of initiatives and programmes (Vogel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Wijaya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The basic cause and effect logic flow includes support strategies, outputs, direct results and intermediate results, which occur at both field level and the level of its enabling environment (Milder and Newsom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The combined activities at both levels are essential to achieve the desired outcomes of the theory and broader impacts of creating and maintaining sustainable and resilient rural landscapes (Milder and Newsom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Instead of being used as a prescribed methodology, the theory is reported to be most reliable when applied through pre-existing processes to support visions, ideas and conceptions throughout a programme cycle (Vogel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). As it encourages ongoing questions, the theory\u0026rsquo;s way of thinking inspires improvements that can be applied through more feasible and realistic institutional interventions (Vogel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework illustrates the assets (material and social), skills and approaches adopted by individuals and communities for ensuring their survival needs (Elizondo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It applies a people-centric approach that conceptualises: a) the goods or capital which people need, b) the ways in which asset bases are utilised to develop livelihood strategies essential for achieving desired livelihood outcomes, c) the vulnerability context that depicts the external environment in which people operate (including moments of stress and shock), and d) the roles played by institutions and processes that can strengthen subsistence resilience during times of crisis (GLOPP, 2008; Elizondo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). As livelihood outcomes in this context involve both smallholder livelihoods and their farming systems, we use the term \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;sustainable farming livelihoods\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e to combine both outcomes for this study. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the desired sustainable farming livelihood outcomes that are adapted from the intermediate outcomes given by the RA\u0026rsquo;s theory of change. These outcomes fall under four broad categories: biodiversity conservation, natural resource conservation, farm family well-being and community welfare, and finally, farm productivity and profitability (Milder and Newsom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). From a total of 40 indicators, only 36 indicators were tested for statistical significance, as the data for indicators representing crop diversification and type of energy (electricity, gas and wood) were either continuous or failed to fulfil the test assumptions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalytical framework representing the corresponding indicators to be assessed against the five capitals, the vulnerability context and the sustainable farming livelihood outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural capital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ecapital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ecapital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ecapital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial capital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVulnerability context\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCrop yield\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgro-farming skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender equity for women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to safe water\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to financial services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrends\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShocks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCrop quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal protective equipment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in farmer society and community\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to sufficient food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousehold income from tea cultivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWaste management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth and safety levels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransparency on market information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructure of housing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgricultural income from tea cultivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedical and health services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrower-buyer business relations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatus of housing completion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProductivity of tea cultivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater quantity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-Farm administration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to extension and support services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to clean energy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfit margin from tea cultivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSoil conservation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-Good Agricultural Practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of energy available-electricity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSoil fertility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-Health and safety\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of energy available- gas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeasonal shifts\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVegetation density\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-First aid\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of energy available- wood\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForest reserve\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness-child labour prevention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnimal and insect prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness-family nutrition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCrop diversification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchooling of children\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSustainable farming livelihood outcomes\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBiodiversity conservation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Growers are likely to protect forests and other natural ecosystems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Growers increase the amount and diversity of vegetation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Growers experience increased abundance and coexist better among beneficial animals and insect species\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eNatural resource conservation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Soil fertility is likely to be maintained and improved\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Soil conservation is performed to minimize erosion\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Water pollution is minimized\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Water is conserved efficiently and used within natural limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eSustainable farming livelihood outcomes\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFarm family wellbeing and community welfare\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. Grower\u0026rsquo;s family secure their farm health and safety\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Grower\u0026rsquo;s family essential needs are met: energy, clean water, food, health care, housing and education\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. Growers are likely to gain good farming knowledge and develop sustainable agricultural skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. Growers are supported through effective and transparent management systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. Growers actively participate within their societies and have good community involvement\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eFarm productivity and profitability\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. Growers increase the productivity and quality of crops.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e14. Growers receive higher margins and better income returns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e15. Growers are less vulnerable to shocks, trends and shifts\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s own adaptation from COSA, 2013; Milder and Newsom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 The National Land Development and Extension Services Programme\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Tea Small Holdings Development Authority (TSHDA) is organised as a five-layered structure at the field level comprising of the tea inspectors at the lowest divisional level, sub-offices, district offices and the head office at the national level. A schematic representation of this structure is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The main functions of the TSHDA at the field level can be broadly classified into land development activities and the provision of extension and advisory services. Land development activities are primarily aimed at improving the standard and productivity of tea land. Such activities include government subsidies for fertiliser, crop and soil rehabilitation, replanting, and new planting activities (tea inspector, February 2018, in-depth interview). Furthermore, accessibility to various support services, such as the provision of fertiliser and planting materials from maintained mother bush nurseries, has also been aimed at improving tea productivity (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Extension and advisory services, in contrast, have aimed to improve the level of knowledge and skills of smallholders. These are administered as training programmes, demonstrations and field trips on best practices for tea cultivation, leaf quality maintenance, resource management, nursery management and farm administration. In addition to the above extension services, soil tests and pH tests are also performed according to the annual action plan (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe price of raw green leaves is determined primarily by the auction prices for the finished product. The volatility in prices in the world market significantly affects smallholder earnings and profit margins (Abeygunawardena, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In most cases, smallholders sell their leaves to factories through privately operated leaf collectors who transport and supply the leaves. The current Tea Control Act No.51 of 1957 mandates the \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Reasonable Price Formula\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e, which assures a 68% price share for a kilogram of processed tea from a particular factory to be given to the smallholder and 32% to be retained by the factory owner to cover processing and operational expenses (Sri Lanka Tea Board \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Abeygunawardena \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). As an example, if a kilogram of processed low country black tea were sold at auctions for an average price of Rs 650/kg; under the current pricing formula, the smallholder would receive approximately Rs 442/kg to produce one kilogram of processed tea. As approximately 4.65 kilograms of green leaves are required to produce one kilogram of processed tea, the smallholder would receive a farm gate price of Rs 95/kg for a single kilogram (Rs.442/4.65 kg).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was carried out during February and March 2018 within the Kahawatta Divisional Secretariat area in the Ratnapura district of Sri Lanka (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The Ratnapura district, which is one of the 25 districts in the country, is located in the south-western part of the island, also known as the wet zone (Hydrodynamics and Geophysical Survey-HGS Pvt. Ltd., 2016). The agricultural sector of the district is well developed, with 72.9% of the total land used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 27.1% as forested land. Home gardens, tea and rubber represent the highest share of agricultural land (20.51%, 13.31% and 12.23%, respectively) (HGS Pvt. Ltd, 2016). Other types of crops grown to a lesser extent include paddy, coconut, pepper, cinnamon, cardamom and fruits such as papaya, avocado and banana. The Ratnapura district has been an important region for the agricultural earnings of the country. It represents the highest national contributor to the tea sector in terms of total productivity and the total number of tea smallholdings present (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The total number of tea smallholders and the total extent of tea land for the district is 92,038 and 30,441 ha, respectively (Tea Small Holdings Development Authority, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The total number of tea trees in the district varies between 10,000\u0026ndash;12,500 trees/ha. The district encompasses several forest reservations within its region. One of them includes a section of the country\u0026rsquo;s last viable primary tropical rainforests, the \u003cem\u003eSinharaja Forest Reserve\u003c/em\u003e, which spans partly across the district. The Sinharaja Forest Reserve, listed as a UNESCO world heritage site, is home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna species endemic to Sri Lanka (HGS Pvt. Ltd, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the outcomes of the certification programme between the different smallholder groups, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods was used for the study. Loconto and Dankers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), who reviewed large amounts of literature in which a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods were used, emphasised the need to adopt more mixed method approaches. This allows a clearer understanding of the complex relationships between sustainability standards and their outcomes in value chains. The data collected as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, was triangulated using quantitative household surveys, qualitative interviews and focus group discussions, as well as secondary data from farm records, certification programme material and annual reports. The interviews, focus group discussions and surveys were conducted in Sinhalese as it was the preferred mode of communication with the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe household survey questionnaires were self-administered and consisted of closed-ended questions with three-point Likert scales and a few open-ended questions to provide figures and simple answers. Identical questionnaires were administered to different groups of certified and non-certified smallholders with the exception that the certified group was questioned for outcomes both before and after certification and the non-certified group for their current outcomes. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions allowed for a deeper interpretation of the findings gathered by the household surveys. In-depth interviews allowed to explore past and present experiences of participants and how they attribute meaning to perceived farming outcomes. Two interviews were held with two society leaders (chairman and secretary) who each represented their non-certified smallholders in their societies. Being smallholder growers themselves, they were considered key informants due to their authoritative roles played within the societies and their general knowledge regarding past significant events. Additionally, interviews were held with three certified smallholders who each supplied tea leaves to their respective certified factories. Interviews were also held with a TSHDA tea inspector and a management executive of a certified factory. The in-depth interviews were semi-structured in nature, following a series of predetermined open-ended questions, which were organised around their given set of indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the mixed method approaches used for data collection. *FGD-Focus group discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCertified group (factory) Non-certified group (society)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactory 1 Factory 2 Factory 3 Society 4 Society 5 Society 6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 household surveys\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with grower\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with grower\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with grower\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with chairman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e*FGD with chairman and group members\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFGD with chairman and group members\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCertified group (factory)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNon-certified group (society)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with management executive from plantation company.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with TSHDA tea inspector.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn-depth interview with secretary of Society B (non-certified).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-Field data from record books of two certified farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e-Programme material of RA certification activities, RA programme coordinator website.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-Field data from non-certified growers (not available).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Tea inspector\u0026rsquo;s records, TSHDA annual reports.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the focus group discussions were less in-depth, they allowed gathering insight into some of the broader views, perceptions and suggestions collectively shared by some members of the smallholder community. Two focus group discussions were held with the chairman and their non-certified group members (6\u0026ndash;8 participants) from two societies. Prior consent was received for participation and audio recording during interviews and focus group discussions from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Wilcoxon signed rank test was carried out to identify significant differences in the distribution of asset level scores before and after the certification programme. Data analysis for the test was coded and analysed with Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 23. Data collected from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were subjected to content analysis outlined by Elliott and Timulak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) where the audio recordings from the discussions in Sinhalese were translated and transcribed into English scripts using Microsoft Word and Excel packages. The verbal data was initially divided and condensed into distinctive meaning units with a unique code allowing them to be sorted into the principal domains of the analytical framework. The coded and labelled meaning units were then categorised and compared until all the data was completely sorted within each of their domains. In addition to uncovering the similarities and differences of already established categories, the process also allowed deciphering subcategories and delineating the relationships between them. Therefore, the description of thematic relationships and patterns identified during the interpretation process provided a clearer understanding of the quantitative data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final outcome achievement levels were derived from the proportions of smallholders who had access and availability to the highest asset levels for the indicators. Where multiple indicators were required to derive an outcome, the average proportion were calculated and represented on a three-point scale: (below 33% = not achieved), (33\u0026ndash;66% = partially achieved) and (above 66% = fully achieved). The corresponding indicators used for deriving the achieved outcomes for the two groups of farmers have been shown in \u003cspan refid=\"Sec20\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eAppendix B\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Impacts of Group Certification on Smallholder Livelihood Outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the household survey (shown in \u003cspan refid=\"Sec19\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eAppendix A\u003c/span\u003e) were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (for paired data) to identify significant differences in the distribution of asset score levels for certified smallholders before and after they received certification. The findings of the analysis presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e show a total of 16 of the 36 indicators tested to be statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of the Wilcoxon signed rank test for the corresponding assets for certified growers (before and after certification).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCapital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eZ score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEffect size\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCrop yield\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-5.990\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.549\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCrop quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.633\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.277\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWaste management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.164\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.305\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWater quantity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.508\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSoil conservation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.366\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.714\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSoil fertility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.981\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.981\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVegetation density\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForest reserve\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnimal and insects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-4.875\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0x10\u003csup\u003e-6\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.513\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFarming skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.633\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePPE*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-4.400\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.1x10\u003csup\u003e-5\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.463\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth and safety\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.218\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedical services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.633\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.102\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-farm administration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.873\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.08x10\u003csup\u003e-4\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.408\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-GAP*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.606\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.11x10\u003csup\u003e-4\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.380\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-OHS*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.349\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining-first aid\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.162\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness-child labour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.162\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAwareness-family nutrition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.449\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.258\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchooling of children\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.342\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to energy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.309\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.243\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to water\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.210\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to food\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.447\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.655\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousing structure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.218\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousing status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender equity for women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSociety participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarket information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.179\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.238\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBusiness relations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.414\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.157\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtension services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.994\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.210\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.342\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousehold income share from tea\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgri-income share from tea\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.707\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.480\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProductivity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.334\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.739\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinancial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfit margin\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.660\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.097\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicators for the Wilcoxon signed rank test were tested for significance at the α level\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05. *PPE- Personal Protective Equipment. *GAP- Good Agricultural Practices. *OHS- Occupational Health and Safety.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 15 sustainable farming livelihood outcomes evaluated for the study and their levels of achievement for the categories of the grower groups are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The final calculated achievement levels show that out of fifteen outcomes, where one was inconclusive, certified smallholders had seven \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes, while nine outcomes were \u0026lsquo;not achieved.\u0026rsquo; It should also be mentioned that certified smallholders already had a higher number of six \u0026lsquo;partially achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes before certification, largely attributed to higher initial levels of existing assets compared to non-certified smallholders who had two \u0026lsquo;partially achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results summary of the derived sustainable farming livelihood outcomes achieved for the certified and non-certified grower categories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSustainable Farming Livelihood Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBiodiversity Conservation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCG-B\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCG-A\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNC-G\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Growers are likely to protect forests and other natural ecosystems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInconclusive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInconclusive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInconclusive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Growers increase the amount and diversity of vegetation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Growers experience increased abundance and coexist better with beneficial animals and insect species\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNatural Resource Conservation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-B\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-A\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNC-G\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Soil fertility is likely to be maintained and improved\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Soil conservation is performed to minimize erosion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Water pollution is minimized\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Water is conserved efficiently and used within natural limits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFarm Family Wellbeing and Community Welfare\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-B\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-A\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNC-G\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. Grower\u0026rsquo;s family secure their farm health and safety\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Grower\u0026rsquo;s family essential needs are met: energy, clean water, food, health care, housing and education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. Growers are likely to gain good farming knowledge and develop sustainable agricultural skills\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. Growers are supported through effective internal management systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. Growers actively participate within their societies and have good community involvement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFarm Productivity and Profitability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-B\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCG-A\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNC-G\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. Growers increase productivity and quality of crops\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14. Growers receive higher margins and better income returns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e⯊\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15. *Growers are less vulnerable to shocks, trends and shifts\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCG-B (Certified growers- before certification), CG-A (Certified growers-after certification), NC- G (Non-certified growers). Key for the sustainable farming livelihood outcome levels achieved: (0-33.3% = \u003cb\u003e\u0026#128500;\u003c/b\u003e not achieved), (33.3\u0026ndash;66.7% = ⯊ partially achieved), (66.7\u0026ndash;100% = \u003cb\u003e✓\u003c/b\u003e fully achieved) between certified growers (before and after certification) and non-certified growers. *Outcomes for vulnerability are based on the qualitative data from the interviews and focus group discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 Leaf Quality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCertified smallholders improved their leaf quality levels through stringent and standardised seven-day plucking cycles while adopting good handling practices. As the standard, the supply of plucked leaves had to be in the form of \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;two leaves and a bud\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e The main quality criteria for hand-plucked leaves depend largely on the maturity of the leaf at the time of supply. The highest quality leaves had a plucking cycle of precisely seven days. As these leaves are of optimal maturity and size, they are selected, screened and processed as main-grade leaves by the factories. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;The best grades of leaves are usually plucked on the seventh day. But these days, due to drought, we are unable to do this\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e (In-depth interview, leader of non-certified society A, February 2018). The main-grade leaves with smaller surface areas have better rolling efficiencies in the machines and ultimately are processed into higher quality ready-made teas, which in turn are sold at higher prices at the auctions. Leaves plucked and supplied between the eighth and tenth day are more mature with larger surface areas and therefore considered lower in quality (In-depth interviews, certified growers of factory E and G- February 2018 and certified factory executive- March 2018). The improvement in leaf quality following the certification was also confirmed by the factory executive. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;A major improvement was that the amount of off-grades (matured or crushed leaves) arriving at the factory was significantly reduced. Earlier some growers used to supply leaves between the eighth and tenth day which were too mature and had four leaves on the stalk\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (In-depth interview, factory executive, March 2018). These views were also reflected in the results of the household survey, which showed an increased proportion of certified growers who believed their leaf quality levels became \u0026lsquo;high\u0026rsquo; following the certification were 4.4% (before certification) and 31.1% (after certification) while non-certified farmers were 28.9%. The interviewees also mentioned that the ideal weight of the leaf collection bag should be between 20\u0026ndash;22 kg. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;When the leaf matures, the flavor and quality of the tea is lost. The ideal weight of the tea collection bag is about 20 kg. If we pack more than this, the leaves can get pressed, bruised and heated against each other\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e (In-depth interview, leader of non-certified society A, February 2018). Avoiding excess weight was said to minimise leaf deterioration when subjected to crushing and high temperatures during storage and transport.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Leaf Yield\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews with both non-certified and certified growers confirmed a significant reduction of yield levels for the region. A non-certified society leader said: \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Earlier a harvesting cycle used to yield 450kg/month. Now it has dropped to 200 kg/month\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (in-depth interview, leader of society B, February 2018) and (farmer record books, secondary data). All interviewed growers shared similar sentiments attributing the low yield levels to several factors that included: drought conditions experienced, lack of fertiliser subsidies and poor quality fertiliser available in the markets. The factory executive said that it became difficult to attribute any direct changes in yield to the certification programme, as its effects occur over a gradual long-term period. As the factories received the RA certification in March 2017, the factory was unable to identify immediate changes in the yield levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.3 Soil Fertility\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews with the tea inspector and the two non-certified society leaders of A and B revealed that there has been a steady declining trend in soil fertility over the years. For soil rehabilitation, the grass species \u003cem\u003eTripsacum laxum\u003c/em\u003e (up to one year) \u003cem\u003eand Cymbopogon confertiflorus (\u003c/em\u003eup to one and a half years) are grown. Certified smallholders were trained on herbicide-free manual weeding techniques that require the manual removal of identified harmful hard weeds with stronger root systems, which competes aggressively for nutrients, water, space and sunlight. Beneficial soft herbs \u003cem\u003e(Desmodium triflorum, Desmodium heterophyllum, Drymaria cordata and Centella asiatica)\u003c/em\u003e retained in the fields have weaker root systems and compete for fewer resources. Overgrown soft herbs were slashed and reused back as organic matter (mulched), which helps to enrich nutrients, protect the top soils, retain water, and increase the presence of beneficial natural predatory insects and animal species. (In-depth interviews, certified growers of factory E, F and G- February 2018 and certified factory executive, March 2018). The soil conservation practices adopted by both groups of growers included the growth of the grass species \u003cem\u003eChrysopogon zizanioides\u003c/em\u003e along slopy lands and the edges of drains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.4 Water Quality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral non-certified society leaders and their members expressed concern over the quality levels of adjacent water bodies. Members of society C mentioned \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;There is a river that runs through close to the lands of the inhabitants. As there are no designated forest reservations, farmers encroach these areas and grow crops near these water bodies and reservations. Another issue concerns the irresponsible use of water by inhabitants, as pipes are now being used to draw water from these springs and rivers. When this happens, the downstream water is dried up and there is not much left. The water drawn from these sources for farming is also dried if it is not stored properly\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Members of society C, February 2018, focus group discussion). Water contamination prevention measures by certified growers included vegetation growth in buffer zones along both sides of the river banks, the use of soakage pits and bioremedial plants (\u003cem\u003eLasia spinosa\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eColocasia esculenta)\u003c/em\u003e as wastewater management systems (RA programme leaflets, secondary data).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.5 Animal and Insect Prevalence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The most abundant forms of local wildlife common to all growers included: wild boars, porcupines, mongoose, giant squirrels, rabbits, peacocks, jungle fowls, coucals and a number of other smaller birds. Bird species (egrets, bulbuls, jungle fowls and coucals) and beneficial insects (dragonflies, damselflies, ladybird bugs and grasshoppers) are particularly important natural predators that control pest populations (mites, borers, moths and aphids) (RA programme leaflets, secondary data). Certified growers who were encouraged to use manual weeding practices instead of powerful weedicides experienced an increased prevalence of these beneficial animal species. The factory executive also stated that the growers understood how agrochemicals could disrupt the natural interaction between predators and their prey.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.6 Training and Awareness Programmes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe certified growers who received training on farm administration from factories E, F and G had maintained formal field record books administered through the certification programme. Extracts of their formal records that were obtained included: list of plants and animal species, frequencies of fertiliser application, weeding, pruning, plucking, input costs, cost versus income and training topics received (farmer field record books, secondary data). As a part of the TSHDA extension programme, the tea inspector has a planned schedule for administering a number of training sessions which included: crop and soil rehabilitation, soil conservation, tea planting, pruning, weeding, plucking, shade management, nutrient management, nursery management, machinery use and leaf quality (tea inspector field records, secondary data).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.7 Market Information\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe tea inspector and the non-certified farmers strongly acknowledged the lack of existing mechanisms for growers and societies to receive up-to-date market information (changes in leaf pricing, buyer-grower transaction costs from leaf weight adjustments, transport and handling). Several non-certified leaders and farmers shared similar views. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;The level of information received is low for us because once we sell our leaves to private suppliers, they (suppliers) have direct dealings with factories. As different factories and suppliers have different unit prices at which they buy raw leaves, the information we receive is always poorly disseminated. The farmers in this society receive limited information only through their respective leaf suppliers\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (members of society D, February 2018, focus group discussion). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;If the factory owners in the region can provide a copy of the updated price listings to the societies or the tea inspector once every month, this will be very beneficial.\u003c/em\u003e The views shared by some of the certified growers indicated better levels of information dissemination among them. Growers from factories E and G revealed that they receive written notifications from the factories when changes in pricing or market situations occur. They acknowledged that although there were still some shortfalls, the overall efficiency with which information was received had improved after the certification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.8 Profit Margins\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was insufficient evidence to support that certified smallholders for this study received higher leaf prices through premiums or a certification label. However, some indications showed that they were likely to receive increased price margins by providing higher quality leaf supplies. The factory executive explained that although a slightly higher price could be expected for RA certified tea, their margins as premiums for growers were often very small and not significant. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;So far, we have observed that brokers in auctions bid faster for RA certified tea and there is a small internal competition between them during the bidding process\u0026hellip; So invariably due to this competition, there is a slight increase in the price for RA certified tea\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (factory executive, March 2018, in-depth interview). However, he further explained that the variations in pricing at the auctions could not be attributed to certification alone. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;We are unable to provide an absolute amount or proportion for this increase\u0026hellip;the factory never records the auction prices between RA and non-RA tea\u0026hellip;the price can increase or decrease due to many inter-relating factors\u0026hellip;we cannot be certain that the difference in price was purely due to certification\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (factory executive, March 2018, in-depth interview). Factories that received higher quality leaves would incentivise their leaf suppliers to offer slightly higher margins (Rs 2\u0026ndash;5 more) to growers. However, several growers believed that the current pricing was insufficient to cover their basic input costs (members of society C, growers of factories G and F).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1.9 Vulnerability Context\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cb\u003eShocks, Trends and Seasonal Shifts\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors of vulnerability that had the most influence on growers' farming livelihood assets were discussed for shocks (floods and droughts), trends (hired labor) and seasonal shifts (pricing).Views shared by the tea inspector and the factory executive suggested that growers of both groups within the region were highly vulnerable to the effects of climate extremes that caused flooding, landslides, and prolonged periods of drought. The intervention strategies adopted by growers often focused on safeguarding their natural farm assets. Before periods of drought, growers were advised to perform additional pruning, weeding and shade management. Strategies adopted during floods often aimed to increase soil conservation efforts and minimise soil erosion. These included the use of cover crops, grasses, stone bunds, drainage lanes (lock and spill drains) and terracing to control surface runoff. However, the tea inspector mentioned, these strategies were often insufficient to prevent damage to crops and farmland during periods of intense flooding or extreme droughts. The declining trends of hired labour had significantly reduced productivity levels across the entire tea industry. The tea inspector accounted that, the labour shortages were mainly due to the preference of the younger generation to work in more rewarding industries. Seasonal shifts in pricing were also influenced by the prevailing weather patterns throughout the year. Supplied tea leaves that become wet during the monsoon season or become yellow during the drought are more likely to lower the quality of the final product and result in reduced prices at auctions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eSustainable Livelihoods Approach and Outcomes from Group Certification\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies that have assessed the impacts of the RA certification programme on smallholder farming systems have reported a greater mobilisation of farm-level livelihood assets after certification (Rueda and Lambin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Pinto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Fenger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Rueda and Lambin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that certified farmers prioritised their non-premium benefits and gained more access to stable markets, information, technology, social networks, and resources while enhancing their local agro-ecosystems. Fenger et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) identified that certified farmers experienced positive impacts on their natural and financial capitals for their yield, production and income, which were attributed by increased access to information and knowledge, technical assistance, farm inputs, financial support and credit. In addition to gaining access to more value-added markets, Pinto et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that group certification strengthened social connections and knowledge transfer networks by creating more avenues for engagement with various actors along the supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies investigating the broader sustainability outcomes of certification programmes have, however, reported to show a much greater degree of variability. DeFries et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), who conducted an extensive literature review of studies that evaluated the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of certified and non-certified small-scale producers, found that of a total of 347 response variables, certification was associated on average with 34% positive outcomes, 58% without significant differences and 8% negative outcomes. Moreover, Bray and Neilson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) who assessed the impacts of certification schemes on smallholder livelihoods by also reviewing existing empirical studies, identified that although certification, in general, was more likely to generate positive impacts rather than negative ones, the greater number of neutral or mixed findings indicate a considerable degree of uncertainty still persisted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrating the elements of the SL approach with the RA\u0026rsquo;s theory of change has demonstrated its usefulness in developing more insights onto the highly dynamic nature of the pathways taken by the certification programme to reach broader sustainability outcomes. In particular, the DFID identifies strong interdependences between a) the structures-processes and the vulnerability context; b) the livelihood assets and livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999). The study framework provides an initial basis for more empirical studies to progressively build upon the SL approach and expand its scope using a broader range of potential outcomes for future analyses. Small (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) underscored the importance of the SL approach on participatory approaches, multi-faceted livelihoods and their links with the environment, which have been common themes for impact pathways envisaged by advocates of certification programmes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study framework has a number of features that allow data collection across different contexts of rural livelihoods and agriculture. First, its systematic nature enables a more holistic assessment of a broader range of asset classes for diagnosing how their interactions could either enhance or deplete the capitals concerned. Second, its versatility allows for integration with a variety of quantitative, qualitative and participatory research techniques that should consider both the intended and unintended changes of sustainability interventions. Third, it is suited for assessments that require rigorous matching procedures and the construction of counterfactual control groups at landscape scales. Previous studies have rarely presented reliable baseline data or realistic control groups for comparison, ideally at the start of such programmes, making causation difficult to establish (Bray and Neilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; DeFries et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Tscharntke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) recommend a more robust evidence-based generation of certification impacts by credible counterfactuals and the use of standardised indicators of sustainability. As the implementation of standards is gradual and continuous processes over long periods and since this analysis merely offers a snapshot of the situational period in a localised area of the district, it remains meaningful to assess the broader long-term impacts of the certification with longitudinal measurements (Loconto and Dankers \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Most studies have concentrated primarily on coffee, giving little attention to other export and biofuel crops. Given the predominance of studies on organic and fair trade, additional research is needed to evaluate the outcomes of RA and UTZ certification programmes that have a far greater reach, especially in the Global South (Bray and Neilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisational Structures and Management Systems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe establishment of farmer groups that are organised in the cultivation, supplying and administration processes becomes an important component towards the certification of smallholders and their engagement with buyer companies. The group structure and its management will vary according to the business model and are key factors for successful participation in certified value chains (Beall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The certified farmers in this study were organised jointly by the factories and the RA programme coordinator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is fair potential for implementing group certification with the involvement of the TSHDA at the farmer society levels. Preparation for group certification at farmer society levels could include an initial assessment to define, map out and classify different groups of smallholder profiles based on their capacity gaps. This can enable targeted training and capacity building objectives that best respond to their specific agronomic needs and practices (RSPO, 2017). By doing so, farmer groups can receive ongoing resources and derive value to their members through more effective outreach, coverage and participation that adopts best practices for improved quality, yields, social and environmental sustainability outcomes. Furthermore, economies of scale are expected to reduce individual upfront investments, indirect compliance and transaction costs shared among group members (Loconto and Dankers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe training of society leaders and members on the guiding principles of the RA\u0026rsquo;s Sustainable Agriculture Standard and their compliance requirements to meet the criteria of the standard are key objectives. Training can be administered by local RA trainers and the factory extension staff for all smallholders within a society to achieve certification as a group. The internal management system and internal auditing services could be managed by the respective certified factories receiving leaf supplies from the certified smallholder societies. Studies by Raynolds et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), Ruben et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and Ruben and Fort (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) have shown that smallholders and the functioning of their farmer cooperatives benefited from the impacts of fair trade and that the capacity building nature of the certification had important contributions to producer empowerment, which resulted in the gradual improvement of social capital. Certified societies that can run their own internal management systems could have the ability to operate independently of the leaf suppliers. They could be responsible for collecting and delivering the leaf supply of their members directly to factories to gain better bargaining positions and strengthen the relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRA trained TSHDA tea inspectors and society leaders who are supported by the consulting programme coordinator and factories could also facilitate in the training, advisory services and conducting internal inspections at farm level. Utting (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), Lyon et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), and Jena et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) found that good management and leadership capabilities in producer organisations facilitated the introduction and implementation of certification schemes more successfully. The TSHDA and its tea inspector have so far limited involvement in the RA certification programme. However, it is important to note that the certification of societies that have the capacity to do so should be supported by the relevant private and public institutions to participate in certified markets. Additionally, certification at the society level must ensure inclusion and compliance among all members to avoid introducing new market barriers against those who are unable or do not choose to become certified. Training at the society level is expected to allow more marginalised farmers to develop sustainable farming knowledge and skills that could potentially lead to greater innovation and empowerment of farming systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFarm Gate Prices and Certified Value Chain Factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evaluation of the complex financial calculations associated with the net benefits of certification has been reported to be challenging (Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Blackmore et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) argue further that, unlike certification initiatives that have dedicated price margins for premiums, it becomes difficult to attribute whether these price margins could result from the certification label or from higher quality produce. The factory executive explained that comparing auction prices between certified and non-certified ready-made teas was not indicative due to several variable factors. These included differences in origin mixes/grades of teas, processing methods by factories (variable production costs), final quality, bidding environments and global markets during the auctions (groups of brokers can differ). The factory placed greater importance on improving its quality levels and its environmental and social sustainability outcomes through the certification programme. Loconto and Dankers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that these higher price margins could result from standard implementation itself, where improved training and skills in good agricultural practices could lead to higher quality crops. Several studies have reported revenue increases associated with improved yields (Barham and Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Jena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) and lower input costs (Valkila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) rather than from price premiums. Bolwig et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), Valkila and Nygren (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and Valkila (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) identified producers who could supply higher yields and were already more resilient to socio-economic shocks were invariably more favoured to receive such premiums.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost of the smallholders in the study acknowledged that they had limited interaction with the factories on business transactions and market information. This could be due to smallholders not having formal contractual agreements with factories and instead relying on their private suppliers to distribute their leaf supply. The negotiating position often impacts how value is passed and distributed across the supply chain and is largely influenced by internal and external actors responsible for driving the business model and the certification process (Beall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the organisation of farmer groups, supply and demand of crops, land tenure security and policy environments also have an impact on negotiations (Beall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The study identifies the information asymmetry of market information, and the lack of sufficient representation of smallholder interests has hindered them in making informed decisions surrounding several issues and their overall potential to receive adequate farming revenues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs Jayasinghe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) explains, private leaf suppliers have the option to sell the best quality leaves at increased prices to factories that demand higher standards, and the balance unsold lot to other factories that pay a lower rate. This results in smallholders having limited control over which factory receives their leaf supply and often leaves them vulnerable to ambiguous pricing and transaction costs set by their leaf suppliers. It invariably places smallholders at poor bargaining positions within the value chains, as the leaf suppliers have closer direct dealings with the factories. Benarjee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) points out further that such smallholder systems \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;are left to the vagaries of an unorganised imperfect market\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e when there is no enforcement through regulation and institutions. Multi-stakeholder fair and transparent partnership models that could review and address issues with existing crop pricing mechanisms, sales contracting, transaction costs, access to finance and inputs would prove useful in closing loopholes across the value chain (RSPO, 2017). Additionally, a dedicated platform that would consist of a stronger representation of smallholder interests can be achieved through an adapted governance structure (Beall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; RSPO, 2017). This would enable farmers to have stronger negotiation positions while minimising risk through improved decision-making and access to finance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government-mandated \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Reasonable Price Formula\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e is only a share-based formula that determines the price ratio received between smallholders and manufacturers and does not represent a guaranteed minimum price. Abeygunawardena (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) explains that implementing such a guaranteed minimum price scheme into the existing price formula is quite complex, as there will be both winners and losers. Therefore, it requires careful consideration in accordance with the due shares among all actors under the price formula and must have links to leaf quality. Although fair trade has been the only initiative to offer a base price, such premiums at the farm level have generally been witnessed to be absent when global prices have a greater tendency to be associated with improved quality and, as such, give the producers no guarantees that they can reap the benefits from fair trade markets (Raynolds et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Sick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Valkila and Nygren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Support for Sustained Participation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the institutional structures and processes from the SL approach were not covered within the scope of this study, they remain important components that can be decisive in smallholder participation in certified markets and in achieving livelihood outcomes. Loconto and Dankers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) recognised that both government policy and institutional frameworks that work synergistically create the most positive results for enabling an environment that allows greater inclusion of farmers in certified markets. The proper delivery and coverage of extension and support services for farmers requires greater efficiency to improve vital asset bases such as crop yield, crop quality, training and awareness, and agro-farming skills. Currently, the TSHDA tea inspector has to administer the land development programme (regulatory functions) in addition to the extension services (advisory/training). Jayasinghe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) explains that the role of the tea inspector in disseminating research findings and providing advice becomes less effective when they have to carry out additional regulatory functions. He further explains that the two conflicting roles make it difficult for the tea inspector to maintain a good relationship with smallholders and gain their confidence. Therefore, limiting the role of the tea inspector to provide only extension services while designating land development activities to another officer becomes meaningful. Most smallholders could not maximise their farming outcomes due to several vulnerabilities. The lack of fertiliser subsidies and the poor quality of commercially available fertiliser have further reduced productivity. Jayasinghe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) stresses that it might be a worthy option to use state and private sector estates as supply centres that could provide and distribute relevant farm inputs (such as fertiliser) on a credit basis to smallholders to avoid large delays. The resulting costs and operational expenses can be deducted from the farmers on future leaf sales and reimbursements can be arranged through the TSHDA. This would also ensure that farmers receive good quality farm inputs for the correct application timings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study findings are in line with Bray and Neilson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), who agree that certification schemes are not implemented on a \u0026lsquo;blank canvas\u0026rsquo; and often overlay complex sets of pre-existing institutional settings involving economic, social, cultural and political institutions. Furthermore, they note that the dynamics between these institutional settings and certification schemes determine which households and individuals within a community have positive outcomes and which are excluded. More knowledge in this area could improve our understanding of the inherent interactions between these settings and for certification initiatives to be more inclusive. Smallholders and their civil society organisations need to have a larger stake in the governance and activities of certification programmes. Blackmore et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) emphasise that while farmer organisational participation would facilitate the design of more inclusive and fairer standards for compliance, it would also ensure a more leveled playing field that brings greater accountability, transparency and a more balanced influence in the standard-setting process. Bose et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) share similar views for more farmer-friendly and flexible implementation designs of certification schemes that need to be sensitive and responsive to local effects if they are to sustain large numbers of producers. Sustainability standard-setting bodies, therefore, need to place more importance on developing commodity and region-specific standards taking into account the diversity and heterogeneity of different smallholder groups. In particular, they should consider the contextual and situational factors that affect local farming and trading systems to increase the transformative potential of certification programmes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was fair potential for implementing group certification programmes at farmer society levels where training objectives could be aligned to meet the RA\u0026rsquo;s standard compliance requirements. Beyond the focus on yielding direct benefits, the long-term broader outcomes of sustainability certification initiatives should ultimately result in smallholders being able to safeguard their farming systems, which brings greater adaptive capacity and reduced vulnerability. Sustainability initiatives that build on existing efforts should maximise on past experiences so that they are scalable and have greater outreach among diverse smallholder farming communities with varying levels of livelihood assets. It also calls for reassessing and re-evaluating the current rural farming development goals and agendas that need to create more inclusive environments, transparent engagement and accountable commitment among all public/private sector and civil society actors so that smallholder communities could be ultimate recipients of more resilient and sustainable farming livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6 CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe explore how certification interventions of the Rainforest Alliance programme in Sri Lanka impact various classes of farming livelihood assets of smallholder tea growers and identify how these assets are combined and transformed to achieve their desired livelihood outcomes. We developed a framework that integrates the elements of the \u0026lsquo;sustainable livelihoods\u0026rsquo; approach and the \u0026lsquo;theory of change\u0026rsquo;. A total of 36 indicators were assessed for the five capitals (natural, human, social, physical and financial) and the vulnerability context using mixed method techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings from the Wilcoxon signed rank test show that 16 of 36 indicators tested statistically significant, indicating increased levels in these assets for certified smallholders after certification. These improvements were found for crop quality, waste management, soil fertility, beneficial animal and insect species, usage of personal protective equipment, health and safety, access to training and awareness programmes, access to extension and support services, access to household energy, access to safe water and housing structure. Evidence gathered from in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and other secondary field data was consistent with these quantitative findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the 15 sustainable farming livelihood outcomes evaluated for the study, the certified smallholders had seven \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes, while nine were \u0026lsquo;not achieved\u0026rsquo;. A noteworthy observation was that certified smallholders had an already higher number of six \u0026lsquo;partially achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes prior to certification, largely attributed to the higher initial levels of existing assets compared to non-certified smallholders who had two \u0026lsquo;partially achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes. The findings support evidence that the certification programme has contributed to \u003cem\u003eimproving only some\u003c/em\u003e of the livelihood outcomes of the certified tea smallholder community. Although notable increases were observed for some assets, most smallholders were unable to achieve the expected financial returns due to reduced crop yields and productivity. Their vulnerabilities include periods of drought and flood, delays in receiving government subsidies, poor quality of commercial fertilizer, and shortages of hired labour. Although there was evidence to suggest that certified smallholders enjoyed slightly higher tea leaf prices by supplying higher quality leaves, these vulnerabilities coupled with uncertain markets outweighed the overall economic benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings also indicate that the ability of smallholders to participate in certified value chains and their likelihood of achieving positive farming livelihood outcomes were dependent on several key preconditions and not just through standard compliance alone. Most of the non-certified smallholders in the study found it challenging to comply with the standards criteria and were excluded from certified markets. These were mainly attributed due to limited farm level assets that allow initial investments required for standard adoption, absence of formal organisational structures (either at factory or society levels) that supported their participation through internal management systems, absence of pre-existing relations and links with certified factories and leaf suppliers, limited access to extension and support services and inability to meet certified market requirements for crops such as quality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors have no competing interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated for this study are available on request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbeygunawardena P (2015) Guaranteed price for tea leaves. The Island. -details\u0026amp;page=article details\u0026amp;code_title\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;118968, Available online at. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBacon CM, Sundstrom WA, Stewart IT, Maurer E, Kelley LC (2021) Towards smallholder food and water security: Climate variability in the context of multiple livelihood hazards in Nicaragua. World Dev 143:105468. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105468\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105468\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarham BL, Weber JG (2012) The economic sustainability of certified coffee: Recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Dev 40(6):1269\u0026ndash;1279. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.11.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeall E (2012) Smallholders in global bioenergy value chains and certification. Evidence from three case studies. Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper, 50. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/3/i2597e/i2597e.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/3/i2597e/i2597e.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenarjee B (2011) Contribution of Small Holders to the Tea Sub\u0026ndash;Sector and Policies require to enhance their Livelihood. A document prepared for 19th session of Committee on Commodity Problems of FAO held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Tea/Documents/IGG_20/12-4-Smallholders.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Tea/Documents/IGG_20/12-4-Smallholders.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeuchelt TD, Zeller M (2011) Profits and poverty: Certification's troubled link for Nicaragua's organic and fairtrade coffee producers. Ecol Econ 70,(7):1316\u0026ndash;1324. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackman A, Rivera J (2011) Producer-level benefits of sustainability certification. Conserv Biol 25(6):1176\u0026ndash;1185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackmore E, Keeley J, with Pyburn R, Mangus E, Chen L, Yuhui Q (2012) Pro poor certification: assessing the benefits of sustainability certification for small-scale farmers in Asia, Natural Resource Issues, No. 25. IIED, London. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14604IIED.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14604IIED.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolwig S, Gibbon P, Jones S (2009) The economics of smallholder organic contract farming in tropical Africa. World Dev 37(6):1094\u0026ndash;1104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBose A, Vira B, Garcia C (2016) Does environmental certification in coffee promote business as usual? A case study from the Western Ghats, India. Ambio 45(8):946\u0026ndash;955. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0796-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13280-016-0796-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBray JG, Neilson J (2017) Reviewing the impacts of coffee certification programmes on smallholder livelihoods. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 13(1):216\u0026ndash;232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/21513732.2017.1316520\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/21513732.2017.1316520\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByerlee D, Rueda X (2015) From public to private standards for tropical commodities: a century of global discourse on land governance on the forest frontier. Forests 6(4):1301\u0026ndash;1324. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/f6041301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/f6041301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCommittee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) (2013) The COSA Measuring Sustainability Report: Coffee and Cocoa in 12 countries. Philadelphia. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://thecosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-COSA-Measuring-Sustainability-Report.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://thecosa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-COSA-Measuring-Sustainability-Report.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeFries RS, Fanzo J, Mondal P, Remans R, Wood SA (2017) Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ Res Lett 12(3):033001. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1088/1748-9326/aa625e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1748-9326/aa625e\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment for International Development (DFID) (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London, United Kingdom. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288-cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288-cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElizondo D (2017) Guidance Note- Application of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework in Development Projects. United Nations Development Programme. Panama. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/poverty/guidance-note--application-of-the-sustainable-livelihoods-framew.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/poverty/guidance-note--application-of-the-sustainable-livelihoods-framew.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElliott R, Timulak L (2005) Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In: Miles J, Gilbert P (eds) A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology. Oxford University Press, pp 147\u0026ndash;159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2014) The State of Food and Agriculture 2014: Innovation in Family Farming. Rome. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/422251/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/422251/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2019) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. Rome. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFenger N, Bosselmann AS, Asare R, Neergaard A (2016) The impact of certification on the natural and financial capitals of Ghanaian cocoa farmers. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst 41(2):143\u0026ndash;166. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/21683565.2016.1258606\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/21683565.2016.1258606\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForest Stewardship Council (2020) Group Certification. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://us.fsc.org/en-976 us/certification/group-977\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://us.fsc.org/en-976 us/certification/group-977\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e certification#:~:text\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Group%20certification%20is%20a%20way,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20gro978 up\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlobalisation and Livelihood Options of People living in Poverty (GLOPP) (2008) DFID\u0026rsquo;s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and its Framework. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHydrodynamics and Geophysical Survey (HGS) (Pvt.) Ltd. (2016). Fuel-wood Resource Survey of Sri Lanka- Final Report. Sri Lanka. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://deepthika.com/biomass/files/Rathnapura%20%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://deepthika.com/biomass/files/Rathnapura%20%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJayasinghe HD (1984) The problems and constrain affecting the tea small holder in Sri Lanka. Officer in Charge, Southern Province Extension Centre, Tea Research Institute, Kottawa, Sri Lanka. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://tri.nsf.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/1/1468/TB-4(1-2)-17.pdf?sequence=2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://tri.nsf.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/1/1468/TB-4(1-2)-17.pdf?sequence=2\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJena PR, Chichaibelu BB, Stellmacher T, Grote U (2012) The impact of coffee certification on small-scale producers\u0026rsquo; livelihoods: a case study from the Jimma Zone. Ethiopia Agricultural Econ 43(4):429\u0026ndash;440. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00594.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00594.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJena PR, Stellmacher T, Grote U (2017) Can coffee certification schemes increase incomes of smallholder farmers? Evidence from Jinotega. Nicaragua Environ Dev Sustain 19(1):45\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10668-015-9732-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10668-015-9732-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones S, Gibbon P (2011) Developing agricultural markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: Organic cocoa in rural Uganda. J Dev Stud 47(10):1595\u0026ndash;1618. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00220388.2011.579107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220388.2011.579107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleemann L, Abdulai A, Buss M (2014) Certification and access to export markets: Adoption and return on investment of organic-certified pineapple farming in Ghana. World Dev 64:79\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoconto A, Dankers C (2014) Impact of international voluntary standards on smallholder market participation in developing countries - A review of the literature. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nation (FAO), Rome. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/3/a-i3682e.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3682e.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyon S, Bezaury JA, Mutersbaugh T (2010) Gender equity in fairtrade\u0026ndash;organic coffee producer organizations: Cases from Mesoamerica. Geoforum 41(1):93\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeemken EM (2020) Do smallholder farmers benefit from sustainability standards? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Food Secur 26:100373. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100373\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100373\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilder JC, Newsom D (2015) SAN/Rainforest Alliance Impacts Report-Evaluating the effects of the SAN/Rainforest Alliance certification system on farms, people and the environment. Rainforest Alliance. New York. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2016-08/SAN_RA_Impacts_Report.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2016-08/SAN_RA_Impacts_Report.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilder JC, Newsom D (2018) Rainforest Alliance Impacts Report 2018- Partnership, Learning and Change. Rainforest Alliance. New York. pp. 7\u0026ndash;12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOya C, Schaefer F, Skalidou D (2018) The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review. World Dev 112:282\u0026ndash;312. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePinto LFG, Gardner T, McDermott CL, Ayub KOL (2014) Group certification supports an increase in the diversity of sustainable agriculture network\u0026ndash;rainforest alliance certified coffee producers in Brazil. Ecol Econ 107:59\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003edoi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePotts J, Lynch M, Wilkings A, Hupp\u0026eacute; GA, Cunningham M, Voora VA (2014) The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg-Manitoba, Canada. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQiao Y, Halberg N, Vaheesan S, Scott S (2016) Assessing the social and economic benefits of organic and fair trade tea production for small-scale farmers in Asia: a comparative case study of China and Sri Lanka. Renewable Agric Food Syst 31(3):246\u0026ndash;257. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/S1742170515000162\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S1742170515000162\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaynolds LT, Murray D, Taylor PL (2004) Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks. J Int Dev 16(8):1109\u0026ndash;1121. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/jid.1136\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jid.1136\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRicciardi V, Ramankutty N, Mehrabi Z, Jarvis L, Chookolingo B (2018) How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Global food security. 17, 64\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (2017) RSPO Strategy for Smallholder Inclusion: Objectives, Outputs and Implementation. RSPO Secreatriat SDN BHD. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://rspo.org/smallholders/rspo-smallholder-strategy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://rspo.org/smallholders/rspo-smallholder-strategy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuben R, Fort R, Z\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;iga-Arias G (2009) Measuring the impact of fair trade on development. Dev Pract 19(6):777\u0026ndash;788. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/09614520903027049\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09614520903027049\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuben R, Zuniga G (2011) How standards compete: comparative impact of coffee certification schemes in Northern Nicaragua. Supply Chain Manage 16(2):98\u0026ndash;109. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/13598541111115356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/13598541111115356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuben R, Fort R (2012) The impact of fair trade certification for coffee farmers in Peru. World Dev 40(3):570\u0026ndash;582. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRueda X, Lambin EF (2013) Responding to globalization: impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecol Soc 18(3):21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5751/ES-05595-180321\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-05595-180321\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSick D (2008) Coffee, farming families, and fair trade in Costa Rica: New markets, same old problems? Latin Am Res Rev 43(3):193\u0026ndash;208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1353/lar.0.0042\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/lar.0.0042\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmall LA (2007) The sustainable rural livelihoods approach: a critical review. Can J Dev Studies/Revue canadienne d'\u0026eacute;tudes du d\u0026eacute;veloppement 28(1):27\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/02255189.2007.9669186\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02255189.2007.9669186\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSri Lanka Tea Board (2011) : Sri Lanka Tea Board-Reasonable Price e-Service. Online in internet.URL:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.gov.lk/services/sltb_rp/es/reasonableprice/index.action?appcode=cp⟨=en\u0026amp;gen_from=men%20%20%20\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.gov.lk/services/sltb_rp/es/reasonableprice/index.action?appcode=cp⟨=en\u0026amp;gen_from=men%20%20%20\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. [Date of access: 19/04/2018]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSurvey Department of Sri Lanka (2021) District Map of Ratnapura. Colombo 5, Sri Lanka\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTea Exporters Association Sri Lanka (2017) Ceylon Tea. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://teasrilanka.org/ceylon-tea\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://teasrilanka.org/ceylon-tea\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTea Small Holdings Development Authority (2016) Tea Small Holdings Development Authority Annual Report 2016. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AnnualRepport2016English.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AnnualRepport2016English.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTea Small Holdings Development Authority (2022) Tea Small Holdings Development Authority Annual Report 2022. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Annual-Report-2022-English.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tshda.lk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Annual-Report-2022-English.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTscharntke T, Milder JC, Schroth G, Clough Y, DeClerck F, Waldron A, Rice R, Ghazoul J (2015) Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales. Conserv Lett 8(1):14\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/conl.12110\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/conl.12110\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUtting K (2009) Assessing the impact of fair trade coffee: Towards an integrative framework. J Bus Ethics 86(1):127\u0026ndash;149. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9761-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-008-9761-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValkila J (2009) Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua-Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecol Econ 68(12):3018\u0026ndash;3025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValkila J, Nygren A (2010) Impacts of Fair Trade certification on coffee farmers, cooperatives, and laborers in Nicaragua. Agric Hum Values 27(3):321\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10460-009-9208-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10460-009-9208-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValkila J (2014) Do fair trade pricing policies reduce inequalities in coffee production and trade? Dev Policy Rev 32(4):475\u0026ndash;493. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/dpr.12064\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/dpr.12064\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVogel I, (DFID) (2012) \u003cem\u003eReview of the use of \u0026lsquo;theory of change\u0026rsquo; in international development\u003c/em\u003e. Department for International Development. Available online at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber JG (2011) How much more do growers receive for Fair Trade-organic coffee? Food Policy 36(5):678\u0026ndash;685. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.05.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.05.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWijaya A, Glasbergen P, Leroy P, Darmastuti A (2018) Governance challenges of cocoa partnership projects in Indonesia: seeking synergy in multi-stakeholder arrangements for sustainable agriculture. Environment. Dev Sustain 20:129\u0026ndash;153. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9874-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10668-016-9874-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Fulda University of Applied Sciences","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Sustainable Livelihoods approach 1, Theory of change 2, Rural livelihoods 3, Smallholder Tea farmers 4, Sustainability standards 5, Group certification 6","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRecent rapid transformations have shaped the development and use of voluntary sustainability standard initiatives that seek to address critical issues along global commodity supply chains. Smallholder farming communities that form an integral part of these supply chains have often been left exposed to increased livelihood insecurity. We explore how certification interventions of the Rainforest Alliance programme in Sri Lanka impact various classes of farming livelihood assets of smallholder tea growers and identify how these assets are combined and transformed to achieve their desired livelihood outcomes. A research framework was developed that integrates the \u0026lsquo;sustainable livelihoods' approach and the \u0026lsquo;theory of change\u0026rsquo; to assess 36 indicators for the five capitals and the vulnerability context using mixed method techniques. We conducted household surveys to evaluate the asset levels for the indicators between 45 certified and 45 non-certified smallholders. In addition, we performed in-depth interviews with several extension specialists and held two focus group discussions with non-certified society leaders and their smallholder members. The findings of the Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that a total of 16 of 36 indicators were statistically significant, indicating increased levels in these assets for certified smallholders. Of the 15 livelihood outcomes evaluated, certified smallholders had seven \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes after certification compared to four before certification. In contrast, non-certified smallholders had three \u0026lsquo;fully achieved\u0026rsquo; outcomes, while nine were \u0026lsquo;not achieved\u0026rsquo;. Our findings support evidence that the certification programme has contributed to improving only some of the sustainable farming livelihood outcomes of the certified tea smallholder community.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluating Rural Farming Livelihood Outcomes from Sustainability Standard Certification Practices by Smallholder Tea Growers in Sri Lanka","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-29 11:42:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7476384/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"153c980d-2a41-456b-ae1d-bdc412d0652c","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53816498,"name":"Agricultural Economics \u0026 Policy"},{"id":53816499,"name":"Environmental Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-29T11:42:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-29 11:42:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7476384","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7476384","identity":"rs-7476384","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}