Imagine yourself in the supermarket, standing in front of the chocolate shelf. You are trying to decide between different chocolate bars. Since you have heard that cocoa production is often harmful to the environment and that many farmers struggle to earn a living income, you choose the chocolate with a certification label. It costs a bit more, but it feels like the better choice. But does that investment really make a difference for the forests and biodiversity where the cocoa in your chocolate is grown?
The cocoa in your bar may come from Indonesia, the third largest cocoa producer in the world. In recent years, certification schemes like the Rainforest Alliance have become widely used, aiming to curb deforestation and support biodiversity. However, our recent study in Sulawesi, the heartland of Indonesian cocoa, suggests that certification’s environmental impact may be limited in these landscapes (Dröge et al. 2025b). We found that certification is often implemented in areas where deforestation occurred long ago, coming too late to prevent forest loss. While it can encourage agroforestry and shade tree planting in previously cleared areas, current Rainforest Alliance criteria may not be sufficient to promote complex agroforestry systems in the landscapes we studied.
Cocoa certification on the ground: what we studied
We assessed 40 cocoa plantations in Luwu Utara district, Sulawesi, including 13 certified under the Rainforest Alliance and 27 non-certified plantations. Using field surveys, we measured vegetation characteristics such as canopy cover, shade tree basal area, and species richness. These indicators show how much habitat cocoa plantations provide for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife.
Our measurements also connect to Rainforest Alliance criteria, which require farmers to maintain all remnant forest trees on plantations and a minimum vegetation cover of 15% for shade-tolerant crops like cocoa (Rainforest Alliance 2020). To ensure comparability, we matched certified and non-certified plantations by elevation. We also analysed where certification was taking place and whether it targeted areas at risk of deforestation.
Certification reaches better-connected farmers, not forest frontiers
Our analysis shows that certified cocoa plantations in Sulawesi are typically older and located at lower elevations, close to roads, collection points, and villages. On average, they were eight kilometres from the nearest primary forest. This suggests that certification rarely reaches areas in Indonesia where forests are still at risk of being cleared. By contrast, higher elevation zones with remaining forest cover remain largely uncertified, likely due to challenges related to accessibility and economic return. Certified cocoa farmers were also more likely to be part of producer groups and have better access to services. While these conditions make certification more feasible, these patterns reflect practical constraints in implementing certification at scale, which can make it harder to reach remote or vulnerable producers and affect its potential impact on deforestation.
Similar patterns have been documented in certified coffee landscapes. In Ethiopia, Rainforest Alliance certified coffee was closer to main roads than non-certified coffee plantations (Takahashi and Todo 2017). In Uganda, UTZ, Organic, and Fairtrade certified farmers were also located at lower elevation, closer to markets, and generally had better access to services (Chiputwa et al. 2015). This suggests that certification often reaches farmers who are already better connected and better off in terms of infrastructure, support, and resources.
Certified cocoa farms in Indonesia are not greener than others
Despite Rainforest Alliance requirements for natural vegetation, our study found no significant differences in vegetation structure between certified and non-certified cocoa plantations. On average, plots hosted only two shade tree species within a 25 by 25 metre plot, and three plantations, including one certified, had no shade trees at all.
These results confirm earlier observations in Indonesia that cocoa plantations tend to simplify over time, shifting from complex agroforestry into simplified agroforests or monocultures (Juhrbandt et al. 2010). Our findings indicate that Rainforest Alliance certification, under current conditions, has not halted this trend. Certified plantations in Sulawesi did not have a richer shade tree layer or provide stronger support for biodiversity than non-certified ones.
This pattern is not unique to Sulawesi. In a neighbouring district, Rainforest Alliance certification was not associated with higher bird species richness (Dröge et al. 2025a). Studies in Ecuador also found no difference in shade tree cover between Fairtrade certified and non-certified cocoa plantations, and research in Ghana showed that UTZ, Rainforest Alliance, and organic certification did not improve shade tree species richness (Middendorp et al. 2020; Thompson et al. 2022). A likely explanation, at least for Rainforest Alliance, is the relatively low shade requirements. The current standard requires only 15% of the total farm area under natural vegetation, which can be met through border plantings or conservation areas outside the plantation (Rainforest Alliance 2020). Certified cocoa is therefore not necessarily grown under a complex shade canopy.
Our results reveal significant gaps in the environmental effectiveness of certification. At the same time, they provide evidence on where and how certification could be strengthened. Since standards are revised over time, it is important to interpret these findings in the context of the requirements in place during our study period. Rather than suggesting that certification cannot work, this research shows that current criteria are insufficient and need to be made more robust if certification is to contribute meaningfully to biodiversity and forest conservation.
A stronger focus on agroforestry to enhance biodiversity
Cocoa agroforestry has great potential to support biodiversity while providing co-benefits such as income diversification for farmers. Yet this potential is not being realised in Sulawesi. Many older plantations gradually lose structural complexity, shifting from diverse shade systems to simplified monocultures (Juhrbandt et al. 2010). This decline reduces habitat quality for birds, pollinators, and other species, but also undermines farm health more broadly. Diverse shade trees can regulate microclimates, improve soil fertility and water retention, and help buffer farms against pests, diseases, and climate extremes. In Sulawesi, where cocoa yields are strongly limited by pollinators, improving habitat conditions could therefore contribute not only to biodiversity conservation but also to higher and more stable productivity (Toledo-Hernández et al. 2020).
Certification could in principle play a vital role in promoting agroforestry, provided that its requirements continue to become more ambitious and are implemented effectively. A meta-analysis found that cocoa agroforests with at least 30% canopy cover supported bird diversity comparable to nearby primary or mature secondary forests (Bennett et al. 2022). Earlier Rainforest Alliance standards required 40% canopy cover and multiple canopy layers, offering stronger ecological safeguards than the current version. Our findings also raise concerns about monitoring: in one certified plantation, we found no shade trees at all within the sampling plot, indicating that compliance is not consistently assessed.
At the same time, certification standards are not the only factor shaping agroforestry outcomes. Local cultural preferences for full-sun cocoa, land tenure arrangements, economic pressures, and broader policy conditions all influence farmers’ decisions about maintaining or removing shade trees.
Looking ahead: certification and the EUDR
The European Union’s new Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR), which takes effect in December 2025, sets a higher bar for transparency and traceability. Companies placing cocoa or six other high-risk commodities on the EU market must demonstrate that products are deforestation free, legally produced, and fully traceable to the production plot using geolocation data.
This represents a major shift from voluntary certification to mandatory due diligence. Based on broader observations of certification schemes and policy developments, most schemes do not yet collect precise plot-level data for all smallholders, and certification alone does not guarantee EUDR compliance. However, some schemes are adapting. The Rainforest Alliance, for example, recently released a revised standard and a deforestation risk assessment platform to support producers in meeting these requirements. The future role of certification will depend on how effectively it can align with demands for traceability, legality, and deforestation-free production.
Final thoughts
Our findings do not call for abandoning certification, but they do highlight the need for reform. Certification still has an important role in improving farm practices and connecting producers to markets. Yet if it is to deliver on its environmental promises, such as supporting biodiversity, it must strengthen shade criteria. It also requires consistent and credible monitoring to ensure compliance.
For certification schemes, this means using evidence from studies like ours to improve standards and ensure that labels reflect real environmental outcomes on the ground.
For policymakers, our research highlights that voluntary certification alone is not enough to achieve deforestation-free cocoa, and that additional initiatives — such as strengthened national legislation or stronger private sector commitment beyond certification — are needed.
For consumers, there is still a meaningful role to play. While a certified chocolate bar is not a guarantee of a greener farm, your choices can make a difference. Look for credible labels, support brands that are transparent about their sourcing, and ask questions when shopping — these actions help reward producers who follow better practices.
So next time you are standing in the chocolate aisle, wondering whether that certified bar is really the better choice, the answer is: it depends. Certification can be a step in the right direction, but only if the systems behind the label become stronger, smarter, and more accountable. By making informed choices and supporting improvements, each of us can contribute to cocoa production that truly delivers on its promises.
