Creating Sustainable Value Chains for Commodities from Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes: A Proposed Framework

Abstract

Socio-ecological production landscapes (SEPLs) are places that support and are supported by biodiversity and that play important roles in maintaining biodiversity as well as providing the goods and services that society demands. SEPLs exist with, by and for people. The lack of sustainable value chains that give advantage to goods and services produced in SEPLs threatens the continuation of sustainable practices, many of which are manifestations of traditional ecological knowledge, in an increasingly globalized and efficiency-driven economy. Sustainable management of SEPLs will be an important contribution to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. To determine the approaches for creating sustainable value chains for goods and services from SEPLs, we gathered information from practitioners and experts on SEPLs using (1) an online questionnaire to experts, (2) an online knowledge-sharing session, and (3) focus group discussions, under the framework of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). Through the questionnaire (13 respondents) and the online session, we identified key issues and obstacles, as well as solutions to them in practice. Focus group discussions were held on value chains specific to cacao and rice to gain a deeper understanding of value chain issues from these vastly different commodities. As a way to create value chains that contribute to sustainability of SEPLs, we present a theory of change consisting of five approaches that producers can implement to shorten value chains. The proposed evaluation framework of this theory will use case studies produced by IPSI members and beyond on diversity of commodities from SEPLs. This is a call to action on an important element of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Multifunctionality of farmlands provides opportunities for synergies between food production and conservation [1,2,3,4]. On the other hand, commodity-driven deforestation is a major source of forest loss globally [5]. Global conservation attention should now be directed to moderately modified regions and balance conservation and development there [6].

Many traditional land uses around the world are known to support both biodiversity and people’s livelihood [7]. The Satoyama Initiative is a global effort to realize society in harmony with nature by promoting and supporting such landscapes [8], and it has been recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; Decisions X/32 and XI/25). Under the Satoyama Initiative, the term socio-ecological production landscape (SEPL) refers to a “dynamics mosaic of habitats and land uses where the harmonious interaction between people and nature maintains biodiversity while providing humans with the goods and services needed for their livelihoods, survival and well-being in a sustainable manner, and … are deeply linked to local culture and knowledge” [8]. As the attention on conservation of areas of biodiversity value outside protected areas (aka “OECMs” [9,10]) increases, it has been argued that SEPLs are part of the global conservation priority [11]. The International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) is a global network of 348 organizations (as of December 2025), including international organizations (4%), national and local governments (17%), non-governmental (incl. indigenous and local community) organizations (49%), academic and research institutions (20%), and the private sector (10%). In 2023, IPSI adopted its Plan of Action with five priority areas of work, or Strategic Objectives, towards 2030: (1) knowledge co-production, management, and uptake; (2) institutional frameworks and capacity development; (3) area-based conservation measures; (4) ecosystem restoration; and (5) sustainable value chain development [12].

Strategic Objective 5 (sustainable value chain development) is unique in that it focuses on bringing a market-based approach to conservation of landscapes that often have been managed by local communities for a long time. A new market approach would not be necessary if the circumstances stayed constant. However, since the socio-economic circumstances around SEPLs are changing, SEPL management has to adapt to them. Exploring a new form of co-management systems is one of the three-fold approaches of the Satoyama Initiative [8]. For the term “value chain,” we adopt the definition from the flagship publication series of IPSI, Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review: the “functional business activities wherein each stage of the chain adds more value towards its customers” [13,14], which contrasts with more narrowly defined, intra-firm value chain [15]. By “sustainable value chain” we mean a value chain that supports sustainable production; production practices that support and are supported by biodiversity, which are often based on traditional ecological knowledge (the production practices that make a production landscape a SEPL). Producers are typically small holders, including those from indigenous peoples and local communities. Corporate-centric perspectives that embark on creating shared values [16] can help in realizing sustainable value chains [17]. However, many challenges arise because the value chain between producers and consumers can be an opaque cloud in the view of the producers due to a lack of information [18].

The value chain literature is regionally biased towards Europe and North America [19,20], leaving an important void in Asia and Africa, where IPSI has a large membership. Value chain analyses often focus on the economic aspect and neglect attention to social and environmental aspects [17]. Another void is the link between value chains, and improvements thereof, as well as production practices in the landscapes [18,19]. A pioneer study in this regard is case study research that looked at the interactions between three types of value chains and community development in Wuhan, China [18]. Against this background, our objective is to gain understanding of challenges faced and solutions generated by producers in SEPLs, as well as those that exists along value chains, from experiences and knowledge of the members of IPSI and relevant practitioners, and to formulate a theory of change [21,22] for creating sustainable SEPL value chains.

In Section 2, we describe the series of steps taken to collect experiences and insights progressively from members of IPSI and beyond. General information was collected through a questionnaire, online discussions of the thematic working group, which was formed under IPSI for this purpose, and an online knowledge-sharing session. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized to gather more detailed and specific information on two commodities with vastly different value chain characteristics. We present the results in Section 3. Findings are discussed, and compared with existing literature, in Section 4 to formulate the theory of change for value chains leading to sustainable SEPLs.

2. Materials and Methods

The IPSI Secretariat invited all members to express their interest to join thematic working groups (TWGs) of Strategic Objectives 3–5 during 1–18 May 2025. Seventeen member organizations were allocated to Strategic Objective 5 from the 50 that responded to this invitation (the rest were assigned to other strategic objectives). The TWG membership (Asia-Pacific: 5, Africa: 9, Latin America: 3) roughly reflected IPSI’s overall regional distribution of members. The TWG of Strategic Objective 5 was our primary discussion platform.

To clear the opaque cloud surrounding value chains and reveal the elements of value chains that support sustainable practices in SEPLs, we investigated (1) the challenges encountered and solutions contemplated/implemented by the producers; (2) the means to have SEPL-based items recognized in the market, and the possibility of premium pricing for them; and (3) building effective partnerships along the value chain. We used the following as our sequential information sources: (1) an online questionnaire and discussion, (2) a knowledge-sharing session, and (3) focus group discussions, supplemented by individual interviews. The subsequent investigation was informed by the findings from the earlier steps. Our inquiry was targeted to identify the elements of the value chain that support sustainable practices in production landscapes.

2.1. Online Questionnaire and TWG Discussion

As the first step of collecting knowledge and experiences from the TWG members, we conducted an online questionnaire in June 2025. It asked whether the organizations engage in developing sustainable value chains; whether they sell products or services produced in SEPLs; whether they collaborate with partners in developing sustainable value chains together; whether they face any challenges or barriers in developing sustainable value chains; and for their thoughts on feasible actions of themselves or other IPSI members and on reasonable and effective roles of IPSI in creating sustainable value chains for SEPLs. The summarized responses were shared with all TWG members and discussed for further inputs during the online TWG meeting held on 24 June 2025.

We grouped the inputs collected according to the major aspects with which they are related along the value chain.

2.2. Online Knowledge-Sharing Session

We organized an online knowledge-sharing session on 5 August 2025, to collect inputs from a broad spectrum of circumstances. The resource organizations, selected purposively, were three NGOs that are producers and/or working with producers (Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation from Taiwan, Na’kau Chocolate Amazónico from Brazil, and Advocate for Biodiversity Conservation from Ghana) and the BioTrade Initiative of UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Na’kau Chocolate Amazónico and UNCTAD were invited from outside IPSI for their expertise in Latin American small-scale businesses and global trade, respectively, so that the discussion could incorporate these underrepresented areas within IPSI. Consideration was given, to the extent possible, to regional representation in selecting the resource organizations. We requested resource organizations to present on the challenges they faced and activities conducted to address those challenges. Following the presentations, we facilitated a panel discussion among the presenters plus a social trade company of cacao to collect deeper information about the recognition of SEPL-based items in the market, possibility of premium price for them as incentive for producers in SEPLs, and ways to build effective partnerships along the value chain. The session was open to all IPSI members.

2.3. Focus Group Discussions

We selected two major produces from SEPLs that are vastly different in their market characteristics: rice and cacao. Rice is a staple food item in many parts of the world, especially in Asia, and typically traded locally (less than 10% traded internationally during 2017–18 [23]). Rice was also chosen because many IPSI member organizations are involved in its production. Cacao contrasts to rice in that it is primarily a nonessential grocery, or even a luxury item, and extensively traded internationally; up to 95% is traded on international commodity market (https://www.kakaoplattform.ch/about-cocoa/cocoa-facts-and-figures; accessed on 10 January 2026).

These commodities do have similarity in the low profit margins producers receive. A study in Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam reported that farmers received 8–17% of consumer price (after deducting production costs) in 2016, while domestic retailers received 27–45% [24]. This farmers’ margin is shrinking as the rice price declines and production costs increase [23,24]. According to FAO statistics, 74% of value of dark chocolate in Europe accrued to brands and retailers, and only 11.3% to farmers in 2018 [25]. Accounting for the costs, cacao farmers’ margin was 0.5% of the value they generated and brands and retailers received 87% of the margin generated by the entire dark chocolate value chain [25].

In each two-hour focus group discussion (FGD), a spectrum of stakeholders, from producers to consumer-facing entities, was gathered. Eight persons participated from seven organizations (Asia: 5, Europe: 2, Latin America: 1) in the FGD on cacao held on 9 September 2025, and ten persons from nine organizations (Asia: 9, Africa: 1) in the FGD on rice held on 17 September 2025 (see File S1 in the Supplementary Material for the participant list). Both FGDs were conducted in English, but simultaneous interpretation was provided into Spanish for the cacao FGD and into Chinese for the rice FGD. Both FGDs were facilitated by a professional facilitator.

3. Results

The series of inquires described above generated the following findings.

3.1. Online Questionnaire and TWG Discussion

The questionnaire was distributed to TWG members on 17 June 2025 and thirteen TWG members (77%) provided their information and views. Considering the focus of the responses, we categorized the issues, problems and/or challenges that were raised to impede the creation of sustainable value chains, as well as the solutions that members have already implemented, or those that were suggested as necessary, into four: those related to production (producers’ activities on site), support to the producers (external assistance to producers), the market (paths between producers and consumers) and relations/partnerships (connections among players along the value chain). These results were discussed at the online TWG meeting on 24 June 2025, attended by 10 members (59%), to deepen the understanding of the responses. The final list (

Table 1. Summary results of the questionnaire survey and the thematic working group discussions on issues, problems and/or challenges faced in the value chains of SEPL products/produce and relevant solutions.

Category	Issues/Problems/Challenges	Solutions (+: Implemented; -: Suggested)
Production	Limited access to credit/upfront investment barriers Quality issues from limited infrastructure (storage, etc.) Quality issues from limited skills of production and knowledge on what specific markets demand Improper costing	+ Coordinating logistics, quality control, and promotional activities + Intermediary organizations facilitating dialogs between producers and processors to solve the quality problem - Develop shared training resources or toolkits on sustainable production, traceability and compliance with export regulations - Cooperatives for collective marketing
Support to the producers	Small funding size Lack of long-term support Fragmented support: uncoordinated technical support; partial coverage of support (e.g., only production skills) Lack of granularity of support (market dynamics are context-specific)	- Set up a financial pool/grant support - Artificial intelligence as a tool to understand consumer behaviors - Government policy support and incentives for local communities for specific actions (but avoid harmful investments)
Market	Low profitability (low price, low margins, low volume) Limited knowledge on market; each market is different Weak bargaining power/lack of functional farmer organizations Shortage of sales capacity (time, staff, skills) Missing or weak local markets Lack of product differentiation (forced into price-based competition) Export regulations and fees	+ Engaged broad stakeholders through the promotion of green conservation products, opening up diverse marketing channels - Establishing a warehouse to store produce until the price is favorable, and those who know about market do the sales + Co-developing a low-cost, community-led certification system - Create transparency to ensure producers are paid fairly - Consumer education on appreciating SEPL products with help of certification/labeling
Relations/Partnerships	Weak influence of producers on value chain mechanism Lack of partner-type relationship with buyers (price volatility, market monopoly) Differences in interests among stakeholders Information mismatch among stakeholders	+ Joint project development with a government agency - Create regional platforms for direct trades - Promote short value chain model to drive demand for agro-biodiversity products + Produce’s quality improvement with processors to reward the story of the landscape - Communication and policy measures to ensure ethical considerations

) includes the additional points that were generated during the second online TWG meeting on 2 October 2025, where the draft AIP that had been produced also considering the results of the two FGDs (see below) was discussed.

Common challenges that were apparent across the cases included transaction structure issues and finance/support gaps. The former is about reduced competitiveness due to unequal access to information, benefits, and bargaining power. It was repeatedly raised that the work of facilitators or knowledge brokers was crucial. The latter is about short-term, fragmented and incomplete, in both contents and duration, funding and support (e.g., capacity building interventions). On finance, there was clear recognition of the need for blended finance mechanisms and the potential of biodiversity credits, for more sustainable financing. On technical support, it was discussed that better coordination was necessary among projects that took place on the same site by different proponents, to avoid confusion and to provide consistent and effective support. It was also pointed out that support under externally funded projects should be offered with full understanding of the nature of the market relative to the producers’ context; i.e., the right support that fits the conditions of the particular SEPL.

There was general agreement that the value chain should be “short” (see Section 4 for further discussion). However, one of the participants of the second TWG meeting raised an alternative view that deserves further exploration. The point was that, although a value chain of fewer actors does have benefits, involvement of more stakeholders could lead to the creation of more diverse products, which could in turn benefit the producers and SEPLs more.

It would be prudent to defend our methods here. The small sample size and nonrandom selection would not be acceptable if the intention was to understand the general public or stakeholder opinions. However, our intention was to collect knowledge from a pool of practitioners with professional experience in SEPLs. Our respondents were all relevant to and experienced in the subject we focused on.

3.2. Online Knowledge-Sharing Session

The online knowledge-sharing session took place on 5 August 2025, with 37 participants. The resource organizations’ presentations and the subsequent panel discussion among the players in the value chains of soy bean, cacao and bamboo and in the international trade framework provided insights for creating sustainable value chains (

Table 2. Summary of cases provided by the resource organizations at the online knowledge-sharing session on 5 August 2025.

Cases	Challenges	Activities Conducted to Address Challenges	Remaining Needs
Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation (Taiwan): Organic soy bean field for the ring-necked pheasant	Limited capacity and resources for marketing and sales Insufficient long-term support across the chain Weak partner relationships among farmers, processors, and retailers	Factory and farm visits to connect farmers, processors and retailers Technical and operational support (experts, machines, facilities, product development with retailers) Consumer education at organic shops	Continued policy backing Financial support (blended/public–private) to stabilize farmer income and maintain intermediary services
Na’kau Chocolate Amazónico (Brazil): A “forest-to-bar” model, from organic cacao production in Amazon floodplain to selling chocolate	Producers’ limited technical knowledge and weak organization Remoteness; low international visibility; scaling artisanal quality High transaction costs Out-migration of youth and loss of traditional knowledge	Locally controlled post-harvest processing Paying farmers at above-market prices with consistent technical assistance Exploring other forest ingredients; investing in brand/storytelling around “forest origin”	Blended finance & patient capital Strategic partnerships and government alignment to reduce transaction costs and increase visibility Capacity development to raise productivity while maintaining cultural and environmental values
Advocate for Biodiversity Conservation (Ghana): Building national value chain for bamboo	Low local adoption of bamboo Low production scale against high-potential and emerging processors Insufficient policy support	Organizing World Bamboo Day to showcase bamboo uses and livelihoods Enrolled 700 farmers in bamboo agroforestry and interplanting Developing a national bamboo roadmap	Awareness of the link between environmental protection and well-being of people Blended finance and green investment Further partnerships with diverse actors
BioTrade Initiative, UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD): Making trade help biodiversity through adhering to a set of principles and criteria	Information, benefits and value added tend to go to downstream actors in value chain, while producers receive environmental responsibilities	Adopted seven principles and 25 criteria for BioTrade; implemented in nearly 80 countries Participating companies’ reported sales grew from US$40 million in 2003 to US$50.5 billion in 2024 Case studies made available online	Competitive value chain: quality and quantity; economy of scale; bargaining power; all actors empowered Facilitators to build trust in value chain Sound understanding of the market Enabling environment by governments

). Repeatedly emerging points included:

• Importance of “facilitator” in cross-sector partnerships: Market facilitators who can bridge producers and buyers and ensure coordination, technical support, and market access. Such facilitators are key in building effective, long-term partnerships in the value chain.
• Various ways of financing activities: Blended finance—mixing of diverse funding (public funds, philanthropic donations, private investments, nature credits, etc.)—is required for stable financial base. Also, non-traditional sources (such as finance for climate mitigation and adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and health), should be explored, using the approaches of nature-based solutions [26,27].
• Value addition: It is necessary to maintain competitiveness with quality, quantity and market fit, and to ensure value is added at every step of the way and every player in the chain benefits in a fair manner.

Effective value addition require sound understanding of the market. It was pointed out that there can be a clear regional difference in market preference regarding certifications in achieving recognition of certain quality and linking it to premium prices. Certifications may work in European and North American market, but producers may be rewarded by different means in the Asian market. It was discussed that understanding the structure and preference of the market is a prerequisite for sustainable value chains, and the facilitator’s role is crucial. It is also important to recognize that government can help in this regard through policy and incentives.

3.3. Focus Group Discussions

From the cacao FGD emerged a concern whether producer-attached support organizations can provide effective support in reality, given the substantial difference in contents and scope of emphases between producers and consumers. The discussion highlighted that there was a reasonable amount of dialog within the value chain, but that the absence of communication with consumers was a problem. In the craft market of cacao, where cacao is traded at a higher price, the quality, i.e., flavor, is essential to make high-quality chocolates. Stories from the producers alone will not suffice without quality. This is the work the producers have to deliver. Another necessary element is that consumers know how to taste such chocolate. An analogy was made to coffee, where there are baristas who do the consumer-facing communication. The lack of this consumer-facing communication function for cacao was discussed to be a weak link of the cacao value chain. Such communications or tasting education for the consumers might be necessary. Linking with other issue of interest, such as health—cacao beans produced in SEPLs are not only good for the environment of the production landscape and producers but also good for the consumers’ health—can work. Thus, it is not that stories do not work, but that contexts, targets, and messages matter.

From the perspective of individual producers, the market needs to acknowledge the transition timeframe necessary for the capacity to be built for producing high-quality produce. Quality care of the land improves the quality of beans and the environment. Issues and priorities vary by region—state-led markets in West Africa, competition with other crops in Asia, soil in East Africa, and limited production volumes in Amazonia—and each requires different approaches. Since it does not seem feasible for one entity to cover the whole spectrum, a multi-stakeholder platform can be an effective and efficient way forward.

During the rice FGD, participants discussed that rice has a competitive market. Competitiveness can be gained by organic production from consumers, for which consumer education can help, and by “green-ness” from the private sector with ESG interest. Both can be a hook for environmentally sound farmers, and governments can help them with environmental protection labels (or some means of visibility). Branding is not one size fits all, and it has to be specifically designed for target consumers. In Ghana, both preferences of the young population for processed, ready-made food and a strong Ghanaian Cedi favor imported rice, and domestic rice production is suffering.

Rice is a staple food in many countries throughout the world. The discussion also highlighted that both its production and consumption were a cultural affair, and this point was most strongly emphasized during a separate interview we conducted with an indigenous producer from Vietnam (as she was not able to join the FGD).

India is known for its high diversity of rice varieties that are (or used to be) cultivated there, with around 100,000–200,000 of them ([28,29], citing [30]). Although normal rice is not economically profitable, there are customers for specialty rice. However, high-quality rice varieties, such as Ayurveda rice, are limited in volume or not recognized for the lack of information on the packages. Small land holders therefore cannot gain much from the market, for which they need policy support.

Examples from Taiwan showed how small holders can receive benefit from higher prices by forming effective farmer associations that maintain tight relationships with consumers and strong brand recognition. The close and steady ties with customers enable farmers to grow the variety preferred by the customers, which also helps price guarantee. Because there is trust that has been developed over the years between producers and customers, third-party certification is not needed to achieve high price. Combination with other livelihood activities, such as restaurants and tourism, can further help.

4. Discussion

Theory of change consists of two parts: the program theory (linking activities to impacts) and implementation theory (linking plans to activities) [21,22]. Considering the information and perspectives collected via questionnaires and FGDs, we propose, as the program theory, to work on and work in “short” value chains to create sustainable value chains. Here, a “short” value chain means one in which information, resources, and expertise flow efficiently and are shared fairly between producers and consumers. This is similar to the European Commission’s definition of a short food supply chain (SFSC): a “chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to cooperation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers” (EU Regulation 1305/2013, as introduced in [20,31]). Our definition differs in that spatial distance or geographical proximity is not a necessary element, though it can be an important factor in some cases. SFSCs have been extensively discussed in the literature from policy [20,32] and practice [31,33] perspectives. First, we will discuss the approaches that can be taken by the producers (program theory). Then, we will discuss the enablers for those approaches to cause changes on the ground (implementation theory).

4.1. Program Theory: Approaches for Shortening Value Chains

Value chains can be “shortened” in various ways, and we will discuss five approaches that producers can take to create a sustainable value chain (Figure 1): (1) enhancing relationships with buyers and supporters; (2) simplifying the value chain structure; (3) expanding the capacity of producers; (4) making the value chain locally complete; and (5) approaches targeting consumers. The TWG discussions, online knowledge-sharing session and FGDs informed all five approaches. The rice FGD significantly informed approach (2), the cacao FGD informed approach (5), and both informed approach (4). We focus on the producers’ actions (

Table 3. Five approaches to shortening a value chain. This typology is not for any producers to choose one over the other. All approaches may be relevant in different degrees in different contexts, but for the common objective of creating a sustainable value chain.

Value Chain Improvement Approaches	Illustrative Actions Producers Can Take	Support Needed to Implement the Actions
(1) Enhancing relationships: All actors in the value chain understand each other and collaborate constructively.	Map value chain Institute a platform of dialog with downstream actors Find communicators or knowledge brokers to reduce information gaps Explore opportunities for experience/knowledge exchange via cross-visits	Collection and openly accessible inventory of successful cases Communicators who understand a broad spectrum from upstream to downstream (not necessarily replacing intermediaries)
(2) Simplifying the structure: Fairness and transparency for the producers are improved in a value chain with smaller numbers of intermediaries.	Visualize and evaluate the value chain and have bridging entities to bypass low-value-adding or counter-productive links Increase opportunities to directly interact with consumers (e.g., farmers’ markets), which may open an opportunity for direct sales	Event convening power Market analysis skills Identify or train bridging entities
(3) Expanding the capacity of producers: The producers’ control of the value chain improves as they gain capacity of value addition (more downstream functions).	Install on-site value-adding capabilities; e.g., processing, packaging (with known market preferences and marketing strategies) Improve financial management skills Seek public financial support and fundraise from the private sector	Market analysis to determine an effective value-adding strategy Training for identified necessary skills Capital expenditures (information on public and private supports and sources)
(4) Making the value chain locally complete: With local consumption within SEPLs, a strong value chain can be formed.	Provide platform for experiential learning and consumer education Promote branding of “produce locally consume locally” Build broad local networks for the above (with public bodies, schools, tourism, restaurants, companies, etc.) Collaborate with other activities conducted in the same landscape	Vibrant, productive community Local government’s coordination (where appropriate) Coordination with entities outside the agriculture, forestry and fishery industries
(5) Approaches targeting consumers: Enhance the capacity of consumers to seek and identify SEPLS-benefiting products.	Educate consumers on the roles of the producers so that they are more sensitive about production land/seascapes Educate consumers on how to appreciate SEPL products (tasting sessions, branding promotion) with consumer communicators Increase visibility and recognizability with labeling and certification	IPSI to institute an affordable certification scheme Operate a platform of linking between help-seekers and support-providers

) to be clear that our scope is specifically SEPLs. There are overlaps and transitions among these five approaches, and they are not meant to be mutually exclusive. The discussion here focuses on the value chain part only, and the issue of producers practicing sustainable production will be discussed in Section 4.2.

4.1.1. Enhancing Relationships

This approach is to achieve the state in which all actors in the value chain understand each other and collaborate constructively. This is particularly important for long value chains. It will be effective if all members in the value chain work with the spirits of creating shared value [16], especially when competition is becoming more and more between chains, rather than between individual firms in the chain [17]. Cross-visits between producers and downstream actors, such as processors, can enhance mutual understanding, and the farm and factory visits conducted by Tse-Xin Organic Agriculture Foundation from Taiwan (Table 2) are a proven case. Where the value chain extends to other countries, UNCTAD’s BioTrade Principles and Criteria [34] can help ensure the productive relationship among actors in the value chain—particularly Principle 4 (Socioeconomic sustainability) to integrate biodiversity into business policies, procedures and practices; Principle 6 (Respect for the rights of actors involved) to ensure ethical quality; and Principle 7 (Clarity on right to use and access to natural resources) to protect the natural resource rights of the entire community, not just the producers. The value chain of Siam benzoin gum is an example of sustainable trade supporting biodiversity conservation and livelihood [35]. On the contrary, the cacao FGD pointed out that the most downstream link with the consumers was the weak link. Identifying and taking corrective actions on such weak links or bottlenecks in the value chain would be important to create a value chain that benefits SEPLs.

4.1.2. Simplifying the Structure

Fairness and transparency for the producers should improve in a value chain with a lower number of intermediaries. The emphasis is on visualizing the value chain and evaluating the roles of the actors. Where a link is identified as limiting the economic and environmental sustainability of the SEPL, such as a monopoly along the value chain or procedural and logistic bottlenecks (Table 1), ways to eliminate or go around such links need to be determined to shorten the value chain.

Opportunities for direct interactions between producers and consumers, such as consumer fairs and events organized in cities, may establish avenues for direct sales (interactions that can take place on site, e.g., via tourism, is a subject under Section 4.1.4). The focus of the producers, as well as the organizations working with them, participating in such events should be on establishing such sales relationships, as well as raising the visibility of the produce/products.

The case from Taiwan discussed during the rice FGD is a good example that a simplified value chain, where producers are connected to consumers, can directly ensure brand recognition and price guarantee, benefiting producers. Consumers also benefit from their preferences being met by the producers. The conditions under which mutual relationships like this are formed (since monopoly and exploitation of producers can also happen) need to be analyzed with more cases.

4.1.3. Expanding the Capacity of Producers

The producers’ control of the value chain should improve as they gain capacity of value addition. This means that the producers engage in a larger part of the value chain, extending their capability into more downstream value chain functions. Capacity building for value-adding steps include processing raw produce (e.g., jam from fruit, pickling fresh vegetables) to extend shelf life, customer-facing communication through social media, and forming cooperatives to engage in collective marketing. The authors’ experiences and observations (e.g., [36]) indicate that many conservation projects in SEPLs conduct activities with the intention of this approach.

This approach will only be effective, however, if it is based on sound understanding of the intended market, as the participants in the discussions in this study repeatedly emphasized. That is, the spike extending from the “producers” in Figure 1 is followed by sound links to the “consumers.” It is also important that past projects are evaluated [21,22] for the effectiveness and sustainability of the interventions implemented to inform future interventions [37]. Since it is often difficult for a conservation organization to conduct an evaluation after the end of the grant period (and even more difficult to publish unfavorable results), resources of third-party entities, such as IPSI, should be mobilized to take stock of the cases and inform the future practice.

4.1.4. Making the Value Chain Locally Complete

What is envisioned in this approach is to consume the products where they are produced. Consumers can be the residents of the landscapes, or they can be visitors. This approach differs from the one described in Section 4.1.2 in that consumption necessarily takes place in the production landscape. Not all SEPLs are outward-looking. There are concerns that the external market can erode tradition and cultural values, and views can differ even between geographically and culturally close communities [36]. In this regard, a locally complete value chain is suitable, as it can maintain local bonds. The physical proximity of producers and consumers would increase the visibility of each other’s activities, preferences and needs. This approach would be particularly effective if the size of local consumption makes economic sense given the size of the production. Also, the direct producer–consumer interaction that could take place at farmer’s markets could lead to initiating a simple-structure value chain. In this approach, holistic consideration of all activities being conducted in the landscape is both necessary and strategic. It is necessary because an SEPL is an outcome of the collection of all physical, economic and social uses that take place in the landscape. It is strategic because there can be other activities that can be synergized with the production activities in focus for a larger impact. Where appropriate, combining production activities with other activities can open opportunities for new value chains that respect SEPL quality. For example, linking with tourism can be particularly strategic for a remote SEPL because tourists visiting the area represent a market coming to the SEPL [36]. Serving rice brew and taro ice cream developed using the produce from the SEPL in the Ifugao Rice Terrace World Heritage site in the Philippines at homestays there [38] is an empirical case of combining SEPL products with tourism.

4.1.5. Approaches Targeting Consumers

This approach looks at the value chain from the opposite end, and looks at what producers can do to enhance the capacity of consumers to seek and identify SEPL-benefiting products. As it were, this is a consumer-side version of the approach similar to the one described in Section 4.1.3. Consumer communications play critical roles. The cacao FGD suggested the need for consumer education so that they can understand the value of and know how to appreciate SEPL-based products from people who would be baristas for coffee and sommelier for wine. Printed publications, such as the cookbook on rotational farming dishes of the Karen People [39], are another means. The producers can work with those who have such customer communication skills to start immediately, or train themselves in such activities. It is important to keep in mind, however, that these activities focus on raising awareness that is actionable (or on the consumer behavior) [40]. Public awareness is a popular activity among conservation groups, but it has been cautioned that it can be a resource sink [40].

Certifications and labeling can increase visibility and recognizability among consumers, and are sometimes used by producers in SEPLs [41,42]. As views on their utility vary by commodities, regions, and scales (as observed in the discussions of this study) and the cost can be high (from several tens of thousands of USD), solid understanding of the market would be necessary in this case as well. As both FGDs revealed, it is challenging to identify SEPL-based items in the market. To address this problem, a low-cost scheme needs to be developed that issues a proof of the fulfillment of critical socio-ecological criteria, such as a label.

4.2. Implementation Theory: Enablers

To implement these approaches, it would certainly be necessary to have various enablers in place. A strong program theory will be of no use if it is not implemented. Barriers against bringing plans into action must be removed. More specifically, means to resolve the issues, problems and challenges collected in Table 1 have to be provided. The function that was repeatedly raised as necessary during the discussion in this study was that of facilitators. The roles of the facilitators would be to let the information flow to increase the transparency and to nurture mutual trust within the value chain. They are expected to ensure that value is added at each step along the value chain and that producers receive fair benefits from that process. Another type of facilitators, who may be better referred to as knowledge brokers in this case, who bring new information, knowledge, or skills into the value chain, would enhance the value addition. Value created through trade needs to flow back to SEPLs [42].

Innovators should add value as well. This is in response to the point raised during the TWG discussion following the online questionnaire (Section 3.1). Innovators can be from within or from outside. When innovations emerge, the value chain branches from that point (Figure 1). Analogous to the natural systems in which biodiversity offers resilience, stakeholder diversity in SEPLs can make value chain transformations [43]. With fair benefit sharing between downstream and upstream, such changes can improve SEPL management.

Individual production activity does not exist by itself, but multiple stakeholders are there in an SEPL and their activities are all related [3,42]. Recalling the point made for the locally complete value chain (Section 4.1.4), it needs to be restated that various non-farming activities can take place in production landscapes by non-farmers and farmers themselves [18], such as (eco-)tourism, which cannot be ignored as factors that influences what happens in SEPLs. Coordination of multiple activities is critically important to maintain SEPLs, as they are de facto entities of various land-use interests [44]. This includes traditional land-use practices, which are, to our knowledge, not dealt with sufficiently and specifically in the existing studies. A strong attention needs to be paid to the way the value addition happens in the value chain and on the considerations and efforts of producers to make such value additions to benefit SEPLs. Actors who can organize and maintain multi-stakeholder platforms, where relevant stakeholders in the landscape come together and coordinate [36,45,46], would also be inseparable enablers.

Underlying all these enablers is the access to and availability of funding. As emphasized during the TWG discussions and online knowledge-sharing session, funding is the limiting factor. As already pointed out above, blending financial resources from the public (multilateral, bilateral, national, and local) and private sectors needs to be sought to create a sufficient and sustained funding flow.

4.3. Evaluation Framework

The theory of change established here presents a way of thinking for strategizing approaches. Since the theory of change presented here is based on limited commodity cases (mainly cacao and rice), scrutiny from perspectives that we did not explicitly or fully consider (e.g., pastoral systems, aquatic systems and fisheries, animal-based products (e.g., wool and leather)) will be an important test for its broader applicability. This leads to the importance of evaluation with broad empirical evidence, or stocktaking of its actual use in initiatives that focus on value chains as means to improve the conditions of SEPLs.

A review article [31] reported a prevalence of case study research in the study of SFSCs, reflecting the diversity of initiatives implemented in various places that complicates generalization [33]. The types of value that are of interest in SEPLs range widely—instrumental, relational and intrinsic values [47]. Although the value chain consideration mainly concerns the economic value, it cannot be isolated from other values. Therefore, here, too, the mode of evaluation should rely on case studies to capture case-specific details in real-life contexts and to explain how the implemented approaches work [48]. IPSI already has an established mechanism for collecting and sharing case studies (https://satoyamainitiative.org/case_study/; accessed on 20 February 2026).

The accumulation of case studies will allow evaluation of the theory of change (Figure 2). Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation and program theories with key performance indicators (KPIs), which should be determined carefully for respective landscapes, should inform the corrective actions, if necessary. The Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review (volume 6) analyzed 12 case studies from around the world for the monitoring and evaluation approaches for transformative changes in SEPLs, and identified four approaches that had been used in them: participatory and empowering, co-management, integrative and interdisciplinary, and multi-stakeholder approaches [43]. The baseline can be the current quantity and/or quality of the KPIs, so that changes over time can be monitored. Being fully aware of the risk of oversimplification, at the common-denominator level, the KPIs for the implementation theory could be the number of initiatives implemented or funded and the implementation partners (incl. facilitators, knowledge brokers, innovators, multi-stakeholder platforms). The focus on funding is included as a KPI because it has been identified frequently as a barrier for the implementation of desired activities in the discussions reported above. If the funding is made available, the planned activities are more likely to be implemented.

As results of the program theory, what is expected is the virtuous cycle of increased revenue of the producers and sustainable practices. However, focusing on the revenue alone can start a vicious cycle of promoting practices that can harm the integrity of the ecological and social systems. It can also be the case that such unsustainable practices can result in a (short-term) increase in revenue, especially in the persisting presence of subsidies harmful to biodiversity [49,50]. Indicators need to consider both economic and environmental aspects together. The KPIs for the program theory, at the common-denominator level again, could be the area (in hectares) of SEPLs under sustainable management and biodiversity indicators selected for respective sites (e.g., presence/absence of iconic indicator species, sighting frequency of representative birds, etc.) in the environmental aspect. The KPIs in the economic aspect can include the changes in benefit over cost for producers (the economic performance consideration) and changes in producer benefits relative to the final consumer prices (the equitable benefit-sharing consideration). IPSI members, and beyond, are encouraged to try this theory of change and share their case studies. By 2030, the target year of the IPSI Plan of Action, as well as that of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [51] and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, case study research should be conducted to reveal what approaches really work for SEPLs and inform the next step. Given the complexity of the system and diversity of stakeholders and activities in SEPLs, as discussed earlier, the case study is best suited for the means of documentation. Detailed accounts of actions not only will allow determination of the types of approaches taken and how effective they were, but also can capture the specific contexts needed for proper interpretation of the findings. This scope for the consequences for the production landscapes will be a unique contribution to the value chain literature, which tends to pay less attention to the most upstream segment of the chain [17,18,31].

5. Conclusions

Through the discussion with IPSI members and beyond, we established a theory of change to create sustainable value chains for SEPLs. Its program theory involves shortening the chain by tightening the relationships between value chain actors, removing ineffective links, expanding the capacity of producers, expanding the attention of consumers, and/or establishing locally complete market. The implementation theory, or the enabling factors—which can take vastly different forms depending on the scale/level of attention, types of activities in SEPLs, and social, economic and environmental contexts—would involve, as common denominators, financing, capacity building, and knowledge sharing. This theory of change must be evaluated against cases in a spectrum of production types, scales of operation, socio-economic contexts, environmental characteristics, and actors. We call for action to incorporate this theory of change with clear intent into project design of new or even existing projects by IPSI members and beyond, and to share the findings. We recommend IPSI to conduct research on these case studies to be produced to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach by 2030, the time frame of the Plan of Action, and inform its future course of action.