The Rainforest Alliance published the Regenerative Agriculture Standard (RAS) on September 8, 2025. The standard is designed to help producers and companies improve soil health, biodiversity, climate resilience, water stewardship, and farmer livelihoods. Its development brought together scientific evidence, practical field experience, and insights from partners around the world to create a clear and actionable framework that supports continuous improvement across crops and regions.
Introduction: Context, design and development
A standard built on years of learning
The RAS is the result of several years of research, piloting, and learning. The journey began in 2020 with a regenerative agriculture position paper, followed in 2021 by crop-specific scorecards for coffee, tea, and cocoa to measure regenerative performance. Between 2023 and 2024, field projects tested regenerative approaches, provided technical guidance to partners, and the Rainforest Alliance conducted a benchmark study with 200 coffee farmers in Costa Rica. These initiatives, together with more than ten pilot projects across different companies and landscapes, provided practical insights into what works in various farming systems and contexts.
This process also built on the foundation of the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard (SAS), which already incorporates core regenerative principles such as agroforestry, soil health, responsible agrochemical use, and climate resilience. With implementation across six million hectares and nearly eight million farmers and workers, the SAS has provided us with substantial experience in translating best practices into requirements that work on the ground.
From the outset, it was also decided that the RAS would introduce new requirements only at the farm level. Supply chain requirements would remain the same across all Rainforest Alliance certification solutions, meaning they would be aligned between the RAS and the SAS. In addition, the same assurance and certification rules apply to both standards.
Before even beginning the development of the RAS, we assessed whether similar initiatives already existed to avoid duplicating efforts. Through this review, we found that there was no harmonized or official definition of “regenerative agriculture.” We also confirmed that creating a regenerative agriculture standard under the Rainforest Alliance could offer producers a valuable balance between impact, credibility, and potential market access—while keeping investment and compliance efforts manageable.
One standard, two modalities
The accumulated learning from research, field projects, and program implementation informed the structure of the RAS. From the outset, the intention was to offer a flexible design that could meet varying partner needs. This led to the development of two modalities through which the standard can be used:
As an optional add-on standard to the SAS. In this modality, the RAS includes 17 farm-level requirements designed for producers and companies seeking to strengthen outcomes in soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. These 17 requirements build on the 147 requirements already included in the SAS.
As a standalone standard. In this modality, the RAS consists of 119 requirements, spanning not only soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience, but also water stewardship, human rights, and livelihoods. Of these 119 requirements, all base requirements—and many specialized requirements—mirror those in the SAS.
Across both modalities, approximately 15 percent of the content is new and reflects the specialized focus of the RAS. This new content provides partners with a regenerative-agriculture-focused solution designed to support measurable improvements in this impact area.
Developing the requirements
The requirements were developed drawing on our experience with developing and updating the SAS, as well as multiple sources of technical, scientific, and field knowledge. Inputs included:
Expertise from global and regional teams, including subject matter and crop specialists
The Regenerative Agriculture Coffee Scorecard and draft cocoa and tea scorecards, using the “Silver” performance level as a reference for ambition and feasibility
Benchmarking against peer standards, scientific frameworks, and leading regenerative programs
Ongoing feedback gathered through the SAS continuous improvement process, including inputs from farmers, companies, and other partners shared via multiple engagement channels
Each requirement underwent validation for clarity, feasibility, assurance implications, and alignment with the broader Rainforest Alliance certification system. All requirements were field-tested, and the outcomes of this testing were incorporated. The resulting draft was then prepared for consultation.
A targeted, multi-stakeholder consultation process
To ensure the standard reflects the needs and realities of those who will implement it, the Rainforest Alliance carried out a targeted consultation with 33 stakeholders, including farmers, experts, companies, and academics from five continents. These discussions were essential to understanding how regenerative agriculture can be applied in diverse contexts and at different scales, from smallholders to large estates. The input we received helped shape a standard that is both globally relevant and locally adaptable.
As the RAS is rolled out, the Rainforest Alliance continues to engage external stakeholders and, as with the SAS, will make ongoing improvements based on new insights and practical experience.
This article describes how the consultation process was conducted, who was involved, what was learned, and how decisions were made in developing the standard.
1. Why we carried out a consultation process
The consultation process had one main purpose: to ensure the standard’s farm requirements worked in practice.
More specifically, we asked stakeholders to help us assess whether the draft standard was:
Fit for purpose to deliver positive impact
Clear and easy to understand
Desirable for producers and companies
Achievable for different farm sizes and contexts
Auditable and measurable
Free of unintended or harmful consequences
We also invited feedback on the feasibility of requirements, clarity of language, regional and crop-specific differences, and areas where more guidance was needed. Throughout the consultation process, we solicited feedback on the objectives of the standard, the regenerative agriculture framework, the scope, and a summary of the requirements.
Consultation for the RAS focused on areas where new or additional requirements were introduced. Elements such as assurance rules and supply chain requirements were not consulted on, as they apply consistently across all Rainforest Alliance certification solutions and have already undergone extensive public stakeholder engagement through the SAS.
Because the RAS builds on the SAS and introduces limited additionality, the consultation approach was designed to be proportionate. Additional stakeholder engagement therefore focused on regenerative agriculture–specific farm requirements and did not include consultation on the 116 requirements these standards have in common.
Regenerative agriculture practices implemented through Rainforest Alliance projects outside the Certification Program were also not included. Project-level implementation falls outside the scope of certification and is addressed through separate stakeholder engagement processes.
2. How the process worked
We carried out two rounds of consultation between October and December 2024:
Company consultation: Focused on technical feasibility, alignment with existing standards, sector-wide applicability, and whether the proposed requirements address a clear and practical need for companies willing to invest in regenerative agriculture.
Producer consultation: Focused on practical implementation, achievability, flexibility, and technical support needs.
This was a targeted consultation rather than a public one, combining an agile, results-driven approach to standard development with our core principles of stakeholder engagement and transparency. Because the draft standard is highly technical and needed timely validation to deliver value to producers and companies that want to create impact in the critical space of regeneration, we invited stakeholders with direct, hands-on implementation experience—including Farm Certificate Holders, certification bodies, companies, and implementing organizations across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. This approach was intentionally designed to ensure meaningful, technically relevant input and allow us to work with agility and within the development timeline.
Engaging these groups allowed us to prioritize depth and quality of feedback over volume, and ensured that all input was practical, field-informed, and directly useful for refining the draft requirements. Most feedback was gathered through bilateral discussions and follow-up calls led by Rainforest Alliance account managers and technical experts, which helped guarantee strong contextual understanding and accurate internal review. In addition to external feedback, all proposed changes were validated through internal technical review sessions to ensure consistency across requirements, alignment with the Rainforest Alliance’s sustainability outcomes, and a clear rationale for each decision. These decisions and their justifications were systematically logged to support transparency and traceability.
The consultation process began with drafting the technical content, followed by two rounds of targeted engagement with companies and producers between October and December 2024. Agronomic and non-agronomic feedback was collected through one-on-one calls, bilateral discussions, and follow-up exchanges with account managers and subject matter experts. This allowed us to capture both practical field insights and broader considerations such as economic incentives for transitioning to regenerative agriculture. All feedback was recorded, reviewed internally, and validated against the draft requirements. Comments directly related to the requirements—such as clarity, feasibility, or technical content—were incorporated into the next draft. Other feedback, including broader programmatic or operational suggestions, was reviewed separately and addressed in coordination with the relevant Rainforest Alliance teams.
The revised criteria were then presented to the Rainforest Alliance Standards Committee, which includes both internal and external members and provides technical input and guidance on standard development. Their feedback informed further revisions, after which the standard moved through internal review by senior leadership and was approved by the Rainforest Alliance Board of Directors. The new standard was published in September 2025. Broader sector outreach and communication activities were scheduled for the post-publication phase to support transparent and accurate understanding of the RAS.
3. Who we consulted
A total of 33 stakeholders participated in the targeted consultation, representing:
Producers from Latin America, Africa, and Asia
Coffee, cocoa, tea, and citrus producers
Companies (e.g., buyers and manufacturers) across the global coffee, tea, and cocoa sectors
Certification bodies and implementing partners
In addition, we conducted a socialization process with 12 organizations to ensure alignment with wider regenerative agriculture initiatives and emerging data frameworks. This mix ensured balanced insights from both field implementers and supply-chain partners while covering a broad geographic and commodity scope.
4. How decisions were made
All comments were reviewed using a structured review matrix. Feedback was then grouped as:
Immediate integration: Direct changes to requirements or binding documents
Deferred integration: Items needing future research, evidence, or piloting, earmarked for future revisions
Guidance-level integration: Topics addressed through guidance, annexes, or other supporting documentation
The Rainforest Alliance’s assurance and product design experts reviewed every adjustment. Internal subject matter experts validated technical accuracy.
The Rainforest Alliance Standards Committee provided targeted feedback to support alignment with broader sustainability goals and consistency with other Rainforest Alliance standards.
Final decisions were endorsed by Rainforest Alliance leadership, balancing scientific evidence, field feasibility, and long-term regenerative outcomes.
5. What stakeholders told us
Below is a short summary of high-level feedback.
Company feedback
Overall, very well received with high interest and engagement
Requests for clearer technical detail
Concerns about the number of base requirements in the standalone version of the standard
Producer feedback
Positive response based on clarity of requirements and ease of implementation
Concerns about who will pay for transition and new inputs
Interest in support from buyers to cover costs of transition, particularly for crop renovation, soil inputs, and alternatives to pesticides
6. What we changed based on thematic insights
Part I : Company insights
The first consultation round focused on company-level perspectives and helped us test whether the draft requirements were technically robust, practical, and fit for purpose. Stakeholders reviewed both overall themes and individual requirements, and several items were refined or reorganized based on their feedback. Below is a summary of the main themes raised and how we responded.
1. Clarifying expectations and guidance
Feedback: Many respondents asked for clearer explanations and practical examples. This was especially true for the following requirements:
Selecting crop varieties for high productivity, pest/disease resistance, adaptability to local conditions, and from a qualified source
Maintaining natural vegetation cover of at least 10 percent
Maintaining six native tree species in agroforestry systems
Managing agroforestry trees using healthy materials, correct spacing, and shade management
Rainforest Alliance action: Explanatory notes, illustrative examples, and detailed descriptors were added to the Annexes, Guidance, and Auditor Verification Protocol so producers can understand what is expected, and auditors can assess compliance consistently.
2. Making compliance more practical
Feedback: Some respondents raised concerns about the resources required for these requirements:
Implementing rehabilitation and renovation practices to enhance crop health and productivity
Implementing Integrated Weed Management limiting herbicide application to spot use
Monitoring and reducing pesticide use
Rainforest Alliance action: Phased timelines were introduced where possible (e.g., progressive targets over two certification cycles), and additional guidance was provided to ensure compliance is achievable without lowering the standard.
3. Reducing duplication
Feedback: Some criteria were flagged as overlapping, particularly:
Applying fertilizer based on soil assessments to meet crop needs and minimize impact
Incorporating organic fertilizers and bio-inputs to increase soil organic carbon
Rainforest Alliance action: While certain technical reasons required these criteria to remain separate, wording was aligned and cross-references were added to clarify the relationship and reduce confusion.
4. Balancing ambition with realistic implementation pathways
Feedback: Stakeholders supported the ambition of specific requirements but expressed concern about short-term achievability:
Limiting use of Exceptional Use Policy pesticides to two active ingredients and phasing them out by the end of the cycle
Rainforest Alliance action: Targets were maintained, and sector-specific benchmarks, case studies, and good-practice examples were added as part of a roadmap to support transition.
5. Aligning with other frameworks and standards
Feedback: Stakeholders raised concerns about compatibility with existing record-keeping approaches, particularly:
Monitoring and recording annual cost of production and revenue
Rainforest Alliance action: This requirement was removed from the standard based on further insights.
6. Improving the big picture
Feedback: Stakeholders requested:
Using consistent terminology across all requirements
Creating a central glossary
Using more visual tools (e.g., flowcharts, diagrams) to explain processes
Rainforest Alliance action: Terminology was harmonized across the standard and Annexes. Additional diagrams and visual guidance were included in the implementation guidelines. The Indicator Annex and Glossary were updated to reinforce clarity and usability of the RAS.
7. Looking ahead
Feedback: Some stakeholders suggested new areas to strengthen the framework, including additional criteria on organic fertilizer application and water use.
Rainforest Alliance action: These suggestions were noted for future revisions. New improvements would require scoping studies, pilots, and further stakeholder consultation.
Part II : Producer insights
The second consultation round provided additional insights on practical implementation, fit-for-purpose design, and achievability. Combined with company perspectives, this enabled the Rainforest Alliance to validate the ambitions of the RAS, clarify requirements, and ensure binding documents are both practical and science based. Below is a summary of the main themes raised and how we responded.
1. Contextualization
Feedback: Producers emphasized that requirements should reflect regional realities, crop-specific conditions, and existing practices. They requested:
Recognizing local varietal limitations
Avoiding overly prescriptive criteria that do not fit existing systems
Allowing flexibility to accommodate climatic and geographic differences
Rainforest Alliance action: Relevant requirements were reviewed and adapted (e.g., soil cover for tea production) to better reflect regional realities, crop-specific conditions, and existing practices.
2. Clarity
Feedback: Producers requested clearer definitions and terminology to avoid misinterpretation during implementation and audits. Key concerns included:
Clarifying ambiguous terms
Explaining audit expectations and how compliance would be measured
Improving the structure of requirements
Rainforest Alliance action: RAS-specific terminology was created and integrated into the Glossary Annex for use across Rainforest Alliance standards.
3. Flexibility
Feedback: Producers wanted more adaptable approaches, especially for small farms. They requested:
Using continuous improvement models rather than fixed targets
Tailoring implementation based on farm type, crop type, and available resources
Treating some requirements as guidance rather than mandatory
Rainforest Alliance action: Continuous improvement models were introduced, along with a field implementation guide clarifying applicability for smallholders.
4. Technical support
Feedback: Producers requested more technical guidance and support to meet regenerative goals, including:
Providing detailed guidance documents and decision-making tools
Supporting advanced soil analysis, pest management, and agroforestry design
Helping with data collection and interpretation
Rainforest Alliance action: A field implementation guide and Indicator Annex were developed to support data collection and interpretation of the standard.
5. Implementation guidance
Feedback: Producers highlighted practical barriers to implementation, especially for smallholders. They requested:
Providing training and capacity building on new practices
Supporting recordkeeping, especially in group settings
Offering scalable solutions to address cost and labor constraints
Rainforest Alliance action: Training materials were created and tested with early adopters, and guidance was refined based on initial implementation challenges.
Integrated requirement-by-requirement summary (company and producer feedback)
This table represents more granular and consolidated feedback from both companies and producers. It highlights key comments from each group and the corresponding Rainforest Alliance actions. Where relevant, the stakeholder type is indicated (C = Company, P = Producer).
Please note that requirements were updated based on consultations and early implementer work and may not appear in their original form (or at all) in the final standard published on September 8, 2025.
Requirement/Topic | Key Feedback (Companies/Producers) | Rainforest Alliance Action |
|---|---|---|
4.1.4 – Variety selection & renewal | C: Requested clarity on “high productivity” and guidance on resistance traits. P: Highlighted regional constraints and need for flexible renewal timelines. | Added compliance thresholds, regional contextualization, and continuous improvement targets. |
4.2.2 – Rehabilitation & renovation | C: Found pruning guidelines too prescriptive. P: Requested distinction between rehabilitation and renovation and more flexibility for smallholders. | Introduced phased adoption for continuous improvement, clarified definitions, and added crop-specific guidance in the Field Implementation Guide. |
4.4.8 – Soil health & assessment (fertilizer application) | C: Requested integration of soil testing, organic matter, and nitrogen management. P: Raised cost and logistical challenges, especially for smallholders. | Revised to require soil assessment and precision application, introduced flexibility for smallholder groups, and provided alternative indicators. |
4.4.9 – Organic fertilizers | C: Requested gradual increase in organic fertilizer use. P: Noted cost and handling challenges, requested phased adoption. | Added progressive improvement language, strengthened guidance on composting and bio-inputs, introduced crop-specific considerations. |
4.4.10 – Soil cover | C: Suggested higher soil cover targets and clearer auditing guidance. P: Questioned relevance under shaded/high-density systems. | Introduced progressive targets (e.g., 60 percent by second cycle), clarified auditing methods, and reinforced terminology in the Guidance and Glossary. |
4.5.2 – Integrated Weed Management (IWM) | C: Requested clearer compliance indicators. P: Raised concerns about subjectivity and capacity challenges for smallholders. | Detailed required IWM plan elements, added crop-specific examples, and clarified roles of producers and group administrators. |
4.5.3 – Herbicide use | C: Raised feasibility and cost concerns. P: Cited labor intensity and unclear expectations. | Allowed progressive reduction targets while maintaining restriction to targeted applications; added practical recommendations in implementation guidance. |
4.5.4 – Integrated Pest Management & pesticide use | C: Requested clarity on how reduction is measured. P: Raised feasibility and recordkeeping challenges. | Clarified measurable reduction indicators, introduced phased targets, and provided guidance on recordkeeping for smallholders. |
4.6.14 – Exceptional Use of Pesticides | C: Concern about short-term feasibility of limiting to two active ingredients per cycle. P: Requested flexibility for crop-specific conditions. | Maintained target while introducing phased reduction pathways and guidance on pesticide alternatives through case studies. |
5.4.2 – Farm economics | C: Raised compatibility issues with existing data systems and feasibility concerns for smallholders. P: Reported recordkeeping burden and data reliability challenges. | Ultimately, the requirement was removed from the standard based on broader insights. |
6.2.7 – Natural vegetation cover | C: Noted feasibility and measurement challenges. P: Requested practical tools and verification support. | Added verification guidance, including the use of remote sensing and field tools, and expanded recommendations in the implementation guidance. |
6.2.8 – Agroforestry | C: Concerned about arbitrary species number and limited planting material. P: Raised issues around density and strata requirements. | Revised to “six species, of which three are native,” removed strata targets, introduced flexibility in species selection, and referenced benchmark results. |
6.2.9 – Planting materials & establishment (agroforestry tree management) | C: Requested guidance on spacing and wind protection. P: Raised sourcing and feasibility concerns. | Integrated with 6.2.8; added guidance on spacing, wind protection, and species selection in the Field Implementation Guide. |
Conclusion
The targeted consultation described in this article confirms that the Rainforest Alliance RAS is well-received, technically robust, and grounded in practical field experience. Feedback from both producers and companies highlighted areas for improved clarity, flexibility, and smallholder applicability. In response, the Rainforest Alliance implemented practical improvements, added guidance, and introduced flexible approaches—such as continuous improvement models and phased timelines—so that the standard is actionable, auditable, and aligned with stakeholder needs, while preserving the core principles of regenerative agriculture.
With these refinements, the standard is positioned to accelerate regenerative practices, support producers and companies in delivering measurable environmental and social outcomes, and deliver a certification solution that is both globally relevant and locally adaptable.