This paper evaluates how the principles of transparency, separation of powers and participation are integrated in the structure of the self-regulations. The lack of transparency with regard to all three types of self-regulation was a major bottleneck in this research. We have looked at the information available on self-regulatory schemes, the aspect of compliance and the monitoring of the ecological impact. Information about the implementation and outcome stage was scarce. Neither labeling nor contract farming is organized or structured in such a way that it discloses information about compliance to nonparticipants in industry self-regulation. With regard to separation of powers, the supervisory, regulatory or enforcement authorities are divided differently among eco-labels and contract farming. Eco-labels are better verifiable for non-participants on self-regulation than contract farming. The separation of powers principle gives an extra guarantee to eco-labels that agrobiodiversity performance standards are both feasible and desirable, by including third parties in the planning and implementation stage of self-regulation giving them supervisory, regulatory or enforcement powers. While separation of powers is not institutionalized in contract farming, third parties are occasionally involved. There is a difference between the two types of eco-labels and contract farming in terms of the degree of participation in the standard-setting in the planning stage. While eco-labels involve chain parties or societal parties, the terms of a contract are only known and decided by the contracting parties. The pilot projects in contract farming are an exception. A tentative conclusion is a self-regulation which involves many societal actors contain a relatively large amount of agrobiodiversity performance standards.
