After reading, it appears the humble avocado might be better farmed vertically, using hydroponics, in region(s) with sufficient access to fresh water, and somewhere with the rule of law.
It appears to be as much of a "resource curse" as the drug trade is/was to Michoacán.
The problem is just that avocados farmed without regulatory oversight on illegally deforested (or otherwise occupied) land in regions with insufficient rule of law will be cheaper - same as with palm oil, marijuana (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-11/illegal-...) and several other products...
We have a similar conundrum for coffee, and the "this coffee is ethically good" handling is just complicated. It works at super small scale, for extra invested people. The bigger the scale becomes, the murkier it is, and at some point a vendor is just selling a label with not much reality behind it.
Are you talking ‘ethical fair trade’? Because there’s definitely reputable and properly audited designations in this space (edit: namely the green and blue Fairtrade International and Rainforest Alliance, all the imitation marks are junk)
The fact that we need to check this point is one of the issue.
There's a bunch of other organisations, in particular some are built by brands, and of course in a way that advantages them.
Then there's coffee that has absolutely no audit and no designation, mostly because it's produced at low scale (the farm manages its own international sales in a way or another) and is extremely good on an ethical POV but can't be bothered with a registrtion authority.
If I see the green and blue Fairtrade® logo, I know it's been independently audited, otherwise I just assume the worst. There's no way to get around independent audits and a reputable trademark that signifies the product has been certified. The main issue is that most people aren't willing to pay the premium on super slim margin products (e.g., tea, bananas), but certainly there's enough people who pay a premium for coffee. I have a hunch that there's a premium market for avocados, at least in the more expensive dining and grocery establishments.
To me the main issue is that it forces a middle men and auditor in all parts of the business, when nowadays we can get away with smaller structures and independent producers directly accessing end(ish)-consumers.
For coffee, that can mean an Colombian farm directly making a deal with a small London roaster. It was unrealistic 20~30 years ago, but this kind of match making is doable now, and a farm that gets access to the market in that way won't bother to pay and keep intricates records of absolutely everything they do for a third party organization that brings to them nothing to the table.
Another example of this is producers using the Fair Trade label to pass the lower quality goods at a guaranteed price ,and in parallel negociate higher prices for the more luxurious goods [0]. In that example the producer wins so I'd see it as a decent situation, but the brand perception getting hit might be problematic long term.
All in all, I think there's a movement to provide the transparency at the small scale level: a coffee roaster can showcase which independents farm makes their specialty coffee, and the farm negociate deals against a small set of small roasters instead of a giant conglomerate or the whole international market, making it more balanced as they can come up with a decent arrangement that benefits both.
That will never work for Starbucks or Nespresso, but for specialty coffee it seems to be a good model.
That alternative sounds great, I just couldn't trust it without third-party audits. If Fairtrade International transitions to being plainly an auditing company rather than a facilitator, that's fine, as long as a standard is maintained and verified, and the mark continues to mean tangible human rights improvements. I get this is hard to do at scale, but it comes down to whatever is the least worst option.
There's a similar issue with free range eggs. At enough scale it becomes harder to verify that indeed the chickens are being kept in humane conditions. But at least for domestic production there can be some legal ramifications depending on the governments advertising/trade laws, and it's much easier for whistleblowers and activists to counter attempts at deception.
It appears to be as much of a "resource curse" as the drug trade is/was to Michoacán.