To understand how these challenges play out on the ground, and what they mean for the producers and workers behind every banana, we spoke to two people with a close view of the sector: Jose Antonio Hidalgo, Executive President of AEBE in Ecuador, and Emmerson Aguirre, President of Augura Colombia.

Looking back at the past year, what external factors have brought more uncertainty and volatility to the banana sector in your country?

Emerson: Today, debates in the banana sector go beyond production costs. The bigger question is on who bears the cost when new developments continue to drive costs upwards? Producers have absorbed the weight of this volatility for too long.

In Colombia, I would count five pressures hitting us simultaneously.

First, the exchange-rate volatility. It is one of Colombia’s most critical economic factors right now. For an agricultural exporter, currency movements can translate almost immediately into a significant loss of cash flow.

Second, climate change and excess rainfall. Earlier this year, more than 1,200 hectares were flooded. We are seeing climate variability play out daily, and its impact is direct: productivity falls, we produce fewer boxes, while most of our costs remain unchanged.

Third, rising labour costs. Last year, Colombia’s government increased the minimum wage by nearly 23%. Colombia’s agro-industry is highly formalized and unionized, with a long tradition of collective bargaining. This a social strength that we believe must be preserved, but that stability comes at a cost. And the market needs to recognize and account for it.

Fourth, rising sustainability requirements. Environmental, social and labour standards are rightly becoming more demanding. We support this progress. But the cost of advancing sustainability cannot continue to be financed by producers alone.

Finally, phytosanitary risk. Fusarium Tropical Race 4 is now present across Latin America, requiring sustained investment in biosecurity.

The challenge is that every one of these risks reaches the farm. But not every one of them reaches the price.

Jose: We share many of those challenges, particularly the climate variations we are experiencing today. Looking ahead, the potential impact of El Niño adds another layer of uncertainty. We are also facing growing pressure across logistics, security and the wider operating environment.

The decline in transit through the Panama Canal is a good example. We are major users of this route to reach our largest markets, and reduced transit capacity has brought additional complexity and higher logistics costs. More broadly, the routes we depend on are becoming increasingly sensitive to security risks, geopolitical tensions and fluctuations in fuel prices.

At the same time, the expectations placed on the sector are increasing. We are also investing heavily in environmental, labour and social sustainability. These are investments we support and believe are necessary, but they are not cost-free.

And I would add one final point: labour and social sustainability. The regional, and particularly the Ecuadorian, banana sector has spent many years investing in its workforce, its communities and its social responsibilities. These investments are part of the value of the banana we produce, and they should be recognized as such.

Take the living wage as an example. In Ecuador, the living wage is recognized in our Constitution and national legislation, and it currently exceeds the threshold established by the Global Living Wage Coalition by 16.8%. That is a significant commitment by the sector, and one that deserves to be recognized by the market.

Thank you. Looking at these challenges, if we zoom in to the lives of a producer or banana worker, how does this translate?

Jose: All these factors create what feels like a perfect storm. The challenges may change each year, but the need for price and value recognition remains the same.

And it relates to a deeper structural issue. Over the past 15 years, bananas have lost around 20% of their value in the wider fruit market, while other products have gained value. One reason is that supermarkets use bananas as a hook product, keeping prices low to attract consumers and compete on the price of other products.

Some retailers argue that they absorb part of these costs themselves. But that is not sustainable. When the value of bananas is squeezed year after year, the loss compounds over time, and ultimately, producers feel that pressure every day.

Emerson: Building on that, when incomes fall, producers start making difficult choices about where they can cut back. Maintenance gets delayed, renewals are postponed, infrastructure investment is reduced, and environmental and sanitary upgrades are pushed back. This can create a dangerous cycle: fewer boxes, less investment, lower productivity, higher costs per box, weaker competitiveness, and ultimately fewer boxes again.

When we talk about a fair price, we are not simply talking about the margin of one producer, whether small, medium or large. We are talking about the ability to pay decent wages, sustain formal employment, protect the environment and meet the standards the market demands of us.

Since we are starting to talk about costs and pressure, How much can a banana producer absorb or pass on when an external factor causes costs to rise? Is the sector prepared to share?

Emerson: Every business face volatility, and normally an industry finds ways to absorb it. But bananas are different. It is one of the few businesses where the expectation seems to be that producers can absorb every shock indefinitely.

The price of a banana cannot remain disconnected from the real economics of producing it. That is why we have been advocating for contracts and trade relationships to include objective adjustment mechanisms for extraordinary changes in exchange rates, inflation, logistics, wages, regulation and climate events. I am not suggesting that 100% of every impact should be passed on. The point is that the impact needs to be shared more reasonably.

Jose: I’d add the effort we’ve made regionally. We’ve been part of international discussions for about five years now, with both progress and setbacks, which is inevitable in a multi-stakeholder process. These are not challenges confined to one country; they affect the banana sector across the region and globally.

And we haven’t just brought problems to the table. We’ve brought concrete proposals. One gap we identified was the lack of recognition for the sector’s sustainability efforts, so we began documenting that progress through independent third parties. In Ecuador, for example, we worked with consultancies and authorities to demonstrate internationally how much the sector has changed. The banana industry today looks very different from 40 years ago, and that progress needs to be reflected in its value.

That’s where we have found a real ally in Fairtrade. It is one of the few labels where consumers understand that paying more is directly connected to sustainability. We also use Fairtrade’s methodology as a reference in negotiations because it brings transparency to the real costs of production across different countries. My cost structure is very different from Colombia’s or Central America’s, and currency exposure varies too. The methodology helps make those differences visible and gives buyers and producers a transparent starting point for negotiations.

We’ve proposed it as an industry reference point, although adoption so far remains limited. The important thing is that negotiations remain independent; the methodology simply provides a common reference based on evidence.

With all that in mind, what does the sector need to do more (or less) of to face the uncertainties that might be here to stay more fairly?

Emerson: This is a complex question because it’s a dynamic sector with several players.

The producer’s role starts with biosecurity, continued work on productivity and efficiency, and climate adaptation. That’s our commitment.

Governments need to play their part too. We need countercyclical instruments to manage currency revaluation and devaluation, as well as tools such as agricultural insurance and mechanisms to respond to phytosanitary crises.

Then there are certifications and standards. Most fall under the ISEAL umbrella, and there is a real opportunity to share information and reduce duplication rather than adding to the burden on producers. We are not talking about lowering requirements, but about making it easier and less costly to meet them.

Finally, there are the markets. We need long-term relationships that recognize the impact of pressures through price. We have to stop being the cheapest fruit in the supermarket, the hook product that is always on discount.

So, this is what we want to leave you with: stop asking how much more the producer can withstand, and start asking what everyone across the chain is willing to do to ensure that the banana, and the banana producer, can continue to thrive.

Jose: I share Emerson’s view, and I would add moving towards permanent, preventive risk management rather than acting only when an emergency hits. That means strengthening biosecurity and phytosanitary monitoring in the field through coordinated regional projects, maintaining and upgrading drainage and water management infrastructure, and strengthening cooperation between supply chain actors and authorities.

We also need to make better use of data. Three weeks ago, we launched the first climate platform open to the banana sector, bringing together data from our weather stations and satellite technology. Producers can track El Niño, rainfall patterns and Sigatoka pressure in their areas, as well as compare current conditions with previous El Niño events. The data is openly available so producers can prepare and respond earlier.

We are far better prepared than we were for previous El Niño events, but better information means we can always be better prepared. That is the direction we need to continue moving in: anticipating risks rather than simply reacting to them.

Conclusion

Amounting pressures, two countries, one throughline: risk keeps landing on producers, and price rarely follows. What Jose and Emerson describe is a system that needs to share the cost instead of assuming producers can absorb it indefinitely.

The tools already exist, from pricing methodologies to investment to open climate data. What's missing is broader buy-in across the chain.

So, the question isn't how much more producers can withstand. It's how much everyone else is willing to do to make sure they don't have to find out.