Foodcrop Production

Mauritius Times – 60 Years

Would Mauritius’ economy best be served by continuing as now — increasing sugar production and importing almost all foodstuffs; or by limiting sugar production and thus increasing the area of land potentially available for foodcrops?

By Peter Ibbotson

A prominent member of the British Labour Party’s National Executive is famed for his ability to find two difficulties for any solution. I was reminded of him when reading the annual report of the Chamber of Agriculture for 1958-59. “The Chamber is at present collecting information from all sugar estates with factories with a view to assessing the extent of foodcrop cultivation, the possibilities of further development, and also the difficulties encountered both in the growing and in the marketing of such crops.”

It is well known that Mauritius imports nearly all her food requirements. The Department of Agriculture has for many years been trying to improve the local dairy cattle, so that people can have more milk and butter and cheese, and of a higher quality; and increased milk production at home would reduce the island’s dependence on imported dairy produce, and so save foreign currency. Similarly, the more food produced at home, the less would have to be imported; again, saving foreign currency and releasing more funds for internal investment, so tending to increase self-dependence.

But the Chamber of Agriculture talks of the “difficulties” which may inhibit the full implementation of this laudable policy. Not only the “difficulties” of growing, but the “difficulties” in marketing when once the crops have been grown.

Let us look at some figures. In 1950, there were 11,456 arpents under foodcrops; they produced 15,053 tons of foodcrops, mainly rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, groundnuts, arouilles, manioc and maize. The next year, 1951, the area under foodcrops fell to 8,584 arpents; the deficiency of 3,000 arpents being due to encroachment by sugar and aloe producers. However, increased production per arpent meant that the tonnage of foodcrops produced fell only to 14,077 tons. The acreage under foodcrops fell by another 1,000 arpents in 1952; of the yield, the annual report for Mauritius for 1952 says that “yields were good… vegetable growers dispose of their produce with good ease at very remunerative prices.”

In 1953, the area under foodcrops slumped to 8,328 arpents, producing about 15,000 tons of marketable produce. including 3,000 tons of maize, 5,000 tons of potatoes, but only 50 tons of rice as well as quantities of sweet potatoes, manioc, groundnuts, and eddoes. In 1954 about 8,000 arpents produced 16,000 tons of foodcrops, chiefly maize, potatoes, and vegetables. By 1957, the acreage had gone up again, to 9,500 arpents; and high prices were being realised for potatoes; a solution to the problem of suitable seed would make potatoes even more important as a foodcrop.

However, the figures I have just quoted for 1957, from the annual report on Mauritius, do not tally with those given in the Chamber of Agriculture’s annual report for 1958-59. There we read that the area under foodcrops actually harvested was only 4,158 arpents in 1956-57, and less than that at 3,130 arpents in 1957-58. Production was fairly constant, however; 8,675 tons in 1956-57 and 8,490 tons in 1957-58. It was, however, a jump, in the production of manioc per arpent (4,608 kilos per arpent to 9,300 kilos per arpent) which helped to hold total production fairly steady: for the increase in tonnage per arpent for maize, arouilles, Irish potatoes and groundnuts was either negligible or absent.

These production figures are deplorable. In a country such as Mauritius, there should be far more arpents under foodcrops; there should be a far higher home-grown production of foodcrops. From 1948-49 to 1956-57 we have seen foodcrop plantations dwindle from 18,036 acres to a mere 4,338 acres; we have seen production tumble from 19,673 tons to 8,675 tons. Simple calculation shows that during the period in question, production per acre has roughly doubled; but suppose the same area as in 1948-49 was now under foodcrops. With the increased production per acre which has been achieved, the total food production would have been over 38,000 tons. Every potato consumed in Mauritius could be grown at home; every bit of maize and maize flour could be grown and produced at home.

Small planters must be encouraged to grow foodcrops instead of sugar. The estates must play their part in growing more foodcrops. The Chamber of Agriculture must stop doing its disservice to progress in Mauritius by talking of the “difficulties” in foodcrop production. It must take a positive instead of a negative stand with regard to food production. What, for example, is the Chamber doing to encourage the sugar producers to grow food in the entre-lignes? This policy is followed in Barbados, whereas in Mauritius there is a limited land area and a fast-growing population dependent economically on the one crop-sugar. Moreover, in Barbados the practice of growing food between the lines of canes has not had the result which was half-feared: reducing the yield of sugar. On the contrary, I understand that foodcrops in the inter-lines has led to increased yields of sugar!

Or the chamber should get to work on the problem of the optimum sugar production for Mauritius. The remarks in its report on world sugar conditions suggest that it might well be wise to set an upward limit to sugar production in Mauritius. Say, 650,000 tons, a figure which is not, in the light of modern developments of technique, by any means starry-eyed and optimistic. Land not required to achieve this target would be planted with foodcrops. As improved techniques led to still higher production per arpent, still more land could be released for foodcrops. It would be in the interest of the small growers, the metayers, the peasant-proprietors, to abandon their sugar crops with their low yields and poor canes and turn to vegetables and other foodcrops. Why does not the Chamber of Agriculture advance such a policy? Why does it not enquire into the economics of the Mauritius sugar-growing industry?

Why, in short, does not the Chamber undertake as a public duty and service a full-scale enquiry the results of which would (for a change) benefit the public as a whole instead of merely the handful of members of the Chamber?

The whole impression conveyed by the Chamber’s report is one of smug complacency. “We have produced sugar for years, and we intend to go on producing sugar for years.” — that is the tone underlying the Chamber’s report. The secondary industries get a look-in; but only lukewarmly. Any development must “tend to supplement and not to replace any part” of the island’s sugar production. This statement is made in the face of earlier remarks about the world sugar market which tend to suggest that sugar may be being overproduced. If there is no danger of overproduction, may we have such a firm assurance from the Chamber?

On the other hand, if there is such a danger, why does the Chamber insist that we must not replace any part of our sugar production with o

ther production — vegetables, for example? I make no apology for suggesting once again that a competent economist ought to study whether Mauritius’ economy would best be served by continuing as now — increasing sugar production and importing almost all foodstuffs; or by limiting sugar production and thus increasing the area of land potentially available for foodcrops.

6th Year – No 269
Friday 9th October 1959

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 26 April 2024