“La superficie sous cannes baisse de 22% en 20 ans”. Under this heading, “l’express” of the 16th of March reported that a document from the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) shows that there were 82,352 hectares of land under cane cultivation in 1990, and that only 64 22 hectares remained as such by the year 2009. Your paper or the NESC attributed this decrease to the end of the Sugar Protocol, the sharp of the price of sugar and the uncertainties of the world market.

These, you stated, explained the planters’ loss or lack of interest in cane plantation.

While undoubtedly these factors do have a negative effect, they are not the only — even, the main — causes of the discouragement of the planters, especially the small planters. As the NESC has rightly pointed out, the Cane  Industry, with its sugar and byproducts, as opposed to Sugar(only) Industry, is still profitable.

It is still worthwhile for planters.

That is, if these planters were to be adequately remunerated for their sugar and their byproducts — and thus, assured of a reasonable return on their investment — they would never neglect their land and let them fallow. But, alas! at the present time, they are paid only a meagre, beggarly price for their bagasse and molasses — when these same bagasse and molasses are fetching substantial incomes to those you term “leaders” of the Industry. As to their sugar, it is being subjected — through the Mauritius Sugar Syndicate — to incomprehensible, abusive (not to flatly say, scandalous) charges, such as premiums on loans contracted by the Sugar Refineries, costs of depreciation on machines and equipments of same refineries, maintenance of their assets, and even the remuneration of their personnel. After such outrageous squeezing, the planters are left only with miserable titbits out of the actual sale price of the sugar.

Titbits that do not even cover the planters’ initial investment.

And this has been going on for, at least , the past decade!

It would appear that “l’investissement massif” by the “leaders” of the industry is, indeed, massively subsidized by huge cuts in the sugar-income of the planters and by the ridiculously derisive price paid by these “leaders” for the by-products of the planters.

It would not be inappropriate to underline that this 22% — which the NESC fears will worsen in coming years — is not to the disadvantage of the planters only. It does not concern this community only. It concerns the whole nation. This “delaissement” trend will affect the whole country. Mauritius, with its limited land area — and de facto very small agricultural surface — cannot afford to allow more than 50,000 “arpents” (22% represents this figure) lay barren. Not, when we are importing (and paying in hard foreign currency) more than 85% of our food supply!

If the authorities cannot assure a decent return on cane plantation, then, they should encourage planters to diversify to other food, vegetables and fruits production.

But, then, do the authorities have a coherent policy on food, vegetables and fruits cultivations a structured marketing and price policy a serious regions-based climate and soil study? Are the Marketing Board, AREU, MRC and other institutions concerned up to expectations and doing their jobs properly? This is another issue…