.png)
The Agricultural Society of the University of Mauritius organized three debates, one of which was focused on the use of technology in agriculture. There were two groups participating: one in favour of technology and one against it. The participants were Year 1 students from the Agricultural Science and Technology cohort, while the opposing group consisted of Year 2 students from the same cohort.
 |
Members of the Agricultural Society with the Judges, Assoc. Prof. B.Ramasawmy Molaye and Mr. K. Boodhoo |
The debate was judged by two academics from the Faculty of Agriculture and lasted for about two hours. Each group was allocated 30 minutes to prepare their arguments, followed by approximately 25 minutes to present their case. During this time, they also engaged in counter-arguments. The judges assessed each group's performance using a set of criteria which were known for both groups.
 |
| The Winners _ BSc (Hons) Agricultural Science and Technology Year 2 |
It is important to note that this debate was not intended to prove or disprove any particular point; rather, it aimed to evaluate how effectively students could present their cases.
Overall, it was a very successful event that showcased student engagement and critical thinking skills. Congratulations are due to the Agricultural Society for their significant efforts in organising such a successful debate.
Comparison of Arguments: Pro-Tech vs. Anti-Tech Agriculture in Mauritius
1. Core Issues Addressed
| Pro-Tech Agriculture | Anti-Tech Agriculture |
|---|---|
| Focuses on modernization, productivity, and climate resilience. | Prioritizes protecting small farmers, economic equity, and cultural preservation. |
| Aims to reduce food imports ($1B annually) and boost self-sufficiency. | Warns of corporate monopolies and loss of food sovereignty. |
| Promotes job creation in tech-driven roles (e.g., engineers, drone operators). | Highlights job losses due to automation (e.g., India’s 1M displaced farmers). |
| Aligns with SDGs through sustainability (e.g., reduced water use, emissions). | Argues tech contradicts SDGs by worsening poverty (SDG 1) and inequality (SDG 10). |
2. Validity and Strength of Arguments
| Pro-Tech Strengths | Anti-Tech Strengths |
|---|---|
| Data-Driven: Cites local successes (AgriService’s 20–30% reduced crop loss) and global models (Netherlands’ tech-driven farming). | Empirical Evidence: References India’s farmer displacement and Mauritius’ income data (farmers earn 17k–25k rupees/month). |
| Practical Solutions: Proposes scalable methods (vertical farming, precision agriculture) to address land scarcity and climate risks. | Ethical Focus: Highlights generational contributions of farmers and risks of neocolonial dependency on foreign tech. |
| Economic Growth: Links tech adoption to investment opportunities and reduced import dependency. | Social Justice: Exposes unaffordability (1.5–3M rupees/hectare cost) for 82% of farmers. |
| Pro-Tech Weaknesses | Anti-Tech Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Underestimates implementation costs and risks of technological exclusion for small farmers. | Relies on emotional appeals (e.g., “death sentence for smallholders”) without concrete alternatives beyond preserving the status quo. |
| Overlooks short-term disruptions (e.g., job losses in traditional roles). | Lacks acknowledgment of global trends (e.g., tech’s role in climate adaptation). |
Arguments in Favour of High-Tech Agriculture in Mauritius
1. Addressing Food Insecurity and Import Dependency
Problem: Mauritius imports $1 billion worth of agricultural goods annually (19.9% of total imports in 2021), exposing the nation to global price volatility and supply chain disruptions. Climate change and limited arable land exacerbate food insecurity.
Solution: High-tech methods like vertical farming and hydroponics enable year-round cultivation in controlled environments, reducing reliance on imports. For example, vertical farms in urban areas could grow leafy greens and herbs locally, replacing imported staples.
Outcome: By producing high-demand crops domestically (e.g., tomatoes, potatoes), Mauritius could retain capital within the economy, stabilize food prices, and ensure a consistent supply of fresh produce.
2. Modernizing an Ageing Agricultural Sector
Problem: The average age of Mauritian farmers is rising, with younger generations viewing traditional farming as unattractive or unprofitable.
Solution: High-tech agriculture integrates digital tools (e.g., drones, IoT sensors) and automation, appealing to tech-savvy youth. For instance, there is a company that provide drone-based crop monitoring, it combines agriculture with data science, attracting engineers and IT professionals.
Outcome: Bridging the generational gap ensures continuity in farming. Older farmers benefit from tools like automated irrigation systems, which reduce physical labour while boosting yields.
3. Boosting Productivity and Resource Efficiency
Precision Agriculture:
Technology: Drones and sensors provide real-time data on soil health, moisture levels, and pest infestations. For example, the company 3D mapping identifies nutrient deficiencies early, allowing targeted interventions.
Impact: A case study in Montgomery showed 75% higher yields and 70% improved water efficiency after adopting drone-guided pest control. In Mauritius, similar systems could mitigate water scarcity and reduce crop loss during droughts.
Vertical Farming:
How It Works: Stacked layers of crops grown indoors under LED lights, using hydroponic or aeroponic systems.
Advantage: Produces 10–20 times more food per square meter than traditional farming, ideal for Mauritius’ limited land. Urban vertical farms could supply fresh produce to cities like Port Louis, cutting transportation costs and emissions.
4. Economic Growth and Job Creation
Investment Opportunities: High-tech agriculture attracts domestic and foreign investors. For example, controlled-environment farms (e.g., greenhouses with automated climate control) offer predictable returns, appealing to ESG-focused investors.
New Job Sectors:
Skilled Roles: Engineers, data analysts, and drone operators are needed to maintain advanced systems.
Agri-Tech Startups: There are now companies that are creating niches in precision farming tools, fostering innovation.
Case Study: The sugarcane industry already uses automated harvesters (e.g., Omnicane), reducing labour shortages and increasing efficiency.
5. Environmental Sustainability and Health Benefits
Reducing Chemical Use:
Problem: Overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides contaminates water and soil.
Solution: Precision spraying via drones ensures chemicals are applied only where needed, cutting usage by up to 30%. Bio-fertilizers and organic methods further reduce reliance on synthetics.
Health Impact: Organic produce grown with high-tech methods contains 40% more antioxidants, promoting public health.
Climate Resilience:
Controlled Environments: Greenhouses and vertical farms protect crops from extreme weather (e.g., cyclones), ensuring stable yields.
Lower Emissions: Hydroponics uses 90% less water than soil farming, and renewable energy (e.g., solar-powered farms) can further reduce carbon footprints.
6. Proven Success and Scalability
Local Examples:
Company X: Their drones provide farmers with actionable insights, reducing crop loss by 20–30%. Real-time soil analysis helps optimize fertilizer use, lowering costs.
Company Y: Specializes in sensor-based irrigation systems, cutting water waste by 50% in pilot projects.
Global Trends: Countries like Israel and the Netherlands have revolutionized agriculture through tech, achieving food security despite resource constraints. Mauritius can replicate this model.
7. Aligning with Global Sustainability Goals
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): High-tech methods increase local food production, reducing hunger risks.
SDG 8 (Decent Work): Creates skilled jobs in tech-driven farming, diversifying the economy.
SDG 13 (Climate Action): Efficient resource use and lower emissions align with climate resilience targets.
Conclusion: High-tech agriculture offers Mauritius a pathway to food sovereignty, economic diversification, and environmental stewardship. By integrating innovation with local needs—such as addressing ageing farmers and climate vulnerabilities—Mauritius can build a resilient agricultural sector that benefits both people and the planet. The success of companies demonstrates that technology, when adapted thoughtfully, can transform challenges into opportunities.
Arguments Against High-Tech Agriculture in Mauritius
1. Financial Burden on Small Farmers
Cost Prohibition: Transitioning to high-tech agriculture requires 1.5–3 million rupees per hectare, a sum far beyond the reach of most Mauritian farmers. With 82% of farmers owning less than one hectare and earning 17,000–25,000 rupees monthly, such investments are unaffordable without crippling debt.
Debt Trap: Repaying even 1.5 million rupees would demand over 10 years of total savings for an average farmer, creating a cycle of dependency on loans. Unlike developed nations, Mauritius lacks robust subsidies or financial safety nets, exacerbating the risk of bankruptcy.
Structural Inequality: The high-tech model inherently favors wealthy corporations or large-scale agribusinesses, sidelining smallholders and deepening economic disparities.
2. Threat to Smallholder Farming and Food Sovereignty
Displacement of Farmers: As seen in India (where 1 million small farmers were displaced due to aggressive mechanization), automation and corporate-driven tech reduce the need for human labor. Small farmers, unable to compete with tech-savvy conglomerates, face forced exits from agriculture.
Corporate Monopolies: Large agribusinesses could dominate food production, leading to price manipulation and reduced accessibility. For example, corporate control might prioritize export crops over local staples, risking food scarcity.
Unemployment Crisis: Automation replaces manual jobs (e.g., planting, harvesting), threatening livelihoods in a sector that employs a significant portion of Mauritius’ rural population.
3. Contradiction of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
SDG 1 (No Poverty): High-tech transitions would push small farmers into debt or displacement, worsening rural poverty.
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Corporate monopolies could prioritize profits over food affordability, leading to price hikes and reduced access to nutritious food for low-income populations.
SDG 8 (Decent Work): Automation eliminates jobs without creating equitable alternatives, undermining economic growth in agrarian communities.
SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Wealth gaps widen as tech benefits only corporations and wealthy landowners, marginalizing smallholders further.
4. Critique of "Progress" as Economic Colonization
Corporate Takeover: Framing high-tech agriculture as “modernization” masks its role in transferring control from local farmers to foreign corporations. For instance, reliance on imported AI systems or robotics could make Mauritius dependent on external entities for critical farming inputs.
Neocolonial Dynamics: The push for expensive, foreign-owned technology echoes historical colonization, where external powers extract wealth while undermining local autonomy. This risks erasing Mauritius’ agricultural heritage and self-sufficiency.
False Promise of Efficiency: While high-tech methods may boost yields, they ignore systemic issues like unfair pricing, lack of infrastructure, and climate vulnerabilities that small farmers face.
5. Alternatives: Sustainable and Equitable Solutions
Invest in Local Practices: Promote agroecology, crop diversification, and organic farming—methods that are cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and tailored to Mauritius’ climate.
Policy Protections: Implement price guarantees, subsidies for seeds/equipment, and land reforms to secure farmers’ rights.
Skill Development: Fund training programs in sustainable techniques (e.g., water conservation, pest management) instead of prioritizing expensive tech.
Community Cooperatives: Encourage collective farming models to pool resources and bargaining power, reducing reliance on corporate intermediaries.
6. Moral and Cultural Imperative
Historical Legacy: Smallholder farmers have sustained Mauritius through cyclones, droughts, and economic crises. Abandoning them for corporate-driven tech betrays this legacy and cultural identity.
Ethical Choice: The debate is framed as a moral crossroads—prioritizing people (farmers, food security) versus profit (corporate interests). Policymakers are urged to reject policies that sacrifice human dignity for technological “progress.”
Irreversible Consequences: Losing smallholder farming would mean losing biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and resilience to climate shocks, leaving Mauritius vulnerable to global market fluctuations.
Conclusion: The arguments against high-tech agriculture in Mauritius emphasize its role in perpetuating inequality, eroding food sovereignty, and undermining ethical governance. Advocates call for a shift toward inclusive, sustainable policies that protect farmers, preserve cultural heritage, and prioritize national self-reliance over corporate profit.
The other groups were the BSc (Hons) Food Science and Technology Year 1 and 2, and the BSc Biotechnology Year 1 and Year 2.
 |
| BSc (Hons) Food Science and Technology, Year 2 |
 |
| BSc (Hons) Microbiology Year 2 |
