Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
hemp to France. With imports rising to 75-80%,
French hemp production clearly showed a
continual decline.
So, what did France do?
property, while setting a minimum surface
area. How was this to be controlled? That is to
say, how was the surface area under cultivation
to be measured? Someone had a bright idea,
remembering that in each village there was
one person who was familiar with agricultural
measurements and the metric system and able
to measure surface areas. This was the school-
master who, in many villages, also fulfilled the
role of secretary to the mayor. He was there-
fore employed to undertake this work and
rewarded with a well-regulated remuneration.
This initiative proved to be excellent;
a contemporary report indicated that only
2 years were required to eliminate all fraud.
The subsidies were set for a period of 6 years,
but the surface area under cultivation contin-
ued to fall (Table 2.3).
The objective of a viable hemp agriculture
was therefore not achieved and both the area
under production and the amount produced
continued to fall. One should question what
would have happened, however, without the
subsidy. What would have been the end result?
In 1897, the deputies decided to renew the
subsidy for a further 6 years.
At the same time, the prior 30 years had
seen industrial machinery developed for one or
the other textile and adapted for specific stages
of fibre production (from harvesting to spin-
ning). Several different manufacturers com-
peted with each other. It was likely that hemp
workers lacked the capital required to invest in
this technology and were afraid of change.
Despite the subsidy, the competition provided
by imports did not predispose them to making
such purchases.
The naval regulations, passed in 1898,
formally specifying that sails could only
be manufactured from flax or hemp might
have come as consolation. It was a token
2.6.3 The first production grant
The situation had not escaped the attention of
the government, nor of the deputies. 24 In
1892, during the revision of customs duties,
hemp was the beneficiary of a world first. The
rural electorate, the agricultural companies and
the agricultural fairs all demanded a raise in the
customs duties for imports of flax and hemp.
Rope and string makers were of a different
opinion, as they were very much dependent on
imports. In response to this situation, and
recognizing the need to help the producers of
textile plants in order to prevent their disap-
pearance, a solution was found that would
please everybody; a subsidy was introduced. It
was the first time in France, and probably in
the world, that such an idea had been pro-
posed. As there was no precedent, one had to
be invented. After discussions with the customs
authorities, the amount of this subsidy was
finalized.
Then things became more difficult. Over
the centuries, the surface area under cultiva-
tion for hemp was between 2 and 5.5 times
greater than that for flax. Hemp producers
would therefore benefit, while the customs
authorities wanted to prioritize hemp.
The next question concerned the distribu-
tion and repartition of subsidies. Was this to be
given to the proprietor or by harvest on a pro
rata basis? What limits should be set?
Finally, the solution settled upon was to
assign subsidies according to the size of each
Table 2.3. Even with the subsidy in place, hemp production continued to fall.
Surface area (ha)
Flax (tonnes)
Hemp (tonnes)
1893
41,237
26,968
11,843
1894
40,583
24,821
13,327
1895
37,216
27,289
11,962
1896
34,224
24,389
9,707
1897
33,843
23,330
9,507
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search