Farm Protection In Europe “Regarded As Social Justice”

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29802, 19 April 1962, Page 15

Farm Protection In Europe “Regarded As Social Justice”

The agricultural policy of the European Economic Community was not a manifestation of the integration of the six countries, but rather a reflection of the national policies already in force in those countries which had developed in the post-war years, Dr. J. D. Stewart, senior lecturer in agricultural economics, told members of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science. Agricultural workers and peasants were a very active political force in Europe, v here the ratio to industrial workers was much higher than in New Zealand. Compared with New Zealand’s 14 to 13 per cent, of the working population engaged in agriculture, there were up to 33 per cent, in Italy, 26 per eent. in France and 17 per cent, in Holland, he said. In Germany the Christian Democrat vote was largely rural. Dr. Stewart said. The size of the farms was minute and the incomes low in comparison with industry. In the six E.E.C. countries the

average size of the farms was 24 acres with only 14 per cent, exceeding 50 acres. “It Is regarded as social justice to protect the peasants from the harsh winds of international competition,’* he said. Contrasts Dr. Stewart said that the industrial revolution had bypassed European agriculture, particularly in Germany. He had seen an autobahn "pulsating with the force of industrialisation” while across a little bridge a peasant was going to work with an ox and cart and his sickle —his labour force, his wife. The basic aim of the E.E.C. was to depopulate agriculture by aggregation and consolidation of land and to institute rural industry to absorb the surplus labour. Only then could the relative incomes of industry and agriculture anywhere near approach parity. In Germany the “green plans” were in force with this aim. As well as aggregation and consolidation, there was heavy injection of

capital for improvements and cheap credit—loans at 1| per cent interest and per cent, of capital repayments a year. On one small farm which was 80 per cent, arable, only 17 per cent, of this was in pasture. Sugar beet was the main crap, but the farmer was increasing his cows from six to 10. SUmtfieant Change This might be small but it was significant that the increase* were in animal products, he said. The increase in income resulted in farmers ploughing back profits into their farms and this accelerated the increase in production. The crucial point was that while this policy took labour out of agriculture, and even land, it was not likely to reduce output- which was likely to increase. Projection studies by EEC. economists indicated that by 1870 the only farm products in which demand in the six countries was expected to increase above supply was beef and pigmeats, but for all others, particularly milk products, the increase would be above self-sufficiency, he said. “Over-all, one can fairly confidently predict that there will be not many products other than beef that the Six will not • bl * to fill the gap themselves over the next 10 years.” Dr. Stewart said. "Looking te Britain” The Six were looking to Britain to absorb their snrpluees. However, nourished by protection, the British farmers over the last 10 years had proceeded with an elaborate and extensive programme of investment. TTiis was so particularly in dairying. where farmers had built new yards and milking parlours. self-feeding silos and haybarns, all ot which increased production and lessened labour. The British fanner was intent on expanding output and was proud of the reduction in dependence on overseas imports by 10 per cent, since before the war, Dr. Stewart said.