Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:32:08.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Pursuit of the Granary of Rome: France's Wheat Policy in Morocco, 1915–1931

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Will D. Swearingen
Will D. Swearingen
Affiliation:
Technology Application centerUniversity of new Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Acquiring a colony and making a colonial venture profitable are two very different affairs. Throughout the French protectorate period in Morocco (1912–1956), there was a sizable gap between colonial aspirations and realizations. Later, political and economic factors would be the primary cause. During the first two decades, however, this gap was caused by colonial idealism and ignorance of Moroccan environmental realities. French colonization in Morocco and the protectorate's first agricultural policy were based on legend rather than on sound economic logic. This article analyzes France's “wheat policy” in Morocco—the manifestation of a misguided colonial vision. Its purpose is both to help explain French colonialism in Morocco, and to paint the historical backdrop to modern irrigation agriculture in this country.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , August 1985 , pp. 347 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mouliéras, A., Le Maroc Inconnu, Vol. 1, Exploration du Rif (Paris, 1985), pp. 17, 3.Google Scholar

2 Terrier, A., Le Maroc (Paris, 1931), p. 5.Google Scholar

3 DrWeisgerber, , “Les Chaouia,” Renseignemems Coloniaux (1907), 209;Google Scholar“Contribution à l'histoire de la cartographie marocaine.” Revue de Géographie Marocaine. 7(1) (1928), 6.Google Scholar For the “Evolution des connaissances scientifiques sur le Maghreb,” see Gentil, L., Le Maroc physique (Paris, 1912), pp. 9–34.Google Scholar

4 Bulletin du Comité de l'Afrique française (1902). 204.Google Scholar

5 Cousin, A. and Saurin, D., Le Maroc (Paris, 1905). p. 247.Google Scholar

6 Vaffier-Pollet, E., “L'agriculture et l'élevage au Maroc,” Renseignements Coloniaux (1906), 206.Google Scholar

7 de Mazières, E. A., La culture des céréales dans l'Afrique du Nord (Casablanca, 1926), p. 3.Google Scholar

8 Fourgous, M. J., L'avenir économique du Maroc (Paris, 1916). p. 10.Google Scholar

9 Dumont, R.. Types of Rural Economy (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 165.Google Scholar

10 For example, an official publication of the Résidence générale to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the protectorate noted: “En somme, la définition du colon idéal est assez exactement fournie par l'expression anglaise de “gentleman-farmer.’” Résidence générale de la Republique française au Maroc, , La renaissance du Maroc—Dix ans de protectorat. 1912–1922 (Poitiers, 1922), p. 292.Google Scholar

11 Catroux, Gen., Lyautey le Marocain (Paris, 1952), p. 289.Google Scholar

12 See. for example. de la Mazière, M. Calary, “La conquête agricole du Maroc,” Revue de Paris 15 (1923), 688.Google Scholar

13 Gadille, J., “L'agriculture européenne au Maroc—Etude humaine et economique,” Annales de Géographie 66 (1957). 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Cosnier, H., L'Afrique du Nord—Son avenir agricole el économique (Paris, 1922), p. 152. One quintal equals 220 pounds. Soft wheat, also called bread wheat, was not indigenous to Morocco. The French at first imported seeds from Oran. Soft wheat was favored by settlers because it received higher market prices than hard, or durum wheat, and because it received larger subsidies.Google Scholar

15 Gadille. “L'agriculture européenne,” p. 145.Google Scholar

16 Cosnier, Afrique du Nord. p. xiv.Google Scholar

17 Cosnier, H., Intensification de la production agricole au Maroc en vue de sa contribution au ravitaillement de la France. Unpublished report, 1917, p. 1.Google Scholar

18 Cosnier, Afrique du Nord, p. xxxi.Google Scholar

19 Ibid.

20 From 1932 until the end of the protectorate in 1956. only some 20,000 additional hectares were distributed by the government, and nearly all of this land went to existing rather than to new settlers. See Gadille, J., “La colonisation officielle au Maroc,” Les Cahiers d'Outre-Mer, 8 (1955). 322. The government sold “official” settlers land on obligatory 10 to 15-year Contracts, without interest, at “fair market” prices. Official settlers, however, had to develop their allotted land under the tutelage of government advisors, at their own expense, according to a plan approved by the Comité de Colonisation. By contrast, private settlers purchased their land directly from private Moroccan citizens, and could freely develop their land as they pleased. Both official and private settlers were assisted by the protectorate government in many ways: credit facilities, technical advice, agricultural price supports, and various bonuses for mechanization, clearing land, planting trees, etc.Google Scholar

21 Hoffherr, R.. L'économie marocaine (Paris, 1932), p. 130.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 28–29; Faust, M., La colonisation rurale au Maroc, 1919–1929 (Algiers: Ancienne Imprimerie Victor Heintz, 1931). pp. 44–45.Google Scholar

23 Journal Officiel. Chambre des Députés, Documents Parlementaires (1921), p. 1, 595.Google Scholar

24 Cosnier, Afrique du Nord, pp. 152–53.Google Scholar

25 Hoffherr, L'économie marocaine, p. 145.Google Scholar

26 Bulletin Economique du Maroc, (1933), 67.Google Scholar

27 Beginning in 1923. soft wheat production by Moroccans equalled that by European settlersGoogle Scholar (see ibid.). One of the big changes in traditional Moroccan agriculture as a result of the protectorate was the extension of wheat acreage at the expense of barley. The critical rainfall limits for wheat cultivation are between 14 and 16 inches. For barley, they are between 9 and 12 inches. Thus, an unfortunate impact of the wheat policy on Moroccan agriculture was to increase the chances of bad harvests.

28 The expression is that of the American geographer, Donald Meinig.Google Scholar

29 Amphoux, M., “Le Maroc et la crise économique,” Revue d'Eonomie Politique, 47(1) (1933), 118.Google Scholar In certain favored parts of the Gharb and Chaouia Plains, however, yields were as high as 20 quintals per hectare in good years. Ibid., p. 121.

30 Six to eight francs per quintal of wheat in 1923. Garcin, p.. La politique des contingents dans les relations franco-marocaines (Paris, 1937), p. 54.Google Scholar

31 Amphoux, M.. “L'évolution de l'agriculture européenne au Maroc,” Annales de Géographie, 42 (1933), 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 See Garcin. La politique des contingents, for detailed information on this law and the history of Morocco's contingents.Google Scholar

33 After 1928, the law would be interpreted as a limitation rather than an encouragement to Moroccan wheat production.Google Scholar

34 Amphoux, “L'évolution de l'agriculture,” p. 176.Google Scholar

35 Stewart, C. F., The Economy of Morocco. 1912–1962 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

36 Hoffherr, L'économie marocaine, p. 144.Google Scholar

37 Garcin. La politique des contingents. p. 1.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 73.

39 For the various other provisions, see Garcin, La politique des contingents, pp. 75–77.Google Scholar

40 An exception was made for the Spanish zone of Morocco, which was to be allowed to export 52,000 quintals annually to French Morocco. This, however, was a mere goodwill gesture, because the Spanish zone was a net importer of wheat. France's justification was that it was “necessary for public order” and thus was sanctioned by a provision in the 1927 convention of the World Economic Conference. Stewart, Economy of Morocco, p. 89.Google Scholar

41 Knight, M. M.. Morocco as a French Economic Venture (New York, 1937), p. 83.Google Scholar

42 Bulletin de la Chambre d'Agriculture de Rabat (1932), p. 31.Google Scholar

43 369,505 quintals in 1930, as against 1,127,000 quintals in 1929.Google ScholarIbid., p. 143.

44 Knight. French Economic Venture, p. 84.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., pp. 84–87.

46 See Oved, G., “Contribution à l'étude de l'endettement de la colonisation agricole au Maroc,” Revue Française d'Histoire d'Outre-Mer, 63 (1976), 492–505, for an analysis of the “debt question.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Bulletin de la Chambre d'Agriculture de Rabat (1932). p. 144.Google Scholar

48 Garcin, La politique des contingents, pp. 83–86.Google Scholar

49 Bulletin Economique du Maroc, 1 (1933). 67;Google ScholarStewart, Economy of Morocco, p. 90.Google Scholar Quotas would henceforth be filled from the grain silos of the government-sponsored cooperatives, from which Moroccans were effectively excluded. For a time, protectorate authorities considered prohibiting soft wheat cultivation by native Moroccans. Garcin, La politique des contingents, p. 193.Google Scholar

50 Bulletin de la Chambre d'Agriculture de Casablanca, 29 (1932). 13.Google Scholar

51 Ibid.

52 Stewart. Economy of Morocco, p. 89.Google Scholar

53 Bulletin Economique du Maroc, 2 (1933), 65.Google Scholar

54 Knight, French Economic Venture, pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

55 Bulletin de la Chambre d'Agriculture de Casablanca, 36 (1933), 9.Google Scholar

56 Ibid.

57 Gadille, “L'agriculture européenne,” p. 151.Google Scholar

58 Gallissot, R., “Le Maroc et la crise,” Revue Française d'Histoire d'Outre-Mer, 63 (1976), 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Amphoux, “Le Maroc et la crise,” p. 121.Google Scholar

60 A very similar version of this colonial faith animated Italian colonization in Libya. See Segrè, Claudio G., Fourth Shore: The Italian Colonization of Libya (Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar This faith also shares many characteristics with the “Moroccan Vulgate” that Edmund Burke III identified as the image of the Moroccan state shaping early protectorate “Berber policy.” Both were rigid stereotyped visions of Morocco, both were based on rudimentary data, both were employed to serve specific colonial ends, and both led to crises around 1930. Edmund Burke Ill, “The Image of the Moroccan State in French Ethnological Literature: A New Look at the Origin of Lyautey's Berber Policy,” in Gellner, E. and Micaud, C., eds., Arabs and Berbers (Lexington, Mass., 1972), pp. 175–99.Google Scholar

61 Germain, J. and Faye, S., Le nouveau monde français—Maroc, Algérie, Tunisie (Paris, 1924), pp. 11–111.Google Scholar Other representative specimens are in Fribourg, A., L'Afrique latine—Maroc. Algérie, Tunisie (Paris. 1922), pp. 14–17;Google ScholarCélérier, J., “La ruine de la civilisation romaine,” Revue de Géographie Marocaine, 2(7–8) (1921), 427–28;Google ScholarReclus, O., L'Atlantide—pays de l'Atlas—Algérie, Maroc. Tunisie (Paris, 1918), pp. VII–VIII.Google Scholar

62 Cited in MacKendrick, P. L., The North African Stones Speak (Chapel Hill, 1980), p. 319.Google Scholar

63 Saurin, J., L'avenir de l'Afrique du Nord (Paris, 1896).Google Scholar

64 Thouvenot, R., Une colonie romaine de Maurétanie tingitanie: Valenta Banasa (Paris, 1941), p. 53.Google Scholar

65 Gsell, S., Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, vol. VIII (Paris, 1928), p. 235.Google Scholar

66 Carcopino, J., Le Maroc antique (Paris, 1943), p. 9.Google Scholar

67 Berthault, P., La production des céréales en Afrique du Nord (Paris, 1928).Google Scholar

68 Cosnier, Afrique du Nord, p. 336.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., p. LI.

70 Ibid., p. XXXV.

71 Journal officiel, p. 1, 595.Google Scholar

72 Amphoux, “L'évolution de l'agriculture,” p. 183.Google Scholar

73 Rivière, C. and Lecq, H., Cultures du Midi. de l'lgérie. de la Tunisie et du Maroc (Paris, 1917).Google Scholar

74 Cousin and Saurin, Le Maroc, p. 18;Google ScholarGraux, L., Le Maroc—sa production agricole (Paris, 1912), p. 95.Google Scholar

75 Boissier, G.. L'Afrique romaine (Paris, 1895), p. 139.Google Scholar

76 Cosnier, Afrique du Nord, p. 336.Google Scholar

77 Taillis, J. du, Le nouveau Maroc (Paris, 1923), p. 305.Google Scholar

78 Cited in DrLucien-Graux, , Le Maroc économique—rapport à Monsieur du Commerce et de l'lndustrie (Paris, 1928), pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

79 See for example, Célérier, J. and Charton, A., “Les grands travaux d'hydraulique agricole au Maroc,” Annales de Géographie, 34 (1925), 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Amphoux, “Le Maroc et la crise,” p. 121.Google Scholar

81 Ibid.

82 Miège, E., “Les cultures complémentaires au Maroc,” Bulletin Economique du Maroc, 14 (1936), 293–97.Google Scholar

83 Célérier, , “Le Maroc, est-il un pays neuf?” Revue de Géographie Marocaine, 8 (3–4) (1929). 75.Google Scholar

84 Fruits el Primeurs de l'Afrique du Nord, I (1931), 7.Google Scholar

85 Célérier “Le Maroc, est-il un pays neuf?” 76.Google Scholar