The Role of Local Governing Bodies in the Management of Heritage Agricultural Landscapes: Italian Perspective

Abstract

The increasing interest in the protection of the agricultural landscape as a category of heritage can be observed both in the growing number of globally recognized agricultural landscapes and in the development of new legal and institutional tools for their protection. The multifunctionality of agriculture, involving the multiplicity of interests and actors, engenders the questions of how and who manages the heritage agricultural landscapes at the local level?

The research aims to provide an empirical model for the identification and evaluation of the local governance models used in the management of multifunctional agricultural landscapes. It focuses on two heritage agricultural landscapes in Italy and bases on field observations, semi-structured in-depth interviews with the local stakeholders and comparative analysis of the case studies. The research draws the map of interaction between the local stakeholders. It outlines the crucial role played by the local governing bodies in the management of heritage agricultural landscapes, involving several administrative and sociocultural units.

Keywords

Heritage agricultural landscapes local governing bodies landscape management national park consortium of farmers

Introduction

The increasing interest in the protection of the agricultural landscape as a category of heritage can be observed both in the growing number of globally recognized agricultural landscapes and in the development of new legal and institutional tools for their protection. However, the multifunctionality of agriculture, involving the multiplicity of interests and actors, engenders the questions of how and who manages the heritage agricultural landscapes at the local level?

The concept of multifunctional agriculture was first developed in the field of economy. When applied to agricultural landscape, it means that it provides both monetary and public goods in the form of environmental (e.g., soil protection, climate change resilience, biodiversity) and sociocultural services (well-being, recreation and sense of identity) (Abler, 2004; Brunstad et al., 2005; Pérez, 2003; Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). According to Abler (2004, p. 14), ‘public goods associated with agriculture (including cultural heritage) are not joint with commodity production per se, but rather with land-use practices and agricultural structures’. In this context, according to Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2007, p. 1), the ‘multifunctionality can be a unifying principle to bring the productive and non-productive functions into harmony, which requires the development of new institutional arrangements and a major change in policy incentives’. Thus, the multifunctional nature of agricultural landscapes involves a myriad of interests, actors, institutions and public policies.

This intricate plot of interrelated interests (e.g., environmental protection, food security, development of rural economies, preservation of cultural diversity and recreational space) melt around the management of agricultural landscape as heritage. The harmonization of these interests most of the time is constrained by a series of conflicting views like, for example, conservation versus production and development versus preservation. Thus, being, at once, the productive land, natural milieu and cultural construct, with economic, environmental and cultural functions, makes the protection and management of this heritage a complicated task.

Conceptual Nodes: Management, Conservation and Governance

Management is a broad ‘catch-all’ term, which can be understood in different ways, depending on the context. During the past decade, the term has been largely used in the studies that have focused on landscapes, but under different interpretations. The three most often used interpretations derive from the ways in which the word ‘landscape’ is conceptualized. First, management of landscapes as abio-geo-physical space, where o attention is paid to the physical act of maintaining, conserving and changing landscape (e.g., cultivation of plants, agronomic decisions) (Pelorosso et al., 2011; Rallings et al., 2019; Vaz et al., 2019; Vissac, 2005). Second, landscape as a designed space, where management is defined as a synonym for landscaped planning or spatial organization (Chamberlain & Meitner, 2013; Colléony et al., 2017). Third, the management of landscape as a social-ecological system, where the landscape management is interpreted through actors, interests, policies, formal organizations and governance networks (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014; Fischer, 2018, 2019; Mann et al., 2018; Moore & Tully, 2018; Slotterback et al., n.d.). The heterogeneity of interpretations indicates the existence of the conceptual nodes between management and conservation, management and planning, management and governance.

Within the World Heritage framework (UNESCO, 2017), depending on the types, characteristics and needs of the sites, the management system ‘may incorporate traditional practices, existing urban or regional planning instruments, and other planning control mechanisms, both formal and informal’ (Art. 110). While as applied to World Heritage cultural landscapes, the management process is defined through the set of concrete actions including ‘landscape assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management’ (UNESCO, 2009, p. 37). From this interpretation of the management system and the management process, we can retrieve a broad definition of landscape management, which is not limited to physical in situ actions (e.g., traditional cultivation practices), but it incorporates the full spectrum of measures, including strategic planning and control. While both management and conservation have similar objectives, it is important to understand that conservation is only a nexus in the management process—a conscious effort to avoid or limit the damages to the tangible dimension of the landscape.

The answer to the second conceptual node between management and governance can be found in the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe [CoE], 2000a, art. 1) that differentiates the landscape planning from landscape management. The former is defined as ‘a strong forward-looking action to enhance, restore or create landscapes’ and ‘a formal process of study, design, and construction’ (CoE, 2000b, p. 7) concerning mainly damaged landscapes. The latter is defined as ‘the action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a landscape, so as to guide and harmonize changes which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes’ (CoE, 2000a, art. 1). Thus, it relates to any measure that is used to steer the future changes and the harmonious evolution of landscape so as to preserve the quality of landscapes and meet the economic and social needs of the population. For Fairclough (2002), landscape management is about:

finding ways to negotiate the transition from yesterday’s world to tomorrow’s landscape. This transition needs to create a well-managed, thriving landscape that people need for social, cultural and economic health whilst at the same time sustaining the rich palimpsest of landscape history and nature that helps to explain our history, culture and identity. (p. 5)

In other words, the ‘good management’ is when both historic value and the present-day functions of agricultural landscapes (social, cultural and economic) are harmoniously integrated.

According to Kurz et al. (2014, p. 79), cultural landscapes, in general, can be seen as the physical expression of the complexity of social relationships. Although ‘governance’ is often confused with the term ‘government’, at the local level, it engages a much more full range of entities. Indeed, Graham et al. (2003, pp. 2–3) identify governance as ‘the interactions among structures, processes, and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say’. Therefore, it may concern not only the government but also other social organizations, including local private and public institutions as well as individuals (e.g., farmers). The aim of the article is to provide an empirical model for the identification and evaluation of the local governance models used in the management of multifunctional agricultural landscapes.

Case Studies and Methods

The research focuses on two traditional agricultural landscapes—the Vine Hills of Soave (Case Study n.1) and the Terraced Agricultural Landscapes of Cinque Terre (Case study n.2)—both located in Italy (Figure 1). The ‘heritage values’ of these agricultural landscapes have been recognized at the national level and additionally by the international organizations (United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization [UNESCO] in the case of Cinque Terre and Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] in the case of Soave).

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

The agricultural landscapes are similar in terms of their morphological structure (dry-stone terraces), as well as the type of crops (prevalently viticulture). Regardless of the fact that both agricultural landscapes are prevalently wine landscapes and that both are recognized as heritage sites at the global level (United Nations—UN system), there are considerable discrepancies in terms of the production system. Thus, the role played by the agricultural activity for the local economy differs considerably. In the case of the vine hills of Soave, the major part of the population is involved in the agricultural sector.

In contrast, winegrowing and winemaking represent the basis of the local livelihood and an important share of the provincial economy. In the case of the terraced agricultural landscape of Cinque Terre, agriculture has become a symbolic element of the territory rather than an essential branch of the local economy. The latter function is pulled away by the tourism sector. Therefore, these two case studies reflect the diversity of protection and management mechanisms within one national context, enabling further reflections within the concept of multifunctionality.

Variables

The analysis of the management practices in the case studies was structured according to seven variables: Planning and control, agriculture and production, tourism, tangible dimension, intangible dimension, environmental dimension and risk management, and valorization (Figure 2).¹ These variables, based on the concept, governance and management principles for agricultural and rural landscapes, were proposed in the international work papers and manuals (CoE, 2000b; FAO, 2003, 2009, 2017; IUCN, 2008; UNESCO, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2008, 2009) of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2008); charters and conventions (CoE, 2000a, 2005; ICOMOS, 2013; UNESCO, 2017); guidelines and toolkits (ICOMOS & IFLA, 2017; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], 2004; UNESCO, 2017; United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability [UNU-IAS] et al., 2014); as well as the literature overview and benchmarks on the management of landscapes, protected zones and heritage (Barile & Saviano, 2015; Borrini-Feyerabend, 2008; Castillo Ruiz, 2013; Gottero, 2018; Kieninger et al., 2016; Kurz et al., 2014; Mashaw, 2005).

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Planning and Control

This variable encompasses the operational and strategic planning instruments, such as management plans, park plans, action plans and other tools that guarantee the organization of the local management activities.

Agriculture and Production

Agriculture and production are the forces, which have shaped and maintained the traditional agricultural landscapes of the present. This variable concerns the agricultural and productive activities that guarantee the continuity of economically and culturally viable living systems.

Tourism

The rural economy based solely on agriculture often leads to the overuse of the natural resources, while the dominance of tourism can result in loss of the landscape values. Therefore, it is increasingly becoming challenging to keep the sustainability of the landscape without support from the tertiary sector. The balanced development of both tourism and agriculture is considered to be a win-win strategy.

Tangible Dimension

The tangible dimension of agricultural landscapes is the elements that can be perceived by visual and tactile sensors and allows them to appreciate the values of the cultural landscape. These elements may include dry-stone walls, traditional rural architecture, hydrological systems and fences. In this research by conservation, we mean both maintenance and reconstruction of abandoned, degraded parts of the agricultural landscapes, their physical dimension, so to preserve and reveal its aesthetic and historic value. This section focuses on conservation as a conscious effort to avoid or limit damage to the tangible dimension of agricultural landscapes.

Intangible Dimension

The intangible dimension of the agricultural landscapes has been recognized within the framework of international conventions and lists.² This variable concerns the local activities directed to the protection of intangible heritage like traditional skills of land use; harvest rituals are essential elements, which maintain and regenerate the agricultural landscape, even if its physical dimension has been lost.

Environmental Dimension and Risk Management

As an immovable heritage category, agricultural landscapes are particularly vulnerable for both humans and nature, causing risks such as disasters, flooding, armed conflict, tropical windstorms, avalanches, land and mudslides, industrial pollution and urbanization. Therefore, risk preparedness, promoting social sustainability and resilience, that is, the ability to manage risks is in the list of ‘mandatory management actions’. In this context, the environmental sensibility of the governing bodies is an essential element in the landscape management strategy.

Valorization

Valorization (or enhancement) is often used in combination with the word ‘fruition’ in order to describe the actions aimed at giving additional functions to these ‘products’ of culture. However, from a broader perspective, valorization refers to raising awareness and understanding of the public on the values of agricultural landscapes. This variable concerns the local activities directed to raise the public awareness about its values; promotion of sustainable tourism and traditional agricultural practices; education of younger generation on how and why we need to protect the agricultural landscapes; as well as the construction of the image of the territory in relation to the agricultural landscape.

The studies were carried out in similar ways in both case studies. In order to answer the questions raised in this research, each case study was analysed using a combination of primary and secondary research, based on the qualitative techniques of data collection. The research began with the analysis of the secondary literature, legislative and institutional documents concerning the ‘sites’ (e.g., ministerial and state provisions, regional laws and programmes, UNESCO nomination files and reports), and the sources on the main stakeholders (e.g., statutes, official and media reports, websites). This research was followed by the field observations and semi-structured in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and representatives of the actors’ groups. The interviews were conducted face to face, via phone calls and email exchanges. The interview questions were elaborated individually for each interview based on the availability of the information and the profile of the interviewee.

Further, the research synthesizes de-jure and de-facto functions of both institutions, and drafts an argumentative and comparative evaluation of their benefits and limits.

de-jure functions (which are the functions of the ‘strategic stakeholder’ assigned by the law?), including the analysis of the legal context, endowing the ‘strategic stakeholders’ with powers and responsibilities;

organizational structure (which is the organizational structure of the ‘strategic stakeholder’?) focusing on the mission, aims and organigram of the entities, distribution of duties within the organization and professional background of the members; and

performance (how the ‘strategic stakeholder’ performs its functions?) assessing the performance of the ‘strategic stakeholders’ based on the following principles of ‘good governance’, including accountability and transparency, economic sustainability and inclusiveness.

Principle (1): ‘Accountability and Transparency’

Accountability refers to decisions and actions taken by the governing bodies that are ‘subject to oversight so as to guarantee that government initiatives meet their stated objectives and respond to the needs of the community they are meant to be benefiting’ (World Bank Group, 2007, p. 2). However, the process of accountability may vary according to the regulatory and customary regimes in which they are enacted. The question is how and to whom the ‘strategic stakeholder’ is accountable?

Principle (2): ‘Economic sustainability’

The absence of sustainable income resources covering both operational and strategic costs of the organization can compromise its short-term activities. Such governance most likely would affect the effectiveness of the management and protection of the historic agricultural landscape. Within the principle of economic sustainability, we may also include the capacity of the governing body to distribute the resources available for the management of agricultural landscapes. Therefore, the main question is how the long-term economic sustainability of the governance model is ensured.

Principle (3): ‘Inclusiveness’

This principle is the core of Faro Convention (CoE, 2005), which delineates the importance in encouraging the public participation ‘in the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage; as well as public reflection and debate on the opportunities and challenges which the cultural heritage represents’ (art. 12). Therefore, it is vital to understand how the local community is involved in the management process.

Results

Although the local civil society organizations play a critical role in the protection of agricultural landscapes, their actions are often limited within the boundaries of one administrative unit. While the protection of agricultural landscapes usually covers more than one administrative, geographic or sociocultural units, in this context, there is an important role played by so-called strategic stakeholders (Van der Yeught, 2008), also named as ‘gatekeepers’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) or ‘governing bodies’ (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013). The role of such entities is to coordinate actions within the common interests of local actors, which are the protection and enhancement of heritage values. The function is crucial for the agricultural landscapes that involve more than one administrative, social, cultural or other sub-districts.

The variables-based analysis has allowed identifying the actors and understanding their nature, interests, and functions (Turco, 2013). Thus, to guide and to improve the management strategies in agricultural landscapes, it is crucial to understand the limits and benefits intrinsic to each of the governance models, including the principal interests at stake (e.g., promotion or protection), legally assigned functions, organizational structure, administrative framework, economic sustainability, the apparatus of control and the overall principles and objectives behind the governance model.

The Consortium of Farmers: On the Crossroad of Economic and Landscape Protection Interests

In the case of Soave, the map of the stakeholders and their integrations demonstrates that the consortium of farmers plays the role of coordinator in the activities related to the preservation and the promotion of the agricultural landscape (Appendix 1). Article 2602 of the Italian Civil Code defines Consortium as ‘a legal institution regulating a legally recognized voluntary aggregation aimed at coordinating and regulating joint initiatives for the performance of specific business activities, both by private and public bodies’.³ Thus, such organizations are mostly voluntary associations without lucrative purposes whose primary function is to coordinate the activities within common interests of the concerned entities. In the case of agricultural landscapes, the protection consortiums (it., Consorzio di Tutela) are usually promoted by the economic operators (e.g., farmers, wineries) entering into one production chain and the quality schemes of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) like Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (IGP). As of 2018, the Ministerial Mipaaf⁴ registry had 147 consortiums protecting the PDO/IGP of fruits, vegetables, olive oils and other 118 dedicated only for wine products.

The role of the consortiums is strengthened by the provisions that came into force following the launch of Regulation (EU) no. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council. Article 45 introduced the recognition of the roles and responsibilities of the groups of producers, contributing to the protection and promotion of the PDO and PGI, and supporting the development of the sector. In this context, the protection consortiums have gained the critical institutional duties, including representation and protection of the quality marks and economic bodies (such as farmers, wineries and other firms) involved in the production of PDO and PGI products. If the Protection Consortium represents at least 40% of winemakers and at least 66% of the winegrowers of the concerned denomination, they gain erga omnes status, which enlarges the functions of the consortiums ‘towards all producers of the same denomination, even not members of the consortium’ (art. 1 comma 3, Mipaaf, 2010).

Article 14 of the Italian Law n. 526/1999 states that such consortiums carry out the duty of ‘protection, promotion, enhancement, consumer information, and general care of the interests relating to the denominations’. However, the functions of such consortiums differ considerably: Some are limited to the promotion of wine products; others directly contribute to the protection and enhancement of traditional agricultural landscapes (e.g., restoration of abandoned terraces, research and enhancement of traditional skills) (Gori & Sottini, 2014). Thus, the consortiums became active in situ managers, establishing the dialogue between local producers in the matters concerning the protection and promotion of the local production and associated landscapes. The ‘production land’ is widely considered both by Protection consortiums and by producers as a ‘value-added’ or ‘promotional tool’ for the products of protected denominations. In this view, many agricultural consortiums, at least in Italy, launched the projects for the promotion of agricultural landscapes via international organizations (including Cultural Landscapes of UNESCO and Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of UN FAO) and national labels (Historical Rural Landscapes, it., paesaggi rurali storici).

In this context, the example of the Consortium of Soave (Consorzio Tutela Soave) is illustrative. The Consortium represents the interests of the farmers, constituting a large part of the local community. Besides its primary functions, which is the protection of the economic interest of the entities involved in the process of wine production, it was the main protagonist in the recognition of the Soave vine hills as Historic Rural Landscape and Globally Important Agriculture Heritage System (GIAHS). Although these inscriptions might seem to have a merely promotional objective, it has determined the heritage area, in terms of both physical boundaries and perception, which is essential to the consistency of the management strategies.

The Consortium lacks both governmental and democratic remits. However, the mass membership and the fact that the members are regularly consulted as a part of the statutory process confer legitimacy to the consortiums. Thus, the Consortium can establish communication between its members. In Soave, this ‘power’ of the Consortium has allowed attracting the funds of the Regional Rural Development Plan (RDP) for the protection of the tangible dimension of the vine hills. Within the measure 16.1.1. (Innovation brokering), the RDP has funded the study for the reduction of erosion and management of productive lands in the hillside and the mountain vineyards within the framework of the project ‘No rolling stones’ lead by the Consortium⁵. These factors indicate the crucial role played by the Consortium in the governance of local activities aimed at the management and protection of the vine hills. However, this engenders the question of what is the role played by the local administration?

Both municipal administrations remain the main point of reference in the framework of spatial planning, the social and economic development of the territory. However, the responsibility of these public entities is limited to their municipal boundaries—a part of the vine hills. Thus, the management of the agricultural landscapes coordinated by municipal administrations inevitably encounters the issue of stratification and lack of an integrated approach to large-scale territory.

National Parks: The State Entity with Local Functions

In Cinque Terre, the role of the local governing body falls on the National Park, which covers the territory of all concerned municipalities. According to the Italian Law 394/91 on protected areas (or Park Law), the definition of National Parks includes:

terrestrial, fluvial, lake or marine areas containing one or more intact ecosystems or even partially altered by anthropic interventions, one or more physical, geological, geomorphological and biological formations of international or national importance due to naturalistic, scientific, aesthetic, cultural, educational and recreational values, and which require the State intervention in order to conserve them for present and future generations. (art. 2)⁶

Together with the naturalistic and scientific values, the Italian definition of National Parks pays attention to the cultural significance of human-made properties present in the protected areas. In other words, the heritage of agricultural practices (e.g., dry-stoned walls, hedges, irrigation systems) is protected in line with the endemic species or other naturalistic elements of the parks.

The Law defines the Entity of the National Park as ‘public body with legal and administrative headquarters in the territory of the park and is subject to the supervision of the Minister of the Environment’ (Park Law, art. 9). Thus, it assigns the Entity of National Park the role of in situ manager of the protected territory. It is essential to note that the National Law gives particular attention to the protection and promotion of traditional agricultural activities in the territory of National Parks, stating that the Entity has the duty ‘to apply management methods aimed at integration between man and the natural environment, by safeguarding anthropological, archaeological, historic and architectural values and activities agro-silvo-pastoral and traditional’ (art. 1.3.b).⁷ Thus, the National Park of Cinque Terre is a public institution that has legally defined power to protect the territory of the Park, and the protection of the agricultural landscape enters into its function defined by the National Law.

Moreover, the intuitional mandate of the National Park of Cinque Terre defines the following missions:

to conserve biodiversity, geomorphological formations, and values of the cultural landscape; to apply management methods aimed at integration between man and natural environment; to promote and provide education, training and scientific research; to defend and reconstruct the hydraulic and hydrogeological balances; to promote and incentivize local productions.

The philosophy of the National Park is based on the human element present in the territory of Cinque Terre. One of the main focus and commitments of the National Park is the protection of thousands of kilometres of dry walls constructed over the centuries and currently threatened by the infesting vegetation and the hydrogeological instability.

In addition to its direct institutional functions, including the nature protection regulations, financial contribution and scientific support, it plays a crucial role in all analysed aspects of the management process from the planning to valorization of the agricultural terraces. It coordinates the large-scale projects and involvement of the local actors. Most importantly, it establishes a shared strategic vision, thus endowing the area with the collective identity, which cannot be carried out by several municipal administrations (Appendix 2).

Comparative Analysis: The Benefits and Limits of the Governance Models

Based on the principles of economic sustainability, inclusiveness, accountability and transparency, the analysis of the governing bodies has allowed drafting an argumentative and comparative evaluation of their benefits (+) and limits (−) (Table 1).

Table 1.

The Comparative Analysis of the Local Governance Models Based

Consortium of Producers		National Park
+	Supra-municipal actor	+	Supra-municipal actor
+	Promotion of Agricultural Landscape: Visibility, Communication of Values	+	Scientific and didactic profile
−	Product-oriented strategy	+	Functions directed to the protection of the agricultural landscape
−	‘Lock-in’ effect	−	Enclave effect
−	Advisory status	+	Legally defined power
+	Relative freedom and simplicity of decisions-making	−	Rigid administrative framework and decision-making process
+	Economic independence	−	Dependence from the public funds
−	Weak inclusiveness	+	Accountability and Transparency

Source: The author.

The collective benefit of the governing bodies is that they act at the supra-municipal level, and therefore they are able to bundle resources and enhance the local cooperation. In Cinque Terre, the National Park serves as the common platform for the concerned territorial units, while in the case of Soave vine hills, the Consortium enhances the local cooperation by mobilizing its members, regardless of two administrative districts (Monteforte d’Alpone and Soave) that they belong to.

The plethora of protection mechanisms and public policies, at the local level, is reflected in the heterogeneity of locally adapted governance models, characterized by considerable institutional diversity and whose effectiveness varies considerably. In the territories characterized by a prosperous agricultural activity, the local governance of the agricultural landscape has a better involvement or even dominance of the farmers’ associations, while, in the case of environmentally significant agricultural landscapes, the local governance tends to concentrate within the power of public authorities (such as parks or municipal administration).

The main benefit of the governance model based on the farmers’ Consortium is economic independence and relative freedom in the decision-making process. The farmers’ consortiums can largely contribute to the viability of agricultural landscapes by supporting their production potential and by promoting the territory. Notably, the role of the consortiums as the custodians of geographic indicators is crucial for the viability of agricultural landscapes. However, a robust brand-related strategy can also lead to lock-in and ‘hamper experimentation and innovation’ (Hartman et al., 2015). In this context, the viability and resilience of the rural areas rely on the capacity to balance innovations and traditional practices. However, it is necessary to take into account that wine is a luxury commodity with high global demand. Therefore, it is doubtful that the same level of success could be expected in other types of agricultural landscapes (e.g., pastoral, or those focused on staple food production). The transferability of the experience of the Soave Consortium to other agricultural landscapes might, therefore, not be so easy.

Besides, there are several significant limits of the consortium-based governance model expressed in its product-oriented strategy, the advisory status and weak inclusiveness. That is because such farmers’ cooperations are often long-established lobbies challenging to be integrated with. The farmers’ cooperations voice the economic concerns of its members (producers and farmers), and then the common concerns of a territory. This governance model contrasts with the governance based on the parks, whose function directly relates to the protection of agricultural landscapes through the protection of environmental and cultural values of the territory. The parks have a legally defined power assigned by the states or other administrative units, depending on the political structure of the country. It presumes the accountability and transparency of the entity of the park, at least the existence of the framework and a legal basis for accountability and transparency.

Further, the parks often have the scientific and didactic profile, which associates with its inclusiveness. However, the limits of the parks such as a rigid administrative framework, decision-making process and, often, the dependence from the public funds complicate its effectiveness as the local governing body. Although the National Park has its financial sources deriving from the tourism services (mainly the selling of Multiservice Cards), the public funds remain the primary ordinary income of the National Park, constituting around 75% of the budget (National Park of Cinque Terre, 2017).

In addition, within the Italian legal and institutional context, there is a tendency to ‘underestimate’ the function of the parks as a mere environmental agency (it., agenzie ambientali) devoted to providing environmental protection services. Indeed, the park system is often dominated by the enclave technic focused on a constraint-based scheme. This often results in neglected attention to the relationship of the park territory with its surrounding areas, which are essential for the viability of the rural territory as a whole (Barile et al., 2016). However, the parks can serve as a strategic stakeholder and join the administrative units often present in the large-scale agricultural landscapes.

Discussions and Conclusion

How and who manages the heritage agricultural landscapes at the local level? The study aimed to present an empirical model on the local management of heritage agricultural landscapes by drawing the map of interaction between the multiplicity of stakeholders and analysis of the local governing bodies.

The management of the agricultural landscape is a complex and intricate process. Not only because it requires the consideration of many aspects from agriculture and production to the promotion of the local culture and environmental education but also because it involves a large number of actors with often conflicting interests, which can evolve and change irrespective of the position taken by the stakeholder (e.g., farmer-producer or farmer-residents). The variables-based analysis proposed in this study has several functions.

First, it can help to identify the multiplicity of the stakeholder involved in the management and governance process, their functions and interests. It has demonstrated that the same actor can provide several services and show multiple interests, depending on their role in the management process. This information is crucial for the management strategies because it may prevent or mitigate the eventual conflicts.

Second, the variable-based analysis can help to identify the gaps and guide the decision-makers in structuring the management strategies. Thus, the analysis of the case studies has demonstrated the limited attention paid to the intangible dimension of agricultural landscapes. Regardless of increasing recognition of the agricultural landscape as the combination of tangible (landform, plants, structures) and intangible attributes (knowledge, practices, customs, human tissue, institutions), often, the latter is either ignored or considered as an ‘additional’ element to deal with.

Third, the methodology proposed in this study can be used in the assessment of management practices and the performance of the main stakeholders. Given the multifunctional nature of agricultural landscapes, the protection is not about the conservation of landscape fabric, but the management of changes aimed at retaining the heritage values. In this context, there is an increasing importance of the local governing bodies able to bundle the local resources and direction towards the implementation of the common strategy. The focus of the case studies has allowed understanding the contrast of the local governance and management mechanisms applied to agricultural landscapes. Thus, the role of the local governance body/coordinator can be implemented by various actors, regardless of the legal status (private, public) and functions assigned by law (such as nature protection, promotion, production, local administration).

The diversity of locally applied governance models reflects the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes. The study results have suggested that the plethora of protection mechanisms and public policies, at the local level, to some extent, is reflected in the heterogeneity of locally adapted governance models. The latter is characterized by considerable institutional diversity, depending on the prevalence of individual interests over the others. Thus, in the case of Soave, the main local governing body is the Consortium of farmers, while, in Cinque Terre, it is the National Park. It suggests that in the territories characterized by a prosperous agricultural activity, the local governance of the agricultural landscape has a better involvement or even dominance of the farmers’ associations, while, in the case of protected agricultural landscapes, the local governance tends to be concentrated within the power of public authorities (such as parks or municipal administration).

The collective benefit of both governance bodies is that they act at the supra-municipal level, and therefore, they can bundle resources and enhance local cooperation. However, there are several differences in terms of limits and benefits. Thus, farmers’ consortiums often have economic independence from public funds, which give a certain degree of freedom and simplify decision-making. In contrast, the park entries are often bound by the public budget and have a relatively rigid administrative framework that complicates its operation. The main objective of parks is to balance the interest present in the territory, while the farmers’ Consortium prioritizes the interests of its members.

Besides the farmers’ consortiums and parks, the overview of the local governance models as applied to other agricultural landscapes in Europe has shown the dominance of the governance models based on the local administration and ad hoc institutions in the form of associations, foundations, societies, foundations and missions. No matter the type of the local governance model, the protection of agricultural practices and landscapes involves a complex task of managing public and collective interests and requires thorough knowledge of the territory.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abler

(2004). Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 33(1), 8–17.

Barile

, & Saviano

(2015). From the management of cultural heritage to the governance of cultural heritage system. In Golinelli

G. M.

(Ed.), Cultural heritage and value creation: Towards new pathways (pp. 71–103). Springer.

Barile

, Tommasetti

, & Saviano

(2016). I parchi e le aree protette tra funzione di tutela e finalità di valorizzazione in ottica di sostenibilità (Parks and protected areas in between the function of protection and enhancement from a sustainability perspective). In Golinelli

(Ed.), Patrimonio culturale e creazione di valore. La componente naturalistica (pp. 67–113). Kluwer Cedam.

Borrini-Feyerabend

(2008, February). Governance as key for effective and equitable protected area systems, implementing the conservation of biological diversity programme of work on protected areas (Briefing note 8). IUCN.

Borrini-Feyerabend

, Dudley

, Jaeger

, Lassen

, Broome

N. P.

, Phillips

, & Sabdwith

(2013). Governance of protected areas: From understanding to action (Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20). IUCN.

Brunstad

R. J.

, Gaasland

, & Erling

(2005). Multifunctionality of agriculture: And inquery into complementarity between landscape preservation and food security. European Review of Agrcicultural Economics, 32, 469–488.

Castillo Ruiz

(2013). Carta de Baeza sobre Patrimonio Agrario (Charter of Baeza on Agrarian Heritage). Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Chamberlain

B. C.

, & Meitner

M. J.

(2013). A route-based visibility analysis for landscape management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.004

Cohen

W. M.

, & Levinthal

D. A.

(1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

10.

Colléony

, Prévot

A.-C.

, Jalme

M. S.

, & Clayton

(2017). What kind of landscape management can interact with extinction of experience? Landscape and urban planning, 159, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.010

11.

Council of Europe (CoE) (2000a). European landscape convention (Council of European Treaty Series No. 176). Council of Europe

12.

Council of Europe (CoE) (2000b). Explanatory report to the european landscape convention (Council of European Treaty Series No. 176). Council of Europe.

13.

Council of Europe (CoE) (2005). Faro convention, Council of Europe framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society. Council of Europe.

14.

Estrada-Carmona

, Hart

, Declerck

, Harvey

C. A.

(2014). Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: An assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landscape and Urban Planning, 129, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.001

15.

Fairclough

(2002). A forward-looking convention: European landscapes for the 21st century. Naturopa, 98, 5–6.

16.

FAO (2003). Working arrangements and certification procedures under the Globally Important Agriculture Heritage System (GIAHS). FAO.

17.

FAO (2009). International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2579e.pdf

18.

FAO (2017, January). Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS): Selection criteria and action plan. FAO.

19.

Fischer

A. P.

(2018). Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 138–147.

20.

Fischer

A. P.

, Klooster

, & Cirhigiri

(2019). Cross-boundary cooperation for landscape management: Collective action and social exchange among individual private forest landowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 188, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.004

21.

Gori

, & Sottini

V. A.

(2014). The role of the consortia in the Italian wine production system and the impact of EU and national legislation. Wine Economics and Policy, 3, 62–67.

22.

Gottero

(2018). Agrourbanism: Tools for governance and planning of agrarian landscape. Springer.

23.

Graham

, . (2003). Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century. A discussion paper, Institute on Governance in collaboration with Parks Canada and Canadian International Development Agency, Ottawa.

24.

Hartman

, Parra

, & de Roo

(2015). Stimulating spatial quality? Unpacking the approach of the province of Friesland, the Netherland. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 297–315.

25.

ICOMOS (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance. ICOMOS.

26.

ICOMOS, & IFLA (2017). Principles concerning rural landscape as heritage. ICOMOS General Assembly.

27.

IUCN (2008). World initiative on sustainable pastoralism. IUCN.

28.

Kieninger

P. R.

, Gugerell

, & Penker

(2016). Governance-mix for resilient socio-ecological production landscapes in Austria—An example of the terraced riverine landscape Wachau. Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review, 2, 36–49.

29.

Kurz

, Ruland

, & Zech

(2014). Towards governance for the management of cultural landscapes. European Spatial Research and Policy, 21(2), 67–82.

30.

Mann

, Garcia-Martin

, Raymond

C. M.

, Shaw

B. J.

, & Plieninger

(2018). The potential for integrated landscape management to fulfill Europe’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.017

31.

Mashaw

J. L.

(2005). Structuring a ‘Dense Complexity’: Accountability and the project of administrative law. Issues in Legal Scholarship, 1(5), 16–17.

32.

Mipaaf (2010). Decreto 12 maggio 2010 ₹Disposizioni generali in materia di verifica delle attività attribuite ai Consorzi di tutela in agricoltura’. G.U.(121).

33.

Moore

, & Tully

(2018). Connecting landscapes: Examining and enhancing the relationship between stakeholder values and cultural landscape management in England. Landscape Research, 43(6), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1360471

34.

National Park of Cinque Terre (2017). Performance plan of the National Park of Cinque Terre for 2017–2019. National Park of Cinque Terre.

35.

Pelorosso

, Chiesa

S. D.

, Tappeiner

, & Leone

(2011). Stability analysis for defining management strategies in abandoned mountain landscapes of the Mediterranean basin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103, 335–346.

36.

Pérez

(2003). La gouvernance de l’entreprise [Corporate Governance]. La découverte.

37.

Rallings

A. M.

, Smukler

S. M.

, Gergel

S. E.

, & Mullinix

(2019). Towards multifunctional land use in an agricultural landscape: A trade-off and synergy analysis in the Lower Fraser Valley, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 184, 88–100.

38.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2004). Addis Ababa principles and guidelines for the sustainable use of biodiversity. CBD Guidelines.

39.

Slotterback

C. S.

, Runck

, Pitt

D. G.

, Kne

, Jordan

N. R.

, Mulla

D. J.

, Zerger

, & Zerger

(n.d.). Collaborative geodesign to advance multifunctional landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 71–80.

40.

Turco

(2013). La governance territorial (The territorial governance). In Turco

(Ed.), Governance Territoriale: Norme, discorsi, pratiche (p. 296). Unicopli.

41.

UNESCO (2001). Recommendations for vineyard cultural landscapes. The World Heritage Thematic Expert meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes. UNESCO.

42.

UNESCO (2003a). Cultural landscapes: The challenges of conservation. Proceedings of an International Workshop. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000132988

43.

UNESCO (2003b). World heritage cultural landscapes 1992-2002 (World Heritage Papers 6). UNESCO.

44.

UNESCO (2008). Operational directives for the implementation of the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/directives

45.

UNESCO (2009). World heritage cultural landscapes. A handbook for conservation and management (World Heritage Papers 26). UNESCO.

46.

UNESCO (2017, July). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. UNESCO.

47.

UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES, & UNDP (2014). Toolkit for the indicators of resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS). https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrated/uploads/tx_news/Toolkit_for_the_indicators_of_iesilience_in_socio-ecological_production_landscapes_and_seascapes_1844.pdf

48.

Van der Yeught

(2008). Favoriser le développement d’un cluster “tourisme durable” au sein d’une destination touristique: le cas des Cinq Terres (Italie) (Promoting the development of a “sustainable tourism” cluster within a tourist destination: the case of Cinque Terre (Italy)). CIFEPME.

49.

Van Huylenbroeck

, Vandermeulen

, Mettepenningen

, & Verspecht

(2007). Multifunctionality of agriculture: A review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 1. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-3

50.

Vaz

A. S.

, Honrado

J. P.

, & Lomba

(2019). Replacement of pine by eucalypt plantations: Effect on the diversity and structure of tree assemblages under land abandonment and implications fo landscape management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185, 61–67.

51.

Vissac

(2005). Study of a historical garden soil at the Grand-Pressigny site (Indre-et-Loire, France): Evidence of landscape management. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6(1), 61–67.

52.

World Bank Group (2007). Accountability in governance. World Bank Group.