7 December 2000

Abstract: Throughout its history, agriculture has presumably influenced our physical surroundings more than any other human activity. The traces left behind by millennia of agricultural activities now represent valuable cultural monuments and cultural landscapes, and make up an important part of our global cultural heritage. Cultural monuments and cultural landscapes are irreplaceable sources of knowledge and experience about past and present human culture. They are living examples of the tales of our past, thus contributing to our understanding of the relationship between past and present, between humans and nature and between different cultures. This report aims at discussing the concept of ”agriculture’s cultural heritage”, why its preservation is important, how to preserve it, i.e., evaluating various policy instruments, agriculture’s role in the management of the cultural heritage, and to what degree this role is connected to agriculture’s primary activities of food and fibre production.

What is agriculture’s cultural heritage?

Throughout its long history, agriculture has formed our physical surroundings more than any other human activity. As an industry, it has, and will remain to have, a tremendous impact on the development and forming of the cultural landscape. This landscape is the product of thousands of years of farming activities and the utilisation of natural resources. This history left behind an enormous amount of physical traces, which can be found as cultural monuments in historical layers in the cultural landscape. Such monuments can have different functions, for example, a farming landscape can be experienced as a history book, a space for experiences and recreation, or as something that helps to create a sense of belonging and identity.

All physical traces that can be found in the farming landscape are part of our extensive and diverse material cultural heritage. This includes prehistoric and historic archaeological cultural monuments, buildings from various periods in time, different kinds of technical installations in the farming landscape and the sum of all farmland and other utilised outfield, mountain and forest areas. In addition, the rural population is also the bearer of an immaterial cultural heritage, through its traditional knowledge of local farming and social history.

However, this cultural heritage is not limited to the cultivated land area, which in Norway only accounts for approximately 3 % of the country’s total land area. It must be emphasised that, for most of Norwegian history, this relatively small area of land has stood in an intimate functional relationship with the remaining land areas. These include vast expanses of outlying lands, which have been utilised for hunting, trapping, fishing, mountain dairy farming, as grazing land, as a source of livestock forage and of course forestry. Norwegian farming has always been a labour-intensive and land-based pluriactivity, in which all available infield, outfield, forest and mountain resources were combined and utilised.

The archaeological cultural monuments include traces from pre-agricultural times (often associated with hunting, trapping and fishing) as well as settlements, agricultural and burial monuments from the early phases of farming. In this report, both types of cultural monuments are considered as part of agriculture’s cultural heritage. The sum of the entire cultural heritage that is embodied in the farming landscape is affected by agricultural practice, and thus represents a great challenge with regard to the management of the cultural heritage.

An obvious way to describe agriculture’s cultural heritage more specifically is to take on the agricultural sector’s own perspective. This enables the classification of the different kinds of cultural monuments in the agricultural landscape into the following categories:

• Farm dwellings
• Farm buildings (for production and storage)
• Technical and other installations, such as roads, bridges, terraces, canals, dykes and clearance cairns
• Kitchen gardens, orchards, avenues, farmyard trees and pollards
• Infield and outfield farmland, including cropland, pastures and hayfields
• Various archaeological cultural remnants, both with or without connection to farming history. The former include old housing sites, field edges, stone heaps and fossil traces of farming activities found in the soil.

The different historical traces include sites, lines and areas of varying size. By applying a more generalised cultural landscape perspective, it is possible to view the level above the individual farming units that make up the core of the Norwegian farming landscape. This level includes:

• Land tenure, property structures and land consolidation history embodied in the landscape
• Land use structures and farming methods embodied in the landscape
• Ethnic and social structures embodied in the landscape

These are also important elements of our physical cultural heritage and basic values of the cultural landscape. This general perspective is flexible and can be found on different geographical levels, including larger villages and hamlets.

In addition, there is also an immaterial cultural heritage, which exists as traditional knowledge in the rural population. This includes knowledge associated with historical farming methods and of the supplementary activities which were a normal part of Norwegian agriculture. Such knowledge often dealt with resources, methods of resource utilisation and sustainability. This tradition also includes handicrafts and the domestic industry, which were vital additional activities on all farms throughout the history of agriculture. In pre-industrial times, the rural population in Norway was dependent on a high degree of self-sufficiency. Even nowadays, traditional knowledge and skills associated with the farm and the surrounding landscape represent financial and functional potentials. In addition, there is extensive knowledge of historical events, beliefs and traditions associated with the landscape. These resources can be used as a source of historical information or can be directly experienced.

Why preserve the cultural heritage?

The cultural heritage represents an essential resource for society, and its administration is thus an important political arena. This naturally includes agriculture’s cultural heritage. Our cultural heritage is a major source of historical information. For all of our prehistoric history, which makes up most of history, cultural monuments are even our only source of knowledge. They can thus be regarded as a non-renewable resource of vital importance for our historical understanding.

Via the physical traces of our ancestors, our cultural heritage also allows the direct experience and visualisation of history. Herein lies a considerable educational potential. Cultural monuments influence us in many ways. They represent stability and a sense of historical belonging in our physical environment, and contribute to social security and quality. Such knowledge and experiences are important for the development of local, regional and national identities. Cultural monuments and cultural environments are thus an essential part of our quality of life.

Furthermore, they also represent important economic and functional resources. For example, buildings and installations account for about 70 % of the total capital stock in society; buildings alone account for nearly 50 %. Traditional farmsteads still function as dwellings and farm buildings, the farmland of today’s agriculture coincides to a large extent with the historical farming landscape, and the present agricultural structures are still influenced by land tenure and land consolidation systems that are deeply rooted in ancient traditions. In addition, it is possible to consider an economic potential related to the above-mentioned knowledge- and experience-based values, related to the farming landscape’s cultural-historical dimension and the immaterial cultural heritage of the rural population.

Such a potential has been associated with the immaterial cultural heritage, as was emphasised by the White Book (no. 19, 1999-2000) on Norwegian agricultural policy:

The government underlines that farmers represent a resource, due to their expertise associated with traditional and indigenous knowledge, as well as their farming, forestry and handicraft skills.

All these values related to the cultural heritage are interdependent and amplify each other. Cultural monuments and the cultural landscape thus represent important resources for present and future society. Since they are a non-renewable resource, we are obliged to manage them with respect for our ancestors, those living today as well as future generations. The management of the agricultural landscape’s physical cultural values – cultural monuments, cultural environments and the cultural landscape – is therefore an important public responsibility. In Norway it is an essential part of environmental policy, and is included in the overall environmental strategy aimed at managing the natural and cultural heritage that make up our physical surroundings.

Some international perspectives on cultural heritage management

The importance of this field is underlined by international focus on the common role of agriculture and cultural heritage authorities, the latter as part of the management of the cultural heritage. This area of co-operation is part of both cultural and environmental policy making. In the past decades, important processes have been carried out in both fields in connection with the reports ”Our Common Future” (World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland Commission, 1987) and ”Our Creative Diversity” (World Commission on Culture and Development, de Cuellar Commission, 1995). Both reports contain important perspectives regarding the role of agriculture in cultural heritage management.

One important aspect mentioned in the World Commission for Environment and Development is the role of our cultural heritage as a source of knowledge about the lives of previous generations. Thus, environmental policy is placed in a historical context and clearly coupled to human development. Our cultural environments are an essential part of the global heritage. They relay knowledge about the effect of early human impact on ecosystems. This results in a better understanding of the interaction between humans and the environment, and of how our present environment is a result of past human activities. This enables the evaluation of the effects of present environmental impact, which in turn is important for the development of future environmental policies. An important aspect of integrating cultural heritage management with the concept of sustainability is that this enables the development of an increased awareness of environmental issues and human responsibility in relation to these.

Environmental policies should be based on a holistic approach to the environment, including a natural and a cultural dimension, as well as the interaction between the two. The following basic distinction between natural resource and cultural heritage management shows how the latter should be an important part of a sustainable development:

• The preservation of biodiversity and the reduction of environmental pollution are parts of the efforts aimed at preserving our natural heritage, i.e., the material basis for human life. This can be considered essential for securing the conditions future survival.
• Accordingly, the preservation of our cultural heritage contributes to the preservation of cultural diversity, which can be considered essential for securing our ability for future survival.

In the context of securing a sustainable development, our environmental problems are ”products of culture”. This implies that they only can be solved as such. Our experiences and traditions with regard to the relationship between man and nature are thus an important resource.

The World Commission on Culture and Environment also addresses important issues related to agriculture and the cultural environment. The importance of the material and the immaterial cultural heritage is emphasised. The Commission points out that a vital historical resource related to an awareness and competence regarding natural resource management is inherent in the diverse cultures.

Agriculture is an important bearer of this heritage. The awareness for its role as a steward for our natural resources is an important part of the traditional attitudes within the sector, and therewith also an important part of its immaterial cultural heritage. A long-term perspective on resource management, taking future generations into consideration, is a major element of this heritage. Other elements include skills related to the management of cultural environments and added value creation in connection with the material and the immaterial cultural heritage. The Commission states that these skills are a necessary prerequisite for achieving sustainability.

UNESCO is continuing its international work on cultural and developmental issues. The topics were on the agenda at a round table conference of ministers of cultural affairs during the 30th UNESCO General Assembly in Paris in November 1999. Canada’s Heritage Minister, Ms. Sheila Copps, mentioned, among others, the need ”(…) to include culture in sustainable development.” A major issue of the Conference was the conflict between preserving cultural diversity and the ongoing globalisation of international trade. The French Minister of Culture and Communication Madame Catherine Trautmann formulated this in the following way:

”The Seattle negotiations should not put into question the possibility of states and their governments to take specific measures to preserve cultural diversity.”

How can agriculture’s cultural heritage be preserved?

A number of policy instruments are needed to ensure the conservation and management of agriculture’s cultural heritage. National policies regarding cultural heritage conservation vary, depending on such factors as national political goals in the field, differences in administrative traditions and practice, and varying opinions of which elements of the agricultural landscape are especially valuable. However, there are a number of basic conditions which most countries have in common.

The main challenges with regard to the management of cultural heritage can be summed up as follows:

• The maintenance of the agricultural landscape and the inherent cultural heritage depends totally on continued agricultural activities such as farm operations, building maintenance and land management.
• The activities must be appropriate in relation to the management goals in question. For example, faulty maintenance of cultural monuments can destroy these just as much as a lack of maintenance.
• However, the best way to conserve certain elements of the cultural heritage, primarily archaeological remnants underneath the surface, is to protect them completely from all kinds of physical disturbance.

The policy instruments must therefor contribute to the fulfilment of the above-mentioned basic challenges.

The legal instruments, such as laws and regulations, make up the foundation for cultural heritage management. Legal regulation exists for both spheres, i.e., cultural heritage management and the agricultural sector. In general, such policy instruments are usually more effective in preventing undesired activities than stimulating active, desired activities beyond a certain minimum. Nevertheless, the legal framework does enable the definition and regulation of agricultural activities to such an extent as to prevent damage to cultural monuments. Important elements of the applicable legal policy instruments include laws and regulations pertaining to cultural heritage management and other environmental policy, the agricultural sector, land use and resource management, including the conservation of agriculture’s land and resource base.

The economical policy instruments are better suited as incentives for positive measures than the legal ones. Numerous subsidies and support programmes, from both the environmental and agricultural sectors, are meant to enhance the conservation of cultural monuments and the management of agriculture’s cultural heritage. While some of these are of general character, meant to ensure a certain minimal level of cultural heritage management, others are meant to ensure the additional input required to conserve especially valuable elements. Irrespective of these policy instruments, the overall framework for cultural heritage management will to a large degree depend on national agricultural policies, including price and tax policies. Through its stewardship of the cultural heritage, agriculture helps to preserve values that are important for society. An important issue is thus how to establish satisfactory ways of remunerating agricultural for its input in this context.

Other important policy instruments include support for administrational functions such as co-operation, information, training and advisory services. In addition, information is a vital part of the implementation of legal and economical policy instruments. In order to develop general policy instruments that effectively meet concrete practical challenges, it is important to combine the authorities’ know-how with that of the agricultural sector.

A major issue with regard to the development and implementation of policy instruments is that there should be a balance between public expectations and political goals on one hand, and the available policy instruments on the other. There must be agreement between the legal and the economical policy instruments. The overall economical framework and specific economical policy instruments must be adapted to the requirements and expectations concerning agriculture’s role in cultural heritage management.

Agriculture’s role in cultural heritage management

Agriculture’s cultural heritage represents a major part of the nation’s total cultural heritage. The management thereof is the responsibility of the cultural heritage authorities, which have contributed to the development of local, regional and national policy instruments. However, these policy instruments can only encompass a small share of the total cultural heritage. It is important to realise that the rural population itself, as land owners and stewards, is the main bearer of our cultural heritage, and thus represents the foundation for practical cultural heritage management.

It has previously been mentioned that the management of cultural-historical values to a large extent depends on day-to-day farm operations, maintenance and land use activities. This also applies to the management of specifically valuable cultural monuments. This implies that a farm/farmer-oriented approach is extremely important when developing relevant policy instruments.

Norwegian agriculture is characterised by many different local adaptations to the greatly varying natural conditions. The relatively good growing conditions in the south-eastern lowlands are quite a contrast to the marginal farming areas in most of northern Norway (north of the Arctic Circle), as well as in the mountainous, coastal and fjord regions. Conditions for farming vary immensely, due to variations in soil fertility, altitude, latitude and a rather extreme coastal-inland gradient. As a result, the length of the growing season also varies significantly. In addition, there are considerable material and immaterial cultural differences within the country. Differences with regard to settlement structure, building traditions, farming methods and social and land tenure structures are clearly visible in the farming landscape. This has resulted in a diversity within Norwegian agriculture that is reflected in the country’s diverse (agricultural) cultural heritage. Due to this diversity, it is quite a challenge to formulate policy instruments with the desired effects, which again makes it natural to increasingly direct the efforts of conserving this cultural heritage towards the local level and the farmers themselves.

Cultural heritage management as part of agriculture’s multifunctionality

It has been previously mentioned that the management of agriculture’s cultural heritage requires successful co-operation between the cultural heritage authorities and the agricultural sector. An important concept in this context is that of agriculture’s multifunctionality, which implies that in addition to producing food and fibres, agriculture also helps to maintain certain public goods, such as environmental qualities, including the cultural heritage. The challenge is to find appropriate remuneration schemes for agriculture’s services as a steward of natural and cultural values, which thus represent an important part of agriculture’s total production.

The combination of food and fibre production and the production of public goods in the concept of multifunctionality implies that all of these functions have a common source, namely a viable agricultural sector. The term implies that the various environmental qualities, including the cultural heritage, are an integrated part of agriculture’s total production.

A common, basic goal for cultural heritage administration and the agricultural sector is to develop a co-operation aimed at maintaining an active and environmentally sound (or sustainable) agriculture. This implies, inter alia, that the agricultural sector preserves the cultural-historical values in the farming landscape associated with farmland, technical installations, and farm dwellings. At the same time, the damaging effects of agricultural operations need to be minimised, and conflicts between agriculture and cultural heritage conservation identified and solved.

Viable rural settlements and their farming activities have created and still maintain a large share of our cultural heritage. The sector’s activities and value creation are thus a basic requirement for satisfactory management of the cultural-historical values in the farming landscape. The number and quality of agricultural cultural monuments are to a large degree determined by the extent and type of the farming activities.

An important question in relation to such a multifunctional approach to agriculture, is whether or not it is possible to establish a substantial and satisfactory management of the cultural dimension without a direct link to agriculture’s traditional, and primary, function of producing food and fibres. How much will future developments within these primary agricultural functions affect cultural heritage management? From the viewpoint of the cultural heritage authorities, it seems as if agriculture itself is the decisive factor when it comes to preserving agriculture’s cultural heritage. It is therefore vital to systematically and extensively assess agriculture’s role as the steward of our cultural heritage and to evaluate the links between agricultural practice and cultural heritage management.

Is it possible to preserve the cultural heritage independently of active agricultural production?

The discussion above raises a fundamental issue within cultural heritage administration: is it possible to manage agriculture’s cultural heritage without at the same time maintaining an active farming community? Presumably, only a highly limited share of the cultural heritage can be preserved without doing so, e.g., through measures directly aimed at cultural heritage conservation. There are several reasons for this:

• Most of agriculture’s cultural heritage is the result of agricultural activities throughout history, and can therefore only be maintained in the future by enabling the continued existence of active farming communities. Furthermore, it is important that farming activities do not damage the cultural-historical values, but rather contribute to preserving them in a satisfactory way.
• The cultural heritage consists of material and an immaterial aspects, and both have to be addressed in order to ensure successful cultural heritage management. Agriculture’s cultural heritage cannot be preserved through the conservation of physical landscape elements alone, but needs to be linked to the immaterial part of the cultural heritage. This aspect is in itself valuable and should be maintained, which, however, only can be done by active bearers of culture in viable farming communities.
• Successful management of the material cultural heritage requires the integration of traditional, indigenous knowledge into the cultural conservation efforts. This is necessary in order to maintain the cultural diversity which is the result of the many different adaptations to varying local conditions. Such knowledge enhances agriculture’s ability to combine the management of the material cultural heritage with modern farming methods and the present pressure by society towards change and increasing efficiency.
• In addition, traditional knowledge and skills are important resources for the development of new enterprises, future value creation and viable farming communities.
• An important dimension of the cultural heritage and its management is related to the concept of authenticity. Successful maintenance of agriculture’s cultural heritage thus requires a certain degree of authenticity, i.e., that cultural heritage conservation is practically implemented within the framework of viable farming communities.

An interesting question regarding the production of public goods is, ”how much does the management of the cultural heritage depend on active agricultural production of food and fibre?” Theoretically, the maintenance of cultural monuments in the farming landscape could be assured via specifically targeted measures, even without any farming activities in the area. However, this would create problems, e.g., the creation of values through active farming is a major source of the financial basis which is necessary to conserve many of the cultural-historical values.

Another difficulty would be how to distinguish between the material and immaterial cultural heritage, and still enable a satisfactory management of the former. Cultural values are an entirety of physical traces and traditional knowledge. A conservation of physical structures alone would lead to a ”museum-agriculture”, out of tune with the continuing developments within the farming sector. Such a conservation of physical structures does not have the same value as a situation in which a dynamically developing farming sector maintains its cultural heritage as part of its viable business activities. Cultural values and other public goods produced by today’s agriculture can only to a limited degree be maintained by other sectors.

The relationship between primary production of food and fibres and the production of cultural values has numerous aspects:

• Location – The number of cultural-historical monuments in the farming landscape greatly depends on the geographical scope of farming activities. The production of environmental goods increases with increasing extent of agricultural production.
• Farming methods – The kind of agricultural production and the methods used also contribute to the extent of cultural value production. However, these factors also have a strong influence on the quality of these values.

It must be stated that increasing primary production does not necessarily result in increased production of environmental goods; the opposite can be the case, e.g., when the farming activities do not take sufficient consideration to environmental values.

In general, there is a clear correlation between production methods, use of inputs and the output of food and fibre on one hand, and the access to various public goods on the other. Since the production of public goods cannot be separated from agricultural production, it is important that the authorities broadly support the development of a – culturally and naturally – sustainable agriculture. This relationship was formulated by Blekesaune as:

If farmers are to be responsible for the future production of non-trade concerns, it is obvious that they have to farm.

In a multifunctional agriculture, the production of many public goods is completely dependent on an active farming community. This requires a holistic approach when evaluating the integration of primary agricultural production and the maintenance of agriculture’s cultural heritage. At the same time, the costs necessary for ensuring the production of these different goods cannot be assessed independently. Farm buildings are one example. These represent major cultural-historical values, but their maintenance is greatly dependent on that they continue to be included as an integrated part of modern farming activities. Only a few of such buildings can be preserved by specific financial support directed at the protection of historic buildings.

There is a distinct difference between farm dwellings and farm buildings. For example, it is possible to inhabit and maintain farm dwellings, either as permanent or summer houses, even after farming as such has ceased. This implies a functional transition and division compared to a farm’s historical use, but usually the buildings will be maintained, nonetheless. In these situations, the farm buildings are often neglected, since they no longer can be used for their original function. This may result in the conservation of a fragmented cultural heritage, thus reducing the possibility for experiencing and understanding agricultural history in the landscape.

Can agriculture’s cultural heritage be used to secure rural economic viability?

Finally, we would like to further comment the relationship between the conservation of cultural-historical values and added value creation in the agricultural sector. Agricultural production is necessary in order to create the financial basis which is necessary for the management of its cultural heritage.

The cultural heritage authorities would therefore like to emphasise that the cultural heritage also represents a potential for rural business development. The National Heritage Board in Sweden has emphasised that the cultural heritage is a resource for rural development. Project related to preserving cultural monuments can lead to employment in the construction, handicraft and service sectors. The trend in the Nordic countries is to increasingly emphasise this field. The LEADER programmes in the EU represent rural development programmes dealing with added value creation associated with the material and immaterial cultural heritage. These programmes are based on the knowledge and enthusiasm of the rural population. The same issue is also stressed in the White Paper on Norwegian agricultural policy (no. 19 – 1999/2000), which underlines the importance of the farmers’ traditional skills and indigenous knowledge.

Geographical indications are another important development in this context. This includes the utilisation of local and regional traditions and characteristics. Cultural heritage is an important resource in this connection, both with regard to product development, identification and marketing. There are similar concepts regarding such systematical quality development both within and outside of the European Union.

This is illustrated by the European Union’s three different schemes for protective labelling of quality foods:

• Protected geographical indications – implies that products are to be completely produced and processed within a geographically limited area, according to established local methods. This requires knowledge on the historical background for such a production, which often is tied to farming traditions and agriculture’s cultural heritage.
• Protected designations of origin – the geographical requirements only need to apply to one of the steps of the production process. Otherwise, the same comment as above applies.
• Guaranteed traditional specialities – emphasises the product’s traditional character or production method, but does not necessarily imply any geographical designation. In either case, historical production methods are an important part of the concept, which requires knowledge about traditional farming and food processing methods.

It is difficult to imagine that the market will pay sufficiently for agriculture’s production of public goods such as cultural monuments and cultural landscapes. However, the recent development of high-quality foods with a local or regional character does present some interesting aspects for further investigation of this issue. Part of the profile of these products is rooted in the region’s cultural heritage. There seems to be a potential for such products on the market, and the consumers are willing to pay for good quality. One can therefore imagine that some, albeit marginal, co-funding of cultural heritage management via the market for agricultural products is possible.

Conclusion

The cultural heritage administration clearly regards the farming landscape and agriculture’s cultural heritage as extremely valuable public goods. It is also obvious that the management of these values requires active and viable farming communities. However, agricultural activities as well as cultural monument maintenance, activities carried out by agriculture as part of their daily operations, must be conducted without causing damage to the cultural heritage. The optimal management of the cultural-historical values in the farming landscape should be based on a well-balanced combination of the following two strategies:

• Some of the especially valuable cultural monuments require specific measures and extra expenses for their successful conservation. This requires a specific set of policy instruments aimed directly at such high-priority values. These instruments would be part of the general public measures directed at cultural heritage management, as well as specific measures established by the agricultural sector itself.
• In addition, a general set of policy instruments would be needed, which would help to maintain the entirety of values in the agricultural landscape, the breadth of these values and the values at a general level. These instruments must be integrated as a framework for the agricultural sector’s environmental policy, via laws, regulations, financial schemes, information and training.

Both strategies can be tied to agricultural primary production. It has been stated that agriculture as such is not the most suitable or cheapest producer of the individual public goods. However, agriculture is presumably the best and least expensive system for the production of all of the public goods in sum.