6.6 LEADER implementation: the role of local action groups and power
7.4.1 The institution of the ‘Closed Farm’
Thus, this article by the Italian‐speaking newspaper Alto‐Adige (9.7.2011) views farm decline from a negative perspective and, similarly to the speech by Durnwalder, assumes the vulnerability of mountain agriculture. Within the contrasts which characterize the agricultural sector, a key debate (as in the case of North Karelia) present in such article is the different views on financial aid and tax benefits given to farmers. For instance Galan, (previous governor of the region of Veneto (1995–2010), and also previous Minister of Agriculture (2010–
2011) and Minister of Cultural Heritage and Activities (2011) in Silvio Berlusconi’s fourth cabinet), and a representative of the labour unions from Trentino, Monari, disagree on the financial aid given by the autonomous provinces to the agricultural sector, especially to those farmers producing apples, defining financial aid as a ‘privilege’. Local labour union representatives from South Tyrol, on the other hand, claim that there must be a differentiation between mountain agriculture, which must be supported, and the wealthier fondovalle type of agriculture. To complete the debate, it is worth reporting the words by the director of the Südtiroler Bauernbund (Rinner), who claims that:
”if there are all these financial aids, why our farms decline instead of increasing?
Legitimate question, as it is legitimate to ask why young people choose other carriers rather than agricultural work. The answer is always the same: to be a farmer is not convenient anymore, especially if the size of the farms is small. It is for this reason that instead of taking away financial aids to those who take care of the landscape, who give value to the periphery, to the jobs, and act in a difficult context, one should increase the support to whom, especially mountain farmers, has increasingly more difficulties in resisting current challenges”.
This quotation once again remarks the importance of mountain agriculture, which has more than anything else a cultural, as well as an aesthetic value.
Secondly, the vulnerability of small farming is highlighted. Despite the contrasts depicted within the South Tyrolese agriculture, the next two sections address the strong social structures of the closed farm, and of agricultural cooperation, which have been for a large extent responsible for the continuity of agriculture in this region, and which have enabled farmers to remain still powerful agents in the contemporary era.
7.4.1 The institution of the ‘Closed Farm’
“The closed farm carries a technical‐economic function rooted in a policy whose goal is to defend the historical continuity of the family” (Polelli, 1968, 1).
A key social structure that has historically characterized agriculture in South Tyrol is the legal institution of the Closed Farm (in German Der geschlossene Hof,
in Italian maso chiuso). Polelli (1968, 9) defines it as “a form of conservation of family property”. This institution45 provides that “upon the farmer’s death, the farm is not subdivided among the heirs, but it is attributed to only one person, usually one of the coheirs, called heir contractor (Anerbe)”46 (Mori & Hintner 2009, 6). The other heirs have only the right to compensation. The origins of Der geschlossene Hof or maso chiuso are rooted in the barbaric law of the German‐
speaking people, introduced in Tyrol from the Bavarians towards the end of the sixth century. The existence of the Closed Farm has been threatened a few times, such as in the 17th and 18th century, when the increasing impoverishment of the population led to land fragmentation (Ripartizione agricoltura... 2008); in more recent times, such threat occurred when after the First World War Tyrol was divided, and South Tyrol was annexed to the Italian state, and especially during the Fascist period, when the Tyrolese law on the closed farm was abolished in 1929. Despite these threats, this social structure has survived until contemporary days, since it has been part of the local custom and culture since generations.
Gatterer (2007) states that in the aftermaths of the Second World War, this institution represented the first step to consolidate the South Tyrolese minority in Italy. Nowadays the closed farm has evolved to adjust to contemporary society, and it has been recently reformed by Provincial Law 17/2001. Thanks to the changes introduced by the revisions contained in this law, women can also inherit the farms, and criteria are established to compensate the other heirs (Gatterer 2007). This institution has also been recently modified by Provincial Law 2/2007 (relations of closed farms with urban planning norms), Provincial Law 6/2007 (changes concerning their extension) and Provincial Law 4/2008 (which has provided for some cases of pre‐emption) (Mori & Hintner 2009, 13).
On June 30th 1928, when the Italian law abolished the closed farms, in part I of the land registry plan 12 111 closed farms were registered; however, this registry plan was not yet completed and some municipalities were missing (Mori & Hintner 2009, 14). Up to August 2009, there are 13 334 closed farms in South Tyrol, and they represent a bit more than a half of the 20 212 farms present in the Province (ASTAT 2011). Due to the closed farm system, there is for instance a significant difference between the sizes of farms in South Tyrol and farms in nearby Trentino: while South Tyrolese farms have an average of 3.9 hectares of land, the Trentino farms have an average of only 1.3 hectares (Pichler
& Walter 2007).
45 A particular type of closed farm is the so called Erbhof (in Italian maso avito), whose status is recognized to those farms which have belonged to the same family since at least 200 years. It is a unique honour for the farm and it represents an important acknowledgement of farming tradition preserved through generations. Since the establishment of Provincial Law 26.04.1982, a total of 1066 Erbhöfe are present in South Tyrol up to August 2009 (Mori & Hintner 2009, 13).
46 In reality, since it is not essential to be heir, it would be more correct to talk about “contractor”
without any other specification (Mori & Hintner 2009, 6).
Figure 31 shows that every year about 40 to 50 closed farms are constituted, and about 20 are dissolved. This is a key point that shows clearly the continuity of this institution within the South Tyrolese agricultural system. Although, especially in the past, this socio‐economic institution used to penalize the other heirs47, the benefits of this system are clear (Mori & Hintner 2009). As Gatterer (2007) puts it, the closed farm is against the formation of agrarian proletarianism and at the same time agrarian capitalism. On the one hand, it avoids the atomization of the land, which would result from the selling of a single plot, or from hereditary divisions. Excessive fragmentation is very harmful because it obstacles a rational cultivation, it ends up in the abandonment of the less productive land; it obstacles the cooperation among different owners in light of possible common improvements. On the other hand, despite the owner of a closed farm can possess more than one farm, this institution prevents the formation of large landed estates (latifundium) (Mori & Hintner 2009, 9).
Figure 31: Establishments and dissolutions of closed farms in South Tyrol, 1998–2008 Source: Graph partially modified and taken from Mori & Hintner (2009, 15)
Furthermore, the closed farm prevents farmers’ debts, since they are not forced to sell the property to pay the coheirs. As shown from the graph above, it also
47 Although the farming unit was not fragmented when the head of the family died, the position of
the other heirs was tough. If they remained in the farm, they became agricultural servants (Knecht);
they were treated as family members, but they could not create their own (Mori & Hintner 2009).
They basically lost any personal freedom, except for having free accommodation, food and clothes (Gatterer 2007). If they left the farm, they received a small fund, and they had to go and search for
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years
Number of Closed Farms
Establishment of a Closed Farm Dissolution of a Closed Farm
favours the continuity in the possession of the farm and its associated good conservation and cultivation, which is not tied to the single farmer but to the whole family. The closed farm assumes and consolidates the family bonds:
Gatterer (2007, 1124) argues that still today the South Tyrolese farm has a non‐
written obligation to achieve, which is the function of ‘open house’ or nest in case of necessity. Who is unemployed in the towns, who is ill while he or she is a worker in a firm, has always the possibility to return in the farm. Also, it favours the direct cultivation even in the most inaccessible and rough areas; in Val Senales for instance, there are still many farms above 2000 meters in elevation.
Last but not least, this ancient institution created in the past a certain demographic equilibrium because of the difficulties for young people to establish their own family until they were living in the farm (Mori & Hintner 2009, 10). In sum, in spite of the fact that the closed farm may be considered as conservative, it is economically and socially healthy, and represents a solution to slow down the agricultural crisis that is hitting several countries (Gatterer 2007).