A New Development Paradigm for Local Animal Breeds and the Role of Information and Communication Technologies

  • Athanasios RagkosEmail author
  • Georgia Koutouzidou
  • Stavriani Koutsou
  • Dimitrios Roustemis
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Earth System Sciences book series (SPRINGEREARTH)


Local breeds are endowed with numerous advantages in terms of adaptability to specific conditions and the sustainable utilization of resources. Nonetheless, their role is neglected when their multiple societal, economic, and environmental contributions are not properly acknowledged and interest is focused only on productivity issues. This paper explores the role of local breeds in local development as an efficient and effective strategy to ensure their long-term sustainability. The paper focuses on the reasons behind the underestimation of the values with which local breeds are endowed and discusses how economic development, policies, and market competition have rendered many of these breeds in danger of extinction. The chapter proposes an integrated development framework combining the notion of territorial development and social innovation and focusing on multifunctionality considerations and resilience and vulnerability aspects. Based on these, the potential role of ICT, new technologies, and innovations is assessed.


Multifunctionality Territorial development Social innovation Resilience Vulnerability 


  1. Allaire G, Dupeuble T (2002) De le multifonctionnalite de l’ activite agricole a lamulti-evaluation de la production agricole: vers l’ emergence d’ un nouveau systeme de competences. Colloque SFER, La Multifonctionnalite de l’ Activite Agricole, 21–22 mars 2002, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Belibasaki S, Sossidou E, Gavojdian D (2012) Local breeds: can they be a competitive solution for regional development in the world of ‘globalization’? The cases of Greek and Romanian local breeds. Scientific Papers Animal Sci Biotechnol 45(2):278–284Google Scholar
  3. Berkes F, Folke C (2002) Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: Gunderson L, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 121–146Google Scholar
  4. Bye LM (2009) ‘How to be a rural man’: young men’s performances and negotiations of rural masculinities. J Rural Stud 25:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canali G, Ecogene Consortium (2006) Common agricultural policy reform and its effects on sheep and goat market and rare breeds conservation. Small Rumin Res 62(3):207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) (2009) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. De Rancourt M, Fois N, Lavín MP, Tchakérian E, Vallerand F (2006) Mediterranean sheep and goats production: An uncertain future. Small Rumin Res 62(3):167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong S, Wen L, Liu S, Zhang X, Lassoie JP, Yi S, Li X, Li J, Li Y (2011) Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecol Soc 16(2):10 [online] URL: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eakin H (2005) Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from Central Mexico. World Dev 33(11):1923–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganatsou E, Rapti D, Ispikoudis I (2008) Contribution of nomadic livestock husbandry on the creation of alpine and sub alpine formations «NATURA 2000» Areas. In: Proceedings of the 6th Greek Rangeland Conference, Leonidio, 2–4 October 2008, pp. 221–226Google Scholar
  11. Gunderson LH (2003) Adaptive dancing: interactions between social resilience and ecological crises. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating Social Ecological Systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  12. Ispikoudis I, Soliou MK, Papanastasis VP (2002) Transhumance in Greece: past, present and future prospects. In: Bunce RGH, Pérez-Soba M, Jongman RHG, Gómez Sal A, Herzog F, Austad I (eds). Transhumance and Biodiversity in European mountains, pp. 211–226Google Scholar
  13. Ingersent, K.A. and Rayner, A.J. (1999). “Agricultural policy in Western Europe and the United States”, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Karanikolas P, Martinos N (2012) Greek agriculture facing crisis: problems and prospects. Available online at:
  15. Koocheki A, Gliessman SR (2005) Pastoral nomadism, a sustainable system for grazing land management in arid areas. J Sustain Agric 25:113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koutsou S, Partalidou M, Ragkos A (2014) Young farmers’ social capital in Greece. Trust levels and collective actions. J Rural Stud 34:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lankoski J, Ollikainen M (2003) Agri-Environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legarra Α, Ramon M, Ugarte E, Perez-Guzman MD (2007) Economic weights of fertility, prolificacy, milk yield and longevity in dairy sheep. Animal 1:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ligda C, Casabianca F (2013) Adding value to local breeds: challenges, strategies and key factors. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales 53:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ligda C, Zjalic M (2011) Conservation of animal genetic resources in Europe: overview of the policies, activities, funding and expected benefits of conservation activities. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales 49:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López-i-Gelats F, Fraser ED, Morton JF, Rivera-Ferre MG (2016) What drives the vulnerability of pastoralists to global environmental change? A qualitative meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 39:258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mpizelis I (2013) Evaluation and use of Greek sheep and goat breeds. Animal Sci Rev (Special Issue) 39:40–43Google Scholar
  23. Mulgan G, Tucker S, Ali R, Sanders B (2007) Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Working paper, Skoll Centre for social entrepreneurshipGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2003) Multifunctionality: the policy implications. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Polman N, Peerlings J, Slangen L (2011) Resilience of European farms under different CAP scenarios. EAAE 2011 Congress “Change and Uncertainty: Challenges for Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources”, August 30 to September 2, 2011, ETH Zurich, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Ragkos Α, Lagka V (2014) The multifunctional character of sheep and goat transhumance in Greece. 8th Panhellenic Rangeland Science Conference, 1–3 October 2014, Thessaloniki. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  28. Ragkos A, Siasiou A, Galanopoulos K, Lagka V (2014) Mountainous grasslands sustaining traditional livestock systems: The economic performance of sheep and goat transhumance in Greece. Options Mediterraneennes 109:575–579Google Scholar
  29. Ragkos A, Abas Z (2015) Using the choice experiment method in the design of breeding goals in dairy sheep. Animal 9(2):208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ragkos A, Theodoridis A, Fachouridis A, Batzios C (2015) Dairy farmers’ strategies against the crisis and the economic performance of farms. Procedia Economics and Finance 33:518–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ragkos A, Koutsou Σ, Manousidis T (2016) In search of strategies to face the economic crisis: evidence from Greek farms. South European Society and Politics 21(3):319–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ragkos A, Koutsou S, Theodoridis A, Manousidis T, Lagka V (2018) Labor management strategies in facing the economic crisis. Evidence form Greek livestock farms. New Medit:2018–2011Google Scholar
  33. Ragkos A, Nori M (2016) The multifunctional pastoral systems in the Mediterranean EU and impact on the workforce. Options Mediterraneennes, Series A: Mediterranean Seminars No. 114, pp. 325–328Google Scholar
  34. Rege JEO, Gibson JP (2003) Animal genetic resources and economic development: issues in relation to economic valuation. Ecol Econ 45:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ripoll-Bosch R, Joy M, Bernués A (2013) Role of self-sufficiency, productivity and diversification on the economic sustainability of farming systems with autochthonous sheep breeds in less favoured areas in Southern Europe. Animal, available on CJO 2013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roustemis D (2012) Improvement of Chios sheep breed – design of the breeding goal. Doctoral dissertation, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  37. Schouten M, van der Heide M, Heijman W (2009) Resilience of social-ecological systems in European rural areas: theory and prospects. Paper presented in the 113th EAAE Seminar ‘The Role of Knowledge, Innovation and Human Capital in Multifunctional Agricultural and Territorial Rural Development’, Belgrade, Republic of SerbiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Theodoridis A, Ragkos A, Roustemis D, Galanopoulos K, Abas Z, Sinapis E (2012) Assessing technical efficiency of Chios sheep farms with data envelopment analysis. Small Ruminant Research, 107, pp. 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Theodoridis A, Ragkos A, Roustemis D, Arsenos G, Abas Z, Sinapis E (2013) Technical indicators of economic performance in dairy sheep farming. Animal, 8(1), pp. 133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vafiadakis T (2013) Evaluation and development of Greek sheep and goat breeds. Animal Sci Rev (Special Issue) 39:52–55Google Scholar
  41. Verrier E, Tixier-Boichard M, Bernigaud R, Naves M (2005) Conservation and value of local livestock breeds: usefulness of niche products and/or adaptation to specific environments. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales 36:21–31Google Scholar
  42. Westley FR, Tjornbo O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Crona B, Bodin Ö (2013) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(3):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1992) Global biodiversity: status of the Earth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Vermersch D (2001) Multifunctionality: applying the OECD framework. A review of literature in France. In: Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. OECDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athanasios Ragkos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Georgia Koutouzidou
    • 2
  • Stavriani Koutsou
    • 3
  • Dimitrios Roustemis
    • 4
  1. 1.Agricultural Economics Research Institute, HAO DemeterAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Applied InformaticsUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural TechnologyAlexander Technological Educational Institute of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Center of Genetic Improvement of Animals, Nea MesimvriaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations