Using the Multi-stakeholder Approach to Match Potential Innovations with Challenges Experienced by European Sheep and Goat Farms

  • Ian RoseEmail author
  • Daniel Martin-Collado
  • Stefano Orsini
  • Rafaelle Zanoli
  • David Yañez-Ruiz
  • Konstantinos Zaralis
  • Georgios Arsenos
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Earth System Sciences book series (SPRINGEREARTH)


The decline in European sheep and goat farmers is a complicated agricultural challenge that requires solutions and innovation to reverse. The complexity of this challenge means that a multi-stakeholder approach is required to understand how to prioritise each component of the challenge and find appropriate solutions. The multi-stakeholder approach used in this research included semi-structured interviews with 47 sheep and goat farmers. Additionally, a survey and 3 workshop discussions were done with stakeholders from 28 research and industry organisations.

All stakeholders agreed that improvement of the market for sheep and goat products was the most important priority. Industry representatives and researchers, however, suggested breeding programmes and availability of labour as important, whilst farmers suggested cost of production, solutions for predators and animal health were more important. Additionally, innovations that industry representatives believe should be tested are for breeding, collection of farm data and reproduction despite marketing and processing being the main priority. This mismatch is probably because these stakeholders do not have the capacity to test innovation or solutions related to marketing and processing of products.

The multi-stakeholder approach was effective at identifying key priorities and potential solutions that can be used to make sheep and goat farms more sustainable. More solutions related to product marketing and processing could have been identified if the research included stakeholders specialising in these areas.


Multi-stakeholder Sheep Goats Interviews Workshops Innovation 



This work is part of the iSAGE Project (, with financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 679302. We also thank Professor Raffaele Zanoli for providing access to the Qualtrics survey platform (Qualtrics 2016), which was used for the development of the on-live survey used in this work.


  1. Beintema N, Stads GJ, Fuglie K, Heisey P (2012) ASTI global assessment of agricultural R&D spending. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators, Rome, Italy and the Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubeuf JP (2011) The social and environmental challenges faced by goat and small livestock local activities: Present contribution of research–development and stakes for the future. Small Rumin Res 98(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dubeuf JP, Sayadi S (2014) Multi-functionality issues for small ruminants: What changes are needed in territorial public policies and training?: Report of two round tables on territorial issues and training for the development of goat farming. Small Rumin Res 121(1):136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faysse N (2006) Troubles on the way: an analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Nat Res Forum 30:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giller KE, Tittonell P, Rufino MC, van Wijk MT, Zingore S, Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Herrero M, Chikowo R, Corbeels M, Rowe EC, Baijukya F, Mwijage A, Smith J, Yeboah E, van der Burg WJ, Sanogo OM, Misiko M, de Ridder N, Karanja S, Kaizzi C, K’ungu J, Mwale M, Nwaga D, Pacini C, Vanlauwe B (2011) Communicating complexity: integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agric Syst 104:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardin G (1968) The Tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. International Institute for Sustainable Development (2014) Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)Google Scholar
  9. Leeuwis C (2000) Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Dev Chang 31:931–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Qualtrics (2016) Version 3. Copyright © 2017 Qualtrics. Qualtrics and all other qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA.
  12. Schut M, van Paassen A, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: a framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Sci Public Policy 41:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schut M, Klerkx L, Rodenburg J, Kayeke J, Hinnou LC, Raboanarielina CM, Adegbola PY, van Ast A, Bastiaans L (2015) RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric Syst 132:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Spielman DJ (2005) Innovation systems perspectives on developing-country agriculture: a critical review, ISNAR Discussion Paper 2. IFPRI, Washington, p 58Google Scholar
  15. Sunding D, Zilberman D (2001) The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. Handb Agric Econ 1:207–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Rose
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Martin-Collado
    • 2
  • Stefano Orsini
    • 3
  • Rafaelle Zanoli
    • 4
  • David Yañez-Ruiz
    • 5
  • Konstantinos Zaralis
    • 5
  • Georgios Arsenos
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Animal Husbandry, School of Veterinary MedicineAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Agrifood Research and Technology Centre of AragónZaragozaSpain
  3. 3.The Organic Research Centre, Elm FarmHamstead MarshallUK
  4. 4.Università Politecnica delle Marche Home, Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental SciencesAnconaItaly
  5. 5.The Spanish National Research CouncilGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations