[en] SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a tool widely used to help in decision making in complex systems. It suits to exploring the issues and measures related to the conservation and development of local breeds, as it allows the integration of many driving factors influencing breed dynamics. We developed a quantified SWOT method as a ecisionmaking
tool for identification and ranking of conservation and development strategies of local breeds, and applied it to a set of 13 cattle breeds of six European countries. The method has four steps: definition of the system, identification and grouping of the driving factors, quantification of the importance of driving factors and identification and prioritization of the strategies. The factors were determined following a multi-stakeholder approach and grouped with a three-level structure. Animal genetic resources expert groups ranked the factors, and a quantification process was implemented to identify and prioritize strategies. The proposed SWOT methodology allows analyzing the dynamics of local cattle breeds in a structured and systematic way. It is a flexible tool developed to assist different stakeholders in defining the strategies and actions. The quantification process allows the comparison of the driving factors and the prioritization of the strategies for the conservation and development of local cattle breeds. We identified 99 factors across the breeds. Although the situation is very heterogeneous, the future of these breeds
may be promising. The most important strengths and weaknesses were related to production systems and farmers. The most important opportunities were found in marketing new products, whereas the most relevant threats were found in selling the current products. The across-breed strategies utility decreased as they gained specificity. Therefore, the strategies at European
level should focus on general aspects and be flexible enough to be adapted to the country and breed specificities.
Disciplines :
Animal production & animal husbandry
Author, co-author :
Martin-Collado, D; INIA (Madrid, Spain) > Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal
Diaz, C; INIA (Madrid, Spain) > Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal
Mäki-Tanila, A; MTT Agrifood Research Finland (Jokioinen, Finland)
DG AGRI - Commission Européenne. Direction Générale de l'Agriculture et du Développement rural Service Public de Wallonie : Direction générale opérationnelle de l'Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et de l'Environnement - DGO3
Commentary :
Action EURECA 012 AGRI GEN RES 870/2004 receives financial support from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Developpment, under Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004
Alderson S 2003. Animal genetic resources and sustainable livelihood. Ecological Economics 45, 331-339.
Drucker A, Gomez V and Anderson S 2001. The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: a survey of available methods. Ecological Economic 36, 1-18.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2007. The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO 2010. Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal genetic resources. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Fimland E and Oldenbroek K 2007. Practical implications of utilization and management. In Utilization and conservation of farm animal genetic resources (ed. K Oldenbroek), pp. 195-213. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Gable GG, Lee JN, Kwahk KY and Green P 2007. Administrative placement of the information systems academic discipline: a comparative SWOT analysis. Communications of the Associations for Information Systems 21, 137-165.
Gandini G and Villa E 2003. Analysis of the cultural value of livestock breeds: a methodology. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 120, 1-11.
Gandini G, Martín-Collado D, Colinet F, Duclos D, Hiemstra SJ, Sooini K, EURECA Consortium and Díaz C 2012. Farmer's views and values to focus on cattle conservation policies: the case of eight European Countries. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 427-435.
Groeneveld LF, Lenstra JA, Eding H, ToroMA, Scherf B, Pilling D, Negrini R, Finlay EK, Jianlin H, Groeneveld E and Weigend S, The GLOBALDIV Consortium 2010. Genetic diversity in farm animals - a review. Animal Genetics 41, 6-31.
Hill T and Westbrook R 1997. SWOT analysis: it's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning 30, 46-52.
Impoinvil DE, Ahmad S, Troyo A, Keating J, Githeko AK, Mbogo CM, Kibe L, Githure JI, Gad AM, Hassan AN, Orshan L, Warburg A, Calderón-Arguedas O, Sánchez-Loria VM, Velit-Suarez R, Chadee DD, Novak RJ and Beier JC 2007. Comparison of mosquito programs in seven urban sites in Africa, the Middle East and the Americas. Health Policy 83, 196-212.
Kajanus M, Kangas J and Kurttila M2004. The use of value focused thinking and the A'WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tourism Management 25, 499-506.
Kangas J, Kurttila M, Kajanus M and Kangas A 2003. Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland state - the S-O-S approach. Journal of Environmental Management 69, 349-358.
Karppi I, Kokkonen M and Lähteenmäki-Smith K 2001. SWOT-analysis as a basis for regional strategies. Working Paper 2001, 4. Nordregio-Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J and Kajanus J 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - a hybrid method and its applications to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 41-52.
Lee KL, Huang WC and Teng JY 2009. Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical method. Quality & Quantity 43, 87-107.
Rege JEO and Gibson JP 2003. Animal genetic resources and economic development: issues in relation to economic valuation. Ecological Economic 45, 319-330.
Saaty TL 1986. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32, 843-855.
Saaty TL 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Service Sciences 1, 83-98.
Saaty TL and Takizawa M 1986. Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research 26, 229-237.
Tisdell C 2003. Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment. Ecological Economics 45, 365-376.
Vonk G, Geertman S and Schot P 2007. A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environmental and Planning A 39, 1699-1714.
Weihrich H 1989. The TOWS matrix - a tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning 15, 54-66.
Yüksel I and Dagdeviren M 2007. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis - a case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences 177, 3364-3382.
