Status of the resource exploration: we crossed data obtained from the status of oyster stock in the area explored by the group and analyzed whether or not there was use overlapping of groups in the area.
Group that explores the area of good oyster stock, without overlapping with other groups (0); group that explores the area of good oyster stock, overlapping with other groups (1); group that explores mixed areas, overlapping with other groups (2); group that explores the area of critical stock, without overlapping with other groups (3); group that explores the area of critical stock, overlapping with other groups (4). |
Evidence of resources reduction in the area explored by the group: we crossed data obtained from the area with parcels that indicate depletion of oysters in the stock assessment.
None (0); Some (1); Many (2). |
Loss for lack of criterion at extractivism: losses due to sales procedures.
Low (0); Medium (1); High (2). |
Percentage of oyster extractivists that use fattening technique:
Above 70% of extractivists using fattening technique (0); 50-70% of extractivists using fattening technique (1); less than 50% of extractivists using fattening technique (2). |
Percentage of the annual production of the group managed in fattening farmers:
Very high, above 80% (0); high, between 50 and 80% (1); average, between 30 and 50% (2); low, below 30% (3). |
| Economic Criteria |
Price:analyzed between the extractivism procedure and sales opportunities
Great (0); Good (1); Reasonable (2); Bad (3); Terrible (4). |
Subsidies: Are there subsidies along the supply chain of the activity?
None (2); Some (1); Several (0). |
Average salary:
Above 50% with remuneration greater than 3SM (4); at least 30% with remuneration greater than 3SM (3); at least 30% with remuneration greater than 2 SM (2); at least 50 with remuneration greater than 1 SM (1); above 50% with remuneration up to 1 SM (0). |
Access to perform the activity:
Free access (0); Little or informal control (1); Medium control (2); Strong control (3); Strictly limited (4). |
Autonomy and empowerment to market the product: Items that give security to the producer in the continuity of the activity (access to buyer, regularity of sales, influence on price formation)
Good (2); Medium (1); Bad (0). |
|
Other income sources: Maximum 20% of the individuals in the group without other income sources and at least six income alternatives in the group (0); from 20 to 40 individuals with no other income sources and at least six alternatives (1); up to 40% without other income sources, with at least four alternatives (2); up to 40% without other income sources, with at least four alternatives (3). |
Profit in the activity: Relates to sales opportunities.
Entractivism profit is predominantly managed by the group (0); shared (1); or it is performed by external sales agents (2). |
|
Market characterization: The market is mainly local/national (0); national/regional (1); international (2). |
| Social Criteria |
|
Socialization of the activity: Individual extractivism – oyster is not sold jointly or processed with the family (0), familiar – oyster is processed within the family, cooperate with each other in selling (1) or community – process and sell as a group; handle management problems, post-extractivism and selling jointly (2). |
Admission of new extractivists in last years: admission in the last 10 years
<10% (0); 10-20% (1); 20-30% (2); >30% (3). |
Number of families with extractivists in the community:
Few – below 10% (0); Some – from 10 to 30% (1); Many – above 30% (2). |
Regularization and professional support: unemployment benefits, registration to Social Security, affiliations to representative entities, fishing authorization.
None (0); Some (1); Large (2). |
|
Percentage of producers who have oyster extractivism as their main income source: main income source of as a factor in strengthening social identity. % of household income <50% (0); 50-80% (1); >80% (2). |
|
Influence of the oyster extractivist on management: Significant (0); Some (1); Almost none (2). |
| Technological Criteria |
Oyster landing sites: logistics for commercialization
Dispersed (0); Little centralized (1); Highly centralized (2); Distant from vessels or inexistent (3). |
Processing to add value: shelling, packaging, transportation, etc:
None (3); Minimum (2); Average (1); High (0). |
Product storage in the fattening structures: fattening as a conservation strategy and production planning:
Minimum (0); Little (1); High (2). |
Side effects of the activity: regarding income source.
None (3); Some (2); High (1); Fishing marked by destructive practices (0). |
| Ethical Criteria |
Proximity and dependence: geographical proximity and history connection.
No proximity or dependence (0); No proximity, some dependence (1); Proximity, some dependence (2); Proximity, strong dependence (3). |
Alternatives to the activity available to the group:
None (0); Some (1); Many (2). |
Equity to admission to the activity: admission based on the historical and traditional access
Non-considered (0); Considered (1); Traditional native fishing (2). |
Participative management in resource use: inclusion of extractivists to management
None (0); Consultation (1); Co-management with the government in charge (2); co-management with the community in charge (3); co-management with equal participation of parts (4). |
Structures that may influence values: affiliation to entities may promote changes in behavior.
Highly negative (0); Somewhat negative (1); Neutral (2); Somewhat positive (3); Highly positive (4) |
Disposal and waste:
None (4); Little (3); Medium (2); (1) Much; (0) Predominant. |
Illegal extractivism:
None (4); Little (3); Medium (2); (1) Much; (0) Predominant. |
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
