Embrapa’s platform for impact assessment
of agricultural technologies and
Indicator systems for the environmental
management of rural activities
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
Cali, Colombia
03 de agosto de 2012
Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues
stacheti@cnpma.embrapa.br

Contents of this presentation
• Topic 1: Embrapa´s strategic planning process and the institutional
platform for the impact assessment of technology innovations;
• A dedicated ‘system for impact assessment of agricultural
technology innovations’ (Ambitec-Agro) and some results;
• Topic 2: integrated farm sustainability assessment for the
environmental management of rural activities (APOIA-NovoRural);
• A general view of case studies;
• Conclusions.

Topic 1: Embrapa´s strategic planning
process and the institutional platform
for the impact assessment of technology
innovations
Ambitec-Agro
• RODRIGUES, G.S.; CAMPANHOLA, C.; KITAMURA, P.C. Avaliação de impacto
ambiental da inovação tecnológica agropecuária: um sistema de avaliação para
o contexto institucional de P&D. Cadernos de Ciência e Tecnologia. v.19, n.3, p.
349-375, 2002.
• RODRIGUES, G.S.; CAMPANHOLA, C.; KITAMURA, P.C. An environmental
impact assessment system for agricultural R&D. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. v.23, n.2, p. 219-244, 2003.
• RODRIGUES, G.S.; CAMPANHOLA, C.; KITAMURA, P.C. Avaliação de impacto
ambiental da inovação tecnológica agropecuária: AMBITEC-AGRO. Jaguariúna:
Embrapa Meio Ambiente. Documentos 34, 2003
• IRIAS L.J.M.; RODRIGUES G.S.; CAMPANHOLA C.; KITAMURA P.C.; RODRIGUES
I.; BUSCHINELLI C.C.A. Sistema de Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental de
Inovações Tecnológicas nos Segmentos Agropecuário, Produção Animal e
Agroindústria (Sistema Ambitec). Jaguariúna: Embrapa Meio Ambiente. Circular
Técnica 5. 2004.
• IRIAS, L.J.M.; GEBLER, L.; PALHARES, J.C.P.; ROSA, M.F. de; RODRIGUES, G.S. Avaliação de impacto ambiental de inovações tecnológicas
agropecuárias – aplicação do Sistema Ambitec. Agricultura em São Paulo. v.51, n.1, p. 23-40. 2004.
• RODRIGUES, G.S.; CAMPANHOLA, C.; KITAMURA, P.C.; IRIAS, L.J.; RODRIGUES, I.A. Sistema de avaliação de impacto social da inovação
tecnológica agropecuária (Ambitec-Social). Jaguariúna: Embrapa Meio Ambiente. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento 35, 2005.
• RODRIGUES, G.S.; BUSCHINELLI, C.C. de A.; AVILA, A.F.D. An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural research and
development II: institutional learning experience at Embrapa. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. v.5, n.4, p. 38-56, 2010.

A strategic planning process has been implemented at Embrapa to
introduce ‘sustainable development objectives’ in all steps of
agricultural Research and Development:
Mission Statement: “To provide feasible solutions for
the sustainable development of Brazilian
agribusiness through knowledge and technology
generation and transfer”
An essential component of the mission statement has called for the
systematic assessment of social and environmental impacts
(in addition to the traditionally studied economic ones) of all
technology innovations resulting from R&D

A dedicated impact assessment system has been
developed toward this end, integrating 24 criteria, and a
total of 125 performance indicators
Environmental Impact Assessment Technology Innovation in Agriculture
Base System for Eco-certification of Rural Activities
(Eco-cert.Rural)
(Ambitec-Agro)
Ecological Performance Socio-Environmental Performance
Use of Inputs Environmental Customer Management &
Employment Income Health
and Resources Quality Respect Administration
1. Use of Agricultural 4. Atmosphere 9. Product Quality 11. Training 15. Net Income 18. Personal and 21. Farmer Capability
Inputs and Resources Generation Environmental Health and Dedication
5. Soil Quality 10. Production Ethics 12. Opportunity and
2. Use of Veterinarian Qualification for Local 16. Income Sources 19. Occupational 22. Trade
6. Water Quality
Inputs and Raw Employment Diversity Safety & Health Arrangements
materials 7. Biodiversity
13. Job Generation 17. Land Value 20. Food Safety & 23. Waste Disposal
3. Use of Energy 8. Environmental and Engagement Security
Restoration 24. Institutional
14. Employment Relationship
Quality
125 indicators
RODRIGUES, G.S.; CAMPANHOLA, C.; KITAMURA, P.C. An environmental impact assessment system for
agricultural R&D. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. v.23, n.2, p. 219-244, 2003.

The multi-criteria system integrates ‘change coefficients’
check in field surveys with technology adopters, with
weighting factors for indicator importance and spatial scale
of occurrence, for example:
Table of change coefficients for variable
Environmental restoration variables
weighing
Legally-defined
Environmental Restoration Degraded Mandatory factor
Degraded soils Preservation
ecosystems Protection Areas check
Areas
Weighing factors k 0,3 0,3 0,4 0 1
Non Mark with
X
occurence =
applicable an X
Scale of
Near 1
Proximate 2 3 3
Surrounding 5 3
Impact Coefficient = (change
coefficients * weighing factors)
1,8 4,5 2,4 0 8,7
• The system integrates 24 such checklists, for each one of the criteria,
considering the set of 125 indicators.

The weighting procedures generate ‘socio-environmental performance indices’
(± 15 scale), detailed by criterion, dimension, and integrated impact, according
to the field-observed contexts.
Peso do Coeficientes Indices
Indicadores de impacto da atividade
indicador desempenho integrados
Uso de Insumos Agrícolas e Recursos 0,05 8,0 Uso de 10,08
Uso de Insumos Veterinários e Matérias-primas 0,05 5,0 insumos
Uso de Energia 0,05 13,0 8,67 10,08
Atmosfera 0,02 5,0
Qualidade -15 0 15
Qualidade do Solo 0,05 10,0 ambiental Índice de Impacto Ambiental
Qualidade da Água 0,05 12,5
Biodiversidade 0,05 15,0 11,50
Recuperação Ambiental 0,05 15,0
Respeito ao
Qualidade do Produto 0,05 7,5 consumidor
Ética Produtiva 0,05 7,0 12,69
Capacitação 0,05 12,5 7,25
Oportunidade de Emprego Local Qualificado 0,02 13,0
Emprego
Oferta e Condição de Trabalho 0,05 13,0
-15 0 15
Qualidade do Emprego 0,05 13,0 12,88 12,69
Índice de Impacto Econômico
Geração de Renda 0,05 12,5
Renda
Diversidade de Fontes de Renda 0,025 12,5
Valor da Propriedade 0,025 12,5 12,50
Saúde Ambiental e Pessoal 0,02 7,0 10,35
Saúde
Segurança e Saúde Ocupacional 0,02 13,0
Segurança Alimentar 0,05 12,0 10,67 10,35
Dedicação e Perfil do Responsável 0,05 13,0 Gestão -15 0 15
Condição de Comercialização 0,05 13,5 Índice de Impacto Social
Disposição de Resíduos 0,05 13,0 13,13
Relacionamento Institucional 0,02 13,0
Averiguação
Índice de impacto
da 1 da atividade
11,42
-15 0 15
ponderação Índice geral de impacto da atividade

An analysis of results obtained for 123 innovations, in 180 matched
social-environmental assessments carried out between 2006-2008
8
Índices de Impacto Ambiental
4
0
0 5 10 15
-4
-8 Índices de Impacto Social
Tecnologias de uso de insumos Tecnologias de recursos genéticos e melhoramento animal / vegetal
Tecnologias Agroindustriais / Pós-colheita Tecnologias de melhores práticas
Tecnologias de Manejo integrado de recursos naturais

Contributions of the
Ambitec-Agro system
• Improve the understanding among agricultural researchers and
farmers, about the social and environmental implications of
technology development and adoption;
Improve the acceptance of EIA methods, so that more sophisticated, analytical, quantitative and objective approaches may be proposed
•
and introduced (for instance, the APOIA-NovoRural approach, presented in our topic 2).

Topic 2
Integrated farm sustainability
assessment for the environmental
management of rural activities
APOIA-NovoRural

APOIA-NovoRural
Sustainability dimensions
Landscape Ecology
Environmental Quality
(atmosphere, water, and soil)
Socio-cultural Values
Economic Values
Management and Administration
RODRIGUES, G. S.; RODRIGUES, I. A.; BUSCHINELLI, C. C. A.; BARROS, I. . Integrated farm sustainability assessment for
the environmental management of rural activities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. v.30, n.4, p. 229-239, 2010.

Goods
Geologic Fuels &
Runoff, uplift
Tourism,
Rain Services
A systemic, Erosion Immigration
adequate and Wind,
Atmosphere
Soil
sufficient set Evapot . Water
People
Livestock
of objective,
quantitative Environmental Systems
Markets
indicators. Sun Agriculture Establishment
Forestry
Farm system
After H.T. Odum
1 Landscape 2 Environmental Quality 3 Economic 4 Sociocultural
Ecology Values Values
1 Conservation state of Atmosphere 52 Establish profit
44 Access education
natural habitats 14 Suspended 45 Access basic services
53 Divers. Sources
2 Divers. & mangmt particles/ Water 54 Profit distrib.
46 Consumption stand.
production areas smoke 20 Dissolved O2 47 Access sport leisure
55 Indebtedness level
3 Divers. & mangmt 15 Foul odors 21 Coliforms 48 Conservation legacy
56 Establish value
confined activities 16 Noise 22 BOD5 49 Employment quality
57 Habitation quality
4 Minimum preserve 17 Carbon oxide / 23 pH 50 Occupational safety
area Hydrocarbon 24 Nitrate 51 Qualif. employment
5 Designated protection emissions 25 Phosphate
areas 18 Sulfur oxide 26 Suspended solids Soil conservation
6 Fauna corridors emissions 27 Chlorophyll a 34 Organic matter content
7 Landscape diversity 19 Nitrogen oxide 28 Conductivity 35 pH 5 Management
8 Productive diversity emissions 29 Visual pollution 36 Phosphate 58 Manager profile &
9 Reclamation degraded 30 Pesticides potential 37 K exchangeable dedication
areas impact 38 Mg (& Ca) exchangeable 59 Commercialization
10 Sources endemic 39 Potential acidity (Al + H)
disease vectors Groundwater 40 Sum of cations
conditions
60 Residue recycling
11 Local extinction 31 Coliforms 41 Cation Exchange Capacity 61 Chemical inputs
endangrd species 32 Nitrate 42 Volume of bases management
12 Fire hazard 33 Conductivity 43 Erosion 62 Institutional
13 Geotechnical hazard relationships

APOIA-NovoRural
• The rural establishment is the spatial scale of analysis,
which is performed analytically and quantitatively with
62 indicators in a field survey / interview.
• Sustainability indices are automatically calculated and
expressed as utility values (0-1), with sustainability
conformity level standardized at 0.7;

Typical multi-attribute scaling checklist for Indicator
assessment and Utility valuation
Table of percent personnel
Qualification required
manual work
manual work
Uneducated
Engineering
Specialized
Technician
level work
level work
Local opportunity for
higher qualification
employment
Weighing factors k 1 2 3 4
Worker origin
Establish-
ment 10 20 60
Local
village 5 20
Region
1
Check 100
Qualified employment index = (sum pi*k1*k2) 1700
Best fit equation for Utility
IQEmp Utility 1
100 0 1700 Exponential fit: y=a(1-exp(-bx))
200 0,1 Coefficients:
Utility
300 0,2 a= 1,01
400 0,4 b= 1,E-03
500 0,6 0
1000 0,8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Qualified employment index
4000 1 U-IQEmp = 0,88

Each indicator is constructed according to the
appropriate utility correspondence table and
transformation function

Number of
Environmental Performance lacking
indicators
Landscape Ecology
Landscape Ecology 0,77 0 0,7
Environmental Quality - Atmosphere 0,85 0 0,7
Environmental Quality -
Management & Administration
0,91 0 Atmosphere
Environmental Quality - Waters 0,7
Environmental Quality - Soil 0,72 0 0,7
Sociocultural Values 0,71 0 0,7
Environmental Quality -
Economic Values 0,85 0 Economic Values
0,7 Waters
Management & Administration 0,79 1 0,7
Sociocultural Values Environmental Quality - Soil
0,80 1
Sustainability dimensions performance
0,80
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00
Rural establishment Sustainability index
The integrated results offer a basis for environmental management

Field survey and data gathering / interview

Land uses, natural habitats, production
areas and layout of the rural establishment

• Environmental
management
report, individually
offered for farmers,
with the set of
results and
recommendations.
• Let’s see some
case studies…

Field trials in
Indonesia -
Nucleus (Libo)
and Plasma areas
(smallholders)
Follow up on the training
seminar at SMARTRI
Rodrigues GS, Verwilghen A, Widodo RH, Pujianto, Caliman JP. An Assessment Tool and Integrated Index
for Sustainable Oil Palm Production. Proceedings of the International Congress on Oil Palm and the
Environment (ICOPE 2010). 23 - 25 February 2010, Bali, Indonesia.

0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
S
d
b
n
u
e
c
y
a
s
t
l
i
Case study results: sustainability indices for selected
oil palm landholdings in Sumatra, Indonesia.

0,80
LandscapeEcol
y;
olog
0,75
EnvironQual
ec pe
0,70
dsca
SocioculVal
Lan
0,65 
im EconomicVal
t on
po
S
d
b
n
u
e
c
y
a
s
t
l
i
r ta
0,60 nt
ac
p ManagemAdm
0,40 osi
p
0,30 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00
ve im
ti v
e
Impact indices for the assessment dimensions
im
pa
gati
ct
 opportunity for in
improvement in Management indicators;
Case study th
t ne
ei
n
results:  general improvement dica indicators of Sociocultural values;
an
in the
to
port
rs
of
Ec
 im
on
om
ic
va
lu
es
;

Nata da Serra Farm, Serra Negra (SP)
Demonstration Organic Unit, ‘Balde Cheio’ (full bucket) project
Main productive activity:
• Milk production, organic
Associated activities:
• Organic horticulture
• Organic yogurt production
• Organic coffee production
• Pedagogical tourism
15 employees and family members, partnership
system and revenue sharing

Technological integration for milk production
“Embrapa Southeastern Livestock”
Nocturnal grazing and the ‘Balde Cheio’ Project
Rodrigues GS et al. Avaliação sócio-ambiental da
integração tecnológica Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste
para produção leiteira na agricultura familiar.
Agricultura em São Paulo. 53(2): 35-48. 2006

Balde Cheio Project Basics
High productivity forages + Intensive pastures +
Shade + Genetics +

Projeto Balde Cheio (2)
Cleanliness +
Organization
Evolução da produtividade de leite por hectare
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
763 1049 1757 2325 4298 5588 6207 7285
8000
7000
6000
Litros / ha
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
= PRODUCTIVITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Sustainability analysis
Nata da Serra Farm
Condição dos Habitats Naturais
Risco geotécnico Manejo áreas produtivas
Risco incêndio Manejo não agrícola
Extinção de espécies Reserva Legal
Vetores Doenças Áreas preservação permanente
Regeneração áreas degradadas Corredores fauna
Diversidade produtiva Diversidade paisagem
"Baseline" Utilidade Variação percentual
Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de Ecologia da Paisagem

Sustainability analysis (2)
Nata da Serra Farm
Matéria orgânica
Partículas e
fumaça Erosão pH
NOx Odores Saturação bases Fósforo
CTC Potássio
SOx Ruído
Soma bases Magnésio
COx "Baseline" Acidez potencial
Utilidade
"Baseline" Utilidade Variação percentual
Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de
de Qualidade Ambiental - Atmosfera Qualidade Ambiental - Solo
Oxigênio Dissolvido
Condutividade água subterr. Coliformes
Nitrato água subterr. DBO5 "Baseline"
Coliformes água subter. pH Utilidade
Pesticidas Nitrato Variação
percentual
Poluição visual Fosfato
Condutividade Turbidez
Clorofila a
Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de Qualidade Ambiental - Água

Sustainability analysis (3)
Nata da Serra Farm
Renda Perfil do
responsável
Diversidade fontes
Moradia
de renda
Relação
Comercialização
institucional
Valor da propriedade Distribuição renda
Gestão insumos
Endividamento Reciclagem
químicos
"Baseline"
"Baseline" Utilidade
Utilidade
Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de
Valores Econôm icos Gestão / Administração
Educação
Oportunidade de emprego Serviços básicos
"Baseline"
Saúde ocupacional Padrão consumo
Utilidade
Índice 2
Qualidade emprego Esporte e lazer
Patrimônio cultural
Valores de Utilidade dos indicadores de Valores Socioculturais

Sustainability analysis
Nata da Serra Farm, julho 2010
Número de
Índice de Impacto Ambiental indicadores
da Atividade faltantes
Ecologia da Paisagem 0,90 0 0,7
Ecologia da Paisagem
Qualidade ambiental - Atmosfera 0,85 0 0,7
Qualidade ambiental -
Qualidade ambiental - Água 0,96 0 Gestão e Administração
0,7
Atmosfera
Qualidade Ambiental - Solo 0,79 0 0,7
Valores Socioculturais 0,86 0 0,7
Valores Econômicos Qualidade ambiental - Água
Valores Econômicos 0,93 0 0,7
Gestão e Administração 0,97 1 0,7
Valores Socioculturais Qualidade Ambiental - Solo
0,89 1
Desempenho ambiental das Dimensões de avaliação
0,89
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00
Índice de sustentabilidade do estabelecimento

PROBIO II PROJECT
Integrated Public-Private Actions for Biodiversity
MMA / SBF / GEF, World Bank
EMBRAPA ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT
1.2.08.04 – Bioenergy and impacts on biodiversity
Research Team:
Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues
Marcos Neves
Nelson G. Domingues
Environmental Management Laboratory Lourival C. Paraiba
Embrapa Environment Waldemore Moriconi
www.cnpma.embrapa.br Izilda Ap. Rodrigues
Carolina Daher
Cláudio C. de A. Buschinelli

OBJECTIVE:
To promote the integration of environmental
management procedures in rural establishments
dedicated to the agro-energy sector, in order to
organize their efforts for biodiversity protection, in
territories surrounding Conservation Units.

INSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION
Extension of the initiatives for methodological development in environmental
management of rural activities, previously applied in the National Network
Macro-projects “Biodiesel and Energy Forests”
- Priority productive chains defined for the first phase of the project:
eucaliptus, sugar-cane, soybean and oil palm

1.1. Oil-palm, Agropalma,
Tailândia (PA)
2. Serra do Cabral State Preserve,
1. Agropalma Forest Preserve, Buenópolis (MG)
Tailândia (PA)
3. Project for Forest Restoration in
5. iLCF, Mogi Guaçu Farm,
the Medium Rio Doce (IEF-ITTO)
Paragominas (PA)
Resplendor/Aimorés (MG)
4. José Emídio Setlement and
‘Mata do Junco’ Preserve,
Capela (SE)

FIELD ACTIVITIES AND CASE STUDIES
Unidade de Estudo de caso –
conservação Localidade e Parcerias estabelecimento rural (área),
e cultura energética
e data dos trabalhos de
campo
bioma institucionais
Reserva Florestal Tailândia (PA) Grupo Agropalma Fazenda Agropalma (107 mil ha)
Agropalma Floresta ombrófila Embrapa Amazônia Oriental Palma-de-óleo (dendê)
27-30 / 07 / 2010 equatorial (Amazônia)
Parque Estadual Buenópolis e Joaquim Instituto Estadual de Florestas Fazenda Riacho dos Cavalos
da Serra do Felício (MG) (IEF), EPAMIG, Embrapa Milho (120 ha)
Cerrados e campos e Sorgo, Gerência do
Cabral rupestres PESCabral
Fazenda Vitória (5700 ha),
(PESCabral) Eucalipto / Integração pecuária
06 e 07 / 08 / 2010 floresta
RPPN Fazenda Aimorés (MG) IEF, Projeto de Recuperação Fazenda Vargem Alegre (131 ha)
Floresta Estacional de áreas degradadas do Médio Restauração ecológica (APP fluvial)
Bulcão Atlântica Rio Doce (ITTO)
18 / 08 / 2010
Refúgio de Vida Capela (SE) Embrapa Tabuleiros Costeiros, Lote Neto, Assentamento José
Floresta ombrófila tropical SEMARH, ADEMA, INCRA
Silvestre Mata do
(Mata Atlântica) (SE), SEMA-Capela,
Emídio dos Santos (6,6 ha)
Junco Assentamento José Emídio dos Cana-de-açúcar
22 / 09 / 2010 Santos, Gerência do
RVS_Mata-do-Junco
Exercício Paragominas (PA) Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Fazenda Rio Grande (927 ha)
preparatório – Floresta ombrófila Projetos MP02 – Plantio Direto / Fazenda Mogi Guaçu (10.000
equatorial (Amazônia) Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-
Flona Santarém Florestas (iLPF)
ha)
29 e 30 / 09 / 2010 Soja/milho; iLPF (soja/milho/feno)

0,85
Dimensão Gestão e administração
Índice integrado de sustentabilidade R2 = 0,96
0,80
0,75
0,70
0,65
0,60
0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
Ecologia da paisagem Atmosfera Água Solo
Valores socioculturais Valores econômicos Gestão e administração
Índices de desempenho ambiental para as dimensões de sustentabilidade
consideradas (n = 05 estudos de caso)
Results of five case studies carried out in the project ‘Bioenergy and impacts on biodiversity’ (Probio II) based on the
APOIA-NovoRural indicators system. The data show the distribution of environmental performance indices for the
several dimensions considered, as well as the associated sustainability indices. Emphasis is placed on the
“Management and administration” dimension (), main determinant of sustainability in the rural establishments
observed in the sample.

APOIA-NovoRural : applications and case studies (n≈200)
1. Validation step: Environmental management of agrotourism, organic farming and fee fishing;
2. Territorial environmental management of agrotourism and organic farming – case studies in
Itu (SP), Venda Nova (ES), Ibiúna (SP) and Frsc. Beltrão (PR)
3. Territorial environmental management of rural activities in the Mamanguape River (PB)
Protection Area
4. Environmental assessment of Precision Agriculture in no-till grain production in the Rio Verde
(GO) region
5. Environmental management of ostrich farming
6. Environmental management of rural establishments around the Caratinga Biological Preserve
(MG) and ecological corridors for the endangered Brachyteles hypoxanthus
7. Environmental Impact Assessment in the “Proyecto Producción Responsable” – a National
Rural Development Program in Uruguay
8. Integrated strawberry production and environmental management in family agriculture
9. Socio-environmental impact assessment of oleaginous crops for biodiesel production
10. Bioenergy and impacts on biodiversity (GEF 1.2.08.04)
Rodrigues GS et al. Integrated farm sustainability assessment for the environmental management of rural activities.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 30:229-239, 2010.

Scope of analysis Case study References
1. Specific agricultural 1.1 Family farming Rodrigues et al., 2003b;
production system / sustainability – Rodrigues et al, 2006b
activity horticulture, agro-
tourism, fee-fishing
1.2 Integrated Fruit Buschinelli et al., 2007;
Production Calegario et al., 2009
1.3 Precision agriculture Rodrigues et al., 2008b
2. Agricultural 2.1 Ostrich farming Rodrigues et al., 2007a;
productive sectors Rodrigues et al., 2008a
2.2 Oleaginous crops for Rodrigues et al., 2007b;
biodiesel Rodrigues et al., 2009b
3. Territorial 3.1 Organic agriculture Rodrigues et al., 2006a
environmental and agro-tourism
management sustainable management
3.2 Rural activities in the Rodrigues et al., 2008c
Mamanguape Protection
Area
3.3 Rural establishments Lino et al., 2009
around the Caratinga
Biological Station
4. Countrywide rural 4.1 Integrated natural Rodrigues and Moreira-
development program resources and Viñas, 2007a;b
biodiversity management
project, Uruguay

0,85
0,80
Sustainability indices
0,75
0,70
0,65
0,60
0,55
0,50
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
Performance indices for assessment dimensions
Results of case studies (n= 177), showing the distribution of performance indices.
Sustainability dimensions with higher correlations to the integrated indices, i.e., Landscape ecology (♦
- corr coef = 0.78) and Management and administration (■ – corr coef = 0.62) appear highlighted.

Conclusions
 The adoption of environmental management tools, such as the ones
exemplified here, is instrumental for promoting the sustainability of rural
activities;
 Sound agricultural management, production systems, and technology
adoption decision-making ensuing from environmental impact assessments
favor product quality and productive efficiency, hence improving
competitiveness and market insertion;
 Environmental Assessment Systems are valuable management tools for
reconciling ecological integrity, economic vitality and socio-cultural equity
objectives for sustainable development.

Acknowledgements:
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
– FAPESP
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico - CNPq
- IICA / PROCISUR
- Embrapa
All farmers who participated of case studies, for their interest
and kind reception to our research team.
Thank you!