Results and Policy Implications of the 2012 EPI and Trend ... · development. Some issues arise from the resource and pollution impacts of industrialization, such as air pollution

We believe that a number of interesting conclusions can bedrawn from the results of the 2012 EPI, the Trend EPI, and theunderlying indicators:

ä The latest EPI rankings reveal a wide range of environ-mental sustainability results. Many countries are makingprogress on at least some of the challenges they face. At the indicator level, our analysis suggests that someissues are being successfully addressed at a worldwidescale, although performance on some other challenges,notably climate change, has declined globally.

ä Wealth matters. The Environmental Health scores, inparticular, reveal a significant relationship with GDP percapita. EPI scores more generally also correlate withwealth, although there is a diversity of performancewithin every level of economic development.

ä The pattern of results make clear that environmentalchallenges come in several forms and vary with country-specific circumstances as well as the level ofdevelopment. Some issues arise from the resource andpollution impacts of industrialization, such as airpollution and rising levels of waste. These impactslargely affect developed countries. Other challenges are commonly associated with poverty and underinvestment in basic environmental amenities, such as access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.These problems primarily affect developing nations.

ä A number of countries that lag on the overall EPI haveimpressive results on the Trend EPI. For countries thathave been at the high end of the EPI ranking over thelast decade, the trend results are less meaningful. Wenote that the overall EPI and Trend EPI rankings bythemselves should be understood only as indicative.More insight will often be obtained by looking at theindividual indicator level and policy category results.

ä The Trend EPI reveals improvements for many countrieson a significant number of issues. In the EnvironmentalHealth objective, global trends show decreasing childmortality as well as increasing access to sanitation anddrinking water. However, persistent challenges remainin the Ecosystem Vitality objective. In particular, withrespect to climate change, greenhouse gas emissionscontinue to rise globally with few countries on asustainable emissions trajectory.

ä A comparison of the 2012 EPI and Trend EPI exposespersistent gaps in environmental governance andmanagement over time. In general, countries showgains on the Environmental Health objective across alllevels of performance measured by the EPI. With regardto Ecosystem Vitality, however, the results are muchmore varied. Some countries are making gains, butmany are not. And a worrisome number of countriesare both low-ranked and declining.

ä The 2012 EPI highlights an array of challenges constrainingmovement toward data-driven and analytically rigorousenvironmental policymaking. These issues includeunreliable data sources, gaps in data coverage, limited timeseries metrics, persistent methodological weaknesses, andthe lack of a systematic process for verifying the environ-mental data reported by governments. The more rigorousdata standards used in the 2012 EPI resulted in thereplacement or omission of some indicators used inprevious indices. We are particularly distressed by the lackof global, accurate, and comparative data on wastemanagement, recycling, toxic exposures, and several othercritical policy concerns. Likewise, the low quality andlimited availability of comparative data for issues such asagricultural sustainability and water quality as well asquantity is disappointing. Simply put, the world needsbetter data collection and monitoring, more consistentreporting and analysis, and mechanisms for independentdata verification.

The 2012 EPI represents a “work in progress.” It aims not only toinform but also to stimulate debate on defining the appropriatemetrics and methodologies for evaluating environmentalperformance. Feedback is welcome at our website,www.epi.yale.edu.

Results and Policy Implications of the 2012 EPI and Trend EPI Environmental Performance Index– Ranking & Scores

Top 10 Trend Index PerformersLowest 10 Trend Index Decliners

To see full results and detailed analysis by country, visit www.epi.yale.edu.

Printed on 55% recycled paper and 30% post-consumer waste.

Summary for PolicymakersYale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University

In collaboration withWorld Economic Forum, Geneva, SwitzerlandJoint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy

This report has been made possible by support from FedEx and the Samuel Family Foundation

Report and additional materials available at the EPI website:www.epi.yale.edu

1 Switzerland 892 Latvia 13 Norway 844 Luxembourg 1065 Costa Rica 1136 France 197 Austria 718 Italy 129 United Kingdom 209 Sweden 63

11 Germany 5612 Slovakia 713 Iceland 6414 New Zealand 5015 Albania 416 Netherlands 9217 Lithuania 10418 Czech Republic 2519 Finland 5420 Croatia 7421 Denmark 4522 Poland 10723 Japan 6024 Belgium 925 Malaysia 3326 Brunei Darussalam 11927 Colombia 3428 Slovenia 5129 Taiwan 3430 Brazil 2331 Ecuador 6532 Spain 3033 Greece 8134 Thailand 1035 Nicaragua 1536 Ireland 837 Canada 5238 Nepal 1439 Panama 10340 Gabon 5741 Portugal 2442 Philippines 4343 South Korea 1344 Cyprus 116

45 Hungary 1846 Uruguay 11547 Georgia 6848 Australia 7949 United States of America 7750 Argentina 11250 Cuba 10152 Singapore 3653 Bulgaria 1654 Estonia 12855 Sri Lanka 1156 Venezuela 8557 Zambia 4858 Chile 11759 Cambodia 4460 Egypt 561 Israel 7862 Bolivia 12263 Jamaica 5364 Tanzania 9365 Belarus 4066 Botswana 2167 Ivory Coast 4268 Zimbabwe 8769 Myanmar 4770 Ethiopia 7071 Honduras 8672 Dominican Republic 8873 Paraguay 4674 Indonesia 6675 El Salvador 10876 Guatemala 3177 United Arab Emirates 2778 Namibia 9879 Viet Nam 7380 Benin 12081 Peru 9682 Saudi Arabia 13083 Kenya 10584 Mexico 2285 Togo 9086 Algeria 5887 Malta 9788 Romania 3

89 Mozambique 10290 Angola 691 Ghana 2892 Dem. Rep. Congo 8393 Armenia 4994 Lebanon 9195 Congo 9996 Trinidad & Tobago 11497 Macedonia 7598 Senegal 3999 Tunisia 40

100 Qatar 121101 Kyrgyzstan 127102 Ukraine 82103 Serbia 109104 Sudan 94105 Morocco 37106 Russia 132107 Mongolia 54108 Moldova 67109 Turkey 17110 Oman 80111 Azerbaijan 2112 Cameroon 110113 Syria 62114 Iran 118115 Bangladesh 32116 China 100117 Jordan 76118 Haiti 111119 Nigeria 59120 Pakistan 72121 Tajikistan 38122 Eritrea 26123 Libya 61124 Bosnia & Herzegovina 129125 India 95126 Kuwait 131127 Yemen 29128 South Africa 124129 Kazakhstan 126130 Uzbekistan 69131 Turkmenistan 123132 Iraq 125

EPI Rank Country Trend EPI Rank EPI Rank Country Trend EPI RankEPI Rank Country Trend EPI Rank

55

50

45

40

35

2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 2010

Environmental Health & Ecosystem Vitality Trends

Prox

imity

to T

arge

t

Environmental Health ObjectiveEcosystem Vitality Objective

Year

Angola

Albania

UAE

Australia

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia

Brazil Switzerland

China

Germany

Egypt

Estonia

France

UK

IndonesiaIndia

Ireland

Iraq

Japan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

South Korea

Kuwait

Latvia

Mexico

Namibia

Nigeria

Norway

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Slovakia

Thailand

Turkmenistan

USA

South Africa

Angola AlbaniaUAE

Azerbaijan

BelgiumBosnia

Brazil

Switzerland

China

Australia and Germany

Egypt

Estonia

France

UK

Indonesia

IndiaIreland

Iraq

JapanKazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

South Korea

Kuwait

LatviaMexico

Namibia

Nigeria Norway

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Slovakia

Thailand

Turkmenistan USA

South Africa

Dec

linin

gIm

povi

ng

Worse Better

Environmental Health

Dec

linin

gIm

povi

ng

Worse Better

Pilot Trend EPI The Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index (Trend EPI) rankscountries on the change in their environmental performance overthe last decade. As a complement to the EPI, the Trend EPI showswho is improving and who is declining over time. The table to theright presents a list of the top 10 trend performers, the bottom 10,and a selection of other countries.

The figures below show the relationship between country scores inthe 2012 EPI and the Trend EPI for both policy objectives –Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality, highlighting the samecountries presented in the Trend EPI table. The distribution of scoresfor each objective is revealing. With regard to Ecosystem Vitality,some countries are performing well and improving – but a numberof others are performing poorly and doing worse over time. Theresults for Environmental Health paint a more optimistic picture asmost countries show improvement.

Executive SummaryTwenty years after the landmark Rio Earth Summit, governments still struggle to demonstrate improvedenvironmental performance through quantitative metricsacross a range of pollution control and natural resourcemanagement challenges. With budgetary constraints anissue around the world, governments face increasingpressure to show tangible results from their environmentalinvestments.

The 2000 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), thepredecessor to the Environmental Performance Index (EPI),first responded to the growing need for rigorous, data-driven environmental performance measurement. The2012 EPI, the seventh iteration of this environmentalmeasurement project, adds to the foundation of empiricalsupport for sound policymaking and breaks furtherground, establishing for the first time a basis for trackingchanges in performance over time. The EPI and the PilotTrend Environmental Performance Index (Trend EPI) rankcountries on 22 performance indicators spanning tenpolicy categories reflecting facets of both environmentalpublic health and ecosystem vitality. The methodologyfacilitates country comparisons and provides a way toassess the global community’s performance over time withrespect to established environmental policy goals.

Trend Rank and Order

Envi

ronm

enta

l Per

form

ance

Inde

x Fr

amew

ork

Sub-Saharan AfricaRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Gabon 82 Zambia 73 Tanzania 144 Botswana 25 Ivory Coast 66 Zimbabwe 127 Ethiopia 108 Namibia 159 Benin 20

10 Kenya 1811 Togo 1312 Mozambique 1713 Angola 114 Ghana 415 Dem. Rep. Congo 1116 Congo 1617 Senegal 518 Cameroon 1919 Nigeria 920 Eritrea 321 South Africa 21

Middle East & North AfricaRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Egypt 12 Israel 103 United Arab Emirates 24 Saudi Arabia 175 Algeria 66 Lebanon 127 Tunisia 58 Qatar 159 Sudan 13

10 Morocco 411 Oman 1112 Syria 813 Iran 1414 Jordan 915 Libya 716 Kuwait 1817 Yemen 318 Iraq 16

Asia & PacificRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 New Zealand 122 Japan 143 Malaysia 64 Brunei Darussalam 215 Taiwan 76 Thailand 17 Nepal 48 Philippines 99 South Korea 3

10 Australia 1811 Singapore 812 Sri Lanka 213 Cambodia 1014 Myanmar 1115 Indonesia 1516 Viet Nam 1717 Mongolia 1318 Bangladesh 519 China 2020 Pakistan 1621 India 19

East Europe & Central AsiaRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Albania 22 Croatia 103 Georgia 84 Belarus 55 Armenia 66 Macedonia 117 Kyrgyzstan 168 Ukraine 129 Serbia 13

10 Russia 1811 Moldova 712 Turkey 313 Azerbaijan 114 Tajikistan 415 Bosnia & Herzegovina 1716 Kazakhstan 1517 Uzbekistan 918 Turkmenistan 14

About the IndexThe 2012 EPI ranks 132 countries on 22 performanceindicators in the following ten policy categories:

• Environmental Burden of Disease• Water (effects on human health)• Air Pollution (effects on human health)• Air Pollution (ecosystem effects)• Water Resources (ecosystem effects)• Biodiversity and Habitat• Forestry• Fisheries • Agriculture• Climate Change

These policy categories track performance and progress ontwo broad policy objectives: Environmental Health andEcosystem Vitality. Each indicator has an associatedenvironmental public health or ecosystem sustainabilitytarget. The full report, including a complete description ofthe performance indicators, underlying data sets, andmethodology is available on the web at www.epi.yale.edu.

AmericasRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Costa Rica 202 Colombia 53 Brazil 34 Ecuador 95 Nicaragua 16 Canada 77 Panama 168 Uruguay 229 USA 10

10 Argentina 1910 Cuba 1512 Venezuela 1113 Chile 2314 Bolivia 2415 Jamaica 816 Honduras 1217 Dominican Republic 1318 Paraguay 619 El Salvador 1720 Guatemala 421 Peru 1422 Mexico 223 Trinidad & Tobago 2124 Haiti 18

Ecosystem Vitality

To see full Trend EPI analysis, visitwww.epi.yale.edu.

Child Mortality

Particulate Matter

Indoor Air Pollution

Access to Sanitation

Access to Drinking Water

SO2 per CapitaSO2 per $ GDP

Biome Protection

Change in Water QuantityCritical Habitat Protection

Marine Protected AreasAgricultural SubsidiesPesticide RegulationForest Growing Stock

Change in Forest CoverForest Loss

Coastal Shelf Fishing PressureFish Stocks Overexploited

CO2 per CapitaCO2 per $ GDPCO2 per KWH

Renewable Electricity

2012Environmental

PerformanceIndex


Ecosystem Vitality


Air (Effects on Human Health)

Water (Effects on Human Health)

Air (Ecosystem Effects)

Water Resources (Ecosystem Effects)

Biodiversity & Habitat

Agriculture

Forests

Fisheries

Climate Change & Energy

POLICY CATEGORIESOBJECTIVESEPI INDICATORS

Geographic Regional Peer Group RankingsGeographic Regional Peer Group Rankings

EuropeRegion Region Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Switzerland 232 Latvia 13 Norway 224 Luxembourg 275 France 96 Austria 207 Italy 68 United Kingdom 108 Sweden 18

10 Germany 1711 Slovakia 312 Iceland 1913 Netherlands 2414 Lithuania 2615 Czech Republic 1216 Finland 1617 Denmark 1418 Poland 2819 Belgium 520 Slovenia 1521 Spain 1322 Greece 2123 Ireland 424 Portugal 1125 Cyprus 2926 Hungary 827 Bulgaria 728 Estonia 3029 Malta 2530 Romania 2

Trend EPI Rank Country EPI Rank

1 Latvia 22 Azerbaijan 1113 Romania 884 Albania 155 Egypt 606 Angola 907 Slovakia 128 Ireland 369 Belgium 24

10 Thailand 34. . . . . . . . .

13 South Korea 43. . . . . . . . .19 France 620 United Kingdom 9. . . . . . . . .22 Mexico 8423 Brazil 30. . . . . . . . .27 United Arab Emirates 77. . . . . . . . .36 Singapore 52. . . . . . . . .56 Germany 11. . . . . . . . .59 Nigeria 11960 Japan 23. . . . . . . . .66 Indonesia 74. . . . . . . . .77 United States of America 49. . . . . . . . .79 Australia 48. . . . . . . . .84 Norway 3. . . . . . . . .89 Switzerland 1. . . . . . . . .95 India 125. . . . . . . . .98 Namibia 78. . . . . . . . .

100 China 116. . . . . . . . .

123 Turkmenistan 131124 South Africa 128125 Iraq 132126 Kazakhstan 129127 Kyrgyzstan 101128 Estonia 54129 Bosnia & Herzegovina 124130 Saudi Arabia 82131 Kuwait 126132 Russia 106

Angola

Albania

UAE

Australia

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia

Brazil Switzerland

China

Germany

Egypt

Estonia

France

UK

IndonesiaIndia

Ireland

Iraq

Japan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

South Korea

Kuwait

Latvia

Mexico

Namibia

Nigeria

Norway

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Slovakia

Thailand

Turkmenistan

USA

South Africa

Angola AlbaniaUAE

Azerbaijan

BelgiumBosnia

Brazil

Switzerland

China

Australia and Germany

Egypt

Estonia

France

UK

Indonesia

IndiaIreland

Iraq

JapanKazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

South Korea

Kuwait

LatviaMexico

Namibia

Nigeria Norway

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Slovakia

Thailand

Turkmenistan USA

South Africa

Dec

linin

gIm

povi

ng

Worse Better


Dec

linin

gIm

povi

ng

Worse Better






Envi

ronm

enta

l Per

form

ance

Inde

x Fr

amew

ork



















Ecosystem Vitality


Child Mortality

Particulate Matter





Biome Protection







2012Environmental

PerformanceIndex


Ecosystem Vitality







Agriculture

Forests

Fisheries









10 Thailand 34. . . . . . . . .


100 China 116. . . . . . . . .


Dec

linin

gIm

pro

ving

Worse Better


Dec

linin

gIm

pro

ving

Worse Better






Envi

ron

men

tal P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex

Fra

mew

ork



















Ecosystem Vitality


Child Mortality

Particulate Matter





Biome Protection







2012Environmental

PerformanceIndex


Ecosystem Vitality







Agriculture

Forests

Fisheries









10 Thailand 34. . . . . . . . .


100 China 116. . . . . . . . .

























55

50

45

40

35

2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 2010


Prox

imity

to T

arge

t


Year
























55

50

45

40

35

2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 2010


Prox

imity

to T

arge

t


Year

Results and Policy Implications of the 2012 EPI and Trend ... · development. Some issues arise from the resource and pollution impacts of industrialization, such as air pollution

Documents