New Index Grades Countries on Current Environmental Performance
By Alan Bisbort - Environment Yale, Spring 2006
When his Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) took the world by storm last year, Daniel Esty, J.D. ’86, wasted little time in preparing for an encore.
A year later, in January 2006, he used the same springboard that launched the ESI – the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – to launch its companion, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which is already on track to equal the reception given the ESI. Within days, The New York Times and International Herald Tribune had run major stories on the EPI, and hits on the EPI website topped 300,000 by early February.
Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy, explained: “Our ultimate aim is to make our work policyrelevant. Even though the two are important complements, the EPI gets closer to that point than the ESI. The ESI is a relative ranking, but the EPI is outcome-oriented and focused on current performance. It’s also pared down, with 16 rather than 76 underlying indicators. These things make it more attractive to governments.”
The EPI ranks 133 countries (13 fewer than the 2005 ESI, due to a lack of data) based on their performance within six policy categories: environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural resources (e.g., farmland, forests, fisheries) and sustainable energy. Each category is, in turn, measured by two to five indicators, or data sets. Each indicator measures the distance a country is from an established policy target, based on goals set by treaties, by international organizations or simply by the best available science (e.g., by definition, the optimum target for sustainable energy is 100 percent, and that for childhood mortality due to environmental factors is 0). On some issues,like adequate drinking water supplies, most countries are close to the target; on other issues, like sustainable energy, most are far from it.
Esty is quick to note: “The environmental world has not done enough to define standards or targets. This is itself a problem.” He also makes clear that the appeal of the EPI does not minimize the importance of the ESI – the former focusing on pollution control and natural resource management outcomes for which governments can be held accountable, and the latter presenting a more complete, long-term picture of environmental sustainability.
To make the EPI more useful to participating countries, rankings are offered for a variety of peer groups, including by income level, geographical proximity and political groupings (e.g., free-trade areas).
New Zealand was ranked first in the 2006 EPI, followed by Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, clearly reflecting the seriousness with which each of these countries’ governments takes environmental policy. The United States ranked 28th in the EPI, representing strong performance on some issues but weak results on some others. In particular, the data indicate that the United States lags its peers on three issues: water conservation, sustainable energy and managing productive natural resources (fisheries, forests, farmland). “American farmers use tons of chemicals in agribusiness, and these pesticides and fertilizers do considerable damage,” said Esty. “Likewise, our forestry and fishing practices have some distance to go to be fully sustainable.”
The EPI has been part of Esty’s thinking as far back as 1999, when the ESI was first released as a pilot program. Initially, a major concern with the ESI was that it lacked “time series” data. Policy makers from around the world told Esty and his colleagues at Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), which amassed the data, that, as Esty has paraphrased, “You’re judging us on a lot of stuff we can’t do anything about. Why don’t you judge us more narrowly on current performance?”
These concerns have been reflected in comparative rankings between countries’ ESI and EPI “grades.” That is, some nations with low ESI rankings have high EPIs. The United Kingdom, for example, has “300 years of industrialization to live down, but it is now managing well what it has to work with,” said Esty. Thus, the United Kingdom is ranked fifth in the world on the EPI, compared to an ESI ranking of 66th.
“The U.K. and Belgium are equal in wealth, but the U.K. far outpaces Belgium on the EPI,” said Esty. “This reflects much better governance – less corruption, more attention to the rule of law, a public-minded civil service, active nongovernmental organizations and open political debate. The significant correlation between good governance and environmental results has struck a number of people as notable. The EPI seems to resonate even better than the ESI on this level. It’s easier to understand and provides a focus on what governments can be held accountable for.”
Likewise, some “pristine” nations with abundant natural resources, small populations and little industrial development have high ESI rankings but low EPI rankings. Mali, for example, does not manage environmental resources well, which is reflected in its 130th ranking on the EPI (third from the bottom), while it is ranked 40th on the ESI, five notches higher than the United States, because it has not industrialized and therefore has not suffered much pollution harm.
“We labeled the EPI a ‘pilot’ study to signal a degree of modesty. The data remain woefully inadequate on a number of issues, and we are still in the process of thinking through the approach to measuring many issues.”
A year later, in January 2006, he used the same springboard that launched the ESI – the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – to launch its companion, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which is already on track to equal the reception given the ESI. Within days, The New York Times and International Herald Tribune had run major stories on the EPI, and hits on the EPI website topped 300,000 by early February.
Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy, explained: “Our ultimate aim is to make our work policyrelevant. Even though the two are important complements, the EPI gets closer to that point than the ESI. The ESI is a relative ranking, but the EPI is outcome-oriented and focused on current performance. It’s also pared down, with 16 rather than 76 underlying indicators. These things make it more attractive to governments.”
The EPI ranks 133 countries (13 fewer than the 2005 ESI, due to a lack of data) based on their performance within six policy categories: environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural resources (e.g., farmland, forests, fisheries) and sustainable energy. Each category is, in turn, measured by two to five indicators, or data sets. Each indicator measures the distance a country is from an established policy target, based on goals set by treaties, by international organizations or simply by the best available science (e.g., by definition, the optimum target for sustainable energy is 100 percent, and that for childhood mortality due to environmental factors is 0). On some issues,like adequate drinking water supplies, most countries are close to the target; on other issues, like sustainable energy, most are far from it.
Esty is quick to note: “The environmental world has not done enough to define standards or targets. This is itself a problem.” He also makes clear that the appeal of the EPI does not minimize the importance of the ESI – the former focusing on pollution control and natural resource management outcomes for which governments can be held accountable, and the latter presenting a more complete, long-term picture of environmental sustainability.
To make the EPI more useful to participating countries, rankings are offered for a variety of peer groups, including by income level, geographical proximity and political groupings (e.g., free-trade areas).
New Zealand was ranked first in the 2006 EPI, followed by Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, clearly reflecting the seriousness with which each of these countries’ governments takes environmental policy. The United States ranked 28th in the EPI, representing strong performance on some issues but weak results on some others. In particular, the data indicate that the United States lags its peers on three issues: water conservation, sustainable energy and managing productive natural resources (fisheries, forests, farmland). “American farmers use tons of chemicals in agribusiness, and these pesticides and fertilizers do considerable damage,” said Esty. “Likewise, our forestry and fishing practices have some distance to go to be fully sustainable.”
The EPI has been part of Esty’s thinking as far back as 1999, when the ESI was first released as a pilot program. Initially, a major concern with the ESI was that it lacked “time series” data. Policy makers from around the world told Esty and his colleagues at Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), which amassed the data, that, as Esty has paraphrased, “You’re judging us on a lot of stuff we can’t do anything about. Why don’t you judge us more narrowly on current performance?”
These concerns have been reflected in comparative rankings between countries’ ESI and EPI “grades.” That is, some nations with low ESI rankings have high EPIs. The United Kingdom, for example, has “300 years of industrialization to live down, but it is now managing well what it has to work with,” said Esty. Thus, the United Kingdom is ranked fifth in the world on the EPI, compared to an ESI ranking of 66th.
“The U.K. and Belgium are equal in wealth, but the U.K. far outpaces Belgium on the EPI,” said Esty. “This reflects much better governance – less corruption, more attention to the rule of law, a public-minded civil service, active nongovernmental organizations and open political debate. The significant correlation between good governance and environmental results has struck a number of people as notable. The EPI seems to resonate even better than the ESI on this level. It’s easier to understand and provides a focus on what governments can be held accountable for.”
Likewise, some “pristine” nations with abundant natural resources, small populations and little industrial development have high ESI rankings but low EPI rankings. Mali, for example, does not manage environmental resources well, which is reflected in its 130th ranking on the EPI (third from the bottom), while it is ranked 40th on the ESI, five notches higher than the United States, because it has not industrialized and therefore has not suffered much pollution harm.
“We labeled the EPI a ‘pilot’ study to signal a degree of modesty. The data remain woefully inadequate on a number of issues, and we are still in the process of thinking through the approach to measuring many issues.”
