2014 environmental performance index - yale & columbia university

8/10/2019 2014 Environmental Performance Index - Yale & Columbia University

1/180

Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy,

Yale University195 Prospect StreetNew Haven, CT 06511

Phone: +1 (203) 432-5967Fax: +1 (203) 432-0237http://envirocenter.yale.edu/

Center for International Earth Science Information Network,

Columbia University61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000Palisades, NY 10964Phone: +1 (845) 365-8988Fax: +1 (845) 365-8922http://www.ciesin.org/


2/180

2014 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX

Full Report and AnalysisYale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale UniversityCenter for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University

In collaboration with

World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland

With support from

The Samuel Family Foundation, Toronto, Canada

www.epi.yale.edu


3/180

The 2014 Environmental Performance Index

is a joint project between the Yale Center forEnvironmental Law & Policy (YCELP) and the Centerfor International Earth Science Information Network(CIESIN) at Columbia University, in collaborationwith the Samuel Family Foundation and the World

Economic Forum.

About YCELPThe Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy,a joint research institute between the Yale School ofForestry & Environmental Studies and Yale Law

School, seeks to incorporate fresh thinking, ethicalawareness, and analytically rigorous decisionmaking

tools into environmental law and policy.

About CIESINThe Center for International Earth ScienceInformation Networks mission is to provide accessto and enhance the use of information worldwide,advance the understanding of human interactionsin the environment, and serve the needs of science

and public and private decisionmaking.

About the Samuel Family FoundationThe Samuel Family Foundation has a long historyof supporting the arts, healthcare and education.In recent years, it has broadened its mandateinternationally, to engage in such partnershipsas the Clinton Global Initiative, and participatein programs aimed at global poverty alleviation,disability rights and human rights advocacy,environmental sustainability, education and youth

programs.

About the World Economic ForumThe World Economic Forum is an independentinternational organization committed to improvingthe state of the world by engaging business,political, academic and other leaders of society to

shape global, regional and industry agendas.

Suggested Citation: Hsu, A., J. Emerson, M. Levy, A. deSherbinin, L. Johnson, O. Malik, J. Schwartz, and M. Jaiteh.(2014). The 2014 Environmental Performance Index. NewHaven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

Available: www.epi.yale.edu.


4/180


5/180

AUTHORSYale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University

Dr. Angel Hsu, Principal Investigator and EPI Project DirectorDr. Jay Emerson, StatisticianLaura Johnson, Environmental Performance AnalystOmar Malik, Environmental Performance AnalystJason D. Schwartz, Environmental Performance Analyst

Abraham Allison, Research AssistantKelly Coplin, Research AssistantSarah Guy, Research AssistantBreanna Lujan, Research Assistant

Nora Hawkins, Research AssistantRachel Lipstein, Research AssistantWilliam Miao, Research AssistantOlivia Mala, Research AssistantCenter for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University

Marc A. Levy, Deputy DirectorAlex de Sherbinin, Senior Research AssociateMalanding Jaiteh, GIS Specialist

Contributors

Professor Daniel C. Esty, Director (on leave), Yale Center for Environmental Law and PolJoshua Galperin, Associate Director, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Susanne Stahl, Program Coordinator, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Website Design and Development

Matt Schwartz Design Studio

Report Design and ProductionAnne Householder, Yale School of Architecture

Website Production Design and Infographic Development

Anne Householder, Yale School of Architecture

Yinan Song, Yale College


6/180

EXPERT CONTRIBUTORSWenche Aas, Norwegian Institute of Air PollutionKym Anderson, University of AdelaideMark Ashton, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesRicardo Barra, Universidad de Concepcion, ChileJamie Bartram, The Water Institute at University of North CarolinaRachel Baum, The Water Institute at University of North CarolinaPeter Bjrnsen, UNEP-DHI Centre for Water and EnvironmentKevin W. Bowman, University of California, Los AngelesJan Burck, Germanwatch Climate Change Performance IndexSergio Cinnirella, CNR-Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research

Roberto Crotti, World Economic ForumThomas Damassa, World Resources InstituteAlexander Danilenka, World Bank Water and Sanitation ProgramJill Engel-Cox, Battelle Memorial InstituteCrystal Davis, World Resources InstituteMargareta Drzeniek-Hanouz, World Economic ForumRalf Ebinghaus, Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, GermanMartina Flerke, University of KasselJohannas Friedrich, World Resources InstituteHoi-Seong Jeong, Institute for the Environment and CivilizationsJennifer Gee, University of British ColumbiaPatrick Gerland, United Nations Department of Economic and Social AffairsPaul Glennie, UNEP-DHI Centre for Water and Environment

Andres Gomez, American Museum of Natural HistoryRamon Guardans, SoundplotsBen Halpern, Ocean Health Index, UC Santa BarbaraMatthew Hansen, University of Maryland

Tom Harner, Environment CanadaIan M. Hedgecock, CNR-Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchMike Hoffmann, IUCN Species Survival CommissionPeter Holmgren, Center for International Forestry Research, FAOChristina Hood, International Energy AgencyHayley Hung, Environment Canada

Maria Ivanova, University of Massachusetts, BostonKim Ki-Ho, Research Institute for Climate Change ResponseNguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Asian Institute of TechnologyKristin Kleisner, NOAAMoon Kook-Hyun, Yuhan-Kimberly Corporation, formerMichael Krzyzanowski, World Health OrganizationMatthew MacLeod, Stockholm UniversityRandall Martin, Dalhousie University

Amy Milam, UNEP-WCMCMichael Nagy, Qatar GovernmentDavid Lloyd Owen, Envisager


7/180

Jozef Pacyna, Gdansk University of TechnologyDaniel Pauly, University of British Columbia

Yan Peng, C40 Cities Climate Leadership GroupNicola Pirrone, CNR-Institute of Atmospheric Pollution ResearchRoberta Quadrelli, International Energy Agency

Aaron Reuben, Environmental Performance Index Research Consultant, formerMichaela Saisana, Joint Research Centre, European Commission

Andrea Saltelli, Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSybil Seitzinger, International Geosphere-Biosphere ProgrammeMartin Scheringer, ETH ZurichSara Scherr, Eco Agriculture PartnersChristof Schneiders, University of Kassel

Drew Shindell, NASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesBenjamin Skolnik, American Bird ConservancyKirk Smith, University of California, BerkeleyFrancesca Sprovieri, CNR-Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research

Tanja Srebotnjak, Ecologic InstituteFred Stolle, Forest Landscape Objective, World Resources InstituteElsie M. Sunderland, Harvard UniversityErnesto Valenzuela, University of Adelaide

Aaron van Donkelaar, Dalhousie UniversityStephanie Weber, Battelle Memorial InstituteErica Zell, Battelle Memorial Institute

Yan Zhang, Chinese Academy of Sciences


8/180

Organization of the Petroleum ExportingCountries (OPEC)

Particulate Matter (PM)Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

and Forest Degradation (REDD)Small Island Developing States (SIDS)Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)United Nations (UN)United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF)

United Nations Educational, Scienticand Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)

United Nations Framework Cov-ention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD)Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(WCMC)World Database on Protected Areas

(WDPA)World Health Organization (WHO)World Trade Organization (WTO)World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Yale Center for Environmental Law& Policy (YCELP)

Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)Asian Institute for Energy, Environment &

Sustainability (AIEES)Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)Center for Disease Control (CDC)Center for International Earth Science

Information Network (CIESIN)Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI)Community of Latin American and

Caribbean States (CELAC)Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Council of Agriculture (COA)Environmental Performance Index (EPI)Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)European Union (EU)Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)Forest Resource Assessment (FRA)Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)Global Burden of Disease 2010

(GBD 2010)

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)Global Forest Watch (GFW)Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment

(GRACE)Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)Gross National Income (GNI)International Council for the Exploration

of the Seas (ICES)International Energy Agency (IEA)International Union for Conservation

of Nature (IUCN)Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP)Joint Research Centre (JRC)Least Developed Countries (LDCs)Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA)

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization(NAFO)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD)

COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS


9/180012014 EPI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What is the EPI?The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks how well countries perform on high-priorityenvironmental issues in two broad policy areas: protection of human health from environmental harm andprotection of ecosystems. Within these two policy objectives the EPI scores country performance in nine

issue areas comprised of 20 indicators. Indicators in the EPI measure how close countries are to meetinginternationally established targets or, in the absence of agreed-upon targets, how they compare to therange of observed countries.

WHY THE EPI?

The EPI gives decisionmakers access toimportant environmental data organizedin a way that is easy to understand,useful, and drives productive competition.

The EPI allows countries to compare theirperformance to neighbors and peers.With the inclusion of time series data,countries can also see how their own

performance has changed over time.

2014 InnovationsThis 2014 EPI report and the accompa-nying website offer several innovationsand improvements over past versions ofthe Index. Readers will notice that thisreport moves away from a denser andmore technical style in favor of a morenarrative and exploratory approach.

The website itself is likewise redesigned.The new website will give usersunparalleled access to the EPI scores,rankings, and data, allowing users tocreate their own peer group comparisons,explore individual environmental issues indepth, download all the data that underliethe 2014 EPI, and access real-worldstories that add nuance to the EPI.

The data and indicators have alsoundergone improvements for the 2014EPI. This iteration presents new Climateand Energy indicators that account fordiffering economic and developmentstatus across the worlds countries. The

Air Quality and Forest issue areas includenew indicators for Air Pollution andChange in Forest Cover that make useof cutting-edge satellite data for results

that are more reective of the actual stateof the environment. For the rst time

anywhere, the 2014 EPI introduces anew indicator of Wastewater Treatment.Using new data collected by the YaleCenter for Environmental Law & Policy,the Wastewater Treatment indicatormeasures the amount of collectedwastewater that a country treats beforereleasing it back into the environment.

Each of these data innovations drivescontinued improvement to the strengthand quality of the EPI. In addition, the2014 EPI ranks 178 countries - morethan ever before - and includes morecountries from sub-Saharan Africa andSmall Island Developing States (SIDS)such as Palau and Kiribati. Together,better data and more inclusion makesthe results and stories included in thisreport important lessons for globalenvironmental management.

Technical details are available on the 2014 EPI

website at www.epi.yale.edu and will be available

in a forthcoming academic article.


10/1802014 EPI02

RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

Switzerland has again landed in the topspot of the 2014 EPI. The remainder ofthe top ve are, in order, Luxembourg

Australia, Singapore, and the CzechRepublic. Singapores presence inthe fourth spot is particularly notable,demonstrating that predominantly urbannations can capitalize on populationdensity to achieve strong environmentalperformance. Every country in the topve is not only performing well on the

2014 EPI, but time series data also show

that these countries have improvedtheir environmental performance overthe past decade. Among countries withthe largest economies, Germany ranksthe highest in the sixth spot followed bythe United Kingdom in 12th, Canada in24th, Japan in 26th, France in 27th, andthe United States in 33rd. The fastestgrowing economies show diversity in theirperformance although they tend to fareworse than more established economies.Russia ranks 73rd, Brazil 77th, China

118th, and India 155th.

The poorest performers in the 2014EPI are those with signicant political

or economic strife, suggesting againthat other pressing issues can sidelineeffective environmental policy. Somalia isin last place (178th) with other turbulentcountries from around the globe in thebottom ten, including Haiti at 176th,

Afghanistan at 174th, and Bangladesh at

169th.

In addition to the headline rankings,the 2014 EPI includes a pilot effort togenerate a global environment scorecard.

A close look at both the pilot globalscorecard and the country ranking revealsa number of lessons:

Dramatic progress is possible when

measurement and management practices

align, but when measurement is poor

or out of alignment with management,

natural and human systems suffer.Since1990 more than two billion people have

gained access to improved drinkingwater and proper sanitation, exceedingMillennium Development Goal (MDG)targets and improving global well-being. There has been similar successin the protection of natural habitats.Well-organized data systems andclearly established targets have led towidespread increase in protected areas.What these results demonstrate is thattargeted, data-driven investments dodeliver progress.

On the other hand, the EPI documentsthat weak measurement systems give

rise to poor outcomes. For instance,marine sheries are badly monitored,

many eets deliberately misreport or fail

to report catch data, and internationalpolicy targets are ad hoc and incomplete.It is no surprise that sh stocks around

the world are in stark decline. Air qualitymeasurement capabilities are also weak

and poorly coordinated with managementdespite all the media attention it gets.International policy targets are largelyabsent, and the world has observedpolicy stagnation and alarming airpollution crises in a growing number ofcities.

Countries of varying economic

development have divergent climate

emissions trajectories; these warrant

different policy priorities.Wealthycountries produce the highest levels ofclimate emissions, but have for the mostpart been successful in reducing thecarbon intensity of economic growth overthe last decade. Emerging economies,such as Brazil, India, and China, aregrowing quickly and see the steepestincrease in emissions over the lastdecade. For the poorest countries, suchas Nepal, emissions are comparativelylow. The EPI demonstrates a range in


11/180032014 EPI

countries abilities to meet these targetsthat are not necessarily tied to wealth, asother indicators are, such as those in the

Environmental Health objective.

In addition to these issue-specic

lessons, there are also some importantcross-cutting conclusions:

Cities offer opportunities and challenges

when it comes to environmental

sustainability.Some elements ofsustainability, such as wastewatertreatment, benet from denser urban

populations. Others, including airpollution, are harder to address undercrowded conditions. Singapore, forexample, is a highly dense, urbanizednation that ranks in the top ve of

the 2014 EPI. The city-states highperformance on Wastewater Treatment,

Access to Drinking Water, and ImprovedSanitation speaks to the potential ofurban infrastructure to secure someelements of environmental health.

For some priority indicators,measurement capabilities remain

distressingly weak.The sustainabilityof agricultural practices and freshwaterresource management, for example, havevirtually no reliable metrics by which toidentify priority needs, set policy targets,or evaluate national performance. Otherkey areas lacking adequate measurementinclude exposure to toxic chemicals,solid waste management, recycling,and wetlands protection. Issue areasthat are fundamentally ecological andsystems-oriented tend to be measuredleast effectively. Failing to manage suchsystems poses increasing risks, and theneed to step up to the measurementchallenge is dire.

To meet the growing demand forenvironmental performance indicators,the world will need to build on existingstrengths and invest in innovative

approaches. The EPI team remainscommitted to working with interestedpartners, as it already has with Air Quality

and Water Resources, to develop newmeasurements and indicator systems.Such innovation will require tighterpartnership between governments,corporations, scientists, and civil society.

The EPI documents the tangible benets

that arise where such efforts are pursuedand the shameful damage that manifestswhere they are not.

Overall, there is always room forimprovement. One major internationaleffort to drive that improvement is theUnited Nations (UN) establishment ofthe Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), which will set targets for globalenvironmental, economic, and socialsustainability that are universal, easilycommunicated, and quantiable. The

EPI results are released at a time whenthey can inform the SDG developmentprocess, the success of which will bedependent upon better data, clear

targets, and strong monitoring. As theinternational community pursues theSDGs, the EPI indicators are benchmarksby which the world can measure progresstoward sustainable development.


12/1802014 EPI04

KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX

Global ScorecardThe world lags on some environmental issues, while demonstrating progress in others. A globalscorecard provides rst-time insight as to collective policy impacts on the major environmental issues of

our time. Overall, improvements have been made in many of the categories of the Environmental Health

objective, including Access to Drinking Water, Child Mortality, and Access to Sanitation. Declines andoverall low scores are found in Air Quality, Fisheries, and Wastewater Treatment.

Figure 1. Global indicators for most of the policy issues assessed by the EPI. Note: Wastewater Treatment only has one data point and noavailable time series. Similarly, relevant global indicators were not possible for the Climate and Energy or Forest indicators, which alreadyrepresent 10-year trends.

2000 2013201220112010200920082007200620052004200320022001

Indic

atorScore

100

75

50

25

Child Mortality

Access to Drinking Water Quality

Access to Sanitation

Agricultural Subsidies

Terrestrial Protected Areas

Pesticide Regulation

Critical Habitat Protection

Fish Stocks

Wastewater Treatment

Marine Protected Areas

Air Quality (Average PM2.5 Exceed

Coastal Shelf Fishing Pressure

Household Air Pollution


13/180

01. Dramatic progress is possible whenmeasurement and management practicesalign. Since 1990 more than two billionpeople have gained access to improveddrinking water and proper sanitation,exceeding MDG targets and improvingglobal well-being. In Afghanistan alone,the percentage of households withaccess to clean drinking water wentfrom 5 percent in 1991 to 61 percentin 2011. Ethiopia has also been ableto connect more of its villages to safedrinking water through investments fromthe national government and internationalaid organizations. These great successesresulted from a well-organizedmeasurement system that allowedpolicymakers to track their performance,identify priority needs, and createmechanisms to maintain accountability.

There has been similar success inthe protection of natural habitats.

Well-organized data systems andclearly established targets have led towidespread increases in protected areas,like Mount Cameroon National Park inCameroon. Cameroons governmentestablished the park in 2009 becausedata showed the area is home to someof the most threatened mammal speciesin the world. Likewise, Peru is one ofthe few countries to carefully analyze itsterritory to identify areas where criticallythreatened or endangered species exist

and to specically protect these areas.These results demonstrate that targeted,data-driven investments do deliverprogress.

02. When measurement is poor ornot aligned with proper management,natural and human systems suffer. TheEPI documents that weak measurementsystems give rise to poor outcomes. Forinstance, marine sheries are badly

monitored, many eets deliberately

misreport or fail to report catch data,and international policy targets are adhoc and incomplete. It is no surprise thatsh stocks around the world are in stark

decline.

Despite all the media attention it gets,air quality measurement capabilitiesare weak and poorly coordinated withmanagement. International policy targetsare largely absent, and the world has

observed policy stagnation and alarmingair pollution crises in a growing numberof cities. With the expansion of industry,fossil fuel-based transportation sectors,and increasing urbanization in thedeveloping world, the number of peoplebreathing unsafe air has risen by 606million since 2000, now totaling 1.78billion. On the other hand, the number ofpeople lacking access to clean drinkingwater has decreased from 1.04 billion in2000 to 759 million in 2011.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given highurbanization, industrialization, andpopulation growth, populations in Chinaand India have the highest averageexposure to ne particulate matter (PM

2.5)

in the world.

03. Countries of varying economicdevelopment have divergent climateemissions trajectories; these warrant

different policy priorities. Wealthycountries produce the highest levels ofclimate emissions, but have, for the mostpart, been successful in reducing thecarbon intensity of economic growth overthe last decade. Denmark, for example,has made strong policy commitmentsto reduce emissions through increasingefciency and renewable energy. Middle-

income countries, such as Brazil, India,and China, are still growing economically

INDICATOR SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS

052014 EPI


14/1802014 EPI06

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

5.0

10.0

12.5

15.0

PERCENTAGE

OFAREA

PROTECTED

7.5

Marine

Terrestrial

World

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

5000

50000

100000

130000

NUMBEROFNATIONALPROTECTEDAREAS

Figure 2. Time series of percentage of marine and terrestrial protected areas and the percentage of protected areas throughout the world.(Source: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2012.)

Figure 3. Trend in number of national protected areas from 1910 to 2011. (Source: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2012)


15/180

and see the steepest increase inemissions over the last decade. The 2014

EPI gauges their performance on theirability to reduce the rate at which carbonintensity increases. For the poorestcountries, such as Nepal, emissions arecomparatively low, therefore renderingclimate mitigation less of a policypriority. The EPI demonstrates a range incountries abilities to meet these targetsthat are not necessarily tied to wealth, asother indicators are, such as those in theEnvironmental Health category.

04. Data from novel sources andcutting-edge technologies help improvethe accuracy and importance of the 2014EPI. A much wider array of tools for lling

key measurement gaps is available now,compared to the 1980s and 1990s whenenvironmental indicators rst entered the

international spotlight. New technologiessuch as remote sensing and institutions inthe form of third-party organizations haveemerged, and the EPI makes use of

Figure 4. Percentage of global sh stocks that are overexploited or collapsed. (Data source: Kristin Kleisner, Sea Around Us Project.)

INDICATOR SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

10

20

30

PERCENTAGE

OFGLOBAL

STOCKS

Overexploited

Collapsed

these cutting-edge innovations. Fisheriesmeasures, for example, do not come from

traditional sources such as internationalorganizations that aggregate nationalreports. Instead, sheries data come from

an independent academic watchdoggroup, the Sea Around Us Project,which uses diverse information streamsto generate much more complete andaccurate portrayals of eet behavior

than any single source. Air quality andforestry measures make use of satellitedata to generate metrics that are far morecomparable and comprehensive than

what emerged from previous modelingefforts and national reports.

072014 EPI


16/180

Figure 5. Comparison of trends in number of people lacking access to clean air (bad air) and lacking access to improved water (badwater). Bad air is dened as 25 micrograms per cubic meter, more than twice the WHO standard for clean air of 10 micrograms per cubic

meter. Source: 2014 EPI.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

100

5000

10000

15000

CARBO

NDIOXIDEEMISSIONSINMETRICTONS

High Income

Middle Income

Low Income

Figure 6. Carbon dioxide emissions organized by income groups. High = Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of US$12,616 or greater;Middle income = GNI per capita between US$1,086 and US$12,615; Low income = GNI per capita of US$1,085 or less. (Source:International Energy Agency, 2013.)

2014 EPI08

Population exposed to poor air quality

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

POPULATION(

INB

ILLIONS

)

Population lacking access to clean drinking water


17/180

01. The EPI contributes to the post-2015 development agenda. The 2014EPI results are released at an opportunetime to inform the UN SDGs. Guidedby discussions with water expertscontributing to the development of theSDGs, the 2014 EPI introduces a newindicator on wastewater treatment. Thisindicator shows that, overall, countriesare performing poorly with respect towastewater treatment, which is a majordriver of ecosystem water quality.

02. Cities offer opportunitiesand challenges when it comes toenvironmental sustainability. Someelements of sustainability, such aswastewater treatment, benet from

denser urban populations. Others,including air pollution, are harder toaddress under crowded conditions.Singapore, for example, is a highly dense,urbanized nation that ranks in the top

10 of the 2014 EPI. The city-states highperformance on Wastewater Treatment,

Access to Drinking Water, and ImprovedSanitation speaks to the potential ofurban infrastructure to secure someelements of environmental health. In fact,Singapores wastewater treatment systemactually enables it to recycle a highproportion of its water resources.

03. For some priority indicators,

measurement capabilities remaindistressingly weak. The sustainabilityof agricultural practices and freshwaterresource management, for example, havevirtually no reliable metrics by which toidentify priority needs, set policy targets,or evaluate national performance. Otherkey areas lacking adequate measurementinclude exposure to toxic chemicals,solid waste management, recycling, andwetlands protection. Issue areas that are

fundamentally ecological and systems-oriented tend to be measured leasteffectively. Failing to manage suchsystems poses increasing risks, and theneed to step up to the measurementchallenge is dire.

04.The world needs bettermeasurement and indicator systems.

To meet the growing demand forenvironmental performance indicators,the world will need to build on existing

strengths and invest in innovativeapproaches. Such innovation will requiretighter partnership between governmentscorporations, scientists, and civil society.

The EPI documents the tangible benets

that arise where such efforts are pursuedand the shameful damage that manifestswhere they are not.

OTHER CONCLUSIONS

092014 EPI


18/1802014 EPI10

Rank Country Score 10-yr.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Australia

Singapore

Czech Republic

Germany

Spain

AustriaSweden

Norway

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Denmark

Iceland

Slovenia

New Zealand

Portugal

Finland

Ireland

Estonia

Slovakia

Italy

Greece

Canada

United Arab Emirates

Japan

France

Hungary

Chile

Poland

Serbia

Belarus

United States of America

Malta

Saudi ArabiaBelgium

Brunei Darussalam

Cyprus

Israel

Latvia

Bulgaria

Kuwait

South Korea

Qatar

Croatia

Taiwan

Tonga

Armenia

LithuaniaEgypt

Malaysia

Tunisia

Ecuador

Costa Rica

Jamaica

Mauritius

Venezuela

Panama

Kiribati

87.67

83.29

82.40

81.78

81.47

80.47

79.79

78.3278.09

78.04

77.75

77.35

76.92

76.50

76.43

76.41

75.80

75.72

74.67

74.66

74.45

74.36

73.28

73.14

72.91

72.35

71.05

70.28

69.93

69.53

69.13

67.69

67.52

67.42

66.6666.61

66.49

66.23

65.78

64.05

64.01

63.94

63.79

63.03

62.23

62.18

61.68

61.67

61.2661.11

59.31

58.99

58.54

58.53

58.26

58.09

57.80

56.84

55.82

Rank Country Score 10-yr.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

Jordan

Seychelles

Montenegro

Azerbaijan

Cuba

Mexico

Turkey

AlbaniaSyria

Sri Lanka

Uruguay

Suriname

South Africa

Russia

Moldova

Dominican Republic

Fiji

Brazil

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

PalauMorocco

Bahrain

Iran

Kazakhstan

Colombia

Romania

Bolivia

Belize

Macedonia

Nicaragua

Lebanon

Algeria

Argentina

ZimbabweUkraine

Antigua and Barbuda

Honduras

Guatemala

Oman

Botswana

Georgia

Dominica

Bhutan

Gabon

Bahamas

Vanuatu

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BarbadosTurkmenistan

Peru

Mongolia

Indonesia

Cape Verde

Philippines

El Salvador

Namibia

Uzbekistan

China

55.78

55.56

55.52

55.47

55.07

55.03

54.91

54.7354.50

53.88

53.61

53.57

53.51

53.45

53.36

53.24

53.08

52.97

52.83

52.28

51.9651.89

51.83

51.08

51.07

50.77

50.52

50.48

50.46

50.41

50.32

50.15

50.08

49.55

49.5449.01

48.89

48.87

48.06

47.75

47.60

47.23

47.08

46.86

46.60

46.58

45.88

45.79

45.50

45.07

45.05

44.67

44.36

44.07

44.02

43.79

43.71

43.23

43.00

Rank Country Score 10-yr

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.168.

169.

170.

171.

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

Central African Republic

Libya

Zambia

Papua New Guinea

Equatorial Guinea

Senegal

Kyrgyzstan

Burkina FasoLaos

Malawi

Cote d'Ivoire

Congo

Ethiopia

Timor-Leste

Paraguay

Nigeria

Uganda

Viet Nam

Guyana

Swaziland

Nepal

Kenya

Cameroon

Niger

Tanzania

Guinea-Bissau

Cambodia

Rwanda

Grenada

Pakistan

Iraq

Benin

Ghana

Solomon Islands

ComorosTajikistan

India

Chad

Yemen

Mozambique

Gambia

Angola

Djibouti

Guinea

Togo

Myanmar

Mauritania

Madagascar

BurundiEritrea

Bangladesh

Dem. Rep. Congo

Sudan

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Afghanistan

Lesotho

Haiti

Mali

Somalia

42.94

42.72

41.72

41.09

41.06

40.83

40.63

40.5240.37

40.06

39.72

39.44

39.43

39.41

39.25

39.20

39.18

38.17

38.07

37.35

37.0036.99

36.68

36.28

36.19

35.98

35.44

35.41

35.24

34.58

33.39

32.42

32.07

31.63

31.3931.34

31.23

31.02

30.16

29.97

29.30

28.69

28.52

28.03

27.91

27.44

27.19

26.70

25.7825.76

25.61

25.01

24.64

23.95

21.74

21.57

20.81

19.01

18.43

15.47

Top 10 Trend Performers Country Improvement in PerformanceLowest 10 Trend Performers Country Decline in Performance

2014 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX RANKINGS


19/180


20/180


Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 1

Key Findings of the 2014 Environmental Performance Index 4

2014 EPI Rankings 10

Introduction 13

What is the EPI? 13

New Developments 14

Why Measurement Matters 15

Why Rank? 16

Organization of this Report 16

Methods 18

The 2014 EPI Framework What Does the EPI Measure? 19

Calculating the EPI 19

Data Sources 24

Materiality Thresholds 24

Penalties 25

Global Scorecard 27

Issue Profles 30

Health Impacts 31

Air Quality 41

Water and Sanitation 57

Water Resources 67

Agriculture 81Forests 99

Fisheries 113

Biodiversity and Habitat 123

Climate and Energy 141

Results 157

Conclusion - Looking Ahead to the Future of the EPI 167


21/180132014 EPI

Since the landmark Rio Earth Summitlaunched the sustainable developmentmovement in 1992, the internationalcommunity has focused signicant

attention on critical environmentalissues, having seen real progress onsome issues, but failure on others. Twodecades later, the world is poised toscale up efforts to protect the globalenvironment by identifying a set ofSustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This opportunity comes at a time

when there is an unprecedented levelof evidence demonstrating that whenmanagement and measurement goalsalign, the international community canachieve progress on environment andhuman health objectives. Conversely,when they misalignas is too oftenthe caseprogress is stalled andenvironmental conditions decline.

The 2014 EPI, introduced in this reportand in further in detail at www.epi.yale.edu, highlights the value of using robustindicators to track environmental perfor-

mance at national and global levels.

WHAT IS THE EPI?

The EPI ranks how well countries performon high-priority environmental issues intwo broad policy areas: protection ofhuman health from environmental harmand protection of ecosystems. Withinthese two policy objectives the EPIscores country performance in nine issue

areas comprised of 20 indicators (seeMethods). Indicators in the EPI measurehow close countries are to meetinginternationally established targets or, inthe absence of agreed-upon targets,how they compare relative to the bestperforming countries.

The EPI gives decisionmakers access toimportant environmental data organizedin a way that is easy to understandand relevant to policy, intending to

drive productive competition. It allowscountries to compare their performanceto neighbors and peers, and, through theanalysis of time series data, see how theirown performance has changed over time

Demand for robust, authoritativeindicators of environmental performanceis at an all-time high. This demand isdriven by:

a widespread recognition ofthe benets of data-drivendecisionmaking;

ongoing pressure on governmentsto invest limited resources as wiselyas possible;

growing concern over the dangersposed by poorly managedenvironmental risks;

widespread commitment to making

sustainability a central operatingprinciple of the post-2015international development agenda;and

rapid diffusion of sustainabilitystrategies in the corporate sector.


Introduction

The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) a

global ranking of countries environmental results is a key contributor to the worlds increasing

ability to assess global environmental movement

toward its environmental policy goals.


22/1802014 EPI14

by-nation performance with respect towastewater treatment. Until now, globalunderstanding of this major driver ofecosystem water quality was poor. Asone of the rst quantitative indicators to

inform the SDG development process,this component of the 2014 EPI can be atemplate for further success.

The 2014 EPI also informs the globalsustainability dialogue by introducinga new strategy for climate change

indicators. The climate indicators in the2014 EPI are based on trends that reect

countries progress toward achievingemissions reductions. However, targetsfor climate mitigation differ, dependingon a given countrys level of economicdevelopment and its anticipateddevelopment. The climate and energyindicators in the 2014 EPI are responsiveto these differences and present a newlook at how countries are performingon mitigation goals that are the most

relevant for their development pathways.This improvement gives the 2014 EPIsClimate and Energy issue category evengreater relevance for policymaking thanthose of past versions.

Satellite-derived data further contribute toa more accurate picture of environmentalpolicy performance, driving newindicators for air quality and forests. The2014 EPI makes use of technologies

such as remote sensing, which canprovide consistent wall-to-wall coverageof important environmental parameters,permitting estimates for changes in forestcover and exposure to air pollution.

The 2014 EPIs air quality and forestrymeasures generate metrics that are farmore comparable and comprehensivethan what has previously emerged frommodeling efforts and national reports.

NEW DEVELOPMENTSThe 2014 EPI introduces a number ofinnovations and improvements. One ofthe key improvements is that the 2014EPI scores and ranks 178 countries more than any previous EPI. Newlyincluded countries come, in large part,from Small Island Developing States(SIDS) and sub-Saharan Africa.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit launchedan international agenda by setting theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs),a roadmap for meeting the worlds devel-opment needs. The MDGs emphasizedthe importance of eight developmentexpectations, ranging from the promo-

tion of gender equality and eradication ofextreme poverty to ensuring environmen-tal sustainability. At the Rio+20 Summit,which marked the twentieth anniversaryof the Rio Earth Summit, the internationalcommunity agreed that the MDGs wouldbe replaced by Sustainable Develop-ment Goals (SDGs), introducing a criticalimprovement over the MDGs. Unlike theMDGs, the SDGs will include specic,

time-bound indicators with clear, univer-sal targets. The 2014 EPI results come

forward at an opportune time to informdevelopment of the SDGs (see Box: TheEPI and the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals).

The 2014 EPI introduces a new indicatoron wastewater treatment, guided in largepart by discussions with water expertswho contributed to the developmentof the SDGs (see Issue Prole: Water

Resources). This new indicator provides,for the rst time, a picture of nation-

Scoring and ranking a broader and more diverse

set of countries is particularly important in 2014,as the global community prepares the post-2015

international development agenda.


23/180152014 EPI

Finally, the 2014 EPI provides a newperspective on historical environmentalperformance and the impact of national-

level environmental policy. Usinghistorical time series data and applyingthe 2014 EPI framework and methodsto environmental data from years past,the 2014 EPI presents backcasted EPIscores and ranks for all relevant issuesand indicators. In the past, the EPI report

has stressed that the methodology doesnot permit countries to view a change intheir rankings as a sign of improvementor decline. For the rst time, the EPI

provides the tools to compare currentperformance with historic performance.

WHY MEASUREMENT

MATTERS

The EPI was born out of a recognitionthat environmental policymaking lackedscientic, quantitative rigor. While MDG

7 to ensure environmental sustainability rst placed the notion of sustainable

development on the global policy agenda,

that particular goal lacked relevant ordependable metrics.1To address thisgap, the Yale Center for EnvironmentalLaw & Policy (YCELP) and the Center forInternational Earth Science InformationNetwork (CIESIN) at Columbia Universitypartnered with the World EconomicForum to develop indices assessingenvironmental sustainability (theEnvironmental Sustainability Index) andenvironmental performance (the EPI).Both were created with an eye towardshaping data-driven environmentalpolicymaking.

The need for better data and metrics to

to guide decisionmaking could not be

more urgent. Effective environmentalpolicy is burdened by two related hurdles,both of which are lowered by better

measurement. First, environmental policydebates are subject to deep divisionsover the best way forward. Second,substantial uncertainty surroundingthe nature of environmental problemsmakes signicant action and allocation

of resources difcult to justify. Good

environmental measurement can injectmore objectivity in environmental policydebates, reducing disagreement on thescope of problems and focusing it insteadon solutions.

Robust measurement also givespolicymakers a foundation from whichto promote environmental policy. Whenpolicymakers use data to reduceuncertainty, they can advance policyobjectives with more than educatedguesses or hunches. The trend of usingdata, and increasingly big data, isbecoming a common business andgovernment practice. Large corporate

entities collect consumer information tobetter target advertisement campaigns.Government leaders like former New

York City Mayor Michael Bloombergbased management decisions on data asdiverse as the number of heart attacksand noise complaints.2

The business sector has long understoodthat data can make the invisible visible,and it has used metrics to improveperformance. A business collects dataand will make changes depending on itssales gures, for example. Environmental

indicators have likewise been proven asuseful tools in helping policymakers moreefciently allocate scarce resources. As

1 World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, Yale Center for EnvironmentalLaw and Policy (YCELP)/Yale University, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)/Columbia University, (2000) 2000 Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). NASA Socioeconomic Data andApplications Center (SEDAC), Palisades, NY. Available: http:// sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/esi-pilot-environmental-sustainability-index-2000. Last accessed: December 29, 2013.

2 Feuer, A. (2013) The Mayors Geek Squad. The New York Times. 23 March 2013. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/nyregion/mayor-bloombergs-geek-squad.html. Last accessed: December 29, 2013.


24/1802014 EPI16

the time-tested mantra goes, You cantmanage what you dont measure.

Measurement matters because it providesan essential tool to policymakers. Italso matters because measurementhighlights gaps in collective knowledge.Data on environmental problems areseverely lacking across the globe. At thelocal, national, and international levels,decisionmakers need better data. Indiceslike the EPI help direct attention to vitaldata gaps, which can help generatebetter data for the future.

WHY RANK?

Rankings, which are both loved andloathed, create interest and provokeaction. They are a vehicle to motivatepolicy change, and, at the very least,they can spark a conversation aboutthe meaning behind a ranking. How anumber is derived, its strengths, andits limitations open debate about whatwe should value and why. Ultimately,

however, rankings and their sensitivityto minute methodological changeshave inherent subjective characteristics.Placing countries that face disparateeconomic and environmental challengesin rank order may not be entirelyrevealing, but users of the EPI can parethe Index down to smaller peer groupsthat allow for more relevant comparisons.

The primary value of the EPI is itspotential to recommend avenues

for change. The rankings in and ofthemselves are not as valuable as themetrics and data that underpin them.

A single, national aggregate numbermay be attention-grabbing, but it is thesubsequent inquiry and substantiveconversation that are more useful. Thetransparency with which the EPI isconstructed and the open nature of theunderlying data make the EPI a starting

point for countries to take further action.Ideally, these actions would involve:

the development of bettermeasurement and monitoringsystems to improve environmentaldata collection;

the creation of policies to addressparticularly weak areas;

the communication and reportingof national-level data and statisticsto international agencies such asthe United Nations; and

the delineation of sub-nationalmetrics and targets for improvedenvironmental performance.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS

REPORT

The aim of this report is to providecontext and narrative by which tounderstand the environmental challengesfaced by all countries, regardless of

their level of economic development,geography, land area, or population. Itis meant to serve as a foundation uponwhich to make sense of the complexitiesand nuances of environmental dataand results presented by the complexcomposite index that is the EPI.

While the report includes enoughdetail to provide a working knowledgeof what the EPI is, its methods, andhow it is measured, it is by no meanscomprehensive. Instead, specic

information about the EPIs data, indicatorcalculation, and statistical methods isincluded in separate materials both onthe 2014 EPI website and forthcomingin academic literature. By separating thetechnical from the illustrative, this reportaims to provide a deep, qualitative lookinto the critical environmental issues thatthe EPI examines.


25/180

THE EPI AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

172014 EPI

It is an auspicious time for environmentalmetrics. The 2014 EPI is being releasedwhile discussions are underway on theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs) a global effort to spur sustainabledevelopment. The SDGs must beaspirational, universal, communicable,and measurable, and they must setcountries on a path to meet global targetsbetween 2015 and 2030.1The SDGswill also help balance environmental

objectives with poverty reduction.2Tothat end, the Open Working Group ofthe United Nations General Assemblyis discussing specic environmental

themes in early 2014, including forests,oceans, biodiversity, climate change,transport, waste, and chemicals. Oncethe Open Working Group consolidatesthe proposals, the entire United NationsGeneral Assembly will vote on the SDGs.

The EPI presents a set of indicators thatalready t well with these thematic areas.

It addresses policy issues for Forests,Climate and Energy, and Biodiversity andHabitat. Notably, the Water Resourcescategory anticipates a future thematicarea of water by assessing the worldsstate of wastewater management alikely candidate for an SDG.

Water policy discussions in the pastdecade have gone beyond basic

measures of access to water, broadening

the scope to include water quality,management, and the issue of waterin human rights. This is important formanagement globally, but especiallyin places where water resources willbecome more and more scarce undershifting hydrological systems and in areaswith rapid population or urban growth.

The post-2015 international developmentagenda could include specic targets for

wastewater and water quality as part of aproposed SDG on water.3One proposedset of water targets could include suchitems as: ensuring urban populationsachieve a target amount of wastewatertreatment, aiming to increase waterreuse rates, and attempting to ensurea target number of water bodies are incompliance with water quality standards.4

Each of these targets would requirespecic indicators.

It will be up to policymakers to link theaspirational targets they set in the SDGprocess to the concrete indicatorsthey choose.5Once the link is made,implementation will encourage higherlevels of performance and likely resultin better data for future monitoring,similar to the impact the MDGs hadin incentivizing the collection of datarelated to Child Mortality, Access toDrinking Water, and Access to Improved

Sanitation.

1United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. Sustainabledevelopment goals. Available: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1300. Last accessed: January13, 2014.

2Sachs, J. D. (2012) From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet379:2206- 2211.3United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. A/RES/66/288 Water and sanitation. Available: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=2002&nr=18&me

nu=35. Last accessed: January 13, 2014.4UN-Water, side-event to the Open Working Group (9 December 2013).5Joint UNECE/OECD/Eurostat Task Force (2013) Framework and suggested indicators to measure sustainabledevelopment. Available: http://www.unece.org/leadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/2013/SD_framework_and_

indicators_nal.pdf. Last accessed: January 13, 2014.


26/180

Child

Mortality

Househ

old

AirQua

lity

Air Pollution Avg.Exp.to PM2.5

AirPollution

PM2.5Exceedance

Accessto

DrinkingWate

r

Accessto

Sanitation

NationalBiomeProtection

GlobalBiomeProtection

Marine

Protected

Areas

CriticalHabitat

Protection

Ag

riculturalS

ubsidies

Pe

stici

deRegulation

Wastewater

Treatm

ent

Chang

ein

Forest

Cover

Coas

talShelf

FishingPre

ssure

FishStock

s

Trendin

CarbonIn

tensity

Chang

e

of

Trend

in

CarbonI

ntensity

Trendin

CO

2 Emissio

ns

perK

wH

Health

Impacts

Clim

ate

&Energy

Fisheries

Fore

sts

Agricultu

re

Water

Resou

rces

Biodiversity&Habitat

Water

&Sanita

tion

Air Quality

ECOSYSTEM

VITALITY

ENV

IRONMENTAL

HEALTH

2014EPI

Figure 7. The 2014 EPI Framework includes 9 issues and 20 indicators. Access to Electricity is not included in the gure because it is not

used to calculate country scores.

2014 EPI18

OUR METHOD

The EPI FrameworkThe Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is constructed through the calculation and aggregation of20 indicators reecting national-level environmental data. These indicators are combined into nine issue

categories, each of which t under one of two overarching objectives. This section provides an overview

of how the EPI is calculated. Complete methodological details and indicator-level metadata are availableat www.epi.yale.edu.


27/180192014 EPI

WHAT DOES THE EPI MEASURE?

The two objectives that provide the overarching structure of the 2014 EPI are Environmental Health andEcosystem Vitality. Environmental Health measures the protection of human health from environmentalharm. Ecosystem Vitality measures ecosystem protection and resource management. These twoobjectives are further divided into nine issue categories that span high-priority environmental policyissues, including air quality, forests, sheries, and climate and energy, among others. The issue

categories are extensive but not comprehensive (see Box: Data Gaps and Deciencies). Underlying

the nine issue categories are 20 indicators calculated from country-level data and statistics. Figure 7illustrates the 2014 EPI framework and the objectives, issue categories, and indicators.

CALCULATING THE EPICalculating the EPI begins withtransforming raw datasets to makecomparable performance indicators.Doing so requires standardizing rawvalues according to population, landarea, gross domestic product, or otherdenominators, which makes datacomparable across countries. Then,statistical transformations are performedon some data to better differentiate

performance among countries,particularly if the distribution of anunderlying dataset is skewed toward oneend of a range that makes separationchallenging among countries. Toaggregate these indicators into a single,composite performance score, theyare assigned numerical weightings. Formore details of the exact transformationsapplied to each indicator, see www.epi.yale.edu.

The transformed data are then usedto calculate performance indicators.EPI indicators use a proximity-to-target methodology, which assesseshow close a particular country is to anidentied policy target. That target, a

high performance benchmark, is dened

primarily by international or national policygoals or established scientic thresholds.

For example, the benchmarks forprotected areas are determined through

international policy targets establishedby the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD). With 168 signatory countries and193 Parties to the Convention, thosebenchmarks are widely accepted.

A high-performance benchmark canalso be determined through an analysisof the best-performing countries. Someof our indicators set high performance,for example, at the 95th percentile ofthe range of data. In other cases, the

target is dened by established scienticconsensus, as is the case with theWorld Health Organizations (WHO)recommended average exposure to ne

particulate matter (PM2.5). Scores are

then converted to a scale of 0 to 100by simple arithmetic calculation, with 0being the farthest from the target and 100being closest to the target (Figure 8). Inthis way, scores convey similar meaningacross indicators, policy issues, and theoverall EPI.

Each indicator is weighted within eachissue category to create a single issuecategory score. These weightings aregenerally set according to the quality ofthe underlying dataset, as well as therelevance or t of the indicator to assess

the policy issue. If the underlying globaldata for a particular indicator is lessreliable or relevant than others in the issuecategory, it will be weighted less heavily.


28/1802014 EPI20

DATA GAPS & DEFICIENCIES

After more than 15 years of work

on environmental performancemeasurement and six iterations of theEPI, global data are still lacking on anumber of key environmental issues.

These include:

Freshwater quality

Toxic chemical exposures

Municipal solid wastemanagement

Nuclear safety

Wetlands loss

Agricultural soil quality anddegradation

Recycling rates

Adaptation, vulnerability, andresiliency to climate change

Desertication

While data for many of these issuesexist on the regional, sub-nationaland local scales, insufcient coverage

for every country at a global scaleprecludes their consideration in the EPI.

For example, the trends in carbonintensity indicators in the Climate andEnergy category (Trend in Carbon

Intensity and Change of Trend in CarbonIntensity) are weighted according towhich indicator is more pertinent basedon a countrys economic developmentand policy obligations with respect toclimate change mitigation.

Policy issues are typically weightedroughly equal within their objective (i.e.,Environmental Health or Ecosystem

Vitality). However, contingent upon the

strength of data in each category, slightadjustments to this weighting can bemade. An important example in the2014 EPI is in the Ecosystem Vitalityobjective. Because both of the indicatorsin the Agriculture category are indirectmeasures of environmental performance(e.g., subsidies do not directly assessthe environmental impacts of intensiveagriculture practices), this category onlycomprises ve percent of a countrys

score in the Ecosystem Vitality objective,

as compared to 25 percent for theClimate and Energy category.

Finally, the two objectives, EnvironmentalHealth and Ecosystem Vitality, areweighted roughly equal to achieve asingle value, the EPI score, for eachcountry.

For a more detailed explanation ofthe methods used for the 2014 EPI,see www.epi.yale.edu and MeasuringProgress: A Practical Guide from theDevelopers of the EPI.3

3 Hsu, A., Johnson L., and Lloyd, A. (2013) MeasuringProgress: A Practical Guide from the Developers of theEnvironmental Performance Index (EPI). Yale Centerfor Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven, CT.Available: http://epi.yale.edu. Last accessed: December29, 2013.


29/180212014 EPI

WHY IS NORTH KOREA MISSING FROM THE 2014 EPI?

When more than a dozen scientists from around the world were invited to North Koreain 2012, the country was well into the environmental tailspin that threatens its long-termwelfare. The scientists saw the causes and legacies of North Korean environmentalpolicyor its absencersthand: poor farming techniques, stripped forests, little

remaining wildlife, massive soil erosion, widespread hunger, and burning of biomass for

heat and cooking fuel. That the scientists had been invited to come and consult withNorth Korean experts and decisionmakers seemed a hopeful rst step.

However, the alarm the North Korean environment must have set off in that groupof scientists was matched by their hosts troubling reluctance to tackle anything ofsubstance. North Korea denied any suggestion that it had a pollution problem. Tripsto the countryside were little more than dressed up tours of model farms. Homages tothe great leader dominated presentations, and the foreign scientists were preventedfrom any substantive one-on-one consultation with their North Korean colleagues.1Thisstate of denial and insularity would be one thing if the country were self-sufcient. In

fact, North Korea is not sufcient at all. Hunger is widespread: a sign of not just political

dysfunction but also that environmental-based food production has stalled. A 2012UN report estimated that two-thirds of North Koreans suffer the effects of malnutritionbecause of food shortages.2

The EPI occasionally excludes countries from the rankings due to missing or incompletedata. In many instances, these countries are too small or lack the resources to providethorough data on the indicators the EPI measures. Problems of data availability andreliability are well-documented across numerous sectors in North Korea, including those

A North Korean garden used for growing food. (Credit: Devrig Velly, EU/ECHO)


30/1802014 EPI22

1 Foster, J. (2012) Q&A: North Koreas choked environment. New York Times. Available: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/q-and-a-north-koreas-choked-environment/. Last accessed: December 30, 2013.

2The United Nations. (2012) Overview of needs and assistance: the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea.Available: http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/les/DPRK%20Overview%20Of%20Needs%20And%20Assistance%20

2012.pdf. Last accessed: December 30, 2013.3 Bialik, C. (2013) Statistical diplomacy in North Korea. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/statistical-diplomacy-in-north-korea-1205/. Last accessed: December 30, 2013.

4 Melvin, C. (2014) Economic statistics. North Korean Economy Watch. Available: http://www.nkeconwatch.com/north-korea-statistical-sources/. Last accessed: January 2, 2014.

5 McKenna, P. (2013) Inside North Koreas environmental collapse. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/inside-north-koreas-environmental-collapse/. Last accessed: January 14, 2014.

that are vital to the keeping and reporting of data, like statistics and economics.3,4Because of the spurious, evasive nature of data reporting and monitoring in NorthKorea, the EPI team decided that it could not provide a credible measurement ofenvironmental performance there.

If the truth of North Koreas environmental conditions and data were not even madeavailable to scientists invited to the country to help, and if even North Korean scientistsseem unwilling to accept the catastrophe they oversee, how can anyone trust nationalreporting?

Environmental degradation in North Korea has been documented by foreign journalistsand visitors for decades.5Unfortunately, data adequate to assess the extent of thisdegradation are not available for the EPI to assess. As such, the world will remain in thedark as to the state of North Koreas environment.


31/180232014 EPI

The EPI addresses two primaryquestions: How do countries performtoday, and how have they improvedor declined over time? The 2012edition of the EPI piloted a new wayof answering the latter question byintroducing a Pilot Trend EPI, whichboth scored and ranked countries ontheir rate of improvement or declineover the previous decade. Using simplelinear regressions based on a countryshistoric time series, a score from -50

(representing the worst decliner) to50 (representing the best improver)was determined for each indicator,policy issue, and objective. The samebalance of weightings and materialityconsiderations were then applied toeach score to produce an aggregatedTrend Index for each country.

The initial intent of the Pilot Trend EPIwas to acknowledge countries thatmay not have performed well on the2012 EPI but have made signicant

investments to improve performanceover time. For example, Azerbaijanranked 111th in the 2012 EPI, buthad improved signicantly since 2000,

achieving a second-place ranking onthe Trend EPI. The Pilot Trend EPI alsorevealed the worst decliners, includingcountries like Russia and Saudi Arabia,who had been experiencing worseningenvironmental performance over time.

The intention was for countries toevaluate whether their policies weretaking them in the right direction.

While the Pilot Trend EPI was auseful exercise, it had limited utilityin communicating environmentalperformance information to key users.For example, many wondered whySwitzerland could have two strikinglydisparate scores and rankings betweenthe 2012 EPI (No. 1) and Pilot Trend

EPI (No. 89). Though it makes sensethat top-performers would nd it

increasingly difcult to improve, it was

challenging to convey these subtletiesthrough the scores and rankings of thePilot Trend EPI.

Recognizing the critical nature oftrend information to countries, theEPI continues to include trend data.However, the 2014 EPI, uses a morestraightforward approach. The 2014EPI presents back-casted indicatorscores that allow users to see exactlyhow they would have scored andranked in past years. It also includes10-year trend calculations that presentaverage improvement over the past 10years. Accompanying these are visualsof time series data, so countries cansee how emission levels, protectedareas, or sh stocks have uctuated

over time.

CHALLENGES OF PRESENTING TREND DATA IN THE EPI


32/1802014 EPI24

Figure 8. Diagram of proximity-to-target calculation for performance indicators.

0 WORSE PERFORMANCE BETTER PERFORMANCE 100

TOP

PERFORMANC

BENCHMARK

LOW

PERFORMANCE

BENCHMARK

50

DISTANCE TO TARGET

COUNTRY

PERFORMANCE

INTERNATIONAL RANGE

The 2014 EPI also includes an indicatorbased on a dataset compiled directlyby Yale Center for Environmental Law &

Policy (YCELP) researchers - measuringwastewater treatment and connectionrates. This indicator was constructedthrough the collection and analysisof country statistics and reports (seeIssue Prole: Water Resources). The

resulting dataset was peer-reviewed bywater quality experts. Full details of datasources for each indicator are available atwww.epi.yale.edu.

MATERIALITY THRESHOLDSOne of the difculties of assessing

environmental performance is inaccounting for differences in naturalresource endowments, physicalcharacteristics, and geography betweencountries. Prime examples includelandlocked countries, for whom sheries

or marine sustainability are irrelevant, ordesert countries with little to no forestcover. In such cases, sheries and

forests may be considered immaterialor insignicant for a particular country.

Only if a country meets the criteria for anindicator being material, or relevant, isthe indicator included in the calculation ofthe countrys score. For countries that donot meet the materiality threshold (e.g.,a minimum area of land that is forested),the indicator or issue category is notincluded in the score calculation.For those countries, other indicators inthe relevant category or categories

DATA SOURCES

The EPI uses data from multilateralorganizations, government agencies, andacademic collaborations. Data are eitherprimary or secondary in nature. Primarydata are comprised of informationgathered directly by monitoring ortechnology, including satellite-derivedestimates of forest cover and air quality.Secondary data include national-levelstatistics subject to the reporting andquality requirements established bydata collection entities, such as the

International Energy Agency (IEA). TheEPI applies a set of selection criteria todetermine which datasets are ultimatelyselected for inclusion (see Box: SelectionCriteria for Data in the EPI). All sources ofdata are publicly available and include:

ofcial statistics measured andformally reported by governmentsto international organizations.

These data may or may not be

independently veried but are onlyincluded if formally reported tointernational organizations. TheEPI does not include ad hoc datasubmitted by governments directlyto the EPI team;

spatial or satellite data;

observations from monitoringstations; and

modeled observations.


33/180252014 EPI

receive proportionally greater weight.For example, least-developed countries(LDCs) do not receive a score for Climate

and Energy (see Issue Prole: Climateand Energy), so the weightings for theremaining policy issues in the Ecosystem

Vitality objective, including Agriculture,Water Resources, Biodiversity andHabitat, Forests, and Fisheries, areadjusted.

PENALTIES

The 2014 EPI penalizes a country whenexperts or statistical analysis deemnationally reported data inadequatefor performance evaluation purposes.

These penalties were only given in twoissues: Fisheries and Agriculture (for thePersistent Organic Pollutants indicatorPOPs).For example, if a country reportedinadequate sh stock data to the United

Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO), the country was giventhe lowest average score for the givenyear for both the Fish Stocks and Coastal

Fishing Pressure indicators. For thePOPs indicator, if a country has signed orratied the Stockholm Convention but has

not submitted any reports or informationas to whether the POPs covered by theConvention are allowed, restricted, orbanned, the country receives zero pointsfor the indicator. This does not meanthe country receives a total score of 0,however. A country that fails to report onPOPs regulation could still receive up tothree points for signing and ratifying theStockholm Convention.

Backcasted Scores and TrendsThe 2014 EPI website providesbackcasted indicator scores whereverlogical. The term backcasted refersto the application of the 2014 EPIframework, indicators, and aggregationmethod to historic data, starting from2002. In this way, countries can see how

Table 1. The materiality rules apply when countries meet certain thresholds listed above.

Indicator or Policy Issue

Fisheries

Climate and Energy

Forests

Biodiversity and Habitat MarineProtected Areas

Biodiversity and Habitat CriticalHabitat Protection

Agriculture Agricultural Subsidies

Agriculture Persistent OrganicPollutants

Landlocked or ratio of coastline to landarea less than 0.01.

Least-developed country, grossnational income (GNI) per capita lessthan US$1,035.

Total forested area less than 200 sq. km.

Landlocked or ratio of coastline to landarea less than 0.01.

Country does not have a critical speciessite as designated by the Alliance forZero Extinction.

Agriculture comprises less than ve

percent of a countrys total grossdomestic product (GDP).

Is not able to be a Party to theStockholm Convention.

Not evaluated if...


34/1802014 EPI26

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AIR (ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS) INDICATOR

CATEGORY?

The EPI is not static. Much of its value comes from its regular improvement, and sometimes this improvementcomes from subtraction. For example, one important improvement in the 2014 EPI is elimination of the issuecategory, Air (Ecosystem Effects).

The Air (Ecosystem Effects) category was removed from the 2014 EPI because the data to assess ecosystemimpacts of air pollution are experimental at best. Most of the indicators used in the past, including ozone andvolatile organic compounds (VOCs), were based on global atmospheric models such as MOZART.1Whilethese models give a higher-level picture of emissions, they are less relevant as performance measures to givedecisionmakers a clear signal of how policies to tackle air pollution are working to mitigate ecosystem impactsMoreover, air pollution impacts are more relevant to humans than ecosystems.

However, this is not to say that air pollution is not relevant for ecosystems. Acid rain leads to real environmentaimpacts, killing sh by acidifying lakes and changing soil properties, which harms forests.2The United StatesClean Air Act, for instance, provides air pollution control policies that target acid rain and sulfur dioxidepollution.3Nitrogen oxides are another air pollutant that can contribute to acid rain or end up in water bodieswhere they act as fertilizers for aquatic and marine plants, causing them to grow faster than normal andchange the dynamics of the ecosystems. Ozone pollution has been shown to reduce crop yields and plantproductivity.4

The two indicators in the Air (Ecosystem Effects) policy category for the 2012 EPI both measured sulfur dioxideemissions, which is a cause of acid rain.5Unfortunately, the best available measures of sulfur dioxide emissionsare modeled, and not validated globally by on-the-ground data. Experts created the data by looking at sulfur

dioxide globally and regionally, not nationally.

6

Fossil fuel combustion is a major source of sulfur dioxideemissions, so the experts estimated national sulfur dioxide emissions by looking at how much fossil fuel eachcountry burns. While these estimates provide useful information as to trends over time and rough comparisonsbetween countries, it is not good for making policy decisions because of the inherent uncertainties associatedwith modeled measures. Policymakers cannot tell if their policies work when the only information they havetells them more about global or regional, rather than national, trends.

The EPI convenes expert scientic opinion for each edition, and the experts agreed that the current sulfur

dioxide data is not good enough to assess country-level performance. The EPI also has a team of policyexperts who consider the value of each policy category and indicator. Considering the poor t of the sulfur

dioxide data, the policy experts revisited the importance of air pollution to ecosystems and concluded thatmost policymakers, advocates, and scientists are more concerned with air pollutions impact on human health

(see Issue Prole: Air Quality) than ecosystems. To avoid misleading metrics and distracting policymakers frommore critical issues, Air (Ecosystem Effects) is not a part of the 2014 EPI.

1 Emmons, L. K., Walters, S., Hess P. G., et al. (2010) Description and evaluation of the model for ozone and related chemical tracers, version 4(MOZART-4). Geoscientic Model Development3:43-67.

2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013) Environmental effects of acid rain. Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/enveffects.html. Last accessed: December 29, 2013.

3 Hunter, D., Salzman, J. and Zaelke, D. (eds). (2007) International Environmental Law and Policy, 3rd edition. New York: Foundation Press.4 Lovett, G. M., Tear, T. H., Evers, D. C., et al. (2009) Effects of air pollution on ecosystems and biological diversity in the eastern United States.Annals othe New York Academy of Sciences1162:99-135.

5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013) Causes of acid rain. Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/causes.html. Last accessed: December 29, 2013.

6 Smith, S. J., van Aardenne, J., Klimont, Z. et al. (2011) Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 18502005.Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics11:1101-1116.


35/180272014 EPI

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR

DATA IN THE EPI

Relevance:The indicator tracks theenvironmental issue in a manner thatis applicable to countries under a widerange of circumstances.

Performance orientation:The indicatorprovides empirical data on ambientconditions or on-the-ground results forthe issue of concern, or it is a bestavailable data proxy for such outcomemeasures.

Established scientifc methodology:

The indicator is based on peer reviewedscientic data or data from the United

Nations or other institutions chargedwith data collection.

Data quality:The data represent thebest measure available. All potentialdatasets are reviewed for qualityand veriability. Those that do not

meet baseline quality standards arediscarded.

Time series availability:The data havebeen consistently measured acrosstime, and there are ongoing efforts tocontinue consistent measurement in thefuture.

Completeness:The dataset needs tohave adequate global and temporalcoverage to be considered.

their performance from year to year may have changed on eachindicator and what their scores and ranks would have been inyears past. However, not every indicator in the 2014 EPI lends

itself to backcasted or trend calculations. The Change in ForestCover indicator, for example, is already a measure of change, asit represents a calculation of net forest loss and gain from 2000 to2012. Additionally, because the 2014 EPI presents all indicatorsin the Climate and Energy category as trends (see Issue Prole:

Climate and Energy), backcasted scores or trend calculations werenot relevant.

Wherever possible, the trend calculations for all other indicators arepresented as roughly a 10-year percent difference in performance(e.g., ve percent improvement or three percent decline), from

2002 levels to 2012, the latest year of data available for mostindicators. Countries that demonstrate greater than a 100-percentimprovement from 2002 scores are capped at 100 percent. Thesetrends are presented on the EPI website and downloadable dataspreadsheets.

GLOBAL SCORECARD

A global scorecard (see Key Findings) provides rst-time insight as

to the worlds collective impact on the major environmental issues ofour time. To sensibly aggregate the data for the purposes of a globacalculation, most indicators represent weighted averages of country

scores where the weights are determined by country population(e.g., a population-weighted average of Access to Sanitation) orarea (e.g., a global average of sh stocks overexploited or collapsed

weighted by area of the Exclusive Economic ZoneEEZ). Globalindicators were not possible for the Climate and Energy or Forestindicators, which already represent 10-year trends. We also stressthat these global indicators are useful as a way of assessing globalimpact rather than performance, which is more relevant for the

country indicators.


36/1802014 EPI28


37/180


38/180

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issue Proles

31

37

47

53

65

75

85

91

99

Health Impacts

Child Mortality

Air Quality

Air Pollution - Average Exposure to PM2.5Air Pollution - PM2.5 ExceedanceHousehold Air Quality

Water & Sanitation

Access to Drinking WaterAccess to Sanitation

Water Resources

Wastewater Treatment

Agriculture

Agricultural SubsidiesPesticide Regulation

ForestsChange in Forest Cover

Fisheries

Fish StocksCoastal Shelf Fishing Pressure

Biodiversity & Habitat

Critical Habitat ProtectionTerrestrial Protected Areas (National Biome Weighting

Terrestrial Protected Areas (Global Biome Weighting)Marine Protected Areas

Climate & Energy

Trend in Carbon IntensityChange of Trend in Carbon Intensity

Trend in CO2per KwH

Access to Electricity

ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH

ECOSYSTEM

VITALITY


39/180

ISSUE PROFILE

Health ImpactsWhat It Measures

The indicator Child Mortality measures the probability of a childdying between his/her rst and fth birthday.

Why We Include ItEnvironmental factors like polluted air and water are major causesof death for children between the ages of one and ve. This

indicator is a useful proxy for the effects of pollution and poorsanitation on human health. Reducing child mortality is the fourthMillennium Development Goal (MDG). Achieving it will require greatimprovements to environmental performance along with access toimproved health care.

Where The Data Come From

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,Population Division: World Population Prospects, the 2012 Revision.

DESCRIPTION

On the surface, the environmental implications of child mortality may seem indirect at best. The 75 countries thataccount for 95 percent of child mortality cases all have signicant proportions of their population that rank among

the worlds poorest.4Malnutrition, poverty, disease, inadequate healthcare, and environmental factors all contributeto high child mortality.

Disentangling the precise contributions is difcult, yet research shows that diarrheal disease, lower respiratory tract

infections, and other preventable diseases are highly linked to water and air pollution. The health and fate of a

312014 EPI


40/180

of bacterial and viral agentsdiarrheais easily treated. Whether a countryeffectively treats its water, how that water

is distributed, and access to sanitationand basic healthcare are revealed ingures on diarrhea-related deaths.

Malaria is the third leading cause ofchild mortality, and a strong case canbe made that it too has environmentalcauses.7Among the integrated strategiesfor ghting malaria sponsored by major

international health organizations,control of malarias vectorAnophelesmosquitosgures prominently.8Methods to control mosquito populationsinclude reducing deforestation invulnerable areas, modernized irrigationsystems (that also reduce waterconsumption), and reductions in standingwater.9In many cases, intervention at theenvironmental and biological levels hasbeen shown to be as effective at reducingmalaria rates as the use of insecticides.

Also, research is beginning to showstrong correlations between a warming

climate and an increase in cases ofvector-borne diseases like malaria.

The fourth MDG, to reduce child mortalityby two-thirds of 1990 levels by 2015,is an ambitious one. Even so, greatreductions have been seen worldwide,largely through intervention programs fordiseases and increased sanitation.10

4 World Health Organization and UNICEF. (2013)Accountability for maternal, newborn, & child survival, the 2013 update.Available: http://countdown2015mnch.org/documents/2013Report/Countdown_2013-Update_noproles.pdf. Last

accessed: January 10, 2014.5 World Health Organization and UNICEF. (2013) Ending Preventable Child Death from Pneumonia and Diarrhea by2025: The integrated Global Action Plan for Pneumonia and Diarrhea (GAPPD). Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/79200/1/9789241505239_eng.pdf. Last accessed: January 10, 2014.

6 Liu, L., Johnson, H. L., Cousens, S., et al. (2012) Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updatedsystematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000. The Lancet 379:2151-2161.

7 World Health Organization and UNICEF. (2013)Accountability for maternal, newborn, & child survival, the 2013 update.Available: http://countdown2015mnch.org/documents/2013Report/Countdown_2013-Update_noproles.pdf. Last

accessed: January 7, 2014.8 World Health Organization. (2004) Global stra

2014 environmental performance index - yale & columbia university

Documents