Simple questions do not always have simple answers. If we want to ask "what is the best country in the world in environmental performance?" it will need a laborious effort in analyzing and comparing various environmental indicators and still end up with vagueness.

To this end, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was introduced by researchers from Yale University to present a ranking system for environmental performance of various countries. The results of this survey were associated with the World Economic Forum and presented in its annual meetings in Davos each winter.

The linkages between environment and economy in the past few years has made it essential for developing trusted environmental indicators and close gaps in data collection and analysis. The EPI seeks to being to fill these gaps and, more broadly, to draw attention to the value of accurate data and sound analysis as the basis for environmental policymaking.

The EPI focuses on two overarching environmental objectives:

• reducing environmental stresses to human health;
• promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management.

These broad goals also reflect the policy priorities of environmental authorities around the world and the international community’s intent in adopting Goal 7 of the Millennium Development Goals, to “ensure environmental sustainability.” The two overarching objectives are gauged using 25 performance indicators tracked in six well-established policy categories, which are then combined to create a final score.

The bottom five countries in the 2008 EPI in order of performance are Niger, Angola, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, and Mali, are all located in Sub-Saharan Africa and lack resources for even basic environmental investments.

Overall there were many more high performing countries in the Environmental Health arena than in Ecosystem Vitality. Sixty-six countries had scores of 90 or above in Environmental Health, whereas only 2 scored above 90 in Ecosystem Vitality.

The Index also provides “peer group” rankings for each country showing how its performance stacks up against others facing similar environmental challenges.  These benchmarks allow easy tracking of leaders and laggards on an issue-by-issue and aggregate basis.  The data also support efforts to identify “best practices” in the environmental realm.

Analysis of the drivers underlying the 2008 rankings suggests that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success. At every level of development, however, some countries achieve results that far exceed their peers, demonstrating that policy choices also affect performance.  For example, Costa Rica (5^th), known for its substantial environmental efforts, significantly outperforms its neighbor Nicaragua (77^th).  Nicaragua’s history of poor governance and political corruption, violent conflicts, and budgets skewed towards the military instead of environmental infrastructure no doubt adds to the disparity.

Top-ranked countries have all invested in water and air pollution control and other elements of environmental infrastructure and have adopted policy measures to mitigate the pollution harms caused by economic activities.  Low-ranked countries typically have not made investments in environmental public health and have weak policy regimes.

The United States placed 39^th in the rankings, significantly behind other industrialized nations like the United Kingdom (14^th) and Japan (21^st).  The United States ranked 11^th in the Americas, and 22 members of the European Union outrank the United States.  The U.S. score reflects top-tier performance in several indicators, including provision of safe drinking water, sanitation, and forest management. But poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems dragged down the overall U.S. rank. China and India, containing about one third of the world’s population, received similar low Ecosystem Vitality scores. Both countries were ranked in the bottom third of the index. However China scored higher in the overall EPI because of its improved Environmental Health score.

  Table 1 shows the top 10 ranked countries as well as selected 15 other countries.

Table 1: Top 10 ranked countries and other 15 selected countries in EPI 2008

Table 2: Arab Countries as ranked in the EPI 2008

Grouping Analysis:

The overall EPI results offer a useful snapshot of environmental performance. But breaking down the results into peer groups offers an even more valuable perspective because it allows for comparisons between countries. The peer group analysis gives policymakers a way to understand the context of their policy choices and guidance on what is possible in the way of policy results given their circumstances. The policies and programs of the peer group leaders present an important guide to best practices and the most efficient approaches to improving environmental health and ecosystem vitality with similar challenges and opportunities.

OECD countries occupy four of the top five ranks in the 2008 EPI. Most of the OECD countries are in the top quarter of the Index, and all are in the top half. These relatively wealthy countries all have quite good Environmental Health results. But their scores on the various metrics of Ecosystem Vitality vary widely. Some of these nations, notably the Scandinavians, have distinct geographic advantages, including large land areas and low population densities. But their success is also a function of concerted policy effort and deep commitment to environmental values across their public and business communities.

None of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) were in the top half of the EPI, and the bottom 14 countries in the EPI are found in this group. With little access to financial resources for immediate needs like nutrition and disease, many of these countries are struggling to make even baseline efforts on environmental health. Their lack of development translates into limited pollution stress and thus contributes to relatively strong scores on air emissions, climate change, and biodiversity.

High population density countries are spread throughout the EPI. Germany, for example, sits in the 13th position while Burundi ranks 132nd. High populations density generates special challenges, but the high-ranked performers in this category demonstrate that population density is not an insurmountable barrier to good environmental quality. Many of the lower ranked countries in this grouping face challenges, but can look to their higher ranking peers for guidance on how to develop in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Other peer groups, like the African Union, the Alliance of Small Island States, the Desert Countries, and the Newly Independent States contain are spread across the EPI. Each of these peer groups is largely populated by developing countries that struggle with a wide variety of challenges, including a lack of natural resources like water and arable land, as well as the burden of poverty. Overall, these peer groups show much more diversity than do groupings like the OECD and the LDCs. This results implies that countries in the midst of economic transitions vary widely in how well they fold environmental protection into their development strategies.