Global Metrics for the Environment

This post is based on the Report ‘Global Environmental Performance Index’ released in 2016. The 2016 Environmental Performance Index is a project led by the Yale University and Columbia University, in collaboration with the Samuel Family Foundation, McCall MacBain Foundation, and the World Economic Forum.

The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks countries’ performance on high-priority environmental issues in two areas:

·      protection of human health and

·      protection of ecosystems.

Within these two policy objectives the EPI scores national performance in nine issue areas comprised of more than 20 indicators. EPI indicators measure country proximity to meeting internationally established targets or, in the absence of agreed targets, how nations compare to one another. EPI’s indicators are aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Chapter 17 of the book).

The key findings of the 2016 EPI Report are:

1. More deaths globally occur due to poor air quality than water.

2. More than 3.5 billion people – half of the world’s population – live in nations with unsafe air quality.

3. The number of people lacking access to clean water has been nearly cut in half from 960 million in 2000 to 550 million today, around 8% of the world’s population. 2.4 billion people lack access to sanitation.

4. 34% of global fish stocks are over- exploited or collapsed.

5. 15.4% of terrestrial habitats and 8.4% of marine habitats in 2014 were protected.

6. 2.52 million sq km for tree cover was lost in 2014 – an area roughly twice the size of Peru.

7. 23% of countries have no wastewater treatment.

8. Only 20% of countries are meeting targets for Nitrogen Use Efficiency.

9. Around one-third of countries scored on Climate and Energy are reducing their carbon intensity.

The overall conclusions of the Report are:

·      The world is making progress addressing some environmental issues while others have worsened considerably.

·      Economic development leads to improvement in some environmental areas, yet development is also associated with increased prevalence of environmental hazards.

·      When measurement is poor or not aligned with proper management, environmental and human health suffer.

·      Developing policy relevant indicators based in science is essential to appropriate measurement and management.

·      The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement specifies climate change action expected from all countries, yet solid metrics to evaluate performance remain elusive.

Out of the 180 countries that were assessed, the top five were:

1.   Finland

2.   Iceland

3.   Sweden

4.   Denmark

5.   Slovenia

6.   Spain

7.   Portugal

8.   Estonia

9.   Malta

The bottom five countries were:

176. Afghanistan

177. Niger

178. Madagascar

179. Eritrea

180. Somalia

The ranks of selected countries in our region were:

63. Malaysia

66. Philippines

80. South Korea

91. Thailand

107. Indonesia

108. Sri Lanka

109. China

110. Bhutan

141. India

144. Pakistan

149. Nepal

153. Myanmar

173. Bangladesh

Clearly, India has a long way to go with regard to the environment. China is doing much better than India. Given the government’s focus on ‘development’, environmental indicators are bound to worsen. We have projects such as climate change missions, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, and Ganga Rejuvenation, but there is no real improvement in environmental indicators. 'Sustainable Development' is a big challenge to the country.

(This post relates to Chapter 17 of the book.)