The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) acts as a standard of measurement for a countries environmental performance in relation to its government policy. This baseline acts as a reference point, contributing countries can then be compared or assessed and in the case of EPI ordered and ranked. These results are significant to many audiences; the government needs to see tangible results from investments in environmental protection in order to keep allocating resources to the environment. Private and public firms could potential see increases in costs from carbon taxes or new environmental requirements, contrary there could be a potential for a new emerging green sector where innovative investors could profit. The populace would also be able to use the results to evaluate the government, are whether the concerns for health and environment being replicated into policy. Overall the government can look at the ranking and use this as a benchmark on the evaluation of the current policy in place, is this a success or failure are we seeing improvements or deteriorations, and what are the plans for the future.
The EPI builds on the 2000 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) data-driven evaluation through quantitative metrics. 2012 EPI ranks 132 (*193 countries world wide) countries on 22 performance indicators in 10 policy categories, The 10 policies are grouped under 2 objectives “Environmental Health & Ecosystem Vitality”. 2012 EPI uses a set of core indicators that meet high standards, (direct measurement over modeled data) standardized time series and institutional commitments to maintain current and future data. Historical data has been recorded for the last ten years which allows governments to track overall performance. In each country an indicator or “proximity-to-target” value is created, this measures the gap between perceived and actual outcomes of a policy. The generic formula for the proximity-to-target indicator calculation in the context of the global EPI is as follows:
(International range) – (distance to target)
—————————————————- x 100
(International range)
Data is collected from international sources, research institutions, government agencies and academia. Data analyzed comes from formal reporting, spatial data, observations and modeled data. Raw datasets are initially cleaned, sorted, nulls recorded and general preparation from there data is transformed by dividing by GDP – (creates comparability across countries). After the data has been transformed other distortions need to be adjusted for, logarithmic instruments differentiates between performers. Lastly the transformed and logged data is converted into indicators, the indicators are uniform and with a common unit to assess aggregate up to the index.
[(low performance benchmark – target ) – (indicator-target)]/ *100
(low performance benchmark – target )
Air Quality – Effects on Human Health
2012 EPI captures the health risks posed by particulate matter in two indicators: Outdoor air pollution and indoor air pollution. The indoor air pollution indicator is measured % of country using solid fuels indoors (biomass – wood, charcoal etc) captures exposure to indoor smoke risks (WHO EBD study Smith et al., 2004) The target level is set at zero as per the theory that all fuel used indoors poses a threat to health. The second measure of air quality is the particulate matter, “Using relationships between MODIS and MISR Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and surface PM2.5 concentrations that were modeled by van Donkelaar et al. (2010), monthly MODIS and MISR AOD retrievals were used to estimate annual average surface PM2.5 concentrations from 2001 to 2010[1]” Annual average concentrations >10 micrograms PM2.5 per cubic meter are considered hazardous therefore a measure of this average PM2.5 per annual can identify those at risk the range to the target.
Water – Effects on Human Health
2012 EPI identifies two indicators: access to water and access to sanitation as good determinates of water quality: Access to water is measured by % of the population with access to improved water (piped, well, non-contaminated water etc.) the other indicator is access to sanitation, this is measured by the % of the population with access to improved sanitation (sewer, septic, private/public)
Water – Ecosystem Effects
2012 EPI is measured by change in water quality, this is represented by the % change in river flow (pre-industrial <–> water use & impoundments) “Water withdrawals and consumptive water use are estimated separately for the sectors irrigation, livestock, households and industry. Water impoundment is based on a beta version of the Global Reservoir and Dam data set (GRanD) (Lehner et al. 2011). The percent change in river flow owing to both factors was calculated on a 0.5 degree grid cell basis Döll et al. (2009). CIESIN used these data to calculate an area weighted average of the percent change by country. The target is 0% change.[2]”
Country Rank Score Country Rank Score
Switzerland 1 76.69 Iraq 132 25.32
Air (Health) 1 100 Air (Health) 119 38.4
Water (Health) 1 100 Water (Health) 99 28.6
Water Resource 17 50.8 Water Resource 112 10.6
EPI Indicator Name – Variable – Variable Code.
Historical EPI Ranks & Historical EPI Data Input and Products.
Air pollution (effects on humans) Indoor air pollution Target – 0% of population exposed
Particulate matter Target – 10 ug/m3
Water (effects on humans) Access to drinking water Target – 100% of population with access
Access to sanitation Target – 100% of population with access
Water (effects on ecosystem) Change in water quantity Target – 0% reduction
Switzerland – Iraq. 2000 & 2012
Historical EPI Ranks & Historical EPI Data Input and Products.
Switzerland Time Trend 2000-2010
Iraq Time Trend 2000-2010
The two countries that have been paired for this analysis represent the highest and the lowest achieving nations. Having the top and bottom performers creates a scope in which you can scale other countries, (you can visualize what is needed to achieve top performance levels) Switzerland has the top ranking position and has held that position since the beginning of the analyzed data in 2000, ironically Iraq is the lowest preforming nation and has also held that position 132nd since the beginning on the data collection in 2000, this could suggest movement within the standing is difficult and would require further investigation.
CIA National Statistics 2012
|
Switzerland |
Iraq |
|
|
Birth Rate |
9.51/1000 |
28.19/1000 |
|
Death Rate |
8.8/1000 |
4.73/1000 |
|
Urbanization |
74% |
66% |
|
Mortality Rate |
4.03/1000 |
40.25/1000 |
|
Life Expectancy |
81.17 |
70.85 |
|
Health Expenditure |
11.3% of GDP |
9.7% of GDP |
|
Hospital Density |
5.31/1000 |
1.3/1000 |
|
Drinking Water |
100% |
Improved 79% Unimproved 21% |
|
Sanitation |
100% |
Improved 73% Unimproved 34% |
|
Literacy |
99% |
74.10% |
|
Unemployment |
3.10% |
15% |
|
GDP |
340.5 billion |
127.2 billion |
|
GDP real growth rate |
2.10% |
9.60% |
|
GDP per capita (PPP) |
$43,400.00 |
$3,900.00 |
|
Population below poverty |
6.90% |
25% |
|
Exports |
308.3 billion |
78.38 billion |
|
Imports |
299.6 billion |
53.93 billion |
|
Debt External |
1.346 trillion |
45.29 billion |
|
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html |
||
To further understand the position of these two counties we look to the performance indicators set out by the EPI. We do a direct comparison across EPI data inputs and products we see that Iraq scores significantly lower then Switzerland. In overall effects on air and human health Iraq scored 53.8% of the target population is exposed, whereas Switzerland has 100% of the population with 0% exposure. These results are replicated in all of the indicators between the two countries and this is to be expected with choosing the opposite ends of the spectrum. Overall Iraq preforms at a rate of 20% – 40% of Switzerland.
There will be many reasons that contribute to the spread in performance levels between countries; political stability – The role of the environment in policy, country specifications, (location, resources, population etc.) Government resources and motivation are just a few. Comparing Switzerland and Iraq from an economic and population standpoint also supports the spread in EPI ranking; overall Iraq has a higher population above poverty, lower GDP per capita higher rates of unemployment, in combination with lower levels of healthcare and access to water and sanitation these negative factors all position themselves above the environment when it comes to government support.
Iraq has significant disadvantages when it comes to maintaining a strong environmental policy performance index standing. Iraq is suffering from 20+ years of political instability, military operations spanning back to 1980 and significant environmental damage as an externality of these three wars. There is substantial damage to infrastructure (which lowers the indicator for access to water and sanitation) increases in disease and mortality rate and economic pressure all of which take precedence over the environment. Air quality and water resources were also lower due to wartime activity, and construction of the Glory Canal, which would change the % flow of rivers affecting the EPI specific indicator. With lack of access to water and sanitation, as well as a poor allocation of water usage these are just a few monumental problems that Iraq will have to address in order to see improvements in the EPI ranking. Iraq does have in place environmental laws such as “The Law No. 27 of 2009 [PDF, Arabic], For the Improvement and Protection of Environment, issued in Official Gazette No. 4142 of 2010. This detailed and strict law sets forth punishments for companies and individuals that violate environmental standards. It also upheld and affirmed existing regulations that outline environmental standards in specific detail. The Kurdish region has a similar law, No. 8 of 2008 [PDF, Arabic].[3]” Unfortunately there are insufficient funds and resources allocated to the enforcement and protection of these laws.
The time trend from 2000-2010 shows a decline in all performance levels with the exception of access to sanitation, which saw a small gain. Since the situation further deteriorated in Iraq it is understandable to see how they would retain their 132 ranking. Currently government rebuilding and stabilization supersedes environmental concerns, to make changes Iraq will have to integrate an extensive environmental management plan with focuses on infrastructure rebuilding to gain access to water and sanitation and improved indoor air quality, as well as conservation policy to prevent water pollution, reclaim land, protect the environment.
EPI Specific Indicators Air, Water, Water Resources 2000-2010 Iraq
Switzerland does well in the EPI standing for many reasons; EPI measures performance of a country’s policies and Switzerland has had strong national environmental policies in place since the 1970s. There is strong public and political support of resource allocation to the environment in addition to government funding and regulation. “Opinion polls regularly identify environmental concerns among the top ten long term priorities of the Swiss population, and the protection of the natural resource base is one of the five priorities of Switzerland’s foreign policy.[4]” Switzerland has in place substantial infrastructure and technology; these benefit the populace in achieving the optimal target of 100% access to water and sanitation. There have been significant government investments in water quality and control of water. There is a successful integration between policy instruments and targeted outcomes in Switzerland, for example Switzerland banned the use of phosphates, as a result the watercourses are now of sound physical-chemical quality.
Currently new waste water management policies have been enacted to aid with existing problems, pricing systems will reduce the interconnection problems and create economic incentive for better management (similar to a carbon tax). Air quality in Switzerland is unsurpassed, “Switzerland has met or will shortly meet all its international commitments for atmospheric emissions reduction. Since the early 1980s it has achieved remarkable declines in emissions of the main air pollutants (SOx, NOx, VOCs, CO, particulates, heavy metals) and substantial improvements in air quality. These results are largely attributable to a consistent and ambitious federal strategy for air pollution abatement and to efficient implementation of regulatory measures by the cantons. Associated with the country’s economic characteristics (low energy intensity, economic stagnation in the 1990s) and energy structure (almost entirely hydro and nuclear power, relatively high energy prices), this environmental policy has ensured that Switzerland’s emissions per unit of GDP are the lowest or among the lowest in the OECD area. In addition, considerable progress has been made with the Energy 2000 action program, which is contributing to a decline in emissions of CO2 and conventional pollutants.[5]” Overall Switzerland benefits from such things as global location, abundant natural resources, political stability and comprehensive infrastructure and with the combination of public and private support it is easy to see the strong correlation between policy and performance level.
EPI Specific Indicators Air, Water, Water Resources 2000-2010 Switzerland
In summary the two countries are drastically different, and it is these differences that cause them to end up on opposite end of the EPI spectrum. Lessons learned from comparing these two countries included the importance of political stability and effects of war on the environment, the relevance of public and private support (legislative and financial) in implementing environmental policies, as well the role pre-existing policies play in maintain your performance level. The EPI is a suitable measure because it sets up a critical value based on the countries own projected target, this way the government has some individual quantitative results to help analyze if the instrument or policy was successful or not. These result and standards should help guide policy planners in the future as to where society could see the most gains overall.
Reference
http://epi.yale.edu
http://epi.yale.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/2012%20EPI%20Full%20Report.pdf
http://iraqidinarnews.net/blog/2012/02/27/international-report-iraq-the-last-country-interested-in-the-environment/
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Iraq-ENVIRONMENT.html#b
http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/Iraq_ESA.pdf
http://jurist.org/dateline/2010/06/iraq-environmental-policy.php– IRAQ: Environmental Policy
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/31/2451893.pdf
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/dokumentation/umwelt/09249/09355/index.html?lang=en
http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/environment_current_issues.html – Iraq Environment – current issues
http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/397.pdf – Humanitarian action in the new security environment: policy and operational implications in Iraq
[1] http://epi.yale.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/2012%20EPI%20Full%20Report.pdf
[2] http://epi.yale.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/2012%20EPI%20Full%20Report.pdf
[3] http://jurist.org/dateline/2010/06/iraq-environmental-policy.php
[4] http://www.bafu.admin.ch/dokumentation/umwelt/09249/09355/index.html?lang=en
[5] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/31/2451893.pdf