Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sustainability Index
An Initiative of the
Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force,
World Economic Forum
In collaboration with:
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
Yale University
Center for International Earth Science Information Network
Columbia University
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Members:
2002 Environmental
Sustainability Index
An Initiative of the
Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force,
World Economic Forum
Global Leaders for Tomorrow Center for International Earth Yale Center for Environmental
World Economic Forum Science Information Network Law and Policy
91-93 route de la Capite Columbia University 250 Prospect Street
1223 Cologny/Geneva Switzerland PO Box 1000 61 Route 9W New Haven, CT 06511 USA
(41-22) 869-1212 Palisades, NY 10964 USA (1-203) 203 432-3123
Fax (41-22) 786-2744 (1-845) 365-8988 Fax (1-203) 432-3817
contact@weforum.org Fax (1-845) 365-8922 ycelp@yale.edu
www.weforum.org ciesin.info@ciesin.columbia.edu www.yale.edu/envirocenter
www.ciesin.columbia.edu
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 1
The Need for an Environmental Sustainability Index...................................................................... 4
Key Results...................................................................................................................................... 4
Our Approach .................................................................................................................................. 5
Main Findings.................................................................................................................................. 9
Relationship to Economic Performance......................................................................................... 14
Other Factors Associated with Environmental Sustainability ....................................................... 18
Comparison to other Sustainability Indicators............................................................................... 18
Evolution in the ESI Methodology ................................................................................................ 21
Challenges to Measuring Environmental Sustainability................................................................ 22
Conclusions and Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 24
End Notes....................................................................................................................................... 25
References...................................................................................................................................... 26
Annex 1. Evaluation of the Variables ............................................................................................ 27
Environmental Systems........................................................................................................... 31
Reducing Environmental Stresses........................................................................................... 34
Reducing Human Vulnerability .............................................................................................. 38
Social and Institutional Capacity Component ......................................................................... 39
Global Stewardship ................................................................................................................. 42
References ............................................................................................................................... 44
Annex 2. ESI Methodology ........................................................................................................... 45
Country Selection.................................................................................................................... 45
Making the variables comparable............................................................................................ 45
Aggregating the Data .............................................................................................................. 46
Changes from Prior Releases of the ESI ................................................................................. 48
Annex 3. Imputing Missing Values .............................................................................................. 51
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 52
The SRMI Procedure............................................................................................................... 53
Application.............................................................................................................................. 53
Comparison: SRMI with MCMC procedure ........................................................................... 54
End Notes ................................................................................................................................ 55
References ............................................................................................................................... 55
Annex 4. Component and Indicator Scores ................................................................................... 57
Annex 5. Country Profiles ............................................................................................................. 83
Annex 6. Variable Descriptions and Data .................................................................................. 227
21 March 2002
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Executive Summary
The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) • identification of issues where national per-
measures overall progress toward environ- formance is above or below expectations
mental sustainability for 142 countries. Envi-
ronmental sustainability is measured through • priority-setting among policy areas within
20 “indicators,” each of which combines two countries and regions
to eight variables, for a total of 68 underlying • tracking of environmental trends
data sets. The ESI tracks relative success for
each country in five core components: • quantitative assessment of the success of
policies and programs
• Environmental Systems • investigation into interactions between
• Reducing Stresses environmental and economic performance,
and into the factors that influence
• Reducing Human Vulnerability environmental sustainability
• Social and Institutional Capacity
Although the ESI is broadly correlated with
• Global Stewardship per-capita income, the level of development
does not alone determine environmental cir-
cumstances. For some indicators there is a
The indicators and the variables on which they
strong negative relationship with per-capita
are constructed were chosen through an exten-
income. Moreover, within income brackets,
sive review of the environmental literature,
country results vary widely. Environmental
assessment of available data, and broad-based
sustainability is therefore not a phenomenon
consultation and analysis.
that will emerge on its own from the economic
development process, but rather requires fo-
The five highest ranking countries are Finland,
cused attention on the part of governments, the
Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Switzerland.
private sector, communities and individual
The five lowest countries are Haiti, Iraq, North
citizens.
Korea, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
The higher a country’s ESI score, the better
The ESI combines measures of current condi-
positioned it is to maintain favorable environ-
tions, pressures on those conditions, human
mental conditions into the future.
impacts, and social responses because these
factors collectively constitute the most effec-
No country is above average in each of the 20
tive metrics for gauging the prospects for
indicators, nor is any country below average in
long-term environmental sustainability, which
all 20. Every country has room for improve-
is a function of underlying resource endow-
ment, and no country can be said to be on a
ments, past practices, current environmental
sustainable environmental path.
results, and capacity to cope with future chal-
lenges. Because the concept of sustainability is
The ESI permits cross-national comparisons of
fundamentally centered on trends into the fu-
environmental sustainability in a systematic
ture, the ESI explicitly goes beyond simple
and quantitative fashion. It assists the move
measures of current performance. To assist in
toward a more analytically rigorous and data
gauging current results and to support per-
driven approach to environmental decision-
formance-based benchmarking, we have cre-
making. In particular, the ESI enables:
ated a parallel Environmental Performance In-
1
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
dex (EPI), which ranks countries according to ble across a large number of countries. Com-
present outcomes in air and water quality, land parative analysis supports efforts to identify
protection, and climate change prevention. critical environmental trends, track the success
(or failure) of policy interventions, benchmark
The ESI has been developed through an open performance, and identify “best practices.”
and interactive process, drawing on statistical,
environmental, and analytical expertise from The effort to construct a comprehensive index
around the world. The ESI has been subjected covering the full spectrum of pollution control
to extensive peer review and the methodology and natural resource management issues span-
has been refined in response to a number of ning a large number of countries reveals the
critiques. impoverished state of environmental metrics
and data across much of the world. It also re-
The ESI integrates a large amount of informa- inforces the conclusion that significant data
tion on a number of different dimensions of gaps hamper good environmental analysis in
sustainability. Because individuals may weigh every country. Serious movement toward a
these dimensions differently in judging overall more empirical understanding of environ-
performance, this report provides detailed in- mental sustainability will require an increased
formation on the ESI’s methodology and its investment in monitoring, data collection, and
data sources. This transparency is meant to analysis at the global, regional, national and
facilitate understanding of the ESI and explo- local levels. A commitment to improved envi-
ration of alternative analyses, and debate over ronmental data collection, indicator tracking,
how best to promote environmental sustain- and performance measurement would be a
ability. The ESI demonstrates that it is worthy initiative for the governments gathered
possible to derive quantitative measures of at the World Summit on Sustainable Devel-
environmental sustainability that are compara- opment in Johannesburg in September 2002.
22
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
3
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Key Results
With 68 variables rolled into 20 core “indica-
2. No country is on a truly sustainable path.
tors,” the ESI creates overall environmental
Every country has some issues on which
sustainability scores for 142 countries. The
its performance is below average. By as-
key results of the ESI and its analysis can be
sembling a vast array of data and metrics
summarized as follows:
on a comparable basis across countries,
the ESI helps to highlight opportunities for
1. Environmental sustainability can be meas-
improvement and where best practices
ured. While no measure of such a complex
might be found.
phenomenon can be perfect, the ESI has
proven to be a surprisingly powerful and 3. Economic circumstances affect, but do not
useful measure of the underlying condi- determine environmental results. ESI
tions, current societal performance, and scores correlate positively with per-capita
capacity for future policy interventions income. Most individual indicators show a
that determine long-term environmental positive relationship with level of devel-
trends. opment as well. However, within each in-
come category wide variations in per-
formance are evident. These results sug-
4
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
gest that decisions about how vigorously 5. Serious data gaps limit the ability to
to pursue environmental sustainability and measure environmental sustainability as
how to promote economic growth are in completely as sound policymaking re-
fact two separate choices. quires. Over 50 countries had to be elimi-
nated from the ESI because of limited data
4. Some of the other factors that appear to
coverage, and a number of critical envi-
shape environmental sustainability in-
ronmental factors were either not meas-
clude: the quality of governance, popula-
ured at all or measured very imperfectly.
tion density, and climate. As with eco-
Investment in better environmental moni-
nomic conditions, however, none of these
toring and the development of time series
factors completely determine outcomes.
data on key indicators represents a critical
policy priority.
Our Approach
At the most basic level, environmental sus- by cooperating in collective efforts to con-
tainability can be presented as a function of serve international environmental resources
five phenomena (see Table 2): (1) the state of such as the atmosphere. We define environ-
the Environmental Systems, such as air, soil, mental sustainability as the ability to produce
ecosystems, and water; (2) the Stresses on high levels of performance on each of these
those systems, in the form of pollution and dimensions in a lasting manner. We refer to
exploitation levels; (3) the Human Vulnerabil- these five dimensions as the core “compo-
ity to environmental change in the form of loss nents” of environmental sustainability. We
of food resources or exposure to environ- believe that the cumulative picture created by
mental diseases; (4) the Social and Institu- these five components represents a good
tional Capacity to cope with environmental gauge of a country’s likely environmental
challenges; and, finally, (5) the ability to re- quality a generation or two into the future.
spond to the demands of Global Stewardship
Component Logic
Environmental Systems A country is environmentally sustainable to the extent that its vital
environmental systems are maintained at healthy levels, and to the
extent to which levels are improving rather than deteriorating.
Reducing Environmental A country is environmentally sustainable if the levels of anthropogenic
Stresses stress are low enough to engender no demonstrable harm to its
environmental systems.
Reducing Human Vulnerability A country is environmentally sustainable to the extent that people and
social systems are not vulnerable (in the way of basic needs such as
health and nutrition) to environmental disturbances; becoming less
vulnerable is a sign that a society is on a track to greater sustainability.
Social and Institutional Capacity A country is environmentally sustainable to the extent that it has in place
institutions and underlying social patterns of skills, attitudes, and
networks that foster effective responses to environmental challenges.
Global Stewardship A country is environmentally sustainable if it cooperates with other
countries to manage common environmental problems, and if it reduces
negative transboundary environmental impacts on other countries to
levels that cause no serious harm.
5
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
6
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
7
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
8
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Main Findings
To calculate the over-arching Environmental likely that no country is on a fully sustainable
Sustainability Index, we averaged the values trajectory.
of the 20 indicators and calculated a standard
normal percentile for each country. The results Because the 20 indicators span many distinct
are shown in Table 1, which appears on page dimensions of environmental sustainability, it
3. We also calculated indices for each of the is possible, moreover, for countries to have
five core components, which are reported in similar ESI scores but very different environ-
Annex 4. (ESI scores, including scores of in- mental profiles. The Netherlands and Laos, for
dicators, components, and variables, are con- example, have very similar ESI scores of 55.2
sistently reported so that high values corre- and 56.3. But they have mirror image patterns
spond to high levels of environmental for many indicators. Laos has relatively poor
sustainability.) scores for human vulnerability, capacity, and
water quality, areas in which the Netherlands
Countries score high in the ESI if the average is relatively strong. Likewise, while the Neth-
of their individual indicator scores is high rela- erlands has quite poor scores for air and water
tive to other countries. The ESI score can be pollution emissions as well as climate change
interpreted as a measure of the relative likeli- and transboundary pollution, Laos has rela-
hood that a country will be able to achieve and tively good results on these metrics. Country
sustain favorable environmental conditions by country profiles showing each of the 20
several generations into the future. Given their indicator values can be found in Annex 5 to
relative strength across the past, present, and this report.
future dimensions of sustainability, countries
at the top of the Index are more likely than Cluster Analysis
those at the bottom to experience lasting envi-
ronmental quality. The dynamic nature of the To help facilitate relevant comparisons across
environmental realm and the lack of informa- countries with similar profiles, we have under-
tion on critical resource thresholds limits our taken a “cluster” analysis. Cluster analysis
ability to draw conclusions about the long provides a basis for identifying similarities
term environmental sustainability of particular among countries across multiple heterogene-
countries. Such a judgment would require ous dimensions. The cluster analysis per-
much more detailed information on reserve formed on the ESI data set reveal five groups
depletion rates, assimilative capacities, and of countries that had distinctive patterns of
system interactions than is currently available. results across the 20 indicators. The results are
Nevertheless, global environmental data as presented in Table 4.
well as the fact that every country has issues
on which it is under performing makes it
9
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
1) High human 2) Low vulnerabil- 3) Low vulnerabil- 4) Moderate vul- 5) Moderate vul-
vulnerability; ity; moderate sys- ity; poor systems nerability, sys- nerability, sys-
moderate sys- tems and moder- and high stresses tems and tems and
tems and ate stresses stresses; but low stresses; average
stresses capacity capacity
Angola Australia Austria Azerbaijan Albania
Benin Canada Belgium Iraq Algeria
Bhutan Estonia Czech Republic Kazakhstan Argentina
Bolivia Finland Denmark Kuwait Armenia
Burkina Faso Iceland France Libya Bangladesh
Burundi Ireland Germany North Korea Bosnia and Herze.
Cambodia Israel Hungary Oman Botswana
Cameroon New Zealand Italy Russia Brazil
Central Af. Rep. Norway Japan Saudi Arabia Bulgaria
Chad Sweden Macedonia Trinidad and To- Byelarus
Congo United States Netherlands bago Chile
Ethiopia Poland Turkmenistan China
Gabon Slovakia Ukraine Colombia
Gambia Slovenia United Arab Emir- Costa Rica
Ghana South Korea ates Croatia
Guatemala Spain Uzbekistan Cuba
Guinea Switzerland Dominican Rep.
Guinea-Bissau United Kingdom Ecuador
Haiti Egypt
Ivory Coast El Salvador
Kenya Greece
Laos Honduras
Liberia India
Madagascar Indonesia
Malawi Iran
Mali Jamaica
Mauritania Jordan
Mozambique Kyrgyzstan
Myanmar Latvia
Nepal Lebanon
Nicaragua Lithuania
Niger Malaysia
Nigeria Mexico
Pakistan Moldova
Papua New Mongolia
Guinea Morocco
Paraguay Namibia
Rwanda Panama
Senegal Peru
Sierra Leone Philippines
Somalia Portugal
Sudan Romania
Tanzania South Africa
Togo Sri Lanka
Uganda Syria
Zaire Tajikistan
Zambia Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
10
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Cluster: 1 2 3 4 5
Number of countries 46 11 18 14 53
Average ESI 46.0 63.0 52.7 37.1 51.9
values of 50.8 65.6 44.2 41.6 50.1
ESI Com- Environmental Systems
ponent Reducing Environmental Stress 54.2 44.7 34.2 43.0 58.3
Values Reducing Human Vulnerability 18.2 82.9 82.1 62.0 62.3
Social and Institutional Capacity 39.0 75.3 67.4 29.5 44.5
Global Stewardship 61.3 47.8 51.5 22.1 49.2
Average Spatial Index of Density (31 to 91) 58.1 49.3 76.6 57.0 63.1
values of $1,417 $22,216 $18,260 $7,481 $5,210
other Per Capita Income
character- Democratic Institutions (-9 to 10) .15 9.64 9.50 -4.57 4.10
istics Controlling Corruption (-1.3 to 2.1) -.66 1.66 .99 -.52 -.23
Current Competitiveness Index (0 to 10) .75 8.32 7.55 3.38 3.41
Total Area (square kilometers) 535,624 2,507,768 178,269 1,849,669 874,352
Distance from Equator (degrees latitude) 11.9 52.8 46.6 35.4 27.6
In Table 5 these clusters are compared accord- and institutions. The third group has generally
ing to the average values of their scores on the higher population densities and significantly
ESI and its five core components, as well as smaller average territory size.
the values of other variables that may play a
role in explaining their cluster membership. In comparing the fourth and fifth groups, other
differences come to the fore. Although the
The first two clusters have roughly similar fourth group has slightly better vulnerability
scores on environmental systems and reducing scores, it ranks lower in the other four catego-
stresses, but starkly disparate scores on vul- ries and on the overall ESI average. Group
nerability and capacity. These two groups are four has especially low capacity scores, which
the two most divergent in terms of their socio- portend a weak ability to cope with unfolding
economic conditions, institutions, and loca- environmental challenges. The main institu-
tions. The first group is generally poor, vul- tional difference between these groups is that
nerable to corruption, undemocratic, and eco- group four is, on average, less democratic than
nomically uncompetitive. The second cluster group five. It is interesting that the less demo-
tends to show the opposite characteristics. cratic group produces lower ESI scores in
Note that the first group has superior scores on spite of the fact that its average per-capita in-
global stewardship, largely reflecting its very come about 25 percent higher. These undemo-
low levels of consumption (and thus a limited cratic poor countries also score anomalously
burden on the global commons) induced by lower on measures of global stewardship than
economic underdevelopment and poverty. the other poor countries. Thus, the cluster
analysis seems to confirm the earlier observa-
Comparing the second and third clusters, the tion that, while income (i.e., level of develop-
main difference in terms of environmental sus- ment) is an important determinant of environ-
tainability measures is that the third group has mental results, other factors are equally sig-
markedly lower scores on environmental sys- nificant.
tems and stresses; the other scores are roughly
similar. These two groups are quite similar in There are other ways to divide the world into
terms of socioeconomic conditions and institu- categories, but this analysis, based on meas-
11
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
System System
66
51
Global Global
Stress Stress
Stewardship 61 54 Stewardship 48 45
18
39
75 83
Capacity Vulnerability Capacity
Vulnerability
Cluster 3 Cluster 4
System System
42
Global
44 Global
Stress Stress
Stewardship 51 34 Stewardship 22 43
29
82 62
67
Vulnerability Capacity Vulnerability
Capacity
Cluster 5
System
50
Global
58 Stress
Stewardship 49
44
62
Capacity Vulnerability
12
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
13
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Whether environmental conditions improve as against the abundant economic data.2 We re-
a direct result of improvements in economic port here on some initial analysis made possi-
development or whether economic develop- ble by the ESI.
ment puts pressure on the environment, or
whether there are even more complicated rela- At the broadest level, as seen in Figure 4, there
tionships between economic and environ- is a significant positive correlation between
mental outcomes, are questions that lie at the per-capita income and the ESI. The correlation
heart of major policy debates. For instance, coefficient is .39, which is significant at the
understanding of the welfare effects of trade .001 level (the correlation with the log of per-
and investment liberalization has been limited capita income is slightly higher, at .44).
by the dearth of environmental data to hold up
Figure 4. The relationship between GDP per capita and the 2002 ESI
Finland
9 Norway
9
9
9
70
Uruguay 9
Brazil 9 9
9
Bhutan 9
9
9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9
60 9 9 9 9
9
9 9 9
9
9
9 9
9 9 France
9 9 9
99 99 9 9
9
9
9
9 99 9 9 9 United
ESI
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 99 9
9
States
9 9
50 9 9
9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9
9
9 9
9 9
99 9
9
9
99999 9
9 9
9
9 United
99 9 9
9 9
9
9
99
9 Kingdom
9 9
9
9 9 9 9
9 9
999 9
40
9
9
Belgium
9 9 9
9
9
9
9
9
Saudi Arabia
99
9
9
9 9
9
9
30 Haiti
China Kuwait
India 9 9
14
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
But clearly income does not determine a coun- Even for the indicators most strongly corre-
try’s ESI. Within income groups, a consider- lated with income, relative wealth alone does
able range in outcomes exists. Kuwait and not determine outcomes. For example, Korea
Belgium score far below Finland among high- has a far higher Science and Technology score
income countries. Likewise, Saudi Arabia than Portugal, Sweden a far higher score than
comes in far below Uruguay among medium- Italy, and Estonia a far higher score than Saudi
income countries, and Haiti badly lags Bhutan Arabia, even though each pair of countries has
among low-income countries. similar levels of GDP per capita.
Considering the 20 indicators that comprise The ESI also permits an analysis of the corre-
the ESI, there is considerable variation in the lation between economic competitiveness and
correlation with per-capita income, as seen in environmental sustainability. This relationship
Table 6. In general, wealthy countries have is important because some theorists have ar-
higher scores on social and institutional capac- gued that these two policy goals are in coun-
ity measures, and on measures of current am- terpoise, and that environmental gains come at
bient conditions (land and biodiversity are ex- the price of economic strength and vice versa.
ceptions) as well as on measures of reducing The World Economic Forum’s 2001 Current
human vulnerability. Less wealthy countries Competitiveness Index has a correlation of .34
generate lower environmental stress, produc- with the ESI, which is statistically significant
ing better scores on the waste and emissions for the 71 countries that are in both the ESI
(population is an exception) indicators as well and the Competitiveness Index (WEF 2001).
as protecting the global commons. A graph with some illustrative countries iden-
tified is seen in Figure 5.3
15
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Countries in the top right, such as Finland, are left are countries such as Uruguay that, while
positioned to perform well in terms of both they are considerably less competitive eco-
medium-term economic growth and long-term nomically than most other countries, are more
environmental sustainability. Countries in the likely to sustain positive environmental condi-
bottom left, such as Nigeria, are likely to do tions into the future.
poorly on both fronts. In the bottom right are
countries such as Belgium that are well posi- To obtain a more detailed understanding, we
tioned on economic grounds, but compara- can also investigate the relationship between
tively less well positioned in terms of long- economic competitiveness and the 20 ESI in-
term environmental sustainability. In the upper dicators, as seen in Table 7.
Figure 5. The relationship between Economic Competitiveness and the 2002 ESI
Finland
9
9
Canada 9
9
70
Uruguay 9
9 Brazil 9
9
Russia
9 9 9
9
United States
Bolivia 9
9
9 9
60 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9
9 9
France
9 9
9 9
9
9 99 9 9
ESI
9
9 9
9 9
9
9 9
50 99
9
9
9 9
9
9
9
9 9
9
9 9 United Kingdom
9 9
9 India 9
9
9 9
9
Belgium
40 China 9
Nigeria 9
9
9
9
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
WEF Current Competitiveness Index
(2001)
16
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Indicator Correlation
Coefficient
Indicators with statistically significant Science and Technology 0.89
positive correlation with Current Environmental Governance 0.81
Competitiveness Index
Basic Human Sustenance 0.75
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.74
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.72
Environmental Health 0.61
Air Quality 0.57
Reducing Population Growth 0.56
Water Quality 0.47
Capacity for Debate 0.27
Indicators with statistically significant Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.66
negative correlation with Current Reducing Air Pollution -0.57
Competitiveness Index
Reducing Water Stress -0.35
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.42
Land -0.28
Indicators with no statistically significant Eco-efficiency -0.10
correlation with Current Competitiveness Biodiversity -0.14
Index
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.17
Water Quantity -0.23
Reducing Transboundary Env’tal Pressures -0.16
A few preliminary conclusions can be drawn firms which succeed in developing innovative
from these correlations. First, the strong rela- responses to environmental challenges benefit
tionship between competitiveness and good both environmentally and economically
governance reinforces the conclusion that (Dixon 2002, Flatz 2002, Porter 1991). Of the
good economic management and good envi- 68 variables within the ESI, several of the pri-
ronmental management are related. Countries vate sector responsiveness measures are
that are incapable of developing effective eco- among the most highly correlated with the
nomic strategies are likely to fail to develop aggregate ESI.4 As a policy matter, this find-
effective approaches to environmental chal- ing suggests that engaging the private sector in
lenges as well. Likewise, countries that suc- the response to environmental challenges is
ceed at one are likely to be able to succeed at critical.
the other. Corruption, civil liberties, and
democratic institutions are also highly corre- Finally, we find negative correlations between
lated with the overall ESI. These results tend economic competitiveness and many of the
to reinforce the suggestion (Esty and Porter environmental stress indicators as well as with
2001, Levy 2001) that those seeking to im- the climate change indicators. These results
prove environmental performance should pay suggest that, in spite of the overall positive
attention to the fundamentals of “governance.” relationship between the ESI and competitive-
ness, economic strength is not a “cure-all” for
Second, the very high correlation between environmental ills. High pollution levels and
competitiveness and the ESI’s Private Sector rising greenhouse gas emissions are found in
Responsiveness indicator tends to corroborate many strong economies, raising the specter of
the “Porter hypothesis,” which suggests that future negative quality of life impacts.
17
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Recognizing that per capita income does not the University of Maryland’s measure of de-
alone determine the ESI or its constituent indi- mocratic institutions, and the World Bank’s
cators, it becomes important to try to identify measure of the control of corruption—all have
other factors which, when combined with per- strong and significant correlations with the
capita income, help to explain the observed ESI.
variation in environmental outcomes. We dis-
cuss below the results of some preliminary Second, geography seems to play some role in
efforts to investigate this question. environmental sustainability, as suggested by
the negative correlation between ESI scores
As shown in Table 8, a number of other vari- and population density.5 We also found sig-
ables have significant correlations with the nificant correlations between the ESI and a
ESI, making them plausible drivers of envi- number of other geographical factors, includ-
ronmental sustainability. ing distance from equator and climatic zones.
Causality is difficult to untangle in these loca-
This table provides a number of clues as to tional measures. Probing the precise influence
where the search for the determinants of envi- of geographic factors on environmental
ronmental success might lead. First, govern- sustainability remains an important area of
ance broadly conceived clearly influences ESI future work.
scores. Three independent data sets—the Heri-
tage Foundation’s measure of civil liberties,
18
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
CGSDI Institutional
CGSDI Economic
Footprint Deficit
Wellbeing Index
Wellbeing Index
Wellbeing Index
CGSDI Overall
CGSDI Social
Environment
Ecosystem
Ecological
Human
CGSDI
Environmental Sustainability Index + + + + + + +
Air Quality + + - + + +
Water Quantity + + + + +
Water Quality + + + + + +
Biodiversity - + + -
Land - - + - - - +
Reducing Air Pollution - - + - + - - +
Reducing Water Stress - + + - - +
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures - - + - + - + - +
Reducing Population Growth + + - + + + -
Basic Human Sustenance + + - + - + + -
Environmental Health + + - + - + + -
Science and Technology + + - + - + + -
Capacity for Debate + + + + +
Environmental Governance + + + + + +
Private Sector Responsiveness + + - + + + -
Eco-efficiency - + + - + +
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts + + - + + +
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - + - + - + - +
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures - + - - -
+ = statistically significant positive correlation (at .01 level)
- = statistically significant negative correlation (at .01 level)
provides a third alternative. In Table 9 we The most aggregated indices have the largest
summarize correlations between these indices number of positive correlations. The Wellbe-
and the ESI and its component indicators. ing Index has positive correlations with 11 of
the ESI’s 20 indicators, and the CGSDI Over-
The two most aggregated indexes, the Wellbe- all Index has positive correlations with 10 of
ing Index and the CGSDI Overall Index, have them.
significant correlations with the ESI (.73 and
.60 respectively). The indices that purport to measure environ-
mental conditions more narrowly such as air
Each of these alternative indices has a number and water quality have, not surprisingly, the
of significant positive correlations with some greatest correlations with the Environmental
of the ESI indicators. The pattern of these cor- Systems and Environmental Stress indicators
relations reveals the primary differences of the ESI. The Ecosystem Wellbeing Index,
among the sustainability measurement efforts. for example, clearly maps more closely to the
19
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Environmental Systems and Stresses indica- dex, which for its part maps closely to the
tors of the ESI than the Human Wellbeing In- ESI’s vulnerability and capacity indicators.
Figure 6. Relationship between the Wellbeing Index and the 2002 ESI
9
9
9
9
70
R-Square = 0.52 9
9
9
9
9 9 9
9
9 9
9 9 9 9
60 9
9 9
9
9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9
9 9 9 9
ESI
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9
50
9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9
9
9
9 9 9
9
9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9
9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9
9
40 9 9
9
9
9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
30
9 9
30 40 50 60
Wellbeing Index
9
9
9
R-Square = 0.36 9
70 9
9
9
9
9 9 9
9
9 9 9 9
9 9
60 9
9
9
9
9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9
9
9 9
9 9 9
ESI
9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9
50
9 99
9 9
9 9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9
9 99 9
9 9 9
9 9 9
9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9
9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9
9
40 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
99
9
9
9
9
9
30
9 9
20
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
In general, there is greater convergence among oriented indicators tend to diverge, lacking a
the more human-oriented metrics than there is clear grounding in either analytical frame-
among the more ecosystem-oriented indica- works or in available data. An illustration of
tors. This result reflects a combination of two this dichotomy is that it is possible to con-
clear differences between these categories of struct a regression model that uses the ESI’s
metrics. First, there is greater consensus about Vulnerability and Capacity measures to pre-
which human-focused issues matter most than dict the Human Wellbeing Index with an r2 of
there is on the ecosystem-focused issues (Par- .90, with all the coefficients positive. How-
ris and Kates 2001). Second, the available data ever, using the ESI’s System, Stress, Green-
is in general more reliable, more plentiful, and house Gas Emissions and Transboundary
more regularly updated on human variables Pressures indicators to predict the Ecosystem
than on ecosystem measures. As a result, Wellbeing Index produces an r2 of .66, and not
choices about how to create ecosystem- all the coefficients are positive.
The 2001 ESI had 22 indicators: 7 indicators Within the Global Stewardship component
in the social and institutional capacity compo- two of the 2001 ESI indicators were com-
nent, 5 each in the environmental systems and bined, and the third indicator was divided in
reducing stresses components, 3 in the global two. The number of indicators, however, re-
stewardship component, and 2 in the reducing mains the same. The Financing International
human vulnerability component (Levy 2002). Cooperation indicator was merged into the
Because the ESI is calculated as an un- Participation in International Cooperative Ef-
weighted average of the indicator scores, this forts indicator, and variables related to climate
structure resulted in giving greatest weight to change were removed from the Protecting In-
the social and institutional capacity compo- ternational Commons indicator and placed in a
nent. In this year’s ESI, we combined two of new Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator so
the indicators in that component: Environ- as to assign greater weight to carbon dioxide
mental Information was merged into Capacity emissions within the overall ESI. A new indi-
for Debate (on the assumption that effective cator was created, termed Reducing Trans-
debate cannot take place without adequate in- boundary Environmental Pressures, which
formation), and Regulation/ Management was measures other stresses on shared environ-
combined with Reducing Public Choice Dis- mental resources, including marine fish catch,
tortion to produce a new indicator called Envi- cross-border flows of sulfur dioxide, and CFC
ronmental Governance. The result is a struc- consumption. The 2002 ESI also differs from
ture that gives greater weight to actual envi- the 2001 ESI in that we utilized some previ-
ronmental performance measures (Environ- ously unavailable datasets, and in selected
mental Systems, Reducing Stresses, and parts cases we substituted new measures of the
of Global Stewardship), and proportionately same phenomenon if we thought it would im-
less weight to measures of Social and Institu- prove the overall quality of the ESI. A more
tional Capacity. detailed description of changes in the ESI
methodology can be found at the end of An-
nex 2.
21
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Significant methodological challenges face all trial systems, and private-sector responsive-
environmental measurement efforts. In gen- ness.
eral, the measures of ambient conditions or
environmental systems tend to be updated less It is noteworthy that almost all of these exam-
frequently, have more spotty country cover- ples of data that were aggregated up from
age, and less precisely match the analytical smaller scales came from sources outside the
concepts in question. Stress measures, or standard canon of international organization
emissions of pollutants and other harmful ac- data products. For the most part, the standard
tivities, are somewhat better measured, though sources of comparable national environmental
on a more narrow range of stresses than would data do not lend themselves to such analysis.
be ideal. Finally, socioeconomic factors— Of the examples mentioned above, only water
such as human vulnerability and social and quality and air quality came from UN sources;
institutional capacity—are generally measured the others were from national labs, university
most frequently and most completely, though departments, NGOs, or commercial firms.
even here there are significant gaps. Furthermore, the two UN sources were less
than user friendly. The air quality measure
Detailed discussion of how we selected vari- was provided for specific cities, and had to be
ables for inclusion in the ESI and what the combined with separate data on city popula-
main strengths and weaknesses of these meas- tion to make it comparable across countries.
ure are can be found in Annex 1. Here we Even then, the measures were so spotty than
summarize some of the most important con- such comparisons were problematic. The wa-
clusions concerning the measurement chal- ter quality data were even more difficult to
lenge. work with. Although they are collected under
the auspices of a UN effort, the UN Global
Scale Differences Environmental Monitoring System, the data
are not released in a usable format except
Environmental sustainability is a phenomenon through special arrangement that requires sig-
that rarely unfolds at the level of a nation-state nificant compensation to cover processing
as a whole. It is observed more typically at a costs.
smaller scale—a river basin, a forest, or an
urban center. Yet for the most part, environ- Gaps in Data Coverage
mental data are reported at the national level.
If a country’s freshwater withdrawals are Substantive gaps in data coverage were even
about equal to its freshwater availability, for more problematic. Many important variables
example, then using only national level data had shockingly poor country coverage. Some
will lead one to an optimistic assessment. But variables were measured so poorly that we
if withdrawals are highly concentrated in one could not use any metric at all in the ESI.
area, and availability is concentrated in a dif- This was true for resource subsidies, wetland
ferent area, these national figures are very loss, nuclear reactor safety, and lead poison-
misleading. We sought wherever feasible to ing, for example. For two indicators, air qual-
incorporate data that were collected or re- ity and water quality, we relied on data
ported at a more fine-grained resolution, and sources that had such limited coverage that if
then to aggregate them up to national levels in it were not for that fact that these measures are
a way that took into account the sustainability so central to environmental sustainability we
dynamics at the smallest relevant scale. We would have rejected them.
did this for measures of acidification damage,
water stress, water quality, air quality, terres- One strategy we used to help deal with data
gaps was utilization of modeled data. Increas-
22
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
ingly global environmental phenomena are the onomies, which we realized only because the
focus of intensive modeling efforts that take error in this case was so obvious).
the best available empirical observations as
inputs and add tested methods for generating We used model data for water quantity, acidi-
global estimates of either individual variables fication damage, air pollution emissions, in-
or the interaction among variables. Such dustrial organic pollution emissions, and
model data are typically far more sensitive to population stress. We were selective in choos-
scale and place than conventional sources. ing modeled data; all the models we drew
The input data are harmonized to make them from had been subject to scientific peer review
systematically comparable by teams of sub- and/or endorsed by international organiza-
stantive experts publishing results in a peer- tions.
review process. This data harmonization task
is of crucial importance, because to construct a In a few select cases, we constructed our own
measure relevant to environmental sustainabil- data sets. We did this for environmental
ity one must frequently combine information health, land area impacted by human activities
from disparate sources. Without researcher (jointly with the Wildlife Conservation Soci-
expertise in the subject area, errors are ety), and membership in international envi-
possible (for example, our first effort to ronmental organizations. We also arranged
measure the percent of mammals threatened with a few data holders to have custom data
had a maximum value of 150 percent because sets constructed for us; this was the case with
our data for number of mammals present and our use of the Innovest EcoValue ’21 and
number of mammals threatened came from Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index vari-
different sources; they used incompatible tax- ables.
Table 10. Critical sustainability factors for which adequate measures are not available
Desired Variable
Wetland loss
Ecosystem fragmentation
Concentrations and emissions of heavy metals
Concentrations and emissions of persistent organic pollutants
Blood lead levels
Nuclear reactor safety
Levels of natural resource subsidies
Percent of fisheries harvested at unsustainable levels
Land degradation
Recycling rates for major materials
Effectiveness of environmental regulations
Waste disposal impacts
23
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
Societies are setting ambitious goals concern- • lacks time series data, preventing any se-
ing sustainability. The ESI is intended to con- rious exercise in validation and limiting its
tribute to the success of these efforts by: value as a tool for identifying empirically
the determinants of good environmental
• providing tangible measures of environ- performance.
mental sustainability, filling a major gap
in the environmental policy arena; The ESI remains a “work in progress.” A
number of refinements of the analysis need to
• making it more feasible to quantify envi-
be undertaken to deepen our understanding of
ronmental goals, measure progress, and
environmental sustainability and how to
benchmark performance;
measure it. Specifically, we see a need for a
• facilitating more refined investigation into number of actions:
the drivers of environmental sustain-
ability, helping to draw special attention to 1. The world needs a major new commitment
“best practices” and areas of success as to data gathering and data creation. We
well as lagging performance and potential recommend a pluralistic approach to fill-
disasters; ing critical data gaps, making use of exist-
ing international organizations where they
• helping to build a foundation for shifting are capable, but filling in where they are
environmental decisionmaking onto a not with strategies that draw on networks
more analytically rigorous foundation; of scientists, local and regional officials,
• offering both aggregate ranking and dis- industries, and nongovernmental organiza-
aggregated data to calculate environmental tions.
analysis at a variety of scales; 2. Because there are a variety of value judg-
• striking a useful balance between the need ments and significant scientific uncertain-
for broad country coverage and the need ties about causality, it is necessary to
to rely on high-quality data that are often augment the Environmental Sustainability
of more limited country coverage; and Index with a flexible information system
that permits users to apply their own value
• building on an easily understood database judgments or to experiment with alterna-
using a methodology that is transparent, tive causal hypotheses. We have tried to
reproducible, and capable of refinement advance this objective by experimenting
over time. with an interactive version of the Index
that operates on a desktop computer and
The Index is not without its weaknesses, how- by making our data and methods as trans-
ever. In particular, the ESI: parent as possible. More could be done
along these lines, including producing
• assumes a particular set of weights for the tools to facilitate more powerful integra-
Index’s constituent indicators that implies tion of environmental sustainability data
priorities and values that may not be from different sources.
shared universally;
3. We need more sophisticated methods for
• relies in some instances on data sources of measuring and analyzing information that
less than desirable quality and limited comes from different spatial scales. Envi-
country coverage; ronmental sustainability is a function of
• suffers from substantive gaps attributable the interaction of mechanisms that operate
to a lack of comparable data on a number at the level of ecosystems, watersheds,
of high-priority issues; and firms, households, economic sectors, and
24
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
other phenomena that we are not well evolve as data availability and aggregation
equipped to understand as parts of a techniques improve, but they must remain
whole. The modest efforts to integrate in- fully transparent and adequately archived
formation from different spatial scales for meaningful scientific investigation to
used in this Index need to be evaluated, be conducted. In addition to continuing
improved on, and supplemented. measurements into the future, it is possible
that retrospective measurements of certain
4. Consistent measurements over time are
variables could permit more rigorous
vital to create the ability to carry out ro-
causal analysis.
bust investigations into cause-effect rela-
tionships. These measurements should
End Notes
1
Prescott-Allen (2001) has achieved a significant advance in this area by setting specific benchmarks
against which to rate countries’ performance for a wide range issues, from water quality, to fish catches, to
resource and energy use. However, many of these benchmarks are established on the basis of normative
assertions and “expert” judgment rather than on sound scientific evidence of specific thresholds and their
relationship to long-term environmental sustainability.
2
Some empirical work has begun to address these questions (Frankel and Rose 2002; Harbaugh et al.
2000).
3
The Competitiveness Index is reported as a rank from 1 to 75. For the purpose of this analysis it was con-
verted to a 0-10 scale, with 10 representing the highest rank and 0 the lowest. There are 71 countries in
both the Competitiveness Index and the ESI.
4
These correlations are as follows:
Variable Correlation Sig. N
World Business Council on Sustainable Development Memberships .476 .000 142
Extent of ISO 14001 Certifications .482 .000 142
Average EcoValue ’21 Ranking of National Firms .381 .108 19
National Firm Representation in Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index .378 .036 31
5
Note that the population density variable used in the ESI is a spatial index created with the Gridded Popu-
lation of the World data set (CIESIN et al., 2000). Each country’s territory is classified into 12 population
density categories, ranging from completely uninhabited to greater than 50,000 per square kilometer. The
index assigns higher scores to countries that have pockets of high population densities than to those whose
populations are spread out evenly. The conventional measure of density (total population divided by total
area) has a less significant correlation with the ESI and its constituent indicators, and therefore the spatial
index was used for purposes of analysis. The Spatial Index of Density variable is available upon request.
25
2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Main Report
References
Center for International Earth Science Infor- Harbaugh, William, Arik Levinson and David
mation Network (CIESIN), Columbia Univer- Wilson, “Reexamining the Empirical Evidence
sity; International Food Policy Research Insti- for an Environmental Kuznets Curve,” Na-
tute (IFPRI); and World Resources Institute tional Bureau of Economic Research Working
(WRI), Gridded Population of the World Paper No. w7711, May 2000.
(GPW), Version 2, Palisades, NY: CIESIN,
Columbia University, 2000 (available at Levy, Marc A. “Corruption and the 2001 En-
http://sedac.ciesin.colum-bia.edu/plue/gpw). vironmental Sustainability Index,” pp. 300-
302 Robin Hodess, ed., Global Corruption
Consultative Group on Sustainable Develop- Report 2001, Berlin: Transparency Interna-
ment Indicators, “Dashboard of Sustainable tional, 2001.
Development Indicators,” dataset dated 9
January 2002. Levy, Marc A., “Measuring Nations’ Envi-
ronmental Sustainability,” pp. 12-23 in Daniel
Dixon, Frank, “Financial Markets and Corpo- C. Esty, and Peter Cornelius, ed., Environ-
rate Environmental Results,” pp. 44-53 in mental Performance Measurement: The
World Economic Forum, Yale Center for En- Global Report 2001-2002, New York: Oxford
vironmental Law and Policy, and Center for University Press, 2002.
International Earth Science Information Net-
work, Environmental Performance Measure- Parris, Thomas M. and Robert W. Kates,
ment: The Global Report 2001-2002, New “Characterizing a Sustainability Transition:
York: Oxford University Press, 2002. The International Consensus,” paper prepared
for presentation at the Open Meeting of the
Esty, Daniel C. and Peter Cornelius, ed., Envi- Human Dimensions of Global Environmental
ronmental Performance Measurement: The Change Research Community, 7 October
Global Report 2001-2002, New York: Oxford 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
University Press, 2002.
Porter, Michael, “America’s Green Strategy,”
Esty, Daniel C., and Michael E. Porter, “Rank- Scientific American, August 1991.
ing National Environmental Regulation and
Performance: A Leading Indicator of Future Prescott-Allen, Robert, The Wellbeing of Na-
Competitiveness?” pp. 78-101 in World Eco- tions, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.
nomic Forum (WEF), The Global Competi-
tiveness Report 2001, New York: Oxford Uni- Schiller, Andrew, Signatures of Sustainability:
versity Press, 2001. A Framework for Interpreting Relationships
Among Environmental, Social, and Economic
Flatz, Alois, “Corporate Sustainability and Conditions for United States Metropolitan
Financial Indexes,” pp. 66-81 in Daniel C. Areas. Dissertation, Clark University, 2001.
Esty and Peter Cornelius, ed., Environmental Ann Arbor: UMI, AA13003109.
Performance Measurement: The Global Re-
port 2001-2002, New York: Oxford Univer- United Nations, Economic and Social Council,
sity Press, 2002. “Implementing Agenda 21: Report of the
Secretary General,” E/CN.17/2002/PC.2/7, 20
Frankel, Jeffrey, and Andrew Rose, “Is Trade December 2001.
Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting out
the Causality,” (unpublished manuscript, World Economic Forum (WEF), The Global
2002). Competitiveness Report 2001-2002, New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
26
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
Per capita water inflow from Excellent (99%) Good Extremely high Modeled data of high quality.
other countries
Water Quality Dissolved oxygen concentration Poor (36%) Fair Very high Data are from specific monitoring
stations that are not selected
according to consistent criteria.
Three-year lag in reporting.
Phosphorus concentration Poor (34%) Fair Very high Data are from specific monitoring
stations that are not selected
according to consistent criteria.
Three-year lag in reporting.
Suspended solids Poor (29%) Fair Very high Data are from specific monitoring
stations that are not selected
according to consistent criteria.
Three-year lag in reporting.
Electrical conductivity Poor (29%) Fair Very high Data are from specific monitoring
stations that are not selected
according to consistent criteria.
Three-year lag in reporting.
27
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
SO2 emissions per populated land Excellent (99%) Excellent Fair For most countries only model
area scenario data are available.
VOCs emissions per populated Excellent (98%) Excellent Fair For most countries only model
land area scenario data are available.
Coal consumption per populated Excellent Excellent Medium Based on reliable data. Does not
land area (100%) distinguish among different
methods of coal combustion.
Vehicles per populated land area Very good Very good Medium Includes cars, buses and freight
(94%) vehicles.
Reducing Water Fertilizer consumption per hec- Excellent (99%) Very good High Does not account for agricultural
Stress tare of arable land practices (e.g. protected riparian
zones).
Pesticide use per hectare of crop Good (64%) Very good High Does not account for agricultural
land practices (e.g. protected riparian
zones).
Industrial organic pollutants per Fair (49%) Very good Extremely high Limited to organic pollutants.
available fresh water
Percentage of country's territory Excellent (98%) Good Extremely high Modeled data of high quality.
under severe water stress
Reducing Eco- Percentage change in forest cover Excellent Excellent Medium Relies on a sampling technique
system Stresses 1990-00 (100%) that can under or over-estimate
deforestation. Assumes all reduc-
tion in forest cover is equally
harmful to environment.
Percentage of county with acidifi- Excellent Fair Medium Conceptually good measure of
cation exceedence (100%) ecosystem stress, but relies on
model estimates for most coun-
tries.
Reducing Waste Ecological footprint per capita Excellent (99%) Good High Good measure of consumption,
& Consumption but arbitrary weighting of con-
Pressures sumption impacts.
Radioactive waste Poor (31%) Good Medium Does not reflect differences in
how the waste is handled.
Reducing Popu- Total fertility rate Excellent Excellent High Based on survey data and vital
lation Growth (100%) statistics that are reliable and
accurately measured.
Percentage change in projected Excellent Excellent High Based on assumptions that under-
population between 2001 & 2050 (100%) lie the population projections.
28
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
Democratic institutions Very good Excellent Medium This relies on qualitative assess-
(94%) ments.
Percentage of ESI variables in Excellent Excellent High Some countries collect good data
publicly available data sets (100%) but do not report them to global
sources; others collect problem-
atic data but report them regu-
larly.
29
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
Number of sectoral EIA guide- Fair (41%) Very good Adequate The percent of projects utilizing
lines environmental impact assessment
would be preferable. This does
not assess effectiveness of the
EIA process.
FSC accredited forest area as a Excellent Excellent Medium Does not measure non-FSC
percentage of total forest area (100%) accredited forests that are sustain-
ably managed.
Control of corruption Very good Excellent High High correlation with overall
(94%) environmental performance.
Reducing market externalities Very good Excellent Adequate Lower gasoline prices are proxy
(ratio of gasoline price to interna- (96%) for degree to which governments
tional average) adjust for market externalities.
Subsidies for energy or materials Fair (50%) Excellent Adequate Based on survey of opinion lead-
usage ers with limited country coverage.
Subsidies to the commercial Poor (22%) Very good Adequate WWF experienced problems
fishing sector obtaining and analyzing the
patchy data in this area.
Private Sector Number of ISO14001 certified Excellent Excellent Adequate Many countries have their own
Responsiveness companies per million $ GDP (100%) standards that are equal or supe-
rior to the ISO standards.
Dow Jones Sustainability Group Poor (22%) Excellent High Very limited company and coun-
Index try coverage.
Average Innovest EcoValue Poor (14%) Excellent High Very limited company and coun-
rating of firms try coverage.
World Business Council for Sus- Excellent Excellent Adequate Proxy for corporate concern for
tainable Development members (100%) environmental sustainability.
Private sector environmental Fair (50%) Excellent Adequate Based on survey of opinion lead-
innovation ers with limited country coverage.
Eco-efficiency Energy efficiency (total energy Very good Excellent Extremely high Based on reliable data.
consumption per unit GDP) (91%)
30
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
Reducing CO2 emissions per capita Excellent Very good Extremely high Based on reliable data. There is
Greenhouse Gas (100%) strong consensus that sustain-
Emissions ability requires lower CO2 emis-
sions per capita.
Carbon efficiency (CO2 emissions Excellent (98%) Very good Extremely high Based on reliable data. There is
per dollar GDP) strong consensus that sustain-
ability requires breaking link
between economic growth and
CO2 emissions.
Reducing Trans- CFC consumption (total times per Very good Very good Extremely high Based on reliable data. CFC
boundary Envi- capita) (76%) consumption directly harms
ronmental global commons.
Pressures SO2 exports Poor (40%) Very good High Only available for Europe and
East Asia.
Total marine fish catch Very good Excellent Adequate Does not differentiate among
(76%) healthy and endangered stocks.
Seafood consumption per capita Excellent (98%) Excellent Adequate An imperfect measure of overex-
ploitation of the resource.
Environmental Systems
The environmental systems component repre- ing the strengths and weaknesses of the vari-
sents the current status of a nation’s biophysi- ables available to measure them and pointing
cal environment. This component is comprised out areas for possible improvement.
of five indicators: air quality, water quality,
water quantity, biodiversity and land. This Air Quality
grouping of indicators draws on relatively
standard data sets. It is similar to other indica- Description: Ambient air quality is a critical
tor efforts, including the the Ecosystem Well- factor in determining the condition of an envi-
being Index and the Commission on Sustain- ronmental system; both the natural and the
able Development’s indicator set. The follow- human world are dependent on the surround-
ing sections describe each indicator, highlight- ing atmosphere. The ESI incorporates meas-
31
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
32
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
ables used are relative to specific systems, dis- land loss rates could make an important con-
solved oxygen and phosphorous have less tribution to this indicator, were the data avail-
natural variability than the other two. Concep- able. Urban runoff potential, as measured by
tually, this indicator works well, but limited impervious surface area near water bodies,
data severely handicap our ability to represent would help quantify the impact of land devel-
a country’s ambient water quality. opment on aquatic systems.
33
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
This component focuses on the threats posed resources and human health: sulphur dioxide
to the environment by human activities. It (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), non-methane
covers both pollution and exploitation. It is volatile organic compounds (VOCs), coal con-
designed to gauge the efforts of a nation to sumption, and vehicle density. All five vari-
reduce such stresses. It includes five indica- ables have been normalized by populated land
tors: Reducing Air Pollution, Reducing Water area (land area populated at 5 or more persons
Stress, Reducing Ecosystem Stress, Reducing per square kilometer), based on the assump-
Waste and Consumption Pressure, and Reduc- tion that emissions are higher in densely popu-
ing Population Growth. The following section lated areas.
describes each indicator, highlights the
strengths, and lists possible areas for im- Strengths: All the five variables represent a
provements. good measure of air pollution. SO2 and NOX
are among the anthropogenic pollutants that
Reducing Air Pollution contribute to acid rain and affect forests, soil
and aquatic habitats, as well as the main de-
Description: This indicator includes a set of terminants of urban air quality. SO2 and NOX
variables that directly affect both ecological are produced mainly by industrial activities
34
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
and fossil fuel combustion. VOC emissions Asia, but data from these regions have not
derive mainly from the incomplete combustion been integrated and checked for consistency.
of fuels or the evaporation of fuels, lubricants
and solvents, and contribute mainly to photo- Poor data availability on lead concentration in
chemical smog. gasoline had led us to exclude this potentially
useful variable form the ESI. Efforts will be
SO2, NOX, and VOC emissions are calculated made in the future to look for better source
using IPCC Special Report on Emission Sce- data on this critical environmental threat.
narios (SRES) gridded data. The use of grid-
ded data gives more detailed information Airborne emissions of other pollutants, espe-
about the distribution of pollution sources and cially complex organic chemicals, would be
permits a better estimate of total emissions extremely useful within this indicator, yet the
within each country. The SRES data has the available cross-national data are very poor.
advantage of having estimates for the year We examined some national inventories of
2000, whereas other global emission grids are persistent organic pollutants, which have as-
all referenced to 1990 values. Because many sumed increased salience in light of the recent
countries have experience large changes in treaty restricting their use, but found their
emission levels over the past decade, we chose coverage too spotty to be useful.
the SRES data.
Reducing Water Stress
Coal consumption is a good proxy for air pol-
lution: coal fired power plants emit SO2 and Description: Because of the importance of
other air pollutants (as well as CO2, the pri- water to a whole range of environmental proc-
mary greenhouse gas). Vehicle density is also esses, and because of its crucial role in agri-
used as a proxy for air pollution. These prox- culture and industrial processes, how a country
ies are used to help redress shortcomings in affects its water resources is arguably the sin-
the gridded emissions data. Because they are gle most important indicator of its environ-
measured reliably and comprehensively, they mental sustainability. This indicator addresses
help make the indicator more reliable overall. the ability of a nation to minimize threats to
water quality, including intensive use of agri-
Weaknesses: The cell size for the SO2, NOX cultural fertilizers and pesticides, industrial
and VOC emission datasets is 1 degree lati- waste, and sewage pollution. Four variables
tude by 1 degree longitude, which makes it are included: fertilizer consumption per hec-
difficult to generate reliable estimates for tare of arable land, pesticide use per hectare of
small states, and poses difficulties when na- cropland, industrial organic pollutants per
tional borders straddle grid boundaries. We available freshwater, and percentage of a
have sought to minimize these difficulties by country’s territory under severe water stress.
substituting national emission data from the
European Monitoring and Evaluation Program Strengths: The set of variables included in the
(EMEP) where available (World Resources water stress indicator is representative of indi-
2000). cators widely used to assess threats to water
quality (e.g., CSD Working List of Indicators
The sustainability indicator community ought of Sustainable Development, Wellbeing Index,
to make as a priority the creation of up-to- Report of Water Quality in the European Un-
date, comprehensive national emissions inven- ion, etc.). These variables are recognized as
tories for the most fundamental pollutants (in effective measures of the stress on water qual-
addition to SO2, NOx and VOCs, inventories ity and aquatic ecosystems.
of particulate emissions would be valuable).
Reliable emissions inventories are already Although fertilizers and pesticides provide
available for Europe, North America and East useful services to agriculture, they pollute wa-
35
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
ter resources. These variables are well docu- A major reassessment of deforestation was
mented and data are widely available for many recently concluded (the FAO Forest Resources
countries. Assessment 2000), generating more up-to-date
and more sophisticated measurements. Acidi-
The percentage of a country under severe wa- fication contributes to species loss and overall
ter stress captures the percent of the territory loss of ecosystem health. Acidification ex-
that is withdrawing significantly more water ceedance is an especially useful measure be-
from available resources than the amount be- cause it takes into account the interaction be-
ing replenished. This variable has been calcu- tween the acidifying deposition and the sensi-
lated using the WaterGAP 2.1 model, devel- tivity of the soil to acidification (Kuylen-
oped at University of Kassel. The advantage stierna et al. 2001). Such interaction is vital to
of the model is that the data are available on a understanding long-term sustainability.
grid basis, which allows assessment of water
stress at more precise levels of resolution. In Weaknesses: A technical report by the World
some countries, total water withdrawals are Resources Institute (Matthews 2001) com-
approximately equal to total availability, even ments on the methodology and the findings of
though there are regions of extreme water the FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2000.
scarcity relative to demand. It highlights inconsistencies of the original
data and questions the quality and the reliabil-
Weaknesses: Country coverage on water pol- ity of the data. Another downside of this vari-
lution is only fair. Less than 50 percent of the able is that, although it provides national esti-
countries report Biochemical Oxygen Demand mates, it lacks information about the spatial
(BOD) values, and about 64 percent report distribution of the forests and the level of
pesticide use. fragmentation. Forest fragmentation might be
a more important measure of forest ecosystem
Pesticide use and fertilizers consumption are health than the total area deforested. However,
collected at the country level, in a manner that measures of forest fragmentation are difficult
does not take into account soil conditions, to obtain.
compound mobility and level of persistence.
In order to get even more valuable informa- These criticisms notwithstanding, additional
tion, data should be collected at single point investment in measuring deforestation is
stations and then aggregated, taking into ac- probably not justified. Other measures of eco-
count agricultural zones and toxicity and per- system stress are more important but far more
sistence variations. neglected. Global deforestation became the
focus of intense measurement efforts because
Reducing Ecosystem Stress it became extremely politicized during the
1980s. But wetland loss (subject to less politi-
Description: This indicator takes into account cal posturing) matters at least as much as de-
two variables that express stress on ecosystem forestation but is not well measured.
health: deforestation and acidification. Spe-
cifically the two variables included are: per- The country coverage for acidification ex-
cent of forest cover change and percent of a ceedance is very good, but the values are cal-
country with acidification exceedance. culated for the year 1990 using model esti-
mates. High quality, validated data are avail-
Strengths: Deforestation and acidification able only for Europe and East Asia.
negatively affect ecosystem health and se-
verely limit the ability to preserve natural eco-
systems intact. Deforestation contributes to
species loss, soil erosion, diminished water
quality, and loss of natural hazard buffering.
36
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
37
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
This component seeks to measure the interac- Access to improved drinking-water supply is
tion between humans and their environment, estimated using technology as an indicator.
with a focus on how human livelihoods are Definitions of “improved” technologies are
affected by environmental change. The com- based on the assumptions that certain tech-
ponent includes two indicators: Basic Human nologies (e.g., boreholes and pumps) are better
Sustenance and Environmental Health. for health than others (e.g., collection from
open water sources such as rivers and lakes).
Basic Human Sustenance These assumptions may not be true in all indi-
vidual cases. Definitions of services in the
Description: Food and basic services (such as household surveys vary between surveys and
water and sanitation) are essential for health over time, making difficult comparisons even
and survival. The two variables included in within the same country. Furthermore, the re-
this indicator are:the proportion of undernour- port uses nationally consolidated data, which
ished in the total population and percentage of do not account for variations within a country.
population with access to improved drinking A better measure of the adequacy of water
water supply. supply would take into account the suitability
of the water available to households, including
Strengths: Although the 2001 ESI utilized both accessibility and quality.
another measure of food security – calorie
supply as a percentage of total requirements – Environmental Health
unfortunately it is no longer routinely calcu-
lated. Therefore we now use the commonly Description: This indicator comprises vari-
available measure “proportion of undernour- ables related to the effects of environmental
ished in the total population” which provides a conditions on overall population and children.
good measure of sufficiency of food intake in It includes: child death rate from respiratory
order to meet dietary energy requirements. diseases, death rate from intestinal infectious
The core idea here is that nations that wish to diseases and under-five mortality rate. Respi-
maintain long-run environmental sustainability ratory disease death rates are calculated only
must find effective strategies to provide for the for children because among adults lifestyle
nutritional needs of their populations. and occupational factors play a major role in
mortality rates, whereas among children envi-
The water supply figures are based on a major ronmental effects predominate. In contrast,
improvement of the global water supply data environmental conditions (especially water
coordinated by the UNICEF-WHO Joint quality) play a major role among all age
Monitoring Program. These data are of good groups in intestinal infectious diseases.
quality, though they do not perfectly reflect
differences in all of the important underlying Strengths: The major strengths of this indica-
water issues. tor relate to the development of two variables
specifically designed by the ESI team to cap-
Weaknesses: The proportion of undernour- ture the concept of environmentally related
ished in total population is based on FAO es- disease. The development of the child death
timates, which are generally reliable. Nonethe- rate from respiratory diseases and death rate
less, the FAO did not cite specific figures for from intestinal infectious diseases variables
countries with less that 2.5 percent undernour- represent the first concrete effort to produce
ished. Therefore we assigned a value of 1 per- indicators that are attributable to environ-
cent to those countries in which undernour- mental conditions (World Economic Forum
ishment is generally very rare. 2001).
38
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
The under-five mortality rate is used because consistent than the disease-specific measures,
children under the age of five are generally and is therefore a useful addition to this indi-
more susceptible to water-borne and respira- cator.
tory diseases, which translates into higher
mortality rates in countries where water and Weaknesses: Although we attempted to nar-
air quality are poor. Under-five mortality is row the focus to diseases that are most directly
reported more reliably than the disease- related to environmental conditions, not all of
specific mortality rates. Although it reflects these deaths are attributable to environmental
problems broader than environmental health conditions. Most countries do not report mor-
issues (such as poverty and public health in- tality data with enough precision to permit a
frastructure), it is more comprehensive and comprehensive comparison.
Because environmental sustainability is a phe- tion. However, they do not have good country
nomenon that emerges over the long run, and coverage; the average years of schooling has
because challenges to environmental sustain- better coverage, and is more readily estimated
ability are multifaceted and hard to predict, it for countries lacking coverage.
is critical to include measures of nations’ ca-
pacity to understand and respond to unfolding Weaknesses: The primary difficulty of this
environmental dynamics. Where such indicator is that there are currently no data that
capacity is high, we expect more favorable specifically measure scientific and technologi-
long-run environmental conditions. cal capacity to attain environmental
sustainability per se. Technology is a double-
Science/Technology edged sword, and the same technologies that
can be used to protect the environment (e.g.,
Description: This indicator is intended to computers, information systems, remote sens-
measure a country’s level of scientific and ing, etc.) can be used to the detriment of the
technological capacity to address environ- environment and natural resources. Further-
mental challenges. Although there are meas- more, measures of the application of appropri-
ures of the number of scientists per capita and ate technologies (such as sustainable farming
scientific publications per capita, we found or resource management technologies, or im-
these measures deficient in coverage and qual- proved health and sanitation technologies) are
ity and no longer use them in the ESI. Instead unavailable.
we rely on three measures: the Human Devel-
opment Report’s Technology Achievement Capacity for Debate
Index, an Innovation Capacity Index created
by Porter and Stern (2001), and the average Description: The ability to craft well-
years of schooling among the population over designed policies in the environmental sphere
age 15. depends on the availability of environmental
information, the degree to which competing
Strengths: The Technology Achievement In- views are aired, and the existence of structures
dex and the Innovation Capacity Index come that allow compromises to be reached among
closest to measuring the ability to understand stakeholders (OECD 2001, p. 255; Access Ini-
and respond to unfolding environmental chal- tiatve 2001). This indicator measures these
lenges. They take into account empirical features. Variables include the existence of
measures of innovations (such as patents) as civil and political liberties, the presence of
well as broader conditions that affect innova- democratic institutions, the degree to which
39
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
important environmental issues are debated by • existence of subsidies that may lead to
a society, and whether or not information is over-exploitation of resources
available to support decision-making.
Strengths: We sought to quantify as much as
Strengths: Variables that measure democratic possible issues of governance that are directly
institutions and civil and political liberties are relevant to environmental sustainability. The
robust and provide a reasonably accurate pic- variables, a mixture of survey and qualitative
ture of a country’s openness to debate and to data, observations and calculations, do a rea-
the participation of citizens in important deci- sonably accurate job of capturing environ-
sions. They are also frequently updated. mental governance.
Weaknesses: This indicator is missing vari- Weaknesses: These measurements rely heav-
ables that specifically measure the public’s ily on survey data, which are vulnerable to
right to information, including information bias. It would be preferable to have more ob-
about infrastructure projects and broad envi- jective data concerning the stringency and ef-
ronmental decisions. fectiveness of environmental regulations (e.g.,
percentage of environmental regulatory viola-
We have attempted to capture the availability tions that are prosecuted).
of environmental information by measuring a
country’s representation in public environ- It was especially disappointing not to be able
mental data sets (e.g., water quality, air qual- to use more complete data on natural resource
ity, biodiversity loss, and pollutant emissions). subsidies. We did include a measure of subsi-
This is at best a proxy for what we would like dies to the fisheries sector that was laboriously
to be able to measure: (a) the extent and qual- compiled by the World Wildlife Fund (U.S.
ity of environmental monitoring and data col- branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature;
lection efforts, and (b) the availability and ac- WWF 2001). The challenges WWF encoun-
cessibility of data and information on the envi- tered in compiling the fisheries subsidies data
ronment at national and sub-national scales is an object lesson in how difficult it is to de-
through government agencies, libraries, and termine the extent of subsidies in any given
internet sources. sector. This is largely because subsidies take
many different forms, including credit support
Environmental Governance programs, tax preferences and insurance sup-
port, capital and infrastructure supports, and
Description: Environmental governance is marketing and price supports. Moreover, many
defined as the institutions, rules and practices governments actively seek to conceal such
that shape responses to environmental chal- subsidies.
lenges. This indicator is measured with the
following variables: Developing national measures of resource
subsidies in the areas of forestry, agriculture
• quality of environmental regulations and water would dramatically improve our
ability to measure environmental governance.
• existence of sectoral guidelines for envi-
ronmental impact assessments The data on protected areas are widely used in
• degree of transparency in environmental indicator efforts such as ours, but have limita-
decision-making, and absence of corrup- tions. They provide little comparative infor-
tion mation on the stringency or effectiveness of
the protected areas, and the degree to which
• extent of protected areas, and degree of data are complete varies considerably from
certification of forest areas for sustainable country to country, making comparisons prob-
management lematic.
40
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
41
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
Weaknesses: A good measure of eco- lines have generated useful insights, yet there
efficiency would also measure the amount of are currently insufficient measures to permit a
material through-put per unit of economic meaningful global comparison (Fischer-
output. Materials include things like construc- Kowalski 2001).
tion minerals, industrial minerals, metals, and
wood. Some country-level efforts along these
Global Stewardship
No matter how successfully a country man- that are relevant, reproducible, and capable of
ages its internal environmental challenges, if it regular updates.
fails to meet its global responsibilities (e.g.,
addressing transboundary issues such as cli- Weaknesses: The measures of statutory par-
mate change) effectively then it will not be ticipation are somewhat thin when compared
positioned on a sustainable trajectory. These to the actual variation in national participation
indicators measure the degree to which coun- in these global efforts. Some countries oper-
tries successfully meet the challenges of ate major national programs in support of
global stewardship. these conventions and organizations, allocate
significant personnel to supporting them, fund
Participation in International Collabora- scientific research on behalf of their goals, and
tive Efforts so on, while other countries participate only
nominally. Deeper measures of participation
This indicator quantifies two aspects to par- would be useful, and could be created through
ticipation in international efforts to manage intensive review of available documentation.
global environmental problems. This first can
be called statutory participation. It measures The measures of financial participation would
the extent of participation in representative be more powerful if they included other modes
global environmental conventions (the Con- of participation, including bilateral assistance,
vention on International Trade in Endangered contributions to regional financial programs,
Species, the Vienna Convention on the Ozone and non-governmental financial flows. How-
Layer, and the Framework Convention on Cli- ever, such data are quite difficult to assemble
mate Change), and environmentally-related and make comparable (Franz 1996).
international organizations.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The second aspect is financial. Because wealth
is unevenly distributed, managing global envi- Appreciation of the severity of the climate
ronmental problems effectively requires ex- change problem has steadily increased over
tensive transfers of financial resources. Meas- the past 20 years. The consensus that has
ures of participation in two financial mecha- emerged both scientifically and politically
nisms, the Montreal Protocol Multilateral guarantees that this issue will be central well
Fund and the Global Environment Facility, are into the future. In recognition of the critical
used to quantify this aspect. Countries receive role the climate change problem plays within
credit both for contributing financial resources the broader area of global stewardship, we
to these efforts and for implementing projects have constructed a specific indicator having to
that utilize these mechanisms. do with emissions of carbon dioxide. Two
variables are calculated: economic carbon ef-
Strengths: These are by and large clear, ob- ficiency is the amount of CO2 emitted per unit
jective measures of international participation
42
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
of GDP; lifestyle carbon efficiency is the Strengths: These variables are built on reli-
amount of CO2 emitted per capita. able, objective measures on issues of clear
international importance. They are also regu-
Strengths: Reliable CO2 estimates are avail- larly updated.
able for a large number of countries, permit-
ting accurate measurement of this indicator. Weaknesses: The fish pressure measure does
While the two variables used here do not cor- not distinguish among exploitation of stocks
respond to particular international targets (the that are heavily endangered and those that are
Kyoto Protocol sets varying levels of reduc- not. It assumes that all extraction of living ma-
tion goals in percentage terms), they have the rine resources is harmful. More useful meas-
benefit of being relevant to the climate change ures would more finely discriminate practices
problem independently of any particular legal that are clearly unsustainable from those that
instruments. They are relevant benchmarks are not.
regardless of whether a country has accepted
Kyoto targets. The sulfur dioxide export measure is available
only for North America, Europe and East
Weaknesses: This indicator does not include Asia. Extending the measure to include the
measures of other greenhouse gases. This is rest of Asia, Africa and Latin America would
because reliable emission inventories across a make it more useful.
large number of countries are not available,
and because the question of how to aggregate The CFC measure is not available for individ-
such emissions remains a subject of scientific ual European Union countries – such countries
controversy. In the future, however, it would report only their collective consumption (we
be desirable to include other greenhouse gases. assign shares equally). But because CFCs are
on a phaseout schedule in accord with the
This indicator also lacks measures of green- Montreal Protocol and its amendments, over
house gas fluxes attributable to land-use time this indicator will cease to be relevant
changes such as deforestation, afforestation, anyway.
and agriculture. Such measures are clearly
quite relevant. However, reliable cross- There are many other transboundary pressures
national measures are not yet available. that would be very useful, but reliable compa-
rable measures are not available. These in-
Reducing Transboundary Environ- clude contamination of international rivers,
mental Pressures trade in endangered species, smuggling of
hazardous waste, emissions of persistent or-
Many other environmental problems, in addi- ganic pollutants that travel long distances,
tion to climate change, have international di- emissions of sewage and industrial effluent
mensions. Reducing transboundary environ- that contaminates regional seas, and ocean
mental pressures constitutes an important di- dumping of waste. Often the fact that such
mension of global stewardship. Comparable activities are illegal or politically sensitive is
measures are hard to come by, but we have what makes them so hard to monitor.
constructed an indicator that incorporates in-
formation on cross-border fluxes of sulfur di-
oxide (a precursor of acid rain), consumption
of chlorofluorocarbons (which destroy the
ozone layer), and two measures of pressure on
marine fish stocks (because such stocks are
heavily overexploited).
43
2002 ESI: Annex 1 Evaluation of the Variables
References
Alcamo, J., T. Henreichs, and T. Rosch, World Organization for Economic Co-Operation and
Water in 2025: Global Modeling and Scenario Development (OECD), Environmental
Analysis for the World Commission on Water Outlook, Paris, 2001.
for the 21st Century, Kassel World Water Se-
ries Report No. 2, Center for Environmental Porter, M.E. and S. Stern, “National Innova-
Systems Research, University of Kassel, Feb- tive Capacity,” Chapter 2.2 in M. Porter and J.
ruary 2000. Sachs (eds.), The Global Competitiveness Re-
port 2001-2002, New York: Oxford Univer-
Fischer-Kowalski, M. “Rapid Metabolic sity Press, 2001, p. 104.
Change in the Global South as a Chance and a
Threat to Sustainability. The Case of Amazo- United Nations, “Indicators of Sustainable
nia,” presented at the 2001 Open Meeting of Development: Guidelines and Methodolo-
the Human Dimensions of Global Environ- gies,” 2001, available at http://www.un.org/
mental Change, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 5-7 esa/sustdev/indisd/isdms2001/isd-
October 2001 (available at http://sedac.cie- ms2001isd.htm.
sin.columbia.edu/openmeeting/dowloads/1003
419117_presentation_amaz1ihdpend.ppt). Wackernagel, M., D. Deumling, C. Monfreda,
A.C. Linares, I.S. López Falfán, and M.A.
Franz, W.E., “Appendix: The Scope of Global Vásquez Sánchez, Ecological Footprint of
Environmental Financing - Cases in Context,” Nations, December 2001 update (available at
pp. 367-380 in R.O. Keohane and M.A. Levy http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1997_e
(eds.), Institutions for Environmental Aid, foot.pdf).
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
World Economic Forum, 2001 Environmental
Kuylenstierna, J., H. Rodhe, S. Cinderby and Sustainability Index, January 2001 (available
K. Hicks. “Acidification in developing coun- at http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators-
tries: ecosystem sensitivity and the critical /ESI/), p. 23.
load approach at global scale.” Ambio, 30 (1),
2001, pp. 20-28. World Resources Institute, World Resources
2000-2001, Washington, DC: World Re-
Matthews, E. Understanding the FRA 2000, sources Institute, 2000, Technical Notes to
Forest Briefing No. 1, World Resources Insti- Table AC.2.
tute, March 2001.
World Wildlife Fund, Hard Facts, Hidden
Problems: A Review of Current Data on Fish-
ing Subsidies, A WWF Technical Paper, 2001.
44
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
Country Selection
45
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
considering countries with large, sparsely in- smaller, identical values for each of the re-
habited land areas to “offset” their pollution maining countries. Such distributions failed to
with their whole land area, when in most cases convey useful information in aggregating
the actual emissions only occur where popula- across variables. The following variables were
tion density is above a certain threshold. It converted to a logarithmic scale:
assumes that pollution and other stresses are
highly correlated with the location of people, • Forest Stewardship Council accredited
and that all things being equal, a given amount area
of pollution in a small area is worse than the
same amount in a large area. • subsidies to fishing industry
• per-capita water inflow from other coun-
Other denominators included GDP and total tries
population. The selection of the denominator
is made explicit in each of the variable tables • CFC consumption
in Annex 6. • industrial organic pollutants per available
fresh water
We next trimmed the tails of the variable dis-
tributions to avoid having extreme values Finally, we converted all the variables to a
overly dominate the aggregation algorithm, unitless scale by standardizing them. We
and to partially correct for the possibility of chose the z-score, which has desirable charac-
data quality problems in such extreme cases. teristics when it comes to aggregation. In par-
(Other things being equal, there is reason to ticular, the fact that the z-score always has an
believe that values extremely far from the average of zero means that it avoids introduc-
mean are more likely to reflect data quality ing aggregation distortions stemming from
problems.) For any observed value greater differences in variable means. The formula to
than the 97.5 percentile, we lowered the value calculate the z-score is the value of variable
to equal the 97.5 percentile. For any observed minus the mean of the variable, divided by the
value lower than the 2.5 percentile, we raised standard deviation. For variables in which
it to equal the 2.5 percentile. We did this for high observed values correspond to low values
each variable, but the total number of affected of environmental sustainability, we reversed
values was very small. The cutoff values ap- the terms in the numerator to preserve this or-
pear in each variable table in Annex 6. dinal relationship. In other words, for vari-
ables such as “percentage of land area under
We then converted extremely skewed distribu- protected status” we used the conventional z-
tions (those with a skewness measure of 4.0 or score, whereas for variables such as “percent-
above) to a base-10 logarithmic scale. In the age of mammals threatened” we produced a z-
absence of such a conversion these variable score in which the higher the percentage, the
scores typically generated high positive or lower the score.
negative values for one or two countries and
Indicators were calculated by averaging the The ESI was calculated by taking the un-
standardized values (z-scores) for each vari- weighted average of the values of the 20
able in the indicator. Each variable received indicators (because of our case selection rules
equal weight, and in cases in which a variable and imputation approaches, each country has a
was missing it was simply not included in the value for each of the 20 indicators). If they
average. were fully understood, underlying processes
would almost surely support an algorithm of
unequal weighting, with differential weights
46
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
derived from the different degrees of impact beyond the range that a standard normal per-
on overall environmental sustainability. How- centile assumes.
ever, in our judgment there was no firm basis
for applying differential weights given the cur- We tested the distinctiveness of the ESI’s 20
rent state of scientific understanding; nor is indicators by looking at their bivariate correla-
there likely to be scientific consensus about tions and experimenting with data reduction.
the relative contributions of different factors to As a group, the 20 indicators had an average
sustainability any time soon. bivariate correlation among themselves of
only .05. Only 19 of the 180 possible pairs of
We also report a different level of aggregation, indicators had correlation coefficients greater
the five components of Environmental than .5. The highest such pairs were Basic
Sustainability: Environmental Systems, Re- Human Sustenance and Environmental Health
ducing Environmental Stresses, Reducing (.81) and Environmental Health and Reducing
Human Vulnerability, Social and Institutional Population Stress (.80). The first of these pairs
Capacity, and Global Stewardship. These ag- could plausibly be combined based on the high
gregations are provided in the components and correlation; however, that would obscure po-
indicators section (Annex 4) and country pro- tentially interesting variance (e.g. countries
files (Annex 5) as a way of summarizing the that score higher on one than the other). As
indicator values in more condensed form. Note long as the total number of highly correlated
that because the components do not have equal indicator pairs is relatively low, as is the case
numbers of indicators, the ESI is not equal to in the ESI, we think it is preferable to keep the
the average of the five components. indicators separate so as to permit investiga-
tion into potentially useful causal connections
To make the ESI and component scores more among them, and to permit reporting of meas-
intuitively understandable, we converted the z- ures that are relevant for discrete policy com-
score average (a typical range would be from munities. For example, the most highly corre-
about –2.5 to +1.8) to standard normal percen- lated indicator pair contains one indicator that
tile. The standard normal percentile has a is primarily relevant to the food security
theoretical minimum of zero and a theoretical community and another that is primarily rele-
maximum of 100, but is calculated in such a vant to the public health community. Keeping
way that the maximum and minimum values the indicators separate lets us be relevant to
are realized only at observed values between both communities. It also lets us (cautiously)
about 2.5 and 3 standard deviations away from explore causal interactions. For example, we
the mean. Values within that range receive might wish to explore possible causal connec-
scores in between the minimum and maxi- tions between air quality and environmental
mum, regardless of where other countries’ health (.71). Too much data reduction makes
values lie in comparison. Likewise, values that such investigation impossible.
fall outside that range do not receive signifi-
cantly better or worse scores than values that We performed factor analysis on the ESI’s
lie between 2.5 and 3 standard deviations from indicators to explore whether there was any
the mean. Therefore, the standard normal per- possibility of reducing the dimensions based
centile comes closest to preserving the on principal components. Using the variables
information contained in the original z-scores, as the inputs, 17 principal components were
while portraying them in a manner more generated. Using the 22 indicators, 5 principal
graspable by a broad audience. When report- components were generated. But in neither
ing the individual indicator values, we opted case did the principal components have any
to report the original z-scores; this preserves sensible interpretations, and we concluded that
more information from the underlying variable factor analysis was not a useful way to reduce
averages, because for a handful of indicators the dimensionality of the ESI data set.
observed minimum and maximum values fall
47
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
Our conclusion is that the 20 indicators that fective dimensions along which to report re-
form the core building blocks of the ESI, de- sults.
rived from theoretical considerations and in-
tended to be policy-relevant, are the most ef-
The 2002 ESI builds on experience gained the 2001 ESI score very low on this indicator
from the 2000 Pilot ESI and the 2001 ESI. (the U.S. is ranked 133rd out of 142, for exam-
Both those prior efforts were submitted to rig- ple). Countries scoring lowest on this indica-
orous peer review drawing on recognized in- tor, in general, score lower on the overall 2002
ternational experts, generated extensive criti- ESI than they did in 2001 (the U.S. is now
cal review in publications and in personal ranked 51st instead of 11th, for example).
communications to the ESI team, and finally
were examined in a number of expert work- We continue to feel strongly, however, that
shops organized in international locations. environmental sustainability is not equivalent
to climate change, but rather requires consid-
As a result of this experience, criticism, and eration of the other important indicators we
reflection, a number of improvements were have included in the ESI on matters such as air
made in the 2002 ESI. As a result, the country and water quality, pressure on land resources,
values across these different versions are not and biodiversity conservation.
comparable. Although many variables were
updated with new values, the differences in Reduction in Number of Capacity Indi-
methodology and aggregation are profound cators
enough that the 2002 ESI is fundamentally
different than the 2001 ESI. The most signifi- The 2001 ESI had seven indicators having to
cant differences can be summarized as fol- do with social and institutional capacity. Be-
lows: cause per-capita income had a strong correla-
tion with these capacity indicators, the result
Addition of a Climate Change Indicator was that almost a third of the ESI was deter-
mined by factors driven to a large degree
Although the 2001 ESI had a large number of (though by no means completely) by income
variables and indicators directly relevant to the levels. Although we continue to think that ca-
problem of climate change (such as green- pacity measures are of vital importance in
house gas emissions, eco-efficiency, extent of shaping environmental sustainability, we have
use of renewable energy, consumption of natu- attempted to strike a more balanced role in the
ral resources, and others) it did not contain a overall ESI by using five, instead of seven,
separate climate change indicator. As a result, capacity indicators.
it was possible for countries that were emitting
extremely high levels of greenhouse gases to The former indicator on Environmental Infor-
score high on the overall ESI. mation was folded into the indicator on Capac-
ity for Debate. We created a new Environ-
In recognition of the high importance of the mental Governance indicator drawn from vari-
climate change problem to the challenge of ables formerly in Regulation and Management
environmental sustainability, we have created and Reducing Public Choice Distortions.
a new, separate indicator called Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, consisting of two underlying Improved Imputation Procedures
variables: carbon dioxide emissions per capita,
and carbon dioxide emissions per GDP. Some Because the problem of missing data is likely
of the countries that scored relatively high in to plague the search for useful environmental
48
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
sustainability indicators for some time, we eraged) and rely on large number of sequential
think that continued innovation in imputation regressions. These new methods extract more
techniques is warranted. The 2001 ESI relied useful information from what is available in
on a limited number of individual linear re- the overall ESI data set while reflecting more
gressions with determinate outcomes, whereas accurately the underlying uncertainty in the
for the 2002 ESI we used a more sophisticated estimation process. To be totally transparent
approach. This approach is described in more about the imputation results, imputed values
detail in Annex 3. Its outcomes are indetermi- are included in the data tables contained in
nate (and therefore run multiple times and av- Annex 6 with brackets.
49
2002 ESI: Annex 2 ESI Methodology
50
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
Of the 68 variables in the ESI, only 27 had full from estimation but whose observed values
country coverage. The remaining 47 variables were used as predictors for other variables
had an average coverage of 68 countries. In include the World Economic Forum survey
order to generate indicator scores for each of results, water availability, and percentage of
the 142 countries it was thus necessary to re- mammals threatened. Missing values were
place missing values with imputed values for estimated and then utilized in the calculation
those variables that were considered suitable of the ESI indicators for the variables listed in
for estimation. Variables that were excluded Table A3.1.
Table A3.1. Variables for which missing values were estimated and used in the ESI
Number of countries
Variable with missing values
Suspended solids 101
Electrical conductivity 100
Phosphorus concentration 94
Urban TSP concentration 93
Urban NO2 concentration 91
Urban SO2 concentration 91
Dissolved oxygen concentration 90
Child death rate from respiratory diseases 88
SO2 exports 86
Death rate from intestinal infectious diseases 79
Pesticide use per hectare of crop land 51
Mean years of schooling (age 15 and above) 45
Percent of Population with Access to Improved Drinking-Water Supply 32
Energy efficiency (total energy consumption per unit GDP) 13
Vehicles per populated land area 8
Ratio of gasoline price to international average 6
Proportion of Undernourished in Total Population 5
Carbon economic efficiency (CO2 emissions per dollar GDP) 3
NOx emissions per populated land area 2
VOCs emissions per populated land area 2
Ecological footprint per capita 1
Fertilizer consumption per hectare of arable land 1
SO2 emissions per populated land area 1
Under-5 mortality rate 1
51
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
Overview
A so-called multivariate imputation procedure, (Little and Rubin 1987). The complete-case
which is a method for filling missing data, can method uses only the cases for which all vari-
be used when some components of a vector ables are observed. To use this method in the
observation are unavailable (Little and Rubin case of the ESI would require either a sample
1987).2 Commonly two major assumptions size of 4, or else the number of variables
are made: would have to be restricted. But then the
measure would be limited. The available-case
1. The pattern of missing values in a multi- method is based on analyzing each variable
variate (i.e. vector) observation does not with all the cases for which the variable is ob-
depend on the unobserved responses. In served. The ESI, however, is a composite in-
other words, the probability that a value is dex based on a cross-variable aggregation al-
missing may depend on the observed val- gorithm. Since we want to consider all 68 fac-
ues but is independent of the missing tors and all 142 countries, we decided to use
value itself. Such a mechanism is called imputation methods. It is important to note
Missing at Random (MAR). If, in addi- that excluding cases should not be thought of
tion, the parameters governing the as “purer” or less “assumption-laden” than
missingness process (i.e., patterns of miss- imputation, since exclusion and averaging to
ing data) are independent of the parame- compose the ESI is mathematically equivalent
ters of the complete data model, the miss- to imputing all missing data with averages of
ing data mechanism is called ignorable. the available cases, which, as seen in our data,
is not sensible.
2. A functional form for the distribution of
the vector observations can be formulated, Imputations are sometimes performed using
and the estimates for the parameters of one variable at a time (e.g., mean substitution),
that form can be approximated using, in or working with subsets of variables. How-
most instances, some iterative procedure ever, we prefer to use all the variables in the
(Wichern and Johnson 1998). imputations and opted for a Sequential Re-
gression Multivariate Imputation (SRMI) ap-
Imputation procedures can be single or multi- proach, which iteratively uses generalized lin-
ple. The key idea behind multiple imputation ear models, to estimate missing values in the
is to create a finite number of say, m, com- 2002 ESI.1
pleted data sets, each of which is then ana-
lyzed using standard statistical methods. The The SRMI procedure is favored for its relative
results of the m single analyses are combined computational simplicity and for the less re-
to yield a final estimate of the parameter of strictive assumptions made on a dataset as
interest. The advantage of this method is that compared, for example, to methods based on
with repeated application of complete data the multivariate normal or t-distribution. Sim-
analysis procedures, the uncertainty inherent plicity and generality are important to us given
in the imputation process can be captured in the size of the ESI dataset and complexity of
the variation between the multiple datasets. the ESI variables.
52
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
Application
We note characteristics specific to the imputa- Predictive
tion procedure for the 2002 ESI.
• ESI and non-ESI variables were in-
Distributional cluded in the predictive (or information)
set. Where possible, we chose to benefit
• All variables were assumed continuous from the availability of additional in-
by default. The implication of this is that formation to bear upon our imputation
categorical variables will be imputed procedure. We reason that we can more
continuously; for example, a variable accurately estimate missing values with
that can equal 1, 2, or 3, might be im- additional information.
puted as 1.3 or 2.1.
• Combining predictors into scores where
• Boundaries on imputations were im- appropriate to reduce the dimensionality
posed and set by the extrema of the ob- of the prediction regressions. The pre-
served distribution so as to avoid intro- dictors, when put in uncombined, overfit
ducing outliers via the imputation pro- the data and did not give reasonable im-
cedure. This reasoning might constrain putations
the imputed values too much, but we do
• Transformations of the GDP variable
this to avoid the alternative, which is un-
(logged and squared) and a dummy
reasonably low or high imputations.
variable for an income threshold were
53
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
included in the information set. This ad- • A maximum number of predictors were
dition to the procedure more closely set for the water supply variables. We
mirrors current thought on the distribu- noticed that predicted values in a con-
tion of environmental characteristics vs. strained model were less variant.
income.
• Perturbations were permitted in the pre-
Procedural dicted values but not in the regression
parameters, reasoning that without a
sound argument for a particular prior
• A constant minimum R-squared of 0.10
distribution for the regression parame-
was set for each prediction equation to
ters, the ordinary maximum likelihood
balance the often-contrasting goals of
estimates are preferred.
modeling parsimony vs. variance expla-
nation.
We were able to compare the estimates used in sampling from the joint posterior distribu-
the 2002 ESI with those generated by an alter- tion of the parameters given the completed
nate multiple imputation method. This method data set.
uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
3. Iterating through step 1 and 2 generates a
simulation to substitute the missing values
Markov Chain of pairs of (Ym, θ), which
with plausible quasi-random draws from their
once convergence is diagnosed, produces
conditional distribution given the observed
the first imputed data set.
data. The MCMC approach is similar to the
SRMI approach in that it assumes an ignorable 4. Step 1 to 3 are then repeated to generate m
MAR process for the missingness generating imputed data sets, which are analyzed in-
mechanism. However, there exist distinct dif- dividually and their results combined to a
ferences in the imputation algorithm and the final ESI score for each country.
data model assumptions. First, the full data
set, Y, is assumed to have a well-specified dis- While the MCMC approach utilizes a model
tribution, most often a multivariate normal for the joint data distribution, the SRMI pro-
distribution, with independent and identically cedure uses marginal distributions to approxi-
distributed (iid) observations. Second, the mate the joint distribution and the assumption
missing values are imputed iteratively in a of multivariate normality is not required. The
Bayesian framework using a Markov Chain. application of either method depends on the
The algorithm is as follows: characteristics of the data at hand and the pur-
pose of the analysis. For the ESI data, imputa-
1. Given a prior distribution for the parame- tions were generated using both methods in
ters θ of the data model (in the case of the order to compare the results and to test the
multivariate normal distribution the pa- robustness of the index.
rameters would be the mean and the co-
variance matrix) and an initial estimate of Results of Comparison
the parameters, the missing data, Ym, are
imputed by random sampling from the In general, we comment that differences in the
conditional distribution of the missing results of the two methods appear slight on the
data, Ym, given the observed data, Yo, and ESI level, despite some particular divergence
the initial parameter estimates. at the variable level. The overall difference in
2. The thus completed data set is then used to mean between an ESI generated for both
update the initial parameter estimate by methods was only 0.03, and the average abso-
lute difference between ESI scores was a mere
54
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
1.7. We feel these differences are negligible, ity. We note here that the variance of estimates
given the observed range in ESI scoring. of these quantities is high within estimation
There were changes in country rankings across method as well.
the methods, especially at the middle of the
distribution of ESI scores. We attribute this From a purely methodological perspective, we
more to the effect of the closeness in ranking think that the similarity between the results of
rather than to the difference in estimation pro- either method does not favor the choice of one
cedures. over the other; we used the estimates gener-
ated by the SRMI procedure for the reasons
We do note an appreciable degree of differ- stated above. We view the resemblance of the
ence in estimates for subsets of variables that outputs, given the differences in the methods,
we have already identified as difficult to esti- as justification of the use of the imputation
mate – particularly air quality and water qual- procedure.
End Notes
1
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this annex are entirely those of the authors and
should not be attributed in any manner to the United Nations, to its affiliated organizations, or the countries
they represent.
2
A vector or multivariate observation is one composed of several data points in each case. The ESI is com-
posed of 68 variables, and therefore has an observation of dimension 68.
3
As implemented in the IVE Ware addition to SAS. Available at http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/smp/ive/
References
Little, R.J., and D.B. Rubin, Statistical Analy- Values Using a Sequence of Regression Mod-
sis with Missing Data New York: Wiley, els,” Survey Analysis, 2001 (in press).
1987.
Wichern, D.W., and R.A. Johnson. Applied
Raghunathan, T. E., Lepkowski, J. M., Van Multivariate Statistical Analysis, New Jersey:
Hoewyk, J., and Solenberger, P. “A Multivari- Prentice Hall, 1998.
ate Technique for Multiply Imputing Missing
55
2002 ESI: Annex 3 Imputing Missing Values
56
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
57
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
58
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
59
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
60
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
61
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
62
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
63
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
64
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
65
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
Indicator: Biodiversity
1. El Salvador 1.08 49. Denmark .44 97. South Africa -.10
2. Mozambique 1.08 50. Uzbekistan .44 98. Nepal -.12
3. Guinea-Bissau 1.07 51. Cameroon .43 99. Laos -.13
4. Trinidad and Tobago 1.05 52. Panama .43 100. Mexico -.13
5. Gambia .96 53. Slovenia .43 101. United States -.14
6. Guatemala .91 54. Syria .42 102. Morocco -.14
7. Togo .91 55. Austria .40 103. France -.14
8. Nicaragua .90 56. Liberia .40 104. Thailand -.16
9. Benin .90 57. Libya .37 105. Iraq -.17
10. Burkina Faso .84 58. Slovakia .37 106. Iran -.18
11. Botswana .82 59. Zaire .36 107. Israel -.18
12. Albania .79 60. Sweden .32 108. Netherlands -.21
13. Central African Rep. .79 61. Croatia .31 109. Bhutan -.27
14. Congo .76 62. Chad .30 110. Saudi Arabia -.30
15. Honduras .76 63. Somalia .29 111. Bulgaria -.32
16. Burundi .76 64. Uruguay .29 112. United Kingdom -.32
17. Senegal .74 65. Mongolia .28 113. Romania -.33
18. Zimbabwe .74 66. Tajikistan .27 114. Russia -.33
19. Malawi .73 67. Bosnia and Herze. .23 115. Cambodia -.43
20. Zambia .70 68. Kazakhstan .21 116. Malaysia -.46
21. Rwanda .70 69. Macedonia .21 117. Vietnam -.48
22. Uganda .70 70. Argentina .18 118. China -.59
23. Latvia .69 71. Hungary .16 119. Brazil -.67
24. Ghana .69 72. Ecuador .15 120. Chile -.68
25. Bolivia .68 73. Colombia .15 121. Oman -.68
26. Namibia .66 74. Ethiopia .14 122. United Arab Emirates -.69
27. Byelarus .65 75. Mauritania .14 123. Sri Lanka -.71
28. Moldova .65 76. Peru .13 124. Bangladesh -.72
29. Venezuela .61 77. Lebanon .12 125. Australia -.73
30. Gabon .61 78. Azerbaijan .09 126. Portugal -.74
31. Switzerland .61 79. Tunisia .07 127. Spain -.80
32. Angola .61 80. Kenya .07 128. Papua New Guinea -.84
33. Guinea .60 81. Italy .05 129. Jamaica -1.09
34. Estonia .59 82. Turkmenistan .05 130. India -1.17
35. Niger .59 83. Germany .04 131. Japan -1.23
36. Canada .57 84. Algeria .04 132. Indonesia -1.35
37. Costa Rica .57 85. Greece .04 133. Dominican Republic -1.37
38. Sudan .56 86. Pakistan .03 134. Iceland -1.42
39. Lithuania .55 87. Egypt .01 135. Kuwait -1.84
40. Paraguay .55 88. Norway .01 136. Cuba -2.20
41. Kyrgyzstan .54 89. Tanzania -.01 137. Madagascar -2.22
42. Sierra Leone .53 90. Jordan -.04 138. North Korea -2.40
43. Armenia .53 91. Turkey -.04 139. South Korea -2.57
44. Ivory Coast .53 92. Ukraine -.05 140. Haiti -3.25
45. Mali .52 93. Poland -.05 141. Philippines -3.43
46. Nigeria .51 94. Belgium -.05 142. New Zealand -4.16
47. Czech Republic .50 95. Myanmar (Burma) -.06
48. Finland .47 96. Ireland -.07
66
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
Indicator: Land
1 .Libya 1.66 49. Ethiopia .31 97. Bosnia and Herze. -.37
2. Iceland 1.65 50. Malawi .30 98. Azerbaijan -.38
3. Mauritania 1.64 51. Morocco .29 99. Haiti -.39
4. Algeria 1.63 52. South Africa .26 100. Costa Rica -.45
5. Canada 1.60 53. Myanmar (Burma) .24 101. Philippines -.47
6. Niger 1.52 54. Sweden .24 102. Spain -.49
7. Australia 1.50 55. Kyrgyzstan .23 103. India -.51
8. Gabon 1.50 56. Mexico .22 104. Portugal -.57
9. Congo 1.47 57. Cambodia .22 105. Moldova -.59
10. Mongolia 1.45 58. Uganda .18 106. Byelarus -.59
11. Botswana 1.39 59. Tanzania .17 107. El Salvador -.66
12. Namibia 1.37 60. Cameroon .17 108. Greece -.67
13. Egypt 1.32 61. Indonesia .16 109. Macedonia -.68
14. Russia 1.28 62. Laos .14 110. Estonia -.69
15. Bolivia 1.25 63. Guatemala .11 111. North Korea -.73
16. Chad 1.23 64. Liberia .10 112. Gambia -.73
17. Mali 1.23 65. Burundi .08 113. Lithuania -.76
18. Oman 1.08 66. Nicaragua .08 114. Ukraine -.79
19. Central African Rep. 1.06 67. Ivory Coast .06 115. Lebanon -.79
20. Venezuela 1.01 68. Rwanda .06 116. Slovenia -.80
21. Brazil .96 69. Bhutan .05 117. Israel -.80
22. Colombia .93 70. Benin .04 118. Bulgaria -.85
23. Peru .92 71. Iraq .03 119. Romania -.86
24. Saudi Arabia .90 72. Burkina Faso .02 120. Croatia -.89
25. Angola .90 73. Iran .01 121. Latvia -.89
26. Paraguay .89 74. Honduras .01 122. Bangladesh -.89
27. Sudan .85 75. Jordan .00 123. Austria -.92
28. Kazakhstan .79 76. Panama -.02 124. Sri Lanka -.93
29. Kenya .76 77. Senegal -.02 125. Ireland -.99
30. Papua New Guinea .73 78. Nepal -.04 126. Jamaica -1.00
31. Chile .71 79. Guinea -.05 127. Trinidad and Tobago -1.02
32. Argentina .59 80. Nigeria -.06 128. Cuba -1.14
33. Uzbekistan .50 81. Zimbabwe -.07 129. South Korea -1.15
34. Zambia .48 82. Ghana -.07 130. Slovakia -1.18
35. New Zealand .47 83. Syria -.09 131. Poland -1.28
36. China .45 84. Togo -.09 132. Italy -1.32
37. Turkmenistan .43 85. Thailand -.11 133. France -1.34
38. Finland .43 86. United Arab Emirates -.13 134. Czech Republic -1.44
39. Mozambique .41 87. Turkey -.13 135. Hungary -1.46
40. Norway .39 88. Armenia -.14 136. Switzerland -1.46
41. Zaire .39 89. Guinea-Bissau -.16 137. Japan -1.67
42. United States .38 90. Pakistan -.17 138. United Kingdom -1.77
43. Ecuador .38 91. Uruguay -.17 139. Germany -1.82
44. Somalia .38 92. Vietnam -.17 140. Denmark -1.98
45. Malaysia .37 93. Sierra Leone -.24 141. Belgium -1.98
46. Tajikistan .33 94. Dominican Republic -.31 142. Netherlands -1.98
47. Madagascar .32 95. Albania -.32
48. Tunisia .31 96. Kuwait -.37
67
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
68
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
69
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
70
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
71
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
72
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
73
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
74
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
75
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
76
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
77
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
78
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
Indicator: Eco-efficiency
1. Laos 2.62 49. Myanmar (Burma) .17 97. Egypt -.22
2. Paraguay 2.36 50. Gambia .16 98. Bosnia and Herze. -.23
3. Bhutan 2.35 51. Bangladesh .14 99. United Kingdom -.23
4. Mozambique 2.21 52. Niger .12 100. Croatia -.24
5. Uganda 1.35 53. Bolivia .11 101. Malaysia -.31
6. Albania 1.25 54. Namibia .11 102. Romania -.32
7. Zambia 1.20 55. Chile .10 103. Algeria -.34
8. Costa Rica 1.08 56. Dominican Republic .08 104. Estonia -.34
9. Malawi 1.02 57. Cuba .08 105. Australia -.35
10. Zaire .99 58. Panama .07 106. Hungary -.38
11. Ghana .91 59. Gabon .07 107. United States -.40
12. Cameroon .89 60. Togo .06 108. Netherlands -.41
13. Tanzania .85 61. Morocco .05 109. South Korea -.42
14. Ethiopia .85 62. Argentina .04 110. Belgium -.43
15. Uruguay .74 63. India .04 111. Slovakia -.46
16. Mali .70 64. Pakistan .04 112. Macedonia -.50
17. Norway .70 65. Ecuador .03 113. Czech Republic -.50
18. Nepal .64 66. Turkey .03 114. Lebanon -.52
19. Brazil .63 67. Somalia .03 115. Mauritania -.53
20. Sri Lanka .63 68. Congo .02 116. Poland -.53
21. Madagascar .61 69. Portugal .01 117. Jordan -.54
22. Burundi .60 70. Zimbabwe .01 118. South Africa -.54
23. Iceland .60 71. Italy -.01 119. Libya -.59
24. Guinea .59 72. Slovenia -.02 120. Lithuania -.61
25. Switzerland .59 73. Senegal -.03 121. Syria -.62
26. Peru .57 74. Latvia -.03 122. Iran -.64
27. Colombia .56 75. Indonesia -.03 123. Oman -.69
28. Central African Rep. .56 76. Botswana -.04 124. Venezuela -.76
29. El Salvador .54 77. China -.07 125. Kuwait -.81
30. Philippines .50 78. Liberia -.07 126. Jamaica -.84
31. Austria .48 79. Denmark -.07 127. Moldova -.84
32. Kenya .47 80. Ivory Coast -.08 128. Byelarus -.85
33. Haiti .47 81. Tunisia -.09 129. Tajikistan -.86
34. Vietnam .47 82. Ireland -.10 130. Mongolia -.94
35. Guatemala .39 83. Japan -.10 131. Kazakhstan -1.02
36. Rwanda .38 84. France -.10 132. Bulgaria -1.04
37. Cambodia .38 85. Guinea-Bissau -.10 133. Turkmenistan -1.04
38. Papua New Guinea .37 86. Armenia -.11 134. North Korea -1.12
39. Honduras .37 87. Mexico -.11 135. Saudi Arabia -1.13
40. Burkina Faso .35 88. Nigeria -.11 136. Iraq -1.16
41. Benin .34 89. Finland -.11 137. Russia -1.23
42. New Zealand .31 90. Spain -.13 138. United Arab Emirates -1.35
43. Angola .30 91. Thailand -.13 139. Azerbaijan -1.61
44. Kyrgyzstan .26 92. Sierra Leone -.14 140. Uzbekistan -2.05
45. Sweden .25 93. Germany -.18 141. Ukraine -2.16
46. Sudan .25 94. Canada -.18 142. Trinidad and Tobago -2.21
47. Chad .20 95. Greece -.20
48. Nicaragua .18 96. Israel -.22
79
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
80
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
81
2002 ESI: Annex 4 Component and Indicator Tables
82
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
The following pages provide information In the upper right of each page we show a
about the 142 countries in the Environmental graph that provides a snapshot of a country’s
Sustainability Index. performance along the five components of
environmental sustainability. These graphs
In the upper left of each page we report a have five axes that begin at a single point and
country’s Environmental Sustainability Index radiate out in opposite directions. A country’s
score and its rank (out of the 142 countries in score for each component is marked on each
the ESI). We also report the average Index axis, and then the points are connected to form
score for the countries in the country’s peer a closed area. The size of this area is a meas-
group as defined by GDP per capita (Purchas- ure of its overall performance on these five
ing Power Parity). Peer groups were assigned components. The shape of the area reflects the
by dividing the countries of the index into five particular distribution of scores across the five
equal groups, sorted by GDP per capita, as components. These provide a useful bench-
follows: mark for comparing performance in a slightly
more precise manner than the single Index
Table A3.1: Peer Groups score.
Quintile GDP per capita Average ESI Both the Index score and the Component
score scores are presented as standard normal per-
1 $14,171 - $30,597 54.5 centiles. These have a theoretically possible
2 $5,847 - $12,891 53.5 range of 0-100; the actual range is determined
3 $2,844 - $5,790 48.2 by the shape of the distribution of scores
4 $1,309- $2,606 47.3 across all the countries. In all cases higher
5 $433 - $1,276 44.2 scores represent higher measures of environ-
mental sustainability.
We use income to assign peer groups not be-
cause we wish to privilege the view that in- Finally, we present the scores of the 20 indica-
come determines environmental performance. tors in a set of bar graphs. The shaded bars
To the contrary, one of our conclusions is that represent the scores of the country, and the
within similar levels of economic performance empty bars show the average scores for the
countries exhibit significant variation in their peer group. These scores represent the aver-
levels of environmental sustainability. By age of the standardized z-scores of the vari-
comparing a country’s Index score with that of ables that comprise the indicators. Higher
others in its peer group, one can get a useful numbers represent higher levels of perform-
measure of how effective its environmental ance; scores near the central axis are closer to
efforts are. the mean score for that indicator for the com-
plete set of 142 countries included in the ESI.
83
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Albania
Environmental Systems
100
62
ESI: 57.9
47
Variable coverage (out of 68): 50
60
0.36
Air Quality -0.02
0.01
Water Quantity -0.31
0.71
Water Quality -0.12
0.79
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.32
Land 0.03
0.54
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.44
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.03
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.41
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.27
Reducing population growth 0.2
-0.20
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.69
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.31
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.27
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.61
Governance -0.46
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
1.25
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.88
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.79
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.78
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
84
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Algeria
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.4
50
-0.42
Air Quality -0.02
-1.04
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.18
Water Quality -0.12
0.04
Biodiversity -0.13
1.63
Land 0.03
0.12
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.18
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.76
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.51
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.09
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.75
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.02
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.53
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.57
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.93
Governance -0.46
0.02
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.34
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.09
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.14
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.03
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
85
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Angola
Environmental Systems
100
63
ESI: 42.4
-1.07
Air Quality -0.33
1.26
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.08
Water Quality -0.24
0.61
Biodiversity 0.1
0.90
Land 0.13
0.39
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.76
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.19
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.90
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.47
Reducing population growth -0.31
-2.10
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-2.05
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.17
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.13
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.82
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.30
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-1.03
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.75
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.42
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
86
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Argentina
Environmental Systems
100
72
ESI: 61.5
75
Missing variables imputed: 1
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.76
Air Quality 0.36
0.50
Water Quantity 0.17
0.94
Water Quality 0.18
0.18
Biodiversity 0.16
0.59
Land 0.03
0.54
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.36
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.05
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.03
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.35
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.51
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.85
Environmental Health 0.58
0.26
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.15
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.24
Governance 0.03
-0.49
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.04
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.10
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.28
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.41
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
87
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Armenia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 54.8
50
43
Variable coverage (out of 68): 44 51
0.55
Air Quality -0.33
-0.42
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.47
Water Quality -0.24
0.53
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.14
Land 0.13
0.12
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.20
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.76
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.77
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
1.07
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.59
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.64
Environmental Health -0.46
0.09
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.04
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.46
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.11
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.85
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.49
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
1.08
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
88
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Australia
Environmental Systems
100
66
ESI: 60.3
1.41
Air Quality 0.68
-0.44
Water Quantity -0.17
0.33
Water Quality 0.58
-0.73
Biodiversity -0.44
1.50
Land -0.58
-1.22
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.38
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.26
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.92
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.71
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
1.52
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.96
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.23
Governance 0.67
0.35
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.35
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.86
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-1.74
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.03
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
89
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Austria
Environmental Systems
100
65
ESI: 64.2
0.99
Air Quality 0.68
0.17
Water Quantity -0.17
1.22
Water Quality 0.58
0.40
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.92
Land -0.58
-0.27
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.14
Reducing water stress -0.61
-1.17
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.97
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.02
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.03
Environmental Health 0.97
1.01
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.40
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.17
Governance 0.67
0.19
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.48
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.00
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.20
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.49
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
90
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Azerbaijian
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.8
44
Ranking: 113 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
28
GDP/Capita: $2,254 61
0
0.38
Air Quality -0.33
-0.12
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.69
Water Quality -0.24
0.09
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.38
Land 0.13
0.25
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.49
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.76
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.35
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.55
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.60
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.48
Environmental Health -0.46
0.12
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.47
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.56
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-1.61
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.33
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
-1.67
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.24
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
91
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Bangladesh
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.9
41
Ranking: 86 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 60 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,420 65
0
0.28
Air Quality -0.33
0.19
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.01
Water Quality -0.24
-0.72
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.89
Land 0.13
-0.07
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.25
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.76
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.95
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.09
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.00
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.49
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.46
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.00
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.76
Governance -0.41
-0.57
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.14
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.45
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.85
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.33
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
92
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Belgium
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 39.1
0.67
Air Quality 0.68
-0.40
Water Quantity -0.17
-1.47
Water Quality 0.58
-0.05
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.98
Land -0.58
-3.87
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.47
Reducing water stress -0.61
-1.78
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.41
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.96
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.74
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.15
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.37
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.67
Governance 0.67
0.22
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.43
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.92
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.51
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.14
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
93
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Benin
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.7
43
Ranking: 95 Global Reducing
73
Stew ardship Stresses
GDP/Capita: $897 50
0
-1.11
Air Quality -0.67
0.16
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.86
Water Quality -0.37
0.90
Biodiversity 0.28
0.04
Land 0.35
0.54
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.63
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.46
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.84
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.54
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.34
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.27
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.38
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.31
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.39
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.34
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.86
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.46
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
94
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Bhutan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 56.3
49
-0.49
Air Quality -0.67
0.40
Water Quantity 0.09
0.23
Water Quality -0.37
-0.27
Biodiversity 0.28
0.05
Land 0.35
0.61
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.70
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.92
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.02
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.84
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.13
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.64
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.58
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.35
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
2.35
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.14
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.58
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
1.21
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
95
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Bolivia
Environmental Systems
100
71
ESI: 59.4
-0.34
Air Quality -0.33
1.61
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.42
Water Quality -0.24
0.68
Biodiversity 0.1
1.25
Land 0.13
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.48
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.22
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.71
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.46
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.14
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.19
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.77
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.78
Capacity for Debate -0.19
0.56
Governance -0.41
-0.78
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.11
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.21
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.19
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.55
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
96
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
ESI: 51.3
46
45
Variable coverage (out of 68): 40
64
Missing variables imputed: 14
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.13
Air Quality -0.33
0.34
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.86
Water Quality -0.24
0.23
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.37
Land 0.13
0.30
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.57
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.73
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.71
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.96
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.18
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.53
Environmental Health -0.46
0.30
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.13
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.42
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.23
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-1.12
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.11
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.29
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
97
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Botswana
Environmental Systems
100
77
ESI: 61.8
0.58
Air Quality 0.36
0.35
Water Quantity 0.17
0.58
Water Quality 0.18
0.82
Biodiversity 0.16
1.39
Land 0.03
-1.25
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.58
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.55
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.50
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.25
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
-0.20
Environmental Health 0.58
0.14
Science/Tech. 0.1
1.49
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.16
Governance 0.03
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.04
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.04
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.36
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.18
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
98
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Brazil
Environmental Systems
100
66
ESI: 59.6
66
Missing variables imputed: 3
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.04
Air Quality 0.36
1.16
Water Quantity 0.17
0.62
Water Quality 0.18
-0.67
Biodiversity 0.16
0.96
Land 0.03
0.33
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.48
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.27
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.42
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.44
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.38
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.22
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.20
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.17
Governance 0.03
-0.13
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.63
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.13
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.55
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.42
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
99
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Bulgaria
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.3
36
Ranking: 71 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 53 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $4,967 59
0
-1.03
Air Quality -0.02
0.41
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.01
Water Quality -0.12
-0.32
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.85
Land 0.03
-0.25
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.17
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.09
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-0.04
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
1.22
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.75
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.87
Environmental Health 0.24
0.34
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.02
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.35
Governance -0.46
-0.56
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-1.04
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.73
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.79
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.29
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
100
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Burkina Faso
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.0
45
Ranking: 101 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 68 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $920 55
0
-0.41
Air Quality -0.67
-0.81
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.31
Water Quality -0.37
0.84
Biodiversity 0.28
0.02
Land 0.35
0.53
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.25
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.87
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.71
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.88
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.65
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.30
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.03
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.09
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.35
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.11
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.89
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.43
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
101
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Burundi
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.6
45
Ranking: 116 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 65 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $584 46
0
-0.43
Air Quality -0.67
-0.31
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.72
Water Quality -0.37
0.76
Biodiversity 0.28
0.08
Land 0.35
0.36
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.52
-1.11
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.93
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.47
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.65
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.40
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.21
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.35
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.21
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.60
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.19
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.94
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.40
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
102
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Byelarus
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 52.8 53
0.81
Air Quality 0.36
-0.10
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.38
Water Quality 0.18
0.65
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.59
Land 0.03
0.38
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.19
Reducing water stress 0.01
1.25
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.28
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.12
Reducing population growth 0.51
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.57
Environmental Health 0.58
0.09
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.70
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.66
Governance 0.03
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.85
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.60
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.57
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.43
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
103
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Cambodia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.6
47
-0.40
Air Quality -0.33
0.70
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.47
Water Quality -0.24
-0.43
Biodiversity 0.1
0.22
Land 0.13
0.01
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.43
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.90
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.03
Reducing population growth -0.31
-1.88
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.90
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.02
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.25
Capacity for Debate -0.19
0.24
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.38
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-1.03
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.95
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.71
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
104
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Cameroon
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.9
47
-0.80
Air Quality -0.33
0.31
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.48
Water Quality -0.24
0.43
Biodiversity 0.1
0.17
Land 0.13
0.52
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.78
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.88
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.86
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.67
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-1.39
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.92
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.65
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.66
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.89
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.10
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.91
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
-0.02
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
105
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Canada
Environmental Systems
100 90
ESI: 70.6
1.03
Air Quality 0.68
1.97
Water Quantity -0.17
1.35
Water Quality 0.58
0.57
Biodiversity -0.44
1.60
Land -0.58
-0.75
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.60
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.15
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.24
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.86
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.02
Environmental Health 0.97
1.59
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.38
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.97
Governance 0.67
0.65
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.18
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.88
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-1.31
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.37
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
106
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Central Africa
Environmental Systems
100
69
ESI: 54.1
-0.21
Air Quality -0.67
1.22
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.44
Water Quality -0.37
0.79
Biodiversity 0.28
1.06
Land 0.35
0.18
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.76
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.78
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-0.54
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.28
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.36
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.31
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.17
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.34
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.56
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.53
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.93
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
1.06
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
107
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Chad
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.7 59
-0.59
Air Quality -0.67
0.13
Water Quantity 0.09
0.09
Water Quality -0.37
0.30
Biodiversity 0.28
1.23
Land 0.35
0.55
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.71
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.11
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.93
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.09
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.81
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.73
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.58
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.34
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.20
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.20
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.14
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.97
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.48
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
108
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Chile
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 55.1
50
-0.03
Air Quality 0.36
0.16
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.13
Water Quality 0.18
-0.68
Biodiversity 0.16
0.71
Land 0.03
0.13
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.17
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.12
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.58
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.81
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.87
Environmental Health 0.58
0.18
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.01
Capacity for Debate 0.04
1.01
Governance 0.03
-0.33
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.10
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.13
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.09
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-1.26
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
109
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
China
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 38.5
-1.28
Air Quality -0.02
-0.74
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.25
Water Quality -0.12
-0.59
Biodiversity -0.13
0.45
Land 0.03
-0.27
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.56
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.24
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.49
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.84
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.16
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.45
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.19
Science/Tech. -0.26
-1.20
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.48
Governance -0.46
-0.18
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.07
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.12
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.02
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-2.56
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
110
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Colombia
Environmental Systems
100
70
ESI: 59.1
43
Variable coverage (out of 68): 60
72
Missing variables imputed: 4
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.04
Air Quality 0.36
1.54
Water Quantity 0.17
0.02
Water Quality 0.18
0.15
Biodiversity 0.16
0.93
Land 0.03
0.31
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.04
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.47
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.22
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.45
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.69
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.58
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.25
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.29
Governance 0.03
-0.37
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.56
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.14
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.54
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.24
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
111
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Congo
Environmental Systems
100
76
ESI: 54.3
-0.81
Air Quality -0.67
1.95
Water Quantity 0.09
0.14
Water Quality -0.37
0.76
Biodiversity 0.28
1.47
Land 0.35
0.43
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.67
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.77
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.01
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.18
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.16
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.32
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.27
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.51
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.02
Eco-efficiency 0.49
1.40
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.01
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
-0.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
112
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Costa Rica
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 63.2
52
81
Missing variables imputed: 5 79
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.16
Air Quality 0.36
0.40
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.16
Water Quality 0.18
0.57
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.45
Land 0.03
0.56
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-1.64
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.05
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.11
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.32
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.88
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.73
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.07
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.98
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.74
Governance 0.03
1.69
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
1.08
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.24
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.67
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.21
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
113
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Croatia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 62.5 53
0.58
Air Quality 0.36
0.55
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.13
Water Quality 0.18
0.31
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.89
Land 0.03
0.20
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.25
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.21
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.28
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.11
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.46
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.99
Environmental Health 0.58
0.13
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.24
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.56
Governance 0.03
2.33
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.24
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.51
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.11
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.50
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
114
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Cuba
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.2
43
Variable coverage (out of 68): 51
73
Missing variables imputed: 6
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
1.29
Air Quality -0.02
-1.03
Water Quantity -0.31
0.64
Water Quality -0.12
-2.20
Biodiversity -0.13
-1.14
Land 0.03
0.41
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.07
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.76
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.36
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.97
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.44
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.76
Environmental Health 0.24
0.71
Science/Tech. -0.26
-1.07
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.23
Governance -0.46
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.08
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.19
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.18
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.14
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
115
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Czech Republic
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.2 53
1.02
Air Quality 0.36
-0.40
Water Quantity 0.17
0.67
Water Quality 0.18
0.50
Biodiversity 0.16
-1.44
Land 0.03
-1.45
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.20
Reducing water stress 0.01
-1.71
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.51
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.13
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.65
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
1.01
Environmental Health 0.58
0.74
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.31
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.36
Governance 0.03
-0.13
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.50
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.57
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-1.17
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.30
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
116
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Denmark
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 56.2
44
Ranking: 32 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 54 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $25,341
0 29
82
Missing variables imputed: 4 82
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.73
Air Quality 0.68
-1.02
Water Quantity -0.17
1.06
Water Quality 0.58
0.44
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.98
Land -0.58
-1.00
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.03
Reducing water stress -0.61
-1.30
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.20
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.79
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.77
Environmental Health 0.97
1.25
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.75
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.03
Governance 0.67
1.52
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.07
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.04
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.52
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.20
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
117
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Dominican Republic
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.4
37
Ranking: 79 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 48 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $5,107 65
0
0.58
Air Quality -0.02
-0.72
Water Quantity -0.31
0.16
Water Quality -0.12
-1.37
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.31
Land 0.03
0.52
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.39
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.68
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.04
Reducing population growth 0.2
-0.23
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.30
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.78
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.53
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.42
Governance -0.46
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.08
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.55
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.25
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.11
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
118
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ecuador
Environmental Systems
100
65
ESI: 54.3
0.66
Air Quality -0.02
0.43
Water Quantity -0.31
0.36
Water Quality -0.12
0.15
Biodiversity -0.13
0.38
Land 0.03
0.36
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.47
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.09
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.32
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.15
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.18
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.39
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.69
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.39
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.90
Governance -0.46
-0.51
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.03
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.09
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.08
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.19
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
119
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Egypt
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.8 54
-0.03
Air Quality -0.02
-0.27
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.55
Water Quality -0.12
0.01
Biodiversity -0.13
1.32
Land 0.03
-1.25
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.82
Reducing water stress -0.16
1.44
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.44
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.02
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.84
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.22
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.48
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.91
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.29
Governance -0.46
-0.12
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.22
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.14
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.29
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.10
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
120
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
El Salvador
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.7
50
-0.22
Air Quality -0.02
-0.18
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.01
Water Quality -0.12
1.08
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.66
Land 0.03
0.45
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.16
Reducing water stress -0.16
-1.11
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.61
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.21
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.04
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.10
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.80
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.40
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.52
Governance -0.46
-0.81
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.54
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.25
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.65
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.31
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
121
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Estonia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 60.0 58
0.39
Air Quality 0.36
0.22
Water Quantity 0.17
0.46
Water Quality 0.18
0.59
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.69
Land 0.03
0.46
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.70
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.52
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.64
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.21
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.51
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.92
Environmental Health 0.58
0.53
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.82
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.21
Governance 0.03
0.19
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.34
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.62
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-1.75
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.12
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
122
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ethiopia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.8
44
Ranking: 114 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 67 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $598 55
0
40
Variable coverage (out of 68): 45
-0.18
Air Quality -0.67
-1.00
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.07
Water Quality -0.37
0.14
Biodiversity 0.28
0.31
Land 0.35
0.55
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.50
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.05
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.89
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.36
Reducing population growth -1.17
-2.27
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.67
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.41
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.21
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.12
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.85
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.32
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.95
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.65
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
123
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Finland
Environmental Systems
100
79
ESI: 73.9
1.20
Air Quality 0.68
0.29
Water Quantity -0.17
1.59
Water Quality 0.58
0.47
Biodiversity -0.44
0.43
Land -0.58
0.28
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.36
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.92
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.97
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.84
Science/Tech. 1.15
-0.09
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.92
Governance 0.67
2.87
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.11
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.12
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.61
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.13
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
124
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
France
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 55.5
51
GDP/Capita: $22,042
35
0
0.83
Air Quality 0.68
-0.29
Water Quantity -0.17
1.02
Water Quality 0.58
-0.14
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.34
Land -0.58
-0.53
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.22
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.13
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.91
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.80
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.84
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.03
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.16
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.04
Governance 0.67
0.33
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.10
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.02
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
0.02
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.69
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
125
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Gabon
Environmental Systems
100
81
ESI: 54.9
-0.50
Air Quality 0.36
3.00
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.18
Water Quality 0.18
0.61
Biodiversity 0.16
1.50
Land 0.03
0.56
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.48
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.40
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
-0.12
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.03
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
-1.34
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.97
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.28
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.69
Governance 0.03
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.07
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.11
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.36
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.27
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
126
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Gambia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 44.7
40
Ranking: 102 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 55 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,504 59
0
-0.93
Air Quality -0.33
0.13
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.66
Water Quality -0.24
0.96
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.73
Land 0.13
0.41
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.75
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.66
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.83
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.57
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.37
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.28
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.38
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.51
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.08
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.16
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.60
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.86
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.10
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
127
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Germany
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 52.5
45
1.00
Air Quality 0.68
-0.24
Water Quantity -0.17
0.43
Water Quality 0.58
0.04
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.82
Land -0.58
-2.55
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.09
Reducing water stress -0.61
-1.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.74
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.12
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.73
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.02
Environmental Health 0.97
1.44
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.12
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.21
Governance 0.67
0.89
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.18
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.27
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.55
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.75
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
128
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ghana
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.2 52
-0.48
Air Quality -0.33
-0.27
Water Quantity 0.2
0.42
Water Quality -0.24
0.69
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.07
Land 0.13
0.38
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.54
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.26
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.78
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.20
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.32
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.60
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.05
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.12
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.81
Governance -0.41
-0.40
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.91
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.31
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.85
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
-0.23
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
129
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Greece
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.9
44
Ranking: 60 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
45
GDP/Capita: $14,651 50
0
-0.15
Air Quality 0.68
-0.20
Water Quantity -0.17
0.20
Water Quality 0.58
0.04
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.67
Land -0.58
-0.20
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.46
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.54
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.03
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.10
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.81
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
0.39
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.25
Capacity for Debate 0.38
-0.22
Governance 0.67
-0.42
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.20
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.49
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.44
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.39
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
130
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Guatemala
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.6 54
-0.49
Air Quality -0.02
0.08
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.12
Water Quality -0.12
0.91
Biodiversity -0.13
0.11
Land 0.03
0.37
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.46
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.26
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.51
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.91
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.20
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.09
Environmental Health 0.24
-1.12
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.05
Capacity for Debate -0.09
0.03
Governance -0.46
-0.63
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.39
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.66
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.66
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.44
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
131
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Guinea-Bissau
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.3
50
-0.90
Air Quality -0.67
0.43
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.12
Water Quality -0.37
0.60
Biodiversity 0.28
-0.05
Land 0.35
0.60
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.75
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.15
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.89
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.07
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.29
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.51
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.91
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.35
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.19
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.59
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.87
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.89
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.40
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
132
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Guinea
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 38.8
37
Ranking: 98 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 56 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,893 60
0
-1.02
Air Quality -0.33
-0.31
Water Quantity 0.2
-1.20
Water Quality -0.24
1.07
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.16
Land 0.13
0.56
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.91
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.33
Reducing population growth -0.31
-1.55
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-1.73
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.86
Science/Tech. -0.76
1.02
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.62
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.10
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.73
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.67
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.35
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
133
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Haiti
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 34.8
-0.21
Air Quality -0.33
-0.74
Water Quantity 0.2
0.03
Water Quality -0.24
-3.25
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.39
Land 0.13
0.63
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.32
-1.11
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.92
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.38
Reducing population growth -0.31
-2.05
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.78
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.19
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.20
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.52
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.47
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.55
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.87
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.30
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
134
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Honduras
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 53.1 57
-0.11
Air Quality -0.33
0.37
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.12
Water Quality -0.24
0.76
Biodiversity 0.1
0.01
Land 0.13
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.01
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.02
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.66
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.38
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.18
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.39
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.98
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.36
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.37
Governance -0.41
-0.44
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.37
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.65
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.57
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.47
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
135
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Hungary
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 62.7 54
0.63
Air Quality 0.36
0.23
Water Quantity 0.17
0.91
Water Quality 0.18
0.16
Biodiversity 0.16
-1.46
Land 0.03
-0.19
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.23
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.30
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.22
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.15
Reducing population growth 0.51
1.03
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.98
Environmental Health 0.58
0.67
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.05
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.65
Governance 0.03
0.58
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.38
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.66
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.18
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.67
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
136
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Iceland
Environmental Systems
100
73
ESI: 63.9
79
Missing variables imputed: 7 84
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
1.11
Air Quality 0.68
1.55
Water Quantity -0.17
0.18
Water Quality 0.58
-1.42
Biodiversity -0.44
1.65
Land -0.58
-1.38
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.35
Reducing water stress -0.61
1.07
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.20
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.72
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.97
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.99
Environmental Health 0.97
1.04
Science/Tech. 1.15
1.38
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.80
Governance 0.67
0.19
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.60
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.45
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.12
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.10
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
137
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
India
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.6
0.06
Air Quality -0.33
-0.49
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.90
Water Quality -0.24
-1.17
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.51
Land 0.13
-0.05
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.19
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.35
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.44
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.11
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.07
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.38
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.49
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.02
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.22
Governance -0.41
-0.47
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.04
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.02
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.37
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
-0.78
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
138
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Indonesia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.1
Ranking: 100 33
Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
45
GDP/Capita: $2,808 61
0
-0.18
Air Quality -0.33
-0.32
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.56
Water Quality -0.24
-1.35
Biodiversity 0.1
0.16
Land 0.13
0.42
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.47
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.34
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.50
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.32
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.28
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.10
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.65
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.23
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.26
Governance -0.41
-0.45
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.03
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.09
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.47
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
-0.90
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
139
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Iran
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 44.5
41
Ranking: 104 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
41
GDP/Capita: $5,421 58
0
71
Missing variables imputed: 6
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.85
Air Quality -0.02
-0.49
Water Quantity -0.31
0.38
Water Quality -0.12
-0.18
Biodiversity -0.13
0.01
Land 0.03
0.51
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.40
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.29
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.32
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.80
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.29
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.43
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.60
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-1.02
Governance -0.46
-0.39
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.64
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.07
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.35
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.23
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
140
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Iraq
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 33.2
35
Ranking: 139 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
30
GDP/Capita: $3,197 48
0
34
Variable coverage (out of 68): 44
-1.05
Air Quality -0.02
-0.08
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.66
Water Quality -0.12
-0.17
Biodiversity -0.13
0.03
Land 0.03
0.27
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.47
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.53
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.94
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.27
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-1.10
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.32
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.85
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-1.31
Governance -0.46
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-1.16
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-1.31
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.61
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.32
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
141
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ireland
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 54.8 57
1.05
Air Quality 0.68
0.04
Water Quantity -0.17
0.87
Water Quality 0.58
-0.07
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.99
Land -0.58
0.15
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.90
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.58
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.74
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.98
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.19
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.59
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.56
Governance 0.67
0.33
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.10
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.22
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.60
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.28
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
142
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Israel
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.4
39
Ranking: 63 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 50 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $18,270
35
0
0.55
Air Quality 0.68
-1.07
Water Quantity -0.17
0.13
Water Quality 0.58
-0.18
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.80
Land -0.58
-1.33
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.20
Reducing water stress -0.61
1.47
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.95
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.12
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.71
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
1.19
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.44
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.72
Governance 0.67
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.22
Eco-efficiency -0.11
-0.10
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.67
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.78
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
143
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Italy
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 47.2
Ranking: 84 33
Global Reducing
Stew ardship 46 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $21,644
36
0
-0.26
Air Quality 0.68
-0.92
Water Quantity -0.17
0.23
Water Quality 0.58
0.05
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.32
Land -0.58
-1.06
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.43
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.13
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.39
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.18
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.86
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.02
Environmental Health 0.97
0.59
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.22
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.56
Governance 0.67
-0.33
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.01
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.67
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.13
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.82
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
144
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ivory Coast
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 43.4
45
-1.18
Air Quality -0.33
-0.10
Water Quantity 0.2
0.11
Water Quality -0.24
0.53
Biodiversity 0.1
0.06
Land 0.13
0.43
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.56
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.74
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.85
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.85
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.01
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-1.51
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.97
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.54
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.07
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.08
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.03
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.36
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.20
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
145
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Jamaica
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 40.1
47
Variable coverage (out of 68): 51
61
Missing variables imputed: 11
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.19
Air Quality -0.02
-1.01
Water Quantity -0.31
-1.06
Water Quality -0.12
-1.09
Biodiversity -0.13
-1.00
Land 0.03
-0.65
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.00
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.19
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.15
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.40
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.08
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.50
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.43
Science/Tech. -0.26
1.00
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.09
Governance -0.46
-0.07
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.84
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.14
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.69
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.07
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
146
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Japan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.6
Ranking: 78 33
Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
38
GDP/Capita: $24,441
0 29
0.53
Air Quality 0.68
-1.02
Water Quantity -0.17
1.16
Water Quality 0.58
-1.23
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.67
Land -0.58
-2.17
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.58
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.02
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-1.17
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.16
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.92
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.92
Environmental Health 0.97
1.52
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.10
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.89
Governance 0.67
0.97
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.10
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.85
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.36
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-1.41
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
147
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Jordan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.7
43
Ranking: 53 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 56 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $3,822 51
0
71
Missing variables imputed: 7
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.34
Air Quality -0.02
-0.70
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.53
Water Quality -0.12
-0.04
Biodiversity -0.13
0.00
Land 0.03
0.22
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.45
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.54
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.49
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.83
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.27
Environmental Health 0.24
0.37
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.41
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.33
Governance -0.46
0.14
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.54
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.04
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.03
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
148
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Kazakhstan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.5
51
71
Missing variables imputed: 9
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.60
Air Quality -0.02
0.09
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.41
Water Quality -0.12
0.21
Biodiversity -0.13
0.79
Land 0.03
0.51
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.09
Reducing water stress -0.16
1.07
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-0.57
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.92
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.52
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.57
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.22
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.48
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.83
Governance -0.46
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-1.02
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.59
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-1.60
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.41
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
149
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Kenya
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.3 52
0.08
Air Quality -0.67
-0.33
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.35
Water Quality -0.37
0.07
Biodiversity 0.28
0.76
Land 0.35
0.39
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.32
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.15
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.77
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
0.02
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.66
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.89
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.02
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.51
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.40
Governance -0.21
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.47
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.02
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.65
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
-0.01
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
150
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Kuwait
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 23.9
0.03
Air Quality 0.68
-1.09
Water Quantity -0.17
-1.10
Water Quality 0.58
-1.84
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.37
Land -0.58
-1.19
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-2.79
Reducing water stress -0.61
1.47
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.84
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
-1.00
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.47
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.97
Environmental Health 0.97
0.10
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.04
Capacity for Debate 0.38
-0.65
Governance 0.67
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.81
Eco-efficiency -0.11
-0.64
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-2.15
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.39
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
151
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Kyrgyzstan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.3
44
Ranking: 58 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 47 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $2,452 67
0
45
Variable coverage (out of 68): 43 52
-0.28
Air Quality -0.33
-0.95
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.35
Water Quality -0.24
0.54
Biodiversity 0.1
0.23
Land 0.13
0.56
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.39
Reducing water stress 0.32
1.20
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.48
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.37
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.15
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.03
Environmental Health -0.46
0.20
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.02
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.69
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.26
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-1.18
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.30
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.66
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
152
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Laos
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 56.2 58
-0.59
Air Quality -0.33
1.41
Water Quantity 0.2
0.13
Water Quality -0.24
-0.13
Biodiversity 0.1
0.14
Land 0.13
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.72
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.87
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.58
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.03
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.72
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.35
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.62
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.33
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
2.62
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.95
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.78
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
153
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Latvia
Environmental Systems
100
63
ESI: 63.0
75
Missing variables imputed: 5
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.41
Air Quality 0.36
0.26
Water Quantity 0.17
1.18
Water Quality 0.18
0.69
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.89
Land 0.03
0.58
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.54
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.39
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.28
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.24
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.70
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.63
Environmental Health 0.58
0.25
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.31
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.28
Governance 0.03
-0.35
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.03
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.09
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.11
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.49
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
154
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Lebanon
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 43.8
36
Ranking: 106 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
45
GDP/Capita: $4,333
35
0
47
Variable coverage (out of 68): 44
75
Missing variables imputed: 12
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.68
Air Quality -0.02
-1.07
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.79
Water Quality -0.12
0.12
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.79
Land 0.03
-0.97
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-1.48
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-0.06
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.46
Reducing population growth 0.2
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.28
Environmental Health 0.24
0.42
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.55
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.59
Governance -0.46
-0.27
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.52
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.22
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.47
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.10
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
155
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Liberia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 37.7 52
-1.30
Air Quality -0.67
1.65
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.55
Water Quality -0.37
0.40
Biodiversity 0.28
0.10
Land 0.35
0.45
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.47
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.36
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.77
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.85
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.67
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.86
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.48
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.15
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.72
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
-0.07
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.74
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.62
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.42
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
156
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Libya
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 39.3 54
-0.17
Air Quality 0.36
-0.66
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.75
Water Quality 0.18
0.37
Biodiversity 0.16
1.66
Land 0.03
-1.71
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.61
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.79
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.53
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
-0.41
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.32
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.30
Environmental Health 0.58
0.42
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.59
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-1.03
Governance 0.03
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.59
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.77
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.78
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.30
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
157
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Lithuania
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 57.2 60
0.98
Air Quality 0.36
0.04
Water Quantity 0.17
0.43
Water Quality 0.18
0.55
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.76
Land 0.03
0.22
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.46
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.39
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.29
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.13
Reducing population growth 0.51
-0.17
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.93
Environmental Health 0.58
0.28
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.31
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.45
Governance 0.03
-0.31
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.61
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.51
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.08
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.21
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
158
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Macedonia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 47.2
43
Ranking: 83 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 54 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $4,489
37
0
46
Variable coverage (out of 68): 45
74
Missing variables imputed: 11
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.57
Air Quality -0.02
-1.02
Water Quantity -0.31
0.05
Water Quality -0.12
0.21
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.68
Land 0.03
0.16
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.85
Reducing water stress -0.16
-1.71
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-0.08
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.84
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.69
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.58
Environmental Health 0.24
0.17
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.37
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.16
Governance -0.46
-0.35
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.50
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.79
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-1.07
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.57
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
159
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Madagascar
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 38.8
-1.15
Air Quality -0.67
-0.56
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.34
Water Quality -0.37
-2.22
Biodiversity 0.28
0.32
Land 0.35
0.59
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.86
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.49
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.53
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.30
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.78
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.26
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.32
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.61
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.30
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.89
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.41
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
160
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Malawi
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 47.3
50
-0.64
Air Quality -0.67
-0.48
Water Quantity 0.09
0.13
Water Quality -0.37
0.73
Biodiversity 0.28
0.30
Land 0.35
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.19
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.50
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.88
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.11
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.11
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.78
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.04
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.39
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.15
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
1.02
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.81
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.87
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.06
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
161
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Malaysia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.5 59
44
Variable coverage (out of 68): 64
73
Missing variables imputed: 3
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
1.29
Air Quality 0.36
0.00
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.08
Water Quality 0.18
-0.46
Biodiversity 0.16
0.37
Land 0.03
0.22
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.89
Reducing water stress 0.01
-0.09
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.04
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
-0.14
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.62
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.61
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.04
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.54
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.05
Governance 0.03
0.20
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.31
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.29
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.33
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.95
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
162
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Mali
Environmental Systems
100
61
ESI: 47.1
-1.15
Air Quality -0.67
0.08
Water Quantity 0.09
0.65
Water Quality -0.37
0.52
Biodiversity 0.28
1.23
Land 0.35
0.59
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.71
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.08
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.89
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.12
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.69
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.96
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.86
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.23
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.33
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.70
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.13
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.94
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.30
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
163
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Mauritania
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 38.9 55
-0.71
Air Quality -0.33
0.14
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.53
Water Quality -0.24
0.14
Biodiversity 0.1
1.64
Land 0.13
0.53
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.59
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.60
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.74
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.68
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.90
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-1.70
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.51
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.19
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.47
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.53
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.75
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.14
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.43
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
164
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Mexico
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.9
-1.54
Air Quality 0.36
-0.33
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.70
Water Quality 0.18
-0.13
Biodiversity 0.16
0.22
Land 0.03
0.17
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.02
Reducing water stress 0.01
-0.08
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.24
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.27
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.57
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.32
Environmental Health 0.58
0.00
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.27
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.20
Governance 0.03
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.11
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.10
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.08
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.27
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
165
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Moldova
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 54.5 55
0.00
Air Quality -0.33
0.01
Water Quantity 0.2
0.56
Water Quality -0.24
0.65
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.59
Land 0.13
0.39
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.44
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.39
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.23
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
1.01
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.78
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.71
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.19
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.10
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.64
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.84
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.82
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
-0.32
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.78
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
166
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Mongolia
Environmental Systems
100
70
ESI: 54.2
43 33
Variable coverage (out of 68): 45
0.38
Air Quality -0.33
0.26
Water Quantity 0.2
0.32
Water Quality -0.24
0.28
Biodiversity 0.1
1.45
Land 0.13
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.55
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.15
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
-0.51
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.36
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.69
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.20
Environmental Health -0.46
0.13
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.62
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.34
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.94
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.68
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
-1.35
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.87
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
167
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Morocco
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.1
33
Ranking: 72 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 61 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $3,454 59
0
44
Variable coverage (out of 68): 49
60
-0.57
Air Quality -0.02
-1.07
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.69
Water Quality -0.12
-0.14
Biodiversity -0.13
0.29
Land 0.03
0.51
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.27
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.60
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.01
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.43
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.09
Environmental Health 0.24
0.26
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.55
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.14
Governance -0.46
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.05
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.37
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.54
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.09
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
168
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Mozambique
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.1 55
47
Variable coverage (out of 68): 48
-0.93
Air Quality -0.67
0.30
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.24
Water Quality -0.37
1.08
Biodiversity 0.28
0.41
Land 0.35
0.56
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.90
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.25
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.93
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-0.27
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.62
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.59
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.78
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.13
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.53
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
2.21
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.31
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.90
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.57
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
169
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Myanmar (Burma)
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.2
45
Ranking: 90 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 55 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,199 68
0
-0.80
Air Quality -0.67
0.43
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.48
Water Quality -0.37
-0.06
Biodiversity 0.28
0.24
Land 0.35
0.53
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.95
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.80
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
0.18
Reducing population growth -1.17
0.03
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.94
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.19
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.88
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.67
Governance -0.21
-0.40
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.17
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.82
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.83
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.37
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
170
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Namibia
Environmental Systems
100
75
ESI: 57.4
39
Variable coverage (out of 68): 44 54
1.03
Air Quality -0.02
0.51
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.20
Water Quality -0.12
0.66
Biodiversity -0.13
1.37
Land 0.03
-0.84
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.12
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.95
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.23
Reducing population growth 0.2
-0.53
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.06
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.69
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.82
Capacity for Debate -0.09
0.50
Governance -0.46
-0.20
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.11
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.47
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.97
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.12
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
171
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Nepal
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.2
38
Ranking: 99 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 67 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,215 49
0
-0.29
Air Quality -0.67
-0.14
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.96
Water Quality -0.37
-0.12
Biodiversity 0.28
-0.04
Land 0.35
0.09
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
-0.07
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.29
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.83
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-0.69
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.11
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.85
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.50
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.22
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.01
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.64
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.53
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.88
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.93
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
172
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Netherlands
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 55.4
45
Ranking: 33 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 61 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $23,134
0 21
82
Missing variables imputed: 0 85
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.73
Air Quality 0.68
0.07
Water Quantity -0.17
0.72
Water Quality 0.58
-0.21
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.98
Land -0.58
-2.28
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.26
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.93
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.38
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.84
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.02
Environmental Health 0.97
1.41
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.53
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.17
Governance 0.67
1.82
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.41
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.17
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.61
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.25
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
173
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
New Zealand
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 59.9
49
77
Missing variables imputed: 2 82
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
1.50
Air Quality 0.68
0.76
Water Quantity -0.17
1.30
Water Quality 0.58
-4.16
Biodiversity -0.44
0.47
Land -0.58
0.36
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.06
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.49
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.63
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.64
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.84
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
1.22
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.74
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.05
Governance 0.67
0.43
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.31
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.73
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.31
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.35
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
174
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Nicaragua
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.8 61
0.13
Air Quality -0.33
0.57
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.35
Water Quality -0.24
0.90
Biodiversity 0.1
0.08
Land 0.13
0.60
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.69
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.70
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.73
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.64
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.35
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.13
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.00
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.18
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.48
Governance -0.41
-0.50
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.18
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.00
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.59
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.14
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
175
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Niger
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 39.4 53
-1.27
Air Quality -0.67
0.07
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.49
Water Quality -0.37
0.59
Biodiversity 0.28
1.52
Land 0.35
0.54
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.07
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.94
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.84
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.74
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.24
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-2.02
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.86
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.17
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.55
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.12
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.03
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.85
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.37
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
176
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Nigeria
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 36.7
40
Ranking: 133 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
45
GDP/Capita: $835 45
0
-0.72
Air Quality -0.67
-0.31
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.74
Water Quality -0.37
0.51
Biodiversity 0.28
-0.06
Land 0.35
0.24
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.17
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.57
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.70
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.15
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.25
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.56
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.38
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.10
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-1.15
Governance -0.21
-0.16
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
-0.11
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.54
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.14
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.04
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
177
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
North Korea
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 32.3
0.29
Air Quality -0.67
-0.44
Water Quantity 0.09
-1.04
Water Quality -0.37
-2.40
Biodiversity 0.28
-0.73
Land 0.35
-1.75
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.52
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.24
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.46
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
0.62
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.20
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
0.60
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.51
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.67
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.19
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
-1.12
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.77
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
-1.82
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.12
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
178
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Norway
Environmental Systems
100
78
ESI: 73.0
1.02
Air Quality 0.68
1.22
Water Quantity -0.17
1.15
Water Quality 0.58
0.01
Biodiversity -0.44
0.39
Land -0.58
0.36
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.30
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.04
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.44
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.77
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.49
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.59
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.68
Governance 0.67
1.83
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.70
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.00
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.11
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.72
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
179
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Oman
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 40.2
46
0.21
Air Quality 0.36
-1.06
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.05
Water Quality 0.18
-0.68
Biodiversity 0.16
1.08
Land 0.03
0.52
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-1.54
Reducing water stress 0.01
1.47
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.14
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
-1.79
Reducing population growth 0.51
-1.16
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.70
Environmental Health 0.58
0.45
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.37
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.28
Governance 0.03
-0.35
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.69
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.80
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
180
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Pakistan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 42.1
38
Ranking: 112 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 59 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,771 48
0
-1.01
Air Quality -0.33
-0.40
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.05
Water Quality -0.24
0.03
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.17
Land 0.13
0.43
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.23
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.19
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.79
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.09
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.22
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.65
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.97
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.81
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.22
Governance -0.41
-0.40
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.04
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.16
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.51
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.34
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
181
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Panama
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 60.0 57
0.64
Air Quality -0.02
-0.37
Water Quantity -0.31
0.22
Water Quality -0.12
0.43
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.02
Land 0.03
0.59
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.39
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.23
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.28
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.34
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.26
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.58
Environmental Health 0.24
0.09
Science/Tech. -0.26
1.32
Capacity for Debate -0.09
0.27
Governance -0.46
-0.16
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.07
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.25
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.40
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.25
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
182
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
67
ESI: 51.8
-0.28
Air Quality -0.33
2.30
Water Quantity 0.2
0.28
Water Quality -0.24
-0.84
Biodiversity 0.1
0.73
Land 0.13
0.66
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.13
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.67
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.79
Reducing population growth -0.31
-1.23
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.60
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.15
Science/Tech. -0.76
0.42
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.54
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.37
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.01
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.73
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.30
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
183
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Paraguay
Environmental Systems
100
64
ESI: 57.8
-0.80
Air Quality -0.02
0.94
Water Quantity -0.31
0.18
Water Quality -0.12
0.55
Biodiversity -0.13
0.89
Land 0.03
0.36
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.57
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.15
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.08
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.86
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.12
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.42
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.63
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.30
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.80
Governance -0.46
-0.81
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
2.36
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.23
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.71
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.42
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
184
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Peru
Environmental Systems
100
69
ESI: 56.5
46
Variable coverage (out of 68): 53 51
0.23
Air Quality -0.02
1.43
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.18
Water Quality -0.12
0.13
Biodiversity -0.13
0.92
Land 0.03
0.57
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.30
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.18
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.70
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.16
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.09
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.03
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.34
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.13
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.31
Governance -0.46
-0.56
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.57
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.08
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.63
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-1.22
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
185
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Phillipines
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.6
0.07
Air Quality -0.02
-0.99
Water Quantity -0.31
0.55
Water Quality -0.12
-3.43
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.47
Land 0.03
0.24
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.08
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.16
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.66
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.05
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.01
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.31
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.11
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.20
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.68
Governance -0.46
-0.50
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.50
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.03
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.61
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.63
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
186
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Poland
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.7
39
Ranking: 87 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
34
GDP/Capita: $8,006 42
0
-0.04
Air Quality 0.36
-0.60
Water Quantity 0.17
0.51
Water Quality 0.18
-0.05
Biodiversity 0.16
-1.28
Land 0.03
-0.78
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.24
Reducing water stress 0.01
-1.26
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.30
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.09
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.58
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.99
Environmental Health 0.58
0.55
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.06
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.43
Governance 0.03
-0.06
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.53
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.53
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.97
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.77
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
187
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Portugal
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 57.1 53
0.84
Air Quality 0.68
-0.06
Water Quantity -0.17
0.96
Water Quality 0.58
-0.74
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.57
Land -0.58
0.05
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.26
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.80
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.21
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.10
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.59
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
0.21
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.15
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.23
Governance 0.67
0.17
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.01
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.24
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
0.03
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.97
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
188
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Romania
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.0
48
0.33
Air Quality 0.36
0.17
Water Quantity 0.17
0.46
Water Quality 0.18
-0.33
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.86
Land 0.03
0.05
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.53
Reducing water stress 0.01
-0.21
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.08
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.12
Reducing population growth 0.51
-0.04
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.69
Environmental Health 0.58
0.22
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.04
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.84
Governance 0.03
-0.90
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.32
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.08
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.12
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
189
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Russia
Environmental Systems
100
72
ESI: 49.1
0.64
Air Quality 0.36
0.30
Water Quantity 0.17
1.05
Water Quality 0.18
-0.33
Biodiversity 0.16
1.28
Land 0.03
0.20
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.57
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.31
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.94
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.12
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.88
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.78
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.17
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.53
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.42
Governance 0.03
-0.75
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-1.23
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.00
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-1.50
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-1.71
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
190
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Rwanda
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 40.6
44
Ranking: 119 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 53 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $841 53
0
-0.92
Air Quality -0.67
-0.31
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.34
Water Quality -0.37
0.70
Biodiversity 0.28
0.06
Land 0.35
0.08
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.52
-1.01
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.87
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-0.35
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.69
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.40
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.27
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.60
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.50
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.38
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-1.05
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.92
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.35
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
191
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Saudi Arabia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 34.2
35
Ranking: 138 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
GDP/Capita: $10,886 18
0 29
-0.89
Air Quality 0.36
-1.08
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.56
Water Quality 0.18
-0.30
Biodiversity 0.16
0.90
Land 0.03
0.19
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.59
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-1.26
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
-1.46
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.93
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.50
Environmental Health 0.58
0.09
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.74
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.05
Governance 0.03
-0.40
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-1.13
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.69
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-1.89
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.15
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
192
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Senegal
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 47.6 52
-0.33
Air Quality -0.33
-0.18
Water Quantity 0.2
0.02
Water Quality -0.24
0.74
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.02
Land 0.13
0.51
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.56
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.08
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.81
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-1.10
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.22
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.79
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.24
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.20
Capacity for Debate -0.19
0.02
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-0.03
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.70
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
-0.64
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
193
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Sierra Leone
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 36.5
42
Ranking: 134 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 61 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $490 43
0
-1.65
Air Quality -0.67
0.55
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.19
Water Quality -0.37
0.53
Biodiversity 0.28
-0.24
Land 0.35
0.22
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.31
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.67
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.94
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.63
Reducing population growth -1.17
-2.03
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-2.02
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.34
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.17
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.13
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
-0.14
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.39
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.77
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.46
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
194
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Slovakia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 61.6 59
1.08
Air Quality 0.36
0.29
Water Quantity 0.17
0.61
Water Quality 0.18
0.37
Biodiversity 0.16
-1.18
Land 0.03
-0.39
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.20
Reducing water stress 0.01
-0.21
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.05
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
1.12
Reducing population growth 0.51
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.95
Environmental Health 0.58
0.59
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.22
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.23
Governance 0.03
0.17
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.46
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.73
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.48
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
1.03
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
195
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Slovenia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 58.8 55
-0.02
Air Quality 0.68
0.28
Water Quantity -0.17
0.68
Water Quality 0.58
0.43
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.80
Land -0.58
-0.20
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.36
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.85
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.29
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.15
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
0.36
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.35
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.14
Governance 0.67
1.09
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.02
Eco-efficiency -0.11
-0.39
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.30
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
1.13
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
196
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Somalia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 37.1
47
-0.72
Air Quality -0.67
-0.08
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.25
Water Quality -0.37
0.29
Biodiversity 0.28
0.38
Land 0.35
0.63
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.26
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.02
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.84
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.19
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.84
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.79
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.10
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.55
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.71
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.03
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.84
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.97
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.52
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
197
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
South Africa
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.7
45
Ranking: 77 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
35
GDP/Capita: $8,834 54
0
0.48
Air Quality 0.36
-0.78
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.52
Water Quality 0.18
-0.10
Biodiversity 0.16
0.26
Land 0.03
-0.37
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.12
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.28
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.08
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.77
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.36
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.03
Environmental Health 0.58
0.04
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.36
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.42
Governance 0.03
-0.02
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.54
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.13
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.91
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.11
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
198
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
South Korea
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 35.9
0.29
Air Quality 0.68
-0.82
Water Quantity -0.17
0.33
Water Quality 0.58
-2.57
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.15
Land -0.58
-2.51
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-1.61
Reducing water stress -0.61
-1.52
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.36
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.94
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.85
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.96
Environmental Health 0.97
1.39
Science/Tech. 1.15
-0.11
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.20
Governance 0.67
0.03
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.42
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.33
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.43
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-1.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
199
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Spain
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 54.1
41
Ranking: 43 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
37
GDP/Capita: $17,130 55
0
1.02
Air Quality 0.68
-0.92
Water Quantity -0.17
0.05
Water Quality 0.58
-0.80
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.49
Land -0.58
-0.07
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.56
Reducing water stress -0.61
0.41
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.36
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
1.21
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.72
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.01
Environmental Health 0.97
0.63
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.40
Capacity for Debate 0.38
0.42
Governance 0.67
0.47
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.13
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.98
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.05
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-1.89
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
200
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Sri Lanka
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.3
38
Ranking: 55 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 64 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $3,125 58
0
1.09
Air Quality -0.02
-1.04
Water Quantity -0.31
0.03
Water Quality -0.12
-0.71
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.93
Land 0.03
0.47
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.71
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.23
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.85
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.68
Reducing population growth 0.2
-0.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.38
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.48
Science/Tech. -0.26
0.32
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.03
Governance -0.46
-0.63
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.63
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.08
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.82
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.15
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
201
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Sudan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 44.7 53
-0.27
Air Quality -0.33
-0.01
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.75
Water Quality -0.24
0.56
Biodiversity 0.1
0.85
Land 0.13
0.47
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.45
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.16
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.77
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.64
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.21
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.87
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.58
Science/Tech. -0.76
-1.04
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.88
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.25
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.60
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.90
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.47
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
202
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Sweden
Environmental Systems
100
72
ESI: 72.6
1.37
Air Quality 0.68
0.03
Water Quantity -0.17
0.97
Water Quality 0.58
0.32
Biodiversity -0.44
0.24
Land -0.58
0.33
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.43
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.74
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.78
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.91
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.02
Environmental Health 0.97
1.80
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.48
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.13
Governance 0.67
1.87
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.25
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.15
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
0.14
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.04
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
203
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Switzerland
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 66.5 52
1.03
Air Quality 0.68
-0.95
Water Quantity -0.17
1.08
Water Quality 0.58
0.61
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.46
Land -0.58
-0.55
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.96
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.68
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-0.56
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.96
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.95
Environmental Health 0.97
1.58
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.67
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.39
Governance 0.67
2.64
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
0.59
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.60
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
0.15
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
0.37
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
204
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Syria
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 43.6
48
0.03
Air Quality -0.02
-0.18
Water Quantity -0.31
-0.40
Water Quality -0.12
0.42
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.09
Land 0.03
0.37
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.76
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.20
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
-0.45
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.53
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.40
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.39
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.94
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.81
Governance -0.46
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.62
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.21
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-0.35
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.11
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
205
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Tajikistan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 42.4
43
Ranking: 110 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
46
GDP/Capita: $978 61
0
0.07
Air Quality -0.67
0.20
Water Quantity 0.09
-1.81
Water Quality -0.37
0.27
Biodiversity 0.28
0.33
Land 0.35
0.33
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
-0.70
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.49
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.87
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
0.45
Reducing population growth -1.17
-0.83
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.74
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.09
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.25
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.81
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
-0.86
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.94
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.05
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.56
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
206
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Tanzania
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.1 55
0.48
Air Quality -0.67
-0.19
Water Quantity 0.09
0.17
Water Quality -0.37
-0.01
Biodiversity 0.28
0.17
Land 0.35
0.49
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.70
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.25
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.82
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.12
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.53
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.04
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.44
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.29
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.12
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.85
Eco-efficiency 0.49
-0.23
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.85
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.40
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
207
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Thailand
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 51.6
50
45
Variable coverage (out of 68): 63
59
0.54
Air Quality 0.36
0.12
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.39
Water Quality 0.18
-0.16
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.11
Land 0.03
0.17
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.47
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.07
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.26
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.78
Reducing population growth 0.51
-0.08
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.53
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.15
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.12
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.21
Governance 0.03
-0.01
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.13
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.07
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.10
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.96
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
208
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Togo
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 44.3
47
-1.00
Air Quality -0.33
-0.26
Water Quantity 0.2
0.08
Water Quality -0.24
0.91
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.09
Land 0.13
0.48
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
0.74
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.84
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.90
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
-0.81
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.64
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-1.17
Environmental Health -0.46
-1.00
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.30
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.36
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.06
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.23
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.84
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.22
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
209
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
ESI: 40.1
50
71
Missing variables imputed: 10
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
1.13
Air Quality 0.36
-1.04
Water Quantity 0.17
-0.14
Water Quality 0.18
1.05
Biodiversity 0.16
-1.02
Land 0.03
0.02
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-1.55
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.05
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.25
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.88
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.32
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.81
Environmental Health 0.58
0.08
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.41
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.42
Governance 0.03
-0.25
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-2.21
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.23
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-3.05
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.08
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
210
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Tunisia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.8
48
0.01
Air Quality -0.02
-0.64
Water Quantity -0.31
0.05
Water Quality -0.12
0.07
Biodiversity -0.13
0.31
Land 0.03
0.34
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.62
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.39
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.33
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.43
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.53
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.44
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.50
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.38
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-0.53
Governance -0.46
-0.38
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-0.09
Eco-efficiency -0.14
0.43
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.31
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.09
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
211
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Turkey
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 50.8 55
1.07
Air Quality 0.36
-0.63
Water Quantity 0.17
0.34
Water Quality 0.18
-0.04
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.13
Land 0.03
0.30
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
-0.09
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.38
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.25
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.38
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.61
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.25
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.32
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.33
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.23
Governance 0.03
-0.52
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.03
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.52
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.17
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.56
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
212
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Turkmenistan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 37.3
38
Ranking: 131 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
27
GDP/Capita: $2,844 52
0
-0.88
Air Quality -0.02
0.20
Water Quantity -0.31
-1.33
Water Quality -0.12
0.05
Biodiversity -0.13
0.43
Land 0.03
0.50
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
-0.93
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.32
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-0.23
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.58
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.46
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.86
Environmental Health 0.24
0.34
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.63
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-1.20
Governance -0.46
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-1.04
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.61
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-1.81
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
0.56
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
213
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Uganda
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 48.7
49
-0.84
Air Quality -0.67
-0.26
Water Quantity 0.09
0.10
Water Quality -0.37
0.70
Biodiversity 0.28
0.18
Land 0.35
0.37
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.76
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.36
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.88
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.16
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.08
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-0.95
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.92
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.38
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.42
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
1.35
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.20
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.94
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.80
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
214
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Ukraine
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 35.0
43
Ranking: 136 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
GDP/Capita: $3,370 15
43
0
74
Missing variables imputed: 8
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.11
Air Quality -0.02
-0.41
Water Quantity -0.31
0.44
Water Quality -0.12
-0.05
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.79
Land 0.03
-0.12
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.16
Reducing water stress -0.16
0.29
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
-2.43
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
1.22
Reducing population growth 0.2
0.44
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
0.82
Environmental Health 0.24
0.10
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.25
Capacity for Debate -0.09
-1.00
Governance -0.46
-0.74
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
-2.16
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.78
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
-1.88
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.46
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
215
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
ESI: 25.7
75
Missing variables imputed: 14
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
-0.91
Air Quality 0.68
-0.36
Water Quantity -0.17
-0.92
Water Quality 0.58
-0.69
Biodiversity -0.44
-0.13
Land -0.58
-1.36
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-2.87
Reducing water stress -0.61
1.27
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.84
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.06
Reducing population growth 0.79
0.60
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.75
Environmental Health 0.97
0.57
Science/Tech. 1.15
-0.21
Capacity for Debate 0.38
-0.80
Governance 0.67
0.09
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-1.35
Eco-efficiency -0.11
-0.67
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-2.90
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-0.40
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
216
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
United Kingdom
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 46.1
38
Ranking: 91 Global Reducing
Stew ardship Stresses
41
GDP/Capita: $21,270
0 12
Peer group ESI: 54.5
79
Missing variables imputed: 1 85
Social and Institutional Reducing Human
Capacity Vulnerability
0.37
Air Quality 0.68
-0.99
Water Quantity -0.17
1.25
Water Quality 0.58
-0.32
Biodiversity -0.44
-1.77
Land -0.58
-2.74
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
-0.48
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.88
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.59
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.88
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
1.00
Environmental Health 0.97
1.37
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.28
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.47
Governance 0.67
1.09
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.23
Eco-efficiency -0.11
1.07
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-0.45
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-1.35
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
217
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
United States
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 53.2 60
0.33
Air Quality 0.68
-0.09
Water Quantity -0.17
0.79
Water Quality 0.58
-0.14
Biodiversity -0.44
0.38
Land -0.58
-0.82
Reducing Air Pollution -0.98
0.06
Reducing water stress -0.61
-0.04
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.13
-2.23
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -1.19
0.50
Reducing population growth 0.79
1.06
Basic Human Sustenance 0.9
0.65
Environmental Health 0.97
2.06
Science/Tech. 1.15
0.23
Capacity for Debate 0.38
1.17
Governance 0.67
0.19
Private Sector Responsiveness 0.69
-0.40
Eco-efficiency -0.11
0.78
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts 0.63
-1.73
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.61
-1.15
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.33
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
218
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Uruguay
Environmental Systems
100
65
ESI: 66.0
0.26
Air Quality 0.36
1.26
Water Quantity 0.17
0.34
Water Quality 0.18
0.29
Biodiversity 0.16
-0.17
Land 0.03
0.58
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.59
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.39
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
-0.75
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.53
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.94
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.82
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.04
Science/Tech. 0.1
0.95
Capacity for Debate 0.04
0.61
Governance 0.03
0.09
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
0.74
Eco-efficiency -0.3
0.15
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
0.61
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
0.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
219
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Uzbekistan
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 41.3
49
-0.22
Air Quality -0.33
-0.11
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.73
Water Quality -0.24
0.44
Biodiversity 0.1
0.50
Land 0.13
0.41
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.66
Reducing water stress 0.32
0.35
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.25
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.23
Reducing population growth -0.31
0.57
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
-0.05
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.04
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.71
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.81
Governance -0.41
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
-2.05
Eco-efficiency 0.07
-0.13
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
-1.63
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.41
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
220
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Venezuela
Environmental Systems
100
77
ESI: 53.0
0.51
Air Quality 0.36
1.19
Water Quantity 0.17
0.40
Water Quality 0.18
0.61
Biodiversity 0.16
1.01
Land 0.03
0.13
Reducing Air Pollution 0.02
0.53
Reducing water stress 0.01
0.49
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.18
0.07
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures -0.1
0.15
Reducing population growth 0.51
0.03
Basic Human Sustenance 0.47
0.37
Environmental Health 0.58
-0.33
Science/Tech. 0.1
-0.12
Capacity for Debate 0.04
-0.42
Governance 0.03
-0.82
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.1
-0.76
Eco-efficiency -0.3
-0.26
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.03
-0.86
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.4
-0.40
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.15
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
221
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Vietnam
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 45.7
43
Ranking: 94 Global Reducing
Stew ardship 60 Stresses
GDP/Capita: $1,772 51
0
-0.20
Air Quality -0.33
0.14
Water Quantity 0.2
-0.21
Water Quality -0.24
-0.48
Biodiversity 0.1
-0.17
Land 0.13
0.20
Reducing Air Pollution 0.4
-0.64
Reducing water stress 0.32
-0.67
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.03
0.85
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.68
0.41
Reducing population growth -0.31
-0.65
Basic Human Sustenance -0.43
0.67
Environmental Health -0.46
-0.83
Science/Tech. -0.76
-0.69
Capacity for Debate -0.19
-0.61
Governance -0.41
-0.50
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.44
0.47
Eco-efficiency 0.07
0.06
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.35
0.62
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.37
0.08
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.28
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
222
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Zaire
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 43.3 53
-0.67
Air Quality -0.67
0.65
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.34
Water Quality -0.37
0.36
Biodiversity 0.28
0.39
Land 0.35
0.48
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.50
Reducing water stress 0.52
0.17
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.95
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-2.18
Reducing population growth -1.17
-2.18
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.68
Environmental Health -1.3
-1.12
Science/Tech. -1.14
-0.61
Capacity for Debate -0.12
-0.16
Governance -0.21
-0.41
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
0.99
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.06
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.94
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.46
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
223
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Zambia
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 49.5
50
-1.26
Air Quality -0.67
0.30
Water Quantity 0.09
-0.24
Water Quality -0.37
0.70
Biodiversity 0.28
0.48
Land 0.35
0.14
Reducing Air Pollution 0.35
0.72
Reducing water stress 0.52
-0.66
Reducing Ecosystem Stress -0.15
0.75
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.84
-1.01
Reducing population growth -1.17
-1.30
Basic Human Sustenance -1.23
-1.67
Environmental Health -1.3
-0.16
Science/Tech. -1.14
0.15
Capacity for Debate -0.12
0.83
Governance -0.21
-0.27
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.4
1.20
Eco-efficiency 0.49
0.22
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.22
0.77
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0.67
0.05
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures 0.44
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
224
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
Zimbabwe
Environmental Systems
100
ESI: 53.2 56
44 39
Variable coverage (out of 68): 55
0.10
Air Quality -0.02
0.05
Water Quantity -0.31
0.00
Water Quality -0.12
0.74
Biodiversity -0.13
-0.07
Land 0.03
0.46
Reducing Air Pollution 0.16
0.41
Reducing water stress -0.16
-0.19
Reducing Ecosystem Stress 0.12
0.65
Reducing Waste and Consumption Pressures 0.27
0.43
Reducing population growth 0.2
-0.50
Basic Human Sustenance 0.31
-0.05
Environmental Health 0.24
-0.81
Science/Tech. -0.26
-0.09
Capacity for Debate -0.09
0.39
Governance -0.46
-0.21
Private Sector Responsiveness -0.38
0.01
Eco-efficiency -0.14
-0.07
Participation in International Cooperative Efforts -0.11
0.45
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions -0.05
-0.08
Reducing Transboundary Environmental Pressures -0.04
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
225
2002 ESI: Annex 5 Country Profiles
226
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable
No. Variable Code Variable Name Indicator
1 SO2 Urban SO2 concentration Air Quality
2 NO2 Urban NO2 concentration
3 TSP Urban TSP concentration
4 WATCAP Internal renewable water per capita Water Quantity
5 WATINC Per capita water inflow from other countries
6 GMS_DO Dissolved oxygen concentration Water Quality
7 GMS_PH Phosphorus concentration
8 GMS_SS Suspended solids
9 GMS_EC Electrical conductivity
10 PRTMAM Percentage of mammals threatened Biodiversity
11 PRTBRD Percentage of breeding birds threatened
12 ANTH10 Percent of land area having very low anthropogenic impact Land
13 ANTH40 Percent of land area having high anthropogenic impact
14 NOXKM NOx emissions per populated land area Reducing Air Pollution
15 SO2KM SO2 emissions per populated land area
16 VOCKM VOCs emissions per populated land area
17 COALKM Coal consumption per populated land area
18 CARSKM Vehicles per populated land area
19 FERTHA Fertilizer consumption per hectare of arable land Reducing Water Stress
20 PESTHA Pesticide use per hectare of crop land
21 BODWAT Industrial organic pollutants per available fresh water
22 WATSTR Percentage of country's territory under severe water stress
23 FOREST Percentage change in forest cover 1990-95 Reducing Ecosystem Stress
24 AC_EXC Percentage of county with acidification exceedence
227
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable
No. Variable Code Variable Name Indicator
25 EFPC Ecological footprint per capita Reducing Waste and Consump-
Radioactive waste tion Pressures
26 NUKE
27 TFR Total fertility rate Reducing Popuation Growth
28 GR2050 Percentage change in projected population between 2000 & 2050
29 UND_NO Proportion of Undernourished in Total Population Basic Human Sustenance
30 WATSUP Percent of population with access to improved drinking-water supply
31 DISRES Child death rate from respiratory diseases Environmental Health
32 DISINT Death rate from intestinal infectious diseases
33 U5MORT Under-5 mortality rate
34 INNOV Innovation Index Science/Technology
35 TAI Technology achievement index
36 SCHOOL Mean years of schooling (age 15 and above)
37 IUCN IUCN member organizations per million population Capacity for Debate
38 CIVLIB Civil & Political liberties
39 POLITY Democratic institutions
40 ESIMIS Percentage of ESI variables in publicly available data sets
41 WEFGOV WEF Survey Questions on Environmental Governance Environmental Governance
42 PRAREA Percentage of land area under protected status
43 EIA Number of sectoral EIA guidelines
44 FSC FSC accredited forest area as a percent of total forest area
45 GRAFT Reducing corruption
46 GASPR Ratio of gasoline price to international average
47 WEFSUB WEF subsidies survey question
48 SUBFSH WWF Subsidy measure
49 ISO14 Number of ISO14001 certified companies per million $ GDP Private Sector Responsiveness
50 DJSGI Dow Jones sustainability group index
51 ECOVAL Average Innovest EcoValue rating of firms
52 WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development members
53 WEFPRI WEF Survey Questions on Private Sector Environmental Innovation
54 ENEFF Energy efficiency (total energy consumption per unit GDP) Eco-efficiency
55 RENPC Renewable energy prod. as a percent of total energy consumption
56 EIONUM Number of memberships in environmental intergovernmental orgs. Participation in International
Percentage of CITES reporting requirements met Cooperative Efforts
57 CITES
58 VIENNA Levels of participation in the Vienna Convention/Montreal Protocol
59 FCCC Levels of participation in the Climate Change Convention
60 MONFUN Montreal protocol multilateral fund participation
61 GEF Global environmental facility participation
62 WEFAGR Compliance with International Agreements
63 CO2PC Carbon lifestyle efficiency (CO2 emissions per capita) Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
64 CO2GDP Carbon economic efficiency (CO2 emissions per dollar GDP)
65 CFC CFC consumption (total times per capita) Reducing Transboundary Envi-
SO2 exports ronmental Pressures
66 SO2EXP
67 FSHCAT Total marine fish catch
68 FSHCON Seafood consumption per capita
228
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: AC_EXC
Name: Percentage of country with acidification exceedance
Units: Percent of Land Area Reference Year: 1990
Source Stockholm Environment Institute at York, Acidification in Developing Countries: Ecosystem Sensitivity and
the Critical Loads Approach at the Global scale, 2000
Logic: Exceedance of critical SO2 loading represents an indicator for ecosystems under stress due to acidification from
anthropogenic sulphur deposition. Since it takes into account both the deposition and the ability of the
ecosystem to respond to stress, it is a good indicator of the ecosystems' "sustainability".
Methodology: From a map of acidification exceedance, the areas at risk were summed within each country and then the
percentage of a country at risk of exceedance was calculated. See pages 21-22 of the 2001 ESI report for more
details on how the acidification exceedance map was produced.
229
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ANTH10
Name: Percent of land area having very low anthropogenic impact
Units: Percent of Land Area Reference Year: mid 1990s
Source Wild Areas Project (WAP), joint Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and CIESIN project to map the last
wild places on the earth's surface.
Logic: Agricultural activities and the built environment have high impacts on the natural environment. The conversion
of natural vegetation for anthropogenic activity has important ecological implications.
Methodology: Global grids for population (GPW), land use (USGS AVHRR based classification from EROS data center),
VMAP roads, VMAP railways, VMAP coastlines, VMAP major rivers and the statble lights data were all
scored for "wildness". The scores were aggregated and normalized.
230
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ANTH40
Name: Percent of land area having very high anthropogenic impact
Units: Percent of Land Area Reference Year: mid 1990s
Source Wild Areas Project (WAP), joint Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and CIESIN project to map the last
wild places on the earth's surface.
Logic: Agricultural activities and the built environment have high impacts on the natural environment. The conversion
of natural vegetation for anthropogenic activity has important ecological implications.
Methodology: Global grids for population (GPW), land use (USGS AVHRR based classification from EROS data center),
VMAP roads, VMAP railways, VMAP coastlines, VMAP major rivers and the statble lights data were all
scored for "wildness". The scores were aggregated and normalized.
231
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: BODWAT
Name: Industrial organic pollutants per available freshwater
Units: Metric Tons of BOD Emissions per Cubic Km of Water Reference Year: MRYA 1996-1998
Source World Bank, World Development Indicators 2001, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001 (for BOD emissions)
and Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, WaterGap 2.1, 2000 (for data on water
quantity).
Logic: Emission of organic pollutants from industrial activities cause water quality degradation. Given these
considerations, the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) emissions have been normalized per amount of
freshwater availability (internal water availability + inflows from other countries).
Methodology: Emissions of organic water pollutants are measured by biochemical oxygen demand, which refers to the amount
of oxygen that bacteria in water will consume in breaking down waste. This is a standard water-treatment test
for the presence of organic pollutants. The data from the World Bank, which represented BOD emissions
(kilograms per day) were normalized by the combination of water availability per capita and water inflow
availability per capita from the WaterGap2.1 model. In calculating the ESI, the base-10 logarithm of this
variable was used.
232
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CARSKM
Name: Vehicles per populated land area
Units: Vehicles/Populated Land Area (in km2) Reference Year: MRYA 1996-1999
Source World Bank, World Development Indicators 2001, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001.
Logic: This is a proxy measure of air pollution from the transportation sector, which is the fastest growing sector in
terms of energy use.
Methodology: Air pollution is generally greatest in densely populated areas. To take this into account, we used the Gridded
Population of the World dataset available from CIESIN and calculated the total land area in each country
inhabited with a population density of greater than 5 persons per sq. km. We then utilized this land area as the
denominator for the vehicles data.
233
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CFC
Name: CFC consumption
Units: Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Tons (Metric Tons x ODP) Reference Year: MRYA 1996-98
Source UNEP, Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances, 1986-1998, October 1999.
Logic: Emissions of CFCs contribute to the breakdown of the Earth's protective ozone layer and to global climate
change. By combining total and per capita emissions we created a measure that goes beyond the debate over
which measure best captures global responsibility.
Methodology: The indicator was obtained by multiplying the Total CFCs emissions (metric tons per ozone depletion
potential) with the Per capita CFCs emissions (obtained by dividing the total CFCs emissions by the
population in 1997). In calculating the ESI, the base-10 logarithm of this variable was used.
234
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CITES
Name: Percent of CITES reporting requirements met
Units: Percent of Requirements Met Reference Year: 2000
Source Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Report on National Reports
Required Under Article VIII, Paragraph 7(a), of the Convention, Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the
Parties, Gigiri, Kenya, April 2000, available at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/CITES/eng/cop/11/docs/19.pdf
Logic: Preparing and submitting national reports is a fundamental responsibility under CITES. The degree to which a
country fulfills this responsibility is an indication of how seriously it takes its commitment to protection of
endangered species.
Methodology: Countries that have not ratified the CITES convention are recorded as having zero percent of their requirements
met.
Mean 56.99 Max 100 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 100
Median 69.8 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
235
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CIVLIB
Name: Civil and political liberties
Units: Index Ranging from 1 (High Levels of Liberties) to 7 (Low Reference Year: 2001
Source Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2000-2001, New York: Freedom House, 2001,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/, accessed 26 October 2001.
Logic: In countries that guarantee freedom of expression, rights to organize, rule of law, economic rights, and
multi-party elections, there is more likely to be a vigorous public debate about values and issues relevant to
environmental quality, and legal safeguards that encourage innovation.
Methodology: This is the average of two indicators - civil liberties and political liberties.
Mean 3.7 Max 7 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 7
Median 3.5 Min 1 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1
236
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CO2GDP
Name: Carbon economic efficiency (CO2 emissions per dollar GDP)
Units: Metric Tons/US Dollar GDP Reference Year: 1998
Source Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/pns_main.html
Logic: Emissions of carbon dioxide are not immediately harmful to any given country, but contribute to global climate
change. Every country emits some carbon dioxide. However, the amount of emissions per unit economic
activity varies widely, with some countries being far more efficient than others.
Methodology:
Mean 1.52 Max 6.29 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 5.72
Median 1.125 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.09
237
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: CO2PC
Name: Carbon lifestyle efficiency (CO2 emissions per capita)
Units: Metric Tons of Carbon per Person Reference Year: 1998
Source Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/pns_main.html
Logic: Emissions of carbon dioxide are not immediately harmful to any given country, but contribute to the global
problem. Every country emits some carbon dioxide, but the amount per person varies widely, with some
countries having much lower per capita emissions than others.
Methodology:
Mean 1.15 Max 10.23 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 5.11
Median 0.61 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.01
238
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: COALKM
Name: Coal consumption per populated land area
Units: Billion Btu/Populated Land Area Reference Year: 1999
Source US Energy Information Agency, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html
Logic: Coal fired power plants emit higher levels of SO2 and other air pollutants than natural gas or oil fired plants,
and the energy produced is more carbon-intensive.
Methodology: Air pollution is generally greatest in densely populated areas. To take this into account, we used the Gridded
Population of the World dataset available from CIESIN and calculated the total land area in each country
inhabited with a population density of greater than 5 persons per sq. km. We then utilized this land area as the
denominator for the coal consumption data.
239
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: DISINT
Name: Death rate from intestinal infectious diseases
Units: Deaths/100,000 Population Reference Year: MRYA 1990-1999
Source World Health Organisation. 1997-1999 World Health Statistics Annual. Geneva: WHO, 2000, available at
http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/download.htm
Logic: Indicator of the degree to which the population is affected by poor sanitation and water quality, which are related
to environmental conditions
Methodology: The final number is based on an aggregation of deaths recorded for WHO code B01 for all age groups by sex.
These were then combined with UN Population Division population data for the country in that particular year.
The death rates were standardized utilizing the age structure for the population of Canada. See page 22 of the
2001 ESI report for more details on the methodology.
240
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: DISRES
Name: Child death rate from respiratory diseases
Units: Deaths/100,000 Population Aged 0-14 Reference Year: MRYA 1990-1998
Source World Health Organisation. 1997-1999 World Health Statistics Annual. Geneva: WHO, 2000, available at
http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/download.htm
Logic: Indicator of the degree to which children are impacted by poor air quality.
Methodology: The final number is based on an aggregation of deaths recorded for WHO codes B31 and B320, and B321, by
sex and by age. These were then combined with UN Population Division population data broken down by age
group to produce rates. See page 22 of the 2001 ESI report for more details on the methodology.
241
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: DJSGI
Name: Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index: percent of eligible companies in index
Units: Percentage Reference Year: 2000
Source "Assessment of the Country Allocation of the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index", SAM Sustainability
Group
Logic: The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index tracks a group of companies that have been rated as the top 10% in
terms of sustainability. Firms that are already in the Dow Jones Global Index are eligible to enter the
Sustainability Group Index. Countries in which a higher percentage of eligible firms meet the requirements
have a private sector that is contributing more strongly to environmental sustainability.
Methodology: For each country, the number of companies in the Sustainability Index was divided by the number of companies
in the Global Index.
Mean 24.7 Max 84.9 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 84.9
Median 17.9 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
242
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ECOVAL
Name: Average Innovest EcoValue rating of firms
Units: Ratings from 1 (Worst) to 7 (Best) Reference Year: 2001
Source Innovest Strategic Value Advisors
Logic: The Innnovest EcoValue '21 rating measures environmental performance at the firm level.
Methodology: Within each country, EcoValue levels were weighted by market capitization share and then averaged to get a
value for the individual country, based on the location of company headquarters.
Mean 4.45 Max 6.77 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 6.77
Median 4.52 Min 1.46 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1.46
243
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: EFPC
Name: Ecological footprint per capita
Units: Hectares per Person Reference Year: 1996
Source World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Living Planet Report 2000, Gland, Switzerland: 2000, and Redefining
Progress at http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef/
Logic: The ecological footprint is a measure of the biologically productive land that is required to sustain a country's
population at current consumption levels.
Methodology:
Mean 3.11 Max 15.99 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 10.06
Median 2.08 Min 0.6 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.71
244
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: EIA
Name: Number of sectoral EIA guidelines
Units: Number of Guidelines Reference Year: 1998
Source IIED, WRI and IUCN, A Directory of Impact Assessment Guidelines (Second Edition). London: IIED, 1998.
Logic: Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines mandated by national governments are an important prerequisite
for sound environmental management.
Methodology:
Mean 4.46 Max 13 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 12.1
Median 3 Min 1 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1
245
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: EIONUM
Name: Number of memberships in environmental intergovernmental organizations
Units: Number of Memberships Reference Year: 1998
Source Organizational Memberships from "Yearbook of International Organizations," provided in digital form from
Monty Marshall, University of Maryland.
Logic: Countries contribute to global environmental governance by participating in intergovernmental environmental
organizations.
Methodology: 100 Intergovernmental organizations were coded as "environmental" by CIESIN. (list available upon request)
Mean 12.98 Max 35 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 28.95
Median 12 Min 2 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 3
246
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ENEFF
Name: Energy efficiency (total energy consumption per unit GDP)
Units: Billion Btu/Million Dollars GDP Reference Year: 1999
Source US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html
Logic: The more efficient an economy is, the less energy it needs to produce goods and services.
Methodology:
Mean 9.11 Max 41.41 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 35.43
Median 7.14 Min 0.38 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.94
247
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ESIMIS
Name: Percent of ESI variables missing from public global data sets
Units: Percentage Reference Year: 2002
Source 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index data set.
Logic: The greater the number of missing variables, the poorer the data availability in that country. Environmental
monitoring and data systems are vital for tracking progress towards environmental sustainability.
Methodology: Data coverage for the following variables was evaluated: SO2, NO2, TSP, GMS_DO, GMS_PH, GMS_SS,
GMS_EC, PRTMAM, PRTBRD, NOXKM, SO2KM, VOCKM, COALKM, CARSKM, FERTHA,
PESTHA, BODWAT, FOREST, TFR, GR2050, UND_NO, WATSUP, DISRES, DISINT, U5MR, TAI,
SCHOOL, PRAREA, EIA, ENEFF, RENPC, FSHCAT, and FSHCON.
248
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FCCC
Name: Participation in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Units: Score Ranging from 0 (Low) to 2 (High) Reference Year: 2001
Source United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change web site at http://www.unfccc.int
Logic: Climate change is a global environmental problem that can only be solved through international cooperation.
This is a measure of national-level political commitment to address climate change.
Methodology: Countries receive one point for signature and one point for ratification.
Mean 1.53 Max 2 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 2
Median 2 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
249
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FERTHA
Name: Fertilizer consumption per hectare of arable land
Units: Hundreds Grams/Hectare of Arable Land Reference Year: 1998
Source World Bank, World Development Indicators 2001. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001.
Logic: Excessive use of fertilizers from agricultural activities has a negative impact on soil and water, altering chemistry
and levels of nutrients and leading to eutrophication problems.
Methodology:
Mean 1437.62 Max 31000 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 7911.78
Median 675.295 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1.07
250
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FOREST
Name: Forest cover change 1990-2000, annual change rate (percentage)
Units: Percent Change Reference Year: 1990-2000
Source Source: Forest Resources Assessment 2000. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp
Logic: When forests are lost or severely degraded, their capacity to function as regulators for the environment is also
lost, increasing flood and erosion hazards, reducing soil fertility, and contributing to the loss of plant and
animal life. As a result, the sustainable provision of goods and services from forests is jeopardized (Forest
Resources Assessment).
Methodology:
Mean -0.3 Max 5.3 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 3.39
Median -0.05 Min -9 2.5 percentile cut-off value: -4.2
251
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FSC
Name: FSC accredited forests as percent of total forest area
Units: FSC Forest Area as Percent of Total Forest Area Reference Year: 2000
Source Forest Stewardship Council web site, http://www.fscoax.org/html/5-3-3.html, and World Resources Institute,
World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000, Data Table FG.2
Logic: This variable measures the extent to which an economy seeks sustainable forestry practices.
Methodology: In calculating the ESI, the base-10 logarithm of this variable was used.
Mean 1.98 Max 66.46 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 35.53
Median 0 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
252
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FSHCAT
Name: Total marine fish catch
Units: Metric Tons Reference Year: 1999
Source FAOSTAT on-line database, http://apps.fao.org/
Logic: Many marine fisheries are becoming depleted and overfished. This is a measure of pressure on global marine fish
resources. Large marine fish catches by one nation necessarily depletes the stocks available to other nations.
Methodology:
Mean 649667.01 Max 11500550 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 5897902.2
Median 109395 Min 160 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1226.5
253
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: FSHCON
Name: Seafood supply per capita
Units: Kg per Person per Year Reference Year: 1999
Source FAOSTAT on-line database, http://apps.fao.org/
Logic: Many global fisheries are under stress. This is a measure of pressure on global fishing grounds. The greater the
per capita consumption of seafood, the higher the pressure on this transboundary resource.
Methodology: Seafood supply represents the per capita availability of seafood, and includes production + imports - exports.
Mean 13.19 Max 91.4 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 54.74
Median 8.8 Min 0.1 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.36
254
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GASPR
Name: Ratio of premium gasoline price to world average
Units: Ratio of Gasoline Price to World Average Reference Year: 1998-2000 MRYA
Source German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Fuel Prices and Taxation (1999) and the electronic update for
2000. Available from World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002, WDI table 3.12.
Logic: Unsubsidized gasoline prices are an indicator that appropriate price signals are being sent and that environmental
externalities have been internalized. High taxes on gasoline act as an incentive for public transportation use and
development of alternative fuels.
Methodology: Pump price for super gasoline (US$ per liter): Fuel prices refer to the pump prices of the most widely sold grade
of gasoline. Prices have been converted from the local currency to U.S. dollars, and the ratio of the gas price to
the world average in the same time period was used in order to normalize the data. For more information, see
World Development Indicators, Table 3.12.
255
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GEF
Name: Global environmental facility participation
Units: Standardized Scale (Z-Score) Reference Year: 2000
Source GEF Projects Allocations and Disbursements GEF R.3/Inf.3, Ocobter 3, 2001 at
http://www.gefweb.org/Allocations_Disbursements.pdf and GEF-2 Current and Projected Funding Status,
GEF/R.3/19, November 21, 2001.
Logic: Managing global environmental problems requires active financial participation of both donors and recipients.
The GEF irepresents the most significant global-scale effort to support world-wide environmental protection
efforts.
Methodology: This score combines payments and receipts. To make payments and receipts comparable, the two were first
standardized, and countries were assigned the higher of the two possible z-scores. Payments were normalized by
share of United Nations budget, and receipts were normalized by share of total GEF payments. Covers receipts
through June 30, 2001 and payments through November 20, 2001.
256
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GMS_DO
Name: Dissolved oxygen concentration
Units: Milligrams/Liter Reference Year: 1994-96 or MRYA
Source United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Environmental Monitoring System/Water Quality
Monitoring System. http://www.cciw.ca/gems/, with data for an additional 29 countries from Prescott-Allen, R.
The Wellbeing of Nations, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.
Logic: A measure of eutrophication, which has an important impact on the health of aquatic resoures and ecosystems.
High levels correspond to low eutrophication.
Methodology: The country values represent averages of the station-level values for the three year time period 1994-96, except
where data were only available for an earlier time period (1988-1993). The number of stations per country varies
depending on country size, number of water bodies, and level of participation in the GEMS monitoring system.
The data from "The Wellbeing of Nations" included a smaller subset of stations representing outfalls of major
watersheds. An analysis of a sample of countries with numerous stations found that the data for subsetted
stations are broadly comparable to the data for all GEMS stations in those countries.
257
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GMS_EC
Name: Electrical conductivity
Units: Micro-Siemens/Centimeter Reference Year: 1994-96 or MRYA
Source United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Environmental Monitoring System/Water Quality
Monitoring System. http://www.cciw.ca/gems/
Logic: A widely used bulk measure of metals concentration and salinity. High levels of conductivity correspond to
high concentrations.
Methodology: The country values represent averages of the station-level values for the three year time period 1994-96, except
where data were only available for an earlier time period (1988-1993). The number of stations per country varies
depending on country size, number of water bodies, and level of participation in the GEMS monitoring system.
258
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GMS_PH
Name: Phosphorus concentration
Units: Milligrams/Liter Reference Year: 1994-96 or MRYA
Source United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Environmental Monitoring System/Water Quality
Monitoring System. http://www.cciw.ca/gems/, with data for an additional 29 countries from Prescott-Allen, R.
The Wellbeing of Nations, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.
Logic: A measure of eutrophication, which affects aquatic resources health. High levels correspond to high
eutrophication.
Methodology: The country values represent averages of the station-level values for the three year time period 1994-96, except
where data were only available for an earlier time period (1988-1993). The number of stations per country varies
depending on country size, number of water bodies, and level of participation in the GEMS monitoring system.
The data from "The Wellbeing of Nations" included a smaller subset of stations representing outfalls of major
watersheds. An analysis of a sample of countries with numerous stations found that the data for subsetted
stations are broadly comparable to the data for all GEMS stations in those countries.
259
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GMS_SS
Name: Suspended solids
Units: Natural Log of Milligrams/Liter Reference Year: 1994-96 or MRYA
Source United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Environmental Monitoring System/Water Quality
Monitoring System. http://www.cciw.ca/gems/, with data for an additional 29 countries from Prescott-Allen, R.
The Wellbeing of Nations, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.
Logic: A measure of water quality and turbidity.
Methodology: The country values represent averages of the station-level values for the three year time period 1994-96, except
where data were only available for an earlier time period (1988-1993). The number of stations per country varies
depending on country size, number of water bodies, and level of participation in the GEMS monitoring system.
Data from "The Wellbeing of Nations" included a smaller subset of stations representing outfalls of major
watersheds. An analysis of a sample of countries with numerous stations found that the data for subsetted
stations are broadly comparable to the data for all GEMS stations in those countries. The data in this table were
transformed using the natural logarithm.
260
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GR2050
Name: Percentage change in projected population between 2000 and 2050
Units: Percent Change in Population Reference Year: 2001
Source Population Reference Bureau, 2001 World Population Data Sheet, Washington, DC: PRB, 2001.
Logic: The projected change in population between 2000 and 2050 provides an indication of the trajectory of
population change, which has an impact on a country's per capita natural resource availability and environmental
conditions.
Methodology: A threshold of 0 was applied. All countries with growth rates of 0 or below received the same score.
Mean 65.82 Max 282.01 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 242.61
Median 48.72 Min -35.95 2.5 percentile cut-off value: -25.8
261
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: GRAFT
Name: Corruption measure (World Bank)
Units: Standardized Scale (z-score) Reference Year: 2000
Source Dataset from "Aggregating Governance Indicators" and "Governance Matters", Kaufmann D., Kraay A. and
Zoido-Lobaton P, May 2000, World Bank.
Logic: Corruption contributes to lax enforcement of environmental regulations and an ability on the part of producers
and consumers to evade responsibility for the environmental harms they cause.
Methodology:
Mean -0.07 Max 2.13 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 2.08
Median -0.305 Min -1.57 2.5 percentile cut-off value: -1.31
262
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: INNOV
Name: Innovation
Units: Unitless Scale Reference Year: 2001
Source Porter, Michael E. and Scott Stern, National Innovative Capacity, Chapter 2.2 in Porter, Michael, and Jeffrey
Sachs (eds.), The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, p.
104.
Logic: This index measures the underlying capacity of a country to engage in technological innovation by examining
factors such as scientific infrastructure and policy environment.
Methodology:
Mean 19.85 Max 30.3 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 29.43
Median 19.4 Min 11.6 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 11.6
263
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: ISO14
Name: Number of ISO 14001 certified companies per million dollars GDP
Units: Number of ISO 14001 Certified Companies/GDP in US Reference Year: 2001
Source ISO14001/EMAS registered companies, ISO World, International Standards Organisation, available at
http://www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm, accessed 20 November 2001.
Logic: ISO 14001 specifies standards for environmental management. The more firms that receive ISO
14001certification, the more likely it is that industries are instituting management practices that reduce waste
and resource consumption.
Methodology:
Mean 5.36 Max 101.23 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 47.3
Median 0.41 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
264
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: IUCN
Name: IUCN member organizations per million population
Units: Organizations/Million Population Reference Year: 2001
Source Membership List, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1 August 2001
Logic: IUCN is the oldest international environmental membership organization, currently with over 900 members
(governmental and NGO) worldwide, so it includes the most significant NGOs in each country
Methodology:
Mean 0.52 Max 7.02 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 2.58
Median 0.24 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
265
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: MONFUN
Name: Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund participation
Units: Standardized Scale (Z-Score) Reference Year: 2001
Source Report of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/34/58, 21 July 2001; Report of the
Thirty-Third Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/33/32, 30 March 2001; Report of the Thirty-Second Meeting of the
Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol,
UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/32/44, 22 January 2001; Report of the 13th Meeting of the Sub-Committee on
Monitoring, Evaluation and Finance, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/33/3, 27 March 2001.
Logic: Managing global environmental problems requires active financial participation, both among donors and
recipients. The Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund is a major organized effort to finance reductions in
production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances.
Methodology: This score combines payments (contributions to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund and bilateral
payments credited under the terms of the Fund) and receipts by countries from the Fund. To make payments
and receipts comparable, the two were first standardized, and countries were assigned the higher of the two
possible z-scores. Payments were normalized by share of United Nations budget, and receipts were normalized
by share of total Fund payments. Covers payments during 2000 and receipts during 2001.
Mean 0.65 Max 9.99 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 4.4
Median -0.12 Min -0.29 2.5 percentile cut-off value: -0.29
266
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: NO2
Name: Urban NO2 concentration
Units: Micrograms/m3 Reference Year: MRYA 1990-1996
Source: World Resources Institute, World Resources 1998-99; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000; WHO,
Air Management Information System-AMIS 2.0, 1998; and Global Urban Observatory, Citibase, 1999.
Logic: Indicator of Urban Air Quality.
Methodology: The values were originally collected at the city level. The number of city with data provided by each country
varied. Within each country the values have been normalized by city population for the year 1995, then summed
to give the total concentration for the given country.
267
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: NOXKM
Name: NOx emissions per populated land area
Units: 1000 Metric Tons/Sq. Km. of Populated Land Area Reference Year: 2000
Source Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Data Version 1.1, B1
Illustrative Marker Scenario with model IMAGE. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/final_data.html
Logic: Indicator of air pollution: emissions contibute to declines in air quality.The use of a Gridded dataset gives more
detailed information about the distribution of pollution sources and permits a better estimate of total emissions
within each country.
Methodology: The gridded emissions data, originally available as 1x1 degree cells, were summarized at the country level to
give the total emissions for each country. Air pollution is generally greatest in densely populated areas. To take
this into account, we used the Gridded Population of the World dataset available from CIESIN and calculated
the total land area in each country inhabited with a population density of greater than 5 persons per sq. km. We
then utilized this land area as the denominator for the emissions data.
268
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: NUKE
Name: Nuclear waste generated
Units: Standardized Scale (z-score) Reference Year: 1996
Source International Atomic Energy Agency, Waste Management Database, 1997
Logic: Radioactive waste, as a source of ionizing radiation, has long been recognized as a potential hazard to human
health. Many practices in the fields of research, medicine, industry and generation of electricity generate waste
that requires management to ensure the protection of human health and the environment now and in the future,
without imposing undue burdens on future generations (The Principle of Radioactive Waste Management,
IAEA, 1997).
Methodology: Two variables were initially available for Radioactive Waste: Accumulated Quantity (cubic meters) as generated
and Accumulated Quantity (cubic meters) after treatment. We calculated the z-scores for the two variables, in
order to make them comparable, and took which ever variable was available for each country. For the three coun-
tries (Australia, Canada and Czech Republic) which had both variables, we took the higher.
269
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: PESTHA
Name: Pesticide use
Units: Kg/Hectare of Cropland Reference Year: 1996
Source World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000.
Logic: Excessive use of pesticides in agricultural activities has a negative impact on soil, water, humans and wildlife.
Methodology:
Mean 3088.19 Max 24125 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 16753.29
Median 1760.3 Min 1 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 16.58
270
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: POLITY
Name: Democratic institutions
Units: Scale ranging from 10 (autocratic) to +10 (democratic) Reference Year: 1999
Source Polity IV Project, University of Maryland, at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/index.htm#polity
Logic: The presence of democratic institutions increases the likelihood that important environmental issues will be
debated, that alternative views will be aired, and that decision-making and implementation will be carried out in
an open manner. These factors improve the quality of environmental governance.
Methodology:
Mean 3.06 Max 10 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 10
Median 6 Min -10 2.5 percentile cut-off value: -9
271
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: PRAREA
Name: Percent of land area under protected status
Units: Percent Land Area Reference Year: 1998
Source World Conservation Monitoring Centre Protected Areas Database. Data Provider: World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC), 1999, accessed at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/data/un_annex.htm
Logic: The percentage of land area dedicated to protected areas represents an investment by the country in biodiversity
conservation.
Methodology: Marine protected areas were subtracted from the total area of protected areas so as to limit the focus to land-based
ecosystem protection.
Mean 8.37 Max 60.72 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 29.6
Median 6.195 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
272
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: PRTBRD
Name: Percentage of breeding birds threatened
Units: Percent of Breeding Birds Reference Year: 2000
Source 2000 IUCN Red List, http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table3.html, and World Resources Institute, World
Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. Original sources: World Conservation Monitoring
Center, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and
other sources. http://earthtrends.wri.org
Logic: The percent of breeding birds threatened gives an estimate of a country's success at preserving its biodiversity.
Methodology: The number of bird species threatened divided by known bird species in the country, expressed as a percentage.
273
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: PRTMAM
Name: Percentage of mammals threatened
Units: Percent of Mammals Reference Year: 2000
Source 2000 IUCN Red List, http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table3.html, and World Resources Institute, World
Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. Original sources: World Conservation Monitoring
Center, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and
other sources. http://earthtrends.wri.org
Logic: The percent of mammals threatened gives an estimate of a country's success at preserving its biodiversity.
Methodology: Number of mammal species threatened divided by known mammal species in the country, expressed as a
percentage. Note that due to inconsistencies in the taxonomies used in the two lists utilized to develop this variable,
Haiti appears to have over 100 percent of its mammal species threatened.
Mean 13.98 Max 133.33 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 44.06
Median 11.27 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1.69
274
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: RENPC
Name: Renewable resources production as a percentage of total energy consumption
Units: Renewable Energy Production as a Percent of Total Energy Reference Year: 1999
Source US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html, accessed 20
November 2001.
Logic: The higher the proportion of hydroelectric and renewable energy sources, the less reliance on more
environmentally damaging sources such as fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
Methodology: Hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, solar and wind electric power production as a percentage of total energy
consumption. Some countries exceed 100 percent because they are net exorters of renewable energy.
Mean 21.22 Max 489.91 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 108.4
Median 8.165 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
275
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: SCHOOL
Name: Mean years of schooling (age 15 and above)
Units: Years Reference Year: 2000
Source United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report 2001, New York: Oxford University Press,
2001, Table A2.1.
Logic: The more educated a population is, the more likely it is to have the ingenuity to develop sustainable solutions
to environment and development challenges.
Methodology:
Mean 5.93 Max 12 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 11.64
Median 5.86 Min 0.8 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1.06
276
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: SO2
Name: Urban SO2 concentration
Units: Micrograms/m3 Reference Year: MRYA 1990-1996
Source: World Resources Institute, World Resources 1998-99; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000; WHO,
Air Management Information System-AMIS 2.0, 1998; and Global Urban Observatory, Citibase, 1999.
Logic: Indicator of Urban Air Quality.
Methodology: The values were originally collected at the city level. The number of cities with data provided by each country
varied. Within each country the values have been normalized by city population for the year 1995, then summed
to give the total concentration for the given country.
277
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: SO2EXP
Name: S02 exports
Units: 100 Metric Tons Reference Year: 1997 (Asia) and 1998
Source International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, RAINS-ASIA and Co-operative Programme for
monitoring and evaluation of the long range transmission of air pollutants in Europe (EMEP)
Logic: The transport of sulphur emissions across national boundaries contributes to poor air quality and acid rain in
receiving countries.
Methodology:
Mean 1542.9 Max 12300 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 5366.75
Median 1283.345 Min 4.12 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 18.67
278
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: SO2KM
Name: SO2 emissions per populated land area
Units: 1000 Metric Tons/Sq. Km. of Populated Land Area Reference Year: 2000
Source Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Data Version 1.1, B1
Illustrative Marker Scenario with model IMAGE. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/final_data.html
Logic: Indicator of air pollution: emissions contibute to declines in air quality.The use of a Gridded dataset gives more
detailed information about the distribution of pollution sources and permits a better estimate of total emissions
within each country.
Methodology: The gridded emissions data, originally available as 1x1 degree cells, were summarized at the country level to
give the total emissions for each country. Air pollution is generally greatest in densely populated areas. To take
this into account, we used the Gridded Population of the World dataset available from CIESIN and calculated
the total land area in each country inhabited with a population density of greater than 5 persons per sq. km. We
then utilized this land area as the denominator for the emissions data.
279
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: SUBFSH
Name: Subsidies to the commecial fishing sector
Units: US Dollars (Millions) Reference Year: 1997
Source World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US). Hard Facts, Hidden Problems: A Review of Current Data on Fishing
Subsidies, A WWF Technical Paper, October 2001, Annex 1.
Logic: Subsidies to the fishing industry encourage over-capacity, and therefore over-fishing.
Methodology: Data on itemized fishing subsidies were combined from Annex 1 of the WWF report. Where estimated ranges
were given, the mid-point of the range was used. In calculating the ESI, the base-10 logarithm of this variable
was used.
280
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: TAI
Name: Technology Achievement Index
Units: Score Reference Year: circa 2000
Source United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press,
2001, Table A2.1.
Logic: The higher a country's technology achievement index, the greater its ability to create technological solutions to
environmental problems.
Methodology:
Mean 0.37 Max 0.74 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.74
Median 0.34 Min 0.07 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0.07
281
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: TFR
Name: Total fertility rate
Units: Average Number of Births Per Woman Reference Year: 2001
Source Population Reference Bureau, 2001 World Population Data Sheet, Washington, DC: PRB, 2001.
Logic: Fertility contributes significantly to population growth, and thus to pressure on natural resources. If fertility
remains at high levels indefinitely, it is environmentally unsustainable.
Methodology:
Mean 3.42 Max 7.5 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 7.03
Median 2.9 Min 1.11 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1.15
282
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: TSP
Name: Urban TSP concentration
Units: Micrograms per Cubic Meter Reference Year: MRYA 1990-1996
Source: World Resources Institute, World Resources 1998-99; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000; WHO,
Air Management Information System-AMIS 2.0, 1998; and Global Urban Observatory, Citibase, 1999.
Logic: Indicator of Urban Air Quality.
Methodology: The values were originally collected at the city level. The number of cities with data provided by each country
varied. Within each country the values have been normalized by city population for the year 1995, then summed
to give the total concentration for the given country.
283
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: U5MORT
Name: Under-5 mortality rate
Units: Deaths Per 1,000 Live Births Reference Year: 1999
Source United Nations Children's Fund. The State of the World's Children 2001, New York: UNICEF, 2001.
Logic: Under-5 mortality rate is a measure of the vulnerability of the most vulnerable population group.
Methodology: Deaths between birth and age five, divided by 1,000 live births
Mean 70.04 Max 316 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 252
Median 40.5 Min 4 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 4.58
284
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: UND_NO
Name: Proportion of undernourished in total population
Units: Percentage of Total Population Reference Year: MRYA 1997-1999
Source Food and Agriculture Organization, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001, Rome: FAO, 2001,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e06.htm.
Logic: This indicator represents a measure of the population vulnerability to malnutrition, famine or diseases, in
addition to showing the incapacity of an economy to supply an adequate amount of food and to manage food
resources.
Methodology:
Mean 16.52 Max 75 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 59.4
Median 11 Min 1 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 1
285
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: VIENNA
Name: Levels of ratification under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
Units: Index Ranging from 0 (No Participation) to 3 (High Levels of Reference Year: 2001
Source United Nations Environment Program, The Ozone Secretariat, http://www.unep.org/ozone/ratif.shtml.
Logic: The number of protocols and amendments that a country has acceded to or ratified under the Vienna Convention
is an indication of its commitment to fight ozone depletion
Methodology: The index assigned values as follows. Countries received a score of zero if they were not signatory to the Vienna
Convention. They received a score of 1 if they had ratified the Montreal Protocol only. They received a score of
2 if they ratified the above plus the London Amendment. They received a score of 2.5 if they ratified the above
plus the Copenhagen Amendment. They received a score of 3 if they ratified the above plus the Montreal
Amendment.
286
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: VOCKM
Name: VOCs emissions per populated land area
Units: 1000 Metric Tons/Sq. Km. of Populated Land Area Reference Year: 2000
Source Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Data Version 1.1, B1
Illustrative Marker Scenario with model IMAGE. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/final_data.html
Logic: Indicator of air pollution: emissions contibute to declines in air quality.The use of a Gridded dataset gives more
detailed information about the distribution of pollution sources and permits a better estimate of total emissions
within each country.
Methodology: The gridded emissions data, originally available as 1x1 degree cells, were summarized at the country level to
give the total emissions for each country. Air pollution is generally greatest in densely populated areas. To take
this into account, we used the Gridded Population of the World dataset available from CIESIN and calculated
the total land area in each country inhabited with a population density of greater than 5 persons per sq. km. We
then utilized this land area as the denominator for the emissions data.
287
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WATCAP
Name: Water availability per capita
Units: Thousands Cubic Meters/Person Reference Year: 1961-1990 (avg.)
Source Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, WaterGAP 2.1B, 2001
Logic: The per capita volume of internal renewable water resources in a country is important for a variety of
environmental services and to support the needs of the population.
Methodology: This variable measures internal renewable water (average annual surface runoff and groundwater recharge
generated from endogenous precipitation, taking into account evaporation from lakes and wetlands) per capita.
These data are derived from the WaterGap 2.1 gridded hydrological model developed by the Center for
Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany. A special run of the model was performed in
order to derive country-level estimates of internal renewable water resources. There are some problems, in that
the size of the grid cells (0.5 x 0.5 degree) do not accurately capture small countries. It was felt, however, that
the consistent definitions used, and the fact that the model itself is based on over 30 years of global hydrological
data, mean that the data are more comparable than similar country water resources estimates published
elsewhere.
288
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WATINC
Name: Water inflow availability per capita
Units: Thousands Cubic Meters/Person Reference Year: 1961-1990 (avg.)
Source Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, WaterGAP 2.1B, 2001
Logic: The sum of per capita internal water availability and the per capita volume of water flowing into a country
provides a more complete assessment of a country's water resources, which are important for a variety of
environmental services and to support the needs of the population.
Methodology: These data are derived from the WaterGap 2.1 gridded hydrological model developed by the Center for
Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany. A special run of the model was performed in
order to derive country-level estimates of inflow from other countries. There are some problems, in that the size
of the grid cells (0.5 x 0.5 degree) do not accurately capture small countries. It was felt, however, that the
consistent definitions used, and the fact that the model itself is based on over 30 years of global hydrological
data, mean that the data are more comparable than similiar country water resource estimates published
elsewhere. In calculating the ESI, the base-10 logarithm of this variable was used.
289
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WATSTR
Name: Percent of country's territory under severe water stress
Units: Percent of Land Area Reference Year: 1961-1990 (avg.)
Source Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, WaterGap 2.1, 2000
Logic: The regional distribution of water availability relative to population and consumption needs is as important as
its overall water availability. This variable captures the percent of the territory that is under water stress, which
will affect the availability of water for environmental services and human well-being.
Methodology: These data are derived from the WaterGap 2.1 gridded hydrological model developed by the Center for
Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany. The modelers derived grid cell by grid cell
estimates for every country of whether the water consumption exceeds 40 percent of the water available in that
particular grid cell. These were then converted to land area equivalents, and the percentage of the territory under
severe water stress was calculated.
290
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WATSUP
Name: Percent of population with access to clean water
Units: Percent of Population Reference Year: 2000
Source World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund, Global Water Supply and Sanitation
Assessment 2000, New York: WHO and UNICEF, 2000.
Logic: The percentage of population with access to improved sources of drinking water supply is directly related to the
capacity of a country to provide a healthy environment, reducing the risks associated with water-borne diseases
and exposure to pollutants.
Methodology:
Mean 77.52 Max 100 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 100
Median 82.095 Min 24 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 29.15
291
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WBCSD
Name: Number of World Business Council on Sustainable Development members, per GDP
Units: Members per Billion Dollars GDP Reference Year: 2001
Source World Business Council on Sustainable Development, List of Members,
http://www.wbcsd.org/aboutus/members.htm.
Logic: The WBCSD is a prominent private-sector organization promoting the principles of sustainable development
and encouraging high standards of environmental management within firms.
Methodology:
Mean 2.98 Max 61.93 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 41.96
Median 0 Min 0 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 0
292
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WEFAGR
Name: Compliance with environmental agreements (WEF survey)
Units: Survey Responses Ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 Reference Year: 2000
Source Michael E. Porter et al, The Global Competitveness Report 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Logic: Where compliance is a high priority, other things equal, global obligations are more effectively honored.
Methodology: Response to the statement: "Compliance with international environmental agreements is a high priority."
Mean 4.45 Max 6.72 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 6.68
Median 4.38 Min 2.68 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 2.75
293
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WEFGOV
Name: Environmental governance
Units: Principal Components of Several Survey Questions Reference Year: 2001
Source Michael E. Porter et al, The Global Competitveness Report 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Logic: Effective governance is vital for environmental sustainability.
Methodology: This represents the principal component of responses to several WEF survey questions touching on aspects of
environmental governance: air pollution regulations, chemical waste regulations, clarity and staility of
regulations, flexibility of regulations, environmental regulatory innovation, leadership in environmental policy,
stringency of environmental regulations, consistency of regulation enforcement, environmental regulatory
stringency, toxic waste disposal regulations, and water pollution regulations.
294
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WEFPRI
Name: Private sector environmental innovation
Units: Principal Components of Several Survey Questions Reference Year: 2001
Source Michael E. Porter et al, The Global Competitveness Report 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Logic: Private sector innovation contributes to solutions to environmental problems.
Methodology: This represents the principal component of responses to several WEF survey questions touching on several
aspects of private sector environmental innovation: environmental competitiveness, prevalence of environmental
management systems, and private sector cooperation with government.
295
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
Variable: WEFSUB
Name: Subsidies for energy or materials usage (WEF survey)
Units: Survey Responses Ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 Reference Year: 2001
Source Michael E. Porter et al, The Global Competitveness Report 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Logic: Subsidies encourage wasteful consumption of energy and materials.
Methodology: Response to the statement "No government subsidies for energy or materials usage are present."
Mean 4.42 Max 5.94 97.5 percentile cut-off value: 5.91
Median 4.42 Min 2.6 2.5 percentile cut-off value: 2.74
296
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data
297