The Environmental Performance Index (EPI): Latvia in Perspective Angel Hsu Project Director 2012 Environmental Performance Index May 26, 2011
Yale Center for ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY• Established in 1994, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy is a joint initiative between the Yale Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.• The Center is a hybrid between a think tank and a research institution, as each of its initiatives is aimed at bringing academic rigor to real-world policymaking.
Current Policy Stalemate• Hard to set goals when metrics aren’t available• Hard to mobilize support for measurement in the absence of policy goals• MDGs helped reinvigorate many socioeconomic measurement efforts – did not have same effect on the environment 4
Clear Sustainability Targets Remain Elusive• Human-oriented indicators • Ecosystem-oriented tend to be linked to clear targets hard to ﬁnd targets – Regional ozone – Mortality – Nitrogen loading – Drinking Water – Water consumption – Sanitation – Wilderness Protection – Urban Particulates – Overﬁshing – Exception: Indoor Air Pollution Problems that manifest themselves over complicated transnational, multi-scale, coupled-system dynamics. The policy debates need help!
ESI and EPI• Born out of a recognition that environmental policy-making needs to be more – Data-driven – Science-based – Analytically rigorous• “What gets measured matters”• Need a revolution in policymaking – Good data, indicators, and metrics provide foundation – Underpinning for analysis – scientific, statistical, benefit-cost, and economic
History of the EPIESI: Environmental Sustainability Index• Pilot 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2005 versions• http://www.yale.edu/esiEPI: Environmental Performance Index• Pilot 2008 version• http://epi.yale.edu:2008• 2010 version• http://epi.yale.edu 7
The EPI Model Premise 1: Environmental conditions matter to people. Premise 2: Performance assessment should be based on absolute targets.EPI measures a country’s performance as thedistance to target for 25 environmentaloutcomes in 10 policy categories.
EPI aims• Make environmental decision-making more data- driven and empirical• Establish context for evaluating policy results• Facilitate benchmarking of performance• Identify leaders, laggards, and best practices• Provide counterpoint to GDP growth and competitiveness rankings• Intended to stimulate debate about appropriate metrics and methodologies for evaluating environmental performance (work in progress)
DSPIR Framework DPSIR Framework Responses e.g. Regulations, Taxes, Investments Driverse.g. Electricity production, Transportation Impacts e.g. Adverse human health effects, lowered crop yields Pressures e.g. CO2 emissions, waste byproducts States e.g. Water or soil quality
Data Gaps• Toxic chemical exposures• Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury) exposure• Ambient air quality concentrations• Municipal and toxic waste management• Nuclear safety• Pesticide safety• Wetlands loss• Species loss• Freshwater ecosystems health• Agricultural soil quality and erosion• Comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions
Methodology• Adjust direction• Standardize using maximum possible range or observed range• Calculate distance to target• Average indicators for policy area indices• Average policy area indices
Proximity to Target International Target range Distance to targetWorse Betterperformance performance
Performance Indicator(international range) – (distance to target) x 100 (international range)
Policy Targets• (1) treaties or other internationally agreed upon goals;• (2) standards set by international organizations;• (3) leading national regulatory requirements;• (4) expert judgment based on prevailing scientific consensus.
Data Sources• official statistics that are measured and formally reported by governments to international organizations (but which are not independently verified)• modeled data• observations from monitoring stations
A Note on AggregationEPI is composite index with 2 steps ofaggregation: EPI Weighting Policy Area Weighting Indicator
Cross-Country Indicator Analysis• Identify leaders and laggards• Investigate policy options through comparative analysis (e.g., peer groups) – May include cost/benefit evaluations• Set national policy targets• Track progress over time
Climate Change IndicatorsIndicator Weighting Weighting Target 2008 Target 2010 (2008) (2010)Greenhouse 8.333 12.5 2.24 Mt CO2 eq. 2.5 Mt CO2 eq. (Estimated valuegas emissions (Estimated value associated with 50% reduction inper capita associated with 50% global GHG emissions by 2050, reduction in global GHG against 1990 levels)(including emissions by 2050, againstland use 1990 levels) emissions) CO2 8.333 6.3 0 g CO2 per kWh 0 g CO2 per kWhemissions perelectricitygeneration Industrial 8.333 6.3 85 tons of CO2 per $1000 36.3 tons of CO2 per $mill (USD,greenhouse (USD, 2005, PPP) of 2005, PPP) of industrial GDPgas emissions industrial GDP (Estimated (Estimated value associated with value associated with 50% 50% reduction in global GHGintensity reduction in global GHG emissions by 2050, against 1990 emissions by 2050, against levels) 1990 levels)
2008 vs. 2010Results are not comparable! Indicator Score Score Raw value Raw 2008 2010 (2008) value(201 0) GHG 93.4 54.6 5.7 10.2 emissions per capita CO2 82.5 38.2 162 164.05 emissions/ electricity generation Industrial 84.8 74.7 1.9 tons per 61.8 tons CO2 $1,000 per $mil emissions USD USD intensityFor 2008 EPI, Population 2,307,000 (2005) and GDP per capita: $13,724.5 USD For 2010 EPI, Population 2,276,100 (2007) and GDP per capita $16,268.67 USD
Example: Calculation of GHG per capita in 2010 EPI1) Raw emissions data, exc. land-use change Country 2000 2005 Latvia 10.10 10.902) Imputation - missing land-use data 12.50 for 2000-20053) Raw population data Country 2000 2005 Latvia 2,372,000 2,300,500 Data from4) Calculation of per capita GHG emissions CAIT, (2009), Country 2000 2005 Houghton Latvia 9.5 10.2 (2005), IEA
Recommendations• Comprehensive, integrated climate strategy needed - Highlight is Forestry sector• Transport sector has highest potential for improvements. - Highest average emissions for new cars in the EU - Tax rates for passenger vehicles based on emissions - Public transport
Recommendations• Industrial sector could beneﬁt from support for renewables • Building sector - Policies to require use of renewable sources for heat and electricity • Agriculture and land-use emissions high - Introduce policies to reduce methane emissions associated with livestock
Sustainable Development Recommendations using EPI• Prioritize which areas are lagging behind others through data-driven decision-making – “Latvia EPI” – Trend analysis of indicators• Need a new greener model of development• Use various forums (govt, NGO, academia, business) to test best practices for engagement and opportunity• Engage in international or regional cooperation for climate and other transboundary issues
EPI Experience - Conclusions• EPI permits performance analysis independent of that of other countries• Facilitates analysis on different levels of aggregation and units – Indicator, policy area, global index level – Within and across countries – At single time point and across time (limited) – Comparisons with other indices and performance benchmarks
EPI Experience - Conclusions• Choice of targets shapes policy conclusions – In some cases, specification of targets difficult or country-specific – Long-term environmental processes better measured through progress targets than through sustainability targets – Policy conclusions depend also on who is responsible for environmental pressures (e.g., government, business, individual)
EPI Experience - Conclusions• Findings indicate environmental performance is linked to income, good governance, and competitiveness – Supports ESI results – Significance of governance and competitiveness disappears when accounting for GDP/cap• Open issues: – Testing/refining of EPI model (robustness, choice of indicators and targets, aggregation, and imputation) – Cause-effect relationships of good environmental performance (looking beyond the income link) – Translation of results into better policies
2012 EPI Plans• Component I: ‘Core EPI’ – Criteria for more robust indicators – Change Index• Component II: Blueprint for air quality measurement – Satellite data, innovative measurement methods• Component III: Global Case studies – Feature Latvia
Environmental Performance Indicators in Practice Prize (EPIPP)• Biennial prize for noteworthy applications of environmental performance indicators to improve environmental governance.• Cash prize, trip to WEF meeting in Davos, outreach/promotion