This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed

Transcription

1 Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(1): , 2011 ISSN This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed ORIGINAL ARTICLE Comparison of Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in Oic Countries: Before and after Financial Crisis 1 Ahmad Jafari Samimi, and 2 Mohiddin Ahmadpour 1 Professor of Economics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar-Iran 2 M.A student in Economics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar-Iran. Ahmad Jafari Samimi, Mohiddin Ahmadpour; Comparison of Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in OIC countries: Before and after financial crisis ABSTRACT The Purpose of the present paper is to evaluate the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in the OIC countries before and after financial crisis. To do so, we used EPI data from the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy during The EPI as a composite index builds on measures relevant to the goal of reducing environmental stresses on human health, which we call the Environmental Health objective. It also includes measures relevant to the goal of reducing the loss or degradation of ecosystems and natural resources we call this the Ecosystem Vitality objective. The value of EPI is between zero and 100. Where 100 corresponds to the target and zero to the worst observed value. Our findings indicate that although the overall performance of OIC countries improved during but the data for 2010 shows a general deteriorating environmental performances of the countries under considerations. Perhaps among other reasons financial crisis be considered to play an important role in this regard. Key words: Environmental Performance Index (EPI), OIC Countries, Financial Crisis. Introduction The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is a new and strongly performance-oriented composite index. It builds on the Pilot Environmental Performance Index that was published in 2002 and is designed to be a powerful supplement to the environmental targets set forth in the U.N. Millennium Development Goals. The EPI measures progress toward a set of targets of desirable environmental outcomes, taking into account a country's current policies. It is anticipated to be of particular value to decision makers because of its strict input-output framework and short- to mediumterm time horizon, which promotes accountability and performance evaluation at the policy level. The EPI permits cross-country peer-reviews to identify best practices, leaders, and laggards, but it primarily tracks performance changes over time with respect to clearly identified, achievable targets. These targets are based on existing international agreements, scientific evidence on the harmful impacts of pollution on humans and ecosystems, and economically feasible environmental protection strategies. The EPI scores provide a basis to make sound comparisons across the overall environmental performances of the countries. Furthermore, by comparing each country s performance in Air Quality, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, Sustainable Energy and Environmental Health categories, it enables a more detailed assessment among countries. The EPI is also oriented towards supplementing the environmental targets specified in the United Nations_ Millennium Development Goals. It will thus contribute to achieving long-term environmental sustainability targets. Corresponding Author Ahmad Jafari Samimi, Professor of Economics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar-Iran. jafarisa@umz.ac.ir.

2 The EPI report highlights a range of peer groups for each country. By grouping countries that are at the same level of development, in the same geographic region, or statistically similar (as determined by the clustering process), the EPI provides environmental decision makers with a way to establish a context for their policy choices and performance outcomes. Regarding to the above, the purpose of the present paper is to evaluate the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in the OIC countries during before and after financial crisis. To do so, we used EPI data from the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy that reported in П. The EPI Framework The EPI offers a composite index of current national environmental protection results (Pilot 2006, 2008 and 2010 Environmental Performance Index). It highlights peer-reviews on a cross-country basis to evaluate the current performances of countries. It mainly tracks performance changes over time with respect to clearly identified, achievable targets. The EPI builds on measures relevant to the goal of reducing environmental stresses on human health, which we call the Environmental Health objective. It also includes measures relevant to the goal of reducing the loss or degradation of ecosystems and natural resources we call this the Ecosystem Vitality objective. The quantitative metrics of the EPI encompass 16 indicators or datasets. These indicators were chosen through a broad-based review of the environmental policy literature, the policy consensus emerging from the Millennium Development Goal dialogue, and expert judgment. Together they span the range of priority environmental issues that are measurable through currently available data sources. For each indicator, we have also identified a relevant long-term public health or ecosystem sustainability goal. Drawn from international agreements, standards set by international organizations or national authorities, or prevailing consensus among environmental scientists, the targets do not vary by country. Rather, they serve as absolute benchmarks for long-term environmental sustainability. Using the 16 indicators, we are able to evaluate environmental health and ecosystem vitality performance at three levels of aggregation. Table1. gives an overview of the EPI objectives, policy categories, indicators, and weights within each category and the categories within the EPI. To make the 16 indicators comparable, each was converted to a proximity-to-target measure with a theoretical range of zero to 100. To avoid extreme values skewing aggregations, the indicator values for _outlier_ 202 countries were adjusted to make them equal to the value of the 5th percentile country, a recognized statistical technique called winsorization. To avoid rewarding_over-performance, no indicator values above the long-term target were used. In few cases where a country did better than the target, the value was reset so that it was equal to the target. Once those two adjustments were made, a simple arithmetic transformation was undertaken _ stretching the observed values onto a zero to 100 scales, where 100 corresponded to the target and zero to the worst observed value. To ensure the use of the most relevant and best available metrics, the following indicator selection criteria were applied: Relevance: The indicator clearly tracks the environmental issue of concern in a way that is relevant to countries under a wide range of circumstances, including various geographic, climatic, and economic conditions. Performance orientation: The indicator tracks ambient conditions or onthe-ground results (or is a_best available data_ proxy for such outcome measures). Transparency: The indicator provides a clear baseline measurement, ability to track changes over time, and transparency as to data sources and methods. Data quality: The data used by the indicator should meet basic quality requirements and represent the best measure available. III. Environmental Performance in the OIC Countries The aim of this section is to identify the current performances of the OIC countries on the core environmental issues such as air and water pollution, land protection and greenhouse emissions, in light of the data and information taken from the Pilot Environmental Performance Index (EPI). The index is being prepared and published by the Yale University s Environment School and Earth Institute at Columbia University in collaboration with World Economic Forum and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The Pilot EPI identifies targets for environmental performances and measures how close each country comes to achieving these goals. Specifically, the report evaluates overall

3 environmental performance of the OIC countries and the performance of each OIC country individually, in this regard. It should be mentioned that the OIC countries consist of 57 countries whiles the data of EPI is available only for 46 countries of this region, then 11 countries of this region are deletion of discussion. Table 2. Indicates the EPI score in the countries of OIC countries during Table 3. Indicates the EPI and its components score in the countries of OIC countries in According to the information of this table, average score of EPI in the OIC countries in 2006 is equal 55.7 that show the performance levels are not satisfactory. Furthermore, the data of table representing those The OIC countries have not performed satisfactorily with regard to the Environmental Health, Air Quality, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, and Sustainable Energy categories. On the other hand, they appear to have performed quite satisfactorily in terms of the Productive Natural Resources category Based on Figure 2. top 5 performing OIC countries in the EPI in 2006 are Malaysia, Lebanon, Gabon, United Arab Emirates and Turkey, respectively. Malaysia, showed better performance as compared to the other OIC Member Countries in In general, the performances of the OIC Countries are not satisfactory in Analysis of the relative performances of the OIC countries in each of the selected 6 policy categories (Environmental Health, Air Quality, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Sustainable Energy) within the EPI in 2006 reveals that only Gabon, Lebanon and United Arab Emirates have scores above 90 in the Environmental Health category. Malaysia, which is the best performing OIC country in the EPI in 2006, ranked 4th in environmental health scores. Thus, its performance in environmental health appeared to be slightly weaker than Gabon, Lebanon and United Arab Emirates. It appears that there are only a few OIC countries that achieved significant performance in the EPI. In general, the performances of the OIC countries are not satisfactory in this category in Table 4. Indicates the EPI and its components score in the countries of OIC countries in According to the information of this table, average score of EPI in the OIC countries in 2008 is equal 63.1 that show the performance levels are not still satisfactory but it is better than the average score of Furthermore, the data of table representing that the OIC country have not performed satisfactorily with regard to the Environmental Health, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, and Sustainable Energy categories. On the other hand, they appear to 203 have performed quite satisfactorily in terms of the Air Quality and Productive Natural Resources category. Based on Figure 3. Top 5 performing OIC countries in the EPI in 2008 are Malaysia, Albania, Tunisia, Gabon and Algeria, respectively. Malaysia, showed better performance as compared to the other OIC Member Countries yet in In general, the performances of the OIC Countries still are not satisfactory in Analysis of the relative performances of the OIC countries in each of the selected 6 policy categories (Environmental Health, Air Quality, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Sustainable Energy) within the EPI in 2008 reveals that only Malaysia, Lebanon, Tunisia, Kuwait, Jordan, Kazakhstan and Turkey (7 countries) scores above 90 in the Environmental Health category. Malaysia, which is the best performing OIC country in the EPI in 2008, ranked 1th in environmental health scores too. Thus, its performance in environmental health appeared to be slightly stronger than the mentioned OIC countries. It appears that there are only a few OIC countries that achieved significant performance in the EPI in Based on Figure 3. Top 5 performing OIC countries in the EPI in 2008 are Albania, Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia and Syria, respectively. Albania showed better performance as compared to the other OIC Member Countries yet in In general, the performances of the OIC Countries still are not satisfactory in IV. Summary & Conclusions The aim of the present paper is to evaluate the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in the OIC countries before and after financial crisis. EPI is an important composite indicator (i.e. consists of Environmental Health; Air Quality; Water Resources; Biodiversity & Habitat; Productive Natural Resources elements) identifies targets for environmental performance, measuring the current situation in each of its categories and also evaluates how close each country stands from the set target. In this paper EPI and its components were used in order to evaluate the performance of all countries in each individual components as well as the overall performances based on data during Our findings indicate a relatively fluctuations in performance of the countries in each individual elements of EPI but as far as the overall EPI is concerned, the results show that EPI for all countries rose between 2006 & 2008 which is a good sign on this regard but most of islamic countries have weak performance at 2010 than 2008.

4 204 Table 1: EPI Objectives, Policy Categories, Indicators and Weight within EPI Objective Policy Categories Indicators Weight within Category Weight within EPI Environmental Health Environmental Health IDOOR WATSUP.22 ACSAT.22 MORTALITY.21 PM10.13 Ecosystem Vitality Air Quality PM and Natural OZONE.50 Resource Management Water Resources NLOAD OVRSUB.50 Biodiversity and Habitat OVRSUB.7.10 PWI.39 PACOV.39 HARVEST.15 Productive Natural HARVEST Resources OVRFSH.33 AGSUB.33 Sustainable Energy ENEFF RENPC.10 CO2GDP.47 Source: Statistical Economic and Social Research and Training Center for Islamic Countries (2010). Table 2: Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Score of the OIC Countries Country Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad Cote dlvoire Djibouti Egypt Gabon Guinea Guinea- Bissau Guyana Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Malaysia Mali Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Niger Nigeria Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Sudan Syria Tajikistan Togo Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen OIC Countries Source: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy (2010). Figure1 indicates the EPI score in the OIC countries during before and after financial crisis. We can see most of Islamic countries have weak performance at 2010 than 2008.It can be arised from inattention of Islamic countries to environmental problems in result of recent crisis.

5 205 Table 3: Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and its component Score in the OIC Countries in 2006 Country EPI Score ENV. Health Ecosystem Vitality & Natural Resources Management Environmental Air Quality Water Biodiversity & Productive Sustainable Health Resources Habitat Natural Energy Resources Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad Cote dlvoire Djibouti Egypt Gabon Guinea Guinea- Bissau Guyana Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Malaysia Mali Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Niger Nigeria Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Sudan Syria Tajikistan Togo Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda United Arab Em Uzbekistan Yemen OIC Countries Source: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy (2006). Table 4: Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and its component Score in the OIC Countries in 2008 Country EPI Score ENV. Health Ecosystem Vitality & Natural Resources Management Environmental Air Quality Water Biodiversity & Productive Sustainable Health Resources Habitat Natural Energy Resources Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad Cote dlvoire Djibouti Egypt

6 206 Table 4: Continue Gabon Guinea Guinea- Bissau Guyana Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Malaysia Mali Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Niger Nigeria Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Sudan Syria Tajikistan Togo Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda United Arab Em Uzbekistan Yemen OIC Countries Source: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy (2008). Fig. 1: EPI score in the 20 sample OIC countries during before and after financial crisis. Also, Malaysia enjoys high performance comparing to other countries in the region in 2006 and Albania enjoys high performance comparing to other countries in the region in 2008 and On the contrary, Niger (in 2006 and 2008) and Sierra Leone (in 2010) have the lowest EPI. Average score of Environmental Health in the OIC countries in 2006 was 51.4 that shows these countries had low performance in the Environmental Health, whiles in 2008 the Environmental Health average score in this region is equal 62.5 that indicate the region has a better performance. Average score of Air Quality in the OIC countries in 2006 was 47.4 that shows these countries have a weak performance in the Air Quality, whiles in 2008 the Air Quality average score in this countries is equal 94.3 that indicate the region has better performance. Average score of Water Resources in the OIC countries in 2006 was 73.0 that shows these countries have a rather high performance in the Water Resources, whiles in 2008 the Water Resources average score in this countries is equal 63.7 that indicate the region has a worse performance.

7 207 Fig. 2: Environmental performance index (EPI) Score in the OIC Countries in Fig. 3: Environmental performance index (EPI) Score in the OIC Countries in Fig. 4: Environmental performance index (EPI) Score in the OIC Countries in Average score of Biodiversity and Habitat in the OIC countries in 2006 was 43.9 that shows these countries have a rather weak performance in the Biodiversity and Habitat, also in 2008 the Biodiversity and Habitat average score in this countries is equal 42.6 that indicate the region almost, has the similar performance.

8 Average score of Productive Natural Resources in the OIC countries in 2006 was 77.5 that shows these countries have a high performance in the Productive Natural Resources, whiles in 2008 the Productive Natural Resources average score in this region is equal 75.9 that indicate the region has little worse performance. Average score of Productive Natural Resources in the OIC countries in 2006 is equal 59.5 that shows these countries have a medium performance in the Productive Natural Resources, whiles in 2008 the Productive Natural Resources average score in this region is equal 75.9 that indicate the region has little worse performance. Finally average score of Sustainable Energy in the OIC countries in 2006 and 2008 respectively were 59.5 and 66.2 that shows these countries have a medium performance in the Sustainable Energy, although the region has a better performance in Based on above findings Policies to improve each components of EPI in order to reach the desirable overall level of EPI are suggested in each individual countries in the region. Undoubtedly better performances in environmental indicators help to achieve sustainable development. Finally, we can attribute decrease in EPI at 2010 to the problems that arise from resent financial crisis that cause inattention to environmental performance and it result to weak performance this countries in this theme. References 1. Buckland, S.T., et al., Monitoring Change in Biodiversity Through Composite Indices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B360: Chess, C., et al., Communicating About Environmental Indicators. Journal of Risk Research, 8(1): Färe, R., et al., Environmental Performance: an Index Number Approach. Resource and Energy Economics, 26: Grafton, R.Q. and S. Knowles, Social Capital and National Environmental Performance: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Journal of Environment & Development. 5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)., Indicators for Sustainable Development Austria: IAEA Jafari A. Samimi and S. Mohsen Hosseini, "Study of Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) in the Countries around the Caspian Sea ", The 1 st International Conference on the Caspian Region Environmental Changes, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran. 7. Jafari, A. Samimi and S. Mohsen Hosseini, An Evaluation of Environmental performance (EPI) of Countries around the Caspian Sea ", The 1 st International Conference on the Caspian Region Environmental Changes,University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran. 8. Skillius, A. and U. Wennberg, Continuity, Credibility and Comparability _ Key Challenges for Corporate Environmental Performance Measurement and Communication. Lund: The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University. 9. Smeets, E. and R. Weterings, Environmental Indicators: Typology and overview. European Environment Agency. 10. Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future, International Environmental Governance: A Briefing Paper. 11. Statistical Economic and Social Research and Training Center for Islamic Countries, Environmental Performance of OIC Member Countries, Ankara, Turkey. 12. United Nations Millennium Project, Environment and Human Well-being: A Practical Strategy. Summary Version of the Report of the Task Force on Environmental Sustainability. New York, USA: The Earth Institute at Columbia University. 13. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Pilot Environmental Performance Index (EPI) report (2006), is available online at Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Pilot Environmental Performance Index (EPI) report (2008), is available online at Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Environmental Performance Index (EPI) report (2010), is available online at