We believe that a number of interesting conclusions can bedrawn from the results of the 2012 EPI, the Trend EPI, and theunderlying indicators:

The latest EPI rankings reveal a wide range of environ-mental sustainability results. Many countries are makingprogress on at least some of the challenges they face. At the indicator level, our analysis suggests that someissues are being successfully addressed at a worldwidescale, although performance on some other challenges,notably climate change, has declined globally.

Wealth matters. The Environmental Health scores, inparticular, reveal a signi�cant relationship with GDP percapita. EPI scores more generally also correlate withwealth, although there is a diversity of performancewithin every level of economic development.

The pattern of results make clear that environmentalchallenges come in several forms and vary with country-speci�c circumstances as well as the level ofdevelopment. Some issues arise from the resource andpollution impacts of industrialization, such as airpollution and rising levels of waste. These impactslargely a�ect developed countries. Other challenges are commonly associated with poverty and underinvestment in basic environmental amenities, such as access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.These problems primarily a�ect developing nations.

A number of countries that lag on the overall EPI haveimpressive results on the Trend EPI. For countries thathave been at the high end of the EPI ranking over thelast decade, the trend results are less meaningful. Wenote that the overall EPI and Trend EPI rankings bythemselves should be understood only as indicative.More insight will often be obtained by looking at theindividual indicator level and policy category results.

The Trend EPI reveals improvements for many countrieson a signi�cant number of issues. In the EnvironmentalHealth objective, global trends show decreasing childmortality as well as increasing access to sanitation anddrinking water. However, persistent challenges remainin the Ecosystem Vitality objective. In particular, withrespect to climate change, greenhouse gas emissionscontinue to rise globally with few countries on asustainable emissions trajectory.

A comparison of the 2012 EPI and Trend EPI exposespersistent gaps in environmental governance andmanagement over time. In general, countries showgains on the Environmental Health objective across alllevels of performance measured by the EPI. With regardto Ecosystem Vitality, however, the results are muchmore varied. Some countries are making gains, butmany are not. And a worrisome number of countriesare both low-ranked and declining.

The 2012 EPI highlights an array of challenges constrainingmovement toward data-driven and analytically rigorousenvironmental policymaking. These issues includeunreliable data sources, gaps in data coverage, limited timeseries metrics, persistent methodological weaknesses, andthe lack of a systematic process for verifying the environ-mental data reported by governments. The more rigorousdata standards used in the 2012 EPI resulted in thereplacement or omission of some indicators used inprevious indices. We are particularly distressed by the lackof global, accurate, and comparative data on wastemanagement, recycling, toxic exposures, and several othercritical policy concerns. Likewise, the low quality andlimited availability of comparative data for issues such asagricultural sustainability and water quality as well asquantity is disappointing. Simply put, the world needsbetter data collection and monitoring, more consistentreporting and analysis, and mechanisms for independentdata veri�cation.

The 2012 EPI represents a “work in progress.” It aims not only toinform but also to stimulate debate on de�ning the appropriatemetrics and methodologies for evaluating environmentalperformance. Feedback is welcome at our website,www.epi.yale.edu.

Results and Policy Implications of the 2012 EPI and Trend EPI Environmental Performance Index– Ranking & Scores

Top 10 Trend Index PerformersLowest 10 Trend Index Decliners

To see full results and detailed analysis by country, visit www.epi.yale.edu.

Printed on 55% recycled paper and 30% post-consumer waste.

Summary for PolicymakersYale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University

In collaboration withWorld Economic Forum, Geneva, SwitzerlandJoint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy

This report has been made possible by support from FedEx and the Samuel Family Foundation

Report and additional materials available at the EPI website:www.epi.yale.edu

1 Switzerland 891aivtaL2

3 Norway 844 Luxembourg 1065 Costa Rica 1136 France 197 Austria 71

21ylatI89 United Kingdom 209 Sweden 63

11 Germany 5612 Slovakia 713 Iceland 6414 New Zealand 5015 Albania 416 Netherlands 9217 Lithuania 10418 Czech Republic 2519 Finland 5420 Croatia 7421 Denmark 4522 Poland 10723 Japan 6024 Belgium 925 Malaysia 3326 Brunei Darussalam 11927 Colombia 3428 Slovenia 5129 Taiwan 34

32lizarB0331 Ecuador 6532 Spain 3033 Greece 8134 Thailand 1035 Nicaragua 1536 Ireland 837 Canada 5238 Nepal 1439 Panama 10340 Gabon 5741 Portugal 2442 Philippines 4343 South Korea 1344 Cyprus 116

45 Hungary 1846 Uruguay 11547 Georgia 6848 Australia 7949 United States of America 7750 Argentina 11250 Cuba 10152 Singapore 3653 Bulgaria 1654 Estonia 12855 Sri Lanka 1156 Venezuela 8557 Zambia 4858 Chile 11759 Cambodia 44

5tpygE0687learsI16

62 Bolivia 12263 Jamaica 5364 Tanzania 9365 Belarus 4066 Botswana 2167 Ivory Coast 4268 Zimbabwe 8769 Myanmar 4770 Ethiopia 7071 Honduras 8672 Dominican Republic 8873 Paraguay 4674 Indonesia 6675 El Salvador 10876 Guatemala 3177 United Arab Emirates 2778 Namibia 9879 Viet Nam 7380 Benin 120

69ureP1882 Saudi Arabia 13083 Kenya 10584 Mexico 22

09ogoT5886 Algeria 5887 Malta 9788 Romania 3

89 Mozambique 10290 Angola 691 Ghana 2892 Dem. Rep. Congo 8393 Armenia 4994 Lebanon 9195 Congo 9996 Trinidad & Tobago 11497 Macedonia 7598 Senegal 3999 Tunisia 40

100 Qatar 121101 Kyrgyzstan 127102 Ukraine 82103 Serbia 109104 Sudan 94105 Morocco 37106 Russia 132107 Mongolia 54108 Moldova 67109 Turkey 17110 Oman 80111 Azerbaijan 2112 Cameroon 110

26airyS311811narI411

115 Bangladesh 32116 China 100117 Jordan 76118 Haiti 111119 Nigeria 59120 Pakistan 72121 Tajikistan 38122 Eritrea 26

16aybiL321124 Bosnia & Herzegovina 129

59aidnI521126 Kuwait 131127 Yemen 29128 South Africa 124129 Kazakhstan 126130 Uzbekistan 69131 Turkmenistan 123

521qarI231

EPI Rank Country Trend EPI Rank EPI Rank Country Trend EPI RankEPI Rank Country Trend EPI Rank

55

50

45

40

35

2000 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 2010

Environmental Health & Ecosystem Vitality Trends

Prox

imity

to T

arge

t

Environmental Health ObjectiveEcosystem Vitality Objective

Year