Environmental Performance Index


The Environmental Performance Index is a method of quantifying and numerically marking the environmental performance of a state's policies, highlighting the degradation of the planet's life-supporting systems on which humanity depends. A world economy that continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels translates into ongoing air and water pollution, acidification of the oceans, and rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These changes threaten the survival of species already suffering from widespread habitat loss, pushing them closer to extinction. Recent analyses show that humanity has already transgressed six out of nine critical planetary boundaries that define Earth's safe operating space — and is close to crossing a seventh.
The Environmental Performance Index was started in 2002 by World Economic Forum in association with the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and Center for International Earth Science Information Network Earth Institute. The biennial EPI report harnesses the latest data sets, science, and technology to provide the most comprehensive assessment of the state of sustainability around the world. In total, the 2024 EPI report incorporates 58 indicators to rank 180 countries on their progress at mitigating climate change, safeguarding ecosystem vitality, and promoting environmental health. This broad set of metrics is a powerful tool to track progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the climate mitigation targets in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement, and the biodiversity protection goals in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
In 2023, the first global assessment of progress toward the goals of the Paris Agreement revealed a grim picture: the world is far off track. Despite record deployment of renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. As the world enters uncharted climatic territory, there is a heightened risk of crossing irreversible tipping points in the planet's climate system.

Methodology

Over time, the methodology for the EPI has been criticized for its arbitrary choice of metrics which could introduce bias, and its poor performance as an indicator for environmental sustainability. Additional criticisms center on the EPI's lack of specific policy suggestions, and the index's weighting biases against data deficient countries that has led to the overlooking of ecological progress in developing countries.
In 2024, India was ranked at 176 in the list and rejected the low ranking. As per a statement issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, it claimed that several indicators used in the calculation were based on unfounded assumptions and unscientific methods.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe found 3 Pros: EPI provides an easily comparable index; EPI's ecosystem vitality scores are based on six constituent policy categories: water resources, agriculture, forests, fisheries, biodiversity and habitat, and climate and energy; the referenced database yields maps for each of EPI's partial indices and 3 Cons: CIESIN's EPI rather is an attempt to quantitatively represent the ecological performance of countries and companies; actual reasons for dysfunctionalities might need further research; EPI would be a more policy-relevant index.
As a result of these criticisms, the number of EPI indicators has increased, and their weight has changed, to provide a better data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world. The 2024 index is based on 58 performance indicators grouped into 30 issue categories with an objective of environmental health, ecosystem vitality and climate change, ranking 180 countries.

List of countries by 2024 EPI scores

The 2024 Environmental Performance Index report ranks 180 countries and territories, based on 58 performance indicators grouped into 30 issue categories. The top five countries are Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom, while the last ones are India, Myanmar, Laos, Pakistan and Vietnam. Sorting is alphabetical by country code, according to ISO 3166-1 alpha-3.

CountryRegionValueTrendRank 2024
South Asia  144
Sub-Saharan Africa  106
Europe & Central Asia  47
Middle East & North Africa  48
Latin America & Caribbean  70
Europe & Central Asia  80
Latin America & Caribbean  37
East Asia & Pacific  22
Europe & Central Asia  8
Europe & Central Asia  103
Sub-Saharan Africa  138
Europe & Central Asia  14
Sub-Saharan Africa  119
Sub-Saharan Africa  95
South Asia  148
Europe & Central Asia  35
Middle East & North Africa  131
Latin America & Caribbean  36
Europe & Central Asia  75
Europe & Central Asia  31
Latin America & Caribbean  67
Latin America & Caribbean  78
Latin America & Caribbean  44
Latin America & Caribbean  43
East Asia & Pacific  62
South Asia  89
Sub-Saharan Africa  59
Sub-Saharan Africa  111
North America  27
Europe & Central Asia  9
Latin America & Caribbean  57
East Asia & Pacific  130
Sub-Saharan Africa  90
Sub-Saharan Africa  114
Sub-Saharan Africa  109
Sub-Saharan Africa  99
Latin America & Caribbean  56
Sub-Saharan Africa  115
Sub-Saharan Africa  117
Latin America & Caribbean  38
Latin America & Caribbean  46
Europe & Central Asia  41
Europe & Central Asia  16
Europe & Central Asia  3
Middle East & North Africa  141
Latin America & Caribbean  58
Europe & Central Asia  10
Latin America & Caribbean  66
Middle East & North Africa  98
Latin America & Caribbean  49
Middle East & North Africa  87
Sub-Saharan Africa  147
Europe & Central Asia  21
Europe & Central Asia  1
Sub-Saharan Africa  125
Europe & Central Asia  4
East Asia & Pacific  75
Europe & Central Asia  12
East Asia & Pacific  101
Sub-Saharan Africa  42
Europe & Central Asia  5
Europe & Central Asia  68
Sub-Saharan Africa  122
Sub-Saharan Africa  123
Sub-Saharan Africa  120
Sub-Saharan Africa  96
Sub-Saharan Africa  98
Europe & Central Asia  11
Latin America & Caribbean  76
Latin America & Caribbean  140
Latin America & Caribbean  60
Latin America & Caribbean  105
Europe & Central Asia  24
Latin America & Caribbean  124
Europe & Central Asia  30
East Asia & Pacific  137
South Asia  149
Europe & Central Asia  15
Middle East & North Africa  97
Middle East & North Africa  145
Europe & Central Asia  18
Middle East & North Africa  63
Europe & Central Asia  28
Latin America & Caribbean  61
Middle East & North Africa  68
East Asia & Pacific  26
Europe & Central Asia  65
Sub-Saharan Africa  122
Europe & Central Asia  91
East Asia & Pacific  143
East Asia & Pacific  82
East Asia & Pacific  51
Middle East & North Africa  81
East Asia & Pacific  151
Middle East & North Africa  108
Sub-Saharan Africa  135
Latin America & Caribbean  50
South Asia  112
Sub-Saharan Africa  122
Europe & Central Asia  20
Europe & Central Asia  2
Europe & Central Asia  29
Middle East & North Africa  109
Europe & Central Asia  74
Sub-Saharan Africa  146
South Asia  116
Latin America & Caribbean  83
East Asia & Pacific  94
Europe & Central Asia  52
Sub-Saharan Africa  134
Middle East & North Africa  13
East Asia & Pacific  150
Europe & Central Asia  66
East Asia & Pacific  121
Sub-Saharan Africa  111
Sub-Saharan Africa  133
Sub-Saharan Africa  68
Sub-Saharan Africa  132
East Asia & Pacific  100
Sub-Saharan Africa  85
Sub-Saharan Africa  107
Sub-Saharan Africa  118
Latin America & Caribbean  67
Europe & Central Asia  13
Europe & Central Asia  7
South Asia  139
East Asia & Pacific  32
Middle East & North Africa  49
South Asia  152
Latin America & Caribbean  45
Latin America & Caribbean  73
East Asia & Pacific  142
East Asia & Pacific  122
Europe & Central Asia  19
Europe & Central Asia  25
Latin America & Caribbean  109
Middle East & North Africa  71
Europe & Central Asia  32
Europe & Central Asia  72
Sub-Saharan Africa  136
Middle East & North Africa  94
Sub-Saharan Africa  110
Sub-Saharan Africa  86
East Asia & Pacific  44
East Asia & Pacific  95
Sub-Saharan Africa  108
Latin America & Caribbean  99
Europe & Central Asia  55
Sub-Saharan Africa  126
Latin America & Caribbean  34
Europe & Central Asia  17
Europe & Central Asia  23
Europe & Central Asia  6
Sub-Saharan Africa  113
Sub-Saharan Africa  64
Sub-Saharan Africa  127
Sub-Saharan Africa  129
East Asia & Pacific  77
Europe & Central Asia  141
Europe & Central Asia  102
East Asia & Pacific  54
East Asia & Pacific 104
Latin America & Caribbean  46
Middle East & North Africa  78
East Asia & Pacific  53
Sub-Saharan Africa  88
Sub-Saharan Africa  128
Europe & Central Asia  39
Latin America & Caribbean  84
North America  33
Europe & Central Asia  93
Latin America & Caribbean  40
Latin America & Caribbean  42
East Asia & Pacific  153
East Asia & Pacific  79
East Asia & Pacific  69
Sub-Saharan Africa  92
Sub-Saharan Africa  72
Sub-Saharan Africa  48

EPI scores vs. GDP per capita, 2024

EPI scores are positively correlated with a country's wealth, although after a point, increasing wealth yields diminishing returns. At every level of economic development, though, some countries outperform their peers while others lag. Some of the poorest countries in the world outperform some of the richest. In this regard, factors other than wealth, such as investments in human development, rule of law, and regulatory quality, are stronger predictors of environmental performance.
Wealth allows countries to make investments in the infrastructure required to provide clean drinking water, safely manage waste, and rapidly expand renewable energy. But wealth also leads to higher material consumption and its associated environmental impacts, such as higher rates of waste generation, GHG emissions, and ecosystem degradation. Many countries with high scores in some Ecosystem Vitality metrics — such as those measuring the pollution from pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture, the integrity of forest landscapes, and the use of destructive fishing methods — do so because their economies are stagnant and underdeveloped.
Developing countries must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of nations that followed a dirty and unsustainable path to industrialization. On the other hand, rich countries need to decouple their consumption from environmental degradation and use their wealth to help developing countries leapfrog to a path of truly sustainable development, preserving their biodiversity and other global commons for the benefit of all humankind.