Environmental Performance Index 2020

Abstract

The 2020 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks 180 countries on 32 performance indicators in the following 11 issue categories: air quality, sanitation and drinking water, heavy metals, waste management, biodiversity and habitat, ecosystem services, fisheries, climate change, pollution emissions, agriculture, and water resources. These categories track performance and progress on two broad policy objectives, environmental health and ecosystem vitality. The EPI's proximity-to-target methodology facilitates cross-country comparisons among economic and regional peer groups. It is the result of collaboration of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP), Yale University and Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). The Interactive Website for the 2020 EPI is at https://epi.yale.edu/.

Full text

Environmental
Performance
Index 
Global metrics for the
environment:
Ranking country performance
on sustainability issues
Yale Center for
Environmental Law
& Policy,
Yale University
1–36 37–72 73–108 109–144 145–180 na
 
This Summary for Policymakers contains a snapshot of the
2020 EPI’s framework and results. Complete methods,
data, and results—including breakout scores and rankings for
individual countries—are available online at epi.yale.edu.
With support from
The McCall MacBain Foundation
and special assistance from
The Mullion Group
Center for International
Earth Science
Information Network,
Columbia University

Executive Summary
The 2020 Environmental Performance In-
dex (EPI) provides a data-driven summary
of the state of sustainability around the
world. Using 32 performance indicators
across 11 issue categories, the EPI ranks
180 countries on environmental health
and ecosystem vitality. These indicators
provide a gauge at a national scale of how
close countries are to established envi-
ronmental policy targets. The EPI oers a
scorecard that highlights leaders and lag-
gards in environmental performance and
provides practical guidance for countries
that aspire to move toward a sustainable
future. The metrics on which the 2020
rankings are based come from a variety
of sources and represent the most recent
published data, often from 2017 or 2018.
Thus the analysis does not reflect recent
developments, including the dramatic
drop in air pollution in 2020 in the wake
of the COVID-19 pandemic or the green-
house gas emissions from the extensive
Amazonian fires in 2019.
These indicators provide a way to
spot problems, set targets, track trends,
understand outcomes, and identify best
policy practices. Good data and fact-
based analysis can also help government
ocials refine their policy agendas, facili-
tate communications with key stakehold-
ers, and maximize the return on envi-
ronmental investments. The EPI oers a
powerful policy tool in support of eorts
to meet the targets of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals and to move society
toward a sustainable future.
Overall EPI rankings indicate which
countries are best addressing the envi-
ronmental challenges that every nation
faces. Going beyond the aggregate scores
and drilling down into the data to analyze
performance by issue category, policy
objective, peer group, and country oers
even greater value for policymakers. This
granular view and comparative perspec-
tive can assist in understanding the deter-
minants of environmental progress and in
refining policy choices.
 
A number of striking conclusions emerge
from the 2020 EPI rankings and indicators.
First, good policy results are associated
with wealth (GDP per capita), mean-
ing that economic prosperity makes it
possible for nations to invest in policies
and programs that lead to desirable
outcomes. This trend is especially true
for issue categories under the umbrella
of environmental health, as building the
necessary infrastructure to provide clean
drinking water and sanitation, reduce
ambient air pollution, control hazardous
waste, and respond to public health crises
yields large returns for human well-being.
Second, the pursuit of economic
prosperity – manifested in industrializa-
tion and urbanization – often means more
pollution and other strains on ecosystem
vitality, especially in the developing world,
where air and water emissions remain
significant. But at the same time, the
data suggest countries need not sacrifice
sustainability for economic security or
vice versa. In every issue category, we find
countries that rise above their economic
peers. Policymakers and other stakehold-
ers in these leading countries demon-
strate that focused attention can mobilize
communities to protect natural resources
and human well-being despite the strains
associated with economic growth. In this
regard, indicators of good governance
– including commitment to the rule of
law, a vibrant press, and even-handed
enforcement of regulations – have strong
relationships with top-tier EPI scores.
Third, while top EPI performers pay
attention to all areas of sustainability,
their lagging peers tend to have uneven
performance. Denmark, which ranks #1,
has strong results across most issues
and with leading-edge commitments and
outcomes with regard to climate change
mitigation. In general, high scorers exhibit
long-standing policies and programs to
protect public health, preserve natural
resources, and decrease greenhouse gas
emissions. The data further suggest that
countries making concerted eorts to
decarbonize their electricity sectors have
made the greatest gains in combating cli-
mate change, with associated benefits for
ecosystems and human health. We note,
however, that every country – including
those at the top of the EPI rankings – still
has issues to improve upon. No country
can claim to be on a fully sustainable
trajectory.
Fourth, laggards must redouble
national sustainability eorts along all
fronts. A number of important countries
in the Global South, including India and
Nigeria, come out near the bottom of the
rankings. Their low EPI scores indicate
The relationship between 2020 EPI Score and GDP per capita shows a strong positive correlation, although
many countries out- or underperform their economic peers.
gdp per capita [2011 us $, thousands] (logged)
epi score

ing, it also reveals a number of severe
data gaps that limit the analytic scope
of the rankings. As the EPI project has
highlighted for two decades, better data
collection, reporting, and verification
across a range of environmental issues
are urgently needed. The existing gaps
are especially pronounced in the areas of
agriculture, water resources, and threats
to biodiversity. New investments in stron-
ger global data systems are essential to
better manage sustainability challenges
and to ensure that the global community
does not breach fundamental planetary
boundaries.
The inability to capture transbound-
ary environmental impacts persists as a
limitation of the current EPI framework.
While the current methodology reveals
important insights into how countries
perform within their own borders, it
does not account for “exported” impacts
associated with imported products. With
groundbreaking models and new datasets
emerging, the EPI team has been working
to produce new metrics that account for
the spillovers of harm associated with
traded goods in an interconnected world.
the need for greater attention to the
spectrum of sustainability requirements,
with a high-priority focus on critical issues
such as air and water quality, biodiversity,
and climate change. Some of the other
laggards, including Nepal and Afghani-
stan, face broader challenges such as civil
unrest, and their low scores can almost all
be attributed to weak governance.
 
Innovations in the 2020 EPI data and
methodology reflect the latest advances
in environmental science and indicator
analysis. Notably, the 2020 rankings
include for the first time a waste manage-
ment metric and a pilot indicator on CO2
emissions from land cover change. Other
new indicators deepen the analysis of air
quality, biodiversity & habitat, fisheries,
ecosystem services, and climate change.
Full documentation of the methodology
is available online at epi.yale.edu, and the
EPI team invites feedback and sugges-
tions for strengthening future versions of
the Index.
While the EPI provides a framework
for greater analytic rigor in policymak-
 
The 2020 EPI emerges in the midst of
the COVID-19 crisis that has challenged
public health systems and disrupted
economic activity across the world. The
global pandemic has made clear the pro-
found interdependence of all nations and
the importance of investing in resilience.
Unintended consequences of the eco-
nomic shutdown in many nations include
a sharp drop in pollution levels and the
return of wildlife. The EPI team hopes
that this unexpected glimpse of what a
sustainable planet might look like from
an ecological perspective – albeit at a
terrible price in terms of public health and
economic damage – will inspire the policy
transformation required for a sustainable
future that is both economically vigorous
and environmentally sound.
   
As a composite index, the Environmental
Performance Index distills data on many
indicators of sustainability into a single
number. Advances in scientific investiga-
tion, sensing methods, and data reporting
mean the world’s access to data on the
state of the environment has never been
richer. With every iteration of the EPI, we
seek the best available data to produce
useful and credible scores that address
urgent questions.
For the 2020 EPI, we’ve assembled
32 indicators of environmental perfor-
mance for 180 countries. The data come
from trusted third-party sources like
international governing bodies, nongov-
ernmental organizations, and academic
research centers. Credible datasets rely
on established collection methods that
have been peer-reviewed by the scientific
community or endorsed by international
authorities.
To give our metrics meaning to a
broad audience, we take the data we re-
ceive and construct indicators on a 0–100
scale, from worst to best performance.
For each country, we then weigh and
aggregate the scores for indicators into
issue categories, policy objectives, and
then, finally, into an EPI score. Scores for
all countries can be viewed or download-
ed at our website, epi.yale.edu.
The 2020 EPI Framework. The framework organizes 32 indicators into 11 issue categories and two policy
objectives, with weights shown at each level as a percentage of the total score.

RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
1Denmark 82.5
2Luxembourg 82.3
3Switzerland 81.5
4 United Kingdom 81.3
5France 80.0
6Austria 79.6
7Finland 78.9
8 Sweden 78.7
9Norway 77.7
10 Germany 77.2
11 Netherlands 75.3
12 Japan 75.1
13 Australia 74.9
14 Spain 74.3
15 Belgium 73.3
16 Ireland 72.8
17 Iceland 72.3
18 Slovenia 72.0
19 New Zealand 71.3
20 Canada 71.0
Czech Republic 71.0
Italy 71.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
13
14
15
16
1
17
18
2
18
RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
61 Uruguay 49.1
62 Albania 49.0
63 Antigua and Barbuda 48.5
64 Cuba 48.4
St. Vincent and Grenadines 48.4
66 Jamaica 48.2
67 Iran 48.0
68 Malaysia 47.9
69 Trinidad and Tobago 47.5
70 Panama 47.3
71 Tunisia 46.7
72 Azerbaijan 46.5
73 Paraguay 46.4
74 Dominican Republic 46.3
Montenegro 46.3
76 Gabon 45.8
77 Barbados 45.6
78 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45.4
Lebanon 45.4
Thailand 45.4
9
16
10
11
11
13
6
6
14
15
7
5
16
17
17
2
18
18
8
7
RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
120 Samoa 37.3
122 Qatar 37.1
123 Zimbabwe 37.0
124 Central African Republic 36.9
125 Dem. Rep. Congo 36.4
126 Guyana 35.9
127 Maldives 35.6
Uganda 35.6
129 Timor-Leste 35.3
130 Laos 34.8
Sudan 34.8
132 Kenya 34.7
Zambia 34.7
134 Ethiopia 34.4
Fiji 34.4
136 Mozambique 33.9
137 Eswatini 33.8
Rwanda 33.8
139 Cambodia 33.6
Cameroon 33.6
12
15
11
12
13
30
3
14
14
15
16
15
15
17
16
18
19
19
17
21
Asia-Pacific
Eastern Europe
Former Soviet States
Global West
Greater Middle East
Latin America & Caribbean
Southern Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
23 Malta 70.7
24 United States of America 69.3
25 Greece 69.1
26 Slovakia 68.3
27 Portugal 67.0
28 South Korea 66.5
29 Israel 65.8
30 Estonia 65.3
31 Cyprus 64.8
32 Romania 64.7
33 Hungary 63.7
34 Croatia 63.1
35 Lithuania 62.9
36 Latvia 61.6
37 Poland 60.9
38 Seychelles 58.2
39 Singapore 58.1
40 Taiwan 57.2
20
21
3
4
22
2
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
3
4
41 Bulgaria 57.0
42 United Arab Emirates 55.6
43 North Macedonia 55.4
44 Chile 55.3
45 Serbia 55.2
46 Brunei Darussalam 54.8
47 Kuwait 53.6
48 Jordan 53.4
49 Belarus 53.0
50 Colombia 52.9
51 Mexico 52.6
52 Costa Rica 52.5
53 Armenia 52.3
54 Argentina 52.2
55 Brazil 51.2
56 Bahrain 51.0
Ecuador 51.0
58 Russia 50.5
59 Venezuela 50.3
60 Ukraine 49.5
13
2
14
1
15
5
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
5
7
3
8
4
81 Suriname 45.2
82 Mauritius 45.1
Tonga 45.1
84 Algeria 44.8
85 Kazakhstan 44.7
86 Dominica 44.6
87 Moldova 44.4
88 Bolivia 44.3
Uzbekistan 44.3
90 Peru 44.0
Saudi Arabia 44.0
92 Turkmenistan 43.9
93 Bahamas 43.5
94 Egypt 43.3
95 El Salvador 43.1
Grenada 43.1
Saint Lucia 43.1
South Africa 43.1
99 Turkey 42.6
100 Morocco 42.3
19
3
8
9
6
20
7
21
8
22
10
9
23
11
24
24
24
4
19
12
101 Belize 41.9
102 Georgia 41.3
103 Botswana 40.4
104 Namibia 40.2
105 Kyrgyzstan 39.8
106 Iraq 39.5
107 Bhutan 39.3
108 Nicaragua 39.2
109 Sri Lanka 39.0
110 Oman 38.5
111 Philippines 38.4
112 Burkina Faso 38.3
Malawi 38.3
114 Tajikistan 38.2
115 Equatorial Guinea 38.1
116 Honduras 37.8
Indonesia 37.8
118 Kiribati 37.7
119 São Tomé and Príncipe 37.6
120 China 37.3
27
10
5
6
11
13
1
28
2
14
9
7
7
12
9
29
10
11
10
12
141 Viet Nam 33.4
142 Pakistan 33.1
143 Micronesia 33.0
144 Cabo Verde 32.8
145 Nepal 32.7
146 Papua New Guinea 32.4
147 Mongolia 32.2
148 Comoros 32.1
149 Guatemala 31.8
150 Tanzania 31.1
151 Nigeria 31.0
152 Marshall Islands 30.8
Niger 30.8
Republic of Congo 30.8
155 Senegal 30.7
156 Eritrea 30.4
157 Benin 30.0
158 Angola 29.7
159 Togo 29.5
160 Mali 29.4
18
4
19
22
5
20
21
23
31
24
25
22
26
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
161 Guinea-Bissau 29.1
162 Bangladesh 29.0
163 Vanuatu 28.9
164 Djibouti 28.1
165 Lesotho 28.0
166 Gambia 27.9
167 Mauritania 27.7
168 Ghana 27.6
India 27.6
170 Burundi 27.0
Haiti 27.0
172 Chad 26.7
Solomon Islands 26.7
174 Madagascar 26.5
175 Guinea 26.4
176 Côte d'Ivoire 25.8
177 Sierra Leone 25.7
178 Afghanistan 25.5
179 Myanmar 25.1
180 Liberia 22.6
34
6
23
35
36
37
38
39
7
40
32
41
24
42
43
44
45
8
25
46
RANK COUNTRY SCORE REG RANK COUNTRY SCORE REG RANK COUNTRY SCORE REG
FSC logo
Rank, EPI Score, and Regional Standing (REG, shown in color)
for 180 countries.
Wendling, Z.A., Emerson, J.W., de Sherbinin, A., Esty, D.C., et al. (2020).
2020 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for
Environmental Law & Policy. epi.yale.edu
RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
1
Denmark
82.5
2
Luxembourg
82.3
3
Switzerland
81.5
4
United Kingdom
81.3
5
France
80.0
6
Austria
79.6
7
Finland
78.9
8
Sweden
78.7
9
Norway
77.7
10
Germany
77.2
11
Netherlands
75.3
12
Japan
75.1
13
Australia
74.9
14
Spain
74.3
15
Belgium
73.3
16
Ireland
72.8
17
Iceland
72.3
18
Slovenia
72.0
19
New Zealand
71.3
20
Canada
71.0
Czech Republic
71.0
Italy
71.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
13
14
15
16
1
17
18
2
18
RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
61
Uruguay
49.1
62
Albania
49.0
63
Antigua and Barbuda
48.5
64
Cuba
48.4
St. Vincent and Grenadines
48.4
66
Jamaica
48.2
67
Iran
48.0
68
Malaysia
47.9
69
Trinidad and Tobago
47.5
70
Panama
47.3
71
Tunisia
46.7
72
Azerbaijan
46.5
73
Paraguay
46.4
74
Dominican Republic
46.3
Montenegro
46.3
76
Gabon
45.8
77
Barbados
45.6
78
Bosnia and Herzegovina
45.4
Lebanon
45.4
Thailand
45.4
9
16
10
11
11
13
6
6
14
15
7
5
16
17
17
2
18
18
8
7
RANK COUNTRY SCORE
REG
120
Samoa
37.3
122
Qatar
37.1
123
Zimbabwe
37.0
124
Central African Republic
36.9
125
Dem. Rep. Congo
36.4
126
Guyana
35.9
127
Maldives
35.6
Uganda
35.6
129
Timor-Leste
35.3
130
Laos
34.8
Sudan
34.8
132
Kenya
34.7
Zambia
34.7
134
Ethiopia
34.4
Fiji
34.4
136
Mozambique
33.9
137
Eswatini
33.8
Rwanda
33.8
139
Cambodia
33.6
Cameroon
33.6
12
15
11
12
13
30
3
14
14
15
16
15
15
17
16
18
19
19
17
21
Asia-Pacific
Eastern Europe
Former Soviet States
Global West
Greater Middle East
Latin America & Caribbean
Southern Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
23
Malta
70.7
24
United States of America
69.3
25
Greece
69.1
26
Slovakia
68.3
27
Portugal
67.0
28
South Korea
66.5
29
Israel
65.8
30
Estonia
65.3
31
Cyprus
64.8
32
Romania
64.7
33
Hungary
63.7
34
Croatia
63.1
35
Lithuania
62.9
36
Latvia
61.6
37
Poland
60.9
38
Seychelles
58.2
39
Singapore
58.1
40
Taiwan
57.2
20
21
3
4
22
2
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
3
4
41
Bulgaria
57.0
42
United Arab Emirates
55.6
43
North Macedonia
55.4
44
Chile
55.3
45
Serbia
55.2
46
Brunei Darussalam
54.8
47
Kuwait
53.6
48
Jordan
53.4
49
Belarus
53.0
50
Colombia
52.9
51
Mexico
52.6
52
Costa Rica
52.5
53
Armenia
52.3
54
Argentina
52.2
55
Brazil
51.2
56
Bahrain
51.0
Ecuador
51.0
58
Russia
50.5
59
Venezuela
50.3
60
Ukraine
49.5
13
2
14
1
15
5
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
5
7
3
8
4
81
Suriname
45.2
82
Mauritius
45.1
Tonga
45.1
84
Algeria
44.8
85
Kazakhstan
44.7
86
Dominica
44.6
87
Moldova
44.4
88
Bolivia
44.3
Uzbekistan
44.3
90
Peru
44.0
Saudi Arabia
44.0
92
Turkmenistan
43.9
93
Bahamas
43.5
94
Egypt
43.3
95
El Salvador
43.1
Grenada
43.1
Saint Lucia
43.1
South Africa
43.1
99
Turkey
42.6
100
Morocco
42.3
19
3
8
9
6
20
7
21
8
22
10
9
23
11
24
24
24
4
19
12
101
Belize
41.9
102
Georgia
41.3
103
Botswana
40.4
104
Namibia
40.2
105
Kyrgyzstan
39.8
106
Iraq
39.5
107
Bhutan
39.3
108
Nicaragua
39.2
109
Sri Lanka
39.0
110
Oman
38.5
111
Philippines
38.4
112
Burkina Faso
38.3
Malawi
38.3
114
Tajikistan
38.2
115
Equatorial Guinea
38.1
116
Honduras
37.8
Indonesia
37.8
118
Kiribati
37.7
119
São Tomé and Príncipe
37.6
120
China
37.3
27
10
5
6
11
13
1
28
2
14
9
7
7
12
9
29
10
11
10
12
141
Viet Nam
33.4
142
Pakistan
33.1
143
Micronesia
33.0
144
Cabo Verde
32.8
145
Nepal
32.7
146
Papua New Guinea
32.4
147
Mongolia
32.2
148
Comoros
32.1
149
Guatemala
31.8
150
Tanzania
31.1
151
Nigeria
31.0
152
Marshall Islands
30.8
Niger
30.8
Republic of Congo
30.8
155
Senegal
30.7
156
Eritrea
30.4
157
Benin
30.0
158
Angola
29.7
159
Togo
29.5
160
Mali
29.4
18
4
19
22
5
20
21
23
31
24
25
22
26
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
161
Guinea-Bissau
29.1
162
Bangladesh
29.0
163
Vanuatu
28.9
164
Djibouti
28.1
165
Lesotho
28.0
166
Gambia
27.9
167
Mauritania
27.7
168
Ghana
27.6
India
27.6
170
Burundi
27.0
Haiti
27.0
172
Chad
26.7
Solomon Islands
26.7
174
Madagascar
26.5
175
Guinea
26.4
176
Côte d'Ivoire
25.8
177
Sierra Leone
25.7
178
Afghanistan
25.5
179
Myanmar
25.1
180
Liberia
22.6
34
6
23
35
36
37
38
39
7
40
32
41
24
42
43
44
45
8
25
46
© 2020 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy