Among the listed above countries, the environmental performance measure- ment is one of mostly applied tools of country situational analysis developed with the aims to shift environmental decision making to firmer analytic foun- dations using environmental indicators and statistics by Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. Together they produce the environmental sustainability index (ESI) and EPI annually. To evaluate the environmental performance of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, this research utilized public domain data from the 2005 and 2010 ESI and EPI, respectively. According to the ESI and EPI database, Nepal has been the best performing country among the four followed by India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, respectively.
The 2010 EPI evaluated 163 countries on 25 performance indicators tracked across 10 policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. The 10 categories are as follows: (1) environmental burden of disease; (2) water resources for human health; (3) air quality for human health; (4) air quality for ecosystems; (5) water resources for
7.7 The Environmental Performance of Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan 139 ecosystems; (6) biodiversity and habitat; (7) forestry; (8) fisheries; (9) agri- culture; and (10) climate change. These indicators provide a gauge at a national government scale of how close countries are established environ- mental policy goals. In the global context, the EPI 2010 reported that Iceland secured the highest rank, with a score of 93.5, followed by Switzerland (89.1), Costa Rica (86.4), Sweden (86.1), and Norway (81.1), and the countries with the worst environmental performance are Sierra Leone (32.1), the Central African Republic (33.3), Mauritania (33.7), Angola (36.4), and Togo (36.4), respectively. The BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – occupy the ranks 62 (just behind the US), 69, 123, and 121, respectively (EPI 2010).
EPI (2010) shows that Nepal has been the best performing country and Pakistan remains the lowest among the four, because of its conservation focused natural resource management tradition and large coverage of pro- tected areas. Within the Asia and Pacific, (1) New Zealand is the highest performing with a score of 73.4 followed by (2) Japan 72.5, (3) Singapore 69.6, and (4) Nepal with a score of 68.2, respectively. Other countries of this study are way below in EPI performances, i.e., India ranks 20 with a score of 48.3, (21) Pakistan 48.0, and Bangladesh ranks 24 with a score of 44.0, respectively. In terms of improvement, all four have performed better than 2005; however, Nepal has taken the highest rank 85 to 38 (or 47.7 to 68.2 in score). In the categorical improvement, Nepal was in the third rank in 2005 and up to sixth in 2010 in the frame of 10 classes. There is no uniformity in the categorical performances, for example, in climate change, ecosystem vitality, biodiversity and habitat, and agriculture, Nepal is the best performing country in the global context, whereas in environmental burden of disease and environmental health, it belongs to the lowest category. In forestry management, India is the best with 100 perfect score and good in fisheries’
management by a score of 85.95, respectively; in contrast, Bangladesh whose one of the sources of livelihood is fisheries scores only 26.02 worst in the world context. Figure 7.1 provides an overall picture of performance in the major categories listed above and the table in the figure provides the details with subgroups.
The above analysis provides a totally contrasting picture of the competi- tiveness and performances as seen in the sections above. For example, Nepal’s situation is poor in all six variables (worst) followed by enter-change with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Likewise, in terms of competitiveness among the four countries in relation to the 12 pillars, Nepal is in the worst position including the institutional competitiveness in global context as well as in the index of the economy and stage of development. In the civil service in
140 Comparative Chapter
Figure 7.1 EPI of Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan.
Plotted from EPI (2010).
terms of the creditability, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are in the bottom in the global and regional context. However, India still belongs to the first stage in the development index although it appears as emerging economy with the strong administrative system. On the corruption index, in the global context, all four belong to the low performing countries in using the control mechanisms. However, India’s position is far better than among four nations.
In relation to the environmental performances, the analysis shows a totally contrasting picture in all parameters used by EPI index as seen in the tables and figure above.
What is the reason of such contrasting results? The answer is twofold, first the main? The answer is that the environmental performances were evaluated on the basis of anthropogenic disturbances in the environment, for example, urban particulates, indoor air pollution, sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen