Lumping different countries together -- why the 2008 EPI is of limited use

New Environmental Performance Index -- not a model for all

This release is available in German.

Acing mining lakes like "No. 117 " are a serious environmental problem in Germany. Click here for more information.

Davos/Leipzig. For countries without their own environmental monitoring systems, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) can be useful for working out where there is a need for action in environmental policy making. However, within the European Union there are more suitable instruments for this. This is one of the conclusions of a study conducted by the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ). According to the study authors, Germany has more accurate and appropriate instruments than the 2008 EPI – such as the European Environment Agency´s State of the Environment Report and the Federal Environmental Agency´s Umweltbarometer.

The EPI´s second edition was presented at the 2008 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In the global 2008 EPI ranking, Germany is in 13th place and has moved up six places since the 2006 EPI. However, comparisons between the two EPI versions are not advisable because the 2008 EPI covers 25 indicators while its predecessor was based on 16 only.

The Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) analysed the 2006 EPI on behalf of the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt and compared it with alternative evaluation systems in Germany. The authors of the UFZ study conclude that also the new version of the EPI is of limited use for orienting environmental policy making.

Even though the 2008 EPI takes a more sophisticated approach than its predecessor, the new version still promotes one standardised assessment framework for all countries. However, environmental problems, their relative importance in national policy contexts and the political possibilities for dealing with them vary so much between continents and between regions that a single framework cannot be equally precise for all countries. This is true of the selection of indicators, the setting of target values and the weighting of individual aspects within the EPI.