The overall EPI results offer a useful snapshot of environmental performance. But breaking down the results into peer groups offers an even more valuable perspective because it allows for comparisons between countries. The peer group analysis gives policymakers a way to understand the context of their policy choices and guidance on what is possible in the way of policy results given their circumstances. The policies and programs of the peer group leaders present an important guide to best practices and the most efficient approaches to improving environmental health and ecosystem vitality with similar challenges and opportunities.
OECD countries occupy four of the top five ranks in the 2008 EPI. All of the OECD countries are in the top half of the index, and most are in the top quarter. These relatively wealthy countries all have quite good Environmental Health results. But their scores for the various metrics of Ecosystem Vitality vary widely. Some of these nations, notably the Scandinavians, have distinct geographic advantages, including large land areas and low population densities. But their success is also a function of concerted policy effort and deep commitment to environmental values across their public and business communities.
The Least Developed Countries (LDCs), conversely, did not score as well. None of the LDCs were in the top half of the EPI, and the bottom 14 countries in the EPI are all from this group. With little access to financial resources for immediate needs like nutrition and disease, many of these countries are struggling to make even baseline efforts on environmental health. Their lack of development translates into limited pollution stress and thus contributes to relatively strong scores on air pollution, climate change, and biodiversity.
High population density countries are spread throughout the EPI. Germany, for example, sits in the 13th position while Burundi ranks 132nd. High population density generates special challenges, but the high-ranked performers in this category demonstrate that population density is not an insurmountable barrier to good environmental quality. Many of the lower-ranked countries in this grouping face challenges, but can look to their higher-ranking peers for guidance on how to develop in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Other peer groups, such as the African Union, the Alliance of Small Island States, the Desert Countries, and the Newly Independent States, are spread across the EPI. Each of these peer groups is largely populated by developing countries that struggle with a wide variety of challenges, including a lack of natural resources like water and arable land, as well as the burden of poverty.
The Desert Countries peer grouping reveals the ecological challenges these countries face. The top ten countries in this peer group score in the middle third of the total EPI ranking. And the bottom three β Iraq, Mauritania, and Niger β fall in the bottom 10% of the overall ranking. This peer group highlights the success of policies dealing with aridity and water management and the subsequent effect on ecosystem vulnerability issues.
The Free Trade Areas of the Americas peer group overlaps with most of the America regional grouping, with the exception of Cuba. The member countries fall in a wide range, from Costa Rica which ranks 5th to Haiti which ranks 119th. These disparate rankings reflect the vast range of environmental performance, which may lead to trade tensions in the future. For the European Union member countries, however, the spread is much more narrow. All the countries, except for Romania, fall in the top half of overall ranking, with five making the top ten.
Shared geography and climate provides a natural line of comparison, and countries often think of themselves as being similar to and compare themselves with their neighbors. Regional associations are thus an obvious basis for peer grouping. Despite the close geographic proximity, the countries of the African Union, Newly Independent States, and Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation vary widely in their environmental performance. The results suggest that location is not everything β how a country and government uses its natural endowment is still a factor.
Overall, geographic peer groups show much more diversity than do groupings like the OECD and the LDCs. This result implies that countries in the midst of economic transitions vary widely in how well they fold environmental protection into their development strategies. (For further analysis of these peer groups and of countries grouped by income deciles, see Groupings on the sidebar.)