Now here’s something that could really make a difference. China Daily reports that the Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning (CAEP) is “mulling a plan to assess provincial environmental performances.” The plan being considered is the Environmental Performances Index (EPI).
As we have previously noted, China has set performance criteria for local officials which considers how well they deliver on several environmental (SO2 and COD discharge reductions) and energy efficiency targets. Reportedly, sixty percent (60%) of a provincial or regional government official’s career success depends on achieving the targeted energy savings and environmental goals.
The EPI is more of a diagnostic tool. It was developed jointly by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University. It aims to “promote data-driven and analytically rigorous environmental decision making by using the best global datasets available.” You can read more about it generally at EPI , and if you want to delve deeper into its methodology try Methodology or the Policymaker Summary.
As China Daily points out, this is not a Green GDP calculation. The fate of that policy foray is nicely summarized in the article:
When the first figures were released in September 2006 they showed a 511.8 billion yuan loss for 2004, or 3.05 percent of the nation’s GDP for that year.
Some local governments are opposed to the publication of such disappointing results.
Figures for subsequent years have not been released.
And that was the end of that!
No doubt the EPI will also produce disappointing results for some, but it provides a means of helping focus attention on those particular aspects of the environment that need the most attention. As long as it is used as a learning tool and not a performance criteria, it may escape the fate of the Green GDP.
Here’s a look at what EPI considers and how it weights the various factors.
So how does China as a whole fair on the EPI? Let’s just say there’s room for improvement. It’s EPI Score 65.1 (out of 100) (71.4 for Environmental Health and 58.8 for Ecosystem Vitality) and its EPI Rank is 105 (out of 149). It ranks 17 out of 23 countries in the “Asia & Pacific” region.

2 responses so far ↓
1 Greg // Oct 10, 2008 at 3:48 pm
How reliable are reports from the local/provincial governments?
2 cmcelwee // Oct 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Short answer: about as reliable as a Great Leap Forward grain production report. If this system is going to be effective the national government or an independent third party will have to conduct the analysis (or at the very least a rigorous auditing system will have to be employed).
Leave a Comment