The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized Environmental
Performance Index (EPI), developed by Yale University and Columbia University, to Romanian
realities at two geographic scales to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or
dissimilar resilience capacity.
Original Title
Using Environmental Performance Index to Assess Regional Resilience in Romania
The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized Environmental
Performance Index (EPI), developed by Yale University and Columbia University, to Romanian
realities at two geographic scales to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or
dissimilar resilience capacity.
The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized Environmental
Performance Index (EPI), developed by Yale University and Columbia University, to Romanian
realities at two geographic scales to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or
dissimilar resilience capacity.
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA Iuliana Gabriela Breabn 1 , Alexandru Bnic 2 , Alexandra Sandu 1 1 University Alexandru Ioan Cuza of Iasi, Bdul Carol I, No20 A, Iasi, Romania, iulianab2001@ yahoo.com 2 Iasi Branch of the Romanian Academy, Bdul Carol I, No. 8 Abstract The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized Environmental Performance Index (EPI), developed by Yale University and Columbia University, to Romanian realities at two geographic scales to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or dissimilar resilience capacity. Keywords: environmental performance index, resilience capacity, spatial disparities, policy tool. Introduction In a globalized world, regions are confronting multiple, sometimes unexpected stresses and shocks that shape their social, economic and environmental features. The regional capacity to absorb and adapt to these perturbations depends on their resilience or vulnerability 1 . An eficient management of environmental issues is an important component that deines the resilience capacity of territories. It inluences the regional capacity to absorb disturbances, to tackle processes that have a cross-scale development but also to innovate and to promote sustainable ways of relating human society to nature. Environmental performance is a core component with the social and economic performance in evaluating overall performance of an entity 2,3 . There have been several attempts to evaluation through indicators such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) (1999- 2005), Pilot Environmental Performance Index (2002-2006) Environmental Performance Index (EPI) (2008, 2010, and 2012) etc. starting from a set of performance indicators developed by some companies. From 2006, EPI was developed by Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for Earth Information Science Information Network of Columbia University, ranking most of the states in the world in terms of the achievement of environmental policies towards targets set. EPI considers twenty ive indicators organized into ten policy categories groups and two core environmental policy objectives: Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality. The inal scores are obtained by using arithmetic means of those being classiied into ive categories ranging from the strongest to the weakest performance. For Romania, EPI was: 2006 - 56.9 - 6; 2008 - 71.9 - 83; 2010 - 67.8 - 45, 2012 - 48.34 - 88 being a country with weaker performance 4 . The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized EPI, to Romanian realities to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or dissimilar resilience capacity at county and regional level. Material and Methods Based on the EPI methodology 5 , the paper aims to identify key indicators that would characterize the most appropriate categories of environmental policy, targets, weighting coeficients, achieving inally a framework used to calculate the EPI. Five environmental policy categories were chosen for which twenty-one indicators highlighting both strengths and limitations of 276 Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 those were selected. For this, time series have been used from various oficial databases (Table 1). To optimize the results, normalization was made by using Z scores, then the aggregation was made after giving certain weights to all indicators considering importance and accuracy), the inal score of (modiied) EPI being obtained by cumulating those ive intermediate scores taking into account their signiicance (+ or -). Results and Discussions Environmental performance index at county and regional level takes into account ive weighted categories of indicators concerning different environmental inputs and outcomes that shape the countys and regions attitude toward a sustainable and resilient future. Analyzing Water, sanitation and environmental health, the registered high values are overlapping in counties having powerful well situated urban poles diffusing innovation and modernization towards their rural hinterland. It is the case of counties with a good population access to facilities (Cluj, Brasov, Mures, Constanta) but also the capital city. On the other hand, poor counties are also confronting dificulties in ensuring access to water, sewage and sanitation for many of their localities (Vaslui, Botosani, Teleorman, Olt, Ialomita).Concerning Energy and climate change category, on one hand there are areas with important potential in wind and solar energy that were revaluated by important investments during the last ive years (Tulcea, Constanta, Caras-Severin, Vaslui). On the other hand, small values correspond to the traditional industrial areas that did not succeed in improving their technologies (Dolj, Gorj, Hunedoara), but also to those which did not valuate their green energy potential. The Urban sustainability is relevant for all units capacity to overcome issues emerging from the concentration of people, goods and activities in such environments. Therefore, the best urban environmental performance is thought to overlap areas from the western and south-western part of Romania with large green area per inhabitant (Harghita, Dolj) or large share of population using public transportation (Cluj, Timis, Bihor, Dolj). Opposite to that, the lowest performance of urban environment is shown by counties with crowded and noisy cities (Bucharest, Brasov) with small green area per inhabitant (Tulcea, Giurgiu, Ilfov) or without an intensive use of public transportation (Ilfov, Giurgiu, Vrancea, Gorj). The sustainability of county and regional ecosystems can be assessed when taking into account the share of protected areas, the correlation between exploitation and regeneration of forest areas and the eficiency of agricultural area management, by soil protection of degraded areas (highest values in Ialomita, Calarasi or Braila). The worse situation concerning ecosystems viability is observed in the regions with large combustion plants, therefore emitting signiicant quantities of SO 2 and NOx with major acidiication and eutrophication effects (Dolj Isalnita, Gorj Rovinari, Mehedinti Drobeta Turnu Severin or Hunedoara) or other industrial polluters still not restructured and modernized (Galati, Vlcea, Prahova). The actual environmental potential is also shaping the indicators concerning the environmental governance. The best positions are held by counties with important natural and cultural assets that needed to be protected by accessing structural funds, by associating different actors in order to fulill the environmental objectives or by implementing speciic conservative measure and actions (Tulcea, Constanta, Harghita, Gorj, Bihor). 277 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu P o l i c y
C a t e g o r y
W e i g h t
I n d i c a t o r P e r i o d
S o u r c e T a r g e t W e i g h t A g g r e g a t i o n
m e t h o d S i g n i i c a n c e Water quality, sanitation and environmental health 0.25 The number of inhabitants with access to a local water system 2008- 2011 NIS 100% 0.05 The number of inhabitants with access to a local water system / total population-weighted with recent connection to a local water system coeficient + The number of inhabitants with access to a local sewage network 2006- 2011 NIS 100% 0.075 The number of inhabitants with access to a local sewage network / total population-weighted with recent connection to a local sewage network coeficient + The number of inhabitants with access to sanitation services 2009- 2011 LEAP, REAP, RDP, CWMP, NEPA 100% 0.075 The number of inhabitants with access to sanitation services/ the total number of the population of the county + Municipal waste generation 2006- 2011 LEAP, REAP, RDP, CWMP, NEPA 0.3 waste in inhabitant/ year cf. EEA 0.025 Municipal waste generated/ the total number of population - Child mortality 2000- 2011 NIS 4.59 / 1000 births - in UE 0.025 The number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1000 live births in the same year - Energy and Climate Changes 0.155 Weight of renewable energy 2008- 2012 TRANSELE- CTRICA 40% Renewable Energy to the total energy produced 0.075 The total capacity of renewable energy*the diversity of renewable energy coeficient/ the total number of population + Annual emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) 2007- 2011 LEAP, REAP, NEPA 20 % reduction of GHG compared to the year 1990 0.08 CO 2 equivalent/GDP - Table 1. Proposed framework for Romanian EPI at regional level 278 Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 Urban sustainability 0.115 The degree of public transport utilization 2000- 2011 NIS - 0.015 The number of public transport users / the total number of population (average value) + The accessibility to green urban areas 1991- 2011 NIS 26 sqm/ inhabitant 0.05 [The surface of green urban areas/ the number of population]* % from the target + Urban noise 2006- 2011 LEAP, REAP, NEPA 0 % overlow of the limit of urban noise accepted 0.05 The county total vehicles * urban population /the city area (weighted with the urban noise at regional level) - Ecosystem viability 0.21 The weight of works done for the soil protection 2000- 2011 NIS 100% 0.025 The average surface of the land with works for soil protection / the total surface affected by the soil degradation + The index of forest regeneration 2009- 2011 NIS - 0.03 The surface with forest regeneration /the total forest area + The index of forest exploitation 2009- 2011 NIS - 0.025 The total volume of the wood cut + the total volume exploited / the total forest area - The weight of natural protected areas 2012 MECC - 0.02 The weight from the total area of the county of the natural protected areas of national interest + Annual emission of SO2 2007- 2011 LEAP, REAP, NEPA 82% reduction of the emissions compared to the year 2000 0.05 Average emission between 2007-2011/ GDP - Annual emission of NOx 2007- 2011 LEAP, REAP, NEPA 60% reduction of the emissions compared to the year 2000 0.06 Average emission between 2007-2011/ GDP - 279 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu Environmental governance 0.27 The associative capacity for the environmental protection 2012 http:// database.ngo. ro/ - 0.035 The number of NGOs for the environment protection/100000 urban habitants + Access to structural funds for environmental protection 2008- 2013 htttp:SOP ENV 100% absorption of the SOP_ Env funds 0.085 Number of projects * the value of the projects coeficient/ total number of projects + The degree of achievement of the action concerning the environmental protection 2006- 2011 NEAP 100% 0.075 The number of actions done in advance + the number of actions done / the total number of actions + The average number of accidental pollutions 2000- 2011 NEPA 0 0.05 The annual average number of accidental pollution - The number of localities which implemented Agenda 21 2000- 2012 NIS - 0.025 Localities with Agenda 21/total number of the A21 localities at national level + 280 Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 Fig.1 Distribution of (modiied) Environmental Performance Index and intermediates Z score The non-associative agricultural low income counties were less effective in attracting funds for environmental protection (Ialomita, Olt), confronted numerous accidents that implied pollution and degradation of natural and artiicial ecosystems (Braila, Arges) or have dificulties in fulilling their environmental obligations (Ialomita, Olt, Arges, Bistrita). Fig.2 Modiied EPI at regional and county level 281 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013 USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru Bnic, Alexandra Sandu The overall aggregated EPI shows a highly mixed territorial composition (ig.2). Best situated are the counties with an important natural potential or including important urban poles with a signiicant development trend. The irst ranked is a contrasting county - Tulcea, a unit that addresses climate challenges very well (low GHG emissions, investments in renewable energy) and involves a good governance capacity (NGOs, fund accessing etc.), without a sound basis of social-economic development (low access to water and sanitation, high infant death rate, deicient urban transportation). By contrast, the second, Cluj, shows good management trends in all analyzed sectors of environmental performance. The counties situated in the last place have missed the opportunities to restructure and properly address the environmental challenges. Gorj is a county that has the worst positions in almost all analyzed indicators: high pollution, decreasing ecosystem vitality, lack of proper endowments and services etc. On the other hand, the rural and peripheral county of Botosani also lacks the needed infrastructure that could sustain both a clean environment and a good quality of life, but it does sustain harmful industrial activities and lately shows signs of modernization (for e.g. investments in utilities and in renewable energy facilities). Conclusion The present work investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized EPI, to Romanian realities to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or dissimilar resilience capacity at county and regional level. Resilience was a useful framework in order to demonstrate the Romanian territorial disparities born from the success or failure in restructuring the communist approach regarding production and environment. The result put into evidence two forms of regional resilience: some units are blocked in an inadequate infrastructural and technological background while others succeeded in reforming and restructuring towards the new model induced by the European Union. Therefore, they raised their resilience capacity in front of all kinds of challenges that may affect the social-economic and environmental systems. The ive identiied categories of indicators and the modiied EPI obtained by their aggregation demonstrates that the best environmental performance is obtained when the natural potential is sustainably valuated or/and when the general development includes effective environmental performance. On the other hand, the counties hosting large energy- consuming industry or the peripheral poor rural regions are the most vulnerable to environmental degradation and lack a proper management. The present attempt of imagining a complex index based on the available statistical data aims to provide a tool for local authorities to asses and compare the environmental performance at different scales. Obviously, there are certain limitations of the present model: the indicators are insuficient and some lack reliability. The approach can be improved by including new indicators and a more thorough statistical analysis using longer time series. References 1. Y. Maru, Resilient regions: clarity in concepts and challenges to systemic measurement, Socio- economics and the Environment in discussion, CSIRO Working papers Series, (2010) 04 2. E. Reynaud, Dveloppement durable et entreprise: vers une relation symbiotique, Journe AIMS, Atelier dveloppement durable ESSCA, (2003), Angers, p.1-15. 3. R. Mocanu Perdichi, Sustainable development index in Romania at county and regional level, Revista Inovatia Social nr. 1/2009 pp. 1-19 in Romanian 4. J.W., Emerson, A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh, 2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, (2012), p10 5. *** Towards a China Environmental Performance Index Final Report, New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (2010), p 14