Namibia is the highest-ranked desert country and the third-highest Nepad member country.

The 2005 ESI, released at the World Economic Forum on Thursday in Davos, Switzerland, ranks Finland first, followed by Norway, Uruguay, Sweden and Iceland.

In Africa, Gabon is ranked the highest (12), followed by Central African Republic (25), Namibia in third place and Botswana (34) in fourth place.

"Namibia has done pretty well," said Chris Brown of the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) in reaction to the report, saying sustainable development has been made one of the pillar stones of development.

Brown maintained that Namibia should receive a higher ranking, "but many do not know how far the country has gone. We tend not to advertise our achievements too much to avoid 'project junkies' descending on us."

Brown noted that Namibia was one of the first developing countries to present a Green Plan at the Rio Earth Summit, only two years after Independence.

He added that the National Development Plan II and Vision 2030 focus on the promotion of sustainable development, "which is much more than any other country has done. Implementation has really been successful, especially the devolvement of rights to local communities".

He named the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) programme as one of the hallmarks of this initiative.

"It has really taken off in a dramatic way."

In comparison, Brown said, the Scandinavian countries scoring top positions had huge resources available with the support of "a very mature democratic system".

These countries' high ESI scores are attributed to substantial natural resource endowments, low population densities and successful management of environment and development issues.

The ESI ranks countries on 21 elements of environmental sustainability covering natural resource endowments, past and present pollution levels, environmental management efforts, contributing to protection of the global common, and a society to improve its environmental performance over time.

The report noted that although imperfect, the ESI helps to fill a longstanding gap in environmental performance evaluation and it offers a small step towards a more vigorous and quantitative approach to environmental decision-making.

Brown of the NNF said more devolution or rights should take place in Namibia, as Government Ministries "have not let go enough. We must guard against Ministries deciding what is best for the people. They should keep a light touch by creating an enabling environment to support priorities at community level."

The other aspect that needed work was an integrated approach to land management.

Brown said a programme was set up six months ago to look at integrated sustainable land management, "but it would take a couple of years to realise".

The superpowers of the world did not fare very well, with the United States of America placed at 45, just behind the Netherlands (44) and ahead of the United Kingdom (66).

Bottom-rung results on issues such as waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions brought down the overall US standing.

Right at the bottom of the list are Turkmenistan, Taiwan and North Korea.

"These countries face many challenges, both natural and man-made, and have poorly managed their policy choices," said Daniel C Esty, professor at Yale University and the creator of the ESI.

The 2005 ESI has generated a number of policy conclusions, states a media release issued by Yale University.

Income emerges as a critical driver of environmental results.

At every level of economic development, however, there are countries managing their environmental challenges well and others less so.

Belgium, for instance, is as wealthy as Sweden, but it lags badly with regard to pollution control and natural resource management.

"In this regard, the variables that gauge a country's commitment to good governance - including robust political debate, a free press, lack of corruption, rule of law are highly correlated with overall environmental success."

The ESI also demonstrates that environmental protection need not come at the cost of competitiveness.

Finland is the equal of the United States in competitiveness but scores much higher on environmental sustainability and outperforms the US across a spectrum of issues, from air pollution to contributions to global-scale environmental efforts.

Analysis of the ESI data also makes it clear that developed countries face environmental challenges, particularly pollution stresses and consumption-related issues, distinct from those facing developing countries, where resource depletion and a lack of capacity for pollution control are the dominant concerns.

"While the ESI makes comparative policy analysis possible, it is shocking how many critical environmental issues are still not measured in any usable way," said Marc Levy of Columbia University and one of the leading contributors to the ESI.

"The international community must make a renewed commitment to developing metrics to track policy progress, particularly in the context of the environmental elements of the Millennium Development Goals - the world-wide effort to lift developing countries above the burdens of poverty by 2015."

The ESI is regarded as a pioneering attempt to bring systemic cross-country information to bear on the critical challenge of sustainable development.

Local News Headlines Of The Last 48 Hours