Britain has one of the worst environmental records in Europe, according to a new index ranking countries on their performance on green issues which will be unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.

　　The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), obtained by the Guardian ahead of Thursday's publication, was compiled by researchers at Yale and Columbia universities using 21 broad indicators covering pollution levels, policy and vulnerability to environmental damage. The aim, their report says, was to gauge each nation's ability "to protect the environment over the next several decades".

　　By that measure, Britain is in a lowly state. It ranks 66th out of the 146 countries on the index, considerably behind most of northern Europe, the US (ranked 45th), and even most of the former Soviet Union.

　　The result is at least a marked improvement on the last index in 2002, when Britain was ranked 91st, but the ESI's authors say that the rise up the table is a reflection of a refinement in the criteria used more than real environmental improvements. The country remains near the bottom of the league in Europe.

　　Britain ranked 16th out of the 22 European Union countries in the study, significantly worse than Scandinavia, Germany, France and the former Soviet Baltic republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Finland came top in Europe and the world. Belgium came last in Europe while North Korea was judged to be worst in the world.

　　"In the UK, the weakest element is land degradation. There is a high percentage of British land that has been messed with through 1,000 years of history," said Daniel Esty, director of the Yale centre for environmental law and policy and one of the report's authors. "Britain also lags badly when it comes to reducing air pollution. London and other cities have a serious air pollution problem.

　　Britain also scored poorly for exporting environmental pressures abroad, continuing to consume the output of polluting industries, like steel and cars, which have moved overseas. "The dirty business is being done elsewhere," Prof Esty said. "Economists will celebrate this as comparable advantage, but it looks differently from an environmental point of view."

　　However, the main reason Britain improved its position in the global table since the last index in 2002, Prof Esty said, was the introduction of new measures of sustainability, such as vulnerability to environmental disasters like drought, where the country's geography and high rainfall makes it look good.

　　The index was compiled by assigning each country points under 21 different headings, such as air quality, biodiversity, reducing air pollution, environmental health and international collaborative efforts. Britain scored 50.2, compared with 75.1 for Finland, 55.2 for France and 52.9 for the US.

　　Prof Esty said the US performed worse than many Americans expected but better than most Europeans believed. "The US has a very uneven performance," he said. "They have the best water quality in the world ... but they are on the bottom tier on waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions."