Print

Mail

wiki links

The UN's first try at coming up with a useful list of priorities

"When you say everything is a priority, then you are saying you don't really have any priorities." Those were the words of US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton as he attempted my challenge to establish concrete priorities for the world. Political recognition of the importance of priorities is a crucial development. Politicians avoid creating prioritized "to do" lists that could upset groups whose interests do not come first. It is simpler to declare that every challenge is a top priority.

The UN spends billions of dollars promoting human rights, protecting the environment, fighting disease and reducing poverty. The organization's budget is vast but -- like all budgets -- limited. Yet, choices about battling humanity's biggest challenges are rarely founded in a principled framework of prioritization.

Decisions are mired in a constant battle for resources between competing interest groups, countries and organizations. UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown has pointed out that there is distrust between representatives of populous developing nations and those from wealthier states -- a stand-off he calls "numbers versus pocketbooks."

This backdrop makes this week's achievement all the more remarkable. I gathered UN ambassadors from the US, China, India, Pakistan, Tanzania, Zambia, Russia, Egypt, Thailand and Vietnam in a project called the Copenhagen Consensus. I asked them to set priorities for the world.

The ambassadors -- who together represent about half of the world's population -- listened to climate change experts tell them that global warming is a vital issue and that the Kyoto Protocol could be used to tackle it. They heard from health experts who said that communicable diseases were rampant and that mosquito nets would be a great way to combat malaria. Other experts told them that two-and-a-half billion people lack access to sanitation but investment in relatively simple projects could drastically reduce that number.

All are important problems. Each should be tackled. But with limited resources, we need to commit to solving some problems before others. It makes sense to first invest in the areas that achieve the greatest benefits.

The essential question put to the ambassadors was: If you had an extra $50 billion, how should it be spent to achieve the most good possible?

The ambassadors considered the expert evidence and debated the pro and cons of each option before putting together a prioritized list of solutions to the world's greatest challenges. They concluded that the world's top solutions are better health, cleaner water, more education and less hunger.

The burden of disease ruins lives and entire communities. Nine out of ten deaths from communicable diseases in the developing world are avoidable. The world could fight back with general health services in at-need areas along with more focused efforts to combat HIV and malaria.

The ambassadors found that providing clean drinking water and sanitation to the billion people lacking such amenities was crucial. They also concluded that without a constant focus on education, other gains could not be sustained. They decided to deal with malnutrition. Eight hundred million people are chronically undernourished while three-and-a-half billion lack micronutrients.

But choosing the issues at the top of a priority list is the easy part. Asking politicians to choose what shouldn't come first was the real test. The ambassadors showed courage. They concluded that although migration, corruption and conflicts are vital, these should not come first on the global priority list.

The evidence led them to believe that proposed solutions to financial instability and global warming -- while both important topics -- are not the right investments to start with. The UN ambassadors' first attempt at a deliberate prioritization shows that this approach could be used on a much bigger scale. It could help to put the organization back on track and assist it to focus on doing the best things first.

As John Bolton pointed out, the UN has 9,000 mandates, which means 9,000 top priorities, which essentially means no priorities. Thailand's ambassador pointed out that using the Copenhagen Consensus prioritization framework could help the UN to ensure better, more effective utilization of scarce resources in tackling top issues. Zambia's ambassador believed that "all member countries of the UN would benefit from going through a similar process, becoming more aware of the need to prioritize."

Perhaps it is now time to convene all of the UN member countries and ask them the hard but vital question: given that we can't do it all, what should we do first?

A list of priorities arising from the Copenhagen Consensus negotiations conducted by UN ambassadors on June 16-17 at Georgetown University. Includes the priority area and associated challenge:

1 Communicable diseases: scaled-up basic health services
2 Sanitation and water: community-managed water supply and sanitation
3 Education: physical expansion
4 Malnutrition and hunger: improving infant and child nutrition
5 Malnutrition and hunger: investment in technology in developing country agriculture
6 Communicable diseases: control of HIV/AIDS
7 Communicable diseases: control of malaria
8 Malnutrition and hunger: reducing micro nutrient deficiencies
9 Subsidies and trade barriers: achieving 50 percent of the liberalization agenda of the current Doha round
10 Education: improve quality and institute systemic reforms
11 Sanitation and water: small-scale water technology to improve people's basic livelihoo
12 Education: expand demand for schooling
13 Malnutrition and hunger: reducing low birth weight for high risk pregnancies
14 Education: reduce the cost of schooling to increase demand
15 Sanitation and water: research to increase water productivity in food production
16 Migration: migration for development purposes
17 Corruption: procurement reform
18 Conflicts: aid post-conflict to reduce the risk of repeat conflict
19 Sanitation and water: re-using waste water for agriculture
20 Migration: guest worker policies
21 Sanitation and water: sustainable food and fish production in wetlands
22 Corruption: grassroots monitoring and service delivery
23 Corruption: technical assistance to develop monitoring and transparency initiatives
24 Migration: active immigration policies
25 Subsidies and trade barriers: achieving 25 percent of the liberalization agenda of the current Doha round
26 Corruption: reduction in the state-imposed costs of business-government relations
27 Climate change: implement the Kyoto Protocol
28 Conflicts: use aid as conflict prevention
29 Corruption: reform of revenue collection
30 Financial instability: international solution to the currency-mismatch problem
31 Conflicts: transparency in natural resource rents as a conflict prevention strategy
32 Conflicts: military spending post-conflict to reduce the risk of repeat conflict
33 Financial instability: re-regulate domestic financial markets
34 Conflicts: shortening conflicts
35 Financial instability: reimpose capital controls
36 Financial instability: adopt a common currency
37 Subsidies and trade barriers: 100 percent liberalization
38 Climate change: optimal carbon tax
39 Climate Change: value-at-risk carbon tax
40 Climate Change: a carbon tax starting at US$2 and ending at US$20.

Bjorn Lomborg is the organizer of Copenhagen Consensus and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Copyright: Project Syndicate
This story has been viewed 1161 times.