"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 United Nations 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 Copenhagen Consensus. I asked them to set priorities for the world.

Decisions over budget spending and priorities are mired in a constant battle for resources between competing interest groups, countries and organizations.

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 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 ‘to do' list of solutions to the world's greatest challenges (See List).

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 that dealing with malnutrition is also a crucial priority. Eight hundred million people are chronically undernourished while three and a half billion lack micronutrients.

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?

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?




Contributed by Bjørn Lomborg, the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus, an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, and editor of the new book "How to spend $50 billion to make the world a better place". Reprinted with permission from Project Syndicate.

Read The Copenhagen Consensus 2006 - A United Nations Perspective.

To read another Global Envision article about drawing attention to global issues, see Globalization, Mass Media and Star Power.



Return to top