Assessing global threats.

The idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus Project was to set a list of priorities for improving the lives of the world's poor people. The project was run by Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute with help from the Danish government.

The organizing thought was that there are a host of very good ideas out there for poverty reduction but there is not enough money available to fund them all. Therefore, choices must be made.

In 2003, panels of experts drew up a list of challenges facing the world. The first list had 32 items on it under four broad headings:

Economy:
Digital Divide
Financial Instability
Lack of Intellectual Property Rights
Money Laundering
Subsidies and Trade Barriers
Transport and Infrastructure

Environment:
Air Pollution
Chemical Pollution and Hazardous Waste
Climate Change
Deforestation
Depletion of Ozone Layer
Depletion of Water Resources
Lack of Energy
Land Degradation
Loss of Biodiversity
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters

Governance:
Arms Proliferation
Conflicts
Corruption
Lack of Education
Terrorism

Health and Population:
Drugs
HIV/AIDS
Human Settlements
Lack of People in Working Age Group
Malaria
Living Conditions of Children
Living Conditions of Women
Non-Communicable Disease
Under-nutrition/Hunger
Unsafe Water and Lack of Sanitation
Vaccine Preventable Diseases

The next job was to whittle this list down to ten. These made the cut:

Civil Conflicts
Climate Change
Communicable Diseases
Education
Financial Stability
Governance
Hunger and Malnutrition
Migration
Trade Reform
Water and Sanitation

Each of these challenges was given to relevant experts who were to write papers describing the nature of the problem. Each article summarized current knowledge about one of the challenges and identified from three to five ways of dealing with the problem. Costs and benefits were also given for each challenge. Each of the papers was then given two critiques by other experts to achieve balance.

Now, it was time to call in the final panel of experts to make decisions.

The role of the Copenhagen Consensus was to rank its choices in order according to which would deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number. The system used in making the choices is called "rational prioritization;" meaning taking emotion out of decisions which the organizers of the project believe are sometimes made because of media attention to an issue.

An example might be the enormous outpouring of generosity towards the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunamis. However, more people die of AIDS in Africa in two weeks than were killed in the tsunamis, but AIDS organizations find it very difficult to raise funds for their cause.

Who better to make rational rather than emotional decisions than economists? So, the Copenhagen Consensus Project gathered a panel of eight of the world's greatest economists.

These experts were also to apply a branch of their discipline called welfare economics. This concerns itself with the welfare of individuals rather than groups, communities, or societies because it assumes that the individual is the basic unit of measurement. It also assumes that individuals are the best judges of their own welfare and that people will prefer greater welfare to less welfare.

In May 2004, the eight economists gathered in Copenhagen. After a week of debate, the panel came up with its priorities.

There was, of course, controversy. How come climate change was dismissed as unimportant? Why was free trade given such prominence? Where were the programs to improve the lives of women? What happened to the proposals to end civil conflict?

The answer to all those questions is that we can't do everything, and the economists gave priority to areas where we could get the best bang for a buck. That's what cost/benefit analysis is all about. And, combatting HIV/AIDS came out the clear winner in that category. One study showed that condom distribution combined with medical treatment for sex-trade workers would cost just $4.80 for each life-year saved. In contrast, the panel of experts rated controlling global warming too expensive for the benefits that might be expected to come from it.

In the end, the Copenhagen Consensus Project has produced another tool that rich-country governments can use when assessing how to deal with global challenges.

Copenhagen Consensus Results

Very Good   1. Diseases           Control of HIV/AIDS
            2. Malnutrition       Providing micro-nutrients
            3. Subsidies/Trade    Trade liberalization
            4. Diseases           Control of malaria
Good        5. Malnutrition       Develop new farm techniques
            6. Sanitation/Water   Small-scale water technology
            7. Sanitation/Water   Community-managed water
            8. Sanitation/Water   Research on water in farming
            9. Government         Lower cost of business start-up
Fair        10. Migration         Lower barriers to skilled workers
            11. Malnutrition      Improve infant nutrition
            12. Malnutrition      Cut low birth weight numbers
            13. Diseases          Scale-up basic health-care
Poor        14. Migration         Guest-worker spots for unskilled
            15. Climate           "Optimal" carbon tax
            16. Climate           The Kyoto Protocol
            17. Climate           Value-at-risk carbon tax

CONTRAST

Cost of official visits to Russia, Iceland, and Finland made by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and entourage in September 2003: $5.3 million

Cost of providing 17,667 tents to shelter refugees in the Darfur region of Sudan: $5.3 million

Cost of cosmetic "handlift" to reduce signs of aging" $5,500

Cost of providing warm blankets for 800 children: $5,500