COPENHAGEN, Denmark?In this world-class metropolis which is considered one of Europe?s oldest and most wonderful capitals, the warmth and hospitality of the people are easily felt, making one feel very much at home. The Danish concern for transnational issues makes the city also a fitting venue for the Copenhagen Consensus or CC, a project that sought to establish cost-beneficial priorities for advancing global welfare. The consensus recently came out with its list of priorities.

The CC is premised on the argument that, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on global challenges by various wealthy governments and entities such as the United Nations, the money spent on problems such as malnutrition and climate change is not sufficient to meet many internationally-set goals. Although more than $60 billion have already been spent, many of the UN?s ?Millennium Development Goals? have still been inadequately addressed, calling for a more cost-efficient manner of utilizing resources.

Cost-effectiveness

Since cost-effectiveness is a main criterion for prioritizing the interventions proposed, eight of the world?s top economists?including five Nobel laureates?formed part of the panel which recently assessed the CC research.

Out of 30 specific solutions to address the top 10 challenges confronting the world today, three of the top four priorities are health-related and one of the top two priorities appears to be the simplest and easily doable.

Top priority

The expert panel judged as a top priority combating micronutrient malnutrition in the 140 million children worldwide who are undernourished. Sue Horton, a noted economist from the Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada convinced the expert panel that it?s well worth every dollar spent for this undertaking.

Filling in the micronutrient deficiency by providing commonly available vitamin A capsules, iron (ferrous sulfate) and a course of zinc supplements to these millions of malnourished children would cost just $60 million per year, according to Laurier?s analysis. But the yearly benefits, in terms of less healthcare cost for illnesses, fewer deaths and more productivity in later years, translate to more than $1 billion. In simpler terms, each dollar spent on this program creates benefits worth more than $17.

Our own Department of Health (DOH) also considered addressing micronutrient malnutrition as one of their top priority projects several years ago, but not much have been heard of implementing the program to sustain this goal in recent years. I hope this is still an ongoing program of DOH. It would be most unfortunate if many bright young Filipino minds, who would have become scientists, economists, doctors, legislators, etc. in the future, are intellectually impaired in their developing years due to micronutrient deficiency which could have been easily corrected.

Considered as equally high priority was implementing certain new measures to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. The panel estimated that an investment of $27 billion could save 30-million individuals from acquiring the dreaded virus by 2010. This means that it would only cost around $900 through various forms of educational and health interventions to save one from getting infected with the deadly HIV. If one considers the cost of treatment if one is infected, plus all its physical, psychological and emotional impact of HIV-AIDS on afflicted individuals, the cost-benefit ratio will tilt heavily on the benefit side.

Controlling, treating malaria

Labeled as fourth priority was controlling and treating malaria. A disease caused by parasites, malaria is blamed for up to 3 million deaths and 500 million acute infections yearly, according to the International Malaria Foundation. Experts thought it was under control 10 years ago, but it has gradually come back with a vengeance, with drug-resistant strains identified.

It will cost $13 billion to address this problem, with very good benefits in return, well worth more than the amount spent, particularly if applied toward eradicating mosquito-breeding beds. Our problem locally is that these mosquito breeding grounds are located in heavily forested areas which are also the breeding grounds for some rebels and terrorists, who may frighten health teams assigned for malaria eradication. I don?t think there?s any peace pact that would guarantee exemption from kidnapping for these health teams.

Third-world countries will certainly be the beneficiaries if the CC recommendations are put into place. And money spent on these, from all formulas calculating cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness, should turn out to be money well spent than money spent on wars and other conflict-generating interventions. We hope leaders of first-world countries look at it from this perspective.