Climate denial is bad strategy

by Joy Lockhart
December 10, 2009 05:32 AM EST


Whenever a major political party finds itself out of power and rejected by voters, there’s a scramble to seize on new issues, elevate new leadership and redefine the message. Unfortunately, politicians in these circumstances often succumb to their worst instincts and the urgings of their most extreme constituents. It happens to everyone, and most observers agree that the GOP is struggling with exactly this challenge. The American public, watching this struggle, is reacting as it always does when a party leans toward its extremes: negatively.

With an eye on 2010, Republican leaders in Congress should therefore think carefully about their strategy on climate change. The “climategate” controversy over stolen e-mails written by scientists has current leading conservative voices, from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), arguing that they’ve at last found the “proof” that global warming is a hoax.

Climategate has, this week at least, stirred up a hornet’s nest. But as a political strategy, it’s highly suspect. After all, climate denial has been a marginal position for years, and the American people believe by a wide margin that climate change is real, that we’re causing it and that taking action to solve it will create good-paying jobs. A few out-of-context lines from decade-old e-mails aren’t going to change that in the long term, and anyone who thinks we’ll be talking about these e-mails a year from now hasn’t been paying attention to a news cycle that moves at Twitter speed.

The real story here is that serious Republican and conservative leaders are committing to take action on climate change. In October, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joined Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to move compromise legislation forward, and with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), this “tripartisan” alliance is negotiating with colleagues even as the U.S. negotiates in Copenhagen. Kerry said recently that other Republican votes for climate legislation are in place, and this constructive process could help both parties’ reputations with voters, who are tired of a wildly partisan, do-nothing Washington culture.

An even bigger conservative bombshell dropped on Dec. 4. In the pages of The Washington Post, James Murdoch — yes, the News Corp. executive — wrote that in his considered opinion, the time for national climate legislation has come. In particular, Murdoch argued that conservatives should embrace the opportunities of a transition to clean energy and warned that America is falling behind in the energy technology race.

His argument on the science is particularly instructive:

“You do not need to believe that all climate science is settled or every prediction or model is perfect to understand the benefits of limiting pollution and transforming our energy policies — as a gradually declining cap on carbon pollution would do. This is the moment to champion policies that yield new industries, healthy competition, cleaner air and water, freedom from petroleum politics and reduced costs for businesses.”

There’s nothing unclear about that: a conservative calling for legislative action on climate change and moving away from Big Oil’s messaging (which hasn’t been popular with voters since “Dallas” went off the air). Murdoch seems to recognize — and to hope that other conservatives recognize — that climategate is little more than a politically risky distraction from the real task at hand: creating jobs for Americans at a time when China and others are racing to take them from us.

Murdoch and Graham are just two of the many conservatives and business-friendly voices that have joined a growing call for comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Military leaders, members of the clergy, outdoorsmen and CEOs with conservative credentials have all expressed their support for various reasons — support that no doubt is helping to sway Republicans in the Senate who can see farther down the road than the next press conference.

Perhaps a silver lining from this latest climate distraction is that it has refocused us on the actual science of climate change and the magnitude of the threat we face. This decade is very likely to be the warmest on record, according to World Meteorological Organization data released this week. Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they’ve been in at least 800,000 years, and Arctic summer sea ice has declined more than 60 percent since the 1980s. Washington and the American people haven’t veered so far from reality to be able to ignore these facts for long.

For the moment, Republicans in Congress seem fixated on a short-term tactical advantage. But in the long run, this kind of rhetoric will confirm the majority of Americans’ worst fears about the GOP. As political calculations go, climategate is a misstep. Serious conservatives recognize that, and so should their colleagues in the Senate.

Joe Lockhart served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton and is a founding partner of The Glover Park Group in Washington.

Clean energy conservatives can embrace

By James Murdoch

Friday, December 4, 2009

Conservatives champion the essential characteristics of America: liberty, enterprise and ingenuity. As world leaders consider how to transform the way we make and use energy in the face of a changing climate, it's time for an energy policy true to that spirit -- and it shouldn't be anathema to the American right.

Conservatives have a robust tradition of principled concern for the environment. It was, after all, Teddy Roosevelt who created five national parks and signed the Antiquities Act. It was Richard Nixon who established the Environmental Protection Agency, and George H.W. Bush who ushered in one of the greatest environmental success stories, the 1990 cap-and-trade plan to take on acid rain.

Today, Americans of all political persuasions want to see their country on a path toward an economy powered by energy that is clean, safe, secure and stable. With climate legislation pending and a binding global treaty being negotiated, conservative leadership is critical because the only way to get the job done is with broad bipartisan agreement.

How can they do it? By establishing a Red-Blue-Green agenda on whose principles conservatives, Democrats and independents can all agree. Which Americans would argue against energy that meets the following principles:

-- Freedom from national insecurity. The Western world's dependence on oil means transferring billions of dollars to nations whose interests are at odds with democratic ideals. This makes for geopolitical instability and forces the United States to compromise its role as a beacon of freedom just to secure traditional fuels.

-- A return to economic strength. Ultimately, the question is: Which countries will lead the world to a clean-energy future -- and reap the benefits? The United States is already falling behind. It has lost its dominance in solar manufacturing and ranks 22nd in energy efficiency. The Chinese market for clean tech is forecast to grow to as much as $1 trillion per year. America cannot afford to cede new markets and the jobs they create without even trying.

-- New employment, with lower long-term costs. Much of the U.S. debate focuses on the short-term costs associated with the transition to a clean-energy economy without considering its long-term benefits or calculating the costs of continuing business as usual. The wave of innovations around clean energy will not only create new industries and jobs but also allow businesses to have increasingly efficient -- and therefore more profitable -- operations.

-- Cleaner, healthier communities. Republicans once played a leading role in cleaning up our air and water, and conservatives of all stripes should champion that role again. The manufacturing booms that built cities such as Detroit and Cleveland left environmental degradation in their wake. Good climate legislation will bring jobs back to hard-hit areas, but this time factories will not pollute the groundwater or make the air unsafe to breathe.

-- Competition trumps regulation. A sensible clean-energy policy should free, rather than constrain, markets. Smart policy corrects market failures and provides certainty, stimulating investment in the technology and infrastructure necessary to build an economy based on clean energy. Washington must ensure that such investment will be rewarded. The government shouldn't "pick winners" -- it should unleash competition, ensuring that the cleanest businesses thrive and the dirtiest are held accountable. A well-crafted federal law to limit pollution is better than unfettered regulation by the EPA or ever-changing regulation by the states.

The seeds of these opportunities have already been planted. And companies that have taken the lead are prospering. At News Corporation, we have saved millions by becoming more energy-efficient, overhauling a range of systems from the production of such shows as "American Idol" and "24" to energy usage in our buildings around the world. This has yielded savings that help us invest more in talent and has inspired us to look for further opportunities to improve.

You do not need to believe that all climate science is settled or every prediction or model is perfect to understand the benefits of limiting pollution and transforming our energy policies -- as a gradually declining cap on carbon pollution would do. This is the moment to champion policies that yield new industries, healthy competition, cleaner air and water, freedom from petroleum politics and reduced costs for businesses.

Through market-based incentives we can achieve clean energy at the lowest cost and with the strongest incentives for innovation -- ensuring that the energy solution will help, not harm, the economy. Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) get this and are working across party lines to build support for new legislation. Previously conservation-minded conservatives are missing in the heated partisanship of today's politics. It's time they found their voice again.

The writer is chairman and chief executive, Europe and Asia, News Corporation.

Human Ecology - Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development

Human Population

According to archaeological evidence, the first humans (Homo habilis) appeared in Africa about three million years ago. They used simple stone tools. Humans (Homo erectus) expanded their populations through Europe and Asia at least a million years ago. The modern human species (Homo sapiens) appeared in Africa about 1.3 million years ago and remained only in Africa for many years. Homo sapiens extended its population to Europe, Asia and Australia about 40,000 - 50,000 years ago. The first humans known to live in the Western Hemisphere migrated there from Asia about 13,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens have existed for at least 60,000 generations. The entire human population of the planet was probably less than ten million people during nearly all of that time. About 10,000 years ago humans began to increase their numbers in a few parts of the world, an increase that continued gradually until 300 years ago. By 1700 AD, there were about 600 million people around the world. The population has multiplied to six billion people during the 12 generations since 1700.

Why did the human population increase so rapidly during the past few centuries, after growing so little for such a long time? Have modern science and technology freed humans from population regulation and the limitations of carrying capacity that apply to other animals? This chapter provides an overview of human population history, starting with the small population of hunter-gatherers that constituted humanity for almost all of its history. It describes the expansion of human population as the Agricultural Revolution spread around the globe, and the explosive increase in population that followed the Industrial Revolution. The chapter finishes with implications for the future.

Human Population History

From hunting and gathering to agriculture

The physical and mental abilities of modern humans - and their ecological position in the ecosystem - were formed by several million years of evolution as hunters and gatherers. Humans lived in natural ecosystems that contained many different kinds of plants and animals, only some of them suitable as human food (Figure 3.1a). With their hunting and gathering technology, humans were able to capture only a small part of the ecosystem’s total biological production as food for their own consumption. The carrying capacity for humans was similar to that of other animals, and human populations were no larger than the populations of other animals. Humans probably consumed about 0.1 per cent of the biological production in the ecosystems in which they lived.

This changed after the Agricultural Revolution, which enabled people to create their own small ecosystems for food production. Agriculture in its simplest form first appeared about 12,000 years ago in the Middle East. People encouraged wild plants that they used as food to grow near their dwellings, making food gathering easier. They eventually domesticated some of the plants by selecting individual species with desirable characteristics such as edible parts that were larger or easier to process for consumption. They also domesticated some of the wild animals that they used as food. In this way, people were able to increase the percentage of the ecosystem’s biological production that was available for human consumption (see Figure 3.1B), and the carrying capacity for humans increased.

Figure 3.1 - Distribution of biological production among plants and animals in the ecosystem food web

The Agricultural Revolution started in the Middle East because that region had the most plants and animals suitable for domestication. Only a few hundred plants and a few dozen animals among all the species in the world were suitable for domestication, and nearly all of them were domesticated at least 5000 years ago. No major new crop or livestock animal has been domesticated anywhere in the world during the past 5000 years, and none can be expected in the future. Some parts of the world, such as Australia and sub-Saharan Africa, had very few plants or animals suitable for domestication. Agriculture began in those areas only after domesticated plants and animals were brought from other places.

Why did humans wait so long to develop agriculture? The effort that people must expend to form and maintain agricultural ecosystems - preparing the land, planting a crop, caring for the crop, and protecting it from weeds, insects and other animals that want to consume it - requires much more human labour than hunting and gathering. People were probably content to live without agriculture as long as they did not need it. It was convenient to have nature do the work of producing food. However, inhabitants of the Middle East may have felt a strong need to find new ways to procure more food about 12,000 years ago, when rapid change to a drier climate reduced the biological production and human carrying capacity of the Middle Eastern ecosystem.

Over a period of several thousand years agriculture spread through the Middle East to Asia, North Africa and Europe, and arose independently in China, North America, Meso-America, South America and New Guinea. Human populations increased in the areas with agriculture (2 AD in Figure 3.2). New improvements in food production happened in different places at different times, so the human carrying capacity at any one place increased in steps (see Figure 3.3). Any significant new improvement in agricultural technology generated a rapid increase in carrying capacity, and the human population of that region increased to the new carrying capacity over a period of centuries. Once population growth was no longer possible, people felt the stress of limited food supply. This stress, known as population pressure, motivated people to develop additional improvements in agricultural technology, or adopt more productive agricultural practices from neighbouring people. This made the carrying capacity higher, and the upward cycle of human population continued as a positive feedback loop between population and technology.

Figure 3.2 - Growth and geographic distribution of the human population during the past 2000 years Source: ‘World Population’ video, Zero Population Growth, Washington, DC Note: Each dot represents one million people.

Figure 3.3 - Periodic increases in human population and carrying capacity

The progressive increases in agricultural production generally required more effort to structure ecosystems so that a larger share of their biological production was channelled to human consumption (see Figure 3.4). This is the principle of ‘no free lunch’. Every choice has advantages and disadvantages. Every gain has its costs. One of the costs of more food is more work.

Figure 3.4 - Human effort required for technologies that provide higher food production

The human population of the planet increased gradually for more than 10,000 years after the Agricultural Revolution (see Figure 3.5A). The largest populations were in the great river valleys of India and China. There was a substantial increase in Middle Eastern and European populations during this period. The world population declined by 25 per cent when the plague known as the Black Death swept across Asia and Europe during the 14th century, but it quickly returned to its former numbers during the following century. People in Europe were feeling the stress of a population at the limits of its carrying capacity, but the situation changed as the more powerful European nations embarked on worldwide colonialism and trade during the 16th century. The supply of resources increased Europe’s carrying capacity, and the European population began to grow. Carrying capacity increased even further as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum during the 18th century.

Figure 3.5 - Ten thousand years of human population growth Source: Adapted from Population Reference Bureau (1984) World Population: Fundamentals of Growth, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution had a major impact on agriculture. Highly productive crops such as wheat, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes and rice, which were previously restricted to particular regions of the world where they originated, were quickly spread around the world by European trade and colonialism, giving farmers an expanded ‘menu’ of highly productive crops from which to choose. Mechanization gave farmers the ability to structure ecosystems more than had been possible with only human and animal labour. The Industrial Revolution was accompanied by a scientific revolution, as well as new agricultural technologies that increased agricultural production even further. People were able to capture a much larger percentage of the ecosystem’s biological production for their consumption, and carrying capacity increased. The increase in carrying capacity since the Industrial Revolution has been so large and so continuous that the planet’s human population has been able to grow exponentially for the past 250 years (see Figure 3.5, B).

Birth rates were high before the Industrial Revolution. Large families helped to meet the high labour demands of farm life and ensure the survival of children in order to care for parents in their old age. Improvements in public health from the scientific revolution drastically reduced death rates in industrializing countries. Their populations increased rapidly because birth rates remained high. By the 19th century, urbanization and improved survival of children made large families less necessary. Birth rates started to decline as people adopted various methods of limiting family size. The populations of industrialized nations continued to grow rapidly through the 19th and most of the 20th centuries (see Figure 3.6; compare 1950 AD with 1600 AD in Figure 3.2). However, their internally generated population growth was nearly zero by the end of the 20th century. The populations of some industrialized nations continue to grow primarily due to migration from other countries.

Figure 3.6 - Increase in the populations of industrialized and developing world nations from 1800 to 2000 Source: Data from Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC 1900 Developing world Industrialized nations

Population ‘ageing’ has recently become a major issue in industrialized nations. There is a change from a rapidly growing population with a high percentage of young people to a population that is growing slowly or not at all with a high percentage of older people. This is reducing the number of economically productive young people compared to older retired people that they must support. ‘Ageing’ is well underway in Japan, it is beginning in Europe and North America, and within a few decades it will become a major issue in developing world countries that reduce their population growth. Some people in countries with an ‘ageing’ population have suggested that birth rates should be increased to provide more young people to support the elderly - a course of action whose short-term benefits would exacerbate the long-term overpopulation problem, resulting in more elderly people to support in the future. Many industrialized nations such as Japan already have populations and levels of consumption that are much greater than they can support with resources from within their own boundaries. They are scarcely aware of the extent to which they have exceeded their carrying capacity because their privileged economic position allows them to draw upon extensive resources from beyond their boundaries.

Developing world populations began to grow rapidly during the 20th century, when modern public health reduced deaths but births remained high. Most of the world’s population growth is now in the developing world (see Figure 3.6; compare 2000 AD with 1950 AD in Figure 3.2). Large numbers are migrating from crowded parts of the developing world to seek better economic opportunities in North America, Europe and Australia. Births began to decline in some parts of the developing world about 20 years ago, but births remain high in many areas. Even if births decline drastically, the developing world population will continue to increase for several generations (2030 in Figure 3.2). Developing world populations have such a large percentage of young people that, even with smaller families, the number of births from the large number of people of reproductive age will greatly exceed the small number of elderly people who die.

The Green Revolution

The most recent increase in human carrying capacity began about 40 years ago with the Green Revolution, which used modern plant breeding to create high-yield varieties of rice, wheat, corn and other crops to increase food production for the rapidly growing developing world population (see Figure 3.7). Higher yields were only possible if the new varieties had ideal growing conditions, such as an abundance of water, optimal fertilizer applications and the use of chemical pesticides to reduce crop damage. Irrigation was expanded on a massive scale, particularly in semi-arid regions. Irrigation not only provided the water necessary for higher yields, it also allowed farmers to grow an extra crop during the dry season. Some of the new varieties were designed to mature quickly so that farmers could fit more crops into a year. More food production meant more work - ‘no free lunch’. While modern agriculture uses machines with petroleum energy to do the work, many developing world families without mechanization must work long, strenuous hours to produce enough food from the small amount of land available to them.

Figure 3.7 - Increase in carrying capacity and human population since the Industrial Revolution

Humans have increased their carrying capacity more than 1000-fold since the Agricultural Revolution by channelling progressively larger percentages of the Earth’s biological production to human consumption. Can we expect another revolution in agricultural technology to elevate carrying capacity even higher than it is today? The answer could well be no. Moderate gains in food production will be possible through fuller implementation of the Green Revolution, particularly in Africa. Genetically modified crops and livestock could increase food production by as much as 20 per cent beyond the gains of the Green Revolution. No one knows whether unforeseen advances in agricultural technology will enable increases in food production beyond our present imagination, but the future seems to offer no further increases with the technologies now in hand.

Many of the gains during recent decades may not be sustainable. Much of the increase in food production has been due to the expansion of agriculture onto lands inappropriate for long-term agricultural use or irrigation from underground water supplies that will soon be depleted. Environmental costs of these gains could be high. Intensive inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides for the Green Revolution pollute the water that runs off farms. Genetically modified crops or livestock could have unanticipated detrimental effects on human health or the environment. It was recently discovered that pollen from corn that has been genetically modified to kill insect pests may drift out of cornfields and kill butterflies.

Past gains in agricultural production have been achieved primarily by increasing our share of the Earth’s biological production (see Figure 3.8), not by increasing biological production itself. It is beyond the ability of humans to significantly increase the Earth’s biological production, which depends primarily on regional climates and the quantity of sunlight reaching the Earth. Nor is there much additional scope to increase the percentage for human consumption, because we already control nearly half of the planet’s land-based biological production. Nobody knows exactly how many people the planet can support on a sustainable basis, but there is clearly a limit, and the human population appears to be approaching that limit.

Figure 3.8 - Approximate percentage of the Earth’s landbased biological production controlled by humans

Social Mechanisms of Population Regulation

The deer population cited in Chapter 2 was limited by food supply. If animal populations are limited by their food supply, why do most wild animals look healthy and well nourished? The answer lies in the fact that many animal populations are below the carrying capacity of their environment. Carrying capacity is an upper limit that food supply places on all populations; but it is common for populations to be regulated below the limits of food supply by ecological forces other than malnutrition and starvation. Predators such as wolves and mountain lions kill deer, reducing deer populations below their carrying capacity. Where there are predators, deer have an abundance of food and they are healthy. Unfortunately, people have exterminated these predators in many regions because large predators also kill livestock. Where there are no predators, it is common for deer to be so numerous that many starve during the winter when their food supply is low.

Predation is not the only way that animal populations are regulated below the limits imposed by their food supply. Many animals have social mechanisms to prevent overpopulation. When birds select mates for reproduction, each breeding pair sets up a territory from which it excludes all other birds of the same species. As a consequence of evolution, bird territories have a size that is large enough to provide plenty of food for the breeding pair and their young. If there is not enough space to provide an adequate territory for all the birds in a population, the extra birds do not get territories and they do not reproduce. In addition, birds have physiological feedback mechanisms to reduce their egg production if food becomes scarce. Some species of birds even appear to have social displays to assess their population, with hormonal responses to the displays that reduce egg production if the population is too large.

Many other animals, including humans, have similar mechanisms to keep their populations within the limits of their food resources. The evolutionary origins of human territoriality and its function for population regulation in human societies can be seen in the social behaviour of monkeys and apes that live in groups and exclude all other individuals of the same species from their territory. Although the detailed social organization of monkeys and apes varies enormously from one species to another, it is common for males to be hostile when encountering members of another group, killing infants in the other group if they have the opportunity. When food is abundant, females with young tend to stay in the middle of their territory, where they are safe from dangerous encounters with neighbouring groups. However, if food is scarce, females can be forced to seek food near the edge of their territory, where their young are vulnerable. Moreover, females under stress frequently neglect their offspring. As a consequence, infant deaths tend to increase when there are too many individuals for food resources in the territory, and the population declines. This is a negative feedback loop that keeps the population within the limits of its food supply.

Figure 3.9 shows how traditional human societies have used negative feedback to keep their populations below carrying capacity so that they are not regulated by starvation. When human populations grow close to their carrying capacity, it is common for land, food, irrigation water or other resources to become scarce. An increase in population leads to a reduction in resources. This leads to human actions that reduce the population by reducing births or increasing deaths (usually infant deaths). In many societies, particularly on islands, the feedback loop in Figure 3.9 has been a conscious one. In other societies the mechanisms for reducing births may have been part of the cultural fabric without a conscious connection to population and carrying capacity. Whatever the details, the negative feedback loop has been powerful. High death rates - based on an image that the life of primitive humans was ‘short and brutish’ - are not sufficient to explain the infinitesimally slow increase of human population for more than 50,000 generations.

Figure 3.9 - Negative feedback loops for social control of human population

Humans of the past survived within small-scale territories. Many traditional societies have territories of similar sizes today. Inhabitants of small-scale territories have a detailed knowledge of their area and the number of people it can support, and employ traditional birth control methods to keep their population within that limit. Breast-feeding makes a major contribution to birth control because women are generally not fertile during the period in which they are nursing a baby, and in some cultures they sleep apart from their husband during this time. The traditional custom of breast-feeding a baby for three to four years provides a natural spacing of children. Unfortunately, this custom is disappearing as modern mothers bottle-feed their babies instead of nursing them.

Traditional population regulation is also supported by the marriage structure in some societies. For example, the husband in a polygamous society, a common form of traditional human social organization, can rotate sexual activity with his wives so that each wife becomes pregnant only once every two to three years. Traditional inheritance customs in monogamous societies can have a major effect on marriage and birth rates. For example, in some cultures it was common practice for only one son to inherit the family property. A son with inheritance could afford to marry, but the other sons without inheritance could not. This created a pool of unmarried women, who had far fewer children than married women - similar to birds that do not reproduce if they fail to secure a territory.

Traditional societies use local herbs to prevent pregnancy or induce abortion. Infanticide was common throughout the world until the 20th century, and it is still common in some regions. People kill unwanted infants in order to space their children or when they are unable to care for them because of poverty or food scarcity. Because girls have less social value than boys in many cultures, infanticide is directed primarily toward females, a practice that reduces the reproductive capacity of the subsequent generation more effectively than male infanticide. With recent advances in identifying the sex of unborn children, abortion is also directed toward females in some regions. Modern contraception methods now offer attractive alternatives to abortion and infanticide as a means of family planning.

Territorial conflict has a long-standing role in human population regulation. For example, if the population of a village is pushing the limits of its resources (for example a lack of food, land or irrigation water), it may try to use the resources of a neighbouring village or resources of disputed ownership near the village boundaries. This can set in motion a chain of effects that reduces births. Emotions can be high during village territorial conflicts. Violence is not unusual, although deaths are usually few. In all societies, traditional and modern, births often decline during periods of territorial conflict because couples wait for ‘better times’. Some traditional societies prohibit sexual activity during periods of conflict.

Territoriality remains a significant part of human behaviour in the modern world, the most important territories being nations. However, most nations are too large to provide the negative feedback loops between population and carrying capacity that smaller-scale territories provided in the past. The carrying capacity of an entire nation is obvious to no one, particularly if the nation imports large quantities of food from outside its boundaries. Instead of keeping their populations within bounds, modern nations have often encouraged population growth because of the military advantages of larger populations. Territorial behaviour becomes more perverse than functional when nations use modern weapons and well-organized armies to escalate territorial conflicts into wars that kill thousands or even millions of people without providing the ecological benefits of territoriality as in the past.

The Population Explosion and Quality of Life

The quality of life for today’s massive human population is severely limited by the finite capacity of ecosystems to provide food and other essentials for human use. The land and water resources of planet Earth are simply not enough for so many people. Rapid urban growth in recent decades has created heavy demands for materials and services from surrounding ecosystems. The consequences are particularly severe in many developing world cities, which have fallen hopelessly behind in providing housing, a safe water supply, garbage collection, sewage disposal and other basic services to their expanding populations. The prospects for a better future are diminishing rapidly as the human population continues to grow at an alarming rate.

The most serious consequence of human overpopulation is the heavy demand on ecosystems for food. There is not enough food for everyone when a population overshoots its carrying capacity (see Figure 2.11) - a problem that cannot be solved entirely by more equitable food distribution. The situation can deteriorate when overpopulation sets in motion a chain of effects through ecosystems and social systems that reduces carrying capacity instead of increasing it. This can happen when food shortages force people to produce more food by planting crops or grazing livestock on inappropriate land and with an intensity that the land cannot sustain. Erosion, depletion of soil fertility, accumulation of toxic chemicals and numerous other forms of soil damage can cause food production - and carrying capacity - to decline in a vicious cycle (positive feedback loop) of inadequate food supply and inappropriate land use.

When this happens, it is common for people to migrate to another region where conditions are better. The developing world now has millions of environmental refugees migrating to cities because they can no longer survive in the rural areas where their families lived for generations. If people cannot migrate, and they lack the wealth to buy food from elsewhere, malnutrition increases deaths (particularly among young children), and the population declines much like a deer population that overshoots its carrying capacity. This grim scenario is not hypothetical. It has happened on a local scale thousands of times in the past, and it has happened more recently in North Korea and several parts of Africa. A descending spiral of hunger and land degradation is today occurring in the mountainous regions of Asia where too many people occupy land with a limited potential for food production.

Even where hunger is not a problem, the social costs of having to produce more food extend further than might be realized. High-yield varieties require higher expenses for chemical fertilizers and pesticides than locally adapted traditional varieties that farmers used before the Green Revolution. The expenses are worthwhile if yields are high enough, but high expenses can also drive farmers into debt. Economic equality has declined throughout the world as farmers lose their land due to debt, and wealthier farmers or agribusiness corporations acquire more land. Another social cost of producing large quantities of food comes from the fact that much of the increase in Green Revolution food production is achieved by means of more crop cycles in a single year. This results in correspondingly more work, with dramatic consequences for the social system. The heavy labour demands of Green Revolution agriculture leave less time for community activities. There is less time to help neighbours during peak labour periods, less time for community projects such as maintenance of terraces or irrigation ditches, or construction of homes for newlyweds (where this is still the custom), and less time for religious or other festivals that contribute to community solidarity.

Overpopulation increases competition for limited resources. Disputes over access to shared resources are now commonplace, for example irrigation water or hydroelectric power from rivers that flow through several countries, or marine resources in the ‘extended economic zones’ (within 320 kilometres of the shoreline) of more than one nation. Disputes over valuable natural resources have caused numerous wars in the past and can be expected to cause more in the future as competition for limited resources intensifies. However, the main source of violence at the present time is conflict within nations between different ethnic groups competing for the same resources. Wars of regional autonomy or independence have proliferated through many parts of the world in recent years. One of the main issues in these conflicts is whether resources will be controlled by majority ethnic groups or the power elite who control the nation - or by regional populations who live in the area.

What can we do about the population explosion? The main message of this chapter has been that the Earth’s human population is rapidly approaching its carrying capacity, with no major increase in the carrying capacity expected in the foreseeable future. Although people would do best to keep their population comfortably within the limits of the present carrying capacity, the momentum of the population explosion rules out that choice for now. The best that we can hope for is to slow down the increase in population as quickly as possible. Because most of the world’s population growth is now in the developing world, the key to stopping the population explosion lies in that region.

There is a common belief that economic development must precede a decline in births in the developing world, as appeared to happen with the economic development of industrialized countries. However, recent studies have shown that the decline in European birth rates was associated more with access to birth control and changing attitudes about family size and the social acceptability of using birth control. Recent trends in some developing world countries have shown the same. While economic development and education, particularly for women, can contribute to lower birth rates, it is not necessary to wait for them. Many developing world women, rich and poor, want small families through immediate access to family planning. The main thing they need is access to modern birth control methods and sound information on how to use them.

Things to Think About

1. Find out the human population of your nation a hundred years ago? What is the present population? What are the birth and death rates? How do the present birth and death rates compare with a hundred years ago?
2. How many people do you think your local area (or your nation) can support? Do you think your local community has too few people? Too many? Just about right? How about your nation? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having more people or less people? What are the connections between the number of people and quality of life?
3. Ageing populations are a major concern of industrialized nations at the present time. There is a trend toward a larger number of retired people to be supported by a smaller number of working-age people. Some nations are considering policies to encourage a higher birth rate so they will have a larger work force. Do you think this is a good idea? Can you think of other ways to deal with the ageing problem?
4. What happens when human populations overshoot their carrying capacity? Can you think of concrete examples?
5. Millions of “economic refugees” move from poor nations to wealthy nations every year. Some citizens of the wealthy nations think that immigration should be strictly controlled. Other people think there should be free movement of people throughout the world. What do you think? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each policy?
6. Should wealthy nations that have controlled their population growth provide food assistance to poor nations that have a high population growth rate? Should wealthy nations provide other kinds of assistance to nations that do not have enough food?

Author: Gerald G. Marten

Publisher: Earthscan Publications
Publication Date: November 2001, 256 pp.
Paperback ISBN: 1853837148
Hardback SBN: 185383713X

Information for purchasing this book:
United States/Canada - Stylus Publishing
Elsewhere - Earthscan Publications
Japanese version - Amazon Japan

Ecosystems and Human Health: Some findings from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Why do ecosystems matter to human health?

In a very fundamental sense, ecosystems are the planet’s life-support systems - for the human species and for all other forms of life. The needs of human biology for food, water, clean air, shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable.

Ecosystem services are indispensable to the wellbeing of all people, everywhere in the world. The causal links between environmental change and human health are complex because they are often indirect, displaced in space and time, and dependent on a number of modifying forces (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Interrelationship between ecosystem services, aspects of human well-being and human health

Food

In poor countries, especially in rural areas, the health of human populations is highly dependent upon the services of local productive ecosystems for food. Aggregate food production is currently sufficient to meet the needs of all, yet of the present world population of just over 6 billion, about 800 million are underfed with protein and/or energy, while a similar number are overfed. At least an additional billion people experience chronic micronutrient deficiency. In richer urban communities human dependence on ecosystems for nourishment is less apparent, but ultimately no less fundamental. aspects of human well-being and human health.

Fresh water

Over 1 billion people lack access to safe water supplies, while 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation. This has led to widespread microbial contamination of drinking water. Water-associated infectious diseases claim up to 3.2 million lives each year, approximately 6% of all deaths globally. The burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene totals 1.8 million deaths and the loss of greater than 75 million healthy life years. It is well established that investments in safe drinking water and improved sanitation show a close correspondence with improvement in human health and economic productivity. Each person needs 20 to 50 liters of water free of harmful chemical and microbial contaminants each day for drinking and hygiene. There remain substantial challenges to providing this basic service to large segments of the human population.

Fuel

The generation of power causes a range of health impacts. Outdoor air pollution aggravates heart and lung disease. Indoor air pollution, most typically from the combustion of biofuel in poorly ventilated heating and cooking environments causes a major burden of respiratory diseases amongst adults and children. About 3% of the global burden of disease has been attributed to indoor air pollution from this source. In areas where the demand for wood has surpassed local supply, and where people cannot afford other forms of power, there is increased vulnerability to illness and malnutrition from consuming microbiologically- contaminated water, from exposure to cold, and from a lack of properly cooked food. Poor women and children in rural communities are often the most affected by wood fuel scarcity. Many must walk long distances searching and carrying firewood (and often, water) and therefore have less time and energy for tending crops, cooking meals or attending school. For these reasons, adequate energy supplies are fundamental for sustainable development.

Nutrient and waste management, processing and detoxification

Humans are at risk from inorganic chemicals and from persistent organic pollutants in food and water. This can occur both when attempts to access water resources leads to contamination from natural sources (as occurred with arsenic contamination of water in tubewells in Bangladesh), and where human actions result in release of toxic chemicals into the environment (for example through use of pesticides). Toxic chemicals can cause a variety of adverse health effects in various organ systems. Some chemicals present in industrial effluent or used as pesticides, such as PCBs, dioxins and DDT, may act at low exposure levels as “endocrine disrupters” which interfere with normal human physiology, undermining disease resistance and reproduction.

Cultural, spiritual and recreational services from ecosystems

Cultural services may be less tangible than material services, but are nonetheless highly valued by people in all societies. People obtain diverse non-material benefits from ecosystems. They include recreational facilities and tourism, aesthetic appreciation, inspiration, a sense of place and educational value. There are traditional practices linked to ecosystem services that have an important role in developing social capital and enhancing social well being.

Climate regulation

Each of the ecosystem services referred to in the previous sections is sensitive to climate, and will therefore be affected by anthropogenic climate change. Although climate change will have some beneficial effects on human health, most effects are expected to be negative. Direct effects such as increased mortality from heat waves are most readily predicted, but indirect effects are likely to have a greater overall impact. Human health is likely to be impacted indirectly by climate-induced changes in the distribution of productive ecosystems, and the availability of food, water and energy supplies. These changes will in turn affect the distribution of infectious diseases, nutritional status and patterns of human settlement.

What actions are required to address the consequences of ecosystem change for health?

There are two routes to avoiding disease and injury caused by ecosystem disruption. One is to prevent, limit or manage environmental damage; the other way is to make whatever changes will protect individuals and populations from the consequences of ecosystem change. Two aspects need to be considered to understand the potential negative health impacts of ecosystem change: the current (and likely future) vulnerability of populations and their future capacity for adaptation. These two aspects are closely related. The forces that place populations at risk (such as poverty and high burdens of disease) in many cases also impair the capacity of these populations to prepare for the future.

What are the policy implications of the threats that ecosystem change present to health?

Measures to ensure ecological sustainability would safeguard ecosystem services and therefore benefit health in the long-term. Where a population is weighed down by disease related to poverty and lack of ‘entitlement’ — culturally or socially determined right of access to essential resources such as shelter, nutritious food or clean water — the provision of these resources should be the first priority for public health policy. Where ill-health is caused, directly or indirectly, by excessive consumption of ecosystem services (such as food and energy) substantial reductions in consumption would have major health benefits while simultaneously reducing pressure on life-support systems.

The ongoing degradation of ecosystem services is a significant barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Ecologically unsustainable use of ecosystem services raises the potential for serious and irreversible ecological change. Ecosystem changes may occur on such a large scale as to have a catastrophic effect upon the economic, social and political processes upon which social stability, human wellbeing and good health are dependent. This suggests that a precautionary approach to environmental protection is most likely to protect and enhance health. Unavoidable uncertainties about the impacts of global environmental changes on public health should not be an excuse for delaying policy decisions.

source: http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys05sum.pdf 11dec2005

Sustainable Growth: Irreconcilable Visions?

In the opening chapter of his signature book, Beyond Growth, Herman Daly shares an unforgettable story from his days as an economist at the World Bank. Having just listened to Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist at the World Bank, make a presentation critical of the Limits to Growth thesis, Daly referred Summers to a picture of the economy as an open sub-system of the world's ecosystem, consistent with what I present below as Figure 1. He then asked Summers if, given this picture, it might make sense to start thinking about the growth of the economy in relation to the natural limits of the ecosystem. Dodging the question, Summers responded dismissively, "that's not the right way to look at it." End of discussion.

What is the right way to look at it, according to Summers? Daly says it is something like Figure 2, where the ecological context has been removed and, therefore, the circular flow of economic growth appears to be free from any natural limits beyond the economic system. This is not just Summers' radical vision of the economy. It represents the orthodox view of the great majority of economists who, if not outwardly hostile to the ecological view, generally set it aside as irrelevant to the analysis at hand.

Recalling Joseph Schumpeter's notion of a pre-analytic vision, Daly summed up this fundamental economic dilemma that divides so many economists, politicians, and citizens:

"Unless one has the preanalytic vision of the economy as subsystem, the whole idea of sustainable development—of a subsystem being sustained by a larger system whose limits and capacities it must respect—makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, a preanalytic vision of the economy as a box floating in infinite space allows people to speak of "sustainable growth"—a clear oxymoron to those who see the economy as a subsystem. The difference between these two visions could not be more fundamental, more elementary, or more irreconcilable." (Beyond Growth, p. 7)

I agree that these competing visions are fundamentally anti-thetical as they have been presented, by Daly, Summers, and countless other economists over the years. They are so antithetical that even a veritable encyclopedia of economic thought like Mark Blaug's otherwise breathtaking 700-page Economic Theory in Retrospect completely ignores the ideological challenge presented by the ecological vision of the economy--a challenge which, in partial defense of Blaug, has been largely ignored by most of the economists of the past 250 years. But just because this ecological view of the economy has been marginalized by the more dominant schools of thought does not mean that it is wrong, nor that it has necessarily failed in the overrated "efficient market in economic ideas."

Regardless, the compelling thing about this particular ideological debate is that the objects of the debate, Earth's natural systems, don't much care whether or not they prevail in some intellectual discussion among the various schools of economic thought. Natural systems have a unique way of asserting their perspectives on human economic activity without regard for human priorities and convictions and without need for human understanding and consensus. Still, we are fools if we choose to wait for the world ecosystem to break the ideological impass between ecological and non-ecological economists.

Where I disagree with Daly's assessment of the economic dilemma is in his claim that these pre-analytic visions are irreconcilable. I think they can be reconciled within a more integral vision that honors the partial truth in each, while providing some practical guidelines for post-visionary analyses of sustainable economic growth. As I see it (Figure 3), the physical dimension of the economy, which can be measured in terms of the scale of material, energy, chemical, and biological throughput, does indeed comprise an economic sub-system of the world's physical biosphere, which includes the sources and sinks for the economic throughput. This is the partial truth in the ecological vision of the economy and it affirms the existence of certain physical limits to the scale of economic growth--but, strictly speaking, these limits only apply to physical economic growth.

In my view, the economy also has a non-physical, or mental dimension--psychological development, intersubjective exchange, subjective valuation, intellectual capital--that contributes to the overall depth of economic growth. The mental economy is inextricably linked to, and entirely dependent upon, the physical economy, which is, in turn, governed by the natural logic and limits of the Earth's physical systems. However, the mental economy is not a sub-system of the Earth's physical biosphere and it is not governed directly by the rules of the natural world. Quite the opposite. The mental economy, for better and for worse, is where we make all our economic decisions and direct the economic growth in two-dimensions--mental depth and physical scale. Beyond this, I find it useful to frame the mental economy as a sub-system/culture within a more encompassing mental super-system/culture that we might define as the non-physical, depth dimension of human civilization. Following the philosopher Ken Wilber, we may call this the noosphere in relation to the biosphere. Wilber has been particularly articulate about the contrast between the depth of the noosphere and the scale (though he calls it span) of the biosphere--I think these distinctions apply equally well to the economy. This reframing reveals the partial truth in the orthodox view of economic growth beyond the scale of ecological limits--but this truth is only valid to the extent that we are speaking of non-physical economic growth.

When it comes to economic growth, households and the factors of production they supply to firms, as well as firms and the products they supply to households, all have a physical scale dimension that is subject to the logic and limits of the physical world and a mental depth dimension that is subject to the logic and limits of the mental world (hence the checkerboard pattern of green scale and yellow depth). In addition to natural resources, the other classical factors of production, labor and capital, also have physical properties that contribute to the growing scale of the economy. And although the common differentiation between products, services, and experiences is intended to denote a gradation from physical to mental, we should remember that even the most ethereal of experience-goods has a physical component and even the most material of commodities has some mental component that is part of the cycle of two-dimensional growth.

People can reasonably disagree on the precise scale of the physical economy and therefore the timing of our future encounters with the biospheric limits to physical economic growth. But reasonable people, in my opinion, cannot deny the fact that there are very real limits to the physical growth of the economy. Given this premise, its seems entirely sensible to promote economic growth that is progressively less physical and more mental until such time as we can enjoy economic growth that is truly sustainable--limited in scale, yet mentally innovative, enriching, and developmental. Innovators like Amory Lovins have demonstrated how superior design can yield products whose physical-to-mental ratio is much lower than competing products, at the time of sale and over the useful life of the product, while still providing the same essential service as the more physically-intensive alternative (e.g., hypercars vs. SUVs).

To the extent that we adopt either of the partial visions of the economy, I believe we create patterns of unsustainable economic action. An exclusive application of the non-ecological vision may result in a pattern of economic growth that is physically unsustainable, relying on eventual, but certain, ecological crises to force policy makers, business leaders, and market participants to learn, in the double-loop sense, their way out of the unsustainable patterns. Similarly, if we were to apply only the ecological vision and pursue a strategy of zero economic growth, we might lock a majority of the world's population into poverty and perhaps, ironically, preclude the economic innovations that would otherwise, in time, establish the foundation for an integral economy that is physically sustainable, yet mentally growing. Calling for limits to all growth is just as unsustainable as ignoring all limits to growth.

What puzzles me about Daly's brilliant book, which outlines in considerable detail the post-visionary analyses that he believes to be consistent with his pre-analytic vision (Figure 1), is that his post-visionary analyses are actually much more consistent with my pre-analytic vision (Figure 3). But I wonder if he and his readers have realized this inconsistency, obscured as it is by some semantic issues.

First, Daly chooses not to use the standard economic definition of the word growth, which is basically a change in the aggregate prices of the economic product, such as Gross Domestic Product. He prefers instead to re-define growth as a change in the physical scale of this economic product, measured not in money prices but in matter-energy flows. This re-definition is the less-than-obvious justification for his unequivocal claims that sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron, an impossibility theorem. In my opinion, the very large number of people, both critical and supportive, who believe that Daly and other ecological economists are against all economic growth, as in GDP, has its origin in this unnecessary re-definition of the term growth.

Second, Daly adopts the term development to denote the non-quantitative, qualitative improvement component of the growth in economic product, consistent with what I have referred to generally as the mental depth dimension of economic growth. This allows him to build his case against the re-defined and exclusively quantitative growth while still acknowledging that qualitative development may continue. More than just another semantic issue, this is actually inconsistent with his espoused pre-analytic vision (Figure 1), which allows no room for what he calls development, and only reinforces the first problem of his perceived indictment of all growth.

Finallly, and perhaps most importantly, Daly doesn't seem to acknowledge that his versions of quantitative growth and qualitative development are both measured quantitatively in terms of money prices and therefore, as I said above, contribute to what everyone else calls economic growth--e.g., changes in GDP. It's not that he isn't reflectively aware of this (obviously he is), it's that he repeatedly critiques all quantitative growth while occasionally acknowledging the value of purely qualitative development without emphasizing that both really do contribute to what everyone else in the world sees as quantitative economic growth. It's no wonder that so many people think that Daly and other ecological economists are against all quantitative economic growth: because they are, and yet they aren't, depending upon which definition one is using.

This reveals a shortcoming in all three of the above figures, which ignore the flow of currency that runs counter to the flow of production and consumption. This currency flow, depicted in Figure 4, is the index that everyone really uses to measure economic growth, because we do not have any other way to quantitatively measure aggregate product or the aggregate factors of production except for the aggregate prices they yielded in exchange. The dizzying variety of economic products and factors of production are incommensurable without money prices. When we factor into this slightly more integral vision of the economy our understanding of currency design and the inherent need for sustainable growth in money and credit independent of any growth in physical or mental product, we see just how important it is to include the counter-cyclical flow of income and expenditures and just how difficult it is to convince anyone that economic growth, however it is defined, must cease. My bottom line on Daly's book: it is an outstanding read by a brilliant heterodox economist, full of insightful critiques and valuable contributions to the economic dialogue, though it can be more clearly understood by supporters and critics alike if reconstructed to fit the pre-analytic vision depicted in Figure 4.

In the reconciliation of a more Integral Economics, sustainable growth is not an oxymoron, but a double entendre, denoting the very real possibility of sustainable economic growth that satisfies the very real necessity of economic growth that is sustainable. The key to the riddle is that there are two kinds of growth--scale and depth--that are being measured in units of the same common medium, money prices, and fused into a single, undifferentiated indicator of economic growth. The primary goal of our post-visionary analysis is therefore to craft public policies, business strategies, and personal practices that will move the economy toward a pattern in which physical growth is systematically replaced by mental growth even while overall growth in terms of aggregate prices continues to rise.

This Post Originally Published through Catallaxis

АРЛЫН ОРНООС

Нэг мэдсэн чинь өглөөний 09:00 цаг болчиж үнэхээр сайн унтаж амарсан шинжтэй. Амарсан цагаа тооцсон 7 цаг орчим унтсан байнаа. Тэгэхээр орлуугаа явсан цаг нь шөнийн 02 цаг болж таарч байхнээ. Тайваньд энэ цагт амрах нь оюутнуудын хувьд хэвийн үзэгдэл, хэтрүүлэгтэй хэлбэл шөнийн 00-03 цаг хүртэл тэд бараг нөгөөх жижиг мото-гоо хөлөглөөд нааш цаашаа холхиж өгнө дөө тэгээд бас чанга чанга дуугарч ярихыг яанаа гэхдээ энэ хэвшилд бараг дасаж байна даа. Компьютраа асаалаа 3 хоногийн дараа илтгэлтэй байдаг анхаарал нэг л өөр зүг чиглээд байх шиг иймээс өөр зүйл хийж байгаад эргээд энэ ажилдаа орвол бүтээмж илүү байдаг шүү дээ үүнийг та бүхэн сайн мэдэж байгаа. Тиймээс сурч байгаа газрынхаа тухай жижигхэн танилцуулгыг та бүхэнтэйгээ хуваалций гэж бодов.
Манай Монголын нэг аймгийн нутаг дэвсгэрээс бага нутагт 23.0 сая хүн амьдарч байнаа тэрүүн дээр нь би бас нэмэгдсээн гэж. Хамгийн үнэлүүштэй нь энэ жижигхэн арлыг ийм олон хүмүүс үнэхээр сайн зохион байгуулалттай ашиглаж байдаг шүү. Газарзүйн байрлалаар Номхон далайн баруун зах хэсэгт, умардаас өмнө зүг рүү сунаж тогтсон (уртаашаа 394 км өргөөшөө 144 км) бөгөөд ерөнхий хэлбэрээр нь загастай зүйрлэж ярих юм. Арлын хойд хэсэгт байрлах Тайпэй (Taipei) нэртэй нийслэл нь загасны нүд нь, дунд хэсэгт байрлах Тайжун (Taichung) нэртэй хамгийн ихээр үйлдвэржсэн хот нь загасны сэлүүр харин арлын өмнөд захын тохойрсон хэсэг болох Пиндон (Pingtung) нэртэй далайн эрэгт биеэ шарж хэвтдэг, аялал жуулчлалын нэг гол бүс газар нь нөгөөх загасны маань сүүл нь болдог байна. Энэ нэршлүүд бүгд л өөрийн гэсэн утгатай загасны сүүл маш ихээр савлан хөдөлдөг шүүдээ түүний адилаар энэ газарт Тайпуун гэгдэх нөгөө далайн хар салхи нь илүү их дайрдаг байх юм. Далайн хар салхи гэснээс үүнээс үүдсэн гамшиг их гарна шүү за тэгээд хүчтэй Тайпуунтай үед энд тэндгүй нөгөөх мото(scooter)-тойгоо хийсчих гээл..., аргагүй шүүдээ гүүр нурааж, ачааны машиныг хөмрүүлж байгаа салхи чинь, ер нь бол тэр үед гэрээс гарах ойлголт бараг байхгүй шүү, жижигхэн нууц хэлэхэд тэр их шуурганыхаа дараа 2-3 өдөр нилээд сайхан сэрүүхэн болдог энэ байдалд эрс тэс уур амьсгалтай орноос ирсэн Монгол залуу би нилээд дуртай шүү. Тайпуун далайн салхи нь зуны саруудад илүү болно, энд зуны дундаж температур нь 32 градус орчим, өвөлдөө миний амьдарч байгаа Chia-yi хотод хүйтрээд хүйтрээд температур нь 16-18 градус болох юм.
Олон жил олон орны дарлалд өртөөд тэрүү эсвэл хөгжилтэй орны жишгээр үү хүмүүс нь нилээд даруу бас нөхөрсөг гэхдээ хүн болгон адилгүй хүлэг болгон жороогүйн адилаар бүх хүн гэж ойлгож болохгүй ээ. Манай Монголын зарим хүмүүс Тайвань гэхээр аан хужаа наруу гэж хэлдэг яг үнэндээ бол найз нар минь энэ ойлголтонд бас жоохон сийрүүлэх зүйл байдаг юм байна. Саяхан арал дээр эх газрын Хятадаас нэг томоохон улс төрч, бизнесмэнүүдийн хамтаар айлчлав. Тэр үед бараг нөгөөх манай 7-р сарын 1-н шиг үйл ажиллагаа өрнөсөн шүү. Бид бол Хятад биш Бид Тайвань хүмүүс гэсэн уриа лоозон барисан жагсагчид нөгөөх улс төрчийн байрласан буудлыг бүчээд шөнийн 03 цаг хүртэл цагдаа жагсагчдын хооронд нилээд мөргөлдөөн болсон. Тэгэхээр энэ хүмүүс маань чухам хэн болж таарч байна? Түүхээс сөхөөд харвал одоогоос 300-400 жилийн тэртээ Ming (Ming dynasty 1368-1644) их гүрний үед үндэстэн хоорондын тэмцлээс үүдэн ялагдал хүлээн дүрвэсэн Cheng Cheng-kung тэргүүтэй эрэгтэй голцуу олон тооны хүмүүс Арал дээрх Голландын дэглэмийг унаган, улмаар арлын уугуул иргэд болох Тайвань үндэстнүүдтэй гэрлэн амьдарч ирсэн байх юм. Үүнээс өмөнө Испанийн дарлалд, 1895 оноос хойш 50 жил Японы дарлалд байсан бөгөөд 1949 онд эх газрын Хятадаас дүрвэсэн хоёр дахь их хүмүүсийн урсгал ирж сууршьсан байна. Эдгээр хүмүүс нь одоогийн БНХАУ-ын өмнөх засгийн эрхийг баригч нар бөгөөд ажилчин ангийн бий болгосон иргэний дайнд засгийн эрхээ алдсан хүмүүс, гэсэн хэдий ч Тайваныг Японы колониос салгаж, засгийн эрхийг аван суурьшиж эхэлжээ. Сонирхолтой нь эдгээр шилжин сууршьсан хүмүүс эх газрын Хятадаас тодруулбал түүхийн нэгэн өв дурсгалын төв болсон Бээжин хотоос Азийн болон Дэлхийн түүхэн болон үнэт эд зүйлсийг энэ жижиг арал дээр авчирч чаджээ. Түүний нэг жишээ нь Их Богд Чингис хааны олон зуун жилийн настай аман зураг, энэхүү зургийг Чингис хааныг хамгийн сүүлд харсан хүний аман яриаг үндэслэн бүтээсэн гэж үздэг. Энэ зураг нь одоо бидний мөнгөн тэмдэгт дээр байдаг зураг юм билээ. Улс төрийн сэжим ярьсан дээр нэмж дурьдахад улс улсын л жишгээр хоёр том нам байнаа, Хятадаас шилжин ирж засгийн эрхийг авч сууршьсан Chaing Kai-Shek гэгч хүний үүсгэн байгуулсан Коминданы нам (Kuomintang or the Chinese Nationalist Party) үзэл баримтлалын хувьд одооны Хятадын бодлогыг ерөнхийдөө дэмждэг, харин нөгөө нам нь Хятадын бодлогыг эсэргүүцэн Тайваныг тусгаар улс хэмээн үздэг, арлын уугуул иргэдийн олонх бүхий Ардчилсан Нам (Democratic Progressive Party). Одооны Тайваны ерөнхийлөгч нь Коминданы Намаас сонгогдон ажилж байгаа бөгөөд олон улсын шинжээч нар Хятадтай харилцаа сайжирна гэж дүгнэж байгаа гэтэл нөгөөх ардчилсан намынх нь Тайваныг тусгаар улс гэсэн бодлогоо одоог хүртэл барьсаар байх юм за энэ мэтчилэн улс төрийн сонин яривал дуусахгүй шинжтэй. Нэг их олон юм нуршаад байвал та нарт сонин биш болчих байх тиймээс одоо ганц хоёрхон зүйл нэмж хуваалций. Та бүгд Азийн таван бар улсыг мэдэж байгаа энэ улсуудад Тайван багтдаг дотоодын нийт бүтээгдхүүн нь 14,700US (2000 онд) энэ үзүүлэлтээрээ Өмнөд Солонгосоос илүү гарсан байх юм. Манай улстай харьцуулахад газрын доорхи баялаг байгалийн нөөц гээд байх юм бараг үгүй гэтэл яаж энэ амжилтанд хүрсэн байх вэ? Тайваны эдийн засгийн гол бодлого нь хүний нөөц дээрээ тулгуурласан жижиг дунд бизнес, энэ улсад өмнөд Солонгос, Япон улсуудад байдаг шиг Корпораци, том хэмжээний, улс дамжин үйл ажиллагаа явуулагч компани цөөхөн гэвч яаж? Нэг жишээ дурдьяа, одоогоос 2 сарын өмнө бидэнд хичээл заадаг профессор багш маань намайг өөрийн хувьцаа эзэмшидэг компанитайгаа очиж танилцахыг санал болгосон юм би ч саналыг тэр дор нь хүлээн аваад бид Taipei хотод очлоо. Хурдны галт тэргэнд суусан болохоор 1 цаг гаран яваад очив, 28 давхар шил толь болсон барилга, бүгд манай багшийн хувьцаа эзэмшдэг компанийх биш ээ дотор нь маш олон компани ажил хэргээ явуулж байх юм. Тэдний компани гэхэд өөр 4 компанитай нийлж 3,4,5-р давхарт үйл ажилгаагаа явуулна. Хамгийн сонирхолтой нь компаний захиралтай танилцах үед нэрийн хуудасных нь нэг нүүрэнд захирлын болон түүний компаний мэдээлэл, нөгөө нүүрэнд нь хамтран ажилдаг 4 компаний мэдээлэл байх юм. Түүнчилэн тэд хурлын заал, цайны өрөө, 00 гэх мэт зүйлээ дундаа ашигладаг энэ нь компаний зарлагыг их бага хэмжээгээр хэмнэнэ шүү дээ. Мөн бусад мэдээлэл, харилцаа холбоо, гэх мэт олон зүйл дээр тэд баг болж нөгөөх том корпорацийн хэмжээнд хүртэл ажилж чадаж байх юм, энэ нь манайхны эвтэй байхдаа хүчтэйн жишээ болж байх шиг. Энэ бол Тайваны бизнесийн нэг онцлог. Боловсролын систем нь 6-3-3 системээр явагдах бөгөөд үүний дараа их сургуульд дэвшин суралцана, их сургуулиудын бакалаврын сургалт ерөнхийдөө 4-н жилээр явагддаг. Магистр, Докторантуудын сургалт 2 - 4 жилд явагдах боловч Профессоруудыг ажиглаад байхад энэ хугацаанд төгсгөх нь их ховор шинжтэй ялангуяа гадаад оюутнуудыг 1 жилээр сунгах хандлага ажиглагдаж байна лээ шүү. За тэгээд харийн нутагт хэлтэй бол хөлтэй зарчим жинхэнэ биеллээ олно шүү дээ, хэл гэснээс энд арлын өмнө зүг талруу оршин суух, настай голцуу хүмүүс нь одооны бидний сурч байгаа Бээжин хятад хэлээр бараг ярихгүй тэрч бүү хэл ойлгохгүй учир нь тэд Мин нан буюу Тайван хэлээрээ ярих юм. Ер нь бол ихэнх хүмүүсийн өдөр тутмын ярианы хэл нь Бээжин болон Тайван үндэсний хэл. Сонирхуулж хэлэхэд энэ арал дээр 12 ярианы хэл байдаг юм гэсэн шүү тэд нартай нь хутгалдаад яахав. Анх энд сургуульдаа ирэхэд Тайвань оюутнууд хамгийн ихээр надаас асуусан асуулт нь Та морь унаж чадах уу? гэж асуусан даа ганц оюутнууд ч биш ихэнх нь л тэгэж асуудаг юм. Бахархууштай нь би багадаа хурдан морь унаж байсан юм. За тэгээд эцэст нь:
Айрганд нь ардын дуу иссэн хөхүүрээр нь ханаан гоёдог
Аяганд нь үдийн нар далбилзсан өвгөдөөрөө хоймороо гоёдог
Морь дэргэсэн наадмын дурдан тоосоор дээлээ гоёдог
Монгол гэсэн 6 үсэгтэй бурхан нэрээр нь дэлхийд гоёдогоо
Би Монголоороо гоёдогоо. Та нартаа ажлын өндөр амжилт хүсье.

Д.Баттогтох.

ШИНЖЛЭХ УХААН, ТЕХНОЛОГИ, ИННОВАЦИЙН САЛБАРЫН УДИРДЛАГЫГ БОЛОВСРОНГУЙ БОЛГОХ НЬ

“Монгол Улсын мянганы хөгжлийн зорилтод суурилсан Үндэсний хөгжлийн Цогц бодлого” , “Монгол Улсын Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийг 2007-2020 онд хөгжүүлэх Мастер төлөвлөгөө”, “Монгол Улсад Үндэсний инновацийн тогтолцоог хөгжүүлэх хөтөлбөрт” (“Инновац хөтөлбөр”-т) Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн (ШУТИ) талаар дэвшүүлсэн зорилтуудыг 2008 оны УИХ-ын ээлжит сонгуулийн дараахь МУ-ын шинэ Засгийн газрын зүгээс амжилттай хэрэгжүүлэхийн тулд ШУТИ-ийн салбарт бүтэц, удирдлага, менежментийн шинэчлэл зайлшгүй шаардлагатай хэмээн үзэж ийм нэгэн төсөөлөл саналыг боловсруулав. Түүний үндсэн үзэл баримтлал дараах гурван суурь шинэчлэлтийн бодлогод тулгуурлагдсан болно, үүнд:

Нэгд: БСШУЯ-ны Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн газрын бүтэц, үйл ажиллагааны хүрээг эрс өргөтгөж өөрчлөх (жишээлэхэд, ШУТИ-ийн бүх салбарт мониторингийн хүчтэй тогтолцоог бий болгох, яамдын шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн зөвлөлүүдийн үйл ажиллагааг удирдан зохицуулах, ШУТИ-ийн төрийн бодлогын боловсруулалт, зохицуулалт, менежментийг төвлөрүүлэх, экспертизийн улсын албыг бий болгох, ШУТИ-ийн хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилт, хүний нөөцийн нэгдсэн бодлогыг хэрэгжүүлэх зэрэг)

Хоёрт: төр, бизнесийн болон, төр бусад субъектүүдийн түншлэл, хамтын ажиллагааг хүчтэй болгох, давын өмнө ШУТИ-ийн санхүүжилтийн олон төрөлтөт тогтолцоог бүрэлдүүлэх (ШУТИ-ийн үйл ажиллагаанд төрийн оролцоо, дэмжлэгийг сайжруулах, түншлэлийн бүх хэлбэрийг хөгжүүлэх, ШУТИ-ийн их семинартай болох, их, дээд сургуулиудын консорциум-(ИДСК)-ын оролцоо, төлөөллийг ШУТИ-ийн менежментэд хүчтэй болгох, мониторингийн ил тод байдлыг хангах, эрдэмтэд, бизнесч нарын оролцоог нэмэгдүүлэх, инновацийн зорилтот сангуудыг байгуулах, төр, бизнесийнхний хамтарсан инноваци, шинэ санааны биржийг бий болгох, судалгаа, боловсруулалтын ажилд өрсөлдөөн, урамшууллын механизмыг хүчтэй нэвтрүүлэх зэрэг)

Гуравт: Судалгаа боловсруулалт ба бизнесийн холбоо интеграцийг гүнзгийрүүлж, үйлдвэрлэл, үйлчилгээний субъектүүдийн инноваци идэвхижлийг сайжруулан, шинэ технологи, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн тогтолцоог өөрчилж шинэчлэх, үр дүн нэвтрүүлэлт, хөрөнгө оруулалтын мониторинг-менежментийн шинэ бүтэц, горимыг бий болгох (үр дүн, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн мониторинг- хяналтын хүчтэй тогтолцоог бий болгох, хөрөнгө оруулалтын бодлогыг инновац идэвхижилтэй холбох, технологийн дэвшил, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийг дэмжихүй гааль, татварын болон бусад урамшууллыг хэрэгжүүлэх, технологи дамжуулалт, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн эрхзүй, аргачлалын тааламжтай орчин, механизмуудыг бүрэлдүүлэх, шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн төслийн захиалга, хэрэгжүүлэлт, нэвтрүүлэлтийн нэгдмэл горимыг бий болгох, үйлдвэрлэл, үйлчилгээний салбарт технологийн шинэчлэл, технологийн соёл, стандартжуулалтын хүчтэй хяналтын бодлогыг төр, бизнесийнхэн хамтарч хэрэгжүүлэх зэрэг)

Эдгээр суурь шинэчлэлийн гурван чиглэл нь эдүгээ хэрэгжүүлж байгаа бодлогын баримт бичгүүдийн зорилго, зорилтуудтай шууд уялдаатай гэдгийг тэмдэглэе. Тухайлбал, “Цогц бодлогын” “4.7.3. Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн бодлого” хэсгийн “… шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн салбарт бүтцийн өөрчлөлт хийж боловронгуй болгох”, “… шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн салбарын удирдлага, үйл ажиллагаа, санхүүжилтийн механизмыг боловсронгуй болгох”, “… шинжлэх ухаан технологи, инновацийн хөтөлбөр, төслийн захиалга, хэрэгжүүлэлтэд хувийн хэвшлийн оролцоог эрс нэмэгдүүлэх”, “Мастер төлөвлөгөөний” “стратеги 1.2: ШУТ-ийн салбарын удирдлага, зохион байгуулалт, санхүүжилтийн механизмыг боловсронгуй болгоно”; “стратеги 2.1: Шинжлэх ухаан, үйлдвэрлэлийн үр ашигтай хамтын ажиллагааг дэмжиж эдийн засгийн хөшүүргүүдийг бий болгоно”, “стратеги 4.1: Аж үйлдвэрийн салбарт технологийн инновацийн эрэлт хэрэгцээг нэмэгдүүлнэ”; “стратеги 4.2: ШУТ-ийн салбарт төрийн болон хувийн хэвшлийн хамтын ажиллагааг өргөжүүлнэ”, “Инноваци хөтөлбөрийн” “стратеги 1. Шинжлэх ухаан, үйлдвэрлэлийн тогтвортой хамтын ажиллагаа, хамтарсан судалгааг дэмжин урамшуулах эдийн засгийн хөшүүргүүдийг бий болгоно”, “стратеги 3. Инновацийн дэд бүтцийн элементүүдийг бүрдүүлэн хөгжүүлнэ” гэсэн зорилго, зорилтуудаас үүдэлтэйгээр томъёологдож байгаа болно
ШУТИ-ийн салбарын удирдлагыг боовсронгуй болгох асуудал юуны өмнө түүний субъектийн эрх, үүргийн хүрээг зөв томъёолж тодорхойлохоос эхлэх учиртай. үүнээс үүдэн манай дэвшүүлж буй саналын цөм нь:

Одоогийн БСШУЯ-ны Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн газрын үйл ажиллагааны хүрээ, эрх үүрэг, статусыг нэмэгдүүлэн өргөжүүлж Үндэсний (улсын) хэмжээний Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн газрыг (хороо, агентлаг газар) байгуулж, шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн үйл ажиллагааны менежмент, мониторинг, зохицуулалтыг төвлөрүүлэн хариуцуулах хэрэгтэй гэж томъёологдож байна.

Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн удирдлага, менежментийг ийнхүү төвлөрүүлэн идэвхижүүлэх асуудлыг доор нэрлэсэн арга хэмжээнүүдтэй хослуулаж (зэрэгцүүлж) шийдвэрлэх ёстой гэж үзэж байгаа болно, үүнд:
а) судалгаа, боловсруулалт, инновацийн салбарт хууль, эрхзүйн шинэ орчныг буй болгох, юуны өмнө шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн тухай, технологи дамжуулалт, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн тухай зэрэг хуулиудыг шинэчлэх, шинээр боловсруулан мөрдүүлэх,
б) монголын нийгэм, эдийн засагт үйлчилж буй одоогийн зарим хууль, тогтоомжид нилээд зохицуулалтыг хийж өгөх, үүнд: компанийн тухай, гаалийн тухай, татварын тухай, шударга өрсөлдөөний тухай зэрэг хуулиудад зохих өөрчлөлтийг оруулнa;.
в) шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн шинэ орчныг бий болгох чиглэлээр төр-бизнесийн түншлэлийг хөгжүүлэх, төрөөс биснесийнхэнд туслах дэмжлэгийг хүчтэй болгохуй доор эрх, аргазүйн шинэ механизмуудыг боловсруулан мөрдөх,
г) эрдэм, мэдлэгийн талаар шинэ хандлага-ойлголтыг (шинэ парадигмыг) монголын нийгэмд (ялангуяа төр, бизнесийн субъектүүдэд) бий болгож менежментийн орчин үеийн боловсронгуй арга барилыг нэвтрүүлэх (жишээлэхэд системт хандлага, прогнозот менежмент, е-мониторинг, е-удирдлага, оюуны өмчийн шинэ горим, мэдлэгийн дээдлэл, технологийн оюунжуулал, бүх нийтийн эрдэм оюуны боловсрол зэрэг)
Манай энэ санал-төсөөлөл ШУТИ-ийн удирдлагын бүтэц, менежментийн өөрчлөлтийн талаар байж болох нэгэн нилээд өөдрөг хувилбар. Түүнийг “гагцхүү зөв” гэж үзэж болохгүй нь ойлгомжтой.
Үндэсний хэмжээний өргөн эрх үүрэг бүхий Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн газрыг (ШУТИГ) байгуулахад дараах хоёр хувилбар байж болох, үүнд:
1. БСШУЯ-ны бүтцэд хэвээр нь үлдээх
2. ШУТИГ-ыг Үндэсний агентлагийн статустайгаар биеийг нь даалгаж байгуулах
ШУТИГ-ын нарийвчилсан бүтэц, горим, үйл ажиллагаа нь энэ хоёр хувилбарын алийг нь сонгохоос тодорхой хэмжээгээр хамаарна. Гэвч бид тийм хамаарлыг зориуд үл анхааран “онолын нэгэн” бүтцийн тухай санал гаргаж байгаа болно. Энэ Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн газар агентлаг нь 7 үндсэн алба, хэлтэстэй байхаар төсөөлөгдөж байгаа. Үүнд:

Одоо эдгээр алба, хэлтсийн зорилго, үүрэг, үйл ажиллагааны чиглэлийг арай дэлгэрэнгүй томъёолоё.
1. Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн бодлогын алба нь шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн асуудлаар төрийн бодлогыг боловсруулах, төлөвлөх, шийдвэр гаргах (гаргуулах), бодлого, стратегийн асуудлаар төр, бизнесийн болон төр, бусад субъектүүдийн хамтын ажиллагаа, түншлэлийн зорилтуудыг томъёолж хэрэгжүүлэх үндсэн үүрэгтэй гэж төсөөлөгдөж байна.
Тус Алба ШУА, Их, дээд сургуулийн консорциум (ИДСК), Үндэсний худалдаа аж үйлдвэрийн танхим (ҮХАҮТ), Яамдын Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн (ШУТ) зөвлөлүүдтэй хамтран ажиллах байнгын ажиллагаатай семинар-зөвлөлдөх уулзалттай (түүнийг “Бодлогын семинар” гэж нэрлэж болох) байвал зохино.
Алба нь Хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилтийн болон Хяналт-мониторингийн албуудтай бодлого, шийдвэрээ зохицуулах, зөвлөлдөх нэгдсэн зөвлөлтэй (“Зохицуулах зөвлөл” гэе) байх нь зүйтэй.


Тус ШУТИ бодлогын алба дараахь чиглэлд үйл ажиллагааг эрхлэнэ.
-Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн болон инновацийн бодлого, стратеги (гадаадын туршлага, монголын онцлог); -төр, бизнесийн болон төр, бусад субъектүүдийн түншлэл, хамтын ажиллагааны бодлого, механизмууд, менежмент; -шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн салбар дахь оюуны өмч, патент, лицензийн асуудлууд (Технологи дамжуулалт, инновацийн албатай хамтрана); -шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн эрхзүй, онол, аргачлалын асуудлууд, тааламжтай орчин, механизмууд; -монголын нийгэм, эдийн засаг дахь технологийн хамгаалалт, технологийн соёл, стандартын бодлого; -яамдын шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн зөвлөлүүдийн үйл ажиллагааны зохицуулалт, горим, менежмент, оновчлол (Хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилтийн албатай хамтрана); -шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн салбар дахь хүний нөөцийн бодлого (ШУА, ИДСК-тай хамтрана); -судалгаа, боловсруулалтын салбарын богино, урт хугацааны прогнозууд; -Шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн хүрээлэнгийн (шинээр байгуулна) судалгаа боловсруулалтын ажлын мониторинг (ШУА-тай хамтрана)

2. Хяналт-мониторингийн алба. Энэ албаны үндсэн зорилго нь ШУТИ-ийн салбар дахь үйл ажиллагааны бүх төрлийн мониторингийн мэдээллийг (статистик мэдээ, бүртгэл, шуурхай ба стратегийн хяналтын мэдээлэл, үр дүн, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн мэдээ, гүйцэтгэл, удирдлага-статистикийн баазууд, стандартжуулалтын мэдээ, бүртгэлийг) цуглуулах, бааз байгуулах, ШУТИГ-ын удирдлага, албадыг захиалгаар болон байнга үйлчлэх, санаачилгаар мэдээлэх, дүн шинжилгээт мэдээлэл, дүгнэлтийг боловсруулах, бэлтгэхэд чиглэгдэнэ.
Тус Алба Монголын нутаг дэвсгэр дээр үйл ажиллагаа явуулж буй төрийн ба бизнесийн болон бусад бүх байгууллагаас ШУТИ-ийн асуудлаар мэдээ авах, мэдээллийг шаардах эрхийг эдэлж, тэдний хэрэгцээт мэдээллийг гарган өгч үйлчлэх үүргийг хүлээнэ. Хяналт-мониторингийн мэдээллийн нууцлалын зэргийг Засгийн газраас тодорхойлно.
Албаны харьяанд дараах мэдээлэл-мониторингийн төрөлжсөн баазууд ажиллах ёстой гэж төсөөлөгдөж байгаа, үүнд: -оюуны өмч, дотоодын патент лицензийн (шинээр байгуулах); -төсөл, сэдэвт ажлын тайлангийн (ийм бааз одоо ажиллаж байгаа); -эрдэмтэд, судлаачдын (“Эрдэмтэн” бааз одоо ажиллаж байгаа); -технологийн дамжуулалт, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн (шинээр байгуулна); -шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн статистик мэдээ, бүртгэлийн (ийм бааз одоо үндсэндээ ажиллаж байгаа); -төсөл, сэдэвт ажлын явцын менежментийн (шинээр байгуулах); -стандарт, технологийн түвшингийн (шинээр байгуулах); -жижиг, дунд үйлдвэрлэлийн технологийн (шинээр байгуулах, үүнийг шинэ технологийн биржтэй хамтатгаж болно); -консальт болон инжинирингийн үйлчилгээний мэдээллийн зэрэг төрөлжсөн (бие даасан) баазуудыг улсын хэмжээнд сүлжээний горимоор ажиллуулбал зүйтэй.

Хяналт-мониторингийн албаны үйл ажиллагааны үндсэн чиглэл нь:
-шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн салбарын мониторинг-статистикийн бүх төрлийн мэдээлэл, тоо баримт, дүн шинжилгээ, лавлагааг бэлтгэх, боловсруулах, хадгалах, үйлчлэх; -мэдээллийн төрөлжсөн баазуудын аргачлал, онол-эрхзүйн үндэс, мета-сангийн хөтлөлт, баазуудын менежмент; -стандартжуулалт, технологийн түвшингийн мониторинг; -үр дүн, инновац нэвтрүүлэлтийн мониторинг, тойм мэдээлэл; -шуурхай удирдлага, менежментийн зохицуулалтын санал, үндэслэл, дүн шинжилгээ.

3. Хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилтийн алба. Энэ Албаны үндсэн үүрэг нь ШУТИ-ийн хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилтийг төлөвлөх, зохицуулах, хянах, хөрөнгө оруулалтын тааламжтай орчин, механизмыг бүрэлдүүлэх, судалгаа, боловсруулалт, үйлдвэрлэлийн салбарт хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилтийн үр ашигт тогтолцоог бүрэлдүүлэхэд чиглэгдэнэ.
Албаны үйл ажиллагааны хүрээнд ШУТИ-ийн асуудлаар улсын төсвийн ба гадаадын хөрөнгө оруулалт, тусламж, зээлийг зохицуулахын зэрэгцээ бизнесийнхэн болон бусад байгууллагын хөрөнгө, хандив, санхүүжилтийн оролцоо, дэмжлэг, зохицуулалтыг эрхлэнэ. ШУТИ-ийн бүх салбарт хувийн хэвшлийнхний санхүүжилт, хөрөнгө оруулалт, технологийн дэвшлийг дэмжиж, хорших болон хамтран ажиллахыг зорино. Судалгаа, боловсруулалтын салбарт туршилт, лабораторийн баазыг өргөжүүлэх, хүчин чадлын бололцоог нь нэмэгдүүлэх арга хэмжээг авна.
Тус Албаны бүтцийн бүрэлдэхүүнд дараахь сангуудын үйл ажиллагааг эрхлэх нь зүйтэй гэсэн саналтай, үүнд: -шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн сан (одоогийн ШУТ Сан); -инновацийг дэмжих сан (шинээр байгуулах); -залуу эрдэмтнийг дэмжих сан (одоогийн хөтөлбөрийн чиглэлээр); -грант төслүүдийн тусгай сан (шинээр байгуулах); -суурь судалгааны сан (шинээр байгуулах); -жижиг, дунд үйлдвэрийн сан (одоо хэрэгжүүлж байгаа хөтөлбөрийн хүрээнд); -венчур сан (инноваци эзэмших эрсдэлийн санг шинээр байгуулах); -тоног төхөөрөмжийн лизингийн сан ( шинээр байгуулах); -мэдлэгийг дэмжих сан (менежмент, программ хангамж, зайн сургалт, туршлага эзэмших арга хэмжээнд зориулна).
4. Технологи дамжуулалт, инновацийн алба. Тус Алба нь үйлдвэрлэл үйлчилгээний субъектүүдийн(өмчийн төрөл хамаарахгүй) технологийн шинэчлэл, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн үйл ажиллагааны менежментийг эрхэлж тааламжтай орчин, нөхцөл, механизмуудыг боловсруулж нэвтрүүлнэ. Энэ Албаны үйл ажиллагааны онцлог нь бизнесийнхэн болон бусад субъектүүдтэй ШУТИ-ийн асуудлаар төр-бизнесийн түншлэл, хамтын ажиллагаа, хоршилтыг эрхлэх, зохион байгуулах, удирдахад оршино. Ялангуяа үйлдвэрлэл, үйлчилгээний салбарт гадаадын техник, технологийг бэлнээр авч ашиглах, шинэ арга, технологийг ноу-хау, бусад хэлбэрээр авч нутагшуулах, судалгаа, боловсруулалтын ажлын гадаадын бэлэн үр дүн, инновацийг шууд нэвтрүүлэх ажилд туслалцаа үзүүлэх, урамшуулах, төрийн оролцоо, дэмжлэгийг хүчтэй болгох ажлыг эрхлэн гүйцэтгэнэ.
Дотоодын судалгаа, боловсруулалтын үр дүнг бизнес-технологийн эргэлтэнд оруулах, үйлдвэрлэл, үйлчилгээний субъектүүдийн инноваци идэвхжлийг нэмэгдүүлэх арга хэмжээг авч хэрэгжүүлнэ. Үүний тулд шинэ технологи, инноваци, шинэ санааны биржийн үйл ажиллагааг тус Албаны дэргэд зохион байгуулбал зүйтэй гэж төсөөлөгдөж байна.
Энэ албаны үйл ажиллагааны үндсэн чиглэл нь: -технологи дамжуулалт, инноваци нэвтрүүлэлтийн бодлого, аргазүй, механизм, зохицуулалт, -технологи дамжуулалт, инновацийн бүтэц(технопарк, инкүбатор, старт-компани зэрэг), менежмент(шуурхай удирдлага); -инновацийн стратеги, тактикийн асуудал (өмчийн хэлбэр харгалзахгүйгээр); -оюуны өмч, патент, лицензийн асуудал, менежмент, тааламжтай орчин; -үйлдвэрлэл, үйлчилгээний салбарын технологийн шинэчлэл, технологийн хамгаалалт, технологийн импортын стратеги; -бизнесийн субъектүүдийн инновацийн идэвхжил, инновацийн дэмжлэг, урамшууллын механизмууд; -инновац, шинэ санааны биржийн үйл ажиллагаа; -е-технологи, программ хангамжийн нэвтрүүлэлт, менежмент; -бизнесийн салбар дахь хөрөнгө оруулалт, технологийн шинэчлэлийн судалгаа, мэдээлэл.

5. Экспертизийн (хянан магадлагааны) хэлтэс. Энэ Хэлтэс шинжлэх ухаан, технологийн бүх салбар, бүх асуудлаар хянан магадлагааг ШУА-тай хамтран тусгай төлөвлөгөө, эсхүл даалгавар, хуваарь, захиалгаар зохион байгуулж байх үүрэгтэй. Тэрбээр цөөн ажилтны орон тоотой байх боловч харин гэрээт эксперт (шинжээч) нар нь асуудал, сэдэв, даалгавар, шинжлэх ухааны салбараас хамаарч хэд ч байж болно. Шинжээч нар Засгийн газар, эсхүл Үндэсний ШУТИГ-аас баталсан тусгай дүрмээр ажиллаж магадлан шинжилсэн дүгнэлтийн талаар эрдмийн бүрэн хариуцлагыг хүлээх ёстой.
Энэ Хэлтэс нь яамдын ШУТ Зөвлөл болон хүрээлэн, их, дээд сургуулиудын хэмжээгээр зохион байгуулагдах хянан магадлагааны үйл ажиллагаанд аргачлалын хяналт тавьж зөвлөлгөө өгөх үүрэгтэй байвал зохино.

6. Гадаад харилцаа, хамтын ажиллагааны хэлтэс. Тус Хэлтэс нь ШУТИ-ийн асуудлаар улс хоорондын болон олон улсын хамтын ажиллагааны бодлого, тактик, мониторинг, эрхзүй, менежмент, зохицуулалтын асуудлыг эрхлэнэ.
Хэлтсийн үндсэн үүрэг нь: -гадаад орнууд олон улсын байгууллагатай ШУТИ-ийн бүх асуудлаар хамтран ажиллах гэрээ, хэлэлцээр, хөтөлбөрүүдийн асуудал, зуучлал; -гадаадын тусламж, зээл, хандив, хөрөнгө оруулалт, санхүүжилт, лизингийн эрхзүйн аргачлал, мониторинг, менежмент зохицуулалт; -яамдын ШУТ-ийн Зөвлөлүүдийн гадаад хамтын ажиллагааны менежмент, зохицуулалт, -хөгжингүй орнуудад ШУТИ-ийн асуудлаар хүн сургах, бэлтгэх, мэргэжил дээшлүүлэх ажлын бодлого, хэрэгжүүлэлт, менежмент, зохицуулалт.

7. Дотоод ажил, менежментийн хэлтэс нь ШУТИГ-ын дотоод ажлын мониторинг, менежмент, алба, хэлтсүүдийн үйл ажиллагааны уялдаа, зохицуулалтыг хангана.
ШУТИГ-ын үйл ажиллагаанд “хамтын оюуны” арга, хэлбэрийг ашиглах, эрдэмтэд, судлаачид, их, дээд сургуулийн багш нар, бизнесийнхний оролцоог өргөжүүлэхтэй холбогдсон зарим санааг тусгаж байгаа. Тухайлбал, ШУТИГ-ын Албадын зөвлөгөөн, мөн ШУА, ИДСК, ҮХАҮТ-ын оролцоотой “Бодлогын семинарыг” зохион байгуулж байхаар санал гаргав. Түүнчлэн ШУТИГ, ШУА, ИДСК, ҮХАҮТ, эрдэм шинжилгээний байгууллагуудын оролцоотой “Шинжлэх ухаан, технологи, инновацийн их семинарыг” зохион байгуулж байх нь зүйтэй гэсэн саналтай байна. Түүнийг семинар, уулзалт, салбарын зөвлөгөөн, онол-практикийн бага хурал аль ч хэлбэрээр зохион байгуулж болно. Гол зорилго нь ШУТИ-ийн салбарын эмзэг асуудлыг сонгон авч хэлэлцэх, шийдвэрлэх арга замыг тодорхойлох, төрд санал, зөвлөгөө бэлтгэж өгөх, ШУТИ-ийн бодлогын хэрэгжүүлэлтийн явцыг шинжлэн дүгнэх, судалгаа, боловсруулалтын чиг, хандлагыг тодорхойлох, бизнесийн субъектүүдийн инноваци идэвхжлийг өрнүүлэх, төр бизнесийн түншлэлийг сайжруулах зэрэг асуудлаар эрдэмтэд, бизнесийнхэн, төрийн ажилтан нар зөвлөлдөн санал солилцож, зөвлөмж үнэлгээ, дүгнэлтийг гаргаж байх ёстой.
ШУТИ-ийн тэргүүлэх чиглэлийн асуудлыг судлан боловсруулах, төрийн бодлого зохицуулалт, шийдвэр гаргалтын шинжлэх ухааны үндэслэл, хувилбаруудын үнэлгээ, тооцоо, ШУТИ-ийн хөгжлийн прогнозыг боловсруулж байх үүрэг бүхий Шинжлэх Ухаан, Технологийн Хүрээлэнг (ШУТХ), ШУТИГ-ын харьяанд ШУА-ийн давхар харъяалалтайгаар байгуулах нь зүйтэй гэсэн саналтай байна. Хүрээлэнгийн үйл ажиллагаа нь А) орон тооны эрдэм шинжилгээний ажилтан нар төсөл, сэдэвт ажлыг гүйцэтгэх хэлбэр, Б) гадны байгууллагын (түүний дотор гадаадын ) эрдэмтэн судлаачдаас бүрдэх ажлын хэсэг, эрдэмтдийн түр хамтлаг, төслийн багийн хүчээр гүйцэтгэх даалгавар, захиалгат ажлын хэлбэртэй (ихэнхдээ богино хугацааны даалгавар) байх юм гэсэн төсөөлөлтэй байна. Чингэхдээ даалгавар, захиалгаар гүйцэтгэх ажлын (Б-төрлийн) оюуны нөөц зарцуулалт, зардал нь Хүрээлэнгийн үндсэн төсөл, сэдэвт ажлынхтай хэмжээгээр (хүн-жилээр тооцоход) ойролцоо, тэр байтугай илүү гаргах хэмжээтэй байж болно.

ШУТИГ-тай бүх түвшинд хамтран ажиллах гол түншлэгч нь өөрийн удирдлагат ШУА. ШУА-ийн үндсэн үүрэг нь Монголын шинжлэх ухаанд эрдмийн ажлын өндөр стандартыг нэвтрүүлэх, тус улсын нийгэм эдийн засгийн тэргүүлэх салбаруудын хөгжлийг хангахуйц суурь судалгааны асуудлуудаар судалгаа, боловсруулалтын ажлыг дагнан гүйцэтгэх, зохицуулах, гадаад хамтын ажиллагааг эрхлэх, шинжлэх ухааны бодлогын зөвлөгөө, прогнозыг боловсруулах, цөм технологийн судалгааны үр дүн, инновац нэвтрүүлэх, төсөл, хөтөлбөрийн хянан магадлагааг (ШУТИГ-тай) гүйцэтгэх хэмжээг авч хэрэгжүүлнэ.
Шинжлэх ухаан судлалыг хөгжүүлж, их, дээд сургуулиуд болон төрийн ба төрийн бус өмчийн эрдэм шинжилгээний байгууллагуудын судалгаа боловсруулалтын ажлын онол, арга зүйн түвшинг дээшлүүлэх асуудлыг ШУА эрхэлбэл оновчтой юм гэсэн гэсэн саналтай байна.
Монгол Улсын Ерөнхийлөгчийн Тамгын газар, ШУА-ийн харьяа
Үндэсний хөгжлийн хүрээлэнгийн
сэдэвт ажлын удирдагч, доктор (Ph.D)
Н.ХҮҮХЭНЖИМЭЭ