Thank you Steffen, it is true, I know only a few people in Russia who work on such subject in field (not in Lab with model plants), especially with plant diseases, and publish results in international journals. I am more confident in plan pathogenic bacteria study, and can describe the situation as very serious.

There is no doubt that much work has to be done to understand and thereby mitigate the effects of foreseeable changes in the coming century. The topic does need to come into focus and worked upon. My only issue is that once things become institutionalized, the original thrust is lost and timer servers take over. So even setting up an institution with defined goals might not serve the purpose. Rather, this should come onto the research agendas of existing institutions, so that a spirit of competition ensures and the best talent comes forward and is utilized. That, in economies like Russia and India, might be the best way.

I do agree with Peter's view but I just might add soem additional goals: a) monitoring faunistical changes, b) monitoring delines/increases in potential key ecosystems - e.g. rivers, lakes (her I do include the hige effort that must be done in Lake Baikal) and c) gathering, on an international effort, crucial data on the northern taiga/tundra and the Amur region. In this last aspect, I find it of the utmost importance a straight cooperation between the US, Russia and Japan over what is realy going on from the Bering strait S to the Korean peninsula.

Best regards to all,

JP

Hi all,

Two main problems there, I guess. Putting an issue like climate change effects on anyone's agenda is no big thing - it's already there in most. The crux of the matter is much more to define what is to be done, and how it is to be done (including the appropriate fuinding, of course).

The first part of the question is definitely the hardest - suffice to see the inability of political authorities in big climate conferences to come up with a realistic set of decisions. The task is really complex also because monitoring changes is one thing, mitigating is another and adapting to them is a third, and there is no consensus as to what is important ( especially in the mitigation vs adaptation debate). Only when common goals are set is it possible to try and reach them. For that, I'm not convinced that setting up a new institution is necessary, although it has the advantage of giving visibility to the topic. Collaborative programmes are working quite well, and could do a lot without having to come up with the hassles and delays of installing a new institution, let alone funding it on the long run.

Didier, the arguments for better use of current institutions and research teams look solid and reasonable. The reasons for new institution are mostly from current scheme of science support - money for temporary projects much be confirmed for every following year, money for new research center (anyway, as inter-institute, inter-laboratory body) are sheduled for longer period and less influenced by political events.

Hi Alex

Not so sure about the medium to long-term commitment to institutions by funding bodies (incl. states). We're seeing now that even international institutions (even the United Nations) are having difficulties to get a budget...

Large collaborative - and usually multilaterral- projects are faster and esier to set up between countries for practical research than it is to decide a country -or even more difficult an international consortium - to set up a new institution. Of course, there is still a need for institutions ( let alone to pay for the positions and infrastructures), but even these cannot function without project funding.

Dear Alex. Do you have recente data on Lake Baikal. This is, as you well know, one of the most importante ecosystems for biomonitoiring climate change aspects in Russia.

Kamchatka is also giving some importante new cues as well as Wrangel Island and the Kuriles.

Best regards,

JP

Didier,

Sorry, probably of language difference we have been talking about the same things: Large collaborative multilaterral projects set up between countries for practical research.

But, recent events can make difficult further international collaboration with Russia. At least it looks such...