There has been very little information recently about the fate of the Pavlovsk Experiment Station. The Vavilov Research Institute (VIR) reported that on 26 October Igor Igoshin, a deputy head of the parliament’s Committee on Science and Scientific Technologies, introduced a draft law that treats the status of genetic resources collections. The draft modifies a section of the Land Code of Russia, which refers to valuable land that belongs to the State.
According to VIR, article 100, paragraph 4, item 1 of the Code reads, in part.
“…the most valuable lands are lands within which there are natural sites as well as cultural heritage sites of special scientific, historical and cultural value (typical or rare landscapes, cultural landscapes, communities of plant and animal organisms, rare geological formations, lands to be used for activities of research organizations”
A change in wording to ensure that field genebanks are also covered may help to resolve the disputes over the ownership and future of the land. The collection may also gain the status of National Heritage, which could in theory help to protect it.
Not much to go on …
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Thanks for this update Jeremy. While it may seem like a small technicality, the efforts of this blog, the Crop Diversity Trust, Bioversity International, and others to mobilise the global scientific community and the public to save the Pavlosk collections have begun to bear fruit. The discussion is now where it ought to have been in the first place, at the national policy level. The latest steps recognise this as more than a piece of well-positioned real estate. It is to a national and global public good, possibly irreplaceable and worth far more to Russia and the world than a posh new housing development. The scientists from the Vavilov Institute and the Centre de Recherche Public in Luxembourg who have quantified the genetic diversity and nutritional value of cultivars in the collection are planning to communicate the results to the Russian public and policymakers early next year. If the collections remain safe until then, we can show compelling scientific evidence that quantifies what the collections are potentially worth to the future health and development of Russia. At least then if a decision is made to destroy the collections, the costs will be known and an informed choice can be made. My hope is that Russia would not knowingly destroy an important biological asset and cultural heritage.