Evidence: well sourced. Imported from the supplied 65-Case Master Edition, dated September 19, 2026. Source links and classifications are retained as an attributed case account; import is not an independent source review.
Case at a glance
- Case number
- 058
- Date / range
- 2010 development dispute
- Sector
- Genetic resources, agriculture, and biodiversity
- Genetic asset
- Living fruit and berry accessions and station land
- Security principle
- Land-Use Governance Can Destroy Genetic Assets
Event summary
Plans to transfer or develop land at Russia's Pavlovsk Experiment Station threatened living fruit and berry collections that could not simply be copied as packets of seed, prompting an international preservation campaign.
Source: esa.org — Pavlovsk Experiment Station Development Threat source 1.
The case in context
Pavlovsk's living collections made a land-use decision a genetic-resource issue. A cultivated accession cannot always be moved or duplicated as if it were a packet in a storage cabinet. The site and ongoing care are part of the asset.
This is a threatened-loss case, not a report that the collection was destroyed. It illustrates how administrative systems can overlook scientific value when they classify land without recognizing the material growing on it. Accession maps and legal protection help make that value visible before a development decision becomes irreversible.
Acquisition and processing
living collection on land → administrative classification/development plan → potential habitat removal → irreversible accession loss → advocacy and reprieve
The sequence of events
- living collection on land
- administrative classification/development plan
- potential habitat removal
- irreversible accession loss
- advocacy and reprieve
What became inferable or exposed
Living fruit and berry accessions and station land
Plans to transfer or develop land at Russia's Pavlovsk Experiment Station threatened living fruit and berry collections that could not simply be copied as packets of seed, prompting an international preservation campaign.
Affected parties and consent
- Direct parties
- Collection custodians and users of the germplasm
- Indirect parties
- Connected institutions, communities, or resource users; no affected-person total is assigned.
- Direct count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Indirect count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Consent status
- Access, stewardship, breeding, and benefit-sharing arrangements depend on the collection and setting. These are not necessarily individual privacy questions.
Security dimensions
Confidentiality
The confidentiality question concerns living fruit and berry accessions and station land. Exposure and further inference must be distinguished from the fact of collection or availability.
Integrity
The integrity question is whether the described material, permissions, processing, or interpretation can be relied upon. Land-Use Governance Can Destroy Genetic Assets identifies the particular boundary examined here.
Availability
Access and continuity are assessed for the described event; potential effects are not presented as confirmed outages or losses.
Provenance
The relevant chain follows living fruit and berry accessions and station land through the stages shown below. Missing public detail is not proof that internal records did not exist.
Consent, persistence, and relational exposure
Consent
Access, stewardship, breeding, and benefit-sharing arrangements depend on the collection and setting. These are not necessarily individual privacy questions.
Persistence
Later reuse depends on the actual asset and links to other records; no future misuse is asserted.
Relational exposure
Connected institutions, communities, or resource users; no affected-person total is assigned.
Case-specific assessment
availability and integrity critical; provenance high; persistence/irreplaceability extreme.
GeneticSecurity.org analysis
Genetic Exposure Radius
No single level is assigned where the supplied dossier gives a range, conditional outcome, or broad institutional consequence. The affected parties and proposed assessment are shown separately.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Persistence Risk
Persistence depends on the specific biological material or information retained. A potential effect is not treated as an observed genomic disclosure.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Provenance Integrity
A numeric provenance level is not inferred from the existence of a source or court record. It requires evidence of the relevant custody and processing controls.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Proposed classification and its limits
Suggested GER: GER-5. Suggested GPI: GPI-4 if accessions are well mapped.
These are proposed classifications from the supplied case dossier. Conditional scores describe an assumed exposure; they are not evidence that it occurred. A single numeric value is left unassigned when the asset or outcome is not sufficiently bounded.
What this case does not prove
This was a threatened-loss case; it does not establish that the collection was destroyed.
Mitigations and lessons
- Legal protected status
- Geospatial accession registry
- Off-site clonal backups
- Cryopreservation where feasible
- Land-title review
- Executive escalation triggers
Primary sources
Secondary sources
No additional source listed. See the evidence notes for limitations.
Policy and standards
Genetic Security Policy and StandardsReview and correction history
Source edition: September 19, 2026. Imported case account; no substantive corrections recorded.
Correction policy and logCite this case
GS-CASE-058. Pavlovsk: When a Living Gene Bank Was Mistaken for Vacant Land. GeneticSecurity.org. https://geneticsecurity.org/cases/058-pavlovsk-experiment-station-land-threat/