There are a variety of possible risks or sensitivities associated with conservation seed bank collections management. These are likely to include: ethical and moral relations; political exposure or criticism; media criticism; indigenous politics; and current or potential legal or other types of institutional rules, for example:

i.  Accountability for socio-cultural performance as a product of on going developments in international law related to prior informed consent, access and benefit sharing arrangements associated with biological diversity. The latest iteration is the Nagoya Protocol. These legal obligations are reflected in domestic law;

ii. Other legal obligations based on principles of equity to enforce just behaviour in transactions between people, for example: a duty to honour confidences; a duty to honour assurances; the obligation not to mislead or deceive; and, an obligation not to engage in unjust enrichment.

iii. Other institutional collectors of indigenous related material (museums, art galleries) have faced increased scrutiny over their management and use of indigenous cultural material. Funding bodies and professional practice groups increasingly anticipate making grants and/or professional certification subject to compliance with ethical practice guides;

Such challenges make cultural stewardship a potential issue of strategic importance to seed banks in Australia, with the increasing chance that seed banks are likely to be called to greater account for the risks and contingencies associated with cultural stewardship in collections management.

More Mark Shepheard's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions