Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Ecology and Environmental Science

Alessandra Vidal Meza

Data…

  • is discrete information organized into knowledge
  • asserts (statistical) identity and self-determination
  • wields power as a decision making force
  • “…[is] synonymous with life in a modern society…” [1]

Indigenous Data Sovereignty

“…An assertion of the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples in relation to data about them, their territories, and their ways of life” [2]

Indigenous Data Governance

“Indigenous data governance is the act of harnessing tribal cultures, values, principles, and mechanisms…and applying them to the management and control of Indigenous nation’s data ecosystem” [1]


  • Data for governance: “…Accurate, relevant, and timely data for policy and decision-making…” [1]
  • Governance of data: “…Mechanisms to honor, protect, and control their information both internally and externally…” [1]

In Environmental Monitoring

Communities have led monitoring of Land [3], including species, ecosystem services, climate, since time immemorial [4]

These observations (data) are place-based and often require protocol (cultural and ecological) to become knowledge

“…The question is not ‘what can I do with this data?’ but ‘to whom am I obliged with this data? What does this data and its data holder owe to community and Land, and how do I best meet those obligations in how this data is stored, shared (or not) and interpreted?’” [5]

What Does It Look Like?

Data relationships and practices cannot be simple checkboxes. This can repeat or exacerbate remainders of colonialism

“…Indigenous communities must [often] forgo having access to certain types of information about themselves or must rely on outsiders with the requisite resources to obtain this information” [6]

External Data Collection [7]

Academia
Reliant on soft money \(\rightarrow\) grants are in short cycles
Industry
Misaligned incentives \(\rightarrow\) interest in bottom line
U.S. Government
“Domestic dependent nations” \(\neq\) tribal sovereignty

The CARE Principles

  • C: Collective benefit (equity, development)
  • A: Authority to control (governance)
  • R: Responsibility (to worldviews and for capacity)
  • E: Ethics (for justice and future generations)

C: Collective Benefit [8]

  • Collect and code using Indigenous-led definitions and/or Indigenous data classifications
  • Data disaggregation \(\rightarrow\) is it relevant/actionable?
  • Compensation of/attribution to knowledge keepers and holders

What Does (C)ARE Look Like?

Use definitions from within Indigenous communities to monitor Indigenous Land

“The Kichwa ethnoichthyological classification is multidimensional. The most common classification criteria are morphological attributes, but other biological, ecological and gastronomical characteristics are also considered” [9]

Does resolution and sampling match community needs?

  • Data is not objective nor how we aggregate them
  • Summary statistics may hide relationships between variables of the most vulnerable
  • Data synthesis can be irrelevant and tedious for nations with less capacity
  • During data collection: Ensure proper compensation, authorship, and provenance (source or steward) of knowledge
  • For data communication: Use Indigenous-led citation templates and reference guides, like those developed by MacLeod [10] and Younging [11]

A: Authority to Control [8]

  • Return all outputs to the rightsholders in usable format
  • Respect Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)
  • Re/evaluation of community support, participation, and approval

What Does C(A)RE Look Like?

Indigenous peoples and communities must be recognized as rightsholders, not stakeholders, in Data Management Plans (DMP) to exercise sovereignty:

  • Data for governance: Authority to determine representation and identification within data [12]
  • Governance of data: “…Control how information about them is collected, used and disclosed…from collection of data to the use, disclosure and ultimate destruction of data” [13]

R: Responsibility [8]

  • Create/expand opportunities for community capacity
  • Respect reciprocity/trust within metadata and labeling
  • Affirm community worldviews
  • Upload data in culturally relevant formats (visual, seasonal, etc.)

What Does CA(R)E Look Like?

“Our cross-cultural partnership approach—called the Sikumiut-SmartICE model—focuses on developing the skills of young Inuit to create the maps, while non-Indigenous partners provide mentorship, tools, and training” [14]

Local Contexts provide a series of labels and notices that communicate permissions and support ethical use of data

  • Llamk’ana (Quechua) uses patterns of repetition, sequence, and decision from textile making to communicate algorithms
  • Jon Corbett on Cree#: “…from using computers and programming as tools to generate my artwork to viewing computers as animate creatures, digital representations of my Indigenous heritage…” [15]

E: Ethics [8]

  • Follow and uphold a community-defined review processes
  • Disclose potential financial gain and share benefits
  • Consider potential of community harm in data protocols

What Does CAR(E) Look Like?

Seven Generations (Haudenosaunee)
Is the decision sustainable seven generations in the future?
Pacha (Quechua)
“…Is [both] time and space and a moment in space and time.” [16]
  • “…Asymmetrical distribution of resources, expertise, equipment and engagement…” [17]
  • Co-production (which includes co-design) “…offers a high[er] level of transparency, and the power, knowledge, decision-making, benefits, and finances are shared equally among participants from the outset of a project” [18]

Tools for Data Sovereignty [5]

  • Encryption
  • Time destruction of datasets and keys
  • Anonymization
  • Access limitations (e.g., community-specific rules and responsibilities)
  • Metadata (e.g., provenance documentation)

Tools for Data Sovereignty [5]

  • Selective reporting (e.g., permissions)
  • Use of Indigenous languages
  • Research review processes (e.g., Tribal regulations)

Most importantly, defer to Indigenous communities on decision making

References

1.
Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D, Martinez A (2019) Indigenous data governance: Strategies from united states native nations. Data Science Journal 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-031
2.
Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL, et al (2020) The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
3.
Liboiron M (2021) Pollution is colonialism. Duke University Press Books
4.
Rodriguez-Lonebear D (2016) Building a data revolution in indian country. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press
5.
Carroll SR, Duarte M, Liboiron M (2024) Indigenous data sovereignty. In: Keywords of the datafied state. Data & Society Research Institute
6.
Snipp CM (2016) What does data sovereignty imply: What does it look like? In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press
7.
8.
Jennings L, Anderson T, Martinez A, et al (2023) Applying the CARE principles for indigenous data governance” to ecology and biodiversity research. Nat Ecol Evol 7(10):1547–1551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02161-2
9.
Tobes I, Carrillo-Moreno C, Guarderas-Flores L, Jácome-Negrete I, Velázquez-Cárdenas Y (2022) Ethnoichthyology and ethnotaxonomy of the kichwa indigenous people of arawanu (arajuno), in the ecuadorian amazon. Front Ecol Evol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.826781
10.
MacLeod L (2021) More than personal communication: Templates for citing indigenous elders and knowledge keepers. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 5(1). https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.135
11.
Younging G (2018) Elements of indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about indigenous peoples. Brush Education
12.
13.
14.
Beaulieu L, Arreak A, Holwell R, et al (2023) Indigenous self-determination in cryospheric science: The inuit-led sikumik qaujimajjuti (“tools to know how the ice is”) program in inuit nunangat, canada. Front Earth Sci 11:1076774. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2023.1076774
15.
16.
17.
Longdon J, Westerlaken M, Blackwell AF, et al (2024) Justice-oriented design listening: Participatory ecoacoustics with a ghanaian forest community. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–12
18.
Hickman CR, Thorstenson J, Carlisle A, Hoagland SJ, Albert S (2023) Research with tribes: A suggested framework for the co-production of knowledge. In: Steven Albert, Serra J. Hoagland (eds) Wildlife stewardship on tribal lands: Our place is in our soul. Johns Hopkins University Press