Data Sovereignty in Community-Based Environmental Monitoring: Toward Equitable Environmental Data Governance

Indigenous peoples and local communities have environmental knowledge systems that are fed by different sources of information stemming from their communities’ often long histories of place-based living. Such information allows them to monitor environmental status and steward territories and resources (Brondízio et al. 2021). The rapid spread of mobile devices and digital platforms has accelerated the possibility of applying such knowledge to scientific monitoring (Starkweather et al. 2021), particularly in remote areas difficult and expensive to access for scientists (Johnson et al. 2021). Therefore, community-based monitoring is increasingly proposed as a way to further scientific understanding of biodiversity status and trends, land-use changes, habitat loss, local uses of plants and animals, drivers of environmental change, and the presence of pollution or invasive species, among other processes (Danielsen et al. 2021). A recent special section of BioScience highlights that communitybased environmental monitoring not only delivers credible and legitimate knowledge in use but also informs local decision-making and empowers Indigenous peoples and other rights holders in environmental governance (Bonney 2021, Tengö et al. 2021). However, articles in the special section and previous research on the topic also note that community-based environmental monitoring projects, when they are externally led, can come with their own challenges and impacts, from relegating local actors to data collectors (Turreira-García et al. 2018) to increasing inequities by engaging only with a local elite (Eicken et al. 2021). In this Viewpoint, we discuss an additional challenge: adhering to data sovereignty principles. In recognition of the historical and ongoing misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge systems and acknowledging Indigenous peoples’ unique rights over their knowledge (article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), we focus on projects drawing from or informed by Indigenous knowledge. However, our argument also applies to other community-based environmental monitoring projects, particularly those involving local communities with long-term cultural connections with their lands and waters.

[1]  J. Wilkinson,et al.  Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks’ (SAON) Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data Systems (ROADS) , 2022, Arctic.

[2]  G. Nicholas Protecting Indigenous heritage objects, places, and values: challenges, responses, and responsibilities , 2021, International Journal of Heritage Studies.

[3]  C. Vajdic,et al.  Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Data Governance in Health Research: A Systematic Review , 2021, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[4]  Eduardo S Brondízio,et al.  Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, and Globally Relevant: Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, and Practices for Nature , 2021, Annual Review of Environment and Resources.

[5]  M. Hudson,et al.  Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship , 2021, Journal of Ethnobiology.

[6]  Eduardo S Brondízio,et al.  Scientists' Warning to Humanity on Threats to Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems , 2021, Journal of Ethnobiology.

[7]  R. Bonney Expanding the Impact of Citizen Science , 2021 .

[8]  F. Danielsen,et al.  Creating Synergies between Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge , 2021, Bioscience.

[9]  M. Druckenmiller,et al.  The Use of Digital Platforms for Community-Based Monitoring , 2021, Bioscience.

[10]  Martin Bødker Enghoff,et al.  Connecting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Environmental Observing , 2021, Bioscience.

[11]  N. Burgess,et al.  The Concept, Practice, Application, and Results of Locally Based Monitoring of the Environment , 2021, Bioscience.

[12]  M. Hudson,et al.  Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures , 2021, Scientific Data.

[13]  Chidi Oguamanam Indigenous Peoples, Data Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: Current Realities and Imperatives , 2020, The African Journal of Information and Communication.

[14]  M. Hudson,et al.  The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance , 2020, Data Sci. J..

[15]  P. Axelsson,et al.  The challenge of Indigenous data in Sweden , 2020 .

[16]  Deborah A. Bolnick,et al.  Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data , 2020, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[17]  J. Kaye,et al.  Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Collections of Genetic Heritage: The Legal, Ethical and Practical Considerations of a Dynamic Consent Approach to Decision Making , 2020, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[18]  M. Hudson,et al.  Genomic Research Through an Indigenous Lens: Understanding the Expectations. , 2019, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[19]  S. Garnett,et al.  An Indigenous-Led Approach for Regional Knowledge Partnerships in the Kimberley Region of Australia , 2019, Human Ecology.

[20]  R. Merino Re-politicizing participation or reframing environmental governance? Beyond indigenous’ prior consultation and citizen participation , 2018, World Development.

[21]  I. Theilade,et al.  Community-Based Monitoring of Tropical Forest Crimes and Forest Resources Using Information and Communication Technology – Experiences from Prey Lang, Cambodia , 2018, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.

[22]  A. Sporle Indigenous Data Sovereignty , 2018 .

[23]  V. Reyes‐García,et al.  What's in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring , 2018 .

[24]  Linda Nordling San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers , 2017 .

[25]  Almut Schilling‐Vacaflor,et al.  Unfulfilled promises of the consultation approach: the limits to effective indigenous participation in Bolivia’s and Peru’s extractive industries , 2016 .

[26]  Rob McMahon,et al.  Digital Data Management as Indigenous Resurgence in Kahnawà:ke , 2015 .

[27]  Jamie Donatuto,et al.  Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics, and Data-Sharing Issues , 2011, Environmental health perspectives.

[28]  Brian Schnarch,et al.  Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) or Self-Determination Applied to Research: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and Some Options for First Nations Communities , 2004 .