Recognising Indigenous Provenance in Biodiversity Records

Abstract

The advent of data-driven technologies and the increasing demand for data have brought about unique challenges for Indigenous data governance. The CARE principles emphasize Collective Benefit, Authority, Responsibility, and Ethics as essential pillars for ensuring that Indigenous data rights are upheld, Indigenous knowledge is protected, and Indigenous Peoples are active participants in data governance processes (Carroll et al. 2020, Carroll et al. 2021). Identifying tangible activities and providing guidance to centre Indigenous perspectives provide a comprehensive approach to address the complexities of Indigenous data governance in a rapidly evolving data landscape (Gupta et al. 2023, Jennings et al. 2023, Sterner and Elliott 2023). Biodiversity research has increasingly recognized the intertwined relationship between biological diversity and cultural practices, leading to discussions about how research can strengthen the evidence base, build trust, enhance legitimacy for decision making (Alexander et al. 2021) and explore requirements for Indigenous metadata (Jennings et al. 2023). An Indigenous Metadata Bundle Communique, produced following an Indigenous Metadata Symposium, recommended the initial categories as: Governance, Provenance, Lands & Waters, Protocols, and Local Contexts Notices & Labels. Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Biocultural (BC) Labels have emerged as essential tools for recognising and maintaining Indigenous provenance, protocols and permissions in records for both natural ecosystems and cultural heritage (Anderson et al. 2020, Liggins et al. 2021) emphasizing the importance of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems in research and digital management. Biocultural labels acknowledge the intricate links between biodiversity and cultural diversity, emphasizing the role of indigenous communities in preserving biodiversity through their traditional practices (Hudson et al. 2021). By recognizing the intrinsic value of these relationships, TK and BC labels not only contribute to a more holistic understanding of biodiversity but also promote ethical considerations and mutual respect between researchers and local communities, fostering collaborative partnerships for research and conservation initiatives (McCartney et al. 2023). Addressing the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance in biodiversity research introduces several challenges and opportunities. Ethical concerns regarding recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in data (Hudson et al. 2023), intellectual property rights, cultural appropriation, and equitable benefit sharing, must be navigated sensitively (Carroll et al. 2022b, Golan et al. 2022). Moreover, fostering effective communication between researchers and communities is paramount for ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of Indigenous metadata and protocols for appropriate use (Carroll et al. 2022a). However, these challenges are offset by the potential for enriching scientific knowledge, enhancing policy frameworks, and strengthening community-based conservation efforts.