By Erin Tattersall, Warren Cardinal-McTeague, Isla Myers-Smith, Deborah A. Jenkins, and A. Cole Burton

Wildlife sensors (autonomous recording unit, or ARU, and camera trap) deployed as part of the Northwest Territories Biodiversity Monitoring Program, a collaborative initiative in the Northwest Territories, Canada, involving numerous Indigenous partners, universities, territorial and federal government.
Photo credit: Amanda Weltman

Read the full paper here

In a Western scientific worldview, data are the most basic units of information used to generate knowledge about the world. Examples of data in wildlife conservation can include observations of animals and their habitats (for example, taken from a wildlife camera or sound recorder). As technological advances allow scientists to collect more and more wildlife data, data become a powerful way to affect knowledge creation. Data sovereignty refers to having control over data and is an important part of decision-making power in wildlife conservation.

In collaborations between Indigenous Peoples and Western scientists, there may be different ideas about data sovereignty. Principles of Indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) ensure that Indigenous Peoples have access to data for decision-making (‘data for governance’) and control over data about them and their lands (‘governance of data’). On the other hand, many Western wildlife scientists increasingly follow principles of open data, which aim to make data widely accessible and may not account for Indigenous relationships to data and knowledge. Unless collaborators recognize and discuss these different approaches to data sovereignty, conflicts may arise that can damage working relationships and impact wildlife conservation outcomes.

We identified a need for practical guidance on balancing IDS and open data in collaborative wildlife conservation. By reviewing current literature, we described three main themes related to overcoming differences in IDS and open data principles: collaborative relationships, data governance (values and plans guiding how data are taken care of), and data stewardship (what happens with data on a day-to-day basis). Within these themes, we explored potential points of conflict between IDS and open data, how these may show up in wildlife conservation collaborations, and practical recommendations for moving forward together. We also include specific considerations for wildlife sensor data (collected by cameras or sound recorders) and outline questions that participants can discuss throughout the collaboration to make sure that partners agree on data governance and stewardship. Through these recommendations, we hope to provide a framework for discussing data sovereignty that supports stronger Indigenous and Western science relationships and advance progress toward effective collaborative conservation solutions in the future.