Data sovereignty

Indigenous data sovereignty (IDsov) and how it applies in this protocol

This is a bricolage protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!

Properly applying data sovereignty practices and principles significantly alters project design at all levels. Therefore, it must be understood and applied early in all collaborations.

Data is not like other things a project handles. It can be copied perfectly, instantly, and forever.

We treat data about, from, or concerning Indigenous, AfroDescendant, or local communities as an asset under their control — not a free resource to be extracted, aggregated, or monetized by outside parties.

This is an ethical decision, a business policy, and will eventually, in our opinion, be robust international law.

Data soverienty and FPIC

TL:DR = FPIC is the process, data sovereignty is the substance

Data falls under standard Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines with the caveat that it can be easily copied and used in perpetuity, making ongoing consent difficult. It also has risks of being mistranslated, and it's very difficult for grassroots communities to stay adequately informed on it. Thus, it requires additional controls, and data sovereignty could be considered the practical feasibility and rules that allow for the extension of FPIC principles to this specific domain, which is definitely an emerging case.

Data versus information

We learned quickly not to assume epistemology in data negotiations with grassroots communities. For this primer, we will use the word "data" and the word "information" as separate but related concepts.

• "data" as it is understood in the industrialized world is already covering too wide a variety of topics (eg. copyright, intellectual property, genetic data, bioactive compounds, cultural practices)
• "data" as it is often interpreted by grassroots communities, extends into memory, history, communication between living beings, and a much broader scope than an industrial person might anticipate. For this expanded scope, we will use the word "information".

Marching orders for current work

There is a fear of working on this topic, of being prosecuted by history.

However, the very definition of ethics is making decisions under uncertainty, with power (Jonas, 1984). Therefore, the ethical risks of choosing not to engage must be weighed carefully against the risks of action (Rachels, 1975; Spranca, Minsk & Baron, 1991).

In late 2025, we participated in a preliminary collective opinion from Indigenous leaders recruited from across the world, with different backgrounds and data perspectives. The following instructions from that group are the marching orders we are currently working under.

• A proper collective Indigenous opinion can only be formed with an authentic Participatory Action Research (PAR) study. In the absence of that tool, which we have been unable to fund, we can only work on preliminary feedback.
• Inaction is not appropriate. This work is valuable, and preliminary negotiations and education are warranted if they are narrow and not misrepresented as collective decisions.
• Format is critical. Academic formats are not viable tools for collective decision-making involving traditional communities whose first languages are often rare and who may have very limited understanding. Multimedia, multilingual content is required with concepts broken down into component modules.
• Training must be funded for advocates to begin translating the risks, benefits, and threats of data in the information age to elders, leaders, communities, and collectives. Emergent positioning should be expected, and longitudinal workgroups, case studies, and negotiating panels are required.
• Any work on this topic must be enforceable first. History has shown rampant abuse on this topic because data can be copied and reused or misused. It's critical that we focus on negotiating enforceable cases with narrow scope first and avoid any broad claims to applicability.
• Data is too broad a term. The feedback we have gotten from our ethics panel is extensive, ranging into the fields of quantum physics, information, and cultural practices, which significantly exceeded the realm of any Sexy Trees projects. We have decided to work from the basis of narrow case studies, like the eDNA consent case in the appendix. Then properly negotiate conscribed cases and build a library of practical-use documents. Broad permissions are too easy to misuse and do not account for the heterogeneity of either Indigenous thought or information-age threats on the topic.

Authoritative sources on data sovereignty

• The right to collect and use of community property should be guided by the IEEE Recommended Practices on Indigenous Peoples Data Provenance Standard
• Data should be stored with Local Context TK labels (knowledge) and BK notices (DSI). As in the Cyverse database