An official website of the United States government
Datasets carry cultural and political context at all parts of the data life cycle. Historically, Earth science data repositories have taken their guidance and policies as a combination of mandates from their funding agencies and the needs of their user communities, typically universities, agencies, and researchers. Consequently, repository practices have rarely taken into consideration the needs of other communities such as the Indigenous Peoples on whose lands data are often acquired. In recent years, a number of global efforts have worked to improve the conduct of research as well as data policy and practices by the repositories that hold and disseminate it. One of these established the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Carroll et al. 2020), representing ‘Collective Benefit’, ‘Authority to Control’, ‘Responsibility’, and ‘Ethics”’ hosted by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA 2023a). In order to align to the CARE Principles, repositories may need to update their policies, architecture, service offerings, and their collaboration models. The question is how? Operationalizing principles into active repositories is generally a fraught process. This paper captures perspectives and recommendations from many of the repositories that are members of the Earth Science Information Partners (ESIPFed, n.d.) in conjunction with members of the Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance (Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance n.d.) and GIDA, defines and prioritizes the set of activities Earth and Environmental repositories can take to better adhere to CARE Principles in the hopes that this will help implementation in repositories globally.
more »
« less
Collaborative care in environmental governance: restoring reciprocal relations and community self-determination
From communities rooted in place to transnational coalitions, this special feature applies concepts of collaborative care rooted in Indigenous knowledge systems to the field of environmental governance. We highlight restorative, liberatory practices rooted in caretaking ethics and reciprocal human-nature relations. Our approach also centers decision-making by those most connected to a given resource and the sustenance it provides. Despite global extraction, dispossession, and other colonial legacies, these efforts build towards collective action and community self- determination, both through formal policy change and informal practices. Three facets of collaborative care in environmental governance are threaded through the special feature: 1) care in place, 2) care in power, and 3) care in commoning. These themes connect both Indigenous-led and allied scholarship from the United States to the Netherlands, Japan to Madagascar, and Aotearoa to Canada. Though diverse in their interests and challenges, the authors and communities featured in this research build towards collective action and community self-determination in caring for the places that are the source of collective abundance.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1923707
- PAR ID:
- 10537482
- Publisher / Repository:
- Ecology and Society
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Ecology and Society
- Volume:
- 29
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1708-3087
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
When it comes to climate crisis research, current debates are increasingly thematizing the needs but also the challenges of collaborative, transdisciplinary work. Geophysical characterizations of climate change are increasingly deemed insufficient to respond to the challenges that vulnerable communities face worldwide. In this paper, I describe the work of studying‐while‐caring for an environmental data infrastructure in order to address this issue. I suggest framing “data management” anthropologically as a question of collective stewardship that is better conceived as a “knowledge infrastructure” (Edwards 2010) instead of a formal approach to automated data curation. To examine the sociotechnical blindspots of data management, I elaborate on the anthropological concept of “infrastructural blues” based on the data engineering work I conducted. For the conclusion, I discuss the concept of “common” as a substitute for “open” technologies and address the broader implications of the proposed shift toward community stewardship and self‐determination as guiding practices for socio‐environmental data governance.more » « less
-
Birchall, S Jeff (Ed.)This paper explores the concept of co-stewardship in the Arctic through the lens of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change’s Human Wellbeing (HWB) team. Rooted in Indigenous knowledge and collaborative science, our work prioritizes equity in decision-making, recognizing multiple knowledge systems as equally valuable. Through intentional team-building, trust, and reciprocity, we examine successes, challenges, and opportunities in co-stewardship. Key successes include fostering meaningful relationships, integrating Indigenous perspectives into scientific and policy discussions, and uplifting innovative knowledge-sharing tools such as oral histories and visual storytelling. However, structural challenges persist, including colonial policy frameworks, inadequate funding models, and a lack of institutional mechanisms to support Indigenous leadership in co-stewardship initiatives. We propose policy shifts, long-term funding commitments, and greater Indigenous representation in decision-making as steps toward meaningful change. This work underscores the importance of Indigenous-led stewardship in addressing Arctic environmental and social challenges, offering a model for collaborative governance rooted in respect and reciprocity.more » « less
-
1. Human–plant relations shed light on forms of reciprocity in Indigenous territorial stewardship. This article shows how Cofán, Siona and Siekopai (also Secoya or Airo Pai in Peru) Indigenous Peoples in the western Amazon collect, cultivate and use yoco (Paullinia yoco) to promote communal conviviality, reclaim once-threatened cultural practices and advance new forms of collective stewardship to promote social-ecological well-being. Yoco is a caffeine-rich liana closely intertwined with the daily life and spiritual practices of many Indigenous Amazonian Peoples, particularly within the tri-border region of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 2. We centre Indigenous storytelling as pedagogy and methodology, something common in the Amazon and relevant to yoco, as it is consumed socially and often while stories are shared. 3. Through collaborative transdisciplinary research, we assess the forms of relationality and reciprocity yoco fosters in three ways. First, we discuss histories, uses and cultivation of yoco. Second, we consider the divergent pathways that communities have had with yoco, from loss to recuperation of human–plant relations across time. Third, we show examples of how differentiated use of yoco in Cofán, Siekopai and Siona communities supports cultural revitalization, territorial defense and stewardship initiatives evidenced by renewed efforts to enhance intergenerational transmission of local knowledge. 4. Cofán, Siona and Siekopai stewardship of yoco is not merely ecological management of a plant but represents a dynamic interaction between cultural identity, spiritual practice and political resistance. As Siona, Siekopai and Cofán communities confront external pressures such as deforestation, extractive industries and socio-political marginalization, relationships with yoco facilitate pathways to sustain cultural and ecological relations in the face of profound change. 5. Reclaiming and maintaining human–plant relations is a form of self-determination that can inform effective and ethical biocultural conservation. Through yoco, the Cofán, Siekopai and Siona peoples demonstrate that biocultural conservation helps maintain social-ecological well-being while underscoring the importance of territory. The future of conservation must embrace Indigenous stewardship, where reciprocity and care for both human and non-human worlds are central.more » « less
-
This material is primarily based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (grant no. DGE-1321845). Addressing complex social-ecological issues requires all relevant sources of knowledge and data, especially those held by communities who remain close to the land. Centuries of oppression, extractive research practices, and misrepresentation have hindered balanced knowledge exchange with Indigenous communities and inhibited innovation and problem-solving capacity in all scientific fields. A recent shift in the research landscape reflects a growing interest in engaging across diverse communities and ways of knowing. Scientific discussions increasingly highlight the inherent value of Indigenous environmental ethics frameworks and processes as the original roadmaps for sustainable development planning, including their potential in addressing the climate crisis and related social and environmental concerns. Momentum in this shift is also propelled by an increasing body of research evidencing the role of Indigenous land stewardship for maintaining ecological health and biodiversity. However, a key challenge straining this movement lies rooted in colonial residue and ongoing actions that suppress and co-opt Indigenous knowledge systems. Scientists working with incomplete datasets privilege a handful of narratives, conceptual understandings, languages, and historical contexts, while failing to engage thousands of collective bodies of intergenerational, place-based knowledge systems. The current dominant colonial paradigm in scientific research risks continued harmful impacts to Indigenous communities that sustain diverse knowledge systems. Here, we outline how ethical standards in researcher practice can be raised in order to reconcile colonial legacies and ongoing settler colonial practices. We synthesize across Indigenous and community-based research protocols and frameworks, transferring knowledge across disciplines, and ground truthing methods and processes in our own practice, to present a relational science working model for supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. We maintain that core Indigenous values of integrity, respect, humility, and reciprocity should shape researcher responsibilities and methods applied in order to raise ethical standards and long-term relational accountability regarding Indigenous lands, rights, communities, and our shared futures.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14488-290107
