Non-Extraction Guardrails & Indigenous Knowledge Protection Frameworks

Research Date: 2026-03-05 Angle: Non-extraction protocols & knowledge protection for IAIP skills development Purpose: Extract specific operational frameworks that prevent knowledge extraction and protect Indigenous knowledge

Framework 1: OCAP® Principles (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession)

Core Principle

First Nations collectively own data about themselves, exercise authority over all research processes affecting them, determine who accesses their data, and maintain physical stewardship (possession) of that data. Established 1998, stewarded by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC).

What It Prevents

• Data colonialism: External researchers or institutions treating Indigenous data as a public resource to extract freely.
• Loss of interpretive authority: Outside parties analyzing and publishing about First Nations without community oversight.
• Dispossession through digitization: Data being stored on external servers where communities lose practical control.
• Secondary use creep: Data collected for one purpose being repurposed without consent.

Operational Steps

1. Ownership: Establish community-level data ownership agreements before any collection. Data belongs to the collective, not the researcher or institution.
2. Control: Community reviews and approves research design, data collection instruments, analysis plans, interpretation, and dissemination. Community has veto power at every stage.
3. Access: Community defines access tiers—who can see raw data, who sees aggregated findings, who sees nothing. Community members must always have access to their own data regardless of where it is held.
4. Possession: Data must be physically held within community-controlled infrastructure or under governance agreements that give community equivalent control. No "we'll hold it for you" arrangements.

Boundary Marking

• OCAP® is specific to First Nations in Canada—not a pan-Indigenous standard. Métis, Inuit, and other nations may have their own protocols.
• The FNIGC provides OCAP® certification training; uncertified projects are flagged as non-compliant.
• Any data that lacks an OCAP® governance agreement is considered ungoverned and must not be used.

Source: First Nations Information Governance Centre — https://fnigc.ca/ ; FNIGC OCAP® Fact Sheet — https://www.uottawa.ca/library/sites/g/files/bhrskd381/files/2022-12/bestpractices_fnigc_ocap_fact_sheet_en_final.pdf

Framework 2: CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance

Core Principle

Developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), CARE stands for Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics. Designed as a people-centered complement to the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which are technically oriented and ignore power imbalances.

What It Prevents

• FAIR without CARE: Open data movements that make Indigenous data "findable and reusable" without consent, stripping community authority.
• Benefit extraction: Research that generates publications, patents, or funding for external parties while communities receive nothing.
• Accountability vacuum: Data users who face no consequences for misuse because no responsibility framework exists.

Operational Steps

1. Collective Benefit: Design data ecosystems so that Indigenous communities are primary beneficiaries. Ask: Does this data system support Indigenous-determined development?
2. Authority to Control: Recognize and operationalize Indigenous governance rights over data collection, access, and sharing protocols. Implement community-controlled consent mechanisms.
3. Responsibility: Those who use Indigenous data must be accountable to the community. Document how data will be used, build community capacity for data governance, and prioritize Indigenous worldviews.
4. Ethics: At every lifecycle stage, Indigenous rights and wellbeing are the primary concern. Minimize harm, maximize benefit, pursue justice.

Boundary Marking

• CARE principles apply alongside FAIR, never subordinate to it. If FAIR and CARE conflict, CARE takes precedence.
• Data without a CARE assessment is considered ethically ungoverned.
• The "Authority to Control" principle means that if a community says "no," the data does not move—regardless of what FAIR permits.

Source: Global Indigenous Data Alliance — https://www.gida-global.org/care ; Carroll et al., "The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance," Data Science Journal 19(1), 2020 — https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2020-043

Framework 3: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Core Principle

Consent must be Free (voluntary, no coercion), Prior (obtained before any activity begins, with adequate time for deliberation), Informed (full disclosure of purpose, risks, benefits, alternatives, and right to withdraw), and Consent (a collective decision per community governance, ongoing and revocable). Grounded in UNDRIP Articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29, 32.

What It Prevents

• Consent theater: One-time sign-off forms that function as extraction licenses.
• Coerced participation: Time pressure, financial inducements, or institutional pressure that overrides genuine choice.
• Uninformed agreement: Communities agreeing to things they don't fully understand because information was presented in inaccessible formats.
• Irrevocable extraction: The assumption that once consent is given, knowledge can be used indefinitely.

Operational Steps

1. Initial engagement: Approach as partners, not extractors. Build relationship before proposing research. Recognize community authority.
2. Information provision: Deliver comprehensive, culturally appropriate information about scope, timeline, methods, risks, expected impacts, and resource use. In community languages.
3. Community deliberation: Allow the community time to deliberate using their own governance structures—elders, councils, women, youth. Do not impose deadlines.
4. Negotiation: Good-faith dialogue, accommodations, plan adaptation. Community can say no, modify terms, or add conditions.
5. Documentation: Record the process and outcome (consent granted, withheld, or conditional). Define ongoing communication, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities.
6. Continuous engagement: FPIC is ongoing through the entire lifecycle. Establish dispute resolution and renegotiation procedures. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Boundary Marking

• FPIC is not a one-time event—it is a process that continues throughout the research lifecycle.
• "No" is a complete answer. There is no appeal process that overrides community refusal.
• Consent must come through the community's own decision-making structures, not through individually signed forms that bypass collective governance.
• Communities are encouraged to develop their own FPIC protocols reflecting their unique histories and governance structures.

Source: UN OHCHR — https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/consultation-and-free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic ; FAO FPIC Toolkit — https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/pillars-of-work/free--prior-and-informed-consent/en ; US FWS FPIC Guidelines — https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-04/dic-guidelines-on-free-prior-and-informed-consent_508-compliant.pdf

Framework 4: UNDRIP Knowledge Protection Articles

Core Principle

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007, 46 articles) establishes the international normative floor for Indigenous rights, including knowledge protection. While not legally binding as a treaty, it sets minimum standards that influence national law, institutional policy, and research ethics.

What It Prevents

• State override of Indigenous knowledge rights: Governments claiming eminent domain over traditional knowledge.
• Research without participation: Studies about Indigenous peoples conducted without their involvement or consent.
• Cultural property theft: Appropriation of traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, genetic resources, seeds, medicines, and oral traditions.
• Benefit hoarding: External parties profiting from Indigenous knowledge without equitable sharing.

Operational Steps (Key Articles)

1. Article 11 & 12 — Affirm rights to practice, revitalize, and protect cultural traditions and intellectual property. Operational: Do not document or digitize cultural practices without explicit authorization.
2. Article 18 & 19 — Require good-faith consultation and FPIC before any legislative, administrative, or research measures affecting Indigenous peoples. Operational: Consultation is mandatory, not optional.
3. Article 31 — The flagship knowledge protection article. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, sciences, technologies, cultures, human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of flora/fauna, oral traditions. States must take effective protective measures with FPIC. Operational: Default stance is that Indigenous knowledge is protected unless explicitly released.
4. Article 32 — Right to determine priorities for development of lands and resources. Operational: Community sets the research agenda, not the researcher.

Boundary Marking

• Article 31 creates a presumption of protection: Indigenous knowledge is off-limits unless the community explicitly opens access.
• UNDRIP creates obligations for states to develop protective legal mechanisms—absence of national legislation does not negate the rights.
• The declaration covers the full spectrum: sciences, technologies, cultures, genetic resources, seeds, medicines, oral traditions, visual/performing arts, literature.

Source: UN Declaration Full Text — https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf ; OHCHR — https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples

Framework 5: Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels & Local Contexts

Core Principle

Developed by the Local Contexts initiative, TK Labels and Biocultural (BC) Labels are digital metadata tools that allow Indigenous communities to communicate cultural protocols, permissions, and restrictions attached to specific knowledge, data, or artifacts. They operate where Western copyright and IP law fail.

What It Prevents

• Context stripping: Knowledge circulating without its cultural context, protocols, or provenance.
• Unauthorized access: Digitized materials (museum holdings, archives, databases) being accessed without understanding restrictions.
• Misattribution: Knowledge being attributed to wrong sources or presented without acknowledging custodians.
• Sacred knowledge exposure: Sensitive materials being made publicly accessible when they should be restricted.

Operational Steps

1. Community-led label assignment: Only the originating Indigenous community can assign TK/BC labels to their knowledge. Institutions cannot unilaterally label materials.
2. Label types encode specific restrictions:
   • TK Attribution — Correct source/custodian identification required.
   • TK Clan/Family — Use restricted to specific kinship groups.
   • TK Secret/Sacred — Not for public circulation; restricted to authorized knowledge keepers.
   • TK Men Restricted / TK Women Restricted — Gender-based access protocols.
   • TK Community Use Only — Internal community use, not for external sharing.
   • TK Seasonal — Knowledge tied to specific times/seasons.
   • TK Non-Commercial — No commercialization permitted.
   • BC Provenance — Tracks origin of biological/ecological knowledge.
   • BC Consent — Marks whether consent was obtained for this data.
3. Institutional adoption: Museums, libraries, archives, and researchers adopt labels in collaboration with originating communities.
4. Digital platforms (Mukurtu CMS): Mukurtu is a community-driven content management system designed to implement these protocols at the data layer.

Boundary Marking

• Labels are social and cultural guides, not legal instruments—but they create normative expectations that institutions increasingly honor.
• The TK Secret/Sacred label marks an absolute boundary: this knowledge does not circulate outside authorized holders.
• Labels correct historical harms by reasserting Indigenous authority over materials that were taken without consent.
• The three-tier knowledge classification (Open → Restricted → Sacred/Secret) provides a practical taxonomy for boundary enforcement.

Source: Local Contexts TK Labels — https://localcontexts.org/labels/traditional-knowledge-labels/ ; Mukurtu CMS — https://mukurtu.org/support/traditional-knowledge-labels-faq/ ; SFU Library Guide — https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/beyondcopyright-traditionalknowledge-bioculturallabels

Framework 6: Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)

Core Principle

A legally binding international agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol (2010, entered into force 2014) governs access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization.

What It Prevents

• Biopiracy: Unauthorized use of traditional knowledge or genetic resources for commercial gain.
• Benefit hoarding: Companies or researchers deriving value (patents, products, publications) from traditional knowledge without compensation.
• Unregulated access: Genetic resources and associated knowledge being taken without consent or formal agreement.
• Accountability evasion: Users of traditional knowledge having no obligation to track or report their use.

Operational Steps

1. Prior Informed Consent (PIC): Access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge requires prior informed consent from the providing country/community.
2. Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT): Benefits (monetary and non-monetary—royalties, technology transfer, research results, capacity building) must be negotiated and agreed upon before access.
3. National ABS Legislation: Countries implement national frameworks establishing checkpoints, permits, and monitoring.
4. ABS Clearing-House: An international mechanism for sharing information about ABS, tracking compliance, and monitoring use of resources.
5. Compliance mechanisms: National checkpoints (e.g., patent offices, research funders) verify that resources were accessed legally.

Boundary Marking

• The Protocol creates legal obligations, not just ethical guidelines. Non-compliance has legal consequences.
• Traditional knowledge holders must be directly involved in negotiations—not represented by proxies without authorization.
• The Protocol addresses emerging challenges around Digital Sequence Information (DSI), where genetic data shared digitally can be used without physical access to resources.

Source: CBD Nagoya Protocol — https://www.cbd.int/traditional/Protocol.shtml ; Government of Canada — https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/nagoya-protocol-access-genetic-resources.html

Framework 7: Tribal Institutional Review Boards (Tribal IRBs / TRRBs)

Core Principle

As sovereign nations, Tribal/Indigenous communities establish their own research review and governance bodies—Tribal IRBs—with authority to approve, modify, or reject research proposals. Tribal authority supersedes university/institutional IRBs when Indigenous lands, people, or data are involved.

What It Prevents

• Institutional override: University ethics boards approving research that the community has not consented to.
• Sacred knowledge violation: Research probing domains that the community has deemed off-limits.
• Extractive methodologies: Research designs that take knowledge without reciprocal benefit.
• Publication without authorization: Researchers publishing findings the community has not reviewed or approved.

Operational Steps

1. Dual review requirement: Research must be approved by both the institutional IRB and the relevant Tribal IRB. Tribal approval is not optional.
2. Community-defined scope: The Tribal IRB defines what topics are researchable, what methodologies are acceptable, and what knowledge domains are off-limits.
3. Sacred knowledge exclusion: Tribal IRBs maintain explicit lists or protocols identifying knowledge domains that are not available for external research—ceremonies, origin stories, sacred site locations, specific medicinal knowledge, ceremonial materials.
4. Community review of outputs: All publications, presentations, and data releases require Tribal IRB review and approval before dissemination.
5. Data return and retention: Research data may need to be returned to the community or destroyed after use, per Tribal IRB requirements.
6. Ongoing monitoring: Tribal IRBs may require periodic check-ins, progress reports, and compliance audits.

Boundary Marking

• Forbidden domains are explicitly marked: Tribal IRBs maintain protocols identifying what cannot be studied—these are hard boundaries, not negotiable.
• Tribal authority is sovereign: If the Tribal IRB says no, the research does not proceed—regardless of institutional IRB approval.
• Sacred/secret knowledge classification: Many Tribal IRBs use the tiered system (Open → Restricted → Sacred/Secret) to mark boundaries.
• Researcher credentials matter: Some Tribal IRBs require researchers to demonstrate relationship, cultural competency, or community endorsement.

Source: UAF IRB Indigenous Research — https://www.uaf.edu/irb/indigenous/ ; "Indigenous Research Ethics Requirements: An Examination of Six Tribal IRB Applications" — https://indigenousphi.org/document/indigenous-research-ethics-requirements-an-examination-of-six-tribal-institutional-review-board-applications-and-processes-in-the-united-states ; AJPH Research Ethics and Indigenous Communities — https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301522

Framework 8: IEN Ethical Protocol for Protection of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge (TIK)

Core Principle

Developed by the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) for use within UNFCCC climate processes, this protocol ensures Traditional Indigenous Knowledge is not extracted, reframed, or subordinated when engaged in international policy spaces. It treats TIK as epistemologically sovereign—not raw material for Western scientific frameworks.

What It Prevents

• Epistemic extraction: TIK being translated into Western scientific language and stripped of its relational/spiritual context.
• Policy appropriation: Climate bodies using Indigenous knowledge to bolster policy positions without meaningful Indigenous governance.
• Commodification: Traditional knowledge being treated as a resource to be optimized rather than a living system to be respected.
• Framework subordination: TIK being evaluated or validated only through Western scientific criteria.

Operational Steps

1. Rights-based foundation: All engagement with TIK must be grounded in UNDRIP, OCAP®, and FPIC. These are prerequisites, not add-ons.
2. Cultural context preservation: TIK must be recognized on its own terms—not reframed to fit Eurocentric models. Equitable engagement, not subordination.
3. Indigenous-led governance: Establish Indigenous-led ethics review boards or governance structures that evaluate any proposed use of TIK. These bodies have authority to approve, modify, or reject.
4. Anti-misappropriation safeguards: Explicit protections against commodification, unauthorized use, and decontextualization.
5. Institutional embedding: Ethical principles must be embedded in institutional and intergovernmental processes, not treated as voluntary add-ons.
6. Living document: The protocol evolves with community needs and emerging threats—it is not static.

Boundary Marking

• TIK is not "data" to be collected—it is a living knowledge system with its own governance.
• The protocol explicitly rejects the reduction of TIK to inputs for external frameworks.
• Indigenous-led governance bodies hold final authority over any use of TIK in policy contexts.

Source: IEN Ethical Protocol PDF — https://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Ethical-Protocol-for-the-Protection-and-Use-of-TIK.pdf ; IEN at LCIPP FWG10 — https://www.ienearth.org/ien-introduces-ethical-protocol-at-the-un-lcipp-fwg10/

Framework 9: Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (1993)

Core Principle

Adopted at the First International Conference on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Whakatane, Aotearoa New Zealand. Foundational assertion that Indigenous peoples are the exclusive owners and primary beneficiaries of their cultural and intellectual property, governed by customary law.

What It Prevents

• IP colonialism: Western intellectual property regimes (patents, copyright) being applied to Indigenous knowledge in ways that dispossess communities.
• Individual appropriation: Individuals or subgroups claiming ownership of collectively held knowledge.
• Research without consent: Any documentation, research, or commercialization occurring without FPIC.
• Customary law erasure: Legal frameworks that ignore or override Indigenous customary law regarding knowledge transmission and use.

Operational Steps

1. Recognize collective ownership: Cultural and intellectual property is collectively owned; violations harm the entire community.
2. Customary law primacy: Customary laws, traditions, and practices regarding knowledge transmission must be recognized and respected as the governing framework.
3. Self-determination: Indigenous communities are the primary decision-makers regarding their knowledge—not states, institutions, or researchers.
4. Protection mechanisms: Develop both legal and non-legal mechanisms (including customary law) to protect Indigenous heritage.
5. Benefit primacy: Direct descendants and knowledge custodians must be the primary beneficiaries of any use.
6. FPIC requirement: No research, documentation, or commercialization without full FPIC.
7. International accountability: States and international institutions must support protective measures.

Boundary Marking

• The Declaration frames any violation of collective cultural IP as an offense against the entire community, not just individuals.
• Customary law governs—even where national IP law is silent or permissive.
• The Declaration predates and influenced UNDRIP, making it a foundational reference point.

Source: Mataatua Declaration Full Text — https://ngaaho.maori.nz/cms/resources/mataatua.pdf ; UAF Alaska Native Knowledge Network — https://www.uaf.edu/ankn/indigenous-knowledge-syst/mataatua-declaration-on-c/

Framework 10: ISE Code of Ethics (International Society of Ethnobiology)

Core Principle

Adopted 2006 (with 2008 additions), the ISE Code of Ethics contains 17 core principles and 12 practical guidelines grounded in "mindfulness"—continuous reflection on one's responsibilities and impacts when working with Indigenous knowledge. Applies to all ethnobiology research including data collection, publication, recordings, and database management.

What It Prevents

• Extractive research relationships: Researchers taking knowledge without reciprocity, co-authorship, or benefit-sharing.
• Consent violations: Research proceeding without ongoing, educated, prior informed consent.
• Confidentiality breaches: Sacred, restricted, or sensitive knowledge being published or shared.
• Guardianship erasure: Communities not being credited or acknowledged as custodians of their knowledge.

Operational Steps

1. Prior rights recognition: Acknowledge that Indigenous peoples have prior and proprietary rights over their lands, resources, knowledge, and cultural/intellectual property. This is not granted by researchers—it pre-exists.
2. Self-determination: Communities determine their level of participation. Projects support community-driven development.
3. Educated Prior Informed Consent: Ongoing consent that can be withdrawn at any stage. More rigorous than standard "informed consent"—communities must genuinely understand implications.
4. Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality according to community protocols. Default is restriction, not openness.
5. Reciprocity and equitable sharing: Research outcomes must benefit communities. Co-authorship, capacity building, tangible deliverables.
6. Traditional guardianship: Communities are acknowledged as guardians of their heritage in all outputs.
7. Remedial action: Mechanisms for addressing harms, disagreements, and consent withdrawal.
8. Dual compliance: Honor both institutional ethics requirements and community protocols. When they conflict, community protocols govern.

Boundary Marking

• The Code is a living document—it adapts to evolving community needs.
• It applies to the full lifecycle: design, collection, analysis, publication, archiving, database management.
• "Mindfulness" is not passive—it requires active, continuous reflection at every stage.
• All ISE members are bound by the Code; non-member researchers are expected to honor it as a field standard.

Source: ISE Code of Ethics — https://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/ise-ethics-program/code-of-ethics/ ; ISE Code Full Text (PDF) — https://sacredland.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ISE-COE_Eng_rev_24Nov08.pdf

Integrated Model: How These Frameworks Work Together

These ten frameworks form concentric rings of protection operating at different scales:

Layer 1: International Normative Floor

• UNDRIP (Articles 11, 12, 18, 19, 31, 32) — Sets the global rights baseline. Presumption of protection.
• Nagoya Protocol — Legally binding ABS obligations for genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
• Mataatua Declaration — Foundational assertion of collective cultural IP rights.

Layer 2: Data Governance Principles

• OCAP® — First Nations-specific data sovereignty (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession).
• CARE Principles — People-centered complement to FAIR; ensures data governance serves Indigenous communities.

Layer 3: Consent & Process Protocols

• FPIC — The operational mechanism for consent. Ongoing, revocable, community-governed.
• ISE Code of Ethics — Field-level ethical standards for any research involving Indigenous knowledge.
• IEN TIK Protocol — Specific protections for traditional knowledge in policy/institutional contexts.

Layer 4: Technical Implementation

• TK/BC Labels (Local Contexts) — Digital metadata encoding community protocols at the data layer.
• Tribal IRBs — Sovereign governance bodies with authority to approve, modify, or reject research.

Integration Logic

``` UNDRIP (rights floor) → Mataatua (collective IP assertion) → Nagoya (legal ABS obligations) → OCAP® + CARE (data governance principles) → FPIC (consent process) → ISE Code + IEN Protocol (ethical standards) → TK Labels (digital metadata) → Tribal IRBs (sovereign review authority) ```

Each layer reinforces the others. A research project touching Indigenous knowledge must satisfy ALL relevant layers, not pick and choose.

Digital/Technical Application: Translating to IAIP Skills

1. Knowledge Classification System

Implement the three-tier taxonomy in all IAIP skill outputs:

• Open: Freely shareable teachings, published scholarship, community-approved educational materials.
• Restricted: Accessible only to specific roles, relationships, or contexts. Requires protocol compliance.
• Sacred/Secret: Absolute boundary. Not digitized, not stored, not processed. The skill refuses to engage.

2. Consent Metadata Architecture

Every data element processed by IAIP skills must carry:

• Provenance tag: Where did this come from? Who are the custodians?
• Consent status: Was FPIC obtained? By whom? When? Is it still active?
• Purpose limitation: What was this data consented for? The skill must not repurpose data beyond stated scope.
• Expiry: When does consent expire? What happens then?

3. Non-Extraction Guardrails in Skill Behavior

• Refusal protocols: Skills must be able to say "I cannot process this" when encountering restricted/sacred knowledge markers.
• Synthesis-only output: Skills return synthesized insights, never raw knowledge. Raw data stays with the community.
• No training on Indigenous data: Indigenous knowledge shared with a skill must not be incorporated into model training data.
• Audit trail: Every interaction with Indigenous knowledge is logged with purpose, outcome, and community notification.

4. TK Label Integration

• Map TK/BC Labels to skill access controls:
  • TK Secret/Sacred → HARD BLOCK — skill cannot access, process, or reference.
  • TK Restricted → GATE — skill requires verified authorization before proceeding.
  • TK Community Use Only → SCOPE LIMIT — output stays within community context.
  • TK Non-Commercial → USE CONSTRAINT — no commercial application of outputs.
  • TK Attribution → MANDATORY CREDIT — all outputs must attribute custodians.

5. Sovereign Review Checkpoints

• Build Tribal IRB-equivalent review gates into skill workflows:
  • Pre-research: Community approval before the skill begins.
  • Mid-process: Community can review, modify, or halt at any point.
  • Pre-output: Community reviews all outputs before dissemination.
  • Post-output: Community retains right to request retraction or modification.

6. CARE-Aligned Data Lifecycle

• Collect minimum viable data (from existing article 03).
• Store under community governance or equivalent arrangements.
• Process with purpose limitation — no secondary use.
• Return findings as gifts — in community-determined formats and languages.
• Delete or archive per community instruction when purpose is fulfilled.

Sources

Official Organizational Documents

1. First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) — https://fnigc.ca/
2. FNIGC OCAP® Fact Sheet — https://www.uottawa.ca/library/sites/g/files/bhrskd381/files/2022-12/bestpractices_fnigc_ocap_fact_sheet_en_final.pdf
3. Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) CARE Principles — https://www.gida-global.org/care
4. Local Contexts TK Labels — https://localcontexts.org/labels/traditional-knowledge-labels/
5. Mukurtu CMS — https://mukurtu.org/support/traditional-knowledge-labels-faq/
6. Indigenous Environmental Network TIK Protocol — https://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Ethical-Protocol-for-the-Protection-and-Use-of-TIK.pdf

International Legal/Policy Instruments

7. UNDRIP Full Text — https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
8. UN OHCHR on UNDRIP — https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples
9. UN OHCHR on FPIC — https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/consultation-and-free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic
10. FAO FPIC Toolkit — https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/pillars-of-work/free--prior-and-informed-consent/en
11. CBD Nagoya Protocol — https://www.cbd.int/traditional/Protocol.shtml
12. Mataatua Declaration — https://ngaaho.maori.nz/cms/resources/mataatua.pdf

Academic/Ethics Resources

13. Carroll et al., "The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance," Data Science Journal 19(1), 2020 — https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2020-043
14. ISE Code of Ethics — https://www.ethnobiology.net/what-we-do/core-programs/ise-ethics-program/code-of-ethics/
15. "Indigenous Research Ethics Requirements: Examination of Six Tribal IRBs" — https://indigenousphi.org/document/indigenous-research-ethics-requirements-an-examination-of-six-tribal-institutional-review-board-applications-and-processes-in-the-united-states
16. "Research Ethics and Indigenous Communities," AJPH 103(12) — https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301522
17. "Ethical Considerations in Indigenous Community Research: 2026 Guide" — https://inclusionresearch.org/ethical-considerations-in-indigenous-community-research-2026-guide

Government/Policy Resources

18. US FWS FPIC Guidelines — https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-04/dic-guidelines-on-free-prior-and-informed-consent_508-compliant.pdf
19. US DOI Indigenous Knowledge Handbook — https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/tcinfo/301_dm_7_draft_indigenous_knowledge_handbook_consultation_11.8.24_508.pdf
20. CNSC Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework — https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/indigenous-relations/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework/
21. Canada Indigenous Knowledge Policy — https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/programs/aboriginal-consultation-federal-environmental-assessment/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework-initiative.html
22. NPS Protection of Tribal/Indigenous Knowledge — https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/protection-knowledge.htm
23. UAF IRB Indigenous Research — https://www.uaf.edu/irb/indigenous/