Technology for Land and Resource Governance
Indigenous Knowledge and the Digital Transformation
Over 274 TB of earth observations data are produced every day! The significance of this big data has large repercussions upon Indigenous peoples’ whose traditional ecological knowledge have maintained and protected the over 80% of the world’s biodiversity for generations. Yet these environmental data/knowledge on ecological processes, landscapes and ecosystems are often excluded, unrecognized or marginalised within discussions of environmental data and governance.
Regardless, 411 million people across Asia identify themselves as Indigenous Peoples and have Self-determination rights under the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). What this means is that they have the inherent right to reaffirm Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to self-determination in the application of their political, economic, social, and cultural knowledge, but institutions have largely failed to uphold these rights as they apply in digital environments and Earth science research.
Amongst these technologies AI – often touted as solution – holds great potential for perpetuating age-old harms impacting the most marginalized segments of society, including particularly IP rights to self-determination and thus rights to governance over lands and territories.
Localizing the Indigenous Knowledge and Data Sovereignty (IKDS) framework across the region will begin to rectify historical and current discrimination, systemic and institutionalized biases, and systems of colonization.
For IPs to assert sovereignty over their data, they must be in a position to assert their governance and sovereignty over the technology that houses data and information about themselves, their peoples, and their lands. In order to achieve this we must centre relationships in IP ways of knowing – based upon relationships, between themselves as collectives, as individuals and between them and their environments, both sentient and non-sentient. AI systems currently lack these relationships, within space and time, building systems which are centred upon these relationships at the heart of these systems would improve the responsiveness of these systems to environmental change. If the technical parameters for rapid data accumulation are not developed mindfully, it will lead to the annihilation of Indigenous presence within technology governance systems and the environmental data and indigenous knowledge within them.
Biodiversity Knowledge Ecosystems
In this groundbreaking multi-country research report by Non-Timber Forest Products – EP (NTFP) they seek to address the gaps in the data ecosystem in Asia connecting indigenous knowledge to biodiversity documentation, climate change and livelihoods. This report explores existing best practices of documenting biodiversity knowledge in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and India. Indigenous Peoples’ groups acknowledged the large gaps in both knowledge and capacity to address the increased digital presence and connect their existing livelihoods and rights advocacy. The report reveals a clear and consistent pattern: biodiversity documentation methods exist everywhere, but ethical protocols and sovereignty protections do not. This gap is at the heart of the regional challenge and explains why documentation may generate value for communities in some contexts while exposing them to risks in others.
GeoAI and Indigenous Data Sovereignty
Indigenous Peoples collectively steward approximately 28% of Earth’s land surface and 80% of Earth’s standing forest, yet remain systematically limited in geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) development that increasingly governs their territories. This research examines how Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles can fundamentally transform GeoAI from extractive to empowering technology. Through systematic analysis of ethical challenges, technical biases, and three Indigenous-led case studies, we develop a cyclical governance framework that centers Indigenous authority throughout the technology development process. Our findings demonstrate that meaningful Indigenous leadership in GeoAI can simultaneously address systemic algorithmic biases while creating more effective, culturally grounded technologies that serve territorial stewardship rather than digital colonialism. The proposed Indigenous-Centered GeoAI Framework provides concrete pathways for practitioners, researchers, and Indigenous communities to develop collaborative partnerships that strengthen both technological capabilities and Indigenous self-determination.
Mapping Knowledge Gaps
Under the USAID Mekong for the Future (MFF) the Open Development Initiative (ODI) team mapped the data ecosystems across Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Myanmar, and Thailand—collectively referred to here as the Mekong region. The report reflects upon exiting environmental data ecosystems which revealed three broad themes and several cross-cutting issues that impact the environmental data ecosystem in the Mekong Region. It proposes recommendations to support CSOs in the region to engage with environmental governance and data.