New York, NY, August 8, 2025—The following statement was released today by Sushil Raj and Dawa Yangi Sherpa of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS); Myrna Cunningham of the Pawanka Fund; and Roberto Múkaro Agüeibaná Borrero of the Inclusive Conservation Academy:

In the face of accelerating biodiversity loss and the climate crisis, we are searching for ways to renew and restore our broken connection with nature. In this quest we are witnessing increased recognition of the wisdom of Indigenous Peoples, whose generational stewardship of their lands has resulted in the highest levels of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity is synonymous with storage of vast amounts of carbon and areas that are more resilient to climate change.  

A wholistic view of nature that looks at this in conjunction with Indigenous knowledge, data sovereignty, and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples in our evolving world of embodied Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the way forward for equitable, just, and durable conservation.   

Our global vision for life across the planet is to be naturally sustainable and regenerative, where Indigenous Peoples flourish, their rights are secured, and their stewardship of ancestral lands are respected and protected. This vision draws from Indigenous values where humanity recognizes itself as part of nature—not separate from it.  

While Indigenous Peoples as knowledge holders have always been data collectors and protectors, the rights to their data are under threat. As a key strategy for preventing and reversing the loss of nature, Indigenous Peoples’ data on ecological knowledge—also known as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)—sits at the interface of biological and cultural diversity where high levels of biodiversity come together with Indigenous cultures, languages, and relationship to land. 

An interesting example of Indigenous data collection, for example, can be seen in the work of the Pawanka Fund Partner AIGINE (Cultural Research Center), based in Kyrgyzstan. They are preserving ancient rock art by documenting and digitizing petroglyph sites threatened by mining activities in Central Asia. AIGINE established an interactive platform for knowledge transfer, documentation, and digitization of ancient stone drawings collected to preserve both visual and textual data on petroglyphs. The result is a reliable and accessible database for knowledge transfer. The unified digital platform will serve as a repository for future generations. This interface must be protected.   

Data that is collected today for AI can include information on traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, Indigenous languages, and other forms of Indigenous ownership. This data is frequently appropriated without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Through our practice, we recognize Indigenous Peoples as rights holders and collective knowledge holders, protected under customary law and entitled to self-determination (UNDRIP Article 3). 

This means seeking their collective consent for any use or publication of data pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Target 21) reinforces this by affirming that traditional knowledge can only be used with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Upholding Indigenous data sovereignty—the right to own, control, access, and possess data originating from them—requires full respect for FPIC and recognition of collective intellectual property rights (UNDRIP Article 31).

Data collection without such a process can lead to extraction of knowledge that appropriates and seeks commercial gain without permission of, or benefit to, Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, ownership and the way in which Indigenous Peoples’ data is stored raises multiple questions. Does it rest in centralized databases that do not align with a community’s vision on how that data should be utilized? Does it depart from their values and right to self-determination? How do we prevent misrepresentation and cultural appropriation, or relate it back to place-based connections of Indigenous Peoples?  

Additional examples demonstrate how data sovereignty and FPIC concerns can be addressed. In the Andes, Amazon, and Orinoco region where WCS works, five countries including Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru have trained and certified personnel with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. This course includes specific modules on research with peoples in situations of vulnerability that address issues related to informed consent, cultural sensitivity, and the protection of collective rights. 

The approach promotes ethical principles such as Indigenous data sovereignty. Indigenous Peoples must be empowered to decide whether or not research is relevant to—and for—them to determine how their data and/or cultural, biological or linguistic knowledge is collected, used, and shared. The programs and projects that are developed in each of the countries have protocols, guides, and safeguards so that this process is carried out in a culturally appropriate way. People who participate have the right to withdraw their consent if they so decide. 

In the Arctic Beringia region, WCS supports the development of the Community-based One Health Network of Alaska (COHNA), which brings together local community members, beneficiaries, rights holders, and duty-bearers to build place-based One Health surveillance networks. While embracing academic, agency, and other partnerships, place-based work requires centering trust, relationships, community needs, and Indigenous voices to ensure the sustainability and local relevance of these networks. A key milestone includes the development of data sovereignty agreements with local Indigenous Governments, ensuring culturally grounded and respectful use of Alaska native knowledge and community One Health data. 

As we honor the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples we need to acknowledge, address, and introduce ethical data principles and practices to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty. 

Many of the threats and risks from AI can be addressed by building meaningful, trust-based relationships with Indigenous Peoples. These should be grounded in respect and mutual understanding while increasing the space for discussion. We should also look towards changing the negotiating table where Indigenous Peoples’ representation must play a major role in the design and development of AI systems. We can do so by establishing data-sharing agreements that clearly define the terms of use and the responsibilities of Indigenous Peoples, states, conservation organizations, and other partners with access to the data. 

As AI is increasingly being used as a tool to improve conservation efforts, systems that address the risks and avoid perpetuating harm through the appropriation of Indigenous Peoples’ data need to be prioritized to not undermine their rights enshrined in UNDRIP.