When the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, it marked a historic turning point in how the world recognized Indigenous rights — not as moral aspirations, but as legal, social, and cultural obligations.
It was more than a declaration of rights to land, language, and culture. For many Indigenous nations, it was also the beginning of a broader awakening: a reminder that information, stories, and data are part of those same rights.
In the years since, Indigenous peoples worldwide have begun to reimagine what sovereignty means in a digital age. From Aotearoa to the Arctic, from the Navajo Nation to Mi’kma’ki, communities are asserting a truth that UNDRIP quietly affirms: the right to self-determination includes the right to control one’s own knowledge systems.
A Global Shift Toward Information Self-Determination
Article 3 of UNDRIP enshrines the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination — to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
Article 31 goes further, affirming the right to “maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures.”
In practical terms, this extends beyond tangible heritage — such as artifacts or art — and into the world of data, research, and digital information. Whether that data comes from community health surveys, language archives, or environmental monitoring, it is still Indigenous knowledge. And under UNDRIP, it belongs to the people from whom it originates.
Across the globe, Indigenous nations have taken these articles as a call to action. Networks like the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) and the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group have grown around a shared understanding: that digital knowledge must be protected with the same care as land or ceremony.
This movement has given rise to frameworks like OCAP® in Canada and the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance internationally — ensuring that Indigenous data systems are grounded in Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics rather than corporate or state priorities.
UNDRIP in Practice: From Global Declarations to Local Governance
For the Mi’kmaq and other Indigenous peoples of Atlantic Canada, these global conversations have taken root through Mawkim — the data governance initiative housed under the Union of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq (UNSM).
In Mi’kmaw, mawkim means “to count and record.” But it also means to remember — to honour the stories carried in numbers, names, and lived experiences.
When Mi’kmaw communities collect their own data through projects like the Regional Health Survey (RHS) or the Regional Social Survey (RSS), they are not just participating in research — they are exercising their rights under UNDRIP.
Each survey respondent, each data steward, and each analyst becomes part of a process of self-determination: deciding what information is gathered, how it is interpreted, and who it serves.
Mawkim’s development of a Mi’kmaw Regional Data Centre, endorsed by Mi’kmaw Chiefs in 2023, is a local expression of a global movement. Just as Māori iwi in Aotearoa are building tribal data platforms, or Sámi nations are establishing their own cultural archives, Mi’kmaw leadership is designing a system rooted in trust, ethics, and sovereignty — one that ensures information remains accountable to the people it represents.
The Legacy of Harm and the Work of Repair
Before the rise of Indigenous data governance, much of the information about Indigenous peoples was extracted rather than shared.
Governments, universities, and corporations often collected and used data without consent — leading to policies, studies, and public narratives that misrepresented or even harmed communities.
Megan Davis, in Data and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, writes that Indigenous peoples were “invisible within national statistics,” excluded from data collection or misclassified under categories that erased their identities. The result was a cycle of invisibility: no data meant no recognition, and no recognition meant no resources.
UNDRIP provides the framework to reverse that cycle. By recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights-holders — not just stakeholders — it establishes that the power to define, measure, and describe Indigenous realities must come from Indigenous nations themselves.
Mawkim’s work echoes that principle. The team’s approach — integrating the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch (MEW), applying OCAP® standards, and creating culturally grounded data literacy programs — transforms what was once a system of extraction into a system of relationship.
Here, data becomes a dialogue between generations, a bridge between traditional knowledge and modern governance.
The Spirit of Article 31: Knowledge as Inheritance
Article 31 of UNDRIP recognizes that Indigenous knowledge is more than intellectual property — it is inheritance. It is how nations remember themselves.
This includes language, stories, healing practices, ecological understanding, and now, the ways communities collect and interpret data.
When Mi’kmaw data is governed by Mi’kmaw institutions, it carries a spiritual responsibility: to reflect balance, respect, and collective well-being. This aligns deeply with the Mi’kmaw principle of Netukulimk — taking only what is needed and ensuring what we gather benefits the community and the land.
In this way, data sovereignty is not just a technical project — it’s cultural revitalization. It allows nations to measure well-being on their own terms, define success in ways that align with their values, and ensure that research uplifts rather than extracts.
A Global Chorus of Renewal
Around the world, Indigenous peoples are bringing UNDRIP to life through data.
In Aotearoa, the Māori Data Sovereignty Network (Te Mana Raraunga) has established digital guidelines to protect tribal data. In the United States, the Native Nations Institute helps tribes develop their own data-sharing agreements and governance policies.
In Scandinavia, the Sámi Parliament’s archives are building Indigenous-controlled digital infrastructures that reflect Sámi languages and relationships to land.
The Mi’kmaq, through Mawkim, are part of this same global chorus — voices calling for ethical, Indigenous-led systems that honour both local traditions and international rights.
Together, they are redefining what it means to govern not just land or policy, but knowledge itself.
From Declaration to Action
UNDRIP offers the vision.
OCAP®, CARE, and community-led initiatives like Mawkim provide the action.
The work happening today across Mi’kma’ki — from data training programs to the development of the Regional Data Centre — shows that data sovereignty is not a distant goal; it is already unfolding.
It is in the careful gathering of survey responses. It is in the consent protocols developed by Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch. It is in the quiet conversations happening in band offices and community halls about what information truly matters.
Every dataset built by Mawkim tells a story of survival, adaptation, and self-determination.
In a world where data often serves power, Mawkim is building a different kind of power — one that serves the people.
References
- United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. General Assembly Resolution 61/295, 2007.
- Davis, Megan. “Data and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” In Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, edited by Tahu Kukutai and John Taylor, ANU Press, 2016.
- First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). A First Nations Data Governance Strategy. Ottawa: FNIGC, 2020.
- Mawkim. July 2025 Newsletter. Union of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq, 2025.
- First Nations Information Governance Centre. The OCAP® Principles.
Disclaimer:
This article was written by an AI language model (LLM) for demonstration purposes only. It is not an official publication of the Union of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq, Mawkim, or any associated organization. The content is a narrative interpretation meant to illustrate how topics like UNDRIP and Indigenous data sovereignty could be communicated in accessible, community-focused language.
For verified information, guidance, or official documentation, please refer directly to the original sources, including:
- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
- First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) – A First Nations Data Governance Strategy (2020)
- Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch Research Protocols and Application Forms (2024)
- Mawkim and UNSM official publications and newsletters.
Always consult these authoritative materials for accurate data, policy details, and community-approved perspectives.