CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: OCAP

  • CARE-FAIR tension and how the GIDA Manifesto resolves it

    The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) and the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) are often presented as complementary. In practice they have a real tension: FAIR maximises openness and access; CARE centres Indigenous community authority over data, including over what counts as accessible and to whom. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance’s 2024 manifesto on CARE-FAIR integration is the most developed framework for reconciling them. This post walks through the tension, the GIDA Manifesto’s resolution, and what implementers should do.

    What FAIR says and what it does not

    FAIR, articulated by Wilkinson and colleagues in 2016, is a framework for making data more useful. Findable: data have rich metadata and persistent identifiers. Accessible: data can be retrieved by an authentication-and-authorisation protocol that is open and free. Interoperable: data use shared vocabularies and standards. Reusable: data have clear provenance, licensing, and usage information.

    What FAIR does not directly address is who decides what is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. FAIR is technically permissive about access controls — the principles allow that authentication-and-authorisation may restrict access — but the dominant interpretation of FAIR has been maximalist: open by default, restricted only with clear justification. This has produced an implementation pattern where Indigenous data are often treated as candidates for openness with restrictions, rather than as community-governed assets whose access decisions sit with the community.

    What CARE says

    The CARE Principles, articulated by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance in 2019 and formally published in 2020, are a counterweight rather than a contradiction of FAIR. Collective benefit: data ecosystems are designed and function in ways that enable Indigenous peoples to derive benefit from the data. Authority to control: Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in Indigenous data must be recognised, and they must have the authority to control such data. Responsibility: those working with Indigenous data have a responsibility to share how those data are used. Ethics: Indigenous peoples’ rights and wellbeing should be the primary concern at all stages of the data lifecycle.

    CARE applies to Indigenous data, defined broadly to include data about Indigenous peoples, Indigenous lands, Indigenous resources, and Indigenous knowledge. The principles are not anti-openness; they are pro-authority-with-the-community-on-openness-questions.

    The tension in practice

    Three illustrative tensions.

    First, a researcher working with an Indigenous community produces a dataset documenting traditional ecological knowledge. FAIR-maximalist implementation would push for open deposit with a CC BY licence. CARE-aligned implementation would defer to the community’s governance: the community may choose to share openly, may choose to share with use restrictions, may choose to restrict access entirely, may choose to share with attribution requirements via Traditional Knowledge Labels. The community’s decision is determinative under CARE; the FAIR-maximalist instinct is to nudge toward openness.

    Second, a population health dataset includes Indigenous community-level data. FAIR-maximalist implementation would push for de-identified open deposit. CARE-aligned implementation asks whether de-identification is sufficient to prevent community-level identification (often it is not), whether the community has consented to research uses beyond the original study, and whether the planned uses generate collective benefit. The answers may permit open deposit, may require controlled access, or may require negotiated terms.

    Third, a museum collection includes Indigenous cultural objects with associated metadata. FAIR-maximalist implementation would push for full metadata openness. CARE-aligned implementation defers to the community on what metadata is appropriate to share, what should be retained but restricted, and what should be returned to community governance.

    The GIDA Manifesto

    The GIDA Manifesto on CARE-FAIR integration, published in 2024 after extended consultation across the international Indigenous data networks (Te Mana Raraunga in Aotearoa New Zealand, Maiam nayri Wingara in Australia, the United States Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, the First Nations Information Governance Centre in Canada, and others), articulates a reconciliation framework.

    The framework’s core proposition is that FAIR and CARE are sequenced, not simultaneous. CARE comes first: the community’s governance decisions determine what data exist, who has rights in them, what uses are permitted, and what access conditions apply. FAIR then operates within the CARE-determined envelope: findable to those who should find them, accessible under the access conditions the community has set, interoperable for the uses the community has permitted, reusable subject to community-defined terms.

    This is not a watering-down of FAIR; the manifesto is explicit that all four FAIR principles are honoured within their proper scope. It is a re-ordering of the implementation question. The pre-FAIR step is not assumed-open; it is community-determined.

    Operational implications

    For repositories, the operational implications are concrete. Repositories holding or potentially holding Indigenous data need governance arrangements that surface CARE compliance. This means: identifying Indigenous data at deposit; verifying community authorisation; recording the community’s access decisions in machine-readable form; honouring those decisions in the access-control layer; providing for community-initiated access changes over time.

    The CASRAI Indigenous data and CARE domain tracks repository implementations. Several have led: the SOLES repository at the Smithsonian, the Indigenous-managed nodes of the OCAP-aligned First Nations data ecosystem in Canada, the Maori Data Sovereignty Network’s portal in Aotearoa New Zealand.

    For researchers, the operational implications are about partnership. Research that produces Indigenous data needs to be conducted in partnership with the community, with data-governance arrangements agreed upfront, with the community holding control over downstream uses. The Free, Prior, and Informed Consent framework is the standard reference.

    For funders and journals, the operational implications are about review and policy. Funder data-management requirements should recognise CARE-aligned deposit; journal data-availability requirements should accommodate community-governed access decisions. Several major funders and journals have updated their policies in 2024-2025 to do this; the implementation is uneven.

    The OCAP and FPIC interfaces

    Two adjacent frameworks deserve mention. OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession), articulated by the First Nations Information Governance Centre in Canada, predates CARE and operates in a more granular operational space; OCAP and CARE are compatible and OCAP-aligned implementations can claim CARE alignment in the relevant scope. FPIC is the consent framework derived from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; FPIC operates at the research-design stage, before data are collected, and is upstream of both CARE and FAIR.

    The integrated operational pattern: FPIC governs research design and data collection; OCAP governs the data-control arrangements during and after collection; CARE provides the data-governance framework for repository-level and ecosystem-level decisions; FAIR provides the technical-implementation framework for the openness-within-CARE-envelope work.

    What CASRAI recommends

    Four recommendations. First, repositories should adopt CARE-aligned governance, with community-controlled access decisions surfaced in the deposit and discovery layers. Second, researchers working with Indigenous communities should structure partnerships under FPIC and follow OCAP or equivalent arrangements. Third, funders and journals should recognise CARE-aligned deposit as fulfilling data-availability requirements. Fourth, the FAIR-data community should adopt the GIDA Manifesto’s sequencing as the default implementation pattern, with the FAIR-first interpretation explicitly identified as inappropriate for Indigenous data.

    The reconciliation works. It requires more upfront attention to governance than the FAIR-maximalist default, but it produces outcomes that respect community sovereignty while delivering the technical-interoperability benefits that FAIR was designed for.

    Related dictionary entries

  • Indigenous data governance: CARE Principles in practice

    The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were published in 2019 by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), expressing four principles – Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics – designed to sit alongside the FAIR principles when research data involves Indigenous Peoples, communities, lands, or knowledge. This post offers an introductory map of the CARE landscape in 2026, the relationships among the regional Indigenous data sovereignty movements that informed it, and the operational artefacts that researchers and institutions are using to apply CARE in practice. We write as outsiders to these traditions and rely on the published statements of Indigenous-led organisations; what follows is descriptive, not prescriptive, and any institution implementing CARE should engage directly with the communities whose data is in question.

    The CARE Principles

    The CARE Principles, drafted by Stephanie Russo Carroll, Maui Hudson, Tahu Kukutai, and colleagues through the GIDA, articulate that data governance is not only a question of technical FAIR-ness but of who has authority over data, who benefits, and what ethical commitments are owed. The four pillars are:

    • Collective benefit. Data ecosystems should be designed and function in ways that enable Indigenous Peoples to derive benefit from the data. Inclusive development and innovation; improved governance and citizen engagement; equitable outcomes.
    • Authority to control. Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests in Indigenous data must be recognised and their authority to control such data must be empowered. Recognising rights and interests; data for governance; governance of data.
    • Responsibility. Those working with Indigenous data have a responsibility to share how those data are used. Capability for Indigenous communities; positive relationships; appropriate care for data.
    • Ethics. Indigenous Peoples’ rights and wellbeing should be the primary concern at all stages of the data life cycle. Minimising harm and maximising benefit; justice; future use.

    The principles are deliberately at the level of governance commitments, not the level of technical implementation. Their operationalisation depends on engagement with specific communities and their own governance institutions.

    The regional movements that preceded CARE

    CARE did not emerge in isolation. It is the international synthesis of regional Indigenous data-sovereignty movements that had been building governance frameworks for years.

    OCAP® Principles (Canada)

    The OCAP® Principles – Ownership, Control, Access, Possession – were articulated in 1998 by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) and have governed First Nations data in Canada since. OCAP is a registered trademark of FNIGC; the principles assert that First Nations have collective ownership of their information, control over how it is collected and used, access to it, and physical possession of it. FNIGC operates training programmes that researchers working with First Nations data are expected to complete; multiple Canadian Tri-Agency Indigenous research policies reference OCAP explicitly.

    Te Mana Raraunga (Aotearoa New Zealand)

    Te Mana Raraunga is the Māori Data Sovereignty Network, established 2015. Te Mana Raraunga articulates Māori data sovereignty rooted in tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Network’s foundational statements include the 2018 Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty, which were among the documents informing CARE. The relationship between Te Mana Raraunga’s Māori-specific frame and the international CARE frame is one of mutual recognition; Te Mana Raraunga operates with the authority of Māori governance, not as an instance of an international standard.

    Maiam nayri Wingara (Australia)

    Maiam nayri Wingara, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Collective, was established in 2017 and articulated principles of Indigenous data sovereignty for Australia in 2018. The collective’s work emphasises the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to control data about their people, communities, lands, and waters. The Australian Indigenous Health-Welfare Data Working Group and several federal agencies’ Indigenous data policies reference Maiam nayri Wingara’s frame.

    Other regional movements

    Indigenous data sovereignty movements with their own governance frameworks operate in many other contexts, including Sámi Council work in Sapmi, Native American data sovereignty organising in the United States (the United South and Eastern Tribes Tribal Health Program and others), Indigenous Latin American collectives, and others. The CARE Principles refer to and respect this plurality; they are not a substitute for any of these regional frameworks but a complement at international scale.

    How CARE relates to FAIR

    CARE and FAIR are designed to coexist. FAIR addresses technical interoperability and data reusability; CARE addresses governance authority and ethical commitments. A dataset can be both FAIR and CARE-compliant; a dataset can also be FAIR while failing CARE (technically open data that violates community authority); a dataset can be CARE-compliant while not openly FAIR (community-controlled data with restricted access in line with community decision).

    The GIDA’s published positioning is that CARE precedes FAIR when Indigenous data is involved: the questions of authority, benefit, responsibility, and ethics must be settled before the questions of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability are operationalised. A FAIR-without-CARE approach to Indigenous data has historically reproduced harm; CARE asks researchers and institutions to do the governance work first.

    Free, Prior, and Informed Consent

    Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is the international human-rights principle, articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) and widely adopted, that Indigenous Peoples must be consulted and consent obtained before any project affecting them, their lands, or their resources proceeds. FPIC applies to research projects involving Indigenous communities, knowledge, or data. The four elements – free (without coercion), prior (sufficiently in advance), informed (with adequate information), consent (with a community decision-making process) – are all substantive.

    FPIC operationalisation depends on the community in question. Some communities have formal protocols and Indigenous Research Ethics committees; others negotiate consent through community-leader engagement; others may decline participation. In all cases the timing of the consent process matters: FPIC sought after a project has been designed is generally not FPIC; FPIC must precede project design or at minimum precede any irreversible step.

    Traditional Knowledge Labels and Local Contexts

    Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels and Biocultural (BC) Labels, developed by the Local Contexts initiative led by Jane Anderson and Kim Christen, are metadata labels that can be attached to datasets, archival records, or collection items to communicate community-defined permissions, attribution requirements, and cultural protocols. TK Labels include labels for attribution, non-commercial use, outreach, family or clan use, ceremonial use, and others; BC Labels cover biocultural specimens and data with similar granularity.

    The labels are not legal instruments by themselves; they are governance signals issued by communities that researchers and institutions are expected to respect. Several repositories (notably the Mukurtu CMS platform, also developed by Christen and colleagues) integrate TK and BC Labels natively. By 2026 several major museums, archives, and a small but growing number of institutional research repositories support TK Labels at the record level.

    Practical implementation for institutions

    An institution beginning to operationalise CARE alongside its FAIR practice would, in the broadest terms, attend to:

    1. Recognising the priority of community authority over data concerning Indigenous peoples, lands, and knowledge, and reflecting this in institutional research-data policy.
    2. Engaging with communities through their own governance institutions early, with FPIC understood as a substantive process not a checkbox.
    3. Adopting the relevant regional principles where applicable (OCAP in Canada, Te Mana Raraunga principles in Aotearoa, Maiam nayri Wingara in Australia, etc.) rather than treating CARE as a substitute.
    4. Supporting researchers in their institution with training, ethics-board capacity, and community-engagement resources; not pushing the burden onto Indigenous researchers within the institution.
    5. Implementing technical support for community-defined permissions (TK Labels, access-control models that respect community decision) in institutional repositories.
    6. Reporting transparently to communities about how data is used, with channels for community-initiated change to data status.

    Several institutional CRIS and repository vendors have begun adding CARE-aware functionality (TK Label support, community-attribution fields, access-control models that respect community-defined permissions). The CASRAI Indigenous data CARE domain tracks adoption.

    The integrity question

    The honest position for non-Indigenous researchers and institutions is that operationalising CARE well requires deferring to Indigenous-led governance, not designing one’s own “CARE-compliant” system. The literature is consistent on this point: the CARE Principles were developed by Indigenous-led organisations and their authoritative interpretation rests with those organisations and the communities they serve. The CARE Principles are not a checklist that an external institution can mark itself against and self-certify on.

    The implication for institutions and researchers is that the CARE work is relational and ongoing rather than one-time and administrative. The investment is in long-term partnerships with communities, capacity-building within Indigenous research leadership, and a willingness to share authority over how data flows into and out of institutional systems. The technical artefacts (TK Labels, FPIC processes, Mukurtu integrations) support the relational work; they do not substitute for it.

    Where to learn more

    For non-Indigenous researchers and institutions beginning this work, the foundational reading is the GIDA’s published statement of the CARE Principles, alongside the regional movements’ own foundational documents (FNIGC on OCAP, Te Mana Raraunga on Māori data sovereignty, Maiam nayri Wingara on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data sovereignty). The Carroll, Hudson, Kukutai, et al. 2020 paper in Data Science Journal is the foundational scholarly reference for CARE. The Local Contexts initiative’s documentation is the foundational reference for TK and BC Labels. The Mukurtu CMS documentation is the foundational technical reference for community-controlled repository implementation.

    Related dictionary entries

    References

    Carroll, Hudson, Kukutai, et al., The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Data Science Journal, 2020). GIDA, CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (founding statement, 2019). First Nations Information Governance Centre, The First Nations Principles of OCAP® (foundational and ongoing publications). Te Mana Raraunga, Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty (2018). Maiam nayri Wingara, Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique (2018). UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Anderson and Christen, work on Traditional Knowledge Labels and the Local Contexts initiative (ongoing).