The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)
Biodiversity data come from field stations, museums, satellites, citizen scientists and the knowledge of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Publishing them openly speeds science and planning, but open locations of rare species can guide poachers, and knowledge shared without consent can be taken from those who hold it. This page sets out the rights, consent and responsible-use principles that govern ecological data, and how they shape what is published, at what resolution and under whose terms.
GCRI · Established · service level R0
Biodiversity data rights are the rules, consent and responsible-use principles that govern ecological data from field stations, museums, satellites, citizen scientists and Indigenous peoples and local communities. Open data speeds science and planning, yet exact locations of rare species can aid poachers, and knowledge shared without consent can be taken from its holders.
Mountain ranges, deserts, wetlands, glaciers and reefs, and how remote each division is from large cities, shown for Tanzania as an example geography for this subject.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Nature data and rights · Landscape A · Assessment cycle 2
materiality, 0 low to 100 high
Scores are placeholders for an assessment the owner completes.
sites near high-integrity areas
| Water scarcity at site 3 | Physical, acute | Abstraction and drought | High | Water stewardship plan |
| Habitat conversion in supply chain | Transition, market | Land use change | Medium | Supplier screening |
| Community objection | Systemic, social | Consent gaps | Medium | Consent records review |
| Pollinator decline | Physical, chronic | Pesticide use | Low | Monitor |
Rights, consent and responsible ecological data. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Precise coordinates of threatened species, nesting sites or valuable plants can enable collection and poaching. Responsible publishing generalises or withholds such locations while keeping the data useful for science and planning.
Traditional knowledge of species, seasons and land belongs to those who hold it. Free, prior and informed consent and agreed terms are needed before it is recorded, used or shared, and consent can be limited or withdrawn.
Samples and digital sequence information derived from biodiversity feed research and products. The Nagoya Protocol and the Kunming-Montreal decision on digital sequence information set expectations that benefits return to providers and knowledge holders.
Where data are collected by outsiders and held elsewhere, local institutions lose control and capacity. Global datasets then over-represent well-funded regions, and decisions built on them can overlook the places and people they affect most.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| CARE Principles | Principles for Indigenous data governance: collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics. |
| Coordinate generalisation | Publishing locations at reduced precision to protect sensitive species or sites. |
| Access and benefit-sharing | Rules under the Nagoya Protocol for obtaining genetic resources with prior informed consent and sharing the benefits of their use. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Records with generalised coordinates | count of records by sensitivity category | continuous | Publisher and aggregator metadata | DECLARED |
| Datasets with a stated licence | count of datasets by licence class | continuous | Aggregator metadata | DECLARED |
| Internationally recognised certificates of compliance | count of certificates | continuous | Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House | OFFICIAL |
| Datasets carrying Traditional Knowledge or Biocultural labels | count of datasets | continuous | Local Contexts registry and publisher metadata | DECLARED |
| Records published by in-country institutions | share of records by publishing country | annual | Aggregator statistics | REPORTED |
| Consent status of community data | documented consent category per dataset | per dataset | Data governance agreements | DECLARED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| GBIF data use agreement and sensitive data guidance | Licensing rules and practice for generalising sensitive species data | Free and open, attribution |
| Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House (CBD) | Permits, certificates of compliance and national measures under the Nagoya Protocol | Public records |
| CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Global Indigenous Data Alliance) | Collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics | Free and open, attribution |
| FAIR Guiding Principles | Practices for findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data | Free and open |
| Local Contexts Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural labels | Labels and notices that attach community terms to data and collections | Free to use under Local Contexts terms |
| LandMark global platform of Indigenous and community lands | Mapped Indigenous and community lands and their legal status | Terms per dataset, some layers restricted |
Biodiversity Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Indigenous and community governance bodies | Whether, how and on what terms their knowledge and land data are recorded and shared | Consent records, labels, data governance agreements and access logs |
| National biodiversity data publishers and GBIF nodes | Which records to generalise or withhold, and under which licence to publish | Sensitivity lists, generalisation rules, licence metadata |
| Competent national authorities under the Nagoya Protocol | Whether access to genetic resources and associated knowledge meets national requirements | Permits, prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms |
| Research funders and journals | Which data management, consent and benefit-sharing conditions to require | Alignment with CARE and FAIR, licence and consent statements |
Data stewards, researchers and rights holders work on a set of practical questions.
Open biodiversity data has transformed the field, allowing records from many sources to be combined into continental and global analyses. But openness by default can expose vulnerable species and people. Location data on rare orchids, reptiles or birds of prey has been linked to collection and persecution, and maps of community resource areas can be used against those communities in land disputes.
Indigenous data sovereignty frameworks hold that peoples have rights to govern data about themselves, their lands and their knowledge. Applied to ecology, this means consent before collection, community control over use, benefit to the community, and responsibility for long-term care. These principles sit alongside, not against, findability and reuse: the aim is data that is both usable and governed.
Data is classed by the harm its release could cause. Classes need regular review as threats change.
Coordinates are coarsened or held under managed access. Generalisation can reduce scientific usefulness, and the trade-off must be stated.
Consent processes agreed with communities before work begins. Consent is ongoing and can be withdrawn.
Metadata and labels record source, rights and conditions of use, applying geospatial data standards. Labels only work if downstream users respect them.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.