Indigenous data sovereignty — the right of indigenous peoples to govern the collection, ownership, and application of data about their communities — is reshaping how responsible grantmakers design application forms, set reporting requirements, and use the information they collect about Māori, Pacific, and other indigenous communities. Funders who are not yet thinking about indigenous data sovereignty are creating risk: legal risk, reputational risk, and the practical risk that their data practices are undermining trust with communities they depend on for programme delivery.
Indigenous data sovereignty is grounded in the principle that data about indigenous peoples, their communities, cultures, and territories should be subject to the governance of those peoples — not managed solely according to the preferences and interests of government or funding bodies.
In New Zealand, Te Mana Raraunga (the Māori Data Sovereignty Network) has articulated this as a set of principles:
- Rangatiratanga: Māori authority over Māori data — the right to govern the collection, ownership, and application of Māori data
- Whakapapa: The relationship between data and people — data doesn't exist in isolation from the people and communities it represents
- Whanaungatanga: Collective interests — Māori data must serve collective Māori interests, not just individual ones
- Kaitiakitanga: Guardianship and stewardship — responsibility for protecting data across generations
- Mana: Data practices must uphold, not undermine, the dignity and integrity of Māori individuals and communities
- Kotahitanga: Collective benefit — data should be used in ways that benefit Māori communities, not extracted from them for others' benefit
Similar frameworks are emerging for Pacific peoples. The Pacific Data Sovereignty framework and Te Mana Raraunga both have relevance for funders operating in communities where Māori and Pacific peoples are significant beneficiaries.
Asking for demographic data. Grant applications that request ethnicity data about clients, beneficiaries, or community members require careful design. The purpose of collecting ethnicity data must be clear, the data must be protected, and community organisations must not be required to collect data that communities haven't consented to share.
Ownership of data provided. When an applicant organisation provides data about its community — cultural knowledge, community health patterns, traditional land use — who owns that data? Many standard grant terms implicitly treat information provided in applications as belonging to the funder. Indigenous data sovereignty principles assert that data about communities remains subject to those communities' governance.
Confidentiality and cultural sensitivity. Some information that might be relevant to a grant application — tikanga practices, whakapapa relationships, spiritual dimensions of community practice — has cultural protocols around disclosure. Forcing this information into standard application forms can be disrespectful and may deter authentic kaupapa Māori applications.
Language and representation. Applications that require information to be presented in English, in Western conceptual frameworks, disadvantage organisations whose practice is grounded in te ao Māori or Pacific knowledge systems. Open-ended application formats that allow applicants to describe their work in their own conceptual frameworks are more equitable.
Disaggregated data by ethnicity. Requesting ethnicity-disaggregated outcome data from grantees — "how many of your clients were Māori?" — is a common reporting requirement. While this data can support equity analysis, funders must think about:
- Whether they have consent from communities for this data collection
- How they will store and protect this data
- Who will have access to it
- How they will use it to benefit (not burden) the communities represented
- Whether they are collecting data they will actually analyse and act on
Quantitative vs qualitative reporting. Indigenous programme outcomes often don't translate well into quantitative metrics. The success of a tikanga Māori programme might be measured in relationship quality, cultural confidence, and connection to identity — not in service units or numbers of participants. Requiring only quantitative reporting imposes Western measurement frameworks on indigenous practice.
Mātauranga Māori. Traditional knowledge held by iwi, hapū, and whānau has been collected and used by researchers and government agencies in ways that communities have found harmful — including having their own knowledge presented back to them in ways that misrepresent it, commodify it, or fail to give appropriate attribution. Funders should not inadvertently replicate these patterns.
Data aggregation. Small communities can be re-identified through aggregated data even when individual data is removed. Reporting requirements that request detailed breakdowns by ethnicity, location, and programme type simultaneously can enable re-identification of individuals in small communities. Funders should think carefully about what level of disaggregation is appropriate.
Review application forms. Audit your grant application forms for data collection practices that may not be consistent with indigenous data sovereignty principles. Ask: do we need this information? Who will see it? How will we use it? Would communities consent to this if they understood how it was used?
Co-design with communities. The most reliable way to design data practices that respect indigenous data sovereignty is to design them with Māori and Pacific communities. This applies both to specific programme design and to general grant administration practices.
Data governance policies. Develop explicit policies on how you collect, store, access, use, and eventually delete data about Māori and Pacific communities. Share these policies with applicants. Demonstrate that data governance is taken seriously.
Culturally appropriate reporting frameworks. For kaupapa Māori programmes, work with grantees to develop reporting frameworks that are consistent with indigenous measurement approaches — including narrative, relationship-based, and cultural outcome measures.
Support capacity in funded organisations. Some Māori and Pacific organisations are developing their own data governance frameworks — tikanga-based approaches to managing data about their communities. Funders can support this capacity building as part of their organisational development funding.
Third-party data sharing. Be explicit about whether and how you share grantee data with third parties — government agencies, researchers, other funders. Communities should understand and have input into these data-sharing arrangements.
In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding constitutional document that creates specific Crown obligations to Māori. While these obligations apply directly to government agencies, community trusts that receive gaming licence revenue — which is a government-regulated source — and foundations that operate with charitable tax benefits — which are government-sanctioned — have Treaty-relevant relationships.
The Waitangi Tribunal and courts have found that Treaty principles apply broadly to government-funded activities. Funders operating in the New Zealand context should understand that indigenous data sovereignty intersects with Treaty obligations — both as a matter of law and as a matter of the values that underpin responsible grantmaking.
Pacific peoples in New Zealand face related but distinct data sovereignty questions. Pacific data sovereignty principles emphasise:
- Community ownership and governance of data about Pacific communities
- Pacific-led research and evaluation
- Recognition of Pacific knowledge systems and frameworks
- Protection of Pacific cultural heritage data
For funders working with Pacific communities, similar questions apply: what data are you collecting, who owns it, and how does it benefit Pacific communities rather than just serving the funder's needs?
Tahua's grants management platform is built for funders who work closely with Māori and Pacific communities — with configurable data collection, access controls, and reporting frameworks that can be designed to align with indigenous data sovereignty principles.