In 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USGS teamed up to support the use of co-production in the design, implementation, and use of research and collective learning in projects being developed by staff and collaborators.
Return to USGS Alaska Q&A Series
The USGS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Science Support and Quick Response Programs are nation-wide collaborative programs, supported by the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area, through which USGS staff address priority science needs identified by the USFWS. Starting in 2024, the USFWS Alaska Region requested that more projects be co-produced with Alaska Native communities. This meant that some proposals could commit to collaborative pathways with Indigenous partners to achieve long-lasting conservation and deliver outcomes that are more effective, inclusive, and relevant to Alaska communities and their concerns.
In this Q&A, we talk with Wendy Loya and Chara Sterne at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, about this new initiative.
Q: What was the impetus for the co-production focus for new projects in 2024?
Wendy: There are over 220 Alaska Native Villages with 20 distinct cultures and 300 different dialects across Alaska where many Indigenous people still practice traditional cultural lifeways. Indigenous communities in Alaska shoulder a disproportionate share of the cultural and economic costs of environmental decline driven by rapid climate change and declines in fish and wildlife availability. Efforts to address the impacts of climate change and achieve durable and sustainable fish and wildlife conservation in areas important to Indigenous communities requires expanding inclusivity, elevating Indigenous knowledge, and working towards co-stewardship.
Charla: Right, and to meet this moment, the Alaska Region decided to request that some of the USGS Science Support Funding be directed to a pilot program to expand the use of co-production pathways in the design, implementation, and use of research and collaborative learning. Co-stewardship is the future of conservation and by building our familiarity with co-production we will be best poised to tackle the difficult decisions that lie ahead for fish and wildlife conservation due to climate and other changes on the landscape.
Q: How did this work with the standard science proposal writing process? Typically, proposals for funding already have the goals and objectives determined, but to be true co-production, those goals and objectives have to be worked out with a community first, right?
Wendy: That’s correct. So, what we did instead was to provide a small amount of seed funding for pre-proposals that committed to co-production pathways and to using the funds to work with Indigenous partners to design the objectives, activities and scope of the project before commencing any substantive work.
Charla: The expectation is that funded pre-proposals would allow for a year of co-design activities around a goal or set of objectives and then be in the position to submit full proposals for additional funding for project implementation in a subsequent year. For seed projects that didn’t lead to full proposals, we asked participants to share lessons learned for why those project ideas didn’t lead to full study plans. Basically, what can we learn from those conversations about how co-production can be most successful in the future on that topic.
Q: Was this shift from proposal writing to open discussion of possible ideas for collaboration a new thing for biologists at USFWS and USGS?
Charla: For some. It is a departure from our usual way of approaching project development. Co-production is about more than just integrating Indigenous Knowledges into agency decision-making. It seeks to build and maintain equity throughout science, conservation planning, and decision-making. Co-production approaches challenge our traditional practices, which tend to concentrate power and authority within agencies.
Q: What were the co-production project ideas that received seed funding?
Wendy: The projects funded for co-production pathways are listed here. More information about past projects funded through the USGS-USFWS Science Support Program in Alaska can be found at this USGS website.
- Developing partnerships to guide research, conservation, and co-stewardship of the tevatevaaq (bar-tailed godwit)
- Rusting river impacts to food security, drinking water, and ecological systems: co-designing a water quality monitoring program with Northwest Alaska communities to assess impacts from permafrost thaw on aquatic systems
- An integrated approach for co-design of sea otter population assessments
- Toward co-production of knowledge about Pacific salmon populations and habitats in the Koyukuk, Nowitna and Innoko National Wildlife Refuges and Gana-A’Yoo managed freshwaters
- Investigating opportunities for co-Production of research on the Porcupine Caribou Herd
- Pacific Walrus population dynamics: towards co-production of science to aid co-management decisions
Science Support Program and Quick Response Program
In 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USGS teamed up to support the use of co-production in the design, implementation, and use of research and collective learning in projects being developed by staff and collaborators.
Return to USGS Alaska Q&A Series
The USGS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Science Support and Quick Response Programs are nation-wide collaborative programs, supported by the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area, through which USGS staff address priority science needs identified by the USFWS. Starting in 2024, the USFWS Alaska Region requested that more projects be co-produced with Alaska Native communities. This meant that some proposals could commit to collaborative pathways with Indigenous partners to achieve long-lasting conservation and deliver outcomes that are more effective, inclusive, and relevant to Alaska communities and their concerns.
In this Q&A, we talk with Wendy Loya and Chara Sterne at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, about this new initiative.
Q: What was the impetus for the co-production focus for new projects in 2024?
Wendy: There are over 220 Alaska Native Villages with 20 distinct cultures and 300 different dialects across Alaska where many Indigenous people still practice traditional cultural lifeways. Indigenous communities in Alaska shoulder a disproportionate share of the cultural and economic costs of environmental decline driven by rapid climate change and declines in fish and wildlife availability. Efforts to address the impacts of climate change and achieve durable and sustainable fish and wildlife conservation in areas important to Indigenous communities requires expanding inclusivity, elevating Indigenous knowledge, and working towards co-stewardship.
Charla: Right, and to meet this moment, the Alaska Region decided to request that some of the USGS Science Support Funding be directed to a pilot program to expand the use of co-production pathways in the design, implementation, and use of research and collaborative learning. Co-stewardship is the future of conservation and by building our familiarity with co-production we will be best poised to tackle the difficult decisions that lie ahead for fish and wildlife conservation due to climate and other changes on the landscape.
Q: How did this work with the standard science proposal writing process? Typically, proposals for funding already have the goals and objectives determined, but to be true co-production, those goals and objectives have to be worked out with a community first, right?
Wendy: That’s correct. So, what we did instead was to provide a small amount of seed funding for pre-proposals that committed to co-production pathways and to using the funds to work with Indigenous partners to design the objectives, activities and scope of the project before commencing any substantive work.
Charla: The expectation is that funded pre-proposals would allow for a year of co-design activities around a goal or set of objectives and then be in the position to submit full proposals for additional funding for project implementation in a subsequent year. For seed projects that didn’t lead to full proposals, we asked participants to share lessons learned for why those project ideas didn’t lead to full study plans. Basically, what can we learn from those conversations about how co-production can be most successful in the future on that topic.
Q: Was this shift from proposal writing to open discussion of possible ideas for collaboration a new thing for biologists at USFWS and USGS?
Charla: For some. It is a departure from our usual way of approaching project development. Co-production is about more than just integrating Indigenous Knowledges into agency decision-making. It seeks to build and maintain equity throughout science, conservation planning, and decision-making. Co-production approaches challenge our traditional practices, which tend to concentrate power and authority within agencies.
Q: What were the co-production project ideas that received seed funding?
Wendy: The projects funded for co-production pathways are listed here. More information about past projects funded through the USGS-USFWS Science Support Program in Alaska can be found at this USGS website.
- Developing partnerships to guide research, conservation, and co-stewardship of the tevatevaaq (bar-tailed godwit)
- Rusting river impacts to food security, drinking water, and ecological systems: co-designing a water quality monitoring program with Northwest Alaska communities to assess impacts from permafrost thaw on aquatic systems
- An integrated approach for co-design of sea otter population assessments
- Toward co-production of knowledge about Pacific salmon populations and habitats in the Koyukuk, Nowitna and Innoko National Wildlife Refuges and Gana-A’Yoo managed freshwaters
- Investigating opportunities for co-Production of research on the Porcupine Caribou Herd
- Pacific Walrus population dynamics: towards co-production of science to aid co-management decisions