Though countries have made scant progress curbing greenhouse gas emissions, transformative change is still possible, according to a new report scheduled to be published at the end of January. 

Dr. Kanae Tokunaga. Courtesy of Gulf of Maine Research Institute

At the University of Tokyo’s Ocean Alliance, Dr. Kanae Tokunaga, Ph.D., analyzed fisheries management, ecosystem service valuation and offshore renewable energy before arriving at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in 2019 to lead the Coastal Marine Economics lab.

Her work in Maine revolves around understanding the efficacy and stability of local fisheries and how they are impacted by climate change and socioeconomic activities in coastal communities. She works closely with researchers across disciplines, from engineering to oceanography, as well as policymakers. 

On Dec. 18, 2024, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a global assessment detailing challenges and pathways for a sustainable future. Developed by experts from 42 countries, including Tokunaga, who was lead author of the fourth chapter, the report offers steps to enhance working waterfronts.

The summary for policymakers has been approved and is available for viewing on IPBES’ website.

“Being part of the assessment [was] a monumental opportunity to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss and societal challenges,” Tokunaga said. “Chapter 4 focuses on how our systems and behaviors must shift to create meaningful, sustainable change that benefits both people and nature.”

What ‘transformative change’ means for Maine

The assessment claims that “transformative change” is critical to reverse biodiversity loss and safeguard life on Earth. It promotes adjustments that match the scope, scale and depth necessary to navigate the changing landscape while offering a solution: embracing a vision of living in harmony with nature instead of asserting dominance over natural resources to achieve IPBES’ 2050 vision for planetary health. 

Dr. Kanae Tokunaga stands near the interactive fish tank at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland on Jan. 3. Laura Sitterly / The Times Record

As stated by Tokunaga, it’s among the first of its kind to bridge social science (coupled with neoclassical economics and natural sciences) with structural system change. It’s “groundbreaking” because it confronts capitalism, colonialism, neoliberalism and globalization, and “chips away at the persistent relations of domination over people and nature,” she said. 

Chapter 4 delineates roles for bipartisan involvement, noting that conservation requires collaboration between Indigenous peoples and local communities. To prove this point, it showcases protected marine areas that have included communities in management and decision-making and, in turn, witnessed increased biodiversity and tourism revenues. 

The instances span from Kenya, the Nashulai Maasai Conservancy, to Maine. Tokunaga’s findings trace back to Casco Bay. 

“This global report is not just about science and nature — it’s about us,” Tokunaga said. “It’s about how the way we choose to live matters.” 

In an interview with The Times Record, Tokunaga emphasized the importance of the latest IPBES assessment for Maine, a state with deep roots in the natural resource sector, claiming that improvement starts at the individual level: “It starts with us.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Can you explain your contribution to the report?

The IPBES assessment as a whole is novel and could even be considered an ecosystem service equivalent to that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Humans don’t have an issue setting climate goals but reaching them. This report recognizes that accomplishing climate objectives requires systemwide shifts in how we operate. We can’t rely solely on government action; we must pivot individually by reevaluating our interactions with our environment. 

My contributions to Chapter 4 discuss the challenges of achieving such a transformation. The two key takeaways are that assessing the climate crisis must focus equally on nature and human behavior. Though uncomfortable, we must reflect on our success metrics and consider other means than economic growth. 

How do socioeconomic factors influence our use of coastal resources?

We must reflect on how our decisions affect the world around us. At the grassroots level, this is already happening in Maine. I’ve been in numerous conversations about last year’s storm recovery efforts, centering around the importance of social resilience. When all else fails, we need each other.

The next step I’d like to see is for policymakers to adopt a more holistic approach — acknowledging the commercial value of Maine’s working waterfront and its cultural and sociocultural importance. Nature is not just a backdrop. … We need to consider it systematically. We must also disrupt our approach to make space for diverse perspectives, particularly Indigenous knowledge. 

This assessment represents a significant milestone in acknowledging the impact of capitalism and neoliberalism in environmental discussions. We are no longer moving forward blindly; instead, we are reassessing our relationship with nature. 

The working waterfront in Harpswell is an excellent example of how socioeconomic factors shape coastal resource use. It serves as physical and social infrastructure contributing to Maine’s cultural identity. When we view the marine sector as more than just an economic engine but an industry with cultural implications, fisheries management becomes more effective. 

From a bioregional perspective, how are our waterfronts impacted by external forces?

Everything is part of a connected system. Consider seafood. This report introduces a concept called “telecoupling,” which refers to our globally interconnected food system. Lobsters, for example, are exported to China and various European Union countries. From a trade perspective, we lack insight into how these products are consumed. Conversely, consumers typically do not understand what happens at the production level, meaning they are often unaware of the realities faced by Maine lobstermen. This situation reflects a disconnect: While the system is interconnected, there is a gap in knowledge and understanding, which can lead to adverse impacts. 

Another great example is the urchin fishery. For a while, Japanese consumers were unaware of the species’ boom-and-bust cycles in Maine, which wreaked environmental havoc. When consumers are uninformed about issues in the production sector, as we saw in the decline of the urchin population in 1933, this can lead to overexploitation. 

Atlantic bluefin tuna leaping in the Gulf of Maine — one of the world’s most carefully managed tuna fisheries. Courtesy of Gulf of Maine Research Institute

What do you feel impedes Maine’s capacity to be ‘sustainable’?

Fisheries management has long centered around stock assessments, valuing commercial species and overlooking the broader ecosystem context. Scientists have emphasized the significance of considering food webs, much of which has been overlooked. 

Embracing an ecosystem-based fisheries management approach would mean considering Western science equally against narratives from social anthropologists, heritage fishermen and Indigenous communities. Generational knowledge is as important as numerical data and economic figures and should be acknowledged in decision-making. It’s in our best interest to prioritize commercial species, groundfish and zooplankton.

How did working with social and natural scientists expand your training in neoclassical economics?

As a neoclassical economist, I define “sustainability” as the ability to consume as much as we do today and tomorrow. I was trained to measure societal well-being through GDP (gross domestic product) and employment rates. However, after this assessment, I’m reexamining the concept of a sustainable blue economy beyond mere growth. 

It was eye-opening to see the impact of societal factors — capitalism, colonialism and modernization — on how we think and behave. Again, I was trained to view nature as a resource. While economic systems bring many benefits, I’ve learned they shouldn’t be the only lens through which we view the world. 

Traditional economic models often assume that individuals are rational actors. Social scientists consider that consumers can engage in irrational behaviors, which I find interesting. 

How will you approach your work at GMRI differently now, having broadened your perspective?

Unlike interdisciplinary work, which involves collaboration within distinct fields, transdisciplinary research focuses on the co-production of knowledge. At GMRI, I’ve been able to take this approach to my work because we are not solely focused on academic inquiry. 

Last year, I wrote an article for the Maine Policy Review about community science’s contributions to ecosystem values. Translating and articulating these complex ideas for policymakers to digest is key, and this is where I plan to focus my attention moving forward. 

A fisherman uses a gill net to fish for Atlantic salmon near Nuuk, Greenland. Tim Sheehan photo

What are some upcoming projects you’re involved in?

I have always been fascinated by the interaction between aquaculture and shellfish harvesting. 

Recently, I expanded my focus to include northern quahogs (Mercenaria mercenaria). One of the projects I’m working on involves collaborating with Manomet Conservation Sciences and Cait Cleaver, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. 

Wild and farmed northern quahogs are an important fishery along the East Coast but relatively new in Maine. As the waters have warmed, their population has increased. Wild quahog stock enhancement is a key tool municipal shellfish programs employ to support the fishery’s growth. Still, it is limited by the availability of seed in the sizes and amounts needed. Our goal is to develop mutually beneficial strategies for shellfish farmers and wild harvesters through the development of production methods and market opportunities. My role involves conducting economic analysis and assessing the feasibility of seedling aquaculture. 

Another project I’m working on concerns lobster fisheries. It aims to adapt stock assessment and management practices that assume static human behavior. I hope to integrate harvesters’ perspectives and knowledge as they adapt to climate change impacts. 

What is your connection with the natural world outside research and deep contemplation?

I love trying different types of seafood and feel calm by the ocean. Although I’m not into recreational boating and sailing, I enjoy watching waterfront activities. 

When discussing ecosystem services, I often emphasize that our connection to nature isn’t a solitary experience; it is shaped by other people’s connection to nature that is parallel to ours. A great example is my 6-year-old daughter. She has developed a fascination with deep-sea creatures, opening up a world of knowledge I didn’t even know existed. Her curiosity has transferred to me. 

We want to learn more about things we care about, which relates to IPBES’ view of interconnected systems. When people from elsewhere purchase Maine lobster, understanding the socioeconomic significance of our fishing industry enhances their appreciation. Marine products are more than a meal — they are a cultural experience, and by staying informed, we can tap into (and preserve) that.