Q and A: Jane Lubchenco
The marine ecologist and administrator of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration discusses restoring the bounty of the world's oceans
- By Erica R. Hendry
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2010, Subscribe
Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, spoke in March at the National Museum of Natural History on restoring the bounty of the world’s oceans. The magazine’s Erica Hendry caught up with her.
Has the way we view oceans changed?
Oh yes. We’ve truly begun to appreciate how vulnerable and valuable ocean ecosystems are. They’re so vast, so immense, that people previously assumed they were infinitely bountiful and infinitely resilient. We also now realize the full extent to which we depend upon oceans for our own well-being. Seafood is the sole or primary source of protein for more than a billion people worldwide. Half of Americans live in coastal areas. I’ve spoken with people all around the country, asking them, “What do you want from oceans, and what do you think we need from oceans?” Their answers boil down to: clean beaches, healthy seafood, abundant wildlife, vibrant coastal communities, stable fisheries, great recreational options, clean energy and good jobs. There are many other benefits that oceans provide—oxygen, for example, that we breathe, or protection of coasts from storms. But the full extent to which human well-being is dependent on healthy oceans is something most people haven’t appreciated. I would suggest that what we’re seeing globally is a very significant depletion and disruption of ocean ecosystems, but it is not hopeless.
We’ve also learned that ocean protection and restoration can work if they are implemented before an ecosystem is totally degraded.
You've spent the last 30 years with your colleagues at Oregon State building a database about the state's coast. How can that information help take better care of the oceans?
Information about what’s there and how it changes through time is invaluable in providing a baseline from which to document changes and begin to understand the causes of the changes. When I began studying marine biology a lot of the sites I was studying began to change dramatically: Abalones plummeted on the shores of California Islands that I was studying; the rich, vibrant coral reefs of Jamaica became wastelands; and one fishery after another crashed. So over time my research evolved from simply trying to understand what causes basic patterns in the ocean, to trying to understand how people can be better stewards of the ocean riches we need and want. Some changes are natural, such as El Niño events. Others, such as climate change or pollution, are not natural—they are caused by human activities, even though they are usually caused inadvertently. Knowing which changes are natural and which are human-caused really helps us guide actions to remedy the problem.
You and your colleagues have discovered “dead zones” off the coasts of Oregon and Washington—where the oxygen content is so low that most marine life dies. Are these zones getting bigger or more common?
Those dead zones have appeared regularly every summer since 2002, varying in size from one year to another. Prior to 2002, they did not exist, as far as anyone can tell. So something has changed. We believe they are caused by climate-related changes in coastal winds and the ocean. We don’t know what the long-term consequences will be, though we’ve seen very vivid images of massive devastation on the sea floor. The key takeaway is that even an ecological system that seems very rich and very productive can be susceptible to catastrophic shifts in a relatively rapid period of time. As climate change continues, we should expect surprise like one.
You’ve mentioned “holistic approaches.” What do you mean by that?
The way we typically manage activity in the ocean—as well as on coasts—is sector-by-sector, issue-by-issue. One agency regulates water quality, another regulates fishing, another regulates energy extraction and another regulates shipping. We need a cohesive national policy and a mechanism for integrating activities across the different branches of government.
The holistic approach also entails aligning conservation with economic incentives. New approaches—such as dividing up the total allowable catch among fisherman into shares—provide incentives to reduce wasteful practices that harm the environment and reduce profits.
There’s a lot of new information from both the practical world as well as the scientific world that is coming together. I think there’s an emerging appreciation that healthy oceans matter and that we all have a responsibility to protect and restore the oceans so that we can continue to benefit from their bounty as well as their beauty.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (12)
Another Obamalackey who thinks she's got the answer to everything. If she and the Pew Trust get their ways, they'll be no fishing, recreational, commercial or otherwise.
As quoted in the April 8, 2010 edition of the Fisherman Magazine (article by Al Ristori, pg.2R,) "As noted in a previous Conservation Watch, NOAA Fisheries is not only giving away very valuable marine resources in Dr. Jane Lubchenko's catch shares program, but spending millions of your tax dollars to help selected exploiters digest their gifts that can then be sold for immediate profits even if they never drag another net."
Not everyone quite agrees with her.
Posted by Don Rauth on April 14,2010 | 03:28 PM
We happen know the benefits that anyone could receive by having Jane on their staff. Her work at Oregon State University was absolutely amazing. She's intelligent, of good character, and knows her subject. KUDOs to Jane.
Posted by Sandra Hulden on March 30,2010 | 04:16 PM
Thank you Dr. Lubchenco for the leadership role you have taken in helping eliminate overfishing in our oceans. The implementation of catch shares in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper and grouper fisheries ended the race to fish for fishermen, and now we look forward to having year-round locally caught seafood.
Posted by Ryan on March 29,2010 | 05:25 PM
Dr. Lubchenco is one of the few public servants that actually has the scientific credentials necessary to run an agency that covers as many issues as NOAA does. I think she has made tremendous progress in her first year, and am looking forward to seeing what she can accomplish under this Administration.
Posted by Tim F. on March 29,2010 | 02:43 PM
I haven't seen anything mentioned yet about the big "pacific garbage patch". That certainly is hurting our oceans. We need to stop manufacturing plastics as they don't bio-degrade and ultimately kill the fish who eat the smaller particles.
Posted by Carol Wieser on March 29,2010 | 01:25 PM
Dr. Lubchenco's leadership at NOAA is a breath of fresh air. Her bold vision for healthy oceans that work for communities and marine life will pay dividends for generations to come.
Posted by Charlotte on March 29,2010 | 10:49 AM
Congratulations on a fine article. Jane Lubchenco has been a personal hero of mine for many years -- a world-class scientist, working on behalf of the world ocean, and all of us who use it. Your readers can be confident that she has all of our mutual interests firmly in mind in her current work with NOAA.
Posted by Douglas N. Rader, Ph.D. on March 27,2010 | 10:24 PM
support the fisherman and their families health care food like we do for every foreigner that comes to america then burn there boats and we will save huge because we wont need noaa wow there goes another cause job dont worry they will find some endangered segull that cost 60 millon a year to study the goverment has been bought out but they took lessons from noaa we need to go back to dept of aqriculture
Posted by James Rhatigan on March 27,2010 | 10:18 PM
Dr. Lubchenco's appointment to head NOAA is the best thing that's happened to the oceans in a long time. She is a level-headed and sensible leader who is using her role to elevate an agency that has been undervalued almost since its creation.
She's only been on the job for a little over a year and has already provided needed leadership for the administration on the issue of climate change, the most important and pressing environmental issue of our time and likely for many decades to come.
She is also leading a major and necessary overhaul of the nation's fishing policy. Fishing has been in a downward spiral for generations. Instead of limping along with the management system we have now - which has a proven track record of failure - she is moving many of the nation's fisheries to catch share management. This is a herculean task but, because of it, we will look back years from now and see that there are still fishermen on the water and consumers are still enjoying American seafood. You would not be able to say that had she continued with the current system, which would be the politically easy thing to do. Instead, she is sticking her neck out, making hard choices and leading where others have followed. All Americans can take pride in her tenure so far.
Posted by wreckfish on March 27,2010 | 01:07 PM
Finally someone in this office who respects science as part of a decision making process. What a breath of fresh air. Keep up the good work Jane!
Posted by Scott Edwards on March 26,2010 | 06:47 PM
Ms. Lubechenco bafflegabs on issues of ocean collapse ignoring the greatest ocean issue. This is the trillion tonne dose of fossil CO2, already emitted, and only 1/4 absorbed in our fossil fuel age. The result is collapsed ocean productivity. NASA satellites show the Southern Ocean has lost 10% of it's NPP (the ocean pasture phytoplankton), the Atlantic 17%, the Pacific 26%, and in the Journal Science sub-tropical tropical oceans loss is 50%.
Lubenchenco's politically tilted and ineffective cure for the lethal bomb of CO2 already airborne is future emission reductions. She leaves a dying traffic accident victim in the road, chasing the truck that ran her down to make it change. Adminstering prompt and effective first aid to the victim must be first and foremost. The victim is vitally important to us all as she is Mother Nature.
The key to ocean productivity loss, is collapse of ocean pastures which are dying from the twin effects of ocean acidification and CO2 enhancement of terrestrial ground cover (grasses) seen as the dramatic reduction of vital dust, mineral micronutrients, the wind delivers to sustain ocean pastures. The ocean science community in 25 years and a quarter of a billion in research has shown the key to ocean recovery, is replenishment of vital natural mineral micronutrients (iron ore dust) in achievable amounts. A few million tonnes will, and we MUST, restore ocean pastures. This is a tiny amount when one looks at the billion tonnes of iron ore used to make steel annually. Without stewardship of the ocean pastures, ocean acidification and collapse from that trillion tonne dose of airborne CO2 will expand the current mass extinction in the oceans. ONLY restored ocean photosynthesis can compete for CO2 and turn it into ocean life instead of acid death.
You might read more of this at www.planktos-science.com
Posted by Nainao on March 24,2010 | 11:36 PM
Dr. Lubchenco has missed the point -- again -- and her reasoning is illogical. Dead zones in the ocean off of Oregon are not new. Fishermen have seen these in various places and in various sizes for years. It's only recently, within the past decade, that scientists have become alarmed and studied the ones off Oregon closely. Just because scientists have only recently become aware of them does not mean the dead zones did not exist before. Talk to fishermen at the coast who've plied these waters for decades. Talk to Lincoln County Commissioner and fisherman Terry Thompson, or read his take as published in the Register-Guard Aug. 2006 at http://is.gd/aMNC2.
As far as catch shares go, they are not a panacea. The trawl industry is in the throes of a catch share plan for trawlers, a plan that could ultimately cost the west coast hundreds of commercial fishing jobs. If she thinks current fisheries management reduces profits, wait until the catch share plan for the west coast goes into effect. Many communities will become only museums for fisheries of the past.
It's too bad that a scientist of Dr. Lubchenco's renown is using her position and a national magazine to further environmental agendas while ignoring the plight of the very constituents she claims to be interested in protecting.
Posted by Cam Blake on March 17,2010 | 12:39 AM