"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Friday, February 22, 2008

A Second Chance for Krill Protection

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is resending to the White House a proposed policy to protect krill in U.S. waters off the west coast, according to BNA news service (subscription). Krill are small shrimp-like crustaceans abundant in the Pacific Ocean and a vital link in the marine food chain.

NOAA first proposed the policy in Feb. 2007. Even though krill is not currently fished in U.S. waters, NOAA experts — both within the agency and on an independent advisory board — recognized an opportunity to take a proactive step toward maintaining a sustainable marine ecosystem. In its proposal, NOAA's Pacific Fishery Management Council states, "The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks."

But, as OMB Watch reported in November, the policy was rejected by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — the White House office in charge of reviewing federal rules and regulations.

According to BNA, NOAA officials are "cautiously optimistic" that OIRA will approve the rule the second time around. NOAA rulemakers are beefing up their argument that a disruption in krill stocks would negatively impact other kinds of fish.

Reg•Watch hopes OIRA lets the krill rule through its gauntlet but does not share NOAA's optimism. OIRA rejected the rule on the grounds NOAA had not properly identified a market failure in need of regulation. In a letter returning the rule to NOAA for reconsideration, OIRA complained NOAA did not adequately identify the need for regulation since krill is "completely unexploited" and "there are no known plans for exploitation."

Nothing has changed in regard to the potential for krill fisheries in U.S. waters, so, regardless of the quality of NOAA's analysis, OIRA's objection stands.

That's too bad, because the federal government shouldn't have to identify a market failure in order to address a problem. It seems NOAA's strategy of prevention and precaution is exactly the role we would want government to play. (Imagine if government officials had approached greenhouse gas emissions with such foresight.) As a nation, we cannot afford to stand idly by and hope that certain problems will resolve themselves.