"[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

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

A Proactive NOAA Vs. a Reactive White House

Yesterday, Reg•Watch blogged about a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rule which would expand protections for krill (a shrimp-like creature that serves as an important food source for larger marine animals) and how White House officials are blocking it.

NOAA proposed the policy even though krill is not currently fished in U.S. waters. However, NOAA experts 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 the NOAA policy was rejected by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — the White House office in charge of reviewing federal rules and regulations. OIRA's administrator, Susan Dudley, found fault with NOAA's rationale for pursuing the policy.

In a letter returning the rule to NOAA for reconsideration, Dudley complained NOAA did not adequately identify the need for regulation since krill is "completely unexploited" and "there are no known plans for exploitation." Apparently, Dudley believes, short of outright exploitation, the need for natural resource management does not exist.

The issue highlights a larger debate over the proper role for government. On one side is NOAA, looking ahead and making strategic judgments, then taking action to prevent any negative impact on the economy or the environment. NOAA's policy is an attempt to sort of head crisis off at the pass.

On the other side is OIRA, playing the waiting game. OIRA would prefer to let problems emerge and develop fully and then see if the market sorts it all out. If the market fails, only then would government intervention be justified. Meanwhile, as months and years pass, fishers whose stocks rely on krill would suffer, and a fragile ecosystem may fracture beyond repair.

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.