Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (환경생물)

Korean Society of Environmental Biology (한국환경생물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on the risk assessment system for the harmful marine species: the legal problems and solutions

유해해양생물 위해성평가 제도의 문제점 및 개선방안 연구

  • 이창수 (국립해양생물자원관 사회가치실) ;
  • 모영동 (국립해양생물자원관 사회가치실)
  • Received : 2020.12.08
  • Accepted : 2020.12.24
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries has designated 17 species as harmful marine organisms with the purpose of managing harmful marine species that threaten health and property. In designating and managing harmful marine species, detailed and effective regulations were originally established in November 2015, and a minor amendment of the directive was published in 2019 - Directive on Designating and Managing Marine Ecosystem Invasive Species and Harmful Marine Species (hereinafter, the Directive). Thus, this study had two aims: Firstly, to increase public awareness of the harmful marine species management system run by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries via description of the present harmful marine species risk assessment system. Secondly, to improve the current risk assessment system by providing policy suggestions developed through review of the present harmful marine species designation and management system. In so doing, this study reviewed the 'harmful marine species - harmfulness risk assessment system' in both the definitions of "risk" and "assessment". As a result, the present definition of 'risk' adequately fulfills the policy aims on the Regulation of Marine Ecosystem, which includes an economic value. However, it seems that there is a loophole in the rules of risk assessment, lacking terms of reference in the definition of "risk". Moreover, with regards to risk assessment, a quantitative risk assessment system was sufficient but lacked elements of qualitative risk, suggesting future research in this area may prove useful in the management of harmful marine species.

해양수산부는 사람의 건강과 재산을 위협하는 유해해양생물을 관리하기 위한 목적으로 17종의 유해해양생물을 지정했다. 유해해양생물의 지정 및 관리에 있어 2015년 11월 고시를 제정하고, 2019년 '해양생태계 교란종 및 유해해양생물의 지정 및 관리에 관한 지침(이하, 훈령)'을 개정하였다. 이 연구는 두 가지 목적을 가지고 있다. 첫째, 해양수산부가 운영하는 유해해양생물의 위해성평가제도의 도입에 대한 국민의 인식을 제고할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 현행 유해해양생물 지정 및 관리체계를 검토하여 현행 제도를 개선하고 정책제안을 제공하는 것이다. 이를 위해 본 연구에서는 유해해양생물의 위해성 위험 평가 제도'를 '위험'과 '평가'의 두 가지 정의로 검토하였다. 현 위해성평가 절차에 대한 본고의 검토 결과는 정성적 위해성평가 요소의 보완이다. 비록 정성적 평가기준이 가미되어 있지만, 현 위해성평가 절차는 정량적 위해성평가에 충실한 제도로 정성적 위해성평가 요소가 보완되었을 때 정량적 위해성 평가가 가지는 단점을 극복할 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 해양수산부 재원으로 해양수산과학기술진흥원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(해양생태계교란 및 유해해양생물 관리기술 개발, 20190518).

References

  1. AFFC. 2006. Report review of the act on conservation and management of marine ecosystems (proposed by the government). Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Committee of the National Assembly.
  2. Campbell-Mohn C and JS Applegate. 1999. Learning from NEPA: Guidelines for responsible risk legislation. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 23:117.
  3. Charnley G and GS Omenn. 1997. Introduction: With a summary of the findings and recommendations of the commission on risk assessment and risk management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 3:710.
  4. Cho HS. 2002. Risk law-environmental law as an integrated risk management system. Seoul law J. 43:27-128.
  5. CIMA. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. p. 18.
  6. Daggett CJ, RE Hazen and JA Shaw. 1989. Advancing environmental protection through risk assessment. Colum. J. Envtl. L. 14:317.
  7. ECB. 2018. Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances directive 98/8/EC of the European parliament and of the council concerning the placing of biological products on the market. European Commission Joint Research Center. pp. 7-50.
  8. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register 63:26846-26924.
  9. Finkel AM and D Golding. 1995. Worst Things First: The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. p. 7.
  10. Fowle JR and KL Dearfield. 2000. Science policy council handbook, risk characterization. Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency. p. 54.
  11. Grad FP. 1986. Risk assessment and the tyranny of numbers: A brief comment. J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 1:1.
  12. Heyvaert V. 1999. Reconceptualizing risk assessment. Rev. Eur. Comp. & Int'l Envtl. L. 8:135-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00191
  13. HIRA. 2020. Health insurance review and assessment service. http://opendata.hira.or.kr/op/opc/olapHthInsRvStatInfo.do#-none
  14. Israel BD. 1995. An environmental justice critique of risk assessment. NYU Envtl. LJ 3:476.
  15. Kim DH. 2019. A legislation for the risk-based contaminated sites management. Environ. Law Rev. 41:1-36. https://doi.org/10.35769/elr.2019.41.1.001
  16. Kim KY, JY Park, JH Chae and S Sin. 2019. Development of the methods for controlling and managing the marine ecosystem disturbing and harmful organisms. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Sejong, Korea. pp. 55-56.
  17. Mendoza Alfaro RE, B Cudmore, R Orr, JP Fisher, SC Balderas, WR Courtenay, P Koleff Osorio, N Mandrak, P Alvarez Torres, M Arroyo Damian, C Escalera Gallardo, A Guevara Sanguines, G Greene, D Lee, A Orbe-Mendoza, C Ramirez Martinez and O Stabridis Arana. 2009. Trinational Risk Assessment Guidelines for Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. pp. 61-71.
  18. NIKL. 2020. National Institute of Korean Language. https://www.korean.go.kr/front_eng/intro/intro_01.do
  19. Piyapong J and T Watanabe. 2015. Improving environmental risk management. Environ. Pol. Law 45:294.
  20. Robinson C, CJ Portier, A Cavo&cki, R Mesnage, A Roger, P Clausing, P Whaley, H Muilerman and A Lyssimachou. 2020. Achieving a high level of protection from pesticides in Europe: Problems with the current risk assessment procedure and solutions. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11:450-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18
  21. Slovic PE. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  22. Son GH. 2015. A study on improvement of management system for introduced marine pest and harmful marine species. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Sejong, Korea.
  23. Sunstein CR. 1997. Which risks first. U. Chi. Legal F. 1997:119-130.