Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2020.38.4.691

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

Lee, Chang Su (National Marine Biodiversity Institute of Korea)
Moh, Youngdawng (National Marine Biodiversity Institute of Korea)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Environmental Biology / v.38, no.4, 2020 , pp. 691-704 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
marine biodiversity; risk; risk assessment; harmful marine species; convention on biological diversity; harm; quantitative risk assessment; qualitative risk assessment;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 Slovic PE. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280   DOI
3 Sunstein CR. 1997. Which risks first. U. Chi. Legal F. 1997:119-130.
4 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.
5 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.
6 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.
7 Piyapong J and T Watanabe. 2015. Improving environmental risk management. Environ. Pol. Law 45:294.
8 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.
9 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.
10 Campbell-Mohn C and JS Applegate. 1999. Learning from NEPA: Guidelines for responsible risk legislation. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 23:117.
11 Cho HS. 2002. Risk law-environmental law as an integrated risk management system. Seoul law J. 43:27-128.
12 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.
13 Grad FP. 1986. Risk assessment and the tyranny of numbers: A brief comment. J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 1:1.
14 Daggett CJ, RE Hazen and JA Shaw. 1989. Advancing environmental protection through risk assessment. Colum. J. Envtl. L. 14:317.
15 EPA. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register 63:26846-26924.
16 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.
17 Israel BD. 1995. An environmental justice critique of risk assessment. NYU Envtl. LJ 3:476.
18 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.
19 Kim DH. 2019. A legislation for the risk-based contaminated sites management. Environ. Law Rev. 41:1-36.   DOI
20 Heyvaert V. 1999. Reconceptualizing risk assessment. Rev. Eur. Comp. & Int'l Envtl. L. 8:135-143.   DOI
21 HIRA. 2020. Health insurance review and assessment service. http://opendata.hira.or.kr/op/opc/olapHthInsRvStatInfo.do#-none
22 NIKL. 2020. National Institute of Korean Language. https://www.korean.go.kr/front_eng/intro/intro_01.do
23 Fowle JR and KL Dearfield. 2000. Science policy council handbook, risk characterization. Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency. p. 54.