General Propositions, Concepts and Definitions

1. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS, CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

Today, there is exist several definitions of hot spots, which are based on the following features (combinations thereof):

A “hot spot” is a territory characterized by

- presence of rare and vanishing species;

- a combination of threats to biodiversity;

- presence of a variety of potent point pollution sources;

- presence of a variety of point and non-point pollution sources;

- presence of pollution sources in the Dnipro Basin transboundary stretches.

- In addition, a hot spot may not be defined as a territory but rather as a point pollution source that has an adverse impact on the respective ecosystem.

The main idea is that in cases where the protection of rare species and habitats is viewed as a priority a hot spot is defined as a territory which has many such species and habitats and therefore it is identified as a problem (‘hot”) zone which requires investments for conservation purposes. Also, it is not necessary that this zone be exposed to the risk of being contaminated by pollutants or to any other anthropogenic impact at a given point in time. This approach to the definition of a hot spot can be found for instance in the GEF Hot Spot Identification Project implemented in the Russian Arctic zone or the WWF Ladoga Lake Project. At the same time, there are definitions (for example, the one offered by the WHO) that give priority to human health in which case a hot spot is defined as territory with point and non-point pollution sources. For the TDA purposes, the critical factor is the presence of pollution sources in the Dnipro Basin transboundary stretches.

The UNIDO Hot Spot Identification Project defines hot spots as pollution sources, for example, such as industrial and municipal effluent discharges, as well as non-point pollution sources such as agricultural and urban runoffs. They pose a threat to human health and lead to environmental degradation, particularly, in the zones where biodiversity is at the greatest risk of being decimated. This approach derives from the “industrial” focus of UNIDO activities and the need to prepare the Priority Investment Portfolio. In other words, it involves identifying a concrete recipient of funds to reduce pollution levels. The resulting classification of hot spots into “transboundary hot spots”, “national hot spots” and “local hot spots” is based on concentrations exceeding MACS (maximum acceptable concentrations).

Thus, in fact there exist two approaches to defining hot spots and both of them have been implemented under various GEF-financed programs. First, a hot spot is defined as an ecologically important zone (which, for example, in the case of a nature reserve may be eligible for financing) and, second, a hot spot is specified as a source that has an adverse impact on the respective ecosystem.

Proceeding from the rationale for the implementation of the unified UNDP-GEF Program, we could not, for the purposes of this Project, radically modify the definition of a hot spot as proposed by the main Hot Spots Project implemented under this Program, according to which a hot spot is defined solely as a pollution/contamination source. Especially as, according to the terms and conditions of the technical assignment of this Project, the national coordinators of the UNIDO Project provided us with a list of “transboundary hot spots” to be studied under filed conditions.

Nevertheless, we consider that the two approaches may be “reconciled” with each other to a certain extent if we examine the issues pertaining to the determination of environmental effects and risks associated with the impact of pollution sources on eco-sensitive zones. In so doing we may subsequently try to identify where investments should be channeled in each particular case – i.e., a pollution source provided it increases the probability of negative changes or an eco-sensitive zone, even when a specific pollution source under examination does not pose any threat.

Terminology. Since, for the time being, some terms relating to the problem of hot spots, biological assessment of ecosystems and environmental risks have not yet been uniformly defined, we provide our own definitions, which are used in this survey (See Table 1). Because our approach to assessing the environmental status of water ecosystems is similar to that proclaimed in the EU Framework Directive and the risk assessment methodology developed by us is to a large extent based on the “Canadian” methodology (A Framework…, 1996), these definitions are rather close to those provided in the said documents. At the same time, we pay attention to the recent works in this field as well as to the scientific and terminological traditions maintained in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

General methodological guidelines for analysis and assessment of environmental risks. Analysis and assessment of environmental risks are particularly effective, for instance, in cases where initial data on the status of ecosystems and anthropogenic pressures experienced by them are very uncertain or responses of ecosystems to these pressures are unclear and random (probabilistic) in nature or, else, in cases where ecosystems may be used in a number of different ways (different scenarios). There is no doubt that we are faced with all these circumstances when we study and assess the impact of point pollution sources (‘hot spots”) on eco-sensitive zones as part of this Project. Therefore, to meet the Project goals, preference should be given to the environmental risk assessment methodology as a more effective and appropriate one than the more conventional methodology based on the established criteria (notably, MACs, PDV, water quality standards, etc.).

Most of the successful environmental risk assessment methodologies have a three-level structure: 1 – screening assessment, 2 – preliminary qualitative assessment, and 3 – detailed qualitative assessment (EPA, 1993, A Framework…, 1996 et al.). This structure is also adopted in the present study.

Screening assessment is made for all “hot spots” and is expected to show for each spot whether an ecosystem is at risk of undergoing negative changes. In other words, at this assessment level we simply have to demonstrate (or to reject the assumption) that the surveyed spot (in the ecosystem) is at risk of undergoing adverse changes. As long as the environmental risk to an ecosystem has been proven (without assessing its probability or extent) we may proceed to the second assessment level, i.e. a preliminary qualitative assessment. If as a result of the screening assessment we obtain convincing proof that the surveyed spot is not exposed to any environmental risks we do not proceed to the next assessment levels.

It should be note that, for the purposes of this Project, only those spots which were characterized as “hot” ones (i.e. those highly likely to cause adverse changes and serious consequences as a result of these changes) were examined. In other words, only spots which were known to be “environmentally hazardous” were selected. Hence, there was no need to make a detailed screening assessment, that is, to answer whether these spots may pose an environmental threat. Within the context of this Project, the main goal of the screening assessment was to identify types of environmental risks posed by each hot spot since each of them is under strong anthropogenic stress and may undergo numerous adverse changes which must be revealed at this assessment level.

The screening assessment is mainly confined to the study of literature, reports, and statistical and other materials. Of special importance are interviews with renowned experts working in the “hot spot” zone. The objective of the preliminary quantitative assessment of environmental risks is to make a rough estimate of the probability of different types of environmental risks and of the magnitude of adverse changes that may take place should these risks materialize. Unlike the screening risk assessment level, this level requires in situ studies followed by analyses of collected samples under laboratory conditions.

A preliminary quantitative risk assessment can be made in a number of different ways including both standard mathematical statistics tools (for example, frequency-based determination of the risk probability) and the expert’s assessment of the probability and extent of a risk (for example, using the Delfi method). The resulting risk estimates are preliminary and approximate, which, among other things, means that they do not have to be perfectly accurate or fully statically reliable. It is assumed that these preliminary risk estimates may be somewhat “blurred” and, consequently, may be calculated based on small samples. In addition, this will allow us to involve a small group of experts in expert’s assessments and to use “loosely formalized” mathematical methods (for instance, boundary risk assessment methods [Barlow, Proshan, 1984],etc.)

Table 1. Main Definitions

In most cases where the environmental risk methodology is applied to complex ecosystems rather than their individual components we do not proceed beyond the preliminary quantitative assessment level. The reason for this is that we cannot possibly obtain the necessary amount of information or afford the excessive time required for the calculation of detailed risk assessments which must be both highly accurate and statistically reliable. The foregoing has a direct bearing on the objectives and specifics of this Project. Its rigid time schedule and express data-gathering methods, which should be viewed as its strong points, prevent us from using information necessary for detailed assessments of environmental risks. Such assessments can be merely preliminary, however, they are quite sufficient to accomplish the Project goals, including the analysis of data on hot spots and the drafting of a joint action plan to reverse hazardous changes in the areas affected by them.

A detailed environmental risk assessment is feasible in cases where it is possible for each hot spot under examination to gather the amount of information required for the construction of a prognostic ecosystem model which would allow us to make accurate and statistically reliable risk assessments. These should be either simulation models or those approximating the.

As was pointed out above, this Project does not require that this information be obtained or that detailed models for each hot spot be constructed. Consequently, a detailed quantitative assessment of environmental risks has not been carried out and the entire job has been completed at the preliminary quantitative assessment level. It should be noted that this has been standard practice for most studies on environmental risk assessment.

Each of the three risk assessment levels mentioned above includes the following 4 components: 1 – description of receptors; 2 – assessment of perceived impacts (in particular, of volumes and concentrations of pollutants); 3 – identification of ecological and economic threats (types of environmental risks); and 4 – description of risks (assessment of their probability and extent) (A Framework…, 1996).

Next: Environmental Risk Assessment Methodolgy

Previous: Executors