Document Actions
Detailed Assessment
Up one level
8.2. Detailed Assessment
Five Hot Spots, which were assigned the highest weighted score according to the sum of scores in the categories “Quality of Water and Human Health ”,“ Pollution Control ”,“ Environment and Biodiversity”, were subject to the most detailed economic assessment.
These five Hot Spots are:
- Smolensk municipal vodokanal;
- State unitary enterprise “Inter-district engineering services, town of Briansk”;
- State unitary enterprise “Inter-district engineering services, town of Novozybkov”;
- Municipal unitary enterprise “Kursk vodokanal”;
- Agricultural complex in the basin of Vorsklitsa River (Belgorodskaya Oblast).
The other 10 Hot Spots were evaluated by the experts, using also comparison with enterprises of the same type (mainly of water-supply and sewerage system).
8.2.1. Direct Pollution
Categories developed in this sphere enable to judge in what way pollution affects water preparation as well as the impact of pollution on additional costs connected with water treatment.
8.2.1.1. Adverse Impact of Hot Spot on Water Consumption Downstream the River Flow
The need of additional treatment (additional expenditure) in order to meet drinking water quality standards.
As it was pointed out in Chapter 6, water intake facilities, including both surface water and ground water infiltration type facilties for all the 15 Hot Spots, are located more than 25 km downstream. The need for additional treatment of wastewater (and additional expenditure) is caused not by the necessity to meet drinking water quality standards, but to meet the established norms of maximum permissible discharge of water bodies for fish-farming or recreational purpose.
The highest score (50) according to this criterion was assigned to the Hot Spot “Agricultural complex in the basin of Vorsklitsa River”, where there is practically no wastewater treatment at the most of the generators of pollutants. Then according to the assigned scores , this Hot Spot is followed by the biggest communal enterprises located in oblast centres of the Dnipro region – in the towns of Smolensk, Briansk and Kursk (which get a score of 40). The other Hot Spots were assigned 30 points according to Criterion 1.1.
The scoring sheet is given in Annex F (Table F-1).
8.2.1.2. Assessment of spending required for the treatment of one relative unit of drinking water in the areas of Hot Spots relative to the spending necessary for treatment of one unit of drinking water on average all over the country.
According to this criterion the Hot Spot “Agricultural complex in the basin of Vorsklitsa River” was assigned a score of 50 for the same reason as pointed out for Criterion 1.1. Kursk vodokanal was assigned the score of 5. The other Hot Spots were assigned “0” since the drinking water supply sources are ground water, which does not need treatment.
The scoring sheet is given in Annex F (Table F-2).
8.2.1.3. Adverse impact of Hot Spot on water consumption downstream the river flow. The need of additional treatment (additional spending) in order to meet production quality standards.
Similarly as in the case of Criterion 1.1, the need for additional treatment of wastewater (and additional expenditure) is caused not by the necessity to meet production standard of water quality (fit for technical purposes), but to a greater extent by the need to meet the established norms of the maximum permissible discharge into water bodies for fish-farming or recreational purposes. By water pollution index and hydrological indicators, the Dnipro water quality in the territory of the Russian Federation can be referred to as moderately polluted. After the discharge sites for contaminated water discharge, including the Hot Spots, not exceeding MAD, the ambient pollution level is restored within 15 km, not requiring any additional treatment.
Therefore the scoring was carried out taking into account only the total volume of effleunt discharge and its share in the total volume of discharge.
As for Criterion 1.3, Smolensk municipal vodokanal and the state unitary enterprise “Briansk inter-district engineering services” were assigned 30 points, Kursk vodokanal was assigned 25 points, and the remaining Hot Spots except Vorsklitsa were assigned the score of 20 based on professional judgment regarding the potential adverse impact. The Agricultural complex on the Vorsklitsa River was assigned a score of 0 due to the specificity of this Hot Spot and its small share of wastewater in the total volume of discharge.
Pollution downstream is caused by the fishing ponds drained once a year. In addition, there are no industrial water intakes nearby.
The scoring sheet is given in Annex F (Table F-3).
8.2.1.4. Assessment of spending required for treatment of one relative unit of industrial water in the area of the Hot Spots relative to the spending necessary for treatment of one unit of industrial water on average all over the country.
Smolensk municipal vodokanal and state unitary enterprise “Briansk inter-district engineering services” were assigned a score of 0. Smolensk and Briansk belong to the old industrial areas that use traditional production technologies. Therefore, the average costs for treatment of industrial water will not vary from the average Russian indicators.
The costs for treatment of industrial water at the Novozybkov Inter-district Services would be somewhat higher due to the specific preparation of the industrial water directly from the rayon wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, it was assigned the score of 10.
The costs of technical water treatment at Kursk Vodokanal can be expected to be somewhat higher, due to the specificity of the production branch structure.
Kursk Oblast is dominated by mainly such polluters as heat plant, ferrous metallurgy, chemical, petrochemical, etc. industries that require increased treatment costs. A score of 10 was assigned here, too.
The agricultural complex in the basin of Vorsklitsa River was also assigned 0 score (due to absence of industrial enterprises using technical water). There are no industrial water intakes nearby.
The scoring sheet is given in Annex F (Table F-4).
8.2.1.5. Capital investments necessary to meet EU standards of water quality, established by the Framework Directive on water policy.
For the year 2000, the environmental costs for the Upper Dnipro Basin were 87 700 thousand roubles (2 800 thousand USD), or 0.1 % of the gross regional product of this territory (Table 8.1).
Table 8.1 : Investments into Fixed Assets Aimed at
Environmental Protection and Efficient Use of Natural Resources, by Oblasts of
the Upper Dnipro
in 2000
Thousand Roubles / Thousand USD
|
Indicators |
Russian Federation |
Upper Dnipro Basin |
|
Investment into wastewater treatment plants |
22 339 000 / 721 000 |
87 700 / 2 800 |
|
Including investment in water bodies protection |
8 251 000 / 266 000 |
61 700 / 2 000 |
|
In particular, from: - federal budget - budget of federation subjects - own funds - environmental funds |
284 000 / 9 200 1 710 000 / 55 200
5 753 000 / 185 600 347 000 / 11 200 |
11 450 / 370 12 750 / 410
36 300 / 1 170 3 100 / 100 |
The main share of the environmental costs, about 75%, is current costs. They include the costs for maintenance and operation of environmental fixed assets; protection measures and the recovery of the environment affected by production activity; storage and transportation of waste; organization of monitoring for emissions and discharge; and etc.
During the last decade, the share of environmental investments in the total environmental costs has dropped to less than 15% or 13 000-15 000 thousand per year, which obviously does not cover the costs required for environmental rehabilitation.
Realization of the complete complex of measures, suggested by the projects of the five Hot Spots, would allow for a change in the situation on the Upper Dnipro. The total cost of their complete realization is about 900 000 thousand roubles or 28 600 thousand USD. The s estimated total annual amount of treatment is about $US 1.7 million per year.
Based on professional judgment, complete compliance in the Dnipro Basin with the water quality standards, established by the Framework Directive on water, would require about 40 000 thousand USD, or 2400 thousand USD per year.
Based on the conditions of the Hot Spots, for this criterion and their impact on the pollution of water bodies, the Hot Spot “Kursk Vodokanal” was assigned a score of 20. Smolensk Gorvodokanal and Briansk Inter-district Engineering Services were assigned 30, and the agricultural complex in the basin of the Vorsklitsa River was assigned 0. All the other Hot Spots are assigned 40. (Annex F, Table F-5).
Thus as for category 1, the highest average weighted score in the summary table were assigned to Smolensk Gorvodokanal and Briansk Inter-district Engineering Services (1.600), followed by Hot Spot “Kursk Vodokanal” (1.488). All the other Hot Spots were assigned 1.375.
8.2.2. Agricultural Production.
8.2.2.1. Increased operating cost can be caused by the widely adopted use of large quantities of fertilizers and chemical weed and pest-killers.
An increase in the transaction costs and investment outlay for the purchase of fertilizers and chemicals also as a result of the adverse impact of the Hot Spots is not shown. The economic decline has resulted in a decrease in the total arable lands for all crops by 35-45%. The amount of applied soil fertilizers and chemical weed and pest killers have reduced even more dramatically. Therefore, all Hot Spots are assigned 0 score. (Annex F, Table F-6).
8.2.2.2. Loss of arable lands in the proximity to the Hot Spots as a direct result of pollution
Criterion 2.2. Loss of arable lands in proximity to the Hot Spots as a direct result of pollution was not observed. All the Hot Spots are assigned 0 score.
(Annex F, Table F-7).
8.2.3. Macroeconomics
8.2.3.1. Assessment of the importance of Hot Spot for the national economy with relation to total production volume.
This criterion enables an overall assessment of the importance of a Hot Spot with respect to the economy of the state in relation to the total production volume.
Taking into account that the Hot Spots are represented mainly by Vodokanals, production activity and the output of the Hot Spots do not contribute considerably to gross national product.
(Annex F, Table F-8).
8.2.3.2. Assessment of Hot Spots as significant exporters and the sources of exchange earnings.
Hot Spots are not the significant exporters and the sources of exchange earnings. (Annex F, Table F-9).
8.2.3.3. Assessment of Hot Spots as the sources of substantial tax proceeds.
Hot Spots are not the sources of substantial tax proceeds. (Annex F, Table F-10).
8.2.3.4. Assessment of Hot Spots as the principal employers.
Hot Spots are not the principal employers (Annex F, Table F-11).
Therefore all Hot Spots (for all criteria under the Category of “Macroeconomics”) are assigned scores of 0. In respect to macroeconomic indicators, the impact of Hot Spots is insignificant however the realization of the planned measures enables water quality standards to be achieved.
8.2.4. Microeconomics.
8.2.4.1. Assessment of Hot Spots as those which predominate in industrial employment in the region.
The category “Microeconomics” enables the assessment of the role of the industrial sector within the territory of a Hot Spot. Each Hot Spot provides the treatment and discharge of wastewater received from numerous industrial enterprises located within the zone of its operation. For example, Smolensk Vodokanal discharges 43% of the whole volume of wastewater generated by industrial enterprises of this oblast. Briansk Vodokanal discharges more than a half of the whole volume of industrial effluents of the oblast. At the other vodokanals the situation is similar.
Therefore for the criterion “Industrial sector within the territory of Hot Spot predominates in industrial employment in the region”. All Hot Spots are qualified as 50 points. (Annex F, Table F-12).
8.2.4.2. Assessment of Hot Spots as those which predominate with regard to employment in certain sector of national economy.
Hot Spots predominate with regard to employment in certain sectors of the national economy. Therefore all the Hot Spots are assigned a score of 50 for this criterion. (Annex F, Table F-13).
