Document Actions
Hot Spot Definition
Up one level
2. HOT SPOT DEFINITION
There is no universally accepted concept of a “hot spot” (Hot Spot). The Dnipro Basin Environmental Programme Terms of Reference defines Hot Spots as:
- Point sources of pollution/contamination
- Non-point sources of pollution/contamination
- Biodiversity sensitive areas
- Areas with human health risks
- Areas with environmental degradation
In order to develop a systematic and accurate approach to addressing the large number of potential Hot Spots to be identified and assessed, a more precise and detailed definition was required. It was proposed by SLE&C, and accepted by the National Experts from all three riparian countries, to impose some limitations on the above definition of Hot Spots.
It was accepted that, for the purpose of this project, a Hot Spot be restricted to sources of pollution/contamination only. Sources of pollution/contamination (Hot Spots) that could be characterized quantitatively by the National Hot Spot Experts (NHSE) were assessed and prioritized using the proposed Methodology. Those identified sources of pollution/contamination that could not be characterized quantitatively by the NHSE were qualitatively described in the National Pollution Reduction Reports/National Reviews. Hence Hot Spots fell under two distinct categories: Hot Spots subject to scoring, and Hot Spots subject to qualitative description.
The following clarifies what is included under the Hot Spot definition for this project and what is not included.
What is included under the Hot Spot Definition
Hot Spots Subject to Scoring
It was accepted that Hot Spots be restricted primarily to sources that introduce pollution directly to the surface waters of the Dnipro River Basin, i.e. ‘direct dischargers’, through sewer outfalls (sanitary, process and stormwater). Sources of pollution that introduce pollution indirectly, i.e. ‘indirect dischargers’, by filtration of contaminated groundwater or leachate to surface water bodies (e.g. landfills), or through deposition of contaminated media through other pathways (such as air emissions), were only considered if their impacts were proven to be as significant in scale and effect as direct dischargers, and that the pollution source was quantifiable (e.g. flow, concentration and loading).
Direct dischargers included municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants, industrial complexes, manufacturing plants, mineral and resource extraction centres, centres of large-scale livestock rearing and areas of high population density (towns and cities). Sources of pollution of this type are typically characterized by availability of data which can be used for their quantitative description and assessment. These identified sources of pollution (Hot Spots) were assessed and scored using the proposed Methodology.
Hot Spots subject to scoring typically were the point sources of pollution/contamination. Non-point (diffuse) sources of pollution/contamination such as large farms, contaminated farming and industrial areas, military bases, etc., were also considered as Hot Spots subject to scoring, if they could be “equated” to point sources with sufficient available data to pass them through the scoring process.
Hot Spots subject to Qualitative Description
National Experts also identified, using their professional judgment, particular sources of substantial pollution/contamination that, for different reasons, did not have sufficient data to characterize them quantitatively (for scoring). Sources of pollution (Hot Spots) of this type were qualitatively described by the NHSE in the National Pollution Reduction Reports/National Reviews.
Typical examples of these types of pollution sources included ‘indirect dischargers’, non-point sources that could not be characterized quantitatively as point sources, e.g. landfills, and areas with environmental degradation (such as many military bases), large tailing ponds or drained peatlands, that are very extensive and thus difficult to quantitatively characterize. These Hot Spots were not scored, but described qualitatively, in the National Pollution Reduction Reports.
Other examples of Hot Spots subject to qualitative description were features with significant risk (potential for significant impacts), that could not be considered as active Hot Spots, for example:
- Petroleum tank farms and pipelines;
- Tailing ponds and reservoirs located on or near of the Dnipro River banks or its tributaries with water levels higher than in the river (unless they have active effluent discharges);
- Non-operational facilities: historical discharges, decommissioned or closed facilities (unless they have active effluent discharges).
These features were also identified by the National Experts of each country, using their professional judgment, and described qualitatively in the National Pollution Reduction Reports.
What is not included under Hot Spots definition
It was fully acknowledged that biodiversity sensitive areas are important features that needed attention in the study, however, they are receptors of pollution, not sources of pollution. As such, biodiversity sensitive areas were not considered as Hot Spots. Instead they were considered useful factors in the prioritization of the Hot Spots. From this perspective, it was proposed that the following areas should be considered “Biodiversity Sensitive Areas” representing potential receptors only. Additional categories of biodiversity sensitive areas could be added to the methodology upon recommendation by the NHSE.
- Wildlife Preserves (areas designated for Environmental Protection);
- Areas with significant habitats (wetlands and terrestrial habitat areas);
- Significant ecosystems, species complexes in need of conservation, e.g., spawning, migration, or staging areas.
Other important receptors included drinking water treatment plants and industrial water intakes (whose source waters are from rivers in the basin), recreational areas and commercial fisheries.
Another proposed restriction on the definition of Hot Spots were activities with significant impacts, whose potential mitigation measures did not meet UNIDO’s desired outcome of being bankable projects. These included activities or features whose potential mitigation measures mainly included additional legislation, institutional strengthening, changes in practices, training and education. While these measures may be important for any mitigation, if they comprise the measures exclusively, they will not be perceived as ‘bankable’. Examples of these activities included the following:
- Riverbank modifications: habitat loss;
- Farming (crops): soil erosion, runoff contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides;
- Forestry: soil erosion and runoff shock;
- Construction: soil erosion.
Definition of Hot Spot types
It was accepted that, for the purpose of this project, the types of Hot Spots also be defined in relation to their location within the river basin as follows:
Local Hot Spot – is a source of pollution/contamination, responsible for exceeding the corresponding local (National) Guidelines / Maximum Permissible Concentration values in surface water within the administrative unit (region, oblast) boundary, and results in an area of elevated human health and biodiversity risk and/or ecological hazard.
National Hot Spot – is a source of pollution/contamination, responsible for exceeding the corresponding National Guidelines / Maximum Permissible Concentration values in surface water within the country boundary, and results in an area of elevated human health and biodiversity risk and/or an ecological hazard.
Transboundary Hot Spot – is a source of pollution/contamination, responsible for exceeding the corresponding National Guidelines / Maximum Permissible Concentration values in surface water of adjacent countries. This also includes transboundary parts of the Dnipro River Basin where areas of elevated human health and biodiversity risk, as well as ecological hazard zones are formed as a result of industrial, agricultural or municipal activities.
