TWAP Lakes and Reservoirs Component provides Lake Ranking Order by the threats on the basis of the initial 23 basin drivers and associated driver weights; the socioeconomic factors encompassed within the HDI; and a modified version of the Incident BD threats. The computed ranks from these various parameters were then summed to obtain an overall threat ranking encompassing all of them. It is reiterated that it is the responsibility of the user of the ranking results to identify the most appropriate context for considering them, particularly in regard to developing management interventions.

The summarizes the overall ranks of the TWAP transboundary study lakes, calculated as the sum of the ranks based on the lake Adj-HWS, RvBD, and HDI scores. Not unexpectedly, the large majority of the most threatened transboundary lakes.

Transboundary Lake Threat Ranks by Multiple Ranking Criteria

(Cont., continent; Eur, Europe; N.Am, North America; Afr, Africa; S.Am, South America;
Adj-HWS, Adjusted Human Water Security threat; HWS, Incident Human Water Security threat; BD, Incident Biodiversity threat;
HDI, Human Development Index, RvBD, surrogate for ‘Adjusted’ Biodiversity threat;
Estimated risks: Red – highest; Orange – moderately high; Yellow – medium; Green – moderately low; Blue – low)

Identifying the appropriate context is fundamental to obtaining a meaningful understanding and appreciation of the lake threat ranks, particularly in regard to potential management interventions.

TWAP Lakes and Reservoirs Component provides observations regarding the potential for undertaking management interventions for individual transboundary lakes, based on their ranking order and available literature concerning their current status

Summary of GEF Intervention Possibilities

The individual comments regarding this literature-based assessment summary are defined as:

• Explore: Explore the feasibility of interventions with the help of local experts. The available information on the prevailing biophysical and limnological state of the lake environment warrants the use of external interventions. However, the political climate, government readiness, and governance constraints are not clear. Thus, a combined assessment would be possible only with direct involvement of local experts;
• Survey: Some scientific and managerial data and information are available, but are not sufficient to undertake comprehensive, conclusive assessments. A reconnaissance survey conducted with the help of local experts may lead to necessary conclusions on the desirability and feasibility of external interventions;
• Improve: The quantity of information on the scientific and managerial challenges is not sufficient to reach any meaningful conclusions. A concerted effort is required to improve the lake knowledge base;
• Defer: It is premature to make a positive assessment for external interventions;
• Review: Review the current GEF status;
• Recommendable: Consider GEF intervention.