Image

Assessment Results: Threat Ranks

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)

Cont. Lake Name Adj-HWS Threat RvBD Threat HDI   Adj-HWS Rank HDI Rank RvBD Rank   Sum Adj- HWS + RvBD Relative Rank   Sum Adj-HWS + HDI Relative Rank   Sum Adj- HWS + RvBD + HDI Overall Rank
AfrAbbe/Abhe0.930.710.4777141143211
AfrTurkana0.90.70.41131092222310322
AfrSelingue0.870.680.36162153111185333
AfrMalawi/Nyasa0.910.680.4291214233219354
AfrChiuta0.850.740.4123932653215354
AfrCohoha0.960.590.38342831271354
AfrKivu0.910.670.3812618308184367
AfrRweru/Moero0.960.580.364330341672378
AfrLake Congo River0.750.780.34351136183619378
AfrTanganyika0.840.710.42686321434174010
AfrEdward0.940.650.43613222871964111
AfrChilwa0.860.70.41211110311032144212
AfrMweru0.810.720.383354372138204212
AsiaSistan0.980.620.46120252662184614
AfrNatron/Magadi0.930.670.518231725431134815
AfrNasser/Aswan0.860.680.43201616361936185216
AfrAlbert0.910.630.46101924341529125317
AfrIhema0.970.560.442183335172075317
S.Am,Azuei0.960.570.4652131362026115719
AsiaAral Sea0.840.620.627265321353315820
AsiaSarygamysh0.820.750.672929231958326021
AfrCahora Bassa0.780.690.43341513472549256222
AfrVictoria0.910.560.47112232432433166523
AfrChad0.840.640.43251723482642216523
AfrKariba0.750.660.43361419553050286925
S.AmTiticaca0.820.710.7132328402225357226
AfrAby0.830.650.52282421492752307327
S.AmChungarkkota0.820.690.71313312432364347628
AsiaShardara/Kara-kul0.860.540.65222835573150278529
EurDead Sea0.90.510.72143438522948248630
AfrJosini/Pongola-poort Dam0.850.520.61242737613451298831
S.AmSalto Grande0.670.70.74403811512878398932
AsiaDarbandikhan0.870.460.68173046633547239333
S.AmLago de Yacyreta0.750.660.73383620583274389434
AsiaAras Su Qovsaginin Su Anbari0.890.470.73153544593350269434
AsiaMangla0.870.380.54182553713943229636
S.AmItaipu0.750.580.733737296637743710337
AsiaCaspian Sea0.730.60.773941276636804010738
EurGalilee0.870.450.881946476638653611239
EurCahul0.820.390.693031518142613311239
EurScutari/Skadar0.620.550.784142347541834111741
N.AmAmistad0.490.610.864745267340474011842
EurMacro Prespa (Large Prespa)0.510.510.754440408443844212443
EurOhrid0.470.510.744939398846884412744
EurSzczecin Lagoon0.530.490.834343438644864312945
N.AmHuron0.420.530.9351503687451015113746
EurNeusiedler/Ferto0.580.390.884247509247894513947
N.AmOntario0.480.470.924849459348974914248
EurLake Maggiore0.330.50.8952484294501005014248
N.AmFalcon0.50.380.854644529853904614248
N.AmErie0.510.430.934551499451964814551
N.AmChamplain0.290.510.9453524194491055314652
N.AmMichigan0.440.440.9450534898521035215153

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

LakeLiterature AssessmentKey Observations for GEF Prioritization Considerations
AFrica
Abbe/Abhe Explore, Improve Joint implementation with other Ethiopian and Djiboujtian highland lakes may be usefully explored.
Aby Explore, Improve Possibly consider together with Volta River and Lake Volta
Albert Explore, Survey Joint implementation with Edward could be an option.
Cahora Bassa Review, Defer Need to confirm how lake is assessed within Zambezi River transboundary system.
Chad Defer Review current GEF status.
Chilwa Explore, Improve Joint implementation with Chiuta may be usefully explored. Examine viability of relating with Malawi/Nyasa follow-up.
Chiuta Explore, Improve Joint implementation with Chilwa may be usefully explored. Examine viability of relating with Malawi/Nyasa follow-up.
Cohoha Explore, Improve Consideration may be given to possible joint implementation with Ihema and Rweru/Moero as an option.
Edward Explore, Survey Joint implementation with Albert could be an option.
Ihema Explore, Improve Possibly consider together with Rweru/ Moero and Cohoha.
Josini/Pongolapoort Dam Defer Current status of bilateral position is not clear.
Kariba Explore, Improve Need to confirm how lake is assessed within Zambezi River transboundary system.
Kivu Defer Political and social instability will have to be overcome before consideration.
Lake Congo River Defer Need to confirm how lake is assessed within Congo River transboundary system.
Malawi/Nyasa Review Review current GEF status, and relationship with Chiuta and Chilwa.
Mweru Explore, Improve Possibly consider together with Rweru/ Moero and Cohoha.
Nasser/Aswan Review, Defer Need to confirm how lake is assessed in Nile River transboundary system.
Natron/Magadi Explore, Survey Explore transboundary/non-transboundary framework.
Rweru/Moero Explore, Improve Consideration may be given to possible joint implementation with Ihema and Cohoha as an option.
Selingue Defer Need to undertake more preliminary scientific situation assessment.
Tanganyika Review Review current GEF status.
Victoria Review Review current GEF status.
AFrica
Aral Sea Review Review current GEF status.
Aras Su Qovsaginin Su Anbari Defer Need assessment of current scientific and political situation.
Caspian Sea Review Review current GEF status.
Darbandikhan Defer Need assessment of current scientific and political situation.
Mangla Defer Current status of bilateral position is not clear.
Sarygamysh Explore Possibly consider together with Aral Sea follow-up, if that is realized.
Shardara/Kara-kul Explore Possibly consider together with Aral Sea follow-up, if that is realized.
Sistan Review Review current GEF status.
AFrica
Azuei Recommend-able Explore possibility and viability.
Titicaca Review Review current GEF status.
Chungarkkota Defer Review current status in relation to Titicaca.
Itaipu Defer Need assessment of current scientific situation.
Lago de Yacyreta Defer Need assessment of current scientific situation.
Salto Grande Defer Need assessment of current scientific situation.
Salto Grande Defer Need assessment of current scientific situation.

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.