The threat rankings based on the Threat Assessments and their Parametric Sensitivity Analyses of the 53 individual transboundary lakes provide a general idea of the comparative need to undertake management interventions. There are other defining factors, however, that merit due consideration to identify priorities for GEF-facilitated funding of potential management interventions. Such considerations will include the availability of relevant data and information on the prevailing biophysical and limnological state of the lake environment, the political climate and government willingness to undertake the challenging tasks involved in intervention project development and implementation. Further, depending on the nature and magnitude of the issues facing the transboundary lake basins, the modes of GEF interventions can vary from, for example, direct technical assistance, policy and regulatory development, financing mechanisms and options, capacity building and incubation, as well as various advisory services.

To provide a mechanism to consider such additional factors, the project used a knowledgebase system called “Learning Acceleration and Knowledge Enhancement System (LAKES-III).” Originally developed and refined at Shiga University (Japan), ILEC has used this system over the past decade to support comprehensive lake basin management efforts in various countries around the world. During the TWAP exercise, the system contained approximately 1 700 documents available from public-domain literature and other sources, as well as manuscripts published from all past issues (1988-2015) of ILEC’s journal, “Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management.” These sources provided considerable additional information to facilitate prioritization of the transboundary lakes for GEF-mediated management interventions, as well as other management efforts.

The range of literature-based observations may be summarily 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;
• Recommend: Consider GEF interventions.

Factors such as climate change at continental and sub-continental scales also can significantly influence management intervention priorities. These latter factors were not directly incorporated in the assessment framework because of their levels of uncertainty are very large. Using LAKES-III, in combination with the results of the Threat Assessment and Parametric Sensitivity Analysis, it was possible to produce a “Summary of Ranking Order Related to GEF Intervention Possibilities.” This summary represents a a useful basis for GEF in-house priority decisions, in combination with a broader expert group brainstorming to focus on identifying priority GEF intervention possibilities.

Summary of Ranking Order Related to GEF Intervention Possibilities