Prespa is the name given to two freshwater lakes in southeast Europe, Macro Prespa and Micro Prespa. They comprise two lakes separated by a narrow strip of land, with Micro (small) Prespa located 8 m higher than Macro Prespa. They are the highest tectonic lakes in the Balkans. The lakes are connected by a natural canal with sluice gates. Macro Prespa is shared by Albania, Greece and Macedonia, while Micro Prespa is only shared by the former two countries. Rather, their waters drain into Lake Ohrid, which is located 150 m lower than the Prespa Lakes, via karst groundwater aquifers. Macro Prespa contains only 11 known native fish species, with nine being endemic to the lake.

Macro Prespa Basin Characteristics

(a)Macro Prespa basin and associated transboundary water systems

(b)Macro Prespa basin land use

Macro Prespa Threat Ranking

A serious lack of global-scale uniform data on the TWAP transboundary in-lake conditions required their potential threat risks be estimated on the basis of the characteristics of their drainage basins, rather than in-lake conditions. Using basin characteristics to rank transboundary lake threats precludes consideration of the unique features that can buffer their in-lake responses to basin-derived disturbances, including an integrating nature for all inputs, long water retention times, and complex, non-linear response dynamics.

The lake threat ranks were calculated with a spreadsheet-based interactive scenario analysis program, incorporating data and information about the nature and magnitude of their basin-derived stresses, and their possible impacts on the sustainability of their ecosystem services. These descriptive data for Macro Prespa and the other transboundary lakes included lake and basin areas, population numbers and densities, areal extent of basin stressors on the lake, data grid size, and other components considered important from the perspective of the user of the data results. The scenario analysis program also provides a means to define the appropriate context and preconditions for interpreting the ranking results.

The Macro Prespa threat ranks are expressed in terms of the Adjusted Human Water Security (Adj-HWS) threats, Reverse Biodiversity (RvBD) threats, and the Human Development Index (HDI) score, as well as combinations of these indices. However, it is emphasized that, being based on specific characteristics and assumptions regarding Macro Prespa and its basin characteristics, the calculated threat scores represent only one possible set of lake threat rankings. Defining the appropriate context and preconditions for interpreting the lake rankings remains an important responsibility of those using the threat ranking results, including lake managers and decision-makers.

Table 1. Macro Prespa Relative Threat Ranks, Based on Adjusted Human Water Security (Adj-HWS) and Reverse Biodiversity Threats,
and Human Development Index (HDI) Score

(Estimated risks: red – highest; orange – moderately high; yellow – medium;
green – moderately low; blue – low)

It is emphasized that the Macro Prespa rankings above are discussed here within the context of the management and decision-making process, rather than as strict numerical ranks. Based on its geographic, population and socioeconomic assumptions used in the scenario analysis program, the calculated Adj-HWS score for Macro Prespa indicates a low threat rank compared to other priority transboundary lakes.

The Reverse Biodiversity (RvBD) for Macro Prespa, which is meant to describe its biodiversity sensitivity to basin-derived degradation, places the lake in a moderately low threat rank, compared to the other transboundary lakes. Management interventions directed to improving the biodiversity status must be viewed with caution, however, since we lack sufficient knowledge and experience to accurately predict the ultimate impacts of biodiversity manipulations and preservation efforts. Further, the RvBD scores indicate the relative sensitivity of a lake basin to human activities, and high threat scores per se do not necessarily justify management interventions. Such interventions may actually increase biodiversity degradation, noting that many developed countries have already fundamentally degraded their biodiversity because of economic development activities. Thus, activities undertaken to address the Adj-HWS threats may actually degrade the biodiversity status and resources, even if the health and socioeconomic conditions of the lake basin stakeholders are improved as a result of better conditions, thereby increasing stakeholder resource consumption.

The relative Human Development Index (HDI) places the Macro Prespa basin in a moderately low threat rank in regard to its health, educational and economic conditions.

Table 2. Macro Prespa Threat Ranks, Based on Multiple Ranking Criteria

(Scores for Adj-HWS, RvBD and HDI ranks are presented in Table 1; the ranks may differ in some cases because of rounding of figures; Estimated risks: red – highest; orange – moderately high; yellow – medium;
green – moderately low; blue – low)

When multiple ranking criteria are considered together in the threat rank calculations, the Adj-HWS and HDI scores considered together place Macro Prespa in the lower quarter of the threat ranks. The relative threat is similar when the Adj-HWS and RvBD threats are considered together. Considering all three ranking criteria together, Macro Prespa exhibits a moderately low threat ranking.

Further, a series of parametric sensitivity analyses of the ranking results also was performed to determine the effects of changing the importance of specific criteria on the relative transboundary lake rankings. This analysis involved increasing or decreasing the weights applied to the threat ranks derived from multiple ranking criteria to reassess the relative impacts of the weight combinations on the threat ranks. For example, in determining the sensitivity of the Adjusted Human Water Security (Adj-HWS) and Biodiversity (BD) ranking criteria, the threat rank associated with the first was assumed to be of complete (100%) importance (i.e., rank weight of 1.0), while the other was assumed to be of no (0%) importance (i.e., rank weight of 0.0). The relative importance of the two ranking criteria was then successively changed, with weight combinations of 0.9 and 0.1, 0.8 and 0.2, etc., until the first ranking criteria (Adj-HWS) was assumed to be of no importance (rank weight of 0.0) and the second (BD) was of complete importance (rank weight of 1.0). In the case of Macro Prespa, the 0.5 and 0.5 weight combinations for three cases of parametric analysis for Macro Prespa resulted in respective threat rankings of 7th, 7th and 8th, respectively, among the total of 9 European transboundary lakes in the TWAP study (see Technical Report, Section 4.3.3, pp44-48 and Appendix 6(1)).

In essence, therefore, identifying potential management intervention needs for Macro Prespa must be considered on the basis of both educated judgement and accurate representations of its situation. A fundamental question to be addressed, therefore, is how can one decide that a given management intervention will produce the greatest benefit(s) for the greatest number of people in the Macro Prespa basin? Accurate answers to such questions for Macro Prespa, and other transboundary lakes, will require a case-by-case assessment approach that considers the specific lake situation and context, the anticipated improvements from specific management interventions, and its interactions with water systems to which the lake is linked.