Managing Lakes and their Basinsfor Sustainable Use
A Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders

Copyright © 2005 by the International Lake Environment Committee Foundation
ISBN 4-9901546-2-2
3rd Printing. Printed and bound by Otsu Shigyo in Otsu, Japan.
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-proﬁt purposes without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may bemade for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without the prior permission in writing from the International
Lake Environment Committee Foundation.

DISCLAIMER
The ﬁndings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of The World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, nor do they necessarily
represent the view of the organizations, agencies or governments to which any of the authors are associated. Also, the colors,
boundaries, denominations, and classiﬁcations in this report do not imply, on the part of The World Bank and its Board of
Directors, or the countries they represent, and the organizations, agencies or governments to which any of the authors areassociated, any judgment on the legal or other status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of any boundary.

CITATION
Please cite this report as:
ILEC. 2005. Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders.
International Lake Environment Committee Foundation: Kusatsu, Japan.

ABOUT THE COVER
The front and back covers display the 28 lake basins that are the foundation for this report. Each lake basin is numbered, andthe corresponding names may be found in Figure 1.1 on page 5. On the cover, each lake basin spreads over an equal area;
however, in actual size, the difference in area between the largest and smallest basin is over 6,000 times. The lake basins aregrouped by color depending on the continent on which they are located. Designed by Maki Tanigawa and Thomas Ballatore.

PROJECT AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS

Global Environment Facility
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Tel: +1-202-522-3240
Fax: +1-202-473-0508
http://www.gefweb.org
International Lake Environment Committee Foundation
1091 Oroshimo-cho
Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan
Tel: +81-77-568-4567
Fax: +81-77-568-4568
http://www.ilec.or.jp
LakeNetP.O. Box 3250
Annapolis, MD 21403, USA
Tel: +1-410-268-5155
Fax: +1-410-268-8788
http://www.worldlakes.org
Ramsar Convention on Weltands
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel: +41-22-999-0170
Fax: +41-22-999-0169
http://www.ramsar.org
Shiga Prefectural Government
4-1-1 Kyomachi
Otsu, Shiga 520-8577, Japan
Tel: +81-77-524-1121
Fax: +81-77-528-4803
http://www.pref.shiga.jp/index-e.html
United Nations Development Programme
One United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USA
Tel: +1-212-906-5000
Fax: +1-212-906-5364
http://www.undp.org
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-20-621234
Fax: +254-20-226886
http://www.unep.org
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523, USA
Tel: +1-202-712-0000
Fax: +1-202-216-3524
http://www.usaid.gov
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Tel: +1-202-477-1234
Fax: +1-202-477-6391
http://www.worldbank.org

Contents

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Section I. Understanding the Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1. Learning from Others: Drawing Lessons about Lake Basin Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Motivation: Why Lakes? Why Now?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Objectives: Drawing and Disseminating Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Project Method and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Lake Basins and their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lake Briefs, Regional Review Workshops, and Thematic Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Website Clearinghouse and e-Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Structure of the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2. Biophysical Characteristics of Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Global Extent and Distribution of Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A Typology of Lakes: What Differentiates one Lake from Another? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Basin Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Origin/Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mixing/Stratiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Features Common to Lakes: What Differentiates Lakes from Other Waterbodies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Integrating Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Long Retention Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Complex Response Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Implications for Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 3. Human Use of Lakes: Values, Problems, and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Resource Values of Lakes and Their Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Total Economic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Typical Problems Facing the World’s Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
In-Lake Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Littoral Zone Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Lake Basin Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Regional/Global Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Emerging Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Groundwater Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Atmospheric Nutrient Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Contentsi

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Shrinking Lake Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Environmental Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Response to the Problems: Management Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Components of Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Section II. Meeting the Governance Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 4. Institutions for Lake Basin Management: Developing Organizations for Action. . . . . . . 29
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Institutions for Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Types of Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Coordination between Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Informal Links to other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Management of Transboundary Lake Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Longevity of Transboundary Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Forms of Transboundary Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Transboundary Cooperation Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Political and Legal Considerations and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Resource Mobilization for Planning and Project Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Building Trust with the Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Contributions from Different Levels of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
National-Level Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Institutions and Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Institutional Evolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 5. Identifying Effective Actions: National and Local Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
National Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Local Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Enforceable Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Incentives and Disincentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Local Policy Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Lessons from Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Build “Political Will” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Involve the Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Ensure Administrative Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Be Equitable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Actively Work toward Policy Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Chapter 6. Involving People and Stakeholders: An Essential Element of Effective Lake BasinManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Beneﬁts of Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Identifying and Involving Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Women, Indigenous Peoples and Displaced People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Gender Equity and Women’s Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Indigenous Peoples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Displaced People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The Role of NGOs and CBOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Agenda Setting and Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Operational Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Networking, Collaboration, and Mediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Communication/Facilitation Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Funding NGOs and CBOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53ii

Contents

Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Designing CEPA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Scope of CEPA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Making CEPA Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 7. Responding with Technology: Opportunities and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Watershed-based Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Flow Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Control of Point-Source Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Control of Nonpoint-Source Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Control of Mining Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
In-Lake Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Control of Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Control of Nuisance Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Control of Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter 8. Informing the Process: The Role of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Information Needs for Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Use of Scientiﬁc Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Showing Limits to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Enlightening Hard-to-See Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Providing Innovative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Opportunities for the Use of Scientiﬁc Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
The Use of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
The Value of Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Assessing Baseline Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Assessing the Effects of Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Sharing Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Use of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Museums and Information Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Involving People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Undertaking Science and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Resident Research Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Internationally Funded Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Integrating Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter 9. Mobilizing Sustainable Financing: Local, National and External Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Locally Generated Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
User Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Pollution Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
National Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
External Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
The Global Environment Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Section III. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chapter 10. Planning for Sustainable Lake Basin Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Planning for Sustainable Lake Basin Management: A General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Planning and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Forms of Plans for Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Vision Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Action Plans and Intervention Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Comprehensive Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Statutory Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Strategic Action Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Contentsiii

Coordinating Lake Basin Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Approaches to Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Coordinating through Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Indicators, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Chapter 11. Toward the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Reassessing Existing Lake Basin Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Key Questions for Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Roadblocks to Lake Basin Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Policy Conﬂicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Political Motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Lack of a Voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Jurisdictional Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Dealing with Roadblocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Be Creative and Proactive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Build Coalitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Develop Shared Visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Political Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Leverage External Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Sector Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Lessons from the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Focus on Lake Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Promote a Long-Term, Adaptive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Mainstream Lake Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Coordinate across Sectors and Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Encourage both Governance and Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Involve Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Promote Basin Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Accessing Global Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Toward Global Stakeholder Participation and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Toward Enhancement of the Global Lake Basin Management Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Appendix A. Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix B. Authors of Lake Briefs, Thematic Papers and Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix C. Summary Outcomes from the Regional Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Regional Workshop for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Regional Workshop for Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Regional Workshop for Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix D. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix E. Maps of the 28 Lake Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Appendix F. Nairobi Statement, Nairobi Declaration, and Kampala Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

iv

Contents

Foreword

This report is the main output of a Medium-Sized Project
supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) known
formally as “Towards a Lake Basin Management Initiative:
Sharing Lessons and Experiences from GEF and Non-GEF
Lake Basin Management Projects.” The project was conceived
after the Second World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000
and launched at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto in
March 2003. This report was launched in October 2005 at
the 11th World Lake Conference in Nairobi, Kenya, and also
disseminated at the 9th Meeting of the Ramsar Conventionin Kampala, Uganda in November 2005. Detailed experienceand lessons learned briefs on 28 lake basins are available on
the companion CD-ROM. All project materials, including 17
thematic papers, are available at http://www.ilec.or.jp. Theseﬁnal outputs will be launched at the Fourth World Water Forumin Mexico in March 2006.
The need for this project has been growing over the past 20
years. In spite of being central to the lives of much of theworld’s population and providing habitat for aquatic biota,
lake and reservoir basins have not received sufﬁcient attention
in the global water policy discourse. Further, while the scienceof limnology has provided much new knowledge about thebiophysical and chemical processes operating in lakes andreservoirs, our knowledge of how to apply their ﬁndings to
the development and implementation of lake basin policy has
been quite limited.
This concern was broadly reﬂected in the World Lake Visionpresented at the Third World Water Forum (World Lake Vision
Committee, 2003; http://www.ilec.or.jp/wlv/WLV_Final.pdf ),which highlighted key principles of lake basin management.
The international development agencies have also been awareof such needs; examples include the recommendation of theWorld Bank to develop a Lake Basin Management Initiative(Ayres and others 1996), and the World Bank’s Environment
Strategy (2001) and Water Resources Sector Strategy (2004).
Sustainable lake basin management, the aim of this project,also supports the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
on sustainable water resources management and reinforces
some of the central recommendations from the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (http://www.milleniumassess
ment.org/en/index.aspx).
This report underscores the central role lakes and reservoirs
play in integrated water resources management. It advocatesthat lakes and reservoirs need to be managed as integrated
Foreword

units with their basins. The concept of Integrated Lake BasinManagement (ILBM) complements the Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) approach supported by avariety of parties (see, for example, http://cap-net.org/iwrm_
tutorial/). As discussed in the main text, lakes and reservoirs
possess characteristics—such as their integrating nature, longretention time, and complex response dynamics—that often
affect the way their basins need to be managed. The lessons
learned from this project provide important perspectives about
IWRM that have yet to be fully recognized, appreciated, orinternalized by water resources planners and managers.
The project makes four major contributions. First, it has focusedon practical lessons learned from the management effortsof lake basins around the world—mostly natural lakes, butsome artiﬁcial ones as well. In the past, although much work
has been done to share scientiﬁc and technical experienceson lakes, less attention has been devoted to analyzing theeffectiveness of their alternative management approaches,particularly in relation to policy, institutional, economic, andsocial dimensions. This report directly addresses this gap andshould help strengthen the human capacity for improved lake
and reservoir basin management at the local, basin, national,
and regional levels.
Second, the project has created new knowledge. It supported
the preparation of lake briefs focusing on experiences andlessons learned for 28 lakes from around the world, as well as
17 cross-cutting thematic papers. Regional workshops held in
the United States, the Philippines, and Kenya brought together
288 participants from 41 countries to review and comment on
the briefs and thematic papers as well as to discuss in generallake basin management. Knowledge creation and sharing
was also supported by an electronic forum that linked global
stakeholders in the review of the lake briefs, thematic papers,
and this ﬁnal report.
Third, the project ﬁlls an important gap in lake basin
management experiences on tropical lakes, arid and semiarid lake zones, saline lakes, groundwater-dependent lakes,
and lakes in developing countries. A temperate zone bias was
avoided by the inclusion of many lakes from tropical, arid, andsemi-arid regions. Saline lakes, valuable but often ignored,
and groundwater-dependent lakes, precious but often taken
for granted and neglected, are also covered in the project.
Further, the project included a particular focus on management
experiences of lake basins from developing countries, wherevthe lessons have not yet been adequately synthesized ordisseminated. It also includes numerous examples of lakes incountries in economic transition that have many of the same
management challenges.
Fourth, the report derives lake basin management lessons
from internationally funded projects, principally the lakebasin projects ﬁnanced through the GEF and implemented
by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World
Bank, as well as those projects ﬁnanced by the World Bankand other agencies and governments. The experience gained

Ian Johnson
Vice President
Sustainable Development
World Bank

vi

from the national and international lake projects reviewed
in this report has provided a wealth of new information fromlake environments that have not been studied well. The
GEF has recognized that analysis and dissemination of pastlake basin management experiences will guide ongoing andfuture programs on these lakes, as well as on other lakes andreservoirs.
Overall, the report provides a rich record of experience thatlake and reservoir managers can draw on when developing lakebasin management policy and when putting it into practice.

Yoshitsugu Kunimatsu
Governor
Shiga Prefecture, Japan

Len Good
Chief Executive Ofﬁcer
Global Environment Facility

Foreword

Acknowledgments

This project was implemented as a cooperative programsupported by a partnership of multilateral and bilateralagencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations,academic and research institutions, and individual specialists.
Funding was provided by The Bank-Netherlands Water
Partnership Program, Global Environment Facility (GEF),
International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC), Shiga
Prefecture (Japan), United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), and the World Bank.
Raﬁk Hirji of the World Bank was task team leader of the Lake
Basin Management Initiative project and Masahisa Nakamura
of ILEC was project manager of the project implementation
team. David Read Barker of LakeNet was senior advisor to theproject. A project Steering Committee consisting of Stephen
Lintner, Chair (The World Bank), Barbara Best (USAID), Peter
Bridgewater (Ramsar Secretariat), Alfred Duda (GEF), Sean
Khan (United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP) andDann Sklarew (United Nations Development Programme—
UNDP) provided overall guidance on project implementationand the preparation of this report and other project outputs.
The project management team and secretariat also included
Thomas Ballatore, Genjiro Furukawa, Naoko Kimura, Yasuo
Kinoshita, Hiroya Kotani, Victor Muhandiki, Akiko Murano,
Atsuko Touge, and Chiharu Uyama from ILEC, and David Read
Barker, Lisa Borre, and Laurie Duker from LakeNet. Mohammed
Bekhechi, Robin Broadﬁeld, Richard Davis, Sharon Esumei,
Dianne Flex, Samson Kaber, Katherin George Golitzen, Siree
Malaise, and Kisa Mfalila from the World Bank supported datacollection, project administration and review. Task managers
from the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP for the various GEF
and agency supported lake basin management projects wereinterviewed at the outset of the project. They provided helpful
assistance during the data collection process and suggested
participants for the regional workshops. Some even provided
review comments on the lake briefs. Jeffrey Lecksell of theWorld Bank provided advice on the maps, while Fuad Bateh
and Charles Di Leva also of the World Bank provided legal
advice on the text.

Michaels College, Laguna Lake Development Authority, and
the Pan-African START Secretariat in Burlington, Manila, andNairobi repectively. The lake briefs were edited by Thomas
Ballatore (Asian Lake Briefs), David Read Barker (North
American, South American and European Lake Briefs), andVictor Muhandiki (African Lake Briefs).
Masahisa Nakamura was senior editor of this report, Thomas
Ballatore and Richard Davis were the technical editors, andRobert Livernash was copy editor. The report was preparedby Thomas Ballatore, David Read Barker, Lisa Borre, Richard
Davis, John Dixon, Walter Garvey, Victor Muhandiki, Masahisa
Nakamura, James Nickum, and Walter Rast. Oyugi Aseto,
Adelina Santos-Borja, Eric Odada, Sonia Davila-Poblete andSven Erik Jorgensen provided specialist input to the writing
team. Maps were prepared by Thomas Ballatore and Maki
Tanigawa. Walter Rast copy-edited the lake briefs and compiled
the glossary; Darryl Feldmeyer handled the desktop publishingof the report and lake briefs. Michael Glantz from the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, was peer reviewer.
ILEC interns Evan Gach and Don Harris assisted with editing of
the lake briefs and this report.
The project managers are grateful to the funding agencies,
steering committee members, and all contributors, including
consultants, authors, reviewers, workshop organizers andparticipants, and all other supporters of the project and its
outputs.

The authors of the lake basin management briefs, 17 crosscutting thematic papers, and the chapters of this report
are listed in Appendix B. The briefs were reviewed by 288
participants from 41 countries who attended workshops in
Burlington (United States), Manila (the Philippines), andNairobi (Kenya). These workshops were organized by St.
Acknowledgmentsvii

Acronyms

BOD

biological oxygen demand

LBCDP

Lake Biwa Comprehensive Development Project

CAC

command and control

LBMI

Lake Basin Management Initiative

CBOs

community-based organizations

LCBP

Lake Champlain Basin Program

CEPA

communication, education, and public awareness

LLDA

Laguna Lake Development Authority

CETP

common efﬂuent treatment plants

LNGG

Lake Naivasha Growers GroupCITES II

Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

LNRA

Lake Naivasha Riparian Association

LTBP

Lake Tanganyika Basin Project

Conservation of Laguna de Bay Environment andResources

MA

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

MOU

memorandum of understanding

MSP

medium-sized project (of the GEF)

NGO

nongovernmental organization

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment

OM&R

operations, maintenance, and replacement

CLEAR
COD

chemical oxygen demand

COP

Conference of the Parties

CTC

Centre for Transboundary Co-operation (Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe)

CWA

Clean Water Act (United States)DOdissolved oxygen

ECHO

ecology, culture, history, opportunity(educational center at Lake Champlain)

EIA

environmental impact assessment

PCBs

polychlorinated biphenyls

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency (United States)

PIL

public interest litigation

EU

European Union

PRA

participatory rural appraisal

EUF

environmental user fee

SAP

strategic action program

GEF

Global Environment Facility

SEA

strategic environmental assessment

GLC

Great Lakes Commission

SOLEC

GLWQA

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (Great
Lakes, Canada and United States)

GNI

gross national income

IBK

International Bodensee Conference

IDA

International Development Association

IGKB

OSIENALA Friends of Lake Victoria (NGO)

TAC

Technical Advisory Committee (Lake Champlain)

TDAtransboundary diagnostic analysis

TEV

total economic value

International Commission for the Protection of
Lake Constance

TMDL

total maximum daily load

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

IJC

International Joint Commission

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

ILBM

integrated lake basin management

UNESCOILECInternational Lake Environment Committee

United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc andCultural Organization

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

USAID

United States Agency for International
Development

ITC

International Institute for Geo-Information
Science and Earth Observation, The Netherlands

IUCN

International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources

WUP

Water Utilization Programme (Mekong Basin)

WUP-FN

Finnish Government assistance to WUPWWF

World Wildlife Fund for Nature
Zambezi River Basin Action Plan
Zoning and Management Plan for Aquaculture(Laguna de Bay)IWInternational Waters (one Focal Area of GEF)ZACPLAN

IW:LEARN

International Waters Learning Exchange andResource Network

ZOMAP

IWRM

integrated water resources management

LAGBIMO

Lake George Basin Integrated Management
Organisation

AcronymsixSummaryThis report is the main output of the GEF-supported “LakeBasin Management Initiative” (LBMI). The project’s purpose
was to synthesize practical lessons learned on lake basin
management from experience around the world, with aparticular focus on lakes in developing countries as well as
on transboundary lakes. The following is a summary of the key
lessons learned.

Section I: Understanding the Resource
Characteristic of Lakes (Chapter 2, pp. 9-14)
The properties of lake basins, including the resource values
they provide, vary widely. Whether or not the resources can beused in a sustainable way depends on how they are managed.
Uncontrolled exploitative development of the resource base oflake basins, including their lands and waters, typically resultsin overuse and degradation, invariably degrading water qualityand destroying ecological integrity. These problems may be
exacerbated by the three behavioral characteristics of lakes,
namely their “integrating nature”, “long retention time”, and“complex response dynamics”. Integrating nature meansthat connections between users are particularly strong. For
example, a polluter is often a victim of pollution. Also, theconnections among the water ﬂows, substances and biota
are also quite strong, establishing complex limnologicalproperties. The relatively long retention time of most lakes(compared to rivers) means that the “lake time scale” is notequal to the “political time scale”. There is usually a signiﬁcantdelay between an action (positive or negative) and the change
in a lake. The complex response dynamics of lakes meansthat connections are often indirect and not easy to determine.
Changes are often irreversible (Figure 2.2, p. 13) anddependent on path. These behavioral characteristics apply not
only to natural lakes but also to man-made lakes, all essential
components of river basin systems.

Values and Threats (Chapter 3, pp. 15-26)
Lakes are the most dramatic and picturesque features of ourglobal landscape, have rich endowment of resource values,
and are major components of the hydrologic cycle. Theysustain human livelihoods, support economic activities,
provide habitat for biodiversity, and offer important aesthetic
and spiritual values. They also provide buffering capacities
against hydrologic and climate ﬂuctuations, as well as being
sinks for inﬂowing materials collected across their basins.
Summary

While lakes provide indispensable goods and services, amajority of these are not directly bought and sold on markets
and are therefore often undervalued or even ignored. Oncethey are lost, however, their value becomes apparent.
Impairment of a given lake use arises through overuse and/or
when two or more users are in conﬂict. While some problems
originate in a lake itself (such as overﬁshing), the vast majorityof problems originate from activities on the land surrounding
a lake (Table 3.2, p. 22). Therefore, management of a lakemeans management its drainage basin—the two cannot be
separated. Unfortunately, it is rare when the boundaries of thebasin and political system coincide. In some cases, the originof a given problem may lie beyond the lake’s basin, such aswith long-range transport of toxic materials. These problems
are perhaps the most challenging to address as they are likely
to cross many political jurisdictions, including international
ones.
Many lake management issues originate within drainage basins.
The inﬂow of sediments to lakes was the most commonlycited issue for the lakes studied in the project. Introduced
fauna and ﬂora, and unsustainable ﬁshing practices werethe major issues that originated within the lakes themselves.
These basin, in-lake and shoreline issues were found in bothtransboundary and national lakes. Global management issues
were not commonly mentioned. Some issues are well-known,
but have not received adequate attention, an example being
dropping lake levels because of reduced groundwater ﬂows.
Other emerging issues are less well known. They include
atmospheric nutrient pathways, climate change, shrinking lakesize, trade globalization impacts, and environmental ﬂows.

Section II: Meeting the Governance Challenge
The goals of lake basin management vary from lake to lake
as well as through time at a particular lake. Goals range from
efforts to preserve pristine conditions all the way to a de facto
acceptance of complete ecosystem destruction. Between
these extremes, however, there is usually an attempt tominimize problems and maximize values derived from a lake
while achieving some equitable distribution of beneﬁts andresponsibilities. The key question is how to best reconcile
the diverse objectives inherent in lake basin management.
The main contribution of this project and this report is toprovide a framework for management of lake basins, or IWRM,
based on the lessons learned in the 28 case studies regardingxi

the six necessary components of any effective management
response:•

Adequate institutions for implementing change;•

Efﬁcient, effective and equitable policies;•

Meaningful participation of all stakeholders involved;•

Technical measures to ameliorate certain problems;•

Appropriate information about current and future
conditions; and,•Sufﬁcient ﬁnancing to allow all the above to take place.

•

It is hard to anticipate all the types and magnitudes
of problems that will face a lake basin in the future.
Therefore, an institutional arrangement that canaccommodate change is more likely to be effective inmeeting goals than one that is inﬂexible.

Policies (Chapter 5, pp. 39-46)
Policies are what institutions implement in order to changeor reinforce certain behaviors. Policy options range fromawareness-raising (Chapter 6), to creation of rules andincentives (Chapter 5).
•

Simply raising awareness among resource users is oneof the most effective and easiest policies to implement.
People will often modify a behavior if they learn it has anegative effect on others.

•

Command-and-control policies (rules) are effective
when there is good capacity to implement; a clear
environmental goal is known; and the number ofregulatees is low. Direct regulation has contributed tolarge stress reductions in the lake basins in high-income
countries in this survey.

•

The cases show that declaring an area protected is easy;
actually protecting it by restricting activities is muchharder.

•Economic instruments such as taxes and fees ondischarge of pollutants to the environment may bepolitically difﬁcult to initiate (as polluters have to pay
something for something that was free before), but therevenues from economic instruments can be used tobuild institutional capacity—key point when capacity islow.

•

For a given lake, there is invariably a mix of policies;“pure policies” only appear in textbooks (Table 5.1, pp.
44-45).

•

Meaningful participation of all relevant stakeholders isessential for the legitimacy of an institution’s policies.

•

Broader national-level policies, particularly ones related
to development and poverty reduction, have great
bearing on a lake and its management. This further
supports the need for policy coordination among
sectors.

Institutions (Chapter 4, pp. 29-38)
Institutions are the “who” of lake basin management; that is,they are the ones who have the authority to make changes inbehavior that a society deems desirable.
••

In the 28 case studies, there is no single institution withauthority over all aspects of a lake basin’s management.
In general, the most important institutions are thenational-level, sectoral institutions (Table 4.1, p. 33).
A sectoral approach is problematic, though, because of
the integrating nature of lakes. Various users are likely
to have an impact on each other, but their activities
often fall under the jurisdiction of different sectors.

•

Transboundary lake basins face the additional hurdle ofinternational jurisdictions.

•Because lake basin boundaries cannot change
and because the sectoral institutions within mostnation-states are not likely to change, a compromise
is necessary. This usually means the creation of acoordinating mechanism that serves to bring thesectors (and states) together on issues related to agiven lake and its basin.

•

•

xii

However, goals may not be necessarily achieved by asingle, coordinated lake basin management organization
if the other necessary governance conditions describedin chapters 5-9 are not met.
The success of transboundary lake basin management
depends on the member states’ political will,commitment, and fulﬁllment of obligations, rather
than the particular form of institution or its legal
status. Nonriparian basin countries of a lake that may
be reluctant to join a formal lake basin management
authority may be successfully engaged through informal
mechanisms.

Involving People and Stakeholders (Chapter 6, pp.
47-56)
People are central to lake basin management. They are theones who use a lake’s resources; the ones who create andsuffer from problems; the ones who work in institutions; andthe ones who are affected by any management decisions.
Because of this central role, key lessons about involving
Summarypeople are found in all sections of this summary (and report). A
few highlights include the following.
••

Participation in decision making can either be direct
or indirect (as through an elected representative). The
cases show that if a person or group feels left out ofthe decision-making process, the decisions will nothave legitimacy and implementation will be hard, if not
impossible. If they are included, then even policies that
require signiﬁcant sacriﬁce are usually accepted.
To achieve an equitable decision, all affectedstakeholders
includinghistorically-marginalized
stakeholders such as Indigenous Peoples and womenmust be meaningfully included in the decision making
process.

•

Without proper understanding and appreciation of thelocal cultural beliefs, values, and norms, a lake basin
management plan will not be accepted and properly
implemented by the community.

•

Efforts should be made to create a positive link between
livelihoods of local communities and lake basin
management.

•

Women play a central role in the provision, management
and safeguarding of water. Their participation in a fullcivil society, using a participatory approach and using
culturally sensitive methods, will enhance efforts toachieve effective lake basin management.

•

Non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)
andcommunity-based organizations (CBOs) play a criticalcatalytic role between individuals and governments.

•

The extent of conventional and advanced sewage
treatment is highly correlated to the population densityand per capita income of a given lake basin. In low- andmiddle-income countries with high population densities,
international funding is common (Box 7.1, p. 61).

•

Littoral wetlands are the “kidneys” of a lake andprotection of existing wetlands should be a priority.

•

Appropriate provision of environmental ﬂows isnecessary to maintain the ecological health andresource uses of a lake when dams and weirs areconstructed upstream for water storage and regulation.

Information (Chapter 8, pp. 67-76)
Accurate, impartial and accessible information is central to lakebasin management. Without it, institutions can be inefﬁcient,
rules can be ineffective, people can be disempowered, andtechnologies can be misapplied.
•

Decision making requires not just “scientiﬁc”
knowledge, but also social, economic and cultural
information.

•

Information comes not just from monitoring andassessment but is also embedded in local knowledge
held by non-scientists. Efforts must be made to accessthe knowledge of local people such as ﬁshers who
often have detailed, long-term understanding of lake
resources.

•

Science can be used to show the limits of lake basin
resources, to enlighten hard-to-see connections, andprovide innovative solutions to problems. However,even if perfect information exists, it is not necessarily
used.

•

The long-term and complex nature of lake ecosystems
means that information is particularly valuable todecision makers. Accordingly, there must be a longterm commitment to information acquisition, including
development of resident research institutes and local
capacity.

•

Information must be translated into the languageof policymakers to have an effect. It is important
to develop easily understood indicators, such as
the Process Indicators, Stress Reduction Indicatorsand Environmental Status Indicators used in GEF
International Waters projects.

•

Models do not need to be complex to be useful: someof the most effective models were simple ones thatmatched the local capacity and told decision makers
something they would not otherwise have known (Box8.2, p. 69).

Technological Responses (Chapter 7, pp. 57-66)
Changing people’s behavior through rules, incentives/
disincentives, or awareness raising to achieve management
goals is not easy. For some problems and under particular
circumstances, a technological solution can be an effective
response (Table 7.1, p. 59).
••

Root causes of a problem must be addressed for any
technological intervention to have its desired longterm impact. For example, dredging a lake’s sediment
to remove nutrients to control eutrophication is only
effective in the long-term if external nutrient loads arecontrolled.
Many apparently technical interventions, such as
development of sewerage systems might seem likeenvironmental protection but are actually undertaken
for broader development reasons such as provision of
amenity and/or promotion of employment.

Summaryxiii

•Simply collecting and agreeing on information abouta lake basin is a key ﬁrst step to international
cooperation, as promoted by the GEF’s Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (pp. 74-75).

term, integrating and complex nature of lakes requires thatmanagement responses are not ad hoc and that they arecarried out as comprehensively as possible.
•

Planning for lake basins require the integration of thecomponents of good management discussed in Section
II. Any plan for a lake basin needs to be aligned with
regional and national plans for development andenvironmental protection.

•

Plans vary in their levels of detail and breadth. By
focusing on agreed goals, vision statements canbe useful ﬁrst steps to developing more detailed
management plans.

•Comprehensive plans have the advantage of improving
effectiveness by integrating actions across sectors.
However, they can be expensive to implement, costly
to coordinate, and inﬂexible in the face of changing
political priorities.

•

As promoted by the GEF International Waters projects,
Strategic Action Programs have been largely beneﬁcial
in promoting contact between sectoral and national
institutions and have laid the foundation for joint
management interventions.

•

Coordination between sectoral and regional plans shouldﬁrst take place where the pressures are greatest. They
should be phased over time and be opportunistic.

•

Sectoral or regional plans can be coordinated through(1) a separate coordinating project, (2) a post-hoc
uniﬁcation of outputs, or (3) a broadening in the scopeof an initially narrow project as it achieves success andgains credibility (Figure 10.2, p. 91).

Financing (Chapter 9, pp. 77-82)
A common observation is that sufﬁcient funding is notavailable to meet all the management goals at a given lake. It
is clear that, like all resources, money is scarce and available
funds must be put to the best possible use.
••

Locally generated funds, such as water user fees,
ﬁsh levies and pollution charges can provide a stable
and important part of the ﬁnancial base for lake basin
management. However, unless there is a high value use
extracted from the lake’s resources, these funds are notusually sufﬁcient for lake basin management.
It is important that locally generated funds are largely
retained locally and that there is involvement of resource
users in establishing and administering the fees.

•

Most funding for lake basin management comes fromnational and/or local sources. External funds should playa catalytic, rather than a primary role for implementing
lake basin management activities and investments.

•

Financing for capital infrastructure investments usuallycomes from the national level or from international
resources; local-level funding is an important source ofmoney to help meet routine recurrent expenditures.

•

National funding, sometimes supplemented by externalloans and grants from development organizations, isoften used for large capital-intensive investments.

•

The GEF is a major source of funds for improving themanagement of transboundary and globally importantlake basins. These funds are used to establish theenabling environment for successful ongoing lake basin
management.

•

Plans need to be ﬂexible in the face of changing
social needs and external factors. They also need to be
responsive to the results of monitoring. Some activities
may be less successful than expected and new issues
may be identiﬁed through the monitoring program.

•To ensure global beneﬁts from lake projects, particularlyin the case of international lake basins, a programmatic
approach from the GEF and other funding bodies would
be better than a project-by-project approach. Thisapproach would also require a longer-term commitment
from lake basin countries to sustainable management.

•

Overall, lake basin management is a process, not a project.

Section III: Synthesis
Planning (Chapter 10, pp. 85-94)
Planning is where everything comes together. Each of the six
components of lake basin management discussed in Section
II are essential, but without a plan of some sort, attaining
management goals will be elusive. In particular, the longxiv

Lake basin management must be integrative to be successful,given the nature of lakes and their basins. Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) and Integrated River BasinManagement (IRBM) therefore serve as the foundations for
Integrated Lake Basin Management or ILBM that this report, inessence, is addressing. ILBM, however, is more than a simple
application of IWRM or IRBM principles. It is a management
approach that provides many subtle but crucial dimensionsof basin system management that have in the past tended tobe neglected. After all, every basin system has a downstream
where impoundments of importance, if not natural lakes, serveas the focal reserves of resources as well as the barometers ofbasin vulnerability.
Summary

Section I
Understanding the Resource

The three chapters in Section I provide the background necessary to understand the challenges facing lake basins and theirpotential values and uses as a key resource for promoting sustainable human livelihoods and development around the world,
as well as for maintaining important life-supporting ecosystems. Chapter 1 introduces the report and the project and contains
reference material on the 28 lake basins in this study. Chapter 2 discusses biophysical aspects of lakes and what differentiates
one lake from another, as well as lakes in general from other types of waterbodies. Chapter 3 looks at how lakes are used andwhat problems, current and emerging, they face.

Chapter 1
Learning from Others:
Drawing Lessons about Lake Basin Management

Motivation: Why Lakes? Why Now?
Lakes, natural or artiﬁcial, are important for human development and for the preservation of sound ecosystems andbiodiversity on our planet. They contain 90 percent of theliquid freshwater on the earth’s surface; are critical elementsof the water cycle; sustain aquatic biodiversity; and provide
livelihoods and social, economic, and aesthetic beneﬁts thatare essential for the quality of life in lake basin communities.
Increasingly, human activities are impacting the ecologicalintegrity of lakes. However, in spite of their importanceand the growing threats to them, lakes have not received
sufﬁcient attention in the global discourse on water policy.
While Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is
becoming increasingly accepted as the appropriate framework
for managing water resources in river basins, IWRM has yet totake account of the particular characteristics of lakes that may
lie within the basin. These characteristics—integrating nature,long retention time, and complex response dynamics—with
peculiar management implications will be discussed in
Chapter 2. It is essential that water resources managers
understand that the implications of these characteristics meanthat management institutions and their policies and plansneed to be established and funded for the long term, thatscientiﬁc knowledge is particularly important for unravelingthe complex responses of lakes to exogenous changes, andthat management instruments need to be adapted to theintegrating nature of lakes.
In particular, there is an urgent need to draw practical lessons
on lake basin management, especially in developing countries
in tropical, semi-arid, and arid regions where these systems
are under increasing pressure. In addition, a synthesis ofearly lessons from projects implemented by internationalorganizations—such as the GEF and its implementing
agencies—could contribute to feasible, incremental changes
in policy that lead to improved lake basin management.
In 1996, the World Bank recommended a Lake BasinManagement Initiative to focus more attention on lakebasins and help improve their management (Ayres and others
1996). The World Lake Vision (Box 1.1), presented at theThird World Water Forum and highlighting key principles oflake basin management, was a step in this direction (World
Lake Vision Committee 2003). This project, the Lake BasinManagement Initiative, follows on from the Vision report byproviding practical lessons from a study of 28 lake basinsin different geographic and socioeconomic settings aroundthe world. The ﬁndings of this project also reinforce themain recommendations of the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA).

Box 1.1 The Seven Principles of the World Lake VisionPrinciple 1:

A harmonious relationship between humans and nature is essential for the sustainability of lakes.

Principle 2:

A lake drainage basin is the logical starting point for planning and management actions for sustainable lakeuse.

Principle 3:

A long-term, proactive approach directed to preventing the causes of lake degradation is essential.

Principle 4:

Policy development and decision making for lake management should be based on sound science and the best
available information.

Principle 5:

The management of lakes for their sustainable use requires the resolution of conﬂicts among competing usersof lake resources, taking into account the needs of present and future generations and of nature.

Principle 6:

Citizens and other stakeholders must participate meaningfully in identifying and resolving critical lake
problems.

Principle 7:

Good governance, based on fairness, transparency and empowerment of all stakeholders, is essential forsustainable lake use.

Source: ILEC (http://www.ilec.or.jp).

Objectives: Drawing and Disseminating Lessons
A diverse group of organizations (Box 1.2) came together
to support this project, whose overall objective was tostrengthen the capacity for improved lake and reservoir basin
management at the local, basin, national, and global levels.
Speciﬁc objectives included:

agencies, and research and policy institutions. The reportis also intended for the GEF, the World Bank and otherinternational development assistance agencies to help them
design more effective lake basin management programs. A
companion document (World Bank 2005) has been producedwith lessons speciﬁcally targeted to the World Bank and the
GEF.

1.

Project Method and Approach

Documenting management experiences through lakebasin case studies;

The Lake Basins and their Characteristics
2.

Facilitating the sharing of experiences between decision
makers and stakeholders; and,3.

Accelerating learning and implementation of effective
lake and reservoir basin management.

Intended Audience
This report is for a wide spectrum of people involved orinterested in lake basin management. The term “lake basin
manager” is used in the broad sense, since lake basin
management is usually characterized by multiple stakeholders,fragmented lines of authority, and various sources of funding.
In this report, it is used as shorthand for the collection ofpeople involved in lake basin management, noting that thiscollection of people and institutions is different in everycase. The report is particularly intended for water resourcesmanagers who are implementing an IWRM approach at the
local, regional or national level; it describes the need to take adifferent approach when river basins include signiﬁcant lakes.
The report will also be useful to the staff of non-governmental

Twenty-eight lake basins were selected for study in this project(Figure 1.1). Table 1.1 provides details of the 28 lake basins andAppendix E contains maps of the lake basins.
These 28 lake basins represent a wide range of climaticconditions, sizes, problems, political jurisdictions, andmanagement challenges. Included among the lakes are someof the major freshwater and saline lakes in the world. Twentytwo of the lakes contain globally signiﬁcant biodiversity. Twelve
lakes are national lakes; that is, they have basins that lie within
a single nation-state. Sixteen of the lakes are transboundary,where more than one country has jurisdiction over their basinsor waters. Three of these transboundary lakes (Lakes Baikal,
Cocibolca/Nicaragua, Tonle Sap) lie entirely within one country
but have other countries in their basins.
Among national lakes, often the challenge is to address
upstream and downstream concerns over different sectoralinterests. Transboundary lakes face similar concerns to nationallakes. However, their management is more difﬁcult because ofdifferent national interests and priorities and because there isBox 1.2 Key Organizations Involved in the Lake Basin Management Initiative
The main sponsor of this project, as well as programs at approximately half of the lakes studied here, is the Global
Environment Facility (GEF, www.gefweb.org). GEF provides coﬁnancing to cover the “incremental cost” of the portion ofprojects that provide global environmental beneﬁts (such as improved transboundary waterbody management, biodiversity
conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction). GEF coﬁnancing for this project emphasizes “the collection of global andregional projects that provide programmatic and strategic beneﬁts for the global environment through technical support,
assessment, and derivation of lessons learned...” GEF has recognized that analysis and dissemination of past lake basin
management experiences will guide ongoing and future programs on these lakes, as well as in other lakes and reservoirs.
The World Bank, the implementing agency for this GEF project, also provided ﬁnancial support through a grant from the
Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership Program as part of its development of a Lake Basin Management Initiative. The UNDP
and UNEP, the other GEF implementing agencies, supported the project through provision of information and membership on
the project Steering Committee. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID, www.usaid.gov) provided
ﬁnancial support through an associated project and was a full member of this project, sitting on the Steering Committee.
The Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands—an intergovernmental treaty for the conservation and wise use of
wetlands—helped guide the project, since most of the lakes covered here contain a Ramsar site.
Shiga Prefecture, Japan, is also a ﬁnancial sponsor of the project. The International Lake Environment Committee Foundation(ILEC, www.ilec.or.jp), a Shiga Prefecture-based scientiﬁc organization formed in 1986 to foster sustainable management of
the world’s lakes, is the executing agency and a ﬁnancial sponsor for the project. ILEC worked in partnership with LakeNet(www.worldlakes.org), a U.S.-based NGO that operates a global network of people and organizations in more than 100
countries working to protect the health of lakes. In addition to supporting this project, USAID awarded a grant to LakeNet andSaint Michael’s College of Vermont in the United States to provide technical assistance on lake basin management in eight
countries.
The GEF, World Bank, UNDP, UNEP, USAID, Shiga Prefecture, and Ramsar Secretariat formed the project’s Steering
Committee.
4Chapter 18Chilika Lagoon

15

Laguna de Bay

22

Tanganyika

Baikal9

Cocibolca/Nicaragua

16

Malawi/Nyasa

23

Titicaca

Baringo10

Constance

17

Naivasha

24

Toba

4

Bhoj Wetland

11

Dianchi18

Nakuru25

Tonle Sap

5

Biwa

12

Great Lakes (N. American)

19

Ohrid

26

Tucurui Reservoir

6

Chad

13

Issyk-Kul

20

Peipsi/Chudskoe

27

Victoria

7

Champlain

14

Kariba Reservoir

21

Sevan

28

Xingkai/Khanka

1

Aral Sea

2
3

Figure 1.1 The Global Distribution of the 28 Lake Basins in this Study.
often no overarching authority; instead, the riparian countries
need to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on common
and complementary management actions, which often have to
be codiﬁed in international law. Developing such agreements
is typically a complex and lengthy process because of concerns
over sovereignty, as well as differences in legal and policy
frameworks and information, capacity, and institutions.
The study includes all but three lake basins (Lakes Manzala
and Volta and the Caspian Sea) which have had GEF-funded
projects, including ten in GEF’s International Waters focal
area and six in its Biodiversity focal area. Several lakes withproposed GEF projects were also incorporated. The North
American Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, and Lake Constancewere included to provide some non-GEF transboundary lakebasins for comparison. Similarly, the project included several
non-GEF lake basins that contain important biodiversity:
Chilika, Issyk-Kul, Naivasha, Nakuru and Sevan. Three of thelake basins—the Aral Sea, Issyk-Kul and Lake Nakuru—aresaline inland waters, and one—Chilika Lagoon—is a brackishcoastal lagoon. The remaining are freshwater lakes. Four of thelakes—Lakes Constance, Champlain, and Biwa and the North
American Great Lakes—are from high-income countries; sevenare from countries in economic transition; and the remainder
are from developing countries. The median gross national
incomes of high-income countries, countries in economictransition and developing countries with lakes in this study are
US$31,855, US$1,302 and US$712 respectively.

Learning from Others

Three of the lakes are reservoirs of which one—the Bhoj
Wetland—dates back to the 11th century and two—the Kariba
and Tucurui Reservoirs—were constructed in the second halfof the 20th century for hydropower generation. Reservoir
basins share many characteristics with lake basins. However,there are also some problems as well as management
opportunities that distinguish them from lake basins. The
construction of reservoirs can affect people who werepreviously reliant on either the land and water now ﬂooded
for the reservoir, or on ﬂows from the river downstream of thedam. In extreme cases, such as the Kariba Reservoir describedin this study, it can lead to the displacement of people without
adequate compensation. On the other hand, new reservoirs
open ecological niches which can be exploited for productive
purposes (such as the introduction of food and sport ﬁsh
species at the Kariba Reservoir), and they are generally
constructed for high value purposes (such as hydropower,
domestic and industrial water, and irrigation supply) which canyield an income stream for management of the reservoir basin.
Also, with sufﬁcient planning and technical investigations,they can also be designed and managed to reduce problems
such as siltation and lack of evironmentally sustaining ﬂows.
For example, high volume, low level releases can be used toscour sediments and prevent inﬁlling, while environmental
ﬂow releases can be incorporated into the dam operating rules
to ensure that aquatic ecosystems continue to function for the
beneﬁt of downstream communities.

5

Table 1.1

Key Features of the 28 Project Lake Basins.

Lake B asin

Basin Countries

Pop.
Density

Area (km2)

GNIb

#

Name

Riparian

Non-Riparian

Lake

Basina(per km2)(percapita)1

Aral Sea

Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan

Afghanistan, Islamic Rep. Iran,
Kyrgyz Rep., Tajikistan, Turkmenistan

17,1581,549,000

2.7

1,100

2

BaikalRussian Fed.

Mongolia

31,500571,000

9

2,610

3

Baringo

Kenya

108

6,820

4

Bhoj Wetland

India

32.3

370

1,351

540

5

Biwa

Japan

670

3,848

338

34,1806

ChadCameroon, Chad,
Niger, Nigeria

1,350

2,400,000

9

355

7

Champlain

Canada,United States

1,127

21,32528

31,1708

Chilika Lagoon

India

906-1165

4,300

47

540

9

Cocibolca/
Nicaragua

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

8,000

23,844211

740

10 ConstanceAustria, Germany,
Switzerland

Liechtenstein572

11,487261

30,920

11

China

300

2,920

1,082

1,100

Dianchi

Algeria, Central African Republic,
Libya, Sudan

...

400

Great Lakes
12 (North American)

Canada,United States

244,160

765,99043

31,17013 Issyk-Kul

Kyrgyz Rep.

6,236

22,08019340

14 Kariba Reservoir

Zambia, Zimbabwe

5,580

687,04920430

15 Laguna de Bay

Philippines

900

3,820

1,570

1,080

16 Malawi/Nyasa

Malawi,Mozambique,Tanzania

29,500100,500

68

223

17

Kenya

140

2,240

76

400

18 Nakuru

Kenya

30

1,800

222

400

19 Ohrid

Albania,FYR Macedonia

Greece

358

3,921

49

1,860

20 Peipsi/Chudskoe

Estonia,
Russian Fed.

Latvia3,555

47,80021

3,995

21 SevanArmenia

1,236

3,708

74

950

22 Tanganyika

Burundi, D.R. Congo,
Tanzania, Zambia

32,600223,000

45

218

23 Titicaca

Bolivia, Peru

8,400

56,270

15.6

1,520

24 TobaIndonesia

1,103

3,658

162

810

25 Tonle Sap

Cambodia

2,500 16,000

70,000–795,000c

59

300

26 Tucurui Reservoir

Brazil2,430

803,250

6.8

2,720

27 Victoria

Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda68,800193,000

155

317

28 Xingkai/Khanka

China,
Russian Fed.

4,000 4,400

21,766

16

1,855

...
Notes:a.
b.
c.

6

Naivasha

Angola, Botswana,
Namibia

RwandaChina, Lao PDR, Myanmar,
Thailand, Vietnam

Burundi, Rwanda

Not available.
Most of the information is derived from the lake briefs. Parameters such as basin type and water type are explained in Chapter 2.
Basin area includes lake area.
Gross National Income (GNI) per capita in US Dollars is for 2003, based on World Bank ﬁgures available at http://www.worldbank.org. Values are arithmetic average for riparian
countries; nonriparian states not included.
The Tonle Sap basin is 70,000 km2; the Mekong River basin is 795,000 km2.

Chapter 1

Table 1.1(Cont.)
Climated

Aral Sea

ClosedSalineDry: Arid

Glacial

30 (Small Sea)
40 (Large Sea)46

108
(in 2003)...

BaikalSurface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Subarctic

Tectonic

456

1,637

23,600330

BaringoSubsurface
Open

Fresh

Dry: Semi-arid

Tectonic

975

3.5

...

Bhoj Wetland

Reservoir

Fresh

Warmer humid:
Humid subtropical

Constructed

504

11.7

0.121

less than 1

Biwa

Surface
Open

Fresh

Warmer humid:
Humid subtropical

Tectonic

86

104

27.5

5.5

Chad

Subsurface
Open

Fresh

Dry: Arid

Tectonic

283

7

20

...

Champlain

Surface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Continental cool summer

Tectonic/
Glacial

29

120

25.8

Chilika Lagoon

CoastalFresh toSalineTropical humid;
Savanna

CoastalSea Level

3.7

4

...

Cocibolca/
Nicaragua

Surface
Open

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Savanna

Tectonic/
Volcanic

31

45

104

...

Constance

Surface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Continental cool summer

Glacial

395

254

48.5

4.3 (upper lake)
0.07 (lower lake)

DianchiSurface
Open

Fresh

Warmer humid:
Humid subtropical

Tectonic

1,887

8

1.56

2.74

Great Lakes(North American)

Surface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Continental cool summer

Glacial183 (Superior)
74 (Ontario)

406

22,684191 (Superior)
2.6 (Erie)

Issyk-Kul

ClosedSalineHighland:Semi-arid

Tectonic

1,608

668

1,738

305

Kariba Reservoir

Reservoir

Fresh

Dry: Semi-arid

Constructed

485

97

185

3

Laguna de Bay

CoastalFresh

Tropical humid:
Rain forest (Monsoon)

Tectonic/
Coastal

2

7.3

2.25

0.67

Malawi/Nyasa

Transition

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Savanna

Tectonic

474

700

7,775

114

Naivasha

Subsurface
Open

Fresh

Warmer humid:
Humid subtropical

Tectonic

1,885

18

...

...

NakuruClosedSalineWarmer humid:
Humid subtropical

Tectonic

1,759

4.5

0.092

...

Ohrid

Subsurface
Open

Fresh

Warmer humid:
Mediterranean

Tectonic

690

289

58.6

70

Peipsi/Chudskoe

Surface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Continental cool summer

Glacial

30

12.9

25.1

2

Sevan

Surface
Open

Fresh

Dry: Semi-arid

Tectonic

1,896

80

32.9

...

Tanganyika

Surface
Open

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Savanna

Tectonic

773

1,470

18,880440

Titicaca

Transition

Fresh

Highland:
TropicalTectonic/
Glacial

3,810

283

930

56

Toba

Surface
Open

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Rain forest

Volcanic/
Tectonic

904

505

240

109-279

Tonle Sap

Mixed Flow

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Savanna

Riverine

101072.9 (max.)

Tucurui Reservoir

Reservoir

FreshTropical humid:
Rain forest

Constructed

78

72

45

0.12

Victoria

Surface
Open

Fresh

Tropical humid:
Savanna

Tectonic

1,134

80

2,760

23

Xingkai/Khanka

Surface
Open

Fresh

Cooler humid:
Continental cool summer

Tectonic

69

10.6

18.3 (avg.)
22.6 (max.)

10

d.

(m)

(m)

Vol.

Retention
Time

Water
Type

OriginAltitude

Max.
Depth

Basin
Type

Lake Basin

3

(km )

(yrs)

...

3 (Main Lake)
0.17 (South Lake)...

Source: The Times Atlas of the World, Tenth Comprehensive Edition, pp. 36-37.

Learning from Others7Lake Briefs, Regional Review Workshops, and Thematic
PapersLocal and international experts were commissioned to prepare
briefs on experience and lessons learned for the 28 lakebasins. The briefs document not just the biophysical conditions
but also the socioeconomic conditions and management
experience, including lessons learned, at each lake basin. A
list of lake brief authors is given in Appendix B. The full set ofbriefs can be found on the companion CD-ROM.
The lake briefs were reviewed in three regional workshops:
Europe, Central Asia, and the Americas (hosted by SaintMichael’s College, in Burlington, Vermont, USA in June 2003),
Asia (hosted by the Laguna Lake Development Authority in
Manila, Philippines in September 2003) and Africa (hosted
by the Pan-African START Secretariat in Nairobi, Kenya in
November 2003). The workshops brought together 288
participants from 41 countries who provided additional
valuable information on lake basin management (Appendix
C). In addition to the 28 lake briefs, this report draws on
information on the development of community-based
management at Lake George in Uganda; these experienceswere presented at the African regional workshop.

Section III: Synthesis is where all the lessons are brought
together into a coherent whole, ﬁrst in Planning (Chapter 10)
and then in Toward the Future (Chapter 11).
Appendix A is a glossary of terms used in this report. The list oflake briefs and thematic papers and their authors can be foundin Appendix B. Appendix C provides the summary outcomesfrom the three regional workshops. Appendix D is a list ofreferences. Appendix E provides a map for each of the 28 lakebasins. Appendix F presents the Conference Statement andMinisterial Resolution from the 11th World Lake Conference,
Nairobi, Kenya; and the Main Points of the Declaration from the
9th Meeting of the Ramsar Convention, Kampala, Uganda.

In addition to the briefs, 17 thematic papers were commissionedon cross-cutting or regional/global issues. A list of these
papers and their authors can also be found in Appendix B.
Website Clearinghouse and e-Forum
A project e-forum (www.worldlakes.org) was establishedto facilitate communication and dialogue among project
participants, including public review of the briefs, thematic
papers, and this report.

Structure of the Report
The report is divided into three sections containing elevenchapters. These are followed by ﬁve appendices. A companion
CD-ROM contains the lake briefs and the thematic papers.
Section I: Understanding the Resource covers the key
biophysical aspects (Chapter 2) and human use aspects(Chapter 3) that make lake basin management such achallenge. The 28 lake basins are used to illustrate the wide
range of values, uses, and problems facing lakes, and typicalmanagement responses. The key components of lake basin
management are presented.
Section II: Meeting the Governance Challenge forms the coreof the report. Each chapter in this section presents lessons
learned on the main components of lake basin management:
namely, Institutions (Chapter 4), Policy Tools (Chapter 5),
People (Chapter 6), Technological Responses (Chapter 7),
Information (Chapter 8) and Finance (Chapter 9). While thesecomponents can be read as stand-alone chapters, they are
best read as a whole.

8

Chapter 1

Chapter 2
Biophysical Characteristics of Lakes

This chapter highlights those features of lakes and theirbasins that have the greatest implications for human use andmanagement. A more thorough treatment is available in Wetzel(2004), Klaff (2002) or Horne and Goldman (1994).

saline surface lakes, and even has some lakes buried underkilometers of ice (for example, Lake Vostok). Even arid andsemi-arid areas have lakes, many of which are naturally saline
due to high evaporation rates.

Global Extent and Distribution of Lakes

Reservoirs and impoundments are most often built in regionsof the world that lack substantial numbers of natural lakes,
and are used primarily to address recurring problems ofwater shortages (drought) or excesses (ﬂoods). The World
Commission on Dams (2000) estimates there are over 45,000
large dams (15 m high or between 5-15 m high with a reservoir
volume greater than 3 million m3); most were constructed in
the latter half of the 20th century.

According to the most comprehensive study of the global
distribution of natural lakes (Meybeck 1995), there areapproximately 5.3 million lakes over one hectare in size
(Table 2.1). Overall, lakes hold 100,000 km3 of freshwater—90
percent of the earth’s liquid surface total (Shiklomanov 1993).
Saline lakes hold a nearly equal volume of water.
The global water cycle has been profoundly changed by theconstruction of artiﬁcial lakes by damming rivers; thesereservoirs contain over 14 percent of global annual runoff. Whileconstruction of large reservoirs is a modern phenomenon,
older, smaller reservoirs such as the Bhoj Wetland have beenaround for over a thousand years.

A Typology of Lakes: What Differentiates one Lakefrom Another?

The distribution of lakes is governed primarily by variations
in geology and climate. Lakes are most abundant in Canada,
the Nordic countries, and the Russian Federation, where
there are numerous depressions and a surplus of rainfall
over evaporation. However, they are found on all continentsof the world, even on Antarctica, which is home to many

Basin Type

Table 2.1 Origin, Number and Extent of the World’s Lakes(› 1 ha).
OriginNumberTotal Area(ha)

Glacial3,875,000

1,247,000

4Tectonic

249,000

893,000

17

Coastal41,00060,0002Riverine

531,000

218,000

1

Volcanic

1,000

3,000

1

Other/Unknown

567,000

88,0000Constructed45,000...

3

5,309,000

2,509,000

28

Total
...
Source:1.

Number inour survey1

Not available.
Adapted from Meybeck (1995).
Several lakes have multiple and/or unclear origins. They
are categorized here under the origin listed ﬁrst in Table
1.1. Number of reservoirs from World Commission on Dams
(2000).

This section looks at ﬁve key characteristics of lake basins—
basin type, climate, origin, salinity and mixing—that have
major implications for human use of lakes.

At one time, lakes were seen as worlds unto themselves(Forbes 1875). The existence of a shoreline implied that a lake
is a discrete entity. Advances in knowledge, driven in part byresearch on problems at lakes around the world, have led tothe understanding that lakes are intimately connected to theirdrainage basins. This is articulated as Principle 2 of the World
Lake Vision (Box 1.1). An analysis of issues in the 28 lake briefs(see next chapter) conﬁrms the intimate link between what
happens in a lake with what is happening in its drainage basin(the terms catchment, watershed, and drainage basin are usedalmost synonymously). The cases also show that sometimes
lakes can be inﬂuenced by activities happening in their airshedbeyond their surface water basins.
Lake basins can be categorized by their water balance: that is,
how water gets into and out of the lake. Scientists distinguishbetween open and closed lake basins, or those that have rivers
draining the lake and those that do not. The categorizationin Figure 2.1 builds on and extends this simple dichotomy toaccount for the diversity of basin types in the 28 project lakes.
Surface Drainage Basin. An open basin with surface wateroutlet(s). Water leaves the lake by one or more rivers,
allowing ions (components of salinity) to be ﬂushed. Thus,
the water remains fresh. Many of the lakes in this report are

Lake Constance Basin

Lake Naivasha Basin

Lake Malawi/Nyasa Basin

Issyk-Kul Basina) Surface Drainage Basinb) Subsurface Drainage Basinc) Transitional Drainage
Basind) Closed Drainage Basin

Chilika Lagoon Basin

Tonle Sap Basin

Tucurui Reservoir Basine) Coastal Drainage Basinf ) Mixed Flow Drainage Basing) Reservoir Basin

Figure 2.1 The Variety of Lake Basin Types.

in open drainage basins, with rivers being the major wateroutﬂow. Water also leaves this type of lake via evaporationand groundwater, but those components are relatively minor
compared with river outﬂows. Examples are Lakes Baikal,
Biwa, Constance, Dianchi, the North American Great Lakes,
Peipsi/Chudskoe, Toba, and Xingkai/Khanka.
Subsurface Drainage Basin. An open basin with a signiﬁcantsubsurface inlet/outlet(s). Many lakes have no surface riverdischarge, yet remain fresh due to substantial ﬂow of water(and salt) via groundwater. Lake Naivasha in Kenya is an
excellent illustration of a lake dominated by groundwater ﬂow.
Lake Ohrid is an interesting case where much inﬂow to the lakecomes from groundwater from a different surface lake basin.
Examples include Lakes Baringo, Chad, Naivasha, and Ohrid.
Transitional Drainage Basin. A basin with some surface orsubsurface outﬂow but with signiﬁcant evaporation. This typeof lake occurs mainly in low latitude, and arid/semi-arid areas
where solar radiation—and hence evaporation—is strong.
Small changes in climate or human use can switch a transitionbasin lake between open and closed states. Greater relative
dependence on direct precipitation and evaporation makesthese lakes more sensitive to atmospheric inputs than other10

open basins of equal area. The Lake Malawi/Nyasa Basin has adischarge in the south that sometimes fails to ﬂow, sometimes
making it a closed basin. Examples include Malawi/Nyasa,
Sevan, Tanganyika, Titicaca, and Victoria.
Closed Drainage Basin. A terminal basin with neither
signiﬁcant surface nor subsurface outﬂow. Water leaves thelake only through evaporation, which generally leads to higher
salinity (total ionic concentration). Thus, most lakes in closed
basins are either saline (total ionic concentration ›3 g/L) or are
becoming so. Examples of closed basin lakes include the Aral
Sea, Issyk-Kul, and Nakuru.
Coastal Drainage Basin. A drainage basin with ﬂows to andfrom the ocean. Freshwater typically enters the lake throughrivers draining to it. The lake periodically/seasonally drains to
the ocean; sometimes the ocean drains to the lake. This canlead to a complex and seasonally dependent salinity gradientthat is important for the biota. Examples include Chilika
Lagoon and, to a lesser extent, Laguna de Bay.
Mixed Flow Drainage Basin. A drainage basin with inﬂowing
rivers that reverse direction depending on the season. In
contrast to a coastal lake, the ﬂows come from a freshwater
Chapter 2

river. This reversal of ﬂow leads to large ﬂuctuations in lakewater level and area. These lakes commonly occur in internaldeltas. Tonle Sap is a prime example of this type. For this typeof basin, the size of the lake’s drainage basin is seasonal, since
the connecting river inﬂow is seasonal.
Reservoir Basin. A drainage basin with a dammed river.
In many areas where geology and climate do not favor theformation of natural lakes, reservoirs are constructed, although
the reasons for construction are quite diverse. Reservoirs tend
to have large basin-to-lake area ratios and often have a highly
dendritic shape; both of these characteristics are illustrated in
Figure 2.1 for the Tucurui Reservoir and its extensive basin. The
transition from river to lake environments within the reservoir
proper is gradual and progresses with proximity to the dam.
Examples include the Bhoj Wetland, and the Kariba andTucurui Reservoirs.
Origin/Age
Table 2.1 shows that about 75 percent of the world’s lakes
were formed as a result of the last ice age, which ended
around 10,000 years ago. Coastal lakes are even more recent,having been formed when sea levels stabilized around 6,000
years ago. Tectonic lakes range greatly in age, but tend to bevery old. The oldest, Lake Baikal which lies in a tectonic rift in
Siberia, is thought to be over 20 million years old. The Great
Rift Valley of Africa contains similarly old and deep lakes such
as Lakes Malawi/Nyasa and Tanganyika. Eight of the world’s 15
ancient lakes (greater than two million years old) are includedin this study.
A lake’s origin has great implications for its characteristics. For
example, coastal lagoons are naturally susceptible to siltation,
as they usually lie at the end of large riverine catchments. Theygo through an aging process in which they gradually ﬁll in withsilt, become more-and-more closed off from the sea, and lower
in salinity. On the other hand, tectonic lakes tend to be deeper
and older, and therefore have longer retention times. They arelikely to contain endemic species with signiﬁcant biodiversity
value.
ClimateSolar energy input affects the quantity and seasonality of ﬂows
into a lake, the thermal properties of the lake, and biologicalprocesses in the lake. Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 classiﬁes lakebasins by the Köppen climate system, which recognizes six
major climatic types—polar, cooler humid, warmer humid, dry,tropical humid, and highland—each of which can be further
subdivided.
The 28 project lakes cover a wide range of climate types.
Most are in tropical (10) or subtropical (5) climates, which arecharacterized by abundant rainfall and strong solar radiation.
A further six lakes are in arid or semi-arid regions (areas
with between 25-200 mm and 200-500 mm annual rainfall
respectively). Many of these arid and semi-arid regions are
low in latitude and therefore subject to strong solar radiationand high evaporation. The majority of the world’s saline lakes
Biophysical Aspects of Lakes

occur in closed drainage basins in arid and semi-arid regions(Williams 1998). Lake Titicaca occupies a unique position asa high-elevation, tropical lake. The remaining six lakes arelocated in temperate regions.
Shallow lakes are particularly sensitive to climatic variation.
For example, Lake Nakuru has little buffering capacity towithstand both intra-seasonal and inter-seasonal climate
variability because of its shallow depth, high evaporation
rates, and seasonal inﬂowing rivers. The ﬁrst peak ﬂow occurs
in May (a month after peak rainfall), while the second peakcoincides with rain in the month of August. The Lake Nakuru
basin is a closed basin so only evaporation accounts for water
loss from the lake. Consequently, long drought periods, suchas 1993 to 1996, have resulted in excessive lake-level decline.
Scientiﬁc knowledge of lakes has primarily come from studies
of temperate lakes in Europe and North America. In order toexpand the knowledge base, we have included many nontemperate lakes and lakes from developing countries in thisstudy.
Salinity
Williams (1998) has deﬁned saline waters as those with total
ionic concentrations greater than 3 g/L. Waters less saline than
this are considered fresh. When water evaporates, most of theions remain behind. When evaporation is the dominant way forwater to leave a lake, there is a gradual increase in the lake’s
salinity. All three saline lakes in our survey—the Aral Sea, Lake
Nakuru, and Issyk-Kul—occur in closed basins (the fourthsaline waterbody is the coastal Chilika Lagoon).
The study lakes cover the spectrum of salinity from freshwater
to hyper-saline lakes. The salinity of a lake is of utmost
importance to the biota, and consequently to human users.
The Aral Sea was once a moderately saline water body, but
due to upstream diversions of rivers, the lake’s water balancehas become dominated by evaporation and its salinity has
dramatically increased, leading to the complete loss of theﬁshery. However, increasing salinity can be beneﬁcial. The
Chilika Lagoon brief shows how a reduction in inﬂow of saline(ocean) water led to a drop in salinity that led to a decline inﬁsh that were attuned to the saline ecosystem. Lake Nakuru,
a sodic lake in the Kenyan portion of the Rift Valley, provides
an example of where extreme salinity is the basis of the lake’s
most important and unique values (Box 2.1).
Mixing/Stratiﬁcation
Water movement in lakes is multidirectional and complex.
For many lakes, there can be periods when the lake stratiﬁes;
that is, the upper water of a lake does not mix with the lower
water. Effectively, the lake is separated into two waterbodies,
one lying on top of the other. Stratiﬁcation can be caused bywarming of the upper waterbody through solar radiation, or bydifferences in salinity between upper and lower waters. Strong
stratiﬁcation—that is, large density differences between upperand lower waters—occurs particularly in tropical lakes.

11

The principal consequence of stratiﬁcation is that the bottom
waters become disconnected from the atmosphere and do notreceive a regular supply of oxygen. Oxygen levels drop in thesewaters as various chemical and biological processes use up theexisting oxygen. Fish and many other biota cannot live in these
oxygen-depleted waters. Undesirable reactions can occur thatlead to pollutants, such as methane and phosphorus, being
released from the bottom sediments.
Stratiﬁcation and mixing can occur in various patterns
including monomictic (mixing once a year), dimictic (twicea year), polymictic (many times a year), and meromictic(continuously stratiﬁed). Mono- and dimictic lakes areusually found in temperate regions where the seasonality ofsolar radiation is most pronounced. Shallow lakes tend to bewell-mixed (polymictic) year round, with only brief periods ofstratiﬁcation. Some lakes, such as Lakes Malawi/Nyasa andTanganyika, are permanently stratiﬁed because wind cannot
supply the energy needed to mix the huge volumes of waterin these very deep lakes. Any material that sinks into the lower
layer of these lakes is virtually gone forever.

Features Common to Lakes: What Differentiates Lakes
from Other Waterbodies?
Lakes have three fundamental characteristics in common—
integrating nature, long retention time, and complex response
dynamics. Individually, these characteristics are not unique tolakes—for example, groundwater also has a long retention
time, and estuaries can have complex dynamics. But the
combination of these characteristics is unique to lakes and has
an important inﬂuence on the application of IWRM principles
to lake basin management.
Integrating Nature
Lakes receive inputs from diverse sources in various forms
from drainage basins and beyond. The inputs to a lake comein the form of atmospheric precipitation; ﬂows from rivers andother inﬂowing channels; heat- and wind-induced energies thatcause waves; thermal energies that affect mixing properties;
and land-based and airborne pollutants and contaminants,
nutrients, and organic substances, both living and non-living
matter.

Integrating nature refers to the mixing of these inputs withina lake so that both resources and problems are disseminatedthroughout the volume of a lake. There are important limits
to mixing—stratiﬁcation can prevent complete verticalmixing, and restricted embayments can limit horizontal water
movement. Nevertheless, valuable resources such as ﬁsh andinvertebrates, as well as problems such as ﬂoating plants andpollution, are able to move throughout most of the upper partsof a lake.
Long Retention Time
Lakes are slow to respond to changes. They are able to absorb
ﬂoodwaters, pollutants, and heat without showing immediatechanges. Water residence time is calculated as the volume ofa lake divided by the annual ﬂow of water in (or out). It gives
an indication of the average time water spends in a lake. Table
1.1 gives the residence times for many of the lakes in the study.
The shortest time is 2 months (Tucurui Reservoir) and thelongest is 440 years (Lake Tanganyika). The world average forlakes is 17 years, compared to two weeks for undammed rivers(Klaff 2002).
Long retention time has several important implications. One isthat lakes are relatively stable. Even in severe droughts, mostlakes still have some water in them: their large volumes in mostcases buffer short-term variations in ﬂows. In severe droughts,
lakes can dry out, especially if they are in closed basins. The
Aral Sea is known to have greatly shrunk several times in thelast two-thousand years, and Lake Nakuru was largely driedout in the 1980s. As a reliable “pool” of water, they present
a ﬂat surface allowing for easy navigation. Additionally, longretention time allows for suspended materials to settle to thebottom. This means that lakes act as high-efﬁciency sinks formany materials. Because of their relative permanence, manylakes have fostered civilizations and become symbols ofcultures. Lakes Sevan and Ohrid provide examples. Settlement
at the former is known to date back more than 9,000 years,
while the Macedonian side of Lake Ohrid has been designateda World Heritage site, partly because there are physicalremains from its long history of settlement.
Another implication is that the long-term stability of theolder lakes has allowed complex, often unique ecosystems
to evolve. Lake Malawi/Nyasa provides an example of what

Box 2.1 Lake Nakuru—Saline and Sublime
Lake Nakuru is an extreme example of a saline lake with salinity levels that range between 8 and 200 parts per thousand.
Owing to its strongly sodic nature, Lake Nakuru has limited uses for man. Its waters render it unsuitable for irrigation, contact
sport, ﬁshing, or domestic consumption. Such highly alkaline lakes are characterized by low species diversity and simple
community structures where a few tolerant and adapted species attain high population densities. In the case of Lake Nakuru,
the Cyanophyte, Arthrospira fusiformis (Voronichin), thrives in the highly saline waters and forms the food source for thelesser ﬂamingos. This is a specialized feeder, whose feeding habits are restricted to those wetlands in which Arthrospirafusiformis ﬂourishes. The lesser ﬂamingo is a vulnerable species (CITES List II).
Primarily because of the large assemblages of ﬂamingos, Lake Nakuru is a highly valued national park and a major sourceof revenue for the local and national economy. In addition to its value as a national park, it also serves as a reservoir forthe assimilation of wastes generated within its drainage basin. Managing this lake involves balancing these two apparently
conﬂicting uses.

12

Chapter 2

millions of years of relative isolation, coupled with natural
selection, can produce—over 500 endemic ﬁsh species exist in
this lake. However, this biodiversity can be rapidly destroyed,
as demonstrated by the major loss of ﬁsh community structure
following the introduction of Nile perch and the increasing
eutrophication of Lake Victoria. Lake ecosystems are resilient
when faced with stresses that have existed over evolutionary
time scales, but can be extremely vulnerable to “new” stresses,
such as the introduction of exotic species.
The long retention time also means that, once a lake isdegraded, it takes a very long time—if ever—for it to recover orbe restored. Evidence from the lake briefs—such as the longterm release of toxic chemicals from sediment in the North
American Great Lakes—shows that reversing degradation ishard, costly, and often impossible. The long retention timeof lakes leads to lags in ecosystem response that are poorly
matched to the human management time-scale.
Complex Response Dynamics
Unlike rivers, lakes do not always respond to changes ina linear fashion. Figure 2.2 shows the highly non-linear
response (hysteresis) of many lakes to increases in nutrient
concentration. The consequence is that a lake’s degradationin response to a developing pressure, such as increased
nutrient concentrations (from A to B), may not be apparent
until nutrient concentrations are high and the lake abruptly
switches its status. In the ﬁgure, plankton concentrations only
become high when nutrient concentrations increase from B to
C. The difﬁculty for a decision maker is that the lake cannot
simply go from C back to B. There are likely to have been
irreversible changes to the ecosystem, so recovery follows apath from C through D down to A. That means that politically
difﬁcult decisions (such as regulations on nutrient discharge topush the lake from C to D) do not yield an immediate positivechange (a drop in algal blooms).
Lake Victoria provides a well-known example of this complex
response. The diatom, Aulacosiera, the previously dominantphytoplankton, was last recorded in the lake in 1990. Nitrogenﬁxing cyanobacteria (particularly Cylindrospermopsis sp.) and,to a lesser extent, Anabaena, now dominate the phytoplankton.

C

Plankton Concentration

D
Time

Time
B
A
Nutrient Concentration

Figure 2.2 An Example of Complex Response Dynamics of a
Lake.
Biophysical Aspects of Lakes

This abrupt switch in the basis of the lake’s foodchain was theresult of gradually increasing nutrient loads and has major
implications for the lake’s entire ecosystem. Lake Naivasha
is another lake where aquatic ecologists speculate that thelake switched state when alien species were introduced in
the lake. The introduction of the Louisiana crayﬁsh especiallyhas changed the original submerged macrophyte-dominatedecosystem into a rather macrophyte-depleted ecosystem.
Biomagniﬁcation is another example of complexity in lakeecosystems. Biomagniﬁcation refers to the increase inconcentration of certain compounds in organisms as one goesup the food chain. Toxic compounds such as PCBs and dioxins
are extremely soluble in fat and therefore remain in the bodies
of organisms that consume them and so get concentrated aslower order organisms are consumed by higher order ones.
Table 2.2 shows how the concentration of PCBs increases up
the North American Great Lakes food chain.
Table 2.2 Biomagniﬁcation of PCBs in the North American
Great Lakes.
Organism

PCB concentration relative toconcentration in phytoplankton

Humans?

Herring Gull Eggs

4960

Lake Trout (a large ﬁsh)193

Smelt (a small ﬁsh)

47

Zooplankton

5

Phytoplankton

1

Source:Adapted from USEPA and Government of Canada 1995.

Implications for Lake Basin Management
Lakes are part of river basins and are best managed according
to the principles of IWRM. These include devolution of
responsibility to the lowest applicable level, coordination
across sectors affecting lakes, and involvement of all
relevant stakeholders. Figure 2.3 shows how water resourcesmanagement requires coordination across all the waterusing sectors. However, water resources managers alsoneed to be cogniscent of the special characteristics of lakes
and the implications of these characteristics for lake basin
management. This special form of IWRM is termed Integrated
Lake Basin Management (ILBM).
The integrating nature of a lake means that many lake resources
as well as lake problems are shared throughout the lake. As aresult, it is not sensible to subject different parts of a lake todifferent management regimes. This is particularly relevant
for transboundary lakes basins. For example, a sustainableﬁshery cannot be achieved for a single population of ﬁshunless all riparian countries implement sustainable ﬁshingpractices. Thus, for transboundary lake basins, some formof transboundary cooperation is needed—some successful
examples described later in this report involve transboundary,coordinating institutions covering both lakes and their basins.
A related consequence of their integrating nature is that it is13

Political economy
of watermanagement

Other Services including
Industry and Navigation

Environmental Services

Management
instruments

EnergyInstitutionalframework

Irrigation and Drainage

Infrastructure formanagement offloods anddroughts,
multipurpose
storage, water
quality and source
protection

Water Supply and Sanitation

Water Resources Management

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework Showing the Relationshipbetween Water Resources and Sectoral Use of
Water.
Source:The Global Water Partnership.

difﬁcult to exclude users from accessing a lake’s resources. In
the absence of effective regulatory institutions, ease of accesscoupled with self-interest can lead to over-use and destructionof the resource base. The methods of controlling peoples’
behaviors, whether through command-and-control type rules,
economic instruments, or public education and involvement,
need to be designed for this characteristic of lakes (discussed
in more detail in the next chapter).
Long retention time has a number of implications. Because
problems can build up slowly and take equally as long to be
managed, institutions involved in lake basin management(including those in upper basins) need to be prepared toengage in sustained actions. Their institutional structure,including the establishment of strong links with sectoral
agencies and community groups, should be designed for thelong term and their sources of funding need to be sustainable.
Scientiﬁc knowledge has a particularly important role in ILBM
because of both the long retention times and the complex
response dynamics of lakes. The former characteristic meansthat problems need to be anticipated as far in advance aspossible through monitoring, development of indicators andanalytical studies; the latter characteristic means that detailed
scientiﬁc studies may need to be carried out to unravel thesecomplex processes and their implications. Scientiﬁc studies
may also develop novel solutions to these problems.
At present, the special characteristics of river basins that
include lakes are not widely understood by water resourcesmanagers. The lessons identiﬁed during this project are
intended to help sensitize water resources managers to thesecharacteristics and their management implications.

14

Chapter 2

Chapter 3
Human Use of Lakes:
Values, Problems, and Responses

Resource Values of Lakes and Their Basins
Lakes and reservoirs and their basins provide many uses ofdifferent values to humans. They supply water for drinking,agriculture, industry, and livestock uses and energy
generation; they buffer downstream areas against bothﬂoods and droughts; they provide sinks for sediments andcontaminants to protect downstream areas (although thiscan cause problems in the lake itself ); they provide a pathfor transportation; and they offer habitat for important foodspecies. Though we construct lakes artiﬁcially to create suchvalues, the endowed values from natural lakes generally far
exceed the ones that artiﬁcial lakes can provide. Tonle Sap
provides a novel example of buffering against ﬂoods anddrought to the beneﬁt of both lakeshore communities andthose downstream. From mid-May to early-October, the ﬂow of
the Mekong River system becomes so great that the Mekong
Delta cannot support the volume, and the water backs up
the Tonle Sap River to ﬁll Tonle Sap and its surrounding ﬂood
plain. This annual replenishment gives rise to one of the mostproductive ﬁsheries in the world. Subsequently, the delayed
release of ﬂoodwater from the lake to the Mekong Riverbetween October and April provides water for a second rice
crop and controls seawater intrusion in the Mekong Delta.
These uses give rise to the many values of lakes and theirbasins (Box 3.1).

Box 3.1 Common Lake and Lake Basin Uses
Lakes
• Water extraction for urban and rural use• Artisanal and commercial ﬁsheries and aquaculture• Transportation• Recession cropping and grazing• Disposal of wastes, including sewage• Tourism based on biodiversity, scenery, or sporting
activities• Cultural and religious uses
Lake Basins• Rainfed and irrigated agriculture• Grazing of livestock• Industry• Mining• Human settlements• Forestry

Most human communities surrounding lakes in developing
countries are heavily dependent upon lake biota and naturallake processes for their water, food, and livelihoods; as
populations grow, lake resources come under increasingpressure (Box 3.2). Thus, many lake basin communities
in this study, which include some of the world’s poorest
people, depend on freshwater biota for their protein needs.
For example, Lake Malawi/Nyasa provides 70 percent to 75
percent of the animal protein consumed in Malawi, and Tonle
Sap provides about 230,000 tons of ﬁsh/year, almost half ofCambodia’s total ﬁsh production. Lake Victoria supports thelargest freshwater ﬁshery in the world, with annual ﬁsh yields
exceeding 300,000 tons and worth $600 million annually.
While the two main exotic ﬁsh species—Nile perch and Niletilapia—have contributed positively to the riparian countries
through increased export earnings, recreational opportunities,
increased supply of protein, and increased employment andearnings for ﬁshermen, they have also contributed to the lossof many endemic ﬁsh species, particularly cichlids. However,recent studies have revealed that a signiﬁcant portion of
the cichlid fauna, considered lost from the main lakes of
the Lake Victoria region, is still extant in marginal habitats
in the periphery of the main lakes and in the small satellite
waterbodies around the main lakes.
Lakes also support important ecosystems and provide habitat
for rare and threatened species that are valued by global
communities. Many of the study lakes have high international
biodiversity value (Table 3.1). Twelve of the 28 lake briefs cite
national or provincial designations—including the creation ofnational parks, nature reserves, or other protected areas—asbeing important to the lake basin management framework,
while 18 of the 28 lake basins contain wetlands of international
importance (Ramsar sites). Five of the lake basins aredesignated by the United Nations’ Man and the Biosphere
Programme as Biosphere Reserves. Two are designatedby UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. At Lake Ohrid, thedesignation is for both natural and cultural features in the lakebasin; at Lake Baikal, the most biodiverse freshwater body inthe world, the designation is for natural features. In several
cases (Lakes Ohrid, Champlain, and Issyk-Kul), the attainmentof these international designations has helped raise awarenessabout the importance of the lake resources and paved the way
for national water resources management efforts.

species and maintain a commercially valuable sourceof food;

Protection of biodiversity is being combined with productive
use of threatened lake resources at a number of the study
lakes:•At Lake Ohrid, the native trout species are threatened
through overﬁshing, loss of ﬁsh spawning habitat,
and the introduction of exotic ﬁsh species. Efforts toharmonize ﬁshing regulations between FYR Macedonia
and Albania and the protection of shoreline vegetation
will both help conserve the threatened native trout•

Tonle Sap is part of the Mekong Basin, where the Water
Utilization Programme (WUP) commenced in early 2000
to help achieve “reasonable and equitable water use
among the member countries while maintaining theBasin’s ecological integrity”; and,•At Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi/Nyasa, ﬁsh biodiversity
provides the basis of a trade in ornamental ﬁsh species.

Box 3.2 The Connection between Environmental Degradation and Livelihoods: Lakes Chad and Nakuru
Lake Chad
Lake Chad is known to ﬂuctuate naturally in response to climatic cycles. Recently, the demand for water for irrigation has
increased fourfold, magnifying these ﬂuctuations and leading to dramatic environmental changes. In 1963, the lake surface
covered 25,000 km2; today it covers 1,350 km2. Vegetation in the northern part of the lake has disappeared, and sand dunes
have begun to form on the dry lakebed. The decrease in river ﬂow has led in places to the degradation of river channels.
Accelerated siltation and weed growth, particularly Typha australis, have done great damage in the Hadejia-Jama’are-Yobebasin and elsewhere. The problem is expected to worsen in the coming years as population and irrigation demands continue
to increase.
This environmental degradation has had a direct impact on the livelihoods of people in the basin. Pasturelands have only
66 percent of the carrying capacity they had prior to the drought; irrigation channels have been clogged and river channels
blocked by siltation and water weeds; and, some of the natural fauna and ﬂora have disappeared. All economic activities—
such as ﬁshing, livestock rearing, and farming—have been adversely affected and many people have had to migrate asenvironmental refugees. People whose economic activities were dependent on water (such as ﬁshermen) kept following thereceding water without consideration of the national borders. By 1983, a crisis had developed. Migrants found themselves
in other countries without fully realizing the change. Conﬂicts developed between these migrants and local communities.
Territorial disputes also erupted between some member countries over emerging islands in the lake.
Lake Nakuru
Lake Nakuru is one of several shallow, alkaline-saline lakes lying in closed hydrologic basins in the eastern African Rift Valley.
Climatic variations have caused large changes in its depth and salinity on annual, decadal, and longer time scales, as well as
having major consequences for the lake’s ecology. The town of Nakuru is the fourth largest in Kenya, supporting a populationof 400,000 people. The urban population has been growing at a rate of 10 percent per year over the last three decades,
placing considerable stress on water supply and making the environmentally safe disposal of wastewater difﬁcult.
There has also been an increase in water abstraction along the upstream parts of the rivers for irrigation, domestic, andindustrial uses. Deforestation and cultivation exert effects that alter the area’s hydrological regime. The hydrological impactsof the destruction of forests are manifested in higher water runoff rates, higher and more destructive peak discharges inrivers and other water courses, marked seasonality in streamﬂows, and signiﬁcant declines in the stable yields of wells andboreholes. As the demand for water grows and abstraction rates increase, the drainage basin’s capability to harvest and holdrainwater appears to be diminishing.
Issues regarding equitable access to natural resources and sustainable environmental conservation and economic
development have arisen in the drainage basin. The ever-increasing human population, poor enforcement of environmental
regulations, and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources are root causes for human-resource conﬂict. The poverty
and human-wildlife conﬂicts around Lake Nakuru National Park (LNNP) exemplify the prevalence of conﬂict between thecatchment’s natural resources and human population.
The communities in the catchment area are from different ethnic groups, having coexisted peacefully for over 30 years until
1992, when politically-instigated ethnic clashes erupted, resulting in many deaths, property destruction, and population
displacements. The inter-ethnic ﬁghting recurred at the beginning of 1998 with the same disastrous results. The humanwildlife conﬂict has continued, with wild animals damaging crops and property in adjacent farms, while the activities of thebasin’s inhabitants have continued to degrade the environment.
The conﬂict between the need for urban expansion and the need to protect the lake has resulted in a complex situation posing
vast challenges to sustainable urban development. The city’s fragile ecological setting induces severe constraints and calls
for limiting its growth. Conversely, the rapid population growth and economic potential calls for enhanced urban development
and appropriate planning strategies. The views of all stakeholders in the development process are vital to achieve desirable
future outcomes.
Source: Lake Chad and Lake Nakuru briefs.

16

Chapter 3

However, many of these colorful cichlid species arehighly localized and threatened with extinction if
harvesting rates are not carefully controlled. While theseﬁsh have the potential to provide a sustainable, albeit
minor, industry, there is little oversight of this trade atpresent in either lake to ensure its sustainability.
Finally, lakes possess important cultural and religious values
for many societies in both the developed and developingworld. There are numerous examples in the lake briefs. At
Laguna de Bay, religious rites such as baptisms and a paradein honor of the patron saint reﬂect the close link of lakeshore
inhabitants to the lake. The Laguna de Bay basin also has
many cultural sites, such as the century-old churches in thetowns of Pakil, Pangil, and Majayjay in Laguna Province, andpetroglyphs located in the lakeshore town of Binangonan
Rizal. Lake Ohrid provides another example. The long historyof settlement around the lake shores led to the Macedonianside of the lake being declared as a mixed cultural/natural
world heritage site by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee
in 1980. The Lake Ohrid community now beneﬁts from thegrowing market in cultural tourism.

Total Economic ValueThe Total Economic Value (TEV) of a lake basin is thesummation of all values of all identiﬁed uses and beneﬁts.
This approach recognizes the reality that any natural resources
system has many different users and uses, and each use has acontribution in economic terms to the value of the resource.
The TEV approach includes both use and non-use values(Figure 3.1). Use values are those beneﬁts that come fromdirect use of or interaction with the lake—such as ﬁshing,extracting water, or transportation on the lake. Non-use values
are beneﬁts that do not require any direct interaction with thelake itself. Examples of non-use values include the beneﬁt
of knowing that the lake is there (an existence value), or the
beneﬁt from knowing that one’s children will be able to enjoy
the lake (an inheritance value). Box 3.3 provides an example of
the range of values at Lake Sevan.
A major challenge to estimating TEV for a lake basin is
estimating the economic values of the many uses that are notnormally bought and sold in the market (this is particularly true
for non-use values). While a complete, formal TEV calculation
is rarely done (because of the data and time necessary to doit), the strength of the concept is in reminding us that there are

Table 3.1 International Biodiversity Designations for Lake Basins in the Study.
Lake Basin
BaikalNational orProvincial
Designation

Ramsar Site

Baringo





Biwa





Champlain









Cocibolca/NicaraguaConstanceGreat Lakes (North American)
Issyk-Kul

Laguna de BayMalawi/Nyasa











Ohrid



Peipsi/Chudskoe







Tonle Sap

Human Use of Lakes

Titicaca

Xingkai/KhankaTanganyika
Toba





Naivasha

Sevan





Chad

NakuruWorld Heritage Site

Bhoj Wetland

Chilika Lagoon

Biosphere Reserve






17

a number of components to the value of any resource—somethat are quite easy to identify and measure, others that may
be quite difﬁcult to value in monetary terms. As such, the TEV
approach helps the decision maker/planner to think about
who are the various stakeholders and whose values (welfare)will be affected by different management options.
The Laguna de Bay Brief is the only brief to describe thecalculation of TEV. The TEV analysis was carried out to estimatechanges in values due to a proposed pollution control project,
the USAID-assisted Environmental and Natural Resources
Accounting Project. Although the analysis considered a wide
range of use and non-use values, it only costed four use
values. The beneﬁts of the proposed project were estimatedto be about:•$125,000 per year for ﬁsheries (based on changes in ﬁshcatch and market prices for ﬁsh);•$1.25 million per year for irrigation;•$9,000 per year for domestic water supply; and,•

$90,000 per year for tourism.

Typical Problems Facing the World’s Lakes
The proximate causes of lake problems can arise from both
the direct exploitation of lake resources as well as from humanactivities taking place within and outside of the lake basins.
Thus, farmers who settle in the catchment above a lake cancause problems for lake ﬁshermen through excess sedimentreaching the lake because of erosion or agro-chemical residues(for example, from fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides) carriedthrough runoff into the lake. Downstream users also can cause
problems for users of lake resources. For example, downstream
irrigation schemes can place demands on water from the lakethat restrict developments around the lake. Such externalities(where one group receives the beneﬁts and another groupbears the costs) are particularly important for lakes.

Total Economic Value

Non-use Values

Use Values

DirectValuesConsuptive andnon-consuptive
use ofresources

Indirect
ValuesEcosystemfunctionsandservices

OptionValuesPremium
placed on
possiblefuture uses

BequestValuesBenefitsforfuturegenerations

Existence
Values“Knowingthat itis there...”Figure 3.1 Total Economic Value

Box 3.3 Socioeconomic Valuation in Lake Sevan, Armenia
Lake Sevan and its basin provide numerous goods and services to Armenia. In the Lake Sevan brief, the discussion ofsocioeconomic values can easily be arranged into different categories used in the TEV approach. The main focus in the briefis on direct use values, although other types of values are mentioned. Based on the information presented in the brief thefollowing groupings of goods and services can be made.
Direct use (consumptive): sand, gravel, mineral water, peat, reeds, willow branches, wood, mushrooms, other plants, ﬁsh,birds, mammals for meat and fur, frogs, and benthic invertebrates.
Direct use (non-consumptive): tourism, water recreation, bird watching, education, research, and aesthetic appreciation.
Indirect use: hydroelectric power generation, irrigation downstream, water supply for livestock and human consumption.
Non-use values: option, existence and bequest values related to the cultural and historical importance of Lake Sevan toArmenians—both in Armenia and abroad.
Only part of this wide range of goods and services are captured in market prices. The direct-use values (both consumptive andnon-consumptive) can be calculated fairly readily. While the indirect use and non-use values are more difﬁcult to estimate,
the cultural/historical values at this lake are considered so important that an investment project to help stabilize and restore
the lake level is being reevaluated incorporating some of these values. These non-use values themselves may be sufﬁcient tochange the investment decision, even if all the other use values are not included.
18

Chapter 3

Problems with lakes have been documented in the Survey of
the State of the World’s Lakes, compiled in the late 1980s andearly 1990s by ILEC and UNEP (http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/database.html). Based on this work, Kira (1997) concluded thatlakes face a number of widespread and continuing problems,
including eutrophication, acidiﬁcation, toxic contamination,water-level changes, salinization, siltation, and theintroduction of exotic species. More detailed information onlake problems can be found in the National Research Council(1992), United Nations Environment Programme (1994), Dinar
and others (1995), Ayres and others (1996), Nakamura (1997),
Duker (2001), Jorgensen and others (2003), Davis and Hirji(2003), and the World Lake Vision (2003).
The occurrence and management of lake problems isinﬂuenced by the three deﬁning characteristics of lakes—theirintegrating nature, long retention time, and complex response
dynamics. The integrating nature of lakes means that problems
can seldom be localized within lakes. Floods affect all of thelake’s shoreline; pollution spreads beyond its source to affectmuch of the lake; and biological problems, such as introduced
species, can spread throughout much of the lake.
The relatively long retention time of lakes means that many
problems can take a long time to become apparent. This isparticularly true where the problem arises because of longterm change to some component of the lake that is not visible.
For example, alterations to the lower levels of the lake’s foodchain (caused by sediments in the water, which change thelight regime) may not be immediately apparent to the usersof the lake.
The complexity of lake dynamics also inﬂuences the way
in which problems become apparent. In the case of Lake
Victoria, nutrients had been building up in the lake waterand sediments for decades without apparent effects until
the early 1990s when, quite suddenly, the basis of the lake’s
ecosystem shifted. The high productivity of the lake meansthat the bottom waters of the lake are now seriously depletedin oxygen for extensive periods. Given the lake’s mean depth of
40 meters, this implies that a signiﬁcant volume of the lake is
now unsuitable as habitat for commercial and noncommercial
ﬁsh species for part of the year. It is known, from experience inother lakes, that it is very difﬁcult to shift such a lake back to
its previous state.
The types of problems and opportunities in reservoirs (and,to some extent lakes that are operated like reservoirs) candiffer from those that arise with lake basin management. For
example, during the construction phase, reservoirs offer an
opportunity for exploiting new ecological niches. Thus, theKariba Reservoir was stocked with a pelagic ﬁsh species from
Lake Tanganyika that has become the basis for a deepwatercommercial ﬁshing industry; a cichlid species for artisanalﬁshing; and a tiger ﬁsh for a highly popular sport ﬁshingindustry. However, reservoir construction can also lead to thedisplacement of local people, sometimes without adequate
compensation. This is described in the both the Kariba andHuman Use of Lakes

Tucurui Reservoir briefs. Reservoirs are constructed forparticular purposes—irrigation water supply, hydropower,
town water supply, etc.—and these purposes dominate
their operations. Consequently, their levels can rise and fall
dramatically in response to water demands, although there
are a number of examples in the lake briefs—Lakes Naivasha,
Baringo, Victoria, Chad, Toba and Sevan—where lake levels
also rise and fall in response to climate variability and water
demands. On the other hand, this same dominant purpose
also means that reservoirs often have access to high value
uses that make them a potential source of local, national orregional income for reservoir basin management.
Lake and reservoir problems in the present study are heregrouped into 20 categories based on the frequency with which
they are mentioned in the lake briefs (Table 3.2). While thebriefs do not comprehensively describe all problems in the
study lake basins, it is reasonable to assume that they doinclude the major problems. In the table, the problems are
identiﬁed by their biophysical origins. For example, excess
nutrients are listed as a problem rather than eutrophication,
which is a consequence of excess nutrients. Loss of
biodiversity is also not included explicitly since it arises fromother primary problems such as loss of habitat (Lake Dianchi),introduced species (Lakes Ohrid and Victoria), or overﬁshing(Lake Malawi/Nyasa).
The problems have been grouped into their regions oforigin: within the lake basin; around the lake’s littoral zone;
from the lake basin; or from a wider region outside the lakebasin, including global threats. While there is inevitably
some repetition of problems between regions, this grouping
provides some guidance on the focus of management if theissue is to be tackled at its source.
In-Lake Problems
Unsustainable ﬁshing practices. Fish are one of the mostcommonly exploited resources from lakes. But overﬁshing or
use of destructive ﬁshing practices can lead to the decline ofthese important resources for a short-term gain but a longterm cost.
Introduced faunal species. Alien ﬁsh and invertebrate species
have been introduced to many lakes, sometimes with severe
consequences for native species. These introductions can beeither deliberate or accidental. They can alter physical habitat,
can compete for food resources, or can predate on native
species. In extreme cases, they can lead to a loss of aquatic
biodiversity. However, some introductions, such as bream
and whiteﬁsh at Issyk-Kul and Nile perch in Lake Victoria,
have provided commercial and nutritional beneﬁts to local
populations.
Weed infestations. Excess growth of aquatic plants cancause problems in lakes by altering the habitats of native
fauna, interfering with water transport, harboring nuisancespecies such as ﬂies, blocking water intakes, impeding waterﬂows, and even increasing evapotranspiration from the lake19

surface. Often these plants are exogenous to the lake and their
dominance is promoted by increased nutrient levels.
Changes in salinity. Lake ecosystems become adapted toparticular salinity levels. When these levels are signiﬁcantly
altered, either increased or decreased, these ecosystems canbe disrupted with consequent disruption for communities
dependent on them.
Nutrients from ﬁsh cages. Nutrients can also enter lakes fromthe excreta of caged ﬁsh and from excess food. In lakes where
there are high densities of ﬁsh cages, these nutrients canpromote eutrophication and aquatic weeds. This problem isparticularly common in Asian lakes.
Littoral Zone Problems
Shoreline efﬂuent and stormwater discharges. Untreatedor poorly treated efﬂuent from lakeshore communities cancontaminate lakes. Bacteria and other pathogens can threaten
human health, BOD can reduce oxygen concentrations, andnutrients can increase the eutrophication of the lake. In
addition, urban stormwater runoff is commonly contaminatedwith efﬂuent and other urban contaminants (oils, organic
matter, heavy metals), which add to the pollution load.
Shoreline industrial contaminants. Direct discharge to a lake
is a convenient method for disposing of industrial wastes fromshoreline industries. However, it adds toxic chemicals, BOD,
and efﬂuent to lakes and, in some cases, can change physicallake characteristics such as temperature and turbidity. These
contaminants can also reach shallow groundwater systems
and be transported to the lake through subsurface pathways.
Shoreline water extraction. Where there are high population
densities or extensive irrigation enterprises, water extraction
can affect the levels of a lake. Even when water is extracted
from groundwater systems, these are often connected to thelake aquifer.
Loss of wetlands and littoral habitat. Fringing wetlands andthe littoral zones are closely connected to the ecological healthof a lake. They provide refuges and sites for breeding. They canalso be involved in the exchange of nutrients with the lake andcan act as ﬁlters, trapping incoming sediments and pollutants.
Development around the littoral zone of a lake often resultsin the destruction or degradation of these important adjuncts.
For example, the extensive wetlands around Lake Victoria arebeing destroyed or degraded through conversion to cultivation
for crops, excavation for sand and clay, and use as disposalsites. It is estimated that about 75 percent of the lake’s
wetland area has been signiﬁcantly affected by human activity,
and about 13 percent is severely degraded.
Lake Basin Problems
Excess sediment inputs. This threat can originate fromland use clearance, and from poor land use and riparian
management in lake basins. In extreme cases, these sediments
can inﬁll a lake (although a reservoir can be designed to20

ﬂush sediments downstream); in less extreme cases, they
can destroy wetlands, reduce the penetration of light into
the water column, and act as a carrier of nutrients and otherpollutants.
Excess nonpoint-source nutrient inputs. These nutrients mostcommonly originate from soil erosion, but in many places
come in signiﬁcant amounts from fertilizer use and animal
efﬂuents within the basin. They contribute to overall increases
in nutrient levels in lakes, which are associated with algal
outbreaks and growth of aquatic weeds. This can result in
reduced oxygen levels and associated ﬁsh kills.
Agro-chemical pollution. These chemicals can come from rural
land uses, including agriculture and forestry. They can affectaquatic food chains and render ﬁsh unsuitable for humanconsumption. Some long-lived agro-chemicals can persist inlake sediments for long periods.
Excessive water withdrawals or diversions. This threat
commonly occurs as development intensiﬁes upstream ofthe lake with concomitant demands on water resources.
Even if the total quantity of water inﬂowing into a lake is not
signiﬁcantly changed, the change in timing of inﬂows to a lake,
from, for example, a run-of-river hydropower scheme, canaffect ecological processes in the lake. In some cases, thesewater demands can come from downstream of the lake forhydropower production, urban water use, or irrigation.
Changes in runoff patterns. The hydrology of inﬂowing rivers
can also be altered by changes in land use in the river basin,
particularly clearance of forests and drainage of wetlands.
Efﬂuent and stormwater pollution. Untreated or poorly treated
efﬂuent and stormwater can contaminate rivers and lakes.
Bacteria and other pathogens can threaten human health, BOD
can reduce oxygen concentrations, and nutrients can increase
the eutrophication of the lake. Urban stormwater runoff
commonly contains contaminants such as oils, organic matter,and heavy metals. Biogeochemical and physical processes
intercept signiﬁcant fractions of these contaminants before
they reach lakes—a valuable ecosystem service provided byrivers and wetlands.
Industrial pollution. Direct discharge to a lake is a convenientmethod for disposing of industrial wastes from shoreline
industries. However, it adds toxic chemicals, BOD, andefﬂuent to lakes and, in some cases, can change physical lakecharacteristics such as temperature and turbidity.
Regional/Global Problems
Long-range transport of airborne nutrients. Nutrients can betransported through the atmosphere to lakes from sources
outside their drainage basins. Although nitrogen has long
been known to be transported via this pathway, there is now
evidence that, in some circumstances, phosphorus can also betransported this way.

Chapter 3

Long-range transport of airborne industrial contaminants.
Industrial pollutants, including acid rain from industrial
and transportation sources and volatilized chemicals, arenow known to be transported long distances through theatmosphere. They can be deposited into lakes or lake basinsthrough either dry or wet (i.e. rainfall) deposition.
Climate change. Climate change or global warming is predicted
to cause changes in precipitation and runoff, changes in thethermodynamic balance of lakes, and changes in the ecologicalbalance of lakes.
Not all problems in a given lake are of equal importance.
For example, the Lake Sevan brief makes it clear that theabstraction of water for hydropower and irrigation is the mostimportant issue, even though ﬁve others are mentioned. A
number of briefs describe potential problems that, if theyoccur, would seriously threaten a lake’s viability. For example,
Lake Tanganyika may be showing some early signs of warmingfrom climate change. These potential problems are only
included in the table if there is sufﬁcient evidence to makethem credible.
Most problems are not isolated to speciﬁc regions, but are
distributed around the world, with most lakes facing multiple
threats. About half of the identiﬁed problems originated in thelake basins, illustrating the importance of managing the lakebasin as a whole. Even when problems originate at localizedsites within a lake or a lake basin, the integrating nature oflakes means that these problems often eventually extend toother parts of the lake.
Assessing whether, at the time the lake briefs were written,
lake basin problems were improving or not requiredconsiderable judgment, since the briefs were often not explicit
about changes in environmental status. In some cases, there
was conﬂicting evidence—for example, Lake Biwa showssome improvements in the concentrations of phosphorus
and biodegradable organic compounds (BOD), but it also
shows some degradation or inconsistent changes in theconcentrations of nitrogen and non-biodegradable organic
compounds—and some improvements were likely to be of only
short duration. In spite of these limitations, the arrows in Table
3.2 provide a snapshot of the current direction of change in thestatus of the problems in the study lakes.
Overall, the table shows that most problems affecting lakes
are not improving. In a few cases there has been substantial
improvement in some lake problems, although there are nolakes in this study where all problems showed improvement.
Lakes Ohrid and Peipsi/Chudskoe provide examples ofeffective measures being taken for cooperative managementof transboundary lakes. Chilika Lagoon and Lake Dianchi and
Laguna de Bay show the greatest signs of improvement in
the developing countries. Chilika Lagoon has experienced amajor improvement in its major problem—reduced salinity—
although the discharge of pollutants from the upstream basin
is still to be tackled successfully. Lake Dianchi has successfully
Human Use of Lakes

introduced reductions in factory-level nutrient discharges(although there has been a large increase in the number ofpolluting enterprises) and has controlled nutrient losses fromﬁsh cages. Even so, much remains to be done in reducing
total nutrient loads and retaining and restoring shoreline
habitat. Laguna de Bay has made progress in controlling BOD
discharges and some in-lake problems, but problems withintroduced species, nutrients from ﬁsh cages, and nonpointsource pollution remain. Thus, even in lake basins where someproblems have been managed, other problems remain.
The major problems included introduced fauna and ﬂora
(16 out of 28 lakes) and unsustainable ﬁshing practices.
Discharge of untreated or poorly treated efﬂuent fromshoreline communities is a very common littoral zone issue,
while loss or damage to wetlands and shoreline vegetation
occurred in lakes in both developed and developing countries.
High sediment loads were the most common basin problem,
affecting 21 out of the 28 lakes. This problem is difﬁcult tocontrol, even in developed countries, because the sediments
normally originate from nonpoint sources over large areas andare only transported during rainfall events. Thus, nonpointsource sediment loads are identiﬁed as the major threat
to Lake Tanganyika, one of the world’s largest and most
biodiverse lakes. The sediments originate from large-scale
deforestation and poor farming practices that have caused adramatic increase in soil erosion rates.
Global problems are not seen as affecting the study lakes asmuch as in-lake, littoral, and lake basin problems. Of these,climate change was identiﬁed as affecting seven lakes,
although the evidence for this problem is still limited.

Emerging Problems
Groundwater Flows
Although the link between river inﬂows and outﬂows andlake levels is easily recognized, the relationship between lakelevels and groundwater is less obvious. The briefs provide anumber of examples where the functioning of lakes and thedelivery of services to humans is dependent on either inﬂows
or outﬂows of groundwater. For example, Lakes Baringo, Chad,and Naivasha all remain fresh and useable for humans (eventhough they have no surface outlet) because of substantial
groundwater drainage that removes both water and salt. A
water balance model developed for Lake Naivasha indicatesthat about 25 percent of the lake’s river inﬂow exits via
groundwater pathways (the remainder is accounted for byevaporation and direct pumping for irrigation).
The extent to which groundwater inﬂows contribute to lakewater levels is less well known. However, Lake Ohrid provides
one graphic example. A little over 50 percent of the inﬂows
to the lake come from subterranean water delivered throughlimestone channels that link Lake Ohrid to the Prespa Lakes
sitting 150 m higher in the catchment. High nutrient loads aswell as water are delivered through these channels.

21

Table 3.2 Summary of Problems Affecting the 28 Study Lake Basins as Described in the Briefs1.
Regional/
GlobalAtmosphericnutrients

Atmosphericindustrial
contaminants

ClimatechangeIndustrial
pollution

Efﬂuent andstormwater

Changesin run-off

Water
abstraction

Agrochemicals

Excesssediment
inputsNon-pointsourcenutrients

Basin origin
Loss ofwetlands

Nutrientsfrom ﬁsh
cages
Shoreline
efﬂuent
discharges
Shoreline
industrial
discharges
Shoreline
water
extraction

Salinitychanges

LittoralWeedinfestations

Lake Basin

Unsustainableﬁshingpractices
Introduced
faunalspecies

In-lake

4

4

7

Aral Sea
BaikalBaringoBhoj Wetland
2

Biwa
Chad
Champlain
Chilika Lagoon
Cocibolca/Nicaragua
Constance
3

Dianchi3

3Great Lakes (N. American)
4

Issyk-Kul
Kariba Reservoir
Laguna de Bay
Malawi/Nyasa

5

Naivasha
NakuruOhrid
6

Peipsi/Chudskoe

6

Sevan
Tanganyika

5

Titicaca
Toba
7Tonle Sap
Tucurui Reservoir

4

8

Victoria

9

Xingkai/Khanka
Total Occurrences
Legend
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

22

12

11

3

9

4

18

10

1

11

21

16

12

9

4

19

7

A
symbol means that the problem is not improving signiﬁcantly; asymbol means that it has improved somewhat; and asymbol means that there has been signiﬁcant improvement.
The lake briefs are not exhaustive in their description of problems; a blank cell in the table does not mean that the lake does notexperience the problem. In many lake briefs, there is only limited information on the extent of improvement of a problem; thedirection of change shown in the table is based on this information.
Most water abstraction for Kyoto/Osaka/Kobe is downstream of Lake Biwa.
Despite considerable investment, nutrient and chemical concentrations in Lake Dianchi have yet to show improvements. There issome evidence that COD is improving.
Mining in the basin is the source of toxic chemicals reaching the lake.
Includes loss of ﬁsh biodiversity through overharvesting for aquarium trade.
Improvements in the nutrient and pollutant status of the lake are the result of a decline in use of nutrients in agriculture andindustrial production following the collapse of the Soviet Union rather than from a deliberate policy intervention.
There is a large amount of sediment deposited around Tonle Sap each year, but this is regarded as an essential service rather than asa problem.
Introduced species, particularly Nile perch and Nile tilapia, have contributed to the loss of many native species as well as providing avaluable source of income for the regional community. Here they have been assessed for their effect on the lake’s biodiversity.
High copper (Cu) concentrations are recorded in Lake Xingkai/Khanka, but the origins are unknown.

Chapter 3

These connections between lakes and groundwater systems
are not always appreciated. People pump groundwater in the
belief that it is separate from the lake water. Box 8.2 provides
an example from Lake Naivasha where this connection was
only apparent to irrigators after extensive scientiﬁc modeling.
For lakes with signiﬁcant connections to groundwater systems,
the subsurface basin as well as the surface drainage basinneeds to be managed as an integral part of lake management.
Many managers do not yet fully understand the link between
groundwater and lakes. This is likely to be an issue ofincreasing importance with the expanding use of groundwater
for municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes in manylake basins.
Atmospheric Nutrient Pathways
Surface runoff has conventionally been regarded as themechanism by which nutrients enter lakes. Nutrients, primarily
nitrogen and phosphorus, originate from three major sources:
urban efﬂuent discharges, urban runoff during storms, andnonpoint sources, mostly agricultural activities. In the North
American Great Lakes, there has been a signiﬁcant effort to
reduce the nutrient loads from sewage, to the point where
nonpoint catchment sources are now the major contributors
to the lakes.
However, atmospheric transport of nutrients can be asigniﬁcant factor where the surface area of the lake is asigniﬁcant fraction of the basin area, and where there aremechanisms for injecting nutrients into the atmosphere. Fourlakes in this study have small lake surface:basin surface
ratios—the North American Great Lakes (1:3.1), Lake Toba
(1:2.3), Lake Sevan (1:3.0, after major diversion) and Lake
Victoria (1:2.8). Preliminary measurements at Lake Victoria
indicate that over 65 percent of the phosphorus load and 50
percent of the nitrogen load entering the lake are transported
through the atmosphere. Atmospheric nutrient deposition
rates in the African Great Lakes region in general are greaterthan in many other parts of the world. These nutrients are
believed to originate from the extensive burning of grasslands
and from dust derived from poor land management practices. A
GEF-funded study will quantify the loads reaching the lake via
this pathway and help identify the sources. If the importanceof the atmospheric pathway is conﬁrmed, then this ﬁnding
has considerable signiﬁcance for the management of the lake.
The lake briefs for the other lakes with small surface ratios
do not describe whether atmospheric deposition is believed
to be a signiﬁcant source of nutrients or not, although both
Lakes Malawi/Nyasa and Naivasha briefs report evidence of
atmospheric phosphorus deposition.
Climate Change
There is, as yet, only limited evidence of the impact of climatechange on lake basins. The lake briefs record different ways
in which climate change is believed to be affecting lakes:
lake water temperatures have risen since the 1960s at Lake
Tanganyika and since 1939 at Lake Malawi/Nyasa; the volumeof glaciers feeding Issyk-Kul has been reduced; inﬂows havedecreased in the last 20 years at the Kariba Reservoir and Lake
Human Use of Lakes

Chad (although that is partly due to upstream abstractions);
inﬂows to Lake Baringo from snowmelt on Mt. Kenya havedecreased; and the volume of cold, oxygenated snowmelt
has decreased at Lake Biwa, leading to an increase indeoxygenated bottom waters.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
forecasts signiﬁcant changes in precipitation, evaporation,and temperature as a result of global warming. These changes
are likely to affect many of the world’s lakes (IPCC 2001).
The effects are likely to be complex. First-order effects could
include either increases or decreases in the volume of water
entering lakes, changes in the seasonality of these inﬂows,
increased temperatures of lakes, and increased evaporationfrom lake surfaces. There are also likely to be signiﬁcantsecond-order effects, such as changes in lake stratiﬁcation
affecting biological and chemical process, changes in aquaticvegetation, changes in land uses within lake basins, and anincrease or decrease in the demand for water in lake basins as
a result of the migration of people.
Although the above changes have yet to have major impacts
on human uses of lakes, changes of the magnitude expectedfrom climate change will have very signiﬁcant impacts.
Some idea of the size of these effects can be gained fromthe effect of climate variability on the water balance of Lake
Malawi/Nyasa. This water balance is dominated by direct
atmospheric exchange; only a relatively small river, the ShireRiver, drains the lake. Malawi depends on electricity generated
from hydropower plants on the river. Between 1915 and 1935,
the outlet from the lake to the Shire River was completely
closed, with no outﬂow. More recently, as a result of low
lake levels in 1997, electrical power was being rationed at
the end of the dry season in October and November. A longterm loss of connection between the lake and the river due toclimate change would clearly have very severe environmental,
economic, and social impacts.
Shrinking Lake Size
Because they are effective sediment traps, lakes ﬁll in andbecome wetlands over time periods ranging from decades tomillennia. However, for a number of lakes in this study, thisnatural process has been accelerated by human activities.
The causes vary. The Aral Sea and Lakes Chad and Baringo
are shrinking (at least partly) because of excessive water
withdrawal for upstream irrigation. In the case of Lake
Sevan, it was because of augmentation of the river outlet for
downstream hydropower and irrigation. At Lake Naivasha,
the water has been extracted from the lake, both directly andfrom the closely connected aquifer. Climate change, leading
to reduced inﬂows from upstream glaciers, is believed to beleading to a drop in lake levels at Issyk-Kul; climate change inCentral Africa may have played a role in the reduction in size of
Lake Chad. The dramatic decrease in the depth of Lake Baringo
has been exacerbated by large loads of sediments coming fromovergrazing near the lake; the Bhoj Wetland is also known tohave inﬁlled because of sediments contaminated with urban
wastes.
23

Lake shrinkage has economic, social, and ecological effects.
The dramatic shrinkage of Lake Chad has led to a reduction
in ﬁsh catches, forced migration of populations leading toterritorial disputes, and the loss of ﬁsh species and restingareas for migratory birds. Lakes are likely to continue to shrink
until the demands that people place on them are related to thelakes’ capacities based on an understanding of their long-termwater balance.
Globalization
Globalization describes the trend toward an increased ﬂow
of goods, services, money, and ideas across national borders
and the consequent integration of the global economy.
There are a number of examples in the lake briefs where
globalization is already affecting the resources and economiesof lake basins. The rapid expansion of ﬂower growing at Lake
Naivasha is driven by the demand from Europe for cut ﬂowers;
the commercial ﬁshery at Lake Victoria is dependent on theworldwide demand for Nile perch; and industrialization around
Laguna de Bay satisﬁes a global market for manufactured
goods. Globalization also helps the development of theseregions by transferring technologies, standards, and capital todeveloping countries. Thus, European Union (EU) standards forpesticide residues in agricultural goods have led to controls on
chemical use at Lake Naivasha and have led to improvementsin the hygiene of ﬁsh landing sites at Lake Victoria.

The decline of centrally-planned economies and the spread ofmarket economies are also affecting lakes and their basins.
There has been a reduction in pollution entering Lakes
Xinghai/Khanka and Baikal because factories have had toclose, and phosphorus loads have been reduced at Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe because of the removal of fertilizer subsidies
to agriculture in the Russian Federation. On the other hand,
there is increasing pressure to open up the shoreline of Lake
Baikal to private ownership in conjunction with the shift
toward a market economy in the Russian Federation.
Environmental FlowsAt the time the large reservoirs included in this study (theKariba and Tucurui Reservoirs) were constructed, the provisionof ﬂows for downstream environments was not recognized
as an important issue. However, the need to provide for thetiming and size of ﬂows to maintain downstream ecosystems
when dams and barrages are constructed is now becoming
increasingly recognized by a variety of parties.
Developments other than dams can also lead to changes inﬂows with consequences for downstream water users, butthese have yet to receive the same level of recognition. The
Aral Sea, Lake Chad, and Lake Baringo briefs provide examples
where upstream irrigation developments have had serious
impacts on downstream lakes. But other developments inthe lake basin, such as deforestation, urban growth, andBox 3.4 Common-Pool Resources, Common Property, and the Commons
The table below shows the characteristics of common-pool and other types of resources along the axes of rivalry andexcludability. Rivalry (also sometimes called subtractability) means that one person’s use of a resource subtracts from theamount available to other users; for example, someone catching ﬁsh reduces the amount someone else can catch—at least
over the short term. For non-rival goods, one person’s use does not affect another’s; that is, one person’s enjoyment of theclimate-moderating or aesthetic beneﬁts of a lake does not diminish another person’s enjoyment. Excludability refers to thecost of controlling someone’s access to a resource. Non-excludable goods have a positive cost for restricting access; that is, it
is difﬁcult to prevent people from accessing them.

Rival
Non-rival

Excludable
Private goodClub good

Non-excludable
Common pool resource
Public good

Many of the resources provided by lakes are common pool; examples include ﬁsh, water for extraction, and the use of the lake
as a sink for pollutants. Some uses like ﬂood control are public goods. There are few private and club goods since, for almost
all uses, it is difﬁcult to exclude users, except in the case of private lakes or private ownership of certain parts of a lake, suchas lakeshore property.
Access to a given resource of a lake can either be open (open access) or closed (private, common, or government property).
Common property is a type of institution that gives the rights of use of a resource to a deﬁned group. That group usually
has rules specifying how the group’s members can use the resource. Lake Naivasha is a case of a riparian group (the Lake
Naivasha Riparian Association) using the lake as common property. Private property and government (public) property arealso widespread ways that societies have developed to control access to “open access” resources.
The term “commons” is often used as shorthand for either common-pool resources or for common property, often leading to
confusion about what is being discussed—the nature of the resource, or the type of property regime governing its use? Some
may think of the “commons” as a shared, public resource, often with no control over access.
Overall, it is important to clearly distinguish between the characteristics of a resource and the characteristics of the
management regime governing use of the resource. A lake may provide various resources, each with different characteristics,
but many sharing a common-pool or public good nature. Therefore, it is misleading to speak of a lake, as a whole, as acommon-pool resource: it is clearer to specify which use of the lake is being referred to.

24

Chapter 3

water transfer canals, can also change ﬂows into lakes andreservoirs.
As a ﬁrst step toward ensuring environmental ﬂows, theenvironmental water needs of lakes and reservoirs and theservices they provide to humans need to be accepted by abroad spectrum of stakeholders. National policies and lawsneed to recognize the importance of providing for these ﬂows
and procedures need to be drawn up for establishing andenforcing ﬂow requirements. This process will place great
demands on science: ecosystem requirements for water, as
well as knowledge of the socioeconomic impacts of different
ﬂow regimes on water users will need to be assessed in eachcase. At this stage, few countries have undertaken the studies
needed for establishing these environmental ﬂows.
Proposals for loans from the World Bank are subject tostringent assessments on their potential environmental andsocial impacts, including their likely effects on river ﬂows andthe human and ecological uses dependent on those ﬂows.
India, the recipient of a World Bank loan for the Orissa Water
Resource Consolidation Project, is in the process of establishing
ﬂow requirements that will be built into the operating rules for
the Naraj Barrage to protect Chilika Lagoon. As part of the
GEF-supported Water Utilization Program, the Mekong River
Commission is preparing to carry out an environmental ﬂow
assessment that will guide future regulation and developmentof the Mekong River’s water resources and the protection of
the Tonle Sap. As more countries invest in water resources
infrastructure such as dams, barrages, and canals, there will
be an increasing need to assess the water requirements oflakes to ensure that they continue to provide resources forhuman use. It is important to design new infrastructure forenvironmental ﬂows—multi-level outlets may be needed andthe outlet sizes have to be capable of delivering the necessary
volumes of water.

Response to the Problems: Management Interventions
Managers of lake basin resources can both prevent potential
problems and overcome existing problems through either
structural measures (such as construction of a water intake
structure or sewerage system) or nonstructural measures(such as introduction of new ﬁshing technology or a new
regulatory provision for the control of efﬂuent discharge).
The characteristics of lakes have an inﬂuence on the
management of lake basin problems. The integrating natureof lakes, and the consequent difﬁculty of excluding users fromaccessing many of the lake’s resources, has many management
implications. Common-pool resources (Box 3.4), such as ﬁsh,can be overexploited since there is no incentive for individual
users to limit their use of these resources. Rules are usually
introduced, once the resource shows signs of overharvesting,to ensure that these common pool resources are sharedequitably. Rules may also need to be introduced to protect
public goods, the other category of non-excludable lakeuses. Unlike common-pool resources, these rules are needed
Human Use of Lakes

to protect the quality of the good rather than to allocate thegoods among competing users. For example, prohibitions
may need to be introduced on dumping rubbish to protect thevisual amenity of the lake, or rules may be needed to ensurethat all beneﬁciaries from ﬂood protection contribute toward
the costs.
The integrating nature of water also means that management
needs to be coordinated across the different sectors that use
the basin’s resources. This does not necessarily mean that asingle basin management authority needs to be established.
Sometimes it is more efﬁcient to establish mechanisms for thesectoral agencies to work together in a coordinated manner forthe common good of the lake basin.
The long retention time of lakes—particularly for larger
and deeper lakes—means that their management should
be anticipatory, committed, and well-planned over the longterm. At the same time, it should be ﬂexible enough to adapt
to changing values and new knowledge. In fact, the longtime-scales involved in lake basin management argue forthe existence of institutions in order to give permanence tomanagement beyond the shorter time-scales of individuals.
One other implication is the need for secure ﬁnancing to
make sure that structural and nonstructural interventions are
effective over the long term.
The complex response dynamics of lakes argues for applicationof the best available scientiﬁc knowledge and, if necessary, theconduct of applied research programs to obtain additional
knowledge for management. It is important to emphasize that
research into these biophysical processes should be focusedon the critical needs for management.

The Components of Lake Basin Management
From the preceding discussion, it is apparent that, given thecharacteristics of lakes and their basins, there are a numberof inter-related components to managing a lake basin so thatits resources are accessed equitably and efﬁciently. These
components are described in Box 3.5.
These six components of lake basin management form thestructure for Section II of this report, where the case studies
and other material collected during this project provide
lessons drawn from the practical experience of lake basin
management.

25

Box 3.5 Components of Lake Basin Management
Good lake basin management requires the following six components to be well-integrated:
Institutions to manage the lake and its basin for the beneﬁt of all lake basin resource users. They are sanctioned bysociety to give them the necessary authority and longevity to operate effectively. They can operate at the local level (suchas local councils), at the regional level (such as a lake basin authority), at the national level (such as sectoral government
departments), or at the international level (such as international commissions for transboundary lakes). Institutions requireleadership from committed and visionary individuals, as shown in some of the case studies.
Policies to govern people’s use of lake resources and their impacts on lakes. At the national level, they can be encodedin formal laws, statutes, and regulations and implemented by formal institutions. They can also be informal, often being
developed and accepted among traditional groups of people living in the lake basin and at the lake. At the local level, policies
are implemented through rules of behavior, incentives and disincentives, and education to change people’s behaviors.
Involvement of people is central to lake basin management. They decide the uses for, and values to be obtained from, thelake’s resources; they provide knowledge and experience for management; they form informal organizations for management;
they provide support for enforcing rules; and they can be a source of the ﬁnance needed to operationalize management. They
can demand accountability for the decisions made and resources used in managing lake basins.
Technology is not always essential for management. However, investments in technical responses can sometimes dramaticallyincrease access to a lake’s resources and contribute to the resolution of some types of problems. For example, embankments
can signiﬁcantly add to a lake’s ability to buffer ﬂoods, while sewage treatment plants can be very effective at removing
contaminants from point sources of pollution.
Information, both traditional knowledge and scientiﬁcally acquired knowledge, promotes efﬁcient management. The
more that reliable and demonstrable knowledge is identiﬁed and used in management, the more likely it is that the goalsof those groups using a lake’s resources will be met efﬁciently. This report places considerable emphasis on scientiﬁcknowledge, primarily because it is obtained via a process that is open to scrutiny and leads to incremental improvements inunderstanding.
Finance is necessary to fund the operations of management institutions and the implementation of technological solutions,the involvement of stakeholder groups, and the collection and application of monitoring information. However, access toﬁnance is often the weakest point of lake basin management in developing countries.

26

Chapter 3

Section II
Meeting the Governance ChallengeThis section presents the lessons learned from the 28 lakes basins regarding institutions (Chapter 4), policies (Chapter 5),
involvement of people (Chapter 6), technology (Chapter 7), information (Chapter 8), and ﬁnancing (Chapter 9). While eachchapter in Section II can be read as a stand-alone description of one component of lake basin management, the case studies
show that sustainable lake basin management requires all components to be implemented together.

Chapter 4
Institutions for Lake Basin Management:
Developing Organizations for Action

Key Lessons Learned about Institutions•

Development of strong institutional links promoting effective participation, and development of strong local
government capacity are among the important institutional considerations for lake basin management. Successful lakebasin institutions develop good pathways to communities dependent on lake basin resources.

•

Lake basin management institutions are most effective when they build on existing structures at local government,
sectoral, and community levels. Existing sectoral institutional arrangements may be improved and facilitated throughcoordinating mechanisms without establishing a new lake basin management organization.

•

Links to other institutions, particularly sectoral agencies, are vital to success. Formal links can be costly to develop andmaintain and should be supplemented by informal links.

•

Decentralization can help improve lake basin management if there is adequate administrative and technical capacity. It
can place greater stresses on management capacity, however, particularly if they are distant from government centers.

•

NGOs and CBOs often play critical catalytic roles in facilitating institutional linkages, particularly with regard toenhancement of community participation in collaboration with the government.

•

The success of transboundary lake basin management depends on the member states’ political will, commitment, andfulﬁllment of obligations, rather than the particular form of institution or its legal status. Nonriparian basin countries
of a lake that may be reluctant to join a formal lake basin management authority may be successfully engaged throughinformal mechanisms.

•

Transboundary collaboration without a plan can be successful, but it is likely to be more successful when guided byan agreed plan of action. GEF-IW projects promote such plans by requiring countries to produce a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis followed by a Strategic Action Program.

•

Lake basin management institutions need time to become effective. They also need to adapt to emerging problems andthe development needs of the lake basin communities.

Introduction
Institutions are at the core of lake basin management. Theyadminister the laws (and sometimes establish the policies
and rules and incentives) for management of the resources(Chapter 5); they provide a forum for involving those affectedby lake basin management, and for resolving conﬂicts (Chapter6); they collect and store knowledge for action (Chapter 8);
and they are sustained by ﬁnances (Chapter 9) obtained fromlocal, national, and international sources.

and environmental protection agencies. This chapter willconcentrate on the role of formal organizations and thelessons that have been learned from the case studies about
their effectiveness.
Formal lake basin management institutions can have different
functions:•

Resource development—to exploit the resources offered
by a lake such as ﬁsheries organizations and irrigationgroups. This includes tasks such as allocating lake basin
resources like water or ﬁsh licenses;•

Service delivery—to promote development in a lakebasin by providing basic, underlying services suchas water supply, sewage collection and disposal, andtransportation links;

Institutions for Lake Basin Management
Types of Institutions
Institutions include traditional organizations, such as
village committees or ﬁsheries groups; nongovernmentalorganizations; private sector organizations, such asindustry associations; as well as formal, governmentsanctioned organizations such as departments of ﬁsheries•Regulation—to ensure that the lake’s resources areshared equitably or protected from externalities. They
are usually sectoral and can be formed speciﬁcally for alake—such as the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization—or be national regulatory organizations (such as the
Kenyan National Environmental Management Authority)with responsibility for regulating pollution control in
all waterbodies, including lake basin resources. The
rules that these organizations enforce are described in
Chapter 5;•

Advisory—to recommend courses ofgovernments at a variety of levels; and,•

Coordination—to promote coherent action acrossthe diverse sectors and jurisdictions involved inlake basin management. They have a special rolewith transboundary lake basins, where there is no
overarching authority, and they need to coordinate
across nations as well as across sectors.

actionto

Table 4.1 provides a summary of the major institutions partlyor wholly involved in the management of a lake and its basin
for the 28 cases in this study, including some proposedtransboundary coordinating institutions. The table does
not include the service delivery (such as local government
agencies) and resource development agencies (such as
departments of agriculture) responsible for each lake basin;
the former because of their ubiquity and the latter because
they are usually national or transnational institutions whose
focus is not solely on the lake’s resources.
Judicial institutions are not normally directly involved in lakebasin management. However, India provides an example where
the courts have taken an active interest in the interpretationand enforcement of the law (Box 4.1).
Coordination between Institutions
One of the strongest messages to emerge from the lake briefs
is the need for coordinated action between sectors and levelsof governance (including between countries for transboundarylake basins). This applies to national policy, institutions andrepresentative sectoral groups, including the coordination of
the actions of upstream, downstream and lake user groups.

However, the lake briefs show that there is poor coordination
between institutions at many of the lakes. The Lake Sevan brief
provides a good example of the reasons: “Many institutions
are engaged in different aspects of Lake Sevan management:
elected and appointed administrative authorities, scientiﬁc
research institutes, conservancy organizations, consumers,
etc. Among them, Sevan National Park, under the Governmentof the Republic of Armenia and direct governance of the
Ministry of Nature Protection, should take a leading rolewith overall responsibility for coordination of Lake Sevan
management. Regrettably, this is far from the present reality
for the following reasons: absence of legal grounds; weakhuman resources; weak material resources; poor scientiﬁc andtechnical equipment; lack of support of local inhabitants; andlack of self-dependence in operational decisionmaking.”
Typically, either the water resources or the environment
institutions are expected to take the lead in coordination
because other institutions are focused on speciﬁc resource
development and management responsibilities. However, water
resources and environment institutions are weak institutions inmany countries, particularly when the lake or reservoir basin
possess important national economic values, such as water forhydropower and irrigation as in the case of Lake Sevan. This
dominance of sectoral development institutions at the expenseof those with potential coordinating responsibilities is one
reason for the “absence of legal grounds” above in the case of
Lake Sevan. This sectoral dominance is most pronounced in thecase of reservoirs which are usually developed speciﬁcally for ahigh-value resource use. Unless there is a direct threat to thegeneration of hydropower, the supply of water for irrigation or
urban/industrial use or for ﬂood control, there is little likelihoodthat the coordinating activities of an environmental or water
resource institution will be given priority.
A confounding problem is that the water resources andenvironment management institutions often do not understandthe complementary nature of their responsibilities and do notwork together. Unless environment concerns in the lake basin
are properly managed, the value of the lake basin’s water
resources will decline. This is apparent at many lake basins inthis study:•

At Lake Victoria, increasing nutrient loads have led toeutrophication of the lake;Box 4.1 Public Interest Litigation in India
A major development in controlling the continuing degradation of lakes in India has been the involvement of the judiciary,
sometimes at the highest level of the Supreme Court. Indian law courts have been extremely proactive on the issue ofenvironmental protection. Groups of affected people and third parties have been ﬁling public interest litigations (PIL) in
courts across the country seeking remedial actions, especially for highly polluted urban lakes.
The Supreme Court, in a PIL in the case of Badal Khol and Surajkund lakes in Haryana state, held that the precautionary
principle is part of the law of the land, and limited construction activity in the near vicinity of the lakes. Although PILs havegenerally helped in restoration of lakes, there are opposite instances, as was the case of the Rabindra Sarovar lake in West
Bengal, where the PIL sought to legalize encroachment onto the lake.
Source: Reddy, M.S. and N.V.V. Char, Management of Lakes in India, Thematic Paper, Lake Basin Management Initiative.

30

Chapter 4•

At Lakes Malawi/Nyasa and Tanganyika, soil erosion iscausing loss of ﬁsh breeding habitat in the lake’s littoral
zone; and,•At Lakes Ohrid and Victoria, limited controls overpollution from mining is leading to localized zones ofheavy metal concentration in the lakes with the potential
for entering the foodchain.

It often takes a crisis for environment and water resources
institutions (and sometimes resource development
institutions) to realize that they need to work together toensure that lake basin resources are utilized sustainably.
At Lake Biwa, it took many years of strenuous effort by the
Shiga Prefecture Government before the environmental
consequences of the Lake Biwa Comprehensive Development
Project were understood and mitigated through payment
for the use of the lake’s water and subsequently through aspecial law for the lake’s conservation. At Chilika Lagoon,
the successful coordination of not only the environment
and water resources institutions, but also a wide range ofresource development institutions only became possible
after the lagoon’s connection with the ocean silted up, withsevere consequences for the lagoon’s ﬁsheries as well as for
its environmental values. Aquatic weeds proliferated and there
was a decline in the numbers of migratory birds nesting on
islands in the lagoon, presumably because of the decline inﬁsh numbers following the closure of the lagoon’s connection
with the ocean. The success of the Chilika Development
Agency is partly due to its ability to work with the Departmentof Water Resources which has responsibility for ﬂood control
and irrigation infrastructure.
These examples make it clear how important it is forenvironmental and water resources institutions (and preferably
all institutions involved in use of the lake basin resources) todevelop a common understanding of the limits on and problems
arising from resource use (see Chapter 8), and to develop a joint
vision of their management (discussed further below).
Informal Links to other Organizations
Institutional infrastructure is costly to create and maintain. In
the case of the North American Great Lakes, the laws, treaties,
conventions, compacts, and formal agreements have taken
many years of effort to formulate and there is considerable
bureaucratic overhead in servicing them. The infrastructure
to support these agreements may not be available in manynational or transboundary lakes. In addition to formal
institutional arrangements, it is important to recognize that
informal mechanisms, e.g., the conferences, workshops andtaskforces are vital to the operation of communications between
institutions (Great Lakes Brief ). For example, researchers callmeetings, outside of the formal institutional arrangements toaddress new issues, e.g., in the case of zebra mussel invasion in
the 1980s into the North American Great Lakes system.
The building of both personal and institutional relationships
with key stakeholders, including funders, is greatly facilitatedInstitutions

by the continuity of key staff. A key individual, particularly if heor she is charismatic, can play a catalytic role in building links
between institutions. The importance of having a dynamic
person leading a lake basin institution is not directly discussed
in any of the briefs, although it appears to have been an
important factor in the success of the Chilika Development
Authority and the Laguna Lake Development Authority. Suchleaders have a vision of what is required, inspire their staff
and are able to persuade other agencies and senior decision
makers to coordinate their actions so that mutually beneﬁcial
outcomes are achieved.

Management of Transboundary Lake BasinsWith few exceptions, the riparian and watershed lands ofthe lakes selected for this study lie within more than one
political jurisdiction. Some political boundaries, such as local
government or county government boundaries, lie within one
country; others lie between countries. In keeping with common
usage, we will refer to the latter—lake basins lying in morethan one country—as transboundary lake basins, although it
should be noted that many of the inter-jurisdictional issues
are common between these basins and those lying within
one country. In the case of transboundary lake basins, thedifferences in political environments, economic development,social norms, and administrative settings can readily leadto different approaches to lake basin management, withdetrimental effects on the environmental and development
status of lake basins.
Longevity of Transboundary Institutions
The briefs suggest that there are speciﬁc factors that affect thesuccess of transboundary lake basin management, including
the perception of common problems faced by the lake basincountries; the kind and nature of cooperative agreements among
the countries; and their political will, commitment, and fulﬁllmentof obligations. The institutional arrangements between countries
are affected by the evolution of such arrangements, therelationship between the sector agencies and the coordinating
body, the coordination and collaboration mechanisms, andparticipatory mechanisms and experiences of stakeholders.
In cases where there has been a history of cooperation
between countries, establishing a transboundary coordinating
arrangement can be rather straightforward, since each of thesectors often has its own set of transboundary relationshipsthat have evolved over many years (for example, in the case of
Lake Constance and the North American Great Lakes). As theinstitutional history grows longer, the relationship between the
sectoral agencies and the transboundary coordinating bodyusually becomes clearer.
In the case of the North American Great Lakes, the International
Joint Commission (IJC) was established in the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909 and the U.S. Great Lakes Commission (GLC)(with eight states as members) was established in 1955. The
IJC makes binding decisions regarding water uses that affectthe lakes’ water level and ﬂow on either side of the two-nation
31

border. Through various agreements, it also investigates issuesof water quality and quantity and encourages cooperation
among different government jurisdictions. In the case of
Lake Constance (Box 4.2), the International Commission
for the Protection of Lake Constance (IGKB) was founded
in 1959 by the three riparian countries (Austria, Germany,and Switzerland) to preserve the lake ecosystem fromfurther degradation. The International Bodensee Conference(IBK)— an intergovernmental organization consisting of seven
Swiss cantons, two German states, an Austrian state, and thePrincipality of Liechtenstein—was founded in 1972 to deal
with all major political decisions involving the lake basin.
In most cases covered in the lake briefs, however, formaltransboundary relationships on lake basin management do notdate back more than several decades.
Among the lakes in the developing world in this study, the Lake
Chad Basin Commission is the longest established transboundarylake basin management authority. It was established in 1964, withresponsibilities “to regulate and control the utilization of waterand other natural resources in the basin; initiate, promote, andcoordinate natural resources development projects and researchwithin the basin area; examine complaints; and promote thesettlement of disputes, thereby promoting regional cooperation.”
The Lake Chad Brief states that: “Until recently, evidence ofthe commission’s presence has been virtually invisible in theconventional basin apart from some scattered infrastructure.
Member states need to vest the commission with more power
to enable it to resolve water and land disputes and conﬂicts.
A basic weakness in all river basin organizations and regional
economic communities in Africa is lack of strong evidence ofsupernationality.” This experience illustrates that, even for
long-established transboundary institutions, political support isessential for success.
Forms of Transboundary Cooperation
It is not necessary that all basin governments are included informal institutions for successful management. For example,
Rwanda (and to a lesser extent Burundi), although notmembers of the East African Community, discuss management
issues in the Lake Victoria Basin with the EAC. In anotherexample, China is an active member of discussions on regional

Box 4.2 Transboundary Institutional Arrangement at Lake ConstanceTwo transboundary institutions have responsibility for the coordinated management of Lake Constance.
International Bodensee Conference (IBK)The International Bodensee Conference, an intergovernmental organization of the lake-side federal states and cantons,
was founded in 1972. Today the IBK has ten members—the Swiss cantons of St.Gallen, Thurgau, Schaffhausen, Appenzell
Innerrhoden, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Zürich; the German states of Baden-Württemberg and Bayern: the Austrian stateof Vorarlberg; and the Principality of Liechtenstein. All important IBK decisions are taken by consensus. IBK is organized
in a Permanent Committee and seven Commissions. Every year a conference with all prime ministers of the member states
takes place in one of the member states. In 1999, the Environment Commission published a report entitled Measures in the
Fields of Agriculture and Water Protection in the Lake Constance Region, which summarized the problems, the legal andadministrative framework, and necessary activities and measures to be taken, especially cross-border cooperation among theadministrations.
The common activities are ﬁnanced by the members. The percentage of ﬁnancing of each member is ﬁxed according to theextent of the territory.
International Commission for the Protection of Lake Constance (IGKB)
Lake Constance has a peculiar legal and administrative feature. Clearly deﬁned national frontiers between Switzerland andGermany exist in the lower lake. In the upper lake, only the shallow water area from the shoreline to 25 m water depth isnational territory of the bordering countries. The major part of Upper Lake Constance is considered as common property, a socalled “condominium.” The IGKB was founded in 1959 by the three bordering countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland)in order to preserve the lake ecosystem from further degradation. In 1960, the members concluded an Agreement on theProtection of Lake Constance from Pollution (signed into law November 1961). In 1987, the IGBK created a Memorandum, “The
Future of a Clean Lake Constance: Long and Short Term Measures.”
The main duties of the IGKB are the observation of the lake, conﬁrmation of the causes of its pollution, recommendations
for coordinated preventive measures, and discussion of the planned uses of the lake. The commission meets at least once a
year and is composed of delegates from member governments and a limited number of high ofﬁcers of those governments.
As an advisory agency, the commission cannot decide on rules and actions connected with environmental protection, but byagreement the regional governments are obliged to transform the recommendations of the IGKB into national law. A technicaland scientiﬁc board of experts serves as ofﬁcial consultants to the commission. They elaborate the research programand prepare reports on the research sanctioned by the commission. The board of experts has three working groups forstudying special problems concerning the topics “Lake”, “Catchment Area”, and “Accident defense”. The working results are
summarized and published in green reports (annual investigation of the lake monitoring data) and blue reports (case studies
and special topics).
To maintain communications between the organizations, one member of the IGKB is represented in the permanent committeeof IBK. However, cooperation between IBK and other commissions and institutions is not regularly organized.
Source: Lake Constance Brief.
32

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Major Institutions Mentioned in Each of the Lake Briefs as Playing a Critical Role in Lake Basin Management.
Lake Basin

Transboundary

Aral SeaY

Key Institutions

Interstate Council on the Aral Sea Problems/International Fund for the Aral Sea
Lake Baikal Commission (now ceased)

International
AgreementInternational
Agreement
National Act

Federal Environmental Protection Agency for Baikal

National Act

Interstate Commission for Water Coordination

BaikalY

BaringoBhoj Wetland

N
N

Biwa

N

Chad

Y

ChamplainY

No speciﬁc lake basin institution
No speciﬁc lake basin institution
Shiga Prefecture (Department of Lake Biwa and theEnvironment)
Lake Chad Basin Commission
Lake Champlain Basin Program
Lake Champlain Steering Committee
International Joint Commission
Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management
Cooperative (USA)

Chilika Lagoon

N

Chilika Development Authority

Cocibolca/Nicaragua

Y

No speciﬁc lake basin institution
International Commission for Protection of Lake
Constance

Constance

Y

DianchiN

Great Lakes(North American)

Y

Issyk-KulN

Kariba Reservoir

Y

International Bodensee Conference (IBK)International Commission for Boating on Lake
Constance
Lake Dianchi Protection Committee and Bureau
International Joint Commission (IJC)
Great Lakes Commission (GLC)
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
Great Lakes National Program Ofﬁce – USA
Issyk-Kul Environmental Protection Authority
Zambezi River Authority
Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM)

Laguna de Bay

N

Malawi/Nyasa

Y

NaivashaN

NakuruOhrid

NY

Laguna Lake Development Authority
Lake Malawi/Nyasa Basin Commission (proposed)
Lake Nyasa Basin Water Ofﬁce – Tanzania
Lake Naivasha Riparian Association
Lake Naivasha Growers GroupNo speciﬁc lake basin institution
Lake Ohrid Management Board
Estonian-Russian Transboundary Water Commission

Peipsi/Chudskoe

Y

Sevan

N

Tanganyika

YIntergovernmental Estonian-Russian Commission on
Fisheries
No speciﬁc lake basin institution
Lake Tanganyika Management Authority (to be formed)
Lake Tanganyika Basin Water Ofﬁce – Tanzania

Titicaca

Y

Toba

N

Tonle Sap
Tucurui Reservoir

YN

Lake Titicaca Binational Authority
Coordinating Board for Lake Toba Basin Ecosystem
Conservation
Mekong River Commission
No speciﬁc lake basin institution
Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization

Victoria

Y

Lake Victoria Basin Water Ofﬁce – Tanzania
Lake Basin Development Authority – Kenya
Lake Victoria Basin Organization (proposed)

Xingkai/Khanka

Note:

Y

Legal Mechanism

International Ussuli Commission (proposed)

National Act,
Prefecture Law
International Treaty
National Act (USA)MoU
International Treaty
Federal-state
Agreement
National Law,
Provincial Act
International
Convention
International
AgreementInternational
Agreement
Municipal OrdinanceInternational Treaty
Multi-state Compact(USA)
International
Convention
National Law
National Law
International
AgreementInternational
Agreement
National Law
International
Convention
National Law
No legal status
No legal status
MoU
International
AgreementInternational
AgreementInternational
Convention
National Law
International
Agreement

Function
Resource Development
Advisory
Coordination (national)
Coordination (national) andTransboundary Negotiation

Coordination
Resource Development, Coordination
Coordination
Advisory
Resource Development
Resource Development
Coordination

Advisory
Advisory

Coordination
Resource Development
Resource Development, Advisory
Advisory
Advisory
Regulation
Resource Development, Coordination
Advisory
Coordination, Regulation, Resource
Development
Coordination
Regulation
Protection
Resource Development
Coordination
Advisory
Coordination, Regulation

Coordination
Regulation
Coordination

State Letter of Decision Advisory
International Treaty
International
Agreement
National Law
National Law
International
Agreement
MoU

Coordination
Regulation
Regulation
Resource Development
Coordination
Advisory

The numerous sectoral and local institutions involved in lake basin management have not been listed if their primary purpose isother than lake basin management.

Institutions

33

economic development of the Mekong River basin region,
particularly in relation to initiatives from the regional funding
institutions, although China is not a member of the MekongRiver Commission.
It is often not possible or practical to develop a powerful supernational agency to form management policies and implement
programs for a transboundary lake basin. The sectoral
institutions of the member states typically have their own plansand programs, and harmonization of these plans and programs
may be quite problematic. Under such circumstances, thelake basin nations may rely on the facilitating functions ofcoordinating institution, such as the IBK and IGKB of Lake
Constance and IJC and GLC of the North American Great
Lakes. A coordinating institution is one alternative for thejoint management of transboundary lake basins in which themember states face issues that are technically complicatedor politically disputed. The joint bodies should have a wide
representation from many governmental and nongovernmental
stakeholder organizations, including ministries and local
authorities, so that the results produced by international/
national projects would be broadly sustained. Box 4.3 provides
more information on institutional forms based on the types ofagreements.
Transboundary Cooperation Agreements
Transboundary institutions can be formed under a variety ofmechanisms:•

A vision describes broad goals and principles for future
actions, usually without binding provisions for resource
mobilization or for the failure of mutual pursuit;•

Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) are documentsof record, formal or informal, that serve as a basis for
future actions of the parties. MOUs specify roles andresponsibilities and usually have some provisions forresource mobilization and a clause for termination of themutual collaboration;•

An agreement for joint management of a transboundarylake basin usually constitutes a legally binding
document for formal international exchange througha diplomatic channel. It stipulates the needed joint
actions for achieving certain shared goals. Some haveprovisions for penalties in case of failure of a party to
fulﬁll the agreed objectives; and,•A convention is a special type of agreement that involves
sovereign states as signatories.

Box 4.3 provides examples from the lake briefs.
Political and Legal Considerations and Constraints
The briefs suggest that the success of transboundary lakebasin management depends on the member states’ politicalwill, commitment, and fulﬁllment of obligations rather thanthe particular form of institution or its legal status. Thus, while34

the IJC has been successful, the Lake Chad Basin Commission
has failed to control upstream water use in spite of being
assigned authority in the Fort Lamy Convention and Statutes
that established the Commission to “regulate and control theutilization of water and other natural resources in the basin.”
The two governments riparian to the Kariba Reservoir—Zambia
and Zimbabwe—have a history of weak inter-agency
cooperation. Departmental authorities often proceed withactivities directed by their respective authorities, sometimes incontradiction to ZACPLAN, the overall basin plan agreed to by
their respective governments.
Resource Mobilization for Planning and Project
Implementation
If lake basin countries have adequate ﬁnancial and humanresources to fulﬁll transboundary commitments, thenthere may be no need for a comprehensive transboundary
action plan covering multiple sectors and all lake basins.
For example, the riparian and catchment countries of suchtransboundary lake basins as the North American Great Lakes,
Lake Constance, and Lake Champlain have had decades of
institutional collaboration without having a comprehensive
plan. At the North American Great Lakes, managers havefocused on developing remedial action plans for speciﬁcareas of concern, and conducted region-wide efforts under
institutions and agreements such as the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (IJC), Great Lakes Fisheries Commission,and Great Lakes Commission. They are now in the processof developing action plans for each of the ﬁve lakes. Whilea comprehensive plan was not required, the relevant federal
agencies developed a shared vision for the Great Lakes in aneffort to better coordinate their efforts. At Lake Champlain, acomprehensive plan was completed in 1996 and updated in
2002. Although there had been collaboration for decades prior
to the plan, key actions were not completely successful until
the comprehensive plan was prepared using a participatory
process to involve stakeholders. Collaboration without a plancan be successful, but this example shows that it is likely to be
more successful when guided by an agreed plan of action.
Most transboundary lake basins are situated in regions where
the riparian and catchment countries do not have adequateﬁnancial and human resources, the enabling environmentis weak, and the record of transboundary collaboration is at
an early stage or has been marginal. The GEF supports the
management of some of these lake basins where there is a
global public beneﬁt. A Strategic Action Program is developed
as part of assistance under the current guideline for the GEF
International Waters Operational area. Such transboundarylake basin management programs should support existing
programs, plans and institutions developed by the national
governments. The Lake Malawi/Nyasa Brief states,“Internationally funded projects must use existing, agreed
regional and national plans and not start afresh. This will
minimize disruption to established programs and workloads.”

Chapter 4

Building Trust with the Public
Whether at a transboundary lake or a national lake, it is vitalthat any lake basin management institution secure the trust of
sectoral institutions and the public (Chilika Lagoon and Lagunade Bay briefs). It is particularly important for transboundary
institutions. The Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe brief makes the pointthat trust across national borders has to be built on the back ofeffective communications, a common set of data and analysis
protocols, and transparent decision making across boundaries.
Ethnic afﬁliations across borders can be used to facilitate thiscommunication (African Lakes Workshop).

Contributions from Different Levels of Government
In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, lake basin
problems should be tackled at the lowest appropriate scale.
Some problems need to be tackled at the basin or even larger
scale. For example, the atmospherically-borne industrial
pollution affecting Lake Baikal originates from a number ofoblasts (provinces) in the Russian Federation and needs tobe tackled regionally. However, other problems are quite local
and can be dealt with locally. For example, hot spots can be
identiﬁed at a number of the lakes in the study, including
Missisquoi Bay in Lake Champlain, Akanoi Bay in Lake Biwa,
Winam Gulf in Lake Victoria, and numerous islands in Lake
Malawi/Nyasa. National governments (or their agencies) will
be needed to tackle regional problems, but local governments
may be capable of managing more local problems.
Given the numerous problems experienced in each study
lake (Table 3.2), the implication is that institutions need to
be functioning at all levels—national/international, regional
and local—for effective lake basin management. For example,
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe experiences local problems (shoreline
efﬂuent discharge), regional problems (weed infestations)and international problems (unsustainable ﬁshing practices
and diffuse source nutrients). Although, according to the
Principle of Subsidiarity, these problems need to be tackled at

Box 4.3 Examples of Agreement Types
VisionLake Chad. A Strategic Action Plan with long-term vision (20 years) for the Chad Basin has been prepared with the assistanceof the Global Environment Facility (GEF). It was adopted by the member states in 1998. The Lake Chad Vision for 2025
highlights a number of important issues needing to be addressed in the basin.
Memorandum of understanding
Lake Champlain. The Memorandum of Understanding on Lake Champlain of 1988 and the Water Quality Agreement of 1993
signed by the states of Vermont and New York in the United States, and the province of Quebec in Canada are examplesof nonbinding transboundary covenants. The MOU created a mechanism for the exchange of scientiﬁc information andencouraged cooperative planning for watershed protection. It established the Lake Champlain Steering Committee withdiverse representation among the three jurisdictions, and established a role for three citizens’ advisory committees. The
MOU is a ﬁve-year renewable agreement and sets the stage for the passage of national legislation and the development of acomprehensive plan for the lake basin. This comprehensive plan is still under way.
Agreements
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe. The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the RussianFederation on Cooperation in Protection and Use of the Fish Resources of Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe, Lake Pihkva, and Lake
Lämmijärv was signed in Moscow on May 4, 1994. The goal of the agreement is to develop cooperation in protection and joint
use of ﬁsh resources in Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe, Lake Pihkva, and Lake Lämmijärv. The agreement included the establishmentof the Intergovernmental Commission on Fishery in Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe, Lake Pihkva, and Lake Lämmijärv.
The Great Lakes of North America. In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Signed by President Nixon and Prime Minister Trudeau, the agreement does not have treaty status, but is a binational
executive agreement that commits Canada and the United States to speciﬁc actions to protect and enhance water quality. The
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement not only addressed water quality issues, but perhaps equally importantly, the issue ofmultiple fragmented jurisdictions. To this end, the agreement established the International Joint Commission (IJC) Great Lakes
regional ofﬁce (the only IJC Regional Ofﬁce), which has speciﬁc responsibilities for providing technical support, coordinating
programs, and monitoring implementation of the two federal governments under the agreement. The IJC has established aGreat Lakes Water Quality Board and a Science Advisory Board to carry out its mandate.
Conventions
Lake Tanganyika. The Convention for the Management of Lake Tanganyika is a government-government agreement settingout the rights and duties of the four riparian countries—Tanzania, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, andZambia—surrounding the lake. It establishes institutional structures for cooperative management, management principles, aStrategic Action Program (SAP), and related matters. The convention was developed through a series of regional workshops
bringing together senior lawyers and policy makers from each of the four riparian countries. The ﬁnal draft of the convention
was adopted by the steering committee (July 2000) at the completion of the GEF-funded UNDP Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity
Project (LTBP). The convention was signed by the four riparian states on June 12, 2003, and is now being ratiﬁed by thevarious parliaments. Once it enters into force (after ratiﬁcation by at least two countries), the convention will provide the legal
authority to implement the SAP and regularly revise it.
Sources: Lakes Chad, Champlain, North American Great Lakes, Peipsi/Chudskoe, and Tanganyika Briefs.

Institutions

35

the appropriate level, there is usually a need for support fromorganizations at all levels. Thus, unless national governments(and sometimes international assistance agencies) provide
the funds the local urban efﬂuent discharges at Lake Peipsi/
Chudskoe are unlikely to be mitigated using just local resources.

within the basin. In many of the lakes studied in this project,
the national sectoral institutions work through regional ofﬁces(Box 4.4). In most cases, these management regions are notbased on the lake basin boundaries, even for water resourcesmanagement agencies.

National-Level Governments

Local Governments

In almost all lake basins described in the briefs, national
governments are directly or indirectly involved in the
management of the respective lake basins. While sometransboundary lake basins have transboundary management
institutions established or about to be established (North
American Great Lakes, Aral Sea, Lakes Champlain, Constance,
Chad, Tanganyika, Victoria), the national governments retain
considerable inﬂuence over management activities. Nationallake basins that are under direct or signiﬁcant managerial
responsibility of the national government include Lakes
Nakuru, Tonle Sap, Laguna de Bay, Issyk-Kul, and Sevan, as
well as the Tucurui Reservoir.

Local governments (municipal, district, and regional
authorities) can play a central role in improved lake basin
management. They are the bodies closest to the users of theresources of lake basins; they have responsibility for many
resource management activities; and they also use lake basin
resources. They are often best placed for facilitating a dialogue
directly with lake basin resource users. Their decisions onland use zoning, transportation, construction, public health,ecological zoning, solid and liquid waste management, andindustrial incentives all affect water resources.

In general, the involvement of national governments in lakebasin management takes place through sectoral ministries
and their agencies. For example, agencies in charge ofmanagement of water resources would control the yield aswell as allocation of water from the lake, and the forestry
department would manage the use of plantation and forests

Few of the 28 lakes in this study are managed entirely by alocal government. The Bhoj Wetland falls under the jurisdictionof the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC). While the state
government retains responsibility for many resource use
activities, the singularity of local authority and the importanceof the lake to the local area means that BMC carries particularresponsibility for lake basin management. Lake Biwa, the basin

Box 4.4 Sectoral Involvement at Lake Nakuru
Lake Nakuru in the Rift Valley of Kenya is a popular tourist destination with major wildlife attractions. The town of Nakuru is
a rapidly growing industrial center and the forests in the lake’s basin have been largely cleared for smallholder agriculture in
the last 40 years. The town has experienced a growth rate of about 10 percent for the last three decades, putting tremendous
strain on water supply and the environmentally safe disposal of wastewater. A number of government agencies havejurisdiction over different resources within the basin, illustrating the complexity of managing the basin:•

The Kenya Wildlife Service is mandated to conserve and manage Lake Nakuru under the Wildlife Act. It developed the Lake
Nakuru Ecosystem Integrated Management Plan 2002–2012 to address poverty and reduce the threats facing the lake.

•

The Municipal Council of Nakuru is in charge of urban development, setting trade efﬂuent standards, and monitoringwater quality. The council has a well-equipped water quality laboratory within Lake Nakuru National Park, although it
often lacks funds to process samples or maintain the equipment.

•

The Ministry of Water Resources Development operates within the lake basin under the Water Act, and is responsible
for conserving the water catchment, water allocation, pollution control and monitoring, and resource mobilization forwater resources development. Under recent legislation, operational responsibility will be devolved to a Catchment Area
Advisory Committee with increased stakeholder involvement.

•

The Forest Department operates in the lake’s catchment under the Forest Act, and is responsible for forest resource
development, extension services, and resource mobilization. Large areas of forests in the lake’s catchment have beencleared under controversial government policies; these activities are in direct conﬂict with good management of thelake basin’s resources.

•

The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for development of agricultural activities in the catchment under the
Agriculture Act.

•

The Provincial Administration is responsible for policy enforcement and creating an enabling environment forsustainable lake environment management.

•

The Department of Occupational Health and Safety has taken the lead in the implementation of Pollution Release andTransfer Registers in Nakuru. They have sensitized the industrial community to initiate waste reduction programs, anddeveloped a database that contains all the information collected from participating industries.

Source: Lake Nakuru Brief.
36

Chapter 4

of which lies entirely within Shiga Prefecture and where the lake
is central to the prefecture, provides another example.
Laguna de Bay, on the other hand, is managed by a special
authority—the Laguna Lake Development Authority—whoseboundaries include the basin as well as some local government
areas outside the watershed. Some conﬂicts between the LLDA
and the local government units illustrate the importance of
having clearly coordinated actions between the different levelsof government. Although the LLDA has been given the mandate
to manage the lake’s shoreline areas, it did not exercise this
responsibility for many years. The delayed action also madeit difﬁcult for the local government authorities to understand
why the parts of the lake within their municipality that remain
dry at certain times of the year are not under their jurisdiction.
In spite of the dissemination of the Laguna de Bay Shoreland
Policy, the local governments continue giving permits forshoreland use which, by law, is the LLDA’s responsibility. The
confusion extends to other national agencies too. Agencies incharge of land management, surveys, and land titling classify
these shoreland areas as alienable and disposable lands,
in spite of the Administrative Order that was speciﬁcallyapproved to prevent this situation from occurring. Resolutionof this situation will require action and political will by the top
executives of the involved agencies.
In most cases, problems affect a wider area than just one local
government jurisdiction because of the integrating nature oflakes. In addition, local governments often lack jurisdictional
authority and resources to address complex issues, including
the ability to bring other sectors and other levels of government
to the table, the ﬁnancial and human resources to implement
properly sustainability initiatives, and the necessary politicalwill, due to the brevity of the electoral or administrative cycle.
In many instances, local governments can be major source oflake degradation if they are responsible for the disposal ofurban sewage and solid wastes. At Lake Ohrid, the dischargeof untreated efﬂuent from urban municipalities in both FYR
Macedonia and Albania has been a major source of lake
pollution. Solid wastes are disposed of in unlined pits and are
believed to be a source of lake contamination. These pollution
sources are currently being controlled with assistance from theGerman and Swiss governments and the GEF.
Institutions and Stakeholder Participation
Many lake briefs (Lakes Ohrid, Peipsi/Chudskoe, Laguna deBay, and the Bhoj Wetland) state that successful lake basin
institutions need good pathways to communities dependenton lake basin resources. In some cases, this may involve
having community representatives on a management agency.
Additionally, a report on Lake George presented at the African
Regional Workshop says that these institutional links provide
conduits for information to pass upwards from communities toplanning and decision making at all levels, as well as providing
opportunities for communities to feel part of management andresponsible for protecting the lake basin’s resources: “Beneﬁts
are already being felt by stakeholders, such as women and theInstitutions

poor feeling no longer excluded and being able to speak up
at meetings.” Representation by stakeholder groups will be
discussed further in Chapter 6.
The breadth of representation (and the consequent rangeof communication channels) was identiﬁed as an importantcriterion for success in the Lakes Peipsi/Chudskoe and Titicaca
briefs, along with the ﬂexibility of the institutional design.

Decentralization
Several of the lake briefs describe the evolution of lakebasin management institutions as part of government
decentralization policies. At Tonle Sap in Cambodia, forexample, concerns were expressed about the need to adopt
decentralization policies that recognized the hierarchicalsystem of governance within the basin management
framework, from the Mekong River Commission to national andprovincial authorities and all the way down to the poorest andmost isolated communities within the lake basin. At Lake Toba
in Indonesia, lake basin management has been developed
within the context of government decentralization policies.
In this case, the provincial government and ﬁve jurisdictions
around the lake extend beyond the relatively small basinboundary of the lake itself. The need to coordinate among
the local jurisdictions (kabupatens) and to resolve resource
management conﬂicts (such as ﬁsh pen developments)
within the province is evident, but has not been addressed todate. In addition, this brief points to the need for promoting
community-based approaches, which had not been possible
under the previous highly centralized governmental regime.
To support implementation of its national water policy, theGovernment of Tanzania established ﬁve river basin waterofﬁces and four lake basin water ofﬁces (for Lakes Victoria,
Tanganyika, Malawi/Nyasa and Rukwa) by the end of 2004
as institutions responsible for managing the country’s water
resources (although this recent development was not captured
in the briefs for Lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi/Nyasa,
which covered earlier periods). This basin-focused approach
replaces the previous regionally-based administration ofwater resources. However, decentralization can increase theisolation of a lake basin from the national government; this has
been a problem at Lake Tanganyika. The Lake Xingkai/Khanka
drainage basin is also remote from the capitals of both China
and the Russian Federation. As a result, the region does nothave the economic or political visibility needed to receive
signiﬁcant attention from the central government of either
country. Yet national-level attention is important to ensure thelake and its drainage basin receive sufﬁcient economic andother resources to tackle the problems.
Capacity Building
Many of the briefs described the need to build capacity within
local and regional institutions. The most commonly cited needs
included stakeholder involvement and participatory management
techniques, monitoring and evaluation, and administrative
aspects of project management (particularly where GEF-funded37

projects have been implemented). Decentralization throws aconsiderable burden on local authorities, and in many cases local
authorites are not well-equipped to handle such burdens. The
Lake Malawi/Nyasa brief makes the point that decentralization
has been proceeding only slowly in each of the lake’s threeriparian countries (Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania) because it is
not always welcomed by ofﬁcials at regional or district levels who
may be unwilling or unable to assume increased responsibilities.
The cost of operating an environmental monitoring programand maintaining it over the long term presents a tremendous
challenge, given the current capacity of many of the lake basin
management institutions. However, there are opportunities toinvolve citizens in monitoring programs in developing countries
to keep costs down, as well as build improved capacity among
stakeholder groups.
At Lakes Baringo, Nakuru, and Toba, lake basin managers
successfully made use of a tool developed by the World Bankfor participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and conducted training
among staff, environmental cadres, and/or local citizens
in order to build capacity for community-based lake basin
management programs. At Lake Ohrid, local coordinators,
working with Watershed Management Committees,
successfully built capacity for stakeholder involvement in the
GEF-funded Lake Ohrid Conservation Project. At Tonle Sap,
however, strengthening institutional capability for communitybased approaches was identiﬁed as an urgent need that had
not been adequately addressed.
One important lesson in the briefs relates to increasing thecapacity of local NGOs and CBOs through training programs andsmall grants programs (Lakes Nakuru, Ohrid, Peipsi/Chudskoe).
The GEF-funded Lake Ohrid Conservation Project provided
small grants for NGOs in both FYR Macedonia and Albania tocarry out a variety of activities, including summer eco-camps,
education in the schools, cleanups along the shoreline of Lake
Ohrid, reforestation on tributary streams in the watershed, theproduction and distribution of public education materials, andhosting roundtable discussions and workshops. However, thesegrants were only moderately successful in involving a widecross-section of the public in their activities and depend on
continuing access to international funds.
Institutional Evolution
Lake basin management institutions are most effective
when they build on existing structures at local government,
sectoral, and community levels. This capitalizes on theaccrued knowledge and linkages of these organizations andaccesses their legal powers. This is emphasized in a numberof briefs and other reports. For example, one of the lessons
from Lake George in Uganda is that “appropriate and effective
institutional structures at national and local level should
not duplicate existing systems, but be integrated into, andsupplement, government structures.”
The briefs show that it can take considerable time to establish
effective institutions, particularly ones with a coordinating
function since they have to rely on persuasive power and38

often have limited ﬁnances to achieve their aims. For example,
one of the most successful institutions included in thebriefs, the Chilika Development Authority, had few successes
following its establishment in the early 1990s. Yet by thelate 1990s it facilitated the biophysical recovery of the lake
and the reestablishment of a sustainable income for ﬁshingcommunities dependent on the lake, partly because it had
invested in developing good relationships with the sectoral
agencies that would be needed to implement the restoration
effort, partly because it had invested in acquiring a relaible
knowledge base about the lake basin problems, and partly
because the urgency of the situation provided it with thenecessary authority.
Even though they need to persist over the long term, effective
institutions are not static. They have to evolve to match theiractivities with emerging problems and the development needsof the lake basin communities. The North American Great Lakes
brief shows how an institution needs to be ﬂexible enough to
respond to emerging environmental issues—in that case fromaquatic nuisance species, to climate change, to water export,
to energy transmission infrastructure, or the assertion of
stewardship by Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the UnitedStates through “First Nations” and tribal authorities.
Both Lake Naivasha and Laguna de Bay provide good examplesof responding to changing development needs. In theformer case, the institution has changed over 75 years froma lakeshore protection organization, to a lake conservation
body, to (in recent years) part of a semi-autonomous lakebasin management authority. It is notable that this evolution
has brought increasing numbers of stakeholders into the
management of the lake, most recently expanding themembership to include those in the lake’s basin. However,some stakeholders, such as those in the upper catchment of
the Malewa River, have yet to be effectively included.
In the latter case, the LLDA was established in 1966 tocultivate the potential of the lake and its environs for further
development and control its environmental degradation.
As early as 1983, the LLDA was authorized to undertakea thorough corporate reorganization, although little wasaccomplished. Over the last 15 years, because of the rapid
increase in population, settlements, industrial establishments,and other economic activities in the basin with increasingpressure on the lake, there has been an increase in its role toprotect the lake environment. The LLDA reengineering study
has led to the authority being restructured as an integrated
water resources management and development agency. This
will include an expansion of its development activities throughthe proposed Laguna de Bay Development Corporation.
Three of the lake briefs described the use of formal institutional
reviews to assess the effectiveness of the institutions in the faceof changes in socioeconomic and political situations in the region,
including regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the institutional
design (Lakes Peipsi/Chudskoe, Titicaca and Laguna de Bay).

Chapter 4

Chapter 5
Identifying Effective Actions:
National and Local Policies

Key Lessons Learned about Policy•

National-level policies are essential for establishing the foundation of good lake basin governance. However, there waslittle discussion of national-level policy in the lake briefs.

•

Policies affecting lake basins need to support poverty reduction and development policies, because poverty itself
contributes to lake basin degradation and also because affected stakeholder groups are more likely to become
involved in lake basin management if they beneﬁt.

•National policies are implemented at the local level through either command-and-control (CAC) policies, incentives/
disincentives (economic instruments), or public awareness. Each has advantages and disadvantages. These
instruments are often used together.

•

CAC policies are effective when there is a clear outcome being sought; there are relatively few affected stakeholders;
and there is social acceptance of government decisions.

•

Economic instruments have the advantages of being ﬂexible; relatively cheap to implement; and able to include thecost of externalities. However, they can be difﬁcult to introduce, especially when they involve charging for use of a
resource previously accepted as being free.

•

Overall, successful local policies build political will; involve the stakeholders; ensure administrative sustainability; areequitable; and actively work toward policy integration.

National Policy
A national policy describes a government’s intentions forthe use of a resource. The policy establishes the foundation
for the other components of management—developmentof the principles of lake basin management, institutions,legislation, rules and incentives, community and private
sector participation, and ﬁnance. If there are differences in thepolicies of different sectors that affect lake basin resources,or between different countries (in the case of transboundary
lakes), then there will be inefﬁciencies and potentially conﬂicts
in the use of the resources. Thus, an agricultural sector policy
to expand agriculture in the headwaters of a lake basin may
lead to increased sedimentation of spawning areas for ﬁsh in
the littoral zone of a lake and thus come into direct conﬂictwith the policy of the ﬁsheries sector to protect sensitive ﬁshbreeding areas.
The Chilika Lagoon provides an example where the absenceof a strong policy on involvement of stakeholder groups led
to a unilateral decision by the state treasury to issue ﬁshinglicenses to commercial interests that compromised the incomesof local ﬁshermen. When those affected by the decisionwere not listened to, there were riots resulting in deaths.
The management program since 1999–2000 has emphasizedstakeholder participation in major decision making; this hashelped lead to the recovery of the lagoon. Thus, good national
policy is central to good lake basin management.
Given the sectoral organization of governments, it is rare toﬁnd a national policy speciﬁcally on lake basin management.
Instead, the government’s intentions for managing lake basinsare contained in water resources policies (encompassing both
surface waters and groundwaters) and the policies of waterdependent sectors such as ﬁsheries, irrigation, water supply,and environment. However, where the lake is of considerable
importance, there may be a separate policy developed forthat lake that coordinates the activities being carried out by
sectoral agencies and, in the case of transboundary lakes, byriparian and basin countries. This is recognized in the Lake
Victoria brief: “National policies and programs will need toinclude speciﬁc components to echo lake management policy,
and the establishment of lake management policy will haveto take into account existing policies and strategies of theriparian and catchment countries.”
It is very difﬁcult in most countries, whether developed ordeveloping, to get consistency of action across sectors. The
consequence is that actions by one sector can undermine
or compromise actions by another sector. The problem isexacerbated in transboundary lakes. For example, water
withdrawals by the irrigation sectors of upstream countries

have added to the pressures on Lake Chad and affected ﬁshingcommunities dependent on the resources of the lake.
The increasing acceptance of IWRM offers an opportunity for
coordinating sectoral policies that affect lakes. An increasing
number of countries are introducing water resources policies
that require this coordination at the national and river basin
level. Where river basin boundaries are coincident with orcontain lake basins, these river basin initiatives will improve
the ability of lake basin managers to coordinate actions.
The need to link lake basin management policy to social anddevelopment policy was widely understood within the lakebasin briefs. The Aral Sea brief stated that “Water management
issues are linked to economic and political issues. Cooperation
on water issues should be an important part of the discussion
on economic development and broader policy integration
processes in the region.” The Lake Sevan brief made a similarcomment, and the Lake Baikal brief stated that policy makers
should show the economic and social beneﬁts of proposed
environmental conservation legislation, projects, and policies.
The Lake Toba brief identiﬁed the necessity of linking lakebasin management to poverty alleviation because the poor
often contribute to environmental degradation when pushed
to the margins in order to survive.
One of the most pressing needs in many international lakebasins is to harmonize national regulations in areas suchas ﬁshery and pollution control (e.g. Lakes Victoria, Ohrid,
Peipsi/Chudskoe, and the Kariba Reservoir). Harmonization
is not necessarily the same as uniformity. Harmonization
ensures that there are no conﬂicts between the laws andregulations across national borders; it does not require laws
to be identical.
Laws are usually formulated for the entire nation, and may not
be appropriate for a particular lake. This jurisdictional scale
problem is exacerbated in the case of transboundary lakes andreservoirs. Thus, Nigeria is important to the Lake Chad basin,
but the basin is not dominant in Nigerian policy thinking.
National laws are customized for the circumstances of speciﬁclake basins through regulations and by-laws; these can also
be used to help harmonize management across international
borders.
However, harmonization of institutional and legal frameworks
must reﬂect the sovereignty and subsidiary aspects of thetransboundary states. For example, the beach management
units established commonly across the riparian states around
Lake Victoria need to be in keeping with each country’s
particular social characteristics, which reﬂect their own uniquelocal situation and the history of community development.
On the other hand, the historical ethnic attachment thattranscends national borders may facilitate cooperation acrossstate boundaries.

40

Local Policies
At a more local level, where there is competition between
users of the resources of a lake basin, national policies need
to be translated into mechanisms to ensure that accessto these resources is allocated fairly and efﬁciently. Thismeans managing people and their actions in order to change
undesirable behavior and to reinforce desirable ones. This canbe done through three basic mechanisms:•

Enforceable rules;•

Incentives/disincentives; and,•

Education and public involvement.

The last of these, educating the users into understanding themutual beneﬁts of sharing access to the lake basin resources,
will be discussed in Chapter 6. However, all three mechanisms
have complementary characteristics and are often used
together. The only other intervention commonly used inlake basin management is a technological response such as
sewage treatment, dredging, and the use of biological agentsto control weed growth. These technical responses, which are
an important part of the management package, are essentially
responses to the consequences of people’s actions; they
are not mechanisms to change people’s behavior. They are
discussed in Chapter 7.
Enforceable Rules
Rules state, with the force of law, how the resources are to
be used and shared. Consequently, they are referred to ascommand-and-control (CAC) policies. They can apply within asingle sector (such as restriction on the use of a certain typeof ﬁshing gear) or can apply between sectors when different
sectors draw on an underlying resource such as water. For
example, rules have been recently established to allocate
water from the barrages in the Mahanadi River upstream of
the Chilika Lagoon to ensure that water is available for bothdownstream irrigation communities and for lake ﬁshermen
dependent on the upstream migration of ﬁsh, prawns, andcrabs.
CAC policies are a common approach because they directly
specify a desired outcome. However, to be effective, rules
need to be enforced. Many briefs noted that this is a problem
in countries where government capacity is low due to lackof ﬁnancial resources or lack of political will. As the Lake
Cocibolca brief stated, “the existing constitutional mandates,
institutional mandates, laws, and international agreementssuggest that there is a sufﬁcient regulatory framework to directenvironmental management actions, biodiversity preservation,and sustainable development. The major limitations areassociated with the institutional, technical, and organizational
capacity to enforce compliance with this regulatory frameworkand the lack of public awareness which facilitates legal actionin every country.”

Chapter 5

CAC policies have been very successful for some problems in
the high-income lake basins in our survey (Biwa, Champlain,
Constance, and the North American Great Lakes). For example,
phosphorus loading to Lake Constance was dramaticallycurtailed by the adoption of direct regulation on domestic
and industrial dischargers. In developing countries withgood enforcement capacity (such as Lake Dianchi in China),
pollution standards have proven to be an effective method of
reducing pollution loads.

Incentives and Disincentives
Economic instruments—levies and subsidies—constitutea second method of controlling behavior. While notmandatory, they inﬂuence behavior by providing incentives
and disincentives. Markets are a special type of economic
instrument where the incentive is provided by a price signal
set by other users of the lake basin’s resources rather than byinstitutions. However, there are few instances of markets being
established to guide people’s behavior in the case studies;most prices are set by institutions.

A mixture of CAC policies is often used. For example, to help
manage ﬁsh stocks in a lake, a number of restrictions may be
enforced to control different aspects of the ﬁshery, such as:

Using prices to create incentives and disincentives has anumber of advantages:•

Specifying ﬁshing boat size;••

Specifying “closed seasons” when certain species may
not be caught (Lakes Baringo and Naivasha);Prices affect most people and normally do not require
direct government intervention once the price has beenset (except for the collection of revenues);•

People respond to changes in prices;•

Technical regulations on ﬁshing equipment such as gillnet size restrictions (Lake Victoria) and gear standards(Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe); and,•Prices can be changed quite quickly and hence are afairly responsive policy tool;•

They can be used to both reward good behavior(such as a subsidy for use of environmentally friendly
equipment), or to punish undesirable behavior (such asa tax to discourage polluters); and,•

They can be used to “internalize environmental
externalities”, and thus encourage more efﬁcient
resource use. A higher price for pesticides, for example,
helps sensitize farmers to the costs of pesticide pollutionof water, and encourages them to use less pesticide.

•

Designating ﬁshing zones for different categories ofﬁshermen or different ﬁsheries (Laguna de Bay).

Zoning regulations, such as the designation of certain areas
as “protected” or national parks, are another example of CAC
policies. Many countries designate the area around lakes orin parts of their basins as protected areas, particularly when
they include Ramsar sites. However, protected areas often go
unprotected if resources for enforcement are inadequate. For
example, the Issyk-Kul, Sevan, Tonle Sap, and Xingkai/Khanka
briefs all describe how poaching and other activities (such asindustrial development) continue to occur in areas ofﬁciallyzoned for protection.
The administrative burden in enforcing a CAC policy becomes
greater when the policy is more ﬁnely tuned (e.g. different
standards for different users), when more people are affected,
and when there is lower social acceptance of government-set
standards. For example, it is possible to enforce ﬁsheries
regulations on larger commercial operations in Lake Victoria,
but much more costly to enforce regulations for thousandsof artisanal or near-shore ﬁshermen through traditional CAC
methods.
The importance of the social acceptance of CAC policies is
illustrated by the ﬁshing moratorium at Lake Naivasha. Whenthe moratorium was lifted, it was decided in a public meetingthat the number of ﬁshing boats on the lake had to be reduced
to a total of 43 boats. The difﬁcult task of deciding who shouldhave a license was ultimately determined on the basis of how
a ﬁsherman had behaved in the past. Those who had obeyed
the rules got a license. Several ﬁshermen subsequently werecaught using small net sizes and were banned; their place wastaken by other ﬁshermen on the waiting list.

Policies

Pollution charges are used at Lake Dianchi and at Laguna de
Bay to discourage the discharge of harmful wastes into thelakes. The higher the level of discharge, the greater the charge.
Other lakes provide examples where fees are levied on theuse of the lake’s resources. In the Tanzanian portion of Lake
Victoria, ﬁshermen paid a levy based on the ﬁsh catch on a trial
basis. The removal of a fertilizer subsidy in the basin of Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe is an example where a previous incentive had
distorted the behavior of farmers and encouraged them to use
fertilizer excessively, to the detriment of the lake.
Although these economic instruments can be effective, it isusually not a simple political process to introduce them. There
will always be pressures to resist changes by those who willlose something due to changes in prices. Their introduction
usually has to be accompanied by an extensive education
program to explain the overall beneﬁts, and be backed up
by strong political will. However, if the user group sees thatthey are in danger of losing all in the future, they may be more
willing to accept some charges to control use of the resource.
For example, both the ﬁsh-pen operators in Laguna de Bay andthe pulp industry in Lake Toba have accepted a new fee/charge
in hopes of assuring the longer-term ﬁnancial and ecologicalsustainability of the resource and their industry.
41

There are examples in the briefs where economic instruments
could be used to control use of lake basin resources. For
example, the drawdown of Lake Naivasha has been caused, atleast in part, by water consumption for horticulture. Althougha water use permit had long been required, many water users
were abstracting water without a permit or at levels well
above the permit. More recently a water use charge has been
established under the 2002 Kenyan Water Act, but this has yet
to be operationalized. Enforcement of the user charges would
help support management of the lake and help to limit theamount of water used.
One case where economic instruments are relatively easy tointroduce occurs when there is a new or expanding use. For
example, the sport ﬁshery at the Kariba Reservoir was createdby the ﬁlling of the reservoir. There were no previous sportsﬁshermen to object to the issuing of licenses that were used tocontrol the extent of the catch.
Just as with CAC policies, there is a need to monitor the
implementation of economic instruments and impose
sanctions if necessary. For an overﬁshed lake ﬁshery, forexample, a fee on ﬁsh landings to discourage overﬁshingwould still require monitoring of catches and the possibility of

imposing ﬁnes on those who try to avoid the fee. Furthermore,with an economic-based system the other permit holders (theother stakeholders) now have an increased private interest in
seeing that no one reduces their costs by avoiding the fee.

The Local Policy Mix
Successful policy implementation depends on manyfactors—sociocultural factors, institutional dimensions, public
conﬁdence in the administrative system, and “social capital”(See Box 5.1). It is not possible to be prescriptive about which
policy is best for each problem. What works in one situation
may not necessarily work, or work as well, in another.
Successful policy making is almost always a combinationof several different policy instruments. Because of theircomplementary strengths, it is common to combine CAC
policies with economic instruments (Box 5.2). Public
information and consultation is usually essential to gain
acceptance of (and compliance with) the new approaches,
even when CAC approaches are chosen to address a problem.
Table 5.1 shows the mix of instruments described in the briefs
for the study lakes. The briefs do not describe the full range

Box 5.1 Social CapitalSocial capital is the sum of the beneﬁcial ways that different members of a society interact with one another. It is often the
missing ingredient in creating a successful policy intervention. Societies with higher levels of social capital have greater
possibilities of reaching cooperative solutions, and using self-discipline to enforce required changes. Social capital is not
the same as economic wealth—some poor societies can have a large amount of social capital (especially if the population isfairly homogenous). One characteristic of societies with large amounts of social capital is a “shared vision”— the Costa Rican
public’s view of the role and importance of the environment is one excellent example. The lack of social capital, in contrast,
is often marked with distrust, cynicism, and failure to ﬁnd cooperative solutions. Unfortunately, in many of the world’s lakes(especially those with very mixed, ethnically diverse populations and sharp competition for available resources), social
capital is scarce and this makes implementation of new policies very challenging.

Box 5.2 Lake Dianchi, China—A Mix of Policies to Improve Lake Water Quality
Water pollution was a major problem in Lake Dianchi, which is an important water source for Kunming in dry years as well
as serving industry and agriculture. Pollution came from sewage, industrial efﬂuents, irrigation return ﬂow, and stormwaterrunoff. The municipal government responded with large engineering investments in sewers and wastewater treatment
facilities, and policies to control industrial polluters.
A pollution levy system had previously been introduced into China and was being applied in the basin along with discharge
standards under which industries were charged a penalty if their discharges exceeded the discharge standards. The penalties
provided an incentive for industries to take steps to control their pollution. They were assisted in making pollution-reducing
investments by government loans and grants, funded in part by the revenues collected from the pollution levies, as well
as from additional government funds for environmental protection. This “carrot and stick” approach combined discharge
standards, pollution charges, and loans for pollution-reducing investments.
In Lake Dianchi basin, progress has been reported in reducing pollution in the lake. By the year 2000, industrial wastewater
discharged was reduced by 60 percent compared with 1995, COD was reduced by 80 percent, and soot, dust, and SO2 were
all signiﬁcantly reduced. These beneﬁts, largely due to capital investments and management improvements, have been
supported by an active program of citizen’s involvement and public dissemination of water quality information. In order tohelp repay loans for the capital improvements and their operation and maintenance, the city also began to charge user fees
via water charges, and fees for wastewater treatment and domestic solid waste disposal. The management of Lake Dianchi
illustrates the application of a number of different policy tools working together toward the longer-term goal of improved lakewater quality.
Source: Lake Dianchi Brief.
42

Chapter 5

of controls over uses; it is probable that a wider range of
instruments are actually in use at many of these lakes.
The mix of approaches can change over time too, in response toboth experience and changes in external pressures. In the caseof Laguna de Bay, for example, the government’s management
approach has evolved as the management authorities have
had to both respond to new challenges—such as expansion ofﬁsh pen operations and shoreline industrial development—aswell as search for new sources of funding (Box 5.3).

Lessons from Experience
Five broad lessons emerge from the lake briefs about whatmakes a successful local policy package.
Build “Political Will”
Without the support of the political establishment, it is usually
impossible to implement effective management. Whether thisis done by grassroots-level efforts, by carefully developed andimplemented public consultation and information campaigns,
or by direct contacts with decision makers, the creation ofhigh-level commitment to the introduction and application ofcontrols over resource use is an essential component of lakebasin management. Often referred to as “political will,” thismerely means that governments and management authorities
are committed, and therefore adequately resourced andempowered, to take actions and enforce the local policies.
For example, the lack of political backing for the Lake ChadBasin Commission is identiﬁed in the brief as being the major
impediment to the introduction of rules for allocating thewaters of the Lake Chad basin.
Involve the Stakeholders

government agencies in setting and implementing the rules.
Involvement of communities helps make the beneﬁts of therules clearer to those affected, draws upon the accepted
authority of local leadership, uses their local knowledge forbetter design and enforcement, and reduces the cost to thecentral government. Involvement of communities in drafting,monitoring, and enforcing the agreed-upon regulations was
advocated in the thematic paper on basin problems in Africa.
Fisheries management provides an example where the beneﬁts
of enforcing the rules are readily apparent to the stakeholders
and where there were existing informal institutions governingﬁshing behavior. This is illustrated in the case of Laguna de
Bay where, to augment the manpower needed to monitor
the lake, the LLDA organized ﬁsherfolk groups and deputizedthem as wardens. Later the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Management Councils were formed and became one of thepartners of the LLDA in resource management. These groups
clearly have a direct stake in successful management of thelake and enforce the regulations on the allowable extent ofﬁsh pens, since “they stand to lose if the capacity of the laketo sustain ﬁsheries is surpassed.” There are other examples
in Lake Victoria and Lake Malawi/Nyasa and at Lake George,
although their efﬁciency has yet to be established.
The voluntary moratoriums on ﬁshing in Lakes Baringo andNaivasha are powerful examples of stakeholder involvement in
enforcing rules. The moratorium in 2001 at Lake Baringo was
instituted after a monitoring report by the Kenya Marine andFisheries Research Institute was presented to the ﬁsherfolk.
Based on these data, it was agreed to impose the moratorium
and help the Fisheries Department enforce it. After two years,
the size of tilapia has increased by 100 percent; this successhas strengthened local support for the ﬁshing rules.

Some of the most successful examples of enforcement ofrules occur when the affected community is involved withBox 5.3 The Laguna Lake Development Authority, Philippines
When the LLDA assumed full responsibility in 1975 for regulating the use of the surface of the lake and in regulating efﬂuent
discharge quality, it used a traditional CAC approach. Over time, the LLDA has evolved in its response and more recently has
tried to blend economic instruments with CAC policies.
Implementation of an environmental user fee system (EUFS) began in 1997. It combined a ﬁxed fee and a variable fee to attack
the problem of BOD discharges from lakeshore industries. The ﬁxed-fee component is based on volume of discharge andcovers administrative costs. The variable fee is based on whether discharges are above or below the efﬂuent BOD standardof 50 mg/l. These two components act as an incentive for polluters to reduce both the total load of efﬂuent discharged andimprove its quality. The EUFS was initially focused on a small set of industrial polluters and is being gradually expanded tocover other ﬁrms, residential areas, and commercial establishments. A CAC component is also needed since all industrial
ﬁrms have to be registered and the efﬂuent needs to be monitored.
The EUFS has been very successful: annual BOD loading to the lake dropped from 5,400 metric tons in 1997 to 790 metrictons in 2002 for the initial batch of 222 ﬁrms. The number of ﬁrms rose to 914 by 2002. Industries have introduced waste
minimization, increased wastewater recycling, and improved treatment processes. In spite of this successful reduction in BOD
loading, other problems in the lake (Table 3.2) remain to be resolved.
The CAC approach at Laguna de Bay is illustrated by the use of a zoning scheme for controlling the spread of ﬁsh pens. Within
the zoned area, a ﬁsh pen permit (basically a licensing fee) has been introduced. The fee is currently about $120 per hectare
per year and so is directly related to the extent to which the lake’s waters are used for ﬁsh raising.
Source: Laguna de Bay Brief.
Policies

43

The European Union (EU) imposed sanction on the export ofNile perch in 1999 from Lake Victoria provides an example
where an external shock galvanized stakeholder involvement.
The sanctions were imposed because of the poor hygiene
conditions at landing sites and during ﬁsh processing.
The industry responded quickly and, with external funding
assistance, improved the handling of the ﬁsh so that exports
were resumed to the EU the following year.

There are fewer examples in the lake briefs of the successful
involvement of more distant stakeholders—where therules have less obvious beneﬁts to those on whom they are
imposed—in setting and enforcing rules in lake basins. For
example, the Lake Baringo brief makes a point of contrasting
the willingness of the ﬁsherfolk community to support theﬁshing moratorium with the failure of attempts to control
erosion on grazing lands. The brief attributes this difference tothe acceptance, on the one hand, that ﬁsh are a common-pool

Table 5.1 Command and Control (CAC) and Economic Instruments Described in the 28 Lake Briefs.
Command and Control
Lake Basin

Standards

Bans/Quotas

ZoningSubsidies

Efﬂuent Charge

Fees for use ofnatural resources

Fixed quotas ofwater allocation
between countries

Aral Sea

BaikalLake water levelstandards

Timber harvestingbanned within
ecological zone

BaringoStandards forﬁshing gear;
Controls over tree
cuttingFishing
moratorium

Bhoj Wetland

Water quality
standards

Ban onmotorboats; Banon recreation
activities

Biwa

Water quality
standards forindustrial, urban
and agriculturaldischarges;
Voluntary
pollution control
agreements byfactories

Chad

Water quality
standards

Champlain

Water quality
standards for
efﬂuent andindustrial
discharges

Chilika Lagoon

Detergentphosphorus ban;Ban on persistentorganic pollutants;
Ban on invasiveﬁshZoning under“Baikal law”
controlling
permitted
activities
Fishing licenses;
Licenses for water
extraction

Fees for water use1

Foreshorezoning; Bufferzone between
settlements andplantations

Subsidy towashermen to
move out of lower
lake catchment

National park with
controls over landuse; Lake zones
for recreation
boating; Zoned
protection of reed
beds

Preferential
national
government
subsidy rates for
major prefecturalenvironmental
infrastructuredevelopment;
Compensation toﬁshermen for lossof ﬁshery; Subsidy
for catchinginvasive ﬁsh

Detergentphosphorusbans; Restriction
on emissionsof atmosphericpollutants (U.S.
Clean Air Act)
Allocation of waterfor environmental
ﬂows (to beapproved)

Buffer zones for
Fishing licenses
wetland protection

Direct and indirect
payments from thedownstream water
users

Water use charges(Nigeria)

Fisheries licenses

Agricultural
subsidiesfor riparian
protection, etc.

Shoreline zoning
Licensing of(1 km) of restricted ﬁsheries andactivities
prawns
Buffer zones;
Biologicalcorridors

Cocibolca/
Nicaragua

Constance

Emission controls
on boats;
Regulations
on agriculture
in catchment;
Regulations onwater sports andhunting

Dianchi

Water quality
standards

44

Economic Instruments
Licences to accessresources

Prohibition on
atrazine; Bans on
toxic anti-fouling
paintsSensitive shoreline
areas closed

Land use controls

Fee for water
consumption

Reforestation
support; Industrial Industrial
efﬂuent control
pollutants levies
grants

Chapter 5

resource where the rules protect the resource for all ﬁsherfolk,
and on the other hand to the individual ownership of the grazing
lands where the beneﬁts to the landowners from reducing
erosion are less apparent. Some recent demonstrations ofland conservation measures have successfully shown that they
can result in improved productivity, which may assist in the
adoption of erosion control measures.

Ensure Administrative Sustainability
The administrative requirements of any local policies need tolie within the capacities and resources of the management
institution. CAC polices (regulations) may be particularly
demanding on institutions—both for monitoring complianceand imposing sanctions. There are many instances in the lakebriefs where it was stated that existing regulations were ﬁne in
principle but were not enforceable (African Lakes Workshop,
Lakes Malawi/Nyasa, Nakuru, Naivasha, Chad, Cocibolca

Table 5.1 Command and Control (CAC) and Economic Instruments Described in the 28 Lake Briefs (cont’d.).
Command and Control
Lake Basin

Standards

Great Lakes(North American)

Water quality
standards;
Regulations
on dischargeof nutrientsfrom livestock
operations

Issyk-Kul

Kariba Reservoir

Laguna de Bay

Malawi/Nyasa

Naivasha

NakuruOhrid

Peipsi/Chudskoe

Sevan

Guidelines forresource useon Zimbabwe
foreshores
Water quality
standards
Standards forﬁshing gear;
Regulations onforestry activities

Fishing regulations

Toba

Regulations onlake level

Subsidies

Victoria

Fishing regulation

Xingkai/Khanka

Water quality
standards

Efﬂuent Charge

Fees for use ofnatural resources

Prohibition on
further water
diversions

Ban on grazing andLand use controls
hunting in mining
in Biosphere zones
lease

Rents for grazing
land use

Fishing quotas;
Closed ﬁshingseasons in Zambia

Charges forwater use forhydropower
production
Fish pen zones

Fish pen fee
Water use permits
in Tanzania

Ban on ﬁshing inﬁsh sanctuaries

Tonle Sap

Policies

ZoningFishing
moratorium; Quota Zoning over
Water use permits
on number ofshoreline use
ﬁshing licenses
National
Industry andPark zoning;
efﬂuent standards
Water use permits
Forestry zoning(local council)(degazetted)
Water quality
National Park anddischargeother protected
standards; Fishing Prohibition on
areas; Littoral zone
regulations;non-native ﬁshprotection (FYR
Regulations on use
Macedonia)
of agro-chemicals
Quotas on
Fishing gearﬁsh catches
Removal ofstandards and(exchangeable
fertilizer subsidy
catch limits; Water
between Estonia(Russian Fed.)quality standards
and Russian Fed.)
National Park andLicenses forother protected
traditional ﬁshingareas

Tanganyika

Note:
1.
2.

Bans/Quotas

Economic Instruments
Licences to accessresources

Land use controls;
Prohibition on
Permits issued forconstructions
forestry
within 10 m ofshoreline
Land use controls
in Biosphere zones
Wetland protection
zones (Uganda)
Ecosystem
protection zones(China); Nature
reserves (RussianFed.)

Industrial
pollutants levies
Water resources
use charges in
Tanzania2
Water resources
use charges1

Water resources
use charges1

Fish levy at 10% ofcatch value (FYR
Macedonia)

Payment for use ofﬁshing resources
Water resources
use charges in
Tanzania2
Environmental
management
fee set at 1% net
revenue fromchemical factory

Fish catch levy trial(Tanzania)

No information provided in briefs on Lake Titicaca and the Tucurui Reservoir.
Kenya has legislated for water resources user fees but has yet to introduce them.
Tanzania has legislated water resources use charges.

45

Briefs and in a mid-term evaluation report on Lake Titicaca).
The thematic paper on lake basin problems in Africa claims
that there is a lack of enforcement of laws governing pollutionof water, environment, farming practices, and waste discharge
in all countries in Africa, while the Lake Nakuru brief lists therange of lake basin problems that are poorly regulated asincluding “uncontrolled sand harvesting and quarrying along
river channels, illegal diversion and damming of streams andrivers, dumping of industrial wastes in unapproved areas,
cultivation along river bank buffers, and illegal conversion of
public utility land for private use.”
Weak enforcement arises primarily from three underlying
problems:•

Lack of equipment, knowledge, and training; forexample, at Lake Baringo the Fisheries Department
could not carry out regular surveillance because they
lacked motorized boats;•

Lack of political and administrative leadership for
enforcing the rules; for example, the Eastern Mau forest
in the Lake Nakuru basin, originally over 65,000 ha, hasbeen progressively de-gazetted over the last 10 years
to make way for human settlement, even though it iscentral to the protection of the lake. What forest remains
now is restricted to the crest of the escarpment, andconsists of thickets of bamboo interspersed with standsof trees; and,•Resistance from stakeholders in the lake basins; thiscan be overcome with improved understanding of
the beneﬁts of the policies and by ensuring that theaffected communities have a real role in formulating andimplementing them. Thus, the extensive involvement ofﬁsherfolk in management of the Lake George ﬁshery has
resulted in a high degree of acceptance of new ﬁsheries
regulations.

Experience in the 28 cases illustrates the difﬁculty inbuilding institutions that are effective and sustainable. This
is increasingly difﬁcult when the scale of the institutional
responsibility increases. Localized institutions may be easier to
set up and maintain than regional or international institutions.

widespread community representation on the institutions that
establish and implement the rules.
There are clear examples in the briefs where rules have been
introduced that do not protect the powerless. Lake Naivasha
provides an example where there has been a progressive
involvement of those who use the lake’s resources, althoughsome—such as the Maasai pastoralists—are still poorly
represented in decisions about water allocation. Perhaps themost dramatic example occurred with the displacement oflocal, disadvantaged persons living in the area ﬂooded during
the construction of the two large reservoirs in this study, theKariba and Tucurui Reservoirs. At the Kariba Reservoir in the
1950s, the Tonga people were displaced to make way for the
new reservoir and neither adequately compensated nor able toreap beneﬁts from the dam. This is described more fully in thenext chapter.
Actively Work toward Policy Integration
Different policies in different sectors of the economy should becoordinated to help obtain the desired beneﬁts from the lakebasin. It requires that analysts, planners, and decision makers
explicitly consider the external impacts of their more narrowsectoral policies. For example, attempts to improve lakewater quality are hurt when agricultural development policies
designed to increase grain production provide subsidized
fertilizer or agricultural chemicals in the upper watershed,
thereby promoting increased chemical use that results in
reduced water quality.
Policy integration is especially difﬁcult for transboundary lakebasins. The Great Lakes Commission of the United States andCanada illustrates the many decades required for the evolutionof a successful international management regime. For
example, the numerous difﬁculties in implementing improved
management in Lake Victoria illustrate the great challenges intackling diverse problems in a developing country context witha weak enabling environment within a much shorter period oftime. Strengthening national and international collaboration
mechanisms is one way in which common difﬁculties can beshared and possible ways to overcome these difﬁculties can be
discussed. In many cases these difﬁculties are created simply
because of a lack of information.

Overcoming the hindrances in administrative sustainability
is not easy for any institution. But identiﬁcation as well as
removal of inadvertently introduced obstacles, creation of
conducive environments for collective pursuit of a common
goal, introduction of innovative but informal means of sharing
of information and data, and institutional adjustments to thelong-term needs for sustainable use of lake basin resources
need to be continually explored.
Be Equitable
One important requirement of good local policies is that they
are fair and protect those who are underrepresented, poor, orfrom marginalized communities. This is closely connected with46

Chapter 5

Chapter 6
Involving People and Stakeholders:
An Essential Element of Effective Lake Basin Management

Key Lessons Learned about Involving People•

Public participation and active stakeholder involvement is essential to managing lakes and their basins for sustainable
use. There are numerous beneﬁts, including a greater acceptance of rules for allocating lake basin resources if
stakeholders are involved in their formation and implementation.

•

All affected stakeholders, both powerful and marginalized, need to be included in the decision making process.
Historically disenfranchised stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples, must be included if they and the lake basin
are to beneﬁt.

•

Not only does stakeholder involvement potentially improve lake basin outcomes, but the omission of stakeholder
groups from key decisions can lead to serious problems if their livelihoods are affected. Examples in the briefs show
there is still some way to go in involving necessary groups in some lake basins.

•

Creating linkages to the improvement of livelihoods of the local communities is a key to promoting participation in lakebasin management and moving toward sustainable use of lake basin resources in many developing countries.

•

Without proper understanding and appreciation of the local cultural beliefs, values, and norms, a lake basin
management plan will not be accepted and properly implemented by the community.

•

Women play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water. Their participation in a full civilsociety, using a participatory approach and using culturally sensitive methods, will enhance efforts to achieve effective
lake basin management.

•

NGOs and CBOs play key roles in agenda-setting and the policy development process. Their roles include operational
functions, networking, collaboration, and mediation among government agencies and local communities, andtransferring skills to local institutions and community groups.

•

Any effort that depends upon a change in behavior or compliance with new legislation must rely on CEPA
(Communication, Education and Public Awareness) if change is to occur.

Throughout this report reference has been made to the needto manage lakes and their basins together for sustainable
use. Of all the elements of this shift, none is more difﬁcult
and controversial than the movement from a citizenry
that “receives governance” to one that is organized andparticipates actively in the governance process. The briefs are
replete with examples of engineering solutions, some of whichhave led to major improvements in the environmental statusof lake basins. However, even when engineering solutions are
successful, behavioral change at the individual, household,and community levels is essential for sustainability, andinvolving people is the only means to that end.
Management plans or programs will be difﬁcult to fund andimplement without the involvement of people who are directly
or indirectly dependent on a lake basin’s resources, since
stakeholders will have little sense of ownership or commitment.
The number of stakeholder groups competing for the limited
resource base can be quite large, making public participationand stakeholder involvement particularly important. The briefs
show that some lake basins have gone through many decadesof struggle to improve their management, and in the process
have devised ways to involve people in the development andimplementation of their management plans and programs.
How deeply people are involved in lake basin management
varies from one lake basin to another. For example, ﬁsheries
are a major resource in many lakes, and the development
and implementation of various ﬁshery management schemes
requires strong involvement of the ﬁshing community. The
mode of involvement, however, varies depending on the type ofﬁshery. In the case of a community-based subsistence ﬁshery,
the mode of involvement has to be adjusted to the traditions,culture, and life style of the ﬁshing community, while in thecase of an export-oriented ﬁshing industry, the socioeconomic
implications of the industry to the lakeshore communities
have a strong inﬂuence on the mode of involvement. Again,
the involvement of people in lake basin management activities

has been the major driving force in promoting environmental
protection, pollution controls, ecosystem management,
and biodiversity preservation in many countries in theindustrialized world, including countries in Asia-Paciﬁc, North
America, and Europe.
This chapter discusses this subject from two perspectives. First,
it summarizes the discussion in the lake briefs and thematic
papers on public participation and stakeholder involvement,
including how the process of developing and implementing
lake basin management plans and projects can be better
facilitated with the involvement of people. Second, basedon the ﬁndings from the briefs, it explores ways to improve
community participation and stakeholder involvement,
particularly in areas such as communication, education, andpublic awareness (CEPA). It also discusses gender equity andwomen’s participation, involvement of Indigenous Peoples,
and the special issue of displaced peoples. Emphasis isgiven to the role of NGOs and CBOs in management andcommunication. In addition, the chapter brieﬂy introduces theinternational context of participation and involvement, as wellas the role of international NGOs.

populations because of their residence as opposed to
the government staff (African Lakes Workshop).”•The local community would be able to provide the local
knowledge useful for developing and implementing themanagement plan (the Lakes Victoria and Tanganyika
and Chilika Lagoon briefs and the African Lakes
Workshop all identiﬁed this advantage) as exempliﬁedby the observation, “the existing practices reﬂect not
only the interests of local communities but also theirinformal management methods (Chilika Lagoon brief ).”It also implies that local cultural beliefs, values, andnorms need to be fully understood and appreciatedby the developer of the management plan for it to be
accepted and properly implemented by the community.

•

Community-based activities using a participatory
approach could bring into the policy development
process the voices of usually excluded stakeholder
groups so “policy makers can draw insight into whatworks and why, and use that knowledge to create
strategies to bridge the gap between national or regional
policy and local practice (Lake Toba brief ).” Not only
does their involvement confer the above beneﬁts, but
it can assist with improving social equity and poverty
reduction.

•

There is a greater acceptance of rules for allocatinglake basin resources if stakeholders are involvedin their formation and implementation. As the Lake
Champlain brief says “Because stakeholders have been
involved from the beginning of the planning process,they have shown a greater acceptance of the policies
and actions developed, and a greater willingness toform partnerships to work toward implementation.”
There is also a reduced cost of enforcing the rules if
the stakeholders have been involved in formulatingthem since the communities are more willing to become

Beneﬁts of Stakeholder Involvement
Participants at all three regional workshops agreed
emphatically that public participation and stakeholder
involvement in lake basin management are essential,
including relevant groups upstream, downstream and evenoutside of the basin if they are stakeholders. The briefs alsostressed the beneﬁts of stakeholder involvement in lake basin
management, including the following examples.
•

The public’s interest in the implementation of amanagement plan is generally longer than the timespan of the government ofﬁcials and so participation
can promote sustainability. “The long-term viability ofmany project outputs would depend heavily on local

Box 6.1 Participation and Involvement: Deﬁning Key Terms
The terms “participation” and “involvement” are used interchangeably in this report. There are four levels, or types, ofparticipation, in ascending order from least inﬂuence to most inﬂuence: (1) information sharing (one-way communication), (2)consultation (two-way communication), (3) collaboration (shared control over decisions and resources), and (4) empowerment(transfer of control over decisions and resources). The four levels are not indicators of scale; they indicate distinctly different
types of participation. It should not be assumed, however, that all participation is good or that a higher level of participation
is automatically better; the type and extent of participation depends on the situation.
The terms “public”, “community”, “citizen”, and “stakeholder” are used with loose distinctions. Public participation is often
distinguished from stakeholder involvement, with the latter processes being more inclusive and targeted. Stakeholders aredeﬁned as individuals or groups who make use of, have an impact on, or are impacted by, decisions regarding the use andmanagement of lake basin resources. There is no blueprint for stakeholder participation. In many situations, it is useful to get
an overview of all the stakeholders relevant to the issue of concern using “stakeholder analysis”. Such an analysis can help
reﬁne issues that are strongly felt but often poorly articulated.
The term community designates both communities-of-place and communities-of-interest. Communities-of-place include
members of the public who may be affected by, or interested in, management decisions and actions by the nature of theirresidency within or near management activities. Communities-of-interest include groups with a focused interest in (often
accompanied by organized efforts to inﬂuence) management of resources unrelated to their member residence (Kusel 1996).
Some communities may be both of place and interest, such as villages highly dependent on ﬁsheries, forestry, or agriculture.
48

Chapter 6

involved in implementation activities (Chilika Lagoon
and Lakes Baringo, Naivasha and Toba briefs).

assistance for developing and establishing participatory lakebasin management in the developing countries.

•

Public involvement can help get politicians interested
in supporting lake basin management. The protests ofﬁsherfolk at Chilika Lagoon, and public understandingof the implications of losses of public assets at Lake
Cocibolca all contributed to building government
support.

•Public participation, particularly through skilled NGOs
and CBOs, can also augment the skills of management
institutions (Lakes Toba and Champlain briefs).

If possible, it is best for stakeholder groups “to be involved fromthe beginning of the planning process so that they may have agreater acceptance of the policies and actions developed, anda greater willingness to form partnerships to work toward
implementation (Lake Champlain brief ).” The Lake Toba
brief also emphasized that stakeholders should be involved
from the outset of the planning process. However, this is notalways possible because of the different levels of experience,
capacities, and vision of the groups and the closeness of theissues to their concerns. The Laguna de Bay brief took a moreorganic view, seeing lake basin management as “a work inprogress with different stakeholders. Understanding a lake
and its environs takes time, and, along the way, knowledge isgained and mistakes are committed.”

Overall, the briefs stressed that community participationneeds to be properly designed (Lake Victoria brief, African
Lakes Workshop); the roles of communities and government
institutions need to be well deﬁned (African Lakes Workshop,
Lake George report); existing traditional structures should
be involved where feasible (Lake Malawi/Nyasa brief, African
Lakes Workshop); and local and international knowledge
institutions should be involved (Lake Naivasha brief ).

Identifying and Involving Stakeholders
The management of a lake basin involves a broad spectrumof stakeholder groups concerned with both land and water
management. The Lake Naivasha brief provides an exampleof the limitations on lake basin management when some
important groups in the basin have not been involved.
Although there has been a history of growing involvement bygroups around the lakeshores, the communities in the upperbasin have little interest or involvement in the lake. The loads
of pesticides, nutrients, and sediments entering the lake fromthe intensive horticulture practiced around the lakeshores isbelieved to be low, partly because groundwater ﬂows awayfrom the lake and partly because of stringent self-regulation.
Rather, these pollutants are believed to originate from poor
agricultural practices in the upper catchment, and thiscircumstance is unlikely to change while these groups are notfully included in the lake basin management process.
While some of the stakeholder groups have a vested interestin lake basin resources themselves, others, like politicians,play catalytic roles. For example, during the African Lakes
Workshop it was noted that legislators and their staff maythemselves be important stakeholders, but they represent theconstituent stakeholder groups. Depending on speciﬁc lakebasin management cases, other kinds of catalytic stakeholder
groups may be identiﬁed. For example, the Lake Champlain
brief identiﬁes watershed associations as catalysts for “nonregulatory protection programs.” The experience of most of thedeveloping countries also suggests that international actors
constitute an important group of stakeholders. They play aunique and critical role in the translation of global institutional
agendas and local grassroots agendas into a common
policy for sustainable lake basin management. Often, it isinternational actors that provide critical technical and ﬁnancial
Involving People and Stakeholders

A number of the lake basin briefs stated that the power ofcommunity-level participation is evident when the outcomes ofparticipation are clearly and directly linked to an improvementin the livelihoods of participating communities. The Lakes
Champlain, Baikal, Baringo, Malawi/Nyasa, and Nakuru briefs
all stated that local people would support interventions thatwill improve their livelihood security, while the Lake Toba
brief stated that people will not change their behavior until
they realize or experience the beneﬁts (Also, to note, while
it was not mentioned in the lake briefs, there is also goodevidence from research into procedural justice (Syme andothers 1999) that stakeholders who have been involved indecisions show increased acceptance of rules, even when
the rules do not favor their interests.) The use of small-grants
programs and a focus on poverty reduction activities, including
in GEF-funded projects, is an important aid to promoting
stakeholder involvement and contributing to sustainable lakebasin management. At Lake Nakuru, the biggest hindrance toundertaking catchment restoration activities was that many
communities could not immediately identify the potential
beneﬁts of the activities. Overall, the experiences with rural
water supply, sanitation, and reforestation projects in the briefs
indicate that participation of citizens and local communities
greatly improves the likelihood that project assets will be fully
used and properly operated and maintained.
The participation and involvement of an individual is strongly
inﬂuenced by that of the group he or she belongs to, or more
broadly, by the political and/or cultural environment he or
she is in. For example, one brief points out that people are
more easily convinced by their neighbors’ experiences andtend to trust those they live with rather than outsiders. In
this connection, one of the briefs states, “Behavioral change
does not happen until people realize or experience the beneﬁt
resulting from the change. Behavior can be said to havechanged only when newer behavior patterns replace older
ones consistently and are sustained thereafter. Measuring thechange of behavior as a result of environmental education ofschoolchildren would certainly take a very long time, but the49results can be far more effective and sustainable” (Lake Toba
brief ).
The briefs describe a range of techniques for improving
community involvement. For example, the Bhoj Wetland
brief states, “Community participation may be made more
effective if they are combined with awareness campaigns andother eco-friendly activities”; the Lake Ohrid brief describes“a pilot project and catalytic measures designed to test anddemonstrate affordable and cost-effective measures for
improving the environmental conditions in the watershed.” Thethematic paper on basin problems in Africa mentions involving
stakeholders in “drafting of regulations and in monitoring andenforcing.” At Lake Toba, a coordinating board of stakeholders
has been established “to build synergism, coordination, andsustainable development of the drainage basin, including
regular monitoring to allow timely corrective measures.”
Other approaches are described in the following sections onawareness raising and education, gender equity and women’sroles, and NGOs and CBOs.
Some successful examples of capacity building in community
groups include the ﬁre-ﬂy monitoring (including by school
children) program at Lake Biwa; an awareness-building
program that was linked to the establishment of four wildlife
sanctuaries managed by local communities at Lake Baringo,
and the involvement of ﬁshing communities in helping enforce
a ﬁshing moratorium; the training of ﬁshing communities at
Lake Victoria in raising and releasing weevils for water hyacinth
control; and the involvement of citizens and stakeholders
in developing a comprehensive plan for the Lake Champlain
basin.

Women, Indigenous Peoples and Displaced People
In many briefs and at the regional workshops, speciﬁc reference
was made to the important role of women, Indigenous Peoples
and displaced people in lake basin management. Key lessons
for these three major groups of stakeholders are summarized
below.
Gender Equity and Women’s Participation
The nature of gender issues in lake basin management is notmuch different from that in other environmental and natural
resources management settings. The experiences in the lakebasin briefs, however, reinforce the notion that without full andpersistent attention directed to gender issues, it will be more
difﬁcult to achieve successful and sustainable implementationof lake basin management. Some comments from the briefs
include:•

Women’s roles have been and will remain important inlake basin management (Box 6.2), although there are
numerous obstacles to recognizing and promoting theirroles. Deliberate efforts have to be made to remove
obstacles and to provide opportunities for women toparticipate;•

Better governance, institutions, and policies will arise
from an empowered and gender-sensitive community(thematic paper on Basin Problems in Africa); and,•Particularly in rural areas, where women’s energy andcompetence are well-developed, the integration of
women into the development and decision making
process is of great importance (Lake Constance brief ).

Box 6.2 The Important Role of Women
The importance of women’s participation in the water sector was raised at the International Conference on Water andEnvironment (Dublin 1992) and at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro 1992). In
particular, the third of the Dublin Principles relates speciﬁcally to the issue of women’s participation, stating that “Women
play a central role in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water.” Increasingly, government ofﬁcials of institutions
related to water management are aware of the need to recognize women’s participation in the hydrological sector.
Women play an increasingly important economic role in developing countries, particularly in countries where the economiccrisis has pushed men to migrate to cities or to other countries in search of increasingly important cash incomes. In the wakeof this massive migration, many rural women have become the head of their household. In addition, women have become
more active in their community’s administration, such as the management of their water and sanitation systems, community
services, and other economic responsibilities. In most of the poor agricultural economies of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, andLatin America, women are working in the ﬁelds, managing the transportation of their products, and offering their productsin the marketplace. Nevertheless, as a result of gender bias, this work is generally unrecognized and their economic role isinvisible.
Women also have active roles in the non-economic sector. Urban and peri-urban water use related to health relies mostly on
women as housekeepers, where they are in charge of the washing, cooking, and other hygienic activities within the family.
The lack of access to safe water and sanitation, especially in rural areas, and the exposure to contaminated water are linked
to pregnancy failures, infant illnesses, and deaths, as well as all sorts of water-related diseases that affect the communityand family health. A greater part of government budgets goes to “curative” health programs, instead of “preventive” healthprograms that could be managed by women. In many rural areas, women are in charge of watering and washing cattle,
irrigating homestead crops, and other tasks. They have to spend hours every day collecting water, sifting it, or taking careof their children affected by water-related diseases. If women had more access to training for more efﬁcient use of waterand the care of waterbodies such as lakes, they could prevent many health problems and have more time to spend on othereconomically productive activities with their families.
50

Chapter 6

Several examples of targeted efforts to promote theparticipation of women emerged from the lake briefs. For
example, a three-month gender sensitivity training course
was instituted at Lake Nakuru; at Lake Toba, participatory
rural appraisal (PRA) was a successful technique in which
women were invited to participate in community meetings;
in the upper watershed of Chilika Lagoon, a pilot project
was conducted to create women’s forums geared to enhancetheir participation; at Lake Biwa, women organized the “Soap
Movement” to reduce use of a detergent that was causing
pollution and contamination in their lake; and at Lake Baringo,
eight women’s groups were funded to start microenterprises,
including purchase of zero-grazing animals, poultry-keeping,merchandise kiosks and market-day trading, and food crop
production.
Promoting the role of women does not always mean that theyshould contribute jointly with men. In some cultures, it is not
appropriate for a woman to attend a meeting with men and
it is more appropriate to organize separate activities. “Menorganize the men’s activities, women organize theirs,” oneworkshop participant said of a case at his lake basin. For Lakes
Nakuru, George, and Toba, a community-based process wasused where women could attend meetings or participate inactivities with other women.
Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous Peoples have a wealth of traditional knowledge andexperience and a key stake in the sustainable use of lake basin
resources. However, Indigenous Peoples are often among thehistorically disenfranchised stakeholders. The experience inthe lake basin briefs shows the importance of engaging allbasin stakeholders, especially Indigenous Peoples.

In many cases, Indigenous Peoples may have been forced, due
to displacement by other groups and/or restrictions of accessto traditional grazing lands, to use unsustainable livestockpractices. As reported in the lake briefs, the indigenous
communities that live in the Lake Baringo basin keep large
numbers of cattle which overgraze the basin leading toincreased soil erosion, sedimentation in streams and thelake itself, and intensiﬁcation of frequent ﬂash ﬂoods. The
large herds of cattle also invade the lakeshore where they
destroy the habitats of various plants and animal species.
Reducing the number of animals in the herds is a practicewhich is not acceptable to the pastoralists. As an alternative, aparticipatory range management plan that regulates access to
grazing lands and movement of herds could be developed withinvolvement of pastoralists and enforced by elders. However,this has yet to be developed. Issues of limited access to lakewaters by indigenous pastoral communities were also reported
in the Lake Naivasha brief. It should be noted that traditional
pastoralists may not understand the effects that theirindividual activities have on the lakes and their resources.
In other cases, such as Laguna de Bay, indigenous
communities are located in the near shore area and depend
directly on lake resources for their livelihoods. At Laguna deBay, a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples that was
created at the country level to protect the welfare and interests
of Indigenous Peoples played a useful role in involving thesecommunities in lake management. Other examples havebeen less successful. Although overcoming extreme poverty
situations and paying attention to the rights of indigenous
communities were identiﬁed as important issues for lakebasin management efforts in several lake briefs, there remains
a need to signiﬁcantly increase the engagement of thesecommunities. Careful study of pre-existing resource use rights,

Box 6.3 Indigenous Peoples: Key Lessons from Lake Titicaca
Located in the Andes Mountains on the border of Bolivia and Peru, Lake Titicaca is, volumetrically, the largest high altitude
lake in the world. Although year-round air temperatures on the high altitude plateau are cool at night (8-10 degrees C) andmoderate during the day, the lake has a moderating effect on the local climate, which has led to the development of uniqueplant and animal species and also the establishment of indigenous communities. With the exception of mixed populations
found in cities and large towns, the general population of the Titicaca basin is comprised almost entirely of Indigenous
Peoples: the Quechua zone in the north, the Aymara zone in the center, and another Quechua zone in the south. In addition,
the Uro population is located in some areas near the lake, including the Puno area in Peru, in the Desaguadero River basin in
Bolivia, and around Poopo Lake in Bolivia.
With the change from Spanish colonial rule to national rule, large tracts of land were taken from indigenous communities toform properties controlled by new landlords. This system of large haciendas remained until the application of agrarian reform
laws in Bolivia in 1953 and Peru in 1969. This history, spanning centuries, created hostility and distrust among the indigenous
population that remains to this day. Later policies to create an open market resulted in the reduction of prices for agricultural
products. Added to this, government investments in infrastructure and services in cities had a negative impact on rural areas.
Nevertheless, the local population possesses a great desire to improve livelihoods in the Lake Titicaca basin, which if properly
directed could produce positive results for the people and the lake.
The introduction of exotic species in the Lake Titicaca basin, such as the Trout (Salmo truta) during the 1940s, and the Pejerrey(Basilichtys bonaerensis) to Lake Poopo in 1969, led to the extinction of native ﬁsh species and infestation of a protozoan
parasite that affected 70 percent of the annual native ﬁsh harvesting in 1988. These ﬁsh introductions had negative impacts
on the socioeconomic conditions of the Aymaras and the Urus whose indigenous communities and livelihood patterns
depend on native ﬁsh.
Source: Lake Titicaca Brief.

Involving People and Stakeholders

51

traditional management methods or potential impacts to theenvironment or local communities is especially important inareas with indigenous communities. Mechanisms should also
be developed to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples andresolve conﬂicts that may arise.
Lake Titicaca, where the rural population is almost entirely
made up of Indigenous Peoples, provides another example
where there is a need to increase the participation ofindigenous communities in lake basin development (Box 6.3).
In this context, agreements between Bolivia and Peru led tothe establishment of a binational authority and the creation ofa Master Plan for Flood Prevention and Resource Managementin the Lake Titicaca basin. The binational authority has
recognized a special role for indigenous communities andother key stakeholders in the implementation of the Master
Plan.
Experience shows that lake basin management is more costeffective if stewardship of lakes and their basins is built upon
the customs and cultures of the community. Furthermore, thedisruption of traditional uses of a lake and basin resources cannegatively impact the daily activities, food sources and abilityof the lake basin environment to support life. It is important torecognize that direct engagement with indigenous leaders andindigenous communities has proven to be the most effective
way to foster their participation in lake basin planning andmanagement activities.
Displaced People
A special case arises with reservoir construction or whenmanagement interventions at lakes (especially those involving
infrastructure such as regulation dams/weirs, ﬂood control
structures and drainage programs) affect the livelihoods of
local people. It is becoming widely accepted that local people
affected by these investment decisions must be involved fromthe beginning and compensated when they suffer losses.
Increasingly, development projects recognize the need tofocus on restoration of livelihoods rather than solely oncompensation, and the importance of making communities the
beneﬁciaries of projects. However, this has not always been
the case. For example, the Kariba Reservoir brief describes
how, in the 1950s, prior to the use of resettlement action plansand other instruments used today, 80,000 Tonga people weredisplaced from their traditional lands to make way for the dam.
They were neither involved in the decisions about the dam,adequately compensated for their losses, nor able to share in
the beneﬁts from the dam and reservoir.
There can be secondary and tertiary impacts beyond the direct
impacts of dams and similar large infrastructure on local people.
Typically, infrastructure projects in developing countries attract
both formal and informal populations during the construction
period, who in many cases become permanently settled in
the project area. Although addressed in many contemporary
projects, these impacts have historically received little or noattention in project planning and implementation, despite theoften signiﬁcant ecological and social consequences. In the52case of the Tucurui Reservoir, which commenced operationin 1984, 4,300 families were displaced but the reservoir
construction attracted over 20,000 workers to the dam site.
These increased populations bring further social changes.
At the Kariba Reservoir, the construction workforce attracted
prostitutes to the area with a concomitant rise in sexuallytransmitted diseases. Not all changes are detrimental. At
the Tucurui Reservoir, traditional small-scale navigation was
replaced with road transportation; there was also a change inthe macro economy, including large-scale industrial, forestry,
and agribusiness projects. Small businesses derived fromthe rapid increase in the worker’s population also developed
rapidly. The important point is that public decision makers (ata variety of levels of government) and stakeholders need to beadequately informed of the scope of the proposed project, haveaccess to information on the positive and negative impacts ofthe construction and operational phases of the investment,
and have the opportunity to participate in public consultations
and receive compensation for losses in a transparent manner.

The Role of NGOs and CBOs
The briefs illustrated the diversity of roles played by NGOs and
CBOs in lake basin management.
Agenda Setting and Policy Development
NGOs and CBOs have the advantage of being more
independent of political pressures than formal management
agencies, and so are often well positioned to play an importantand frequently leading role in the agenda-setting and policy
development processes. For example, in the Lake Baikal andLake Biwa basins, consumer and environmental movements
have played key roles in some of the major changes inenvironmental management.
In many other cases, NGOs have had an active role in promoting
issues within institutions for lake basin management (Lakes
Champlain, Naivasha, Nakuru, Ohrid, Peipsi/Chudskoe, andthe North American Great Lakes). For example, the Peipsi/
Chudskoe Center for Transboundary Cooperation is a regional
NGO that works to promote sustainable development andtransboundary cooperation in the border areas of the Baltic
States and the New Independent States. It cooperates with thelocal authorities and stakeholders on regional development
projects, as well as on educational, research, and social
projects in the region, and is also actively involved in the workof the Estonian-Russian Transboundary Water Commission.
International NGOs not only play a unique and critical role in thetranslation of global institutional agendas and local grassroots
agendas into a common policy for sustainable lake basin
management, but they also lead many new initiatives that aresupplementary and/or complementary to the activities of theinternational funding organizations and national governments.
Increasingly, the environmental threats to lakes have aregional or global dimension. For example, the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature (WWF) brought international attention to thethreat to the internationally recognized ﬂocks of ﬂamingos at
Chapter 6

Lake Nakuru from urban and rural pollution. IUCN has playeda pivotal role in supporting the Ramsar Convention, whichhas provided the basis for deﬁning a number of threatenedlakes as Ramsar sites. They can also assist in linking lakebasin management programs with global initiatives and sisterlake programs; for example, the Tahoe-Baikal Institute is a
registered nonproﬁt organization that organizes education,
research, training, and exchange programs between thesesister lakes in the United States and the Russian Federation.
Operational Functions
There are examples in the lake basin briefs where NGOs
perform operational functions. In other cases, NGOs act as
implementing agencies for lake basin management. Lake
Naivasha is the outstanding example where a lakeshore
protection organization has evolved to play a major role inlake planning and management. In still other cases, NGOs
have implemented projects through small grants provided bygovernments or international donor organizations. NGOs and
CBOs can become very experienced and effective in such work
because of their closeness to communities and their needs,
their ﬂexibility in operations, and their low cost structures.
Networking, Collaboration, and Mediation
NGOs are often active in networking, collaboration, andmediation among government agencies and local communities.
Examples from the lake briefs include:

Communication/Facilitation Role
NGOs have played an important role in the collection,dissemination, and analysis of information in the Aral Sea
basin, North American Great Lakes, and Lakes Baikal,
Champlain, Nakuru, and Naivasha. In other cases, NGOs
have played the role of information brokers, facilitating theexchange of information across national borders (for example,
the Peipsi/Chudskoe CTC). NGOs often are active in publicawareness raising and environmental education; illustrative
examples of public awareness campaigns include those fromthe Aral Sea and Lakes Baikal, Ohrid and Peipsi/Chudskoe.
A lake basin program may form an outreach partnership witha network television afﬁliated in the basin. The features,
specials, and promotional material aired for the project may
reach millions of viewers in the basin, with the costs shared
among partners (Lake Champlain brief ).
Whether through governments or NGOs, effective
communication strategies are matters of critical importancein lake basin management because of the need for the
stakeholders to understand the complexities of biophysicalphenomena and the complexities and subtleties associatedwith socioeconomic, cultural, and political dimensions ofmanagement. As indicated in the Lake Malawi/Nyasa brief,
researcher-policy maker communication problems need to be
overcome for every lake.
Training•

The network of NGOs and CBOs that has promoted
an outreach program around Chilika Lagoon. The
stakeholders have also formed a federation of NGOs
and CBOs called the “Campaign for Conservation of
Chilika Lagoon” that is working closely with the Chilika
Development Authority;•

A network of community groups has been used toundertake conservation activities at Lake Nakuru;•

With a wide area of jurisdiction and with limited staff tocarry out its mandate, the Laguna Lake Development
Authority has developed strategic alliances with local
government, CBOs, and NGOs to help gain wide support
in the implementation of its plans and programs; and,•“NGO roles can become even more signiﬁcant when
there has been past political instability” (Tonle Sap
brief ).

Although NGOs also often play an important role in mobilizing
funds for lake basin management, maintaining a steady
ﬂow of funds has always been challenging for lakes in theindustrialized countries (Lakes Biwa, Champlain, Constance,
and the North American Great Lakes briefs) as well as incountries in economic transition (Lakes Baikal, Peipsi/
Chudskoe and Ohrid briefs) and in developing countries (Lake
Naivasha brief ).

Involving People and Stakeholders

International NGOs often have specialist technical skills
within their organizations and can transfer some of theseskills to local communities and institution staff throughtraining programs and other capacity building exercises. For
example, the Wildlife Conservation Society has been able totrain counterpart staff from Cambodian government agencies
in techniques of biodiversity survey and assessment, report
preparation, and environmental education and awareness.
Other NGOs such as WWF-Cambodia have undertaken similar
projects. Training needs analyses have been undertaken
as part of donor-supported natural resources management
projects in Cambodia.
Funding NGOs and CBOs
Funding is needed to sustain the above NGO and CBO activities
over the long term. In both developed and developing countries,
NGOs proliferated through speciﬁc projects and programs
for lake basin management. In particular, international aid
programs and donor agencies, but also international NGOs,
have played an important role in the development of the NGO
sector in countries in economic transition and in developing
countries. The Chilika Lagoon and Lakes Ohrid, Peipsi/
Chudskoe, and Baikal briefs provide examples. Yet manyof them currently face difﬁcult organizational and ﬁnancial
challenges because of the short-term nature of these funding
sources. In both the developed countries (such as Lakes Biwa,
Champlain, Constance, and the North American Great Lakes)
and countries in economic transition and developing countries(e.g. Lakes Baikal, Naivasha, and Ohrid), NGOs have problems
to consistently maintain even part-time staff.
53

Communication, Education and Public Awareness(CEPA)
Effective participation of local communities in lake basin
management means that local communities need access totechnical, social, and economic information. Consequently,
public awareness and information campaigns are a vital partof the participation process. In fact, any effort that depends
upon a change in behavior or compliance with new legislationneeds to rely on CEPA (Box 6.4) if change is to occur. The lakebasin briefs provide a wide range of experiences with regard
to CEPA.
Designing CEPA Programs
Integrated approaches should be considered in designingand implementing CEPA programs. Awareness-raising orcommunity education alone will not stop unsustainable
resource exploitation by community members; several factors
need to act concurrently, such as changed community values,
availability of alternative behaviors, and disincentives forunsustainable activities. Lake Ohrid is an example where
increasing community awareness through community-basedorganizations, coupled with changes in legislative frameworks,
is slowly helping to improve the conservation of the lakesystem.
Situation analysis and problem identiﬁcation should beundertaken before designing the CEPA program. A basic
principle of intervention in community affairs is that root
causes of problems must be understood and agreed upon
before actions are developed and implemented. A period of
research is necessary for gaining an understanding of thesituation and helping the community to understand the root
causes of the problems, and also to analyze their relationshipto government, other communities, and middlemen.

Indicators of success, monitoring, and evaluation are essential
to assess the effectiveness of CEPA programs. As with otheraspects of conservation, it is extremely valuable to assess
the success of CEPA actions in relation to the measurable
objectives, including changes in the community’s attitude
to the need for resource conservation and co-management
initiatives.
The Scope of CEPA Programs
CEPA is often slow-acting and is best understood as a series ofinvestments for signiﬁcant future returns with each investment
strategically linked to ensure direction, continuity, andeffectiveness. Strategic thinking and coordination between
activities and programs should be important components of
CEPA action planning, which should also be realistic about
time-scales. CEPA activities take time to be effective. For
example, at Lake Biwa, long-term efforts on changing values
and empowerment have paid off after many years; at Lake
Nakuru, the 10-year CEPA program has not yet reached athreshold level.
CEPA programs should be sustained and sustainable, with
innovative arrangements and capacity building. It is thus
sensible to link with institutions that will provide long-term
funding. At Lake Constance, networking, campaigning,and public relations required sustainable ﬁnance; at Lake
Champlain, the program employed a full-time educationand outreach coordinator and a communications andpublications coordinator; at Lakes Biwa, Tanganyika, andToba, mainstreaming environmental education was a means
to ensure sustainability; and at Lake Chad, local user
associations were provided with loans to establish institutions
for management of water resources, with the fees used formaintenance of the equipment but also for implementation ofenvironmental projects. The Lake Ohrid experience highlights
the importance of using early successes to leverage investment
in, and broad support for, sustaining CEPA programs. At LakeBox 6.4 Communication, Education, and Public AwarenessThe components of CEPA—as described by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands based on UNESCO, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and the World Conservation Union-IUCN publication—are deﬁned as:•Communication is the two-way exchange of information leading to mutual and enhanced understanding. It can be used
to gain the involvement of actors and stakeholders and is a means to gain cooperation of groups in society by listening
to them ﬁrst and clarifying why and how decisions are made;•Education is a process that can inform, motivate, and empower people to support wetland conservation, not only by
inducing lifestyle changes, but also by fostering changes in the way that individuals, institutions, businesses, andgovernments operate; and,•

Awareness brings the issues relating to wetlands to the attention of individuals and key groups who have the power toinﬂuence outcomes. Awareness is an agenda setting and advocacy exercise, which helps people to know what and why
this is an important issue, the aspirations for the targets, and what is or can be done to achieve these targets.

The ﬁve common objectives of a conservation-based CEPA program are (1) to encourage a general interest in conservation,(2) to generate greater awareness of conservation issues, (3) to bring about a speciﬁc change in opinion, (4) to disseminate
speciﬁc information, and (5) to build capacity (Sutherland 2000).
Source: UNESCO (2002).
54

Chapter 6

Toba, the approach was to train environmental cadres fromwithin local communities. This proved to be a very successful
way of garnering trust and support; however, the brief notesthat small incentives to compensate cadres for their time andenergy would help to sustain the initiative.
CEPA actions must be placed within the larger economic
and social context. CEPA solutions that are not sociallyand economically acceptable cannot hope to achieve
their goals. For example, at Lakes Baikal and Cocibolca,
watershed management policies and actions needed tobe linked with regional economic development priorities.
The lack of awareness about social and economic beneﬁts
was a limitation to successful implementation of lake basin
management efforts at Lakes Dianchi, Laguna de Bay,
Malawi/Nyasa, Nakuru, Toba, and Victoria. At Laguna de
Bay and Lake Malawi/Nyasa, awareness-raising and poverty
alleviation actions were linked to reduce pressure on thelakes’ resources, while at Lakes Baringo, Champlain, Toba, andNakuru, environmental education and awareness programs
were coupled with economic incentives and improvement of
the livelihood of the local communities. At the Bhoj Wetland,
the shifting of the idol immersion venue to reduce stress on theupper lake was only made possible because of an extensive
public awareness campaign that was designed to work within
the existing cultural and religious context.
Making CEPA Effective
Involvement of all stakeholders in identifying issues and theirsolutions, and providing them with sufﬁcient technical andlocal knowledge of the issues, will improve the effectivenessand efﬁciency with which CEPA can effect change. For example,at Lake Cocibolca, increased awareness among local ofﬁcials
has led to an increased call for national action; at Lake Baringo,a moratorium on ﬁshing was instituted to improve ﬁsh stocks
once ﬁsherfolk had been informed of data on catches andbrought into the management process; and at Chilika Lagoon,
local ﬁsherfolk helped disseminate information about theimportance of using the right mesh size nets, and imposed aban on juvenile catch, resulting in a signiﬁcantly higher yield.
Dissemination of information and data to stakeholders
is important. The information and data gained from lakebasin management programs and experiences should be
disseminated to national and local governments, lake basin
management practitioners, NGOs and other stakeholders, andshould be easily accessible. At Lakes Champlain, Chilika, Biwa,
Ohrid, Nakuru, Sevan, and the Bhoj Wetland, CEPA programs
established resource, education, or exhibition centers; atLakes Baringo and Toba, they established participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) programs.

schematic diagram called “the Water Mondriaan”; at the Bhoj
Wetland, there were competitions, rallies, and street theatre
performances with a conservation message; at Lake Biwa, a“ﬂoating school” offered 5th-graders the opportunity to have
fun while learning; at Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe, there was anannual international children’s creative works competition;
at Lake Baringo, environmental awareness packages
incorporated incentives; and the GEF-funded Lake Malawi/
Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation Project used an innovativeenvironmental theatre (staffed by actors from the threeriparian countries) that reached over 100,000 people.
Identiﬁcation of the target group(s) is an important ﬁrst stepin designing an effective CEPA program. A common problem
with awareness-raising activities at the community level is thatthey are not targeted at the groups who are most importantin resource utilization and management and in forming
community opinion. There is a tendency to focus on the easy
parts of awareness-raising, such as education in schools, oron general presentations through posters. Better results tend
to follow targeting of speciﬁc groups, following an analysis ofinﬂuence patterns. For example, at Lake Cocibolca, students
and the younger generation were identiﬁed as primary targets:at Lakes Nakuru, Chilika, Toba and Tanganyika, women wereidentiﬁed as a speciﬁc target group; at Lakes Tanganyika,
Nakuru, and Tonle Sap, political leaders and decision makers
were singled out as the primary target for awareness efforts;
and at Lake Constance, consumers were targeted.
There may be signiﬁcant beneﬁts to be gained from involving
the private sector (industry) in CEPA efforts. The “Shiga
Environment Conservation Association”, a private-sector
initiative at Lake Biwa comprising more than 400 relevant
local companies, actively contributes to and supports lakebasin management activities, allowing it to operate over thelong term. At Issyk-Kul, three pilot projects have been initiatedfor the development of green industry and tourism. The Lake
Champlain Basin Program has formed an outreach partnershipcalled Champlain 2000 with a network television afﬁliate and abank in the basin. Conservation of Laguna de Bay Environment
and Resources (CLEAR) is a tripartite partnership—including
the LLDA, Unilever Philippines, and the Society forConservation of Philippine Wetlands (SCPW)—to ensure thecontinuity of efforts to conserve the lake’s resources andempower and educate the communities within the watershed.
In some cases, private-sector support has come about in
response to public pressure, such as the case of PT Toba Pulp
Lestari (PT TPL), a private industry operator in the Lake Toba
region, which agreed to set aside 1 percent of its net revenue
for environmental management.

A variety of CEPA methods may be needed within one CEPA
program. At Lake Toba, a variety of small-scale, grassrootslevel CEPA programs produced tangible results; at Lakes Toba,
Peipsi/Chudskoe, Laguna de Bay, Dianchi, Tanganyika, andthe Chilika Lagoon, CEPA programs used IT technologies; atLaguna de Bay, water quality data was presented in a simple
Involving People and Stakeholders

55

Chapter 7
Responding with Technology:
Opportunities and Limitations

Key Lessons Learned about Technology•

Justifying the introduction of technological interventions strictly for the purpose of lake environment protection is
generally quite difﬁcult unless the long-term resource values of the protected environment are properly accounted forin decision making. The long-term view in policy making is critical in appropriately introducing protective technologicalinterventions.

•

Exploration of lower-cost technological options, combined with source control of pollutants, should be a priority
consideration for lake basin management. A long-term objective should be to reduce, reuse, and recycle land-basedsources of possible pollution through on-site control technologies with involvement of representatives from thepolluting facilities and local communities.

•

Nonpoint-source problems, particularly sediments, nutrients and agro-chemicals from agricultural and forestry land
uses, can be tackled through community-based reforestation and afforestation, and catchment protection activities.
These approaches need to be sustained for decades or even tens of decades to have visible impacts on the receiving
water body. Institutional sustainability is strongly linked with successful technological interventions involving collective
efforts by people and communities. In spite of the long-term beneﬁts of retaining tree cover in lake basins, for example,
there were a number of examples in the study lakes where forest clearance was practiced for short-term economic
gains because of lack of awareness as well as lack of institutional strength.

•

Wetlands act as efﬁcient traps for contaminants as well as providing other valuable services. Rehabilitating degraded
wetlands, and even constructing artiﬁcial wetlands, is seen as a cost-effective method of protecting lake environments
because removing contaminants after they have entered lakes is very expensive. Protection of existing wetlands should
be a priority.

•

There is a need for concerted scientiﬁc research into technological development and application for better lake basin
management. For example, the introduction of biological methods based on scientiﬁc studies has been successful at
a number of study lakes to control nuisance ﬂora and fauna. Scientiﬁc research is also needed also to ensure that the
introduced biological agents will not have unexpected effects.

•

A shift to a long-term view of sustainable lake basin resources use requires new conceptual approaches and innovativetechnological designs for lake basin management. For example, making appropriate provisions for environmental
ﬂows to maintain the ecological health and resource uses of lakes is a growing concern as more dams and weirs areconstructed for water storage and regulation.

Investments in technologies that support lake basin
management come in several forms. Some technologicalinterventions such as primary or secondary sewage treatment
or on-site sanitation (such as pit latrines, soakaways andseptic tanks) are constructed for public health purposes forcommunities along the shoreline or in the basin but may
have signiﬁcant supplementary environmental beneﬁts.
Other technologies such as tertiary treatment for removing
nutrients from sewage or other interventions including ﬂood
control works may be designed speciﬁcally to improve the lakewater environment. This chapter deals with the use of boththese incidental and deliberate conservation or remediation
technologies; it does not deal with the much wider range oftechnologies intended for development purposes, such as
dams or ﬁsh pens.

The term “technology” has been interpreted broadly here toinclude:•Engineered infrastructure (such as sewage treatment
plants and ﬂood control dykes) as well as restoration of“natural infrastructure” (such as wetlands);•

Techniques (such as biomanipulation of foodwebs) as
well as physical infrastructure;•

Technologies that can be applied within the lake basin,
as well as those applied within the lake itself; and,•Technologies that are reactive to symptoms of the
problem, as well as those intended to treat root causessuch as soil erosion from poorly managed agricultural orforest lands.
Changing people’s behavior through rules, incentives/
disincentives, or education to bring about improvementsin the environmental status of a lake is not easy. For someproblems and under particular circumstances, it is more
effective to use a technological response. When well-designed
and implemented, these technological responses can haveprofoundly positive effects on lakes. However, many problems
are not amenable to technological solutions, and even for
those problems that are amenable, technological responses
are often not sufﬁcient by themselves. The Lake Xingkai/
Khanka brief shows how construction of ﬂood diversion canals
and sluice gates on the Muling River dramatically altered thehydrology of the Lake Xingkai/Khanka Basin, allowing partof the ﬂood waters from a hydrologically-separate river basin
to eventually enter the lake. Although this engineering effort
was initiated to provide ﬂood protection to the citizens in adifferent river basin, the river ﬂows through a number of major
cities and towns, receiving wastewaters from these cities along
its journey. This has resulted in the canals potentially affecting
both human health and the environmental quality of the lake.
The range of conservation and remediation technologies
included here, as well as the lessons that can be extracted
from the briefs (Table 7.1), is limited for two main reasons.
First, the lakes studied in this project tend to be quite large,
so many of the engineering techniques used at smallerlakes (such as water-level drawdown, deep water discharge,
artiﬁcial circulation, or sediment oxidation) are not described.
The Bhoj Wetland (one of the smallest lakes in the sample)
is an exception that illustrates some of these techniques
suited to smaller lakes. Second, the focus of the briefs ison non-technological responses to problems, and so manytechnological responses may be omitted from the briefs.
Three of the 28 lake briefs (Lake Malawi/Nyasa, Tonle Sap and
Issyk-Kul) did not describe any technological responses to lakebasin management problems. A more complete description ofconservation and remediation technologies is available from
Holdren and others (2001) and National Research Council(1992).
At least one technological response has been applied to eachof the problems affecting the lakes in this study (Table 3.2),
with the exception of emerging problems such as climatechange and atmospheric transport of nutrients that requirelong-term regional and global approaches for which thepractical and signiﬁcant provisions have been quite limited. In
the following discussion, these technologies are divided into
two groups: those that are applied within the lake basin andthose that are applied directly in the lake.

Watershed-based Measures
Flow Control
The ecological functioning of downstream lakes can beseverely affected when the ﬂows of inﬂowing rivers are
58

modiﬁed through either regulatory structures (such as dams
and weirs) or through upstream water withdrawals. In the
study lakes, this has occurred at the Aral Sea and Lakes Chadand Baringo, Chilika Lagoon, and Tonle Sap. Lake ecology isaffected by changes in both the volume of water reaching thelakes as a result of these upstream changes, the timings of theﬂows, and in some instances the changes in water quality as aresult of changes in river ﬂows. For example, some ﬁsh species
used spring ﬂoods as cues for breeding; if these ﬂoods are
reduced by upstream structures, then breeding may not occur
or may be disrupted.
It is only recently that the signiﬁcance of maintaining
these important components and patterns of natural ﬂow
regimes for the beneﬁt of downstream ecological life has
been realized. These environmental ﬂows are now being
increasingly accepted as a necessary part of water resources
developments. For example, the World Commission on Dams
identiﬁed environmental ﬂows as being an important aspectof dam development with environmental ﬂows being part of“Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods”, one of the seven strategic
priorities identiﬁed in the report of the World Commission
on Dams (2000). Also, the World Bank has begun including
environmental ﬂow assessment as part of the environmental
assessment process when it is appraising project proposals.
At both Tonle Sap (as part of the Mekong River system) andat Chilika Lagoon, there are efforts under way to identify
the operational procedures that will ensure that the mostimportant components of natural ﬂows are maintained for the
beneﬁt the lakes (and other parts of the river systems). Boththese projects are being ﬁnancially supported by the World
Bank; GEF is supporting the Tonle Sap project.
As part of its Water Utilization Program, the Mekong River
Commission is supporting the development of river ﬂow
rules that will include environmental ﬂows to meet suchrequirements as minimum monthly natural ﬂow during themonths of the dry season, the reversal of the Tonle Sap ﬂows
in the wet season, and daily ﬂood peaks at natural levels.
While hydrological, hydraulic, and some simple water quality
models have been developed for the lower Mekong River, there
is a dearth of information on the impact of changes in ﬂow onboth the basin’s environment and on the people’s use of thebasin’s resources. Consequently, an approach involving expert
judgment has been used to develop an initial set of ﬂow rulesthat meet environmental and social goals. It is intended thatthese initial ﬂow rules will be superseded in about 5 years
when better information is available on the environmental andsocial assets to be protected and the links between ﬂows andenvironmental and social outcomes.
A new barrage is being constructed, with World Bank support,
to replace an old weir at Naraj on the Mahanadi River, which
partly ﬂows into the Chilika Lagoon. The operation of thisbarrage will affect the river ﬂows into the lagoon, potentiallywith impacts on the entire ecosystem. The Orissa State
Department of Water Resources has made a commitment toChapter 7the wastewater of Chicago in the north central United States
was diverted from discharging into Lake Michigan, which
adjoins the city, to combat typhoid and cholera outbreaks, andchanneled to the Illinois River/Mississippi River system. While
this solution reduced the pathogen problem in Lake Michigan,
it caused a deterioration in the water quality of the Illinois andMississippi rivers.

develop an environmentally sensitive operating rule for the
Naraj Barrage, and an Environmental Flow Assessment has
been undertaken as part of the process of determining thebarrage operating rules.
The effects of four river ﬂow scenarios on the spatial andtemporal patterns of salinity, turbidity, water level, andsediment deposition within the Chilika Lagoon were modeledusing a 2-D hydrodynamic model. These effects were, inturn, translated into direct and indirect social and economic
impacts on the lagoon ﬁsheries, tourism revenue frombiodiversity, and economic impacts from waterlogging on
the ﬂoodplain. An interim set of environmentally sensitive
operating rules were developed during 2004 as a result of
these investigations. However, they will need to be revised asmonitoring continues in the lagoon and the understanding of
the hydrological-ecological links and the social and economic
impacts improves.

Of the lakes in this study, diversions of sewage have been
carried out only at the Bhoj Wetland to control nutrient inﬂow
and to minimize microbial contamination of this drinking water
source. Sewage may be diverted from the Lake Dianchi basin,
but this will not occur until after another diversion project—tobring water from outside the Dianchi basin for use in Kunming
City—is completed. The reason is that irrigation return ﬂows
and reuse of domestic sewage are important inputs to thewater balance at the lake and, if sewage is exported, thenthese inputs will need to be replaced with other freshwatersupplies.

Flow Diversions
Although there is little discussion in the briefs about sewage
diversion, the key lesson from the Lake Michigan and otherexamples (such as diversions from Lake Washington andLake Tahoe in the United States) is that it is critical to assess

Table 7.1. Summary of Technological Responses at the Study Lakes.
Basin

Aral Sea
BaikalBaringoBhoj Wetland
Biwa
Chad
Champlain
Chilika Lagoon
Cocibolca/Nicaragua
Constance
DianchiGreat Lakes (N. America)
Kariba Reservoir
Laguna de Bay
Naivasha
NakuruOhrid
Peipsi/Chudskoe
Sevan
Tanganyika
Titicaca
Toba
Tucurui Reservoir
Victoria
Xingkai/Khanka
Note:





































































Harvesting
macrophytes

Dredging

Diversions

BiocidesPhysical











Predation

Catchment
protection

Forestation

Wetlands
rehabilitation

Non-Point Source
Industrial
wastewater
treatment

Advanced
wastewater
treatment

Conventional
wastewater
treatment

Lake Basin

Wastewater
diversion

Point Source

In-lake
Biolo- Chemgical ical
Aeration

Out-of-Basin Diversions
The detrimental effects of wastewater on a lake can be avoided
by diverting it outside of the basin. This technique has beenused occasionally in a range of countries. Over 100 years ago,














































The table lists the technologies described in the lake briefs or that were known to the editorial team. However, it is likely that many
more technological responses have been applied at the study lakes and in their basins.

Technologies

59whether, on balance, the beneﬁts to the lake from diverting
the wastewater outweigh the costs of the diversion plus any
costs imposed on the receiving waterbody. These costs canarise from water quality problems, changes in ﬂows, andintroduction of exotic organisms in the receiving waters,
together with social issues such as the perception of being therecipients of other people’s wastes.
Diversion into a Basin
In cases where water in a lake basin is in short supply or whena lake has been heavily polluted, additional water can beimported from outside the basin to alleviate a water shortage
or dilute the polluted water. While bringing in more water
does not address the root causes of any problems (inefﬁcientwater use, overuse, or pollution), it is used in cases where
neighboring basins have surplus water and other solutions are
expensive. There are a number of examples in the lake briefs:•

At Lake Ohrid, the Sateska River has been diverted to
ﬂow into the lake to increase the hydropower potentialof the lake;•

A 49-km long tunnel was completed in 1981 to divert
water from the Arpa River to stabilize the level of Lake
Sevan, and a second tunnel was completed in 2004 andboth are being used to raise the lake level;•

To alleviate a chronic water shortage in the Lake
Dianchi basin caused by rapid population growth in awater-scarce area, a water transfer scheme from the
Zhangjiuhe River is under construction to bring in about
245 million m3 of water to augment Kunming City’swater supply. One of the purposes of the diversionof freshwater into the Lake Dianchi basin, apart fromovercoming a shortage of water for urban water supply,is to increase the ﬂushing rate of the lake in order toreduce the lake’s eutrophication;•

During the latter part of the Soviet period, there were
proposals to divert massive amounts of water (between
30-60 km3/year) from Siberian rivers to the Aral Sea
region to be used for irrigation. This proposal did notproceed because of economic and scientiﬁc difﬁculties;
and,•There are proposals to transfer water to Lakes Chad andIssyk-Kul from outside their basins. However, the large
costs associated with such projects and the complex
potential environmental and social impacts make such
schemes slow to be realized.

While these transfers may have a beneﬁcial effect on the basinthat receives water, they may also have adverse environmental
and social impacts in the basin that provides the water. Detailed
environmental and social studies need to be undertaken ineach case to make sure that the costs and beneﬁts and equity
implications for all users of the water resources are weighed

60

up carefully in each case before decisions are made on watertransfers.
Control of Point-Source Pollution
On-site Efﬂuent Disposal
Simple pit toilets sometimes connected to septic tanks forprimary treatment are by far the most common method of
disposing of human wastes in rural (and many urban) areasin the developing countries in this study. Unfortunately, only
one lake basin brief provides data on the use of these on-sitemethods. The Lake Cocibolca brief shows that, in the Costa
Rican part of the basin, 31 percent of people use pit latrines
with no treatment method, while 68 percent of the population
use latrines connected to septic tanks. A negligible number
were connected to a sewerage system. This is also the case inother lakes such as Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi/Nyasa.
There is no information on the extent to which these efﬂuents
reach watercourses. Based on experiences in other countries,
septic tanks and pit latrines commonly overﬂow during wet
seasons, creating a local health hazard and washing efﬂuent
into streams, often into shallow groundwater aquifers andeventually into lakes.
Many development agencies are pursuing programs to improveaccess to both safe water and improved sanitation facilities(some form of treatment such as a septic tank) in urban andrural areas in developing countries. However, the World Bank
(2000) states that only 35 percent of the rural population indeveloping countries had access to improved sanitation, andno more than 20 percent of developing countries (and lessthan 10 percent of the lowest-income countries) are increasing
access at the rate needed to meet the Millennium Development
Goal (MDG) for water supply and sanitation. While these
programs are primarily pursued for health and development
reasons, the low coverage of wastewater collection andtreatment implies that individual household efﬂuent disposal
poses a considerable threat to water quality in developing
countries, particularly those with periods of high rainfall.
There has been growing interest shown in the technologicaldevelopment of ecological sanitation systems that not only
encourage resource conservation (such as dry toilets to savewater and produce compost materials) but also in systems that
employ resource recovery and reuse (such as urine and feces
separation for collection and extraction of phosphorus as auseable resource). These technologies are drawing signiﬁcantinterest in both developing countries and developed countries.
It is anticipated that over the next few years, the conventional
low-cost sanitation projects promoted in many developing
countries will increasingly make use of these technologies
where appropriate.
Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Directly treating wastewater before it gets to a lake is anotherengineering response to lake problems that was widelypracticed in the lakes studied in this project. Fourteen out of
the 24 lake basin briefs that reported technological responses
Chapter 7

had primary and secondary wastewater treatment, at least in
the densely populated urban areas of their basins. Even so,
only a small fraction of the lake basin population usually has
access to reticulated sewage and wastewater treatment.
Primary treatment removes larger material from sewage, whilesecondary treatment (which usually utilizes microorganisms
to decompose organic material) removes many pathogens
and much organic material, thereby alleviating problems
related to pathogenic contamination and low dissolved oxygen
levels due to high organic loading. However, conventional
wastewater treatment is costly to both develop and maintain.
In most study lakes in developing countries, the funds were
provided through external donor support (the Bhoj Wetland in
India and Lake Dianchi in China are exceptions).
However, the continued functioning of these plants requiresa reliable stream of ﬁnance for operations and maintenancecosts. In a number of lake basin briefs, the projects were notcompleted or failed after completion because the national
and/or municipal governments were unable to meet theircommitments. For example, the Njoro sewage treatment plantat Lake Nakuru was never fully operational because of a lackof government ﬁnance to provide the necessary wastewatercollection infrastructure to transport sewage to the plant fortreatment. The Lake Naivasha sewage treatment plant ceased
to function in the early 1990s when vital equipment was stolen.
Untreated sewage has been discharged to the lake sincethen, threatening the lake’s ecosystem and the people andindustries dependent on lake water.
Together with the subject of runoff control from the upper
watershed region, sewage treatment requires an all-out
international effort to come up with more appropriate andpractical technological and institutional solutions thanare currently available. The importance of increasing theinternational effort to share information and experiences
cannot be overstated.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Tertiary Treatment)
Advanced wastewater treatment involves enhanced nutrient(nitrogen and/or phosphorus) removal at conventional
wastewater treatment plants to cut down on the load ofnutrients reaching lakes. It can achieve up to 95 percent
removal of nutrients. Advanced treatment is expensive toconstruct and operate and requires that a conventional
wastewater treatment facility is already operating reliably.
Consequently, it is usually carried out only in high-income
countries (Box 7.1). In the 28 briefs, only Lakes Biwa,
Champlain, Constance, Dianchi, and the North American
Great Lakes have extensive advanced treatment facilities inplace. In those cases, advanced treatment has profoundly
reduced the load of phosphorus to the lakes, a root cause of
eutrophication.

Box 7.1 Conventional and Advanced Wastewater Treatment in the 28 Study Lake Basins
The extent of sewage treatment in the 28 lake basins is related to per capita gross national income (GNI) and population
density. The results are summarized in the table below. The extent and degree of wastewater treatment is indicated by thebold words in each cell (e.g., Low to High). The classes of treatment are indicated as low = primary, medium = secondary, andhigh = tertiary. For lake basins with low population density and low GNI per capita (cell I-1), almost no sewage treatment iscarried out. As both income and density increase (I-2, II-1, II-2), conventional treatment systems expand, usually with bilateralfunding. For high GNI per capita countries (III-1, III-2), even in sparsely populated areas (III-1), conventional and advanced
treatment are carried out, usually with central or local government funding.
Population Density1) ‹ 100 persons/km22) ›= 100 persons/km2

Low-Income Economies‹ $765I-1) No provision
Lakes: Malawi/Nyasa, George, Tonle
Sap, Issyk-Kul, Chad, Kariba Reservoir,
Tanganyika, Baringo, Chilika Lagoon
Funding: Not currently planned.

I-2) Low to medium provision
Lakes: Victoria, Naivasha, Nakuru, Bhoj
Wetland, Toba
Funding: Mostly by international
assistance.

II) Middle-Income Economies$765–$9,385II-1) Low to medium provision
Lakes: Aral Sea, Baikal, Titicaca, Ohrid,
Xingkai/Khanka, Tucurui Reservoir,
Peipsi/Chudskoe, Cocibolca
Funding: Partly funded by international
assistance.

II-2) Low to high provision
Lakes: Dianchi, Laguna de Bay
Funding: Mostly by international and/or
central government assistance.

III) High-Income Economies› $9,385

III-1) High provision
Lakes: Champlain, Great Lakes
Funding: By central and local
governments.

III-2) High provision
Lakes: Constance, Biwa
Funding: By central and local
governments.

GNI per capita
I)

Note:

Sewage treatment is provided at Laguna de Bay through a private sector initiative for new residential areas and industrial
establishments.

Source: S. Ide, Possibilities and Limitations of Environmental Infrastructure Provisions for Lake Basin Management, Thematic
Paper, Lake Basin Management Initiative.
Technologies

61None of the technologies described in the briefs addresseda more recent concern regarding the ecological effects ofpharmaceutical wastes discharged into surface waters fromdomestic sources.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Industrial wastewater treatment can collectively remove not
only organic matter and nutrients but also toxic contaminants.
The coverage of industrial wastewater treatment is similar
to advanced wastewater treatment (discussed in Box 7.1);
extensive treatment with strict efﬂuent standards is in place
at Lakes Biwa, Champlain, Constance, Dianchi, and the North
American Great Lakes. Treatment of industrial wastewaters
can also be coupled with water conservation. Thus, at Lake
Baikal, the only signiﬁcant source of industrial wastewater
to the lake—a pulp mill—has installed a closed wastewater
treatment system to limit the release of organochloride
compounds to the lake.
However, industrial wastewater treatment need not involve
expensive centralized treatment plants. While not a lake basin,
the control of tannery efﬂuent streams in the Palar River Basinin Tamil Nadu State, India provides an example. This river basinis the center of India’s leather tanning industry, providing
35 percent of the country’s leather export earnings andemployment to 50,000 workers. The tanneries discharge a wide
range of pollutants, including large quantities of salt, BOD,
acids, and heavy metals. Both surface and groundwater havebecome heavily polluted. Currently, 330 of the 594 tanneries
in the river basin are connected to simple Common Efﬂuent
Treatment Plants (CETPs) that remove BOD and particulates.
However, these simple treatment plants are not able to remove
dissolved salts, which need to be reduced through changes intreatment in the tanneries.
The main lesson regarding industrial wastewater treatment
comes from the study lakes where it was not carried out andtoxic industrial contaminants have been released into a lake.
The characteristics of lakes make cleanup very difﬁcult andexpensive: the integrating nature of lakes means that the
problem cannot usually be contained within a small area; longretention time means that toxic chemicals in a lake stay in thesystem for a long time; and complex response dynamics meansthat the chemicals often biomagnify, creating both ecologicaldamage and risk to humans.
A number of lakes in this study reported toxic industrial
contamination. The North American Great Lakes are perhaps
the best illustration of how long term and pervasive toxic
contamination can become. By the early 1980s, decades worthof heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals had collected in
the sediments of the rivers and harbors in the Great Lakes
Basin to the point where the U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes program
identiﬁed polluted sediments as the largest major source ofcontaminants to the Great Lakes food chain. Over 2,000 miles(20 percent) of the Great Lakes shoreline were considered
impaired. On the U.S. side of the border, over 1,000,000 m3 ofcontaminated sediments have been remediated over the past 3
62years. In 2002, the U.S. Congress authorized $270 million overﬁve years from ﬁscal years 2004 to 2008 for cleanup activities.
This level of funding is generally not available for cleaning
up industrial contaminants once it has reached lakes in thedeveloping world. One exception is Lake Dianchi, wheremore than 4 million m3 of contaminated sediment have been
dredged up, removing 8,200 tons of total nitrogen, 1,900 tonsof total phosphorus, and 4,400 tons of heavy metals.
Control of Nonpoint-Source Pollution
Even in cases where point-source controls have beensuccessfully managed, nonpoint sources of pollutants often
remain uncontrolled and contribute to persistent problems.
The Lake Biwa, Champlain, Constance, and North American
Great Lakes briefs all cite nonpoint sources as the main
challenges facing those lakes now that point sources havebeen controlled. The difﬁculty in controlling nonpoint sources,
which include agriculture and urban runoff, is that sources
cannot be readily identiﬁed or monitored, involve numerous
stakeholders, and are episodic (usually arising after rainfall
events) rather than continuous. Regional and national
programs and projects for the control of nonpoint source
pollution from agriculture, especially livestock, are being
supported by the GEF and World Bank in the Baltic Sea Basin,
Danube River Basin, and Black Sea Basin. These programs andprojects involve the direct participation of rural communities
and farm families and provide models that can be used for
addressing this issue in lake basin management programs.
Nonpoint sources usually become more of a problem withincreased development and changes in land use within thebasin. Not only do the changes in land use in lake basins
lead to increased generation of sediment, nutrients and agrochemicals, but often the associated destruction of wetlands
and riparian areas reduces the basin’s ability to ﬁlter thesepollutants before they reach lakes. For example, the partial
destruction of the extensive wetlands in the Lake Xinghai/
Khanka basin due to their reclamation for agriculture hascompounded the effects of the land use change occurring in
the basin. Over the years, one third of these unique wetlands
has been destroyed.
Wetland Restoration and Construction
Eleven of the 28 lake briefs describe the loss of littoral wetlands(Table 3.2). Their destruction usually results from developmentof lakeshore areas (such as urban sprawl at Lake Champlain,construction of roads at Lake Biwa) or reclamation of wetlands
for farming or grazing. Rehabilitating these wetlands can
reduce nonpoint-source loads delivered to lakes, as well as
help conserve and restore biodiversity. Some examples fromthe briefs include:•

The Lake Chad brief describes the rehabilitation of the
Logone Wetland in Cameroon in 1993. Stakeholders andlocal community members were involved in the planningand design of the project;

Chapter 7

•

•

•

The Lake Champlain brief details how the Lake Champlain
Basin Program sponsored a wetland acquisition strategy
that laid the groundwork for a four-phase, multiyear
program to permanently protect almost 9,000 acres of
wetlands in the Champlain Valley. By 2001, the project
had conserved 4,000 acres of wetlands and surrounding
areas in the basin;
The Lake Naivasha brief shows how several of the larger
horticultural enterprises in the basin have reduced
their impact on the environment by using constructedwetlands to treat their wastewater. In addition, theprotection of much of the lake’s fringing wetlands over
the years has helped reduce the impact of pollutantsfrom surrounding urban and agricultural areas; and,The Aral Sea brief illustrates international efforts by the
GEF and World Bank to restore wetlands on the lower

Amu Darya delta, including Lake Sudochie, a Ramsar
site.
The briefs show that destroyed wetlands will ultimately either
need to be replaced or a technological solution (such aswastewater treatment) will need to be introduced if pollution
loads to lakes are to be reduced. In many cases, it is more costeffective to avoid destruction in the ﬁrst place. However, thebriefs still detail many lake basins where wetland destruction
continues (Lakes Victoria, Xinghai/Khanka, Ohrid).
Reforestation and Afforestation
Loss of forest cover in a lake basin usually increases landerosion and sediment transport, resulting in reduced lakewater quality. Many of the lake briefs describe efforts todevelop forests in lake basins, either through reforestation(replacing destroyed forests) or afforestation (planting forest
where it did not exist before). The former are discussed in the

Box 7.2 Wetland Conservation: The Ramsar Convention and Lakes
One of the most important international initiatives to protect and restore wetlands is the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar,
Iran, 1971), commonly known as the Ramsar Convention. The majority of lakes in this survey have Ramsar sites in their basins,
which include, in some cases, both littoral areas and the lakes themselves.
The Ramsar Convention deﬁnes “wetlands” in its Article 1.1 as “...areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or
artiﬁcial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or ﬂowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water
the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.” Article 2.1 provides that wetlands “may incorporate riparian andcoastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within
the wetlands.”
For lake systems, a detailed Ramsar Classiﬁcation System for Wetland Types includes the following categories.
O—Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes.
P—Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes ﬂoodplain lakes.
Q—Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes.
R—Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and ﬂats.
For the convention, lakes can be fresh, brackish, saline, or alkaline. Importantly, the fact that the convention urges contracting
parties to manage effectively and sustainably all wetlands, including lakes, within the contracting parties’ national boundaries,
means the convention process and advice covers all lakes and the dependant biodiversity, even if some of this is migratory.
Of the Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance), the areal extent (in hectares) of the four categories is shown in thetable below for each of the Ramsar regions.
O

P

Q

R

All types

Africa14,535,913

16,253,389

1,593,452

2,294,209

24,313,987

Asia

2,904,800

1,589,078

4,100,218

2,442,435

6,118,175

Europe15,372,268

5,807,754

3,818,388

2,172,043

16,861,747

North America

14,289,625

1,360,416

913,297

1,201,914

14,920,266

Oceania

704,720

3,609,323

477,211

1,789,330

4,982,808

Neotropics

18,751,932

11,116,523

4,391,158

8,242,720

25,440,355

66,559,258

39,736,483

15,293,724

18,142,651

92,637,338

World Total

The Ramsar Small Grant fund has supported management interventions at lakes in many regions of the world, including thefollowing countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, China (3), Comoros, Ecuador (2), Former
Republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Mongolia, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation (3), Togo (2), and Uganda. The
convention will continue to promote wise management of lake systems as part of its global approach to wetlands and water.
Source: Ramsar Secretariat.

Technologies

63Lakes Baikal, Chad, Laguna de Bay, Nakuru, Ohrid, Tanganyika,
and Toba briefs; the latter are described in the Lakes Baringo
and Dianchi, Bhoj Wetland, and Chilika Lagoon briefs.
In some of these cases, native tree species have been
replaced by exotic species. While these replacement species
usually have more rapid growth rates (leading to quicker
soil stabilization) and greater marketability, they may not
restore the biodiversity of the original forests. In addition, thehydrologic balance of the lake basin can be altered throughreforestation and afforestation schemes. For example, in theLake Toba basin native species have been replaced with quickgrowing eucalypt species. Local people believe that these
exotic species use more water than the pines they replaced,
although forestry experts dispute this belief.
In addition to the intensive afforestation in the lake’s basin,
plantations have been used at the Bhoj Wetland to createa buffer zone around the western, southern, and northernfringes of the Upper Lake to prevent encroachment by humansettlements, cultivation, and grazing within the lake area. The
species selected either produce biomass or have medicinal
properties, as well as being tolerant of both ﬂooding anddrought conditions. Such management of littoral zone forest
stands, including active reforestation and afforestation,
should also be extended beyond lakeshores to the riverbanks
in the lake basin.
In addition to the efforts to restore or create forested land
cover, several briefs indicate that forestry practices in termsof site selection, forest road design, harvesting rotations,and preservation of riparian forest stands can be improved toreduce sediment sources (Lake Nakuru, Lake Malawi/Nyasa,
Issyk-Kul, and Lake Victoria). As the extent of erosion problems
depends on local climate, geology, topography, and theintensity of human activities (highlighted in the briefs of Lake
Nakuru, Kariba Reservoir, and Issyk-Kul), land use planningcan be effective in minimizing the environmentally adverse
effects of forestry activities. GIS-based databases are one toolthat can identify areas that are unsuitable for forestry becauseof their natural characteristics.
Catchment Protection
Soil loss from poor land management in agricultural andpastoral areas was widely reported in the lake briefs. The
causes included overgrazing, fallow cultivation, gully erosion,and unstabilized streambanks. Lake Tanganyika is a case wherelarge-scale deforestation and farming practices in the smaller
northern watersheds of the lake have caused a dramaticincrease in the soil erosion rates and represent a threat tothe integrity of one of the world’s most biodiverse lakes.
Sediment transport rates have been measured to be about
10 times greater in cleared and settled areas in the Tanzanianpart of the lake basin than in comparable uncleared areas. The
freshly eroded sediments entering the lake adversely affect its
biodiversity by blanketing important breeding areas.

64

Economically, this problem represents a loss to theagriculturalist as well as a cost to the downstream water users,
and therefore soil conservation activities are often welcomedby agricultural communities once their effectiveness isdemonstrated. The sedimentation of Lake Baringo is partially
due to soil loss from poor pasture and farming managementin the lake’s watershed. Soil conservation trials were fundedas part of the GEF-funded Lake Baringo Conservation Project,including over 30 km of terraces to control sediment movement.
One of the outcomes has been a successful harvest for farmers
after previous years of crop failure. This success will act as anincentive for wider adoption of these conservation measures.
Control of Mining Wastes
Mining wastes are described as affecting a number of lakes inthis study. For example:•

Mercury, believed to come from gold mining activities in
Tanzania, has been detected in the sediments offshore
from the Tanzanian part of Lake Victoria. This heavy
metal is believed to originate from the large numberof artisanal miners operating in this part of the basin.
These miners have neither the training nor ﬁnances tooperate mercury separation technologies safely;•

There are a number of old mines that used to produce
chromium, nickel, iron, and coal near the Albanian partof Lake Ohrid. Many large piles of waste material remain
and are a source of pollutants to the lake each time itrains. Concentrations of heavy metals in samples takenfrom the near shore lake water are very high;•At Issyk-Kul, there are widespread mining operations,which have resulted in occasional illegal dumping ofchemicals;•Gold and other minerals are mined extensively in the
Russian part of the Lake Baikal basin. There are almost
no environmental controls, and the mines generatesigniﬁcant levels of iron, sulphur, chloride, mercury, andnitrogen in the rivers. Countless copper and gold mines
also exist in the Mongolian part of the basin, which
has little or no control efforts in place. For example,
the regional government in Zaamar, Mongolia has anenvironmental inspection budget of roughly $1,200/
year for a gold ﬁeld that in 2001 produced almost $40
million in revenues; and,•Phosphorus mining at the southern end of Lake Dianchi
has caused serious erosion. Phosphorus-rich soils havebeen ﬂushed into the lake, adding to the lake’s highnutrient loads.

A number of simple technologies exist for controlling the lossof mercury from small-scale artisanal gold mines—such as
modiﬁcations to sluice boxes to reduce their mercury losses
to creeks, and the use of retorts to reduce the atmosphericloss of mercury—but the briefs report few, if any, attempts to
Chapter 7

introduce technologies. Even many of the commercial mines in
the above examples appear to use few technologies to control
the discharge of contaminants.

In-Lake Measures
Control of Water Levels
A number of lake briefs reported actual or potential reduction
in lake size as a serious problem (the Aral Sea, Lakes Baringo,
Bhoj, Biwa, Chad, Naivasha, Sevan, Toba), to the point where
it has been identiﬁed as an emerging issue in Chapter 3. Dams
or weirs have been installed at Lakes Sevan, Biwa, and Toba tocontrol the lake levels. These structures have primarily beendeveloped for production purposes—water supply at Lake
Biwa, hydropower at Lake Toba, and both hydropower andwater supply at Lake Sevan. While the dams at Lakes Toba and
Sevan have had detrimental environmental consequences,
the weir at Lake Biwa has helped the lake’s fringing reed
beds to survive, provided habitat for ﬁsh and water birds, andcontributed to the recreational values of the lake.
A small dam is being constructed between the Northern Aral
Sea in the north and the Large Aral Sea to help maintainwater levels in the former. At present, water ﬂows from theNorthern Aral Sea to the Large Aral Sea, where it tends to be
rapidly lost due to high evaporation. With this intervention,
the Large Aral Sea will receive even less water, the Northern
Aral Sea will likely stabilize, and a portion of the original
biodiversity will be maintained. In this case, a technologicalresponse (construction of a small dam) is being used tomitigate problems from a previous technological intervention(upstream irrigation).
Control of Nuisance Species
Nuisance species include both plants and animals. Some havebeen introduced and multiplied uncontrollably in the absenceof natural predators; others are native and have multiplied tonuisance levels because of changes in the lake environment.
Water weeds, particularly water hyacinth, were widelyreported in the lake briefs as being a nuisance. Excessive
growth of aquatic weeds impedes boat trafﬁc, promotes
water loss through increased evapotranspiration, interfereswith ﬁshing, blocks irrigation channels, and interferes withhydropower generation and water treatment plants, as well
as reducing the recreation uses of lakes. Infested areas canalso foster vector-borne diseases. Algal blooms, particularly
cyanobacterial blooms, were also widely reported. There
are a number of biological, chemical, and physical options
for controlling both water weeds and algae; however, thesemethods do not attack the underlying causes, which usually
involve high nutrient levels and sometimes disturbances to theecological structure of the lakes.
Biological methods
Known predators of the invasive water weeds can be
introduced to control their rampant growth. In a well-known
example, two species of weevils (Neochetina eichhornia and
Neochetina bruchi) were used successfully at Lake Victoria to
Technologies

combat serious infestation of water hyacinth. The success wasprobably assisted by a period of high rainfall that disrupted
the weed’s habitat. Extensive research was conducted prior
to the release of the weevils to show the weevils would bespeciﬁc to the water hyacinth and would not result in anotheruncontrollable distortion of the ecosystem (as occurred after
the introduction of the Nile perch in the 1950s). This biologicalmethod has been sustainable because it was accompanied by
a community involvement program whereby traditional ﬁshingcommunities, who were adversely affected by the explosive
weed growth, were taught to raise and release the weevils.
Lake Naivasha, the Kariba Reservoir and the Bhoj Wetland
provide examples of successful biological control of invasive
weeds using different predators. At the Kariba Reservoir,
grasshoppers (Paulinia acuminata) were used to control Kariba
weed (Salvinia molesta); at Lake Naivasha, a host-speciﬁc
insect (Cyrtobagus salviniae) was introduced; while at the
Bhoj Wetland, a herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idella) and Indian major carp were used to control submerged
weeds such as Hydrilla, Najas, and Vallisnaria. Sterile triploid
species were used to avoid problems from excess numbers of
the grass carp.
Although the insect had effectively reduced the Kariba weed
cover at Lake Naivasha to insigniﬁcant levels by the early
1990s, water hyacinth then spread rapidly. This was probably
due to the lake’s increasing nutrient levels and the lack ofcompetition from Kariba weed. Water hyacinth is now being
controlled by the Neochetina weevils. The key lesson learned isthat even successful biological control may not be sustainable
if root causes (such as high nutrient levels) are not tackled.
Biomanipulation is another biological approach to the control
of nuisance species. It involves the deliberate introduction of
species that will affect the lake’s food chain in a beneﬁcial way.
The technique has been most widely used to control outbreaksof nuisance algae. In the classic approach, top-level predatory
ﬁsh are introduced to a lake in order to reduce the populationsof insectivorous ﬁsh. This, in turn, reduces the pressure
on invertebrates, which feed on the algae. Invertebrate
populations increase and algal numbers decrease. While
the technique has been successful in trials, it is usually notsustainable in the long term because there are too many
alternative food pathways and too many other inﬂuenceson the spread of the algae. In addition, it requires a detailed
knowledge of the aquatic ecology of the lake and the long-termpresence of ecological monitoring. For these reasons, its use
has been largely conﬁned to lakes in the developed world, andeven there it is not in widespread use.
Chemical methods
Chemicals can be applied to a lake to control an algal bloom
or to kill an invasive species. However, on all but the smallest
lakes, the cost is usually prohibitive if the infestation isextensive. For example, herbicides were trialed at the Kariba
Reservoir to control both water hyacinth and Kariba weed
and at Lake Victoria to control water hyacinth, but—given
65the scale of these infestations—it was shown that chemicalmeasures would be uneconomical. In addition, there isusually a strong public reaction against these methods, evenwhen biodegradable chemicals are used. For this reason, thisapproach is not very common.
Physical methods
Direct harvesting can be a relatively quick and direct way toremove nuisance weeds, but is not suited to controlling algae.
Weed harvesting has been carried out at the Bhoj Wetland,
Chilika Lagoon, and Lakes Biwa, Toba, and Victoria. The
harvesting programs at Lakes Toba and Victoria relied heavily
on community involvement. At Lake Victoria, the harvested
weeds were turned to commercial gain—they were used for
manufacturing handicrafts. However, like many technologicalinterventions, harvesting does not address the root causes
leading to excessive weed growth and is not sustainable in thelong term.
The large commercial Nile perch ﬁshery on Lake Victoria is an
example of harvesting of introduced ﬁsh. While the Nile perch
was initially seen as a nuisance species when it ﬁrst dominatedthe lake, the value of the commercial ﬁshery is now such that itis regarded as an important industry for the riparian countries.
Whether a nuisance or a beneﬁt, the harvesting of the ﬁsh has
been so intensive in recent years as to raise concerns about
overﬁshing.
Control of Water Quality
The integrative characteristic of lakes means that water quality
problems are best controlled at source before they reach thelake. However, some technologies were reported in the lakebriefs for controlling in-lake water quality issues.
Dredging
The removal of sediment from rivers and lakes by dredging
is a common method for removing excess silt, nutrients, andtoxic compounds. For example, changes in basin land use led
to large increases in sediment loading to Chilika Lagoon. The
high silt loads blocked the outlet of the lagoon and prevented
normal exchange of sea water. The salinity levels dropped,leading to a sharp decline in the native ﬁsheries as well as anincrease in invasive macrophyte growth. When a new channel
to the ocean was dredged, the salinity returned to normal
conditions, leading to a dramatic recovery of the ﬁshingand prawn industries and a decrease in the area covered byinvasive weeds.

productive agricultural land because of their high nutrient
concentrations.
Dredging has also been used to remove toxic chemicals
from lake sediments. For example, over 140,000 tons of
PCB-contaminated sludge were removed from the sedimentof Cumberland Bay in Lake Champlain at a cost of $35
million. Similar programs have been used to remove toxic
contaminants from the North American Great Lakes and heavy
metals from Lake Dianchi.
However, there are also potentially severe ecological effects
arising from dredging. The sediments of a lake are part of acomplex ecosystem harboring benthic organisms that act asfood for higher trophic levels and provide services such as
removal of nitrogen. Removing sediment invariably destroys
these functions and can potentially stir up toxic sediments,
thereby putting them back into the water column. In addition,
dredging is expensive to carry out and is not a long-term
solution unless the sources of contamination are tackled.
Aeration
The decay of organic matter in a lake, either because of highorganic loading from the watershed or from the decay of algal
blooms, can depress dissolved oxygen levels (DO). Low DO, inturn, can lead to ﬁsh kills and the loss of benthic water habitat
to commercially and ecologically important species.
One short-term way of dealing with the problem is to inject
dissolved oxygen or compressed air directly into the low DO
region, usually the bottom of the lake. To date, this approach
has only been viable in the smallest lakes because of its cost.
For example, among the lakes in this study aeration has only
been used at the Bhoj Wetland, where a total of 15 aeration
units have been installed to oxygenate the bottom water.
This has not only led to improvement in water quality, but has
increased the attractiveness of the lake for tourists. However,remediation technologies such as aeration do not attack theroot cause of low DO levels. For sustainability they need tobe accompanied by source control measures—in the case of
Bhoj Wetland, reduction in the inﬂux of nutrients and organic
material from the surrounding urban region.

Dredging is sometimes used to remove nutrients from thebottom of shallow, eutrophic lakes. Dredging has been used
to remove phosphorus-laden sediment from Lakes Biwa,
Dianchi and the Bhoj Wetland. For the Bhoj Wetland, thedeposition of the contaminated silt affected the water quality
and obstructed the lake’s outlet. Silt was removed from theupper and lower lakes by both hydraulic and dry excavation,
increasing the capacity of the lake by 4 percent. The excavatedmaterials were used to convert previously barren areas into

66

Chapter 7

Chapter 8
Informing the Process:
The Role of Science

Key Lessons Learned about Information•

Both natural science information and social science information are needed for lake basin management. The latterincludes socioeconomic and cultural information pertaining to and held by local communities and Indigenous Peoples.
Sometimes the information on locally generated management approaches can be very useful when there are no longterm monitoring studies available to provide scientiﬁc data.

•

Scientiﬁc information has been successfully used in the study lakes to show the limits of lake basin resources, enlighten
hard-to-see connections, and provide innovative solutions to problems. However, the beneﬁts from use of information
have not been fully realized. The briefs described a number of problems where scientiﬁc information could have beenused by decision makers, managers, and other stakeholders, but was not. Scientiﬁc information needs to be translated
into the language of decision makers and stakeholders if it is to be fully applied in management.

•

While there is need for more directed research with application in mind, having managers deﬁne the research needs,
possibly through a formal needs analysis, was recognized as an effective way to have research results taken up andapplied in management. There is a need for a collective, widely shared knowledge base of experiences in applying
scientiﬁc information.

•

The GEF-IW requirement to produce a diagnosis of transboundary lake basin problems (Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis) that is mutually agreed by riparian countries appears to be successful in promoting joint lake basin
management programs.

•

Two of the characteristics of lakes (long retention times and complex response dynamics) make long-term scientiﬁc
commitment particularly valuable. Resident research institutions in developing countries can be assisted byinternational collaborators through training and technology transfer programs.

•

Monitoring has been used to both develop a baseline for the lake basin and to assess the effectiveness of management
interventions. Some difﬁcult problems have been resolved through use of monitoring data.

•

Scientiﬁc models had been used to help managers at a number of study lakes. However, the appropriate model has notalways been used. The complexity of the model needs to be matched to the capacities of the users, the available data,
and the demands of the task.

Information Needs for Lake Basin Management
Information that is reliable, widely understood, and accepted iscentral to decision making in lake basin management. Without
it, institutions can be inefﬁcient, rules can be ineffective,
and technology can be misapplied leading to problems suchas the desiccation of the Aral Sea or the drawdown of Lake
Sevan. Knowledge can play a particularly important part in
improving the management of transboundary lake basins; thischapter includes discussion on the promotion by the GEF ofTransboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) as a tool to promote
discussion and agreement on joint management programs
between lake basin countries.
Information includes both scientiﬁc information—such as
the values of measured parameters like dissolved oxygen,nutrient concentrations, and biomass counts—as well associoeconomic information, such as people’s values andassociated goals for their resources and social and cultural
relationships that would improve resource use and control(Box 8.1).
Another valuable source of information resides in thecommunities, including indigenous communities, living along
a lakeshore or in a lake basin. Often this local knowledge canaugment scientiﬁc information. In the absence of long-termmonitoring programs, it may be the only source of information
about a given lake. Thus, the Ugandan government has beenable to use local knowledge to identify and protect importantﬁsh breeding areas on the eastern shore of Lake Albert on
the border between Uganda and the Democratic Republicof Congo. Nevertheless, where it is available, scientiﬁcallyacquired knowledge is preferable because it is subject toquality control procedures.

The integrating nature of lakes, long retention time, andcomplex response dynamics mean that good information isparticularly valuable in the decision-making process because
the cost of a mistake (or missed opportunity) can be veryhigh. In the case of the Aral Sea, the very high costs from thedecision by the former Soviet Union to divert large quantities ofwater from the two principal inﬂowing rivers might have been
avoided if environmental, social, and economic studies had
been carried out to predict the consequences of the decision. A
similar outcome may have occurred in the case of Lake Sevan
had Soviet planners examined more comprehensively the longterm environmental impacts of the decision to reduce the lakelevel for power generation and irrigated agriculture.

Use of Scientiﬁc Information
The case studies show that science is used in three main
ways in decision making: to show the limits of the resource;
to enlighten hard-to-see connections; and to provide novel/
innovative solutions.
Showing Limits to a Resource
Fishing is one of the main resource uses in many of thelakes in this study; unsustainable ﬁshing practices, primarily
overﬁshing, are one of the main problems (Table 3.2).
Overﬁshing threatens lake ecosystems and livelihoods,
especially in developing countries. Scientiﬁc studies haveprovided key information leading to temporary moratoriums
on ﬁshing (Lakes Baringo and Naivasha) and restrictions onallowable technologies (Lakes George, Ohrid, and Victoria). As
a result of the rules based on this information, these ﬁsheries
have either recovered, or are in better shape than they would
have been without the information.

Table 3.2 shows that eutrophication, caused by excessive
nutrient load (usually phosphorus; occasionally nitrogen)generated from human activities in a lake’s drainage basin(and sometimes beyond) is another common problem in lakebasins. As illustrated in Figure 2.2, a lake can absorb a certain
quantity of nutrient load without showing major changes.
However, there comes a point at which the loading leads to amajor, undesirable shift in the lake ecosystem. The extent of
the shift, along with information on the nutrient load that is“tolerable”, is a key contribution of science.
The briefs on Lakes Champlain, Constance, and the North
American Great Lakes show how far science can actually goin aiding the decision-making process. For example, basedon a comprehensive modeling exercise, the United States
and Canada acted jointly to reduce the phosphorus load to
the Great Lakes, mainly by enhancing phosphorus removal
at wastewater treatment plants and by banning P-containing
detergents in the drainage basin. Even though this policy was
successful in controlling much of the point-source load to thelakes, a more recent study has shown that nonpoint sources
also must be controlled to fully meet the target loads. The
Lake Baikal brief also demonstrates how scientiﬁc study canreveal that nonpoint sources of pollutants can be transported
to a lake via both waterborne and atmospheric pathways
and pose a major threat to a lake. Scientiﬁc studies at Lake
Malawi/Nyasa showed the limits of different ﬁsh populations.
Inshore artisanal ﬁshing was overexploiting the available
resource. The ornamental ﬁsh trade was threatening some ofthe highly localized cichlid species the lake was renowned for,but the pelagic ﬁshery was largely unexploited and potentiallyavailable for providing much-needed protein for lake basin
populations.

Box 8.1 The Information Bare Essentials: A Checklist for Decision Makers•

Scientiﬁc/Technical Prospects and Options. What is the current condition of a lake; that is, current water quantity andquality, and changes in them over time? What is the status of its biological communities? What are the root causes,
within and outside the drainage basin, for the observed problems? What are the lake basin management options andwhat are their possible outcomes? How can progress in lake recovery be evaluated? What is the expected degree of,and recovery time frame for, speciﬁc lake problems?

•Sociological Perspectives. What is the cultural history of lake use in its drainage basin? What customs, social mores, or
religious beliefs inﬂuence the use of the lake and its resources? To what extent can the public and other stakeholders
be mobilized to help identify and implement effective lake basin management efforts?

•

Economic Characteristics. What are the economic characteristics of the drainage basin stakeholders, including therelevant governmental management bodies? Are sufﬁcient ﬁnancial resources available for sustainable management
interventions? Is poverty alleviation linked to sustainable lake use? What economic incentives, penalties, or subsidies
exist to facilitate lake basin management interventions and what are their past experiences?

•

Institutional and Legislative Frameworks. What is the existing legislative framework in the drainage basin? Do adequate
institutions and laws exist to regulate, protect, or guide the sustainable use of the lake and its resources, or are newor modiﬁed ones needed? Do different lake basin management institutions have overlapping or conﬂicting mandates?
Are existing laws and regulations enforced in a consistent and equitable manner? What other legislative incentives exist
and what are their experiences?

•

Political and Governance Structures. What are the political realities regarding the sustainable use of the lake and its
resources within the lake drainage basin? Is the political structure amenable to public inputs? Are current politicians
and government ofﬁcials providing the necessary leadership to facilitate needed lake basin management interventions?
Is the governance process transparent, equitable, and accessible to the public and other stakeholders?

68

Chapter 8

Enlightening Hard-to-See Connections•

The biophysical processes in lakes are complex. A key role ofscience is to shed light on the hard-to-see, indirect connections
that are common in lake basin management. Some examples
include:At Lake Naivasha, there was a controversy about thecauses of the declining water level. A simple model wasdeveloped, making use of long-term monitoring data, toshow that while the lake level ﬂuctuated naturally due
to climate variability, abstractions for horticulture were
almost certainly responsible for the recent decline in thelake level (Box 8.2). As a result, there was widespread

Box 8.2 The Value of Long-Term Monitoring and Simple Modeling at Lake Naivasha
For over 100 years, Lake Naivasha in Kenya had attracted the attention of hydrologists, partly because of the extreme
decade-to-decade changes in its surface area. The phenomenon was eventually explained as being the result of the shallow
bathymetry of the lake coupled with climate variability. Starting in 1982, much of the land around the lake was converted fromgrazing and cropping to intensive horticulture. By the early 1990s, over 100 km2 had been converted to grow ﬂowers for theEuropean cut-ﬂower trade. With this growth came an inﬂux of workers. Water was abstracted from the lake, the local aquifers,
and the inﬂowing rivers for the horticultural industry and for domestic use by the rapidly increasing population.
The Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (LNRA), representing landowners and others around the shores of the lake, fearedthat the lake’s water was being overused by this new development. They also were concerned about pollution of the lake
and aquifers from agro-chemicals used by the horticulture industry. Many horticulturalists did not believe that they were
overusing the water resources and pointed out that the lake was higher than it had been in the 1950s prior to the developmentof their industry. They, in turn, formed the Lake Naivasha Growers Group (LNGG) to counter these and other claims about theirindustry.
In 1996, the LNRA asked the Kenyan Ministry of Water Development to study the water balance and the water-related
environmental impacts. This study was carried out in close collaboration with International Institute for Geo-Information
Science and Earth Observation (ITC) in the Netherlands. ITC developed a simple, spreadsheet-based water balance model ofthe lake and its basin. The model used data from a variety of sources—government and private sector—for a period from 1932
to the present day.
If a groundwater outﬂow of 4.6 million m3 per month was allowed for, then the model was able to reproduce the observed lakelevel from 1932 to 1982 with remarkable accuracy (Figure 8.1). Over this period, 95 percent of all observed monthly lake levels
differed from the modeled levels by 0.52 m or less. This accuracy makes the growing discrepancy between the observed andthe modeled lake levels after 1982 all the more striking. By 1997, the observed level was 3-4 m below that predicted by themodel.


&DOFXODWHG/DNH/HYHO/DNH/HYHOV P







2EVHUYHG/DNH/HYHO



















7LPH

Figure 8.1. Long-term Water Level Change in Lake Naivasha.
The onset of this decline in water level coincided with the commencement of horticulture in the area in 1982, and there wasa close match between the annual water deﬁcit by 1997 (60 x 106 m3) and the estimated water use based on the area ofhorticulture and the crops grown.
These results are now broadly accepted by all stakeholders around Lake Naivasha as showing that the rapid developmentof the industry and the increase in domestic demand has had a signiﬁcant impact on the lake level. The LNRA and the LNGG
now work more closely together to promote a stronger conservation ethic among horticulturalists and to protect the lake’s
values.
Source: Becht and Harper 2002.

Information69

this reservoir would provide a commercially valuableﬁshery;acceptance of this cause and an understanding thatdifferent interest groups needed to work together to use
the lake’s resources equitably;
•

•

•

•

Scientiﬁc investigations showed that a proposed
hydraulic control structure at Laguna de Bay (designed
to stop saltwater intrusion from the ocean) would havea detrimental effect on the lake ﬁsheries. Eventually, it
was decided to cease operating the structure, allowing
natural saltwater intrusion to occur again, resulting
in a decrease in turbidity and improved conditions forﬁsheries;
Detailed measurements and investigations at Lake
Biwa showed that decreasing snowfall over the lastfew decades, along with a weakening of the overturnof the lake waters in spring (both possibly related toclimate change), led to lower dissolved oxygen levelsin the bottom waters of the lake every spring, providing
the conditions for potentially large phosphorus releasefrom sediments and a rapid worsening of eutrophic
conditions;
Research at the North American Great Lakes has shown
the connection between fossil fuel burning at distant
power plants and mercury deposition to the lakes. Thesesources are mostly outside of the watershed but are partof the airshed, and therefore not normally considered bydecision makers; and,Recent studies at Lake Victoria (Hecky, R., H. Bootsma,
and E. Odada, “African Lake Management Initiatives:
The Global Connection” Thematic Paper, Lake BasinManagement Initiative) suggest the role of atmosphericdeposition of phosphorus to the lake has been greatly
underestimated. If conﬁrmed, this unexpected transport
pathway could have major implications for managing
the lake and its basin.

•

In the Lake Chad basin, scientiﬁc ﬁeld experiments
showed that wet-season conditions could be simulated
by water releases from the Tiga and Challawa dams. This
demonstrated that artiﬁcial ﬂooding of wetlands could
be undertaken using existing infrastructure;•

High levels of heavy metals at the Bhoj Wetland wereshown to result from immersion of idols during religious
festivities, an unlikely but signiﬁcant source. The
research also showed a solution (moving the ceremony
to another site) was possible; and,•

Scientiﬁc studies at the Aral Sea indicated that
construction of a dam between the Northern and Large
Aral Seas could maintain the current size of the Northern
Aral given the reduced inﬂows, and with it, some of thelake’s biodiversity and livelihoods for local people.

Opportunities for the Use of Scientiﬁc Information
There were a number of cases where scientiﬁc information
was not used but where it could have made a major difference.
Examples where the lake briefs cited the urgent need forscientiﬁc studies include the:•Effects of climate change versus local water withdrawals
on lake levels at Lake Chad;•

Limits of sustainable grazing in the Lake Baringo basin;•

Quantities of water available for irrigation at Lake Chad;•

Effects of aquaculture on Lake Toba on the lake’s water
quality;•

Effect of proposed upstream dams, forest clearance andland degradation on Tonle Sap; and,•Effects of increasing sediment (and attachedphosphorus) loads on the ecosystems of Lakes Malawi/
Nyasa and Tanganyika.

Providing Innovative Solutions
The understanding of the lake basin process developed
through scientiﬁc studies can be used to develop innovative
approaches to address a range of problems. Some of the major
examples from the case studies include:•

For the Chilika Lagoon, modeling studies showed that
dredging a channel between the lake and the ocean
could improve salinity conditions and ﬁshery productionin the lake. The construction of the channel led to adramatic recovery in the ﬁshery and prawn catches.
Apart from restoring livelihoods of ﬁsherfolk, this action
also helped alleviate a major source of conﬂict among
the local communities;•

At the Kariba Reservoir, ecological studies showed
how introduction of a ﬁsh (Limnothrissa miodon) into
an ecological niche opened up by the formation of70

While the briefs do not speculate on why scientiﬁc studies
were not carried out in these and similar cases, it is possible
to use experience from scientiﬁc input to management inother ﬁelds to suggest the causes. First, decision makers
often see scientiﬁc inputs as time-consuming, expensive,
and inconclusive when they need to make decisions quickly.
It can be as difﬁcult to persuade scientists that an imprecise
but timely answer is required as it is to persuade decision
makers that a delay of a year while waiting for factual
information can be cost-effective in the long term. Second,scientists are often poor communicators with both decision
makers and stakeholder groups. They can have difﬁculty in
expressing their ﬁndings in ways that have meaning to nonscientists. Finally, it can be very difﬁcult to get scientists from
Chapter 8

disciplines as diverse as sociology, biology, and hydrology towork together. This integrative approach to scientiﬁc studies
is particularly necessary in understanding lake basins, where
so many processes (terrestrial and aquatic; biophysical andsocioeconomic; physical and ecological) interact. These
difﬁculties affect scientiﬁc studies in the industrialized world
as much as they affect the developing world.

Assessing Baseline Conditions
Baseline monitoring programs have been in place at all of
the study lakes located in industrial countries and in some ofthose in developing countries. Two examples from developing
countries illustrate the value of baseline monitoring:•

The Lake Nakuru brief notes that the monitoring data
demonstrate the high degree of natural variation thatcan occur in the lake’s water levels due to high levelsof evaporation and water abstractions, as well as
inﬂuences from more global phenomena, such as global
climate change. All are causing dramatic changes in thelake’s limnological characteristics. By having informationon this natural variation, decision makers are better
positioned to recognize and evaluate the impacts on thelake from human activities in its drainage basin; and,•

Monitoring data collected over the past several years
at Lake Ohrid suggest that both the phytoplankton
and zooplankton communities in the lake are changing,consistent with the increasing eutrophication of thelake. This baseline monitoring makes it unequivocally
clear to the basin communities that there is a need tocontrol nutrient loads to the lake.

The Use of Models
A wide range of models have been used for the lakes in thisstudy, ranging from the simple to the complex. A complexhydrodynamic model of circulation patterns was used to assess
the likely beneﬁts from different lake openings in the Chilika
Lagoon before the new opening was dredged to the ocean.
Modeling ﬁve scenarios for Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe showedthat nutrients from nonpoint sources were the principle issue
to be tackled, and that they were likely to decrease as a resultof reduced usage of fertilizers in the Russian Federation. On
the other hand, a model was constructed of Lake Victoria, but
it has not proven useful to understanding the processes in thelake or been inﬂuential with decision makers because of its
complexity and data demands. The issue of model complexity
also was illustrated at the North American Great Lakes. Five
different eutrophication models, ranging from the simple tothe complex, were used to determine the phosphorus target
loads for the North American Great Lakes (International
Joint Commission 1978). Despite their range of complexity,
they tended to converge on the same targets, implying thatthe simple models were sufﬁcient. Lake Naivasha (Box 8.2)
provides another example where a simple, spreadsheet model
proved to be inﬂuential in aiding management.
It is noticeable how often simple models have provensuccessful. However, the lesson is not that simple models are
best—it is doubtful if the Chilika Lagoon requirements could
have been met with a simple model—but that the complexityof the model needs to be matched to the capacities of theusers, the available data, and the demands of the task.
It is essential that the model design be driven by lakebasin managers and other stakeholders and not by themodel developers. Initial brainstorming sessions between
stakeholders and model developers can substantially facilitate
this goal, along with the participation of local experts andofﬁcials in its development. A conceptual model developed at
an early stage of a lake basin management project can help
identify data needs and required sampling and monitoring
efforts.

The Value of Monitoring
Monitoring of a lake and its basin can provide valuable insights
into the lake basin’s baseline condition and changes overtime, including any changes from the effects of management
actions.

Information

While long-term monitoring provides the best baseline pictureof a lake basin, even short-term or even historical studies canprove valuable. For example, the classic research by Talling
and Talling (1965) and Talling (1966) on Lake Victoria in 1961
has been used to show that the lake’s zooplankton changed
dramatically from being diatom-dominated to cyanobacteriallydominated. In another example, studies on the endemic
species of Lake Dianchi in the 1950s helped scientists
understand past conditions in that lake as they attempt toconserve its biodiversity.
Long-term monitoring can have serendipitous effects. For
example, the Lake Biwa brief describes how long-term
records of snowmelt, together with lake water temperatureand dissolved oxygen concentrations, provided indications
on the potential effects of global warming on the lake. The
North American Great Lakes brief also notes that both formal
and informal data sets “become invaluable in monitoring andinterpreting ecosystem changes often unrelated to the purpose
for which the data were originally collected.”
However, lake basin-wide monitoring programs intransboundary lake basins need to be consistent acrossnational borders. If inconsistent data—different parameters,
different sampling and analysis techniques, different locations
and frequencies, and so on—are collected, then it can be very
difﬁcult to develop a reliable picture of the status of the lakebasin. There are a number of examples in the lake briefs where
the environmental status of transboundary lake basins has
been difﬁcult to access because of inconsistent monitoring
programs. At Lakes Ohrid and Xingkai/Khanka, there havebeen recent efforts to harmonize monitoring programs with
GEF assistance. The ﬁrst lake-wide status reports have been71

produced for both lakes. Harmonizing monitoring procedures
is not easy when the transboundary lake is only one out ofmany waterbodies in each country. The Xingkai/Khanka brief
makes the additional point that research efforts also need
to be coordinated across national boundaries. To date, lackof dialogue on research ﬁndings for the drainage basin has
prevented harmonized, cost-effective management actions
regarding transboundary environmental issues.

Sharing Information
For maximum effect, the results of scientiﬁc studies should bemade available in language that decision makers and resource
users can understand. This is an important point since it is acommon experience for scientiﬁc information to be put aside
because those who could potentially use it do not understandit. The following are some of the ways in which information at astudy lake basin was made available to stakeholders.

Assessing the Effects of Interventions
Monitoring can help managers assess the effectiveness of
their interventions. The Lake Dianchi brief describes how
monitoring has shown that the pollutant loads entering thelake have increased in recent years. It also shows that policies
to reduce the loads from individual enterprises have beensuccessful. The increased loads to the lake are the result of anincreased the number of polluting enterprises and populationin general. Without the monitoring information, the policies
would probably have been declared failures. On the other
hand, the Lake Chad brief noted that, because of the absenceof transboundary monitoring and a lack of political will, pastagreements on the conservation and development of basin
resources could not be enforced, resulting in detrimental
impacts on the lake ecosystem.

Use of Indicators
The public and decision makers do not easily understand many
scientiﬁc parameters. For example, while water transparency isa fairly easy concept to understand, chemical oxygen demand(COD) is more obscure. Therefore, many of the study lakes
have developed “indicators” to provide easy-to-understandsummaries of scientiﬁc monitoring results.
The development of indicators has been the subject of major
biennial conferences in the North American Great Lakes basin(Box 8.3). At Laguna de Bay, water quality data are presented
in a simple schematic diagram called the Water Mondrian.
Inspired by the work of the Dutch painter, Piet Mondrian, it
presents technical information in the form of simple lines andBox 8.3 Evolving Indicators: The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
The purpose of the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is “to restore and maintain the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin.” To evaluate the GLWQA’s progress toward this goal, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada biennially host a State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference(SOLEC) to report on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the major factors impacting it, including environmental
and socioeconomic indicators. SOLEC also provides a forum for information exchange and discussion among people in alllevels of government, corporate, and not-for-proﬁt sectors that make decisions affecting the Great Lakes. To date, ﬁve SOLEC
conferences have been held.
•

SOLEC 1994 addressed the entire lake system, emphasizing aquatic community health, human health, aquatic habitat,
toxic contaminants and nutrients, and the changing Great Lakes economy.

•

SOLEC 1996 focused on areas where biological productivity was greatest and humans had maximum impacts, including
nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, lakeshore lands, impacts of changing land use, and information availability andmanagement. Also recognized was the need for a comprehensive set of indicators to allow the governments to reporton progress made under the GLWQA in a predictable, compatible, and standard format.

•

SOLEC 1998 focused more formally on the indicator development process, with development of a suite of easily
understood indicators that objectively represented the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem components, as called
for in the GLWQA.

•

SOLEC 2000 reported on the state of the Great Lakes on the basis of 80 science-based indicators developed since
SOLEC 1998. It also introduced a new group of “Societal Indicators”, which seek to measure both human activities
impacting the environment, and the societal action(s) taken in response to these environmental pressures.

•

SOLEC 2002 continued to update and assess the state of the Great Lakes, focusing on 43 indicator assessments used
to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. It also presented a candidate
set of “Biological Integrity” indicators, as well as proposed indicators for agriculture, groundwater, forestry, andsociety responses, which, as a part of the “Societal Indicator” suite, measure positive human responses to ecosystempressures.

Work continues on the Great Lakes indicator suite, including efforts to streamline the reporting requirements of the GLWQA,
and to report progress under it within the context of management challenges and actions. Further information can be found
at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
Source: North American Great Lakes Brief.
72

Chapter 8

colors in an easily understood format (see Laguna de Bay brief
for a diagram).
The GEF has developed a framework consisting of three typesof indicators (process indicators, stress reduction indicators,
and environmental status indicators) that can be applied
ﬂexibly and allow easy evaluation of the progress of projects(Duda 2002). Process indicators measure the establishmentof an institutional and political enabling environment for lakebasin management. In the initial phases of projects, process
indicators may be the only indicators of progress (for example,
establishing country-speciﬁc inter-ministerial committees,
documentation of stakeholder involvement in planning
efforts, or country ratiﬁcation of conventions or protocols
pertinent to a lake basin project). Stress reduction indicators
measure on-ground actions and investments implemented
within the lake basin. Examples include implementation of
nonpoint-source pollution programs, releases of water fromdams for environmental purposes, or enforcement of speciﬁcﬁshing policies. Environmental status indicators are measuresof improvements in the quality of lakes and lake basins.
Examples include improved (measurable) chemical, physical,
or biological parameters in a lake, improved recruitment
classes of targeted ﬁsh species or diversity, or changes inlocal community income and social conditions as a result of
improved environmental conditions.
The information collected in this project has been used tofurther develop the process indicators for assessing progressin good governance of lake basins (World Bank 2005). For
example, the lake briefs show that good practice in the
involvement of stakeholders in lake basin management ischaracterized by:•

Having all relevant stakeholders involved;•

Allowing sufﬁcient time for stakeholders to develop thecapacity to be engaged and to become familiar withissues;•The use of existing representation structures such as
local governments, NGOs, and traditional organizations;•

Having clearly deﬁned roles for stakeholders, preferably
deﬁned in government policy; and,•

Having access to sufﬁcient resources for stakeholders tobe effectively engaged.

Science Center established at Barkul at the Chilika Lagoon
basin for hydrobiological and other studies during 1999–2002.
The Lake Champlain brief highlighted the value of developinga lakefront laboratory and science museum as a means offostering effective management within the drainage basin.
The Lake Biwa Museum is a longstanding and very successful
example of a lake science center devoted to dissemination of
information and data about the lake basin and its problems.
Based in part on these successes, museums and information
centers are proposed or planned for the Bhoj Wetland andLakes Sevan, Toba, Victoria and Issyk-Kul.
Involving People
Many of the case studies show the beneﬁts of directly using
people to gather and provide information. The beneﬁts
include building greater ownership among stakeholders for
management actions and augmenting the monitoring efforts ofscientiﬁc staff, particularly in developing countries. Examples
include the following:•

Akanoi Bay basin, which feeds into the South Basin of
Lake Biwa, used to be famous for ﬁreﬂies. Changes inlandscape (mainly the channeling of rivers and loss ofnatural habitats) have led to a decline in the number ofﬁreﬂies. A local NGO implemented various restoration
projects, with the indicator of success being an increasein the number of ﬁreﬂies—a simple indicator ofrestoration progress;•

At Lake Victoria, water hyacinth control efforts arecarried out and monitored by local ﬁshing communities,
who are best positioned to carry out such work;•

The Lake Tanganyika brief notes the importance of
involving the local communities in data collection.
However, it does suggest limitations on the extent of
this involvement, since the collection of water samples
or reading of water/rain gauges may not be appropriate
for communities that are not trained to undertake suchtasks; and,•The Lay Monitoring Program in Lake Champlain has
conducted lakewide monitoring of eutrophication
parameters using citizen volunteers every year since1979. The information collected by these citizen
monitors has been used to develop state water quality
standards.

Undertaking Science and Monitoring
Similar characteristics have been identiﬁed for the otherindicators of governance processes—clear national policy,
effective institutions, efﬁcient rules for allocating resources,scientiﬁc information, and sufﬁcient ﬁnances for both
operations and investments.

Resident Research Organizations
A number of the study lake basins had resident organizations
to carry out both required and elective research, together with
monitoring and coordinating information gathered by various
sectors.

Museums and Information Centers
Lake-based museums and centers can also help disseminate
scientiﬁc and other information. One example is the Lake
Information

Lake Champlain (along with Lake Biwa and the North
American Great Lakes) provides an example of how science73

and monitoring can play an important and effective role inlake basin management. Nearly two dozen representatives
from the scientiﬁc community have been brought together ina Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to examine the scientiﬁcissues of every major policy question, and provide policy
and budget guidance to the Lake Champlain Basin Program’s
Steering Committee each year. The TAC also oversees researchand implementation projects to ensure their scientiﬁc meritand application to lake basin problems. Links to management
are further strengthened by the chairman of the TAC, anongovernmental scientist who also holds a seat on the Lake
Champlain Steering Committee. When scientiﬁc informationis needed to guide a management decision, the Steering
Committee allocates funds to support research or monitoring
to address the knowledge gap.

helped guide the development of the Lake Ohrid State of theEnvironment report. Lake Toba researchers have also beneﬁted
from an exchange program with staff from Lake Champlain, itssister lake.
Integrating Knowledge
The complexity of lake processes and the close links between
lakes and their basins means that scientiﬁc studies need to be
integrated across disciplines. Lack of integration was explicitly
identiﬁed as a shortcoming in the Lakes Toba and Chad, theNorth American Great Lakes, the Tucurui Reservoir, and the
Bhoj Wetland briefs. At Lake Toba, the agencies conducting
various research projects kept much of their results and data
to themselves for reasons of prestige and dominance. As aresult, there is no sound, comprehensive research project
covering the major aspects and concerns of the lake basin.

Internationally Funded Programs
Internationally funded studies can assist when developing
countries do not have resident scientiﬁc institutions able tocarry out the necessary research. For example, Lakes Malawi/
Nyasa, Victoria, and Tonle Sap have received much attention
from foreign scientists, although the information has yet tohave a major inﬂuence on decision making.
Carrying new knowledge forward into action is a common
problem in many development projects. The scientiﬁccomponent of a project tends to last long enough to gather andanalyze information, but not long enough to follow throughwith the implementation of results. This is partly because
implementation is usually viewed as the responsibility of
governments. Unless the project builds strong linkages between
local researchers and international experts, there is seldom amechanism for continuity. This problem can be exacerbated by
the lack of interest or political will by government agencies tofollow through on project recommendations.
Any collaboration with international groups should include
a training component that transfers as much knowledge as
possible to local institutions. Without it, there is a cycle where
riparian states are forced to rely heavily on expatriates toundertake tasks that would otherwise have been undertaken
by local experts. The LLDA provides an example, in which local
ability is well supported and developed. Because of its limited
staff numbers, LLDA has teamed with international and local
academic and research institutions. The LLDA has taken on therole of commissioning the necessary research and ensuring
it inﬂuences management. At present, it is an active partnerof the University of the Philippines-Environmental Forestry
Program in the implementation of the Philippine Millennium
Ecosystem Sub-Global Assessment, with a focus on the Lagunade Bay ecosystem.
There were a number of cases in the lake briefs of successful
collaboration between local and outside researchers. Lake
Baikal has developed a sister lake relationship with Lake Tahoein the United States. The Lake Ohrid Conservation Project
had a scientiﬁc advisor from its sister lake, Lake Champlain,
who advised on the monitoring component of the project and74

The North American Great Lakes brief states that the previous
single-issue approach has proven valuable to a point, but now
the need is for a multidisciplinary approach. The Lake Titicaca
brief describes how the Binational Master Plan was based on
an integrated study of the lake and its basin. The recent Lake
Victoria stocktaking report (Hecky 2003) and the Lake Ohrid
State of the Environment report (Watzin and others 2002)
illustrate the value of an integrated approach, although theLake Victoria research did not have a well-integrated research
design at the beginning. However, none of these reports has asigniﬁcant socioeconomic component.
GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Generating consistent knowledge for transboundary lakebasins is especially problematic because of different levelsof development in riparian countries, different priorities, anddifferent scientiﬁc standards. The Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) process has been devised by the GEF-IW
focal area to help overcome this problem (Mee and others,2005). It identiﬁes and analyzes the scientiﬁc, technical, andsocioeconomic information relevant to determining the major
problems hindering the sustainable use of lakes and theirresources, as well as the transboundary nature, magnitude,
and signiﬁcance of the various elements as they pertain towater quality, quantity, biology, habitat degradation, and/or
conﬂicts; identiﬁes the root causes of the problems; andideally provides information and understanding on the types
and magnitude of the programs and activities needed toaddress the problems. A properly conducted TDA will serve as
a comprehensive information and database for the subsequentdevelopment of a Strategic Action Program (SAP) comprisedof activities, projects, and remedial measures needed toensure the sustainable use of a transboundary waterbody
and its resources to the overall beneﬁt of all drainage basin
inhabitants.
The joint development of a TDA provides riparian countries
with a forum for cooperating and collaborating in the exchange
of information, and for working together to develop common
lake basin goals. It also contributes to transparency andaccountability as part of the development of wider regional
Chapter 8

Table 8.1 The Production of TDAs and SAPs for the Eight
GEF-IW Lake Basins.
Lake Basin

TDA

SAP

Aral Sea1

No

Yes

Chad

Yes

Yes

In progress

In progress

Ohrid

Yes

Yes

Peipsi/Chudskoe

No

No

Tanganyika

Yes

Yes

In progress

In progress

In progress

In progress

Cocibolca
23Victoria

Xingkai/Khanka
1.

Although no TDA was carried out during the GEF-funded
Aral Sea project, there was sufﬁcient information available
for a SAP to be produced.

2.

The State of the Environment report for Lake Ohrid isequivalent to a TDA and led to a SAP being agreed.

3.

The TDA and SAP for Lake Victoria are being produced as aseparate, short-term project.

cooperation. This cooperative element is probably as valuable
as the assemblage of scientiﬁc information. For this reason, the
GEF recommends that the development of the TDA be overseen
by a high-level (preferably inter-ministerial) committee from alllake basin countries to provide strong country ownership of
the identiﬁed problems and preliminary actions.
Eight projects in this study were funded under the GEF-IW focal
area; only three of these have produced TDAs and SAPs (Table
8.1). Although there was very little comment in these lake briefs
about the production of TDAs and SAPs, it was clear that thesigning of a Convention for Lake Tanganyika was assisted by
the TDA process and the collaboration at Lake Ohrid in jointly
assembling data and developing the state-of-the-environment
report was central to the development of a comprehensive
management plan for that lake system. The Lake Tanganyika
TDA is described in Box 8.4. The Lake Xinghai/Khanka brief
stated that there have been great beneﬁts already fromcollating data and information across national boundaries.
However, the Lake Cocibolca brief warned that, even though

Box 8.4 The Lake Tanganyika Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
The Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project commenced in 1995. Its objective was to “...establish a regional long term
management programme for pollution control, conservation and maintenance of biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika.”
The main threats to Lake Tanganyika’s biodiversity were identiﬁed by the country representatives at a workshop early in the
project. These threats were:••••

Unsustainable ﬁsheries;
Increasing pollution;
Excessive sedimentation; and,
Habitat destruction.

The representatives ranked the perceived threats in order of national priority. A preliminary TDA was developed based on
this information as well as the outputs of a series of national review meetings. The preliminary TDA brings together the four
national review exercises and adds the regional and transboundary perspective. The ﬁnal TDA was undertaken following thecompletion of a special studies program and the preparation of reports directed at the speciﬁc information requirements of
the TDA.
The TDA is structured as a three-level matrix with the four main threats to the lake, the transboundary implications, theinstitutional problems and the general action areas constituting the ﬁrst level (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2 Level 1 of the Three-level Lake Tanganyika TDA.
Main Threat to Biodiversity
and Sustainable Use

Cross-Cutting
Transboundary Implications

•
•
•
•

• Global Loss ofBiodiversity• Loss of Shared Fisheries
Resources• Decline in Water Quality

Unsustainable Fisheries
Increasing Pollution
Excessive Sedimentation
Habitat Destruction

Cross-Cutting
Institutional Problems• Lack of Resources• Poor Enforcement of
Existing Regulations• Lack of Appropriate
Regulations for Lake
Tanganyika• Lack of Institutional
Coordination

General Action Areas••••

Reduce Impact of Fishing
Control Pollution
Control Sedimentation
Habitat Conservation

The second level has four parts, one for each of the four identiﬁed General Action Areas. Each part describes the problems
that together form the threat that the General Action Area is addressing; the stakeholders that that will need to be involved;
the uncertainties where further information is required; and a Programme of Actions which address the speciﬁc problem. The
third level takes each speciﬁc problem and its Programme of Action and identiﬁes its timing; the key agency that would leada particular proposed Action; and the available human and material resources.
Source: Lake Tanganyika: The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. GEF, Washington, DC.

Information75

a TDA will be produced, the lack of reliable data will affect thequality of the SAP.
Although the evidence is limited, it appears that technicalcollaboration during the process of producing an agreed
diagnosis of the problems affecting a transboundary lake basin,
including the priority actions for managing the problems, does
advance cooperation between riparian countries.
This lesson of the importance of developing a common
understanding based on factual information can also be
applied to sectoral institutions within countries. There is agreater likelihood of institutions cooperating when they havea common understanding of issues and potential management
actions. This need is most acute in the case of environment andwater resources institutions which are commonly responsible
for taking the lead in lake basin management. Consequently, it
is important that scientiﬁc information is both translated into
language that staff from these institutions can understand andtargeted at the management objectives of these institutions.
In addition, this information should be made accessible to the
public at large.

76

Chapter 8

Chapter 9
Mobilizing Sustainable Financing:
Local, National and External Funds

Key Lessons Learned about Financing•

Locally generated funds, such as water user fees, ﬁsh levies and pollution charges, can provide a stable and importantpart of the ﬁnancial base for lake basin management. However, unless there is a high value use extracted from thelake’s resources, these funds are not usually sufﬁcient for lake basin management.

•

It is important that locally generated funds are largely retained locally and that there is involvement of resource users
in establishing and administering the fees.

•

Most funding for lake basin management comes from national and/or local sources. External funds should play acatalytic, rather than a primary role for implementing lake basin management activities and investments.

•

Financing for capital infrastructure investments usually comes from the national level or from international resources;
local-level funding is an important source of money to help meet routine recurrent expenditures.

•

National funding, sometimes supplemented by external loans and grants from development organizations, is often
used for large capital-intensive investments. In some countries, such as China and the Philippines, national funds
constitute the major of capital funding; whereas in others, such as Kenya, Albania and FYR Macedonia, donor support
constitutes a major source of capital ﬁnancing.

•

The GEF is a major source of funds for improving the management of transboundary and globally important lake basins.
These funds are used to establish the enabling environment for successful ongoing lake basin management.

•

To ensure global beneﬁts from lake projects, particularly in the case of international lake basins, a programmatic
approach from GEF and other funding bodies, would be better than a project-by-project approach. This approach would
also require a longer-term commitment from lake basin countries to sustainable management.

Sustainable lake basin management depends on sustainableﬁnancing. Management expenditures are comprised of thesalaries, facilities and operating costs of the management
organizations, including support for implementation ofregulations, monitoring, applied research and communication
activities. These are complemented by expenditures forinfrastructure investments, often undertaken by specialized
agencies, including their operation, maintainence andreplacement (OM & R costs).

•“Lack of ﬁnancial support in general and poor working
conditions in particular make it hard for the Preserve tofunction in any normal way.” (Issyk-Kul brief ); and,•“The assessment rates overall sustainability as
unlikely. Staff incentives were reduced with a return togovernment salaries. Malawi cannot provide sufﬁcientbudget to sustain the lake research program...” (Lake
Malawi/Nyasa brief ).

According to the briefs, securing sufﬁcient ﬁnancial resources
is a constant concern:

Expenditures are of two major types:••“The Government has been suffering from acuteshortages of resources and this has weakened thecapacity of remaining extension staff to carry out its
activities.” (Lake Nakuru brief );“It is unclear how successful projects developed under
the GEF project will continue to receive funding now thatthe (GEF) project is over.” (Lake Baikal brief );•Large, discrete capital investments, typically associatedwith investments in technological solutions such as
sewage treatment or hydraulic works (Chapter 7); and,•Day-to-day OM&R costs, largely salaries and operating
costs.

In most countries in economic transition and in developing
countries, neither cost is fully met from local resources.
National governments and foreign donors typically provide

funds for capital investments. This is likely to continue becauseof the size and infrequency of these investments. However,regular, ongoing expenses can be met, at least partially, fromlocal funds, although in most lake basins these local funds
need to be augmented with national sources.
In principle, all stakeholders using lake basin resources
should contribute to the management of those resources sothat their quality is maintained. However, in most lake basins
the numbers of people involved are large and the ability ofmany to pay is very limited. In addition, there is often noeffective institutional mechanism to collect money fromindividuals and make the required investments or payments.
The administrative costs of collecting fees or charges can besubstantial. Hence the focus of this chapter is on practicalsteps that can be taken to develop sustainable ﬁnancing for
improved lake basin management.
While obtaining sufﬁcient funds will remain a problem foralmost all lake basin managers, the lake briefs provide
examples of how additional ﬁnancing can be obtained.
For example, judicious investment in knowledge gathering(monitoring and scientiﬁc studies) can help target management
interventions so that funds are used efﬁciently, and high rates
of fee collection can be achieved if users of the lake’s resources
are given a genuine say in the management of the lake basin.
Most money for lake basin management has come (and willcontinue to come) from sources within each country. In thischapter, we use the case studies to examine the three principal
sources of funds:•

Local sources (including user fees and other locallygenerated revenues);•

National-level ﬁnancial resources; and,•International funding, including both bilateral andmultilateral funds (including the GEF).

Locally Generated Funds
Locally generated revenues typically consist of payment forservices provided by lake basins (such as charges for use of
raw water or recreational or economic use of a lake) or for
the use of the lake to dispose of wastes. Local revenue canalso come from ﬁnes for not adhering to the conditions of alicense or permit. These funds are collected from direct users(and beneﬁciaries) of lake resources such as ﬁshermen; those
who beneﬁt from the lake as a source of ecosystem services(such as people who beneﬁt from ﬂood mitigation); and thosegroups whose activities pollute the lake (such as industries ormunicipal wastewater disposal systems).
Locally generated funds include those collected from people
who beneﬁt directly from the lake basin’s resources. These
include revenues from downstream users of a lake’s resources.
These funds are most valuable if the downstream uses have78

high value, such as drinking water or hydropower generation.
For example, Lake Biwa has been very successful in attracting
money from Osaka and Kyoto (which use the lake’s water
for domestic and industrial purposes) for investment andmanagement costs to help protect the lake’s resources. In
fact, total public investment in the Lake Biwa region for lakebasin management from 1972 to 1997 was $18 billion, mostof which was paid by national and downstream sources. The
Kariba Reservoir provides another example. The lake’s water isused for hydropower generation. The operational costs of theZambezi River Authority, which manages the lake basin, were
funded from the revenues of the energy generating authorities
in the riparian states of Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The Armenian community provides another example of a local
community that beneﬁts from the resources of a lake. Although
not discussed in the Lake Sevan brief, a recent study (Laplante
and others 2005) has estimated that Armenians living in
Yerevan, the capital, are willing to pay around $18 per person
for the continued existence of Lake Sevan at its present level.
This is a substantial sum given the per capita GNI of $950 in
Armenia (World Bank data, 2003, Atlas method). Additional
research is looking at the willingness of expatriate Armenians
to pay for the lake’s existence. These numbers are expected
to be much higher. The challenge, of course, will be to collectsome of these potential contributions.
Private funding is a subset of locally generated funding andis usually only important when the number of stakeholders
is small and the community is both relatively rich and sociallycohesive. The stakeholders can band together to make needed
investments and enforce certain management policies. For
example, the LNRA is an example of a relatively wealthyinterest group that has joined together to protect the lake’s
natural resources.
In many countries, the legal framework states that all money
collected from user fees has to go to the national treasury.
Local water resources managers are discouraged fromcollecting these fees if the funds are not to be retained for
local purposes. Where these revenues can be retained for
local use, collection rates are relatively high and have been
applied successfully to meet local needs. Thus, the Tanzanian
government has allowed water user fees to be retained for
local use at all its nine river and lake basin water ofﬁces,
including those for the three African Great Lakes included inthis study. Under a separate policy, a trial of ﬁsh levies has
been successfully tested in the Tanzanian part of Lake Victoria(although the water user fees and the ﬁsh levy are collectedby separate agencies, their use is not complementary to eachother, thus important opportunities for strengthening lakebasin management are being lost). At Laguna de Bay, fees fromﬁsh-pen operators are split between the lake basin authority(LLDA) and local governments, with the latter component being
applied locally to projects or activities related to environment,
livelihood, river embankment and ﬂood protection works, andwatershed development.

Chapter 9User Fees
A user fee is a charge that is paid by those who derive a
beneﬁt from the direct, or indirect, use of the lake. In practice,
however, user fees have been instituted for direct use of lake
resources such as water and ﬁsh. These resource users haveboth an interest in the conservation and management of thelake’s environment, and an implicit responsibility to help pay
for that conservation and management. Education and publicawareness are central components of any new user fee system.
For example, user fees from ﬁsh-pen operators in Laguna de
Bay in the Philippines (Box 9.1) have become an importantsource of funds for the LLDA. This example also illustrates
the importance of agreeing on a distribution of the funds withresponsible institutions, such as local government.
Tourism, both national and international, is another resource
use where user fees (admission fees, daily use charges) can beused to produce revenue for improved lake basin management.
For example, at Lake Nakuru, visitors to the national park
to see the ﬂamingos and other wildlife pay a user fee. This
practice could be extended to other lakes, where there isa clearly deﬁned lake basin-related tourism activity (suchas birdlife at Lake Baringo). Tourism is an important sourceof income at the Kariba Reservoir, although it has yet to beaccessed for helping fund lake basin management. Recreation
is another use that can provide a source of local ﬁnance (forexample, Lakes Constance and Ohrid, and the North American
Great Lakes).
Healthy lake basins provide services and physical products
to industries too. In Indonesia, for example, the management
authority for Lake Toba has been working with various
stakeholders to increase its funding base for improved lakebasin management. In particular, a wood-pulp producer, PT
Toba Pulp, is working with the local community to ensure its
forestry activities are more “environmentally friendly.” Animportant ingredient for success with resource user fees isthe local retention of at least part of the fees collected. PT
Toba Pulp also sets aside 1 percent of its net revenue (about$500,000) for the use of the local government for improved
environmental management in the lake basin. The ﬁsh catch

levies that have been trialed in the Tanzanian part of Lake
Victoria provide another example of payment by industry forthe services provided by a lake basin.
Half of the lake basins in this study have per capita GNI that
falls in the “lower income” range (less than $765/yr). In themost extreme case, the Lake Malawi/Nyasa basin has a percapita GNI of only $217. While it is argued in some lake briefs,
such as the Chilika Lagoon brief, that some beneﬁciaries are
too poor to bear the costs of water resources management, it
is equally clear that they bear signiﬁcant costs if managementof the resources is not funded. In addition, the important point
about locally generated funding is to establish a cause-effectlink between the resource and those who beneﬁt from its use orconservation. This helps create general public awareness andexpectations about appropriate and effective management.
Introduced properly, resource user fees can be accepted byeven the poorest communities. In some cases, a potential
source of local revenue is through a ﬁsh levy. The ﬁsherfolk at
Lake George, among the poorest in the world, have agreed to
pay an annual fee (about $1.50) to LAGBIMO, the lake basincoordinating body. This fee is acknowledged to be inadequate
for funding management costs, but implementing even a
partial user fee system—along with the necessary community
involvement, accountability, and transparent management—ispart of the larger reform of lake basin management and canbegin to generate some revenues for improved management.
In another example, the Chilika Development Authority has
already initiated a process of self-ﬁnancing through local
beneﬁciaries, although the sources of these funds are notdescribed in the lake brief.
Pollution Charges
Fees can also be levied on those whose actions potentiallydamage the lake and its sustainable use. Pollution charges
serve a double purpose; they generate revenue to address
the pollution issues or compensate those who are hurt by
the pollution, and they serve as an incentive for polluters todecrease their pollution. These aspects of pollution charges
are illustrated at Lake Dianchi (Box 9.2).

Box 9.1 User Fees at Laguna de Bay, the Philippines
The Laguna de Bay managers have used several different types of user fees to help both generate revenues and provide an
incentive for polluters to reduce pollution. They have adopted a ﬂexible, responsive system to allow them to make revisions
based on the results of monitoring.
Revenues from a user fee on ﬁsh-pen operators are shared between the local government units and the Laguna de Bay Lake
Development Authority (LLDA). The fee, currently about $120 per ha of ﬁsh pens, generates revenues for improved lake basin
management and makes the lakeshore communities active stakeholders in lake basin management.
While the fee has successfully generated income for LLDA and local governments, it does not act to discourage undesirable
impacts. The fee became an end in itself; as ﬁsh-pen numbers expanded, revenues rose. However, the expansion led to
conﬂicts between pen operators and marginal ﬁshermen who rely on access to open water ﬁshing. In 1983, the conﬂict led
to loss of lives and properties. Nor did the fees act to discourage the increase in nutrients lost from the pens as a result of
overfeeding. (A different fee, the Environmental User Fee, was discussed in Box 5.3).
Source: Laguna de Bay Brief.

Finance79Box 9.2 User Fees in Lake Dianchi, China
Lake Dianchi, which is located near Kunming, China, is the center of a major urban, industrial, and tourism region. Pollution
from industry, agriculture, and urban sewage was a major problem. The lake authorities have made major investments insewage and wastewater control. In the year 2000 alone, they spent over RMB 340 million (about $41.5 million). To address
the ongoing problem of industrial pollution, the lake authorities have combined a pollution levy system with a loan/grant
program for installation of pollution control equipment.
Starting 15 years ago, old industries were charged a pollution levy if their discharges exceeded the stated discharge standard.
In addition, the 1988 Dianchi Protection Ordinance prohibits the introduction of any new polluting industries in the Lake
Dianchi basin.
Existing industries, when taking actions to control pollution, were provided with loans from the government for the required
investments. These loans were funded by a combination of the environmental pollution levy receipts plus special funds
allocated for lake basin environmental improvements. As an added incentive, if it was shown that after the pollution
controlling investments were made the industry could then meet the pollution discharge standards, the loan was converted
to a grant and no repayment was required. By combining government investments, pollution levies, and a loan/grant programfor pollution controlling investments, the authorities have begun to tackle the major problem of pollution of this importantlake.
Source: Lake Dianchi Brief.

It can be important to set the pollution charge at a level thatencourages a reduction in pollution loads but does not drive
ﬁrms out of business. For example, pollution fees at Laguna de
Bay were set iteratively. Regardless of how carefully charges
are adjusted, there may well be cases where some ﬁrms will
have to close, since the costs of either correcting the pollution
or paying the charges are too high. This has been the caseat Lake Dianchi, where 249 previously polluting industrial
enterprises met the water discharge standards in response to
the cleanup program and four enterprises closed down.
While locally generated funds—both water resource user feesand pollution charges—are probably still only a small shareof lake-management funding at most lake basins, it is thepart of the funding package that has the most potential for
future growth. Few of the lake briefs provide details of local
funding sources. However, the Laguna de Bay Brief showsthat the percentage of income derived from water resource
user fees (for ﬁsh pen) and permits to discharge wastes has
risen in recent years (Table 9.1), while income from ﬁnes fornoncompliance with permits has fallen.
The Laguna de Bay experience with pollution charges has been
to start simple and ﬁne tune as experience builds up. Their six
recommendations are (1) select a simple, modest approach;(2) start with a sector-based pilot to help understandfeasibility aspects, administrative convenience, institutionalarrangements, and acceptability; (3) pick one or twocontrollable parameters; (4) revise charges based on resultsof monitoring; (5) create a strong and credible regulatory
arm with multistakeholder orientation; and (6) set pollution
charges at all levels from zero discharge and increasing above
the efﬂuent standards.

National Funding
Most lake basin management programs rely, entirely orin part, on ﬁnancing from the national or provincial/state
government, either through sectoral ministry budgets or
special appropriations for integrated lake basin management.
National-level funding is often insufﬁcient in amount and may
not be sustainable, particularly if the lake basin is remote or
populated by a minority group, or when issues pertaining tothat lake are competing with other priority concerns.
National funding is often essential for capital infrastructure
investments. These large investments—for such things aswastewater treatment, major water supply projects, or ﬂood
control or dredging works—are rarely funded at the local
level because of the size of these investments or because
the beneﬁts may be quite wide ranging and long term. For
example, from 1991–2001, the state of Vermont spent over $20

Table 9.1 Contributions to Local Sources of Income at Laguna de Bay.
Funding Source

Percentage contribution
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fish-pen fees

24

24

25

34

26

40

Discharge permits

10

13

12

12

15

22

Pollution ﬁnes

23

28

24

18

23

14

Interest on securities

18

16

15

13

16

8

Miscellaneous

25

19

24

23

20

16

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

80

Chapter 9

million on reducing phosphorus discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Champlain Basin,
and New York spent over $10 million building and enhancing
wastewater treatment plants. From 1991–98, Quebec invested
over $13 million in construction of wastewater treatment forareas discharging to the Lake Champlain Basin and Richelieu
River.
In lake basin activities that do not involve large capital
investments, national government funding of lake basin
management is usually delivered through the budgets ofsectoral agencies, such as Forestry or Water Resources
departments. For example, during the World Bank-supported
Orissa Water Resource Consolidation Project, the Chilika
lagoon basin remediation activities were implemented by the
Agriculture Department, Soil Conservation Department, Forest
Department, Fisheries Department, Department of Water
Resources, Bhubaneshwar Development Authority, Orissa
State Pollution Control Board, and the Tourism Department.
The Chilika Development Authority coordinated these activities
to ensure they contributed toward the lake basin’s restoration.

External Funding
About two thirds of lakes in this study had some sort of external
support. External funding is often used for infrastructure
investments where it supplements national government
funding. Supplemental funding can range from a marginal
share of the total to the bulk of management funding. For thesejointly funded investments to be fully effective, there needs tobe a clear agreement between the government and the donor
about how their respective commitments will be integrated
and a mechanism to make sure that each party abides by its
commitment. For example, the Japanese government funded
the expansion of the Nakuru (Kenya) town water supply andupgraded the town’s sewage treatment plants to treat any
consequent increase in efﬂuent being discharged to Lake
Nakuru. However, the beneﬁts from these investments are
not being fully realized because the Kenyan government has
not fully met its obligations to fund the necessary reticulation
infrastructure.
External support can take the form of loans from the WorldBank or regional development banks that have to be repaid.
“Hard” loans carry near market-determined interest rates;“soft” loans or credits carry below-market, highly-subsidized
interest rates and are generally only available to the poorest
countries. Most bilateral assistance (such as from theEuropean Union and individual donor countries) and GEF
funding are in the form of grants. Some lake basin projects
combine grants with loans. For example, the ﬁrst phase of theLake Victoria Environmental Management Program includes a
GEF grant of about $36.8 million, a “soft” loan from the WorldBank of about $35 million, and a $7 million contribution fromthe three national governments. A key issue is the inadequate
integration of institutional and investment costs for lake basin
management into the planning and budgeting system at thenational and local level within countries, and the limited
Financepriority these activities are given in the allocation of loans andgrants from international sources.
External funds are not necessarily essential for successful
lake basin management in countries in economic transition ordeveloping countries. Some lake basins in developing countries
have no, or very limited, external funding. For example, theprimary source of funds to control pollution of Lake Dianchi
and restore its ecosystem comes from Chinese government
sources. By the end of 2000, 2.1 billion yuan ($250 million),including part of a World Bank loan, was spent supporting thecompletion of 17 engineering projects. This lake basin program
has achieved some success in controlling industrial point
sources of pollution, treating efﬂuent discharges, restoring
forest cover in the lake basin, and removing contaminated lake
and river sediments. The Chillika Lagoon and Laguna de Bayprovide other examples of successful lake basin management
programs that were primarily funded from national sources.
External funding has beneﬁts and costs. It allows managers
to implement more policy reforms and undertake moreinvestments, but is usually not sustainable over time if
efforts to develop local sources of revenues for lake basin
management are not developed. For example, without thisimportant provision, the average GEF project is a one-time
investment over 3 to 5 years. Consequently, it is important thatexternal funds are used to initiate management changes thatare self-sustaining within the basin countries. The lake briefs
reﬂect this requirement that external funds play a catalytic,
rather than an implementing, role in lake basin management.
Basic ongoing funding has to come from national and/or
local sources if improved lake basin management is to besustainable.
The Global Environment Facility
The GEF is a unique mechanism in that it is based solely
on the fact that ecosystems, including lakes, have global
environmental beneﬁts and that the global community
should provide assistance in meeting the management costs
beyond what a country would normally provide to meetnational beneﬁts. Hence, GEF funding is designed to cover the“incremental costs” of an activity—those costs that produce
international environmental beneﬁts over and above nationallevel beneﬁts.
The GEF has a speciﬁc focal area to assist countries managetransboundary waterbodies, including lakes. These funds
supplement funds provided by the riparian countries and other
donors. Thus, in the case of Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe, GEF funds
have partially assisted the governments of Estonia and theRussian Federation set up the institutional environment forsuccessful lake basin management, including transboundary
cooperation and information exchange and the developmentof a transboundary water management program. The two
governments have signed three agreements (ﬁsheries,
environment, and water use) and have set up a Transboundary
Water Commission to improve the management of the lakebasin. In another case, the development and protection of Lake
81

Victoria has been hampered for many years by the absence of abroad agreement among the three riparian countries (Tanzania,
Kenya, and Uganda). However, with GEF, World Bank and other
donor funding assistance, the three countries have collected
an extensive database of information on the lake basin and are
now drafting a transboundary diagnostic analysis and strategic
action program for the lake. If successful, this initiative will lay
the foundation for a joint approach to managing the lake andmuch of its basin.

sources to reduce dependence on national government
funding. Another consequence is that, with an increasein a programmatic approach to lake basin funding, it may
be possible to hold governments more accountable forcommitments to longer-term national contributions.

In other cases, where the lake possesses some globally
important values, the international community may need toassist riparian countries with lake basin management. For
example, Lake Malawi/Nyasa, recognized to be one of the most
biodiverse in the world, is central to the economy of Malawi
but is of lesser importance to Tanzania and Mozambique.
Malawi operates an aquarium ﬁsh trade that exploits some ofthe highly localized and rare ﬁsh species, while Tanzania andMozambique are developing agriculture and tourism within
the lake’s catchment with the potential for adding sedimentand nutrients to the lake. There is considerable international
concern about the threat to the lake’s biodiversity. Despite apreliminary GEF-ﬁnanced biodiversity project and considerable
preparation work for a major follow-up project, the Governmentof Malawi has decided not to give the conservation of the lake’s
biodiversity a high priority.
However, the lake briefs note that, while highly valuable, theshort-term nature of these projects jeopardizes the long-termsustainability of management improvements. There wasconcern expressed at the African lakes workshop and in theLake Malawi/Nyasa brief that, when GEF funding ceased,
the activities being supported also ceased (The GEF-funded
Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation Project was asmall, early, pilot project). The brief on the Lake Baikal GEFBiodiversity project echoed the same concern: “it is unclear
how successful projects developed under the GEF project willcontinue to receive funding now that the project is over.” Whilethese comments may reveal a misunderstanding of the purposeof the GEF funds, they still indicate that there is a need to makethe outcomes of GEF-funded projects more sustainable. Whileit was not explicitly noted in the lake basin briefs, the GEF hasfollowed on from its initial investments at Lake Tanganyika andLake Victoria with second-phase projects aimed at building on
the achievements of the ﬁrst-phase projects.
While a programmatic approach to GEF funding would help
overcome this problem, it would also require a greatercommitment from national governments. The African andEurope/Central Asia/Americas workshop attendees supported
greater commitment from national governments. The Lake
Malawi/Nyasa brief also complained that undertakings bygovernments to incorporate responsibility for activities atthe end of the donor funding period are rarely honored. Thisobservation is valid for many externally-funded lake basin
management projects. One consequence is that externally
funded development projects may need to concentrate on
developing mechanisms for sustainable ﬁnancing from local
82

Chapter 9Section III
Synthesis

Chapter 10 on planning discusses how the components of lake basin management can be carried out in practice. Chapter 11
provides guidelines for taking action to improve lake basin ecosystems and beneﬁt the people who depend on lake basins.

Chapter 10
Planning for Sustainable Lake Basin Management

Key Lessons Learned about Planning•

Planning processes for lake basins require the integration of the components of good management discussed in Section
II. Any plan for a lake basin needs to be aligned with regional and national plans for development and environmental
protection.

•

Plans vary in their levels of detail and breadth. By focusing on agreed goals, vision statements can be useful ﬁrst steps
to developing more detailed management plans.

•Comprehensive plans have the advantage of improving effectiveness by integrating actions across sectors. However,they can be expensive to implement, costly to coordinate, and inﬂexible in the face of changing political priorities.

•

Statutory plans provide control over day-to-day development activities in a lake basin through the existing legal andinstitutional framework. Together with Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment
frameworks, these existing statutory provisions need to be fully utilized. Implementation of statutory provisions
requires a good governance framework and associated institutional capacity.

•

At this stage, three of the eight GEF International Waters-funded projects in this study have produced Strategic Action
Programs. From the examples available, it appears that these SAPs have been beneﬁcial in promoting contact between
sectoral and national institutions and have laid the foundation for joint management interventions.

•

Coordination between sectoral and regional plans should ﬁrst take place where the pressures are greatest. They should
be phased over time and be opportunistic.

•

Sectoral or regional plans can be coordinated through (1) a separate coordinating project, (2) a post-hoc uniﬁcation of
outputs, or (3) a broadening in the scope of an initially narrow project as it achieves success and gains credibility.

•

Plans need to be ﬂexible in the face of changing social needs and external factors. They also need to be responsive tothe results of monitoring. Some activities may be less successful than envisaged, and new issues may be identiﬁed
through the monitoring program.

This chapter covers two broad subjects. The ﬁrst explores
how the terms “plan” and “planning” are used in lake basin
management as revealed in the lake basin briefs and how
they relate to the discussion of the components of lakebasin management. The second focuses on the integrationof planning issues, including social consensus, scientiﬁcknowledge, and time factors.

The process of planning comprises the following stages:•

Establishment of a goal (or a set of goals) agreed by the
stakeholders;•Development of alternative strategies for reaching thegoal;

Planning for Sustainable Lake Basin Management: A
General Overview•

Selection of the preferred strategy based on anassessment of feasibility;

Planning and Objectives•

Implementation of that strategy with mobilization ofnecessary resources; and,•Reﬁnement of the strategy through monitoring andevaluation.

Lake basin planning is the process of developing an agreed setof goals for use of a lake basin and the means for achieving
those goals, typically within a particular time frame andresource constraints. Plans can be developed at different
levels of speciﬁcity from local to basin-wide plans, and fromsectoral to comprehensive plans.

Lake basin planning relies on the components of good
governance discussed in Section II of this report (Figure 10.1

and Box 10.1). Development of a plan requires involvementof stakeholders and institutions concerned with lake basin
management, the use of reliable and timely information, theassessment and selection of both policies and technologicalresponses to issues, and the identiﬁcation of ﬁnancing
options for implementing the plan. The lake basin plan is themechanism for putting the components together in an effective
and fair way for resource development, environmental
protection, and social beneﬁt.
In both developing and industrialized countries, the viability ofa management plan for a lake basin is strongly dependent on
the alignment of the plan with regional and national plans forsocioeconomic development and environmental conservation.
If the policy and institutional contexts are not properly aligned,then the lake basin plan is unlikely to be supported.

Choiceofpolicy mix

Engaging
Stakeholders
Financing

Management plan
to implement
Technological
Response

Information
Effective
institutions

On a foundation of good governance including:
Legitimacy
Transparency

Fairness

Accountability

Acceptability

Figure 10.1 A Conceptual Framework of Lake Basin Planning.

Box 10.1 Planning and the Components of Lake Basin Management“Opportunities for Action” (Lake Champlain Basin Program 2003) illustrates the inclusion of the components of lake basin
management, discussed in Section II, into a comprehensive plan. The plan, produced in 1996 and reviewed in 2003, includes
a shared vision for the entire lake basin; prioritized actions for water quality and quantity, living resources, cultural heritage,
recreation and economic development; and a variety of speciﬁc agreements (such as a Water Quality Agreement).
Institutions. There are a variety of institutions involved in the management of Lake Champlain, including:•

The International Joint Commission, which coordinates activities across all boundary waters between Canada and theUnited States;•

The Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, a federal-state cooperative between the various stateand federal ﬁsh and wildlife agencies that manages the ﬁsh and wildlife resources of Lake Champlain; and,•The Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) which is a partnership between the states of New York and Vermont, theprovince of Quebec, and various federal and local government agencies and local groups. The LCBP coordinated theactivities of the various sectoral and other institutions in developing and implementing the plan.

Rules. New York and Vermont have agreed on loading and in-lake concentration nutrient targets that have become the basisof a federally mandated phosphorus total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan for Lake Champlain. Vermont and Quebec havealso developed an agreement dividing responsibility for phosphorus reductions in the northern section of the lake.
Stakeholder Involvement. Twenty-eight formal public meetings and countless informal meetings were held during thedevelopment of the plan. There was similar intensive public involvement when the plan was revised in 2003. There was alsoa series of advisory committees whose members represented the various interests associated with speciﬁc areas of the plan.
This consensus-driven approach tends to minimize the polarization of hard ideological positions.
Knowledge. The plan is based on the best available knowledge. A workshop, held in 1992 reviewed existing information andestablished a research and monitoring agenda. Subsequently, technical projects have been funded to provide key information
to inform management decisions. After the plan was completed in 1996, research and monitoring were continued, both in theform of targeted projects investigating particular issues and ongoing monitoring designed to document the long-term trends
in the quality of the basin’s resources. Monitoring environmental conditions typically requires up to 15 percent of the annual
USEPA funds available to the LCBP.
Funding. Comprehensive plans are expensive to implement. Preliminary cost estimates from “Opportunities for Action”
implementation actions will require at least $12 to $15 million annually and at least $170 million for the period through 2016.
The LCBP has diversiﬁed its federal funding base in recent years. Base funding is provided by the USEPA, with several otherfederal agencies also contributing. Federal funding supports portions of the coordination, technical, and outreach activitiesof the LCBP partners. A signiﬁcant portion of this funding is passed on to NGOs working on local issues throughout the basin,
resulting in increased interest, participation, and ﬁnancial support from local citizens and businesses. The Leahy Center,a combined museum and science center, is funded from private donors, the federal government, and other supportingorganizations.
Source: Lake Champlain Basin Program (2003).
86

Chapter 10

In both cases, political decision makers can be powerfulinﬂuences in drawing up and implementing management
plans. They can promote institutional cooperation, ensurealignment with socioeconomic development and environmental
conservation plans, and access the necessary ﬁnances for
implementation. For example, the Chief Minister for the IndianState of Orissa played a prominent role in the development
and implementation of the Chilika Lagoon recovery plan.
However, there can be a cost to close political involvement, asshown at Laguna de Bay. Some members of the board of the
Laguna Lake Development Authority were appointed by thepresident of the Philippines and, while that provided accessto senior political levels, it also meant that the Authority was
subject to shifts in government policy, with a consequent lackof continuity in its programs. Hence, it is important for a lakebasin management plan to allow for ﬂexibility and to include
risk mitigation and adaptation components.

Ohrid Transboundary Watershed Action Plan is typical of theseplans. It includes the following four primary action items:

Forms of Plans for Lake Basin Management
Vision Plans
As a step toward developing a detailed management plan
for a lake basin, it can sometimes be desirable to develop
a vision statement. While strictly not a plan itself, such astatement provides a mechanism for stakeholders (bothcross-sectoral and transboundary) to agree on the higher-levelgoals to be achieved within the lake basin and thereby lay thefoundation for a more detailed management plan. The Vision
and Strategy Framework for Management of the Lake Victoria
Basin is an example of a high-level statement of agreed goals
developed through a highly consultative process carried out
at local, district, national, and regional levels (over 15,000
submissions were received). The vision contains numerous
sectoral strategies, grouped under ﬁve policy areas. While
the vision statement is well considered and widely accepted,
the strategy framework is generalized and lacks priorities
and implementation details. The North American Great Lakes
Charter, signed in 1985, established a series of principles andprocedures for managing Great Lakes water resources and iseffectively a vision statement.

•

Reduction of point-source pollution through actions thatstress septic system management and maintenance,
homeowner education, and management of solid
waste;•

Reduction of nonpoint-source pollution through actions
that focus on implementing conservation practices on
farms and restoring impaired stream reaches;•

Habitat protection and restoration through wetlands
inventory and the establishment of a no-net-loss policy,
identiﬁcation and protection of ﬁsh spawning habitat,and inventories of the native ﬂora and fauna in thewatershed; and,•Comprehensive planning through the establishment of
micro-watershed planning committees, and by creating
a GIS system and building the planning capabilities
within the municipalities.

Sectoral agencies are usually responsible for developing shortterm management intervention plans for both development
and conservation/remediation purposes. A 1993 Water
Quality Agreement for Lake Champlain signed by the statesof New York and Vermont and the province of Quebec in 1993
included, among other actions and strategies, a phosphorus
load reduction strategy from point and nonpoint sources.
A review of progress of the strategy showed that all threeparticipant jurisdictions had considerably exceeded their
reduction commitments, but that the nutrient reductions frompoint-source improvements were being offset by increases
in other sectors, principally conversion of agricultural land
to urban uses. This highlights one of the limitations of suchsectoral plans; they are not effective instruments for tacklingproblems that span numerous sectors, such as the problems
found in many lake basins.
Comprehensive Plans

A vision plan can be a useful device when the issues to beresolved in establishing a management plan are complex,
when there has been no history of cooperation between
sectors or countries, or when there is a lack of informationand it is premature to decide on detailed actions. The level of
institutional commitment and the required ﬁnancial and humanresources for vision statements are likely to be quite moderatecompared to the level associated with implementation ofprojects that are typically associated with basin “action plans”
or with sectoral “intervention plans”.
Action Plans and Intervention Plans
Terms such as “action plans” and “intervention plans” areused fairly interchangeably to describe short-term plans withsectoral commitments to carry out speciﬁed actions in pursuitof the agreed management goals for the lake basin. The Lake

Planning

A comprehensive lake basin plan details the long-term
structural and nonstructural actions needed acrossmultiple sectors and (if necessary) jurisdictions to meet thedevelopment and conservation goals for the lake basin. These
goals may have been outlined in a previous vision statement.
The actions are carried out by a range of (usually sectoral)organizations and a lake basin coordinating institution,
if one exists. Such comprehensive plans are designed toovercome the limitations of sectoral approaches to problem
management. However, their time frames may extend wellbeyond the normal budgeting cycles of government agencies.
In addition, the priorities of sectoral agencies change over timein response to political needs. Consequently, there may be only
a weak commitment to the long-term implementation of suchplans, unless an adaptive approach is used where the plans
are designed to be ﬂexible and subject to periodic review.

87The Lake Conservation and Management Project at the Bhoj
Wetland is an example of a comprehensive plan. It has tackled
various issues associated with conservation and managementof the upper and lower Bhopal lakes under a multi-sectoral
strategy. The strategy includes 16 sub-projects to be
implemented by sectoral agencies, including infrastructure
for the diversion and treatment of domestic sewage; cityand catchment afforestation; de-weeding and aquaculture
operations in the large lake; ﬂoating fountains for aerating thelake waters and promoting eco-tourism; relocation of clothes
washing sites; construction of a road along the lake peripheryfor easing trafﬁc pressures to stop encroachments in the littoral
area; and dredging of silt to increase lake capacity and reduce
ﬂoods. Many of these actions have now been completed
successfully. As a further example, Box 10.2 describes the Lake
Biwa Comprehensive Development Plan.
While comprehensive planning has been practiced for many
decades in order to tackle longer-term, cross-sectoral issues,
the means for developing these plans has changed in response
to lessons learned and changing social structures. Thus,
the North American Great Lakes brief identiﬁes ﬁve eras oflake basin management, each with a different emphasis onplanning: “Resources Development” in the late 18th throughmid 19th century; “Transition” in the late 19th century; “Federal
Leadership” in the early 20th century; “River Basin” in the late
20th century; and the “New” era from the mid-1980s throughtoday. During the “River Basin” era, there was an emphasis onenvironmental protection and resources management using a
top-down, government-dominated approach. In the “new era,”planning and management is undertaken using a bottom-up,
partnership-based, inclusive approach.

Statutory Plans
Most countries have a form of statutory land use zoning, usually
implemented at the local government level, used to control thelocation of different land uses and impose conditions on uses
and changes of use. Such zoning schemes are intended tocoordinate land development with the provision of services
such as roads, water supply, and power; minimize nuisances
between incompatible land uses; indicate conditions that
may be required on development proposals; and help protect
environmentally sensitive areas. Statutory land use zoning
schemes are essentially reactive instruments that are used
to respond to development proposals, rather than to actively
lead and promote development and conservation activities.
Nevertheless, they inevitably affect the development of basins
and so can be used to help promote the objectives of lakebasin management. There is little discussion in the lake briefs
about the use of these statutory zoning instruments for helping
protect lake basins, although the Lake Nakuru briefs describes
the development of a strategic structural plan for Nakuru cityin 1999 that identiﬁes key planning sectors and offers a visionof the intended spatial structure of the city.
However, there are a number of special purpose zoning
schemes described in the lake briefs that are designed for lakebasin protection and development.
•

The zoning scheme for the Issyk-Kul Biosphere Reserve
comprises four zones: a core zone; a buffer zone; atransitional zone; and a restoration zone. Goals forprotection and development differ from zone to zone, as
do standards for use. However, environmental problems
in all four zones are closely intertwined with economic

Box 10.2 The Lake Biwa Comprehensive Development Plan (1972–97)
The Lake Biwa Comprehensive Development Project (LBCDP) was a major national project, with its primary object being
provision of additional supply of Lake Biwa water to the downstream Kyoto/Osaka/Kobe region. The speciﬁc goals of the
project were to:•Construct levees around the lake, with various ﬂow control structures to enable the release of an additional 40 m3/secof lake water to the Yodo River;•

Improve the ﬂood control capability of rivers by channelization and by installation of ﬂow control gates along the Lake
Biwa coastline, as well as along the Yodo River itself; and,•

Improve the water irrigation pipelines and sewerage systems around the lake.

The ﬁnancial support for these massive development projects came from the national government, the downstream prefecturaland municipal governments, as well as from the Shiga Prefecture. The LBCDP cost 1.9 trillion yen (about $17 billion), andbecame the largest water resources development project in Japan. The project laid a sound foundation for ﬂood control andwater utilization and industrial and urban infrastructure, boosting the economy of Shiga Prefecture. Transportation capabilityof Shiga Prefecture has also improved signiﬁcantly with the construction of motorway-topped levees around the lake, which
was not however the primary objective of the construction.
However, the LBCDP also triggered the destruction of the lakeshores and littoral ecosystems, and possibly accelerated thedegradation of the lake’s water quality. In 1976, demanding the right to enjoy clear water, more than 1,000 citizens brought a
lawsuit against the central and Shiga Prefectural governments to stop the LBCDP. Although the plaintiffs lost the case, theiradvocacy led to the enactment in 1992 of the Reed Belt Conservation Ordinance and the Basic Environment Ordinance in
1996.
Source: Lake Biwa Brief.
88

Chapter 10

activity, and so recommendations on environmental
improvement of the given areas are intertwined withprospects for economic development.
••

There are regulatory zonings on Lake Biwa for recreation
use that, for example, designate areas for pleasureboats, prohibit the use of personal watercraft with
2-cycle engines, and forbid the catch-and-release ofinvasive ﬁsh.
Protected areas have been zoned on the shorelineof Lake Constance by the Hochrhein-Bodensee and
Bodensee-Oberschwaben
regional
associations
to protect the valuable and sensitive shallows. For
example, 51 percent of Baden-Wurttemberg’s shoreline
has been designated as belonging to Protected Zone I,
which comprises shoreline close to its natural condition
and transition zones with biotopes deserving protection
or valuable ﬁshing or spawning areas. This zoning not
only prevents further shoreline deterioration, but has
been used to designate areas for re-naturalization
where reeds are being reintroduced, trees and bushes
replanted, and impediments to ﬁshing removed.

Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic
Environmental Assessments
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are now required bymost countries as part of the evaluation, review, and approval
process for proposed investment projects. They are typicallyapplied to larger projects (dams, irrigation and drainage,transportation investments, ports and harbors, and so on)
and are intended to integrate environmental and social issues
into the planning, approval and implementation process for
proposed projects. This includes evaluation of alternatives
to the proposed project, examination of potential positive
and adverse impacts, development of environmental andsocial management plans to mitigate potential impacts andprovision of a framework for monitoring. They also provide
an important mechanism for public consultation concerning
proposed investments, as well as support the dissemination of
information to stakeholders.
While EIAs for proposed developments in lake basins should
identify, assess, and propose mitigation measures forany environmental and social impacts, there is almost no
discussion of this instrument in the lake briefs. The Kariba
Reservoir brief makes the speciﬁc point that it was theabsence of any requirement for EIA when the Kariba Dam wasconstructed in the late 1950s that led to many of the deleterious
environmental and social impacts that followed. The absenceof a formal EIA allowed the governments, developers, andfunders to proceed without having to carefully consider the
likely detrimental effects of the dam. Today, EIAs are legallyrequired in the countries in economic transition and mostcountries in the developing world, although many countries
lack the capacity to effectively use them in the decisionmaking process and to implement the mitigation measures in atimely manner. Nevertheless, proposals for loans and grants to
Planning

multilateral development banks and bilateral donor agencies,
including the World Bank, need to be accompanied by EIAs.
While EIAs have proven valuable for bringing environmental
and social issues into project assessment, they assess only
speciﬁc proposals (or variants of them) and are sometimes
completed too late in the project cycle to have a major
inﬂuence on the design of the project.
In order to integrate the assessment of potential environmental
impacts at a higher level in the planning process, increasing
use is being made of Strategic Environmental Assessments(SEA) in many countries, by the World Bank and somebilateral donors. SEAs, which are emerging tools, are applied
not to speciﬁc project proposals but to policies, plans, andprograms, and so allow a more preemptive and strategic
assessment to be made of potential environmental and social
impacts. Cumulative and incremental impacts can be moreeasily assessed and potentially beneﬁcial impacts can be
identiﬁed at an early stage and promoted. Although there are
no examples of SEAs cited in the lake briefs, these higher level
instruments are being applied in the Nile Basin Initiative toevaluate the larger environmental and social issues associatedwith river, lake, and wetland management proposals to besupported under this program. During the next few years, theuse of SEA by multilateral development banks and bilateral
donor agencies is anticipated to increase signiﬁcantly and is
the subject of an ongoing major review by the Development
Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Strategic Action Programs
The GEF promotes the development of Strategic Action
Programs (SAPs) in its international waters projects. The SAP isbased on an analysis of issues and their root causes in the lakebasin (Chapter 8). The SAP describes the agreed actions to be
carried out by the national governments, local governments,
and NGOs/CBOs in the lake basin together with theirdevelopment partners, including the GEF. It contains a clear
statement of the actions needed to address transboundary
issues; these actions include policy, legal, and/or institutional
reforms, as well as remedial measures needed to ensure thesustainable use of a transboundary waterbody. In some cases,
countries produce their own national action plans based on
the SAP as part of their development planning.
There were eight projects in this study that were funded under
the GEF-IW focal area. The Lake Tanganyika, Lake Ohrid, andLake Chad projects have produced SAPs, while the GEF-IW
projects at Lakes Peipsi/Chudskoe and Victoria have notproduced SAPs. While the Aral Sea GEF-funded project has notproduced a speciﬁc SAP, there a number of activities under way
to increase the efﬁciency of water use by upstream countries
and to protect at least part of the Aral Sea and its wetlands
through engineering intervention. The more recent projects
at Lakes Xingkai/Khanka and Cocibolca are committed to
producing TDAs and SAPs.

89

The Lake Ohrid Transboundary Watershed Action Plan is an
example of a SAP produced by a GEF-funded project. The plan,
endorsed by the binational Lake Ohrid Management Board,
outlines the actions needed and the roles of the stakeholders
at both the national and local levels. The four primary action
items include:•

Reduction of point-source pollution through actions thatstress septic system management and maintenance,
homeowner education, and management of solid
waste;•

Reduction of nonpoint-source pollution through actions
that focus on implementing conservation practices on
farms and restoring impaired stream reaches;•

Habitat protection and restoration through wetlands
inventory and the establishment of a no-net-loss policy,
identiﬁcation and protection of ﬁsh spawning habitat,and inventories of the native ﬂora and fauna in thewatershed; and,•Comprehensive planning through the establishment of
micro-watershed planning committees, and by creating
a GIS system and building the planning capabilities
within the municipalities.

The production of the SAP, like the production of the TDA,
acts as a mechanism for conducting multilateral dialogues
on the broader transboundary subject areas of concern
among the riparian nations. In the case of the GEF-funded

Lake Tanganyika project, the diverse technical programs,
the national working group structure, and the SAP planning
process were all cited as good vehicles for generating broad
stakeholder participation. As another example, the Lake Ohrid
brief stated that, “watershed management committees havebeen formed and have succeeded in creating comprehensive
multistakeholder forums and in initiating pilot projects thathave helped to develop a SAP for the lake.”
The GEF advocates that a TDA precede a Strategic Action
Program, and that the SAP be developed with widespread
consultation, because sustainable and effective management
plans need to be based on both reliable knowledge andsocial consensus. Box 10.3 summarizes the status of reachingknowledge and consensus in selected lake basins included aspart of the LBMI process.

Coordinating Lake Basin Planning Activities
Approaches to Coordination
Many lake basin management plans are sectorally or regionallybased. Even comprehensive management plans usually consistof numerous sectorally implemented components as illustrated
by the Bhoj Wetland example. The temporal and spatial
sequencing of projects both within a sector and between
sectors can be very demanding in the face of budgetary andother resource constraints, compounded by changing socialand political priorities. Coordinating these components so thatthey are mutually consistent and remain focused on the goalsof lake basin management requires considerable ﬂexibility andwillingness to adapt to change.

Box 10.3 Dealing with Uncertainties in Planning for Lake Basin Management
High consensus, good knowledge base. Many small-scale sectoral resource development projects (such as in ﬁsherydevelopment or tourism) in industrialized countries have strong social support and are based on good understanding. These
sectoral plans tend to be very successful. For example, a series of programs to reduce nutrient loads from point sources inboth the United States and Canada received widespread public support and were based on a strong scientiﬁc knowledge
base. These programs have been successful.
High consensus, poor knowledge base. The lake basins facing this situation require plans that would typically include aknowledge development component—such as an intensive monitoring program or a scientiﬁc or socioeconomic researchcomponent—to reduce the uncertainties. These plans would also be developed under the precautionary principle; that is,
management actions would be conservative, so that the chances of causing unforeseen problems would be minimized.
Examples of lakes that ﬁt into this category include Lakes Dianchi, Victoria (prior to the LVEMP project), Tonle Sap and IssykKul.
Low consensus, good knowledge base. Lake Nakuru in Kenya provides an example where there is a large number ofstakeholder groups, and where there has also been considerable biophysical research undertaken into the water quantityand quality problems of the lake and its drainage basin. The Lake Nakuru brief summarizes the situation as “It is now widely
recognized that the constraints to lake basin management are mainly social, economic, and institutional.” The Kenyan Wildlife
Service has developed an Ecosystem Integrated Management Plan for the Lake Nakuru National Park surrounding the lake,
and the Nakuru Municipal Council completed a Strategic Structural Plan for the town. However, there is no overall plan for thebasin that sets out agreed sharing of the resources.
Low consensus, poor knowledge base. The Lake Chad Basin Commission has been unable to effectively manage the lakebasin because some of the countries have pursued independent irrigation development. In addition, there is only a limited
understanding of the combined effects of water withdrawals, climate variability, and climate change on the lake’s water level,
so there is no accepted knowledge base from which comprehensive management decisions can be made. Typically, theseactions will be conﬁned to individual sectors, such as ﬁsheries or tourism, and should ideally be based on a careful risk
assessment of a particular management intervention.

90

Chapter 10

The management of Tonle Sap and the broader Mekong Riversystem provides an example of coordinating different spatial
levels. A number of donor-funded projects have been initiatedto assist the Government of Cambodia in developing thehuman resources capacity to manage this lake basin, which
is important for both its productivity and its biodiversity. At
the same time, there are a number of initiatives under way toprovide assistance to the development and conservation of the
Mekong River system. The Mekong Basin WUP commenced in2000 to help establish a reasonable and equitable water use
allocation between the basin countries while maintaining its
ecological integrity, including the integrity of Tonle Sap. A
complementary program funded by the Finnish government,
WUP-FN, is addressing the environmental and socioeconomic
issues in the region caused by the unique nature of Tonle Sap,
including its unusual ﬂooding cycle, its diverse ecosystems,

and the livestyles of the culturally and ethnically diverse
populations around the lake.
Box 10.4 provides three broad approaches to coordinating
sectoral and regional planning activities over time and space. In
the ﬁrst approach, “coordination by encompassing”, separately
implemented activities within a sector and between sectors
are brought together under an umbrella framework that makes
project linkages and the beneﬁts of coordination explicit. The
umbrella framework is effectively a comprehensive plan. In
the second approach, termed “coordination by uniﬁcation”,
the activities within the same sector are implemented overtime and space more or less independently and then uniﬁed
later. While this devolved approach places few demands
on staff and budgets, it runs the risk of not achieving lakebasin development and protection goals because of the lackof overall direction. The third approach, “coordination by

Box 10.4 Ways of Coordinating Separate Activities
Coordination by Encompassing (Figure 10.2a). This type of coordination occurs when a speciﬁc project or program isinstituted to coordinate independently developed sectoral or regional programs and projects that are being implemented at
the same time. These coordinating programs are introduced when it becomes apparent that greater beneﬁts can be gained byintegrating multiple sector activities to a coherent and collaborative framework. Typically, this integration will include crosssectoral coordination across different government ministries, and different countries for transboundary lake basins. There are
numerous examples of this approach in the lake briefs, including the Department of Lake Biwa and the Environment (Lake
Biwa), the Lake Dianchi Protection Committee and Bureau (Lake Dianchi), the Mekong River Commission (Tonle Sap and the
Mekong River), and the Lake Titicaca Binational Authority (Lake Titicaca).
Coordination by Uniﬁcation (Figure 10.2b). The Zoning and Management Plan for Aquaculture (ZOMAP) in Laguna de Bayprovides a typical example of coordination by uniﬁcation. The competition for Laguna de Bay’s aquatic resources has beenﬁerce for decades, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s following the introduction of commercial ﬁsh-pen technology
during the mid-1970s. During the 1980s, LLDA introduced various measures to both conserve the ﬁshery resources andsupport small-scale local ﬁshermen. The comprehensive ZOMAP was approved in 1996 and placed under LLDA’s LakeManagement Division in 1999. ZOMAP acted as a post-hoc unifying project, providing a basis for the new phase of sustainableﬁshery resources management for the lake, with clearer delineation of responsibilities and political commitments.
Coordination by Broadening (Figure 10.2c). Some project activities grow because of early successes and expand their spheresof operation either spatially or sectorally. In the case of Lake Constance, the fringing wetlands around the lake have been
restored for biodiversity conservation over the past decades, with the extent of restored shoreline gradually expanding toprovide for natural habitats. This is an example where the broadening has occurred over space. The North American Great
Lakes provides an example where the scope of management has expanded from control of point sources of pollution, to toxic
contaminants, to invasive species, and, more recently, to nonpoint-source pollution.

Integration of
Projects by
Unification
Integration
Sequential
Broadening
Coverage

Coverage
Project

Related but
Independent
Project

Encompassing
Integration of
Projects

Provision of
Unifying
Framework

Broadeningof Coverage

Individual
Project
Individual
Project
Seed Project(a) Coordination by Encompassing(b) Coordination by Uniﬁcation(c) Coordination by Broadening

Figure 10.2 Three Forms of Coordination.

Planning

91

evolution”, occurs when a single activity grows and matures
over time to extend its coverage of issues and regions. The
management infrastructure established at the beginning of theactivity evolves and provides the coordinating mechanism as
the activity grows.

use of the exposed lake bed by riparian owners, it now has
a much wider role in environmental management of the lakeand contributes to the lake’s Management Implementation
Committee, which is in the process of being gazetted under
Kenya’s Environmental Coordination and Management Act as
the lake basin’s management body.

Coordinating through Opportunity
Successful integrated lake basin management requires both
political commitment and the necessary enabling conditions.
These include effective institutions, genuine involvement of
stakeholders, fundamental biophysical and socioeconomic
knowledge about the lake basin, and access to sustainablesources of ﬁnance. The Lake Chad brief shows that moving
too quickly to integrated lake basin management before these
conditions are established does not work. A number of lakebasin briefs emphasized that it is better to start small, bringing
together management agencies and stakeholders where theissues are apparent and where there is a developing social
consensus. These opportunities often lie within a sector (suchas ﬁsheries), or where the problem is readily apparent (such as
pathogens from sewage). Success in correcting this problem
builds conﬁdence for tackling other problems. Box 10.5
provides examples from Lake Ohrid and the Chilika Lagoon.

The need for long-term commitments also applies toexternally-funded assistance projects in developing countries.
Even though these projects are usually designed to help
develop the enabling conditions for long-term lake basin
management, their typical implementation period of 4–5 years
is often too short for the institutions, community involvement,
and acquisition of knowledge to be fully established. These
assistance projects need to be succeeded by follow-on
projects that build on the initial development of the enabling
conditions. For example, the initial GEF-funded projects at
Lakes Tanganyika and Victoria are being followed with further
projects that are designed to help basin countries implement
stress reduction activities based on the knowledge acquired
during the initial projects.

It typically takes many years, even decades, for goals tobe agreed, for sufﬁcient knowledge to be accumulated for
effective management, for institutions to be established orcoordinated, and for laws to be passed and rules developed.
Starting small and building on success before developing amore comprehensive lake basin management plan typicallytakes many years, so all stakeholders need to be committed
for the long term. The Lake Naivasha Riparian Association has
evolved over several decades from the earlier Lake Naivasha
Riparian Owners Association (1929) to take on an increasingly
wider responsibility. Originally formed just to manage the

It is essential that any lake basin plan includes indicators ofsuccess. Not only should these provide quantitative measuresof progress in implementing the plan, but they should also be
designed to help identify impediments to achieving the plan’sgoals and help identify emerging issues. The GEF advocatesthe use of three types of indicators—process, stressreduction, and environmental status—for their international
waters projects (Chapter 8). These same indicator types canbe used to track the implementation of lake basin plans. Box
8.3 describes the use of indicators in the North American Great
Lakes.

Indicators, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management

Box 10.5 Building on Initial Success
Lake Ohrid, FYR Macedonia and Albania. An important commercial and cultural ﬁsh species, the Lake Ohrid trout, isthreatened by overﬁshing, as well as by pollution, loss of breeding grounds, and competition from introduced species. BothFYR Macedonia and Albania have agreed that the ﬁsheries are in immediate danger and rapid management action is required.
Scientiﬁc studies show that the ﬁsh in the lake form a single population, and so they must be managed jointly by bothcountries. With assistance from the GEF, multilateral and bilateral donors, government ofﬁcials and ﬁsheries experts in bothcountries have agreed to a uniﬁcation of some of the ﬁsheries regulations. For example, in 2001, both countries agreed to thesame allowable net size. Although there have been improvements in management, the lake’s native trout ﬁsheries have yet toshow signs of recovery. Nevertheless, the conﬁdence and trust gained in working together on this issue, together with otherjoint activities, has helped the two countries develop a more comprehensive approach to managing the lake and its basin.
Chilika Lagoon, India. Chilika Lagoon, on the east coast of India, is an estuarine lake system noted for its scenic beauty,
its productive ﬁsheries, its religious signiﬁcance, and its importance as a resting place for migratory birds. However, due todiversion of inﬂowing rivers for irrigation, and increased silt loads from surrounding catchments, the lake exit had become
silted up and ﬁsh catches had declined dramatically. The Chilika Development Authority was established in 1992 to coordinate
and promote lake restoration and development across the operational agencies. Through the CDAs efforts, a new entrance
was dredged to the ocean in 2000 to provide more direct interchange between the lagoon and the ocean. The results weredramatic—salinity levels in the northern sector of the lake increased from freshwater levels back to “natural” brakish levelsof over 20 g/L, and ﬁsh landings increased from 1,600 metric tons before intervention to almost 12,000 metric tons in thefollowing year. There were other beneﬁts in crab catches and in reductions in aquatic weeds. The obvious success of thisengineering intervention in the lagoon has strengthened the hand of the CDA in implementing other aspects of management,
including catchment management and introduction of environmental ﬂows from upstream water storages.
Sources: Lake Ohrid and Chilka Lagoon Briefs.
92

Chapter 10

The lake basin plan needs to include a monitoring component
to provide the data to populate the indicators. The data frommonitoring can also be used to develop a better understandingof the biophysical and socioeconomic processes occurring in
the lake basin (Chapter 8).
Lake basin plans need to be adaptive, not only in responseto the monitoring data, but also in response to changing
social needs and external factors. For example, there areuncertainties about ecological processes and functions,about the impact of different patterns of resources use, andabout political and social development and the effects ofexternal inﬂuences such as changes in international tradingarrangements. Lake basin management planning should
therefore include a process for reviewing and modifying theplan either at regular intervals or when the indicators suggestthat goals are not being achieved.

Planning

93Chapter 11
Toward the Future•

Institutions. Is our organizational structure correct?
Do we have the necessary legislative powers? Have
we formed alliances with all relevant organizations
that need to be involved in management? Do we havegood links to decision makers and do they listen to
us? Has political will and commitment grown, or has it
waned? Are our capacity building and training programs
effective? What mid-course corrections are needed; For
example, are there new skills not considered when we
started?

•

Policies. When we developed rules, did we involve those
who would be affected? Do we have adequate resources
to enforce the rules or do we need to use anotherapproach? Are economic instruments likely to succeed
in controlling the use of lake basin resources? Do wehave an environment that would allow charges for use oflake basin resources?

•

Stakeholder Participation. Are mechanisms inplace for effective stakeholder participation? All
stakeholders? What has been the change in awarenessand understanding of the problems and their links tostakeholder activities? What is the perception of the
program’s stakeholders? Is there sufﬁcient community
participation?

•

Technology. Will infrastructure be effective over the longterm, or does it need institutional changes? Have webudgeted for replacement costs of infrastructure?

•

Information. What is the status of the knowledge base? Is
a monitoring system in place that can measure changes
in key indicators? Is the database sufﬁcient? What are
the remaining key gaps? Are information management
tools good enough to be deployed effectively?

Key Questions for Managers•

What is the state of the lake and its basin today, bothbiophysically and managerially? What impact has anexisting management program had in terms of sustainable
management of the lake basin; that is, on the development
and conservation/remediation of its resource values? Are wemoving in the right direction, and are we sure we know whatthat direction ought to be? What do we know now that we did
not know at the beginning? Speciﬁc questions include:

Funding. Can we spend the funds collected locally?
Do we have sufﬁciently strong links to the national
government to obtain ﬁnancial support for major
projects? Are there globally important features in ourlake basin that warrant international funding? How
best can we use external funds so that the fundamental
components of management are developed?

•

Planning. Are the priority elements of a management
plan properly implemented? Do we have an adequate

This report has discussed the major issues facing lake basin
management and the range of options that might be consideredto address these governance challenges. It has also discussed
the unique biophysical characteristics (integrating nature, longretention times, and complex response dynamics) that makesustainable use and management of lake basin resources acomplex environmental and natural resources management
challenge.
The 28 lake briefs provide extensive experience from which to
draw lessons. But there is also much that can be learned fromthe management of other natural resources. For example, lakebasin management has much in common with sustainable
management of whole river basins. Those who are involved inlake basin management can learn by joining networks of theseother natural resources managers through the Internet andthrough meetings, such as the World Lake Conferences, GEF
International Waters conferences, Ramsar meetings, the World
Water Forum, and the Stockholm Water Symposium.
Nonetheless, lake basins will not receive the management
attention they need because of both their importance and theirvulnerability, unless the unique characteristics of lakes areclearly understood.

Reassessing Existing Lake Basin Management
Programs
The picture emerging from the 28 lakes is that few seem to havesucceeded in reversing the general trend of environmental
deterioration, although some have had success in tackling
speciﬁc degradation issues. Many lake basin management
programs, however, have advanced far enough to pause andreﬂect. For them, the past, ongoing, and emerging collective
experience in lake basin management does give a great deal of
insight into future courses of action.

management plan, or should it be brought up to
date? Are priorities and phasing clear? Are resources
sufﬁcient? Have we built the coalitions that would
enable the required actions to be implemented? Is
coordination adequate? Have either technology options
or costs changed, and are these changes reﬂected in the
management plan?
It is comparatively easy to look outward from a program,but much more problematic to look inward with a “collective
critical eye”. Program managers might consider whether they
have a sufﬁcient number of the right kind of skills—answers
to this question depend not only on current bottlenecks andconstraints that can be reasonably attributed to staff skills,
but also on reassessing the organization’s mandate andobjectives, authority (powers and functions), and its work
program. Speciﬁc questions to ask may include:•

Stafﬁng. Can we maintain the staff we have? Do weneed an expanded or a reduced staff? Some programs
are put together initially in an ad hoc manner with staff
seconded from different sources for relatively shortperiods, an approach that can work relatively well in the
short run. Has the program reached the point where amore permanent arrangement is going to be needed,
and what needs to be done to implement this? How
do we avoid having staff numbers beyond what we canmaintain given the availability of ﬁnancial resources?

•

Statutory Basis. Do we have an adequate statutory basis
to enable us to do what we know must be done in the
future? When should these changes be in place?

•Institutional Capacity. What is there about theinstitutional capacity, beyond stafﬁng, that limits
achieving effective implementation and constrainschoosing the right option among a range of possible
actions? What can be done to remove these
constraints?

•

Champions. Is there a champion(s) to sustain support
and activate political will? Is the champion listened to bypoliticians and senior ofﬁcials? How can the situation be
handled without the champion?

Roadblocks to Lake Basin Management
There seems to be no end to the range of issues and problems
that lake basin management programs face in moving
toward their objectives of restoration and sustainable useof lake basin resources. However, the 28 lake briefs gave usa clear message: most issues can be overcome by building
the knowledge base, effective stakeholder participation,
partnerships, or collaboration among the concerned agencies.
But there are a number of difﬁcult issues that need to beaddressed for effective lake basin management.

96

Policy Conﬂicts
Policy conﬂicts that arise from long-entrenched sector
interests, priorities, or prerogatives are widespread in thebriefs. In some cases, they are between developmentoriented and conservation-oriented sectors; in other cases,
they are between sectors that use lake basin resources thatare upstream of the lake, within the lake, and downstreamof the lake. These conﬂicts are particularly difﬁcult to deal
with because sectoral institutions, such as government
departments, possess considerable autonomy. They are
responsible directly to government ministers, have their own
budgets, and are often mandated through legislation. Unlessthe government as a whole takes a wider view, each sector canpursue its own agenda to the detriment of other sectors.
Political Motives
While not cited frequently in the lake briefs, politicalobstruction can impede lake basin management. Actions(or lack of actions) that serve narrow interests advocated byinﬂuential politicians are not in the best interests of sustainable
use of a lake basin’s resources. The inﬂuence and power of thesenior decision makers involved make these problems very
difﬁcult to deal with, although once the politically motivateddecisions are widely known, the weight of public opinion canlead to changes.
Lack of a VoiceAn unresponsive political system or administration that does
not consult widely or disregards credible advice can be difﬁcult
to deal with. Such systems are typically inward-focused anduninterested in the necessary reforms that would let affectedgroups have a say in decisions about use of the resources ofa lake basin. The decision by central planners in the Soviet
Union to use water from the rivers ﬂowing into the Aral Sea
for irrigation—in spite of the evidence that this decision would
desiccate the Aral Sea—is a good example of such problems.
Corruption
Corruption can be especially debilitating because it encourages
the particular behaviors and actions that programs to improvelake basin management are trying to change. It leads tolake basin resources being used inefﬁciently; it maintains
inequality and suppresses the poor and powerless; and it
encourages corruption elsewhere. Unless there is strong
leadership and a willingness to tackle corrupt ofﬁcials, othermanagers can become dispirited and apathetic in the face of
these problems.
Jurisdictional Boundaries
Jurisdictional boundaries can have a similar effect on effective
lake basin management to sectoral boundaries. Different
levels of government will tend to pursue their own interests
unless there is a strong coordinating institution able to bringthem together. Transboundary lake basin management isa special case where separate countries need to agree tocooperate if effective lake basin management is to occur. Whiletransboundary lake basin management is usually difﬁcult toChapter 11

organize, there are a number of encouraging examples in thelake briefs, in a number of cases with GEF assistance.

case by showing the advantages—economic, social, andenvironmental—of investing in lake basin management.

Funding

Leverage External Support

One of the most common themes in the lake briefs was the needfor sufﬁcient funds to carry out basic management operations,
including enforcement of regulations. A lack of funds canbe discouraging to managers. Even when the enabling
environment is conducive to good governance, a shortageof funds means that different agencies and jurisdictions are
not coordinated, decisions on allocating resources do not
get made or get made on the basis of poor information, andinfrastructure is not maintained. It takes considerable time
to develop whatever local sources of funds are available, andnational funding is usually in short supply in both developing
countries and countries in economic transition.

External support from international sources can act as acatalyst for obtaining greater national support as well as
mobilizing different sectors and interest groups. If your lakebasin has values of global importance, then GEF funding may beavailable at the request of the national government. However,external funding is available for limited periods and needs tobe applied judiciously to put in place the fundamentals of goodmanagement. It is important to build national-level support
to ensure that national funding continues after the externalfunding ceases.

Dealing with Roadblocks
These may appear to be insurmountable problems to those incharge of management of individual lake basins. However, the28 lake briefs suggest that all these problems can be overcome.
The lessons that emerge from the lake briefs include:
Be Creative and Proactive
Often it is a matter of getting the attention of senior decision
makers; look for opportunities to engage them. Try to
anticipate problems, and when one occurs, make sure that you
are in a position to offer a way to manage it. As far as possible,
back your advocacy with good data.
Build Coalitions
Managing lake basins requires cooperation from people at
all levels and in diverse roles. Some of the most successful
examples in this study, such as the Chilika Lagoon, were built
on collective action from sectoral agencies and local people.
However, it takes considerable time to build these coalitions
and constituencies for change. Work hard to create awarenessand understanding of the situation and the risks—try to put
the case in the terms and forms most relevant to those who can
support the changes.

Sector Reforms
Pursue sectoral policy reform in, for example, water,
agriculture, forestry, energy while building coalitions andshared visions. The reform of the management of these sectors
is closely linked to improved lake basin management. Reforms
can be resisted by those who gain from current ways of doing
things, so seek out the champions of reform in the key sectors.
Be active in the reform process, and support it wheneverpossible. Show how additional beneﬁts can be obtained
from these sectoral reforms, by showing how the special
vulnerability and associated risks of lakes and reservoirs canbe reduced through the reforms.
Evidence
Arguments backed by evidence carry real weight. Marshal theevidence that taking care of the lake basin will beneﬁt various
sectors dependent on the resources of the lake basin. Work
with local universities and technical groups in government
agencies to build your case.

Lessons from the Case Studies
The 28 lake briefs provide a rich diversity of experiences fromlake basins in very different physical settings, with different
social and economic conditions, and different levels of
resources. Nevertheless, there are some common lessons thatemerge from these examples.

Develop Shared Visions
As part of coalition building, try to build a vision of the useof the lake basin that is shared by all parties. Sometimes
this can be done through formal studies; more often it canbe accomplished through informal means by leaders with acomprehensive overview and persuasive powers. This meansthat the goals of different groups need to be understood,
accepted, and brought into a common picture for the lakebasin.
Political Support
High-level political support can open doors and help build
the necessary coalitions. However, getting this support in
the face of the numerous demands on politicians is difﬁcult;take advantage of crises that arise to show how better lakebasin management can avoid these problems. Build yourToward the Future

Focus on Lake Basins
There needs to be a fundamental shift in approach from afocus on lake management to one based on lake basins.
This shift is clearly spelled out in the Principles of the World
Lake Vision and its application is evident in many of the casestudies. Nevertheless, it is also clear in the case studies thatmany managers, particularly those in parts of the lake basinthat are distant from the lake, do not appreciate the impactsof their actions on lakes. A signiﬁcant number of the problems
described in the lake briefs originate in the lake basins, butthese problems often come from a diversity of areas and so are
difﬁcult to manage without the involvement of all groups in thelake basin.

97

Promote a Long-Term, Adaptive Approach
Development of effective institutions, promotion of
meaningful stakeholder involvement, and acquisition andacceptance of knowledge all require a long-term commitment
by local institutions and national governments. This longterm approach should include support for national scientiﬁc
research and training institutions so that the next generationof managers and scientists are developed. However, a longterm commitment does not imply a rigid approach; it needs
to be responsive to new knowledge, changing objectives, andshifts in external circumstances.
Mainstream Lake Basin Management
While lake basin management institutions can coordinate,
the reality is that sectoral institutions will continue to takethe lead in infrastructure investments and in managementof the resources of lake basins. Lake basin management
institutions need to raise the awareness of institutions about
the importance and the vulnerability of lakes, so that theseconcerns are fully incorporated into their policies, programs,
plans, and strategies.
Coordinate across Sectors and Jurisdictions
The most important role played by successful management
institutions in this study (at Lakes Biwa, Constance, Champlain,
Dianchi, and Laguna de Bay, the Chilika Lagoon, and the North
American Great Lakes) has been to coordinate the activities ofsectoral institutions, including across jurisdictions. Although
the forms and legal mandates of these institutions vary, they
have all successfully promoted a coordinated approach to lakebasin management. New coordinating institutions are being
developed at Lakes Ohrid, Tanganyika, Victoria and Tonle Sap(and Mekong River Basin) that promise to improve the status ofthese lakes and the well-being of people dependent on them.
Encourage both Governance and Investments
The lake briefs show that both good governance, andsometimes sustainable investments, are needed to improvethe environmental status of lakes. Good governance consistsof clear policies that result in sustainable institutions, effective
and fair rules governing use of resources, involvement of
all affected stakeholders, collection and application ofhigh quality information, and access to sufﬁcient ﬁnances
for long-term operations and maintenance. In some cases,
technological solutions can lead to rapid improvements inthe environmental status of lakes—most notably with sewage
treatment plants. However, these technological solutions areusually not sustainable if the elements of good governance are
not in place.
Involve Stakeholders
One of the most consistent messages in the lake briefs is theimportance of involving communities in decisions that willaffect them. The beneﬁts include better decisions, improved
enforcement, sometimes reduced cost, and support forincreased community participation in governance. Lakes
where there has been an improvement in environmental status
are characterized by strong stakeholder involvement; on the98

other hand, lakes with severe problems were characterized bya limited involvement of those affected by decisions.
Promote Basin Partnerships
Successful institutions in the case studies have developed
cooperative partnerships between sectoral institutions, acrossjurisdictions, and including stakeholder groups. However,building the trust that underlies these partnerships, obtaining
and disseminating the information needed to overcome
misconceptions, and building the capacity of community
groups to engage effectively all take considerable time. The
lake briefs show that governments and development partners
need to be engaged over the long term.

Accessing Global Resources
Toward Global Stakeholder Participation and Partnerships
Every global natural resources management experience today
points to the importance and the central role of effective
stakeholder participation at every step of program andproject design, decision making and implementation. The
lessons from this project also point in that direction. Essential
awareness and understanding to overcome the barriers andopposition can be created only through broad participationof stakeholders. Improved governance, especially in termsof accountability, will not be achievable unless a large andcommitted constituency with a strong voice for change exists.
When stakeholders are able to both understand and havean inﬂuence on the choice of goals and options, even those
who may initially see themselves as losers can often become
proactive supporters. In some contexts, the participatory
approach may run counter to existing political, cultural, andsocial norms. In these instances, the lake briefs suggest thata gradual, very site-speciﬁc approach that yields quick local
beneﬁts can be successful in gradually overcoming thesebarriers.
Similarly, the lake briefs illustrated that the typical institutionalsetting for lake basin management involves a large numberof organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental.
Implementation of a management plan thus requires effective
partnerships with key organizations. The same is true globally.
Most lake basin projects carried out in developing countries
are supported in various capacities by more than one agencyof technical collaboration and/or ﬁnancial support, some withcatalytic funding coming from GEF. It is evident that the role
played by GEF has been extremely important and instrumental.
It is also apparent that GEF alone will not be able to meet all
the needs for basin management programs for the world’s
important lakes. Therefore exploring new and innovative
approaches for partnership among key agencies is extremely
important.
Toward Enhancement of the Global Lake Basin Management
Knowledge Base
The importance of developing a broad and reliable knowledge
base for lake basin management is very evident throughout
the lake basin briefs. However, with the limited ﬁnancial
Chapter 11and human resources available, a great many lake basins in
the developing world will continue to suffer from a meager
knowledge base. The international technical cooperation
agencies, scientiﬁc communities, and local and internationalNGOs specializing in lake basin management must collectively
seek ways to mobilize resources to help those lake basins tobe able to take advantage of the existing knowledge basedeveloped at better-funded lake basins, as well as to generate
important local information resources. This is particularly
important today, as the threats to lakes in the world have been
increasing rather dramatically due to increased global risks
leading to increased vulnerability. As exempliﬁed by many ofthe lake briefs, the use of modern information management
technologies—be they planning tools like GIS, remote sensing,database management, or computerized models—will greatly
facilitate the organization, management, and use of theknowledge base.
Much lake basin management information is alreadyavailable through the GEF-funded IW:LEARN project (http://www.iwlearn.org), the Ramsar Secretariat (http://
www.ramsar.org), the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/
water), the USAID GLOWS consortium (http://glows.ﬁu.edu/
Home/tabid/236/Default.aspx), and the sites for the ILEC (http://www.ilec.or.jp) and LakeNet (http://www.worldlakes.org)
organizations. This report, detailing the lessons learned fromthe Lake Basin Management Initiative project, adds to thisgrowing body of information.

Toward the Future99

Appendix A
Glossary of Terms

Acidiﬁcation – The process whereby lakes gradually become
more acidic over time, primarily from power plant and factoryemissions of acid-forming materials into the atmosphere andtheir subsequent deposition in the form of rain or snow. It can
result in signiﬁcant negative environmental impacts to bothaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including degraded water
quality and destroyed ﬁsheries.
Activated sludge – The stage of biological treatment of sewage
in which the wastewater is mixed with bacteria-laden sludge,
with the organic matter in the wastewater subsequently
being decomposed by the bacteria; usually called secondary
treatment.
Algal blooms – The growth of algae in lakes to excessive levels
that can cause a range of negative environmental impacts,
including water quality degradation and interference with
beneﬁcial human water uses. The decay of large algal bloms
can sometimes extract sufﬁcient oxygen from lake waters tolead to ﬁsh kills.
Algal toxins – Organic materials associated with microscopic
photosynthetic Cyanobacteria in lakes, many of which can betoxic to animals, including humans.
Alkaline – A solute salt or mixture of soluble salts having
marked basic properties (in contrast to acidic materials).
Anthropogenic – Being of human origin, or resulting fromhuman activities.
Aquifer – An underground layer of rock or soil sufﬁciently
porous to store signiﬁcant quantities of water; major source ofdrinking water on a global scale.
Apex – The uppermost or culminating point.
Artisanal – Referring to a worker or laborer with a particularskill or trade (such as ﬁshers).
Bathymetry – The measurement of water depths in lakes.
Benthic – Referring to organisms that live at or near the bottomof a lake.
Bioaccumulation – The buildup of material (such as toxic
substances) within the body of an organism.

Biocide – A chemical that can kill a large variety of livingorganisms, including humans.
Biodiversity – A measure of the variety of kinds of animals andplants present in a given environmental compartment (such as
lakes) over a given time period.
Biomanipulation – An inclusive term referring to methods ofartiﬁcially changing or altering the biological communities
living in a waterbody, primarily to improve water quality. It
does not involve genetic manipulation.
Biomass – A measure of the quantity of all the living organisms
in a waterbody.
Carbon sequestration – Referring to a family of methods,
involving both aquatic (oceans) and terrestrial (forests, soils)
components, for capturing and permanently removing or
isolating atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhousegases that can contribute to global climate change.
Catchment – the area surrounding a lake from which surface
water drains into the lake.
CBOs – Community-based organizations (for example, artisanalﬁshery associations).
Chemical precipitation – The addition of chemicals to
wastewater to remove speciﬁc substances.
Chlorophyll – A green pigment found in all plants, responsible
for trapping sunlight energy needed for photosynthesis;
chlorophyll concentration is often used as a measure of algal
biomass in lakes.
Cichlid – Any of a family (Cichlidae) of mostly tropical, spinyﬁnned freshwater ﬁshes.
COD – Chemical oxygen demand; a measure of the organic
material in water (such as sewage) whose bacterial
decomposition can consume oxygen in a waterbody.
Consumer surplus – An economic term used to denote theunpaid-for value enjoyed by visitors to recreational sites andprotected areas.

Cyanobacteria – A group of microscopic blue-green algae,
often occurring in eutrophic lakes in the form of algal blooms;
some species can produce organic materials toxic to livingorganisms, including humans.
Deforestation – Cutting down or removing the trees from agiven region; when done at a rate that exceeds the forest
growth rate, it can lead to increased soil erosion and associatedland degradation.
Denitriﬁcation – Bacterially-mediated conversion of nitrates
and nitrites in water or soils to nitrogen gas, and its subsequent
release into the atmosphere.
Desiccation – The process of removing water from a material
or substance.
Diagnostic analysis – As practiced by the Global Environment
Facility (GEF), refers to the analysis of the biophysical andsocioeconomic characteristics of a lake and its drainage
basin as a means of identifying environmentally-associateddevelopment problems and their root causes; serves as
knowledge base for subsequent development of basin-scale
Strategic Action Program.
Diatoms – A form of microscope algae in a lake; often
associated with good water quality.
Diffuse source – Referring to sources that can contributepollutants to a waterbody in the rain or snowmelt-induced
drainage from the land surface (in contrast to efﬂuents
entering from a distinct point, such as a pipe); often called
nonpoint sources, the speciﬁc pollutant sources are difﬁcult
to identify and quantify, with the pollutant load dependent
largely on the climate and land uses characterizing a given
drainage basin.
Drainage Basin – The area from which surface water drains
into a lake together with the rivers and lakes.
Dublin Principles – The four primary recommendations
regarding sustainable use of water resources developed at
the International Conference on Water and the Environment,
held in Dublin, Ireland, in January 1992; involving experts
and representatives from governments, international,
intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, theycall for fundamental new approaches to the assessment,
development, and management or freshwater resources;
subsequently commended to world leaders at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
Enabling environment/framework – The sum of theinstitutions, policy framework, ﬁnancial incentives, informed
public participation, and similar components that collectively
provide the basis for developing and implementing effective
programs and activities for the sustainable use of natural
resources.
102

Encroachment – Advancing or intruding beyond proper limits
or boundaries.
Endemic – Plant or animals native to a given region orwaterbody.
Endocrine – Referring to the human hormonal system,
particularly sexual hormones.
Endorheic – Term used to describe a lake with water inﬂows(such as tributaries), but no outﬂows; water only leaves thelake via evaporation, generally resulting in higher salinity lakewater.
Environmental status indicators – Term used by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) to denote agreed measures ofactual performance or success in restoring and protecting atarget waterbody (for example, measurable improvements inchemical, physical, or biological parameters).
Eutrophic – The nutrient status of a lake receiving excessive
nutrient loads (mainly phosphorus and nitrogen), resulting
in excessive algal blooms that degrade water quality andinterfere with beneﬁcial human uses.
Eutrophication – The natural aging process of lakes; can begreatly accelerated by human-induced excessive nutrient
inputs (so-called cultural eutrophication).
Exorheic – Term used to describe a lake that has both waterinﬂows and outﬂows, thereby ensuring its waters remain fresh(in contrast to endorheic lakes).
Exotic species – Non-native animals or plants accidentallyor intentionally introduced into new lakes; in the absence of
natural controls, can displace a lake’s native species and alter
its biological communities; term often used interchangeably
with invasive species.
Externalities – Monetary or other expenses associated withthe use or utilization of a natural resource borne by someone
other than the individual or groups using the resource.
Hydro-dynamic model – Refers to multiparameter, time-variant
models used to simulate and/or predict hydrologic and related
biological and chemical responses of lakes to changes in waterand material loads entering them and/or other variables that
can affect in-lake processes (for example, “forcing factors”).
Hydrological – Referring to, or involving, water.
Hypereutrophic – The nutrient status of a heavily nutrientenriched lake at the extreme end of the eutrophic range, to theextent that its water quality and biological characteristics are
essentially completely degraded (also see eutrophic).
Hypolimnion – The bottom water layer in a lake lying below thethermocline.
Appendix A

Hysteresis – A delayed change in a property of a lake, whether
in a positive or negative direction, to an altered force or factor
acting upon or inﬂuencing it.
Ionic – Referring to an atom or group of atoms carrying a
positive or negative charge; typically used to refer to thechemical form of materials dissolved in water.
Incremental costs – Term used by Global Environment Facility(GEF) to denote the costs associated with projects that produce
international environmental beneﬁts, as opposed to those that
only produce national-level beneﬁts.
Indigenous – Having originated in, or occurring naturally in aparticular region or environment.
Infrastructure – The underlying foundation or framework ofa system or organization; in the context of water resourcesmanagement at the lake basin level, this refers to dams andweirs for multiple purposes; water transfer structures; water
treatment, wastewater collection and/or wastewater treatment
systems; irrigation and drainage; and ﬂood control structures.
Insectivorous – Depending on insects for food.
Invasive species – Non-native animals or plants accidentallyor intentionally introduced into new lakes; in the absence of
natural controls, can displace a lake’s native species and alter
its biological communities; term often used interchangeably
with exotic species.
Invertebrates – Animals lacking a spinal column (e.g., insects,
clams).
Limnology – The study of the biology, chemistry, and physics ofinland surface water systems.
Littoral – The water in a lake lying near to the shoreline (incontrast to the water in the lake’s center).
Macrophytes – Free-ﬂoating or rooted aquatic weeds.
Market prices – The price or cost of an activity or action
determined on the basis of what people are willing to pay for itin the open market.
Mediation – Intervention between competing parties topromote settlement, compromise, or an agreed solution
regarding a given issue(s).
Millennium Development Goals – A set of time-bound,measurable goals and targets for combating global poverty,
hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation anddiscrimination against women, agreed to by world leaders at
the September 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – An international work
program, launched by the UN Secretary-General in 2001,
Glossary of Terms

designed to meet the needs of decision makers and the
public for scientiﬁc information on a global and regional scaleconcerning the consequences of ecosystem changes for humanwell-being, and options for responding to those changes.
Mitigation – Activities undertaken between parties to lessen
the negative impacts of a given action(s).
NGOs – Nongovernmental organizations.
Nitriﬁcation – Bacterially mediated oxidation (conversion) of
ammonia to nitrate and nitrite in water and soils.
Non-market values – Uses of a lake for which it is difﬁcult
to proscribe a speciﬁc economic value, or for which normal
market pricing does not apply (e.g., aesthetics).
Nonpoint source – Referring to pollutant sources that cancontribute pollutants to a waterbody in the rain or snowmeltinduced drainage from the land surface (in contrast to
efﬂuents from a distinct discharge point, such as a pipe); also
called diffuse sources. Speciﬁc pollutant sources are difﬁcult
to identify and quantify, with the pollutant load dependent
largely on the climate and land uses characterizing a drainage
basin.
Non-structural – Referring to management interventions that
do not involve structures (such as behavioral changes andeducation).
Nutrients – Nutritive substances (food) required for the growth
and reproduction of algae and macrophytes in a lake; primarynutrients are phosphorus and nitrogen compounds.
Oligotrophic – The nutrient status of a lake receiving small
nutrient loads, and containing a small algal biomass;oligotrophic lakes typically display good water quality and cansupport a wide range of beneﬁcial human uses.
Organic load – The quantity of organic materials entering alake; lakes with large organic loads can exhibit low oxygen
levels associated with bacterial decomposition of thematerials, resulting in degraded water quality and interferencewith beneﬁcial human uses.
Oxidizing agent – A chemical or substance used to provide
oxygen in a chemical reaction.
PCBs – Polychlorinated biphenyls; a persistent organic
pollutant believed to have carcinogenic and other humanhealth impacts.
Photosynthesis – The biochemical process whereby
chlorophyll-containing plants utilize sunlight energy to convert
carbon dioxide and water to sugars such as glucose.
Point source – Referring to pollutant sources that can bereadily identiﬁed and quantiﬁed, such as efﬂuents from a103

distinct pipeline (in contrast to pollutants entering a lake inrain or snowmelt-induced drainage from the land surface; also
see nonpoint source).

Sensitivity analysis – A model assessment exercise used to
identify the model parameters most sensitive to changing
inputs (“forcing functions”).

Process indicators – Term used by the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) to denote a measure of progress in project
activities involving procurement and production (inputs
and outputs) of goods, physical structures and services(e.g., formation of high-level steering committee for project
preparation and implementation; completion of countryendorsed Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis).

Siltation – The process whereby a waterbody becomes ﬁlled or
choked with soil and other particles carried in water.

Ramsar Convention – An intergovernmental treaty signed in
1971, which provides the framework for national action andinternational cooperation for the conservation and wise use of
wetlands and their resources.
Ramsar site – Wetlands designated as internationally
important under the Ramsar Convention.
Red tides – Seawater discolored by the presence of large
numbers of certain types of algae, which can produce a toxin
poisonous to many forms of marine life and to humans who
consume infected shellﬁsh.
Reforestation – The process of replanting areas after theoriginal trees and other vegetation are removed.
Remediation – The act or process of providing relief, whether
in the form of money, actions, or other approaches, that cansatisfy or rectify conﬂicting activities or policies.
Retention time – The period of time a given quantity ofwater may spend in a lake; typically calculated as lakevolume divided by the water inﬂow (or outﬂow); lakes withshort retention times exhibit more rapid water ﬂushing (andassociated pollutants) than lakes with long retention times.
Riparian – Relating to, or located on, the bank of a natural
watercourse, such as a lake or river.
Runoff – Storm-generated water drainage from the land
surface to lakes, rivers, and other watercourses, including
the materials dissolved in, or carried by, the water; also calledstorm runoff.
Saline – Used to refer to water containing elevatedconcentrations of dissolved salts, mainly sodium, potassium
or magnesium.
Salinity – A measure of the quantity of salts contained or
dissolved in water.
Sedimentation – The process whereby soil and other particles
carried in water settle to the bottom of a waterbody.

104

Sludge – Solid matter produced during water and sewage
treatment processes, usually by adding chemicals to
precipitate the matter.
Social capital – Referring to the personal and institutional
relationships with key stakeholders that collectively facilitate
effective lake basin management.
Storm runoff – Storm-generated water drainage from the land
surface to rivers, lakes and other water courses, including thematerials dissolved in, or carried by, the water.
Stress reduction indicators – Term used by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) to denote speciﬁc on-the-groundmeasures implemented by the collaborating countries to
produce measurable changes in transboundary water systems(for example, reduced releases of pollutants from point
sources; area of eroded land stabilized by reforestation).
Structural – Referring to management interventions thatinvolve structures (such as dams, water treatment plants).
Subsidiarity – Referring to the lowest effective level ofmanagement of a waterbody.
Subsidy – A grant or cash award offered by a government to a
private individual or company to assist an enterprise deemedadvantageous to the overall public good.
Subsistence – Referring to the minimum levels of food, shelter,and other items necessary to support human life.
Supernationality – The buy-in and agreement by ripariannations to common measures and activities regarding theeffective use and management of shared natural resources,
including water systems.
Supply-side – The economic theory that encourages expanded
economic activity (and increased utilization of natural
resources), via such measures as reducing tax steps (incontrast to managing demand for the resources).
Sustainable development – Economic development within theconstraints of the available natural resources base, in contrast
to uncontrolled exploitation of the resources.
Sustainability – A measure of the degree that exploitation ofnatural resources for economic development can be continued
indeﬁnitely without permanently affecting the current
resources base or its accessibility to future generations.

Appendix A

Synergy – The interaction of two or more factors or processes
so that their combined effect, whether positively or negatively,
is greater than the sum of their separate effects.

Trophic levels – Speciﬁc levels of energy ﬂow throughecosystems and their living resources; often used to delineate
organisms in different levels of a food chain.

Tariffs – Charges, user fees, or duties imposed by governmental
entities for goods or services.

Trickling ﬁlters – The stage of biological treatment of sewage
in which the wastewater is sprayed over the surface of bacterialaden rocks or other substrates, with the organic matter being
decomposed by the bacteria; classiﬁed as secondary treatment(also see activated sludge).

Tectonic – Referring to the deformation of the earth’s crust by
the movement of surface geological layers over a geologic timescale, and the resulting geologic forms (e.g., lakes).
Temperate – Refers to regions of the world that experiencemoderate climate; generally comprises the earth’s surface
occupying the intermediate lateral position on both sides ofthe equator between the tropical zone and boreal or sub-arctic
climate of the polar zones.

Vector-borne diseases – Diseases spread from one host toanother by organisms that live in, or whose live cycles areassociated with, watercourses.
Watershed – the boundary between two catchments. Now
more commonly used to refer to the catchment itself.

Tertiary wastewater treatment – An advanced stage of
wastewater treatment for removing dissolved pollutants left
after primary and secondary treatment are completed; typicallyused to remove phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewaters.

Water hyacinth – An aquatic weed (macrophyte) that often
grows to excessive levels in lakes and interferes with beneﬁcial
human water uses; a symptom of cultural eutrophication in
many parts of the world.

Total social welfare – Referring to a social welfare approachin economic valuation in which the “whole” (total social
welfare) is equal to the sum of the parts (“individual welfare
measures”).

Wetlands – Areas periodically or permanently covered withwater, including swamps, tidal marshes, coastal wetlands, andestuaries.

Tradable rights – Rights to the use of natural resources that canbe traded, in the same manner as goods or services, between
individuals or organizations, as a means of inﬂuencing natural
resources utilization and management.
Transaction costs – The costs or obligations, whether material
or otherwise, to the involved individuals or organizations ofaltering management structures and functions in pursuit ofsustainable use of natural resources

World Commission on Dams – An independent, international
commission convened in 1998, and comprised ofrepresentatives of governments, private sector, international
ﬁnancial institutions, civil society organizations and affected
peoples, to (1) review the development effectiveness ofdams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy
development, and (2) develop internationally-accepted
standards, guidelines and criteria for decision-making in theplanning, design, construction, monitoring, operation anddecommissioning of dams.

Transboundary – Referring to natural resources, including
water courses (lakes, rivers) shared or used by two or morecountries.

Glossary of Terms

105

Appendix B
Authors of Lake Briefs, Thematic Papers and Chapters

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief Authors
Brief

Authors

Aral Sea

Gulnara Roll, Natalia Alexeeva, Nikolay Aladin, Igor Plotnikov, Vadim Sokolov, TulegenSarsembekov, Philip Micklin

BaikalAnthony Brunello, Valery Molotov, Batbayar Dugherkhuu, Charles Goldman, Erjen
Khamaganova,Tatiana Strijhova, Rachel Sigman

BaringoEric Odada, Japheth Onyando, Peninah Obudho

Bhoj Wetland

Mohan Kodarkar, Aniruddhe Mukerjee

Biwa

Tatuo Kira, Shinji Ide, Fumio Fukada, Masahisa Nakamura

Chad

Eric Odada, Lekan Oyebande, Johnson Oguntola

Champlain

William Howland, Barry Gruessner, Miranda Lescaze, Michaela Stickney

Chilika Lagoon

Asish Ghosh, Ajit Pattnaik

Cocibolca/Nicaragua

Salvador Montenegro-Guillen

Constance

Marion Hammerl, Udo Gattenloehner

DianchiJin Xiangcan, Wang Li, He Liping

Great Lakes (North American)

Jon MacDonagh-Dumler, Victoria Pebbles, John Gannon

Issyk-Kul

Rasul Baetov

Kariba Reservoir

Christopher Magadza

Laguna de Bay

Adelina Santos-Borja, Dolora Nepomuceno

Malawi/Nyasa

Harvey Bootsma, Sven Erik Jorgensen

Naivasha

Robert Becht, Eric Odada, Sarah Higgins

NakuruEric Odada, Jackson Raini, Robert Ndetei

Ohrid

Oliver Avramoski, Sandri Kycyku, Trajce Naumoski, Dejan Panovski, Veli Puka, Lirim
Selfo, Mary Watzin

Peipsi/Chudskoe

Gulnara Roll, Aija Kosk, Natalia Alexeeva, Peeter Unt

Sevan

Araik Babayan, Susanna Hakobyan, Karen Jenderedjian, Siranush Muradyan, Mikhail
Voskanov

Tanganyika

Sven Erik Jorgensen, Gaspard Ntakimazi, Sixtus Kayombo

Titicaca

Mario Francisco Revollo Vargas, Maximo Liberman Cruz, Alberto Lescano Rivero

Toba

Haryatiningsih Moedjodo, Payaman Simanjuntak, Peter Hehanussa, Luﬁandi

Tonle Sap

Saburo Matsui, Marko Keskinen, Pech Sokhem, Masahisa Nakamura

Tucurui Reservoir

Jose Galizia Tundisi, Marco Aurelio Santos, Carlos Frederico Menezes

Victoria

Sixtus Kayombo, Sven Erik Jorgensen

Xingkai/Khanka

Jin Xiangcan, Zhai Pingyang

While not commissioned as a Lake Basin brief, the authors of this report have drawn on the experiences in management at Lake George,
Uganda reported at the African lake basin workshop by Kule Asa Musinguzi, Fiona Nunan, and James Scullion.

Thematic Paper Authors
Thematic Paper

Authors

African Lake Management Initiatives: The Global Connection

Robert Hecky, Harvey Bootsma and Eric Odada

The Caspian Sea

Nikolay Aladin, Igor Plotnikov

Conservation and Management Challenges of Saline Lakes: A
Review of Five Experience Briefs

Robert Jellison, Yegor Zadereev, Priya Arora DasSarma, John
Melack, Michael Rosen, Andrei Degermendzhy, Shiladitya
DasSarma and German Zambrana

Directory of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) andInter-Governmental Organizations Working on Conservationand Management of Lakes in Africa

OSIENALA

Institutional Aspects of Asian Lake Basin Management

James Nickum

Involving the People in Lake Management: Values, Education
and Participation

Oyugi Aseto

Lake Basin Management Problems in Africa: Historical andFuture Perspectives.

Shem Wandiga

Management Challenges of Freshwater Fisheries in Africa

Richard Ogutu-Ohwayo and John Balirwa

Management of Lakes in India

M.S. Reddy and N.V.V. Char

Possibilities and Limitations of Environmental Infrastructure
Provisions for Lake Basin Management

Shinji Ide

The Role of Communication, Education and Public Awareness(CEPA) in Lake Basin Management

Rebecca D’Cruz

The Role of Local Authorities in Lake Management

Aniruddhe Mukerjee

The Role of Protected Areas in Lake Basin Management

Rebecca D’Cruz

The Role of Public Participation and Citizen Involvement in
Lake Basin Management

Oliver Avramoski

The Role of Sound Science in Lake and Reservoir
Management for Sustainable Use

Walter Rast

Water Allocation and Environmental Flows in Lake BasinManagement

William Young

Women’s Participation in Lake Basin Management From a
Gender Perspective

Sonia Davila-Poblete

Chapter Authors
Chapter

Authors

Chapter 1: Learning from Others

Thomas Ballatore and Victor Muhandiki

Chapter 2: Biophysical Characteristics of Lakes

Thomas Ballatore and Victor Muhandiki

Chapter 3: Human Use of Lakes

Masahisa Nakamura and Richard Davis

Chapter 4: Institutions for Lake Basin Management

James Nickum and Masahisa Nakamura

Chapter 5: Identifying Effective Actions

John Dixon and Richard Davis

Chapter 6: Involving People and Stakeholders

David Read Barker, Lisa Borre and Masahisa Nakamura

Chapter 7: Responding with Technology

Thomas Ballatore and Richard Davis

Chapter 8: Informing the Process

Walter Rast and Thomas Ballatore

Chapter 9: Mobilizing Sustainable Financing

John Dixon

Chapter 10: Planning for Sustainable Lake Basin Management Masahisa Nakamura and Richard Davis
Chapter 11: Toward the Future

108

Walter Garvey and Richard Davis

Appendix B

Appendix C
Summary Outcomes from the Regional Workshops

Regional Workshop for Europe, Central Asia and theAmericas
The regional workshop for the European, Central Asian andAmerican lakes in the study was held in Burlington, Vermont,
USA near the shores of Lake Champlain in June 2003. The
lake basins included: Aral Sea, Baikal, Champlain, Cocibolca,
Constance/Bodensee, Issyk-Kul, North American Great Lakes,
Ohrid, Peipsi/Chudskoe, Sevan, Titicaca, and the Tucurui
Reservoir. In addition, delegates from the Caspian Sea and
Shkodra Lake (Albania, Montenegro) participated in theworkshop.
The workshop was organized by LakeNet and hosted by SaintMichael’s College with funding from the GEF and USAID. The
timing of the workshop was planned in connection with the10th World Lake Conference in Chicago and the opening of
ECHO, a lake aquarium and science center at the Leahy Center
for Lake Champlain.
More than 80 lake basin managers representing 24 countries
and twelve lake basins in Europe, Central Asia, and theAmericas gathered to review lake briefs and share experiencesin lake basin management.
The participants were: Nicolay Aladin, Natalya Alexeeva, Juan
Skinner Alvarado, Oliver Avramoski, Rasul Baetov, Mary Lou
Baker, Thomas Ballatore, David Read Barker, Emilia Battaglini,
Adem Bekteshi, Francesca Bernardini, Adelina Santos-Borja,
Lisa Borre, Anthony Brunello, Vladimir Budarin, Vasilije
Buskovic, Peter Clavelle, David Coen, Marilyn Cormier, Paulo
Coutinho, Maximo Liberman Cruz, Sonia Davila-Poblete,
J. Richard Davis, Canute Delmasse, Sunny De Vese, James
Douglas, Al Duda, Laurie Duker, Phelan Fretz, John Gannon,
Walter Garvey, Udo Gattenloehner, Reginald Gilbert, Herb Gray,
Bernhard Griesinger, Salvador Montenegro Guillen, Susanna
Hakobyan, Marion Hammerl, Raﬁk Hirji, Buzz Hoerr, William G.
Howland, Karen Jenderedjian, Sven Eric Jorgensen, Anastasio
A. Juras, Aija Kosk, Richard Kujawa, Sandri Kycyku, Stephen
Lintner, Benjamin Lugo, Jon MacDonagh-Dumler, Eric Madden,
Christopher Magadza, Carlos Frederico Silveira Menezes,
Kisa Mfalila, Valery S. Molotov, Victor Muhandiki, Masahisa
Nakamura, Eric Odada, Dejan Panovsky, Robert Paquin,
Victoria Pebbles, Sylvain Primeau, Veli Puka, Walter Rast, MarioFrancisco Revollo, Alberto Lescano Rivero, Wayne Roberts,
Betsy Rosenbluth, Marco Aurelio dos Santos, Jacobo Sanchez,
Cynthia Scott, Lirim Selfo, Silas Rondeau Cavalcante Silva,

Payaman Simanjuntak, Dann Sklarew, Art Stemp, Jose Galizia
Tundisi, Robin Ulmer, Marc vanderHeyden, Amy Villamagna,
Lea Vedder and Mary Watzin. Facilitators: Eric Boyer, Steven
Burks, Jon Erikson, Doug Facey, Larry Forcier, Tom Hudspeth,
Miranda Lescaze, Vanessa Levesque, Mark Lubkowitz, Declan
McCabe, Reza Ramazani, Elizabeth Royer, Trish Siplon, Robyn
Smyth, Michaela Stickney, Mazeika Sullivan, Bill Wilson, Joan
Wry. Interpreters: Silvia Delcastillio-Devine, Andrei Izurov, Jane
Anne Miller, Jessica Noyes, and Helen Wagg.
The main lessons on lake basin management that emerged
from the workshop included the following:•

We know enough to get started—Collectively, we
have already reached a good understanding about theessential elements of effective lake basin management.
What is needed is to apply that understanding. Although
the experience shows that enough is known to getstarted, in some cases there is not sufﬁcient motivation
or will.

•International borders complicate lake basin
management—This is true both when an international
border crosses a water body and when it crosses thewatershed/lake basin. “Hidden” international waterlakes include Baikal, which is entirely in the RussianFederation, but 70 percent of the water ﬂowing in comesfrom Mongolia. The more countries in the basin, themore complex management becomes.

•

Waiting for crisis—In almost every case, concerted
action for lake basins has been taken only after a senseof crisis has been reached. For example, the Cuyahoga
River (Cleveland, Ohio, USA) caught ﬁre in June 1969,
which led to the establishment of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the passageof the Clean Water Act (CWA). Another example is theAral Sea drying up, forcing international collaboration.
This is true despite universal endorsement of the
Precautionary Principle (Agenda 21) and evidence thatprevention is more cost-effective than restoration.

•

Science and Technology—Application of science andtechnology produces very positive results in the earlyphases of “concerted action.” For example, municipal
wastewater treatment plants reduce water pollution inlake basins.

•Key scientiﬁc challenges—One challenge is to translatescience in ways that can increase public awarenessand understanding. A second challenge is conducting
research and monitoring programs that can informpublic policy, law, and regulations. Another challenge
is creating an inter-disciplinary interface between thenatural and social sciences.

•

Rich and poor countries—Differences between richcountry and poor-country lake basins are not as greatas might be expected. For example, 45 percent oflakes in the United States are impaired for one or moredesignated uses.

•

Effective involvement of citizens is essential but has
been achieved at very few lakes—The participants
agreed that the experiences on Lakes Champlain,
Constance, Ohrid and Peipsi/Chudskoe are some of themore successful examples.

••

Key problems are universal—The World Lake Vision
identiﬁes threats from within and outside lake basins.
The lake briefs show that there are only a few basic
types of threats, and they are universal. Participants
agreed that global experience-sharing, such as throughthe Lake Basin Management Initiative, is helpful.
“GEF” versus “Non-GEF” lake basins—The Global
Environment Facility (GEF) support is important
to help focus on institutions, but it has several
limitations. Short-term, project funding in some cases
is inadequately integrated with existing institutions
and other bilateral investments. The GEF’s focus onawarding grants to national governments may overlook
local institutions, which are important for creating andsustaining commitments.

•

Economic valuation—There is a crucial need toharmonize
economicdevelopment,watershed
management, and biodiversity conservation. It is also
important to put a value on resources: economic,
ecological, aesthetic, cultural, and social—this provides
the basis for investment and consideration of tradeoffs.

•

Lake biodiversity conservation—In general, biodiversity
loss is poorly tackled; there is very little guidanceon how to proceed. Activities often start at scientiﬁcrather than political institutions. Immediate crises often
relate to water shortages. Many biodiversity initiatives
focus only on the ﬂora and fauna of a lake, rather thanthe basin as a whole (including rivers and wetlands).
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) must
address ecological aspects.

(TDA) in the grant planning process; preparing a
Strategic Action Program (SAP); coordinating funding;and building local support. It requires decades of effort
to develop strong transboundary commissions—it is
impossible in just a few years.
•

Regional Workshop for Asia
The regional workshop for lake basins in this study from Asia
was held in Manila, Philippines in September 2003. The Asianlake basins discussed at the workshop included Lakes Biwa,
Bhoj Wetland, Chilika Lagoon, Dianchi, Laguna de Bay, Toba,
Tonle Sap, and Xinghai/Khanka.
The workshop was organized and hosted by the Laguna
Lake Development Authority with funding from the GEF. The
workshop was attended by 82 lake basin managers fromthroughout Asia.
The participants were Nurul Amin, Augusto Baculio, Thomas
Ballatore, David Read Barker, K.S. Bhatta, Jerry Bitoon, Lisa
Borre, Manuel Bravo, Joanne Caldito, Jose K. Carino, Calixto
R. Cataquiz, Jiahoa Chen, S.S. Chitwadgi, Chanrithy Chuon,
D.P. Dash, Juan Du, Maristel Espiritu, Fumio Fukada, Abundio
Galicia, Jr., Tony Garvey, Asish Kumar Ghosh, Bebeth Gozun,
Nathaniel Halili, Gadis Haryani, Liping He, Peter Hehanussa,
Raﬁk Hirji, Shinji Ide, Robert Jaworski, Xiangcan Jin, Marko
Keskinen, Mohan Kodarkar, Seakly Kung, Y. Lavy, Sopha Lieng,
Eduardo V. Manalili, Diego Mapandi, Sinta Marpaung, Xiannan
Meng, Shive Mangal Misra, Haryatiningsih Moedjodo, Crispinna
Muan, Victor Muhandiki, Aniruddhe Mukerjee, Hiroshi Murata,
Tadashi Nagao, Reiko Nakamura, Masahisa Nakamura, Pradip
Kumar Nandi, Shigeo Naruse, Ricardo Natividad, Wifrido Nava,
Dolora Nepomuceno, James Nickum, Antonio Oposa, Gil Orgil,
Ajit Pattnaik, Sokhem Pech, Elrem Peña, S.S. Phadnis, Walter
Rast, Soleda Reyes, Bernardino Reyes, Filemon Romero,
Violeta Sabuyao-Faizaz, Maricel Santiago, Ruben Santos,
Adelina (Lennie) Santos-Borja, K. Jude Sekar, Jansen Sinamo,
Victor Soliman, Kim Sour, Dennis Tiongson, Clariza Tullo,
Felix Tumangger, Chiharu Uyama, Olli Varis, Li Wang, Lilei Wu,
Xiaogang Yu, Pingyang Zhai, and Bo Zhou.
The main lessons to emerge from the three-day workshop wereas follows:
•

•

110

Transboundary commissions—These are crucial tofacilitate and enforce agreements; identifying key
problems through Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

Land and water interactions—Wise management ofland results in protection of the health of lakes. Control
of point-source pollution may be successfully addressed
through engineering solutions. Nonpoint-source
pollution is more difﬁcult and requires zoning and land
use plans; changing management practices on theland; increasing public environmental awareness; andbehavioral changes in society.

Management
institutions
andstakeholder
involvement—A central authority for managing the lake
can be effective, but management with wide stakeholder
participation is more effective. If the stakeholders are
Appendix C•Coordinated community participation—Community
participation needs to be coordinated and supported
to be effective. Community groups need access to
information and, in some cases, may need ﬁnancial
support and training. They also need to have an
acknowledged role to play in the management of thelake basin.

•

Political support—Political interest and commitment
are essential for sustainable lake basin management.
Without this level of active support, the sectoral andother authorities will tend to focus on their narrow
constituencies and not work together.

Lake resources are major economic goods—Heavy
exploitation of lake resources becomes inevitable whenpoverty levels are high, to the point where resources canbe overexploited if there are not well-developed rules
in place and good enforcement mechanisms. Economic
valuation is necessary to determine the costs andbeneﬁts of lake basin resources in these circumstances.

•

Education, engineering and enforcement—These
terms make up the 3 E’s of policy implementation.
Education is essential for knowledgeable involvement by
stakeholders; engineering solutions can sometimes bevery effective; and unless rules are enforced, there will be
disputes regarding the use of the lake and its resources.

Biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction—
Sustainable management of natural resources should
be integrated into a developing country’s overall
poverty reduction strategy. If it is not, then biodiversity
conservation will not be relevant to people struggling to
make a living.

Regional Workshop for Africa

not convinced of the value of actions to safeguard andimprove lakes, then management actions, even when
they are well-coordinated, are unlikely to be effective.
•••

Lake basin management functions—A lake authority
with strong policy making role and regulatory function
is likely to be more successful than an institution with
only a coordinating role. This is because a clear policy
direction is necessary to ensure that sectoral and otherinstitutions all understand their contributions to lakebasin management.

•

Start simple, and ﬁne tune—Don’t delay because of a lackof full knowledge about lake basin management. Instead,
it is better to start using whatever information is available
and modify the approach as experience builds up.

•

Finances are essential—Failure to implement
management plans is usually due to a lack of ﬁnancial
resources rather than a lack of management expertise
and willingness. However, obtaining sufﬁcient ﬁnances
is extremely difﬁcult, especially in developing countries.

•

•

•

International funding—International funding, such as
GEF funding, is a big boost to environmental protectionand enhancement in a lake basin. These funds are usuallymuch larger than the national and local funds available tolake managers in developing countries and provide many
opportunities to establish the basics of good management.
However, they are also usually accompanied by many
restrictions and administrative requirements.
The value scientiﬁc information—The funds wasted
because of a lack of scientiﬁc knowledge far outweigh
the required investment in science. A scientiﬁcallywell-informed decision is important not because it will
always be correct, but because it can be assessed andcorrected with new scientiﬁc ﬁndings.
Communicating
scientiﬁcinformation—Unlessscientiﬁc information is made simple for the generalpublic and becomes common knowledge among people,
it is unlikely to be accepted.

Summary Outcomes from the Regional Workshops

The regional workshop for the African lakes in this study washeld in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2003. The lake briefs
for Lakes Baringo, Chad, Malawi/Nyasa, Naivasha, Nakuru,
Tanganyika, Victoria and the Kariba Reservoir were discussed,
as well as thematic papers on:•

African Lake Management Initiatives: The Global
Connection;•

Lake Basin Management Problems in Africa: Historicaland Future Perspectives;•

The Management Challenges of Freshwater Fisheries inAfrica;•Sustainability of Lake Management Projects in Africa;and,•Lake Basin Management Problems in Africa.

The workshop was hosted by the Pan-African START Secretariat
in Nairobi, Kenya with funding support from the GEF. Workshop
attendees included 122 water resources managers from 24
countries.
The participants were: William Ainoshirogo, Mai Moussa
Katiella Abdou, Mady Pascal Amule, Oyugi Aseto, Augusto
Hojas Baculio, John S. Balirwa, Moses Banda, David Read
Barker, Robert Becht, Benoit Bihamiriza, Rodrigues Bila, Lisa
Borre, Fred Bugenyi, Phillip Bwathondi, Alberto Calcagno,
Kipyego Cheluget, Munyaradzi Chenje, K.G. Chesang, Oscar
Chilanga, Deonatus B.R. Chitamwebwa, J. Richard Davis,
Salif Diop, Micheal B. Dolozi, Maura Finlay, Nathan Gichuki,
111

Nancy Gitonga, Gabriel Hakizimana, Robert Hecky, Sarah
Higgins, Shinje Ide, Iyabo Olanrewaju Idowu-Ominiyi, Sven
Erik Jorgensen, Abakar Mahamat Kaila, Clarkson Karan, Jerome
Karimumuryango, J.W. Kariuki, Martha Karua, F. Katangira, E.
Katunzi, Sixtus Kayombo, Misa Kemmiya, Sean Khan, George
Okeyo Khroda, Elija Kinyangi, Philip Kisoyan, Shadrack
Mulei Kiithia, Michel Dimbele Kombe, Asa Kule, Andrew
Kulecho, Levy Kusangaya, Patrick Machio, Christopher H.D.
Magadza, A. Mahatane, Esther Makwaia, Kisa Mfalia, Ratemo
Michieka, Patrick Milimo, Theresa Mjenge, Malcolm Moodie,
Mahamane Moussa, Rose Mugidde, Victor Muhandiki, Ruzika
N. Muheto, Edith Nana Mussukuya, Masahisa Nakamura,
Hermes Mushayuma Namegabe, Robert Ndetei, Charles
Ndlovu, Ebozo Daniel Ndong, Magnus Ngoile, Vida Ngomuo,
Jim Nickum, Karoli Nicholas Njau, Francois Xavier Kachuka
Nkomerwa, Hudson Hamis Nkotagu, Muderhwa Nshombo,
Gaspard Ntakimazi, John Ntambirweki, Micheni Ntiba, Fiona
Nunan, Christopher M. Nyirabu, Jerome Nzojibwami, Peninah
A. Obudho, Eric O. Odada, Ngure Odeny, Johnson Oguntola,
Richard Ogutu-Ohwayo, Tom Okurut, Daniel Olago, Obiero
Ong’ang’a, Japheth Onyando, George E.O. Owiti, Lekan
Oyebande, James Phiri, Marie Prchalova, Jackson Raini,
Walter Rast, Richard Robarts, Mouhyddine M. Saleh, Adelina
Santos-Borja, Henry M. Sichingabula, Richard Dawson Sipawe,
Suleiman Garba Suleiman, Alphonse Marie Takougue, LambertTam, C. Tapfumanei, Anna Tengberg, Anada Tiega, Atsuko
Toge, Mwakio Tole, Micheal J. Tumbare, Anne-Marie Verbeken,
Mathias W. Wafula, Enock Wakwabi, George Wamukoya,
Jane Wamuongo, Shem Wandiga, Portia Chiyedza Wanink,
Bartholemew Wanyama, Kelly West, and Yuji Yoshioka.

•

Cultural issues are important—Community organizationneeds to take cultural issues into account, including
gender issues.

•

Identify stakeholders—Although community participation
is key to lake basin management, it can be difﬁcult to
identify the stakeholders. They may be groups far distantfrom the lake itself, including in the upper lake basin.

•

Appropriate technology—Technologies that are
introduced into lake basin management should bewithin the capacities and ﬁnancial means of local
institutions. There need to be adequate resources
assigned to manage and operate technologies such as
databases and GIS.

•

Water is a social and an economic good—Water is an
economic good that should be paid for by the user inorder to cut down on waste. It is also a social good andthere needs to be provision for the poor who cannot
afford to pay for the water.

•

Institutions need to be long-term—It is crucial to set up
necessary institutions that would take care of enforcement
and monitoring after the project is completed.

•

Institutional representation at the lakeshore—When
the lake is remote from the capital city and its
institutions, such as the ministries, much thought
needs to be put into sustainability. Do you take theinstitutions that are on the lakeshore and train them todo things that are outside their mandate, or do you wait
for appropriate institutions to be established in the lakebasin?

•

Importance of research and teaching—Research andeducation should be key project components. Lakebasin management needs to be incorporated into theeducation curricula of universities.

•

Local expertise—Local expertise should be usedwhenever possible. Some projects overlooked
local expertise in their design and implementation.
Indigenous knowledge should be used in the design andimplementation of projects.

•

Dialogue between managers and researchers—
Research must be designed to contribute to management
interventions. There needs to be dialogue at the beginning
between resources managers and researchers so that thescientiﬁc interventions will best address the management
needs. Managers need to communicate to scientists asmuch as vice-versa. In this way, policy makers will be
educated by scientists so that the right policies are put inplace. There is also a need to simplify scientiﬁc research
to include the aspirations of politicians.

The main lessons to emerge from the workshop discussions wereas follows:
•

•

•

112

Shared visions are important for transboundary
lakes—It takes time, but unless everyone agrees andis working toward a shared goal and objectives, then it
probably is not worth continuing with attempts at joint
management. The time taken may appear as planningparalysis to outsiders, but it is essential. Also, countries
are different and any workplan needs to recognizethat countries are all working at different levels andcapacities. To keep them interested, the workplans must
be tailored to their individual needs.
Climate change is a real issue—Climate change iscomplex and affects lake basins in different ways. In
some lakes, it is already apparent in the form of reduced
water inﬂows. Lake basin planning should include theeffects of climate change.
Political support is crucial—Lake basins can only be
managed with political support. In the effort to obtainfunding, lake managers need to strategize on funding toconvince politicians.

Appendix C

Appendix D
References

Ayres, W., A. Busia, A. Dinar, R. Hirji, S. Lintner, A. McCalla and
R. Robelus. 1996. Integrated Lake and Reservoir Management:
World Bank Approach and Experience. World Bank TechnicalPaper No. 358. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Becht, R. and D.M. Harper. 2002. “Towards an understandingof human impact upon the hydrology of Lake Naivasha,
Kenya.” Hydrobiologia 488: 1-11.
Davis J.R. and R. Hirji, eds. 2003. Lake Management. Water
Resources and Environment Technical Note G2. World Bank:
Washington, DC.
Dinar, A., S. Seidl, H. Olem, V. Jordan, A. Duda, and R. Johnson.
1995. Restoring and Protecting the World’s Lakes andReservoirs. World Bank Technical Paper No. 289. World Bank:
Washington, DC.
Duda, A. 2002. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF
International Waters Projects. Monitoring and Evaluation
Working Paper 10. Global Environment Facility: Washington,
DC.
Duker, L. 2001. A Literature Review of the State of the World’s
Lakes and a Proposal for a New Framework for Prioritizing
Lake Conservation Work. LakeNet Working Paper Series No. 1,
LakeNet: Annapolis, MD.
Forbes, S.A. 1875. “The Lake as a Microcosm.” Bulletin of the
Scientiﬁc Association, Peoria, Illinois.
GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2003. International Waters.
Operational Strategy of the Global Environment Facility. Global
Environment Facility: Washington, DC.
Hecky, R.E. 2003. “Science and the Lake Victoria Environment
Management Program (LVEMP); Progress during LVEMP 1
and Challenges for the Future.” Commissioned Paper for
Stocktaking of Lake Victoria Environment Management
Program. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Holdren, C.W., J. Jones and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes
and Reservoirs. North American Lake Management Society:
Madison, WI.
Horne, A.J. and C.R. Goldman. 1994. Limnology, 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill: New York.

International Joint Commission. 1978. Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978. U.S.-Canada International Joint
Commission, Great Lakes Regional Ofﬁce: Windsor, Ontario.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chage). 2001.
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R.T. Watson
and others, eds. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
and New York.
Jorgensen, S.E., R. DeBernardi, T.J. Ballatore and V.S.
Muhandiki. 2003. LakeWatch 2003: The Changing State of
the World’s Lakes. International Lake Environment Committee:
Kusatsu, Japan.
Kira, T. 1997. “Survey of the State of World Lakes.” In
S.E. Jorgensen and S. Matsui, eds. Guidelines of LakeManagement: The World’s Lakes in Crisis. No. 8. International
Lake Environment Committee and United Nations Environment
Programme: Kusatsu, Japan, and Nairobi.
Klaff, J. 2002. Limnology: Inland Water Ecosystems. PrenticeHall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kusel J. 1996. “Well-being in forest-dependent communities,
Part I: A new approach.” In S. Doak and J. Kusel, eds. Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol II,
Assessments and Scientiﬁc Basis for Management Options.
Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: University ofCalifornia, Davis.
Lake Champlain Basin Program. 2003. Opportunities for
Action: An evolving plan for the future of the Lake Champlain
Basin. Lake Champlain Basin Program: Grand Isle, VT.
Laplante, B., C. Meisner and H. Wang. 2005. Environment as
Cultural Heritage: The Armenian Diaspora’s Willingness to Pay
to Protect Armenia’s Lake Sevan. World Bank Policy ResearchWorking Paper 3520. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Mee, L., A. Hudson and M. Bloxham. 2005. “The TDA/SAP
approach in the GEF International Waters Programme: An
Overview”. Presented at the GEF Third Biennial International
Waters Programme, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, June 20-25, 2005.

Meybeck, M. 1995. “Global Distribution of Lakes.” In A. Lerman
and others, eds. Physics and Chemistry of Lakes, 2nd ed.
Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Nakamura, M. 1997. “Preserving the health of the world’s
lakes.” Environment, 39(5): 16-39.

Environment Committee and United Nations Environment
Programme: Kusatsu, Japan, and Nairobi.
World Bank, 2000. The World Bank Group’s Program for Water
Supply and Sanitation. Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Board, World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2001. Making Sustainable Commitments: An
Environment Strategy for the World Bank. World Bank:
Washington, DC.

National Research Council (Committee on Restoration of
Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public Policy).
1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy
Press: Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2004. Water Resources Sector Strategy:
Strategic Directions for World Bank Engagement. World Bank:
Washington, DC.

Shiklomanov I.A. 1993. “World fresh water resources.” In P.H.
Gleick, ed. Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water
Resources. Oxford University Press: New York.

World Bank. 2005. Lessons for Managing Lake Basins for
Sustainable Use. Environment Department Report No. 32877.
World Bank: Washington, DC.

Sutherland, W.J. 2000. The Conservation Handbook: Research,
Management and Policy. Blackwell Science: Malden, MA.

World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and Development:
A New Framework for Decision-Making. Earthscan Publications
Ltd.: London.

Syme, G., B. Nancarrow and J. McCreddin. 1999. “Deﬁning
the components of fairness in the allocation of water toenvironmental and human uses.” Journal of Environmental
Management 57: 51–70.

World Lake Vision Committee. 2003. World Lake Vision.
International Lake Environment Committee and International
Environment Technology Centre, United Nations Environment
Program: Kusatsu, Japan.

Talling J.F. 1966. “The annual cycles of stratiﬁcation andphytoplankton growth in Lake Victoria (East Africa).” Int. Revueges. Hydrobiol. 51: 545-621.
Talling, J.F. and I.B. Talling. 1965. “The Chemical Composition of
African Lake Waters.” Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 50: 1-32.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural
Organisation). 2002. Mainstreaming Biological Diversity: The
Role of Communication, Education and Public Awareness(CEPA). UNESCO: Paris.
United Nations Environment Programme. 1994. The Pollutionof Lakes and Reservoirs. UNEP Environment Library No. 12.
United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Governmentof Canada. 1995. The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas andResource Book. Great Lakes National Program Ofﬁce: Chicago.
Watzin, M.C., V. Puka and T.B. Naumoski, eds. 2002. Lake
Ohrid and its Watershed, State of the Environment Report.
Hydrobiological Institute: Ohrid, FYR Macedonia andHydrometeorological Institute: Tirana, Albania.
Wetzel, R.G. 2004. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, 3rd
ed. Academic Press: San Diego, CA.
Williams, W.D. 1998. Management of Inland Saline Waters.
Guidelines of Lake Management, No. 6. International Lake

114

Appendix D

Appendix E
Maps of the 28 Lake Basins$5$/6($%$6,1

1

1RUWKHUQ$UDO6HD'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\$UDOVN$\WHNH%L. $ = $ . + 6 7$ 1VKRUHOLQH
RI$UDO6HD
VKRUHOLQH
RI$UDO6HD.\]O2UGD
6\

/DUJH
$UDO
6HD

NPU
'0X\QDN/DNH6XGRFKH

DU
\D
5



7XUNHVWDQ%LVKNHN,VV\NNXO

1XNXV
X

$P

6DU\NDP\VK
/DNH


\D

DU

DY
=HU

7 8 5 . 0 ( 1 , 6 7$ 1

)HUJDQDVKDQ'D&KDUG]KRX
X
$P

XP

DQ

0DU\

'XVKDQEH

K
9DN

7$ - , . , 6 7$ 1

0XUJDE5

.XO\DE.LUNL%D\UDP$O\.KRURJ

5



DE5

0XUJK

7HUPH]

3\DQG]KDO

7HGMHQ5, 6 / $ 0 , &  5 ( 32),5$1.DUVKLDU\D
.DUDNXP&DQDO 5

&+,1$



VK5

'

&

2VK

U\D
5


%RNKDUD.DUD
N

1DU\Q5

.DUDVX5

$\GDUNXO/DNH.DUD%RJD]*RO%D\
RIWKH&DVSLDQ6HD$VKJDEDW

7RNWRJXO
5HVHUYRLU

7DVKNHQW

5

8UJHQFK. < 5 * < =  5 ( 3$ULV

8 = % ( . , 6 7$ 1'

7DVKDX]$ ) * + $ 1 , 6 7$ 1
3$ . , 6 7$ 1,/(&1(

%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

/$.(%$,.$/%$6,1

1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
2EODVWRU5HSXEOLF%RXQGDU\

86HYHUREDLNDOVN
$QJD

5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

5

DUD

QJ

U$

H
SS

UJX

]LQ

5

UD5

7KH$QJDUD5
IORZVLQWRWKH<HQLVH\5EHIRUHUHDFKLQJWKH$UFWLF2FHDQ

8VW
2U G\Q VNL\

/DNH%DLNDO
8G

JD

5



,UNXWVN
8ODQ
8GH%DLNDOVN

6H

OHQ

6O\XG\DQND



D5

'DP

%XU\DWLD
5H S XE OLF%XU\DWLD
5HSX EOLF%D,U NX W VN2EODVW.KLORN



N5

LOR

.K

&KLW D2EODVW/DNH
+RYVJRO=DNDPHQVN

5866,$1)('.\DNKUD

RO

*

L\Q

(J

0RURQ

'DUKDQ

6HOHQJD5

HU

L\Q

RO
2UKRQ*RO

021*2/,$
8ODQ%DWRU+D

7RVRQWVHQJHO

*

QX\
*R
O

,G



NP

7VHWVHUOHJ,/(&1(

116%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/$.(%$5,1*2%$6,1
OEH
JX
7D
Q

0D
NX

'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\'LVWULFW%RXQGDU\
5LYHU.DPSL\D /DNH
/DNH
6DPDNL
6HOHFWHG&LW\


L5


.(1<$

WD

Q5



%DULQJR

NP

HP


5 0DULJDW

Q
HUR

2O$
U

O5

H



0ROR5

3H

U NH U UD

&K

DR5

DE

%$5,1*2' , 6 7

(QG

5



/DNH
%RJRULD/$,.,3,$' , 6 7
. 2 , % $7 ( .
' , 6 71

1$.858' , 6 7,/(&1(

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

117

%+2-:(7/$1'%$6,1,1',$'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\'LVWULFW%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\%DLUDJDUK8SSHU/DNH.ROKXNKHGL

2OG%KRSDO'DP/RZHU/DNH
DQGLWV
6XE%DVLQ

3KDQGD
0XJDOLD1HZ%KRSDO*RUD

1% + 2 3 $ /  ' , 6 7.DOLDVRWH
5HVHUYRLU

1DQGQL

6(+25(' , 6 77HHODNKHGL

5DWLEDG.RODQVNDOD'DEOD%LONLVJDQM%DPXO\D,/(&1(

118



V5

ODQ
.R



NP

8OMKDZDQ%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

1

6HDRI-DSDQ

7DNDWRNL5

/<RJR/$.(%,:$
<2'25,9(5%$6,1,PD]X

1DJDKDPD$G

1RUWK%DVLQ

R5

-$3$1



'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
3UHIHFWXUH%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\$QH5

/DNH
%LZD+LNRQH6+,*$
3 5 ( )

NP

2PL
+DFKLPDQ (FKL5

.DWDWD
VLQ

QR

XWK

%D

+L

,/(&

.\RWR

2WVX

.XVDWVX&DQDO
6HWD5

6HWD
:HLU

<DV
X

5

'D

LGR

5

8ML5

/DNH%LZD%DVLQ/DNH%LZD<RGR5LYHU%DVLQ

<R
GR
5


26$.$
3 5 ( )

5



6R

5


UD

VX

W
.D

.<272
3 5 ( ).L]X5

0 , (  3 5 ( )

.REH
2VDND

2VDND
%D\
1 $ 5 $  3 5 ( ),/(&1(Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

119

/$.(&+$'%$6,1

1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\/,%<$$/*(5,$



NP

1,*(57KHRULJLQDO&RQYHQWLRQDO%DVLQ
GHVLJQDWHGLQLQFOXGHGRQO\WKLVDUHD

7KH&RQYHQWLRQDO%DVLQZDVH[WHQGHGLQWRLQFOXGH
WKHXSVWUHDPRIWKH.RPDGXJX<REHULYHUV\VWHP

&+$'

/DNH
&KDG

0L
D

V

5
X

0DLGXJXUL)RUPHU6KRUHOLQH
5HFHQW6KRUHOLQH

P


5

/DNH
)LWUL

1 'MDPHQD

-DP

DD

UH

5

'DSFKL

1J
<H
DG
GV
GD
HU
5
D


5

MLD

GH

+D

5
H
RE
< %DJD
GXJX
.RPD

(U

&KD

JX

UL5

0DURXD



KU
%D

5






5
5
ID VHR
HL
RV
.
U
K
'
KU
%D
%D

%RQJRU
/R

JR

QH

5

%DK
U 6DUD

DP

%D

5 

5
GH


XK

1

3H
Q



2

&$0(5221,/(&1(

120

2X
D

5
OH

%LUDR
5

OR
2X

KU

%D

%R]RXP

DQ

 5

1GHOH

X L5 

J

U\D


5

DQ D

%DQJR

U

5

6DUK

PLQ
%D

9LQD5

UH
0EH

68'$1



'RED

0RXQGRX1JDRXQGHUH


HL5
DU

5

/DL 

1,*(5,$

]XP 5
$$P7LPDQLJ.DGMD5 
GL

:DG
L'H
E

%RO

'LIID

*DVKXD

7KH&RQYHQWLRQDO%DVLQZDVH[WHQGHGLQWRLQFOXGH
WKHXSVWUHDPRIWKH&KDUL/RJRQHULYHUV\VWHP$RXND

1JXLJPL%RVVDQJRD&(175$/$)5,&$1
5(38%/,&%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/$.(&+$03/$,1%$6,1

1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
6WDWH%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\/DNH&KDPSODLQGUDLQVQRUWKWKURXJKWKH5LFKHOLHX5WRWKH
6W/DZUHQFH5EHIRUHUHDFKLQJ
WKH$WODQWLF2FHDQ

3LNH5

&$1$'$
5LFKIRUG
DW
&
KD
]\
5




0LVVLVTXRL5&KD]\

6W$OEDQV*U
H

8 1 , 7 ( '  6 7$7 ( 62)$0(5,&$3ODWWVEXUJK
5

DF

UDQ

6D

/DPRLOOH5/DNH
&KDPSODLQ

5
OH
VDE
$X

%XUOLQJWRQ

6WRZH
:LQR

RVNL

0RQWSHOLHU/DNH3ODFLG%RT/HZLV5

XH

5

W5

0LGGOHEXU\

7LFRQGHURJD

HN

UH
U&

WH

2W

5XWODQG



3R
X

NP

OWQ

/DNH
*HRUJH



Z
WD
HW

5

HH

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins50,/(&1:

7KH&KDPSDLJQ&DQDOFRQVWUXFWHG
LQWKHV
FRQQHFWV/DNH&KDPSODLQDQGWKH+XGVRQ5LYHU
7KHULYHUIORZVVRXWKSDVVLQJWKURXJK1HZ<RUN&LW\EHIRUHUHDFKLQJWKH$WODQWLF2FHDQ:KLWHKDOO

H\

1HZ
<RU N

9HU P RQW

%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

121

1

&+,/,.$/$*221%$6,1&XWWDFN,1',$'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

7KH0DKDQDGL5LYHUVWDUWVIDU
WRWKHZHVWDQGLVQRWIXOO\GHSLFWHGRQWKLVPDS

5

GL

QD

KD

0D

NP

%KXEDQHVKZDU%HJXQLD%RORJDUK0DKDQDGL&DWFKHPHQW.KXUGD-DWDQL5\D'D

3LSLOL

5DQSXU'HODQJ

0DOD
JXQ
L5

.DQDV
7DQJL



5
D

.X
VX

L
DO

PL

6

5

1X
QD
5

6DW\DEDGL:HVWHUQ&DWFKPHQW



5

YL
JD

U
KD

%

.DQVDUL5&KLOLND1RUWKHUQ
6HFWRU

3XUL&KLOLND/DJRRQ%UDPEDJLUL%DQDSXU
0DJDUPXNK&KDQQHO&HQWUDO
6HFWRU

2OG0RXWK

1$/$%$1$,6

6RXWKHUQ
6HFWRU.ULVKQDSODVDG

2XWHU&KDQQHO

1HZO\2SHQHG0RXWK

1XPHURXVOHYHHVFRQILQHWKH%KDUJDYL5IORZ,QWHUHVWLQJO\WKHULYHULWVHOIIRUPVWKHFDWFKPHQWERXQGDU\LQWKLVDUHD&DWFKPHQWDORQJWKH6DQGEDU

V
5X%D\RI%HQJDO
3D
OX
U&



5
D
O\

NX

KL

DO
DQ

,/(&1(

122%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/DNH$SDQDV/$.(&2&,%2/&$
6$1-8$15,9(5%$6,1:DWHUIURPWKHPDQPDGH/DNH$SDQDV
LVGLYHUWHGLQWRWKH/DNH0DQDJXD%DVLQ
WRSRZHUDK\GURHOHFWULFSODQWEHIRUHUHDFKLQJWKH9LHMR5LYHU

HM
R
5

1

'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

SD

5



9L

/DNH0DQDJXD%DVLQ

6L

QH

FD

8QWLOWKHPLGV
WKH7LSLWDSD5LYHUZDVDUHJXODUO\IORZLQJULYHUGUDLQLQJ
/DNH0DQDJXDWR/DNH&RFLEROFD+RZHYHUWKHULYHUKDVRQO\GLVFKDUJHGDIHZWLPHVLQWKHODVWFHQWXU\PRVW
UHFHQWO\GXULQJ+XUULFDQH0LWFK
LQ2FWREHUHIIHFWLYHO\PDNLQJ
WKH/DNH0DQDJXD%DVLQ
DFORVHGEDVLQ

5

5

D
RU


\D
WR

F
3D

D
DF

O

0D

/DNH0DQDJXD
7LSLWDSD
0DQDJXD

LVD

1,&$5$*8$OD5$FR\DSD*UDQDGD

/DJR
$SR\R

1DQDGD
1DQGDLPH=$3$7(5$,6

/DNH
&RFLEROFD

5

SD

XD

RF

2M

5

H

DW
2\



0DVD\DNP/DNH&RFLEROD%DVLQ-XLJDOSD&X

7HSH

0DWHDU
0DWHDUH



QDJ

SD5
XDVD

$OWDJUDFLD
20(7(3(,6

5

H
7XO

/DNH&RFLEROFD
6DQ-XDQ5LYHU%DVLQ

V5
DOR

Q6D XDQ
5

6DE

6DQ
&DUORV/D&UX]

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins


LHU
QLW
R5



5

,/(&1:LR& 2 6 7$  5 , & $

5

F
6X



V5
PLJR

$OWDPLUD

5

DQ

-X

6DQ

5
6DQ&DUORV

7UHV$

HQDO5$U,QI

3RFR6RO5

/DNH$UHQDO

6DQ-XDQGHO1RUWH

6D
QX
5
DQ

1L
QR

5


/RV&KLOHV
5
)ULR

3DFLILF
2FHDQ&DULEEHDQ
6HD



62/(17,1$0(,6/$1'6&KLUULSR

5LYDV

4XHVDGD%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

123

1

D
5RW

OLQ

JH

6F
KX
VVH
Q5




5
U

HU

8EHUOLQJHQ

U6

HH

=HOOHU
6HH

5KHLQ5

5

OH

5

HO
I]
8E

5DGROI]HOO

FK

RO

HU
HOG

G
5D

*(5

*(50$1<HI
6H

6WRFNDFKHU5:DQJHQ.RQVWDQ])ULHGULFKVKDIHQ.UHX]OLQJHQ/DNH
&RQVWDQFH/HLEODFK5$UJHQ5

/LQGDX

6:,7=(5/$1'
$UERQ

%U
HJH

5RUVFKDFK

6W*DOOHQ%UHJHQ]
Q]HU5$OW'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

5K

HU

HLQ

5K

/$.(&2167$1&(%$6,1

5

HLQ

5

'RUQELUQ)HOGNLUFK%OXGHQ]
9DGX]$8675,$/,(&+7(167(,1



5

HLQ

5K

&KXU

$O
EX
OD

5

6:,7=(5/$1'

5D
E

LXV

D5



*OR
J

5

KHLQ

HUU

G
9RU

Q5


'DYRV



,/(&1(

124



LQ5

UKH

WHU

+LQ

NP

%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/$.(',$1&+,%$6,1

1& +,1 $'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\



NP

3D
Q

ORQ

J

5

6RQJKXDED
5HVHUYRLU%DR[LDQJ
5HVHUYRLU.XQPLQJ&LW\&DRKDL LQQHUODNH

0+XL\DQ%D\&KHQJJRQJ/DNH
'LDQFKL:DLKDL RXWHUODNH



5
J
LDQ
R[
D
%

DO
LDR
5

;L\XDQ
7XQQHO

5
6RQJPDR
5HVHUYRLU

RQJ

O
<DQ

/DR\X5/LD

QJ+DLNRX

DQ
J5

Z

&D
LKH
5


GD
5
QJ
'R

5
'DKH

-LQQLQJ7DQJODQJ5&DLKH
5HVHUYRLU,/(&1(

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

125

L5

*5($7/$.(6/$85(17,$1 %$6,1

7KH2JRNL5LYHUVXEEDVLQDQG
WKH/RQJ/DNHVXEEDVLQDUHGLYHUWHG
LQWRWKH*UHDW/DNHV%DVLQE\KXPDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ2JRN'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
6WDWH%RXQGDU\

1
DN
H

/DNH
1LSLJRQ

/R

'R

QJ

/

5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\J5

3LF5

7KXQGHU%D\86$


:KLWH5

JS/DNH6XSHULRU

&$



5
DO
WU H
0RQ

DQ


WHL5


QLVK56SD(V
F

0LVVLVVDJL5

DE

0H
QR

1
$'
6$ $

DS L
DQ
:

8

'XOXWK

2QW DU LR

0D


V5
XL

6W


/R

NPLH

0 LQ Q H VR W D

5

&$1$'$P

5
D

0LFKLJDQ/DNH1LSLVVLQJ

HH
LQ
5

0DJQHWDZDQ
5 

%D
\

Q

Q

$X
6DE
OH5


/DNH
6LPFRH0LFKLJDQ0LOZDXNHH

6DJLQDZ5/DNH
6W&ODLU,OOLQR LV
6W'HWURLW

HSK5
RV-,/(&1:

126

DP

HV
DN

/

HU

J
LQ

)

1HZ<RU N/DNH(ULH


QG5

*UD

5
N\
GXV
6DQ



H5

PH

0DX

,QG LD QD

5RFKHVWHU

7K&OHYHODQG

7ROHGR
7KHIORZRIWKH&KLFDJR5LYHU
ZDVGLYHUWHGRXWRIWKH
*UHDW/DNHV%DVLQ
LQZLWKWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH6DQLWDU\DQG6KLS&DQDOHV

1LDJDUD)DOOV%ODFN5/DNH
2QWDULR%XIIDOR5*UDQG5

7RURQWR

5

JL
6D

NH

XV

0

&KLFDJRHHQ5

HH

QD
Z

%

XJ

*UDQG5



5

Q
JR

*H
QH
VV

LFK

QLV

0D

86$

/DNH+XURQ
D\

LJD

HH

*U

5



5
WHH

6D

)R
[

6W

UH

DZ

/

6WUDLWVRI0DFNLQDF

/DN
H0

:ROI5

: LVFR QV LQ

*UHHQ
%D\

5

H

QF

&$1$'$*HRUJLDQ%D\&X\DKRJD5

2K LR

3HQQV\OYDQLD%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E1,66<..8/%$6,1.<5*<=5(38%/,&'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
2EODVW%RXQGDU\
5LYHU&KX5
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\$QDQ¶\HYRNP'&KRNWDO5

5'\XUHVX

7KH&KX5LYHUIORZVZLWKLQIRXUNP
RIWKHODNHDQGLVOLQNHGWRLWE\
WKH.XWHPDOGDFKDQQHOWKURXJKZKLFKWKH&KX5LYHULQKLJKZDWHUVHDVRQVRPHWLPHVGUDLQVLQWR,VV\N.XO

7\XS5

7\XS']KLUJDODQ5&KROSRQ$WD





5

&K


H5
WHU

.DG]KLVD\

$N

7RQ



7\XOHN5,/(&1(

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins

5

Q
7R

$NVDL5

.DUDNXG]K, 66 < . . 8 /  2 % / $ 6 7

OVX5.RFKNRUND

7XU
DVX

2WWXN

5

3RNURYNDO
NR/DNH,VV\NNXO

]\
.\
J
RQ

1$5<12%/$67.RFKNRU5

%DO\NFK\UD.D&KX5

.DUDNRO

5

NX

KX

']

XU5

%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

127

.$5,%$5(6(592,5%$6,1'52) & 2 1 * 2$1*2/$1/XEXPEDVKL

=D
P
EH
]L

5


'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

/XHQD

QJ
D
5
/X

.D
E

RP

SR
5



6ROZH]L



5

XH

I
.D

=$0%,$

&X

02=

DQ

0RQJX

GR

5



&XE

.DIXH)ODWV.DULED
5HVHUYRLU




Q\

5

DQ
D

/DNH
1JDPL

5



1DWD5%XODZD\R

%RWH

WL5
0DNJDGLNJDGL
6DOW3DQV

DW

P

2

=,0%$%:('HFHSWLRQ
6DOW3DQV+DQDKDL5:LQGKRHN*KDQ]L

2NZD5

02=

7KLVVXEEDVLQFRQQHFWVWRWKHPDLQEDVLQ
ZKHQH[WHQVLYHIORRGLQJRFFXUV

6287+$)5,&$


1$0,%,$,/(&6(

128



*Z
DL

T
HJ
0DJZ

0DXQ
(LVHE5+DUDUH5

*URRWIRQWHLQL59LFWRULD)DOOV


ZD


5

2.$9$1*2'(/7$



=DPEH]L5

QJ

/L

6H

W L 5 
DQ



/LYLQJVWRQH
2NDY
DQ
JR

5
R
DN

H5





DW
Q\

8P

5

]L

5

1$0,%,$

H]L5

.DULED7RZQ

EH

LWR

E
DP

6D

P
=D

R5

DQJ
&X

$1*2/$/DJRGH&DKRUD%DVVD/XVDND=

0HQRQJXH%276:$1$*DERURQH

NP%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/$*81$'(%$<%$6,1

1

7+(3+,/,33,1(6'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\//'$-XULVGLFWLRQ
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

4XH]RQ&LW\-XULVGLFWLRQRI/DJXQD/DNH'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\

0DQLOD$QWLSROR&LW\

3DV

7D\WD\

URQJ5

3DVLJ
&LW\
LJ

$UHDZLWKLQWKLV
DUHDLVRXWVLGH//'$MXULVGLFWLRQ

5

0R

0DQLOD
%D\

NP

0D
ULN
LQD
5



&DYLWH&LW\

7DQD\%LQDQJRQDQ
6LQLORDQ&HQWUDO%D\:HVW%D\

7$/,0,6

3DHWH(DVW%D\

6DQWD
5RVD&LW\ULVWREDO/DJXQDGH%D\5

6DQWD&UX]

&
6DQ/RV%DQRV%D\5&DQOXEDQJ&DODPED&LW\&DOLUD\D
5HVHUYRLU/XPRW
5HVHUYRLU

1DJFDUODQ


5
DQ
-X
Q
6D

7DJD\WD\&LW\/XPEDQ
6DQWD&UX]

5


%LQDQ

3LOLOOD

7DQDXDQ
7DDO/DNH,/(&1(

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

129

/$.(0$/$:,1<$6$%$6,1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\


6RQ

NP

7$ 1 = $ 1 , $

JZH

5

.\HOD

&KLWLSD
XUX5

.DURQJDK
5X/ D N H  0

5XPSKL

.D
V

LWX

5



5
X

1NKDWD%D\0]LPEDZ L  1 \ D V

0$/$:,

5
ZD
DQJ
'Z

7$ 1 = $ 1 , $

D O D

6
5
XN
XU

=$0%,$&+,6808/8,6 0DODZL/,.20$,6 0DODZL0HWDQJXOD

02=$0%,48(

1NKRWDNRWD

1WFKLVLH

6DOLPD

6HQJD
%D\

0RQNH\
%D\

/LO
R

QJ
Z

'RZD
0FKLQML/LORQJZH
5

/L
QW
KL
SH
5


5
D
%X

D

.DVXQJX

5

X

XK

15XN

1

WR/XJHQGD5LYHU'HG]D
0DQJRFKL
FKL/&KLXWD

02=$0%,48(

6K
LUH
5


/0DORPEH

1WFKHX

0DFKLQJD=RPED /DNH&KLOZD
0ZDQ]D%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH130&KLUDG]XOXWR=DPEH]L5LYHU,/(&6(

Appendix E

/$.(1$,9$6+$%$6,1.(1<$
1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\
77
,0

NP

$



6$

%$+$7,
83/$1'6

(6
&$
53
0
(1
7

0$
8(

1DLYDVKD

6&$
530(1

&UDWHU/

/DNH
1DLYDVKD

7.RQJRQL%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins

0DOHZD5*LOJLO5

*LOJLO&5(6(17,6

.DUDJLWD,/(&6(

131

LAKE NAKURU BASIN
KENYA
Drainage Basin Boundary
Park Boundary
River
Lake
Selected City

Ng
os
ur
R.

0

Kabatini

1998
1986
1970
1930

5 km

Nakuru
Njoro
Boundary of Lake Nakuru
National ParkN
Lake
NakuruBagaria

Miti
Mingi

Nderit R.

Naishi
Makalia R.

Njo

ro R
.

Larmudiac R.

Elementeita
Kiptangwanyi

Mau Narok

Boundaries and locations are approximate
and should not be considered authoritative.

132

Kiambogo

ILEC/0.36S/36.09E/110106

Appendix E

/$.(2+5,'%$6,1

1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

WR/DNH6NKRGUDDQG
WKH$GULDWLF6HD

7KH6DWHVND5LYHUZDVGLYHUWHG
LQIURPLWVQDWXUDOFRXUVHGLUHFWO\LQWRWKH%ODFN'ULP5 
LQWR/DNH2KULGWRGUDLQWKH
6DWHVND6ZDPSDQGWRERRVWWKHK\GURHOHFWULFSRWHQWLDORI/DNH2KULG

%RWXQ



ND
5

*ORERFLFD
5HVHUYRLU

NP

6D
WHV

6DWHVND5%DVLQ



LP5

N'U

%ODF

)<5RI
0$&('21,$

2ULJLQDOSDWKRI
6DWHVND5

6WUXJD5ND.RVHOV.DOLVWD



VND5

R
9HOJ

2KULG
5DGR]GD

/DNH
2KULG

/LQ

&DUHY'YRU
3HVWDQL

3RGPRFDQL

7USHMFD

8GHQLVKW

6WHQMH
6W1DXP
3RJUDGHF*ROHPD5

5HVHQ

/DNH
0DFUR
3UHVSD

.UDQL
5

VND

MFLQ

%UD

7XVKHPLVKW'ROQR$/%$1,$

UP
*H

5

RV

DQ

&KHUDYD5

LRV

$J

$JLRV*HUPDQRV3VDUDGHV/LTHQDV
3LOO

/DNH
0LFUR
3UHVSD*5((&(%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins,/(&1(

133

/$.(3(,36,
&+8'6.2(%$6,1*XOIRI)LQODQG'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\,YDQJRURG(6721,$
UYD
5



1DUYD
5HVHUYRLU

1D

1

6ODQWV\

5866,$1)('0XVWYHH /DNH3HLSVL
*GRY

3ROWVDPDD
5



MD

G
3H


D5
XVV
3O\

&KXGVNRH

7DUWX



JL5

DMR

(P

3O\XVVD

5

KD

HOF

=K



/DNH3HLSVL&KXGVNRH
1DUYD5LYHU%DVLQ/DNH
3VNRYVNRHGX

5

9RUWVMDUY

9R
K

DQ

/DNH3HLSVL&KXGVNRH%DVLQ

9DOJD

3VNRY

&KHUH

ND5



9HOLND\D5

9RUX/ $7 9 , $2VWURY

VD
5



6RUR

,V

8W

UR
\D


5

NP

6LQ\DQD5

W5



2SRFKND
D
D\

LN

O
9H
5

/XG]D

5866,$1)('%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

134%(/$586,/(&1(

Appendix E

/$.(6(9$1%$6,1

1$50(1,$'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\+UD]GDQ
5

6HYDQ

0LQRU
6HYDQ

6KRUMD $UWDQLVK

7VRYD]DUG



NP

0DVULN5

0HWV0D]UD/DNH
6HYDQ*DYDU*DYDUDJHW5

0DMRU6HYDQ<HUDQRV
9DUGHQLV
9DUGHQLN0DUWXQL
9DUGHQLN5

$UJLFKL5/LFKN

7KH$USD6HYDQ7XQQHOEULQJVZDWHUIURPWKH$USD5LYHULQWR/DNH6HYDQ,/(&1(

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

135

/$.(7$1*$1<,.$%$6,1'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

5:$1'$/DNH
.LYX.LJDOL%XNDYXNP

5

L
VL]
5X


%8581',%XMXPEXUD
V
RZR
0R\

1
VL
5


0D

.L

OD

JR

JD
UD
V

L5

L5


8YLUD

5


.DVXOX.LJRPD/ D.DOHPLH

0DODJDUDVL5 7 D Q J/XNXJD5

7DERUD
8UDPER5

7$ 1 = $ 1 , $

:
DOD

N H

'52)
&21*2

EH
*RP

8JDOD5

0SDQGD
6KDP

D

D5

Q

\

L

N
D


ZD5
5XQJ

/DNH
5XNZD

6XPEDZDQJD/DNH
0ZHUX:DQWLSD
/DNH
0ZHUX


X5
XE
/XI

0SXOXQJX=$0%,$%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

136,/(&6(

0$/$:,/DNH
0DODZL

Appendix E

&DUDE

3XW$]DQJDUR

L5
Y LU

$]DQJDUR5

$\
D

/DNH
$UDSD

FD

/DNH$QDQWD

5






-XOLDFD/DNH
7LWLFDFD/DNH
/DJXQLOODV /DNH
8PD\R

3XQR

'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\
6XFKHV5

3D
O

1


LD5

$\DYLUL/$.(7,7,&$&$
'(6$*8$'(525,9(5/$.(32232&2,3$6$6$/7/$.(7'36 %$6,1

D5
D\



NP



5
YH
,OD

$FKDFDFKL+XPDOVR5

&RSDFDEDQD

3(58

&D

WDU

L5



/D3D]*XDTXL9LDFKD
'
HVD

H
JXDG

/DNH7LWLFDFD%DVLQ

UR
5


UL5

8PDOD

0DX

'H
V

D

H
DG
JX

'HVDJXDGHUR5LYHU
/DNH3RRSRDQG
&RLSRVD6DOW/DNH
%DVLQ


UR5

2UXUR

/DNH
8UX8UX%2/,9,$


5

SD

VD

&R

5
D

XF

/D

/DJRGH&KXQJDUD

3DFLILF
2FHDQ

&+,/(

/DNH&RLSDVD&RLSDVD
6DOW)ODW%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins/DNH3RRSR/DFDMDKXLUD5

\R5
6HYDUX,/(&6:137

7RQJJLQJ
3DURSR/$.(72%$%$6,1,1'21(6,$+DUDQJJDRO6LODODKL'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

/DNH
7RED
6LPDQLQGR

1$PEDULWDNP%DWXJDQJJD5

3DUDSDW$MLEDWD

7RPRN
1DPDUVDKDQ5

3DQJXUXUDQ+DULDQ%RKR

6$026,5,6/$1'

0DQGDVL$VDKDQ5

5

0RJDQJ

7RWKH6WUDLWRI0DODFFD

3RUVHD

1DLQJJRODQ

6L

P

0

%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

138

DQ

L UD  5 

0XDUD%DNDUD%DOLJH

DU

H

+

DO

5

LD

Q

5

,/(&1(

Appendix E

0(.21*5,9(5%$6,1
5
J
RQ
HN
0

'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\


,1

'

NP,$&+,1$
0HNRQJ5

721/(6$368%%$6,1&$0%2',$

0<$10$5

9,(71$0$SSUR[LPDWHH[WHQWRIVHDVRQDOIORRGLQJ

6LVRSKRQ

3
'

1

5

.DPSRQJ7KRP

7+$,/$1'

20RXQJ
5RHVVHL

7R
QO
H
6D
S

0HNRQJ5%DWWDPEDQJ/$

5
0HNRQJ

6LHP5HDS&$0%2',$

3RUVDW.DPSRQJ&KKQDQJ

NP
7RQOH6DS5%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Maps of the 28 Lake Basins

0



RQ
HN

J5

3KQRP3HQK,/(&1(%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQV
DUHDSSUR[LPDWHDQG
VKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH,/(&1(139

78&858,5(6(592,5%$6,1

7XFXUXL

%5$=,/'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\
6WDWH%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\,PSHUDWUL]

0DUDED

/R

9HU
P

HOK

$U
DJ
XD
LD
5


R5



QD 5 
DLX

3DUDX
SHE
DV
5


, WD
F

0$5$1+$2

WLQV5

NP-DFXQGD

DQ7RF

7XFXUXL
5HVHUYRLU

QW

5
UD


)DUL
QKD5

$UJXDLQD

1&DUROLQD)LODGHOILD

3$5$

0DQXHO$OYHV*UDQGHV5

3DX
G $UFR5
$UURLRVGR$UDJXDLD5

0DQXHO$OYHV
3HTXHQR5

&RQFHLFDR
GR$UDJXDLD

,QD
MD
5

3,$8,
7RFDQWLQV5

3DUDQD

D5



7R
FD
QWL

3RVVH
Q]
L

V$
OP

DV

1LTXHODQGLD

5LDOPD

%$+,$

3D
UD
Q

3RUDQJDWX

GD
R

HO

5L

1DWLYLGDGH
YHV
5


3D
OP
D5


JXD
$UD


H5
3HL[

5
P

5LR
GD
0D
V0
ULH
RUW
PE
HV
HUR
$UDJ
XDLD5
5


5

0D
UD
QK
DR
5


&RUU

HQWH

5

KR

5

*RLDV

%UDVLOLD



5

SR

LD

&D

$UDJDUFDV$OWR*DUFDV

5
R

DU

&O

5

DV*DUF
G
DV
LR

QX
HO
$O

D 5
QK

L
0LU

9HUP

5LRGDV0RUWHV$&UL[DV FX5
&UL[DV

1RLGRUH5

0D

6DQ0LJXHOGR$UDJXDLD

1RYD
;DYDQWLQR

DO
V DV

72&$17,16

5
VR
PR
)RU

0 $72  * 5 2 6 6 2%U
DF
R0HQRUGR5LR$UDJXDLD

6WD,VDEHOGR0RUURV%
LUDSH5/L]DUGD
6RQR5
5LRGDLD5

&RFR5

7DS

3HUGLGD5*RLDQLD$OWR$UDJXDLD',675,72)('(5$/

0,1$6*(5$,6*2,$6
0 $72*52662'268/140,/(&6:%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

Appendix E

/$.(9,&725,$%$6,1/DNH
$OEHUW'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\/DNH.\RJD-LQMD(OGRUHW.DPSDOD0XUFKLVRQ
%D\

/DNH
.DFKLUD9LFWRU V

6RQ G



D
HU

J
.D

.DJHUD5

.LVLL/DNH9LFWRULD

5

0XVRPD/DNH0DJDGL.LJDOL /DNH
.LJDOL,KHPD/DNH
&DKRKD6XG/DNH
%XULJL

8.(5(:(,6

.DJHUD5*XUXPHWL5
0E

6SHNH*XOI

DOD

JH

/DNH
5ZHUX

X
5

5X
YX
Y

5

3/$,1



1

5

%8581',/DNH
1DWURQWL

6(5(1*(7,

L\X

*HLWD

0ZDQ]D6LP%8581',

6HQJHUHPD$NDQ\DUX5

1\DZDUX

0DUD5/DNH
,NLPED

5

/DNH
.LYX

/DNH
1DLYDVKD%XNRED/DNH
0XMXQML

5:$1'$
5:$1'$

Q JX

/DNH
1DNXUXX5

6(6(,6/$1'6/DNH
.\DQHEDOROD'52)
&21*2

1\DQGR5

:LQDP*XOI/DNH1DEXJDER

0EDUDUD/DNH
%RJRULD.LVXPX

0DVDND/DNH
(GZDUGQ/DNH
*HRUJH

.DNDPHJD


5
RLD
1]

7RZ

/DNH
:DPDOD
.DWRQ
JD
5


/DNH
%DULQJRH

5

8*$1'$

NP.(1<$+RP

LD1LOH
9LFWRU/DNH
%LVLQD

/DNH
(\DVL

/DNH
7DQJDQ\LND/DNH
0DQ\DUD

7$ 1 = $ 1 , $,/(&6(Maps of the 28 Lake Basins%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

141

/$.(;,1*.$,.+$1.$%$6,1



QJ5

+XEHL6OXLFH*DWH<DQJJDQJ

0XOL

4LQJVKDQ
5HVHUYRLU

NP

5



/DN
H
.KD ;LQJND
QND
L
/DN
H

6R QJ DF

YN

VVDUR
.RPL

*DOD
WRQJ
5

L

UL5

7XU\
5RJ

+HQJVKDQ%DPLDQWRQJ

VX

/DNH
; LD R
[LQ
JND



QJ5

0XOL

:HWODQGV8V-LGRQJ

1R
&DQ
DO

&DQDO

-L[L

RKHL5

-LQ\LQNX5;LD

0LVKDQKD



7RWKH$PXU5
DQG7DWDU6WUDLW'XULQJIORRGVZDWHUIURPWKH0XOLQJ5LYHUHQWHUVWKH
+XEHL6OXLFH*DWHDQGIORZVHLWKHUWR;LDR[LQJNDLRUWKURXJKZHWODQGVWRWKH*DODWRQJ5'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

D5

:HWODQGV

7URLWVNR\H$OH[DQGURYND.DPHQ
5\ERORY:HWODQGV

QRY
ND5

6SDVVN
'DOQ\

&+,1$
.KRURO

,OLV

WD\
D5



&KHUQLJRYND$E

5866,$1) ( ' ( 5 $7 , 2 1%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH

142

$U
VH
QM
HY
ND
5

0H
OJX

0XOLQJ

6LELUWVHYR<DURVODYVN\
UDP
RYND5

1,/(&1(

Appendix E

Appendix F
Nairobi Statement, Nairobi Declaration, and Kampala
Resolution

This Appendix presents the Conference Statement and theWater Ministerial Resolution issued at the conclusion of the
11th World Lake Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya from 31
October through 4 November 2005, and the Main Points of
the Declaration issued during the 9th Meeting of the Ramsar
Convention held in Kampala, Uganda from 8-15 November
2005. Collectively, they capture important messages and theway forward regarding the integrated management of lakes,
wetlands and other impounded waters and their basins.

Nairobi Statement of the 11th World Lake
Conference
4 November 2005, Nairobi, Kenya
As fossil footprints in ancient lake beds testify, the richresource of lakes were a magnet for early humans tens of
thousands of years ago here in Africa, and they have continued
to be so through human history to our own day. The challenge
now facing us is to preserve the world’s lakes, complex lifesupporting ecosystems containing more than 90 percent of theliquid freshwater on the earth’s surface, so they can continue
to provide physical and spiritual support for the generations
that follow us.
To address this management challenge, we must recognizethat the future of lakes depends on our understanding andappreciation of the wider connections:•With the surrounding landscape and human activities onit,•With the linking water system of rivers, groundwater,
and wetlands,•

With the winds that carry nutrients and contaminants infrom afar,•

With the rapid human changes to the Earth’s atmospherewhich are driving climatic instability.

We must also recognize the primary importance of thepeople who use lake resources and immediately experiencedamaging consequences. These lake dwellers, both men andwomen, carry the cultural memory of the community and thelake through time, and often have the best knowledge about
the source of problems and viable solutions. This long-term
perspective is essential because lakes have long memories

when abused, and harbor many secrets in their complex
dynamics. For these reasons:•

We must base management decisions ﬁrst and foremost
on local knowledge and insight, and•We must use available resources to build institutional
capacity and scientiﬁc understanding at the community
level, and to enhance the power of local people to ﬁnd
solutions, thereby bridging the gap between scientists,
decision-makers and society.

At the same time, local people on the front line must assume
responsibility along with power, since local behavior is often
the source of damage to lakes. They must recognize that ahealthy lake comes at a cost, and that an unhealthy lake has
its costs. In cases where user fees are the chosen tool toencourage wise behavior, it is vital that the community retain agood part of the proceeds to continue their efforts.
National institutions also are vital for fostering awareness,promoting participation, and bringing together diverse
interests within lake basins. When capable and effective,
they provide the arena for developing broad management
efforts that consider the lake basin as a whole, and its broader
connections with the linking water systems and atmosphericinﬂuences. They also provide a forum for addressing the often
conﬂicting needs of those who inhabit lake basins and dependon lake resources. Without such an overarching framework andcomprehensive perspective, there are few means for resolving
conﬂicts over water or lake resources, or for integrating
local efforts to maintain lake health into national programsand development plans. In setting these policies, national
authorities must consider lake communities and ensure thatthe widest range of interests depending on lakes enjoy their
beneﬁts. In addition, national leaders act in the international
arena, where they can illuminate problems—such astransboundary management, long distance air pollution andclimate change—and press for solutions. The World Lake
Vision, launched at the 3rd World Water Forum in Japan, andthe lessons learned from the Lake Basin Management Initiative
launched at this 11th World Lake Conference, highlight theseissues and suggest ways to achieve successful lake basin
management.
International assistance can provide a vital impetus forsustaining the health of lakes and their resources, but it is notthe ultimate solution for managing the interaction between
human activity and these living systems. Experience aroundthe world shows that international funding from sources suchas the GEF, can catalyze efforts to manage human activities
in lake basins. But in the longer term, local and national
governments must ensure the ongoing and stable funding
needed to continue the task. Local governments will haveto experiment with innovative approaches, such as fees forlake use, in order to achieve this goal. It is equally essentialthat communities retain and use some of the funds raisedin this way to further their efforts on behalf of the lake, andthose living and working in the lake basin. Above all, whenaddressing lake problems, international agencies must place
primary importance on local needs when developing theiraction agendas and programs.
Over recent decades, we have been slowly learning how tomanage the interactions between human activity and theseliving systems. This experience underscores the key roleof lakes in integrated water resources management. Theseexperiences, which scientists and managers have gatheredand synthesized, provide important lessons for sustaining
the health of both natural and manmade lakes that provide
water for humans and nature. It is imperative to embrace theselessons and build on them if we are to meet our pressing waterneeds in the decades ahead.
The fact that water underpins virtually all the Millennium
Development Goals provides persuasive evidence of the needfor strategic partnerships, including the private sector. These
can encourage equitable access to lakes and their resources,in order to alleviate poverty, provide secure food supplies andeconomic development, improving the lives and livelihoods ofthose depend on lakes and their resources.

The Ministerial Dialogue underscored the principles of theWorld Lake Vision launched at the Third World Water Forumin Kyoto in 2003, the recommendations of the Report of theLake Basin Management Initiative (LBMI) entitled, “Managing
Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake
Basin Managers and Stakeholders” launched at the 11th
World Lake Conference and the proceedings of the 11th World
Lake Conference as important contributions for enhancing
equitable access to water resources for ensuring food security,
addressing poverty and promoting economic development in
Africa.
The Ministerial Dialogue recognizes:•

That lakes, both natural and manmade, are essential
elements of the overall water resources system.

•

That lakes and lake basins provide many uses forsustainable livelihoods and economic development, andare important natural habitats for global biodiversity, as
well as serve religious and cultural values.

•

That transboundary lakes provide opportunities forregional integration and cooperation.

•

That lakes and their basins are fragile and complex
ecosystems under serious stress.

•

That lake basins have some unique characteristics oftenwith peculiar management needs.

•

The important role of science in informing public policy
and management decision making.

•The essential role of planning and sustained ﬁnancial
support for effective lake basin management.

Nairobi Resolution of the Water Ministerial
Dialogue at the 11th World Lake Conference

The Ministerial Dialogue reinforces:
4 November 2005, Nairobi, Kenya
This Nairobi Resolution was endorsed by a high-level African
Water Ministerial Dialogue on “Management of Lake Basins
for their Sustainable Use: Global Experience and African
Issues” held during the 11th World Lakes Conference in Nairobi
between October 31-November 4, 2005. According to the
UNEP Executive Director, Klaus Topfer, “This biennial World
Lake Conference, held for the ﬁrst time in Africa, represents asigniﬁcant step in the efforts of the international community to
put our planet on a sustainable development path. It reinforces
the commitments of the 170 Heads of States and Government
at the 2000 Millennium Summit, renewed by the World Leaders
at the 2005 World Summit in New York in September. They haverecognized the need for high-level attention and signiﬁcantly
increased resources to achieve the water related Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and the 2005 Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) targets, in clear recognition
that water underpins all other MDGs.”

144•

That lake basin management is critical for sustainable
development and responsible economic growth.

•

The central role lakes and reservoirs play in integrated
water resources management.

•

The importance of both investments and good
governance for sustainable lake basin management anddevelopment.

•

The need for developing sustainable institutions—from community based to local/National level toTransboundary level management structures.

•

The need for sound policies for promoting sustainablelake basin management.

Appendix F•The essential role of all stakeholders, including theprivate sector, in the planning and management decision
making of lake basins.

•

The need for mainstreaming gender in integrated water
resources management.

•

The cooperative management of transboundary lakebasins.

•The use of both scientiﬁc and local knowledge tosupport management decision making.

•

The need for good planning and mobilization ofsustainable ﬁnancing for lake basin management.

The Ministerial Resolution calls for making integrated
management of lake basins a long-term element of:•Government and public priorities.

•

Planning and ﬁnancing processes.

•

Integrated water resources management.

•

Habitat and biodiversity conservation programs.

•

Economic development programs.

The Ministerial Resolution recommended:•

The strengthening of local capacities for managing lakebasins in a sustainable manner.

•

The establishment of a center for excellence in Africa forpromoting a new generation of water and environmental
planners and managers with skills in lake sciences,limnology and aquatic and environmental sciences.

•

That the UN consider establishing an International Yearfor Lakes.

•

The mobilization of funds for supporting IWRM to meet
the MDGs.

Main Points of the Kampala Declaration of the
9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention)
12 November 2005, Kampala, Uganda
The Ministers and high level representatives present at the
informal ministerial dialogue...
...STRONGLY FEEL it is becoming critical thus to redress thissituation of continuing loss and degradation of wetland
ecosystems globally and the impacts of these losses on people
and livelihoods, and:Nairobi Statement, Nairobi Declaration, and Kampala Resolution

1. UNDERTAKE to enhance conservation, develop
communication and increase capacity in Contracting Parties
to the Convention, as well as in nations not yet Contracting
Parties in order to achieve a full balance between people andwetlands;
2. EMPHASISE that the role of wetlands in supporting people’s
livelihoods is best achieved through the active participationand involvement of local communities, although governments
and the international community have a key role in inﬂuencing
the wise use and conservation of wetland resources and CALL
upon the private sector and civil society to collaborate andplay and an active role in mobilizing funding for wetlands, topromote and sustain the wise use concept;
3. UNDERTAKE to implement concrete actions to address thecommitment in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
which urges countries to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010
and FURTHER UNDERTAKE to strengthen the list of Wetlandsof International Importance as a contribution to the global
network of protected areas initiated at the World Summit for
Sustainable Development;
4. EMPHASISE that wetlands, with surrounding ecosystems,
are essential in mitigating against natural disasters (suchas hurricanes, typhoons and tsunamis) and adapting to
global climate change including the negative impacts ofdesertiﬁcation;
5. ENCOURAGE the rehabilitation and restoration of wetlands,
especially in coastal systems and lake shores, in order toenhance and sustain beneﬁts for people;
6. CALL for appropriate valuation of wetland resources,
adding value to wetland products and services, and for smart
marketing of wetland products by the involvement of private
sector or through Public/Private Partnerships in order topromote wetland wise use and conservation; We emphasize
the need for innovative economic incentives;
7. AFFIRM that there is a need for synergistic relationships
between the Convention on wetlands and other relevant
conventions in the ﬁeld of sustainable development toobtain the best ecological outcomes for wetlands. For this we
ADVOCATE harmonizing and de-sectoralising the development
and implementation of policies at all levels, international,
regional, national to local, and integrating water andbiodiversity policies including in integrated water resource
management (IWRM). We also CALL for cross agency and crossdonor cooperation;
8. ADVOCATE and URGE development and implementation oftransboundary and cross national systems and approaches tothe management of wetland ecosystems is necessary;
9. REAFFIRM that the international support given by theWorld Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) for
the implementation of the NEPAD Environment Action Plan145

is essential and we URGE the Ramsar Secretariat and its
IOPs to liaise with development partners, and multilateralorganizations and facilities (GEF, Regional Development Banks,EU, etc.) to identify sustainable funding mechanisms for the
implementation of the Convention in Africa. We recognize
the Arusha Call of April 2005 as a valuable cornerstone forthe coordinated work on wetlands in Africa and EMPHASISE
the need for stronger coordination of environment, water andwetlands related initiatives;
10. EXPRESS our concern about the incidences of the highly
pathogenic avian inﬂuenza (HPAI) and the risks to people,
migratory birds and poultry farming, and highlight thenecessity of developing good monitoring systems. We also
EMPHASISE the need for further research and exchange of
information and knowledge on HPAI in relation to wetlands
within and between member states.

146

Appendix F