Copyright © 2012 by International Lake Environment Committee Foundation andResearch Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University
1st Printing

Printed and bound by Otsushigyo Photo Printing Co. Ltd.

Authors: Masahisa Nakamura1, Walter Rast2, Toshiaki Kagatsume3, and Tomohiro Sato4
Acknowledgements:
Preparation of this document was financially supported directly and indirectly by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, through a
Grant-in-Aid for Promotion of Special Education Research, Ministry of Environment,
Japan, Japan International Cooperation Agency, International Lake Environment
Committee Foundation, Japan, Research Center for Sustainability and Environment,
Shiga University, Japan, and International Center for Watershed Studies, Texas State
University, USA.
This document includes the case studies results from several past and ongoing ILBM
projects supported by various national governments, local government, NGOs, citizen
groups, educational and research institutions around the world. ILEC ScientificCommittee members and their collaborators have been particularly helpful in coordinating
the applied study focal point activities and providing the study results to the authors.
CitationP l e a s e c i t e t h i s r e p o r t a s : I L E C a n d R C S E - S h i g a U n i v e r s i t y. 2 0 1 2 . “ P r i m e r :Development of ILBM Platform Process, Evolving Guidelines through Participatory
Improvement", 26p. (Downloadable from ILEC website: http://www.ilec.or.jp.)
Disclaimer
The presentation of the material in this publication does not necessarily represent theopinion of the organizations financially supporting the project or the participating
members involved in the respective case study projects.
1

Professor, Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University, Japan; and Chairman, International Lake Environment Committee Foundation,

2

Professor, Director, International Center for Watershed Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA, and Vice Chairman, International Lake

3

Secretary General, International Lake Environment Committee Foundation, Japan

4

Researcher, International Lake Environment Committee Foundation, Japan

Japan
Environment Committee Foundation, Japan

Primer:Development of ILBM Platform Process– Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement –Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU)
International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC)1. Introduction
This document is a primer version of the parent document entitled “Development of
ILBM Platform Process – Evolving Guidelines through Participatory
Improvement”. While the parent document gives a detailed account of the conceptualand theoretical basis of ILBM and how an ILBM Platform Process may be developed, thisprimer version focuses only on the latter, with greater emphasis on the practical andprocedural aspects of development and use of the ILBM Platform Process.

2. Six Pillars of Governance
The adequacies and inadequacies of lake basin management for individual lake basins
may be determined by reviewing and assessing the existing management activities andpractices. Based on the comprehensive surveys of the state of world's lakes conducted
over the past decades, relevant review questions have been categorized into six
thematic domains, including; (1) Institutions to manage a lake and its basin for the
benefit of all lake basin resource users; (2) Policies to govern people's use of lake
resources, and its impacts on lakes; (3) Involvement of people to facilitate all aspects oflake basin management; (4) Technological possibilities and limitations that often dictate
long-term decisions; (5) Knowledge of both traditional and modern scientific origin as
the basis for informed decisions; and (6) Sustainable finances to support implementationof all of the above-noted activities. Relevant issues regarding these domains include:<Institutions> Is there a focal-point institution in charge? Are the relevant
capacity building and training programs effective? Is the institution focusing onpriority skills? Is it inclusive and open to cooperating agencies, community groups,
etc.? Are any mid- course corrections needed?
<Policies> Is there a management plan with a realistic implementation scope?
Does an adequate management plan already exist, or should the existing plan be
updated? Are the relevant priorities and phasing clear? Does strong political will
exist to support sustainable management? Is sustaining and building political will
and commitment appropriately incorporated as part of the management program?
<Involvement of people> Do effective mechanisms exist for participatoryi m p l e m e n t a t i o n ? D o e s t h e e x i s t i n g m a n a g e m e n t p l a n i n c l u d e a l l r e l e va n t
stakeholders for its implementation? What changes have occurred in regard toawareness and understanding of the problems, and their linkages to stakeholder
activities? What are the perceptions of program stakeholders?
<Technological possibilities and limitations> Are the existing technologies
working well? If yes, could their performance be further improved? If no, what are
the reasons for their not working properly? Have there been unexpected adverse
impacts of technology applications? If yes, have the adverse effects been
appropriately mediated? If no, should the applications be further replicated? Have
either technology options or costs changed, and are such changes reflected in the
management plan?
<Knowledge and Information> Is there a common, shared knowledge base1

about the priority management challenges? Does a monitoring system exist tomeasure changes in key governance and other relevant indicators? Is the database sufficient? What are the remaining key gaps? Are information management
tools adequate to be effectively deployed?
<Finances> Are the currently available financial resources adequate? How canaccess to financial resources other than those currently available be improved?
These six major topics comprise the essential governance ingredients that collectively
form the management regime for the integrated approach for lake basin management
encompassed within Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) – They are referred as
the Six Pillars of Governance in ILBM (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 1. Conceptual Illustration of ILBM Platform Structurewith Six Pillars of Governance

Figure 2. Simplified Image of ILBM Platform Structurewith Six Pillars of Governance2

3.

The Lake Brief - A Unifying Thread for the ILBM Platform Process

The ILBM Platform Process (ILBM-PfP) begins with the preparation of a ‘Lake Brief'(see Box 1). The preparation process may be facilitated by identifying the ‘Impact
Stories,’ the past incidents of success and failure, the management implications
surrounding the unique physico-chemical characteristics, limitations and prospects
facing the basin community, etc., that feature the lake basin environment and its
community (Section IV). The remaining sections may be developed around theseelements, particularly with regard to the issues and challenges to be described in
Sections V and IV. Useful inputs, in the form of reviews and suggested refinements, canbe obtained effectively through an iterative process including workshop elaborations.
Inclusion of appropriate figures, tables, illustrations, maps and other visual materials
will obviously increase the usefulness of a Lake Brief.
ILEC also has prepared a Questionnaire (Annex A) to guide the development of acomprehensive Lake Brief. The Questionnaire elements include the bio-geophysicalfeatures of a lake basin, its socio-economic and governance features, and impairments
to its sustainable use, including its ecosystem regulating services.
I. Introduction
This section should describe the socio-economic context (people, livelihoods,
economic characteristics, types of institutions, laws and policies, political structure,etc.) of the region, country, or basin in which the lake is located. It shouldsummarize the overall importance of the lake and its basin from the perspective of
its significance as a natural habitat, and its social, economic, institutional, political,
cultural and/or recreational importance to the human population in the region, andits global importance, if any.
II. Description of Lake (to be based in part on Part I and II of Annex A)
II.1 Overview
This section should provide information on the lake’s biophysical features,
including basic physical characteristics (lake surface and drainage areas, lake depth
and volume, water residence time, etc). It also should describe drainage basincharacteristics (lake watershed and upstream and downstream river basins),
including the basin landscape and land use patterns. The Lake Brief also shouldsummarize the lake’s environmental state in regard to its drainage basin. The
human and environmental benefits derived from the lake/reservoir and its drainage
basin also should be identified and discussed.
II.2 State of the Lake
This section should include scientific findings and data that describe the past andpresent state of the lake’s water environment, including water quantity and quality,
aquatic biota (flora and fauna), and the state of its ecosystem health. Anyregionally- or globally-important aspects of the lake’s environment also should be
identified.

3

Box 1.

General Outline a Lake Brief

The general structure of a Lake Brief is as follows:I.

Introduction

II.

Description of the Lake and Its Basin

III.

Management of the Lake and Its BasinIV.

Major “Impact Stories” of the LakeV.

Major Lake Basin Governance Issues

VI.

Key Challenges to Lake GovernanceVII. References
Annex A. L a k e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( c h e c k l i s t o f d a t a a n d i n f o r m a t i o n o nbiophysical and managerial issues facing the lake basin)
Annex B. Six Pillars of Governance (checklist flowchart of governance issues
facing the lake basin)

III. Management of the Lake and Its Basin (to be based in part on Part III of
Annex A)
Some of the key questions to answer in this section include the following:
What do we know about management of the lake and its basin?
What are the major resource values of the lake and its basin; how are theyused/exploited economically; who benefits and who loses in the use/
exploitation?
What are major socio-economic and political implications of the lake and its
basin, particularly with regard to development, use and conservation of theirresources, to the basin population?
What are the resource use conflicts; how are they managed; are they?
managed well?
What are the current environmental and governance problems with the lake
and/or its basin; how are they being managed?
W h a t d o b a s i n i n h a b i t a n t s , i n c l u d i n g f i s h e r m e n , c o n s i d e r t h e o v e ra l lenvironmental and ecosystem status of the lake to be? Are their perceptions
consistent with scientific findings?
What is (are) the apparent and not-so apparent root cause(s) of identified
problems?
Who or what suffers from the impacts of these problems/issues, and how?

4IV. Major“Impact Stories”
The ‘impact stories’ represent narratives of human interventions, whether
successful or not, that were introduced in the lake basin to attempt to deal with its
management challenges. The stories must be told simply and concisely, withparticular emphasis on the context of their development and their results.
V. Major Lake Basin Governance Issues (see also Annex B)
Managing a lake and its basin may be depicted by answering the following typesof questions:Who (individuals, groups, institutions) are the key players in developing andimplementing the actions/programs to be undertaken to address identified lakebasin problems?
What is the existing legal and policy basis for lake basin management?
What plans and policies have been introduced to manage a lake and its basin,and how well have the problems been addressed?
What roles do the general public and NGOs have in managing the lake and its
basin?
What are the major introduced control measures (to address domestic,
industrial and other pollution loads; urban and agricultural runoff; water flows
and withdrawal; commercial fishing; wetlands and riparian zones, etc.)?
What are the major financial mechanisms used to facilitate the control
measures (user fees, taxes, fish levies, zoning charges, tradable permit
systems, etc.).
These questions are more comprehensively addressed in the boxes on the upper
part of the flow diagrams in Annex B for each of the lake basin governancecategories.
VI. Key Lake Basin Governance Challenges (see also Annex B)
Key lake basin governance challenges may be characterized by answering thefollowing types of questions:
What attempts have been made to establish sustainable institutions to address
multi-national and multi-sectoral issues, and multi-stakeholder interests
involved in managing a lake, its basin and its resources for sustainable use?
Has there been an emergence of political interest and/or commitment tomanaging and/or using a lake, its basin and its resources in a more sustainable
manner and, if so, what were the reasons for the emergence?
Will efforts be undertaken to establish a new legislative framework and/or
policies for managing lake basins for sustainable use?
Will efforts be undertaken to enhance stakeholder participation in the design
and implementation of lake basin management programs?
Will plans/programs be developed to strengthen linkages between lake basin
management programs, and broader national and regional water resourcesmanagement efforts?
Will efforts be undertaken to better incorporate scientific information andresearch results into lake basin management programs?
Will efforts be undertaken to develop financing and/or subsidizing mechanisms
for lake basin management activities focusing on sustainable use?

5

As a means of simplification, the initial version of a Lake Brief can be prepared in theform of a PowerPoint presentation. The full text version of the Brief (which will be
periodically revised and amended) can then be prepared as the Platform members
collectively gain knowledge regarding the overall lake basin situation and the long-term
challenges facing them in its management.

Figure 3. Transformation of ILBM Platform Structureby Strengthening the Six Pillars of GovernanceBox 2.

Development and Implementation of a Management
Plan in the ILBM Platform Process

The ILBM Platform Process takes for granted that development of a lake basin
management plan and its implementation are is an integrated part of the Processitself. If there is an existing management plan that is not working to the satisfactionof all the stakeholders, the ILBM Platform Process should be able to clarify what
aspects of the plan need improvement and how, over time. On the other hand, if
there is no management plan, which is often the case in many developing countries,
the ILBM Platform Process should be able to indicate what the necessarycomponents of the plan could be and how they may be coherently integrated into it.
Exactly how such a plan should be, and could be, developed, would depend on anumber of factors. In some cases, the national government may be ready tosupport individual lake basins with financial resources for undertaking structural andnonstructural intervention projects. In other cases, there may be bilateral andmultilateral technical collaboration and/or financial assistance organizations willingto assist in the development of a plan. In either case, the very existence of the ILBM
Platform Process would be very useful for both development and implementation ofsuch plans.

6

4. Analysis of “Issues” and “Challenges” Regarding Six Pillars ofGovernance
The ILBM PfP takes the form of either a basic (i.e., ‘once-through') process (Figure 4)
or a cyclic process (Figure 5). Based on most cases of lake basin management indeveloping countries conducted to date, the basin stakeholders usually find ILBM PfP
useful regardless of whether they use the basic or cyclic process. This experience isbased on the observation that the conventional approach in planning for lake basin
management is primarily a government-driven activity, thereby often exhibiting a very
‘top-down' as well as ‘expert-driven’ approach. This deprives a broad range ofstakeholders from being involved in the planning process in any significant way, despite
the fact that they are usually the ones most directly and indirectly affected by the
implementation of such plans. A basic process may, or may not, subsequently betransformed into a cyclic process, depending on the interests and capabilities of themembers developing the Platform. In many cases, however, the need to transform thebasic process into a cyclic process will become apparent over time, with the collective
aspiration to do so also growing over time.
The development of the cyclic ILBM PfP is described below by referring to its block
diagram version illustrated in Figure 6. The ILBM-PfP begins with Step 1), “Descriptionof the State of Lake Basin Management,” for which the information and data gained in
preparing the Lake Brief for a given lake and its basin play a key role. The analysis of“Issues,” “Needs,” and “Challenges” regarding the Six ILBM Governance Pillars identified
in Sections V and VI of the Lake Brief will take place in Step 2) of the PfP.
The Step 2) can be elaborated in some depth as follows:
1) The “Issues” identified in Section V of the Lake Brief should include those identified
by individual stakeholder groups, as well as collectively by multiple stakeholder
groups;2) Some of the “Challenges” identified in Section VI of Lake Brief may be clear andstraightforward, and the approaches to address them may become clear rather
q u i c k l y t h r o u g h a c o n s t r u c t i ve c o n s u l t a t i ve p r o c e s s a m o n g t h e c o n c e r n e dstakeholders. Others may be more involved, requiring much time and collective
efforts on the part of multiple stakeholder groups. They also may be left forconsideration in the subsequent rounds of analysis in the cyclic process.
Notwithstanding the above, the identified “Challenges” may be associated more or lessintuitively with the Six Governance Pillars. The “Issues” and “Challenges” can beelaborated using a “Issue – Challenge – Six Pillars Matrix,” to be described later in
Section 6 of this document.

7

Figure 4.

Conceptual Image of a Basic ILBM Platform Process

Figure 5.

Conceptual Image of a Cyclic ILBM Platform Process

85. W a y s a n d M e a n s f o r M e e t i n g t h e C h a l l e n g e s , a n d
Implementation of the Agreed Actions
For Step 3) of the PfP, as illustrated in Figure 6, the stakeholders should be ready to
d i s c u s s a n d c o n s i d e r h o w t h e “ C h a l l e n g e s ” i d e n t i f i e d i n S t e p 2 ) a b ove m ay b e
addressed. This step generally requires collective, critical self-analysis of the backgroundand reasons why such “Challenges” arose in the first place, and how they may be mostproductively addressed. A set of guiding questions, prepared on the basis of thecompiled documentations of past lake basin management experiences, may be very
useful for this step. Figure 7 illustrates an example of a set of such questions directed
to Institutions (the full set of guiding questions is shown in Annex B. It is emphasizedthat the questions provided in Figure 7 are only examples of the types of questions
relevant to this step. The Platform members can modify them and/or add their own
questions as necessary.)
Determining the means and approaches for addressing the identified “Challenges” willusually require a great deal of ‘soul-searching’ on the part of the Platform members.
This may range from simple information-sharing (i.e., for the concerned stakeholders todecide to share information already available, but exclusively owned by each stakeholder
separately), to collective actions (i.e., for the concerned stakeholders to undertake joint
actions by mobilizing collective resources), to joint engagement in developing andimplementing various intervention plans and projects anew, possibly by involving
external technical and financial cooperation programs willing to be part of the jointlydeveloped ILBM Platform concept.

Figure 6.

Flow Diagram of Cyclic ILBM Platform Process

9<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
Is there a (Are there) lake basin management institution(s)?
If yes, what do they/it do?
played?

Who plays the major role?

How well is the roleIs the organizational structure proper? What are their strengths and weaknesses?
How can they improve their institutional capacity?
If no, is there an organization or a program that should play the role?
there be an organization or a program newly established?

ShouldWhat are the priority needs for further strengthening the institutional capacity?

For making organizations andprograms more effective foraction<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ How should the institutional setting be improved at the national, regional andlocal levels to help formulate and implement individual lake basin management
plans and programs?
▶ Is the institutional linkage between the national program and the regional andlocal programs (i.e., vertical institutional linkage) sufficiently strong in both
directions? Are there good links between the decision-makers and thestakeholders at all levels? If not, how should they be established andstrengthened?
▶ Does the national policy allow and encourage all stakeholder organizations,
including governments, industries, scientific institutions and citizen groups, towork together (i.e., promote the horizontal institutional linkages)? What are the
obstacles and how could they be removed?
▶ Are there capacity building (training) programs within the institutionalarrangement? Are they working well? If not, what are the priority needs incapacity building and how could they be fulfilled?
▶ What improvements are required to enhance institutional capacities, particularly
for dealing with rules of the law (e.g., command-and-control) and behavioral
modification and change (economic incentives, voluntary compliance, etc.), andhow they could such improvements be made?

Figure 7. Example Questions to ask regarding Institutions(See Annex B for Example Questions for Other Pillars of Governance)

106. Key Considerations in Formulating the Proposed Approaches in
Meeting the Challenges
There are key considerations to keep in mind for successfully identifying and qualifying
the “Challenges” facing the PfP members is that they share the same overall picture of
the lake basin facing unsustainable resource management. Sharing the same picture
may be achieved, for example, through;Consolidation of, and/or minimization of duplication of, efforts by different
stakeholder organizations;
Efficient implementation of collaborative actions, using the available resources
collectively mobilized;
Development of innovative ideas that would not have been possible with individual
stakeholders working in isolation, including modification of existing plans andprograms, joint implementation of projects;
Acquisition of external funds and technical inputs for the collectively developed
proposals; andSharing of, as well as development of, the data and information for collective
pursuits.
It is often the case that the PfP members already have their own sectoral plans andprograms, some of them even with funding and institutional arrangements for
implementation. The PfP members can recognize who, when, how and for what purposessuch plans and programs are being developed and implemented. Suggestions for theirmodifications and revisions, if deemed necessary, may be made during the PfP process.
As agreed, due modification may be most productively made during the course of thecyclic process of ILBM.
In the process of identifying and qualifying the possible challenges, the PfP members
need to be alert about the realistic targets of achievement, i.e., by whom, by when, andby how much would be possible, taking into account that the targets of overcoming thechallenges may be affected by the nature of activities in relation to Six Pillars ofGovernance. For example, the nature of “Challenges” could be straightforward in
implementation (e.g., undertaking a structural intervention project) but also resourceintensive one, or it could be highly demanding in terms of elaboration (e.g., overcoming
policy differences) but not so resource intensive. In either case, the PfP members may
or may not be able to easily reach a consensus decision easily. However, the PfP
members would feel much more comfortable and confident knowing that the process ishighly facilitative, focusing on incremental improvements in closing the gap between thestate of governance today and the prospective future state commonly aspired by the PfP
members.

11

To the maximum extent possible, the proposed approaches in PfP should be based oncollective common-sense judgment. Indeed, there are so many things that could havebeen carried out to meet the collective challenges, but which were not carried out
because of the potential transaction costs in overcoming the institutional barriers among
the stakeholder groups.
The “Issue–Challenge–Six Pillars Matrix” can be expanded to include Proposed
Approaches, Responsible Stakeholders, and Indicators, as shown in Figure 8.
The content of the matrix will serve as a basis for the Cyclic ILBM Platform Process, at
Step 3), “Integrate ways and means for meeting the challenges and implementing theagreed actions” depicted in Figure 6.

Pillars of Governance andCross-Pillar Implications

Short-term Mid-term
Measures of
Actions
Actions
Challenges
Stakeholders Progress /(next ½-2 (next 2-3
Indicators
Ins. Pol. Par. Tec. Inf. Fin.
years)
years)
Issus
1
……

Issus
n

Figure 8. Conceptual Framework of “Issue-Challenge-Six Pillars Matrix”,
with Proposed Actions, Responsible Stakeholder Groups, andthe Measures of Progress or Indicators

A water vender collecting the contaminatedNjoro River water, Kenya

Gully erosion at one of the inflowing rivers into
Lake Victoria, Kenya

12

7. Use of Governance Improvement Indicators
There are two important considerations for assessing incremental improvements inlake basin governance:① Time intervals for review and assessment; and② Assessment methodologies and indicators.
The time intervals for review and assessment can vary from a few months to several
years, depending on the nature of the challenge to be addressed in order to see
improvement. For example, if monitoring of lake surface water is regularly conducted atcertain sampling points, and data are readily available, a time interval period longer
than the monitoring interval would then be meaningful. On the other hand, the state of
the lake bottom ecosystem, for example, would probably not be part of a regularsampling program, and its analysis may require special sampling and laboratory analysis
techniques involving a team of specially-assembled researchers.
The assessment methodologies and indicators to be adopted for PfP can also vary
widely depending on the nature of governance improvement challenges. Among themethodologies in the literature, that proposed here is one used for monitoring andassessment of international transboundary environmental projects by the Global
Environment Facility*. This methodology uses two types of “output-oriented” indicators,
and one type of “outcome-oriented” indicators. Of the two “output-oriented” indicators,
the first are the “stress reduction indicators”, and the second are the “enabling process
indicators.”a)

Examples of “stress reduction indicators” may include:① Increased reed bed area resulting from de-siltation operations;② Reduced industrial pollution loading because of more stringent enforcement;③ Reduced excess water withdrawals;④ Reduced agrochemical application per cropland area;⑤ Reduced silt and sediment carried into the lake;⑥ Extent recovered from decreased infestation by invasive species of fauna andflora; and⑦ Reduced areal extent of illegal occupancy resettled outside of the riparian landb)

Examples of “enabling process indicators” may include:① Re a l i z a t i o n o f s t a ke h o l d e r i nvo l ve m e n t i n p r e p a ra t i o n a n d c r e a t i o n o f amanagement plan;② Enactment of regulations on the mesh size of nets in order to reduce the quantityof inadvertently-harvested juvenile fish; and,③ Legal and institutional reforms for harmonization of various environmental
management plans.

* See, Duda, A. (2002) “Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects,” Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10,
World Bank, Washington, D.C.

13

c)

The “environmental status indicators” may include:① decreases in the nutrient concentrations;② improvement in the state of ecosystem health, as reflected in an increased
biodiversity index; and,
③ utilizing the questionnaire surveys, determination of the extent to which
communities and stakeholders benefitted from the changes in environmental
conditions.

It is to be noted that the values and information associated with “stress
reduction indicators” and the “enabling process indicators” which can be regarded
as the necessary-condition indicators, are easier to obtain, as well as being rather
straightforward as measures of progress toward improved lake basin governance.
In contrast, some of the “environmental status indicator” values are not easy toobtain, and are much less straightforward to interpret, compared to the other two
types of indicators, although the indicator is an indispensable one in the Platform
Process. The indicator values have to be interpreted on a much more long-termbasis, and sometimes with the help of auxiliary tools of analysis and interpretationsuch as sophisticated and specialized instrumentation and mathematical modelingtools.
The sequential nature of the indicators is also important. For example, if
eutrophication of a lake is to be controlled by a sewerage system, construction oftreatment and reticulation systems may become necessary. One of the firstprocesses required is knowledge of the state of water quality, as well as the stateof ecosystem integrity of the lake (environmental state), while developing a planfor enhancing the enforcement (enabling process), and for constructing awastewater treatment system (enabling process). Identifying and obtaining thenecessary financing from various sources will need to be explored and realized(stress reduction). The households and business operations would then need to
expend their own funds to connect to the system (stress reduction). If there is nolegal requirement for their connection to the system, enactment of a bylaw as anenabling process would be necessary. The need for the installation of a nutrient
removal capability, or tertiary treatment capacity, may then become an issue, withmobilization of additional funding (stress reduction).

Water collection in Kisumu, Kenya

Lake Chivero water intake infested with water
weeds

14

8. Knowledge Base and Data Base Systems
An enormous quantity of information has been generated so far, and will continue tobe generated, on a wide range of thematic subjects pertaining to lake basin
management, on both a national and international basis. Much of it pertains to naturalscience topics, including physical, chemical and biological aspects (limnology, hydrology,
climatology, ecology, biochemistry, etc.), all of which contribute to understanding thestate of lakes, reservoirs and other lentic water bodies. There also is a growing numberof studies on the managerial aspects of aquatic, terrestrial and riparian ecosystems,
including water quality, sediment quality, and shoreline environments, together with the
inflowing and outflowing water systems, extending out to the upper watershedtributaries.
A needed component that has not been produced, however, is the compilation andutilization of holistically- and practically-synthesized information on such thematic anddisciplinary subjects. Both on the compilation of global experiences and lessons learnedin managing lakes and their basins, a detailed account of the Six ILBM Governance
Pillars is provided in: “Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use: A Reportfor Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders", ILEC (2005), available on the website:(http://www.ilec.or.jp/eg/lbmi/index.html) An electronic training module of thisdocument is available on the website: (http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/ILBMTrainingMaterials/
index.html) The document has played an instrumental role in the conceptualization
process of ILBM, and now that the number of such efforts is growing, developing andsharing the knowledge being continually generated and accumulated is ever more
important.
For the purpose of addressing this goal, an interactive knowledge base cum knowledge
mining system, called LAKES (Learning Acceleration and Knowledge Enhancement
System) has been developed. LAKES currently has the capacity to process several
hundred documents for the purpose of ‘mining' the imbedded knowledge with the use of
free keywords, as well as use of the included prepared thesaurus, ranging from the levelof whole documents, to pages, paragraphs, and even individual sentences.. LAKES also
is linked to a database system called the World Lake Database, a repository of theo u t p u t o f S u r v e y o f t h e S t a t e o f Wo r l d L a k e s ( 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 8 8 ) f o r r e v i e w i n g a n ddownloading information and data for individual lakes, as well as for cross-cutting
analysis among the lakes of water quality parameters. This system is capable of also
serving as a depository of lake basin management data that may already have been
generated and made public in the form of hard-copy reports and technical papers, but
not in any form of an electronic database because of an inability to develop and maintainsuch a system. As the number of ILBM-related efforts increases, this need will definitely
increase as data and information compiled in the form of a Lake Brief also are expected
to grow. Screenshot Images of the "LAKES" Knowledge Base System and the World
Lake Database System are shown in Figure 9.

15

Figure 9-1.

A Screenshot of "LAKES" Knowledge Base System

Figure 9-2.

A Screenshot of World Lake Database

Figure 9. Screenshot Images of "LAKES" Knowledge Base System andWorld Lake Database System

16

9. Summary and Way Forward
Ongoing experiences clearly highlight two important observations in the ongoingdevelopment and dynamics of the ILBM-PfP approach, the first being the changing
nature of PfP in response to the levels of stakeholder engagement, as illustrated in
Figure 10.
As for the first observation of the transition of PfP over time, the indications are that
there would be variations of transition from the current situation of no existing Platform
Process evolving into the Basic Process, and then into the Cyclic Process. It appears that
ILBM-PfP would 1) remain as Basic PfP; 2) transform to Cyclic PfP without becoming astatutory process; or 3) transform to Cyclic PfP as part of the statutory process. As forthe second observation of the changing nature of PfP in response to the levels of
stakeholder engagement, the emerging tendency is for the nature of PfP to change from
non-statutory to statutory, and from less coherent to more coherent, as the levels of
engagement in the formal and informal sectors evolve from “Low-Low” to “High-High,”
respectively.
It is hoped this “Primer” for “Development of ILBM Platform Process: Evolving
Guidelines through Participatory Improvement” will be used for a growing number ofcase study applications dealing with extremely challenging lake basin management
issues, collectively to contribute to the acceleration of improved lake basin management
globally.

References
Duda, A., 2002. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters
Projects, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
11p.
Masahisa Nakamura and Rafik Hirge (Eds.), 2005. Managing Lakes and Their Basins for
Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders. International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Japan. 146p.
Masahisa Nakamura and Walter Rast (Eds.), 2010. Guidelines for Lake Brief Preparation.
Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU, Otsu),
and International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC-Kusatsu), Japan. 17p.
World Lake Vision Committee, 2003. World Lake Vision: A Call to Action. International
Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Japan. 36p.
I L E C . 2 0 0 7 a . Wo r l d L a k e V i s i o n A c t i o n Re p o r t . Wo r l d L a k e V i s i o n C o m m i t t e e ,International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Japan. 392p.
ILEC. 2007b. Integrated Lake Basin Management: An Introduction. International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Japan. 23p.
ILEC. 2007c. Integrated Lake Basin Management. Threats to World Lakes. International
Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Japan. 4p.

17

Figure 10. S u m m a r y o f E x p e r i e n c e i n D e v e l o p m e n t o f I L B M P l a t f o r m
Process in terms of 1) Transformation of Platform Process OverTime, and 2) Changing Nature of Platform Process in Responseto the Levels of Engagement

18Annex A. Lake Questionnaire
The components listed below will serve as a useful basis for preparing a Lake Brief. Although thequestionnaire should be filled out as completely as possible, it may be necessary to initially ignore
items for which there is little or no accessible information. The missing information and data may
subsequently be obtained by the scientific community in the course of revising and improving theLake Brief. As many reference materials as possible also should be identified for the subjects being
discussed.

PART I.
1.

Characterization Information

Basic Information
1.1

Name(s)1.1.1 In English (All official names
if identified by different

PART I data and information is generally readily
available from the inventory data source of anational database system, if not already available
in the publically-accessible information sources.

names in different countries)
1.1.2 In local language(s)1.2Location
1.2.1 Latitude (range from West to East) and Longitude (range from south to north)
1.2.2 Water surface elevation, relative to mean sea level
1.2.3 Riparian country and sub-national (state, province, etc.) jurisdictions
1.2.4 Non-riparian basin (upstream) countries and sub-national jurisdictions

1.3

Origin1.3.1 For natural lakes: Origin (e.g., glacial, tectonic, volcanic) and estimated age of lake
1.3.2 For artificial lakes (reservoirs): Physical features and years of construction in phases

1.4

Basin and/or Watershed Map(s)1.4.1 Major inflowing and outflowing rivers
1.4.2 Main cities and other relevant points of interest in basin
1.4.3 National/sub-national jurisdictional boundaries
1.4.4 Other maps, as appropriate

1.5

Basin Demography, Map(s)1.5.1 Population numbers, density and distribution
1.5.2 Other relevant information (maps, etc. regarding geographical, demographical, landuse, geohydrological information for lake and its basin and/or watershed, etc.)

1.6

Landscape and Waterscape
1.6.1 Visual features of lake and basin (various photos of landscape, physical facilities,
water quality problems, land and water uses in riparian and upstream regions,biological and ecosystem conditions, unique fauna and flora, etc.)

2.

Morphology
2.1

Bathymetric Map (if available)
2.2

Lake Volume (km³) and Surface Area (km²)

2.3Lake Length and Width (km) and Length of Shoreline (km)2.4

Maximum and Mean Depths (m)2.5Intra- and Inter-annual Changes in Water Levels and Volumes; and Water Level
Changes Due to Flow Regulation, if Available

3.

Water Balance
3.1

Inflows (annual average in m³/year), including Precipitation, Rivers (including indication if

3.2

Outflows (annual average in m³/year), including Evaporation, Rivers (including indication if

they are controlled), Groundwater, and Water Diversions
they are controlled), Groundwater and Water Diversions

19

3.3

Water Retention Times (in years, if information is available), including Theoretical Filling
Time (calculated as lake volume/annual inflow), and Theoretical Flushing Time (calculated
as lake volume/annual outflow)

3.4

Information on Any Long-term Changes

4. Climate
4.1

Monthly Average, Minimum and Maximum Temperatures (˚C) and Precipitation (mm)4.2

Prevailing Wind Directions by Season; Wind Strength

4.3

Seasonal and Inter-annual Variability (description)

PART II.
5.

6.

7.

Biophysical, Chemical and Biotic Data and Information

State of Ecosystem
5.1

Description of State of Ecological Health, Including Conservation of Fauna & Flora

5.2

Description of State of Biodiversity Conservation

Physical Characteristics
6.1

Water Temperature (versus time and depth)

6.2

Freezing Period and Extent of Freezing

6.3

Lake Mixing (vertical and horizontal, including main bays and sub-basins)

6.4

Lake Stratification (period and extent)

Chemical Data
7.1

C h e m i c a l Wa t e r Q u a l i t y ( e . g ., ox y g e n
demand; nitrogen and phosphorus[organic, inorganic, particulate, and total,i f a va i l a b l e ] c o n c e n t ra t i o n s , s a l i n i t y,organic and inorganic chemical pollutant
concentrations)

7.2

Po l l u t a n t L o a d i n g s ( t o n s / y e a r ) f r o mRivers, Groundwater and Atmosphere8.

Biotic Data (Main Species, Exotic Species,
Productivity Changes Over Time)
8.1

Overall State of Lake Ecosystem, including

8.2

Phytoplankton; Zooplankton; Fish

Biodiversity
8.3

Benthos; Avifauna

8.4

Brief Description of General Ecosystem/

PART II data and information may alreadyexist in the form of a database developedby the government agency or the research
institution dedicated to monitoring the
subject water body. Some of the parameter
items may be regularly and continually
updated through monitoring anda s s e s s m e n t . H o w e v e r, c o n s i s t e n t l yupdating this kind of biophysical datarequires financially and manpowercommitment, and is difficult to continue.
National, regional and global effort tosupport acquisition, compilation,assessment and analysis of such data andinformation is extremely useful andimportant.

biodiversity Issues in Regard to Littoral
Wetlands, Rivers, Atmosphere
8.5

Aquatic and terretstrial fauna in the littoral environments (e.g., birds and small animals)

8.6

Aquatic and terrestrial flora in the littoral environments (e.g., vegetations, shrubs andforests)

PARTIII.
9.

Management and Policy Data and Information

State of Lake Basin
9.1

Description of Catchment Area (including size (km²); general geography of region in
relation to lake and neighboring water bodies [e.g., other lakes connected in cascade]);Inflow Catchment System; Outflow Catchment River System

9.2

Basin Hydrology (brief description of basin hydrology, including active and non-active parts)

9.3

Soil Types (refer to soil map, if available)

9.4

Land Cover, including changes over time (briefly describe seasonal land-use changes, viareference to land use maps)

20

9.5

Sub-surface Drainage (briefly description of groundwater flows, referring to hydrographicaland hydrological maps, if available)

10. Uses of the Lake and Its Resource Development Facilities
10.1 Water, including Flood/Drought Control Facilities; Drinking Water Withdrawals and Facilities;
Agricultural Water Withdrawals and Facilities; and Industrial Water Withdrawals andFacilities
10.2 Fisheries and Facilities
10.3 Tourism Facilities
10.4 Other Uses
11. Impairments to Lake Resource Uses, including Ecosystem Regulating Services
11.1 Increased Algal Growth11.2 Increased Salinity
11.3 Wetland Destruction
11.4 Declining Fish Stocks
11.5 Other Impairments, including Governance Issues
12. Causes of Impairments
12.1 Upper Watershed Degradation (including erosion and siltation)
12.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Runoff from Urban Areas
12.3 Shoreline Degradation and Alterations
12.4 Other Impairments
13. Structural Management Responses
13.1 Sewerage Systems
13.2 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Systems
13.3 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Systems

PART III information is generally readilyavailable as basic inventory information at
the government level. If it is not alreadyavailable, a reconnaissance survey may be
usefully conducted.

13.4 Other Relevant Systems
14. Non-structural Management Responses
14.1 Rules (informal community rules; voluntary restrictions; formal rules such as industrial
effluent regulations; protected areas [land use restrictions, ecological reserves];etc.)14.2 Economic incentives (subsidies, taxes, etc.)
14.3 Raising public awareness (public awareness, including environmental education,
environmental campaigns, activities of environmental NGOs and CBOs, etc.)
15. Socioeconomic Information (partial duplication of item 1.5 above)
15.1 Population Dynamics (numbers, distribution, main cities, percent urban/rural, etc.)15.2 Education (extent and types of education, literacy rates, etc.)15.3 Culture (languages, ethnicities, including indigenous peoples, religion, legends and beliefs
about lake)
15.4 Economic Sectors (major industries and production statistics; regional economic
development issues, including transportation, commerce sectors, livelihood issues indifferent parts of lake basin such as coastal upland and upper watershed regions; grossnational income per capita within basin [noting also how it might differ from national
average(s)])
16. Political Situation (partial duplication of Item 1.2 above)
16.1 Nations Within Lake Basin
16.2 Sub-national Boundaries
16.3 Brief Description of Region's History (Brief Description of governance challenges facing
people (access to information, rights to participation, access to justice, etc.)21

Joint meeting with Indian and African ILBM
partners

Nursery bed of seedlings for reforestation, Lake
Nakuru watershed

Eco-san toilet in Rachuonyo district, Kenya

Washing in the river, Kenya

Baobab tree, Zimbabwe

A seriously dysfunctional sewage treatment
plant under partial repair

22Annex B. Six Pillars on Lake Basin Governance(A) Institutions (Developing organization for action)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
Is there a (are there) existing lake basin management institution(s)?
If yes, what do they do? Who plays the major role(s)? How well is the role(s) played? Is the organizational
structure appropriate? What are their strengths and weaknesses? How can their institutional capacity be
improved?
If no, is there an organization or a program that should play the role(s)? Should a new organization or program
be established?
What are the priority needs for further strengthening the institutional capacity?

For making organizations and programs
more effective for action:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ How should the institutional setting be improved at the national, regional and local levels for helping formulate
and implement individual lake basin management plans and programs?
▶ Is the institutional linkage between the national program and the regional and local programs (i.e., verticalinstitutional linkage) sufficiently strong in both directions? Do good links exist between the decision makers andthe stakeholders at all levels? If not, how should they be established and strengthened?
▶ Does the national policy allow and encourage all stakeholder organizations, including governments, industries,
scientific institutions and citizen groups, to work together (i.e., to promote the horizontal institutional linkages)?
What are the obstacles to this linkage and how could they be addressed?
▶ Does capacity building (training) programs exist within the institutional arrangement? Are they working well? If
not, what are the priority needs in capacity building and how can they be fulfilled?
▶ What improvements are required to enhance institutional capacities, particularly to deal with rules of law (e.g.,command-and-control) and behavioral modifications and changes (economic incentives, voluntary compliance,etc.), and how can such improvements be made?

(B) Policies (Identifying effective actions)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
Do relevant national, regional or local lake basin management policies, plans and programs exist?
If they do, are they up-to-date and have they been properly implemented? Have they been effective in
addressing the identified problem(s)? If they do, but have not been properly implemented, or are not sufficiently
effective, what are the possible major reasons for this deficiency?
If they don't exist, should a new policy be developed to address the identified problem(s)? What issues should
addressed be looked into as priority in the new policy.

For identifying policies and actions that
may be most needed and most effective:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ Does an overall national policy framework exist, with provisions for development and implementation of plans forlake basin management (i.e., are there national/regional conservation plans)? If yes, have the plans andprograms been properly implemented with relevant priority considerations and phasing over time?
▶ If no, what specific provisions must be included, and how can such inclusions be realized?
▶ Do existing national/regional development plans recognize the importance of the sustainable use andconservation of lake basin resources?
▶ Do laws, ordinances and/or other regulatory provisions specifically directed to lake basin management exist (i.e.,effluent standards; ambient standards [e.g., nutrient and chemical concentrations]; source-water protection
classifications; etc.)? Have they been usefully implemented? Have they been effective? If not, how can thesituation regarding these elements be improved?
▶ If there are legal provisions in place, but they have not been usefully implemented or effective, what are major
reasons for this deficiency? Is it a result of inadequate enforcement, or inadequate public awareness, or both?
How can their implementation be improved (other than simply providing more funding)?
▶ What types of policy reforms have taken place, or are being considered, to address the sustainable use of lakebasin resources? What is currently being done to strengthen institutional capacity, promote environmental
investments, and develop human resources?

23

(C) Stakeholder Participation (Involving people and stakeholders)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
What are the major lake basin management stakeholder groups (i.e., government agencies and/or
sectors; institutions; organizations; interest groups; private sector; lakeshore residents, downstream water
users, etc.)? Do they share their mutual concerns, and if so, how?
Do good mechanisms exist for all the stakeholders to be involved in development and implementation of lakebasin management plans and programs? If yes, how well are they functioning?

For developing mechanisms and fora forobtaining public opinion and input:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ How can existing stakeholder involvement be improved, particularly in designing and implementing specific plansand programs in lake basin management?
▶ How can the involvement of voluntary associations, village organizations, CBOs, NGOs, etc., be promoted tocomplement the role played by the government?
▶ What methods might be effective for stakeholder involvement (i.e., to allow citizen groups and NGOs to convey
their concerns about the plans and programs developed without their involvement)?
▶ How can the involvement be better promoted/assured for women, disadvantaged peoples, and potentiallyadversely affected members of the community, particularly in relation to sustainable livelihoods and improved
living conditions?
▶ How should the stakeholders collectively enhance lake basin biodiversity, which often plays a vital role incommunity livelihood enhancement and health status improvements in many developing countries?
▶ What are the merits and demerits of involving international/external NGOs in lake basin management? What are
their relevant roles and potential benefits that are otherwise difficult to obtain?
▶ When rules are developed, are those potentially affected by them involved in their development?

(D) Knowledge and Information (Informing the Process)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
What information and data prescribed in Annex 2 is available and, if so, from whom and how?
Have the information and data identified above been sufficient to inform the stakeholders, and are they
sufficiently reliable for decision-making? If not, what is currently being done to change the situation?
Are the information and data identified above sufficiently inclusive of pertinent local sources, particularly offishermen, farmers, house wives, children, and similar individuals?
Have regular monitoring programs been implemented, and have they been proving useful for local decisionmaking?

For filling the knowledge gap for more
informed decision making in collaboration:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ Are past and current data and information collected, compiled, and analyzed for a target lake basin easily
identifiable and/or accessible? If not, how should they be made more accessible and used for more informed
decision making?
▶ Does a database exist to support the common interests and concerns of stakeholders, including one having dataand information such as those listed in Annex 2? If not, is it possible for one of the stakeholder organizations toplay a provisional role to liaise with a global data base, such as ILEC's World Lake Database? Under suchcircumstances, what data and information should be regularly updated, by whom, and how can the updated dataand information be widely shared for collective and informed stakeholder decision making?
▶ How can institutions with data and information on a target lake basin, such as universities, governmental/ nongovernmental research institutes, private sector laboratories, etc., increase their collaboration without being too
possessive of their own data and information?
▶ What are some of the major knowledge gaps that require information on global experience and lessons learned,
and how can access to such information sources be enhanced? Does a focal point organization already exist forundertaking this role? If not, who (what organization) could play such a role, and how should the role beundertaken to benefit the broadest range of potential beneficiaries in the basin?
▶ How can information dissemination to, and sharing with, the public be improved? How can transparency andaccess to such data and information be improved?

24(E) Technological Opportunities and Limitations (Responding with Technology)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
What technological interventions have been introduced for resource development (e.g., hydropower, water
resources, etc.) and/or resource conservation (e.g., sediment removal, sewerage and pollution control, etc.)?
How successful have they been, and what have been their positive and negative impacts?
What technological innovations should be and/or should have been introduced, but have not been introduced?
What are the reasons for this deficiency, and should they be overcome and, if so, how?
What types of lower-cost and appropriate technologies are available and implementable, and how?

For identifying and applying an appropriate
mix of technological options:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ Have the adopted technologies successfully fulfilled their original expectations, considering that all technologies
have their limitations, as well as unexpected increases in their application costs? If they have not, what are thereasons for this deficiency, and how can the situation be improved? Sometimes these technologies may shedundue adverse impacts on the lake ecosystem, particularly for large-scale technologies (e.g., ,hydropower,
sewerage facilities, etc.).
▶ Have the introduced technologies subsequently interfaced well with the environmental and ecosystem behaviors
that were generally not well known at the onset of their introduction? The adaptive approach (i.e., making
adjustments based on the observed results of application) should be the key to any technology applications inlake basin management, with various stakeholders playing their respective important roles.
▶ Are lake basin stakeholders sufficiently aware of the cost implications of technological interventions, and the needfor mid-course correction based on a consultative process involving all of▶ the stakeholder groups, including government agencies? Some technologies can incur high initial costs, but low
recurring cost. Other may have low initial costs, but high recurring cost. Still others may have both high initialand recurring costs. It is noted that, even if loan and grants are available, the recurring costs, including the initialcosts to be paid off over a long period of time, and the operation and maintenance costs, must ultimately be paidby the basin population.
▶ What have the application results of such technologies been elsewhere? What types of technological and nontechnological solutions can be usefully combined, and how could they be implemented?

(F) Sustainable Finance (Mobilizing Sustainable Financing)<Fact-checks on the state of governance>
What is the status of local funding and financial mechanisms for lake basin management, and what is theirsustainability? Is this important knowledge sufficiently understood by the stakeholders for them to takeappropriate financial responsibility?
What are some of the important factors to consider in having access to international (external), national andstate funding sources, and to make use of the respective financing mechanisms? What are the major issues thatmust be considered, or about which it is necessary to be prepared to address?
What are other financial and funding possibilities, and how should they be pursued?

For exploring different funding sources andfinancial mechanisms:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>▶ Have past investments for lake restoration resulted in measurable improvements in water quality and ecosystem
integrity? If yes, have the improvements increased related economic outputs, with more tourists, better quality
water supplies, greater yield fish harvests, etc.? If not, what are some of the reasons for this failure, and how
can the situation be improved?
▶ Are both the Polluters Pay Principle (e.g., strict enforcement of point and nonpoint source pollution control) andthe Beneficiaries Pay Principle (e.g., appropriate charges for the users of lake water quantity and quantity)
appropriately enforced? If not, why not, and how can the situation be corrected?
▶ Has the responsible lake basin focal agency maintained strong links with the national government? Has it beensuccessful in receiving preferential funding and subsidies for improving the lake's resource values (e.g., improved
water quality), because such considerations will depend on the viewpoint of regional/ national economic
development policies being in balance with environmental quality improvement? A sewerage system, forexample, may serve both to enhance livelihood amenities and to improve the lake environment. While the former
benefit must paid for by the beneficiaries, the latter may be paid for with general tax revenue since it may beconsidered a benefit for the public at large.
▶ Are economic instruments (taxes; user charges; pollution fines; etc.) currently being practiced for lake basin
management? How successful have they been, and what are possibilities for improvement? What is the status of
the application of more advanced economic policy tools, such as pollution charges and tradable permits? What isthe possibility of promoting PES (payment for environment) or PWS (payment for watershed services) within thecontext of global interests in enhancing biodiversity? What about the possibility of being part of the global
movement toward establishment of a trust fund for protecting ecosystems of international and/or global
significance?
▶ Can locally-raised revenues from lake basin resources be retained for local use and, if not, what actions might bepossible to ensure such funds are retained?

25

(G) Some Overall Governance Issues▶ How should trans-jurisdictional and trans-boundary issues be addressed in the lake briefs, and how should theregional and global governance improvements be pursued using such briefs?
▶ What are the climate change implications, and those of possible adaptation challenges to lake basin governance?
How should the global environmental issues, such as the long-range transport of airborne pollutants, and virtualwater exploitation (the cause of virtual pollution at the source; that is, growing crops for exportation in the lakewatershed that leads to pollution of the lake, but does not affect the conditions at the locations to which thecrops are being exported) be addressed in terms of improved lake basin governance?
▶ How can the need for capacity development, including not just targeted skills, but also a broad range ofapproaches for improving governance for lake basin management, be met? For example, what kind of programs
would be useful for addressing such broad-scale issues as enhancing collaboration among concerned government
agencies, promoting the establishment of stakeholder alliances, encouraging mid-course corrections in pursuinglong-term plans and programs, etc.?
▶ How can the lake basin society promote the building and sustaining, rather than waning, of political will for
improving lake basin governance?

Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe

Community-based women's groups in Rachuonyo
district, Kenya

Homa Bay, Kenya

26