�

Development of ILBM Platform Process
Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement 2nd Edition

Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU), Japan
International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Japan

Authors: Masahisa Nakamura, Walter Rast
Copyright © 2014 by Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU) andInternational Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC)
2nd Edition Printed and bound in March, 2014, by Otsushigyo Photo Printing Co. Ltd.
Citation
Please cite this report as: RCSE and ILEC. 2014. "Development of ILBM Platform Process:
Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement. 2nd Edition."
Disclaimer
The presentation of the material in this publication does not imply the expression of opinion on thepart of organizations financially supporting the project, or of the participating members of the respective
case study projects.
RequestThis document is meant to be an evolving document for improvement through application to actual
cases of lake basin management challenges faced globally. The identified possible needs for
improvement, together with the lessons learned and the experience gained through actual applications,
may be kindly communicated to infoilec@ilec.or.jp.
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 ofSpecial Education Research, the Ministry of Environment, Japan; the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA); International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Japan; ResearchCenter for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU), Japan; and International
Watershed Studies, The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University,
USA.
Editorial revision of this 2nd Edition was assisted by Yasue Hagihara, ILEC.
The authors wish to acknowledge the focal point experts for the project, conducted between 2008
through 2010, undertaken as the "ILBM-Governance Project." This acknowledgement is directed, firstof all, to the work of the late Dr. Mohan Kodarkar of India at Lake Bhopal, the Udaipur Lakes, Lakes
Pushkar and Annasagar, and Ujjani Reservoir. He was an avid supporter of ILBM and an inspirational
leader of this project, particularly for South Asia. He is missed a great deal by his ILEC colleagues andothers with whom he has worked. We also would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their
exceptional efforts in coordinating the preparation of Lake Briefs, as well as for organizing ILBM
workshops and expert group meeting in various countries. These include India (Sandeep Joshi for
Ujjani Reservoir), Malaysia (Dr. Tan Sri Shahrizaila Abdullah and his colleagues for Lakes Chini, Bukit
Merrah, Putra Jaya and five other lakes), Mexico (Mr. Alejandro Juarez-Aguilar for Lerma River-Lake
Chapala Basin), Nepal (Directors of National Lake Conservation and Development Committee and Mr.
Shailendra Pokharel for Lakes Phewa, Rupa and Bernas), Russian Federation (Dr. Nick Aladin for
Lakes Ladoga, Chudsko-Pskovskoe, llmen), and the Philippines (Ms. Adelina Santos-Borja for Lakes
Laguna and Lanao). In addition, the authors received expert inputs throughout the course of the
project from Dr. Thomas Ballatore, Dr. Masako Horikosi, Dr. Munetsugu Kawashima, Mr. Hiroya Kotani,
Dr. Manabu Kondo, Dr. Yoshihisa Shimizu, Dr. Katsuya Tanaka, Dr. Naoki Umezawa, Akihiko
Watanabe (Japan); Dr. Dan Olago and Dr. Obiero Ong'ang'a (Kenya); and Dr. Chris Magadza(Zimbabwe). Special thanks also goes to Dr. Chatchai Ratanachai (Thailand) for hosting one of theexpert group meetings in Hat Yai. In addition, Dr. Jin Xiangcan (China), Dr. Dongil Seo (Korea) and Dr.
Danniel Connell (Australia) provided valuable suggestions to the project in the early phase of the
Project. We are also very much indebted to Dr. Naoko Hirayama, Ms. Hebin Lin, and Ms. Beverly
Saunders for conducting supporting research and undertaking the role of rapporteur at several ILBM
meetings, Dr. Satoru Matsumoto for providing expert support at ILBM workshops and expert groupmeetings, Dr. Tomohiro Sato and Ms. Mayuko Tokonagi for helping the authors to initiate a project on
ILBM Platform development in Africa. Lastly, we thank Ms. Atsuko Hinatsu very much for undertaking
all of the logistic arrangements throughout the duration of the project.

Development of ILBM Platform Process
Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement

Masahisa Nakamura1
Walter Rast2

1 Professor, Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU), Japan; and Chair,

Scientific Committee, International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Japan
2 Professor Emeritus and Director, International Watershed Studies, The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment,

Texas State University, USA, and Vice-Chair, Scientific Committee, International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation (ILEC), Japan

Development of ILBM Platform Process

Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement
Table of Contents

Preamble: Purpose of This Document ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

1

Background ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

1

What Is Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM)? ･･･････････････････････････････････････

1

What Is the ILBM Platform and How Does It Help Lake Basin Management?･･･････････････････

1

Chapter Structure ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

1

Lakes as Lentic Waters: Distinctions, Features and Management Implications ･････････････････

3

1.

1-1

2.

3.

4.

Lentic-Lotic Basin Systems in the Hydrostatic-Hydrodynamic Context :Management Implications ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

3

1-2

Lake Basin Typology with a Focus on Lentic-Lotic Linkages ････････････････････････････

5

1-3

Vulnerable and Fragile: Features and Implications of Lentic Waters ･･････････････････････

7

1-4

Ecosystem Services: A Useful Conceptual Framework ･････････････････････････････････

9

1-5

Resource Use Features and Their Management Implications ･･･････････････････････････ 11

Planning vs. Governance: A Crucial Relationship for Sustainable Basin Management ･･･････････ 13
2-1

Meeting Management Needs: Scopes and Approaches in Planning ･･････････････････････ 13

2-2

Governance Improvement as a Prerequisite for Planning ･･･････････････････････････････ 15

2-3“Six Pillars of Governance”: What Are They, What Pillars Need Strengthening, and How? ･･ 17

2-4“Lake Brief”: A Unifying Thread between Planning and Governance Improvement ･････････ 19

2-5

Sources of Information on Lake Basin Governance Improvement ････････････････････････ 23

ILBM Platform Development: Seeking to Strengthen the Six Pillars of Governance･･････････････ 25
3-1

What Is an ILBM Platform? ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 25

3-2

The ILBM Platform May Evolve to Become a Cyclic Process ････････････････････････････ 27

3-3

Assessing Governance Improvement Over Time ･･････････････････････････････････････ 29

3-4

Governance Linkages Within and Beyond the Lake Basin ･･････････････････････････････ 31

Frameworks for Interpreting the ILBM Outcomes ･･･････････････････････････････････････････ 33
4-1

Application Cases and Their Typology ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････ 33

4-2

Typical Forms of Plans and Their Implications in the ILBM Platform Process ･･････････････ 37

4-3Management Reasons/Purposes Associated with Governance Pillars ････････････････････ 39

4-4

The Meaning of Integration: IWRM vs. ILBM ･･････････････････････････････････････････ 41

4-5

Stages of the ILBM Platform Development････････････････････････････････････････････ 43

4-6

Challenges in Sustaining an ILBM Platform Process ･･･････････････････････････････････ 45

5.

Knowledge Base and Database Systems･･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 47

6.

Summary and Way Forward ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 49

References ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 51
Annex 1. Lake Basin Typology, with a Focus on Lentic-Lotic Linkages ･････････････････････････････ 53
Annex 2. Lake Questionnaire ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 61
Annex 3. Six Pillars of Lake Basin Governance ･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 64
Annex 4. PDCA Cycle and a Cyclic Process of Governance Improvement･･････････････････････････ 71
Annex 5. A Practical Approach in ILBM Pillar Assessment: An Example ･･･････････････････････････ 73
Annex 6. Past and Ongoing ILBM-Related Projects ･････････････････････････････････････････････ 78
Annex 7. Japan’s Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan ････････････････････････････････････････ 81

Preamble: Purpose of This Document
Background
What is “lake basin management,” and how is it
supposed to be carried out? This simple question is
not easy to answer. Our overall record in realizing
successful lake basin management has not been very
impressive over past years. Why is this so, despite somany years of global experiences with management
plans of one kind or another being developed andimplemented for many of our lakes? Among many
possible reasons, one is our inadequate
understanding of the relationship between theprocess of development and implementation of amanagement plan, and the governance improvement
needs that must accompany this process.
Planning and governance are complementary
activities. Unless there is a plan, the resource
development and conservation activities can become
haphazard, and the use of lake basin resources
unsustainable. The same is true regarding
governance. Unless there is a long-term andsustained effort for improving the overall basingovernance, i.e., institutions, policies, stakeholder
participation, information, technology, and finances,
the implementation of individual plans and programs
can become haphazard, fragmentary and disarrayed,
and the basin environment would remain fragile,
making the sustainable use of the resources evermore difficult to achieve. In the planning of lake basin
management, it is often assumed that the overallbasin governance is intact, and that it is simply amatter of carrying out component plans and programs
to fit the overall objective of basin management. In
fact, this assumption would not hold true for mostdeveloping countries and, under limited
circumstances, would not hold true even in many
developed countries.

What Is Integrated Lake Basin Management(ILBM)?
Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) is anapproach for achieving sustainable management oflakes and reservoirs through gradual, continuous andholistic improvement of basin governance, including
sustained efforts for integration of institutional

responsibilities, policy directions, stakeholder
participation, scientific and traditional knowledge,
technological possibilities, and funding prospects andconstraints. It has been conceptualized on the basis of
the premise that achievement in managing lakes,
reservoirs and their basins is facing a serious global
challenge. ILBM also takes the position that the
problems facing individual lakes cannot be properly
addressed unless the fundamental issue of sustainable
resource development, use and conservation facing thelakes is address globally, and with strong, long-term
political commitment. The ILBM Process also isdesigned for lake basin stakeholders collectively to fill thegaps between what has already been achieved, andwhat remains to be achieved realistically in continuing
governance improvements over time.

What Is the ILBM Platform and How Does It
Help Lake Basin Management?
The main purpose of this document is to inform andguide the process for improving lake basingovernance, i.e., development and implementation ofpolicies, programs, activities and actions to beundertaken, with the broadest possible representationof the basin community, and fullest possible
accountability and responsibility. To address thisoverriding goal, this document provides a conceptual
framework of ILBM and the associated processes tosupport its implementation. It also proposes thedevelopment of ILBM ‘Platforms,’ a virtual stage forcollective stakeholder actions for improving the basingovernance through ILBM, as a strategic means offacilitating the gradual and continuous improvementof basin governance over a long time period. The
extension of the scope of application, from a basic
ILBM framework to a cyclic process framework, is
proposed in relation to the conventional planning andimplementation processes. The proposed conceptual
framework, possible application schemes, and someexperience and lessons learned over the past
decade, are summarized in relation to the issues andchallenges facing some selected cases in developing
countries. The need for mainstreaming the concept
on a global experience is also discussed.

Chapter Structure
The chapter structure consists of: Lakes as Lentic
Waters: Distinctions, Features, and Management― 1 ―Implications (Chapter 1), Planning vs. Governance: A
Crucial Relationship for Sustainable BasinManagement (Chapters 2), ILBM Platform
Development: Seeking to Strengthen the Six Pillars ofGovernance (Chapter 3), Frameworks for Interpreting
the ILBM Outcomes (Chapter 4), Knowledge Baseand Data Base Systems (Chapter 5), and Summary
and Way Forward (Chapter 6). It is emphasized that
this document is not meant as a prescription tooperationalize the static concept of the ILBM Process,but rather to serve as an evolving document to berevised and refined as its readers and practitioners
collectively gain experience with ILBM, particularly inregard to the development and use of the ILBM
Platform, which represents the hub of collective basinstakeholder actions to make contributions towardsustainable use of lake basin resources, individually
as well as globally.

Box 1. Lake Basins, a Major Freshwater System on the Globe
Comprising more than 90% of the readily-available liquid freshwater on the surface of our planet, lakes
and reservoirs are the key components of global water resource systems. They are managed for various
purposes. Drinking-water supply lakes, for example, are managed for clean, safe water. Fishery lakes aremanaged to maximize the harvesting of abundant and healthy fish. Scenic lakes are managed for aesthetic
reasons for visiting tourists. Polluted lakes are managed to restore their water quality and to rehabilitate theecosystem. Most lakes, however, are subjected to multiple management objectives intertwined withcomplex, and sometimes conflicting, needs and approaches, often with inadequate management resources.
The managed lakes usually have a management plan, but the integration of objectives, needs andapproaches for successful management are not as easy as one would expect from an ideal plan drawn on
paper. Further, the management challenges in many cases stem from the complicated situation evolved
over the course of history of the lake and its surroundings, with various interventions already having
resulted in an unsustainable management regime.
The track record of sustainable management of lake basins over the past several decades, however, has
not been very impressive globally, particularly in developing countries. Together with other standing bodies
of inland waters such as reservoirs, wetlands, ponds, lagoons and the like, most of them being connected torivers and other flow paths upstream, downstream and underground, lakes have been suffering from thedeteriorating trend of water quality and ecosystem integrity. As a result the overall value of their very
existence, not only as sources of resource values for human use, but also the intrinsic values such as
scenic attraction, religious and cultural affiliation, and diverse aquatic and terrestrial life forms, have beenubiquitously diminishing.

Figure B1. Everyone Lives in the Basin of Lakes or
Other Impounded Water Bodies, andILBM Helps Them Live Happily― 2 ―Although much of the situation is due tothe lack of management plans and/or the
inadequacies in implementation capacity ofthese plans, they are not the only major
reasons. Yes, without plans and programs,
and without the necessary human andfinancial resources mobilized, effective lakebasin management will not be possible.
However, even with plans and programs, andwith the necessary human and financial
resources, lake basin management won’t
succeed without the foundation to support
such pursuits; namely, the gradualimprovement of overall governance of thebasin and beyond.

1. Lakes as Lentic Waters: Distinctions,Features and Management Implications
This Chapter gives a background on the global
need for, approaches to, and achievement in, thewould be regarded only as a hydrostatic-hydrodynamic
system, and only marginally as a lentic-lotic systembecause of its suppressed natural ecosystem
functions.
The term “lentic” connotes the ecologicalproperties unique to a standing body of water,while the term “lotic” connotes the ecologicalproperties characterizing moving water system.

management of the basins (including the riparian
environments) of lakes and other standing bodies ofwater such as reservoirs, ponds, wetlands andestuaries, collectively designated as “lentic waters.”
The need for management will be reviewed, and thefundamental reasons for the difficulties in sustainable
management will be discussed. It will also discuss
the unique features of lentic waters, as compared tothose of flowing (lotic) waters such as rivers, and of
the concept of “Ecosystem Service,” as a basis forsustainable management.

1-1 Lentic-Lotic Basin Systems in the
Hydrostatic-Hydrodynamic Context:
Management Implications
Lakes and reservoirs are broadly considered as“standing” or “static” water systems or, using ahydrologic term, they are designated “hydrostatic”
systems. In contrast, “moving” waters, such as rivers,
can be regarded as “hydrodynamic” systems.
Similar expressions exist in the ecology literature
as well. The descriptive terms are “lentic” and “lotic”
systems. The meaning of “lentic” is basically thesame as for hydrostatic, and the meaning of “lotic” isthe same as for hydrodynamic. However, the lentic
and lotic expressions have the additional connotationof their imbedded ecological functions. That is, theterm “lentic” also connotes the ecological properties
unique to a standing body of water, while the term“lotic” also connotes the ecological properties uniqueto a moving water system. It is noted that lentic
waters can be either fresh or saline/brackish.
Thus, natural basin water systems, such as lakeriver systems, pond-stream systems, wetland-spring
systems, and even constructed, but naturalized, damriver systems are hydrostatic-hydrodynamic systems,
as well as being lentic-lotic systems, because of their
historically-fostered ecosystem functions. On the other
hand, a water supply storage tank of treated water,
with inflowing and outflowing conveyance pipelines,

Figure B2 illustrates this important relationship.
The natural lake-river systems, pond-stream systems,
and wetland-feeder spring systems are strongly
lentic-lotic in character. The pond-channel systems
constructed in past times, becoming naturalized after
many decades and centuries, may be regarded asmoderately lentic-lotic in character. On the other
hand, the artificially constructed storage tankconveyance pipeline and detention ponds-discharge
channel systems cannot be characterized as lenticlotic systems. Most basin systems constitute acomplex combination of these three types of lenticlotic systems. The flow regime changes as flow
control measures are introduced, and, consequently,
the management implications also differ dependingon the flow regime. Management of a basin thatconsists mostly of a strongly lentic-lotic regime, forexample, requires a different management approachthan that for a basin consisting primarily of a weakly
lentic-lotic regime. Thus, the basin governancecharacterizing the management approach for the latter
would have to duly adjust to address this difference,as will be discussed in succeeding chapters.
The term “lakes” is used in this document tomean “lentic waters” and the term “lake basins” isused to mean “lake-river basins” or more broadly“lentic-lotic basins”.
In addition, most water systems have properties
that lie somewhere between being totally lentic(totally hydrostatic) and totally lotic (totallyhydrodynamic). The water in some parts of a river
may become stagnant or non-flowing and be
regarded as being lentic (hydrostatic), for example,
while some portion of the water in a lake may movevery rapidly at some times, thereby being regarded as
lotic (hydrodynamic).

― 3 ―Box 2. Lentic-Lotic Basin Systems in the Hydrostatic-Hydrodynamic Context:
Environment: A Conceptual Framework for Management
A basin water system generally consists of a mosaic of many smaller hydrostatic (standing-water) basins
and hydrodynamic (moving-water) basins. In the completely natural setting, the hydrostatic system issynonymous to a lentic system and the hydrodynamic system is synonymous to a lotic system, as the terms
lentic and lotic imply the geo-historically formed ecosystem significance associated with standing andmoving waters. In the completely artificial setting, the system would only be a hydrostatic-hydrodynamic
system. The artificial systems constructed many decades and centuries ago in the natural setting could be
regarded as weakly lentic-lotic, as compared to the totally natural systems regarded as strongly lentic-lotic.
It is also to be noted that most water systems typically have properties that lie somewhere between being
totally lentic (totally hydrostatic) and totally lotic (totally hydrodynamic). The water in some parts of a river
may become stagnant or non-flowing and be regarded as being lentic (hydrodynamic), for example, whilesome portion of the water in a lake may move very quickly, thereby being regarded as being lotic(hydrodynamic). Because a lake basin represents a complex combination of both lentic and lotic water
systems, the term “lakes” will be used in this document to mean “lentic waters,” and the term “lake basins”
will be used to mean “lake-river basins” or more broadly “lentic-lotic basins.” The lentic water can be either
fresh or saline/brackish.

Figure B2. Degree of Control of Lentic-Lotic Basin Systems inthe Hydrostatic-Hydrodynamic Context― 4 ―1-2 Lake Basin Typology with a Focus on
Lentic-Lotic Linkages
A detailed discussion on this subject is presented in
Annex 1. A summary is presented below.
Although each and every lake basin is comprised ofa unique combination of characteristics, it is helpful togroup lake basins into types to assist those engaging
in ILBM Platform development to find similar cases
from which to learn. The focus of this document,
however, is on lentic-lotic linkages and here we
present a typology based on that concept. It makes

from the broader drainage basin perspective. One
way of quantifying this “hydrological position” is tocompare the amount of runoff generated in the lake’s
portion of the drainage basin upstream of the lake,compared with the total amount generated in thewhole drainage basin. This includes not only thelake’s upstream but also the downstream area of thelake’s outlet all the way to the ocean.
Connections to Other Types of Water Body
Connections between waterbody types havereceived increased attention in recent years. ILEC
(2011) explicitly studies connections among aquifers,

use of five simple questions that can serve to
elucidate, from a decision making perspective, whichlakes, rivers, large marine ecosystems and the open
ocean.

lake basins are similar to others from a lentic-lotic
point of view.

Groundwater connections: The importance ofinflowing and outflowing groundwater connections to

The five themes are: Lenticity (how much of abasin’s water is in lentic form?), Hydrological Position(how upstream or downstream is a lake within its
broader drainage basin?), Connections (what are themajor types of connections between a lake and otherwater bodies?), Control of Outlet (to what degree isthe outlet of a lake controlled?), and Diversions (arethere significant diversions of water in or out of thebasin?).
Lenticity
The term “lenticity” was coined in one of therecently-prepared report on the development ofassessment methodology for transboundary lakebasins (ILEC, 2011) to describe how much water in agiven basin is in lentic vs. lotic form. Systems with agreater percentage of water in lentic form have slower
response times to stress. This also generally implies
a higher buffer capacity. On the other hand, they
respond relatively slowly to positive interventions.
Lenticity can be calculated by considering the total
amount of volume in lakes in a given lake basin andcomparing that with the annual runoff generated

a lake’s water quantity and quality is among the mostimportant issue.
Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) connections:
Closing of a lagoon’s connection with the sea due tosedimentation from the lake basin can lead to amarked decline in the ecological status of the lagoon.
A significant amount of water and pollution may beentering from and discharging out into the marine
system.
River connections: Probably the most pervasive
connection is between a lake and its inflowing andoutflowing rivers. The flood water carried into thelake from the upstream rivers may totally dictate thelake water level during the wet and the dry seasons.
In many cases, the lake water provided to thedownstream use can not only be local importance, it
may be national and international importance.
Lake connections: In some cases, a given lake’s
water balance can be strongly controlled by theoutflows from an upstream lake.

within the drainage area. (See Box 3 for examples.)Hydrological Position
ILEC (2011) notes that the farther downstream alake basin is relative to its broader drainage basin,
the more likely it is to receive upstream pressures.
Additionally, it is more likely to be seen as ‘important’Atmospheric connections: All lakes, except
perennially frozen ones, have some connection to theatmosphere though direct precipitation on theirsurfaces and through evaporation. In some cases,
these connections can be the main drivers of change
for a lake. For lakes lacking a surface or subsurface― 5 ―outflow, evaporation can dominate the water balance.

which hydropower can be generated.

Control of Outlet
The degree to which a lake’s outlet is controlled
can have significant impacts on the lake’s ecosystem.
One of the main motivations in controlling a lake’s
outflow is to reduce the lotic nature of thedownstream river in order to increase the ease with

Diversions
The diversion of water into or out of a lake basin
can have significant effects on water quality andquantity. Diversion out of a basin can have serious
effects on the water balance, especially in closed lakebasins dominated by evaporation.

Box 3. An Example of Lake Basin Typology: Lenticity(a) High Lenticity: Lake Toba Basin(b) Moderate Lenticity: Lake Champlain
Basin(c) Low Lenticity: Tucurui Reservoir Basin

Figure B3. Examples of Lenticity (reproduced from Figure A1-1 a-c in Annex 1.)― 6 ―1-3 Vulnerable and Fragile: Features and
Implications of Lentic Waters
The occurrence and management of lake basin
problems is a function of three distinguishing
characteristics of lentic-lotic basin systems, including:(1) an integrating nature; (2) long water residencetime; and (3) complex response dynamics.

Integrating Nature i:<Stresses come from many directions andtranscend across the entire water system>
Because of their location at the hub (the terminus
in the case of being situated downstream; the sourcein the case of being situated upstream) of a drainage
basin, lakes and reservoirs are the flow-regime
integrators within the entire river-lake basin complex.
On the one hand, for example, they may suffer fromthe degrading pollution inputs received via rivers andother inflowing channels from sources throughout
their surrounding drainage basin, as well as beyond(via long-term atmospheric deposition). On the other
hand, they may adversely affect the downstream
beneficiaries by trapping and not releasing valuable
nutrient-rich sediments. These integration effects
transcend over the entire lake and riparian landinterfaces, thereby causing both the lake resources
and the problems associated with them to form acomplex web of cause-effect relationships andpropagate throughout the lake, and even through theconnected inflowing and outflowing water courses toLong Retention Time:<Problems remain for a long time, andfinding solutions also takes a long time>
The water residence time refers to the averagetime that water spends in a lake. Large lakes are
typically characterized by large water volumes andresulting long retention times, giving them a buffer
capacity in that they are able to absorb large inputs ofwater, as well as the pollutants and sediment loads
carried in this water, sometimes without exhibiting
immediate negative impacts. This incremental
response to pollutant inputs can make it difficult to
notice degradation problems until they have become
serious lakewide problems. Long water retention
times also allow suspended materials in the watercolumn, including pollutants, to settle to the bottom of
the lake, thereby ensuring the role of lakes as a sinkfor many materials. A long water retention time also
ensures that, even when remedial programs are
implemented to restore a degraded lake, it can take avery long time - if ever - for a lake to recover. It also
leads to lags in ecosystem responses that are poorly
matched to the human management time-scale.
The management implications of long retention
time include that, because the problems canbuild up and become noticed slowly, and it takes
long time also to solve such problems, theinstitutions involved in lake basin management
need to be prepared to engage in sustained
actions, with long term funding commitments.
The implications of lake ecosystem vulnerability
being affected for a long time necessitate
management with a precautionary approach.

other parts of the basin.
The management implication of the integrating
nature is that a broad range of management
policies and programs need to be introduced andimplemented for as many source of the problems
as possible across the entire lake basin system.
This is particularly important for transboundary
lakes. Thus, cooperation between the countries
sharing a transboundary lake basin is essential
for effective lake basin management.

Complex Response Dynamics:<The ecosystem behavior is often unpredictableand uncontrollable>
In contrast to lotic water systems, lakes do notnecessarily respond to perturbations or pollution in a
linear fashion. This is due in large part to theirstagnancy of impounded water mass held over longtime, which allows time delays in response to external
disturbances. The result can be a non-linear
response (hysteresis) to increasing pollutant loads.
For example, a lake can receive a large nutrient load

― 7 ―without exhibiting significant degradation until thenutrient concentration reaches a critical level thattriggers a fundamental shift from its existing trophic
state to a more eutrophic condition, characterized bydetrimental algal blooms. The lake can then exhibit
rapid degradation after this critical level is reached.
This same buffering capacity also hinders
achievement of the positive goals of water quality
restoration programs. Even after pollutant loads havebeen reduced, for example, a lake will not necessarily
exhibit a positive response to such remediation efforts

The management implications of complex
response dynamics include that lake basin
problems must be anticipated as far in advanceas possible, through monitoring, developing
indicators and analytical studies. Scientificstudies to better understand the complex
processes and their implications, and also to help
develop solutions to the resulting problems.

until after the lake has flushed or otherwise
neutralized its previous high content of nutrients,
which may take a considerable period of time.
Further, experience also suggests that only a certain
degree of recovery maybe possible, and that theoriginal good condition may never be achieved.

Box 4. Three Features of Lentic Waters, a Lake Biwa -Yodo River Case
1. Integrating Nature (Everything comes together) →Issues are mostly inseparable.
The environmental and ecological stresses come from theatmosphere, the watershed lands, and along thedownstream Yodo River, with a total water-user
poputation of some 14 million in Shiga, Kyoto, Osaka andKobe areas.
2. Long Retention Time (Problems remain long, andfinding solutions also takes long time) → Changes are

GIS credit: Keisuke Sato, Ritsumeikan
University, Japan

gradual and often invisible.
The inflowing water togeter with contaminants stay insidefor years and decades before being flown out. Most of
the non-biodegradable settled materials stay much longer
and undergo biophysical and chemical chenges. The
maximum depth is 104 m and the mean residence time of
the lake water is estimated at some 15 years.
3. Complex Response Dynamics (Everything affects
everything else in water) → Often unpredictable andPhoto credit: Etsuji Hamabata, Universityof Shiga Prefecture, Japan

uncontrollable.
The physical, chemical and biological interactions areintertwined in many complex ways and are always
undergoing changes, making it difficult to predict andcontrol. The gigantic vortex called a gyre is one of thephenomena which are normally invisible but became
visible on a hot summer day when some silt was carried
into the lake from one of the major inflowing rivers.

― 8 ―Photo credit and courtesy: Asahi Newspaper for
Lake Biwa Research Institute, Japan

1-4 Ecosystem Services:
A Useful Conceptual Framework
The overall degrading trend of the world’s lakesii
suggests that, regardless of the form of ownership,
their management leaves much to be desired. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. 2005) notes that ecosystems
provide a range of benefits, in the form of lifesupporting services to humanity, services that natureprovides essentially free-of-charge, although notstrictly without costs. Virtually all ecosystems provide
services essential for human health and economic
well-being. The four classes of ecosystem service
components are:In defining these ecosystem services in thismanner, it is noted that resource provision services
are typically valued in monetary terms. The otherthree classes of services, however, are more difficult
to value in this manner. As a result, degradation of
the latter services often is neglected in management
efforts. Increasing use of lake resources can haveprofound negative impacts on the environmental
status of lake systems.
The progress of degradation within a lake and its
basin often takes place on a wider, deeper scale than
may readily be apparent. Of particular interest within
the context of lake basin management is that
increasing human use of lake-specific ecosystem

1) Resources Provision Services – These represent
the products people obtain from ecosystems,

provision services can result in degraded ecosystemregulating services. Even more important, however,including water supplies; fish; crop irrigation; woodand fiber; fuel; hydropower generation;2) Regulating Services – These refer to the benefits
people obtain from the regulation of ecosystemis that increasing loss of regulating services, in turn,can also result in decreasing provision services, aswell as the loss of cultural and support services.

processes, including flood and drought mitigation;
self-purification capacity; health provision;navigation routes; climate mediation; aquaticThis reality highlights the need to transform
unsustainable resource development to sustainable
resource use.

habitats; diverse food-chains; fertile lands;
coastal ecotone buffer capacity;3) Cultural Services – These refer to the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems,
including aesthetic and scenic values; religious
sites and spiritual values; historic sites;
educational resources;
4) Supporting Services – These refer to the services
necessary for the production of all other ecosystemservices, including heat energy; geologicalformation; nutrient cycling; primary production;
physical formation.
Their relationship is shown schematically in Figure 1.
The challenge is for humans to gradually attain abalance between the resource provision services
and the regulating services of the overall ecosystemservices iii, which requires a much longer timeframe
and much broader spatial implications than theconventional idea of lake basin management.
Consistent with the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, ecosystem services represent thebenefits people obtain from ecosystems.iv― 9 ―Figure 1. Four Classes of Ecosystem Services<Case Example 1: Ecosystem Service of Lake Lanao, an Ancient Lake under Stress>
As one of the fifteen or so ancientlakes v in the world, Lake Lanao in thePhilippines contains about 18 endemic
species of cyprinid-flock fish, while also
providing water supply, fisheries, bathing
and other livelihood uses of water, and ameans of transportation, to the resident
population, consisting mainly of the
Maranao ethnic group. Their cultural
heritage and socioeconomic andecological values of are closely attributed
to the lake’s Regulating and Cultural
Services. Further, the lake water draining
into the Agus River is subsequently
impounded by seven dams that generatesufficient electricity to meet about 70% of
the entire Mindanao power requirements.

Figure CE1. Lake Lanao - Agus River System

The artificially-controlled lake water levels for hydropower generation have hindered the artisanal fisheries andshoreline agriculture activities. The environmental and ecological state of the lake also has deteriorated
because of the soil erosion caused by villagers transmigrated to the upper and steeper parts of the watershed.
The poverty-stricken population also suffers from political and military conflicts, stemming in part from ethnic andreligious differences. Because of the rigorous stakeholder participation promoted by the local NGOs, however,use of the ILBM Platform has proven positive, contributing now to establishment of a Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB)vi in the region, possibly a closely-affiliated conceptual framework to facilitate the
ILBM Platform Process.

― 10 ―

desired optimal use.x When these lake resources are
not owned by anyone, they are used as open accessresources.xi

1-5 Resource Use Features andTheir Management Implications
1) Resource Use Features
The difficulties associated with sustainable use oflake resources, particularly for lakes under strenuouspressures of congested use, are sometimes discussed in
the context of “Common-Pool Resources” vii feature oflakes (see Box 5 for a discussion of its theoreticalframework). The discussion usually proceeds in sucha way that, if the prospective users are allowed toengage in the extractive activities of the finite andeasily-degradable lake resources without any control,
the resources tend to be easily diminished in a shortperiod of time, perhaps never to be restored. This
“Tragedies of the Commons”viii type of situation issometimes found in highly congested urban and periurban settings in some developing countries. The
actual cases of lake basin management, however,usually defy generic application of this concept.
Elinor Ostrom, as referenced by Moore (2010), forexample, made the observation that the CommonPool Resources could be successfully managed aslong as it was clear who gets what; good conflict
resolution methods exist; the people keep theresource in sufficiently good condition to enjoy
appropriate benefits; that monitoring and punishing
offenders is done by the users; and the users areallowed to participate in setting and modifying thoserules. ix Thus, the ownership, the stipulated
responsibilities, and the knowledge about the state ofenvironment, are the key factors for addressing lakebasin management for sustainable use, which can be
discussed for different cases.
Broadly speaking, lake resources may be owned bynational, regional or local governments, by communal
groups, or by private individuals and organizations. If
a lake is a government-owned property, the required
management rule would involve governmental
policies, rules and regulations, and responsible
actions by citizens. If a lake is a communal property,
the management rule would involve traditional
community rules for quotas, moderation in extractable
uses, and a sharing of the sense of collective
conservation. If a lake is a private property, themanagement rule would involve rules for meeting the2) Management Needs, Reasons and Purposes,
and Perspectives
The extent and nature of management needs
could be very different, depending on, for example,
whether the causes pertain to i) the lake itself or its
basin, and whether or not the management needpertains to ii) a single resource or to multiple
resources for the same lake. They could depend also
on how iii) the causal-chain of degradation
phenomena is developed. For example, it may
originate from iii-1) inside the lake (physical,
biological, chemical phenomena and interactions),from the iii-2) immediate riparian land-water interface(shoreline configuration, ecosystem properties,
anthropogenic activities, etc.), from the iii-4) riparian
water system linkages (upstream, downstream, fromgroundwater, etc.), or from the iii-5) non-riparian
water system linkages (far upstream, far downstream,outside the basin through the atmosphere and othertransportation sources, etc.)
A range of management reasons and purposes
may also be described also in a variety of ways,
and they are generally complexly intertwined. For
example, a) developing resource values (e.g.,fisheries and water resources development) andb) enhancing resource values (e.g., tourism andrecreational facilities ; fishery market facilities), arestrongly motivating reasons and purposes. If theresource use become too congested, then c)decongesting resource use (e.g., regulating water
extraction and fish harvest) may become quite
important. A further level is, the overall availability ofresources may far exceed the overall demand,
leading to the need for d) resolving resource use
conflicts (legal, institutional and technologicalinterventions), for e) reducing environmental stress(e.g., pollution control; control of invasive species),and f) rehabilitating and restoring riparian habitats.
Further, the management need for g) protecting
resource value damages from extreme events suchas floods and droughts. Management intervention
through h) taking precautionary adaptation and― 11 ―

mitigation measures (global warming; ubiquitously
dispersed chemical contamination) is also becoming
an important management purpose. The range of
specific reasons and purposes culminate to the needfor i) improving overall ecosystem health, as impliedin the Ecosystem Service framework introduced in theprevious section, the most encompassing reason for,and purpose of, lake basin management.
Management perspectives are another importantconcept. They differ in regard to 1) space, 2) time,and 3) perception. The spatial perspective wasalready introduced in section Section 1-2 (Lake
Basin Typology), where relationships among
physical configurations, linkage structure, riparianland-water interface, linkages to other water systems
were discussed. The temporal perspective relates
both to the geo-historical implications of the formation
and alteration of physical, chemical and biologicalpresence of lakes, and their relationships with theirbasins, and to the history of human-nature interaction
over centuries, if not tens of centuries. The
perceptional perspective relates to the way the lakebasin society formed their values in relation to theresources provided by the lakes. This perspective isparticularly important in terms of the cultural history of
the riparian communities in evolving traditional
management rules.
In summary, the challenges facing the sustainable
use of lake basin resources are broad in spectrum,
complexly intertwined in nature, and quite
encompassing in terms of fulfilling lake basin
management needs over temporal, spatial, andperceptional scopes. It is not just a question ofdeveloping a single management plan and expecting
it to be implemented by the prospective beneficiaries
of managed resources. In fact, the ownership, notonly of the lakes as a resource base, but also of thecauses of resource value degradation, is important.
The management responsibilities transpiring out of
the ownership must be shared and fulfilled by theremotest of the causal chains of resource value
degradation. The possible modes of transaction for
fulfillment of the responsibilities will have to be clearly
understood by all, as there are challenges
encompassing the issue domains of institution,
policies and politics, participation, technologies,
knowledge and information and financial resources.
These factors are discussed in the next chapter.

Box 5. On the “Common-Pool Resources” Aspect of Lake Basin Management
In economics, a Common-Pool Resources (CPR), also called a Common Property Resources, is a typeof good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system whose size or characteristics makes it
costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use. The
characteristics of common-pool resources may be described using a table as illustrated below. In the table,“Rival” means that one person’s use of a resource subtracts from the amount 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 use. That is, one person’s enjoyment of
the climate-moderating or aesthetic benefits of a lake does not diminish another person’s enjoyment.
“Excludable” implies that there would be some cost to incur in controlling someone’s access to a resource.
“Non-excludable” implies that cost for restricting access would be too high. That is, it is difficult to prevent
people from accessing the resource. This framework is used essentially to tell that the “Non-excludable”
but “Rival” resources, such fish resources in lakes, are common-pool resources that tend to be overused in
the absence of management rules. Some uses (flood control) are public goods.

※�※A club good defines a resource system whose benefits are owned or utilized by a restricted group of
beneficiaries (e.g., recreational facilities in a members-only lakeshore resort facility), while a private good
describes benefits owned or utilized by an individual beneficiary (e.g.,a privately-owned boat).

― 12 ―

2. Planning vs. Governance: A Crucial
Relationship for Sustainable BasinManagement
This Chapter discusses how the management
needs of lake basin resources are met, particularly in
relation to the perceived limitations in theconventional concept of planning and implementation.
It emphasizes the need for “basin governanceimprovement” to be succinctly incorporated in thegeneral process of planning, without which it would
not be possible to successfully implement plans andprograms for sustainable use of lake basin resources.

etc., may be all categorized under environmental
stress reduction. A rather debatable plan for stress
reduction is bypassing pollution-loaded river wateraway from the lake to downstream or otherdestinations. This may simply result in relocation of
the environmental stress to another location, otherthan actually addressing the basic causes.
There are other types of plans that play importantroles in lake basin management, such as those for f)
rehabilitating and restoring riparian habitats, as wellas those for g) protecting resource value damages
from extreme events. The former is becoming more
and more common in many developed countries, aswell as in some developed countries, with innovativetechnologies being developed and the benefits of

2-1 Meeting Management Needs: Scopes
and Approaches in Planning
The possible reasons for, and purposes of, lakebasin management discussed in Section 1-5 would
necessitate development of suitable frameworks forplanning, with the goal of fulfilling the respective
requirements. For example, a) developing resource
values would be required for the sectoral agencies incharge of water supplies and fisheries. The b)enhancing resource values would be required, forexample, for promoting tourism and recreational
facilities. The need will soon arise for plans to c)decongesting resource use in such a way that undue
pressures would be alleviated, for example, byreducing the number of fish catches through both
statutory and non-statutory means. In the case of d)resolving resource use conflicts, introduced plans
may involve compensatory payments or creation of a
new resource base to ease the resource use
competition. Most well-known plans in lake basin
management are those for e) reducing environmental
stress, particularly in relation to the quality of lakewater. The plans usually stipulates structural means(e.g., construction of sewerage systems), as well as
nonstructural means (e.g., enhancement of regulatory
activities such as compliance monitoring of the qualityof discharged effluents). However, there is a whole
range of measured stress reductions, depending on
the kind of stresses produced, and for what reasons.
Removal of noxious sediments form the lake bottom,
rehabilitating the lake bottom for restoring theshellfish habitat, enhancement of agricultural BestManagement Practices (BMPs), local eco-labeling,

introducing such technologies outweighing theircosts. The plan to delineate reed-bed protection
zones for maintaining and enhancing ecosystem
integrity, for example, probably falls in both categories.
Planning for h) taking precautionary adaptation andmitigation measures is rare, other than for oftenheated debates as to whether or not to allow siting offacilities that may have potentially irreversible
adverse impacts on the ecosystem properties of thelake (e.g., dams; resort complexes). Overall, theplans mentioned above are all related to addressingi) improving overall ecosystem health.
The plans developed for the various reasons andpurposes, however, may not necessarily produce thedesired outcomes. The resource development andresource conservations plans individually introduced,
for example, could typically result in a conflicting
outcome. The temporal and spatial scopes of plans
can prove inconsistent with the way the lakeecosystem behaves, despite significant financial,technological and manpower investments. Improved
lake water quality could prove to be very erraticwhithin a short planning horizon. Above all, although
the plans being developed and implemented by the
responsible bodies with different mandates (e.g.,multiple resource development agencies vs.
regulatory and coordinating agency) are likely to be
implemented in coordination, there is no standard
approach that would always work well in such cases.
In summary, there is a need for more than only
planning and implementation to ensure that― 13 ―

inconsistencies among individual reasons andpurposes will gradually be harmonized. The
individual plans would complement each other overtime, and the overall outcome of these plans would
be consistent with sustainable development, use andconservation of lake basin resources. This suggested
approach defines “Integrated Lake BasinManagement,” a concept to be described in thefollowing chapters.

Box 6. Lake Basin Management: Evolving Global Experience
It is important to note the way in which the typology of lake basin management plans that were discussed
in the main text of Section 2-1 are applicable to the evolving global experiences in lake basin management,
both in developed and developing countries. For example, among the plans to a) developing resource
values; b) enhancing resource values; c) decongesting resource use; d) resolving resource use conflicts; e)
reducing environmental stress; f) rehabilitating and restoring riparian habitats; g) protecting resource value
damages from extreme events; h) taking precautionary adaptation and mitigation measures; and i)
improving overall ecosystem health, the plans characterized by a) through d) above are extremely important
issues in many developing countries, particularly those in South East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, Middle
East, Central-Latin-South America, and Africa. Many developed countries, particularly those in Europe,
North America, and East Asia and Oceania, have already past this stage, and are stressing the importanceof moving forward to develop various policy frameworks directed to requiring plans that are characterized by
the above items f) through i). Although the plan to e) reduce environmental stresses is a common
challenge for both, it exhibits different contexts. In many developing countries, it is a matter of livelihoods,(i.e., the kind of environmental stresses affecting them include direct health hazards, loss of staple animal
proteins, and diminishing food sources due to serious biodiversity loss). On the other hand, in mostdeveloping countries, it has more to do with a need to enhance amenity values, such as recreational andaesthetic values.
It is not to say that there are no exceptions to the above simplistic dichotomy. In fact, many countries
falling within the above definition of developing countries have a significant number of lake basin cases thathave been brought under the above plans for h) and i). In fact, some of the most important global assets
are lake basins in the above-noted developing country regions. In the same vein, many of the developed
countries currently have the legacy of still doing poorly in plans addressing above-noted items a) throughd). Rather, they have had an era of their livelihoods being directly dependent on such lentic-lotic freshwater
resources only up to the time that modern technologies allowed them to live in the world dictated by largescale pumps and concrete conduits. The loss of the lentic-lotic environment, in lieu of the strictlyhydrostatic-hydrodynamic environment, creates a lingering feeling that some of the resource values lost in
the process cannot readily be restored and regained.
The above milieu of planning needs and experiences attests to the importance of looking at lake basin
management, not as an issue of individual lakes per se, but rather as a central issue in water managementon the global level that is intertwined in a complex manner in the linkage mechanisms of basin typology, ofdifferent forms of lentic-lotic and hydrostatic-hydrodynamic water systems with land and atmosphereinteractions, of the historically-transformed pursuits for resource values, and of the management issues thathave evolved through human-nature interactions across continents, and over the course of centuries, if nottens of centuries.

― 14 ―

2-2 Governance Improvement as aPrerequisite for Planning<Meaning of Governance xii > “Governance” is aconcept that recognizes the importance ofgovernment’s actions (in its diverse levels andcomponents) while recognizing also the importance oflinking such actions to be tied to other groups andsectors that interact within the same space, across“public-private-civil interaction networks along the
local/global axis”. Such condition increases thelegitimacy and efficiency of the undertaken actions,
reducing in an important way the social costs of<Range of Planning Bodies and Activities> In thecase of resource extraction and use, plans andprograms are developed by the respective sector
agencies in charge or the stakeholder groups incontrol. As for resource conservation, including
pollution control, and ecosystem maintenance andrestoration, the plans and programs are developed
generally by the coordinating agency forenvironmental protection or the concerned bodies
having influence on the sustainability of resource use,such as village environmental committee supported
by relevant NGOs. There are exceptional cases
where a single apex body with the statutory authority

public policies implementation. The rapid spreadingof the term since the 1990s seems to reflect anis established for the entire lake basin. Under such acase, the body would be in charge both of resource

increasing awareness of a paradigm-shift in power
relationships. There has been a perception ofdevelopment and conservation, with varying degrees
of authority and power to dictate on sectoral interests.

insufficiency of the classic concept of “government” todescribe the transformations that have been taking
place in the context of globalization. Governance is a<Range of Governance Issues> Implementation ofsuch plans and programs would involve a range ofnotion that searches for (instead of imposing) a model
to describe a complex systemic transformation, whichtakes place at different levels (from local to theglobal) and in different sectors (public, private andcivil), as noted by Juarez (2010). A more specificdefinition of governance as related to water
management is provided in Box 7.
<Close Relationship between Planning andGovernance> Though useful as it is, the existing
literature on planning for lake basin management
touches little on the broader subject area of governance.
Perhaps not so conspicuously noticeable in cases
described in such literature, development of amanagement plan and its implementation has a great
deal to do with “governance” being intact andcontinually strengthened as new challenges arise.
This close and complementary relationship between
planning and governance is particularly important in
the case of lake basin management for sustainable
use, because 1) it involves a large number ofstakeholders with multiple sector interests,
complicating the implementation of the plans andprograms, and 2) it requires the people’s
understanding and proactive involvement across theentire basin over long time, requiring government
agencies to play a suitable facilitating role, as well as
implementing individual plans and programs.

governance issues including institutional
performance, policy and program harmonization,community participation and involvement, scientificinformation and data, reliable technical capacity, andsecure financial backing, all for achieving the desired
goal. It is clearly easy to stipulate, but difficult toensure, that such concerns are satisfactorily
addressed in the process of implementation of plansand programs, particularly in developing countries.
Simply put, while planning lake basin management is
one thing, implementing it is totally another, with thelatter closely linked to the overall governancecapacity of the basin stakeholders.
<An Example of Governance - Planning
Relationships> Managing sewerage facilities andenforcing regulatory measures, for example, has agreat deal to do with institutional strength, financial
arrangements, and fulfillment of societal
responsibilities by the general public. If financing of
construction of a sewerage system with installation ofnecessary equipment in developing countries must
depend heavily on external sources of fund, then theissue of financial sustainability would be a dictating
factor influencing the success or failure of the plan
prescribed through the planning procedure. Stringent
implementation of regulatory measures against thepolluting industries, not yet so impressive in many

― 15 ―

developing countries, will also become a dictating
factor. Further, when industrial interests areprotected, and individual citizens are too preoccupied
with their daily subsistence efforts, they may not havethe time and financial means to fulfill their
responsibilities in terms of taking voluntary actions to
reduce pollution from around their households, or to
make full payment for sewerage services fees.

Thus, simple application of the planning framework
based primarily on the developed-country experienceshould be taken more as a direction than as a model
to provide the prescriptions. Emphasis should beplaced also on how strengthening of the basingovernance is incorporated into the planning process
so that its plans and programs are successfully
implementable.

Box 7. What Is “Governance” and Why Is It So Important in Lake Basin Management?
“Governance” is defined in many different ways. A typical definition refers it to be “the interaction of laws
and other norms, institutions, and processes through which a society exercises powers and responsibilities
to make and implement decisions [affecting lakes and their basin resources as well as their users] and to
hold decision makers and implementers accountable” (Moore, 2010). The use of the concept of“Governance” is important in working toward sustainable management of lakes and their basins, mainly
because lake basin management is neither a project nor a project nor a program. It is a governancechallenge. For example, resolution of resource use congestion, competition and conflicts does not comeabout simply because a lake basin management plan to ease the resource use is introduced andimplemented. In the first place, arriving at a generally agreeable plan for all stakeholders is a phenomenallydifficult task, usually taking a long time to develop a compromise plan. Further, regardless of how good theplan is, and how well designed the implementation scheme may be, a sentiment of dissatisfaction about thecompromise often persists, and the plan will be subject to a continuing process of resolution, the dynamics
of which is dictated by the spatial (basin and beyond), temporal (historical past and foreseeable future towork toward sustainability) and perceptional (who won and who lost, and by how much) governanceframeworks that will have to evolve via stakeholder actions in order to be able to absorb any continuing heatof dissatisfaction regarding what has not been compromised.
Lake basin management with plans and programs forresource development, use and conservation, therefore,
would not be sustainable without being supported byappropriate governance framework that would also

Planning
Gearcontinually pursue improvement.

Governance
Gear

Figure B7. Planning and Governance Must
Be Properly Geared Together for
Sustainable Basin Management― 16 ―

2-3 “Six Pillars of Governance”:
What Are They, What Pillars NeedStrengthening, and How?
For individual lake basins, the adequacies andinadequacies of lake basin management may be
determined by reviewing and assessing the existing
activities and practices, with such typical review
questions as:bIs there a focal-point institution in charge? Are
the capacity building and training program
effective? It is still targeted on priority skills? Is it
inclusive and open to cooperating agencies,
community groups, etc.? What mid-course
corrections are needed?
bIs there a management plan with realistic scopefor its implementation? Do we have an adequate
management plan, or should it be updated? Are therelevant priorities and phasing clear? Are theresources sufficient? Have we established thenecessary coalitions to enable the required actions
to be implemented? Is the coordination adequate?
Have either technology options or costs changed,
and are such changes reflected in the management
plan?

bIs there strong political will to support sustainable
management? Is sustaining and building thepolitical will and commitment appropriately placedas part of the management. program? How well is
it working? What can we do more of, what should
we do less of, and what can we do better?
Based on the comprehensive surveys of the stateof world’s lakes conducted over the past decade xiii,
the range of such questions have been categorized
into six thematic domains, including (1) Institutions
to manage the lake and its basin for the benefit of alllake basin resource users; (2) Policies to govern
people’s use of lake resources, and their impacts onlakes; (3) Involvement of People to facilitate all
aspects of lake basin management; (4)Technological Possibilities and Limitations that areoften quite dictating in regard to long-term decisions;(5) Knowledge and Information of traditional, as
well as modern scientific nature, forming the basis for
informed decisions; and (6) Sustainable Finance tosupport implementation of all of the above activities.
These six major topics are the essential governanceingredients that collectively form the management
regime for an integrated approach in lake basin
management - we refer to them as the Six Pillars ofGovernance in ILBM (Figure 2).

bAre effective mechanisms in place forparticipatory implementation? Does theplan and its implementation include all
stakeholders? What has been the change
in awareness and understanding of the
problems and their linkages to stakeholder
activities? What is the perception ofprogram stakeholders?
bIs there a common and shared knowledge
about the management challenges? Is
a monitoring system in place that would
enable one to measure changes in key
indicators? Is the data base sufficient?
What are the remaining key gaps? Are
information management tools adequate
to be deployed effectively?

Figure 2. ILBM Governance Pillars, Founded ona Lake Basin Ecosystem Service BaseSupporting the Integration Goal

― 17 ―Box 8. Six Pillars of Governance for ILBM to Be Strengthened and Integrated
Institutions: Developing Effective Organizations
When the human population and industrial activity around a lake is minimal, informal and traditional
institutions are usually sufficient to manage any problems that might arise. However, with development, theneed for more formal government institutions and research groups can arise. When the state and national
government policies become more important, local traditional societal measures often lose much of theirfunction.

Policies: Broad Directions and Specific Rules
In most cases, development policies promoting fishing, agriculture, industry, etc., are the initialmanagement focus, with lake environment preservation measures later becoming more important. Whenenvironmental degradation seriously impacts resource development and/or when people’s interests inprotecting biodiversity, ecosystems, scenery, and historical and cultural heritage becomes stronger,
appropriate societal rules (direct regulation, economic incentives, etc.) become necessary.

Participation: Expanding the Circle of Involvement
When fishing and agricultural activities are done on a small scale in each village, direct participation of
the population is possible. When the activities and sources of problems go beyond the local scale, thepossibilities for direct public participation can be lost, necessitating establishment of a regional
mechanism. Thus, it is important to have a shared means and/or place for the basin society as a whole toaddress conflicts.

Technology: Possibilities and Limitations
There is a potentially large role for technical interventions in development and protection of lake
resources. Interventions such as sewerage development, which are often used in developed countries toaddress water quality problems, face the problem of not having a sufficiently large stakeholder base indeveloping countries to pay for the increased utility.

Information: Pursuing the Sources of Knowledge and Wisdom
There are few lakes for which continuous, or even periodic, diagnosis and surveys of the lake
environment are carried out. Indigenous knowledge (e.g., where the important fish egg laying sites arelocated), along with scientific study and investigation, play a key role in lake basin management.
Dissemination of research findings often accelerates social responses.

Finance: Seeking for Sustainable Sources at Appropriate Levels
Although management measures require funding, the funding level often is not uniform, and its
distribution must be a societal decision. The allocation of funds depends on how various questions arebeing answered: how the values of the lake are being enjoyed and by whom; who bears what burden; andhow can public resources be secured? Financing, policy making and the methods of participation obviously
all affect each other.

Strengthening and Integrating the Six Pillars of GovernanceAs depicted in Figure 2, the Six Pillars constitute the ‘roof’ of ILBM Governance. Over time, thepillars must be strengthened, and their respective functions must complement each other in an
integrated way across sectoral, institutional and professional boundaries. Fundamentally, the use ofSix Pillars of Governance is to address the necessary process of strengthening, and integrating thethematic governance issue domains (institutions; policies; participation; information; technology;
finance). While the notion of strengthening the individual pillars is rather straightforward, the concept of
integration is rather abstract. The subject is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

― 18 ―

2-4 “Lake Brief”: A Unifying Thread between
Planning and Governance Improvement
By answering the review questions on Six Pillars ofGovernance for individual lake basins, theadequacies and inadequacies of the existing activities
and practices for lake basin management will become
clearer. This can be carried out systematically using
a collective action report called the “Lake Brief.” Theelements and outline of a lake brief are described
below, supplemented with a general process for
systematically developing appropriate questions forcorrective actions. An overall outline of the Lake Briefis shown in Box 9. A brief description of each of theSections produces the following information:

discussed.

II-2 State of the Lake
This section should include, with as much scientificfindings and data as available, a description of thepast and present state of the lake’s water
environment, including water quantity and quality,
aquatic biota (flora and fauna), and the state of its
ecosystem health. Any regionally- or globallyimportant aspects of the lake's environment also
should be identified. (Use “Lake Questionnaire” items
1-9 in Annex 2 [or, Annex A of Lake Brief, as shown
in Box 9].)III. Management of the Lake and Its Basin
I. Introduction
This section should describe the socio-economic
context (people; livelihoods; economic characteristics;
types of institutions; laws and policies; politicalstructure; etc.) of the region, country, or basin inwhich the lake is located. It should summarize theoverall importance of the lake and its drainage basin,from the perspective of its significance as a natural
habitat, and its social, economic, institutional,
political, cultural and/or recreational importance to thehuman population in the region, and its global
importance, if any. (Use “Lake Questionnaire” items
10, 11, 14 and 15, in Annex 2 [or, Annex A of Lake
Brief, as shown in Box 9 ].)II. Description of the Lake
II-1 Overview
This section should provide information on thebiophysical features of the lake, including basic
physical characteristics (lake surface and drainage
areas; lake depth and volume; water residence time;etc). It also should describe the drainage basincharacteristics (upstream and downstream tributaries
in a lake drainage basin), including the basinlandscape and land use patterns. The Brief also
should summarize the environmental state of the lake
in regard to its drainage basin. The human andenvironmental benefits derived from the lake/reservoir
and its drainage area also should be identified andManagement of a lake and its basin may be
depicted by answering the types of questions listed
in Box 10. They are related to Lake Questionnaire
items 9-16 in Annex 2 [or, Annex A of Lake Brief, as
shown in Box 9], which may be developed
specifically for individual lake basins.

IV. Major Impact Stories
The Impact Stories represent the narratives ofhuman interventions, whether successful or not, thatwere introduced to attempt to deal with management
challenges faced by the lake and/or its basin. The
stories are best told simply and concisely, withparticular emphasis on the context of theirdevelopment and their results. The Impact Stories
may include successes and failures of engineeringinterventions, the introduction of economic
instruments, engagement of political leaders and civilsociety, policy frameworks that enhance crosssectoral coordination, and institutions that address
specific needs in resource development, use andconservation, management interventions to deal withtransboundary issues, etc. Although the Impact
Stories associated with a lake do not have to be
exhaustive or interrelated, they should be presented insuch a way that facilitates better understanding of thegovernance issues to be described.

― 19 ―Box 9. General Outline of a Lake Brief
The general structure of a Lake Brief is as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Description of the Lake (supplemented by Annex A below)
III. Management of the Lake and Its Basin
IV. Major “Impact Stories” of the Lake
V. Major Lake Basin Governance Issues (supplemented by Annex B below)
VI. Key Challenges to Lake Governance (supplemented by Annex B below)
VII. References
Annex A. Lake Questionnaire (Checklist of data and information on biophysical and managerial issues
facing the lake basin; reproduced as Annex 2 of this document.)
Annex B. Six Pillars of Governance (Check list flowchart of the governance issues facing the lake basin;
reproduced as Annex 3 of this document.)

Box 10. Typical Examples of “Major Impact Stories”
A well-known Impact Story is the so-called the Soap Movement started by housewives in the Lake Biwa
basin in the late-1970s, which ultimately resulted in the development of phosphate-free detergents by thedetergent industry, and enactment of an eutrophication ordinance that subsequently served as a model forthe national lake water quality control law. Another well-known case is Lake Laguna (Laguna de Bay) in thePhilippines, including such examples as “co-managed investments for watershed management with carbon
finance benefits” and its “Environmental User Fee System,” and its “Public Disclosure Program” forcontrolling the polluting industries. By collectively reviewing the accomplishments and challenges
associated with such Impact Stories, almost all aspects of the six Governance Pillar issues to be included in
Section V may be reviewed relatively easily. The results of the analysis will form a basis of detailed
descriptions of the governance challenges to be discussed in Section VI.

Box 11. Example Questions for “Management of the Lake and Its Basin”bWhat do we know about the current management status of the lake and its basin?

b

What are the major resource values of the lake and its basin? How are they used/exploited
economically? Who benefits and who loses in the use/exploitation activities?

b

What are major socio-economic and political implications of the lake and its basin to the basin
population, particularly with respect to development, use and conservation of its resources?

b

What are the resource use conflicts, and how are they managed? Are they managed well?

b

What are the current problems/issues regarding the lake and/or its basin, and how are they being
managed?

b

What do the basin inhabitants, including fishermen, consider the overall environmental and ecosystemstatus of the lake to be?

b

Are their perceptions consistent with scientific findings?

b

What is (are) the apparent and not-so apparent root cause(s) of the identified problems?

b

Who or what suffers from the impacts of these problems/issues, and how?

― 20 ―

V. Major Lake Basin Governance Issues
Management of a lake and its basin may be
depicted by answering the types of questions
listed in Box 12.

VI. Key Lake Basin Governance Challenges
The key lake basin governance challenges are
more comprehensively listed in the flow diagramsin Annex 3 [or, Annex B of Lake Brief, as shown
in Box 9] of this document for each of the Six
Pillars of Governance in lake basin management.

VII. References
Identify useful supplemental reading materials
on the lake, its drainage basin, and the region inwhich it is located, that complements or augments
the various topics discussed in the Lake Brief.
In many cases, as depicted conceptually in
Figure 3, the ILBM Process may have to be
initiated on the basis of the existing weak
governance structure, or on the remnants of pastfailed attempts at forced improvement of governanceby external forces, such as technical and financial
assistance to address certain parts of the lake basin
management needs.
How a Lake Brief is prepared will depend on theindividual case. If information on Sections II throughVI above is already available, drafting a Lake Brief
with the above structure may be possible from theoutset. In general, however, preparation of a Lake
Brief is typically undertaken easily in stages, startingwith the Impact Stories (under Section IV) and

Figure 3. The ILBM Platform Can Facilitate
Rebuilding and Improving of the
Existing Governance Pillars
developing the remaining sections around it (seeFigure 4). the Impact Stories typically characterize
the way a lake basin is currently managed, often
providing useful insights into the existing features ofthe lake basin governance. The above approach isespecially useful when preparation of a Lake Brief isdone collectively by more than one author. That is,
individual Impact Stories may be prepared by various
local stakeholder groups. The prepared Impact
Stories should provide many useful insights on the
Six Pillars of Governance, which could then be used
to develop Sections V and VI.

― 21 ―Box 12. Major Lake Basin Governance Issues (Section V): Key Questions
Management of a lake and its basin may be depicted by answering the following types of questions:Who (individuals, groups, institutions) are the key players in developing and implementing thebactions/programs needed to be undertaken to address the identified lake basin problem(s)?
[Institutions]
What is the existing legal and policy basis for lake basin management and what plans and policiesbhave been introduced to manage the lake and its drainage basin, and how well have the associatedproblems been addressed? [Policies]
What role do the general public and NGOs have in managing the lake and its basin? [StakeholderbParticipation]
How much do we know about the state of the lake basin? What data and information need to bebgenerated and shared for developing management plans and implementing them as required?
[Knowledge and Information]
What are the major control measures introduced (to address domestic, industrial and other pollutionbloads; urban and agricultural runoff; water flows and withdrawal; commercial fishing; wetlands andriparian zones; etc.)? [Technology]
What are the major financial mechanisms used to facilitate the control measures (user fees; taxes; fishblevies; zoning charges; tradable permit systems; etc.) ? [Sustainable Finance]
These questions are more comprehensively listed in the left-hand boxes of the flow diagrams in Annex 3,
for each of these governance issue domains.

Figure 4. General Structure of a Lake Brief― 22 ―

2-5 Sources of of Information on Lake
Basin Governance Improvement
The sources of information specifically related tolake basin governance may be relatively sparse.
Nevertheless, a comprehensive coverage of thelessons learned and experiences gained through lakebasin management over past decades, is provided in
the publication, “Managing Lakes and Their Basinsfor Sustainable Use: A Report of Lake BasinManagers and Stakeholders” (ILEC, 2005; see Box13). This publication was prepared by ILEC as the
final output of the “Lake Basin Management

chapters of the above publication) and a PowerPoint
presentation. Each chapter is provided withadditional information sources, similarly in the form ofa report with associated PowerPoint presentations
prepared by international experts to compliment thewide knowledge base generated during the project,
as well as through their experiences. The module isalso provided with a set of review questions for the
online users. ILEC has developed a training course
based on this resource material, with the help of theJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),
presented once a year in Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan.

Initiative.” The document consists of eleven chapters,
divided into three major sections as follows:

Another important source of information is ILEC’s
journal, “Lakes & Reservoirs: Research &Section I -- Understanding the Resource (1:Learning from Others: Drawing Lessons about LakeManagement” published first in 1995. Among therecent articles, for example, ILBM and the lake basin

Basin Management; 2: Biophysical Characteristics ofLakes; 3: Human Use of Lakes: Values, Problems,and Responses)

governance issues were highlighted in detail withregard to Kariba Reservoir (Magadza, 2006;
Nyikahadzoi, 2009), Lake Chivero (Magadza, 2003),

Section II -- Meeting the Governance Challenge(4: Institutions for Lake Basin Management:
Developing Organizations for Action; 5: Identifying

Laguna de Bay (Santos-Borja and Nepomuceno,2006), Fisheries in Africa (Ogutu-Ohwayo andBalirwa. 2001), and Lake Chini (2010).

Effective Actions: National and Local Policies; 6:Involving People and Stakeholders: An Essential
Element of Effective Lake Basin Management; 7:
Responding with Technology: Opportunities andLimitations; 8: Informing the Process: the Role of
Science, and 9: Mobilizing Sustainable Financing:
Local, National and External Funds)
Section III -- Synthesis (10: Planning for
Sustainable Lake Basin Management; and 11:
Toward the Future).
Section II, consisting of six chapters, is currently acomprehensive source of information broadly
covering the governance issues facing lake basin
management around the world.
The above document has been transformed into a
training module set, and is available in an electronic
form (see Figure 5 and Box 13, item 1). The outlineof this training module set is essentially the same asthat of the above-noted publication. It also consists ofthree sections containing eleven chapters, with
Section II corresponding to modules on Institutions,
Policies, People (Participation), Technology,
Information, and Finance. Each module is provided
with a report (i.e., an overview of the respective― 23 ―

Figure 5. Structure of the ILBM Training
ModuleBox 13. ILBM Resource Materials Available from ILEC
The followings are resource materials on the concept of ILBM and its application to lake basin
management challenges around the world, all of which can be downloaded from the ILEC website.
1) The self-learning training module for the general contents of this document is available as “ILBM
Training Materials” on the website: (http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/ILBMTrainingMaterials/index.html).
2) The broad conceptual framework of ILBM, including the lessons and the experience leaned from twenty
eight case studies around the world undertaken between 2003 and 2005 by ILEC, in cooperation with
the World Bank, and with financial support from the GEF (Global Environment Fund), was published in
the document, “Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use,” which can be downloaded fromthe website: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/lbmi).
3) An abridged version of the above document, “Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use,”entitled, “How Can We Stop Degradation of the World’s Lake Environments?” can be downloaded fromthe website: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/ilbm-manual).
4) A complementary leaflet of the of the above document, “Managing Lakes and their Basins for
Sustainable Use,” is downloaded from the website: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/ilbm-leaflet).
5) The updated edition of “Guidelines for Lake Brief Preparation,” can be downloaded from the website:(http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/lake_brief).
6) A ‘primer’ for this document, entitled “Primer: Development of ILBM Platform Process – Evolving
Guidelines through Participatory Improvement,” can be downloaded from the website:(http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/primer-ilbm-platform-process).

The descriptions 2) through 6) above correspond to these documents illustrated from left to right.

“Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management” is a peer-reviewed journal
published by ILEC. It aims to promote environmentally sound management of
natural and artificial lakes,consistent with sustainable development policies,andpublishes international research on the management and conservation of lakes
and reservoirs. The journal could be subscribed through the publisher’s website:(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1440-1770).

― 24 ―

available in the form of a report and on
websites xiv).

3. ILBM Platform Development: Seeking toStrengthen the Six Pillars of Governance
3-1 What Is an ILBM Platform?
An ILBM Platform is a virtual stage for collective
stakeholder actions for improving the basingovernance through ILBM. A Lake Brief specifically
prepared for this lake basin will be used to guide thisprocess. Figure 6 illustrates the activity flow diagramof the above process as a set of stepwise activities
guided by the main themes of a Lake Brief.
1) The first step is for all the Platform members
to acknowledge the state of lake basin
management, as part of the Lake Brief
development process (corresponding to Sections
II and III of the Lake Brief Structure presented in
Section 2-4);
2) The second step is for all the Platform members
to identify and analyze the issues, needs, andchallenges regarding the Six Pillars ofGovernance (corresponding to Sections IV and Vof the Lake Brief Structure presented in Section2-4); and
3) The third step is for all the Platform members tointegrate the ways and means to meet the
governance challenges and implement
actions (the experience and lessons learned
globally on the subject are compiled and madeThe platform structure may vary from one case toanother. It may be developed afresh, or evolved fromthe existing structures such as associations,committees or agency units. As long as it allows for abroad range of stakeholder groups to contribute toimproving the overall basin governance, the structuralforms can suit the given basin situation. The
establishment of a platform could be required andsupported legally. There are forms of platform similar
in concept to that of ILBM commonly found in the lakebasin management statutory provisions in somedeveloped countries xv , but such statutory-based
platforms are rarely found in developing countries.
Even without any statutory basis, however, ILBM
Platforms could be developed and evolved for various
basin governance challenges including, for example,
the case of overexploitation of limited common-poolresources in lake basin communities.
Once the Platform is formed, the existing lake basin
management information could be compiled andanalyzed as needed and as possible, by a small
expert group formed to undertake the platform
supporting activities. If feasible, the collected andanalyzed data and information by such a group could
be transformed into inventories of data andBox 14. Identified Merits of an ILBM Platform Process
An ILBM project focal point made the following observations on the merit of the ILBM Platform Processusing a Lake Brief:
1) Non-prescriptive design: The non-prescriptive and flexible narratives of the Lake Brief allow the basin
community’s values, in terms of socio-cultural and historic backgrounds, to be properly reflected in the
ILBM Platform Process.
2) Updating of information: The periodic revision of Lake Briefs also helps update the issues andprepares basin stakeholders to meet new challenges.
3) Joint preparation: The joint preparation of a Lake Brief helps clarify specific needs, challenges andapproaches for productively addressing the important lake basin governance issues.
4) Wide range of issues without prejudice: The Lake Brief design and ILBM Platform concepts canaccommodate a wide range of views from stakeholder groups and individuals without undue prejudice orprerogatives.
5) Fostering of the common vision: ILBM Platform provides a basis for sharing a common vision and for
resolving differences in ideals.

― 25 ―

information and made available through a databaseand a knowledgebase. The team may then be able toshare the results with a much broader circle ofstakeholder organizations, as a means of deciding on

their respective roles and responsibilities for pursuing
the concerted actions. A schematic illustration of the
Platform Process is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Activity Flow of a ILBM Platform Process*Annex 3 of thisdocument (p.64)

Figure 7. Schematic Illustration of a Basic ILBM Platform Process― 26 ―

3-2 The ILBM Platform May Evolve to
Become a Cyclic Process
How each of the case study lake basins will be able
to improve its governance toward sustainability
depends on a number of factors. For some lakebasins, the conventional approach in planning,
without explicit reference to the concept of ILBM, may
be just adequate for addressing their sustainable
management. But the experience and lessons
learned from the ILBM cases compiled over the years
imply two things quite clearly. Firstly, lake basin
management is not a project, but a long-term
governance improvement process. Therefore, it must
evolve over many years and decades towardsustainable resource development, use andconservation. Secondly, even without calling it ILBM,

happen that the target state of improved basingovernance would only become clear over timethrough the cyclic process itself, rather than at theoutset. It is because the “governance targets” areusually not so easily definable in quantitative andprescriptive terms, unlike the ordinary “planningtargets”. In other words, the objective of governanceimprovement is not the “output” of the cyclic process,but rather the “outcome” of the process that supports
implementation of individual plans and programs forlake basin management (see also Annex 4 fordiscussion on the feature of PDCA cycle forgovernance improvement). The above observation
leads to the important notion of “fostering a common
vision” rather than “developing a common vision” ingovernance improvement, in the case of the ILBM
Platform Process.

the process adopted in successful lake basin
management cases entails gradual, but continuous,
improvement of lake basin governance.

A lake basin management case, even without
explicit reference to ILBM, may still beconsidered an ILBM case in an implicit way. A
successfully managed lake basin always
achieves its long-term objectives throughgradual, continuous improvements in lake basingovernance.

Thus, while the Basic Platform Process describedin Section 4-1 gives a general idea on the use of a
Lake Brief to drive the lake-basin governanceimprovement process, it does not illustrate well theway through which on-the-ground improvements ingovernance may be achieved incrementally over along period of time. The Process must be molded
into a cyclic process to achieve that goal, as shown in
Figure 8. The Process consists of: (1) Describing thestate of lake basin; (2) Identifying and analyzing theissues, needs and challenges; (3) Integrating ways
and means to improve the governance pillars and then
(4) Assessing the improvement in the governancepillars, repeated cyclically toward a satisfactory levelof sustainability in future. This Cyclic Process
resembles what is called the PDCA cycle xvi of

One additional aspect of the Cyclic ILBM Platform
Process is assessment of the incremental
improvements of basin governance. As shown in
Figures 8 and 9, strengthening the governancepillars would require assessment of its incremental
improvement at appropriate “increment of time
period,” using some kind of “indicators ofimprovement.” The details of these considerations are
discussed in the following section.

planning (see Annex 4 for discussion on PDCA
cycle).
A conceptual illustration of the above Cyclic ILBM
Platform Process is shown in Figure 9. Note that the“Envisioned Future State of Governance,” is quitedifficult to prescribe in reality at the outset. It may so― 27 ―

See Section 3-3 of this document

Figure 8. Activity Flow of a Cyclic ILBM Platform*Annex 3 of thisdocument (p.64)

Figure 9. Schematic Illustration of a Cyclic ILBM Platform Process― 28 ―

techniques involving a sspecialized team ofresearchers or practitioners.

3-3 Assessing Governance Improvement
Over TimeAs briefly touched on in the previous section, there
are two important considerations for assessing
incremental improvements in lake basin governance;
namely, a) time intervals for review and assessment;
and b) assessment methodologies and indicators.

b) Assessment methodologies and indicators xvii

items of the Six Pillars of Governance about which
the assessment is to be made, and what indicator(s)Broadly, one would be interested in two kinds ofchanges resulting from achievement through thecyclic process of long-term efforts involving
management interventions for environmental
sustainability. The first is the change in the reduction
in stress to the lake basin environments (i.e., output,
or checking of the necessary condition for lake basin
management to proceed), while the second is thechange in the state of the lake environment itself (i.e.,
outcome, or checking whether or not the sufficient

is/are to be used for the assessment. Take theefficacy of laws and regulations already enacted andconditions for lake basin management have been met
to move forward).

a) Time intervals for review and assessment
The time interval for review and assessment ofgovernance improvement depends on the specificin force, for example, under the ‘Policy’ Pillar. Onceenacted and in force, the time intervals for revision ofsuch laws and regulations would generally be on theorder of at least several years. The case of financial
mobilization for an ongoing sectoral plan under the‘Finance’ Pillar provides a contrast. The expenditure
amount could change annually, if not every half orquarter year.
The time interval can also differ for the same item
being assessed, depending on the availability of dataand information. If the assessment can be conductedon the basis of already-existing data and information,
the effort required would be relatively light, requiring
only a short time interval for assessments. On theother hand, if the assessment involves acquisition of
new data and information generated throughcommissioned studies that require funding,institutional commitments, and capable humanresources, the time increment could be much longer,
perhaps on the order of years. This fact is importantin the case, for example, of assessing lake water

The reduced stress to the lake basin (output) will
require observations regarding “on-the-ground action
occurred,” as well as “on-the-ground institutional andpolitical progress” that make the action possible. The
former can be achieved either by reducing or
removing the stress, while the latter can be achievedby instituting or enhancing the conditionality for theon-the-ground actions to take place. The indicatorsthat would reveal how much on-the-ground action has
occurred are called the “stress reduction indicators”
xviii, while the indicators that reveal how much on-the-ground institutional and political progress has
occurred, or how much improvement has been madeto the enabling environment for pursuit of stress
reduction, are termed “enabling process indicators.”
Examples of stress reduction indicators would
include such measures as:b Increased reed bed area resulting from desiltation operations;

quality under the ‘Information and Knowledge’ Pillar.
If monitoring of lake surface water is regularly
conducted at certain sampling points, and data arereadily available, a time interval period longer thanthe monitoring interval would then be meaningful. On
the other hand, the state of the lake bottom
ecosystem, for example, would probably not be partof a regular sampling program, and its analysis may
require special sampling and laboratory analysis― 29 ―b Reduced industrial pollution loading because of
more stringent enforcement;b Reduced excess water withdrawals;b Reduced agrochemical application per croplandarea;
b Reduced silt and sediment carried into the lake;b Areal extent recovered from decreased infestation
by invasive species of fauna and flora; andb Reduced areal extent of illegal occupancy
resettled outside of the riparian land.

Typical enabling process indicators may include
such measures as:b Realization of stakeholder involvement in
preparation and creation of a management plan;b Enactment of regulations on the mesh size ofnets in order to reduce the quantity of
inadvertently harvested juvenile fish; andb Legal and institutional reforms for harmonizationof various environmental management plans.
On the other hand, determining the degree of
improvement in the actual state of the lake
environment (outcome) will require observations on
the positive benefits realized by “stress reduction”
and the associated “enabling process.” This
determination will require examination of the extent of
the actual change for the better on the basis ofvarious measurement approaches, as well as
inferences, estimations and judgments of the actual
state of the lake environment. Accordingly, in
addition to the above two indicators, we need a third
set of indicators that will collectively reveal the stateof the lake in question. This latter set is known as“environmental status indicators.”
Typical environmental status indicators may
include:b Decreases in the nutrient concentrations;b Improvement in the state of ecosystem health,
as reflected in an increased biodiversity index;
andb Utilizing questionnaire surveys, and determining
the extent to which communities andstakeholders benefitted from the changes inenvironmental conditions.
It is 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 toobtain, as well as being rather straightforward as
measures of progress toward improved lake basingovernance. In contrast, some of the “environmental
status indicator” values are not easy to obtain, andare much less straightforward to interpret, comparedto the other two types of indicators. The difficulty inobtaining the values of the latter is for the same
reason as in the case of the assessment of the stateof ecosystem at the lake bottom, as mentioned in theearlier discussion on the time interval. Their analysis
may require special sampling and laboratory analysis
techniques from research efforts, rather thanmonitoring. This less straightforward interpretation
stems from the fact that an improved or degraded“environmental status indicator” value at a particularinstance does not necessarily mean the overall stateof the lake basin environment is actually improving or
degrading (that is, the sufficient condition may or may
not have been met). The indicator values have to beinterpreted on a much more long-term basis, andsometimes with the help of auxiliary tools of analysis
and interpretation such as sophisticated andspecialized instrumentation and mathematicalmodeling tools.
The sequential nature of the indicators is also
important. For example, if eutrophication of a lake is
to be controlled by a sewerage system, constructionof treatment and reticulation systems may become
necessary. One of the first processes required isknowledge of the state of water quality, as well as thestate of ecosystem integrity of the lake
(environmental state), while developing a plan forenhancing the enforcement (enabling process), andfor constructing a wastewater 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 needto expend their own funds to connect to the system(stress reduction). If there is no legal requirement for
their connection to the system, enactment of a bylaw
as an enabling process would be necessary (enablingprocess). The need for the installation of a nutrient
removal capability, or tertiary treatment capacity, may
then become an issue, with needed mobilization of
additional funding (stress reduction). The reductionof nutrient discharges to the lake may be assessed bychecking the record of the number of household
connections (stress reduction), while the actual stateof the lake water quality must be monitored andassessed (environmental state).

― 30 ―

3-4 Governance Linkages Within and
Byond the Lake Basin
There is another important reason that the ILBM
Platform may need to become cyclic in nature. It
relates to the interactions among the ILBM Platforms
through the horizontal and vertical linkages ofgovernance. First, the horizontal linkage becomes anissue in relation to the involvement of multiple sectors(e.g., drinking water supply; fisheries; tourism) withina particular lake basin, each functioning on the basisof its own governance framework best suited for its
management. For the overall sustainability of lakebasin resources, these different frameworks must be
somehow interlinked. This interlinkage will not occur
automatically. The linkage may be gradually formed
as the sectoral management plans are implemented,
with the Cyclic ILBM Platform facilitating theinterlinkage. An illustrative image of this situation ispresented in Figure 10. The same applies for aparticular sector (e.g., drinking water supply) within
the same lake basin that needs a common sector
policy and implementation under the closely-sharedgeographical, socio-cultural, economic setting within
the basin, even if the jurisdictional responsibilities
may be independent of each other. In other words,
all lake basin ILBM Platforms within a given river/lakebasin must be explicitly or implicitly interlinked. The
illustrative image is presented in Figure 11.

a cyclic process; namely, a gradual and repeatedprocess of adjustment and adaptation. This is an
important reason for the need to develop “Cyclic”
ILBM Platforms appropriately suited to the lake basinsituation being addressed. The concept of horizontal
and vertical linkages of basin governance would
become crucially important in regard to internationaltransboundary cases (although intra-nationaltransboundary cases can be just as crucial).
The assessment required for the horizontal linkageof governance will involve harmonization, as well as
cross-fertilization, of the common governancechallenges among a number of elements, including:(1) the lake basins within a larger lake/river basin;(2) the chain of lake basins along a river basin; (3)the lake basins within the same jurisdictionalboundary; (4) any of the above three elements
combined, etc., as shown in Figure 11. The
assessment required for the vertical linkage ofgovernance could be undertaken through thelevels, for example, of: (1) the Federal/Central
government; (2) the State/Province/District
government(s); and (3) the local lake basin, either
downward (from central to local) or upward (fromlocal to central). In addition, the vertical andhorizontal linkages of governance pertaining to theinternational transboundary lake basin cases will
require a special consideration.

In regard to the vertical linkage, themicro-, meso-, and macro-scale basingovernance elements are linked throughthe hierarchical nature of politicaldecision-making and/or government
bureaucracy rules. More specifically, theriver/lake basin management challenges
in policy, institution, laws and regulations,etc., at the national level affect the state(district), as well as the lake-basin levels,
and vice-versa. The illustrative image ofthis process is presented in Figure 12.
While strengthening of the ILBM Pillars
can be accelerated with conscious efforts
to harmonize the horizontal and verticallinkagesofgovernance,theharmonization will be accelerated throughFigure 10. Horizontally-Linked Sectoral ILBM
Platforms Within the Same Lake Basin― 31 ―

Figure 11. Horizontal Linkage Must Exist
Among the Micro-Scale Basins
Within a Meso-Scale Basin

Figure 12. Vertical Linkages of Lake
Basin Governance<Case Example 2: Governance Linkage of a Lentic-Lotic Basin System in Malaysia
A governance linkage involving lentic-lotic linkage is illustrated with the case of Lake Chini (Tasek Chini) in
Malaysia xix, in relation to the Pahang River (Sungai Phang). The behavior of Lake Chini, which ranges in size
from about 202 ha (dry season) to 300 ha, is strongly influenced by the hydrology of four feeder river systems(Sungai Perupok to the west, Sungai Melai to the south, and Sungai Datang and Sungai Gumum to thenortheast). The main water source to the lake, however, is the Chini River, which is connected to the PahangRiver, the longest (450 km) and largest (27,000 km2) in Peninsular Malaysia, with almost one million population
residing in this region. Thus, the Pahang River controls not only the hydrodynamics of the lake, but also theenvironmental and ecosystem properties of the lake during the flood season. The intrusion of heavily sedimentladen and nutrient-rich water originatesfrom the Cameron Highland resort andtea plantation region at the uppermost
region of the watershed, as well as fromthe rubber and palm oil plantations
located alongside the river.
The
challenge facing Lake Chini is to interface
the ILBM Platform with the Pahang River
IWRM/IRBM plan, for which there isalready a proposed institutionalframework xx , and with the proposed
master plan of the UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve Program, the first in Malaysia xxi.
Gradual evolution of the ILBM Platform inthis case is able to best address thelentic-lotic linkages of the Pahang Riverand Lake Chini basin systems.

Figure CE2. Pahan River IWRM and Lake Chini ILBM
Must Be Complementary― 32 ―

4. Frameworks for Interpreting the ILBM
Outcomes
This chapter presents an overview of theapplication results of ILBM Platform Process,including the stage of Platform Process achieved(ranging from only preparing a Lake Brief, todeveloping a Basic ILBM Platform Process, all theway to developing a Cyclic Platform Process), thetemporal scope of application (either prospective or
retrospective), the hierarchical levels and linkages(national, state and local), and the external conditions
under which the ILBM application cases were
implemented. The categorized results were alsointerpreted with regard to the range of management
purposes/reasons, and to the types of management
plans (Vision Plans, Action Plans, Intervention Plans,and Comprehensive Plans) as related to the degreeof the ILBM Process usefully pursued.

4-1 Application Cases and Their Typology

frameworks for promoting lake basin management,
rather than just lake water quantity or quality
management. In India and Mexico, local governments
and major governmental and nongovernmentalorganizations and institutions dedicated to lake basin
management have facilitated the implementation of
ILBM projects for overcoming the difficulties
associated with existing fragmentary programs. In
Africa, where lake basin management programs tend
to be more structural intervention projects than basingovernance improvement, the concept of ILBM has
been introduced to instill basin stakeholders at large
with a greater sense of ownership of the problems, aswell as their solution approaches, i.e., meeting of thebasin governance challenges. The expectation hereis that ILBM may accelerate interfacing of thegovernmental,
nongovernmental
andcommunity/citizen initiatives, and that it may enhance
the proactive roles of the stakeholders at large inharmony with the governmental initiatives.

Many of the application cases have so far been

The time it takes for ILBM Platform Process tomature will vary from case to case. Where
awareness of the need for improving basingovernance is high, the ILBM concept may be
accepted and appreciated soon after being
introduced. Even in cases where awareness is
initially low, the basin community may soon becomeaware of the advantage of the ILBM approach indealing with complex management challenges nothaving easily been met in the past solely withgovernment-led structural-intervention type projects.
The general observation on the basis of these cases
reveals the Lake Briefs, even provisionally-

produced as part of research and applied study
projects, while others have been produced as part ofcompleted, serve as very useful guides foraddressing the immediate and long-term lake basin

follow-up activities of bilateral and multilateral
technical cooperation programs. In the case ofgovernance improvement needs, and also provide an
opportunity for the basin stakeholders at large toengage in an incremental process of improvement. A
brief description of each major application case

The number of ILBM application cases is slowly but
steadily growing in different regions of the world, eachbeing at different stages of Platform development.
The time required for a Platform Process to evolvefrom one stage to the next, i.e., from 1) preparation ofa Lake Brief, to 2) development of a Basic Platform
Process, and finally to 3) development of a Cyclic
Platform Process depends partly on the adequacy ofthe existing human and financial resources, assummarized in Table 1.

Malaysia, Nepal and the Philippines, for example, the
ILBM activities have been undertaken in collaboration
with key national government agencies seeking to
explore appropriate and suitable national program

included in Table 1 is given in Annex 6 (Past andOngoing ILBM-Related Projects).

― 33 ―

1. BP: Basic Process in progress; CP: Cyclic Process in progress; FS: Because the lakes are under a statutory framework similar to the
ILBM concept, only field studies have been conducted under the ILBM research projects; LB: Lake Brief has been prepared; MP: The
existing management program is forming a basis for ILBM; SEM: An introductory ILBM seminar has been conducted; WS: Short-term
ILBM workshops have been conducted;
2. Pro: Emphasis placed on prospective assessment of upcoming challenges, using the ILBM framework; Retro: Emphasis placed on
retrospective assessment, using the ILBM framework;
Review: Emphasis placed on retrospective natural science assessment, using Annex A of Lake Brief.
3. Loc: Strongly related to the local program framework; Nat: to the National program framework; State: to the state program framework;
the major program frameworks are identified in italic bold characters.
4. IAAB: Indian Association of Aquatic Biologists; ILEC: International Lake Environment Committee Foundation, Japan; LLDA: Laguna
Lake Development Authority; LLWQP: Local Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan, Hokkaido, Japan; MEdu: Ministry of Education,
Sports, Culture and Science, Japan; MEnv: Ministry of Environment, Japan; NAHRIM: National Hydraulic Research Institute of
Malaysia; NLWQP: National Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan, Japan; SU: Shiga University, Japan; SWRPC: Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, USA; TSU: Texas State University, USA

Table 1. Typological Categorization of ILBM Application Cases for the Period 2008-2012― 34 ―

professionals, religious sectors, students,
media, etc. The preparation of a Lake Brief isanticipated to help basin stakeholders toarticulate various governance improvement
initiatives;z Ahar River and its flood plains: Once-being ahighly degraded river flowing through Udaipur,

The following briefly describes some features of thelake basin cases identified in Table 1:b African Region:z Lake Chivero (Zimbabwe): Being a major
source of water supply for the city of Harare, thecapital of Zimbabwe, sustainable improvementof the seriously-degraded lake water quality will
not be achievable without gradual improvementof its basin governance, such as with the ILBM

the so-called ‘City of Lakes,’ the introduction of
the ILBM concept has triggered an assortmentof citizen-initiated actions, including an ecotechnological approach called “the green
bridge” for the restoration of degraded rivers. It
is an example of innovation under the“Technology Pillar” of ILBM Platform Process,now being promoted elsewhere in India;z Lake Pushkar: This well-known pilgrimage lakehas been facing a serious water level decline
for multiple reasons, including neglect, causing
an uproar among the basin population, which isheavily dependent on the lake for spiritual,social and economic values. It also is sufferingfrom serious water pollution. The ILBM concept
is now regarded as being instrumental inmobilizing support among all basin stakeholders
to meet the long-term challenges toward its
restoration;

Platform Process, combined with enhancementof socio-political and economic conditions of thecountry;z Lake Nakuru (Kenya): An ILBM Process (Kenya
Lake System in the Great Rift Valley) is being
adopted for this focal lake in a World Heritage
Site. The ILBM concept is promoted to help
harmonize the implementation of multiple
management
plans
under
multiple
sector/stakeholder engagements;z Nyanza Gulf of Lake Victoria (Kenya): Although
this region is a major target region of past andongoing GEF-World Bank projects for Lake
Victoria, the prospect for sustainable resource
development and use of this lake basin still
seems elusive. The ongoing efforts by the local
stakeholder groups to evolve the ILBM Platform
Process should be appropriately interfaced withthe probable exit strategy of such externally
supported intervention projects.
b India:z Lake Bhopal: As part of the post-projectassessment of the JICA-assisted plan for theconservation and management of the lake, the
ILBM framework was introduced as a potentially
useful tool for assessing the basin governanceimprovement, compared to the conventionallyaccepted assessment frameworks developedfor evaluating the viability of technicalcollaboration projects;z Ujiani Reservoir: This reservoir is well known for“Jala Dhindi,” a citizen-initiated “water
pilgrimage” activity for saving this reservoir
system, which is facing serious water quality
degradation. The activity has grown over theyears to a mass movement involving various
citizen groups, medical and educationz Other lake/river basins with ongoing ILBMrelated activities include Lake Hussinsagar, anda river in the Thane District of Maharashtra
State, where the ILBM concept has been
helping to address child-malnutrition alleviation
challenges.
b Japan:z Various ILBM-related field visits and studies ofbasin governance have been undertaken for
designated and non-designated lakes, under
the Special Measures for the Preservation of
Lake Water Quality (commonly referred to as
the “Lake Law”) of Japan.
b Malaysia:z Lake Briefs have been prepared for about 30
lakes under its Strategic Plan for Lake andReservoir Management, being coordinated by
the National Hydraulic Research Institute of
Malaysia (NAHRIM), with a wide range ofmanagement plans attributable to the Lake

― 35 ―

Briefs.

updated Lake Brief also is serving a very useful
purpose for the improvement of its basingovernance;z Lake Lanao: Despite its unique existence as anancient lake with many indigenous species offlora and fauna, the lake is facing serious
environmental and ecological degradation due
largely to water level fluctuations attributable tohydropower generation, and causing the
Maranao community to face serious declines intheir livelihood quality and quantity. Theb Mexico:z Significant progress in ILBM Platform
development has been made over a period ofseveral years, for both the Lake Chapala andLerma River basin micro-watershed regions,particularly in regard to the stakeholder initiative
through horizontal (through regional networks),
as well as vertical (through the national, state,
and local linkages), collaboration for
accelerating the ILBM Platform Process.

ongoing efforts will hopefully facilitate significant
change for their betterment in the not-too-b Nepal:z A draft National Lake Conservation Plan

distant future.

(NLCP) has been developed, based largely on
the ILBM framework, as implemented by theb Russia:z A Lake Brief has been prepared for three lakes

National Lake Conservation and Development
Committee, Ministry of Culture, Tourism andCivil Aviation, with about 20 priority lake basinsin the northwestern part of Russia by the
National Institute of Limnology, SaintPetersburg. Preliminary efforts also have

having been identified as priority ILBM targets
for intensive field studies for their governanceimprovement.

undertaken to prepare a Lake Brief for the
Caspian and Aral Seas.

b The Philippines:z Laguna Lake: As one of the most extensively
studied lakes, with a range of innovative policy
tools and approaches applied through various
national and international projects, the lake has
utilized and will continue to enrich the ILBM
concept. In the meantime, the continuously-b USA:z The results of Independent studies undertaken
to test the applicability and usefulness of the
ILBM framework were presented in November
2012 at the International Symposium of theNorth American Lake Management Society(NALMS).

― 36 ―

In discussing the role of the ILBM Platform in theplanning process, four general categories of plans forlake basin management are described below;
namely, Vision Plans, Short-term Action Plans,Intervention Plans, and Comprehensive Plans. The
presumption in the following discussion is that Vision
and Action Plans can be statutory or non-statutory. In
contrast, most Intervention and Comprehensive Plans

responsibilities and assignments, thereby
indicating who will undertake what specific tasks;(4) identifying the time horizon, in order todetermine when the identified tasks are to bedone, and what goals achieved; (5) producing atime line and planning milestones, including aschedule of work and measures of the progress
being made; and (6) identifying available resource
possibilities, including identifying what specificfunds available for specific activities;b There are action plans consisting of local actions,

are statutory in nature. Use of the previously-noted“output-oriented” indicators is relevant in evaluating

initiatives and commitments with little or no
financial resources. They also must be coupled

the status of the various plans, which arecharacterized as follows:with local actions, initiatives and commitments.

4-2 Typical Forms of Plans and Their Implicationsin the ILBM Platform Process

3) Characterization of Intervention Plansb An intervention is a specific activity (or set of

1) Characterization of Vision Plans
b The goal of a Vision Plan is usually to bring water
stakeholders together to develop a common, or atleast compatible, agenda for sustainable lake
management, as well as to foster a sense ofownership about the future of the lake basin inquestion;b Vision Plans usually consist of a menu ofstrategies and opportunities directed toward therelatively long-term future;b The degree of formality associated with Vision
Plans can range from being very informal(voluntarily at the village level) to being very
formal (national or international level, with someinstitutional and financial commitments);b The level of institutional commitment, and therequired financial and manpower resources, arelikely to be rather moderate, compared to the levelassociated with implementation of other types ofplans.

related activities) intended to achieve a set ofobjectives in a particular setting, using a common
strategy for output delivery. An intervention has
distinct process and outcome objectives, and a
protocol outlining the implementation steps;
b Intervention plans for resource development andconservation/remediation purposes are generally
developed and implemented by public sector
agencies. They tend to have strong sectoralorientation with financial and manpower commitments
because they often involve physical facilities;b Typical intervention plans can range fromresource development interventions, such as
installation of intake facilities for large-scale water
abstraction for riparian paddy field irrigation, todevelopment of a fish cage system along thereservoir shoreline for licensed commercial
operations, etc., to environmental conservationand ecological restoration interventions such as
dredging of sediments from the lake bottom toimprove deteriorating water quality, or
construction of a sediment trap along the inflowing

2) Characterization of Action Plans
b Action Plans are generally short-term, although
there are cases whereby a sequence of shortterm action plans can constitute a long-term
action plan. They are not necessarily sectoral incharacter;b An Action Plan is a series of steps or activities toachieve a specific goal, whose major elements
include: (1) identifying a specific goal to beachieved; (2) identifying specific tasks or steps
directed at what needs to be done; (3) identifying

channels to the lake for improving fish habitat, etc.
4) Characterization of Comprehensive Plansb Unlike a Vision Statement, implementing a lakebasin management plan requires prescribing
details of the long-term structural and nonstructural actions to be undertaken. The longterm goals must be addressed by a range of
relevant organizations;― 37 ―

b Since implementation of the plan may be longer
than the timeframe for usual budgetaryconsiderations, the agencies responsible forcarrying out the plan may, or may not, have theneeded level of financial and manpower
resources;b For the plan to be viable, it must usually be scaled
down to meet budgetary constraints, andsubsequently revised over time;b A comprehensive plan is often developed on thebasis of holistic considerations for achieving
sustainability objectives to effect changes in theenvironmental status indicators. It also assumes
long-term institutional and financial commitments.
Conceptually, the ILBM Platform Process may be
applied to all four forms of plans, although in different
ways among the cases. There are cases whereby
the preparation of a Lake Brief alone was sufficiently
useful, without development of a Platform Process, orwherein the platform development may essentiallyremain at the basic process level, or even where theplatform development may evolve to a full-fledged
Cyclic Process. Figure 13 provides a generaltypology of the application cases describing the initialpre-ILBM management condition; namely: (a) thosehaving Little or No Management Plans; (b) thosehaving Independent Sector-Specific Management
Plans (i.e., sectoral plans for fisheries, water supplies,
pollution control, etc., are undertaken completely
independently); or (c) those having Cross-Sector
Management Plans (i.e., sectoral plans areundertaken in some coordination, for example,
through water quality monitoring, and under a given
statutory framework). In regard to the post-ILBM
adaptation of one or more of the four plan types (i.e.,
Vision Plan, Action Plan, Intervention Plan,
Comprehensive Plan), the following generalobservations are relevant:Vision Plans and Action Plans Generally Entail a
Basic-Platform Processb ILBM Platforms can be “Basic” in nature, becausea plan must usually reflect explicit, as well as
implicit, community values. Once developed, thePlatform can remain intact through the planning
period, thereby not requiring the plan itself to
evolve;b Periodic activities to remind the public at large
about the spirit of the vision, however, is a very
important role to be played by the Platform.
Intervention Plans Entail a Basic Platform Process
and Subsequently a Cyclic Platform Processb Intervention plans developed and implemented by
sectoral agencies usually require specialized
technical inputs from experts in the field.
Although an advisory body consisting of such
experts may play the role of an ILBM Platform,
they do not qualify for this role because of rather
narrow representation, and a likely lack oftransparency to the general public;b Most intervention projects are directed towardachieving a rather sharply-focused output,
accompanied by rather rigorous financial andinstitutional (including manpower) resource
commitments and completion timeframe, oftenwith rather-limited local actions. The Cyclic
Platform may not function well in such cases,
compared to the Action Plan cases;b The more congested the resource use becomes,
however, the more the use can be coordinated,indicating the Platform working in a “cyclic”
manner can prove quite effective in adjusting toemerging needs, as well as to mid-course
corrections and adjustments.
Comprehensive Plans Generally Entail a Cyclic
ILBM Platform Processb A comprehensive plan for lake basin management
generally includes many citizen-group Action
Plans and many sector-agency Intervention Plans.
Integration of these two types of Plans is likely tobe achieved through a Cyclic ILBM Platform
Process;b A comprehensive plan with a long planninghorizon would generally be associated with anumber of sector conflicts and slow waning ofstakeholder commitments, necessitating inclusionof a Cyclic ILBM Platform Process into the Plan.
Overall, the planning must be accompanied by asystem for measuring the extent of governanceimprovements, with the ILBM Platform Process
supporting it in one way or another.

― 38 ―

4-3 Management Reasons/Purposes Associatedwith Governance Pillars
As previously discussed in Sections 1-5, 2-1, andin Box 6, the management reasons/purposes for lakebasin management can vary widely, ranging from a)developing resource values; b) enhancing resource
values; c) decongesting resource use; d) resolving
resource use conflicts; e) reducing environmental
stress; f) rehabilitating and restoring riparian habitats;g) protecting resource value damages from extreme
events; and h) taking precautionary adaptation andmitigation measures; all the way to i) improving
overall ecosystem health. It is important to recognizethat lake basins are usually managed for multiple
reasons/purposes, and that these different
reasons/purposes may or may not be adequatelyinter-harmonized. It also is important to note that a
particular lake basin can undergo a gradual shift in
focus from one reason/purpose to another, with theirinter-phasing more likely to occur in thereasons/purposes direction from a) to i), than in the
direction from i) to a). For a lake basin to beeffectively managed for sustainable use of its lifesupporting ecosystem services, it is clear that lakebasin stakeholders must strive continuously for agreater level of inter-harmonization and inter-phasingof these reasons/purposes.
To achieve a greater level of inter-harmonizationand inter-phasing, these different management
reasons/purposes, a) to i) as noted above, must be
associated with the corresponding level of each of theSix Pillars of Governance. As further clarification, theSix Pillars of Governance are expressed in more
specific terms in Figure 14; namely, institutional
orientation regarding ecosystem services; policy
orientation in government; a participatory approach inmanagement, an information and knowledge focus,
technology considerations, and financial resource
inputs. The gradients associated with each of theseSix Pillars of Governance may now be conceptuallyassociated with the management reasons/purposes.

The institutional orientation, for example, would range
from a more “singular structure” to a more “plural
structure,” the policy orientation in government would
range from a more “short-term output” to a more“long-term outcome;” and the financial resource
orientation would range from more toward “economic
benefit” to more toward “ecosystem benefit,” etc., in
relation to each of the management reasons/purposes, a) to i). This is an important conceptual
presentation of ILBM, implying lake basin stakeholders
must recognize that their own association with theindividual Pillar issues is always relative, andresponsive to the management reasons/purposes ofwhich they may not be immediately engaged, but of
which they should be fully aware. It also implies thatbasin stakeholders must achieve a greater level ofinter-harmonization and inter-phasing of management
reasons/purposes in order to reach some agreeable
mix of these governance qualities. This is a driving
force of the ILBM Platform Process, facilitating
stakeholders being able to bring themselves together
to meet the collective governance challenges slowly
and gradually over time.
The above observation implies that ILBM has theflexibility to address the subtle implications ofgovernance challenges, such as resource use
conflicts and assessment of management planning
alternatives. Regarding the former (i.e., resolving use
conflicts), the conflicting stakeholder groups may findit easier to resolve their conflicts through the ILBM
Process, than through direct interactions. An example
is the Lerma River - Lake Chapala - Santiago River
Complex in Mexico, as presented in Annex 5 (APractical Approach in ILBM Pillar Assessment: An
Example), which describes an iterative process forbridging the gap between stakeholder ideas about
meeting governance challenges. As for the latter(i.e., assessment of planning alternatives), Saunders(2012) presents an interesting application of the ILBM
framework, using the modified approach highlighted
in the above example in addressing management
issues in sub-watersheds in the interstate Potomac
River Basin in the USA.

― 39 ―

Figure 13. Transformation from a Non-ILBM Approach to an ILBM Approach in Planning

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)

developing resource values
enhancing resource values
decongesting resource use
resolving resource use conflicts
reducing environmental stressrehabilitating and restoring riparian habitats
protecting resource value damages from extreme events
taking precautionary adaptation and mitigation measures
improving the overall ecosystem healthMultiple Management Reasons/Purposes

Figure 14. Management Reasons/Purposes as Related to the Six Pillars of Governance― 40 ―

4-4 The Meaning of Integration: IWRM vs. ILBM
IWRM vs. ILBM
The need for an integrated approach for water
management is becoming a common understanding
among water professionals since the Johannesburg
Summit in 2002, when Integrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM) was accepted as the common
philosophy for all UN agencies to pursue in the future.
Simply stated, IWRM stipulates a need to findappropriate means for coordinating policy-making,planning and implementation in an integrated manner
across sectoral, institutional and professional

effects of water developments; (3) basic principles for
integrated policy-making; (4) influencing economic
sector decisions; (5) integration of all stakeholders in
the planning and decision process; and (6) integratingwater and wastewater management.
While few people would dispute the importance of
IWRM in water management, the reality is that
‘operationalization’ of the IWRM principle has beendifficult in some cases, particularly for those having todeal with on-the-ground basin management
challenges facing lakes and other lentic water bodies.
One of the overriding reasons for this deficiency isboundaries for managing any water-related systems(GWP, 2000). In pursuing IWRM, the Global Water

that most, if not all, lake basin management
stakeholders are not in a position to play a role inPartnership (GWP) identified a need to recognize
some overriding criteria regarding social, economic

influencing most IWRM integration needs. While
ILBM also is based on an integrated approach (seeand natural conditions; namely economic efficiency inwater use; equity; and environmental and ecologicalBox 15 for examples of integration approaches), it
focuses on on-the-ground governance improvement,
rather than on governance improvement at a higher

sustainability. The IWRM framework and approach
recognize that complementary elements of aneffective water resources management system must
be developed and strengthened concurrently,
including the enabling environment, the institutionalroles and functions of the various administrative
levels and stakeholders, and management
instruments, including effective regulation, monitoringand enforcement.
According to the GWP, IWRM is a “process that
promotes the coordinated development andmanagement of water, land and related resources, inorder to maximize the resultant economic and social
welfare in an equitable manner without compromising
the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”“Integration” in the IWRM sense stipulates the needto integrate “natural system components,” including:(1) freshwater and coastal zone management; (2)land and water management; (3) “green water” and“blue water” management; (4) surface andgroundwater management; (5) quantity and quality inwater resources management; and (6) upstream anddownstream water-related interests. IWRM also
stipulates the need for integration of human systemcomponents, including: (1) cross-sectoral integrationin national policy development; (2) macro-economic

level of policy making at the national government
level. Further, ILBM takes an “integration bynecessity” approach, as contrasted to IWRM, whichtakes more an “integration by design” approach, aspreviously illustrated.
Adaptive Integration in ILBM Platform Process
The Cyclic ILBM Platform Process discussed in
Section 3-2 is a process of integrating the Six Pillars
of Governance. It is meant as a gradual process
leading to overall lake basin governanceimprovements which, in turn, can lead to more
efficient and more harmonized implementation ofplans and programs that stakeholders can collectively
be involved in developing. Even if they may not beable to take part in the process at the outset, thestakeholders should be able to gradually phase in via
the ILBM Platform. While this proposed process
seems to be well-suited for the “Common-Pool
Resources” type problem, it is proposed that thisapproach also be actively applied to deal with lakebasin management cases involving emerging
important issues, examples being adaptation toclimate change, restoration of biodiversity, andaddressing hydrological extreme events such as
flooding. The concluding chapter of this document
also discusses this aspect to some extent.

― 41 ―Box 15. Ways to Replicate Success in the Integration Process
While the Cyclic ILBM Platform Process is meant to focus on a specific lake basin and its management
challenges, the successful outcome of such a Process may be replicated through integration of a different
kind. This does not mean only integration of the Six Pillars of Governance, but rather integration of thesuccessful outcomes through the ILBM Platform Process. They may be considered within several
categories, including (a) Integration by Encompassing; (b) Integration by Unification; and (c) Integration by
Evolution. The following section provides a brief description and some examples of each category.
Integration by Encompassing (Figure a)
There are many instances in which independently-developed sectoral or regional programs or projects are
implemented at the same time. Integration by Encompassing, however, recognizes that greater benefits canbe gained by integrating these multiple sectoral activities within a coherent and collaborative framework. It
typically involves implementation of a specific project or program to coordinate such independent programs
and projects, usually focusing on cross-sectoral coordination across government ministries and, fortransboundary lakes, even different countries.
Integration by Unification (Figure b)
Even when a lake basin community achieves a successful lake basin management experience, the public
may sometimes ultimately lose interest and enthusiasm if such efforts are considered in isolation. Thus, theincentives gained through such previous successful experiences may be inadequate to keep the interest of
many stakeholders. In contrast, a unified consideration of previously-successful experiences, even if only
marginal in some cases, can provide a sense of mutual facilitation and collaboration. The goal of Integration
by Unification is meant to provide a framework for promoting this unity.
Integration by Evolution (Figure c)
The activities within some projects may expand or evolve because of early successes, thereby expanding
their spheres of operation over time, either spatially or sectorally. An example would be fringing wetlands
around a lake that were originally restored for biodiversity conservation. Because of their success ingradually restoring the shoreline, however, they may have been expanded to provide natural habitats forwildlife. This type of ‘broadening” illustrates an expansion over space. Another example would be theexperiences in most developed countries in expanding from controlling point sources of pollution, tocontrolling toxic contaminants, to controlling invasive species and, more recently, to controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution.

Integration by Encompassing

Integration by Unification

Integration by Evolution

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure B15. Three Forms of Coordination― 42 ―

4-5 Stages of the ILBM Platform Development
It is emphasized that development of an ILBM
Platform Process is not a stand-alone, one-time
project, but rather a long-term governance challenge
to be met by the entire lake basin society andstakeholders. Once initiated, the Process must
evolve and be sustained over coming decades and,over the course of time, the Process must become
owned by the basin community at large, hopefully by
being integrated into a local/national statutory
framework. Figure 15 provides a schematic example
of such a long-term process, in which the time frame
is divided into four phases. Phase I is a Preparatory
Period; Phase II is a Getting-Started Period; Phase III
is a Trial-and-Error Period; and Phase IV is a
Sustainability-Challenge Period. In addition to beinga governance improvement process by itself, theCyclic Process during Phases II and III should also beable to guide the process of planning andimplementation of various public and private sector
management intervention projects. Introduction of asewerage system, for example, would have to be wellintegrated into the ILBM Platform Process in order tofacilitate the sustainability of its construction,
management and operation. For already-existing
management intervention programs, the Platform
Process should be able to provide an informative
retrospective, as well as prospective, assessment tohelp adjust the course of preparation toward thefuture with a more coherent, concerted approach to
governance improvement. With such a broad rangeof reasons/purposes, managing lakes and theirbasins is approached within ILBM via thecorresponding range of sectoral activities, with orwithout formal plans.
As the reasons/purposes become more and more
inclusive and comprehensive (i.e., shifting in direction
from a) to i) in Figure 14), the individual sector
activities/plans must be brought together under theumbrella of a more comprehensive management
plan.
The type and the nature of suchcomprehensive management plans also can vary
widely, depending on the existing national statutory
and policy frameworks in the case of many developed
countries, and on the contractual framework in regard
to bilateral and multilateral technical collaboration
involving developing countries. The ILBM Platform
Process may be usefully engaged in either case,since these plans generally recognize the importanceof broad engagement of the basin community in theimplementation process, if not the actual
development, of such plans. A typical example of theformer is the Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan
stipulated in the statutory framework of the Special
Measures for the Preservation of Lake Water Quality(commonly referred to as the “Lake Law”) of Japan(introduced in Annex 7). A typical example of thelatter is the Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Plan, with Phases I and II being implemented by theWorld Bank for the East African Union member
countries, as stipulated in the International Waters
Framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

― 43 ―

Figure 15. ILBM Platform Process in Stages, with Gradual Synthesis ofManagement Reasons/Purposes― 44 ―

4-6 Challenges in Sustaining an ILBM
Platform Process
As noted in the introduction to this document, ILBM
is a comprehensive approach for managing lakes andreservoirs for sustainable ecosystem services throughgradual, continuous and holistic improvement of basingovernance, with the ILBM Platform being a virtual
stage for collective stakeholder actions for improving
lake basin governance through the application of
ILBM. While the number of ILBM application cases isincreasing, whether or not a particular lake basin
community being introduced to the concept would becooperation agencies. Because of their showcase
nature, they tend to attract a disproportionate shareof human and financial resources of the basin
community, thereby perhaps also significantly
affecting the way the entire lake basin is managed.
It is quite important to recognize that such a project
should be regarded only as a catalytic intervention
project, and that lake basin management must be‘owned’ by the basin community as a whole,making such a project become an integral part ofthe basin governance framework through the ILBM
Platform Process.

inclined to actually engage in the Platform Processdepends on many factors. Some of the most2) Establishment of ILBM Secretariat
The lead organizations, as identified above, areimportant factors are as follows:

usually best suited to also serve as the ILBM
‘secretariat.’ It is also possible, however, for the1) Existence of Lead Organizations
The range of types and nature of organizations
that can lead the ILBM Platform Process may

secretariat to be comprised of representatives fromthe major platform members, thereby collectively
burdening the equitable share of the required

include government agencies, local/national
research institutions, including universities, citizen
groups, local/national/international NGOs, andhuman and financial resources. The secretariat
can decide the focal point individual or organizationof the regional and international network of ILBM
activities. It can also organize ILBM-related local
activities, including ILBM workshops/seminars, anddevelop a common knowledgebase platform forsharing the already-available data and information
among the platform members. It may also develop
a protocol for joint analysis of the state of lakebasin governance.

even private-sector organizations. Which of theabove types of organizations would play lead roles
in ILBM-related activities depends on the political,
administrative and cultural climates in the involved
country(ies). In highly centralistic nations, forexample, the ILBM Platform Process may not
function unless government organizations
collectively play a lead role, with NGOs and citizens
having little or no input. In contrast, for countries inwhich the government prefers a facilitative role,
citizen groups and NGOs may have a much more
prominent role in the Process. As long as the
Platform can be developed to play an impartial
facilitating role, however, the type and nature of thelead organizations can be decided upon by thebasin community to suit national and local
situations. Since there would be nothing for any
particular organization to gain in attempting to
exclusively own it, the Process initiated by any kindof organization is likely to be collectively owned aslong as it is supported by the international ILBM
network. In this regard, it is important to note inthis regard that lake basin management projects indeveloping countries are sometimes supported bybilateral and multilateral funding and technical― 45 ―

3) Meeting Financial Requirements
Implementing the ILBM Platform Process also
will have to address financial and manpower
requirements for activities such as document
preparation, convening of meetings, undertaking
joint studies, and compiling and analyzing lakebasin governance data and information. Even
though the required resources are almost
insignificant, compared to the long-term collective
benefits likely to accrue to the lake basin
community as a whole, there are cases in which
inadequate financial resources can become ahindrance to efficient implementation of the
Platform Process. There may be cases, forexample, where some stakeholders may be locatedin areas too remote to be able to participate
actively in the Platform activities, despite the fact

domain, and also be readily accessible to all
stakeholders. What is important at this point is theprocess of jointly generating, compiling andanalyzing the data to be continuously updated forthey should play an important role. In general,
however, the Platform Process is a long-term
process, with an important goal being to sustain
collective interest and commitment, even at aminimal level of activities at the onset. The longterm, gradual improvement of lake basingovernance should produce some noticeablechanges in the minds of stakeholders in such a waythat the necessary funds may somehow be raised
from among platform members. It is also importantfor developing countries containing lake basins

assessing the incremental improvement of specificaspects of basin governance ( i.e., Six Pillars ofGovernance), with which the platform members
should become more and more familiar over the
longer term. A serious problem may be faced bylake basin stakeholders, however, when the major
source of information can only be acquired fromgovernment agencies at significant expense andtime requirements, and/or in connection with
implementation of externally-funded projects inwhich an enormous quantity of human and financial
resources are invested within a short period oftime, and with perhaps little or no involvement of
the resident capacity of the lake basin stakeholder
individuals and organizations. This is a matter thatmust be recognized both by the concerned bilateraland multilateral organizations and programs, andby the counterpart institutions in charge of therespective governmental programs.

involved in external technical and financial
collaboration projects to set aside a due portion of
their financial commitment for such projects inorder to address the sustenance of the ILBM
Platform.
4) Access to Data and Information Resources
The data and information resource requirements
are usually most intensive at the point at which a
Lake Brief is being prepared for the first time. The
Brief can be detailed and expansive, with expertise
contributions from academic institutions andgovernment offices willing to be counted among thefounding members of the Platform Process.
Although the more complete the Brief the better, italso can be gradually improved over time through aparticipatory process of data/information generationand compilation. Thus, an incomplete initial
version of the Platform is not necessarily a serious
concern, at least at the onset of the Process. It is
important to have reliable scientific, as well as
policy, data and information, thereby making
reliance on academic and governmental sources of
information essentially unavoidable. On the other
hand, a Lake Brief is not meant to be a scientificpaper characterized by the type typically publishedin academic publications, nor is it meant to be aclassified governmental policy paper. Rather, it
should be a document that can be prepared with
the information already available in the public

While the aim of ILBM is to attain long-termsustainability of lake basin resources and their uses,
the experience to date suggests that, in many parts of
the world, the magnitude, as well as the rate, of lakebasin resource degradation is enormous andcontinuing. Indeed, there are fundamental challenges
in managing lakes and their basins, regardless of the
ILBM applications. Although the emerged typology
pertains to the way ILBM may help achieve thesustainability of lake basin resources and their uses,
it is not designed to attain sustainability itself. In fact,
attainment of the sustainable use of any ecosystem
has been, and will continue to be, a long-term global
challenge that must be integrated as a mainstream
issue facing the international community now and into
the future.

― 46 ―

5. Knowledge Base and Database Systems
An enormous amount of information and data has
already been generated, and will continue to begenerated, 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 andbiological aspects (limnology, hydrology, climatology,
ecology, biochemistry, etc.), all of which contribute to abetter understanding of the state of lakes, reservoirs andother lentic water bodies. There is also a growing
number of studies on the managerial aspects of aquatic,

goal, an interactive knowledge base cum knowledge
mining system, called LAKES (Learning Acceleration
and Knowledge Enhancement System) has beendeveloped. LAKES currently has the capacity toprocess many hundreds of documents for the
purpose of ‘mining’ the imbedded knowledge, utilizing
free keywords, as well as an included thesaurus. The
level of enquiry with LAKES ranges from whole
documents to pages, paragraphs, and even individual
sentences. LAKES is also linked to a databasesystem called the World Lake Database, the latter arepository of the output of Survey of the State ofWorld Lakes (1986-1988) for reviewing andterrestrial and riparian ecosystems, including water
quality, sediment quality, and shoreline environments, indownloading information and data for individual lakes,
as well as for addressing cross-cutting analyses ofaddition to the inflowing and outflowing water systems,
extending out to the upper watershed tributaries. A

water quality parameters among the lakes. In
addition, LAKES is also capable of serving as aneeded component not yet produced, however, is ameans of compiling and utilizing holistically- anddepository of lake basin management data that has
already been generated and made public in the formof hard-copy reports and technical papers, but which

practically-synthesized information and data on suchthematic and disciplinary subjects. With a focus on thecompilation of global experiences and lessons learned inmanaging lakes and their basins, a detailed account of
the Six Governance Pillars of ILBM is provided in the
document, “Managing Lakes and their Basins for
Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers andStakeholders” (ILEC. 2005), which is available on thewebsite: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/eg/lbmi/index.html).
An electronic training module of this document also
is available on the website: (http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/ILBM
TrainingMaterials/index.html). The document had an
instrumental role in the conceptualization process of
ILBM and, now that the number of such efforts is
growing, a means of developing and sharing theknowledge being continually generated andaccumulated is ever more important. To address thisdoes not currently exist in any form of an electronic
database because of an inability to develop andmaintain such a system. As the number of ILBMrelated efforts increases, this need to access suchmaterial will definitely increase, since information anddata compiled in the form of a Lake Brief are also
expected to increase. Screenshot images of the“LAKES” Knowledge Base System and the “World
Lake Database” System are presented in Figures 16
and 17, respectively. The prototype version of
LAKES-III is accessible through the URL:
(http://www3.lakes-sys.com/staffs/login) with an ID of“guest”, and the password of “guest”, and theprototype version of World Lake Database isaccessible through the URL: (http://wldb.ilec.or.jp).
These versions are operational at the present time
mainly for ILBM workshops and training courses.

― 47 ―

Figure 16. Screenshot Image of “LAKES-III” Knowledge Base System

Figure 17. Screenshot Image of World Lake Database― 48 ―

6. Summary and Way Forward
On a global scale, the terrestrial and sub-terrestrial
land constituting the basins of rivers and their subsurface flows, lakes, estuaries, as well as lagoons,
marshlands and other enclosed and semi-enclosed
water bodies, has undergone tremendous transformations
over past centuries, with the rate of transformation
further increasing over the past several decades formany of these water systems. The impacts of thistransformation, in the form of environmental pollution
and ecosystem degradation, have transcended far
and wide to sub-surface and downstream receiving
water systems as well, including aquifers, marine
ecosystems, and the oceans. Despite all the efforts
undertaken thus far to mitigate and restore such
systems, this global trend of degradation and overexploitation is far from being reversed. Because ofthis reality, the lentic parts of these linked water
systems (i.e., naturally non-flowing, with historicallyfostered ecosystem and anthropological implications,in contrast to simply being hydrostatic) have been
seriously impacted, hindering the sustainable use of
their resource values. Equally important is the factthat the pursuit toward environmental and ecosystem
sustainability of these lentic water systems is very
different from those involving lotic water systems (i.e.,naturally flowing, with historically-fostered ecosystem
and anthropological implications, in contrast to simply
being hydrodynamic). Thus, managing linked water
systems that have imbedded lentic properties
requires an approach that recognizes and considers
their unique physico-chemical and biological features,
including their integrating nature, long water retention
time, and complex response dynamics.
As a further consideration, management of linked
water systems with imbedded lentic properties also
must consider policy orientations amenable to theirresource-use governance. This is because lake basin
resources typically exhibit the characteristic of being“common property” in their existence and use. Thus,
resource users must practice self-restraint in pursuingtheir resource values if they wish for these water
systems to remain sustainable. The suitable
institutional form to achieve this long-term goal,
however, may emerge only after a long, gradual,
adaptive process of collective adjustments. This is incontrast to the reality of the resource development
sectors often being very hesitant to expend theirfunds and manpower for purposes other than meeting
their own immediate resource requirements. It isdifficult, therefore, if not impossible, to prescribe amanagement framework universally workable forwater systems with imbedded lentic systemproperties. Herein lies the underlying reason for theneed to conceptualize an approach that will facilitate
the ability of lake basin stakeholders to manage lentic
water systems for sustainable use through gradual,
continuous and holistic improvement of basingovernance. Indeed, if we have learned anything at
all from managing lentic water systems to the present
time, it is that their management is a continuing
process, requiring adaptation to changing conditions,rather than simply being a one-time, stand-alone
project.
The reasons/purposes for managing linked water
systems range from developing resource values toimproving overall ecosystem health. Although theconventional approach of developing andimplementing a plan would obviously be
indispensable for responding to the above
reasons/purposes, it is nevertheless only half thestory. This means implementing a prescribed plan
may not necessarily result in improved governancethat will ensure the sustainable use of lake basin
resources. Thus, in focusing on improving the Six
Pillars of Governance (i.e., institutions, policies,
participation, information, technology and finance),
Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) wasconceptualized to incorporate the essential
requirements for managing water systems with lenticlotic (not simply hydrostatic-hydrodynamic) properties
for sustainable use.
The lake basin governance improvement process
can take the form of the ILBM Platform Process,which itself can evolve from assessing the current
governance challenges, as well as the means forincremental management improvements (i.e., fromthe preparation of a Lake Brief, to a Cyclic Process ofgovernance improvement over time). In fact, thetypological analysis of ILBM case applications
between 2008-2012 has provided a number ofilluminating insights. Examples include the― 49 ―

transformation from a non-ILBM approach to an ILBM
approach in planning, and the management
reasons/purposes, as related to the Six Governance
Pillars of ILBM. For the latter, the important message
is that basin stakeholders must achieve a greaterlevel of inter-harmonization and inter-phasing ofmanagement reasons/purposes in order to reach an
agreeable mix of governance qualities. Fortunately,
there are now sufficient experiences in lake basinsaround the world to demonstrate that the ILBM
Platform Process provides a useful basis forachieving this important sustainability goal.
With a continually increasing number of ILBM caseapplications, the cumulative knowledge about the
ILBM Platform Process also continues to increase,allowing for new insights to be developed, as well as
greater cross-fertilization of experiences to occur, as
reflected in the expanding database, knowledge baseand training modules. This increased knowledge andinsight will definitely help address the increasing
number of ILBM application needs. Indeed, if theenvironmental pollution and ecosystem degradationof aquifers, marine ecosystems, and the oceans areto be deterred, the lentic components of the linked
terrestrial and sub-terrestrial water systems must be

managed to achieve their sustainable use. Simply
and directly stated, this means the issue of lentic
water management must be mainstreamed in the
global water arena, especially by policy directives
which are currently focused too exclusively on
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM).
No United Nations initiative has yet been put forth tomainstream “lakes” within the global water agenda,
despite the fact that many UN documents highlightthe ‘importance’ of IWRM. This is not to say that
IWRM is not important, but rather that global
experiences to date indicate that it cannot adequately
address the assessment and management
challenges of lentic water systems, or thecomplexities and management implications of linked
lentic-lotic water systems. Therefore, it is now time forall of us to recognize and appreciate that ILBM must
be promoted to deal with linked water systems of alentic-lotic nature, focusing on their governanceimprovement at local, national, sub-continental,
continental and international levels. To do otherwise
will ensure that these water systems will continue tobe managed in such a manner that the overriding
goal of their sustainable use now, and into the future,cannot be achieved.

― 50 ―

References
Ballatore, T.J. and V.S. Muhandiki. 2005. BiophysicalCharacteristics of Lakes” in Managing Lakes andTheir Basins for Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake
Basin Managers and Stakeholders. International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu,
Shiga, Japan. 146 p.
Duda, A., 2002. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators
for GEF International Waters Projects, Monitoring and
Evaluation Working Paper 10, World Bank,
Washington, D.C., USA. 11 p.
Global Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated Water
Resources Management. Technical Advisory
Committee Background Paper No. 4, Global Water
Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden. 68 p.
Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001.
Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. North Amer. LakeManagement Soc. and Terrene Institute, in
cooperation with Office of Water Assessment,
Watershed Protection Division, U.S. EPA, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Hutchinson, E.G. 1957. A Treatise on Limnology,
Volume 1: Geography, Physics, and Chemistry. Jon
Wiley and Sons: New York, USA. 1,015 p.
ILEC. 2005. Managing Lakes and Their Basins for
Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers andStakeholders. International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 146 p.
Accessible at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/lbmi).
ILEC. 2007a. World Lake Vision Action Report. World Lake
Vision Committee, International Lake Environment
Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 392
p. Accessible at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/wlvreport).
ILEC. 2007b. Integrated Lake Basin Management: An
Introduction. International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 23 p.
Accessible at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/ilbmmanual).

ILEC. 2007c. Integrated Lake Basin Management.
Threats to World Lakes. International Lake Environment
Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 4
p. Accessible at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/ilbmleaflet).
ILEC. 2011. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary
Waters Assessment Programme. Volume 3.
Methodology for the Assessment of Transboundary
Lake Basins. UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya. 69 p. Accessible
at: (http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/TWAPVolume-3-Methodology_for_Lake_Basins-lowres.pdf).
Juarez, A. 2010. Governance Monitoring for the
Integral Managing of Basins and Water Bodies,
Personal Communication.
Kai-Qin, X., Y. Ebie, Y. Jimbo, Y. Inamori, and R. KaiQin, X., Y. Ebie, Y. Jimbo, Y. Inamori, and R. Sudo.
2009. Measures and Policies against the
Eutrophication for Lake Water Quality in Japan.
Presentation at the 13th World Lake Conference,
November 1-5, 2009, Wuhan, China. 8 p.
Magadza, C. H. D. 2006. Kariba Reservoir: Experienceand Lessons Learned. Lakes & Reservoirs: Researchand Management, 11:271-286.
Magadza C. H. D. 2003. Lake Chivero: A Management
Case Study. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research &Management, 8: 69-81.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems
and Human Well-being: General Synthesis. Island
Press, Washington D.C. USA. 137 p.
Moore, P. 2010. Coming to Terms with Governance Definition, Components, Principles. Regional National
Working Group Meeting, IUCN Mekong Water
Dialogues Project, Kunming, China.
Nakamura, M. and W. Rast 2012. Guidelines for Lake Brief
Preparation. Research Center for Sustainability andEnvironment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU), Otsu, Shiga,
Japan, and International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 17 p. Accessible
at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/lake_brief).

― 51 ―

Nakamura, M., W. Rast, T. Kagatsume and T. Sato.
2012. Primer: Development of ILBM Platform Process,
Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement.
Research Center for Sustainability and Environment,
Shiga University (RCSE-SU), Otsu, Shiga, Japan, andInternational Lake Environment Committee Foundation(ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 26 p. Accessible at:(http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/primer-ilbm-platformprocess).

Saunders, B. 2012. Evaluation of Water Management
Alternatives, Using Integrated Lake Basin Management
Principles: A North American Case Study. M.S. Thesis,
Aquatic Resources Programme, Texas State University,
San Marcos, Texas, USA. 91 p.
Sharip, Z. and J. Jusoh. 2010. Integrated Lake BasinManagement and Its Importance for Lake Chini andOther Lakes in Malaysia. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research and Management, 15:41-51.

Nyikahadzoi, K. 2009. Challenges to Collective Actionin the Management of the Kapenta Fishery in Llake
Kariba. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research andTamatamah, R.A., R.E. Hecky and H.C. Duthie. 2005.
The Atmospheric Deposition of Phosphorus in LakeManagement, 14:337-351.

Victoria (East Africa). Biogeochemistry, 73(2):325-344.

Ogutu-Ohwayo, R. and J. S. Balirwa. 2001. Managing
Freshwater Fisheries in Africa. Lakes & Reservoirs:

Thornton, J. and T. M. Slawski. 2012. Lakes in theLandscape: Community Experiences of ILBM in

Research and Management, 11:215-226.

Southeastern Wisconsin. Presentation at 32nd International
Symposium, North American Lake Management Society,
7-9 November, 2013, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Okada, M. and S. A. Petersen. 2000. Water pollution
Control Policy and Management: The JapaneseExperience. Gyosei Publishing Co., Tokyo, Japan.
Santos-Borja, A. and D. N. Nepomuceno. 2006.
Laguna de Bay: Institutional Development andChange. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research andManagement, 11:257-269.

World Lake Vision Committee, 2003. World Lake Vision: A
Call to Action. International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 36 p. Accessible
at: (http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/pubs/p2/wlv-p).

― 52 ―

Annex 1. Lake Basin Typology, with a Focus on Lentic-Lotic Linkages
Although each and every lake basin is comprised of a unique combination of characteristics, it is helpful togroup lake basins into types to assist those engaging in ILBM Platform development to find similar cases fromwhich to learn.
Historically, the field of limnology has used lake origin as the main basis for typology (e.g., Hutchinson, 1957),
and while these mainly geological approaches have been useful, they have been applied more as descriptions,and less for policy input, because of their lack of focus on the drainage basin. The Lake Basin Management
Initiative (ILEC, 2005) took steps to remedy this by formulating a typology of lake basins with a focus on the keyrole of water balance in management (Ballatore and Muhandiki, 2005). Recent work on the GEF-fundedTransboundary Waters Assessment Programme (ILEC, 2011) has produced a series of indicators which provide
a basis for a more complete typology that looks not solely at the waterbody, but also at a range ofsocioeconomic, policy and institutional factors relevant for ILBM.
The focus of this document, however, is on lentic-lotic llinkages, with this Annex presenting typology based onthese linkages. It makes use of the previous approaches discussed above, but also poses five simple questions
that can serve to elucidate, from a decision-making perspective, which lake basins are similar to others from alentic-lotic perspective.
The five themes are: Lenticity (how of a basin’s water is in lentic form?), Hydrological Position (howupstream or downstream is a lake within its broader drainage basin?), Connections (what are the major typesof connections between lakes and other water bodies?), Control of Outlet (to what degree is the outlet of a lake
controlled?), and Diversions (are there significant diversions of water diversions in or out of the basin?). The
28 LBMI lake basins are used to illustrate these various types.
Lenticity
The term “lenticity” was coined in the TWAP report (ILEC, 2011) to describe how much water in a given basin
is in lentic vs. lotic form. Systems with a greater percentage of water in lentic form have slower response times
to stress. This also generally implies a higher buffer capacity. On the other hand, they respond relatively slowly
to positive interventions.
Lenticity can be calculated by considering the total amount of volume in lakes in a given lake basin andcomparing that with the annual runoff generated within the drainage area.
Figure A1-1 a-c gives examples of the range of lenticity seen in the LBMI lake basins. For example, the Lake
Toba basin (Indonesia) has one of the highest lenticity values, given the small size of the drainage basin and thevery large size of the lake itself (depth of 505 m). At the other extreme, the Tucurui Reservoir basin (Brazil)
drains a massive area containing only a few lakes. The short hydrological retention time of the reservoir (0.12
years) reflects the “fast” hydrologic nature of this system. Between these two extremes is the Lake Champlain(USA, Canada) basin which, in addition to the main lake, contains a number of upstream lakes and exhibits
moderate lenticity.

― 53 ―

(a) High Lenticity: Lake Toba Basin(b) Moderate Lenticity: Lake Champlain
Basin(c) Low Lenticity: Tucurui Reservoir Basin

Figure A1-1 a-c. Examples Examples of Lenticity

Hydrological Position
ILEC (2011) notes that the farther downstream a lake basin is relative to its broader drainage basin, the more
likely it is to receive upstream pressures. Additionally, it is more likely to be seen as ‘important’ from the broader
drainage basin perspective.
One way of quantifying this “hydrological position” is to compare the amount of runoff generated in the lake’s
upstream with the total amount generated in the whole drainage basin. This includes not only the lake’s
upstream area, but also the downstream area of the lake’s outlet all the way to the ocean.
Figure A1-2 a-c provides examples of the possible range of hydrological positions. One highly “upstream”
case is Lake Dianchi Basin (China) whose outlet river drains into the Yangtze River and eventually into the sea
over 2,000 km away. Internally-drained lake basins (endorheic basins), such as the Lake Nakuru Basin (Kenya),
have no water outlet, except for evaporation. These lakes are completely “downstream.” The Lake Cocibolca
Basin (Nicaragua and Costa Rica) lies between these two extremes, with a significant upstream (including LakeManagua) and downstream (San Juan River) components.

― 54 ―

(a) Far Upstream: Lake Dianchi (b) Midstream: Lake Cocibolca Basin
Basin(c) Completely Downstream:
Lake Nakuru Basin

Figure A1-2 a-c. Examples of Hydrological Position

Connections to Other Types of Water Body
Connections between water body types have received increased attention in recent years. UNEP’s
Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) explicitly studies connections among aquifers, lakes,
rivers, Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and open oceans. ILEC’s 14th World Lake Conference had “Lakes,
Rivers, Groundwater, and Coastal Areas: Understanding Linkages” as its theme. Selected LBMI lake basins areused here to illustrate some of the more important connections between lakes and (1) groundwater, (2) LMEs,(3) rivers, (4) other lakes, and (5) the atmosphere.
Groundwater connections (Figures 1-3 a-b): The Lake Ohrid Basin case shows the importance of inflowing
groundwater connections to a lake’s water quantity and quality. Although there is no surface connection, Lake
Prespa drains through a karst landscape into Lake Ohrid (Albania, FYR Macedonia, Greece), bringing with itsome substantial pollution loadings. Outflowing groundwater can also be an important part of lake’s waterbalance. Lake Baringo (Kenya) has no surface water outlets, but its water remains fresh due to the loss of saltthrough extensive groundwater outflows (similar to Lake Chad).

― 55 ―

(a) Groundwater In: Lake Ohrid Basin(b) Groundwater Out: Lake Baringo Basin

Figure A1-3 a-b. Examples of Groundwater Connections

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) connections (Figures 1-3 c-d): There are a number of coastal lakes thatare directly influenced by water inputs from LMEs. For example, in the Chilika Lagoon (India), closure of thelagoon’s connection with the Bay of Bengal because of sedimentation from the lake basin, led to a marked
decline in the lagoon's ecological status. Dredging of a new mouth allowed seawater to once again enter thelagoon, thereby restoring much of its ecological character, as well as the livelihoods of the fisherfolk in the basin.
Lakes can also strongly influence downstream LMEs. A good example is Laguna de Bay (Philippines), which
delivers a significant quantity of water and pollution to the Manila Bay system.

(c) LMEs In: Chilika Lagoon Basin(d) Out to LMEs: Laguna de Bay Basin

Figure A1-3 c-d. Examples of LMEs Connections― 56 ―

River connections (Figure A1-3 e-f): Probably the most pervasive connection is between a lake and its
inflowing and outflowing rivers. One interesting case of the importance of inflowing rivers is Tonle Sap(Cambodia) which exhibits a ten-fold change in its water level when the Mekong River floods and enters thelake. In some cases, such as Lake Biwa (Japan), a lake can be of national importance because of the water it
provides through its outflow. Water from the Yodo River, for example, supplies drinking water for approximately
14 million people in central Japan, making Lake Biwa one of the world’s most intensively-used freshwater
resources.

(e) River In: Tonle Sap Basin(f) Out to River: Lake Biwa-Yodo River Basin

Figure A1-3 e-f. Examples of River Connections

Lake connections (Figure A1-3 g-h): In some cases, a lake’s water balance can be strongly controlled by
outflows from an upstream lake. This is the case of Lake Malombe (Malawi), which lies just downstream of Lake
Malawi, the former being a lake whose outflow is sensitive to annual climate variations. Similar to Lake Malawi,
Lake Superior (Canada and USA) has important effects on the downstream lakes in the North American Great
Lakes system.

― 57 ―

(g) Lake In: Lake Malombe Basin(h) Out to Lake: Lake Superior Basin

Figure A1-3 g-h. Examples of Lake Connections

Atmosphere connections (Figure A1-3 i-j): One of the often-overlooked connections is that with theatmosphere. All lakes, except perennially-frozen ones, have some connections to the atmosphere though direct
precipitation on their surfaces, and through evaporation. In some cases, these connections can be the main
drivers for a lake. Recent studies, for example, have indicated the majority of phosphorus loading to Lake
Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) is via the atmosphere (Tamatamah et al., 2005). This is due in part tothe lake’s very large surface area, relative to its basin area. For lakes lacking a surface or sub-surface water
outflow, evaporation dominates the water balance. Issyk-Kul (Kyrgyz Republic) is a prime example of how thisevaporation dominance over the years can lead to an increased salinity.

(i) Precipitation In: Lake Victoria Basin(j) Evaporation Out: Issyk-Kul Basin

Figure A1-3 i-j. Examples of Atmospheric Connections― 58 ―

Control of Outlet
The degree to which a lake’s outlet is controlled can have significant impacts on the lake’s ecosystem (Figure
A1-4 a-c). A main motivation in some cases for controlling a lake’s outflow is to reduce the lotic nature of thedownstream river in order to increase the ease with which hydropower can be generated. This indirect effects ofmostly downstream users on a lake is often unappreciated, being a key point of the whole basin ILBM approach.
An extreme case of complete control is a reservoir such as seen in the Lake Kariba Basin (Zambia andZimbabwe). By definition, these massive infrastructure developments are designed to convert a lotic system(usually a river with significant flows) into a lentic one. Except for emergency spillovers, all water releases froma dam, as well as the lake level, are controlled.

(b) Partially controlled outlet: Bhoj Wetland Basin(a) Uncontrolled outlet: Lake Tanganyika Basin(c) Fully controlled outlet: Kariba Reservoir Basin

Figure A1-4 a-c. Examples of Degree of Outlet Control― 59 ―

Diversions
The diversion of water into or out of a lake basin can have significant effects on both the water quality andquantity of a lake (Figure A1-5 a-b). In order to prevent flooding of downstream farmland, for example, theMuling River is sometimes diverted into Lake Xingkai/Khanka (China and Russia). Although the natural lakebasin has a low population density, the Muling River carries much untreated wastewater from large cities into
the lake. Diversion out of a basin also can have serious effects on lake water balance, especially in closed lakebasins dominated by evaporation. The diversion of upstream river water in the Aral Sea basin (Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan) for cotton farming, for example, played a major role in the rapid decline in the lake water levels overthe last half century. Part of this irrigation scheme involves the Karakum Canal, which also supplied water toareas outside the Aral Sea drainage basin.

Diversion In: Lake Xingkai/Khanka Basin

Diversion Out: Aral Sea Basin

Figure A1-5 a-b. Examples of Degree of Diversions

References
Ballatore, T.J. and V.S. Muhandiki. 2005. “Biophysical Characteristics of Lakes” in Managing Lakes and Their
Basins for Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders. International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan. 146 p.
Hutchinson, E.G. 1957. A Treatise on Limnology, Volume 1: Geography, Physics, and Chemistry. Jon Wiley andSons: New York, USA. 1,015 p.
ILEC. 2011. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme. Volume 3. Methodology
for the Assessment of Transboundary Lake Basins. UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya. 69 p.
Tamatamah, R.A., R.E. Hecky and H.C. Duthie. 2005. The atmospheric deposition of phosphorus in Lake
Victoria (East Africa). Biogeochemistry 73 (2): 325-344 pp.

― 60 ―

Annex 2. Lake Questionnaire : (Annex A of Lake Brief, as outlined in Box 9 of this document)
The components listed below serve as a useful basis for preparing a Lake Brief. Although the questionnaireshould 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 scientificcommunity in the course of revising and improving the Lake Brief. As many reference materials as possible also
should be identified for the subjects being discussed.

PART I. Characterization Information
1. Basic Information
PART I data and information is generally
1.1 Name(s)readily available from the inventory data source
1.1.1 In English (All official names ifof a national database system, if not available inidentified by different names in
the publically-accessible information sources.
different countries)
1.1.2 In local language(s)1.2 Location
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
1.3

1.4

1.2.4 Non-riparian basin (upstream) countries and sub-national jurisdictions
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
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 and Map(s)1.5.1 Population numbers, density and distribution
1.5.2 Other relevant information (maps, etc., regarding geographical, demographical, land use, andgeohydrological information for a 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)
2.3
2.4
2.5

Lake Length and Width (km) and Length of Shoreline (km)Maximum and Mean Depths (m)Intra- 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 they arecontrolled), Groundwater, and Water Diversions― 61 ―

3.2

Outflows (annual average in m3/year), including Evaporation, Rivers (including indication if they arecontrolled), Groundwater and Water Diversions
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 lakevolume/annual outflow)
3.4 Information on Any Long-term Changes
4. Climate
4.1 Monthly Average, Minimum and Maximum Temperatures (℃) and Precipitation (mm)
4.2 Prevailing Wind Directions by Season; Wind Strength
4.3 Seasonal and Inter-annual Variability (description)

PART II. Biophysical, Chemical and Biotic Data and Information
5. State of Ecosystem
5.1 Description of State of Ecological Health, including Conservation of Fauna and Flora
5.2 Description of State of Biodiversity Conservation
6. 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)
7. Chemical DataPART II data and information may already7.1 Chemical Water Quality (e.g., oxygen
exist
in the form of a database developed by thedemand; nitrogen and phosphorus [organic,
government agency or the research institution
inorganic, particulate, and total, if available]
dedicated to monitoring the subject water body.
concentrations)
Some of the parameter items may be regularly
7.2 Pollutant Loadings (tons/year) from Rivers,and continually updated through monitoring and
Groundwater and Atmosphereassessment. However, consistently updating this
8. Biotic Data (Main Species, Exotic Species,
kind of biophysical data requires financial and
Productivity Changes Over Time)manpower commitment, and is difficult to
8.1 Overall State of Lake Ecosystem, including
continue. National, regional and global efforts to
Biodiversity
support acquisition, compilation, assessment and
8.2 Phytoplankton; Zooplankton; Fish
8.3
8.4

8.5
8.6

analysis of such data and information is
Benthos; Avifauna
extremely useful and important.
Brief Description of General Ecosystem/
Biodiversity Issues in Regard to Littoral
Wetlands, Rivers and Atmosphere
Aquatic and terretstrial fauna in the littoral environments (e.g., birds and small animals)
Aquatic and terrestrial flora in the littoral environments (e.g., vegetation, shrubs and forests)

PARTIII. Management and Policy Data and Information
9. State of Lake Basin
9.1

Description of Catchment Area (including size (km2); general geography of region in relation to lake

9.2
9.3

andneighboring water bodies [e.g., other lakes connected in cascade]); Inflow Catchment System;
Outflow Catchment River System
Basin Hydrology (brief description of basin hydrology, including active and non-active parts)
Soil Types (refer to soil maps, if available)― 62 ―

9.4

Land Cover, including Changes Over Time (briefly describe seasonal land-use changes, via reference
to land use maps)
9.5 Sub-surface Drainage (briefly description of groundwater flows, referring to hydrographical andhydrological 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; Industrial Water Withdrawals and Facilities
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
PART III information is generally readily
13. Structural Management Responses
available as the basic inventory information at
13.1 Sewerage Systems
the government level. If they are not already13.2 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Systems
available, a reconnaissance survey may be
13.3 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
usefully conducted.
Systems
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 thelake)
15.4 Economic Sectors (major industries and production statistics; regional economic development issues,
including transportation, commerce sectors, livelihood issues in different parts of lake basin such as
coastal upland and upper watershed regions; gross national 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,
including access to information, rights to participation, access to justice system, etc.)― 63 ―

Annex 3. Six Pillars of Lake Basin Governance:(Annex B of Lake Brief, as outlined in Box 9 of this document)(A) Institutions (Developing Organizations for Action):<Fact-checks on the state of governance>b Is there a (are there) an existing lake basin management institution(s)?
b If yes, what do they do? Who plays the major role(s)? How well is the role(s) played? Is theorganizational structure appropriate? What are their strengths and weaknesses? How can their
institutional capacity be improved?
b If no, is there an organization or a program that should play the role(s)? Should a new organization or
program be established?
b What are the priority needs for further strengthening the institutional capacity?

For making organizations andprograms more effective for action:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>z 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?
z Is the institutional linkage between the national program and the regional and local programs (i.e.,
vertical institutional linkage) sufficiently strong in both directions? Do good links exist between thedecision makers and the stakeholders at all levels? If not, how should they be established andstrengthened?
z 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?
z Do 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?
z 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, voluntarycompliance, etc.), and how can such improvements be made?

― 64 ―

(B) Policies (Identifying Effective Actions):<Fact-checks on the state of governance>b Do relevant national, regional or local lake basin management policies, plans and programs exist?
b 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 notsufficiently effective, what are the possible major reasons for this deficiency?
b 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>z Does an overall national policy framework exist, with provisions for development and implementation ofplans for lake basin management (i.e., are there national/regional conservation plans)? If yes, have theplans and programs been properly implemented with relevant priority considerations and phasing overtime?
z If no, what specific provisions must be included, and how can such inclusions be realized?
z Do existing national/regional development plans recognize the importance of the sustainable use andconservation of lake basin resources?
z 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]; sourcewater protection classifications; etc.)? Have they been usefully implemented? Have they been effective?
If not, how can the situation regarding these elements be improved?
z 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 publicawareness, or both? How can their implementation be improved (other than simply providing more
funding)?
z What types of policy reforms have taken place, or are being considered, to address the sustainable useof lake basin resources? What is currently being done to strengthen institutional capacity, promote
environmental investments, and develop human resources?

― 65 ―

(C) Stakeholder Participation (Involving People and Stakeholders):<Fact-checks on the state of governance>b 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?
b Do good mechanisms exist for all the stakeholders to be involved in development and implementation oflake basin management plans and programs? If yes, how well are they functioning?

For developing mechanisms and fora
for obtaining public opinion and input:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>z How can existing stakeholder involvement be improved, particularly in designing and implementing
specific plans and programs in lake basin management?
z How can the involvement of voluntary associations, village organizations, CBOs, NGOs, etc., bepromoted to complement the role played by the government?
z What methods might be effective for stakeholder involvement (i.e., to allow citizen groups and NGOs toconvey their concerns about the plans and programs developed without their involvement)?
z How can the involvement be better promoted/assured for women, disadvantaged peoples, andpotentially adversely affected members of the community, particularly in relation to sustainable
livelihoods and improved living conditions?
z How should the stakeholders collectively enhance lake basin biodiversity, which often plays a vital rolein community livelihood enhancement and health status improvements in many developing countries?
z 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?
z When rules are developed, are those potentially affected by them involved in their development?

― 66 ―

(D) Knowledge and Information (Informing the Process):<Fact-checks on the state of governance>b What information and data prescribed in Annex 2 is available and, if so, from what source and how?
b 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?
b Are the information and data identified above sufficiently inclusive of pertinent local sources, particularlyof fishermen, farmers, housewives, children, and similar individuals?
b Have regular monitoring programs been implemented, and have they been proven useful for local
decision-making?

For filling the knowledge gap for more
informed decision making in collaboration:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>z 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 formore informed decision making?
z Does a database exist to support the common interests and concerns of stakeholders, including one
having data and information such as those listed in Annex 2? If not, is it possible for one of the
stakeholder organizations to play a provisional role to liaise with a global database, such as ILEC’s
World Lake Database? Under such circumstances, what data and information should be regularly
updated, by whom, and how can the updated data and information be widely shared for collective andinformed stakeholder decision making?
z How can institutions with data and information on a target lake basin, such as universities,
governmental/non-governmental research institutes, private sector laboratories, etc., increase theircollaboration without being too possessive of their own data and information?
z 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 for undertaking this role? If not, who (what organization) could play such a role, and how
should the role be undertaken to benefit the broadest range of potential beneficiaries in the basin?
z How can information dissemination to, and sharing with, the public be improved? How can transparency
and access to such data and information be improved?

― 67 ―

(E) Technological Opportunities and Limitations (Responding with Technology):<Fact-checks on the state of governance>b What technological interventions have been introduced for resource development (hydropower, water
resources, etc.) and/or resource conservation (sediment removal, sewerage and pollution control, etc.)?
How successful have they been, and what have been their positive and negative impacts?
b 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 addressed and, if so, how?
b What types of lower-cost and appropriate technologies are available and implementable, and how?

For identifying and applying anappropriate mix of technological options:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>z Have the adopted technologies successfully fulfilled their original expectations, considering that alltechnologies have their limitations, as well as unexpected increases in their application costs? If they
have not, what are the reasons for this deficiency, and how can the situation be improved? Sometimes
these technologies may shed undue adverse impacts on the lake ecosystem, particularly for large-scaletechnologies (hydropower, sewerage facilities, etc.).
z Have the introduced technologies subsequently interfaced well with the environmental and ecosystembehaviors 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 in lake basin management, with various stakeholders playing their respective
important roles.
z Are lake basin stakeholders sufficiently aware of the cost implications of technological interventions, andthe need for 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 costs. Still others may have both
high initial and recurring costs. It is noted that, even if loans and grants are available, the recurringcosts, including the initial costs to be paid off over a long period of time, and the operation andmaintenance costs, must ultimately be paid by the basin population.
z What have the application results of such technologies been? What types of technological and nontechnological solutions can be usefully combined, and how could they be implemented?

― 68 ―

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

For exploring different funding sources
and financial mechanisms:<Exploratory assessment for governance improvement>z Have past investments for lake restoration resulted in measurable improvements in water quality andecosystem integrity? If yes, have the improvements increased related economic outputs, with moretourists, better quality water supplies, greater yield fish harvests, etc.? If not, what are some of thereasons for this failure, and how can the situation be improved?
z Are both the Polluters Pay Principle (e.g., strict enforcement of point and nonpoint source pollution
control) and the 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?
z Has the responsible lake basin focal agency maintained strong links with the national government? Has
it been successful 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 ofregional/national economic development policies being in balance with environmental quality
improvement? A sewerage system, for example, may serve both to enhance livelihood amenities and to
improve the lake environment. While the former benefit must be paid for by the beneficiaries, the latter
may be paid for with general tax revenue, since it may be considered a benefit for the public at large.
z Are economic instruments (taxes; user charges; pollution fines; etc.) currently being practiced for lakebasin management? How successful have they been, and what are the possibilities for improvement?
What is the status of the application of more advanced economic policy tools, such as pollution charges
and tradable permits? What is the possibility of promoting PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) orPWS (Payment for Watershed Services) within the context of global interests in enhancing biodiversity?
What about the possibility of being part of the global movement toward establishment of a trust fund forprotecting ecosystems of international and/or global significance?
z Can locally-raised revenues from lake basin resources be retained for local use and, if not, what actions
might be possible to ensure such funds are retained?

― 69 ―

(G) Some Overall Governance Issues:z How should trans-jurisdictional and trans-boundary issues be addressed in the Lake Briefs, and how
should the regional and global governance improvements be pursued using such Briefs?
z What are the climate change implications, and those of possible adaptation challenges to lake basingovernance? How should the global environmental issues, such as the long-range transport of airborne
pollutants, and virtual water exploitation (the cause of virtual pollution at the source; that is, growing
crops in the lake watershed for exportation that leads to pollution of the lake, but does not affect theconditions at the locations to which the crops are being exported) be addressed in terms of improved
lake basin governance?
z 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 pursuing long-term plans and programs, etc.?
z How can the lake basin society promote the building and sustaining, rather than waning, of political will
to improve lake basin governance?

― 70 ―

Annex 4. PDCA Cycle and a Cyclic Process of Governance Improvement
Being a long-term and gradual process, lakebasin management typically requires a cyclic
process resembling the so-called PDCA processof planning. The PDCA process consists of: 1)
setting the management objectives based on
analysis of the situation [PLAN=P]; 2) evaluating
alternative strategies and actions to formulate apolicy [DO-D]; 3) implementing selected actions[CHECK-C]; and 4) monitoring and evaluating thepolicy in order to adjust it to arising needs[ACTION=A], leading to the first step (see Figure
A4). The governance improvement process, as
previously described in Figures 7 and 9, are also
cyclic, and resemble the above-noted PDCA
process. There is, however, an important

Figure A4. A Typical PDCA Planning Process

distinction between the planning PDCA cycle andthat referred to in Figures 7 and 9. The following section discusses this distinction.
First, implementing actions to strengthen the Governance Pillars of lake basin management will incurtransactions costs (streamlining the administration, reorganizing institutions, developing capacity, mobilizing
financial resources, etc.), thereby making governance improvement a slow, and time-consuming process. If
ILBM Platform members can share a common vision about the future of a lake basin’s management efforts, thetransaction costs will be much less. On the other hand, developing a vision also can be a very complicated anddemanding task, particularly when directly linked to governmental policy-making. Developing and agreeing on a“common vision,” particularly in a statutory sense, does not translate simply into having a gathering of interested
parties assembled at the ILBM Platform. The participatory vision development of an ILBM-Platform is actually
undertaken more for the purpose of public sensitization, in that the original vision could gradually be refined to fit
the accepted process of the Platform activities. Thus, the “realistic common vision” in this case of governanceimprovement is more to be fostered and evolved, rather than developed outright at the outset of governanceactivities.
Second, the vision pertaining to governance improvement being fostered, rather than developed, may be
explained using the concept of “tame” versus “wicked” public sector planning problems, and use of the PDCA
cycle in planning versus its use in governance improvement. The PDCA cycle is a concept broadly used todescribe a wide range of planning cases, including both the “tame” problems (i.e., private sector production
management planning and implementation) and the “wicked” problems (i.e., public sector planning andimplementation situations such as lake water quality and ecosystem restoration). Thus, we must be careful torecognize there is a fundamental difference between the two in the assumption of “governance readiness.” In
the “tame” problem cases, the implicit assumption for step a) PLAN (Agenda Setting), and step b) DO (Policy
Formulation), could be interpreted as meaning the “governance readiness” for the cyclic process isfundamentally sound and intact from the outset. This means, for example, that rules and regulations will beproperly observed and implemented, and that funding for implementing the necessary component activities areavailable, or will be made available as needed, before starting the cyclic process. As an example, in a private
sector manufacturing plan, the production target, product quality control, and necessary funds to be madeavailable, must be guaranteed a priori. The implicit assumption of sound and intact “governance readiness”
does not hold for the “wicked” problem cases. This means, for example, that the rules and regulations may, or― 71 ―

may not, be observed and implemented, and that funding for implementing necessary component activities
tends to be in a state of flux, and subjected to policy and political decisions in effect when the activities weredeveloped and implemented. Another way to describe the difference between the two (“tame” versus “wicked”)
is that planning for the “tame” problems is basically “output” oriented (i.e., most of the private sector planning isto produce a target level of output), while that for the “wicked” problems is “outcome” oriented (i.e., most of the
public sector planning is to bring about a desirable outcome). The meaning of the cyclic PDCA process for the“tame” problem is that, by going through the cycle of actions, the production of “output” may be optimallycontrolled by, for example, accelerating or decelerating the production speed. The meaning of the cyclic PDCA
process for the “wicked” problem is that by going through the cyclic actions, the desirable outcome must be
gradually shaped, while also improving the “governance readiness,” with mutual facilitation and collective
actions of the stakeholders-at-large.
Lake basin management may represent either a “tame” or “wicked” problem, depending on the defined
situation. Implementation of a regional sewerage system master plan to construct and reduce point-source
pollution loading into a lake, for example, may be considered a “tame” problem if implemented as part of anational program, with the necessary legal framework in place, and the needed financial and technologicalresources mobilized. The same regional sewerage system master plan implementation will have to be regarded
as a “wicked” problem, if some people resist the siting of the plant ‘in their backyard,’ or some individual
households resist investing their own money to replace their septic tank system with a flushing system having
connection pipelines to the main sewer. Much more “wicked” are problems such as improving the water quality
and ecosystem integrity of a lake characterized by extensively urbanized and industrialized riparian lands, its
lowland agricultural activities unable to control excessive fertilizer and pesticide runoff, its upper watershed
deforested and exhibiting occasional flush floods discharging enormous quantities of silts from eroded riverbanks and surface runoff, and the watershed’s rural population suffering from incidences of waterborne
diseases. These “wicked” planning problems in lake basin management are found ubiquitously throughout theworld, in both developed and developing countries, and they are often dealt with as if they are “tame” problems,particularly in the case of ODA (Official Development Assistance) funded projects.

― 72 ―

Annex 5. A Practical Approach in ILBM Pillar Assessment: An Example
Evaluating Governance Pillars in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin: <Based on “GovernanceMonitoring from the Integral Managing of Basins and Water Bodies,” A. Juarez, 2010 xxiii >Although the conceptual basis of ILBM pertains tolakes and other lentic water systems, theirrelationship with inflowing and outflowing rivers (lotic
water systems) also cannot be ignored. In the caseof Lake Chapala xxiv (Lago Chapala), for example,
which a surface area of 1,140 km2 the upstream basinof this lake is the Lerma River (Rio Lerma) Basin. It
extends over five statesxxv, and contains a populationof 10.5 millionxxvi. Covering an area of 54,000 km2,
the basin provides almost three quarters of the total
water inflow to the lake, with the remaining quantity
being mainly from precipitation directly onto the lake
surface. The basin also produces 35% of Mexico’s
industrial GNP, and 20% of its commercial outputxxvii.
The river system downstream from the lake, called
the Rio Santiago Basin, extends across five states.
Guadalajara, the second largest city in Mexico, islocated just downstream of the lake, and contains a
population of approximately 4 million people. It receives
water directly from the lake through a pipeline, thevolume being five times that which outflows from thelake to the downstream Santiago River. The water
quality of the Santiago River is very poor, since thecity wastewater flows directly into the river with little
or no treatment. The responsibility of managing

Figure A5-1. Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basinwater distribution in this water-scarce region is shared by three water management councils, one for the
upstream region, another for the lake region, and the last for the downstream region. Among other factors, thisfragmentation of responsibility and authority is a major factor contributing to the continuing degradation of thewater resources in all three water systems. Thus, evaluation of the institutional and policy effectiveness, among
the components comprising the ILBM Governance ‘Pillars,’ is an essential step in managing this lentic-lotic
water system for sustainable use, and maintenance of important ecosystem services.
A method for assessing the ILBM governance improvement, called the Governance Diagnosis System (GDS),
was developed in the Mexican ILBM case study project (A. J. Aguilar, 2010). It uses 10 indicators for each of
the Six Governance Pillars of ILBM. The degree of fulfillment of the governance improvement need is ratedusing a scale between “0” and “10,” with “0” being totally lacking, and “10” being totally fulfilled. All the indicators
were expressed in a question form, to be answered by various sectors involved in the basin management. The
set of indicator questions for the Six Pillars are as follows:
INSTITUTIONS
1. Do national and state regulations contents include mechanisms to promote collaborative work of thegovernment sector with civic groups, universities and other institutions?
2.

Do mechanisms exist for joint municipalities’ work and for linking the municipal level with and state andfederal agencies?

― 73 ―

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

What is the level of collaboration with existing research
institutions? Do platforms and/or joint proposals exist?
Are community groups (grassroots) experiences
considered for management of part or the entire basin
territory?
Do the productive sectors (fisheries, agriculture andlivestock) associated with representative institutions thatare functional and effective?
Do civil society organizations have representative coalitions
with defined goals and common actions for basin and water
body management?
What is the level of recognition and acceptance by thegeneral public of institutions involved in watershedmanagement?
Do mechanisms exist for collaboration (working groups,
coalitions and steering committees) that effectively andconsistently bring together different sectors?

9.

Does a coordinating agency exist with a legal structure toconsistently and effectively perform duties of linkage
between sectors?

10. Does any agency exist for basin and/or water bodymanagement with the capacity to enforce regulations andsanctions effectively?
POLICIES
1. In what measure national and regional development plans
recognize the importance of conservation and sustainable
use of basin resources?
2. Are there legal mechanisms (laws, rules, etc.) for a proper
management of the water bodies and basin?
3. Are there mechanisms to ensure policy continuity despite
the municipal and state administrative changes?
4. Do existing appropriate operational mechanisms (structure,
personnel, equipment, etc.) for implementation of existinglaws and regulations?
5.
6.
7.
8.

Figure A5-2. A Six Roots ofGovernance TreeHow coherent are the basin implemented actions related to municipal, state and federal policies?
Does the existing legal framework have a set of effective sanctions?
Are there efficient incentives to engage population in conservation and watershed management?
How well are current management policies geared to the interests of society?

9. How efficient are the implemented management policies?
10. How adaptable are the management actions when they fail, or in circumstances that allow its application
change?
PARTICIPATION
1. Is there a clear identification of the major stakeholder groups for the management of the watershed?
2.
3.

Are there consultative mechanisms to involve stakeholder groups in basin management?
Are there available training mechanisms to strengthen priority stakeholders’ capacities for a sustainable
management of the watershed?

― 74 ―

4.

Are there mechanisms of joint participation to make proposals and specific agreements for basin
management?
5. Do the key sectors consider that their representation in these spaces are being done in a transparent andeffective way?
6. Are the proposals presented in such participatory spaces effectively taken into account in management
decisions for the watershed?
7. Are agreements reached at the participation instances identified and recognized by the general public?
8. Is the performance of participants regularly monitored and disseminated?
9. Do existing participation mechanisms collaborate effectively to prevent and resolve conflicts between
sectors?
10. Are there support mechanisms to ensure participation of the economically weaker sections?
TECHNOLOGY
1.
2.

What is the level of coverage of sewage treatment?
How effective is the wastewater treatment system used to reduce solids and pathogens?

3.
4.

Are alternatives such as wetlands, composting toilets and other sustainable eco-techniques used properly?
Are industrial water discharges being treated appropriately?

5.
6.
7.

Is there an appropriate hydrological management to ensure ecological flow in basin rivers?
Are forest management processes being applied appropriately for the type of forest in the region?
Is there a monitoring system to properly measure water quality and quantity in the watershed?

8.

Are there control systems for agriculture originated pollutants (pesticides and fertilizers) to prevent theirentry into water bodies?
9. Is the control of invasive species (water hyacinth, fishes and others) effective and without harmful secondary
effects?
10. Do the activities of water bodies management allow the maintenance of quality and generation of ecologicalservices in a sustainable way?
INFORMATION
1. Is there reliable diagnosis of the ecological conditions of the territory (ecosystems, functions and biodiversity)?
2. Is there reliable diagnosis of the territory’s social characteristics (demographics, economic conditions, levelof poverty, groups of stakeholders, trends and attitudes)?
3. Are there collections of knowledge about traditional systems of ecosystem management?
4. Are there mechanisms for transferring scientific information to groups of government, civil organizations and
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

other groups?
Is the existing information updated on a regular basis?
Are there databases that organize the existing information?
Is access to existing information adequate?
Is there institutional capacity to use and feed back scientific and technical information?
Are there mechanisms for information dissemination through mass media?

10. Are there mechanisms for periodic publication (announcements, newsletters and magazines) on the actions
and the restoration process?
FUNDING
1. Is the amount of existing funding adequate to meet the basin management priorities?
2. Are financing sources maintainable in a medium and long term?
3. Is the available funding channeled properly to the needs of watershed management?
4. How transparent and reliable is the access to funding mechanisms?
5. Are there specific budgets for basin/water bodies management provided by local authorities?

― 75 ―

6. How well developed are private funding mechanisms?
7. Are there adequate state and federal budgets for basin/water bodies management?
8. Are currently international funding mechanisms applied in the basin?
9. Are the funding mechanisms available in proper time for their effective use?
10. Are there local funding mechanisms through the payment of fines and/or contributions?
Based on these survey results, if the assigned values for specific ILBM Governance Pillars were 5.0 (forIndicator 1), 7.0 (for 2), 3.0 (for 3), 2.0 (for 4), 1.0 (for 5), 1.0 (for 6), 1.0 for (for 7), 4.0 (for 8), 6.0 (for 9), 5.0 (for10), the average scores would be 3.5.
Two requirements were imposed on the stakeholder
sectors participating in this process. The first was that all key
sectors (i.e., municipal, state and federal government sectors,
civil society organizations, research institutions, private
sectors, and others), as represented by the selected
members, must take part in one or two Diagnostic
Workshops, depending on their design and duration. The
second was the preparation of a Lake Brief, an extremely
importantreference
documentformeasuringaccomplishments over the course of the succeeding
workshops. The Lake Brief could be prepared with existing
literature, field research and interviews with key people, using
a simple questionnaire form.

Figure A5-3. A Radar Graph of Ten
Assessment Scores for One
of Six Governance Pillars

Also necessary is a Stakeholder Map depicting the roles and interactions of groups and sectors involved inlake basin management, and a Description File of each participating member stipulating their “Resourcefulness”(i.e., areas of expertise, relational networks, recognitions, and prestige acquired), as well as their leadership.
The Stakeholder Map and the Description File are necessary to clearly comprehend the specific groups thatinteract in the basin, and the linkages they have with each other. From the gathered information, an invitation
will be sent to stakeholder group leaders to participate in the Diagnosis Workshops. The groups of workshop
participants are referred to as the “Workgroups.”
To satisfactorily lead the workshops, the workgroup participants are required to:b Exhibit a well-recognized career in their respective sector;b Know the conditions and problems of the basin;b Have an attitude needed to maintain an open dialogue, and the capacity to express ideas in a clear manner;b Accept the workshop participation rules, including respecting other participant opinions and viewpoints,
and to respect time schedules even for difficult topics being discussed; andb Take part in both workshop meetings, since the two comprise a unit.
For reasons of time management, and to facilitate good interactions among participants, the number ofworkgroup members can be set between 10 and 20, with at least one representative from each stakeholder
group. In the case of the Mexican case study, the participants identified at the outset of the workshop series
were invited to succeeding workshops to ensure the GDS scores would not be unduly affected by membershipchanges. Those stakeholders/people acquainted with the indicator subject tend to give higher scores toGovernance Pillar elements, while those distanced from the indicator subjects tend to give lower scores. Having
a balanced participation allows the rating results to be more realistic.
― 76 ―

In the first workshop session, after presenting its aim and structures, the participants are reminded that the
purpose of the workshop is mainly to address conflicting views among the participants, which the dialogue does
not mean automatic acceptance of divergent positions, and that exchanging of information may bring about
possible agreements. The workshop also serves to appease doubts about the aims of the exercise, themethodology employed, and the use of the final products. A commitment must be established to present the
final results to the whole team, as well as to deliver a written summary to each workshop participant. Once it iscompleted, a summary of the basin information obtained in the preparatory stage is presented to theparticipants, allowing individual commentaries on their experiences and knowledge be reported. The informationis organized to build a Timeline (list of relevant events for the basin, arranged in a chronological form) and to
identify useful Impact Stories (details of especially relevant events, either positive or negative) that will bereported in a detailed way in the final document. Before finishing, a review of the session results should bereported and a preview of the Diagnosis Set of Indicators to be used in the next session should be informed.
The second workshop session determines the governance indicator values. The workgroup members are
divided into teams consisting of 4 to 6 participants. The workshop facilitators present definitions of the Six
Pillars, and the associated list of 10 indicators (questions), both in written and verbal forms. Every team has 10
minutes to assign a value between 0 and 10 to each indicator. Once completed, all the teams present in the
Workgroup indicate the values they assigned to each Governance Pillar, allowing the opportunity to present
arguments regarding different conclusions. After augmentation (very brief and avoiding confrontations) the
Workgroup defines a value that reflects the situation of the indicator in a more refined manner. These
discussion activities are extremely important for establishing and/or to strengthening links among theparticipants, to update information, and to create collaboration platforms for improving governance, beyond theduration of the workshop itself. After evaluating the 10 indicator results of every group, the governancecomponent value is determined as the average of related 10 indicators. At the end of the session, the overallvalue of governance in the basin is determined by the average of the 6 components.
This above methodology identifies the strong and weak points of the process, and facilitates creation of Action
Lines to improve basin governance, favoring the efficiency of the decisions, effective joint actions among
sectors, and creation of short-term and long-term alliances.
In conclusion, the ILBM Governance Diagnostic System exhibited the following features:b Its results allowed the formulation of routes and effective strategies to foster an integrated basin
management, clarifying the specific importance of the stakeholder participation interacting within the process.
It also facilitated identification of key sectors and institutions to be involved in order to solve conflicts. A better
understanding of the specific paper of stakeholders favors collaboration among governmental agencies,groups of producers and other instances, opening possibilities of confluence to reach agreements;b By identifying weak and strong points in governance, stakeholder roles became clearer;b It clarified the sectoral roles, and helped develop consensus for developing and implementing
management plans and programs;b It increased opportunities for joint actions, leading efficient actions and reducing costs.
b Establishing a diagnosis allowed for monitoring the process to evaluate the improvement/setback of theGovernance Pillar indicators; andb The ILBM Governance Diagnosis System proved to be a practical instrument, with the possibility of being
duplicated in any part of the world, adapting to the particular characteristics of a given basin. In follow-up
stages, it is being considered for application to the remaining 17 sub-basins comprising the LermaChapala basin, and to promote its utilization as a management tool with the institutions and countries
linked to the ILBM Process.
― 77 ―

Annex 6. Past and Ongoing ILBM-Related Projects

Figure A6. ILBM-Related Case Study Lakes<Case Study Lake Basins Participated in the ILBM Governance Project, 2008-2010>
The conceptual ILBM Platform framework described above has been developed since early 2000, in
connection with various consultative and research-based projects in Japan xxviii as well as internationallyxxix.
These consultative projects include a three-year project identified as the ILBM-G Project (2008-2010) xxx. This
Project included some 20 case study lake basins identified from Southeast Asia (Lake Laguna, Lake Lanao, andRinconada Lakes in the Philippines; Lake Putrajaya, Lake Chini and Lake Bukit Merrah in Malaysia); South Asia
(Lakes Bhopal, Lake Hussain Sagar, Lake Pushkar, Lake Udasagar, and Ujjani Reservoir in India; Lake Phewa,
Lake Rupa, Lake Begnas and other small lakes in Nepal); Northern Europe (Lake Ladoga, Lake
Chudskoe/Peipsi and Lake Illmen in Russia), and Latin America (Lake Chapala and the Rio Lerma Basin in
Mexico).
1) Philippines
There were 211 identified lakes in the Philippines as of 2001xxxi. They include two major lakes; namely, Lake
Laguna (Laguna de Bay) and Lake Lanao. Lake Laguna is a shallow (mean depth of 2 m) lake, but with one of
the largest surface areas in Southeast Asia (900 km2), situated next to the main part of the Manila Metropolitan
jurisdiction. The lake basin has a population of about 6 million spread across 6 provinces, and includes 13 cities
and 48 municipalities, with a land area of 3,820 km2. The Laguna Lake “Experience and Lessons Learnt
Report,” prepared by Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) in 2005, was revised in 2009, following theabove-noted ILBM Guidelines. Lake Lanao is the deepest (maximum depth of 112 m) and largest (surface areaof 352 km2) freshwater lake in the Philippines, on the island of Mindanaoxxxii. It is located about 700 m above― 78 ―

sea level along the Agus River discharging to the Illigan Bay of the Bohol Sea, and connected to the Sulu Sea
and the South China Sea. The local NGO and the Government of Lanao de Sul, with support from LLDA, wereable to prepare a Lake Lanao Brief, reflecting the output of the ILBM workshop held in 2009. The “Rinconada
Lakes” refers to three sister lakes (Lake Bato, Lake Buhi, Lake Baao-Bula) located in the Province of Bicol,
Southern Luzon Island. Bato and Buhi are basically fishery culture lakes, while Baao-Bula is an irrigation lake.
The ILBM Platform activities have begun to be nicely integrated into the existing national program framework,with full recognition of its added value.
2) Malaysia
The National Academy of Science, Malaysia (ASM), and the National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia(NAHRIM), jointly undertook a preliminary desktop assessment of the status of lake eutrophication in 2005,
subsequently reporting that, out of 90 natural and manmade lakes, about 62% were eutrophic, while the rest
were mesotrophicxxxiii. The assessment exercise was followed by the “Colloquium on Management of Lakes
and Reservoirs in Malaysia” in July 2007, with a focus on development of a Strategic Plan for Lake andReservoir Management in Malaysiaxxxiv. During the course of developing the Strategic Plan, eight Lake Briefs
have already been prepared, including one each for Lake Putrajaya, Lake Chini and Lake Bukit Merrah. Lake
Putrajaya is a ten-year old manmade lake, constructed as a part of the landscape of Putra Jaya, a planned
cityxxxv inaugurated as the federal administrative center of Malaysia in 1999. Lake Chini (also called Tasek
Chini) is one of the few natural freshwater lakes in the Peninsular Malaysia. The main water sources contributing
to the lake is the Chini River (also called the Sungai Chini), a tributary to one of the largest river in Peninsular
Malaysia, the Pahang River. Constructed in 1906, Lake Bukit Merah is the oldest manmade lake in Malaysia,
being located in the north western part of Peninsular Malaysia. The ILBM Platform activities are being pursued
as a basis for the national program development, with a very organized plan to integrate as well as expand on
the ILBM framework.
3) Nepal
The Nepalese Government established the National Lake Conservation and Development Committee(NLCDC) in 2006 within the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation. The Committee undertook a national
survey, identifying nearly 5,400 lakes located in the low altitude, midland altitude and high altitude regions.
These lakes serve for various purposes, including being vital sources of water and related livelihood possibilities
for the riparian communities. They also support tourism, playing a key role in the preservation of biodiversity in
the Himalayan environment. The momentum generated though the initial round of activities will be expanded tolakes in the high mountains, the mid-hill region and the Tarai districtxxxvi. During the study period, individual
Lake Briefs were prepared for Lake Phewa, Lake Rupa and Lake Begnas in the Pokara Region. The ILBM
activity framework is expected to play an instrumental role in carrying forward the momentum created by
NLCDC.
4) India
Impounded (lentic) water systems in India, numbering more than one million, can be categorized into naturallakes, reservoirs, ponds, temple tanks, step wellsxxxvii, and wetlands. All are relatively shallow and small in size.
The proportion of manmade water bodies is much larger than that for natural water bodies. They havehistorically been subjected to three major causes of resource degradation, as follows: (a) urbanization
reclaimed a number of smaller lakes, drastically reducing their water body morphology; (b) water pollution due tosewage, nutrient-rich agricultural runoff, and toxic industrial effluents, which results in lost productivity andquality use in such sectors as fisheries, dairy, and recreational activities; and (c) failure of sustainable
management because of a variety of socio-economic, political and religious factors, according to one reportxxxviii.
The Lake Briefs were prepared for: (1) the reservoirs located on rivers (i.e., Ujjani Reservoir on the Upper Bhima
River, a tributary of the Krishna River; Lake Bhopal or Bhoj Wetland on the Kolans River, a tributary of the Halali― 79 ―

River); (2) the impoundments based on topography (Lake Hussaisagar in Hyderabad; Lake Anasagar in Ajimer);(3) temple tanks (Lake Pushkar); and (4) reservoirs downstream of urban areas (Lake Udaisagar and related
lakes in Udaipur)
The ILBM Platform activities have begun in earnest and have been actively pursued in most of the above lakebasins, with possible linkages to the National Lake Conservation Plan promoted by the National Government.
5) Mexico
The ILBM Platform activities in Mexico have focused on Lake Chapala (Lago Chapala), the largest, mostimportant inland water body in the country. Its major inflowing river is the Lerma River (also called the Rio
Lerma). This water system was selected as a focal case study lake basin in Latin and Central America. Since
its first workshop in September 2008, through the project entitled “Planning for Integrated Management of
Lerma-Chapala Basin,” a Lake Brief was prepared over the course of three years, based in part on three
regional ILBM workshops. The project was instrumental in raising the profile of the Lake Chapala Basinmanagement challenges by bringing together Lerma River watershed stakeholder organizations in many subbasins in parts of the States of Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacan, Edo de Mexico, Queretaro that have since
jointly been seeking ways to realize practical application of the ILBM Platform framework. Corazón de la Tierra,
an international NGO in Mexico, continues to play a major national focal point role. The ILBM framework is now
being promoted to interface with the State Water Commission Programs on lake basin management.
6) Russia
The case study lake basins are Lakes Ladoga, Chudskoe (Peipsi) and Illmen in northwestern Europe (LakeChudskoe/Peipsi is a transboundary lake between Russia and Estonia, while the other two lakes are locatedentirely in Russia). Their Lake Briefs were prepared as an initiative of the Zoological Institute of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. These Lake Briefs are the first batch of such reports in Russia, and there
is an ongoing effort to expand these activities to other major lakes in the region, including those in Central Asia.
These activities are expected to be linked to the activities of the International Data Centre on the Hydrology ofLakes and Reservoirs (HYDROLARE), the latter operated by the Institute of Limnology, Russian Academy of
Sciences, which is also spearheading ILBM promotion in other parts of Russia and Central Asia, as well as in
the Baltic Sea Region.

― 80 ―

Annex 7. Japan’s Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan
The Special Measures for the Preservation of Lake Water Quality (commonly referred to as “the Lake Law”)
was first enacted in 1984, and revised in 2005. It is one that specifically aimed at improving the water quality of
those lakes that are specified to develop a lake water quality conservation plan. An assortment of measures are
required to be implemented to achieve the lake water quality in terms of organic and nutrient concentrations, thelevels of which are targeted to be reduced to the ambient lake water quality standards. Within this plan, various
plans and programs belonging to other resource development sectors will have to be harmonized collectively tocontribute for the water quality parameter values to eventually to meet the environmental quality standards
specifically applicable to the lake. The details of the planning process is described in Okada and Perterson(2000). The descriptions on the revised Law, which now include nonpoint source control by designating theLake Environment Protection Area, is given in Kai-Qin, et. al. (2009).
The Law specifically targets mainly those lakes where water quality improvement is urgently needed, andwhich the Prime Minister identifies as “designated lakes.” The Law aims at: (1) Introducing special regulations
to control pollutant discharges into the watershed of designated lakes over and above existing regulations of theWater Pollution Control Law, and at (2) Carrying out comprehensive lake water improvement measures byachieving cooperation and consensus between the central and local governments for each of the designatedlakes. The comprehensive measures should include projects for improving sewerage water quality. Close
cooperation among the national government, local governments, private enterprises, and local residents is
indispensable in order to implement lake water quality improvement measures in a comprehensive mannter. To
that end, the national government decided to establish a “Basic Policy for the Preservation of Lake Water
Quality” which covers not only the designated lakes, but also all other lakes in Japan” (Okada, et. al. 2000).

Figure A7-1. Many Sector Plans and Regulatory Frameworks for Lake Biwa BasinManagement― 81 ―

Figure A7-2. A Cyclic Process Associated with Japan’s Lake Water Quality Conservation Plan

― 82 ―

i In fact, this integrating nature often provides the ‘trigger’ for development and implementation of remediation programs, in that many

symptoms of pollutant loadings become visible in a lake only after they have had sufficient time to become obvious problems. Thus, thecondition of a lake can be viewed as a type of ‘barometer’ of human activities within the basin of the lake. This observation has
particularly significant in regard to lakes because they are used for a greater range of human uses than any other type of water system,
thereby ensuring that such degradation can affect a greater number and range of these uses. Algal blooms provide an example of thisphenomenon, noting that algal cells require the same nutrient, temperature and light requirements in both rivers and lakes. However,excessive nutrient loads produce algal blooms in lakes because the algae have sufficient time to accumulate to nuisance levels in
the lentic environment of lakes, whereas this is not normally possible in a lotic river environment.
ii See, for example, “The Degrading Trend of the World’s Lakes” in “How Can We Stop Degradation of the World’s Lake Environments?

Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM): Towards Prevention and Sustainable Use of Lake Ecosystems” (p.6, ILEC, 2007).
iii Recognizing the unique resource values, and management challenges of lakes, ILEC has studied lake basin management experiences ina number of countries around the world, with the goal of developing a practical, rational and scientifically-defensible means of managing
lakes and their basins for the sustainable use of these resources. ILEC has subsequently focused on the resource values of lakes within
the context of ecosystem services, as originally defined within the framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
iv The historical development of the concept of “ecosystem services” is considered by some economists as a shift from the original

economic conception of nature’s benefits as “use values” in Classical Economics to the notion of “exchange values” in NeoclassicalEconomics.
v An ancient lake is a lake that carried water uninterrupted for more than one million years. The vast majority of lakes, including very large

ones (e.g., North American Great Lakes) are of much more recent origin. The short life of most lakes is due to continued sedimentationfrom sediments entering via their tributaries, which typically leads to complete siltation after several thousand years. In contrast, thelongevity of ancient lakes can mostly be attributed to geological factors, such as plate tectonics, which can counter siltation effects.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_lake. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
vi The Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) is a multi-sectoral body responsible for the administration and management of all

protected areas in the Philippines. Created through the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act, the Board decides on budget
allocations, approval of funding proposals and planning on matters concerning the ecology, particularly the protected areas. It is under the
direct supervision of the Protected Area Office (PAO) through the Protected Area Superintendent, who acts as the PAMB secretariat(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
vii The term “Common-Pool Resources” is synonymous to the term “Common-Property Resources.”viii See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons, in addition to Footnote 2 above.
ix In essence, her main message is that the users develop their own rule to monitor each other and improve their management by broad

engagement. Among them is the issue of common-property resources at the micro-watershed and tribal community levels. In many
developing countries, particularly in Africa, Asia and Central-South America, small impoundments in remote rural areas are often
communally owned, and their resources may be managed according to traditionally-acquired rights and their resource use conflicts may
be addressed by their customary laws. In places where there are indigenous tribes conducting livelihood activities in the lake basins, thegovernments are inclined to allow for their management practices to prevail as long as they are in harmony with the general legal
provisions.
x There is a wide range of important issues that pertains to ownership and responsibilities for lake basin management.

Who owns the lake

and the riparian lands and who are responsible in managing the lake water and the shoreline? Who should get the credit if the resource
value is increased by managing the water and land better, and who should be blamed if the value is decreased by poor management?
For these and related questions, the legal stipulations of ownership and management responsibilities are indispensable. In reality,
however, the blanket application of a single legal framework to the wide variety of resource values is not possible. Lake fisheries provide
an example. While management of the artisanal fishery must depend a lot on the historically-fostered communal rules of fishermen,
management of the commercial maritime fishery may be regulated with a stringent regulatory framework of international standard. The
issue of water and shoreline land ownership could be much more complicated, as they relate to the prevailing water right and land tenure
issues. They are often the subjects of continuous legal battle particularly in relation to the historic claim of priority allocation. The
application of individual laws and regulations may also become a challenging task in cases where the resource use is highly congested
and conflicted among the users (fishermen, water extractions, tour boat operators, etc.), among the use sectors (fishery, irrigation,municipal water supplies, hydropower, etc.), among the spatial implications (upstream- downstream, riparian perimeter, in-lake, etc.), as
well as among the temporal implications (dry-wet seasons, month of the year, hour of the day, etc.). The conflict situation can get evenmore complicated and time consuming to resolve in the case of transboundary lakes, particularly when there has been limited effort toharmonize the respective legal frameworks. The effort to compile the global experience in dealing with such complicated situations isincreasing, however, and the cross-fertilization of such experiences is beginning to provide many useful clues for conflict resolution in lakebasin management (See pp.39, 123, and 124, of “World Lake Vision Action Report”).
xi See, for example, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Open_access_resources for a definition.
xii The term Governance is defined in a variety of ways.

Some of the major definitions as summarized by IUCN (As part of the TWAP

― 83 ―

Bangkok Workshop distribution materials) include :1.

“Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels”

2.

“Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented, or not implemented”(UNDP)(UNESCAP)
3.
4.

“Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority necessary to manage a nation’s affairs.” (OECD)“Good governance is the transparent and accountable management of human, natural, economic and financial resources for the
purposes of equitable and sustainable development.” (Council of the European Union)

5.

“Governance means rules, processes and behavior that affect the way in which powers are exercised at European level, particularly
as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence.” (Commission of the European Communities-CEC)

6.

“Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process bywhich governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implementsound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among
them.” (The World Bank)

7.

“(Governance is) A process referring to the manner in which power is exercised in the management of the affairs of a nation, and its
relations with other nations” (African Development Bank-ADB)

8.

“Governance is about the institutional environment in which citizens interact among themselves and with government
agencies/officials.” (Asian Development Bank-ADB)

9.

“Governance encompasses the values, rules, institutions, and processes through which people and organizations attempt to work
towards common objectives, make decisions, generate authority and legitimacy, and exercise power.” (Canadian International
Development Agency-CIDA)

10. “Governance is about the use of power and authority and how a country manages its affairs.” (Department for International
Development (DFID)
11. “Governance is the process whereby societies or organizations make important decisions, determine whom they involve and how
they render account. “ (Institute on Governance)
12. “Governance is the process or method by which society is governed.” (nternational Institute for Environment and Development -IIED)
13. “Governance describes the overall manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise their authority to shapepublic policy and provide public goods and services.” (The Brookings Institution)xiii See ILEC (2005).
xiv See, ILEC (2005).

See also ILBM Training Module: (http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/ILBMTrainingMaterials/index.html).

xv See Annex 7 on Japan’s Special Measures for the Preservation of Lake Water Quality (commonly referred to as “the Lake Law”).
xvi PDCA was made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who is considered by many to be the father of modern quality control.

However, he

always referred to it as the “Shewhart cycle.” Deming later modified PDCA to “Plan, Do, Study, Act” (PDSA), so as to better describe his
recommendations. According to Deming, during lectures he gave in Japan in the early 1950s, the Japanese participants shortened thesteps to the now traditional Plan, Do, Check, and Act: (Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA).
xvii We refer here to the concept proposed by Global Environment Fund (GEF), as presented by Duda (2002), “Monitoring and Evaluation

Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects,” Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10, World Bank, Washington, D.C..
xviii See, for example, “The Degrading Trend of the World’s Lakes” in “How Can We Stop Degradation of the World’s Lake Environments?

Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM): Towards Prevention and Sustainable Use of Lake Ecosystems” (p. 6, ILEC, 2007).
xix Mushrifah Idris, “Tasik Chini, Pahan, Lake Brief” in “Managing Lakes and Their Basins for Sustainable Use in Malaysia,” Lake Briefs

Report Series No.1, Academi Sains Malaysia and the National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia, 2010. pp. 171-210.
xx Tan, K.W. and M. B. Mokhtar, An Appropriate Institutional Framework Towards Integrated Water Resources Management in PahangRiver Basin, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.7, No.4, 2009, pp. 536-547.
xxi For example, see: (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Tasik_Chini_Biosphere_Reserve,_Malaysia?topic=49560).
xxii This document serves neither as a source of information on specific aspect of lake and reservoir management such as lake water quality

management, nor on the specialized thematic subjects such as modeling or monitoring. See, for example, Holdren, et al. (2001) as an
example of such a resource material.
xxiii Prepared by Alejandro Juarez Aguilar, Director General, Corazón de la Tierra, A.C.

The author acknowledges the Instituto Nacional de

Desarrollo Social (INDESOL, Mexico) for financial support to conduct the project to apply the methodology in the Lerma-Chapala basin
during 2010; Helena Cotler and Karina Ruiz from the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE, Mexico) for helping develop the structure
indicators of Policies and Technology; and; and Masahisa Nakamura, ILEC Scientific Committee Chair, for taking part in the ILBM-G
working group meeting, to ILEC and the Shiga University Research Center for Sustainability and Environment for the financial support toattend the international meetings, to the participants to the Mexican ILBM-G project, and to Corazón de la Tierra’s staff.

― 84 ―

xxiv Details are available on the following website: (http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/gov-pro/plan/2010list/10/mexico_chapala_and_rivers/lake_brief-lake_chapala__mexico.pdf).
xxv Mexico consists of 31 States and the Federal Territory.
xxvi The total population of Mexico is about 110 million people.
xxvii Details are provided on the following website: (http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/gov-pro/plan/2009list/14arm_in_malaysia/ilbm_egm_presentations/mexico/03sergioasilva_lerma-chapala-presented_in_malaysia.pdf).
xxviii Development of the main conceptual framework was undertaken as part of a project of the Lake Biwa Research Institute (now Lake Biwa

Environmental Research Institute), Japan, from 2001 to 2005, and the Shiga University Research Center for Sustainability for
Environment, Japan, from 2005 to date.
xxix Among them is the “Lake Basin Management Initiative” Project, financially supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) andadministered by the World Bank (WB), and implemented by International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC) during theperiod between 2003 and 2005, for which Lake Biwa Research Institute also provided support from its own research fund.
xxx The project was called the “ILBM-Governance (ILBM-G) Project,” being financially supported by Ministry of Education, Sports, Scienceand Technology, and Culture, Japan. It was implemented by Research Center for Sustainability and Environment (RCSE), Shiga
University, Japan, with financial support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. RCSE received
support from the River Systems Institute, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA, and in collaboration from the Environmental
Science Department of the University of Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The ILEC Secretariat in Kusatsu, Shiga Prefecture, played an
instrumental role by supporting the project both in terms of logistic assistance and also partial funding of the participation of its ScientificCommittee members.
xxxi See: (http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/gov-pro/plan/2010list/10/philippine_lakes/ilbm_philippines_ppt.pdf).
xxxii See: (http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/gov-pro/plan/2010list/10/philippine_lakes/lake_lanao_brief_27102010.pdf).
xxxiiix Intermediate level of the state of eutrophication, or the state in between eutrophic and oligotrophic.
xxiv Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use in Malaysia: Synthesis Report of Eight Selected Malaysian Lakes and Reservoirs,

ASM and NAHRIM, presented at Final Review Meeting of the ILBM-Governance Project, 2-6 November 2010, Kusatsu, Japan.
xxxv Lake Putrajaya is an artificial lake, constructed as part of the landscape of Putra Jaya, a planned city inaugurated as the federal

administrative centre of Malaysia in 1999.
xxxvi The wetland areas at the lowest outer foothills of the Himalaya.
xxxvii Step wells are wells in which the water can be reached by descending a set of steps.
xxxviii Rast, W. and M. S. Kodarkar, “World Lake Vision (WLV) Advocated Integrated Approach for Conservation of Lakes in South Asia,” in“Indian lakes and World Lake Vision”, Souvenir, ILEC-IAAB International Workshop on Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM),
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India 28-29 August 2008.

― 85 ―

Development of ILBM Platform Process:
Evolving Guidelinesthrough Participatory Improvement
2nd Edition

Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU),
2-5-1 Hiratsu, Otsu City, 520-0862, Japan
http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/eng/

RESEARCH CENTERFOR SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTInternational Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC)
Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan
http://www.ilec.or.jp

Preparation of this publication was financially supported the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
Publication of this document was made possible by a grant fromthe Japan Fund for Global Environment of the Environmental
Restoration and Conservation Agency.