Lake Chapala Management - World Lake Database

Lake Chapala Management: Advances and Prospective of an Integrated Lake
Basin Management (ILBM) Process.
Alejandro Juarez-Aguilar
Corazón de la Tierra, A.C. Guadalajara City, Mexico. 44140.
corazondelatierra@gmail.com
Abstract: Lake Chapala it’s Mexico’s biggest natural
body of water. Its basin has faced severe pressure
derived of strong economic activities and lack of
proper regulations since1900. Since 2006 diverse
institutions have tried to create a coincidental
framework to push forward a management based in
ILBM principles. Several strong steps have been made
since then, highlighting the creation of the “Proposal of
Action Plan for Lake Chapala” (2006) and its lobbying
with government agencies, universities and civil
society organizations; publishing of the “Atlas of
Lerma-Chapala Basin” (2007, National Institute of
Ecology); organization of the “First Latin-American
Workshop on ILBM” (2008), which allowed the
integration of a follow-up group with precise goals to
be reached during 2009-2010; Lake Chapala
registration as a Ramsar Site (2009) and the on-going
making of the Lake Chapala Conservation and
Management Program.
These steps truly are the result of a long and complex
process to find/create common ground. ILBM it’s a
comprehensive and flexible approach quite useful for
this case. This paper presents the efforts made and the
outcomes already gained, besides the planning for the
next stages of the process to consolidate ILBM six
pillars, integrating social, economic and ecological
issues as part of a general framework.
Keywords: Chapala, ILBM, Management, Training.
1. Introduction
Lake Chapala is the largest lake in Mexico and the
third in size on Latin America. It has a maximum
storage capacity of 7,897 hm³ and a surface of 114,000
hectares [1]. Located at 1525 meters above sea level
Lake Chapala is a shallow body of water, with 8 meters
of media deep [2]. Lake Chapala it’s located in the
middle of the Lerma River-Lake Chapala-Santiago
River watershed (the most important and exploited in
Mexico), which for management purposes has been
split in two by national government: the Lerma-
Chapala basin and the Santiago River basin [3]. For the
purposes of this paper I’ll focus mainly in the Lerma-
Chapala basin (53591.3 km²) which provides water for
Lake Chapala [4].
Natural water flow into the lake has been strongly
affected derived from several human uses. There are
almost 552 medium and big size dams allocated in the
basin and long sections of Lerma river (the most
important incoming source) are often quite dry during
the non-rainy season. Linked to years of scarce rain,
lake’s tendency to fluctuations has been increasing,
making them more frequent and severe [5]. Lake
Chapala diminished to 14.41% of volume storage in
2002 and recovered only due to extraordinaire rain
seasons during 2003-2004.
Water in the Lerma-Chapala basin serves a wide
variety of uses (agricultural irrigation, urban and
industrial uses). This liquid is used by the two most
important cities in the country, Mexico City (upper
basin) and Guadalajara City (lower basin), both
external basin users. This diversity of uses and
stakeholders frequently has generated struggles for
water and difficulties to create integrative and useful
management plans. During past six years there has
been a tense calm between water users groups, after a
period (extending from 1998 to 2002) when the
desiccation process of Lake Chapala placed
tremendous strains on the institutional arrangements
for water management in the basin [6].
Lake Chapala plays a core role in regional weather
control, favoring maintenance of forest on 9 different
ecosystem types, has an extraordinaire fish endemism
(severely damaged during last 50 years) and strong
tourism potential, which is, until now, only partially
developed. Other problems affecting this aquatic
ecosystem are invasive species (mojarra fish), weed
infestation, run-off deposits; pollution derived from
agrochemicals, cattle excrement and cities’ waste water.
Main pollutants are phosphorus, nitrogen and organic
matter. Heavy metals (mercury and others), even if in
minor proportion, are also found in several areas of the
lake [7].
Since 1955 there have five attempts to create and apply
management plans, none of them resulting successful,
in high proportion derived from their narrow technical
approach, with very little social involvement in the
integration process. The most recent of these efforts
was presented in 2002 [8]. Another strong factor has
been that water it’s understood and managed by federal
government as a good, something to distribute to create
human wellbeing, isolating the fact that water it’s also
important to maintenance of ecosystem processes
which themselves serve a wide variety of services for
human population. Linked to the outlined situation it’s
necessary to mention the poor involvement of
population in conservation and land management

issues [9]. Generally speaking there is a lack of public
access to information and just few cases of
organizative development linked to improvement of
social, productive and ecological processes.
It’s relevant mention that Lerma-Chapala basin shows
depletion of underground water (1 to 5 meters, varying
depending of the particular aquifer) and that most
frequent struggles have happened between irrigation
farmers and Guadalajara City users. This situation
increases dramatically when lake Chapala reduces its
volume derived of scarce rain and water retention in
the upper and middle basin.
Federal government created the Lerma-Chapala Basin
Council back in 1989 as a mechanism to reach
agreements and solve problems related to basin’s water
use, but despite several advances in that issue this
space has been perceived (and frequently used) as a
political arena, often ignoring matters of water
recharge linked to territorial use (basin management).
Also due to conflictive points of view of participants
(representatives of urban, industrials and agricultural
uses, besides five state governments), the federal
government usually has used a very cautious approach
that generated slow changes. The Basin Council
emphasizes the role of water users and water agencies,
usually ignoring links between rivers with Lake
Chapala, forest management, crop planning and urban
development issues related to water recharge, quality
and volume. Also receiving small consideration are the
paper of researchers, universities, environmental
agencies and civil society organizations, which rarely
gained access to the council and only as speakers.
2. The Integrated Lake Basin Management
(ILBM) in Lerma Chapala basin.
2.1 ILBM Structure and origins
ILBM is a conceptual framework for assisting lake
managers and stakeholders in achieving sustainable
management of lakes and their basins. It takes into
account the biophysical features as well as managerial
requirements for lake basin systems, that are
associated with the lentic water properties of lakes as
well as the inherent dynamics between humans and
nature in the process of development, use and
conservation of lake and basin resources [10]. It was
developed as result of a Global Environment Facility
(GEF) project conducted by the International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), a
scientific group based in Japan, which analyzed and
summarized the experiences of 28 lake basins around
the world [11]. The experiences learned from the GEF-
ILBM project indicate that good lake basin
management requires: a) Institutions to manage the
lake and its basin for the benefit of all lake basin
resources uses, b) Policies to govern people’s use of
lake resources and their impact on lakes, c)
Involvement of people, central to lake basin
management, d) Technological possibilities and
limitation that exist in almost all cases, e) Knowledge,
both of a traditional and scientific nature is valuable,
and f) Sustainable finances to fund from all of the
above activities. These constitute the essential six
pillars of basin governance about which ILBM can
provide the overall framework for application.
2.2 Applying ILBM in the Lerma-Chapala basin:
first steps.
Despite the importance of ILBM as a powerful tool for
lake basin management it was scarcely known in
Mexico and Latin America. Understanding its value to
foster the Lerma-Chapala basin management and to
overcome the frequent basin users’ quarrels, Corazon
de la Tierra, a Mexican Civil Society Organization
(CSO) invited ILEC to take part in an Expert
Workshop and Open Forum named “World Lake
Vision: constructing an Action Plan for Lake Chapala
Basin”, held from November 1 st to 4 th , 2006. As result
of the intense three days work of 18 participants (12
Mexican and 6 foreigners, each one an expert in their
own field) a proposal of Action Plan for the Lerma-
Chapala Basin was created, which was then presented
to a wide group of stakeholder representatives (117
participants coming from the five states of the basin,
including municipal, state and federal government
levels; universities, civil organizations, farmers, etc.)
This diverse set of people received the information,
analyzed and complemented it, finally generating 135
lines of action integrated in six Strategies: Optimal use
of water; Prevention and control of water pollution;
Biodiversity management; Social involvement for
basin management; Monitoring of lake and its basin;
and Sustainable management models. The fact that a
proposal of this kind could be so widely structured,
based in sound scientific information and experience
from the expert participants and then backed up by the
wide range of attendants was unprecedented. The
document was checked and edited, comprising lines of
action to 117 to publicly present the document in
March 22 nd 2007, as part of the World Water Day [12].
Unfortunately 2006-2007 was a period of deep
administrative changes in federal, states and municipal
government levels, immediately after political elections.
So, most of 2007 and half 2008 were used for lobbying
the Action Plan document with new officers, to let
them know its thematic contents and to convince them
about its importance. A common perception was that
the Action Plan was (quoting a federal officer) “too
inclusive and extensive” meaning that no institution
could accomplish to aboard it completely and that
several stakeholders were needed to work together to
reach shared goals. As a result a frequent reaction was
to decline participation because that represented high
effort and (apparently) little political gain.
Nevertheless several allies were found in the process,
highlighting involvement of Jalisco’s state government

through the Secretary of Environment and Sustainable
Development (SEMADES); and the National Institute
of Ecology (INE, a federal agency), whose Integrated
Basin Management’s head officer took part in
constructing the Action Plan.
2.2 Developing guidelines
Given the hard path found to foster the Action Plan,
several inner meetings were organized and as result we
concluded that several conditions could help to push
forward it, being these: a) to distribute specific lines of
action among particular actors, to be reached more
easily; b) to promote the Action Plan at the
international level, which would help to get national
support for it; c) to use a sub-basin approach, to
involve regional stakeholders and make feasible to
reach outcomes in a shorter term; d) to create a
common ground with government agencies to broaden
visions and cement long-term processes.
Using such guidelines Corazon de la Tierra included as
part of its institutional programs action lines related to
ecological sanitation, forest management and
environmental education, with reachable goals in short
and medium terms. In order to do that, resources from
federal and state agencies were obtained and channeled
to local communities, mainly through the Sustainable
Management Program of Condiro-Canales Mountain
Range [13], a forest area within the basin, in process to
become a natural protected area. Activities included
forest restoration, making of an ecotourism
management plan [14], construction of wood-saving
stoves [15] and dry-latrines in rural villages [16],
inclusion of several tropical deciduous-forest lands in
the “ecological services payment” federal-programs,
forest management training provided to land owners,
installment of community tree nurseries, environmental
education projects with school children and youth,
among others lines of action included in the Action
Plan.
As part of the international promotion the Action Plan
workshop experience and its derived follow-up
activities were presented in the XII World Lake
Conference [17] held in Jaipur, India in November
2007, being distinguished with the Ibaraki-
Kasumigaura Prize for “its outstanding content”. The
case was also presented in the First Management of
Arid and Semi-arid Basin Forum, held in Argentina the
same year [18]. In July 2008 the experience was
presented at the international workshop “Sustainability
of Lake Remediation and Interventions” organized by
the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
and the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
which was held in Hyderabad, India. All these
activities were publicized in Mexico, alongside with
presenting in Guadalajara City of the book “World
Lake Vision Action Report” [19] which includes a
chapter related to Lake Chapala. These activities
allowed to create regional and national interest for the
issue, fostering the perception of the Action Plan
importance and feasibility.
2.3 The Sub-basins approach
About promoting this approach, during 2007-2008
there were several meetings with INE’s Integrated
Basin Management Office. This research institution
leads the federal agencies working in the Lerma-
Chapala basin and has strong coincidence about
importance of the sub-basin management. There are 19
sub-basins in the Lerma-Chapala basin and INE
selected five of them as priority, using as criteria the
existence of working groups in each one. Also, INE
and the National Autonomous University of Mexico
(UNAM) developed and presented in 2007 the “Atlas
de la Cuenca Lerma Chapala” (Atlas of Lerma-Chapala
Basin), an integrative book that presents in a precise
and useful way a wide amount of high quality scientific
information.
To raise the sub-basin involvement INE organized a
sharing-experience workshop during June 25-26 th 2009,
which allowed direct contact of 50 participants from
the five priority sub-basins, in an attempt to compare
processes, identify useful patterns, common challenges
and strategies [20]. As part of the workshop the ILBM
approach was presented, awakening a lot of interest
particularly because of its practical focus. Use of this
instrument by the whole five sub-basins groups (about
75 institutions including municipalities, federal and
state agencies; CSOs, universities, research centers and
even private companies) will be structured in a followup
meeting scheduled for December 2009.
2.4 The Latin American ILBM Workshop
Creation of a common ground with government
agencies (mainly federal and state level), research
centers and other civil society organizations was
defined as a crucial matter in order to increase direct
involvement in joint projects to achieve integrated
management of Lerma-Chapala basin. This was
probably the most difficult task, given the distrust
generated during past years between many stakeholders.
In fact, assuming the facilitator role as a civil society
organization represented both vantages and
disadvantages, giving us freedom to act without
political or administrative constraints and the ability to
move quickly or slowly according to circumstances,
but also making difficult to be heard by certain sectors
given the hard clashes generated in the 1998-2003
period. It was necessary to develop a preciseagreement,
long-term approach with several
institutions so that step by step strong relationships
could be constructed. As part of this “common ground
construction” it was clear that ILBM training was
necessary to raise the knowledge level and to foster
strong stakeholder links. A workshop was selected as a
practical tool, attractive for many institutions which

identified it as an opportunity to learn about this
approach and, simultaneously, present their own
findings and activities. The ILBM workshop was
directed to Latin America countries in order to have
bigger impact and to count with higher diversity of
experiences.
The workshop idea was initially presented to
SEMADES to count with a strong local actor
supporting it. SEMADES showed immediate interest to
back-up the idea, which was presented to ILEC
members during the XII World Lake Conference held
in India (October 29th to November 2 nd , 2007). Next
three months (December 2007-February 2008) were
used to define concrete times and contents of the
workshop, also to integrate two more Mexican
institutions, the Water Commission of Jalisco State
(CEA) and the Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios
Superiores de Occidente (ITESO, Technological
Institute of Higher Studies of Western Mexico), the last
one providing the academic backing-up to validate
academic credits.
A useful way to assure reaching of workshop goals was
to create commitment from the involved Mexican
institutions to registry part of their staff as participants,
counting with four seats for each organization. Also,
each one promoted the workshop call with their own
contact networks.
Response to the call was huge, showing the existing
need and interest on the issue. 55 requests were
received from Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, Guatemala
and Colombia, all of them being analyzed by an
Academic Committee. With the focus to have
dynamics that allowed close learning, the number of
participants was pre-established in 30, but the demand
forced to raise it, counting finally with 37 participants.
Also equilibrium in the kind of institutions represented
was previously defined, to avoid overrepresentation of
any sector.
Finally, the First Latin-American Workshop on ILBM
was held from November 17-22 nd , 2008. To foster
feedback, attendants’ presentations were made in
groups, putting together two to three of them and
opening question and answer sections immediately
after. This proved a powerful tool to create strong
analysis and exchange of ideas. For Lerma-Chapala
basin and Santiago River basin this provided the rare
opportunity for institutions to share a space that usually
doesn’t exist. Several participants expressed surprise
about the experiences presented by others, even when
they were working in the same basin. This part created
openness to different ideas which were listened without
intermediaries.
2.5 The Chapala Statement 2008
In workshop’s last part it was possible to define precise
actions to be applied in the Lerma-Chapala basin and
the Santiago River basin, both with particular
characteristics, processes and actors, each one with
huge problems derived in good measure from shattered
management approaches which haven’t took into
account the principles of public involvement,
developing of sound scientific information, complexity
of the basin’s components and need of long term
compromises. This last part of discussion and analysis
was defined from the beginning as the top part of the
workshop, to get particular products and commitments
to be followed up. As pointed by several journalists
during the opening act, there have been lots of
workshops, meetings, congresses and fora about Lake
Chapala, which have had little application or
consequences. So it was a public commitment that this
activity would have continuity and that it was part of a
long process started years before.
The defined points and commitments were:
General: Generation and operation of a task network to
maintain an exchange of data, to share experiences and
contribute knowledge in a rapid and effective manner
to continue ILBM development in Latin America.
For the Santiago River basin: 1) Produce a guide of
responsibilities and attributions of the institutions in
order to orient stakeholders on how to request
information, facilitate decision-making and reduce
conflicts; 2)Support and encourage strengthening of
CSOs internal structures; 3) Draw up a list of research
topics to avoid duplicity and overlapping and assuring
the practical application of research findings.
For the Lerma-Chapala Basin: 1) Create specific
alliances to involve the different stakeholders in
structuring and applying an action plan for the direct
Lake Chapala sub-basin; 2) Promote the creation of an
Environmental Education Center and a center for
documentary research; 3) Organize an annual general
meeting; 4) Integrate a descriptive case study of Lake
Chapala; 5) ILEC assumed a commitment to promote
the case of the Lerma-Chapala watershed as an ILBM
focal point for Latin America.
The mentioned points were prepared and signed under
the name of “The Chapala Statement 2008” [21], which
briefs the deep discussions of the all six-day workshop,
marking a clear path to be followed for next three years.
In order to accomplish the mentioned commitments a
Follow-Up Working Group was created, integrating 9
institutions (5 government agencies, 1 university, 2
research centers and 1 CSO), all of them working in the
Lake Chapala and Santiago River areas. This group
assigned to themselves particular tasks and
responsibilities, generating a 2009-2010 schedule.
Nowadays the Working Group has achieved a good
deal of advance in several workshop’s commitments,
being these: a) Presentation by the Human Rights
Commission of Jalisco State of a detailed analysis and
recommendation for Santiago River case. This
document it’s so huge and integrative that has been
named “the Santiago Macro-Recommendation”. It’s
composed with particular responsibilities assigned to
specific institutions, which are forced by law to provide
a formal answer; b) A proposal for strengthening

Santiago River CSOs’ structure is being defined
between one workshop attendant, IMDEC (institution
that took part in 2006’s workshop), and the University
of Guadalajara; c) Construction of the Lake Chapala
Management Program is on going process, scheduled
to be finished at December 2009. SEMADES and
Corazon de la Tierra are project leaders, counting with
federal government support. Management plan main
goal is to accomplish conservation objectives derived
from the Ramsar Status acquired on February, 2009; d)
An Environmental Education Center is being structured,
being scheduled to start activities at September 15 th,
2009.
3. The way forward
Despite the solid advances to structure an ILBM
process for Lerma-Chapala basin there is a long path to
walk yet. Our mean concern is that all current projects
and processes could not be integrated properly,
becoming separate or even conflictive parts of the
equation. In order to give solidness and order to the
structure there is a first follow-up workshop scheduled
for December 2-4, 2009 (one of Chapala Statement’s
commitments) with confirmed participation not only of
ILEC members and 2008 workshop participants but
also of representatives of five sub-basins working
groups, including five states government agencies
(linked to environment and water sanitation). There
will be also new actors attending the workshop:
funding agencies and the Lake Chapala Municipalities
Association, a brand new institution that integrates 13
lakeshore municipal governments. The workshop will
focus in reviewing process’ outcomes, problems and
actors, checking other countries experiences, regional
and international opportunities and menaces,
organizing a common plan according to six ILBM’s
pillars: Institutions, Policies, Involvement of people,
Technological possibilities, Knowledge and
Sustainable finances.
After a slow start back in 2006 there is now a fastspeed
process going on, confluent with a new dry-cycle
for Lerma-Chapala basin. 2009 has been a scarce rain
year and historical patterns seems to appoint that next
three to four years will be of water constraint, stressing
again social issues and facing a dramatic lake volume
reduction. It’s exactly at this point when ILBM
governance becomes the key issue. Our bet is that all
precedent steps have created a solid enough network to
push forward ILBM process to achieve shared benefits
both for people and ecosystems.
Acknowledgment
Thanks to ILEC’s Scientific Committee members for
their committed support to this process: Masahisa
Nakamura, Walter Rast, Saburo Matsui, Satoru
Matsumoto, Adelina Santos-Borja and Juan Skinner; to
Aurora Michel and Dale Palfrey for all the help to
organize the Ajijic-Chapala activities, their trust and
enthusiasm are quite necessary; to Helena Cotler (INE)
and Jose de Anda (CIATEJ) both incredibly capable
researchers and human beings; to Raul Medina for his
friendship and clear view; to Martha Ruth del Toro
8SEMADES) for her strong support and commitment.
To all people who work everyday to make the Lerma-
Chapala-Santiago basin a better and healthy place.
References
[1] A. Valdez, M. Guzman & S. Peniche. 2000.
Chapala en Crisis: Analisis de su Problemática en el
Marco de la Gestion Publica y la Sustentabilidad.
CUCEA, Colección Estudios de Posgrado. Universidad
de Guadalajara. Mexico.
[2] E. Dau & F.J. Aparicio (eds.). 2006. Acciones para
la Recuperacion Ambiental de la Cuenca Lerma-
Chapala. Comisión estatal del Agua de Jalisco/Instituto
Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua. Mexico.
[3] L. Arriaga, V. Aguilar, J. Alcocer, R. Jiménez, E.
Muñoz, E. Vazquez (coord.) 1998. Regiones
Hidrologicas Prioritarias. 2ª Edicion. Comision
Nacional para el Conocimiento y uso de la
Biodiversidad. Mexico.
[4] H. Cotler, M. Mazari, J. de Anda (eds.). 2007. Atlas
de la Cuenca Lerma-Chapala: construyendo una Visión
Conjunta. Secretaría de medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales/Instituto Nacional de Ecología/Instituto de
Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
[5] M. Guzman. 2003. Chapala, una Crisis Programada.
Universidad de Guadalajara/Camara de Diputados
LVIII Legislatura. Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico.
[6] P. Wester 2006. Basin Synthesis Study of the
Lerma-Chapala Basin, Mexico, for the Comparative
Study on River Basin Development and Management.
Research project. Netherlands.
[7] T.E. Ford, R. Ika, J. Shine, L. Davalos-Lind and O.
Lind. 2000. Trace metal concentrations in Chirostoma
sp. from Lake Chapala, Mexico: Elevated
concentrations of mercury and public health
implications. J. Environ Sci. Health Part A35(3): 313-
325.
[8] SEMARNAT. 2002. Programa para la
Recuperacion y Sostenibilidad de la Cuenca Lerma
Chapala. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales. Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico.
[9] A. Juarez. 2009. “Guia de Educación Ambiental del
Lago de Chapala y su Cuenca”. In printing process.
Corazon de la Tierra. Mexico.
[10] ILEC. 2007. Integrated Lake Basin Management:
An Introduction. International Lake Environment
Committee Foundation. Kusatsu, Japan.
[11] ILEC. 2005. Managing Lakes and their Basins for
Sustainable Use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers
and Stakeholders. International Lake Environment
Committee Foundation. Kusatsu, Japan.
[12] A. Juarez, R. Medina & D. Palfrey (eds.) 2007.
Propuesta de Plan de Acción para la Cuenca Lerma-

Chapala. Corazon de la Tierra/ International Lake
Environment Committee Foundation/Secretaria de
Medio Ambiente para el Desarrollo
Sustentable/Instituto Mexicano de Desarrollo
Comunitario/Comision Nacional del Agua. Guadalajara,
Mexico.
[13] A. Juarez, R. Velázquez & R. Aguilar. 2007.
Analisis y fortalecimiento del Programa de Desarrollo
Sustentable de la Sierra Condiro-Canales. Corazon de
la Tierra/Secretaría de Desarrollo Social. Ciudad de
Mexico, Mexico. Reporte Final de Proyecto.
[14] A. Juarez, R. Velázquez & A. Arellano. 2008.
Programa de Desarrollo Ecoturistico de la Sierra
Condiro-Canales y aplicación de su Primera Etapa.
Corazon de la Tierra/Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.
Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico. Reporte Final de Proyecto.
[15] A. Juarez, R. Velazquez, S. Zepeda & M. E.
Andrade. 2008. Programa de Educación Ambiental y
Ecotecnias para el Desarrollo Sustentable de la Sierra
Condiro-Canales. Corazon de la Tierra/Secretaría de
Desarrollo del Estado de Jalisco. Reporte Final de
Proyecto. Guadalajara, Mexico.
[16] A. Juarez, R. Velázquez, R. Aguilar & A. J. Lopez.
2007. Salud Humana y Cuidado del Ambiente
mediante la generación de Habitos de Higiene y
Prevencion para el Manejo de Excretas Humanas.
Corazon de la Tierra/Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.
Reporte Final de Proyecto. Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico.
[17] A. Juarez. 2007. “Constructing and Applying an
Action Plan for Lake Chapala Basin (Mexico) Based in
the World Lake Vision”. Abstracts of the 12th World
Lake Conference. 28 October-2 November 2007.
Ministry of Environment and Forests/Government of
Rajastan/International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation. Jaipur, India.
[18] ACLA. 2007. Resumenes del I Foro Internacional
para la Gestión y Desarrollo de Cuencas en Zonas
Aridas y Semi-aridas. 6 y 7 de septiembre de 2007.
Córdoba, Argentina. Asociación Civil Los
Algarrobos/Municipalidad de La Falda/Instituto
Nacional del Agua.
[19] ILEC. 2007. World Lake Vision Action Report:
Implementing the World Lake Vision for the
Sustainable Use of Lakes and Reservoirs. International
Lake Environment Committee Foundation. Kusatsu,
Japan.
[20] INE. 2009. Taller de Intercambio de Experiencias
de Subcuencas de la Cuenca Lerma Chapala,
Resultados del Taller. 25 y 26 de junio de 2008.
Toluca, Mexico. www. ine.gob.mx/menu-cuencaseventos/424-cuencas-taller-lerma-2009
[21] CDT. 2008. The Chapala Statement 2008, Public
Commitments of the First Latin American Workshop
on Integrated Lake Basin Management. International
Lake Environment Committee Foundation/Corazon de
la Tierra/SEMADES/Comision Estatal del Agua de
Jalisco/Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de
Occidente. Chapala, Mexico.