for river basin authorities to be estab-
lished. Prioritizing community water
supply and water for agriculture, the 1977
UN Water Conference recommended in-
tegrated planning of water management
(Falkenmark 1977). At the 1981 UN
Interregional Meeting of International
River Organizations, there was general
agreement that environmental considera-
tions have to be included in the develop-
ment of shared water resources, but not
on the degree of detail, nor on the weight
that should be given to environmental
factors; and, there was a clear impatience
among participants from developing coun-
tries to get on with development while
identifying positive as well as negative
aspects of projects (United Nations 1983).
Effective environmental management
must be inseparable from land and water
management and pursued in harmony
with socioeconomic interests in the catch-
ment zone (Eren 1977; Singh 1977;
Lundqvist et al. 1985).
Can one local government organiza-
tion represent all interests when planning
development in a catchment area or river
basin (Reynolds 1985) and how can re-
source and environmental conflicts be
managed (Bateld 1985)? What kind of
planning methodology is best applied (see
also Biswas 1985; Pantulu 1985; United
Nations 1988)? In attempting answers to
these interrelated questions, it is clear
that two conditions must be met if plan-
ning is to be useful: there must be the need
for desirable changes or for actions to
prevent undesirable changes, and there
must be the political will and ability,
including financial capacity, to put the
plan into effect.
Political will in developing countries
may be weaker than in developed coun-
tries. Indicative planningis conditional on
the total or partial approval of the differ-
ent social, economic and political actors
involved. Each of these groups has a
different rationality and, additionally, in
most developing countries, social and
economic inequities constitute serious
obstacles to participation and consensus
in planning and decisionmaking. Moreo-
ver, some of these actors may represent
foreigninterests withlittle concern for the
long-term consequences of their actions.
For example, Latin America has seen,
during the last three decades, the formu-
lation by governments of sound plans
which, however, were never applied. Like-
wise, Satia (1986) states that "many plans
bear no evidence of internal initiative
within the country but are rather fruits
of external pressure". Taking the case of
overfishing and competition between cap-
ture and culture fisheries in Laguna de
Bay, Philippines, Smith (1982) also advo-
cates a participatory and more decentral-
ized fisheries management approach.
In short, it is important to recognize
that existing planning deficiencies, lack
of coordination and difficulties in the
implementation of management plans
constitute severe constraints to many
sectoral and rnultisectoral development
efforts, which undoubtedly need to be
considered when addressing the environ-
mental implications of aquaculture devel-
opment.
Legal and administrative tools to create
or enforce rational systems for water
management, land use or fisheries and
aquaculture development are frequently
proposed. Experience has shown that in
some cases such regulatory measures can
act as incentives or disincentives. In many
other cases, however, these measures have
been difficult to apply or to control by
relevant authorities, often due to
inappropriate institutional infrastructure.
Moreover, these measures are often not
specific and therefore not effective in
eliminating undesirable uses of land and
waterresources. It is therefore emphasized
that there is a growing need to integrate
this experience on both the formulation
of adequate regulatory measures and