Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter
Vol 13 | Issue 3-5 | April-June 2014
River Fisheries of the Gangetic Basin,
India: A Primer
Index
1.
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Scope of this contribution:
an introductory note
1
The Canvas of Gangetic
River Fisheries
2
Geography of the Gangetic
Basin
2
The Fisheries Calendar
3
Habitats for river fisheries 4
Fish Diversity in the
Gangetic Basin
5
State of riverine fisheries
of the Gangetic basin
6
Fishing Communities
8
Large dams, flow
regulation and Gangetic
basin fisheries
11
Impacts of dams on river
flows and fisheries
11
Downgrading of fisheries 14
Fish declines and changing
practices
16
Problems with invasive
alien fish species
17
A critical review of
mitigation measures
17
The monsoonal fishing ban 17
Fish ladders and hatcheries 17
Fisheries co-operatives: a
vestige?
20
Riverine protected areas:
new grounds for conflicts
with fisheries
20
Compliance of fishers towards
biodiversity conservation 21
River restoration and
alternative livelihoods
21
Contact :
Himanshu Thakkar,
Parineeta Dandekar,
Amruta Pradhan,
Padmakshi Badoni,
Ganesh Gaud
Dams, Rivers and People
C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh
Delhi - 100 088, India.
Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/5
[email protected]
http://sandrp.wordpress.com/,
www.facebook.com/sandrp.in,
http://sandrp.in
Rs. 15/-
Nachiket Kelkar1 [email protected], [email protected]
1. Scope of this contribution: an
introductory note2 Riverine fisheries of the Gangetic basin support one
of the largest fishing populations of
the world. However, its fish resources
are rapidly declining due to large
dams, barrages and hydropower
projects, severely altered river flows,
fragmentation of hydrological connectivity between rivers and wetlands,
alarming levels of pollution,
riverfront encroachment, rampant
sand mining and unregulated
overexploitation of fish resources.
This compilation attempts to provide
an understanding about Gangetic
fisheries both from literature and primary/secondary data, from field observations as well as interactions
with fisher communities. Across its
range, the fisheries show indications
of economic unviability and ecological collapse, with violent social conflicts as an outcome of the contest
over scarce and declining resources
as well as politics and access. This
report argues that a major factor behind the serious fisheries-related
1
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Srirampura Royal Enclave,
Jakkur, Bangalore 560064, India & Member, IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
2
Primary, unpublished data presented in this primer are based on: Kelkar, N. (2012) Fishing for Scrap: Sustaining River Fisheries in the Face of Ecosystem Degradation, Socio-political Dynamics and Poverty in the Gangetic Basin. A Brief Report on the Status of River
Fisheries: Causes of Decline, Conflicts and Potential Alternatives. Report submitted to the
Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries, Department of Agriculture (branch), Government of
India. New Delhi, India. Personal observations are cited as (pers. obs.), and fisher perceptions and opinions, where mentioned are cited as (F.pers.comm).
1
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
problems is severe alteration of river flow volume and
seasonal dynamics by large dams, barrages and hydropower projects. Prospects for river restoration to benefit
both fisheries and riverine biodiversity are discussed. The
information provided in the report largely represents
floodplain fisheries and aquaculture regimes but also
notes other associated fisheries such as those in cold-water
streams, estuaries and wetland-pond culture systems.
The recommendations of the study are based on perceptions synthesized through lived experience by fishers
themselves, and are not merely opinions of the author21.
approx. 0.9_1 million km2 across northern and eastern
India, flowing through 10 states in India and also in
Nepal and Bangladesh2,3,4. These rivers form one of the
largest alluvial mega-fan regions of the world, and deliver huge quantities of sediment from the Himalayas
to the northern Indian plains and to the Bay of Bengal
in the Indian Ocean5,6. Most Gangetic basin rivers are
of Quaternary geological origin, and geologically young
and flow across neo-tectonically controlled landscapes
in the Himalaya and northern India6,7 (Figure 1). These
floodplains form a spatiotemporally dynamic, but highly
fertile and productive alluvial deposit7,8,9.
Box 1. This study A detailed, large-scale interview survey was conducted by the author in 2012
across 372 fishers in 59 fisher groups spread over
17 rivers in 5 north Indian states. The survey
objective was to document perceptions of traditional fishing communities about issues and
problems in fishing in the Gangetic basin. Of the
respondents, c. 90% singled out “large dams and
poor river flows” as the main causes for a neartotal decline in fisheries and fish resources over
the past 4 decades. About 90% people mentioned
low water availability and stoppage of fish migratory routes by large dams as the main cause
for fish declines. Almost 45% (from eastern and
northern UP, and Bihar) singled out the Farakka
barrage as the main problem1.
These rivers show strongly pulsed, seasonal flow and
flood regimes, from having low flows in the dry-season
to massive monsoonal flooding every year8,9,10. Floods are
the most significant drivers of landscape change, redistributing sediment fluxes with erosion and deposition,
and in the process leading to replenishment of river resources11. The rivers receive their water inputs largely
from glacial melt (north-south flowing Himalayan tributaries) and monsoonal precipitation (large peninsularorigin rivers)12,13. Together they contribute to the annual
rhythm of low (base) flows and high (peak) flows of the
Ganga River7,8,11. In their natural, unaltered state, all
these rivers have had perennial flows even across the
length of the harsh summer14. The biophysical nature of
the rivers changes dramatically as they flow from their
sources in the Himalayas or the Vindhya/Maikal mountain ranges in the peninsula over large distances5,6,13.
Flow and flood-pulse dynamics also affect thermal regimes, substrate availability and current velocity of rivers15,16. The dynamic balance of these factors triggers
opportunities for spawning, reproduction, population
dynamics and viability, migration and movement of
freshwater species17,18,19, including fishes, river dolphins,
otters, crocodilians, turtles, invertebrates as well as terrestrial biodiversity. The Gangetic floodplains shape
not only landforms but also complex human cul-
2. The Canvas of Gangetic River Fisheries
2.1 Geography of the Gangetic Basin The Ganga
(=Ganges) River, from her headwaters to the delta, along
with hundreds of her tributaries drains an area of
Image 1. The Sone River in the dry season. Poor river flows released by dams and barrages have serious implications
on fisher livelihoods. Photo: © Subhasis Dey.
2
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Figure 1. The major rivers of the Gangetic Basin (Based on ‘hydro1k-rivers-Asia.dbf’).
tures that attempt to stabilize themselves and
adapt to the constantly changing riverine
forces18,20. Biodiversity, hydrology, geomorphology
and social dynamics influence each other through
constant interaction and multiple feedback
mechanisms.
2.2 The Fisheries Calendar Diverse fishing practices
have evolved in response to the different forms of the
river: the fishing changes from cold-water fisheries in
the lower reaches of Himalayan glacial rivers, to floodplain fisheries across most of the plains, and tidal-estuarine fisheries when the Ganges joins the Bay of Bengal and forms the Sunderbans delta2 (Figure 2). Also,
aquaculture and pond fisheries are managed in natural
and manmade wetlands, tanks and ponds throughout
the region21. It follows that seasonal dynamics of river
flows hold sway over the fisheries’ annual calendar, as
they matter critically for the life cycles of several fish
species2,4,17. Fishers constantly track river fish population dynamics to reap good harvests.
In floodplain rivers, as floodwaters recede post-monsoon,
fishers record the highest catches in October and November, as large post-breeding and migrating adult
fishes (e.g. major carps, clupeids, mullet) become catchable. Winters, from December to early February, generally record low catches because many fish show slowed
behavior and limited movement. But in spring fisheries
of minor carps and catfishes record high production. With
water levels reducing, fishes become more concentrated
in specific river habitats like deep pools, where they are
easy to fish. Summer fish catch biomass is also reasonably good due to the overall low water availability2,4,17,21,22.
Figure 2. Schematic to show typical regimes of fish catch
seasonality and biomass harvested across the three broad
riverine biomes. The vertical axis represents fish catch in
relative ‘catch-per-effort’ units.
With the rising of floodwaters by June, access of fishers
to rivers in spate becomes limited, owing to the risk of
fishing from boats17. The flood season is also the breeding and spawning period for many commercially valu3
Dams, Rivers & People
able fishes, and hence critical for continued harvests afterwards. In estuarine and tidal rivers, the seasonality
is similar as the above, but fishers must have their daily
fishing plans based on tide timetables2,23. Fishing usually peaks at mid- and low-tide times; where access to
target catches becomes easy. In cold-water streams, fishing is largely seasonal, happening in spring and summer
after snowmelt24, as in seasonal peninsular streams,
which flow only during the monsoons. Wetland and pond
fisheries, due to the relatively stable nature of the lentic
water-bodies, generally work through the year, except for
a short lull in the peak flood season21. Pond aquaculture
follows intensive farming of fish and involves near-total
human management of fish stocks, and its activities are
determined by the species being cultured.
2.3 Habitats for river fisheries In the Gangetic basin,
fisheries are practiced in a range of diverse freshwater
habitats including natural and man-made, lentic (stagnant water) and lotic (flowing water) ecosystems. Natural freshwater areas include large floodplain rivers, nonperennial rivers, perennial and seasonal streams, coldwater rivers and streams, glacial lakes, estuaries, tidal
rivers, floodplain wetlands, oxbow lakes, grassland
swamps and marshes2,4,17 (Table 1). Manmade habitats
include dug or built-up wetlands, ponds, man-made reservoirs, dam reservoirs and canals. To the fisher, flow
velocity, depth profile, substrate type, vegetation structure, current patterns and habitat stability are key indicators for fishing effort allocation and logistical decisions2.
April-June 2014
Broadly, cold-water stream habitats may be classified as
pools, runs and riffles based on conditions of current flow,
substrate, topography and depth. A similar classification
exists for large floodplain rivers, but due to the significantly higher biophysical complexity, multiple in-river
habitats are also identified.
In-river habitats utilized by floodplain fisheries include
deep river pools with eddy countercurrents, erodible
banks, shallow depositional channels, near point bars
and alluvial islands, meandering reaches, braided channels and confluence zones6,7,9,10,13,15. Among these, deep
pools and confluence zones are highly preferred by fishers due to the settlement of and constant movement of
fish populations in and across these reaches25 (Figure
3). Not just the main river channel, but connected
sideward channels and channel mixing zones are nutrient-rich and therefore, important habitats for many
fishes26,27. Small-sized and juvenile fishes typically enter smaller channels and tributaries, and adults of some
species may visit flood-connected wetlands for spawning17. Fishers often select fishing floodplain river habitats based on fish life stages and size-bias and not only
species preference. While strong preferences for fish
species exist in any fishery based on cultural traits and
availability, an equal, if not more important target, is to
catch large-sized fishes. Size-preference in fisheries also
matters for gear types to be used, e.g. determining the
specific mesh- or hook-sizes for use in nets, lines and
traps2,28.
Figure 3. River habitats in a typical Gangetic floodplain riverscape. Diagram made from freely available
LandSat image (2008) of the Ganga and Kosi Rivers taken from USGS Earth Explorer.
4
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Higher diversity of habitats and fishing practices exists
in estuarine areas, based on tidal regime and extent of
influence of tidal seawater, salinity, retention of water
and sediment deposition. Currents and freshwater-brackish water-saline gradients also matter considerably for
fish production. Estuarine fisheries generally are juvenile fisheries, as many marine and freshwater species
use these highly productive habitats for breeding17. So
the fishing is typically biased to fish sizes smaller than
the respective adult sizes of the harvested species. In
floodplain wetlands and ponds, vegetation, nutrient retention, depth and seasonal habitat connectivity with
flowing water or recharge areas influence natural wildcapture fisheries. Wetland fisheries are either partially
or completely managed by people, and are used for multiple economic purposes allied to fishing: aquatic food
plant and grass cultivation, shellfish, fish and mollusc
cultivation or harvest and domestic uses29. Pond aquaculture involves artificial/man-made creation of impoundments and water storage tanks, or direct use of dam reservoirs. These water bodies are regularly seeded with fish
spawn and fry, which grow in the standing lentic water
bodies and are harvested based on market demand21,30.
2.4 Fish Diversity in the Gangetic Basin
The overall species pool of the Gangetic fish assemblage
is estimated at around 300 species (53+ families, 150+
Table 1. Fisheries and their freshwater habitat diversity in the Gangetic basin3.
Fisheries
3
Habitats
Range and
Distribution
Major
fishing targets
Major threats
Snow trout, Mahseer
‘Run of river’ Hydropower
projects, climate change and
glacial melt, destructive
fishing methods, blockage of
migratory routes
Haryana, Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar,
Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh, Jharkhand,
West Bengal,Mainly
the Ganga, Yamuna,
Ghaghra, Sone,
Chambal, Gandak,
Kosi, Damodar and
Hooghly rivers
Over 60 species of
freshwater fishes,
with some seasonal
catadromous migrants such as the
highly prized Hilsa,
major carps, minor
carps and large
catfishes
Large dams and barrages,
reduced flow volume, altered
erosion and deposition
processes, siltation, thermal
regime change, destructive
fishing practices, pollution
Sunderbans, West
Bengal
Over 125 species of
estuarine, freshwater
and marine fishes,
and prawns
Poor freshwater flows reaching estuaries because of large
dams, saline ingress, freshwater vegetation and mangrove die-offs
Cultured Carps,
Channa, Puntius,
Anabas, invasive
alien fishes such as
Tilapia, Pangasiodon,
African Catfish etc.
Wetland reclamation and
destruction, agriculture
conversion to residential
areas, poisoning, loss of
connectivity with flowing
rivers, overfishing, exotic
species, pollution
Catfish-dominated
fisheries
Reduced freshwater flows,
reclamation for agriculture
Cold-water
fisheries
Glacial streams, Himalayan rangestates (Uttarakhand,
high-altitude
Sikkim) and Nepal
lakes
Floodplain
fisheries
Large river
channels, floodplain wetlands,
lowland streams
Estuarine
fisheries
Tidal rivers,
mangroves
Wetland/
Pond fishing
and aquaculture
Kosi-Gandak-SarjyuFloodplain
Rapti areas, dam sites
wetlands, built
or dug ponds,
oxbows / mouns,
makhana –
jangal areas,
dam reservoirs
Grassland
swamps and
marshes
Swamps and
grassland water
bodies
Terai region, Himalayan foothills
Based on 2,4,17
5
Dams, Rivers & People
The Hilsa is an anadromous migrant that travels several kilometers upriver from estuaries to
spawn.
The construction of the Farakka barrage in West
Bengal in 1971 led to blocking of Hilsa migratory routes have caused a nearly 99.9% reduction in Hilsa population recruitment across their
old distribution range upstream2,17,32.
Most catadromous and anadromous fishes
whose movement corridors have been cut
off by moderate and large dams have met a
similar fate. These include the Swamp Eel
Anguilla benghalensis, Sciaenids and large
catfishes such as Pangasius and
Silonia1,2,34,35.
genera; 250 species)31. The floodplain fisheries are dominated by major and minor carps (Cyprinidae), catfishes
(Siluriformes: 6-7 families), Clupeidae, Notopteridae and
a mix of many other families. Major carps and the Clupeid fish, Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) and some large catfishes form the most valued catches across most parts
of the Gangetic floodplains2.
Major carps, the most preferred freshwater food fishes,
include species like Catla, Rohu, Mrigal, Mahseer etc.
exhibit potamodromous (along freshwater upstreamdownstream gradients) migration. Though these fishes
have suffered serious declines due to overfishing, pollution and dams, they have been mass-produced through
artificial rearing in pond aquaculture36. Farmed large
carps form the major proportion of fish eaten anywhere
in India today21. In wild fisheries, catfishes come lower
in the preference order, but with the decline of carps,
medium and small catfishes have become the main fishing targets. Further, as most catfishes are sedentary and
do not show long-distance movements, the fisheries have
completely switched from carp- to catfish-targeting fisheries37,38. Other deep-bodied, highly sought after fishes
include the Chitala and Notopterus, or the featherfishes,
and mullet.
The estuarine fishery in the Hooghly and Sunderbans
tidal rivers in West Bengal is dominated by shellfish
(prawns, mud crabs and shrimp)23 , Clupeidae and
Engraulidae, Sciaenidae, catfishes of the Ariidae and a
far more diverse set of families compared to truly inland fisheries. Other important components of the commercial fisheries include 5-6 species of shellfishes
(mainly prawn and shrimp). Macrobrachium rosenbergii
and M. nobilis are migratory prawns that breed in fresh6
April-June 2014
water insofar as up to 500 km from the estuaries17,39. In
estuarine areas, Penaeus indicus, Metapenaeus sp.,
Penaeus semisulcatus and P. monodon are highly preferred prawns. However, artificial prawn culture in rearing pens in several estuarine areas is rapidly taking over.
It has been very harmful to local fishes through habitat
encroachment, use of poisonous fumigants and medicines, and the spread of disease40. Estuaries contribute
an even more diverse assemblage including both freshwater and marine species (e.g. Perciform fishes,
Polynemids, Sciaenids and Mullet), partially or fully
dependent on the productive estuarine zones for breeding, migratory movements, and juvenile growth.
Coldwater fisheries specialize on large-bodied, rapidsloving potamodromous migrant fishes such as Mahseer
and Snow Trout24. These fishes are of high commercial
importance and are in high demand by professional sport
fishers and anglers, apart from being highly prized as
food locally. Mahseer in particular, have recently led to
the opening of new markets of luxury wildlife tourism
that is based on angling and recreation in the Western
Himalaya41,42.
Floodplain wetlands may be used either for wild capture of juvenile carps, or even for culture of fish seed to
adult, marketable sizes if wetlands are sufficiently large
and perennial water sources. Fisheries in vegetated
wetlands and mouns (oxbows), distributed along the
antecedent tributaries of the Gandak-Ghaghra-Kosi rivers, are dominated by ‘blackfish’ (i.e. vegetation dwelling fishes) such as Channa and Anabas29. Dam reservoir fisheries are almost entirely based on managed
stocking and breeding of commercial fishes in hatcheries, of major carps Catla, Rohu and Mrigal, catfishes
like Pangasiodon, and minor catfishes33,43. Table 2, Figure 4 and the Appendix provide detailed information on
fish species diversity, ecology and population trends. The
state of river fisheries in the Gangetic basin has been
affected over the last few decades by several threats
described in the next section.
2.5 State of riverine fisheries of the Gangetic basin Statistics tell us that India has a booming inland
fisheries production sector, which has recorded a tremendous rise in production over the last two decades.
Inland fisheries contribute approximately to 2% of
India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to almost
5.5% of its agricultural GDP21. However, these numbers
completely mask the contribution of riverine fisheries
to the economy. In fact, the rapid expansion and intensification of pond-based commercial aquaculture accounts for up to 80% (or more) of total inland fisheries
of India58. Annual production estimates for 45,000 km
of fisheries-viable river length are around 300 kg/km,
which has been recognized as considerably low and degraded. River fisheries of the Gangetic basin have also
been a consistently loss-making and underperforming
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Table 2. Trends in commercially valued fish species: extinctions and declines (F.pers.comm1).
Commercially valuable fish species
Near-extinction and commercial collapse almost
entirely across range
Hilsa Tenualosa ilisha (Clupeidae)
Eel Anguilla benghalensis (Anguillidae)
Mystus menoda (Bagridae)
Freshwater stingray Pastinachus sephen (Dasyatidae)
Giant Catfish Pangasius pangasius (Pangasiidae)
Silonia silondia (Siluridae)
Freshwater prawns
Macrobrachium rosenbergii, M. nobilis
Sawfish Anoxypristis cuspidata, Pristis zijsron (Pristidae)
Ghorchelwa Securicula gora (Cyprinidae)
Ilisha sp. (Clupeidae)
Fishes with serious declines (=>70%)
Mahseer Tor tor, T. putitora (Cyprinidae)
Rohu Labeo rohita
Mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala
Jalkapoor Clupisoma garrua
Boal Wallago attu
Knifefish Chitala chitala
Heteropneustes fossilis
Sicamugil cascasia
Bagarius bagarius
Johnius sps.
Notopterus notopterus
Cirrhinus reba
Snakeheads especially Channa marulius
Fishes with low to moderate decline (20-50%)
Aspidopariya morar
Salmostoma bacaila
Labeo calbasu
Labeo gonius
Rita rita
Sperata aor, S. seenghala
Ailia coila
Eutropichthys vacha
Labeo angra, Labeo bata
Xenentodon cancila
Rhinomugil corsula
Mastacembelus armatus, M. pancalus
Anabas testudineus
Mystus sp. (Bagridae)
Ompok sp. (Siluridae)
Fishes increased, and commonly available through pond culture
Oreochromis nilotica*, Oreochromis mossambica*
Common Carp*, Chinese Carp* Cyprinus carpio
Silver Carp*, Grass Carp*, Bighead Carp*
Ctenopharyngodon sp., Hypophthalmicthys sp.
Red-bellied Pacu* Pygocentrus nattereri
Pangasionodon hypophthalmus*
Local name(s)
Hilsa, Ilish
Banbir, Baamacchh, Banbouchh
Benoda, Belonda
Sankuch, Saukchi
Jaysar, Yasal, Pangaas
Sillan, Siland
Gurla, Gorla, Jhangud,
Jhinga, Godra
Chirunimaachh
Ghorchelwa, Gora
Chandana Ilish
Reasons cited
Farakka barrage, major
dams and barrages along
rivers, and along the Nepal
border, decline in freshwater
flows, pollution, overfishing,
trawling nets that exploit
larvae of clupeid fishes
Mandras, Mansaar, Mahseer
Rohu, Rui
Mirka, Mirgal, Naini
Jalkapoor, Gahrua bachwa
Boal, Buari, Buar
Chital, Moi
Singhi
Khaksi
Baghar, Gounchh
Bhola, Bholwa
Pathra
Raiya
Garai, Soul
Dams and barrages blocking
fish movements, hydropower
projects, pollution, use of
poisons and destructive nets
such as mosquito-nets and
beach-seine nets, overfishing,
loss of river vegetation,
reduction in flows and river
depth
Pihor, Hardi, Gardi
Chelwa
Kalbos, Karonti
Kursa
Ritha, Ghegla
Ar, Aria, Tengda, Dheegar
Sutri
Vacha, Bachwa
Gardi, Chepua, Bata
Kawwalol, Totamaachh, Kankila
Natera, Udan, Arwari
Baam, Bami, Gen, Gainchi
Kawai
Palwa
Pabda, Popta, Laanchh
Reduction in flows, destructive
fishing, overfishing, bank habitat degradation, pollution,
trawling, dams and barrages
Tilapi, Jalebi, Tilpia
Chinese
Gilasi, Biket, Silbhar etc.
(derived names)
Rupchand
Talab ka Pangas
Pond culture introductions of
these fishes have led to risky
ecological invasions into
natural water-bodies, such as
wetlands and rivers. These
fishes are very dangerous
and causing declines in
native fishes. (*Indicates
invasive species populations that must be curbed)
7
Dams, Rivers & People
sector, with almost 90% declines (26 kg/ha/yr to 2.5 kg/
ha/yr) in the last 4 decades2,57,58,59. This marks a failure
in terms of economic productive efficiency irrespective
of the ownership and control regimes under which
Gangetic fisheries are continuing today2,4,48,49.
Fisheries across India have been severely affected by
dams, flow regulation and associated human impacts,
which have substantially altered ecological requirements
of fisheries and biodiversity together2,4,34,35,44,60. If one
clinically investigated the fisheries’ decline, they
would find it to coincide with the period of maximum dam building (1970s-80s) in India56,103. Most
commercially valuable fish species, especially major carps
and Hilsa, have shown population-level collapse and even
commercial extinction over large inland waters2,34,35,56,60.
Reduction in harvested fish size-class distributions, a classical indicator of overexploitation by fisheries, points to
poor fish recruitment and adult survival, which may be
further brought down by flow regulation by dams35,56,60.
Dams have acted as the major factor of disruption by
blocking migratory routes of upriver or estuarine spawning fishes such as Hilsa and Anguilla eels. Dams have
also caused loss of genetic connectivity between fish populations, most notably seen in major carp stocks61. Erratic
water releases, nutrient and sediment trapping behind
dams and barrages, failure of breeding in carp and catfish species due to siltation, erosion, poor water availability, modified thermal regimes required for breeding
(increase in temperatures due to low river depth/flow),
and exceptional levels of hazardous pollution (again,
magnified due to the poor flows reducing dilution capacity of river water), are other fallouts that adversely affect
fisheries60,62. The fact that there is just not enough water
in the river must form the bottom line of any causal investigation of riverine fisheries. Lack of appropriate policy
measures and pollution receive dominant mention as
threats to fisheries by government research agencies, but
they are mere outcomes of much larger shifted baselines
because of dams62. Dams, barrages and hydropower
projects through flow regulation have increased uncertainty about fishing62,63 and driven fishing to desperate
levels: fishers often resort to destructive practices, or even
worse, exit the fishery altogether. Such exit does not solve
the problem of existing fisher folk: water is critical to
sustaining not just fisheries but the river and the people
dependent on it. Detailed understanding of the lives of
fishing communities of the Ganges is therefore critical.
2.6 Fishing Communities
2.6.1 Cultural Identity Around 10-13 million people
in the Gangetic floodplains are estimated to be
dependent on fish resources for their livelihoods,
directly or indirectly2,17. However, accurate estimates
of active traditional and non-traditional fisher populations are still wanting. It is important for any discus8
April-June 2014
sion on fishing communities to clearly separate traditional fishing communities from ‘non-traditional fishers’, who may be practically from any other local community and with the possession of other livelihood options, but also opportunistic fishing, due to unrestricted
access to imported nets and gear available in markets
to anyone1,44. Traditional fishing communities were always the craftsmen of their own nets and gear, and also
possess remarkable ecological knowledge about rivers,
fish and biodiversity, their breeding biology, ecology, seasonality, and distribution. Of course, with the degradation of fisheries throughout the Gangetic plains, the traditional knowledge and practices of fishing are eroding
fast. Hence such knowledge needs to be documented well,
especially from old fishers with whom it still persists, to
identify historical baselines of river fisheries with a different, past ecological reference (pers.obs.; F.pers.comm).
The traditional fishing communities of the Gangetic region predominantly include the Mallah, Kewat and
Nisad, and their multiple sub-castes45. Despite the difference in nomenclature from region to region they all
claim nearly common history, ancestry and invention of
religious tradition. Fishing communities in West Bengal have many different castes, but are collectively called
Jele or Keut. Traditional fishers in the Sunderbans include both Hindu and Muslim fishers17.
Collectively and for the sake of convenience, these communities are often referred to as ‘Mallah’ in this discussion. Recently the Gangota caste in Bihar has been accorded the status of ‘traditional fishers’ (Dey, S.
pers.comm.). Fishing and boat ferrying were always the
primary Mallah occupations, along with allied occupations such as cultivation of Makhana (Euryale ferox) and
seasonal small-scale fish culture in floodplain wetlands20,29. In the Himalayan foothills, the Mallahs have
traditionally also been involved in clearing large boulders from streams to make navigation easier
(F.pers.comm). Manjhi and other fishing tribes such as
the Pahadiya in Jharkhand belong from ancient animist
cultures and subsist mainly on minor forest produce,
hunting and fishing. The Bhoee people that belong to central Indian fishing communities sporadically occur in
tracts of the Chambal, Betwa, Sone and Ken rivers. The
fisher folk have, in their pursuit for upward mobilization
in society, adopted a multitude of affiliate identities20,45,46.
2.6.2 Political and Economic Status: Traditional
fishing communities today form a highly
marginalized, politically unorganized and socioeconomically impoverished people20. Caste discriminations and political history form the chief reasons for
their poverty and subjugation over centuries of
fishworking20,45. But the present condition of rivers
does not seem to offer hope to any improvement
in their economic position unless and until there
is collective voicing of their concerns, especially
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Figure 4. Fishes and prawns (L-R, row-wise)
See Appendix 1 for details
Miscellaneous 1
1.
Chitala chitala, Notopterus notopterus (Notopteridae)
2.
Pastinachus sephen (Dasyatidae)
3.
Chanda nama (Ambassidae)
4.
Tenualosa ilisha (Clupeidae)
5.
Mastacembelus pancalus (Mastacembelidae)
6.
Rhinomugil corsula (Mugilidae)
7.
Gonialosa manmina (Clupeidae)
8.
Lates calcarifer (Latidae)
9.
Johnius coitor (Sciaenidae)
10.
Sicamugil cascasia (Mugilidae)
11.
Aspidopariya morar (Cyprinidae)
12.
Toxotes chatareus (Toxotidae)
13.
Polynemus paradiseus (Polynemidae)
14.
Prawns (Penaeus sp.)
Catfishes (Siluridae, Bagridae, Schilbeidae, Pangasiidae,
Sisoridae, Claridae, Heteropneustiidae)
15.
Ompok pabda, O. bimaculatus
16.
Wallago attu
17.
Rita rita
18.
Sperata aor
19.
Mystus sp.
20.
Pangasiodon hypophthalmus
21.
Gangra sp.,
22.
Bagarius yarrellii
23.
Eutropichthys vacha, Clupisoma garrua
24.
Clarias gareipinus*
25.
Heteropneustes fossilis
Carps (Cyprinidae)
26.
Cyprinus carpio*
27.
Labeo rohita
28.
Catla catla
29.
Labeo x Catla hybrid*
30.
Tor tor
31.
Cirrhinus mrigala
32.
Puntius sarana sarana
33.
Labeo gonius
34.
Labeo calbasu
35.
Salmostoma, Osteobrama
36.
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
Miscellaneous 2
37.
Colisa fasciata, Botia sp. (Osphronemidae)
38.
Oreochromis (Tilapia: Cichlidae)
39.
Channa striata (Channidae)
40.
Glossogobius giuris (Gobiidae)
41.
Xenentodon cancila (Belonidae)
42.
Anabas testudineus (Anabantidae)
43.
Macrobrachium rosenbergii (prawn)
44.
Pygocentrus nattereri (Characidae)
Photo credit for Pastinachus sephen: www.fishbase.org
9
Dams, Rivers & People
against large-scale water engineering projects
that threaten their livelihoods. Bringing the highly
diffuse fisher groups under an organized political sphere
for their socio-economic uplift is a vast challenge
(F.pers.comm, pers.obs). Fishes are highly mobile and
uncertain resources living in dynamic environments and
fishers tracking them lead a ‘foraging’ way of life. Fisher
populations have been historically distributed along
stable riverbanks at town fringes. Their settlements
have always maintained some degree of clan fidelity,
however, owing to their relatively low status land ownership was never practiced through history47,48. Their
livelihoods, one may argue, confined them to the
river’s water, albeit the fact that they never owned
the waters legally. However, they always have
stated cultural claims of temporally confined territory, following their foraging preferences and
site usage. But depending on the nature of the river’s
hydrological dynamics, there may be variable maintenance of fixed ‘territories’ by fishers adopting a roving
mode of fishing, and neither legal nor cultural claims
can be reconciled to a level that the conflicting parties
can reach mutually. With regards to their economic
viability and status, a large proportion of the tra-
Box 2. A profile of the life of Gangetic fishers. (Kelkar, N. unpublished data from
pers.obs).
Overall education level of fishers is rather poor
(mean=2.78 years, SD=2.93, range=0-12) with
most fishers either illiterate or schooled only
until primary levels. In addition to fishing, many
(40%) work as construction laborers or rickshaw
pullers, as most fishers are landless (57%). Fishers cover large distances for fishing every day
(especially in Bihar and West Bengal; mean=7.5
km, mean hours spent=11 hrs per day). Fishery
cooperative societies were either absent or defunct in 63% cases. Fishers earned, on average,
between INR 1500/- to 3000/- per month but
about 92% saved merely up to 600 INR per
month. In total, 66% fishers mentioned that fish
sizes caught had reduced heavily, while 87% said
that mesh sizes of nets they used had undergone reduction in the last 10 years, during which
fish prices increased dramatically at 4 to 6 times.
Fishers estimated an average decline of 80%
(range = 30 to 99%) in total river fish catch per
unit effort in the last 10 years.
10
April-June 2014
ditional fishworkers fall Below the Poverty Line
(BPL), and are recorded as Economically Backward Castes, and also have been assigned the status of Scheduled Castes. Annual incomes from fishing alone, according to the few estimates available, range
from INR 25,000/- to INR 50,000/- (pers.obs.,
F.pers.comm.; 2,21,38,48).
2.6.3 Institutional regimes for control and access
to fish resources Inland fisheries have been controlled
by various institutional arrangements, typically based
on governmental control, or privately managed, profit
maximizing interests, or community-managed or co-operatively implemented fisheries, or unregulated openaccess fishing44,47,49. First, all rivers and their resources
are the property of the Indian government, on which
revenue is typically levied through the leasing out of
management imperatives to private agency. The private
leases and ‘ownership’ of river water exist in most states
and this works through contracts and tenures over river
segments auctioned out by the government for fishing20,49. Private fisheries often work their fishing by employing traditional fishers as debt-bonded and wage laborers who work for them20,46. Historically, such systems
have existed in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal;
whereby river segments were owned through ‘Jalkar
leases’ by Panidars (waterlords who acted as counterparts of landlords (zamindars))46,50,51. Private ownership
of river resources, prevalent since the Mughal period
and further fortified by the British administration
(through Permanent Settlement and other land tenancy
acts in the 18th Century), often caused serious exploitation of laborers who had to bear oppression, poor wages
and harassment by the Panidars44,46,47,50.
Private ownership of water (of channel reaches and bank
ghats) was typically through the principle of riparian
rights (landlords owning the land along the river banks
would typically stake claim to the river fisheries and
ferry rights as well), and maintained by threat and
force52,53. Such riparian consideration treats the river’s
water and habitat as a mere parcel in the larger land
matrix, but not as a unique production ‘scape’ for fish
resources, in itself54. This problem, both a philosophical
and tenurial/material one, is of significance to the fishing communities that depend on ‘river habitats’ or ‘river
water holdings’ for their livelihood generation20,46,47,54. The
consequent uncertainty with regards to ownership of
water has caused highly frequent, violent conflicts in
the Gangetic floodplains of Bihar and eastern Uttar
Pradesh, through the 1980s and 1990s20,55.
Subsequent state governments in independent India
have largely supported private control because it offers
an easy channel for revenue and maximizes fisheries
production due to artificial inputs and protection46. However, clearly, these systems of control led to serious un-
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
This situation makes it clear that neither private
control nor a completely open-access system can
sustain the ever-increasing demand for a rapidly
declining resource, such as fisheries, today1. This
points out the gaping hole in considering communitywide, democratic, compromise-based arrangements as
pragmatic options. Community control for commonpool management of fisheries offers a potential
alternative38,48,49, but given the limited overall success
of community-based natural resource management in
India, it remains to be executed carefully for river fisheries. Local institutional mechanisms to monitor resource extraction and regeneration need to be strengthened for empowering local communities to protect their
stakes against declining production. Harassment of
fisher folk by government officials and criminals / mafia
gangs which leads to extortion of fish catch or cash,
needs to be checked strongly20,50. The riverfront should
generally be kept secure from criminal or illegal activity (ranging from crimes against women, illicit liquorbrewing, harassment of fishers to illegal fishing practices). Just the act of being able to securely fish without fear of mafia or pirates will be a great twin benefit
for fishers: through reducing destructive fishing, and
through saving their day’s catch. Fishers need social
security and access to means of improving their material dignity and economic ascent, and the political process needs to engage with this aspiration wholeheartedly1,44.
3. Large dams, flow regulation and Gangetic basin fisheries
Image 2. Traditional fishers form an important political constituency in the Gangetic floodplains. Yet policy neglect has led to this
production sector hanging in the balance. Photo: © Sushant Dey.
rest and social costs to the oppressed fishworkers.
Shockingly enough, debt-bonded labour in
Panidari continued in Bihar until 1991, when traditional fishers organized themselves under the
banner of Ganga Mukti Andolan and forced the
Bihar state government to overthrow the unjust
regime50. Although the Panidari was indeed abolished
and rivers were declared ‘free for all to fish’, violent conflicts persist even today, with criminal elements continuing to extort money from fishermen and fighting between
traditional and non-traditional castes over fishing spaces
once under Panidari control38,44. This situation calls for
a deeper on-ground engagement with the issue of determining tenurial security for traditional fishers in dynamic riverscapes. This example illustrates, quite disturbingly, how token government declarations of ‘opening the rivers to fisher folk’ remain meaningless in the
Gangetic region, where brutal force, privately cornered
power and caste attributes determine unequal and unjust ownership of resource areas.
3.1 Impacts of dams on river flows and fisheries
The singular key problem of fisheries today is that
it lacks water in the dry-season, because of flow
regulation by dams, barrages and hydropower
projects. More water flow releases are needed for
the protection of riverine fisheries in the Gangetic
basin1,2. Widespread river habitat degradation, industrial, agricultural and domestic pollution, altered flows
and modification of sediment and nutrient fluxes by dam
projects, and resource overexploitation (by fisheries,
agriculture or industry) have had major consequences
for the unique biodiversity and fisheries of floodplain
rivers across Asia34,44,55,64. Obstruction and fragmentation of river flow, habitat destruction, accelerated erosion and siltation, long-distance water diversions (involving huge amount of transmission losses and waste)
and poor flow releases are the major direct threats of
dam-canal systems in the Gangetic plains34,64.
a) Flow volume problems: Lower-than-minimum flows
have been consistently recorded across the Ganga,
Yamuna, Chambal, Kosi, Sone, Ken, Betwa, Ghaghra
and Gandak rivers. Along with these large rivers, almost all others (Rapti, Baghmati, Mahananda, Teesta,
11
Dams, Rivers & People
Kamla, Burhi Gandak, Punpun, Gomti and others) have
been highly regulated64,69. The reduction of freshwater discharge reaching the Sunderbans because
of the Farakka barrage has led to high degree saline ingress throughout the estuary, causing dieoffs of considerably large tracts of mangroves and
aquatic vegetation, as well as severe losses to the
upstream fishery17,65,66,67,68. Downstream, fishing practices suited to brackish and fresh waters now have to
adapt to saline intrusion into the estuary’s waters. Globally, fragmentation and flow regulation have caused
the most severe impacts through drastic alterations to
riverine biota and ecology70,71. Low flows and fragmented
connectivity of river channels lead inevitably to fish
population declines and breeding failure. Over time,
dams have probably led to genetic isolation of fish
populations as well as river dolphin / crocodile
populations72, destruction of fish breeding habitats and spawning triggers and loss of valuable
wild fish germplasm61. These losses are so large in
their ecological value and opportunity costs that they
cannot be recovered with artificial fish culture techniques or hatcheries.
b) Aggravation of pollution effects: The Ganges basin is
one of the most polluted large river basins in Asia, especially with regards to domestic sewage and agricultural
runoff73. Poor flows reduce the dilution and self-purification capacity of river water to reduce concentration of
pollutants and local impacts on fishes74. It may be safely
said that no freshwater fish we eat across India today is
free of pollution accumulation in its tissues. Agricultural
April-June 2014
fertilizers (organophosphates, organochlorines, nitrates
etc.), heavy metal pollution from industrial effluents,
thermal power plants, oil refineries, distilleries and tanneries, and nitrogen-rich sewage, waste-water and nonbiodegradable substances such as plastics, mercury, radioactive compounds and hospital wastes can cause fish
kills or even worse, lead to high levels of toxicity in tissues74. Pollution problems are especially acute in highly
regulated river reaches, especially around Delhi
(Yamuna River), and the Gomti at Lucknow, Yamuna
until Panchnada in UP and Ganga River at Kanpur,
Allahabad, Varanasi75, Patna, Barauni, Bhagalpur and
Farakka.
c) Siltation in dam reservoirs and barrage gates: Excessive siltation in the Ghaghra barrage has led to, as per
local fishers, breeding failure in Labeo angra (Ghewri),
a preferred spring-fisheries target in the region. The fishers claimed that over the past 5 years they have not
captured a single fish with eggs inside it, and also added
that catches have plummeted heavily (F.pers.comm).
Siltation of gravel/sediment in reservoir or storage zones
is a problem of huge magnitude for fisheries, especially
through breeding failure. Accumulated silt in reservoirs
is estimated to be so high (in tens of meters height) that
it cannot even be easily flushed out, and leads to nearly
60-90% reductions in sediment fluxes of rivers in monsoon and non-monsooon seasons76. Siltation adds to obstruction of flow release through barrage gates. In the
Farakka barrage, sediment load accumulation is leading to breakage of gates every year, adding to maintenance costs.
Figure 5. Map showing existing and planned dams, barrages, pump canals and hydropower projects in the Gangetic River Basin of
India (point data courtesy of IIT-Guwahati free dataset download repository. http://gisserver.civil.iitd.ac.in/grbmp/iitg.htm;
Map prepared by Nachiket Kelkar; As of year 2012.)
12
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Image 3. Barrages have not only caused altered flows but also led to blockage of fish migratory routes and loss
of hydrological connectivity. Photo: © Subhasis Dey.
d) Habitat destruction and alteration of erosion-deposition dynamics: Soil erosion by erratic and sudden releases before floods can potentially lead to alteration
and destruction of fish breeding habitats and stock depression27,34,56,77,78. Changes in depth and flow velocity
lead to fish not being able to receive natural physiological cues for movement and spawning that are otherwise
provided by variability in discharge17,26. Flow alteration
also alters hydrological connectivity and sediment transport with wetlands and confluence channels during flooding. As a result these productive breeding habitats often become unavailable for catfishes and carps79. These
factors together become a problem for pre-settlement
fish juveniles and recruits, which move into the main
channels.
g) Embankment construction: In dynamic floodplain rivers such as the Ganga and Kosi, flooding is a regular
feature leading to loss of thousands of people and property damage80. Flood control strategies have been practiced through dams as well as embankments81. Along
the Kosi River, the proliferation of embankments has
completely altered the river flows and fragmented them
into a wetland-patchwork81. Embankments have modified riverbank-adjoining spawning areas and affected
fisheries of silt-substrate breeders. During the floods,
embankments often breach and have led to large-scale
habitat modification, which has had consequences in
uncertainty about fishing tenure. The Kosi wetland fisheries are predominated by blackfish, or fish that live in
vegetation (e.g. Channa, Colisa, Anabas etc.); and several invasive species that live in similar habitats are
becoming increasingly common in these wetlands81. The
embankments have also led to large-scale flood displacement and outmigration of millions of people over the
past 4 decades82.
f) Thermal changes: As per fishers of Bhagalpur and
Kahalgaon in Bihar, the disappearance of Mystus
menoda, a common small catfish may be attributed to
increased temperatures in the river bed (F.pers.comm).
This potamodromous fish which was once highly common, has shown sudden reductions to the tune of 90%,
and this might be due to the effect of barrages on antecedent tributaries like the Ghaghra and Gandak, where
they may not be able to cope with temperature gradients caused by low flows from colder areas in the Himalayan foothills to the lower plains. Thermal changes
(typically hotter water) have also affected spawning of
major carps and prawns (Macrobrachium) that undertake potamodromous migration83.
g) Threats to cold-water and foothills fisheries: Overall,
despite their projected low impact situation, hydropower
projects can have serious large-scale effects on mountain streams as well as rivers downstream84,86,87,90. Globally, despite mitigation measures in hydropower constructions, fish migration and development have largely
been deemed as failures. In India, hydropower projects,
especially run-of-river projects in higher altitudes, of13
Dams, Rivers & People
ten have disastrous effects on natural thermal regimes,
cause sediment blockages and perturb natural flow variability at diurnal timescales through releases varying
across several orders of magnitude85,89. These changes
severely affect not just breeding and migration in higheraltitude cold-water fisheries of snow trout and Mahseer
in Himachal, Sikkim and Uttarakhand, but also downstream fisheries of catfish and carps in the foothills and
plains due to altered flows24,88. Their cumulative downstream impact can also potentially risk fisheries-based
uses of river water without being exposed to the risk of
sudden flow releases every day85. These projects have
also seriously affected many rare and endangered terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species in India89.
h) Climate change impacts on fisheries: Initially, higher
peak flooding intensity and prolonged monsoons are
predicted for large rivers in the Gangetic basin due to
increased glacial melt in climate change scenarios91,92.
Many benthic fish species appear to have responded
through rapid changes in their geographic distribution,
occupying increasingly colder waters than their previous ranges92. It is therefore critical to include climate
change impacts on the magnitude of flooding in assessments of fisheries vulnerability due to warmer and wetter seasons93.
Globally, through extreme perturbation of natural flow
dynamics, dams have homogenized and altered many
crucial river-floodplain processes, and have had disastrous impacts on biodiversity and fisheries60,94,95,96,97.
There is an urgent need to ensure ecologically necessary, adequate and natural flow regimes in all rivers of
the Gangetic basin69,96,97,107. The current water scarcity is so severe that projects such as river
interlinking, apart from their ridiculous proposed
costs, are simply impossible to conceive of, water
itself being the limitation98,106. There is no doubt that
further water developments will prove disastrous for a
whole section of people and their livelihoods, and must
be scrapped. Rivers that need urgent attention in this
respect are the Chambal, Yamuna, Ken, Betwa,
Alaknanda, Bhagirathi, Mandakini, Sone, Damodar, the
Ganges at Farakka and Allahabad, Sharada, Ghaghra
and all other rivers especially in Uttar Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar64,69,98,100. Runof-river hydropower projects, flow diversions and links,
pumped irrigation, embankments, agricultural intensification, groundwater depletion and sand mining are
highly destructive threats that will affect not just fisheries but the whole social fabric of river users in the
near future97,99,100.
Despite the demonstrated folly of not allowing rivers to
flow from headwaters to estuaries and deltas, engineers, technocrats and politicians talk of “rivers
flowing wastefully into the sea”. This statement
would imply that the thousands of species and
14
April-June 2014
millions of fisher livelihoods that need flowing
water in rivers are of no value to the state policy
on water resource development. Such statements
are ignoring important societal needs and hence
are evidently irresponsible99,100,101. Belatedly, the
National Water Policy has made a token, last-priority
mention of “minimum environmental flows” to be maintained in a river, although this itself is an obsolete concept and needs to be replaced with “ecological flow regimes” rather than on minimum flow values100,101. The
biogeochemical and physical functions and ecosystem
services it provides, especially for coastal ecosystems and
dependent communities are completely ignored96,97,100,101.
River fish stock restoration requires serious rethinking
of current dam operations to suit flow release timings
according to natural range of variability102,106. Reducing
water consumption and pollution by agricultural/urban
sectors can help enhance the productivity of water resources. This can become possible through more efficient
and equitable water reallocations across sectors such
as irrigation and fisheries together. Cooperative fishing
arrangements can help improve livelihoods and ecological restoration of river flows and fish stocks can enable
rivers to together sustain biodiversity, local communities and ecosystem services103,104,105,107. No post dam-construction compensation schemes exist for fishers, who
may lose their entire livelihood because of flow-regulation and loss of hydrological connectivity due to dams17.
Downstream fisher populations must be ideally compensated for the lost fishing catch and livelihood opportunity, but in general there has been scant attention towards the communities’ livelihoods (F.pers.comm).
Downstream water allocations through on-ground
consultations with fisher communities are urgently needed (F.pers.comm). In India, water resources development is so strongly irrigation-focused
(and now strongly focused on industry and hydropower),
that, in comparison, riverine fisheries are not even acknowledged as legitimate and in need of conservation
and livelihood protection. These biases mean that only
pond aquaculture receives any attention1. If river conservation and development groups can actively
work with fishing communities in order to develop
an informed and aware constituency or interest
group, fishers will gain political voice in making
negotiations about water availability in river basins.
3.2 Downgrading of fisheries The state of river fisheries directly indicates the declining biophysical, ecological and social integrity of the river basin110. The existing in-river fisheries contribute merely about
10% of the overall inland fish production58,59. Even
this production is highly unsustainable today and has
all the indicators of serious levels of overfishing111. For
instance, river fisheries in Bihar now even glean smallsized fish fry for markets in northern West Bengal
Dams, Rivers & People
Box 3. The Ghosts of the Yangtze.
In our management of rivers, we have immediate, painful lessons to learn from our neighbors.
In China, the Yangtze River dolphin or Baiji was
declared extinct in 2006. It was deemed the first
human-caused extinction of a cetacean species:
the species was not actively targeted or hunted
out, but was ‘accidentally’ killed by destructive
fishing techniques (rolling hooks) and suffered
the extensive degradation of its habitat108. The
Baiji is lost now, but several unique and endemic
species in the highly diverse Yangtze ecosystem
are also either extinct already, or critically endangered or alive only in captivity: the Yangtze
Softshell Turtle, Chinese Alligator, Paddlefish
and Chinese Sturgeon 108. The health of the
people dependent on the Yangtze has been declining and all indicators of river health are already critical. The Yangtze has been reduced to
the largest open sewer in the world108. There are
parallels in the Gangetic basin too, in the gharial
and Ganges river dolphins, and about the severely hunted turtles of whose status, barely
anything is known: stinging reminders for immediate action44. Most of our rivers are ceasing
to functionally exist because of flow regulation
and alteration. Dolphins and gharials have undergone substantial range reductions72 and probably genetic isolation in the upper Ganges,
Yamuna, Chambal and the Ken-Betwa-Sone rivers. Despite very different socio-political scenarios in India and China, it is just the sheer
economic pressure on river systems that has had
severe impacts44. The highly degraded fisheries
of the Yangtze are facing impacts of the ThreeGorges Dam109. Macroeconomic developmental
forces, technocracy and industrial demand on
rivers, irrespective of polity and cultural/social
values, reflect today in massive depletion of river
production systems (fisheries, farming) in China
and India alike.
April-June 2014
(Siliguri) and Assam, where eating small fish is a delicacy (F.pers.comm;44). It is also suspected by field observers that a large chunk of this trash catch goes to
the poultry feed and fishmeal industry. Capture of smallsized fishes can be devastating for population recruitment, and evidently, such markets for small fish cannot
sustain fishers for long (Figure 6). ‘Non-traditional’ fishers and criminal elements generally run the boom-andbust fishing operations, which are entirely illegal, but
still go on because there is no monitoring of fisheries44.
Now, in fact, fish that were mainly caught earlier as
fisheries discards i.e. ‘trash fish’ sizes and species are
running the economy (F.pers.comm, pers.obs.)112. The
fisheries thus represent both trophic downgrading and
life-stage (size) downgrading111,112,113. What would be simply thrown away or sold for throwaway if it were a minor part of the catch is now the dominant catch itself
(e.g. Glossogobius giuris, a goby fish never eaten due to
its poor taste and low cultural value, now fetches prices
of up to Rs. 200/- per kg). So, the fish market is now a
market that scrapes these remains and continues generating even more pressure on rivers, and more
trash112,113. Fisheries incur ‘colossal losses’ every
season due to irregularities in dam operations,
and always fall severely short of demand33. But now,
through the boom of artificially managed pond aquaculture and wetland fishing especially in Andhra Pradesh
and West Bengal, the nature of supply itself has radically changed21,30,114. This boom has contributed to India
becoming one of the largest producers of inland freshwater fish in the world. But such ranking hides a lot of
miserable facts about river degradation. Although net
production shows increases, the collapse of river
fisheries that still support millions of poor people
who don’t get access to aquaculture, get totally
Image 4. Invasive species such as this Red-bellied Pacu have
severely affected native fish populations and might also pose
dangers to people using rivers in which they are running wild.
Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar.
15
Dams, Rivers & People
Box 4. Swamping of markets with pondcultured fish.
Overall, pond-cultured carps and catfishes from
Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal dominate the
markets across the entire Gangetic basin (making up for 70-95% of the sold fish catch). Promoted aggressively as an allied activity to food
crop agriculture, carp culture has shown a 40%
increase in the past 15 years, and contributes to
nearly 90% of inland fish production in India
today. The species cultured in pond aquaculture
mainly include carps of native and alien origin,
some catfish and some specific food-fish imported
to India such as Tilapia (2 Oreochromis sp.), African catfish and Red-bellied Pacu (a species of
Piranha), as well as indigenous and exotic (invasive) major carps. This scene adequately
informs us that imports sustain the fish
markets especially in Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, further
marginalizing river fisher livelihoods
(pers. comm. with local fishers). On the
other hand, within river fisheries, over 90%
fishers reported serious declines (>80-90%)
in natural population of prized major carps
Rohu Labeo rohita, Katla Catla catla and
Mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala. This is the ironic
fate of fisheries in the highly productive
Gangetic floodplains1.
ignored under such swamping115. This is why farmed
fish in fish hatcheries can barely replace riverine fisheries despite the fact that they have cornered the attention of fisheries development33,58.
The failure of river fisheries has led to large-scale
outmigration for labour from the Indo-Gangetic plains
(F.pers.comm.). This might be a significant contributor
to the magnitude of labour-related migrations from the
Gangetic plains, which has been a rising exodus116. Today, fisher folk from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and
Bengal provide a large proportion (20-40%) of construction and manual labor force across India
(F.pers.comm). Others who stay behind have to take to
menial jobs such as rickshaw-pullers or servants
(F.pers.comm; pers.obs). Some are forced to take to crime
to be able to feed themselves and their families. These
16
April-June 2014
factors can weaken the social resilience of production
systems and create poverty, disparity and community
breakdown117. It has been argued that ethnic conflicts
between local Indian populations and illegally immigrated Bangladeshi refugees are linked to poor water
releases from the Farakka barrage in West Bengal, to
downstream floodplain reaches in Bangladesh118.
Image 5. Small-sized trash fish dominate markets across
the Gangetic basin. Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar.
3.3 Fish declines and changing practices (Table 3)
Artisanal fisheries, by tradition, have been a specialized, skill-based and diversity-oriented enterprise driven
by subsistence needs of fishers. As such artisanal fisheries involve typically small-scale fishing practices,
which are size-specific, species-specific, habitat-specific
and inflexible in their range of capture efficiency. This
stands in contrast to modern and commercial technique
for fishing, which is highly flexible but also highly generalized, mass production-oriented than diversity-based,
and rarely specific to fish species or sizes56. In the absence of regulatory mechanisms, it can lead to
serious overexploitation of fish resources due to
its mass application, which may need labour but
not require skill. The best way to evaluate the status
of fisheries is to observe changes in fishing methods and
intensity. ‘How one fishes’ is often the currency on
which issues of conservation, sustainability and
legality are discussed. New fishing technology can
alter the course of fisheries by directly affecting offtake
rates, and can seriously impair or boost economic viability in the long run, depending on their capture efficiency48.
Today, given the tremendous decline in fish resources,
it becomes almost impossible to distinguish commercial
and subsistence-based/artisanal fisheries. The diversity
of fishing gear and practices shows extreme reduction
in the wake of mechanization of fisheries, that ushered
in imports of nylon monofilament gillnets, among sev-
Dams, Rivers & People
eral harmful fishing techniques. Monofilament
gillnets have replaced cotton-fiber nets and dominated fish markets across the Gangetic basin since
the 1970s, coming initially from Europe and now
almost entirely coming from China, Scandinavian
countries, Thailand and Indonesia (F.pers.obs). As
the market is full of such nets, fishers and non-fishers
can use them without second thought. Older fishers
point out that this shift led to drastic declines in
fish recruitment, survival and adult reproduction
from the 1970s onwards (F.pers.obs). The mesh size
of gillnets has shrunk multifold: the average meshsize used today is around 20 mm, which is a decline of almost 4-5 times in 30-40 years2,4,44,48.
If one looks at Fisheries Acts across Indian states (e.g.
51,122
), of all the fishing practices ongoing today nearly
90% are ‘illegal’ and, in fact, deleterious for river fish
resources and biodiversity44,123. The Fisheries Acts provide net mesh size restrictions of approx. 40mm, but
the actual use is predominantly of 12-30 mm nets51. However, due to declines in fish catch and fish size-spectra,
fishers are left with no choice but to use smaller meshsizes to capture the reduced size distribution available.
This leads to tremendous increases in fishing pressure
on small-sized fishes whose survival and recruitment
are important for the fish population stocks as a whole.
It is obvious that this is an unsustainable shift for the
fisheries, but the meager availability of fish biomass
captured leads fishers to further take even more desperate measures, which involves dangerous methods like
poisoning of river channels, dynamite use, mosquito-nets
and beach-seines which are totally indiscriminate123.
They can meet their demands for household consumption or surplus sales, by fishing with destructive nets or
by fishing much more than they previously would have
(F.pers.comm). This leads to escalation of fishing intensity across the fisher population scale, and can obviously
dry out sustained harvests. Greater communitybased management and monitoring of fisheries,
along with river restoration, can lead to improvements in the destructive nature of fisheries. Fisheries infrastructure for traditional fisher access is also
wanting: many fishing localities do not have proper vending places or market areas to sell their production124.
Fishers generally sell their catch through middlemen
(Paikkars) who buy fish from the fishers, often directly
at landing sites, and the supply chain leads to inadequate
pricing of individual fishers’ catches. Direct on-ground
engagement with traditional river fishers is therefore
urgently needed from source to shop.
3.4 Problems with invasive alien fish species Wanton and unregulated expansion of aquaculture has led
to introduction of alien invasive fish species due to their
rapid growth rates and culture potential. There is almost no quarantine on the import of several food and
April-June 2014
aquarium fish species, since these are allowed for trade
by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES). Huge reservoir stocks of food fishes
such as Tilapia, European and Chinese Carps, and recently, Amazonian species like Red-bellied Pacu are being imported for pond aquaculture125. Reservoir fisheries cannot even stock ‘closed populations’, as the reservoirs are intermittently connected to rivers and streams
in the catchment areas, and the threat of invasion is
even higher. This often leads to invasion of natural waters by fish species bring in a host of problems for native fishes: generally they outcompete native fish species and start running wild in natural ecosystems125.
They can usually establish well because the flow in the
rivers is so poor these pond fish can survive well in the
‘pond-like’ conditions of the river. The most striking example has been the invasion of Tilapia species
(Oreochromis nilotica and O. mossambica) in the
Yamuna and Ganga until Allahabad, as there is barely
any flowing water in these rivers in the dry season (nonmonsoon months) due to dams and abstraction for irrigation126. There is also the chance that alien invasives
might hybridize with native species, and lead to genetic
impurities in wild stocks of native fishes127. Viral diseases may also be carried by the exotic fish populations
and may be spread under certain conditions to native
fishes. Reports of injury due to dangerous food fishes,
running wild, such as Pacu, are slowly emerging from
West Bengal and Kerala (pers.obs). Food fish culture in
ponds and dam reservoirs, and the aquarium trade, has
been practiced very irresponsibly and the threat of invasive alien fish species in our ecosystems is surmounting127. A summary of the multiple threats and problems
facing fisheries, with possible solutions mentioned by
fishers provided in Figure 6.
4. A critical review of mitigation measures
4.1 The monsoonal fishing ban Across the Gangetic
plains, all state fisheries acts stipulate a 3-month monsoon-time ban on fishing in all flowing waters: rivers
and estuaries51. The ban is to allow the spawning, growth
and development of fish fry and juveniles so that they
become available to capture in the following seasons.
Although most fishers recognize the importance of the
ban, they are often compelled to disregard it, as they
don’t have fallback options during this period
(F.pers.comm). There is a need to identify alternative
livelihoods for fishers especially during monsoons. This
can help both correct non-compliance of fishers and provide for seasonal regeneration of fisheries.
4.2 Fish ladders and hatcheries There is little existing research on the construction design, functioning and
efficiency of fish ladders in tropical and subtropical large
floodplain rivers33,128. Across the tropics, monitoring studies on fish ladders do not show positive results128. A hand17
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Table 3. Fishing practices employed in the Gangetic basin (based on
Fishing
Gear
Monofilament
and
Multifilament Gillnets
Drag nets
Beach seines
Cast nets
Fixed Stakenets
Mosquitonets
Vegetation
Traps (Pala
ghera)
Chinese
scoop nets
Handheld
gillnets
(current)
Scoop nets
Long-lines
Hook-lines
Baited traps
(turtles and
crocodiles)
Fish traps
and baskets
(Anta Jal)
Dolphin oil
fishing
Palm oil
fishing
Harpooning
Where used
2,4,21,30,33,36-38,44,48,51,59,119-121,123
).
Destructive potential and effiMesh
ciency, importance in fishing
size
range
(mm)
Throughout larger floodplain Clupeids, minor carps, major 8-250 High, Moderate to High; <40mm mesh
rivers and estuaries, in deep and intermediate carps,
sizes are considered illegal and destrucpools, braided channels with large carps, Schilbeid
tive. Almost 80% fishers use nets <40mm
slow water flows
catfishes
as hardly any large fishes are available
Deep pool areas and eroded Large carps, large catfishes 60-300 High, not useful because of decline in
cut banks
large fish sizes
Deep side-channels,
Indiscriminate
10-20 Illegal, highly destructive, employed by
confluence zones
criminal gangs
Deep waters in river pools,
Mullet, minor carps and barbs, 20-30 Locally effective, moderately efficient,
wetlands and estuaries
schilbeid catfishes, Puntius
low impact
16-30 Illegal, moderate impact, less effective
Along shallow banks in
Non-target
estuaries, or near embankments in the Ganges
UP, Bihar and West Bengal, Indiscriminate, target the
0.5-1 Illegal, most destructive nets in use,
in shallow confluencesmallest fry available in the
major reason for conflicts
channels of tributaries
river
<4
Commonly used across West Bengal in
Dam reservoirs, floodplain
Indiscriminate but obviously
still water bodies and river sidewetlands with vegetation
tends to get more
channels, high impact but not recogblackfishes (e.g. Channa)
nized by anyone as illegal
Shallow water, used mainly Indiscriminate but relatively
Moderate impact, but used occasionally.
2-4
for scooping up small fishes low-impact
Small streams and coldwater rivers
Target fish catch
Indiscriminate catch
Coldwater streams
Snow trout
Deep river pools and islands Set for large catfish in deep
waters
Used everywhere for highly For catfish, eels and sharks,
specific targets
Mahseer in coldwater
streams
Bihar, in large floodplain
Several baited hooks are laid
river reaches
out to catch turtles / crocodiles
from a hide built on the banks
where these animals bask.
Basket traps set in shallow Small fishes in shallow
vegetated reaches
channels with vegetation
8-20
Moderate impact
1-4
-
Low to moderate impact
Low to moderate impact, depending on
size of catch available to take
Illegal, severe impact, turtles and crocodile populations have been decimated to
unrecoverable levels due to these practices.
Low impact, passive traps
-
-
Illegal. High impact on river dolphins
and high pressure on catfish catches.
Clupisoma garua
-
Might be very efficient
Schilbeid catfishes
-
Old practice, now dwindling
gradually as large fishes
lost
Carp-collec- Pond culture across the
tion nets
region
Used in estuaries of
Prawn
Sunderbans
trammel
nets
Occasionally used for large
fishes, sharks, also was used
to kill dolphins
Used in pond culture for harvesting of different size-classes
Prawns and larvae are
sieved using these nets
-
High impact, illegal, can have consequences
for population survival and persistence
High, pond-culture specific, efficient
Poisoning
and Dynamite (boom
and bust)
Indiscriminate and highly
dangerous practices,
generally used for revengeseeking by criminal elements.
18
Mainly in Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh and Assam
Small-scale practice
Poisoning by pesticides is
done in natural river channels, largely out of revenge
against existing fishing
leases, killing fish indiscriminately; use of gelatin sticks &
dynamite in rivers.
8-30
4-10
-
High impact on prawn recruitment and
larval survival
Extremely high impact, illegal, persistent effects of these practices, very
difficult to recover populations post
excessive use of these methods.
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Figure 6. a) Major reasons for fish decline and problems while fishing, b) Solutions perceived by fishers
for improving the condition of fisheries in the Gangetic basin (F.pers.comm).
ful of barrages in India have constructed fish ladders,
but owing to numerous problems they have been largely
a failure33. These problems are all related to the extremely low discharge rates from the dams – as there is
simply not enough water volume allocated for migrating fishes, which therefore cannot access the ladders and
fish lifts129. Other problems are linked to siltation in reservoirs and turbulence of flows near the fish passages.
For instance, the Farakka fish lifts do not seem to have
been of any help due to the extremely low outflow of the
Ganga River from it, and the commercial extinction of
the Hilsa fisheries both upstream and downstream is
clear with an estimated 99.9% decline. Fish passes
constructed at barrages on the Yamuna River
(Hathnikund barrage) and the Ganga barrage at
Haridwar have been monitored by CIFRI and the
results suggest that they have had very low success for migration of cold-water species like the
Golden Mahseer Tor putitora. Similar structures
on the Beas River and Mahanadi River (Salandi
dam, Orissa) have found to be ineffective in buffering the adverse impacts on fisheries production
in these rivers33. India has dominantly followed reservoir hatcheries development, and therefore consideration
for effective fish ladders has always been low priority2,33.
However, as we have seen, hatcheries themselves bring
19
Dams, Rivers & People
about several problems for native fish populations – and
are not an ecologically viable solution, despite being economically profitable to certain interests. Given the poor
success of existing fish passages, it is important to consider modern designs in existing and proposed dams that
are suited to the ecology of our own fishes. A whole body
of interdisciplinary research – spanning engineering and
ecology, is needed to address the significant gaps in our
understanding of making fish passages work. We need
to monitor existing examples well to assess reasons for
their failure. Again, just the act of allowing higher dryseason flows and timely adequate releases in the river
could be a far more effective strategy for fisheries improvement than other intensive technology-driven practices to enhance fisheries production1,44 (F.pers.comm).
4.3 Fisheries co-operatives: a vestige? Between 1967
and 1970, fishery cooperatives were setup across several areas in the Gangetic basin states130. The mandate
of the cooperatives was to provide accounts and membership to bona fide (mostly traditional) fish-workers
from local communities, enhance fish production through
loans, technological know-how and subsidies for both
pond-based aquaculture and riverine capture-based fisheries. Most importantly, fishers could cooperatively take
leases and manage fisheries production in governmentowned water bodies130,131. Cooperative extension across
India had initially good response, but over the last few
decades, many schemes have either become defunct or
corrupted. Elite capture by private agencies of cooperatives has relegated them to ghost institutions with no
meaningful function or structure, and with no benefits
transferred to the intended communities20. With fisheries cooperatives, typically, landlords have
usurped pond leases auctioned to fishers through
forcible means or cheating. They have also subjugated the claimant fishers to become laborers for
poor wages on their own pond entitlements20. This
appears to be a common practice in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh
and Madhya Pradesh. This injustice has sparked off violent conflicts between local communities and landlords,
with estimates of casualty from these strikes reaching
thousands20. Barring the exception of West Bengal where
cooperative fish rearing and aquaculture has seen some
success30, less than 20% of the existing cooperatives are
estimated to be functioning in the other states1. Therefore, fishery management through cooperatives needs
revival through most parts of northern India132.
4.4 Riverine protected areas: new grounds for conflicts with fisheries In the Gangetic basin (the Ganga
is declared the National River of India133), where virtually no stretch of any river could be imagined as pristine
or free of human activity and influence, imagining Freshwater Protected Areas (FWPAs) could be called a conservation oxymoron. Conservation of endangered river species such as Ganges River dolphins (India’s national
20
April-June 2014
aquatic animal134), Gharials, otters, turtles, birds and fish
species in the Gangetic basin faces a formidable challenge
because of the open-access nature of floodplain
riverscapes. Even if river reaches and precinct areas are
declared as FWPAs, they have been rendered ineffective
in terms of their ecological functions and services due to
the widespread impacts of dams, habitat degradation and
pollution1,142. This situation exists despite there being
provisions in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for providing adequate river flows to protected areas135. Although
some FWPAs exist in the Gangetic plains (e.g. National
Chambal Sanctuary, Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary etc.), they are mostly ridden by conflicts between
fisheries and wildlife conservation has intensified around
them, from contested definitions of area boundaries, use
rights and access by traditional fisher communities1,44,123.
The charge of these PAs rests in the hands of state environment and forest departments, which are often ill
equipped to deal with water-based monitoring, patrolling,
research and conservation strategies. As with forest land,
settlement of (fishing) rights to river water is a major
issue of contention, and in most cases there are complete
fishing bans imposed on fishers in FWPAs, without adequate considerations of livelihood needs, identity, or fishing rights1,44. Fisher agitations and clandestine fishing
or poaching have sprung in response, and have been commonly reported across these PAs. The biggest goal for
freshwater protected areas, therefore, will need to be to
effectively bring about river restoration for the conservation of both endangered riverine wildlife and fisheries.
However, more generally, conflict with river animals
(mainly through breakage of nets and gear, risk to life or
perceived competition for fishes) plays a minor role in
the set of overall problems affecting fisheries (<20%)
(F.pers.comm). The major problems affecting fisheries are
linked to water scarcity, issues of unclear definition of
fishing rights and conflict over ownership of river segments20,44,136. PA management in freshwater areas needs
Image 6. Endangered species such as the Ganges River dolphin,
India’s ‘National Aquatic Animal’ have also been affected
severely by dams and barrages. Photo: © Sushant Dey.
Dams, Rivers & People
to inevitably adopt inclusive approaches instead of exclusionary ones, which dominate terrestrial PA-based conservation globally138, and need to involve adaptive approaches to management of biodiversity conservation139.
4.5 Compliance of fishers towards biodiversity
conservation Naturally, fisheries closely interact with
river wildlife in various ways, as they share spaces and
resources with species that, like them, are entirely dependent on rivers for their survival. Landscape-level
resource declines show their impacts on human activities at local levels, causing them to fiercely and directly
compete with wild species for fishes123,137. Traditional
fisher folk, while certainly worthy of receiving legally
recognized rights, economic and political uplift, and social and material dignity, are also exploiters of
biodiversity to a considerable extent. Unsustainable and
highly exploitative fisheries are a serious threat to protection of wild species and can have detrimental effects
on river ecosystems as a whole. The fishers’ own use of
resources certainly needs critical scrutiny44. People dependent on freshwater protected areas for their livelihoods seek denotification of these areas because of both
restricted access and criminalization of their means of
livelihood. But in reality, notwithstanding government
restrictions on freshwater protected areas, fishers have
continued to fish in whatever way and with whatever
method, as they have liked, to their advantage44.
Even if claims for fishing rights advanced in the
name of tradition are entertained, the negative ecological impacts of existing fishing practices, even
the relatively non-destructive techniques are high,
not just on species such as river dolphins and crocodilians, but on the fishery itself. Fishers are occasionally involved in clandestine killing and eating of turtles
and wild birds, occasionally hunting dolphins for oil and
killing endangered species such as gharials with which
conflict is perceived (pers.obs, F.pers.comm). Accidental
entanglement of endangered species in fishers’ nets is
another increasing issue. However, it must be recognized
that these impacts are the result of severe economic
compulsions and culturally rooted practices. Hence
fisher compliance needs to be gradually brought about
through awareness, education and monitoring. Monitoring of the following parameters is essential: 1) Net meshsizes used, 2) Fishing in sensitive areas or regulated zones,
3) Ban on use of destructive techniques such as fishing
with dynamite, poisoning of entire channels, beach seine
nets, large dragnets, trawling or use of river dolphin oil /
turtle oil and hunting must be brought to book, busted
and heavy criminal charges imposed, 4) Introduction of
exotic invasive food fishes into rivers, 5) Hunting of wildlife in rivers, especially turtles, gharials, Ganges river
dolphins, smooth-coated otters, muggers, birds or any
other species mentioned in the Wildlife Protection Act
(WLPA, 1972135, with amendments in 1991, 2002, 2006,
April-June 2014
2011), and 6) Density of people fishing in different areas
and laying claims to different areas (typically based on
flowing and impounded water-bodies. Rights to flowing
waters are often open-access on paper, but need to also
be realized on the ground. Fisher compliance to ecologically conducive practices for biodiversity conservation can
be incentivized through recognition and positive reinforcement via prizes in the form of technical know-how about
improving the fishery status137,139. Involvement of fisher
cooperatives for ensuring compliance with guidelines and
restrictions provided in state fisheries acts is also important, along with monitoring, to ensure long-term reduction in conflicts. Fish sanctuaries and community-conserved fisheries zones preserves need to be created
through the Gangetic basin. At present, only high-altitude, cold-water fisheries seem to be receiving some informal protection through community-protected fish sanctuaries in Uttarakhand and Kashmir, where fish are protected in deep pools and near temple springs24. Protection also needs to provide adequate and effective coverage for lower floodplain river reaches. People’s perceptions need to given strong consideration for multi-objective management of biodiversity rich areas used for fisheries140,141.
4.6 River restoration and alternative livelihoods
Given the current state of riverine fisheries, there is an
urgent need to consider possibilities for large-scale ecological restoration of rivers by modifying dam operations
and improving ecological flows102. Alongside restoration,
it is crucial to consider alternative livelihoods to fishers, which regard their traditional knowledge and provide them with clearly defined user rights and responsibilities over management of wild-caught or cultured
fish resources143. Ecological restoration of all major and
minor rivers in India needs to be undertaken urgently,
to ensure ecologically adequate, naturally timed flow releases, consistent dry-season flow regimes, hydro-geomorphological habitat maintenance, flood maintenance
and reduction in pollution34,35,69,96,100,102,145. Dam re-operations to ensure adequate flows and variability in river
discharge remain a neglected aspect of river management in most regions today102. Flow restoration can lead
to improved health, numbers and availability of native
commercial carps and preponderance of larger fish sizes
through improved juvenile recruitment34,145,146, along
with other advantages to surface hydrology and local
groundwater availability. Large-scale scientific research
and monitoring programs must be instituted to study
the response of inland wild-capture fisheries and take
further steps to mitigate local threats33,34,35. Restoration
also needs to involve stringent restrictions on release of
untreated domestic and industrial effluent, especially
in urban belts such as Kanpur, the National Capital
Region of Delhi, Allahabad-Varanasi, Mathura-Agra,
Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh; Patna, Barauni in Bihar and
the Durgapur and Kolkata regions in West Bengal74.
21
Dams, Rivers & People
Strict restrictions are needed on sand-mining, riverfront
encroachment and embankment construction, especially
in the Chambal, Ghaghra, Gandak, Baghmati, Rapti and
Kosi Rivers81,100,147. In this regard, more judicial interventions, such as seen recently in the case of sand-mining closures from river beds based on a review by the
National Green Tribunal147, are critical in reducing wanton and unregulated destruction of riverfronts, when
implemented effectively. In terms of reducing the most
direct impacts, there is a need to regulate fishing pressure and completely curb destructive fishing practices
like dynamiting, use of mosquito-nets, beach seines, and
gillnets below allowable mesh-sizes, poisoning, use of
long-lines etc2,44. Traditional fishers must be involved
directly in monitoring and banning the use of destructive practices by the government monitoring agencies148,149.
For immediate concerns of livelihood sustainability, alternative livelihoods need to be made available to fishers through informed choice123,150. Alternative occupations can help ease the pressure on declining river fish
resources on the one hand, and improving fishers’ material incomes on the other. Rejuvenation of the co-operatively managed pond fishing systems; with stakes
for traditional fishers – rather than for private powerdriven interests – protected, can still be a viable alternative130,151,152,153. Pond-based co-operative culture fisheries undoubtedly have vast potential, provided their
management is ecologically sound and socially equitable20,44,151. Most fishers in the Gangetic basin are landless and cannot afford even the capital cost of digging a
pond20. Co-operative land leases for development of pond
fisheries that are managed by family groups or settlements of fisher folk is an idea proposed by many fishers
in the Kosi-lower Ganges belt (F.pers.comm). Fish farming through pond culture, though widespread in northern India, is still in the clutches of direct or indirect
feudal control153. It is necessary to create systems where
better community control on well-defined water bodies
(e.g. tanks, wetlands, floodplain pools, oxbow lakes) is
possible149,152,154. Multiple structures exist in West Bengal for fisheries (from sewage-water ponds, wetlands
etc.30,151) but destructive fishing practiced in this state
need to be regulated. Community-based cooperative systems, if planned well, could be of great help in fostering
socially equitable and profitable fisheries management,
boosting local production, reduce costs, and enhance
commerce while leaving spaces free for biodiversity conservation and for the river ecosystem itself1,2,20,44,154,155.
With the challenge of fisheries addressed, river management can improve with low-water intensity crops and
agricultural practices (e.g. zero-tillage rice farming intensification), which need low water abstraction for irrigation, maintenance of riparian shelterbelts, ecological flow regimes, and curbing of illegal and destructive
practices, all of which will aid fisheries through provid22
April-June 2014
ing more water and fishing opportunities154,155. Table 4
summarizes recommendations for fisheries restoration
in the form of a 12-point plan.
Image 7. Dialogue with fishing communities is critical for
ensuring protection of their livelihoods, which are facing serious
threat from the condition of rivers in the Gangetic basin.
Photo: © Subhasis Dey.
River fisheries need adaptive management that utilizes
fishers’ traditional local knowledge156 while improving
their livelihoods. Post active river restoration, ‘wildlifefriendly’ fisheries could be developed through policy that
ensures use of small-scale, species-specific with monitoring standards of zero-entanglement and setting of
species or size-specific targets44,123,137. Fisher communities can help monitor adjoining river stretches, and help
protected area authorities in regulating illegal, destructive fishing. The proposed Food Security Act and rural
labor programs could enhance both nutrition and wage
rates of fishers, providing some protection to livelihoods
without adverse impacts on fisheries. Improved social
security could also help create opportunity for involving
fishermen in small-scale ecotourism around existing riverine PAs44. Planning ecotourism ventures also necessarily requires assessing their benefits to fishers as
against other commercial interests. The National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme too can be effectively
used towards this end, on a cooperative, open and equal
footing. The importance of sustained monitoring and
action in all these initiatives cannot be overemphasized:
for river biodiversity, for fisher folk, and for the river
itself. However, none of these efforts will be complete
without substantially reducing flow regulation by dams
and maintenance of ecological flow regimes. Finally, the
quest for sustaining fisheries in the Ganga River basin
in the long-term will require rethinking of current dominant paradigms to move towards ecological restoration
of rivers, their biodiversity, as well as socially just, rightsbased and equitable socio-political restoration of traditional fisher communities and fisheries management
systems.
Dams, Rivers & People
April-June 2014
Table 4. Twelve-point recommendation from traditional fisher communities for sustaining
riverine fisheries and livelihoods in the Gangetic basin.
Rank
Need
Recommendations
1
Water
Provide enough water, adequate natural flows in all rivers. Allow fish
movements upriver, currently blocked by large dams and barrages. STOP
new dams and mindless, high-cost, destructive and unsustainable engineering projects such as river interlinking.
2
Ban on destructive
fishing practices
Curb destructive practices of fishing, especially mosquito-netting, poisoning, dynamite-fishing, trawling and beach-seine netting everywhere.
3
Poverty alleviation and
social security
Fishers are in need of government dole or loans, technical know-how,
permits and I-cards, housing, education and displacement packages. It
is alleged that these benefits are hardly reaching them, although the
allocations of funds reach farmers easily. Fishers need government security from criminals / mafia / anti-social elements / pirates that harass
them and grab fish catch.
5
Define fisher rights
and responsibilities
Clearly define fishing use and access rights across all riverscapes, provide clear guidelines on multi-objective management of fisheries amidst
other economic activities
6
Reduce pollution and
mass fish-kills
Urgent need to reduce the presently excessive river pollution, especially
industrial but also domestic wastes.
7
Alternative livelihoods
River fisheries are currently in a state of ecosystem-level decline or collapse. Trash fishes have become the most common catch, replacing many
commercially viable carps and catfishes. People require alternative livelihoods in situ, to check problems related to migration and exodus to
work as construction laborers or rickshaw-pullers. Community-based,
cooperative pond carp-culture fisheries seem highly promising. Other
alternative livelihoods include working with river management authorities, conservation agencies, ecotourism, agriculture etc.
8
Fishery co-operatives
Focus on community-based management of river fisheries and help it
develop in an ecologically friendly and sustainable manner. Replace the
systems of private contracts and free-for-all fishing by power-equitable,
social dignified resource-sharing arrangements
9
Ensure compliance of fishers
towards biodiversity
conservation and monitoring
Needs to be ensured through continued monitoring of fishing activity
and behavior, including by-catch or hunting of species. This will help
safeguard endangered wild species such as gharial, turtles, river dolphins, birds etc. This can also help the spread of exotic food fishes that
are rapidly invading our rivers (the worst examples are Tilapia species,
Chinese and Common Carps, and more recently, Red-bellied Piranha.
10
Use of Food Security Act,
Rural Labor Programs
Can facilitate daily incomes by which fisheries losses could be offset;
while also providing a solid community-level incentive to regulate and
monitor fishing.
11
Restoration of native
riverine fish communities
Very important given the huge decline in native carp species of high
commercial value. Fisheries need to protected not only by revival of stocks,
facilitating better fish recruitment, but also by protecting fish breeding
habitats from
12
Adaptive management of
water tenure in
fishing areas
Owing to natural uncertainty linked to flow regimes and channel course
changes, new flexible systems of tenure in fisheries are required. Such
systems would fit in well with providing a clear definition to fishing
rights in any riverine stretch.
23
Dams, Rivers & People
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
24
Kelkar, N. (2012) Fishing for Scrap: Sustaining River
Fisheries in the Face of Ecosystem Degradation, Sociopolitical Dynamics and Poverty in the Gangetic Basin. A
Brief Report on the Status of River Fisheries: Causes of
Decline, Conflicts and Potential Alternatives. Report submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries, Department of Agriculture (branch), Government of India.
New Delhi. 40 p.
Payne, A.I., Temple, S.A. (1996) River and Floodplain
Fisheries in the Ganges Basin. Final report R.5485. Marine Resources Assessment Group Limited, Overseas
Development Administration, London, 1996.
Singh, M. & Singh, A.K. (2007) Bibliography of environmental studies in natural characteristics and anthropogenic influences on the Ganga River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129, 421–432.
Vass, K.K., Mondal, S.K., Samanta, S., Suresh, V.R. &
Katiha, P.K. (2010) The environment and fishery status
of River Ganges. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 13, 385–394.
Sharma, S., Joachimski, M., Sharma, M., Tobschall, H.J.,
Singh, I.B., Sharma, C., Chauhan, M.S. & Morgenroth,
G. (2004) Lateglacial and Holocene environmental
changes in Ganga plain, northern India. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 145–159.
Singh, M., Bir, I. & Müller, G. (2007) Sediment characteristics and transportation dynamics of the Ganga River.
Geomorphology, 86, 144 – 175.
Rudra, K. (2010) Dynamics of the Ganga in West Bengal,
India (1764–2007): Implications for science–policy interaction. Quaternary International, 227, 161–169.
Richards, K., Brasington, J. & Hughes, F. (2002) Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and
a potential modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology, 47,
559–579.
Jain, V. & Tandon, S.K. (2010) Conceptual assessment of
(dis)connectivity and its application to the Ganga River
dispersal system. Geomorphology, 118, 349–358.
Bayley, P.B. (1995) Understanding large river floodplain
ecosystems. BioScience, 45, 153–158.
Graaf, G. De. (2003) The flood pulse and growth of floodplain fish in Bangladesh. Fisheries Management, 10, 1–7.
Alford, D. & Armstrong, R. (2010) The role of glaciers in
stream flow from the Nepal Himalaya. The Cryosphere
Discussions, 4, 469–494.
Kale, V.S. (2005) Fluvial hydrology and geomorphology
of monsoon-dominated Indian rivers. Revista Brasileira
de Geomorfologia, 6, 63–73.
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard,
K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E. & Stromberg, J.C. (1997)
The Natural Flow Regime. BioScience, 47, 769.
Sinha, R. & Friend, P.F. (1994) River systems and their
sediment flux, Indo-Gangetic plains , Northern Bihar ,
India. Sedimentology, 41, 825–845.
Singh, S., Parkash, B., Rao, M.S., Arora, M. & Bhosle, B.
(2006) Geomorphology, pedology and sedimentology of the
Deoha/Ganga–Ghaghara Interfluve, Upper Gangetic
Plains (Himalayan Foreland Basin) — extensional tectonic implications. Catena, 67, 183–203.
April-June 2014
17. Tsai, C.-F., Youssof Ali, M. (Eds.) (1997) Openwater fisheries of Bangladesh. University Press Ltd., Dhaka,
Bangladesh. 208 p.
18. Lytle, D.A. & Poff, N.L. (2004) Adaptation to natural flow
regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 94–100.
19. Baran, E. (2006) Fish migration triggers in the Lower
Mekong Basin and other tropical freshwater systems.
MRC Technical Paper No. 14, Vientiane. 56 p.
20. Sharma, M. (2006) ‘Diara Diary’, ‘Snatching food from a
tiger’s mouth’, ‘A Private Ganga’ and ‘The Fickle River
Basin’. In: Sharma, M. (2006) Landscapes and Lives.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi. p.12-41.
21. Katiha, P.K., Jena, J.K., Pillai, N.G.K., Chakraborty, C.
& Dey, M.M. (2005) Inland Aquaculture in India: Past
trend, present status and future prospects. Aquaculture
Economics and Management, 9, 237–264.
22. Ahmed, K.K.U., Ahmed, S.U., Haldar, G.C. & Hossain,
M.R.A. (2005) Primary Production and Fish Yield Estimation in the Meghna River System, Bangladesh. Asian
Fisheries Science, 18, 95–105.
23. Danda, A.A. (2007) Surviving in the Sundarbans: Threats
and Responses. PhD dissertation submitted to the Technology and Sustainable Development Group, Center for
Knowledge on Sustainable Governance and Natural Resources Management, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
24. Sehgal, K.L. (1999) Coldwater fish and fisheries in in the
Indian Himalayas: rivers and streams. In: Fish and Fisheries at higher altitudes: Asia. FAO corporate repository
document, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper T385, Afghanistan. 304 p.
25. Poulsen, A, Poeu, O, Viravong, S, Suntornratana, U, and
Thanh Tung, N. (2002) Deep pools as dry season fish habitats in the Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Paper No. 4,
Mekong River Commission. , 22.
26. Mekong River Commission (MRC). (2002) Fisheries in the
Lower Mekong Basin: Status and Perspectives. MRC Technical Paper No. 6. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
27. Bellamy, K., Beebe, J.T., Saunderson, H.C. & Imhof, J.
(1992) River morphology, sediments and fish habitats.
Erosion and Sediment Transport Monitoring Programmes
in River Basins (Proceedings of the Ohio Symposium), 210,
309–316.
28. Miao, W., Silva, S.D. & Davy, B. (eds.) (2010) Inland Fisheries Resource Enhancement and Conservation in Asia.
Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 22.
29. Jha, U.M. (2009) Economics of fish farming in flood prone
areas of Bihar with special reference to Koshi River system. Report to the Planning Commission (SER Division),
(Vide F. No. 0-15012/49/05 SER). Govt. of India, New
Delhi, India.
30. Abraham, T.J., Sil, S.K. & Vineetha, P. (2010) A comparative study of the aquaculture practices adopted by fish
farmers in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 57, 41–48.
31. Jayaram, K. C. (1999). The Freshwater Fishes of the Indian Region. Narendra Publishing House. Delhi, India.
32. Raja, B.T.A. (1988) A Review Of The Biology And Fisheries Of Hilsa Ilisha In The Upper Bay Of Bengal - BOBP/
WP/37. FAO, UNDP, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Dams, Rivers & People
33. Larinier, M., Marmulla, G. (2004) Fish Passes: Types,
Principles and Geographical Distribution: an Overview.
In: Proceedings of the second international symposium
on the management of large rivers for fisheries (Volume
II), FAO corporate repository document, FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper, FAO RAP 2004/17, UNDP, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia. 316 p.
34. Dudgeon, D. (2005) River rehabilitation for conservation
of fish biodiversity in monsoonal Asia. Ecology And Society, 10, 15.
35. Dudgeon, D. (2000) Large-scale hydrological changes in
tropical Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. Bioscience, 50, 793–806.
36. Mokhlesur Rahman, M. & Rahman, M.M. (2008) Capture-based aquaculture of wild-caught Indian major carps
in the Ganges Region of Bangladesh. In: Lovatelli, A.,
Holthus, P.F. (eds.) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 508,
Rome, Italy. P. 127–140.
37. Montana, C.G., Choudhary, S.K., Dey, S. & Winemiller,
K.O. (2011) Compositional trends of fisheries in the River
Ganga Fisheries Management and Ecology. doi: 10.1111/
j.1365-2400.2010.00782.x.
38. Choudhary, S.K., Smith, B.D., Dey, S., Dey, S. & Prakash,
S. (2006) Conservation and biomonitoring in the
Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary, Bihar, India.
Oryx, 40, 189–197.
39. Prasad, S. & Kanaujia, D.R. (2006) Availability and Breeding Behaviour of Ganga River Prawn Macrobrachium
gangeticum (Bate) and Macrobrachium malcolmsonii
(H.M. Edwards). Asian Fisheries Science, 19, 377–388.
40. Primavera, J.H. (1997) Socio-economic impacts of shrimp
culture. Aquaculture Research, 28, 815–827.
41. Bhatt, J.P., Nautiyal, P. & Singh, H.R. (2004) Status (19931994) of the Endangered Fish Himalayan Mahseer Tor
putitora (Hamilton) (Cyprinidae) in the Mountain Reaches
of the River Ganga. Asian Fisheries Science, 17, 341–355.
42. Dinesh, K., Nandeesha, M.C., Nautiyal, P. & Aiyappa, P.
(2010) Mahseers in India: A review with focus on conservation and management. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 80, 26–38.
43. De Silva, S. (1993) Reservoir fisheries of Asia Proceedings of the 2nd Asian reservoir fisheries workshop held
in Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, 15-19 October
1990 Singapore, 285 p.
44. Kelkar, N. & Krishnaswamy, J. (2010) Keeping rivers
alive. Seminar, 613, 29–33.
45. Jassal, S.T. (2001) Caste and the colonial state: Mallahs
in the census. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 35, 319–
356.
46. Reeves, P. (1995) Inland waters and freshwater fisheries:
Issues of control, access and conservation in colonial India. In: Arnold, D. and Guha, R. (eds.) Nature, Culture
and Imperialism. OUP, New Delhi, India. P. 260-292.
47. Reeves, P. (2002) Regional diversity in south Asian inland fisheries: colonial Bengal and Uttar Pradesh compared. Journal of South Asian Studies, 25, 121–35.
48. Kumar, A., Katiha, P.K. & Joshi, P.K. (eds.) (2003) A profile of people, technologies and policies in fisheries sector
in India. Proceedings Series 10 p. 170. National Centre
for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New
April-June 2014
Delhi, India.
49. Katiha, P.K., Sharma, A. P., Chandra, G. (2013). Institutional arrangements in fisheries of Ganga River System.
Paper Presented in Conference on Health and Fisheries
of the Major River Ecosystem of India with Emphasis on
River Ganga, jointly organised by AEHMS, Canada, IFSI
& CIFRI, Kolkata, India. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2219347. Accessed on 21 July 2013.
50. Gupta, C. (1993) Unshackling the Ganga. Down to Earth,
2, 22-24.
51. Government of Bihar. 2006. Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Bill - 2006 (Bihar Act 13). Govt. of Bihar, Patna,
India, [Amended in 2007, 2008 and 2010] p.11.
52. Revenue Board of Bihar. Bihar Records Manual 1960.
(1962) Govt. of Bihar, Patna, India. p. 284.
53. Government of Bihar. (2011) Model Rules, 2011 under
Bengal Ferries Act-1885. Patna, India.
54. Puthucherril, T.G. (2009) Riparianism in Indian water
jurisprudence. In Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws in
India. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. P. 97-137.
55. Upadhyay, V. (2009) The ownership of water in Indian
laws. In Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws in India. Sage
Publications, New Delhi, India. P. 134-148.
56. Norman-Lopez, A. & Innes, J.P. (2005) Review of river
fisheries valuation in tropical Asia. Tropical River Fisheries Valuation: Background Papers to a Global Synthesis pp. 147–226. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
57. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. (2007) Handbook on Fisheries Statistics, Table 4.29: Fishermen population-2003. New Delhi, India.
58. Government of India (Planning Commission) Report of
the Working Group on Fisheries for the Tenth Five Year
Plan. New Delhi, India. 185 p.
59. Government of India. 2011. Manual on fishery statistics.
Section B - Inland Fishery. Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Central Statistics Office, New
Delhi, India. 90 p.
60. Marmulla, G. (ed.) (2001) Dams, fish and fisheries: Opportunities, challenges and conflict resolution. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 419. Rome, Italy. 166 p.
61. Dubey, G.P. & Ahmad, A. (1995) Problems for the conservation of freshwater fish genetic resources in India, and
some possible solutions. NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly,
July, 21–25.
62. Adams, W. (2000) Thematic Review 1.1: Downstream
Impacts of Large Dams. Thematic Review for the World
Commission on Dams, Cambridge, UK. p. 27.
63. Leuven, R S E W, Poudevigne, I. (2002) Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment. Freshwater Biology, 47, 845–865.
64. Smakhtin, V., Arunachalam, M., Behera, S., Chatterjee,
A., Das, S., Gautam, P., Joshi, G.D., Sivaramakrishnan,
K.G. & Unni, K.S. (2007) Developing Procedures for Assessment of Ecological Status of Indian River Basins in
the Context of Environmental Water Requirements. IWMI,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
65. Mirza, M.M.Q. (1998) Hydrological changes in the Ganges
25
Dams, Rivers & People
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
26
system in Bangladesh in the post-Farakka period. Hydrological Sciences, 42, 613–630.
Mukhopadhyay, M.K., Mitra, P.M., Bagchi, M.M. &
Karamkar, H.C. (1996) Impact of Farakka Barrage on the
Hydrology and Fishery of Hooghly Estuary. Estuaries, 19,
710–722.
Prakash, A. (1997) Farakka Barrage. Public Interest Research Group Update, Madhyam Books.
Banerjee, M. (1999) A Report on the Impact of Farakka
Barrage on the Human Fabric. A Submission to World
Commission on Dams. Thematic Review: Flood Control
Options in the Gangetic Basin. New Delhi, India.
Adel, M.M. (2001) Effect on Water Resources from Upstream Water Diversion in the Ganges Basin. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 30, 356–368.
Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M. & Revenga, C.
(2008) Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World’s
Large River Systems. Science, 308, 405–408.
Döll, P., Fiedler, K. & Zhang, J. (2009) Global-scale analysis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals and
reservoirs. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 6, 4773–4812.
Choudhary, S.K., S. Dey, S. Dey, V. Sagar, T. Nair, N.
Kelkar. (2012) River dolphin distribution in regulated
river systems: implications for dry-season flow regimes
in the Gangetic basin. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 22, 11-25.
Subramanian, V. (2004) Water Quality in South Asia.
Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 1,
41–54.
Sinha, M. & Khan, M.A. (2001) Impact of environmental
aberrations on fisheries of the Ganga (Ganges) River.
Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 4, 493–504.
Alley, K.D. (2009) Ganga and Gandagi: Interpretations
of pollution and waste in Benaras. Ethnology, 33, 127145.
Panda, D.K., Kumar, A. & Mohanty, S. (2011) Recent
trends in sediment load of the tropical (Peninsular) river
basins of India. Global and Planetary Change, 75, 108–
118.
Norris, R.H., Linke, S., Prosser, I., Young, W.J., Liston,
P., Bauer, N., Sloane, N., Dyer, F. & Thoms, M. (2007)
Very-broad-scale assessment of human impacts on river
condition. Freshwater Biology, 52, 959–976.
Iqbal, S. (2010) Flood and erosion-induced population displacements: a socio-economic case study in the Gangetic
riverine tract at Malda District, West Bengal, India. Journal of Human Ecology, 30, 201–211.
Acreman, M. (2000) Managed Flood Releases from Reservoirs/ : Issues and Guidance. Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. Thematic Report submitted
to the World Commission on Dams. 96 p.
Chakraborty, T., Kar, R., Ghosh, P., Basu, S. (2010) Kosi
megafan: Historical records, geomorphology and the recent avulsion of the Kosi River. Quaternary International,
227, 143–160.
Singh, P., Ghose, N., Chaudhury, N. & Hansda, R. (2009)
Life in the Shadow of Embankments–Turning Lost Lands
into Assets in the Koshi Basin of Bihar, India. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development,
April-June 2014
Nepal and WinRock International, India. 54 p.
82. Mishra, D.K. (2009) Floods and some legal concerns. In
Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws in India. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. P. 309-328.
83. Olden, J.D., Naiman, R.J. (2003) Incorporating thermal
regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. Freshwater Biology (2010) 55, 86–107. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2427.2009.02179.x
84. Kondolf, G.M. (1997) Hungry water: effects of dams and
gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management, 21, 533–551.
85. Erlewein, A. (2013) Disappearing rivers: The limits of
environmental assessment for hydropower in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 135–143.
86. Csiki, S. & Rhoads, B.L. (2010) Hydraulic and geomorphological effects of run-of-river dams. Progress in Physical Geography, 34, 755–780.
87. Brown, J.J., Limburg, K.E., Waldman, J.R., Stephenson, K.,
Glenn, E.P., Juanes, F. & Jordaan, A. (2013) Fish and hydropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies
from half-way technologies. Conservation Letters, 0, 1–7.
88. Barthem, R.B., Ribeiro, M.C.L. de B. & Petrere Jr, M.
(1991) Life Strategies of some Long-Distance Migratory
Catfish in Relation to Hydroelectric Dams in the Amazon
Basin. Biological Conservation, 55, 339–345.
89. Pandit, M.K. & Grumbine, R.E. (2012) Potential effects
of ongoing and proposed hydropower development on terrestrial biological diversity in the Indian Himalaya. Conservation Biology, 26, 1061–71.
90. Rosenberg, D.M., Berkes, F., Bodaly, R., Hecky, R.E., Kelly,
C.A., Rudd, J.W. (1997) Large-scale impacts of hydroelectric development. Environmental Reviews, 5, 27–54.
91. Xu, J., Grumbine, R.E., Shrestha, A., Eriksson, M., Yang,
X., Wang, Y.U.N. & Wilkes, A. (2009) The Melting
Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods. Conservation Biology,
23, 520–530.
92. Vass, K.K., Das, M.K., Srivastava, P.K. & Dey, S. (2009)
Assessing the impact of climate change on inland fisheries in River Ganga and its plains in India. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 12, 138–151.
93. Mirza, M.M.Q. (2002) Global warming and changes in the
probability of occurrence of floods in Bangladesh and
implications. Global Environmental Change, 12, 127–138.
94. McAllister, D.E., Craig, J.F., Davidson, N., Delany, S. &
Seddon, M. (2001) Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams.
IUCN, UNEP, WCD, Geneva. Switzerland. 47 p.
95. Poff, N.L., Olden, J.D., Merritt, D.M., Pepin, D.M. (2007)
Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and
global biodiversity implications. PNAS, 104, 5732–5737.
96. Richter, B D, Mathews, R, Harrison, D L, Wigington, R.
(2003) Ecologically Sustainable Water Management:
Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological
Applications, 13, 206–224.
97. Richter, B.D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., Lehner, B. &
Churchill, A. (2010) Lost in Development’s Shadow: The
Downstream Human Consequences of Dams. Water Alternatives, 3, 14–42.
98. Bandyopadhyay, J., Perveen, S. (2007) The interlinking
Dams, Rivers & People
of Indian rivers: some questions on the scientific, economic
and environmental dimensions of the proposal. Occasional
Paper No 60, SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School of
Oriental and African Studies/King’s College, London, U.K.
99. Acreman, M. & Dunbar, M.J. (2004) Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review. Hydrology and
Earth Systems Sciences, 8, 861–876.
100. Anantha, L. & Dandekar, P. (2012) Towards Restoring
Flows into the Earth’s Arteries: A Primer on Environmental Flows. SANDRP, New Delhi, India.
101. Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L. & Naiman, R.J.
(2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow
rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications,
16, 1311–1318.
102. Jauhari, V.P. (2000) Operation, Monitoring and Decommissioning of Large Dams in India. Prepared for Thematic Review IV.5: Operation, Monitoring and Decommissioning of Dams. Water Policy, 172.
103. Khan, M.A. (2010) Enhancing water productivity through
multiple uses of water in Indo-Gangetic basin. Innovation and Sustainable Development in agriculture and food,
June 28-30, 10.
104. Shah, T., Ul-Hassan, M., Khattak, M.Z., Banerjee, P.S.,
Singh, O.P. & Ur Rehman, S. (2008) Is Irrigation Water
Free? A Reality Check in the Indo-Gangetic Basin. World
Development. Doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.05.008
105. Postel, S.L. (2003) Securing water for people, crops, and
ecosystems: New mindset and new priorities. Natural
Resources Forum, 27, 89–98.
106. D’Souza, R. (2003) Supply-Side Hydrology in India: The
Last Gasp. Economic And Political Weekly, September 6,
3785-3790.
107. Sharma, B.R., Amarasinghe, U.A. & Sikka, A. IndoGangetic River Basins: Summary Situation Analysis.
Report by IWMI and NRAAI, New Delhi, India. 14 p.
108. Turvey, S. (2008) Witness to Extinction: How we failed to
save the Yangtze River Dolphin. Oxford University Press,
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
109. Xie, S., Z. Li, J. Liu, S. Xie, H. Wang, B.R. Murphy. (2007)
Fisheries of the Yangtze River show immediate impacts
of the Three Gorges Dam. Fisheries, 32, 343-344.
110. Welcomme, R. L. (1995) Relationships between fisheries
and the integrity of river systems. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 11, 121-136. doi: 10.1002/
rrr.3450110110
111. Allan, J.D., Abell, R., Hogan, Z.E.B., Revenga, C., Taylor,
B.W., Welcomme, R.L. (2005) Overfishing of Inland Waters. BioScience, 55, 1041–1052.
112. Raby, G.D., Colotelo, A.H., Blouin-demers, G. & Cooke,
S.J. (2011) Freshwater commercial bycatch: an understated conservation problem. BioScience, 61, 271–280.
113. Kasulo, V. & Perrings, C. (2006) Fishing down the value
chain: Biodiversity and access regimes in freshwater fisheries — the case of Malawi. Ecological Economics, 59, 106–
114.
114. Ramakrishna, R. (2007) Kolleru carp culture in India: an
aquaplosion and an explosion’, Aquaculture Asia Magazine, 25, 12-18.
115. Kent, G. (1995) Aquaculture and Food Security. in
PACON, eds., Proceedings of the PACON Conference on
April-June 2014
Sustainable Aquaculture 95, 11-14. Honolulu, Hawai’i,
USA. Honolulu: Pacific Congress on Marine Science and
Technology.
116. Singh, N.P., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Padaria, R.N., Singh,
A. & Varghese, N. (2011) Labour Migration in IndoGangetic Plains: Determinants and Impacts on Socio-economic Welfare. Agricultural Economics Research, 24, 449–
458.
117. Neil Adger, W., Kelly, P.M., Winkels, A., Huy, L.Q. & Locke,
C. (2002) Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories
and social resilience. Ambio, 31, 358–367.
118. Swain, A., May, N. (1996) Displacing the Conflict: Environmental Destruction in Bangladesh and Ethnic Conflict in India. Peace and Conflict, 33, 189–204.
119. Seth, R.N. & Katiha, P.K. (2003) Riverine fishing methods with special reference to catfishes Aorichthys
seenghala (Sykes) and Aorichthys aor (Ham.). Indian
Journal of Fisheries, 50, 125–130.
120. Wishard, S.K. (1975) Roak fishing and its probable effects on the capture fishery of River Yamuna in Agra District. Fisheries Research, 213–231.
121. Kibria, G., Ahmed, K.K.U. (2005) Diversity of Selective
and Non-Selective Fishing Gear and Their Impact on Inland Fisheries in Bangladesh. NAGA World Fish Center
Newsletter, Vol. 28, No. 1&2.
122. Government of Uttar Pradesh. (1948) Uttar Pradesh Fisheries Act. UP Act No. XLV of 1948, Dept. of Fisheries,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. 18 p.
123. Kelkar, N., Krishnaswamy, J., Choudhary, S. & Sutaria,
D. (2010) Coexistence of fisheries with river dolphin conservation. Conservation Biology, 24, 1130–1140.
124. Kumar, B.G., Datta, K.K., Joshi, P.K., Katiha, P.K.,
Suresh, R., Ravisankar, T., Ravindranath, K. & Menon,
M. (2008) Domestic Fish Marketing in India-Changing
Structure, Conduct, Performance and Policies. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 21, 345–354.
125. Havel, J.E., Lee, C.E. & Zanden, M.J. Vander. (2005) Do
Reservoirs Facilitate Invasions into Landscapes?
BioScience, 55, 518–525.
126. Canonico, G.C., Arthington, A., McCrary, J.K. & Thieme,
M.L. (2005) The effects of introduced tilapias on native
biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 483, 463–483.
127. Kennard, M.J., Arthington, A.H., Pusey, B.J. & Harch,
B.D. (2005) Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river
health? Freshwater Biology, 50, 174–193.
128. Agostinho, C.S., Agostinho, A.A., Pelicice, F., Almeida, D.A.
De & Marques, E.E. (2007a) Selectivity of fish ladders: a
bottleneck in Neotropical fish movement. Neotropical Ichthyology, 5, 205–213.
129. Roscoe, D.W. & Hinch, S.G. (2010) Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic
patterns and future directions. Fish and Fisheries, 11,
12–33.
130. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Report of
the High Powered Committee on Cooperatives. (2009) Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi,
India.
131. Datta, S.K., Singh, S.P., Chakrabarti, M., Biswas, S. Bittu,
S. (2010) A Perspective on Fisheries Sector Interventions
27
Dams, Rivers & People
for Livelihood Promotion. Working Paper No. 2010-02-03,
32 p.
132. Deacon, R.T. (2012) Fishery management by harvester
co-opeatives. Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, 6, 258–277.
133. Government of India. (2009) Ministry of Environment and
Forests Notification No. 521, Regd. No. 33004/99, New
Delhi, India.
134. Government of India (2010) Dolphin declared National
Aquatic Animal. Press Note of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, India. URL: envfor.nic.in
accessed on 6th July 2012.
135. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). (1972) The
Wildlife (Protection) Act. Government of India, New Delhi,
India.
136. Bennett, E., Neiland, A., Anang, E., Bannerman, P.,
Rahman, A.A., Huq, S., Bhuiya, S., Day, M. & Clerveaux,
W. (2001) Towards a better understanding of conflict
management in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana,
Bangladesh and the Caribbean. CEMARE Research Paper 159, Portsmouth, UK. 22 p.
137. Ens, B.J., Leopold, M.F., Lindeboom, H.J., Smit, C.J.,
Breukelen, S. Van & Schans, J.W. Van Der. (2007) International Comparison of Fisheries Management with Respect to Nature Conservation. Statutory Research Tasks
Unit for Nature and the Environment, WOT
Report.Wageningen, The Netherlands. 116 p.
138. Moulton, T.P. (2009) Defying water’s end: do we need different conservation strategies for aquatic systems compared with terrestrial? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 19 (editorial), 1–3.
139. Kingsford, R.T., Biggs, H.C. & Pollard, S.R. (2011) Strategic Adaptive Management in freshwater protected areas and their rivers. Biological Conservation, 144, 1194–
1203.
140. Campbell, I.C. (2007) Perceptions, data, and river management: Lessons from the Mekong River. Water Resources, 43, 1–13.
141. Tyagi, L.K., Sarkar, U.K. & Paul, S.K. (2007) People’s
Perception about Conservation of Fishery Resources Outside the Protected Water Bodies: A Case Study in
Lakhimpur Khiri Distt. of U.P. Indian Research Journal
of Extended Education, 7, 36–38.
142. Nel, J.L., Roux, D.J., Maree, G., Kleynhans, C.J.,
Moolman, J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M. & Cowling, R.M.
(2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas:
a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river
ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 13, 341–352.
143. Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I.A.N. (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in com-
April-June 2014
munity-based natural resource management. World Development, 27, 225–247.
144. Varis, O., Kummu, M. & Salmivaara, A. (2012) Ten major
rivers in monsoon Asia-Pacific: An assessment of vulnerability. Applied Geography, 32, 441–454.
145. Buijse, A.D., Klijn, F., Leuven, R.S.E.W., Middelkoop, H.,
Schiemer, F., Thorp, J.H. & Wolfert, H.P. (2005) Rehabilitation of large rivers/ : references , achievements and integration into river management. Large Rivers, 15, 715–
738.
146. Sparks, R.E. & Braden, J.B. (2010) Naturalization of
Developed Floodplains: An Integrated Analysis. Journal
of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 136, 7–
17.
147. LiveMint.com (2013). Green Tribunal bans sand mining
without clearance. URL: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/
lor7YfKMp389ZqAWzFU9IM/Green-tribunal-bans-sandmining-without-clearance.html. Accessed 20/10/13.
148. Stewart, W.P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K.W. (2004) Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 69, 315–334.
149. Dey, M.M. & Prein, M. (2006) Community-based fish culture in seasonal floodplains. NAGA, WorldFish Center
Quarterly, 29, 21–27.
150. Smith, L.E.D., Khoa, S.N. & Lorenzen, K. (2005) Livelihood functions of inland fisheries: policy implications in
developing countries. Water Policy, 7, 359–383.
151. Ramsundar, B. (2011) Sustainable Use of Water Resources
in the Form of Pisciculture to Generate Income in West
Bengal-A study report. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2, 15–31.
152. Das, S.K. (2006) Small-scale rural aquaculture in Assam,
India – a case study. NAGA-World Fish Center Quarterly,
29, 42-47.
153. Marshall, J. (2001) Landlords, leaseholders & sweat equity: changing property regimes in aquaculture. Marine
Policy, 25, 335–352.
154. Barrett, C.B., Lee, D.R. & McPeak, J.G. (2005) Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Development, 33, 193–197.
155. Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S. &
Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) Payments for biodiversity
conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological
Economics, 69, 1283–1291.
156. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2008) Rediscovery of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262.
Photo credits: Nachiket Kelkar, Subhasis Dey, Sushant Dey, Rahul Kumar, Roopam Shukla.
NOTE: Please note that we are continuing the publication of DRP as a non RNI publication, so this is for
private circulation only. DRP is not for sale. Those who have subscribed will continue to get printed copies till
their subscription lasts. For any support towards continuing publication of DRP, please write to:
[email protected].
Edited by Himanshu Thakkar at 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 88.
Printed at Sun Shine Process, B -103/5, Naraina Indl. Area Phase - I, New Delhi - 110 028
28