river fisheries of the gangetic basin, india: a primer · south asia network on dams, rivers &...

2 South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People

River Fisheries of the Gangetic Basin, India: A Primer September 2014

River Fisheries of the Gangetic Basin, India : A Primer

Author:Nachiket Kelkar1

Emails: [email protected], [email protected]

Cover and Back page design:Nachiket Kelkar

Photos:Nachiket Kelkar, Subhasis Dey, Sushant Dey, Rahul Kumar, Roopam Shukla.

Citation:Kelkar, N. (2014)River Fisheries of the Gangetic Basin, India:A Primer. SANDRP, New Delhi, India

September 2014

Published by:South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP)New Delhi,[email protected], http://sandrp.wordpress.com/http://sandrp.in/, https://www.facebook.com/sandrp.in

Designed by:Creative Designers122 (GF), Mohammad Pur,Opp Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi [email protected]

This document has been produced by South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (a YUVA (Youth for Unity andVoluntary Action) Project) with the financial contribution by Swedish public development co-operation aid throughthe Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), Sweden. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. The viewsstated herein shall not necessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of SSNC or its donora, of YUVA or ofATREE.

Material from this publication can be used, with acknowledgement to the source.

1 Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Srirampura Royal Enclave, Jakkur, Bangalore 560064, India & Member, IUCNCetacean Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People 3


Executive Summary

Although inland fisheries have seen a recent boom in India due to pond aquaculture, riverine fisheries have almostcollapsed over the last four decades (accounting today for less than 10% of India’s inland fisheries production). Thetrajectory of decline in river fisheries across India shows a clear association with the period of maximum waterdevelopment in the 1970s and 1980s; multiple dams, barrages and hydropower projects having been institutedacross the country. The magnitude of decline has been to the tune of 90% over this period and has serious implica-tions for millions of fishers that depend solely on river fisheries for subsistence and livelihoods. Riverine fisheries ofthe Gangetic basin of India support about 13 million fisher households directly or indirectly. The decline in fishresources has been a serious concern for the socio-economically marginalized fishers of this region. This documentargues categorically that the major reason for the decline in fisheries of the Gangetic basin is the severe alterationof river flow regimes by large dams, barrages and hydropower projects. The impacts of these are linked to numerousother problems threatening the ecological integrity of the rivers of the Gangetic basin: fragmentation of hydrologi-cal connectivity between rivers and wetlands, alarming levels of pollution, riverfront encroachment, rampant sandmining, embankments, changes in thermal regimes of rivers, destruction of fish habitats, and unregulated exploita-tion of resources. The primer on Gangetic river fisheries presented here attempts to introduce the fisheries in thisperspective to the reader. It synthesizes information from field studies by the author, extensive interactions withfishers across the region, and a review of the literature, in its attempt to review the state of the problem.

The primer describes the river fisheries in the Gangetic basin as a system responding and adapting to constantchange, operating through seasonal flooding pulses, channel course changes, hydrological connectivity and nutrientredistribution across the floodplains. The diversity of fishing habitats and fish species of coldwater streams, low-land/floodplain rivers and estuarine ecosystems is described in detail. A checklist of important fish species to thefisheries has been presented with a description of fish ecology, breeding biology, population dynamics and habitatpreferences. Threats to all fish species have been described in relation to the altered flow regimes and hydrology ofthe Gangetic river system. Flow regulation and alteration by dams, barrages and hydropower projects have affectedfisheries across all habitats through blocking migration routes and destruction of fish breeding habitats.

The socio-political side of the fisheries problem has also been discussed in depth, through an investigation into thepolitical history, economy and social background of the Gangetic fisher communities. Fishing communities belong-ing to many traditional castes have been facing economic and social deprivation even until the present day, whichhas led to their impoverishment over and above the collapse in fish resource availability. Despite these seriousproblems endangering the fishers’ livelihood security, widespread policy neglect has led to continued devaluationand downgrading of fisheries.

The aforementioned problems have together compounded the decline of the fisheries several-fold. Poor flows inrivers and collapsed fish stocks have led fishers to increasingly use techniques that may be potentially destructiveeven for the remaining fish stocks. These changing practices have further degraded the fisheries and this repre-sents a case of market failure. Trash fish species and small-sized fishes dominate the riverine fish production today.In addition, the introduction of invasive food fishes through pond aquaculture has become a major threat to nativefish populations in the Gangetic basin, both through competition for resources and spread of fish diseases. Popula-tions of invasive species (cultured in ponded habitats) have been able to establish themselves in rivers due to poorflow regimes.

The final part documents how most mitigation measures proposed for the revival of fisheries are likely to havefailed. Cooperative fisheries management appears to have been run down by elite capture or governmental corrup-tion in most places. Conflicts between fisheries and other interests (especially irrigation, waterfront developmentand infrastructure) have been rising. Technological measures such as fish ladders and hatcheries have also beeninadequate because of poor environmental flows and improper water management schemes. Fisheries also interactwith riverine species and biodiversity regularly, and opportunities exist in the protection of both fisheries andwildlife by maintaining ecological flow regimes in rivers, to safeguard fish resources along with biodiversity throughcompliance from both groups. Alternative livelihoods for fishers, community-based management of common prop-erty fishery resources and their critical dependence on ecological restoration of riverine fish stocks have been evalu-ated in the final section. The primer culminates in a 12-point plan for conservation, restoration and management ofriver fisheries prepared in consultation with over 300 fishers across the Gangetic basin.



Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Parineeta Dandekar and Himanshu Thakkar of SANDRP for the opportunity to write thisdocument as part of the primer series on riverine fisheries. I would also like to acknowledge funding and institu-tional support which helped me conduct some parts of the research included in this document: the Ravi SankaranSmall Grants Program, Inlaks Shivdasani Foundation, Mumbai; Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and theEnvironment (ATREE), Bangalore, Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF), Mysore and the Vikramshila BiodiversityResearch and Education Centre (VBREC), Bhagalpur, Bihar. Discussions and exchanges of ideas with several friends,mentors and teachers have helped me in my work, and sincere thanks are due to them: Jagdish Krishnaswamy,Rohan Arthur, Sunil Choudhary, Subhasis Dey, Sushant Dey, MD Madhusudan, Mahesh Rangarajan, SiddharthaKrishnan, Rohan D’Souza, Sharad Lele, Dipani Sutaria, Teresa Alcoverro, Oliver Padget, Arunava De, Tarun Nair,Ranjeet Sahni, Nisarg Prakash, Rajeev Tomar, Aditya Joshi, Mayuresh Gangal and Kadambari Deshpande. I wouldlike to also thank friends among fisher folk, field assistants, key informants, local resource persons and severalhelping hands of all-weather men; spread across Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.And as always, I am short of words to thank my parents, relatives and friends for their constant support.

Nachiket Kelkar



Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF BOXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

LIST OF IMAGES .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

1. SCOPE OF THIS CONTRIBUTION: AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE .............................................................. 7

2. THE CANVAS OF GANGETIC RIVER FISHERIES ........................................................................................ 8

2.1 GEOGRAPHY OF THE GANGETIC BASIN .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 THE FISHERIES CALENDAR .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 HABITATS FOR RIVER FISHERIES .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 FISH DIVERSITY IN THE GANGETIC BASIN ............................................................................................................. 11

2.5 STATE OF RIVERINE FISHERIES OF THE GANGETIC BASIN ......................................................................................... 12

2.6 FISHING COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................................................ 14

2.6.1 Cultural Identity .................................................................................................................................... 14

2.6.2 Political and Economic Status .............................................................................................................. 14

2.6.3 Institutional regimes for control and access to fish resources............................................................. 16

3. LARGE DAMS, FLOW REGULATION AND GANGETIC BASIN FISHERIES ........................................ 18

3.1 IMPACTS OF DAMS ON RIVER FLOWS AND FISHERIES ................................................................................................ 18

3.2 DOWNGRADING OF FISHERIES ............................................................................................................................... 21

3.3 FISH DECLINES AND CHANGING PRACTICES (TABLE 3) ............................................................................................. 23

3.4 PROBLEMS WITH INVASIVE ALIEN FISH SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 25

4. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................. 26

4.1 THE MONSOONAL FISHING BAN ............................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 FISH LADDERS AND HATCHERIES ........................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVES: A VESTIGE? ................................................................................................................. 26

4.4 RIVERINE PROTECTED AREAS: NEW GROUNDS FOR CONFLICTS WITH FISHERIES .......................................................... 26

4.5 COMPLIANCE OF FISHERS TOWARDS BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ............................................................................ 27

4.6 RIVER RESTORATION AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS .............................................................................................. 28

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

APPENDIX. FISH DIVERSITY OF THE GANGETIC BASIN. ................................................................................ 37



LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. This study. .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Box 2. A profile of the life of Gangetic fishers. .......................................................................................................... 16

Box 3. The Ghosts of the Yangtze. .............................................................................................................................. 22

Box 4. Swamping of markets with pond-cultured fish. ............................................................................................ 23

LIST OF IMAGES

Image 1. The Sone River in the dry season. Poor river flows released by dams and barrages haveserious implications on fisher livelihoods. Photo: © Subhasis Dey. ........................................................... 8

Image 2. Traditional fishers form an important political constituency in the Gangetic floodplains. Yetpolicy neglect has led to this production sector hanging in the balance. Photo: © Sushant Dey. .......... 16

Image 3. Barrages have not only caused altered flows but also led to blockage of fish migratory routesand loss of hydrological connectivity. Photo: © Subhasis Dey. ................................................................. 18

Image 4. Invasive species such as this Red-bellied Pacu have severely affected native fish populationsand might also pose dangers to people using rivers in which they are running wild. Photo:© Nachiket Kelkar. ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Image 5. Small-sized trash fish dominate markets across the Gangetic basin. Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar. ........ 22

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. ................................... 27

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. ................................................................................................................................ 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The major rivers of the Gangetic Basin. ...................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Schematic to show typical regimes of fish catch seasonality and biomass harvested across the threebroad riverine biomes. The vertical axis represents fish catch in relative ‘catch-per-effort’ units. ......... 8

Figure 3. River habitats in a typical Gangetic floodplain riverscape. Diagram made from freely availableLandSat image (2008) of the Ganga and Kosi Rivers taken from USGS Earth Explorer. ..................... 10

Figure 4. Fishes and prawns ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Map showing existing and planned dams, barrages, pump canals and hydropower projectsin the Gangetic River Basin of India (point data courtesy of IIT-Guwahati free datasetdownload repository. http://gisserver.civil.iitd.ac.in/grbmp/iitg.htm; Map preparedby Nachiket Kelkar; As of year 2012.) ........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 6. a) Major reasons for fish decline and problems while fishing, b) Solutions perceivedby fishers for improving the condition of fisheries in the Gangetic basin. .............................................. 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Fisheries and their freshwater habitat diversity in the Gangetic basin. ................................................ 11

Table 2. Trends in commercially valued fish species: extinctions and declines. ................................................... 13

Table 3. Fishing practices employed in the Gangetic basin. ................................................................................... 24

Table 4. Twelve-point recommendation from traditional fisher communities for sustaining riverinefisheries and livelihoods in the Gangetic basin. ........................................................................................ 30



Box 1. This studyA detailed, large-scale interview survey was con-ducted by the author in 2012 across 372 fishersin 59 fisher groups spread over 17 rivers in 5 northIndian states. The survey objective was to docu-ment perceptions of traditional fishing commu-nities about issues and problems in fishing in theGangetic basin. Of the respondents, c. 90% singledout “large dams and poor river flows” as the maincauses for a near-total decline in fisheries andfish resources over the past 4 decades. About 90%people mentioned low water availability and stop-page of fish migratory routes by large dams asthe main cause for fish declines. Almost 45% (fromeastern and northern UP, and Bihar) singled outthe Farakka barrage as the main problem1.

1. Scope of this contribution: an introductory note1

Riverine fisheries of the Gangetic basin support one ofthe largest fishing populations of the world. However, itsfish resources are rapidly declining due to large dams,barrages and hydropower projects, severely altered riverflows, fragmentation of hydrological connectivity betweenrivers and wetlands, alarming levels of pollution,riverfront encroachment, rampant sand mining and un-regulated overexploitation of fish resources. This compi-lation attempts to provide an understanding aboutGangetic fisheries both from literature and primary/sec-ondary data, from field observations as well as interac-tions with fisher communities. Across its range, the fish-eries show indications of economic unviability and eco-logical collapse, with violent social conflicts as an out-come of the contest over scarce and declining resourcesas well as politics and access. This report argues that amajor factor behind the serious fisheries-related problemsis severe alteration of river flow volume and seasonal dy-namics by large dams, barrages and hydropower projects.Prospects for river restoration to benefit both fisheriesand riverine biodiversity are discussed. The information provided in the report largely represents floodplain fisher-ies and aquaculture regimes but also notes other associated fisheries such as those in cold-water streams, estuariesand wetland-pond culture systems. The recommendations of the study are based on perceptions synthesized throughlived experience by fishers themselves, and are not merely opinions of the author*1.

1 Primary, unpublished data presented in this primer are based on: Kelkar, N. (2012) Fishing for Scrap: Sustaining River Fisheries in the Faceof 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 Agri-culture (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).



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 anarea of approx. 0.9_1 million km2 across northern and eastern India, flowing through 10 states in India and also inNepal and Bangladesh2,3,4. These rivers form one of the largest alluvial mega-fan regions of the world, and deliverhuge quantities of sediment from the Himalayas to the northern Indian plains and to the Bay of Bengal in theIndian Ocean5,6. Most Gangetic basin rivers are of Quaternary geological origin, and geologically young and flowacross neo-tectonically controlled landscapes in the Himalaya and northern India6,7 (Figure 1). These floodplainsform a spatiotemporally dynamic, but highly fertile and productive alluvial deposit7,8,9.

These rivers show strongly pulsed, seasonal flow and flood regimes, from having low flows in the dry-season tomassive monsoonal flooding every year8,9,10. Floods are the most significant drivers of landscape change, redistribut-ing 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) andmonsoonal precipitation (large peninsular-origin 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 hadperennial flows even across the length of the harsh summer14. The biophysical nature of the rivers changes dramati-cally as they flow from their sources in the Himalayas or the Vindhya/Maikal mountain ranges in the peninsulaover large distances5,6,13. Flow and flood-pulse dynamics also affect thermal regimes, substrate availability andcurrent velocity of rivers15,16. The dynamic balance of these factors triggers opportunities for spawning, reproduc-tion, population dynamics and viability, migration and movement of freshwater species17,18,19, including fishes, riverdolphins, otters, crocodilians, turtles, invertebrates as well as terrestrial biodiversity. The Gangetic floodplainsshape not only landforms but also complex human cultures that attempt to stabilize themselves andadapt to the constantly changing riverine forces18,20. Biodiversity, hydrology, geomorphology and socialdynamics 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 throughoutthe region21. It follows that seasonal dynamics of river flows hold sway over the fisheries’ annual calendar, as theymatter critically for the life cycles of several fish species2,4,17. Fishers constantly track river fish population dynam-ics to reap good harvests.

In floodplain rivers, as floodwaters recede post-mon-soon, fishers record the highest catches in October andNovember, as large post-breeding and migrating adultfishes (e.g. major carps, clupeids, mullet) become catch-able. Winters, from December to early February, gen-erally record low catches because many fish showslowed behavior and limited movement. But in springfisheries of minor carps and catfishes record high pro-duction. With water levels reducing, fishes becomemore concentrated in specific river habitats like deeppools, where they are easy to fish. Summer fish catchbiomass is also reasonably good due to the overall lowwater availability2,4,17,21,22.

With the rising of floodwaters by June, access of fish-ers to rivers in spate becomes limited, owing to therisk of fishing from boats17. The flood season is alsothe breeding and spawning period for many commer-cially valuable fishes, and hence critical for continuedharvests afterwards. In estuarine and tidal rivers, theseasonality is similar as the above, but fishers must

Figure 2. Schematic to show typical regimes of fish catchseasonality and biomass harvested across the three broadriverine biomes. The vertical axis represents fish catch in

relative ‘catch-per-effort’ units.



Figure 1. The major rivers of the Gangetic Basin (Based on ‘hydro1k-rivers-Asia.dbf’).

have their daily fishing plans based on tide timetables2,23. Fishing usually peaks at mid- and low-tide times; whereaccess to target catches becomes easy. In cold-water streams, fishing is largely seasonal, happening in spring andsummer after snowmelt24, as in seasonal peninsular streams, which flow only during the monsoons. Wetland andpond fisheries, due to the relatively stable nature of the lentic water-bodies, generally work through the year, exceptfor a short lull in the peak flood season21. Pond aquaculture follows intensive farming of fish and involves near-totalhuman 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 flood-plain rivers, non-perennial rivers, perennial and seasonal streams, cold-water rivers and streams, glacial lakes,estuaries, tidal rivers, floodplain wetlands, oxbow lakes, grassland swamps and marshes2,4,17 (Table 1). Manmadehabitats 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 keyindicators for fishing effort allocation and logistical decisions2. Broadly, cold-water stream habitats may be classi-fied as pools, runs and riffles based on conditions of current flow, substrate, topography and depth. A similar classi-

Image 1. The Sone River in the dry season. Poor river flows released by dams and barrages have serious implicationson fisher livelihoods. Photo: © Subhasis Dey.



fication 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 andconfluence zones6,7,9,10,13,15. Among these, deep pools and confluence zones are highly preferred by fishers due to thesettlement of and constant movement of fish populations in and across these reaches25 (Figure 3). Not just the mainriver channel, but connected sideward channels and channel mixing zones are nutrient-rich and therefore, impor-tant 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 floodplainriver habitats based on fish life stages and size-bias and not only species preference. While strong preferences forfish species exist in any fishery based on cultural traits and availability, an equal, if not more important target, is tocatch large-sized fishes. Size-preference in fisheries also matters for gear types to be used, e.g. determining thespecific mesh- or hook-sizes for use in nets, lines and traps2,28.

Higher diversity of habitats and fishing practices exists in estuarine areas, based on tidal regime and extent ofinfluence of tidal seawater, salinity, retention of water and sediment deposition. Currents and freshwater-brackishwater-saline gradients also matter considerably for fish production. Estuarine fisheries generally are juvenile fish-eries, as many marine and freshwater species use these highly productive habitats for breeding17. So the fishing istypically biased to fish sizes smaller than the respective adult sizes of the harvested species. In floodplain wetlandsand ponds, vegetation, nutrient retention, depth and seasonal habitat connectivity with flowing water or rechargeareas influence natural wild-capture fisheries. Wetland fisheries are either partially or completely managed bypeople, 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 areregularly seeded with fish spawn and fry, which grow in the standing lentic water bodies and are harvested basedon market demand21,30.

Figure 3. River habitats in a typical Gangetic floodplain riverscape. Diagram made from freely availableLandSat image (2008) of the Ganga and Kosi Rivers taken from USGS Earth Explorer.



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+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 Clupeidfish, Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) and some large catfishes form the most valued catches across most parts of the Gangeticfloodplains2.

Major carps, the most preferred freshwater food fishes, include species like Catla, Rohu, Mrigal, Mahseer etc.exhibit potamodromous (along freshwater upstream-downstream gradients) migration. Though these fishes havesuffered serious declines due to overfishing, pollution and dams, they have been mass-produced through artificialrearing in pond aquaculture36. Farmed large carps form the major proportion of fish eaten anywhere in India to-day21. In wild fisheries, catfishes come lower in the preference order, but with the decline of carps, medium andsmall catfishes have become the main fishing targets. Further, as most catfishes are sedentary and do not showlong-distance movements, the fisheries have completely switched from carp- to catfish-targeting fisheries37,38. Other

Table 1. Fisheries and their freshwater habitat diversity in the Gangetic basin2.

Major threats

‘Run of river’ Hydropowerprojects, climate change andglacial melt, destructivefishing methods, blockage ofmigratory routes

Large dams and barrages,reduced flow volume, alterederosion and depositionprocesses, siltation, thermalregime change, destructivefishing practices, pollution

Poor freshwater flows reach-ing estuaries because of largedams, saline ingress, fresh-water vegetation and man-grove die-offs

Wetland reclamation anddestruction, agricultureconversion to residentialareas, poisoning, loss ofconnectivity with flowingrivers, overfishing, exoticspecies, pollution

Reduced freshwater flows,reclamation for agriculture

Fisheries

Cold-waterfisheries

Floodplainfisheries

Estuarinefisheries

Wetland/Pond fishingand aquacul-ture

Grasslandswamps andmarshes

Habitats

Glacial streams,high-altitudelakes

Large riverchannels, flood-plain wetlands,lowland streams

Tidal rivers,mangroves

Floodplainwetlands, builtor dug ponds,oxbows / mouns,makhana –jangal areas,dam reservoirs

Swamps andgrassland waterbodies

Range andDistribution

Himalayan range-states (Uttarakhand,Sikkim) and Nepal

Haryana, UttarPradesh, Bihar,Rajasthan, MadhyaPradesh, Jharkhand,West Bengal,Mainlythe Ganga, Yamuna,Ghaghra, Sone,Chambal, Gandak,Kosi, Damodar andHooghly rivers

Sunderbans, WestBengal

Kosi-Gandak-Sarjyu-Rapti areas, dam sites

Terai region, Hima-layan foothills

Majorfishing targets

Snow trout, Mahseer

Over 60 species offreshwater fishes,with some seasonalcatadromous mi-grants such as thehighly prized Hilsa,major carps, minorcarps and largecatfishes

Over 125 species ofestuarine, freshwaterand marine fishes,and prawns

Cultured Carps,Channa, Puntius,Anabas, invasivealien fishes such asTilapia, Pangasiodon,African Catfish etc.

Catfish-dominatedfisheries

2 Based on 2,4,17



deep-bodied, highly sought after fishes include the Chitalaand Notopterus, or the featherfishes, and mullet.

The estuarine fishery in the Hooghly and Sunderbans tidalrivers 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 diverseset of families compared to truly inland fisheries. Otherimportant components of the commercial fisheries include5-6 species of shellfishes (mainly prawn and shrimp).Macrobrachium rosenbergii and M. nobilis are migratoryprawns that breed in freshwater insofar as up to 500 kmfrom the estuaries17,39. In estuarine areas, Penaeus indicus,Metapenaeus sp., Penaeus semisulcatus and P. monodonare highly preferred prawns. However, artificial prawnculture in rearing pens in several estuarine areas is rap-idly taking over. It has been very harmful to local fishesthrough habitat encroachment, use of poisonous fumigantsand medicines, and the spread of disease40. Estuaries con-tribute an even more diverse assemblage including both

freshwater and marine species (e.g. Perciform fishes, Polynemids, Sciaenids and Mullet), partially or fully depen-dent on the productive estuarine zones for breeding, migratory movements, and juvenile growth.

Coldwater fisheries specialize on large-bodied, rapids-loving potamodromous migrant fishes such as Mahseer andSnow Trout24. These fishes are of high commercial importance and are in high demand by professional sport fishersand anglers, apart from being highly prized as food locally. Mahseer in particular, have recently led to the openingof 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 wetlandsand mouns (oxbows), distributed along the antecedent tributaries of the Gandak-Ghaghra-Kosi rivers, are domi-nated by ‘blackfish’ (i.e. vegetation dwelling fishes) such as Channa and Anabas29. Dam reservoir fisheries arealmost 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 providedetailed information on fish species diversity, ecology and population trends. The state of river fisheries in theGangetic 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 risein production over the last two decades. Inland fisheries contribute approximately to 2% of India’s Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) and to almost 5.5% of its agricultural GDP21. However, these numbers completely mask the contribu-tion of riverine fisheries to the economy. In fact, the rapid expansion and intensification of pond-based commercialaquaculture accounts for up to 80% (or more) of total inland fisheries of India58. Annual production estimates for45,000 km of fisheries-viable river length are around 300 kg/km, which has been recognized as considerably low anddegraded. River fisheries of the Gangetic basin have also been a consistently loss-making and underperformingsector, 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 interms of economic productive efficiency irrespective of the ownership and control regimes under which Gangeticfisheries are continuing today2,4,48,49.

Fisheries across India have been severely affected by dams, flow regulation and associated human impacts, whichhave substantially altered ecological requirements of fisheries and biodiversity together2,4,34,35,44,60. If one clinicallyinvestigated the fisheries’ decline, they would find it to coincide with the period of maximum dambuilding (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. Reductionin harvested fish size-class distributions, a classical indicator of overexploitation by fisheries, points to poor fishrecruitment and adult survival, which may be further brought down by flow regulation by dams35,56,60. Dams haveacted as the major factor of disruption by blocking migratory routes of upriver or estuarine spawning fishes such asHilsa and Anguilla eels. Dams have also caused loss of genetic connectivity between fish populations, most notably

The Hilsa is an anadromous migrant that trav-els several kilometers upriver from estuaries tospawn.

The construction of the Farakka barrage in WestBengal in 1971 led to blocking of Hilsa migra-tory routes have caused a nearly 99.9% reduc-tion in Hilsa population recruitment across theirold distribution range upstream2,17,32.

Most catadromous and anadromous fisheswhose movement corridors have been cut offby moderate and large dams have met a simi-lar fate. These include the Swamp EelAnguilla benghalensis, Sciaenids and largecatfishes such as Pangasius and Silonia1,2,34,35.



Reasons citedFarakka barrage, majordams and barrages alongrivers, and along the Nepalborder, decline in freshwaterflows, pollution, overfishing,trawling nets that exploitlarvae of clupeid fishes

Dams and barrages blockingfish movements, hydropowerprojects, pollution, use ofpoisons and destructive netssuch as mosquito-nets andbeach-seine nets, overfishing,loss of river vegetation,reduction in flows and riverdepth

Reduction in flows, destructivefishing, overfishing, bank habi-tat degradation, pollution,trawling, dams and barrages

Pond culture introductions ofthese fishes have led to riskyecological invasions intonatural water-bodies, such aswetlands and rivers. Thesefishes are very dangerousand causing declines innative fishes. (*Indicatesinvasive species popula-tions that must be curbed)

Commercially valuable fish speciesNear-extinction and commercial collapse almostentirely across rangeHilsa Tenualosa ilisha (Clupeidae)Eel Anguilla benghalensis (Anguillidae)Mystus menoda (Bagridae)Freshwater stingray Pastinachus sephen (Dasyatidae)Giant Catfish Pangasius pangasius (Pangasiidae)Silonia silondia (Siluridae)Freshwater prawnsMacrobrachium rosenbergii, M. nobilisSawfish 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 rohitaMrigal Cirrhinus mrigalaJalkapoor Clupisoma garruaBoal Wallago attuKnifefish Chitala chitalaHeteropneustes fossilisSicamugil cascasiaBagarius bagariusJohnius sps.Notopterus notopterusCirrhinus rebaSnakeheads especially Channa maruliusFishes with low to moderate decline (20-50%)Aspidopariya morarSalmostoma bacailaLabeo calbasuLabeo goniusRita ritaSperata aor, S. seenghalaAilia coilaEutropichthys vachaLabeo angra, Labeo bataXenentodon cancilaRhinomugil corsulaMastacembelus armatus, M. pancalusAnabas testudineusMystus sp. (Bagridae)Ompok sp. (Siluridae)Fishes increased, and commonly available through pond cultureOreochromis nilotica*, Oreochromis mossambica*Common Carp*, Chinese Carp* Cyprinus carpioSilver Carp*, Grass Carp*, Bighead Carp*Ctenopharyngodon sp., Hypophthalmicthys sp.Red-bellied Pacu* Pygocentrus nattereriPangasionodon hypophthalmus*

Local name(s)

Hilsa, IlishBanbir, Baamacchh, BanbouchhBenoda, BelondaSankuch, SaukchiJaysar, Yasal, PangaasSillan, SilandGurla, Gorla, Jhangud,Jhinga, GodraChirunimaachhGhorchelwa, GoraChandana Ilish

Mandras, Mansaar, MahseerRohu, RuiMirka, Mirgal, NainiJalkapoor, Gahrua bachwaBoal, Buari, BuarChital, MoiSinghiKhaksiBaghar, GounchhBhola, BholwaPathraRaiyaGarai, Soul

Pihor, Hardi, GardiChelwaKalbos, KarontiKursaRitha, GheglaAr, Aria, Tengda, DheegarSutriVacha, BachwaGardi, Chepua, BataKawwalol, Totamaachh, KankilaNatera, Udan, ArwariBaam, Bami, Gen, GainchiKawaiPalwaPabda, Popta, Laanchh

Tilapi, Jalebi, TilpiaChineseGilasi, Biket, Silbhar etc.(derived names)RupchandTalab ka Pangas

Table 2. Trends in commercially valued fish species: extinctions and declines (F.pers.comm1).



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 thermalregimes required for breeding (increase in temperatures due to low river depth/flow), and exceptional levels ofhazardous pollution (again, magnified due to the poor flows reducing dilution capacity of river water), are otherfallouts that adversely affect fisheries60,62. The fact that there is just not enough water in the river must form thebottom line of any causal investigation of riverine fisheries. Lack of appropriate policy measures and pollutionreceive dominant mention as threats to fisheries by government research agencies, but they are mere outcomes ofmuch larger shifted baselines because of dams62. Dams, barrages and hydropower projects through flow regulationhave increased uncertainty about fishing62,63 and driven fishing to desperate levels: fishers often resort to destruc-tive 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 understand-ing 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 resourcesfor their livelihoods, directly or indirectly2,17. However, accurate estimates of active traditional and non-tradi-tional fisher populations are still wanting. It is important for any discussion on fishing communities to clearlyseparate traditional fishing communities from ‘non-traditional fishers’, who may be practically from any other localcommunity and with the possession of other livelihood options, but also opportunistic fishing, due to unrestrictedaccess to imported nets and gear available in markets to anyone1,44. Traditional fishing communities were alwaysthe craftsmen of their own nets and gear, and also possess remarkable ecological knowledge about rivers, fish andbiodiversity, their breeding biology, ecology, seasonality, and distribution. Of course, with the degradation of fisher-ies throughout the Gangetic plains, the traditional knowledge and practices of fishing are eroding fast. Hence suchknowledge needs to be documented well, especially from old fishers with whom it still persists, to identify historicalbaselines 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 nearlycommon history, ancestry and invention of religious tradition. Fishing communities in West Bengal have manydifferent castes, but are collectively called Jele or Keut. Traditional fishers in the Sunderbans include both Hinduand 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 alliedoccupations such as cultivation of Makhana (Euryale ferox) and seasonal small-scale fish culture in floodplainwetlands20,29. In the Himalayan foothills, the Mallahs have traditionally also been involved in clearing large boul-ders from streams to make navigation easier (F.pers.comm). Manjhi and other fishing tribes such as the Pahadiya inJharkhand 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 amultitude of affiliate identities20,45,46.

2.6.2 Political and Economic Status

Traditional fishing communities today form a highly marginalized, politically unorganized and socio-economically impoverished people20. Caste discriminations and political history form the chief reasons fortheir poverty and subjugation over centuries of fishworking20,45. But the present condition of rivers does notseem to offer hope to any improvement in their economic position unless and until there is collectivevoicing of their concerns, especially against large-scale water engineering projects that threaten theirlivelihoods. Bringing the highly diffuse fisher groups under an organized political sphere for their socio-economicuplift is a vast challenge (F.pers.comm, pers.obs). Fishes are highly mobile and uncertain resources living in dy-namic environments and fishers tracking them lead a ‘foraging’ way of life. Fisher populations have been histori-cally distributed along stable riverbanks at town fringes. Their settlements have always maintained some degree ofclan 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 neverowned the waters legally. However, they always have stated cultural claims of temporally confined



Figure 4. Fishes and prawns (L-R, row-wise)See Appendix 1 for detailsMiscellaneous 11. 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. bimaculatus16. Wallago attu17. Rita rita18. Sperata aor19. Mystus sp.20. Pangasiodon hypophthalmus21. Gangra sp.,22. Bagarius yarrellii23. Eutropichthys vacha, Clupisoma garrua24. Clarias gareipinus*25. Heteropneustes fossilisCarps (Cyprinidae)26. Cyprinus carpio*27. Labeo rohita28. Catla catla29. Labeo x Catla hybrid*30. Tor tor31. Cirrhinus mrigala32. Puntius sarana sarana33. Labeo gonius34. Labeo calbasu35. Salmostoma, Osteobrama36. Hypophthalmichthys nobilisMiscellaneous 237. 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



territory, following their foraging preferences and site usage. But depending on the nature of the river’shydrological dynamics, there may be variable maintenance of fixed ‘territories’ by fishers adopting a roving mode offishing, and neither legal nor cultural claims can be reconciled to a level that the conflicting parties can reachmutually. With regards to their economic viability and status, a large proportion of the traditionalfishworkers 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 tothe 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 con-trol, or privately managed, profit maximizing interests, or community-managed or co-operatively implementedfisheries, or unregulated open-access fishing44,47,49. First, all rivers and their resources are the property of the Indiangovernment, on which revenue is typically levied through the leasing out of management imperatives to privateagency. The private leases and ‘ownership’ of river water exist in most states and this works through contracts andtenures over river segments auctioned out by the government for fishing20,49. Private fisheries often work theirfishing by employing traditional fishers as debt-bonded and wage laborers who work for them20,46. Historically, suchsystems have existed in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal; whereby river segments were owned through ‘Jalkarleases’ by Panidars (waterlords who acted as counterparts of landlords (zamindars))46,50,51. Private ownership ofriver resources, prevalent since the Mughal period and further fortified by the British administration (throughPermanent Settlement and other land tenancy acts in the 18th Century), often caused serious exploitation of labor-ers 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 riparianrights (landlords owning the land along the river banks would typically stake claim to the river fisheries and ferryrights as well), and maintained by threat and force52,53. Such riparian consideration treats the river’s water andhabitat as a mere parcel in the larger land matrix, but not as a unique production ‘scape’ for fish resources, in

Box 2. A profile of the life of Gangetic fish-ers. (Kelkar, N. unpublished data frompers.obs).Overall education level of fishers is rather poor(mean=2.78 years, SD=2.93, range=0-12) withmost fishers either illiterate or schooled onlyuntil primary levels. In addition to fishing, many(40%) work as construction laborers or rickshawpullers, as most fishers are landless (57%). Fish-ers cover large distances for fishing every day(especially in Bihar and West Bengal; mean=7.5km, mean hours spent=11 hrs per day). Fisherycooperative societies were either absent or de-funct in 63% cases. Fishers earned, on average,between INR 1500/- to 3000/- per month butabout 92% saved merely up to 600 INR permonth. In total, 66% fishers mentioned that fishsizes caught had reduced heavily, while 87% saidthat mesh sizes of nets they used had under-gone reduction in the last 10 years, during whichfish prices increased dramatically at 4 to 6 times.Fishers estimated an average decline of 80%(range = 30 to 99%) in total river fish catch perunit effort in the last 10 years.

Image 2. Traditional fishers form an important political constitu-ency in the Gangetic floodplains. Yet policy neglect has led to thisproduction sector hanging in the balance. Photo: © Sushant Dey.



itself54. This problem, both a philosophical and tenurial/material one, is of significance to the fishing communitiesthat depend on ‘river habitats’ or ‘river water holdings’ for their livelihood generation20,46,47,54. The consequent uncer-tainty with regards to ownership of water has caused highly frequent, violent conflicts in the Gangetic floodplainsof 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 aneasy channel for revenue and maximizes fisheries production due to artificial inputs and protection46. However,clearly, these systems of control led to serious unrest and social costs to the oppressed fishworkers. Shockinglyenough, debt-bonded labour in Panidari continued in Bihar until 1991, when traditional fishers orga-nized themselves under the banner of Ganga Mukti Andolan and forced the Bihar state government tooverthrow the unjust regime50. Although the Panidari was indeed abolished and rivers were declared ‘free forall to fish’, violent conflicts persist even today, with criminal elements continuing to extort money from fishermenand 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 tradi-tional fishers in dynamic riverscapes. This example illustrates, quite disturbingly, how token government declara-tions of ‘opening the rivers to fisher folk’ remain meaningless in the Gangetic region, where brutal force, privatelycornered power and caste attributes determine unequal and unjust ownership of resource areas.

This situation makes it clear that neither private control nor a completely open-access system cansustain the ever-increasing demand for a rapidly declining resource, such as fisheries, today1. Thispoints out the gaping hole in considering community-wide, democratic, compromise-based arrangements as prag-matic options. Community control for common-pool management of fisheries offers a potential alterna-tive38,48,49, but given the limited overall success of community-based natural resource management in India, itremains to be executed carefully for river fisheries. Local institutional mechanisms to monitor resource extractionand regeneration need to be strengthened for empowering local communities to protect their stakes against declin-ing production. Harassment of fisher folk by government officials and criminals / mafia gangs which leads to extor-tion of fish catch or cash, needs to be checked strongly20,50. The riverfront should generally be kept secure fromcriminal or illegal activity (ranging from crimes against women, illicit liquor-brewing, harassment of fishers toillegal fishing practices). Just the act of being able to securely fish without fear of mafia or pirates will be a greattwin benefit for fishers: through reducing destructive fishing, and through saving their day’s catch. Fishers needsocial security and access to means of improving their material dignity and economic ascent, and the politicalprocess needs to engage with this aspiration wholeheartedly1,44.



3. Large dams, flow regulation and Gangetic basin fisheries

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 flowregulation by dams, barrages and hydropower projects. More water flow releases are needed for theprotection 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 uniquebiodiversity and fisheries of floodplain rivers across Asia34,44,55,64. Obstruction and fragmentation of river flow, habi-tat destruction, accelerated erosion and siltation, long-distance water diversions (involving huge amount of trans-mission losses and waste) and poor flow releases are the major direct threats of dam-canal systems in the Gangeticplains34,64.

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, Kamla, Burhi Gandak, Punpun, Gomti and others) have been highly regu-lated64,69. The reduction of freshwater discharge reaching the Sunderbans because of the Farakka bar-rage has led to high degree saline ingress throughout the estuary, causing die-offs of considerably largetracts 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 theestuary’s waters. Globally, fragmentation and flow regulation have caused the most severe impacts through drasticalterations to riverine biota and ecology70,71. Low flows and fragmented connectivity of river channels lead inevita-bly to fish population declines and breeding failure. Over time, dams have probably led to genetic isolation offish populations as well as river dolphin / crocodile populations72, destruction of fish breeding habitatsand spawning triggers and loss of valuable wild fish germplasm61. These losses are so large in their ecologi-cal 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, especiallywith regards to domestic sewage and agricultural runoff73. Poor flows reduce the dilution and self-purificationcapacity of river water to reduce concentration of pollutants and local impacts on fishes74. It may be safely said thatno freshwater fish we eat across India today is free of pollution accumulation in its tissues. Agricultural fertilizers(organophosphates, organochlorines, nitrates etc.), heavy metal pollution from industrial effluents, thermal powerplants, oil refineries, distilleries and tanneries, and nitrogen-rich sewage, waste-water and non-biodegradable sub-stances such as plastics, mercury, radioactive compounds and hospital wastes can cause fish kills or even worse,

Image 3. Barrages have not only caused altered flows but also led to blockage of fish migratory routes and lossof hydrological connectivity. Photo: © Subhasis Dey.



Fig

ure

5.

Map

sh

owin

g ex

isti

ng

and

pla

nn

ed d

ams,

bar

rage

s, p

um

p ca

nal

s an

d h

ydro

pow

er p

roje

cts

in t

he

Gan

geti

c R

iver

Bas

inof

In

dia

(po

int

dat

a co

urt

esy

of I

IT-G

uw

ahat

i fr

ee d

atas

et d

own

load

rep

osit

ory.

htt

p://

giss

erve

r.ci

vil.i

itd

.ac.

in/g

rbm

p/ii

tg.h

tm;

Map

pre

pare

d b

y N

ach

iket

Kel

kar;

As

of y

ear

2012

.)

Dam

s an

d hy

drop

ower

pro

ject

sin

the

Gan

geti

c R

iver

Bas

in.



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 GangaRiver 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 localfishers, breeding failure in Labeo angra (Ghewri), a preferred spring-fisheries target in the region. The fishersclaimed that over the past 5 years they have not captured a single fish with eggs inside it, and also added thatcatches have plummeted heavily (F.pers.comm). Siltation of gravel/sediment in reservoir or storage zones is a prob-lem of huge magnitude for fisheries, especially through breeding failure. Accumulated silt in reservoirs is estimatedto 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 offlow release through barrage gates. In the Farakka barrage, sediment load accumulation is leading to breakage ofgates every year, adding to maintenance costs.

d) Habitat destruction and alteration of erosion-deposition dynamics: Soil erosion by erratic and sudden releasesbefore 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 movementand spawning that are otherwise provided by variability in discharge17,26. Flow alteration also alters hydrologicalconnectivity and sediment transport with wetlands and confluence channels during flooding. As a result theseproductive breeding habitats often become unavailable for catfishes and carps79. These factors together become aproblem 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 featureleading to loss of thousands of people and property damage80. Flood control strategies have been practiced through damsas well as embankments81. Along the Kosi River, the proliferation of embankments has completely altered the river flowsand fragmented them into a wetland-patchwork81. Embankments have modified riverbank-adjoining spawning areasand affected fisheries of silt-substrate breeders. During the floods, embankments often breach and have led to large-scalehabitat modification, which has had consequences in uncertainty about fishing tenure. The Kosi wetland fisheries arepredominated by blackfish, or fish that live in vegetation (e.g. Channa, Colisa, Anabas etc.); and several invasive speciesthat live in similar habitats are becoming increasingly common in these wetlands81. The embankments have also led tolarge-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, acommon small catfish may be attributed to increased temperatures in the river bed (F.pers.comm). Thispotamodromous fish which was once highly common, has shown sudden reductions to the tune of 90%, and thismight be due to the effect of barrages on antecedent tributaries like the Ghaghra and Gandak, where they may notbe able to cope with temperature gradients caused by low flows from colder areas in the Himalayan foothills to thelower 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, hydropowerprojects 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 deemedas failures. In India, hydropower projects, especially run-of-river projects in higher altitudes, often have disastrouseffects on natural thermal regimes, cause sediment blockages and perturb natural flow variability at diurnaltimescales through releases varying across several orders of magnitude85,89. These changes severely affect not justbreeding and migration in higher-altitude cold-water fisheries of snow trout and Mahseer in Himachal, Sikkim andUttarakhand, 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 beingexposed to the risk of sudden flow releases every day85. These projects have also seriously affected many rare andendangered terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species in India89.

h) Climate change impacts on fisheries: Initially, higher peak flooding intensity and prolonged monsoons are pre-dicted for large rivers in the Gangetic basin due to increased glacial melt in climate change scenarios91,92. Manybenthic fish species appear to have responded through rapid changes in their geographic distribution, occupyingincreasingly colder waters than their previous ranges92. It is therefore critical to include climate change impacts onthe 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 cru-cial 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 ba-sin69,96,97,107. The current water scarcity is so severe that projects such as river interlinking, apart fromtheir ridiculous proposed costs, are simply impossible to conceive of, water itself being the limita-tion98,106. There is no doubt that further water developments will prove disastrous for a whole section of people andtheir 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. Run-of-river hydropower projects, flow diversions and links, pumped irrigation, embankments, agricultural intensifica-tion, groundwater depletion and sand mining are highly destructive threats that will affect not just fisheries but thewhole 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 implythat the thousands of species and millions of fisher livelihoods that need flowing water in rivers are ofno value to the state policy on water resource development. Such statements are ignoring importantsocietal needs and hence are evidently irresponsible99,100,101. Belatedly, the National Water Policy has made atoken, last-priority mention of “minimum environmental flows” to be maintained in a river, although this itself is anobsolete 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 anddependent communities are completely ignored96,97,100,101. River fish stock restoration requires serious rethinking ofcurrent dam operations to suit flow release timings according to natural range of variability102,106. Reducing waterconsumption and pollution by agricultural/urban sectors can help enhance the productivity of water resources. Thiscan become possible through more efficient and equitable water reallocations across sectors such as irrigation andfisheries together. Cooperative fishing arrangements can help improve livelihoods and ecological restoration ofriver flows and fish stocks can enable rivers to together sustain biodiversity, local communities and ecosystemservices103,104,105,107. No post dam-construction compensation schemes exist for fishers, who may lose their entirelivelihood because of flow-regulation and loss of hydrological connectivity due to dams17. Downstream fisher popu-lations must be ideally compensated for the lost fishing catch and livelihood opportunity, but in general there hasbeen scant attention towards the communities’ livelihoods (F.pers.comm). Downstream water allocations throughon-ground consultations with fisher communities are urgently needed (F.pers.comm). In India, waterresources 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 andlivelihood protection. These biases mean that only pond aquaculture receives any attention1. If river conserva-tion and development groups can actively work with fishing communities in order to develop an in-formed and aware constituency or interest group, fishers will gain political voice in making negotia-tions about water availability in river basins.

3.2 Downgrading of fisheries

The state of river fisheries directly indicates thedeclining biophysical, ecological and social integ-rity of the river basin110. The existing in-riverfisheries contribute merely about 10% ofthe overall inland fish production58,59. Eventhis production is highly unsustainable todayand has all the indicators of serious levels of over-fishing111. For instance, river fisheries in Biharnow even glean small-sized fish fry for marketsin northern West Bengal (Siliguri) and Assam,where eating small fish is a delicacy(F.pers.comm;44). It is also suspected by field ob-servers that a large chunk of this trash catchgoes to the poultry feed and fishmeal industry.Capture of small-sized fishes can be devastat-ing for population recruitment, and evidently,such markets for small fish cannot sustain fish-ers for long (Figure 6). ‘Non-traditional’ fishersand criminal elements generally run the boom-

Image 4. Invasive species such as this Red-bellied Pacu have severelyaffected native fish populations and might also pose dangers to peopleusing rivers in which they are running wild. Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar.



and-bust fishing operations, which are entirely illegal, butstill go on because there is no monitoring of fisheries44.Now, in fact, fish that were mainly caught earlier as fish-eries discards i.e. ‘trash fish’ sizes and species are runningthe economy (F.pers.comm, pers.obs.)112. The fisheries thusrepresent both trophic downgrading and life-stage (size)downgrading111,112,113. What would be simply thrown awayor sold for throwaway if it were a minor part of the catch isnow the dominant catch itself (e.g. Glossogobius giuris, agoby fish never eaten due to its poor taste and low culturalvalue, now fetches prices of up to Rs. 200/- per kg). So, thefish market is now a market that scrapes these remainsand 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 aquacul-ture and wetland fishing especially in Andhra Pradesh andWest Bengal, the nature of supply itself has radicallychanged21,30,114. This boom has contributed to India becom-ing one of the largest producers of inland freshwater fishin the world. But such ranking hides a lot of miserablefacts about river degradation. Although net productionshows increases, the collapse of river fisheries thatstill support millions of poor people who don’t getaccess to aquaculture, get totally ignored under suchswamping115. This is why farmed fish in fish hatcheriescan barely replace riverine fisheries despite the fact thatthey have cornered the attention of fisheries develop-ment33,58.

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 theGangetic plains, which has been a rising exodus116. Today, fisher folk from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengalprovide 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 factors can weaken thesocial resilience of production systems and create poverty, disparity and community breakdown117. It has been

Box 3. The Ghosts of the Yangtze.In our management of rivers, we have immedi-ate, painful lessons to learn from our neighbors.In China, the Yangtze River dolphin or Baiji wasdeclared extinct in 2006. It was deemed the firsthuman-caused extinction of a cetacean species:the species was not actively targeted or huntedout, but was ‘accidentally’ killed by destructivefishing techniques (rolling hooks) and sufferedthe extensive degradation of its habitat108. TheBaiji is lost now, but several unique and endemicspecies in the highly diverse Yangtze ecosystemare also either extinct already, or critically en-dangered or alive only in captivity: the YangtzeSoftshell Turtle, Chinese Alligator, Paddlefishand Chinese Sturgeon108. The health of thepeople dependent on the Yangtze has been de-clining and all indicators of river health are al-ready critical. The Yangtze has been reduced tothe largest open sewer in the world108. There areparallels in the Gangetic basin too, in the gharialand Ganges river dolphins, and about the se-verely hunted turtles of whose status, barelyanything is known: stinging reminders for im-mediate action44. Most of our rivers are ceasingto functionally exist because of flow regulationand alteration. Dolphins and gharials have un-dergone substantial range reductions72 and prob-ably genetic isolation in the upper Ganges,Yamuna, Chambal and the Ken-Betwa-Sone riv-ers. Despite very different socio-political sce-narios in India and China, it is just the sheereconomic pressure on river systems that has hadsevere impacts44. The highly degraded fisheriesof the Yangtze are facing impacts of the Three-Gorges Dam109. Macroeconomic developmentalforces, technocracy and industrial demand onrivers, irrespective of polity and cultural/socialvalues, reflect today in massive depletion of riverproduction systems (fisheries, farming) in Chinaand India alike.

Image 5. Small-sized trash fish dominate markets acrossthe Gangetic basin. Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar.



argued that ethnic conflicts between local Indian popula-tions and illegally immigrated Bangladeshi refugees arelinked to poor water releases from the Farakka barragein West Bengal, to downstream floodplain reaches inBangladesh118.

3.3 Fish declines and changing practices (Table 3)

Artisanal fisheries, by tradition, have been a specialized,skill-based and diversity-oriented enterprise driven bysubsistence needs of fishers. As such artisanal fisheriesinvolve typically small-scale fishing practices, which aresize-specific, species-specific, habitat-specific and inflex-ible in their range of capture efficiency. This stands incontrast to modern and commercial technique for fishing,which is highly flexible but also highly generalized, massproduction-oriented than diversity-based, and rarely spe-cific to fish species or sizes56. In the absence of regula-tory mechanisms, it can lead to seriousoverexploitation of fish resources due to its massapplication, which may need labour but not requireskill. The best way to evaluate the status of fisheries is toobserve changes in fishing methods and intensity. ‘Howone fishes’ is often the currency on which issues ofconservation, sustainability and legality are dis-cussed. New fishing technology can alter the course offisheries by directly affecting offtake rates, and can seri-ously impair or boost economic viability in the long run,depending on their capture efficiency48.

Today, given the tremendous decline in fish resources, itbecomes almost impossible to distinguish commercial andsubsistence-based/artisanal fisheries. The diversity of fish-ing gear and practices shows extreme reduction in thewake of mechanization of fisheries, that ushered in im-

ports of nylon monofilament gillnets, among several harmful fishing techniques. Monofilament gillnets havereplaced cotton-fiber nets and dominated fish markets across the Gangetic basin since the 1970s, com-ing initially from Europe and now almost entirely coming from China, Scandinavian countries, Thai-land and Indonesia (F.pers.obs). As the market is full of such nets, fishers and non-fishers can use them withoutsecond thought. Older fishers point out that this shift led to drastic declines in fish recruitment, survivaland adult reproduction from the 1970s onwards (F.pers.obs). The mesh size of gillnets has shrunkmultifold: the average mesh-size used today is around 20 mm, which is a decline of almost 4-5 times in30-40 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 meshsize restrictions of approx. 40mm, but the actual use is predominantly of 12-30 mm nets51. However, due to declinesin fish catch and fish size-spectra, fishers are left with no choice but to use smaller mesh-sizes to capture thereduced size distribution available. This leads to tremendous increases in fishing pressure on small-sized fisheswhose survival and recruitment are important for the fish population stocks as a whole. It is obvious that this is anunsustainable shift for the fisheries, but the meager availability of fish biomass captured leads fishers to furthertake even more desperate measures, which involves dangerous methods like poisoning of river channels, dynamiteuse, mosquito-nets and beach-seines which are totally indiscriminate123. They can meet their demands for house-hold consumption or surplus sales, by fishing with destructive nets or by fishing much more than they previouslywould have (F.pers.comm). This leads to escalation of fishing intensity across the fisher population scale, and canobviously dry out sustained harvests. Greater community-based management and monitoring of fisheries,along with river restoration, can lead to improvements in the destructive nature of fisheries. Fisheriesinfrastructure for traditional fisher access is also wanting: many fishing localities do not have proper vending

Box 4. Swamping of markets with pond-cul-tured fish.Overall, pond-cultured carps and catfishes fromAndhra Pradesh and West Bengal dominate themarkets across the entire Gangetic basin (makingup for 70-95% of the sold fish catch). Promoted ag-gressively as an allied activity to food crop agricul-ture, carp culture has shown a 40% increase in thepast 15 years, and contributes to nearly 90% of in-land fish production in India today. The species cul-tured in pond aquaculture mainly include carps ofnative and alien origin, some catfish and some spe-cific food-fish imported to India such as Tilapia (2Oreochromis sp.), African catfish and Red-belliedPacu (a species of Piranha), as well as indigenousand exotic (invasive) major carps. This scene ad-equately informs us that imports sustain thefish markets especially in Madhya Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, furthermarginalizing river fisher livelihoods (pers.comm. with local fishers). On the other hand,within river fisheries, over 90% fishers re-ported serious declines (>80-90%) in naturalpopulation of prized major carps Rohu Labeorohita, Katla Catla catla and Mrigal Cirrhinusmrigala. This is the ironic fate of fisheries inthe highly productive Gangetic floodplains1.



Table 3. Fishing practices employed in the Gangetic basin (based on 2,4,21,30,33,36-38,44,48,51,59,119-121,123).

Destructive potential and effi-ciency, importance in fishing

High, Moderate to High; <40mm meshsizes are considered illegal and destruc-tive. Almost 80% fishers use nets <40mmas hardly any large fishes are availableHigh, not useful because of decline inlarge fish sizesIllegal, highly destructive, employed bycriminal gangsLocally effective, moderately efficient,low impactIllegal, moderate impact, less effective

Illegal, most destructive nets in use,major reason for conflicts

Commonly used across West Bengal instill water bodies and river side-channels, high impact but not recog-nized by anyone as illegalModerate impact, but used occasionally.

Moderate impact

Low to moderate impactLow to moderate impact, depending onsize of catch available to takeIllegal, severe impact, turtles and croco-dile populations have been decimated tounrecoverable levels due to these practices.Low impact, passive traps

Illegal. High impact on river dolphinsand high pressure on catfish catches.

Might be very efficient

High impact, illegal, can have consequencesfor population survival and persistenceHigh, pond-culture specific, efficient

High impact on prawn recruitment andlarval survivalExtremely high impact, illegal, persis-tent effects of these practices, verydifficult to recover populations postexcessive use of these methods.

Meshsize

range(mm)8-250

60-300

10-20

20-30

16-30

0.5-1

<4

2-4

8-20

1-4-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8-30

4-10

-

Where used

Throughout larger floodplainrivers and estuaries, in deeppools, braided channels withslow water flowsDeep pool areas and erodedcut banksDeep side-channels,confluence zonesDeep waters in river pools,wetlands and estuariesAlong shallow banks inestuaries, or near embank-ments in the GangesUP, Bihar and West Bengal,in shallow confluence-channels of tributariesDam reservoirs, floodplainwetlands with vegetation

Shallow water, used mainlyfor scooping up small fishes

Small streams and cold-water rivers

Coldwater streamsDeep river pools and islands

Used everywhere for highlyspecific targets

Bihar, in large floodplainriver reaches

Basket traps set in shallowchannels with vegetation

Mainly in Bihar, UttarPradesh and AssamSmall-scale practice

Old practice, now dwindlinggradually as large fisheslostPond culture across theregionUsed in estuaries ofSunderbans

Poisoning by pesticides isdone in natural river chan-nels, largely out of revengeagainst existing fishingleases, killing fish indiscrimi-nately; use of gelatin sticks &dynamite in rivers.

Target fish catch

Clupeids, minor carps, majorand intermediate carps,large carps, SchilbeidcatfishesLarge carps, large catfishes

Indiscriminate

Mullet, minor carps and barbs,schilbeid catfishes, PuntiusNon-target

Indiscriminate, target thesmallest fry available in theriverIndiscriminate but obviouslytends to get moreblackfishes (e.g. Channa)

Indiscriminate but relativelylow-impact

Indiscriminate catch

Snow troutSet for large catfish in deepwatersFor catfish, eels and sharks,Mahseer in coldwaterstreamsSeveral baited hooks are laidout to catch turtles / crocodilesfrom a hide built on the bankswhere these animals bask.Small fishes in shallowvegetated reaches

Clupisoma garua

Schilbeid catfishes

Occasionally used for largefishes, sharks, also was usedto kill dolphinsUsed in pond culture for har-vesting of different size-classesPrawns and larvae aresieved using these nets

Indiscriminate and highlydangerous practices,generally used for revenge-seeking by criminal ele-ments.

FishingGear

M o n o f i l a -ment andM u l t i f i l a -ment GillnetsDrag nets

Beach seines

Cast nets

Fixed Stake-nets

Mosquito-nets

VegetationTraps (Palaghera)

Chinesescoop nets

Handheldgillnets(current)Scoop netsLong-lines

Hook-lines

Baited traps(turtles andcrocodiles)

Fish trapsand baskets(Anta Jal)Dolphin oilfishingPalm oilfishingHarpooning

Carp-collec-tion netsPrawntrammelnets

Poisoningand Dyna-mite (boomand bust)



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 ofindividual fishers’ catches. Direct on-ground engagement with traditional river fishers is therefore urgently neededfrom 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 theirrapid growth rates and culture potential. There is almost no quarantine on the import of several food and aquariumfish 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, Amazo-nian 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 ahost of problems for native fishes: generally they outcompete native fish species and start running wild in naturalecosystems125. They can usually establish well because the flow in the rivers is so poor these pond fish can survivewell 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 flowingwater in these rivers in the dry season (non-monsoon months) due to dams and abstraction for irrigation126. There isalso the chance that alien invasives might hybridize with native species, and lead to genetic impurities in wildstocks of native fishes127. Viral diseases may also be carried by the exotic fish populations and may be spread undercertain conditions to native fishes. Reports of injury due to dangerous food fishes, running wild, such as Pacu, areslowly emerging from West Bengal and Kerala (pers.obs). Food fish culture in ponds and dam reservoirs, and theaquarium trade, has been practiced very irresponsibly and the threat of invasive alien fish species in our ecosys-tems is surmounting127. A summary of the multiple threats and problems facing fisheries, with possible solutionsmentioned by fishers provided in Figure 6.

Figure 6. a) Major reasons for fish decline and problems while fishing, b) Solutions perceived by fishersfor improving the condition of fisheries in the Gangetic basin (F.pers.comm).



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 flowingwaters: rivers and estuaries51. The ban is to allow the spawning, growth and development of fish fry and juvenilesso that they become available to capture in the following seasons. Although most fishers recognize the importanceof 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 correctnon-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 andsubtropical large floodplain rivers33,128. Across the tropics, monitoring studies on fish ladders do not show positiveresults128. A handful of barrages in India have constructed fish ladders, but owing to numerous problems they havebeen largely a failure33. These problems are all related to the extremely low discharge rates from the dams – asthere is simply not enough water volume allocated for migrating fishes, which therefore cannot access the laddersand 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 theGanga River from it, and the commercial extinction of the Hilsa fisheries both upstream and downstream is clearwith an estimated 99.9% decline. Fish passes constructed at barrages on the Yamuna River (Hathnikundbarrage) and the Ganga barrage at Haridwar have been monitored by CIFRI and the results suggestthat they have had very low success for migration of cold-water species like the Golden Mahseer Torputitora. Similar structures on the Beas River and Mahanadi River (Salandi dam, Orissa) have found tobe ineffective in buffering the adverse impacts on fisheries production in these rivers33. India has domi-nantly followed reservoir hatcheries development, and therefore consideration for effective fish ladders has alwaysbeen low priority2,33. However, as we have seen, hatcheries themselves bring about several problems for native fishpopulations – 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 proposeddams that are suited to the ecology of our own fishes. A whole body of interdisciplinary research – spanning engi-neering 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 higherdry-season flows and timely adequate releases in the river could be a far more effective strategy for fisheries im-provement 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. Themandate of the cooperatives was to provide accounts and membership to bona fide (mostly traditional) fish-workersfrom local communities, enhance fish production through loans, technological know-how and subsidies for bothpond-based aquaculture and riverine capture-based fisheries. Most importantly, fishers could cooperatively takeleases and manage fisheries production in government-owned water bodies130,131. Cooperative extension across In-dia had initially good response, but over the last few decades, many schemes have either become defunct or cor-rupted. Elite capture by private agencies of cooperatives has relegated them to ghost institutions with no meaning-ful function or structure, and with no benefits transferred to the intended communities20. With fisheries coopera-tives, typically, landlords have usurped pond leases auctioned to fishers through forcible means orcheating. They have also subjugated the claimant fishers to become laborers for poor wages on theirown 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 casualtyfrom these strikes reaching thousands20. Barring the exception of West Bengal where cooperative fish rearing andaquaculture has seen some success30, less than 20% of the existing cooperatives are estimated to be functioning inthe other states1. Therefore, fishery management through cooperatives needs revival through most parts of north-ern 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 rivercould 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 aquatic animal134),Gharials, otters, turtles, birds and fishspecies in the Gangetic basin faces a for-midable challenge because of the open-access nature of floodplain riverscapes.Even if river reaches and precinct areasare declared as FWPAs, they have beenrendered ineffective in terms of their eco-logical functions and services due to thewidespread impacts of dams, habitat deg-radation and pollution1,142. This situationexists despite there being provisions in theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for provid-ing adequate river flows to protected ar-eas135. Although some FWPAs exist in theGangetic plains (e.g. National ChambalSanctuary, Vikramshila Gangetic DolphinSanctuary etc.), they are mostly ridden byconflicts between fisheries and wildlifeconservation has intensified around them,from contested definitions of area bound-aries, use rights and access by traditionalfisher 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 casesthere 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, andhave been commonly reported across these PAs. The biggest goal for freshwater protected areas, therefore, will needto be to effectively bring about river restoration for the conservation of both endangered riverine wildlife and fish-eries. However, more generally, conflict with river animals (mainly through breakage of nets and gear, risk to life orperceived 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 offishing rights and conflict over ownership of river segments20,44,136. PA management in freshwater areas needs toinevitably adopt inclusive approaches instead of exclusionary ones, which dominate terrestrial PA-based conserva-tion 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 withspecies that, like them, are entirely dependent on rivers for their survival. Landscape-level resource declines showtheir impacts on human activities at local levels, causing them to fiercely and directly compete with wild species forfishes123,137. Traditional fisher folk, while certainly worthy of receiving legally recognized rights, economic and politi-cal uplift, and social and material dignity, are also exploiters of biodiversity to a considerable extent. Unsustainableand highly exploitative fisheries are a serious threat to protection of wild species and can have detrimental effectson river ecosystems as a whole. The fishers’ own use of resources certainly needs critical scrutiny44. People depen-dent on freshwater protected areas for their livelihoods seek denotification of these areas because of both restrictedaccess and criminalization of their means of livelihood. But in reality, notwithstanding government restrictions onfreshwater protected areas, fishers have continued to fish in whatever way and with whatever method, as they haveliked, to their advantage44.

Even if claims for fishing rights advanced in the name of tradition are entertained, the negative eco-logical 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 occasion-ally involved in clandestine killing and eating of turtles and wild birds, occasionally hunting dolphins for oil andkilling endangered species such as gharials with which conflict is perceived (pers.obs, F.pers.comm). Accidentalentanglement of endangered species in fishers’ nets is another increasing issue. However, it must be recognized thatthese impacts are the result of severe economic compulsions and culturally rooted practices. Hencefisher compliance needs to be gradually brought about through awareness, education and monitoring. Monitoring of

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.



the following parameters is essential: 1) Net mesh-sizes 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 andheavy criminal charges imposed, 4) Introduction of exotic invasive food fishes into rivers, 5) Hunting of wildlife inrivers, especially turtles, gharials, Ganges river dolphins, smooth-coated otters, muggers, birds or any other speciesmentioned in the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA, 1972135, with amendments in 1991, 2002, 2006, 2011), and 6)Density of people fishing in different areas and laying claims to different areas (typically based on flowing andimpounded water-bodies. Rights to flowing waters are often open-access on paper, but need to also be realized onthe ground. Fisher compliance to ecologically conducive practices for biodiversity conservation can be incentivizedthrough recognition and positive reinforcement via prizes in the form of technical know-how about improving thefishery status137,139. Involvement of fisher cooperatives for ensuring compliance with guidelines and restrictionsprovided 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 ba-sin. At present, only high-altitude, cold-water fisheries seem to be receiving some informal protection throughcommunity-protected fish sanctuaries in Uttarakhand and Kashmir, where fish are protected in deep pools andnear temple springs24. Protection also needs to provide adequate and effective coverage for lower floodplain riverreaches. People’s perceptions need to given strong consideration for multi-objective management of biodiversityrich 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 ecologi-cal restoration of rivers by modifying dam operations and improving ecological flows102. Alongside restoration, it iscrucial to consider alternative livelihoods to fishers, which regard their traditional knowledge and provide themwith 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 ecologicallyadequate, naturally timed flow releases, consistent dry-season flow regimes, hydro-geomorphological habitat main-tenance, flood maintenance and reduction in pollution34,35,69,96,100,102,145. Dam re-operations to ensure adequate flowsand variability in river discharge remain a neglected aspect of river management in most regions today102. Flowrestoration can lead to improved health, numbers and availability of native commercial carps and preponderance oflarger fish sizes through improved juvenile recruitment34,145,146, along with other advantages to surface hydrologyand local groundwater availability. Large-scale scientific research and monitoring programs must be instituted tostudy the response of inland wild-capture fisheries and take further steps to mitigate local threats33,34,35. Restora-tion also needs to involve stringent restrictions on release of untreated domestic and industrial effluent, especiallyin urban belts such as Kanpur, the National Capital Region of Delhi, Allahabad-Varanasi, Mathura-Agra, Lucknowin Uttar Pradesh; Patna, Barauni in Bihar and the Durgapur and Kolkata regions in West Bengal74. Strict restric-tions 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 seenrecently 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 termsof reducing the most direct impacts, there is a need to regulate fishing pressure and completely curb destructivefishing 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 useof destructive practices by the government monitoring agencies148,149.

For immediate concerns of livelihood sustainability, alternative livelihoods need to be made available to fishersthrough informed choice123,150. Alternative occupations can help ease the pressure on declining river fish resourceson the one hand, and improving fishers’ material incomes on the other. Rejuvenation of the co-operatively managedpond fishing systems; with stakes for traditional fishers – rather than for private power-driven interests – pro-tected, can still be a viable alternative130,151,152,153. Pond-based co-operative culture fisheries undoubtedly have vastpotential, provided their management is ecologically sound and socially equitable20,44,151. Most fishers in the Gangeticbasin are landless and cannot afford even the capital cost of digging a pond20. Co-operative land leases for develop-ment of pond fisheries that are managed by family groups or settlements of fisher folk is an idea proposed by manyfishers in the Kosi-lower Ganges belt (F.pers.comm). Fish farming through pond culture, though widespread innorthern India, is still in the clutches of direct or indirect feudal control153. It is necessary to create systems wherebetter community control on well-defined water bodies (e.g. tanks, wetlands, floodplain pools, oxbow lakes) is pos-sible149,152,154. Multiple structures exist in West Bengal for fisheries (from sewage-water ponds, wetlands etc.30,151) butdestructive 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 pro-duction, reduce costs, and enhance commerce while leaving spaces free for biodiversity conservation and for theriver ecosystem itself1,2,20,44,154,155. With the challenge of fisheries addressed, river management can improve withlow-water intensity crops and agricultural practices (e.g. zero-tillage rice farming intensification), which need lowwater abstraction for irrigation, maintenance of riparian shelterbelts, ecological flow regimes, and curbing of illegaland destructive practices, all of which will aid fisheries through providing more water and fishing opportunities154,155.Table 4 summarizes recommendations for fisheries restoration in the form of a 12-point plan.

River fisheries need adaptive management that utilizes fishers’ traditional local knowledge156 while improving theirlivelihoods. Post active river restoration, ‘wildlife-friendly’ fisheries could be developed through policy that ensuresuse 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 areaauthorities in regulating illegal, destructive fishing. The proposed Food Security Act and rural labor programscould enhance both nutrition and wage rates of fishers, providing some protection to livelihoods without adverseimpacts 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 assessingtheir benefits to fishers as against other commercial interests. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Schemetoo can be effectively used towards this end, on a cooperative, open and equal footing. The importance of sustainedmonitoring and action in all these initiatives cannot be overemphasized: for river biodiversity, for fisher folk, and forthe river itself. However, none of these efforts will be complete without substantially reducing flow regulation bydams and maintenance of ecological flow regimes. Finally, the quest for sustaining fisheries in the Ganga Riverbasin in the long-term will require rethinking of current dominant paradigms to move towards ecological restora-tion of rivers, their biodiversity, as well as socially just, rights-based and equitable socio-political restoration oftraditional fisher communities and fisheries management systems.

Image 7. Dialogue with fishing communities is critical for ensuring protection of their livelihoods, which are facing serious threatfrom the condition of rivers in the Gangetic basin. Photo: © Subhasis Dey.



Table 4. Twelve-point recommendation from traditional fisher communities for sustainingriverine fisheries and livelihoods in the Gangetic basin.

Recommendations

Provide enough water, adequate natural flows in all rivers. Allow fishmovements upriver, currently blocked by large dams and barrages. STOPnew dams and mindless, high-cost, destructive and unsustainable engi-neering projects such as river interlinking.

Curb destructive practices of fishing, especially mosquito-netting, poi-soning, dynamite-fishing, trawling and beach-seine netting everywhere.

Fishers are in need of government dole or loans, technical know-how,permits and I-cards, housing, education and displacement packages. Itis alleged that these benefits are hardly reaching them, although theallocations of funds reach farmers easily. Fishers need government se-curity from criminals / mafia / anti-social elements / pirates that harassthem and grab fish catch.

Clearly define fishing use and access rights across all riverscapes, pro-vide clear guidelines on multi-objective management of fisheries amidstother economic activities

Urgent need to reduce the presently excessive river pollution, especiallyindustrial but also domestic wastes.

River fisheries are currently in a state of ecosystem-level decline or col-lapse. Trash fishes have become the most common catch, replacing manycommercially viable carps and catfishes. People require alternative live-lihoods in situ, to check problems related to migration and exodus towork as construction laborers or rickshaw-pullers. Community-based,cooperative pond carp-culture fisheries seem highly promising. Otheralternative livelihoods include working with river management authori-ties, conservation agencies, ecotourism, agriculture etc.

Focus on community-based management of river fisheries and help itdevelop in an ecologically friendly and sustainable manner. Replace thesystems of private contracts and free-for-all fishing by power-equitable,social dignified resource-sharing arrangements

Needs to be ensured through continued monitoring of fishing activityand behavior, including by-catch or hunting of species. This will helpsafeguard endangered wild species such as gharial, turtles, river dol-phins, birds etc. This can also help the spread of exotic food fishes thatare rapidly invading our rivers (the worst examples are Tilapia species,Chinese and Common Carps, and more recently, Red-bellied Piranha.

Can facilitate daily incomes by which fisheries losses could be offset;while also providing a solid community-level incentive to regulate andmonitor fishing.

Very important given the huge decline in native carp species of highcommercial value. Fisheries need to protected not only by revival of stocks,facilitating better fish recruitment, but also by protecting fish breedinghabitats from

Owing to natural uncertainty linked to flow regimes and channel coursechanges, new flexible systems of tenure in fisheries are required. Suchsystems would fit in well with providing a clear definition to fishingrights in any riverine stretch.

Rank

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Need

Water

Ban on destructivefishing practices

Poverty alleviation andsocial security

Define fisher rightsand responsibilities

Reduce pollution andmass fish-kills

Alternative livelihoods

Fishery co-operatives

Ensure compliance of fisherstowards biodiversity

conservation and monitoring

Use of Food Security Act,Rural Labor Programs

Restoration of nativeriverine fish communities

Adaptive management ofwater tenure in

fishing areas



References1. Kelkar, N. (2012) Fishing for Scrap: Sustaining River Fisheries in the Face of Ecosystem Degradation, Socio-political Dy-

namics and Poverty in the Gangetic Basin. A Brief Report on the Status of River Fisheries: Causes of Decline, Conflicts andPotential Alternatives. Report submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries, Department of Agriculture (branch),Government of India. New Delhi. 40 p.

2. Payne, A.I., Temple, S.A. (1996) River and Floodplain Fisheries in the Ganges Basin. Final report R.5485. Marine ResourcesAssessment Group Limited, Overseas Development Administration, London, 1996.

3. Singh, M. & Singh, A.K. (2007) Bibliography of environmental studies in natural characteristics and anthropogenic influ-ences on the Ganga River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129, 421–432.

4. Vass, K.K., Mondal, S.K., Samanta, S., Suresh, V.R. & Katiha, P.K. (2010) The environment and fishery status of RiverGanges. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 13, 385–394.

5. 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.

6. Singh, M., Bir, I. & Müller, G. (2007) Sediment characteristics and transportation dynamics of the Ganga River. Geomor-phology, 86, 144 – 175.

7. Rudra, K. (2010) Dynamics of the Ganga in West Bengal, India (1764–2007): Implications for science–policy interaction.Quaternary International, 227, 161–169.

8. Richards, K., Brasington, J. & Hughes, F. (2002) Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a poten-tial modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology, 47, 559–579.

9. Jain, V. & Tandon, S.K. (2010) Conceptual assessment of (dis)connectivity and its application to the Ganga River dispersalsystem. Geomorphology, 118, 349–358.

10. Bayley, P.B. (1995) Understanding large river floodplain ecosystems. BioScience, 45, 153–158.

11. Graaf, G. De. (2003) The flood pulse and growth of floodplain fish in Bangladesh. Fisheries Management, 10, 1–7.

12. Alford, D. & Armstrong, R. (2010) The role of glaciers in stream flow from the Nepal Himalaya. The Cryosphere Discussions,4, 469–494.

13. Kale, V.S. (2005) Fluvial hydrology and geomorphology of monsoon-dominated Indian rivers. Revista Brasileira deGeomorfologia, 6, 63–73.

14. 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) TheNatural Flow Regime. BioScience, 47, 769.

15. Sinha, R. & Friend, P.F. (1994) River systems and their sediment flux, Indo-Gangetic plains , Northern Bihar , India.Sedimentology, 41, 825–845.

16. 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.

17. Tsai, C.-F., Youssof Ali, M. (Eds.) (1997) Openwater fisheries of Bangladesh. University Press Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh. 208p.

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 TechnicalPaper 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, presentstatus 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 theMeghna 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 andSustainable 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 athigher 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 inthe 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 TechnicalPaper No. 6. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

27. Bellamy, K., Beebe, J.T., Saunderson, H.C. & Imhof, J. (1992) River morphology, sediments and fish habitats. Erosion andSediment 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 inAndhra 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.

33. Larinier, M., Marmulla, G. (2004) Fish Passes: Types, Principles and Geographical Distribution: an Overview. In: Proceed-ings of the second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries (Volume II), FAO corporaterepository 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 theGanges 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 GangaFisheries 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 VikramshilaGangetic 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 (1993-1994) 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 andmanagement. 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. Journalof 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 Delhi, India.

49. Katiha, P.K., Sharma, A. P., Chandra, G. (2013). Institutional arrangements in fisheries of Ganga River System. PaperPresented 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 on21 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, [Amendedin 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. SagePublications, 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 Publica-tions, 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 Valua-tion: Background Papers to a Global Synthesis pp. 147–226. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Re-sources, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.

57. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. (2007) Handbook onFisheries 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. NewDelhi, India. 185 p.

59. Government of India. 2011. Manual on fishery statistics. Section B - Inland Fishery. Ministry of Statistics and ProgramImplementation, Central Statistics Office, New Delhi, India. 90 p.

60. Marmulla, G. (ed.) (2001) Dams, fish and fisheries: Opportunities, challenges and conflict resolution. FAO Fisheries Techni-cal 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 somepossible 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 Commissionon 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 Envi-ronmental Water Requirements. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

65. Mirza, M.M.Q. (1998) Hydrological changes in the Ganges system in Bangladesh in the post-Farakka period. HydrologicalSciences, 42, 613–630.

66. Mukhopadhyay, M.K., Mitra, P.M., Bagchi, M.M. & Karamkar, H.C. (1996) Impact of Farakka Barrage on the Hydrologyand Fishery of Hooghly Estuary. Estuaries, 19, 710–722.

67. Prakash, A. (1997) Farakka Barrage. Public Interest Research Group Update, Madhyam Books.

68. Banerjee, M. (1999) A Report on the Impact of Farakka Barrage on the Human Fabric. A Submission to World Commissionon Dams. Thematic Review: Flood Control Options in the Gangetic Basin. New Delhi, India.

69. Adel, M.M. (2001) Effect on Water Resources from Upstream Water Diversion in the Ganges Basin. Journal of Environmen-tal Quality, 30, 356–368.

70. Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M. & Revenga, C. (2008) Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World’s Large RiverSystems. Science, 308, 405–408.

71. Döll, P., Fiedler, K. & Zhang, J. (2009) Global-scale analysis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals and reser-voirs. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 6, 4773–4812.

72. 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.

73. Subramanian, V. (2004) Water Quality in South Asia. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 1, 41–54.

74. Sinha, M. & Khan, M.A. (2001) Impact of environmental aberrations on fisheries of the Ganga (Ganges) River. AquaticEcosystem Health & Management, 4, 493–504.

75. Alley, K.D. (2009) Ganga and Gandagi: Interpretations of pollution and waste in Benaras. Ethnology, 33, 127-145.

76. Panda, D.K., Kumar, A. & Mohanty, S. (2011) Recent trends in sediment load of the tropical (Peninsular) river basins ofIndia. Global and Planetary Change, 75, 108–118.

77. 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.

78. Iqbal, S. (2010) Flood and erosion-induced population displacements: a socio-economic case study in the Gangetic riverinetract at Malda District, West Bengal, India. Journal of Human Ecology, 30, 201–211.

79. 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.

80. Chakraborty, T., Kar, R., Ghosh, P., Basu, S. (2010) Kosi megafan: Historical records, geomorphology and the recent avul-sion of the Kosi River. Quaternary International, 227, 143–160.



81. Singh, P., Ghose, N., Chaudhury, N. & Hansda, R. (2009) Life in the Shadow of Embankments–Turning Lost Lands intoAssets in the Koshi Basin of Bihar, India. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Nepal and WinRockInternational, 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, NewDelhi, India. P. 309-328.

83. Olden, J.D., Naiman, R.J. (2003) Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying damoperations 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. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review, 43, 135–143.

86. Csiki, S. & Rhoads, B.L. (2010) Hydraulic and geomorphological effects of run-of-river dams. Progress in Physical Geogra-phy, 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 hydro-power 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 inRelation 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 terrestrialbiological 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 hydroelectricdevelopment. 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 RiverGanga 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 implica-tions. 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 globalbiodiversity implications. PNAS, 104, 5732–5737.

96. Richter, B D, Mathews, R, Harrison, D L, Wigington, R. (2003) Ecologically Sustainable Water Management: Managingriver 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 DownstreamHuman Consequences of Dams. Water Alternatives, 3, 14–42.

98. Bandyopadhyay, J., Perveen, S. (2007) The interlinking of Indian rivers: some questions on the scientific, economic andenvironmental dimensions of the proposal. Occasional Paper No 60, SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School of Orientaland African Studies/King’s College, London, U.K.

99. Acreman, M. & Dunbar, M.J. (2004) Defining environmental river flow requirements – a review. Hydrology and EarthSystems 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 tosustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16, 1311–1318.

102. Jauhari, V.P. (2000) Operation, Monitoring and Decommissioning of Large Dams in India. Prepared for Thematic ReviewIV.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 andSustainable 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? AReality 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 ResourcesForum, 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. Indo-Gangetic River Basins: Summary Situation Analysis. Report by IWMIand 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, GreatClarendon 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 theThree 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 conser-vation 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 SustainableAquaculture 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 Indo-GangeticPlains: 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 andsocial 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. FisheriesResearch, 213–231.

121. Kibria, G., Ahmed, K.K.U. (2005) Diversity of Selective and Non-Selective Fishing Gear and Their Impact on Inland Fisher-ies 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 Re-search 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? Fresh-water 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 bottle-neck 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 patternsand 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 ofAgriculture, 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 forLivelihood 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 andForests, 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 theCaribbean. 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) InternationalComparison of Fisheries Management with Respect to Nature Conservation. Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature andthe 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 withterrestrial? 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 theirrivers. 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 theProtected 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 perilinside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Diversity andDistributions, 13, 341–352.

143. Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I.A.N. (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-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 oflarge 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 Contempo-rary 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-sand-mining-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 andUrban 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 developingcountries. 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 conser-vation. 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 inthe 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. Eco-logical Applications, 10, 1251–1262.



Key to annotations in Appendix: Status – CR=Critically Endangered, EN=Endangered, R=Rare, O=Occasional, U=Uncommon,F=Fairly common, C=Common; Occurrence / Breeding Habitat – ES=Estuaries and seas, RS=Rivers and streams, WP=Wetlandsand Ponds, CW=Cold-water habitats, AQ=Aquaculture; Size (cm) refers to adult sizes; Migration – L=Localized or Resident,CT=Catadromous, AN=Anadromous, PO=Potamodromous; Vegetation Required? – Y=Yes, N=No; Depth – L=Low or Shallow,M=Moderately Deep, H=High Depth; Substrate – MD=Muddy, SD=Sandy, SL=Silt, RO=Rocky, RB=Rubble, pebbles and shingle;Commercial Value – N=Negligible or None, L=Low preference, M=Moderate preference, H=Highly valued, VH=Very High Value| Other annotations: EX = Likely Extinct from previous range, CE = Commercially Extinct, SD = Substantial decline, D =Decline to more than 50%; * Taken in aquarium trade, # Invasive Alien Species, Angl=Prized fish for angling, DOIL= Riverdolphin oil used for fishing.

river fisheries of the gangetic basin, india: a primer · south asia network on dams, rivers &...

Documents