river fisheries of the gangetic basin, india: a primer · 2.2 the fisheries calendar 3 2.3 habitats...

Contact :Himanshu Thakkar,Parineeta Dandekar,Amruta Pradhan,Padmakshi Badoni,Ganesh GaudDams, Rivers and PeopleC/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar BaghDelhi - 100 088, India.Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/[email protected]://sandrp.wordpress.com/,www.facebook.com/sandrp.in,http://sandrp.in

1

Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter

Vol 13 | Issue 3-5 | April-June 2014 Rs. 15/-

Index River Fisheries of the Gangetic Basin,India: A Primer

Nachiket Kelkar1 [email protected], [email protected]

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

2 Primary, unpublished data presented in this primer are based on: Kelkar, N. (2012) Fish-ing for Scrap: Sustaining River Fisheries in the Face of Ecosystem Degradation, Socio-po-litical Dynamics and Poverty in the Gangetic Basin. A Brief Report on the Status of RiverFisheries: Causes of Decline, Conflicts and Potential Alternatives. Report submitted to theParliamentary Committee on Fisheries, Department of Agriculture (branch), Government ofIndia. New Delhi, India. Personal observations are cited as (pers. obs.), and fisher percep-tions and opinions, where mentioned are cited as (F.pers.comm).

1. Scope of this contribution:an introductory note 1

2. The Canvas of GangeticRiver Fisheries 2

2.1 Geography of the GangeticBasin 2

2.2 The Fisheries Calendar 32.3 Habitats for river fisheries 42.4 Fish Diversity in the

Gangetic Basin 52.5 State of riverine fisheries

of the Gangetic basin 62.6 Fishing Communities 83. Large dams, flow

regulation and Gangeticbasin fisheries 11

3.1 Impacts of dams on riverflows and fisheries 11

3.2 Downgrading of fisheries 143.3 Fish declines and changing

practices 163.4 Problems with invasive

alien fish species 174. A critical review of

mitigation measures 174.1 The monsoonal fishing ban 174.2 Fish ladders and hatcheries 174.3 Fisheries co-operatives: a

vestige? 204.4 Riverine protected areas:

new grounds for conflictswith fisheries 20

4.5 Compliance of fishers towardsbiodiversity conservation 21

4.6 River restoration andalternative livelihoods 21

1. Scope of this contribution: anintroductory note2 Riverine fisher-ies of the Gangetic basin support oneof the largest fishing populations ofthe world. However, its fish resourcesare rapidly declining due to largedams, barrages and hydropowerprojects, severely altered river flows,fragmentation of hydrological connec-tivity between rivers and wetlands,alarming levels of pollution,riverfront encroachment, rampantsand mining and unregulatedoverexploitation of fish resources.

This compilation attempts to providean understanding about Gangeticfisheries both from literature and pri-mary/secondary data, from field ob-servations as well as interactionswith fisher communities. Across itsrange, the fisheries show indicationsof economic unviability and ecologi-cal collapse, with violent social con-flicts as an outcome of the contestover scarce and declining resourcesas well as politics and access. Thisreport argues that a major factor be-hind the serious fisheries-related

2

Dams, Rivers & People April-June 2014

Box 1. This study A detailed, large-scale inter-view survey was conducted by the author in 2012across 372 fishers in 59 fisher groups spread over17 rivers in 5 north Indian states. The surveyobjective was to document perceptions of tradi-tional fishing communities about issues andproblems in fishing in the Gangetic basin. Of therespondents, c. 90% singled out “large dams andpoor river flows” as the main causes for a near-total decline in fisheries and fish resources overthe past 4 decades. About 90% people mentionedlow water availability and stoppage of fish mi-gratory routes by large dams as the main causefor fish declines. Almost 45% (from eastern andnorthern UP, and Bihar) singled out the Farakkabarrage as the main problem1.

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.

problems is severe alteration of river flow volume andseasonal dynamics by large dams, barrages and hydro-power projects. Prospects for river restoration to benefitboth fisheries and riverine biodiversity are discussed. Theinformation provided in the report largely representsfloodplain fisheries and aquaculture regimes but alsonotes other associated fisheries such as those in cold-waterstreams, estuaries and wetland-pond culture systems.The recommendations of the study are based on percep-tions synthesized through lived experience by fishersthemselves, and are not merely opinions of the author21.

2. The Canvas of Gangetic River Fisheries

2.1 Geography of the Gangetic Basin The Ganga(=Ganges) River, from her headwaters to the delta, alongwith hundreds of her tributaries drains an area of

approx. 0.9_1 million km2 across northern and easternIndia, flowing through 10 states in India and also inNepal and Bangladesh2,3,4. These rivers form one of thelargest alluvial mega-fan regions of the world, and de-liver huge quantities of sediment from the Himalayasto the northern Indian plains and to the Bay of Bengalin the Indian Ocean5,6. Most Gangetic basin rivers areof Quaternary geological origin, and geologically youngand flow across neo-tectonically controlled landscapesin the Himalaya and northern India6,7 (Figure 1). Thesefloodplains form a spatiotemporally dynamic, but highlyfertile and productive alluvial deposit7,8,9.

These rivers show strongly pulsed, seasonal flow andflood regimes, from having low flows in the dry-seasonto massive monsoonal flooding every year8,9,10. Floods arethe most significant drivers of landscape change, redis-tributing sediment fluxes with erosion and deposition,and in the process leading to replenishment of river re-sources11. The rivers receive their water inputs largelyfrom glacial melt (north-south flowing Himalayan tribu-taries) and monsoonal precipitation (large peninsular-origin rivers)12,13. Together they contribute to the annualrhythm of low (base) flows and high (peak) flows of theGanga River7,8,11. In their natural, unaltered state, allthese rivers have had perennial flows even across thelength of the harsh summer14. The biophysical nature ofthe rivers changes dramatically as they flow from theirsources in the Himalayas or the Vindhya/Maikal moun-tain ranges in the peninsula over large distances5,6,13.Flow and flood-pulse dynamics also affect thermal re-gimes, substrate availability and current velocity of riv-ers15,16. The dynamic balance of these factors triggersopportunities for spawning, reproduction, populationdynamics and viability, migration and movement offreshwater species17,18,19, including fishes, river dolphins,otters, crocodilians, turtles, invertebrates as well as ter-restrial biodiversity. The Gangetic floodplains shapenot only landforms but also complex human cul-

3


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

river: the fishing changes from cold-water fisheries inthe lower reaches of Himalayan glacial rivers, to flood-plain fisheries across most of the plains, and tidal-es-tuarine fisheries when the Ganges joins the Bay of Ben-gal and forms the Sunderbans delta2 (Figure 2). Also,aquaculture and pond fisheries are managed in naturaland manmade wetlands, tanks and ponds throughoutthe region21. It follows that seasonal dynamics of riverflows hold sway over the fisheries’ annual calendar, asthey matter critically for the life cycles of several fishspecies2,4,17. Fishers constantly track river fish popula-tion dynamics to reap good harvests.

In floodplain rivers, as floodwaters recede post-monsoon,fishers record the highest catches in October and No-vember, as large post-breeding and migrating adultfishes (e.g. major carps, clupeids, mullet) become catch-able. Winters, from December to early February, gener-ally record low catches because many fish show slowedbehavior and limited movement. But in spring fisheriesof minor carps and catfishes record high production. Withwater levels reducing, fishes become more concentratedin specific river habitats like deep pools, where they areeasy to fish. Summer fish catch biomass is also reason-ably good due to the overall low water availability2,4,17,21,22.

With the rising of floodwaters by June, access of fishersto rivers in spate becomes limited, owing to the risk offishing from boats17. The flood season is also the breed-ing and spawning period for many commercially valu-

tures that attempt to stabilize themselves andadapt to the constantly changing riverineforces18,20. Biodiversity, hydrology, geomorphologyand social dynamics influence each other throughconstant interaction and multiple feedbackmechanisms.

2.2 The Fisheries Calendar Diverse fishing practiceshave evolved in response to the different forms of the

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.

4


able fishes, and hence critical for continued harvests af-terwards. In estuarine and tidal rivers, the seasonalityis similar as the above, but fishers must have their dailyfishing plans based on tide timetables2,23. Fishing usu-ally peaks at mid- and low-tide times; where access totarget catches becomes easy. In cold-water streams, fish-ing is largely seasonal, happening in spring and summerafter snowmelt24, as in seasonal peninsular streams,which flow only during the monsoons. Wetland and pondfisheries, due to the relatively stable nature of the lenticwater-bodies, generally work through the year, except fora short lull in the peak flood season21. Pond aquaculturefollows intensive farming of fish and involves near-totalhuman management of fish stocks, and its activities aredetermined by the species being cultured.

2.3 Habitats for river fisheries In the Gangetic basin,fisheries are practiced in a range of diverse freshwaterhabitats including natural and man-made, lentic (stag-nant water) and lotic (flowing water) ecosystems. Natu-ral freshwater areas include large floodplain rivers, non-perennial rivers, perennial and seasonal streams, cold-water rivers and streams, glacial lakes, estuaries, tidalrivers, floodplain wetlands, oxbow lakes, grasslandswamps and marshes2,4,17 (Table 1). Manmade habitatsinclude dug or built-up wetlands, ponds, man-made res-ervoirs, dam reservoirs and canals. To the fisher, flowvelocity, depth profile, substrate type, vegetation struc-ture, current patterns and habitat stability are key indi-cators for fishing effort allocation and logistical decisions2.

Broadly, cold-water stream habitats may be classified aspools, runs and riffles based on conditions of current flow,substrate, topography and depth. A similar classificationexists for large floodplain rivers, but due to the signifi-cantly higher biophysical complexity, multiple in-riverhabitats are also identified.

In-river habitats utilized by floodplain fisheries includedeep river pools with eddy countercurrents, erodiblebanks, shallow depositional channels, near point barsand alluvial islands, meandering reaches, braided chan-nels and confluence zones6,7,9,10,13,15. Among these, deeppools and confluence zones are highly preferred by fish-ers due to the settlement of and constant movement offish populations in and across these reaches25 (Figure3). Not just the main river channel, but connectedsideward channels and channel mixing zones are nutri-ent-rich and therefore, important habitats for manyfishes26,27. Small-sized and juvenile fishes typically en-ter smaller channels and tributaries, and adults of somespecies may visit flood-connected wetlands for spawn-ing17. Fishers often select fishing floodplain river habi-tats based on fish life stages and size-bias and not onlyspecies preference. While strong preferences for fishspecies exist in any fishery based on cultural traits andavailability, an equal, if not more important target, is tocatch large-sized fishes. Size-preference in fisheries alsomatters for gear types to be used, e.g. determining thespecific mesh- or hook-sizes for use in nets, lines andtraps2,28.

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.

5


Higher diversity of habitats and fishing practices existsin estuarine areas, based on tidal regime and extent ofinfluence of tidal seawater, salinity, retention of waterand sediment deposition. Currents and freshwater-brack-ish water-saline gradients also matter considerably forfish production. Estuarine fisheries generally are juve-nile fisheries, as many marine and freshwater speciesuse these highly productive habitats for breeding17. Sothe fishing is typically biased to fish sizes smaller thanthe respective adult sizes of the harvested species. Infloodplain wetlands and ponds, vegetation, nutrient re-tention, depth and seasonal habitat connectivity withflowing water or recharge areas influence natural wild-capture fisheries. Wetland fisheries are either partially

or completely managed by people, and are used for mul-tiple economic purposes allied to fishing: aquatic foodplant and grass cultivation, shellfish, fish and mollusccultivation or harvest and domestic uses29. Pond aquac-ulture involves artificial/man-made creation of impound-ments and water storage tanks, or direct use of dam res-ervoirs. These water bodies are regularly seeded with fishspawn and fry, which grow in the standing lentic waterbodies and are harvested based on market demand21,30.

2.4 Fish Diversity in the Gangetic Basin

The overall species pool of the Gangetic fish assemblageis estimated at around 300 species (53+ families, 150+

Table 1. Fisheries and their freshwater habitat diversity in the Gangetic basin3.

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

3 Based on 2,4,17

6


genera; 250 species)31. The floodplain fisheries are domi-nated by major and minor carps (Cyprinidae), catfishes(Siluriformes: 6-7 families), Clupeidae, Notopteridae anda mix of many other families. Major carps and the Clu-peid fish, Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) and some large cat-fishes form the most valued catches across most partsof the Gangetic floodplains2.

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 fisheshave suffered serious declines due to overfishing, pollu-tion and dams, they have been mass-produced throughartificial rearing in pond aquaculture36. Farmed largecarps form the major proportion of fish eaten anywherein India today21. In wild fisheries, catfishes come lowerin the preference order, but with the decline of carps,medium and small catfishes have become the main fish-ing targets. Further, as most catfishes are sedentary anddo not show long-distance movements, the fisheries havecompletely switched from carp- to catfish-targeting fish-eries37,38. Other deep-bodied, highly sought after fishesinclude the Chitala and Notopterus, or the featherfishes,and mullet.

The estuarine fishery in the Hooghly and Sunderbanstidal rivers in West Bengal is dominated by shellfish(prawns, mud crabs and shrimp)23, Clupeidae andEngraulidae, Sciaenidae, catfishes of the Ariidae and afar more diverse set of families compared to truly in-land fisheries. Other important components of the com-mercial fisheries include 5-6 species of shellfishes(mainly prawn and shrimp). Macrobrachium rosenbergiiand M. nobilis are migratory prawns that breed in fresh-

water insofar as up to 500 km from the estuaries17,39. Inestuarine areas, Penaeus indicus, Metapenaeus sp.,Penaeus semisulcatus and P. monodon are highly pre-ferred prawns. However, artificial prawn culture in rear-ing pens in several estuarine areas is rapidly taking over.It has been very harmful to local fishes through habitatencroachment, use of poisonous fumigants and medi-cines, and the spread of disease40. Estuaries contributean even more diverse assemblage including both fresh-water and marine species (e.g. Perciform fishes,Polynemids, Sciaenids and Mullet), partially or fullydependent on the productive estuarine zones for breed-ing, migratory movements, and juvenile growth.

Coldwater fisheries specialize on large-bodied, rapids-loving potamodromous migrant fishes such as Mahseerand Snow Trout24. These fishes are of high commercialimportance and are in high demand by professional sportfishers and anglers, apart from being highly prized asfood locally. Mahseer in particular, have recently led tothe opening of new markets of luxury wildlife tourismthat is based on angling and recreation in the WesternHimalaya41,42.

Floodplain wetlands may be used either for wild cap-ture of juvenile carps, or even for culture of fish seed toadult, marketable sizes if wetlands are sufficiently largeand perennial water sources. Fisheries in vegetatedwetlands and mouns (oxbows), distributed along theantecedent tributaries of the Gandak-Ghaghra-Kosi riv-ers, are dominated by ‘blackfish’ (i.e. vegetation dwell-ing fishes) such as Channa and Anabas29. Dam reser-voir fisheries are almost entirely based on managedstocking and breeding of commercial fishes in hatcher-ies, of major carps Catla, Rohu and Mrigal, catfisheslike Pangasiodon, and minor catfishes33,43. Table 2, Fig-ure 4 and the Appendix provide detailed information onfish species diversity, ecology and population trends. Thestate of river fisheries in the Gangetic basin has beenaffected over the last few decades by several threatsdescribed in the next section.

2.5 State of riverine fisheries of the Gangetic ba-sin Statistics tell us that India has a booming inlandfisheries production sector, which has recorded a tre-mendous rise in production over the last two decades.Inland fisheries contribute approximately to 2% ofIndia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to almost5.5% of its agricultural GDP21. However, these numberscompletely mask the contribution of riverine fisheriesto the economy. In fact, the rapid expansion and inten-sification of pond-based commercial aquaculture ac-counts for up to 80% (or more) of total inland fisheriesof India58. Annual production estimates for 45,000 kmof fisheries-viable river length are around 300 kg/km,which has been recognized as considerably low and de-graded. River fisheries of the Gangetic basin have alsobeen a consistently loss-making and underperforming

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 cutoff by moderate and large dams have met asimilar fate. These include the Swamp EelAnguilla benghalensis, Sciaenids and largecatfishes such as Pangasius andSilonia1,2,34,35.

7


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).

8


sector, with almost 90% declines (26 kg/ha/yr to 2.5 kg/ha/yr) in the last 4 decades2,57,58,59. This marks a failurein terms of economic productive efficiency irrespectiveof the ownership and control regimes under whichGangetic fisheries are continuing today2,4,48,49.

Fisheries across India have been severely affected bydams, flow regulation and associated human impacts,which have substantially altered ecological requirementsof fisheries and biodiversity together2,4,34,35,44,60. If oneclinically investigated the fisheries’ decline, theywould find it to coincide with the period of maxi-mum dam building (1970s-80s) in India56,103. Mostcommercially valuable fish species, especially major carpsand Hilsa, have shown population-level collapse and evencommercial extinction over large inland waters2,34,35,56,60.Reduction in harvested fish size-class distributions, a clas-sical indicator of overexploitation by fisheries, points topoor fish recruitment and adult survival, which may befurther brought down by flow regulation by dams35,56,60.Dams have acted as the major factor of disruption byblocking migratory routes of upriver or estuarine spawn-ing fishes such as Hilsa and Anguilla eels. Dams havealso caused loss of genetic connectivity between fish popu-lations, most notably seen in major carp stocks61. Erraticwater releases, nutrient and sediment trapping behinddams and barrages, failure of breeding in carp and cat-fish species due to siltation, erosion, poor water avail-ability, modified thermal regimes required for breeding(increase in temperatures due to low river depth/flow),and exceptional levels of hazardous pollution (again,magnified due to the poor flows reducing dilution capac-ity of river water), are other fallouts that adversely affectfisheries60,62. The fact that there is just not enough waterin the river must form the bottom line of any causal in-vestigation of riverine fisheries. Lack of appropriate policymeasures and pollution receive dominant mention asthreats to fisheries by government research agencies, butthey are mere outcomes of much larger shifted baselinesbecause of dams62. Dams, barrages and hydropowerprojects through flow regulation have increased uncer-tainty about fishing62,63 and driven fishing to desperatelevels: fishers often resort to destructive practices, or evenworse, exit the fishery altogether. Such exit does not solvethe problem of existing fisher folk: water is critical tosustaining not just fisheries but the river and the peopledependent on it. Detailed understanding of the lives offishing communities of the Ganges is therefore critical.

2.6 Fishing Communities

2.6.1 Cultural Identity Around 10-13 million peoplein the Gangetic floodplains are estimated to bedependent on fish resources for their livelihoods,directly or indirectly2,17. However, accurate estimatesof active traditional and non-traditional fisher popula-tions are still wanting. It is important for any discus-

sion on fishing communities to clearly separate tradi-tional fishing communities from ‘non-traditional fish-ers’, who may be practically from any other local com-munity and with the possession of other livelihood op-tions, but also opportunistic fishing, due to unrestrictedaccess to imported nets and gear available in marketsto anyone1,44. Traditional fishing communities were al-ways the craftsmen of their own nets and gear, and alsopossess remarkable ecological knowledge about rivers,fish and biodiversity, their breeding biology, ecology, sea-sonality, and distribution. Of course, with the degrada-tion of fisheries throughout the Gangetic plains, the tra-ditional knowledge and practices of fishing are erodingfast. Hence such knowledge needs to be documented well,especially from old fishers with whom it still persists, toidentify historical baselines of river fisheries with a dif-ferent, past ecological reference (pers.obs.; F.pers.comm).

The traditional fishing communities of the Gangetic re-gion predominantly include the Mallah, Kewat andNisad, and their multiple sub-castes45. Despite the dif-ference in nomenclature from region to region they allclaim nearly common history, ancestry and invention ofreligious tradition. Fishing communities in West Ben-gal have many different castes, but are collectively calledJele or Keut. Traditional fishers in the Sunderbans in-clude both Hindu and Muslim fishers17.

Collectively and for the sake of convenience, these com-munities are often referred to as ‘Mallah’ in this discus-sion. Recently the Gangota caste in Bihar has been ac-corded the status of ‘traditional fishers’ (Dey, S.pers.comm.). Fishing and boat ferrying were always theprimary Mallah occupations, along with allied occupa-tions such as cultivation of Makhana (Euryale ferox) andseasonal small-scale fish culture in floodplain wet-lands20,29. In the Himalayan foothills, the Mallahs havetraditionally also been involved in clearing large boul-ders from streams to make navigation easier(F.pers.comm). Manjhi and other fishing tribes such asthe Pahadiya in Jharkhand belong from ancient animistcultures and subsist mainly on minor forest produce,hunting and fishing. The Bhoee people that belong to cen-tral Indian fishing communities sporadically occur intracts of the Chambal, Betwa, Sone and Ken rivers. Thefisher folk have, in their pursuit for upward mobilizationin society, adopted a multitude of affiliate identities20,45,46.

2.6.2 Political and Economic Status: Traditionalfishing communities today form a highlymarginalized, politically unorganized and socio-economically impoverished people20. Caste discrimi-nations and political history form the chief reasons fortheir poverty and subjugation over centuries offishworking20,45. But the present condition of riversdoes not seem to offer hope to any improvementin their economic position unless and until thereis collective voicing of their concerns, especially

9


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

10


against large-scale water engineering projectsthat threaten their livelihoods. Bringing the highlydiffuse fisher groups under an organized political spherefor their socio-economic uplift is a vast challenge(F.pers.comm, pers.obs). Fishes are highly mobile anduncertain resources living in dynamic environments andfishers tracking them lead a ‘foraging’ way of life. Fisherpopulations have been historically distributed alongstable riverbanks at town fringes. Their settlementshave always maintained some degree of clan fidelity,however, owing to their relatively low status land own-ership was never practiced through history47,48. Theirlivelihoods, one may argue, confined them to theriver’s water, albeit the fact that they never ownedthe waters legally. However, they always havestated cultural claims of temporally confined ter-ritory, following their foraging preferences andsite usage. But depending on the nature of the river’shydrological dynamics, there may be variable mainte-nance of fixed ‘territories’ by fishers adopting a rovingmode of fishing, and neither legal nor cultural claimscan be reconciled to a level that the conflicting partiescan reach mutually. With regards to their economicviability and status, a large proportion of the tra-

ditional fishworkers fall Below the Poverty Line(BPL), and are recorded as Economically Back-ward Castes, and also have been assigned the sta-tus of Scheduled Castes. Annual incomes from fish-ing alone, according to the few estimates available, rangefrom INR 25,000/- to INR 50,000/- (pers.obs.,F.pers.comm.; 2,21,38,48).

2.6.3 Institutional regimes for control and accessto fish resources Inland fisheries have been controlledby various institutional arrangements, typically basedon governmental control, or privately managed, profitmaximizing interests, or community-managed or co-op-eratively implemented fisheries, or unregulated open-access fishing44,47,49. First, all rivers and their resourcesare the property of the Indian government, on whichrevenue is typically levied through the leasing out ofmanagement imperatives to private agency. The privateleases and ‘ownership’ of river water exist in most statesand this works through contracts and tenures over riversegments auctioned out by the government for fish-ing20,49. Private fisheries often work their fishing by em-ploying traditional fishers as debt-bonded and wage la-borers who work for them20,46. Historically, such systemshave existed in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal;whereby river segments were owned through ‘Jalkarleases’ by Panidars (waterlords who acted as counter-parts of landlords (zamindars))46,50,51. Private ownershipof river resources, prevalent since the Mughal periodand further fortified by the British administration(through Permanent Settlement and other land tenancyacts in the 18th Century), often caused serious exploita-tion of laborers who had to bear oppression, poor wagesand harassment by the Panidars44,46,47,50.

Private ownership of water (of channel reaches and bankghats) was typically through the principle of riparianrights (landlords owning the land along the river bankswould typically stake claim to the river fisheries andferry rights as well), and maintained by threat andforce52,53. Such riparian consideration treats the river’swater and habitat as a mere parcel in the larger landmatrix, but not as a unique production ‘scape’ for fishresources, in itself54. This problem, both a philosophicaland tenurial/material one, is of significance to the fish-ing communities that depend on ‘river habitats’ or ‘riverwater holdings’ for their livelihood generation20,46,47,54. Theconsequent uncertainty with regards to ownership ofwater has caused highly frequent, violent conflicts inthe Gangetic floodplains of Bihar and eastern UttarPradesh, through the 1980s and 1990s20,55.

Subsequent state governments in independent Indiahave largely supported private control because it offersan easy channel for revenue and maximizes fisheriesproduction due to artificial inputs and protection46. How-ever, clearly, these systems of control led to serious un-

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.

11


rest and social costs to the oppressed fishworkers.Shockingly enough, debt-bonded labour inPanidari continued in Bihar until 1991, when tra-ditional fishers organized themselves under thebanner of Ganga Mukti Andolan and forced theBihar state government to overthrow the unjustregime50. Although the Panidari was indeed abolishedand rivers were declared ‘free for all to fish’, violent con-flicts persist even today, with criminal elements continu-ing to extort money from fishermen and fighting betweentraditional and non-traditional castes over fishing spacesonce under Panidari control38,44. This situation calls fora deeper on-ground engagement with the issue of deter-mining tenurial security for traditional fishers in dy-namic riverscapes. This example illustrates, quite dis-turbingly, how token government declarations of ‘open-ing the rivers to fisher folk’ remain meaningless in theGangetic region, where brutal force, privately corneredpower and caste attributes determine unequal and un-just ownership of resource areas.

This situation makes it clear that neither privatecontrol nor a completely open-access system cansustain the ever-increasing demand for a rapidlydeclining resource, such as fisheries, today1. Thispoints out the gaping hole in considering community-wide, democratic, compromise-based arrangements aspragmatic options. Community control for common-pool management of fisheries offers a potentialalternative38,48,49, but given the limited overall successof community-based natural resource management inIndia, it remains to be executed carefully for river fish-eries. Local institutional mechanisms to monitor re-source extraction and regeneration need to be strength-ened for empowering local communities to protect theirstakes against declining production. Harassment offisher folk by government officials and criminals / mafiagangs which leads to extortion of fish catch or cash,needs to be checked strongly20,50. The riverfront shouldgenerally be kept secure from criminal or illegal activ-ity (ranging from crimes against women, illicit liquor-brewing, harassment of fishers to illegal fishing prac-tices). Just the act of being able to securely fish with-out fear of mafia or pirates will be a great twin benefitfor fishers: through reducing destructive fishing, andthrough saving their day’s catch. Fishers need socialsecurity and access to means of improving their mate-rial dignity and economic ascent, and the political pro-cess needs to engage with this aspiration wholeheart-edly1,44.

3. Large dams, flow regulation and Gangetic ba-sin fisheries

3.1 Impacts of dams on river flows and fisheriesThe singular key problem of fisheries today is thatit lacks water in the dry-season, because of flowregulation by dams, barrages and hydropowerprojects. More water flow releases are needed forthe protection of riverine fisheries in the Gangeticbasin1,2. Widespread river habitat degradation, indus-trial, agricultural and domestic pollution, altered flowsand modification of sediment and nutrient fluxes by damprojects, and resource overexploitation (by fisheries,agriculture or industry) have had major consequencesfor the unique biodiversity and fisheries of floodplainrivers across Asia34,44,55,64. Obstruction and fragmenta-tion of river flow, habitat destruction, accelerated ero-sion and siltation, long-distance water diversions (in-volving huge amount of transmission losses and waste)and poor flow releases are the major direct threats ofdam-canal systems in the Gangetic plains34,64.

a) Flow volume problems: Lower-than-minimum flowshave been consistently recorded across the Ganga,Yamuna, Chambal, Kosi, Sone, Ken, Betwa, Ghaghraand Gandak rivers. Along with these large rivers, al-most all others (Rapti, Baghmati, Mahananda, Teesta,

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.

12


Kamla, Burhi Gandak, Punpun, Gomti and others) havebeen highly regulated64,69. The reduction of freshwa-ter discharge reaching the Sunderbans becauseof the Farakka barrage has led to high degree sa-line ingress throughout the estuary, causing die-offs of considerably large tracts of mangroves andaquatic vegetation, as well as severe losses to theupstream fishery17,65,66,67,68. Downstream, fishing prac-tices suited to brackish and fresh waters now have toadapt to saline intrusion into the estuary’s waters. Glo-bally, fragmentation and flow regulation have causedthe most severe impacts through drastic alterations toriverine biota and ecology70,71. Low flows and fragmentedconnectivity of river channels lead inevitably to fishpopulation declines and breeding failure. Over time,dams have probably led to genetic isolation of fishpopulations as well as river dolphin / crocodilepopulations72, destruction of fish breeding habi-tats and spawning triggers and loss of valuablewild fish germplasm61. These losses are so large intheir ecological value and opportunity costs that theycannot be recovered with artificial fish culture tech-niques or hatcheries.

b) Aggravation of pollution effects: The Ganges basin isone of the most polluted large river basins in Asia, espe-cially with regards to domestic sewage and agriculturalrunoff73. Poor flows reduce the dilution and self-purifi-cation capacity of river water to reduce concentration ofpollutants and local impacts on fishes74. It may be safelysaid that no freshwater fish we eat across India today isfree of pollution accumulation in its tissues. Agricultural

fertilizers (organophosphates, organochlorines, nitratesetc.), heavy metal pollution from industrial effluents,thermal power plants, oil refineries, distilleries and tan-neries, and nitrogen-rich sewage, waste-water and non-biodegradable substances such as plastics, mercury, ra-dioactive compounds and hospital wastes can cause fishkills or even worse, lead to high levels of toxicity in tis-sues74. Pollution problems are especially acute in highlyregulated river reaches, especially around Delhi(Yamuna River), and the Gomti at Lucknow, Yamunauntil Panchnada in UP and Ganga River at Kanpur,Allahabad, Varanasi75, Patna, Barauni, Bhagalpur andFarakka.

c) Siltation in dam reservoirs and barrage gates: Exces-sive siltation in the Ghaghra barrage has led to, as perlocal fishers, breeding failure in Labeo angra (Ghewri),a preferred spring-fisheries target in the region. The fish-ers claimed that over the past 5 years they have notcaptured a single fish with eggs inside it, and also addedthat catches have plummeted heavily (F.pers.comm).Siltation of gravel/sediment in reservoir or storage zonesis a problem of huge magnitude for fisheries, especiallythrough breeding failure. Accumulated silt in reservoirsis estimated to be so high (in tens of meters height) thatit cannot even be easily flushed out, and leads to nearly60-90% reductions in sediment fluxes of rivers in mon-soon and non-monsooon seasons76. Siltation adds to ob-struction of flow release through barrage gates. In theFarakka barrage, sediment load accumulation is lead-ing to breakage of gates every year, adding to mainte-nance costs.

Figure 5. Map showing existing and planned dams, barrages, pump canals and hydropower projects in the Gangetic River Basin ofIndia (point data courtesy of IIT-Guwahati free dataset download repository. http://gisserver.civil.iitd.ac.in/grbmp/iitg.htm;

Map prepared by Nachiket Kelkar; As of year 2012.)

13


d) Habitat destruction and alteration of erosion-deposi-tion dynamics: Soil erosion by erratic and sudden re-leases before floods can potentially lead to alterationand destruction of fish breeding habitats and stock de-pression27,34,56,77,78. Changes in depth and flow velocitylead to fish not being able to receive natural physiologi-cal cues for movement and spawning that are otherwiseprovided by variability in discharge17,26. Flow alterationalso alters hydrological connectivity and sediment trans-port with wetlands and confluence channels during flood-ing. As a result these productive breeding habitats of-ten become unavailable for catfishes and carps79. Thesefactors together become a problem for pre-settlementfish juveniles and recruits, which move into the mainchannels.

g) Embankment construction: In dynamic floodplain riv-ers such as the Ganga and Kosi, flooding is a regularfeature leading to loss of thousands of people and prop-erty damage80. Flood control strategies have been prac-ticed through dams as well as embankments81. Alongthe Kosi River, the proliferation of embankments hascompletely altered the river flows and fragmented theminto a wetland-patchwork81. Embankments have modi-fied riverbank-adjoining spawning areas and affectedfisheries of silt-substrate breeders. During the floods,embankments often breach and have led to large-scalehabitat modification, which has had consequences inuncertainty about fishing tenure. The Kosi wetland fish-eries are predominated by blackfish, or fish that live in

vegetation (e.g. Channa, Colisa, Anabas etc.); and sev-eral invasive species that live in similar habitats arebecoming increasingly common in these wetlands81. Theembankments have also led to large-scale flood displace-ment and outmigration of millions of people over thepast 4 decades82.

f) Thermal changes: As per fishers of Bhagalpur andKahalgaon in Bihar, the disappearance of Mystusmenoda, a common small catfish may be attributed toincreased temperatures in the river bed (F.pers.comm).This potamodromous fish which was once highly com-mon, has shown sudden reductions to the tune of 90%,and this might be due to the effect of barrages on ante-cedent tributaries like the Ghaghra and Gandak, wherethey may not be able to cope with temperature gradi-ents caused by low flows from colder areas in the Hima-layan foothills to the lower plains. Thermal changes(typically hotter water) have also affected spawning ofmajor carps and prawns (Macrobrachium) that under-take 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 moun-tain streams as well as rivers downstream84,86,87,90. Glo-bally, despite mitigation measures in hydropower con-structions, fish migration and development have largelybeen deemed as failures. In India, hydropower projects,especially run-of-river projects in higher altitudes, of-

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.

14


ten have disastrous effects on natural thermal regimes,cause sediment blockages and perturb natural flow vari-ability at diurnal timescales through releases varyingacross several orders of magnitude85,89. These changesseverely affect not just breeding and migration in higher-altitude cold-water fisheries of snow trout and Mahseerin Himachal, Sikkim and Uttarakhand, but also down-stream fisheries of catfish and carps in the foothills andplains due to altered flows24,88. Their cumulative down-stream impact can also potentially risk fisheries-baseduses of river water without being exposed to the risk ofsudden flow releases every day85. These projects havealso seriously affected many rare and endangered ter-restrial and aquatic plant and animal species in India89.

h) Climate change impacts on fisheries: Initially, higherpeak flooding intensity and prolonged monsoons arepredicted for large rivers in the Gangetic basin due toincreased glacial melt in climate change scenarios91,92.Many benthic fish species appear to have respondedthrough rapid changes in their geographic distribution,occupying increasingly colder waters than their previ-ous ranges92. It is therefore critical to include climatechange impacts on the magnitude of flooding in assess-ments of fisheries vulnerability due to warmer and wet-ter seasons93.

Globally, through extreme perturbation of natural flowdynamics, dams have homogenized and altered manycrucial river-floodplain processes, and have had disas-trous impacts on biodiversity and fisheries60,94,95,96,97.There is an urgent need to ensure ecologically neces-sary, adequate and natural flow regimes in all rivers ofthe Gangetic basin69,96,97,107. The current water scar-city is so severe that projects such as riverinterlinking, apart from their ridiculous proposedcosts, are simply impossible to conceive of, wateritself being the limitation98,106. There is no doubt thatfurther water developments will prove disastrous for awhole section of people and their livelihoods, and mustbe scrapped. Rivers that need urgent attention in thisrespect are the Chambal, Yamuna, Ken, Betwa,Alaknanda, Bhagirathi, Mandakini, Sone, Damodar, theGanges at Farakka and Allahabad, Sharada, Ghaghraand 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 intensi-fication, groundwater depletion and sand mining arehighly destructive threats that will affect not just fish-eries but the whole social fabric of river users in thenear future97,99,100.

Despite the demonstrated folly of not allowing rivers toflow from headwaters to estuaries and deltas, engi-neers, technocrats and politicians talk of “riversflowing wastefully into the sea”. This statementwould imply that the thousands of species and

millions of fisher livelihoods that need flowingwater in rivers are of no value to the state policyon water resource development. Such statementsare ignoring important societal needs and henceare evidently irresponsible99,100,101. Belatedly, theNational Water Policy has made a token, last-prioritymention of “minimum environmental flows” to be main-tained in a river, although this itself is an obsolete con-cept and needs to be replaced with “ecological flow re-gimes” rather than on minimum flow values100,101. Thebiogeochemical and physical functions and ecosystemservices it provides, especially for coastal ecosystems anddependent communities are completely ignored96,97,100,101.River fish stock restoration requires serious rethinkingof current dam operations to suit flow release timingsaccording to natural range of variability102,106. Reducingwater consumption and pollution by agricultural/urbansectors can help enhance the productivity of water re-sources. This can become possible through more efficientand equitable water reallocations across sectors suchas irrigation and fisheries together. Cooperative fishingarrangements can help improve livelihoods and ecologi-cal restoration of river flows and fish stocks can enablerivers to together sustain biodiversity, local communi-ties and ecosystem services103,104,105,107. No post dam-con-struction compensation schemes exist for fishers, whomay lose their entire livelihood because of flow-regula-tion and loss of hydrological connectivity due to dams17.Downstream fisher populations must be ideally compen-sated for the lost fishing catch and livelihood opportu-nity, but in general there has been scant attention to-wards the communities’ livelihoods (F.pers.comm).Downstream water allocations through on-groundconsultations with fisher communities are ur-gently needed (F.pers.comm). In India, water re-sources development is so strongly irrigation-focused(and now strongly focused on industry and hydropower),that, in comparison, riverine fisheries are not even ac-knowledged as legitimate and in need of conservationand livelihood protection. These biases mean that onlypond aquaculture receives any attention1. If river con-servation and development groups can activelywork with fishing communities in order to developan informed and aware constituency or interestgroup, fishers will gain political voice in makingnegotiations about water availability in river ba-sins.

3.2 Downgrading of fisheries The state of river fish-eries directly indicates the declining biophysical, eco-logical and social integrity of the river basin110. The ex-isting in-river fisheries contribute merely about10% of the overall inland fish production58,59. Eventhis production is highly unsustainable today and hasall the indicators of serious levels of overfishing111. Forinstance, river fisheries in Bihar now even glean small-sized fish fry for markets in northern West Bengal

15


(Siliguri) and Assam, where eating small fish is a deli-cacy (F.pers.comm;44). It is also suspected by field ob-servers that a large chunk of this trash catch goes tothe poultry feed and fishmeal industry. Capture of small-sized fishes can be devastating for population recruit-ment, and evidently, such markets for small fish cannotsustain fishers for long (Figure 6). ‘Non-traditional’ fish-ers and criminal elements generally run the boom-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 asfisheries discards i.e. ‘trash fish’ sizes and species arerunning the economy (F.pers.comm, pers.obs.)112. Thefisheries thus represent both trophic downgrading andlife-stage (size) downgrading111,112,113. What would be sim-ply thrown away or sold for throwaway if it were a mi-nor part of the catch is now the dominant catch itself(e.g. Glossogobius giuris, a goby fish never eaten due toits poor taste and low cultural value, now fetches pricesof up to Rs. 200/- per kg). So, the fish market is now amarket that scrapes these remains and continues gen-erating even more pressure on rivers, and moretrash112,113. Fisheries incur ‘colossal losses’ everyseason 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 Pradeshand West Bengal, the nature of supply itself has radi-cally changed21,30,114. This boom has contributed to Indiabecoming one of the largest producers of inland fresh-water fish in the world. But such ranking hides a lot ofmiserable facts about river degradation. Although netproduction shows increases, the collapse of riverfisheries that still support millions of poor peoplewho don’t get access to aquaculture, get totally

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 4. Invasive species such as this Red-bellied Pacu haveseverely affected native fish populations and might also pose

dangers to people using rivers in which they are running wild.Photo: © Nachiket Kelkar.

16


ignored under such swamping115. This is why farmedfish in fish hatcheries can barely replace riverine fish-eries despite the fact that they have cornered the atten-tion of fisheries development33,58.

The failure of river fisheries has led to large-scaleoutmigration for labour from the Indo-Gangetic plains(F.pers.comm.). This might be a significant contributorto the magnitude of labour-related migrations from theGangetic plains, which has been a rising exodus116. To-day, fisher folk from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar andBengal provide a large proportion (20-40%) of con-struction and manual labor force across India(F.pers.comm). Others who stay behind have to take tomenial jobs such as rickshaw-pullers or servants(F.pers.comm; pers.obs). Some are forced to take to crimeto be able to feed themselves and their families. These

factors can weaken the social resilience of productionsystems and create poverty, disparity and communitybreakdown117. It has been argued that ethnic conflictsbetween local Indian populations and illegally immi-grated Bangladeshi refugees are linked to poor waterreleases from the Farakka barrage in West Bengal, todownstream floodplain reaches in Bangladesh118.

3.3 Fish declines and changing practices (Table 3)Artisanal fisheries, by tradition, have been a special-ized, skill-based and diversity-oriented enterprise drivenby subsistence needs of fishers. As such artisanal fish-eries involve typically small-scale fishing practices,which are size-specific, species-specific, habitat-specificand inflexible in their range of capture efficiency. Thisstands in contrast to modern and commercial techniquefor fishing, which is highly flexible but also highly gen-eralized, mass production-oriented than diversity-based,and rarely specific to fish species or sizes56. In the ab-sence of regulatory mechanisms, it can lead toserious overexploitation of fish resources due toits mass application, which may need labour butnot require skill. The best way to evaluate the statusof fisheries is to observe changes in fishing methods andintensity. ‘How one fishes’ is often the currency onwhich issues of conservation, sustainability andlegality are discussed. New fishing technology canalter the course of fisheries by directly affecting offtakerates, and can seriously impair or boost economic vi-ability in the long run, depending on their capture effi-ciency48.

Today, given the tremendous decline in fish resources,it becomes almost impossible to distinguish commercialand subsistence-based/artisanal fisheries. The diversityof fishing gear and practices shows extreme reductionin the wake of mechanization of fisheries, that usheredin imports of nylon monofilament gillnets, among sev-

Box 4. Swamping of markets with pond-cultured fish.Overall, pond-cultured carps and catfishes fromAndhra Pradesh and West Bengal dominate themarkets across the entire Gangetic basin (mak-ing up for 70-95% of the sold fish catch). Pro-moted aggressively as an allied activity to foodcrop agriculture, carp culture has shown a 40%increase in the past 15 years, and contributes tonearly 90% of inland fish production in Indiatoday. The species cultured in pond aquaculturemainly include carps of native and alien origin,some catfish and some specific food-fish importedto India such as Tilapia (2 Oreochromis sp.), Af-rican catfish and Red-bellied Pacu (a species ofPiranha), as well as indigenous and exotic (in-vasive) major carps. This scene adequatelyinforms us that imports sustain the fishmarkets especially in Madhya Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, furthermarginalizing river fisher livelihoods(pers. comm. with local fishers). On theother hand, within river fisheries, over 90%fishers reported serious declines (>80-90%)in natural population of prized major carpsRohu Labeo rohita, Katla Catla catla andMrigal Cirrhinus mrigala. This is the ironicfate of fisheries in the highly productiveGangetic floodplains1.

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

17


eral harmful fishing techniques. Monofilamentgillnets have replaced cotton-fiber nets and domi-nated fish markets across the Gangetic basin sincethe 1970s, coming initially from Europe and nowalmost entirely coming from China, Scandinaviancountries, Thailand and Indonesia (F.pers.obs). Asthe market is full of such nets, fishers and non-fisherscan use them without second thought. Older fisherspoint out that this shift led to drastic declines infish recruitment, survival and adult reproductionfrom the 1970s onwards (F.pers.obs). The mesh sizeof gillnets has shrunk multifold: the average mesh-size used today is around 20 mm, which is a de-cline of almost 4-5 times in 30-40 years2,4,44,48.

If one looks at Fisheries Acts across Indian states (e.g.51,122), of all the fishing practices ongoing today nearly90% are ‘illegal’ and, in fact, deleterious for river fishresources and biodiversity44,123. The Fisheries Acts pro-vide net mesh size restrictions of approx. 40mm, butthe actual use is predominantly of 12-30 mm nets51. How-ever, due to declines in fish catch and fish size-spectra,fishers are left with no choice but to use smaller mesh-sizes to capture the reduced size distribution available.This leads to tremendous increases in fishing pressureon small-sized fishes whose survival and recruitmentare important for the fish population stocks as a whole.It is obvious that this is an unsustainable shift for thefisheries, but the meager availability of fish biomasscaptured leads fishers to further take even more des-perate measures, which involves dangerous methods likepoisoning of river channels, dynamite use, mosquito-netsand beach-seines which are totally indiscriminate123.They can meet their demands for household consump-tion or surplus sales, by fishing with destructive nets orby fishing much more than they previously would have(F.pers.comm). This leads to escalation of fishing inten-sity across the fisher population scale, and can obviouslydry out sustained harvests. Greater community-based management and monitoring of fisheries,along with river restoration, can lead to improve-ments in the destructive nature of fisheries. Fish-eries infrastructure for traditional fisher access is alsowanting: many fishing localities do not have proper vend-ing places or market areas to sell their production124.Fishers generally sell their catch through middlemen(Paikkars) who buy fish from the fishers, often directlyat landing sites, and the supply chain leads to inadequatepricing of individual fishers’ catches. Direct on-groundengagement with traditional river fishers is thereforeurgently needed from source to shop.

3.4 Problems with invasive alien fish species Wan-ton and unregulated expansion of aquaculture has ledto introduction of alien invasive fish species due to theirrapid growth rates and culture potential. There is al-most no quarantine on the import of several food and

aquarium fish species, since these are allowed for tradeby the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES). Huge reservoir stocks of food fishessuch as Tilapia, European and Chinese Carps, and re-cently, Amazonian species like Red-bellied Pacu are be-ing imported for pond aquaculture125. Reservoir fisher-ies cannot even stock ‘closed populations’, as the reser-voirs are intermittently connected to rivers and streamsin the catchment areas, and the threat of invasion iseven higher. This often leads to invasion of natural wa-ters by fish species bring in a host of problems for na-tive fishes: generally they outcompete native fish spe-cies and start running wild in natural ecosystems125.They can usually establish well because the flow in therivers is so poor these pond fish can survive well in the‘pond-like’ conditions of the river. The most striking ex-ample has been the invasion of Tilapia species(Oreochromis nilotica and O. mossambica) in theYamuna and Ganga until Allahabad, as there is barelyany flowing water in these rivers in the dry season (non-monsoon months) due to dams and abstraction for irri-gation126. There is also the chance that alien invasivesmight hybridize with native species, and lead to geneticimpurities in wild stocks of native fishes127. Viral dis-eases may also be carried by the exotic fish populationsand may be spread under certain conditions to nativefishes. Reports of injury due to dangerous food fishes,running wild, such as Pacu, are slowly emerging fromWest Bengal and Kerala (pers.obs). Food fish culture inponds and dam reservoirs, and the aquarium trade, hasbeen practiced very irresponsibly and the threat of in-vasive alien fish species in our ecosystems is surmount-ing127. A summary of the multiple threats and problemsfacing fisheries, with possible solutions mentioned byfishers provided in Figure 6.

4. A critical review of mitigation measures

4.1 The monsoonal fishing ban Across the Gangeticplains, all state fisheries acts stipulate a 3-month mon-soon-time ban on fishing in all flowing waters: riversand estuaries51. The ban is to allow the spawning, growthand development of fish fry and juveniles so that theybecome available to capture in the following seasons.Although most fishers recognize the importance of theban, they are often compelled to disregard it, as theydon’t have fallback options during this period(F.pers.comm). There is a need to identify alternativelivelihoods for fishers especially during monsoons. Thiscan help both correct non-compliance of fishers and pro-vide for seasonal regeneration of fisheries.

4.2 Fish ladders and hatcheries There is little exist-ing research on the construction design, functioning andefficiency of fish ladders in tropical and subtropical largefloodplain rivers33,128. Across the tropics, monitoring stud-ies on fish ladders do not show positive results128. A hand-

18


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)

19


ful of barrages in India have constructed fish ladders,but owing to numerous problems they have been largelya failure33. These problems are all related to the ex-tremely low discharge rates from the dams – as there issimply not enough water volume allocated for migrat-ing fishes, which therefore cannot access the ladders andfish lifts129. Other problems are linked to siltation in res-ervoirs and turbulence of flows near the fish passages.For instance, the Farakka fish lifts do not seem to havebeen of any help due to the extremely low outflow of theGanga River from it, and the commercial extinction ofthe Hilsa fisheries both upstream and downstream isclear with an estimated 99.9% decline. Fish passes

constructed at barrages on the Yamuna River(Hathnikund barrage) and the Ganga barrage atHaridwar have been monitored by CIFRI and theresults suggest that they have had very low suc-cess for migration of cold-water species like theGolden Mahseer Tor putitora. Similar structureson the Beas River and Mahanadi River (Salandidam, Orissa) have found to be ineffective in buff-ering the adverse impacts on fisheries productionin these rivers33. India has dominantly followed reser-voir hatcheries development, and therefore considerationfor effective fish ladders has always been low priority2,33.However, as we have seen, hatcheries themselves bring

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).

20


about several problems for native fish populations – andare not an ecologically viable solution, despite being eco-nomically profitable to certain interests. Given the poorsuccess of existing fish passages, it is important to con-sider modern designs in existing and proposed dams thatare suited to the ecology of our own fishes. A whole bodyof interdisciplinary research – spanning engineering andecology, is needed to address the significant gaps in ourunderstanding of making fish passages work. We needto monitor existing examples well to assess reasons fortheir failure. Again, just the act of allowing higher dry-season flows and timely adequate releases in the rivercould be a far more effective strategy for fisheries im-provement than other intensive technology-driven prac-tices to enhance fisheries production1,44 (F.pers.comm).

4.3 Fisheries co-operatives: a vestige? Between 1967and 1970, fishery cooperatives were setup across sev-eral areas in the Gangetic basin states130. The mandateof the cooperatives was to provide accounts and mem-bership to bona fide (mostly traditional) fish-workersfrom local communities, enhance fish production throughloans, technological know-how and subsidies for bothpond-based aquaculture and riverine capture-based fish-eries. Most importantly, fishers could cooperatively takeleases and manage fisheries production in government-owned water bodies130,131. Cooperative extension acrossIndia had initially good response, but over the last fewdecades, many schemes have either become defunct orcorrupted. Elite capture by private agencies of coopera-tives has relegated them to ghost institutions with nomeaningful function or structure, and with no benefitstransferred to the intended communities20. With fish-eries cooperatives, typically, landlords haveusurped pond leases auctioned to fishers throughforcible means or cheating. They have also subju-gated the claimant fishers to become laborers forpoor wages on their own pond entitlements20. Thisappears to be a common practice in Bihar, Uttar Pradeshand Madhya Pradesh. This injustice has sparked off vio-lent conflicts between local communities and landlords,with estimates of casualty from these strikes reachingthousands20. Barring the exception of West Bengal wherecooperative fish rearing and aquaculture has seen somesuccess30, less than 20% of the existing cooperatives areestimated to be functioning in the other states1. There-fore, fishery management through cooperatives needsrevival through most parts of northern India132.

4.4 Riverine protected areas: new grounds for con-flicts with fisheries In the Gangetic basin (the Gangais declared the National River of India133), where virtu-ally no stretch of any river could be imagined as pristineor free of human activity and influence, imagining Fresh-water Protected Areas (FWPAs) could be called a conser-vation oxymoron. Conservation of endangered river spe-cies such as Ganges River dolphins (India’s national

aquatic animal134), Gharials, otters, turtles, birds and fishspecies in the Gangetic basin faces a formidable challengebecause of the open-access nature of floodplainriverscapes. Even if river reaches and precinct areas aredeclared as FWPAs, they have been rendered ineffectivein terms of their ecological functions and services due tothe widespread impacts of dams, habitat degradation andpollution1,142. This situation exists despite there beingprovisions in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for pro-viding adequate river flows to protected areas135. Althoughsome FWPAs exist in the Gangetic plains (e.g. NationalChambal Sanctuary, Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanc-tuary etc.), they are mostly ridden by conflicts betweenfisheries and wildlife conservation has intensified aroundthem, from contested definitions of area boundaries, userights and access by traditional fisher communities1,44,123.The charge of these PAs rests in the hands of state envi-ronment and forest departments, which are often illequipped to deal with water-based monitoring, patrolling,research and conservation strategies. As with forest land,settlement of (fishing) rights to river water is a majorissue of contention, and in most cases there are completefishing bans imposed on fishers in FWPAs, without ad-equate considerations of livelihood needs, identity, or fish-ing rights1,44. Fisher agitations and clandestine fishingor poaching have sprung in response, and have been com-monly reported across these PAs. The biggest goal forfreshwater protected areas, therefore, will need to be toeffectively bring about river restoration for the conserva-tion of both endangered riverine wildlife and fisheries.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 inthe set of overall problems affecting fisheries (<20%)(F.pers.comm). The major problems affecting fisheries arelinked to water scarcity, issues of unclear definition offishing rights and conflict over ownership of river seg-ments20,44,136. PA management in freshwater areas needs

Image 6. Endangered species such as the Ganges River dolphin,India’s ‘National Aquatic Animal’ have also been affected

severely by dams and barrages. Photo: © Sushant Dey.

21


to inevitably adopt inclusive approaches instead of ex-clusionary ones, which dominate terrestrial PA-based con-servation globally138, and need to involve adaptive ap-proaches to management of biodiversity conservation139.

4.5 Compliance of fishers towards biodiversityconservation Naturally, fisheries closely interact withriver wildlife in various ways, as they share spaces andresources with species that, like them, are entirely de-pendent on rivers for their survival. Landscape-levelresource declines show their impacts on human activi-ties at local levels, causing them to fiercely and directlycompete with wild species for fishes123,137. Traditionalfisher folk, while certainly worthy of receiving legallyrecognized rights, economic and political uplift, and so-cial and material dignity, are also exploiters ofbiodiversity to a considerable extent. Unsustainable andhighly exploitative fisheries are a serious threat to pro-tection of wild species and can have detrimental effectson river ecosystems as a whole. The fishers’ own use ofresources certainly needs critical scrutiny44. People de-pendent on freshwater protected areas for their liveli-hoods seek denotification of these areas because of bothrestricted access and criminalization of their means oflivelihood. But in reality, notwithstanding governmentrestrictions on freshwater protected areas, fishers havecontinued to fish in whatever way and with whatevermethod, as they have liked, to their advantage44.

Even if claims for fishing rights advanced in thename of tradition are entertained, the negative eco-logical impacts of existing fishing practices, eventhe relatively non-destructive techniques are high,not just on species such as river dolphins and croco-dilians, but on the fishery itself. Fishers are occasion-ally involved in clandestine killing and eating of turtlesand wild birds, occasionally hunting dolphins for oil andkilling endangered species such as gharials with whichconflict is perceived (pers.obs, F.pers.comm). Accidentalentanglement of endangered species in fishers’ nets isanother increasing issue. However, it must be recognizedthat these impacts are the result of severe economiccompulsions and culturally rooted practices. Hencefisher compliance needs to be gradually brought aboutthrough awareness, education and monitoring. Monitor-ing of 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 fishingwith dynamite, poisoning of entire channels, beach seinenets, large dragnets, trawling or use of river dolphin oil /turtle oil and hunting must be brought to book, bustedand heavy criminal charges imposed, 4) Introduction ofexotic invasive food fishes into rivers, 5) Hunting of wild-life in rivers, especially turtles, gharials, Ganges riverdolphins, smooth-coated otters, muggers, birds or anyother species mentioned in the Wildlife Protection Act(WLPA, 1972135, with amendments in 1991, 2002, 2006,

2011), and 6) Density of people fishing in different areasand laying claims to different areas (typically based onflowing and impounded water-bodies. Rights to flowingwaters are often open-access on paper, but need to alsobe realized on the ground. Fisher compliance to ecologi-cally conducive practices for biodiversity conservation canbe incentivized through recognition and positive reinforce-ment via prizes in the form of technical know-how aboutimproving the fishery status137,139. Involvement of fishercooperatives for ensuring compliance with guidelines andrestrictions provided in state fisheries acts is also impor-tant, along with monitoring, to ensure long-term reduc-tion in conflicts. Fish sanctuaries and community-con-served fisheries zones preserves need to be createdthrough the Gangetic basin. At present, only high-alti-tude, cold-water fisheries seem to be receiving some in-formal protection through community-protected fish sanc-tuaries in Uttarakhand and Kashmir, where fish are pro-tected in deep pools and near temple springs24. Protec-tion also needs to provide adequate and effective cover-age for lower floodplain river reaches. People’s percep-tions need to given strong consideration for multi-objec-tive management of biodiversity rich areas used for fish-eries140,141.

4.6 River restoration and alternative livelihoodsGiven the current state of riverine fisheries, there is anurgent need to consider possibilities for large-scale eco-logical restoration of rivers by modifying dam operationsand improving ecological flows102. Alongside restoration,it is crucial to consider alternative livelihoods to fish-ers, which regard their traditional knowledge and pro-vide them with clearly defined user rights and respon-sibilities over management of wild-caught or culturedfish resources143. Ecological restoration of all major andminor rivers in India needs to be undertaken urgently,to ensure ecologically adequate, naturally timed flow re-leases, consistent dry-season flow regimes, hydro-geo-morphological habitat maintenance, flood maintenanceand reduction in pollution34,35,69,96,100,102,145. Dam re-opera-tions to ensure adequate flows and variability in riverdischarge remain a neglected aspect of river manage-ment in most regions today102. Flow restoration can leadto improved health, numbers and availability of nativecommercial carps and preponderance of larger fish sizesthrough improved juvenile recruitment34,145,146, alongwith other advantages to surface hydrology and localgroundwater availability. Large-scale scientific researchand monitoring programs must be instituted to studythe response of inland wild-capture fisheries and takefurther steps to mitigate local threats33,34,35. Restorationalso needs to involve stringent restrictions on release ofuntreated domestic and industrial effluent, especiallyin urban belts such as Kanpur, the National CapitalRegion of Delhi, Allahabad-Varanasi, Mathura-Agra,Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh; Patna, Barauni in Bihar andthe Durgapur and Kolkata regions in West Bengal74.

22


Strict restrictions are needed on sand-mining, riverfrontencroachment and embankment construction, especiallyin the Chambal, Ghaghra, Gandak, Baghmati, Rapti andKosi Rivers81,100,147. In this regard, more judicial inter-ventions, such as seen recently in the case of sand-min-ing closures from river beds based on a review by theNational Green Tribunal147, are critical in reducing wan-ton and unregulated destruction of riverfronts, whenimplemented effectively. In terms of reducing the mostdirect impacts, there is a need to regulate fishing pres-sure and completely curb destructive fishing practiceslike dynamiting, use of mosquito-nets, beach seines, andgillnets below allowable mesh-sizes, poisoning, use oflong-lines etc2,44. Traditional fishers must be involveddirectly in monitoring and banning the use of destruc-tive practices by the government monitoring agen-cies148,149.

For immediate concerns of livelihood sustainability, al-ternative livelihoods need to be made available to fish-ers through informed choice123,150. Alternative occupa-tions can help ease the pressure on declining river fishresources on the one hand, and improving fishers’ ma-terial incomes on the other. Rejuvenation of the co-op-eratively managed pond fishing systems; with stakesfor traditional fishers – rather than for private power-driven interests – protected, can still be a viable alter-native130,151,152,153. Pond-based co-operative culture fish-eries undoubtedly have vast potential, provided theirmanagement is ecologically sound and socially equi-table20,44,151. Most fishers in the Gangetic basin are land-less and cannot afford even the capital cost of digging apond20. Co-operative land leases for development of pondfisheries that are managed by family groups or settle-ments of fisher folk is an idea proposed by many fishersin the Kosi-lower Ganges belt (F.pers.comm). Fish farm-ing through pond culture, though widespread in north-ern India, is still in the clutches of direct or indirectfeudal control153. It is necessary to create systems wherebetter community control on well-defined water bodies(e.g. tanks, wetlands, floodplain pools, oxbow lakes) ispossible149,152,154. Multiple structures exist in West Ben-gal for fisheries (from sewage-water ponds, wetlandsetc.30,151) but destructive fishing practiced in this stateneed to be regulated. Community-based cooperative sys-tems, if planned well, could be of great help in fosteringsocially equitable and profitable fisheries management,boosting local production, reduce costs, and enhancecommerce while leaving spaces free for biodiversity con-servation and for the river ecosystem itself1,2,20,44,154,155.With the challenge of fisheries addressed, river man-agement can improve with low-water intensity crops andagricultural practices (e.g. zero-tillage rice farming in-tensification), which need low water abstraction for ir-rigation, maintenance of riparian shelterbelts, ecologi-cal flow regimes, and curbing of illegal and destructivepractices, all of which will aid fisheries through provid-

ing more water and fishing opportunities154,155. Table 4summarizes recommendations for fisheries restorationin the form of a 12-point plan.

River fisheries need adaptive management that utilizesfishers’ traditional local knowledge156 while improvingtheir livelihoods. Post active river restoration, ‘wildlife-friendly’ fisheries could be developed through policy thatensures use of small-scale, species-specific with moni-toring standards of zero-entanglement and setting ofspecies or size-specific targets44,123,137. Fisher communi-ties can help monitor adjoining river stretches, and helpprotected area authorities in regulating illegal, destruc-tive fishing. The proposed Food Security Act and rurallabor programs could enhance both nutrition and wagerates of fishers, providing some protection to livelihoodswithout adverse impacts on fisheries. Improved socialsecurity could also help create opportunity for involvingfishermen in small-scale ecotourism around existing riv-erine PAs44. Planning ecotourism ventures also neces-sarily requires assessing their benefits to fishers asagainst other commercial interests. The National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme too can be effectivelyused towards this end, on a cooperative, open and equalfooting. The importance of sustained monitoring andaction in all these initiatives cannot be overemphasized:for river biodiversity, for fisher folk, and for the riveritself. However, none of these efforts will be completewithout substantially reducing flow regulation by damsand maintenance of ecological flow regimes. Finally, thequest for sustaining fisheries in the Ganga River basinin the long-term will require rethinking of current domi-nant paradigms to move towards ecological restorationof rivers, their biodiversity, as well as socially just, rights-based and equitable socio-political restoration of tradi-tional fisher communities and fisheries managementsystems.

Image 7. Dialogue with fishing communities is critical forensuring protection of their livelihoods, which are facing serious

threat from the condition of rivers in the Gangetic basin.Photo: © Subhasis Dey.

23


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

24


References1. Kelkar, N. (2012) Fishing for Scrap: Sustaining River

Fisheries in the Face of Ecosystem Degradation, Socio-political Dynamics and Poverty in the Gangetic Basin. ABrief Report on the Status of River Fisheries: Causes ofDecline, Conflicts and Potential Alternatives. Report sub-mitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries, De-partment of Agriculture (branch), Government of India.New Delhi. 40 p.

2. Payne, A.I., Temple, S.A. (1996) River and FloodplainFisheries in the Ganges Basin. Final report R.5485. Ma-rine Resources Assessment Group Limited, OverseasDevelopment Administration, London, 1996.

3. Singh, M. & Singh, A.K. (2007) Bibliography of environ-mental studies in natural characteristics and anthropo-genic influences on the Ganga River. Environmental Moni-toring 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 statusof River Ganges. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Manage-ment, 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 environmentalchanges in Ganga plain, northern India. Quaternary Sci-ence Reviews, 23, 145–159.

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

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

8. Richards, K., Brasington, J. & Hughes, F. (2002) Geomor-phic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications anda potential 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 Riverdispersal system. Geomorphology, 118, 349–358.

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

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

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

13. Kale, V.S. (2005) Fluvial hydrology and geomorphologyof monsoon-dominated Indian rivers. Revista Brasileirade Geomorfologia, 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)The Natural Flow Regime. BioScience, 47, 769.

15. Sinha, R. & Friend, P.F. (1994) River systems and theirsediment 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 theDeoha/Ganga–Ghaghara Interfluve, Upper GangeticPlains (Himalayan Foreland Basin) — extensional tec-tonic implications. Catena, 67, 183–203.

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

18. Lytle, D.A. & Poff, N.L. (2004) Adaptation to natural flowregimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 94–100.

19. Baran, E. (2006) Fish migration triggers in the LowerMekong Basin and other tropical freshwater systems.MRC Technical Paper No. 14, Vientiane. 56 p.

20. Sharma, M. (2006) ‘Diara Diary’, ‘Snatching food from atiger’s mouth’, ‘A Private Ganga’ and ‘The Fickle RiverBasin’. 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: Pasttrend, present status and future prospects. AquacultureEconomics 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 Esti-mation in the Meghna River System, Bangladesh. AsianFisheries Science, 18, 95–105.

23. Danda, A.A. (2007) Surviving in the Sundarbans: Threatsand Responses. PhD dissertation submitted to the Tech-nology and Sustainable Development Group, Center forKnowledge on Sustainable Governance and Natural Re-sources Management, University of Twente, The Nether-lands.

24. Sehgal, K.L. (1999) Coldwater fish and fisheries in in theIndian Himalayas: rivers and streams. In: Fish and Fish-eries at higher altitudes: Asia. FAO corporate repositorydocument, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper T385, Afghani-stan. 304 p.

25. Poulsen, A, Poeu, O, Viravong, S, Suntornratana, U, andThanh Tung, N. (2002) Deep pools as dry season fish habi-tats in the Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Paper No. 4,Mekong River Commission. , 22.

26. Mekong River Commission (MRC). (2002) Fisheries in theLower Mekong Basin: Status and Perspectives. MRC Tech-nical Paper No. 6. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

27. Bellamy, K., Beebe, J.T., Saunderson, H.C. & Imhof, J.(1992) River morphology, sediments and fish habitats.Erosion and Sediment Transport Monitoring Programmesin River Basins (Proceedings of the Ohio Symposium), 210,309–316.

28. Miao, W., Silva, S.D. & Davy, B. (eds.) (2010) Inland Fish-eries Resource Enhancement and Conservation in Asia.Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 22.

29. Jha, U.M. (2009) Economics of fish farming in flood proneareas of Bihar with special reference to Koshi River sys-tem. Report to the Planning Commission (SER Division),(Vide F. No. 0-15012/49/05 SER). Govt. of India, NewDelhi, India.

30. Abraham, T.J., Sil, S.K. & Vineetha, P. (2010) A compara-tive study of the aquaculture practices adopted by fishfarmers in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. Indian Jour-nal of Fisheries, 57, 41–48.

31. Jayaram, K. C. (1999). The Freshwater Fishes of the In-dian Region. Narendra Publishing House. Delhi, India.

32. Raja, B.T.A. (1988) A Review Of The Biology And Fisher-ies Of Hilsa Ilisha In The Upper Bay Of Bengal - BOBP/WP/37. FAO, UNDP, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

25


33. Larinier, M., Marmulla, G. (2004) Fish Passes: Types,Principles and Geographical Distribution: an Overview.In: Proceedings of the second international symposiumon the management of large rivers for fisheries (VolumeII), FAO corporate repository document, FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper, FAO RAP 2004/17, UNDP, Phnom Penh,Cambodia. 316 p.

34. Dudgeon, D. (2005) River rehabilitation for conservationof fish biodiversity in monsoonal Asia. Ecology And Soci-ety, 10, 15.

35. Dudgeon, D. (2000) Large-scale hydrological changes intropical Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. Bio-science, 50, 793–806.

36. Mokhlesur Rahman, M. & Rahman, M.M. (2008) Cap-ture-based aquaculture of wild-caught Indian major carpsin the Ganges Region of Bangladesh. In: Lovatelli, A.,Holthus, P.F. (eds.) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 508,Rome, Italy. P. 127–140.

37. Montana, C.G., Choudhary, S.K., Dey, S. & Winemiller,K.O. (2011) Compositional trends of fisheries in the RiverGanga Fisheries Management and Ecology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00782.x.

38. Choudhary, S.K., Smith, B.D., Dey, S., Dey, S. & Prakash,S. (2006) Conservation and biomonitoring in theVikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary, Bihar, India.Oryx, 40, 189–197.

39. Prasad, S. & Kanaujia, D.R. (2006) Availability and Breed-ing Behaviour of Ganga River Prawn Macrobrachiumgangeticum (Bate) and Macrobrachium malcolmsonii(H.M. Edwards). Asian Fisheries Science, 19, 377–388.

40. Primavera, J.H. (1997) Socio-economic impacts of shrimpculture. Aquaculture Research, 28, 815–827.

41. Bhatt, J.P., Nautiyal, P. & Singh, H.R. (2004) Status (1993-1994) of the Endangered Fish Himalayan Mahseer Torputitora (Hamilton) (Cyprinidae) in the Mountain Reachesof 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 conser-vation and management. Indian Journal of Animal Sci-ences, 80, 26–38.

43. De Silva, S. (1993) Reservoir fisheries of Asia Proceed-ings of the 2nd Asian reservoir fisheries workshop heldin Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, 15-19 October1990 Singapore, 285 p.

44. Kelkar, N. & Krishnaswamy, J. (2010) Keeping riversalive. Seminar, 613, 29–33.

45. Jassal, S.T. (2001) Caste and the colonial state: Mallahsin 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 In-dia. In: Arnold, D. and Guha, R. (eds.) Nature, Cultureand Imperialism. OUP, New Delhi, India. P. 260-292.

47. Reeves, P. (2002) Regional diversity in south Asian in-land fisheries: colonial Bengal and Uttar Pradesh com-pared. Journal of South Asian Studies, 25, 121–35.

48. Kumar, A., Katiha, P.K. & Joshi, P.K. (eds.) (2003) A pro-file of people, technologies and policies in fisheries sectorin India. Proceedings Series 10 p. 170. National Centrefor Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New

Delhi, India.49. Katiha, P.K., Sharma, A. P., Chandra, G. (2013). Institu-

tional arrangements in fisheries of Ganga River System.Paper Presented in Conference on Health and Fisheriesof the Major River Ecosystem of India with Emphasis onRiver Ganga, jointly organised by AEHMS, Canada, IFSI& CIFRI, Kolkata, India. URL: http://ssrn.com/ab-stract=2219347. Accessed on 21 July 2013.

50. Gupta, C. (1993) Unshackling the Ganga. Down to Earth,2, 22-24.

51. Government of Bihar. 2006. Bihar Fish Jalkar Manage-ment Bill - 2006 (Bihar Act 13). Govt. of Bihar, Patna,India, [Amended in 2007, 2008 and 2010] p.11.

52. Revenue Board of Bihar. Bihar Records Manual 1960.(1962) Govt. of Bihar, Patna, India. p. 284.

53. Government of Bihar. (2011) Model Rules, 2011 underBengal Ferries Act-1885. Patna, India.

54. Puthucherril, T.G. (2009) Riparianism in Indian waterjurisprudence. In Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws inIndia. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. P. 97-137.

55. Upadhyay, V. (2009) The ownership of water in Indianlaws. In Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws in India. SagePublications, New Delhi, India. P. 134-148.

56. Norman-Lopez, A. & Innes, J.P. (2005) Review of riverfisheries valuation in tropical Asia. Tropical River Fish-eries Valuation: Background Papers to a Global Synthe-sis pp. 147–226. Centre for the Economics and Manage-ment of Aquatic Resources, University of Portsmouth,Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.

57. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisher-ies, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. (2007) Hand-book on Fisheries Statistics, Table 4.29: Fishermen popu-lation-2003. New Delhi, India.

58. Government of India (Planning Commission) Report ofthe Working Group on Fisheries for the Tenth Five YearPlan. New Delhi, India. 185 p.

59. Government of India. 2011. Manual on fishery statistics.Section B - Inland Fishery. Ministry of Statistics and Pro-gram Implementation, Central Statistics Office, NewDelhi, India. 90 p.

60. Marmulla, G. (ed.) (2001) Dams, fish and fisheries: Op-portunities, challenges and conflict resolution. FAO Fish-eries Technical Paper No. 419. Rome, Italy. 166 p.

61. Dubey, G.P. & Ahmad, A. (1995) Problems for the conser-vation of freshwater fish genetic resources in India, andsome possible solutions. NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly,July, 21–25.

62. Adams, W. (2000) Thematic Review 1.1: DownstreamImpacts of Large Dams. Thematic Review for the WorldCommission on Dams, Cambridge, UK. p. 27.

63. Leuven, R S E W, Poudevigne, I. (2002) Riverine land-scape dynamics and ecological risk assessment. Fresh-water 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 As-sessment of Ecological Status of Indian River Basins inthe Context of Environmental Water Requirements. IWMI,Colombo, Sri Lanka.

65. Mirza, M.M.Q. (1998) Hydrological changes in the Ganges

26


system in Bangladesh in the post-Farakka period. Hy-drological Sciences, 42, 613–630.

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

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

68. Banerjee, M. (1999) A Report on the Impact of FarakkaBarrage on the Human Fabric. A Submission to WorldCommission on Dams. Thematic Review: Flood ControlOptions in the Gangetic Basin. New Delhi, India.

69. Adel, M.M. (2001) Effect on Water Resources from Up-stream Water Diversion in the Ganges Basin. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality, 30, 356–368.

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

71. Döll, P., Fiedler, K. & Zhang, J. (2009) Global-scale analy-sis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals andreservoirs. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discus-sions, 6, 4773–4812.

72. Choudhary, S.K., S. Dey, S. Dey, V. Sagar, T. Nair, N.Kelkar. (2012) River dolphin distribution in regulatedriver systems: implications for dry-season flow regimesin the Gangetic basin. Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater 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 environmentalaberrations on fisheries of the Ganga (Ganges) River.Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 4, 493–504.

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

76. Panda, D.K., Kumar, A. & Mohanty, S. (2011) Recenttrends in sediment load of the tropical (Peninsular) riverbasins of India. 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 rivercondition. Freshwater Biology, 52, 959–976.

78. Iqbal, S. (2010) Flood and erosion-induced population dis-placements: a socio-economic case study in the Gangeticriverine tract at Malda District, West Bengal, India. Jour-nal of Human Ecology, 30, 201–211.

79. Acreman, M. (2000) Managed Flood Releases from Res-ervoirs/ : Issues and Guidance. Centre for Ecology andHydrology, Wallingford, UK. Thematic Report submittedto the World Commission on Dams. 96 p.

80. Chakraborty, T., Kar, R., Ghosh, P., Basu, S. (2010) Kosimegafan: Historical records, geomorphology and the re-cent avulsion 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 Landsinto Assets in the Koshi Basin of Bihar, India. Interna-tional Centre for Integrated Mountain Development,

Nepal and WinRock International, India. 54 p.82. Mishra, D.K. (2009) Floods and some legal concerns. In

Iyer, R. (Ed.) Water and the Laws in India. Sage Publica-tions, New Delhi, India. P. 309-328.

83. Olden, J.D., Naiman, R.J. (2003) Incorporating thermalregimes into environmental flows assessments: modify-ing dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem in-tegrity. 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 andgravel mining on river channels. Environmental Manage-ment, 21, 533–551.

85. Erlewein, A. (2013) Disappearing rivers: The limits ofenvironmental assessment for hydropower in India. En-vironmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 135–143.

86. Csiki, S. & Rhoads, B.L. (2010) Hydraulic and geomor-phological effects of run-of-river dams. Progress in Physi-cal Geography, 34, 755–780.

87. Brown, J.J., Limburg, K.E., Waldman, J.R., Stephenson, K.,Glenn, E.P., Juanes, F. & Jordaan, A. (2013) Fish and hy-dropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policiesfrom 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 MigratoryCatfish in Relation to Hydroelectric Dams in the AmazonBasin. Biological Conservation, 55, 339–345.

89. Pandit, M.K. & Grumbine, R.E. (2012) Potential effectsof ongoing and proposed hydropower development on ter-restrial biological diversity in the Indian Himalaya. Con-servation 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 hydroelec-tric development. Environmental Reviews, 5, 27–54.

91. Xu, J., Grumbine, R.E., Shrestha, A., Eriksson, M., Yang,X., Wang, Y.U.N. & Wilkes, A. (2009) The MeltingHimalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Wa-ter, 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 fisher-ies in River Ganga and its plains in India. Aquatic Eco-system Health & Management, 12, 138–151.

93. Mirza, M.M.Q. (2002) Global warming and changes in theprobability of occurrence of floods in Bangladesh andimplications. 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 andglobal biodiversity implications. PNAS, 104, 5732–5737.

96. Richter, B D, Mathews, R, Harrison, D L, Wigington, R.(2003) Ecologically Sustainable Water Management:Managing river flows for ecological integrity. EcologicalApplications, 13, 206–224.

97. Richter, B.D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., Lehner, B. &Churchill, A. (2010) Lost in Development’s Shadow: TheDownstream Human Consequences of Dams. Water Al-ternatives, 3, 14–42.

98. Bandyopadhyay, J., Perveen, S. (2007) The interlinking

27


of Indian rivers: some questions on the scientific, economicand environmental dimensions of the proposal. OccasionalPaper No 60, SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School ofOriental and African Studies/King’s College, London, U.K.

99. Acreman, M. & Dunbar, M.J. (2004) Defining environ-mental river flow requirements – a review. Hydrology andEarth Systems Sciences, 8, 861–876.

100. Anantha, L. & Dandekar, P. (2012) Towards RestoringFlows into the Earth’s Arteries: A Primer on Environmen-tal Flows. SANDRP, New Delhi, India.

101. Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L. & Naiman, R.J.(2006) The challenge of providing environmental flowrules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications,16, 1311–1318.

102. Jauhari, V.P. (2000) Operation, Monitoring and Decom-missioning of Large Dams in India. Prepared for The-matic Review IV.5: Operation, Monitoring and Decommis-sioning of Dams. Water Policy, 172.

103. Khan, M.A. (2010) Enhancing water productivity throughmultiple uses of water in Indo-Gangetic basin. Innova-tion and Sustainable Development in agriculture and food,June 28-30, 10.

104. Shah, T., Ul-Hassan, M., Khattak, M.Z., Banerjee, P.S.,Singh, O.P. & Ur Rehman, S. (2008) Is Irrigation WaterFree? A Reality Check in the Indo-Gangetic Basin. WorldDevelopment. Doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.05.008

105. Postel, S.L. (2003) Securing water for people, crops, andecosystems: New mindset and new priorities. NaturalResources Forum, 27, 89–98.

106. D’Souza, R. (2003) Supply-Side Hydrology in India: TheLast 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 IWMI and NRAAI, New Delhi, India. 14 p.

108. Turvey, S. (2008) Witness to Extinction: How we failed tosave the Yangtze River Dolphin. Oxford University Press,Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.

109. Xie, S., Z. Li, J. Liu, S. Xie, H. Wang, B.R. Murphy. (2007)Fisheries of the Yangtze River show immediate impactsof the Three Gorges Dam. Fisheries, 32, 343-344.

110. Welcomme, R. L. (1995) Relationships between fisheriesand the integrity of river systems. Regulated Rivers: Re-search & 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 Wa-ters. BioScience, 55, 1041–1052.

112. Raby, G.D., Colotelo, A.H., Blouin-demers, G. & Cooke,S.J. (2011) Freshwater commercial bycatch: an under-stated conservation problem. BioScience, 61, 271–280.

113. Kasulo, V. & Perrings, C. (2006) Fishing down the valuechain: Biodiversity and access regimes in freshwater fish-eries — the case of Malawi. Ecological Economics, 59, 106–114.

114. Ramakrishna, R. (2007) Kolleru carp culture in India: anaquaplosion and an explosion’, Aquaculture Asia Maga-zine, 25, 12-18.

115. Kent, G. (1995) Aquaculture and Food Security. inPACON, eds., Proceedings of the PACON Conference on

Sustainable Aquaculture 95, 11-14. Honolulu, Hawai’i,USA. Honolulu: Pacific Congress on Marine Science andTechnology.

116. Singh, N.P., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Padaria, R.N., Singh,A. & Varghese, N. (2011) Labour Migration in Indo-Gangetic Plains: Determinants and Impacts on Socio-eco-nomic 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 trajectoriesand social resilience. Ambio, 31, 358–367.

118. Swain, A., May, N. (1996) Displacing the Conflict: Envi-ronmental Destruction in Bangladesh and Ethnic Con-flict in India. Peace and Conflict, 33, 189–204.

119. Seth, R.N. & Katiha, P.K. (2003) Riverine fishing meth-ods with special reference to catfishes Aorichthysseenghala (Sykes) and Aorichthys aor (Ham.). IndianJournal of Fisheries, 50, 125–130.

120. Wishard, S.K. (1975) Roak fishing and its probable ef-fects on the capture fishery of River Yamuna in Agra Dis-trict. Fisheries Research, 213–231.

121. Kibria, G., Ahmed, K.K.U. (2005) Diversity of Selectiveand Non-Selective Fishing Gear and Their Impact on In-land Fisheries in Bangladesh. NAGA World Fish CenterNewsletter, Vol. 28, No. 1&2.

122. Government of Uttar Pradesh. (1948) Uttar Pradesh Fish-eries 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 con-servation. 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-ChangingStructure, Conduct, Performance and Policies. Agricul-tural Economics Research Review, 21, 345–354.

125. Havel, J.E., Lee, C.E. & Zanden, M.J. Vander. (2005) DoReservoirs 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 nativebiodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwa-ter 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 riverhealth? Freshwater Biology, 50, 174–193.

128. Agostinho, C.S., Agostinho, A.A., Pelicice, F., Almeida, D.A.De & Marques, E.E. (2007a) Selectivity of fish ladders: abottleneck in Neotropical fish movement. Neotropical Ich-thyology, 5, 205–213.

129. Roscoe, D.W. & Hinch, S.G. (2010) Effectiveness monitor-ing of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographicpatterns and future directions. Fish and Fisheries, 11,12–33.

130. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Report ofthe High Powered Committee on Cooperatives. (2009) Min-istry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi,India.

131. Datta, S.K., Singh, S.P., Chakrabarti, M., Biswas, S. Bittu,S. (2010) A Perspective on Fisheries Sector Interventions

28


for Livelihood Promotion. Working Paper No. 2010-02-03,32 p.

132. Deacon, R.T. (2012) Fishery management by harvesterco-opeatives. Review of Environmental Economics andPolicy, 6, 258–277.

133. Government of India. (2009) Ministry of Environment andForests Notification No. 521, Regd. No. 33004/99, NewDelhi, India.

134. Government of India (2010) Dolphin declared NationalAquatic Animal. Press Note of the Ministry of Environ-ment and Forests, New Delhi, India. URL: envfor.nic.inaccessed on 6th July 2012.

135. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). (1972) TheWildlife (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 conflictmanagement in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana,Bangladesh and the Caribbean. CEMARE Research Pa-per 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) Inter-national Comparison of Fisheries Management with Re-spect to Nature Conservation. Statutory Research TasksUnit for Nature and the Environment, WOTReport.Wageningen, The Netherlands. 116 p.

138. Moulton, T.P. (2009) Defying water’s end: do we need dif-ferent conservation strategies for aquatic systems com-pared with terrestrial? Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems, 19 (editorial), 1–3.

139. Kingsford, R.T., Biggs, H.C. & Pollard, S.R. (2011) Stra-tegic Adaptive Management in freshwater protected ar-eas and their rivers. Biological Conservation, 144, 1194–1203.

140. Campbell, I.C. (2007) Perceptions, data, and river man-agement: Lessons from the Mekong River. Water Re-sources, 43, 1–13.

141. Tyagi, L.K., Sarkar, U.K. & Paul, S.K. (2007) People’sPerception about Conservation of Fishery Resources Out-side the Protected Water Bodies: A Case Study inLakhimpur Khiri Distt. of U.P. Indian Research Journalof Extended Education, 7, 36–38.

142. Nel, J.L., Roux, D.J., Maree, G., Kleynhans, C.J.,Moolman, J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M. & Cowling, R.M.(2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas:a systematic approach to conservation assessment of riverecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 13, 341–352.

143. Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I.A.N. (1999) Environ-mental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in com-

munity-based natural resource management. World De-velopment, 27, 225–247.

144. Varis, O., Kummu, M. & Salmivaara, A. (2012) Ten majorrivers in monsoon Asia-Pacific: An assessment of vulner-ability. 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) Rehabili-tation of large rivers/ : references , achievements and in-tegration into river management. Large Rivers, 15, 715–738.

146. Sparks, R.E. & Braden, J.B. (2010) Naturalization ofDeveloped Floodplains: An Integrated Analysis. Journalof Contemporary Water Research and Education, 136, 7–17.

147. LiveMint.com (2013). Green Tribunal bans sand miningwithout 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) Commu-nity identities as visions for landscape change. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 69, 315–334.

149. Dey, M.M. & Prein, M. (2006) Community-based fish cul-ture in seasonal floodplains. NAGA, WorldFish CenterQuarterly, 29, 21–27.

150. Smith, L.E.D., Khoa, S.N. & Lorenzen, K. (2005) Liveli-hood functions of inland fisheries: policy implications indeveloping countries. Water Policy, 7, 359–383.

151. Ramsundar, B. (2011) Sustainable Use of Water Resourcesin the Form of Pisciculture to Generate Income in WestBengal-A study report. Journal of Economics and Sus-tainable 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 eq-uity: changing property regimes in aquaculture. MarinePolicy, 25, 335–352.

154. Barrett, C.B., Lee, D.R. & McPeak, J.G. (2005) Institu-tional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and re-source conservation. World Development, 33, 193–197.

155. Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S. &Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) Payments for biodiversityconservation in the context of weak institutions: Com-parison of three programs from Cambodia. EcologicalEconomics, 69, 1283–1291.

156. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2008) Rediscovery ofTraditional Ecological Knowledge as adaptive manage-ment. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251–1262.

Edited by Himanshu Thakkar at 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 88.Printed at Sun Shine Process, B -103/5, Naraina Indl. Area Phase - I, New Delhi - 110 028

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

NOTE: Please note that we are continuing the publication of DRP as a non RNI publication, so this is forprivate circulation only. DRP is not for sale. Those who have subscribed will continue to get printed copies tilltheir subscription lasts. For any support towards continuing publication of DRP, please write to:[email protected].

river fisheries of the gangetic basin, india: a primer · 2.2 the fisheries calendar 3 2.3 habitats...

Documents