Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Domestic environmental activists and the governance of the Ganges and Mekong Rivers in India and China

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics volume 12, pages 269–298 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

It is generally considered difficult to resolve negative unidirectional externalities within hydro-hegemonic basins in which the upstream powerful riparian has the incentive to unilaterally develop the river without regard to downstream consequences. Weaker downstream riparian states can resort to issue linkages and side payments to coerce a change in the upstream hydro-hegemon’s behavior, but the success of these tools depends on the specific political and economic situation in the basin and on the preferences of the hydro-hegemonic state for cooperation. Neglected in the literature is another possibility. Through a consideration of the sanctioned discourse of watershed management at the domestic levels, this article shows that domestic environmental non-governmental organizations and policy entrepreneurs—through the application of a range of tools—can work to change the domestic water management discourse from a state-hydraulic paradigm to a more sustainable water management paradigm. When these efforts are successful, we can find that these non-state actors can perform a crucial function in cleaning up domestic stretches of international rivers, which produces positive externalities downstream. In the process, they are able of achieving what often years of international negotiations failed to accomplish. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, India’s policies on water quality in the national stretches of Ganges Basin and China’s policies on biodiversity in the national stretches of the Mekong Basin are used to make this argument.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Notes

  1. Environmental DNGOs are “non-profit groups whose primary mission is to reverse environmental degradation or promote sustainable forms of development” (Princen et al. 1994, p. 16).

  2. Policy entrepreneurs are “political actors who promote policy ideas” (Mintrom 1997, p. 739), including the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge (Huitema and Meijerink 2009, p. 224). Kingdon (1995) argues that policy entrepreneurs can be located anywhere, whether it is in civil society or government, including politicians, civil servants, researchers, and lobbyists. They can assume advocacy, advisory, or intermediary functions, and they “need opportunities in the form of problem and political windows to get their new policy ideas and plans accepted and realized” (Huitema and Meijerink 2009, p. 224, 390).

  3. For more information on positive and negative unidirectional externality problems (see Dombrowsky 2009).

  4. While hydro-hegemons can elect to use either hard or soft power to secure their interests in using the international river (Zeitoun et al. 2011), non-state actors, such as DNGOs or policy entrepreneurs only have the options to use soft power.

  5. Transnational advocacy networks also enable DNGOs to draw on international actors to help put pressure on national governments (Risse-Kappen 1995), particularly through the boomerang model (Keck and Sikkink 1998). This strategy however was not used by the non-state actors in the cases analyzed in this article.

  6. Since India gained its independence from Britain, it signed several treaties with Nepal. These include: Kosi Treaty of 1954 and its amendment in 1966; the Gandak Treaty of 1959 and its amendment in 1964; Tanakpur Treaty of 1991; and the Mahakali Treaty of 1996.

  7. From 1948 until 1971, Pakistan consisted of two wings—western and eastern. In 1971, eastern Pakistan became Bangladesh.

  8. Although the initial objective of GAP was to prevent the river’s pollution, it changed to achieving water quality at bathing class standard that allows some pollution to reach the river (World Bank 2011).

  9. As it enters Bangladesh, the water has high concentrations of TDS, chlorides, and sulfates among several other chemicals (Asafuddowlah 1995). This pollution has harmed the agricultural and industrial sectors, ruining the livelihood of farmers and industrialists in Bangladesh (Swain 1996; Nishat 1996). Lack of access to clean water has meant that waterborne diseases are the major cause of mortality and morbidity among people residing near Padma (Ahmed et al. 1998).

  10. Jaiswal suggested that the practice of placing cremated bodies into the Ganga is not tied to the Hindu religion but associated with superstition (Interview with Jaiswal 2011).

  11. In 2000, President Clinton invited Professor Mishra to share the platform with him in an event celebrating World Water Day (Interview with Mishra 2011).

  12. Although Phase I was targeted to end in 1990, it was extended to March 2000 (Ganga Action Plan, 2003–2004).

  13. In 1975, North Vietnam took over South Vietnam to create a unified country under the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

  14. Apart from the Mekong, the other rivers in Yunnan province with hydropower stations in construction or planning phases are the Nu/Salween and Jinsha rivers.

  15. The other areas in China are the prefectures Diqing, Nujiang, Dali, Baoshan, and Lincang, plus Simao district under the Pu’er prefecture.

  16. Note on Hensengerth’s interviews in China: given the politically sensitive nature of the issue, all interviews are encoded. The letter abbreviates the location, the numbers show the date.

  17. On ethnic minorities and biodiversity see, for example, Wang and Gu (2009).

  18. It is also located in Deqin county of Diqing prefecture in the northern part of the Mekong Headwaters Biodiversity Corridor. Deqin county is part of the UNESCO World Heritage of the Three Parallel Rivers Nu, Lancang, and Jinsha.

  19. This marketing mechanism includes an application for certification according to the Food Quality Safety Market Access System (QS System) that is implemented by the central government’s General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine: Interview K05012009.

  20. See also Xue et al. (2007) citing Klok and Zhang (2008: 55).

  21. Construction started in 2006, operation is expected in 2017.

  22. For similar examples of Lancang dams see China Daily (2002).

Abbreviations

CBIK:

Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge

CPCB:

Central Pollution Control Board

DNGOs:

Domestic Non-governmental Organizations

GAP:

Ganga Action Plan

MRC:

Mekong River Commission

SCC:

Supreme Court Case

SCR:

Supreme Court Ruling

SPCBs:

State Pollution Control Boards

References

  • ADB. (2008). Strategic environmental assessment of the north south economic corridor strategy and action plan. Scoping Report, November.

  • Ahmed, S. (2004). The rhetoric of participation re-examined: The state, NGOs and water users at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. The Environmentalist, 14(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S. A., Hoque, B. A., & Mahmud, A. (1998). Water management practices in rural and urban homes: A case study from Bangladesh on ingestion of polluted water. Public Health, 112, 317–321.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alam, U. Z. (1998). Water rationality: Mediating the Indus waters treaty. Unpublished dissertation. University of Durham, United Kingdom.

  • Allan, J. A. (2003). IWRM/IWRAM: A new sanctioned discourse? Occasional Paper 50, SOAS Water Issues Studies Group, School of Oriental Studies/King’s College of London, University of London.

  • Alley, K. (1994). Ganga and Gandagi: Interpretations of pollution and waste in Benaras. Ethnology, 33(2), 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alley, K. (2002). On the banks of the Ganga. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alley, K. (2009). Legal activism and river pollution in India. The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 21(4), 793–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alley, K. (2012). The paradigm shift in India’s river policies: From sacred to transferable waters. In B. R. Johnston (Ed.), Water, cultural diversity, and global environmental change. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asafuddowlah, M. (1995). Sharing of transboundary rivers: The Ganges tragedy. In G. H. Blake, W. J. Hildesley, M. A. Pratt, R. J. Ridley, & C. H. Schofield (Eds.), The peaceful management of transboundary resources. London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhasin, A. S. (1996). India-Bangladesh relations, 1971–1994 (Vol. 1). New Delhi: Siba Exim PVT. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, R. (2008). Clean up holy Ganges or there will be hell to pay, say angry gurus. The Times August 6.

  • Browder, G., & Ortolano, L. (2000). The evolution of an international water resources management regime in the Mekong River basin. Natural Resources Journal, 40, 499–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, R. (2005). Nongovernmental organizations in environmental struggles. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campins-Eritja, M., & Gupta, J. (2002). Non-state actors and sustainability labeling schemes: Implications for international law. Non-State Actors and International Law, 2, 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Che, X., Shang, J., & Wang, J. (2002). Strategic environmental assessment and its development in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(2), 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Zhou, J. (2006). Discuss about the need of adopting temperature control device for reservoir to protect the downstream fish growth environment. In L. Berga, E. Bofill, J. M. Buil, & J. C. deCea (Eds.), Dams and reservoirs, societies and environments in the 21st century, Vol. II (pp. 1151–1154). London: Taylor and Francis.

  • China Daily. (2002). Xiaowan Dam, A Reservoir for Progress. 16 September http://www.china.org.cn/english/environment/42990.htm.

  • China Daily. (2009). Conservation Projects Launched in Yunnan. 15 January http://en.chinagate.cn/top_news/2009-01/15/content_17114574.htm.

  • China Development Brief. (2005). Respite for Yunnan Anti-Dam NGO as Movement Mourns Loss of Key Activist. www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/104.

  • China Economic Net. (2008). China Completes New Hydropower Station on Yunnan Border River. 26 June. http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/en/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=12942.

  • Civil Society Partnership Program. (2005). Sankat Mochan Goundation report to USAID and Asia Foundation, Varanasi, India.

  • Clark, A. M. (1995). Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, B., & Singh, N. (2000). Impediments and innovations in international rivers: The waters of south Asia. World Development, 28(11), 1907–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, S., & Tewary, V. (2005). Polluting environment, polluting constitution: is a ‘polluted’ constitution worse than a polluted environment. Journal of Environmental Law, 17(3), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delli Priscoli, J., & Wolf, A. (2009). Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DeSombre, E. (2007). The global environment and world politics. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieperink, C. (2011). International water negotiations under asymmetry, lessons from the Rhine chlorides dispute settlement (1931–2004). International Environmental Agreements, 11, 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov, R. (2006). Science and international environmental policy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinar, S. (2006). Assessing side-payment and cost-sharing patterns in international water agreements: The geographic and economic connection. Political Geography, 25(4), 412–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowsky, I. (2009). Revisiting the potential for benefit sharing in the management of trans-boundary rivers. Water Policy, 11(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist. (2008). Up to their Necks in it; India and Pollution. July 19.

  • Economy, E. (2004). The river runs black: The environmental challenge to China’s future. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Elhance, A. (1999). Hydro-politics in the third World. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faisal, I. (2002). Managing common waters in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna region: Looking ahead. SAIS Review, 22(2), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, D. (1999). The social bases of environmental treaty ratification, 1900–1990. Sociological Inquiry, 69(4), 523–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganga Action Plan. (2004). Sixty second report public accounts committee. February.

  • Gerlak, A., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2011). Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. International Environmental Agreements, 11, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, M., Giordano, M., & Wolf, A. (2002). The geography of water conflict and cooperation: Internal pressures and international manifestations. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, E. (2006). China in the Mekong River basin: The regional security implications of resource development on the Lancang Jiang. In M. Caballero-Anthony, R. Emmers, & A. Acharya (Eds.), Non-traditional security in Asia: Dilemmas of securitization (pp. 225–245). Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Goldar, B., & Banerjee, N. (2004). Impact of informal regulation of pollution on water quality in rivers in India. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions and political change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, B. (2004). State of degradation and approaches to restoration of floodplain rivers in India. In R. Welcomme & T. Ptr (Eds.), Rivers for fisheries and sustaining livelihoods and biodiversity in the new millennium, Vol. III. Food and Agricultural Organization.

  • Gough, K. (2004). Emerging civil society in China: An overall assessment of conditions and possibilities available to civil society and its organizations to act in China. Stockholm: SIDA, http://www.sida.se/shared/jsp/download.jsp?f=SIDA3799en_China_web.pdf&a=3163.

  • Gupta, J. (2003). The role of non-state actors in international environmental affairs. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 63, 459–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (2000). International institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, D. (2006). River of love in an age of pollution: The Yamuna river of northern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Hammer, J. (2007). A prayer for the Ganges. Smithsonian, 38(8), 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamner, S., Tripathi, A., Mishra, R., Bouskill, N., Broadaway, S., Pyle, B., et al. (2006). The role of water use patterns and sewage pollution in incidence of water-borne/enteric diseases along the Ganges River in Varanasi, India. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 16(2), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnessing the Law to Clean Up India. (1995). An interview with M.C. Mehta. Multinational Monitor. 16(7&8). http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1995/07/mm0795_09.html.

  • Hensengerth, O. (2010). Regionalism in China-Vietnam relations: Institution-building in the greater Mekong Subregion. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P., & Cheong, G. (1996). Natural resource management in the Mekong River basin: Perspectives for Australian development cooperation. Final Overview Report to AusAID.

  • Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. V. (2009). Water policy entrepreneurs: A research companion to water transitions around the globe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, R. (1987). The Ganges water dispute: An appraisal of a third party settlement. Asian Survey, 27(8), 918–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, R. (1999). Conflict-resolution: Three river treaties. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(24), 1509–1518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, R. (2011). National water policy: An alternative draft for consideration. Economic & Political Weekly, Suppl XLVI(26&27), 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, B., & He, D. (2007). ‘Lancangjiang yulei shengwu duoyangxing yanjiu jinzhan’ [Research progress of biodiversity of fish species in the Lancang River]. Ziyuan kexue [Resources Science], 29(5), 195–200.

  • Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klok, C., & Zhang, T. (2008). Biodiversity and its conservation in China: Authorities, mandates, and conventions. Wageningen: Alterra Report 1733.

  • Lai, H. H. (2002). China’s western development program: Its rationale, implementation and prospects. Modern China, 28(4), 432–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (1998). The implementation of biodiversity convention in China. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on environmental compliance and enforcement, Monterey, 16–20 November 1998, Vol. 2, pp. 449–462.

  • Lieberthal, K. G., & Lampton, D. M. (1992). Bureaucracy, politics, and decision making in post-Mao China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebman, A. (2005). Trickle-down hegemony? China’s “Peaceful Rise” and dam building on the Mekong. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(2), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, P. D. (2012). Governing Iberian rivers: From bilateral management to common basin governance? International Environmental Agreements. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9175-0.

  • Lowi, M. (1993). Water and power: The politics of a scarce resource in the Jordan River basin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, D. (2006). Powershed politics: Yunnan hydropower development under great western development. China Quarterly, 185, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markandya, A., & Murty, M. N. (2000). Cleaning-up the Ganges. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mekong River Commission. (2006). Flow-regime assessment. Integrated Basin Flow Management Report No. 8. Vientiane: MRC Water Utilization Program.

  • Mertha, A. (2008). China’s water warriors: Citizen action and policy change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. (1998). Rationalizing politics: The emerging synthesis of international, American and comparative politics. International Organization, 52(4), 759–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, V. B. (2005). The Ganga at Varanasi and a travail to stop her abuse. Current Science, 89(5), 755–763.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montana State University. (2008). MSU research reaches Supreme Court of India. May 6. http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5882.

  • Mumme, S. (1985). State participation in foreign policy-making: Water related environmental disputes along the United States-Mexico border. Western Political Quarterly, 38(4), 620–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narain, V. (2000). India’s water crisis: The challenges of governance. Water Policy, 2, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishat, A. (1996). Impact of Ganges water dispute on Bangladesh. In T. Hashimoto & A. Biswas (Eds.), From Ganges-Brahmaputra to Mekong (pp. 60–80). Bombay: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishat, A., & Faisal, I. M. (2000). An assessment of the institutional mechanisms for water negotiations in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna system. International Negotiation, 5(2), 289–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Conner, A. (2007). Filthy Ganges is the biggest sin, say Hindu worshippers. The Times January 9.

  • Pachova, N. I., Nakayama, M., & Jansky, L. (2008). International water security: Domestic threats and opportunities. Tokyo: UNU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasternack, A. (2008). Goldman environmental prize winner Yu Xiaogang on hydropower and community in China. Treehugger 12 April 2008. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/goldman_environ.php.

  • Potter, D., & Taylor, A. (1996). Introduction. In D. Potter (Ed.), NGOs and environmental policies: Asia and Africa. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Princen, T., Finger, M., & Manno, J. (1994). Environmental NGOs in world politics. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaddumi, H. (2008). Practical approaches to transboundary water benefit sharing. Working Paper 292. London: Overseas Development Institute.

  • Qin, T. (2008). Public participation in environmental governance in China: Important development in recent years. Unpublished paper for the Research Institute of Environmental Law, Wuhan University.

  • Quarterly Monitoring of Ganga and Ganga Action Plan (GAP) in Kanpur. (2004). Eco Friends. http://www.ecofriends.org/reports/quarterly_monitoring.htm.

  • Rajamani, L. (2007). Public interest environmental litigation in India: Exploring issues of access, participation, equity, effectiveness and sustainability. Journal of Environmental Law, 19(3), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. J. (2001). Biological resources of the Ganga River, India. Hydrobiologia, 458, 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, M., & Bowonder, B. (1992). Environmental policy in India: Strategies for better implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 20(4), 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sahu, G. (2008). Implications of Indian supreme court’s innovations for environmental jurisprudence. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 4(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S., Saha, M., Takada, H., Bhattacharya, A., Mishra, P., & Bhattacharya, B. (2007). Water quality management in the lower stretch of the river Ganges, east coast of India: An approach through environmental education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1559–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheumann, W. (2008). How global norms for large dams reach decision makers: A case study from Turkey. In W. Scheumann, S. Neubert, & M. Kipping (Eds.), Water politics and development cooperation: Local power plays and global governance (pp 55–80). Berlin: Springer.

  • Schulz, A. (2007). Creating a legal framework for good transboundary water governance in the Zambezi and Incomati River basins. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 19(2), 117–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, U. (1992). Purifying the Ganga. Down to Earth September. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/17.

  • Sharma, Y. (1997). Case study I—the Ganga, India. In R. Helmer (Ed.), Water pollution control—a guide to the use of water quality management (UNDP the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council and the World Health Organization), pp. 303–316.

  • Shrestha, R. K., Ahlers, R., Bakker, M., & Gupta. J. (2010) Institutional dysfunction and Challenges in flood control: A case study of the Kosi flood 2008. Economic and Political Weekly, XLV(2), 45–53.

  • Sigman, H. (2004). Does trade promote environmental coordination? Pollution in international rivers. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, P. J. (1998). Learning to live with NGOs. Foreign Policy, 112, 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P. (2006). Water quality, bridging the Ganga action plan. Economic and Political Weekly, 590–592.

  • Sneddon, C. (2006). Conservation initiatives and “Transnationalization” in the Mekong River basin. In K. Zimmerer (Ed.), Globalization and new geographies of conservation (pp. 191–211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2007). Power, development, and institutional change: Participatory governance in the lower Mekong basin. World Development, 35(12), 2161–2181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Status Paper on River Ganga. (2009). National River Conservation Directorate Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

  • Stone, C. (1972). Should trees have standing: Towards legal rights for natural objects. South California Law Review, 450.

  • Stuligross, D. (1999). The political economy of environmental regulation in India. Pacific Affairs, 72(3), 392–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subedi, S. (1999). Hydro-diplomacy in South Asia: The conclusion of the Mahakali and Ganges River treaties. The American Journal of International Law, 93(4), 953–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suhardiman, D., & Giordano, M. (2012). Process-focused analysis in transboundary water governance research. International Environmental Agreements. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9176-z.

  • Swain, A. (1996). Democratic consolidation? Environmental movement in India. Asian Survey, 37(9), 830–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, A. (2004). Managing water conflict. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanzeema, S., & Faisal, I. M. (2001). Sharing the Ganges: A critical analysis of the water sharing treaties. Water Policy, 3, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tare, V., Bose, P., & Gupta, S. (2003). Suggestions for a modified approach towards implementation and assessment of Ganga action plan and other similar river action plans in India. Water Quality Research Journal Canada, 38(4), 607–626.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thaindian News. (2008). Ganga to be declared national river. November, 4. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/ganga-to-be-declared-national-river-pmo_100114961.html.

  • The Economic Times. (2008). PM to hold review meeting on Ganga Action Plan. October 17.

  • The Hindu. (2004). Pace of Ganga Action Plan slow. August 2.

  • Verghese, B. G. (1990). Waters of hope. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hagen, B., Beebe, S., Schoonmaker, P., & Kellogg, E. (1998) Nonprofit organizations and watershed management. In R. J. Naiman & R. E. Bilby (Eds.), River ecology and management (pp. 625–641). New York: Springer.

  • Wang, J., & Gu, J. (2009). ‘Yunnan minzu wenhua zhong huanjing yu shengwu duoyangxing baohu yishi tanxi’ [On the awareness of protecting environment and biodiversity in the minority cultures in Yunnan]. Yunnan Shifan Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Yunnan Normal University], 41(1), 35–43.

  • Warner, J. (2011). Flood planning. The politics of water security. London: IB Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J., & Zawahri, N. (2012). Hegemony and asymmetry: Multiple-chessboard games on transboudary rivers. International Environmental Agreements. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9177-y.

  • Weinthal, E. (2002). State making and environmental cooperation: Linking domestic and international politics in Central Asia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. (2007). Shared waters: Conflict and cooperation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 241–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2011). National Ganga River basin project. Washington DC.

  • Xinhua. (2008). Yunnan Vows to Strengthen NGO Cooperation. 21 February, http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/243382.htm.

  • Xu, Z., Zhu, H., Wang, Y., Yang, L., Liu, H., Yang, D., et al. (2004). Lancangjiang xialiu/Meigonghe shangliu pianduan redai yulin wuzhong duoyangxing dongtai’ [Species diversity dynamics of fragmented tropical rainforests in the lower Lancang/upper Mekong river basin]. Zhiwu shengtai xuebao [Acta Phytoecologica Sinica], 28(5), 585–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, L., Simonis, U., & Dudek, D. (2007). Environmental governance for China: Major recommendations of a task force. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 669–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunnan Environmental Protection Bureau and United Nations Environment Programme. (n. d.). Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of China, National Environmental Performance Assessment Report.

  • Yardley, J. (2005). Seeking a public voice on China’s “Angry River”. New York Times, 26 December.

  • Yu, X. (2004). http://www.mekongwatch.org/resource/events/salon27_record.pdf.

  • Zawahri, N. (2008). International rivers and national security. Natural Resources Forum, 34(4), 280–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawahri, N., Dinar, A., & Nigatu, G. (2009). Governing international rivers: An analysis of treaty design. In Presented at the international studies association annual meeting, New Orleans.

  • Zawahri, N., & McLaughlin Mitchell, S. (2011). Fragmented governance of international rivers: Negotiating Bilateral versus Multilateral Treaties. International Studies Quarterly, 55(3), 835–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., & Warner, J. (2011). Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of ‘soft’ power. International Environmental Agreements, 11, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony—a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D., & Ru, J. (2007). Strategic environmental assessment in China: Motivations, politics, and effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 615–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Mark Giordano, Kelly Alley, Sarah Matthews, Jeroen Warner, Diana Suhardiman, the reviewers of this article, and the editors for their feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, RT 1757, Cleveland, OH, 44115, USA

    Neda A. Zawahri

  2. Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

    Oliver Hensengerth

Authors
  1. Neda A. Zawahri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oliver Hensengerth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neda A. Zawahri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zawahri, N.A., Hensengerth, O. Domestic environmental activists and the governance of the Ganges and Mekong Rivers in India and China. Int Environ Agreements 12, 269–298 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9179-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9179-9

Keywords

  • International rivers
  • Domestic non-governmental environmental movements
  • Ganges River
  • Mekong River

Search

Navigation