Search

Severe water pollution is among the top policy priorities in both China and India. This paper undertakes a comparative case analysis to examine efforts in combating river pollution in two major rivers - the Yangtze in China and the Ganga in India. Our analysis suggests that efforts in combating river pollution in the two Asian giants have encountered substantial challenges, such as the lack of comprehensive legal mechanisms to control pollution at the basin level, the lack of coordination among multiple government agencies, and significant gaps in policy implementation. Our analysis also points out considerable differences between China and India in institutional structure, regulatory approaches and policy instruments in dealing with river pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s China has emerged as one of the world's most active markets for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in water and sanitation, while the private sector has played a rather limited role in the water sector in India. From 2001 to 2012, there were 237 PPP projects in water and sanitation in China, accounting for 40% of the total number of such projects globally, and the Chinese population served by private water companies increased from merely 8% in 1989 to 38% in 2008. Development of PPPs in the water sector in India during the same period was insignificant. Our comparative analysis of PPPs in water and sanitation in the two countries highlights the importance of water tariff reform, strong support and oversight from the national government, and the availability of credible regulatory mechanisms to safeguard development and sustainability of PPPs in the water sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the intricate issues that prompt water pricing reform in China and India. China adopts a comprehensive pricing framework of cost of resources, treatment and distribution, and environmental requirements, which has been gradually developed part by part since 1980 based on the perception and change of water issues in the country. India follows a simple approach of cost recovery, though its recent policy guidelines talk about more systematic pricing. The results present that both countries fail to realize water pricing policy targets regardless of different pricing structures. But China and India are on the same road and direction of water pricing and China goes a little farther. The treatment of water resources and its services, and property rights have a significant impact on pricing, and costs, including service, resources and environment, are difficult to recover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the area of water governance, there has been little systematic comparison between China and India. The intended contributions of this special issue are threefold. A comparative study of water governance between China and India not only provides opportunities for the two countries to draw lessons from each other, but also sheds light on similar challenges in water resources management in other developing countries. In addition, both China and India are key riparian countries in some of Asia's most important international river basins, and their approaches to water conflicts in these rivers have significant impacts not only on water security but also on regional stability. Finally, comparative water governance is a new and undeveloped field of study. This special volume introduces a Modified Institutional Analysis and Development Framework as a tool to facilitate more systematic, theoretical, and comparative approaches to water governance in the context of comparative study of China and India. It does so by specifying various dimensions of the institutional context and how they could explain variations in the performance of the water sector. The aim is to help advance the current theoretical and applied discourse on comparative water governance as a basis for improving water sector performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]