From Riverfronts to River Systems: Forests, Biodiversity, and the Limits of Yamuna Rejuvenation

Abstract

Over the past decade, efforts to rejuvenate the Yamuna river have been marked by ambitious plans, significant public expenditure, and highly visible interventions along the floodplains. This paper argues that the persistent gaps in the efforts stem from a fragmented and largely cosmetic approach. Drawing on the data from the forestry interventions and the biodiversity parks, the paper demonstrates how these projects have poorly aligned with floodplain ecology. Through a comparative lens, it draws lessons from international best practices that emphasize forest-led restoration, conservation, dam removal, and collaboration with private landholders. It concludes that a multi-pronged restoration strategy for the Yamuna is the only way forward, one that integrates scientific expertise, ecological forest interventions, and robust sewage management. 

Introduction 

Water has been the lifeline for civilizations throughout history, governing areas that were fit for life and serving as central sources of livelihood for communities. Despite many decades of change and major pollution levels, the Yamuna has remained a central concern. It has served as a reminder of the impacts of unchecked development and urbanization, while also becoming a political battleground. It has increasingly become a contested space where promises of rejuvenation, agendas, hopes, and jurisdictional blame have collided. 

With over three decades of notable Action Plans for the Yamuna River, the pressure around rejuvenation has surmounted. Yet, amid this gridlock, one crucial dimension of river health often remained unrecognized. While pollution control and sewage treatment dominate the discourse, the degradation of upper catchments in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh through deforestation and soil erosion has altered runoff patterns and weakened the river’s resilience to both drought and flood.

While the discourse on Yamuna rejuvenation often focuses on the real-time water quality, the ‘toxic memory’ of the river gets ignored. As Sharma et al. (2024) demonstrate, the riverbed itself has become a reservoir for hazardous heavy metals. The sediment toxicity implies that the rejuvenation must involve not just cleaning the flow but also managing the polluted substrate. This further decreases the porosity and water-holding capacity of the riverbed, essentially ‘suffocating’ the river’s ability to recharge groundwater (Sharma et al., 2024). Some deep-rooted native trees and riparian grasses can act as ‘biological pumps’ that can influence the groundwater flow patterns. This connection lies in phytoremediation, the ability of specific plants and deep-rooted trees to ‘lock’ or ‘extract’ the heavy metals and sediments (Ferro et al, 2003).

Marking a shift in approach in 2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change released detailed project reports (DPRs) prepared by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun, for the rejuvenation of 13 major rivers, including the Yamuna, through forestry interventions (PIB Delhi, 2022). These interventions make even more sense in the aftermath of the 2023 Delhi floods, which amplified the need for a natural buffer zone for the river. The treatment area proposed for the Yamuna was the largest among all other rivers, at 5,229.82 sq. km. The DPRs also discuss the close interconnections between rivers and forests. The forest cover in the basin is approximately 22814 sq. km (WII-GACMC, 2022). 

Riparian forests buffer functions facilitate the purification of water and serve as natural buffers through inbuilt ‘self-regulation’; these complex biological filters include diverse aquatic plants, periphyton, and benthic organisms that play a crucial role in maintaining water quality (ICFRE, 2022). However, the Yamuna flows not through northern states, including Uttarakhand and Himachal, but through extremely populous states, including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi, making these restoration practices challenging.

Yamuna basin & Forest Catchments 

The drainage area of the Yamuna basin is 366,223 sq km, which comprises part of the aforementioned states (Upadhyay & Rai, 2013), forming a large part of the geographical area of the whole country. The basin is divided into primary and secondary sub-catchments, including the Upper Himalayan catchments in the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, the Upper Plains in Haryana, the NCT of Delhi stretch, and the Lower Plains in Uttar Pradesh. It flows through three distinct biogeographic zones: the Himalaya, the Semi-arid and the Gangetic plains. 

In these states, the river contributes to major commercial, community, and household activities. To truly understand and address the Yamuna’s crisis, it is necessary to move beyond the reductionist view of the river as merely an over-polluted drain, and instead recognize it as a complex, integrated hydrological system. The shift in perspective also allows us to acknowledge the inextricable link between the water quality in Delhi and the ecological integrity of the Himalayan headwaters, looking at the floodplains’ ability to regulate subsurface flow.

The Indian government’s approach has been reflective of this systemic understanding. The Ministry of Jal Shakti and the National Mission for Clean Ganga have formally acknowledged that engineering solutions through STPs cannot succeed without ecological restoration of catchments (PIB Delhi, 2025a). 

2.1. The 2022 DPR by ICFRE
In 2022, the government unveiled a plan to rejuvenate 13 major rivers in India using “forestry interventions,” based on the successful implementation of a pilot afforestation program in 2015, as part of the National Mission for Clean Ganga. Under the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), a large-scale forestry intervention was undertaken, covering 33,024 hectares for afforestation, with a sanctioned expenditure of ₹398 crore (PIB Delhi, 2025a). Simultaneously, seven biodiversity parks across seven districts and five priority wetlands in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Jharkhand were also approved as part of the broader ecological restoration strategy (PIB Delhi, 2025a). 

Table 1: Prioritization of Areas for Proposed Forestry Interventions (Source: DPRs-Rejuvenation of Major Indian Rivers, ICFRE, Dehradun, 2022). 

Governments’ subsequent reports in 2025 on the targets achieved under the NMCG show that the forestry interventions were executed with an increase in budget of INR 414 crore (PIB Delhi, 2025b). Despite these claims, the NGT and experts have held the government accountable for their low transparency on baseline goals under the programme.

Yet, the NMCG became a ‘successful’ example of river rejuvenation for the Yamuna on the use of forest interventions. The report outlines the treatment models for natural, agricultural, and urban landscapes, emphasizing the need for traditional knowledge-based water conservation measures. The DPR laid out the adoption of avenue plantation, bio-mediation, riverfront and eco-park development, and wetland management (ICFRE, 2022). By linking the high-altitude forestry of the upper catchments with the functional wetlands for the plains and eco-parks, these interventions attempted to treat the Yamuna basin as a contiguous biophysical unit. For the Yamuna, this multi-state approach has become vital as it recognizes that the pollution crisis of the river cannot be mitigated through the Delhi stretch alone. 

One of the key strengths of the ICFRE-prepared DPR for the Yamuna was its comprehensive and site-specific technical framework, designed to guide forestry-based ecological restoration, culminating in the development of 143 distinct treatment and intervention models.

2.2. Challenges and Gaps: Forestry Interventions for the Yamuna
Despite the technical depth and ambition of the ICFRE-prepared DPR, the implementation of forestry interventions for the Yamuna encountered significant challenges. One of the central constraints lies in the highly altered and contested nature of the Yamuna floodplains, particularly in the urban stretches. The forest department’s analysis found and directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) that there was land, measuring around 9,000 hectares, available for these forestry interventions in the floodplains (PT, 2022). However, the DDA found that the assessment was not based on facts, and that there were only 1,267 hectares of land available. The DDA further reported that out of this, 402 hectares of land have already been given for compensatory afforestation, while 208 hectares remain ‘under dispute’ (PT, 2022).

A significant gap in the forest-centric approach is its potential to undermine community rights over landscapes traditionally managed by local people. The design and execution of large-scale plantations, as envisaged by these interventions, do not sufficiently account for the forest governance frameworks that vest this decision-making authority in local communities, under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Experts have argued that imposing plantation models without participation from communities would again lead to a top-down approach, undermining the knowledge and consent of these communities (Aggarwal, 2022).

A second critical gap highlighted in assessments of the intervention strategy is the concern over uniform or inappropriate plantation models that fail to align with natural floodplain ecology. 

Critics warn that plantation schemes may prioritise tree planting as a default solution without sufficient attention to local ecosystem characteristics, leading to survival failures or ecological displacement. This pattern of “mindless plantation,” focusing on numbers rather than ecological fit, could result in low impact, altered soil and water dynamics, and a misallocation of resources that does not effectively contribute to genuine river rejuvenation outcomes (Aggarwal, 2022).

International Best Practices 

The challenges slowed these interventions to a near stop. However, under its new approach for Yamuna restoration for 2025, the government has identified prioritizing greening zones, including the Ishwar Nagar and Yamuna Biodiversity Park. However, these gaps underscore the limitations of relying on a plantation-driven solution in isolation. They invite a broader inquiry into how other river systems worldwide have approached restoration in ways that integrate ecological specificity, community participation, and long-term governance frameworks. Examining some of the international best practices offers an opportunity to move beyond number-driven narratives to consider models that prioritise progress over targets, and the functions of the ecosystem over cosmetic greening.

3.1. Dommel River, Netherlands 

The Dommel River, a tributary of the Meuse River, has its source in north-eastern Belgium and runs through the southern part of the Netherlands. The river faced severe pollution challenges and declining upstream water quality due to discharges from point and diffuse sources, industrial and urban wastewater inflow (Petelet-Giraud, Klaver & Negrel, 2009).

As part of the large restoration project for the Dommel river, the Netherlands and Belgium launched a developmental project in 2006, naming the project LIFE Dommeldal. The Dommel Valley, which is the landscape shaped by the Dommel River, is the countries targetted to develop nature areas under the project (LIFE Dommeldal, n.d.). The project centred on large-scale improvement and restoration of the Kempen habitats in the area, including fen vegetation, broth forests, special grasslands typical of the Kempen, and the flower-rich meadows.
Through the habitat restoration initiatives, including the planting of native vegetation and the creation of fish passages (RLT,  2025). Dommel River’s project has successfully restored biodiversity in the area, improving the natural health of the river and attracting back endangered species, such as the European otter. The floodplain vegetation has also enhanced the natural buffer of the river, reducing the risks of significant flooding. 

 3.2. Klamath River, USA 

The Klamath River in the states of Oregon and Northern California cuts through the Cascades and the Klamath Mountains before entering the Pacific Ocean. The US government undertook the project for the restoration of the river in 2024, to support the water needs for agricultural activities and marine life in the Klamath Basin. The project was initiated with the removal of four hydroelectric dams and the enhancement of watershed resilience. In 2024, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) partnered with the U.S Department of Agriculture, the  U.S Departments of Resource Conservation, the U.S. Forest Service, and others to announce the Klamath Basin Forests and Watersheds Restoration Request for Proposals (Freiberg, 2025). 

Despite growing concerns about the pollution of the river and the actual reasons behind the removal of dams and their resulting impact on the aquatic life by environmental scientists (Simpson II, 2024).The government has made remarkable progress in tracking the salmon populations in the river post-dam removal. It has also further invited proposals for grant funding for specific mitigation, monitoring, and conservation projects, including funding for planning, designing, and implementation to restore freshwater marshes, spring meadows, and forest health on the Fremont-Winema National Forests  (Freiberg, 2025).

To address the challenges of land ownership and accessibility, an additional funding offer grants are made to organizations and private owners in the Upper Klamath Basin, with the aim of incentivizing conservation on private lands. These funds are used for outreach and technical assistance to help landowners develop and implement conservation plans that enhance instream habitat in flow-limited watersheds, restore wetland ecosystems, and strengthen forest management for watershed resilience and anadromous fish conservation. This model demonstrates how public funding can be leveraged to work with private landholders rather than around them. 

3.3. Yellow River, China 

The rejuvenation of China’s Yellow River also provides a great example for integrating forestry interventions with sediment management. Recent research shows how China’s strategy shifted from purely engineering-based flood control to a more “landscape-scale ecological governance.”

The government implemented the Natural Forest Protection Program (NFPP) and the Grain for Green Program (GGP), focusing on the protection of natural forests, stable restoration, and development of natural forest resources (Yuan et al., 2025).  Forest and grass restoration in the Loess Plateau has also been instrumental in reducing soil erosion, effectively “trapping” sediment before it reaches the main stem. This is complemented by a sophisticated water-sediment regulation system that utilizes reservoir flushing to maintain the river channel integrity.

Despite some gaps in critical research in specific interactions between the Yellow River water and groundwater in the Jinshan Gorge, the research shows that since the 1950s, conservation efforts, including afforestation efforts and grass planting, have reduced the sediment input into the river significantly. The vegetation cover in the region has also increased from 31.9% in 1999 to 65% in 2017 (Yuan et al., 2025). 

Yamuna Floodplain Restoration: Biodiversity Parks

The Yamuna Biodiversity Park has become a central tenet of the Delhi Development Authority’s vision over the last two decades, reimagining the future of the Yamuna floodplains. The park, which spreads over an area of 148 hectares, is divided into two phases involving the creation of wetland and upland ecosystems (Ismail, 2010). In a vision to promote environmental security through ecosystem building, the DDA has created seven biodiversity parks across various landforms in Delhi, including the Aravalli Biodiversity Park, Northern Ridge, Kalindi Biodiversity Park, Tilpath Valley Park, Neela Hauz, and Tughlaqabad Park (MHUA, n.d.). 

The Expert Committee by the NGT submitted their report in 2014, highlighting their observations on the altered state of the floodplain biodiversity, with the native vegetation having largely disappeared. It also recommended that the existing forest patches be replaced by biodiversity parks with ‘native’ trees (Babu et al, 2014). 

Additionally, the DDA has also inaugurated other beautification processes, including the Vasudev Ghat in 2024 and the Amrut biodiversity parks in March of 2025 (Indian Express, 2025). However, these parks have faced several challenges from the floods in July 2023 and again in September 2025. Nearly all floodplain parks, including those restored after 2023, have been submerged in the recent flood damage.

Reports suggest that the worst hit are the Amrut Biodiversity. Some environmental experts argue this is not just an unusual flood event, but rather the river reclaiming its natural floodplain, underscoring that the technical and ecological processes are being insufficiently integrated into planning; the repeated inundation of ornamental planning and recreational infrastructure is not designed to withstand the natural river dynamics (SANDRP, 2025). The focus of these projects is mere beautification rather than genuine ecological restoration.

The report by the expert committee provided a scientific baseline for the floodplain loss, and the recent flooding provides a real-time example of the consequences of not implementing these recommendations. 

Conclusion

The recurring failures of the Yamuna “rejuvenation” efforts point to a deeper structural problem: the river being treated as a site for isolated interventions rather than as a living ecological system embedded in a complex social, legal, and environmental reality. Floodplain parks are submerged year after year, with budgetary money continuing to flow into ornamental planning. These outcomes are not accidents; they are the predictable results of ignoring how the river functions, how cities expand, and how the failure of inter-agency accountability impacts it.

A meaningful restoration of the Yamuna requires a multi-pronged approach that moves beyond symbolic action. First, scientific knowledge must form the foundation of decision-making. This includes recognizing that the river’s floodplain is an active ecological zone, not simply recreational land that does not accommodate the river’s path. Restoration cannot succeed if it continues to work against the river’s natural dynamics. Hydrology, sediment movement, native vegetation, and climate variability must shape policy choices and not be treated as secondary concerns.

Second, the question of sewage treatment remains central and unresolved. Without bringing sewage treatment infrastructure to global standards, both in capacity and operation, any surface-level intervention on the river will remain futile. No amount of plantation or riverfront redesign can compensate for this failure.

Third, restoration demands adequate and strategically allocated budgets from the government, with transparency on its spending. Funds are repeatedly channeled into beautification and ad-hoc projects, while scientific monitoring remains underfunded.
The Yamuna does not need another grand vision or singular solution. It needs a coordinated, evidence-based strategy that accepts the ecological limits and confronts the infrastructural failures, creating room for a long-term solution for the river.