Maharashtra’s latest conservation decisions do more than add protected areas to the state’s environmental map. They bring 14 proposed conservation reserves, two sanctuary proposals, an expansion of Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary and new discussions on village relocation, infrastructure approvals and human-wildlife conflict into the same administrative framework. Together, the decisions show how the state is trying to manage an increasingly difficult boundary between ecological protection, inhabited landscapes and development needs.
The Maharashtra State Board for Wildlife, chaired by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, approved the proposals at its 26th meeting. The board cleared conservation-reserve proposals across Pune, Raigad, Nashik, Nandurbar, Thane, Palghar and Chandrapur districts. It also approved the proposal to declare the Kolamarka Conservation Reserve in Gadchiroli, known for its wild water buffalo habitat, as a wildlife sanctuary. A newly expanded area adjoining the existing Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary was also approved for sanctuary status.
The geography of the proposals is significant. The proposed conservation reserves include Velhe-Mulshi across Pune and Raigad, Bhorigad in Pune, Dindori, Surgana and Taharabad in Nashik, Chinchpada in Nandurbar, Alibag and Ghera Manikgad in Raigad, Lonavala across Pune and Raigad, Gumtara in Thane, Jawhar, Asherigad and Dhamani in Palghar, and Ekara in Chandrapur. The list covers landscapes adjoining major urban and industrial regions as well as forested areas with distinct wildlife and livelihood pressures.
This makes the decision a planning question as much as a wildlife decision. Conservation reserves are not isolated from the settlements, roads, farms, dams, power networks and public facilities around them. Their notification and management can influence what kinds of construction are permitted, how infrastructure projects are assessed, and how local communities interact with forest authorities. The board’s agenda reflects that overlap: it considered both the expansion of protected areas and infrastructure proposals involving irrigation, healthcare, water supply, bridges, roads, underground optical fibre networks and power lines in protected areas, eco-sensitive zones and tiger corridors.
The Tansa decision provides the clearest example of the administrative complexity involved. The board approved the inclusion of 588.767 hectares of revenue and private land from six villages—Ogda, Khodde, Tirmal, Pachghar, Phansad and Amle—in the newly expanded Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary. The stated aim is to make the sanctuary free of human habitation. That objective places land ownership, village residence, relocation consent, compensation and sanctuary management in a single process. The report does not specify a relocation timeline, compensation package or implementation mechanism, leaving those details to subsequent administrative action.
The issue is especially relevant in a state where protected landscapes frequently sit alongside growing settlement and infrastructure networks. The board’s discussion of relocation in tiger-reserve buffer zones was explicitly linked to residents who are willing to move. That qualification matters. Relocation is not simply a boundary-management exercise; it requires a policy framework that addresses consent, compensation, access to services and the long-term security of households moved out of protected or high-conflict areas. At the meeting, officials were directed to examine how the proposal could be implemented under the Disaster Management Act, the existing compensation framework and the powers of the Forest Department.
Human-wildlife conflict was also discussed as a potential natural disaster. The board considered proposals to notify the core, buffer and notified eco-sensitive areas of the state’s six tiger reserves as silence zones, declare human-wildlife conflict a natural disaster, and create a policy for relocating willing villages from tiger-reserve buffer zones. These proposals were not presented as final policy decisions in the supplied report. The chief minister directed officials to examine their legal and administrative feasibility before further action.
That distinction between approval, proposal and implementation is central to understanding the meeting. The board approved the 14 conservation-reserve proposals and the Tansa land inclusion, but several other measures remain under examination. A declaration of human-wildlife conflict as a natural disaster would require alignment with the Disaster Management Act and the compensation system. A relocation policy would need institutional responsibilities and funding arrangements. The report does not establish whether either proposal has been formally notified.
The meeting also exposed a less visible problem: protected areas may exist on paper without receiving the staffing and management arrangements associated with their status. Fadnavis directed officials to study staff deployment, deputation and vacancies in areas already declared wildlife sanctuaries but still managed by the territorial Forest Department or the Forest Development Corporation. A proposal on transferring those areas to the wildlife wing is to be submitted within one month.
This administrative gap is important because notification alone does not create effective conservation capacity. Management requires personnel, field presence, monitoring, infrastructure maintenance and a clear chain of responsibility. When an area is legally protected but continues to be administered through a different institutional structure, decisions on patrols, development proposals, conflict response and local engagement can become fragmented. The proposed review therefore concerns not just staffing numbers but the governance architecture of protected landscapes.
A similar governance question arose over routine maintenance. The chief minister directed officials to include dam repairs, rehabilitation and desilting within sanctuary management plans. Standard operating procedures are to be prepared in line with the rules, with necessary changes incorporated into management plans within three months. The stated objective is to avoid separate approvals for such work on every occasion and instead create a system of prior intimation to the concerned wildlife officials.
The instruction attempts to address a recurring tension in protected areas: essential infrastructure cannot simply stop functioning because it falls within a sanctuary, but maintenance can also affect habitats and wildlife if it is undertaken without ecological oversight. Bringing routine work into management plans could make the approval process more predictable. However, the supplied report does not state what technical standards, monitoring requirements or limits will govern such work. Those details will determine whether the proposed system improves coordination or merely shifts the point at which approvals are given.
The board’s approval of critical wildlife habitat proposals adds another layer. It cleared 100.139 square kilometres in Koka Wildlife Sanctuary and 25.579 square kilometres in Jayakwadi Bird Wildlife Sanctuary as critical wildlife habitats. These areas may carry more restrictive conservation implications, although the report does not provide the operational rules or settlement arrangements that will follow the approvals. Their significance will depend on how boundaries, rights, management plans and development permissions are subsequently handled.
The overall numbers indicate a broad expansion of the state’s conservation agenda: 14 conservation-reserve proposals across seven districts, two sanctuary proposals, 588.767 hectares proposed for inclusion in the expanded Tansa sanctuary, and more than 125 square kilometres identified as critical wildlife habitat in Koka and Jayakwadi. But these figures describe administrative decisions, not completed conservation outcomes. The creation of a reserve or sanctuary is the beginning of a management process involving notification, demarcation, staffing, funding and coordination with local authorities and residents.
The presence of infrastructure proposals on the same agenda underlines why this process matters to Maharashtra’s built environment. Roads, bridges, power lines, water supply systems, healthcare facilities, irrigation works and optical fibre networks are necessary for settlements and public services, including in remote areas. At the same time, their alignment and construction can affect wildlife corridors, habitats and access routes. The board’s decision to consider these projects within protected areas, eco-sensitive zones and tiger corridors places environmental review and project delivery within a shared institutional space rather than treating them as separate policy tracks.
The next phase will therefore be measured less by the number of areas approved than by how clearly the state translates those approvals into workable management systems. The immediate official milestones identified in the report are the preparation of standard operating procedures and amendments to sanctuary management plans within three months, a proposal on transferring certain areas to the wildlife wing within one month, and further examination of human-wildlife conflict, compensation and relocation proposals. Until those steps are completed, the meeting establishes the direction of Maharashtra’s conservation policy but not the final arrangements through which residents, infrastructure agencies and wildlife authorities will operate.
