Andhra Pradesh
Bhitarkanika National Park
,
,
Kendrapara
Published :
Aug 2026
|
Updated :
Mangrove Conservation versus Shrimp Farming in Bhitarkanika National Park, Odisha
Reported by
Samrita Shankar
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Amrita Chekkutty, Rakshit Dhingra
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
2014
Year started
15737.85
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2014
Year started
15737.85
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Environmental/Ecological Damage
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Unclassifed
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Environmental/Ecological Damage
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Odisha's coastline has 418,000 hectares of brackish water, providing fertile ground for aquaculture. Uptake of shrimp and prawn farming in the region has grown as traditional agriculture has become increasingly difficult due to saltwater intrusion and recurring cyclones.

Since 2014, however, the state has been demolishing such farms for encroaching on mangrove areas and environmental regulations. These ecosystems are ecologically significant as natural shock absorbers against coastal storms, tsunamis, and cyclones, and provide ecosystem services including shoreline stabilisation, hazard protection, and habitat for diverse species.

Farmers argue that the demolitions threaten their livelihoods, especially since agricultural land in the region has become largely infertile. Shrimp farming, they say, has helped reduce seasonal distress migration, and many fear that demolishing the farms without offering alternative livelihoods will trigger large-scale displacement instead.

Farmers also contend that not all shrimp farms cause environmental harm. Many do not operate within the National Park's 10-km Eco-Sensitive Zone, treat wastewater before release, and have contributed land toward mangrove conservation. They further argue that they are being penalised due to unclear land classification, poor demarcation between forest and private land, lack of prior notice before demolition, and bureaucratic delays in the licensing and renewal process under Coastal Aquaculture Authority regulations.

The Forest Department maintains that chemicals from shrimp farms seep into the surrounding mangrove forests, damaging ecosystems that protect the coastline from climate impacts and natural disasters. The State Fisheries Department, in partnership with the Odisha Space Applications Centre, has developed a Coastal Aquaculture Information System to identify and verify sites suitable for prawn farming while protecting forest areas and eco-sensitive zones. Forest Department officials say clear guidelines govern land identification and permitted activities in eco-sensitive zones, that farms are identified against these criteria, and that notice is issued before any demolition - with scope for compensation where violations are disputed, or a genuine grievance is raised.

Some villagers also allege that effluent from the shrimp farms is destroying what fertile agricultural land remains, and that embankments built for the farms have altered the flow of the Patsala river, obstructing tidal water from reaching the sea and increasing soil salinity in the area. Since the 1990s, operators described locally as "shrimp mafias" have illegally converted large tracts of mangrove forest and agricultural land into prawn farms, contributing to shrinking forest cover.

In 1995, the Supreme Court prohibited intensive and semi-intensive shrimp aquaculture in ecologically sensitive coastal areas and directed the closure of farms operating in violation of CRZ Notification, 1991. The judgment subsequently led to the enactment of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, which established a regulatory framework for coastal aquaculture and required registration of shrimp farms.

In 2017, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change declared 192 villages surrounding Bhitarkanika as Eco-sensitive Zones to regulate developmental activities around the national park. Aquaculture is prohibited within these protected areas under the CRZ Notification and the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act.

The Orissa High Court has repeatedly directed the state government to remove illegal shrimp enclosures in ecologically sensitive areas. In 2019, while taking suo motu cognisance of Supreme Court directions on wetland conservation, the Court ordered the state to initiate the removal of illegal shrimp farms around Bhitarkanika and Chilika Lake. In 2021, the Odisha High Court again acknowledged the widespread presence of illegal shrimp enclosures in Bhitarkanika and Chilika and instructed district authorities to accelerate their removal.

According to a statement tabled in the Rajya Sabha in December 2024, Odisha had demolished 4,321 illegal shrimp gheries covering approximately 15,738 hectares around Chilika Lake and the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary.

Shrimp farmers challenged these demolition drives through multiple public interest litigations, arguing that they were farming on private land without causing any environmental harm and that aquaculture constituted their sole means of livelihood. However, in 2024, the Orissa High Court declined to entertain intervention petitions seeking to halt the demolitions.

During the Forest Department's most recent demolition drive in July 2026, locals protested and halted the drive, citing decades of dependence on shrimp farming for their livelihood. The operation targeted illegal shrimp enclosures across roughly 113 hectares of encroached forest land, but was suspended after hundreds of villagers - including women and children - gathered at the site and blocked forest personnel from proceeding despite a police presence.

Previously, in March 2026, Forest Department officials were injured due to protests by shrimp farmers during a demolition drive, which too had to be halted temporarily.

Officials maintain that the farms violate the CRZ Notification as well as Supreme Court and High Court directives, and that any shrimp farm operating without Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) registration is liable for demolition. The department plans large-scale mangrove regeneration on the reclaimed land immediately after the drive, to prevent fresh encroachment - noting the areas are well suited to restoration given the regular inflow of tidal water.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Demand for compensation

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Contention of Shrimp Farmers: Limited alternative livelihood options; impact on livelihood; land record discrepancies. Contention of Agricultural farmers and Environmentalists: Environmental degradation; increased soil salinity

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Coastal, Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Conservation / protection of ecosystems and species, Other livelihood purposes, Ecosystem/Environmental Services

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Odisha State Fisheries Department; Odisha State Forest Department; Revenue Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Shrimp and Prawn farmers

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Samrita Shankar
Samrita is an interdisciplinary researcher with an academic background in law and international development. She has previously worked at the science-policy-practice interface on wildlife conservation issues at both the national and international levels. She is particularly interested in themes at the intersection of law/policy, development and resource governance. At Land Conflict Watch, she will contribute to growing body of research, and field-based analysis on coastal resources, commons and livelihoods – with a focus on their intersection with Blue Economy activities.
Show more work
JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us