Subscribe
Maharashtra’s 2026 decision to remove teak from regulated species marks a historic shift from colonial-style control to farmer-centric agroforestry.
It eases harvest and transit of farm-grown teak.
The state aims to unlock teak’s role as a “biological savings account” for rural households, boost tree cover, restore degraded land and cut dependence on imported timber.
For more than two centuries, teak (Tectona grandis) was not just another tree in India. It was a strategic resource, a symbol of colonial power and one of the reasons the British Empire could dominate the seas.
In June 2026, Maharashtra quietly took a decision that may reshape the future of agroforestry in India. Through a notification under the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 the state removed teak from the list of regulated tree species, substantially reducing barriers associated with harvesting farm-grown teak.
At first glance, the notification appears to be a routine administrative amendment. In reality, it marks the culmination of a policy shift that has been underway for more than a decade — a shift from controlling trees to encouraging farmers to grow them.
While the 1842 Nilambur plantation is generally regarded as the first documented scientific teak plantation in India, historical sources indicate that teak may have been planted earlier in the Ratnagiri region around 1680. These plantations were reportedly established under the Maratha admiral Kanhoji Angre, who served under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, to support naval shipbuilding.
The rise of teak as a strategic resource gained further momentum during the late eighteenth century. As Britain's oak forests declined and naval competition intensified, the East India Company turned to the teak-rich forests of India and Myanmar. Teak's natural resistance to rot, termites and marine borers made it one of the most durable timbers available for shipbuilding.
Following the defeat of Tipu Sultan in 1799, British control over the teak forests of southern India expanded rapidly. Many early forest regulations were designed less for biodiversity conservation and more for securing timber supplies for the Empire's ships. Over time, teak acquired a special status within India's forest administration, and strict controls were imposed on its harvesting and movement.
Those controls continued long after Independence. Even when teak was grown by farmers on private lands, harvesting and transport often required permissions, documentation and regulatory clearances creating a hurdle for agroforestry expansion in India.
Teak logs harvested from framers field at Baramati, Maharashtra
Teak remains one of the world's most valuable tropical hardwoods. Native to India, Myanmar, Thailand and Laos, it is now cultivated across Asia, Africa and Latin America. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Global Teak Resources and Market Assessment, India manages nearly 1.69 million hectares of planted teak forests, representing about 35 per cent of the world's teak plantation resource. Yet, India continues to be one of the largest importers of teak timber.
The contradiction is striking. A country possessing vast natural and planted teak resources continues to depend on imported timber to meet domestic demand from the furniture, housing and construction sectors. Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra together contain some of India's largest teak landscapes. For both states, teak is not merely a forest species; it is increasingly becoming an agroforestry species and a long-term financial asset for rural households.
For many farmers, teak functions as a biological savings account. Unlike seasonal crops that are exposed to drought, pests and market volatility, teak accumulates value over decades. A mature plantation can provide lump-sum income for education, housing, healthcare or retirement. In an era of climate uncertainty, such long-term assured returns are becoming increasingly important.
The National Agroforestry Policy, 2014 identified restrictive felling and transit regulations as one of the major barriers preventing farmers from planting trees. Subsequent guidelines from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change encouraged states to simplify regulations governing farm-grown timber. More recently, the Government of India released Model Rules for Felling of Trees on Agricultural Lands (2025), further emphasising ease of doing business in agroforestry.
Maharashtra's latest notification can therefore be viewed as part of a broader national effort to encourage tree-based farming. The state is particularly well positioned to benefit from such reforms. Estimates suggest that Maharashtra has between 1.45 and 2.67 million hectares under agroforestry, making it one of India's leading agroforestry states. The state also faces severe land degradation challenges, with nearly 13 million hectares affected by erosion and other degradation processes. Agroforestry offers a pathway to restore these landscapes while generating income and sequestering carbon.
The state's vision of increasing forest and tree cover from about 21 per cent to 33 per cent by 2047 will be difficult to achieve through conventional forestry alone. Trees outside forests, especially those on farms, will need to play a major role.
Yet there is a risk in assuming that deregulation alone will transform the teak sector.
While Maharashtra's deregulation is a welcome step, removing regulatory barriers alone will not transform the teak sector. The bigger challenge today is technical rather than administrative.
For decades, farmers have been encouraged to invest in teak plantations, particularly tissue-cultured teak, based on claims of rapid growth and high returns. Yet evidence supporting many of these claims remains limited. Despite the widespread adoption of tissue-cultured planting material and the presence of over 200 tissue-culture laboratories in India, there are no long-term comparative studies exceeding 25 years that conclusively demonstrate superior growth, timber quality, or economic returns.
This shows that plantation performance depends far more on spacing, thinning, pruning, site quality, and overall management than on planting material alone. A Karnataka study found that well-managed teak plantations produced nearly four times more usable wood per tree than poorly managed, densely planted stands, highlighting the importance of scientific management.
The priority, therefore, should be to provide farmers with certified planting material, scientifically validated management practices, and unbiased technical guidance. Without bridging the gap between research and field practice, deregulation alone is unlikely to deliver the productivity and profitability that farmers expect.
Another challenge that deserves greater attention is timber traceability. As states move towards liberalized harvesting and transit regulations, concerns regarding illegal timber movement are likely to increase.
The solution, however, is not a return to cumbersome permit systems. Instead, India must invest in modern traceability mechanisms.
Digital plantation registration, geo-referenced tree inventories, QR-code-based timber tracking and certification systems can help distinguish legally grown farm timber from illegally harvested forest timber. There is therefore a need for mechanisms that ensure fair price discovery, such as standardized grading systems, digital timber auctions, and regularly updated market prices published on national platforms managed by institutions working on forestry and agroforestry.
Such measures would improve transparency, reduce exploitation, and strengthen farmers' confidence in teak-based agroforestry. Such systems would simultaneously support agroforestry expansion and strengthen forest conservation.
Critics may view the relaxation of harvesting rules as an environmental risk, but for farm-grown trees the reality is often the opposite. A farmer nurtures a teak tree for 15–30 years, during which it continuously sequesters carbon, improves soil health, and contributes to local biodiversity. If harvesting is restricted, the incentive to plant new trees declines.
The real question is: What creates more tree cover — restricting harvests or rewarding tree growers? Evidence from agroforestry programmes worldwide shows that farmers plant more trees when they are assured of harvesting and marketing them. Facilitating the harvest of farm-grown timber can therefore increase tree cover outside forests, reduce pressure on natural forests, and support India's goals of achieving Net Zero emissions and expanding forest and tree cover to 33 per cent of the geographical area.
Maharashtra's decision sends a clear message that farmers should not be treated as offenders for harvesting trees they have nurtured on their own land. The reform should encourage other states to re-examine outdated regulations governing farm-grown timber.
Along with teak, other commercially valuable tree species preferred by farmers in agroforestry systems should be exempted from restrictive harvesting and transit regulations, thereby reducing regulatory burdens and encouraging greater investment in tree-based farming.
However, the future of teak-based agroforestry will depend on the availability of quality planting material, scientifically validated management practices, assured markets, and reliable traceability systems. Equally important is the need for transparent timber pricing. Even after growing quality teak, farmers are often forced to sell at low prices because intermediaries undervalue the wood as suitable only for poles or fuelwood. This undermines the profitability of teak cultivation and discourages long-term investment by farmers.
Sangram B Chavan is a senior scientist (agroforestry) at the ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Baramati (Pune) Maharashtra. AR Uthappa is a senior scientist (agroforestry) at the ICAR-Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute, Goa. Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.