Bearing diversified natural resources, the Sundarbans mangrove forests (SMF) are, to a large extent, considered a thrust area of ecological and economic importance to which a number of public bureaucracies in Bangladesh give due attention to managing its resources. This paper analyses the extensive policy conflicts of different bureaucracies that prevail for the Sundarbans management practices on emerging issues. All the mangrove forest policies—both directives and projects pursued by multiple administrations in the Sundarbans—are scrutinized taking off in bureaucratic theory. The empirical relevance of this policy development concept is demonstrated based on data from the Government of Bangladesh. As empirical methods, first, the content analyses of various acts, rules, policy documents, missions, mandates, and development initiatives of relevant ministries and public agencies were conducted to distinguish the activities linked with actors’ interests in present practices. Subsequently, the presumed bureaucratic competition was critically analyzed deploying exchange on participating observation. The study observes that being the officially responsible bureaucracy for the Sundarbans, the Bangladesh Forest Department has the leading approach to managing the SMF while receiving guidance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The position of the Forest Department is empowered by the existing laws and rules, although the observed approach has been integrated because of multiple bureaucracies being involved in different sectors of Sundarbans for their due interests. Other bureaucracies use their institutional expertise in respective sectors, resulting in an exceptionally high degree of bureaucratic rivalry. Mangrove forest bureaucracy is currently facing challenges in technical capacities, financial resources, and institutional arrangements addressing the effective management of the Sundarbans. Administrative structures for complex landscapes, such as mangrove forests, pose substantial challenges to common bureaucratic structures, which recommends establishing integrated approach, for sharing equitable responsibilities and benefits. Still, the underlying conflicts of interests would prevail, but they can be proactively addressed through rules and procedures within the integration.