• Forest villages are settlements located within forest areas where communities traditionally reside and depend on forest resources for their livelihoods.
• In 1990, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) mandated the conversion of all forest villages into revenue villages. Similarly, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) also stipulated the conversion of forest villages into revenue villages.
• This conversion process was intended to ensure that the entirety of the village land, including areas allocated for community needs such as schools and healthcare facilities, was officially recognised as part of the revenue village.
• However, despite these directives, the rights associated with this conversion have been consistently denied.
• As of 2016, Tamil Nadu recorded 736 forest villages with a population of 23,125, including 7,764 individuals from Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities.
• Nationally, there were 4,526 forest villages with a population of 22 lakh, with 13.3 lakh inhabitants belonging to ST communities. Additionally, there are numerous unrecorded forest habitats across the country.
• The notification establishing the sanctuary acknowledges that rights granted under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 and those conferred under the FRA will be preserved for the individuals concerned.
• However, Tamil Nadu has been notably slow in implementing the FRA compared to other states in the country.

• In the newly established Thanthai Periyar Sanctuary, certain rights have changed. Specifically, cattle-grazing activities are no longer permitted within the sanctuary's boundaries.
• This prohibition raises concerns for Bargur cattle, a traditional breed native to the Bargur forest hills, as they may face restrictions accessing their customary grazing areas.
• In March 2022, the Madras High Court modified a previous order that had imposed a blanket ban on cattle grazing in all forests across Tamil Nadu.
• The revised ruling now limits the ban to national parks, sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. Notably, Tamil Nadu stands as the sole state in the country with such a prohibition.
• This ruling stands in contrast to the provisions of the FRA, which explicitly recognise grazing rights, including those of settled or transhumant pastoralist communities, in all forest areas, including national parks, sanctuaries, and tiger reserves.
• According to the FRA, grazing rights are considered community rights of the village-level habitation and are to be regulated by their respective gram sabhas.
• Approximately 20.3% of Tamil Nadu's land, totaling 26,419 sq. km, is designated as notified forests, with a recorded forest area slightly higher at around 23.7%.
• Additionally, about 6% of the state is classified as Protected Areas, encompassing five national parks and 34 sanctuaries, half of which are bird sanctuaries.
• Tamil Nadu has established five tiger reserves within these Protected Areas, with the newly formed Thanthai Periyar Sanctuary covering an area of 801 sq. km, joining their ranks.

• The Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA) of 1972 governs the notification of sanctuaries and national parks. Individuals residing within sanctuaries retain their existing rights unless specifically prohibited, whereas those within national parks do not.
• Once the intent to establish a sanctuary or national park is announced, no new rights are granted.
• The Collector is responsible for investigating the rights of all individuals within the proposed sanctuary or national park, including their nature and extent.
• Subsequently, the Collector's office decides whether to acknowledge claims within sanctuaries and acquire all rights within national parks.
• Similar procedures are mandated when land is initially designated as forest, although governments have often failed to adhere to these requirements.
• Despite these legal provisions, violations have become commonplace and are often overlooked by the courts.
• These infractions have deep roots within the forest department, dating back to the colonial era, with inherited tendencies perpetuated within the forest bureaucracy.
• Additionally, various laws such as the Indian Forest Act of 1927, its derivatives like the Tamil Nadu Forest Act of 1882, the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act of 2016 are all built upon this colonial framework.

• The establishment of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was spurred by a nationwide outcry following a misinterpretation by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) of a Supreme Court order in May 2002.
• This interpretation led to a directive for states to expel ineligible encroachers, including those who settled in forest lands after 1980, within a specified timeframe.
• In response to mounting pressure and acknowledging the historical injustices faced by tribal forest dwellers due to the non-recognition of their traditional rights, the MoEF, in a 2004 affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Godavarman versus Union of India, conceded that these injustices needed to be rectified.
• Subsequently, in 2006, the Indian government passed the FRA to address this historical injustice stemming from the inadequate recognition of forest rights on ancestral lands and habitats.
• The FRA empowers and mandates gram sabhas (village councils) to identify and recognize forest rights and to safeguard and preserve forests, wildlife, and biodiversity within their customary and traditional boundaries, even within Protected Areas.
• These responsibilities were previously under the purview of the Forest Department.

• In comparison, the Forest Rights Act (FRA) holds precedence over the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA) due to its enactment at a later date. Any provisions within the WLPA that contradict those within the FRA are rendered null and void.
• Consequently, when designating a Protected Area under the WLPA, the government is obligated to assess rights under the FRA and secure the consent of the gram sabhas (village councils).
• These requirements were explicitly incorporated into a 2006 amendment concerning the notification of tiger reserves.
• The FRA came into effect upon the notification of its Rules in January 2008. From then until 2023, the country has expanded its Protected Areas by acquiring 15,605 sq. km, encompassing nine national parks spanning 3,462 sq. km and 77 sanctuaries covering 12,143 sq. km, often disregarding the altered legal framework.
• Tamil Nadu's portion of this expansion includes 15 sanctuaries totalling 4,146.7 sq. km.
• Violations of the FRA, particularly concerning Scheduled Tribes, are considered offences under the 2016 amendment to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

• Tamil Nadu's implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) has been notably deficient.
• Despite the presence of 1,808 revenue villages in the state, housing numerous habitations accessing forest lands totalling 15,826.9 sq. km within revenue boundaries according to the 2011 Census, the extent of recognition and issuance of individual titles under the FRA remains alarmingly low.
• As of September 2023, the state had only recognized and granted individual titles to a mere 38.96 sq. km of forest land, representing a meagre coverage of just 0.25%.
• Additionally, while 531 community titles have reportedly been issued, the actual extent of the area covered by these titles remains unclear.
• Tamil Nadu's situation is not unique, as similar patterns of inadequate implementation can be observed across the country.
• The Ministry of Environment and Forests, along with the forest bureaucracy, persistently flout laws, parliamentary directives, and the desires of the populace, jeopardizing the welfare of forests, forest-dwellers, and wildlife alike.

MINIMUM SUPPORT PRICE

2. What is the Minimum Support Price (MSP)?

• MSP is the minimum price a farmer must pay for their food grains as guaranteed by the government. They are recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs.
• The CACP submits its recommendations to the government in the form of Price Policy Reports every year.
• After considering the report and views of the state governments and also keeping in view the overall demand and supply situation in the country, the central government takes the final decision.
• The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is the nodal agency for procurement along with State agencies, at the beginning of the sowing season.

• 7 cereals (paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi, and barley)
• 5 pulses (chana, tur/arhar, moong, urad, and Masur)
• 7 oilseeds (rapeseed-mustard, groundnut, soya bean, sunflower, sesamum, safflower, and Enigerseed) and
• 4 commercial crops (sugarcane, cotton, copra, and raw jute).

3. How MSP is Calculated?

• MSP, presently, is based on a formula of 1.5 times the production costs.
• The CACP projects three kinds of production costs for every crop, both at state and all-India average levels.
• A2 covers all paid-out costs directly incurred by the farmer — in cash and kind — on seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, hired labour, leased-in land, fuel, irrigation, etc.
• A2+FL includes A2 plus an imputed value of unpaid family labour.
• C2: Estimated land rent and the cost of interest on the money taken for farming are added to A2 and FL.
• Farm unions are demanding that a comprehensive cost calculation (C2) must also include capital assets and the rentals and interest forgone on owned land, as recommended by the National Commission for Farmers.

4. The issue with the calculation of MSP

• To calculate MSP, the government uses A2+FL cost. The criticism of A2+FL is that it doesn’t cover all costs and that a more representative measure, C2, needs to be used.
• For example, in the 2017-18 rabi season, CACP data shows that C2 for wheat was 54% higher than A2+FL.
• The Swaminathan Commission also stated that the MSP should be based on the comprehensive cost of production, which is the C2 method.

5. Key Points about the Farmer's Demand

• After the recent decision to repeal three contentious farm laws, protesting farmer unions are now pressing for their demand of the legalization of the Minimum Support Price (MSP).
• They want a legal guarantee for the MSP, which at present is just an indicative or a desired price.
• Legalising MSPs would put the government under a legal obligation to buy every grain of the crops for which MSPs have been announced.
• At present, the PM has announced the formation of a committee to make MSP more transparent, as well as to change crop patterns and to promote zero-budget agriculture which would reduce the cost of production.
• The entire issue of enforcing MSP legally is a tricky, complicated, and multidimensional one, involving lots of factors.
• Core demand: MSP based on a C2+50% formula should be made a legal entitlement for all agricultural produce. This would mean a 34% increase in the latest MSP for paddy and a 13% increase for wheat. MSP should also be extended to fruit and vegetable farmers who have been excluded from benefits so far.

6. The rationale behind the demand for legislation of MSP