There has been a longstanding debate about the merits of providing social protection or safety net measures to the poorest in society. Critics of the merits of social protection often argue for individual responsibility and warn of "dependency" on social protection instruments, which are also viewed as handouts. However, we now have overwhelming evidence that social protection measures do not create dependency and do indeed help households manage risks and maintain sufficient consumption in times of severe shocks or stress. In addition, in many developing countries, most working-age adults, including forest dependent people are in the informal sector and therefore do not have access to social security or pensions when they retire. At the same time, national shocks like the HIV/AIDS epidemic and natural disasters have weakened informal sources of insurance. j
Concerning forest dependent people, the argument for social protection is driven by the evidence that forest dependent people are usually poor and vulnerable to multiple risks and shocks. Hence, despite the availability of forest resources as a source of livelihood, they may not protect forest dependent people from risks and income shortfalls. Furthermore, income shortfalls may even motivate forest dependent people to extract forest resources unsustainably.
In response to Mafa Chipeta
There has been a longstanding debate about the merits of providing social protection or safety net measures to the poorest in society. Critics of the merits of social protection often argue for individual responsibility and warn of "dependency" on social protection instruments, which are also viewed as handouts. However, we now have overwhelming evidence that social protection measures do not create dependency and do indeed help households manage risks and maintain sufficient consumption in times of severe shocks or stress. In addition, in many developing countries, most working-age adults, including forest dependent people are in the informal sector and therefore do not have access to social security or pensions when they retire. At the same time, national shocks like the HIV/AIDS epidemic and natural disasters have weakened informal sources of insurance. j
Concerning forest dependent people, the argument for social protection is driven by the evidence that forest dependent people are usually poor and vulnerable to multiple risks and shocks. Hence, despite the availability of forest resources as a source of livelihood, they may not protect forest dependent people from risks and income shortfalls. Furthermore, income shortfalls may even motivate forest dependent people to extract forest resources unsustainably.