I would like to thank the contributors to the discussion last week. The discussion debated the merits of providing social protection to forest dependent people.
Here is a summary of your contributions:
· Social protection is not necessary due to the availability of forest resources. Forest dependent people should instead first help themselves by using the forest resources as their main source of livelihood either commercially or through subsistence means.
· Social protection should only be provided to forest dependent people when it’s no longer possible to use forest resources as a source of livelihood. They are charitable handouts.
· Legislation that allows forest dependent people to co-own forests is an alternative to social protection as it is more sustainable. Potential revenue from forest products is shared with a local community trust.
· To ensure the rights of forest dependent people are legislated, they first need to be sensitized of their rights and duties and of local and international grievance mechanisms. Their political organization also needs to be strengthened. Local authorities, government and legislators also need to be sensitized about the importance of legalizing the rights of forest dependent people.
· Forest dependent people do face multiple vulnerabilities and shocks at various stages of life cycle. They too need social protection to stabilize their income and consumption, and ensure their livelihoods are not permanently damaged.
· Social protection instruments can help prevent detrimental risk coping strategies of forest dependent people such as illegal logging and fuelwood collection.
· Social protection instruments like cash transfers are needed since forest dependent people are mainly in the informal sector and do not have access to social security or pensions.
· Social protection instruments are especially relevant since informal sources of insurance have also been weakened by natural disasters, shocks and epidemics
Dear participants
I would like to thank the contributors to the discussion last week. The discussion debated the merits of providing social protection to forest dependent people.
Here is a summary of your contributions:
· Social protection is not necessary due to the availability of forest resources. Forest dependent people should instead first help themselves by using the forest resources as their main source of livelihood either commercially or through subsistence means.
· Social protection should only be provided to forest dependent people when it’s no longer possible to use forest resources as a source of livelihood. They are charitable handouts.
· Legislation that allows forest dependent people to co-own forests is an alternative to social protection as it is more sustainable. Potential revenue from forest products is shared with a local community trust.
· To ensure the rights of forest dependent people are legislated, they first need to be sensitized of their rights and duties and of local and international grievance mechanisms. Their political organization also needs to be strengthened. Local authorities, government and legislators also need to be sensitized about the importance of legalizing the rights of forest dependent people.
· Forest dependent people do face multiple vulnerabilities and shocks at various stages of life cycle. They too need social protection to stabilize their income and consumption, and ensure their livelihoods are not permanently damaged.
· Social protection instruments can help prevent detrimental risk coping strategies of forest dependent people such as illegal logging and fuelwood collection.
· Social protection instruments like cash transfers are needed since forest dependent people are mainly in the informal sector and do not have access to social security or pensions.
· Social protection instruments are especially relevant since informal sources of insurance have also been weakened by natural disasters, shocks and epidemics