Thanks for the interesting topic and discussion so far. I guess before people can contribute to the discussion substantively, there should be an agreement on the definition of social protection and why one would need social protection. As the term implies, if one needs protection (whether civil, social or military), it means that particular person or entity is exposed to something harmful. In that case, the best protection is to either attack and neutralise the identified harm or strengthen the self defense mechanism of the potential victims (self protection).
The word 'social' implies protection provided by society to which the potential victims belong. This is the society where they derive their citizens-based entitlement to protection in return for their taxes and other obligations payable to the authorities, including what authorities collect elsewhere in trust of their citizens. In the context of the 'rule of law', any citizen has the right to protection for their lives and livelihoods, as provided in both national constitutions international human rights law. As such, I agree with the proposal by Mafa Chipeta for the legislation of the rights and ownership of the forests to the communities directly dependent on them. This will mean that they derive meaningful benefits from the use and exchange (sell some of their registered rights). As with any economic opportunity such laws do not just come by. First, the communities dependent on the forest need to be sensitized of their rights and duties with recipect the forest. Secondly, strengthen their political organisation so they can effectively lobby for the legislation. Thirdly, sensitize the local and government and parliament on the importance of the legislation. Fourth, support local communities to report to the appropriate national and international authorities of any person or entity abusing their legislated rights.
Mr. Solomon Mkumbwa