Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Dear participants

This week we will discuss how social protection instruments and forestry policies can be coordinated. We will also focus on the current global climate change agenda especially the opportunities it presents for harmonizing social protection policies and forestry policies.

You may wish to consider discussing the two parts of the fifth question:

5 a) What aspects of the global climate-change agenda present opportunities for harmonizing social protection and sustainable forestry policies?

Tips: Examples of aspects include climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, reduction of greenhouse emissions, climate change funds, climate-smart agriculture. You can cite protocols, agreements and country-specific climate change adaptation programmes, policies and interventions.

5b) What are the key mechanisms for fostering coordination of and coherence between social protection and forestry policies?

Tips: Consider institutional, co-ordination, governance and political, design and implementation, key actors, and financial aspects. Give examples from country experience

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

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.

Thank you Nyasha.

But instead of giving charity to the forest dependent people, would it not be more sustainable to legislate for the locals to be co-owners of the forest? In that way, when companies are given concenssions to harvest forest products, the royalies they pay would not just to government but also to a local community trust.

Similarly, if a processing industry using forest products is established, legislation would enable local people to be shareholders (initially their shares could be paid for in kind thru raw materials) so they have steady capitalist earnings rather than charitable handouts.

Mafa

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. 

I can sympathise with what drives Maja's perceptions. But it seems to me unfair to help people before they are given a chance to help themselves.

The forest is itself a resource: it can be commercialised or be used for subsistence livelihood. Why should a third party (FAO, a do-gooder or Maja etc) intervene before the obvious use of the resource to support livelihoods is exhausted as a solution?

Reflection on dependence, in response to Mafa Chipeta.

Maybe sometimes people just cannot help themselves and require external support. Like the time when they are just born into a very poor family that experiences chronic food insecurity, with mother who is severely malnourished, overworked and unable to breastfeed its child, so the newborn is dependent on the external support (ie. nutritional supplement) to have a chance to live… or the time when they are really old and – despite working their whole life (often longer than 30 years) – they never had an economic or institutional opportunity to pay for their social security (or save money) to protect their livelihoods, and thus depend on the state pension to keep them alive; or even when they are a (hard)working poor farming family and the shock strikes and destroys their harvest – they too need protection to stabilize their income and consumption, and ensure their livelihoods are not permanently damaged. This support might also prevent the adoption of the potentially corrosive coping strategies to survive, such as illegally cutting and selling forest products to survive…  

The basic fact of life is that we are all, at certain stages of our lives (and for different reasons and levels), dependent on external support, which often comes in the form of social protection (ie. cash transfer, a public work, school meal, social security/social insurance, food assistance, or pension).

I have a problems with the concept itself: why should these people be given protection - social or otherwise - before they make efforts to first help themselves?

If they are suffering because some more powerful groups or elites are abusing them, then should the international community not focus on combating the powerful abusers?

My worries start from what I see in Africa: cash transfers and other aid is going to the poor. They are in effect receiving "pensions" for doing nothing. I had to work nearly 30 years to get my pension and these people simply have to be poor (or forest-dependent) to qualify for the same. Is this reasonable, given international norms that pensions should be earned?

Mafa Chipeta

Dear participants

This week we will continue our discussion on the role of social protection instruments in forestry. We will also start considering the potential synergies that can be created between social protection instruments and forestry policies.

You may wish to consider discussing the third and fourth questions:

3. Which countries have social protection instruments and programmes that:

- target forest-dependent people?

- are implemented with the aim of promoting sustainable forestry among the poor?

- are integrated with sustainable forest management programmes?

4. What key factors influence the creation of synergies or conflicts between social protection and sustainable forestry? What complementarities can be utilized to optimize the effects of social protection on forestry management?

If you could you provide examples any social protection instruments around the world that are being used to promote sustainable forestry or are aimed at alleviating poverty amongst forest dependent people.

Tips: Give information on social protection program objectives, design, target group and effectiveness regarding resilience. Also provide information on how or where social protection instruments are being combined with forestry policies.

Dear participants

I would like to thank the contributors to the discussion last week. The discussion covered a lot of interesting issues. Here is a summary of some of your contributions:

Social protection instruments that can be targeted to forest dependent people

• Graded long-term food aid compatible with their traditional diet can help forest dependent people achieve self-sufficiency.
• In-kind-transfers such as housing and clothing help
• Social protection can help people meet their basic needs and also help prevent environmental degradation
• Cash transfers can help re-establish livelihoods affected by deforestation by supporting afforestation.
• Social insurance schemes in the form of rotating loan funds that can (i) meet critical short term cash needs for members while also (ii) preventing needs based tree cutting that threatens sustainable forest management planning. 
• Social assistance schemes for those unable to engage directly in such forest farm producer organisation (because they are ill, or in school, or landless etc). These schemes can be implemented via forest farm producer organisation. 
• Labour market policies to protect forest workers (minimum wages, safety standards etc).
• Labour protection through preferential procurement from business collectives where labour not capital drives benefit distribution.
• Subsidise inputs for forest farm producer businesses

The major sources of vulnerability for forest dependent people

• Isolation from each other, markets, service providers and decision makers
• Few owners of  forest areas
• Conflict or trade-off between forest extraction today and benefits for future generation
• High demand for forest products to meet daily needs ( food, medical care, tools)
• Criminal elements in the timber markets

Limitations of forestry policies in addressing vulnerability of forest dependent people

• Lack of coherent integrated planning for economic development, sustainable use and conservation.
• Lack of tangible information and dialogue amongst stakeholders.
• Forestry policies and programmes typically marginalize forest dependent people in favour of the large industrial model, with little evidence that this model protects forests or reduces poverty.

Policy considerations

• Ensure that social protection instruments and forest policies and programmes strengthen the organization of forest and farm producer groups who comprise the biggest part of the forest private sector are the most likely to conserve forests and facilitate poverty reduction e.g. leverage existing initiatives like the Forest and Farm facility designed by alliances of indigenous peoples, community forestry and smallholder family forestry
• Design education systems that address the entrepreneurial necessities of local forest farm producers so that they may diversify income sources
• Invest in locally controlled forestry (ILCF) which allow local people to: (i) secure commercial resource rights; (ii) gain access to technical extension and finance; (iii) develop business capacity and market access; and (iv) strengthen organisations that allow them market power and political influence. Evidence that this model protects forests and alleviates poverty e.g. examples in Gambia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico and Nepal.
• Legal titling for forest dependent people to allow sustainable exploitation of forest resources
• Financial and appropriate technical help to establish and operate co-operative to harvest and market forest products by forest-dependent peoples without the mediation of brokers.
• Scale up community based approaches for sustainable  use  and  management.
• Establish legal and policy frameworks that  would facilitate  sustainable forest  management e.g.  mangrove  special  ecosystem in Cameroon
• Leverage the FAO family farming project