Key Details
The ILO policy brief Just Transition and Decent Work Implications from Land Degradation and Desertification connects declining land productivity with employment, income and working conditions — and examines how restoration can generate decent work.
Area | Finding |
|---|---|
Livelihood exposure | Land degradation and desertification threaten the livelihoods of an estimated 1.3 billion people |
Employment dependence | Around 1.2 billion jobs depend on healthy ecosystems; roughly 40% of the global workforce relies on nature and ecosystem services |
People already affected | An estimated 1.3–3.2 billion people are affected by land degradation |
Economic exposure | Ecosystem services are valued at $125–140 trillion annually; estimated losses from inaction range from $10 trillion to $31 trillion a year |
Restoration returns | The brief cites estimates of $7–30 in benefits for every $1 invested in land restoration |
Land pressure | Human activity has altered about 70% of the Earth’s land, with approximately 100 million hectares being degraded annually |
Policy gap | Decent work entered UNCCD decisions in 2022, but just-transition principles remain weakly integrated into land-degradation policy |
Labour-market response | The ILO calls for coordinated action on skills, social protection, occupational safety, enterprise support, labour rights and social dialogue |
Degraded Land Also Means Less Secure Work
Land degradation reduces agricultural yields, weakens forestry and fisheries, disrupts tourism and energy production, and raises costs for businesses that depend on soil, water and biodiversity. These effects can spread through supply chains and local economies.
Workers in rural and informal sectors are particularly exposed. Falling land productivity can result in:
Lower and more volatile incomes;
Seasonal or prolonged unemployment;
Deteriorating working conditions;
Food insecurity and livelihood-related migration; and
Greater dependence on informal work without social protection.
The ILO estimates that environmental disasters—many aggravated by degraded land—caused the loss of approximately 23 million working-life years annually between 2000 and 2015.
Women and Indigenous Communities Face Distinct Risks
Rural women are frequently concentrated in low-paid, informal and low-productivity agricultural work, while having weaker access to land, credit, training and decision-making. When land and water become less productive, women may face heavier unpaid work, more precarious seasonal employment and greater exposure to insecurity.
For indigenous and tribal communities, degradation can also weaken traditional livelihoods, cultural identity and relationships with ancestral land. Restoration or conservation measures may compound these effects if they restrict access without recognising customary rights or incorporating local knowledge.
The policy implication extends beyond including vulnerable groups as beneficiaries. It requires their participation in land-use decisions, restoration design and the distribution of employment and income generated by environmental programmes.
Restoration Changes Jobs Rather Than Simply Creating Them
The ILO organises employment effects into four categories:
Labour-market effect | What it means |
|---|---|
Creation | New work in restoration, water management, forestry, soil conservation and related supply chains |
Substitution | Sustainable activities replace land-degrading production or practices |
Elimination | Some jobs disappear without an immediate replacement |
Transformation | Existing occupations require different methods, skills or safety practices |
Potential occupations span farm labour, forestry, water management, ecological restoration, environmental engineering, nurseries, sustainable construction and climate-smart agriculture. Indirect opportunities may arise for equipment suppliers, logistics providers, consultants and certification services.
Net outcomes depend on how many jobs are created, which jobs disappear, where the new work is located and whether affected workers can access it.
Four Mismatches Can Exclude Workers from New Opportunities
Land-restoration programmes can generate employment while still leaving affected workers worse off.
Timing mismatch: Existing livelihoods may be restricted before restoration jobs or benefits become available. Grazing, for example, may need to pause while grasslands recover.
Location mismatch: Jobs may emerge far from the communities experiencing livelihood losses.
Skills mismatch: Farmers and workers may lack the training required for regenerative agriculture, restoration or new rural industries.
Sector mismatch: Employment may shift between sectors—such as from agriculture to ecotourism—without suitable infrastructure, information or retraining.
If these gaps are unmanaged, environmental programmes may produce unemployment, informal work, poor pay or unsafe conditions, even when ecological indicators improve.
Country Examples Show Different Employment Pathways
Uzbekistan: Cotton cultivation and water diversion contributed to the Aral Sea crisis, damaging fisheries, employment and regional livelihoods.
Burkina Faso: An ILO-supported Great Green Wall project used indigenous restoration methods to create about 300 jobs, 70% for women, while improving water retention and crop yields.
Tanzania: Desertification measures are integrated across agriculture, forestry, mining, energy, tourism and other sectors, treating land degradation as a cross-sector economic issue.
The ILO’s Recommendations
The brief recommends incorporating employment and social safeguards throughout land-degradation-neutrality policies.
Build worker and employer participation into land policy: GovernmentsNobody should approve restoration plans without discussing which livelihoods may be restricted, which jobs may change and what support will be provided.
Connect restoration with employment policy: Public works and employment-guarantee programmes can combine ecosystem rehabilitation with income support, provided the jobs offer fair wages and safe conditions.
Anticipate skills needs: Governments should identify occupational changes early and align vocational education, agricultural extension and workplace training with emerging roles.
Extend social protection: Income support should cover workers whose livelihoods are damaged by degradation as well as those temporarily displaced by restoration measures.
Support rural enterprises: MSMEs, cooperatives and social enterprises need finance, training and market access to participate in sustainable agriculture and restoration value chains.
Protect rights and safety: Green employment should comply with labour standards, including freedom of association, non-discrimination, occupational safety and access to social protection.
Improve the evidence base: Countries should map likely job gains and losses by sector, place, timing and skill level instead of assuming that restoration automatically produces net employment.
What Is a Just Transition?
A just transition seeks to move towards an environmentally sustainable economy while creating decent work and managing the costs imposed on workers, enterprises and communities.
In land policy, this means that success is measured not only by hectares restored. It also depends on whether affected people receive alternative livelihoods, relevant skills, income protection, safe working conditions and a voice in decision-making.
Policy Relevance
India has committed to restoring 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. By June 2026, the government reported that 21.76 million hectares had been brought under restoration efforts, generating approximately 1.22 billion person-days of employment.
The ILO framework shifts attention from employment generated during restoration to the quality, distribution and durability of that work.
MGNREGS provides an existing delivery mechanism: Its permissible works include water conservation, drought-proofing, afforestation and land development. The policy test is whether resulting assets improve land productivity while workers receive timely wages, safe conditions and continued livelihood opportunities.
Convergence must extend beyond environmental schemes: India’s National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, 2023 calls for coordination among restoration programmes. The ILO’s analysis adds labour departments, skill institutions, rural-development agencies and worker organisations to that coordination requirement.
Local effects require local evidence: Hectares treated and person-days generated do not show whose livelihoods changed, whether women and landless workers benefited, or whether employment continued after project completion. District-level monitoring should connect ecological recovery with income, job quality, land access and migration outcomes.
Follow the Full Policy Brief Here: Just Transition and Decent Work Implications from Land Degradation and Desertification