A recent issue of Unasylva1 – the FAO’s forestry journal – featured articles about ways in which creating green jobs could be an environmentally appropriate response to the worldwide economic downturn. This is a generally appealing and plausible idea, harkening back to the role that forming and building some of the national parks in the US played in boosting employment during the great depression; the National Parks Service was created in this effort, which is an example of how progress toward ecosystem conservation and protection can be made while promoting economic development in times of economic strife.
One of the articles in this volume focused on India, arguing that funds must be increased for the National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) programs (guarantees 100 days of paid employment) and that this funding be used to pay rural households affected by the economic downturn to work on forest conservation projects. This would increase, not initiate, a trend of forestry projects offering wage employment to rural households. Presently, India’s Joint Forest Management (JFM) program creates rural employment by offering payments for forest maintenance tasks like planting seedlings, building erosion barriers or digging water tanks.
The contribution of wage employment in rural is an important part of the economic puzzle; combined with other livelihoods, temporary wage employment can provide cushioning for households, especially in times of crisis, like when droughts reduce agricultural productivity. This important contribution should not be overlooked, and its increase should be pursued to help boost the economic wellbeing of rural households while supporting important forest ecosystems.
However, despite its clear benefits, wage employment for rural households should not be seen as a permanent solution to supporting rural livelihoods or improving ecosystems. In addition to increased temporary wage opportunities during this economic crisis, the long-term viability of rural livelihoods in rural and India and their connection to local natural resources, including forests, should also be taken into consideration. Many households in rural India are directly dependent on forests and other natural resources for their daily needs and livelihoods: they collect fuelwood, food, small timber, and a varieties of forest products for their own consumption and for selling. This is especially true for the poorest, most vulnerable households that do not enjoy large land holdings. While this pattern of dependence may at some point decline, for the foreseeable future the welfare of such households will be closely tied to local forests, watersheds, pastures, among other local natural resources.
To support households in rural India over the long term, they must be afforded greater decision-making powers and more secure tenure arrangements over the resources they depend on daily. In addition to these rights, governments and NGOs must support local communities in resource management around the development of sustainable management institutions and regimes that would provide appropriate resource-use rules and norms for ecosystem conservation while also allowing rural households to meet daily needs. In the long term, we want not just green jobs in rural India, but green careers that benefit both households and ecosystems simultaneously.
1 Unasylva 233, Vol. 60, 2009
