Why the Fight Against Desertification Must Become a Jobs and Livelihoods Agenda

The ILO is urging governments to build employment protection into land restoration policies as degradation undermines rural incomes. Restoring ecosystems can generate work, but gaps in timing, location and skills may leave affected workers without viable alternatives, making income support, training and labour rights essential to managing the transition.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is calling for employment protection to become part of land restoration policy, warning that environmental recovery can disrupt livelihoods even as it creates new work. Its September 2026 policy brief examines how governments can address degradation without leaving affected workers to absorb the costs of changing land use.

In Just Transition and Decent Work Implications from Land Degradation and Desertification, the ILO applies its just-transition framework to rural employment and sustainable land management. The approach combines environmental action with labour rights, enterprise support and income protection, extending a policy concept more commonly associated with decarbonisation.

The brief cites an estimate that around 1.2 billion jobs depend on healthy ecosystems. The figure describes employment dependence, not a forecast of jobs disappearing. It nevertheless indicates how widely deteriorating land, water and biodiversity can affect economic activity and why restoration policies need to account for workers alongside environmental outcomes.

Falling productivity can deepen existing employment insecurity

Land degradation affects workers through declining productivity and the businesses that depend on natural resources. Lower farm yields can weaken earnings and labour demand, while damaged forests, depleted water supplies and deteriorating landscapes can affect forestry, fisheries, tourism and energy production. Enterprises supplying these sectors face indirect exposure.

For rural households, losing work is only one possible consequence. The ILO warns that degradation can also worsen pay, working conditions and access to skills development. Where employment is already informal or poorly protected, workers may continue earning a living from land while becoming less able to withstand further environmental or economic shocks.

Women face particular constraints because insecure land tenure, limited finance and exclusion from decisions can restrict their ability to adapt. The brief links falling productivity to more precarious seasonal work and highlights how food and water scarcity can increase risks for women and girls. Training alone cannot resolve disadvantages rooted in access to resources.

Pastoralists and Indigenous and tribal peoples also depend on access arrangements that conventional job-creation measures may overlook. Restrictions on grazing, water or forest resources can undermine livelihoods and traditional practices. The brief cautions that conservation measures themselves can cause harm when they exclude communities from decisions or limit access without adequate safeguards.

These pressures complicate the division between environmental protection and economic interests. Some activities that support employment also contribute to degradation, including unsustainable agriculture and resource-intensive industries. Governments must therefore manage changes in production while protecting people whose incomes currently depend on those activities.

New jobs may arrive too late or beyond workers' reach

The ILO identifies four possible employment effects of land-management changes: jobs created, jobs substituted, jobs eliminated without replacement and existing occupations transformed. Restoration can generate work in reforestation, erosion control, water conservation and soil rehabilitation, alongside demand for equipment, transport, nurseries and technical services.

Timing creates an immediate difficulty. Grazing or cultivation may need to pause while land recovers, leaving households without sufficient income before alternative activities become viable. Opportunities may also emerge in another region, where displaced workers cannot readily move or where infrastructure and suitable labour are unavailable.

Skills and sectoral differences introduce further barriers. Farmers adopting regenerative practices may need technical training, while workers moving from forestry or agriculture into ecotourism face a different occupational transition. More vacancies do not necessarily improve prospects for the people losing their existing livelihoods.

The Burkina Faso example in the brief shows one way to connect restoration with local employment. An ILO-supported initiative used traditional soil and water conservation techniques and reported approximately 300 jobs, with women filling 70 per cent. The account illustrates an approach, but does not establish long-term job security or outcomes achievable elsewhere.

Restoration budgets must cover the employment transition

The ILO's recommendations span nine areas: macroeconomic and growth policies, industrial and sectoral policies, enterprise policies, skills development, occupational safety and health, social protection, active labour-market policies, rights and social dialogue. Their practical purpose is coordination: restrictions on land use, business investment, worker training and income support need compatible schedules and objectives.

Public investment can support resource rehabilitation and resilient infrastructure, while sectoral policies can anticipate where production and employment will change. Small enterprises, cooperatives and other rural businesses may need affordable finance, technical assistance and training to participate. Enterprise support must address the capacity to adopt sustainable practices, not simply encourage participation.

Social protection and employment programmes can support workers during interruptions and help unemployed people enter restoration activities. The brief identifies public works and employment-guarantee schemes among the options. Skills policies should assess gaps, update training and recognise qualifications, while safety measures address risks including heat, chemicals and hazardous outdoor work.

Social dialogue gives employers and workers a role in designing, implementing and evaluating these policies. The ILO proposes stronger national consultation mechanisms and consideration of government, employer and worker representation in UNCCD delegations. Its emphasis on collective bargaining, non-discrimination and organising rights also makes clear that environmental employment must meet labour standards.

Implementation remains insufficiently understood. The brief calls for country-specific research on transition risks, enterprise needs, productivity and competitiveness. Governments adopting its recommendations will need evidence showing which workers gain access to replacement livelihoods, how long support is required and whether restoration employment lasts. Without those answers, environmental progress can coexist with continuing insecurity for the communities doing the work.