Public works for nature

Creating jobs opportunities for those in need while restoring planetary health

👉🏽 This story is developed as part of the Doughnut Economics for Policymakers guide.

Governments can implement long-term employment programmes that provide training and income for those most in need while simultaneously restoring planetary health. Evidence from large-scale national programmes show these initiatives can deliver economic, social and ecological benefits. 

Overview

Many governments fund labour-intensive initiatives that provide work for those who struggle to find jobs or maintain regular income, often known as Public Employment or Public Works Programmes. Some are specifically designed to restore planetary health while creating employment opportunities. 

One pioneer was the Civilian Conservation Corps in the USA, which employed nearly 3 million young unemployed men between 1933 and 1942 to carry out nature conservation projects on public lands. Current large-scale national programmes include:

  • India guarantees at least 125 days of employment per year for rural households. Launched in 2005, its rural employment guarantee scheme provides jobs for approximately 120 million people annually, making it the world's largest Public Employment Programme. About 65% of programme expenditure supports natural resource management such as water conservation, watershed management and afforestation.
  • South Africa has created more than 14 million job opportunities since 2004 with dedicated efforts to train and employ women, youths, and people with disabilities. Local communities have been trained and employed to carry out ecological restoration such as removing invasive species and watershed management, infrastructure construction and maintenance, and social service provision.
  • Ethiopia provides jobs or unconditional cash transfers to food-insecure households. More than 1.5 million people have engaged in work created for reforestation, soil and water conservation, and rangeland management.


Other governments including New Zealand and Pakistan have implemented similar programmes at varying scales in recent years.

Implementation

These programmes typically provide temporary, manual labour at or around minimum wage to complement income from other activities. Work is usually guaranteed for a set period annually, with participants maintaining an ongoing relationship with the programme for part-time work during certain seasons. Central governments typically identify strategic sectors where jobs should be created, while designated ministries and local governments determine actual activities, including which ecological restoration efforts are most appropriate locally. Most programmes provide targeted training for participants including ecological education.

Programme design varies by governance structure (centrally versus locally led), target beneficiaries (youth, women, people with disabilities, food-insecure families), types of work (water conservation, afforestation, invasive species removal), and payment mechanisms (wages, food transfers, or cash transfers). Programmes are often initiated and financed by central governments, sometimes with contributions from sub-national governments or donor agencies, with local authorities as critical implementors.

Clearing invasive species in South Africa
Clearing invasive species in South Africa


Impacts

Social  benefits: These programmes can boost local economies and provide crucial social protection during crisis. They can increase household earnings, reduce poverty, and in some contexts push up private-sector wages as workers gain bargaining power. Well-designed programmes provide essential support to marginalised communities while fostering community participation and social cohesion.

Ecological benefits: These programmes have contributed to increased tree cover, restored wetlands and coastlines, removal of invasive species, improved water security through watershed management, and enhanced agricultural productivity and climate resilience through communal nature stewardship.

Challenges

  • Complexity and accessibility: Registration processes can be overly complex, making it difficult for beneficiaries to access programmes or track application status, creating barriers that particularly affect the most deprived communities.
  • Administrative capacity: Programme effectiveness depends heavily on administrative capacity at implementation level. Delays in wage payments, contract approvals, and application processing can be especially harmful for vulnerable participants.
  • Adequate compensation and working conditions: Wage rates frequently lag behind market wages, and payments can be significantly delayed. Work conditions can sometimes be poor; for example, lack of drinking water on site.
  • Cultural and regional adaptation: When programmes are designed top-down with rigid implementation rules and evaluation structures, local implementation can be ineffective due to lack of flexibility to adapt to different contexts.
  • Funding sustainability: Without wider economic reforms that address inequality and degenerative industrial practices, such programmes face increasing funding pressures as more people need support while public finances dwindle. Political changes in central, local governments or donor governments can impact programme implementation and reduce funding availability.
  • Balancing ecological and social goals: Immediate job creation, economic and political concerns can be given priorities over long-term ecological considerations, compromising long-term sustainability. 


Reference and further reading


👉🏽 Click here to go back to the guide.

Contents


    Comments

    0 comments

    Join the DEAL Community!

    Get inspired, connect with others and become part of the movement. No matter how big or small your contribution is, you’re welcome to join!