Category: Op-ed

The National Industrial Classification 2008 needs to be revised to capture all environment-related activities

The environment sector provides a vast opportunity to create new jobs and build a green economy. For this, the environment sector must become an important economic sector.  

What is the environment sector? How many people work in this sector? How many new jobs are needed to meet environmental challenges like the climate crisis? What is the skill gap and capacity development need of the sector? If we are serious about solving environmental problems, we need answers to these crucial questions. But unfortunately, there are no answers because we do not know the environmental sector. Let me elaborate.

The National Industrial Classification – 2008 (NIC-2008), the latest 5-digit classification system used by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) to estimate jobs and economic contribution of various sectors, has categorized all economic activities into 21 Sections, 88 Divisions, 238 Groups, 403 Classes and 1304 Sub-classes. But this vast classification system doesn’t have a Section called ‘Environment Conservation and Protection. The only place where some of the environment-related activities appear is in Section E: Sewerage, waste management and remediation activities. This section lists work related to water and wastewater treatment, material recycling and solid and hazardous waste management. But apart from these, products and services related to air pollution control, soil conservation, biodiversity protection, cleaner production, low carbon development or climate change adaptation do not appear anywhere. Therefore, in our current national statistics, there is no separate information on the economic contribution of the environment sector or the number of people working to conserve and protect the environment, a.k.a, green jobs.

But the question is, why do we need a separate environmental sector category? Aren’t environment-related activities part of all economic activities? For example, aren’t jobs related to industrial pollution control part of different industrial sectors? The answer is yes and no. While environmental activities are part of all economic sectors, we still need to categorize the environment as a separate economic sector for innovation and growth.

The critical element in the growth of any sector is money, human resource and innovation, and all three are interdepended. This interdependency can be virtuous or vicious. In a virtuous relationship, money will attract the best talent, and both money and human resources will lead to innovation. Greater innovation, in turn, will bring more money, and this cycle will continue. In a vicious cycle, the opposite happens. 

The IT sector, which accounts for nearly 8% of the country’s GDP (three times more than the mining sector), is a classic example of a virtuous relationship. This sector continues to grow because it pays good money to get the right talents; the high-quality human resources, in turn, develops new products and services and makes more money, and the cycle continues.

On the other hand, the environment sector is not exactly on the virtuous cycle. I will not say it is on a vicious cycle either, but considering the scale and pace of changes required to solve environmental crises such as climate change, land degradation and water pollution, the sector needs major innovation and growth. This is only possible with large investments and high-quality human resources. But how do you attract investments when you do not know where and how much investments are required? How do you attract talent when you do not know what kind of jobs are needed today and tomorrow? Basically, how can a sector grow when it doesn’t exist formally? Therefore, to develop this critical sector, we need to define it as a formal economic sector by mapping its economic outputs and jobs.

Obviously, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) and CSO have a critical role in revising the NIC and developing a new industrial classification system that captures all environment-related activities. But institutions outside the government will also have a significant role to play in building this field. For instance, we at iFOREST have recently mapped the Air Quality Management (AQM) sub-sector, and the results are fascinating. We found that:

• At least 2.8 lakh organizations,  industries and mines require personnel to monitor, plan, prevent and control air pollution.
• There are at least 42 different kinds of jobs in AQM. From municipal workers involved in dust control to air quality modelling and forecasting specialists to transport planners, AQM requires personnel with diverse skills. 
• In totality, an estimated 22 lakh direct and indirect jobs are required to manage air pollution in the country. Most of these jobs are blue-collar jobs such as the operator of pollution control equipment in industries, operator of PUC centres (who checks tailpipes of vehicles) and municipal workers. They are the frontline workers but have never been considered part of the sector and made aware of their vital role in managing air quality.
• There are tens of thousands of white-collar jobs, but there aren’t enough qualified personnel to take up these jobs. We estimated that the AQM sub-sector can provide at least 50,000 new white-collar jobs, ranging from researchers and analysts to air quality managers in cities and inspectors in pollution control boards.
• The challenge in the AQM in India is that the people presently working in the sector have not been trained, and a large number of jobs that are required do not exist.

If the AQM sub-sector alone needs hundreds of thousands of people, then think about the potential of the entire environment sector? The bottom line is that we have to view the environment sector as an opportunity to create new jobs and build a green economy. While many of the existing jobs lead to the destruction of the environment, we must start creating jobs to protect the environment. For this, the environment sector must become an important economic sector.

Faith-based organisations can be strategic actors in supporting environmental action. The climate crisis demands collaboration between countries and communities

We Indians love to speak about our religious and cultural heritage of protecting the environment. And, we do have a vast heritage to boast about. Our sacred texts are full of messages for protecting and conserving the environment.

But are contemporary religious leaders and faith-based organisations (FBOs) promoting environmental protection? How are religious leaders and FBOs responding to crises like global warming and species extinction? How are they informing and engaging their followers on these issues? Last year, my colleagues and I started investigating these questions along the Ganga basin. We wanted to know about the involvement of FBOs on issues such as pollution of the Ganga, waste management, and climate crisis.

We interviewed leaders from all faiths and surveyed about 150 temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras, and ashrams. We also interacted with close to 40 NGOs, trusts, and associations with religious affiliations. The survey was done in seven cities of the Ganga basin in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand—Rudraprayag, Rishikesh, Haridwar, Kanpur, Lucknow Prayagraj, and Varanasi. But before I discuss the findings, a disclaimer is warranted: This is not an all-India survey, and the findings should not be interpreted as such. A similar study might throw significantly different results in other parts of the country. But, considering that the Ganga is regarded as one of the most sacred rivers, the perception of religious leaders of the Ganga basin provides insights into engaging religious organisations on environmental issues.

So, what did we find? Firstly (and surprisingly), there is near unanimity in how religious leaders view the environment. Leaders of all faiths viewed it mainly in terms of cleanliness and greenery. For them, protecting the environment essentially meant keeping the surroundings clean and planting trees. They could not relate to issues such as air pollution, biodiversity loss, or even river pollution. In fact, we found a glaring lack of awareness on most environmental issues. For example, many religious leaders did not view the throwing of religious offerings into Ganga as a polluting activity.

Second, there is minimal involvement of FBOs in environmental protection. Less than 10% of the respondents reported some level of engagement. These are typically the big religious organisations with a strong institutional base and funding support. However, their focus is limited to tree plantation, organic farming and composting, and, in some cases, water management and minimisation of waste. Only 6% of FBOs were doing some work to protect the Ganga, with most of them being engaged in cleaning the ghats.

One of the key reasons these actors are not engaging in environmental issues is that they do not view it as part of their mission. Instead, they think it is the government’s job. They, therefore, couldn’t visualise any significant role for themselves in environmental protection.

Third, and most worryingly, very few were aware of the climate crisis and its causes. And the few who understood global warming defined it as “an act of God”, “end of the world”, and “human sin”. They were pessimistic about the ability of people to solve this crisis.

However, what is encouraging is that when explained, they were not dismissive of the need of the religious leaders to engage in environmental issues. They also agreed that a mass engagement is necessary, and they can play a role in such mobilisation. But they demanded capacity-building support and resources.

So, should we rope in religious actors and leverage their influence to build engagement of the masses on environmental issues? If yes, then how? It is undeniable that we live in a religious world, and faith is a powerful driver in shaping the behaviour of a large majority of the world’s population. As the world becomes more uncertain due to climate crisis, pandemics, and resource conflict, people will lean more on faith for succour. Therefore, the influence of religious leaders and FBOs will further increase in the future.

For this reason, FBOs should be viewed as strategic actors to propagate the value of environmental protection and conservation. They can influence vast numbers of people, which is amply demonstrated by the likes of Jaggi Vasudev. In the last few years, he reached out to a far greater number of people on environmental issues such as river rejuvenation, tree plantation and soil health than all environmental organisations put together. While one can question Sadhguru’s approach and solutions (and some of his antics), one should not ignore his reach and appeal.

We must, therefore, deliberately engage with religious and spiritual leaders and organisations by devising a comprehensive programme to increase their capacity on environmental issues. This could include inter-faith interactions, demonstration of eco-friendly technologies at religious sites, and knowledge workshops. But most importantly, they must be supported and encouraged to mainstream environmentally-responsible values and behaviour in the devotees.

While religion has shaped human history primarily by dividing people, the climate crisis now demands unprecedented collaboration between countries and communities. For this, we will have to leverage the power of religion to drive a unity of purpose to protect the planet.