Employment

During the construction period in 2004, the villagers of Soda village say that they gained employment for approximately two weeks. They worked only for Suzlon, but not directly; they worked for contractors from Jaisalmer hired by Suzlon. The villagers of Akal did not find employment during the construction period of the WEGs for RRB Energy and Suzlon. During the construction period in 2004 in Soda village, Suzlon hired contractors from Jaisalmer who again paid the villagers 70,000 rupees (approximately US$1500) for building roads and Table 4. Social Indicators

Dimension Criteria Indicators Descriptions of benefits not included in each criteria

Social benefits Employment Creation of new jobs and

employment opportunities including

Welfare Improvement of local living and working conditions including safety, community or rural upliftment, reduced traffic congestion, poverty alleviation and income redistribution through e. g. increased municipal tax revenues.

Tax benefits used in support of economic development is accounted as an economic benefit. Tax benefits used for public service purposes are welfare benefits.

Other benefits Corporate social responsibility

Support for ongoing corporate social responsibility activities that are indirect or derived benefits of the CDM project activity.

working on the control rooms. The money was divided among all the men who worked– in their words, the entire village. Now there are eight men in the village working as security guards on the Suzlon windmill sites, and they are paid 3000 rupees (approximately US$65) a month.

There are approximately 20 people from Akal working for both Suzlon and RRB Energy as security guards. The payment is the same as in Soda village. One of the men I interviewed has been working as a security guard for the past three years. He works 10 hours a day and sometimes also during nights, but none of

the security guards are paid more for nightshifts. The security guard expressed that he wanted higher wages; he worked in the city before and made more money.

During the construction period of the Enercon WEGs the villagers of Soda were not employed at all. They are dissatisfied with how Enercon executed the project, because the villagers have not gained from it. According to the villagers, Enercon has not offered them any type of services after the windmills became operational.

Nor have any of the villagers been employed as security guards by Enercon.

The companies prefer to give the villagers work as casual laborers or security guards because the villagers are uneducated. Enercon has also employed some villagers as canteen servants. Both Enercon and Suzlon support the villagers through CSR activities. All three companies state in their PDDs that poverty alleviation will be achieved by “(...) establishing direct and indirect employment benefits (Suzlon PDD 2006a:3, RRB Energy PDD 2006: 4)” either through investment in a backwards area or through short-term employment. Suzlon states that, in the projects located at Soda and Baramsar villages, the impact on the villagers is downplayed because they “(...) are nothing but scattered hamlets of few habitants residing near the project site” (Suzlon PDD 2006a: 25). RRB Energy writes in their PDD (RRB Energy PDD 2006: 25): “The project activity has been implemented in the barren area where no human habitation is present within the radius of 3-4 km.”

The men in both villages wanted more employment, but the villagers of Soda were happy with the medical services they have received from Suzlon. In Soda village the men stated that their situation had not improved since the WEGs were erected, even in terms of having more money. They wanted more employment especially from Enercon. The villagers told the story of being thrown in jail by those who run the windmills. They are allowed to let their animals graze on the windmill sites during daytime, but when it gets dark they are not allowed onto the sites. One time some of the villagers went looking for their lost animals during night time. But the security guards on the windmill site stopped them and

accused them of stealing. The village men were put in jail for this accused crime, and had to spend money on attorneys to get them out of jail and resolve the matter. The villagers expressed anger with the companies for this. They have lost money because of the legal case with one of the companies and with regards to the irrigation problems.

The villagers of Akal expressed that they had not suffered any losses due to the WEGs. Those who are employed as security guards are content, while those who are not employed want jobs as security guards. They also mentioned that they could work as mechanics, but none of them have a formal education: i.e., a diploma documenting their mechanical skills.

The construction of the windmill sites around Soda and Akal villages has made a contribution to employment in form of new job creation. However, the majority of the jobs offered to the villagers have been short-term, in form of casual labor during construction. There is also reason for questioning if employment

opportunities were given to the villagers because the projects are registered as CDM. The Suzlon engineer explained that villagers are hired on a needs basis;

this is irrespective of CDM status.

CDM projects in renewable energy are not designed to alleviate rural poverty, according to Sirohi (2007). They are rarely directed towards improvements in the agricultural sector, nor do they provide paid and long-term employment for the most vulnerable groups (rural poor) and in the most affected geographical areas (the poverty stricken states). CDM projects offer long-term employment

opportunities only for those with technical and advanced skills. The rural poor do not possess such skills and Sirohi states that “(…) even in the areas where CDM activities are coming up, it would not be surprising that the employment growth in operation of CDM projects may totally by-pass the rural poor” (2007:99). A lack of skills was the main reason for why villagers were not employed by the wind power companies.

In Soda village the villagers have suffered due to companies need for security.

Because the security guards who accused them for stealing are not from their village, i.e., didn't know them, they have lost money on resolving a conflict with the wind power company. There hasn't been any conflict in Akal because the security guards on the sites closest to their village are their own people. The wind power companies consider all villagers as the same; there is no differentiation between who they hire as security, casual laborers or contractors on which site. It is the process of hiring “some locals” which is valued as important and as a contribution to poverty alleviation. The companies would gain more in the sense of good perception and acceptance for their projects if they were more stringent in the process of providing employment for villagers. This can be interpreted from statements by Soda villagers were very happy with Suzlon, which gave them work during construction and afterwards, while they are utterly dissatisfied with Enercon. In Akal the majority of the men are still not content, even though 20 are employed as security guards. They did not gain employment during construction from either Suzlon or RRB Energy, nor did they manage to convince the companies to use the villagers’ machines during construction.

The PDDs for these projects show that none of the project proponents are under the impression that wind power might have an adverse effect on the people who live in proximity to the projects:

“Generally the stakeholder comments are invited at the initial stage of the project. Wind energy being an environment friendly process of electricity generation, the project proponent did not envisage any adverse effect on the local stakeholders, instead it was expected to improve the rural infrastructure and bring in socio-economic development in the locality” (Suzlon PDD 2006b:21).

“Various stakeholders from the above mentioned groups were consulted at various phases of the project from inception to implementation. However the stakeholders raised no concerns as this power project is based on renewable wind resource, harnessed within the region. More over, this project activity also brings various environmental and social developments within the region” (Enercon PDD 2005: 46).

Even though RRB Energy does not recognize that there is a village in proximity to the WEGs, they still claim that the project will: “(...) contribute to the

sustainable development of the region, socially, environmentally and economically (RRB Energy PDD 2006: 3).”

The companies claim what Olsen and Fenhann call a tautological argument: “(...) energy projects contribute to sustainable development because they produce energy (2008:2823).” I will also claim that the arguments presented by the wind power companies in their PDDs show that they assume wind power creates a win-win situation for all who are affected by it. The companies equate

development with modernization and argue that, by modernizing, there will be an immanent progress of the whole society. Subramanian, secretary general of the Indian Wind Energy Association, also expressed that wind power is beneficial for all. He offered this as his response to the question of whether CDM projects can benefit local people:

“Most companies who are setting up the wind farms they also take certain

responsibilities. You have quoted an instance of roads blocking the water, but there are villagers who got roads because of wind project, which were not connected earlier. (…) Wind again: there is a limited scope of a non-skilled labor being deported in (Recording unclear) …. if there are qualified people in the villages they will take them. This happens in every industry all over the country; be it in steel mills, steel plants, aluminum plants, rice mills. These things get taken care of by the entrepreneurs and sometimes by the government. I'll tell you an example of a wind farm I visited in Kerala. Just two to three weeks before I visited, they said that since commission there are about 20 to 30 new shops that have come on the road which leads up to the project.

All selling; Pepsi, cigarettes, biscuits, bread. I mean that has become a picnic site, schools come in batches to see a windmill and go back. All the shops are selling tea, coffee, Coca-Cola, Pepsi. This is brought up the economy of the village; nobody is going to object to it. I mean, it’s about how much of the local people's aspirations can a business meet? And then they have to take it. It cannot be directly, if they ask me to be a mechanic in the wind farm, I'm not capable. I'm not a mechanic.”

Both ecological modernization and sustainable development imply that there is a potential for creating mutually beneficial situations when doing business. The difference between the two approaches can be found in the hierarchy of priorities. Ultimately, the approach of sustainable development puts the fulfillment of primary needs of the poor first. In order to fulfill that primary objective, businesses may have to accept some loss of profits. Only in that way can development, understood as intentional (Thomas 2000), be sustainable.

Ecological modernization, on the other hand, assumes that development is inherent in the modernization process and implies improvement for the whole society. There are therefore no priorities determining which groups within the society should benefit from development. In the case of wind power projects in Jaisalmer, that would entail benefits for all who are affected by introducing an improvement in the overall energy system: i.e., wind power generators. The cases of Akal and Soda villages indicate that the benefits are not equally shared by all;

rather, those who are most affected by wind power projects have gained the least.