Unconditional Cash Pilot in Peru's Amazon: Nearly 90% of Participants Take Environmental Action, but Ecological Outcomes Remain to Be Verified

According to The Guardian, a team from the University of Bath analyzed an unconditional cash pilot conducted in the Asháninka area of the Peruvian Amazon. Over two years, the British charity Cool Earth paid 211 people in three communities 1,032 Peruvian soles on each of six occasions, equivalent to roughly £2 per day, according to the project's estimate. Participants could decide for themselves how to use the money and were not required to prove how it was spent.

The report said nearly 90% of participants collectively reforested, restored critical water sources and reduced forest burning during the pilot. It also recorded two livelihood changes: the share of families unable to afford nutritious food fell from 73% to 26%, while the share of participants forced to leave their homes in search of work fell from 43% to 18%. Co-author Dr Nick Landrith said greater economic security and autonomy made people better able to protect the ecosystems on which their livelihoods depended. The project's authors also said it was the first time this kind of unconditional basic income had been provided to Indigenous communities in the Amazon.

The pilot recorded not only environmental behavior but also livelihood indicators. It was co-designed with a local women's group and separately offered community-led education on finance, forest protection and climate change; participation in those educational activities was voluntary. Participants could decide for themselves how to use the cash, and receiving the payments did not depend on meeting conditions set by an outside organization. Lead author Dr Neil Howard said the arrangement reduced the economic incentive to develop or abandon land and enabled Indigenous people to take a more dignified place at the center of conservation policy; in his view, this was in sharp contrast to conservation and Indigenous policies during the colonial era.

The Guardian placed the project within the broader debate over cash transfers. Brazil's government family benefits program makes children's education a condition of receiving support, while green cash schemes require participants to complete specific conservation activities. Conditional payments tie funding to prescribed behavior, but also raise institutional questions: conservation goals defined by outside organizations may conflict with communities' own livelihood choices. The core difference in the pilot was that communities did not first have to prove they met external standards in order to receive support.

Unconditional cash does not inherently benefit forests. Other scholars noted that similar projects in some areas led to increased agricultural production as incomes rose, with research documenting a corresponding increase in deforestation. The Guardian also noted that cash had been used in parts of the Amazon to buy motorcycles and cars, increasing demand for roads. If the project were expanded, assessments would need to determine whether agricultural expansion and pressure on roads would offset communities' forest-protection efforts, rather than merely counting tree-planting or fire-reduction activities.

The available evidence has clear limits. The pilot lasted two years and covered slightly more than 500 hectares of forest. The research did not measure changes in vegetation or soil quality, nor did it consider the effects of other projects on community behavior. Because the pilot also included voluntary educational activities, it could not attribute all of the actions taken by nearly 90% of participants solely to the cash. The scale—two years, three communities and 211 people—was also insufficient to represent other Indigenous groups in the Amazon or the pressures on land in different regions.

The pilot also raised questions about how conservation costs and decision-making power are distributed. Indigenous lands are under pressure from mining, logging, agricultural expansion and land grabbers. If external funding makes receipt conditional on reducing logging or completing specified conservation activities, decision-making power over forest use may remain with the funders while the responsibility for conservation falls on those whose livelihoods depend most heavily on the forest. The Guardian reported that local women's groups participated in the co-design, but did not explain how budgets, evaluation data and final decision-making authority were allocated. Verifiable information is still lacking on whether the project truly changed power relations within the colonial conservation model.

Before expanding the project, researchers would need at least longer follow-up and a larger sample, direct measurement of changes in vegetation, soil and fire activity, and records of whether agricultural expansion, vehicle purchases and road construction offset forest-protection efforts. They would also need to clarify communities' control over budgets, research materials and the interpretation of results. The project's authors acknowledged the need for a larger study. These factors should be assessed together to distinguish short-term behavioral changes from long-term ecological effects and determine whether unconditional cash strengthened communities' autonomy over their land and future.