How the pilot worked

A University of Bath study reports that an unconditional basic income pilot contributed to rainforest protection in the Peruvian Amazon. The two-year pilot was managed by the UK-based charity Cool Earth.

• 211 people in three communities in Peru's Asháninka region took part
• Each received six cash transfers of 1,032 Peruvian soles, roughly £2 a day
• The project was drawn up with local women's groups
• It is described as the first unconditional basic income offered to an Indigenous community in the Amazon

What changed for communities and forest

The study recorded widespread adoption of environmentally beneficial practices: nearly 90% of participants took up measures such as collective reforestation, restoration of critical water sources and reductions of forest burning.

Living conditions shifted as well during the trial:

• Households unable to afford nutritious food fell from 73% to 26%
• The share of participants forced to leave home to find work fell from 43% to 18%
• Researchers said this allowed more people to remain and protect the forest

Researchers on why cash helps conservation

Dr Nick Langridge, co-author of the study, linked the results to people's circumstances: "The findings suggest that when communities have greater security and autonomy, they are better able to protect the ecosystems they depend on."

Lead author Dr Neil Howard said the approach helps ethical conservation and contrasts with the colonial history of conservation and Indigenous policy. Alongside the payments, the pilot delivered a voluntary "cash plus" complementary programme of community-led education on finance, conservation and climate change.

Caution and limits of the study

Other academics caution that unconditional cash transfers elsewhere have been linked to increased deforestation, as people use the extra cash to expand agriculture. In parts of the Amazon, cash payments are used to buy motorbikes and cars, which increases demand for more roads, and communities travelling to cities to collect transfers face drug exposure.

The study itself covered little over 500 hectares (1,235 acres) of forest, did not measure changes in vegetation or soil quality, and did not account for the influence of other projects.

Howard described the pilot as experimental and said "we could do with something much larger". The results have excited the cash-for-conservation network of civil society organisations.