Peru pilot links unconditional income with reported rainforest stewardship
The story at a glance
A two-year pilot in three Indigenous communities in Peru combined unconditional payments with voluntary training. A University of Bath evaluation reports improved household wellbeing and increased participation in several conservation practices.12
The findings offer an encouraging account of community-level practice, but do not demonstrate that the programme reduced deforestation. The evaluation had no control group and did not directly measure forest condition.13
The story in brief
What you need to know
- The pilot provided unconditional payments to 211 people across three Asháninka and Yanesha communities, alongside voluntary training on finance, Indigenous rights, governance, conservation and climate resilience.13
- The evaluation reports that the share of households unable to afford nutritious food fell from 73% to 26%. Reported labour migration also declined, from 43% to 18%.13
- Participants reported greater involvement in practices including reforestation, protecting water sources and reducing forest burning. These findings describe reported activities, not measured changes in rainforest condition.123
- The findings come from a small programme in three communities in the central Peruvian Amazon. The study combined surveys and qualitative research, but its design cannot establish that the programme caused the reported changes.13
- Because payments were paired with training and community organising, the evaluation cannot separate the effects of cash from those of the accompanying activities.12
Conservation context
Why this matters
The evaluation points to a possible connection between household wellbeing and participation in conservation practices. For practitioners, the results raise questions about how social support and locally relevant activities might work together, while underlining the need to test environmental outcomes directly.123
The developing story
What happens next
The evaluation calls for follow-up over a longer period and for more direct ecological indicators. Further evidence would be needed to establish whether reported practices lead to sustained improvements in forest condition, and to clarify which parts of the programme contribute to any change.13
Established evidence
What we know
- The University of Bath evaluation used baseline and endline surveys, 24 interviews and three focus groups. The endline survey included 82 participants.1
- The programme paired cash transfers with a complementary training programme and community activities, rather than testing payments in isolation.123
- The evaluation describes its study period as relatively short and identifies the lack of a control group as a limitation.13
Open questions
What we don't know
- It remains unclear whether the reported conservation practices resulted in sustained reductions in forest loss or improvements in ecological condition.13
- The study cannot determine how much of the reported change was attributable to payments, training, community organising or other influences.12
- The evaluation does not establish whether similar results would occur in communities with different conservation priorities, land pressures or access to services.13
- The available findings do not settle whether the programme can be sustained and adapted while maintaining Indigenous control over its design and delivery.1
Source coverage
