Nature and Biodiversity

Why a global 'conservation basic income' could be a shrewd investment

The cost of a global conservation basic income would be at least US$351 billion each year, and maybe as much as US$6.73 trillion.

The cost of a global conservation basic income would be at least US$351 billion each year, and maybe as much as US$6.73 trillion. Image: Unsplash/Piotr Usewicz

Emiel de Lange
Visiting researcher, The University of Edinburgh
Jocelyne Sze
PhD Candidate in Conservation and Biodiversity, University of Sheffield
Robert Fletcher
Associate Professor, Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Nature and Biodiversity?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Nature and Biodiversity is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Biodiversity Finance

  • A global conservation basic income (CBI) has the potential to cost trillions of dollars, but it remains a wise investment due to its long-term benefits.
  • The CBI aims to provide financial support to local communities living near and protecting natural areas, incentivizing conservation efforts and promoting sustainable practices.
  • Research suggests that by investing in the CBI, we can secure the preservation of critical ecosystems, mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity, and support sustainable development.
  • The conservation basic income can address the root causes of environmental degradation by addressing poverty, reducing pressure on natural resources, and fostering a sense of stewardship among communities.

Imagine governments were to simply transfer money, unconditionally, to people living in or using key conservation areas throughout the world, from Indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest to cattle herders roaming the plains of East Africa or fisherfolk living in coastal Indonesia. This is the conservation basic income, or CBI, a recent proposal modelled on the popular concept of a universal basic income.

We have calculated a global CBI would cost at least US$351 billion each year, and maybe as much as US$6.73 trillion. Our research is published in the journal Nature Sustainability. Either way, it’s an enormous figure, considerably more than the roughly US$133 billion that governments currently spend on conservation each year.

However, considering these payments could safeguard the estimated US$44 trillion in global economic production that is dependent on nature, it would represent a shrewd investment in safeguarding our natural world.


How does the World Economic Forum encourage biological diversity?

Just, equitable and sustainable

Conservation strategies typically involve establishing protected areas or generating income through tourism or carbon storage. But these top-down schemes often impose substantial costs on Indigenous people and local communities, and they often don’t provide enough revenue to replace lost livelihoods, or offer adequate alternatives to the extractive industries that sustain overconsumption in developed nations.

Conservation payments might be an alternative to working in the palm oil industry.
Conservation payments might be an alternative to working in the palm oil industry. Image: KYTan / shutterstock

There are good reasons to think a conservation basic income is a good idea and would make things more just, equitable and sustainable. For instance, unconditional cash payments could help people to improve their lives in a way that is aligned with their own worldviews, while alleviating poverty traps that often force them to overexploit wildlife and other natural resources.

Similarly, payments could enable residents to resist expropriation of their lands, or having to grow cash crops for exports or sell their labour to destructive industries. It could also free up time for community activism and social participation, strengthening local institutions and decision-making. All of this could reduce the sway of populist politics and manipulation by extractive industry and could help rebalance the historic drain of resources from the global south.

Expensive… but valuable

So we knew that CBI has some promise – in theory. But we wanted to know how much it might cost. And to do that, we’d have to estimate how many people might receive payments, and how much they’d each receive.

At its least ambitious, covering only the most key biodiversity areas, we estimated a CBI would mean paying around 232 million people worldwide. A more ambitious plan, covering all existing protected areas, would affect 318 million people, of which 238 million are in low and middle income countries including 70 million in China alone. A much more comprehensive CBI, covering the 44% of the Earth’s surface required to safeguard all biodiversity, would mean payments to an astonishing 1.6 billion people.

We considered a few plausible payment rates. The first was a flat payment of US$5.50 (£4.42) per person per day, regardless of the country they were in. That figure was chosen as it is considered a global poverty threshold. The second involved paying people 25% of their country’s per capita gross domestic product.

The third involved paying the poverty line for that country’s income group (that is, US$1.90 (£1.53) per day in a low-income country, or US$3.20 (£2.57) in lower-middle income countries, US$5.50(£4.42) in upper-middle income countries and US$21.70 (£17.42) in high-income countries).

When we applied these different payment rates to the various population estimates, we generated a range of possible costs. That’s why, depending on the areas and payment rates chosen, we estimate a conservation basic income could cost between US$350 billion and US$6.73 trillion per year.

One middle-of-the-road option would be to pay US$5.50 per day to residents of existing protected areas in low and middle-income countries – that would cost US$478 billion each year.

Again, this is a huge number. But it is well within the amounts that conservationists assert is necessary to effectively protect nature around the world, and less than the up to US$500 billion governments are estimated to spend on subsidising harmful industries each year.

Have you read?

Will it work?

We know roughly what a global CBI would cost, but we still need some evidence that it would actually work. Locally-led pilot schemes are therefore an important next step and should help shed light on issues that could arise in implementation. For example, would the payments induce migration into conservation areas? Or how can schemes be inclusive of non-resident resource users or migratory populations, such as the livestock herders of Central Asia?

Excitingly, there are already proposals for CBI schemes in several locations. In Indonesian New Guinea, one of the most biodiverse yet also poorest regions in the world, a recent report highlighted that a basic income scheme could be generated through dividends from sales of carbon credits (bearing in mind their limitations as well), with revenues estimated at US$173 billion annually, providing each adult with around US$180 monthly.

Evidence from other cash transfer programs is promising. For example, across Indonesia, a country with vast tropical forests, unconditional payments to hundreds of thousands of the poorest families also reduced deforestation.

A recent survey found that conservationists themselves like the idea of a CBI. We believe it is time to test the conservation basic income at a bigger scale.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Nature and BiodiversitySustainable Development
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

Why nature-positive cities can help transform the planet

Carlos Correa Escaf

May 24, 2024

About Us



Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum