This paper presents a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8,000 households in 24 developing countries, collected by research partners in the Poverty Environment Network (PEN) of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Environmental income, which includes income from natural forests and other non-cultivated environments, accounts for 28% of total household income, with 77% coming from natural forests. The study finds that environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms, environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile compared to the two lowest quintiles. The analysis addresses three main questions: the contribution of environmental income to rural households' income portfolios, the variation in reliance on environmental income with different levels of income, and the factors affecting the magnitude and relative importance of environmental income. The findings highlight the significant role of natural environments in rural livelihoods and the need for effective interventions that consider access to and use of natural resources.This paper presents a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8,000 households in 24 developing countries, collected by research partners in the Poverty Environment Network (PEN) of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Environmental income, which includes income from natural forests and other non-cultivated environments, accounts for 28% of total household income, with 77% coming from natural forests. The study finds that environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms, environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile compared to the two lowest quintiles. The analysis addresses three main questions: the contribution of environmental income to rural households' income portfolios, the variation in reliance on environmental income with different levels of income, and the factors affecting the magnitude and relative importance of environmental income. The findings highlight the significant role of natural environments in rural livelihoods and the need for effective interventions that consider access to and use of natural resources.