We examined how, from the point of view of justice, the burdens of paying for conservation should be shared. I resisted simple answers to the question of who should pay for conservation that lean on a single moral principle. I identified 3 relevant principles that relate to who causes conservation challenges, who has greater capacity to carry burdens, and who stands to benefit from conservation. I argue for a distinctive pluralist framework for allocating conservation burdens that grants a proper role to all 3 principles. A multistep process can be used to put the framework into practice. First, identify cases in which conservation is necessary. Second, consider whether people knew or could have been expected to anticipate the consequences of their activities and whether they had reasonable alternatives to acting the way they did. Third, turn to facts about benefits; when no culprit for conservation challenges can be found, ask who benefits from acts of conservation. In the second and third stages, consideration must also be given to ability to pay.