General information
The main advantage of the new model is that it no longer relies on membership data from 2009 or GNI figures that are even older. Instead, following the transition period, it is based on the current economic and membership realities of NSOs.
In addition, the model explicitly takes into account the challenges of raising membership fees in lower-income countries, as well as the realities of school-based Scouting. For NSOs in the upper half of the income distribution, we have adjusted the structure of per-member fees to better reflect the economic environments in which they operate.
Finally, the built-in inflation adjustment mechanism after the transition period helps to future-proof the model.
Gross national income (GNI) measures the total income earned by residents of an economy during a given period, encompassing both domestic and foreign income. The World Bank converts this figure into US dollars using the Atlas method, which averages exchange rates over three years and adjusts for differences in inflation. The resulting figure, GNI per capita (Atlas method), is widely used to compare economic conditions across countries and is expressed in current USD.
NSOs shared important perspectives on how economic indicators, such as GNI, can sometimes miss local realities, such as differences in income distribution, reliance on specific economic sectors (e.g. tourism, commodities), or limited access to US dollars. These insights were carefully considered as part of the review. The Fee Task Force's analysis indicates:
• Any model needs an indicator that reflects broad economic reality, is updated annually, and is available for all countries where NSOs operate. Few indicators meet these criteria.
• GNI per capita (Atlas method) reduces volatility from currency fluctuations.
• It reflects long-term economic conditions more reliably.
• It is globally recognised and consistently produced using transparent methodology.
• It is comparable across countries.
• It mitigates distortions from inflation or unstable exchange rates.
• It is simple to communicate to NSOs, boards, and stakeholders.
• It has a proven track record in international fee and contribution systems. The current model already uses this indicator. Changing the baseline indicator would require an even larger rebalancing of the entire system.
Different economic indicators and approaches were carefully reviewed, including purchasing power parity (PPP), GINI coefficient, human development index (HDI), gross domestic product (GDP), and NSO financial data. While each offers useful insights, they do not consistently reflect the economic environment in which NSOs operate or raise funds, and in some cases would shift a greater burden onto lower-income countries or rely on data that is not comparable globally.
After an extensive assessment, the GNI per capita (Atlas method) - which was designed to reduce the impact of exchange rate fluctuations in cross-country comparisons of national incomes - was identified as the most appropriate and reliable indicator for a global fee model.
Below are some options considered:
- Purchasing power parity (PPP):
- PPP shifts a larger share of the overall fee burden onto low-income countries (see table below), and therefore does not reflect their financial capacity in the same way. For example, in the lowest income group, PPP-adjusted GNI per capita can be up to six times higher than the Atlas-based figure, even though underlying financial capacity remains unchanged. This increase does not indicate greater financial capacity. Instead, it reflects that basic goods and services are cheaper locally, so the same amount of income can purchase more domestically. However, this purchasing advantage does not translate into greater ability to pay international fees denominated in USD.
- PPP will be used as a cross-check in the models under development to ensure we find the best possible indicator.
| Countries of NSOs (examples) | GNI per capita Atlas method (current USD) 2024 | GNI per capita, PPP (current *international dollars) 2024 |
| Burundi | 190 | 950 |
| South Sudan | 350 | 1,010 |
| Afghanistan | 370 | 2,210 |
| Yemen | 470 | 3,020 |
| Madagascar | 510 | 1,830 |
| United States of America | 83,660 | 85,980 |
| Luxembourg | 91,470 | 106,980 |
| Liechtenstein | 95,900 | 90,820 |
| Switzerland | 95,900 | 90,820 |
| Norway | 98,280 | 105,770 |
*International dollars are a hypothetical currency that adjusts for cost-of-living differences so values in different currencies can be compared by what they can actually buy.
- GINI coefficient:
- The GINI coefficient measures income inequality within a country, not the overall economic capacity of the population. A country can have high inequality and still be high-income, or low inequality and still be low-income. GINI data is also reported irregularly and is difficult to compare across regions. It is therefore not a suitable basis for a global fee model.
- Human development index (HDI):
- HDI reflects long-term development outcomes, combining health, education, and income indicators. It does not capture the financial environment in which NSOs operate. Countries with similar HDI scores can have very different economic realities, and HDI changes only slowly over time. Given this, the Fee Task Force does not consider it suitable as the primary basis for determining fees.
- Gross domestic product (GDP):
- GDP measures the value of production within a country's borders, but it does not capture the income actually available to people or organisations operating there. In many countries, a significant share of production is generated by foreign-owned firms, meaning GDP can overstate the economic capacity of entities operating within a country. GNI, by contrast, reflects the income earned by residents and is therefore a closer approximation of the economic environment in which NSOs raise funds and operate.
- Income, expenditure and financial reserve numbers from NSOs:
- Using NSOs' financial statements as the basis for fee calculations would not be practical or fair across the Movement. Financial data varies widely in quality, completeness, and comparability, and many NSOs are unable to provide audited or standardised figures.
- Financial structures can also differ widely. In some countries, the national organisation functions largely as a coordinating body, while most financial resources sit at regional or local levels and are not reflected in national accounts. Harmonising such diverse data would require all NSOs to adopt common accounting standards, reporting frameworks, and fiscal-year structures - adding substantial administrative burden and complexity.
- Income and reserves can also fluctuate significantly from year to year due to grants, capital projects, or one-off events, making them an unreliable measure of long-term financial capacity. Relying on such data would introduce significant inconsistencies and could incentivise under-reporting. For these reasons, NSO-level financial data is not suitable as a basis of a global fee model.
The proposed model helps improve how fees are distributed, while recognising that larger and economically stronger NSOs will continue to contribute a greater share of overall fee income. This reflects differences in capacity across the Movement and helps maintain WOSM's financial sustainability. The proposed model is designed to:
- Reduce extreme values.
- Avoid sudden jumps due to category changes or census updates.
- Provide a more balanced and predictable fee structure.
Note: The old model already includes a safeguard that limits the maximum contribution of any single NSO to 35% of total fees.
The intention is to avoid large or sudden increases and to support a smooth transition for all NSOs. The proposed model includes measures such as:
- Caps on key input values.
- Mechanisms that limit extreme changes.
- Transition safeguards for NSOs that may experience more significant adjustments.
How the new model works
The proposed model is a hybrid system that combines a flat fee approach for NSOs in the lower half of the global income distribution and a per‑member fee for NSOs in the upper half.
For NSOs in the lower half, flat fees are determined using categories based on Gross National Income (GNI) and membership size.
For NSOs in the upper half, the per‑member fee rate is calculated using a country’s GNI per capita relative to all other countries and then applied to the NSO’s membership.
The model also includes a five‑year transition period, caps on annual increases and decreases, a minimum fee of USD 1,000 for NSOs in the per‑member system, a ceiling preventing any NSO from paying more than 30% of total fees, and annual data updates with a fixed inflation adjustment after the transition period.
The model uses different methods to balance fairness, proportionality, and administrative efficiency. A flat rate fee reduces administrative burden and ensures stability and predictability for NSOs with fewer members or less organisational capacity.
For NSOs in the upper half of global income distribution, economic differences are more significant, and a per‑member system enables contributions to scale proportionally with economic capacity and membership size.
Yes, the ABCD structure will continue to be used for both event fees and registration fees, although in different ways. For event fees, the World Bank income groups remain the primary classification.
For registration fees, the income groups remain an economic reference point, but the system instead divides NSOs at the 50th percentile of global GNI per capita, applying a flat fee to NSOs in the lower half of global income distribution and a per‑member calculation to NSOs in the upper half of global income distribution.
The model introduces safeguards such as caps on annual changes, rolling averages for membership data, and a five‑year transition period. These measures help ensure that sudden or unexpected variations in census numbers do not result in sharp or destabilising fee shifts.
NSO fees have been calculated and invoiced in US dollars (USD) since the 2014-2015 fiscal year as USD is widely accessible globally and because most of World Scouting’s expenditures are also denominated in USD.
No. Regional fee systems are determined independently by each Region and are not tied to the global registration fee model. The proposed reform applies only to the global structure.
The model is designed to recognise rapid membership growth while preventing sudden or destabilising fee increases.
For NSOs below the 50th percentile of global income, growth only affects the fee when membership moves into a higher bracket or surpasses the highest bracket, triggering incremental blocks.
For NSOs at or above the 50th percentile, growth is reflected proportionally through the per‑member formula, meaning total contributions rise gradually in line with increased scale.
In both cases, a three‑year rolling average ensures that unexpected spikes do not produce abrupt changes. Additionally, the five‑year transition period and annual caps on increases further moderate the speed at which growth affects fees.
Safeguards, Predictability and Transitions
The model includes multiple built‑in safeguards designed to ensure that fee changes remain steady, transparent, and manageable for all NSOs. These include a five‑year linear transition period to move from current fees to the new registration fee, annual caps on both increases and decreases, the use of rolling averages to soften the impact of sudden membership shifts, and a rules‑based update mechanism after the transition period.
The model also includes a ceiling that prevents any NSO from contributing more than 30% of total registration fees, protecting the system from concentration risk. These measures smooth the pace of adjustment without altering the fairness of the model itself.
During the transition, the difference between an NSO’s current fee and the registration fee under the new model is divided evenly across five years.
Each year, NSOs moves closer to the new registration fee, providing predictability and reducing the risk of sudden financial strain. Importantly, during these five years, annual recalculation using new economic or membership data does not occur, and inflation adjustments are suspended.
Fees follow a fixed, predetermined trajectory, allowing NSOs to plan ahead while gradually adapting to the new model.
After the transition, fees will be updated annually using a rules‑based formula that incorporates updated GNI per capita and membership data, along with a fixed inflation adjustment. Because the updates rely on publicly available data, NSOs can anticipate and predict any changes with a high degree of certainty.
Inflation adjustments will begin only after the transition period. Each year, the registration fee is recalculated with updated GNI and membership data, and then a fixed 2% inflation factor is applied to the re-calculated registration fee. This ensures that the real value of contributions is preserved, inflation does not accumulate invisibly, and adjustments remain predictable and mechanical.
The model intentionally avoids recalibration because continuous adjustments would undermine the predictability and stability that NSOs need for financial planning.
A system that reacts too quickly to economic or membership fluctuations risks volatility, administrative complexity, and less transparency. Instead, the model separates its implementation into a finite transition phase - during which fees move gradually and predictably - and a stable, rules‑based phase after the transition. This approach ensures long‑term fairness while safeguarding NSOs from sudden or unexpected changes.
Yes. NSOs in the per‑member system must pay at least USD 1,000, while the flat‑fee system sets minimum fees for each GNI bracket and starts at USD 600. No NSO may contribute more than 30% of total global registration fee revenue. These parameters ensure both broad participation and risk mitigation.
NSOs in the lower half of income distribution will see their fees decrease if their membership falls into a lower bracket. NSOs in the upper half of global income distribution will see proportional fee reductions through the per‑member calculation. The five-year transition period applies to decreases as well as increases, ensuring gradual changes.
The new model does not aim to shift the balance of financial contributions between regions, and there is no mechanism designed to redistribute fees regionally. Contributions are determined entirely by each NSO’s economic capacity - measured through GNI per capita - and its membership size, which are applied consistently across all regions.
Any changes in regional shares therefore stems only from updated economic or membership data. While some moderate regional shifts may occur, these reflect current realities rather than intentional redistribution, as the model’s focus is fairness at the NSO level rather than balancing contributions across regions.
World Event Fees
Event participation fees are being improved by retaining the World Bank ABCD income categories but introducing additional granularity within each group through percentile‑based sub‑categories. This means NSOs with significantly different economic capacities are no longer grouped under the same band. The overall event revenue target remains unchanged, maintaining revenue neutrality.
The model recognises that NSOs operate in very different economic contexts, and that those with greater economic capacity will continue to contribute a larger share. At the same time, the approach being explored is designed to improve how these differences are reflected.
In particular, the model aims to create more proportional spacing between fee levels, reduce abrupt changes between categories, improve affordability for lower-income NSOs, and ensure that fee differences are transparent and based on clear data.
The overall goal is a more balanced, predictable, and understandable fee structure for all NSOs.
The revised event fee structure and solidarity mechanisms complement one another. By providing a more accurate baseline that aligns participation fees with an NSO’s economic capacity, the new system reduces the pressure on solidarity funds and increases their effectiveness. Solidarity mechanisms can then be targeted more precisely toward participants with the greatest need. While the fee model ensures fairness, solidarity remains the mechanism that addresses the remaining affordability gap for individual NSOs and participants.
We have heard feedback from NSOs that World Scout events are too expensive, and plan to further address this issue ahead of the 2027 World Scout Conference. The work done by the Registration Fee Task Force focuses only on how the costs for World Scout events are distributed across participating National Scout Organizations. The fee for a World Scouting event is determined by the cost of hosting the event and set by the World Scout Committee following consultations with the hosts.
In practice, this happens by assigning a fee to the four categories (A, B, C, D). If we were to update the categories as well as the GNI indicators, a large number of NSOs would move up categories, creating an unsustainable situation. This is why the Registration Fee Task Force proposed to further break up the fee categories (A1, A2, B1, B2 etc) to better reflect income distribution within the existing event fee model.
We recognise that fee categorization alone does not directly address the affordability of events. This topic is something that requires close collaboration among event hosts, bidders, World and Regional Committees, and NSOs, with the support of the World Scout Bureau. The World Scout Committee plans to bring this as a focal topic to the 44th World Scout Conference to create momentum and actionable next steps to ensure our events become more affordable for our Movement in the future.
Travel and visa costs can be significant barriers for many NSOs to attend World Scouting events. However, they are difficult to incorporate into an Event Fee Model. Travel distance, visa requirements, flight prices, and purchasing power differences vary widely not only between countries, but also between individual participants within the same NSO, which makes them difficult to include directly in a consistent event fee formula.
What any model can do is create more detailed categories for NSOs based on economic capacity. This allows event-hosting NSOs to set fees in a fairer and more proportional way, while offering greater flexibility to reflect different economic realities without relying on volatile or participant-specific factors.
At the same time, these concerns will be taken into account in the overall event-design process. This includes measures such as targeted support mechanisms, solidarity funding, or clear communication of expected cost ranges, which are more practical and effective than building individual cost factors into the fee formula.
The fee model itself is not directly linked to how hosts communicate event fees during the bidding process. However, consultations highlighted the value of providing NSOs with clearer and earlier information to support planning and predictability.
Options being explored include encouraging bidders to share indicative fee ranges, rather than single figures, and communicating these ranges as early as possible after a host is selected. While binding fee levels cannot be set several years in advance, these steps could strengthen transparency and help NSOs plan more effectively, without changing the formal approval process.
Special Situations
An NSO experiencing exceptional financial hardship may contact the Secretary General through the Regional Director. The Secretary General has the authority to adjust the registration fee in justified exceptional circumstances.
Next Steps
You can request a one-on-one call using the link on Treehouse or alternatively reach out to the Regional Director in your Scout region.
Conference Resolution 2024-02 requests the World Scout Committee to present a new fee model to the 44th World Scout Conference in 2027.
Over the course of 2025, a number of NSOs have approached World Scouting indicating that they are no longer able to maintain their current level of contributions. In particular, they have sought to negotiate special arrangements, as their membership and economic situation are no longer adequately reflected in the current fee model, which is based on data from 2009 and earlier. Others have requested additional discounts under existing special arrangements.
This has resulted in a deterioration of World Scouting’s fee income by at least 15 percent in the current fiscal year, necessitating a number of difficult cost-cutting measures to maintain a balanced budget.
Under the current timeline, a decision at the 44th World Scout Conference in November 2027 would allow for the transition to a new fee model to begin in October 2028. However, several NSOs have indicated that they would not be able to sustain even the reduced contribution levels for a further two years.
In light of this, the World Scout Committee is considering initiating an online ballot between July and September 2026. This would allow the transition to a new registration fee model to begin as early as October 2026. A decision on this approach is expected around June 2026, based on feedback received from NSOs during the consultation process.
Institutional Process
Article XI(4) of the WOSM Constitution provides that: “In appropriate circumstances determined by the World Scout Committee there may be a referendum by post or electronic communication to Member Organizations between meetings of the World Scout Conference when the same rules as to voting, majority and in the event of a tie shall apply.”
Article XI(2) of the WOSM Constitutions establishes a two-thirds majority of votes cast for the “determination of the annual registration fee”. As per Article XII(4) a quorum is reached, when half the Member Organizations have cast their vote.
The postal ballot would present a clearly formulated resolution, accompanied by the full details of the proposed Registration Fee model (as set out in the Annex). NSOs would be asked to vote in favour, against or abstain from the adoption of this proposal.
The postal ballot form itself would need to be signed by the official contacts (official representative) of Member Organizations (as stated in the World Scouting Directory) who are requested to cast their organisation’s ballot by emailing the completed form to the World Scout Bureau. Only submissions from duly authorised representatives will be considered valid.
The World Scout Committee has not yet decided if it wishes to release a postal ballot. If the World Scout Committee decides to do so, it will inform NSOs via circular (and update this FAQ). While the constitution does not stipulate a specific timeframe, postal ballots are usually open for 30 days but can be longer, especially for such a topic.
A postal ballot is a constitutionally provided for mechanism under Article XI(4) that allows the World Scout Conference to take decisions between its meetings. Compared to convening an extraordinary Conference (whether virtual or in-person), it is more efficient in terms of time, cost, and logistics, while still ensuring that all Member Organizations can participate in the decision-making process.
Yes, online engagements (webinars) and campfires will be organised to allow NSOs to exchange views among one another and also to provide feedback to the World Scout Committee.
NSOs will be asked a simply yes or no question to approve the proposed WOSM Registration Fee Model. Additionally, there will be a proposal to bring event affordability as a key emphasis in the 44th World Scout Conference.