The Cali Fund, a global initiative aimed at financing biodiversity conservation, has attracted only $7,085 in contributions, highlighting the challenges of mobilising private-sector funding to protect the world’s biological resources.
The fund’s future is under discussion at a major United Nations biodiversity summit in Armenia, scheduled to continue until October 30. Its limited financial support has raised questions about how effectively the initiative can encourage companies to contribute to conservation efforts.
Established under an agreement adopted at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, in late 2024, the fund began operating in February 2025.
It calls on pharmaceutical, cosmetics, biotechnology and animal and plant breeding companies to contribute one per cent of their annual profits or 0.1 per cent of their turnover. Preparatory estimates suggested the mechanism could generate up to $1 billion annually based on the revenues of the relevant industries.
However, only three companies have made contributions so far. British firms TierraViva AI and Prozomix donated $1,000 and $5,000, respectively, while Belgium-based E-BIOM contributed $1,085. Two additional companies have pledged a combined $3,571.
The initiative seeks to ensure that companies benefiting from digital sequence information (DSI) derived from genetic resources contribute towards biodiversity conservation.
Such information includes genetic data obtained from plants, animals, fungi, viruses and microorganisms. It is widely available through digital databases and is used by businesses to develop medicines, cosmetics and agricultural products, among other applications.
The Cali Fund operates on the principle that companies benefiting directly or indirectly from these resources should help finance biodiversity protection and support local and Indigenous communities involved in preserving them.
Although contributions are voluntary and the mechanism is not legally binding, governments are encouraged to introduce administrative, policy or legislative measures to motivate businesses to participate.
Experts say the fund’s reliance on voluntary payments and financial incentives is a major obstacle to attracting corporate contributions.
Juliette Landry of the Paris-based sustainable development research institute IDDRI said companies could be reluctant to contribute if their competitors were not required or encouraged to do the same.
Pakhi Das, a public policy adviser at the non-governmental organisation Plant-for-the-Planet, said no country had yet introduced legislation to incentivise contributions to the fund, and no such legislation was under discussion.
Concerns also remain over how the collected money will be managed and distributed. Vishaish Uppal, a director at WWF-India, said companies wanted assurances that appropriate safeguards would govern the use of their contributions.
Businesses are also seeking clarity over whether internationally recognised certificates issued by the Cali Fund to document payments for the use of genetic resources would be accepted by national authorities. Such recognition is considered important to prevent companies from facing duplicate payment obligations.
The pharmaceutical industry has argued that limited participation should not necessarily be interpreted as a lack of commitment to biodiversity conservation.
Guilherme Cintra, director of innovation policy at the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, said the low level of contributions reflected continuing questions about the fund’s design and implementation.
The fund’s ability to attract broader corporate participation will depend on addressing concerns over its operational framework, financial safeguards and the consistency of national policies, as international efforts to secure funding for biodiversity protection continue.
