Global Issues
Can the Cali Fund Deliver on Its Billion-Dollar Biodiversity Pledge?
HYDERABAD, India, July 14 (IPS) - When the Cali Fund was unveiled in February on the sidelines of COP16.2 in Rome, the announcement sent ripples through the global conservation community. For the first time ever, companies that profit from digital sequence information (DSI)—the digitized genetic material of plants, animals, and microorganisms—will be expected to pay into a multilateral fund to protect the very biodiversity they benefit from.
The Fund, estimated to mobilize USD 1 billion a year, was immediately hailed as a historic breakthrough. Half of the money is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—especially women and youth—in recognition of their role as stewards of the world’s genetic resources.
But three months in, as the launch celebration fades, hard questions begin to emerge: Will corporations pay voluntarily? Will money reach those who need it most? And can a fund that is built on goodwill deliver real-world impact fast enough?
How the Fund Was Born: From Cali to Rome
The Cali Fund was born out of Decision 16/2 at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Until now, companies could freely access and commercialize digital genetic data without any obligation to share their profits with the countries or communities the data came from.
The Fund seeks to end that free ride. With the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office serving as the administrator and with backing from UNEP, UNDP, and the CBD Secretariat, the Cali Fund promises strong institutional muscle. Its governance structure includes governments, UN agencies, and representatives from IPLCs—making it a test case for embedding justice into the global bioeconomy.
What the Cali Fund Pledges
New money for nature: About USD 1 billion a year from the private sector, not governments or traditional donors.
Corporate accountability: Businesses using DSI are expected to contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue.
Justice for IPLCs: A guaranteed 50 percent of funds goes directly to Indigenous and local communities.
Scientific and digital infrastructure: Resources will build DSI capacity, support biodiversity strategies, and close digital divides—especially in the Global South.
A Billion-Dollar Question: Will Companies Pay?
Despite the optimism, serious concerns are rising about its viability even as the Fund’s foundations are still being laid.
First, corporate contributions are voluntary, and there’s no mechanism to enforce them. Sectors like pharma, biotech, cosmetics, and synthetic biology rely heavily on DSI—but many don’t even track their usage. Expanding the Fund’s reach beyond willing participants could provoke resistance unless countries impose stronger regulations.
“The Secretariat continues to engage with business to ensure that intentions to contribute translate into actual payments,” CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker tells IPS News.
Accountability is another major issue. While the Fund pledges participatory governance, the specifics of auditing, public reporting, and oversight are still vague.
The Realities Behind the Rhetoric
The figure of USD 1 billion is impressive—but it’s not legally binding. Without transparency and enforcement, there’s a risk companies could treat the Fund as a PR checkbox rather than a true commitment.
“It’s crucial that disbursements align with the self-identified needs of IPLCs,” Schomaker says. “That’s the responsibility of the Steering Committee.”
The steering committee that Schomaker refers to was formed in April with 28-members representing National Focal Points, representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities, the scientific community and the private sector. The Steering Committee is expected to meet twice in 2025, once virtually during the second quarter of the year and once in person later in the year. Two meetings are expected in 2026.
But critics argue that’s not enough. Without robust systems for tracking DSI use, collecting dues, and allocating funds, the Cali Fund could become yet another initiative that sounds good but achieves little.
India: A Biodiversity Giant Watching Closely
India—one of the most biodiverse countries and a rising player in the DSI economy—is watching the Cali Fund closely.
“If the Fund is equitably governed and recognizes India as a priority beneficiary, it could support our protected areas, community conservation, and biodiversity research,” says Achalendra Reddy, Chair of India’s Biodiversity Board.
However, Reddy flags that for the Fund to truly benefit countries like India, three things are essential: 1) Transparent allocation mechanisms to ensure funds reach national and local actors; 2) Support for locally led efforts, not top-down programs; and 3) Complementarity, so the Fund adds to—rather than replaces—existing domestic and international investments.
If done right, the Fund could help plug chronic funding gaps and scale up conservation across India and the Global South.
Mrinalini Rai is the head of an advocacy organization that coordinates the CBD Women’s Caucus, a coalition of 300–500 women’s and indigenous rights groups that work to integrate gender equality into the CBD and related international agreements.
Speaking to IPS, Rai appears to agree with Reddy: “The launch of the Cali Fund is a promising step towards addressing that gap. However, for it to be truly transformative, the fund must be accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the realities of women biodiversity champions and defenders—especially those from Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Transparent processes, flexible funding, and dedicated support for capacity strengthening will be key to overcoming historic barriers and ensuring that no one is left behind, she says.
Speed vs. Sustainability: A Cautionary Note
Experts warn that rushing the Fund’s implementation could undermine its long-term credibility. “Genetic resources are national assets. So is DSI,” says Nithin Ramakrishnan, a DSI policy researcher with India’s Center for Public Policy Research.
“CBD and its member states must prioritize sustainability over speed and avoid reducing benefit-sharing to just a financial transaction,” he says, cautioning against letting corporations dictate biodiversity governance. “If countries are made responsible for reporting DSI usage to companies, we risk placing corporate interests above sovereign conservation agendas,” he adds.
Why the Cali Fund Still Matters
Despite its growing pains, the Cali Fund represents a paradigm shift. For the first time, the global community is acknowledging that genetic information has monetary value—and that value must be shared equitably, not extracted and hoarded.
As Vishaish Uppal—Governance, Law and Policy Director at WW India—notes, the Cali Fund “speaks to the third, often overlooked, pillar of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: benefit-sharing.”
That matters deeply in today’s context of digital colonialism, where genetic data is extracted from the Global South and monetized in the Global North—leaving Indigenous and local communities out of the loop.
IPS UN Bureau Report
© Inter Press Service (20250714100410) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service