The Cali Fund, launched to generate $1 billion a year from drug companies for biodiversity conservation, has received just over $7,000 in actual contributions more than 18 months after its inception. This poor response comes despite the pharmaceutical industry’s heavy reliance on genetic resources worldwide for developing profitable new medicines.
As the COP17 biodiversity conference began in Armenia, the fund had commitments totaling approximately $10,656, yet only $7,085 had been actually received. Notably, none of the leading pharmaceutical companies, which generated around $161 billion in profits in 2025, have contributed so far.
Calls of Free-Riding on Nature
June Rubis, an Indigenous and local communities representative on the Cali Fund steering committee and a scholar at Macquarie University, accused pharmaceutical companies of “free-riding on nature.” She emphasized that the fund asks for only a small percentage of profits, specifically a voluntary contribution of 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue, which expert analysis from Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA) suggests could have amounted to $756 million if fully honored by the top 15 drug companies.
Rubis highlighted the lack of recognition by these businesses of the importance of protecting biodiversity and supporting frontline communities crucial for conservation efforts, which ultimately sustain the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
Industry Skepticism and Overlapping Legal Frameworks
Pharmaceutical industry representatives expressed concerns regarding the fund’s design. Guilherme Cintra from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations stated that the Cali Fund overlaps with existing laws and is based on inaccurate assumptions about the use of genetic data, known as digital sequence information (DSI), in drug development. He also criticized the fixed contribution model that requires payment regardless of whether DSI contributed to particular medicines.
Despite these reservations, some companies like Sanofi and GSK acknowledged biodiversity’s significance. Sanofi identified protection of nature as central to its environmental sustainability strategy, while GSK reiterated its support for open access to DSI to promote medical innovation and indicated it will consider voluntary contributions once clarity on the fund’s integration with other mechanisms is provided.
Challenges and Outlook
The Cali Fund was created in part to address funding gaps for nature conservation globally, estimated at $700 billion. Half of the fund’s resources are intended to support priorities identified by Indigenous peoples and local communities. The fund’s team acknowledged the slow start in contributions but noted that similar initiatives often require two to three years to gain momentum.
With discussions at COP17 aiming to increase awareness among companies, organizers hope for a rise in commitments. Still, observers like Brian O’Donnell of Campaign for Nature argue that voluntary contributions are insufficient, urging mandatory payments to ensure equitable support for conserving biodiversity.
