Cali Fund collects $7,085 as pharma firms face free-riding claims
A landmark international biodiversity fund designed to channel corporate profits back into conservation has collected just $7,085 more than a year after beginning operations, with major pharmaceutical companies contributing nothing, The Guardian reported.
The Launch and Early Financial Shortfall of the Cali Fund
Conceived at the UN biodiversity summit known as COP16 in Cali, Colombia, and launched in February 2025, the Cali Fund set an ambitious target of raising $1bn annually. The mechanism invites businesses that profit from nature’s genetics—including pharmaceutical, cosmetics, and biotechnology firms—to make voluntary contributions of 1% of annual profits or 0.1% of revenue.
As the COP17 biodiversity summit opened in Yerevan, Armenia, total commitments stood at $10,656, with $7,085 actually deposited. Only three small private-sector companies have contributed: Prozomix in the UK with $5,000, TierraViva AI in the UK with $1,000, and E-Biom in Belgium with $1,085.
Zero Carbon Analytics calculated that the top 15 pharmaceutical companies generated roughly $161bn in profits in 2025. Following the fund’s guidelines, those 15 firms alone could have contributed $756m.
Pharmaceutical Companies Face Accusations of Free-Riding on Nature
Major pharmaceutical companies face accusations of free-riding on nature while declining to participate. June Rubis of Macquarie University, an Indigenous peoples and local communities representative sitting on the Cali Fund steering committee, stated that companies do not appear to recognize the importance of protecting nature or supporting frontline communities defending biodiversity. Victoria Kalyvas of Zero Carbon Analytics noted that the future of health is written in nature’s DNA and that the pharmaceutical industry stands to lose a great deal from its destruction.
Industry groups have pushed back against the framework. Guilherme Cintra, director of innovation policy at the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), argued that the mechanism relies on inaccurate assumptions about how data is used in medicine discovery. Cintra stated that the current design overlaps with existing law and asks companies to hand over a share of total revenue regardless of whether digital sequence information was used.
DeSmog reported that the IFPMA lobbied to weaken the terms of the fund, labeling the indicative contribution rates as premature and commercially unrealistic. Emails obtained by Carbon Brief also revealed that GSK called the fund disproportionate and warned it could hinder the development of new medicines and vaccines. AstraZeneca denied involvement in specific comments reported during the consultation, while GSK stated it had set ambitious targets and was investing in nature protection.
Debate Over Voluntary Versus Compulsory Conservation Funding
The sluggish start highlights ongoing difficulties in mobilizing private capital to help plug a broader $700bn funding gap for global nature conservation. At least half of the money raised through the Cali Fund is earmarked for areas prioritized by Indigenous peoples and local communities.
The shift from physical biological samples to digital sequence information stored in public databases has complicated efforts to ensure companies pay for using nature. Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, remarked that more money has been spent discussing the fund than exists within its coffers, arguing that expecting voluntary contributions is overly optimistic and that companies should be compelled to pay.
A Cali Fund spokesperson acknowledged that the amount raised is disappointing but noted that comparable financial instruments generally take two to three years for contributions to scale up. Discussions concerning the future of the fund and digital sequence information are scheduled to continue at the COP17 summit in Yerevan through October 30, 2026.