Global Biodiversity Fund Faces Criticism as Pharmaceutical Contributions Stagnate at $7,000

A landmark international effort to bridge the global nature conservation funding gap has faced significant hurdles, with the Cali Fund remaining largely empty more than 18 months after its launch. Designed to generate $1 billion annually, the initiative invites pharmaceutical companies that profit from nature’s genetic information to contribute a share of their revenue toward conservation in low-income countries. As of the start of the Cop17 biodiversity summit in Yerevan, Armenia, the fund has secured only $10,656 in total commitments, with just $7,085 actually deposited.

According to reporting by The Guardian, major pharmaceutical corporations have made no contributions to date. This lack of engagement comes despite the sector’s substantial reliance on genetic information for the development of new medicines. Research by Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA) suggests that if the top 15 pharmaceutical companies had followed the fund’s guidelines—suggesting a contribution of 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue—they could have provided $756 million based on their 2025 performance. ZCA data indicates these 15 firms generated roughly $161 billion in profits in 2025, distributing 175 times more to shareholders than the suggested fund contribution.

June Rubis, a steering committee member for the Cali Fund and representative for Indigenous peoples and local communities, stated that the industry is "free-riding" on nature. She expressed concern that companies do not recognize the importance of supporting the communities that defend biodiversity, which in turn secures future industry profits. The fund is designed to direct at least half of its proceeds to priorities identified by these Indigenous and local groups.

Technological shifts have complicated benefit-sharing, as the pharmaceutical industry increasingly utilizes digital sequence information (DSI) stored in public databases rather than physical biological samples. The Cali Fund aims to close loopholes emerging from this transition. However, the mechanism has received financial support from only three small private entities: Prozomix ($5,000), TierraViva AI ($1,000), and E-Biom ($1,085).

Industry representatives, including the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, have questioned the fund's design. Guilherme Cintra, the federation's director of innovation policy, noted that the industry supports biodiversity but remains concerned about the mechanism's implementation. Cintra argued the fund overlaps with existing laws and rests on inaccurate assumptions regarding how DSI is utilized in medicine discovery.

Pharmaceutical multinationals have addressed the initiative with caution. A spokesperson for GSK emphasized that open access to DSI is essential for medical innovation and pandemic response, noting that the company will await further clarity on how the fund interacts with other mechanisms before deciding on contributions. Similarly, a Sanofi spokesperson affirmed the company's commitment to biodiversity as a core component of its sustainability strategy. Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, stated that the current reliance on voluntary contributions is overly optimistic, arguing that participation should be compelled. A spokesperson for the Cali Fund expressed disappointment but noted that similar financial instruments often take two to three years to scale, with hopes that the Cop17 summit will provide the necessary information for companies to engage.