Will the Cali Fund Deliver Its $1bn Biodiversity Promise?

A garden of medicinal plants in Cali, Columbia. The Cali Fund, unveiled earlier this year, will ensure that companies that profit from digital sequencing will pay into a fund to protect biodiversity.

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 digitised 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 mobilise 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 are beginning to emerge: Will corporations pay voluntarily? Will money reach those who need it most? And can a fund built on goodwill deliver real-world impact fast enough?

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 commercialise digital genetic data without any obligation to share their profits with the countries or communities from which the data came.

The Fund seeks to end that free ride. With the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office serving as the administrator, and backed by 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.

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 will go 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.

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,” says CBD Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker.

Accountability is another major issue. While the Fund pledges participatory governance, the specifics of auditing, public reporting, and oversight remain vague.

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, formed in April, includes 28 members representing National Focal Points, representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, the scientific community, and the private sector. It is expected to meet twice in 2025, once virtually and once in person, with two further meetings 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—one of the world’s most biodiverse countries and a rising player in the DSI economy—is watching the Cali Fund closely.

“If the Fund is equitably governed and recognises 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 stresses 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 programmes; 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, who coordinates the CBD Women’s Caucus—a coalition of 300–500 women’s and Indigenous rights groups working to integrate gender equality into the CBD and related agreements—agrees with Reddy.

Speaking to IPS, Rai says: “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.”

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 prioritise sustainability over speed and avoid reducing benefit-sharing to just a financial transaction,” he cautions, warning 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.

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 WWF 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 monetised in the Global North—leaving Indigenous and local communities out of the loop.