A landmark biodiversity fund aimed at supporting conservation efforts has attracted minimal financial commitment from the pharmaceutical industry, leading to accusations of ‘free-riding on nature.’
At the commencement of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) in Yerevan, Armenia, the Cali Fund, which was established to raise $1 billion annually for biodiversity conservation, has reported a mere $10,656 in pledges, with only $7,085 actually deposited. The fund’s objective is to involve businesses that benefit from biological resources to contribute back to conservation efforts in low-income countries. Despite the pharmaceutical sector’s heavy reliance on genetic information for drug development, no major pharmaceutical companies have yet made financial contributions.
The Cali Fund was launched in February 2025 with the intention of addressing the significant funding shortfall for conservation initiatives, which is estimated at $700 billion. A report by Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA) indicates that the top fifteen pharmaceutical companies alone could have contributed approximately $756 million to the fund based on their profits from the previous year. This suggestion is based on guidelines that encourage a voluntary contribution of 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue.
According to ZCA, the combined profits of these companies reached about $161 billion in 2025, highlighting the disparity between their earnings and the contributions to conservation efforts. June Rubis, an Indigenous representatives and member of the Cali Fund’s steering committee from Macquarie University, emphasized the significant profits made by pharmaceutical companies, stating, “Look at how much profit these pharmaceutical companies are getting – and we’re only asking for a tiny percentage. Definitely, they’re free-riding on nature.” Rubis also criticized the industry’s failure to recognize the importance of biodiversity and support the communities that play a crucial role in conservation.
Context of the Cali Fund
The Cali Fund was proposed as a mechanism to ensure that companies pay for their use of nature, particularly as advancements in biotechnology have complicated the process of attributing contributions due to the availability of digital sequence information (DSI) in public databases. The fund seeks to resolve issues that have arisen as research increasingly shifts from using physical biological samples to relying on DSI. However, the pharmaceutical industry has raised concerns about the fund’s structure, arguing that the contribution expectations do not appropriately reflect the diverse ways in which medicines are developed. Guilherme Cintra, director of innovation policy at the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, noted that the industry is committed to biodiversity but has ongoing questions regarding the fund’s design and implementation.
As of now, the fund has received contributions from only three small private-sector firms: Prozomix, which donated $5,000; TierraViva AI, which contributed $1,000; and E-Biom, which provided $1,085. Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, remarked on the fund’s limited financial intake, stating, “More money has been spent on meetings talking about the Cali Fund than there is in the Cali Fund’s coffers,” and criticized the reliance on voluntary contributions as overly optimistic.
Reactions and Future Prospects
A spokesperson for the Cali Fund acknowledged that the current amount raised was “disappointing but not entirely surprising,” citing that similar financial instruments typically require two to three years to begin seeing significant contributions. They expressed hope that discussions during COP17 would provide companies with greater clarity on the fund’s operations and encourage them to make commitments.
Responses from major pharmaceutical companies have varied. A spokesperson for Sanofi emphasized the importance of biodiversity to human health and its role in the company’s environmental sustainability strategy. In contrast, GSK highlighted that while they support the intent behind the Cali Fund, they will make decisions regarding contributions once they have more information on how the fund will integrate with existing national and multilateral mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing.
The unfolding discussions at COP17 regarding the Cali Fund are critical, as the fund aims to channel at least half of its resources toward areas identified as priorities by Indigenous peoples and local communities. Victoria Kalyvas, an author of the ZCA analysis, articulated the stakes involved, stating, “The future of health is written in nature’s DNA. The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose a great deal from its destruction, as do patients.” With the conference serving as a platform for addressing these urgent issues, the effectiveness of initiatives like the Cali Fund may hinge on the willingness of the pharmaceutical industry to engage meaningfully in conservation efforts.
No Comment! Be the first one.