A decade after the international community first agreed to address the complex intersection of biotechnology and conservation, the global mechanism designed to ensure fair compensation for the use of nature’s genetic data has hit a significant impasse. Despite the high-stakes negotiations at the United Nations biodiversity summit (COP17) in Yerevan, Armenia, which concluded on October 31, 2026, the "Cali Fund"—a visionary financial vehicle intended to funnel corporate profits back into conservation—remains a largely symbolic gesture.
The fund was established to capture a portion of the vast wealth generated from Digital Sequence Information (DSI)—the genetic codes of plants, animals, and microbes stored in vast online repositories. However, as of late 2026, the gap between ambition and reality is stark: while experts projected the fund could generate $1 billion annually, it has collected just over $10,000.
Main Facts: A Stalled Ambition at COP17
The primary objective of COP17 in Yerevan was to finalize the operational details of the Cali Fund, which was conceptualized during COP16 in Colombia. Negotiators were tasked with answering fundamental questions: Which industries must pay? How should their contributions be calculated? And how can the world track the use of data that is currently free to download?
Instead of reaching a consensus, the summit ended with a "deferral." Key decisions regarding the mandatory or voluntary nature of payments, the specific percentage of revenue to be contributed, and the governance of international databases have been pushed to COP18, scheduled for 2028.
The Financial Shortfall
The Cali Fund’s current balance is a microscopic fraction of its target. While a 2026 study by the London School of Economics (LSE) suggested that the fund could realistically generate nearly $1 billion a year—and potentially up to $3.65 billion if all eligible companies participated—the actual receipts tell a different story. As of November 10, 2026, the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office reported a total of $10,588.
The contributors thus far have not been the pharmaceutical giants or multi-billion-dollar agribusinesses for which the fund was designed. Instead, the first payment of $1,000 came from TierraViva AI, a small UK-based startup, followed by four other small-scale enterprises. To date, not a single major pharmaceutical, cosmetic, or biotechnology corporation has contributed to the fund.
Chronology: The Decadelong Evolution of DSI Negotiations
The struggle to regulate DSI is rooted in the evolution of science itself. For decades, international law focused on physical samples, but the digital revolution changed the landscape of bioprospecting.
1993–2014: The Era of Physical Samples
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into force in 1993, established that countries have sovereign rights over their biological resources. This was reinforced by the 2014 Nagoya Protocol, which created a legal framework for "Access and Benefit-Sharing" (ABS). Under Nagoya, if a company wanted to collect a physical plant sample from the Amazon to develop a drug, it had to negotiate a contract with the host country.
2016: The Digital Pivot
At COP13 in Cancún, Mexico, the international community realized that the Nagoya Protocol had a massive loophole. Advances in DNA sequencing meant that companies no longer needed physical samples. They could simply download a genetic sequence from an open-access database. This "Digital Sequence Information" (DSI) allowed for the commercialization of nature without ever stepping foot in the country of origin.
2022–2024: From Principles to the Cali Fund
At COP15 in Montreal (2022), a breakthrough occurred: parties agreed that benefits from DSI must be shared. This led to COP16 in Cali, Colombia (2024), where the "Cali Fund" was officially created. It was hailed as a historic victory for biodiversity-rich nations in the Global South.
2026: The Yerevan Impasse
COP17 was meant to be the "implementation summit." However, the complexities of international trade, corporate lobbying, and the technicalities of data tracking led to a stalemate, shifting the goalpost another two years into the future.
Supporting Data: The Scale of the Opportunity and the Database Dilemma
To understand why the Cali Fund is struggling, one must look at the sheer scale of the industries involved and the transparency issues within the databases they use.
The Corporate Landscape
The LSE study identified 21,690 companies across 100 countries that meet the size and sector criteria to contribute to the fund. These companies span pharmaceuticals, animal and plant breeding, cosmetics, and biotechnology. The suggested contribution rate is 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue. If implemented globally, the pharmaceutical sector alone could provide the lion’s share of the $3.65 billion potential.
The Traceability Gap
Most genetic data is housed in the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), which includes repositories in the U.S. (GenBank), Europe, and Japan. According to a 2024 study commissioned by the CBD:
- 34 million: The number of times DSI is downloaded annually.
- 16%: The percentage of sequences that actually list a country of origin.
- Zero Accountability: These databases are not legally bound by the CBD, as the U.S.—the host of GenBank—is not a party to the convention.
This lack of "provenance" (origin data) makes it nearly impossible to determine which country or Indigenous community should receive benefits from a specific discovery.
Official Responses: Conflicting Visions of Equity
The failure at COP17 highlights a deep philosophical and economic rift between the Global North and the Global South.
The Industry Perspective: A Demand for Certainty
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and various pharmaceutical trade lobbies have expressed significant reservations. Their primary demand is "legal certainty." Companies argue that if they pay into a voluntary global fund, they should receive a "certificate of compliance" that protects them from being sued or taxed by individual countries for the same genetic data.
"Much of the two years between the summits went on issues raised by industry as essential for money-in," noted Siva Thambisetty, an associate professor at the London School of Economics. She pointed out that companies are hesitant to pay without a guarantee that their legal obligations are fully settled.
The Global South: A Call for Justice
Developing nations, led by the African Group, India, and the Latin American and Caribbean group (GRULAC), view DSI benefit-sharing as a matter of restorative justice. They argue that the current system allows for "biopiracy," where the Global North extracts value from the Global South’s biodiversity without compensation.
Nithin Ramakrishnan, a senior researcher at the Third World Network (TWN), criticized the reliance on interim measures. "Unfortunately, the preparations between the two COPs did not reach a point where COP17 could take a final call," he said. He emphasized that without an accountable database system, the Cali Fund risks legitimizing the unauthorized use of genetic resources.
The Civil Society View: Breaking Promises
Non-profits like The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) warn that the credibility of the UN biodiversity process is at stake. Sayanta Ghosh of TERI noted, "Communities cannot be expected to protect biodiversity while the commercial benefits of its genetic information flow elsewhere. The real test of the Cali Fund is whether companies contribute fairly."
Implications: What Happens if the Cali Fund Fails?
The stakes of the Cali Fund extend far beyond corporate accounting; they touch on the very survival of global biodiversity.
1. The Conservation Funding Gap
The world currently faces a massive shortfall in biodiversity funding, estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars. The Cali Fund was supposed to be a cornerstone of the "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework," which aims to protect 30% of the planet’s land and seas by 2030. Without the $1 billion annual infusion, many developing nations will lack the resources to enforce conservation laws.
2. Impact on Indigenous Stewardship
Half of the Cali Fund is earmarked for Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). These groups are the primary guardians of the world’s most biodiverse regions. If the fund remains empty, the "general recognition of their stewardship" remains a hollow promise, potentially leading to increased land conversion and loss of traditional ecological knowledge.
3. The Future of "Open Science"
There is a growing tension between the principles of "Open Science" and "Equitable Sharing." While researchers argue that free access to genetic data accelerates life-saving discoveries (such as COVID-19 vaccines), Gustavo Soldati of Brazil’s National Biodiversity Commission points out the basic imbalance: "Today there is a strong emphasis on open access to genetic data… but much less attention is given to ensuring equally open access to the benefits generated from these data."
4. Geopolitical Tensions
The fact that the world’s largest genetic databases are hosted in the U.S.—a non-party to the CBD—creates a jurisdictional nightmare. If biodiversity-rich nations feel the UN system has failed them, they may move toward more restrictive, bilateral DNA-sharing laws, which could paradoxically stifle global scientific research.
Conclusion: The Long Road to COP18
The journey from Cali to Yerevan was intended to turn a bold idea into a functional reality. Instead, it revealed the immense friction generated when the fast-moving world of digital biotechnology meets the slow-moving gears of international diplomacy.
The next two years will be critical. For the Cali Fund to succeed, negotiators must bridge the gap between corporate demands for legal certainty and the Global South’s demand for transparency. Until then, the genetic wealth of the world’s most fragile ecosystems will continue to be harvested for profit, while the fund meant to protect them remains a collection of good intentions and a few thousand dollars.
