A global agreement was meant to ensure that profits from nature’s genetic information benefit the countries and communities that protect it. Years later, the fund’s progress remains far below expectations here.
The global effort to ensure that companies share the benefits of using genetic data from plants, animals and microbes has made little headway after years of negotiations. At the UN biodiversity summit in Armenia, countries failed to settle the fund's rules and deferred decisions until COP18 in 2028.
The Cali Fund was established to collect contributions from businesses that profit from digital sequence information, or DSI. It refers to genetic data from living organisms stored in online databases. The fund was expected to raise about $1 billion annually. Yet, as of November 10, 2026, it had received just $10,588.
Negotiators still need to decide which companies should pay, how contributions should be calculated, how databases will be held accountable and how funds will be distributed. Nithin Ramakrishnan, a senior researcher at the Third World Network, said preparations had not provided enough information for a final decision.
Siva Thambisetty, an associate professor at the London School of Economics, said much of the time between summits had gone into industry concerns. Companies have sought certificates confirming that their payments cover their use of genetic data and provide legal certainty. But confirming how every sequence was accessed is difficult because data can be obtained through many routes.
Gap between genetic data and benefit-sharing
International rules require benefits from genetic resources to be shared with the countries and communities that conserve them. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which came into force in 1993, set out that principle. The Nagoya Protocol, effective from 2014, requires permission to collect physical samples and agreements on sharing resulting benefits.
However, the rules do not clearly cover genetic information once a sample is sequenced and uploaded online. The link to benefit-sharing can disappear unless the original agreement covers sequence data or the database records the sample's origin.
Countries began discussing DSI at COP13 in 2016. Six years later, COP15 in Montreal agreed that benefits from DSI should be shared fairly. At COP16 in Cali in 2024, countries agreed to establish a global fund, which was launched in 2025.
Rather than tracing each sequence to an individual user, the Cali Fund takes a broader approach. Large companies in industries such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, cosmetics, and animal and plant breeding are expected to pay. Contributions are currently voluntary for participating companies, and pharmaceutical trade groups have challenged the proposed rates.
Half the fund's money is intended for Indigenous peoples and local communities, for their role in conserving biodiversity. A June 2026 LSE study identified 21,690 potential contributors across 100 countries. At the suggested rates, contributions could total about $3.65 billion annually. Allowing for uneven participation and differing levels of DSI use, another estimate put the annual potential at $929 million.
Database transparency remains unresolved
So far, only five small companies have contributed. UK firm TierraViva AI made the first payment of $1,000 in 2025. By November 10, 2026, payments had reached $10,588. No major pharmaceutical, agricultural or biotechnology company had paid into the fund.
Database governance is another obstacle. The three linked databases in the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, based in the United States, Europe and Japan, are freely accessible and record 34 million downloads a year. However, only 16% of sequences include information about their country of origin, according to a 2024 study commissioned by the CBD.
Missing origin information could distort the allocation of funds and leave biodiversity-rich countries underrepresented. Anonymous access also creates an imbalance: communities must document the resources they conserve, while commercial users may remain unidentified.
Experts say transparent databases, accountability and public awareness are needed to encourage payments. Without reliable records and rules that governments can recognise, the Cali Fund risks failing to deliver the fair sharing of benefits it was created to secure.
