Cali Fund Draws Only $10,588 From Five Firms
The UN fund, created in 2024, asks companies that use public genetic data to share benefits, and it is still far from its estimated annual collections.
Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Biotech
Live Poll
Should companies that profit from nature's genetic data be required to pay into conservation?
Only five small biotechnology firms have contributed to the Cali Fund, which has collected a total of US$10,588 since its creation in 2024. The fund is voluntary and run by the UN to support global conservation projects; the development is an operating mechanism already in place, not a new product.
Why it matters
The Cali Fund is the first mechanism for companies that use publicly available genetic information to share benefits with the countries that supplied it, a dispute rooted in low-resource countries' claims of biopiracy. Its near-zero collection so far shows how far voluntary contributions fall short of the $200 billion a year that countries aim to mobilize for biodiversity by 2030.
The fund's figures come from cumulative voluntary contributions reported to the UN, compared against a roughly $1 billion annual estimate and a theoretical $3.6 billion maximum. The largest single contribution was $5,000 from Prozomix, which pledged 0.1% of future revenue, while the reporting does not explain why most eligible companies have not contributed.
The players
Prozomix
A small biotechnology firm based in Haltwhistle, UK, and the largest single contributor to the Cali Fund at $5,000.
Isomorphic Labs
A London-based AI drug discovery company that raised more than $2 billion in May.
Basecamp Research
A London-based biotechnology company that raised $140 million in September.
Leibniz Institute DSMZ
A research institute in Braunschweig, Germany, that holds biological resources relevant to the benefit-sharing debate.
Common Initiative
An advocacy group based in New York that engages on the Cali Fund and related biodiversity funding issues.
The details
The Cali Fund, created in 2024, is run by the United Nations, which decides how its money is distributed to support global conservation projects. Contributions are voluntary, and the mechanism targets companies that use publicly available genetic sequence data, which the fund's backers treat as a benefit-sharing obligation. Low-resource countries have argued that wealthy nations using such data without compensation amount to biopiracy.
Timeline
2024: The Cali Fund was created.
June: Makowska-Curran published a report on eligible companies.
May: Isomorphic Labs raised more than $2 billion in an investment round.
September: Basecamp Research raised $140 million in an investment round.
Last week: COP17 concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, where lack of company participation in the fund was discussed.
The Tech Race
The Cali Fund is a benefit-sharing mechanism for digital sequence information, which sits at the center of a growing contest between biotechnology firms and biodiversity-rich countries over access to genetic data. Its record so far, with contributions from only five firms, puts it behind the funding targets that countries set for 2030.
The fund's voluntary contributions mean that no individual reader is directly charged, and its effects reach users only indirectly through the conservation projects it may finance. The reporting gives no timeline for when more companies will contribute or when the fund will reach its estimated scale.
The takeaway
The Cali Fund's record suggests that voluntary benefit-sharing for genetic data is not yet keeping pace with the funding needs of biodiversity conservation. Watch whether additional firms among the more than 20,000 potentially eligible companies announce contributions in the coming reporting periods.
Further reading
For broader context, explore the Biotech coverage on how genetic data is being used and shared.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Nature.
Live Poll
Should companies that profit from nature's genetic data be required to pay into conservation?
