Big pharma accused of ‘free-riding on nature’ as global fund attracts just $7,000
A global biodiversity fund, the Cali Fund, aimed at raising $1bn annually from companies profiting from nature's genetics, has only attracted $7,085 in deposits. Pharmaceutical giants have not contributed, drawing accusations of "free-riding" on natural resources.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
The Cali Fund, designed to secure $1bn yearly for biodiversity conservation from industries like pharmaceuticals that utilize genetic information, has received minimal contributions, totaling just over $7,000. Major drug companies, which heavily rely on nature's genetic data for new medicines, have yet to contribute, leading to criticism that they are "free-riding" on natural resource…
Imagine nature is like a giant library full of amazing ideas for new medicines. Big drug companies use these ideas to make lots of money, but they haven't been putting much money back into the library to help protect it. A special fund was created to ask them to contribute, but it's almost empty because they haven't given much, leading people to say they're using the library's ideas without helping to keep it safe.
Analysis
The Cali Fund's Stalled Launch
The Cali Fund, established with the ambitious goal of generating $1 billion annually to support biodiversity conservation, particularly in low-income countries, has experienced a profoundly disappointing start. Over 18 months since its inception, the fund has garnered only $10,656 in pledges, with a mere $7,085 actually deposited. This figure is a stark contrast to the intended scale of funding, underscoring a significant challenge in mobilizing financial resources for critical environmental initiatives. The fund's design aims to create a mechanism for companies that derive profit from nature's genetic information to contribute back to its preservation, yet the initial response has been overwhelmingly muted, raising serious questions about the efficacy of voluntary contribution models.
Pharmaceutical Industry's 'Free-Riding'
Central to the criticism is the pharmaceutical industry's conspicuous absence from contributing to the Cali Fund. Despite the sector's profound reliance on genetic data from organisms worldwide for the development of lucrative medicines, major pharmaceutical companies have not made any contributions. Research by Zero Carbon Analytics suggests that the top 15 pharmaceutical companies could have collectively contributed approximately $756 million based on their 2025 performance, by adhering to the fund's suggested voluntary contribution of 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue. This disparity, where companies generated around $161 billion in profits in 2025 while the fund remains near-empty, leads to accusations of "free-riding" on nature's genetic bounty. Critics argue that these companies are not adequately recognizing the importance of protecting biodiversity or supporting the communities on the frontlines of conservation.
Challenges and Criticisms
The low uptake of the Cali Fund can be attributed to several factors, including industry criticisms and operational hurdles. Pharmaceutical companies have voiced concerns that the proposed blanket contribution is inappropriate, arguing that not all medicines are developed using digital sequence information (DSI) and that the fund may overlap with existing legal frameworks. The increasing reliance on DSI, which allows vast amounts of genetic information to be stored in public databases, has created new complexities in ensuring fair compensation for the use of natural genetic resources. While the fund was designed to address these emerging loopholes, the industry's reservations, coupled with the fund's ongoing development of its operational infrastructure and a lack of widespread awareness, have contributed to the modest financial inflows. The Cali Fund spokesperson acknowledged the disappointing start but noted that similar financial instruments often take two to three years to gain traction, expressing hope that discussions at Cop17 will provide greater clarity and encourage future commitments.
Key points
- The Cali Fund, intended to raise $1bn annually for biodiversity, has only secured $7,085 in deposits.
- Major pharmaceutical companies, reliant on nature's genetics for drug development, have not contributed.
- Critics accuse these companies of "free-riding" on natural resources without supporting conservation.
- Industry concerns include the fund's blanket contribution approach and potential overlap with existing laws.
- The fund's success is seen as crucial for addressing a $700bn gap in nature conservation funding.
If discussions at Cop17 lead to greater clarity and industry buy-in, the Cali Fund could eventually attract significant contributions. This would provide much-needed financial resources for biodiversity conservation, particularly benefiting Indigenous peoples and local communities who are crucial stewards of these natural resources. A successful fund could establish a precedent for other industries to contribute to conservation efforts based on their reliance on natural assets.
The continued reluctance of major pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the Cali Fund, citing concerns about its design and overlap with existing laws, could lead to its failure. This would exacerbate the existing funding gap for biodiversity conservation, potentially accelerating the destruction of natural habitats and the loss of genetic resources vital for future medical discoveries, leaving patients and the planet worse off.
