Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Global · 2024–2026

Cali Fund (digital sequence information)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 5 none on record · 4 insufficient · 1 not measured · 3 disputed · 1 unclear See the gaps

A UN fund created in 2024 asks companies that use digital genetic sequence data to contribute a share of profit or revenue, with about US$1 billion a year expected. By August 2026 it had received US$6,000 from two companies.

US$6,000Contributions received by August 2026 vs the roughly US$1 billion a year expected
Two contributions in 18 months (25 February 2025 to August 2026), from TierraViva AI (US$1,000) and Prozomix (US$5,000).

Status As of 12 October 2026: US$6,000 received from two companies; COP17 (Yerevan, 19–30 October 2026) was due to take up contribution rates and the allocation formula; no decision found.

What?
A UN fund to which companies that use digital sequence information are asked to contribute 1% of profit or 0.1% of revenue, with at least half of the money for Indigenous peoples and local communities; it received US$6,000 in its first 18 months. Mongabay
Where?
Global, under the CBD; COP16 took place in Cali, Colombia, and COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia. Mongabay
When?
Created by decision 16/2 in 2024; opened on 25 February 2025; US$6,000 received by August 2026; COP17 scheduled for 19–30 October 2026. Mongabay
Who?
Gained
  • Companies that use digital sequence information — Under the voluntary rate, two small firms had paid US$6,000 in total by August 2026; the large pharmaceutical firms named had not paid. Mongabay
Lost
  • Indigenous peoples and local communities, the intended recipients of at least half of the fund — Expected income of about US$1 billion a year had not arrived by August 2026; the fund's website gave no amounts or distribution in July 2026. The Cali Fund
Harmed
None on record
Why?
To have companies that use genetic sequence data return a share of their profit or revenue to nature and Indigenous peoples. Contribution is voluntary because the decision uses the word 'should'; Bayer cited legal uncertainty. Inf'OGM
How?
A voluntary rate of 1% of profit or 0.1% of revenue for companies above a size threshold, with a compliance certificate for payers. Two companies paid: TierraViva AI US$1,000 and Prozomix US$5,000. Carbon Brief
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The Cali Fund was created under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at its 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, in 2024, by decision 16/2. It is meant to receive contributions from companies that use digital sequence information (DSI): the digital record of genetic sequences taken from plants, animals or micro-organisms and stored in public databases. The decision set an indicative rate of 1 percent of profit or 0.1 percent of revenue, which companies above a size threshold 'should' contribute; the wording is voluntary. The threshold is two of three criteria: US$20 million in assets, US$50 million in sales or US$5 million in profit. At least half of the money is to go to Indigenous peoples and local communities.

The fund opened for contributions on 25 February 2025. It was expected to raise about US$1 billion a year. A June 2026 study by the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute estimated possible yearly income at US$929 million with realistic voluntary participation and about US$3.6 billion with full participation, across 21,690 eligible firms in 100 jurisdictions. It also modelled how the money would be shared if distributed by the geographic origin of the data: close to half would go to wealthy research economies and Africa's share would be 6 percent.

Carbon Brief reported in August 2025, from freedom-of-information emails, that AstraZeneca had not received the government's 'pioneer contributor' offer and that GSK had not stated a position. The first contribution, US$1,000 from the UK artificial-intelligence start-up TierraViva AI, was reported by Mongabay on 19 November 2025; the fund's website dates it 28 February 2026. The company's chief executive, Paul Oldham, described the payment as an 'icebreaker'. A second contribution, US$5,000 from the UK biotechnology firm Prozomix, followed in July 2026. Mongabay reported on 1 September 2026 that the total paid in by August 2026 was US$6,000. Ginkgo Bioworks had pledged a contribution but had not paid.

The CBD Executive Secretary, Astrid Schomaker, said that nobody knows the fund; the operations manual and certificate system were still in draft. The fund's website in July 2026 listed two contributors and gave no amounts or distribution. Bayer said that the COP16 decision added legal uncertainty. A preparatory meeting on 4–12 August 2026 ran out of time before finishing its discussion of the method for reviewing the mechanism.

COP17 was due to meet in Yerevan, Armenia, on 19–30 October 2026, with contribution rates, the allocation formula, the review method and rules for companies that use DSI in only part of their business on the agenda.

  1. 2024COP16 in Cali adopts decision 16/2 creating the fund: indicative rate 1% of profit or 0.1% of revenue, with a size threshold; at least half to Indigenous peoples and local communities
  2. 2025Fund opens for contributions (25 February); Carbon Brief reports on industry hesitation (6 August); first contribution, US$1,000 from TierraViva AI, reported by Mongabay as 19 November 2025 (the fund's website dates it 28 February 2026)
  3. 2026LSE Grantham study (3 June); US$5,000 from Prozomix (July); preparatory meeting (4–12 August); US$6,000 total by August; Mongabay report (1 September); COP17 in Yerevan scheduled for 19–30 October

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Have companies that use digital sequence information contributed to the fund?
International bodies
Convention on Biological Diversity (decision 16/2)

Companies above the thresholds 'should' contribute 1% of profit or 0.1% of revenue; expected income about US$1 billion a year.

Carbon Brief
Press and investigations
Mongabay

By August 2026 two small firms had paid US$6,000 in total; Ginkgo Bioworks had pledged but not paid.

Mongabay
Company or project
Bayer

Said the COP16 decision added legal uncertainty and an additional layer of obligation.

Inf'OGM
Company or project
AstraZeneca

According to freedom-of-information emails, it had not received the government's pioneer-contributor offer.

Carbon Brief
Company or project
GSK

According to the same emails, it had not stated a position.

Carbon Brief
Communities and civil society
IPC (civil-society organisation)

Described the fund as a tool for legalised biopiracy.

Inf'OGM
Communities and civil society
Third World Network representative

Said that use of the word donor in the agreement with the fund's administrative partners could give companies a right of oversight.

When was the first contribution made?
Press and investigations
Mongabay

TierraViva AI's US$1,000 payment was made on 19 November 2025.

Mongabay
International bodies
The Cali Fund website (July 2026)

Dates the first contribution 28 February 2026.

The Cali Fund
Would sharing by data origin favour the Global South?
Researchers
LSE Grantham Research Institute

If distributed by the geographic origin of the data, close to half would go to rich research economies and Africa would receive 6%.

LSE Grantham Research Institute

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • The fund was presented at its opening as expected to raise about US$1 billion a year, with at least half going to Indigenous peoples and local communities.
    Convention on Biological Diversity process (COP16 decision 16/2), as reported by Mongabay (September 2026) · Mongabay

Recorded

  • Decision 16/2 set an indicative rate of 1% of profit or 0.1% of revenue, stated as what companies 'should' contribute; the fund opened on 25 February 2025.
    Carbon Brief
  • By August 2026 two contributions had been paid in, US$1,000 (TierraViva AI) and US$5,000 (Prozomix), a total of US$6,000. Ginkgo Bioworks pledged but did not pay.
    Mongabay
  • The fund's website in July 2026 listed two contributors and gave no amounts or distribution.
    The Cali Fund
  • Ginkgo Bioworks pledged but had not paid; AstraZeneca did not receive the government's 'pioneer contributor' offer; GSK stated no position (freedom-of-information emails reported by Carbon Brief).
    Carbon Brief
  • The LSE Grantham Research Institute estimated possible income at US$929 million a year with realistic voluntary participation and about US$3.6 billion with full participation; allocation by geographic origin of the genetic resource would send close to half to rich research economies and 6 percent to Africa.
    LSE Grantham Research Institute
  • Bayer said the rules created 'legal uncertainty'; a civil-society organisation described the fund as a tool for legalised biopiracy.
    Inf'OGM
  • Only 14.6% of sequences in the INSDC sequence databases carry country information; about half of the country-labelled data came from the US, China, Canada and Japan in a study of 117,483 publications and 17.8 million country-labelled sequences, whose authors rejected a provider-user divide.
    GigaScience (PMC)

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

$0.01m
Money paid into the fund, as stated by Mongabay. The fund's website gives no amounts or distribution.
Contribution from TierraViva AI$0m
Contribution from Prozomix$0.01m

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Reached the ground
$0.01m
Currency: USD · Window: 25 Feb 2025 – Aug 2026 (18 months). All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • tierraviva-ai (November 2025): Its chief executive described the US$1,000 payment as an icebreaker and the first contribution; the company's earnings were below the contribution threshold. · Carbon Brief
  • prozomix (July 2026): Contributed US$5,000 in July 2026; no statement from the company is on record in the sources reviewed. · Mongabay
  • bayer (2025–2026): Said the COP16 decision added legal uncertainty and an additional layer of obligation. · Inf'OGM
  • astrazeneca (6 August 2025): According to freedom-of-information emails reported by Carbon Brief, it had not received the government's pioneer-contributor offer. · Carbon Brief
  • gsk (6 August 2025): According to the same emails, it had not stated a position. · Carbon Brief
  • ginkgo-bioworks (August 2026): Pledged a contribution to the fund; had not paid by August 2026. · Mongabay
  • cbd-secretariat (2026): The CBD Executive Secretary, Astrid Schomaker, said that nobody knows the fund; the operations manual and certificate system remained in draft.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Received vs expected
US$6,000 vs about US$1bn a year
Two contributions, 25 February 2025 to August 2026 (Mongabay)
Contributors
2
TierraViva AI (US$1,000) and Prozomix (US$5,000)
Africa's share under origin-based allocation
6%
LSE Grantham Research Institute simulation, 2026; close to half would go to rich research economies

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
No court caseKey earnings undisclosedUnder standard-setter review

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Court

Accounts

  • Disputed Have companies that use digital sequence information contributed to the fund?
  • Disputed When was the first contribution made?
  • Disputed Would sharing by data origin favour the Global South?

Record

  • None on record How the money would be distributed: the fund's website gives no amounts or distribution, and the operations manual and certificate system were still in draft.
  • Unclear Whether the companies the fund targets will contribute: none of the large pharmaceutical firms named had paid by August 2026, and Ginkgo Bioworks had pledged but not paid.
  • None on record Date of the first payment: 19 November 2025 (Mongabay) or 28 February 2026 (the fund's website).
  • None on record Attribution of the income estimates: one account attributes the US$929 million (realistic participation) and about US$3.6 billion (full participation) figures to the LSE Grantham study, while a report on a Convention document (CBD/COP/17/6/Add.3) gives US$929 million as a central estimate and US$3.65 billion at full compliance; the document itself could not be checked.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: the same Convention document is reported to give about US$5 million a year at the participation rate of the Plant Treaty.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that public databases and academia are exempt from contributing (known only).
  • Insufficient The legal status of the fund: contributions are voluntary, and almost no national law was reported to recognise the compliance certificate to be issued to paying companies (not independently verified).
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: the Nagoya Protocol was reported to have returned about US$54 million in monetary benefits worldwide over a decade, a figure published by a law firm representing life-science companies; the source page could not be opened.
  • None on record Outcome of COP17 (19–30 October 2026): no decision on the Cali Fund rules had been taken at the latest date reviewed.

Did the harm stop?

Not applicable: the fund remained open to contributions, and its rules were due for discussion at COP17 on 19–30 October 2026.

Who paid?

Two small firms paid US$6,000 in total in the first 18 months. The fund's website gave no distribution, so no payment to Indigenous peoples or local communities is on record.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers✓ International bodies

Press and investigations

Researchers

International bodies

  1. The Cali Fund: Homepage
    The Cali Fund · 2026-07
  2. CBD/COP/17/6/Add.3 (known only)
    Convention on Biological Diversity · 2026

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Similar cases
Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Protected area / relocation · Kenya · 1970–2026
Endorois and Lake Bogoria enzyme extraction (Kenya)
Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharing, Protected area / relocationHarm to nature not measured
Killings and repression of defenders · Protected area / relocation · Brazil · 2019
Paulo Paulino Guajajara killing (Brazil)
Same type: Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Carbon credits · Protected area / relocation · Cambodia · 2015–2025
Southern Cardamom REDD+ project and the arrest of Pork Nget (Cambodia)
Same type: Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Protected area / relocation · International · 2019–2020
WWF independent review (Pillay panel) and US funding suspension
Same type: Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Protected area / relocation · Carbon credits · Nepal · 2000–2026
Nepal community forestry
Same type: Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature not measured
Killings and repression of defenders · Protected area / relocation · Brazil · 2022–2026
Bruno Pereira and Dom Phillips killing (Brazil)
Same type: Protected area / relocationSame regionHarm to nature not measured