As the COP17 nature summit gets underway in Armenia, evidence has emerged of lobbying by a leading international pharmaceuticals group to weaken the terms of a flagship fund for nature. Documents analysed by DeSmog show that the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) called for a ‘radical rethink’ of the rationale for the landmark Cali Fund – the first mechanism built to take voluntary payments from large companies that profit from genetic sequence data. The IFPMA states that the ‘modalities of the decision’ to establish the Fund – which was ratified by 196 countries in 2024 at the COP16 summit of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Colombia – should be ‘significantly reviewed, revised and clarified’. In the consultation submission, the trade group – which represents the pharmaceutical sector at the UN – also challenged the indicative rates at which companies were invited to contribute to the Fund, agreed at COP16 as 0.1 percent of revenue or 1 percent of profit.The IFPMA labelled these indicative rates as ‘premature’, set ‘without any rational analysis’, and ‘commercially unrealistic’, suggesting instead that companies be allowed to contribute to the voluntary fund at a level of their choosing. Other demands from the IFPMA included a guarantee that any contribution would explicitly substitute payments for digital sequence information required under national or international laws.Despite contributions to the Cali Fund already being voluntary, following a fierce lobbying push at the last summit, the IFPMA also seeks a guarantee they will remain so, stating that ‘there are elements in the decision that do not go far enough in creating a truly voluntary mechanism’. Responses from other sectors, such as biotechnology and cosmetics – which are listed alongside pharma and artificial intelligence firms in the treaty text as industries that should contribute – echo some of the IFPMA’s objections, and appear to be reluctant to support the Fund as it is currently conceived. The UK Bioindustry Association (UK BIA), which has 600 biotech and life sciences companies among its members, says the CBD’s expectations for what the Fund can raise are currently set ‘unrealistically high’, in its consultation response dated March 2025. UK BIA states that ‘for the Fund to succeed in the long term’, questions over its design and operationalisation must be addressed, and ‘clear incentives’ created. The revelations come as negotiators gather for the UN biodiversity summit in Armenia this week, with just $10,000 pledged by companies to the Cali Fund. It falls far short of the $1 billion to $10 billion that the UN had hoped the Fund could draw in every year, half of which is mandated to flow directly to the Indigenous and local communities that steward biodiversity. ‘The tiny amounts contributed to the Cali Fund so far, combined with continued delays from industry, send a clear signal: voluntary contributions are simply not delivering,’ An Lambrechts, a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, told DeSmog. The latest UN report shows that the world is off track on all but one of 23 targets aimed at reversing catastrophic nature loss, with the total funds raised to date from both private and public bodies falling far short of what is needed to close a $200 billion ‘biodiversity finance gap’.’Big multinational corporations are turning massive profits by exploring nature,’ Lambrechts says, ‘while leaving people all over the world to face the impacts of the biodiversity crisis.’ Subscribe to Desmog Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable Name –> Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up –> A spokesperson for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat admits that the sums in the Fund ‘sit well below the scenarios that were discussed in Cali’, but puts this down to the evolving ‘operational infrastructure’ and its low profile.’Substantive decisions expected at COP17 are expected to give in-scope companies more solid ground to commit,’ they said. ‘I do believe companies have legitimate concerns, but there’s also a sense in which they don’t want to pay,’ said a source close to the negotiations, who preferred to remain anonymous. ‘If these industries were really supportive then someone would have put the money in by now, even just as a token, a show of good faith.’ Guilherme Cintra, Director, Innovation Policy at IFPMA wrote in an email that the group had ‘long supported the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity and continues to deliver against the targets set out in the Global Biodiversity Framework’.He added: ‘The level of participation in the Cali Fund reflects ongoing questions about the design and implementation of the mechanism, rather than a lack of commitment to biodiversity. Governments should use COP17 to rethink the Cali Fund to attract broader participation and ensure it supports biodiversity and preserves scientific openness.’ UK BIA declined to comment on the record. ‘It’s concerning that, nearly two years after the agreements reached at COP16 in Cali, funding for biodiversity protection remains an unfulfilled promise,’ Juan Bay, leader of the indigenous Waorani nation of Ecuador told DeSmog. ‘This reflects a situation we have been denouncing for years: Indigenous peoples protect some of the most biodiverse territories on the planet, yet we continue to face enormous difficulties in directly accessing the funding needed to protect them.’ History of Pushback When the Cali Fund was launched in February last year, the UN hailed it as the beginning of ‘a new era for biodiversity finance’. The new financial instrument aimed to address a new reality: that genetic data, known as digital sequence information, or DSI, is now available online. This allows companies, or researchers, to access material from plants, animals, bacteria and fungi without ever setting foot in the country of origin – and bypass rules that require payment. As a result, the genetic code that underpins a range of lucrative products – everything from sweeteners to the vast majority of cancer drugs – is available with few rules to limit access. The Cali Fund, Carbon Brief writes, was aimed at ‘closing this loophole’. It was agreed that 50 percent of funds would go to Indigenous communities and local communities that steward fragile ecosystems, with the rest going to Global South countries and scientific research. At the COP16 summit where the Fund was agreed, the business lobby reached a record high, including from sectors that the mechanism was built around: pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, cosmetics, and information services associated with DSI, including artificial intelligence. An Indigenous delegate taking part in UN talks in Colombia two years ago, when the Cali Fund was first agreed. Half of any funds raised are ear-marked for Indigenous and local communities that care for fragile ecosystems. Credit: Photographer: Fernando Vergara / Associated Press /Alamy A Global South government push at the UN talks for the Fund to be a mandatory mechanism was defeated in the wake of a strong lobbying effort by the pharma, agritech and biotech industry, which dubbed the proposed levy a ‘global tax’.In the lead up to the summit, UK-based pharma giant AstraZeneca, which posted $12.4 billion in profits last year, had warned the British government it ‘might cut jobs’ if a levy were introduced, according to The Guardian. An AstraZeneca spokesperson denied the comments. Another pharma giant, GSK, also pushed back against the Fund, which it called ‘disproportionate’, telling the UK government it could ‘hinder the development of new medicines and vaccines’, in emails obtained by Carbon Brief. A spokesperson from GSK told DeSmog it had set ambitious targets and was investing in nature protection. ‘We support the intent behind the Cali Fund and will make a decision regarding voluntary contributions when there is more information about how the Cali Fund will work alongside other national and multilateral Access and Benefit Sharing mechanisms,’ they said. ‘As a company, we are committed to advancing our research and development in response to the needs of patients,’ an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an email. ‘An assessment of the full impact on our operations will be conducted once there is more clarity from governments on the implementation of the DSI MLM [Cali Fund].’ Since 2024, the pharmaceutical industry’s global lobby group the IFPMA appears to have continued to focus its energy on weakening the rules that were agreed in Colombia.The COP16 agreement established key elements of the Fund: contribution rates, a list of sectors that should contribute, and set thresholds to ensure large companies were expected to give to the fund, defining qualifying entities as those that exceeded two of three financial thresholds: $20 million in assets, $50 million in sales, or $5 million in profit.However, rates and thresholds were marked as ‘indicative’ and set to be finalised at the current talks in Armenia. Cali Fund Push Back To build on what had been agreed in Cali, Colombia, the CBD sought to engage industry over how to make the Fund operational – inviting responses on what sectors should contribute and how. DeSmog analysed 22 responses, which were submitted by 14 groups in response to stakeholder consultations issued by the Convention of Biological Diversity secretariat, along with available public statements from industry groups that have engaged publicly with the Fund.In their submissions, industry groups pushed back on a range of fronts. The IFPMA, which claims to represent over 90 percent of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical companies, emerges as the Fund’s most outspoken critic.It called for a ‘radical rethink’ of the Fund’s rationale, and states that the MLM (multilateral mechanism that gives rise to the Cali Fund) does not ‘effectively advance biodiversity goals’. The group criticised everything from contribution levels, a lack of clarity ‘on how funds will be allocated or guarantees that funds will directly support conservation efforts’, and proposed that the treaty decision text be ‘significantly reviewed, revised and clarified’. ‘A Tax on Innovation’ The IFPMA states that the MLM ‘essentially imposes a financial burden on the free exchange of scientific data, which is critical for medical, environmental and other societal research’. It adds that: ‘by taxing DSI use, the MLM risks creating disincentives for global scientific cooperation, slowing the pace of innovation’.The IFPMA also stated that it is ‘critical’ that indicative contribution rates (0.1 percent of revenue or 1 percent of profit) be ‘reconsidered’.’Establishing indicative contribution rates in Decision 16/2 was premature and the rates themselves are commercially unrealistic, are not based on the underlying value that DSI brings, lack scientific justification, do not take into account sector-specific differences, and serve as a disincentive to participation,’ it wrote. The IFPMA’s view that setting indicative rates was ‘premature’ is echoed in the submission from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The ICC was approached for comment. In its consultation submission, it states that the ICC is seeking ‘clarity, certainty and enabling conditions that are essential to incentivise businesses to actively engage’. ‘Not Voluntary Enough’ The IFPMA goes on to suggest that the size of any contribution should be left to companies’ discretion, writing that ‘the expectation of contribution as well as the level of contribution must both be voluntary’.While IFPMA recognises that payments into the Fund are already ‘voluntary in principle’, it argues that the wording of the treaty decision does ‘not go far enough in creating a truly voluntary mechanism’ – taking issue with a clause that invites signatories to the CBD treaty to enact laws that incentivise company contributions. The IFPMA goes on to add: ‘Given that the indicative rates were chosen without any rational analysis – as acknowledged by the decision itself, which calls for a study to propose replacement realistic rates – it is critical that these placeholder rates are truly indicative.’In 2026, the UN’s CBD secretariat produced a study, in which it modelled the impact of contribution rates on the competitiveness of eligible companies, and found ‘the direct cost burden […] to be modest, relative to sector margins’. The IFPMA disputed these findings too, stating that ‘even modest reductions in expected returns can be enough to delay, scale back or halt a project’. ‘Obligation Stacking’ The CBD negotiating text (Decision 16/2), which established the Fund, stated that the treaty would not override national ‘benefit-sharing’ laws that already exist in at least 20 countries – which require companies to pay, or otherwise compensate, communities for their use of digital genetic data.The IFPMA and BIA trade groups both expressed their concern at what they call ‘obligation stacking’, in consultation documents analysed by DeSmog. The IFPMA said that any payment into the Cali Fund should rule out paying governments for DSI again under any national laws, and both ask for ‘legal certainty’.In response to a request for comment, Guilherme Cintra, IFPMA’s director of innovation policy, said: ‘The current mechanism overlaps with existing law, relies on inaccurate assumptions about how data is used in the discovery of medicines, and asks companies to hand over a share of their total revenue whether ‘digital sequence information’ was used to develop a medicine or not.’ ‘Artful Arguments’ Dr Siva Thambisetty, associate professor of law at the London School of Economics (LSE), describes industry’s core arguments as ‘artful’.She explains that the Fund decision to base contributions on revenue or profit, was an attempt aimed at securing ‘oversight and transparency’ in the absence of comparable publicly available data from companies on how they use DSI.’I think it’s interesting that the very companies that wanted a voluntary mechanism are now claiming that there is no legal certainty,’ says Thambisetty. ‘We have to be careful that national ABS [access and benefit-sharing] laws are not damaged for a system that not many users appear to have any intention of paying into’.She suggests that industry objections raised touch the fund’s viability and the terms already agreed, rather than how it should be rolled out. ‘It’s the operational clarity that the negotiations in Armenia should ideally focus on, rather than reopening the basis for the normative clarity, and multilateral will – which is clearly set out in CBD decisions,’ she said. A paper released on the eve of the summit by the Common Initiative think tank acknowledges that the fund is empty due to structural problems, not just to low company ambition. It highlights a lack of consensus on how to define DSI, no clear mechanism for counting contributions, and a lack of harmonization between national governments’ implementation. But these structural problems are not ‘bad luck,’ they write. Rather, ‘it is what happens when a mechanism designed to extract money from some of the most profitable industries on earth is built on the assumption that those industries will simply volunteer to pay it.’ Indigenous Agency Finalising the Cali Fund will be top of the agenda at the upcoming Cop17 talks in the Armenian capital Yerevan, which will run from 19-30 October. Parties are expected to pin down the details on disbursement of the fund between Global South countries, thresholds for company participation and fund governance, as well as measuring countries’ progress against targets to protect 30 percent of land and seas and restore the earth’s degraded ecosystems.For June Rubis, an Indigenous representative who sits on the Cali Fund Steering Committee, the question of where money ends up has great importance. ‘I would like to see Indigenous communities be given meaningful agency over priorities, access and delivery,’ she tells DeSmog. The final Cali Fund text agreed at COP16 stated that half of any funds raised would go to Indigenous and local community stewards for self-defined projects that support biodiversity protection like forest restoration, or the transfer of ecological knowledge between generations.Indigenous communities manage, or have rights over, around 37 percent of the earth’s natural areas, despite making up just 6 percent of the global population.’What I want to avoid is a situation in which money is nominally allocated for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but the project priorities are determined elsewhere or communities have to pass through an institution they did not identify,’ says Rubis. Rubis believes it’s important to take the time to build a financial mechanism that works for company contributors, countries, and Indigenous peoples and local communities alike. ‘Of course,’ she adds, ‘for all this to apply, we also need to have the money coming in.’ More Action From States Although businesses are expected to pay into the Cali Fund, national governments have the power to negotiate, agree and enforce decisions reached through the CBD process – and bear the responsibility to ensure funds are raised. To date, governments have played a mixed role. Some Global North countries, including the EU bloc and UK, appear to have lobbied alongside industry to push for the Cali Fund to be non-binding and voluntary.However since then, through the Friends of the Cali Fund – which is chaired by the UK and Chile and includes Norway and Armenia – both the UK and the EU are now working to incentivise contributions. Other countries such as Switzerland, where pharmaceutical companies make up 7 percent of GDP, as well as Japan and Korea, have continued to push back on key elements of the fund architecture. ‘I have been surprised to see industry arguments amplified by some Global North governments,’ says Nithin Ramakrishnan from the nonprofit Third World Network, ‘Including on areas – such as the relationship with national laws – that appear to go against the text that was agreed in Cali.’For her part, Thambisetty tells DeSmog she would like to see ‘more coordinated action’ on the part of countries where most of these large firms are situated. Thambisetty suggests a global push is needed to frame contributions as a moral responsibility for companies and investors: ‘a good public narrative about why these payments are necessary’. Learning By Doing So far, the Cali Fund has raised no money from large firms. The only companies to contribute are Prozomix, a small UK-based biotech company that paid in July this year, and UK technology start-up TierraViva AI which contributed in November 2025. The smaller outfits are encouraging others to follow suit. The first, TierraViva AI, which deposited $1,000, called on companies to embrace ‘learning by doing’, in an open letter penned last November. A second company, the biotech firm Prozomix, which handed over $5,000 in July, states on its website: ‘We feel companies of our size, and at any and all stages of development, should pay for the privilege of exploiting public DSI’.Business for Nature, an alliance of more than 100 progressive businesses, has encouraged contributions from its members, pointing out they depend on healthy ecosystems to maintain their business model. It writes in an August briefing that ‘companies do not need to wait for the final rules to engage’.It’s a sentiment echoed by the CBD executive secretary Schomaker, who called on companies to commit, ahead of this week’s summit. ‘Maybe if you think it’s too new for you, make a gesture and start paying, and increase over time,’ she told environmental news site Mongabay. ‘It’s frankly not good enough for a company to say, ‘We have many questions,’ and just sit there and wait.’With editing by Emma Howard The post How Big Pharma Tried to Weaken the Rules of the UN’s Nature Fund appeared first on DeSmog.