Suro Senen
By Global Environmental Correspondent
At the recent COP16 biodiversity summit held in Cali, Colombia, a historic shift occurred in the architecture of global environmental finance. Amidst the complex negotiations surrounding the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), delegates reached a landmark consensus: the establishment of the “Cali Fund.” This mechanism, designed to govern the sharing of benefits derived from Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources, includes a provision that could redefine the relationship between global capital and the world’s most effective conservationists.
Governments have committed that at least 50% of the funds generated through this multilateral mechanism will be directed toward the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), with a specific emphasis on women and youth. For advocates like June Rubis, a steering group committee member for the Cali Fund from Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, this represents more than just a budgetary allocation—it is a watershed moment for justice in multilateral benefit-sharing.
Main Facts: The Architecture of the Cali Fund
The Cali Fund is the operational heart of the agreement on DSI. As modern biotechnology relies increasingly on digitized genetic data—sequences found in public databases—the traditional Nagoya Protocol framework, which relied on bilateral agreements for physical access to specimens, became outdated.
The Fund serves as a global clearinghouse. Companies—particularly those in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and agricultural sectors that profit from products developed using DSI—are encouraged to contribute a portion of their revenues or profits into this central pool.
The core tenets of the agreement are:
- The 50% Mandate: A strict requirement that at least half of the disbursed funds must reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
- Inclusive Beneficiaries: Explicit prioritization of women and youth within IPLC networks, recognizing their pivotal role in traditional knowledge transmission and ecosystem management.
- Multilateralism: Moving away from arduous, case-by-case bilateral negotiations toward a streamlined global contribution model.
- Self-Determination: A move to ensure that funding is not prescriptive, but rather responds to the needs as defined by the communities themselves.
Chronology: The Road to Cali
The establishment of the Cali Fund was not an overnight success; it was the culmination of over a decade of diplomatic friction.
- 2010 (Nagoya Protocol): The adoption of the Nagoya Protocol established the "Access and Benefit-Sharing" (ABS) framework. However, it struggled to address the rapid rise of DSI, leaving a massive regulatory gap.
- 2022 (COP15, Montreal): The Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted, setting the target of 30×30 (protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030). The agreement included a mandate to create a multilateral mechanism for DSI benefit-sharing by COP16.
- 2023–2024 (The Inter-sessional Process): A series of technical working groups met in Geneva and other hubs to hash out the mechanics of the fund. Tensions remained high between industry lobbyists and Global South representatives.
- October 2024 (COP16, Cali): The final negotiations took place. Despite intense pressure from private sector entities worried about administrative burdens, the "Cali Fund" was formally established, cementing the 50% allocation for IPLCs as a non-negotiable pillar of the agreement.
Supporting Data: Why IPLC Funding Matters
The decision to allocate half of the Cali Fund to IPLCs is supported by a growing body of scientific and socio-economic data. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), although IPLCs occupy or manage approximately 25% of the global land area, these regions contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity.
Further, the economic efficiency of community-led conservation is well-documented. A 2023 report from the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) noted that when IPLCs are granted secure tenure and financial resources, the cost of biodiversity protection drops significantly while the efficacy of ecological outcomes increases.
The urgency is compounded by the "Gender Gap" in conservation funding. Current data suggests that less than 1% of international climate finance currently reaches Indigenous women, despite them being the primary custodians of seed diversity and traditional medicinal knowledge. The Cali Fund’s specific inclusion of women is a direct attempt to rectify this historical exclusion.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Perspectives
The reception to the Cali Fund has been cautiously optimistic, though tempered by the pragmatism of those who have seen international promises fail before.
June Rubis, Steering Group Committee Member:
"This is a milestone," Rubis noted following the announcement. "For decades, our knowledge and our territories have been treated as free inputs for global industries. The Cali Fund acknowledges that there is a debt owed. However, the true test will be in the implementation. We do not need top-down programs designed in Geneva or New York. We need mechanisms that respect our traditional institutions and our unique, localized decision-making processes."
Intergovernmental Responses:
Representatives from the European Union and the G7 bloc emphasized the need for a "user-friendly" contribution system to ensure that private sector companies actually participate. They highlighted that if the administrative burden is too high, the voluntary nature of the contributions might lead to a shortfall in funding.
The Private Sector:
Global industry associations, while largely supportive of a standardized, predictable system, have expressed concern regarding the definition of "benefit-sharing" for products that may have thousands of different DSI sources. They argue for a transparent, simplified fee structure that avoids double-taxation on research and development.
Implications: The Challenge of Implementation
While the commitment at COP16 is historic, the transition from a "pledge on paper" to "money on the ground" presents significant hurdles. The challenge, as Rubis points out, is the "translation of commitment into access."
1. Navigating Institutional Complexity
Indigenous communities often operate under governance structures that do not align with Western bureaucratic requirements. Requiring a local village council in Sarawak or the Amazon to provide the same financial reporting as a multinational NGO could inadvertently exclude the very people the fund is intended to help. The Cali Fund committee must develop "culturally appropriate" access protocols.
2. Defining "Self-Identified Needs"
There is a danger that international agencies will project their own priorities onto communities. If a community identifies the protection of a sacred grove as their primary need, but the fund only supports "technological sustainable development," the purpose is defeated. True implementation will require a bottom-up consultative process that allows for diverse definitions of "benefit."
3. The Risk of Greenwashing vs. Real Change
There is a looming risk that the 50% allocation could become a bureaucratic black hole, with funds absorbed by intermediary NGOs rather than reaching frontline communities. Ensuring transparency and direct funding flows will be the defining challenge of the next three years.
4. Global Biodiversity Finance
The Cali Fund is expected to catalyze a new era of biodiversity finance, potentially moving billions of dollars. If successful, it could provide a blueprint for other environmental agreements, such as the upcoming negotiations on deep-sea mining or international waters, where benefit-sharing remains a point of intense contention.
Conclusion: A Watershed, Not a Finish Line
The Cali Fund is a recognition of an uncomfortable truth: the global economy has been built on the invisible extraction of traditional knowledge and genetic resources from the most marginalized regions of the planet. By mandating that 50% of these benefits flow back to IPLCs, the international community has taken a necessary step toward distributive justice.
However, as June Rubis and her colleagues on the steering committee begin the work of operationalizing these commitments, the focus must remain on the ground. The success of the Cali Fund will not be measured by the total dollars raised, but by the degree to which it empowers Indigenous Peoples to safeguard their territories, preserve their cultures, and lead the global effort to halt the extinction crisis. The promise of Cali is not the end of the journey; it is merely the opening of the door. The next decade will determine whether that door leads to a genuine partnership or remains another unfulfilled promise in the history of international environmental diplomacy.
Siti Muinah
Nila Kartika Wati
