Introduction
In early 2025 the international community launched a new mechanism to channel public and private money into biodiversity conservation and benefit-sharing for the providers of genetic resources: the Cali Fund. The Fund is intended to do something fairly specific — it creates a route for companies, especially those using Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and genetic resources, to put money where nature’s stewards can access it directly. That includes Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and — by design — it also offers avenues for responsible biotech companies to fund benefit-sharing programs and collaborate with custodians of biodiversity.
Why is this important? Biodiversity finance is a huge gap in global climate and environmental politics. The abstract value of genetic resources becomes concrete only when it funds habitat protection, equitable community programs and research into sustainable use. The Cali Fund aims to operationalize fairness: money from users of genetic data flows back to those who have safeguarded that diversity for generations. This post explains the Fund in plain language, explores its policy logic, shows who can benefit and how, and offers practical, step-by-step guidance for Indigenous groups, NGOs, biotech firms and universities who want to participate.
Overview of the topic — what the Cali Fund is (and what it is not)
At the highest level, the Cali Fund is a global financing mechanism launched under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to facilitate fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources and related digital sequence information (DSI). Its creation responds to a long-standing debate: how to make sure companies that analyze genetic sequences and build products (from medicines to agricultural traits and cosmetics) contribute back to biodiversity-rich countries and communities. The Fund frames that transfer as both ethical and practical: paying for conservation and for the stewardship roles that Indigenous Peoples and local communities perform.
Key features (brief):
-
Purpose: Pool contributions from DSI users and other sources, and distribute funds to biodiversity conservation and to the communities whose knowledge and territories underpin genetic diversity.
-
Stewardship emphasis: The Fund explicitly recognizes Indigenous Peoples and local communities as rights-holders and stewards, with an expressed commitment to allocate meaningful funds according to their self-identified needs.
-
Hosted and managed: The Fund is intended to be administered through a multilateral hub (multi-partner trust fund arrangements and CBD institutional structures), with oversight and governance that includes States and stakeholders.
-
Incentive logic: By making it standard practice for companies that use DSI to contribute, the Fund aims to reduce free-riding and build a sustainable revenue stream for biodiversity action.
Two important clarifications up front: (1) the Cali Fund does not replace national sovereignty over genetic resources; it is designed to complement national ABS (Access and Benefit-Sharing) laws and the broader Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; and (2) the mechanism’s design, contribution rates and operating rules are subject to ongoing negotiation and uptake by companies. In other words, the Fund exists as a new global instrument, but implementation depends on policy detail and practical partnership building in the coming years.
“Cali Fund Launch: Biodiversity & Genetic Resources Grants for Indigenous Communities & Biotech Firms” matter
Why should communities, researchers and biotech businesses pay attention to the Cali Fund? There are three practical reasons.
1. It creates a new, predictable stream of funding for biodiversity
Historically, biodiversity finance has been piecemeal, with a heavy reliance on government budgets and philanthropy. A pooled mechanism that channels funds from the private sector introduces scale and predictability — both necessary to finance long-term conservation projects, community stewardship programs and the infrastructure (monitoring, seed banks, community patrols) that protect genetic resources.
2. It formalizes benefit-sharing for intangible data flows
Digital Sequence Information (DSI) is the digital representation of genetic material. Biotech firms can analyze DSI and derive commercial value without physically accessing samples. The Cali Fund addresses this loophole by creating a route to pay for DSI use — a modern update to Access and Benefit-Sharing that matches the realities of data-driven bioeconomies.
3. It opens partnership pathways for Indigenous communities and responsible firms
The Fund’s operational rules aim to put money where Indigenous Peoples and local communities can access it for their own priorities. For Indigenous communities, that means greater leverage to fund local conservation, cultural transmission, legal support for land tenure, and community-led research. For biotech firms, the Fund offers a structured way to contribute to equitable outcomes — a reputational and operational win when compliance with international norms becomes an asset.
Bottom line: the Cali Fund is not simply a philanthropic pot — it’s designed as a normative shift that links corporate use of genetic data with practical compensation to the stewards of biodiversity.
Key Importance — how the Fund is set up to support Indigenous Peoples and biotech firms
This section explains the Fund’s levers and why those levers matter for two central stakeholder groups: Indigenous Peoples & local communities (IPLCs), and biotech / life-sciences companies.
For Indigenous Peoples & local communities
-
Direct funding streams: The Fund’s architecture includes channels that allow for financing programs identified by Indigenous Peoples themselves (not just top-down projects imposed from outside). That means support for land tenure actions, community conservation patrols, community seed banks, and cultural revitalization. According to policy reporting, a significant portion of Fund proceeds is earmarked for IPLC priorities.
-
Capacity & governance investment: The Fund recognizes that effective use of finance requires capacity — in financial management, participatory governance, legal counsel — and it therefore envisions support for institutional strengthening. This is crucial because many communities lack fiduciary mechanisms to manage larger flows of funding.
-
Recognition & agency: Beyond money, participation in Fund governance and project selection enhances recognition of local rights and supports a shift from being passive beneficiaries to active partners.
For biotech firms
-
Structured, reputationally sound contribution pathway: Companies that source or use DSI can contribute to the Fund as a standardized approach to benefit-sharing. This reduces legal ambiguity and builds good practice signals to regulators, investors and the public.
-
Risk reduction and regulatory alignment: Firms expect increasing national and international regulation around DSI and genetic resources. Proactively participating in a global mechanism can reduce future compliance costs and help firms demonstrate responsible supply-chain management.
-
Access to local partnerships and stable supplies: Companies that invest in community stewardship and local conservation can build long-term relationships with IPLCs, which supports sustainable supply chains and may facilitate research collaborations under fair terms.
Both sides benefit from transparent rules and practical partnerships: communities get funds and agency, while firms secure legitimacy and a pathway to ethical use of biodiversity data.
Key Insights — operational features, red flags, and practical realities
From the Fund’s public documents and expert commentary, several practical insights emerge. These are important for anyone planning to apply for grants, partner with the Fund, or design programs that will be financed by it.
1. The Fund centres DSI as a funding trigger
The financial flows envisioned for the Cali Fund are linked closely to the commercial use of DSI. That creates a logical and measurable trigger — when DSI is used commercially, companies contribute — but it also raises monitoring and attribution questions (how to track DSI use?). Expect ongoing technical work to define what counts as a qualifying use and how contributions are calculated.
2. Effective allocation requires flexible instruments
Indigenous communities and biodiversity programs differ enormously. The Fund needs both small grants for grassroots projects and larger strategic investments (e.g., landscape-level conservation, endowments for long-term stewardship). Proposals that package small community needs with larger co-financing (government or philanthropic matching) will be more competitive.
3. Governance and consent are non-negotiable
A recurring theme in stakeholder commentary is the need for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and meaningful IPLC participation in governance. The Fund is designed to respect these principles, but implementation demands robust, culturally appropriate processes and legal safeguards.
4. Market participation remains tentative
At launch, major companies signalled interest but few committed immediate pledges. Industry uptake will depend on clarity about contribution calculations, exemptions for non-commercial research, and how contributions affect competitive dynamics. There’s a window for responsible firms to lead by example — early contributors gain trust and shape the Fund’s practical rules.
5. Verification and traceability matter
To be credible, the Fund must show that money leads to outcomes: hectares protected, species recovered, communities supported. This requires a rigorous M&E system, clear baselines and joint monitoring with communities.
Benefits — what communities and firms can realistically expect
Below I list practical benefits, distinguishing near-term (1–3 years) from medium-term (3–10 years) outcomes.
Near-term benefits (1–3 years)
-
Seed funding for community priorities: small grants and capacity support for local governance, legal aid for tenure claims, community mapping, and seed banks.
-
Pilot partnerships with biotech firms: initial collaborations around equitable research and access agreements.
-
Visibility and political leverage: funded projects gain visibility in national and international forums, which helps amplify community voices and local policy change.
Medium-term benefits (3–10 years)
-
Stable financing pipelines: consistent flows that allow long-term conservation planning rather than one-off projects.
-
Strengthened local institutions: trained community funds managers, local NGOs and co-ops that can sustain programs.
-
Responsible innovation in biotech: firms that invest in community partnerships can foster locally relevant R&D, joint IP models, and benefit-sharing agreements that include communities as co-owners or stakeholders.
These benefits are conditional on good governance, strong monitoring and credible grievance mechanisms — all of which the Fund must implement and which communities should demand.
Table — quick comparison: Cali Fund grants vs. typical conservation grants
| Feature | Cali Fund grants (DSI-linked) | Typical conservation grants |
|---|---|---|
| Funding trigger | Contributions linked to use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and other user fees. | Often donor priorities, government budgets or ad hoc philanthropy. |
| Target recipients | Parties to CBD, Indigenous Peoples & local communities, conservation programs with ABS links. | NGOs, research institutes, governments (varies). |
| Allocation focus | Benefit-sharing, stewardship support, capacity for IPLCs, landscape conservation. | Species protection, habitat restoration, research, governance. |
| Scale & predictability | Aims for predictable flows if DSI use is widespread; still early in operationalization. | Often project-cycle dependent and variable year-to-year. |
| Governance requirements | Strong FPIC, IPLC participation, transparent distribution mechanisms. | Varies by funder; some emphasize community participation, others less so. |
This table clarifies the Fund’s distinct logic: it is a benefit-sharing mechanism linked to modern genomic usage, rather than a generic conservation pot.
Real-world examples — practical, region-specific scenarios (Asia, Middle East, Africa focus)
Below are three concrete scenarios that show how different actors — an international student, an educator, and a parent/community leader — could participate in or benefit from Cali-Fund financed programs.
Example 1 — International student (Kenya → collaborative research & community mapping)
Profile: A graduate biology student at Nairobi University researching medicinal plants in a regional biodiversity hotspot.
Pathway: The student partners with a local Indigenous community that maintains a community seed bank and traditional knowledge registry. By forming a university-community-NGO consortium, they secure a small grant from a Cali Fund pilot to fund participatory mapping, secure storage of genetic materials, and community-directed research. The student’s thesis is co-authored with community researchers, and results feed into community priorities — improved seed selection and local income generation from sustainable non-timber forest products.
Benefit: The student gains field experience and community co-research skills; the community gains finances and capacity to manage seeds and negotiate benefit-sharing agreements.
Example 2 — Educator / film & outreach specialist (Indonesia → curriculum & public awareness)
Profile: A vocational college educator in Central Sulawesi teaching conservation practice and community outreach.
Pathway: The educator partners with a local community granted funds for a biodiversity-monitoring program. The project allocates part of its resources for training workshops that the college runs. Students learn practical monitoring methods and social communication skills. The community and students co-produce a bilingual curriculum module on local plant stewardship for primary schools.
Benefit: Students get applied training and employability; the community receives monitoring capacity and improved youth engagement.
Example 3 — Parent & community leader (Morocco → agroecology & local enterprise)
Profile: A parent in a rural community in the Atlas foothills who runs a women’s cooperative making herbal teas based on wild plants.
Pathway: The cooperative receives capacity funds to formalize a resource management plan, improve processing facilities, and obtain fair-trade certification financed by the Fund. The cooperative negotiates a micro-benefit agreement with a cosmetics firm that uses non-commercial DSI under an agreement that contributes to a local conservation endowment.
Benefit: Improved incomes, stronger protection of wild plant stands, and direct agency in negotiating benefit flows.
These examples highlight realistic, culturally sensitive pathways for participation — not extraction — and demonstrate how the Fund can support both knowledge transmission and livelihoods.
Step-by-step: How Indigenous communities, biotech firms and civil society can get ready
This practical checklist is designed so communities, researchers and firms can prepare to apply for Cali Fund grants, negotiate partnerships, or participate in pilot programs.
For Indigenous Peoples & local community organizations
-
Organize governance and fiduciary structures. Establish or strengthen community committees to manage projects, procure legal advice, and set up transparent accounts or a local trust.
-
Document stewardship and tenure. Compile community maps, traditional knowledge records (with consent), and ecological baselines to demonstrate custodianship.
-
Define priorities. Create a short list of community-identified needs (e.g., land titling, patrols, seed banks, school curricula). Projects that clearly map funds to community priorities succeed.
-
Build partnerships. Identify NGOs, universities and legal advisers who respect FPIC and indigenous rights to co-design proposals.
For biotech firms
-
Audit DSI use and supply chains. Understand where your DSI and genetic inputs come from and how they were accessed. That clarity will inform contribution calculations and ethical approaches.
-
Design benefit-sharing pathways. Work with communities and intermediaries to identify mutually beneficial models (training, co-research, direct payments, joint IP).
-
Establish transparent contributions. Consider early voluntary contributions to pilots to build trust and operational experience.
-
Legal & compliance readiness. Prepare contractual templates that respect local rights and ensure benefit-sharing can be practically implemented.
For NGOs and researchers
-
Offer capacity building & fiduciary support. Help communities set up governance, manage grants, and co-design projects.
-
Be a technical partner. Support baseline surveys, participatory mapping, and ecological monitoring protocols.
-
Focus on co-creation. Proposals should show co-design and equitable intellectual contribution.
For international donors and investors
-
Blend finance where appropriate. Consider matching funds or endowment strategies that use Cali Fund contributions as anchor capital.
-
Support long-term capacity rather than one-off projects.
Preparing in these ways will increase the chance of converting Fund opportunities into real, long-term benefits.
Your Statement of Purpose — Simple, strong structure for a community grant proposal
Use this 1-page Statement of Purpose (SOP) as a template when approaching the Cali Fund or a pilot call.
[Project Title] — Community Stewardship and Biosafe Seed Bank
-
Who we are (1 sentence): “[Community Name] Women’s Cooperative is a legally registered community trust representing 250 households in [Region].”
-
Problem (2 sentences): “Local medicinal plant populations have declined by 40% in 10 years due to overharvesting and insecure land tenure. The community lacks funds to manage regeneration and store germplasm.”
-
Proposed solution (4–5 sentences): “We propose a two-year program to establish a community-run seed and germplasm bank, build a participatory monitoring system, and train local youth as biodiversity stewards. Activities include community mapping, nursery establishment, legal support for tenure, and micro-enterprise development tied to sustainable harvesting.”
-
Outcomes (bulleted):
-
Establish seed bank and nursery with 80% survival rate for 10 target species.
-
Train 20 youth monitors and 40 women producers in sustainable harvesting.
-
Secure formal land-use recognition for two community parcels.
-
-
Budget & funding ask (1 sentence): “We request €150,000 to implement activities, including community wages, nursery infrastructure and legal assistance; an itemized budget is attached.”
-
Safeguarding & consent (1 sentence): “We commit to FPIC, privacy of cultural knowledge, and a community grievance and benefit-sharing protocol.”
-
Closing (1 sentence): “We welcome partnership with research institutions and will openly report progress to the Fund and community assemblies.”
This SOP keeps the focus on community priorities, outcomes and governance — the elements the Fund is likely to prize.
Common mistakes — and how to avoid them
Many well-meaning projects fail to translate good ideas into funded programs because proponents overlook five easy pitfalls:
-
No FPIC or superficial consent — Fix: Invest time in genuine community dialogue, documented consent, and iterative review.
-
Weak fiduciary capacity — Fix: Partner with trusted NGOs or local cooperatives that can manage funds transparently until community mechanisms are ready.
-
One-off focus with no sustainability plan — Fix: Present a clear plan for continuity after initial funding (local revenue, co-financing, government uptake).
-
Ignoring gender and youth dynamics — Fix: Disaggregate beneficiaries and include gender-transformative measures and youth training.
-
Lack of clear metrics — Fix: Define measurable indicators (seedlings/ha, patrol hours, legal milestones) and simple M&E processes.
Avoiding these mistakes increases credibility and impact.
FAQs (Concise but useful)
Q: What exactly will the Cali Fund pay for?
A: The Fund is designed to support a range of interventions related to benefit-sharing and biodiversity stewardship — from community capacity and tenure support to landscape conservation and co-research. Exact eligible activities will be defined by Fund guidelines and grant calls.
Q: Who can apply?
A: Parties to the CBD, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, authorized organizations and possibly co-applicants (NGOs, universities) will be eligible to receive supported grants; specific eligibility is set by fund governance.
Q: How are contributions calculated for companies using DSI?
A: Calculation methods are still being negotiated. The Fund’s design contemplates a user-pay mechanism for companies that commercially exploit DSI, but attribution and rates require technical rules that are under development.
Q: Will the Fund violate community IP or reveal traditional knowledge?
A: No — Fund protocols emphasize FPIC and protection of knowledge. Any project involving traditional knowledge should include privacy and IP safeguards defined by the community.
Q: How soon will funds flow?
A: The Fund was launched in 2025, but operationalization (calls for proposals and disbursements) depends on finalizing contribution rules and governance. Interested parties should prepare now and watch for pilot calls.
Measuring success — practical indicators and low-cost tools
Design metrics that show both ecological and social returns. Useful indicators include:
-
Ecological: hectares under active stewardship, seedling survival rate, species monitoring indices.
-
Social & governance: number of community members trained, legal titling milestones, percent of funds governed by community boards.
-
Economic: income changes for participating households, revenue from sustainable non-timber products.
-
Equity: share of funds directed to women, youth and marginalized groups.
Low-cost tools: participatory maps, community logbooks, smartphone photo logs, simple household surveys and partnership with a local university for data validation.
Conclusion — recap of main points, clear call to action and final quote
Recap: The Cali Fund represents a watershed in biodiversity finance: a pooled mechanism to ensure that those who have stewarded genetic resources — particularly Indigenous Peoples and local communities — benefit when DSI and genetic materials are used in commercial and research contexts. The Fund’s viability depends on operational details (how contributions are calculated, governance, FPIC, and M&E), but it opens a real pathway to sustainable, equitable finance for biodiversity and for community stewardship.
Three practical calls to action:
-
For Indigenous communities and local organizations: Start or strengthen governance mechanisms (transparent committees, FPIC processes, basic fiduciary systems) now — that preparation will make proposals credible when grant windows open.
-
For biotech firms: Audit your DSI use and prepare a voluntary contributions pilot or partnership — early, transparent participation positions you as a leader in ethical biodiversity use.
-
For researchers, NGOs and donors: Offer technical, legal and fiduciary support to community partners; focus on co-designed programs and capacity building so flows are transformative rather than extractive.
“A fund is only as good as the relationships that give it life. If the Cali Fund channels money, but also strengthens local governance, respect and decision-making, it can turn the language of fairness into lasting practice.”
