The European Parliament debated the Cali Fund, a benefit-sharing mechanism from COP16 under the Convention on Biological Diversity, on 30 April 2026. Nicolás González Casares (S&D) framed the fund as economic justice but noted weak business participation, urging the Commission to consider stronger tools if voluntarism fails. Andrius Kubilius (European Commission) defended the fund as a voluntary, non-tax UN instrument, promising incentives and legal clarity to boost contributions before COP17.
Key divisions emerged over the fund's mandatory nature. Per Clausen (The Left) and Manuela Ripa (EPP) pushed for mandatory payments, arguing voluntarism has proven insufficient. In contrast, Angéline Furet (PfE) and Anja Arndt (ESN) attacked the fund as a new tax harming EU competitiveness, especially since the US is not party. Ana Miranda Paz (Greens/EFA) stressed inclusion of indigenous peoples and civil society, criticizing their absence in recent talks. Sérgio Humberto (EPP) and Liudas Mažylis (EPP) called for transparent governance and reduced administrative burden for researchers and companies. Lukas Sieper (NI) defended the fund as an imperfect but necessary step.
Despite the splits, all speakers agreed on biodiversity's importance and the need for legal clarity and transparent governance. Next steps: the Commission will continue dialogue and work on reporting tools; the fund is to be operational before COP17. Affected stakeholders include pharmaceutical, biotech, and cosmetics companies; researchers; indigenous communities; and global South countries.