Legislation Tracker

Which countries are taking measures that encourage companies to contribute to the Cali Fund?

The international agreement establishing the Cali Fund invites countries to "take administrative, policy or legislative measures" that incentivise contributions to the Cali Fund.

0

countries with legislation encouraging Cali Fund contributions

0

countries where such legislation is under discussion

Switzerland

  • Friends of the Cali Fund Member: no
  • CBD Party
  • Nagoya Party
  • BBNJ Agreement Signatory
  1. No Legislation or administrative measure proposed yet (reached)
  2. Legislation or administrative measure proposed
  3. Legislation introduced
  4. Legislation passed into law
  5. Legislation or administrative measure in effect

Overview

No Cali Fund-specific legislation or administrative measure adopted or proposed; existing Nagoya Ordinance notification duty does not currently extend to DSI.

Proposed legislation / administrative measure

No measure has been proposed. Switzerland's March 2025 submission (notification 2024-114) calls for the modalities to be simplified to create an effective and practical voluntary mechanism. It argues that references to national legislation in Decision 16/2 risk parallel bilateral approaches, that the strongest incentive for users would be exemption from any additional national benefit-sharing obligations for DSI (no double payments), that the indicative sector list in Enclosure I should be deleted, and that the indicative contribution rates are not realistic.

Key developments

12 August 2026 - SBI-7 (Nairobi): Switzerland supported the EU's proposal to delete references to the Cali Fund MoU being concluded before COP17.

9 July 2026 - Switzerland submitted comments on the draft study on private-sector contributions to the Cali Fund (notification 2026-050).

20 March 2025 - Switzerland submitted views on the modalities of the multilateral mechanism (notification 2024-114).

5 February 2025 - Switzerland signed the BBNJ Agreement.

November 2024 - COP16 (Cali): Switzerland accepted Decision 16/2 but said the modalities need refinement, and objected to making the mechanism 'without prejudice' to national ABS legislation.

Statements

March 2025, submission to the CBD - Switzerland said the strongest incentive for users is legal certainty, through exempting contributors from additional national benefit-sharing obligations for DSI, and that the current indicative contribution rates 'are not realistic'.

November 2024, COP16 closing plenary - Switzerland accepted the text but said the modalities need refinement (ENB).

ABS legislation

A complete non-EU user regime built to mirror EU Regulation 511/2014, with a notification duty and criminal consequences for failure. Access to Swiss genetic resources is unrestricted. DSI falls outside the notification duty.

Regulatory context

Switzerland implements the Nagoya Protocol primarily through the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NCHA), supplemented by the Swiss Nagoya Ordinance (NagO). Its domestic Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) framework functions as a standalone user-country compliance regime, broadly mirroring the core approach of EU Regulation 511/2014.

The framework is centred on a user due-diligence and notification obligation. Users must exercise due diligence in relation to genetic resources and notify the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) before commercialising a product developed from genetic resources. Failure to comply constitutes an offence. Switzerland does not require permits to access Swiss genetic resources.

As a non-EU Party, Switzerland has established its own domestic system while adopting a compliance model broadly aligned with the EU approach.