Indigenous peoples make up just 5% of the world’s population, yet they safeguard 80% of its remaining biodiversity. Their stewardship is the frontline of climate defence. And yet, at COP30 in Belém, Brazil - a conference literally held in the heart of the Amazon - their role remains structurally sidelined.
Beyond the photo op: COP30's inclusion paradox
Nearly 3,000 Indigenous delegates are here - the largest presence in the conference’s history. But only 14% have access to the Blue Zone, where the real negotiations happen. The voices with the most at stake remain structurally absent from the rooms where targets, safeguards, and finance pathways are decided. The rest are left to side events, photo ops, and inspirational panels. It’s symbolism without substance.
The disconnect surfaced immediately. On the second day of the conference, dozens of Indigenous protesters forced their way into the climate summit, clashing with security guards at the entrance as they demanded greater access to negotiations. A second protest on November 14 saw around 100 Indigenous protesters from the Munduruku community peacefully block the entrance to the Blue Zone for 90 minutes. By mid-conference, tens of thousands joined the "Great People's March" through Belém's streets, demanding climate justice.
These actions were statements to say: We are here, but we need to be heard more clearly.
The 1% problem
Less than 1% of global climate finance reaches Indigenous communities. But that figure, sobering as it sounds, tells only part of the story: when you look at the $1.7 billion pledged at COP26 specifically for Indigenous land rights, only 2.1% directly reached communities in 2022. The rest flowed through layers of intermediaries, consultants, and NGOs.
Meanwhile, Brazil's proposed Tropical Forest Forever Facility reserves 20% for Indigenous peoples, and companies are increasingly investing in nature-based solutions and carbon offset projects on or near Indigenous lands. Yet the financial architecture often bypasses the very communities doing the conservation work.
For corporations, this creates both a risk and an opportunity. Projects that fail to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities face operational disruptions, reputational challenges, and questions about their actual conservation impact. Conversely, genuine partnerships with Indigenous-led initiatives can deliver more effective, durable outcomes.
What meaningful corporate support looks like
Evidence demonstrates that Indigenous-led conservation outperforms most alternatives. Yet corporate engagement often remains superficial: we seek carbon storage without supporting land rights; we want traditional ecological knowledge without recognising knowledge-holders as partners; we invite Indigenous peoples as sustainability spokespeople, but hesitate to share decision-making authority.
COP30 highlights both the urgency of Indigenous people’s demands and the value of them being present in global climate talks and corporate decision-making. Here's what meaningful corporate action could include:
- Implement meaningful Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as standard practice. Establish corporate policies requiring demonstrated consent through community-determined processes. This means accepting that some projects may not proceed - ensuring those that do have genuine community support are more likely to succeed long-term.
- Expand governance structures. Consider including Indigenous representatives on boards of directors, sustainability committees, and project oversight bodies - with genuine authority to provide meaningful guidance on land management and conservation strategies.
- Direct finance to Indigenous-led initiatives. Rather than funding projects about Indigenous communities, support projects led by them. Indigenous-led funds and initiatives offer companies more credible pathways to conservation impact.
- Build genuine co-ownership models. Evolve from traditional corporate social responsibility programmes toward partnerships where Indigenous communities hold equity, receive royalties, influence operational standards, and participate meaningfully in decisions. It shouldn’t be seen as charity but as recognition that Indigenous peoples bring essential expertise and legitimacy to conservation efforts.
- Integrate traditional ecological knowledge. Indigenous communities are custodians of traditional practices that offer effective climate solutions, such as sustainable agricultural systems and climate-resilient water management. Companies that respectfully integrate this knowledge into their sustainability strategies gain access to proven, locally-adapted nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation,
Looking beyond COP30
COP30’s Amazonian setting revealed both how far global climate politics has come, and how far it still has to go. Visibility has improved; but influence remains constrained.
Companies are not bound by the pace or politics of multilateral negotiations. They can choose to make Indigenous partnership a cornerstone of credible climate action and conservation practices today, and to do so in ways that create genuine partnership rather than tokenistic inclusion. That means transitioning from consultation to collaboration, from projects affecting communities to projects co-led by them, and from risk management to recognition of rights.
This is what authentic, rights-based climate solutions must look like in the decade ahead.