As the dust settles on COP30 in Belém, Brazil, dubbed by some as the “Indigenous Peoples’ COP”, the outcomes present a complex picture of progress and disappointment. While historic funding pledges and new mechanisms were announced, critical gaps in participation, ambition, and implementation remain. Here’s what leading analyses reveal about what COP30 actually delivered for Indigenous peoples and the Amazon.
COP30 leaves us with billions in pledges, new mechanisms, and expanded rights language, but also with persistent exclusion from decision-making, inadequate ambition on fossil fuels and deforestation, and serious questions about implementation. For Indigenous peoples, the conference was neither the breakthrough some hoped for nor the complete failure others feared, but rather another chapter in the long struggle to be heard, respected, and resourced in the fight to protect the forests and territories they’ve sustained for generations.
1.- Indigenous leadership: A seat at the table, not just a mention. Indigenous leaders Nemonte Nenquimo, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, and Rukka Sombolinggi issued a powerful demand that cuts to the heart of what’s wrong with climate governance. In an op-ed in Context News, released on the second day of the COP30, they highlighted a devastating statistic: Indigenous peoples manage nearly one-third of tropical forests more effectively than any other governance model, yet receive less than 1% of international climate finance directly. For them, new funding mechanisms must guarantee direct access, shared governance, and equitable power, not merely promise transparency. And while they welcomed initiatives like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, they refused the role of “beneficiaries” of decisions made elsewhere, asserting their position as rightful architects of forest protection strategies.
2.- Ecuador’s fossil fuel advocacy at COP30 gets exposed internationally. El Universo reported that Indigenous leaders and international celebrities projected messages across Belém reading “Noboa, The Amazon Is Not For Sale,” highlighting Ecuador’s controversial hydrocarbon roadmap. This plan encompasses 49 oil projects requiring over $47 billion in investment, threatening 29,663 square kilometers of Indigenous territories, an area the size of Belgium, without the free, prior and informed consent required by Ecuador’s own constitution. Eighty-nine percent of the endangered territories consist of intact primary forests that serve as crucial climate buffers. As Ecuador’s Environment and Energy Minister Inés Manzano doubled down on fossil fuel extraction inside the conference halls, Indigenous organizations issued statements warning that the government’s energy and climate policies directly contradict global efforts to combat climate change.
3.- Historic commitments meet hollow ambition. Mongabay’s post-conference analysis highlights the contradictions at the heart of COP30. The conference produced significant wins: a landmark Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment, $1.8 billion in new funding pledges, and the launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility. Yet these achievements existed alongside fundamental failures. Negotiators couldn’t establish clear pathways for rapid climate finance delivery or create concrete roadmaps for reversing deforestation and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The result is a conference that made important symbolic and financial gestures while failing to match the urgency that the climate crisis, and Indigenous communities on its frontlines, actually demands.
4.- Indigenous inclusion or “Indigenous-washing”? Intercontinental Cry delivers perhaps the sharpest critique in its analysis of what it terms “Indigenous-Washing” at COP30. The article argues that branding the conference as the Indigenous Peoples’ COP may have done more harm than good by creating an illusion of meaningful participation while the reality remained unchanged. Indigenous peoples continued to lack any formal decision-making role in negotiations; their voices were mentioned more frequently, but their power was no greater. Meanwhile, 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists gained admission to the conference grounds even as local Indigenous peoples were forced to protest from outside the gates. This stark contrast exposes the gap between rhetoric about Indigenous leadership and the actual power structures governing global climate policy.
5.- Money on the table, but will it reach the ground? Bloomberg examines the $1.8 billion financing pledge announced by the UK, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, and philanthropic foundations to support Indigenous land rights projects across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. While this represents substantial new funding, Indigenous leaders raised important concerns about implementation. The common practice of grouping Indigenous peoples with “local communities” in agreements creates legal ambiguity that could undermine the specific rights Indigenous peoples hold over their territories. The analysis suggests that without clear mechanisms ensuring funds reach Indigenous-led initiatives directly, and without addressing these definitional issues, even billion-dollar pledges risk falling short of their transformative potential.
6.- Rights rhetoric vs. rights reality. Amnesty International’s post-conference statement pulls no punches in its assessment of participation at COP30. Despite promises that no one would be left behind, the organization found that negotiations remained fundamentally non-participatory and non-inclusive, excluding civil society and Indigenous peoples from genuine decision-making processes. However, Amnesty also acknowledges that grassroots organizing and Indigenous advocacy achieved tangible results, particularly in securing commitment to develop a Just Transition mechanism. This points to a recurring pattern at climate conferences: Indigenous peoples and civil society must fight from the margins to influence outcomes, achieving wins not through formal channels but through persistent pressure and mobilization.
7.- New mechanisms, old questions: Carbon Brief highlights an outcome that received surprisingly little attention: the Belém Action Mechanism (also named the Just Transition Mechanism), which for the first time explicitly recognized not only the rights of Indigenous peoples but also the rights of people of African descent alongside the right to a healthy environment. This expansion of rights recognition in a climate agreement represents important normative progress. Yet the mechanism’s low profile raises questions about whether these rights will translate into meaningful protections and resources, or whether they’ll remain aspirational language in documents that policymakers cite but don’t fully implement.
8.- Forests, funding, and the devil in the details. The World Resources Institute’s outcomes analysis examines the renewal and expansion of the Forest and Land Tenure pledge, now backed by $1.8 billion through 2030. Significantly, the pledge expanded its scope beyond forests to include savannas, recognizing the biodiversity and carbon storage importance of these ecosystems where many Indigenous communities live. This geographic expansion could channel resources to Indigenous territories that previous forest-focused initiatives overlooked. However, as with other financial commitments at COP30, the critical test will be whether funding structures enable direct access for Indigenous communities rather than filtering through intermediaries that can dilute impact and undermine Indigenous self-determination.
9.- From finance figures to community futures. The Conversation explores what may be COP30’s most substantial financial commitment: the Tropical Forests Forever Fund, pledging $7.6 billion to protect over one billion hectares of forests, with 20% specifically earmarked for Indigenous-led projects. This represents recognition that Indigenous peoples are the most effective forest guardians and deserve dedicated resources. Yet Indigenous advocates interviewed by The Conversation emphasized that finance must extend beyond dollar amounts to address how money flows, who controls it, and whether it truly supports Indigenous priorities rather than external agendas. The 20% earmark is significant, but indigenous leaders are calling for respect for indigenous autonomy to prevail in the implementation and for vigilance against any risk of imposing external conditions that limit how communities can use these resources.
10.- Rights first, climate solutions follow. Global Voices centers the analysis of Sineia do Vale, an expert who argues for a fundamental reordering of climate policy priorities. Do Vale contends that effective climate action must begin with ensuring Indigenous peoples’ rights over their territories, not treat rights as a secondary consideration or co-benefit of climate programs. The article discusses panels and initiatives at COP30 aimed at ensuring direct financing for Indigenous-led climate adaptation, reflecting growing recognition that channeling funds through government or NGO intermediaries often fails to serve Indigenous communities effectively. This rights-first framework challenges the dominant approach to climate finance and suggests that COP30’s various funding pledges will only succeed if they start from a foundation of secure Indigenous territorial rights and self-determination.
Cover photo by Sergio Moraes / COP30
