After the COP30 in Belém, one shift stands out: forests and the people who live in them have moved to the heart of global climate discussions. Holding the summit in the Amazon was not simply a logistical decision. It was a political message. Having observed the discussions in Belém first-hand, it is evident that the impact of COP30 will depend on what happens next on the ground. For two weeks, indigenous peoples, riverine communities and forest defenders marched outside the venue, spoke in official and unofficial sessions, and forced negotiators to confront the realities of land, rights and the lived experiences of those most affected by climate decisions.
Their presence alone changed the tone of COP30. For years, climate conferences have discussed forests largely as carbon sinks and ‘nature-based solutions’. In Belém, forests reappeared as territories, homes and contested political spaces. Yet this shift in visibility is fragile. Even as leaders spoke warmly of indigenous guardianship, land defenders across the tropics continued to face threats, criminalisation and pressure. Protesters demanding recognition of their territories outside the venue were met with heavy security. The real question is whether COP30’s outcomes will translate into changes in how climate finance and carbon markets function on the ground.
Among the most significant developments of COP30 was the launch of Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility. This initiative aims to reward tropical countries simply for keeping forests standing, and not just for reducing deforestation from historic highs. Initial pledges have already crossed several billion dollars, and its long-term ambition is to create predictable, multi-year funding for forest conservation. What makes the facility notable is its design. A guaranteed share of the funds is reserved for indigenous peoples and local communities. They are also expected to help co-design how that finance flows. This follows a now substantial body of evidence that deforestation rates are consistently lower when indigenous and community land rights are legally recognised and local institutions have authority over forest management.
Alongside this, COP30 brought renewed commitments to strengthen community land tenure. Governments endorsed an intergovernmental pledge to secure collective rights across millions of hectares by 2030. This signals an important shift: policymakers are beginning to understand that climate mitigation cannot be achieved if forests are treated as empty spaces to be governed from capital cities or global carbon registries. Forest protection succeeds where community control is strong. Even so, indigenous organisations remain cautious. They underline
that genuine impact depends on direct access to funds. If most of
the money is controlled by national governments or large intermediaries, and only a fraction reaches communities, the new architecture may
end up looking no different from the old one.
If the forest finance announcements brought optimism, the debates around carbon markets under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement brought caution. Many parties view land-based carbon credits as central to their mitigation strategies. They argue that avoiding deforestation and restoration can generate finance for developing countries while enabling companies and governments to meet net-zero pledges. For many indigenous peoples and civil society groups, this vision remains deeply problematic. Their concern is not with climate finance itself. It is with how carbon markets have historically operated. In several countries, forest carbon projects have moved forward without proper consent, have restricted customary access to forests and have delivered little income to the communities whose lands generated the credits.
The unresolved issues at COP30 reflect this history. How will baselines be set in areas where community tenure is not fully recognised? Who carries the liability for reversals caused by fires or storms? How will free, prior and informed consent be ensured in places with multiple overlapping claims? How will benefit-sharing be structured so that communities receive a fair portion of the revenue? These questions matter because markets often expand more quickly than safeguards. COP30 made modest progress by strengthening references to human rights and indigenous participation in Article 6 texts. But many fundamental design elements were postponed to future meetings. The outcome leaves Article 6.4 suspended between ambition and uncertainty. Without stronger guarantees, carbon markets risk becoming another mechanism that recentralises control over land while allowing emissions elsewhere to continue.
For India, the lessons from Belém are direct. Forest-dependent communities, Adivasi groups and joint forest management committees constitute the first line of climate action in many regions. Yet they remain largely excluded from flows of climate finance. India’s Forest Rights Act of 2006 provides a strong legal framework for community-led forest governance but its implementation remains uneven. COP30 offers India an opportunity to integrate emerging global forest finance mechanisms with the rights-based framework already in place. Any climate finance-supported afforestation, restoration or forest-management project should be rooted in recognised community forest rights, gram sabha-approved plans and transparent benefit sharing. Climate finance could support community-led forest fire management, water conservation, biodiversity restoration and non-timber forest-produce value chains but only if communities control the planning, monitoring and revenue flows.
India’s emerging domestic carbon market adds further urgency. Without strong safeguards, carbon projects could intensify existing pressures on forest communities through restrictive plantations or conservation enclosures. COP30 provides three clear principles for India: rights must be recognised before projects begin; consent through gram sabhas must be meaningful; and revenue must flow directly to community institutions.
COP30 did not deliver the scale of finance needed for global mitigation. It did not resolve the debate on carbon offsets or end the systemic risks faced by forest defenders. But it did bring a shift in the climate conversation. Forest peoples were not symbolic participants. They were political actors shaping the narrative on rights, justice and climate action. The lasting impact of COP30 will not be determined in plenaries. It will be decided in forest villages, customary territories and community institutions across the global South. If governments act in the spirit of Belém, climate finance will strengthen communities, not marginalise them. If not, the promises of COP30 will fade into the familiar pattern of recognition without rights.
Belém has delivered a message that the world cannot ignore. Climate justice begins with those who protect the forests. The next step belongs to governments, including India, to act on that truth.
Sayanta Ghosh is Associate Fellow, Land Resources Division, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi
