The COP30 in the Brazilian Amazon showed the gap between the summit’s public rhetoric and its internal power dynamics. While officials emphasised the importance of climate justice and protection of the world’s largest rainforest, it became apparent that agribusiness interests, long tied to deforestation and land conflicts, were more deeply embedded in the negotiations. Their presence has alarmed researchers, activists, and Indigenous leaders, who argue that the very industries driving the climate crisis are exerting influence over the talks meant to address it.
More than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists participated at this year’s UN climate talks taking place in the Brazilian Amazon, where the industry is the leading cause of deforestation, a new investigation has found. The number of lobbyists advocating for large-scale livestock production and pesticides have increased considerably compared to last year’s summit in Azerbaijan. This group is even larger than the representative body of the Canadian government, the world’s 10th largest economy, which sent 220 delegates to the climate talks in Belem.
There has been a lot of criticism of agricultural lobbyists at COP30. These include condemnation from researchers, climate advocates, and Indigenous people. Raj Patel, the author of Stuffed and Starved, has claimed: “What is happening in Belem is not a climate conference but a hostage negotiation over the future of the planet where those holding the detonators – the soy barons, the beef cartels, the pesticide peddlers – are seated at the table as honest brokers… these food lobbyists are purchasing access and legitimacy through politicians willing to accept their checks while the planet burns.”
An advocate for the climate justice network also stated: “The evidence shows that big agribusiness has hijacked the climate talks. The COP process cannot achieve meaningful climate progress if corporate lobbyists continue to sway policymakers and delegates.”
Vandria Bora, an Indigenous leader from the Borari territory of Alter de Chao, declared that: “At COP30, more than 300 agricultural lobbyists occupied the space that should belong to the forest peoples… Nothing about the Amazon can be decided without listening to those who live in it.” 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.
The pushback against agribusiness influence at COP30 underscored a larger struggle over who gets to shape genuine climate action. For critics and Indigenous communities, that choice ultimately showed that COP30 has not marked necessary change but instead repeated the familiar failures of past climate summits.