BRICS+ nations create new path for Indigenous environmental leadership

Indigenous and local communities manage some of the world's most biodiverse land, yet they're often locked out of the decisions that affect it. The UN's major environmental agreements—the biodiversity convention, the climate framework—have acknowledged Indigenous rights on paper. In practice, these communities still hit walls: legal systems designed elsewhere, seats at the table that don't translate to real influence, funding that comes with strings attached, and the simple fact that powerful nations still dominate the room.

But the geopolitical ground is shifting. A coalition of ten nations—Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, South Africa, and the UAE—is building an alternative power structure. BRICS+ now represents half the world's population and two-fifths of global trade. Twelve more countries have applied to join. And unlike the Western-led institutions that have historically shaped environmental policy, BRICS+ is explicitly positioning itself as a counterweight to that model.

For Indigenous and local communities, this matters because BRICS+ is built on a principle that resonates with how they've always managed land: decentralized decision-making. Rather than one-size-fits-all rules handed down from Geneva or New York, the framework emphasizes multipolar governance—power distributed across regions and nations, with room for local priorities to shape policy.

That's not abstract theory. It means an Indigenous community in the Amazon could advocate through Brazil's BRICS+ seat rather than waiting for approval through a UN process designed in the 1990s. It means energy and trade decisions—which directly affect land use—could factor in Indigenous knowledge and land rights from the start, not as an afterthought. It means funding for conservation or sustainable development could flow through institutions that aren't tied to Western donor conditions.

The BRICS+ development bank, launched in 2015, already funds infrastructure in member nations with different standards than the World Bank. New institutions are forming around energy, supply chains, and technology. Each one is an opening where Indigenous voices could be embedded earlier and deeper than they've been in traditional global governance.

None of this is guaranteed. BRICS+ nations have their own environmental records to answer for—some mixed, some poor. The real test is whether this alternative structure actually amplifies Indigenous leadership or simply replaces one set of distant decision-makers with another.

But for communities that have been sidelined for decades, having a second door to knock on changes the negotiating position entirely.