How can businesses safeguard Indigenous and community rights in agricultural supply chains?

Palsa & Pulk
Aug 21
10 min read

An introduction to Indigenous communities as guardians of biodiversity, threats to Indigenous lands, and how companies can meaningfully protect Indigenous rights in their agricultural operations.

This edition of “The Just Transition Newsletter by Palsa & Pulk was written by Aniol Gironès López and Christine Nikander.

Indigenous communities as guardians of biodiversity

Indigenous Peoples “depend heavily on forest ecosystems”,^[i] which are often destroyed to make space for agricultural activities. According to the UN, “Indigenous communities […] help to maintain 80% of the biodiversity left […], and [maintain] some of the world’s most valuable carbon sinks and natural resources”.^[ii] Moreover, “[t]he forests of the indigenous and tribal peoples’ territories store about 34,000 million metric tonnes of carbon”. In line with this, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ensures Indigenous Peoples “public access to forest management documents and other relevant information”.^[iii]

Moreover, the New York Declaration on Forests “endorses a global timeline to cut natural forest loss in half by 2020 and to strive to end it by 2030”.^[iv] The non-legally binding political declaration “was endorsed by dozens of governments, many of the world’s biggest companies, and influential civil society and indigenous peoples’ organisations”.^[v] It calls “on the private sector to meet the goal of eliminating deforestation from the production of agricultural commodities such as palm oil, soy, paper and beef products by no later than 2020”.^[vi] This goal was not, however, achieved.^[vii]

There still continues to be significant biodiversity loss caused by agriculture. Researchers from the Technical University of Munich and the ETH Zurich recently showed that “[e]xporting agricultural products from tropical regions to China, the USA, the Middle East, and Europe is three times more harmful to biodiversity than previously assumed”. The research also showed that “Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Madagascar are particularly affected by species loss”.^[viii]

Threats to Indigenous lands through industrial development

Overall, “[i]ndustrial development threatens nearly 60% of Indigenous Peoples’ lands in 64 countries”.^[ix] As of 2018, Indigenous communities managed over a quarter of the world’s land surface, with around 40% of this land located within the planet’s protected areas, which encompass 80% of global biodiversity.^[x] This highlights the crucial role Indigenous communities play in conserving unique ecosystems all around the globe. However, issues arise due to the vulnerability of these lands to industrial expansion because of weak enforcement of land rights and their location in highly agricultural productive and fertile regions.^[xi]This can be understood as the result of many Indigenous territories lacking strong legal protections, making it easier for industries to encroach upon them for agriculture, mining, and also infrastructure projects.^[xii]

In the current context of declining soil health and quality, partly due to unsustainable agricultural practices, the agricultural industry is increasingly seeking new fertile lands for cultivation to meet the demand for food. This affects both biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. For example, cattle farming and extensive land use in Brazil has effects on Indigenous communities. Similarly, palm oil farming and extensive land use in the Amazon forest also has effects on Indigenous communities and their rights. In Brazil, cattle ranching has been the main driver of Amazon deforestation, accounting for 80% of forest loss.^[xiii]Policies such as tax incentives for pasture expansion and weak land tenure enforcement have encouraged large-scale land conversion, often through illegal means.^[xiv] As a result, Indigenous communities face displacement, loss of traditional territories, and restricted access to vital resources, further exacerbating social and environmental inequalities.

Land-grabbing of Indigenous lands across centuries

The “land-grabbing” of Indigenous lands has occurred on a large scale across centuries.^[xv] Large areas of land in the Global South were seized by European authorities in the 15th and 20th centuries. Notably, “many of these “land grabs” were never reversed” during the decolonization process. In practice, this means that “much of the formerly communal land passed straight into the hands of newly created countries, particularly in parts of Africa and Asia”.^[xvi]

Over the past few years, the global recognition of traditional ownership has grown. In line with this, from 2015 to 2020, “103m hectares of communal lands in 73 countries were given legal status, according to analysis by the Rights and Resources Initiative, a global coalition of groups that advocates for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities”.^[xvii]

Despite this, land grabbing continues to be a problem today. In Peru, for example, 3 million hectares of forest “changed hands” in 2003. Much of this land was used for palm oil and cacao plantations.^[xviii] Similarly, the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport (APECO) project in the Philippines has stripped people “from the land, livelihoods and ancestral ties that they have cultivated for generations, [...] threatening massive environmental damage”.^[xix]

Controversies around Indigenous land rights

The EU’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) plays a role in protecting the land rights of Indigenous Peoples. It aims to ensure that commodities that can be linked to deforestation in earlier stages of their supply chain do not enter the EU market. By doing this, Indigenous territories are indirectly safeguarded from harmful land use practices.^[xx]

Most countries also have laws that determine whether Indigenous lands are protected or not. For example, in Brazil, the law foresees that Indigenous lands should be protected when they have been officially recognized and demarcated by the government, ensuring legal recognition of territorial rights.^[xxi] More specifically, the marco temporal bill in Brazil is “a piece of legislation passed by the agribusiness caucus in parliament”. It “set a cutoff date for establishing Indigenous territories: under the legislation, only claimant communities who can prove they occupied their territories in 1988, when Brazil’s Constitution was approved, can go through the demarcation process.” It was “ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023”. Yet, nonetheless “the legislation was approved by parliament” shortly afterwards.^[xxii]

The Brazilian government recently approved 13 new Indigenous territories. The Xukuru-Kariri Indigenous Territory, home to the Xukuru-Kariri people, in Alagoas state, in Brazil’s northeast has not yet been approved.^[xxiii]The approval of these new Indigenous territories was made possible by the marco temporal bill; however, it has faced criticism for the lengthy process the government took to recognize these territories. In addition, the marco temporal bill has generated significant controversy, as it limits the recognition of Indigenous land rights to territories that can prove continuous occupation since the 1988 Constitution, excluding many communities that have been displaced before that time.^[xxiv]

How can companies protect Indigenous rights throughout agricultural supply chains?

There are several steps companies can take to address the impacts agricultural practices have on Indigenous rights. On a practical level, companies could support sustainable practices by, for example, investing in sustainable harvesting techniques that benefit Indigenous communities while conserving biodiversity. In line with this, the EUDR also highlights that Indigenous Peoples may need “additional support for the transition towards sustainable supply chains”.^[xxv]

Setting up solid due diligence practices, as well as honoring stakeholder engagement and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), are key examples of steps companies can take within supply chains. It is also possible to use codes of conduct, contractual obligations, and other third-party policies to create positive change.

It is notably possible for companies to protect human and Indigenous rights throughout their agricultural operations and supply chains without creating huge additional costs. In this context, it is worth noting that the costs of complying with the EUDR are very limited for companies. Notably, a new study by Profundo found that EUDR compliance costs “on average 0.10% as percentage of annual revenues for large companies and SMEs”. In practice, this means that “[i]f companies were to pass on these costs in their supply chains, the potential impact on consumer prices would be even smaller, between 0.001% and 0.07%”.^[xxvi]

Overall, there is a need for the general public to better recognize the contributions of Indigenous communities within agriculture and the protection of biodiversity. This is something companies could — for example — highlight in their marketing and storytelling, so long as they always ensure that the Indigenous communities are represented authentically and respectfully. In line with this, the EUDR, for example, aims to “acknowledg[e] and strength[en] the role and rights of indigenous peoples”.^[xxvii]

To truly build a more sustainable and inclusive future, companies should also take steps to empower Indigenous communities. One way of doing this is by including Indigenous representatives in their internal decision-making processes or giving them roles in industry organizations. This is also in line with the objectives of the EUDR, which sets out that “[p]artnerships and cooperation shall allow full participation of all stakeholders, including […] indigenous people”.^[xxviii] The EUDR also says that “[p]artnerships and cooperation shall promote the development of integrated land use planning process” to “strengthen the rights of forest- dependent communities, including smallholders, local communities, and indigenous peoples”.^[xxix]

The next newsletter will explore how access and benefit sharing frameworks can help to uphold Indigenous and community rights. If you want to be notified when it comes out, please subscribe to our mailing list.

About the authors

Aniol Gironès López is a geographer, who specializes in social justice and sustainability. He originally studied human geography at the University of Barcelona, and he is now pursuing an MSc in Sustainable Development at Utrecht University. Aniol’s current research examines the permitting system for wild-harvesting honeybush tea and its impact on marginalized communities in South Africa. In the past, Aniol collaborated with Palsa & Pulk to develop an interactive tool on the lifecycles of EV batteries.

Christine Nikander is the founder of the environmental and social sustainability consultancy, Palsa & Pulk. She frequently speaks and writes about the environmental and human rights issues that arise through global supply chains, the energy transition, and the mining of critical raw minerals. Christine studied law at the universities of Columbia (New York), Edinburgh (Scotland), and Leiden (the Netherlands). She has been writing The E-Waste Column weekly since 2022.

About Palsa & Pulk

Palsa & Pulk is an environmental and social sustainability consultancy. It provides compliance, governance, policy, and strategic advice to its clients. The consultancy’s work is mostly focused on supply chain governance, the just transition, circular economy, and human rights.

Stay up to date

Our monthly newsletter is published here on our blog, on LinkedIn, and on Substack. Subscribe to be notified when our newsletters are published.

^[i] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[ii] Adam Morton, Evidence grows of forced labour and slavery in production of solar panels, wind turbines. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/evidence-grows-of-forced-labour-and-slavery-in-production-of-solar-panels-wind-turbines (05.11.2024); Molly Taft, Over Half the World’s Energy Transition Minerals Are on Indigenous Lands. https://gizmodo.com/over-half-the-worlds-energy-transition-minerals-are-on-1849865104 (05.11.2024); European Federation for Transport and Environment, How Europe can improve the way global extractive companies do business. https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-europe-can-improve-the-way-global-extractive-companies-do-business/ (05.11.2024).

^[iii] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[iv] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[v] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[vi] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[vii] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[viii] Technical University of Munich, Biodiversity loss due to agricultural trade three times higher than thought. https://www.tum.de/en/news-and-events/all-news/press-releases/details/biodiversity-loss-due-to-agricultural-trade-three-times-higher-than-though t (30.05.2025); Livia Cabernard et al., Biodiversity impacts of recent land-use change driven by increases in agri-food imports. Nat Sustain 7 (2024). doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01433-4.

^[ix] Christina M. Kennedy et al., Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223003408 (30.06.2025).

^[x]Stephen T. Garnett et al., A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation,https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0100-6 (30.06.2025).

^[xi]Ariel BenYishay et al., Indigenous land rights and deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.07.008 (30.06.2025).

^[xii] Jacobo Ramirez et al., Conflicting injustices in decolonization and indigenous land rights: The case of the Lake Turkana Wind Power project. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103912 (30.06.2025).

^[xiii] Petterson Vale et al., The Expansion of Intensive Beef Farming to the Brazilian Amazon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.006 (30.06.2025).

^[xiv]Philip M. Fearnside, Biodiversity as an environmental service in Brazil's Amazonian forests: risks, value and conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892999000429 (30.06.2025).

^[xv] Christina M. Kennedy et al., Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223003408 (30.06.2025).

^[xvi] Josh Gabbatiss, Loggers have ‘grabbed’ around 1m hectares of Indigenous land in DRC. https://www.carbonbrief.org/loggers-have-grabbed-around-1m-hectares-of-indigenous-land-in-drc/ (30.06.2025).

^[xvii] Josh Gabbatiss, Loggers have ‘grabbed’ around 1m hectares of Indigenous land in DRC. https://www.carbonbrief.org/loggers-have-grabbed-around-1m-hectares-of-indigenous-land-in-drc/ (30.06.2025).

^[xviii] Transparency International, Defending land and lives: Indigenous peoples fighting back against discriminatory corruption. https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/indigenous-world-day-corruption-discrimination-peru-guatemala (30.06.2025).

^[xix] Transparency International, Defending land and lives: Indigenous peoples fighting back against discriminatory corruption. https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/indigenous-world-day-corruption-discrimination-peru-guatemala (30.06.2025).

^[xx] European Commission, Implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation: Find out how to comply with EUDR. https://green-business.ec.europa.eu/deforestation-regulation-implementation_en (30.06.2025).

^[xxi] International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous peoples in Brazil. https://iwgia.org/en/brazil.html (30.06.2025).

^[xxii]Fernanda Wenzel, Brazil’s Lula approves 13 Indigenous lands after much delay, promises more to come. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/12/brazils-lula-approves-13-indigenous-lands-after-much-delay-promises-more-to-come/ (30.06.2025).

^[xxiii]Fernanda Wenzel, Brazil’s Lula approves 13 Indigenous lands after much delay, promises more to come. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/12/brazils-lula-approves-13-indigenous-lands-after-much-delay-promises-more-to-come/ (30.06.2025).

^[xxiv] Ana Carolina Alfinito and Ester Oliveira, Indigenous Rights Battle Resumes in Brazilian Supreme Court. https://amazonwatch.org/news/2024/0118-indigenous-rights-battle-resumes-in-brazilian-supreme-court (30.06.2025).

^[xxv] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[xxvi]Gerard Rijk and Barbara Kuepper, Analysis of EUDR compliance costs.https://profundo.nl/projects/analysis-of-eudr-compliance-costs-/ (30.05.2025).

^[xxvii] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[xxviii] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.

^[xxix] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.