Abstract Achieving a balanced approach to sustainability in the Asia‐Pacific requires the effective protection, preservation and equitable use of traditional knowledge. Despite recognised contributions to biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation, Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems remain structurally excluded from statutory regimes. Fragmentation between intellectual property law, environmental regulation and Indigenous governance inhibits holistic protection, impeding broader ecologically and culturally sustainable outcomes. The article examines this legal disjuncture through a jurisdictional comparison of disconnection and coherence, with Australia and Vanuatu illustrating opposite ends of a regional governance spectrum. Australia's Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) fail to protect First Nations knowledge or respect Indigenous epistemologies. In contrast, Pacific Island nations represent a regional bright spot. Vanuatu has developed inclusive, culturally grounded frameworks that embed customary law, Indigenous consent and benefit‐sharing to protect Ni‐Vanuatu knowledge. Drawing on international and regional instruments, including the recent Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, the article identifies emerging normative standards and persistent structural limitations. Comparative insights from Australia and Vanuatu support a reform agenda relevant to other settler‐colonial and postcolonial contexts in the Asia‐Pacific. Sustainability‐aligned governance requires shifting from extractive, state‐centric models to relational, pluralistic legal architectures. This includes harmonising intellectual property and environmental law, formally recognising customary systems and embedding Indigenous authority as a foundational pillar.
Alam et al. (Sat,) studied this question.