Alternative pathways for recognizing effective governance of Indigenous territories are critical to achieve global biodiversity targets: Lessons from Asian spiritual landscapes

Global conservation policy and state governance remain grounded in resource-oriented, secular frameworks. These can conflict with Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ (IPLCs) relational ontologies, in which landscape elements are sentient beings, ancestral territories, and abodes of ‘more-than-human’ entities. Drawing on a symposium on spiritual landscapes in Asia, we identify three barriers to community-led conservation: (1) land insecurity from state enclosure; (2) restrictive IPLC definitions; and (3) non-binding international agreements that fail to secure recognition of customary institutions and territorial rights. Case studies from Thailand, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, and China demonstrate how bureaucratic requirements can undermine customary laws and governance. Alternative pathways for recognizing other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) should recognise spiritual values, customary law, and adaptive institutions as integral to resilient biocultural landscapes. We argue that this shift can advance epistemic justice while providing a more equitable pathway towards achieving GBF Target 3.