The Kathmandu Resolution 2026 argues that Asia should strengthen its own conservation leadership through peaceful cooperation, movement of knowledge and greater agency for local communities. Participants endorsed it at the sixth Conservation Asia Congress in Nepal in the first week of June. It is a collective declaration, not an interstate treaty or legally binding public policy.
Nearly 500 conservationists connected to 42 countries attended. According to Sayan Banerjee’s commentary, 390 represented the Global South, 357 were early-career professionals with a median age below 45, 151 were students and 38 identified as Indigenous or local-community members. Forty-three per cent identified as women or gender minorities.
The programme offered more than 300 hours of exchange: 11 plenaries, 300 oral presentations across 24 sessions and 19 symposiums, 59 posters and 12 workshops. It covered threatened species and human dimensions including coexistence, community stewardship, political ecology and education. Participants nevertheless wanted more marine ecosystems, small species, social science and humanities.
Access equity was a concrete challenge. Students considered the US$229 registration fee for members from low- and middle-income countries high. Organisers gave travel reimbursements, waivers or discounts to nearly 160 people, more than 30 per cent of attendees. An inclusivity package redirected sponsorship to support about 50 young professionals, students and Indigenous participants.
The resolution calls for capacity through trans-Asian collaboration, free movement of expertise and resources for leadership. It proposes stronger country chapters as communities of practice and regional think tanks, while challenging extractive systems that treat nature as capital. It also seeks leadership space for students, women, gender minorities and Indigenous peoples.
Another theme is moving from top-down protection to community-centred conservation grounded in rights, stewardship and self-determined decisions. The text links biodiversity to wellbeing, livelihoods and landscape policies for human-wildlife coexistence. It also promotes open, ethical, collaborative research and socioecological monitoring to guide evidence-based infrastructure and development.
Governments were not parties to drafting the resolution, and the commentary acknowledges that it may gain traction or remain on paper. Its immediate value is to organise priorities and networks; the test is whether it mobilises resources, opens decision-making and turns principles into measurable projects. It is a sector roadmap, not evidence of conservation outcomes already achieved.
