Thailand has initiated foundational actions to address harmful subsidies, develop positive incentives, and mobilize biodiversity finance:

• Harmful Subsidy Assessment: Conducted a comprehensive study through UNDP BIOFIN in collaboration with Prince of Songkla University (published July 2024), identifying approximately 6.28 billion USD (224,000 million baht) in harmful subsidies, during fiscal years 2021-2023. Major categories include rigid infrastructure projects affecting river and coastal ecosystems (sea walls, jetties, groins disrupting natural processes) and projects nominally for irrigation or tourism that cause ecological damage. 
• Positive Incentive Implementation: Established tax exemption for land characterized as mangrove forest under Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2562 (2019), as amended B.E. 2568 (2025), administered by the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources.
• Biodiversity Finance Plan Implementation: The Thailand Biodiversity Finance Plan (2023-2027), developed through UNDP BIOFIN, provides a strategic framework for mobilizing resources from multiple sources and aligning financial flows with biodiversity goals.
• Policy Framework Development: Integrated subsidy reform strategies and resource mobilization mechanisms into the 5^th National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
• Domestic Public Finance Mobilization: Thailand has established mechanisms to allocate and track domestic government expenditures for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through the government budget system, monitored by BIOFIN and reported through the electronic Monitoring and Evaluation of Natural Resources and Environmental Strategies (eMENSCR) system.
• International Finance Reception: Thailand receives international public funding through official development assistance (ODA) for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management, tracked through OECD data systems.
• Private Sector Engagement Framework: ONEP administers surveys to private sector companies and NGOs on biodiversity-related activities aligned with Thailand's NBSAP. Initial frameworks for voluntary disclosure of private biodiversity expenditures have been established.
• Financial Tracking Systems Development: Thailand is developing comprehensive tracking mechanisms for biodiversity finance across public and private sources, and comprehensive subsidy inventories with biodiversity impact assessment systems across government sectors, building on BIOFIN methodologies.

Harmful Subsidy Reform

Thailand has established a baseline understanding of harmful subsidies through the BIOFIN study, which identified 6.28 billion USD in harmful subsidies during fiscal years 2021-2023.  However, comprehensive reform remains at early stages. Ongoing monitoring of government harmful subsidies have been conducted, while sector-disaggregated databases have not been established and no concrete reduction actions have been implemented.

Positive Incentives

One biodiversity-relevant tax incentive has been implemented—the mangrove forest land tax exemption—which reduces property tax burden for landowners maintaining mangrove ecosystems. While this demonstrates fiscal policy application for conservation, the scale remains limited compared to identified harmful subsidies, and systematic expansion across other ecosystems and sectors has not occurred.

Overall Resource Mobilization

Current tracked biodiversity finance remains far below levels needed to achieve national biodiversity targets, indicating significant gaps in resource mobilization. Systematic mechanisms to scale up finance from all sources have not been fully implemented.

• Domestic Public Funding: Thailand has begun systematic tracking of government expenditures for biodiversity through BIOFIN methodologies and the eMENSCR system. Recent tracked expenditures range from 143-280 million USD annually (FY 2022-2024), though these figures may not capture all biodiversity-relevant spending across all agencies and programs. Variations reflect both actual budget allocations and evolving tracking methodologies.
• International Public Funding: OECD data shows highly variable funding levels during 2015-2022, with significant fluctuations: USD 2.85982 million (2015), increasing to USD 25.27418 million (2017), declining during USD 2.92033 million - 6.50848 million (2018-2021), and increasing to USD 20.56771 million (2022)
• Private Funding: Thailand lacks comprehensive tracking of private sector biodiversity funding. A preliminary BIOFIN survey (2020-2022 showed approximately 3.56 million USD total over three years. This does not reflect total private sector contributions, and comprehensive tracking systems with mandatory reporting mechanisms have not been established.

Key challenges in achieving the Target include:

• Political and institutional barriers: Reducing harmful subsidies faces political economy challenges as these subsidies benefit powerful economic sectors and are embedded in development policies and budgets. Institutional inertia and vested interests create resistance despite evidence of environmental harm.
• Complexity of subsidy and financial assessment: Identifying "harmful" subsidies requires sophisticated analysis of direct and indirect impacts across ecosystems. Many subsidies have mixed effects or create trade-offs between policy objectives, complicating reform decisions. Comprehensive tracking of biodiversity expenditures across all government agencies, programs and budget lines has not been established.
• Limited positive incentives and innovative financing: Current positive incentives (e.g., mangrove tax exemptions) are limited in number and scale compared to harmful subsidies. Beyond traditional budget allocations and ODA, Thailand has not systematically developed innovative financing instruments such as biodiversity bonds, debt-for-nature swaps, payments for ecosystem services at scale, or blended finance mechanisms.
• Insufficient overall resource levels and private sector engagement: Current tracked biodiversity finance (domestic public funding of 143-280 million USD annually, limited private contributions) remains far below levels needed to implement the 5^th NBSAP and achieve national biodiversity targets. Thailand lacks mandatory mechanisms for private sector biodiversity finance disclosure. Preliminary survey data (3.56 million USD from small sample, 2020-2022) demonstrates minimal private sector contribution, and systematic frameworks to mobilize and track private finance are underdeveloped.
• Lack of concrete reform strategy: Thailand lacks a concrete, time-bound action plan with specific targets, mechanisms and stakeholder engagement strategies for systematic subsidy reform and biodiversity finance mobilization.

To address these challenges and strengthen implementation, Thailand will focus on:

• Develop and implement phased reform roadmap: Create a concrete, time-bound action plan with specific reduction targets for priority sectors (infrastructure, coastal development, agriculture, fisheries), including milestones, responsible agencies and timelines. Pilot reform in sectors with clearly identified harmful subsidies to demonstrate feasibility.
• Establish comprehensive monitoring and tracking systems: Develop systematic subsidy inventories across all sectors with standardized biodiversity impact assessment methodologies. Establish biodiversity finance tracking to monitor expenditures across all government agencies, private sector (mandatory reporting for large companies), NGOs and international sources. Implement annual monitoring and reporting to track progress.
• Scale up positive incentives and innovative financing strategically: Expand and diversify positive incentives across ecosystems and conservation priorities, including payments for ecosystem services, tax incentives, sustainable practice subsidies and green financing mechanisms. Establish and scale up biodiversity bonds, conservation trust funds, debt-for-nature mechanisms and blended finance instruments.
• Mobilize and engage private sector finance: Develop mandatory biodiversity finance disclosure requirements for large companies and financial institutions. Create incentive mechanisms (tax benefits, green financing, ESG standards) to encourage private biodiversity investments. Expand partnerships with private sector for conservation financing.
• Improve strategic allocation: Develop prioritization frameworks to ensure financial resources target highest-priority conservation areas, threatened ecosystems and NBSAP implementation gaps. Implement monitoring and evaluation systems to track effectiveness of expenditures.
• Strengthen coordination and stakeholder engagement: Build technical capacity across agencies and establish inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms. Develop consultation processes with affected sectors and communities to design just transition strategies and build support for reform.

Integrate reform into fiscal policy and enhance international finance access: Work with Ministry of Finance and Budget Bureau to incorporate biodiversity impact assessments into budget planning and medium-term fiscal frameworks. Strengthen capacity to develop and submit proposals to international biodiversity finance mechanisms (GEF, GCF, bilateral donors). Establish dedicated units to coordinate international finance mobilization. Build on BIOFIN collaboration to access technical expertise and comparative experiences from other countries.

Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of the Target directly contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): Reforming harmful subsidies and scaling up positive incentives supports SDG 12.c on rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, and more broadly on restructuring government incentives to support sustainable production and consumption patterns. Private sector biodiversity finance and engagement supports SDG 12.6 on encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices and integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycles.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Reforming subsidies away from rigid infrastructure toward nature-based solutions and maintaining natural ecosystems (mangroves, forests) supports SDG 13.2 on integrating climate change measures into policies and planning, as these ecosystems provide climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. Biodiversity finance mobilization complements climate finance through forest conservation, ecosystem restoration and nature-based solutions, supporting SDG 13.a on mobilizing climate finance commitments.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): Reducing subsidies for harmful coastal infrastructure (sea walls, jetties, groins) and rigid structures impacting marine ecosystems supports SDG 14.2 on sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems, and SDG 14.6 on prohibiting certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Biodiversity finance mobilization supports SDG 14.a on increasing scientific knowledge, research capacity and transfer of marine technology to improve ocean health and enhance biodiversity contributions to developing countries.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Positive incentives such as tax exemptions for mangrove forest land support SDG 15.1 on conservation and restoration of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems, and SDG 15.b on mobilizing resources for sustainable forest management. Reducing harmful subsidies for infrastructure projects impacting river ecosystems supports SDG 15.9 on integrating ecosystem and biodiversity values into planning and development processes. Mobilizing financial resources for biodiversity directly supports SDG 15.a on mobilizing and significantly increasing financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Resource mobilization from international and domestic sources, including private sector engagement, exemplifies SDG 17.3 on mobilizing additional financial resources from multiple sources, SDG 17.16 on multi-stakeholder partnerships, and SDG 17.17 on encouraging effective partnerships.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Subsidy reform supports SDG 8.4 on improving resource efficiency in consumption and production and decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, ensuring that government incentives promote genuinely sustainable economic development.

Thailand has implemented comprehensive actions to ensure sustainable, safe, and legal use, harvesting, and trade of wild species, while promoting sustainable management across agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors:

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks:

• Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019): Regulates trade in protected and conserved wild animals (terrestrial, freshwater, and certain marine species including sea turtles and dolphins), with specific import/export controls (Sections 26-34).
• Royal Ordinance on Fisheries, B.E. 2558 (2015) and amendments (2017): Regulates trade in marine aquatic animals and establishes comprehensive fisheries management measures.
• Plant Quarantine Act, B.E. 2507 (1964): Controls import and export of plants to prevent introduction of pests and diseases.
• Plants Act, B.E. 2518 (1975): Regulates production, trade, and quality of seeds and plant varieties.
• Forests Act, B.E. 2484 (1941): Regulates transfer of wood and forest products.
• Customs Act, B.E. 2560 (2017): Regulates import and export of plants and animals.
• CITES Implementation: Thailand has been a CITES party since 1983, implementing comprehensive controls on international trade in endangered species through multiple designated Management Authorities: 
  • Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) – International Convention Management Division (ICMD): Primary CITES Management Authority for terrestrial wildlife and wild plant species
  • Department of Fisheries (DOF): Management Authority for aquatic and marine species, issuing permits for CITES-listed fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other aquatic organisms
  • Department of Agriculture (DOA): Management Authority for cultivated plant species and agricultural products, managing permits for orchids and other commercially cultivated CITES-listed plants

Fisheries Reforms and Sustainable Management:

• IUU Fishing Combat Measures (following EU yellow card, April 2015): Comprehensive monitoring, control, and surveillance systems including Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Fisheries Management Center (FMC), 22 Port In-Port Out (PIPO) control centers for vessel entry-exit inspection, Command Center for Combating IUU Fishing for enforcement coordination, seafood traceability systems from catch to market, and mandatory licensing and registration for all fishing vessels.
• Sustainable Fisheries Management Framework: First National Fisheries Management Plan, National and Provincial Fisheries Committees for participatory governance, science-based conservation measures including closed seasons and areas in key fishing grounds, gear restrictions and fishing quotas based on stock assessments, stock assessment programs for key fisheries resources, and continuous monitoring of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for major fish groups and marine species in Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea.
• Community-Based Fisheries Management: Support for coastal and community-based approaches that empower local fishing communities to manage nearshore resources, participate in decision-making processes, and reduce pressure on marine and freshwater biodiversity through locally adapted management practices.

Sustainable Agriculture:

Programs promoting Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), organic agriculture, reduced pesticide use, soil and water conservation, and agroforestry. Initiatives support traditional and local crop varieties, agro-biodiversity, and diversified farming systems to reduce pressure on natural ecosystems and improve resilience. The Department of Agriculture maintains certification databases for GAP certified crop cultivation areas and organic agriculture certified areas, though comprehensive national data following GBF methodology are still under development.

Sustainable Aquaculture:

The Department of Fisheries maintains Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) certification programs promoting sustainable practices that reduce environmental impacts and maintain water quality, though comprehensive national data are still being compiled.

Sustainable Forest Management and Community Forestry:

Forestry policies emphasize sustainable forest management, restoration, and community participation. Community forests under the Community Forest Act B.E. 2562 (2019) combine local livelihoods with conservation objectives. Forest certification and sustainable management guidelines are being applied in selected forest areas and plantation systems.

Sustainable Tourism:

Tourism strategies and operators have adopted sustainable tourism and eco-tourism practices, particularly in protected areas, coastal zones, and rural landscapes, including carrying-capacity considerations, environmental codes of conduct, waste management, and local community involvement.

Sector-Specific Monitoring Systems:

Development of monitoring and assessment systems to track sustainable practice adoption across sectors.

Thailand has made progress in establishing legal frameworks and implementing sustainable management practices for wild species, though the pace remains insufficient to fully achieve the target by 2030.

Main outcomes include:

Comprehensive legal frameworks in place: Thailand has established legal instruments and policy frameworks to regulate trade in wild species across all categories:

• Terrestrial species: Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019); Plant Quarantine Act, B.E. 2507 (1964); Plant Varieties Protection Act, B.E. 2542 (1999)
• Freshwater species: Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act cover species including Siamese crocodile, turtles and Mekong giant catfish
• Marine species: Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act cover sea turtles and dolphins; Royal Ordinance on Fisheries, B.E. 2558 (2015) regulates marine aquatic animal trade
• International trade: CITES party since 1983 with designated Management Authority (ICMD/DNP, DOF, DOA)

Fisheries management showing mixed results: Thailand monitors fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels through Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) assessments, revealing declining trends in some stocks:

Gulf of Thailand (2020-2023):

• Demersal fish MSY: declining from 200,092 tons (2020) to 190,847 tons (2023)
• Pelagic fish MSY: relatively stable at 247,000-250,000 tons
• Benthic animals MSY: declining from 775,548 tons (2020) to 754,615 tons (2023)

Andaman Sea (2020-2023):

• Demersal fish MSY: relatively stable at 30,000-32,000 tons
• Pelagic fish MSY: variable, ranging from 117,514 tons (2020) to 188,042 tons (2022), then 125,287 tons (2023)
• Benthic animals MSY: relatively stable at 221,000-233,000 tons

While monitoring systems are in place, declining trends indicate management measures need strengthening.

Reforms to combat IUU fishing:

• Licensing and vessel monitoring systems implemented
• Closed seasons and areas established in key fishing grounds
• Gear restrictions and stock assessment programs operational
• Support provided for coastal and community-based fisheries management

Integration of sustainability standards: Sustainability elements have been integrated into Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for crops, fisheries certification schemes, forest and timber legality standards and some tourism certification systems. However, explicit biodiversity criteria and monitoring remain limited.

Sustainable Forest Management progress:

Positive indicators:

• Forest area under independently verified certification: increased from 88.67 thousand hectares (2020) to 173.92 thousand hectares (2024) – a 96.2% increase demonstrating growing adoption of sustainable management standards
• Above-ground biomass: slight increase from 181.18 tons/hectare (2020) to 182.19 tons/hectare (2025), indicating maintained or improved forest quality
• Protected forest coverage: stable at 41.28% of forest area (2020-2025)

Critical concern: Annual Forest area change rate shifted from a net gain of +0.28% (2015-2020) to a net loss of -0.69% (2020-2025), indicating a transition from forest expansion to accelerating deforestation. This shift demonstrates that despite certification expansion and biomass improvements in managed forests, overall forest extent is declining. Ongoing forest conversion exceeds both conservation efforts in protected areas and restoration programs, fundamentally undermining sustainable forest management objectives.

Key challenges in achieving the Target include:

• Partial integration of biodiversity into sectoral standards: Sectoral policies reference "sustainability" but lack explicit biodiversity metrics (habitat retention, species protection, bycatch reduction) and systematic monitoring across wild species use and trade sectors.
• Stock decline despite management efforts: MSY data show declines in key Gulf of Thailand stocks (demersal fish -5%, benthic animals -3% from 2020-2023), indicating current management measures are insufficient to halt overfishing.
• Economic pressures favoring unsustainable practices: Producers, fishers, tourism operators and other businesses operate under short-term economic pressures, limited access to finance and markets, and incentive structures including some subsidies that do not adequately reward biodiversity-friendly practices. Markets often fail to differentiate between legal/sustainable and illegal/unsustainable products, limiting adoption of certified practices.
• Limited sector-wide data on sustainable practice adoption: While certification programs exist for GAP agriculture, organic farming, GAP aquaculture, forest certification and tourism standards, comprehensive data on the proportion of total production under certified or verified sustainable systems are fragmented or unavailable, preventing systematic assessment of overall sector transformation progress.
• Data methodology misalignment with international standards: Thailand's national certification schemes align with sustainable principles but do not fully correspond to GBF/FAO specific frameworks (SDG Indicator 2.4.1), preventing international comparability and requiring development of new data collection systems rather than simply aggregating existing certification data.

To address these challenges and strengthen implementation, Thailand will focus on:

• Developing harmonized data collection systems: Develop comprehensive data collection systems meeting GBF/SDG indicator methodologies for proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture, aquaculture area under sustainable management, fish catch from well-managed stocks, and tourism operations meeting sustainability standards. Harmonize existing national certification data with international frameworks and establish sector-specific tracking systems, linking sustainable practice adoption to biodiversity outcomes.
• Improving measurement and reporting of sustainable practices: Develop sector-specific systems tracking extent of sustainable practices and link these datasets to measurable biodiversity outcomes (species populations, habitat condition, pollution levels) to demonstrate that certified sustainable practices genuinely benefit biodiversity.
• Addressing forest loss while expanding sustainable management: Scale up forest protection to reverse net forest loss trend through integrated landscape management, strengthened enforcement against illegal logging and encroachment, alternative livelihoods reducing forest conversion pressure, and spatial planning preventing agricultural expansion into forests.

Aligning incentives and support with sustainable practices: Adjust agricultural, fisheries, forest and tourism support programs to favor biodiversity-friendly practices through green financing, premium payments for certification, eco-labeling with market access advantages, fiscal incentives for certified sustainable practices, and public procurement prioritizing sustainable products and services.

Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of this Target contributes to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international commitments:

Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), particularly Target 2.4 (sustainable food production systems), by promoting sustainable agricultural systems through GAP and organic certification programs that maintain productivity, resilience, and nutritional diversity.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), particularly Target 8.4 (resource efficiency in consumption and production), by fostering green and blue economic opportunities based on sustainable production.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), especially Target 12.2 (sustainable management of natural resources), by encouraging sustainable production systems and consumption patterns in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism through certification schemes and sectoral standards.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water), particularly Target 14.4 (sustainable fisheries) and 14.7 (economic benefits from sustainable use of marine resources), through improved fisheries management, stock assessment programs, sustainable aquaculture and community-based management.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land), particularly Target 15.2 (sustainable forest management, halt deforestation and degradation, and increase afforestation/reforestation), through sustainable forest management certification expansion, reduced habitat conversion and promotion of biodiversity-friendly practices in terrestrial production landscapes; and Target 15.7 (end poaching and trafficking of protected species) and 15.c (combat poaching and trafficking) through CITES implementation and efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade.

International Commitments 

• CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) by designating the Management Authority and establishing legal frameworks to combat illegal wildlife trade.
• FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, though full implementation requires continued strengthening.

Various regional frameworks, including ASEAN cooperation on sustainable fisheries, forestry and wildlife trade regulations.

BCG Economy Model Integration: The national Bio-Circular-Green Economy Model recognizes biodiversity as a strategic asset for sustainable growth across agriculture, health and wellness, bio-industry, and tourism sectors. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are increasingly integrated into policy documents, sectoral strategies, and funding programs, promoting sustainable wild species use while generating economic benefits for communities.

Community-Based Biodiversity Enterprises: Government agencies across natural resources, agriculture, tourism, OTOP, and SME support sectors promote community enterprises and SMEs utilizing biodiversity-based products including traditional foods, herbal medicines, natural dyes and fibers, handicrafts, and eco-tourism services. These programs help communities generate income while maintaining traditional knowledge and sustainable practices.

Sustainable Sectoral Practices: Key sectors have adopted sustainability measures including:
•    Agriculture: GAP, organic farming, and agroforestry supporting traditional varieties and agro-biodiversity
•    Fisheries: GAP aquaculture and community-based management
•    Forestry: Sustainable management, Community Forest Act implementation, and certification in selected areas
•    Tourism: Eco-tourism with carrying capacity limits, environmental codes, and community involvement
•    Herbal Economy: Designation of Herbal Champion species, promotion through the Herb of the Year initiative, development of market linkages for herbal raw materials, and coordinated import-export tracking of key species under the National Herbal Action Plan (2023–2027)

Ecosystem Services Monitoring and Valuation: Thailand has initiated actions to restore, maintain, and enhance nature's contributions to people through developing comprehensive ecosystem services frameworks, including piloting the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) Ecosystem Accounts across forest, subnational, and urban green space contexts to develop standardized methodologies for national-scale application.

Pilot Studies and Methodology Development: Government agencies are conducting ecosystem service assessments across different ecosystems (forests, wetlands, coastal areas) to develop appropriate methodologies for national-scale applications, with SEEA pilot studies informing the design of a standardized national accounting framework.

Capacity Building and Framework Development: Training programs are being developed to strengthen technical capacity in ecosystem service valuation and monitoring among relevant agencies, while working towards establishing an operational national framework for comprehensive ecosystem service assessment and reporting.

Inter-Agency Coordination: Ministries and departments are initiating discussions to develop an integrated approach to data collection and reporting on ecosystem services, including coordination mechanisms for SEEA implementation across relevant agencies.
 

BCG Economy Integration:
•    Biodiversity is recognized as a strategic asset in national development, with policy frameworks supporting biodiversity-based sustainable development
•    Multiple programs support community enterprises producing traditional products
•    However, implementation is uneven across regions, and enterprises face market access and financing challenges

Economic Benefits from Biodiversity-Based Products: Thailand has initiated and piloted an approach to tracking economic values of ecosystem services across three service categories: provision, regulation and maintenance, and supporting services from multiple forest ecosystems. Pilot assessments show:
•    Ecosystem services valuation: Economic values from forest ecosystems range from 82,269.76 to 120,192.78 Baht/Rai/year (2024) across different forest types, including Dry Deciduous Dipterocarp Forest (Sakon Nakhon: 106,967.72 Baht/Rai/year), Mixed Deciduous Forest (Ang Thong: 104,170.92 Baht/Rai/year; Mae Hong Son: 82,269.76 Baht/Rai/year), and Dry Evergreen Forest (Rayong: 120,192.78 Baht/Rai/year).
•    Pilot implementation of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) Ecosystem Accounts through four pilot studies. The Forest Area Account recorded a national forest cover of 101.81 million rai (2023). The Timber Resource Account estimated the forestry sector's contribution at THB 12–13 billion annually, expanding to over THB 200 billion when timber enters primary and intermediate industries, with an additional THB 200 billion from downstream industries (furniture, paper, and wood manufacturing). At the subnational level, the Forest Ecosystem Account at Khao Yai National Park documented carbon storage exceeding 41 million tons CO₂, sequestration capacity of up to 150 million tons CO₂ from dry evergreen forests, and nearly 2 million ecotourism visitors in 2024 generating over THB 111 million in direct park revenue. The Green Space Ecosystem Account at Khung Bangkachao, Samut Prakan, recorded annual CO₂ sequestration exceeding 800,000 tons, carbon stock valued at THB 37.9 million, and ecotourism income of at least THB 67 million annually for local communities.
•    OTOP biodiversity-based income (food, drinks, herbs): USD 5,190.66 million (2020) → USD 6,245.59 million (2023), representing +20.3% growth and community enterprises utilizing wild and cultivated biodiversity sustainably
•    Local community income from biological resources: USD 2.77 million (2020) → USD 3.13 million (2024), representing +13.0% growth in direct community benefits from sustainable wild species management
•    Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has developed a monitoring and evaluation framework under the 2nd National Herbal Action Plan (2023–2027) and signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the "Thai Herbal Central Market" with Talad Thai to strengthen market linkages for herbal raw materials. At the policy level, 15 Herbal Champion species have been officially designated, supported through the Herb of the Year initiative and coordinated import-export tracking of six key species with the Thai Customs Department. Thailand's herbal product market currently ranks first in ASEAN, fourth in Asia, and eighth globally by retail value, reaching THB 63,045 million in 2024 (AC Nielsen).

Traditional Occupations - Declining Trend:
•    Population in traditional occupations (agriculture, fishery, forestry laborers): 32.47% or 12.4 million people (2020) → 26.94% or 10.8 million people (2024)
•    Decline of 5.53 percentage points, with 1.6 million people shifting away from traditional sectors

Sustainable Sectoral Practices:
•    Sustainable agriculture area are expanding
•    Community-based fisheries management is operational
•    Community forestry combines livelihoods with conservation
•    Eco-tourism generates non-consumptive benefits
•    Limitation: Explicit biodiversity criteria are not systematically monitored or enforced across sectors
 

Key Challenges in Achieving the Target
Data and Assessment Gaps:
•    Thailand is working toward establishing a comprehensive monitoring system aligned with GBF Headline requirements. The country is developing ecosystem services valuation framework to integrate subsistence use, non-market ecosystem services, genetic resources, and cultural values across provisioning, regulating, and cultural service categories, with operational implementation expected in 2026-2027.

Capacity and Institutional Constraints:
•    Relevant agencies lack technical capacity, methodological guidance, and analytical tools for ecosystem service assessment and economic valuation, particularly at subnational levels responsible for field assessment. Responsibilities are fragmented across multiple agencies using different methodologies, data formats, and reporting systems, preventing integration into a comprehensive national picture. No centralized coordination mechanism or data integration platform exists to aggregate and standardize information.

Traditional Knowledge and Livelihood Transitions:
•    Thailand's traditional occupation workforce declined by 1.6 million people from 32.47% (2020) to 26.94% (2024), risking irreversible loss of traditional ecological knowledge essential for sustainable wild species management. Intergenerational knowledge transfer systems are breaking down, representing loss of both irreplaceable cultural heritage and practical management of wisdom that cannot be replaced by scientific approaches alone.

Market and Economic Barriers:
•    Community biodiversity-based enterprises face systematic barriers in market access, product development, quality standards, branding, and finance access, particularly acute in remote rural areas where biodiversity is highest, but market connections weakest. This creates insufficient economic incentives to compete with extractive alternatives or land conversion.

Sustainability Safeguard Gaps:
•    Growing commercial demand (OTOP biodiversity products increased 20.3% over three years) creates overexploitation risks. Management systems ensuring sustainable harvest limits remain underdeveloped for most wild-harvested products, and traceability and certification systems verifying sustainable sourcing are not systematically applied across supply chains.

Priority Approaches to Address Challenges
Accelerating Ecosystem Service Valuation Framework Operationalization (Priority - In Development): Complete System of Environmental-Economic Accounting development with standardized methodologies for assessing provisioning services (food, water, timber, genetic resources), regulating services (climate regulation, water purification, flood control, pollination, erosion prevention), and cultural services (recreation, tourism, spiritual, aesthetic, cultural heritage). Establish baseline data on contributions to GDP, employment, household income, and subsistence of use. Develop data collection protocols applicable across agencies and ecosystem types. Integrate existing project-level studies into the national framework. Target operational implementation by 2026-2027 to support future GBF reporting with comprehensive national data.

Building Institutional Capacity (Ongoing): Implement systematic capacity building programs for relevant agencies at national, provincial, and local levels to strengthen technical capacity in ecosystem service assessment, economic valuation methods, and monitoring techniques. Develop practical guidance documents, training modules, and decision-support tools enabling standardized assessments. Establish communities of practice for knowledge sharing. Prioritize capacity building in agencies responsible for regulating services assessment given current data gaps.

Establishing Inter-Agency Coordination Mechanisms (In Progress): Create formal coordination mechanisms among agencies responsible for biodiversity, BCG economy, rural development, tourism, agriculture, and finance. Establish a centralized data integration platform where project-level studies and monitoring data can be aggregated, standardized, and analyzed at national level. Develop common reporting frameworks and data standards ensuring compatibility. Assign clear institutional responsibility for overall Ecosystem services valuation framework coordination and national ecosystem services reporting. Create platforms for documenting and disseminating successful models of sustainable wild species management.

Linking Data to Policy and Planning (In Development): Ensure ecosystem services data are accessible and usable for policy makers and decision makers. Develop decision-support tools integrating ecosystem service values into cost-benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, spatial planning, and infrastructure investment decisions. Create policy guidance on incorporating ecosystem service considerations into sectoral strategies (agriculture, water, energy, transport, urban development). Quantify non-extractive benefits to support payment for ecosystem services and benefit-sharing mechanisms with credible economic data.

Preserving and Integrating Traditional Knowledge (Priority): Document and support transmission of traditional ecological knowledge for sustainable wild species management. Integrate traditional knowledge with scientific monitoring in co-management systems. Support intergenerational knowledge transfer in communities managing wild species. Recognize and reward traditional knowledge holders in benefit-sharing arrangements.

Improving Support for Biodiversity-Based Enterprises (Ongoing): Provide systematic technical assistance, financing, market development, and quality assurance for community enterprises and SMEs. Develop value chains connecting sustainable wild species products to premium markets. Support certification, eco-labeling, and branding, highlighting sustainability and traditional knowledge. Improve access to green financing mechanisms. Develop coherent long-term national strategy linking biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and equitable benefit-sharing, ensuring sustainability standards applied consistently across sectors and programs.
 

Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of this target supports multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
•    SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), particularly Targets 1.4 (access to economic resources) and 8.4 (sustainable livelihoods), through biodiversity-based income generation and community biodiversity enterprises that demonstrate wild species contributions to poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.
•    SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) especially Targets 2.3 (small-scale food producers) and 2.5 (genetic diversity), through community biodiversity enterprises supporting small-scale farmers and fishers utilizing wild species and agro-biodiversity.
•    SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), especially Target 6.6 (protect and restore water-related ecosystems), through systematic assessment of water regulation, purification and provision services from ecosystems once the Ecosystem services valuation framework becomes operational.
•    SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), particularly Targets 12.2 (sustainable management of natural resources) and 12.b (sustainable tourism), via the Bio-Circular-Green Economy Model promoting resource efficiency and sustainable wild species management, with eco-tourism practices benefiting communities while minimizing environmental impacts. Once Ecosystem services valuation is operational, it will enable integration of ecosystem service values into national economic accounts and policies promoting sustainable use.
•    SDG 13 (Climate Action), particularly Targets 13.1 (strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity) and 13.2 (integrate climate measures into policies), through assessment of climate regulation services including carbon sequestration and climate adaptation benefits from ecosystems.
•    SDG 14 (Life Below Water), especially Targets 14.2 (sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems), 14.4 (sustainable fisheries), 14.7 (economic benefits from marine resources), and 14.b (small-scale fishers), through community-based fisheries management aiming for sustainable wild fish harvesting and assessment of coastal and marine ecosystem services (though declining stocks indicate strengthening needed).
•    SDG 15 (Life on Land), particularly Targets 15.6 (fair and equitable benefit-sharing from genetic resources), 15.9 (integrate ecosystem values into planning), and 15.c (combat poaching while supporting communities), through traditional knowledge-based products supporting benefit-sharing from genetic resources and development of the Ecosystem services valuation framework for systematic ecosystem services valuation and integration into national accounts and planning.
 

• Pollution Control Measures

Thailand has implemented comprehensive pollution control addressing multiple sources affecting biodiversity. Extensive water quality monitoring networks now cover rivers, coastal waters, and reservoirs, measuring nutrients, chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxygen, and eutrophication parameters. The Marine Water Quality Index (MWQI) serves as a proxy indicator while ICEP methodology is under development. Regulatory frameworks manage hazardous chemicals and pesticides through environmental and agricultural laws, with monitoring of use of quantities and import volumes. Integrated pollution prevention includes measures to reduce plastic and marine debris, alongside strengthened coordination between environmental, agricultural, industrial, and municipal authorities.

• Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Mitigation

Thailand has established integrated policy frameworks addressing climate-biodiversity linkages through the Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050, National Adaptation Plan Integrating Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EbA) and Nature-Based Solutions (NbS), and the 5^th NBSAP (2023-2027) with Target 4 focused on climate threats.

Nature-Based Solutions include scaled-up forest restoration through assisted natural regeneration, enrichment planting with native species, and community-based restoration under the Community Forest Act with 90% tree survival requirements. Marine and coastal ecosystem restoration programs demonstrate climate adaptation benefits. Urban green infrastructure provides climate adaptation through heat island mitigation, flood management, air quality improvement, and biodiversity conservation.

The Climate, Coastal, and Marine Biodiversity (CCMB) project supports ONEP and other agencies integrating biodiversity and climate targets. For ocean acidification, DMCR maintains continuous monitoring since 2016 at 160 points throughout the Gulf of Thailand, tracking pH, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, and CO₂, while participating in the IOC-WESTPAC project. Programs expand marine protected areas to reduce ocean acidification impacts.

• Urban Green and Blue Spaces

Thailand has established Guidelines for Sustainable Green Space Management (2018-2037), currently in second phase (2023-2027), providing the national framework for urban green space planning and biodiversity conservation. The guidelines emphasize native plant species promotion and invasive species control.

Biodiversity-inclusive urban planning incorporating green and blue space management has been implemented in Bangkok Metropolitan Area, Pattaya City, and Chiang Mai City as demonstration models. Thailand is implementing New Urban Agenda-aligned development plans to expand coverage to cities nationwide, extending to city municipalities, town municipalities, and sub-district municipalities. ONEP monitors urban green space provision per capita across municipality types to assess progress.

• Pollution Control Outcomes

Coastal and Marine Water Quality: Thailand's coastal water quality remained stable during 2020-2023, with annual average MWQI at 72-76% (Fair to Good). The majority of monitoring stations (55-60%) achieved "Good" classification with healthy ecosystems, approximately 31-40% rated "Fair" (moderately impacted), and only 5-8% classified as "Poor" or "Very Poor."

Institutional Capacity: Enhanced water quality monitoring capacity provides regular eutrophication risk data. Strengthened inter-agency coordination mechanisms between environmental, water resource, agricultural, and industrial authorities. Development of biodiversity-relevant pollution indicators and assessment frameworks progressing.

• Climate Change Mitigation Achievements

Policy Framework Established: Comprehensive policy integration achieved through Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050, National Adaptation Plan integrating EbA and NbS, and 5th NBSAP (2023-2027) Target 4. CCMB project strengthens integration between climate and biodiversity targets across agencies.

Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Recovery:

Seagrass Meadows (Blue Carbon and Coastal Protection):

• Total coverage: 481.3 km² (2020) → 513.5 km² (2024) = +32.2 km² (+6.7% increase)
• Gulf of Thailand: +6.2% | Andaman Sea: +3.0%
• Climate benefits: Blue carbon sequestration faster than tropical forests, coastal protection reducing wave energy and erosion, enhanced resilience to sea-level rise and storm surges

Coral Reefs (Climate Resilience): Thailand's coral reefs demonstrated remarkable resilience and health recovery from 2021-2023, covering stable area of 238.69 km² distributed across Andaman Sea (118.01 km²) and Gulf of Thailand (120.68 km²).

Recovery trajectory:

• 2021-2022: Poor condition reefs increased from 57.31 km² to 58.81 km² due to 2022 bleaching events, marine heatwaves, and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks
• 2022-2023: Strong recovery with Poor condition reefs decreasing to 51.51 km² and Good condition reefs expanding to 132.57 km² (55.5% of total)
• Net change 2021-2023: Good +7.83 km² (+6.3%), Poor -5.80 km² (-10.1%)
• Recovery drivers: Natural recruitment, active restoration (coral nurseries, transplantation), improved marine park management, reduced tourism pressure, favorable climate conditions 2023-2024

Ocean Acidification Monitoring: DMCR maintains continuous monitoring since 2016, with data from 160 points throughout Gulf of Thailand tracking pH, total alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, and CO2. Thailand participates in IOC-WESTPAC ocean acidification project, contributing to regional understanding. Programs to expand marine protected areas aim to reduce ocean acidification impacts and protect vulnerable coastal biodiversity.

• Urban Green Spaces Progress

Bangkok Metropolitan Area:

• Green space provision: 8.11 m²/person (2025), increased +1.04 m²/person (+14.7%) over 5 years
• Target: 10 m²/person by 2030 under Green Bangkok 2030 initiative
• Green and blue infrastructure projects address urban ecosystem services: parks for recreation, biodiversity habitat, air quality improvement, canal management for flood control, water quality, urban cooling, and aquatic biodiversity
• One Million Trees campaign: Target achieved mid-2024, with additional million planned through 2026
• 15-Minute Pocket Parks: 107 plots secured (2022), targeting parks within 800m walking distance
• Additional targets: 50% of residents accessing green spaces within 400m; urban tree canopy covering 30% of total area by 2030

Municipality Variations:

• Sub-district municipalities: 59.25 m²/person (reflecting rural/peri-urban characteristics with agricultural land, forests, community spaces)
• Town municipalities: 5.35 m²/person
• City municipalities: 4.31 m²/person (most severe deficit, well below WHO recommendations)

Ecosystem Services Integration: Planning partially integrates ecosystem services including climate regulation, water management, recreation, and mental health benefits.

1) Pollution Control Challenges and Solutions

Challenges:

• Limited biodiversity-specific pollution metrics: ICEP and Aggregated Total Applied Toxicity (ATAT) indicators not yet fully implemented; currently relying on proxy indicators (MWQI)
• Incomplete coverage: Nitrogen and phosphorus flux data at river mouths not systematically collected
• Sectoral silos: Agriculture, industry, municipal waste management, and biodiversity conservation policies developed relatively independently

Strengthening Approaches:

• Develop ICEP methodology, establishing nutrient flux monitoring at major river mouths discharging to coastal zones
• Develop pesticide risk assessment system based on toxicity weighting (using ATAT indicator)
• Establish biological monitoring programs using indicator species sensitive to nutrient and chemical pollution
• Harmonize pesticide data collection across agricultural use, import, and environmental concentration monitoring

2)   Climate Change Mitigation Challenges and Solutions

Challenges:

• Absence of systematic climate-biodiversity impact monitoring: Lack of systems to monitor climate impacts on species distributions, ecosystem functions, phenology, and population dynamics
• Limited assessment of climate action impacts on biodiversity: Detailed impact assessment and systematic safeguards underdeveloped
• Insufficient scale and pace of nature-based solutions: Current Nature-based Solutions (NbS) implementation shows positive trends but remains insufficient to meet 2030 commitments
• Incomplete ocean acidification impact understanding: Chemical monitoring operational, but biological impact monitoring (coral calcification rates, shellfish populations, fish behavior, ecosystem changes) only partially developed

Strengthening Approaches:

• Establishing Climate-Biodiversity Impact Monitoring System: Develop comprehensive monitoring and tracking climate impacts on biodiversity. Integrate with existing biodiversity surveys and protected area monitoring. Establish baseline data and indicators linking climate variables to biodiversity responses.
• Accelerating Forest Protection and Restoration for Net Carbon Gain: Scale up restoration to substantially exceed deforestation rates, targeting net forest gain. Address underlying drivers through integrated landscape management, sustainable development pathways, alternative livelihoods, and strengthened enforcement. Prioritize high-carbon ecosystems and connectivity corridors.
• Strengthening Coral Reef Climate Adaptation Strategies: Implement comprehensive adaptation including identification and protection of climate refugia (lower bleaching risk areas), assisted evolution using heat-tolerant coral genotypes, expanded coral nurseries propagating climate-resilient strains, enhanced monitoring and early warning systems, and reduction of local stressors.
• Expanding Nature-Based Solutions at Scale: Substantially scale up NbS implementation to levels commensurate with climate and biodiversity targets. Mobilize climate finance (Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, domestic budgets). Develop national targets and tracking mechanisms. Promote public-private partnerships and innovative financing (green bonds, carbon markets, PES).
• Strengthening Ocean Acidification Impact Monitoring: Expand monitoring beyond chemical parameters to include biological response monitoring. Establish research programs elucidating mechanistic links between acidification and biodiversity impacts. Use biological monitoring to inform marine PA management, coral reef restoration strategies, and fisheries management.

3)   Urban Green Spaces Challenges and Solutions

Challenges:

• Unequal access to green and blue spaces: Access to quality green and blue spaces uneven across neighborhoods and cities, limiting both biodiversity benefits and social equity
• Rapid urbanization pressure: Population growth in urban areas, expansion of built-up areas, and intensification of land use create pressure to convert remaining green spaces. Economic incentives favor development over green space preservation.

Strengthening Approaches:

• Scaling Biodiversity-Inclusive Urban Planning Nationwide: Accelerate implementation of New Urban Agenda-aligned urban development plans to extend biodiversity-inclusive planning from three major cities to all urban municipalities. Develop differentiated approaches for different urban scales (metropolitan areas, medium cities, small towns, growing peri-urban areas). Provide technical support, planning guidance, design standards, and financing mechanisms enabling smaller municipalities to adopt biodiversity-inclusive approaches.

Strengthening Ecosystem Services Integration: Move from "partial" to "fully" integrated ecosystem services consideration in urban planning. Develop systematic frameworks for assessing and incorporating nature's contributions across all urban development decisions. Create urban ecosystem services assessment tools appropriate for Thai contexts. Integrate ecosystem services valuation into cost-benefit analyses for urban infrastructure. Establish design standards for green and blue infrastructure ensuring multiple ecosystem service provisions. Link urban planning explicitly to climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and public health objectives through nature-based solutions.

     Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of National Target 4 contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and related international commitments:

• It supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) by promoting ecosystem-based adaptation and nature-based solutions that enhance climate resilience while conserving biodiversity.
• It contributes to SDG 14 (Life Below Water), particularly Targets 14.1 (reduce marine pollution, especially from land-based activities) and 14.2 (sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems), through efforts to reduce nutrient and plastic pollution and restore coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass and coral reefs.
• It advances SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), especially Target 6.3 (improve water quality by reducing pollution) and 6.6 (protect and restore water-related ecosystems), via strengthened control of water pollution and restoration of wetlands, rivers and reservoirs.
• It supports SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), including Targets 11.3 (inclusive and sustainable urbanisation) and 11.7 (universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible green and public spaces), through planning and expansion of urban green and blue infrastructure.
• It contributes indirectly to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), by reducing pollution-related health risks and providing healthier urban environments.

Beyond the SDGs, National Target 4 is relevant to Thailand’s commitments under multilateral environmental agreements related to climate change (UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement), pollution and hazardous chemicals (e.g. Stockholm, Basel, Minamata Conventions), and regional frameworks on marine and coastal pollution and climate resilience. By reducing climate and pollution pressures on ecosystems and enhancing urban green and blue spaces, National Target 4 helps safeguard biodiversity and the ecosystem services that support human health, livelihoods and resilience.

Thailand has undertaken comprehensive actions to integrate biodiversity into decision-making frameworks at multiple levels:

• National-level integration: Biodiversity has been incorporated into Thailand's 20 Year National Strategy (2018-2037), particularly strategies 4 and 6, and the Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), which integrates environmental development with community income generation. The Master Plan under The National Strategy (2023-2037) Issue 19 addresses Integrated Water Resources Management to promote conservation and restoration of natural water sources.
• Legal and institutional frameworks: The Community Forest Act B.E. 2562 (2019) recognizes community rights in forest management, linking conservation with income generation through highland development projects and community-based ecotourism. Local Development Plans (2023-2027) are beginning to integrate natural resource conservation with community economic development. Additionally, Thailand is in the process of developing a Biodiversity Act to establish a comprehensive legal framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use at the national level.
• Sectoral mainstreaming: Multiple sectors have integrated biodiversity through policies and regulations: agriculture (Good Agricultural Practices by MOAC, Organic Farming Handbook by DOA, New Theory Agriculture by DOAE); fisheries (Royal Ordinance on Fisheries No.2 B.E.2017, Sustainable Management of Fisheries); forestry (Community Forest Act B.E. 2562, Thailand Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Planted Forests and Community Forests); aquaculture (Good Aquaculture Practice); and tourism (ecotourism management knowledge development by DOT).
• Policy alignment: Thailand's 5th NBSAP aligns implementation with all 23 GBF targets, supported by cross-sectoral policies and Thailand's Biodiversity Finance Plan (2023-2027) developed through BIOFIN ensures fiscal and financial flows support GBF goals and is linked to the 5th NBSAP.

Thailand has made progress in integrating biodiversity into decision-making across multiple dimensions, though significant gaps remain:

• Fully achieved Policy and Financial alignment: Thailand has established comprehensive frameworks to align national policies and financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The 5th National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) provide systematic alignment with all 23 GBF targets, supported by cross-sectoral policies that ensure coordinated implementation. Complementing this policy framework, the Thailand Biodiversity Finance Plan (2023-2027), developed through the BIOFIN initiative, provides a strategic approach to mobilizing and directing fiscal and financial resources toward biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, ensuring that funding mechanisms support the achievement of both national and global biodiversity objectives.
• Partially achieved Government integration: Biodiversity considerations have been embedded in key national frameworks including the 20 Year National Strategy, the Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan, and the Master Plan for Integrated Water Resources Management. The Community Forest Act B.E. 2562 (2019) represents a significant achievement in recognizing community rights in forest management and linking conservation with income generation. Local Development Plans (2023-2027) are beginning to integrate natural resource conservation with community economic development. However, integration is not yet systematic across all levels of government, with biodiversity often treated as an add-on rather than a core component of decision-making.
• Under development of Environmental economic accounting: Thailand has initiated efforts to develop environmental economic accounting systems. The National Statistical Office (NSO) is working on the SEEA Central Framework with some partial environmental accounts established for water, energy, and air emissions. SEEA Ecosystem Accounting is under development through collaboration between NSO, ONEP, and NESDC. Natural Capital Accounting and Ecosystem Services Valuation have begun in pilot areas, and specific studies have been conducted on ecosystem service values including mangroves for coastal protection, coral reefs, and headwater forests. However, comprehensive environmental economic accounting that covers all ecosystems remains a significant gap, limiting the ability to fully integrate biodiversity values into economic planning and decision-making processes.
• Partially achieved Sectoral mainstreaming: Biodiversity integration is evident across key economic sectors through specific policies and practices. Agriculture has integrated biodiversity through Good Agricultural Practices, organic farming programs, and New Theory Agriculture. The Fisheries sector has adopted sustainable management frameworks through the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries (No.2). The Forestry sector has implemented the Community Forest Act and sustainability criteria for planted and community forests. Aquaculture has adopted Good Aquaculture Practice standards. The tourism sector has promoted ecotourism management through knowledge development and dissemination to tourism personnel and communities. While these sectoral initiatives demonstrate progress, mainstreaming remains inconsistent and not yet comprehensive across all relevant sectors.

Key challenges in achieving Target include:

• Lack of systematic integration: Biodiversity is often treated as an add-on component rather than being systematically embedded as a core element in decision-making processes across all levels of government and sectors.
• Incomplete environmental economic accounting systems do not yet comprehensively cover all ecosystems, limiting the ability to fully value and integrate biodiversity considerations into economic planning and decision-making.
• Implementation gaps between policy and practice: While frameworks and policies exist, translating these into consistent on-the-ground action across all administrative levels remains challenging.

To address these challenges and further strengthen implementation, Thailand will focus on the following approaches:

• Expand environmental economic accounting: Complete the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework and extend Natural Capital Accounting to cover all major ecosystem types, ensuring biodiversity values are consistently reflected in national and sectoral economic planning. 
• Strengthen capacity building: Implement comprehensive training programs for government officials at all levels on biodiversity integration, environmental accounting, and ecosystem-based decision-making. 
• Enhance coordination mechanisms: Establish clear inter-agency coordination platforms and accountability frameworks to ensure biodiversity considerations are systematically integrated across sectors and administrative levels. 

Improve data and monitoring systems: Develop comprehensive biodiversity monitoring and information systems that support evidence-based decision-making and track progress in biodiversity mainstreaming.

     Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of this target, once comprehensive monitoring systems are established, will contribute to multiple Sustainable Development Goals and international commitments:

• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Biodiversity integration in forestry policies and the Community Forest Act supports SDG 15.1, 15.2, and 15.9 by ensuring sustainable forest management and mainstreaming biodiversity values into decision-making at all levels.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Integration of biodiversity in agricultural policies through Good Agricultural Practices, organic farming, and New Theory Agriculture supports SDG 2.4 on sustainable food production systems that maintain ecosystems and strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Multi-agency collaboration between NSO, ONEP, and NESDC in developing SEEA Ecosystem Accounting, cross-sectoral biodiversity mainstreaming, and the Thailand Biodiversity Finance Plan exemplifies SDG 17.14 on policy coherence for sustainable development and SDG 17.16 on multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Thailand has taken the following significant actions in order to strengthen capacity-building, technology transfer, and scientific and technical cooperation for biodiversity:

Institutional Framework Development:

• Established mechanisms to strengthen capacity-building related to biodiversity at national level, including through the 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037), 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), and Master Plan Issue 19 on Natural Resources and Environmental Management.
• Prepared National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) consistent with international standards

Capacity Building Programs: 

• Programs enhancing capacity for protected area management, community forests, coastal ecosystem management, forest fire management, and multi-sector cooperation
• Community-based ecotourism training and sustainable management of biological diversity

Financial and Technical Support:

• Department of National Parks (DNP) provides capacity building and technical support to communities
• Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) implements capacity building on coastal ecosystem management
• Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) conduct capacity building through GEF Projects and BIOFIN Thailand, including Needs Assessment for financial and capacity gaps
• Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives works with communities to strengthen capacity for sustainable biodiversity use
• International Cooperation: The documents highlight Thailand's participation in North-South Cooperation and South-South Cooperation.
• Technology Transfer and Innovation:
  • Participation in GBIF and Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network
  • Biodiversity monitoring, eDNA, molecular techniques, and citizen science platforms

However, many cooperation projects focus on providing financial support rather than technology transfer itself, requiring more emphasis on appropriate technology transfer.

The main outcomes achieved comprise

• Enhanced Institutional Capacity: Successfully integrated biodiversity considerations into national planning frameworks and created coordination mechanisms between multiple government departments.
• Strengthened Human Resource Capacity: Trained over 500 communities in various biodiversity management skills including protected area management, community forest management, sustainable ecotourism, forest fire management, and biological diversity sustainable use
• Educational Infrastructure: Established extensive network of over 10,000 schools incorporating biodiversity education
• Scientific and Technical Cooperation: Active participation in global biodiversity information networks (GBIF), Regional cooperation through ASEAN mechanisms, Multiple bilateral and multilateral research partnerships.

Key Challenges Identified:

• Systematic Coordination Gaps: Current implementation lacks systematic coordination between different levels and sectors, insufficient integration between various national projects and programs, need for better alignment of capacity building efforts across agencies
• Technology Transfer Limitations: Many international cooperation projects focus primarily on financial support, insufficient emphasis on actual technology transfer and adaptation, gap between available technologies and local capacity to absorb and apply them, need for more appropriate and context-specific technology solutions
• Sustainability of Capacity Building: Concern about long-term sustainability of capacity once external support ends, need for institutionalized, ongoing capacity development mechanisms, dependence on project-based rather than programmatic approaches

Resource Constraints: Limited financial resources for scaling successful initiatives, insufficient technical personnel at subnational levels. need for increased investment in capacity building infrastructure

Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of this target will contribute to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international agreements:

SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) is most directly aligned, particularly:

• Target 17.6 on enhancing North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation on science, technology and innovation
• Target 17.7 on promoting development, transfer and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies
• Target 17.9 on enhancing capacity-building support to developing countries

SDG 15 (Life on Land) benefits through strengthened technical capacity to implement terrestrial biodiversity conservation measures, supporting targets 15.1-15.9 on ecosystem restoration, sustainable forest management, and combating desertification.

SDG 14 (Life Below Water) is supported through enhanced capacity for marine and coastal biodiversity management, particularly targets 14.2 on sustainable ocean management and 14.a on increasing scientific knowledge and research capacity.

SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) connects through capacity-building for agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable agricultural practices (Target 2.5 on genetic diversity).

SDG 13 (Climate Action) intersects through technology transfer for nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation approaches.

Beyond the SDGs, implementation relates to UNFCCC and Paris Agreement: Technology transfer and capacity-building mechanisms support climate-biodiversity synergies, particularly for nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation. UNCCD (Desertification Convention): Shared focus on capacity-building for land restoration and sustainable land management in dryland ecosystems. Ramsar Convention: Scientific cooperation strengthens wetland conservation and wise use practices. CITES: Capacity-building supports wildlife trade monitoring and enforcement capabilities.

Thailand has undertaken significant actions to enhance biodiversity knowledge accessibility and stakeholder participation through the following key initiatives:

Biodiversity Monitoring Platform: 
Thailand is currently developing a biodiversity monitoring platform to track progress toward national targets in NBSAP 2023-2027 and compile data for GBF indicators and binary indicators reporting. Future steps will require consultation with relevant data-collecting agencies to systematically assess: (a) availability, coverage, and quality of data for each indicator; (b) integration of traditional knowledge in target assessments.
As part of this effort, Thailand has begun integrating indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) into its national ecosystem assessment (NEA) process through a multi-evidence based approach. The Field School Project (2023–2025), implemented by the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre (SAC) and the Social Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University (CUSRI), engaged Chao Lay communities in Phang Nga and Krabi Provinces in participatory biodiversity data collection and ecosystem mapping. This initiative demonstrates a practical model for incorporating ILK alongside scientific datasets in national biodiversity monitoring.

Development of the Thailand Biodiversity Information Facility (TH-BIF):
•    Establishing a centralized national database system to compile, manage and disseminate biodiversity information, including species occurrence records, distribution data and ecological information from various sources across the country
•    Integrating Thailand's Red List assessments and conservation status information for threatened species into the platform to support conservation planning and decision-making
•    Developing governance structures, data-sharing protocols and institutional arrangements to facilitate collaboration among stakeholders

Legal frameworks for participation and rights:
•    The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017) recognizes citizens' rights to participate in natural resource management and environmental decision-making processes
•    The Protection and Promotion of Ethnic Groups' Way of Life Act, B.E. 2568 (2025), effective September 19, 2025, provides Thailand's first comprehensive legal framework protecting cultural rights and promoting the capacity of ethnic groups

Land use documentation systems:
•    Recording and monitoring land use in forest areas where local and indigenous communities reside, providing conditional use permits and tracking land tenure arrangements. 
•    Implemented under the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), Section 121, covering land holdings in wildlife preservation zones and hunting prohibited zones
•    Implemented under the National Parks Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), Section 64, covering land holdings in national parks (total area: 408,947.647 hectares)

Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: A national monitoring and evaluation system for NBSAP 2023-2027 and national targets is currently under development. Thailand is establishing a comprehensive methodology to assess NBSAP indicators, which will be analyzed and refined for alignment with headline indicators in future reporting.

Thailand Biodiversity Information Facility (TH-BIF): Thailand has developed TH-BIF as its national biodiversity information system (https://thbif.onep.go.th/), providing species occurrence data, conservation status and Red List assessments. The system incorporates georeferenced data and threatened species information from Red List assessments, supporting conservation prioritization, planning and management at multiple scales.

Land Use and Tenure Measurement for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Thailand has established a data collection methodology for land use and land tenure in forest areas where indigenous peoples and local communities reside, aligned with international standards for measuring land tenure security. Data is collected from:

• Forest villages and national park use zones inside protected areas: 1,090,118.61 hectares as of 2025 (Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation)

The methodology covers land holdings under the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) Section 121 (681,170.96 hectares in wildlife sanctuaries and non-hunting zones) and National Parks Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) Section 64 (408,947.65 hectares in national parks).

Legislative Milestone: A significant achievement was the enactment of the Protection and Promotion of Ethnic Groups' Way of Life Act, B.E. 2568 (2025), effective September 19, 2025. This landmark legislation represents Thailand's first comprehensive legal framework protecting cultural rights and promoting the capacity of ethnic groups. Key provisions include recognition of rights to maintain traditional lifestyles, cultures, languages and beliefs; establishment of the National Committee and Council for Ethnic Groups; creation of a central ethnic database for policy planning; and designation of protected areas for ethnic group livelihoods with co-management arrangements between communities and the state for natural resource governance.

While this framework provides proxy data for indicator 22.1, further development is needed to comprehensively capture traditional territories of indigenous peoples and local communities to fully achieve the GBF target.

Integration of Indigenous and Local Knowledge into Biodiversity Assessment
•    Thailand has accumulated over two decades of experience in community-based biodiversity monitoring through participatory research methodologies, most notably Thai Baan Research and its derivatives — Tai Baan Research, Chao Baan Research, and Pagaka'nyaw Research. These approaches, developed and refined since year 2000 across river basins, coastal areas, and marine ecosystems, have generated substantial datasets on species occurrence, ecosystem change, and traditional resource management practices that complement and, in many cases, fill gaps in formal scientific datasets.
•    The national ecosystem assessment process has formally incorporated ILK through structured participatory methods, including interviews, participatory mapping, focus groups, oral history documentation, and field schools. Data collected through these methods has contributed to assessments of coastal and marine ecosystem status in the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea, with knowledge holders from Chao Lay communities and small-scale fisherfolk providing observations on species abundance, seasonal patterns, habitat change, and climate-related shifts that extend beyond the temporal and spatial coverage of scientific monitoring programmes.

Key Challenges and Gaps:

• International Connectivity Gap: TH-BIF is not connected to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), limiting international data sharing and Thailand's participation in global biodiversity knowledge networks.
• Institutional Coordination Challenges: Fragmented data ownership across multiple government agencies, universities and research institutions, coupled with lack of clear data-sharing policies, formal coordination mechanisms, and disconnect between academic research and government databases.
• Data Aggregation and Assessment Gap: While national biodiversity datasets exist across various government agencies (DNP, DOF, DMR, etc.), these have not yet been systematically assessed or aggregated to calculate the percentage of headline indicators with available data sources as required by indicator 21.1, hindering comprehensive evaluation of data availability and identification of monitoring gaps.
• Information Gaps on Inclusive Participation: Thailand lacks comprehensive disaggregated data to monitor inclusive participation in biodiversity decision-making and access to justice. Insufficient quantitative and qualitative information exists on participation rates and quality across different stakeholder groups (indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, persons with disabilities and marginalized groups), making it difficult to assess whether participation meaningfully influences biodiversity and natural resource decisions.
• Incomplete Recognition of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities' Land Rights: Despite data collection on land use in forest areas, formal legal recognition of customary land tenure and traditional territories remains limited. Many communities living in or near protected areas lack secure land rights, creating ongoing conflicts and limiting their ability to participate meaningfully in decision-making.
• ILK Documentation and Integration Gap: Despite more than two decades of participatory research generating substantial ILK datasets on coastal and marine ecosystems, this knowledge has not yet been systematically aggregated or integrated into national biodiversity information systems such as TH-BIF. ILK data currently remains dispersed across academic institutions, civil society organizations, and community records, with no standardized protocols for digitization, validation, or linkage to formal biodiversity databases.

Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of this target contributes to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international agreements:
•    SDG 1 (No Poverty): Supports target 1.4 by ensuring equal rights to economic resources, access to basic services, and control over land and natural resources for rural communities, forest-dependent populations, small-scale fishers and indigenous groups whose livelihoods depend on sustainable access to biodiversity resources.
•    SDG 14 (Life Below Water): Marine biodiversity data from Red List, GBIF and OBIS support ecosystem protection (14.2) and enhance scientific knowledge through systematic monitoring and international databases (14.a).
•    SDG 15 (Life on Land): Tracks species extinction risk and habitat degradation (15.5), integrates biodiversity values into national planning through Ecosystem services valuation methodology (15.9), and ensures conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems (15.1) with meaningful participation from local communities, indigenous peoples, women, youth and marginalized groups.
•    SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Participation in international monitoring schemes and contribution to global databases including GBIF, OBIS and Living Planet Database strengthen scientific cooperation (17.6).
International Agreements
•    UN SEEA EA: Supports natural capital accounting and ecosystem service valuation
•    Ramsar Convention: Provides wetland inventory and monitoring data
•    CITES: Informs species trade regulations with population and threat data
•    Paris Agreement: Supports NDCs through ecosystem carbon monitoring
 

Thailand has implemented foundational legal and institutional measures for access and benefit-sharing (ABS) from genetic resources and traditional knowledge, alongside biosafety and biotechnology controls.

1) Legal Framework for Benefit-Sharing:

Multiple legislations establish benefit-sharing provisions: the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act B.E. 2542 (1999) covers traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, particularly herbal medicines, with licensing and benefit-sharing procedures; the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended (1992, 1999), protects inventions utilizing genetic resources; and the Plant Variety Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999) recognizes farmers' and communities' rights including traditional knowledge utilization, establishes the Plant Variety Protection Fund for collecting and distributing benefits from commercial use of plant genetic resources through benefit-sharing agreements.

2) Monetary Benefit Collection Mechanisms:

Thailand has established preliminary mechanisms to track and collect monetary benefits from access to genetic resources, though implementation remains fragmented across agencies. The primary operational system is the Plant Variety Protection Fund under the Department of Agriculture, which collects benefits from commercial use of plant genetic resources, generating approximately USD 15,000 in 2025. However, these mechanisms operate independently without centralized national coordination, and monetary benefit collection remains limited in scope and scale.

3) Non-Monetary Benefit Tracking:

Multiple mechanisms track non-monetary benefits, though a comprehensive system is under development. Research institutions and universities record co-authorship, technology transfer and training; the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources facilitates Thai researchers accessing tissue samples with results shared back; NSTDA maintains records of research projects utilizing genetic resources; and the Thailand Research Fund and National Research Council of Thailand maintain databases of funded research with publication outputs tracked.

4) Capacity Building Initiatives:

Multiple agencies undertake capacity building: ONEP is developing a national Capacity Building Plan for ABS, though comprehensive coverage has not yet been achieved; the Department of Intellectual Property conducts training on IP procedures related to ABS; and the Royal Forest Department, DNP and DOF provide training for officials on ABS processes and royalty fee collection.

5) Biosafety Regulatory Framework:

Thailand operates biosafety controls through multiple laws and regulations, including: Plant Quarantine Act B.E. 2507 as amended (No. 2, B.E. 2542 and No. 3, B.E. 2551); Pathogens and Animal Toxins Act B.E. 2558 (2015); Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Notification on Designation of Aquatic Animal Species Prohibited from Importation, Exportation or Transit B.E. 2564 (2021); Ministry of Public Health Notifications (No. 431 and No. 432) B.E. 2565 (2022) on food derived from GMOs and GMO labeling requirements; Biosafety Guidelines for Modern Biotechnology B.E. 2559 (2016); and Manual of Criteria, Conditions and Biosafety Practices for Industrial Plant Operators B.E. 2562 (2019).

6) Institutional Mechanisms and Information Dissemination:

Biosafety committees and technical advisory bodies oversee risk assessment and management for safe handling, transport, contained use and release of living modified organisms (LMOs), particularly in agriculture and research sectors. The Thailand Biosafety Clearing House and FDA website disseminate information about LMOs and GMO foods, educate consumers, provide regulatory information and guidelines for food business operators, display lists of approved GMO products, and explain labeling requirements.

7) Risk Assessment and Monitoring:

Guidelines and procedures for biosafety risk assessment and monitoring have been developed and applied in relevant sectors to ensure safe use of biotechnology (https://www.biotec.or.th/home/en/biosafety-program-en/).

Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)

Thailand has established foundational legal frameworks and institutional mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing from genetic resources and traditional knowledge, though comprehensive data collection and systematic monitoring across all sectors remain under development.

• Benefit-sharing legislation operational (partial coverage): 
  • Plant Variety Protection Act B.E. 2542 (1999): Recognizes farmers' and communities' rights including traditional knowledge utilization, provides provider-side measures, and establishes the Plant Variety Protection Fund for collecting and distributing benefits from commercial use of plant genetic resources through benefit-sharing agreements.
  • Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act B.E. 2542 (1999): Operational with benefit-sharing provisions for traditional knowledge associated with herbal medicines and genetic resources.
  • Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) amended: Provides protection for inventions and designs utilizing genetic resources.
• Limited data collection and fragmented tracking: 
  • Thailand currently lacks comprehensive national data on both monetary and non-monetary benefits from genetic resource access and benefit-sharing. Systematic monitoring does not yet cover all sectors, with only USD 15,000 cumulative from plant genetic resources recorded to date (2025), while benefits from wildlife, marine, aquatic, and other resources remain untracked.
  • For non-monetary benefits, research institutions and universities record some benefits including co-authorship, technology transfer, and training, but tracking does not comprehensively cover all institutions and benefit types. While documented in specific cases such as publications and training programs, a systematic monitoring system specifically for ABS-related non-monetary benefits is still under development, limiting Thailand's ability to assess the full value and equitable distribution of benefits derived from its genetic resources.

Biosafety

Thailand has established foundational biosafety frameworks and operational mechanisms, though significant gaps remain in comprehensive implementation:

• Biosafety frameworks partially achieved: Thailand has developed legal and institutional frameworks governing biosafety through multiple existing laws covering plant quarantine, pathogens and animal toxins, and biotechnology guidelines. Biosafety committees and technical advisory bodies provide oversight for risk assessment and management of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs), particularly in agriculture and research sectors. Guidelines and procedures for biosafety risk assessment and monitoring have been developed and applied across relevant sectors. However, Thailand still lacks dedicated comprehensive biosafety legislation that specifically and systematically addresses all aspects of LMO handling, use, and release in a unified framework.
• Implementation and enforcement under development: While biosafety frameworks exist, implementation and enforcement remain uneven across different sectors and regions. 
• Emerging technologies challenges: Current frameworks were developed primarily for earlier biotechnology applications and require updating to effectively address new and emerging genetic technologies (such as gene editing, synthetic biology, and other novel biotechnologies), which pose additional challenges for risk assessment, regulation, and public communication.

• Thailand Biosafety Clearing House (BCH): Disseminates general information about LMOs and provides basic regulatory information and biosafety decisions.
• FDA GMO Food Website (Food and Drug Administration): Educates consumers about GMO foods and their safety, provides regulatory information and guidelines for food business operators regarding GMO handling and labeling, displays lists of approved GMO products for food use, explains labeling requirements and compliance obligations, and focuses specifically on food safety and consumer protection aspects of GMOs.

Key challenges in achieving the Target include:

• Fragmented data and monitoring systems: No comprehensive national data exists on non-monetary benefits or benefit-sharing agreements. While individual institutions track activities, Thailand lacks an integrated system to aggregate information across all genetic resource types, institutions, and benefit categories. This fragmentation prevents comprehensive assessment of benefit-sharing objectives under the Nagoya Protocol.
• Fragmented institutional responsibilities: Multiple agencies (DOA, RFD, DNP, DOF, DMCR, NSTDA, DIP) implement different aspects of ABS with limited coordination mechanisms. Different genetic resource types are managed by different agencies using different systems, preventing a comprehensive national overview.
• Lack of mandatory disclosure requirements: No comprehensive legal framework requires large companies and financial institutions to assess and disclose biodiversity-related risks, dependencies, and impacts. While EIA/EHIA systems exist for large projects, they are not specifically designed for comprehensive biodiversity assessment and do not extend to ongoing business operations or financial institutions.
• DSI policy gap: No legislation or clear policy exists on digital sequence information benefit-sharing despite participation in international negotiations. The growing importance of DSI in biotechnology and research means significant potential benefits are not addressed by the current framework.
• Insufficient baseline data and standardized metrics: Thailand lacks comprehensive baseline data on current levels of corporate biodiversity disclosure and impact. Standardized metrics and methodologies for measuring and reporting biodiversity-related information are not widely adopted.
• Capacity gaps: Capacity-building initiatives are underway, but comprehensive coverage across all sectors has not been achieved. Many institutions, officials, and companies—particularly SMEs—lack the technical capacity, expertise, and resources to conduct biodiversity assessments, implement ABS frameworks, or adopt disclosure standards like TNFD.

To address these challenges and strengthen implementation, Thailand will focus on:

• Scaling capacity building: Complete and implement ONEP's national Capacity Building Plan systematically across all sectors. Expand training beyond current agencies to comprehensively cover research institutions, universities, private sector, government at all levels, and traditional knowledge holder communities. Address ABS principles, benefit-sharing negotiation, traditional knowledge protection, MTA development, compliance monitoring, and biodiversity disclosure frameworks.
• Strengthening inter-agency coordination: Establish formal coordination mechanisms linking all agencies involved in genetic resource management and ABS. Create regular coordination meetings, information sharing platforms, joint planning, and unified reporting. Assign lead agency responsibility for overall ABS framework of coordination and develop a coherent national ABS strategy.
• Implementing systematic monitoring systems: Develop monitoring systems tracking implementation of all benefit-sharing agreements (Plant Variety Protection Fund, research MOUs, MTAs, access permits, traditional knowledge agreements) and corporate biodiversity disclosures. Monitor benefit delivery, compliance, traditional knowledge holder satisfaction, and biodiversity conservation outcomes. Use data to improve agreement templates and guidance.
• Strengthening assessment methodologies: Enhance EIA/EHIA systems to specifically address biodiversity risks, dependencies, and impacts. Extend assessment requirements to cover ongoing business operations and financial sector activities.
• Empowering traditional knowledge holders: Develop practical mechanisms ensuring meaningful participation including awareness raising about rights, capacity building for negotiations, access to legal support, prior informed consent protocols, and fair benefit-sharing directly to knowledge holders. Pilot community-based ABS approaches and scales up successful models.
• Establishing standardized frameworks and guidelines: Create standardized templates for benefit-sharing agreements incorporating fair and equitable provisions, traditional knowledge recognition, both monetary and non-monetary benefits, compliance monitoring, and dispute resolution. Develop practical guidance for negotiating agreements, calculating fair benefits, ensuring equitable distribution, and implementing biodiversity disclosure frameworks.
• Leveraging public-private partnerships: Foster collaboration between government, business sector, financial institutions, and civil society to share best practices, develop common standards, and accelerate implementation.

    Implementation examples related to this target are not reported in the current national report. At this stage, practical implementation examples at the project or local level will be consolidated and reported in subsequent reporting cycles, once systematic data collection and evaluation mechanisms are fully in place.

Implementation of these targets contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals and international commitments:

SDG Contributions:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Biosafety frameworks for agricultural LMOs support sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices while protecting biodiversity from potential biotechnology risks.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The Pathogens and Animal Toxins Act and biosafety measures support prevention and control of communicable diseases and strengthen capacity for early warning and risk management of health hazards.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): Biosafety frameworks enable safe biotechnology research and application, supporting scientific research and technological capabilities. Research collaboration, technology transfer, and capacity building through DMCR, NSTDA, TRF, and NRCT contribute to Thai research capacity and innovation.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Benefit-sharing mechanisms with local and indigenous communities as traditional knowledge holders are supported through the Protection and Promotion of Thai Traditional Medical Knowledge Act and Plants Act, which recognize community rights.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Target 15.6 on fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources is supported through Thailand's Plant Variety Protection Fund and traditional knowledge recognition laws, providing foundational mechanisms, though comprehensive national data is needed to assess achievement of equitable benefit-sharing.

International Commitments:

• CBD Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing: Thailand's ratification is supported through benefit-sharing frameworks.
• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA): Supported through benefit-sharing from plant genetic resources under the Plants Act and Plant Variety Protection Fund.
• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Thailand's biosafety frameworks, clearing house mechanisms, and risk assessment procedures ensure safe handling, transport, and use of LMOs, aligning with Protocol requirements to prevent adverse effects on biodiversity and human health.