Inter-Mountain Peoples Education and Cultural in Thailand Association-IMPECT, in collaboration with the Council of Indigenous People in Thailand-CIPT, has released an analytical report on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand in the process of developing and reviewing the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (5th NBSAP, 2023–2027).
This report reflects both the progress made and the structural limitations within Thailand’s policy framework in integrating Indigenous Peoples’ rights under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). It highlights the gap between the “affirmation of principles” and their actual implementation in practice, particularly in relation to land rights, participation in decision-making processes, and respect for the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
IMPECT affirms that biodiversity conservation can only be truly sustainable when the state recognizes Indigenous Peoples as cultural resource stewards and creates equitable space for genuine co-management.
This document summarizes the efforts of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand to engage in the review process of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs). It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of 5th NBSAP and presents a set of recommendations. Adopted in late 2022, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) underscores the urgent need to advance biodiversity action while upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The development and review of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) serve as a key mechanism through which States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) define national directions for conservation, ecosystem restoration, and the sustainable use of biological resources. However, the issue of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) remains a significant challenge in ensuring that such plans align with international human rights standards and culturally sensitive traditional resource governance systems. The review document on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand in relation to 5th NBSAP (2023–2027) therefore constitutes important evidence of ethnic groups’ ongoing efforts to assert their rights within state-led biodiversity policymaking processes. It also reveals persistent structural gaps and policy barriers that continue to limit meaningful participation and rights recognition.
The adoption of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) in late 2022 marked a significant milestone in elevating the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights within the systemic goals of biodiversity conservation. The Framework emphasizes that restoring nature requires “transformative actions” including recognition of the traditional roles of Indigenous Peoples, fair and equitable benefit-sharing from biological resources and traditional knowledge, access to conservation technologies, and the establishment of equitable state-community partnerships.
Thailand’s obligation to develop a new NBSAP in alignment with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework entails a duty to directly integrate the rights of Indigenous Peoples into the plan. They should not be treated merely as stakeholders, but recognized as “territorial managers”, cultural stewards with a central role in sustaining ecosystems. This understanding is increasingly affirmed in global sustainability scholarship.
The review document indicates that, at the outset of the 5th NBSAP revision process, Indigenous Peoples in Thailand were largely excluded. Despite proactive outreach to government agencies and project consultants, no meaningful response was received. Their participation therefore occurred only at a later stage, facilitated through the mechanism of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) rather than through a direct state-led process. This situation reflects deeply rooted structural inequalities within Thailand’s environmental bureaucracy, which tends to prioritize technical expertise over cultural knowledge and the lived experience of those who directly manage natural resources under traditional governance systems.
The fact that Indigenous Peoples had to organize their own networks, establishing working groups, convening public forums, and strengthening the capacity of Indigenous youth in order to engage in the plan’s review process, reflects the structural nature of negotiation. Those vested with legal authority define the rules, while those lacking formal recognition must struggle to make their voices heard. This dynamic indicates that Indigenous participation in national policymaking continues to function more as “permitted inclusion” than as the exercise of rights that should be inherently guaranteed under international standards.
Content Analysis of 5th NBSAP
Although Thailand has revised 5th NBSAP to align with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the plan was approved by the Cabinet in late 2024 (B.E. 2567), a closer examination of its substance reveals important limitations. While Indigenous Peoples are mentioned across several targets, the integration largely remains at the level of “affirming principles” rather than establishing concrete measures that would ensure meaningful and effective participation in practice.
Strategy 2: Conservation, Restoration, and Threat Elimination. Particularly in Targets 1 and 2 concerning spatial planning and protected area management, the plan states that the rights of ethnic groups and local communities must be respected where they occupy or steward the land. However, the operational guidance lacks clarity regarding concrete mechanisms for shared decision-making, access to information, and the implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Moreover, the plan places significant emphasis on strengthening law enforcement efficiency. This approach risks generating tensions between the state and ethnic communities living in conservation areas, especially given that many communities still lack formal legal recognition of their land rights.
Under Target 3, which addresses the conservation of threatened species, the plan fails to acknowledge traditional ecological farming systems such as rotational farming that are widely recognized in ecological research as being more biodiversity-friendly than modern monoculture practices. This omission reflects a broader shortcoming in state policy: the failure to recognize local and Indigenous knowledge as an active conservation instrument, rather than merely as cultural heritage to be “preserved” in a symbolic or traditional sense.
Under Strategy 2, which focuses on the bio-based economy and sustainable use, Indigenous Peoples’ rights are addressed more explicitly. In particular, Targets 5, 9, and 10 clearly state the need to promote access to resources, ensure fair and equitable benefit-sharing, and apply the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) at all levels of decision-making. This recognition aligns with the spirit of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
However, the inclusion of progressive language in the plan does not automatically translate into the realization of rights in practice. Without amendments to relevant domestic legislation such as forestry laws, national park laws, and biodiversity or biological resource laws, which continue to restrict recognition of community land and resource rights, the commitments remain structurally constrained. In this context, the reference to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) risks becoming merely a “symbolic principle” rather than an enforceable safeguard capable of genuinely protecting community rights. Similar patterns have been observed in several developing countries, where policy-level recognition is not matched by corresponding legal reform or institutional change.
Permanent Mechanism under Article 8(j): New Hope and Questions for the Thai State
The decision under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to establish a permanent mechanism on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities under Article 8(j) in 2024 marks a significant development. It sets a minimum standard that all States Parties, including Thailand, are expected to uphold. This mechanism requires states to respect traditional knowledge, ensure the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in biodiversity planning and decision-making, and guarantee that the use of traditional knowledge and biological resources is subject to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) alongside fair and equitable benefit-sharing. For Thailand, however, translating this mechanism into practice presents substantial challenges particularly given that Indigenous Peoples still lack formal legal recognition as rights-bearing groups, despite partial policy-level acknowledgment. This structural gap raises a critical question: to what extent can the Thai state genuinely comply with the standards of Article 8(j) if Indigenous communities do not yet possess legally recognized status in relation to land and resource rights?
Key Proposals from Indigenous Peoples: Civil Society–Driven Momentum and Bottom-Up Sustainability
The core proposals advanced by Indigenous Peoples in relation to the 5th NBSAP are substantively aligned with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). They emphasize respect for rights, recognition of traditional knowledge, community-based governance, equitable benefit-sharing, the roles of women and youth, and legal reform in line with international standards. Beyond policy demands, these proposals advance an alternative conservation paradigm grounded in co-management and community rights. Research increasingly shows that such approaches can generate more resilient ecological outcomes than centralized state-led models.
Appendix (NBSAP References)
Strategy 1: Conservation, Restoration, and the Elimination of Threats to Biodiversity to Sustain Ecosystem Services
Target 1 aims to reduce the loss of biodiversity-rich areas on land and at sea through effective spatial planning. The target specifies that spatial planning should be integrated and participatory, while respecting the rights and responsibilities of ethnic groups and local communities who occupy or steward the areas concerned. The implementation guidelines further stress local stakeholder participation, taking into account land-use practices including those of ethnic groups and local communities who depend on these resources to ensure proper understanding of local contexts as a basis for participatory spatial planning.
Target 2 focuses on the conservation, restoration, and expansion of protected areas, as well as increasing biodiversity conservation areas outside protected areas (OECMs). It covers legally designated protected areas and areas beyond them, stating that conservation efforts should allow for sustainable resource use where appropriate, while respecting the rights and responsibilities of ethnic groups and local communities who occupy or steward these areas. It also calls for multi-sectoral participation in law enforcement, particularly from the private sector and civil society. Implementation measures include: (1) legally protected areas, (2) OECMs, and (3) conservation and sustainable use areas managed by ethnic groups and local communities, including territories under Indigenous ownership, occupation, and/or management. However, despite these provisions, the operational measures place greater emphasis on improving protection efficiency and strengthening law enforcement.
Target 3, which concerns the conservation and protection of threatened species, does not mention environmentally friendly agriculture and traditional livelihoods such as customary farming practices, which serve as sustainable means of species conservation. It also fails to address private sector activities that pose threats, and notably does not include measures to amend laws and policies to promote environmentally friendly agricultural systems, such as rotational farming.
Strategy 2 focuses on promoting a bio-based economy and the sustainable use of biodiversity.
Target 5, which addresses the promotion and support of a bio-based economy, states that policy development and legal frameworks should support conservation and sustainable use, including the protection of rights and support for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in the appropriate use of resources.
Target 9 aims to expand financial channels and mechanisms, strengthen collaborative roles with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) through non-commercial approaches such as sustainable resource management by IPLCs and support financial mechanisms for conservation, restoration, and sustainable use.
Target 10 focuses on developing data and knowledge systems to support decision-making and implementation, recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge, upholding the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and acknowledging the roles and rights of ethnic groups and local communities, women, youth, and vulnerable groups.
It emphasizes the importance of ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making and access to justice and relevant information by local communities and ethnic groups, women, youth, and vulnerable groups, while respecting their cultures and their rights to land, resources, and traditional knowledge.
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities possess holistic and culturally grounded understandings of nature. Their traditional practices and innovations play a vital role in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They serve as foundational actors in developing conservation initiatives that integrate cultural values and customary governance systems, alongside sustainable use practices. Examples include agroforestry, rotational farming, and community-based conservation management systems.
It emphasizes recognizing the roles and rights of local communities, ethnic groups, women, youth, and vulnerable groups in conservation and protection efforts, in order to ensure the full, equal, and inclusive representation and participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in decision-making processes. It further promotes rights-based and inclusive approaches to conservation, including access to justice and information, the protection of environmental human rights defenders, and the recognition of community rights over culture, territories, resources, and traditional heritage. This includes upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as articulated in other international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and international human rights law, and respecting their rights to own, use, develop, and control their lands, territories, and resources.
The measures and implementation guidelines include supporting the development of community-based databases by local communities, ethnic groups, women, youth, and vulnerable groups in relation to biodiversity conservation and protection. They also promote the provision of media and/or activities to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness about the value and importance of biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge in a sustainable manner among officials, local communities, ethnic groups, women, youth, and vulnerable groups. Furthermore, they aim to strengthen awareness of the roles of communities and traditional knowledge, particularly those of women, youth, and ethnic groups in conservation and sustainable use.
Target 11 focuses on strengthening and developing technological and research capacities, and stipulates that the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) must be upheld in all activities affecting the lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
