ABSTRACT
Biodiversity underpins critical ecosystem services that support livelihoods, health, and the economy. However, Thailand’s biological resources are under increasing threat due to overexploitation, climate change, and insufficient financing. Despite being ranked 20th globally in terms of biodiversity richness, the country faces a biodiversity finance gap of US$1.12 billion for the 2019–2021 period. Public sector spending on biodiversity has declined as a proportion of government expenditure, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of conservation efforts. This article examines biodiversity finance trends in Thailand, identifies key funding gaps, and explores strategic opportunities to mobilize resources through subsidy reform, private sector engagement, and market-based instruments. It argues that scaling up biodiversity finance is essential for Thailand to meet its commitments under the Global Biodiversity Framework and secure its ecological foundation for sustainable development.
Keywords: Biodiversity, Biodiversity Finance, Thailand
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity – the diversity of species and ecosystems – provides mankind with numerous ecosystem services. These include direct services, such as food, water, timber, and medicinal resources, as well as indirect services through the regulation of natural processes, including flood control, pollination, water purification, and carbon sequestration. Nature also offers cultural services through recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and educational experiences. The variety of services nature offers to mankind makes biodiversity inextricably linked to our lives and livelihoods. It is estimated that nature contributes to some US$44 trillion of economic value generation globally. In other words, more than half of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services (World Economic Forum, 2020).
Despite the many benefits, biodiversity is in decline. Human activities have already significantly altered 66% of the marine environment and 75% of land surface with resulting species and ecosystem losses (IPBES, 2019). While many factors contribute to this decline, it is undeniable that the lack of financing for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management significantly contributes to the current state of nature-at-risk. At the global level, there is an estimated funding need of US$722 – 967 billion annually, but existing flows amount to only US$124 – 143 billion, resulting in a biodiversity finance gap of US$599 – 824 billion per year or US$711 billion annually on average (Deutz et al., 2020). The significant financial gap and the strong impetus for global action led to specific targets on biodiversity finance in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in 2022.
As a biodiversity-rich country and a party to the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), Thailand has also adopted the GBF and is translating the goals into action locally. The country also faces unique challenges. This article focuses on the biodiversity finance aspect, and provides an overview of trends, gaps, and opportunities for Thailand. The article begins by presenting trends in biodiversity and biodiversity finance, and provides an estimated biodiversity finance gap. This paves the way for a discussion of potential opportunities for unlocking finance for nature in Thailand.
TRENDS AND GAPS IN BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY FINANCE IN THAILAND
Biodiversity State and Trend
Due to its location within two major biogeographical regions[1], Thailand is endowed with rich biodiversity. In 2022, the country ranked 20th globally in terms of biodiversity rate, declining slightly from rank 18th in 2016 (ONEP, 2024). The country not only has a rich ecosystem diversity but is also endowed with species variety. Thailand is estimated to have approximately 15,000 plant species (8% of total plant species on Earth), 5,005 species of vertebrates, 3,203 species of invertebrates, and more than 200,000 microorganisms (ONEP, 2024). These resources provide benefits to the Thai economy through various channels, including agriculture, traditional medicine, food, and tourism. For example, in 2024, agriculture, forestry, and fishing contributed to an estimated 8.7% of the country’s GDP. Food exports account for 14.7% of all merchandise exports in Thailand in 2024. International tourists expended a total of US$64.4 billion in 2019, accounting for 19.9% of export value. (World Bank, 2025).
Thailand’s rich biodiversity is under threat. According to the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the country ranks 81 out of 180 countries in terms of ecosystem vitality and ranks 101 in terms of biodiversity and habitat (Block et al., 2024). The former reflects how well countries are preserving, protecting, and enhancing ecosystems and ecosystem services, while the latter measures the action of countries towards retaining natural ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. These threats are recognized in Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBSAP) 2023 – 2027, noting that utilization of biological resources often exceeded the carrying capacity of nature, leading to long-term habitat losses and environmental degradation. The decline in nature is further compounded by the impacts of climate change and plastic waste problems, which further threaten the integrity of land and marine resources (ONEP, 2024). These worsening trends underscore the need to intensify efforts to protect and sustainably manage biodiversity resources in Thailand.
Biodiversity Finance in Thailand
Assessments of biodiversity finance needs and budget allocations in Thailand reveal that the country experiences a biodiversity finance gap to the tune of US$1.12 billion for the period from 2019 to 2021 (BIOFIN Thailand & ONEP, 2023). A review of biodiversity expenditures (BER) in Thailand between 2016 and 2023 by the Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) shows that most of Thailand’s biodiversity funding comes from the public sector. Three core environmental agencies within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment receive the highest share of budget allocations for biodiversity-related activities. These are the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR), the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), and the Royal Forest Department (RFD). Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) also represents an important source of external financing for biodiversity activities (BIOFIN Thailand, 2021, 2024a). The BER mentions private sector involvement in biodiversity finance, but there is limited information on the scale of private sector participation, which is in keeping with the global situation, where the contribution of the sector is often under-reported (Parker et al., 2012; Seidl & Nunes, 2019).
The BER in Thailand also reports the trend in public biodiversity expenditures (see Figure 1). For the fiscal years 2017 – 2021, total biodiversity expenditures remain relatively constant at 0.8% of the country’s GDP. This dropped sharply to just 0.03% in 2022, possibly reflecting the more pressing need for the government to allocate budgets to address other more pressing concerns such as economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, when viewed from the perspective of proportion of total government expenditures, the data shows a worrying trend. While the government budget typically increases from year to year, the share of biodiversity expenditures to total government expenditures shows a declining trend. From 0.53% of total expenditures in 2016, biodiversity budget allocations dropped to 0.38% in 2020 and 2021, before falling drastically to 0.16% in 2022. While the figure rebounded in 2023, the 0.30% budget allocation is still lower than the 0.38% allocated in 2021 and the 0.46 – 0.53% allocated before 2018.
Figure 1. Biodiversity expenditures as a proportion of GDP and Total Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2016 - 2023
Source: BIOFIN Thailand 2024
Amid escalating pressures on Thailand’s biological resources—driven by prolonged overexploitation, climate change, and compounding environmental threats—the dwindling of core funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable management signals a troubling trend. Given that Thailand is already experiencing a biodiversity finance gap, as indicated by the US$1.12 billion gap between 2019 – 2021 (BIOFIN Thailand & ONEP, 2023), the trend in biodiversity budget allocations suggests that the country’s natural assets face a mounting risk of irreversible degradation. This situation calls for a significant scaling up of targeted investments and strategic alignment with global biodiversity goals. Efforts for increasing finance for biodiversity are reflected in Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBSAP) 2023 – 2027 and the Biodiversity Finance Plan (BFP) (2023 – 2027), both of which are aligned with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIODIVERSITY FINANCE IN THAILAND
As Thailand embarks on more ambitious biodiversity goals under the Kunming-Montreal GBF, as outlined in the NBSAP 2023–2027 and the BFP 2023–2027, opportunities exist for the country to diversify and scale up financing for biodiversity through both public and private means, as well as through blended finance. These opportunities can help address Thailand’s persistent biodiversity finance gap while aligning national priorities with international commitments. Three promising opportunities Thailand can pursue are outlined below.
Reforming harmful subsidies and incentive structures
Biodiversity finance includes investments that help reduce future expenditures, and realigning expenditures – redirecting finance away from activities that harm biodiversity towards those that support its conservation. Targeting harmful subsidies simultaneously reduces negative pressures on biodiversity and unlocks funds that can be invested in nature-positive outcomes without having to generate new revenue sources. This generates a twin win for nature and is aligned with Target 18 of the GBF[2].
In Thailand, a BIOFIN study estimated in the fiscal years 2021 – 2023, around US$6.28 billion was allocated from the government budget to harmful subsidies in the form of rigid infrastructure projects. (BIOFIN Thailand, 2024b). In turn, the infrastructure created using these funds resulted in negative impacts to river and coastal ecosystems. Realigning these harmful subsidies can help prevent future expenditures needed to rehabilitate ecosystems that would have been destroyed had the grey infrastructure been implemented. Furthermore, it would unlock funds to the tune of US$2.1 billion annually, which could be used to invest in nature-positive outcomes.
Engaging the private sector through TNFD and ESG alignment
As revealed by the BERs (BIOFIN Thailand, 2021, 2024a), the private sector remains an underutilized source of biodiversity finance. With the rise of nature-related risk frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and growing investor awareness of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues, Thailand has the opportunity to encourage corporate actors to assess, disclose, and manage their biodiversity dependencies and impacts. This can lead to increased private investments in biodiversity-friendly business practices and financial products, paving the way for the private sector to be more aligned with global biodiversity goals and positively contributing to Thailand’s sustainable development. Furthermore, with Thailand’s economy closely tied to the utilization of natural resources, and in keeping with the World Economic Forum’s estimate that more than half of the global economy is moderately or highly dependent on biological resources (World Economic Forum, 2020), the private sector’s recognition of nature-related risks and its proactive response are critical to enhancing resilience against ecological shocks and futureproofing business models.
Exploring market-based instruments for biodiversity
It has long been recognized that nature provides several services to mankind, many of which have economic value, but no market price. As such, limited incentives exist to motivate environmentally-friendly behavior, such as investments in nature-positive outcomes. Schemes that pay for the provision of positive biodiversity outcomes provide the necessary incentives to induce the protection and sustainable management of nature. This includes variations of payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes such as traditional project-based PES programs as well as the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism.
More recently, there is growing global interest in biodiversity credits, a market-based instrument similar in concept to carbon credits, where credits are awarded for projects that contribute positively to biodiversity. While infrastructure needs to be put in place for the implementation of biodiversity credits and caveats exist for their deployment, Thailand has the potential to benefit from the implementation of such instruments. This is especially true as the country’s rich biodiversity is under increasing threats and traditional forms of financing are limited. With growing global interest in biodiversity credits, Thailand could position itself as a regional leader in piloting and regulating biodiversity credit schemes. Furthermore, Thailand could also explore opportunities for synergies between climate and biodiversity finance, since there are overlaps in project implementation.
CONCLUSION
In a world with rapidly declining natural assets, finance for nature is pivotal in stemming the decline in biological resources and reversing the nature-negative trends. For Thailand, the regrettable loss of biodiversity increases threats to natural capital and threatens economic activities and livelihoods. The reliance on public sector funds, which is facing a declining trend, makes investments in nature-positive outcomes a national priority and puts the issue of biodiversity finance at the forefront of conservation efforts.
Thailand’s transition towards ambitious biodiversity targets offers a critical opportunity to reshape its biodiversity finance landscape. By combining policy reform, market-based instruments, private sector engagement, and international cooperation, the country can significantly increase the resources available for biodiversity conservation. These actions not only help bridge the biodiversity finance gap but also promote long-term ecological resilience and sustainable development.
REFERENCES
BIOFIN Thailand. (2021). Biodiversity Expenditure Review 2016 - 2020 for Thailand.
BIOFIN Thailand. (2024a). Biodiversity Expenditure Review of Thailand 2022 - 2024.
BIOFIN Thailand. (2024b). The Impacts of Harmful Subsidies on Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Thailand. https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/110225%20Harmful%20Subsidies%20Report%20ENG.pdf
BIOFIN Thailand, & ONEP. (2023). Thailand Biodiversity Finance Plan (2023 - 2027).
Block, S., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., & et al. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index.: epi.yale.edu. In. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
Deutz, A., Heal, G. M., Niu, R., Swanson, E., Townshend, T., Zhu, L., Delmar, A., Meghji, A., Sethi, S. A., & Tobin-de la Puente, J. (2020). Financing nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, 256.
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
ONEP. (2024). Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan 2023-2027.
Parker, C., Cranford, M., Oakes, N., & Leggett, M. (2012). The Little Biodiversity Finance Book, Global Canopy Programme. In: Oxford.
Seidl, A., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2019). An introduction to biodiversity and ecosystem services finance solutions: Investing in nature toward sustainable development. Ecosystem Services, 39, 101010. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101010
World Bank. (2025). World Development Indicators The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
World Economic Forum. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy (World economic forum and price waterhouse coopers, Issue.
[1] These are the Indochinese region in the North and the Sundaic region in the South.
[2] Target 18 aims to reduce harmful incentives by at least US$500 billion per year, and scale up positive incentives for biodiversity.
Biodiversity Finance in Thailand: Trends, Gaps, and Opportunities
ABSTRACT
Biodiversity underpins critical ecosystem services that support livelihoods, health, and the economy. However, Thailand’s biological resources are under increasing threat due to overexploitation, climate change, and insufficient financing. Despite being ranked 20th globally in terms of biodiversity richness, the country faces a biodiversity finance gap of US$1.12 billion for the 2019–2021 period. Public sector spending on biodiversity has declined as a proportion of government expenditure, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of conservation efforts. This article examines biodiversity finance trends in Thailand, identifies key funding gaps, and explores strategic opportunities to mobilize resources through subsidy reform, private sector engagement, and market-based instruments. It argues that scaling up biodiversity finance is essential for Thailand to meet its commitments under the Global Biodiversity Framework and secure its ecological foundation for sustainable development.
Keywords: Biodiversity, Biodiversity Finance, Thailand
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity – the diversity of species and ecosystems – provides mankind with numerous ecosystem services. These include direct services, such as food, water, timber, and medicinal resources, as well as indirect services through the regulation of natural processes, including flood control, pollination, water purification, and carbon sequestration. Nature also offers cultural services through recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and educational experiences. The variety of services nature offers to mankind makes biodiversity inextricably linked to our lives and livelihoods. It is estimated that nature contributes to some US$44 trillion of economic value generation globally. In other words, more than half of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services (World Economic Forum, 2020).
Despite the many benefits, biodiversity is in decline. Human activities have already significantly altered 66% of the marine environment and 75% of land surface with resulting species and ecosystem losses (IPBES, 2019). While many factors contribute to this decline, it is undeniable that the lack of financing for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management significantly contributes to the current state of nature-at-risk. At the global level, there is an estimated funding need of US$722 – 967 billion annually, but existing flows amount to only US$124 – 143 billion, resulting in a biodiversity finance gap of US$599 – 824 billion per year or US$711 billion annually on average (Deutz et al., 2020). The significant financial gap and the strong impetus for global action led to specific targets on biodiversity finance in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in 2022.
As a biodiversity-rich country and a party to the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), Thailand has also adopted the GBF and is translating the goals into action locally. The country also faces unique challenges. This article focuses on the biodiversity finance aspect, and provides an overview of trends, gaps, and opportunities for Thailand. The article begins by presenting trends in biodiversity and biodiversity finance, and provides an estimated biodiversity finance gap. This paves the way for a discussion of potential opportunities for unlocking finance for nature in Thailand.
TRENDS AND GAPS IN BIODIVERSITY AND BIODIVERSITY FINANCE IN THAILAND
Biodiversity State and Trend
Due to its location within two major biogeographical regions[1], Thailand is endowed with rich biodiversity. In 2022, the country ranked 20th globally in terms of biodiversity rate, declining slightly from rank 18th in 2016 (ONEP, 2024). The country not only has a rich ecosystem diversity but is also endowed with species variety. Thailand is estimated to have approximately 15,000 plant species (8% of total plant species on Earth), 5,005 species of vertebrates, 3,203 species of invertebrates, and more than 200,000 microorganisms (ONEP, 2024). These resources provide benefits to the Thai economy through various channels, including agriculture, traditional medicine, food, and tourism. For example, in 2024, agriculture, forestry, and fishing contributed to an estimated 8.7% of the country’s GDP. Food exports account for 14.7% of all merchandise exports in Thailand in 2024. International tourists expended a total of US$64.4 billion in 2019, accounting for 19.9% of export value. (World Bank, 2025).
Thailand’s rich biodiversity is under threat. According to the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the country ranks 81 out of 180 countries in terms of ecosystem vitality and ranks 101 in terms of biodiversity and habitat (Block et al., 2024). The former reflects how well countries are preserving, protecting, and enhancing ecosystems and ecosystem services, while the latter measures the action of countries towards retaining natural ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. These threats are recognized in Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBSAP) 2023 – 2027, noting that utilization of biological resources often exceeded the carrying capacity of nature, leading to long-term habitat losses and environmental degradation. The decline in nature is further compounded by the impacts of climate change and plastic waste problems, which further threaten the integrity of land and marine resources (ONEP, 2024). These worsening trends underscore the need to intensify efforts to protect and sustainably manage biodiversity resources in Thailand.
Biodiversity Finance in Thailand
Assessments of biodiversity finance needs and budget allocations in Thailand reveal that the country experiences a biodiversity finance gap to the tune of US$1.12 billion for the period from 2019 to 2021 (BIOFIN Thailand & ONEP, 2023). A review of biodiversity expenditures (BER) in Thailand between 2016 and 2023 by the Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) shows that most of Thailand’s biodiversity funding comes from the public sector. Three core environmental agencies within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment receive the highest share of budget allocations for biodiversity-related activities. These are the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR), the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), and the Royal Forest Department (RFD). Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) also represents an important source of external financing for biodiversity activities (BIOFIN Thailand, 2021, 2024a). The BER mentions private sector involvement in biodiversity finance, but there is limited information on the scale of private sector participation, which is in keeping with the global situation, where the contribution of the sector is often under-reported (Parker et al., 2012; Seidl & Nunes, 2019).
The BER in Thailand also reports the trend in public biodiversity expenditures (see Figure 1). For the fiscal years 2017 – 2021, total biodiversity expenditures remain relatively constant at 0.8% of the country’s GDP. This dropped sharply to just 0.03% in 2022, possibly reflecting the more pressing need for the government to allocate budgets to address other more pressing concerns such as economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, when viewed from the perspective of proportion of total government expenditures, the data shows a worrying trend. While the government budget typically increases from year to year, the share of biodiversity expenditures to total government expenditures shows a declining trend. From 0.53% of total expenditures in 2016, biodiversity budget allocations dropped to 0.38% in 2020 and 2021, before falling drastically to 0.16% in 2022. While the figure rebounded in 2023, the 0.30% budget allocation is still lower than the 0.38% allocated in 2021 and the 0.46 – 0.53% allocated before 2018.
Figure 1. Biodiversity expenditures as a proportion of GDP and Total Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2016 - 2023
Source: BIOFIN Thailand 2024
Amid escalating pressures on Thailand’s biological resources—driven by prolonged overexploitation, climate change, and compounding environmental threats—the dwindling of core funding for biodiversity protection and sustainable management signals a troubling trend. Given that Thailand is already experiencing a biodiversity finance gap, as indicated by the US$1.12 billion gap between 2019 – 2021 (BIOFIN Thailand & ONEP, 2023), the trend in biodiversity budget allocations suggests that the country’s natural assets face a mounting risk of irreversible degradation. This situation calls for a significant scaling up of targeted investments and strategic alignment with global biodiversity goals. Efforts for increasing finance for biodiversity are reflected in Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBSAP) 2023 – 2027 and the Biodiversity Finance Plan (BFP) (2023 – 2027), both of which are aligned with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIODIVERSITY FINANCE IN THAILAND
As Thailand embarks on more ambitious biodiversity goals under the Kunming-Montreal GBF, as outlined in the NBSAP 2023–2027 and the BFP 2023–2027, opportunities exist for the country to diversify and scale up financing for biodiversity through both public and private means, as well as through blended finance. These opportunities can help address Thailand’s persistent biodiversity finance gap while aligning national priorities with international commitments. Three promising opportunities Thailand can pursue are outlined below.
Reforming harmful subsidies and incentive structures
Biodiversity finance includes investments that help reduce future expenditures, and realigning expenditures – redirecting finance away from activities that harm biodiversity towards those that support its conservation. Targeting harmful subsidies simultaneously reduces negative pressures on biodiversity and unlocks funds that can be invested in nature-positive outcomes without having to generate new revenue sources. This generates a twin win for nature and is aligned with Target 18 of the GBF[2].
In Thailand, a BIOFIN study estimated in the fiscal years 2021 – 2023, around US$6.28 billion was allocated from the government budget to harmful subsidies in the form of rigid infrastructure projects. (BIOFIN Thailand, 2024b). In turn, the infrastructure created using these funds resulted in negative impacts to river and coastal ecosystems. Realigning these harmful subsidies can help prevent future expenditures needed to rehabilitate ecosystems that would have been destroyed had the grey infrastructure been implemented. Furthermore, it would unlock funds to the tune of US$2.1 billion annually, which could be used to invest in nature-positive outcomes.
Engaging the private sector through TNFD and ESG alignment
As revealed by the BERs (BIOFIN Thailand, 2021, 2024a), the private sector remains an underutilized source of biodiversity finance. With the rise of nature-related risk frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and growing investor awareness of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues, Thailand has the opportunity to encourage corporate actors to assess, disclose, and manage their biodiversity dependencies and impacts. This can lead to increased private investments in biodiversity-friendly business practices and financial products, paving the way for the private sector to be more aligned with global biodiversity goals and positively contributing to Thailand’s sustainable development. Furthermore, with Thailand’s economy closely tied to the utilization of natural resources, and in keeping with the World Economic Forum’s estimate that more than half of the global economy is moderately or highly dependent on biological resources (World Economic Forum, 2020), the private sector’s recognition of nature-related risks and its proactive response are critical to enhancing resilience against ecological shocks and futureproofing business models.
Exploring market-based instruments for biodiversity
It has long been recognized that nature provides several services to mankind, many of which have economic value, but no market price. As such, limited incentives exist to motivate environmentally-friendly behavior, such as investments in nature-positive outcomes. Schemes that pay for the provision of positive biodiversity outcomes provide the necessary incentives to induce the protection and sustainable management of nature. This includes variations of payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes such as traditional project-based PES programs as well as the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism.
More recently, there is growing global interest in biodiversity credits, a market-based instrument similar in concept to carbon credits, where credits are awarded for projects that contribute positively to biodiversity. While infrastructure needs to be put in place for the implementation of biodiversity credits and caveats exist for their deployment, Thailand has the potential to benefit from the implementation of such instruments. This is especially true as the country’s rich biodiversity is under increasing threats and traditional forms of financing are limited. With growing global interest in biodiversity credits, Thailand could position itself as a regional leader in piloting and regulating biodiversity credit schemes. Furthermore, Thailand could also explore opportunities for synergies between climate and biodiversity finance, since there are overlaps in project implementation.
CONCLUSION
In a world with rapidly declining natural assets, finance for nature is pivotal in stemming the decline in biological resources and reversing the nature-negative trends. For Thailand, the regrettable loss of biodiversity increases threats to natural capital and threatens economic activities and livelihoods. The reliance on public sector funds, which is facing a declining trend, makes investments in nature-positive outcomes a national priority and puts the issue of biodiversity finance at the forefront of conservation efforts.
Thailand’s transition towards ambitious biodiversity targets offers a critical opportunity to reshape its biodiversity finance landscape. By combining policy reform, market-based instruments, private sector engagement, and international cooperation, the country can significantly increase the resources available for biodiversity conservation. These actions not only help bridge the biodiversity finance gap but also promote long-term ecological resilience and sustainable development.
REFERENCES
BIOFIN Thailand. (2021). Biodiversity Expenditure Review 2016 - 2020 for Thailand.
BIOFIN Thailand. (2024a). Biodiversity Expenditure Review of Thailand 2022 - 2024.
BIOFIN Thailand. (2024b). The Impacts of Harmful Subsidies on Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Thailand. https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/110225%20Harmful%20Subsidies%20Report%20ENG.pdf
BIOFIN Thailand, & ONEP. (2023). Thailand Biodiversity Finance Plan (2023 - 2027).
Block, S., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., & et al. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index.: epi.yale.edu. In. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
Deutz, A., Heal, G. M., Niu, R., Swanson, E., Townshend, T., Zhu, L., Delmar, A., Meghji, A., Sethi, S. A., & Tobin-de la Puente, J. (2020). Financing nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, 256.
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
ONEP. (2024). Thailand’s National Biodiversity Action Plan 2023-2027.
Parker, C., Cranford, M., Oakes, N., & Leggett, M. (2012). The Little Biodiversity Finance Book, Global Canopy Programme. In: Oxford.
Seidl, A., & Nunes, P. A. L. D. (2019). An introduction to biodiversity and ecosystem services finance solutions: Investing in nature toward sustainable development. Ecosystem Services, 39, 101010. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101010
World Bank. (2025). World Development Indicators The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
World Economic Forum. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy (World economic forum and price waterhouse coopers, Issue.
[1] These are the Indochinese region in the North and the Sundaic region in the South.
[2] Target 18 aims to reduce harmful incentives by at least US$500 billion per year, and scale up positive incentives for biodiversity.