Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex
Country
Thailand
Inscribed in
2005
Criterion
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "significant concern" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
The Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex spans 230 km between Ta Phraya National Park on the Cambodian border in the east, and Khao Yai National Park in the west. The site is home to more than 800 species of fauna, including 112 mammal species (among them two species of gibbon), 392 bird species and 200 reptile and amphibian species. It is internationally important for the conservation of globally threatened and endangered mammal, bird and reptile species, among them 19 that are vulnerable, four that are endangered, and one that is critically endangered. The area contains substantial and important tropical forest ecosystems, which can provide a viable habitat for the long-term survival of these species. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Significant concern
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Significant natural habitats for a diversity of species, including threatened and endangered species.
Criterion
(x)
The Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex (DPKYFC) is comprised of five protected areas covering 615,500 ha. The property is internationally important for the conservation of globally threatened and endangered mammal, bird and reptile species, including at least 3 critically endangered, 7 endangered and 19 vulnerable species. The property contains more than 800 fauna species, including 112 species of mammals, 392 species of birds and 200 species of reptiles and amphibians. The complex protects the last substantial area of the globally important tropical forest ecosystem from the Central Indochina biogeographic province in northeast Thailand, and thus provides a viable area for the long-term survival of endangered, globally important species, including tiger (Panthera tigris), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), and banteng (Bos javanicus). The unique range overlap of two species of endangered gibbon - the Lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) and Pilleated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) - adds to the unique global value of the complex (IUCN, 2005; World Heritage Committee, 2013; IUCN, 2014a).
Conservation of migratory bird species
Criterion
(x)
The complex plays an important role for the conservation of migratory species including the Near-Threatened Spot-billed Pelican (Pelecanus philippensis) and Endangered Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) (IUCN, 2005; World Heritage Commitee, 2013).
Important watershed area.
As a result of its high annual rainfall, large forest area and mountainous catchments, the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex (DP-KYFC) acts as a critically important watershed for Thailand. The rainfall drains into and feeds five of the country’s major rivers: Nakhon Nayok River, Prachin Buri River, Lamta Khong river, Muak Lek River, and Mun River (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
Assessment information
In general, the State Party is comprehensively addressing the current threats to mitigate impacts on the property's OUV. The extent of cattle grazing has been greatly reduced and mitigation against impacts from the Huay Samong Dam and the expansion of Highway 304 is ongoing. The State Party has made notable progress in regard to land use change, encroachment and boundary issues. The implementation of the action plan to suppress illegal logging has shown significant positive outcomes. Nevertheless, tourism and residentital-related developments remain a concern. The development of new resorts, especially around Khao Yai National Park, continues at a high pace, and requires strict regulation to avoid impacts on the OUV of the property. More recently, a national effort has been initiated to implement an integrated State land boundary map to standardize national boundaries. Implementation of these changes has also been proposed as a means to settle long-standing and complex disputes over land rights, and the presence of local communities and agricultural land within park boundaries. If approved, this would reportedly result in a reduction of Thap Lan National Park’s extent by 265,286 rai (~424km2) or by approximately 19%. This area would be transferred to the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ARLO) and allocated for residential and agricultural purposes. Reallocated land would be intended for residential and agricultural purposes. However, potential provisions enabling transfer of ownership could lead to the purchase of land titles by private businesses, expansion of new resorts, and intensification of human activity. The World Heritage Committee has reiterated that modifications with the potential to have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) would require a significant boundary modification, in line with the Operational Guidelines.
Dams & Water Management/Use
(Development of Huay Samong Dam)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
The Thai Cabinet approved the EIA for the construction of the Huay Samong Dam in October 2009 (IUCN, 2011; UNESCO, 2012; IUCN, 2014a). Construction was completed by 2017 and the resulting reservoir was given the royally designated title of Naruebodindrachinta Reservoir. The State Party has made efforts to mitigate the impact on the property from the construction of the dam, however concerns pertaining to the impact of the construction of the dam and resulting reservoir on local ecology have persisted. Threats include increased access for poaching and other illicit activities via the reservoir, introduction of non-native fish species, increased human occupation associated with construction, and potential impacts on remaining populations of the Critically Endangered Siamese Crocodile and other wildlife. The State Party has committed to a number of measures to mitigate these impacts. The Royal Irrigation Department (RID) agreed to provide financial support for DNP patrols of the reservoir. In addition, the 2019 report of the State Party provided details of the plans developed for monitoring and preventing environmental impacts by the dam. Plans specifically under the responsibility of DNP included reforestation of impacted areas, wildlife evacuation and conservation, encroachment prevention around the dam, and establishment of new ranger stations in Thap Lan NP and Pang Sida NP (State Party of Thailand, 2019).
Nevertheless, illegal activities reportedly persist, including uncontrolled fishing on the reservoir and individuals engaging in illegal activities (such as poaching and logging) (IUCN Consultation, 2020). While financial support from the RID is scheduled to end in 2025, continued cooperation between the DNP, RID, and other relevant authorities needs to continue (UNESCO, 2012; IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2017). A comprehensive review of monitoring and impact mitigation measures during and post-construction is warranted and would be valuable in understanding the efficacy of these measures in reducing negative impacts to the property’s OUV.
Nevertheless, illegal activities reportedly persist, including uncontrolled fishing on the reservoir and individuals engaging in illegal activities (such as poaching and logging) (IUCN Consultation, 2020). While financial support from the RID is scheduled to end in 2025, continued cooperation between the DNP, RID, and other relevant authorities needs to continue (UNESCO, 2012; IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2017). A comprehensive review of monitoring and impact mitigation measures during and post-construction is warranted and would be valuable in understanding the efficacy of these measures in reducing negative impacts to the property’s OUV.
Recreation & Tourism Areas
(Impact from tourism developments)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
When the site was being considered for inscription on the World Heritage List, IUCN noted the high impact from tourism pressure, in particular at Khao Yai National Park, emphasizing the need to develop and implement ‘whole of complex’ tourism strategy (IUCN, 2005; UNESCO, 2012; IUCN, 2014a). The number of tourist visits to the site doubled from 700,000 in 2001 to 1.4 million in 2006. While there was a temporary decrease in the number of tourists during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been continued growth in visitor numbers over the past 20 years. These high visitor levels must be managed through appropriate visitor-use planning that is based on a careful assessment of the site’s capacity. An initial Tourism Management Plan was considered inadequate, prompting the development of a new Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy (2017-2027) adopted in 2017. The status of this strategy, as well as post-pandemic tourism management strategies, have not been fully determined. Development of new resorts, especially around Khao Yai National Park, continues at a high pace, and requires strict regulation to avoid impacts on the OUV of the property. Illegal resort development inside the property, particularly in the area between Khao Yai and Thap Lan National Parks, has been a long-standing significant concern. The State Party has made considerable efforts to close resorts encroaching onto park land and has reported that there have been no new resort developments in the property since 2014 (State Party of Thailand, 2019). However, several cases of encroachment are still pending and investigations into private residences and resorts illegally occupying land within the property continues (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
More recently, proposed modifications of Thap Lan National Park’s boundary and transfer of land representing approximately 19% of the park’s extent has led to concern over further tourism pressures and its potential to undermine previous and ongoing encroachment cases.
More recently, proposed modifications of Thap Lan National Park’s boundary and transfer of land representing approximately 19% of the park’s extent has led to concern over further tourism pressures and its potential to undermine previous and ongoing encroachment cases.
Residential Areas, Commercial & Industrial Areas
(Encroachment for housing and commercial developments.)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Large-scale encroachment significantly increased after the site was awarded World Heritage status, particularly along the northern boundary of Thap Lan National Park. The local community had previously made efforts to prevent this area from being designated as part of the National Park, claiming ownership of the land (State Party of Thailand, 2011). These issues increased thereafter and there remained confusion regarding the boundaries of the property, which were recognised as inappropriate and requiring confirmation at the time of inscription (IUCN, 2005).
Encroachment remained a threat to the integrity of the property and the State Party developed a long-term plan to address the situation. A map of land use changes and encroachment into the property since inscription was appended to the 2015 State Party report and notes in its 2018 report that it has continued to attach importance to the participation of the local communities in solving the issue of land ownership verification.
A 2017 meeting between all relevant agencies was organized to settle issues of land disputes in Thap Lan National Park and issues concerning overlapping scope of responsibility, litigation, and law enforcement among these agencies. For the verification process to be more efficient, the DNP established a working group for solving land disputes with the aim of all land rights verification being completed by 2018 (State Party of Thailand, 2018).
In 2019, both the National Park Act and the Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act were amended to provide greater protection of natural resources such as vegetation and non-timber forest products, wildlife, scenery, forests and mountains and to improve land use in the protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019). Amendments also encourage community participation in the establishment and management of protected areas. Notably, amendments provide a process through which residents residing inside the protected areas can legally occupy the land. This development is considered by the State Party as a reaffirmation of its efforts to engage with communities to address forest encroachment in protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024).
More recently, a national effort has been initiated to implement an integrated State land boundary 1:4000 map (“One Map”) to standardize national boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Implementation of these changes has also been proposed as a means to settle long-standing and complex disputes over land rights, and the presence of local communities and agricultural land within park boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2011, 2024). If approved, this would reportedly result in a reduction of Thap Lan National Park’s extent by 265,286 rai (~424km2) or by approximately 19%. This area would be transferred to the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ARLO) and allocated for residential and agricultural purposes.
The proposal to modify Thap Lan National Park’s boundary and reduce its size has been contested and prominent within media and public discourse (Bangkok Post, 2024). Reallocated land would be intended for residential and agricultural purposes. However, critics argue that potential provisions enabling transfer of ownership would lead to the purchase of land titles by private businesses, expansion of new resorts, and intensification of human activity. There is also concern that the precedent set by the proposed changes to Thap Lan National Park may result in similar changes in protected areas elsewhere in the country.
The World Heritage Committee reiterated that modifications with the potential to have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) would require a significant boundary modification, in line with the Operational Guidelines (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party has asserted that, currently, boundary adjustments are still under consideration and no reduction in the boundary of Thap Lan National Park has been approved (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The State Party also noted that the process for gathering feedback from stakeholders, relevant communities, and the public on the expansion or revocation of the national park (as outlined in Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the National Park Act B.E. 2562 (2019)), has been completed. The issue is slated for further consideration by a national committee.
Encroachment remained a threat to the integrity of the property and the State Party developed a long-term plan to address the situation. A map of land use changes and encroachment into the property since inscription was appended to the 2015 State Party report and notes in its 2018 report that it has continued to attach importance to the participation of the local communities in solving the issue of land ownership verification.
A 2017 meeting between all relevant agencies was organized to settle issues of land disputes in Thap Lan National Park and issues concerning overlapping scope of responsibility, litigation, and law enforcement among these agencies. For the verification process to be more efficient, the DNP established a working group for solving land disputes with the aim of all land rights verification being completed by 2018 (State Party of Thailand, 2018).
In 2019, both the National Park Act and the Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act were amended to provide greater protection of natural resources such as vegetation and non-timber forest products, wildlife, scenery, forests and mountains and to improve land use in the protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019). Amendments also encourage community participation in the establishment and management of protected areas. Notably, amendments provide a process through which residents residing inside the protected areas can legally occupy the land. This development is considered by the State Party as a reaffirmation of its efforts to engage with communities to address forest encroachment in protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024).
More recently, a national effort has been initiated to implement an integrated State land boundary 1:4000 map (“One Map”) to standardize national boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Implementation of these changes has also been proposed as a means to settle long-standing and complex disputes over land rights, and the presence of local communities and agricultural land within park boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2011, 2024). If approved, this would reportedly result in a reduction of Thap Lan National Park’s extent by 265,286 rai (~424km2) or by approximately 19%. This area would be transferred to the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ARLO) and allocated for residential and agricultural purposes.
The proposal to modify Thap Lan National Park’s boundary and reduce its size has been contested and prominent within media and public discourse (Bangkok Post, 2024). Reallocated land would be intended for residential and agricultural purposes. However, critics argue that potential provisions enabling transfer of ownership would lead to the purchase of land titles by private businesses, expansion of new resorts, and intensification of human activity. There is also concern that the precedent set by the proposed changes to Thap Lan National Park may result in similar changes in protected areas elsewhere in the country.
The World Heritage Committee reiterated that modifications with the potential to have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) would require a significant boundary modification, in line with the Operational Guidelines (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party has asserted that, currently, boundary adjustments are still under consideration and no reduction in the boundary of Thap Lan National Park has been approved (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The State Party also noted that the process for gathering feedback from stakeholders, relevant communities, and the public on the expansion or revocation of the national park (as outlined in Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the National Park Act B.E. 2562 (2019)), has been completed. The issue is slated for further consideration by a national committee.
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Upgrade and widening of Highway 304)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Highway 304 is a busy national highway that runs along the boundary between Khao Yai and Thap Lan National Parks, bisecting the World Heritage site. The IUCN monitoring mission in 2017 noted that expansion works had begun to upgrade the road from two to four lanes, following approval of the EIA and plans for construction of wildlife corridors. The mission also noted considerable progress in regards to the construction of elevated highway overpass and tunnel sections (IUCN, 2017). Given that the highway represents a significant obstacle to wildlife movement, these structures were intended to act as wildlife corridors and facilitate movement of wildlife such as tigers and elephants, between Khao Yai and Thap Lan National Parks (IUCN, 2014a). The road and the wildlife corridors were completed in 2019 and initial monitoring results note the presence of wildlife in and around the corridors. The State Party also reported the implementation of wildlife management programs including monitoring of wildlife, real-time cameras traps to document wildlife and illicit activity, and reforestation within and around the corridors.
The World Heritage Committee requested that the State Party ensure mitigation measures and monitoring of impacts continue in the post-construction phase to reduce adverse impacts on the property’s OUV (44 COM 7B.97). The highway likely remains a significant obstacle to wildlife movement, a source of disturbance, and a source of direct mortality through road collisions. Increases in the intensity and severity of such threats may considerably reduce the effectiveness of corridors (Tantipisanuh et al, 2024; Ash et al, 2022, 2025; Silva et al, 2020). While there have been reports of wildlife in the vicinity of the corridors, evidence of large carnivores such as tigers, black bears, and elephants successfully using these corridors has been lacking (Tantipisanuh et al, 2024). A comprehensive review of monitoring and impact mitigation measures is warranted. In particular, an evidence-based assessment of their efficacy in facilitating movement across a range of species, and potential measures to improve their effectiveness, would be valuable for better mitigating the impacts of the highway on the property’s OUV. This may be particularly important with the proposed development of two additional dams (Khlong Wang Mued and Lam Phraya Than dams) in relatively close proximity to corridor areas in Thap Lan and Khao Yai national parks (Piyaporn, 2024; State Party of Thailand, 2024).
Another potential risk stems from the frequent transport of toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials along Route 304, particularly given the location of the highway within an important watershed (IUCN 2016). The IUCN monitoring requested the State Party develop an emergency response plan to ensure rapid response to and containment of spills of hazardous materials from road accidents. This included the establishment of permanent ground water monitoring stations at strategic locations downstream of the highway. The State Party indicated it complied with this request (State Party of Thailand, 2019). The frequency of vehicle collisions, increased traffic, and potential severity of chemical spills merits additional information (Bangkok Post, 2022). Specifically, data on incidences that have occurred since the previous report, subsequent response, and status of ground water monitoring would be valuable to evaluate the efficacy of these measures.
Due to the localised nature of the threat, it is considered low overall.
The World Heritage Committee requested that the State Party ensure mitigation measures and monitoring of impacts continue in the post-construction phase to reduce adverse impacts on the property’s OUV (44 COM 7B.97). The highway likely remains a significant obstacle to wildlife movement, a source of disturbance, and a source of direct mortality through road collisions. Increases in the intensity and severity of such threats may considerably reduce the effectiveness of corridors (Tantipisanuh et al, 2024; Ash et al, 2022, 2025; Silva et al, 2020). While there have been reports of wildlife in the vicinity of the corridors, evidence of large carnivores such as tigers, black bears, and elephants successfully using these corridors has been lacking (Tantipisanuh et al, 2024). A comprehensive review of monitoring and impact mitigation measures is warranted. In particular, an evidence-based assessment of their efficacy in facilitating movement across a range of species, and potential measures to improve their effectiveness, would be valuable for better mitigating the impacts of the highway on the property’s OUV. This may be particularly important with the proposed development of two additional dams (Khlong Wang Mued and Lam Phraya Than dams) in relatively close proximity to corridor areas in Thap Lan and Khao Yai national parks (Piyaporn, 2024; State Party of Thailand, 2024).
Another potential risk stems from the frequent transport of toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials along Route 304, particularly given the location of the highway within an important watershed (IUCN 2016). The IUCN monitoring requested the State Party develop an emergency response plan to ensure rapid response to and containment of spills of hazardous materials from road accidents. This included the establishment of permanent ground water monitoring stations at strategic locations downstream of the highway. The State Party indicated it complied with this request (State Party of Thailand, 2019). The frequency of vehicle collisions, increased traffic, and potential severity of chemical spills merits additional information (Bangkok Post, 2022). Specifically, data on incidences that have occurred since the previous report, subsequent response, and status of ground water monitoring would be valuable to evaluate the efficacy of these measures.
Due to the localised nature of the threat, it is considered low overall.
Logging, Harvesting & Controlling Trees
(Illegal logging of Siamese rosewood and illegal harvesting of agarwood.)
Other targeted species names
Siamese Rosewood (Dalbergia cochinchinensis), Agarwood (Aquilaria spp)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The World Heritage site is home to significant populations of Siamese rosewood (Dalbergia cochinchinensis), a high-value hardwood timber species, increasingly sought for furniture. Notably, this species, along with Burmese rosewood (Dalbergia oliveri) were both listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List in 2022 due to catastrophic declines (Barstow et al, 2022a, 2022b). Illegal logging of rosewood has been widespread in the property and the domestic laws and penalties relating to its collection were previously considered inadequate (IUCN, 2014a).
Illegal logging of agarwood (Aquilaria spp) is also occurring in the property to the extent that the majority of agarwood, especially in Khao Yai National Park, has been depleted (State Party of Thailand, 2012).
The State Party has significantly increased efforts to address this threat both at local and international levels as part of its Action Plan on Prevention and Suppression of Illegal Logging and Trade in Siamese rosewood in DPKYFC (2014-2019) (State Party of Thailand, 2019). The action plan included four key objectives: (1) prevention of illegal logging; (2) suppression of illegal trade and shipment; (3) promotion of conservation and public participation; and (4) promotion of international cooperation. Specifically, the State Party reported that domestic laws and penalties have been enhanced along with international and inter-agency collaboration (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Furthermore, the State Party reported a decrease in criminal cases from 642 cases in 2014 to 29 cases in 2019 along with similar trends in the number of offenders and volume of rosewood intercepted. Caution is needed in interpreting these data as other factors need to be considered, such as the detection rate of illegal logging incidents. The 2016 mission expressed the need to redefine the indicators of the Action Plan to ensure adequate means of verification to accurately and fully measure the plan's effectiveness (IUCN, 2017).
While the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant disruptions (State Party of Thailand, 2024), measures to protect Siamese rosewood and other precious wood species have continued under a national strategic plan for sustainable growth, conservation, restoration, and protection of natural resources during 2022-2024. Reported indicators under the plan include: 1) Protected areas containing Siamese rosewood and other precious wood species are protected and 2) A 5 % reduction in illegal logging activities involving Siamese rosewood (compared to the average of the past three years). Patrol summaries from this period indicated that the number of cases, offenders, and confiscated timber remained considerably lower compared to reported numbers in 2014 and relatively consistent from 2022-2024 (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Further, these summaries included additional metrics related to patrol effort (e.g., number of patrols, patrol days, and patrol distance). These activities have benefitted considerably from investments in patrol-based monitoring and responsiveness (e.g., SMART Patrol, Network Centric Anti-Poaching System [NCAPS]), ranger training, and collaboration between the DNP, other government agencies, and NGOs. The State Party reports these actions will continue to be monitored and evaluated by the DNP under a five-year action plan (2023-2027).
The State Party previously reported no evidence of illegal logging of other tree species as a substitute for Siamese rosewood (State Party of Thailand, 2019). However, clarification is warranted given the continued poaching of species such as Burmese Rosewood (Dalbergia oliveri), padauk (Pterocarpus macrocarpus), and other potential alternatives, particularly as Siamese rosewood continues to decline.
The WH Committee has expressed appreciation for the continued commitment of the State Party to address illegal logging and trade, and strongly encouraged the State Party to further strengthen this cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and bilaterally with Cambodia (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party aimed to continue multilateral cooperation on illegal logging and other issues during the 19th ASEAN Working Group Meeting on CITES and Wildlife Enforcement and the 16th General Border Committee (GBC) between Thailand and Cambodia in March 2024. However, future efforts may be severely undermined by ongoing political tensions arising from border disputes (de Guzman, 2025). The full scope of potential impacts to the OUV of the property from this evolving situation is currently unknown.
Illegal logging of agarwood (Aquilaria spp) is also occurring in the property to the extent that the majority of agarwood, especially in Khao Yai National Park, has been depleted (State Party of Thailand, 2012).
The State Party has significantly increased efforts to address this threat both at local and international levels as part of its Action Plan on Prevention and Suppression of Illegal Logging and Trade in Siamese rosewood in DPKYFC (2014-2019) (State Party of Thailand, 2019). The action plan included four key objectives: (1) prevention of illegal logging; (2) suppression of illegal trade and shipment; (3) promotion of conservation and public participation; and (4) promotion of international cooperation. Specifically, the State Party reported that domestic laws and penalties have been enhanced along with international and inter-agency collaboration (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Furthermore, the State Party reported a decrease in criminal cases from 642 cases in 2014 to 29 cases in 2019 along with similar trends in the number of offenders and volume of rosewood intercepted. Caution is needed in interpreting these data as other factors need to be considered, such as the detection rate of illegal logging incidents. The 2016 mission expressed the need to redefine the indicators of the Action Plan to ensure adequate means of verification to accurately and fully measure the plan's effectiveness (IUCN, 2017).
While the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant disruptions (State Party of Thailand, 2024), measures to protect Siamese rosewood and other precious wood species have continued under a national strategic plan for sustainable growth, conservation, restoration, and protection of natural resources during 2022-2024. Reported indicators under the plan include: 1) Protected areas containing Siamese rosewood and other precious wood species are protected and 2) A 5 % reduction in illegal logging activities involving Siamese rosewood (compared to the average of the past three years). Patrol summaries from this period indicated that the number of cases, offenders, and confiscated timber remained considerably lower compared to reported numbers in 2014 and relatively consistent from 2022-2024 (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Further, these summaries included additional metrics related to patrol effort (e.g., number of patrols, patrol days, and patrol distance). These activities have benefitted considerably from investments in patrol-based monitoring and responsiveness (e.g., SMART Patrol, Network Centric Anti-Poaching System [NCAPS]), ranger training, and collaboration between the DNP, other government agencies, and NGOs. The State Party reports these actions will continue to be monitored and evaluated by the DNP under a five-year action plan (2023-2027).
The State Party previously reported no evidence of illegal logging of other tree species as a substitute for Siamese rosewood (State Party of Thailand, 2019). However, clarification is warranted given the continued poaching of species such as Burmese Rosewood (Dalbergia oliveri), padauk (Pterocarpus macrocarpus), and other potential alternatives, particularly as Siamese rosewood continues to decline.
The WH Committee has expressed appreciation for the continued commitment of the State Party to address illegal logging and trade, and strongly encouraged the State Party to further strengthen this cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and bilaterally with Cambodia (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party aimed to continue multilateral cooperation on illegal logging and other issues during the 19th ASEAN Working Group Meeting on CITES and Wildlife Enforcement and the 16th General Border Committee (GBC) between Thailand and Cambodia in March 2024. However, future efforts may be severely undermined by ongoing political tensions arising from border disputes (de Guzman, 2025). The full scope of potential impacts to the OUV of the property from this evolving situation is currently unknown.
Unknown Threats
(Human-elephant conflict)
Outside site
Human-elephant conflict (HEC) continues across the site, particularly in Northeastern Thap Lan National Park at Soeng Sang, areas of Dong Yai Wildlife Sanctuary, and Wang Mee District outside Khao Yai National Park. Human lives have been lost as a result in Thap Lan and Dong Yai. Engagement with local communities, especially through civil society organisation support, has led to mixed results. With a potentially increasing elephant population, intensification of road traffic and tourism, displacement from proposed dam projects, and water scarcity, HEC mitigation measures and resources need to be expanded further. Considering the climatic changes expected over the coming years, there is a need for more water pools deep in the property, to draw wildlife inwards rather than out of the park boundaries (IUCN Consultation, 2017; Nanla et al, 2024). A number of wildlife pools have reportedly been built in the complex (State Party of Thailand, 2024), though more information is needed on these and other measures. The use of potentially dangerous firecrackers as a means to scare elephants away from residential areas and farmland has continued, though the effectiveness of this method may be limited (Piyaporn, 2024). Information on the extent and severity of HEC at the site, the status of budget allocations for HEC mitigation (State Party of Thailand, 2019), and collaring efforts (Salim, 2019) were not updated in recent reporting (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
The State Party recently reported on the implementation of “C2C: Conflict to Co-existence Approach”, a multi-stakeholder program supported by WWF with cooperation from various government agencies, NGOs, civil society, educational institutions, and local communities (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The approach aims to manage HEC through integrated, holistic, and systematic planning, implementation, and monitoring. The program, which includes several sites across multiple countries, was piloted in Thailand at Thap Lan National Park (Gross et al, 2025). More detail is needed pertaining to the current status of the program, role of government representatives, specific activities, funding, progress-made, and other relevant information.
The State Party recently reported on the implementation of “C2C: Conflict to Co-existence Approach”, a multi-stakeholder program supported by WWF with cooperation from various government agencies, NGOs, civil society, educational institutions, and local communities (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The approach aims to manage HEC through integrated, holistic, and systematic planning, implementation, and monitoring. The program, which includes several sites across multiple countries, was piloted in Thailand at Thap Lan National Park (Gross et al, 2025). More detail is needed pertaining to the current status of the program, role of government representatives, specific activities, funding, progress-made, and other relevant information.
Terrestrial Animal Farming, Ranching & Herding
(Grazing of domestic cattle)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Grazing of domestic cattle in the property decreased markedly in response to actions by the State Party following decisions from the WH Committee (UNESCO, 2012; State Party of Thailand, 2012; IUCN 2014a). The State Party made further significant steps to reduce the number of illegal settlements and ensure the removal of the remaining cattle. The 2016 mission report takes note of the success in reducing cattle grazing within the property and the WHC has considered this issue to be resolved (WHC/23/45.COM/7B). State Party reports since this time have not mentioned cattle grazing and, therefore, the current status is relatively unknown. Presently, any cattle-grazing within park boundaries is likely to be isolated. Continued efforts to monitor and respond to this threat will remain necessary.
Hunting, Collecting & Controlling Terrestrial Animals
(Poaching of wildlife)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Poaching of wildlife has been reported to be widespread and frequent in some areas of the site (IUCN, 2014a). Previous reports indicate that subsistence-level and potentially commercial-level poaching is affecting some large mammals and bird species, particularly in areas east of Khao Yai and Thap Lan National Parks (UNESCO, 2012; State Party of Thailand, 2012; IUCN, 2014a). The State Party has stated that no incidents of poaching of other wildlife has been reported, nor do rosewood poachers rely on subsistence hunting during their time in the forest (State Party of Thailand, 2017). In contrast, other sources have reported such cases occurring regularly (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
The 2017 Mission noted that innovative approaches to combat poaching are being applied throughout the property, and were showing positive preliminary results. Investments to counter rosewood poaching (e.g., training and resources to support patrol-based monitoring) have considerably improved the capacity of parks to effectively monitor other illicit activities such as wildlife poaching (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
The 2017 Mission noted that innovative approaches to combat poaching are being applied throughout the property, and were showing positive preliminary results. Investments to counter rosewood poaching (e.g., training and resources to support patrol-based monitoring) have considerably improved the capacity of parks to effectively monitor other illicit activities such as wildlife poaching (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
Major threat arises from the Royal Irrigation Department's proposal to construct seven new dams inside the WH property despite the WH Committee's clear position not to construct any inside the property boundaries. This plan also contradicts the statement made by the State Party to cancel the Lam Prayatham dam. Along with the proposed expansion of Route 348 against Committee decisions, these potential threats raise great concern.
Dams & Water Management/Use
(Impacts from potential dam construction)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
The WH Committee has expressed concerns in the past about various proposals to build several dams within the property, but in 2017 the WH Committee explicitly requested the State Party "to permanently cancel plans for any construction of dams within reservoirs inside the property's boundaries, including the Huay Satone and Lam Prayathan dam projects" (WH Committee, 2017). In response, the State Party confirmed that there will be no construction project that would cause negative impacts on the OUV of the property and specifically noted that the Lam Phrayathan dam would not proceed (State Party of Thailand, 2018, 2019). However, since 2020, reports have suggested ongoing plans by the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand to develop at least seven new dams inside the World Heritage property, including: Huay Satone, Lam Prayathan, Khlong Madu, Sai Noi–Sai Yai, Khlong Wang, and Nong Kaew dams (IUCN Consultation, 2020; Piyaporn, 2024). If approved, these dams will likely inundate key habitat for species such as the critically endangered banteng (Bos javanicus), dhole, tigers, elephants and other species, and have a significant, long-term impact on the OUV of the site (Ash et al, 2022). In some cases, construction has been proposed near existing and potential wildlife corridors along highway Route 304 and Route 348 which may further undermine efforts to facilitate movement of wildlife within and beyond the site.
Dams with reservoirs inside property boundaries are not compatible with World Heritage status and should not be permitted (41 COM 7B.32; 44 COM 7B.97).Further the WH Committee has requested the State Party to: a) seek early technical inputs from IUCN on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); b) cancel plans for any construction of dams with reservoirs inside the property’s boundaries, independent of the results of the SEA; and c) ensure the suspension of dam proposals around the property remains in place until the final SEA has been reviewed by IUCN to assess any impact on the OUV (45 COM 7B.19).
In 2021, the National Committee on the World Heritage Convention assigned the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), the Office of National Water Resources (ONWR), and the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the river basin, including the World Heritage site, with DNP serving as the main agency. The RID was assigned to study mitigation measures and to prepare a monitoring report on the impacts during the post-construction phase of the Huai Samong Dam. The RID has been granted access to certain areas of this site in order to study the feasibility of various dam construction projects and to conduct environmental impact assessments (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
The State Party reported that expertise on conducting a SEA has been sought from the IUCN and other relevant organizations, notably in a series of meetings and site visits in 2024 (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Following recommendations, the DNP is now working on developing a framework that aligns with the OUV of the DPKYFC before progressing to the full ToR for the SEA study. A draft of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) passed legal review and is reported to be awaiting submission for Cabinet approval.
The State Party once again affirmed that no dam construction projects, either within or adjacent to the boundaries of the World Heritage site, have been authorized for construction (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Notably, cancellation of the aforementioned dam and reservoir projects has not been confirmed. Rather, the status of these projects has been reported as suspended pending the completion and review of the SEA.
In addition to large-scale dams, small-scale check dams have been built in several streams in all parks over the last several years. These check dams have reportedly been made in an effort to help raise water tables and to provide drinking sources for wildlife. However, no ecological studies appear to have been conducted prior to building these dams, and their ecological impact, particularly on migratory species of small fish, is unknown (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Construction of check dams have continued, as reported by the State Party of Thailand (2019; 2022). Further information on these and other small-scale projects that may potentially affect local ecology has been requested.
Dams with reservoirs inside property boundaries are not compatible with World Heritage status and should not be permitted (41 COM 7B.32; 44 COM 7B.97).Further the WH Committee has requested the State Party to: a) seek early technical inputs from IUCN on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); b) cancel plans for any construction of dams with reservoirs inside the property’s boundaries, independent of the results of the SEA; and c) ensure the suspension of dam proposals around the property remains in place until the final SEA has been reviewed by IUCN to assess any impact on the OUV (45 COM 7B.19).
In 2021, the National Committee on the World Heritage Convention assigned the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), the Office of National Water Resources (ONWR), and the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the river basin, including the World Heritage site, with DNP serving as the main agency. The RID was assigned to study mitigation measures and to prepare a monitoring report on the impacts during the post-construction phase of the Huai Samong Dam. The RID has been granted access to certain areas of this site in order to study the feasibility of various dam construction projects and to conduct environmental impact assessments (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
The State Party reported that expertise on conducting a SEA has been sought from the IUCN and other relevant organizations, notably in a series of meetings and site visits in 2024 (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Following recommendations, the DNP is now working on developing a framework that aligns with the OUV of the DPKYFC before progressing to the full ToR for the SEA study. A draft of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) passed legal review and is reported to be awaiting submission for Cabinet approval.
The State Party once again affirmed that no dam construction projects, either within or adjacent to the boundaries of the World Heritage site, have been authorized for construction (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Notably, cancellation of the aforementioned dam and reservoir projects has not been confirmed. Rather, the status of these projects has been reported as suspended pending the completion and review of the SEA.
In addition to large-scale dams, small-scale check dams have been built in several streams in all parks over the last several years. These check dams have reportedly been made in an effort to help raise water tables and to provide drinking sources for wildlife. However, no ecological studies appear to have been conducted prior to building these dams, and their ecological impact, particularly on migratory species of small fish, is unknown (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Construction of check dams have continued, as reported by the State Party of Thailand (2019; 2022). Further information on these and other small-scale projects that may potentially affect local ecology has been requested.
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Reopening and/or expansion of roads bisecting the property.)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Concerns exist over the potential reopening of closed roads and upgrading of other roads (e.g. Highway 348 and Route 3462) that bisect the property. Such potential activities would open up access, impact an area of high biodiversity, and have significant impacts on the property and its OUV (Ash et al., 2022). The DNP has indicated that approval for re-opening and/or expansion of existing roads would not be granted. However, it remains an issue of concern as it remains clear that the Department of Highways is eager to pursue further development of existing roads (IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2017), particularly Highway 348 (IUCN, 2017).
The expansion of highway Route 348 has been proposed as a means to enhance travel efficiency, accommodate traffic volume, support regional transportation links, and ensure convenience and safety for road users (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This proposal was reportedly suspended in order to seek alternative options as a result of past Committee decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2018, 2019).
The WH Committee has requested the State Party to provide an update on the resolution to halt the expansion of Highway 348 and to update on alternatives to the expansion proposal (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party reported that the Thai Cabinet and DNP have given approval for the Ministry of Transport to conduct studies, surveys, and data collection regarding Highway 348. These activities include carrying out impact assessments (HIA and EIA) and the formulation of measures to safeguard and protect the site during both construction and post-construction phases of the project. Consultation with the relevant agencies is required to identify measures to avoid the negative impacts and, following projected completion by November 2025, the Ministry of Transport is required to inform the relevant agencies for reporting to the World Heritage Centre. Additionally, the Ministry of Transport (Department of Highways) is required to consider the feedback from concerned agencies before proceeding with further actions. Alternatives proposed include the addition of forest corridors similar to those on Route 304. Sections of Highway 348 to the north and south of the property have already been widened, and their implications on connectivity and OUV of the property is unclear. Further, highway designs published in local media have reinforced indications of interest to proceed with expansion (Daily News, 2 September 2024).
The State Party confirmed that Route 3462 was permanently closed in 2002 and further developments regarding potential re-opening have not been evident.
The expansion of highway Route 348 has been proposed as a means to enhance travel efficiency, accommodate traffic volume, support regional transportation links, and ensure convenience and safety for road users (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This proposal was reportedly suspended in order to seek alternative options as a result of past Committee decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2018, 2019).
The WH Committee has requested the State Party to provide an update on the resolution to halt the expansion of Highway 348 and to update on alternatives to the expansion proposal (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party reported that the Thai Cabinet and DNP have given approval for the Ministry of Transport to conduct studies, surveys, and data collection regarding Highway 348. These activities include carrying out impact assessments (HIA and EIA) and the formulation of measures to safeguard and protect the site during both construction and post-construction phases of the project. Consultation with the relevant agencies is required to identify measures to avoid the negative impacts and, following projected completion by November 2025, the Ministry of Transport is required to inform the relevant agencies for reporting to the World Heritage Centre. Additionally, the Ministry of Transport (Department of Highways) is required to consider the feedback from concerned agencies before proceeding with further actions. Alternatives proposed include the addition of forest corridors similar to those on Route 304. Sections of Highway 348 to the north and south of the property have already been widened, and their implications on connectivity and OUV of the property is unclear. Further, highway designs published in local media have reinforced indications of interest to proceed with expansion (Daily News, 2 September 2024).
The State Party confirmed that Route 3462 was permanently closed in 2002 and further developments regarding potential re-opening have not been evident.
Hunting, Collecting & Controlling Terrestrial Animals, Logging, Harvesting & Controlling Trees
(Poaching and logging of valuable wildlife species)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
While the threat of poaching of species other than Siamese rosewood is not reported to be significant, there is a concern that illegal loggers may target other high value species such as tiger, elephant or pangolin. The State Party contends that there is no evidence that alternate species are being targeted at this time and that monitoring and patrolling activities to suppress illegal logging and wildlife poaching is robust (State Party of Thailand, 2019).
In 2024, an emaciated tiger, suspected to be responsible for attacking livestock, was discovered near community areas near Dong Yai Wildlife Sanctuary. After being monitored, the tiger was found dead and an autopsy was performed. While the suspected cause of death was a suite of parasitic infections and malnourishment, the autopsy also revealed the presence of healed gunshot wounds and three bullets (MCOT, 2024). Whether the tiger was shot opportunistically, in response to conflict with humans, for illicit trade or for other reasons, this development is concerning, particularly given the small and vulnerable tiger population size at this site (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
One issue of particular concern has been a reported increase in the use of heavy snares over the last decade. This has been accompanied by evidence of snare-related injuries sustained by large mammals, including tiger, asiatic black bear, and elephants. The indiscriminate use of snares have been a major driver for wildlife population declines elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Gray et al, 2018). Little is known of the true extent of this issue and its potential impact on threatened species as part of the site’s OUV. Additional clarification and reporting on the extent and severity of wildlife poaching, particularly in regards to potential snaring, is needed. Regardless of the current threat level, monitoring and preventing wildlife poaching should continue to be a priority.
In 2024, an emaciated tiger, suspected to be responsible for attacking livestock, was discovered near community areas near Dong Yai Wildlife Sanctuary. After being monitored, the tiger was found dead and an autopsy was performed. While the suspected cause of death was a suite of parasitic infections and malnourishment, the autopsy also revealed the presence of healed gunshot wounds and three bullets (MCOT, 2024). Whether the tiger was shot opportunistically, in response to conflict with humans, for illicit trade or for other reasons, this development is concerning, particularly given the small and vulnerable tiger population size at this site (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
One issue of particular concern has been a reported increase in the use of heavy snares over the last decade. This has been accompanied by evidence of snare-related injuries sustained by large mammals, including tiger, asiatic black bear, and elephants. The indiscriminate use of snares have been a major driver for wildlife population declines elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Gray et al, 2018). Little is known of the true extent of this issue and its potential impact on threatened species as part of the site’s OUV. Additional clarification and reporting on the extent and severity of wildlife poaching, particularly in regards to potential snaring, is needed. Regardless of the current threat level, monitoring and preventing wildlife poaching should continue to be a priority.
Pathogens
(Disease Risk)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Disease transmission from domestic to wild species is a particular concern in protected areas with a high degree of spatial overlap of human presence with the habitat of threatened species. Such overlap in certain areas of the DPKYFC, as well as reported infection of wildlife elsewhere in Thailand, has prompted concern over the potential risk posed to the site’s threatened species (Ash et al , 2020a; 2020c; Horpiencharoen et al, 2024; Thanapongtharm et al, 2025; Roche et al, 2020; Bangkok Post, 13 January 2025).
African Swine Fever has been suspected as the driver for population declines in populations of wild pig species across Southeast Asia (Luskin et al, 2020; Lieb et al, 2025). Although ASF was identified as a potential threat to Thailand’s wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations (Thanapongtharm et al, 2025), information about potential infection, population declines, and broader impacts to local ecosystems is unclear. Evidence of a decrease in the detection of wild boar in some areas of Thailand has given rise to concern. Due to data scarcity, it is unknown whether these reports are indicative of a loss of wild boar, whether such declines would be attributed to ASF, or if they are representative of trends overall.
Reports of domestic dogs inside park boundaries, in some cases far from human habitation, have also prompted concerns over the potential risk posed by Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) to DPKYFC’s wild canids (e.g., dhole, jackal), tigers, and other species. CDV is a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease in domestic dogs that is known to pose a risk to wild carnivores (Sadaula et al, 2022; Gilbert et al, 2014; Loots et al, 2017). While the presence of domestic dogs in Thailand’s national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is prohibited, dogs may accompany local people, tourists, and others entering parks. In some cases, free roaming dogs may enter parks freely.
The prevalence of such diseases, and their risk to wild species, is unknown. Further investigation is warranted given the potential for severe impacts to wildlife populations and the OUV of the site. In particular, a review of detection trends, disease prevalence in domestic species around the site, and other data relating to wild boar and domestic dogs would be beneficial to ascertain potential risks.
African Swine Fever has been suspected as the driver for population declines in populations of wild pig species across Southeast Asia (Luskin et al, 2020; Lieb et al, 2025). Although ASF was identified as a potential threat to Thailand’s wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations (Thanapongtharm et al, 2025), information about potential infection, population declines, and broader impacts to local ecosystems is unclear. Evidence of a decrease in the detection of wild boar in some areas of Thailand has given rise to concern. Due to data scarcity, it is unknown whether these reports are indicative of a loss of wild boar, whether such declines would be attributed to ASF, or if they are representative of trends overall.
Reports of domestic dogs inside park boundaries, in some cases far from human habitation, have also prompted concerns over the potential risk posed by Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) to DPKYFC’s wild canids (e.g., dhole, jackal), tigers, and other species. CDV is a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease in domestic dogs that is known to pose a risk to wild carnivores (Sadaula et al, 2022; Gilbert et al, 2014; Loots et al, 2017). While the presence of domestic dogs in Thailand’s national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is prohibited, dogs may accompany local people, tourists, and others entering parks. In some cases, free roaming dogs may enter parks freely.
The prevalence of such diseases, and their risk to wild species, is unknown. Further investigation is warranted given the potential for severe impacts to wildlife populations and the OUV of the site. In particular, a review of detection trends, disease prevalence in domestic species around the site, and other data relating to wild boar and domestic dogs would be beneficial to ascertain potential risks.
Fire & Fire Management
(Wildfires)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Wildfires close to, and within the property, are relatively common during Thailand’s dry season (~November to April). In some cases, these fires can spread relatively uninterrupted deep within the site’s protected areas. With a potential increase in the frequency and severity of fire events within the site from increasing human pressures and climate change, it will be important to understand their potential impacts on threatened species and local ecology.
Information related to fire outbreaks, environmental impacts, and fire suppression activities has not been a major component of State Party reporting for the site. However, reported activities have included establishment of fire watch guards, towers, and UAVs for fire monitoring and suppression response (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024). Further, implementation of a national three-year action plan (2020-2022) on the Protection of Protected Areas and Forest Fire Control was reported to include forest fire control in protected areas, building networks to combat forest fires and haze, and fostering public participation in monitoring, controlling, and preventing forest fires (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, parks within the site are reported to have conducted controlled burns for the purposes of fire suppression and creating food sources for wildlife (Sanubboon, 2025). Nonetheless, the current capacity of protected areas may not be sufficient to respond to frequent and severe wild fires and a third party report suggested budgets for these activities have been reduced or below amounts requested (Bangkok Post, 13 January 2025). Current information available to fully quantify potential impacts to the site. Additional information on wildfire trends as well as park fire monitoring and suppression capacity is encouraged in order to fully understand and respond to wild fires as a potential threat.
In an encouraging development, the State Party highlighted the 2024 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on cooperation between the DNP and a number of local administration departments (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This MOU is intended to promote coordination of operations, including the prevention and control of forest fires in protected areas.
Information related to fire outbreaks, environmental impacts, and fire suppression activities has not been a major component of State Party reporting for the site. However, reported activities have included establishment of fire watch guards, towers, and UAVs for fire monitoring and suppression response (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024). Further, implementation of a national three-year action plan (2020-2022) on the Protection of Protected Areas and Forest Fire Control was reported to include forest fire control in protected areas, building networks to combat forest fires and haze, and fostering public participation in monitoring, controlling, and preventing forest fires (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, parks within the site are reported to have conducted controlled burns for the purposes of fire suppression and creating food sources for wildlife (Sanubboon, 2025). Nonetheless, the current capacity of protected areas may not be sufficient to respond to frequent and severe wild fires and a third party report suggested budgets for these activities have been reduced or below amounts requested (Bangkok Post, 13 January 2025). Current information available to fully quantify potential impacts to the site. Additional information on wildfire trends as well as park fire monitoring and suppression capacity is encouraged in order to fully understand and respond to wild fires as a potential threat.
In an encouraging development, the State Party highlighted the 2024 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on cooperation between the DNP and a number of local administration departments (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This MOU is intended to promote coordination of operations, including the prevention and control of forest fires in protected areas.
Conflict, Civil Unrest & Security Activities
(Border Dispute)
Outside site
Recent State Party reports have documented considerable and admirable efforts to bolster transboundary and interagency coordination (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024). This is a particularly important facet for the long-term management of the site given that a portion of its boundary is situated along the Thai-Cambodian border, and that issues such as rosewood poaching involve the movement of poaching groups and smuggling of timber across these boundaries. These collaborative efforts could be severely undermined by ongoing political tensions arising from a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia (de Guzman, 2025). While tensions have increased recently, they remain entrenched in long-standing disagreements over the shared border. As a result, border checkpoints have been closed and military presence along the border has intensified, leading to fears of potential armed conflict. The full scope of potential impacts to the OUV of the property is currently unknown. Close monitoring of this ever-evolving situation by the State Party is merited.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
The relationships with local communities in and around the property have varied greatly from poor to good. There have been significant issues with land tenure and land use change stemming from the initial gazetting of the National Parks and subsequent inscription on the World Heritage (State Party of Thailand, 2011). There has been some involvement of local people in site management through the Protected Area Committees (PAC) that exist for all the protected areas making up the property (IUCN Consultation, 2017). In 2019, the State Party reported an enhanced relationship with local people and wider community participation in management through the advisory committees, extensive community awareness and outreach programmes, and a formalised land dispute process (State Party of Thailand, 2019).
In 2024, the State Party reported on a number of measures to improve stakeholder collaboration at national and local levels (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This included the signing of a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the DNP and a number of NGOs. This MOU aimed to facilitate cooperation for the conservation and management of forest and wildlife resources in Natural World Heritage Sites and Protected Areas. Additionally, another MOU was signed to promote coordination between the DNP and the Department of Local Administration Promotion. Further, youth volunteer (‘Next Gen New World’) and human-wildlife conflict projects (Conflict to Coexistence) were implemented to improve participation and empowerment of local stakeholders. Lastly, the State Party has reported on amendments to the National Park Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) and the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), which includes provisions to better integrate stakeholders in decision-making processes (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2024).
In 2024, the State Party reported on a number of measures to improve stakeholder collaboration at national and local levels (State Party of Thailand, 2024). This included the signing of a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the DNP and a number of NGOs. This MOU aimed to facilitate cooperation for the conservation and management of forest and wildlife resources in Natural World Heritage Sites and Protected Areas. Additionally, another MOU was signed to promote coordination between the DNP and the Department of Local Administration Promotion. Further, youth volunteer (‘Next Gen New World’) and human-wildlife conflict projects (Conflict to Coexistence) were implemented to improve participation and empowerment of local stakeholders. Lastly, the State Party has reported on amendments to the National Park Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) and the Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), which includes provisions to better integrate stakeholders in decision-making processes (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2024).
Legal framework
The Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex is the property of the Government of Thailand, with the four national parks declared under the National Parks Act B.E 2504 (1961) and the Dong Yai Wildlife Sanctuary declared under the Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act B.E. 2535 (1992). A lack of coordination between the national parks on the one hand and the wildlife sanctuary on the other has led to a degree of frustration in some cases such as when a park implements plans unilaterally without consulting the other (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Thailand has relatively strong protected area legislation and a number of other relevant laws and regulations in regards to National Parks and Reserved Area Management (IUCN, 2011). In 2019, both the National Park Act and the Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act were amended to provide greater protection of natural resources such as vegetation and non-timber forest products, wildlife, scenery, forests and mountains and to improve land use in the protected areas. The amendments also provide measures encouraging community participation in the establishment and management of protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019). Drafting of these amendments was reportedly planned for completion in November 2024.
Governance arrangements
Responsibility for the management of the property is underpinned by a relatively clear governance structure and legislative framework with primary responsibility held by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) (IUCN, 2011). Local management of each protected area is led by a park Superintendent who reports to divisional and national management. For matters relating to World Heritage, parks report to the World Heritage Facilitation Division and the Natural World Heritage Office in Bangkok. The latter holds primary responsibility for coordinating responses and for implementation of the Management Plan for the property, though aspects of operations and authority within this structure are unclear. In the case of plans from other agencies potentially affecting the OUV of the property (e.g., Huay Samong dam, Route 304), this initiates a required stakeholder consultation process during which the World Heritage Office may facilitate coordination among the DNP and others to formally assess and report on potential impacts. This may include the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and the soliciting of feedback and relevant information from various stakeholders. With movements toward the construction of dams within the site and expansion of Route 348, the degree to which these processes are followed in good faith, however, is unknown. The ability for the DNP to effectively manage the property and enforce regulations appears to be hamstrung by conflicting plans by other agencies and an unclear mandate where these plans overlap and impact the site (IUCN Mission, 2014).
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) is responsible for the management of protected areas in Thailand. A Superintendent manages each of the five protected areas comprising the property. These Superintendents report to the Head of the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Coordination Centre, who reports directly to the Director of the Natural World Heritage Office in Bangkok, which is part of DNP (IUCN, 2017). The Natural World Heritage Office holds primary responsibility for coordinating responses and for implementation of the Management Plan for the property (IUCN, 2014a). A wide range of other government agencies are involved in development activities such as transport infrastructure, irrigation, dams, and rural development. Furthermore, poaching and illegal logging operations impacting the property have wider national and regional implications, necessitating collaboration across multiple agencies. Recent State Party reports provide details of highly collaborative, inter-agency management approaches, as well as international cooperation to address threats to the property (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Considerable success has been noted in real-time detection of offenses and the interception of illegally logged Siamese rosewood being transported out of the property. The National Committee on the World Heritage Convention also serves to facilitate coordination across the DNP and relevant government departments, particularly in regards to activities that may threaten the OUV of the site.
Several measures have been undertaken by the State Party to integrate relevant plans from local to national levels (State Party of Thailand, 2024). An effort to improve coordination and integration of economic, social, and environmental factors in government projects is underway through the drafting of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This regulation defines projects requiring SEAs, such as infrastructure development. A draft of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) passed legal review and is reported to be awaiting submission for Cabinet approval. In addition, an MOU was signed in 2024 to promote coordination between the DNP and the Department of Local Administration.
Several measures have been undertaken by the State Party to integrate relevant plans from local to national levels (State Party of Thailand, 2024). An effort to improve coordination and integration of economic, social, and environmental factors in government projects is underway through the drafting of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This regulation defines projects requiring SEAs, such as infrastructure development. A draft of the Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) passed legal review and is reported to be awaiting submission for Cabinet approval. In addition, an MOU was signed in 2024 to promote coordination between the DNP and the Department of Local Administration.
Boundaries
At the time of inscription, the property was subject to disputes and ambiguity regarding its boundaries in certain areas. In these areas, significant incursions and agricultural conversion have occurred. In addition, the lack of a clear, formalized buffer zone resulted in competing and, in some cases intense, land uses bordering directly onto the property boundary. The 2014 mission expressed concern that despite the State Party making commitments to a boundary adjustment on numerous occasions, the issue had still not been addressed (UNESCO/IUCN, 2012; IUCN 2012; IUCN 2014a). The mission subsequently reiterated the need for a detailed zoning plan for the property. It also expressed the view that a legally designated buffer zone around the property was required, as was a clear demarcation of its boundaries (IUCN, 2014a). The State Party reported the establishment of six zones within the property. However, no maps were provided to define their spatial extent and these zones have not been referenced in subsequent reports. While reference to zoning (such as core and buffer zones) is often made in various, these do not appear to be used in relation to legally recognized divisions within national law. The 2017 IUCN Mission report included recommendations to improve engagement with local people, ensure awareness of boundaries, closely monitor land use and encroachment, develop a detailed zoning plan, and improve management of impacts from areas subject to land tenure disputes. Subsequent meetings of the World Heritage Committee have not addressed the boundary nor have concerns been explicitly addressed by the State Party.
In 2019, both the National Park Act and the Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act were amended to provide greater protection of natural resources such as vegetation and non-timber forest products, wildlife, scenery, forests and mountains and to improve land use in the protected areas. Draft amendments also encourage community participation in the establishment and management of protected areas. Notably, these provide a process through which individuals residing inside protected areas can legally occupy the land. This development is considered by the State Party as a reaffirmation of its efforts to engage with communities and to address forest encroachment in protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024).
More recently, a national effort has been initiated to implement an integrated State land boundary 1:4000 map (“One Map”) in order to standardize national boundaries. Implementation of these changes has also been proposed as a means to settle long-standing and complex disputes over land rights and the presence of local communities and agricultural land within park boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2011, 2024). A resulting proposal to modify Thap Lan National Park’s boundary would result in a reduction of Thap Lan National Park’s extent by 265,286 rai (~424km2) or approximately 19% (Bangkok Post, 2024). This area would be transferred to the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ARLO) and allocated for residential and agricultural purposes. If approved, this may set a precedent for similar boundary adjustments elsewhere in the country.
The World Heritage Committee reiterated that modifications with the potential to have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) would require a significant boundary modification, in line with the Operational Guidelines (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party has asserted that, currently, boundary adjustments are still under consideration and no reduction in the boundary of Thap Lan National Park has been approved (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The State Party also noted that the process for gathering feedback from stakeholders, relevant communities, and the public on the expansion or revocation of the national park (as outlined in Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the National Park Act B.E. 2562 [2019]), has been completed. It was reported that efforts were being expedited to survey and establish a clear buffer zone, however, the extent to which its design would align with established definitions and international standards (Dudley, 2008) remains to be seen. The issue is scheduled for further consideration by a national committee.
In 2019, both the National Park Act and the Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act were amended to provide greater protection of natural resources such as vegetation and non-timber forest products, wildlife, scenery, forests and mountains and to improve land use in the protected areas. Draft amendments also encourage community participation in the establishment and management of protected areas. Notably, these provide a process through which individuals residing inside protected areas can legally occupy the land. This development is considered by the State Party as a reaffirmation of its efforts to engage with communities and to address forest encroachment in protected areas (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024).
More recently, a national effort has been initiated to implement an integrated State land boundary 1:4000 map (“One Map”) in order to standardize national boundaries. Implementation of these changes has also been proposed as a means to settle long-standing and complex disputes over land rights and the presence of local communities and agricultural land within park boundaries (State Party of Thailand, 2011, 2024). A resulting proposal to modify Thap Lan National Park’s boundary would result in a reduction of Thap Lan National Park’s extent by 265,286 rai (~424km2) or approximately 19% (Bangkok Post, 2024). This area would be transferred to the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ARLO) and allocated for residential and agricultural purposes. If approved, this may set a precedent for similar boundary adjustments elsewhere in the country.
The World Heritage Committee reiterated that modifications with the potential to have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) would require a significant boundary modification, in line with the Operational Guidelines (45 COM 7B.19). The State Party has asserted that, currently, boundary adjustments are still under consideration and no reduction in the boundary of Thap Lan National Park has been approved (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The State Party also noted that the process for gathering feedback from stakeholders, relevant communities, and the public on the expansion or revocation of the national park (as outlined in Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the National Park Act B.E. 2562 [2019]), has been completed. It was reported that efforts were being expedited to survey and establish a clear buffer zone, however, the extent to which its design would align with established definitions and international standards (Dudley, 2008) remains to be seen. The issue is scheduled for further consideration by a national committee.
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
Since the inscription of the site, the State Party has made commendable progress in addressing several issues raised by the Committee including: (i) the reduction/removal of cattle grazing; (ii) combating encroachment; (iii) mitigating the impacts of the Huay Samong Dam; (iv) developing strategies to detect and suppress illegal logging; and (v) constructing of wildlife corridors as part of the expansion of Highway 304 (IUCN, 2017; State Party of Thailand, 2018; 2019). In some cases, such as the reduction of cattle grazing, the effectiveness of actions taken by the State Party appears to be high. Further, efforts to address rosewood poaching and improve park-based enforcement and monitoring capacity has been particularly commendable. The WH Committee strongly encouraged the State Party to further strengthen cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and bilaterally with Cambodia. The State Party has made great strides in this area and has continued multilateral and interagency cooperation on a number of issues. In most cases, the State Party has made serious efforts to respond to the Committee's concerns. However, for other cases, results have been mixed and, in some cases, have appeared to conflict with these decisions and recommendations.
Encouraging progress has been made regarding the monitoring and mitigation of impacts from the expansion of Route 304 and construction of the Huay Samong Dam between the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and Department of Highways (DOH). However, this is juxtaposed starkly with recent movements by the State Party to expand construction of Route 348 and seven dams elsewhere in the property, appearing to directly conflict with WH Committee decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024; 45 COM 7B.19).
Encouraging progress has been made regarding the monitoring and mitigation of impacts from the expansion of Route 304 and construction of the Huay Samong Dam between the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and Department of Highways (DOH). However, this is juxtaposed starkly with recent movements by the State Party to expand construction of Route 348 and seven dams elsewhere in the property, appearing to directly conflict with WH Committee decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2022, 2024; 45 COM 7B.19).
Climate action
Climate change poses a considerable risk to the site, notably in terms of potential impacts on water availability and natural disasters. The state of the current site-wide management plan for the site is unknown which makes it challenging to assess the degree to which climate change-related activities and monitoring are part of broader management strategies. However, the State Party has reported on several relevant projects that may improve local capacity to monitor and adapt to a changing climate.
It is believed that reduced water availability plays a major role in human-elephant conflict (HEC) in some areas of the complex. The IUCN Mission has, citing climatic changes expected over coming years, recommended the use of water pools deep in the property to help mitigate these issues (IUCN Consultation, 2017; Nanla et al, 2024). Recently, a number of wildlife pools have reportedly been built in the complex (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, small scale check dams have been built in a number of streams in all parks over the last several years. However, no ecological studies appear to have been conducted prior to assessing the effectiveness and ecological impact of these measures. Reforestation activities have also been conducted in areas such as near the Route 304 corridor, though details on their implementation within the context of broader ecological restoration and climate-related management strategies is not available.
Wildfires at the site are relatively common and may have a significant impact on local ecology. An increase in the frequency and severity of wildfire events from climate change is a particular concern. The State Party has undertaken relevant activities, including the establishment of fire watch guards, towers, and UAVs for fire monitoring and suppression response (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). A national three-year action plan (2020-2022) on the Protection of Protected Areas and Forest Fire Control was reported to include forest fire control in protected areas, building networks to combat forest fires and haze, and fostering public participation in monitoring, controlling, and preventing forest fires (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, parks within the site are reported to have conducted controlled burns for the purposes of fire suppression and creating food sources for wildlife (Sanubboon, 2025). The extent of monitoring related to the outbreak of wildfires and the impact of mitigation strategies has not been clear. Flooding has also been relatively common in some areas of the site, notably around the Route 304 corridor (Sanubboon, 2023) and it is possible that these events will also increase in frequency and severity.
It is believed that reduced water availability plays a major role in human-elephant conflict (HEC) in some areas of the complex. The IUCN Mission has, citing climatic changes expected over coming years, recommended the use of water pools deep in the property to help mitigate these issues (IUCN Consultation, 2017; Nanla et al, 2024). Recently, a number of wildlife pools have reportedly been built in the complex (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, small scale check dams have been built in a number of streams in all parks over the last several years. However, no ecological studies appear to have been conducted prior to assessing the effectiveness and ecological impact of these measures. Reforestation activities have also been conducted in areas such as near the Route 304 corridor, though details on their implementation within the context of broader ecological restoration and climate-related management strategies is not available.
Wildfires at the site are relatively common and may have a significant impact on local ecology. An increase in the frequency and severity of wildfire events from climate change is a particular concern. The State Party has undertaken relevant activities, including the establishment of fire watch guards, towers, and UAVs for fire monitoring and suppression response (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). A national three-year action plan (2020-2022) on the Protection of Protected Areas and Forest Fire Control was reported to include forest fire control in protected areas, building networks to combat forest fires and haze, and fostering public participation in monitoring, controlling, and preventing forest fires (State Party of Thailand, 2024). In addition, parks within the site are reported to have conducted controlled burns for the purposes of fire suppression and creating food sources for wildlife (Sanubboon, 2025). The extent of monitoring related to the outbreak of wildfires and the impact of mitigation strategies has not been clear. Flooding has also been relatively common in some areas of the site, notably around the Route 304 corridor (Sanubboon, 2023) and it is possible that these events will also increase in frequency and severity.
Management plan and overall management system
The five Protected Areas (PA) which make up the property are managed by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) through offices in each of the PAs. For matters relating to World Heritage, these are overseen by two separate regional offices within the DNP. Primary responsibility for implementation of site management plans and coordination of responses is held by the Natural World Heritage Office in Bangkok. This office receives reporting from the World Heritage Facilitation Division. In turn, this Division coordinates with the Superintendents of PAs within the property who oversee implementation of park-specific management plans. Locally, each PA has a Protected Areas Committee (PAC), which is composed of representatives from the management agency, local communities, and other stakeholders. These PACs advise on the implementation of the management plan, including issues related to public participation in protected area management (IUCN Mission, 2014).
While a number of specific operational plans have been developed to address issues such as rosewood poaching (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024), details on the development and implementation of an overarching management plan for the site have been obscure. Shortly following inscription (2006), the State Party prepared a management plan for the property. This was updated prior to the IUCN Mission (2014). At the time, details regarding the resources (e.g., staffing, budget) to ensure long-term management effectiveness, and details on negative impacts from increased tourism, were lacking (State Party of Thailand, 2012). In 2015, a “Road Map” for management of the property presented to the WH Committee included strategies for prevention and suppression of illegal activities, prevention and mitigation of impacts from infrastructure development, tourism, and management of the property. The State Party of Thailand (2019) reported on the expiry of the revised DPKYFC Management Plan (2014–2018), noting mixed results in implementation. At the time, development was reportedly initiated for a follow-up Management Plan Phase II (2021 – 2025) to define goals and strategies to maintain the OUV of the Property. This was scheduled for completion in March 2020. In addition, the State Party of Thailand (2017) reportedly developed a Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy (2017-2027). However, explicit reference to and additional information about these plans have not been included in subsequent reporting (State Party of Thailand, 2022; 2024). As a result, their status at present and success of implementation is undetermined. The State Party has also released an updated national tiger action plan (2022-2034), which aims to increase the country's tiger population. Notably, the DPKFC is a key site in this plan with objectives to improve the management of tigers, prey, habitat, and threats (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
While a number of specific operational plans have been developed to address issues such as rosewood poaching (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024), details on the development and implementation of an overarching management plan for the site have been obscure. Shortly following inscription (2006), the State Party prepared a management plan for the property. This was updated prior to the IUCN Mission (2014). At the time, details regarding the resources (e.g., staffing, budget) to ensure long-term management effectiveness, and details on negative impacts from increased tourism, were lacking (State Party of Thailand, 2012). In 2015, a “Road Map” for management of the property presented to the WH Committee included strategies for prevention and suppression of illegal activities, prevention and mitigation of impacts from infrastructure development, tourism, and management of the property. The State Party of Thailand (2019) reported on the expiry of the revised DPKYFC Management Plan (2014–2018), noting mixed results in implementation. At the time, development was reportedly initiated for a follow-up Management Plan Phase II (2021 – 2025) to define goals and strategies to maintain the OUV of the Property. This was scheduled for completion in March 2020. In addition, the State Party of Thailand (2017) reportedly developed a Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy (2017-2027). However, explicit reference to and additional information about these plans have not been included in subsequent reporting (State Party of Thailand, 2022; 2024). As a result, their status at present and success of implementation is undetermined. The State Party has also released an updated national tiger action plan (2022-2034), which aims to increase the country's tiger population. Notably, the DPKFC is a key site in this plan with objectives to improve the management of tigers, prey, habitat, and threats (State Party of Thailand, 2024).
Law enforcement
The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) holds primary responsibility for implementation of the management plan for the property and enforcement of national law regarding the site’s protected areas. Poaching of high-value species, in particular Siamese rosewood, has been repeatedly flagged as a concern by the government, NGOs and local authorities. The resources and capacity to effectively address this threat and provide the necessary enforcement actions were lacking with the management agency, which was reliant to a considerable degree on project-specific funding for training and support.
The State Party has reported improved collaboration with other enforcement agencies, such as the police, army, and customs, to address the threat from the illegal logging and trade of Siamese rosewood (IUCN, 2017; State Party of Thailand, 2018). The action plans regarding rosewood poaching have facilitated coordinated, inter-agency patrolling and prosecution measures, as well as extensive international collaboration to suppress cross-border movement of illegal products. Law enforcement capacity has been bolstered by improvements to park-based monitoring systems across the site and increases in reported patrol effort. A decline in the number of reported criminal cases, arrests, and volume of timber seized between 2014 and 2024 may also be indicating improvements in enforcement effectiveness (State Party of Thailand, 2018; 2019; 2022; 2024).
In addition, the State Party has sought continued multilateral cooperation on illegal logging and other issues (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Several NGOs have continued to work in close partnership with the DNP to undertake training and improve enforcement capacity. Notably, previous investments have established strong local capacity for enforcement training and the deployment of rapid response teams. Evidence suggests that the use of NCAPS (Network Centric Anti-Poaching System) cameras, which utilize GSM networks, have been useful in alerting park staff to rosewood poaching groups entering the forest in real-time (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). However, there is concern that their effectiveness may be waning with increased local awareness of camera locations, making it easier for poaching groups to avoid detection. The long-term effectiveness of this system will require sustained support for training, camera maintenance, and a dynamic camera deployment strategy.
Enforcement of regulations to control encroachment and land use changes had been addressed by staff training programmes, changes to legislation and community awareness activities. However, the status of many ongoing encroachment cases is currently uncertain with the proposed implementation of the “One Map” program and re-allocation of approximately 19% of Thap Lan National Park as residential and agricultural land (State Party of Thailand, 2024; Bangkok Post, 2024).
The State Party has reported improved collaboration with other enforcement agencies, such as the police, army, and customs, to address the threat from the illegal logging and trade of Siamese rosewood (IUCN, 2017; State Party of Thailand, 2018). The action plans regarding rosewood poaching have facilitated coordinated, inter-agency patrolling and prosecution measures, as well as extensive international collaboration to suppress cross-border movement of illegal products. Law enforcement capacity has been bolstered by improvements to park-based monitoring systems across the site and increases in reported patrol effort. A decline in the number of reported criminal cases, arrests, and volume of timber seized between 2014 and 2024 may also be indicating improvements in enforcement effectiveness (State Party of Thailand, 2018; 2019; 2022; 2024).
In addition, the State Party has sought continued multilateral cooperation on illegal logging and other issues (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Several NGOs have continued to work in close partnership with the DNP to undertake training and improve enforcement capacity. Notably, previous investments have established strong local capacity for enforcement training and the deployment of rapid response teams. Evidence suggests that the use of NCAPS (Network Centric Anti-Poaching System) cameras, which utilize GSM networks, have been useful in alerting park staff to rosewood poaching groups entering the forest in real-time (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). However, there is concern that their effectiveness may be waning with increased local awareness of camera locations, making it easier for poaching groups to avoid detection. The long-term effectiveness of this system will require sustained support for training, camera maintenance, and a dynamic camera deployment strategy.
Enforcement of regulations to control encroachment and land use changes had been addressed by staff training programmes, changes to legislation and community awareness activities. However, the status of many ongoing encroachment cases is currently uncertain with the proposed implementation of the “One Map” program and re-allocation of approximately 19% of Thap Lan National Park as residential and agricultural land (State Party of Thailand, 2024; Bangkok Post, 2024).
Sustainable finance
Previous reports suggested approximately 50% of funding was obtained from the central government with the remaining 50% from tourists and commercial operators within the site (State Party of Thailand, 2011). In the past decade, levels of funding, staff and capacity were considered to be inadequate to keep pace with mounting threats to the property (IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2014b). The State Party (2018, 2019) noted an increase in funding from 136 million baht in 2017, 166 million in 2018, and 173 million in 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decline in the Department’s budget for the 2022 fiscal year. More recently, reports suggest a decrease in the allocated budget for the protection of Siamese rosewood and other tree species when comparing values in 2024 with those in 2020 (~-36%; State Party of Thailand, 2024). Conversely, combined budgets for protected areas in the site were estimated to increase by ~6.8% from ~95 million baht in 2022 to ~101 million in 2024. If reported figures are directly comparable across State Party reports, the most recent budget for protected areas in 2024 may be as much as 72 million baht (~-42%) lower than in 2019. Overall, the sustainability of financial support for the property remains uncertain. Recent political and economic instability abroad may also disrupt the flow of financial support for NGOs and international environmental programs, though the extent to which this may affect programs in the site remains to be seen.
Staff capacity, training and development
In recent years, there has been a sustained capacity-building effort for enforcement and patrol-based monitoring training by various NGOs (e.g., Freeland Foundation, WCS-Thailand). This has considerably improved the capacity of protected areas to collect patrol data to monitor wildlife and illicit activity across the site. In addition, training has improved the ability for parks to respond to threats posed by heavily armed illegal loggers. A number of rangers have received specific rapid response training and can theoretically be deployed anywhere in the property on short notice (IUCN, 2017). In addition, sustained capacity-building has empowered a cadre of experienced instructors available to independently conduct training of new rangers. In 2019, a transboundary enforcement ranger course was organised by Freeland Foundation with participation from Cambodia with the aim of improving transboundary collaboration in enforcement activities (IUCN Consultation, 2020). While efforts to improve transboundary and interagency collaboration have continued, unless political tensions between Thailand and Cambodia resolve (de Guzman, 2025), these efforts may prove challenging. Staff training and capacity building is an ongoing priority for management of the property, particularly for suppression of illegal logging and wildlife poaching (State Party of Thailand, 2019).
Education and interpretation programmes
While educational facilities are relatively well-developed in Khao Yai National Park, this is generally not the case in the other parks. Education, outreach, and educator-empowerment programs have been carried out in conjunction with Freeland Foundation in areas such as the Route 304 corridor, the Thai-Cambodia border, and areas affected by human-elephant conflict (HEC; IUCN Consultation, 2017). The 2019 State Party report provides detail of a diverse education and outreach programme. This has included lectures, classroom activities, field excursions, forest management, and tour guiding. More recently, the State Party has reported on a youth volunteer project titled, ‘Next Gen New World’ (State Party of Thailand, 2024). The project aims to cultivate young conservationists as allies in protecting forests and wildlife. Activities have included tree planting, exhibitions displaying student and community-made products, equipment donations, creation of wildlife water stations and salt licks, and installing NCAPS cameras to monitor wildlife and forest incursions. While indicators for gauging the impact of these activities have not been reported, these programmes appear to be well-structured and delivered with enthusiasm (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2024).
Tourism and visitation management
Tourism in national parks, particularly in Khao Yai National Park, generates significant revenue for the DNP and local businesses. However, from its inscription, the IUCN has noted the high impact from tourism pressure, prompting recommendations for a comprehensive tourism management strategy (IUCN, 2005; UNESCO, 2012; IUCN, 2014a). The number of tourist visits to the site doubled from 700,000 in 2001 to 1.4 million in 2006. While there was a temporary decrease in the number of tourists during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been continued growth in visitor numbers over the past 20 years. Revenue generated by the DNP was reported to have increased by almost 50% in the 2024 fiscal year compared to 2023 (Wipatayotin, 2024). An initial Tourism Management Plan was considered inadequate, prompting the development of a new Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy (2017-2027), adopted in 2017. The status of the Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy (2017-2027) as well as post-pandemic tourism management strategies have not been fully determined. A new tourism strategy called “Tor SorX” was reported to have been introduced to improve tourism management efforts (State Party of Thailand, 2022), though additional information and updates on its current status was not included in recent reporting. Development of new resorts, especially around Khao Yai National Park, continues at a high pace, and requires strict regulation to avoid impacts on the OUV of the property.
Sustainable use
Since the inscription of the DPKYC, sustainable use of resources within the boundaries of the property was prohibited by national law. However, in 2019, the State Party began the process of amending the National Park and Wild Animal Conservation and Protection Act as a means to address ongoing challenges related to land tenure and use by local communities living within or near protected areas (State Party Report, 2019; 2022; 2024). Specifically, amendments would relax previous restrictions and include provisions related to the harvesting of natural resources, subsistence, inclusion of local communities in management, and processes through which residents residing inside protected areas can legally occupy the land. Drafting of these amendments was reportedly scheduled for completion in November 2024. The State Party has reported that, once legislation comes into effect, impacts on communities and conservation will be monitored (State Party of Thailand, 2024). Additional details on the monitoring process, indicators used in monitoring, and timeline were not provided.
Monitoring
Monitoring of wildlife, illicit activities, and other important indicators has generally been hampered by a lack of resources. Following inscription, several NGOs have worked in close partnership with the DNP to improve monitoring capacity (IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2014b) and assist with monitoring populations of a number of key species throughout the property. Availability of data has improved as a result, particularly for species of notable conservation priority such as tigers (Ash et al 2020b,c; Pakpien et al, 2025) and from the establishment of patrol-based monitoring systems (SMART) in all five protected areas. Monitoring has continued to be limited in some regards by inconsistencies in survey effort spatially and temporally, resulting in the lack of baseline data and varying confidence in apparent trends.
Nonetheless, the expansion and improvement in monitoring efforts have provided several key insights. The 2016 IUCN monitoring mission to the property reported that some wildlife species populations, including elephant and gaur, are considered to be healthy and increasing. Monitoring has also confirmed a breeding population of tigers in the site and established DPKYFC as a tiger conservation site of regional importance (Ash et al 2020b, c). The implementation of repeated, rigorous tiger population surveys have also suggested the population is stable or increasing (Pakpien et al, 2025). Concurrently, these surveys have provided data on the distribution of other species as well as potential threats.
Improvements to monitoring were bolstered with the establishment of a DNP research station at Thap Lan in 2018 which serves as a monitoring data repository and training facility.
Monitoring has also been part of commitments to understand and mitigate potential negative impacts from the Huay Samong Dam, Route 304 expansion, illegal logging and poaching, forest fires, and encroachment. (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Monitoring around Route 304’s wildlife crossing structures has provided information on wildlife in the area and the potential use of these structures by wildlife to move between Thap Lan and Khao Yai national parks (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2024). Other activities around this area have included increased patrolling, ranger stations, and monitoring of ground water. However, information has not been made available from these efforts to the extent that the efficacy of road mitigation measures can be fully evaluated. A review of these efforts and subsequent findings remains critically important, particularly given renewed concerns over the construction of dams and expansion of roads elsewhere in the property.
Nonetheless, the expansion and improvement in monitoring efforts have provided several key insights. The 2016 IUCN monitoring mission to the property reported that some wildlife species populations, including elephant and gaur, are considered to be healthy and increasing. Monitoring has also confirmed a breeding population of tigers in the site and established DPKYFC as a tiger conservation site of regional importance (Ash et al 2020b, c). The implementation of repeated, rigorous tiger population surveys have also suggested the population is stable or increasing (Pakpien et al, 2025). Concurrently, these surveys have provided data on the distribution of other species as well as potential threats.
Improvements to monitoring were bolstered with the establishment of a DNP research station at Thap Lan in 2018 which serves as a monitoring data repository and training facility.
Monitoring has also been part of commitments to understand and mitigate potential negative impacts from the Huay Samong Dam, Route 304 expansion, illegal logging and poaching, forest fires, and encroachment. (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Monitoring around Route 304’s wildlife crossing structures has provided information on wildlife in the area and the potential use of these structures by wildlife to move between Thap Lan and Khao Yai national parks (State Party of Thailand, 2019, 2024). Other activities around this area have included increased patrolling, ranger stations, and monitoring of ground water. However, information has not been made available from these efforts to the extent that the efficacy of road mitigation measures can be fully evaluated. A review of these efforts and subsequent findings remains critically important, particularly given renewed concerns over the construction of dams and expansion of roads elsewhere in the property.
Research
In recent years, the DNP has participated in programmes of international collaboration on research and database development. In addition, the DNP has allocated funds to conduct research which enhances capacity to support protection of the property (State Party of Thailand, 2019). This has included studies on wildlife and plant distribution, habitat, and rehabilitation of Siamese rosewood. In addition, the DNP has signed agreements with a wide range of stakeholders to improve capacity in research, monitoring, and other activities (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2024). This has followed from a long-standing relationship between the DNP, NGOs, and educational institutions, resulting in the publication of a wide range of research in internationally recognized journals. The establishment of a DNP wildlife research station at Thap Lan in 2018 has also provided a springboard for research and training in wildlife monitoring in the DPKYFC.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
Primary management of the site falls under the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP). In matters relating to World Heritage, management is overseen through coordination between individual protected areas, the World Heritage Facilitation Division, and the Natural World Heritage Office in Bangkok. Presently, details regarding the coordination between these levels of administration and the relationship with regional offices is not available. State Reports reference overarching management plans as well as project/issue-specific plans (e.g., mitigation of impacts from infrastructure development and rosewood-poaching). However, detailed information about these plans has generally been lacking, notably in regards to indicators (State Party of Thailand, 2022; 2024). As a result, it is difficult to determine the status of their implementation or evaluate their effectiveness.
Significant progress has been made regarding high-level engagement and strengthening regulations. Specifically, the State Party reported that domestic laws and penalties have been enhanced, and that multilateral cooperation on issues such as illegal logging has continued (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Encouraging progress has also been made regarding the monitoring and mitigation of impacts from the expansion of Route 304 and the construction of the Huay Samong Dam between the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and Department of Highways (DOH). However, this is juxtaposed starkly with recent movements by the State Party to expand construction of Route 348 and seven dams elsewhere in the property, appearing to directly conflict with WHC decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2024; 45 COM 7B.19). These construction projects legally require stakeholder consultation and coordination, which is ongoing. However, the ability for the DNP to effectively manage the property and enforce regulations appears to be hamstrung by conflicting plans by other agencies and an unclear mandate where these plans overlap and impact the site (IUCN Mission, 2014). Further, the State Party has reported recent proposed amendments to the National Park Act, Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act, boundary demarcation, and land rights (State Party of Thailand, 2022; 2024). At this time, the extent to which management effectiveness will be improved or undermined by these changes is unknown.
Significant progress has been made regarding high-level engagement and strengthening regulations. Specifically, the State Party reported that domestic laws and penalties have been enhanced, and that multilateral cooperation on issues such as illegal logging has continued (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2022; 2024). Encouraging progress has also been made regarding the monitoring and mitigation of impacts from the expansion of Route 304 and the construction of the Huay Samong Dam between the DNP, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and Department of Highways (DOH). However, this is juxtaposed starkly with recent movements by the State Party to expand construction of Route 348 and seven dams elsewhere in the property, appearing to directly conflict with WHC decisions (State Party of Thailand, 2024; 45 COM 7B.19). These construction projects legally require stakeholder consultation and coordination, which is ongoing. However, the ability for the DNP to effectively manage the property and enforce regulations appears to be hamstrung by conflicting plans by other agencies and an unclear mandate where these plans overlap and impact the site (IUCN Mission, 2014). Further, the State Party has reported recent proposed amendments to the National Park Act, Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act, boundary demarcation, and land rights (State Party of Thailand, 2022; 2024). At this time, the extent to which management effectiveness will be improved or undermined by these changes is unknown.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Earlier State Party reports, monitoring missions, and various stakeholder consultations reinforced concerns regarding the effectiveness of management in addressing threats to the property. These included development of infrastructure such as dams and roads, illegal logging, cattle grazing, and encroachment. Management responses to illegal logging, cattle grazing, and encroachment in particular have been commendable, though arguably falling short in other areas (UNESCO, 2012; State Party of Thailand, 2014; IUCN, 2014a; IUCN, 2014b; IUCN, 2017). After indications that dam construction, road development, and encroachment would be effectively halted, recent reports have resurrected concerns over future developments and the protection of the site’s OUV. Movements toward expansion of Route 348, construction of seven new dams, and modifications to the boundary of Thap Lan National Park (State Party of Thailand 2019; 2022; 2024) threaten to be in direct conflict with the decisions and recommendations of the WHC (Decisions 41 COM 7B.32, 44 COM 7B.97, 45 COM 7B.19). More recently, efforts to bolster transboundary and interagency coordination may now be undermined by an emerging border dispute and increased political tensions between Thailand and Cambodia. The full scope of potential impacts to the OUV of the property is currently unknown. Close monitoring of this ever-evolving situation by the State Party is merited.
In more recent years the DNP has made considerable efforts to enhance management capacity in the property. Inter-agency and cross border collaboration has produced some excellent outcomes in terms of reducing the impact of the expansion of highway 304, notable progress has been in suppressing illegal logging and wildlife poaching and a consultative process is being implemented to address the encroachment and land use issues. However, proposed plans by the State Party to construct seven new dams within the property and expand Route 348 run contrary to the WH Committee's decisions and the State Party's previous statements. This calls into question the effectiveness of inter-agency structure and decision-making. The State Party has reported recent proposed amendments to the National Park Act, Wildlife Protection and Reservation Act, boundary demarcation, and land rights, though the extent to which management effectiveness will be improved or undermined by these changes is currently unknown. Further, the availability of funds and resources to implement management plans has also remained lower than required to be effective. A collaborative approach to encouraging research which contributes to management of the property is noted. There is a high level of tourism pressure on the Khao Yai NP part of the property, but insufficient data is available to comment on the degree to which tourism access to the property contributes to fostering an understanding of its significance. If properly developed, this could lead to enhancing its long term protection. While several specific operational plans have been developed to address issues such as rosewood poaching, details on the development and implementation of an overarching management plan for the site are lacking. Explicit reference to and additional information about a centralized management plan or broad-scale indicators have not been included in recent reporting.
Good practice examples
The efforts undertaken by Thailand to improve regional collaboration on halting the illegal trade in Siamese Rosewood are an example of Best Practice. This includes the successful inclusion of all rosewood species in CITES Appendix II, and the establishment of a regional dialogue with transit and destination countries. There is an opportunity to expand this regional collaboration to include other countries, as well as to broaden its focus to include other priority species that are subject to illegal or unsustainable legal trade. The recently signed MoU foster research which contributes to the protection of the property's endangered wildlife populations is further evidence of best practice management.
Significant natural habitats for a diversity of species, including threatened and endangered species.
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
Data on the current status of key species found within the property such as Asian Elephant and Gaur is improving and indicating healthy and growing populations. Monitoring of some other species is also indicating positive results. However, data on Siamese Crocodile and Banteng continues to be largely unavailable (IUCN, 2017). In the wider context of declining habitats within SE Asia it is clear that the importance of the forest complex is greater than ever for a wide range of rare and endangered species. Issues of encroachment, road construction, illegal logging and poaching impact on the site’s value as significant habitat for the more than 800 faunal species present, particularly for the high value species such as tiger and elephant, as well as for a number of the plant species such as Siamese rosewood. Ultimately this is also impacting on the wider globally important forest ecosystem. Efforts directed at reducing illegal grazing and mitigating the impacts from the Huay Samong Dam have been effective (IUCN, 2014a), and progress is being made on mitigating the impacts of the expansion of Highway 304 (IUCN, 2017), although measures to enhance wildlife connectivity are yet to be fully implemented. Serious impacts arising from the threat of illegal logging and continued pressure from encroachment pose a threat to the site’s values (State Party of Thailand, 2014, 2017; IUCN, 2014a). The results of the 5 year action plan to improve the detection and suppression of illegal logging are very encouraging as are the measures taken to address the effectiveness of prosecution of wrong-doers. The development of an MOU to direct research which contributes to the protection of the properties wildlife is a very positive proactive step forward as are the efforts to engage more effectively with local communities to resolve the encroachment and land use disputes, and to involve those communities in management of the property (State Party of Thailand, 2019; 2024). If any of the seven dams proposed inside the property are realised, this value will drastically be modified.
Conservation of migratory bird species
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
The justification noted above for the overall biodiversity values of the property more than likely applies also to the values of the property for migratory species such as the endangered Spot-billed Pelican and critically endangered Greater Adjutant as much as it does for resident populations.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Stable
While progress had been made on a number of the threats, a lack of updated monitoring results made it difficult to measure the impacts of measures taken on the biodiversity values for which the property was inscribed. The indications from recent studies that the number of tigers, elephants, and gaur present in the property is stable or increasing is positive. International and inter-agency collaboration to suppress illegal logging and wildlife poaching in the property have improved increased patrolling and monitoring efforts across all protected areas in the site. The State Party has reported a decrease in criminal cases from 2014 to 2024 along with similar trends in the number of offenders and volume of rosewood intercepted. However, caution is needed in interpreting these data as other factors need to be considered, such as the detection rate of illegal logging incidents. In addition, the DNP has embarked upon a collaborative research programme focussed on increasing the populations of endangered wildlife species in the property in parallel with a comprehensive programme of enhanced community awareness of the property and their involvement in its management. These initiatives combined with an ongoing programme of enhancing the competency of staff indicate positive overall trends in the protection of the property’s World Heritage values.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Data Deficient
The site remains an important watershed area for Thailand. It includes the catchment for five of Thailand’s major rivers. Specific data has not been sourced to assess the baselines and trends in water quantity and quality emanating from the site. However, as it is likely that threats such as large-scale encroachment, road construction, tourist resort development, dam construction and human occupation would impact upon hydrological patterns and processes it is important to maintain the efforts being made to suppress these threats.
Additional information
Outdoor recreation and tourism,
Natural beauty and scenery
The waterfalls and creeks within the property, together with the variety of flora and fauna and forested landscapes, attract millions of visitors every year for recreation and education purposes (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
Water provision (importance for water quantity and quality)
The Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, with its high annual rainfall, acts as a critically important watershed for Thailand, draining into and feeding five of the country’s major rivers: Nakhon Nayok river, Prachin Buri river, Lamta Khong river, Muak Lek river, and Mun river (World Heritage Committee, 2013), the last of which flows into the Mekong. However, this important environmental service is also why the property is threatened from dam developments.
Importance for research,
Contribution to education
The site provides an outstanding opportunity for education and awareness for the local, national and international community about regional biodiversity. It also provides an important site for research as it represents and includes valuable habitat for over 800 species of flora and fauna including some of the world's endangered species. The property protects some of the largest remaining populations in the region of many important wildlife species and is the only known location where the endangered lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) and pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) have overlapping ranges and interbreed.
the MoU regarding a structured research program to better understand the floral and faunal populations of the property serve well to enhance this benefit
Wilderness and iconic features,
Cultural identity and sense of belonging
The property is home to a number of local communities, many of which have inhabited the area for many generations. These communities were present prior to the designation of the National Park and World Heritage Property.
The property occurs in an area of heavy rainfall and acts as a critically important watershed for the entire country. Significant opportunities exist to quantify this ecosystem service value and argue for the protection of the site’s OUV as a contribution to watershed quality. The value of a healthy functioning natural system of this extent is critical to supporting human activities and should be factored into national decision-making regarding conservation and development. The importance of this site for Thailand’s substantial tourism industry should also be further quantified to ensure that this is well managed and sustainable and that benefits flow back to local people and communities. More effort is required to enhance the health and recreation and knowledge benefits derived from the property.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Freeland Foundation | Various cooperative projects with DNP and others including: • Enforcement Capacity Building (in partnership with DNP) • Park-based Monitoring Capacity Building (in partnership with DNP) • Wildlife Monitoring (in partnership with DNP) • Conservation-based Community Development |
http://www.freeland.org/
|
| 2 | DNP, Foundation for Khao Yai National Park Protection | - to conserve, protect and the restore the tiger population and other endangered wildlife species in the property and increase of the population of endangered wildlife by 50 per cent by 2027. - to promote cooperation among education institutes, NGOs, academia, conservationists and national and international experts in doing research which can applied to wildlife species protection in the property. | |
| 3 | WCS-Thailand | Support for enforcement capacity-building, including ranger training (SMART Patrol, and crime scene investigation), patrol-based monitoring systems (SMART software). |
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Ash E. et al (2020b) Estimating the density of a globally important tiger (Panthera tigris) population: Using simulations to evaluate survey design in Eastern Thailand. Biological Conservation, 241, 108349. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108349>;
|
| 2 |
Ash E. et al (2020c) Opportunity for Thailand's forgotten tigers: assessment of the Indochinese tiger Panthera tigris corbetti and its prey with camera-trap surveys. Oryx , 55,2, pp. 204-211 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000589>;
|
| 3 |
Ash E. et al (2022) Tigers on the edge: mortality and landscape change dominate individual-based spatially-explicit simulations of a small tiger population. Landscape Ecology. 37, pp 3079–3102. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01494-w>;
|
| 4 |
Ash E. et al (2025) Can Southeast Asia's Tigers Break Free? The Connectivity, Constraints, and Recovery of the Region's Remaining Tiger Populations. Animal Conservation. <https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.70021>;
|
| 5 |
Ash E. et al. (2020a) Environmental factors, human presence and prey interact to explain patterns of tiger presence in Eastern Thailand. Animal Conservation, 24, pp. 268–279. <https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12631>;
|
| 6 |
Bangkok Post (2021) 'Sanctuary hit by skin disease' [online] Bangkok Post. 17 July. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2150131/sanctu…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 7 |
Bangkok Post (2022) 'Highway reopened after truck fire blocked Thap Lan tunnel' [online] Bangkok Post, 2 December. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2451657/burnin… 11 July 2025]
|
| 8 |
Bangkok Post (2024) 'Rage over plan to raze Thai national park for farming'. [online] Bangkok Post, 10 July. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2826184/rage-o…; [Accessed: 10 July 2025]
|
| 9 |
Bangkok Post (2025) 'PP chides govt cuts to fire funds' [online] Bangkok Post, 13 January. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/2938255/pp-ch…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 10 |
Barstow M. et al (2022) Dalbergia cochinchinensis.[online] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T215342548A2822125. Available at: <https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T215342548A2…; [Accessed on 10 July 2025]
|
| 11 |
Barstow M. et al (2022) Dalbergia oliveri. [online] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T215341339A2813403. Available at: <https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T215341339A2…; [Accessed on 10 July 2025]
|
| 12 |
Daily News (2024) Unveiling the 2nd 4-lane forest connection route “Khao Chong Tako-Dong Yai Forest” in Thailand, rushing to conduct “EIA” [THAI; online]. Daily News, 2 September, Available at: <https://www.dailynews.co.th/news/3819717/>; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 13 |
Dudley N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: <https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/docume…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 14 |
Gilbert M. et al (2014) Estimating the Potential Impact of Canine Distemper Virus on the Amur Tiger Population (Panthera tigris altaica) in Russia. PLOS One, 9, 10, e110811 <https://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110811>;
|
| 15 |
Gray T.N.E. et al (2018) The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation. 27, pp.1031-1037 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1450-5>;
|
| 16 |
Gross E.M. (2025) C2C: Conflict to Coexistence Approach - Managing Human-Wildlife Conflict for Coexistence. [online] WWF, Gland, Swizterland. Available at: <https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/wildlife_practice/…; [Accessed: 10 July 2025]
|
| 17 |
Horpiencharoen W. Et al (2024) Spatial risk of disease transmission between wild bovids and livestock in Thailand. bioRxiv: 2024-05. <https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.04.592526>;
|
| 18 |
IUCN (2005). Evaluation Report. Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
|
| 19 |
IUCN (2005). World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation, Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex (Thailand). [online] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/153828>;.
|
| 20 |
IUCN (2011). IUCN Confidential Stakeholder Consultation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
|
| 21 |
IUCN (2014a). Report on the mission to Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. 14-20 January 2014. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. [online] Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/135389>;.
|
| 22 |
IUCN (2014b). IUCN Stakeholder Consultation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
|
| 23 |
IUCN (2017). Report on the mission to Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand from 13 to 19 December 2016. IUCN Gland. Switzerland. [online] Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/157707>;.
|
| 24 |
Lieb Z.E. et al (2025) Mapping Multiple Wild Pig Species’ Population Dynamics in Southeast Asia During the African Swine Fever Outbreak (2018–2024). Conservation Letters, 18, 3. e13105 <https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13105>;
|
| 25 |
Loots A.K. et al (2017) Advances in canine distemper virus pathogenesis research: a wildlife perspective. Journal of General Virology, 98, pp.311-321 <https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.000666>;
|
| 26 |
Luskin M.S. (2020) African Swine Fever threatens Southeast Asia's 11 endemic wild pig species. Conservation Letters, 14, 3. e12784 <https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12784>;
|
| 27 |
MCOT (2024) "Tiger dies in the forest, mysterious bullet found - infected" [THAI; online] MCOT Thai News Agency, 22 July. Available at: <https://tna.mcot.net/region-1395393>; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 28 |
Nanla Y. et al (2024) Factors influencing appearance and suitable habitat for wild elephants in the Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity. 25, 7, pp.3061-3072 <https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d250728>;
|
| 29 |
Ngoprasert D. and Gale G.A. (2019) Tiger density, dhole occupancy, and prey occupancy in the human disturbed Dong Phayayen – Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand
|
| 30 |
Pakpien,S. et al. (2025) A low-density yet stable population of Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti) may be the key to recovery in a half-empty landscape in eastern Thailand. Biological Conservation 304 (2025): 111043. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111043>;
|
| 31 |
Piyaporn W. (2024) 'Special Report Series: Our World Heritage in Danger?: Damming Dong Phayayen, Khao Yai in Danger?' [online] Bangkok Tribute, 12 February. Available at: <https://bkktribune.com/special-report-series-our-world-heri…; [Accessed: 10 July 2025]
|
| 32 |
Roche X et al (2020) Introduction and spread of lumpy skin disease in South, East and Southeast Asia: Qualitative risk assessment and management. FAO Animal Production and Health, Rome <https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1892en>;
|
| 33 |
Sadaula A. et al (2022) Seroprevalence of Canine Distemper and Canine Parvovirus Among Domestic Dogs in Buffer Zone of Chitwan National Park. Nepal, 2, pp.36-48.
|
| 34 |
Salim, S. (2019) Where wild elephants and Thai farmers are forced to be neighbours. WWF blog. <https://blog.wwf.sg/wildlife/2019/08/asian-elephant-thai-fa…;.
|
| 35 |
Salim, S. (2019) Where wild elephants and Thai farmers are forced to be neighbours. WWF blog. <https://blog.wwf.sg/wildlife/2019/08/asian-elephant-thai-fa…;.
|
| 36 |
Sanubboon, M (2023) 'Flood forces brief closure of World Heritage tunnels'. [online] Bangkok Post, 28 September. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2654301/flood-…; [Accessed 11 July 2025]
|
| 37 |
Sanubboon, M (2025) National park told to stop burning. [online] Bangkok Post, 25 January. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2947152/nation…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 38 |
Silver I. (2020) High roadkill rates in the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai World Heritage Site: conservation implications of a rising threat to wildlife. Animal Conservation, 23, 4, pp.466-478. <https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12560>;
|
| 39 |
State Party of Thailand. (2011). Periodic Reporting Section II. Dong Phayayen. UNESCO Paris, France.
|
| 40 |
State Party of Thailand. (2014). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/127655>;.
|
| 41 |
State Party of Thailand. (2018). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Summary available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/165519>;.
|
| 42 |
State Party of Thailand. (2019). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Summary available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/180142>;.
|
| 43 |
State Party of Thailand. (2022). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Summary available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/191586>;.
|
| 44 |
State Party of Thailand. (2024). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. Summary available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/218512>;.
|
| 45 |
Tantipisanuh S et al. (2024) Identifying wildlife corridors to restore population connectivity: An integration approach involving multiple data sources. Global Ecology and Conservation, 53, e03015 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03015>;
|
| 46 |
Thanapongtharm W. et al (2025) Spatial prediction of wild boar distribution in Thailand applications for African swine fever prevention and control. Scientific Reports 15:9987 <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94922-1>;
|
| 47 |
UNESCO (2012). Report on the State of Conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
|
| 48 |
UNESCO (2014). Report on the State of Conservation of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
|
| 49 |
UNESCO/IUCN (2012). Report of a joint UNESCO-IUCN reactive monitoring mission to Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai, Thailand. IUCN Gland, Switzerland UNESCO Paris, France. [online] Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/document/117103>;.
|
| 50 |
Wipatayotin A. (2024) 'Thailand's forest dept doubles its take from visits' [online] Bangkok Post, 20 October. Available at: <https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2886913/thaila…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|
| 51 |
World Heritage Committee (2013). Decision 37 COM 8E Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex Adoption of Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Thailand). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4964>;.
|
| 52 |
de Guzman C. (2025) 'Thailand and Cambodia’s Friendship Falters as Border Clash Escalates: What to Know' [online] TIME, 17 June. Available at: <https://time.com/7294994/thailand-cambodia-border-dispute-h…; [Accessed 10 July 2025]
|