POLICY BRIEF: Dam or No Dam? in the Country’s Natural World Heritage Sites

When it comes to implementing and fulfilling the World Heritage Convention and obligations, Thailand is still pretty much challenged by the absence of synergy between the convention and laws within the country. A case in point can be seen clearly from the controversial water development scheme in Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, the country’s second Natural World Heritage Site

This year, the World Heritage Committee (WHC)’s 46th meeting will be held in New Delhi, India, starting from Monday onwards and running until July 31. Once again, Thailand’s representatives have to equip themselves with information and updates to pitch for the new World Heritage Sites as well as defending the already inscribed properties following threats and recommendations addressed in the previous meetings.

Among what highlighted for Thailand this year is the government’s attempt to adjust the boundary line for Thap Lan National Park, part of Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, which was inscribed in 2005 as the country’s second Natural World Heritage Site. If successful, this could cause the loss of a vast forest tract of Thap Lan, although the national park could gain back around 110,000 rai of forest area as a result of the boundary adjustment.

This is not the first time that the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai World Heritage Site has been threatened by state policy or projects. In fact, state policy and projects have threatened the site since the beginning of the inscription. They become intensified and appear in various forms over time as various governments wish to push and introduce their policies or projects in the area.

Such state attempts, however, have challenged not only the property’s values itself but the country’s legal mechanisms as well as the World Heritage governing body’s; Whether they can go hand in hand in order to help protect the World Heritage sites, including Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex.

Aside from the boundary adjustment proposal, Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex has been threatened by the mega water development scheme proposed by the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) following the state water resources development policy. Although not called by the WHC this year, Thai officials must submit the progress report upon previous recommendations by the WHC by the end of this year. This simmering issue was discussed among concerned officials and stakeholders including likely affected communities in the Dialogue Forum: Dam or No Dam? in the Country’s Natural World Heritage Sites, late last year.

The water development scheme in the complex was first planned by the RID over 20 years ago before being dusted off in recent years. It comprises a series of seven dam projects that will scatter in the complex’s critical basins. The project is claimed to be developed following the water policy of various governments to seek water for people afar where shortage is reported, including in the East where the country’s industrial development hub is located. What could be at the loss, however, are a vast tract of the forest of the complex beyond 10,000 rai, wild animals and the forest ecosystems, and the World Heritage’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).

What is questioned the most is the proceedings of the projects by the RID despite the WHC’s strong requests over the past three or four years that such development projects within the property must be “permanently” scrapped while those around it must be put on hold, pending for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) following the WHC’s recommendations.

Policy challenges

According to Unesco, Thailand currently has seven properties listed as World Heritage Sites. Four of these are enlisted as Cultural World Heritage Sites, including the Historic City of Ayutthaya, the Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns, Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, and the Ancient Town of Si Thep and its Associated Dvaravati Monuments. Three other sites are enlisted as Natural World Heritage, including Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries, Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, and Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex.

Enlisting properties as World Heritage Sites means recognition of the place as unique and worthy of preservation not only for that nation but for humankind as a whole. Such recognition would mean they are entitled to an endeavour of “collective assistance” for the conservation and protection of the sites against natural deterioration or human-caused destruction, including, but not limited to, financial support through the World Heritage Funds, and other necessary technical and artistic assistance.

For a property to be considered a World Heritage Site, it must pass at least one of ten criteria. A property can be enlisted as a mixed cultural and natural compound. At the core of these criteria lies the idea that a site contains Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) based on consideration from various perspectives such as its historical significance, aesthetic values, contribution to the arts and sciences, and its biodiversity, all of which are important for the transmission to future generations.

Countries that have their properties enlisted are parties of the World Heritage Convention introduced in 1972 (The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage). As signatories to the Convention, the State Parties are obliged to follow guidelines for the preservation, known as the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The guidelines include the methods of monitoring, and obligations to report to the Committee if its property faces serious threats.

A World Heritage status, however, can be revoked. This measure to delist the inscribed property would be taken if there are changes to the property which affect the OUV. This may include any significant changes to the property and the surrounding areas, such as construction projects or human activities such as trespassing, construction of roads and dams, or any other which may cause alterations to the forest complex and water basins, and loss of wildlife. 

So far, only three properties worldwide have been delisted from the World Heritage List. Revocation is a last resort and will only be done after a long process of monitoring, reviews, issuance of warnings, and failure in cooperation with the government to resolve issues. Once notified, the Committee may put the list on the List of World Heritage in Danger first and attempt to negotiate with countries to correct the situation.

While the goal of the enlistment is to preserve the sites and their universal values, State Parties still have room to develop the sites. However, they must carefully follow strict guidelines to minimize the risks that could lead to permanent alterations and harm to the sites in their territories. Every year, these sites will be subject for reviews and if any urgent issues emerge, they will be put on the list for consideration by the Committee to find the best way out to maintain and preserve their values as inscribed.

According to the representatives from the Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation (DNP), the water development scheme had not been raised in the WHC meetings until 2011. Since then, the issue has been on the WHC’s agendas and seriously addressed in the 44th and 45th WHC meetings in 2021 and 2023. The WHC made strong requests on permanent scrapping of some planned projects within the property and suspending those around the compound along with the new proposal for the country to undertake; the SEA.

Under the WHC’s guidance, the SEA process will not be done by Thailand and concerned officials alone but carried out as a collaborative effort of international civil society which work on the matter, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or the IUCN. The organization is tasked to send a mission into the area for data collection and provide any necessary technical knowledge for conducting the SEA. Concerned information will later be gathered submitted to the World Heritage Committee comprised of 21 State Parties for decision-making as resolved.

If held, the SEA will be the first comprehensive study for the complex and concerned basins. Unlike the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), the SEA will look into the whole scenario of development of the site based on its values and potentials, not just water resources development.

According to the DNP’s officials working on World Heritage matters, Thailand is obliged to the WHC’s resolutions and decisions following the convention the country ratified in 1987. It’s also obliged to follow its operational guidelines as well as the convention itself as it is the convention’s state party.

The WHC’s resolutions and decisions are normally adopted by the National World Heritage Committee, which will then pass them on to the Cabinet for acknowledgement and concerned officials for implementation. Thailand, however, has no direct laws enacted to implement the WHC convention like other international conventions it has committed to, including the UN Convention on Climate Change or the Convention on Biodiversity. The WHC’s obligations hence largely rely on existing laws and enforcement in the country. There are occasionally calls from the WHC for state parties to improve or enact laws to fulfil their commitments with it.

Unfortunately, the current laws and regulations including the Environmental Quality and Promotion Act in the country still enable the RID to move forward with such development projects despite the WHC and NWHC saying otherwise.

The RID was exposed early this year to have proceeded with the initial studies known as the feasibility study and the EIA in various sites of the complex. In recent years, the agency has adjusted the scheme by reducing the sizes of some projects while dropping others in order to get them approved by the WHC and the NWHC.

The critical claim that the RID gave to the public is that this was just “preparation work”, and the RID has not undertaken any construction work of the projects yet.

It was not until concerned officials and civil society built up pressure following the breaching of the WHC’s obligation by the RID that prompted it to suspend its work and join in the SEA study, chiefed by the DNP and the WHC’s technical team.

Policy recommendations

Upon the absence of direct laws enacted to implement the WHC’s obligations and convention, concerned parties have strongly called on the RID to honour and adhere to the WHC’s resolutions and decisions by jointly undertaking the SEA guided by the WHC. They at the forum agreed that the synergy between the WHC convention and its resolutions and the country’s laws and regulations is still absent when concerned parties need to proceed with the obligations with the WHC in order to fulfil the convention and resolutions.

However, the convention’s procedures and terms are still considered valid, especially the classification and enlisting and delisting of the properties as a World Heritage Site or a World Heritage in Danger as this could promote or undermine the country’s reputation.

The SEA, they agreed, is the most comprehensive tool and platform where all stakeholders can come to consider issues concerning state policy or projects together with a comprehensive set of information. 

More critically, it’s more accountable and transparent and inclusive than the EIA and EHIA, the critical elements which could keep state policy-making in check.

The SEA currently follows some concerned regulations issued by the governments. It has not yet been enacted into law, and there is a growing call for the SEA to be enacted into law to ensure sustainable development, which can give people options, even for controversial projects within this World Heritage Site.

Also read: “เขื่อน” ในพื้นที่มรดกโลก I Dam or No Dam? in the Country’s Natural World Heritage Sites.