Assessment of carbon sequestration potential and economic value in a community forest: A case study of Baan Tha Mai Community Forest, Uttaradit Province
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study assessed the carbon sequestration potential and estimated economic value of carbon credits in Ban Tha Mai Community Forest, Charim Subdistrict, Tha Pla District, Uttaradit Province, Thailand. The assessment was conducted to support the development of a forest-based carbon credit project under the Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction Program administered by the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. The study followed T-VER-S-METH-13-01, which covers reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing forest carbon stocks. Field data were collected from three 40 × 40 m sample plots within a project area of 293.2 rai. A total of 980 trees representing 28 species were recorded. The dominant species were Cratoxylum maingayi, Millettia brandisiana, Bauhinia malabarica, Albizia procera, Croton oblongifolius, and Dipterocarpus alatus. The mean annual greenhouse gas emission reduction was estimated at 152.82 tCO₂eq/yr, while the mean annual carbon sequestration was estimated at 170.99 tCO₂eq/yr. Based on different carbon credit prices, the estimated gross revenue over the 20-year project period ranged from THB 178,688.81 to THB 6,497,774.92. These findings indicate that community forest management has the potential to contribute to local climate change mitigation while generating supplementary income for the community.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
องค์การบริหารจัดการก๊าซเรือนกระจก (องค์การมหาชน). 2559. คู่มืออ้างอิงการพัฒนาโครงการลดก๊าซเรือนกระจกภาคสมัครใจตามมาตรฐานของประเทศไทย สาขาป่าไม้และการเกษตร.
องค์การบริหารจัดการก๊าซเรือนกระจก (องค์การมหาชน). 2566. โครงการลดก๊าซเรือนกระจกภาคสมัครใจตามมาตรฐานของประเทศไทย (T-VER). แหล่งข้อมูล: https://carbonmarket.tgo.or.th. ค้นเมื่อ 17 มกราคม 2568.
Anderson, C. M., R. S. DeFries, R. Litterman, P. A. Matson, D. C. Nepstad, S. Pacala, W. H. Schlesinger, M. R. Shaw, P. Smith, C. Weber, and C. B. Field. 2019. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science. 363: 933–934.
Angelsen, A., M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. V. Verchot. 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Available: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/003805.
Brown, S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: A primer (FAO Forestry Paper No. 134). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Chazdon, R. L., E. N. Broadbent, D. M. A. Rozendaal, F. Bongers, A. M. A. Zambrano, T. M. Aide, P. Balvanera, J. M. Becknell, V. Boukili, P. H. S. Brancalion, D. Craven, J. S. Almeida-Cortez, G. A. L. Cabral, B. de Jong, J. S. Denslow, D. H. Dent, S. J. DeWalt, J. M. Dupuy, S. M. Durán, M. M. Espírito-Santo, and L. Poorter. 2016. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Science Advances. 2: e1501639.
Donato, D. C., J. B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M. Stidham, and M. Kanninen. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience. 4: 293–297.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2020. The state of the world's forests 2020: Forests, biodiversity and people. Available: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en. Accessed Feb.10, 2025.
Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T. Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik, and J. Fargione. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114: 11645–11650.
Handberg, Ø. 2018. No sense of ownership in weak participation: A forest conservation experiment in Tanzania. Environment and Development Economics. 23: 434–451.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Available: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/. Accessed Feb.10, 2025.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press.
Kasim, M. M. 2019. Local participation as an effective means of enhancing sense of ownership in forest management: The case of Jello Forest, West Hararghe Zone, Oromia Regional State. Journal of Resources Development and Management. 61: 1-7.
Kelly, E., K. Lee, K. Shields, R. Cronk, N. Behnke, T. Klug, and J. Bartram. 2017. The role of social capital and sense of ownership in rural community-managed water systems: Qualitative evidence from Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia. Journal of Rural Studies. 56: 156–166.
Kyessi, A., and A. K. Bange. 2014. Sense of ownership in municipal water provision and management: The case of Tabata Community Water Supply in Dar es Salaam. African Resources Development Journal. 1: https://doi.org/10.61538/ardj.v1i1.623.
Lasco, R. D., and F. B. Pulhin. 2009. Carbon budgets of forest ecosystems in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management. 9: 1–10.
Le Quéré, C., R. M. Andrew, P. Friedlingstein, S. Sitch, J. Hauck, J. Pongratz, J. I. Korsbakken, and G. P. Peters. 2018. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth System Science Data. 10: 2141–2194.
Marks, S., K. Onda, and J. Davis. 2013. Does sense of ownership matter for rural water system sustainability? Evidence from Kenya. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 3: https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.098.
Mazlan, S. M., W. S. Wan Mohd Jaafar, H. Omar, Y. A. Teh, and M. E. J. Cutler. 2023. Assessing forest carbon accumulation potential across different treatments using field inventory data. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1167: 012028.
Mori, A. S., T. Furukawa, and T. Sasaki. 2017. Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. Biological Reviews. 92: 115–130.
Pan, Y., R. A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P. E. Kauppi, W. A. Kurz, O. L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko, S. L. Lewis, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, R. B. Jackson, S. W. Pacala, A. D. McGuire, S. Piao, A. Rautiainen, S. Sitch, and D. Hayes. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science. 333: 988–993.
Phelps, J., E. L. Webb, and A. Agrawal. 2010. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science. 328: 312–313.
Pulhin, J., and P. Pulhin. 2003. Community-based forest management in the Philippines: Retrospect and prospects.
Ramírez, M., D. Benet, D. Pérez-Salicrup, M. Skutsch, and Y. Venegas-Pérez. 2019. Community participation for carbon measurement in forests of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente. Available: https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2018.06.044. Accessed Feb.10, 2025.
RECOFTC. 2019. Securing the future: Redefining forest landscapes and community forestry in Thailand. Available: https://www.recoftc.org/sites/default/files/publications/resources/recoftc-0000392-0001-en.pdf. Accessed Feb.18 2025.
RECOFTC. 2020. Community forestry and climate change mitigation in Southeast Asia: Best practices and lessons learned.
Romijn, E., M. Herold, L. Kooistra, D. Murdiyarso, and L. Verchot. 2012. Assessing capacities of non-Annex I countries for national forest monitoring in the context of REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy. 19–20: 33–48.
Sasaki, N. and F. E. Putz. 2009. Critical need for new definitions of forest and forest degradation in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letters. 2: 226–232.
Sills, E. O., S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, and W. D. Sunderlin. 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. CIFOR.
Thammanu, S., H. Han, D. Marod, J. Srichaichana, and J. Chung. 2021. Above-ground carbon stock and REDD+ opportunities of community-managed forests in northern Thailand. PLOS ONE. 16: e0256005.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2022. Emissions gap report 2022: The closing window. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022. Accessed Mar.24, 2025.
Venter, O., E. W. Sanderson, A. Magrach, J. R. Allan, J. Beher, K. R. Jones, and J. E. M. Watson. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint. Nature Communications. 7: 12558.
West, T. A. P., J. Börner, E. O. Sills, and A. Kontoleon. 2020. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117: 24188–24194.
Xu, L., S. S. Saatchi, Y. Yang, Y. Yu, J. Pongratz, A. A. Bloom, K. Bowman, J. Worden, J. Liu, Y. Yin, G. Domke, R. E. McRoberts, C. Woodall, G.-J. Nabuurs, S. de-Miguel, M. Keller, N. Harris, S. Maxwell, and D. Schimel. 2021. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass. Science Advances. 7: eabe9829.
