Carbon Markets Alone May Not Be Enough to Protect Southeast Asia’s Forests

Across Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar, millions of hectares of valuable forests are still standing inside areas that have been given to companies for logging, plantations and other commercial activities. A recent study using satellite data found about 42 million hectares of intact forest within these concessions—an area larger than Malaysia. Researchers estimate that if these forests are cleared over the next 30 years, they could release around 1.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Carbon markets are often presented as a way to make forest protection financially attractive, but the numbers show a major gap. Carbon credits for avoided deforestation in Southeast Asia are currently worth roughly US$5–12 per tonne of CO₂, while in some concessions, protecting the forest would require prices as high as US$33 to US$1,677 per tonne to compete with the profits that can come from cutting trees and converting land to plantations.

This means that simply telling companies to protect forests because they can earn carbon credits is unlikely to solve the problem. Many concession owners have legal rights or business plans that encourage them to develop the land, while carbon payments may not provide enough income to change that decision. Governments therefore need to rethink the rules around concessions and make it easier for companies to permanently protect parts of their land without losing their rights. Other financial tools such as green bonds, biodiversity credits, payments for ecosystem services and blended finance could also help make conservation more attractive. The bigger lesson is that forests cannot survive on carbon prices alone. If governments continue rewarding land clearing while expecting carbon markets to pay for protection, the economics will remain heavily tilted towards destruction. Protecting Southeast Asia’s forests will require a system where carbon, biodiversity, water, local livelihoods and the long-term value of standing forests are all treated as assets—not as obstacles to development. More

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *