An Analysis of Carbon Credit Promotion Policy for Community Sustainability Development in Thailand

Abstract

               This research article aims to: (1) analyze the government’s policy on carbon credit management to enhance community sustainability; (2) examine the implementation process of the policy; and (3) identify key challenges and limitations. The study employs a qualitative research methodology, utilizing documentary analysis, in-depth interviews, and online focus group discussions. The key informants include central-level policymakers, local implementers, community leaders participating in the program, civil society organizations engaged in environmental conservation, community members, carbon credit management experts, and private sector actors involved in carbon credit trading.

               The findings indicate that the policy for promoting community-based carbon credit was designed to incentivize stakeholder participation in greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Grounded in the principles of environmental economics, the policy leverages both market-based mechanisms and participatory approaches. Its core objectives include: (1) encouraging communities to generate carbon credits through activities such as reforestation, enabling them to trade these credits for additional income; (2) creating financial and social incentives for private sector actors, civil society, and the general public to engage in carbon reduction initiatives; (3) empowering communities to take ownership in managing, implementing, and benefiting from carbon reduction projects; (4) utilizing the carbon market to foster long-term natural resource conservation and behavioral change in production and consumption patterns; and (5) aligning local policies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

               Nevertheless, the policy implementation faces several constraints. These include its technical complexity, which often necessitates the engagement of high-cost experts; unclear legal and regulatory frameworks; limited capacity and understanding among local officials and community members regarding operational procedures; and inadequate direct benefits for individual participants. These challenges have resulted in limited community engagement and low participation from local conservation groups.