Why forest preservation begins with rewarding communities 

Forests are often treated as distant landscapes: green backdrops beyond cities, farms and factories. Yet the truth is far more urgent. They are not empty land waiting to be used, but living infrastructure that quietly holds together the systems that make human life possible.

They absorb carbon from economic activity, regulate water, shelter biodiversity and support communities that often have the fewest opportunities. When forests decline, the damage is not limited to trees. It spreads through rivers, farms, air quality, livelihoods, public health and the economy itself.

Forests as the foundation of life

Suphachai Chearavanont, senior vice-chairman of Charoen Pokphand Group (CP Group), noted that forests play a vital role in human survival. Citing key figures, he said forests absorb 31% of carbon emissions generated by human activity, provide 75% of the water people use, serve as habitats for more than 80% of terrestrial life and support the livelihoods of 90% of the world’s poorest people.

“Forests are, in a sense, the most important ecosystem for human beings,” he explained. “We were born with forests and learned to live with them. Before civilisation advanced, we survived by gathering fruit from forests. We had no claws or fangs to hunt large animals, so forests were where human life began.”

That message has become increasingly urgent as forest loss continues to reshape the region. Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia remain home to some of mainland Southeast Asia’s most important forest ecosystems, yet the four countries lost a combined 117 million rai of forest between 1990 and 2020. Cambodia lost 4.2% of its forest area, Laos 9.5%, Myanmar 3.9% and Thailand 2.9%, according to figures cited by Suphachai.

Although Thailand has preserved its forests better than several neighbouring countries, he stressed that the country’s ambition should go beyond protection. The goal should be to expand forest areas while also tackling wildfires, hotspots and PM2.5 pollution, which have become visible signs of a deeper environmental imbalance.

Turning forest protection into community income

Many people living near forests do not damage nature because they fail to value it. In many cases, they simply have too few choices. Some depend on short-term crops, forest products or land-use practices that provide immediate income but gradually weaken the ecosystem around them. In more vulnerable border areas, limited economic opportunities can also push people towards illegal activities.

This is where CP Group’s Forest Tokenisation concept and carbon credit tokens could become significant. If forests can be given economic value through verified carbon credits and digital tokens, the benefits of preservation could flow more directly to the communities that protect them. Instead of treating conservation as a burden, the model seeks to turn forest care into a legitimate and stable source of income.

“If these incentives can be channelled through carbon credit tokens in an inclusive way, forests can reward communities just as communities protect forests,” Suphachai said.

“If large, medium-sized and small organisations, as well as the public, can access the system, those incentives can be directed towards forest conservation, while turning forests into valuable assets and improving the lives of the communities that live with them.”

He added that such a model could encourage restoration, forest protection and fire prevention, while reducing the pressure on communities to turn to illegal livelihoods.

Nature must be treated as capital, not a free resource

The same argument is reflected in the wider concept of a “natural capital economy”, raised by ML Dispanadda Diskul, secretary-general and chief executive officer of the Mae Fah Luang Foundation under Royal Patronage.

He warned that forest conservation cannot succeed if communities living near forests remain poor or unable to build a better future for their children.

“As long as communities cannot earn a decent income and invest in the future of their children and grandchildren, we cannot expect nature conservation to continue,” he said.

The economy depends on nature

Dispanadda argued that the economy is often treated as society’s most important concern, even though it is only a small part of a much larger system supported by nature. If natural systems continue to deteriorate, the damage will eventually return to businesses, households and the wider economy.

He also pointed to the world’s growing pressure on natural resources, noting that humanity is now using more than the Earth can regenerate. Earth Overshoot Day, he said, shows that the world now consumes a full year’s worth of resources by around the end of August. The remaining months are effectively borrowed from future generations.

“In the remaining five months, we are borrowing resources from the future,” he said. “We are taking them from our children and grandchildren.”

Thailand’s exposure to nature’s decline

For Thailand, the risk is especially serious because the country remains deeply connected to agriculture and natural resources. Dispanadda noted that around 33% of Thailand’s population works in agriculture, while the sector contributes only about 10% of GDP. If nature declines, rural communities will be hit first, but the costs will eventually spread to taxpayers, businesses and the state.

Dispanadda described forest communities as the “frontline soldiers” of conservation. Many have limited land security, little capital and few long-term options, yet they are expected to protect and restore nature on behalf of wider society.

For him, the future of conservation must go beyond carbon credits. While carbon credits can help people recognise that forests have economic value, biodiversity is even more important. A healthy forest cannot be measured only by the amount of carbon it stores. It must also support a wide range of trees, plants, animals, insects and ecosystems.

Those living systems, he said, will determine what kind of world can be passed on to future generations, and whether people will be able to see the real impact of what society chooses to do today.

The rising cost of doing nothing

Dispanadda also warned that businesses can no longer treat nature as a free resource. In the future, companies may need to account more clearly for spending on communities and environmental restoration, because the cost of failing to act will keep rising as the planet’s natural capacity declines.

The “cost of inaction”, he warned, could become far greater if natural resource bases collapse, with the impact eventually returning to businesses, communities and society as a whole.