本論文是探討一間馬來西亞木業上市公司於再造林活動的基礎上，發展碳匯林計畫或是永續林計畫的可行性分析。造林與再造林計畫可發展的經濟活動很多，除了碳匯林，永續林也是一個選擇，所以本研究選取碳匯林與永續林計畫進行資本預算評估，以企業角度比較兩者實行的可行性，再者探討整體碳匯市場的運行機制。
馬來西亞由於多年來過度的森林砍伐，在國際壓力及環境保育的驅使下，政府擬對林木產業的商業活動進行規範，提出「砍多少種多少」的概念，希望企業盡到森林保育的責任。而研究中合作的公司屬於木業、合板製造業，並且有意收購林地，進行造林與再造林。不過，目前計畫尚處於前期的評估階段， 因此透過本研究來探討公司執行造林活動後，發展碳匯林專案或永續林專案何者的效益較佳。
兩個專案透過淨現金流量表計算淨現值與內部報酬率後，結果得出，碳匯林專案之NPV為負的RM72,065,601，而永續林專案之NPV為正RM223,584,018，內部報酬率為16.12%。根據資本預算評估，選擇投資永續林專案可以增加公司未來價值，而碳匯林專案的負淨現值代表發展此案不符合經濟效益。但從敏感度分析的結果可發現，當碳匯價格達到每單位14塊美金以上時，淨現值開始轉為正值，代表可以開始考慮發展碳匯林專案。

This paper aims to explore the feasibility of developing carbon or sustainable forestry projects based on the afforestation and reforestation activities of a listed timber company in Malaysia. Many economic activities can be developed by afforestation and reforestation program, such as carbon forestry projects and sustainable forestry projects. Therefore, this study evaluates the cost-benefit analysis of carbon forestry projects and sustainable forestry project and compares the feasibility of the two projects from the perspective of enterprises. Additionally, discuss the operating mechanism of the overall carbon offset market.
Due to the excessive deforestation in Malaysia over the years, the country is under intense pressure from international and environmental organizations. Thus, the Malaysian government intends to regulate the forestry industry's commercial activities, hoping enterprises can fulfill their responsibilities in forest conservation. The research case in the study belongs to the lumber and plywood manufacturing industry and plans to acquire forest land for afforestation and reforestation. However, the proposal is still in the early evaluation stage. Therefore, it’s expected to find out which projects are more suitable for development through this research.
After calculating the net present value and internal rate of return of the two projects through the net cash flow statement, the result shows that the NPV of the carbon forestry project is negative RM72,065,601. In contrast, the NPV of the sustainable forestry project is RM223,584,018, and the IRR is 16.12%.
According to the capital budgeting assessment, investing in sustainable forestry projects is expected to increase company value in the future benefit. The negative net present value of the carbon forestry project means that this project should not be conducted for development. However, from the sensitivity analysis in the study, it can be found that when the carbon sequestration price reaches more than 14 dollars per unit, the net present value starts to turn positive, which means that the carbon forestry project can be considered for development.

Thesis Validation Letter i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents v
List of tables vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research background 1
1.2 Research Objective 3
1.3 Research process 4
1.4 Definition of sustainable forestry and carbon forestry in the research 5
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Carbon market overview 6
2.1.1 Carbon sequestration and carbon forestry project 7
2.1.2 Carbon offset standard 9
2.1.3 Research of carbon forestry project standard 10
2.1.4 Carbon forestry project on VCS 11
2.2 How to evaluate carbon forestry projects 13
2.2.1 Research problems on evaluating the value of carbon forestry project 14
2.2.2 Costs and benefits analysis of afforestation and reforestation program 15
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD 18
3.1 Research conceptual framework 18
3.2 Introduction of FLB HD 18
3.2.1 Introduction of the Forest management unit 20
3.3. Data collection methods 22
3.3.1 Interview content 22
3.3.2 Secondary data collection 22
3.4. Data analysis method 23
3.4.1 Capital budgeting 23
3.4.2 Risk assessments 24
3.5 Definition of the project 24
3.6 Essential background settings of a reforestation plan 25
CHAPTER IV. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 31
4.1 Cost-Benefit analysis of carbon forestry project 31
4.1.1 Project cost analysis 31
4.1.2 Project benefits analysis 34
4.1.3 Feasibility analysis of Carbon forestry project 37
4.2 Cost-Benefit analysis of sustainable forestry project 37
4.2.1 Project costs analysis 38
4.2.2 Project benefit analysis 41
4.2.3 Feasibility analysis of Sustainable forestry project 43
4.3 Projects cost-benefit comparison 45
CHAPTER V. RISK ANALYSIS 46
5.1 Sensitivity analysis 46
5.1.1 Price of carbon 46
5.1.2 Price of logs 47
5.2. Scenario analysis 48
5.2.1 Logs price and forest productive 48
5.3 Stress test 49
CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGEESTIONS 51
6.1. Conclusions 51
6.2. Research limitations and problems 53
6.3 Recommendations and prospects 53
References 55
Appendix 58

Benítez, P. C., & Obersteiner, M. (2006). Site identification for carbon sequestration in Latin America: A grid-based economic approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(6), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.12.003

Cao, X.-lei, Li, X.-shan, & Breeze, T. D. (2020). Quantifying the carbon sequestration costs for pinus elliottii afforestation project of China Greenhouse Gases Voluntary Emission Reduction Program: A case study in Jiangxi Province. Forests, 11(9), 928. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090928

CDM. (2020). CDM Methodology booklet. Berlin, Germany; UNFCCC. https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/documentation/1611/CDM-Methodology-Booklet_fullversion.pdf

Chu, H. L., Grafton, R. Q., Nelson, H., & Bonnis, G. (2021). A global analysis of the cost-efficiency of forest carbon sequestration. OECD Environment Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/e4d45973-en

Cole, B. (2021, October 12). What is a risk assessment? - definition from whatis.com. SearchCompliance. https://searchcompliance.techtarget.com/definition/risk-assessment

GoodCarBadCar. (2022, May 29). Overall U.S. auto industry sales figures. https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/usa-auto-industry-total-sales-figures/

Sabah forest department. (2022, May 13) FMU10 profile. http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/fmu10/about-camp-fmu10/managing-camp-fmu10/fmu10-profile.html
FT.com. (2022, May 18) Focus Lumber Bhd. https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=FLBHD%3AKLS

Focus lumber berhad. (2020). Annual report. FLB HD https://disclosure.bursamalaysia.com/FileAccess/apbursaweb/download?id=207553&name=EA_DS_ATTACHMENTS

Gadow, K. v, & Kotze, H. (2014). Tree survival and maximum density of planted forests – observations from South African Spacing Studies. Forest Ecosystems, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-014-0021-4

Bornion Timber Sdn Bhd. (2021, June 18). https://borniontimber.com/

Hox, J. J., & Boeije, H. R. (2005). Data collection, primary vs. secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-369398-5/00041-4

Huang, Z., & Chen, Q. (2016). Influencing factors analysis of forestry carbon sequestration cost-benefit based on afforestation cost methods. Resources Science, 38(3), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2016.03.11

Jawala-Inc. (2021) JAWALA INC. Annual report.. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. https://jawalainc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Jawala-Inc.-Annual-Report-2021.pdf

Kollmuss, A., Zink, H., & Polycarp, C. (2008, March). Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market A Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards. Germany; WWF Germany. https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/SEI-Report-WWF-ComparisonCarbonOffset-08.pdf

McCusker, A. (2021, January 9). Export and import unit prices for Forest Products, 1964-2020. UNECE.https://unece.org/forestry-timber/documents/2021/09/informal-documents/export-and-import-unit-prices-forest-products

Pearson, T. R., Brown, S., Sohngen, B., Henman, J., & Ohrel, S. (2013). Transaction costs for carbon sequestration projects in the Tropical Forest Sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(8), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9469-8

Peterson, P. P., & Fabozzi, F. J. (2002). Capital budgeting: Theory and practice. J. Wiley.
R, Q. G., Chu, H. L., Nelson, H., & Bonnis, G. (2021). A global analysis of the cost-efficiency of forest carbon sequestration. OECD Environment Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/e4d45973-en

Verra. (n.d.) Revision to standardize components of avoiding unplanned deforestation methodologies (VM0006, VM0007, VM0009, VM0015, and VM0037).. https://verra.org/methodologies/

Soucy, M. (2010, January). Importance of wood value in the thinning profitability problem. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269929202_Importance_of_wood_value_in_the_thinning_profitability_problem

Thien, D. (2019, November 27). Sabah Fmu concept most progressive. Daily Express http://mtc.com.my/images/media/709/27.11.19_Daily_Express_Online----Sabah_FMU_concept_most_progressive---.pdf

Verra. (2020, April 9). Program Fee Schedule. Washington, DC . https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/Program-Fee-Schedule_v4.1.pdf

Verra. (2022, November 17). Verified carbon standard. https://verra.org/programs/verified-carbon-standard/

U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.) What's the difference between geologic and biologic carbon sequestration? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/whats-difference-between-geologic-and-biologic-carbon-sequestration

Yahoo! (2022, May 29). Focus Lumber Berhad. (5197.kl) stock price, news, Quote & History. Yahoo! Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/5197.KL?p=5197.KL

Zhou, S., Yin, Y., Xu, W., Ji, Z., Caldwell, I., & Ren, J. (2007). The costs and benefits of reforestation in Liping County, Guizhou Province, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(3), 722–735.

杨宇, 缪海超, 曾文婉, & 张锦. (2021, July 2). CCER 价值分析 （上）：林业碳汇全方位剖析. 上海; 华宝证券.

邱祈榮, 林俊成, & 陶子婕. (2013). 國際森林碳市場現況與趨勢. Taiwan; 林業研究專訊 Vol.20 No.1 .

黄宰胜, 陈钦. (2016). Influencing factors analysis of forestry carbon sequestration cost-benefit based on afforestation cost methods. Resources Science, 38(3), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2016.03.11