Tokenisering (RWA)
Worked example: forest tokenisation
Forest is the hardest of the three categories because two income streams partly exclude each other: harvesting timber earns money but reduces stored carbon. We work through one file: 250 hectares of mixed production forest in southern Sweden combined with a verified carbon project.
The case in brief
A Swedish company buys 250 hectares for 2.25 million euro, roughly 9,000 euro per hectare including standing timber. Shares are issued as 4,500 tokens of 500 euro, with a fifteen-year horizon.
Two streams: phased thinning and final felling under an approved management plan, and carbon credits from improved forest management that raises the harvest age. The second stream exists only once a recognised standard certifies the project and credits actually sell.
Key figures
- Area
- 250 ha
- Purchase price
- 9,000 EUR/ha
- Token
- 500 EUR
- Timber income
- ~280 EUR/ha/yr
- Carbon credits
- 2-4 t/ha/yr
- Horizon
- 15 years
Mixed conifer and broadleaf
Land plus timber
4,500 tokens
Averaged over the cycle
Only after verification
Harvest plan binding
Process steps
Forestry has a longer runway than land, mostly because of certification. A carbon project must set a baseline, prove additionality, write a monitoring plan and pass external validation before a single credit exists.
Expect nine to eighteen months to first issuance and periodic reverification after. Projects promising credits before validation are selling an expectation, not a product.
From purchase to first credit sale
- 01
1. Forest inventory
Weeks 1-6, standing volume and species
- 02
2. Valuation of land and timber
Weeks 4-8, valued separately
- 03
3. Purchase and registration
Weeks 8-12
- 04
4. Management plan and FSC/PEFC
Months 3-6
- 05
5. Baseline and additionality
Months 4-9
- 06
6. External validation
Months 9-14
- 07
7. Token issuance
In parallel with structuring
- 08
8. Monitoring and verification
Every 3-5 years
- 09
9. Credit issuance and sale
From month 12-18
- 10
10. Thinning, felling and exit
Years 5, 10 and 15
Parties involved
Forestry adds a category absent from art and land: the carbon standard, the validating auditor and the credit registry. Without those three a CO2 claim cannot be verified.
Also check double counting. If the host country already counts the sequestration towards its national climate target, the same tonne can be claimed twice. Serious projects show explicitly how that is handled.
Parties and their role
| Party | Role | What to watch |
|---|---|---|
| Forest owner/seller | Supplies land and timber | Recent felling before sale |
| Forest manager | Executes the plan | Management quality drives growth |
| Appraiser | Values land and timber separately | Timber prices are cyclical |
| FSC/PEFC certifier | Sustainable management | Required by many buyers |
| Carbon standard | Methodology and registration | Quality varies widely |
| Validating auditor | Independent verification | No audit, no credit |
| Credit registry | Issuance and retirement | Prevents double counting |
| Insurer | Fire, storm, pests | Coverage is often limited |
| Credit buyer | Corporates with targets | Demand and price are volatile |
| Government | Felling permits and subsidies | Policy can restrict harvest |
Returns and the timber-carbon trade-off
Timber income is fairly predictable: around 280 euro per hectare per year across the cycle, concentrated in thinning years and final felling. On 250 hectares that averages just over 70,000 euro a year against management costs near 60 euro per hectare.
Carbon is optional and far less certain. At two to four tonnes per hectare per year and fifteen to twenty-five euro per tonne, that theoretically adds 7,500 to 25,000 euro a year — before verification costs, buffer pools of ten to twenty per cent of credits and a thin market take their share.
More importantly, the streams conflict. Earning more credits means delaying harvest, so less timber income near term. Any plan that simply adds both without naming the trade-off is unrealistic.
- Timber: predictable but cyclical and lumpy
- Carbon: higher margin, much higher uncertainty
- You cannot maximise both streams at once
What to check
Forest tokenisation attracts both serious forestry funds and very optimistic carbon stories.
- Is there a recent inventory with standing volume per species?
- Are land and timber valued separately?
- Which carbon standard applies, and is the project validated?
- How large is the buffer pool for fire and storm risk?
- Is double counting with the national target excluded?
- Who buys the credits, and at what agreed price?
- How does the harvest plan interact with the carbon claim?
- What insurance covers fire, storm and pests, and up to what amount?
- What is the exit: selling the forest, or only token transfer?
Ofte stilte spørsmål
Do I own forest or a carbon credit?
Neither directly: you hold a share in the company that owns the forest and issues the credits. Credit proceeds flow to the vehicle.
What happens in a forest fire?
Buffer pools in the registry and a separate property policy exist, but rarely cover full damage. Fire is the single largest risk in this category.
Are carbon credits a reliable income source?
Only with a recognised standard, external validation and a buyer under a long-term contract. Without those three the revenue is an assumption.
Can I visit the forest?
For European projects usually yes, and it is worth doing. Satellite imagery and an annual report do not tell you everything about management quality.
Les videre
Tokenising forests
Tokenised forestry and carbon credits: how the income works, which standards apply, why quality varies and what the risks are.
Worked example: farmland tokenisation
A worked farmland tokenisation case in the Netherlands: land registry, lease income, process steps, parties, returns and investor checks.
Worked example: art tokenisation
A fully worked art tokenisation case: process steps, parties involved, cost stack, exit maths and the checks every investor should run.