OPPORTUNITY SET
THE NATURAL CAPITAL
Natural capital is often discussed as though it were a single global investment opportunity. In practice, it is anything but.
A forestry investment in Brazil has very little in common with a mature Sitka spruce portfolio in the UK. Uruguay offers a different combination of biological productivity, industrial demand and country risk from Paraguay. Iberia presents opportunities around existing forests, land transformation and climate resilience, while the Baltics offer another combination of fragmented ownership, established timber markets and European institutional infrastructure.
This diversity is one of the attractions of the asset class, but it also makes allocation more complicated. Investors cannot simply decide that they want exposure to “forestry” or “natural capital” and then assume that the underlying opportunities are broadly interchangeable.
After working across forestry markets for many years, I increasingly think about the opportunity set through a combination of geography, biological productivity, timber-market depth, entry valuation, operational potential and emerging environmental revenues. The most attractive market is rarely the one that scores highest on any single factor. What matters is how those characteristics come together to produce an attractive risk-adjusted return.
Europe and Latin America offer very different propositions
One of the first distinctions I would make is between Europe and Latin America.
European forestry generally offers strong institutional frameworks, established land ownership, mature timber industries, relatively transparent markets and access to experienced managers and operators. For investors entering forestry for the first time, these characteristics can be particularly attractive because many of the risks surrounding ownership, governance and market access are relatively familiar.
The trade-off is valuation. High-quality forestry assets in mature European markets can attract significant competition, and the security investors value is often already reflected in the acquisition price.
Latin America presents almost the opposite proposition. In markets such as Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, biological productivity can be exceptional and land costs can be lower, creating the potential for stronger forestry economics. The region also contains some of the world's most competitive pulp, paper and wood-processing industries.
But higher expected returns do not come for free. Currency, country risk, infrastructure, local regulation, land title and execution all require careful analysis. Local operating capability becomes particularly important.
For me, therefore, the question is not whether Europe or Latin America is “better”. They can perform different roles within the same portfolio.
A European forestry allocation may provide stability, diversification and exposure to established markets, while selected Latin American investments can introduce higher biological growth and greater return potential. Used together, the two regions can be complementary rather than competing allocations.
Brazil: perhaps the deepest opportunity set
If I had to identify one country offering the broadest forestry investment opportunity in Latin America today, Brazil would be difficult to ignore.
The country's starting advantage is biological productivity. In suitable regions, eucalyptus rotations can be measured in years rather than decades, while pine plantations in southern Brazil can also achieve highly competitive growth rates. That biological advantage has helped Brazil develop one of the world's largest and most sophisticated forest-products industries.
But productivity alone is not what makes Brazil interesting. Fast-growing trees only create investment value when there is a market for the wood. Brazil combines strong forestry productivity with major domestic pulp and paper producers, panel manufacturers, sawmills, charcoal and biomass users, and a significant export industry. That industrial ecosystem creates multiple potential sources of demand.
The scale of the country also means that it should not really be treated as one forestry market. Southern Brazil, for example, has a very different forestry economy from parts of Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais or Bahia. Species, land values, industrial demand, rainfall, logistics and competing land uses vary considerably by region.
This is why I would be cautious about underwriting an investment simply on the basis that “Brazilian forestry is attractive”. The relevant market is not Brazil. It is the specific catchment area surrounding the asset.
For every investment, I want to understand which mills can realistically buy the timber, what products they require, how much capacity exists, what competing forests supply them and what it costs to transport wood from the property to those buyers.
The opportunity is therefore highly regional, but where the pieces fit together, Brazil can combine biological growth, industrial demand and active asset management in a way that is difficult to replicate in many mature forestry markets.
Uruguay: mature, productive and increasingly institutional
Uruguay offers a somewhat different proposition.
It has developed a substantial forestry industry over several decades, supported by clear forestry policy, large areas of productive eucalyptus plantations and major investments in pulp-processing capacity. This has created an established institutional forestry market with significant experience among international investors and managers.
For an investor, one of Uruguay's attractions is the combination of relatively strong biological productivity with a more mature forestry investment environment than exists in many other emerging markets.
That does not mean every asset is attractive. Entry valuation remains critical, as do location and exposure to specific industrial buyers. But the presence of large-scale processing infrastructure provides something that forestry investors should never underestimate: visible demand for wood.
Uruguay can therefore occupy an interesting position within a global portfolio. It potentially offers some of the productivity advantages associated with Latin America while retaining many of the institutional characteristics investors value in more established markets.
Paraguay: higher growth, but requiring greater selectivity
Paraguay is at a different stage of development.
The country has attracted increasing forestry investment as investors recognise the combination of available land, competitive establishment costs and strong biological growth. The plantation sector remains considerably less mature than those of Brazil or Uruguay, which creates both opportunity and risk.
For investors prepared to accept greater execution and market-development risk, this can create attractive return potential. Land acquisition, plantation establishment and active management can generate substantial value if the investment is correctly located and professionally executed.
At the same time, the market requires greater selectivity. Infrastructure, timber-market depth, operator quality, land title and eventual exit options all need careful consideration.
In markets at this stage of development, I would be particularly cautious about assuming that biological productivity automatically translates into liquidity or institutional value. A forest may grow extremely well and still be difficult to monetize if the surrounding industrial market does not develop as expected.
The opportunity in Paraguay is therefore partly forestry and partly market development. That can be attractive, but investors should be compensated accordingly.
Iberia: more interesting than it first appears
Spain and Portugal are sometimes overlooked in global forestry allocation discussions because biological productivity is lower than in the most productive Latin American regions and the ownership structure can be fragmented.
Yet I think Iberia contains some particularly interesting opportunities precisely because forestry there is not simply about buying an existing plantation and continuing to manage it in exactly the same way.
There are opportunities to improve management, consolidate fragmented properties, optimise species and rotations, increase resilience to fire and drought, and reconsider the highest and best use of individual areas within larger properties.
Some land may remain most valuable under productive forestry. Other areas may have potential for agriculture, longer-rotation forestry, restoration, cork, pine nuts, carbon or other environmental values.
That creates the possibility of approaching an asset not simply as a forest, but as a land-use optimization problem.
This is a theme I expect to become increasingly important in natural capital. Historically, investors often acquired a forest and asked how to manage that forest most efficiently. In the future, I think they will increasingly acquire land and ask which combination of productive forestry, agriculture, restoration and ecosystem services generates the highest sustainable long-term value.
Iberia is one of the regions where that approach could become particularly relevant.
UK and Ireland: mature markets with structural timber questions
The UK and Ireland offer another very different proposition.
Sitka spruce forestry has long attracted investors because of relatively predictable biological growth, established forestry management and exposure to domestic timber markets. The UK in particular has developed a substantial institutional forestry investment sector.
The investment case is supported by an important structural question: where will future domestic wood supply come from?
The UK imports a significant proportion of the wood products it consumes, while domestic forests face changing age structures, planting rates and environmental constraints. If construction increasingly uses timber and wood fibre while domestic supply remains constrained, strategically located productive forests could become increasingly valuable.
That does not mean investors should simply assume permanently rising timber prices. Entry valuation remains fundamental, and forestry assets in established markets can become expensive when institutional demand is strong.
But the underlying supply-and-demand dynamics make the region worth watching, particularly for investors looking for established-market forestry exposure.
Ireland offers some similar characteristics, although with its own forestry structure, ownership patterns and regulatory environment. Together, the UK and Ireland can provide a useful counterweight to higher-growth but higher-risk forestry markets elsewhere in a global portfolio.
The Baltics: fragmented ownership can create opportunity
The Baltic states are another region I find interesting, particularly for investors willing to work with smaller assets and aggregation strategies.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have established forestry sectors, relatively strong timber industries and access to European markets. At the same time, ownership remains fragmented enough in parts of the region to create opportunities to assemble portfolios from smaller properties.
This is where scale and operational capability become important.
An individual €1 million or €2 million forest may be too small for many institutional investors to consider directly. A manager capable of sourcing, underwriting, acquiring and managing dozens of such properties can potentially transform that fragmented opportunity set into an institutional-scale portfolio.
The value creation then comes not only from biological growth and timber markets, but also from aggregation, professionalisation and scale.
Technology may make this strategy increasingly viable. If remote sensing, standardized underwriting and digital monitoring reduce the cost of managing numerous smaller properties, fragmented forestry markets could become considerably more accessible to institutional capital.
Secondaries deserve more attention
Geography is only one way of looking at the opportunity set. Another area I believe deserves considerably more attention in forestry is the secondary market.
A secondary transaction allows an investor to acquire an existing interest in a forestry fund or portfolio from another investor seeking liquidity before the end of the investment period.
This can be particularly attractive in forestry because time itself has investment value.
When an investor commits to a new forestry fund, capital may take several years to deploy, young forests may require years of growth before producing meaningful harvesting income, and the eventual portfolio may differ from the one originally envisaged.
With a secondary investment, much of that uncertainty may already have disappeared. The assets exist, the trees have been growing, historical performance is available and, depending on the maturity of the portfolio, distributions may begin much sooner.
The investor can therefore underwrite something closer to a known portfolio than a future investment programme.
Pricing obviously matters, and secondaries are not automatically attractive. But for investors entering forestry for the first time, they can provide an interesting combination of visibility, diversification and potentially shorter duration.
Restoration is becoming investable—but underwriting discipline matters
Restoration is perhaps one of the most exciting areas within natural capital, but also one where I think investors need to be particularly disciplined.
The environmental opportunity is enormous. Large areas of degraded land could potentially be restored, generating carbon sequestration, biodiversity improvements, watershed benefits and other ecosystem services.
The investment question, however, is more demanding: who pays for those outcomes?
Carbon can provide one source of revenue, and biodiversity markets may eventually provide another. Sustainable timber, agroforestry or other productive activities can sometimes contribute as well.
The strongest restoration investments, in my view, are likely to be those where several sources of value reinforce one another rather than where the entire investment case depends on a single future environmental market.
I would therefore distinguish carefully between contracted revenue, revenue that can reasonably be expected and purely speculative future value.
If the investment works through land, forestry or contracted carbon and biodiversity creates additional upside, I find the proposition considerably more robust than one where biodiversity credits that do not yet have a reliable buyer are necessary to achieve the target return.
That does not diminish the importance of biodiversity. It simply applies normal investment discipline to an emerging market.
The best opportunity may not be the best market
After looking across all these regions and strategies, I come back to a principle that I think is particularly important in natural capital.
There is rarely a universally “best” forestry market.
Brazil may offer exceptional biological productivity. Uruguay may provide a strong combination of productivity and institutional maturity. Paraguay may offer higher growth potential. The UK may provide exposure to a structurally constrained timber market. Iberia may offer land-use optimisation opportunities, while the Baltics may offer aggregation potential.
But none of those characteristics tells us whether a specific investment is attractive.
A wonderful forestry market can contain overpriced assets. A less fashionable market can contain exceptional investments.
The investment decision ultimately happens at the asset level.
I want to know what we are buying, what we are paying, how the trees will grow, who will buy the timber, who will manage the asset, what could go wrong and how we eventually expect to exit.
Only after answering those questions does the broader market story become useful.
Building the opportunity set into a portfolio
For an institutional investor, this leads naturally to portfolio construction.
I would not necessarily want the entire natural-capital allocation concentrated in the geography offering the highest expected IRR. Nor would I want everything concentrated in the lowest-risk market.
A more resilient portfolio can combine different economic engines: established forestry providing stability and income, higher-growth markets providing return potential, secondaries providing maturity and visibility, and restoration or environmental strategies providing longer-term optionality.
Europe and Latin America can sit alongside one another. Mature and emerging markets can complement one another. Timber-driven investments can coexist with strategies where carbon and biodiversity play a larger role.
The objective is not to identify one winner.
It is to construct a portfolio in which different assets have different reasons to perform.
That, ultimately, is how I see the natural-capital opportunity set today.
It is not one asset class moving uniformly in one direction. It is a collection of biological assets, land markets, industrial ecosystems and emerging environmental revenue streams, each developing at different speeds across different regions.
For investors willing to understand those differences, that complexity is not necessarily a disadvantage.
It is where much of the opportunity comes from.
The natural capital opportunity set: where I see investment opportunities today
Explore investment opportunities
Nature & Capital is the investment advisory arm of Nature & Group
Important information
Nature & Capital works with selected specialist investment managers across forestry, natural capital and related real-asset strategies. Any information concerning specific funds, investment vehicles or opportunities is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation or invitation to invest, nor investment, legal, tax or other professional advice. Information on specific investment opportunities may be made available only to eligible professional, institutional, accredited or otherwise qualified investors, as applicable, and subject to the relevant securities laws, regulatory requirements and jurisdictional restrictions. No investment opportunity is offered or made available in any jurisdiction where such offer, solicitation or distribution would be unlawful or would require Nature & Capital or any relevant investment manager to obtain a licence, registration or authorisation that has not been obtained. Prospective investors should conduct their own independent assessment and obtain appropriate professional advice before making any investment decision. Past performance, target returns and forward-looking statements, where referenced, are not guarantees of future results.