A comparison of EcoTree (Europe), World Tree (North America), and Echo Tree (Taiwan)
1｜No Comparison, No Truth
In the carbon market, without comparison, there is no truth; without comparison, there is no damage.
Place EcoTree (Europe), World Tree (North America), and Echo Tree (Taiwan) side by side, and the contrast becomes unavoidable.
One operates within law, another within governance—and one, sadly, within illusion.2｜The Ones That Stand on Law and Data
EcoTree and World Tree are built on legitimate, auditable structures.
EcoTree Green, founded in France, operates under European Union law. It owns certified forest assets and is regulated under EU MiFID II, the EU Taxonomy, and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. Its model—forest co-ownership and verified sustainable forestry—is transparent, supervised, and accountable.
World Tree Technologies Inc., based in Canada and the United States, is a Regulation A+ agroforestry investment company. It manages long-term land leases (20–30 years), conducts Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) of its plantations, and shares both timber and verified carbon benefits with investors.
Their forests exist. Their trees can be measured, their carbon accounted for, their finances audited.
These projects meet disclosure standards under IFRS S2 and ISO 14068-1, and their removals can be counted toward national climate commitments.
3｜The One That Doesn’t
Echo Tree, however, is not part of that world.
It has no legal land-use rights in Indonesia—no PBPH license, no Perhutanan Sosial authorization. It follows no recognized methodology, holds no SPE-GRK certificate, and is not registered in Indonesia’s SRN-PPI national climate registry.
Despite this, its promoters claim to be “tokenizing carbon assets” through something they call RWA carbon tokens—as if they were part of Indonesia’s official carbon-credit ecosystem.
This is not just misleading. Under Indonesia’s binding regulations—
Presidential Regulation 98/2021, Ministerial Regulation LHK 7/2023, the Financial Services Authority (OJK) guidelines, and IDXCarbon settlement rules—
such a model has no legal standing whatsoever.
4｜Indonesia’s Rules Are Crystal Clear
Indonesia’s framework leaves no gray area.
All carbon transactions must be settled in Indonesian Rupiah.
Every project must be registered in SRN-PPI.
Verification must be done by a KAN-accredited validation and verification body (VVB) before an SPE-GRK certificate can be issued.
For any international transfer, a Letter of Authorization (LoA) and Corresponding Adjustment (CA) are required under ITMO rules of the Paris Agreement.
Without these steps, even planting thirty million trees means nothing in legal or climate-accounting terms.
Investors are not financing climate action—they’re simply buying a story to feel good about.
5｜Tokenizing Thin Air
The Echo Tree promoters go further: they want to tokenize carbon as Real World Assets (RWA) on a blockchain—
without any central bank digital currency (CBDC),
without any financial regulatory framework,
without sovereign authorization.
That is not innovation; it’s misinterpretation dressed as modernity.
It is not philanthropy; it’s romanticized idealism turned into institutionalized ignorance.
6｜The PACM Reality
Under the PACM (Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism), all carbon credits are sovereign by definition.
Each credit must be authorized by the host country’s government (LoA) and matched with a corresponding adjustment (CA) to prevent double counting.
Credits cannot be privatized, tokenized, or digitized outside national registries.
Indonesia, notably, is ASEAN’s top performer in carbon governance.
Its SRN registry and SPE-GRK issuance system are recognized by both the World Bank Climate Warehouse and the UNFCCC CAD Trust as global examples of transparency and integrity.
7｜When Culture Replaces Compliance
And yet, in Taiwan, some actors still try to merge music, culture, and ESG storytelling into a pseudo-carbon venture.
They use buzzwords—“RWA,” “Web3,” “music for sustainability”—to create an emotional narrative that hides regulatory emptiness.
From a policy and governance standpoint, this is neither innovation nor public good.
It is a well-packaged ignorance show.
They seem to believe that attaching ESG language and fashionable tech terms can somehow bypass sovereignty and law.
But in the PACM era, compliance is the only language that matters.
Without government authorization, every “RWA carbon credit” is a digital mirage—
or, more precisely, greenwashing wrapped in cultural performance.
8｜Romance vs. Reality
Ideals can be romantic, but institutions do not waste time on dreams.
In the carbon market, regulation is the only reality.
Sustainability does not live in hashtags, stage lights, or token sales; it lives in legality, data integrity, and verified results.
So yes—watch your wallet.
That’s the first and most important rule of sustainable investing.
References
- EcoTree Green — https://ecotree.green/en
- World Tree Technologies Inc. — https://worldtree.eco/eta/
- Media Outreach (2025-10-24), Global Chinese Musicians and Enterprises Unite to Build a Sustainable Future for Carbon Credits through the Echo Tree Project: link
- UDN Money (2025-10-24), Echo Tree Project report
- The Slovenia Times (2025-10-24), Global Chinese Musicians Unite for Sustainability
- Government of Indonesia — Perpres 98/2021 & Permen LHK 7/2023, https://jdih.menlhk.go.id
- World Bank Climate Warehouse (2024) – Integration of SRN Registry
- UNFCCC CAD Trust (2025) – Article 6 Implementation Resources
