Hi Leanne.
Thanks for your comment. Those are good points.
Governments definitely have to play a key role, from generating and publishing the official forest change domestic data to administrate the national REDD+ registry (is also the responsible for international issues like reporting to UNFCCC, SDGs, etc.). This main registry will have to deal with multiple actors and different aspects, not only payments but also property rights, etc.
However, oftentimes governments are slow and not too flexible. Whereas companies or the market can be more agile and experimental, and that's the spirit of the suggestion about the use of blockchain; in other words, as a competitive advantage of my private initiative in relation to others. Having our own automated registry of the transactions been supported not only makes our operation more efficient but also a better partner for the government, because we can track all the transactions at any time and connect them to the specific place or area that is supporting.
The idea is to be a complement of the government's programs, by increasing the participation of organizations and individuals through innovation. How to do this? that's more about the user interface and strategy than about blockchain. Initially, the engagement was at the domestic level but it could go internationally with a good digital tool, allowing the participation of normal organizations/individuals, not just wealthy groups.
Ideally, in this particular issue of forest stewardship, we should work towards a "+" instead of a "vs" with the government. Of course, public money and private money has to be treated separately, but they can effectively be used for the same goal.
Best
David
PS: technically, this is not a tax ("carbon tax"). It's a voluntary recognition or support of the work done at the field level. But yes, a tax may come sooner or later, and we will have to adapt.
