I am aware of CO2 market being a scam, this is very diffetent to what I propposed.

CO2 market depends on assertations of intent, and on efficacy, both of which are easy to forge and hard to prove.

Forestry found is much simpler. Everyone put money into a pot, say. we hVe 100 billion dollars.

The. yoy get data from satellite, and calculate square miles of forest.

Then you divide the pot by square miles of forest.

Then countries det paid based on how many square miles are in their borders.

There is not potential for fraud - the calculation is sinple and idiotproof. You might debate if some marginal land is forest or not, but for 90% of it you can clearly see what it is from space.

You can also have debate about how muhch should be put into the pot, and by whom.

The problem: illegal farming and logging will always be more profitable than whatever the West can manage to pay countries like Brazil - not to mention it isn't sure how much the West can reasonably hand out in payments given the multiple crises straining our budgets, or how much isolationist politicians like Trump want to pay out / if they are even interested in climate and nature protection.

And on top of that come the corruption issues. Large amounts of foreign money flowing into poor(er) countries has historically always invited either said money being grifted away or redirected to other political budgets that have nothing to do with the purpose the money was originally earmarked for.