http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29321143
Wait a second, did I read this article correctly? Norway is going to pay Liberia to be more environmentally aware?
Norway will pay Liberia $150 million to stop its illegal logging. The deal, which was unveiled at the UN climate summit, is the first ever country-level agreement and works like so: Liberia will put 30% of its forests under protected area status by 2020 and will pay communities directly affected; Norway will pay so long as the protection is verified.
Firstly, this agreement interested me since it addresses many arenas: the economy, environmental justice, biodiversity, and global health. In terms of health, researchers have seen correlations in deforestation and contact with Ebola virus in reservoirs. Biodiversity? Liberia has 43% of the Upper Guinean forest and is a diversity hotspot with many rare species. The economy would also be improved, since it gives money to stop the extreme logging that was endorsed by the president in 2012 (President Sirleaf gave licenses to companies that would account for 58% of the rainforest left in Liberia). Plus, the poverty-stricken communities around the rainforest will be paid too.
Second, the article made me consider Norway’s and Liberia’s roles in this exchange. As a wealthier country, should we be held accountable to make agreements like this? And why has Norway specifically been a leader in this sort of global behavior? Maybe it would be beneficial to look at the sociocultural components that made this deal a reality so that it could be applied by other first world countries.
After reading this entire article I can’t seem to find what benefit Norway will gain by PAYING Liberia to protect its own forests? It makes no sense to me that a government would fund environmental protection in a country on a completely different continent. Maybe you have a better answer for me? Most groups don’t just give away 150 million dollars out of the goodness of their heart, correct me if I am wrong.