But over 30 years ago, conservationists noticed that the strategy wasn't working. Income earned from these national parks was largely going into government coffers. The surrounding people were benefiting little, if at all. Small wonder: they had little or no incentive to keep those parks intact. On the other hand, they could make money by poaching. And where human populations were increasing and survival was at stake, it was far more rewarding to cut firewood or make gardens inside those parks, than to leave them untouched.

Think about it: Why would anyone who just barely eked out a living, elect to leave the wildlife alone, just because "it's nice to have around?" That naive assumption typically comes from people who have all their basic needs met, and forget that their fortunate lifestyle gives them a unique perspective.

The International Union for Conservation (IUCN) recognized that the "national park" strategy had failed for developing countries in its 1980 World Conservation Strategy (6). They recommended instead a strategy called 'conservation through development'. Basically, it entails finding out the needs of the local people, then offering incentives which provide rewards to help them better themselves, in return for work and behavior that helps wildlife. Culling and selling excess wildlife is a very effective incentive.

This is simply because everyone likes a tight "cause and effect," and this incentive tightly links conservation with development opportunities: the peoples' livelihood is closely tied to the survival of that wildlife population. This explains why elephant populations were stable in southern African countries where sustainable harvests were carried out; in contrast, the "totally protected" national park populations further north were being decimated by poaching. In PNG, villagers collect butterflies and other insects from their forests to sell. Or they plant caterpillar food plants and sell the adult butterflies that develop on those "extra" foodplants (a process known as "butterfly ranching"; touted as an almost perfect expression of the 'conservation through development' strategy.

Many make hundreds of dollars a year in a country where there is only 15% formal employment. Villagers realise that the forest is the source of this income. That gives them greater incentive to leave the area alone, particularly when they're shown how those insects require the forest to survive. The money they earn is important. They need it to pay their children's school fees (sorry, education is never free). Also, just like you don't forego arguable luxuries, such as a private car, PNG villagers don't care to forego their morning tea, their cooking pots, and other simple items that cost money.