Rob Small's Masters Thesis: Uptake and the success of insect ...

Addressing the first area of influence it appears that the IFTA project has allowed the
sustainable use of butterflies and other insect as the same species have been provided to the
organisation from the same locale for twenty-five years. However, there is no quantitative
proof that farming and collecting has not eroded the integrity of insect populations.
Comments made in 1992 still hold true today that there has not been any quantitative work
conducted on the effects that butterfly farming has had on wild populations
(Martens, 1992). Until this work has been conducted there can be no conclusive evidence
that there is a direct link between insect farming/collecting and conservation of biological
resources and it is unable to have ‘rightly earned its reputation as an exemplary case of
wildlife utilisation’ (Martens, 1992). However, in addressing the second area of
conservation influence insect farming and collecting has gone some way to increase
awareness that forests can provide an income source other than timber. In the areas studied
in this paper butterflies and insects alone do not have a high enough value to persuade
people to keep part of their forest as a ‘set aside’ conservation area, but there are reports of
people in the Aseki area (a two drive to the east of Bulolo) setting aside forest to act as a
source of O. meridionalis.
The image of insect farming being a perfect way of providing rural incomes is unfounded
and there are many problems facing those using it as a means of income. A reassessment
and further research into insect farming and collecting in Papua New Guinea is required.
More work needs to be conducted at a village level, especially in the areas that have ceased
farming, in Low Income provinces in order to understand why farming or collecting failed
in those regions, rather than to rely on conjecture. The insect trading agencies that have
fallen outside the scope of this paper need to be investigated before a complete
84