Looking again at Conservation. (18 September, 1996)

With Heritage Day coming up next week it was perhaps appropriate that East Africa's top wildlife expert, Richard Leakey, looked frankly - as only he can - at South Africa's contribution to wildlife conservation in Africa. And he found it wanting. He claimed illegal ivory from north of the Limpopo was still being channelled through South Africa, just as when the National Party was in power. This should not surprise us. Pious though some government people are about conservation, South Africa is notorious for plundering, mainly its own natural resources. Our shellfish have been depleted by big-time poaching operations. Wild birds and rare plants are also smuggled out.

We did not need Leakey to underline the importance of wildlife to Africa as a whole. This continent's extraordinary variety of wild animals and wild places is its most obvious renewable asset - the one constant that can bring in foreign exchange and provide a steady intravenous drip for Africa's economic survival.

What was significant about Leakey's speech was his slightly more subtle criticism of South Africa's conservation philosophy. Our general attitude can be simplified to: 'If it pays, it stays.' The corollary is that if there is no obvious cash spin-off then we get rid of it. This is unquestionably how most officials and certainly developers think. The St Lucia controversy was based almost exclusively on how much could be wrung out of that area.

Leakey's view is that wildlife and wild places should be preserved for their own sake and 'not only if it is sustainable and the local communities are involved'. This challenges the modern philosophy of conservation which is 'the wise use of natural resources on a sustainable basis'.

The Star has long campaigned for wildlife and beautiful places to be preserved for their own sake. For too long South Africa has recognised sanctity only in man-made shrines. Editorial. Courtesy of The Star .