Citation
Ian Parker Collection of East African Wildlife Conservation: The Ivory Trade

Material Information

Title:
Ian Parker Collection of East African Wildlife Conservation: The Ivory Trade
Uniform Title:
The East African Elephant Ivory Trade, 1925-1970.
Alternate Title:
Black Report
Creator:
Parker, Ian.S.C.
Copyright Date:
1971

Notes

Citation/Reference:
Parker, I. [Ian] S.C. 1971. The East African Elephant Ivory Trade, 1925-1970. Confidential. A Wildlife Services Ltd. Report to Botswana Game Industries (Pty) Ltd. Francistown. [The so-called “Black Report” due to the color of its original cover]. Available: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00020117/00008

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the African Studies Curator (danrebo@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
African Studies Collections

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE EAST AFRICAN ELEPHANT


IVORY


TRADE


1925-1970


CONFIDENTIAL


A1
III
Ii'
''I'


A WILDLIFE SERVICES LTD. REPORT

TO
OTSWANA GAME INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD.
FTt A NCTTITOWN









CONTENTS


Page
introduction 1
Elephant Ivory 2

Ivory Grading and' Qualities 3

Elephant Exploitation 6

The East African Ivory Trade 1925 1969 9

Kenya's Elephant Ivory Trade 19,25 1969 12

SUganda's Elephant Ivory Trade 1925- 1969 16

Tanganyika's Elephant Ivory Trade 1925 1969 .19

SZanzibar's Elephant Ivory Trade 1925 1969 21

East Africa's External Sources Combined 23

The Illicit Trade 24

Ivory Trading 25

Recommendations for Botswana Game Industries'
Expansion in the Ivory Trade 29

Acknowledgments 30

References ,31


*











-i .

'i




INTRODUCTION


Throughout history ivory has been valued by man in much the same
way as have precious stones or metals. Like gold for instance, it is
a durable but easily workable substance (though like diamonds easily
burnt.) Its pleasing appearance arises from its unique texture, colour
and grain. The value of ivory has been, and remains, remarkably
stable, so that it can function as currency and a measure of affluence.
The phallic symbolism of an elephant's tusk, its exotic qualities and
comparative rareness have all contributed to the powerful attraction it
exerts on men. It is thus not surprising that ivory is the basis of a
trade as old as mants written record that still flourishes today both
legally and illegally.


A limited number of mammals have teeth that are classified as
commercial ivory; -the better known among these are walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus Brisson), narwhals (Monodon monoceros L.), hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibious L.), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus
Cuvier), and both Indian and African elephants (Elephas maximus L. and
Loxodonta africana Blumenbach). A recently extinct species, the
mammoth (Elephas primigenius ), has yielded large quantities of ivory
into the present century, from carcasses frozen in the Siberian tundra.
Man (1970) indicates that from the ninth century onwards mammoth tusks
formed a substantial trade. This grew until by 1900 sales in the
Siberian town of Yakutsk alone averaged some 30 tons annually, repre-
senting the tusks of over 200 mammoths. These averaged over 200 Ibs
each in weight and measured up to 16 feet in length, producing a very
white and greatly valued ivory.
S

For at least the last two centuries, possibly for much longer, the
African elephant has produced the bulk of the world's commercial ivory.
The purpose of this report is to analyse the elephant ivory trade of
East Africa for the period 1925 1970. Written records prior to 1925
are too inconsistent to permit accurate reconstruction further back in
time. On the basis of the analysis, predictions are made on the future
of the elephant ivory trade.


Written records (see bibliography) are the primary sources for the
data presented here together with valuable assistance from Mombasa
ivory traders.


Following the East African Customs system that has prevailed for
the greatest length of time, ivory weights are given in 100 Ib centals
except where stated, and prices are in Kenya shillings per Ib weight.




2
ELEPHANT IVORY

Elephant tusks are specialised incisors growing from the upper jaw,
that complement the trunk as weapons of offence and defence, as aids

for procuring food and probably for the maintenance of intra-specific
status. They first erupt when an elephant is about two years old.
From this point on they grow more or less continuously throughout life
at rates of approximately 4.3 inches (II cms) in length annually in the
males and 3.35 inches (8.5 cms) annually in females. This rate of
growth in length probably declines somewhat in the last decade of life,
but this is not apparent in weight as there is evidence that the tooth
pulp tends to regress in size at this time, with its former volume being
replaced with ivory. When they first erupt, tusks are covered with a
thin cap of enamel, as in most mammalian teeth, but this is rapidly worn
away to leave a tooth of dentine or ivory.
*

In males growth in circumference will frequently exceed 20 inches
(50.8 cms), this maximum circumf. being achieved by about middle age,
while in females it seldom exceeds II inches (27.9 cms). The relatively
similar growth rates in length ( 4. 3 3.35 cms) but greatly differing
potentials in circumferences between males and females, produce
marked differences in shape of tusks between the sexes. Those in the
male are pronouncedly tapered in the first half of life as well as being
much thicker throughout than in the female, whose tusks appear slender
in relation to their length, and cylindrical rather than conical.


Average ivory growth rates in weight for both male and female tusks
are presented graphically in Fig. I. The potential mean maximum
S weight of male tusks is 175 Ibs (79.55 kg) and of females, 50 Ibs (22.73kg.)
The mean maxima in length are c. 20. 78 ft and c. 16. 19 ft respectively.
However the weight optima are seldom attained and the length optima are
not known to have ever been attained as from the time of eruption, the
tusks are subject to constant wear and breakage. Some idea of the
extent of this use is apparent from the fact that male tusks seldom exceed
9 ft or females' 5 ft in actual life.


Tusks in both sexes grow in logarithmic spirals, but individual
variations in rate of spiral are great. Those that grow as a tight spiral
appear as curved while those with an open spiral appear straight.
There are genetic similarities in the rate of spiral and hence the shape
of tusk within family unit herds. There are correspondingly marked
similarities in shape within geographically distinct populations. This
is most strikingly evident in a comparison between elephant of the
equatorial forest regions (i.e. Congos Kinshasa and Brazzaville) that










































































l.l- I.


S ~ d (~


'


d

V
1


i ''c-

- -.' : c
! ::.: *'._ :


;.- ^:;.:





..,...,




: '. '. --


-,1 -1 '' '


:.;; i ":1' ,-
' i' ^- *'


A .. 1- i e r :




3


have tusks so straight that they appear to have no spiral, and those of
eastern Kenya that have strongly curved ivory.


Such evidence as is presently available indicates that growth rates
and potentials of the "Bush1" elephant (L. a. africana) do not differ in
widely separated habitats in Uganda, Kenya and northern Tanzania.
However whether there are differences between these populations on
the equator and those further to the south or north has not been
established. Marked differences are probable with theIforest' elephant
(L. a. cyclotis) of the equatorial forest regions. Purely visual and
somewhat subjective evidence suggests that the rate of tusk wear and
breakage in Botswana and Rhodesia is considerably higher than in East
Africa.



IVORY GRADING AND QUALITIES


Tusks are classified according to weight and shape into the following
trade categories :
(I) VILAITI. Tusks, sound or slightly defective, weighing 40 Ibs
(18. 18 kg) or more. This makes it an almost exclusively mature male
category. On occasion female tusks will exceed 40 Ibs weight to
qualify for this classification but the instances are so rare as to
render them of no consequence commercially or in the interpretation
of records.
(2) CUTCHI. Tusks, sound and or slightly defective, weighing between
p 20 Ibs (9.09 kg) and 40 Ibs (18. 18 kg). Again this is predominantly
a male class. Few female tusks in a population will exceed 20 Ibs
in weight and many of those that do will fall into the following category.
(3) CALASIA. All female tusks between 2 and 3 inches in diameter and
weighing more than 10 Ibs (4.55 kg). Female tusks are easy to
recognize due to their cylindrical appearance as described in the
preceding chapter. This is therefore almost exclusively a mature
female class.
(4) FANKDA. All male tusks, sound or slightly defective, weighing
between 10 Ibs (4.55 kg) and 20 Ibs (9.09 kg). These are easily
separable from female ivory in this weight range due to the very
pronounced taper of male tusks.
(5) MAKSUB. All ivory of either sex, sound or slightly defective, of
between 5 Ibs (2. 27 kg) and 10 Ibs (4. 55 kg).
(6) DANDIA. All ivory either male or female of less than 5 Ibs (2. 27 kg).
(7) CHINA!. Defective tusks, being those broken, cracked, slightly
weathered or blemished or abnormal in growth.





(8) ROTTEN. Tusks so weathered that they are deeply cracked and
have lost any semblance of ivory's normal texture. They flake
easily and appear chalky.


The relationships of these various categories to elephant age and
sex are presented in Fig. 2. From this it can be seen that Vilaiti is
generally the product of male elephant of more than 30 years of age,
Cutchi from males between 20 and 30 years, Calasia from females over
25 years, Fankda from males between 15 and 20 years, Maksub from
females between 15 and 25 years and males between 10 and 15 years, and
Dandia from females between 2 and 15 years or males between 2 and 10
years. The ivory production of an area can reveal a great deal about
the state of the elephant populations within it. Evidence in chapters on
Kenya and Uganda's Ivory Trade.


In addition to the basic categories described, traders also make
distinction between 'soft' and hardt ivory. They claim the presence of
an east-west gradient across the African continent, with the softest
ivory coming from Somalia and eastern Kenya, and the hardest from the
equatorial forest regions. Expense precluded this phenomenon being
thoroughly investigated during this survey, but evidence that some
difference does exist between eastern and western ivory was obtained
in Mombasa. A shaving from a soft tusk curls itself into a long spiral
as does a wood shaving when planed from a plank, whilst that from a
hard tusk would only form part of a short spiral before breaking and was
seemingly far less plastic. Commercially however, all ivory from
eastern and southern Africa is classified as soft, the apparent variations
in degree being of little consequence. Only the ivory from the Congo
where the sub-species of elephant L. a. cyclotis occurs is commercially
classified as hard. With this hard ivory the trade's size and sex
categories remain the same as those given already, but are followed
with the term Gandai. Thus Vilaiti Gandai, Cutchi Gandai etc., denotes
that the ivory is hard.


To qualify for any of the categories given only very limited defects
are acceptable, otherwise tusks are automatically relegated to Chinai,
the defective class. A sound tusk should be without flaws in growth, or
cracks in either the tip or butt. Where the latter occur they are
permissible in the first half of the pulp hollow or not more than a few
inches (varying according to tusk size) from the tusk tip without incurring
a price penalty. Should a crack exceed these limits, it would automatic-
ally incur a reduction in price. A major point in the judging of ivory
quality is ensuring that the inside of the pulp cavity or hollow





- -'- a- ~. *.. -A- .


I


VA L F S


DANDIA | i: S | I ANDA |CUTCHI VT LAi.TI-



F E MA LE S


a flA~T1TIAIU_ A pcA__US


02 5 10 c0 30 3 45 50 55
A"C- in .years


1;~I(~. 2.
T~'3r.> ,rad~s


re1-.tfd to .lphan. are and sox.


9w





(erroneously referred to as the "nerve" hollow by hunters) should be
smooth, symmetrical and without protrusions or blemishes. The
presence of any abnormal growth or protrusion will incur a price
penalty, as such occurrences are indicators of likely flaws within the
tusk itself.


The most common defect in male tusks other than cracking and
breakage, is the occurrence of Tbeanst. These appear as small separate
bodies of dentine within the general matrix of the tusk usually along or
near its centre line. These are normally only detectable at the tip of a
tusk once they have been exposed by breakage or wear. Such anomalous
bodies of dentine also occur fairly frequently in the tip of tusk pulps and
are known to hunters as elephant pearls'. They vary greatly in size
and shape and once embedded in a tusk detract greatly from its value.
They can be so extensive as to occur throughout the solid length of a
1 tusk or may occur merely as a small isolated pip in otherwise flawless
ivory. If there is any growth or abnormality in the wall of a tusk's pulp
cavity it is highly probable that its entire length is extensively beaned.
When judging ivory quality it is of the greatest importance, as has
already been stated, to make sure that the inside surface of the tusk
hollow is perfect.


Another common defect is the presence of pronounced bumps, or
ridges, which appear as evenly spaced fluctuations in diameter along the
tusk's length, instead of a continuous decrease in diameter.


|Some weathered tusks exhibit a purple staining, possibly resulting
D from a fungus, that greatly reduces their value. This can penetrate
deep into the sound ivory underneath the weathered surface layer. Some
idea of whether this purple staining has penetrated deeply can be
obtained by scraping away the surface layers and exposing the sound
ivory beneath.


As a general rule straight tusks are favoured over those strongly
curved, as there is generally greater wastage in carving and working
the tusk. This is particularly so with Calasia, which is used extensively
for bangles.


Generally the most valuable grades of ivory are Vilaiti and Calasia,
with the latter weight for weight, being slightly higher. Vilaiti increases
in value with weight, particularly in tusks over 70 Ibs... Occasionally
other grades such as Dandia may temporarily exceed Vilaiti or Calasia
in value in response to a particular demand.





FReal ivory value for the same grades does not vary between different
geographical areas. Where this occurs it is generally a lack of know-
ledge or outlet on the part of the seller, that enables a trader to take
advantage of the situation, and depress buying prices. Such is clearly
the case in centra! and southern Africa.



ELEPHANT EXPLOITATION


ManTs exploitation of the African elephant may be categorised as
follows :-
(I) Sources of meat by subsistence hunters.
(2) Beasts of burden and work.
(3) Tourist attractions.
(4) Sources of meat, hide and ivory for modern man, and
P (5) Sources of ivory only.


The first of these classes covers the greatest span of time, as
elephants were potential quarry for hunters and gatherers over hundreds
of thousands of years. However this very basic form of use has declined
in recent times.


The second category is of little significance. Hannibal, and no doubt
his contemporaries, used African elephants in warfare and perhaps for
other purposes. In this century the Belgians conducted a limited
endeavour in elephant domestication in the Congo. It involved very few
animals, and the concept of using this species as a beast of burden is
p obsolete.


The third form of exploitation is mainly a modern concept utilising
very restricted elephant populations, i.e. those that live in the small
areas of the continents National Parks and for sport hunting.


As sources of basic utilities such as meat and hides in addition to
ivory, modern man has assumed that elephant might be of use to him.
However the idea has found expression in limited experiment only, and
has remained largely an exercise of the mind.


The last form of exploitation that as a source of ivory only has
been the primary use, on an increasing scale throughout recorded
history. Wherever human densities on the continent have reached the
point at which ownership must be expressed by the acquisition of
"symbolic11 wealth (such as money, cowrie shells, beads etc.) as against





"primary" wealth (land, stock, food supplies etc. of direct biological

value); ivory has almost invariably become prominent as such a symbol.
Thus it became the perquisite of leaders, kings, chiefs and men of
success. This tendency was given considerable impetus when the
continent became influenced by Asia and Europe in modern times and the
human densities of Africa became "integrated" with those of the world
and were no longer isolated. For example Baker (1866 and 1874) records
King Kamrasi of Bunyoro as laying claim to all ivory within his area,
proclaiming it Royal property. This attitude was perpetuated by the
colonial powers and is continued today by the independent Governments.
Ivory is deemed to be the property of the state and may only be held by
individuals on license from the state. One of the first conditions i
demanded by the British East Africa Company was a monopoly on ivory.
Lugard (1893) writes as follows : "I made a treaty with him (King
Kasangama of Toro in Uganda) elephant were not to be shot without
permission, and were the monopoly of the Company". When the B.E. A.
Company's administration of what is now Kenya and Uganda was taken
over by the British Colonial Office, this policy was maintained. The
importance of ivory as a commodity is given by another Uganda example:
in 1894 the country's only export was ivory, valued at 5, 481, and until
1904 at least it was the country's major export, its value exceeding
that of all other exports combined (Thomas & Scott 1935). Elsewhere
in Africa the pattern was very similar.


Accompanying the killing of elephant for their ivory has been the
displacement of the species by humans. The two activities in fact go
together, resulting in elephant exploitation assuming a pattern similar
to that of the use of non-renewable resources such as minerals. As
w the habitat requirements of humans and elephants are similar, we can

assume that this irreversible exploitation will continue for as long as
human numbers increase. There is little chance of managing elephant
on a sustained yield basis so long as man multiplies, and in the long
run even most National Parks must be regarded as temporary sanctuaries.


It has already been shown that tusk size is related directly to an
elephant's age. The elimination of elephant, which as we have seen in
the preceding paragraphs is the primary exploitation pattern, will
influence ivory output from a given population, both in quantity and type.
Killing at rates that exceed recruitment results in a decrease in the
individual's life expectancy, and therefore lowers the average age of
the population. This results in progressively fewer and fewer large
tusks being available. Uganda provides a very good example of how
this comes about. In the first two decades of this century, Uganda was


F_












lSa rded as the best place for sportsmen to acquire very large tusks
ri'other words old animals). However, the intense competition between
,ns and elephants as a result of the high densities of both species
'led to continuous and very heavy killing of elephants. By the 1940s
da was regarded as a poor place in which to look for trophy ivory;
tuation that persists .today. Further evidence of this is presented
ter in the review of Uganda's ivory exports. Heavy exploitation
tds to progressively smaller tusks in a population.


I' The pattern of ivory production also shows fluctuation from year to
yar. During droughts planted crops become more attractive to elephant
'd more valuable to humans. Available water becomes restricted over
',jch of Africa and there is increased competition for It. At such times
Ie Interaction between humans and elephants is intensified and more
.iphants are killed.


i Laws (1969) has demonstrated that there are long term cycles in
.Jephant recruitment and that births are not regular from year to year.
!He showed that these cycles are related to similar rhythms in climate;
.igh recruitment corresponding to years of good rainfall, while low
fr'th rates were equated with poor rains. There is evidence to suggest
that similar patterns pertain to natural mortality as more "found" ivory
p collected in times of drought. (People are also more likely to look
'for It at such times as their need for money is greater.)


Iv.: vory production, both from elephant killed by men or which die
,flturally' is therefore erratic and can be expected to show some
-.elationship to climatic influences. Other lesser factors such as the
faerlations in attitude toward killing or protecting elephants, that are
manifest between Government Officers responsible for this work, also
flduce fluctuations in production.




9
THE EAST AFRICAN IVORY TRADE 1925 1969
The heading above refers to :
(1) All ivory originating in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika,
(2) All ivory imported into and then re-exported from the foregoing
three countries, and
(3) All ivory imported into and exported from Zanzibar.


The data pertaining to the above headings were obtained from the
Annual Trade Reports of the respective Commissioners for Customs
for the countries involved. In this and following chapters the Republic
of Tanzania is divided into its respective parts of Tanganyika and
Zanzibar as their roles in the ivory trade during the period covered
were essentially different. The figures are not exact in some cases as
they are given in the Trade Reports to the nearest cental or hundred-
weight, and the original precise weights are not available. It is felt
that this is unlikely to alter the true situation to any significant degree.


Quantities
The weight of combined imports and exports of the East African
* ivory trade are shown in Table I and graphically in Fig. 3. These are
shown in both table and figure as actual annual totals and as a 5 year
running mean. The latter presents a more correct picture of the trade
* over the period as it tends to rule out fluctuations that occur from year

to year for the reasons given in the preceding chapter. The annual 5
: year running average declined from 2, 838.99 centals in 1927 to 2, 380.36
centals in 1930; from then on it rose steadily to 12, 760. 26 centals in
-1958, at which level it remained until 1961. At this point the political
upheavals in the Congo (which was the major outside supplier of ivory
to East Africa, see following chapters) cut off imports from that source
to set the East African trade into decline. Shortly afterwards the
revolution in Zanzibar totally disrupted both imports into and exports
from the island. This further depressed the amounts of ivory handled
in East Africa. Nevertheless Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyikals produc-
tion continued to increase uninterruptedly (see followingg chapters) and
this continues today. The total quantity of ivory that was exported
from East Africa between 1925 and 1969 (inclusive) was minimally
167, 505.89 centals. At the end of 1969 there were c. 10, 500 centals in
warehouses in East Africa. Combined these two figures represent a
probable offtake of between 471, 381 (average 40 Ibs per elephant) and
628, 508 (average 30 Ibs) elephants.












5 Year Annual 5 Year
;:'. RuhnIng Av. Year Total Running Av.

5. 1947 11,099.86 10,751.53
1948 10,039.68 10,761.35
,2,838.99 1949 7,596.96 10,507.90
.' 835.62 .1950 8,962.04 10,258.19
2,582.94 1951 13,067.62 10,451.07
',- 2,380.36 1952 11,624.63 11,207.28
2,682.98 1953 11,004.10 11,848.61
.-.36 3, 116. 23 1954 11,377.99 12,153.66
i52 4,072.51 1955 12,168.72 12,593.14
5. 99 5, 137.84 1956 14,592.84 12,630.30
i30.02 6,186.92 1957 13,822.04 12,364.94
?037 32 6,614.53 1958 11,189.92 12, 1760.26
j7 76 6,603.97 1959 10,051.20 12,598.58
) 49,.56 6,857.82 1960 14,145.32 12,495.11
103.20 6,990.40 1961 13,784.40 11,029.73
25.21 7,121.28 1962 13,304.72 9,750.28
366. 24 7,604.23 1963 3,863.00 7,638.29
Ift28..16 8,330.03 1964 3,653.95 5,856,.67
.824.32 8,787.44 1965 3, 585.39 4, 217.28

"932020 9,981.17 1966 4, 876.27 4,381.18
;91.,94 10,575.51 1967 5,110.29 4,659.20
-34..88 11,018.58 1968 4, 680.00
: '1969 5,044.06



E.i .:.._Total quantities of ivory in 100 lb centats Imported,
,-. .traded within or exported from Kenya, Uganda,
.-T-- anganyika and Zanzibar between 1925 and 1969
w'" (inclusive) both as annual totals and 5 year running
av e averages.

c '




,r:,. i 1,j .
^ ; ,..


., ,.*:. .
: ,'*

















Congo


1945
ATTP: A TP


1950


1955


1960


Zanzibar
revolution


1965


1970


The total quantity of ivory imported into, traded within and exported
from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar between 1925 '1969 inc.
The amounts are in 100 lb centals and shown as both yearly totals-and
5 year running-.averages^':,


.-?, i--.* -

S I
^^N


192S


1930


"1935


FIGURE 3:


1940




Prices
Average ivory values in shillings per pound weight of ivory are
shown in Table 2 and graphically in Fig. 4. These show the combined
values of all imports (buying) and all exports (selling) as given in the
Customs records, both as annual totals and as,5 year running averages.
j The pattern of decrease from 1925 to the 1930s and subsequent rise until
the present day is similar to that of the amounts traded. This may be a
coincidence but it is generally felt by traders that both reflect the
effect of the world economic depression of that time. Throughout the
period under review the values of different consignments of ivory have
shown very wide variation, reflecting the range of qualities and demands
for them. These variations around the 5 year running average price are
shown graphically in Fig. 5, from which it will be seen that even when
average quantities and values were low some ivory fetched high prices
and vice versa. The total value of ivory traded between 1925 and 1969
(inclusive) is of the order of KI3, 500, 000 (R27, 000, 000). This figure
includes some relatively small internal trading between the East African
States.


The Overseas Buyers of East African Ivory Exports
Countries to which East African ivory has been exported between
1925 and 1969 (inclusive), the quantities taken lumped into consecutive
5 year classes, and the average prices paid for these 5 year groupings
in shillings per pound are given in Table 3. From this it will be seen
that over this. 45 year period, only 5 countries the United Kingdom,
Belgium, India, Hong Kong and Japan out of a total of more than 61,
have ever taken more than 10% of the ivory exported in any one five year
period. Only a further 5 Germany, Italy, Holland, U.S.A. and
I mainland China (pre-Communism) have ever taken more than I % of the
ivory exported in any one five year period. Thus buyers of East African
ivory of any consequence to the trade are few.


The 10 countries which have imported more than a per cent of any
5 year group's exports are divisible into two groups : western and
eastern. The former comprises the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany,
Italy, Holland and the U.S.A. ; the latter India, Hong Kong, Japan and
mainland China. From Table 3 it can be seen that there have been
progressive changes in the percentages of East African ivory taken, both
between the two groups of countries and .between individual countries.
The western group took 66. 76% and the eastern 32.59% in the first 5
year period (1925 1929 inclusive), but this changed consistently until
the eastern group took 77. 15% and the western 18. 68% in the last
period (1965 1969 inclusive).





5 Year
Running Av.


Annual
Year Av.Value

1925 17.08
1926 14.35
1927 13.92
1928 13.35
1929 1.2.12
1930 9.63
1931 7.94
1932 7.79
1933 5.98
1934 5.98
1935 6.39
1936 5.61
1937 6.85
1938 5.69
1939 5.55
1940 6.19
1941 5.83
1942 7.04
1943 9.25
1944 9.17
1945 9.79
1946 11.49





TABLE 2 The a
intern
and Z
are s
runnir


Annual
Year Av.Value

1947 11.64


14.16
12.67
11.39
10.17
8.69
7.46
6.82
6.35
6.16
6.10
6,02
5.98
6.02
6.06
6.77
7.50
8.22
9.35
10.27.
10.43


1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


10.08
10.58
10.84
12.61
12.76
13.84
9.97
14.54
15. 15
14.87
14.20
13.38
15.77
14.90
13.68
15.62
17.54
20.09
19. 17
19.67
17.62
18.21


average value for all imported, exported and
ally traded ivory for Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika
anzibar between 192,5 and 1969 (inclusive). Values
killings per Ib as annual averages and as 5 year
ig averages.


5 Year
Running Av.

10.,72
10,93
11.15
11.37
12.13
12.00
12.74
13.25
13.67
13.75
14.43
14.67
14.62
14.39
14.67
15.50
16,37
17.22
18.42
18.82
18.95












































5----e- r nn a a veag iar.: '.

' *= ~~5 ye~ar r-'i' 'r-n i ^ ave.""^ ***"1 c .;


", <':I i i .i L I, na' .'r ;'i- .a a,- .a v x'.ir'i and 5i year -unr:ing averages, of .: 1i v, o-4'.' ; o rt."' 'i nto
hi,


q, A C


-1950


L9iO6


w



































* .


C C *
* C


* l-u&


I


. *
:* C


Ce *
* a C
C *
ee
C
1.
C
C *
a -

be a .~ .. ,1
C
C
a
* C C *
C
C
.e *3
C a
C .
C a eC C
C
C a
* C -
* C a: *
* C t *
* C I
o C C C A
* C be e
'C 4 C C
4 .
C C
C. ~ *~ *e
C C

S C
C C

a *
C

-


be


CC
* 2*


be
be


* be..<


* *


a


Ce


* C.


1925-


1930


TIME SCALE


1935


FIGURE 5:


1940


1945

1945


1950

1950


1955

1955


1960


4


-1965


The scatter of individual consignment values about the S yet

running averages of Kenya imports, re-exports and domestic

production. Prices in excess of shs: 27.00 are not. ShQwn.


* 4 ~


*
^


*

*

*


* *


*


*








IABLE 3 Total East African ivory exports 1925 69 (inc.) Lumped in consecutive 5 year
classes, giving amounts in 100 centals, percent each importer's quantities
represent of each 5 year total and average 5 year values in shillings per lb.


y 1925 1929 1930 1934 1935 1939 1940 1944 1945 1949 1950 1954 1955 1959 1960 1964 1965 1969
Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value

U.K. 4449.24 49.04 12.27 3216.89 39.15 7.81 3909.92 27.48 5.75 565.60 3.75 5.53 1545.60 6.20 7.14 739.88 2.68 8.66 773.36 2.80 16.14 872.25 4.35 17.57 1231.78 5.95 18.20
India 2313.36 25.50 12.70 2467.04 30.03 8.76 6455.68 45.37 6.77 12005.15 79.57 8.35 16459.32 66.08 11.91 12701.24 45-94 14.23 10051.36 36.42 14.32 4325.61 21.59 13.75 2694.40 13.02 19.80
Hong Kong 57.12 0.63 5.61 351.68 4.28 4.41 480.48 3.38 4.35 418.88 2.78 4.77 3536.96 14.21 6.63 8700.36 31.47 9.10 10942.48 39.65 11.86 9074.38 45.29 13.95 11282.71 54.52 18.12
China 258.72 2.85 12.44 274.12 3.34 8.32 692.16 4.86 5.83 697.76 4.63 4.78 865.76 3.48 6.09 199.01 0.96 20.98
Japan 327.08 3.61 12.93 623.84 7.59 6.27 1182.72 8.31 6.34 201.60 1.34 5.38 3601.60 13.03 15.04 3421.56 12.39 15-32 3242.59 16.19 14.50 1790.01 8.65 20.12
U.S.A. 367.36 4.05 17.28 234.08 2.85 7.98 660.80 4.64 7.92 1040.48 6.9 9.38 812.00 3.26 14.61 825.88 2.99 15.66 1088.60 3.94 17.94 1048.14 5-23 18.27 1378.82 6.66 18.74
Belgium 1024.80 11.30 9.81 635.04 7.73 7.66 512.96 3.60 5.45 106.40 0.43 10.74 35.52 0.13 13.48 3.12 0.01 17.82 6.37 0.03 21.19 12.19 0.06 14.67
France 12.-32 0.14 8.70 12.32 0.15 10.68 13.44 0.09 6.18 180.32 0.72 6.75 21.16 0.08 9.25 28.00 0.10l 16.77 39.61 0.20 15.80 116.36 0.56 18.72
Germany 198.80 2.19 14.47 33.56 0.41 4.90 28.00 0.20 6.02 1.12 Y.mall 6.61 33.00 0.12 17.65 196.37 0.98 16.63 493.67 2.39 19.83
Italy 6.72 0.07 16.34 23.52 0.29 7.93 6.72 0.05 8.48 5.48 0.02 9.42 83.00 0.30 14.82 246.10 1.23 17.40 330.98 1.60 17.99
Spain 4.12 0.01 9.72 10.00 0.04 22.44 25.62 0.13 18.88 167.04 0.81 19.23
Portugal 1.00 T.eaall 11.60
Sweden 1.12 0.01 3.93 5.60 0.04 5.11 2.24 0.01 14.64 5.24 0.02 13.21 8.00 0.03 18.45 6.64 0.03 20.00 2.22 0.01 20.00


NorWay
Denmark
Austria
Switserlanl
Czechoelovakia
Holland
Greece
Turkey
Syria & Lebanon
Egpt


4.48 0.03 6.03


10.08 0.11 17.99 258.40 3.15 9.03 252.00


16.80 0.19 20.48


3.36 0.01 11.55


6.72 0.03 13.69
1.12 v.eaall 22.32
1.77 6.76 10.08 0.07 5.20 1300.32 5-22 7.57


1.12 r.mall 21.07
2.24 0.01 14.73
1.12 v.eall 30.71
1.12 .v.mall 16.96


4.00 0.01 19.80
5.00 0.02 18.84
4.00 0.01 26.30


860.48 3.11 9.41 48.44 0.18 14.15
2.00 0.01 14.80


14.11
3.00
4.00


1.22
0.07 19.18 19.54
0.01 23.00 18.71
0.02 15.90 9.13


442.77 2.21 16.91 745.67
3.00 0.01 16.67 1.87


0.01 19.67
0.09 18.30
0.09 23.43
0.04 33.93


3.60 19.00
0.01 18.29


14.56 0.10 13.74 23.52 0.09 13.31


3.00 0.01 22.67


4.48 0.03 7.01


1.12 v.amall 11.96


Arabia
Bahrein


0.25 v.small 20.00
2.18 0.01 20.00 2.69 0.01 20.00
under lotl.
2.46 0.01 31.22


19.04 0.21 11.20


14.56 0.06 15.00
14.56 0.06 10.20


1.12 0.01 4.71


2.24 0.02 8.93


6.72 0.08 10.60


6.72 0.04 19.20 24.64
4.48 0.03 6.00 39.96 0.26 6.20 3.36


8.96 0.10 17.40


1.12 v.eaall 90.89
2.24 0.01 13.39
55.40 0.20 23.40 111.48 0.40 16.04
14.84 0.05 16.80 33.88 0.12 15.08
11.48 0.04 15.61
1.12 v.aasall 16.96 7.00 0.03 20.09
2.00 0.01 17.00


1.00 v.aall 18.60
2.21 0.01 9.73 9.84 0.04 19.40 22.00 0.08 21.36
8.96 0.03 20.74 4.00 0.01 26.50
3.00 0.01 21.60


0.10 20.02
0.01 11.20


3.36 0.01 17.86
3.36 0.01 12.32


3.00 0.01 14.73
2.00 0.01 21.50


1.12 0.01 5.53


5.6 0.04 7.61


4.48 0.02 17.86 3.00 0.01 24.53


3.36 0.01 10.42


664.92 2.41 14.91


3.36 0.01 13.81 35.84 0.13 17.00 193.76 0.70 13.54


6.54
90.88
41.16
14.00
5.54
2.00


0.03 18.35
0.45 4.56
0.21 11.17
0.07 17.10
0.03 20.40
0.01 25.10


1.00 Y. small 28.60
4.00 0.02 22.60
18.38 0.09 19.23
1.23 0.01 20.00
1.00 v.mall 19.80
2.65 0.01 20.00
10.46 0.05 15.37



1.00 y.mall 21.40



20.16 0.10 86.13
181.44 0.91 13.56


1.39
4.32
43.57
2.89
21.8
4.16
1.31


0.01 28.49
0.02 15.-05
0.21 22.54
0.01 18.96
0.11 20.27
0.02 21.39
0.01 20.00


5.66 0.03 19.43
36.96 0.18 21.16



13.98 0.07 20.39




1.78 0.01 28.43


2.16 0.01 18.15
5.91 0.03 18.14 25.06 0.12 24.58
10.03 0.05 19.94
1.24 0.01 20.04
0.40 v.small 14.00


1.00 v.saall 18.00


1.00 y.ea&ll 20.00


1.12 0.01 1I.03


77.26 0.94


4.40 11.20 0.08 2.77


7b.40 0.52 3.95


6.36 0.02 32.39


31.12 0.11 21.31


1.01 v.saall 20.00


3.24 0.02 16.05
73.28 0.37 17.65


1.00 v.anall 20.00
1.09 v.small 22.02
1.12 0.01 20.00
10.36 0.05 20.08
1.60 0.01 20.00


3.50 0.02 23.49


9071.52 IOC.00 8215.61 100.00 14229.60 100.00 15084.43 100.00 24910.84 100.00 27651.24 100.00 27607.92 10U.OC 20041.08 100.00 20693.65 100.00


Pakistan
Ceylon
Singapore
Malaya
Siam
Formosa
Auetralia
Canada
Brazil
Uruguay
Argentine
South Africa
Eritrea
Somalia
Mozambique
Mauritius
Rhodesia
Madagascar
Burma
Finland
C & 6 America
S. Korea
Ruanda
Eire
Mew Zealand
Zambia
Cyprus


Philippines
Ethiopia
Reunion


there

TOtala


8215.61 100.00


9071.52 10C.00


14229.60 100.00


15084.43 100.00


27651.24 100.00


24910.84 100.00


27607.92 1o0.OC 20041.08 100.0c 20693.65 10C.00





= Trends in the 5 major ivory buying countries are shown in Fig. 6
I. and are as follows :
(I) The United Kingdom was East Africa's largest buyer in 1925 1929
taking 49. 04% of exports; this dominance was maintained at a reduced
rate through the next 5 year period, but lost to India in 1935 1939. The
f
second World War reduced the U. K. Is share of East African ivory to
3.75% in 1940 1944, since when it has not exceeded 6. 20% in any of
the 5 year periods.
(2) Belgium has shown a continual decrease in ivory imports from

East Africa from 11.3% of 1925 1929's total to 0.06% in 1965 1969.
(3) India showed a substantial increase in imports of East African ivory

from 25.50% in 1925 1929 to 79. 57% in 1940 1944 when she was able to
take advantage of all other buyers' involvements with the second World
War. This dominance was maintained until 1950 1954 when post-
independence economic pressures made her restrict all imports of luxury
S goods. Due to her failing economy Indials imports of ivory progress-
ively decreased until in 1965 1969 her share had dropped to only 13.02%
of East Africa's exports.
(4) Hong Kong's current position as the main buyer of East African
ivory is largely a post war phenomenon. Prior -to 1945 the most she had
taken of a 5 year period's exports was 4. 28%. From 1945 onward it has
increased steadily until in 1965 1969 it constituted over 50%.
(5) Japan's imports rose from 3.61% in 1925 1929 to 16. 19% in 1960 -
1964, with a break during the world war. Since 1965 its imports have
dropped slightly. This may be temporary, but might also be the beginning
of a trend similar to that shown by industrialized Europe.


In Table 4 average ivory values in shillings per Ib of consignments
P taken by the 10 major importers of East African ivory are reviewed.
From the data presented it will be seen that over the 45 years covered,
the U.K. pays 7. 6% less than the prevailing average export value.
Belgium averages 3. 37% more than the prevailing average, India 9.09%
more, Hong Kong 23. 34% less, Japan 1. 13% less, U.S.A. 22.76% more,
Germany 3.41% less, Italy 9.44% more and China 11.87% less. However
it must be restated that these figures summarise the whole 45 year period
and that modern trends are obscured. Thus though Hong Kong has
consistently recorded lower values than othercountries, the difference
between the average East African export value and that of consignments
to Hong Kong will decrease as the latterls share of the East African
total exports increases.





-


/

/
/
/
/


0~


/











*' 4.. .. ,
+* ^ -0 ,


/ \



/ .......... ** .


Ao ** !


*1~~.


4
M.


9 A C


:~


*
^c


"" '. ... 6 .




[ML~W9. .fl.J U. .~flW4k~.~Q.datO.VAh V4~J4.4.4I~flI(&OhL ~


w


Y e a r
Overall Av.


1925-29 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69


12.37


Brtan Av. 12.27
Britain %Dev. -0.81

Blu Av. 9.81
Belgium %Dev. -20. 70

Av. 14.47
Germany %Dev. +16.98

Holland Av. 17.99
Holand %Dev.+45. 43

Itl Av, 16.34
Italy %Dev.+32.09

uSCA, Av. 17.28
U .A. %Dev.+39. 69

Ida Av, 12.70
India %Dev.+26. 68

H Ko Av. 5.61
Hong Kong %Dev.-54, 65

SAv. 12.93
Japan %Dev. + 4, 53

Cn Av. 12.44
China %Dev.+ 0.57


7.84
7.81
0.38
7. 66
2,30
4.90
-37.50
9.03
+15.18
7.93
+ 1,15
7.98
+ 1.79
8.76
+11. 73
4,.41
-43.75
6,27
-20.03
8,.32
+ 6.12


6.33
5.75
-9.16
5.45
-13.90
6.02
- 4.90
6.76
+ 6,79
8.48
+33.97
7.92
+25.1 2
6.77
+ 6.95
4.35
-31.28
6.34
+ 0,16
5.83
- 7.90


7
5
-30


.99
1.53
>.79


5.20
-34.92



9,.38
+17.40
8.35
+ 4.51
4.77
-40.30
5.38
-32.67
4.78
-40.18


10.49 12.49
7.14 8.66
-31.94 -30.66
1 0, 74 13.48
+ 2.38 + 7.93
6.61
-47. 08
7.57 9, 41
-27. 84 -24, 66
9,.42
-24.58
14.61 15.66
+39.28 +25.38
11.91 14.23
+13.54 +13.93
6. 63 9. 1 0
-36, 80 -27.14
15.04
+20. 42
6.09 -
-41.94


13.72
16.14
+17. 64
17.82
+29.88
17.65
+28.64
14.15
+ 3.13
14.82
+ 8.02
17,94
+30.76
14.32
+ 4.37
11.86
-13.56
15.32
+11.66


14




+1 3;
+2(
21
+45
1
+13

+15

17
+19
18
+25
13
--5.
13
-4
14
0


TABLE 4 Values in shillings per Ib paid by the top 10 importing countries of East African ivory expressed as
consecutive 5 year averages and compared to the 5 year average value of all East African ivory exports.
Also shown are variations from the overall average expressed as percentages of the overall average.


&.59 18.71
7.57 18.20
).42 2.73
1.19 14.67
5.24 -21.59
5.63 19.83
.98 + 5.99
5.91 19.00
p.90 + 1.55
.40 17.99
.26 3.85
I.27 18.74
1.22 + 0.16
S.75 19.80
76 + 5.83
3.95 18.12
,.39 3.15
. 50 20,1 2
1.62 + 7.54
20.98
+12.13


Average
Deviation

- 7.60%

+ 3.37%

-3.41%

+ 6.25%


+ 9.44%

+22. 76%

+ 9.09%

-28.34%

- 1.13%

-11.87%





KENYA'S IVORY TRADE 1925 1969


Thle Resource
On the basis of extensive aerial reconnaissance and sampling, it is
estimated that there are at least 100, 000 elephant in Kenya today
(Watson pers. comm.). As a result of interaction between humans and
elephants, the latter have been displaced from all areas of high human
density. Because of the geographical heterogeneity of Kenya and

consequent discontinuities in human populations, elephant extermination
has followed a particular pattern of spatial and temporal diversity
differing from that of most other African states. Most people are concen-
trated on or about the highland massifs, lacustrine areas around Lake
Victoria, or a narrow band along the coast with their associated high
rainfalls (over 3011 p.a.). Although these areas are very suitable for
elephants, they constitute a relatively small part of Kenya's land area
p (11 %). Where competition with elephant has occurred it has been very
intense but local, involving few animals, both in the past and today.
Most of the country's elephants now occupy the lower drier areas which
to date are unusable by agriculturalists. The low density pastoralists
who do live in these lowlands hive few conflicting interests with elephants.
However rising human populations and changing systems of land tenure
can be expected to gradually force more people into such areas with a
progressive increase in'competition with elephants. In the immediate
future it can be expected that current trends in Kenya's ivory production
will continue.


Production and Quantities
Ivory production as gauged from export figures has shown a similar
* trend to that of the overall East African trade described in the preceding
chapter, with the exception that there has been no decline over the last
decade. A decline in quantities occurred from 1925 until the mid-1930s,
but since then there has been a constant increase to the present day.
Table 5 gives annual totals an-d 5 year running averages for ivory
originating in Kenya, imported into and re-exported from Kenya. From
this it may be seen that its own production has risen from c. 350 centals
in 1925 to c. 900 centals annually in 1969. In the running averages for
the years 1957 1967 the average increase in quantity was 3. 3% per
annum. This information is also presented graphically in Fig. 7. The
total quantity produced over the 45 year period is 22, 714. 61 centals,
which at an average weight of 40 Ibs per elephant (being the average
obtained from Mombasa Auction records) indicates a total offtake of some
56, 787 elephant.






Domestic Production I m p o r t s


Annual
Year Total


5 Year
Running Av.


Annual 5 Year
Total Running Av.


Annual
Total I


5 Year
Running Av.


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
t 1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
I 1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


359.40
328.80
563.80
328. 44
269.48
357.68
292.76
307.32
418.80
466.52
430.00
400.00
350.00
293.36
273.28
245.28
276.48
124, 32
129.92
291.20
324.80
766.08
566.72
434.56
509.60
564.48
496. 1 6
325.92
372.96
347. 00
731. 00
703.00
527.00
580.00
601.00
653.00
719.00
900.00
928.00
862.39
646. 16
996.71
1065.88
850.31
736.04


369.98
369.64
362. 43
311.14
329.21
368.62
383.28
404 53'
413.06.
387.94
349.33
312.38
287.68
242.34
209.85
213.44
229. 34
327.26
415.74
476.67
520.35
568.29
514. 30
466.14
453.82
421. 30
454.61
495.98
536. 19
577.60
628.40
612.80
616.00
690.60
760.20
812.48
811.11
866.65
899.83
884.29
859.02
9 Z 47.
10 -0-7


228.56
135.52
376.32
155.68
498.40
294.56
331.52
565. 60
586.88
767. 20
1401.12
1284.64
1251. 04
1016.96
1059.52
1247.68
1398.88
2697,.78
1601.60
1156.96
1844.64
1809.92
3081.90
932.96
107.52
804. 1 6
2197.44
-1781.92
2674.56
957. 00
1516.00
1728.00
1418.00
1119.00
1018.00
1176.00
2189.00
2.00





40.00
40.00


278.90
292.10
331.30
369.15
455.39
509. 1 5
730.46
921. 09
1058.25
1144.26
1 202. 73
1172.04
1194.89
1484.24
1601.16
1620.65
1740.04
1822.25
1899.08
1765.35
1555.46
1347.36
1424.87
1164.87
1513.19
1683.09
1825.46
1731.55
1658.78
1347.67
1339.87
1291.87
1384.07
1375.59
1461.12
1682.68


286.72
87.36
496.16
198.24
253. 1 2
204.96
160.16
38.56
224. 00
569. 1 6
1351.84
1033.76
1236.48
722.40
1120.00
1048. 32
1662.08
1366.00
1340.64
1415.68
1976.80
3197.60
2101.12
1197.28
250.88
314.72
2373.28
1 671. 04
1744.96
1847.00
1374. 00
1857.00
970.00
1526.00
847.00
1148.00
1617.00
641. 00
282.00


5.35


264.32
247.97
262. 53
171.01
176.16
239.37
468.74
643.46
883.05
982.73
1087.50
1026.79
1152.46
1178.36
1302.01
1361.14
1516.84
1853.94
2000.97
1972.30
1739.34
1406.92
1242.06
1336.81
1635.62
1954.85
2166.70
2063. 45
1.923. 24
1879.45
1 679.45
1634.25
1586.25
1520.45
1 271. 65


TABLE 5 Kenya'i domestic ivory exports, imports and re-exports
from 1925 1969 (inclusive) as annual totals in 100 Ib centals
and 5 year running averages.

Iq7o 97%.42. l -4o .3c
m ; ft ,U 2-.n.T 2.- ^. 3

i9l7 3,&l3"7. -

( ?7S. cS(0l. o,


Re-exports













Domestic Production
Annual 5 Year
year Total Running Av.


I m p o r t s
Annual 5 Year
Total Running Av.


Re-exports


Annual
Total


5 Year
Running Av,


.. 1925
* 1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1-. 931
1: 932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


359.40
328.80
563.80
328. 44
269. 48
357.68
292.76
307.32
418.80
466. 52
430.00
400.00
350. 00
293.36
273.28
245. 28
276.48
124. 32
129.92
291.20
324.80
766.08
566.72
434.56
509. 60
564.48
496. 1 6
325.92
372.96
347. 00
731 .00
703.00
527. 00
580.00
601. 00
653.00
719.00
900.00
928. 00
862. 39
646. 1 6
996.71
1065, 88
850. 31
736.04


369.98
369.64
362.43
311.14
329.21
368.62
383.28
404.53'
413,06.
387.94
349. 33
312.38
287.68
242.34
209.85
213.44
229.34
327.26
415.74
476.67
520.35
568. 29
514.30
466.14
453.82
421.30
454.61
495.98
536.19
577.60
628.40
612.80
616.00
690.60
760.20
812.48
811.11
866.65
899.83
884. 29
859.02
l O -E7.
101-0.$7.


228.56
135.52
376.32
155.68
498.40
294.56
331. 52
565. 60
586.88
767.20
1401.12
1284. 64
1 251.04
1016.96
1059.52
1247.68
1398.88
2697.78
1601.60
1156.96
1844.64
1809.92
3081. 90
932.96
107.52
804.16
2197.44
1781.92
2674.56
957.00
1516.00
1728.00
1418.00
1119.00
1018. 00
1176.00
2189.00
2.00





40.00
40.00


278.90
292.10
331. 30
369. 15
455.39
509.15
730.46
921.09
1058.25
1144.26
1 202. 73
1172.04
1194.89
1484.24
1601.16
1620.65
1740.04
1822.25
1899.08
1765.35
1555.46
1347.36
1424.87
1164.87
1513.19
1683.09
1825.46
1731.55
1658.78
1347.67
1339.87
1291.87
1384.07
1375.59
1461.12
1 682.68


286.72
87.36
496.16
198.24
253. 1 2
204.96
160.16
38.56
224. 00
569. 1 6
1351.84
1033.76
1236.48
722.40
1 20.00
1048. 2
1662.08
1366.00
1340.64
1415.68
1976.80
3197.60
2101.12
1197.28
250.88
314.72
2373.28
1 671.04
1744.96
1847.00
1374.00
1857.00
970.00
1526.00
847.00
1148.00
1617.00
641. 00
282.00


5.35


264.32
247.97
262. 53
171.01
176.16
239.37
468.74
643.46
883.05
982.73
1087.50
1026.79
1152.46
1178.36
1302.01
1361.14
1516.84
1853.94
2000.97
1972.30
1739.34
1406.92
1242.06
1336.81
1635.62
1954.85
2166.70
2063.45
1:923. 24
1879.45
1 679.45
1634.25
1586.25
1520.45
1 271.65


TABLE 5 Kenyais domestic ivory exports, imports and re-exports
from 1925 1969 (inclusive) as annual totals in 100 Ib centals
and 5 year running averages.

1q70 97 ,-/+Z. Ib-4o -J


2:'Si -.3.


till I,Wk& IX.







A a;:1 : 1


nr n ,nua i to talks


h(G.. 7_.


5 YeaOr runninF, ntvflrt-(P


S;In r 'I C vory e x pc
; r; It.'( i ;. ci0ru1ai o rISUWI. ais
rv11 n -eaIF P 1 1- 5.
''o t ~u UIil 9'I U'-'


2.9 ?0 1qL0


1000


200






From analysis of auction records of the period 1959 1970, the
Kenya Government's contribution to the country's production (this is the
major source of Kenya's ivory and the direct result of the human-
elephant interaction) is made up of the following categories :-
(1) Vilaiti 14.79%
(2) Cutchi 17.66%
(3) Calasia 12.71%
(4) Fankda 13.69%
(5) Maksub 16.20%
(6) Dandia 10.61 %
(7) Chinai 3.95%
(8) Rotten 10.39%

100.00

The Government policy in shooting elephant on 'control', that is the
defence of cultivation and protection of human interests, is to shoot
males in preference to females. This is reflected in the figures as the
three all male categories vilaiti, cutchi and fankda constitute 46. 14%
of the total output, irrespective of the males present in the other
categories except calasia.


It is of interest to compare the foregoing figures with the categories
obtained by the Kenya National Parks, whose only source of ivory is
the collection of that becoming available through natural mortality. Their
percentages over the same period 1959 1970 are :-
(1) Vilaiti 9.66%
(2) Cutchi 5.48%
(3) Calasia 17.86%
(4) Fankda 3.70%
(5) Maksub 6.82%
(6) Dandia 17. 16%
(7) Chinai 13.25%
(8) Rotten 26.07%

100.00

As is to be expected the figures do not show such a preponderance
of males as in the human induced mortality, the three all male classes
producing only 18.84% of the total compared with 46.14% of those taken
on controll. Also as is to be expected the rotten ivory figure is very
much higher as a result of extensive weathering before being found and
picked up by National Parks staff. Comparison of the two methods of
production control shooting and random collection of natural mortality -
show that ivory qualit-y obtained through the latter will be very much lower.




14
Imports
Over most of the period 1925 1969 (inclusive) Kenya has fostered

an active import-export trade in ivory from other African states. As
will be seen from Table 5 imports totalling 44, 596.44 centals greatly
exceeded Kenya's own ivory production over the 45 years covered.
However belief that the cessation of this trade would "be in the interests
of conservation" led to the Kenya authorities being pressured into

placing an embargo on ivory originating outside the three East African
states in the early 1960s. This together with the political troubles in the
Congo (Kenya's main supplier, see below) virtually ended Kenya's
commanding position in the trade. (The "conservationists" achieved
little through their interference except disrupting a valuable industry to
Kenya. Nowhere did they stop the killing of elephants.)


The patterns of Kenya's import-export trade are presented in Fig. 8
a as 5 year running averages.


The origins of Kenya's Imports are given in Table 6 together with
their stated values in shillings per pound weight. From Table 6 it may
be seen that 74. 11 % came from the Congo, 10.58% from Tanganyika,
7.69% from Somalia, 4.48% from Mozambique, 0.07% from Zanzibar,
0.01% from Eritrea, 0.23% from Ruanda, 1.57% from the Sudan, 0. 14%
from Rhodesia, 0. 67% from Zambia and 0. 10% from Malawi. The
political chaos of the continent, the worsening trade relations between
Kenya and Tanzania, the embargo on trade between Kenya and
Mozambique, Rhodesia and South Africa, 'the civil war in the Southern
Sudan and the antagonistic attitude of Somalia to Kenya, all make it very
unlikely that Kenya's import-export trade in ivory from these states will
* recover its former levels in the near future.


Values
Comparative values for Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyikan ivory are
given in Table 7 and Fig. 9, together with the overall East African
average. From Tables 2 and 7 and Fig. 9 it is apparent that there was
little recorded difference in values for ivory produced within the three
countries. However, the average of ivory imported into Kenya shows
an anomalous relationship to that that is re-exported. The relevant data
are presented in Table 8 and Fig. 10 from which it can be seen that the
import values (which must approximate to buying prices) tend to exceed
the export value (selling prices) and that if this reflected a true situation
the trade must be run at a loss. Enquiries put to the ivory traders in
Mombasa elicited the following explanation. There is no Customs tariff
or duty on either the import or export of ivory from any of the East
African territories. As a result the Customs authorities pay only






















Re-c -


im 'o r- L .


1930 1940


FIG. 8, Quantities of Kenya's ivor.S '1 r I ;ut :t -i n rc
running averages.


1950 1c.0 1970 1




,i
... .
'- -.L~ n ^ n l~ i i i .nl-i.d, r-'< rr a e h ^ / illr i'" i, i;{** I'^ ;


I ; I i' I I 'i I I'''* I


2000


1000





6 Ivory imported into Kenya, showing countries
and average values in shillings per lb.


of origin, amounts in 100 lb centals


^ Tanzania

30.-32
-. Ti*',,.--- -15-58

,,, 28.-00
15.96

r- 'nc Ltj 53.76
IIA1.4 13 61
'- 12.32
Qnt t J 18.13

1r^al1^
118.72
12 66
-'- ,unt Li 94.08
8.96
S L. 190.40
1131 = 6-45

-102 QPrAzL L J 57.12
"v.Vab. 7.80

19 '33 "nt L 1. 367.36
V.3LU- 5-49

1.934 uan"J 290680
5-40

.l1935 4, :1 193.76
A .Va = 6.77
1936 QUAPLJ L 321.44
b.21

i 737 1 ,ant Lj 189.28
,. 6.78
, 38 2 tr,, tj 260.90
AV. a .l, 5.54

AV.46a 6.20
L940 Q=ur,lItj 237.44
4 1 [ V L -4 5 2
1941 Q ,,t L L 135-52
A, v l,, 6.81
194? ,r:.i' 135.22
L,7.40
S.r, ,.., 35.84
&, YaLu. 10.51


j4 r. E E
).;4 w=uro ii,,,
A. V. a L,
1H4-, .0,,6 i t




4l. .oau,
L 140 tL..| k .
n E 1.u


S r. L t.
S1.'J u. r.l i L .
.'16 Lt ,,












r.. 2~u.
Lf:'' '
LLJ
A I 1 t j




















iI,- ,[i _
LT~i
A V!' *t Lu

I "' i A-ii L.










[,t a L
-L, r t
r, /L





.:'' e ,-n t


118.72
13.57
187.04
11.73
461.44
14.11
364.78
13.43
520.80
13.31
1.12
22.32
1.12
13.57


Congo


196.00
7.43
104.16
6.38
225.12
8.83
143.36
9.99
366.24
10.01
131.04
9.04
84.00
6.49
455.84
6.23
184.80
4.59
434.56
5.21
1,089.76
5.08
920.64
5.01
1,024 .80
6.58
610.40
5.75
752.64
5.55
1,002.40
5.65
1,258.88
5.12
1,513.12
5.58
1,274.50
8.64

950.88
9.93
1,565.76
10.20
1,056.16
12.76.
2,504. 32
13.73
356.16
11 .72
42.56
13.84
567.84
11.18
1,443.66
12.67
1,126.72
13.74-
2,026.08
15.49
528.00
14.19
1,140. 00
16.10
1,428.00
16.99
1,241.00
17.59
1,069.00
17.09
925.00
17.80
1, 119.oo00
18.08
2,165.00
15.71


4,720.48 33,048.48
10.58 74.11


Malawi hodeia Zanzibar Ruanda Mozambique ritrea Total/Av.
Sudan Somalia Zambia Malawui Rhodesia Zanzibar Pouanda Mozambzque Eritrea # v=


2.24
14.64
3.36
12.62
97.44
12.09


4.48
10.31


0.96
8.93
50.40
8-44
49.28
6.58
50.40
5.46
34.72
5.55
30.24
5.51
117.60
5.20
36.96
6.13
1.12 35.84
10.53 6.24
7.84 131.04
6.66 5.82
2.24 79.52
4.46 5.85


126.56
13.05
20.16
13.89
11.20
9.16


1,049.44
7.67
291.20
10.67

56.00
10.26
14.56
9.92
25.76
12.02


182.56 52.64
14.81 13.33
129.92 219.52
13.26 14.70
14.56 208.32
11.74 13.33
352.80
12.94
37.00 4.00
16.76 15.25
165.00
12.52
232.00
13.31
34.00 20.00
14.70 14.87
11.00
13.64
63.00 O
18.63
57.00
14.02


19.04
6.45
140.00
9.53
S23.52
5.72
58.24
13.70


19.04
21.00


1.12
17.86


19.04
5.83
5.60
5.50


31.36
10.13
45.92 31.36
11.47 10.12
101.92
12.90
52.64
12.83
20.16
7.07
5.60
11.43


36.96
13.65





24.00
15.83
20.00 20.00
14.35 18.23


367.36
13. Ob
432.32
11.09
295.68
9.87
364.00
9.94
271.00
13.83
60.00
11.08
116.00
15.06
19.00
11.b4
4.00
.11.25


8.00
16.82
7.00
18.00



26.00
14.68


24.00
16.67


699.48 3,430.24 297.76 45.12 61.04 30.24 103.52 2,157.84
1.57 7.69 0.67 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.23 4.84


228.56
8.58
135.52
8.52
376.32
11.56
155.68
10.64
498.40
10.62
294.56
8.71
2.24 331.52
7.14 6.47
565.60
6.31
586.88
5.21
767.20
5.29
1,401.12
5.33
1,284.64
5.34
1,251.04
6.60
1,016.96
5.72
1,059.52
5.71
1,247.68
5.77
1,396.88
5.30
2,697.78
6.49
1,601.60
9.05

1,156.96
10.34
1,844.64
10.38
1,809.92
13.15
3,081.90
13.49
932.96
12.34
107.52
13.73
804.16
12.15
2,197.44
12.99
1,781.92
13.03
2,674.56
14.53
957.00
12.72
1 ,16.00 5
16.38 I.
1,728.00
16.29
1,416.00
17.28
1,119.00
16.97
1,016.0 O
17.74
1,176.o00
17.89
2,189.00
15.72
2.00
2.90

2.24 44,596.44
0.01 100.00


for ear














-' 'y-Iear



-1926
'- 1927
1928

4 '930



./i1920
g '1931
:19 32
933






S@19344
1935
91936
I 937

S1939
-1940
- E 1941
-1942
943
;1944
S1945
1946
1947
S1948
1 ;- 1949
1950
= 1951
- 1952
1953
S1954
1955
P?_1956
S1957
1958
1959
S1960
S1961
1962
S1963
S1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


K
Annual
Av.

15.20
14.06
11.14
10,.46
10.01
8.04
6.56
6.72
3.95
4.45
5.62
5.24
7.19
5.66
5.62
6.81
6.82
8.52
11.39
11,49
11.76
13.92
13.85
12.31
11.97
12.76
14.93
13.75
13.37
13.33
13.07
14.20
15.45
13.81
15.82
18.27
16.73
15.92
16.26
17.67
19.57
19.42
18.93
18.01
18.73


e ny a
5 Year
Running Av.


12.17
10.74
9.24
8.36
7.06
5.94
5.46
5.20
5.29
5.63
5.87
6.10
6.42
6.69
7.83
9.01
10.00
11. 42
12.48
1.2.67
12.76
12.96
13.16
13.14
13.36
13.63
13.69
13.54
13.88
13.97
14.47
15.51
1 6.02
16.11
16.60
16.97
17.23
17,77
18.37
18.72
18.93


Uganda
Annual 5 Year
Av. Running Av..


16.59
16.16
12.37
11.80
10.88
8.05
7. 12
6.83
4.54
5.01
5.61
5.24
7.19
5.66
5.55
6.59
7.12
8.11
11.16
10.96
11.81
13.08
13.39
12.85
11.76
13.05
14.37
13.19
13,66
13.19
13.66
13.19
14.92
13.13
14.73
16.33
14.91
16.08
15.59
17.82
20.29
20. 21
18.17
17.86
19.23


13.56
11.86
10.05
8.94
7.49
6.31
5.83
5.45
5.52
5.75
5.85
6.05
6.43
6.61
7.71
8.79
9.84
11.03
12.08
12.42
12.58
12.83
13.09
13.05
13. 2t
13.50
13.62
13.38
13.73
13.62
13.93
14,46
14.81
15.04
15.53
16.15
16.94
18.00
18.42
18.87
1.9. 16


Tanganyika
Annual 5 Year
Av. Running Av.


12.34
8.23
6.99
7.10
5.26
5.58
6.76
6.49
6.70
5.63
6.19
6.73
7.24
7.68
11.64
12.30
11.37
13.82
12.75
12.86
11.95
13.81
15.05
14,62
13.39
14.02
16,94
15.80
16.20
13.97
16.30
18.68
14.81
15. 15
15,.35
17.33
20. 17
18.58
22.07
17.33
17.89


7.98
6.63
6.34
6.24
6.16
6.23
6.35
6.35
6.50
6.69
7.90
9.12
10.05
11.36
12.38
12.62
12.55
13.04
13.28
13.66
13.76
14.18
14.80
14.95
15.27
15.39
15.84
16.19
15.99
15.78
16..06
16.26
16.56
17.31
18.70
19.09
19.21


45 Yr
Av. 12.19 11.81 12.20 11.74 12.51 12.34



TABLE 7 The average annual values and 5 year running average
values of ivory produced in Kenya, Uganda and
Tanganyika expressed as shillings per Ib.


i-%-


lP: s
#5c






















c li, '** "
s / ..
IC i


$


^*I'
a..i.


/..

/..;


o.ll
zx
pt.
/:*


K


t.~ C1


1 c


I ;,!' :.:,


* *-, *. .'


*


IQ ^


Zi r'q--:4 n r:


I















ports
5 Year
Running Av.


Year


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


Re -e
Annual
Av.


8.58
8.52
11.56
10.64
10.62
8.71
6.47
6.31
5.21
5.29
5.33
5.34
6.60
5.72
5.71
5.77
5.30
6.49
9.05
10.34
10.38
13.15
13.49
12.32
13.73
12.15
12.99
13.03
14.53
12.72
16.38
16.29
17.28
16.97
17.74
17.89
15.72





18.00
18.00


x p o r t s
5 Year
Running Av.


9.98
10.01
9.60
8.55
7.46
6.40
5.72
5.50
5.55
5.66
5.74
5.83
5.82
5.80
6,46
7.39
8.31
9.88
11.28
11.94
12.61
12.97
12.94
12.84
13.29
13.08
13.93
14.59
15.44
15.93
16.93
17.23
17.81


TABLE 8


The average annual values and 5 year running average
values of Kenya's imported and re-exported ivory in
shillings per lb.


12.08
12.69
10.45
10.10
9.35
7.93
6.80
8.23
4.79
4.47
5.12
4.65
6.49
4.75
4.90
5.67
5,50
7.01
9,51
9.74
9.94
12.24
11.72
11.26
12.22
9.72
11.31
11.26
10.57
11.50
11.38
12.26
13.14
12.81
14.53
16.58
15.74
15.34
15.51


17.93


I m
Annual
Av.


10.93
10. 10
8.93
8.48
7.42
6.44
5.88
5.45
5. 10
5.10
5.18
5.29
5.46
5,57
6.52
7,49
8.34
9.69
10.63
10.98
11.48
11.43
11.25
11.15
11.02
10.87
11.20
11.39
11.77
12.22
12.82
13.86
14.56
15.00
15.54



















tII ro ~1. vi ~ ~'' 8


Ex oort v ia. u (-


1.950


paoiTri i +.,.i-n, I .,; r- i.' ., anomalou a. va Lue -; ; ':'... ....
:, J' r F p '.,i: r! -i '. '- ..' T" .,r 'i | i i'n ; i'; r ,,.. ,ii i ': "'. '.
m p ii r. i ,*I. ,


* Xr't ~ *--.--'*' ...~*,


1930 1.94


T2., .L.


fe *fJ*.^'..J4* la,^ ;^.V^










15


=r cursory attention to the values stated on shipping documents. However
--the freight rates for transporting ivory by sea are (or were) based on a
.-percentage of the consignment's value. By falsely reducing the values
-on shipping documents the traders were obtaining a substantial discount
-on their transport costs. This was reflected quite clearly in the Annual
l-- -Trade Reports but as it did not involve any loss of revenue to the
:OGovernments was ignored. It therefore does not represent any true
^ anomaly in ivory values.


---:':Buyers of Kenya's Ivory Domestic and re-Exported

The importers of Kenya ivory, domestic and that obtained from other
-states are given in Tables 9 and 10 respectively. The data are presented
in a rawv state so that if at some future date it is felt that more can be
_-:<... obtained from them than is required in this report, it will be available.
...- (The same philosophy applies to many of the other detailed tables that
-- follow in subsequent chapters.)

:-,"' --~-^-
-HG.
-^.....-










"""._.-*.--
'*'\-4 -7




i- ._' "




V .." TABLE 9


Yea, "'.41.41- TE-a: e-si. ?rr.cc ara.4 ao4 . Japan BrazUil y Ago-eiyS1

"1124 ;tt.4s 31,.21, 57.-t 14.00 73.04 a
^.V4 i7.2 12.1 .5-4 14.44 10.2t
i t ,u.t 3 4.7 3C.24 41.44 i..2 2.24 51.52 1.3 2.24
,. e 1;.4 9.67 1j.6, 2;'4 1..0 17.22 1.55 12.32
1927 ,u-r.titi o7.2- ibo.11 194.1o v.sa-il v. ai, 7.04 31.3o 1.12 2.24
"v. '1- 1 i2.s7 12.12 IC.C4 12.12 14.0, 5.0c 15.71
192- .untlt2 32Q-.32 10C.32 114.24 1.12 t.72 1.12 4.3c 1.12 26.0c 1.12
V..V.ie 12.,4 1C.C4 lu.ii 4.q2 14.14 4.04 21.91 20.89 12.17 16.43
1,2" uantlty 49.04 *72 O.oc. v. m- 1.12 2.24 20.11 17.52 1.-2 3.36 1.12
A.;alue 11.93 9.97 11.0O 9.4c 14.2c 6 .51 C.33 9.11 16.13 15.89
j,4 .a0-ttI. 0.C0 97.44 -4.40 v..ca. v.naio' 2.24 v.aaali 31.36 35.84 .72 41.44 2.24
,V.Vlo.e 9.1ic 7. C.2, 1i.10 4.50 4.87 .32 7.61 o 10.63
1,43 -, l't I. 4'06.l 1C7.52 cl.7. 3-j6 1.12 ".0al 47.04 23.52 1.12 25.70 V.bsnl
,.V'lia 7.-7 -.74 7.17 6.19 0.6i 4.70 0.4- 11-43 7.17
19-2 .uAr.lt, 443.04 142-.4 19.72 2.24 3.31b 2.24 63.-04 2c.1C 71.8 12.32 1.12
.' 4 nr.tit, 2-6.24 27-.14 21.O v.aa,.1l 1.12 6.72 38.0t 13.44 1.12 5.0C 32.408 62.72 1.12 1.12
4..e 4.9; 4.7i 3->4 9.2c 5-27 3.4, 7.54 IC.0 10.1i 5.41 4.47 7.86 3.93
il-4 a.t ?7o.os 29,1. C .-... U. v.saill 24.64 61.6c 3.34 4.48 12.32 22.40
3v.V.ua 2.43 4-.0 4.7' 2.65 7.13 2.74 4.46 5.18 4.29
l,) u110rl1 1o04-.0 2. .04 0.9.2, _.ia. 14.56 7.04 1.06 1..I 2 13.44 14.56 56.C00 1.12 1.12 2
.)-. ai. 4.05 5.35 5.72 3.63 5.05 3.15 .C3 4.75 7.55 4.47 3.57 5.36 2.24
iJ.i tu1ntIt0 21B.40 ( 34.92 325-.92 .-3 3.3c 2.24 4.44 11.20 50.40 15.68 47.04 2.24 2.24
5.Val- 5.60 4.1C 4.b- 7.t. 3.27 5.80 7.81. 2.80 C 6.61 7.23 5.00 5.80 5.62
1)37 .untt0 133.20 375.20 32 .1 1.12 1.1i2 33.6C 12.42 V.-a!I 4.48 10.0O 49.28 1.12
v.Va-ue 6.10 7.23 7.12 11.1i 6.25 4.77 6.90 8.70 9.82 8.10 8.93
13S3 ,.1nit.t 176.OC 254.12 181.44 2.24 7.-4 7c.1o 57.12 1.12 2.24
Av.alue .01 5-13 4.44 6.70 5.48 7.04 6.97 4.82 7.14
*0 1942 i-:Itllt 40.32 ICO." 4 45.92 2.24 4.40 3.36 12.32 44.80 1.12 6.72 2.24 1.12
v.Vaue 6.24 5.03 5.81 6.70 6.7c 5. 5 4.19 c.03 8.93 7.86 4.46 8.57
1944 uantitY 10.06 9Y.00 04.o 3.-36 7.64 5..4C v.small 2.24 1.12 5.60
v.Value 5.9 C0.54 6.51 6.21 3.47 8.23 3.75 8.93 7.61
1941 u.ntt0y 2.24 52.0o 155.0c 20.0O 3.30 33.bc
)n.Va.ue 3.27 6.66 6.44 5,15 4.64 8.39
142 ..anttj 3.3t 47.14 0.44 4.41
^v.Vaiu. 5.5 7.21 9.-51 9.15
1943 1un,-t0. 41.44 C4.00 4.48
Av.Vlue 10-.59 1-.4r 17.32
1944 u.Crtlty 7.04 17C.'24 71.60 4.40 33.6C 1.12 2.24
Av.aiue 14.46 10.87 11.02 1C.96 13-70 12.14 19.46

1945 Qai-ntt 12.32 lo7.04 100.4 15.68 1 .12
A.Value 0.75 1-.47 12.41 13.51 5.53
1940 Quantity 50.40 453.60 157.92 3.30 4.48 24.64 69.44 v.-Mall 2.24
Aa.Value 14.30 13.47 15.94 15.00 4.87 9.50 14.18 9.91
1947 quantity 10.0b 374.08 7t.16 6.72 14.56 26.68 39.20 3.36 14.5- 1.12
-v.VIlue 6.51 14.62 11.53 14.86 '6.44 6.99 19.684 8.7 16.84 10.71
1948 Quantlty 25.76 207.20 101.92 6.72 38.08 50.40 1.12 1.12 2.24
A-.Value 10.09 12.33 12.92 14.64 7.04 15.71 17.86 11.07 11.96
1949 Quantity 49.26 168.00 132.1o 1.12 2.24 10.08 96.56 v.-all 31.36 2.24 1.12 0.72 3.30 3.36
Av.Value 10.72 12.70 10.41 8.39 13.84 5.32 14.20 9.44 9.7 16.96 13.69 13.81 10.42
1950 Quantity 8.96 264.32 172.48 4.48 26.88 48.16 2.24 3.30 12.32 2.24 16.80 2.24
Av.Value 13.70 13.37 13.30 9.95 6.01, 12.20 13.39 4.64 6.59 9.91 14.15 19.20
1951 Quantity 17.92 258.72 141.12 10.00 35.84 1.12 2.24 1.12 14.56 5.61 1.12 1.12 1.12
Av.Value 15.76 13.89 15.15 15.46 16.80 16.07 17.8o 14.82 1065 26.75 30.71 31.61 21.07
1952 Quantity 0.90 157.92 80.64 1.12 3.36 11.20- 50.40 v.Mall 1.12 v.-aal 7.84 2.24 1 1.12
Av.Value 17.61 13.12 13.71 29.82 7.74 9-25 14.51 18.39 2.204 23.03 17.50
* 1953 Quantity 10.08 173-60 94.08 1.12 1.12 36.08- 43-6. 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 5.60 1.12
Av.Value 17.14 12.73 18-.5 13.93 6.61 8.74 10.92 22.32 28.39 1C.90 19.11 17.64 16.96
1954 Quantity 12.00 152.00 99.C00 V.small 1.00 35.00- 38.00 v.maall 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
Av.Vaiue 17.97 ii.71 15.90 6.00 8.51 16.48 15.40 13.60 12.20 17.50 6.67
1955 Quantity 13.00 297.00 273.C00 1.00 55.0C 00.0c 6.0C 3.00 2.0C0 i.00 2.0' 7.00 ,.0 5.00 1.O 1.00 2.00
Av.Value 18.34 11.08 14.29 14.00 6.10 18.07 18.77 19.87 19.80 25.4c 17.4c 27.-c 10.0 24.CC 20.OC I1.60 16.50
1956 Quantity 23.0C 293.00 243.00 2.00 8.00 30.0c 73.01 1.10 .OC -.CC 10.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.CO
Av.Value 14.32 11.92 15.70 22.00 16.43 5-5d 19.12 27.C 24. 9. 20.90 3500 2150 2160
1957 Quantity 17.00 96.00 233.00 7.00 7.00 74.0 C- 67.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 3.00 .oc i.OC 2.0 1.00
Av.V.Vlu 19.15 13.5c 15.79 17.34 20.40 9.59 19.58 18.75 26.20 15.06 19.40 27.40 2.. 32.0 33.00
1958 Quantity 51.00 24.0 C lt.OC 9.00 7.00 160.00' 104.00 13.00 v.mal1 5.00 2.0 4.00 .C C.OGC 2.C 1.00 O 1.00 1 .O
Av.V.lu. I0.24 14.23 13.65 22.16 13.11 9.89 15.88 13.35 10.881 14.10 1,.80 o 1.27 18.83 10.2 20.20 20.00 18.60
1959 Quantity 14.0c 42.00 332.00 1.00 3-.00 72.00- 98.00 17.01 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.10 2.00
Av.Value 27.87 13.54 15.44 12.00 18.93 11.03 1B.87 16.71 25.00 10.30 19.00 22.20 27.00 15.80 0o., i 23.00
1960 Quantity 43.00 5.00 294.00 3.00 9.00 89.00c 16o.O0 la.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.0 C 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00
Av.Value 23.67 24.60 17.13 27.40 25.19 14.00 19.55 14.33 29.40 22.02 19.00 21.4 31.80 30.00 15.90 17.60 22.20 2.10
1961 Quantity 67.00 3.00 293.00 2.00 2.00 11.00 co 155.00 43.00 26.00 1.00 2.010 5.0 3. 1.00 1 .O 1,0
Av.Value 21.00 21.00 15.17 10.00 20.90 13.61 l.38 18.28 19.3916.2015.40 10.60 23.0 25.40 19.80 13.40
1902 Quantity 45.00 4.00 450.0 2.00 9.00 150.00 170.00 4.00 28.00 3*00 .all v.small 5.00 v.a 'l 2.00 v.snaI. 3.00
Av.Value 21.44 17.65 15.67 14.00 18.56 12.20 1741 13.45 16.84 18.53 17.5o 16.30 22.33
1963 .uantity 107.00 6.00 436.C00 v.=all 10.00 17.00 159.00 117.00 3.00 45.00 1.00 1.CU00 1.00 2.00 1.0C' 1.00 2.00
AV.Valu, 17.96 15.00 16.25 15.30 19.28 13.40 17.93 12.73 16.99 20,80 5.-C 13.40 23.90 29.20 21.80 25.00
1964 quantity 109.50 7.79 202.06 3.11 9-56 259.68 103-97 23.66 102.72 14.77 2.46 2.14 2.27 2.4 4.37 1.23 0.37
Av.Valu, 18467 18.31 18.87 14.73 20.06 16.20 19.31 15.99 15.75 17.28 19.5? 20.09 20.9OC 22.35 16.70 20.00 27.03
1965 Quantity 101.82 61.16 56.57 1.91 15.68 44.84 168.40 85.46 27.34 33.77 21.21 0.36 2.43 2.5. 132 .82
Av.Value 20.23 22.67 21.40 5.24 15.37 17.45 19.63 17.27 17.64 19.61 24.6 15.00 .9o 17.45 19.94 21.95


1966 Quantity 146.04 57-50 68.64
Av.Valuoe 17.80 23.44 21.38
1967 Quantity 73.88 36.44 74.45
Av.Value 17.68 22.77 21.11
1968 Quantity 132.59 109-15
Av.Value 16.09 19.07
1969 Quantity 195.68 47.39
.Av.Value 16.90 21.9c


46.51 391.93 152.63 0.32
21.69 19.47 17.91 21.88
44.64 387.53 217.85
19.92 16.65 19.26
19.54 382.09 126.47
19.87 16.84 18.39
23.00 166.87 189.72
21.48 18.12 19.32


24.31 25.92
15.24 19.49
59.09 21.49
19.47 19.21
16.62 4.06
19.46 20.00
26.08 32.83
18.15 20.16


8. b3 1.C5 1-42
15499 1o. OC 20.0'
2.70 2.91 1.50
19.78 20.0C 20.00
0.48 2.11 1.80 5.o5 0.80
20.00 20.00 24.67 19.79 20.00
0.40 1.20 1.23
25.00 26.67 2.00


7.74
20.26
1.09
18.90


Cha- Egypt Singapor. re..O. Philippi.3 Somali Maritiu. Irn Bahr.i.l aorboy. Lsya A. & .
k..rloa A,4.n ?i1o4 Etl n lopiS a Korea
















6.72
5.06
5.60
3.61
v. -all



2.24
5.80
2.24
8.21






























v.-all

















e.falsl 1.00 2.00
21.80 14.80
v. aal.

2.00 1.00
15.10 20.0,
I.C 1 .00 1.00 .0
23.00 27.20 2d.60
4.00
21.05
1.40 2.10 5.34 1.01
3.97 20.00 17.79 20.00
0.72 4.21 0.97 1.04 1.40
15.00 13.40 28.87 20.00 12.86


4.0' 0.92
13.33 32.61


1.31 42.00
20.00 24.77


4.55 0.44
22.64 20.00


2.02 0.21
10.84 20.00


1.01 0.72 i.12
17.82 20.00 20.00


Ivory originating in and exported from Kenya showing countries of destination,
amounts in 100 lb centals and average values in shillings per lb.






Page
Missing
or
Unavailable













Annual 5 Year
Year Total Running Av.


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946


307.00
202.00
499.00
329.00
407.00
302.00
405.00
562.00
522, 00
453.00
595.92
642.72
734.52
466.00
624.96
572.32
516.32
327. 04
268.80
432.32
638. 40
779.52


348.80
347.80
388.40
401.00
439.80
448.80
507.58
555. 1 3
590.23
579.03
613.42
608.70
583.42
501.33
461 89
423.36
436.58
489.22
520.78
582.60


Year Annual 5 Year
YearTotal Running Av.
Total Running Av.


1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


484.84
577.92
51 6.32
675.36
534.24
431.20
395.36
365.00
489.00
495.00
529.00
448.00
693.00
657.00
457.00
819.00
645.00
1007.53
976.64
1265.54
1324.75
1382.64
715.24


599.40
606.79
557.74
547.01
510.50
480.27
442.96
435.11
454.67
465.20
530.80
564.40
556.80
614.80
654.20
717.11
781.03
942.74
043.89
191.42
132.96

/I 2,f


TABLE 11


Ugandals ivory exports in 100 Ib centals shown as
annual totals and 5 year running averages.


197o 0. 9 .

{' "t (JI s- s


/6, 7 7


I"' 7Y


S'-s-" "o.
















wit, *t~~% 'i( !&t&ANI' ~ *1~-'*1**-~- Pt
yr. -, **44 I*i 'tvh-. .444 ft 4.IttAd


1930


1940


'I S ~ ~L
'.4 14'4*4 ***4
-4 I, *',.*'**' ,'',~ 2 I *'..
.4',


1950


1960-


*.
.4 *,
I --
.4 4 U' -
~ :,4 -
44 4
I I *,


1970


.;.,7 -y,,.


w
I

G

H 1000


800


600


400o.


TIME s(:AIbg;
FIGURE 1: ._.Uganda's..siyory exports in. uOO lb centals shown as annual totals
and S year running averages. 1925 1969











X;7

auction records in Mombasa indicate that the average weight of tusks
from Uganda over the period 1959 1967 was 14. 08 lbs(28 lb's per elephant).
Uganda's 45 year exports would represent an offtake of some 94, 014
elephants at this average.


^ -- The larger quantities of ivory exported toward the end of the 1960s
stemmed largely from the intensive cropping and reduction programmes
.- undertaken in Murchison Falls National Park and in the Budongo forest
S'^_- in an endeavour to stabilise trends in the two areas (Laws et al. 1970).
... It is unlikely that this high output has been maintained since the
culmination of these projects.


From the Mombasa ivory auction records over the period 1959 1967
!-~.": (when Uganda stopped selling in Mombasa and commenced its own auctions
:---. in Kampala) Uganda Government ivory was made up of the following
categories :-
: (1) Vilaiti 3.09%
(2) Cutchi 14.66%
-: (3) Calasia 22.08%
.: (4) Fankda 14.52%
-: (5) Maksub 26.04%
F ;- (6) Dandia 13. 12%
S (7) Chinai 3.49%
S (8) Rotten 3.00%

100.00
-' j -..-

^ When compared to the Kenya figures it will be seen that there are
-:44- marked differences in the proportions each category represents of the
v : total. In Uganda the production of Vilaiti is only 3.09% compared to
-.-- Kenya's 14.79%; the contribution of the all male classes is 32. 27%
:. compared to 46. 14%; the female class Calasia is higher than in Kenya,
-_ respectively 22. 08% to 12. 17% and the younger classes of Maksub and
S Dandia contribute substantially more in Uganda than they do in Kenya
(33. 15% to 26.81%). These data accord with the far greater pressures
::: the Uganda elephant are being subjected to, resulting in more females
: and younger animals being taken, and a very much reduced availability
of older males.
:.j **










=-..'^-























:. -. _--.--~e




' r :-a -=.





i -.- -





*-- 2-.'*













;._' :--..;


This picture appears as an intermediate between the Kenya National
Parks and the Uganda Government results. The bulk of Uganda
National Parks ivory comes from the Murchison Falls Park, where it
has been shown that the mortality pattern is greatly influenced by the
Game Department's control activities outside its boundaries (Laws
et al. 1970).


Values
The annual average value of Uganda's ivory and 5 year running
averages are presented in Table 7 and Fig. 9, from which it may be
seen that they do not differ very greatly from the other East African
countries.


Imports
Because it is landlocked and without its own seaport, Uganda has
never developed an import-export trade of ivory from neighboring
countries, However in 1970 some 30 40 tons of ivory from the eastern
Congo -were flown to places as far away as Hong Kong from Entebbe
airport.


Buyers of Uganda Ivory
Table 12 presents details of importers of Ugandan ivory. It will be
seen that these are far fewer than Kenya's importers,


18


Similar information pertaining to Uganda National Parks is as
follows :-
(1) Vilaiti 8.05%
(2) Cutchi 12.65%
(3) Calasia 20.08%
(4) Fankda 10.88%
(5) Maksub 20.59%
(6) Dandia 18.94%
(7) Chinai 4.77%
(8) Rotten 4.04%

100.00




A
a


i lies 7 S l l t !;gs i


U.K. Hong Kong India Zanzibar Tanganyiia


1939 Quantity
Av.Value
1940 Quantity
Av.Value
1941 Quantity
Av.Value
1942 Quantity
Av.Value

1943 Quantity
Av.Value
1944 Quantity
Av.Value
1945 Quantity
Av.Value
1946 Quantity
Av.Value
1947 Quantity
Av. Value
1948 Quantity
Av.Value
1949 Quantity
Av.Value
1950 Quantity
Av.Value
1951 Quantity
Av.Value
1952 Quantity
Av.Value
1953 Quantity
AT.Value
1954 Quantity
AT.Value
1955 Quantity
Av.Value
1956 Quantity
Av.Value
1957 Quantity
Av.Value
1958 Quantity
Av.Value

1959 Quantity
Av.Value
1960 Quantity
Av.Vaiue
1961 Quantity
Av.Value
1962 Quantity
Av.Value
1963 Quantity
Av .Value
1964 Quantity
Av.Value
1965 Quantity
Av.Value
1966 Quantity
Av.Value
1967 Quantity
Av.Value
1968 Quantity
Av.Value
1969 Quantity
Av.Value


97.44
5.67
42.56
6.02
2.24
6.16
3.36
6.19



5.60
13.96
34.72
10.79
21.28
11.00
13.44
7.34
19.04
8.56
19.04
8.74



v. small

v. small

1.12
10.36
v. small




v. small

2.00
17.50
5.00
li .48

1.00
35.20
13.00
15.95
3.00
16.13
10.00
20.42


28.00
3.91
22.40
3.89
13.44
4.88











56.00
7.15
59.36
6.13
78.40
6.28
23.52
5.81
28.00
6.11
20.16
11.20
23.52-
8.12
15.68
47.45
15.-00
10.07
15.00
9.25
31.00
6.70
53.00
9.88
106.00
10.b2

80.00
9.85
107.00
13.1b
124.0oC
13.45
134.00
16.07


320.32
5.45
206.08
6.51
100.80
6.99
120.96
7.15
112.00
11.09
320.32
10.96
440.16
11.90
409 .52
13.28
311.36
14. -5
291.20
12.77
212.80
13.46
472.64
13.30
3 3.12
14.02
202.24
13.17
246.40
13.00
212.00
11.75
290.00
11.50
245.00
12.23
1i6.00
13.18
35.-00
13.76

70.00
13.54
22.00
17.91
9.00
10. t4
5.00
Iy.08


110.88
5.62
217.28
6.69
276.64
7.08
187.04
8.84
146.72
10.77
60.08
10.17
127.68
11.40
150.08
14.84
58.24
12.47
16t.80
15.87
180.32
11.08
148.)6
12.49
108.64
14.69
105.28
13.15
119.84
15.26
131 .00
15.46
154 .00
16.01
212.00O
15.12
333.00
16.17
27'.oC
13.7b

524.00
15.47
47C."'
it. 63
250.00
14 .39
627 .0.
15.I t


1.12
5.71
4.48
8.21
28.00
6.54



1.12
0.93
4.48
13.44


14.56
15.03


France


1.12
3.21


Holland Japan U.S.A. Ceylon Argentine


33.60
6.95
10.08
5.20


v.small


Aden S.Africa Belgium


f)~nmar.c


Uzecao- GCrmany Pakiatan Burma aweden Italy Malaya Ausria America
slovakia


,witzriand Finland S. Korea Canada Siamn ingapore Spain


32.48
5.96


2.24 67.20
4.20 7.19


2.24
5.98


10.08
20.14
4.48
17.10
6c.08
10.26
7.64
13.19



3.36
lfc.01

2.24
13.93


v.amail v.small


v. small


4.46
27.77



2.24
13.57



6.00
13.33
1.00
12.00
15.00c
12.87
4.00
11.05


92.96
7.90
15.68
7.14
8.96
18.73
31.36
10.52
34.72
13.42
48.16
14.02
16.80
17.44
16.80
18.27
13.44
16.50
8.96
17.41



2.24
21.8o00
). 60
20.07
5.c00
21.00
9.00
23.80
1.00
20.C00
6.00
27.)3
17.00
13.74


4.48
19.02


1.12
7.86
1.12
4.82
v. small


v. mall


3.36
5.95
v.8mall v. small


1.12
17.86
1.12
6.25


v. Salli

v. small


1.12
22.32


v.samall


7.84
28.49
7.84
27.78
14.56
20.00
1.12
19.11
2.00
21.20
12.00
24.07
4.00
15.55
2.00
21.50
2.00
15.00



2.00
18.30


1.00
19.20


9.00 b.o0c
14.62 24.70


27.0,
il .o7
43."
17.24
14. OL
15.76


16.00 o5.0c 3.00 504.00
16.78 13.-C 19-.27 15.67


111 .86
17.B0
38.71
24.03
40.10
20.8t
7.52
17.79
3>..79
18.42
33.09
20.65


374.44
16.92
332.35
19.44
574.27
19.5o

794.i3
16.44
9)0.16
17 .0
506.39
18.56


6.44
20.30
90.61
22.99
123.20
23.79
y4.35
22.42
2y2.34
19.16
92.3J
21.57


305-.7
lo.Co
1 c9.49
20.72
lC.36
2 .2)
102.71
20.20


1.00
27.00
4.'06
4 1-
lo.95

2)&. 6u
9 D0
CG.i


i 00 i7. c00
1i.0C) lo.Co


12o.42
1i.25
iy2.37
18.32
16b.4 t
19.07
2.04 60. 63
20.00 y1.12


2.92
21.23
2.14
21.03


1.37
21.90
3.43
20.70


23 .4c
16,93

0c.2)
22. 2
104.5)
22.30
145.'4
21.11
33.44
20.51
17.46
19.62


23.30
20.21
31.14
20.47
37.70
1i .13
3 7. J
2u. ?i
16.74
19.55
21.51
20.61


2.65
20. 0C
5.i0
13.90


0.45
2 .22


21.-3399
21.99


0.76
13.74
1.75
20.11


i.O0
1.00
Li. Ou
10.90 0.63
19.15 20.63
10. )
16.62
3,.20 1.19
10.61 23.53
3b.i6 2.42
16.30 23.64
12.07 6.51
17.75 29.03
0.14 2.17
21.21 24.33


1.12
13.39
v. smal1


1.12
14.29
v. ama! I


v. small


2.00
Y.OC


2.00
20.50


1 .00
37.40



5.00
25.92
7.00
16.91
6-.700-
17.83
7.00
19.23
5.97
15.18
3.74
21.12
3.34
22.63
21.29
20.74
3.74
19.25
5.01
19.96


1.00 2.00 v. small
11.00 17.00
2.00
20.00
2.00
10.00


0.61
20.00


0.52
20.00


0.50
20.00
1.84
20.54


1.21 1.02
20.00 20.00


1.43
69.93



0.50
20.00


0.25
20.00


0.79
202.53


3.77 3.73
19.89 18.02
4.60 11.15
20.00 26.19
0.48
20.00


0.05
20.00


1.00
25.00
2.25
20.00
5.14
20.74
11.37
20.35
1.53 4.02
20.00 18.36
6.02
21.93
15.36
20.00


L Z-15i 11 1 1 -.- 0. -- -.1 -- ---I'- -


Norway Ruanda Otne
























-i
27
-(C






V.




















V.

























1.00 1.24
20.00 20.04





TANGANYIKA'S ELEPHANT IVORY TRADE 1925 1969


The Resource
Little information is available on elephant numbers in Tanganyika.
The only censuses so far made have been carried out in the extreme
north of the country, and have resulted in the following estimates :-
(1) Serengeti National Park c. 2,500
(2) Manyara 1 c. 300
(3) Loliondo Controlled Area c. 200
(4) Mkomasi Game Reserve c. 6, 000
giving a total of 9, 000 elephants. However, they are known to be very
numerous in coastal, central, southern and western Tanganyika. In
the south-eastern areas of the country the Game Department kill c. 3, 000
elephant annually on "control" and have done so for upwards of a decade.
On the basis of limited observation and reconnaissances made by
Wildlife Services Ltd., it is felt that Tanganyika has at least twice as
many elephants as Kenya, and possibly as many as five times as many,
giving projections of between 2 and 500, 000.


Tanganyika is a large country, which though not as well watered as
Uganda, has water very widely distributed. It has a variety of habitats,
varying from lowland forest in coastal areas to montane forests and
moorlands. The most extensive habitat is Brachystygia woodland, also
known as Imiombot. The human populations are widely dispersed and in
smaller groups than occur in Kenya or Uganda. This diffuse distribu-
tion, involving numerous small-holdings, gives rise to large numbers
of interactions with elephants. (This is the opposite of the situation in
Kenya where interactions are intense but very local.) This results in
very great numbers of elephant being killed in.Tanganyika which
consequently has the biggest output of ivory of any of the East African
states. It may be the continents largest producer after the Congo
Kinshasa.


Production and Quantities
No data were available to this survey of quantities of ivory produced
in Tanganyika prior to 1930. However those for the period 1930 1969
(inclusive) are presented in Table 13 and Fig. 12 as annual totals and
5 year running averages. These indicate a steep rate of increase from
c. 350 centals in 1939 to c. 3, 50.Q centals per annum in 1969. The last

10 years of 5 year running averages showed an average annual increase
of 6.97%. The total weight of ivory produced within Tanganyika over
the 40 year period covered is 45, 527. 14 centals. Data from 12 Dar es
Salaam auctions between 1962 and 1970 indicate a very low average tusk
weight of 13.8 Ibs, indicating an offtake of some 164, 954 elephant over







D o m e s t ic
Annual 5 Year
Total Running Av.


Re-export
Annual 5 Year
Total Running Av.


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


347.20
286.72
386.40
579.04
523.04
741.39
510.72
724.64
644.00
633.92
408.80
658.56
441,.. 28
473.76
247. '52
742.56
516.32
1413.44
1023.68
1046.08
1053.92
950.88
917.28
798.56
1092.10
1103.00
1312.00
1197.00
1319.00
1138.00
1516.00
1454.00
1476.00
1472.00
2008.00
1784. 03
1946, 70
2608.,67
2071.10
2407.05
3552.78

45527.14


7911.77


TABLE 13


Tanganyika's ivory exports in 100 Ib centals
both domestic and re-exported, expressed as


annual totals and 5 year running averages.

;197o 3,^X4 1
1171 211. -10
Lv~z ;-s-~*91


424.48
503; 32
548. 1 2
615.77
628.-76
650.93
584.-82
61 3.98
557.31
523.26
445.98
512.74
484* 29
678.72
788.70
948.42
1010.69
1097.60
998.37
953.34
962.55
972.36
1044.59
1100.53
1204.62
1213.80
1296.40
1324.80
1378.80
1409.40
1583.40
1673.01
1735.55
1963.88
2083.70
2163.51
2517.26


623.84
132.16
303.52
175, 84
118.72
707F 84
884.80
931.84
674.- 24
428.96
nil
115.36
32.48
7.84
267; 68
337. 1 2
715.68
686.5 56
423.36
25.76
25.76
2.24
1.12
nil
20, 1 6
71.00
20. 00
16, 00
12.00
nil
25.00
nil
109.00
nil
nil
15.89
nil
nil
nil


353.17
270.82
287.62
438. 1 4
563.81
663. 49
725;: 54
583.97
430.08
250.21
116.93
84.67
152.10
272. 1 6
402.98
486.08
437.70
375.42
232.74
95.65
10.98
9.86
18.90
22.45
25.43
27.83
23.80
14.60
10.60
29.20
26.80
26.80
21.80
21. 80
3.18
3.18
3.18





NOW, A 1 11W.


3600






3000





C
e
n
t
a
1
s 2000












1000









200


5 year runni nL,
averages


D30 IC .1960


PIG. 12. Tanganyika's domestic
ivory ..-.o'ts in 100 lb centals
shown as annual total. and
5 year running averages for the
period 1925 69 (inc.)











V?- 70-
1970


al totals


1930


1:^0


I960


1o ,I,.


. . . .. .. .,. t"HB,,













the period, if this average has been maintained. Little data were
available to this survey from which the contributions of the various
classes toward the total could be calculated, except that rotten ivory
constituted c. 3.8%.


Imports
As with Kenya Tanganyika also fostered a trade in ivory from other
African countries to the outside world. However it was erratic and
never assumed the proportions of the Kenya trade. This was probably
due to the countryls more generally backward economy. Import figures
* are available to this report for the period 1941 1969 only, totalling
3, 159. 80 centals, though re-export data, which must reflect imports,
are available from 1930. Detailed import data are presented in Table
14 and Fig. 13 and from the former it may be seen that Zambia was
Tanganyikals main supplier having produced 51.77% of all imports for
the period. The Congo produced 42.48%, Kenya 2. 27%, Mozambique
1.84%, Sudan 0.73%, Rhodesia 0.51%, Ruanda 0.32%, Malawi 0.07%
and Somalia 0.04%.


Buyers of Tanganyika's Ivory
Importers of Tanganyikan ivory originating in the country, are given
in Table 15, while those taking re-exported tusks are shown in Table 16.


Values
Values for Tanganyika's exports are given in Table 7, from which
it may be seen that they are essentially similar to Kenya's and Uganda's.





YarKenya & Sudan Cngo Somalia Zbia alai Portuuese Rhodesia Zanzibar Buanda Total/Ay.
"e_ Uganda a_ Coo_ oia abili E. A. for year
1941 Quantity 50.40 8.96 107.52 1.12 168.00
Av.Value 5.79 5.38 5.32 5.18 5.46
1942 Quantity 7.84 59.36 67.20
Av.Value 7.35 5.18 5.43
1943 quantity 1.12 560.00 561.12
Av.Value 10.54 6.04 6.05
1944 Quantity .8.96 52.64 921.76 983.36
Av.Value 15.20 5.28 8.53 8.42
1945 Quanr.tity 64.96 4.48 69.44
Av.Value 11.04 10.94 11.03
1946 Quantity 3.36 140.00 515.20 658.56
Av.Value 14.88 10.67 13.70 13.07
1947 Quantity 215.04 2.24 2.24 219.52
Av.Value 11.81 14.00 16.61 11.88
1948 Quantity
Av.Value
1949 Quantity 4.48 4.48
Av.Value 13.93 13.9 '
1950 Quantity 6.72 10.08 16.80
Av.Value 8.96 9.92 9.54
1951 Quantity 1.12 1.12
kv.Value 11.25 11.25
1952 Quant-ty v. small v.small
Av.Value
1953 Quantity 1.12 20.16 10.08 ( jl 3- (- 04Z)
Av.Value 31.25 12.45 19.84 15.28
1954 Quantity 33.00 3.00 36.00 72.00
AV.Value 17.39 20.00 12.49 15.05
1955 Quantity 14.00 8.00 6.00 28.00
Av.Value 16.90 19.00 19.83 18.13
1956 Quantity 3.00 18.00 16.00 37.00
Av.Value 14.67 22.26 18.59 20.05
1957 Quantity 12.00 12.00
Av.Value 20.80 20.80
1958 Quantity 21.00 12.00 33.00
Av.Value 15.69 10.57 13.82
1959 Quantity 8.00 8.00
Av.Value 16.83 16.83
1960 Quantity 81.00 4.00 85.00
Av.Value 15.02 25.05 15.50
1961 Quantity 25.00 113.00 10.00 148.00
Av.Value 15.80 15.01 16.68 15.25
1962 Quantity 5.00 5.00
AV.Value 10o64 10.64
1963 Quantity 4.00 246.00 250.00
AV.Value 4.00 13.80 13.64
1964 Quantity 3.31 1.82 0.48 5.61
Av.Value 10.02 20.00 11.66 13.40
1965 Quantity 15.89 1.23 17.12
Av.Value 8.16 9.42 8.24
1966 Quantity
Av.Value
1967 Quantity
Av .Value
1968 Quantity 1.25 1.25
Av.Value 20.00 20.00
1969 Quantity
Av.Value


22.96 1,362.66
0.66 39.45


1.12 1,640.66
0.03 47.50


4.06 58.08 267.56
0.12 1.68 7.74


16.00
0.46


10.00 3,454.78
0.29 100.00


Totals
Percent


71.68
2.07


ITABLE 14 Ivory imported into Tanganyika, showing countries of origin, amounts in o100 Ib
centals and average values in shillings per lb.















'0* *' t '
-' ,2 -'-" "' '4 "'., ,.-* ,, ,


























C


n
t 5 .00-








.90


rm pLort


1 194 0


a ., o .,. ,',]': ..'T~c.0.. .,:' i v o r,;' ;': l.tK i :o 'e 2'.. ti.; .'.J t h' 1 p ot*.- r .i oc
;, a 1 i.: }" inc ,, ,1 K'Do;-,';- ,tu 3 y ec- r ru,) "V 'j f ; ve e aiey. .


... 'I. .,.
''I,'. *
I *.*,* .


R p- px~po rt;


LQ 70


VI..*. "






Ivory originating in and exported from Tanganyika showing countries of
destination, amounts in 100 Ib centals and average values in shillings per lb.


year- U.K. India Hong or. Zanzioar Ken.ya o.ifrica U.o.S. France Germa.ny oleSium Italy Holland Japan Ceylon Ewypc Sweden Paxiatan Burma Spain Canada Denmark Mozamoique Switzerland Malaya Greece Rhodesia Australia ire Iran New Zealand Singapore Austri
1929 Quantity 125.44 15.66 81.76 116.48 3.36 2.24 2.24
SAv.Value 11.80 11.95 12.09 12.92 15.69 17.86 12.86
S 1930 Quantity 88.48 2.24 95.20 94.08 1.12 v.small. 1.12
Av.Value 10.00 11.96 6.95 .7.96 17.86 .96
1931 Quantity 64.96 1.12 123.20 190.40 1.12
Av.Value 7.91 11.61 6.69 6.44 64.11
1932 Quantity 127-68 72.80 190.40 57.12 v.smali 1.12 122.08 2.24
SAv.Valus 7.36 7.09 6.66 7.74 8.39 7.27 i 7.41
1933 Quantity 28.00 26.86 185.92 256.48 1.12 1.12 20.16
-Av.Value 5.52 5.52 5.17 5-37 7-32 2.68 3.97
* 1934 Quantity 72.80 61.6C 190.24 297.92 26.88 2.24 5.60 76.16
Av.Value 5.56 5.61 5.22 5.40 6.44 6.16 13.75 6.30
* 1935 Quantity 54.86 47.04 190.40 197.12 2.24 6.72 12.32
Av.Value 7.20 6.42 6.94 6.71 6.76 2.50 6.56
1936 Quantity 15.-6 30.24 280.00 319.20 61.60 1.12 lo0.0O
Av.Value 8.11 4.38 6.34 6.24 8.94 5.6-9 0.98
1937 Quantity 44.80 6.72 237.44 185.92 22.40 1.12 117.60 1.12 26.88 v.smalli
Av.Value 6.17 6.01 5.98 6.84 6.51 14.82 7.87 7.14 6.20
1938 Quantity 5.60 11.20 290.08 257.60 21.26 1.12 47.04
Av.Value 6.53 8.57 5.26 5.-60 8.84 5.16 5.52
1939 Quantity 11.20 7.64 150.08 226.24 8.96 2.24 2.24
Av.Value 6.20 7.88 5.59 6.17 6.83 5-80 3.66
1940 Quantity 12.32 124.32 222.88 237.44 61.60
A.v.Value 7.53 7.11 6.37 6.23 0.99
1941 Quantity 39.20 6.72 191.52 135.52 1.12 67.20
Av.Value 7.15 4.61 7.23 6.61 4.64 6.51
S 1942 Quantity 330.40 135.52 7.04
Av.Value 7.76 7.38 9.41
1943 Quantity 210.56 36.96
Av.Value 11.90 10.19
1944 Quantity 460.32 164.64 117.60
Av.Value 10.21 12.61 13.70
1945 Quantity 4.48 81.76 236.32 187.04 6.72
Av.Value 12.81 10.18 11.51 11.73 9.82
1946 Quantity 8.96 601.44 7.64 388.64 333.76 1.12 63-.04 7.84
Akv.Value 14.17 12.45 9.41 14.96 15.17 13.70 14.63 9-95
1947 Quantity 19.04 31.36 493.92 454.72 20.16 3.36 1.12
Av.Value 15-568 .5-43 11.66 14.29 13.01 14.88 11.96


.a Zambia Cyprus Red.China S. Korea Norway U..S.S.R. Others rtal/ai.
for year
347.20
12.34
4.48 286.72
1.43 8.23
5.60 386.40
9.03 6.99
5.60 579.04
5.25 7.10
3.36 523.04
5.59 5.26
V.saall 741 39

510.72
6.76
724.64
6.49
644.00
6.70
633.92
5.63
408.80
6.19
658.56
6.73
441.28
7.24
473.76
7.68
247.52
11.64
742.56
12.30
516.32
11.37
1,413.44
13.82
1,023.68
12.75


2.24 104.16
12.95 13.49
61.60 265.44
0.87 12.46
v.6mall 343.84
S14.03
14.56 364.00
19.88 15.05
6.72 283.36
24.086 13.56
4.40 42d.96
26.39 12.66
22.00 364.00
19.57 11.88
23.00 330.CO
19.36 11.69
36.00 177.00
20.78 11.56
26.00 156.00
16.32 13.10
44.00 22.00
16.58 12.03
19.00 83.00c
23.67 13.29
41.00 43.00
19.67 21.86
29.C00 6.00
16.45 15.63
11.00 6.00
16.84 12.20
23.00 2.0,
15.70 28.30
26.98 4.34
16.09 19.22
14.62 169.31
21.38 22.61


418.08 520.60
12.14 13.31
12.32 610.40 31.36 2.24 v.small 09.44 v.samall
5.70 12.19 14.43 13.21 10.52
25-76 539.04 3.3j 23.52 -- 12.32
6.65 14.13 12.32 13.91 8.41
3.36 509.60 20.16 2.24 v.smail. 2.24 v.small
11.73 14.74 17.72 17.23 19.64
24.64- 431-20 50.40- v..small v.small
8.16 15.16 17.25
71.6b 4 4.96 86.24 1.12 5.60
8.01 13.84 17.18 39.82 78.39
22.00 595.00 51.00 v. ma l 46.00 v.Small 2.00
6.69 15.46 18.34 7.83 17.10
46.00 780.00C 126.00 v.emall 1.00
S6.34 19.14 20.11 38.00
70.00 665.00 42.00 v.Bmall 1.00
6.18 16.99 20.12 28.00
102.00 952.00 51.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 14.00
10.60 17.09 22.41 6.40 20.47 15.40 12.44
165.00 771.00 77.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 17.00
9.b3 14.66 16.24 7.27 22.00 10.80 12.48
133.00 1,188.00 1.00 69.00 2.00 2.00 7.00 3.00 1.00
11.05 16.86 6.00 16.76 19.40 17.10 14.20 9.20 18.00
170.00 1,127.00 49-.00C 1.00 8.00 5.00 9.00
17.22 18.69 22.29 13.40 21.768 16.92 3.00
181.00 1,173.00 39.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 14.00 y.amall 3.00 3.00
12.59 14-93 19.20 16.70 15.78 7.80 12.20 12.60 9.67
238.00 1,142.00 2.00 27.00 3.00 1.00 27.00 2.00
15-57 14.93 13.00 17.56 25.93 17.75 15.67 li.40
2C7.00 1,72..(-00 3.00 2u.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 3.00
1).12 1i.40 14.60 14.22 6.00 30.00CO 15.00 10.50 20.93
480.1C 952.4C 30.83 10.66 8.25 1.37 16.47 1c4.11 41.22
17.70 16.93 18.11 16.94 20.00 16.25 17.43 18.07 17.90
634.86 779-85 104.97 14.96 42.42 3.09 80.37 89.62
18.79 20.97 21.11 22.94 21.25 20.6; 16.76 18.46


139.15 120.72 1,231.CO 56.681
i.37 23.84 17.45 20.C6
39.57 )o. 0 i,0W4.59 397.16
24.73 17-2_ 23.23 20.57
74.75 521.47 1,330.31
14.83 16.76 17.67
134.27 579.74 2,172.57
17.45 20.48 1t.4


77.93 13.99 47.11 47.36 48.58
16.70 16.90 19.90 14.02 18.80
60.57 11.29 44.15 1.00 1C.97 57.16
23.92 19.77 21.44 23..6c 16.60 2(,'.52
119.93 3.25 26.81 0.44 29.92
15.93 16.00 17.92 13.64 16.96
93.10 12.41 39.10 3.51 49.08 14.33
16.79 0lo.45 21.15 6.27 lb.06 6.39


134.12 0.37
20.74 23.70
248.01 0.42
20.26 21.43
256.32
17.55
414.06
1,.25


1.12
12.32
V. small

v. small

2.24
29.64
V.small

v.asmall 1.00
34.60
4.00
24.40
3.00
10.60
v small

2.00
10.50



V. small




1.00
12.00







1.60
24.36
3.00
17.40
7.85
23.18
10.02
17.61


2.24
15.54
1.12
42.86


v.smal1


3.36 1.12 4.48
17.86 13.39 17.86


v. mall


1,046.08
12.86
1,053.92
11.95
950.88
13.81
917.28
15.05
798.56
14.62
1,092.010
13.39 p
1,103.00
14.02
2.00 1,312.00
15.30 16.94
1,197.00
15.80
2.00 1,319.00
18.50 16.20
7.00 1,138.00
17.11 13.97
1,516.00
16.30
1,454.00-
18.68
4.00 1,467.00.
18.15 14.81
1,472.00
15.15
1.00 2,008.00
8.00 15.35


1.00
40.00


1.00
22.40
1.00
20.00
5.00
12.88


4.00
10.:00


v.Swall


1.00 I.OC 1.0C
18.00 10.60 27.80


1.00
20.00


1.00 1.00
13.60 15.00



3.00
3.13
6.37 2.61 1.97
15.98 20.00 16.24
7.36 0.93
20.87 20.00
20.05 3.65 2.10
14.35 19.18 47.62
23.80 2.97 1.66 1.78 0.40
20.47 17.98 25.06 28.43 23.50
16.55 0.05 2.84
18.33 44.00 40.00
22.21 0.84
19.71 21.43


1.00 V.small
27.00O


2.00
15.00


v. small


1.00
24.40


5.00
14.20


0.18
33.33


3.34
21.-6


0.43
20.93


0.91
20.00



0.62
12.92
0.34
20.59


4.32
15.05


0.71
23.10
3.90
18.82
2.97
18.86


1.00C
20.0C
1.00
S20.00


150.50
20.25


0.80
19.75


0.22
18.18


1,7b4.03
17.33
1,946.70
20.17
2,608.67
18.58
0.06 2,071.10 o72 1
20.00 22.07 -/
2,407.05
17.33
1.73 3,552.76
1.09 21.39 17.89
22.02


STABLE 15


1948 Quantity
Av.Value
1949 Quantity
.v.Value
1950 Quantity
AV.Value
1951 Quantity
AIv.Value
1952 Quantity
Av.Value
1953 Quantity
AIv.Value
1954 Quantity
AT.Value
1955 Quantity
Av.Value
1956 Quantity
Av.Value
1957 Quantity
AIv.Value
1958 Quantity
Av.Value
1959 Quantity
Av.Value
1960 Quantity
Av.Value
1961 Quantity
iv.Value
1962 Quantity
Av. Value
1963 Quantity
Av.Value
1964 Quantity
A .7alue
1965 Quantity
Av.Value
1966 Quantity
Av.Value
1967 Quantity
iv.Value
1968 Quantity
iv.Value
1969 Quantity
Av.Value


2q








I



<- !f


23.52 12.32
9.75 10.05
68.32
6.83


1929 Quantity
Av.Value
1930 Quantity
Av.Value
1931 Quantity
Av.Value
1932 Quantity
Av. Value
1933 Quantity
Av. Value
1934 Quantity
Av.Value
1935 Quantity
Av.Value
1936 Quantity
Av.Value
1937 Quantity
Av.Value
1938 Quantity
Av.Value
1939 Quantity
Av.Value
1940 Quantity
Av.Value
1941 Quantity
Av.Value
1942 Quantity
Av.Value
1943 Quantity
Av.Value
1944 Quantity
Av.Value
1945 Quantity
Av.Value
1946 Quantity
Av.Value
1947 Quantity
Av.Value
1948 Quantity
Av.Value
1949 Quantity
Av.Value
1950 Quantity
Av.Value
1951 Quantity
AV. Value
1952 Quantity
Av.Value
1953 Quantity
Av.Value
1954 Quantity
Av.Value
1955 Quantity
Av.Value
1956 Quantity
Av.Value
1957 Quantity
Av.Value
1958 Quantity
Av.Value
1959 Quantity
Av.Value
1960 Quantity
Av.Value
1961 Quantity
Av.Value
1962 Quantity
Av. Value
1963 Quantity
Av.Value


54.88 53.76 6.72
6.14 5.21 5.48
14.56
6.06


157.92
7.70
16.80
6.01
1.12 84.00
4.46 4.98
1.12 127.68
5.00 9.90



2.24
13.75
25.76
7.72
2.24
13.21
1.12
18.75
v. small


56.00 53.76
8.87 11.16
320.32
8.14
11.20 611.52
12.05 9.27
151.20 137.76
13.97 10.75
80.64 120.96
11.09 13.99
21.28 2.24
4.54 13.48


3.36
8.63
1.12
28.21
1.12
10.18


3.36 20.16
8.93 10.24
1.12
6.25
5.60 13.44
6.86 6.22
8.96
6.92
22.40 14.56
2.60 2.90
258.72 92.96
3.67 4.20
258.72 198.24
4.47 5.21
482.72 30.24
4.47 4.43
236.32 25.76
4.45 5.61
126.56 17.92
4.44 4.53


561.12
8.90
60.48
8.71



131.04
7.58
8.96
5.16
100.80
4.15
172.48
4.61
5.60
4.86
8.96
4.64


154.56
7.17


12.32
2.21
10.08
4.96


17.92
9.08
7.84
6.73


7.84
12.68
24.64
6.74
13.44
7.44


19.04
6.07


42.56
12.48
5.60
10.89


3.36
12.98


172.48
3.88
199.36
3.88


10.08
10.20


48.00
18.78


TABLE 16 Ivory imported then re-exported from Tanganyika, showing countries of destination,
amounts in 100 Ilb centals and average values in shillings per lb.



Year U.K. Zanzibar Kenya India a.Afrioa U.S.A. France Germany Belgium Italy Japan Holland Hong Kong China


115.36
5.69
32.48
7.73
7.04
6.73
267. oc
6.t4
337.12
0.03
715.bb
8.04
686.56
9.39
423.36
8.42
25.76
6.12
25.76
7.72
2.2-4
13.21
1.12
18.75
v. small

20.16
12.45
71.00
17.79
20.00
17.90
16.00
1b.59
12.00
19.37



25.00
15.53



o10.oo00
15.13


15.b9 9
20.08


S Total/Av.
OthLer5 for year

623.84
9.00
132.16
7.87
303.52
7.42
175.84
7.58
2.24 118.72
2.59 2.81
15.68 707.84
4.46 4.01
884.80
4.66
931.84
4.47
674.24
4.53
428.96
4.91


125.44
7.83
35.84
7.73
41.44
2.38
16.80
4.82
98.56
4.45
15.68
4.38
19.04
4.95
25.76
4.64


3.36
6.79


15.68
3.13
189.28
4.06
147.84
4.49
390.88
4.49
384.16
4.48
258.72
5.19


19.04 1.12
5.07 4.29



1.12
3.21


20.16
12.45
23.00
15.73
20.00
17.90
16.00
18.59
11.00
20.31



25.00
15.53



109.00
15.13




F 21
t ZANZIBAR'S ELEPHANT IVORY TRADE 1925 1969


The Resource
As far as is known Zanzibar has never had indigenous elephant,
although other terrestrial fauna indicate it was once attached to the
African mainland. However, its role as an entrepot ivory centre has
been established for centuries. Its geographical position has favoured
such development and until the early 1960s it was one of the world's
great ivory markets. Tusks were bought from many African states,
re-graded, cut and polished in Zanzibar before being re-sold to the
overseas outlets.


Over the short period under review, Zanzibar's ivory trade saw
very great growth followed by a drastic decline to virtually nothing
after the 1963 revolution.
S

Quantities
Annual imports into Zanzibar are presented in Table 17 in detail
and in summarised form in Table 18 and Fig. 14. From these it can be
seen that imports rose from c. 580 centals in 1925 to c. 5, 000 centals
in 1962, a total growth of over 750%. Sources of these imports are
summarised in Table 19, from which it is apparent that the Congo was
Zanzibarls main supplier. However, to get to Zanzibar this ivory
would have to. pass through either Kenya or Tanganyika.


Table 20 presents the Annual Trade Report figures of Zanzibar's
imports of ivory from the Congo for the period 1941 1962, together with
the combined totals of Kenya and Tanganyika's re-exported ivory to
O Zanzibar over the same period (selected because Tanganyikan data are

not available prior to 1941). If the ivory referred to as from the Congo
in the Zanzibar trade reports had indeed been traded through either
Kenya or Tanganyika, there would be some similarity between the two
sets of figures. There is no similarity and the total directt Congo-
Zanzibar amounts are more than double the amount of ivory re-exported
from the two mainland countries. The supposition that ivory given as
originating in the Congo in the Zanzibar Trade reports might already
have been accounted for in either Kenya or Tanganyika's records, can
therefore be discounted. This Congolese ivory was additional to that
appearing in the imports to the other East African states.


Zanzibarts exports and their destinations are given in detail in
Table 21 and in summarised form in Table 22 and Fig. 12. These rose
from an annual average of c. I, 080 centals in 1925 to c. 3, 950 centals in
1962, giving a total of 76, 223.59 centals in the intervening period.







TABLE 17 Ivory import
centals and


led into Zanzibar, showing countries
average values in shillings per lb.


of origin, amounts in 100 lb


Quantity
A .Value

i 1*9,:' '.,.Mtity
A v Value

A. .Value
QC, quantity
A v.Value


q 12 Q.antity
gA .Value
1j iQuantity
A, .Value

r1934 entity
.- v.Value
-- l32 Quantity
Av.Value
1" 1.3j Quantity
A% .Value
1 1934 Quantity
w *.' Value
1ij,. Quantity
Av .Value
6* i Quantity
A .Value
01`-7 czantity
A. .Value

v. Value
4& C entity
A i. Value
ib.' qantity
A .Value
i'44. L(-ntity
Av .Value
l4i @<-antity
Av .Value
1i,4.'t Quantity
A'..Value
i'4 .uantity
A .Value
194 :1 quantity
A1 .Value
L 4 9 Qaantity
A .Value
I'.'4t uantity

Av. Value
i.'.4 Q-intity
Av .Value
1954 Quantity
A .Value
i95C Qu-antity
A .Value
9, .IQuantity
A..Value
I %';p antity
A .Value
1i58 Quantity
Av.Value
i195 9 Quantity
A, .Value
196 Quantity
Av.Value
1. '9 Q.uantity
A','Value
i957 Qu-ntity
., Value


1958 Quantity
Av.Value
1958 Quantity
Av. Value
1959 Quantity
Av.Value
1960 Quantity
Av.Value
19i6 Quantity
Av.Value
19 62 Quantity
Av. Value


Kenya TanganyiKa Uganda Somalia

52.64 397.60 103.04
19.29 18.79 19.41
42.56 673.12 97.44
18.02 14.04 17.96
220.64 318.08 85.12
16.90 17.05 17.44
112.00 136.64 1.12 81.76
14.70 14.76 10.36 17.03
148.96 88.48 7.84 90.72
13.89 15.30 13.52 18.26
135.52 171.36 69.44
12.46 9.72 11.00
51.52 125.44 34.72 11.20
8.52 8.90 9.53 9.01


126.56
7.22
115.36
7.91
175.84
7.72
107.52
5.76
95.20
7.86
67.20
6.93
47.04
5.99
77.28
6.59
268.80
6.77
45.92
8.03
116.48
11.52
76.16
10.95
95.20
12.73
154.56
15.22
66.08
11.75
113.12
11.64
106.40
14.63
206.08
11.34
153.44
14.49


203.84
7.22
208.32
7.84
211.68
9.64
262.08
6.39
296.80
6.28
304.64
5.41
150.08
5.56
258.72
6.43
157.92
7.00
338.24
8.13
220.64
11.66
182.56
11.54
241.92
11.63
384.16
14.47
430.08
13.89
388.64
13.19
610.40
12.42
561.12
14.16
514.08
13.92


150.ot
6.84
129.92
7.36
161.28
8.45
271.00
6.40
229.60
8.50
114.20
6.25
112.00
5.74
207.20
6.81
165.76
7.51
126.56
7.95
200.48
10.99
59.36
10.41
136.64
11.65
153.44
14.31
68.32
12.24
164.64
15.95
174.72
11.16
148.96
12.59
104.16
14.41


32.48
8.05
64.96
6.04
68.32
8.77
20.16
6.17
8.96
7.16
29.12
7.80
3.36
6.55



22.40
6.19
161.28
10.56
415.52
9.74
63.84
9.95
13.44
9.91
28.00
5.28





22.40
11.87
49.28
9.95
38.08
13.50


92.96 530.88 108.64
14.92 14.03 14.95


292.32
14.25
244.16
15.58
224.00
16.38
182.56
14.25
360.64
15.99
303.52
16.28
325.92
13.97
448.00
15.77


820.96
18.59
908.32
17.20
1,778.56
9.23
767.20
14.o01
1,270.08
16.29
1,103.20
17.89
1,193.92
14.36
1,179.36
14.64


155.68
14.65
230.72
14.97
323.68
16.58
269.92
13.71
601.44
13.85
519.68
15.68
245.28
19.91
610.40
16.21


Mozambique Rhodesia

13.44
16.72
11.20
17.09
21.28
17.76
19.04
17.70
48.16
15.69


2.24
4.02
2.24
8.20
14.56
5.41
52.64
6.18
40.32
6.50
33.60
5.62
220.64
5.72
229.60
5.86
305.76
5.38
383.04
8.65
848.96
6.88
642.88
7.07
804.16
7.67
316.96
9.58
880.32
10.12
789.60
11.54
925.12
10.26
946.40
11.54


Malawi


80.64
5.21
119.84
11.97



109.76 14.56 1,204.00
12.63 13.50 2.97
13.44
11.73
67.20
13.10
1.12 47.04
15.75 15.39


866.88 6.72
10.08 11.61


20.16
15.13
143.36
10.43
346.08
11.77
107.52
14.21
577.92
6.00
153.44
11.86
319.20
13.74
174.72
12.64


827.68
16.11
707.84
15-.26
710.08
14.96
602.56
13.62
996.80
12.44
900.48
12.89
78.40
14.54


'128.80
15.79
50.40
16.40
16.80
14.02
1.12
11.25
464.80
13.16
4.48
15.40
248.64
13.99
6.72
12.92


166.88
12.83


17.92
10.65
337.12
18.02
6.72 322.56
15.02 16.65
237.44
12.93
17.92 148.96
16.85 14.38
262.08
18.74
124.32
14.88
17.92 280.00
11.75 14.51


13.44
17.60
97.44
16.04
75.04
16.07
88.48
11.82
44.80
1:2.28
22.40
13.45
v.small


34.72
7.30
234.08
7.99
329.28
7.37
700.00
5.54
595.84
7.00
313.60
6.16
553.28
5.57
797.84
5.49
2.24 1,277.92
9.37 5.35
789.60
5.84
678.72
6.57
237.44
6.56
241.98
7.81
9o0.08
8.66
388.64
9.53
850.08
11.96
680.96
10.71
367.36
12.39
20.16 1,075.20
10.24 13.44


547.68
7.17
754.88 ,
7.65>
948 n7

1,375.32
5.90
1,279.04
7.14
869.08
6.04
899.36
5.61
1,561.68
5.-89
2,124.64
5.89
1,767.36
6.84
2,014.88
8.90
1,468.32
7.89
1,452.70
8.68
2,634.24
10.04
1,270.08
11.28
3,725.12
8.94
2,397.92
11.64
2,325.12
11.86
2,899.68
13.00


1,055.04
11.88



1,141.28
15.54
1,366.40
14.72
1,046.08
15.55
1,294.72
14.89
1,177.12
13.14
1,349.60
13.73
827.68
16.02
2,298.24
11.65


2,828.00
12.00


13.44 15.68
15.04 12.31


1.12
11.43


11.20
13.71


3,418.24
16.25
4,085.76
15.60
2.24 4,851.84
12.77 13.06
3,551.52
14.26
33.60 5,723.20
12.86 13.29
4,618.88
15.17
3,364.48
15.07
5,026.56
13.47


Zambia Angola Sudan Congo Djibouti Aden gypt S. Africa U.Ki. Others To-al/v.
for lear

13.44
21.03 560.16
72.80 18.95
13.58 897.12
14.66
11.20 .
21.98 656. -32
17.o: O
350.56
15.41
12.32 3
14.28 396.48
19.04 15.43
12.81 315-36
ii.03
3.36 23408
9.40 6.b8











Annual
Year Total


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930


1931
1932
@1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946


580. I 6
897. 12
656.32
350.56
396.48
395.36
234.08
(483.00)
547.68
754. 88
948.74
1375.32
1279.04
869. 08
899.36
1561.68
2124.64
1767.36
2014.88
1468.32
1452.70
2634.24


5 Year
Running Av.





576. 1 3
539.17
406.56
371.90
411.32
483.00
593.68
821.92
981.13
1045.41
1074.31
1196.90
1346.76
1444. 42
1 673.58
1787.38
1768.70
1870.62
1771.17
2113.22


Annual
Year Total

1947 1270.08
1948 3725.12
1949 2397.92
1950 2325.12
1951 2899,.68
1952 (3258.08)


1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


2828. 00
(3258.08)
3418.24
4085.76
4851.84
3551.52
5723.20
4618.88
3364.48
5026.56


5 Year
Running Av.

2299.14
2473.62
2526.71
2921.18
2741.72
2913.79


3132.42
3369.63
3688.38
3833.09
4326.11
4566.24
4421.98
4456.93
4683.28
4336.64


110.26


TABLE 18


Zanzibarts imports of ivory between 1925 and 1969
(inclusive) in 100 Ib centals summarised as annual
totals and 5 year running averages. (Data for the
years 1932, 52 and 54 are missing and the figures
are derived from the average of the two preceding
and two following weights in 1932, and the average
of the years 1950, 51, 53, 55 and 56 for 1952 and 54.)


ii

i I;





i




I i'








II

!' 1 i

*!' ;


*il

'i












1
4UL.U






F iC
-- ~~~~~T mi po r __ __/



i A


F


r .
O


gQ






(44

0









'I..- 14.
Zanz .o, ivory .n port ;, nil exports in 100 lb cenl, .s 8iLdil as 5 y-r .un,: nYa
average tor, t ne. c .t zo









Congo (Kinshasa)
Tanzania
Mozambique
Uganda
Kenya
Somalia
Zambia
Rhodes i a
Sudan
Malawi
Angola
South Africa
Djibouti
Aden
Egypt
U.K.


Quantity

22,794.70
17,430.88
13, 250.72
6, 033.33
5,474.17
3,422.72
3,382.40
1,039.36
364.00
104.16
19.04
1.12
11.20
13.44
15.68
11.20


Per cent

31.06
23.75
18.05
8.22
7.46
4.67
4.61
1. 42
0.51
0.14
0.03
(0.002)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02


16 Countries


TABLE 19


73,368.12 100.00


Sources of Zanzibarts ivory imports in 100 Ib
centals and as percentages these weights represent
of the total.


Zanzibar Imports
from the Congo

1277.92
789.60
678.72
237.44
241.98
990.08
388.64
850.08
680.96
367.36
1075.20
1055.04
1141.28
1366.40
1046.08
1 294. 72
1177.12
1349.60
827.68
2298.24

19134.14


Combined Kenya and Tanganyika
re-exports to Zanzibar

775.04
516.32
533.1 2
175.84
1 62.40
458.08
108.64
75.04
28.00
1 61.28
432.32
126.56
445.00
272.00
477.00
443.00
370.00
487.00
484.00
709.00

7239.64


TABLE 20


Comparison of Zanzibarls imports from the Congo
with the combined Kenya and Tanganyika Congolese
re-exports to Zanzibar for the period 1941 1962
(inclusive).


Year

1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1953
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962

Totals







S TABLE 21 Ivory imported then re-exported from Zanzibar, showing countries of

amounts in 100 Ib centals and average values in shillings per lb.


destination,


S Year

S f925 Quantity
Av.Value
1926 Quantity
fAv.Value
1927 Quantity
Av.Value
1928 Quantity
- Av.Value
1929 Quantity
I Av.Value
1930 Quantity
Av.Value
1931 Quantity
Av.Value
1932 Quantity
Av.Value
1933 Quantity
Av.Value
S1934 Quantity
t Av.Value
m 1935 Quantity
!Av.Value
1936 Quantity
Av.Value
1937 Quantity
SAv.Value
1938 Quantity
!Av.Value
1939 Quantity
Av.Value
1940 Quantity
Av.Value
1941 Quantity
Av.Value
1942 Quantity
-Av.Value
S 1943 Quantity
: Av.Value
1944 Quantity
I Av.Value
1945 Quantity
IAv.Value
1946 Quantity
IAv.Value
1947 Quantity
1Av.Value
1948 Quantity
IAv.Value
1949 Quantity
Av.Value
S 1950- Quantity
Av.Value
S 1951 Quantity
SAv.Value
1952 Quantity
v Av.Value
1953 Quantity
Av.Value
1954 Quantity
Av.Value
1955 Quantity
lAv.Value
1956 Quantity
Av.Value
1957 Quantity
Av.Value
1958 Quantity
Av.Value
1959 Quantity
Av.Value
1960 Quantity
Av.Value
1961 Quantity
Av.Value
1962 Quantity
Av.Value


2.24 792.96 498.40
109.11 17.60 15.09


142.24
13.63
136.64
16.20
52.64
15.98
40.32
15.75
79.52
12.70
91.84
13.64
80.64
13.71
40.32
13.06


1,385.44
13.61
1,965.60
16.50
1,862.56
17.49
384.16
14.59
1,433.60
12.26
1,703.52
14.21
1,080.8c
13.78
1,406.72
12.61


990.08
9.72
1,424.64
14.29
1,466.08
14.47
1,403.36
13.08
1,664.32
12.14
1,589.28
13.19
1,632.96
13.59
1,865.92
11.66


China


U.K.

243.04
21.55
1,015.84
3.45
224.00
16.24
189.28
16.22
178.08
18.19
129.92
13.22
89.60
11-.49



118.72
7.97
321.44
7.67
358.40
7.25
377.44
6.00
389.76
7.79
310.24
4.92
113.12
4.33
62.72
5.13
22.40
5.68
44.80
5.03
189.28
5.15
10.08
4.96
145.60
4.91
154.56
4.42
67.20
4.73
54.88
7.88
164.64
6.50
81.76
7.03
62.72
8.19


Japan France Belgium


India Hong Kong

224.00
23.31
706.72
7.05
211.68
20.02
113.12
20.68
128.80
22.23
99.68
19.09
87.36
19.44



117.60
20.32
484.96
9.67
547 .68
11.91
565.60
8.58
537.60
9.01
518.56
7.22
510.72
6.75
581.29
7.14
1,117.76
5.89
1,196.06
7.83
1,133.44
10.91
2,079.84
7.76
1,201.76
8.58
1,736.00
8.62
927.36
9.87
926.24 705.12
10.39 5.25
1,430.24 925.12
10.2,1 5.96
1,296.96 947.52
14.28 5.81
1,727.04 1,058.4C
15.09 7.3C


v.asmall


56.00
16.79
72.80
11.09
64.96
12.07
12.32
7.06
52.64
11.39
56.00
7.66
19.04
4.99



75.04
8.36
54.88
11.01
52.64
9.66
146.72
5.41
120.96
6.53
91.84
7.43
275.52
4.52
283.36
5.20
414.40
4.49


U.S.A. Kenya Germany Turkey Holland


20.16
6.45
53.76
21.85
45.92
20.10
6.72
19.28
5.60
17.86


7.84
5.74



5.60
3.57


13.44 16.80
28.84 20.48


5. 60
16.07


40.32
19.85
26.88
15.58


29.12
18.63
117.60
13.42
62.72
12.44
47.04
12.00
11.20
18.32
16.80
13.06
25.76
8.38


19.04
7.02
14.56 6.72
11.07 5.14
19.04
.6.09
15.68 145.60
9.57 4.91
11.20 13.44
10.71 5.27
2.24 10.08
6.25 7.38
11.20 1.12
7.32 8.57


226.24
8.85
90.72
8.04
45.92
8.09


11.20
6.41
94.0B
13.-9
4.48
10.00



10.08
11.01
79.52
13.68
89.60
10.15


353.92
6.83
501.76
5.48


11.20
16.20
265.44
10.41


490.56 8.96
24.67 7.25


842.24
15.80
665.28
15.67
859.04
15.41



775.04
14.26
692.16
14.11
969.92
12.76


1.12
17.86


7.84
15.69


13.44
4.87
10.08
4.96
4-9 b
69.44
11.04


Ceylon Tanganyika ...


0oa Argentine Pakistan Rhodesia Burma Singapore Arabia


Iran Aden Libya Mal asyv r,n


1.12
13.37
8.96 13.44
789.60 13.63
v. small

1.12
14.28
2.24 6.72
12.80 23.96












1.12
4.71
28.00
7.44
1.12
6.25
8.96 32.48
7.63 5.39



3.36
9.34
8.96 78.40
9.15 3.95


14.56
13.74


15.68
10.20
15.66
10.20
2.24
16.96
8.96
10.71



171.36
13.12


40.32 14.56
21.92 20.10


88.48
13.65
68.32
16.03
57.12
13.40
43.68
16.29



52.64
15.30
16.80
15.14
23.52
15.97


26.b8
10.00
412.16
6.60
330.40
4.66
184.80
7.54
176.96
8.30
252.00
-.. 9.01


16.80
28.62



14.56
10.99
21.28
13.91
5.60
12.14


8.96
11.16
26.88
15.36
12.32 35.84
13.77 13.51
45.92
13.54


23.52
16.60
v. small


1.12
6.61
5.60
15.53
13.44
14.43
2.24
12.23
4.48
13.03
4.48
15.85
14.56
12.36
1.12
19.64


15.68
25.08
7.84
8.85



1.12
27.32



3.36
17.86


6.72
18.75


21.28
11.62


v.small


v. small


4.48
10.27
11.20
17.23
12.32
12.82
28.00
15.53
4.48
11.61
4.48
12.72
78.40
2.77


1.12
16.07
2.24
18.84
v.small


3.36
11.43


654.08
14.89
14.55
15.0-3
41.44
18.48
33.60
12.65
7.84 104.14
15.87 11.64
59.36
13.17
58.24
14.62
63.84
12.95.


4.48
17.50


v.small


2 .24
13.39


1.12 v.small
90.89


20.16
86.13


3.36 v.amall
13.87


---- --Settlement s-. .


Straits


8.96
15.40
72.80
10.71
41.44
9.75


13.44
7.15
28.00
4.50
31.36
38.82
219.52
7.59
4.48
7.72



19.04
6.43


therm Total/Av.
for year
603.68
21.24
1,994-72
6.26
649.60
17.19
396.48
16.71
394.24
18.60
375.20
13.46
263.20
13.08


330.40
12.40
896.oo00
8.99
1,006.88
9.81
1,310.40 ,
6.95
1,301.44
8.13
978.88
6.46
917.28
5.77
1,176.l01
6.89
1,746.08
5.59
1,296.86
7.72
1,392.16
10.13
2,104.48
7.78
1,374.24
8.37
2,388.96
8.31
1,928.64
7.85
2,100.00
7.52
2,730.56
8.39
y3,330M828 q7-2)
X 8.284,
3,647.6 0 .5

/*W- ( d-C^
u -8 4 ( lo '5 ;


1,864.80
19.06



3,280.48
12.67
4,490.08
15.64
1.12 4,183.20
8.93 16.04
2,794.40
14.11
3,310.72
12.20
4,353.44
14.21
8.96 3,713.92
18.42 13.55
12.32 4,444.16
13.88 12.29


2
5
2
6













Year


1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
. 1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
. 1946


Annual 5 Year
Total Running Av.


603.68
1,989.12
649.60
396.48
394.24
375.20
263.20
(466.20)
330.40
896.00
1,006.88
1,310.40
1,301.44
978.88
917.28
1,176.01
1,746.08
1,296.86
1,392.16
2, 1 04.48
1,374.24
2,388.96


806.62
760.93
415.74
379.06
365.85
466.20
592.54
801.98
969.02
1,098.72
1, 102.98
1, 136.80
1,223.94
1, 223.02
1,305.68
1,543. 12
1,582.72
1,711.34
1,837.70
1,979.26.


Year


1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969


Annual


Running Av.


I, 928.64
2, 100.00
2, 730.56
3, 308.28
3, 647.30
(3, 357.91)
1,864.80
(3,357.91)
3, 280.48
4, 490.08
4,183.20
2, 794.40
3,310.72
4 353.44
3,713.92
4, 444.16


2, 104.48
2, 491. 29
2,742.96
3, 028.81
2,981.77
3, 107.24
3, 101. 68
3,270.24
3, 435.29
3, 621.22
3, 611, 78
3,826.37
3, 671. 1 4
3,723.33


538.30


TABLE 22


Zanzibarts exports of ivory, 1925 1969 (inclusive)
in 100 Ib centals as annual totals and 5 year running
averages. (Data for the years 1932, 52 and 54 are
missing and the figures given are derived from the
average of the two preceding and following weights
in 1932, and the average of the years 1950, 51, 53,
55 and 56, for 1952 and 1954.)


ii












Il
' i














'II ,





il1










22 I


Values

Values of Zanzibar's ivory imports and exports follow the general

trend of the other three East African countries. In 1926, a time of

generally high values, there is an inexplicable drop in Zanzibarts

export values from c.-20.,00 to 6.50 shillings per pound, with a recovery

to the prevailing norm in the following year. No reason has been

discerned for this and it is possible that it stemmed from a printing

error in the Annual Trade Report for that year.' This anomaly has been

ignored in the calculation of averages throughout this report. :











'!





II










II
II,
I,,



























I1










23 ii
EAST AFRICA'S EXTERNAL SOURCES COMBINED j


In Table 24 the total imports from sources of primary production
outside East Africa are summarised from Tables 6, 14 and 17. The total i
of 87, 336.06 centals represents a probable offtakeof 291, 116 elephants
(at 30 Ibs per animal) of which the greatest numbers have come from the
Congo (65. 48%) and Mozambique (17.71%). These figures cannot be
taken as representing the total production of these countries, as they
are known to have sold direct to other markets. In particular, the Congo
supplied very large quantities to Belgium prior to the granting of I
Independence.







S 1'.2 !


;' "-'t" Country Quantity % of Total Prbal mnmu 'lehnt
._ _:.., represented (av. 30 Ibs/elephant)

..':'.- Somalia 6,854.06 7.85 22,845
'"" Mozambique 15,466.64 17.71 51,555
,-' Rhodesia 1,116.48 1.28 3,722
;-,: Malawi 151.52 0.17 505
Zambia 5,316.28 6.09 17,721
Sudan 1,063.48 1.22 3,545
'* Congo 57,184.62 65.48 190,615
_;. S. Africa 1.12 v.small 4
Angola 19.04 0.02 63
-Djibouti 11.20 0.01 37
S Eritrea 2.24 v. small 7
SRuanda 113,.52 0.13 378
Others 35.84 0.04 119

Totals 87,336.06 100.00 291,116




STABLE 24 Sources of origin of combined East African imports
for the years 1925 1969 (inclusive), the percentage
*.\ each represents of the total, and the probable minimum
:- number of elephant these represent.


.1i*'






THE ILLICIT TRADE


Ivory has long been the basis of an illicit trade which began as
soon as its value became known and monopolies were claimed by Chiefs,
Kings, Companies or Governments. However, it has been difficult to
obtain any factual data from which its real extent can be gauged.
Evidence that it might be of major- significance at least in some areas,
comes from Uganda. In 1967 the Government declared an amnesty for all
those in illegal possession of ivory and furthermore offered a price of
some 6.00 shillings per pound for any that was surrendered. The
rationale put forward was that over the years many people had accumu-
lated and hoarded tusks picked up in the bush fortuitously. The Uganda
Game Department has strenuously refuted any suggestions in the past
that elephant were killed illegally on any substantial scale in Uganda
(Tennant verbatim). Over the six months of the amnesty, at least
83 tons of ivory (I, 859. 20 centals) were surrendered, some of which
was very fresh. It was apparent from these results that the amnesty
merely tapped the illicit trade, as people do not hoard commodities for
which they have no use or outlet, and actually induced an outburst of
illegal hunting.


Illicit elephant hunting is also claimed to be a major activity in
eastern Kenya and there are some grounds for this belief in that until
recently an entire tribe, the Watta (WaSanya, Waliangulu), lived off
elephant hunting. However it has not been generally recognized that
the larger part of the ivory sold illegally by them was obtained from
natural mortality. These people were far more experts at locating
ivory from this source, than they were as actual elephant hunters.
Only few men were regularly successful in killing elephant. This is
borne out by the large numbers of elephant in eastern Kenya at the
present time.


Mitigating against the idea that illicit ivory is a major aspect of
the trade, is the continuity of amounts bought legally and the consistent
rise in prices. Had there been an illegal source of similar proportions 7
- as is widely asserted by conservationists, this would surely have
been sufficient to have depressed ivory prices or at least kept them at r
a constant level. Also against the idea of a substantial illegal offtake
are the current sizes of the various East African populations in
relation to the legal offtakes that are taking place. Confidential
information from ivory traders, well placed to judge the amount of
illegal ivory available, indicate that on an overall East African basis
it is of the order of 15% of the legal trade annually.




25
IVORY TRADING


In the preceding chapters the growth and classification of commercial
7
ivory has been described. The effect of changing elephant population
structures have on their own ivory production and how this is apparent
Sin the differing East African outputs has been demonstrated. Some idea
of the size of the East African resource has been given together with
t
f. the pattern of its exploitation over a recent 45 year period. The main
f-
markets for East African ivory are clearly apparent. The salient
i_ points that emerge from this background picture are :-
(1) The ivory trade has shown a continuous growth over the past three
decades and East African production is now greater than it has
ever been,
(2) There has been,.a continuous rise in ivory price over the past 35
years, which together with the increase in quantities exported
d ^indicates a growing world demand for the product,
(3) The resource in elephants, as evidenced both by censuses and the
quantities marketed, indicate that it is very much larger than has
[ hitherto been suspected. This notwithstanding the resource is
finite and that in at least one area, Uganda, it would appear to be
on the verge of collapse.


In the light of these points we can now consider ivory trading with
? some insight. From discussion with traders in Mombasa, it was learned
that the major use for ivory is carving and that (as indicated from the
importers), this is in the main carried out in the far east. The greatest
use in India is the making of marriage bangles, for which Calasia is the
preferred grade. European and American use is entirely in fancy goods,
O piano keys and very high quality billiard balls.


The major ivory buyers all hold large stocks of ivory at any one time,
either in their East African warehouses, or with associate firms abroad.
The basis of their trade is not as simple middle-men, buying and selling
directly, but as sophisticated brokers. Buying large quantities from a
wide range of sources they are able to make up exact orders to their
customers? requirements of quality. This involves cutting tusks into
different parts, tips, centres and hollows as shown in Fig. IN which
suit separate purposes. Tusks are also scraped clean of any surface
staining or flaws and polished. This process may of course reveal
deeper more serious blemishes, but enhances the ivory value if it
doesn't, as the purchaser can be more certain of the quality he is getting.
The profitability of ivory broking is very considerable as evidenced by
the following example : Calasia in its raw state fetched c. 20. 00-'Kenya
shillings per pound in 1969. At the same time, Calasia centresr which




'..yr1n~


Tp r;h.ut off t foi.nt tusk
/ 1I lumct-r 2' "


;:utt, (0i1, off at poi nt where the pul.p -
.m.vit ty has diam.cter of 2.2".


Pulp cavi .y .


TI P


(' E-T pR F


BUTT or


'TG. 1.5. Diagram of a tusk to show tip and butt cuts.







constitute more than three-quarters of the tusk's total weight, were
fetching shillings 60 to 100 per pound in India. Further evidence is
apparent in oriental ivory carvings that sell for several hundred per
cent more than the sale price of raw ivory of equivalent weight.


Ivory brokers count on tusks remaining in stock for considerable
periods, and generally for at least one year. (This is apparent in the
import-export graph of Kenya which shows approximately one year's
supply difference between imports and exports.) However, this is no
disadvantage for, as has been shown in the data on ivory values, ivory
increases in value with time. This reliable phenomenon is a further
aspect of its attraction as a profitable trade. With reference to Table
2 it is apparent that in the period 1959 1969 the average increase in
the 5 year running means of ivory value was of the order of 4% per
annum. Price ranges from year to year form a series of peaks and
depressions about the running averages, and patently traders will be
moved to sell during peaks rather than depressions, thus making more
than the 4% average increase. However it must be emphasised that
the East African values do not reflect anything like the true appreciation
of values, and that as no import or export taxes are paid on ivory, there
has been little effort on the part of Governments to ascertain what the
real figures are. Thus the apparent increase of 4% annually in value
over the last 10 years, can be considered with some confidence to be
minimal.


A further advantage of the ivory trade in modern Africa is that it is
a prime means of evading the currency restrictions that are in force in
most countries on the continent. The brokers themselves have greatly
reduced the amount of ivory cleaned, re-graded and polished in Africa,
and prefer to export raw ivory at a nominal profit to firms overseas.
These firms are usually owned by the African brokers themselves, who
thus ensure that the very substantial profits do not return to Africa.


The requirements of most Governments that the numbers of ivory
traders are strictly controlled and that they may only operate under
special licence, assists the business by keeping it relatively exclusive.
Every effort is made to keep the circle of ivory brokers small by the
brokers themselves, and there is considerable unwillingness to divulge
information about the trade, particularly its profitability. Efforts to
break into the buying circles are rarely successful. Attempts to outbid
the regulars at an auction invariably results in a very aggressive bidding
from them acting in concert, often to the point of sustaining financial
loss to themselves.







In the latter half of 1970 the price of ivory rose to between 40. 00
and 50.00 shillings per pound at the East African auctions. Several
reasons have been put forward for this anomalous happening. The first
is that there was a world shortage of ivory, particularly of hard ivory
which is favoured in carvings. However there is little evidence to
suggest that this was the case, particularly as the areas that benefitted
most were those producing soft ivory in eastern Africa. There was no
proof from the East African records of any fall in production. A second
reason put forward was that Expo 1970 in Japan had created an unprece-
dented demand for ivory. Again there is no evidence to support this
contention. The third theory, that has been widely circulated in East
Africa and gained much credence, was that Corrmnunist China had
deliberately outbid all other buyers for political reasons. The rationale
behind this being that the balance of trade situation between China and
Tanzania was very much in favour of the former. As part of an
endeavour to create'an illusion that they were evenly balanced as trading
partners, the Chinese were prepared to double Tanzania's revenue from
ivory in their own favour by outbidding every other buyer in the auctions.
(This they can afford to do; a great deal of ivory carving is still done
in Communist China and marketed through Hong Kong, and the profit-
ability of ivory is well known.) However, there is little factual evidence
to support this theory. The rise in prices was manifest first in Uganda
and not Tanzania. The imbalance of trade between Tanzania and China
is so great as to be little affected by the sum of 700, 000.


A more probable reason, and that favoured in this report, is as
follows :-
Ivory as an article of value has always been more prized in
Eastern cultures than in the accident. For some thousands of years it
has been a particularly desired symbol of wealth. Through historical
,association alone it is considered more reliable than stocks and shares
as durable evidence of worth. At the time the worlds dominant stock
exchange in New York was undergoing its worst recession since the great
slump of the 1930s. it is postulated that fear of a similar depression,
the subsequent worthlessness of stocks and shares, the possible
devaluation of the U.S. dollar with a domino effect on'other currencies,
led to a rush to convert currency into a medium traditionally held to be
durable in value in the East. This is borne out by the recent recovery
of the stock market being followed by a descending price for ivory to
nearer the norm.








'-. o _-"* .,1

--; Market requirements differ somewhat from place to place. Japan
... requires flawless ivory and as a result probably purchases most of its
---: requirements from the brokers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is renowned
--.-._- for taking all qualities of ivory, and their intake of low grade material
A-:. may be the reason for this countryls average values being lowest of the
!*-'' ~ major buyers over the 45 years reviewed. India.is a major buyer of

-, Calasia as has already been pointed out. The United States and Europe
; demand the heavier Vilaiti weights.


:---- The ivory trade will continue to be lucrative providing there is no
-:* repetition of the 1930s slump.


The accepted figure for Chinai ivory in unseen general consignments
-: is 5%. This seems reasonable for ivory obtained by shooting, as
evidenced from the Kenya and Uganda Gvvernment data, but would not
._. apply to found ivory as in Kenya National Parks where it constitutes
': 13.25%.
._






.-









%2




29
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTSWANA GAME INDUSTRIESi
.. EXPANSION IN THE IVORY TRADE ..


Botswana is unlikely to prove a substantial source of ivory in the
near future as it lacks large numbers of elephants and there is little
human-elephant interaction whert they occur. B.G.I., will therefore
have to seek its sources from other countries. Geographically Botswana
is in a poor position as it is neither astride a major trade route nor in
contact with large elephant populations. Its sole advantage is a unique
political freedom that permits trade with countries largely barred to the
traditional ivory traders. .


To date B. G. I. has adopted the role of middleman, buying ivory with
its principal's capital and using little of its own for this purpose. So
far this has proved very profitable, but it is a precarious situation, as
anyone in the major sources of Congo, Angola, and Mozambique could
take over the role for themselves if they became aware of the complete
lack of personal capital required. The only certain way in which B. G. I.
could ascertain the loyalty of the buyers so that they do not make or
accept approaches to or from other parties, is to assume such stature
in the trade that it would not be worth the overseas brokerst while to
oppose or antagonise the Company. Such a dominant position could only
be achieved if B. G. I. were to enter the role of an ivory broker carrying
stock. of its own and being in a position to meet orders for specific
grades and types of ivory.


The acquisition of a suitable stock-pile or Ifloat' of ivory could be
achieved without any outlay of B. G. capital. An over-simplified model
of how this could be done is as follows :-
(1) B. G. I. buys 1,000 Ibs ivory at R1.5 per Ib
(2) This ivory is then divided into 2 equal classes one of which is sold
at R3. 00 per Ib realising RI, 500, while the other is retained at no

cost as the foundation of a stockpile.
Different versions of this system could be devised under the present
arrangement of buying under a letter of credit from Hung Kong, whereby
a monetary profit as well as some ivory stockpiled could be achieved.
As has been pointed out, ivory stored appreciates in value. It is
recommended that B. G. 1. give consideration to the possibilities for
establishing such a programme to obtain a float of say 20, 000 Ibs of
ivory in various grades.


It is strongly recommended that B. G. I. keep their ivory interests
and transactions out of the public eye in as far as this is possible.
Failure to do this will invite competition.








30


If large quantities of iv..ry are to be purchased continuously it is
unlikely that this will be achieved without the creation of permanent
buying centres in Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and possibly the Congo.
It is recommended that the Company examine the possibilities for doing
this immediately.


It is also recommended that the Company make arrangements to
obtain the results of the 6 East African Ivory Auctions that occur
annually (2 in each territory) by cable so that price trends may be
followed carefully.
e
The pattern of mants exploitation of elephant is based on the basic
nature of their interaction which is replacement of the latter by the
former, conservation policies notwithstanding. The quantities of ivory
available in Africa are still vast, with more being available
"on the hoof" today in Kenya and Tanganyika (and probably several.
other countries Mozambique, AngoJa) than has been exported over the
past 46 years. Only in Uganda have more been exported than are
currently alive .there. It would thus appear that at least over the next
decade or two, the ivory trade can continue to expand.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

0
Gratitude is expressed to A. D. Graham, R. M. Watson and
A. L. Archer for discussions on this report. I also thank the Khaku
Brothers of R. Suleman& Co., Mombasa, for their trust and information
readily given, wiich was of particular value to this survey. Assistance
was also provided by R. Periera of Kenya's Game Department Ivory
Room in Mombasa.







I.S.C. PARKER


19th February, 1971




7


31


^^ ~REFERENCES


f j7 1. Anon. 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1925- 1965. Kenya Game Department
'-o- Annual Reports. Government Printer, Nairobi.

-/--. 2. Anon. 1925 1959. Uganda Game Department Annual Reports.
S:.... Government Printer, Entebbe.
.SS,- < _- _:-,
: --_-* _-. _
: ;'- 3. Anon. 1954 1960. Tanganyika Game Department Annual Reports.
~ .... Government Printer, Dar-es-Salaam.

4. Anon. 1917- 1949. Uganda Agricultural Department Annual Reports.
Government Printer, Entebbe.

5. Anon. 1925 1939. Kenya Blue Book. Government Printer, Nairobi.

6. Anon. 1929 1939. Uganda Blue Book. Government Printer,
Entebbe.

7. Anon. 1929 1949. Tanganyika Blue Book. Government Printer,
Dar-es-Salaam.

8. Anon. 1925 1948. Annual Trade Reports Commissioner of Customs
for Kenya and Uganda. Government Printer, Nairobi.

S9. Anon. 1948 1969, Annual Trade Reports Commissioner of Customs
/or Director General of Customs. Government Printer, Nairobi.


Zanzibar. Government Printer, Zanzibar.

11. Anon. 1959 1970. Kenya Game Department Ivory Room Auction
Records.

O 12, Anon. 1959 1970. Tanzania Game Department Ivory Auction
Records.

13. Buss 1.,0. and Wing L.D. 1969. Elephant use of a tropical rain
forest in western Uganda. Typescript. Uganda Forest Department.

14. Laws R.M. 1969. Aspects of reproduction in the African elephant
Loxodonta africana. J. Reprod. Fert., Suppl. 6 : 495 531.

15. Laws R.M., Parker I.S.C. and Johnstone R. C.B. 1970. Elephants
and habitats in north Bunyoro Uganda. E. Afr. Wildi. J. 8: 163-180.

16. Lugard 1893. "The Rise of Our East African Empire". London.

17. Man J. 1970, Inside Russia. A B.O.A.C. publicity pamphlet.

18. Thomas and Scott. 1935. "Uganda". London.




Full Text

PAGE 1

. \ ' . \, THE EAST AFRICAN ELEPHANT '.\ IVORY'. TRADE e L-trp.o \L 1925-1970 /rFf/ .. . CONFIDENTIAL A WILDLIFE SERVICES LTD. REPORT . TO OTSWANA GAME INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD. .

PAGE 2

CONTENTS Page Intrpduct ion Elephant Ivory 2 Ivory Grading and,Qualities 3 Elephant E xploitation 6 The East African Ivory T rade 1925 7" 1969 9 Kenya's Elephant Ivory Trade 19.,25 1969 12 Uganda's Elephant Ivory Trade 1925 -19, 69 16 Tanganyika1s El.epb.ant Ivory Trade 1925 1969 ,19 Zanzibaris Elephant Ivory Trade 1925 1969 21 East Africa's E xte-r.nal S.ources Combined 23 The Illicit Trade 24 Ivory Tradi ng Recommendations for Bo.tswana Game Industries' Expansion in'the Ivory Trade 29 Acknowledgments' 30 References ,31

PAGE 3

INTROOUC'TION Throughout history ivory has been valued by man in much the same way as have precious stones or metals. Like gold for instance, it is a 'durable but easily workable substance (though like diamonds easily burnt.) Its pleasing appearance arises from its unique texture, colour and grain. The value of ivory has been? and remains, remarkab,ly stable, so that i t can function as currency and a measure of affluence. The phallic symbolism of an elephant's tusk, its exotic qualities and comparative rareness have all contributed to the powerful attraction it exerts on men. It is thus not surprising that ivory is thebasis of a trade as old as man's written record that still flourishes today both legally and illegally. A I imited number of mammals have teeth that are classified as commercial ivory; the better known among these are walrus (Odobenus rosmarus Brisson), narwhals (Monodon monoceros L.), hippopotamus (Hippop'otamus amphibius L.), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus Cuvier), and both Indian and African elephants (Elephas maximus L. and Loxodonta africar.!a Blumenbach). A recently extinct species, the mammoth (Elepha2..E..rimigenius), has yielded large quantities of ivory J into the present century, from carcasses frozen in the Siberian tundra. Man (1970) indicates thq.t from the ninth century onwards mammoth tusks, --: .. .J' formed a substantial trade. This grew until by 1900 sales i n the Siberian town of Yakutsk alone averaged .some 30 tons annually, representing the tusks of over 200 mammoths. These averaged over 200 Ibs each in weight and measured up to 16 feet in length, producing a very white and greatly valued ivory. For at least the lasttwo centuries, possibly for much longer, the African elephant has pr:oduced the bulk of the world's commercial ivory. The purpose o f this report is to analyse the elephant ivory trade of East Africa for the period 1925 1970. Written records prior to 1925 are too inconsistent to permit accurate reconstructio n further back in time. On the basis of the analysis, predictions are made on the future of the elephant ivory trade. W ritten records (see bibliography) are the primary sources for the data present.ed here t ogether with valuable assistance fro m Mombasa ivory traders. F'ollowing the East African Customs system that has pr'evai led for the greatest length of time, ivory weights are given in 100 Ib centals except where sta.ted, and p r ices ar' e i n Kenya shi II ings per Ib weight.,

PAGE 4

2 ELEPHANT IVORY Elephant tusks are speci al i sed incisors growi ng from the upper jaw, that comp lement the trunk as weapons of offence and defence, as ai ds for procuring food and probably for the maintenance of intra-specific status. They first erupt when an elephant is about two years old. From this point on they grow m
PAGE 5

r: d i .. ': .Jl .. V 1 d \J a cf Q o o 3 4' ,0 () ,'1 G. 1.

PAGE 6

3 have tusks so strai ght that they appear to have no spi ral, and those of eastern Kenya that have strongly curved ivory. Such evidenc e as is presently avai lable indicates that growth rates and potentials of the IIBushll elephant (L. a. africana) do not differ in widely separated habitats in Uganda, Kenya and northern Tanzania. "However whether there are differences between these popu I at ions on the equator and those further to the south or north has not been established. Marked differences are probable with the,If"orest1elephant (L. " a " eyelat"is) of the equatorial forest regions. Purely visual and somewhat subjective evi dence suggests that the rate of tusk wear and breakage in Botswana and Rhodesia is considerably higher than in East Africa. IVORY GRADING AND QUALITIES Tusks are classified accordIng to wei ght and shape into the" following trade categories: (I) VILAITI. Tusks, sound or slightly defe:tive, weighing 40 Ibs (18.18 kg) or more. This makes it an almost exclusively mature male category. On occasion female tusks wi II exceed 40 Ibs weight to qualify for this classification but the instances are so rare as to render them of no consequence commercially or in the interpretation of records. (2) CUTCHI. Tusks, sound and or slightly defective, weighing between 20 Ibs (9.09 kg) and 40 Ibs (,18. "18 kg). Again this is predominantly a male class. Few female tusks in a popu lation wi II exceed 20 Ibs in weight and many of those that do wi II fall into the following category. (3) CALASIA. All female tusks between 2 and 3 inches in diameter arid weighing more than 10 Ibs (4.55 kg). Female tusks easy to recognise due to their cylindrical appearance as described in the preceding chapter. This is therefore almost exclusively a mature female class. "(4) FANKDA. All male tusks, sound or slightly defective, weighing between 10 Ibs (4.55 kg) and 20 Ibs '(9.09 kg). These are easi Iy separable from female ivory in this weight range due to the very pronounced taper of male tusks. (5) MAKSUB. All ivory of either sex, sound or slightly defective, of between 5 Ibs (2. 27 kg) and 10 Ibs 4.55 kg); (6) OANOIA. All ivory either male or female of less than 5 Ibs (2.27 kg). (7) Defective tusks, being those broken, cracked, slightly weathered or blemished or abnormal ih growth.

PAGE 7

(8) ROTTEN. Tusks so weathered that they are deeply 'cracked and have lost any semblance of ivory's normal texture. They flake easi Iy and appear chalky. The relationships of these various categories to elephant age and sex are presented in Fig. 2. From this it can be seen that Vilaiti is generally the product of male elephant of more than 30 years of age, Cutchi from males between 20 and 30 years, Calasia from females over 25 years, Fankda from males between 15 and 20 years, Maksub from' females between 15 and 25 years and males between 10 and 15 years, and Dandia from females between 2 and 15 years or males between 2 ancj 10 years. The ivory production of an area can reveal a great deal about the state of the elephant popUlations within it. Evidence in chapters on Kenya and Uganda's Ivory Trade. In addition to the basic categories described, traders also make distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' ivory. They claim the presence of an east-west gradient across the African continent, with the softest ivory coming from Somalia and eastern Kenya, and the hardest from the equatorial forest regions. Expense precluded this phenomenon being thoroughly investigated during this survey, but evidence that some difference does exi st between eastern and western ivory was obtained in Mombasa. A shaving from a soft tusk curls itself into a long spiral as does a wood shaving when planed from a plank, whi 1st that from a hard tusk would only form part of a short spiral before breaking and was seemingly far less pla,stic. Commercially however, all ivory from eastern and southern Africa is classified as soft, the apparent variations in degree being of Ii tt Ie consequence. Only the ivory from the Congo' where the sub-species of elephant L. a. cyclotis occurs is commercially classified as hard. With this hard ivory the trade's size and sex categories remain the same as those given already, but are followed with the term Gandai. Thus Vilaiti Gandc3i, Cutchi Gandai denotes tha t the ivory is hard. To qualify for any of the categories given only very limited defects are acceptable, otherwise tusks are automatically relegated to Chinai, the defective class. A sound tusk should be without flaws in growth, or cracks in either the tip orbutt. Where the occur they are permi ssible in the fi rst half of the pu Ip hollow or not more than a few inches (varying according to tusk size) from the tusk tip without incurring a price penalty. a crack exceed these limits, it would automatically incur a r .eduction in price. A major point in the judging of ivory quality is ensuring that the inside of the pulp cavity or hollow

PAGE 8

MAL E S DAN:DIA I MAKStm PKNKDA curreRI VI LA IIJ'I FEMALES I CA.LASH. 0 2 5 1.0 1) 20 2) }O 35 -10 45 50 1::", .JJ Agc in years. FI!:G2-Ivory gr'<'ldps to fo} (! phn.!: t ap."r _,l and snx.

PAGE 9

(erroneously referred to as the "nerve 11 hollow by hunters) shou Id be smooth, symmetrical and without protrusions or blemishes. The presence of any abnormalgrowth or protrusion wi II incur a price penalty, as such occurrences are indicators of likely flaws within the tusk itself. The most common defect in male tusks other than cracking and breakage, is the occurrence of 'beans'. These appear as small separate bodies of dentine within the general matrix of the tusk usually along or near its centre Line. These are normally only detectable 'at the tip of a tusk once they have been exposed by breakage or wear. ,Such anomalous bqdies of dentine also occur fairly frequently in the tip of tusk pulps and are known to hunters as 'elephant pearls'., They vary greatly in size and shape and once embedded in a tusk detract greatly from its value. They can be so extensive as to occur throughout the sol i d length of a tusk or may occur merely as a small isolated pip in otherwise flawless ivory. If there is any growth or abnormality in the wall of a tusk's pulp cavity it is highly probable that its ent'ire length is extensively beaned. When judging ivory quality it is of the greatest'importance, as has already been stated, to make sure that the inside surface of the tusk hollow is perfect. Another common defect is the presence of pronounced bumps, or ridges, which appear as evenly spaced fluctuations in diameter along the tusk's length, instead of a continuous decrease in diameter. Some weathered tusks exhibit a purple staining, possibly resulting from a fungus, that greatly reduces their value., This can penetrate deep into the sound ivory underneath the weathered surface layer. Some idea of whether this purple staining has penetrated deeply can be obtained by scraping away the surface layers and exposing the sound ivory beneath. As a general ru Ie straight tusks are favoured over those strongly curved, as there is generally greater wastage in carving and working the tusk. This is particularly so with Calasia, which is used extensively for bangles. Generally the most valuable grades of ivory are Vi laiti and Calasi a, with the latter weight for weight, being slightly higher. Vilaiti increases in value with weight, particularly in tusks over 70 Ibs, Occasionally other grades such as Dandia may temporarily exceed Vilaiti or Calasia in value in response to a par:-ticular demand.

PAGE 10

Real ivory value for the same grades does not vary between different geographical areas. Where this occurs it is generally a lack of knowledge or outlet on the part of the sel ier, that enables a trader to take advantage of the situation1 and depress buying prices. Such is clearly the case in central and southern Afri ca. ELEPHANT EXPLOITATION r ManIs exploitation of the Afr'ican elephant may be categorised as fol lows :(I) Sources of meat by subsistence hunters. (2) Beasts of burden and work. (3) Tourist attractions. (4) Sources of meat, hide and ivory for modern man, and (5) Sources of ivory only. The first of these classes covers the greatest span of time, as elephants were potenti al quarry for hunters and gatherers over hundreds of thousands of years. However this very basic form of use has declined in recent times. The second category is of little significance. Hannibal, and no doubt his contempor,aries, used African elephants in warfare and perhaps for purposes. In this century the Belgians conducted a limited endeavour in elephant domestication in the Congo. It involved very few animals, and the concept of using this species as a beast of burden is obsolete. The third form of exploitation is mainly a modern concept utilising very restricted elephant populations, i. e. those that ,live in the small areas of the continent's National Parks and for sport hunting. As sources of basic utilities such as meat and hides in addition to ivory, modern man has assumed that elephant might be of use to him. However the idea has found expression in I imited only, and has remained largely an exercise of the mind. The last form Qf exploitc;ttion -that as a source of ivory only -has been the primary use, on an increasing scale throughout recorded history. Wherever human densities on the continent have reached the point at which ownership must be expressed by the acquisition of l'symbol icll wealth (such as money, cowrie shel Is, beads etc.) as against

PAGE 11

Ilprimary II wea Ith (I and, stock, food suppl i es etc. of .di rect bioi ogi cal value); ivory has almost invariably become prominent as such a symbol. Thus it became the perquisite of leaders, kings, chiefs and men of success. This tendency was given considerable impetus when the continent became i nfluenced by Asia and Europe in modern times and the human densities of Africa became 11jntegratedl1 with those of the world and were no longer isolated. For e xample Baker ( 1866 and 1874) records King Kamrasi of Bunyoro as laying claim to a t I ivory within his area, .proclaiming it Royal property. This attitude was perpetuated by the colonial powers a n d is continued today by the independent Governments. Ivory is deemed to be the property of the state and may only be held by individuals on license from the state. One of the first conditions demanded by the British East Africa Company was a 'monopoly on ivory. Lugard (1893) writes as follows: III made a treaty w ith him (King Kasangama of Toro in Uganda) elephant were not to be shot without permission, and vvere the monopoly of the Company 11. When the B.E. A. Company' s administration of what is now Kenya and Uganda was taken over by the British Colonial Office, this policy was maintained. The importance of ivory as a commodity is given by another Uganda example: in 1894 the country' s only export was ivory, valued at ,481, and unti I 1904 at least it was the country' s major export, its value exceeding that of all other exports combined (Thomas & Scott 1935). Elsewhere in Africa the pattern was very simi lar. Accompanying the killing of elephant for their ivory has been the displacement of the species by humans. The two activities in fact go together, resu It ing in, elephant exp loi tati on assuming a pattern simi lar to that of the use of non-renewable resources such as minerals. As the habitat requirements of humans and elephants are similar, we can assume that this irreversible exploitation will continue for as long as human numbers increase. There is I itt Ie chance of managing elephant on a sustained yield basis so long as man multiplies, and i n the long run even most National Parks must be regarded as temporary sanctuaries. It has already been shown that tusk size is related directly to an elephant's age. The elimination of elephant, which as we have seen in the preceding paragraphs is the primary exp loi tat i on pattern, wi II influence ivory output from a given population, both in quantity and type. Kill ing at rates that exceed recru itment resu Its in a decrease in the individual's life expectancy, and therefore lowers the average age of the popu I ati on. This resu I ts in progressive I y fewer and fewer large tusks being available. Uganda provides a very good of how th i s comes about. In the fi rst two decades of th i s century, Uganda was

PAGE 12

8 ""'ded"s, the best place for sportsmen to acquire very large tusks regal '. (In old animals). However, the intense competition between humans and elephants as a result of the h igh densities of both species has led to continuous and very heavy k i I I ing of elephants. By the 1940s Uganda was regarded as a poor place in which to look for trophy ivory; a situation that persists .today. Further evidence of this is presented later in the review of Uganda1s ivory exports. Heavy exploitation leads to p-rogresslvely smaller tusks i n a population. , The pattern o f ivory production also shows fluctuation from year to year. DurIng droughts planted crops become more attractive to elephant and more valuable to humans. AvaIlable water becomes restricted over much of A:frica and Is increased competition for It. At such times the interaction between humans and elephants is Intensified and more elephahts are ki lied. Laws (1969) has demonstrated that there are long term cycles i n elephant recruitment and that b i r ths are not regular from year to year. He showed thal these cycles are related to simi lar rhythms in cl imate; high recruitment corresponding to years o f good rainfall, whi Ie low birth rates were equated with poor rains. There is evidence to suggest that patterns pertai n to natural mortality as more flfound" ivory is collected in times of drought. (Peopl e are also more l ikely to look for it at such times as thei r need for money is greater. ) Ivory production, both from elephant killed by men or which die 'naturallyl is therefore errat ic and can be expected to show some relationship tQ climatic influences. Other lesser factors such as the ., variatlcns In attitude toward killing or protecting elephants, that are manifest between Government Officers responsible for this work, also induce flU,ctuations in production.

PAGE 13

9 THE EAST AFRICAN IVORY TRADE 1925 1969 The headi ng above refers to : (1) All ivory originating in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, (2) All ivory imported into and then re-exported from the foregoing three countries, and (3) All ivory imported into and e xported from Zanzibar. The data pertaining to the above headings were obtained from the Annual Trade Reports of the respective Commissioners for Customs for the countries i nvolved. In this and following chapters the Republic' of Tanzania is divided into its respective parts of Tangpnyika and' Zanzibar as their roles in the ivory trade during the period covered were essentially different. The figures are not exact in some cases as they are given in the Trade Reports to the nearest cental or hundredweight, and the original precise weights are not available. It is felt that this is unlikely to alter the true situation to any significant degree. Quantities The, weight of combined imports and e xports of the East African ivory trade are shown in Table I and graphically i n Fig. 3. These are shown in both table and f igure as annual totals and as a 5 year running mean. The latter presents a more correct picture of the trade over the period as it tends to rule out fluctuations that occur from year to year for the reasons given in the preceding chapter. The annualS year running average declined from 2,838.99 centals i n 1927 to '2,380.36 cental s in 1930; from then on it rose steadi I y to 12,760. 26 cental s in 1958, at which level it remained until 1961. At this point the pol,itical upheavals in the Congo (which was the major outside suppl ier of ivory' to East Africa, see following chapters) cut off imports from that source to set the East African trade into decline. Shortly afterwards the revolution in Zanzibar totally d isrupted both imports into and exports from the island. This further depressed the amounts of ivory handled in East Africa. Nevertheless Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika1s p ,roduc tion continued to increase uninterruptedly (see: 'ollowing chapters) .and this continues today. The total quantity of ivory that was exported from East Africa between 1925 and 1969 (inclusive) was m inimally 167,505.89 centals. At the end of 1969 there were c 10,500 centals in warehouses in East Africa. Combined these two figures represent a probable offtake of between 471,381 (average 40 Ibs per elephant) and 628,508 (average 30 Ibs) elephants.

PAGE 14

Annual 5 Year Year Total Running Av. 1947 11,099.86 10,751.53 1948 10,039.68 10,761.35 1949 7,596.96 10,507.90 1950 8,962.04 10, 258. 19 1951 13,067.62 10,451.07 1952 11,624. 63 11 t 207.26 1953 11, 004. 10 11,848.6' 1 1954 11, 377.99 12, 153.66 1955 1?, 168.72 12, 593. 14 1956 14, 592.84 12,630.30 1957 13,822.04 12,364.94 6/4.53 1956 11, 189.92 12,1760.26 97 1959 19,051.20 12, 598. sa 1960 14, 145.32 12,495.. 11 1961 13,784:.40 11 J 029. 73 1962 13,304.72 9,750.28 1963 3,863.00 71638.29 1964 3,653.95 5,856.67 1965 3,585.39 4, 217.28 1966 4,876.27 4,381. 18 ttl, 575.51 1967 5, 110. 29 4,' 659.20 n,018.58 1966 4,680.00 '1969 5,044.06 quantities of ivpry in j 00 Ib centals Imported, within or exported from Kenya, UganQa, ika and Zanzibar between 1925 and 1969 : uslve) both as annual totals and 5 year running """I"

PAGE 15

6 5 4 3 2 dependence revolution " 191.5 '1935 1940 19 45 1950 1955-"" 1960 t 1970 TIME SCALE FIGURE 3: The total quantity of ivory imported into, traded \vithin exported "from Kenya, Uganda,, :ranganyika and Z?nzibar between 1925 : '1969 inc." The amounts are in 100 lb centa1s and shov,rn as both 5 year running ,averages ;

PAGE 16

Prices Average ivory values in shillings per pound weight of ivory are shown in Table 2 and graphically in Fig. 4. These show the combi,ned values of all imports (buying) and all exports (selling) as given in the Customs records, both as annual totals and as' 5 year running'averages. The pattern of decrease from 1925 to the 1930s and subsequent rise until the present day is simi lar to that of the amounts traded. This may be a coincidence but it is generally felt by traders that both reflect the effect of the wor I d economi c depress i on of that time. Throughout the period under review the values of different consignments of ivory have shown very wide variation, r ,eflecting the range of quali,ties and demands for them. These variations around the 5 year ru,nning average price are shown graphically in Fig. 5, from which it will be seen that even whe, n average quantities and 'values were low some ivory fetched high prices and vice versa. The total value of ivory traded between -1925 and 1969 (inclusive) is of the order of KI3, 500, 000 (R27, 000, 000). This figure includes some relatively small internal trading between the East African States. The Overseas Buyers of East African Ivory Exports Countries to which East African ivory has been exported between 1925 and 1969 (inclusive), the quanti ties taken lumped into consecutive 5 year c I asses, and the average pri ces pai d for these 5 year group ings in shillings per pound are given in Table 3 From this it will be seen that over this 45 year period, only 5 countries -the United Kingdom, Belgium, India, Hong Kong and Japan -out of a total of more than 61, have ever taken more than 10 % of the ivory exported in anyone five year period. Only a further 5 -Germany, Italy, Holland, U. S.A. and mainland China (pre-Communism) -have ever taken more than I % of the ivory exported in anyone five year period. Thus buyers of East African ivory of any consequence to the trade ar.e few. The 10 countries which have imported more than a per cent of any 5 year group1s exports are divisible into two groups: western and eastern. The former comprises the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Holland and the U. S. A ; the latter India, Hong Kong, "Japan and mainland China. From Table 3 it can be seen that there have been progressive changes in the percentages of East African ivory taken, both between the two groups of countries and between individual countries. The western gr.,oup took 66.76% and the eastern 32.59% in the first' 5 year period (1925 1929 inclusive), but this changed consistently until' the eastern group took 77. 15% and the western 18.68% in the last period (1965 1969 inclusive).

PAGE 17

Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year' Av.Value Running-Av. Year Av. V a lue Running' Av. 1925 17.08 1947 11. 64 10:Q2 1926 14.35 1948 10.08 10.93 1927 13.92 14.16 1949 10.58 11 15 1928 13.35 12.67 1950 10.84 11 37 1929 1.2. 12 11. 39 1951 12. 61 12. 13 1930 9.63 10. 17 1952 12.76 12.00 1931 7.94 8.69 1953 13.84 12.74 1932 7 .79 7.46 1954 9.97 13.25 1933 5 .98 6 .82 1955 14.54 13,67 1934 5 .98 6 .35 1956 15. 15 13.75 -' 1935 6 .39 6 16 1957 14.87 14.43 1936 5.61 6. 10 1958 14.20 14.67 1937 6 .85 6 .02 1959 13.38 14.62 1938 5.69 5.98 1960 15.77 14. j9 1939 5.55 6 .02 1961 14.90 14.67 1940 6 19 6 .06 1962 13. 68 15.50 1941 5.83 6 .77 1963 15. 62 16,37 1942 7 .04 7.50 1964 1 7 .54 17. 22 1943 9.25 8.22 1965 20.09 18. 4 2 1944 9.17 9.35 1966 19. 17 18.82 1945 9.79 10.27. 1967 19.67 18.95 1946 11.49 10.43 1968 '17.62 r1969 18; 21 TABLE 2 The average va lue for all imported, exported and internally traded ivory for Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar between 192, 5 and 1969 (inclusive). Values are shi II ings per Ib as annual averages and as 5 year running averages.

PAGE 18

r 10 l .oW 1950 Uie

PAGE 19

,.. ;. "1" : .. t-o. 'Z,! : . ... 'It . i .. I l 0 0 .: '" r : '\ : : 0, r I ') 0 0 -: :/' .. ') 0 1-1 r,-J., .. \ 0 1 : : 1 : l,' 1. -: .. .. 0 -: : 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. . 0 0 z .. :: ? 0 I 0 .} <; .: .4 5 !. :. .. .: :. .: < ' I .: 1925 1930 193 5 194 0 19 4 5 1950 1955 1 960 1965 TIME SCALE fIGURE 5 : The scatte r of individua l cons ignment values abo u t the 5 yc c r unn i n g aver, a ges of Kenya imports, re-exports and domestic production. Prices in excess :of s hs: 27.00 are' n o t shQ\ ,m. .. ... __ .k._ . _._ ..... _.

PAGE 20

:5 Total East African ivory exports 1:)2 5 -6Y linc.) LumpeJ in consecutive 5 year classes, giving amounts in 100 'centals, percent each import er's quantities represent of each 5 year tota l anJ average 5 year values in shillings lper lb. Country 1 925 1 929 1 930 1 93 4 1 935 -1 939 1 94 0 1 944 1945 1949 1950 -1954 1955 1959 1960 1964 1965 1969 U .l( India B o ng Kong China Jap an U S .1 a.1 gium Fran c e a eTOtallY Haly Spain Portugal Swe d e Bon:ay Deoaark .1uetria Swihorland C .. choe1ovlLkia Bolland Greece Turko y Syria &:. Le banoD Fcpt Libya irabia .Bah.re i n iden Iran Pakistan Ceylon Singapore )(alay .. Sia.m F ormosa Australia Canada Brazil Uruguay Argentine South A frica Eritrea So llalia IIO .... blqu. C & America New Zealand C:rpr u e U .S.S.R. Phi 11 ppi ne s Ettiopi. R e Uni o n Goa O t ne:re Quantity Peroent Value Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Perc e n t Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent Value Quantity Percent ValUe 4449 24 2313 36 572 258 72 327 08 367 .36 1024 12.32 198.80 6 10.08 1 6 .80 1.12 4 9 04 25 0 .63 2 85 3 6 1 405 11 30 0 14 2 19 0 07 0.11 1 2 2 7 12.70 5 .6 1 12 44 123 17.28 9 81 8 .70 14 16.34 179 0 19 20.48 0.21 11.20 0.10 17.40 0 01 H:l.03 9071.52 luG. O O 321 6 89 24 670 4 351.68 2 74 12 62.3. 84 2.34 08 6.35 1 2 .32 .3.36 23 52 1.12 77 2 8 39 30 0 3 428 3 .34 7 59 2 85 7 73 0.15 0 0.29 0 01 3.15 0 08 82 15.61 100.00 7.8 1 86 4 41 8 .32 6 .27 798 766 1 0 .68 490 793 .39 3 903 10.60 44 0 3909 92 6455 4808 692.16 1182.72 660 .80 5 1 2 96 1344 28.00 6 252 00 1.12 2.24 1.12 11 20 274 8 4 5 37 .3-38 486 8 .31 4 64 .3.60 0 09 0.20 0.05 0 04 0.03 1.77 0 03 0.01 0.02 0.0.3 0.01 0.08 14229 1 00 00 5 75 565 6.77 12005.15 4.35 41 8 88 5 83 697 7 6 6 ) 4 201. 60 7.92 104 0 4 8 5 4 5 6.18 6.02 8 5 6.03 71 4 71 6.00 5 2.77 1 0 08 6 .72 39 99 3 7 5 7 9 57 2 7 8 4 63 1..34 6 9 0.07 5 1545 60 8.35 1045 9 32 4 3536 96 48 8656 5 9.38 812 .00 106.40 180.32 6.20 66 08 14.21 .3 48 7 14 7.39 11.91 12701.24 b.6.3 8700 .36 6 3601. 60 14 61 825.88 10 35 6.75 21.16 1.12 5 4 2.24 0 01 14.64 5 1.12 2.24 1.12 1.12. 5 .3.)6 0.01 11.55 6.72 0 0 ) 1.3.69 1.12 v.ama11 22 32 130 0 .32 5.22 7.57 0 1 0 1.3.74 232 0 09 1.3. 31 1.12 v.ama11 11.96 2.21 0.06 0 .06 0 .01 15 10. 20 9 55 14 1 12 0 04 19 0 2 6 6.20 24 64 .3.36 0.10 20 02 0 01 11.20 3.36 0 0 1 10.42 3.36 0.01 1.3. 81 3 95 6 .,36 2.68 45 31.47 8 66 773.36 14 23 10051.36 9 .10 109428 13 .0.3 15. 04 3421.56 2.99 15.66 1088.60 0.13 13.48 3.12 0.08 9.25 28.00 T ..... l1 6.61 .33. 00 0.02 9.42 83.00 0 01 9.72 10.00 0 02 1.3. 21 T ... all 21.07 0 01 14.73 v ... nll 30. 71 v .... all 16.96 3 11 9 0.20 23.40 0 05 16. 80 1.00 8.00 3.00 1.12 2.24 111 33.88 118 700 2.00 2.80 .36 395 12 .39 3 94 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.,30 0 16.14 14 11.86 15 17 17 16.77 17 14.82 22 T._all 11.60 0.03 18.45 0.01 19.80 0 02 18.84 0.01 26.30 0.18 14.15 0 01 14.80 0.01 22.67 v .... all 90.89 0.01 13.39 0 4 0 16.04 0.12 15.08 0.04 15.61 0.03 20.09 0.01 17.00 1.00 T._all 18.60 0.04 0.03 19 0 20 0.01 17 .86 0.01 12.32 0.02 17.86 0.13 17.00 0.02 3 2 .39 22.00 0.08 21.36 4.00 0.01 26 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 193.76 0.01 21.60 0.01 14.73 0.01 21.50 0.01 24.53 1.00 v ..... all 18.00 31.12 0.11 21,)1 1 5084 .43 100.00 249 1 0 84 10u.00 27651.24 100.00 27607.92 10lJ.OC 872.25 4325 9074 4 35 21.59 45 17.57 1231.78 13 2694 13.95 11282.71 5 95 13.02 54 0 8 .65 6.66 0.06 0 2.39 1.60 0.81 18.20 19.80 18.1'2 20 20 12 18 1467 18 72 19 17 19.23 3242 59 1048.14 6.37 39 61 196.37 246.10 25 6 14 3 .00 4 00 442 3.00 6 90.88 41.16 14 .00 5 54 2.00 16.19 5 0.03 0.20 0 1.23 0.13 0 03 0.07 0.01 0.02 2.21 0.01 14 18.27 21.19 15 16.63 17 18.88 2 0.00 19 23 15 16 16.67 0 01 20.00 0.01 31.22 0 03 0 0 21 0.07 0.03 18.35 4 11.17 17.10 2 0.40 0.01 25.10 1 00 v.amall 28 60 4 00 18.38 1.23 0 02 22 60 0.09 19 0.01 20.00 1.00 v."",all 2 .65 0.01 20 00 10 4 6 0.05 15.37 1.00 T .mal1 21.40 20.16 181.44 5 91 0.10 86.13 0.91 13.56 0 03 18.14 1.00 T ..... l1 20.00 1. 0 1 v. 8IIall 20.0C 0.02 16. 05 0,)7 17.65 20041.08 100.0C 199 1790.01 1.378 82 12.19 116.36 493 .67 .330 167 2.22 1.22 19 18 9 0.01 20.00 0.01 19 .67 0 .09 18.30 0 '23.43 0 33.93 3.60 19.00 0.01 18 29 0.25 v.amal1 20.00 2.69 0.01 20.00 under loU. 1.39 4 32 43 2.89 21.8 4.16 1.31 1.78 0.01 0.02 0.21 0 01 0.11 0 02 28 15 05 22 54 1896 20.27 21.39 0.01 20.00 0.03 19.43 0 .18 21.16 0.07 20. 39 0.01 28 43 2.16 0 01 1 8.15 25 10.03 0 12 24 58 0.05 19.94 1.2 4 0.01 20.04 0.40 v.small 14.00 1.00 v.amall 20 .00 1 .09 v.small 22.02 1.12 10.36 1.60 30 20.00 0.05 20.08 0.01 20.00 0.02 23.49 201093.65 10C.00

PAGE 21

Trends in the 5 major ivory buying countries are shown in Fig. 6 and are as follows: (I) The United Kingdom was East Africa's' largest buyer in 1925 -1929 taking 49.04% of exports; this dominance was maintained at a reduced rate through the next 5 year period, but ,lost to India in 1935 -1939. The ( second World War reduced the U. K. I s share of East African ivory to 3 .75% in 1940 -1944, s ince when it has not exceeded 6 .20% in any of the 5 year periods. (2) Belgium has shown a continual decrease in ivory imports from East Africa from 11.3% of 1925 1929' s total to 0.06% in 1965 -1969. (3) India showed a substantial increase in impor,ts of East African ivory' from 25.50% in 1925 -1929 to 79.57% in 1940 -1944 when she was able to take advantage of all other buyersl involvements with the second World War. This dominance was maintained until 1950 -1954 when postindependence economic pressures made her restrict all imports of luxury goods. Due to her fai I ing economy Indi imports of ivory progress-ively decreased until in 1965 -1969 her share had dropped to only 13.02% of East Africa!s exports. (4) Hong Kong' s current position as the main buyer of East African ivory is largely a post war phenomenon. Prior to 1945 the most she had taken of a 5 year period's exports was 4.28%. From 1945 onward it has increased steadily unti I in 1965 -1969 it constituted over 50%. (5) Japan!s imports rose from 3. 61 % in 1925 -1929 to 16. 19 % in 1960 1964, with a b,reak during the world yvar. Since 1965 its imports have dropped slightly. This may be temporary, but might also be the beginning of a trend simi lar to that shown by industri al ised Europe. In Table 4 average ivory values in shi Ilings per Ib of consignments taken by the 10 major importers of East African ivory are reviewed. From the data presented it wi II be seen that over the 45 years covered, the U. K. pays 7.6% less than the prevailing average export value. Belgium averages -? 37% more than the prevailing average, India 9.09% more, Hong Kong 23.34% less, Japan 1.13% less, U. S. A. 22.76% more, 3.41 % less, Italy 9.44% more and China 11.87% less. However it must be restated that these figures the.whole 45 year period and that modern trends are obscured. Thus though Hong Kong has consistently recorded lower values than other 'countries, the difference between the aver-age East African export value and that of consignments to Hong Kong wi II decrease as the latter's share of the East African total exports increases.

PAGE 22

c \. < l ;'. . I c :i. I : . c I. -... 1' .... . ... ... t a--____ 0--:- 30 -' .... 1"" / / / "/ '\ / \ / \ / \ / \ ;I '\ ... + ,/ 'H' ;";' : i. :. !: ,: ; 1 ; ':r; ,', ,', .) I / / / ......... ( \ . ,', .. .+ .. .... +.' :. I I.' :,,', ", ;. .. . y o

PAGE 23

Year 1925-29 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 Average Overall Av. 12.37 7.84 6.33 7.99 10.49 '" 12.49 13.72 14.59 18.71 Deviation Av. 12.27 7. '81 5.75 5.53 7.14 8.66 16. 14 17.57 18.20 Britain %Dev. 0.81 -0.38 -9.16 -30.79 -31 .94 -30:'66 +17,64 +20.42 2.73 7.60 % Avo 9.81 7.66 5.45 10.74 13.4/? 17.82 21. 19 14.67 Belgium %Dev. -20. 70 2 .30 -13.90 + 2.38 + 7 .93 +29.88 +45.24 -21.59 + 3.37% Germany Av. 14.47 4.90 6.02 6.61 17.65 16.63 19.83 %Dev. +16.98 -37.50 4.90 -47.08 +28.64 +13 9 8 + 5 .99 3.41 % Holland Av. 17.99 9 ,03 6.76 5.20 7.57 9.41 14. 15 16.91 19.00 % Dev. +45. 43 +15. 18 + 6 .79 -34.92 -27.84 -24.66 + 3.13 +15.90 + 1. 55 + 6,25 % Italy Avo 16.34 7 .93 8.48 9.42 14.82 17.40 17.99 % Dev.+32. 09 + 1. 15 +33.97 -24.58 + 8.02 +19.26 -3.85 + 9.44% Av. 17.28 7 .98 7.92 9 .38 14. 61 15.66 17.94 18.27 18.74 %Oev.+39.69 + 1. 79 +25.12 +17.40 +39<28 +25.38 +30.76 +25.22 + -0.16 +22.76% India Avo 12.70 8.76 6.77 8.35 11 91 14.23 14.32 13.75 19.80 %Dev. +26, 68 +11.73 + 6 .95 + 4.51 +13.54 +13.93 + 4.37 -5.76 + 5.83 + 9.09 % Hong Kong Av. 5 61 4.41 4.35 4.77 6 .63 9. 10 11.86 13095 18. 12 % Dev. -54. 65 -43.75 -31.28 -40.30 -36.80 -27. 14 -13<56 -4.39 3.15 -28.34% Japan Av. ' 12.93 6.27 6 .34 5.38 15.04 15.32 14.50 '12 %Dev. + 4.53 -20.03 + 0.16 "32.67 +20.42 +11. 66 0.62 + 7.54 1. 13% China' Av. 12.44 8 .32 5.83 4.78 6 ,09 20.98 %Dev. + 0.57 + 6. 12 7.90 -40.18 -41.94 +12. 13 -11.87% TABLE 4 Values in shillings per Ib paid by the top 1 0 importing countries of East African ivory expressed as consecutive 5 year averages and compared t o the 5 year average value of al I East African ivory exports. AI so shown are vari ations from the overall average expressed as'percentages of the overall average.

PAGE 24

IZ KENYA'S IVORY TRADE 1925 _. 1969 The 'Resource On the basis of extensive aerial reconnaissance and sampling, it is estimated that there are at least 100,000 elephant in Kenya today (Watson pers. comm.). As a ,resu I t of interaction between human? and elephants, the latter have been displaced from all areas of high human density. Because of the geographical heterogeneity of Kenya and consequent discontinuities i n human populations, elephant extermination has followed a particular pattern of spatial and temporal diversity differing from that of most other African states. Most people are concen-trated on or about the highland massifs, lacustrine areas around Lake Victoria, or a narrow band along the coast with their associated high rainfalls (over 30" p. a.). Although these areas are very suitable for elephants, .they constitute a relatively small part of Kenya1s land area (11 %). Where competition with elephant has occurred it has been very intense but local, involving few animals, both in the past and today. Most of the country's elephants now occupy the lower drier areas which to date are unusable by agri'culturalists. The low density pastoralists who do I ive in lowlands have few confl icting interests with elephants: However rising human populations and changing systems of land tenure can be expected t6 gradually force more people into such areas wi th a progressive increase in-competition with elephants. In the immediate future it can be expected that current trends in Kenya's ivory production wi II continue. Production and Quantities Ivory production as gauged from export figures has shown a similar trend to that of the overall East African trade described in the preceding chapter, with the exception that there has been no decline over the last decade. A decline in quantities occurred from 1925 until the mid-1930s, but since then there has been a constant increase to the present day. Table 5 gives annual totals and 5 year running averages for ivory originating in Kenya, imported into and re-exported from Kenya. From this it m.ay be seen that its own production has risen from c. 350 centals in 1925 to c ; 900 centals annually in 1969. In the running averages for, the years 1957 -1967 the average increase in quanti ty was 3. 3 % per annum. This information is also presented graphically in Fig. 7. The :'J total quantity produced over the 45 year period is 22,714.61 centals, which at an average weight of 40 Ibs per elephant (being the average J obtained from Mombasa Auction records) indicates a total offtake of some 56,787 elephant.

PAGE 25

Domestic Pr'oduction m p 0 r t s Re-exports Annual 5 Year' Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Year Total Running Avo Total, ,Running Av., Total' RUl'1nfngAv. --1925 359.40 228.56 286.72 1926 328.80 1-35.52 87.36 1927 563.80 369.98 376.32 278.90 496.16 264.32 1928 328.44 369.64 155. 68, 292.10 198.24 247.97 1929 269.48' 362.43 498.40 331.30 253.12 262.53 1930 357.68 311. 14 294.56 369. 15 204.96 171. 01 1931 292.76 329.21 331.52 455.39 160. 16 1 '76.16 1932 307.32 368.62 565.60 509.15 ,38.56 239.37 1933 418.80 383.28 586.88 730.46 224 .00 468.74 1934 466.52 404.5;3 J 767.20 921.09, 569.16 643.46 1935 430.00 413.,06" 1401. 12 1058.25 1351.84 883.05 1936 400.00 387.94 1284.64 114,4.26 1033.76 1937 350.00 349.33 1251.04 73 1236.48 1087.50 1938 293.36 312.38 1016.96 1172.04 722.40 1026.79 1939 273.28 287.68 1059.52 1194.89 1120.00 1152.46 1940 245.28 242.34 68 1484.24 1048.32 1178.36 1941 276.48 209.85 1398.88 1601. 16 1662.08 1302.01 1942 124.32 213.44 2697.78 1620.65 1366.00 1361. 14 1943 129.92 229.34 1601. 60 1740.04 1340.64 1516.84 1944 291.20 327.26 1156.96 1822.25 1415. 68 1853.94 1945 324.80 415.74 1844.64 1899.08 1976.80 2000.97 1946 766.08 476.67 1809.92 1765.35 3197.60 1972.30 1947 566.72 520.35 3081.90 1555.46 2101. 12 1739.34 1948 434.56 568.29 932.96 1347.36 1197. 28 1406.92 1949 509.60 51.4.30 107.52 1424.87 250.88 1242.06 1950 564.48 466.14 804.16 1164.87 314.72 1336.81 1951 496.16 453.82 2197.44 1513.19 2373.28 1635.62 1952 325.92 421.30 92 1683.09 1671.04 1954.85 1953 372.96 454.61 2674.56 1825.46 1744.96 2166.70 1954 347.00 495.98 957.00 1731.55 1847.00 2063.45 1955 731.00 536.19 1516.00 1658.78 1374.00 1:923.24 1956 703.00 577.60 1728.00 1347.67 1857.00 1'879.45 1957 527.00 628.40 1418.00 1339.87 970.00 1679.45 1958 580.00 612.80 1119. 00 1291.87 1526.00 1634.25 1959 601.00 616.00 1018.00 1384.07 847.00 1586.25 1960 653.00 690.60 1 176.00 1375.59 1148.00 1520.45 1961 719.00 760.20 2 189.00 1461. 12 1617.00 1271. 65 1962 900.06 812.48 2.00 1682. 68 641.00 1963 928.00 811.11 282.00 1964 862.39 866.65 1965 646.16 899.83 1966 996.71 884.29 5.35 1967 1065.88 859.02 1968 850. 31 Cj 47. 40.00 1969 736.04 I 40.00 TABLE 5 Kenyais domestic ivory exports, imports and re-e>s:ports from 1925 1969 (inclusive) as annual totals in 100 Ib centals and 5 year running averages. Iq 70 97
PAGE 26

Domestic Pr'oduction I m p 0 r t s Re-exports Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year ':rota I Running Av. Total, ,Running Av.' Total, RUr-ifling Avo, 1925 359.40 228.56 286.72 1926 328.80 135.52 87.36 \ 1927 563.80 369.98 376.32 278.90 496.16 264.32 1928 328.44 369.64 155. 68 292.10 198.24 247.97 1929 269.48 362.43 498.40 253.12 262.53 1930 357.68 311.14 294.56 369. 15 204.96 171.01 1931 292.76 329.21 331.52 455.39 1 60. 1 6 1 76. 1 6 1932 307.32 368.62 565.60 509.15 38.56 239.37 1933 418.80 383.28 586.88 730.46 224.'00 468.74 1934 '469.52 404.53 I 767.20 921.;'09 569.16 643.46 .\". 1935 430.00 413.,06" 1401.12 1058.25 1351. 84 883.05 1936 400.00 387.94 1284. 64 26 1033.76 982.73 1937 350.00 349.33 1251.04 1 73 1236.48 1087.50 1938 293.36 312.38 1016.96 1172.04 722.40 1026.79 1939 273.28 287.68 1059.52 1194.89 1120.00 1152.46 1940 245";28 242.34 68 1484.24 1178.36 1941 276.48 209.85 1398.88 1601. 16 1662.08 1302.01 1942 124.32 213.44 2697.78 1620. 65 1366.00 1361.14 1943 129.92 229.34 1601.60 1740.04 1340.64 1516.84 1944 29,1.20 327.26 1156.96 1822.25 1415. 68 1853.94 1945 324.80 415.74 1844.64 1899.08 1976.80 2000.97 1946 766.08 476.67 1809.92 1765.35 3197.60 1912.30 1947 566.72 520.35 3081.90 1555.46 2101. 12 1739.34 1948 434.56 568.29 932.96 1347.36 1197. 28 1406.92 1949 509.60 514.30 107.52 1424.87 250.88 1242.06 1950 564.48 466.14 804.16 1164.87 314.72 1336.8 1 1951 496.16 453.82 2197.44 1513.19 2373.28 1635.62 1952 325.92 421.30 1781.92 1683.09 1671.04 1954.8 5 1953 372.96 454.61 2674.56 1825.46 1744.96 2166.70 1954 347.00 495.98 957.00 1731.55 1847.00 2063.45 1955 731.90 536. 19 1516.00 1.658. 78 1374.00 1:923.24 1956 703.00 577.60 1728.00 1347.67 1857.00 1 '879.45 1957 527.00 628.40 1418.00 1339.87 970.00 1679.45 1958 580.00 612.80 1119. 00 1291.87 1526.00 1634.25 1959 601.00 616.00 1018. 0 0 1384.07 847.00 1586. 25 1960 653.00 690.60 1176. 00 1375.59 1148.00 1520.45 1961 719.00 760.20 2189.00 1461.12 1617.00 1271. 65 1962 900.00 812.48 2.00 1682.68 641.00 1963 928.00 811.11 282.00 1964 862.39 866.65 1965 646.16 899.83 1966 996.71 884.29 5.35 1967 1065-.88 859.02 1968 850. 31 'l 47. 40.00 1969 736.04 I 0 %7, 40.00 TABLE 5 Kenya's domestic ivory exports, imports and re-exports from 1925 1969 (inclusive) as annual totals in 100 Ib centals and 5 year running averages., 'IQ 70 L '71 97'6-Jt2., I '1'1 2 S'S-, S""3,

PAGE 27

1000 800 600 400 200 100 L950 .1960 a -j;3 i c : \rOr'"j' ex pc 1 1 Lt; l.o1.alt: nnn i) c.. for t n F :' i 0, 1 i. ) ? ::) t l J i

PAGE 28

e 1:1 From analysis of auction records of the period 1959 1970, the Kenya Government's contribution to the country's production (this is the major source of Kenyals ,ivory and the direct result of the human elephant interaction) is made up of the following categories : .(1) Vilaiti 14.79% ( 2) Cutchi 17.66% ( 3) Calasia 12. 71% ( 4) F 'ankda 13.69% (5) Maksub 16.20% ( 6) Dandia 10.61 % ( 7) Chinai 3.95% ( 8) Rotten 10.39 % 100 .00 The Government policy in shooting elephant on fcontrol', that is the' defence of cu I t ivat ion and protecti on of human interests, is to shoot males in preference to females. This is reflected in (he figures as the three all male categories v ilaiti, cutchi and fankda -constitute 46. 14% of the total output, irrespective of the males present in the other categories except calasia. I t is of interest t o compare the foregoing figures wi th the categories obtained by the Kenya National Parks, wh<;>se only source of ivory is the collection 'of that becoming availabl e :through natural mortality. Their percentages over the same period 1959 1970 are : (1) Vilaiti 9.66% (2) Cutchi 5.48% ( 3) Calasia 17.86% (4) Fankda 3.70% (5) Maksub 6.82% (6) Dandia 17.16% (7) Chinai 13.25% (8) Rotten 26.07% 100 .00 As is to be expected the figures do not show such a preponderance of males as i n the human induced mortality, the three all male classes producing only 18.84% of the total compared with 46.14% of those taken on'controfl. Also as is to be expected the rotten ivory figure is very much h igher as a result of extensive weathering before being found and picked up by National Parks staff. Comparison of the two methods of production control shooting and random collection of natural mortality -show that ivory qual it.y obtained through the latter wi II be very much lower.

PAGE 29

14 Imports Over most of the period 1925 1969 (inclusive) ,Kenya has fostered an active import-export trade in ivory from other African states. As will be seen from Table 5 imports totalling 44,596.44 centals greatly exceeded Kenya1s own ivory production over the 45 years covered. However be I ief that the cessat ion of th is trade wou I d "be in the interests of conservation!1 led to the Kenya authorities being pressured into placing an embargo on ivory originating outside the three East African states in the early 19605. This together with the political troubles in the Congo (Kenya's mai n supplier, see below) v irtually ended Kenya's commanding position i n the trade. (The "conservationists" achieved little through their interference except disrupting a valuable industry to Kenya. Nowhere d i d they stop the ki II ing of elephants. ) The patterns of Kenya' s import-export trade are presented in Fig. 8 as 5 year running averages. The origins of Kenya's Imports are given in Table 6 together with thei r stated in shi II ings per pound weight. From Table 6 it may be seen that 74. II % came from the Congo, 10. 58 % from Tanganyika, 7.69% from Somalia, 4.48% from Mozambique, 0.07% from Zanzibar, 0 .01 % from Eritrea, 0 .23% from Ruanda, 1.57% from the Sudan, 0.14% from Rhodesia, O. 67 % from Zambia and O. 10 % from Malawi. The political chaos of the continent, the worsening trade relations between Kenya and Tanzania, the embargo on trade between Kenya and Mozambique, Rhodesia and South Africa, 'the civil war in the Southern Sudan and the antagonistic attitude of Somalia to Kenya, 'all make it very I un I ike I y that Kenya1 s import-export' trade in ivory from these states wi II recover its former levels in the near future. Values Comparative values for Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyikan ivory are, given in Table 7 and Fig. 9,' together with the overall East African average. F -rom Tables 2 and 7 and Fig. 9 it is apparent that there was little recorded difference in values for ivory produced within the three countries. However, the average of ivory imported into Kenya shows an anomalous relationship to that that is re-exported. The relevant data are presented in Table 8 and F 'ig. 10 from which it can be seen that the import values (which must approximate to buying prices) tend to exceed the export value (selling prices) and that if this reflected a true situation the trade must be run at a loss. Enquiries put to the ivory traders in Mombasa el icited the following exp lanation. There is no Customs tariff, or duty on either the import or export of ivory from any of the East African territories. As a result the CU$toms author,ities pay only

PAGE 30

_'2000 C e n 1000 t !l 1 s o 1.930 1940 1950 I Quantities of KAnyas. ivory imports and re-Lexpo-rt8 in 100 lb centals, running averages. Import s .. --

PAGE 31

1947 .Quanti ty Av. Value Av. Value ;"'1. Value -<"anti ty Av. Value 1954 Qu .. nti ty Av.Value Quanti t y J..v Value Qu .. oti ty i..v. Value 1,57 "'''antl tj' Av. Value 1,50 ty kv. Vulue <,;uanti ty Av.Value 19 Quanti ty h.v.'falue 1:/61 Quantity Av.Value Quanti t, Av.Value Totals Percent Ivory imported into Kenya, showing countries of origin, amount. s in 100 lb centals and average values in. shillings per lb. 28 00 104 3 .36 135 52 15.9 6 6 .38 12.62 8 53.76 225 12 ':17 376.32 1 3 .61 8 .83 1 2 09 11.56 12.32 143.)6 155 68 18.13 9 99 10 118. 7 2 366 .24 0 96 4 498.40 12.66 10.01 8 93 10.31 10.62 94 08 131.04 50 40 19.04 294 tl.96 9 t1.44 5 8.71 190 84 00 4928 5 60 2.24 331.52 6 6 5S 5 50 7 14 6 57.1 2 455 84 50 40 2.24 565 60 70 6 .23 5 3 6 .31 367 36 184 00 34 586.88 59 4 5 5 2:1. 6 80 434:56 30 24 5 7 670 50 5 21 5 3.71 5 1 93 1,089 117 1,401.12 6 .77 5 08 5 5 321.44 92c04 36 5 60 1,284 6.21 5 6.13 6.25 5034 189 28 1,024.80 1.12 35 84 1,251.04 6.7 8 6 10 6.24 6 .60 260.96 610 40 7 .84 131.04 6 1,016 5 5 75 6 .66 5 6 93 5 225 752 2.24 7952 1,059 52 6.20 5 55 4 46 5 85 5 71 237 4 4 1,002 7!l4 1,247.68 4 55 7.14 5 77 1 352 1,258.88 4 48 1,398. 88 6 .81 5 12 9 91 5 135 22 1,513 12 1,049.44 2,697. 7 8 7 5 7 69 35 S4 1,274b 291.20 1,601. 60 10 51 8 10.67 9 118.72 950.88 56.00 31.36 1,156 .96 13 57 9 53 10.26 10.13 1 0 34 18704 1,565 14.56 45 92 31.36 1,844 11. 73 10. 20 9 11.47 10.12 10.38 461.44 1,056.16 126 56 25 19 04 19 101 92 1,809 92 14 12.76. 13.05 12.02 6 .45 21.00 1290 1 3.15 304 78 2,50 4 .32 20 .16 140 00 5264 3 ,061.90 13 13.7J 13.8i1 9 53 1 2.83 139 520.80 356.16 11.20 23 1.12 20.16 932 96 13-31 11 .16 5 1 7 86 7 12.34 1.1 2 42. 5 6 58.24 5 60 107 52 U2 13.84 13 1143 13 1.12 5 6 7 !:l4 182.56 52 8041 6 1 3 5 7 H.1S 14 13.33 12.15 1,443.68 129 92 219 52 36 96 367 36 2,197 12.67 1 3 26 1 4 0 13.65 1 3 0b 12 1,126.72 14 56 208.32 432.32 1,781.92 1 3 .74 11 13.33 11.09 13 03 2,026. 08 352 80 295 2,674 15 49 12 9 87 14 528 00 37 00 4 24 00 364 957.00 149 H 76 15 1 5 83 9 94 12.72 1t 1,140 00 165 20 00 20 00 271.00 1 6.10 12 14 1 8 23 13 83 16.38 ? 1 428.0C 232 00 8 00 60. 00 1,728.00 16 1 3 16.82 11.01l 16.2';1 1,241.00 34 20 00 70 116.00 1,416.00 14.70 141l7 18.00 15 1 7 28 1,00';1.00 11.00 19 1,1190 17 13 1l.e4 10.n r 925 63.00 26 00 40 1 010 .01; 17 18 .63 14 68 11.25 174 1,119.00 57. 00 1,176. 0u lS.08 14.02 17 .89 2 ) 1 65.00 24 2 1119 00 15 71 16.67 15 1.00 1.00 2 00 20 30 2 .':10 4,720 48 33,048.4 & 699 3,430.24 297 45 61.04 30.24 103.52 2, 157.84 2.24 44 ,5':16. 44 10 74.11 1.57 7 69 0.67 0.10 0.14 0.07 0 .23 4 0.01 1 00 00

PAGE 32

Kenya U g a n d a Tanganyika Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Av. ,Running Avo' Av. Running Av., Av. Running Av. 15.20 16.59 14.06 16. 16 11. 14 12. 17 '12.37 13.56 10.46 10.74 ,11 8 0 11 .86 9 10.01 9.24 10.88 10.05 12.34 0 8.04 8 .36 8.05 8 .94 8.23 1 6.56 7.06 7. 12 7.49 6.99 7 .98, 2 6.72 5.94 6.83 6.31 7. 10 6.63 33 3.95 5.46 4.54 5.83 5.26 6.34 34 4 .45 ,5.20 5.01 5.45 5.58 6.24 35, 5.62 5.29 5. 61 5.52 6.76 6.16 36 5.24 5.63 5.24 5.75 6.49 6.23 37 7. 19 5.87 7.19 5.85 6 .70 6.35 38 5.66 6. 10 5.66 6 .05 5.63 6.35 39 5.62 6.42, 5.55 6.43 6. 19 6.50 40 6.81 6.69 6 .59 6 61 6.73 6 .69 1 6 .82 7.83 7. 12 7.71 7.24 7.90 42 8.52 9.01 8. 11 8.79 7.68 9. 12 43 11.39 10.00 11. 16 9.84 11. 64 10.05 '944 11,49 11.42 10.96 11. 0 3 12.30 11.36 945 11.76 12.48 1 1 81 12.08 11. 37 12.38 946 13.92 1.2.67 13.08 12.42 13.82 12.62 947 13.85 12.76 13.39 12.58 12.75 12.55 948 12.31 12.96 12.85 12.83 12.86 13.04 949 11.97 13. 16 11.76 13.09 11.95 13.28 950 12. '"16 13. 14 13.05 13.05 13.81 13.66 951 14.93 13.36 14.37 13. 21 15.05 13.76 952 13.75 13.63 13. 19 13.50 14.62 -,14. 18 953 13.37 -13.69 13.66 13.62 13.39 14.80 1954 13.33 13.54 13. 19 13.38 14.02 14.95 '1955 13.07 13.88 13.66 13.73 16.94 15.27 1956 14.20 13.97 13. 19 13.62 15.80 15.39 1957 15.45 14.47 14.92 13.93 16.20 15.84 .1.958 13. 81 15. 51 13. 13 14.46 13.97 16.19 1959 15.82 ,16.02 14.73 14.81 16.30 15, .99 1960 18.27 1 6. 11 16.33 15.04 18. 68 15.78 1961 16.73 16. 60 14.91 15.53 14.81 16.,06 1962 15.92 16.97 16.08 16. 15 15. 15 16.26 1963 16.26 17.23 '15.59 16.94 15.35 16.56 1964 17.67 17.77 17.82 18.00 17.33 1 -7. 31 1965 19.57 18.37 20.29 18.42 20.17 18.70 1966 1 9 .42 18.'72 20.2.1 18.87 18.58 19.09 1967 18.93 18.93 18. 17 1..9. 1 6 22.07 19. 21 1968 18. 01 1'7.86 17.33-1969 18.73 19.23 17.89 '45 Yr > Av. 12. 19 11. 81 12.20 11.74 12.51 ,12.34 --TABLE' 7 The aver-age annual values ahd 5 year running average values ,of ivory produced in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika expressed as 'shi I I ings per ib.

PAGE 33

.. \ n -.;,. e iO \ r \ '. b >-l ',(, t .' i.J \ . ;l.tr: t r ( / .. /.. . .L,:' .. "':. ..;" . -. .-:-= . ...;" .. ',. . ..... /, .. t I ,., .... ..... t .. .' .. \ 1 : 1 .::' \:

PAGE 34

Imports R e e x po r t s Annual 5 Year. Annual 5 Year Av. Running Avo Av. Running Av. 1925 8 .58 12.08 1926 8.52 12.69 1927 11. 56 9.98 10.45 10.93 1928 10.64 10. 01 10. 10 10. 10 1929 10.62 9 .60 9.35 8.93 1930 8.71 8 .55 7.93 8.48 1931 6 .47 7.46 6 .80 7.42 1932 6.31 6.40 8.23 6.44 1933 5.21 5.72 4.79 5 .88 1934 5.29. 5 .50 4.47 5.45 1935 5.33 5.55 5.12 5 . 10 1936 5.34 5 .66 4.65 5.10 1937 6 .60 5.74 6.49 5 18 1938 5.72 5 .83 4.75 5.29 1939 5 71 5.82 4.90 5.46 1940 5.77 5 .80 5 .67 5 .57 1941 5.30 6.46 5 .50 6.52 1942 6 .49 7.39 7.01 7 .49 1943 9 .05 8. 31 9 51 8.34 1944 10.34 9.88 9.74 9 .69 1945 10.38 11. 28 9.94 10.63 1946 13. 15 11.94 12.24 10.98 1947 13.49 12. 61 11.72 11. 1948 12.32 12.97 11 26 11.43 1949 13.73 12.94 12.22 11 25 1950 12. 15 12.84 9.72 11. 15 1951 12.99 13.29 11 31 11.02 1952 13.03 13.08 11. 26 10087 1953 14.53 13.93 10.57 11. 20 1954 12.72 14.59 11. 50 11. 39 1955 16.38 15.44 11.38 11.77 1956 16.29 15.93 12. 26 12.22 1957 17.28 16.93 13. 14 12.82 1958 16.97 17.23 12. 81 13.86 1959 17.74 17.81 14.53 14.56 1960 17.89 16058 15.00 1961 15.72 15.74 15.54 1962 15.34 1963 15. 51 1964 1965 1966 -17.93 1967 18.00 1968 18.00 1969 TABLE 8 The average annual values and 5 yea.r running average values of Kenya1s imported and re-exported ivory in shillings per lb.

PAGE 35

;:0 \ a. 1 \J, e n 1 5 s h i. 1 1 i n g s :i p 10 e r 1 b 1930

PAGE 36

15 sory attention to the values stated on shipping documents. However freight rates for ,transporting ivory by sea are (or were) based on a centage of the consignment' s value. By falsely reducing the values :shipping documents the traders were obtaining a substantial discount thei r transport costs. This was reflected qu ite c learl y in the Annual ade Reports but as it di d not involve any loss of revenue to the vernments was ignored. It therefore does not represent any true omaly in ivory values . uyers of Kenya' s Ivory Domestic and re-Exported The importers o f Kenya ivory, domestic and that obtained from other tates are given in Tables 9 and 10 respectively. The data are presented n a raw state so that if at some future date it is felt that more can be obtained from them than i s required in this report, it w i l l .be available. (The same philosophy applies to many o f the other detailed tables that follow in subsequent chapters. )

PAGE 37

TABLE 9 Ivory originating in and exported from Kenya showing countries of des2lnation, amounts in 100 I b centals and average values in shillings per lb. ___ ____ .. b2, ...... 14.00 1JVl. .u.rto.. J.d... ?i.nl .. nd S I\UI.l.O" O1b.ar .. v .... lol_. 1 ltt U.U 14.44 10.2e 1,lo:. ...... J'jc 1tt )(: .14 .:.1.44 . 2 2 24 ;l.;2 .. 1).:;) 1';.&, ... ,.)'; 1:.)0 17 l'u1 .. UMnt) ... I.u.nll t.)' .. v. V.4'-'" 1::12'1' "", .. nllty ;.v./alt.e .. -.._"ut.l ",Y. '1.1_& 1,Jl .,(\I. .. "L1 ;. .... / .. 1"' .. 19j2 ... u .... "v. V"l_" .. ", .. ntltJ .. .,.'1 ...... $ .,;.4 "". '1 "11 ...... "".V"'!UII L 'Je. t.)' "y. \',1 .. 1:131 ... uanl.l.LJ ;, .. ,Va.'Je lY4'-' .. nt l t,)' .1\ .... '/alu. 1941 ... .. ntlty Jo. ....... "'11'. lJ4l ..... !l a tJ .. .,.Val",,, 1:;14J I"IUwtl tJ Av.V.lu" ....... ar.u l;. Av.' : ... lu .. AV. Vaiue 194 tI Qual'ltl t:;f ...... Valu& 1947 "".nn 1.1 "v.Valul 1943 1..1 .lv.Value 1949 ty .lv '11111'" 1950 Quanti t)' .lv.Vahlll 1951 ty .lv, Vah.e 1952 Quen t 1 t1 Av.Vall.J. 1953 Quantl.ty }.y.V.lue 195-4 J.nt1tl .lv. V.lu. 195:5 (ouantll:t ",v.V.lu& 1956 Qu&ntHy ... .,.'1.1uoll 1951 J...,.'I&I",,, 1958 A ... ldu. 1959 Ulht)' .lv. V .. llle IjeQ iv.V.lu. 1961 A ..... V.lue 1902 Q/J..ntit;t .1 .... V.lu. 196) .lv .V.lu. 'co.cv 9 1(, 7.07 ::r.Ol 226.2( 4 27o.do :.> .>..1 lOt; .c<" 210.'" 5b6 1J).2/l t.l0 l70. uo 5.01 40 ..1.1 0.2';1 lC.OO 5 1;, l.t!; :.>. 17 )...\b 'l5., 12 32 tl75 50.40 14 .)0 10.0e c 51 25 10.09 49 1012 H6 137(J 11.92 15 ab 17.61 10.08 1714 12.00 17 97 lJOC 18.34 ZJ .O( 10.)2 17 19 1,) 51.00 10 .24 14 00 277 43 00 2.1.67 67 21.00 4 5 00 21 .4,4 lO1ex: L 7 .96 1(19.;0 IlL 67 101.82 20.2l 146.Ot 17.80 7)&1 11. ea l)259 18.0; 195 10 90 lotl.j2 114.<'4 1.1.. t..1<' 1.12 j )o:. lC.C(. 1u.U ,.'!,? .04 21.;' ... jtJ.71i! l.>o .:)C v.w .... l. 1.12' 2.24 20.10 17 52 j.i1 L.O, 5o.4e e..51 lC'.J.; 97.44 .1..>4.4(. '0'. .. ..1 2.24 v 8lilall l5 o.; .:.2), l:.1t: ';.;0 '.01 1l.1.52 ::l1.7t j.jO 1.12 41.04 2;.j2 7.0 6 .l5o 0.01 1. 0,; 14Z 11:.72 2.24 ).)0 2 .14 OJ.o,,; 0.4.> lC.o<; G .,) ,..20 4.81 0 72 2h.f4 2bG.ot v ..,llod 1.12 cn )8.Gb l) 4 7 ::/.2c 5 27 j." 7 .5.: ."" .... t..t. v.suI: 24.e.t ol.QC 4.0J .7v 2.65 7.1) 2" 04 ,)5 )J'>':U ,.le n,2C> 1.2) 25.> .12 .1) H;o. b\ 5 0) .,.,.toe 0 'l2.oo 0.6'; 41.(4 1 .21 41.44 Iv. ,,. HCtt; 10.81 107 04 1l .. :.7 45) 1) 41 )14 14.62 201 12 .33 12 26432 13.31 258.1Z 138., 157 1.> 12 11).60 !lB 152.00 11.11 Z97OC u.es 2::r) .00 U 92 90.OC B 5C 24 14 4:2 1354 .CO 24 60 ) .00 21.00 '.00 11.65 6.00 15 7 79 18.)1 61.16 22 61 51 2).44 22 109 .15 19 4 7 .)9 21.,!:.Io .).1.::/.20 .3-30 2 4d 11.20 ,... 7 ,n ,.'; )l).tC 1.12 1.12 )).60 7 11.1)1 6.2; 4.17 181.44 2 24 7 b.! ,.44 6 1fJ 5 48 4).:;12 2 ,2, 4 ) .Jtl 1232 5 8u 0.70 6.7(; 5.:;5 ,.19 }.j!; 1 1:14 O.5L b.21 ).47 l5).bc 20.0.... )d/; 5 .05 4.U o:t d 74 00 9 59 160 .oc 9 72' 11.03 89OC 14 101 .00 LJ.61 15(J 12.20 159.00 1} .:.0 259 t8 16. 26 168.40 19 0) )91.93 19.:.7 )tl1 16.65 )1:11.0:/ 16.84 166.81 18.12 50(; 0.01 152. ;,: 5b 7e.l0 1 44.eO e .O.3 50.':'C 6.2) 33C 8.)9 4.41: 9 15 4.48 17.32 .H .6C 1).70 1560 1) 44 14 18 )920 19 60 ;040 15 9056 14.20 4/l 16 12 20 );. 84 16.80 50.40 1451 4).60 1092 )8. 00 10.48 oC.ec 18.01 130e 19 67 19 1OJ. .ac 15.88 98 .VC 10.87 16\.0.00 19 l;5Ct 10. )8 170.00 17 -A. 1 117 .00 11 ) 10} 19 .n !:!5 17 152.0) 11 211.115 1:;.26 116 18. }9 189.72 19)2 1.12 ,.Cc. 1.12 :)l.ll .... ua.:.. 1.12 5 53 ).)6 1.12 17 v ..... 11 1.12 22 32 v. s.:lIall ,.0< 18.75 00 13; ) 00 12.7) 0,)2 21.88 1.12 lC. cv ").30 2 U 44 ./i 5 ..I. )6 1 to13 e )' .)2 11.) .6C 10.11 4 .4b .:. .40 1.12 18 .)9 1.00 15 c .Ot 18 ,.OC 26.20 1.3.00 1).); 17.VC 16 10.0(,; b)) 43<" 10 28 21:1.CO 16.84 45 1699 23.6t> 15 21)4 11 24 15 59O'j 19 16.62 19 26.08 18.1; 1.12 20. 89 71. 00 0 95 )2 .:.8 5 41 12.)2 ; 18 14. 56 7 15 7 10.08 9 82 57.12 6 6 .72 7 86 ... \1.:111.11 14.;t. 16.84 1.12 11.07 )1.)6 9 '0' .... 11.1:.. 3.CO 19d1 l .OG 270C. 3.00 2;.ct l.oo 2'9 .:.0 l.OCl 20.80 102 15 )) 1;1. C1 25 1:;1.49 21.b9 19 4.06 20.00 32.8) 20.16 28.tO 12.17 1.12 1;.89 41 .:.4 7 01 25.70 7 12 7 62 4 47 22 4 0 5 6.QCj ... 47 ,.00 4 9 28 8 10 1.12 ... 82 2.2.:-4 .46 2 24 3 75 1.12 28)9 LOO 1).60 '.00 19 &0 8 .00 15 5 10.88' .00 10 30 9 00 22.02 26 .00 19 39 ).00 18) 1417 11 20 21.21 24 6(: .36.27 23)6 b3 0 1 22.4] '18. 90 2251 16C 20.10 1.12 8 1.12 16.4) '0' ..... 11 1.12 12.14 1.00 19 1.00 19 .1.00 18.20 v.loQall l.Ou 5<; 2 40 19:1 v. !UlaU 0.40 20.00 0.40 25 2.24 19 0 C 15.00 2 19 2.11 20.0Cl 1.20 26.67 1.12 ) 2 24 ;.BO 1.12 8 9) 1.12 10 2.24 11.96 1.12 10.07 '.0<. 17';0 '.00 2".20 2.0< )l.6C 2.0W 1).40 :;.00 11.0 l.OC 13'0 2.14 20.Oj 2.,,) l., .:}o 8. b) 1;'9 2 20.CC. 1.CO 24.67 2.24 10.6j 1.12 22.)2 1.12 1 2.24 9J 2.24 9 91 2 .2.:. 17. 30 7w ntt .C<. 24.OC '.00 2100 l.OO )0.00 5.0", Ie. &::; v. "",.11 2.00 2).::/0 2.27 2(; .9' 2 17.45 (.> 10.00 1. 50 20.00 5 17'1';1 1.2;;' 20. ex.. 1.12 14.82 ) .00 12.20 ).00 190 .OV 1,.27 2.00 15!lO 2 .DC 10.)C 1.00 290 2 !4 22 )5 1 .42 20.QI.. 0 .30 20.00 0.72 l).tI) l.a<: It1.00 L';:<, 19 0<:: l.OC 27.4(, 1) 2;. 00 3.)0 Ij.dl 16.80 14.15 14 10.65 2.24 1 9 2C ,.0<; 2615 7.8 .. 20.20 LI2 19.11 2.0C 17 ,.00 Z4.CC-10.CO o.oc. 1. ::.C .?1.vo.. ."" H;'8) 4.J7 16 0.", 22.22 0.7 2L .11:: 6il 23. L, 1. e.: 24 ) .)6 10.42 2.( ... 10.2C v.9:la.Ll 1.l2 )0.71 4.U:. 10. to }.('U 23 .(" 1. bj 16':17 j .e} e. 7"; 20.l: 1.12 31. 61 2.24 2).0) 5 17 l.a< 20.oc. ", )2C' LOC 20. 2e 1.2) 20.OC .1.12 21.01 ).00 6.67 6 .00 2090 1.00 )).00 l.OO 20.00 '.00 2).00 7 00 22.20 l.OO 254 0 ).00 22.)) LOO 21 .80 1) 52 194 8.29 18.11 7.?! 20.26 L09 18 4 2 19;1 0.)1 27.1 0.82 21.95 l.OO 11.60 '.00 16.;.0 1.00 35 '.00 21.50 ).00 21. 60 1.00 18.60 .00 2;.00 ) 20.26 ,.00 25 1.}1 20.00 6.12 ;.06 .60 ).61 42.00 24 v ..... ll ....... 11 1.00 21.80 '.00 15 ,.00 21.05 ).,8 229) 2.62 21.60 1. 65 20.61 1.01 17.82 2.00 14 80 0 15 l.12 20.00 .... U ...... 11.11 l.OO 20.0.... l.OC 2720 1.00 20. 00 2.10 20.00 .J.< 1779 4 13,40 7 07 16 4.07 25)0 8.)2 20.H! 1.04 20.0C U W 13)) 1.01 20.00 1.40 12.d6 0 )2.61 4.;; 2l 2 .02 10.11, 1.47 2.>.bl 0 4, 20.00 0.21 20.00 C 4C. 14.OV I I r; C "' 1.00 1 6 .60 6.00 20.00 2.00 25 l .oo 20.60 1.00 17 .00 ).00 25 10.00 21.96 13.00 16.); 666.40 16.T6 5)0.88. 15:> l,062.8B 12.4 2 6;7 11.84 676.4 8 11.)1 6}9 68 8.49 697 7 )9 8(9.32 7 )) 940.80 4 919 52 5 .Q3 1,025 5" 1,042.72 5" 1 ,081 7 19 759)6 5 .66 273 .28 5 ., 245 .. 28 6.81 (216.48) "5.82 12., l2 5." 129 11.39 291.20 11.4 9 )24SQ L 1.16 166.08 1.1 92 5 66 .12 1).8; 4)4.;6 12.)1 509 60 11.97 564 48 12 76 496.16 -' 14.93 325 1 ) 75 )72 96 1).37 )4700 1).)..1 Bl.CO 1) 70).00 14 .20 527 00 15 45 580.00 1).81 601 .00 15 65) 18.27 119 16 7) 900 00 It,i (928.00.-i ""n.20 862 )9 11 67 t.jo.16 19 996 19 42 0.28 1,005 & )9.28 18) d50,)1 Id. d 1.0) 1,6.04 22.}3 ilL?: "'0: .... -n,\1

PAGE 38

Page Missing or Unavailable

PAGE 39

Annual 5 Year Year Annual 5 Year Year Total Running Av. Total Running Av. 1925 307.00 1947 484.84 599.40 1926 202.00 1948 577.92 606.79 1927 499.00 348.80 1949 516.32 557.74 1928 329.00 347.80 1950 675.36 547.01 1929 407.00 388.40 1951 534.24 510.50 1930 302.00 401.00 1952 431 .20 480.27 1931 405.00 439.80 1953 395.36 442.96 1932 562.00 448,80 1954 365.00 435. 11 1933 522.00 507.58 1955 489.00 454.67 1934 453.00 555.13 1956 495.00 465.20 1935 595.92 590.23 1957 529.00 530.80 1 ,936 642.72 579.03 1958 448.00 564.40 1937 734.52 613.42 1959 693.00 556.80 1938 466.00 608.70 1960 657.00 614.80 1939 624.96 583.42 1961 457.00 654.20 1940 572.32 501.33 1962 819.00 717. 11 1941 51 6. 32 461.89 1963 645.00 781.03 1942 327.04 423.36 1964 1007.53 942.74 1943 268.80 436.58 1965 976.64 1043.89 1944 432.32 489.22 1966 1265.54 1191. 42 1945 638.40 520.78 1967 1324.75 1132.96 1946 779.52 582.60 1968 1382. 64 fin .:: i. 1969 715.24 I L; S :! t: TABLE 11 Uganda1s ivory exports in 100 Ib centals shown as annua,l totals and 5 year running averages. I cI70 114-7, &j'2 6, <;rL ( lenl "16 ( Li-'J ('1n G9 {. I e/7]. ..

PAGE 40

I : N C E 800 N T A I.. S 600 400. 200 1930 19 4 0 1950 1970 TfME SCALE .. r-I(;URE .1.1-: . U ganda' -s. ) .yory exports J n 100 1b ccnta1s sho",n as annual tot.('J Is --------and 5 year running av.cragc:s 192.5 -1969

PAGE 41

Page Missing or Unavailable

PAGE 42

I? auction records in Mombasa indicate that the average weight of tusks from Uganda over the period 1959 :..-1967 was 14.08 Ibs (28 Ib' s per elephant). Uganda! s 45 year exports wou I d represent an offtake of some 94, 014 elephants at this average. The larger quantities of ivory exported toward the end of the 1960s stemmed largely from the intensive' cr:opping and reduction programmes undertaken in Murchison Falls National Park and in the Budongo forest in an endeavour to stabilise trends in the two areas (Laws et al. 1970). It is unlikely that this high output has bee[1 maintained since the culmination of these projects. From the Mombasa ivory auction records over the period 1959 1967 (when Uganda stopped selling in Mombasa and commenced its own auctions in Kampala) Uganda Government ivory was made up of the following categories :(1) Vilaiti 3 09 % ( 2) Cutchi 14. 66% ( 3) Calasia 22.08 % ( 4) Fankda 14.54% ( 5) Maksub 26. 04% ( 6) Dandia 13.12% ( 7) Chinai 3 49 % ( 8) Rotten 3. 00 % 100.00 When compared to Kenya figures it wi II be seen that there are marked differences in the proport ions each category represents of the total. In Uganda the production of Vilaiti is only 3.09% compared to Kenya!s 14.79%; the contribution of the all male classes is 32.27% compared to 4:6. 14%; the female class Calasia is higher than in Kenya, respectively 22.08% to 12 17% and the younger classes of Maksub and Dandi a contribute substanU a Ily more in Uganda than they do in Kenya (33. 15% to 26.81 %). These dat a aq:ord with the far greater pressures the Ugar)da elephant are being subjected to, resulting In more females and younger animals being taken, and a very much reduced availability of older males.

PAGE 43

Simi larinformation pertaining to Uganda National Parks is as follows : (1) Vilaiti 8 .05% ( 2) Cutchi 12.65% ( 3) Calasia 20.08% ( 4) Fankda 10.88% ( 5) Maksub 20.59% ( 6) Dandi a i8.94% ( 7) Chinai 4 .77% ( 8) Rotten 4 .04% 100.00 This picture appears as an intermediate between the Kenya National Parks and the Uganda Government resu Its. The bu Ik o f Uganda National Parks ivory comes from the Murchison Falls Park, where i t has been shown that the mortal ity pattern is g reat I y influenced b y the Game Department' s control activi t ies outside i t s boundaries (Laws et a t. 1970). Values The annual average value o f Uganda' s ivory and 5 year running averages are presented in Table 7 and F i g 9, from which it m 'ay be , seen that they do not differ very greatly from the other East African countries. Imports Because it is landlocked and without its own seaport, Ugandahas never developed an import-export trade of ivory from neighbouring countries. However in 1970 some 30 40 tons of ivory from the eastern Congo ,were flown to places as far away as Hong Kong from Entebbe airport. Buyers of Uganda Ivory Table 12 presents details of importers of Ugandan ivory. It will be seen that these are t'ar fewer than Kenya' s importers. .

PAGE 44

Year 193 9 Quan tit)' Av. Value 1940 Quanti ty Av.Value 1 941 Quantl ty Av.Value 1 9 4 2 Quanti ty Av. Value 1943 Quantity AT. Value 1944 Quanti ty Av.Value 194 5 Quantity ,Av.Value 1946 Quant> ty Ay.Value 1 947 Quantity AT.Value 1948 Quantl ty J.v. Value 1 949 Quanti ty Av. Value 195 0 Quant i ty Av. Value 195 1 Quantl ty Av.Value 195 2 Quantity .Av.Value 1 9 53 Quantity 1954 Quantity .A:v. Value 1955 Quantit)' AT. Value 195 6 Quanti ty Av.VaLue 1 957 Quantl ty A.T.Value 1958 Quant i ty AT.Value 1959 Quantl ty Avo Value 1 9fO Quantlty Av.Value 1 961 Quant> ty AT. Value --1962 t)' .Av.Value 1963 Quantlt)' Av",Value 1964 Quan t 1 t)' Av.Valu e 1965 Quantl ty AT.Value 1966 Quanti ty Av. Value 1967 Quantlty AT.Value 1969 Quantl t, Av.Value 19 b9 Quenn t y Av.Value U.K. 97 4 5 6 7 42 56 6 .02 2 .24 6 .1 6 3 36 6.19 5 13 3472 10 21.28 11. 00 1 3 .4 4 7 34 19 8 56 1904 8 .74 v .8mall v ama.ll 1.12 10 36 v small v.small 2 00 17 50 5 00 48 1.00 3520 13.00 15 3C 1 b .13 10 00 20 42 16 00 16.70 1700 30.71 24 4 0 10 20 .80 7 52 17.79 le42 33 09 20 .65 Hone K ong 28. 00 3 9 1 220 3 .89 56.00 7.15 59 do 6 .13 7e 4C 6 .28 2352 5 81 28 00 6 .ll 20 16 11.20 23 528.12 15 68 47 15 00 1 0 .07 15 00 9 25 31.00 6 .70 53. 00 9 88 106.0C 10. b2 80 00 9 85 107. 00 13 124 00 13 4 5 134 00 16.07 d).CC 1., be. 374 1 6 332 -35 1944 5747 i9 50 794.lj 16. 44 9)0.16 17.06 506 39 1850 : lA !"1',-' (;' : __ b...1:."':'J. S[IU .... l.iig \,.'Y....:lltric::; ( t .. ;,:-. ,.1 ..: i!: ; 't-':-In.:lie. 320 .32 55 206.08 6 51 10 0 .80 6 99 120 7 15 112 00 11.09 320 32 1096 440 .16 11.90 13.28 311 .36 14 b5 291 20 12.77 212 80 13 40 47264 13. 30 1402 202 .24 13.17 246 4 0 13 212 00 11. 75 290 00 11.5U 245 00 12.23 116. 00 13 .18 35 00 Ijo 7 .00 15 22.0L 17.,1 9 CC 10. c4 5 ce 1,.06 3 00 1927 0 4 20.)0 61 22 99 12j.20 23 7)1 14j) 2242 292.J4 19 16 ,2.}j 21.57 TanoanyiKa France 110 .8 8 5 21728 6 69 276 7 .08 187 8 .84 146 10 60.06 10.17 12768 11.40 150 .08 14 5d.24 12 7 160 .80 15 87 18 0 .32 11.08 148 .,0 12 4 9 10664 14Oj 105 2e 13.15 119 84 15 26 131.00 15 154 00 1 0 0 1 212. 0c 1512 333.0C 16.17 270.GC 1)70 524CO 15 470.0<-10. OJ 25o.0C __ 14 627.0c 1) .1t 504 CO 15 305,7 le.Oc. 1"j. 49 20 IvC31. 2c .2j 102 20.2 0 1.12 5 4 46 8 .21 28. 00 6 54 1.12 0 4 4 8 134 1456 15 1.12 3 21 v.small v .small 2.04 20. 0(; 2 21.23 2.14 21.03 Holland 33.60 6 95 10 08 5 20 10.06 20.14 4 17 .10 60 .08 1 0 26 74 13 3.; 6 1 b.01 2.24 13 95 v.small 12d 1,.25 1,2 18.,2 160.4 b 1,.07 6().63 1,.12 1. 57 21 3 20 70 -.Japan v.8mall 2 .24 4 20 2.24 5 98 4.40 27 17 2 2 4 1057 6 00 1.00 12.0<., 1500 12.87 4 .00 11.05 :7.0<.. 1462 270v 1;1.07 4j\.A .. 1724 14.0C 15. 7 c 11.0e. H.C, 2).40 16 bc.2; 2291 104 );1 22.30 145 21.11 33 44 20 17.46 19 U S A 32.48 5 67.20 7 19 92 96 7 90 15 68 7 14 8 96 18 73 31. 36 10 3 4 72 1 32 48 16 14 02 16.80 17 44 1O.8c 18 .27 13 44 1650 1741 2.24 21. 80 ) .00 20.07 5 00 21.00 9 00 23.80 1.00 2d.OC 6 .CO 2). 17 .OU 1)74 0 .00 24 70 1.00 2700 ,1. 0(; 109:> 2j.OL. 1 Ct. to 10 .Co 23 ';0 2C. 21 31.14 20 7 3770 1:1 j / CU 2u. /1 16 74 19.55 21. 51 20.61 Ceylon Ar6"e'ntlne 1.12 7 .86 1.12 4 v amall 1.12 17 .86 1.12 6 .25 v. sma.ll v.small 4 .48 19 02 2.6) 20.CO ) .1 0 1;1 0 11 1. 75 20 .11 A den v .8l8.11 S.,Afrlca B e lgIum v.small 1.00 19 3036 5 95 v. small C zechosLovakia 1.12 2232 htiatan v. small 1.00 ll.Ou 19 loYd ie.62 30 .20 Ib. 61 3 0 16 la3d 12 .07 17 0 .14 7 84 2849 7 8 4 27 7 8 14.56 20 00 1.12 191l 2.00 21.20 12.00 2407 4 00 15 55 2 00 21.50 2 00 15 00 2 00 18 30 0 .63 20.63 1.19 23 2 4 2 23.64 6 51 2903 2.17 24 Ourl;18. 1.12 1303 9 v 8Cl9.1.1 1.12 1429 v small. 2.00 20 It.aly v sma.ll 1.00 37.40 5 00 25 92 7 00 16 91 17 83 70 19 5 97 15 ) 74 21. 1 2 3 -34 22.63 21.29 20 3 19 5 19. 96 Malaya 2 .00 0.)0 20. 00 0 61 20 00 0 79 202 53 0.25 20 00 Denma.r.c tzerl-=.nd .F'l.nland 1.21 20.00 0 83 19.28 0.05 20.00 1.02 20.00 0 52 20.00 ;:5. Korea Canada 1.00 11. 00 2 00 20 .0G 2 00 10.00 0 20 00 1.84 204 j 77 3.73 19.89 18.02 4.0(' 11.15 20.00 26 .19 0 20. 00 ;:jineapore v. small 1.00 25 00 1. 53 20.00 2 .25 20.00 5.1 4 20 1l.J7 20 .35 4.02 10.36 6 0 2 21 Norva..)' 15.36 1 00 20 00 20 00 Ruanda. ';(012..) -(0) v. emall 3 00 4 0 00 v,slDall 7 14.86 Total/AV. for Year 624 96 5 55 572.J2 6 516.J2 7 327 8.11 269.80 11.16 432.32 10.96 6}8.40 11.81 779 13.08 13-39 <377 12 516-32 11.16 675 13 534.2.4 14037 431.20 13.19 395.}6 13.66 365 13.19 489.00 13.66 4 95 00 13.19 529.00 1.4 .92 448.00 13.1) 693.00 1.4 651.00 16-33 451.00 14 819.00 16.08 645 ,> 15 1,007 17 20.29 1,265 20.21 1,324 18.11'" 1,382.6( 11.86 \; 7154 '"

PAGE 45

19 TANGANYIKA'S ELEPHANT IVORY TRADE 1925 -1969 The Resou rce Little information is available on elephant numbers in Tanganyika. The only censuses so far made have been carried out in the extreme north of the country, and have resulted in the following estimates (1) Serengeti National Park c 2, 500 (2) Manyara 11 II c. 300 (3) Loliondo Controlled Area (4) Mkomasi Game Reserve c 200 c.6,000 giving a total of 9, 000 elephants. However, they are known to be very numerous in coastal, central, southern and western Tanganyika. In the south-eastern areas of the country the Game Department ki II c. 3, 000 elephant annually on Ilcontroill and have done so for upwards of a decade. On the basis of limited observation and reconnaissances made by Wi Idlife Services Ltd., it is felt th, a t Tanganyika has at least twice as many elephants as Kenya, and possibly as many as five times a$ many, giving projections of between 2 and 500, 000. Tanganyika is a large country, which though not as well watered as Uganda, has water very wi dely d istributed. I t has a va:iety of habitats, varying from lowland forest ih coastal areas to montane forests and moorlands. The most extensive habitat is Brachystygia woodland, also known as 'miombo'. The human populations are widely dispersed and in smaller groups than occur in Kenya or Uganda. This d iffuse distribution, involving numerous small-holdings, gives rise to large numbers of interactions with elephants. (This is the opposite of the situation in Kenya where interactions are i ,ntense b_ut very local. ) This resu Its in very great numbers of elephant being ki lied in Tanganyika which consequently has the biggest output of ivory of any of the East African states! It may be the continen,t' s largest producer after the Congo Kinshasa. Production and Quantities No data were avai lable to this survey of quantities of ivory produced in Tanganyika prior to 1930. However those for the period 1930 -1969 (inclusive) are presented in Table 13 and Fig. 12 as annual totals and 5 year runnirig averages. These 'indi cate a steep rate of increase from c. 350 centals in 1939 to c 3, sag. centals per annum in 1969. The last 10 years of 5 year running averages showed an average annual increase of 6 .97%. The total weight of ivory produced within Tanganyika over the 40 year period covered 45,527.14 centals. Data from 12 Dar es Salaam auctions between 1962 and 1970 indicate a very low ave.rage tusk weight of 13. 8 Ibs, indicating,an offtake 9f some 164,954 elephant over

PAGE 46

Domestic Re-export Year Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Total Running Av. Total Running Av. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 347.20 623.84 1930 286.72 132. 1 6 1931 386.40 424.48 303.52 353.17 1 932 579.04 503;32 175.,84 1933 523.04 548.12 118.72 287.62 1934 741.39 615.77 707.'-84 438.14 1935 510.72 628i",76 884.80 563. 81 1936 724.64 650.93 931.84 663.49 1937 644.00 584;-82 674;' 24 54 1938 633.92 613.98 428.96 583.97 1939 408.80 557: 31 nil 430.08 1940 658.56 523.26 115.36 250' 21 1941 441 .-.:,28445.98 32.48 116.93 1942 473.76 512.74 7 :84 84.67 1943 2475 ;52 267;68 152. 10 1944 742r56 678.72 337.12 272.16 1945 516.32 788.70 715. 68, 402.98 1946 1413.44 948.42 686.\56 486.08 1947 1023.68 1010. 69 423.36 437.70 1948 1046.08 1097.60 25.76 375.42 1949 1053.92 998.37 25.76 232.74 1950 950.88 953.34 2.24 95.65 1951 917.28 962.55 1. 12 10.98 1952 798.56 972.36 nil 9.86 1953 1092.10 1044.59 20,. 16 18.90 1954 1103.00 1100.53 71.00 22.45 1955 1312. '00 1204.62 20.00 25.43 1956 1197.00 1213.80 16 .. 00 27.83 1957 1319.00 1296.40 12.00 23.80 1958 1138.00 1324.80 nil 14.60 1959 J 516.00 1378.80 25.00 10. 60 1960 1454.00 1409.40 nil 29.20 1961 1476.00 1583.40 109.00 26.80 1962 1472.00 1673.01 nil 26.80 1963 2008.00 1735.55 nil 21.80 1964 1963.88 15.89 21,.80 1965 1946(70 2083,.70 nil 3. 18 1966 2608 67 nil 3 18 1967 2071. 10 2517.26 nil 3. 18 1968 2407.05 1969 3552.78 45527.14 7911.77 TABLE 13 Tanganyika1 s ivory exports in 100 Ib centals both domest i c and re-exported, expressed as annual totals and 5 year running averages. I q 7D 71 2< IIj.Cjo I 7 2 S'!,-91 1"175 . 5!r.

PAGE 47

.3600 3 0 0 0 C e n t a 1 s 2000 1000 200 1 930 :'), ,10 I . 1960 AnnUnl totals 5 'year runni nb' averages ?IG. Tanganyika's dome stic ivory i n 100 Ib centa1s shown as annual and J year runnine; averages for the period 1 925 -69 (inc. ) 1 97 0

PAGE 48

20 the period, if this average has been maintained. Little data were available to this survey from which the contributions of the various classes toward the total couid be calculated, except that rotten ivory c 3. 8%. Imports As with Kenya Tanganyika also fostered a trade in ivory from other African countries t o the outside w orld. H owever it was errati c and never assumed the proportions of the Kenya trade. This was probably due to the countryls more generally backward economy. Import figures e a r e available to this report for the period 1 941 -1969 only, totalling 3,159.80 centals, though ree xport d ata, which must reflect imports, are avai lable from 1930. Detailed import data are presented in Table 14 and Fig. 13 and from the former 'it may be seen that Zambia was Tanganyika1s main supplier having produced 51. 77% of all imports for the period. The Congo produced 42.48 %, Kenya 2.27%, Mozambique 1.84%, Sudan 0.73%, Rhodesia 0.51' %, Ruanda 0.32%, Malawi 0.07% and Somal ia 0.04%. Buyers of Tanganyika's Ivo.!:}:' Importers of Tanganyikan ivory originating in the coul!try, are given in Table 15, whi Ie those taking re-exported tusks are shown in Table 16. It Values Values for Tanganyika's exports are given in Table 7, from which it may be seen that they are essentially simi lar to Kenya1s and Uganda!s. I

PAGE 49

T ABU: 14 Ivory imported into Tanganyika, showing countries of origin, amounts in 100 I b cen t a l s a n d ave r age v a lues i n shi llings pe r lb. l.ar lC.Da & Sudan Congo Somalia Zaabia Xalawi Portugueee Rho desia Za nzibar Ruan d a Toh l!.A.v. Uganda E .A.. for year 1 9 41,"uantit y 500 8 .96 10752 1.1 2 168.00 A v Value 59 5 -3 8 5 -3 2 5 5 1 942 i,(uantity 7 5 9 .36 6 7.20 Av.Value 75 58 5 43 1 943 <.t,uantity 1.1:2 560 00 561.12 J,.v.Value 1 0 6 04 6 05 19 44 Quantity 8 96 5 2 .64 921. 7 6 983 .36 ,t\v. V alue 15 20 528 8 53 8 42 1 945 Q,u"r.tity 6496 4 69 44 Av. Value 11.04 10 9 4 11.03 1946 QUanti ty 3.36 140 .00 5 1 5 20 6586 Av. Value 14 88 10.67 130 13 0 7 1947 Quanti ty 2154 2 24 2 24 219 Av.Value 11 81 1 4 00 1 6 .61 11.88 1 948 Q uanti ty Av. Value 1 949 Quantity 4 48 4 48 1 Av. Value 1 3 9 3 13 .9,9 1 9 5 0 Quantity 6 72 10. 08 16.80 Av. Value 8 96 9 92 ,-9 54 1 951 l.iuanti ty 1.12 1.12 ;"v.Value 11.25 11.25 1952 Qu",nt_ ty v small v. small Av.Value 1 953 Quanti ty 1.12 20 .16 10.08 ( 0 '44) Av.Value 31.25 12 19 84 15 2 1 954 t.i,uanti ty 33 .00 3 00 36. 00 72 00 hv Value 1 7 3 9 20 00 1 2 49 15 05 1 955 ","uanti ty 14 00 8 00 6.00 28 00 Av.Value 16 19 00 19 83 18 1 3 1956 Quanti ty ,3.00 1 8 00 16.00 37 00 Av.Value 14 6 7 2 2.26 18 20 05 1 957 'tuanti ty 1 2 00 12 00 Av. Value 20.80 20 80 1 958 ty 21 0 0 12.00 33 00 J,.v.Value 1 5 69 10 13 82 1 959 Qu;;.nti ty 8 00 8 00 hv.Value 16.83 lb.83 1 960 '-uant 1 t y 81.00 400 85 00 J..v Value 1 52 25 1 5 50 1961 Quan,i t y 2500 113.00 1 0 00 141:l 00 Av. Value 1580 15 16.68 1 5 25 ._-------_. -. 1 962 Q uanti ty 5 00 5 00 Av. Value 1064 1 963 c..:uanti ty 4 00 246.00 250 00 A v Value 4 00 13.80 1 3 64 1 964 Qu;;.nt ity 3.31 1.82 0.48 5 6 1 ltv Value 10.02 20.00 11.66 13 40 1 965 l.iuant i ty 1589 1.23 1 7 12 Av.Value 8.16 942 13.24 1 966 \,/\...anti ty Av. Value 1967 Quanti ty Av. Valu e 1 968 ,,"uanti ty 1.25 1.25 J.,v.Value 20.00 20.00 1 969 Quanti ty Av. Valu e Total s 71.68 22 1,362.66 1.12 1,640.66 4 58.08 267 56 1 6 00 10 .00 3,454.78 Percen t 2.07 0.66 39 45 0 .03 4 70 0.12 1.68 77 4 0 46 0.29 100 00

PAGE 50

n t JOO !l 1 JI 1,?6C fIr!+. l") . -. . ..

PAGE 51

TABLE 15 I vory originating in and expor t e d from Tanganyika showing of destination, amounts in 100 Ib cental s and average values i n shillings pe r 1929 <;;U.nut y iv.Value 1930 t y ;..\". Value 1931 Q'..ta.nti't,7 AV.ValU8 1932 ;.. .... 1933 Q:Janti ty ;'v.Vlllue 1934 Quantity J..v.Value 1935 J..v.ValUe 1 93b C\"o..Isnti 1.y Av.Value 1931 Quanti 1.,,/ Av. Value 1 938 QJ.a.oti ty Av.Value 19)9 <;;Uantity Av.'1aiue 1940 <;;uant: ty Av.Value 194-1 1.;( I..v.Value 1942 "uantit.:t Av Valt,; e 194) :"v Value 1944 -:.i t.;r :"7. Value 1945 Qua.n.tl. t.y J..v. Value 194 6 ty /o..lue 1941 ;"'v ValUe 1948 Q..tantl. t] A v .Value 1949 ".v Va.!.U6 1950 =ntHy ;"v.Valul! 1951 t;a.lanti ty A.,. Value 1952 c;.).lan'tl ty ;"7. Value 195) .. ity .av Value 195-' Quo..nu t.y J..7.Va.!Ue 1955 1.:/ ;..v 1fa.1t.:e 195-6 Quan"ti 1.1 1957 t;t ,A-". Value 1958 ",....,ti ty J..v.Value 195, """"tHY J..v. Value 19 &:j C3J.an'ti tjl J..v. Value 19 61 t:, Jt.v.Valut!! U.i\. 12, !l.80 88 10.00 64 96 7 91 127 68 7.)6 28 00 ;.,2 5 54 88 7.20 15.05 8.11 44 80 6 17 5 83 11.20 6 .20 12 7 53 4 48 12.81 8 9 6 14 17 2 24 1295 61.60 Indie. 1568 ll95 2 24 ll 1.12 ll:61 72.80 7.C1) 26. 88 5 ,2 61. CC .61 47 04 6 42 jO. 2 4 4 38 6 72 6 01 11 .20 6 .,7 7 04 7 80 124. ;2 7.11 j}l .20 7 4 t{). 32 10.21 81. 7 6 10. 18 601.44 125 19 15 104 6 lj 49 7 9 .,1.3 6 5 4) 265.44 12 .)2 12< 50 )4). 04 25 7 6 14.0) 6 .65 14. )64. 00 ) .)6 15.05 11.73 81.7 6 12. C1) 95 6 12j.20 6. <$ 19040 6.66 5 5 19040 280 00 6-34 237 44 9 d 5 26 150.00 59 222.08 6-37 191. 52 7 2) )3040 7 21 0 56 11.90 164 12.61 2)6 32 11.51 )88 1496 493 11.66 416.08 12.14 610 40 12.19 ,)9. 04 14,) 5 09 60 6 72 28}.H 24 .64-4 ) 1 2 0 24 1) 15. 1 6 4 .40 420.96 71 .66 28. 39 12 .68 8 01 1}.84 22.00 )64.00 2 2 .00 595.00 19 57 11.88 6.6
PAGE 52

TABLE 16 Ivory imported then re-exported from Tanganyika, showit:lg amounts in 100 1b centa1s and average values in s hillings Year U.K. Zanzibar Kenya India ::i. Africa U.::i.A. Franoe Germany 1929 Quant i ty 232 12.32 3.36 20. 16 3-36 Av. Value 9 10 .05 8 10.24 8 .63 1930 Quantity 68.32 1.12 1.1'2 Av. Valu8 6 .83 6.25 28.21 1931 Quantity 12544 3 36 5 13 44 1.12 Av.Value 7 83 6 6.86 6 .22 10.18 1932 Quantity 35 8.96 Av. Value 7 6 92 1933 Quantity 41 15 68 22 14 Av.Value 2.38 3 .13 2 .60 2 90 1934 Quantity 16.80 189 258.72 92 96 19 1.12 Av.Va1ue 4 4 3.67 4 5 4 1935 Quantity 98 5 6 147 84 2582 198.24 Av.Value 4 45 4 4 5 1936 Quantity 15 68 390.88 482 30 .24 1.12 Av.Value 4 38 4 4 4 3 .21 1937 Quantity 1904 384 236.32 25 Av.Value 4 4 4 5 61 1938 Quantity 25 258 72 126.56 17 Av.Value 4 64 5 4 43 1939 Quantity Av.Value 194 0 Quantity 54. 88 5 3 6 .72 Av.Value 6 5 21 5.48 1941 Quantity 146 17 Av.Value 6 06 9 1 942 Quanti ty 784 6 1 943 Quantity 157 56.00 53. 7 6 Av.Value 7 8.87 11.16 1944 Quantity 16. 80 320.32 Av.Value 6.01 8 .1 4 1945 Quantity 1.12 84 11.20 611. 52 7.84 "'v.Value 4 4 12.05 9 12.68 1946 Quantity 1.12 127 68 151.20 137 24 Av.Value 5 00 9 139 7 10 .75 6 1 947 Quantity 80 120 13 3.36 Av.Value 11 139 7 12 98 1 948 Quant i ty 2 .24 21.28 2.24 Av. Value 13.75 4 1 3.48 1949 Quanti ty 25 Av.Value 7 1950 Quantity 2.24 Av.Va 1 ue 13.21 1951 Quantity 1.12 J;.v.Value 18 1952 Quantity v.lllllall Av. Value 1953 Quantity 20.16 Av. Value 12 1954 Quantity 23.00 Av. Value 15 1955 Quanti ty \ 20 00 Av.Value 17 90 1956 Quantity 16.00 Av. Value 18 59 1957 Quantity 11 00 Av. Value 20 31 1958 Quantity Av. Value 1959 Quantity 25.00 Av. Value 15 1960 Quantity Av. Value 1961 Quantity 109 Av.Value 15 1962 Quantity Av.Value 1 963 Quanti ty Av.Value countries of destination, per lb. Italy Japan Holland. 561.12 8 60 1.12 8.71 7 14 154 56 7 17 131.04 78 8 1.12 12-32 56 5 54 2.21 10 0 80 3 36 1 0 .08 4 4 2;1 496 172 4 8 2 .24 4 4 5 60 5 4 4 8 4 64 1904 42 6 .07 1248 5 10 .89 4 8 .00 18.78 Hong Kong China O'thers 2.24 2 15 4 6.72 4 14 172.48 10.08 3 88 10.20 199 3.88 1.00 9 Total/Av. for :lear 623.84 9 132.16 7 8 7 303 7 42 175 7 118.72 2 .81 707.84 4 01 884 80 4 931 .84 4 674. 4 428 96 4 115 36 5 69 3 2 48 7 73 7 c4 6.7j 267. to O t.4 337 12 b .Oj 715 bb b ct, btle. je 9 ,)::1 423 36 8 2 5 76 6 .12 25 76 7 2;!-4 13 1.12 18 75 v small 20.16 12 45 71.00 20.00 17 90 1 6.00 Ib 12.00 1 9 25 15 10::1.00 1 5 15b9 ? 20.08 1)

PAGE 53

21 ZANZIBAR'S ELEPHANT IVORY TRADE 1925 1969 The Resource As far as is known Zanzibar has never had indigenous elephant, although other terrestrial fauna indicate it was once attached to the African mainland. However, its role as an entrepot ivory centre has been established for centuries. Its geographical position has favoured such development and until the early 1960s it was one of the worldl s great ivory markets. Tusks were bought from many African states, ire-graded, cut and pol ished in Zanzibar before being re-sold to the overseas out lets. Over the short period under review,. Zanzibar' s ivory trade saw very great growth followed by a drastic decline to virtually nothing after the 1963.revolution. Quantities Annual imports into Zanzibar are presented in Table 17 in I . and in summarised form i n Table 18 and F i g 14 From these it can be seen that imports rose from c. 580 centals in 1925 to c 5,000 centals in 1962, a total growth of over 750%. Sources of these imports are summarised in Table 19, from which it is apparent that the Congo was Zanzibar' s main supplier. However, to get to Zanzibar this ivory would have to pass through either Kenya or Tanganyika. Table 20 presents the Annual Trade Report figures of ZanzibarIs imports of ivory from the Congo for the period 1941 1962, with the combined totals of Kenya and Tanganyika' s re-exported ivory to Zanzibar over the same period (selected because Tanganyikan data are not avai lable prior to 1941). If the ivory referred to as from the Congo in the Zanzibar trade reports had indeed been traded through either Kenya or Tanganyika, there would be some similarity between the two sets of figures. There is no similarity and the total 'direct' CongoZanzibar amounts are more than double the amount of ivory re-exported from the two mainland countries. The supposition that ivory given as originating in the Congo in the Zanzibar Trade reports might already have been accounted for in either Kenya or Tanganyikals records, can therefore be d iscounted. This Congolese ivory was additional to that appearing in the imports to the other East African states. Zanzibar's exports and their destinations are given in detail in Table 21 and in summarised form in Table 22 and Fig. 12. These rose from an annual average of 080 centals in 1925 to c 3, 950 centals i n 1962, giving a total of 76,223.59 centals in the intervening period.

PAGE 54

1932 Quantity Av.Valu8 1933 Quantity Av.Value 1935 Quantity AT.Value 1 936 Quantity Av.Value 1 931 Quantity Av.Value 1 938 Quanti to' Av.Value 1939 Quantity Av.Value 194 0 ty A v .Value 1 941 Qul
PAGE 55

Annual 5 Year Annual 5 Year Year Tot9.1 Running Av. Year Total Running Av. 1925 580..16 1947 1270.. 0.8 2299.14 1926 897.12 1948 3725.12 2473.62 1927 656.32 576.13 1949 2397.92 2526.71 1928 350..56 539.17 1950. 2325.12 2921. 18 1929 396.48 40.6.56 1951 2741.72 1930. 395.36 371.90. 1952 (3258.0.8) 2913.79 1931 234.0.8 411.32 1953 2828.0.0. 3132.42 _1932 (483. GO.) 483.0.0. 1954 (3258.0.8) 3369.63 1933 547. 68 593.68 1955 3418.24 3688.38 e 1934 754.88 821.92 1956 40.85.76 3833.0.9 1935 9 ,48.74 981. 13 1957 4851.84 4326. 11 1936 1375.32 10.45.41 1958 3551.52 4566.24 1937 1279.0.4 10.74.31 1959 5723.20. 4421.98 1938 869.0.8 1196.90. 1960. 4618.88 4456.93 1939 899.36 1346.76 1961 3364.48 4683.2 8 1940. ,.561 68 1444.42 1962 50.26.56 4336.64 1941 2124.64 1673.58 1963 1942 1767.36 1787.38 1964 1943 20.14.88 1768.70. 1965 1944 1468.32 1870. .62 1966 1945 1452.70. 1771.17 1967 11 0..26 1946 2634.24 2113.22 1968 1969 TABLE 18 Zanzibar's imports of ivory between 1925 and 1969 (inclusive) in 10.0. Ib centals summarised as annual tOtals and 5 year running averages. (Data for the years 1932, '52 and 54 are missing and the figures are derived from the average of the two preceding and two following weights in 1932, and the average of the years 1950., 51, 53, 55 and 56 for 1952 and 54. ) l' i ; ;; ;; '. i' :': : i

PAGE 56

W e i g h t .i n c (! t 0-1 ""Le. 14 T rn p o r t. 18 c .... ,.) ivory exports i n lOC Ib as 5 year fo!' tnf: pe .. tj()c 19? j 63

PAGE 57

e Quant ity Per cent Congo (Kinshasa) 22;794.70 31.06 Tanzania 17,430.88 23.75 Mozambique 13, 250.72 18.05 Uganda 6,033.33 8.22 Kenya 5,474.17 7.46 Somalia 3,422.72 4.67 Zambia -3, 382. 40 4. 61 Rhodesia 1, 039: 36 1. 42 Sudan 364.00 0.51 Malawi 1-04.16 O. 14 Angola 19.04 0.03 South Africa 1. 12 (0.002) Djibouti 11. 20 0.02 Aden 13.44 0.02 Egypt 15. 68 0.02 U.K. 11. 20 0.02 16 Countries 73,368.12 100.00 TABLE 19 Sources of Zanzibar's ivory imports in 100 Ib centals and as percentages these weights represent of the total. Year Zanzibar Imports Combined Kenya and Tanganyika -from the Congo re-exports to Zanzibar 1941 1277.92 775.04 1942 789.60 516.32 1943 678.72 533.12 1944 237.44 175.84 1945 2-41.98 162. 40 1946 990.08 458.08 1947 388.64 108.64 1948 850.08 75.04 1949 680.96 28.00 1950 367.36 161. 28 1951 1075.20 432.32 1953 1055.04 126.56 1955 1141. 28 445.00 1956 1366.40 272.00 1957 1046.08 477.00 '1958 1294.72 443.00 1959 1177. 12 370.00 1960 1349. 60 487.00 1961 827.68 484.00 1962 2298.24 709.00 Totals 19134.14 7239.64 TABLE 20 Comparison of Zanzibar's imports from the Congo with the combined Kenya and Tanganyika Congolese re-exports to Zanzibar for the period 1941 -1962 (inclusive).

PAGE 58

:--'! 1 TABLE 21 Year 1925 Quantity Av.Value 1926 Quantity Av.Value 1927 Quantity Av.VaLue 1928 Quantity Av.Value 192 9 Quantity Av.Value 1930 Quantity Av. Value 1931 Quantity Av.Value 1932 Quant i ty Av.Value 1933 Quantity Av.Value 1934 Quantity Av. Value 1935 Quantity Av.Valuo 1936 Quantity Av.Value 1931 Quantity Av.Value 1938 Quanti ty Av.Value 1939 Quantity Av.Value 1940 Quanti ty Av. Value 1941 Quanti ty Av. Value 1942 Quanti ty Av.Value 1943 Quantity .lv.Value 1 944 Quantity Av.Value 1945 Quantity Av.Value 1946 Q\lanti ty Av. Value 1947 Q;wi.nti ty .lv.Value 1948 Quantity Av. Value 1949 Quantity .\.v.Value 1950-Quanti ty .lv Value Quantity .lv.Value 1952 Quantity Av.Value 1953 Quantity .lv. Value 1954 Quantity Av. Value J.955 Quantity Av.Value 195.6 Quantity A v.Value 1957 Quanti ty Av.Value 1958 Quantity Av. Value 1959 ty Av.Value 19 CO Quanti ty .lv.Value 1961 Quanti ty Av.Value 1962 Quan"tity Av.Value Ivory imported then re-exported from Z-anzibar, showing countries of destination, amounts in 100 Ib centals and average values in shillings per lb. U K 243.04 21 1,015 3.45 224 16.24 189 1 6.22 178 .08 18.19 129 13.22 89 CO ll:49 118 72 7 321 44 7 358 7 377 44 6.00 389 76 7 310 .24 4 113.12 4 India 224 00 23 31 7 0 6 .72 7.05 211. 68 20.02 113.12 20.68 128.80 22 23 9968 19 87 -36 19 117 CO 20.)2 484.96 9 54768 11.91 565. CO 8 537. CO 9 01 518 7 510.72 6.75 62 581.29 5 13 7.14 22.40 1,117.76 5 68 5 .89 44 80 1,196.06 5 7 .83 1898 1,133.44 5 10. 91 10.08 2,079.84 4 7.76 145 .CO 1,201.76 4 91 8.58 1546 1,736. 00 4.42 8 .62 67.20 927-36 4 73 9 Hong Kong 54 926.24 705.12 7.88 1 0 .39 5 .25 164 64 1,430.24 925.12 6 10.2,1. 5 .96 81. 79 1,296 947 .52 7.03 14.28 5.81 62 72 1,727.04 1,058.40 8 .19 15 .09 7.30 792 17. CO 142 .24 1,385 44 13.63 13 .61 9.72 136 1,965.CO 1 ,424.64 16.20 16.50 14.29 52 1,862.56 1,466.08 15.98 17 4 9 14 .47 40.32 3 8 4 .16 1,403.36 15 14 5 9 13 08 7 92 1,433.CO 1,664.32 12 12 26 12.14 91.84 1,703.52 1,589.28 13 14 13.19 80 1,080.8(' 1,632.96 13 13 78 13 59 40.32 1,406.72 1 865 92 13.(;6 12 .<01 11.66 China 56.00 16.79 72.80 11 09 6496 12.07 12.32 7.06 52.64 1139 56 00 7 66 19 04 4 99 75 8 36 54 88 11 .01 52 64 9 146 72 5 41 120 96 6 53 91.84 7 43 275 4 283 5 414 40 3)3 6.83 501.76 5 Japan 29 12 18.63 117. CO 13 .42 62.72 12 44 47.04 12.00 11.20 18.32 16. 80 13.06 25 76 8.38 13 7 28.00 4 50 31.36 38 82 219 52 7 59 4 7 11.20 16.20 265 44 10 41 842.24 15 665 15 859 04 15 775 04 1 4 26 692.16 14 969 12.76 France v .small Belgium 7.84 5 74 5 CO 3 1.12 17 U.S A 20.16 6 45 53 21.85 45 92 20.10 6 72 19 5. CO 17 14 11.07 15 68 9 11.20 lO71 2.24 6.25 11.20 7 226.24 8 85 9072 8.04 45 92 8 09 1l. 20 d.41 94 Qd 13$ 4 48 10 00 1 0 0ll 11.01 79 13 68 89. CO 10.15 40 21.92 88 13 68.32 16.03 57.12 13 43.6a 16.29 5264 15 16.80 15 23 15 Kenya :5 CO 16.07 8 15 72 10 41.44 9 19.04 7.02 62 5 19 6 09 145. CO 4 13.44 5 27 10.0d 738 1.12 8 13 44 4 1 0.08 4b 69 44 11.04 15 6!J 10.20 156!J 10 20 2 .24 1696 10 171.36 13.12 1456 20.10 1.12 3039 8 11.16 12.32 13.77 Germany 13 28.84 40.32 19.85 26 88 15 26.88 15 36 35 13 45 13 54 Turkey 16.00 20 14 13 Holland 3.36 9 26. tl8 10.00 412 .16 6.60 330 40 4 66 184 7 54 17696 8 .30 252.00 ..... 9 16.80 28.62 14 10 99 21.28 13 5 12.14 23 16.60 v. emall Ceylon Straits Tangany1ka Settlement. Ooa 1.12 13.37 13 13 v.Slllal1 2.24 12.80 1.12 4 1.12 14 6 2396 28 .00 7 44 1.12 6 .25 32 5 39 21.20 11.62 1.12 v. Slllall 6 .61 5 60 15 13 44 14 43 \ 2.24 12.23 4 1).03 4.48 v.Slllall 15 85 14 12.36 1.12 ).36 19.64 11.43 78 40 3 # \. 1.12 16. 07 2.24 18.84 v.Slllall 15 25 7:14 8 85 1.12 27 -32 3.)6 17 .86 Pakistan 6 18.75 4 1 0 27 11.20 17.23 12-32 12.82 28.00 15 4 11. 61 4 12 78 2 Rhode.ia 7 15 8 7 Burma 14 15J 41.44 18.413 33 .r.J 1 2 6 ) 104 1 11.f 59 36 13.17 58 .24 1462 \ 63. 84 12.5 Sineaporo 4 17 Arabia v small Iran 2 ,24 13 39 3-36 13.87 Aden Libya v.smaU v. small )(al8 J 3 647.f.3ol 10."" . / n-:'rr''' ... '" j ., { uv (10'.9; 1,86480 19 3,280 12.67 4,490.08 15 64 1.12 4,183.20 8.93 16.04 2,79440 14 11 3,310: 72 12.20 4,353 14 8 3,713.92 18 13 55 12.32 4,444.16 13.88 12.29

PAGE 59

e e Year Annual 5 Year Year Annual Tota l Running Av. Running Av. 1925 603.68 1947 1,928. 64 2, 104 .48 1926 1 989. 1 2 1948 2, 100. 00 2, 491 0 29 1927 649.60 806.62 1949 2,730.56 2,742.96 1928 760.93 1950 3,308.28 3, 81 1929 394.24 415.74 1951 3,647.30 2,981.77 19-30 379.06 1952 (3, 357.91 ) 3,107.24 1931 263.20 365.85 1953 .1, 864.80 3, 101. 68 1932 (466.20) 466.20 1954 (3, 357.91) 3,270.24 1933 330.40 592.54 1955 3,280.48 3,435.29 1934 896.00 801.98 1956 4,490.08 3, 621. 22 1935 1, 006.88 969.02 1957 4, 183. 20 3, 611 078 1936 1,310.40 1, 098. 72 1958 2,794.40 3,826.37 1937 1, 301.44 1,102.98 1959 3,310.72 3, 671.14 1938 978.88 1, 136.80 .1960 4,353.44 3,723.33 1939 917.28 1, 223.94 1961 3,713.92 1940 1,176.01 1,223.02 1962 .4,444.16 1941 1,746.08 1, 305. 68 1963 1942 1, 296.86 1, 543. 12 1964 1943 1,392.16 1, 582.72 1965 1944 2,104.48 1, 711. 34 1966 1945 1,374.24 1,837.70 1967 538.30 1946 2,388.96 1, 979. 26. 1968 1969 TABLE.22 Zanzibar's exports of ivory, 1925 1969 (inclusive) in 100 Ib centals as annual totals and 5 year running averages. (Data for the years 1932, 52 and 54 are missing and the figures given are derived from the average of the two precedi ng .and foil owi ng we ights in 1932, and the average of the years 1950, 51, 53, 55 and 56, for 1952 and 1954.)

PAGE 60

' 22 Values Values of Zanzibar's ivory imports and exports follow the general trend of the other three East African countries. In 1926, a time of generally high values, there is an inexplicable drop in Zanzibar's export values from .c._20 . 00 to 6.50 shi II ings per pound, with a recovery to t n e prevailing norm in the following year. No reason has been discerned for this and it is possible that it stemmed from a printing error in the Annual Trade Report for that year,' This anomaly has been ignored in the calculation of averages throughout this report. I ,.

PAGE 61

L 23 EAST AFRICA'S EXTERNAL SOURCES COMBINED In Table 24 the total imports from sources of primary production outside East Africa are summarised from Tables 6, 14 and 17. The total of 87, 336.06 centals repres!=nts a probabl e offtake of 291 116elephants (at 30 Ibs per animal) of which the greatest numbers h a v e come from the Congo (65. 48%) and Mozambique (17 71 %). These figures cannot be taken as representing the total production o f these countries, as they are known to have sold d irect to other markets . In particular, the Congo supplIed very large quant i ties to Belgium prior to the gral')ting of independence

PAGE 62

e Country Quantity % of Total Probable minimum elephant represented (av. 30 Ibs/elephant), Somalia 6,654.06 7.65 22,645 Mozambique 15,466.64 17.71 51,555 Rhodesia 1,116.46 1. 26 3,722 Malawi 151. 52 0.17 505 Zambia 5,316.26 6.09 17,721 Sudan 1,063.46 1. 22 3,545 Congo 57,164.62 65.46 190,615 S. Africa 1. 12 v. small 4 Angola 19.04 0.02 63 Djibouti 11.20 0.01 37 Eritrea '2.24 v. small 7 Ruanda 113.52 0.13 376 Others 35.64 0.04 119 Totals ,67" 3 ,36" .06 1 ,00 .00 291,116 TABLE 24 Sources of origin of combined East African imports for the years 1925 -1969 (inclusive), the percentage each represents of the total, and the probable minimum number of elepha;nt these represent. Ii I o! : .j:

PAGE 63

24 THE ILLICIT TRADE Ivory has long been basis of an illicit trade which began as. soon as its value became known and monopolies were claimed by Chiefs, Kings, Companies or Governments. However, it has been difficult to obtain any factual data from which its real extent can be gauged. Evidence that it might be of major significance at least in some areas, comes from Uganda. In 1967 the Government declared an amnesty for all those in illegal possession of ivory a n d furthermore offered a price of some 6 .00 shillings per pound for a n y that was surrendered, The rationale put forward was that over the years many people had accumu lated and hoarded tusks picked up in the b ush fortuitously. The Uganda Game Departmen t has strenuously refuted any suggestions in the past that elephant were kil led i I legally on any substantial scale in Uganda (Tennant verbatim). Over the six months of the amnesty, at least 83 tons of ivory (1,859.20 centals) were surrendered, some of which was very fresh. I t was apparent from these resu Its that the amnesty merely tapped the illicit trade, as people do not hoard commodities for which they have no use or outlet, and actually induced C3:n outburst of illegal hunting Illicit elephant hunting is also claimed to be a major activity in eastern Kenya and there are some grounds for this belief in that until recently an entire tribe, the Watta (WaSanya, Waliangulu), lived off elephant hunting. However it has not been generally recognised that the I arger part of the ivory sold illegally by them was obta ined from natural mortality. These people were far more experts at locating ivory from this source, than they were as aCtual elephant hunters. Only few regularly successful in ki IIing elephant. This is borne out by the large numbers of elephant in eastern Kenya at the present time. Mitigating against the idea that illicIt ivory is a major aspect of the trade, is the continuity of amounts bought legally an<;i the consistent rise in prices. Had there been an i I legal source of similar proport ions -as is widely asserted by conserva.tionists, this woul d surely have been sufficient to have depressed ivory prices or at least kept them at a constant level. Also against the idea of a substantial illegal offtake are the current sizes of the various East African populations in relation to the legal offtakes that are taking place. Confidential information from ivory traders, wei I placed to judge the amount of illegal ivory available, indicate that on an overall East African basis it is of the order of 15% of the legal trade annually. 7 (

PAGE 64

25 IVORY TRADiNG In the preceding chapters the growth and c lassification of commercial ivory has been described. The effect of changin g elephant populat(on structures have on their own ivory production and how this i s apparent in the differin g East African outputs has been demonstrated. Some idea of the size of the East African resource has been g iven together with the pattern of its exploitation over a recent 45 year period. The main markets for East Afric:an ivory are clearly apparent. The salient points that emerge from this background picture are :-(1) The ivory trade has shown a continuous over the past three decades a n d East African production is now greater than it has ever been, (2) There has continuous rise i n ivory price over the past 35 years, which together with the increase in quantities exported a growing world demand f<;>r the product, (3) The resource in elephants, as evidenced both by censuses and the quantities marketed, indicate that it is very much larger than has hitherto been suspected. This notwithstanding the resource. is finite and that in at least one area, Uganda, it would appear to be on the verge of coil apse. In the light of these points.we can now consider ivory trading with some insight. From d iscussion with traders in Mombasa, it was learned that the major use for ivory is carving and that (as indicated from the importers), this is in t.he main carried out in the far east. The greatest use in India is the making of marriage bangles, for which Calasia is the ;: preferred grade. European and American use is e ntirel y in fancy goods, piano and very high quality billiard balls. The major ivory buyers all hold large stocks of ivory at anyone time, either in their East African warehouses, or with associate firms abroad. The -basis of their trade is not as simple midCile-men, buying and selling directly, but as sophisticated brokers. Buying large quantities from a wide range of sources they are able to make up exact orders to their 'customers! requi rements of qual i ty. Thi s involves cutt ing tusks it::!to 6different parts, tips, centres and hollows as shown in Fig. IJ) which suit separate purposes. Tusks are also scraped clean of any surface staining or flaws and polished. This process may of course reveal deeper more serious blemishes, but enhances the ivory value if it doesn't, as the purchaser can be more certain of the quality he is getting. The profitability of ivory broking is very considerable as evidenced by the following example: Calasia in its raw state fetched c 20. Oo.'Kehya shillings per pound in 1969 At the same time, Calasi a centresf which

PAGE 65

e '1'l;> off ? t T'Clj!"!t. t usk d i.amet(: r iSlltt off nt pOl nt. wh A r e the pul.r caviL,Y iii:uTI(:t.er o f flu Lp cavi L,Y CENTRE BDT'T' O!' i,i'IG. 15 Diagr a m 'of a t.u s k 1.0 s how tip anci 'butLcuts

PAGE 66

L .. i I .. i I I I ] 26 constitute more than three-quarters of the tusk!s total weight, were fetching shillings 60 to 100 per pound in Further evidence is apparent in oriental ivory carvings that sell for several hundred per cent more than the sale price of raw ivory of equivalent weight. Ivory brokers count on tusks remaining in stock for considerable periods, and generally for at least one year. (This is apparen t in the import-.export graph of. Kenya which shows approximately one year's supply difference between imports and exports.) H owever, this is no disadvantage for, as has been shown in the data on ivory values, ivory increases in value with time. This phenomenon is a further aspect of its attra.ction as a profitable trade. With reference to Table 2 it is apparent that in the period 1959 -1969 the average increase in the 5 year runnin g mean s of ivory value was of the order of 4% per annum. p 'rice ranges from year to year form a series of peaks and depressions about the running averages, and patently traders wi II be moved to sell durin g peaks rather than depressions, thus making more than the 4% average increase. However it must be emphasised that the East African values do not reflect anything like the true appreciation of values, and that as no import or export taxes are paid on ivory, there has been I itt Ie effort on the part of G overnments to ascertain what tile real figures are. Thus the apparent increase of 4% annually in value over the last 10 years, can be considered with some confidence to be minimal. A further advantage of the ivory trade in modern Africa is that it is a prime means of evading the currency restrictions that are in force in most countries on the continent. The brokers themselves have great!y reduced the amoun t of ivory cleaned, re-graded and polished in Africa, and to export raw ivory at a nominal profi t to firms overseas. These firms are usually owned by the African brokers themselves, who thus ensure that the very substantial profits do not return to Africa. I / The requi rements of most G overnments that the numbers of ivory traders are strictly controlled and that they may only operate under / special licence, assists the business by keeping it relatively exclusive. Every effort is made to keep the ci rcle of ivory brokers small by the brokers themselves, and there' is considerable u nwillingness t o divulge information about the trade, particularly its profitability. Efforts to break into the buying circles are rarely successful. Attempts to outbid the regulars at an auctio n invariably results in a very aggressive bidding from them acting in concert, often to the point of sustaining financial loss to themselves.

PAGE 67

27 in the latter half of 1970 the price of ivory rose t o between 40.00 and 50.00 shillings per pound at the East African auctions. Several reasons have been put for this anomalous happening. The first is that there was a world shortage o f ivory, particularly of hard ivory which is favoured in carvings. H owever there is little evidence to suggest that this was the case, particularly as the areas that benefitted most were those producing s oft ivory i n eastern Africa. There was no proof from the' East African records of a n y fall in production. A second reason put forward was that Expo 1970 in Japan had created a n unprecedented demand for ivory. Again there is no evidence to support this contention. The third theory, that has been widely circulated in East 'Africa and gained much credence, was that Corrmunist China had deliberately outbid all other buyers f o r political reasons. The rationale behind this bein g that the balance o f trade situation between China and Tanzania was very much in favour of the former. As part of an endeavour to create 'an i i i Ius ion that they were evenly balanced trading partners, the Chinese were prepared to d ouble Tanzania's revenue from ivory in their own favour by outbidding every other buyer in. the auctions. (This they can afford t o do; a great d eal of ivory carving is sti II done in Communist China and marketed through Hong K00.9, and the profitability of ivory is well known.) H owever, there is little factual evidence to support this theory. The rise in prices was manifest first in Uganda and not Tanzania. The imbalance o f trade between Tanzania and China is so great as t o be little affected by tl}e sum of ,000. A more probable reason, and that favoured in this report, is as follows :-Ivory as an article of value has always been more prized in Eastern than in the occident. For some thousands of years it has been a particularly desired symbol of wealth. Through h istorical ,association alone it is considered more reliable than stocks and shares as durable evidence of worth. At the time the world' s dominant stock exchange in New York was u ndergoing its worst recession since the great of the 1930s. it is postulated that fear o f a simi lar depression, the subsequent worthlessness o f stocks and shares, the possible devaluation of the U. S. dollar with a domino effect on'other currencies, led to a rush to convert currency i nto a medium traditionally held to be durable in value i n the East. This is borne out by the recen t recovery of the stock market being followed by a descending price for ivory to nearer the norm.

PAGE 68

28 Market requirements differ somewhat from place to place. Japan requires flawless ivory and as a result probably purchases most of its requirements from the brokers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is renowned for taking all qualities of ivory, and their intake of low grade mate:rial may be the reason for this country's average values being lowest of the major buyers over the 45years reviewed. India.is a major buyer of Calasia as has al r'eady been pointed out. The Uni'ted States and Europ e demand the heavier Vilaip weights. The ivory trade will continue to be lucrative providing there is no repetition of the 1930s slump. The accepted figure for Chinai ivory in unseen general consignments is 5%. This seems reasonable for ivory obtained by shooting, as evidenced from the Kenya and Uganda G'Uvernment data, but would not apply to found ivqryas in Kenya National Parks where it constitutes 13.25%.

PAGE 69

'. f -: 29 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTSWANA GAME INDUSTRIESi , EXF ; ANSION IN THE (VORY "TRADE' ----Botswana is unlikely to prove a substantial source of ivory in the near future as it lacks large numbers of elephants and there is little human-elephant interaction where; they occur. B .. G.I. will therefore have to seek its sources from other countries. Geographically Botswana is in a poor position as it is neither astride a major trade route nor in contact with large elephant populations. Its sole advantage is a unique political freedom that permits trade with countries largely barred to the tradi tiona I ivory traders. To date B. G. I. has'adopted the role of middleman, buying ivory with its principal's capital and using little of its own for this purpose. So far this has proved very profitable, but it is a precarious situation, as tit anyone in the major sources of Congo, Angola,' and Mozambique could take over the role for themselves if they became aware of the complete lack of personal capital required. The only certain way in which B G. I. could ascertain the loyalty of the buyers so that they do not make or accept approaches to or from other parties, is to assume such stature in the trade 'that it wou I d not be worth the overseas brokers' wh i Ie to oppose or antagonise the Company. Such a dominant position could only be ach i eved if B G. I. were to enter the rol e of an ivory broker carrying stock::. of its own and being in a pos'ition to meet orders for specific grades and types of ivory. The acquisition of a suitable s ,tock-pile or 'float' of ivory could be achieved without any outlay of B. G.'1. capital. An over-simplified model of how this could be done is as follows :-(1) B G I. buys 1,000 Ibs iVQry at R1. 5 per Ib (2) This ivory is then divided into 2 'equal classes one of which is sold at R3. 00 per Ib realising RI,SOO, while the other is retained at no cost as the foundation of a stockpi Ie. Different versions of this system could be devised under the present arrangement of buying under a letter of credit from Hung Kong, whereby a monetary profit as well as some ivory stockpi led could be achieved. As has been pointed out, ivory stored appreciates in value. It is recommended that B G.1. give consideration to the possibilities for establishing such a programme to obtain a float of say 20,000 Ibs of ivory in various grades. It is strongly recommended that B. G. I. keep their ivory interests and transactions out of the public eye in as far as this is possible. Fai lure to do this wi II invite compet it ion.

PAGE 70

30 If large quantities of ivvry are to be purchased continuously it is unlikely that this will be achieved wi,thout the creation of permanent buying centres in Allgola, Mozambique, Zambia an<:i possibly the Congo. It is that the Company examine the possibilities for doing this immediately. It is al so recommended that the Company make arrangements to obtain the results of the 6 East African Ivory Auctions that occur annually (2 in each territory) by cable so that price trends may be followed carefully. The pattern of man's exploitation of elephant is on the basic nature of their interaction which is replacement of the latter by the former, conservation policies notwithstanding. The quantities of ivory available in Africa are stil.l vast with more being available "on the hoof" today in Kenya and Tanganyika (and probably several other countries -MozambiqLle, Ango.!a) than has "been exported over the past 46 years. Only in Uganda have more been exported than are currently alive "there. It would thus appear that at least over the next decade or two, the ivory trade can continue to expand. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grati tude is expressed to A D Graham, R. M. Watson and A. L. Archer for discussions on this report. I "also thank the Khaku Brothers of R. Suleman& Co., Mombasa, for their trust and information readily given, w;,ich was of particular value to this survey. Assistance was also provi ded by R. Periera of Kenya's Game Department Ivory Room in Mombasa. I. S. C. PARKER 19th F "ebruary, 1971

PAGE 71

" 31 REFERENCES 1. Anon. 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1925 1965. Kenya Game Department Annual Reports. Government Printer, Nairobi. 2. Anon. 1925 1959. Uganda Game Department Annual Reports. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Government Printer, Entebbe. Anon. 1954 1960. Tanganyjka Depp.rtment Annual Reports. Government Printer, Dar-es-Salaam. Anon. 1917 1949. Uganda Agricultural Department Annual Reports. Government Printer, Entebbe. Anon. 1925 1939. Kenya Blue Book. Government Printer, Nairobi. Anon; 1929 1939. Uganda Blue Book. Government Printer, Entebbe. Anon. 1929 -1949 Tanganyika Blue Book. Government Printer, Dar-es-Sal aam. Anon. 1925 1948. Annual T rade Reports Commissioner of Customs for Kenya and Uganda. Government Printer, Nairobi. Anon. 1948 1969. Annual Trade Reports Commissioner of Customs lor Director General of Customs. Government Printer, Nai robi. Anon. 1925 -1962. Annual Trade Reports Commissioner of Customs Zanzibar. Government Printer, Zanzibar. 11. Anon. 1959 1970. Kenya Game Department Ivory Room Auction Records. 12. Anon. 1959 1970. Tanzania Game Department Ivory Auction Records. 13. Buss I O. and Win g L. D. 1969. E lephant use of a tropical rain forest i n western Uganda. Typescript. Uganda Forest Department. 14. Laws R, M. 1969. Aspects of reproduction in the African elephant Loxodonta africana. J. Reprod. Fert., Suppl. 6: 495 531. 15. Laws R M., Parker I. S. C. and Johnstone R. C. B. 1970. Elephants and habitats in north Bunyor o Uganda. E. Afr. Wi Idl. J. 8: 163 -180. 16. Lugar' d 1893. liThe Ri se of Our Afr i can Empi re ". London. 1 7 ManJ. 1970. Inside Russia. AB.O.A.C. publicity pamphlet. 18. Thomas and Scott. 1935. IIUga,nda ". London.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ESQBXQ6JZ_05MHKF INGEST_TIME 2014-06-06T21:15:20Z PACKAGE AA00020117_00008
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES