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:
Ebur
Creator:
Parker, Ian.S.C.
Publication Date:

Notes

Preferred Citation:
Parker, I. [Ian] S.C. 1975. Ebur. [Report produced as ten numbered copies distributed confidentially]. Available: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00020117/00011.

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











EBUR



moma



















This report arises from a growing awareness of the inadequacy

and ineffectiveness of Western involvement in Africa. It is incomplete

in that it concerns itself mainly with ivory. However it is presented

as a first step to wider and more detailed discussion.





I.S.C. Parker
P.O. Box 30678
October 1974 Nairobi, Kenya












Ten Copies of this report were made.

This is No./Q. given to -
?eIv /^ ^i -
7 e ~, \









INTRODUCTION


Ivory, like gold, shapes the destinies of men. Across cultures and

through history its possession has been a criterion of wealth. The invaders
of Africa, the world's main source of ivory, have always sought it as prime

booty and Arab slaving was closely connected with its acquisition. In many
instances slaves were primarily acquired to carry tusks to the sea, their
subsequent sale increasing the profits of ivory trading. The first white men
also sought the 'white gold', and among the first acts of colonial
government was laying claim to the ivory of the land. As much as any
single factor the commodity played a role in delineating modern Africa's

political boundaries.


Ivory's lure endures, and more leaves Africa today than at any time in
the past. The revenues involved are substantial and the conduct of the trade
reveals much about African leaders. Circumstantial evidence suggests
their widespread illegal involvement in it, the implications of which are of

great political interest. In this report it is my intention to set forth some
definite facts, hitherto unpublished, which confirm and illustrate the extent
of the illegal trade. Unfortunately much of the information cannot be
published without arousing destructive political reactions and this report is

therefore confidential.


Because the evidence is largely comprised of dry statistics, a document
such as this makes laborious reading. I have endeavoured to ensure
continuity and an easy flow by abandoning scientific procedures of
documenting each statement with copious references. Similarly, I have









dispensed with a bibliography and relegated the tables of data to the back

of the report.


The focus of attention is on what is happening today and what it
portends for the future. I have thus endeavoured to put this in an historical
perspective of the East African ivory trade over the past 74 years. The

first two chapters are therefore descriptive and provide a general
background to the modern situation. The report is not intended as a base

for legal actions. I have therefore collated evidence of illegality only to
the point of my personal conviction. To have proceeded further so that it
would stand up In a court of law, would have unnecessarily revealed my
interests to hostile scrutiny.


For obvious reasons I do not reveal informants' names, though these
can be followed up in cases of bona fide interest. Similarly, individual
acknowledgments for assistance in producing this report would be out of
place. However, it is by no means a lone effort and I am indebted to those
who have financed it and to many collaborators for their trust and help.








CHAPTER 1
THE OFFICIAL EAST AFRICAN IVORY TRADE


1. KENYA

For hundreds of years elephant tusks were exported from the Kenya
coast, but in 1900 the British enacted a law banning free trade in ivory.

It was largely ineffective, and the country's Chief Game Warden stated in

his 1910 annual report :
".. .little notice was taken of the law, except that it

gave birth to the ivory smuggling trade."
To the present time the laws governing ivory trading have proved difficult
to enforce. The underlying philosophy of Government policy through this
century is summed in a proclamation issued on the 31st May 1912 which

decreed that :

"No ivory could be legally possessed except

(1) under the Game Laws, and
(2) purchased from Government for export."

Tusks could not be sold without a Sale Permit. Trading in ivory was

barred except to those in possession of a Dealer's Permit. Until the

Second World War many large mercantile trading companies had Dealer's

Permits. After the war their interest declined and ivory dealing was left

in the hands of Indian traders, who throughout the century had formed the

backbone of the trade. This dominance started declining in 1970 with the

entry of African businessmen into the trade. However, though this process
continues and the African position has become stronger, it is difficult to
define Indian involvement as they have entered cryptic partnerships with

the newcomers.








The main sources of ivory within Kenya have been :
(1) the legal killing of elephant in protection of human life and

property,

(2) the finding of ivory on elephant that died of natural causes,

(3) the confiscation of illicit ivory and

(4) tusks obtained by sportsmen on licence.

The first three categories produced by far the greater volume of ivory

exported.


Responsibility for Government sales lay with the Customs and Excise
authorities from 1900 until 1956, when it was taken over by the Game

Department. This change was made to co-ordinate the trade under one

body and thereby reduce illicit dealing. Disposal of Government ivory was
by regular auctions held in Mombasa. The main buyers at these auctions

were the country's licensed dealers, the majority of whom were based in

Mombasa. From about 1970 the Game Department began selling

Government ivory by direct negotiation with individual dealers an

unpublioised process that has grown at the expense of the traditional
auctions since then. From September 1973 until April 1974, the Government

banned all trade in ivory and the hunting of elephant. The ban was re-

introduced in July 1974 when it was announced that all trade in tusks was

to be a permanent Government monopoly.


In theory, natural mortality should constitute a major source of ivory.

Rural Africans coming across dead elephants are unlikely to forego the

opportunity of benefiting from tusks thus available. However, such ivory

has always been difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from that taken








from elephant killed illegally. As a result there has been an unresolved
and continuous conflict between Government's pecuniary interest in

recovering ivory from natural mortality and the provision of cover for
illicit hunting that arises from such collection.


In 1902 Indian traders persuaded the Government that the natives held

large quantities of "female and old tusks". The Chief of Customs
therefore authorised Government officers to purchase such ivory from the

natives at 50% of the prevailing market value of ivory until June 1903 (this

ivory was then presumably sold by auction to the traders who had set the

process in motion.) In June 1903, this Government buying was continued

erratically until at least June 1911. There is a gap in the Game Department

literature between 1913 and 1924, but when taken up again, debate on
whether or not to encourage the collection of ivory from natural mortality

still raged. In 1925 the Game Department's attitude was summed thus :

"The Police could scarcely expect to suppress theft
if they acted as receivers of stolen property."
Nevertheless, from 1925 until the present day a reward system has been

in force, with rewards of the order of 10% of prevailing market values.

In consequence illicit buying has been encouraged as a trader could buy
found ivory on the black market for 20% of its value and sell it at market

price, making 500% profit.


In or shortly after 1970, the Game Department changed its traditional
antagonism toward rewarding the collection of ivory from natural mortality
(though this was never proclaimed publicly). "Collector's" permits were

issued for the first time, which authorised selected persons to gather such








ivory. The tusks so collected were supposed to be handed in to the

Department in return for an unspecified "reward".


The potential of natural mortality as a source of Ivory was persistently

overlooked by the Game Department through gross under-estimates of
elephant numbers. Until the early 1950s it was widely felt that they did

not exceed 12, 000. Research in the late 1960s indicated that in 1969 there
were probably about 165, 000 elephants. This, after years of attrition and
displacement by expanding human populations, suggests that numbers were
probably far greater in the early years of the century.


Since 1900 the official records and the Press have stated that poaching

was extensive and jeopardised the survival of wild life populations. In
particular, illegal ivory hunting was said to be widespread. However,
there are few official data to support this. The early reports for the years
1906 to 1913 published the amounts of ivory confiscated annually, giving a

measure of illicit activity. Subsequent annual reports beginning in 1925
gave early convictions for offences against the Game Laws, but not those
specifically concerning ivory. These annual convictions show a trend that

reached its highest point in the 1930s and then declined progressively until
1965, when the Game Department ceased publishing reports on its activities.


Circumstantial evidence suggests that the Indian ivory dealers have

always bought illegally in addition to their legitimate trade though this has
not been corroborated by court convictions the normal measure of
unlawful activity. Through the 1970s there has been increasing public

protest about the level of poaching despite lack of evidence. This seems








to have led to the closure of elephant hunting and ivory trading, temporarily

in 1973, and permanently in 1974.


Evidence will be presented later in this report to substantiate the

extent of the illicit trade. However, this trade was from the beginning

encouraged by the failure of the Game Laws to offer adequate rewards for

the large volume of ivory annually available from natural mortality.


In addition to ivory produced in Kenya (which I shall refer to as

domestic), the country's licensed dealers traded extensively in tusks from

other African states. As a result Mombasa became an entrepot for the

continental ivory trade. This import and re-export of alien ivory was

banned in 1962. The unconvincing reason given was that by denying

hunters outside East Africa a market for their tusks, the incentive to kill

elephants would be reduced.


The volume of Kenya's ivory trade, both domestically produced and

the import/export quantities, is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The

data are derived from Customs records, with the exception of the years

1910 1913 which are from incomplete Game Department reports. They

indicate progressive increase in Kenya's output through the century. This

is not unexpected as elephants have been continuously replaced by humans.

However, the most striking aspect of production over the past seven

decades is seen in the years 1971 1973. In these annual increase in the

volume of domestic ivory exported, expressed as a percentage of each

preceding year's volume, was respectively 86.4%, 81.6% and 78.6%.

Thus 1973 exports were 260% higher than the average annual exports of












300,-




T





200 Domestic
ivory


Re-exported
ivory

NN
N "N


1""00.. -
I j i

i it I.
I I I' I ii
S i 1
i'. ; \A ;
I II !! IIiI
I \ .," N, ".. /
I V i A ,A


K ,f Ap

............ .................. ........ .............. ........................ .. ..... ............ .......
1906 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970


FIG. 1 Kenya's official Domestic and Re-exported ivory exports
1906 1973.









domestic ivory for the decade 1960 1969, and are too large to be

accounted for by Kenya's population increases. It is worth noting that

these steep rises in exports coincided with the entry of Africans into the

ivory trade, the issuing of "Collector's" Permits or letters by the Game

Department and the commencement of air-freighting ivory from Nairobi,

rather than by the traditional sea routes from Mombasa. These points

have bearing on later discussion in this report.


2. UGANDA

At least as far back as the mid-1800s, ivory was moving down the

Nile from Bunyoro to Khartoum. Baker records Arab traders obtaining

tusks from the Banyoro in large quantity. At the same time the Baganda

were trading ivory with Arabs from Zanzibar. When the Imperial

British East Africa Company established an administration in Buganda

and Toro, it laid claim to all ivory. This monopoly was maintained by

the British Government when it assumed direct responsibility for the

country's government in 1893. Until 1905, ivory was Uganda's foremost

commercial export.


As Uganda has denser human populations than the other East African

states, competition for space between men and elephants has been more

intense. From the outset of Colonial government this was a fundamental

problem. In 1912 natives were issued with rifles to shoot crop-raiding

elephants. This was insufficient. In 1918 District Commissioners were

empowered to hire European gunmen to kill elephants, payment being made

as a percentage of the ivory handed in. This system was closely followed

by licensing which permitted a sportsman to kill 20 elephants per licence.









These efforts still did little to resolve human-elephant conflict.


In 1923, C. F. M. Swynnerton of the Tanganyika Government service

was sent to advise the Uganda Government on their elephant problem. As

a result of his recommendations a new Department was formed to handle

elephant control. In 1925 this became the Uganda Game Department. In
principle this new body was modelled on the neighboring Kenya Game

Department and accepted as its prime role the conservation of wild
animals. In fact its main pre-occupation has always been "elephant

control" and consequently the Department has been a major ivory producer.
A result of the Department's work is that the range of elephants has

declined from more than 70% of the country's land area in 1929, to less

than 11% in 1969. Today it is undoubtedly smaller still.


Official policy toward ivory production in Uganda exhibited the same

inability to come to terms with natural mortality that was shown in Kenya.

Although poaching was never considered to be the same threat to wild life

in Uganda as it has been in Kenya, it is probable that an illegal trade in

ivory existed. In 1968 the Government declared an amnesty to those

possessing illegal ivory and at the same time offered a reward for tusks
handed in. In six months, 81 tons were surrendered. It is difficult to

explain so large a quantity of tusks through random hoarding, and more

likely that an illicit trade was tapped.


Uganda, lacking a sea port, never developed an entrepot trade in the
same manner as Kenya. The Kenya Customs authorities sold Uganda ivory

by auction in Mombasa on behalf of the Government until 1967, when the








Game Department decided to hold ivory auctions in Kampala. Though much

ivory from Zaire passed through Uganda in transit to Mombasa and

Zanzibar, no Import/export trade of significance developed in the country

throughout the colonial era. However, during the 1960s and early 1970s

it was widely rumoured that Uganda received a lot of ivory from both

Zaire and Sudan. As in Kenya, private ivory buyers in Uganda were mainly

Indians, usually agents of the Mombasa dealers. In 1971 they were expelled

from the country and the trade was then entirely in African hands. Since

the introduction of air-freighting, most of Uganda's ivory exports have been

flown out of Entebbe and have not been exported through Kenya.


Uganda's domestic ivory exports are given in Table 2 and Figure 2 for
the period 1925 1973. As with Kenya, these data derive from the Customs

records. The Game Department archives do not contain such information.

The data indicate more or less increasing production until 1969, after which
there is a steep fall. In view of the decline in elephant range from 70%+

to 11%- of the land area between 1929 and 1969, it is surprising that ivory
production went on increasing until so late as 1969 in the process of

elephant elimination. It suggests that the Customs data may be incomplete.


3. TANZANIA

As the two components of Tanzania Tanganyika and Zanzibar have

had different roles in the region's ivory trade, I consider them separately.

Tanganyika

I do not have access to detailed records from Tanganyika prior to 1925,
though the country has been known for centuries as a major ivory source.

Under British rule Game Laws were modelled on the neighboring Kenya









































0 ........... ............. ...................... .................. ............ ....................... ....... ..... ...
1929 1940 1950 1960 1970


FIG. 2 Uganda's Domestic ivory exports 1929 1973.








system with the difference that native Tanganyikans were more readily

allowed to hunt elephants. As in Kenya, the main traders in ivory were

Indians. A minor import/export business in tusks from other African

states developed but this was far less consistent than those which

flourished in Mombasa and Zanzibar. This business was officially

terminated in 1962 for the same reasons (whatever they may have been)

that it was abandoned in Kenya. However, the ban was not so absolute as

elsewhere in East Africa and small quantities of ivory have come into the
country from Zambia from time to time.


The increasingly socialistic policy persued by Tanganyika since

independence has discriminated against alien businessmen. As a result

the Indians dealing in ivory have been forced out of the trade (and other

businesses). In 1970, the Government declared a state monopoly on ivory

trading which persists to the present. As a result of publicity on poaching

the Government banned elephant hunting in September 1973. This ban has

not been lifted, though there are said to be plans to do so. As with Kenya,

the level of illicit hunting in Tanganyika has never been established, though

again circumstantial evidence has suggested that it is widespread.


Tanganyika's domestic and import/export ivory volumes are presented

in Table 3 and Figure 3. Once more they derive from the Customs

authorities rather than the more (in theory) appropriate Game Department,

which is without continuous records. The data indicate a gradual but

accelerating increase in domestic ivory exports throughout the period

reviewed until 1973. In that year there is an abrupt decline and exports
were only 26% of the preceding year's figures. No official reason has been









300.,




T





200. Domestic
0 ivory






N /



100-w:

S




/ \ Re-exported

1929/ .- iv o ry
.............. ivr
... ..... .............. : .; ..................... .......................... ...... ................ .... .
1929 1940 1950 1960 1970



FIG. 3 Tanganyika's official Domestic and Re-exported
ivory exports 1929 1973.








proffered for this decline. Due to its greater size, Tanganyika has been

by far the largest ivory producer of the three East African states.


Zanzibar
As far as Is known, Zanzibar has never had indigenous elephants,

although the Island's terrestrial fauna indicate that at one time it must have
been connected with the African mainland. However, its role as an

entrepot for ivory has been known for centuries. Its geographical position

has favoured such a development and until 1963 it was one of the world's

great Ivory markets. Tusks were bought the length of Africa, taken to

Zanzibar, re-graded, sometimes cut and polished, then sold to overseas

outlets. The 1964 revolution virtually terminated the trade in Zanzibar.
The Indians and Arabs who managed it fled or died.


Annual recorded imports and exports of ivory into and from Zanzibar

from 1925 to 1963 are presented in Table 4 and Figure 4. These data are
from Customs records. They indicate a steady rise in import volume from

26 tons in 1925 to 228 tons in 1962 a growth of over 750%. Over the

49 years reviewed, Zanzibar's main supplier was Zaire (31%), followed

by Tanganyika (24%), Mozambique (18%), Uganda (8%), Kenya (7%) and

both Somalia and Zambia (5%). Many other countries produced smaller

amounts.


4. EAST AFRICAN EXPORTS COMBINED

The total ivory exports from the East African states for the years
1929 1973 are given in Table 5 and Figure 5. Output rose from around

100 tons annually in the early 1930s to just under 400 tons in 1961. The














































1940 1950 1960


1970


FIG. 4 Zanzibar's official ivory exports 1925 1973


300-





T




200
0


N


100


S


0 ...
1925






440



400..G





T




300-1
0





N


200


S
V I.

-}^










100 /



-..... .......... .......... ................. .......... ...................... .......
1929 1940 1950 1960 1970


FIG. 5 Combined East African exports of ivory
1929 1973.









ban on importing ivory in 1962 and the Zanzibar revolution caused exports

to fall to c. 162 tons from 1962 to 1965. In 1966 they rose to over 200 tons

and fluctuated between 200 and 260 tons annually until 1972, when there

was a sharp increase to 433 tons, followed by 358 tons in 1973.


At first glance it would appear that the 1972 1973 exports merely

regained the ground lost in 1962. However, of the 1961 exports of 393 tons,

no less than 177 tons (45%) originated outside East Africa. Officially, there

have been no significant imports into East Africa since 1962, and therefore

the 1972 1973 exports were comprised of domestic ivory only. If this is

true Increase in production has been greater than at any time in the past

45 years. While I personally have no doubt that there has been an increase

in elephants killed annually in East Africa, the three East African Game

Departments are unable to substantiate this factually. It Is possible that

it is not as great as suggested from the ivory record. I suspect that the

Customs & Excise import records are incomplete and do not show some

recent imports of ivory.


In Table 6 the combined domestic exports of Kenya, Uganda and
Tanganyika ivory are given with countries of destination, for the years

1962 1973. This period should, at least officially, reflect domestic

ivory production unadulterated by imports from elsewhere in Africa, or

complicated by the former Zanzibar entrepot trade. The data illustrate

the wide range of countries buying raw ivory and at the same time show

that few buy in quantity. Continentally, Asia has taken 82% of exported

ivory, Europe 12%, the Americas 5% with the balance taken by Australlaslan

and Oceanic states. Of individual countries buying ivory, East Africa's






14

largest customer is Hong Kong (47%) followed by Japan (17%) and India as

an erratic third (9%). Recently China has entered the market and although
it is too new as an East African buyer to figure prominently over the

period 1962 1973, it gives the appearance of moving in toward a major
position.









CHAPTER 2
THE HONG KONG TRADE


The previous chapter gave a picture of the ivory trade from a
producer's view. I now intend to broaden this by presenting data from a

buying and processing centre Hong Kong. My information was supplied

by the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong Government.


In its unworked raw form, ivory is measured and valued by weight.

Once it has been fashioned into some article, value is based on artistic
quality and the labour involved in producing it (though the weight of the raw
piece from which an article is made provides a starting point for valuation).

It is thus difficult to relate Hong Kong's imports of raw ivory to its exports

of carved items on a weight basis. Initially, therefore, I shall consider

raw and worked ivory separately.


Hong Kong's raw ivory imports, average annual values per kilo, and

total value in US dollars are given in Table 7 and Figure 6 for the years
1952 to 1973. They indicate trends of rising volume and value. The

greatest single increases occurred in 1973 when volume rose 111% over
the average annual imports of the preceding 5 years, and value rose 153%

over 1972's average itself the highest between 1952 and 1972. As a
result of this increase, 39% of the 22 year value of raw ivory imports
($46, 925, 814) was attributable to 1973 alone.


The Hong Kong records do not specify all countries from which raw

ivory imports originated until 1959. In Table 8, some of the data in




600-





500-`
T




400-
0




300 ..
N





200 /
S

/A


A00 /
.. ... ,...,,.-A ..... ,... .. .... ,. A ....... I.... .. ..... ....... .. ... ........... 1 ....... ...... .... ......... .....
1952 1960 1970

FIG. 6 Hong Kong's Imports of raw ivory
1952 -1973.









Table 7 are broken down further to give countries of origin and amounts for

the years 1959 1973. On a continental basis, Africa supplied 82% of
Imports, Europe 15% and Asia 3%. A total of 36 countries are recorded as
having supplied raw ivory to Hong Kong. The two major suppliers are

Tanzania (31%) and Kenya (23%), followed by Belgium (12%), Mozambique

(9%), Uganda (5%) and Zaire (4%). The remaining 30 sources of Import

produced correspondingly small amounts. Belgium's large contribution of
raw ivory reflects its dominant position as a buyer in Francophone Africa
- particularly in Zaire. The ivory received from Persian Gulf states is
most probably obtained through the dhow trade along the sea boards of

Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. I will make further consideration of this in

Chapter 3.


Trends indicated in Table 8 are:
1) The number of countries supplying Hong Kong with ivory nearly
trebled between 1959 and 1973.
2) Tanzania's contribution rose from 38% in 1959 to 44% in 1964,

then fell to 22% in 1972 and 5% in 1973. Until 1973 Tanzania's

overall exports were rising (Table 3), and the Hong Kong data
merely indicate a change in outlets (Tanzania's new buyers were

Japan and China).
3) Kenya's contribution rose from 11% in 1959 to 37% in 1973. Thus

while Tanzania was the largest supplier of ivory to Hong Kong over
the whole of the 15 years covered, Kenya had usurped this role in

the latter half of the period.








Hong Kong re-exports some raw ivory and this is illustrated in Table 9
fo- the period 1962 1971 (data for 1972 and 1973 had not been received at

the time of writing). In these 10 years raw ivory was exported to 14 countries.
China was the major buyer (76%), followed by Japan (20%) and North

Vietnam (2%). All other countries took less than 1% of the volume of

re-exported raw ivory. The period is too short to reveal definite trends,

but it appears that China's purchases were declining while Japan's were

increasing from 1969 onward.


In Table 10 the weights and values of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports
are compared with those of re-exports for the years 1962 1971. The data

indicate that annual re-exports varied between 12% and 31% of corresponding
annual imports of raw ivory, averaging 19% over the 10 years. Re-exports

were on average 24% higher in value per unit weight than raw ivory imports
(variation +3% to +52%). Some increase is to be expected as any ivory

moving through Hong Kong would accumulate storage, handling and trading
costs. On a crude level however, the 24% increase in value is an indicator
of profitability in trading raw ivory.


Hong Kong's worked ivory export values for the years 1962 1971,
together with the values of raw ivory imported and retained in Hong Kong

(i.e. annual raw ivory imported less raw ivory re-exported) are given in
Table 11. These data indicate that worked ivory export values were 58%

greater than import values.


In addition to its own ivory manufacturing industry, Hong Kong imports
worked ivory from other countries. Some of this is then re-exported.









Data on the import and re-export of worked ivory are given in Table 12
for the period 1962 1973. In this case only 27% in value is re-exported,
suggesting that most of the worked ivory imports are 'for consumption' in
Hong Kong, Illustrating that the colony is more than just an antrepot.


The countries from which Hong Kong imports worked ivory are listed
in Table 13, together with annual values, for the years 1962 1973. From
these data it is apparent that China is the main supplier (96%). Chinese
exports of worked ivory rose significantly ($228,461 in 1962, $1, 605, 944 in
1973) at the same time as its imports of raw ivory from Hong Kong were
declining. This suggests that it was getting Its requirements from elsewhere

and is borne out by the data from the East African records (Table 6).


Hong Kong exports worked ivory to more than 117 countries, which
are listed in Table 14. However, of these few have imported more than 2%
of the value of worked ivory exports in any one year of the 12 years
reviewed, and fewer still have taken more than 5%. (These are indicated
in the Table.) The pattern of exports is small quantities to many outlets,
with only 3 exceptions; the U.S.A. 35% of Hong Kong exports, and France
24% over the whole 12 years, and Japan rising steadily over the past 5 years

to 28% in 1973.


The difficulty of equating raw ivory volume with worked Ivory value
notwithstanding, it is possible on the basis of the foregoing Information to
draw up a "balance sheet" for the Hong Kong ivory trade. This is done in
Table 1.5, where the values of raw and worked ivory imports are subtracted
from the values of exports and re-exports. The "profit" shown thereby is









minimal as internal sales are not registered, and the data derive from

Customs declarations which tend, as a rule, to be understatements of

value. These minimal values notwithstanding, the legitimate ivory trade
in Hong Kong is obviously most profitable.


Unlike East Africa the ivory business in Hong Kong is open and

unrepressed. It is the base for many companies, and an even greater

number of private individuals. Nevertheless, while there is no ground for

an extensive illegal trade as in East Africa, an element of illegality exists

when Hong Kong dealers receive ivory in the guise of some other commodity.

Many, if not most, of the major East African Indian dealers have companies

in Hong Kong which would simplify the reception of illicit consignments

shipped from Africa.








CHAPTER 3

COMPARISONS OF EAST AFRICAN IVORY EXPORT STATISTICS
WITH IMPORT RECORDS FROM HONG KONG AND
THE UNITED KINGDOM


Hong Kong and the United Kingdom together accounted for c. 50% of

official East African ivory exports between 1959 and 1973. Their Import
statistics provide a large sample with which to check the accuracy of the

East African figures.


Prior to the advent of air-freighting ivory in the 1970s, there was an

unavoidable delay of several weeks between shipping and landing consignments.

Time on the high seas could easily have resulted in some of a year's exports

not arriving at their destinations until the following calendar year. Thus

prior to 1970 this lag will complicate comparison of exports and imports,

which in theory should balance each other. Conceivably a year's exports

matched with its successor's imports might produce a more correct

comparison in some instances. In seeking to get export/import data to tally

I shall therefore make such 'skewed' comparisons as well as considering

exports and imports of the same year.


The exporters' and importers' Customs records give both volume and

value of ivory consignments. The former give a base for straightforward

comparison; values, however, are more difficult. By international

convention export values are declared by the commodity's consignor as

at the time of delivery on board ship or aircraft. This is referred to as

the f.o.b. (free on board) value. Import values are based on the f.o.b.

value plus the cost of transport, handling and insurance up to the point








of landing. This landed value is known as the c.i.f. (cost, insurance,
freight) value. As all trade goods are accompanied by shipping documents

stating their f.o.b. value, these form the basis for calculating c.i.f. values.

As a generalisation, the c. 1. f. value of ivory entering Hong Kong or the

U.K. from East Africa should be well within the limit of f.o.b. plus 20%
and have been relatively constant from one year to the next. At no time

should a c.i.f. value be less than a f.o.b. value. Such an occurrence or

widely differing f.o.b. c.i.f. values are grounds to suspect changes in
the volumes (and therefore values) of a consignment, either upward or

downward, in transit. Unfortunately the time lag between shipping and
landing blunts fine distinctions in comparisons of Ivory's export and import

values per unit weight. I shall present f.o.b. and c. I.f. values of annual

export/import in the following sections, but their use is limited and results
should only be considered of consequence where they are supported by the

comparisons of volume.


1. KENYA HONG KONG

Kenya's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's imports
from Kenya for the 15 years 1959 1973 are given in Table 15. The data

show wide discrepancies. Kenya claims to have exported 403 tons, while
Hong Kong imported 874 tons. In 14 of the 15 years, the Hong Kong imports

were greater than stated Kenya exports by margins ranging from 5% to 678%

(of export volumes given). In the only year exports exceeded imports it was

by 1%. Skewing comparisons so that exports for one year are related to

imports of the following year either singly or in groups gives no better

agreement than comparisons within the same year. Overall Hong Kong's

imports from Kenya were 117% greater than Kenya's claimed exports to








Hong Kong. These irregularities are given particular emphasis when the

Kenya Government declared a ban on ivory trading from 6th September 1973

until 30th April 1974. Despite this widely publicised measure the Government

obviously condoned continued export of tusks as the East African Customs &

Excise record states 72 tons were despatched to several countries during

the ban. However, during this period Hong Kong records that it alone,

imported 105 tons from Kenya.


Comparisons of Kenya f.o.b. ivory values With Hong Kong c.i.f. values

for 1959 1973 are given in Table 16. Differences between them expressed

as proportions of f.o.b. values range from 0.2% to + 67%. This seems
far greater than can be accounted for by f.o.b. + carriage and insurance
and complements the obvious from the volume data : the Kenya/Hong Kong

records are most irregular.


2. KENYA UNITED KINGDOM

Kenya's stated ivory exports to the United Kingdom and the United

Kingdom's official imports from Kenya for the years 1962 1967 and
1970 1973 are given in Table 17 (the U.K. authorities are unable to give

data for 1968 and 1969). Overall the U.K. Imports exceeded the claimed

Kenya exports; 59 to 51 tons, a margin of 16%. This complements the

finding of the Kenya Hong Kong trade though it is lesser in extent.


In the years 1962 1967 the U. K. imports from Kenya exceeded stated
Kenya exports by 6 tons or 24% of claimed exports. In 1970 1973, U.K.

Imports exceeded Kenya exports by 2 tons or 8% of claimed exports. The
earlier period thus showed the greater differences and volumes. Skewing








comparisons by placing Kenya's exports 1962 1966 against U.K. imports

1963 1967 widens the differences to 37% of export volume. Similarly,

comparing exports 1970 1972 to imports 1971 1973 widens the

difference to 24% of export volume, but this time in favour of Kenya.


Comparisons of Kenya's f.o.b. export values with U.K. c.i.f. import

values are given in Table 18. As proportions of the f.o.b. values, the

differences between them range from 65% to + 18%. As with all the data

pertaining to Kenya's ivory exports, they suggest irregularities.


3. UGANDA HONG KONG

Uganda's claimed exports to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's official
imports from Uganda for the past 15 years are given in Table 19. Overall,

Uganda claims to have exported 253 tons to Hong Kong, but Hong Kong
only acknowledges 226 tons a deficit of 11% of export volume. The data

indicate two distinct phases. The first concerns all years prior to 1971

in which with one exception (1962) Uganda's exports to Hong Kong exceeded

Hong Kong's receipts from Uganda. Thus this 12 year period gives Uganda

exports of 220 tons against Hong Kong's imports of only 60 tons, a deficit

of 73% of export volume.


The second phase concerns the 3 years 1971 1973 in which the previous

trend is reversed. Uganda stated exports of 33 tons against Hong Kong's

Uganda imports of 167 tons : a surplus of 406% of export volume.


In Table 20 comparison is made of Uganda's f.o.b. ivory values with

Hong Kong's c.i.f. imports from Uganda. They are even more erratic








than the Kenya data and differences between f.o.b. and c.i.f. range from

- 7% to + 108% of f.o.b. figures.


4. UGANDA UNITED KINGDOM

The Uganda United Kingdom ivory trade is given in Table 21 for the
years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973. During this time Uganda claims to

have exported 12 tons to the U.K., while the latter acknowledges import of

less than 0.5 of a ton. This is in keeping with the Hong Kong data prior
to 1971, and there is insufficient material for a comparison of f.o.b. and

c.i.f. values.


5. TANZANIA -HONGKONG

Until April 1964 Tanganyika and Zanzibar were separate states each
with its own Customs record. Once they merged the record was unified,

making it impossible to distinguish individual ivory exports. In this
section I shall consider Tanganyika and Zanzibar separately for the period

1959 1963 and then as one for the years 1964 1973. Tanganyika's,

Zanzibar's and Tanzania's official exports to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's

imports from them are given respectively in Tables 22 a, b and c.


Tanganyika's official exports for the 5 years 1959 1963 total 42 tons,

while Hong Kong's imports from this source were 35 tons. As all exports

went by sea at this time, there would be a lag between despatch and receipt

as considered at the beginning of this chapter. A skewed comparison of the

4 years stated exports 1959 1962 with Hong Kong's imports 1960 1963,

gives exports of 32 tons and imports 33 tons a difference of 3% of

export volume. This is close agreement. It may arise from compensating









for the despatch/receipt lag, it could be mere coincidence, but it could

also imply that the causes of error in the Kenya and Uganda data were

absent in Tanganyika between 1959 and 1963.


The 1963 records of Zanzibar's exports were never published on account

of the revolution. However, the 4 years 1959 1962 show fairly close
agreement : Zanzibar claimed exports of 306 tons, Hong Kong imports

320 tons, a difference of 4% of exports. This is slightly increased if a

skewed comparison of Zanzibar's 1959 1962 figures are compared to

Hong Kong's 1960 1963 imports : 306 tons exported to 326 tons imported,

a difference of 6% of exports. As with Tanganyika, it would appear that

the causes for discrepancy in the Kenya/Uganda/Hong Kong trade did not

apply to the Zanzibar/Hong Kong figures. Further, the chances that both

Tanganyika's and Zanzibar's data are close to the expected through

coincidence, are greatly reduced.


Table 22 c gives Tanzania's ivory exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's
receipts from 1964 1973. Claimed exports totalled 543 tons, Hong Kong

imports were 761 tons 40% higher than stated exports. The first 5 years,

1964 1968 showed very large discrepancies : Tanzania's exports were

given as 216 tons, but Hong Kong's imports were 445 tons, the difference
of 229 tons being 106% of exports. In the second 5 years, the discrepancies

are much reduced. Exports are claimed as 327 tons, imports into Hong

Kong 316 tons, the difference of 11 tons being 3% of exports.


Combining all the Tanganyika Zanzibar Tanzania data from
1959 1973 the record shows 3 phases :








(1) the first 5 years prior to union when both Tanganyika's and

Zanzibar's exports tallied approximately to Hong Kong's Imports

from them,

(2) the second 5 years immediately after union when Hong Kong imported

far more from Tanzania than appears in that country's records, and

(3) the third 5 years when the Tanzanian exports once more tally

closely with Hong Kong's imports.


In Tables 23 a, b and c, Tanganyika's, Zanzibar's and Tanzania's

average f.o.b. ivory values are compared with Hong Kong's c. i.f. values

of ivory from these countries. The data support the contention of less

irregularity in Tanzania's ivory trade than in either Kenya or Uganda, but

not very conclusively.


6. TANZANIA UNITED KINGDOM

The United Kingdom records do not separate Tanzania into its

component parts and I am unable to make comparisons similar to the

Tanzania Hong Kong trade in the previous section. Tanzania's stated

ivory exports to the U.K. for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973, and

the U. K. 's imports from Tanzania for the same periods are presented in

Table 24. Stated exports total 19 tons while imports are 38 tons, the

surplus is 100% of export volume.


Comparison of Tanzania's stated f.o.b. values is made with the U.K.
c.i.f. import values in Table 25. Differences range from 14% to + 42%

of f.o.b. value.









Summarising this chapter, the evidence is :-

(1) Kenya's claimed exports to Hong Kong and the U.K. are substantially

less than their corresponding imports from Kenya.

(2) Uganda's claimed exports to Hong Kong and the U. K. are considerably

more than their corresponding imports from Uganda.
(3) Tanzania's exports to Hong Kong show fair agreement prior to the

political union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and in the past 5 years.

However, there was an intermediate phase in which they were as

unbalanced as Kenya's. Tanzania's exports to the U.K. are much

lower than the U.K. 's imports from Tanzania.

(4) The comparisons of f.o.b. values of East African ivory exports

with Hong Kong and U.K. c.i.f. import values, are of dubious

value. However, the very wide range of differences suggests that

the imbalances between export and import volumes are real.









CHAPTER 4

THE VALUE OF EAST AFRICA'S LOSSES


In East Africa, ivory trading is essentially illegal. A few people are

licensed to exploit only part of the resource (legal tusks), yet the quantity
of ivory available is far greater than that which is legalised. Further it

is accessible to a far larger number of people than the authorised dealers.

On the other hand ivory trading, and manufacturing from it, are open

businesses in both Hong Kong and the U. K. Anyone who wishes to
participate may do so. The Incentive to trade illegally is therefore great

in East Africa but almost non-existent in Hong Kong and the U. K. Logically

therefore, it is more likely that the East African records are the source

of the irregularities observed between exports and Imports, than either

the Hong Kong or British statistics.


Assuming this so the ivory surpluses arriving in Hong Kong and the

U.K. could easily represent consignments illegally exported, but arriving

in the guise of legal export. If this was the case not only would illicit tusks
enter the trade, but stringent exchange control regulations in the exporting

states would be by-passed. Payment for unrecorded exports could be made

outside East Africa and no tax commitments incurred.


While the surplus of imports over exports has obvious reason, this is

not the case with Uganda's data in which the converse is true. It seems

that such a situation could only have arisen if

(1) ivory was transhipped to some destination other than that to which

it was originally consigned, while en route. Such a practice is not








uncommon in commerce today,

(2) incorrect entries were made by the East African Customs

authorities, or
(3) incorrect records were made by the Hong Kong and United Kingdom

authorities.


There are no data to support the first possibility. While that already

presented suggests that the East African Customs authorities do not record

a great deal of ivory leaving East Africa, there is nothing to indicate that

they make entries falsely raising exports. However, as most Uganda ivory

was bought by Kenya and Zanzibar traders, who mixed it with tusks from

elsewhere before shipping, it is difficult to see how Customs officials

identified Uganda's ivory at the time it was shipped.


The third possibility that the apparent Uganda's exports exceeded stated
Hong Kong and U. K. imports through error on the part of the receiving

countries has some merit. Thus it is worth noting that prior to 1970 1971

when Uganda commenced direct ivory exports by air from Entebbe, all the

country's tusks had to be shipped through Kenya. It could be that both Hong
Kong and U. K. Customs authorities incorrectly ascribed many such shipments

to Kenya. In support of this is the observation that when Uganda's air-

exports commenced not only did its export -import balance reverse, but

the difference between Kenya's exports and corresponding imports also

declined sharply. In the 4 years 1967 1970, Kenya's differences ranged

from 314% to 678% of export volume. In the 3 years 1971 1973 they fell

to 5% 58%. This compels re-appraisal of both Kenya and Uganda data.

Combining their exports and comparing them to combined imports in









Hong Kong and the U. K. would reduce the magnitude of anomaly in both

countries' records. The necessary combinations are given in Tables 26

and 27. The joint exports to Hong Kong for the years 1959 1970 are

401 tons against 614 tons claimed as imports by Hong Kong; a surplus of

53% of stated export volume. The combined exports to the U.K. are
63 tons against U.K. import figures of 59 tons giving a deficit on imports

of 5%. This considerable reduction of differences is persuasive. In the

absence of other evidence, I accept that until 1971, Uganda's exports have

probably frequently been confused with Kenya's by the receiving countries.

From that year on however, they are quite separate.


The combined official East African ivory exports to Hong Kong during

the past 15 years totalled 1, 629 tons with an f.o.b. value of $13, 249, 189.

Over the same period Hong Kong claims to have received 2, 303 tons of

ivory with a c. i.f. valuation of $25, 340, 006. As proportions of the East

African records Hong Kong's imports were greater in volume by 41%

(674 tons) and in value by 91% ($12, 090, 818).


The combined official East African ivory exports to the United Kingdom

during the 10 years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973 were 81 tons with an f.o.b.

value of $654, 399. Corresponding U.K. imports were 97 tons with a c.i.f.

value of $737, 046. As proportions of the East African record, the U.K.'s

imports were greater in volume by 20% (16 tons) and in value by 13%

($82, 648). These combined volume and value differences are of a lower

order than the East Africa/Hong Kong data. They tend to conceal the

Tanzania differences which are of a much greater order : 19 tons exported

to 38 tons received an increase of 100% on the export volume. The f.o.b.









value of $124, 725 compares to the U.K. c.i.f. value of $260, 207 which is

109% ($135, 482) up on the former. (The combined Kenya/Uganda exports of

62 tons valued f.o.b. at $529, 663 compare to corresponding U.K. imports

of 59 tons valued c. .f. at $476, 839 a deficit of $52, 824 or 10% of the

f.o.b. figure.)


It seems a reasonable hypothesis that the differences between the export
and import figures represent illegal transactions. I have no doubt that they

apply to other countries as well as the two reviewed. A major Nairobi

exporter stated unequivocally (in a verbal interview) that his company had

exported over 50 tons to Peking in 1972, whereas the Customs record shows
only 13 tons as having been sent there. Combined official East African

exports of ivory for the period 1959 1973 amount to 4, 087 tons with a

stated f.o.b. value of $35, 308, 928. However, in view of the evidence

presented, these are low. It is likely that the true figures lie somewhere
between the Hong Kong surplus of 41% and the Tanzania U.K. surplus of

100% (the single Peking record covers too short a time for consideration).

On this basis legal ivory exports plus illegal consignments arriving in the

guise of being legal at their destination, may have been between 5, 763 and 2 9.

8,174 tons over the 15 years, with f.o.b. values of between $49, 785, 588

and $70, 617, 856. Summed, the loss to East Africa calculated as the

difference between these estimates of volume and value and those given in the

local Customs statistics, may have been 1, 676 4, 087 tons of ivory, and

revenue of between $14, 476, 660 and $35, 308, 928 (of which 1973Is high

volumes and values would have accounted for c.$12, 860, 000).








A final consideration is the routine procedure of understating f.o.b.

values. This arises from a variety of reasons (e.g. concealment of

income to avoid tax, reduction of transport charges as sea freight of ivory

is based on value, avoidance of true value to permit a margin of payment

to be retained overseas among many). A consensus of opinion among

ivory dealers and my personal experience indicates that f.o.b. values

stated ex- East Africa are generally about two thirds that of real value.

Thus the revenue losses to East Africa in the 15 years are more likely to

be between $21, 714, 990 and $52, 963, 392, and for 1973 alone, c.$19, 290, 000.


The comparison of export/import statistics has illustrated only one

aspect of the illegal trade. It has not touched on tusks that are smuggled

both out of East Africa and into their destinations. That this happens is
known through the occasional discovery of tusks packed in crates, labelled

as nails or textiles, or concealed in tins of ghee. Part of this system may

account for the exports of ivory from Persian Gulf states to Hong Kong.

By and large the Trucial Sheikhdoms, Muscat, Oman and Aden have

restricted trade with Africa. Their traditional link has been through the

dhow fleets which seasonally ply the East African coast. During the 15 years

1959 1973 the East African records give total legal exports of 97 kilos to

the Gulf states. Yet during this period Hong Kong imported 71 tons valued

at $838, 545 from them. It is difficult to see how they came by this ivory,

other than through the dhow trade. Some may have come from Somalia, but
if only through the frequent allegation that dhows take illegal Ivory, it seems

more probable that it comes from Kenya and Tanzania. If this reasoning is
correct, the East African losses rise by virtually another $1, 000, 000 since

1965.








India offers a massive prospect for illegal ivory sales. Traditionally

the sub-continent is a great ivory consumer. During the 1940s it was East

Africa's major market. The demand for ivory is as great there, if not

greater, than at any time in the past. However, India proves an anomaly

among ivory consumers in that it has created a situation conducive to its

own illegal trade. Since independence in 1947 stringent restrictions on

luxury goods have inhibited the import of ivory. Thus in consecutive

5 year periods commencing 1945 1949 until the present 1970 1974, East

African exports to India have fallen progressively : 747, 576, 456, 196,

122 to 75 tons for each 5 year period respectively. On the basis of the

highest figure it could be that India's legally unfulfilled demand is of the

order of 670 tons per 5 years (747 75 tons) or 134 tons a year. If this

is being met, even in part illegally, the odds are that it is from East

Africa, with its abundant elephants and Indians.


While the calculations in this chapter are crude, they illustrate that
East Africa annually loses millions of dollars through ivory smuggling.









CHAPTER 5

THE INVOLVEMENT


Even in times of economic leniency, when currencies were more

widely negotiable than they are today, there have been reasons for moving
wealth in commodities rather than money. Not least of these is tax evasion,

but where elephant tusks are largely an unlawful item, ivory dealers'

burgeoning bank accounts, in which incoming funds are greater than can be

explained through legitimate trade, could bring awkward questions. Since
the imposition of exchange control regulations and the growth of non-

negotiable national currencies such reasons are greater than ever, Ivory is

a movable, available, international currency and a cryptic vehicle for

transferring capital from country to country.


As Indians have been the mainstay of the ivory trade in East Africa

it is not unfair to look to them as the probable organizers of much of the

past illicit business. As a community, they have been subjected to a series

of misfortunes, in independent East Africa, that have not affected other

aliens in quite the same way. The three East African Governments have

progressively made life more difficult to Asians, though their actions have

not been synchronised. Chronologically, Tanzania's actions have preceded

those in the other two states. As pointed out in Chapter 1, socialist

financial policy effectively removed a large segment of Tanzania's Indians

by 1969. Uganda set the stage with the "Common Man's Charter" in 1969

and eliminated them in 1971 -1972. There is a waning population in Kenya

which has little faith in Asians' future in the country. Tanzania's illegal

ivory trade as Indicated by the difference between exports and imports,








closely follows the fortunes of Indians in that country over the past 15 years.

Conversely this pattern indicts them as being largely responsible for at

least this aspect of the trade. To illustrate tliis I have taken the difference

between Tanzania's official exports and Hong Kong imports, and expressed

them as proportions of the stated exports, over the 15 years 1959 1973.

These proportions I refer to as an illegality index and are illustrated in

Figure 7. With reference to the figure, I present the following hypothesis :


Though tension existed between Arabs, Asians and Africans in Zanzibar,

until it happened, few foresaw the revolution and bloodshed of January 1964.

Many of the island's Indian traders were of stock established in the last
century, were not worried by political changes, and looked forward to

continued calm trading. Opposite Zanzibar on the mainland of Africa,

Julius Nyerere was considered the most easy-going of the emergent

African leaders and the prospect of independence in Tanganyika, both before

and after this took place, did not unduly disturb the Indian community. In

this aura of peace between 1959 and 1963 the ivory illegality index for

Tanzania averaged an annual 1% of official exports.


In 1964 the revolution in Zanzibar and army mutiny in Tanganyika took

place. The death of some 5, 000 Arabs and the expulsion of many more,

with Indians, made it seem that Asiatics would be singled out in any

extension of the trouble. This was enhanced by Nyerere's growing socialism,

his rupturing of ties with Britain over Rhodesia, and ultimately his "Arusha
Declaration". Thus to safeguard capital there was an Asian rush to export

wealth overseas. The ivory illegality index averaged 347% of legal exports
in 1964 and 1965. It fell to 32% over the next 3 years, by which time the




400.


D
i ::I

f -
f
e L^^A
e
r


n 300-
Ce


a


a .


200-
0
f2-

e
o


r

t 100-
s









-................ ......... ......... ............ ..... .......... ............ ......... V .. ............. k........... ... ....
1959 1965 1970 1973


FIG. 7 The difference between Tanzania's official exports and Hong Kong's
corresponding imports expressed as a proportion of the former, to
give an "index of illegality". Where Hong Kong Imports were less
than stated exports in any year the difference has been omitted.








majority of Indian traders had gone. From 1969 onwards, the ivory trade

was essentially in Government hands, and in the absence of the Indians,

the illegality Index has fallen to an average of 8% of annual exports.


Unfortunately the Kenya and Uganda Ivory data cannot be separated

sufficiently to examine political trends in similar fashion. Nevertheless,

verbal confirmation of my interpretation of events in Tanzania was given by
3 independent Indian ivory dealers with whom I discussed the subject in
1973. A point made by these gentlemen was that large scale illegal

shipments were not just a feature of Independent Africa, but took place well
back into the colonial era. While the Hong Kong data does not permit
comparisons of imports from individual East African states prior to 1959,
it does present combined East African records from 1952 until 1958. These
are presented together with all export/import data until 1973 in Table 28.

From them I have computed the annual East African illegality indices for
the 22 years 1952 1973. They confirm an average of 50% of legal exports

from 1952 1956. This is in keeping with what the ivory traders allege
and the literature which reports widespread elephant poaching at this time

in Kenya.


A vigorous drive was made in 1957 to curb illicit ivory dealing and kept

up sporadically until 1961. During this period (1957 1961) the illegality
Index fell to an annual average of 4% of legal exports. It seems likely that

the drive to enforce the law produced this lowered illegality.


In 1962 1965 the index soared, averaging 215% of legal exports. The
rise in 1962 was clearly a Kenya/Uganda result, as the separated Tanzania









record indicates calm in that year. I attribute the onset of these high rates
to financial apprehension over political independence in Kenya and Uganda.
Between 1966 and 1969 the index fell to 37% of legal exports. From 1970
the index varies between 5% and 110%.


Indian traders admit that b ribery of Customs officials was routine and
included some British officials prior to independence. The 1957 anti-
poaching operation produced evidence that senior British police officials
accepted bribes in connection with ivory (Appendix 1). There is conclusive

evidence that in the same era, some Game Department officials were also

implicated (Appendix 1).


The salient point is that in East Africa the ivory trade and official
corruption have gone together for a long time. In view of the commodity's
value, this is not surprising. That Indians were prime movers and that

corrupt white men sanctioned them is now history. Today it is Africans
who dominate the trade in ivory producing countries. The only differences
are the record volumes involved and the unprecedented blatancy of corruption.


The rest of this chapter is devoted to the situation in Kenya and is a

summary of information presented in Appendix 1. Illegal ivory transactions
concern all strata of Kenya's society. The supposed guardian of the trade
- the Game Department appears to have become a pivotal Institution in
the business it is supposed to suppress. Subordinate staff and wardens In
the field actually indulge in poaching elephant. The Department's purchases

of heavy rifle ammunition in 1973 exceeded those in all previous years, even

though there was no unusual increase in 'game control' to explain it. The








Departmental ivory has been ear-marked for private sales to such as the
two Assistant Ministers in the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife as well as
to Margaret Kenyatta through her United Africa Corporation. The Chief

Game Warden, Mr. Mutinda, is widely acknowledged within the ivory trade
to be active in it himself, and most helpful to those who pay for his services.
Senior Police officials are involved in the trade and prosecutions for ivory
offences are frequently withdrawn nolle prosequi on instructions from the
Attorney General. Such sentences as are pronounced are often ridiculously
low. The Attorney General himself is said to offer cover for ivory trading
- at a price. The local Press are afraid to comment on illegal ivory
- except where it affects those in menial positions. Overall is the brooding
figure of President Kenyatta clearly Implicated with personal instructions
that certain people should be given a permit to export ivory.


This disregard for law would be a minor issue if it concerned ivory
alone : but it does not. Corruption extends to all walks of national life,
in business, land purchases, acquisition of citizenships to specify but

few instances. It is blatant in that senior Government officials such as the
country's Provincial Commissioners, many Permanent Secretaries, and

Ministers themselves are wealthy beyond any savings of salary, and beyond -
the most optimistic interest rates upon their salaries if the latter were
saved in toto. Further, their fortunes have amassed in only a decade.
Either, as a group, they are-financial geniuses-- or corrupt. Within
11 years Kenyatta is said to have become among the-world's richest men
- and greatest landowners. --







39

In this situation of general corruption, there is little hope that the

ivory 'racket' can be tackled or contained on its own. Even though it has

grown to unprecedented proportions under African "management", it is

only a small aspect of the national malaise. To approach the problem

from the ivory angle alone is analogous to treating the patient's in-growing
toe-nails before considering his generalised affliction of leprosy.








CHAPTER 6
AND IMPLICATIONS


The evidence is that Kenya's leaders are systematically plundering

national resources. What is happening in Kenya is, however, also common

elsewhere in Africa. Thus in Zaire, President Mobutu has claimed a
monopoly on ivory trading through a 'fronting' state organisation. In 1973

every Minister in the Southern Regional Government of the Sudan, many
senior Police and Army officers, a Judge and many lesser officials invited
me to buy Illegal ivory. I have had similar offers from Tanzania. In

Zambia a substantial proportion of the ivory obtained during the official
elephant cropping in the Luangwa Valley was disposed of illegally.


Apologists may point out that there are major differences between

traditional African and modern Western moralities. Many Bantu societies

were indeed structured on 'nepotic' pyramids in which leaders were
expected to seize and own resources and wealth. Equally, however, they
were expected to look after poorer relatives, and it was only by doing this

that acquiescence to the system was maintained. This feudalistic attitude
undoubtedly does predispose many Africans to practise "corruption" in

our sense of the word. However, the apology based on traditional African
systems collapses with the observation that much of the wealth seized does
not benefit their societies at all.


The situation is particularly disappointing to conservationists. By and
large they have hoped that their's was an a-political cause and would have
the sympathy of leading Africans. However, their disillusion is not








peculiar to conservation. In less defined terms it applies to the whole

field of economic aid. While most of the aid-giving public will accept
self-interest as a motive for their donations, particularly at Government

levels, it is convenient, If not essential, that they should be able to believe
In a certain element of philanthropy. When aid falls short of its goals
through the honest incompetence of the recipients it is disappointing. When
it goes astray through their incontinent greed the philanthropic ideal
disappears. Conditions of economic stringency are spreading at geometric
rates throughout the world and will lower tolerance of misappropriated aid.
Reluctance to continue donating will increase and heighten instability both
internationally and internally in many countries.


As the euphoria of independence stales, the effects of African corruption
progressively increase in consequence. Misappropriations by the first
wave of leaders provide a focus (and stimulus) for opposition. As a result
they become more reliant on outside help to maintain position, vulnerable
to blackmail and increasingly apprehensive about exposure. When they are
eventually overthrown, causes and policies with which they have been
closely connected (e.g. conservation .) tend to be discredited. Thus it
becomes more difficult to enter into long-term arrangements and agreements.


In the hands of the politically active and astute, knowledge of corruption
in Africa (and elsewhere) becomes a multi-bladed weapon. It can be used
to Influence internal politics. For example, both China and Somalia have
vested interests in Kenya. Both have extensive knowledge of Kenyatta
Involvement in ivory (Somalis being particularly active in elephant poaching
in Kenya). Both could use this to their advantage in discreet blackmail,









open exposure, or, more likely than either, as a useful primer for their
own candidates' in Kenya. The knowledge can also be used, for example,

to influence international aid policies against the demands of recipient
countries. It can be used to stir up hostile reactions in the electorates of
donor countries toward governments giving aid to obviously corrupt systems.
Finally, it can be used to disconnect sources of charitable money from
corrupt recipients, or discredit agencies donating to such countries.


The World Wildlife Fund provides a minor example of what I mean. In
August 1974, the Fund's President, H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands decorated Jomo Kenyatta with the Order of the Golden Ark a
premier award for services to conservation. (Actually this is a personal
award by Prince Bernhard, but the World Wildlife Fund has so basked in its
glory that it is widely held to be a WWF decoration.) If it was publicised that
he was aware of Kenyatta involvement in illegal ivory when the award was
made, both his and the Fund's ability to raise further revenue from charity
would be severely compromised.


Knowledge of the type presented in this report is powerful political
material. How and when it could or should be used would of course depend
on the objectives of the user. There has been a strong drive from
conservationists and the Press to emblazon data on the ivory trade across
the media headlines. However, I sense the urge here is punitive and not
necessarily constructive. If there is purpose to publicly attack and
criticise the Kenya regime, for example, it should be done with the full
broadside of evidence on corruption. To fire the 'ivory shot' alone would

pain Kenyatta, damage his credence overseas a little (but not in Africa) and









guarantee a vindictive response towards white men in general, for it is
really only they who fear for elephants. The occasion in which I can see
purpose in taking such action would be to assist in drastic political

reorganisation. While such a point may arise, I cannot see justification
at present, if for no other reason that there appear no suitable alternatives.
On the other hand the knowledge of ivory and other corruption could be used

without publicity to secure changes in present practice. Such recourse is

pointless, however, without an unequivocal goal.


This brings me to the major point of the report : it is the need for
determining what our goals are. Why do we give aid to African countries,

and why do we feel affronted when Africans despoil elephants ? At all
levels in the "western" approach to Africa, we conceal our motives with
flummery to the point where we are considerably deceived ourselves. The

situation is now so ridiculous that even these self-deceptions are too

threadbare to stand much further use. Thus what should our reactions be
when Kenya claims help for a foreign exchange deficit of $140, 000, 000,

because of "increased oil prices", when it is obvious that a substantial
part of this could be recovered from official corruption ? Should we give

aid in such circumstances ? If so, what is the quid pro quo that warrants
it ? Philanthropy certainly does not fit.


Such fundamental questions may seem very far from the issues of
conservation which inspired the report. However, if basic human to
human affairs lack realism then all subordinate affairs (which conservation
and concern for environment are) will be deprived of a sound base.

Scandals such as the ivory issue will continue to arise as milestones in









aimless wanderings. Golden Arks and Environmental Programmes will

exist as sad monuments to unattained hopes. If we want the rule of law, as
perceived by westerners (and to which Africans in public pay lip-service)

to prevail in Africa, then westerners must Involve themselves In African

affairs. If we want elephants to survive in Africa we wUill have to take

strong action to ensure it happens. To date, white men have financed
independent Africa and "advised" from the sidelines, drawing up strict
rules which bar themselves from the Internal affairs of the various countries.

To now break these rules will invoke all manner of criticism. This would

be unavoidable. If we are unwilling to pay it, then where Africa is
concerned, we should shut up. In which case we either give aid in the
spirit of true philanthropy not asking what is to be done with it (do you
ask the beggar in the street what he is going to do with your 50 cents?), or

we stop doing so altogether. To continue our present unrewarding path is

pointless.




1906
07
08
09
1910
11
12
13
1924
25
26
27
28
29
1930
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1940
41
42
43
44
45
46


7.805
12.829
10.346
13.878
8.135*
2.085*
3.506*
4.264*
20.601
16.303,
14.915
25.575
14.899
12.224
16.275
13.280
13.941
18.998
21.162
19.506
18.145
15.877
13.307
12.396
11.126
12.542
5.639
5.893
13.209
14.733
34.751


F- -W49193r


x~~- ~m~rn -


TABLE 1 Kenya's ivory exports in tons from 1924 1973, with incomplete data from 1906 1923.
The main body of data is from Customs and Excise records; that marked with one asterisk
is incomplete, and with two asterisks, missing.


10.368
6.147
17. 071
7. 062
22.608
13.362
15.038
25.657
26.622
34.802
63.557
58.274
56.749
46.131
48. 062
56.597
63.456
122.376
72.651
52.482
83.676
82.101
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4>*
*
10.368
6.*147
17.*071
7.062
22. 608
13.362
15. 038
25. 657
26.622
34.802
63.557
58.274
56.749
46. 131
48.062
56. 597
63.456
122.376
72. 651
52.482
83.676
82. 101


7.805*
12.829*
10.346*
13.878*
8.135*
2.085*
3.506*
4.264*
20.601*
26.671
21.062
42.646
21.961
34.832
29.637
28.318
39.598
45.620
55.964
83.063
76.419
72.626
59.438
60.458
67.723
75.998
128.015
78.544
65.691
98.409
116.852


1947
48
49
1950
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73


25.707
19.712
23.116
25.606
22.507
14.784
16.918
15.741
33.159
31.889
23.905
26.310
27.262
29.621
32.615
40.826
42.096
39.120
29.311
45.213
48.350
38.572
33.388
44.383
82.727
150.248


1,659.539 2.014.626 3,674.165

*Incomplete Game Dept. data
*No records obtained


139.800
42.321
4.877
36.478
99.680
80.831
121.323
43.411
68.678
78.385
64.323
50.760
46.178
53.345
99.297
0.090


00.*UO


165.507
62.033
27.993
62.084
122.187
95.615
138.241
59.152
101.837
110.274
88.228
77.070
73.440
82.966
131.912
40.916
42.096
39.120
29.311
45.213
48.350
38.572
33.388
44.383
82.727
150.248
268.308








Domestic Domestic
Exports Exports
Year Tons Year Tons

1929 18.462 1956 22.454
1930 13.699 57 23.996
31 18,372 58 20.322
32 25.493 59 31.436
33 23.679 1960 29.803
34 20.549 61 20.730
35 27.032 62 37.151
36 29.155 63 29.258
37 33.319 64 45.703
38 21.139 65 44.302
39 28.349 66 57.407
1940 25.961 67 60.093
41 23.421 68 62.719
42 14.835 69 32.445
43 12.193 1970 52.072
44 19.611 71 31.428
45 28.959 72 31.551
46 35.360 73 25.212
47 21.993
4 26.2 Total 1,280.422
48 26.215
49 23.421
1950 30.636
51 24.234
52 19.560
53 17.934
54 16.577
55 22.182


TABLE 2 Uganda's domestic ivory exports for the years 1929 1973
in tons, from Customs and Excise Records.




Year
1929
1930
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1940
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
1950
51
52


Domestic
15.750
13.006
17.528
26.266
23.726
33.631
23.167
32.871
29.213
28.756
18.544
29.873
20.017
21.491
11.228
33.684
23.421
64.116
46.436
47.452
47.808
43.134
41.609
36.224


Re-exported
28.298
5.995
13.768
7.976
5.385
32.109
40.136
42.270
30.585
19.458

5.233
1.473
0.356
12.142
15.292
32.465
31.144
19.204
1.169
1.169
0.102
0.051


Total
44.048
19.001
31.296
34.242
29.111
65.740
63.303
75.141
59.798
48.214
18.544
35.106
21.490
21.847
23.370
48.976
55.886
95.260
65.640
48.621
48.977
43.236
41.660
36.224


Year
1953
54
55
56
57
58
59
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73

Totals


Domestic
49.540
50.034
59.515
54.298
59.832
51.622
68.768
65.956
66.954
66.773


Re-exported
0.914
3.221
0.907
0.726
0.544

1.134

4.944



0.721


2,674.060 358.891 3,032.951


Tanganyika's ivory exports in tons 1929 1963 and Tanzania's exports 1964 1973.
The latter set of data should include any Zanzibar exports. All data are derived from
the Customs and Excise records.


Total
50.454
53.255
60.422
55.024
60.376
51.622
69.902
65.956
71.898
66.773
91.086
81.648
88.306
118.334
93.949
109.188
161.160
161.344
132.225
250.937
64.361


91.086
80.927
88.306
118.334
93.949
109.188
161.160
161.344
132.225
250.937
64.361


TABLE 3


m










Year

1925
26
27
28
29
1930
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1940
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
1950
51


Imports
Tons

26.317
40.695
29.772
15.902
17.985
17.934
10.618
21.910
24.844
34.243
43.037
62.387
58.020
39.423
40.797
70.841
96.377
80.171
91.399
66.606
65.897
119.494
57.613
168.978
108.774
105.472
131.535


Exports
Tons

27.384
90.230
29.467
17.985
17.883
17.020
11.939
21.148
14.988
40.644
45.674
59.442
59.036
44.404
41.609
53.346
79.205
58.828
63.151
95.463
62.338
108.367
87.487
95.260
123.186
150.069
165.448


Year

1952
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73


Totals 3, 642.261 3,456.961


(Difference : Imports
more than exports)


185.300 tons


Zanzibar's imports and exports of ivory in tons from 1925
until 1964, after which it is assumed that its data are included
in the Tanganyika Tanzania figures in Table 3. The data
are from Customs and Excise records.


Imports
Tons

147.792
128.283
147.792
155.057
185.337
220.088
161.103
259.614
209.521
152.619
228.014
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?


Exports
Tons

152.321
84.591
152.321
148.808
203.678
189.757
126.759
150.180
197.480
168.470
201.595
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?


TABLE 4








Exports Exports
Year Tons Year Tons

1929 115.225 1956 391.430
1930 79.357 57 362.357
31 89.925 58 275.773
32 120.481 59 324.958
33 113.398 1960 376.205
34 182.897 61 393.010
35 219.072 62 346.435
36 240.157 63 162.440
37 224.779 64 166.471
38 173.195 65 161.919
39 148.960 66 220.954
1940 182.136 67 202.392
41 200.114 68 210.479
42 223.525 69 226.993
43 177.258 1970 257.799
44 229.741 71 246.380
45 245.592 72 432.736
46 355.839 73 35Y$881
47 340.627
48 32.629 Total 11, 083.644
48 232.129
49 223.577
1950 286.025
51 353.529
52 303.720
53 291.220
54 281.305
55 333.249


TABLE 5 Ivory exports of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar
combined, in tons for the years 1929 1973. Data from Customs
and Excuse records.

















I As a% of
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Total Total Exports


4.823 6.623 11.361 7.038 14.756 6.395 11.210 16.436 7.455 12.759 6.219 4.058 109.133 4.21)
S- 18 18 .00)

Si. 136 18.836 13.904 11.021 6.336 246 2.295 3.008 5.186 7.331 238 68.537 2.64)
62 86 287 20 159 512 114 3.258 2.921 7.419 0.29
S" 446 499 625 1.390 1.518 1.125 546 699 1.207 322 900 713 9.990 0.39
G.eoloanly 2.627 862 1.666 4.819 5.980 5.668 2.741 3.186 10.933 6.085 4.518 11.456 60.541 2.33
2.132 2.631 2.091 1.550 3.403 4.144 2.281 3.637 3.236 4.328 4.086 4.657 38.176 1.47
S136 181 391 1.180 1.801 1.613 1.073 1.909 1.785 1.877 1.599 2.739 16.284 0.63
Si,,- 142 18 129 126 229 44 292 124 1.104 0.04
140 364 345 504 62 261 1.676 0.06) 12.24
S. 182 182 0.01
feden 136 45 120 64 36 91 45 20 557 0.02
aw, 10 45 978 40 1.073 0.04)
and 71 27 3 101 0.01)
(mark 227 45 187 111 446 207 119 2 68 140 159 345 2.056 0.08)
,.. 91 33 52 107 283 0.01)
lugoslavia -- 48 48 .00)
rey 13 13 .00)
e- 45 78 111 234 0.01
i 9 49 .00)

1 11.409 7.258 7.175 10.051 12,169 14.335 11.936 13.805 15.212 11.096 10.670 8.515 133.631 5.15)
,, 91 244 240 213 372 773 78 153 250 341 245 3.000 0.12)
56 56 .00) 5.47
S,, 120 248 122 130 134 31 320 515 1.620 0.06)
S.. 270 191 348 185 413 403 404 603 761 3.578 0.14)
frnidad 11 11 .00)_
rsl 90 90 .00)
198 8 196 174 576 0.02
H'.,,, 45 66 0,01)
S, 44 44 .00)
apan 45.993 635 3.605 8.939 12.474 20.724 14.001 20.342 42.835 19.077 222.175 52.318 463.118 17.85
toa 6.827 1.909 292 6.662 61.804 42.597 80.365 200.456 7.73
.Korea 228 227 71 526 0.02)
laa 45 -- 3.030 3.075 0.12)82.14
lngKong 108.320 20.458 50.906 51.513 99.669 102.801 120.778 129.092 133.467 102.675 114.136 184.325 1,218.140 46.95
ngapore 454 190 320 210 224 300 319 2.017 0.08
alaya 251 189 440 0.02)
hailand 59 87 146 0.01)
urnna 2.896 2.896 0.11)
6a 64.492 499 933 14.565 13.677 8.605 41.867 32.636 27.644 16.055 13.114 2.973 237.060 9.14)
akistan 227 58 117 609 173 416 56 28 1.684 0.06)
e loa 323 136 52 19 80 610 0.02 )_
ustralia 91 41 28 187 97 28 18 7 497 0.02)
El Zealand 41 41 .00)
helllpines 51 51 .0) 0.02
ithelles 86 86 .00)
esaion 27 27 .00)
adagascar 84 84 .00)

Uth Africa 91 181 112 384 0.01)
[zarabique 81 22 18 19 140 0.01)
-'I. 45 94 70 209 0.01)
.I 56 56 .00)
,, 42 42 .00) 013
46 64 42 206 92 67 112 20 649 0.03
11 54 65 .00)
99 122 221 0.01)
'azilaad 24 24 .00)
others 13 702 20 187 291 224 1.437 0.06)_

stIls 241.339 40.916 99.502 116.271 184.773 176.122 209.925 227.250 257.799 246.381 432.800 358.294 2,594.372 100.00


TABLE 6 The tonnage and destination of combined East African

exports of ivory for the years 1962 -, 1973.








Amount
Year Tons


1952
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73


71.386
107.879
86.480
93.210
144.653
126.151
145.059
220.172
157.750
115.111
212.803
149.532
243.640
276.399
234.595
223.017
329.927
299.110
267.441
260.006
261.510
597.121

4. 622.952


Value
$ per kg.

4.53
5.08
7.20
5.18
5.45
5.59
5.91
4.72
6.30
5.91
5.82
6.14
6.40
7.75
7.14
6.52
6.20
6.62
9.44
11.10
12.10
30.63

10.15


TABLE 7 The tonnage, average annual value per kilo and the
total value in U. S. $, of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports
from 1952 to 1973.


Total Value


323,485.48
547,831.34
622,567.02
482,458.23
788,201.27
704, 777.64
857, 825.37
1, 040,101.40
994,297.73
680,157.51
1,240,576.80
918,455.99
1, 560, 393.80
2,142,525.70
1,674,283.80
1,453,394.00
2,046,972.30
1, 980, 306.70
2,525,921.80
2,886,536.60
3, 163, 071.40
18, 291, 672.00

46, 925, 813.88


Totals



















*,n 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973


,-, 3.184
i i 2.371
._, 93.695

.1*'*


0.844

27.576


0.602
0.457 5.232
6.124 35.247


0.844
13.580
11.935


0.155
6.314
16.937


1.956 -
3.967 9.137
36.063 23.495
5.768


1.192
4.345
24.203


1.629
14.504
73.959


1.624
18.353


As a % of
Total Total Imports


- 0.935 11.062 11.997


esrmany

S.A.


1.313 1.991 1.159




0.045


1.640 -
0.881 -


0.362


- 1.769 10.444 4.084 0.019


16.508 0.43)


0.988 2.658 3.320 2.091 1.722 12.269 8.559 11.328 42.935


1.270 1.984 -


1.16)


3.825 0.10


3.297 3.324 9.714




33.878 43.396
14.656 44.622 25.729
2.837 0.364 -
96.255 108.579 117.279
1.570
3.103 2.320 9.072
2.493 24.933 25.428


1.262
5.988



8.549
40.854
3.530
70.648
6.500

54.890


4.440
95.093

64.153
4.027
3.274
15.357


3.582
0.455



10.649
89.056
1.506
84.287
17.608

23.319


3.629
16.453



41.936
58.901
9.013
100.962
15.739

22.778


9.684
24.464

2.722
5.275
61.795
20.428
57.403
15.999

33.934


8.874
6.900
0.256
7.311
2.025
49.793
34.823
66.929
16.651

20.065


7.650 7.650

22.094 48.200 131.392
0.077 1.482 55.819
7.148 7.819
1.023 11.056
14.915 5.274 170.337
46.673 223.050 873,947
17.695 113.982 208.011
58.769 31.529 1202.594
2.132 8.805 89.031
18.979
41.608 28.136 327.911


0.608 0.252 0.835 0.167 0.177 0.073 2.987 3.005 1.548 5.863 0.869 1.613 1.200 4.676 23.873
- 3.578 8.704 9.086 3.299 24.667


0.20

3.41 -
1.45
0.20)
0.29)
4.43)
22.70)
5.40)
31.24)
2.31 )81.71
0.49 )
8.52)
)
0.62 )
0.64)


iisau -
Wanda -
Otda
I l ~ --]-


^ )
0.422 0.422 0.01)
- 0.074 0.074 )_


220.626 157.751 115.112 212.804 149.529 243.639 276.399 234.596 223.017 329.927299.111 267.444 260.007 261.509 597.122 3848.593 100.00


9 8 8 11 11 13 14 13 12 16 13 18 18 19 24 36


TABLE 8 The tonnages of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports for the

years 1959 1973 with countries of origin and their

overall contributions as a percentage of the gross imports.


1.267
1.808
12.293


1.763
15.976


1.414
2.061
24.897


1.135
0.982
58.995

2.145
10.549


14.222
68.145
479.748
5.768
2.145
10.549


0.502 1.906

- 0.065


0.108

20.899

0.256


0.36)
1.77 )
12.47 )
0.15 )15.39
0.06)
0.27 )
)
0.31)

0.12 0.12

0.69
0.02)
0.01)
)

0.02
0.01)
0.08)
0.06 2.78
-.)


0.192 -


3.257


4.571

26.598
0.881
0.335
0.045

0.924
0.362
3.257
2.135
0.061


0.571


5.604 3.430

0.415



23.879 28.268

83.668 82.142



8.150 14.468


8.698





35.558
2.034
112.623

1.210
9.452


36.020
1.799
67.368



2.900


Ia.h
[rica
2 ama


I .








W 0

il j t
^ ICO


Year

1962
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71


Totals 95.459


369.738 9.927 0.318 4.634 2.026 0.423 0.043 0.015 0.060 0.036 0.057 0.361 0.261 483.358


% 19.75 76.49 2.06 0.07 0.96 0.42 0.09 0.01


- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.05 100.00


TABLE 9 The tonnage of Hong Kong's Re-exports of raw ivory, recipient countries and
their imports as a percentage of total Re-exports over the 10 year period.


I

35.035
35.431
70.816
66.264
44.535
29.083
45.796
13.692
3.423
25.663


11_

2.913

2.000

0.998
1.016
0.998


2.002


0.318


3.626
1.522
14.934
2.226
6.258
20.362
28.278
18.253


0.386

0.094
0.582
0.167
0.983
0.939
0.971
0.512


227


0.060


2.026


0.036


0. 036


0.057


0.






0.


0.043 0.015


*
<




0.226
0.123

0.012


0











0.059

0.202


196


Total

37.948
36.135
76.442
68.390
61.232
32.492
54.083
37.078
32.672
46.886









HONG KONG IMPORTS


Total value
U.S. $


1,240, 576.80
918,455.99
1, 560, 393.80
2,142, 525.70
1,674,283.80
1,453.394.00
2, 046, 972.30
1,980, 306.70
2,525,921.80
2, 886,536.60


HONG KONG RE-EXPORTS


per kg
$


5.83
6.14
6.40
7.75
7.14
6.52
6.20
6.62
9.44
11.10


%of
Tons imports


37.948
36.135
76.442
68.390
61.232
32.492
54.083
37.078
32.672
46.886


17.8
24.2
31.4
24.7
26.1
14.6
16.4
12.4
12.2
18.0


Total value
U.S. $


278,105.80
263.977.00
589,476.00
558,895.70
448.437.20
291,731.80
468,769.60
304,213.90
416,045.30
792,587.90


per kg
$


7.33
7.31
7.71
8.17
7.32
8.98
8.67
8.20
12.73
16.90


Difference between import
and re-export value per kg.
as a % of import value

+25.7
+19.1
+20.5
+ 5.4
+ 2.5
+37.7
+39.8
+ 23.9
+34.9
+ 52.3


Total 2496.473


18,429,367.49 7.38


483.358 19.4 4412,240.20 9.13


TABLE 10 The tonnage and value of Hong Kong's imports of raw ivory compared
with re-exports of raw ivory, and the difference between import value
per kilo and re-export value per kilo shown as a percentage of the
former. On average over 10 years, re-exports comprised 19,4% of
imports, but were 23.7% more valuable per unit weight.


Year

1962
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71


Tons


212.804
149.529
243.639
276.399
234.596
223.017
329.927
299.111
267.444
260.007


+23.7








Raw ivory Imports
retained in Hong Kong
U.S. $

1, 017, 656.10
696,257.60
1, 070, 067.20
1,612,069.70
1,237,811.80
1,242,223.00
1,710,232.80
1,734,651.80
2,216,219.30
2,365, 632.00

14, 902, 821.30


Finished ivory Exports
worked in Hong Kong
U.S. $

1,207,151.10
1,237,715.50
1,460,374.50
1, 559,436.40
1,893,491.20
2,307,014.50
2,766,813.90
3, 966,886.90
3, 198,722.40
3,994, 030.80

23, 591,637.20


Export values are $8, 688, 815.90 greater than import values
of raw ivory: a 'profit' of 58%.
TABLE 11 A comparison of the annual values of raw ivory imports retained
in Hong Kong and of finished ivory exports that were manufactured
in Hong Kong. Data for 1972 and 1973 not obtained in time for
this report.


Hong Kong
Finished ivory Imports
U.S. $
259,249.80
264, 320.60
354,618.00
306,547.90
606,325.80
11,141.40
275,320.90
590,672.20
870,791.40
554,252.80
1,011,704.50
1, 657, 351.70
6,762,297.00


Hong Kong
Finished ivory Re-exports
U.S. $
64,515.30
63,508.60
81,593.30
38, 141.80
51, 907.60
67,839.30
70, 041.60
200,031.20
126,332.90
179, 953.30
413,790.00
448, 589.50
1,806, 244.40


Re-exports are only 26.7% of import values.
TABLE 12 The values of Hong Kong's annual imports of finished ivory
compared with the value of Re-exports.


Year

1962
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71


Totals


Year
1962
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73
Totals










C_)


H
$


"S
$


8,279
10, 569
22,518
975




202

211
14, 869
o cAo


$ $


$ $


$


$


$
*gfi


0
0)
0
$s


$i
$-


$
Total


0


228,461
232,400
316,972
301, 646
605, 514

266,583
590,088
860,910
521,452
952,285


1962
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

Totals


.. .- 895 870,791
2,954 554, 253
- 12,111 6,197 951 1011,704
10 AC.I* 000<" -- m/ 1i f/> ,fl r1


Q, UUVo J.UU, iU,2 4.-X, -.lJ. o, *VU Oo, UVO .I0, 00-.

60,126 6482, 254 140, 428 9,545 259 392 1,989 33,909 747 10, 226 5, 295 3,578 12,598 951 6762,297

0.89 95.86 2.08 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.01 100.00


TABLE 13


21, 854
19, 339
3,852
2, 197
811


59 259,251
- 392 264,321
- 1,989 3,302 747 354, 619
- 306,549
- 606,325
- 5,846 5,295 11,141
- 1, 044 3,578 275,320
- 590,672


Year


132 -
424 -


398 2
1,621
5,239
1, 731


4,115
382
8, 854
29,212
25, 291
')A c')1


Suppliers of finished ivory to Hong Kong, with value of annual exports to
Hong Kong in U.S. $








EUROPE

Austria
Belgium**
Channel
Islands
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France***
German
Federal.
Rep.**
Gibraltar
Greece
Irish Rep.
Italy***
Lebanon
Malta
Nether-
lands
Norway
Portugal
Spain***
Sweden
Switzer-
land**
Turkey
U.K.
(22)


NORTH
AMERI
Canada
Mexico
U.S.A.
(3)


C&s
CA AMERICA AFRICA ASIA A
Argentina* Algeria Afghani- A
Bolivia Angola* stan B
***Brazil Burundi Cambodia Ii
Chile* C.A.R. China J
Colombia Congo Formosa K
Costa Ethiopia India F
Rica Ghana Iran
Dominican Ivory Japan***
SRepublic Coast Korea Q
Ecuador Kenya South S
El Liberia Laos
Salvador Libya Macau 1
Guatamala Malagasy Malaya*
Haiti Rep. Morocco**
Honduras Malawi North
Panama* Mauritius Borneo
Paraguay Morocco North
Peru Mozam.- Vietnam
Uruguay bique* Sabah
Venezuela Nigeria Singapore**
(17) Portuguese South
Guinea Vietnam**
Rhodesia Taiwan
Rwanda Thailand
Senegal (19)
Somalia
South
Africa*
Spanish
Guinea
Spanish
W. Africa**
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Zaire
(30)


LRABIA
den
ahreln**
srael
ordan
:uwait
,ersian
Gulf
Sheikh.
atar
audi
Arabia
'rucial
States


ELSEWHERE
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
British
Carib. Ter.
Fiji
Fr. &Nth
West Indies*
Jamaica
Leeward
Islands
New Zealand
Pacific
Islands
Phillipines
Tonga &
W. Samoa
Trinidad &
Tobago
U. S. Oceania*
West Indies
Fed.
(16)


TABLE 14 Countries that have imported finished ivory from Hong Kong
between 1962 and 1973. *More than 1%; ** More than 2%;
*** More than 5%.












Kenya Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

12.701
22.862
36.516
6.804
7.213
11.780
7.639
17.779
17.579
17.332
7.570
14.924
31.438
44.457
146.757

403.351


Hong Kong Imports
from Kenya
Tons

23.879
28.268
36.020
35.558
14.656
44.621
25.729
40.854
95.093
89.056
58.901
61.795
49.793
46.673
223.050

873.946


Difference as a
proportion of
Kenya Exports
%

+ 183.6
+ 23.6
1.4
+422.6
+ 103.2
+278.8
+236.8
+129.8
+440.9
+413.8
+678.1
+314.1
+ 58.4
+ 5.0
+ 52.0

+ 116.5


TABLE 15


The tonnage of Kenya's stated exports compared with
Hong Kong's stated imports for the years 1959 1973,
with the difference expressed as a proportion of the
Kenya exports.


Year

1959
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73

Totals











Kenya
f.o.b. value
for Hong Kong
$ per kg.

3.63
4.97
4.58
3.77
4.14
5.03
6.06
6.02
5.14
5.20
5.54
9.18
7.77
11.29
27.64


Hong Kong
c.i.f. value
for Kenya Ivory
$ per kg.

6.05
6.44
5.67
5.98
5.92
7.20
7.82
7.36
6.26
6.20
6.92
10.72
11.53
11.29
10.45


Difference as a
proportion of
Kenya f.o.b. value
%


66.7
29.6
23.8
58.6
43.0
43.0
29.0
18.6
19.5
26.5
27.8
16.8
48.4
0.2
10.2


TABLE 16


C.i. f. values of Hong Kong's imports of Kenya ivory
compared with the f.o.b. values of Kenya's exports to
Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion
of the f.o.b. value.


Year

1959
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73









Kenya Exports
to the U.K.
Tons

2.041
4.854
4.971
4.619
6.625
3.351
5.404
11.455
4.933
2.613

50.866


United Kingdom Imports
from Kenya
Tons


1.118
2.134
4.928
5.538
11.736
7.418
9.653
9.958
3.201
3.455

59.134


1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73

Totals


TABLE 17


Kenya's claimed exports to the United Kingdom, and the
U.K. 's imports from Kenya for the years 1962 1967 and
1970 1973.


Kenya
f.o.b. value
for the U.K.
$ per kg
6.62
5.55
5.76
6.25
5.50
5.46
8.39
7.83
11.46
36.78


United Kingdom
c.i.f. value
of Kenya Imports
$ per kg
7.52
6.56
6.25
6.58
5.25
4.91
2.96
10.52
10.41
32.49


Difference as a
proportion of
Kenya f.o.b. value
% ___

+13.6
+18.2
+ 8.5
+ 5.3
4.5
-10.1
-64.7
+34.4
9.2
11.7


TABLE 18


C. i.f. values of U.K. 's imports of Kenya's ivory compared
with the f.o.b. values of Kenya's exports to the U.K., with
the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value.


Year


= + 16.3%


Year
1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73











Uganda Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

3.629
4.854
5.625
6.078
3.856
16.985
15.076
26.050
36.023
43.100
22.971
36.178
12.030
8.292
12.306

253.053


Hong Kong Imports
from Uganda
Tons

Nil
Nil
1.799
20.345
2.837
0.364
Nil
3.530
Nil
1.506
9.013
20.428
34.823
17.695
113.982

226.322


Difference as a
proportion of
Uganda Exports

%100.0
100.0
100.0
68.0
+234.7
26.4
97.9
100.0
86.4
-100.0
96.5
60.8
43.5
+189.5
+113.4
+826.2

10.6


TABLE 19


The tonnage of Uganda's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong,
compared with Hong Kong's stated imports from Uganda
for the 15 years 1959 1973, with the difference expressed
as a proportion of the official Uganda exports.


Year

1959
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73


Totals










Uganda
f.o.b. value
for Hong Kong
Year $ per kg.


Hong Kong
c. 1if. value
for Uganda ivory
$ per kg.


Difference as a
proportion of
Uganda f.o.b. value


no imports
no imports
4.37
6.57
8.88
7.91
no imports
8.14
no imports
7.34
6.87
9.75
10.49
10.92
29.29


TABLE 20


C.i.f. values of Hong Kong's imports of Uganda ivory
compared with the f.o.b. values of Uganda's exports to
Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion
of the f.o.b. value.


1959
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73


3.04
4.07
4.15
4.96
4.27
5.22
6.00
6.02
5.07
5.27
5.74
7.99
5.76
8.83
31.55


+ 5.3
+ 32.5
+108.0
+ 51.5

+ 35.2

+ 39.3
+ 19.7
+ 22.0
+ 82.1
+ 23.7
- 7.2














Uganda Exports
to United Kingdom
Tons

0.454
0.726
5.076
1.756
1.819
0.341
0.251
0.151
0.481
0.799

11.854


United Kingdom Imports
from Uganda
Tons


0.102


0.203

0.305


TABLE 21


Uganda's claimed exports to the United Kingdom and
the United Kingdom's imports from Uganda for the years
1962 1967 and 1970 1973.


Year

1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73

Totals









Tanganyika Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

6.033
7.711
8.210
10.796
9.390

42.140


Hong Kong Imports
from Tanganyika
Tons

2.641
10.027
4.660
8.869
9.020

35.217


Difference as a
proportion of
Tanganyika Exports
%

43.8
+ 30.0
43.2
17.8
3.9

16.4


TABLE 22 a


The tonnage of Tanganyika's stated ivory exports to
Hong Kong, compared with Hong Kong's official imports
from Tanganyika for the 5 years 1959 1963, with the
difference expressed as a proportion of the stated
Tanganyika exports.


Year

1959
60
61
62
63


Totals


Totals 1959-
1962 only



TABLE 22b


Zanzibar Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

75.496
72.093
74.074
84.641
no records published

306.304


306.304


Hong Kong Imports
from Zanzibar
Tons

81.027
72.115
62.708
103.754
87.236


406.840

319.604


Difference as a
proportion of
Zanzibar Exports
%

+ 7.3
+ 0.03
15.3
+ 22.6


+ 4.3


The tonnage of Zanzibar's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong,
compared with Hong Kong's official imports from Zanzibar
for the 5 years 1959 1963, with the difference expressed
as a proportion of the official Zanzibar exports.


Year

1959
1960
61
62
63


Totals













Tanzania Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

22.141
28.798
55.840
49.199
60.345
98.552
82.365
59.207
61.387
25.262

543.096


Hong Kong Imports
from Tanzania
Tons

108.579
117.279
70.648
64.153
84.287
100.962
57.403
66.929
58.769
31.529

760.538


Difference as a
proportion of
Tanzania Exports
%


+390.4
+307.2
+ 26.5
+ 30.4
+ 39.7
+ 2.4
- 30.3
+ 13.0
- 4.3
+ 24.8

+ 40.0


TABLE 22 c The tonnage of Tanzania's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong,
compared with Hong Kong's official Imports from Tanzania
for the 10 years 1964 1973, with the difference expressed
as a proportion of the official Tanzania exports.


Year

1964
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73


Totals




Tanganyika
f.o.b. value
for Hong Kong
$ per kg.

3.41
5.32
3.89
4.81
4.67


TABLE 23 a


Hong Kong Difference as a
c.i.f. value proportion of
of Tanganyika Imports Tanganyika f.o.b. value
$ per kg. %___ __


5.38
6.39
4.72
6.01
5.86


+57.8
+20.1
+21.3
+24.9
+25.5


C.i.f. values of Hong Kong imports of Tanganyika's ivory
compared with the f.o.b. values of Tanganyika's exports to
Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion
of the f.o.b. value.


Zanzibar
f.o.b. value
for Hong Kong
$ per kg
3.75
4.07
4.20
3.60


Hong Kong
c.i.f. value
of Zanzibar Imports
$ per kg
5.46
6.19
6.13
5.85


Difference as a
proportion of
Zanzibar f.o.b. value


+45.6
+52.1
+46.0
+62.0


TABLE 23b


C.i.f. values of Hong Kong imports of Zanzibar's ivory
compared with the f.o.b. value of Zanzibar's exports to
Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion
of the f.o.b. value.


Tanzania
f.o.b. value
for Hong Kong
$ per kg.
5.46
5.80
5.39
7.17
5.46
5.23
7.59
8.71
11.33
28.82


Hong Kong
c.i.f. value
of Tanzania Imports
$ per kg
6.29
7.82
7.34
6.60
5.13
6.15
9.37
10.74
12.46
32.17


Difference as a
proportion of
Tanzania f.o.b. value


+15.2
+34.8
+36.2
7.9
6.0
+17.6
+23.5
+23.3
+ 10.0
+11.6


TABLE 23 c C.i.f. values of Hong Kong imports of Tanzania's ivory compared
with the f,o,b, value of Tanzania's exports to Hong Kong, with
the difference expressed as a proportion of the fpob, value.


Year

1959
1960
61
62
63


Year
1959
1960
61
62


Year
1964
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
73








Tanzania Exports
to the U.K.
Tons
2.327
1.043
1.315
0.663
6.312
2.702
1.800
1.153
0.805
0.646
18.766


United Kingdom Imports
from Tanzania
Tons
2.591
4.318
2.794
0.203
14.429
9.399
1.677
2.540


Year
1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73
Totals


+ 102%


TABLE 24


Tanzania's claimed exports to the United Kingdom, and the
U.K. Is imports from Tanzania for the years 1962 1967 and
1970 -1973.


Tanzania
f.o.b. value
for the U.K.
$ per kg
4.28
4.85
4.97
6.60
5.05
7.63
11.25
7.75


Year
1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73


United Kingdom
c.i.f. value
of Tanzania Imports
$ per kg
5.41
5.19
7.02
6.90
7.18
6.56
11.93
6.89


Difference as a
proportion of
Tanzania f.o.b.value


+26.4
+ 7.0
+42.3
+ 4.5
+42.2
-14.0
+ 6.0
11.1


TABLE 25


C.i.f. values of U.K. 's imports of Tanzania ivory compared
with the f.o.b. values of Tanzania's exports to the U.K., with
the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value.


37.951










Year
1959
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
Totals


Hong Kong Imports from
Kenya & Uganda combined
Tons


Kenya & Uganda combined
exports to Hong Kong
Tons
16.330
27.716
42.141
12.882
11.069
28.765
22.715
43.829
53.602
60.432
30.541
51.102
401.124


23.879
28.268
37.819
55.903
17.493
44.985
25.729
44.384
95.093
90.562
67.914
82.223
614.252


TABLE 26


The combined ivory exports of Kenya and Uganda compared
with Hong Kong's imports from Kenya and Uganda combined
for the years 1959 1970.


Kenya & Uganda combined
exports to the U.K.
Tons


2.395
5.580
10.047
6.375
8.444
3.692
5.655
11.606
5.414
3.412

62.720


U.K. Imports from
Kenya & Uganda combined
Tons


1.118
2.134
4.928
5.538
11.736
7.418
9.755
9.958
3.201
3.658

59.439 diff. 3,281


TABLE 27


Kenya and Uganda's combined exports to the United Kingdom
compared with the U.K. 's imports from Kenya and Uganda
combined, for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973.


diff. 213.148


Year

1962
63
64
65
66
67
1970
71
72
73

Totals












Year

1952
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1960
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1970
1
2
3


E.A. Exports
to Hong Kong
Tons

42.067
76.919
41.778
77.708
74.332
87.189
125.396
97.859
107.520
124.425
108.320
20.458
50.906
51.513
99.669
102.801
120.777
129.092
133.467
102.675
114.136
184.325


Hong Kong Imports
from East Africa
Tons

69.990
101.007
83.162
79.841
112.927
90.340
121.210
107.547
110.409
105.186
150.215
113.749
153.565
143.458
115.032
159.246
174.849
168.876
139.626
151.545
123.137
368.561


TABLE 28


East Africa's official exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's
official imports from East Africa for the years 1952 1973,
with the difference expressed as a proportion of the East
African figures.


Difference as
a proportion of
E.A. Exports


+ 66
+ 33
+ 99
+ 3
+ 52
+ 4
3
+ 10
+ 3
15
+ 37
+456
+202
+178
+ 15
+ 55
+ 45
+ 31
+ 5
+ 48
+ 9
+110









APPENDIX I


Herewith are a few illustrations of corruption, past and present.
They were selected more for the ease with which I came by them, than
for sensational content. It should be possible to make far more detailed
records if there was purpose in doing so. My informants are identified
by number. Their names could be divulged if there was reason to do so,
but at this stage It would serve no purpose.



- H^ s i de- t4.1- (-v-e- I









1. Subject: Jack Bonham. Game Warden, Kenya Game Department,
Coast Province c. 1946 1952. Shot numerous elephant on his own
account without a licence. Evidence : the statements of two men who
assisted him (1) (2), a fellow Game Warden who investigated this (3)
but did not prosecute and a National Park Warden who accumulated the
evidence circumstantially after Bonham retired.

2. Subject: David Allen. Game Warden, Kenya Game Department,
Central and Coast Provinces, c. 1959 1960. Removed Government
ivory from official registers, then claimed tusks as his own or friends
and stated that they had shot them "on licence". Evidence : (1) My
own eyes, (2) corroboration of a fellow Game Warden (5) and testimony
of an officer of the Criminal Investigation Department Kenya
Police (6). Case never taken to court.

3. Subject : Michael De Souza. Senior Game Department Clerk. In 1960
sentenced to 3 years' probation for the theft of 30, 000 worth of
Government ivory. Leniency of sentence due to Magistrate's conviction
that more senior men in the Game Department were involved (he
referred to the Department as a "Gilbertian" outfit). De Souza had
been given carte blanche by the Chief Game Warden W. Hale Esq., to
sign permits to sell tusks. This was never checked by Hale, who
retired and left Kenya before De Souza's case came to court.

4. Subject: D. Baker. Superintendent, Criminal Investigation
Department, Kenya Police, Coast Province 1958. Destroyed the case
file of evidence and statements concerning the pending prosecution of
2 Asians (M. & I. Hassan) and 2 Europeans (V. Toffani & G. Bell) for
killing elephants without a licence. Evidence : Personal records as
I was the investigating officer. Corroborated later by a pointed
statement from M. Hassan that Baker was his "friend" and would "fix"
me if I made further trouble.

5. Subject : Colin Lees and Game Warden Kiboko Station, Kenya Game
Department (name not given). 1973. Lees, at the time an employee
of the East African Railways Corporation, bought a pair of tusks out
of 6 pairs offered to him by the Game Warden at Sh 75.00 per kilo.
These he then took on an elephant licence saying he had shot the
animal legally. He then acted as agent for the Game Warden seeking









other interested hunters who might wish to buy ivory. He approached
my informant (7) with this proposition.

6. Subject : Confidential Internal Game Department Report written
October 1973. Quotes:
a) "The notorious 'collectors letters' did the Game Department's
reputation much harm among a public which was not aware that
they were not necessarily voluntarily issued by the Game
Department." (In other words they were issued on instructions
from "higher authority". I. P.)
b) "There appears to be a category of people who operate with
immunity above the law."
c) ".. .the ivory register in headquarters does not give the impression
of a dccc'ment recording the possession and transfer of articles to
the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Sources and
destination of pieces of ivory taken on register are not necessarily
given; whole pages of entries are crossed out without explanation.
This register reveals the sharp increase in the practice of ivory
transfer direct from H.Q. to individuals or dealers rather than
via public auction at the ivory rooms. In the sixties over 90% of
ivory went to the auctions in Mombasa; in 1970 80% went to the
Ivory Rooms; in 1971 and 1972 combined this fell to 44%; in
January to July 1973 only 23% of ivory recorded at H.Q. found
its way to the Ivory Rooms."
d) "Leading personalities including both Assistant Ministers in our
own Ministry were among those buying (ivory) from H.Q."
The officer (8) producing this report had his contract terminated within
two weeks of handing it in.

7. Subject : Chief Game Warden, Kenya : John M/utinda. Nairobi 1973.
An illicit ivory dealer (9) paid Mutinda Sh 60.00 per kilo to help ship
14 tons of ivory from Nairobi to Hong Kong in October 1973 during
the "ban" on trading in ivory. Confirmed to me personally by (9).

8. Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. Nairobi 1973. Illicit
ivory dealers (10) (11) moved 100 tons of ivory from Kenya to
Hong Kong in 1973 having "paid off" Mutinda. Confirmed by oblique
reference by both (10) and (11) and directly by their cousin and partner
in business (12). The presence of the ivory in Hong Kong was physically
confirmed by inspection (13).









9. Subject : Chief Game Warden, Kenya : John Mutinda. Nairobi 1973.
Gave (10) and (11) permission to acquire 22, 000 colobus monkey skins
from within Kenya where the species is protected. Confirmed by my
personal observation.

10. Subject : Chief Game Warden, Kenya : John Mutinda. 1968 1972.
Involved in large scale licensing of illegal zebra skins in collusion with
officials of Tanzania Game Department. Documented in great detail
by (14).

11. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. 1974. Stated
in interview with World Wildlife Fund representative (15) that Kenya
only exported c. 30 tons of ivory annually an outright lie.

12. Subject : Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. 1973. Issued a
Press statement, -
"... all dealings in ivory will be suspended indefinitely with effect
from the first of September 1973" East African Standard, 31st
August 1973.
See chapter on Kenya's ivory exports for confirmation that exports in
fact continued openly.

13. Subject : Karanja Gathuru. Businessman. Nairobi 1973. Obtained
sanction to break the law on importing ivory into East Africa and
tried to buy it as far afield as Botswana. Written evidence in my own
files.

14. Subject : Mr. Longwe. lMlalawian businessman based in Nairobi.
Ex-official of the World Bank. 1973. Obtained sanction to break the
law on importing ivory into East Africa : also sought ivory in Botswana
and in the Sudan. In conversation with me confirmed that his authority
came from "higher than the Game Department", but would not divulge
the person responsible.

15. Businesswoman : Esther Ilwikari Kariuki : wife of the Assistant
Minister of Wildlife and Tourism, Kenya Government. 1973.
Prosecuted for illegal possession of ivory. Fined 450. On Appeal
Judge stated fine ridiculously low but could not increase sentence as
Prosecution had made no request for this to be done. (See case 6 d).)









16. Subject : Businessman : Peter Mbindah. December 1973, Nairobi.
Understood that I was buying ivory and asked me to take 5 tons from
him. I asked whether it was legal. It was not, but IVlbindah stated
that his partner was the Police officer 2nd in command of the Nairobi
District who had guaranteed all legal documents would be provided.
Witness to this conversation (16).

17. Subject : Businessman : W. Harvey & 4 others. August 1973.
Arrested in possession of 63 elephant tusks. On 4th September they
were all released : the police prosecutor entered a plea of nolle
prosequi on "instructions from the Attorney General's office". This
was refuted a day later by the Attorney General's office. The police
had themselves "arranged" the matter. Details presented in the
East African Standard.

18. Subject : Businessmen Kamau Thiongo and Kanyaheho Gitau v. Republic
of Kenya, for illegal possession of 32 tusks. State withdrew the case
against Thiongo, the senior of the two with no reason given. Magistrate
stated the procedure was dubious and that there were "big fish" behind
the accused.

19. Subject : Housewife : Mrs. Diane Wambul. Arrested January 1973
in possession of 153 elephant tusks. Case withdrawn on instructions
from the Attorney General's office. Evidence in the East African
Standard.

20. Subject : Magistrate : Mr. Tank hearing a case against two men for
the illegal possession of 26, 500 colobus monkey skins, stated
"... it looked as though there was no rule of law as far as trophies
were concerned." videe Game Department practices.)

21. Subject : 2 Arab traders : names not obtained. A lorry was found
by Administration Police stuck in the mud at Witu, Coast Province,
mid 1973. On searching they found it contained more than 300 tusks.
The carriers were without any documentation. Some months later,
the necessary documents "arrived from Somalia" and no prosecution
followed. There was no record of the vehicle having passed through
any Customs barrier between Kenya and Somalia and no Customs record
of any ivory coming into Kenya that year : see Chapter 1. Information
from (5).









22. Subject : Arab traders, names not given : seized with a cache of ivory
of 130 tusks in the Boni forest Lamu by Game Warden, Lamu. No
action taken (5).

23. Subject : Businessman Karanja Gathuru : August 1974. Arrested in
possession of ivory in Garissa District. Produced a letter from
Deputy Chief Game Warden Daniel Sindiyo which stated:
"I am instructed to renew your Dealer's Permit".
This is after the Government declared its monopoly on ivory trading. (5)

24. Ex Mau Mau General Kamiti c. 1964/65. On Jomo Kenyatta's
personal instructions was given authority to sell ivory and leopard skins
collected during the "freedom fight". Game Department opposed this
sanction but ultimately agreed to sell the trophies on Kamiti's behalf.
He was unable to produce more than a few small pieces of ivory and a
few poor leopard skins. Despite this evidence that he was not in
possession of trophies from his days in the forests, he was given
further permission to sell 75, 000 worth of ivory outside of Game
Department supervision on Presidential orders. Informant (24).

25. Ex Mau Mau General Kamiti : September 1973, stated that President
Kenyatta had promised certain former terrorists that ivory was to be
"their fruit" (matunda yetu), and was indignant about the ban on trading.
Informant (17).

26. Subject : Alleged former "Field Marshall" Muthoni a Kikuyu woman
dealing in ivory throughout 1972 and 1973 (and further back). This
woman came out of the "forests" as one of the last Mau Mau to return
to normal life. She was received with much publicity, but the whole
affair seemed to have been fabricated. There was no mention of any
such "Field Marshall" during the Mau Mau Emergency. However,
President Kenyatta gave instructions that both she and her accomplice
were to be given permits to sell the ivory that they had hidden during
the "war". With this carte blanche, Muthoni was soon recovering
ivory from areas hundreds of miles from the Aberdare Mountains. (5).









27. Subject : Field Marshall Muthoni : 1973. Arrived in the Deputy
Chief Game Warden's office with a statement that she was to be
allowed to buy Game Department ivory "at a fair price". The officer
(Mr. Michael Macharia) refused her permission, whereupon she put
a telephone call through to State House and complained. Within
minutes a call came back from the President himself in which
Mr. Macharia was asked to explain himself. Not unsurprisingly, he
was bereft of explanations. The Field Marshall got her ivory at give
away prices. Informant (5).

28. Subject : United Africa Corporation : Major shareholder, Miss
Margaret Kenyatta, the Mayor of Nairobi and daughter of Jomo
Kenyatta. The United Africa Corporation exported more than 50 tons
of ivory to Peking in 1972. This was stated by the Company manager
in an interview with a newspaper reporter (18).

29. Subject : United Africa Corporation : Margaret Kenyatta's company
as above. Statement made to me personally by the new manager
K. Pusey (Pissy) :
"all ivory the company exported in 1973 and 1974 was from the
Game Department."

30. Subject : United Africa Corporation : Margaret Kenyatta's company
as above. Exported ivory to Peking and Shanghai throughout the
1973/74 ban on trading. Evidence : personal observation of
consignments in transit, acquisition of relevant airwaybills, witnessed
by (19) and now in possession of (20).

31. Subject : Attorney General : Mr. Charles Njonjo. 1974. I approached
illicit ivory dealer (9) and told him I was gathering a large consignment
of illegal ivory. I would like to get "cover" for this from the Attorney
General, could this be arranged. Within ten minutes he was talking
to another Asian who claimed to be Njonjo's "arranger". It was
confirmed that Njonjo could and would provide cover when would I
like an appointment with this go-between to arrange the details? At
this point I terminated the contact by saying that I was not ready.









32. Subject : The President of Kenya : Jomo Kenyatta. July 1974.
With the onset of the new ban on ivory trading, several approaches
for an explanation were made by legitimate hunters to the Minister
for Tourism and Wildlife. During one, the illegal ivory trade was
mentioned whereupon the exasperated Minister said words to this
effect.
"What can I do about it when he (Mzee Kenyatta) has just instructed
me to issue a permit to export 15 tons to Margaret Kenyatta and
5 tons to Mungai (Kenya's Foreign Minister) ?"
Informant (19) to whom the statement was made.

So far the cases have been confined to ivory or wildlife matters. However,
samples from wider fields are :

33. Subject : The Experimental station at Naivasha, sponsored by Dutch
Government aid : Date unspecified. The farm has a number of
cattle donated by the Dutch Government. One day the Provincial
Agricultural Officer approached the Dutch station manager and stated
that he had been instructed to remove the cattle from the farm. The
manager refused permission to this. On the following day a lorry was
sent by the Provincial Commissioner with an armed escort who forcibly
removed the cattle. They were then taken to the Provincial Commissioner's
farm at Nyeri. Informant (21) witnessed the incident.

34. Subject : Wheat Export : Vice President Daniel Arap Moi : 1972/73.
Wheat farmers in Kenya have to sell their produce to the Kenya Farmers
Association for c. Sh 72.00 per bag. Recently the country has had to
import wheat from abroad at over Sh 200.00 per bag. Moi has ignored
the law and been selling his own wheat direct to Uganda at the international
price. Informant (22) witnessed the loading of bags into Uganda-bound
trains and verified its ownership and destination by examining the railing
documents.

35. Subject : Lonrho/Express Transport Ltd. c. 1972 (date uncertain).
Express Transport Ltd. a major firm of hauliers bought out by Lonrho.
In 1972 Express Transport's road licences came up for renewal. All
licences were refused until Dr. Njeroge Mungai (Kenya's Foreign
Minister) had received 10, 000 into a London bank account. Informant
(23) saw all relevant correspondence and received other information
from the principals involved.






viii


36. Subject : Ngina Kenyatta : c. 1972 (date uncertain). Bought the old
Galley & Roberts Building in Kimathi Street, Nairobi. Tenants with
leases 5 years to run at the time of take-over were informed that
irrespective of their legal right, they had to agree to rents being
doubled. Thus one lessee's rent went from Sh 4, 000.00 per month
to Sh 10, 000.00. The option for this man was pay or face closure
of business and deportation (15).

37. Subject : Ngina Kenyatta: 1973/74. Together with various associates
including Vice President Daniel arap Moi stole a valuable gem mine
from two American prospectors : widely reported in the international
Press.

38. Subject : Jomo Kenyatta : 1974 : Stated to own personally or in
partnership, more than 2, 000, 000 acres of land in Kenya. (25)
Financing for his own and his wife's land acquisition draws heavily
on thdCorporation's funds. These are provided to facilitate African
entry into modern agriculture. Each time the Kenyattas draw on the
Corporation's funds it causes radical re-scheduling and delays in its
general plans. (25)

39. Subject : Ngina Kenyatta : 1973/74. Purchased 21 houses in London's
Swiss Cottage residential area for $600, 000 cash. There is virutally
no way that she could have accumulated such large external funds
except by contravening Kenya's currency regulations (26).









APPENDIX II


As the conservation of elephant is subordinate to human affairs, I
deliberately avoided comment on it in the main report. However, there
are steps that could be taken to improve the current position, though
they will require rather more intellectual honesty than has been shown
by conservationists to date. Some of them are :-
1. Appreciation of the role ivory plays in human affairs as a currency.

2. Following on 1., recognizing that little will be gained by continuing
to make the possession and trading in ivory "illegal", except to
force the trade underground.
3. As ivory is widely available throughout the continent, and as law
enforcement officers are too few to prevent it being obtained, the
logical course is to open the trade and endeavour to control it
through manipulation of the price of ivory. This could be done by
the International trade, or by some International concern acquiring
a sufficiently large stock of ivory to be used to flood markets and
dampen prices at times of high demand or rising values.
4. Recognising that all elephants extant cannot be protected, that most
of their ranges outside permanent sanctuaries are being occupied
by man, and that efforts to protect them everywhere will therefore
be wasted effort in the long run.
5. Following on 4., anti-poaching effort should be concentrated on
national parks alone. This would produce sufficient concentration
of law-enforcement personnel to make their presence an effective
deterrent to poaching.
6. Making conservation "aid" dependant on results that can be verified
by the donors not the receivers as at present.












1. Charo Kenga Ex Game Scout.
2. Elui Nthengi Ex poacher.
3. Eric Rungren Ex Game Warden & Professional Hunter.
4. F.W. Woodley National Park Warden.
5. Jack Barrah Ex Game Warden & O.D.A. adviser to the Kenya
Game Department.
6. R. Wlnterburn Kenya Police C.I.D.
7. L. Bull Gunsmith.
8. Dr. P. Jarman Ex Senior Research Officer Kenya Game
Department.
9. Vinod Mohlndra Merchant.
10. Chimu Gidoomal Merchant.
11. Prem Gidoomal Merchant.
12. Ram Gidoomal Merchant.
13. John Ilsley Businessman.
14. Eric Balson Ex Tanzania Game Department.
15. Ellis Monks World Wildlife Fund (Kenya).
16. Dr. Richard Bell Zoologist.
17. John Aniere Safari Operator.
18. Roy Perrit Journalist.
19. Jack Block Hotelier.
20. Karen Lerner News feature producer, N.B.C., New York.
21. Dr. S. de Vries Experimental Station, Naivasha.
22. P.J. Reynolds Farmer.
23. A.L. Archer Professional Hunter.
24. I.R. Grimwood Ex Chief Game Warden, Kenya.
25. George Murphy Agricultural Finance Corporation, Nairobi
through J. Gore Farmer.
26. Mrs. S. Spry.






"?.
I Y
P.O. BoX S0fl.

CONFIDE ENTIAL Nairobi.


Ia July 19t41 vwa asked to paper a report on the East African Ivory
trade and Its political Impllotloaa. I agreed to do so on a professIonal basis.
The sponsors requested that their name-be kept secret.

The report was completed in October 1974. Its salient features were:

1. Current end past policy toward Ivory lacked appreciation of Its role as
a currency, availability and the situation of the majority of people who
exploited It. Summarised the position Is that Irrespective of the needs
and lusts of men. If elephants a born, In time they will die. In dying
they leave freely available Ivory. Potentially this Is the largest source
of tusks In Africa. It Ia unarel to expect people living In poverty and in
proximity to elephant populations not to take advantage of sunob wealth.
In the olronumstanoses no law Is likely to succeed In preventing Its use.
Natural elephant mortality therefore provides an Irremovable basis for
an Ivory trade for as long as elephants exist. Any law making trade In
Ivory Illegal merely drives the business underground. This Intrinsic
aspect of the Ivory trade has consistently been Ignored.
Conservatlonist argument agalnat free-trading Is that while collection
of ivory from natural mortality Is aooeptable or even desirable, it would
provide Impenetrable cover for illicit elephant hunting. This Is true.
However, an intransigent ban on trading does not remove either the
availability or attraction of Ivory and If anything, Increases the poverty
of those who collect It In the firat Instance. While the oonservationlsts'
problem Is clear, action taken does not seem suitable. More realistic
laws are required and until they are enacted, an illegal ivory trade will
exist regardless of Governments and Ideologies.

2. Ca the basis of comparisons between Customs records of East African
ivory exports, and those of imports by the 'consuming' countries, It is
apparent that a substantial illegal trade was taking place long before
East African Independence. From the records alone, it is difficult to
conceive of this taking place without the connivance and participation of
some senior British civil servants. Evidence Involving former Game
Wardens and Police officers in illicit Ivory was presented.

3. Asian influence in the Illicit trade was allied to their political fortunes
in East Africa. The records suggest clearly that as soon as it became
apparent that they were not an acceptable element in independent East
Africa, Asians set about exporting capital. Ivory was a substantial
vehicle for such transference. However in recent times Asian influence
appears to have diminished and been replaced by African involvement.







-2- I/

4. Concurrent with the African take-over of Ivory trading the volume of
Ivory exported has risen very sharply over the 3 years 1971. '72 and
'73, Increases In volume over the preceding year were between 78% and
S 86% annually. This I based on the East African records which are shown
to be grossly under-recorded (e.g. in 1973 Kenya's stated exports to
Hong Kong were claimed as o. 146 tons, Hong Kong acknowledged imports
of well over 200 tons). Convincing evidence of the minimal monetary
losses to East Africa for 1973 indicate that $19, 000, 000.00 were banked
outside the 8 territories. Of the 3 countries, Kenya was by far the most
important in the Ivory trade recently.

5. Evidence was presented that many Influential Kenyans were involved in
Ivory dealing. This included the President himself. The Chief Game
Warden was obviously pivotal to all recorded Ivory exports.

I. It was pointed out that the same level of "corruption" that pertained to
ivory, also applied very widely In many walks of life in Kenya. In the
circumstances It was considered pointless to single out Ivory In the hope
that as a small facet the 'rackets' might be stopped.

7. It was pointed out that the internal and International potential of the
material in the report was considerable and dangerous. It could be used
in a variety of ways to rend Kenya's political and social fabric. In
astute hands the material could be used to embarrass aid-giving
Governments before their own electorates, if their disregard for obvious
corruption in recipient countries could be demonstrated. The
information could badly damage Kenya's future ability to benefit from
international charity. Internally It could be used potently by the current
Government's opponents.

8. It was concluded that if the report's sponsors wished to correct the
ivory trade, they had no option other than to involve themselves In
Kenyan affairs to a degree hitherto uncontemplated. This point was
made starkly to get the point over. However It was NOT recommended
the sponsors should so Involve themselves.

Copies of the report were given to the British High Commission and the
American Embassy, and they were asked to make comment. Both returned
the report with the statement that it was too "hot".

The report was then debated among the sponsors. Unanimously it was
agreed that it should be put to no destructive use. It was felt that if merely
divulged to the world public, nothing would be gained except embarrassment.
For all the corruption evident in it, it was accepted that the Kenya Government
was maintaining an unparalleled level of olvilisation In Africa. If the
information in the report could be passed on to those In power in Kenya and
thereby stimulate them to consider the consequences of current trends, no








better use could be made of It. The form in which the Information should
be presented and to whom were never decided. In the Interim someone
leaked the existence of the report, its contents, author and the ame of one
of the sponsors to the Government.

The Director of Intelligence, Special Branch, Kenya Police, made a
demand for the report. He claimed direct Presidential Instructions to obtain
It immediately and guaranteed freedom from prosecution, deportation or any
other unpleasantness for sponsors and author. Great urgency seemed
apparent as requests Included waking me at midnight.

The Presidential demand was debated by the sponsors. The report
could bring severewn retribution on all having had anything to do with its
production. It was felt that It might easily produce a violent reaction from
the President, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. To offset any
such happening, ooplea of the report were lodged In London with Instructions
that the information was to be released to the widest possible publicity in the
event of any of the people connected with the report being troubled by the
Kenyan authorities.

Having taken the foregoing precaution it was decided to give a copy of the
report to President Kenyatta, subject to the condition that It remained
confidential and that he would discuss It with the author and the one sponsor
known J. Bloek. The reasoning behind this decision was that if received
constructively it could lead to action to reduce the considerable social tensions
that are building up In Kenya, and which threaten Its stability. If on the other
hand it was merely shelved It would reveal a disregard for these tensions that
would have considerable bearing on the motivation for current policies in all
fields of Kenya's life. Either course would be of value to the sponsors.

During the frequent contacts that preceded and followed the handing over
of the report (on 2nd February 1975) to the Director of Intelligence, he was
warned that the International Press were aware that something was In the wind.
If they sought the Information given in Customs records, they would have much
of the basic material contained In the report and would publish It without
reference to anyone in Kenya. It was in their own Interests to put the report
to quick use to avoid destructive criticism. He made it abundantly clear that
the President wished to avoid publicity at all costs and was certain that
immediate action would follow his reading the report.

Naturally I have done my best to locate the leaker who informed the
Government that the report existed. Sources inside the Kenya Police Special
Branch state categorically that It derived from either the U. S. Embassy or
the British High Commission. The weight of opinion favours the latter, though
this admission might well be a fabrication. Several people knew of the
preparation of the report, if not its content in detail, and have been spreading
Its existence around (e.g. John Eames has set at least two Journalists from




-4-


international papers onto asking J. Block and myself for copies).

A further bulletin will be sent you In due course. In the interim you are
asked to file this letter confidentially.









15th February. 1975 an .Parker





!




Full Text

PAGE 1

I.

PAGE 3

This report arises from a growing awareness of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of Western involvement in Africa. It is incomplete in that it concerns itself mainly with ivory. However it is presented as a first step to wider and more detailed discussion. october 1974 Ten Copies of this report were made. I. s. C. Parker P. O. Box 30678 Nairobi, Kenya This is No. /0. given to t .H. !cuJ1. ((;v,/ 7 h / CVVL fJ

PAGE 4

1 INTRODUCTION Ivory, like gold, shapes the destinies of men. Across cultures and through history its possession has been a criterion of wealth. The invaders of Africa, the world's main source of ivory, have always sought it as prime booty and Arab slaving was closely connected with its acquisition. In many instances slaves were primarily acquired to carry tusks to the sea. their subsequent sale increasing the profits of ivory trading. The first white men also sought the 'white gold', and among the first acts of colonial government was laying claim to the ivory of the land. As much as any single factor the commodity played a role in delineating modern Africa's poUtioal boundaries. Ivory's lure endures, and more leaves Africa today than at any time in the past. The revenues involved are substantial and the conduct of the trade reveals much about African leaders. Circumstantial evidence suggests their widespread illegal involvement in it, the implications of which are of great political interest. In this report it is my intention to set forth some definite facts, hitherto unpUblished, which confirm. and illustrate the extent of the illegal trade. Unfortunately much of the information cannot be published without arousing destructive political reactions and this report is therefore confidential. Beoause the evidence is largely comprised of dry statistics, a document such as this makes laborious reading. I have endeavoured to ensure continuity and an easy flow by abandoning scientific procedures of documenting each statement with copious references. Similarly, I have

PAGE 5

2 dispensed with a bibliography and relegated the tables of data to the back of the report. The focus of attention is on what is happening today and what it portends for the future. I have thus endeavoured to put this in an historical perspective of the East African ivory trade over the past 74 years. The first two chapters are therefore descriptive and provide a general background to the modern situation. The report is not intended as a base for legal actions. I have therefore collated evidence of illegality only to the poInt of my personal conviotion. To have proceeded further so that it would stand up in a court of law, would have unnecessarily revealed my interests to hostile scrutiny. For obvious reasons I do not reveal informants' names, though these can be followed up in cases of bona fide interest. Similarly, individual acknowledgments for assistance in producing this report would be out of place. However, it is by no means a lone effort and I am indebted to those who have financed it and to many collaborators for theIr trust and help.

PAGE 6

3 CHAPTER 1 THE OFFICIAL EAST AFRICAN IVOR Y TRADE 1. KENYA For hundreds of years elephant tusks were exported from the Kenya coast, but in 1900 the British enacted a law banning free trade in ivory. It was largely ineffective, and the country's Chief Game Warden stated In his 1910 annual report : . little notice was taken of the law, except that it gave birth to the ivory smuggllng trade. To the present time the laws governing ivory trading have proved difficult to enforce. The underlying philosophy of Government pollcy through this century is summed in a proclamation issued on the 31st May 1912 which decreed that: "No ivory could be legally possessed except (1) under the Game Laws, and (2) purchased from Government for export." Tusks could not be sold without a Sale Permit. Trading in ivory was barred except to those in possession of a Dealer's Permit. Until the Second World War many large mercantile trading companies had Dealer's Permits. After the war their interest declined and ivory dealing was left in the hands of Indian traders, who throughout the century had formed the backbone of the trade. This dominance started declining in 1970 with the entry of African businessmen into the trade. However, though this process continues and the African position has become stronger, it Is difficult to define Indian involvement as they have entered cryptic partnerships with the newcomers.

PAGE 7

The main sources of ivory within Kenya have been : (1) the legal killing of elephant in protection of human life and property, (2) the finding of ivory on elephant that died of natural causes, (3) the confiscation of illicit ivory and (4) tusks obtained by sportsmen on licence. 4 The first three categories produced by far the greater volume of ivory exported. Responsibility for Government sales lay with the Customs and Excise authorities from 1900 until 1956, when it was taken over by the Game Department. This change was made to co-ordinate the trade under one body and thereby reduce illicit dealing. Disposal of Government ivory was by regular auctions held in Mombasa. The main buyers at these auotions were the country's licensed dealers, the majority of whom were based in Mombasa. From about 1970 the Game Department began selling Government ivory by direct negotiation with individual dealers an unpublioised process that has grown at the expense of the traditional auctions since then. From September 1973 until April 1974, the Government banned all trade in ivory and the hunting of elephant. The ban was reintroduced in July 1974 when it was announced that all trade in tusks was to be a permanent Government monopoly. In theory, natural mortality should constitute a major source of ivory. Rural Africans coming across dead elephants are unlikely to forego the opportunity of benefiting from tusks thus available. However, such ivory has always been difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from that taken

PAGE 8

5 from elephant killed illegally. As a result there has been an unresolved and continuous conflict between Government's pecuniary interest in recovering ivory from natural mortality and the provision of cover for illicit hunting that arises from such collection. In 1902 Indian traders persuaded the Government that the natives held large quantities of "female and old tusks". The Chief of Customs therefore authorised Government officers to purchase such ivory from the natives at 50% of the prevailing market value of ivory until June 1903 (this ivory was then presumably sold by auction to the traders who had set the process in motion!) In June 1903, this Government buying was continued erratically until at least June 1911. There is a gap in the Game Department literature between 1913 and 1924, but when taken up again, debate on whether or not to encourage the collection of ivory from natural mortality still raged. In 1925 the Game Department's attitude was summed thus : "The Police could scarcely expect to suppress theft if they acted as receivers of stolen property. Nevertheless, from 1925 untll the present day a reward system has been in force, with rewards of the order of 10% of prevailing market values. In consequence illicit buying has been encouraged as a trader could buy found ivory on the black market for 20% of its value and sell it at market price, making 500% profit. In or shortly after 1970, the Game Department changed its traditional antagonism toward rewarding the collection of ivory from natural mortality (though this was never proclaimed publicly). "Collector's" permits were issued for the first time, which authorised selected persons to gather such

PAGE 9

ivory. The tusks so collected were supposed to be handed in to the Department in return for an unspecified "reward". 6 The potential of natural mortality as a source of ivory was persistently overlooked by the Game Department through gross under-estimates of elephant numbers. Until the early 1950s it was widely felt that they did not exceed 12,000. Research in the late 1960s indicated that in 1969 there were probably about 165, 000 elephants. This, after years of attrition and displacement by expanding human populations, suggests that numbers were probably far greater in the early years of the century. Since 1900 the official records and the Press have stated that poaching was extensive and jeopardised the survival of wild life populations. In particular, illegal ivory hunting was said to be widespread. However, there are few official data to support this. The early reports for the years 1906 to 1913 published the amounts of ivory confiscated annually, giving a measure of illicit activity. Subsequent annual reports beginning in 1925 gave early convictions for offences against the Game Laws, but not those specifically concerning ivory. These annual convictions show a trend that reached its highest point in the 1930s and then declined progressively until 1965, when the Game Department ceased publishing reports on its activities. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the Indian ivory dealers have always bought illegally in addition to their legitimate trade though this has not been corroborated by court convictions the normal measure of unlawful activity. Through the 197 Os there has been increasing public protest about the level of poaching despite lack of evidence. This seems

PAGE 10

7 to have led to the closure of elephant hunting and ivory trading, temporarily in 1973, and permanently in 1974. Evidence will be presented later in this report to substantiate the extent of the illicit trade. However, this trade was from the beginning encouraged by the failure of the Game Laws to offer adequate rewards for the large volume of ivory annually available from natural mortality. In addition to ivory produced in Kenya (which I shall refer to as domestiC), the country's licensed dealers traded extensively in tusks from other African states. As a result Mombasa became an entrepot for the continental ivory trade. This import and re-export of allen ivory was banned in 1962. The unconvincing reason given was that by denying hunters outside East Africa a market for their tusks, the incentive to kill elephants would be reduced. The volume of Kenya's ivory trade, both domestically produced and the import/export quantities, is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The data are derived from Customs records, with the exception of the years 1910 1913 which are from incomplete Game Department reports. They indicate progressive increase in Kenya's output through the century. This is not unexpected as elephants have been continuously replaced by humans. However, the most striking aspect of production over the past seven decades is seen in the years 1971 1973. In these annual increase in the volume of domestic ivory exported, expressed as a percentage of each preceding year's volume, was respectively 86.4%, 81.6% and 78.6%. Thus 1973 exports were 260% higher than the average annual exports of

PAGE 11

T 1 200 [ o -. Domestic ivory N s 1 Re-exported ivory I .' j \ ..... \ \. .... 1 i 1 f i I , I ,; . : I t r t ; I \ I \ I \ 1 '{ I i I I I J: r: Ii i, I i . . ;, /1 i ',1 I ;' I '! I I! I /1 I' I ,I I \ : I I j \ i i !! \ I : 1I ... \;r I .... "",/\ : \ 'VV'\ ..... .;' ,l\ i . : \: I ; ... .. f 1 .. 1 f .. ........ "j" ...... .... ............ ....... .,.. t 1906 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIG. 1 Kenya's official Domestic and Re-exported ivory exports 1906 -1973.

PAGE 12

8 domestic ivory for the decade 1960 1969, and are too large to be accounted for by Kenya's population increases. It is worth noting that these steep rises in exports coincided with the entry of Africans into the ivory trade, the issuing of "Collector's" Permits or letters by the Game Department and the commencement of air-freighting ivory from Nairobi, rather than by the traditional sea routes from Mombasa. These points have bearing on later discussion in this report. 2. UGANDA At least as far back as the mid-1800s, ivory was moving down the Nile from Bunyoro to Khartoum. Baker records Arab traders obtaining tusks from the Banyoro in large quantity. At the same time the Baganda were trading ivory with Arabs from Zanzibar. When the Imperial British East Africa Company established an administration in Buganda and Toro, it laid claim to all ivory. This monopoly was maintained by the British Government when it assumed direct responsibility for the country's government in 1893. Until 1905, ivory was Uganda's foremost commercial export. As Uganda has denser human populations than the other East African states, competition for space between men and elephants has been more intense. From the outset of Colonial government this was a fundamental problem. In 1912 natives were issued with rifles to shoot crop-raiding elephants. This was insufficient. In 1918 District Commissioners were empowered to hire European gunmen to kill elephants, payment being made as a percentage of the ivory handed in. This system was closely followed by licensing which permitted a sportsman to kill 20 elephants per licence.

PAGE 13

9 These efforts still did little to resolve human-elephant conflict. In 1923, C. F. M. Swynnerton of the Tanganyika Government service was sent to advise the Uganda Government on their elephant problem. As a result of his recommendations a new Department was formed to handle elephant control. In 1925 this became the Uganda Game Department. In principle this new body was modelled on the neighbouring Kenya Game Department and accepted as its prime role the conservation of wild animals. In fact its main pre-occupation has always been "elephant control" and consequently the Department has been a major ivory producer. A result of the Department's work is that the range of elephants has declined from more than 70% of the country's land area in 1929, to less than 11% in 1969. Today it is undoubtedly smaller still. Official policy toward ivory production in Uganda exhibited the same inability to come to terms with natural mortality that was shown in Kenya. Although poaching was never considered to be the same threat to wild life in Uganda as it has been in Kenya, it is probable that an illegal trade in ivory existed. In 1968 the Government declared an amnesty to those possessing illegal ivory and at the same time offered a reward for tusks handed in. In six months, 81 tons were surrendered. It is difficult to explain so large a quantity of tusks through random hoarding, and more likely that an illicit trade was tapped. Uganda, lacking a sea port, never developed an entre pot trade in the same manner as Kenya. The Kenya Customs authorities sold Uganda ivory by auction in Mombasa on behalf of the Government until 19 '67, when the

PAGE 14

10 Game Department decided to hold ivory auctions in Kampala. Though much ivory from Zaire passed through Uganda in transit to Mombasa and Zanzibar, no import/export trade of significance developed in the country throughout the colonial era. However, during the 1960s and early 1970s it was widely rumoured that Uganda received a lot of ivory from both Zaire and Sudan As in Kenya, private ivory buyers in Uganda were mainly Indians, usually agents of the Mombasa dealers. In 1971 they were expelled from the country and the trade was then entirely in African hands. Since the introduction of air-freighting, most of Uganda's ivory exports have been flown out of Entebbe and have not been exported through Kenya. Uganda's domestic ivory exports are given in Table 2 and Figure 2 for the period 1925 1973. As with Kenya, these data derive from the Customs records. The Game Department archives do not contain such information. The data indicate more or less increasing production until 1969, after which there is a steep fall. In view of the decline in elephant range f1'9ID 70%+ to 11%-of the land area between 1929 and 1969, it is surprising that ivory production went on increasing until so late as 1969 in the process of elephant elimination. It suggests that the Customs data may be incomplete. 3. TANZANIA As the two components of Tanzania Tanganyika and Zanzibar -have had different roles in the region's ivory trade, I consider them separately. Tanganyika I do not have access to detailed records from Tanganyika prior to 1925, though the country has been known for centuries as a major ivory source. Under British rule Game Laws were modelled on the neighbouring Kenya

PAGE 15

T f N s o ; """ ... ,.""' . ,., ..... ... .. (.' ...... ...................... '( ...... .................................. ..................... ...... 1929 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIG 2 Uganda s Domestic i vory exports 1929 -1973.

PAGE 16

11 system with the difference that native Tanganyikans were more readily allowed to hunt elephants. As in Kenya, the main traders in ivory were Indians. A minor import/export business in tusks from other African states developed but this was far less consistent than those which flourished in Mombasa and Zanzibar. This business was officially terminated in 1962 for the same reasons (whatever they may have been) that it was abandoned in Kenya. However, the ban was not so absolute as elsewhere in East Africa and small quantities of ivory have come into the country from Zambia from time to time. The increasingly socialistic policy persued by Tanganyika since independence has discriminated against alien businessmen. As a result the Indians dealing in ivory have been forced out of the trade (and other businesses). In 1970, the Government declared a state monopoly on ivory trading which persists to the present. As a result' of publicity on poaching the Government banned elephant hunting in September 1973. This ban has not been lifted, though there are said to be plans to do so. As with Kenya, the level of illicit hunting in Tanganyika has never been established, though again circmnstantial evidence has suggested that it is widespread. Tanganyika's domestic and import/export ivory volmnes are presented in Table 3 and Figure 3. Once more they derive from the Customs authorities rather than the more (in theory) appropriate Game Department, which is without continuous records. The data indicate a gradual but accelerating increase in domestic ivory exports throughout the period reviewed until 1973. In that year there is an abrupt decline and exports were only 26% of the preceding year's figures. No official reason has been

PAGE 17

300,,; T 200..1 o Domestic ivory N s ... \ ... ... -IVOry \ \. __ --I -i .. .. :: .. .. .. I : .. .. .. .. .... i .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 1929 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIG. 3 Tanganyika's official Domestic and Re-exported ivory exports 1929 -1973.

PAGE 18

12 proffered for this decline. Due to its greater size, Tanganyika has been by far the largest ivory producer of the three East African states. Zanzibar As far as is known, Zanzibar has never had indigenous elephants, although the island's terrestrial fauna indicate that at one time it must have been connected with the African mainland. However, its role as an entrepot for ivory has been known for centuries. Its geographical position has favoured such a development and until 1963 it was one of the world's great ivory markets. Tusks were bought the length of Africa, taken to Zanzibar, re-graded, sometimes cut and polished, then sold to overseas outlets. The 1964 revolution virtually terminated the trade in Zanzibar. The Indians and Arabs who managed it fled or died. Annual recorded imports and exports of ivory into and from Zanzibar from 1925 to 1963 are presented in Table 4 and Figure 4. These data are from Customs records. They indicate a steady rise in import volume from 26 tons in 1925 to 228 tons in 1962 -a growth of over 750%. Over the 49 years reviewed, Zanzibar's main supplier was Zaire (31%), followed by Tanganyika (24%), Mozambique (18%), Uganda (8%), Kenya (7%) and both Somalia and Zambia (5%). Many other countries produced smaller amounts. 4. EAST AFRICAN EXPORTS COMBINED The total ivory exports from the East African states for the years 1929 1973 are given in Table 5 and Figure 5. Output rose from around 100 tons annually in the early 1930s to just under 400 tons in 1961. The

PAGE 19

300 T 200 o N s 100 o i 1925 \ \ 1\ ........... .................. ... .......................... ... ( .............................. ,. .. ..... .................... .. 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIG. 4 Zanzibar's official ivory exports 1925 1973

PAGE 20

o N s I J 200 l \) "1 "'1 : ..... ... .. r i .. . ................ ......... 1929 1940 1950 1960 1970 FIG. 5 Combined East African exports o f ivory 1929 1973.

PAGE 21

13 ban on importing ivory in 1962 and the Zanzibar revolution caused exports to fall to c.162 tons from 1962 to 1965. In 1966 they rose to over 200 tons and fluctuated between 200 and 260 tons annually until 1972, when there was a sharp increase to 433 tons, followed by 358 tons in 1973. At first glance it would appear that the 1972 1973 exports merely regained the ground lost in 1962. However, of the 1961 exports of 393 tons, no less than 177 tons (45%) originated outside East Africa. Officially, there have been no significant imports into East Africa since 1962, and therefore the 1972 1973 exports were comprised of domestic ivory only. If this is true increase in production has been greater than at any time in the past 45 years. While I personally have no doubt that there has been an increase in elephants killed annually in East Africa, the three East African Game Departments are unable to substantiate this factually. It is possible that it is not as great as suggested from the ivory record. I suspect that the Customs & Excise import records are incomplete and do not show some recent imports of ivory. In Table 6 the combined domestic exports of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika ivory are given with countries of destination, for the years 1962 1973. This period should, at least officially, reflect domestic ivory production unadulterated by imports from elsewhere in Mrica, or complicated by the fonner Zanzibar entrepot trade The data illustrate the wide range of countries buying raw ivory and at the same time show that few buy in quantity_ Continentally, Asia has taken 82% of exported ivory, Europe 120/0, the Americas 5% with the balance taken by Australiasian and Oceanic states. Of individual countries buying ivory, East Africa's

PAGE 22

14 largest customer is Hong Kong (47%) followed by Japan (17%) and India as an erratic third (9%). Recently China has entered the market and although it is too new as an East African buyer to figure prominently over the period 1962 1973, it gives the appearance of moving in toward a major position.

PAGE 23

15 CHAPTER 2 THE HONG KONG TRADE The previous chapter gave a picture of the ivory trade from a producer's view. I now intend to broaden this by presenting data from a buying and processing centre Hong Kong. My information was supplied by the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong KOng Government. In its. unworked raw form, ivory is measured and valued by weight. Once it has been fashioned into some article, value is based on artistic quality and the labour involved in producing it (though the weight of the raw piece from which an article is made provides a starting point for valuation). It is thus difficult to relate Hong Kong's imports of raw ivory to Its exports of carved items on a weight basis. Initially, therefore, I shall consider raw and worked ivory separately. Hong Kong's raw ivory imports, average annual values per kilo, and total value in US dollars are given in Table 7 and Figure 6 for the years 1952 to 1973. They indicate trends of rising volume and value. The greatest single Increases occurred in 1973 when volume rose 111% over the average annual imports of the preceding 5 years, and value rose 153% over 1972's average -itself the highest between 1952 and 1972. As a result of this increase, 39% of the 22 year value of raw ivory imports ($46, 925, 814) was attributable to 1973 alone. The Hong Kong records do not specify all countries from which raw ivory imports originated until 1959. In Table 8, some of the data In

PAGE 24

600 500 T 400 o 300 N 200 -4 s 1001/\ I v. : ... . .l ... ".J ............... ...... J. .. J" ..... J. ..... t ..... ... ,.I . ............. I ....... I ........ ....... i ....... ...... .. ..... .... ...... l . ...... .. ..... 1 1970 1952 1960 6 Hong s Imports of ivory 1952 -1973.

PAGE 25

16 Table 7 are broken down further to give countries of origin and amounts for the years 1959 -1973. On a continental basis, Africa supplied 82% of imports, Europe 15% and Asia 3%. A total of 36 countries are recorded as having supplied raw ivory to Hong Kong. The two major suppliers are Tanzania (31%) and Kenya (23%), followed by Belgium (12%), Mozambique (9%), Uganda (5%) and Zaire (4%). The remaining 30 sources of import produced correspondingly small amounts. Belgium's large contribution of raw ivory reflects its dominant position as a buyer in Francophone Africa -particularly in Zaire. The ivory received from Persian Gulf states is most probably obtained through the dhow trade along the sea boards of Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. I will make further consideration of this in Chapter 3 Trends indicated in Table 8 are : 1) The number of countries supplying Hong Kong with ivory nearly trebled between 1959 and 1973. 2) Tanzania's contribution rose from 38% in 1959 to 44% in 1964, then fell to 22% in 1972 and 5% in 1973. Until 1973 Tanzania's overall exports were rising (Table 3), and the Hong Kong data merely indicate a change in outlets (Tanzania's new buyers were Japan and China). 3) Kenya's contribution rose from 11% in 1959 to 37% in 1973. Thus while Tanzania was the largest supplier of ivory to Hong Kong over the whole of the 15 years covered, Kenya had usurped this role in the latter half of the period.

PAGE 26

17 Hong Kong re-exports some raw ivory and this is illustrated in Table 9 fo:r the period 1962 1971 (data for 1972 and 1973 had not been received at the time of writing) In these 10 years raw ivory was exported to 14 countries. CWna was the major buyer (76%), followed by Japan (20%) and North Vietnam (2%). All other countries took less than 1% of the volume of re-exported raw ivory. The period is too short to reveal definite trends, but it appears that China's purchases were declining while Japan's were increasing from 1969 onward. In Table 10 the weights and values of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports are compared with those of re-exports for the years 1962 -1971. The data indicate that annual re-exports varied between 12% and 31 % of corresponding annual imports of raw ivory, averaging 19% over the 10 years. Re-exports were on average 24% higher in value per unit weight than raw ivory imports (variation +3% to +52%). Some increase is to be expected as any ivory moving through Hong Kong would accumulate storage, handling and trading costs. On a crude level however, the 24% increase in value is an indicator of profitability in trading raw ivory. Hong Kong's worked ivory export values for the years 1962 1971, together with the values of raw ivory imported and retained in Hong Kong (i. e. annual raw ivory imported less raw ivory re-exported) are given in Table 11. These data indicate that worked ivory export values were 58% greater than import values. In addition to its own ivory manufacturing industry, Hong Kong imports worked ivory from other countries. Some of this is then re-exported.

PAGE 27

18 Data on the import and re-export of worked ivory are gIven in Table 12 for the perIod 1962 1973.. In this case only 27% in value Is re-exported, suggesting that most of the worked ivory imports are 'for consumption' in Hong Kong, lliustrating that the colony is more than just an antrepot. The countries from which Hong Kong imports worked ivory are listed in Table 13, together with annual values, for the years 1962 -1973. From these data it is apparent that China is the main supplier (96%). Chinese exports of worked ivory-rose significantly ($228,461 in 1962, $1,605,944 in 1973) at the same time as its imports of raw ivory from Hong Kong were declining. This suggests that It was getting its requirements from elsewhere and is borne oqt by the data from the East ,African records (Table 6). Hong Kong exports worked. ivory to more than 117 countries, which are listed in Table 14. However, of these few have imported more than 2% of the value of worked ivory exports in anyone year of the 12 years reviewed, and fewer still have taken more than 5%. (These are indicated in the Table.) The pattern of exports is small quantities to many outlets, with only 3 exceptions; the U. S. A. 35% of Hong Kong exports, and France 24% over the whole 12 years, and Japan rising steadily over the past 5 years to 28% in 1973. The difficulty of equating raw ivory volume with worked ivory value notwithstanding, it is possible on the basis of the foregoing information to draw up a "balance sheet" for the Hong Kong ivory trade. This is done In I I ... Ie... Table }5'; where the values of raw and worked ivory imports are subtracted from the values of exports and re-exports. The "profit" shown thereby is

PAGE 28

19 minimal as internal sales are not registered, and the data derive from Customs declarations which tend, as a rule, to be understatements of value. These minimal values notwithstanding, the legitimate ivory trade in Hong Kong is obviously most profitable. Unlike East Africa the ivory business in Hong Kong is open and unrepressed. It is the base for many companies, and an even greater number of private individuals. Nevertheless, while there is no ground for an extensive illegal trade as in East Africa, an element of illegality exists when Hong Kong dealers receive ivory in the guise of some other commodity. Many, if not most, of the major East African Indian dealers have companies in Hong Kong which would simplify the reception of illicit consignments shipped from Africa.

PAGE 29

20 CHAPTER 3 COMPARISONS OF EAST AFRICAN IVORY EXPORT STATISTICS WITH IMPORT RECORDS FROM HONG KONG AND THE UNITED KINGDOM Hong Kong and the United Kingdom together accounted for c. 50% of official East African ivory exports between 1959 and 1973. Their import statistics provide a large sample with which to check the accuracy of the East African figures. Prior to the advent of air-freighting ivory in the 1970s, there was an unavoidable delay of several weeks between shipping and landing consignments. Time on the high seas could easily have resulted in some of a year's exports not arriving at their destinations until the following calendar year. Thus prior to 1970 this lag will complicate comparison of exports and imports, which in theory should balance each other. Conceivably a year's exports matched with its successor's imports might produce a more correct comparison in some instances. In seeking to get export/import data to tally I shall therefore make such 'skewed' comparisons as well as considering exports and imports of the same year. The exporters' and importers' Customs records give both volume and value of ivory consignments. The former give a base for straightforward comparison; values, however, are more difficult. By international convention export values are declared by the commodity's consignor as at the time of delivery on board ship or aircraft. This is referred to as the f.o.b. (free on board) value. Import values are based on the f.o.b. value plus the cost of transport, handling and insurance up to the point

PAGE 30

21 of landing. This landed value is known as the c. 1. L (cost, insurance, freight) value. As all trade goods are accompanied by shipping documents stating their Lo.b. value, these form the basis for calculating c.Lf. values. As a generalisation, the c. 1. f. value of ivory entering Hong Kong or the U. K. from East Mrica should be well within the limit of f.o.b. plus 20% and have been relatively constant from one year to the next. At no time should a c.i.f. value be less than a f.o.b. value. Such an occurrence or widely differing f.o. b. -c. i.f. values are grounds to suspect changes in the volumes (and therefore values) of a consignment, either upward or downward, in transit. Unfortunately the time lag between shipping and landing blunts fine distinctions in comparisons of ivory's export and import values per unit weight. I shall present L 0 b. and c. 1. f. values of annual export/import in the following sections, but their use is limited and results should only be considered of consequence where they are supported by the comparisons of volume. 1. KENYA HONG KONG Kenya's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's imports from Kenya for the 15 years 1959 1973 are given in Table 15. The data show wide discrepancies. Kenya claims to have exported 403 tons, while Hong Kong imported 874 tons. In 14 of the 15 years, the Hong Kong imports were greater than stated Kenya exports by margins ranging from 5% to 678% (of export volumes given). In the only year exports exceeded imports it was by 1%. Skewing comparisons so that exports for one year are related to imports of the following year -either singly or in groups -gives no better agreement than comparisons within the same year. Overall Hong Kong's imports from Kenya were 117% greater than Kenya's claimed exports to

PAGE 31

22 Hong Kong. These irregularities are given particular emphasis when the Kenya Government declared a ban on ivory trading from 6th September 1973 until 30th April 1974. Despite this widely publicised measure the Government obviously condoned continued export of tusks as the East African Customs & Excise record states 72 tons were despatched to several countries during the ban. However, during this period Hong Kong records that it alone, imported 105 tons from Kenya. Comparisons of Kenya f.o.b. ivory values with Hong Kong c.!.f. values for 1959 1973 are given in Table 16. Differences between them expressed as proportions off.o.b. values range from 0.2%to + 67%. This seems far greater than can be accounted for by f.o.b. + carriage and insurance and complements the obvious from the volume data: the Kenya/Hong Kong records are most irregular. 2. KENYA -UNITED KINGDOM Kenya's stated ivory exports to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's official imports from Kenya for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973 are given in Table 17 (the U. K. authorities are unable to give data for 1968 and 1969). Overall the U. K. imports exceeded the claimed Kenya exports; 59 to 51 tons, a margin of 16%. This complements the finding of the Kenya Hong Kong trade though it is lesser in extent. In the years 1962 1967 the U. K. imports from Kenya exceeded stated Kenya exports by 6 tons or 24% of claimed exports. In 1970 1973, U. K. imports exceeded Kenya exports by 2 tons or 8% of claimed exports. The earlier period thus showed the greater differences and volumes. Skewing

PAGE 32

23 comparisons by placing Kenya's exports 1962 1966 against U. K. imports 1963 1967 widens the differences to 37% of export volume. Similarly, comparing exports 1970 1972 to imports 1971 1973 widens the difference to 24% of export volume, but this time in favour of Kenya. Comparisons of Kenya's f.o.b. export values with U.K. c.Lf. import values are given in Table 18. As proportions of the f.o.b. values, the differences between them range from -65% to + 18%. As with all the data pertainIng to Kenya's ivory exports, they suggest irregularities. 3. UGANDA HONG KONG Uganda's claimed exports to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's official imports from Uganda for the past 15 years are given in Table 19. Overall, Uganda claims to have exported 253 tons to Hong Kong, but Hong Kong only acknowledges 226 tons -a deficit of 11% of export volume. The data indicate two distinct phases. The first concerns all years prior to 1971 in which with one exception (1962) Uganda's exports to Hong Kong exceeded Hong Kong's receipts from Uganda. Thus this 12 year period gives Uganda exports of 220 tons against Hong Kong's imports of only 60 tons, a deficit of 73% of export volume. The second phase concerns the 3 years 1971 1973 in which the previous trend is reversed. Uganda stated exports of 33 tons against Hong Kong's Uganda imports of 167 tons : a surplus of 406% of export volume. In Table 20 comparison is made of Uganda's f.o.b. ivory values with Hong Kong's c.1.f. imports from Uganda. They are even more erratic

PAGE 33

24 than the Kenya data and differences between f.o.b. and c.i.f. range from -7% to + 108% of f.o. b. figures. 4. UGANDA UNITED KINGDOM Tho Uganda United Kingdom ivory trade is given in Table 21 for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973. During this time Uganda claims to have exported 12 tons to the U. K., while the latter acknowledges import of less than 0.5 of a ton. This is in keeping with the Hong Kong data prior to 1971, and there is insufficient material for a comparison of f. o. b. and c. i. f. values. 5. TANZANIA HONG KONG Until April 1964 Tanganyika and Zanzibar were separate states each with its own Customs record. Once they merged the record was unified, making it impossible to distinguish individual ivory exports. In this section I shall consider Tanganyika and Zanzibar separately for the period 1959 1963 and then as one for the years 1964 1973. Tanganyika's, Zanzibar's and Tanzania's official exports to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong's Imports from them are given respectively in Tables 22 a, b and c. Tanganyika's official exports for the 5 years 1959 1963 total 42 tons, while Hong Kong's imports from this source were 35 tons. As all exports went by sea at this time, there would be a lag between despatch and receipt as considered at the beginning of this chapter. A skewed comparison of the 4 years stated exports 1959 1962 with Hong Kong's Imports 1960 1963, gives exports of 32 tons and imports 33 tons -a difference of 3% of export volume. This is close agreement. It may arise from compensating

PAGE 34

25 for the despatch/receipt lag, it could be mere coincidence, but it could also imply that the causes of error in the Kenya and Uganda data were absent in Tanganyika between 1959 and 1963. The 1963 records of Zanzibar's exports were never published on account of the revolution. However, the 4 years 1959 1962 show fairly close agreement : Zanzibar claimed exports of 306 tons, Hong Kong imports 320 tons, a difference of 4% of exports. This is slightly increased if a skewed comparison of Zanzibar's 1959 1962 figures are compared to Hong Kong's 1960 1963 imports: 306 tons exported to 326 tons imported, a difference of 6% of exports. As with Tanganyika, it would appear that the causes for discrepancy in the Kenya/Uganda/Hong Kong trade did not apply to the Zanzibar/Hong Kong figures. Further, the chances that both Tanganyika's and Zanzibar's data are close to the expected through coincidence, are greatly reduced. Table 22c gives Tanzania's ivory exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's receipts from 1964 1973. Claimed exports totalled 543 tons, Hong Kong imports were 761 tons 40% higher than stated exports. The first 5 years, 1964 1968 showed very large discrepancies : Tanzania's exports were given as 216 tons, but Hong Kong's imports were 445 tons, the difference of 229 tons being 106% of exports. In the second 5 years, the discrepancies are much reduced. Exports are claimed as 327 tons, imports into Hong Kong 316 tons, the difference of 11 tons being 3% of exports. Combining all the Tanganyika -Zanzibar -Tanzania data from 1959 1973 the record shows 3 phases:

PAGE 35

26 (1) the first 5 years prior to union when both Tanganyika's and Zanzibar's exports tallied approximately to Hong Kong's imports from them, (2) the second 5 years immediately after union when Hong Kong imported far more from Tanzania than appears in that country's records, and (3) the third 5 years when the Tanzanian exports once more tally closely with Hong Kong's imports. In Tables 23 a, b and c, Tanganyika's, Zanzibar's and Tanzania's average f.o.b. ivory values are compared with Hong Kong's c.Lf. values of ivory from these countries. The data support the contention of less irregularity in Tanzania's ivory trade than in either Kenya or Uganda, but not very conclusively. 6. TANZANIA UNITED KINGDOM The United Kingdom records do not separate Tanzania into its component parts and I am unable to make comparisons similar to the Tanzania Hong Kong trade in the previous section. Tanzania's stated ivory exports to the U. K. for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973, and the U. K. 's imports from Tanzania for the same periods are presented in Table 24. Stated exports total 19 tons while imports are 38 tons, the surplus is 100% of export volume. Comparison of Tanzania's stated f. o. b. values is made with the U. K. c.Lf. import values in Table 25. Differences range from -14% to + 42% of f.o.b. value.

PAGE 36

27 Summarising this chapter, the evidence is :-(1) Kenya's claimed exports to Hong Kong and the U. K. are substantially less than their corresponding imports from Kenya. (2) Uganda's claimed exports to Hong Kong and the U. K. are considerably more than their corresponding imports from Uganda. (3) Tanzania's exports to Hong Kong show fair agreement prior to the political union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar and in the past 5 years. However, there was an intermediate phase in which they were as unbalanced as Kenya's. Tanzania's exports to the U. K. are much lower than the U. K. 's imports from Tanzania. (4) The comparisons of f.o.b. values of East African ivory exports with Hong Kong and U.K. c.Lf. import values, are of dubious value. However, the very wide' range of differences suggests that the imbalances between export and import volumes are real.

PAGE 37

28 CHAPTER 4 THE VALUE OF EAST AFRICA'S LOSSES In East Africa, ivory tradlng is essentially illegal. A few people are licensed to exploit only part of the resource (legal tusks), yet the quantity of ivory available is far greater than that which is legalised. Further it is accessible to a far larger number of people than the authorised dealers. On the other hand ivory trading, and manufacturing from it, are open businesses in both Hong Kong and the U. K. Anyone who wishes to participate may do so. The incentive to trade illegally is therefore great in East Africa but almost non-existent in Hong Kong and the U. K. Logically therefore, it is more likely that the East African records are the source of the irregularities observed between exports and imports, than either the Hong Kong or British statistics. Assuming this so the ivory surpluses arriving in Hong Kong and the U. K. could easily represent consignments illegally exported, but arriving in the guise of legal export. If this was the case not only would illicit tusks enter the trade, but stringent exchange control regulations in the exporting states would be by-passed. Payment for unrecorded exports could be made outside East Africa and no tax commitments incurred. While the surplus of imports over exports has obvious reason, this is not the case with Uganda's data in which the converse is true. It seems that such a situation could only have arisen if (1) ivory was transhipped to some destination other than that to which it was originally consigned, while en route. Such a practice is not

PAGE 38

uncommon in commerce today, (2) incorrect entries were made by the East African Customs authorities, or 29 (3) incorrect records were made by the Hong Kong and United Kingdom authorities There are no data to support the first possibility. While that already presented suggests that the East African Customs authorities do not record a great deal of ivory leaving East Africa, there is nothing to indicate that they make entries falsely raising exports. However, as most Uganda ivory was bought by Kenya and Zanzibar traders, who mixed it with tusks from elsewhere before shipping, it is difficult to see how Customs officials identified Uganda's ivory at the time it was shipped. The third possibility that the apparent Uganda's exports exceeded stated Hong Kong and U. K. imports through error on the part of the receiving countries has some merit. Thus it is worth noting that prior to 1970 1971 when Uganda commenced direct ivory exports by air from Entebbe, all the country's tusks had to be shipped through Kenya. It could be that both Hong Kong and U. K. Customs authorities incorrectly ascribed many such shipments to Kenya. In support of this is the observation that when Uganda's airexports commenced not only did its export -import balance reverse, but the difference between Kenya's exports and corresponding imports also declined sharply. In the 4 years 1967 1970, Kenya's differences ranged from 314% to 678% of export volume. In the 3 years 1971 1973 they fell to 5% -58%. This compels re-appraisal of both Kenya and Uganda data. Combining their exports and comparing them to combined imports in

PAGE 39

30 Hong Kong and the U. K. would reduce the magnitude of anomaly in both countries' records. The necessary combinations are given in Tables 26 and 27. The joint exports to Hong Kong for the years 1959 1970 are 401 tons against 614 tons claimed as imports by Hong Kong; a surplus of 53% of stated export volume. The combined exports to the U. K. are 63 tons against U. K. import figures of 59 tons giving a deficit on imports of 5%. This considerable reduction of differences is persuasive. In the absence of other evidence, I accept that until 1971, Uganda's exports have probably frequently been confused with Kenya's by the receiving countries. From that year on however, they are quite separate. The combined official East African ivory exports to Hong Kong during the past 15 years totalled 1,629 tons with an f.o.b. value of $13,249,189. ( \ coo / t Over the same period Hong Kong claims to have received 2, 303 tons of ivory with a c.l. f. valuation of $25, 340, 006. As proportions of the East African records Hong Kong's imports were greater in volume by 41% -\ ( (674 tons) and in value by 91% ($12,090, 818). The combined official East African ivory exports to the United Kingdom during the 10 years 1962 1967 and 1970 1973 were 81 tons with an f.o. b. value of $654, 399. Corresponding U. K. imports were 97 tons with a c. 1. f. value of $737,046. As proportions of the East African record, the U.K.'s imports were greater in volume by 20% (16 tons) and in value by 13% ($82,648). These combined volume and value differences are of a lower order than the East Africa/Hong Kong data. They tend to conceal the Tanzania differences which are of a much greater order: 19 tons exported to 38 tons received -an increase of 100% on the export volume. The f.o.b.

PAGE 40

31 value of $124, 725 compares to the U.K. c.1.f. value of $260,207 which is 109% ($135,482) up on the former. (The combined Kenya/Uganda exports of 62 tons valued f. o. b. at $529, 663 compare to corresponding U. K. imports of 59 tons valued c. 1. f. at $476, 839 -a deficit of $52, 824 or 10% of the f. o. b. figure.) It seems a reasonable hypothesis that the differences between the export and import figures represent illegal transactions. I have no doubt that they apply to other countries as well as the two reviewed. A major Nairobi exporter stated unequivocally (in a verbal interview) that his company had exported over 50 tons to Peking in 1972, whereas the Customs record shows only 13 tons as having been sent there. Combined official East African exports of ivory for the period 1959 1973 amount to 4, 087 tons with a stated f. o. b. value of $35, 308, 928. However, in view of the evidence presented, these are low. It is likely that the true figures lie somewhere between the Hong Kong surplus of 41% and the Tanzania -U. K. surplus of 100% (the single Peking record covers too short a time for consideration). On this basis legal ivory exports plus illegal consignments arriving in the .., (100 guise of being legal at their destination, may have been between 5, 763 and I ....e.. 8,174 tons over the 15 years, with f.o.b. values of between $49, 785, 588 and $70, 617, 856. Summed, the loss to East Africa calculated as the difference between these estimates of volume and value and those given in the local Customs statistics, may have been 1, 676 -4, 087 tons of ivory, and revenue of between $14,476,660 and $35, 308, 928 (of which 1973's high volumes and values would have accounted for c. $12, 860, 000).

PAGE 41

32 A final consideration is the routine procedure of understating f. 0 b. values. This arises from a variety of reasons (e.g. concealment of income to avoid tax, reduction of transport charges as sea freight of ivory is based on value, avoidance of true value to permit a margin of payment to be retained overseas among many). A concensus of opinion among ivory dealers and my personal experience indicates that f. o. b. values stated ex-East Africa are generally about two thirds that of real value. Thus the revenue losses to East Africa in the 15 years are more likely to be between $21, 714, 990 and $52, 963, 392, and for 1973 alone, c.$19, 290, 000. The comparison of export/import statistics has illustrated only one aspect of the illegal trade. It has not touched on tusks that are smuggled both of East Africa and into their destinations. That this happens is known through the-occasional discovery of tusks packed in crates, labelled as nails or textiles, or concealed in tins of ghee. Part of this system may account for the exports of ivory from Persian Gulf states to Hong Kong. By and large the Trucial Sheikhdoms, Muscat, Oman and Aden have restricted trade with Africa. Their traditional link has been through the dhow fleets which seasonally ply the East African coast. During the 15 years 1959 1973 the East African records give total legal exports of 97 kilos to the Gulf states. Yet during this period Hong Kong imported 71 tons valued at $838, 545 from them. It is difficult to see how they came by this ivory, other than through the dhow trade. Some may have come from Somalia, but if only through the frequent allegation that dhows take illegal ivory, it seems more probable that it comes from Kenya and Tanzania. If this reasoning is correct, the East African losses rise by virtually another $1, 000, 000 since 1965.

PAGE 42

33 India offers a massive prospect for illegal ivory sales. Traditionally the sub-continent is a great ivory consumer. During the 1940s it was East Africa's major market. The demand for ivory is as great there, if not greater, than at any time in the past. However, India proves an anomaly among ivory consumers in that it has created a situation conducive to its own illegal trade. Since independence in 1947 stringent restrictions on luxury goods have inhibited the import of ivory. Thus in consecutive 5 year periods commencing 1945 1949 until the present 1970 1974, East African exports to India have fallen progressively: 747, 576, 456, 196, 122 to 75 tons for each 5 year period respectively. On the basis of the highest figure it could be that India's legally unfulfilled demand is of the order of 670 tons per 5 years (747 75 tons) or 134 tons a year. If this is being met, even in part illegally, the odds are that it is from East Africa, with its abundant elephants and Indians. While the calculations in this chapter are crude, they illustrate that East Africa annually loses millions of dollars through ivory smuggling.

PAGE 43

34 CHAPTER 5 THE INVOLVE ME NT Even in times of economic leniency, when currencies were more widely negotiable than they are today, there have been reasons for moving wealth in commodities rather than money. Not least of these is tax evasion, but where elephant tusks are largely an unlawful item, ivory dealers' burgeoning bank accounts, in which incoming funds are greater than can be explained through legitimate trade, could bring awkward questions. Since the imposition of exchange control regulations and the growth of nonnegotiable national currencies such reasons are greater than ever. Ivory is a movable, available, international currency and a cryptic vehicle for transferring capital from country to country. As Indians have been the mainstay of the ivory trade in East Africa it is not unfair to look to them as the probable organisers of much of the past illicit business. As a community, they have been subjected to a series of misfortunes, in independent East Africa, that have not affected other aliens in quite the same way.' The three E ast African Governments have progressively made life more difficult to Asians, though their actions have not been synchronised, Chronologically, Tanzania's actions have preceded those in the other two states. As pointed out in Chapter 1, socialist financial policy effectively removed a large segment of Tanzania's Indians by 1969. Uganda set the stage with the "Common Man's Charter" in 1969 and eliminated them in 1971-1972. There is a waning population ih. Kenya which has little faith in Asians' future in the country. Tanzania's illegal ivory trade as indicated by the difference between exports and imports,

PAGE 44

35 closely follows the fortunes of Indians in that country over the past 15 years. Conversely this pattern indicts them as being largely responsible for at least this aspect of the trade. To III us tr at.:::) I have taken the difference between Tanzania's official exports and Hong Kong imports, and expressed them as proportions of the stated exports, over the 15 years 1959 1973. These proportions I refer to as an illegality index and are illustrated in Figure 7. With reference to the figure, I present the following hypothesis: Though tension existed between Arabs, Asians and Africans in Zanzibar, until it happened, few foresaw the revolution and bloodshed of January 1964. Many of the island's Indian traders were of stock established in the last century, were not worried by political changes, and looked forward to continued calm trading. Opposite Zanzibar on the mainland of Africa, Julius Nyerere was considered the most easy-going of the emergent African leaders and the prospect of independence in Tanganyika, both before and after this took place, did not unduly disturb the Indian community. In this aura of peace between 1959 and 1963 the ivory illegality index for Tanzania averaged an annual 1% of official exports. In 1964 the revolution in Zanzibar and army mutiny in Tanganyika took place. The death of some 5, 000 Arabs and the expulsion of many more, with Indians, made it seem that Asiatics would be singled out in any extension of the trouble. This was enhanced by Nyerere IS growing socialism, his rupturing of ties with Britain over Rhodesia, and ultimately his "Arusha Declaration". Thus to safeguard capital there was an Asian rush to export wealth overseas. The ivory illegality index averaged 347% of legal exports in 1964 and 1965. It fell to 32% over the next 3 years, by which time the

PAGE 45

D i f f e r e : 30(h e a s a % o f e x p o 1 1 200-: r 1 : 1 1959 1965 1970 FIG. 7 The difference between Tanzania's official exports and Hong Kong's corresponding imports expressed as a proportion of the former, to give an "index of illegality". Where Hong Kong imports were less than stated exports in any year the difference has been omitted.

PAGE 46

36 majority of Indian traders had gone. From 1969 onwards, the ivory trade was essentially in Government hands, and in the absence of the Indians, the illegality index has fallen to an average of 8% of annual exports. Unfortunately the Kenya and Uganda ivory data cannot be separated sufficiently to examine political trends in similar fashion. Nevertheless, verbal confirmation of my interpretation of events in Tanzania was given by 3 independent Indian ivory dealers with whom I discussed the subject in 1973. A point made by these gentlemen was that large scale illegal shipments were not just a feature of Independent Africa, but took place well back into the colonial era. While the Hong Kong data does not permit comparisons of imports from individual East African states prior to 1959, it does present combined East African records from 1952 until 1958. These are presented together with all export/import data until 1973 in Table 28. From them I have computed the annual East African illegality indices for the 22 years 1952 1973. They confirm an average of 50% of legal exports from 1952 1956. This is in keeping with what the ivory traders allege and the literature which reports widespread elephant poaching at this time in Kenya. A vigorous drive was made in 1957 to curb illicit ivory dealing and kept up sporadically until 1961. During this period (1957 1961) the illegalIty index fell to an annual average of 4% of legal exports. It seems likely that the drive to enforce the law produced thIs lowered illegality. In 1962 1965 the index soared, averaging 215% of legal exports. The rise in 1962 was clearly a Kenya/Uganda result, as the separated Tanzania

PAGE 47

37 record indicates calm in that year. I attribute the onset of these high rates to financial apprehension over political independence in Kenya and Uganda. Between 1966 and 1969 the index fell to 37% of legal exports. From 1970 the index varies between 5% and 110%. Indian traders admit that bribery of Customs officIals was routine and included some BrItish officials prior to independence. The 1957 antipoaching operation produced evidence that senior BrItish police officIals accepted bribes in connection with ivory (Appendix 1). There is conclusive evidence that in the same era, some Game Department officials were also implicated (Appendix 1). The salient point Is that in East Africa the ivory trade and official corruption have gone together for a long time. In view of the commodity's value, this is not surprising. That Indians were prime movers and that corrupt white men sanctioned them is now history. Today it is Mricans who dominate the trade in ivory producing countries. The only differences are the record volumes involved and the unprecedented blatancy of corruption. The rest of this chapter is devoted to the situation In Kenya and is a summary of information presented in Appendix 1. illegal ivory transactions concern all strata of Kenya's society. The supposed guardian of the trade the Game Department -appears to have become a pivotal institution In the business it is supposed to suppress. Subordinate staff and wardens in the field actually indulge in poaching elephant. The Department's purchases of heavy rIfle ammunition in 1973 exceeded those In all previous years, even though there was no unusual increase in 'game control' to explain It. The

PAGE 48

38 Departmental ivory has been ear-marked for private sales to such as the two Assistant Ministers in the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife as well as to Margaret Kenyatta through her United Africa Corporation. The Chief Game Warden, Mr. Mutinda, is widely aoknowledged within the ivory trade to be active in it himself, and most helpful to those who pay for his services. Senior Police officials are involved in the trade and prosecutions for ivory offences are frequently withdrawn nolle prosequi on instructions from the Attorney General. Such sentences as are pronounced are often ridiculously low. The Attorney General himself is said to offer cover for ivory trading -at a price. The local Press are afraid to comment on illegal ivory -except where it affects those in menial positions. Overall is the brooding figure of President Kenyatta -clearly implicated with personal instructions that certain people should be given a permit to export ivory. This disregard for law would be a minor issue if it concerned ivory alone : but it does not. Corruption.extends.to all walks of national life, in business, land purchases, acquisition of cit1zenships to specify but few instances. It is blatant in that .senior Government officials such as the country's Provincial Commissioners, many Permanent Secretaries, and Ministers themselves are wealthy beyond any savings of salary, and beyond .-the most optimistic interest rates upon their salaries if the latter were saved in toto. Further, their fortunes have amassed in only a decade. Either,. as. a group, they-are -financial geniuses_ .or corrupt. Within 11 years Kenyatta is said to have become among the __ world's .richest men and greatest.landowners .

PAGE 49

39 In this situation of general corruption, there Is little hope that the ivory 'racket' can be tackled or contained on its own. Even though it has grown to unprecedented proportions under African "management", it is only a small aspect of the national malaise. To approach the problem from the ivory angle alone is analogous to treating the patient's in-growing toe-nails before considering his generalised affliction of leprosy.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER 6 AND IMPLICATIONS 40 The evidence is that Kenya's leaders are systematically plundering national resources. What is h2. ppening in Kenya is, however, also common elsewhere in Africa. Thus in Zaire, President Mobutu has claimed a monopoly on ivory trading through a 'fronting' state organisation. In 1973 every Minister in the Southern Regional Government of the Sudan, many senior Police and Army officers, a Judge and many lesser officials invited me to buy illegal ivory. I have had similar offers from Tanzania. In Z ambia a substantial proportion of the ivory obtained during the official elephant cropping in the Luangwa Valley was disposed of illegally. Apologists may point out that there are major differences between traditional Mrican and modem Western moralities. Many Bantu societies were indeed structured on 'nepotic' pyramids in which leaders were expected to seize and own resources and wealth. Equally, however, they were expected to look after poorer relatives, and it was only by doing this that acquiescence to the system was maintained. This feudalistic attitude undoubtedly does predispose many Mricans to practise "corruption" in our sense of the word. However, the apology based on traditional African systems collapses with the observation that much of the wealth seized does not benefit their societies at all. The situation is particularly disappointing to conservationists. By and large they have hoped that their's was an a-political cause and would have the sympathy of leading Mricans. However, their disillusion Is not

PAGE 51

41 peculiar to conservation. In less defined terms it applies to the whole field of economic ald. While most of the aid-giving public will accept selfas a motive for their donations, particularly at Government levels, it is convenient, if not essential, that they should be able to believe in a certain element of philanthropy. When aid falls short of its goals through the honest incompetence of the recipients it is disappointing. When it goes astray through their incontinent greed the philanthropic ideal disappears. Conditions of economic stringency are spreading at geometric rates throughout the world and will lower tolerance of misappropriated ald. Reluctance to continue donating will increase and heighten instability both internationally and internally in many countries. As the euphoria of independence stales, the effects of African corruption progressively increase in consequence. Misappropriations by the first wave of leaders provide a focus (and stimulus) for opposition. As a result they become more reliant on outside help to maintain position, vulnerable to blackmail and increaslIlgly apprehensive about exposure. When they are eventually overthrown, causes and policies with which they have been closely connected (e.g. conservation!) tend to be discredited. Thus it becomes more difficult to enter into long-term arrangements and agreements. In the hands of the politically active and astute, knowledge of corruption in Africa (and elsewhere) becomes' a multi-bladed weapon. It can be used to influence internal politics. For example, both China and Somalia have vested interests in Kenya. Both have extensive knowledge of Kenyatta involvement in ivory (Somalis being particularly active in elephant poaching in Kenya). Both could use this to their advantage in discreet blackmail,

PAGE 52

42 open exposure, or, more likely than either, as a useful primer for their own 'candidates' in Kenya. The knowledge can also be used, for example, to influence international aid policies against the demands of recipient countries. It can be used to stir up hostile reactions in the electorates of donor countries toward governments giving aid to obviously corrupt systems. Finally, it can be used to disconnect sources of charitable money from corrupt recipients, or discredit agencies donating to such countries. The World Wildlife Fund provides a minor example of what I mean. In August 1974, the Fund's President, H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands decorated Jomo Kenyatta with the Order of the Golden Ark -a premier award for services to conservation. (Actually this is a personal award by Prince Bernhard, but the World Wildlife Fund has so basked in its glory that it is widely held to be a WWF decoration.) If it was publiCised that he was aware of Kenyatta involvement in illegal ivory when the award was made, both his and the Fund's ability to raise further revenue from charity would be severely compromised. Knowledge of the type presented in this report is powerful political material. How and when it could or should be used would of course depend on the objectives of the user. There has been a strong drive from conservationists and the Press to emblazon data on the ivory trade across the media headlines. However, I sense the urge here is punitive and not necessarily constructive. If there is purpose to publicly attack and criticise the Kenya regime, for example, it should be done with the full broadside of evidence on corruption. To fire the 'ivory shot' alone would pain Kenyatta, damage his credence overseas a little (but not in Mrica) and

PAGE 53

43 guarantee a vindictive response towards white men in general, for it is really only they who fear for elephants. The occasion in which I can see purpose in taking such action would be to assist in drastic political reorganisation. While such a point may arise, I cannot see justification at present, if for no other reason that there appear no suitable alternatives. On the other hand the knowledge of ivory and other corruption could be used without publicity to secure changes in present practice. Such recourse is pointless, however, without an unequivocal goal. This brings me to the major point of the report : it is the need for determining what our goals are. Why do we give aid to African countries, and why do we feel affronted when Africans despoil elephants? At all levels in the "western" approach to Africa, we conceal our motives with flummery -to the point where we are considerably deceived ourselves. The situation is now so ridiculous that even these self-deceptions are too threadbare to stand much further use. Thus what should our reactions be when Kenya claims help for a foreign exchange deficit of $140, 000, 000, because of "increased oil prices", when it is obvious that a substantial part of this could be recovered from official corruption? Should we give aid in such circumstances? If so, what is the quid pro quo that warrants it? Philanthropy certainly does not fit. Such fundamental questions may seem very far from the issues of conservation which inspired the report. However, if basic human to human affairs lack realism then all subordinate affairs (which conservation and concern for environment are) will be deprived of a sound base. Scandals such as the ivory issue will continue to arise as milestones in

PAGE 54

44 aimless wanderings. Golden Arks and Environmental Programmes will exist as sad monuments to unattained hopes. If we want the rule of law, as perceived by westerners (and to which Africans in public pay lip-service) to prevail in Africa, then westerners must involve themselves in African affairs. If we want elephants to survive in Africa we will have to take strong action to ensure it happens. To date, white men have financed independent Africa and "advised" from the sidelines, drawing up strict rules which bar themselves from the internal affairs of the various countries. To now break these rules will invoke all manner of criticism. This would be unavoidable. If we are unwilling to pay it, then where Africa is concerned, we should shut up. In which case we either give aid in the spirit of true philanthropy not asking what is to be done with it (do you ask the beggar in the street what he is going to do with your 50 cents?), or we stop doing so altogether. To continue our present unrewarding path is pointless.

PAGE 55

:IDS C s-expo 0 Ozn8 C e-expo: 1906 7.805 * 7.805* 1947 25.707 139.800 165.507 07 12.829 * 12.829* 48 19.712 42.321 62.033 08 10.346 * 10.346* 49 23.116 4.877 27.993 09 13.878 ** 13.878* 1950 25.606 36.478 62.084 1910 8.135* * 8.135* 51 22.507 99.680 122.187 11 2.085* * 2.085* 52 14.784 80.831 95.615 12 3.506* * 3.506* 53 16.918 121.323 138.241 13 4.264* * 4.264* 54 15.741 43.411 59.152 1924 20.601 ** 20.601* 55 33.159 68.678 101.837 25 16.303' 10.368 26.671 56 31.889 78.385 110.274 26 14.915 6.147 21.062 57 23.905 64.323 88.228 27 25.575 17.071 42.646 58 26.310 50.760 77.070 28 14.899 21.961 59 27.262 46.178 73.440 29 12.224 22.608 34.832 1960 29.621 53.345 82.966 1930 16.275 13.362 29.637 61 32.615 99.297 131.912 31 13.280 15.038 28.318 62 40.826 0.090 40.916 32 13.941 25.657 39.598 63 42.096 42.096 33 18.998 26.622 45.620 64 39.120 39.120 34 21.162 34.802 55 .. 964 65 29.311 29.311 35 19.506 63.557 83 .. 063 66 45.213 45.213 36 18.145 58.274 76.419 67 48.350 48.350 37 15.877 56.749 72.626 68 38.572 38.572 38 13.307 46.131 59.438 69 33.388 33.388 39 12.396 48.062 60.458 1970 44.383 44.383 1940 11.126 56.597 67.723 71 82.727 82.727 41 12.542 63.456 75.998 72 150.248 150.248 42 5.639 122.376 128.015 73 268.308 268.308 43 5.893 72.651 78.544 2,014.626 3,674.165 44 13.209 52.482 65.691 1,659.539 45 14.733 83.676 98.409 *Incomplete Game Dept. data 46 34.751 82.101 116.852 *No records obtained TABLE 1 Kenya's ivory exports in tons from 1924 1973, with incomplete data from 1906 1923. The main body of data is from Customs and Excise records; that marked with one asterisk is incomplete, and with two asterisks, missing.

PAGE 56

Domestic Domestic Exports Exports Tons Year Tons 1929 18.462 1956 22.454 1930 13.699 57 23.996 31 18,372 58 20.322 32 25.493 59 31.436 33 23.679 1960 29.803 34 20.549 61 20.730 35 27.032 62 37.151 36 29.155 63 29.258 37 33.319 64 45.703 38 21.139 65 44.302 39 28.349 66 57.407 1940 25.961 67 60.093 41 23.421 68 62.719 42 14.835 69 32.445 43 12.193 1970 52.072 44 19.611 71 31.428 45 28.959 72 31.551 46 35.360 73 25.212 47 21.993 1,280.422 48 26.215 Total 49 23.421 1950 30.636 51 24.234 52 19.560 53 17.934 54 16.577 55 22.182 TABLE 2 Uganda's domestic ivory exports for the years 1929 1973 in tons, from Customs and Excise Records.

PAGE 57

Year Domestic Re-exported Total Year Domestic Re-exported Total 1929 15.750 28.298 44.048 1953 49.540 0.914 50.454 1930 13.006 5.995 19.001 54 50.034 3.221 53.255 31 17.528 13.768 31.296 55 59.515 0.907 60.422 32 26.266 7.976 34.242 56 54.298 0.726 55.024 33 23.726 5.385 29.111 57 59.832 0.544 60.376 34 33.631 32.109 65.740 58 51.622 51.622 35 23.167 40.136 63.303 59 68.768 1.134 69.902 36 32.871 42.270 75.141 1960 65.956 37 29.213 61 66.954 4.944 71. 898 38 28.756 19.458 48.214 62 66.773 66.773 39 18.544 18.544 63 91.086 91.086 1940 29.873 5.233 35.106 64 80.927 0.721 81.648 41 20.017 1.473 21.490 65 88.306 88.306 42 21.491 0.356 21.847 66 118.334 118.334 43 11.228 12.142 23.370 67 93.949 93.949 44 33.684 15.292 48.976 68 109.188 109.188 45 23.421 32.465 55.886 69 161.160 161.160 46 64.116 31.144 95.260 1970 161.344 161.344 47 46.436 19.204 65.640 71 132.225 132.225 48 47.452 1.169 48.621 72 250.937 250.937 49 47.808 1.169 48.977 73 64.361 64.361 1950 43.134 0.102 43.236 Totals 2,674.060 358.891 3,032.951 51 41.609 0.051 41.660 52 36.224 36.224 TABLE 3 Tanganyika's ivory exports in tons 1929 1963 and Tanzania's exports 1964 1973. The latter set of data should include any Zanzibar exports. All data are derived from the Customs and Excise records.

PAGE 58

Imports Exports Imports Exports Year Tons Tons Year Tons Tons -1925 26.317 27.384 1952 147.792 152.321 26 40.695 90.230 53 128.283 84.591 27 29.772 29.467 54 147.792 152.321 28 15.902 17.985 55 155.057 148.808 29 17.985 17.883 56 185.337 203.678 1930 17.934 17.020 57 220.088 189.757 31 10.618 11.939 58 161.103 126.759 32 21.910 21.148 59 259.614 150.180 33 24.844 14.988 1960 209.521 197.480 34 34.243 40.644 61 152.619 168.470 35 43.037 45.674 62 228.014 201.595 36 62.387 59.442 63 ? ? 37 58.020 59.036 64 ? ? 38 39.423 44.404 65 ? ? 39 40.797 41.609 66 ? ? 1940 70.841 53.346 67 ? ? 41 96.377 79.205 68 ? ? 42 80.171 58.828 69 ? ? 43 91.399 63.151 70 ? ? 44 66.606 95.463 71 ? ? 45 65.897 62.338 72 ? ? 46 119.494 108.367 73 ? ? 47 57.613 87.487 Totals 3,642.261 3,456.961 48 168.978 95.260 49 108.774 123.186 (Difference : Imports 185.300 tons 1950 105.472 150.069 more than exports) 51 131.535 165.448 TABLE 4 Zanzibar's imports and exports of ivory in tons from 1925 until 1964, after which it is assumed that its data are included in the Tanganyika -Tanzania figures in Tabl e 3. The data are from Customs and Excise records.

PAGE 59

Exports Exports Year Tons Year Tons -1929 115.225 1956 391.430 1930 79.357 57 362.357 31 89.925 58 275.773 32 120.481 59 324.958 33 113.398 1960 376.205 34 182.897 61 393.010 35 219.072 62 346.435 36 240.157 63 162.440 37 224.779 64 166.471 38 173.195 65 161.919 39 148.960 66 220.954 1940 182.136 67 202.392 41 200.114 68 210.479 42 223.525 69 226.993 43 177.258 1970 257.799 44 229.741 71 246.380 45 245.592 72 432.736 46 355.839 73 35t. 881 47 340.627 Total 11,083.644 48 232.129 49 223.577 1950 286.025 51 353.529 52 303.720 53 291.220 54 281. 305 55 333.249 TABLE 5 Ivory exports of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar combined, in tons for the years 1929 1973. Data from Customs and Excuse records.

PAGE 60

NUltrr 1262 rniled Kingd o m 4 823 [ i r e Bliherl:Ulds BllgiW11 1,,,ee 4<16 ," Germa n y 2.627 2.132 Greece u g oslavi n urkey U.S .S.R. 1 36 1 36 227 U.S.A. 11. 409 C:ll!lda i mil Argentine & S America -T nnidad 1 98 45 196 3 196 1 196 5 196 6 6.62311.361 7.03814.756 13618 . 83613. 90 -111.021 62 86 499 625 1. 390 1. 518 8621.6664.8195.980 2.631 2.091 1.550 3.403 1 8 1 391 1. 180 1. 8 01 1 42 45 120 64 71 27 -15 1 8 7 111 446 9 1 33 7.258 91 7.175 244 56 1 20 270 66 45 10.051 240 248 191 12.169 213 1967 1 968 1969 1970 1971 6.3 95 11.210 16.436 7 .455 12.759 18 6 .336 246 2.295 3.008 5 186 287 20 159 512 11 4 1. 125 546 699 1. 207 322 5 668 2.741 3.186 10. 933 6.085 4 144 2 281 3.637 3.236 4.328 1.613 1.073 1.909 1.785 1.877 18 1 29 126 229 44 140 364 345 504 62 182 36 9 1 45 10 45 978 207 119 2 68 140 14 335 372 12 2 3 4 8 11. 936 77 3 130 185 52 49 13.805 78 134 413 78 111 15.212 15 3 31 403 11 11.096 250 404 197 2 1973 6.219 4.058 7.331 238 3 258 2.921 900 713 4.518 11.456 4.086 4 657 1. 599 2.739 292 12 4 26 1 20 40 159 345 13 10 670 341 320 603 107 48 8.515 245 515 761 109.133 18 68.537 7.419 9.990 60.541 38.176 16.284 1.104 1. 676 182 557 1. 073 101 2.056 283 48 13 234 49 133.631 3.000 56 1.620 3.578 11 90 90 196 174 576 111 lden 4<1 JaplD China 45.993 635 3.605 8.939 12.474 20 .724 14.001 20.342 42.835 19.077 222 .175 52.318 463.118 50 Korea Taiwan 45 Hong K o n g 10 8 .320 20.458 50.906 51.513 S!l"lgapor e 454 Malay, 251 189 Ibail:md B unna 2.896 .di, 6 4.492 499 933 14.565 227 C l o n 323 136 Austr ali" a Z ealand Phillipioe s Reunion u t h Africa )Jozambique !""bl, R'iI":mda Nigeria iihioPl, Uby, 91 9 1 1 8 1 112 45 46 99 64 6.827 1.909 292 6 662 61.804 42.597 80.365 200.456 228 22 7 71 526 3.030 3.075 99.669 102.801 120.7'1 8 129.092 133.467 102.675 114.136 184.325 1,218.140 190 320 210 224 300 319 2.017 1 3.677 5 8 52 41 8 1 42 12 2 59 8 7 8.605 41.867 32.636 27.644 16.055 13.114 11 7 609 17 3 4 16 56 28 19 206 11 1 3 2 8 22 92 1 8 7 51 27 18 56 67 702 97 1 9 94 112 24 20 80 28 20 187 18 70 42 ;l9 1 2.973 41 86 84 54 224 440 146 2.896 2 37.060 1.684 610 497 41 51 86 27 84 384 140 209 56 42 649 65 221 24 1.437 As a % of Total Exports ) 4 21 ) 00 ) 2.64 ) 0.29 ) 0.39 ) 2.33 ) 1.47 ) 0.63 ) 0 04 ) 0 .06) 12 24 0.01 ) 0.02 ) 0.04) 0.01 ) 0 08 ) 0.01 ) .00 ) .00 ) 0.01 ) 00 L 5 .15 )-0.12 ) .00 ) 0.06 ) 0.14 ) .00)_ .00 ) 0.02 ) 0.01 ) .00 ) 17.85 ) 7.73 ) 0.02 ) 5.47 0.12) 82 .14 46.95 ) 0.08 ) 0 02 ) 0.01 ) 0.11 ) 9.14 ) 0 06 ) 0.02 )_ 0 02 )-. 00 ) .00 ) 00 ) .00 ) .00)_ 0.01 ) 0.01 ) 0.01 ) .00 ) 00 ) 0.03 ) .00 ) 0.01 ) .00 ) 0.06 )_ 0.02 0 13 241 339 40.916 99 .502 116.271 184.773 176.122 209.925 227.250 257.799 246.381 432.80Q 358.294 2, 594.372 100.00 TABLE 6 The tonnage and destination of combined East African exports of ivory for the years 1962 ..., 1973.

PAGE 61

Amount Value Total Value Tons :eer kg. $ 1952 71.386 4.53 323,485.48 53 107.879 5.08 547,831.34 54 86.480 7.20 622,567.02 55 93.210 5.18 482,458.23 56 144.653 5.45 788,201.27 57 126.151 5.59 704,777.64 58 145.059 5.91 857,825.37 59 220.172 4.72 1,040, 101.40 1960 157.750 6.30 994, 297.73 61 115.111 680,157.51 62 212.803 5.82 1,240,576.80 63 149.532 6.14 918,455.99 64 243.640 6.40 1, 560, 393.80 65 276.399 7.75 2, 142, 525.70 66 234.595 7.14 1,674,283.80 67 223.017 6.52 1,453,394.00 68 329.927 6.20 2, 046, 972.30 69 299.110 6.62 1,980,306.70 1970 267.441 9.44 2, 525, 921.80 71 260.006 11.10 2,886, 536.60 72 261.510 12.10 3, 163, 071. 40 73 597.121 30.63 18, 291 z 672.00 Totals 4.622 952 10.15 46 z 925,813.88 TABLE 7 The tonnage, average annual value per kilo and the total value in U. S. $, of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports from 1952 to 1973.

PAGE 62

1959 1 96 0 1 9 61 19 63 died 196 4 19 6 5 1 9 67 1968 1969 As a % of 1973 Total Total Imports gdom 3.18 4 0.844 0.60 2 0.8 4 4 0 155 1.956 1.19 2 1.629 1. 267 1.414 1.135 14.222 0.36 ) 1. 77 ) 'iler lands 2 3 71 0.457 5 232 13.580 6.314 3.967 9.13 7 4 3 4 5 14.504 1.624 18.353 1.808 1.763 2.061 0.982 68 145 lance oJ. R (.;nnany S.A. ", 9 3 695 2 7 5 76 6.12 4 35.24 7 11.9 35 16. 9 3 7 36.063 23.495 24.203 73. 959 5.768 1.313 1.99 1 1.159 1.6 4 0 0.881 12.293 15.976 24.897 58.995 479.748 5.768 2.145 2.145 10.549 10.549 0 .935 11. 062 11.997 12.47 ) 0.15) 15.39 0.06) 0.27 ) ) 0.31 L 0.108 4.571 0.12 0.12 0.502 1.906 1.651 20.899 26.598 0.69) 0.881 0.02) .. land 0 0 1 4 0.065 0.256 0.335 0.01) tlJlbodi a lIh \ieinam ;]aysia eyio n 0 061 0.1 92 5.604 3.43 0 0.0 4 5 0.362 3.257 1.769 10.444 4.084 0.019 0.924 2.135 0.045 -) ) 0.02 ) 0.01 ) 0 08 ) 0.06 ) 0.924 0.362 3 257 2.135 0.061 -) ) 16.508 0.43) ) 0.988 2.6 58 3.320 2.091 1.722 12.269 8.559 11.328 42.935 1.16) ) 0.5 71 1.270 1.984 3.825 0.10) 8 6983.297 3 3249.7141.262 5.988 ) 7.650 7.650 0.20)_ 3 5 8 2 3.629 9.684 8.874 22.094 48.200 131.392 0.455 16.453 24.464 6.900 0.077 1.482 55. 819 0.4 15 0.256 7.148 7.819 3 .41 r 1.45 ) 0.20 ) 0.29 ) 4.43 ) 2.722 7.311 10023 33 8 7 8 4 3 3 96 8.549 4 44 0 10.649 41.93 6 5 275 2 025 14.915 5.274 170.337 2 3 8 79 28 26 8 36.020 35.558 1 4.656 44.622 25 729 40.854 95.093 89.056 58.901 61.795 49.793 46.673223.050 873,947 1.799 2.034 2.8 3 7 0.364 3.530 1.506 9.013 20 428 34.823 17.695113.982 208.011 22.70 ) 5 .40 ) 2.78 8 3.668 82 14 2 6 7.368 112.62 3 96.255 lO B. 579 117.279 70.648 64.1 53 84.287 100 962 57.403 66 929 58.769 31. 529 1202.594 1.570 6 5 00 4.027 17.608 1 5.73 9 15.999 16 651 2.132 8.805 89.031 1. 210 9 4 5 2 3 10 3 2 32 0 2.493 2 4 933 9.072 3 .274 18.979 31.24 ) 2 .31)81.71 0.49 ) 8.150 14 468 2.900 0.6 0 8 0.252 0 8 35 0 16 7 0 1 77 25. 4 2 8 54. 8 90 15.357 23 .319 22.778 33.934 20.065 41.608 28.136 327.911 8.52 ) 0.0 7 3 2 987 3.0 05 1.5 4 8 0.42 2 5.8 6 3 0.8 69 1.613 1.200 4.676 3.578 8.704 9.08' 6 3.299 0.074 ) 23.873 0.62) 24.667 0 .64) ) 0.422 0.01) 0.074 L 2 20.626 1 5 7 751 11 5 11 2 2 12.804 1 4 9 5 2 9 243.6 39 276.39 9 234. 59 6 223 0 1 7 329 927299.111 267.444 260.007 261. 509 597.122 3848 .593 100.00 TABLE 8 11 11 1 3 14 13 1 2 16 13 18 18 19 24 The tonnages of Hong Kong's raw ivory imports for the years 1959 1973 with countries of origin and their overall contributions as a percentage of the gross imports. 36

PAGE 63

CD f.I III < a :a oS CD d "a .... J "a f/J f/J CD go ;a ::s f.I "a E:! 'g CD 0 ::a J.t ::JO Year u .... f/J .... 0 Total 1962 35.035 2.913 37.948 63 35.431 0.318 0.386 36.135 64 3.626 70.816 2.000 76.442 65 1.522 66.264 0.094 0.227 0.057 0.226 68.390 66 14.934 44.535 0.998 0.582 0.060 0.123 61.232 67 2.226 29.083 1.016 0.167 32.492 68 6.258 45.796 0.998 0.983 0.036 0.012 54.083 69 20.362 13.692 0.939 2.026 0.059 37.078 70 28.278 3.423 0.971 32.672 71 18.253 25.663 2.002 0.512 0.196 0.043 0.015 0.202 46.886 Totals 95.459 369.738 9.927 0.318 4.634 2.026 OA23 0.043 0.015 0.036 0.057 0.361 0.261 483.358 % 19.75 76.49 2.06 0.07 0.96 OA2 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.05 100.00 TABLE 9 The tonnage of Hong Kong's Re-exports of raw ivory, recipient countries and their imports as a percentage of total Re-exports over the 10 year period.

PAGE 64

Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1970 71 Total HONG KONG IMPORTS HONG KONG RE-EXPORTS Difference between import Total value per kg %of Total value per kg and re-export value per kg. Tons U. S. $ Tons imE2rts U.S. $ $ as a % of imE2rt value 212.804 1,240,576.80 5.83 37.948 17 .8 278,105.80 7 . 33 + 25.7 149.529 918,455.99 6.14 36.135 24.2 263.977.00 7.31 + 19.1 243.639 1, 560,-393.80 6.40 76.442 31.4 589;476.00 7.71 + 20.5 276.399 2;142;525.70 7.75 68.390 24.7 558, 895.70 8.17 + 5.4 234;596 1; 674,283.80 7.14 61. 232 26.1 448.437.20 7.32 + 2.5 223.017 1,453.394.00 6.52 32.492 14.6 291,-731.80 8.98 + 37.7 329;927 2; 046; 972.30 6.20 54.083 16.4 468,769.60 8.67 + 39.8 299;111 1,-980; 306.70 6;62 37.078 12.4 304,213.90 8.20 + 23.9 267.444 2,525, 921. 80 9.44 32.672 12.2 416,045.30 12.73 + 34.9 260.007 2,886,536.60 11.10 46.886 18.0 792,587.90 16.90 + 52.3 2496.473 18,429,367.49 7.38 483.358 19.4 4412,240.20 9.13 + 23.7 TABLE 10 The tonnage and value of Hong Kong's imports of raw ivory compared with re-exports of raw ivory, and the difference between import value per kilo and re-export value per kilo shown as a percentage of the former. On average over 10 years, re-exports comprised 19,4% of imports, but were 23.7% more valuable per unit weight.

PAGE 65

Year -1962 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1970 71 Totals Raw ivory Imports Finished ivory Exports retained in Hong Kong worked in Hong Kong U. S. $ U.S. $ 1,017,656.10 1, 207, 151.10 696,257.60 1, 237, 715. 50 1, 070, 067 20 1,460,374.50 1, 612, 069.70 1,559,436.40 1,237,811.80 1,893,491. 20 1,242,223.00 2,307, 014.50 1,710,232.80 2,766,813.90 1,734, 651. 80 3,966,886.90 2, 216, 219.30 3, 198,722.40 2, 365, 632.00 3,994,030.80 14, 902, 821. 30 23,5912637.20 Export values are $8,688,815.90 greater than import values of raw ivory: a 'profit' of 58%. TABLE 11 A comparison of the annual values of raw ivory imports retained in Hong Kong and of finished ivory exports that were manufactured in Hong Kong. Data for 1972 and 1973 not obtained in time for this report. Hong Kong Hong Kong Finished ivory Imports Finished ivory Re-exports Year U.S. U. S. $ 1962 259,249.80 64,515.30 63 264,320.60 63,508.60 64 354,618.00 81,593.30 65 306,547.90 38,141.80 66 606,325.80 51,907.60 67 11,141.40 67,839.30 68 275,320.90 70,041.60 69 590,672.20 200,031.20 1970 870,791.40 126,332.90 71 554,252.80 179,953.30 72 1,011,704.50 413,790.00 73 12657,351.70 448,589.50 Totals 6,762,297.00 1, 806, 244.40 Re-exports are only 26.7 % of import values. TABLE 12 The values of Hong Kong's annual imports of finished ivory compared with the value of Re-exports.

PAGE 66

Q) 0' ,001 g as 1:1 as as fJ ] 1:1 < 0 1:1 ;a :a 0 Cd Q) CD N (/J as '0 9 =:i 0'001 Q) 0'001 $ .s u '":I E-4 :g < 00 =:i 00:> u :z;:> Year .L-L $ $ -L $ $ $ $ $ Total 1962 8,279 228,461 21, 854 398 259 -259,251 63 10,569 232,400 19, 339 1, 621 392 264,321 64 22,518 316,972 3,852 5,239 1,989 3,302747 354,619 65 975 301,646 2,197 1,731 306,549 66 605,514 811 606,325 67 5,846 5,295 11, 141 68 266,583 4, 115 1,0 14 3,578 275,320 69 202 590,088 382 590, 672 70 860,910 8 854 132 895 870,791 71 211 521,452 29,212 424 2,954 554,253 72 14,869 952,285 25,291 -12,111 -6,197 951 1011,704 73 2,503 1605,943 24,521 18,496 -382 5,506 -1657,351 Totals 60,126 6482,254 140,428 9,545 259 392 1,989 33,909 747 10,226 5,295 3,578 12,598 951 6762,297 % 0.89 95.86 2.08 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.01 100.00 TABLE 13 Suppliers of finished ivory to Hong Kong, with v alue of annual exports to Hong Kong in U. S. $

PAGE 67

NORTH C & S EUROPE AMERICA AMERICA AFRICA ASIA ARABIA Austria Canada Argentina* Algeria Afghani-Aden Belgium** Mexico Bolivia Angola* stan Cambodia China Formosa India Bahrein** Channel U. S. A. ***Brazil Burundi Israel Islands (3) Chile* C.A.R. Jordan Cyprus Denmark Finland France*** German Federal . Rep.** Gibraltar Greece Irish Rep. Italy*** Lebanon Malta Nether-lands Norway Portugal Spain*** Sweden Switzer-land** Turkey U.K. (22) Colombia Congo Kuwait Costa Ethiopia Persian Rica Ghana Dominican Ivory Iran Japan*** Gulf Sheikh. Republic Coast Ecuador Kenya Korea Qatar EI Liberia Salvador Libya Guatamala Malagasy Haiti Rep. Honduras Malawi Panama* Mauritius Paraguay Morocco Peru Mozam.-Uruguay bique* South Saudi Laos Arabia Macau Trucial Malaya* States Morocco** North Borneo North Vietnam Sabah Venezuela Nigeria Singapore** (17) Portuguese South Guinea Rhodesia Rwanda Senegal Somalia South Vietnam** Taiwan Thailand (19) Africa* Spanish Guinea Spanish W.Africa** Sudan Tanzania Togo Uganda Zaire (30) ELSEWHERE Australia Bahamas Barbados British Carib. Ter. Fiji Fr. & Nth West Indies* Jamaica Leeward Islands New Zealand Pacific Islands Phillipines Tonga & W. Samoa Trinidad & Tobago U. S. Oceania* West Indies Fed. (16) TABLE 14 Countries that have imported finished ivory from Hong Kong between 1962 and 1973. More than 1%; ** More than 2%; *** More than 5%.

PAGE 68

Difference as a Kenya Exports Hong Kong Imports proportion of to Hong Kong from Kenya Kenya Exports Year Tons Tons 1959 12.701 23.879 1960 22.862 28.268 61 36.516 36.020 62 6.804 35.558 63 7.213 14.656 64 11.780 44.621 65 7.639 25.729 66 17.779 40.854 67 17.579 95.093 68 17.332 89.056 69 7.570 58.901 1970 14.924 61. 795 71 31. 438 49.793 72 44.457 46.673 73 146.757 223.050 Totals 403.351 873.946 TABLE 15 The tonnage of Kenya's stated exports compared with Hong Kong's stated imports for the years 1959 1973, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the Kenya exports. % + 183.6 + 23.6 1.4 + 422.6 + 103.2 + 278.8 + 236.8 + 129.8 + 440.9 + 413.8 + 678.1 + 314.1 + 58.4 + 5.0 + 52.0 + 116.5

PAGE 69

Kenya Hong Kong Difference as a f.o. b. value c. i. f. value proportion of for Hong Kong for Kenya ivory Kenya f.o.b. value Year Eer kg. $ Eer kg. % 1959 3.63 6.05 + 66.7 1960 4.97 6.44 + 29.6 61 4.58 5.67 + 23.8 62 3.77 5.98 + 58.6 63 4.14 5.92 + 43.0 64 5.03 7.20 + 43.0 65 6.06 7.82 + 29.0 66 6.02 7.36 + 18.6 67 5.14 6.26 + 19.5 68 5.20 6.20 + 26.5 69 5 .54 6.92 + 27.8 1970 9.18 10.72 + 16.8 71 11.53 + 48.4 72 11.29 11.29 0.2 73 27.64 10.45 + 10.2 TABLE 16 C.l.f. values of Hong Kong's imports of Kenya ivory compared with the f.o.b. values of Kenya's exports to Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o. b. value.

PAGE 70

Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 1970 71 72 73 Totals Kenya Exports to the U.K. Tons 2.041 4.854 4.971 4.619 6.625 3.351 5.404 11.455 4.933 2.613 50.866 United Kingdom Imports from Kenya Tons 1.118 2.134 4.928 5.538 11. 736 7.418 9.653 9.958 3.201 3.455 59.134 = + 16.3% TABLE 17 Kenya's claimed exports to the United Kingdom, and the U. K. 's imports from Kenya for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 -1973. Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 1970 71 72 73 Kenya f.o.b. value for the U.K. Eer kg 6.62 5.55 5.76 6.25 5.50 5.46 8.39 7.83 11.46 36.78 United Kingdom c.Lf. value of Kenya Imports Eer kg 7.52 6.56 6.25 6.58 5.25 4.91 2.96 10.52 10.41 32.49 Difference as a proportion of Kenya f.o.b. value % + 13.6 + 18.2 + 8.5 + 5.3 -4.5 10.1 -64.7 + 34.4 -9.2 -11.7 TABLE 18 C.Lf. values of U.K. 's imports of Kenya's ivory compared with the f.o.b. values of Kenya's exports to the U.K., with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value.

PAGE 71

Difference as a Uganda Exports Hong Kong Imports proportion of to Hong Kong from Uganda Uganda ExPorts Year Tons Tons % -1959 3.629 Nil 100.0 1960 4.854 Nil 100.0 61 5.625 1.799 68.0 62 6.078 20.345 + 234.7 63 3.856 2.837 -26.4 64 16.985 0.364 -97.9 65 15.076 Nil 100.0 66 26.050 3.530 -86.4 67 36.023 Nil 100.0 68 43.100 1.506 -96.5 69 22.971 9.013 60.8 1970 36.178 20.428 -43.5 71 12.030 34.823 + 189.5 72 8.292 17.695 + 113.4 73 12.306 113.982 + 826.2 Totals 253.053 226.322 10.6 TABLE 19 The tonnage of Uganda's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong, compared with Hong Kong's stated imports from Uganda for the 15 years 1959 1973, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the official Uganda exports.

PAGE 72

Uganda Hong Kong Difference as a f.o. b. value c.Lf. value proportion of for Hong Kong for Uganda ivory Uganda f. o. b. value Year Eer kg. Eer kg. % 1959 3.04 no imports 1960 4.07 no imports 61 4.15 4.37 + 5.3 62 4.96 6.57 + 32.5 63 4.27 8.88 + 108.0 64 5.22 7.91 + 51.5 65 6.00 no imports 66 6.02 8.14 + 35.2 67 5.07 no imports 68 5.27 7.34 + 39.3 69 5.74 6.87 + 19.7 1970 7.99 9.75 + 22.0 71 5.76 10.49 + 82.1 72 8.83 10.92 + 23.7 73 31.55 29.29 7.2 TABLE 20 C.Lf. values of Hong Kong's imports of Uganda ivory compared with the f.o.b. values of Uganda's exports to Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value.

PAGE 73

Uganda Exports United Kingdom Imports to United Kingdom from Uganda Year Tons Tons 1962 0.454 63 0.726 64 5.076 65 1.756 66 1.819 67 0.341 1970 0.251 0.102 71 0.151 72 0.481 73 0.799 0.203 Totals 11.854 0.305 TABLE 21 Uganda's claimed exports to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's imports from Uganda for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 -1973.

PAGE 74

Difference as a Tanganyika Exports Hong Kong Imports proportion of to Hong Kong from Tanganyika Tanganyika Exports Year Tons Tons % 1959 6.033 2.641 -43.8 1960 7.711 10.027 + 30.0 61 8.210 4.660 -43.2 62 10.796 8.869 -17.8 63 9.390 9.020 3.9 Totals 42.140 35.217 -16.4 TABLE 22 a The tonnage of Tanganyika's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong, compared with Hong Kong's official imports from Tanganyika for the 5 years 1959 1963, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the stated Tanganyika exports. Zanzibar Exports to Hong Kong Year Tons 1959 75.496 60 72.093 61 74.074 62 84.641 63 no records published Totals 306.304 Totals 1959306.304 1962 only Hong Kong Imports from Zanzibar Tons 81. 027 72.115 62.708 87.236 406.840 319.604 Difference as a proportion of Zanzibar Expo rts % + 7.3 + 0.03 -15.3 + 22.6 + 4.3 TABLE 22b The tonnage of Zanzibar's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong, compared with Hong Kong's official imports from Zanzibar for the 5 years 1959 1963, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the official Zanzibar exports.

PAGE 75

Difference as a Tanzania Exports Hong Kong Imports proportion of to Hong Kong from Tanzania Tanzania Exports Year Tons Tons % 1964 22.141 108.579 + 390.4 65 28.798 117.279 + 307.2 66 55.840 70.648 + 26.5 67 49.199 64.153 + 30.4 68 60.345 84.287 + 39.7 69 98.552 100.962 + 2.4 1970 82.365 57.403 30.3 71 59.207 66.929 + 13.0 72 61.387 58.769 4.3 73 25.262 31. 529 + 24.8 Totals 543.096 760.538 + 40.0 TABLE 22 c The tonnage of Tanzania's stated ivory exports to Hong Kong, compared with Hong Kong's official imports from Tanzania for the 10 years 1964 1973, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the official Tanzania exports.

PAGE 76

Tanganyika Hong Kong Difference as a f.o.b. value c. i. f. value proportion of for Hong Kong of Tanganyika Imports Tanganyika f.o.b. value Year $ per kg. -$ per kg. % 1959 3.41 5.38 + 57.8 1960 5.32 6.39 + 20.1 61 3.89 4.72 + 21.3 62 4.81 6.01 + 24.9 63 4.67 5.86 + 25.5 TABLE 23a C.i.f. values of Hong Kong imports of Tanganyika's ivory compared with the f.o.b. values of Tanganyika's exports to Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value. Year 1959 1960 61 62 Zanzibar f.o. b. value for Hong Kong Eer kg 3.75 4.07 4.20 3.60 Hong Kong Difference as a c. i.f. value proportion of of Zanzibar Imports Zanzibar f.o.b. value $ Eer kg % 5.46 + 45.6 6.19 + 52.1 6.13 + 46.0 5.85 + 62.0 TABLE 23b C.i.f. values of Hong Kong imports of Zanzibar's ivory compared with the f.o.b. value of Zanzibar's exports to Hong Kong, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o. b. value. Year 1964 65 66 67 68 69 1970 71 72 73 TABLE 23c Tanzania Hong Kong Difference as a f.o.b. value c.L f. value proportion of for Hong Kong of Tanzania Imports Tanzania f.o. b. value Eer kg. $ Eer kg % 5.46 6.29 + 15.2 5.80 7.82 + 34.8 5.39 7.34 + 36.2 7.17 6.60 -7.9 5.46 5.13 6.0 5.23 6.15 + 17.6 7.59 9.37 + 23.5 8.71 10.74 + 23.3 11.33 12.46 + 10.0 28.82 32.17 + 11.6 C .Lf. values of Hong Kong imports of Tanzania's ivory compared witll the f.o.b. value of Tanzania's to Hong Kong, with tJ.le difference expressed as a proportion of

PAGE 77

Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 1970 71 72 73 Totals Tanzania Exports to the U.K. Tons 2.327 1.043 1.315 0.663 6.312 2.702 1.800 1.153 0.805 0.646 18.766 United Kingdom Imports from Tanzania Tons 2.591 4.318 2.794 0.203 14.429 9.399 1.677 2.540 37.951 + 102% TABLE 24 Tanzania's claimed exports to the United Kingdom., and the U.K. 's imports from Tanzania for the years 1962 -1967 and 1970 -1973. Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 1970 71 72 73 Tanzania f.o.b. value for the U.K. Eer kg 4.28 4.85 4.97 6.60 5.05 7.63 11.25 7.75 United Kingdom Difference as a c.l.f. value proportion of of Tanzania Imports Tanzania f.o.b.value % 5.41 + 26.4 5.19 + 7.0 7.02 + 42.3 6.90 + 4.5 7.18 + 42.2 6.56 14.0 11.93 + 6.0 6.89 -11.1 TABLE 25 C.l.f. values of U.K. 's imports of Tanzania ivory compared with the f.o.b. values of Tanzania's exports to the U.K., with the difference expressed as a proportion of the f.o.b. value.

PAGE 78

Year -.-1959 1960 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1970 Totals TABLE 26 Year 1962 63 64 65 66 67 1970 71 72 73 Totals Kenya & Uganda combined Hong Kong Imports from exports to Hong Kong Kenya & Uganda combined Tons Tons 16.330 23.879 27.716 28.268 42.141 37.819 12.882 55.903 11. 069 17.493 28.765 44.985 22.715 25.729 43.829 44.384 53.602 95.093 60.432 90.562 30.541 67.914 51.102 82.223 401.124 614.252 diff. 213.148 The combined ivory exports of Kenya and Uganda compared with Hong Kong's imports from Kenya and Uganda combined for the years 1959 1970. Kenya & Uganda combined exports to the U. K. Tons 2.395 5.580 10.047 6.375 8.444 3.692 5.655 11.606 5.414 3.412 62.720 U. K. Imports from Kenya & Uganda combined Tons 1.118 2.134 4.928 5.538 11.736 7.418 9.755 9.958 3.201 3.658 59.439 iliff. 3,281 TABLE 27 Kenya and Uganda's combined exports to the United Kingdom compared with the U.K. '8 imports from Kenya and Uganda combined, for the years 1962 1967 and 1970 -1973.

PAGE 79

Difference as E. A. Exports Hong Kong Imports a proportion of to Hong Kong from East Africa E. A. Exports Year Tons Tons % 1952 42.067 69.990 + 66 3 76.919 101.007 + 33 4 41. 778 83.162 + 99 5 77.708 79.841 + 3 6 74.332 112.927 + 52 7 87.189 90.340 + 4 8 125.396 121.210 3 9 97.859 107.547 + 10 1960 107.520 110.409 + 3 1 124.425 105.186 -15 2 108.320 150.215 + 37 3 20.458 113.749 + 456 4 50.906 153.565 + 202 5 51. 513 143.458 + 178 6 99.669 115.032 + 15 7 102.801 159.246 + 55 8 120.777 174.849 + 45 9 129.092 168.876 + 31 1970 133.467 139.626 + 5 1 102.675 151. 545 + 48 2 114.136 123.137 + 9 3 184.325 368.561 + 110 TABLE 28 East Africa's official exports to Hong Kong and Hong Kong's official imports from East Africa for the years 1952 1973, with the difference expressed as a proportion of the East African figures.

PAGE 80

APPENDIX I Herewith are a few illustrations of corruption, past and present. They were selected more for the ease with which I came by them, than for sensational content. It should be possible to make far more detailed records if there was purpose in doing so. My informants are identified by Their names could be divulged if there was reason to do so, but at this stage it would serve no purpose.

PAGE 81

i 1. Subject: Jack Bonham. Game Warden, Kenya Game Department, Coast Province c. 1946 -1952. Shot numerous elephant on his own account without a licence. Evidence: the statements of two men who assisted him (1) (2), a fellow Game Warden who investigated this (3) but did not prosecute and a National Park Warden who accumulated the evidence circumstantially after Bonham retired. 2. Subject: David Allen. Game Warden, Kenya Game Department, Central and Coast Provinces, c. 1959 1960. Removed Government ivory from official registers, then claimed tusks as his own or friends and stated that they had shot them "on licence". Evidence: (1) My own eyes, (2) corroboration of a fellow Game Warden (5) and testimony of an officer of the Criminal Investigation Department -Kenya Police (6). Case never taken to court. 3. Subject: lv.richael De Souza. Senior Game Department Clerk. In 1960 sentenced to 3 years' probation for the theft of ,000 worth of Government ivory. Leniency of sentence due to Magistrate's conviction that more senior men in the Game Department were involved (he referred to the Department as a "Gilbertian" outfit). De Souza had been given carte blanche by the Chief Game Warden W. Hale Esq., to Sign permits to sell tusks. This was never checked by Hale, who retired and left Kenya before De Souza's case came to court. 4. Subject: D. Baker. Superintendent, Criminal Investigation Department, Kenya Police, Coast Frovince 1958. Destroyed the case file of evidence and statements concerning the pending prosecution of 2 Asians (M. & 1. Hassan) and 2 Europeans (V. Toffani & G. Bell) for killing elephants without a licence. Evidence: Personal records as I was the investigating officer. Corroborated later by a pointed statement from 1VL Hassan that Baker was his "friend" and would "fix" me if I made further trouble. 5. Subject: Colin Lees and Game Warden K iboko Station, Kenya Game Department (name not given). 1973. Lees, at the time an employee of the East African Railways Corporation, bought a pair of tusks out of 6 pairs offered to him by the Game Warden at Sh 75.00 per kilo. These he then took on an elephant licence saying he had shot the animal legally. He then acted as agent for the Game Warden seeking

PAGE 82

Ii other interested hunters who might wish to buy ivory. He approached my informant (7) with this proposition. 6. Subject: Confidential Internal Game Department Report written October 1973. quotes: a) "The notorious 'collectors letters' did the Game Department's reputation much harm among a public which was not llware that they were not necessarily voluntarily issued by the Game Department." (In other words they were issued on instructions from ''higher authority". 1. P. ) b) "There appears to be a category of people who operate with immunity above the law. c) the ivory register in headquarters does not give the impression of a dC'c,'ment recording the possession and transfer of articles to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Sources and destination of pieces of ivory taken on register are not necessarily given; whole pages of entries are crossed out without explanation. This register reveals the sharp increase in the practice of ivory transfer direct from H. G.. to irrlividuals or dealers rather than via public auction at the ivory rooms. In the sixties over 90% of ivory went to the auctions in Mombasa; in 1970 80% went to the Ivory Rooms; in 1971 and 1972 combined this fell to 44%; in January to July 1973 only 23% of ivory recorded at H. Q. found its way to the Ivory Rooms. d) "Leading personalities including both Assistant l'viinisters in our own Ministry were among those buying (ivory) from H. Q. The officer (8) producing this report had his contract terminated within two weeks of handing it in. 7. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John lVfutinda. NairobilS73. An illicit ivory dealer (9) paid J.Vlutinda Sh 60.00 per kilo to help ship 14 tons oi ivory from Nairobi to Hong Kong in October 1973 during the "ban" on trading in ivory. Confirmed to me personally by (9). 8. Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. Nairobi 1973. illicit ivory dealers (10) (11) moved 100 tons of ivory from Kenya to Hong Kong in 1973 having "paid off" Mutinda. Confirmed by oblique reference by both (10) and (11) and directly by their cousin and partner in business (12). The presence of the ivory in Hong Kong was physically confirmed by inspection (13).

PAGE 83

ill 9. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. Nairobi 1973. Gave (10) and (11) permission to acquire 22, 000 colobus monkey skins from within Kenya where the species is protected. Confirmed by my personal observation. 10. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. 1968 -1972. Involved in large scale licensing of illegal zebra skins in collusion with officials of Tanzania Game Department. Documented in great detail by (14). 11. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. 1974. stated in interview with World Wildlife Fund representative (15) that Kenya only exported c. 30 tons of ivory annually -an outright lie. 12. Subject: Chief Game Warden, Kenya: John Mutinda. 1973. Issued a Press statement, .. all dealings in ivory will be suspended indefinitely with effect from the first of September 1973" East African Standard, 31st August 1973. See chapter on Kenya's ivory exports for confirmation that exports in fact continued openly. 13. Subject: Karanja Gathuru. Businessman. Nairobi 1973. Obtained sanction to break the law on importing ivory into East Africa and tried to buy it as far afield as Botswana. Written evidence in my own fUes. 14. Subject: Mr. Longwe. Malawian businessman based in Nairobi. Ex-official of the World Bank. 1973. Obtained sanction to break the law on importing ivory into East Africa: also sought ivory in Botswana and in the Sudan. In conversation with me confirmed that his authority came from "higher than the Game Department", but would not divulge the person responsible. 15. Businesswoman: Esther Mwikari Kariuki : wife of the Assistant Minister of Wildlife and Tourism, Kenya Government. 1973. Prosecuted for illegal possession of ivory. Fined On Appeal Judge stated fine ridiculously low but could not increase sentence as Prosecution had made no request for this to be done. (See case 6 d).)

PAGE 84

iv 16. Subject: Businessman: Peter Mbindah. December 1973, Nairobi. Understood that I was buying ivory and asked me to take 5 tons from him. I asked whether it was legal. It was not, but Mbindah stated that his partner was the Police officer 2nd in command of the Nairobi District who had guaranteed all legal documents would be provided. Witness to this con.versation (16). 17. Subject: Businessman: W. Harvey & 4 others. August 1973. Arrested in possession of 63 elephant tusks. On 4th September they were all released: the police prosecutor entered a plea of nolle prosequi on "instructions from the Attorney General's office". This was refuted a day later by the Attorney General's office. The police had themselves "arranged" the matter. Details presented in the East African Standard. 18. Subject: Businessmen Kamau Thiongo and Kanyaheho Gitau v. Republic of Kenya, for illegal possession of 32 tusks. State withdrew the case against Thiongo, the senior of the two with no reason given. Magistrate stated the procedure was dubious and that there were "big fish" behind the accused. 19. Subject: Housewife: Mrs. Diane Wambui. Arrested January 1973 in possession of 153 elephant tusks. Case withdrawn on instructions from the Attorney General's office. Evidence in the East Mrican Standard. 20. Subject: Magistrate: Mr. Tank hearing a case against two men for the illegal possession of 26, 500 colobus monkey skins, stated ". . it looked as though there was no rule of law as as trophies were concerned." (vide Game Department practices. ) 21. Subject: 2 Arab traders: names not obtained. A lorry was found by Administration Police stuck in the mud at W itu, Coast Province, mid 1973. On searching they found it contained more than 300 tusks. The carriers were without any documentation. Some months later, the necessary documents "arrived from Somalia" and no prosecution followed. There was no record of the vehicle having passed through any Customs barrier between Kenya and Somalia and no Customs record of any ivory coming into Kenya that year : see Chapter 1. Information from (5).

PAGE 85

v 22. Subject: Arab traders, names not given: seized with a cache of ivory of 130 tusks in the Boni forest Lamu by Game Warden, Lamu. No action taken (5). 23. Subject: Businessman Karanja Gathuru: August 1974. Arrested in possession of ivory in Garissa District. Produced a letter from Deputy Chief Game Warden Daniel Sindiyo which stated: "I am instructed to renew your Dealer's Permit". This is after the Government declared its monopoly on ivory trading. (5) 24. Ex Mau Mau General Kamiti c. 1964/65. On Jomo Kenyatta's personal instructions was given authority to sell ivory and leopard skins collected during the "freedom fight". Game Department opposed this sanction but ultimately agreed to sell the trophies on Kamiti's behalf. He was unable to produce more than a few small pieces of ivory and a few poor leopard skins. Despite this evidence that he was not in possession of trophies from his days in the forests, he was given further permission to sell 7 5, 000 worth of ivory outside of Game Department supervision on Presidential orders. Informant (24). 25. Ex Mau Mau General Kamiti: September 1973, stated that President Kenyatta had promised certain former terrorists that ivory was to be "their fruit" (matunda yetu), and was indignant about the ban on trading. Informant (17). 26. Subjeot: Alleged former "Field Marshall" Muthoni -a Kikuyu woman dealing in ivory throughout 1972 and 1973 (and further back). This woman came out of the "forests" as one of the last Mau Mau to return to normal life. She was received with much publicity, but the whole affair seemed to have been fabricated. There was no mention of any such "Field Marshall" during the Mau Mau Emergency. However, President Kenyatta gave instructions that both she and her accomplice were to be given permits to sell the ivory that they had hidden during the "war". With this carte blanche, lVIuthoni was soon recovering ivory from areas hundreds of miles from the Aberdare Mountains. (5).

PAGE 86

vi 27. Subject: Field Marshall Muthoni: 1973. Arrived in the Deputy Chief Game Warden's office with a statement that she was to be allowed to buy Game Department ivory "at a fair price". The officer (Mr. Michael Macharia) refused her permission, whereupon she put a telephone call through to State House and complained. Within minutes a call came back from the President himself in which Mr. Macharia was asked to explain himself. Not unsurprisingly, he was bereft of explanations. The Field Marshall got her ivory at give away prices. Informant (5). 28. Subject: United Mrica Corporation: Major shareholder, Miss Margaret Kenyatta, the Mayor of Nairobi and daughter of Jomo Kenyatta. The United Africa Corporation exported more than 50 tons of ivory to Peking in 1972. This was stated by the Company manager in an interview with a newspaper reporter (18). 29. Subject: United Africa Corporation: Margaret Kenyatta's company as above. Statement made to me personally by the new manager K. Pusey (Pissy) : "all ivory the company exported in 1973 and 1974 was from the Game Department. 30. Subject: United Africa Corporation: Margaret Kenyatta's company as above. Exported ivory to Peking and Shanghai throughout the 1973/74 ban on trading. Evidence: personal observation of consignments in transit, acquisition of relevant airwaybills, witnessed by (19) and now in possession of (20). 31. Subject: Attorney General: Mr. Charles Njonjo. 1974. I approached illicit ivory dealer (9) and told him I was gathering a large consignment of illegal ivory. I would like to get "cover" for this from the Attorney General, could this be arranged. Within ten minutes he was talking to another Asian who claimed to be Njonjo's "arranger". It was confirmed that Njonjo could and would provide cover when would I like an appointment with this go-between to arrange the details? At this point I terminated the contact by saying that I was not ready.

PAGE 87

vii 32. Subject: The President of Kenya: Jomo Kenyatta. July 1974. With the onset of the new ban on ivory trading, several approaches for an explanation were made by legitimate hunters to the Minister for Tourism and Wildlife. During one, the illegal ivory trade was mentioned whereupon the exasperated Minister said words to this effect. ''What can I do about it when he (Mzee Kenyatta) has just instructed me to issue a permit to export 15 tons to Margaret Kenyatta and 5 tons to Mungai (Kenya's Foreign :Minister) ?" Informant (19) to whom the statement was made. So far the cases have been confined to ivory or wildlife matters. However, samples from wider fields are : 33. Subject: The Experimental station at Naivasha, sponsored by Dutch Government aid: Date unspecified. The farm has a number of cattle donated by the Dutch Government. One day the Provincial Agricultural Officer approached the Dutch station manager and stated that he had been instructed to remove the cattle from the farm. The manager refused permission to this. On the following day a lorry was sent by the Provincial Commissioner with an armed escort who forcibly removed the cattle. They were then taken to the Provincial Commissioner's farm at Nyeri. Informant (21) witnessed the incident. 34. Subject: Wheat Export: Vice President Daniel Arap Moi: 1972/73. Wheat farmers in Kenya have to sell their produce to the Kenya Farmers Association for c. Sh 72.00 per bag. Recently the country has had to import wheat from abroad at over Sh 200.00 per bag. Moi has ignored the law and been selling his own wheat direct to Uganda at the international price. Informant (22) witnessed the loadIng of bags into Uganda-bound trains and verified Its ownership and destination by examIning the railing documents. 35. Subject: Lonrho/Express Transport Ltd. c. 1972 (date uncertain). Express Transport Ltd. a major firm of hauliers bought out by Lonrho. In 1972 Express Transport's road licences came up for renewal. All licences were refused until Dr. Njeroge Mungai (Kenya's Foreign Minister) had received ,000 into a London bank account. Informant (23) sawall relevant correspondence and received other information from the prinCipals involved.

PAGE 88

viii 36. Subject: Ngina Kenyatta: c. 1972 (date uncertain). Bought the old Gailey & Roberts Building in Kimathi Street, Nairobi. Tenants with leases 5 years to run at the time of take-over were informed that irrespective of their legal right, they had to agree to rents being doubled. Thus one lessee's rent went from Sh 4, 000.00 per month to Sh 10, 000.00. The option for this man was payor face closure of business and deportation (15). 37. Subject: Ngina Kenyatta: 1973/74. Together with various associates including Vice President Daniel arap Moi stole a valuable gem mine from two American prospectors: widely reported in the international Press. 38. Subject: Jomo Kenyatta: 1974: Stated to own personally or in partnership, more than 2, 000, 000 acres of land in Kenya. (25) Finanqing for his own and his wife's land acquisition draws heavily on funds. These are provided to facilitate African entry into modern agriculture. Each time the Kenyattas draw on the Corporation's funds it causes radical re-scheduling and delays in its general plans. (25) 39. Subject: Ngina Kenyatta: 1973/74. Purchased 21 houses in London's Swiss Cottage residential area for $600, 000 cash. There is virutally no way that she could have accumulated such large external funds except by contravening Kenya's currency regulations (26).

PAGE 89

APPENDIX II As the conservation of elephant is subordinate to human affairs, I dellberately avoided comment on it in the main report. However, there are steps that could be taken to improve the current position, though they will require rather more intellectual honesty than has been shown by conservationists to date. Some of them are :-1. Appreciation of the role ivory plays in human affairs as a currency. 2. Following on 1., recognising that little will be gained by continuing to make the possession and trading in ivory "illegal", except to force the trade underground. 3. As ivory is widely available throughout the continent, and as law enforcement officers are too few to prevent it being obtained, the logical course is to open the trade and endeavour to control it through manipulation of the price of ivory. This could be done by the international trade, or by some international co ncern acquirIng a sufficiently large stock of ivory to be used to flood markets and dampen prices at times of high demand or rising values. 4. Recognising that all elephants extant cannot be protected, that most of their ranges outside permanent sanctuaries are being occupied by man, and that efforts to protect them everywhere will therefore be wasted effort in the long run. 5. Following on 4., anti-poaching effort should be concentrated on national parks alone. This would produce sufficient concentration of law-enforcement personnel to make their presence an effective deterrent to poaching. 6. Making conservation "aid" dependant on results that can be verified by the donors not the receivers as at present.

PAGE 90

1. Charo Kenga -Ex Game Scout. 2. Elm Nthengi -Ex poacher. 3. Eric Rungren -Ex & Professional Hunter. 4. F.W. Woodley National Park Warden. 5. Jack Barrah -Ex Game Warden & O.D.A. adviser to the Kenya Game Department. 6. R. Winterburn Kenya Police -C. I.D. 7. L. Bull Gunsmith. 8. Dr. P. Jarman -Ex Senior Research Officer Kenya Game Department. 9. Vinod Mohindra Merchant. 10. Chimu Gidoomal Merchant. 11. Prem Gidoomal Merchant. 12. Ram Gidoomal Merchant. 13. John nsley -Businessman. 14. Eric Balson -Ex Tanzariia Game Department. 15. Ellis Monks World Wildlife Fund (Kenya). 16. Dr. Richard Bell Zoologist. 17. John Aniere Safari Operator. 18. Roy Perrit -Journalist. 19. Jack Block -Hotelier. 20. Karen Lerner News feature producer, N.B.C., New York. 21. Dr. S. de Vries -Experimental Station, Naivasha. 22. P. J. Reynolds -Farmer. 23. A. L. Archer -Professional Hunter. 24. I.R. Grimwood -Ex Chief Game Warden, Kenya. 25. George Murphy -Agricultural Finance Corporation, Nairobi through J. Gore -Farmer. 26. Mrs. S. Spry.

PAGE 91

," -P. O. Box 30018. Nalrobl ': In July 191, 4 I asked to prepare a report 01'1 tbe East African lvory trade mad Its pol!tlcallmpl1cauc>l'l8. I agreed to do so 011 a professlonal ,basls. The SP01l8Or8 their Dames be kept aBettet. .. The repOrt was completed in october 1914. Its EJalle.lit i'ttat\il'$& were : \ 1. CUTrelit "aDd past polley toward. Jvory laoked appreclatlOD of Its role 8S a currenoy, and the situation of the majority of people who ,!" exploited It. Summarised the posU1on is tllat irrespective of the needs and lusts of men. if elephants are born, In time they will die. In dying they leave freely avallable Ivory. Potentially this is the lal"gest souroe of tusks 11\ AtTica. It is unreal to expect people llvlDg In poverty and in proximity to elephant populations not to take advantage of stioh wealth. In the circumstances no law Is 11kely to suooeed In preventing Its use. Natural eleph8llt mortality therefore provides tmlrremovable basis for an Ivory trade for 8S long 98 elephonts exist. Any law makJng trade in ivory Ulegnl merely drives the business underground. Tb1s lDtl'wle aspect of the Ivory trade haa consistently been Ignored. Conservationist argument agalnst free-trading Is that while collection of.lvory from natural mortality Is acceptable or even deSirable, It would provide Impenetrable cover foJ;' Ullclt elephant huntlng. This 18 true. Howevers an Intransigent ban on tradlng does Dot remove either the avallabnlty or attraction of Ivory and If anytblng. increases the poverty of those who collect It in the first Instance. While the conservationists' problem i8 clear, action taken does not seem swtable. More realistio laws are required snd until they are enacted, an inegal Ivory trade will exist regardless of Governments and ideologies. 2. Cn the basis of compar1sons between Customs recorda of East African ivory exports, and those of lmports by the 'consuming' countries. It Is apparent that a substantin1 illegal trade was taklDg place long before East African lndependence. From the records alone, it Is d1fficult to conceive of this taking place without the connivance and participation of some senior British civU servants. Evidence involving former Game WaJdens and Pollee officers in Ullclt ivory was presented. 3. Asian lnfluence In the Illicit trade was allled to their political fortunes in East Africa. The records suggest clearly that 88 soon 8a It became apparent that they were not an acceP,table element In .lDdependent East Africa, Asians set about exporting capital. Ivory was substantial vehicle for such transference. However in recent times Asian influence appears to have diminished and been replaced by Afrloan Involvement.

PAGE 92

-2 -4. Concurrent with the African take-over of ivory trading the volume of Ivory exported has risen very sharply -over the 3 years 1971, '72 and '73, Increases In volume over the preceding year were between 78% and 86% annually. This is based on the East African records whloh are shown to be grossly under-reoorded (e.g. In 1973 Kenya's stated exports to Hong Kong were. olalmed 8S c. 146 tons, Hong Kong aoknowledged 1mports of well over 200 tons). Convincing evidenoe of the minimal monetary losses to East Africa for 1973 Indioate that $19, 000, 000.00 were banked outside the 3 territories. Of the 3 countries, Kenya was by far the most important In the Ivory trade reoently. 5. Evidenoe was presented that many influential Kenyans were involved In Ivory deRling. This Inoluded the President himself. The Chief Game Warden was obviously pivotal to all reoorded Ivory expOrts. 6 It was pointed out that the same level of "oorruptlon" that pertained to ivory, also applled very widely In many walks of Ufe In Kenya. In the circumstanoes It was considered pointless to single out ivory In the hope that as a small facet the 'raokets' might be stopped. 7. It was pointed out that the loternal and Intematlonal potential of the material 10 the report was considerable and dangerous. It could be used In a variety of ways to rend Kenya's politioal and 80cial fabric. In 88tute hands the material could be used to embarrass ald-giving Governments before their own electorates, if their disregard for obvious corruption In recipient countries could be demonstrated. The information could badly damage Kenya'S future abil1ty to benefit from internatIonal charity. Internally It could be used potently by the current Government's opponents. 8. It was conoluded that if the report's sponsors wished to oorrect the ivory trade, they had no option other than to Involve themselves In Kenyan affairs to a degree hitherto unoontemplated. This point was made starkly to get the point over. However It was NOT recommended the sponsors should so Involve themselves. Copies of the report were given to the British High Commission and the American Embassy, and they were asked to make comment. Both returned the report with the statement that it was too "hot The report was then debated among the sponsors. Unanimously It was agreed that It should be Pllt to no destructive use. It was felt that if merely divulged to the world public, nothing would be gained exoept embarrassment. For all the corruption evident In it, it was accepted that the Kenya Government was maintaining an unparalleled level of civilisation In Africa. If the information 10 the report could be passed on to those 10 power 10 Kenya and thereby stimulate them to consider the consequences of current trends, no

PAGE 93

-gil -30better use could be made of It. The lol'm In which the lDformaUon should be presented and to whom were never decided. Ia the interim someone leaked the existence of the repori. Its contents, author and the Dame of one of the to the Government. The I!ireotor of IntellIgence, Special Branch. Kenyn Pollee, made 8 demand for the report. He olaimed direct Presidentlal instructions to obtain It Immediately 8Ild guaranteed freedotn from deportntlon or any other unpleasantness for sponsors and author. Great seemed apparent as Included waktDg me at midnight. The Presldentlal demand was debated by the spooson. The report could bring severe' retrlbution on all having had anything to do with its production. It felt that It might eoslly produce$. violent reaction from the PreSident, assur:;mces to the contrary notwlthst8lldlDg. To offset any such happenlng, copies of the report were lodged in London with ID8tructtons that the information was to be released to the widest possible pubUclty In tbe event of any of the people connected with the report being troubled by the Kenyan Ba.vlng taken the foregoing precaution It was decided to give a copy of the report to President Kenyatta. subject to tbe condition that It remained confidential aad that he would discuss it with the author and the one sponsor Imo\Vn -J. Block. The reasoning behind this decision was that If received constructively It could lead to action to reduce the considerable oclal tensions that are bu1ldlng up iD Kenya, and whloh threaten its 8tabUity. If on the other hand it was merely shelved it would reveal a disregard for these tensions that would have considerable bearing on the motivation for ourrent polioies 10 aU fields of Kenya IS 11fe. Either course would be of value to the sponsor. During the frequent oontacts that preceded and followed the handing over of the report (on 2nd February 19'15) to the DIrector of tntentgence, he was wamed thQ.t the lDtemational Press were nware that something was In the wind. If they sought the Information given in Customs records. they would have much of the basic material contained in the report ond would publlah It without reference to anyone 10 Kenya. It was In theIr own Interests to put the report to quick use to avoid destructive criticism. He made it abundantly clear that the President wished to avoid pubUclty at all costs and was certain that immediate action would follow his reading the report. Naturally I have done my best to locate the lesker who informed the Government that the report eXIsted. Soure s inside the Kenya Pollc peeial Branch state categorically that It derived from either the U. S. Embassy or the British High CommIssion. The weight of opinion favours the I tter, though this admission might wen be a fabrioation. Several people knew of the preparation of the report. if not Ita content 10 detai1, and have been spreading its existence around (e.l. John Eame has set at least two jOurDall t8 from

PAGE 94

-4 -international papers onto asking J. Block and myself for copies). A further bulletin will be sent you in due course. In the interim you are asked to file this letter confldentlally. 15th February, 1975


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 ECOAAMS3L_VYN0Z9 INGEST_TIME 2014-05-23T22:42:24Z PACKAGE AA00020117_00011
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES