CO885-(21-23) — Page 518

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTTTT CO. 885

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

22 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

11925

20

No. 20.

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received 10 April, 1913.)

[Copies to Governors, East Africa Protectorate, No. 318, Uganda, No. 199, 26 April, 1913. L.F.] [Answered by No. 25. |

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presents his compliments to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, by direction of the Secretary of State, transmits herewith, for observations, copy of a despatch from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, No. 6, Africa, dated March 21, respecting the prevention of illicit trade in ivory.

Reference to previous letter: Colonial Office, No. 25237, September 3, 1912.* Foreign Office,

SIR,

April 10, 1913.

(No. 6, Africa.)

Enclosure in No. 20.

British Agency, Cairo, March 21st, 1913. I FORWARDED to the Sirdar the correspondence which you transmitted to me with your No. 42, Africa, of September 26th last, on the subject of the proposed regulations to prevent illicit trade in ivory. I now have the honour to enclose herewith a memorandum drawn up at the Sirdar's request by Mr. A. L. Butler, Superintendent, Game Preservation Department, Soudan Government. Mr. Butler makes the following recommendations :—

A. The necessity of fixing a weight, not less than 25 lbs., below which it shall be illegal to export elephant tusks from any African port.

B. That all elephant tusks under this weight shall be declared to be contra- band, and, wherever possible, confiscated by the Administration concerned.

C. The desirability of the compilation of detailed export returns of ivory at the various Customs posts.

Mr. Butler further points out that to be effective these measures must be enforced rigidly by all Administrations in Africa.

With reference to the foregoing, the Sirdar remarks that in the present circum- stances the question of confiscation, and the disposal of confiscated ivory in Abyssinia would appear to present considerable difficulties, but, admitting that useful co-opera- tion by the Abyssinian authorities is unlikely, it may be noted that all produce for export from Abyssinia has, at present, to pass through Customs stations which are under European control.

Although to bring into operation regulations such as these now proposed would not, perhaps, have a very great effect on the exchange of arms for ivory on the Sudan- Abyssinian frontier in the immediate future, it should be remembered that any restrictions imposed on the ivory trade must assist in checking the arms traffic, as the two are largely interdependent.

The Sirdar puts forward a suggestion which, although not of primary impor tance, is, perhaps, worthy of consideration, viz.: that a proviso be made that all ivory thus confiscated be disposed of outside Africa, as being preferable to allowing it to be marked with a Government stamp and sold in the country of origin, or any neighbouring African State.

The Right Honourable

Sir Edward Grey, Bart., K.G., M.P. &c., &c., &c.

I have, &c.,

KITCHENER. •

(Confidential.)

21

Game Preservation Department,

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL,

Khartoum, October 31st, 1912. Your Excellency has asked me to give my views on the proposals contained in the attached correspondence.

1.

With regard to the first suggestion :-

That an international agreement should be made by which a universal weight of 25 or 30 lbs. should be fixed, below which it is illegal to export or possess ivory.

I believe there can be no doubt, if all the European nations possessing territory in Africa would combine in agreeing to a minimum weight of 30 or even 25 lbs., and would rigidly enforce the prohibition of export, and the confiscation of all tusks under this weight in all cases, that such united action would do more to check the persecution of the elephant than any other regulations which could be devised. Other forms of control, however excellent on paper, are too difficult, if not impossible, to enforce throughout the immense areas concerned.

As has been pointed out, an absolutely complete agreement among the nations interested is essential to the success of the scheme, which would be entirely spoiled by one or two of them holding back. So long as any African ports remained open to the export of underweight ivory to them, that ivory would gravitate to the benefit -in Customs dues of the revenue of the territory which was frustrating the efforts of its neighbours, and at their expense.

It is greatly to be hoped that a complete agreement can be arrived at.

As regards the minimum weight to be fixed, I consider that 30 lbs is the best

to adopt for Africa as a whole. A limit of 25 lbs., however, if less effective, would do so much good that it would be better to accept this if the difference of 5 lbs. seemed in any way likely to affect the success of negotiations towards a general agreement.

In connection with this point, it is necessary to prevent the spring up of any trade in small manufactured articles of ivory, such as could be made out of tusks below the weight limit, as a means of evading the standard.

I take this opportunity of suggesting that the Customs at all ports of export in Africa should be directed to show in their annual returns the exact number of tusks composing the export. It would surely be very little trouble to do this, and the figures would show the exact number of elephants the ivory represented. The figures usually furnished in Customs returns show only the gross weight and value, and thus do not afford this most important information, or enable the average weight of the tusks exported to be calculated. I regard this as an extremely important point.

It is impossible to foresee how far the stopping of trade in ivory under 30 lbs. weight would affect revenues derived from royalty. Here again, if more detailed Customs figures were available, classing ivory by weight, this could be seen at a glance. On the whole, I believe the fall such revenues would be less than might be imagined, as a reduction in the total export of ivory would tend to increase the price, and, moreover, the amount of ivory confiscated would increase considerably And its whole value, instead of a small percentage of it, thus accruing the revenue. against any loss involved, the continuance of a source of revenue otherwise likely to become exhausted in the near future would be greatly prolonged, if not entirely ensured.

A weak point in the scheme which seems unavoidable is that the Governments of African Colonies can continue to sell underweight "confiscated" ivory. Returns of the number and weight of the tusks confiscated should be published by every country concerned.

Another question suggests itself for consideration:-Should the nations signa- tory to an agreement to prohibit the export from Africa of all tusks under 25 or 30 lbs. weight allow the open sale by auction in Europe of ivory below that weight other than the marked tusks which have been put on the market after Government confiscation?

]

• Not printed.

33489

B 3