THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM

PUBLIC NOTICE
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT ON ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT FORTH BY WINGERT WINDROSE
SAFARIS ON ALLOCATION OF LAKE NATRON GCA HUNTING BLOCKS
1. Introduction
Friedkin Conservation Fund (FCF) owns two sister hunting companies in Tanzania.
These companies are Tanzania Game Trackers Safaris (TGTS) Ltd and Wengert
Windrose Safaris (WWS). Both companies applied for the tourist hunting blocks for
hunting term of 2013 -2018 as shown in Table 1 below. In the previous hunting term,
these Companies were allocated a total of 14 hunting blocks.
Following the allocation of the hunting blocks for 2013 -2018 by the Minister for
Natural Resources and Tourism and subsequent release of the results on
September 6, 2011, TGTS and WWS were dissatisfied and therefore made an
application for the administrative review to the Minister of Natural Resources and
Tourism (MNRT). The Minister submitted the application to the Hunting Block
allocation Advisory Committee for opinion and recommendation. Basically, these
companies wanted reasons on why they were not allocated all hunting blocks that
they applied for including Lake Natron Game Controlled Area (North).
Table 1: The hunting blocks applied and allocated to two FCF Hunting Companies
for 2013-2018 hunting term
Name of the
Company
TANZANIA GAME
TRACKERS
SAFARIS LTD
(TGRS)

The hunting blocks applied

by these companies (20132018)
1. Ugalla GR (South)
2. Ugalla GR (North)
3. Ugalla GR (Central)
4. Moyowosi GR Njingwe 1
5. Maswa Kimali
1

The hunting blocks allocated to

these companies (2013-2018)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Ugalla GR (South)
Ugalla GR (North)
Ugalla GR (Central)
Moyowosi GR Njingwe 1
Maswa Kimali

WENGERT
WINDROSE
SAFARIS (WWS)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Moyowosi GR South
Lake Natron GCA (N-S)
Lake Natron GCA (N)
Moyowosi GR Njingwe 2
Moyowosi GR Njingwe 3

1. Moyowosi GR South
2. Lake Natron GCA (N-S)

Through the Hunting Block allocation Advisory Committee, which met in January 2012,
it was apparent that TGTS had already exhausted the maximum number of blocks
prescribed by the Wildlife Conservation Act No.5, 2009 under Section 38 (7). On the
other hand, WWS was not allocated three out of five hunting blocks they requested
because of stiff competition. This competition was exacerbated by the new Wildlife
Conservation Act which, in accordance to Section 39(3)(b), made it compulsory that the
percentage of foreign owned companies allocated hunting blocks shall not exceed 15%
of the total hunting companies at a particular time. The two companies made a second
application for Administrative Review to the Minister, who again submitted this
application to the Hunting Block allocation Advisory Committee. Still the Committee did
not see any compelling reasons to cancel the allocation of a hunting block that was
already lawfully allocated to another company in favour of WWS.
2. Conflict over Lake Natron Game Controlled Area (East)
Lake Natron Game Controlled Area (GCA) has four hunting blocks which resulted
following subdivision of the previous two blocks i.e Lake Natron Game Controlled
Area North and Lake Natron Game Controlled Area South. These blocks were
later subdivided into four hunting blocks prior to commencement of 2013-2018
hunting term: Lake Natron GCA (South-West) allocated to Michel Mantheakis
Safaris Ltd, Lake Natron GCA (South) allocated to Kilombero North Safaris Ltd,
Lake Natron GCA (North-South) allocated to WWS Ltd and Land Natron GCS
(North) which was allocated to Green Miles Safaris Ltd. This exercise of
evaluating and subdividing the blocks was conducted throughout the country by
Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), the countrys Wildlife Scientific
Authority. However, it became apparent that the names for some blocks did not
reflect their actual geographical locations.

It was, therefore, proposed that these blocks be re-named. In Lake Natron GCA
three blocks; Lake Natron GCA (North-South), Lake Natron GCA (North) and
Lake Natron GCA (South West) had their names changed to Lake Natron GCA
(North), Lake Natron GCA (East) and Lake Natron GCA (West), respectively.
Previously, FCF strongly disputed subdivision of a block which led to formation of
Lake Natron GCA (North South) and Lake Natron GCA (North). However, the
government was satisfied by the scientific reasons and criteria for having two
2

blocks and, therefore, approved the exercise despite resentment from FCF.
WWS applied for two blocks but was allocated one block and that is Lake Natron
Game Cotrolled Area North-South, a category II hunting block with the size of
1885 km2. The company made payment for this block in 2013. However, WWS
made application for Administrative Review twice appealing for re-allocation of
the block which was awarded to another company. There were no compelling
reasons to revoke the allocation of the block already awarded to another
company legally in favour of WWS.

Following failure of WWS to stop subdivision of the block by the government into two
and, later failure to win one of the blocks through the two administrative reviews, it
consulted Green Miles Safaris Ltd (GMS) the legal concession holder of the Lake
Natron GCA (East) Hunting Block for 2013-2018 hunting term. GMS showed
willingness to sell his safari packages to WWS and not otherwise. WWS insisted
their position that they wanted the block and not ready for any other option. The
hostility between the two companies became apparent in Reno-Nevada, US in
January 2013, when WWS used American officials to throw the Managing Director
for GMS out of the trade fair.

After unsuccessful attempts to get hold of Lake Natron Game Controlled Area
(East) Hunting Block, WWS fabricated a story accusing the officials of Wildlife
Division of a dirty game that they had changed the names of the hunting blocks
in order to swap their block and award it to GMS. The Wildlife Division officials
clarified this issue showing that the changes did not specifically target Lake
Natron GCA only but also other hunting blocks including those located in Selous
Game Reserve. The justification for these changes was based on the reality that
the previous names did not reflect the actual geographical position of the blocks.
It was also made clear through the maps that there was no way these changes
could affect the position and size of the hunting blocks. Previously, WWS were
issued with a map for their hunting block Lake Natron GCA (North South)
which was proposed to be called Lake Natron GCA (North) because of its
location. However, since WWS were interested to getting Lake Natron GCA
(East)- previously called Lake Natron GCA North- by any means, they were not
ready to accept any reality and opted to lie that they were not issued with any
map.

In accordance to law, WWS were supposed to vacate the Lake Natron GCA
(East) Hunting Block by 31st March, 2013, which was the end of hunting term.
3

However, it did not comply with this legal requirement. Instead they opted to go to
court, an indication that they were not satisfied by results of the two
Administrative Reviews. The Court ruled against WWS and, therefore, it lost the
case.

A new concession holder, GMS, complained to the Director of Wildlife that he

was unable to set a hunting camp in a contested hunting block because WWS
was still in. On 20th May, 2013, the Director wrote to WWS giving them a notice to
vacate the hunting block in three days time.

WWS played down the notice which was issued by the Director of Wildlife.
Instead, on May 23, 2013 a delegation of WWS returned to the Minister of
Natural Resources and Tourism insisting their ambition to retain the Lake Natron
GCA (East) Hunting Block (previously) called Lake Natron GCA North).
Furthermore, they wanted the Minister to undo a three days notice that the
Director of Wildlife issued for WWS to vacate the Hunting Block.

The Minister instructed the Director of Wildlife to convene a meeting for all key
stakeholders involved in the Lake Natron GCA (East) Hunting Block conflict. The
meeting was convened on May 24,2013. However, no consensus was reached
as WWS maintained their position despite all evidence presented showing that
they were not the legal concession holders for the contested block.

In that meeting, all relevant documents pertaining to the process and outcome of
block allocation were presented. These documents included Report on
evaluation of hunting blocks submitted by Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute
(TAWIRI) to the Director of Wildlife, Public notice inviting application for hunting
blocks, letters of allocation of hunting blocks and maps of the hunting blocks. The
TAWIRI report, dated February, 2011 was signed on each page by the Director
General for TAWIRI. This report, contained maps on which a hunting block
located on the Northern part was labelled as Lake Natron GCA (North-South)
while the one on the Eastern Part was indicated as Lake Natron GCA (North). It
was insisted that this was the basis of proposing change of the names to reflect
the actual geographical location of the blocks rather than using the names that
were misleading.

Despite clarifications made, WWS insisted that they had the right over the
contested hunting block. Their Director of operations presented a map which he
claimed to have obtained from TAWIRI. When he was queried on procedure he
used to obtain a map from TAWIRI while TAWIRI has no mandate to issue the
maps to any hunting company he said that he was compelled to do so because
he was not issued a map by Wildlife Division.

WWS was cautioned of its unacceptable behaviour of colluding with some

dishonest government officials for the sake of getting hold of government
documents as some of them are not formal. This being the case, these
documents can be misleading. WWS was further warned that the act of colluding
with staff in order to steal government documents was not only unethical but also
a serious violation of law.

The behaviour of buying dishonest government officials for the sake of meeting
their goals appears to be common among some staff and mandate of the TGTS
and WWS. For instance, on May 9, 2013, WWS through one of his officer (name
withheld), called an Assistant Director responsible for Wildlife Utilization (ADUT),
and told him that his bosses were inviting him for dinner and talks somewhere he
didnt mention. The ADUT declined this offer but the officer kept on insisting.
ADUT invited WWS officials to the office if at all the talks were official but the
officer insisted that his bosses wanted the talks be held somewhere else due to
sensitivity of the talks. Later on he sent a text message (sms) trying to convince
ADUT to accept invitation on grounds that the event would be very rewarding to
him.

During the meeting, another WWS Director said that despite all arguments and
facts presented, it was more logical for the Ministry to allocate the contested
hunting block to WWS due to its presence in this area for long time and the huge
investment they had made compared to the northern part which during allocation
was known as Lake Natron Game Controlled Area North South.

WWS were reminded that basically all hunting blocks belong to the government
and that are allocated to investors for five years. This is why investors are not
allowed to erect permanent structures in these blocks. It is, therefore, incorrect
for any company to claim having ownership for a given hunting block after expiry
5

of such term. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a person/company

allocated the hunting block today will be allocated the same block on the next
hunting term. This is the reason why all companies including the previous
concession holders are required to reapply for another term. WWS were
reminded to be considerate, because while they had seven hunting blocks
allocated to them, some companies which had similar qualifications could not get
any hunting block due to stiff competition.

After several mediating meetings, WWS went to the Court and filed different
cases. Among those cases were;
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.

Miscellaneous Land Application No. 44 of 2013 Wengert Windrose Ltd

Versus Green Mile Safari Ltd and Others;
Commercial Case No.113 of 2013 Wengert Windrose Safaris Versus
Green Mile Safari Ltd;
Miscellaneous Commercial Case No. 88 of 2013 Wengert Windrose
Safaris (T) Ltd Versus Green Mile Safari Ltd;
Commercial Case No.115 of 2013 Green Mile Safari Ltd Versus Wengert
Windrose Safaris Ltd;
Miscellaneous Commercial application No.92 of 2013 Green Mile Safari
Ltd Versus Wengert Windrose Safaris Ltd;
Miscellaneous Commercial Cause No.26 of 2013Wengert Windrose
Safaris Ltd Versus Green Mile Safari Ltd;
Miscellaneous Commercial Application No.26 of 2013 Wengert Windrose
Safari Ltd Versus Awadh Ally Abdallah;
Miscellaneous Commercial application No.68 of 2014 Awadh Abdallah
Versus Wengert Windrose Safari Ltd.

However, despite the court ruling being against WWS, the company continued to
occupy Lake Natron GCA (East) unlawfully.

On July 5, 2013 WWS staff purposely drove a vehicle towards foreign tourists
who were clients of GMS with intention of knocking them down. Earlier, the WWS
staff dug the holes in the airstrip to ensure that no plane could land. They also
closed roads with big branches of trees to block accessibility for vehicles owned
by GMS. Having seen this risk, the tourists left, not only denying GMS the right to
hunt in a block allocated to him legally, but also denying the government
revenues and possibly, tarnishing the image of Tanzania as unsafe destination for
tourist hunting.

Along with their unacceptable behaviour, WWS started campaigns to instigate

communities in one of the Villages to protest the presence and operations of
GMS in Lake Natron GCA (East). This was done regardless of the fact that GMS
is a legal concession holder of the block.

Unlike in the previous years, when WWS was said to be hostile to the villagers,
they had changed and started to provide support in terms of money and pledging
some more materials. They were also working closely with some village leaders
lobbying for their support and it is believed that some Village Officials agreed to
sign a contract (which was not there before) indicating WWS commitments in
development of the villages. Apparently, this contract was only known to some
village leaders, not approved by Village Assembly and not known to Longido
District Council. Moreover, the contested Hunting Block is in the Game
Controlled Area, which is a reserved land, hence owned by the Central
Government rather than Village Government.

Following WWS actions that were threatening peace and tranquility, District
Commissioner for Longido convened a meeting with all hunting companies in the
District on July 19, 2013 reminding on what is expected from them and the
general codes of conduct as investors.

He warned that the Government would not hesitate to take stern measures
against any company that would make the villagers a part of their conflicts by
instigating breaching of the peace and tranquility in the District.

3. Unacceptable behavior of WWS and TGTS in the hunting industry

Basically, for years WWS and TGTS had been stubborn and arrogant, not only
against government officials but also against other investors in the industry.
These behaviours were observed in different areas where they have been
operating including in Selous, Rungwa, Ugalla Game Reserve and now Lake
Natron Game Controlled Area and Makao Wildlife Management Area (WMA).

Apart from the current conflict taking place in Lake Natron GCA, the WWS sister
company (TGTS) also entered into conflict with Fereck Safaris in Makao WMA.
TGTS through Mwiba Holdings, unlawfully entered and constructed a hunting
camp in the Hunting Block allocated to Fereck Safari Ltd. TGTS lost in the
process of getting an investor for hunting block in Makao WMA. It had 50%
score while their competitors, Fereck Safaris scored 80%.

Allegations by WWS that they are suffering unjust treatment at the hands of the
Tanzanian Department of Wildlife and that the government has not made any
7

efforts to clarify the matter are unfounded. Essentially, wisdom and considerable
tolerance have been observed in working with both hunting companies owned by
FCF in Tanzania. In view of this, the following points clarifies how the
government had worked with WWS and other hunting companies in the hunting
industry:(a)

Allocation of hunting blocks for 2013-2018 hunting term had followed all legal
procedures as prescribed in the Wildlife Conservation Act No.5 of 2009 and the hunting
Regulations of 2010.

(b)

In a case where both companies owned by FCF Group (TGTS and WWS) and other
hunting companies were not satisfied by the outcome of allocation of hunting blocks, the
Ministry was ready and willing to listen to them and consider their cases through the
Advisory Committee for Block Allocation, The Director of Wildlife and even the Hon.
Minister.
Despite dirty tricks, including unjust implicating of the members of Advisory Committee
and Ministry officials with corruption, the Ministry continued to discuss and educate
WWS and finally advised them to seek their right in the Court.

(c)

(d)

Despite the court ruling, on which WWS lost the case, the Ministry still opened the doors
for more discussions and showed high degree of tolerance by not evicting WWS from
the block which, essentially they were occupying illegally. The Ministry believed that
negotiation and more education to WWS would settle the matter amicably. At the same
time, the Ministry was working keenly in persuading the GMS to be patient and
cooperative in ensuring that this matter is resolved amicably.

(e)

Although WWS had stopped GMS (a legal concession holder) from conducting its
activities; had threatened the security of tourists; had denied the government its
revenues following cancellation of bookings by tourist; and had instigated villagers to
protest against a company which is legally allocated a block, the government had opted
for diplomatic approach to address the problem.

The above shows that the government has been very considerate to WWS. It is
unfortunate, however, that this approach has been interpreted as weakness in
the part of the government.
8

4. Restoration of Hunting License to Green Mile Safari Ltd (GMS)

Decision to revoke GMS hunting license in its hunting blocks by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism following were based on the irregularities on
hunting tourism conducted by the GMS clients. These illegal activities were
evidenced by the video tape availed by Hon. Peter Msigwa (Mp) during the
Parliamentary budget session in 2014. These illegal activities compelled the
government through Wildlife Conservation Act Number 5 of 2009 to halt hunting
activities in all hunting blocks owned by GMS. This were effected through a press
conference availed to the public by the Minister for Natural Resources and
Tourism on the 11th July 2014.
After keen scrutiny of the appeal by GMS to restore its hunting license in the
Selous Game Reserve (MK1), Lake Natron GCA (East), Gonabisi/KidundaWMA, In May 2016, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism decided to
cancel the suspension that was given to the company and resume its hunting
activities.

Restoration of the hunting license to GMS were based on the facts submitted to
the Hunting Blocks Allocation Advisory Committee, the Wildlife Conservation Act
No. 5 of 2009, Court decisions and other legal advices.

It is worthy noting that, provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act No 5 of 2009

section 38(12)(c) empowers the Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism to
cancel allocation of a hunting block at any time before the expiration of a hunting
term where there is sufficient evidence that the person allocated a hunting block
among other things has been convicted of an offence under this Act.
Subsequently, section 38 (13) stipulates that no decision to cancel the allocation
of a hunting block shall be made until the person concerned has been given an
opportunity to be heard. It is from this provision of the law, other legal advices
and court decisions that the Minister gave GMS the right to resume its hunting
tourism activities in its allocated hunting blocks.

Furthermore, even if the allocation of Lake Natron Game Controlled Area East
hunting block to Green Miles was cancelled, It would not mean that the
ownership of the hunting block automatically reverts to Wengert Windrose
Safaris. Regulation 8(3) of the Wildlife Conservation (Tourist hunting) Regulation
of 2015, requires the Minister of Natural Resources to Tourism to advertise
hunting blocks that fall vacant during a particular tenure of ownership.
9

The Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009 and the Tourist Hunting Regulations,
2015 defines a Professional Hunter (PH) as a hunting person qualified and
licensed by the Director of Wildlife to guide a hunting client during a hunting
expedition. Accordingly, a licensed profession hunter is required by law to
supervise hunting of any animal permitted under the Act and guide any type of
trophy hunting in accordance with the Act and any other relevant law.

Meanwhile, the Ministry had directed that, disciplinary and legal actions be taken
against all those involved (Wildlife Rangers and Professional Hunters) in the
violation of the Wildlife Conservation Act and its subsequent hunting regulations.
Further to that, the ministry advised GMS to resume its hunting activities in Lake
Natron GCA East and WWS was ordered to vacate from the same hunting block
(Lake Natron GCA East) by 31st May 2016.
Following this decision made by the Ministry, WWS filed an application against
the ministry requesting the High Court- Commercial Division to quash the
decision made by the ministry in favor of GMS. However, the application was
dismissed on 6th June 2016. As part of its delaying tactics, WWS have filed yet
another application against the Ministry and now to the High Court- Land Division
as if the issue in question is about land ownership.

5. Opinion
The allegations brought by WWS are unfounded and they are entirely misleading. We
believe that WWS are aware of the following facts:

Lake Natron GCA has four hunting blocks allocated to four different companies
including WWS and Green Miles Safaris. WWS is interested in and is pushing to
get a block which is legally allocated to Green Miles Safaris.

The Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism is empowered by the Wildlife
Conservation Act No.5 of 2009 and Hunting Regulations of 2010 (reviewed in
2015) to allocate a hunting block ( not block of land) to hunting company for
tenure of five years. All hunting blocks belong to the government and that
investors are not allowed to erect permanent structures. It is, therefore, incorrect
for any company to claim having ownership for a given hunting block after expiry
of such term. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a person/company
allocated the hunting block today will be allocated the same block on the next
10

hunting term. This is the reason why all companies including the previous
concession holders are required to reapply for another term.

The Hunting Block Advisory Committee and the Court of Law are independent
bodies and do not form part of the Wildlife officials. The Advisory Committee
conducted two administrative reviews and satisfied that the allocation was
correctly done. The Court of Law also ruled against WWS. It is unfortunate that
WWS does not want to mention the involvement of these bodies and opted to
unfairly implicated wildlife officials and the Ministry with re-awarding of a block to
Green Miles Safaris.

The Minister had already made a final decision based on recommendations of

the Hunting Block Advisory Committee. It is apparent that WWS was not
satisfied with Ministers decision that is why it opted to go to the Court of Law.

Arrogance and stubbornness of WWS and TGTS, not only violates the legal
rights of other stakeholders of the hunting industry, but also denies the
government revenues and tarnishes the image of the country internationally.
This can also detrimentally affect the tourism industry due to wrong impression
brought forth by these companies that Tanzania is not a safe tourist destination.
This is likely to be the case following an attempt by these companies to threaten
the life of the tourists by digging the holes in the airstrip, blocking the roads and
even attempting to knock down some foreign tourist by vehicles. The behavior of
these companies also implicates the government that it is not doing justice to
other stakeholders of the hunting industry.

6. Position of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

For the sake of national interest and smooth operation in the hunting industry, The
Ministry states as follows:

WWS should vacate immediately from the hunting blocks of Lake Natron GCA
East which they are occupying illegally.

11

To inform the general public and International community that WWS has
intentionally misled them and that the allegations brought to them are unfounded.

The fact that FCF has invested in Tanzania, enjoying the SIS status and that they
contribute in community development cannot justify and, in no way, does give its
sister hunting companies freedom to breach the laws of the land and violate the
legal rights of other people. It is very disappointing that while TGTS and WWS
has seven hunting blocks and are currently conducting hunting, they have
stopped others from doing the business. The Ministry further advise that FCF to
closely investigate the conduct and integrity of some of its staff in the WWS and
TGTS.

It is also instructive to note that the Strategic Investors Status awarded to FCF
covers Lake Natron Game Controlled Area North-South (Now North) and does
not include Lake Natron Game Controlled Area East.

WWS are reminded that the government has reached threshold of tolerance
against their behavior and that is considering taking stern measures in case they
continue to disturb and disrupt the smooth running of the hunting industry.

7. Conclusion

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism is highly concerned with

allegations against her officials brought forth by WWS. These allegations are
fabricated in a way of tarnishing the image of the Ministry and the Department of
Wildlife, in particular. The Ministry is striving to observe a good governance and
rule of law in delivering high quality services to all clients along with improving
investing climate. . Similarly, WWS has intentionally misled the general public
and International Community for the sake of making sure that they get hold of the
block they had vowed to get by using all means. It is unfortunate they have
opted for the worst and dirty tricks.

The Ministry will continue to implement its legal mandate by observing laws,
regulations and procedures. This will go hand in hand with maintaining a good
and friendly relationship with investors by offering them high quality services at a
maximum convenience. However, the Ministry cannot tolerate any acts aiming at
disrupting peace and tranquility which are intentionally perpetrated by some
investors. The Ministry believes that giving undue favor to anybody or
mistreating any person, regardless of his/her origin, race and status is unethical
and violation of law and human rights.
12

Issued by,
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
09th July, 2016

13