Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project

Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika (RAF/92/G32)

Socio-economic Special Studies - Tanzania

Martin Walsh Natural Resources Institute, Chatham

Laisha Said

National Environment Management Council, Dar es Salaam

Beatrice Marwa Department of Fisheries, Kigoma

Keith Banister

Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project, Kigoma

Kigoma

December 1996

FISH AND FISHING IN THE RIVER MUNGONYA AT BUBANGO, KIGOMA DISTRICT, TANZANIA

1

FISH AND FISHING IN THE RIVER MUNGONYA AT BUBANGO, KIGOMA DISTRICT, TANZANIA

Martin Walsh, Laisha Said, Beatrice Marwa, and Keith Banister Introduction The following notes describe the results of a brief investigation into fishing practices in the River Mungonya at Bubango in Kigoma District. Bubango was first visited by MW and BM on 30 October 1996. The purpose of this visit was to familiarise ourselves with the village and its environment as a prelude to planned action research in the neighbouring village of Mtanga. Both villages border Gombe Stream National Park: Mtanga on the lakeshore to its south, and Bubango in the interior to its east. On this first unscheduled visit we met with the Secretary of the village Social Services Committee and the Secretary of the local CCM Branch, who kindly took us down to the River Mungonya, in the valley to the west of the village centre and main road. Following a discussion of the local fish fauna, we made an appointment to return at a later date, in order to collect more information and, hopefully, samples of some of the fish themselves. The second visit to Bubango took place on 3 November 1996, when MW and BM were joined by LS and KB. While MW and LS interviewed a small group of elders in the village centre, BM and KB went down to the River Mungonya with local fishermen to collect samples of the fish. In addition to collecting information on fish, fishing practices and background data on the village, this exercise also provided us with an opportunity to assess the ease of conducting this type of work and the kind of methods which might be employed. Our relative newness in the village and somewhat informal introduction posed a problem: fish had not been caught in advance of our visit as requested, the first fisherman who was asked by our hosts to assist in collecting samples refused to do so without payment (we declined to pay), and three of the four elders hastily assembled for interview were clearly impatient to finish as quickly as possible (one particularly so, when it became clear that we would not be offering them payment either). Nonetheless, a good deal of information was recorded and a number of samples collected, and the visit ended on a high note. Bubango Village Bubango Village is in Bitale Ward, which in turn is part of Mahembe Division. During our second visit we met the new VEO, who was previously at Mahembe. The total population of the village in 1994 was over 4,500 people, living in six sub-villages. These include the sub-village of Gwamanga, settled by Rundi (Hutu) refugees in 1972, and which now has 83 households (kaya). The rest of the village is dominated by Ha, most of whom are Moslem. There are a small number of Fipa in

2

the village, who moved from Rukwa Region during the villagisation process in the mid-1970s: they do not follow any specialised mode of livelihood. Virtually all of the adult villagers can understand Swahili, though some elderly people (excluding our interviewees) do not speak it. As noted above, Bubango borders Gombe Stream National Park. The boundary of the village with the park is at the top of the hills on the western side of the Mungonya valley. The hilltops are covered by grassland, which is their natural vegetation, and not the result of firing. There are no large animals close to the village centre, although baboons and bush pigs do come down into the Gwamanga area, close to the park boundary. We were told that the village experiences little conflict with the park, in part because Bubango covers a much larger area of land (and therefore accessible resources) than the villages which border Gombe on the lakeshore. The positive role of the TANAPA community outreach programme (SCIP) is also acknowledged: it has helped to build a dispensary in the village. The fact that a number of villagers are employed as park staff may also be relevant in this context. Wage employment aside, the principal sources of household income in Bubango are from fishing on the lake and farming in the village. A significant proportion of the adult male population of Bubango work as fishermen, and some of them are boat owners. They generally fish from Mtanga and Mwamgongo, and are absent from the village while engaged in this activity. During our first visit on 31/10/96, which followed a full moon, many of the fishermen were at home, but planning to return to the lake the next day (we were therefore unable to interview active lake fishermen during our second visit on 3/11/96). Cassava, maize and beans are the main subsistence crops in the village. The principal cash crop in Bubango is the oil palm, which is said to take 5-7 years to reach maturity if well cared for. There are two harvesting seasons, March-April and September-November, the latter being the most important. Hybrid oil palms have not yet been introduced to the village, though considerable interest is expressed in obtaining them (from TACARE, which does not work in Bubango). The only NGO which has begun to work in the village is CARITAS, focusing upon health and sanitation (our first visit was preceded by a CARITAS evaluation, two days earlier). Some KIDEP work (of unspecified nature) was done in Bubango in the past. Until at least the late 1940s there appears to have been ample natural vegetation cover in Bubango. This attracted Ha settlers from the north and east, who came to Bubango to clear the forest for cultivation (three of our four elderly interviewees were early migrants to the village). One informant, who came to Bubango in 1946, recalled that there were still lions and buffalo in the area at this time (these animals have also disappeared from Gombe Stream National Park, though leopards are still reported). It is said that all of the land in Bubango is now owned by local farmers. Farmers without access to sufficient land within the village are obliged to move to the east, where land is still available. KIDEA, the Kigoma Development Association, provides some opportunities for buying land in villages to the east (but none bordering Bubango), though relatively few farmers from Bubango have done so. Land pressure is clearly growing in the village, though it appears to have not yet reached critical levels.

3

The River Mungonya The Mungonya is part of the Luiche River system. We were told that it rises on Mt. Nyamunondwe to the north, past Mwamgongo village. As noted above, its valley lies immediately to the west of the main road and centre of Bubango. After Bubango it passes through Kiganza and then Mwandiga before joining the lower course of the Luiche (here called Kaseke). In Bubango it is (or was, when we saw it) not much more than a shallow stream, half a metre deep and a metre or so wide, opening up into a pool in at least one place. The fertile valley is cultivated with oil palms and other crops, and water is evidently drawn off the river for agricultural purposes. The Mungonya has not dried up in living memory: at the time we visited it the level was said to be lower than usual because of the extended dry season. Local Fishing Practices Fishing in the Mungonya has been an important supplementary subsistence activity for as long as can be remembered. The majority of river fishers are boys and youths who are too young or for other reasons have not become lake fishermen. There are three principal methods of fishing: 1. igela / amagela (5/6), fish-hook (Swahili: ndoano). These are used especially in the rainy season, when the river is swollen and difficult to walk in. It is also the most common method used by children. The hooks are often baited with termites (especially in the flying stage) and grasshoppers: sometimes oil palm residues are simply cast into the water to attract fish. 2. ulusenga / insenga (11/10), hand-held fish-net (Swahili: wavu). It is difficult to use these during the rainy season, because the water is too deep to walk in. Nets are generally used by men working in pairs, one of them prodding the river-bed to disturb the fish and drive them into the net (the samples we collected were caught in this way). 3. amakila (6), cross-river net-trap. This is probably the least common method: it comprises a net stretched across the river between stakes. These traps can be set across shallow pools during the rainy season, though not in stronger-flowing sections of the river. Informants observed that there were a lot more fish in the past than there are now, although the species composition of the Mungonya has not changed (see below). Whereas fish were once frequently seen climbing upstream, they are now generally only to be found concealed along the river banks. It was once easy to catch river fish to provide the relish (Swahili kitoweo) for a meal of grain (Swahili ugali). This is no longer the case, and the dietary significance of river fish has noticeably declined. The marked decline in local fish populations is blamed upon the use of the agricultural pesticide Thiodan as a fish poison. Local fishermen, working in groups of two to five, began to employ this for fishing c.1970, spilling around 5 litres of the chemical into

4

the river to obtain the required results. Although people bought fish which had been poisoned in this way, it was noted that they smelled badly and that eating them could produce headaches. Use of the pesticide as a fish poison was therefore banned later in the same year that it had been introduced, and it is said to have not been used again since. Nonetheless, fish populations have not recovered to their former levels, and villagers place the blame upon this brief episode of poisoning. It is extremely unlikely that fish poisoning has had the lasting impact which villagers ascribe to it, and the survival of all the locally known species from the 1930s through to the present day (see below) supports this view. Unless wiped out, local fish populations can recover fairly rapidly after poisoning has been curtailed, recolonising from either upstream or downstream (and from the lake), according to the distribution and habits of individual species. It is very probable that other factors have played a more important and continuing role in depressing fish populations in this stretch of the Mungonya. One of these may be direct disturbance by villagers: on both of our visits we noted that the river was used for bathing and washing clothes, and it is possible that activity of this kind has had an increasingly deleterious effect as the human population has grown. It is interesting to note that most of the villagers we spoke to chose to place the blame for reduced fish populations upon a single catastrophic episode – the past use of chemical poison – but did not consider the impact of everyday events. One informant did, however, indicate that he thought that current fishing practices might be damaging. At the end of our second visit lodged a plea for his fellow villagers to take care to avoid using nets with a fine mesh, arguing that these sweep up juveniles (as indeed our collectors did) and therefore damage fish stocks. River fishing can be undertaken at any time, and is usually done in the daytime. Informants did not recognise any seasonal variations in the occurrence of fish, though it is likely that a more detailed investigation would reveal some seasonal patterns. Although hunting of animals used to be hedged about with various traditional beliefs and practices, it is said that none have ever applied to river fishing. At present there is no market for river fish - the poisoning episode appears to have been the culmination of a past move towards increasing commercialisation of river fisheries - and the fish caught are generally consumed by the fishers and their families. Ha Names for River Fish The following is a list of Ha names of river fish, most of them recorded in Bubango, with the addition of some names from an informant who was born downstream at Kiganza. Seven named varieties are said to be found in the Mungonya at Bubango itself, and we were able to collect at least one specimen of six of these (isehele, umuduli, umukulugushu, umuneke, umulanga, and wangongo: a specimen of inkaza was not obtained). The specimens were provisionally identified in the field and back at the office in Kigoma by KB, before being frozen. Unfortunately they were defrosted and thrown away during a subsequent power cut, before further positive identifications could be made. To make matters worse, photographs of the specimens

5

appear to have been lost during processing. In any event, it is possible that some of the Ha names describe more than one zoological species: for this reason it would be desirable to collect rather more specimens of each named variety in future. Ha names are shown in both the singular and plural (separated by a slash), followed by their noun class numbering (in parenthesis). Preprefixes are included, though they are often omitted in speech (e.g. sehele for isehele), while the class 3 prefix is often reduced to a nasal /m-/ (e.g. umukulugushu is heard as mkulugushu). The phoneme reproduced as /l/ has at least two allophones (sounding more like /r/ in some contexts, e.g. mkurugushu rather than umukulugushu): the standardised orthography we have adopted does not indicate such phonetic variation. ingege / ingege (9/10): described by Kiganza informant as a ‘Tilapia’: found

downstream, but not at Bubango. inkaza / inkaza (9/10): described as a kind of isehere, present at Bubango (not

collected). isehele / isehele (9/10), also heard as insehele / insehele (9/10): Barbus

?caudovittatus Boulenger, 1902 (Cyprinidae), which only comes up the river to spawn [one specimen collected]. This is generally agreed to be the best of the local fish for consumption.

isembe / amasembe (5/6): described as very small fish by Kiganza informant: found

downstream but not at Bubango. umuduli / imiduli (3/4): a small Barbus sp. (Cyprinidae) [one specimen collected]. umufulebwa / imifulebwa (3/4): described by a Bubango informant as a kind of

isehele found downstream at Kaseke, but not at Bubango. umukulugushu / imikulugushu (3/4), also heard as umukulubushu / imikulubushu

(3/4): Amphilius uranoscopus Pfeffer, 1889 (Amphiliidae) [one specimen collected]. Different informants noted that it looks like a small Clarias.

umulanga / imilanga (3/4): Raimas moorei Boulenger, 1900 (Cyprinidae) [two

specimens collected, one juvenile]. umuneke / imineke (3/4): Clarias sp. (Clariidae) [two juvenile specimens collected].

One of two primary species caught in Bubango. Some people do not eat imineke because of their ‘whiskers’ (ubwanwa = Swahili ndevu), dark colour, and the general sliminess of their bodies (kilajelela ~ Swahili kuteleza). Frequently referred to by a local variant of the Swahili name for cat-fish, ikambale / ikambale (9/10).

6

wangongo / wangongo (9/10), also given as umungongo / amangongo (3/6) by one informant: Chiloglanis ?pojeri Poll, 1944 (Mochokidae) [one specimen collected]. Described as a small fish which has no scales. Some people do not eat wangongo because of the ‘bad’ appearance of its mouth, with its thick papillate and suctorial lips.

Conclusion There are therefore at least six species of fish found in the Mungonya at Bubango, probably seven, and possibly more. One of these (Barbus ?caudovittatus) is a Lake Tanganyika resident which only comes up the river to spawn. The six species (provisionally) identified are:

Barbus ?caudovittatus Boulenger, 1902 (Cyprinidae) Barbus sp. (small) (Cyprinidae) Raimas moorei Boulenger, 1900 (Cyprinidae) Amphilius uranoscopus Pfeffer, 1889 (Amphiliidae) Clarias sp. (Clariidae) Chiloglanis ?pojeri Poll, 1944 (Mochokidae)

Seven or so species is within the expected range for a river of this size and distance from the lake. As might be predicted, the number of species present in the river is reported to increase further downstream. As far as can be established, local Ha discriminations of fish species match zoological taxonomy, though it is possible that further research may reveal otherwise. It is interesting to note that contemporary informants are not aware of any loss of species diversity over the past sixty years or more, though they do report a decline in fish populations. This decline is ascribed to the use of chemical poison in the early 1970s: no other causes are recognised, though one informant suggested that juveniles are being overfished at present because of the small mesh size of the nets which fishermen use. It is probable that a number of factors (and not poisoning in the past) are responsible for the continuing depression of local fish populations, and that damaging fishing practices may only be one of these. Villagers’ failure to identify these factors points to limitations in their knowledge of fish biology and the range of human impacts, limitations which only environmental education can address. Further research is required to understand these impacts, as well as to provide a more comprehensive picture of villagers’ perceptions of them.

7

Recommendations 1. Quick topical and multidisciplinary studies of this kind are relatively easy to undertake (our own study essentially took up one morning), and the Fishing Practices and Biodiversity Special Studies components of the project might profitably visit other inland sites to conduct such work, gradually building up a picture of species composition and fishing practices in the rivers around Kigoma, and how these have changed over time. It would also be desirable to visit different sites at different times of year (at the very least dry season / wet season) in order to check on the seasonality of fish distributions. 2. The presence of a fish taxonomist (KB) on the research team proved invaluable: failing this specimens can be caught and preserved for future identification (making notes and taking photographs before preservation, thus hedging against the kind of accident which afflicted our own specimens). A number of specimens of each locally named variety should be examined, in order to check the inclusiveness / exclusiveness of vernacular taxonomy. If this work is to be undertaken thoroughly, then at some point it will also be necessary to consult museum collections in Europe, in order to clarify the status of groups of specimens which cannot be identified locally. The development of a regional / lakeside reference collection would, of course, be highly desirable. 3. Local knowledge of fish and fishing practices should be recorded with due attention to the vernacular terms employed in this context. The above notes indicate how such terms should be recorded, using a standardised (and recognised) orthography if possible (though such an orthography is not available for all of the languages in the lake basin area, and will have to be developed over time). In cases where terms have only been elicited from one or two informants, care should be taken to record other details about them (e.g. the languages they speak, their age and residential history). Ethnoichthyological knowledge of this kind may have important environmental education uses, as well as providing insights into the past and present of fishing practices. 4. Special attention should be paid to villagers’ perceptions of fish diversity and population levels, and their explanations for any changes in these which may have occurred. The different points of agreement and disagreement between local knowledge and the results of scientific research should be of particular interest, indicating ways in which environmental education might proceed. As work of this kind develops, attention should also be paid to finding key indicators and proxies for wider processes of change in water quality, species composition, and population changes in the fish fauna. As far as possible this should be done in conjunction with local fishers and consumers, using them as field monitors and linking in with environmental education programmes. 5. In conducting this work it would be advisable to begin less informally than we did, working with and through the relevant district offices (starting with the District Executive Director and the District Planning Office) and available field personnel. This is particularly important in terms of village introductions, and also a means of

8

involving and improving the capacity of the local authorities. While some villagers may be suspicious of government intentions, it is important to work to improve these relations rather than assume that it is best to circumvent them. Bibliography Further information on Bubango and its environs can be found in the following works: Bygott, David 1992. Gombe Stream National Park. Arusha: Tanzania National

Parks / African Wildlife Foundation. Murray, James 1992. A Rapid Survey of Conservation and Development Issues

Around Gombe National Park, Tanzania, for the Recommendation of Management Interventions, unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

The project’s study of Mtanga village, scheduled to take place in January 1997, is expected to provide more data relevant to an understanding of the local environment and economy. The final report of this study should be available in March 1997. Reference may also be made to the following updated checklist: Banister, Keith 1996. Annotated Check-list of Lake Tanganyika Basin Fishes (Non

Cichlids) (draft), Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project, Kigoma.

9

Appendix: List of Principal Informants Issa Buyenzi (Secretary of Bubango Village Social Services Committee), interviewed in Bubango, 30/10/96 and 3/11/96. Moshi Hamisi (Secretary of Bubango CCM Branch), interviewed in Bubango, 30/10/96 and 3/11/96. Group of young children (pre-teens), interviewed in Bubango, 30/10/96. Rajabu Somero (aged c.77 years, born in Migera, moved to Bubango in 1933), interviewed in Bubango, 3/11/96. He has fished a lot in the Mungonya and was the most helpful and interested of our informants. Nzongera Mbwawa (aged c.75 years, born in Bubango in 1921), interviewed in Bubango, 3/11/96. He has 4 wives, 11 children and 32 grandchildren; unfortunately he left the interview at the earliest opportunity. Yasini Mujege (aged 65 years, born in Mnanila, moved to Bubango in 1947), interviewed in Bubango, 3/11/96. Hamimu Ruvako (aged 72 years, born in Kitambuka, moved to Bubango in 1946), interviewed in Bubango, 3/11/96. Issa S. Kibagi (born in Mwamgongo, appointed Bubango Village Executive Officer at the end of October 1996), interviewed in Bubango, 3/11/96. Michael D. S. Bazaniye (aged 46 years, born in Kiganza, a former lake and river fisherman now resident in Kigoma town and Project Coordinator of the International Solar Energy Technology and Forest Conservation Project), interviewed in Kigoma, 30/10/96.