You are on page 1of 10

Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project

Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity


in Lake Tanganyika (RAF/92/G32)

Socio-economic Special Studies - Tanzania

FISH AND FISHING IN THE RIVER MUNGONYA


AT BUBANGO, KIGOMA DISTRICT, 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

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
1
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.
2
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

3
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
4
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).

5
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.

6
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
7
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.

8
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.

You might also like