fish and fishing in the rivers and wetlands of usangu

FISH AND FISHING IN THE RIVERS AND WETLANDS OF USANGU

Martin T. Walsh

Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, and School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, U.K.

corrected version of a paper originally published in

East Africa Natural History Society Bulletin, 26 (3/4): 42-47

December 1996

{NB: the page numbers in this version do not follow those of the published text, from which a number of paragraphs are missing}

current address: [email protected]

EANHS Bulletin 26 (3/4), December 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________

1

FISH AND FISHING IN THE RIVERS AND WETLANDS OF USANGU This paper, based upon information collected in 1980-82, provides a preliminary description of indigenous knowledge of fish and fishing practices in the rivers and wetlands of the Usangu Plains of southern Tanzania. It focuses upon the knowledge, practices, and perceptions of the Sangu, the original inhabitants of Usangu, and reflects their concern over the alleged overexploitation of aquatic resources by more recent immigrants into the plains. Borrowing from more recent research reports, it also draws attention to the wider and more serious threat to the unique fish fauna of this area which is posed by other human activities in Usangu. The Usangu Plains The Usangu Plains comprise part of the eastern Rift Valley. They take the form of a shallow alluvial basin, which lies around 1,000 metres above sea-level and covers an estimated area of more than 15,500 km2. Ruaha National Park borders the plains to the north and the hills of Iringa district to the east. To the south and west they are hemmed in by the Southern Highlands and the mountain ranges which rise up from the northern shores of Lake Malawi. The streams and rivers which flow down from these mountains join in Usangu to form the Great Ruaha River, which meanders out of the plains to the north-east after passing through the Utengule Swamp. The annual rains generally fall between December and May and bring substantial flooding. As the dry season progresses the floodwaters recede and the many seasonal rivers dry up. Water remains, however, in a number of permanent rivers, deep river pools, and the perennial Utengule Swamp. Fish Fauna The Great Ruaha and its tributaries support a unique fish fauna. Until the

formation of the Rift Valley, the Ruaha flowed westwards into what is now Zaire. Following faulting, however, the river formed its own basin and was redirected eastwards, where it joined up with the Rufiji. The Ruaha evidently took with it a number of Zairean fish species, and some of these have since speciated further to produce endemics with a Zairean rather than East African affiliation. The fish fauna of the Ruaha Basin is still imperfectly known, and the upper reaches and tributaries, including the Utengule Swamp, have yet to be investigated. Unfortunately the aquatic resources of the basin are now threatened by human activity: over the last three dry seasons the Great Ruaha between Usangu and the confluence with the Little Ruaha River has stopped flowing, and proposals have been drawn up to bypass the Utengule Swamp with an artificial channel. The Human Population The Usangu Plains are the home of the Sangu (avasango), speakers of an Eastern Bantu language (ishisango) whose immediate affiliation is with other languages of the Southern Highlands group (Hehe, Bena, Wanji, Kinga, Kisi, Pangwa and Manda). The Sangu are mixed farmers who, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, had large holdings of cattle. Oral traditions suggest that hunting and fishing also played an important role in their subsistence in the past, and the Sangu derive their name from a kind of basket (ulusango) which they say was used to carry game meat and fish up into the Southern Highlands where they were exchanged for agricultural produce. These baskets are still used in Usangu to transport fish.

Since the colonial period the Sangu have had to share the plains with growing numbers of immigrants from outside of Usangu. Most of these immigrants fall into two broad categories: farmers who


2

have moved into southern Usangu from the south and south-east, attracted by the potential for irrigated rice cultivation; and (agro)pastoralists from the north, attracted by the rich pastures and permanent water resources of central Usangu. The rice farmers include large numbers of Nyakyusa and Ndali from the south-west, and a polyethnic mix of people living on and around Usangu’s large irrigation schemes. The (agro)pastoralists include Il-Parakuyu Maasai, who first entered Usangu in the 1950s, and large numbers of Sukuma, who began settling on the plains with their large herds of cattle in the 1970s. The indigenous Sangu now comprise less than half of the total human population of Usangu. Sangu Knowledge of Fish Fish comprised an important supplement to the diet in Utengule, the former capital of the Sangu chiefdom and village in which I lived and conducted anthropological research in 1980-82. Some of the fish eaten in Utengule were obtained from the River Mambi, which runs through the village, as well as from local irrigation channels, but larger quantities were brought in by fishermen from the rivers and wetlands to the north and north-east.

The general term for fish in ishisango is inswi (noun class singular/plural 9/10). Most of the body parts of fish are referred to using terms which are also applied to other creatures (e.g. umutwe, 3/6, ‘head’, umufupa, 3/6, ‘bone’, umwimfwa, 3/6, ‘sharp spine’, ‘thorn’). Special terms are used, however, for the tail end of a fish (umupepe, 3/6) and the mid-section between the head and the tail (ishiviligati, 7/8, literally ‘mid-body’).

All of the Sangu names for fish which I heard in Utengule are listed below. This list is no doubt incomplete, because I only noted names as I came across them. It is also possible that Sangu in eastern Usangu know of species which do not appear in and around Utengule, or have different names for some of the fish

which do. The majority of the Sangu living in the eastern plains speak dialects which are more closely related to Hehe (spoken especially around Madibira) and Bena (in Rujewa and the south-east) than to the ishisango of Utengule and its environs. Some phonological and lexical variation in local fish taxonomies should therefore be expected, though to what extent remains to be established.

I have added to the list probable linguistic cognates from the Preliminary Guide to the Commoner Fish of the Ruaha National Park and Upper Ruaha Basin compiled by Ian Payne, Vicki Cowan, and Philip Townsley (hereafter PCT). Their ‘local names’ were mostly recorded to the east of Ruaha National Park along the Great Ruaha, Little Ruaha and Tungamalenga Rivers, and in the vicinity of Mtera Dam. Hehe-speakers dominate the polyethnic population of this area, and were the source of many of the names they give. It should be noted that linguistic equivalence (or similarity) does not entail equivalence of zoological reference: this can only be established by identification in the field. It is also possible that some of the Sangu terms refer to more than one species, or fish in different colour phases or stages of growth. Nonetheless, the comparison with PCT forms a potentially useful starting-point for further research. axansululansi, plural utunsululansi (12/13), described as a small fish, also called inxamlepa. PCT ‘sulu-sulu’, Marcusenius macrolepidotus (Mormyridae, Elephant Trunk Fish). ilipandepande, pl. amapandepande (5/6), described as ‘white’ (probably silver) in colour, with a head the size of a frog’s and spines which are painful if trodden upon. Cf. the root of imende (q.v.). ilipongo, pl. amapongo (5/6), described as having spines which are painful if trodden upon.


3

imangwa, pl. imangwa (root -pangwa) (9/10), described as a largish fish which has a head like a snake and bites. imende, pl. imende (root -pende) (9/10), described as a small fish, traditionally only eaten by the Sangu chiefs (avatwa) but not their subjects. PCT ‘monde’, Petrocephalus steindachneri (Mormyridae, Elephant Trunk Fish). indaata, pl. indaata (9/10), described as a very large fish, only found where there is a lot of water. PCT ‘ndetete’, Alestes stuhlmanni (Charicoidea, Characins). ingangala, pl. ingangala (9/10), identified as Swahili ‘dagaa’, many of which are traded from Lake Tanganyika. PCT ‘ngala’, ‘dagaa’, Bycinus affinus (Charicoidea, Characins). PCT also record ‘dagaa’ as the name for two kinds of Barbel, Barbus spp. (Cyprinidae, Carps), and small fry in general. iniingo, pl. iniingo (9/10). PCT ‘ningu’, Red-eyed Mudsucker, Labeo cylindricus (Cyrpinidae, Carps). inxamlepa, pl. inxamlepa (9/10), an alternative name for axansululansi (see above). inxampapala, pl. inxampapala (9/10), described as a medium-sized fish, Swahili (?) ‘gege’. PCT ‘ngege’, ‘perege’, Rufiji Tilapia, Oreochromis urolepis (Cichilidae, Cichlids). insoshi, pl. insoshi (9/10), sometimes heard as inshoshi, Swahili ‘kambare’, catfish, described as the commonest kind of fish in and around Utengule and certainly the most widely fished, traded, and eaten. PCT ‘kambale’, Sharp-tooth Catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Siluroidea, Catfishes). All of these fish are, as far as I know, considered edible by the Sangu. The Sangu also gather a kind of freshwater bivalve called inxambalala (9/10). These

are not eaten (except, it is said, by the Gogo), but the shells are used as a scraper to clean pots. The Sangu also recognise, but do not eat, at least two kinds of crab (ilingengene, 5/6, and ilinxala, 5/6) which are found by rivers and on irrigated farms. Other aquatic creatures known to them include a kind of terrapin (igobe-mshenda, 9/10), crocodiles (inwena, 9/10), otters (inxonxomi, 9/10), and hippopotami (imfuvo, 9/10).

As might be expected, the Sangu possess an extensive vocabulary for the natural aquatic topography of the plains. The relevant terms include umuxoga (3/6), ‘river’, ulukwavo (11/10), ‘seasonal water course’, inangano (9/10), ‘confluence’, ililoxo (5/6), ‘ford’, umusalala (3/6), ‘waterfall’, ishogo (7/8), ‘permanent or deep pool in a river’, ilihavaga (5/6), ‘stretch of floodwater which is flowing’, ilivindi (5/6), ‘swamp or marshy area with tall reeds and grasses’ (e.g. created by river in flood), ililamba (5/6) ‘pond or swamp’, inxandilo (9/10), ‘dried-up pond or swamp’. Sangu Fishing Techniques I recorded the following traditional fishing techniques, whose use varies according to the seasonal abundance and type of fish available and the kind of water resource which is being fished:

The simplest method used is to catch fish by hand, without or without the help of a piece of cloth. This is quite easy to do when fish are isolated in shallow pools by the retreat of floodwaters and the drying-up of seasonal rivers and other (artificial) water courses. Boys and girls often collect fish in this way during the dry season. indovano, pl. indovano (9/10), gaffs (fish-hooks attached to a long handle), are also widely used. This name of this implement is derived from the Sangu verb stem -lova, ‘to fish (in general)’, but a special term (-sipusa) is also used to describe fishing with a gaff.


4

inkwaligo, pl. inkwaligo (9/10) is a kind of harpoon, made with a hollow reed or length of bamboo with a thread running through it and attached to an iron-hook. Fishing with these (which is described by the verb -kwaliga) is therefore a more specialised form of fishing by hook, rather than harpooning as such. umuhomo, pl. amahomo (3/6), from the verb root -homa, meaning ‘to pierce’, is a fish-spear with a very long stem and simple iron point. Their use appears to be less common than gaffs. imanga, pl. imanga (root -panga) (9/10) is a simple hand-operated basket-trap. This is placed over fish in shallow water, which are then extracted by hand through an opening in the wickerwork. I also saw one of these traps in Utengule being used as a makeshift cage for chickens. umugonyo, pl. amagonyo (3/6) is a non-return basket-trap woven from twigs in the shape of a vessel with a narrow ‘inverted’ neck through which fish can pass but have difficulty in escaping. Unlike imanga, these can be left in rivers and periodically inspected and emptied of their catch. Wickerwork traps of this kind are widely used by Bantu-speakers in East Africa and called by cognate forms of the same name (e.g. Swahili mgono).

The Sangu use dug-out canoes (called ishimun(y)umbwi, 7/8, or ishipugo, 7/8) on the Great Ruaha and other sizeable rivers. There were, however, none in the Utengule area, and I assume that their use in fishing is restricted to a relatively small number of specialised fishermen in the north-east of Usangu. In and around Utengule few Sangu men specialise in fishing, though I knew of one seasonal fisherman who came from Uhambule to the south at the end of the rains in 1981 and remained in the village throughout most of the dry season. The seasonal abundance of fish and relative ease which they can be caught means that a large number of people, including children, fish

on an occasional basis. Traditional Sangu fishing techniques reflect this relatively unintensive pattern of exploitation. Although fish have always been caught and traded by specialised fishermen, for the majority of the Sangu population fishing is no more than a supplementary activity which adds to the variety of their diet. New People, New Techniques More intensive exploitation of the freshwater fisheries of Usangu appears to be closely linked to the large-scale immigration of rice farmers and others into the south of Usangu which began during the colonial period. In addition to the large number of Nyakyusa immigrants who fish on an occasional basis in the southern rivers, individual fishermen have moved further into the plains specifically to fish commercially. These include Wanji and Kinga from the Southern Highlands, as well as people from further afield. In 1981, for example, one well-known Fipa fisherman was living on an island in the Shimba-Shimba (an artificial channel which had earlier diverted the course of the Great Ruaha), and was said to have been there for the past ten years. Sangu informants were agreed that Wanji and Kinga had originally only fished in Usangu incidentally, while visiting for other purposes. By the 1960s, however, some of them were fishing the rivers of Usangu commercially, and the number of specialised fishermen has evidently increased since then.

It should be noted that the (agro)pastoralist immigrants in the north of Usangu have not played a significant role in this development, although they do compete with mixed farmers and fishers for dry season water resources. The Il-Parakuyu, like other Maasai, do not generally fish or eat fish, which they consider to be similar to snakes. Although some Sukuma do eat fish, many of them share a similar aversion, and in general they do not engage in fishing.


5

Sangu say that the Nyakyusa / Ndali and immigrant commercial fishermen have brought with them new methods of intensive fishing, and that this has resulted in overexploitation of the available fish resources. The new methods include the following:

� The construction of large cross-river fish-traps. I saw one such barrier trap spanning the River Mkoji (below its confluence with the River Itamba) in September 1981. Traps of this kind were reported to have been introduced by immigrant fishermen.

� The use of fish-poisons. In

November 1981 a Nyakyusa fisherman and his wife were arrested by the village authorities in Utengule for putting fish-poison (of unspecified composition) in a pool in the dried-up course of the River Mambi. Cattle and people had drunk the contaminated water, resulting in the death of some cattle (including one which belonged to the Sangu village (CCM branch) secretary) and an outbreak of diarrhoea. An attempt to take the case further, however, was frustrated by the distance to the police post at Inyala and the police’s demand that exhibits be produced and a specific accuser appear. Villagers assumed that the corruptibility of the police would not make it worth their while pursuing the matter further.

I did not record the use of nets in

fishing, though these are presumably used by some commercial fishermen. I did see small hand-lines being used in fishing near Utengule, but these probably contribute little to the kind of overfishing which results from the use of the methods mentioned above. It is quite likely that some Sangu fishermen have also taken up

more intensive methods, though I did not hear of any who had during my time in Utengule. It appears that most of the commercial fishing in Usangu takes place much further to the east, in and around the Utengule Swamp, and further research would be required to determine whether or not the historical outline I obtained in Utengule also applies to this eastern area. Conclusion While the Sangu of Utengule were no doubt correct in ascribing increasing commercial exploitation to recent immigrants, the principal threat to the fish resources of Usangu probably now comes from other forms of human land use. The expansion of irrigated rice production continues to swallow up Usangu’s wetlands, while the use of pesticides and herbicides on large state farms poses a direct threat to fish and other forms of aquatic life. The new rice scheme at Kapunga is blamed by some informants for the recent drying-up of the Great Ruaha, though other sources speculate that soil compaction and the modification of vegetation by cattle in and around the Utengule Swamp may have played a greater role in this.

Whatever the case, it is clear that the unique fish fauna of Usangu is under severe pressure from a variety of human activities of which commercial fishing is only one. Current proposals for the creation of a Usangu Game Reserve, stretching down from Ruaha National Park and incorporating the Utengule Swamp, may provide no more than a partial solution to the problem, especially if agriculture continues to expand and the rivers are overfished outside of the reserve. A lot of hard work lies ahead in exploring ways to manage the exploitation of Usangu’s aquatic resources in a sustainable way. The Sangu may have achieved this when they were the principal inhabitants of the plains, but it will be no easy task among today’s growing polyethnic population.


6

Acknowledgements My research in Tanzania in 1980-82 was funded by the then Social Science Research Council of Great Britain, with additional support from the Smuts Fund and Wolfson College in the University of Cambridge. I gathered more recent materials while undertaking a consultancy for the British Overseas Development Administration (ODA) on the Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management Project (REWMP), and am grateful to Jim Harvey and Phil Evans in Nairobi, David Salmon in Dar es Salaam, and Dawn Hartley in Msembe for making these available to me. I would also like to thank Alison Redmayne for commenting on an earlier version of this paper, as well as the many Sangu and others who shared their knowledge of fish and fishing with me. Bibliography Charnley, S. (1994). Cattle, Commons,

and Culture: The Political Ecology of Environmental Change on a Tanzanian Rangeland, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Payne, I. (1995). Annex and other contributions as ODA / MRAG Ltd. consultant to Tanzania: Rufiji Basin Study, World Bank Appraisal Mission, 28 June to 12 July.

Payne, I., V. Cowan and P. Townsley (1995). Preliminary Guide to the Commoner Fish of the Ruaha National Park and Upper Ruaha Basin, report by MRAG Ltd. to ODA / Government of Tanzania (REWMP), October.

Walsh, M. T. (1984). The Misinterpretation of Chiefly Power in Usangu, South-west Tanzania, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Walsh, M. T. (1985). Shisango Dictionary, unpublished manuscript.

__________________________________ Martin T. Walsh, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, and School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, U.K. (current [1996] address: Zanzibar Cash Crops Farming Systems Project,

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources, Forodhani, P.O.BOX 2283, Zanzibar, Tanzania).

fish and fishing in the rivers and wetlands of usangu

Documents