Conservation, threats and regulations

The factors that affect the conservation of Lake Victoria beaches include intervention by government agencies, waste disposal mechanisms from around the towns in the lake region and increased fishing activities due to the rise in population along the Dunga, Uhanya and Luanda Kotieno beaches in Kisumu County (University of Nairobi 2014). In the pre-colonial period, Luo fishers had traditional, communal and territorial rules and regulations which ensured that the fishery was exploited in a sustainable manner by limiting access to specific stock areas. Communal fishing was based on clan or kin membership. This view is supported by Jansen (1973) who states that entry to fishery was on open access and exit (but strictly on the basis of kinship). In his opinion, Jo-Lupo had developed clan-based rules and regulations (chike-lupo) that had to be observed by the fishers. In most cases these rules were vague and not explicitly expressed but they were followed and enforced by clan elders all the same. In fact, it seems there were no preconditions or fees charged on joining the fishing fraternity. In essence, everyone had his own fishing plan. However, there were religious prerequisites to be observed by the fishers.

In the words of fisherman Oracho Wire, the lake god had to be respected. Before a canoe could go on a fishing voyage, the team leader, Mwasiamar Yie, had to take some water into his mouth and spray it on the canoe, beseeching the lake god for blessings. Besides, there were gifts given to the sea god. The first fish to be caught was handed over to Mwasia to offer to the god. Using strong-smelling bathing soaps while going fishing was considered taboo, and a person who had eaten lemon was allowed not into the canoe. Oracho Wire’s explanation underlines the link between cultural beliefs and conservation. Pollutants rarely entered the lake’s ecosystem due to such precautions. The prohibition on the use of such things as soap was probably because fish could detect strong smelling substances and thus escape being caught. Luo fishers believed that soaps polluted the rivers and damaged the ecosystem and ultimately killed fish. Joyce Oruko, a fisherwoman for more than 40 years, explains that most fishers sold their fish to a limited number of fishmongers with whom they developed trade links which were long-standing. There was limited outside interference, little penetration of outside capital and less colonial government intervention during this era. This system of local management and adherence to chike-lupo (rules) was later to be threatened by the introduction of commercial fishing after the First World War.

The nature of fishery management and conservation in the pre-colonial period enhanced the participation of local people. The lake and its fishing grounds were as important to early fishers as land is to the farmer. The lake was not only a major source of food but had customary value as well. Jane Awino explains that there were practical rules that were adhered to in order to protect the lake’s habitat from damage. Besides, there were candid efforts and regulations on fishing seasons so as to allow the lake’s fauna to regenerate and ensure sustainability. This shows that fishers shared their concern in conserving fish by adhering to local rules. The fishing community commonly shared issues of environmental protection, conservation and justice. The fishers understood their fishing seasons well. In the words of Ogwire, ‘juvenile fish were bred in April during the heavy rains and floods, so allowing the lake to rest during this period was good because it allowed young fish to grow’. Aware that taking young fish was a bad practice for future fishery, the fishers allowed the lake to rejuvenate naturally. He observed that, ‘during this season one could see several fish jumping near the beach’. This opinion corroborates that of Agola Okullo who asserts that sustainability was ensured. ‘During the rainy season, we fished with very little effort, by taking floating fish near the lake shore, and left the juvenile fish to grow’. In effect, the closed season in the pre-colonial period ensured a future supply. The lake also experienced a cold season, a kind of winter ‘when marshes (yugni) covered the lake surface. In June, it became very cold and movement became very difficult on the lake surface and it was said that the lake had closed itself’.

Prominent species, which were considered important by the Luo community included ngege (tilapia), fuani, ningu (ray-finned fish), soga, okoko (synodontis), sote, suma (mormmyrus kanume), mumi (catfish). But of all these species, tilapia was the most common and abundant. It was also the most popular commodity for both traders and consumers alike. It was caught and sold fresh or split, smoked or dried as obambla (dried fish). Henry Ondiek avers that before the introduction of mbuta (Nile perch), which is a predator fish, there were many varieties of fish. At the same time, fish was plentiful. It is argued that nets tended to lead to overfishing or over-exploitation of fishery. Traditional papyrus nets could catch hundreds of fish within a short time, which were however, sold very cheaply. For instance Oracho explains that 30 pieces of tilapia were sold for as little as Ksh 1 (Kitching 1980). Amos Amollo confirms that the ‘traditional’ indigenous species had less commercial value but provided the much needed source of protein. Furthermore, conservation was made easy due to minimal capitalist competition, hence the level of conservation was high and fish was plentiful.

In the pre-capitalist era, conservation was probably more sustainable. According to Manas Osur, a long-time fisher, ‘the indigenous methods of fishing necessitated the use of only a few canoes, as these were scarce. One canoe could, for instance, be used by up to five people or more, each with his nets’. This implies that fishers cooperated rather than competed during this era. This view is confirmed by Lazarus Ogwire who asserts that fishers cooperated a lot at work. They shared fishing secrets like which islands to go to for fish and on sighting the position of the moon, which was an important factor in ocean fishing. They did the same things and discussed similar issues such as which beach had a type of a given species, all for the betterment of their trade. There was even harmony at the end of a fishing trip as the day’s catch was shared among the fishers. The owner of the canoe had to be given 10% of the catch by everyone who had used the boat. There was also an element of cooperation in the setting up of the boats.

This illustrates the egalitarian nature of the fishing community as far as sharing was concerned. Lazarus Ogwire further explains that the setting of a fishing trap such as gogo was a communal affair. He adds that the Luo fishers set the nets on the canoe together. After the net caught enough fish, they jointly pulled it with eight young men on either side of the gogo. He appreciates the efficiency of the gogo nets when he asserts that ‘it was good and could catch lots of fish, hence it was referred to as machoka (generous collector)’. But this view is contrasted by Abila, who argues that the gogo nets were not generous and that the amount they caught was not so excessive as to threaten the fishery reproduction (Abila 1992). Fishing traps were set very early in the morning at around four o’clock and checked for catches the following day. Fishing was a communal affair predominantly done by men. This avoided the severe competition that would have jeopardized fisheries.

Another aspect of cooperation, according to Oracho, was the system of sharing catches inherent within the fishing economy. There was reciprocity at two levels. Firstly, he points out that the colleagues who had had a good catch gave out a few pieces of the fish caught to those fishers whose nets had not caught any fish that day. Secondly, orphans and the destitute could also wait for the fish to land and they too, were assured of a few donations. This system of sharing ensured that all families within the fishing community would not starve.

One fundamental reason why fishing in the pre-colonial era was sustainable was that it remained a subsistence activity practised by those who lived near the shores of the lake. But this is not to say that surplus fish was not sold. On the contrary, marketing of dry fish was done within the locality as buyers came from nearby centres and villages. By 1895, when Kenya became a British protectorate, Oguyo Mahira (who learnt from his grandfather) asserts that ‘there were no marketing agents like we have today. Everybody sold his own fish. You fished and took your commodity to the market or gave it to your wife to sell it for you’. After a fishing voyage (kilua), fishers set up small huts (kiru) where they stored their catch as they waited for buyers to come to the beach to buy.

Implicit in this statement is the fact that in the pre-colonial era, before the introduction of the colonial economy and the monetary system and taxation, and before transport had been improved, the selling of fish was done locally, especially by women. However, it was not the exclusive domain of women as they only sold fish in the nearby markets; men too participated in the selling of fish, especially when it involved travelling long distances to faraway centres (Abila 1992). For instance, Abila points out that a typical artisanal fish processor-trader in pre-colonial Kenya was likely to be female, with nearly half of them engaged in subsidiary activities to supplement the income from the fish trade.

In 2015, overfishing and pollution remain the greatest threats to fisheries as a national heritage. Commercial fishing picked up from the 1950s onwards. Fish production in Lake Victoria is now between 400,000 and 500,000 tonnes per annum with Tanzania accounting for 40%, Uganda 25% and Kenya 35% of all the catches (Ong’ang’a 2005, 67). Each of these three East African countries has a government policy framework through which fisheries resources are managed. Yet the greatest threats to fisheries remain trawling, the use of undersized nets, human overpopulation, the water hyacinth and the HIV/AIDS virus which is increasingly prevalent among fishers. Towns such as Kisumu, Homa Bay, Busia and Migori have become centres of trade with fish being the main commodity. Ochieng’ (1974) suggests that fish was a common commodity of trade, adding that most of the people who lived along the lake exported smoked fish to those who lived in the interior and fish was usually exchanged for grain. Writing on the existence of trade on Lake Victoria islands by 1890, Ochieng’ asserts that:

It [trade] was possible along the lake islands such as Mageta, Rusinga and Mfang’ano for ruoth (a leader) benefited due to riches that accrued from trade and these islands [were] very much influenced by Buganda political ideas. A ruler was supposed to be a rich man who could freely provide food for the needy in his society. (1974, 70)

He further points out that by 1890, one of the richest families of fishers was the Gaunyas. That family exported fish to neighbouring territories such as Sakwa and Alego, and got grains and cattle in return. Women played an active role in the fish trade because trading centres were near the beaches. Naturally, women had a longer day than men. This was because apart from trade, women also had domestic duties as well as child raising tasks.

Kitching (1980) states that labour was underutilized in pre-colonial Africa. But this assertion is not right. The view that Africans were idle was propagated by apologists of colonialism who needed to utilize African labour to serve the colonial state. This was the justification used by colonial rulers to force Africans to work on colonial settler farms and mines. Kitching further asserts that there was more emphasis on the production of annual cereal crops, mainly millet and simsim, and that the African farmer was mostly a peasant, subsistence farmer. Africans worked on their beaches as fishers, on farmlands as farmers and looked after their livestock. As cattle grazed along the lake, Luo fishers used this so-called ‘free’ time to engage in fishing activities. Fishing was a full-time productive activity, unlike hunting and raiding. As a productive activity, asserts Vercruijsse (1987), canoe fishing required a substantial amount of time and equipment such as nets and gear, when compared to other pre-capitalist branches of production such as farming. It is thus incorrect to claim that African labour (Luo labour in this case) was underutilized where fishery as an economic activity was concerned.

Farming and fishing activities were significant in the economic life of the Luo. Lazarus Ogwire, once again, asserts that fishing was done on a seasonal basis. This was because fish, by their nature, were more plentiful in certain seasons than others. Ogwire argues that between February and June, fish went upstream to hatch in the adjacent rivers. Fish were more abundant during the low moon and less so when the moon was high, probably because during the low moon there was darkness and so the fish could not see the fishers due to poor visibility. He further states that seasonality was paramount to the fishers for they had to organize their labour and that of their families accordingly. This arrangement ensured efficient use of local resources such as land and lake. As Ocholla-Ayayo (1976, 22) points out, by practising a pastoral-agrico-fishing economy, the Luo society was largely a self-sufficient group. This tri-economy ensured that labour was adequately used. He reinforces this point further by stating that ‘the economy meant that the Luo had adequate means of production, such as land and water, and their three main economic activities provided strong interactions that enabled them to accumulate and widen their normative and ideological beliefs’.