Should we be worried about mosquito net fishing?
Why giving up on aid isn’t the answer
Rebecca Short/ZSL
Insecticide-treated bednets are one of the most effective tools for combating malaria: a disease that still claims hundreds of thousands of lives each year.
In the fight to control its spread, billions of nets have been distributed across malaria-endemic regions. However, controversy has emerged around the use of these nets, due to concerns that people are using them for fishing rather than their intended purpose.
This critique has been circulating for at least a decade, and it’s often the first thing people think of when bednets are mentioned. But is mosquito net fishing really the epidemic it’s made out to be? Should it cause us to question the value of bednet distribution?
Let’s dive into the facts, explore the real consequences, and address whether this criticism is a reason to rethink aid. By the end, we’ll have a clearer picture of what’s really happening—and what we should do about it.
The Myth of the "Epidemic"
Bednet fishing has been painted as an “epidemic”, with major news outlets claiming that mosquito nets are “routinely used” for fishing rather than malaria prevention. Based on this coverage, it would be easy to conclude that few, if any, nets are used as intended. You might even wonder whether it’s worth funding bednets at all.
This is an important question! We want to know when charities aren’t doing as much good as they seem to be. However, the evidence of mosquito net fishing is less clear-cut than the news coverage might imply.
Yes, there are reports of bednets being used for fishing. There are even anecdotal accounts of communities where it’s common. For example, one study of Tanzanian villages found that 87% of households were using bednets for fishing. That’s a significant proportion! But it’s also an isolated observation of one community. It doesn’t tell us much about how common the practice is across the 84 countries where malaria remains endemic.
Just 1.2% of bednets are repurposed for fishing
When you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, it’s clear that mosquito net fishing is much less common than news articles imply. Based on the available data, Rethink Priorities estimates that only 1.2% of bednets globally are repurposed for fishing. Even given considerable uncertainty around the exact number, this is nowhere near the scale of an "epidemic." Even if the estimate was off by tenfold, it would still be a small fraction of all distributed nets. To put it in perspective, more than 282 million bednets were distributed in 2022 alone. Even if 3 million people used their nets for fishing—that’s still just 1%.
So, if you’ve donated to charities like AMF in the past (or plan to in the future) you can rest assured: it’s unlikely that those nets were swept up in an epidemic of fishing. Yes, people sometimes fish with their nets. No, this isn’t an ideal outcome— though, as we’ll see, there may also be benefits to the practice. But it’s far from the widespread crisis it’s sometimes made out to be.
Malaria Consortium staff meet with members of the Uganda Ministry of Health.
Communities want bednets
The idea that people are using bednets for fishing has also fuelled accusations of "white saviourism"—that foreign aid organisations are imposing solutions that the recipients don’t really want. To some extent, this is an understandable critique. If the majority of people were repurposing nets, it might be a sign that communities didn't actually need or want them.
But that’s not what the data shows.
As we’ve seen, Rethink Priorities estimate that just 1.2% of bednets are repurposed for fishing. This is hardly proof of mass dissatisfaction. Similarly, if you actually ask the people affected, it’s clear that bednets are wanted. When researchers interviewed a community in Zambia about potential problems with mosquito net fishing, they found that:
“Although the traditional leaders attributed fishery decline to ITN [insecticide treated net] fishing, they were adamant that the ITNs must continue. Malaria is a scourge, and controlling malaria should be the priority.”
Clearly, if we’re aiming to respect recipient preferences, then stopping bednet distribution is not the answer.
Indeed, it’s unlikely that stopping aid would be the answer, even if every single bednet was being used for fishing. In that scenario, wouldn’t it be better to switch to providing fishing nets instead? Or to support GiveDirectly, and provide people with money to buy whatever they need most? Yet somehow, those who paint bednets as symptoms of white saviourism never seem to advocate for these alternatives.
Bednets are still highly effective
Another common concern is that the use of bednets for fishing means they’re ineffective— or at least less effective than previously thought— at preventing malaria. While this may seem intuitive, it’s simply not true. As we’ve seen, the majority of nets are used as intended. That a minority of people use them for fishing does not negate the fact that millions have been protected from a debilitating and potentially life-threatening disease.
“ [there is] no apparent trade-off between MNF and malaria protection as fishers rely on old nets”
Further, people who repurpose bednets for fishing are not necessarily forgoing protection from malaria. Distributors such as the Against Malaria Foundation replace nets every two to three years, as their insecticidal effect dissipates. People then use the old, worn-out nets for fishing, rather than the fresh new ones. For example, a study of communities in Kenya found “no apparent trade-off between MNF [mosquito net fishing] and malaria protection as fishers rely on old nets”. In other words, people who are seen mosquito net fishing are not necessarily sleeping unprotected.
More importantly, the research which established the effectiveness of antimalarial bednets already takes potential misuse into account. The typical study design involves randomly assigning groups of people to receive (or not receive) nets. Researchers then wait to see whether mortality and malaria rates differ between the two groups. There is never an assumption that everyone who receives a net will use it. And yet, such studies consistently find that nets reduce child mortality by around 17 percent.
Similarly, imperfect use is already included in cost effectiveness analyses. For example, GiveWell estimates that only 60% of recipients will use their nets consistently and correctly. After accounting for this, they still find bednets to be extremely cost effective, with every thousand nets saving a life in expectation. That 400 will not be used correctly— and that 12 might be used for fishing— is already baked into the calculation. In short, bednets are so affordable and so effective that it is still worthwhile to distribute them, even if only 60% of recipients actually use them as intended.
Once again, then, the fishing critique fails to undermine the case for bednets. Yes, people sometimes use bednets for fishing. But that does not mean that they are unprotected, or that nets are ineffective at preventing malaria. There are, however, other critiques of mosquito net fishing that may hold more weight.
A man collects small fish caught with mosquito nets in the Brahmaputra River in Gauhati, India. VOA News
Unclear impact on fishes and fisheries
There are also concerns about the impact of mosquito net fishing on aquatic ecosystems. Because mosquito nets have a finer mesh size than is typically used for fishing, they will likely catch smaller and younger fishes.* Some worry that this may, in turn, unbalance populations and lead to the collapse of fisheries. This would be a devastating outcome, both from a biodiversity perspective and for those who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. However, evidence in this area is extremely sparse.
While there are anecdotal reports of overfishing associated with mosquito nets, concrete data is limited. Back of the envelope calculations from within the EA community suggest that mosquito net fishing could kill billions of fishes per year. However, analysis of longterm trends suggests that the decline of inland freshwater fish stocks in tropical Africa occurred well before mass distribution of antimalarial bednets became common. This suggests that, while the increased availability of mosquito nets may contribute to overfishing, it at most exacerbates an existing problem.
Generalised survivorship curves of mammals, birds, and bony fish. Tilley et al. (2019)
Further, the effects of juvenile catch on fish populations are somewhat unclear. This may be surprising to Kiwis who are familiar with New Zealand’s minimum catch size limits. However, many experts argue that fishes are adapted to high juvenile mortality, and that it is more important to conserve large mature specimens.
Indeed, Tilley et al. (2019) suggest that mosquito net fishing “presents a relatively limited ecological risk compared to large-scale selective fishing of adults,” precisely because it shifts catch demographics towards juvenile specimens.
That said, there is also the experiences of the fishes themselves to consider. Even if populations remain stable, mosquito net fishing may cause significant suffering to individual animals. Fishes typically experience drawn-out and painful deaths when removed from the water, slowly suffocating over a period of up to an hour. Some may also suffer ruptured organs due to the rapid change in pressure. Thus, it seems likely that mosquito net fishing could cause significant suffering.
However, it is unclear whether death by capture is any worse than the deaths that the fishes in question would otherwise experience. In particular, starvation and disease are likely causes of death for wild fishes, and would also cause extended suffering. Thus, while the counterfactual effects on fishes are worth considering, more research is needed for them to be properly accounted for.
Unfortunately, this means that the overall ecosystem and welfare effects of mosquito net fishing are unclear. While the available data suggests that mosquito net fishing is unlikely to be a driving factor in overfishing— but may be causing significant suffering— we simply do not have enough evidence to draw firm conclusions.
*The term ‘fishes’ rather than ‘fish’ is increasingly being adopted by the animal advocacy movement to recognise and emphasise the individuality of the intelligent, feeling individuals we are describing.
Baskets of dried fish at a market in Rameshwaram, India. Vignesh Chinnaiyan
Bednet fishing could have benefits
Those who raise concerns about mosquito net fishing often fail to consider that the practice could also have benefits. Yet this seems quite likely to be the case. In the subsistence communities where net distribution is common, time and resources are extremely limited. Under such circumstances, people are unlikely to spend their productive hours fishing unless it provides better returns than the available alternatives. Given this context, it seems reasonable to assume that, where mosquito net fishing does occur, it also provides some benefit.
To give a concrete example, researchers such as Short (2018) and Tilley (2019) argue that mosquito net fishing could meaningfully improve nutrition in subsistence communities. In such areas, diets tend to be monotonous, consisting primarily of a starch-rich staple food such as cassava or rice. Supplementing this diet with fish is associated with lower rates of stunting, likely because fishes are an excellent source of protein and micronutrients. This suggests that the use of mosquito nets for fishing could play a significant role in combatting malnutrition.
Indeed, mosquito net fishing in particular could have benefits above and beyond fishing in general. There are two main reasons for this. First, small fishes (the kind preferentially captured by mosquito net fishing), are typically more nutritious than larger fishes. They also tend to be eaten whole. This increases nutritional uptake density even further, as the non-flesh components of fishes, such as their bones, cartilage and organs, contain significant nutritional value.
Second, there is suggestive evidence that the availability of mosquito nets may increase women’s participation in fishing, at least in some areas. This is significant because women are typically at greater risk of malnutrition, due both to increased needs during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and the preferential allocation of protein and nutrient dense foods to male members of the household. The accessibility of mosquito net fishing may help close this gap.
Women’s participation in fishing could also improve childhood nutrition. In general, women in low-income contexts allocate more resources to their children than do men. And in the context of fishing specifically, research suggests that women with access to fisheries resources provide better childhood nutrition than exclusively male-provided households. Mosquito net fishing may therefore improve the nutritional status of vulnerable children.
That said, this line of reasoning remains highly speculative. Evidence is limited, and it is possible that further research will show that mosquito net fishing does not in fact meaningfully increase nutrition. The point here is not to provide a slam-dunk argument, but rather to highlight the importance of considering potential benefits when assessing the impact of mosquito net fishing.
SMC medication, used to prevent malaria. Malaria Consortium
Taking action: what do we do?
As with many complex issues, it’s essential to balance the potential negative impacts of bednets with their advantages. Nets continue to be a cost-effective and life-saving intervention in the fight against malaria. The challenge moving forward is to address the valid concerns that do exist, while remaining focused on the overall goal: saving and improving lives.
Unfortunately, some critics use the possibility of any harm as an argument against trying to good. While some caution is necessary, this attitude is ultimately callous. Leaving people to suffer and die is not a solution. Likewise, the potential for bednets to cause harm is not a reason to give up. Rather, it’s a cue to do more research, to weigh the benefits and risks, and to find better ways of eradicating malaria, if need be.
Even now, there are many practical actions you can take, depending on how you weigh the benefits and risks of bednets. Here are some of our top recommendations:
Support responsible bednet distribution, which includes education on use and extensive post distribution monitoring
The Against Malaria Foundation doesn’t just dump bednets on hapless communities. They work with local health leaders to educate people on all aspects of malaria prevention, and conduct regular surveys to monitor net use over time. Learn more or donate →
Support other (highly cost-effective) methods of malaria control
The Malaria Consortium’s SMC programme uses antimalarial medication to prevent infection in children under five. No bednets required! There are no fishing-related concerns with this approach, and it also saves lives at a low cost. Learn more or donate →
Support research on the experiences of wild fishes and the potential impacts of fishing (including bednet fishing)
The Wild Animal Initiative conducts world-leading research on wildlife welfare, including investigations into causes of death and suffering. This could be a great option if you’re genuinely concerned about fisheries and want to expand the available body of evidence. Learn more or donate →
Support recipient autonomy, empowering people to purchase bednets or fish nets (or anything else), as they choose
Through GiveDirectly, you can send cash straight to people in poverty. Provide a lump-sum transfer or an ongoing basic income, and allow people to improve their lives as they choose. Learn more or donate →
You might also choose to support other initiatives: not because philanthropy is pointless, or malaria is best left to take its course, but because you think your money can do more good elsewhere. That too is a reasonable and respectful response.
But let’s be clear: attacking bednets in no way justifies abandoning aid.
Yes, there is room for disagreement about the overall impact of nets. But unless that critique motivates you to seek out something better, it’s hard to see it as anything but yet another flimsy excuse for inaction.
