Mosquito nets and indiscriminate fishing, good or detrimental for Africa? Options

[Game Warden]

One of the ways to donate and help people in Africa is by way of www.malarianomore.org and www.nothingbutnets.net where a ten dollar donation purchases a mosquito net which helps prevent malaria - which undoubted some do. But such nets are also impacting negatively on the environment of Africa - through the misuse of the nets for indiscriminate fishing.

In the following blog entry, Ian Manning talks about how they are used to over fish Zambia's once rich rivers. In the article he states:

A friend reported to me that he had seen one such tapeworm of a net, fully 100 yards long, the individual mosquito nets sown together, set across a stretch of water, doubtless later being 'walked' across the water by villagers, and all age classes of fish removed. And from all over the country come reports of mosquito nets being used to catch fish.

To read Ian's full article on the misuse of mosquito nets click here.

In recent correspondence he wrote:

'Man's neurosis to give', as a panhandler once put it to an elegant lady stuffing a $20 dollar note into his hat outside the Waldorf Astoria in New York, is resulting in Zambia – one of the best watered countries in Africa and the major watershed of the Congo and Zambezi, being in receipt of millions of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. They are meant, of course, to prevent malaria, scourge of the African population. Instead, they are being stitched together and used to sieve out the fish and other life of our waters. With a fishery already in serious decline from overfishing due to the use of small fishing-net mesh sizes and industrial and native poisons, this will further deplete our most important source of protein. And other animals are affected: otter, monitor lizards, crocodile, python and water birds; a domino affect.

An inquiry to the Environmental Council of Zambia of what environmental impact assessments had been carried out by donors or the Zambian Government on the impact of these nets revealed that nothing has been done. What do the donors have to say?

[Game Warden]

One of the ways to donate and help people in Africa is by way of www.malarianomore.org and www.nothingbutnets.net where a ten dollar donation purchases a mosquito net which helps prevent malaria - which undoubted some do. But such nets are also impacting negatively on the environment of Africa - through the misuse of the nets for indiscriminate fishing.

In the following blog entry, Ian Manning talks about how they are used to over fish Zambia's once rich rivers. In the article he states:

A friend reported to me that he had seen one such tapeworm of a net, fully 100 yards long, the individual mosquito nets sown together, set across a stretch of water, doubtless later being 'walked' across the water by villagers, and all age classes of fish removed. And from all over the country come reports of mosquito nets being used to catch fish.

To read Ian's full article on the misuse of mosquito nets click here.

In recent correspondence he wrote:

'Man's neurosis to give', as a panhandler once put it to an elegant lady stuffing a $20 dollar note into his hat outside the Waldorf Astoria in New York, is resulting in Zambia – one of the best watered countries in Africa and the major watershed of the Congo and Zambezi, being in receipt of millions of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. They are meant, of course, to prevent malaria, scourge of the African population. Instead, they are being stitched together and used to sieve out the fish and other life of our waters. With a fishery already in serious decline from overfishing due to the use of small fishing-net mesh sizes and industrial and native poisons, this will further deplete our most important source of protein. And other animals are affected: otter, monitor lizards, crocodile, python and water birds; a domino affect.

An inquiry to the Environmental Council of Zambia of what environmental impact assessments had been carried out by donors or the Zambian Government on the impact of these nets revealed that nothing has been done. What do the donors have to say?

[predator]

One of the ways to donate and help people in Africa is by way of www.malarianomore.org and www.nothingbutnets.net where a ten dollar donation purchases a mosquito net which helps prevent malari - which undoubted some do. But on the other side of the coin is the misuse of the nets for indiscriminate fishing.

In the following blog entry, Ian Manning talks about how they are used to over fish Zambia's once rich rivers. In the article he states:

QUOTE
A friend reported to me that he had seen one such tapeworm of a net, fully 100 yards long, the individual mosquito nets sown together, set across a stretch of water, doubtless later being 'walked' across the water by villagers, and all age classes of fish removed. And from all over the country come reports of mosquito nets being used to catch fish.

To read Ian's full article on the misuse of mosquito nets click here.

The use of mosquito nets for illegal fishing is also a problem in Namibia's Kavangu region near the Angolan border.

Its worrying - if this becomes more widespread then it could have a negative impact on both the wildlife in the rivers (fish, otters, crocodiles etc) but more seriously it could lead to a reluctance to supply mosquito nets in some areas which would also be a tragedy.

[Game Warden]

From an uneducated outsiders viewpoint, how can this situation best be resolved?

NGOs working on the ground I'm sure only have both limited resources and a limited remit: they are not in the position to verify from start to finish the distribution network, nor I would suppose continued education on why the use of the nets is important.

Would it be possible then to increase the donation amount thus to provide locally appointed village co-ordinators to oversee such points: distribution, education, correct usage etc? which in turn would provide employment opportunities / empowerment. I would think that donors would be happy to pay an extra dollar to ensure that cases of misuse such as the fishing do not occur. Of course you are not going to prevent it 100% but it would be a start.

Of course on such sites which call for donations you will never read of indiscriminate fishing but why not include the option to sponsor a village co-ordinator?

What do you think?

[I. P. A. Manning]

From an uneducated outsiders viewpoint, how can this situation best be resolved?

NGOs working on the ground I'm sure only have both limited resources and a limited remit: they are not in the position to verify from start to finish the distribution network, nor I would suppose continued education on why the use of the nets is important.

Would it be possible then to increase the donation amount thus to provide locally appointed village co-ordinators to oversee such points: distribution, education, correct usage etc? which in turn would provide employment opportunities / empowerment. I would think that donors would be happy to pay an extra dollar to ensure that cases of misuse such as the fishing do not occur. Of course you are not going to prevent it 100% but it would be a start.

Of course on such sites which call for donations you will never read of indiscriminate fishing but why not include the option to sponsor a village co-ordinator?

What do you think?

In Zambia, the Environmental Council of Zambia has the statutory responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected. EIAs are required for all developments having a potential negative affect on the land, the water, the biodiversity, the people. I have brought the net problem to their attention, and they have brought it up with the Fisheries Department; and there it rests, like so many other serious assaults on the environment. But the Government barely functions - and it is not because of a lack of funds, and the donors - suffering from a neurosis to give, are not much concerned about what happens with the money and the damage they do. And the Seattle/Omaha/Sachs connection, which has now created a parallel economy here (Aids/Malaria/TB), simply give, with little responsibility for the short, medium and long term impacts. And now they are joined by the unspeakable Clinton. Everyone loves a giver, it seems.

The way forward? Those who intervene in Zambia must bear the responsibility for their actions: NGOs, donors, investors...if they can't take the trouble to ensure that their money is used wisely and that they operate according to the precautionary principle, then they should be exposed and ridiculed. Recently an American financier of orphanages came here to visit his projects, making the obligatory call to the First Lady - now a major link in the donor chain, only to find that none of the orphanages he had been sending money to existed. Village co-ordinators? Certainly, but in this kleptocracy, the money would be spent on their own essential needs. But there are some honest and resolute people in this country who could oversee the net programme as part of their other activities in rural education, resource protection, tourism development , small enterprise development and so on. You have to have a structure in place on which to hang your money and good intentions for Africa. We have created the Landsafe Investment Trust system which I am trying - despite the active opposition of Government, to implement here, a model now accepted by the House of Chiefs. There are Trusts out there that could deal with the net problem as part of their programme. But big donors only want to give direct to Government. There lies the rub.

[predator]

From an uneducated outsiders viewpoint, how can this situation best be resolved?

NGOs working on the ground I'm sure only have both limited resources and a limited remit: they are not in the position to verify from start to finish the distribution network, nor I would suppose continued education on why the use of the nets is important.

Would it be possible then to increase the donation amount thus to provide locally appointed village co-ordinators to oversee such points: distribution, education, correct usage etc? which in turn would provide employment opportunities / empowerment. I would think that donors would be happy to pay an extra dollar to ensure that cases of misuse such as the fishing do not occur. Of course you are not going to prevent it 100% but it would be a start.

Of course on such sites which call for donations you will never read of indiscriminate fishing but why not include the option to sponsor a village co-ordinator?

What do you think?

There are never likely to be any simple easy solutions - if there were then they'd probably be in place already.

There are several things that I personally believe could help though...

1. Improve the distribution network to ensure the nets are supplied free to the people they are intended for. This distribution network should not be run purely by a foreign NGO - they need to make sure local communities are involved - possibly as you say with local village coordinators.

2. Publicity is important to make sure the local communities know that the nets being distributed are free and they should report anyone trying to sell them or who is supplying them to commercial outlets etc.

3. Education is important as well to ensure that the local people understand the concepts of overfishing and the implications. Its difficult though as someone with no food is unlikely to worry about the river losing all its fish in 5 years - he's more interested in surviving and wont be looking beyond the next few weeks/months.

4. In "high risk" areas - i.e. those areas near lakes and rivers, the NGO should be engaged in discussions with the relevant government ministry responsible for enforcing fishing rules and if necessary, providing funding for additional patrols in those areas.

NGO's should not be allowed to ignore the consequences of their actions. If mosquito nets they supply are being used for illegal fishing, they cant claim its not their responsibility and ignore it - they have to look at how their operations can be changed to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. They cant be held totally responsible for how the nets are used (that would be unreasonable) but before being let off the hook they should be made to prove that they had taken reasonable precautions to stop the problem.

[predator]

the donors - suffering from a neurosis to give, are not much concerned about what happens with the money and the damage they do. And the Seattle/Omaha/Sachs connection, which has now created a parallel economy here (Aids/Malaria/TB), simply give, with little responsibility for the short, medium and long term impacts. And now they are joined by the unspeakable Clinton. Everyone loves a giver, it seems.

The way forward? Those who intervene in Zambia must bear the responsibility for their actions: NGOs, donors, investors...if they can't take the trouble to ensure that their money is used wisely and that they operate according to the precautionary principle, then they should be exposed and ridiculed. Recently an American financier of orphanages came here to visit his projects, making the obligatory call to the First Lady - now a major link in the donor chain, only to find that none of the orphanages he had been sending money to existed. Village co-ordinators? Certainly, but in this kleptocracy, the money would be spent on their own essential needs.

I think you've hit on a key point - donors or NGO's do need to make sure that their funds are properly spent.
One problem is that some large organisations do not wish to publicise when they have been ripped off as it reflects badly on them, so they tend to keep it quiet, but for transparency they should be reporting to their members and supporters with both good and bad news - yes its painful sometimes but honesty and transparency is important.

It is always easier for an organisation with a large sum of money available to give it to the relevant government for them to manage the program, but this isnt always the best solution - the money might be a lot more efficiently used and less susceptible to corruption if it was supplied instead to say 100 small local groups, but that is more difficult to manage so may not happen.

It is important for foreign donor organisations to make sure they take the time to check out the organisations or individuals they are going to fund to make sure that the funds will be properly spent. Obtaining proper detailed accounts and verification of the spending (e.g. copies of receipts) is important to make sure the funds were spent as per the grant agreement. Donor organisations need to make sure their funds are used effectively if they are to be responsible.

[Jude]

I have emailed Nothing but Nets, as a start, to discuss their understanding and any action if any of this matter. Will keep you informed.

I guess we might need to start spreading the word in a respectful way - doing a bit of education with orgs. that supply nets. "Nothin' changes if nothin' changes" (As my darlin mum says).

Jude

[predator]

NAMIBIA: Health and Social Services Minister, Dr Richard Kamwi, has issued a stern warning to people who are using mosquito nets for fishing.

Kamwi said the situation is disheartening because the Government-distributed mosquito nets are treated with chemicals that could be fatal if swallowed.

The full article................

Minister warns on abuse of mosquito nets

[Game Warden]

The Sun, www.thesun.co.uk reported on Wednesday 9th April, Brown in Ł100m war on malaria. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged to buy 20 million mosquito nets (at a cost of +/- 197 million dollars) for Africa and urged other countries to commit to the same thus to supply 120 million bed nets to Africa.

To read the full story click here.

But does he appreciate the consequences of such a commitment?

Wikipedia, quoting The Economist. "Traditional Economy of the Kavango" as it's source includes the following in its article on Malaria.

Although shipped into Africa mainly from Europe as free development help, the nets quickly become expensive trade goods. They are mainly used for fishing, and by combining hundreds of donated mosquito nets, whole river sections can be completely shut off, catching even the smallest fish.

To read the full wikipedia entry on Malaria please click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria

Does such a pledge come with the assurance that the donated nets will not be sold, or used for indiscriminate fishing? Such a commitment should be made with the following points, that Predator raised earlier in the debate, borne in mind:

1. Improve the distribution network to ensure the nets are supplied free to the people they are intended for. This distribution network should not be run purely by a foreign NGO - they need to make sure local communities are involved - possibly as you say with local village coordinators.

2. Publicity is important to make sure the local communities know that the nets being distributed are free and they should report anyone trying to sell them or who is supplying them to commercial outlets etc.

3. Education is important as well to ensure that the local people understand the concepts of overfishing and the implications. Its difficult though as someone with no food is unlikely to worry about the river losing all its fish in 5 years - he's more interested in surviving and wont be looking beyond the next few weeks/months.

4. In "high risk" areas - i.e. those areas near lakes and rivers, the NGO should be engaged in discussions with the relevant government ministry responsible for enforcing fishing rules and if necessary, providing funding for additional patrols in those areas.

What are your thoughts on such a large donation of mosquito nets - is PM Brown correct to make such a promise, and is he fully aware of the negative implications?

[Game Warden]

The Times of Zambia www.times.co.zm reports in its article - "Safe drinking water: A must for all Zambians"

There has been a tendency of using insecticide treated mosquito nets for fishing purposes that has resulted in contamination of water and loss of aqua life. Such contamination is difficult to curb since the source is often hard to trace as the impact spreads further downstream and people pick dead fish and other forms of water life get destroyed.

To read the full article click here:

www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=8&id=1140978064

[Game Warden]

I have sent the following email to Prime Minister Brown via The Number 10 Downing Street website here: www.pm.gov.uk referring to the recent commitment as documented above:

Dear Prime Minister,

My name is Matthew Wilkinson and I am involved in highlighting wildlife conservation, environmental protection and community / social initiatives in Africa through my work with www.safaritalk.net, a non money making volunteer produced project founded and funded by myself.

With regard to your April 9th commitment to donate 20 million mosquito nets for use in Africa, at a cost of approximately 190 million US dollars, I respectfully ask if you / the Govt are aware of the negative impact on the environment of Africa - through the misuse of the nets for indiscriminate fishing?

Such misuse is rife in places like Zambia, in which, to quote Ian Manning conservationist,

"Zambia – one of the best watered countries in Africa and the major watershed of the Congo and Zambezi, being in receipt of millions of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. They are meant, of course, to prevent malaria, scourge of the African population. Instead, they are being stitched together and used to sieve out the fish and other life of our waters. With a fishery already in serious decline from overfishing due to the use of small fishing-net mesh sizes and industrial and native poisons, this will further deplete our most important source of protein. And other animals are affected: otter, monitor lizards, crocodile, python and water birds; a domino affect.

An inquiry to the Environmental Council of Zambia of what environmental impact assessments had been carried out by donors or the Zambian Government on the impact of these nets revealed that nothing has been done."

Or The Times of Zambia,

"There has been a tendency of using insecticide treated mosquito nets for fishing purposes that has resulted in contamination of water and loss of aqua life. Such contamination is difficult to curb since the source is often hard to trace as the impact spreads further downstream and people pick dead fish and other forms of water life get destroyed."

or even Wikipedia, quoting The Economist. "Traditional Economy of the Kavango" as it's source includes the following in its article on Malaria,

"Although shipped into Africa mainly from Europe as free development help, the nets quickly become expensive trade goods. They are mainly used for fishing, and by combining hundreds of donated mosquito nets, whole river sections can be completely shut off, catching even the smallest fish."

Comments on this debate within Safaritalk, www.safaritalk.net/index.php?showtopic=1532 "Mosquito nets and indiscriminate fishing" suggest implementing a 4 step plan which include:

1. Improve the distribution network to ensure the nets are supplied free to the people they are intended for. This distribution network should not be run purely by a foreign NGO - they need to make sure local communities are involved - possibly as you say with local village coordinators.

2. Publicity is important to make sure the local communities know that the nets being distributed are free and they should report anyone trying to sell them or who is supplying them to commercial outlets etc.

3. Education is important as well to ensure that the local people understand the concepts of overfishing and the implications. Its difficult though as someone with no food is unlikely to worry about the river losing all its fish in 5 years - he's more interested in surviving and wont be looking beyond the next few weeks/months.

4. In "high risk" areas - i.e. those areas near lakes and rivers, the NGO should be engaged in discussions with the relevant government ministry responsible for enforcing fishing rules and if necessary, providing funding for additional patrols in those areas.

It is important for such issues to be addressed, so as not for such a large financial commitment to be made without responsibility for the short, medium and long term environmental impact.

Whilst this initiative is to be applauded, and once more Britain shows itself a leader in providing Aid to Africa, such an undertaking should only be made with assurances that these nets are to be used for the intended purpose, with field supervision and support to distribute them to and educate communities as to such proper use.

Please can the Prime Minister provide for www.safaritalk.net further details of this initiative, and comment to be added into the debate as linked to above, and review and implement the 4 step plan which Safaritalk is proposing to ensure responsible distribution of said aid / mosquito nets to the ground in Africa?

One hopes that having made such a commitment, that it is undertaken in a such a manner which will best serve the people and environment of Africa in the short medium and long term.

I look forward to a reply at your earliest possible convenience,

Yours sincerely,

Matthew Wilkinson - www.safaritalk.net

[Game Warden]

In the Los Angeles Times www.latimes.com article "Net gains for Africa" (August 7th 2005) the argument is raised about net supply: should they be provided for free, or should people have to pay for them:

PSI, for its part, points to Malawi, where it sold 1 million subsidized nets last year and which is now on track to meet net-use targets. It also argues that paying even a token sum has a value that goes beyond building a sustainable system. When people decide to buy a net, they commit to using it and signal that they understand why and how it's used, which has not always been the case when nets were given away free, only to be used as wedding dresses and fishing nets.

The article also raises issues such as cost effective distribution and community education.

To read the full article click here:

www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suneditorials/la-ed-malnet7aug07,1,7130060.story

[Game Warden]

April 25th 2008: World Malaria Day

A couple of links:

Roll back Malaria

World Health Organization

[Atravelynn]

This falls under the category of no good deed goes unpunished. Another darn unintended consequence. Last year I readily gave to this cause. This year, I've decided those dollars will go to another worthy cause. I hope raising these concerns and the reactions it generates--like mine--are not further unintended consequences.

Anyway, I like the debate section here on safari talk. It's good even for lurkers, non-debators, and Libras like me who keep balancing both sides.

[matnikstym]

Very interesting reading, wish I'd read this before posting on Fodor's to donate nets.
Thanks Matt

[Game Warden]

An email has been sent to the following organisations inviting them to participate in this debate and respond to points and concerns raised.

www.unicef.org
www.malarianomore.org
www.nothingbutnets.net
www.projectmosquitonet.org
www.hisnets.org

[Game Warden]

Stop the misuse of mosquito nets reports The Zambia Daily Mail - www.daily-mail.co.zm

FIRST Lady Maureen Mwanawasa has urged donors in malaria interventions to include economic empowerment programmes in the fight against the disease to avoid the misuse and abuse of Mosquito nets.

She also said men had a key role by ensuring that they provided a conducive and healthy environment as well as resources for the safety of their families.

To read the full article click here.

[dikdik]

I am going to go out on a limb here. In many respects I don’t agree with the rest of the world trying to help Africa out. It has to be the responsibility of the respective governments to look after their people.
All outside help does is props up corrupt governments and takes away their responsibility to look after their citizens while the powers that be fill their pockets.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to expose bad leadership for what it is and encourage the people to be more careful about the leaders they chose in future. But as long as you take responsibilities away from these leaders they can afford to be more apathetic and run their country into ruin.
There is no excuse in Africa for people starving. It is just lack of utilization of resources and poor governance along with corruption.
Maybe some leaders should face charges for not looking after the welfare of their own citizens.
Mosquito nets. My suggestion is that you make them too weak to catch fish with.

It is a debate --- right!! My views may not be cast in stone, its just a caution, and something worth thinking about.

[Atravelynn]

You're no Libra Dikdik! (in reference to my comment of me being a Libra who can't take a side)

Too weak to catch fish, that's a great idea. I was trying to think of making them dissolve in water, but then what happens when it rains.

[Game Warden]

My suggestion is that you make them too weak to catch fish with.

I was trying to think of making them dissolve in water, but then what happens when it rains.

Those are interesting ideas raised by Dikdik and Atravelynn: as the nets are designed to be used (not mis-used) indoors as bed nets then this problem of dissolving in the water should not matter. However, there still exists the problems of the chemicals and insecticides with which they are impregnated, which would permeate into the rivers. But once it is realised the nets could not be used in this way, then this would not be a problem.