VOICES Voices Icon Ideas and Insight From Explorers


Is War Bad for Fish?

According to the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, several Libyan vessels, legally unauthorized to fish for the endangered bluefin tuna, have left Malta bound for Libyan waters. Their goal is to take advantage of the chaos in the country due to its civil war. The Libyan government is fighting for remaining in power, hence they probably are not paying much attention to fishing in their waters. That raises the question: is war bad for fish?

In 1924, Humberto D’Ancona, an Italian biologist who was studying fish populations in the Adriatic Sea, observed that, during World War I (when fishing was reduced for obvious reasons), the abundance of large predatory fish such as sharks and skates increased in the fishing catch. He concluded that the reduced fishing effort during the war allowed fish to recover from human exploitation. After the war, fishing intensified and these large fish were eliminated rapidly (see graph below).

The abundance of predatory fishes in the Adriatic increased during WWI (1914-1918); after the war, fishing resumed and predators were depleted. Data from Humberto D'Ancona (1924).


During the Sudan civil war of the 1980s fishing effort on Sudan’s Red Sea coast also declined, which allowed sharks and large groupers to remain abundant. Because of that, Sudan is now a prime tourist destination for adventurous divers.

However, the current events in Libya are not as beneficial for ocean life as other wars were. WWF and Greenpeace are now calling for a suspension of the 2011 fishing season, to prevent bluefin tuna caught illegally to enter the market. The bluefin tuna is in a historical low, and many scientists and conservationists have called for a 5-year moratorium to prevent the collapse of the species and the fishery it supports.

The wars of the past may have given fish a break, but in our present world, pressure is too strong and pirates try and take advantage of the lack of enforcement of national laws and international agreements. This is just a reminder that the environmental consequences of war should be considered in the planning for war-related humanitarian work. In the end, no fish means no food and no jobs for fishermen.



  1. T.Tibben
    October 8, 2012, 3:55 pm

    YES NATO should declare a NO FISHING ZONE Now!!

  2. Laura
    May 17, 2011, 4:51 pm

    I’m with Andrew. =(

  3. Andrew
    May 17, 2011, 7:27 am

    What does it matter anyway?
    Frankly; with Canada working full time to convert wetlands into highly toxic lakes for migrating birds to land in, just to feed pollution hungry America’s fuel greeds, South America decimating rain forests, Asia converting coal and other minerals into airborne contaminants, and everyone breeding as fast as possible to outstrip food resources… We are going to be out of the game in a generation anyway. Then there will be plenty of time for species to recover before the next ‘superior’ species reaches the top of the chain.

  4. Claudia Peters
    May 16, 2011, 12:31 am

    Something missing in this story : Protecting the highly endangered Blue fin tuna from extinction ! Once again, Sea Shepherd stands alone in this battle. All sorts of big organisations are ‘concerned’ about the Blue Fin Tuna. But where are they ????

  5. kylie
    May 15, 2011, 7:57 pm

    yes it is and i am very upset with it

  6. Jose Ramon Delgado
    May 14, 2011, 8:43 am

    Just like D’Ancona and other marine biologists found out, fishing activities’ decrease during war times showed an increase in fish populations. So war is good for fish. The actions of Lybian vessels, taking advantage of the lack of enforcement is something NATO should look into, even during war, environmental issues should not be put aside. NATO should declare a NO FISHING ZONE too!