Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Harith Omar Morgadinho Farooq, Lecturer, Lúrio University
Africa is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth. But much of its biodiversity remains poorly studied. Research from the continent contributes to less than 1% to global scientific output.
This pattern is often explained by limited investment in research. Governments in sub-Saharan Africa allocate, on average, only about 0.4% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to research and development. By comparison, European countries invest on average more than 2% of GDP, while the global average is around 2.6%. India invests close to 0.7% of GDP, and the US nearly 3.5%. Additional constraints include the lack of infrastructure, and political instability.
But there is a more direct and often overlooked constraint: the salaries of the scientists.
Salary disparities are measurable, policy relevant and a direct economic constraint on researchers’ ability to conduct fieldwork. They play a role in shaping who is able to conduct scientific research, a disparity that becomes especially visible during fieldwork.
We are researchers who have been working on biodiversity conservation in Africa for more than a decade. Through collaboration with and experience in European research institutions, we have observed firsthand how financial limitations affect fieldwork, research continuity and scientific careers. We investigated whether differences in researchers’ incomes are associated with biodiversity research output across African countries.
Our study showed a clear pattern: countries where researchers earn less produce less scientific output and rely more heavily on studies led by foreign institutions. This has implications beyond output alone, because scientific leadership influences which questions are asked, which ecosystems are studied, and how conservation priorities are defined.
Strengthening local research capacity will require greater investment in science and higher education.
Salary disparaties
In our study, we compared salary differences between locally based and foreign-affiliated researchers using publicly available salary data. We linked these to biodiversity research output across 54 African countries using data from the Scopus database.
We found that researchers based at African institutions often earn only a fraction of what their collaborators from higher-income countries receive. This disparity was particularly prominent in Malawi, the Republic of the Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Here, foreign-affiliated salaries were approximately 34, 32, and 25 times higher than local salaries, respectively.
Because of these low salaries, it can take years to save for basic research tools such as field clothing, cameras or computers. For researchers from higher-income countries, these costs can often be covered by a single monthly salary.
This financial constraint may help explain why much of the continent’s biodiversity research is conducted in collaboration with institutions based outside Africa, rather than being led by local organisations, which are few and often underfunded.
Although local researchers often possess critical knowledge of biodiversity, languages, logistics and environmental challenges, they may have limited opportunities to lead projects or secure senior authorship positions in international collaborations.
The hidden cost of doing fieldwork
Biodiversity research is inherently expensive. It requires travel, equipment, permits, and the support of local guides or assistants. Even short expeditions can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. In many parts of the world, these costs are covered by research grants or institutional funding.
But in Africa, especially for exploratory research, funding is generally limited or unavailable. Consequently, scientists often have to rely on their own income to conduct fieldwork, a pattern also reported by researchers in other lower-income countries.
We found that across countries, foreign-affiliated researchers typically earned between four and 30 times more than locally based scientists conducting research in the same country. Researchers based outside the continent also retain substantially higher disposable income, even after accounting for travel costs, allowing them to contribute to or fully fund fieldwork. By contrast, in half of the African countries analysed, locally based researchers could not cover even a conservative fieldwork budget of US$1,000 using their entire monthly salary.
These differences create an uneven playing field. Success depends not only on the merit of ideas or quality of training, but also on who can afford to be in the field.
As a result, scientists with greater financial security may be better positioned to sustain fieldwork, revisit sites and maintain long-term research programmes.
For students, these realities become clear early on. Even those with a strong interest in biodiversity may decide not to pursue careers in biology, or reduce their involvement over time, once they understand the financial constraints. Consequently, fewer local specialists are trained.
The shortage of local specialists is part of a broader research capacity gap. Africa has approximately 236 researchers per million people. This is far below the global average of around 1,516, and substantially lower than Europe’s 4,240 researchers per million people or the more than 4,800 per million in the US.
Many African countries have few locally based scientists available to conduct biodiversity surveys, supervise students, lead long-term monitoring programmes, or build specialised expertise, particularly in poorly studied taxonomic groups.
When research becomes difficult to prioritise
Low salaries have broader consequences.
Scientists may rely on consultancies or teaching across multiple institutions. This leaves limited time for research. Over time it reduces both their development as researchers and the relevance of the knowledge they bring into the classroom.
Research capacity in African institutions remains limited. Most biodiversity studies are led by researchers from foreign institutions. Though international collaborations are essential, they can lead to local scientists being limited in their ability to lead projects or even participate.
In such cases, local knowledge and priorities can be overlooked. Large parts of these countries, and many taxonomic groups, may remain poorly studied.
In Mozambique, for example, some of the country’s most important areas for threatened and endemic plants and animals lie outside the current protected area network.
Conservation funding and research have historically concentrated in large protected areas known for charismatic megafauna such as elephants and lions.
Solutions are hard to come by
Increasing researchers’ salaries is not straightforward. In many countries, salaries at public universities are tied to national government salary scales and broader public sector budgets. This means there is no single institution that can solve the problem alone. Still, universities and funding agencies can create mechanisms to better support research activity.
These may include productivity-based incentives, research stipends, fieldwork allowances, reduced teaching loads for active researchers, and grant schemes that directly fund local scientists. Governments can also invest in research as part of long-term national development strategies.
– Poor pay is holding back Africa’s biodiversity research and reducing its contribution to global science
– https://theconversation.com/poor-pay-is-holding-back-africas-biodiversity-research-and-reducing-its-contribution-to-global-science-282447