MIL Africa Engine

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Krystal Tolley, Principal Scientist, University of Johannesburg

Tropical rainforests are known for their unique biodiversity, with species found nowhere else on Earth. But nearly 30% of tropical rainforest has been destroyed or has become seriously degraded since 1990. Many of these forests have not been fully explored for their biodiversity. This means that the world may be losing species before they are even discovered by modern science.

In Africa, forest loss is rapid; about 25% of the continent’s tropical forest has been lost since 1990, against a backdrop of incomplete knowledge of where the biodiversity is located.

---

Read more: Africa has the highest rate of forest loss in the world – what the G20 can do about it

---

Greatly lagging in this respect are the “sky islands” of northern Mozambique: isolated granite mountains that rise sharply out of the savanna plains. They were left standing when softer rock around them gradually eroded, and can be as high as 3,000 metres elevation. Because they rise so steeply, the sky islands attract clouds and rainfall, feeding moisture to the tropical rainforests on their slopes within an otherwise arid terrain. Isolation has allowed unique species to evolve on each mountain, such as geckos, rodents, fishes, crabs, frogs, butterflies and bats.

From 2014 to 2018, a research team led by fellow herpetologist Werner Conradie and myself explored these sky island forests to catalogue the species of reptiles found there. We found that each sky island forest is home to a previously unknown species of chameleon within the genus Nadzikambia (forest-dwelling “sylvan chameleons”).

Unfortunately, these chameleons are already at risk of extinction due to the heavy slash-and-burn clearing of the forests, the only place they can call home.

We’ve described these new species, choosing four names to highlight pioneering women scientists whose work inspired us to strive towards new discoveries, but also to call attention to the losses of their forest habitat.

Hunting for chameleons

Over the course of several years, we explored four of Mozambique’s sky islands – Mount Namuli, Mount Inago, Mount Chiperone and Mount Ribáuè – with the aim of cataloguing all reptiles but also in the hopes of finding new species of chameleons. This was because a species of sylvan chameleon had been discovered on one of these mountains during the 1960s, but they were not known from any other mountains.

---

Read more: Namibia and Angola’s remote Ovahimba mountains reveal a haven for unique plants – new survey

---

However, chameleons can be very difficult to find, given their ability to remain camouflaged against the background coupled with their slow movements. They are more easily spotted at night while they are sleeping, as they stand out against the vegetation when illuminated by a strong beam of light. Sylvan chameleons are even more difficult to spot than others, as they usually perch high in the thick forest canopy – tens of metres up.

The search meant dealing with some tough conditions: a long, arduous trek up the hot, arid slopes to reach the forest high up the mountain. Establishing a remote base camp was essential. All food, clothes and gear had to be packed into the camp, and we didn’t know how long it would take to find any animals.

---

Read more: Dung beetles: expedition unearths new species on Mozambique’s Mount Mabu

---

At each of these mountains, we surveyed every night for chameleons – no trails to follow, no GPS signal to guide us, no cellphone signal to call for help.

Sometimes we were lucky and found chameleons on the first or second night. At other mountains we were not so lucky, with fruitless searches making it necessary to return another year.

Eventually these mountains revealed their secrets and we discovered four new species of sylvan chameleon, one on each of the four mountains.

We don’t know how big their populations are, but we assume they are in decline. Most of their habitat has been destroyed by forest clearing to make way for agriculture, with increasingly rapid losses in the last decade. We estimate that in some cases, 80%-90% of their habitat has been destroyed.

When parts of an ecosystem are lost, the whole becomes unstable and is eventually lost.

---

Read more: Increasing land use could turn Mount Kilimanjaro into an ecological island

---

Choosing names for the new species

To highlight their predicament, we have described and named these chameleons and have forecast that three of these species are at high risk of extinction.

In particular, we highlight Nadzikambia goodallae from Mount Ribáuè. This species has been named in honour of the distinguished scientist Jane Goodall, whose own study species, the chimpanzee, is under similar pressures from loss of its rainforest habitat.

We also honour the renowned discoverer of the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin, by naming the species from Mount Namuli as Nadzikambia franklinae. The use of DNA data from these chameleons was essential to confirm them as new species.

We have dubbed the species from Mount Inago as Nadzikambia evanescens, meaning “vanishing” in Latin, acknowledging the state of the forest destruction.

The final species, Nadzikambia nubila, is named for the cloudy aspect of Mount Chiperone. This species has a lower risk of extinction given that the local community view the forest as sacred, and say it should be protected.

---

Read more: What Cameroon can teach others about managing community forests

---

This latter case is significant, as it demonstrates that wholesale destruction of these forests is not an essential trade-off for local people to thrive. If encouraged and supported, community support and buy-in can be a solution to protect biodiversity in these sensitive ecosystems.

– Mozambique ‘sky island’ expeditions found 4 new species of chameleon – already at risk from forest loss
– https://theconversation.com/mozambique-sky-island-expeditions-found-4-new-species-of-chameleon-already-at-risk-from-forest-loss-279908

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Marie-Francoise Roy, emerita professor in mathematics

Academia isn’t strong on gender equality. Women are under-represented throughout, in the research workforce and even more so as leaders in scientific organisations. This is true for science academies (prestigious bodies within national science systems) and scientific unions (international organisations representing disciplinary communities).

Women today make up nearly a third of the global research workforce. According to Unesco, they accounted for 31.1% of researchers worldwide in 2022 – up from 29.4% in 2012. Women are particularly underrepresented in engineering and technology (one quarter or less), while gender balance is largely achieved in the social sciences and humanities.

But workforce representation does not automatically translate into senior or leadership positions. A recent global study shows that women remain underrepresented in organisations that influence scientific agendas and norms, recognise scientific excellence and advise governments.

This 2026 report is based on data from more than 130 scientific academies and international scientific unions, alongside a survey of nearly 600 scientists. It was produced by the International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science, and follows studies in 2015 and 2020. I was one of the authors of the 2026 report, with Léa Nacache and Catherine Jami.

National science academies illustrate the scale of the gender gap. In 2025, women represented on average 19% of members of these bodies. That is an improvement from the results of the two previous studies – 12% in 2015 and 16% in 2020. But it still falls well below their presence in the wider research community. And the global average masks sharp disparities: in some academies, women account for fewer than 5% of members; in others, they approach 40%.

The task of international scientific unions is to help develop and structure their discipline, organise global congresses and award prizes. These unions show a somewhat different pattern from academies. On average, women now hold 40% of leadership positions in the international unions that were surveyed. But here, too, progress is uneven. Long-standing disciplinary inequalities remain, particularly for the most prestigious scientific awards.

Our report looks at the reasons for these patterns, how institutions operate in practice, and how change could be achieved.

The findings matter because scientific academies and unions play a significant role in the governance of science. Persistent gender imbalances in these bodies, therefore, raise questions not only of fairness, but of legitimacy and effectiveness. The legitimacy of science depends in part on whether its institutions reflect the diversity of the scientific community. And legitimacy is important in a context of global challenges – from climate change to pandemics – where public trust in science is fragile.

Beyond pipeline effects

Gender disparities in scientific leadership are often explained as a lagging effect: if fewer women entered certain fields decades ago, fewer will now be in senior positions or eligible for nominations in academies or for scientific prizes. Pipeline dynamics do play a role, as do traditional disciplinary gaps. But they do not explain the full picture.

Most scientific organisations report formally open and merit-based nomination, election and awarding procedures. Yet, the data show that women are consistently underrepresented in nomination pools relative to their presence among eligible scientists.

Our analysis points to the importance of institutional processes. Who is eligible to nominate? How are suitable candidates identified? How transparent are the nomination criteria? How much weight is given to informal reputation and networks?

In 90% of the academies surveyed, nomination relies on existing members. In contexts where membership is already predominantly male, such procedures seem to perpetuate existing imbalances. Even in the absence of explicit discrimination, informal sponsorship networks and patterns of professional visibility influence who is put forward. Evaluation of who would make a good nominee is therefore shaped by social and institutional dynamics, and not solely by individual achievement and merit.

Our survey of the gender equality initiatives in place showed that encouragement and awareness-raising practices alone have had limited impact. They need to be accompanied by structural reforms. In most organisations, gender equality measures lack dedicated structures, formal mandates, budgets or monitoring mechanisms.

Participation without equal progression

The quantitative findings were complemented by survey responses from individual scientists active in scientific organisations. These provided insight into how the structural patterns operate in practice.

Women who join scientific organisations report participating at levels comparable to men. They serve on committees, attend meetings and contribute to activities. But we found that this engagement does not translate into equivalent progression or recognition.

Women are three times more likely than men to report barriers to advancement within their scientific organisation. Women are 4.5 times more likely than men to report missing important events due to care responsibilities. And when they are able to attend, they are six times more likely to report not feeling they can participate to the levels of men.

Women are 2.5 times more likely than men to report experiences of harassment or microaggressions in their activities within scientific organisations. They also express lower levels of trust in the transparency of selection processes and in mechanisms to report and address misconduct.

Qualitative interviews documented strategies that women develop to navigate these environments. They include building women-only networks, investing in international engagement to escape restrictive local cultures, or collectively advocating for change. These strategies appear to be effective and organisations should encourage them.

From diagnosis to change

The report does not argue for a single model or fixed targets applicable everywhere. Scientific organisations vary widely. However, the evidence and case studies featured in the report point to a set of key institutional levers that can make a difference.

To take an example, in academies where formal rules and structures have been revised, improvements in women’s representation have been more sustained. Such good practices need to be systematically identified and generalised.

The central conclusion is straightforward: the underrepresentation of women in scientific governance is not a question of insufficient talent. It reflects institutional practices based on cultures that developed within male-dominated scientific communities.

If science aims to serve society as a whole, the bodies that define and represent it must be willing to examine how they operate – and who they include.

Many colleagues made contributions that helped shape and improve the report on which this article, prepared with Peter McGrath (InterAcademy Partnership) and Léa Nacache (International Science Council), is based.

– Women in science – global study finds presence without power
– https://theconversation.com/women-in-science-global-study-finds-presence-without-power-279248