This past June, I had the opportunity to attend the 2024 International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) World Congress in Stockholm, Sweden—an event held every five years since 1893. The Climate Smart Forest Economy Program (CSFEP) was honoured to be one of the programs featured by IUFRO in a set of conference videos. (If you haven’t seen our video yet, view it here.)
At the opening event, IUFRO announced that the next Congress will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, marking the first time the Congress will be coming to Africa. Since its founding in 1893, IUFRO has held 26 World Congresses – 21 of which were have been held in the Global North (North America and Europe).
This geographical disparity in global congresses is mirrored by a similar geographical disparity in published research about forests. This is shown in a June 2024 journal article from Nelius Boshoff et al titled “Geographical inequalities in global forest science: A bibliometric perspective.” The article tracks a disconnect between regions’ share of forests, their scientists’ success rates in publishing academic articles, and the frequency with which those articles are cited (see figure below).
Fig. 2. Shares of forest area and forestry publications and citations, by region from “Geographical inequalities in global forest science: A bibliometric perspective,” Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 165, 2024 by Nelius Boshoff, Similo Ngwenya, Susanne Koch, Jonathan Dudek, Olena Strelnyk, Rodrigo Costas, Amani J. Uisso.
As the chart above details, Europe and North America, with 41% of the world’s forests, publish 67% of the academic research on forests. At the other end of the spectrum, Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, have publication rates significantly lower than their share of forests.
While Boshoff et al do not investigate the causes of this disparity, several IUFRO attendees I spoke with pointed to funding as one likely cause. The funding gap between research in the Global North compared to Global South is truly shocking. For example, this study in the journal Climate and Development found that 78% of funding for climate research in Africa went to institutions based in North America or Europe—while only 14.5% went to institutions in Africa. Boshoff et al also investigated this challenge, documenting, for example, the sheer numbers of forestry funding organisations in North America (342) compared to a region like Sub-Saharan Africa (2).
As a result of this research disparity, many Global South institutions enter into partnerships with Global North institutions to be able to fund their research. Boshoff et al, for example, note that many researchers from forest-rich developing nations rely on international collaboration for their forestry research. Angola and Zambia were the most extreme example: together, they account for 2.7% of the world’s forest area, but have international collaboration rates of 100% and 75%, respectively, producing almost no research on their own. I saw on-the-ground evidence of this pattern at IUFRO, at which many sessions on Global South issues highlighted research jointly conducted between a Global North and a Global South institution.
However, at IUFRO, I noticed that, with few exceptions, Global North institutions were solely presenting research produced in these partnerships, with the Global South partner nowhere to be seen. While I am hesitant to make too many sweeping assumptions about why so many Global South scholars were missing, I suspect access may have played a large role. With the World Congress held in the Global North, it was more affordable and accessible for scientists from those countries to attend. No doubt visa challenges played a critical role as well. It is simply a fact of a global professional world that when conferences are held in Global North countries with strict national visa requirements, those requirements impose a serious impediment to attendance for many Global South scholars (as this great article, among many others details). As a South African myself, I’m annoyingly familiar with this problem. The South African passport is nicknamed the “green mamba” for its ability to strike and immobilize South African travellers at borders – although I recognize that South Africans are privileged to encounter far fewer visa issues than most countries on the continent. For this reason, it matters tremendously that the next IUFRO will be in Nairobi, Kenya—a country which ties for #1 on this list of “welcoming countries” or countries who prioritize ease of entry for travellers.
Finally, even when authors from the Global South succeed in securing funding and publishing, they are also often less likely to be cited by their peers. For example, the graphic above notes that forestry articles written by European and Northern American scholars collectively receive 89% of citations, despite comprising only 67% of publications. By contrast, Eastern and Southeastern Asia comprise 24% of publications, but only 17% of citations.
This publication and citation divide between the Global North and Global south is true in adjacent fields as well. For example, BBC News writes about another study conducted by the Carbon Brief website, which looked at 100 of the most highly cited research papers in climate science over the past 5 years. It found that fewer than 1% of authors were based in Africa (and only 12% of lead authors were women). A stunning 90% of authors were from North America, Europe, or Australia.
Here is the problem with these statistics: in academic fields, publications, citations, and presentations drive recognition and debate. The authors with the most publications, presentations, and citations are the field’s thought leaders, the ones tasked with leading and holding the global conversation. These statistics suggest that in far too many academic disciplines, the key conversations are happening among a subset of scientists from only a small part of the world. As Boshoff et al note in their introduction, in the field of forestry, such a reality creates both a too-narrow perspective—as well as research outputs that likely don’t meet the needs of many communities.
What would global academic conversations look like if they were truly inclusive of Global South scholars? They would include insights like the ones from Cécile Ndjebet, founder of the African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests, who gave one of my favourite keynote addresses at IUFRO, on the role of women in landscape management. She noted that it is becoming increasingly common for academics and practitioners to acknowledge critical role that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) play in forest management. But less often is it acknowledged that in many regions, it is the women who are the stewards of the use and management of forest resources, through “their socio-cultural role as providers of food for the household, and as key actors in the value chains of fuelwood and non-timber forest products.” Despite the key role women play in forest management, argued Ndjebet, they are frequently left out of forestry conversations altogether. Ndjebet and others convincingly argued that the inclusion of female community leaders is critical to designing forestry interventions that work.
There are no shortage of organisations in Africa and other Global South regions leading incredible research. But all too often, they are unable to access the funding they need to conduct their research; their work goes under-cited; they are unable to access the spaces where academic discussions happen; and their insights are lost. This reality suggests an enormous opportunity for funders to fund more research by Global South scholars, for journals to ensure they are publishing a diversity of research, and for scholars to ensure they are reading and citing their Global South colleagues. I am hopeful that the next IUFRO Congress in Nairobi will help amplify the voices of African scholars and drive both funding and recognition to these critical institutions. I hope to see you in Nairobi in 2029!
Comments