Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: – By Luca Bussotti, Professor at the PhD Course in Peace, Democracy, Social Movements and Human Development, Universidade Técnica de Moçambique (UDM)

Mozambique’s government, led by the Frelimo party, has long been planning celebrations for 2025. It is 50 years since independence, won after an anti-colonial war against Portugal led by the same party.

Something has gone wrong, however, especially in the past two years.

Since the country’s popular rapper Azagaia died in March 2023 and peaceful processions in his memory escalated into violent clashes with the police, space has opened up for the establishment of a social movement of young people. This has since turned into a political movement, taking on the name “Povo no Poder” (“People in Power”). At its head is a brilliant politician, Venâncio Mondlane.

Povo no Poder was also the name of Azagaia’s hit song, which had been the soundtrack to 2008 protests against rising energy costs.

The demonstrations in March 2023 marked a turning point for Mozambique. It was as if all the energy and indignation about a highly corrupt and increasingly authoritarian country that Azagaia had expressed through his songs had been passed on to previously fearful young people. Now they dared to challenge the police and army in the open and without any weapons.

In late 2024 Mozambicans took to the streets to protest against elections they claimed were rigged. Over 300 people were killed in demonstrations.

Efforts have been made to redress this serious wound. In preparation for the 50 years of independence Frelimo has been recalling key places and symbols in the liberation war, harking back to a time when they represented justice.

But attempts to evoke past glory and ideals are not resonating with ordinary Mozambicans. The mood in the country is subdued.

As a specialist in the politics of lusophone Africa, in particular Mozambique, based on years of research, I find it difficult to envision a future of peace and prosperity for the next 50 years. There are divisive elements at play across the country. The post-election crisis has its roots in widespread discontent. Mozambicans are also rising against the cost of living crisis.

Attempts to rekindle the flame

The newly elected president, Daniel Chapo, opened the 50th anniversary celebrations on 7 April in Nangade, in Cabo Delgado province. This is one of the places where the armed struggle against the Portuguese began.

National symbolism has focused on the torch of national unity, travelling the length and breadth of Mozambique to arrive in Maputo at the historic Machava Stadium on 25 June, Independence Day, for a concluding public ceremony.

Not everyone has shared this attempt to patch up a country torn both politically and socio-economically.

Too much has been lost in the intervening decades.

In the initial period of independence Frelimo adopted socialist policies and attempted to promote free and universal social services, primarily healthcare and education. Back then, the ruling class, starting with the country’s first president, Samora Machel, didn’t enjoy any particular economic privileges.

The reality today is quite different.

Journalist and social activist Tomás Vieira Mário, one of the main critics of the current regime, has traced the stages of independent Mozambique’s history. He’s pointed out the contradiction between the initial thrust by many Mozambican common people towards the liberation movement and subsequent, authoritarian developments.

He concluded in an article that all that remained to unite Mozambicans was the

mere sharing of the same territorial space. And a lot of blood.

He was referring to the long war against Renamo from 1976 to 1992 and again from 2013 to 2019, ethnic questions that have never been resolved, and finally the armed attacks in Cabo Delgado of jihadist and ethnic nature.

For his part, renowned philosopher Severino Ngoenha has also underscored the importance of a justice system that is fair and inclusive, and not at the service of one political party.

The new opposition is coming not from Renamo or Frelimo but from the streets. Popular protests have taken place this year even in areas once considered Frelimo strongholds. In Gaza province, southern Mozambique, for example, there have been outbreaks of violence, demonstrating that the bipolar system that emerged from the 1992 peace accord now seems incapable of responding to the new demands of Mozambican society.

On the political level, efforts are being made to overcome the post-electoral crisis and its wounds through the establishment of an Inclusive Dialogue Commission. This is being chaired by jurist Edson Macuacua, who is a vice-minister in the Frelimo government.

The commission is made up of representatives from all major parties as well as three members of civil society. The eventual aim is radical reform of the state.

But there are serious doubts about the success of this ambitious project which I believe are legitimate. The big question, beyond any institutional and electoral reforms, is whether the Frelimo party-state will be able to change its political culture in the next elections, accepting any negative results and, therefore, the loss of power.

Efforts are being made on all fronts to obstruct Mondlane from gaining a political foothold. Mondlane wants to start a new party called the Anamalala (meaning “It will end”, or “Stop!”).

The name has been rejected by the Ministry of Justice because a Mozambican party cannot be named using a local language – in this case Emakhuwa.

On the judicial level, several trials are underway against Mondlane and his closest associates, which could result in convictions for inciting protesters to destroy public infrastructure during the post-election demonstrations. If convicted, he would be declared ineligible to run in elections scheduled for 2029.

Inequality and disparities

Mozambique is among the six most unequal countries in the world and one of the poorest. According to World Bank data, 500,000 young people enter the labour market each year, with an average absorption capacity of about 25,000 in the formal sector, and 36% of young people unemployed in Maputo.

Meanwhile, the number of very rich is growing. Mozambique ranks 16th among African countries in terms of the number of millionaires, with 18% growth over the past 10 years.

This inequality puts national unity at risk.

The economic disparities between the capital, Maputo, and the rest of the country are increasingly evident.

Entire ethnic groups and territories are marginalised. Socio-economic and cultural divisions have been replicated in the case of discoveries of large natural resources in the north of the country. Large investments have been made in gas (Total and ENI-Exxon) and rubies in Cabo Delgado.

A new threat has arisen too: extremism. Islamist-motivated attacks have been occurring in Cabo Delgado since 2017. There was an attack recently on a military base in Macomia.

Efforts to encourage unity are coming from many quarters: from the promotion of inclusive dialogue; from a civic consciousness that has grown since 2023-2024; and from the country’s economic potential.

But social inequality remains. So do doubts about Frelimo’s willingness to make Mozambique a country where the winner governs without manipulating election results.

Luca Bussotti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Mozambique after 50 years of independence: what’s there to celebrate? – https://theconversation.com/mozambique-after-50-years-of-independence-whats-there-to-celebrate-259528

Source: – By Christa Kuljian, Research Associate, WiSER, University of the Witwatersrand

Seven women were part of a trailblazing network of feminist scientists in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s in the Boston area in the US. Christa Kuljian is a science writer and historian of science who focuses much of her research on issues of science and society, gender and race. She is the author of two previous books of narrative nonfiction – Sanctuary and Darwin’s Hunch. In her new book Our Science, Ourselves she focuses on the life stories of the seven women. We asked her about her book.

How did you choose the scientists you focused on in the book?

I grew up in the Boston area in the 1970s, and in high school, my parents gave me a copy of the revolutionary guide to women’s health, Our Bodies, Ourselves, which was published by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. In the early 1980s, I studied the history of science at Harvard and took a course with Ruth Hubbard called Bio 109: Biology and Women’s Issues.

Hubbard, in 1974, was the first woman to achieve tenure in biology at Harvard, and she features in the book. Her course taught about how scientists, including Charles Darwin, promoted stereotypes and myths about women’s biology. The idea for Our Science, Ourselves grew from that formative experience in Hubbard’s course.

But it also had roots in another, more recent experience. In 2016, I published Darwin’s Hunch: Science, Race and the Search for Human Origins, about the history of palaeoanthropology in South Africa. The book explores questions that some of my history of science professors might have asked. What influence did the social and political context of colonialism and apartheid have on the search for human origins?

After it was published, I was struck by several stories that brought science and sexism into the popular media. In July 2017, James Damore at Google wrote that “the gender gap in tech” likely existed because of biological differences between men and women, and he received support from popular psychologist Jordan Peterson.

In September 2018, an Italian physicist, Alessandro Strumia, said that the low number of women in physics was proof that women were innately less capable than men. He suggested that male scientists were being discriminated against to give opportunities to women.

These statements reminded me of what former Harvard president Larry Summers had said back in 2005. Drawing on the work of psychologist and popular writer Steven Pinker, Summers spoke of women having a “different availability of aptitude” in science and math.

Why were these myths about women’s biology still having an impact in the 21st century? I decided to go back to my class notes and look more closely at Hubbard’s research. Who had she worked with at the time? What were other scientists with a feminist awareness saying in the 1970s and 1980s?

As a result of many interviews, and research in the archives, I discovered a fascinating network of women, all of whom contributed to feminist critiques of science, and ultimately to the field of feminist science studies.

Our Science, Ourselves follows the lives of Ruth Hubbard, Rita Arditti, Evelyn Fox Keller, Evelynn Hammonds, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Banu Subramaniam and Nancy Hopkins.

None of these women scientists were born in Boston, but they all moved there to study, take a job, conduct research, or network with other scientists. Part of what made Boston interesting to me was the critical mass of colleges, universities and scientists, but also the presence of social movements that influenced these women, including Science for the People, the Combahee River Collective and others.

Could you tell us about one or two of these women’s stories?

One of them is Rita Arditti. An Argentinian geneticist at Harvard Medical School, she led a protest in December 1969 at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. Along with 12 colleagues carrying posters and pamphlets, she arrived unannounced at a special luncheon for women scientists, calling for an end to discrimination against women in science. Most of the women ignored Arditti, but Hubbard was in the audience and paid attention. The protest did have a ripple effect on the association.

Over time, Arditti and Hubbard became friends, became active in a new organisation called Science for the People, and began to write not only about discrimination against women scientists, but also about how science portrayed women’s biology in stereotypical ways.

Another is Evelynn Hammonds, who studied physics at Spelman College, a historically Black women’s college in Atlanta. In 1976, she read an important report, The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science, co-authored by Shirley Malcom and published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

With Malcom’s encouragement, Hammonds applied to and was accepted at MIT in the Boston area. Over time, she joined a growing network of women who were critiquing their science. She became a teaching assistant for Hubbard and rented an apartment from Arditti, and became a foundational influence in gender, race and the history of science.

Hammonds emphasised that when speaking out against scientific sexism it was important to speak out against scientific racism as well, and that it was critical to address both.

How do the current US administration policies on science and diversity relate to your book?

Sudip Parikh, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in testimony before the US Senate appropriations committee on 30 April 2025:

The scientific community is in paralysis right now.

The current attack on science has had a major impact, ending funding for important scientific research. Young scientists and science students are concerned for their future. The US administration’s policy of cutting funds to any programmes related to diversity or equity is an onslaught on decades of progress in this area, and will have a grave impact on the scientific research agenda.

There is a growing list of words that have been scrubbed from US government websites and documents, including “women”, “race”, “racism”, “feminism”, “activist” and “bias”. The use of any of these words in scientific research proposals can result in federal funding being cut. For example, the US Food and Drug Administration published an announcement in mid-2024 that discussed the importance of diversity in clinical trials. That document is no longer available on the website.

The women in Our Science, Ourselves made important contributions by highlighting how scientific institutions historically have been exclusionary. They also shone a light on how scientific research questions and analysis can be biased (rather than always neutral or objective), thereby affecting the knowledge they produce.

The tools that feminist science studies has developed are critical to the sciences because they ask new questions, and develop new methodologies that help science account for gender and racial bias. Who is doing science? Who decides on the research questions? Who offers analysis and who benefits?

The US administration’s actions are a major setback for science and scientific research, as well as gender, race and sexuality studies, which have made vital contributions to science, medicine and technology. The history of these fields and the life stories of some of the dynamic women in them, can offer readers inspiration for the present moment.

Our Science, Ourselves is available from University of Massachusetts Press and Amazon in the US, on Kindle, and from Love Books in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Christa Kuljian received research funding from Harvard University’s Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America and from the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM) in Philadelphia. She is a member of the History of Science Society.

– ref. Sexism in science: 7 women whose trailblazing work shattered stereotypes – https://theconversation.com/sexism-in-science-7-women-whose-trailblazing-work-shattered-stereotypes-257265

Source: – By Hung Nguyen-Viet, Program Leader (ai), HEALTH at ILRI / CGIAR, International Livestock Research Institute

The world is facing daunting health challenges with the rise of zoonotic diseases – infections that are transmissible from animals to humans. These diseases – which include Ebola, avian flu, COVID-19 and HIV – show how the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and ecosystems are closely connected.

Zoonotic diseases have become more and more common due to factors such as urbanisation, deforestation, climate change and wildlife exploitation. These dangers are not limited by borders: they are global and demand a coordinated response.

By looking at health holistically, countries can address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.

The World Health Organization has a basis for such an approach: One Health. This recognises the interdependence of the health of people, animals and the environment and integrates these fields, rather than keeping them separate.

I lead the health programme at the International Livestock Research Institute, where we are looking for ways to effectively manage or eliminate livestock-related diseases, zoonotic infections and foodborne illnesses that disproportionately affect impoverished communities.

My work focuses on the link between health and agriculture, food safety, and infectious and zoonotic diseases.

For example in Kenya we are part of an initiative of the One Health Centre in Africa to roll out canine vaccination and have so far vaccinated 146,000 animals in Machakos county.

In Ethiopia and Vietnam we worked in a programme to improve the hygiene practices of butchers in traditional markets.

In another project we work in 11 countries to strengthen One Health curricula in universities.

The lessons from the One Health projects implemented with partners across Asia and Africa are that there’s an urgent need for action on three fronts. These are: stronger cross-sectoral collaboration; greater engagement with policymakers to translate research findings into actionable strategies; and the development of adaptable and context-specific interventions.

But, having been active in this area for the last decade, I am impatient with the slow pace of investment. We know that prevention is better than cure. The cost of prevention is significantly lower than that of managing pandemics once they occur. Urgent steps, including much higher levels of investment, need to be taken.

What’s in place

In 2022 the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Organisation for Animal Health developed a joint One Health plan of action. They identified key areas to respond more efficiently to health threats. These included:

• Reducing risks from emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics. Actions include, for example, tightening regulations around farming and trade in wildlife and wild animal products.

• Controlling and eliminating endemic, zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases by understanding the attitudes and knowledge of communities bearing the greatest burdens of these diseases. And boosting their capacity to fight them.

• Strengthening action against food safety risks by monitoring new and emerging foodborne infections.

• Curbing the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance, one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity.

Other collaborations include the Prezode (Preventing Zoonotic Disease Emergence) initiative to research all aspects of diseases of animal origin. This was launched in 2021 by French president Emmanuel Macron.

The Africa One Health University Network operates in ten African countries to address One Health workforce strengthening in Africa.

One Health has gained traction globally. But there’s still a great deal to be done.

The cost of inaction

According to a 2022 World Bank estimate, preventing a pandemic would cost approximately US$11 billion per year, while managing a pandemic can run up to US$31 billion annually. So the investment return of 3:1 is an important reason to call for investment in One Health.

The Pandemic Fund was launched in November 2022 by leaders of the Group of 20 nations and hosted by the World Bank Group to help low- and middle-income countries prepare better for emerging pandemic threats. US$885 million has been awarded to 47 projects to date through the two rounds in the last three years.

However, relative to the US$11 billion per year required for prevention, this investment is modest. Urgent investment in One Health needs to be made by countries themselves, in particular low- and middle-income countries.

The last two World One Health congresses (in Singapore in 2022, and in Cape Town in 2024) called for investment in One Health. There were also calls for investment in One Health at regional level to prevent zoonotic diseases and the next pandemic.

At the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) formally adopted by consensus the world’s first Pandemic Agreement. The landmark decision culminates more than three years of intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is major global progress in One Health and disease prevention.

But the lessons of COVID-19 have shown us that the cost of inaction is incalculable in terms of lives lost, economic turmoil and societal disruption. To date, there have been over 777 million cases of COVID-19, including more than 7 million deaths worldwide.

According to estimates by the International Monetary Fund, COVID will have caused a cumulative production loss of US$13.8 trillion by 2024.

The choice is clear: invest today to prevent tomorrow’s pandemics, or pay a heavy price in the future.

Hung Nguyen-Viet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Preventing the next pandemic: One Health researcher calls for urgent action – https://theconversation.com/preventing-the-next-pandemic-one-health-researcher-calls-for-urgent-action-255229

Source: – By Ekta Patel, Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute

Pastoralist communities, their livestock and diverse wildlife species coexist within a biodiversity-rich landscape stretching along the Kenya–Tanzania border.

However, at this wildlife-livestock interface, local communities face mounting challenges. Shifts in land use, prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall patterns and increasing land degradation are placing growing pressure on the landscape. In addition, conflict between people and wildlife is on the rise, and many households rely on wild animals for food.

Communities in the region eat a wide range of wild animals, from rodents, elephant shrews and birds to small antelopes and larger ungulates like bushbuck. This meat (“bush meat” as it is also popularly known in Africa) provides a valuable source of animal protein and minerals, especially where alternative domestic protein sources are scarce.

Although hunting and consuming wild animals is illegal in Kenya, this is not the case in Tanzania, where certain forms of hunting for wild animals are permitted. Yet in both countries, many people eat wild meat regularly, often without awareness of the risks. These risks include zoonotic disease transmission and potential impacts on wildlife populations.

Wild meat is a known source of zoonotic infections and disease spillover to humans. In fact, as many as three-quarters of emerging infectious diseases originate from wildlife. Illnesses such as anthrax, mpox, Ebola, and HIV have all been linked to close interactions between humans and wild animals.

Despite these risks, wild meat consumption remains widespread, with some households eating it daily or weekly. Preventing future disease outbreaks requires a clear understanding of these health risks, as well as the underlying social, cultural and economic reasons that drive people to rely on wild meat.

We set out to understand why people were eating wild meat along the Kenya-Tanzania border and whether they understood the risks of zoonotic diseases. Cases of anthrax have already been reported in this area.

Our study involved interviews in border communities during the COVID pandemic – the most famous case of zoonotic disease transmission in recent times. We wanted to know whether communities understood the pandemic’s link to wild meat and if this affected their consumption of it.

What stood out was that people at the border settlements kept eating wild meat or even ate more of it. This shows that economic necessity, cultural preferences and limited alternatives remain key drivers even when the world is in crisis.

Though this research was done during COVID-19, it gives us insights into how people react when things get tough, especially when it comes to food and health.

What’s driving wild meat consumption

We found that several factors drove wild meat consumption, despite growing awareness of the health risks.

Poverty

Economic factors, particularly household income and limited financial means, strongly influenced wild meat consumption, particularly in communities with limited alternative protein sources. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on local economies. Tourism, a key source of income for border communities, experienced sharp declines. As household revenues fell, reliance on wild meat as an affordable protein source increased.

Economic stability plays a crucial role in shaping consumption behaviours: 81% of those surveyed at the border settlements indicated they would stop eating wild meat if cheaper alternatives were available.

The type of animal

Perceptions of disease risks varied depending on the species consumed.

Approximately 79% of respondents believed that certain animals posed a higher risks of zoonotic disease transmission. Hyenas were perceived as the most dangerous, followed by primates and snakes. These findings suggest that while economic necessity influences wild meat consumption, risk perception also shapes dietary choices.

Gender plays a role

Men expressed more concern over conservation and health risks than women. Men were also more likely to advocate against selling wild meat. Women exhibited lower concern regarding zoonotic disease risks, including COVID-19. These insights highlight the need for gender-sensitive interventions to address wild meat consumption.

Education levels

Education levels also influenced risk perception. Respondents with formal education displayed a stronger awareness of zoonotic transmission pathways. They were also more receptive to conservation and public health messaging. This highlights the importance of education in promoting safer and more sustainable practices within communities.

National policies

Despite sharing ecosystems and wildlife populations, Kenya and Tanzania have adopted fundamentally different governance approaches to wild meat. This in turn shapes outcomes for conservation, biodiversity and public health.

Kenya follows a centralised and protectionist model. Hunting and consumption of wild animals are prohibited under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. This zero-tolerance policy is rooted in strong conservation principles aimed at protecting biodiversity.

However, in practice, it has driven the activity underground, creating a thriving black market. This undermines conservation and enforcement efforts. It also increases the risk of zoonotic disease transmission due to unregulated handling and consumption of wild animals.

Tanzania, by contrast, uses a decentralised, regulated slaughterhouse model. Licensed wild meat hunting and consumption is legal under regulation, particularly through game-controlled areas and permits introduced in 2020. This approach is meant to enable communities to benefit economically from wildlife and reduce incentives for illegal hunting.

The existence of two divergent systems across a porous border creates challenges. These include illegal cross-border trade, conflicting conservation objectives, and uneven protection of biodiversity. There are also difficulties in implementing coordinated surveillance or public health interventions.

The contrasting regulations in Kenya and Tanzania significantly influence wild meat consumption choices.

In Kenya, where wild meat is strictly prohibited, consumption appears to be through informal and unregulated channels. This increases health risks and limits consumer awareness. In contrast, Tanzania’s regulated licensing system provides a legal pathway for access. This makes wild meat consumption more visible and, in some cases, perceived as safer. These differing policies shape how communities access, justify and engage with wild meat, often driving cross-border trade and complicating enforcement and risk communication efforts.

What’s next?

Addressing the risks associated with wild meat trade requires a multifaceted strategy that balances health, equity and sustainability.

We suggest an intervention that prioritises economic stability and ensuring affordable alternative protein sources are accessible, especially in food-insecure settings.

Public health education is also essential. An increasing awareness of zoonotic disease risks can help shift consumption behaviour.

Because men and women perceived the dangers of wild meat consumption differently, gender-sensitive approaches should be integrated. It should also be noted that, although women are rarely the primary hunters, they are often prosecuted for possession or sale of wild meat. Gender disparities on how laws are applied must be addressed.

Legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened to address cross-border wildlife trade, particularly in regions with differing policies like Kenya and Tanzania. They should also reduce the risks faced by individuals who may unknowingly engage in illegal practices due to a lack of clarity.

We continue to work with national and regional stakeholders. This includes government bodies and technical partners who are actively engaging with us to co-develop One Health solutions. These solutions integrate public health, environmental sustainability and community well-being.

Finally, community engagement and participation should be at the core of any intervention. This will ensure that policies are locally relevant, culturally sensitive and supported by those directly affected to reduce the risks of zoonotic disease spillover.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border – https://theconversation.com/eating-wild-meat-carries-serious-health-risks-why-it-still-happens-along-the-kenya-tanzania-border-252947

Source: – By Alex Ezeh, Dornsife Endowed Professor of Global Health, Drexel University

The Lancet has released its second global commission report on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing. Adolescents are defined as 10- to 24-year-olds. The report builds on the first one, done in 2016. The latest report presents substantial original research that supports actions it recommends to be taken across sectors as well as at global, regional, country and local level. The co-chairs of the commission, Sarah Baird, Alex Ezeh and Russell Viner, together with the youth commissioners lead, Shakira Choonara, give a guide to the report’s findings.

What were the key findings?

The report noted significant improvements in some aspects of adolescent health and wellbeing since the 2016 report. These include reductions in:

• communicable, maternal and nutritional diseases, particularly among female adolescents

• the burden of disease from injuries

• substance use, specifically tobacco and alcohol

• teenage pregnancy.

It also found that there had been an increase in age at first marriage and in education, especially for young women.

Despite this progress, adolescent health and wellbeing is said to be at a tipping point. Continued progress is being undermined by rapidly escalating rates of
non-communicable diseases and mental disorders, accompanied by threats from compounding and intersecting megatrends. These include climate change and environmental degradation, the growing power of commercial influences on health, rising conflict and displacement, rapid urbanisation, and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These megatrends are outpacing responses from national governments and the international community.

What’s unique about today’s cohort of adolescents?

Born between 2000 and 2014, this is the first cohort of humans who will live their entire life in a time when the average annual global temperature has consistently been 0.5°C or higher above pre-industrial levels.

At roughly 2 billion adolescents, they are the largest cohort of adolescents in the history of humanity. And this number will not be surpassed as populations age and fertility rates fall in even the poorest countries.

They are the first generation of global digital natives. They live in a world of immense resources and opportunities, with unprecedented connectedness made possible by the rapid expansion of digital technologies. This is true even in the hardest-to-reach places.

Growing participation in secondary and tertiary education is equipping adolescents of all genders with new economic opportunities and providing pathways out of poverty.

These opportunities, however, are not being realised for most adolescents. Increasing numbers continue to grow up in settings with limited opportunities. In addition, investments in adolescent health and wellbeing continue to lag relative to their population share or their share of the global burden of disease.

Investments in adolescents accounted for only 2.4% of the total development assistance for health in 2016-2021. This was despite the fact that adolescents accounted for 25.2% of the global population in that period and 9.1% of the total burden of disease. We use development assistance as a measure because, while governments also invest in adolescents, it’s difficult to account for how much this is. For example, when a government supports a health facility, it serves the entire population.

Yet, the report provides evidence to show that the return on investments in adolescent health and wellbeing is highly cost-effective and at par with investments in children.

What’s the news for adolescents in Africa?

The report recognises the special place of Africa in the global future of adolescents. It notes that, by the end of this century, nearly half of all adolescents will live in Africa.

Currently, adolescents in Africa experience higher burdens of communicable, maternal and nutritional diseases, at more than double the global average for both male and female adolescents. They also have a higher prevalence of anaemia, adolescent childbearing, early marriage and HIV infection. They are much less likely to complete 12 years of schooling and more likely to not be in education, employment, or training.

Female adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa have the highest adolescent fertility rate at 99.4 births per 1,000 female adolescents aged 15-19 (the global average is 41.8). They have also experienced the slowest decline between 2016 and 2022.

Globally, there was progress in reducing child marriage between 2016 and 2022. But in eight countries in 2022, at least one in three female adolescents aged 15–19 years was married. All but one of these eight countries were in sub-Saharan Africa. Niger (50.2%) and Mali (40.6%) had the highest proportion of married female adolescents.

The practice of child marriage is declining in south Asia and becoming more concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa. As the report notes:

it continues because of cultural norms, fuelled by economic hardships, insurgency, conflict, ambiguous legal provisions, and lack of political will to enforce legal provisions.

What should be Africa’s focus areas?

Beyond adolescent sexual and reproductive health concerns in sub-Saharan Africa, obesity is increasing fastest in the region. This illustrates the vulnerability of adolescents to the power of commercial interests.

Since 1990, obesity and overweight has increased by 89% in prevalence among adolescents aged 15–19 years in sub-Saharan Africa. This is the largest regional increase.

The absence of data on adolescents is a problem. Adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa are absent in many data systems. For example, data on adolescent mental health in sub-Saharan Africa is virtually absent.

Stronger data systems are needed to understand and track progress on the complex set of determinants of adolescent health and wellbeing.

Another area of concern is the massive inequities within countries, often gendered or by geography. While female adolescents in Kenya are experiencing substantial declines in the burden of HIV and sexually transmitted infections, adolescent males are experiencing increasing burdens. In South Africa, years of healthy life lost to maternal disorders show more than 10-fold differences between the Western Cape and North West provinces.

Where there’s been strong political leadership, remarkable changes have been seen. Take the case of Benin Republic. The adolescent fertility rate in the country declined from 26% in 1996 to 20% in 2018 and child marriage from 39% to 31% over the same period. Strong political leadership has also led to substantial reductions in female genital mutilation or cutting. This fell from 12% of girls in Benin in 2001 to 2% in 2011–12 among 15–19-year-old girls in Benin Republic. Political leadership also facilitated the expansion, by the national parliament in 2021, of the grounds under which women, girls, and their families could access safe and legal abortion.

But for every country that takes positive steps to protect the health and wellbeing of adolescents, several others regress.

The last decade has witnessed regression in several countries. In 2024, The Gambia attempted to repeal a 2015 law criminalising all acts of female genital mutilation or cutting. In 2022, Nigeria’s federal government ordered the removal of sex education from the basic education curriculum.

What are the recommended courses of action?

The report calls for a multisectoral approach across multiple national ministries and agencies, including the office of the head of state, and within the UN system.

Coordination and accountability mechanisms for adolescent health and wellbeing also need to be strengthened.

Laws and policies are needed to protect the health and rights of adolescents, reduce the impact of the commercial determinants of health, and promote healthy use of digital and social media spaces and platforms.

Strong political leadership at local, national, and global levels is essential.

The report also calls for prioritised investments, the creation of enabling environments to transform adolescent health and wellbeing, and the development of innovative approaches to address complex and emerging health threats.

It calls for meaningful engagement of adolescents in policy, research, interventions and accountability mechanisms that affect them.

Without these concerted actions, we risk failing our young people and losing out on the investments being made in childhood at this second critical period in their development.

The current adverse international aid climate is particularly affecting adolescents as much development assistance relates to gender and sexual and reproductive health. Concerted action in addressing adolescent health and wellbeing is an urgent imperative for sub-Saharan Africa.

Alex Ezeh is a fellow at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (Stias).

Russell Viner and Sarah Baird do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A quarter of the world’s population are adolescents: major report sets out health and wellbeing trends – https://theconversation.com/a-quarter-of-the-worlds-population-are-adolescents-major-report-sets-out-health-and-wellbeing-trends-257282

Source: – By Alexander Richard Braczkowski, Research Fellow at the Centre for Planetary Health and Resilient Conservation Group, Griffith University

In the shadows of Python Cave, Uganda, a leopard leaps from a guano mound – formed by bat excrement – and sinks its teeth into a bat. But this is no ordinary bat colony. The thousands of Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) found in this cave are known carriers of one of the world’s deadliest viruses: Marburg, a close cousin of Ebola.

Over just four months, our cameras recorded 261 predator encounters: crowned eagles, Nile monitors, leopards, pythons and blue monkeys all caught feeding on, or scavenging from this virus-harbouring colony.

And yet, this wasn’t the work of a global health agency or virology lab. The discovery came from a 25-year-old Ugandan undergraduate, Bosco Atukwatse, working with our small Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project team in Queen Elizabeth National Park. His only tools: a trail camera, curiosity and ecological instinct.

I am a conservation scientist with over 17 years of experience in wildlife ecology, monitoring and human-wildlife conflict. I’m the co-founder of the Kyambura Lion Project, which made this discovery.

For years, scientists studying how diseases spread from animals to humans have hypothesised that zoonotic diseases jump from a wildlife reservoir (like a bat) to an intermediate host (monkey) and potentially to us, humans.

For past Marburg outbreaks in Uganda, two spillover pathways have been identified: the first, involves humans coming into contact with a fruit bat habitat (namely caves filled with bat guano). Indeed, fruit bats are thought to have infected two tourists at Python Cave in 2007 and 2008.

The second pathway involves humans and animals eating the same fruit that bats have fed upon or made contact with. This second spillover pathway was identified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists in 2023. They tracked bats from the cave entering cultivated gardens to feed.

But Atukwatse and the team of young Ugandan scientists (Yahaya Ssemakula, Johnson Muhereza, Orin Cornille and Winfred Nsabimana) have potentially found another pathway: predation by at least 14 species.

Such rich visual evidence of a viral interface – bats, predators and people – is virtually non-existent in the literature. Many theoretical depictions of this process exist, and there are isolated incidents of a monkey predating on a bat or wildlife feeding on bat guano, but Atukwatse’s discovery of this many different predators repeatedly feeding on a known Marburg virus reservoir is a first.

His discovery highlights two uncomfortable truths:

• many potential zoonotic interfaces remain undocumented – often right under our noses

• the people most likely to detect them first are those living closest to wild frontiers.

But the bigger message is this: global health institutions need to stop overlooking local scientists and start funding field-based detection systems across Africa and Asia.

If we want to detect the next outbreak early, we should be empowering more Atukwatses, not waiting for the next lab test.

A hunch pays off

In early February 2025, Atukwatse and our small team of local scientists was expanding our long-term African leopard and spotted hyena monitoring grid into a new part of Queen Elizabeth National Park – the Kyambura Wildlife Reserve and Maramagambo forest.

Atukwatse had heard from nearby guides that a large bat cave lay close to the survey grid. That kind of site, he reasoned, could be perfect leopard territory: a place to hunt, rest or avoid the heat.

This is ecological attentiveness at its best – the field biology equivalent of a commodities trader spotting volatility in a geopolitical flashpoint.

Atukwatse had his radar on and acted on instinct, setting five camera traps at the cave’s entrance and along the surrounding animal trails. Just one week later, he got what he hoped for: three separate clips of a leopard hunting bats in broad daylight. He left the cameras in place in protective casing. He checked them every 7–10 days.

But that was just the beginning.

The scale of the discovery

When I first looked at Atukwatse’s videos, our joint excitement was around the leopard footage. We knew they were adaptable and could even eat small rodents , but no one had ever recorded them eating bats in Africa.

As more clips came in, we realised something bigger was unfolding. Blue monkeys were seen grabbing bats mid-roost. A crowned eagle and a Nile monitor fought over two bat carcasses. A fish eagle – typically a piscivore, which is a carnivorous species that primarily eats fish – was filmed clutching bats in its talons.

Read more:
African wild dogs: DNA tests of their faeces reveal surprises about what they eat

Over 304 trap-nights, Atukwatse’s traps recorded 261 independent predator events from at least 14 different species.

Then came the second shock: over 400 human visitors – many of them tourists – were filmed approaching the cave mouth without any protective gear. Some stood just metres from a known Marburg virus reservoir. Importantly, the Uganda Wildlife Authority has built a sanctioned viewing platform about 35 metres from the cave. However, tourists broke park rules and walked within two metres of the cave mouth.

It was only after I visited the cave myself to take stills of the team that we put this all together. Atukwatse had just found the first visual evidence, at a large scale in nature, of at least 14 predators feeding on a known wildlife virus reservoir harbouring one of Earth’s deadliest viruses.

This wasn’t the result of million-dollar pathogen surveillance. It wasn’t even the core aim of our leopard survey. This happened because a young Ugandan field scientist followed his ecological gut.

Why does the discovery matter?

For decades, disease ecologists have known that major outbreaks often originate in wildlife – swine flu, avian flu and even SARS-CoV-2 all trace back to animal hosts. But what’s often missing is direct observation of spillover interfaces – the exact moments when a virus jumps from a bat, goose, or other animal into new species like humans, livestock or other wildlife.

Atukwatse’s discovery may be the first large-scale visual record of such an interface in nature: a roost of Egyptian fruit bats known to harbour a deadly virus, actively predated upon by at least 14 species, with hundreds of humans visiting the same cave mouth unprotected.

This may be a Rosetta Stone moment for spillover ecology – shifting our understanding from hypothetical models to a real, observable interface.

These kinds of spillover sites exist in other places in nature: in a Chinese wet market where a civet meets a meat processor, or in a Gabonese village where a bat is butchered for bushmeat. The difference? Most of them go undocumented. Atukwatse just filmed one.

Alexander Richard Braczkowski is the scientific director of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project.

– ref. How does Marburg virus spread between species? Young Ugandan scientist’s photos give important clues – https://theconversation.com/how-does-marburg-virus-spread-between-species-young-ugandan-scientists-photos-give-important-clues-259806