On 9 September 2026, UNESCO announced the results of the first African edition of its Science Club Challenge. Among the six clubs awarded bronze prizes were two Cameroonian initiatives: GIT Club and the IRD Youth Club "Météo-Eau-Horizon". The first prize went to STEM Club ESwatini, while clubs from Malawi, Namibia and Lesotho received money. This achievement deserves to be told for what it is: a recognition of documented projects, not proof that scientific education is already accessible to all young people on the continent.
What the numbers measure
According to UNESCO, 83 clubs participated in the competition, representing more than 27,000 student members, including 19,000 girls, and nearly 1,800 trainers. These numbers describe all the participating clubs, not just the Cameroonian winners. They are neither a census of all African clubs nor an independent measure of their educational impact. The competition required reports and videos on STEM activities and locally developed solutions to sustainable development challenges. It is a useful material for understanding what teams are doing, but it is not sufficient, on its own, to measure students’ achievements years later.
The announcement was made at the launch of the Global Engagement Network for Science on 16 July, but the summary article was published on 9 September. These two dates should not be conflated. The first refers to the event; the second to the publication of the source used here. The network, according to UNESCO, now connects 317 clubs in 62 countries. This describes an exchange infrastructure, not a guarantee of ongoing funding for each institution.
Why clubs can change learning
A club may offer a trial period that a regular course does not always provide: asking a question, building a device, noticing an error, starting over and presenting the result. A project on water, for example, may involve meteorological observation, measurement, electronics, geography, and writing. The educational challenge is not to pile up the words "robotics" or "artificial intelligence" on a poster. It is to make visible the decisions made by students and the quality of the evidence they produce.
The testimony about the STEM Club ESwatini published by UNESCO emphasizes the continuity of a journey, from small projects to further studies. It would be excessive to attribute all the success of a former club member to the club alone. However, continuity is a solid line of inquiry: how many young people return from one year to the next, how many become mentors themselves, and how many continue scientific activities when the competition ends? This is where the distinction can inspire other structures.
Two Cameroonian names, concrete questions
The title "Météo-Eau-Horizon" invites us to examine how students collect local observations, check their instruments, and relate rain to everyday uses. However, the UNESCO article does not provide a sufficiently detailed protocol to attribute a particular sensor or numerical result to the club: this must be obtained directly from the responsible persons before publication. The same caution applies to the GIT Club. A thorough profile should ask what projects were submitted, how many young people worked on them, what budget was needed, and how the participants took part in technical decisions.
This questioning does not detract from the merit of the winners. It simply avoids replacing the work of young people with an advertising formula. A photograph provided by the club, with the consent of the people depicted, would also be more fair than a generic studio shot. The images currently displayed on the UNESCO website carry credits for the authors or clubs; they are not automatically free for reuse.
What this changes – or does not change – for Central Africa
A school in Douala, Yaoundé, or Bafoussam does not need to immediately replicate a large laboratory. It can start with a measurable question: does the temperature vary according to the shade in the courtyard? Is a small rain station consistent with the data from a meteorological service? A well-maintained manual record can precede the purchase of expensive electronics. The cost of consumables, the availability of adults, safety, and turnaround time are as important as the equipment.
The bronze award does not demonstrate that the model is replicable everywhere. Rather, it justifies an investigation of the two Cameroonian clubs and public monitoring of their methods. For RECA, the useful editorial follow-up would be a report with their supervisors and students, documenting a specific experience, its errors and its results. This would be a more substantial tribute than simply repeating the rankings.
What the survey should then measure
A reward may open doors, but to speak of lasting impact, one would need to look at indicators that are closer to the students themselves. For example: how many return to the club the following year? How many carry out their own measurements, calculations, and presentations? Do the supervisors have the means to repeat the activity without further donations? Answers should be gathered from multiple participants, not just the most visible leader. A short reportage could also document the cost of a project, including transportation and consumables, because apparent freebies often mask volunteer work.
Finally, the separate rankings must be maintained. The competition covers several countries, while the two Cameroonian clubs are special cases. Their award does not prove either that all institutions in the country have clubs, or that the difficulties in teacher training have been resolved. The ADEA journal on STEM education in nine African countries highlights the need for resources, training, and follow-up. This comparative source does not provide a detailed study of the two clubs, but it helps to formulate the questions that the rankings cannot answer.
What an investigation of practices can bring
The award-winning clubs have submitted reports and videos, but the public doesn't necessarily see the entire learning process. A visit would allow us to follow a session from start to finish: who asks the question, who touches the instrument, who checks the measurements, who speaks when the result contradicts the initial idea? The answers would document a practice rather than a symbol. We could also ask a newly arrived student to tell us what he or she understood without the help of the club leader. This approach avoids filming only the most experienced members.
The budget must be explained in detail. An electronic kit may be provided, but electricity, replacement components, transportation, and Internet access are not always included. Does the club have a place to store instruments? Does the institution set aside time for instructors? Do projects continue after the awards ceremony? These questions are important for a school that would like to follow the example but does not have the same network of partners.
Finally, inclusion can be observed in the roles. The competition mentions a high participation of girls in all the participating clubs, which is encouraging. It remains to be seen whether they have access to programming, measurement, and decision-making, or whether they are mainly present in communication. A local survey should not assume the answer. It should interview participants under conditions that allow them to speak freely, and then describe effective practices without claiming that they apply mechanically to all schools.
To be checked before publication
Obtain responses from both clubs regarding their submitted projects and obtain written permission to use a photograph, especially if minors are featured. Do not present the continental competition's figures as Cameroonian figures. Supplement with an independent assessment of learning if the article is to advance a measurable educational impact. The GENS network page may change after the date of the announcement; retain the date of the rankings when its figures are cited.