Stardust trapped in Antarctic ice reveals tens of thousands of years of Solar System’s past

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dominik Koll, Honorary Lecturer, Nuclear Physics, Australian National University

Alfred-Wegener-Institute/Esther Horvath

When you think of outer space, you’re likely picturing stars, planets and moons. But much of space is filled with clouds of gas, plasma and stardust – known as interstellar clouds.

In the local parts of our galaxy alone there’s a complex of roughly 15 individual interstellar clouds. The Solar System is currently traversing one of them, aptly named the Local Interstellar Cloud. The origin and history of these clouds are believed to be tightly connected to the birth and death of stars. But we can see their imprints right here on Earth, in a place you might not expect – Antarctic ice.

My colleagues and I have been studying stardust trapped in old Antarctic snow and ice to trace the history of our solar neighbourhood, including the Solar System itself.

In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, we found a subtle clue that reveals our Solar System’s movement through the local interstellar environment over the past 80,000 years.

Looking down to see the sky

Astronomy usually looks outward. Telescopes collect light from distant stars and galaxies, allowing us to observe events across vast stretches of space and time. From these observations, we infer how stars live and die, how elements are formed, and how the universe evolves.

Our approach turns that idea on its head.

Instead of observing the light coming to us, we study the debris of exploding stars right here on Earth. As cosmic furnaces, stars forge many elements in their cores, from carbon and oxygen to calcium and iron. This includes rare isotopes (variants of chemical elements) such as iron-60.

When massive stars explode into supernovae at the end of their life, these elements are ejected into space and become interstellar dust.

Tiny grains of this dust then drift through the galaxy and occasionally find their way to Earth’s surface. Radioactive iron-60, a fingerprint of stellar explosions, is embedded within these grains. By searching for these atoms in geological archives on Earth, we can probe astrophysical events like supernovae long after their light has faded.

This is why Antarctica is so valuable. Its snow accumulates slowly and remains largely undisturbed, forming a layered record that stretches back tens of thousands of years. Each layer captures a snapshot of the material that was present in our cosmic neighbourhood at the time.

Finding stardust in Antarctic ice

When we studied 500kg of recent snow in Antarctica, we unexpectedly found this rare radioactive isotope. Where did it come from? There was no recent near-Earth supernova.

But our solar neighbourhood is filled with 15 clouds, with the Solar System currently traversing at least one of them. Is the stardust waiting in the clouds to be picked up by Earth? If yes, then the amount of stardust Earth collects should be related to their structure: the denser the clouds, the more iron-60 they contain. This was our educated guess in 2019.

Soon, other explanations were brought forward. Millions of years ago Earth received large showers of iron-60 from massive supernovae. Is the iron-60 in Antarctic snow the last remnant or an echo of this signal? A rain that became a drizzle?

To find out, we analysed a 300kg section of Antarctic ice, dating from 40,000 to 80,000 years ago. The process is painstaking. The ice needs to be melted and chemically treated to isolate tiny amounts of iron, including the iron-60 from the stardust.

Then, using the sensitive atom counting technique of accelerator mass spectrometry at the Heavy-Ion Accelerator Facility at Australian National University, we counted individual atoms of iron-60.

The expectation was straightforward: based on previous measurements from surface snow of Antarctica and several thousand-year-old ocean sediments, we anticipated a certain steady level of iron-60 deposition.

Instead, we found less. Not zero, but noticeably lower than expected.

This result suggests that less interstellar dust was reaching Earth during that period. This is a remarkable change on a comparatively short astrophysical timescale and does not fit the long timescales of the iron-60 deposits that landed here millions of years ago. Instead, we needed to look for a smaller, more local source for the isotope.

The Orion Molecular Cloud Complex is a type of interstellar cloud.
NASA/JPL-Caltech

A fitting story

Naturally, astronomers are also quite interested in the clouds around the Solar System. Last year, a study reconstructing the history of the clouds arrived at the conclusion that they most likely originated in a stellar explosion. Furthermore, they found the Solar System has been traversing the Local Interstellar Cloud from sometime between 40,000 and 124,000 years ago.

If that’s correct, we would expect that the amount of iron-60 collected on Earth should have changed sometime in the same time period – between 40,000 and 124,000 years ago.

This is exactly what our results showed in Antarctica.

The story doesn’t fit perfectly, though. If these clouds did originate directly from an exploding star, we would expect way more iron-60 than we actually see in Antarctic ice.

Nevertheless, these clouds are imprinted in Earth’s geological record. If we look deeper and analyse even older ice, we might soon unravel the mystery of these local interstellar clouds, revealing their full history and uncertain origins.

The Conversation

Dominik Koll receives funding from the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE).

ref. Stardust trapped in Antarctic ice reveals tens of thousands of years of Solar System’s past – https://theconversation.com/stardust-trapped-in-antarctic-ice-reveals-tens-of-thousands-of-years-of-solar-systems-past-279745

Bottom trawling is scraping oceans of wildlife

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sarah Foster, Program Leader, Project Seahorse and Senior Researcher, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia

Bottom trawlers extract one-quarter of the world’s fisheries catches by weight and raise significant ecological, economic and social concerns. Given that, you’d think there would be an answer to basic questions in fisheries: how many fish species are being caught, and what are they?

In reality, though, bottom trawling is often proceeding blindly.

Bottom trawling is widespread and problematic. Gears operate by dragging large weighted nets across the ocean floor (some as wide as a 45-storey building is tall), sweeping up most of the life they encounter along the way and destroying habitat.

a yellow seahorse in the water
By far the biggest threat to seahorses is their incidental capture in bottom trawls.
(Unsplash/Giulia Salvaterra)

Hundreds of thousands of bottom trawlers operate all over the world, often dependent on subsidies, implicated in human rights violations and exacerbating climate change.

We lead a conservation team called Project Seahorse, dedicated to ensuring there are more fish in the ocean in healthier ecosystems. We focus our work on securing healthy populations of seahorses — and to save seahorses, we have to save the seas.

By far the biggest threat to seahorses is their incidental capture in bottom trawls. As such, seahorses provide an index of the tremendous intensity of bottom trawling.

It was while developing a briefing on bottom trawl impacts that we realized no one knew the actual tally or diversity of fish getting caught up in nets. So we set out to provide an answer and in so doing unveiled more about the pressure bottom trawling is placing on marine species, ecosystems and fisheries worldwide.

Endangered species

Our research was anchored in tedious work as our co-authors took a deep dive into studies and reports hosted on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) document repository, supplemented by an ad hoc exploration of additional literature.

The FAO is an intergovernmental organization that, among other things, collates worldwide fisheries data. We extracted more than 9,000 reports of fish species in bottom trawl catches, spanning from 1895 to 2021.

The first of our worrying findings is that a huge number of species are affected. We documented around 3,000 different fish species in bottom trawl catches but our modelled estimates suggest the true number could be double that.

Our data also showed that bottom trawls extract all or most species in some fish families. These include both the ocean’s most nutritious and commercially critical fish, such as jacks and croakers, and rare, distinct fish such as giant guitarfish and plough-nosed chimera.

Our second discovery is that many of the species we documented are already known to be of conservation concern. Among those on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, about one in seven are classified as threatened or near-threatened with extinction. Bottom trawling was also cited in threat assessments for two-thirds of those species.

a guitarfish lying on the ground among other fish and mollusks
A giant guitarfish is among the species being caught by bottom trawling.
(Sarah Foster)

Insufficient data

Our third finding was that there is limited information on the conservation status for many of the fish caught in bottom trawls. About one-quarter of the species we recorded were listed as “data deficient” or “not evaluated” by IUCN, meaning their conservation status is essentially unknown.

People tend to focus on the threatened species, which certainly need our attention; seahorses among them. However, we also need to be concerned about the species in trawls that lack conservation assessments, which may also be faring badly.

Finally, we found that many species are not even being recorded. Our database includes relatively few records of smaller demersal species (animals that live near the bottom of the sea), with fisheries often just lumping them together as “various” or “trash fish.”

As many fish are so often overlooked or ignored in catch records, we often don’t actually know what bottom trawlers are catching. When species are not recorded, we lose critical information about biodiversity, population status and ecosystem impacts, not to mention the loss of resources that people depend on for food and livelihoods.

Bottom trawl fisheries should be required to demonstrate that they are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable before being considered acceptable. As it stands, the burden of proof falls on those trying to demonstrate harm — not on the industry causing it. This needs to be reversed, paying full attention to all the fish in the nets.

The Conversation

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. Bottom trawling is scraping oceans of wildlife – https://theconversation.com/bottom-trawling-is-scraping-oceans-of-wildlife-280780

Nasa bets big on nuclear engines to cut journey times to Mars

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Domenico Vicinanza, Associate Professor of Intelligent Systems and Data Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Illustration of a Mars mission that utilises nuclear propulsion. Nasa

Nasa is developing ways to use nuclear power to send spacecraft to their destinations. Nuclear propulsion could greatly reduce the journey time to Mars, perhaps cutting a voyage of more than six months to three or four months.

The idea of nuclear propulsion in space goes back to the cold war. But Nasa has been pursuing it more aggressively since Jared Isaacman took over as the agency’s chief in December 2025. Isaacman is a well-known advocate of the technology and says it can “truly unlock humankind’s ability to explore among the stars”.

In March 2026, the agency even announced an uncrewed, nuclear-powered mission to the red planet, targeted for late 2028.

Every spacecraft begins its journey fighting Earth’s gravity by burning chemical fuel. Rockets mix fuel with an oxidiser, ignite them, and force the expanding gas through a nozzle. According to Isaac Newton’s third law, when gas pushes downward, the rocket gets an equal push upward.

Chemical propulsion is powerful, reliable, and quite simply the only practical way to leave Earth’s gravity. But it comes with a severe limitation. Rockets must carry both their fuel and, in most cases, the oxidiser needed to burn it.

That means much of a rocket’s mass at launch is propellant, not payload. The longer and more ambitious the journey, the more propellant is needed, and the heavier the rocket becomes.

Jared Isaacman
Nasa chief Jared Isaacman has repeatedly made the case for nuclear-propelled spacecraft.
NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Mars is far enough away that a long journey time, the threat to astronauts from cosmic radiation, the mass required to carry life-support systems and constraints on the return journey all pose serious problems for planning a mission.

This is why engineers keep looking for more sustainable alternatives to chemical rockets.

Two technologies

Nasa’s space nuclear propulsion programme distinguishes between two main
approaches: thermal propulsion and electric propulsion.

Nuclear thermal propulsion follows a three-step process. First, the nuclear reactor inside the engine splits uranium atoms to generate massive amounts of heat. Second, liquid hydrogen is pumped through the reactor core, where it flash boils and expands into a high-pressure gas. Third, this super-heated gas is blasted out of a nozzle at high velocities to push the spacecraft forward.

How does a nuclear thermal propulsion rocket work? (US Department of Energy)

According to the US Department of Energy, nuclear thermal propulsion can reduce travel times to Mars by up to 25% and, more importantly, limit a crew’s exposure to cosmic radiation. It would also widen the launch windows in which spacecraft can feasibly fly to Mars.

These depend on alignments of Earth and Mars that come along every couple of years. Greater flexibility with launch windows would allow astronauts to abort missions and return to Earth if necessary.

Nuclear electric propulsion, on the other hand, uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. This powers a type of engine called an ion thruster that accelerates charged atoms (like xenon) out of a nozzle. If nuclear thermal propulsion is the sprint approach, nuclear electric propulsion is the marathon option. Nuclear electric propulsion produces very low thrust, but it can run continuously for years.

This fuel efficient technology is perfect for sending robot explorers or heavy cargo (like habitats and food supplies) to Mars months before the humans arrive. In deep space, a small thrust applied for a long time can matter enormously.

Ion thruster
Ion thrusters, which accelerate charged atoms out of a nozzle, are a key component of nuclear electric propulsion.
Nasa / Jef Janis

A chemical rocket is like a powerful kick. Nuclear electric propulsion is more like a persistent hand on the shoulder.

It could make it easier to move heavy cargo through deep space, provide abundant onboard power, and remain effective far from the Sun, where the energy available to solar arrays is weaker.

This is the main idea behind Nasa’s Space Reactor-1 Freedom mission. SR-1 Freedom is a nuclear electric propulsion mission, which Nasa is currently targeting for launch in December 2028.

It would be the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft. It will journey to Mars to prove that nuclear energy can provide the sustained, high-efficiency power needed for deep space travel.

SR-1 Freedom illustration.
The SR-1 Freedom mission has been given a very ambitious launch date of 2028.
Nasa

On arrival at Mars, roughly one year after its launch, SR-1 Freedom is expected to deploy the Skyfall payload. This is a set of small helicopter drones that will scout the Martian surface.

Nasa says the mission will establish nuclear hardware that can be used on other flights. It could also create a regulatory precedent and activate an industrial base for future systems based on nuclear fission.

For human exploration, the combination of both nuclear electric propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion is very attractive. Because nuclear electric propulsion is incredibly fuel-efficient, it can move massive amounts of weight (habitats, years of food, rovers, and life-support machinery) using very little propellant.

It might not matter so much if cargo takes more than nine months to arrive on Mars. But our fragile human bodies mean that longer stays in space increase the risk of cancer from cosmic radiation and cause bone and muscle loss.

The second of these issues is because bones and muscles are not being exercised in microgravity. Nuclear thermal propulsion provides the high thrust needed to reach Mars in three to four months, drastically reducing these health risks.

Steep path

Despite the clear benefits, the path to the launch pad is steep, and the 2028 launch of SR-1 Freedom appears incredibly ambitious. A nuclear electric spacecraft needs a reactor, shielding, heat management, power conversion, radiators, electric thrusters, control systems and fault tolerance. Each of these components of the mission requires testing and careful integration for them to work together.

Reactor heat must be controlled without damaging other components. Thrusters
must operate reliably for months. Other factors can interact in ways that only emerge when spacecraft subsystems are put together. If SR-1 Freedom is to make its December 2028 window, Nasa has very little time to assemble a mission that would normally require years of design, integration and review.

Humans on Mars.
If humans are to settle on Mars, space agencies will need faster ways of getting there.
Nasa

Nuclear propulsion has spent more than 60 years somewhere between engineering reality and technological myth – even though the physics has always been sound.

What has proved harder is making the technology safe, affordable, licensable (able to meet regulatory safety standards) and ready to fly on a real mission schedule. So far, the US has launched only one fission reactor into orbit, SNAP-10A, in 1965.

SR-1 Freedom could create the pathway for more capable systems to follow. Nuclear electric propulsion will not make Mars easy. But it might start to break down barriers to travelling to Mars, and that is a prospect we should be excited about.

The Conversation

Domenico Vicinanza 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. Nasa bets big on nuclear engines to cut journey times to Mars – https://theconversation.com/nasa-bets-big-on-nuclear-engines-to-cut-journey-times-to-mars-282748

From ‘French leave’ to ‘Irish goodbyes’: why you may be right to exit a party without saying goodbye

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trudy Meehan, Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

Rawpixel.com

Whether you call it an Irish goodbye, French leave or filer à l’anglaise (leave in the English style), as the French prefer, the act of quietly slipping out of a party without fanfare is a familiar social impulse. The Brazilians called it sair à francesa (French style), the Germans a Polnischer Abgang (Polish departure), and Australians call it ninja bombing. Whatever name it goes by, the concept is the same: one moment you’re there, the next you’ve vanished into the night without a drawn-out round of explanations, hugs and promises to catch up soon.

The pattern is telling: every culture has a term for it, and every culture blames someone else. That collective deflection suggests we already know, on some level, that slipping out unannounced is a social transgression.

But for those of us with anxiety, that silent exit isn’t rudeness. While etiquette traditionalists will probably insist that leaving without saying goodbye is a social no-no, some psychologists argue that it’s a coping strategy. Here’s why sneaking out without saying goodbye might be the healthiest decision you make all evening.

When you break it down – and let’s be honest, those of us who are anxious, introverted, neurodivergent or dealing with chronic illness have all broken this down into agonising detailed steps – saying goodbye is a loaded cultural ritual. It’s a performance that demands a high degree of social skill, accuracy and nuance.

Goodbyes are high-demand situations and, sadly, by the end of a social occasion, many of us are already depleted and don’t have the energy to handle all the steps involved.

For many of us, socialising can mean feeling overwhelmed, constantly monitoring how we come across, trying to fit into other people’s expectations, comparing ourselves to others and worrying about rejection. It can be exhausting to feel like you’re constantly trying to act like your best version of normal.

When socialising means constantly adapting yourself to other people’s expectations, the healthy choice becomes using your last bit of energy to recharge and take care of yourself. Don’t leave the party completely drained with nothing left to recover with.

Sometimes we want to leave quietly because leaving loudly feels like shouting out: “I matter! Look at me, I’m leaving!” The fact is, many of us sit with the belief that we don’t really matter that much, so we don’t say goodbye because we don’t feel we are worth the performance.

Sometimes a silent exit is about self-respect, minding your energy reserves, even if you really enjoyed the evening. At other times, though, it’s an act of self-erasure. You leave without saying goodbye because you think no one will care, that you don’t matter enough to make a fuss when leaving.

Leaving quietly can become a way to protect yourself from the discomfort of saying goodbye. But the quiet exit cuts both ways. Ask yourself whether leaving without a word made your life bigger – you conserved enough energy to recover and you’re glad to go back next time – or whether it shrank it, adding another reason to avoid socialising altogether.

If you are going to pick apart your goodbye and negatively assess it, the next goodbye will feel even harder. Be careful to reality-test your post-event ruminations. It’s usually not as bad as you think, especially if you are assessing your performance through the distorting lens of anxiety.

A woman lying in bed, hands over her face, suggesting remembering something bad.
It’s probably not as bad as you remember it.
GBALLGIGGSPHOTO/Shutterstock.com

The healthiest choice of all

There is always a tension between wanting to belong and wanting to be yourself. If saying goodbye starts to feel so pressured and so performed that you lose any sense of being authentic, then the connection is starting to cost more than it’s worth.

If you feel like you need to be a chameleon to survive the complexities of socialising, the healthiest choice is to find a way to be who you really are. Find a way to tell your friends and family that leaving quietly is something you need because of how your nervous system and psychology are made, and not a reflection of the relationship. Research shows that being your truest self and having the best social connections go hand in hand.

And if you are neurodivergent, being open about what you need can feel like a risk, but it can also be a way to find acceptance, support and understanding when you let people know what you need and like.

If you’re anxious, it’s worth letting your host know in advance that you might need to slip away quietly. Otherwise, there’s a risk that people will read it the wrong way, as coldness or indifference, say.

Get ahead of it by letting people know you’ll leave without saying goodbye, and that you’re grateful to have been invited. Anxious people aren’t bad at relationships. Relationships just work better when everyone understands the other person’s needs.

Less is more

There’s a growing idea that being choosy about your social life isn’t antisocial – some psychologists call it “selective sociality”. Picking your moments carefully means you have more to give when it counts. The goal isn’t to retreat, but to invest in deeper relationships and in real presence, rather than the hollow churn of online contact – unless it supports meaningful connection.

In a world where being seen to do the right thing has begun to outweigh doing the right thing, selective sociality offers a way forward. Knowing our limits and being open about them, when possible, doesn’t weaken connection – it helps create relationships that feel real and sustainable.

If sneaking out without a fuss makes it more likely you will go to the next party, then it’s a choice for more social connection and therefore your health.

The Conversation

Trudy Meehan 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. From ‘French leave’ to ‘Irish goodbyes’: why you may be right to exit a party without saying goodbye – https://theconversation.com/from-french-leave-to-irish-goodbyes-why-you-may-be-right-to-exit-a-party-without-saying-goodbye-281994

Why the Caspian Sea has become so important in both the Ukraine and Iran wars

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Basil Germond, Professor of International Security, School of Global Affairs, Lancaster University

The recent attack by Ukraine of a Russian missile-carrying corvette stationed in the Caspian Sea more than 1,500km away from Kyiv has put the spotlight on this large, often overlooked body of inland salt water.

The Caspian Sea hosts major offshore oil and gas fields and critical maritime infrastructure, including ports, pipelines and terminals that connect central Asia to global markets. It is a key node in the so-called middle corridor trading route from China to Europe via central Asia that avoid increasingly uncertain routes via Russia in the north and Iran in the south.

China views it as a key corridor for energy supplies and its belt and road initiative that is an economic statecraft strategy that uses infrastructure connectivity to expand Beijing’s influence. The middle corridor links mainland China to Europe via Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Turkey, meanwhile, uses Caspian links, especially fossil fuel transit projects, via Azerbaijan, to increase its influence across the Turkic world, becoming a regional energy hub.

The 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea sets out how the Caspian’s oil, gas, and fishing resources are divided among the bordering nations. Crucially, the agreement also prohibits the deployment of armed forces from third-party countries within the Caspian’s waters. This establishes a regional security order that excludes western military presence.

Russia’s back yard

For Russia, the Caspian Sea has a high value, both as a strategic back yard and a bridge to Iran. There, Moscow maintains the strongest navy and has used the Caspian as a platform for long‑range power projection. This has included missile strikes into other theatres, including against Islamic State targets in Syria in 2015.

Map of Caspian sea showing surrounding countries.
The ‘world’s largest lake’: Caspian Sea.
Peter Hermes Furian/Shutterstock

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Caspian Sea has also gained renewed importance as a rear maritime space for Moscow. Indeed, with the Black Sea Fleet increasingly under threat from Ukraine’s drones and missiles, elements of Russia’s naval forces have redeployed away from the contested Black Sea towards the Caspian Sea via inland waterways. That said, Ukraine’s recent attack demonstrates that the Caspian Sea’s role as a sanctuary for Russia’s naval forces is limited.

More importantly, the Caspian Sea plays a structurally important role in enabling strategic coordination between Russia and Iran. As a geographically enclosed maritime space with its own specially designed legal status, it provides a direct logistical and economic corridor between the two states that is largely shielded from western military presence and oversight.

The Russia-Iran connection

This corridor enables not only energy cooperation and trade flows but also the movement of technologies and materials relevant to sustaining both war economies under sanctions pressure. This includes sanctioned goods, drone components and dual-use technologies. The Iran war has accelerated this trading pattern.

In this sense, for the two allies, the Caspian Sea functions as a critical node in a broader resilience architecture. It reinforces bilateral alignment and reduces exposure to external coercion. Its role is therefore less tactical than systemic: it provides a stable logistical, economic and strategic framework that underpins long‑term convergence between Moscow and Tehran.

In late March 2026, Israeli airstrikes reportedly disabled dozens of Iranian Caspian naval assets, including missile boats, a corvette, a shipyard and a command centre.
The strikes are likely to have severely disrupted the Caspian logistics corridor that links Russian ports to Iran’s port at Bandar Anzali, the largest and oldest Iranian port on the Caspian Sea. It also degraded Tehran’s ability to receive supplies via this route. This could force both countries to rely more on riskier overland routes via Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan.

In other words, the Caspian’s attribute as a haven for the two allies is currently under threat. That might force Russia and Iran to spend more on multi-level air defence systems and drone monitoring. They might even need to redeploy troops and military equipment to the region. This would significantly raise the cost and complexity of using the Caspian as a safe space for mil,itary and naval assets and a bridge for trade.

The Caspian Sea has become an increasingly important strategic connector linking two conflicts that are usually thought of as separate. The war in Ukraine and the war in Iran are not isolated theatres but parts of an emerging Eurasian conflict system in which Russia and Iran are mutually dependent.

Iran’s provision of drones and other military support to Russia has directly affected the course of the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia’s diplomatic, military and economic backing is central to Iran’s capacity to withstand pressure and sustain its regional posture.

The Caspian Sea underpins this alignment by providing a relatively insulated corridor for coordination, logistics and economic exchange.

Recent events, such as Ukrainian and Israeli strikes, however, reveal the limits of this strategic function for both Moscow and Tehran. At the same time, other countries, notably China and Turkey, are investing in the middle corridor. This is raising the value of the Caspian Sea, both economically and in terms of its geographical connectivity.

The Caspian Sea faces an uncertain future. Its north–south Russia–Iran strategic and military axis is increasingly contested by their adversaries. Its east–west trade and energy role, meanwhile, holds the potential to rebalance regional power dynamics towards economic connectivity, rather than conflict. Or, to put it another way, this body of water could become either be a theatre of strategic confrontation or a corridor of trade and exchange. The latter, of course, would be better for all concerned.

The Conversation

Basil Germond 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. Why the Caspian Sea has become so important in both the Ukraine and Iran wars – https://theconversation.com/why-the-caspian-sea-has-become-so-important-in-both-the-ukraine-and-iran-wars-282781

Comment les sols sont-ils devenus un enjeu climatique ? Le regard de la sociologie

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Céline Granjou, directrice de recherches, Inrae

Longtemps pensés uniquement à l’aune de leur fertilité, les sols sont aujourd’hui redécouverts pour leur statut de puits de carbone. Autrement dit, leur capacité à séquestrer le carbone en fait des contributeurs de premier plan à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Une étude sociologique menée auprès de scientifiques, politiques et acteurs publics territoriaux met en évidence cette redéfinition climatique des sols et ses conséquences concrètes.


Si le rôle climatique des forêts comme puits de carbone est connu depuis les années 1990, celui des sols l’est moins. Ces derniers contiennent pourtant trois fois plus de carbone et jouent un rôle clef dans son cycle global. Lors de la COP21 à Paris en 2015, le gouvernement français avait lancé l’initiative 4 pour 1000 afin d’encourager les agricultrices et agriculteurs à séquestrer du carbone dans les sols.

En augmentant les stocks de carbone des sols, la démarche visait à compenser les émissions fossiles tout en améliorant la qualité des sols. Mais la capacité des sols à séquestrer du carbone requiert l’adoption de pratiques agricoles spécifiques : implantation de couverts végétaux, réduction du labour, plantation de haies ou d’arbres, ou encore restitution à la terre des résidus de cultures comme les pailles. La préservation des zones humides, des forêts et des prairies, dont les sols sont particulièrement riches en carbone, contribue aussi à atténuer le changement climatique.

Comment ces diverses pratiques de séquestration du carbone modifient-elles les conceptions des sols ? L’équipe du projet ANR Posca a mené une vaste enquête sociologique pour répondre à cette question. À la clé, plus de 250 entretiens approfondis avec des scientifiques, des décideurs publics, des agents de collectivités territoriales et des acteurs agricoles.

Cette enquête montre que l’essor des pratiques de séquestration s’accompagne d’une redéfinition climatique des sols. Longtemps considérés principalement sous l’angle de la fertilité agricole, les sols sont désormais également vus comme des puits de carbone. Et cela, dans une large gamme de mondes sociaux : la recherche scientifique, mais également les politiques agricoles nationales et les territoires.




À lire aussi :
Piéger le carbone dans le sol : ce que peut l’agriculture


Des recherches pour penser les sols à l’aune du climat

Il y a plusieurs décennies que les scientifiques travaillent sur le carbone des sols, souvent appréhendé en termes de matière organique ou d’humus. Ce carbone est en effet essentiel dans la fertilité des sols. Mais depuis le début des années 1990, une partie de leurs recherches se focalise désormais sur la description et la modélisation du rôle que joue le carbone des sols dans le changement climatique.

Les chercheurs ont notamment adapté leurs questions de recherche afin d’interroger les processus qui permettent de stabiliser le carbone dans les sols. Cela a permis de faire évoluer les modèles représentant ces mécanismes, dans le but de contribuer à améliorer les scénarios climatiques. Ils ont également créé de nouvelles infrastructures de surveillance des stocks de carbone dans les sols à l’échelle nationale, et noué de nouvelles collaborations avec les sciences du climat.

Les enjeux climatiques ont par ailleurs conduit les scientifiques des sols à produire de nouveaux travaux d’expertise, à la fois dans le cadre du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) à l’échelle internationale, mais aussi à l’échelle nationale, pour estimer le potentiel de stockage du carbone dans les sols. Ces réorientations de leurs travaux permettent de fournir des éléments d’appui aux politiques publiques et aux développements économiques liés à la séquestration du carbone.

Les chercheuses et chercheurs ont ainsi transformé leurs agendas et pratiques de recherche pour produire des connaissances qu’ils estiment utiles à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Mais cela n’a pas été sans créer de nouvelles tensions au sein de cette discipline, notamment autour de la question de la non-permanence du carbone dans les sols.

Des crédits carbone pour les sols agricoles qui stockent

De nouvelles conceptions climatiques des sols sont également véhiculées par l’initiative du 4 pour 1000, depuis sa publication fin 2015 par le ministère de l’Agriculture. Cette initiative tire son nom du calcul selon lequel augmenter tous les ans d’environ 0,4 % le stock global de carbone contenu dans les sols permettrait de compenser l’augmentation annuelle des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

Plus récemment, une étude coordonnée par Inrae a permis de préciser le potentiel de séquestration des sols nationaux. Celui-ci équivaut à environ 40 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur agricole en France – soit 6,5 % du total des émissions nationales. Certes, c’est loin de pouvoir compenser l’ensemble des émissions nationales de gaz à effet de serre, mais cela reste une contribution bienvenue à l’effort d’atténuation, que le gouvernement souhaite encourager.

Cette promesse de séquestration est d’autant plus mise en avant aujourd’hui qu’elle permet de repositionner le secteur agricole comme solution au changement climatique, dans une période où celui-ci est fortement critiqué – quand bien même le secteur reste émetteur net de gaz à effet de serre.

Le gouvernement français a ainsi lancé son label bas carbone (LBC) fin 2018. Cadre de certification des réductions d’émissions et des pratiques séquestrantes, il vise, entre autres, à rétribuer les efforts des agriculteurs qui adoptent de nouvelles pratiques vertueuses. Il permet notamment d’attester du nombre de tonnes de carbone séquestrées, pour que les agriculteurs puissent vendre les crédits carbone correspondant à des entreprises ou des collectivités. Le principe est celui du marché carbone : ces acheteurs pourront, à leur tour, alléguer d’une contribution à l’effort d’atténuation du changement climatique.

Le label bas carbone contribue à véhiculer une vision des sols agricoles comme puits de carbone optimisables grâce aux changements de pratiques agricoles. Pour autant, son impact reste actuellement limité, car les projets qui en relèvent mobilisent finalement très peu la séquestration du carbone, mais plutôt des pratiques de réduction des émissions.

Des collectivités qui quantifient le carbone dans leurs sols

Depuis 2016, une nouvelle législation exige par ailleurs que les collectivités de plus de 20 000 habitants évaluent le potentiel de séquestration de carbone par les forêts et les sols. Elles doivent ainsi concevoir un plan climat air énergie territorial (PCAET) qui mesure, entre autres, la quantité de carbone contenu dans les sols et détaille des stratégies possibles pour augmenter ces stocks. La réglementation reste cependant muette sur les moyens et les outils utiles pour quantifier et gérer les stocks de carbone des sols.

Dans ce contexte, les collectivités territoriales mobilisent divers instruments de quantification du carbone des sols. Les analyses de terre étant longues et coûteuses à mettre en œuvre, ces outils reposent généralement sur des données et des modèles numériques qui prédisent l’évolution des stocks de carbone en fonction de différents scénarios de gestion.

L’Ademe a par exemple développé l’outil Aldo, qui permet aux fonctionnaires territoriaux et aux bureaux d’études d’obtenir aisément des valeurs de stocks de carbone.

Agro-Transfert, un organisme de recherche et développement agricole, a également créé l’outil Simeos-AMG. Initialement pensé pour aider les agriculteurs à conserver des sols fertiles et riches en matière organique, il est désormais mobilisé par les professionnels agricoles pour connaître l’impact carbone de leurs pratiques, ainsi que par certaines administrations territoriales pour concevoir leur plan climat air énergie territorial. Le carbone des sols devient ainsi un nouvel objet d’action publique dans les territoires.

Vers une redéfinition climatique des sols

Notre recherche a ainsi mis en lumière la façon dont les sols se trouvent redéfinis à l’aune des enjeux climatiques, que ce soit dans les mondes de la recherche scientifique, des politiques agricoles nationales ou des territoires. Nos résultats montrent que cette climatisation des sols se traduit d’ores et déjà concrètement par de nouvelles pratiques, des engagements et des instruments inédits qui se développent.

Les sols ne sont par ailleurs pas réduits au rôle de simples réservoirs de carbone à optimiser. L’enquête révèle que nombre d’acteurs, en particulier scientifiques, rappellent que ce carbone à séquestrer peut être relargué dans l’atmosphère, notamment si les pratiques agricoles de séquestration ne sont pas maintenues sur le long terme.

De ce fait, il est crucial d’inscrire ces changements dans le long terme. Et cela d’autant plus que ces pratiques sont aussi alignées avec des gains en termes de fertilité et de qualité des sols, les principales préoccupations dont ils faisaient jusqu’ici l’objet. La redéfinition climatique des sols relie ainsi les questions d’atténuation climatique avec les questions de maintien de la fertilité agricole et de conservation de la qualité des sols.

The Conversation

Céline Granjou a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche pour le projet ANR-20-CE26-0016

Antoine Doré a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Hélène Guillemot a reçu des financements de l’ANR pour le projet POSCA.

Laure Manach a reçu des financements de l’Agence nationale de la recherche et de la Fondation TTI.5.

Léo Magnin a reçu des financements de Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) dans le cadre du projet POSCA.

Robin Leclerc a reçu des financements de l’ANR

Stéphanie Barral a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

ref. Comment les sols sont-ils devenus un enjeu climatique ? Le regard de la sociologie – https://theconversation.com/comment-les-sols-sont-ils-devenus-un-enjeu-climatique-le-regard-de-la-sociologie-281474

Agriculture in Africa: science and research can’t make an impact without investment and good policies

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Pape Abdoulaye Seck, chercheur, Académie nationale des sciences et techniques du Sénégal (ANSTS)

Agriculture is the lifeblood of Africa. More than 60% of African households depend directly or indirectly on the land for their livelihoods. And the continent has nearly 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land.

Farming is a fragile sector, however. It has to deal with climate change, market volatility, weak infrastructure and demographic pressure. Addressing these challenges requires political commitment and investment. It also requires science, innovation and high-quality research.

I have been involved in scientific research, particularly agricultural research, for more than four decades. My roles have included researcher, member of multiple science academies, director general of the Africa Rice Center/CGIAR, and Senegal’s minister in charge of agricultural research.

Throughout these years, one criticism has repeatedly surfaced: agricultural research is often perceived as expensive while delivering little for people. This perception is widely shared and frequently echoed in political and media debates.

Based on my experience, I believe the criticism rests on a questionable assumption: that the impact of science depends exclusively on those who produce it. When innovations fail to change the world, scientists themselves are often presented as the culprits.

The reality is far more complex. The history of agricultural transformation across the world shows that research alone never changes societies. Impact follows when an agricultural ecosystem effectively connects science to producers, markets, finance, institutions and public policy.

International institutions have highlighted the difficulties many developing countries face in turning scientific knowledge into development. The reasons include weak innovation ecosystems, too little infrastructure and limited institutional coordination.

An example of what success looks like is the Green Revolution in Asia. Scientific breakthroughs improved wheat and rice varieties which transformed agriculture. It was not simply because the science was strong. There were other factors too. They included governments investing in irrigation, extension services, rural infrastructure, credit systems and market organisation.

In India and Vietnam, for example, science operated within a coherent system linking researchers, farmers, institutions and markets.

Science generates knowledge, informs policies, stimulates innovation and opens new possibilities. But it does not change societies on its own.

The missing parts

Recent decades have brought advances on a number of fronts. In seeds, irrigation, soil fertility management, climate adaptation, biotechnology, digital agriculture, agroecology and sustainable food systems.

African researchers, universities and international agricultural research centres have contributed enormously to this progress.

Rwanda and Ethiopia provide useful examples of how coordinated ecosystems can speed up change. In both, stronger links between research, extension systems, public investment and farmer support mechanisms have made a difference. They have contributed to faster uptake of new technologies. And they have led to productivity gains in several strategic crops such as maize, rice, cassava, beans and soybeans.

Another example is rice. During my years at AfricaRice, I saw major scientific advances in rice research. This included the development of New Rice for Africa varieties.

These resulted from years of scientific work combining the high productivity potential of Asian rice with the resilience of African rice, particularly its tolerance to drought, poor soils and local climatic stresses. It wasn’t easy, because the two rice species are genetically distant.

Farmers quickly took up the new varieties. Farmer incomes and food production improved in countries where governments, seed systems, extension services and development partners worked together. In Uganda, Guinea and several west African countries, coordinated programmes helped accelerate adoption among smallholder farmers.

These examples show that effective agricultural innovation will only be adopted and scaled if several conditions are met together. These include:

  • access to inputs and technologies

  • accessible financing

  • efficient extension services

  • functioning infrastructure

  • organised markets

  • coherent, predictable public policies.

Without these conditions, innovations often remain confined to research stations, pilot projects or scientific publications. Where seed systems, rural financing or market organisation are weak, good science makes little difference.

In several African countries, farmers aren’t using improved seed varieties because they can’t get certified seeds at scale. Likewise, promising innovations in irrigation, post-harvest technologies or digital agriculture have struggled because of weaknesses in infrastructure, rural credit or institutional coordination.

What’s needed

Debates on agricultural research in Africa must go beyond simplistic criticism. Agricultural research should not be viewed as a cost. Rather it is a strategic investment in food security, economic sovereignty, environmental sustainability, public health, social stability and human dignity.

Blaming science for lacking impact masks the weaknesses of broader development systems.

As Africa faces the defining challenge of the 21st century – feeding its population without destroying the planet – it would be a mistake to weaken scientific research. The continent must instead strengthen alliances between science, policy, finance, private sector actors, farmers, universities and civil society.

Across Africa, emerging innovation platforms show that when these actors work together, scientific advances can create tangible economic and social change. The challenge now is to broaden this beyond isolated successes.

In the end, the impact of science is a collective responsibility.

And science can only change the world when societies decide to give it the means to do so.

The Conversation

Pape Abdoulaye Seck served as director general of the Africa Rice Center/CGIAR and was Senegal’s minister in charge of agricultural research.

ref. Agriculture in Africa: science and research can’t make an impact without investment and good policies – https://theconversation.com/agriculture-in-africa-science-and-research-cant-make-an-impact-without-investment-and-good-policies-282430

Un groupe d’experts pour éclairer la gouvernance de l’IA par la science

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Catherine Régis, Professeure titulaire, Faculté de droit, Chaire Canada-CIFAR en IA et Chaire de recherche du Canada en droit et politiques de la santé, Université de Montréal

Les États sont en compétition afin de développer le plus rapidement possible des modèles d’intelligence artificielle (IA). Les intérêts nationaux et internationaux des différents acteurs divergent en fonction de leurs enjeux et réalités propres. Ce développement tous azimuts de l’IA suscite des préoccupations croissantes. Un groupe d’experts a été créé afin de dépasser les rivalités et de développer un consensus scientifique à l’échelle de la planète autour de l’IA.

Le 3 février 2026, 40 expertes et experts ont été nommés parmi 2600 candidatures. Sélectionnés pour un mandat de trois ans par la communauté internationale, les candidats constituent ainsi le premier « Groupe scientifique international indépendant de l’intelligence artificielle » (Groupe d’experts). Ce groupe de haut niveau, co-présidé par le professeur québécois Yoshua Bengio, est chargé de rédiger un rapport annuel fondé sur des données fiables synthétisant les recherches existantes sur les « promesses, risques et répercussions » de l’IA, sans toutefois devoir se prononcer sur les enjeux, pourtant de taille en gouvernance mondiale de l’IA, liés au militaire.

Ce groupe constitue un cas d’étude particulièrement intéressant pour les travaux que nous menons dans le cadre de la Chaire en Diplomatie scientifique et gouvernance mondiale de l’IA à l’Université de Montréal puisqu’il représente un exemple prometteur de diplomatie scientifique appliquée à l’IA.

Les dangers de l’IA

Que ce soit en raison de leur conception, de leur mise au point ou de leur utilisation, les systèmes d’IA présentent des risques aujourd’hui connus et documentés.

Par exemple, les systèmes d’IA utilisés pour le diagnostic médical peuvent reproduire des biais présents dans les données sur lesquelles ils sont entraînés, avec des taux d’erreur plus élevés pour les femmes et les personnes racisées.




À lire aussi :
La pornographie générée par l’IA perturbera l’industrie du sexe et soulèvera de nouvelles préoccupations éthiques


De même, les outils de génération de contenu permettent de produire en quelques secondes des milliers de faux articles ou de fausses déclarations, saturant l’espace public de désinformation, difficile à contrer. Quant aux systèmes de reconnaissance faciale déployés par certains États, ils permettent une surveillance de masse sans consentement, avec des erreurs d’identification documentées ayant conduit à des arrestations injustifiées.

Dans ces circonstances, la création du Groupe d’experts apparaît plus qu’opportune puisqu’il a pour mandat de fournir des connaissances scientifiques vis-à-vis des risques de l’IA et cela de manière indépendante, sans ingérence politique.

Une impasse persistante

Les effets de l’IA dépassent largement les frontières des pays, ce qui plaide en faveur d’une réponse mondiale organisée.

Différents mécanismes et outils de gouvernance ont été adoptés par le passé, que ce soit en recourant à l’éthique (ex : Recommandation sur l’éthique de l’IA de l’Unesco), aux stratégies (ex : Stratégie continentale sur l’IA de l’Union africaine), aux standards (ex : norme ISO/IEC 42001) ou encore aux normes créant des obligations pour les États (ex : Convention-cadre du Conseil de l’Europe sur l’IA et les droits de l’homme, la démocratie et l’État de droit).

Ces différentes initiatives ont posé les premières pierres pour une gouvernance mondiale de l’IA. Pour autant, ces efforts multilatéraux sont limités : peu d’obligations juridiques pour contraindre les entreprises et les États, peu de moyens d’obtenir réparation en cas de violations de ces obligations et, surtout, de nombreux États sont en dehors du champ d’application des quelques normes contraignantes qui existent pour encadrer les systèmes d’IA et les données qu’ils mobilisent à l’échelle internationale.




À lire aussi :
L’IA est un raz-de-marée pour la communauté scientifique. Comment réagir ?


C’est notamment le cas des États-Unis ou de la Chine. La course à l’IA ayant pris de l’ampleur et les États ayant affirmé des positions parfois complètement antagonistes (ex : réguler versus libre développement), ces dynamiques nous ont plongés dans une impasse qui essouffle les efforts de gouvernance mondiale de l’IA. La perspective d’un traité international sur l’IA regroupant tous les États semble vaine pour le moment.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


L’ONU choisit la science

C’est dans cette impasse que s’inscrit le pari du Groupe d’experts, qui se distingue des initiatives précédentes puisqu’il ne vise aucunement à dire ce qu’il faudrait faire (caractère normatif), mais à évaluer scientifiquement les risques et les opportunités de l’IA. L’ONU mise ainsi sur la science pour développer des consensus à l’échelle de la planète.

Ce pari peut surprendre au regard du contexte actuel où la science doit faire face à des attaques croissantes sur sa légitimité et à une perte de confiance observée depuis la pandémie de Covid-19. Pourtant, c’est précisément parce que l’IA est une technologie complexe et évolutive que seule une évaluation scientifique rigoureuse permettra d’en saisir les risques réels, d’en anticiper les effets et d’éclairer, ensuite, les décideurs.

Le Groupe d’experts réunit des profils délibérément variés, avec des expertises multidisciplinaires (apprentissage automatique, cybersécurité, droits humains, gouvernance des données…). Cela lui permet de produire des évaluations qui dépassent le seul champ technique pour intégrer les dimensions sociales et éthiques de l’IA.

Le groupe va ainsi entreprendre de bâtir une compréhension commune et globale de l’IA « fondée non pas sur l’idéologie, mais sur la science ; non pas sur les fausses informations, mais sur la connaissance ». En pratique, cela signifie que le groupe produira des évaluations qui s’imposent par leur rigueur, en limitant l’interférence des intérêts nationaux et des entreprises privées.

Cependant, les experts ne disposeront d’aucun pouvoir décisionnel en matière de politiques publiques. Les rapports qu’ils produiront viseront plutôt à fournir un baromètre scientifique sur les avancées de l’IA pour ensuite permettre aux États de prendre les décisions appropriées sur cette base. Le Groupe d’experts représente ainsi une expression récente d’efforts en matière de diplomatie scientifique.

Un laboratoire inédit pour observer la diplomatie scientifique

Entendue au sens large, la diplomatie scientifique constitue « l’ensemble des pratiques se situant à l’intersection de la science et de la diplomatie », dont la finalité est d’apporter une contribution significative aux défis mondiaux. En l’occurrence, étant notamment appelé à éclairer les discussions engagées lors du Dialogue mondial, une rencontre annuelle entre les gouvernements et les parties prenantes sur l’IA, le Groupe d’experts constitue une forme concrète de diplomatie scientifique.

Ce qui confère au Groupe d’experts un intérêt particulier, au-delà de ses livrables, c’est qu’il va se positionner comme un acteur incontournable de la diplomatie scientifique liée à une technologie numérique de pointe en temps réel. Cela est d’autant plus pertinent qu’il va permettre d’observer la diplomatie scientifique telle qu’elle s’exprime dans une période de reconfiguration.

D’ailleurs, sur ce point, le secteur privé occupe actuellement une place significative tant dans la production scientifique que dans la diplomatie. Par exemple, les géants de la Tech ont participé aux différents sommets sur l’IA, qui sont des rendez-vous pour définir les priorités mondiales et influer sur les négociations et décisions à venir.

Face à des acteurs privés dont l’influence sur les négociations internationales n’a cessé de croître, le Groupe d’experts incarne une logique différente : celle où les conclusions sont guidées par la rigueur scientifique plutôt que par des intérêts économiques. Toutefois, le Groupe ne cherche pas à exclure le secteur privé, qui reste une source essentielle d’innovation.

Les experts éclaireront, mais seront-ils écoutés et suivis ?

Reste la question centrale : la science parviendra-t-elle à faire converger des intérêts nationaux et mondiaux qui peinent à se rejoindre et, surtout, les évaluations scientifiques trouveront-elles écho auprès des décideurs qui restent libres de les ignorer ?

La réponse dépendra en grande partie de la capacité du Groupe à faire valoir ce qui constitue l’un de ses seuls leviers réels : l’expertise reconnue de ses membres, leur capacité à colliger des données de qualité tirées tant de la recherche universitaire que de l’industrie où l’IA de pointe est généralement concentrée et leur indépendance formelle.

Son premier rapport, attendu pour juillet prochain, constituera bien plus qu’un document technique : en moins de six mois d’existence, le Groupe d’experts testera en conditions réelles si la science peut encore faire office de langage commun entre des États aux intérêts profondément divergents, ce qui constituera un laboratoire d’étude précieux sur la diplomatie scientifique de demain dans un contexte géopolitique sous forte tension.

La Conversation Canada

Catherine Régis a reçu des financements des Fonds de recherche du Québec, de CIFAR, des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada et du Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada.

Gaëlle Foucault a reçu des financements de IVADO pour ses recherches postdoctorales.

Michel Audet ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Un groupe d’experts pour éclairer la gouvernance de l’IA par la science – https://theconversation.com/un-groupe-dexperts-pour-eclairer-la-gouvernance-de-lia-par-la-science-280760

100 million African children are not in school. What’s driving the trend and how to reverse it

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Moses Ngware, Senior Research Scientist, African Population and Health Research Center

Many countries across Africa have embraced universal basic education policies in recent decades. But recent data has revealed that more than 100 million children and adolescents remain out of school, out of a total potential population of 469 million. The latest statistics suggest that after some years of progress, the situation is deteriorating. Education and youth empowerment scholar Moses Ngware and his co-researchers recently carried out an analysis of trends going back 25 years. Their main findings are set out below.

What are the school attendance trends in Africa across all age groups?

In 2000, the number of out-of-school children in primary school, lower secondary and upper secondary was above 100 million. It was down to about 90 million in 2014, and then up again to 100 million by 2025.

Viewed against Africa’s high population growth of above 2.5%, these absolute numbers suggest that school participation is not keeping pace.

Nevertheless, between 2000 and 2024, the proportion of out-of-school children and adolescents declined at all education levels. It fell from 37% to 20% for primary schools; from 47% to 35% for lower secondary and from 56% to 47% for upper secondary school-age children. This is despite the absolute numbers of out-of-school children remaining high.

Countries that showed greatest improvement included Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar and Mozambique. Improvements were driven by at least two main factors. First, targeted policy responses that enabled them to achieve good coverage in a short time. Second, a strong political will combined with a multi-sectoral approach. The approaches included combining conditional cash transfers for households, food supplies, expanding access to schools and implementing universal education policies that reduce cost of schooling for households.

On the other hand, there are countries that made little or no progress. They include Angola, Cape Verde, Lesotho, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. The main drivers of the low progress are:

  • political instability, as seen in South Sudan

  • poor economic performance, as witnessed in Zimbabwe

  • the high opportunity cost of schooling, as seen in Lesotho, where boys drop out due to poverty related coping mechanisms, including herding cattle, with only one in every five boys completing grade 12.

What are the notable changes in recent years?

In the past five years, we have seen a steady increase in absolute numbers of out-of-school children and adolescents from 95 million to 100 million, with an average of about 1 million children either not transitioning from primary to secondary school or leaving school or not joining school at all.

There are two main drivers of such a trend. First, finance – the fizzling effect of the universal basic education subsidies of the early 2000s. These subsidies made basic education affordable to many households. Of the 42 African countries with free education in their policies, only three were in a position to offer free schooling in 2025. Donor funding of education by multilateral organisations has also been reduced, with education aid in Africa declining by 7% in 2024. Second, the negative impact of COVID-19, with about 10 million who left school due to the lockdowns never to return, for various reasons, including forced marriages among girls and child labour for boys.

Across all the schooling levels, higher than before rates of out-of-school children and adolescents were observed in the Sahel region, in Central African Republic, Chad, Mauritania and northern Nigeria. These countries or regions are characterised by politically motivated violence, harsh climatic changes and a history of low school participation.

Why is school completion important for societies?

The main benefits to societies of school completion include transition to decent work, girls’ empowerment, and improved health outcomes. An additional year of schooling increases an individual’s lifetime earnings by about 10% on average, with a potential to increase an individual’s purchasing power. Such benefits can also trickle down to households through providing household financial stability and enhanced family support.

For girls, school completion is critical for participation in decision making at societal level. Research shows that a woman’s power to make decisions, such as education for her children or where to invest, increases with education attainment. This has a bearing on economic independence and gender equity within the society.

Furthermore, and related to these two benefits, children of mothers who have completed secondary education have a 45% lower under-3 mortality rate. This implies that such children have about half the risk of death before age 3 compared to those born to mothers with no education.

What are the gender dynamics?

By 2025, the proportion of males that were out of school, at 51%, was only slightly higher than that of females. However, the out-of-school female rate was on the rise – up by two percentage points in 10 years.

If this growth continues, then the proportion of out-of-school females will overtake that of males in the coming years. This will compound the vulnerabilities disadvantaged girls face in their schooling journey and transition to work.

In addition, the gains made in the last three decades in closing gender gaps in education will be eroded. Eroding the gains made in education has severe consequences, especially for girls. For instance, we are likely to see an increase in females getting married much earlier, and child bearing among adolescents may also increase.

What lessons can we learn from the better-placed countries?

There are a number of important lessons to be learnt from countries that have lowered the number of out-of-school children and adolescents.

First, Algeria, Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda have relied on a strong national policy framework backed by political good will, high-level central coordination and donor-partner support.

Second is the importance of targeted social support such as school feeding and conditional cash transfers. Close evaluations using hard data are needed.

Third is the elimination of significant direct fees or levies at basic education level, with timely financial disbursements and school supplies.

Fourth is the lesson that affirmative action for vulnerable populations is an invaluable investment. These populations include disadvantaged girls, children from remote rural areas, children with disabilities, and children from poor households.

Finally, there are other interventions that can add value depending on the context. These include reducing travel distance through expanding infrastructure, and flexible school entry, such as late entry to improve participation. Another is catch-up programmes, which means accelerating progression to recover lost time and learning.

The Conversation

Moses Ngware receives funding from.

African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC)

ref. 100 million African children are not in school. What’s driving the trend and how to reverse it – https://theconversation.com/100-million-african-children-are-not-in-school-whats-driving-the-trend-and-how-to-reverse-it-280637

Better-designed homes could cut three major child diseases by up to 44% – Tanzania trial

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Steve Lindsay, Emeritus professor, Durham University

Malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia are preventable childhood diseases that are major causes of death in young children. They’re transmitted largely in and around the home, where children spend most of their time.

For example, around 80% of malaria transmission in Africa occurs when people are bitten by malarial mosquitoes indoors at night. Diarrhoea results usually from food and water that’s been contaminated by faeces. It can also be spread through poor hygiene. Pneumonia is spread through overcrowding and poor ventilation, and is exacerbated by indoor air pollution.




Read more:
Africa needs 50 million new homes, but building is bad for the environment: how to finance ‘green’ solutions


We are an international group of specialists from different fields including architecture, communications, global health, medical anthropology, public health entomology, engineering and statistics.

To see if it might be possible for a newly designed house to help prevent malaria, pneumonia and diarrhoea in children, one of us (Danish architect Jakob Knudsen) came up with a new design. We called it the Star home.

This house costs 24% less in materials than a conventional single-storey cement-block house. It also uses 73% less concrete, and generates 57% less embodied carbon (the amount of carbon emissions released from the time raw materials are turned into building materials for the house to the end of the home’s life). Our analysis revealed a fourfold return on investment over 50 years once health, water, cooling and energy savings are accounted for.

The features of the Star home are:

  • Double-storey buildings. Bedrooms are positioned on the upper floor, away from mosquitoes, which are most abundant at ground level.
  • Cross-ventilation, where air passes across the room. We increased ventilation inside the home by using walls made of shade net, instead of solid walls. These also cooled sleeping areas and deterred mosquitoes from entering the room.

  • Mosquito screens on doors and windows. These screens keep malaria mosquitoes and flies out.

  • Self-closing doors. These minimise the entry of mosquitoes and flies.

  • Clean water harvesting, improved pit latrines and improved cooking stoves.

We put the Star home through a three year, peer-reviewed trial to see if it could reduce malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia among children.

Our findings were startling: After three years, children living in the Star homes had 44% less clinical malaria, 30% less diarrhoea and 18% less pneumonia than those living in traditional houses.




Read more:
Nigeria has Africa’s highest malaria death rate – progress is being made, but it’s not enough


Because they were protected from three serious illnesses, their overall health improved and the children grew taller than children living in traditional houses.

Our study also demonstrated that the new, comfortable Star house has a lower carbon footprint than the cement-block houses that are currently built in sub-Saharan Africa. Put simply, we used less energy to build a Star home than is used in building a typical cement house constructed in a village.




Read more:
Health risks at home: a study in six African countries shows how healthy housing saves children’s lives


We also found that passive cooling in the Star home made the home more comfortable in hot weather even though it did not have air conditioning, which consumes energy.

Our study demonstrates that small improvements in design are likely to make a major health impact on the lives of children in Africa.

The ground work

We first set about understanding how the pathogens causing the three diseases spread in and around the home.

Malaria: How mosquitoes enter houses has been the subject of research for decades.
Research shows that they find people mainly by smell. From far away, they follow the carbon dioxide humans breathe out, and when they get closer, they are guided by smells produced by bacteria on human skin.

Diarrhoea: Houses with a regular supply of clean water, clean food preparation areas, fly-proof latrines and kitchens can help reduce the spread of this disease.

Pneumonia: This is spread through air-borne pathogens and is made worse by smoke-filled kitchens which damage the lungs.

We then developed the Star homes and tested whether they were healthier by carrying out a randomised controlled trial in southern Tanzania, an area with high levels of malaria.

In the trials, we recruited children under 13 years of age and randomly allocated them to 110 Star homes and 513 traditional mud and thatched-roof houses.

These children were followed weekly for signs of illness for three years and the data from the clinical trial were analysed.

Africa’s housing boom: a chance to build healthier homes

Africa’s population is the most rapidly expanding in the world, with the current population of 1.5 billion people expected to increase to 2.7-3.7 billion by 2070.

Hundreds of millions of new homes will need to be constructed soon.

There has never been a better time to build healthier homes on the continent. Improvements in rural housing are increasing at a fast pace.




Read more:
Building Zambian homes with local materials delivers benefits that imports don’t: study


Governments can take a number of steps to help. For example, they can facilitate the construction of better rural homes by assuring ownership rights (titles). These are essential for homeowners who want to apply for loans to carry out healthy home improvements. Governments could also reduce import taxes on fly screening, and provide advice and support for the construction of healthy homes.

We hope that this study will stimulate further innovation by people working in the built environment who could collaborate with local communities to construct healthier homes for rural people in low- and middle-income countries. Simple improvements in housing can have profound impacts on improving public health.

(About our team: Salum Mshamu, a Tanzanian scientist, carried out trials on the Star home as part of his PhD studies at Oxford University. Jakob Knudsen has been designing healthy and cooler homes in the tropics, particularly in Tanzania, for over 30 years. Lorenz von Seidlein is a paediatric clinician who has studied the epidemiology and control of childhood infections, principally malaria, in different parts of the tropics. Steve Lindsay has over 40 years of experience working on the control of mosquitoes and flies, including running clinical trials of housing interventions.)

The Conversation

Emeritus Professor Steve Lindsay receives funding from Hanako Foundation, Singapore, BBSRC GCRF Network Grant (BB/R00532X/1) and Sir Halley Stewart Trust.

The Royal Danish Academy / Jakob Brandtberg Knudsen receives funding from Hanako Foundation for the Star Homes Project

The Star Homes project has been funded by the Hanako Foundation, Singapore.

Salum Ahmed Mshamu 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. Better-designed homes could cut three major child diseases by up to 44% – Tanzania trial – https://theconversation.com/better-designed-homes-could-cut-three-major-child-diseases-by-up-to-44-tanzania-trial-281890