Conserving 30% of the planet will only succeed if people are part of the plan

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Sandbrook, Professor of Conservation and Society, University of Cambridge

Masai herders in Kenya. JWCohen/Shutterstock

What do you see when you imagine a conservation area? Perhaps a remote rainforest, a towering mountain range or a coral reef teeming with life. But do you expect to see any people?

It would be understandable if you answered no. Most media coverage of nature ignores people. Many protected and conserved areas to date are classified as “high and far” – in places with rich biodiversity and relatively few people. Many actively exclude human presence.

Yet, people are central to conservation. Humans live with and use biodiversity almost everywhere on Earth. This relationship is becoming more important, as we’ve demonstrated in a new paper.

In 2022, 196 countries agreed to an ambitious UN target to conserve 30% of the planet by 2030. This so-called “30×30 target” will nearly double the global coverage of protected and conserved areas. Conservation will extend into areas of land and sea that are more inhabited and used by people than ever before.

This raises important questions about the social context at new conservation sites: how many people live there, how well off they are and how they make a living from the land. This information is crucial for understanding how people might be affected by 30×30 and implementing it successfully. However, very little has been known about these social dimensions of 30×30. Until now.

Our new study, published in Nature Communications, analysed three different ways to reach the 30% coverage globally, reflecting different conservation priorities. Together with a diverse international group of practitioners and researchers from multiple disciplines (including conservation science and political ecology), we found big differences in the social conditions between 30×30 scenarios.

In terms of population, an approach targeting the areas with highest unprotected biodiversity would directly affect over 3.5 billion people who live in or within 10km (6 miles) of new conservation areas. This represents 46% of the global population.

In stark contrast, an approach targeting biodiverse lands managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities would directly affect only around 300 million people. That might sound preferable. However, many of these people live in areas with lower levels of development and rely on nature for their livelihoods, making them particularly vulnerable to changes in access to nature.

The 30×30 target also intersects with global food production. In some approaches we analysed, around half of the areas identified for conservation overlap with farmland used for crop production. In others, large areas overlap with livestock grazing areas, including where people practice traditional herding. This raises questions about how to balance conservation with growing demand for food.

lush green fields and mountains with clouds
Small-scale agriculture within the crater of Pululahua volcano in the Pululahua geobotanical reserve, Ecuador.
Javier Fajardo, CC BY-NC-ND

Our results demonstrate that wherever it happens, the 30×30 target will have profound social as well as ecological implications. Implementation will play a critical role in determining what these are for people and nature.

A whole menu of management and governance options is available, from strict government national parks (such as the iconic Serengeti or Yellowstone) to locally owned and managed areas where people live and use nature sustainably. The 30×30 target also includes places that are not formally protected areas but where existing ways of managing land and sea support conservation.

Choices at each site shape the social outcomes of conservation areas. These can be positive, negative or mixed. At the local level, these areas can support livelihoods and provide employment, while global benefits can include support for food systems and regulating Earth’s climate.

They may also be social costs, such as restricted access to land and resources, heightened conflict with wild animals or eviction from ancestral homelands. A critical challenge for 30×30 will be making sure that the choice of conservation area is appropriate for the social context in which it is being implemented – decisions that can be informed by the results of our study.

small traditional kayak on calm lake, grey sky
Children canoeing on Limoncocha lagoon, Limoncocha Biological Reserve, Ecuador.
Javier Fajardo, CC BY-NC-ND

The good news

The wording of the 30×30 target is not just about biodiversity and spatial coverage. It also includes important social elements. The target calls for the rights and territories of Indigenous peoples and local communities to be respected and supports sustainable use of biodiversity, where appropriate. If fully achieved, this target should deliver significant benefits for local people and nature.

The 30×30 target is not just about conserving biodiversity. Our results suggest it should also be recognised as a highly ambitious social development target. This requires a shift in thinking and significant new funding for social programmes alongside traditional conservation activity.

The 30×30 target could be a big step forward for both conservation and society, but only if people are part of the plan.

The Conversation

Chris Sandbrook received funding for the research on which this article is based from the Science for Nature and People Partnership.

Javier received funding for the research on which this article is based from the Science for Nature and People Partnership, and ERC CONDJUST project.

ref. Conserving 30% of the planet will only succeed if people are part of the plan – https://theconversation.com/conserving-30-of-the-planet-will-only-succeed-if-people-are-part-of-the-plan-278629

La « gêne » du passeport, au-delà de l’administration Trump

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Speranta Dumitru, Maitre de Conférences, Université Paris Cité

Passeport en édition limitée à l’effigie de Donald Trump, intitulé « passeport patriotique » par la Maison-Blanche. Capture d’écran Maison-Blanche/X

Le passeport à l’effigie de Donald Trump génère des protestations. Leur intensité est, toutefois, moindre que la colère suscitée, après 1918, par le maintien du passeport lui-même, qui avait été rendu obligatoire durant la Première Guerre mondiale. Des deux côtés de l’Atlantique, la presse en réclamait la suppression, le jugeant coûteux, vexatoire et liberticide. Un siècle plus tard, la contrainte du passeport est normalisée.


La Maison-Blanche a récemment annoncé qu’une édition limitée de passeports états-uniens à l’effigie du président serait fabriquée dans le cadre des célébrations du 250e anniversaire des États-Unis. Ces passeports, qui comporteront une image de Donald Trump accompagnée de sa signature à l’encre dorée, et dont le nombre exact n’a pas été rendu public, ne seront disponibles que pour les citoyens qui en feront la demande dans la ville de Washington.

Cette décision a immédiatement suscité de vives critiques : certains adversaires y voient une manifestation de culte de la personnalité qu’aucun autocrate n’avait jamais osée.

Le « passeport Trump » est-il « gênant » ? Le verbe « gêner » a deux significations : embarrasser, et limiter la liberté. Les détracteurs de cette initiative se sentent gênés surtout dans le premier sens : ils ont honte de voir leur président profiter de l’anniversaire de l’indépendance du pays pour se mettre en avant. Mais la seconde signification, celle liée à la restriction de la liberté de circulation, est bien plus durable : depuis plus d’un siècle, devoir obtenir un passeport pour pouvoir voyager gêne considérablement les gens, partout dans le monde.

Le régime des passeports obligatoires

Nos arrière-grands-parents ont affublé le passeport de tous les noms : une « gêne », une « vexation », une « nuisance ». Le régime des passeports obligatoires, tel qu’on le connaît aujourd’hui, avait été introduit durant la Première Guerre mondiale. Les pays belligérants, tels que la France ou le Royaume-Uni, l’instaurent dès le début des hostilités, en août 1914. Initialement, la justification est de pouvoir contrôler les ressortissants des puissances ennemies. Mais pour contrôler efficacement les étrangers, il est nécessaire de surveiller l’ensemble de la population.

C’est ainsi que l’obligation des passeports s’avère doublement contagieuse : non seulement elle s’étend, dans les pays belligérants, des étrangers aux citoyens, mais elle se diffuse aussi des pays belligérants vers les pays neutres. Pour permettre à leurs citoyens de voyager, tous les pays se voient contraints d’organiser la délivrance des passeports. Prenons l’exemple des États-Unis. Dès le 1er août 1914, le Département d’État demande à ses ambassades en Europe de délivrer des documents aux citoyens états-uniens qui s’y trouvent sans passeport. Alors que dès 1916 les compagnies de transport refusent d’embarquer des passagers ne disposant pas de passeport, le premier fondement légal pour contrôler l’entrée et la sortie des citoyens et des étrangers aux États-Unis n’apparaît qu’en 1918, un peu avant la fin de la guerre.

Personne n’imagine que l’obligation du passeport perdure après la fin du conflit mondial. Au moment de l’armistice, on espère revenir au régime de circulation d’avant-guerre. La Société des Nations (ancêtre de l’ONU) cherche à répondre — sans succès — à la demande de suppression ou d’abolition des passeports. Comme certains gouvernements temporisent, la Société des Nations propose la simplification du passage des frontières, en demandant aux pays d’adopter un modèle uniforme de passeport — celui que nous connaissons aujourd’hui.

Tout passeport est une « gêne »

Dès 1918, la presse se fait l’écho de l’impatience du public. En France, des centaines de journaux mentionnent l’abolition des passeports : ils l’annoncent prochaine… durant toute la période de l’entre-deux-guerres.

Quelques titres d’articles illustrent la persistance de cette attente, bien qu’elle diminue vers la fin des années 1930 : « À bas l’odieux passeport » (L’Humanité, 21 décembre 1921) ; « L’absurde formalité » (Le Figaro, 19 mai 1923) ; « Supprimons les passeports » (La Volonté, 17 janvier 1928) ; « Le passeport est une gêne pour les honnêtes gens » (Le Quotidien, 3 octobre 1929) ; « La mort du passeport » (Le Soir, 14 avril 1931) ; « Il faut qu’on supprime les passeports » (La Gazette de Biarritz-Bayonne et Saint-Jean-de-Luz, 11 juillet 1933).

On pourrait penser que la bataille est menée par les journaux de gauche. Dans ma recherche, j’ai analysé plus de 700 articles qui mentionnent l’abolition des passeports dans la presse française de l’entre-deux-guerres. Ma conclusion est que la majorité des abolitionnistes ne sont pas de gauche, mais de droite et de centre droit. Au Figaro, par exemple, le passeport est vu comme « l’exigence administrative la plus insupportable pour les Français » car « on ne saurait croire quelles démarches, quels ennuis, quelles tracasseries » fait subir aux « honnêtes gens » « toute cette paperasserie » (15 juillet 1921).

Même le journal d’extrême droite L’Action Française ne sabote pas cette « unanimité » et reconnaît que le passeport est une « véritable brimade pour le voyageur ». Pesant « le pour et le contre » de la suppression, il rappelle le 7 septembre 1921 que :

« Dans les États bien organisés, le passeport est une sérieuse garantie contre les espions. Un gouvernement fort et clairvoyant, une bonne police, peuvent s’en faire une arme solide. C’est à eux qu’il appartient de réduire au minimum les ennuis que suscite au public ce parchemin, tout en le conservant si c’est nécessaire. »

Dans tous les journaux, la passion est lisible : on espère que « l’entrave irritante de cette précaution inutile qu’est le passeport ne sera bientôt plus qu’un désagréable souvenir » ou souhaite que « les passeports, survivance inutile, onéreuse et vexatoire du passé, soient désormais supprimés ». L’émotion la plus fréquemment associée aux passeports est la colère : « stupide obligation », « honte de notre époque », « tare bureaucratique », « une des pires incommodités », « une source d’ennui pour qui voyage », « chiffon de papier », « formalité ridicule », « absurde », « humiliante », « brimade », « le passeport est une vaine sottise, un trompe-l’œil, un rien »… Lorsqu’un journal publie un témoignage d’usager, on s’excuse de devoir « supprimer les termes indignés qu’il emploie et les appréciations plutôt dures qu’il y exprime ».

En anglais, la « nuisance » des passeports

La presse ne réagit pas seulement en France. Comme l’a montré l’historien Craig Robertson, aux États-Unis les journaux qualifient la réaction négative du public de « nuisance du passeport » — l’équivalent de la « gêne » et des « vexations » françaises. Comme à Paris, on espère que l’obligation du passeport disparaîtra comme d’autres mesures prises en temps de guerre. On déplore le surcoût des voyages, comme dans cet article du New York Times de 1926 :

« Autrefois, on n’avait pas à se soucier des passeports, à moins de se rendre dans des contrées païennes. Mais la guerre a tout changé. Nous avons fini par imposer des frais de visa de dix dollars, et d’autres pays ont fait de même. Cela a généré des recettes, mais a aussi représenté une lourde charge financière pour les voyageurs. Les plaintes se sont multipliées, et le Congrès a été appelé à trouver une solution. »

Plus que le coût des voyages et la tracasserie administrative, c’est la réduction de la liberté de circulation que les médias déplorent. L’espoir d’un retour au régime de circulation d’avant-1914 survit même après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Comme l’illustre cet article de 1947 :

« Une triste remarque sur ce progrès à rebours a été énoncée par la Chambre Internationale de commerce : en 1914, un homme d’affaires pouvait décider de se rendre d’une capitale à une autre et effectuer ce trajet en quelques heures seulement. Depuis 1914, les trains ont gagné en vitesse, l’automobile s’est généralisée et l’avion de ligne a fait son apparition. Mais l’homme d’affaires, ou tout autre voyageur, peut être contraint d’attendre des semaines, voire des mois, entre le moment où il prend sa décision et celui où il la met à exécution. La Chambre considère cette situation comme à la fois “absurde et pernicieuse” ».

Ce qui gêne

Il y a un siècle, nos arrière-grands-parents n’acceptaient pas d’attendre trois jours pour un passeport. Les temps ont changé. Aujourd’hui, les journaux nous invitent parfois à nous estimer « chanceux » lorsque l’attente ne dure que quelques mois. Comme ce titre, du même New York Times, “Besoin d’un passeport ? Vous avez de la chance” qui annonçait en 2024 :

« Pour la première fois depuis mars 2020, les délais de traitement sont revenus aux normales pré-pandémiques […] avec six à huit semaines pour le service standard et deux à trois semaines pour le service accéléré. »

Quand la contrainte n’est plus une gêne mais une chance, il nous reste l’embarras.

The Conversation

Speranta Dumitru 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. La « gêne » du passeport, au-delà de l’administration Trump – https://theconversation.com/la-gene-du-passeport-au-dela-de-ladministration-trump-281912

What is driving Europe’s pro-Russian supporters and their stance on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict?

Source: The Conversation – France – By Filip Kostelka, Professor and Chair in Political and Social Change, European University Institute

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sparked the most significant military conflict in Europe’s post-Second World War history. While European public opinion is overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian, significant segments of Europe’s population hold ambivalent or even outright pro-Russian positions. As public support is key to providing military and financial assistance to Ukraine, we wanted to understand why some Europeans are sympathetic to the aggressor.

Our study considers that pro-Kremlin positions could come from four main sources:

  • Economic interests

  • Ideology

  • Partisan alignment

  • Disinformation

We analysed data from two academic surveys from late 2023, spanning nearly 30,000 respondents and eighteen European countries.

The surveys asked respondents whom they considered responsible for the war and whom they wanted to win. In practice, answers to those two questions are strongly correlated, and vary substantially across countries. For example, support for a Russian victory is virtually absent in Poland, but approaches 20% in Slovakia.

Partisan alignment and disinformation

Our statistical analyses indicate that the strongest predictor of Europeans’ position on the war in Ukraine is the proximity of respondents’ preferred political party to the Kremlin.

The closer a party’s ties, as assessed by academic experts from the CHES project, the more likely its supporters are to favour Russia over Ukraine.

While the data does not allow us to fully determine the underlying mechanism, the results suggest that partisan alignment is the most likely explanation. Those who support Russia do not care too much about the war, but they align with their preferred party’s rhetoric.

The second strongest correlate of Kremlin-aligned narratives is exposure and vulnerability to disinformation.

Pro-Russian views are over-represented among those who consume alternative channels for political news and believe in conspiracy theories. For example, those who mainly consume political news from social media and messaging applications and subscribe to the view that the Covid-19 pandemic was orchestrated by national governments, are 40% less likely to wish for Ukraine’s victory compared to those who consume traditional media and do not believe in conspiracy theories.

The third, though weaker, source of pro-Russian attitudes is ideology: cultural conservatism and authoritarianism.

Respondents who favour strong leaders and question minority rights are more likely to sympathise with the Kremlin. By contrast, economic interests exert little to no effect. Despite fears among analysts that rising energy costs in the aftermath of the invasion could sway public opinion against Ukraine, those who report having suffered during the energy crisis are not more likely to support the Kremlin.

The need to moderate public discourse and combat disinformation

Our results highlight the importance of top-down processes, whereby pro-Russian attitudes primarily reflect signals shared by pro-Kremlin politicians and disinformation spread by alternative sources of political news.

Much of the surprising support for the aggressor does not seem to stem from some ideological affinity or economic interests, but from the information and interpretation that circulates within political systems.

Countering Russia’s influence thus requires assertive moderation of public discourse and robust efforts to combat disinformation. These imperatives contrast with governments’ attitudes in many EU member states.

For example, the current Andrej Babiš’s cabinet in the Czech Republic has renounced any anti-disinformation measures.

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico has echoed pro-Russian narratives himself.

These examples highlight a central challenge: efforts to counter disinformation are ultimately constrained by domestic political incentives.

Where political elites amplify or tolerate pro-Kremlin narratives, public attitudes are likely to follow. Strengthening resilience to disinformation ultimately depends on political leadership that is committed to defending the integrity of the information environment.

This article is published on behalf of all the authors of the original study: Filip Kostelka, Martín Alberdi, Max Bradley, Toine Fiselier, Alexandra Jabbour, Nahla Mansour, Eleonora Minaeva, Silvia Porciuleanu, and Diana Rafailova.

The Conversation

Filip Kostelka 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. What is driving Europe’s pro-Russian supporters and their stance on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-driving-europes-pro-russian-supporters-and-their-stance-on-the-russo-ukrainian-conflict-281598

Madagascar-France : quand un incident diplomatique devient une bataille de récits

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Fabrice Lollia, Docteur en sciences de l’information et de la communication, chercheur associé laboratoire DICEN Ile de France, Université Gustave Eiffel

Le 29 avril 2026, le ministère français de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères a indiqué avoir convoqué le chargé d’affaires de Madagascar à Paris, après la déclaration persona non grata d’un agent diplomatique français à Antananarivo. Paris a rejeté les accusations de déstabilisation et réaffirmé son soutien au processus de transition malgache.

Cette affaire s’inscrit dans un contexte judiciaire sensible. Des enquêtes ont été ouvertes à Madagascar sur une tentative présumée d’assassinat du chef de l’État et un projet présumé de coup d’État, dans lesquelles plusieurs personnes ont été placées en détention provisoire.

À ce stade, ces accusations doivent être abordées avec prudence : elles relèvent d’enquêtes en cours et ne sauraient être confondues avec des faits établis. L’enjeu n’est pas tant de trancher la réalité judiciaire de l’affaire que d’analyser ce qu’elle produit dans l’espace public notamment en termes de récit d’ingérence, de souveraineté et de déstabilisation.

En tant que chercheur en sciences de l’information, j’ai étudié l’impact des réseaux sociaux sur la stabilité démocratique malgache. L’expulsion d’un agent diplomatique français à Madagascar illustre un élément clé. Dans une transition politique fragile, une affaire bilatérale peut devenir une bataille de récits autour de l’ingérence, de la souveraineté et des recompositions d’influence dans l’océan Indien.

L’enjeu n’est donc pas seulement de savoir ce que cette affaire dit des relations entre Paris et Antananarivo. Il est aussi de comprendre ce qu’elle révèle de la diplomatie contemporaine. Celle-ci est désormais exposée aux récits, aux soupçons, aux mémoires historiques et aux circulations numériques.

Un incident diplomatique dans une transition fragile

Depuis septembre 2025, Madagascar connaît une forte mobilisation portée par le mouvement Gen Z, née de revendications très concrètes contre les coupures d’eau et d’électricité, puis élargie à la corruption et à la crise sociale.

Les mobilisations de septembre 2025 apparaissent comme étant les plus importantes qu’ait connues Madagascar depuis plusieurs années, avec une organisation inspirée d’autres mouvements de jeunesse, notamment au Kenya et au Népal.

Cette contestation a ensuite pris une dimension politique majeure en octobre 2025, à la suite de semaines de manifestations et de l’intervention d’une unité militaire d’élite, le CAPSAT, menée par le colonel Michaël Randrianirina. Celui-ci a ensuite pris la tête de la transition.

Or, les transitions politiques sont toujours des périodes de forte vulnérabilité informationnelle. Les institutions doivent produire de la stabilité alors même que leur légitimité reste discutée. Les acteurs politiques cherchent à fixer un récit dominant : récit de restauration, récit de rupture, récit d’ordre, récit populaire ou récit sécuritaire.

Dans ce contexte, l’affaire de l’agent français ne se réduit pas à une friction diplomatique. Elle survient alors que le pouvoir de transition doit gérer simultanément la crise énergétique, l’ordre public, la sortie institutionnelle et les contestations portées par la Gen Z. D’un point de vue médiatique, la reprise des manifestations est perçue comme le signe du discrédit croissant des autorités de transition, avec des militants arrêtés et des critiques persistantes sur l’incapacité à résoudre la crise énergétique.

Changement de regard

Pour les sciences de l’information et de la communication, un événement n’est jamais seulement un fait. Il devient public à travers les récits qui le rendent intelligible. Ces récits sélectionnent des causes, désignent des responsables, hiérarchisent des émotions et orientent les interprétations collectives.

C’est précisément ce qui se joue ici. Une crise initialement liée à des problèmes internes — accès à l’eau, électricité, gouvernance, jeunesse, légitimité politique — peut être progressivement relue à travers le prisme de la déstabilisation. Ce changement de regard est décisif.

Lorsqu’un pouvoir parle de complot, de tentative de coup d’État ou d’ingérence étrangère, il ne décrit pas seulement une menace. Il propose une interprétation officielle de la crise. Cette interprétation sélectionne des responsables, déplace l’attention publique et transforme une contestation sociale en enjeu de sécurité nationale. C’est là que se joue la dimension communicationnelle de l’affaire : le récit ne vient pas après l’événement, il participe à sa signification politique.

Ce mécanisme n’est pas propre à Madagascar. Dans de nombreux contextes de transition ou de fragilité institutionnelle, la figure de l’ingérence étrangère fonctionne comme une ressource politique. Elle permet d’unifier un camp, de délégitimer des opposants, de justifier un durcissement sécuritaire ou de réaffirmer l’autorité de l’État.

Cela ne signifie pas que toute accusation d’ingérence serait nécessairement infondée. Les ingérences existent, notamment dans des espaces géopolitiques disputés. Mais l’analyse communicationnelle invite à distinguer la réalité éventuelle des faits, qui relève de l’enquête, et les effets publics du récit, qui relèvent de la circulation de l’information.

Un acteur diplomatique mais aussi symbolique

À Madagascar, la France est à la fois une ancienne puissance coloniale, un acteur diplomatique majeur, un partenaire économique, culturel et sécuritaire, mais aussi une figure symbolique oscillant entre acceptation et contestation. La relation franco-malgache est travaillée par une mémoire historique longue, dans laquelle se mêlent coopération, dépendance, ressentiment et revendication de souveraineté.

Le dossier des îles Éparses illustre cette charge symbolique. En juin 2025, Madagascar a réaffirmé sa demande de restitution de ces îles administrées par la France dans le canal du Mozambique, en sollicitant également une indemnisation pour les pertes économiques subies. Cette question reste un contentieux majeur, à la fois territorial, économique et mémoriel.

L’accusation d’ingérence française s’inscrit dans un imaginaire postcolonial déjà disponible, récemment réactivé par les récits médiatiques autour de l’exfiltration de l’ancien président Andry Rajoelina.

Les recherches sur les récits publics montrent qu’une accusation peut produire des effets narratifs avant même l’établissement de la preuve , les démentis ne suffisant pas toujours à neutraliser la puissance symbolique du storytelling.

Même lorsqu’un démenti intervient rapidement, il ne suffit pas toujours à neutraliser totalement la puissance symbolique du récit. En communication politique, l’accusation agit parfois moins comme une preuve que comme un cadrage en ce sens qu’elle installe une interprétation avant même que les faits ne soient définitivement établis.

L’affaire intervient également au moment où Madagascar cherche à diversifier ses partenariats. Depuis la transition, le nouveau pouvoir affiche une diplomatie ouverte à plusieurs acteurs. Les autorités malgaches cherchent à rassurer Paris après un rapprochement remarqué avec Moscou, tout en revendiquant une diplomatie pragmatique et ouverte à tous les partenaires.

Cette évolution doit être replacée dans un cadre régional plus large. L’océan Indien est devenu un espace stratégique où se croisent des enjeux de routes maritimes, d’accès aux ressources, de sécurité, d’influence diplomatique et de projection militaire. La France y dispose d’intérêts importants, notamment avec La Réunion, Mayotte et les îles Éparses. Mais elle n’est plus seule.

La Russie, la Chine, les Émirats arabes unis, l’Inde, l’Afrique du Sud ou encore les organisations régionales peuvent peser, chacune à leur manière, dans les équilibres de Madagascar. Dans un tel environnement, toute fragilisation de l’image française peut être interprétée comme une opportunité par d’autres acteurs.

La compétition d’influence ne se limite plus aux accords militaires, aux financements ou aux visites officielles. Elle passe aussi par les récits : qui est présenté comme partenaire fiable ? Qui est décrit comme puissance intrusive ? Qui apparaît comme soutien à la souveraineté ? Qui est associé à la crise ?

La diplomatie à l’épreuve des vulnérabilités informationnelles

Cette affaire montre qu’un incident diplomatique ne reste plus confiné aux canaux institutionnels. Il devient rapidement un objet médiatique, politique et numérique, circulant dans un espace public traversé par les émotions collectives, les mémoires historiques et les frustrations sociales. Les États doivent donc gérer, en plus de leurs relations diplomatiques, leurs vulnérabilités communicationnelles.

Pour la France, le démenti est nécessaire, mais il ne suffit pas toujours lorsque l’accusation trouve un terrain favorable dans l’histoire coloniale ou la compétition géopolitique. Pour Madagascar, la revendication de souveraineté est légitime, mais le registre de la menace extérieure peut aussi réduire l’espace du débat et transformer la contestation sociale en soupçon politique.

Le véritable enjeu réside alors dans la manière dont cette affaire sera racontée : incident isolé, preuve d’ingérence, symptôme de fragilité institutionnelle ou épisode de recomposition géopolitique dans l’océan Indien.

Comme dans de nombreux pays africains, à Madagascar la diplomatie se joue donc aussi dans les récits, les images, les soupçons et les mémoires qui circulent.
Et en période de transition, la maîtrise du récit devient ainsi un véritable enjeu de pouvoir. À Madagascar, on l’aura compris, la bataille diplomatique est aussi une bataille de perception.

The Conversation

Fabrice Lollia 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. Madagascar-France : quand un incident diplomatique devient une bataille de récits – https://theconversation.com/madagascar-france-quand-un-incident-diplomatique-devient-une-bataille-de-recits-282211

Michaelina Wautier : une peintre du baroque flamand au talent époustouflant

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Gabriele Neher, Associate Professor in History of Art, University of Nottingham

La Royal Academy of Arts (RA) de Londres accueille actuellement la rétrospective la plus complète de l’œuvre de Michaelina Wautier à ce jour. Il s’agit d’une exposition historique qui permet de redécouvrir une artiste qui, à son époque, connaissait un grand succès et était choyée par la cour et l’élite bruxelloise, mais qui a ensuite presque disparu de la scène publique et des regards des spécialistes pendant près de 300 ans.


La première mention moderne de la peintre flamande Michaelina Wautier (1614-1689) nous présente une artiste qui défie toutes les attentes. Évoquant son monumental Triomphe de Bacchus (1655–1659), Gustav Glück, premier historien de l’art à occuper le poste de conservateur au Kunsthistorisches Museum de Vienne, écrivait en 1903 : « Même à l’ère de l’émancipation féminine, on aurait du mal à attribuer ce tableau, qui témoigne d’une conception très vigoureuse, presque grossière, à la main d’une femme ».

Et c’est là que réside la réussite de Wautier : elle aurait pu peindre « comme un homme », mais dans la plupart de ses œuvres, elle n’en ressent pas le besoin. Au contraire, Michaelina Wautier s’impose comme une artiste dotée d’un style qui lui est propre.

Redonner à Wautier sa place dans le canon artistique à travers une exposition à la Royal Academy of Arts semble particulièrement approprié pour une artiste qui défia les attentes de son temps. La RA a été la première institution à offrir une formation professionnelle aux artistes en Grande-Bretagne. L’œuvre de Wautier et la manière dont la RA la présente témoignent clairement du type de formation qui était à l’époque l’apanage exclusif des artistes masculins.

Wautier et Gentileschi

Sa formation est immédiatement mise en avant par l’image qui ouvre l’exposition, une œuvre gracieuse et assurée intitulée Étude du buste de Ganymède des Médicis (1654). Le dessin représente la célèbre sculpture romaine antique, qui se trouvait à l’époque à Rome. Savoir dessiner était une compétence très prisée et ce Ganymède démontre non seulement la maîtrise d’une artiste ayant reçu une formation méticuleuse, mais aussi un travail est en phase avec son temps qui reflète les tendances contemporaines.

Beaucoup se demanderont où elle se situe par rapport à la grande star de la peinture baroque qui fut sa contemporaine, Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1654) – un sujet de prédilection dans l’histoire de l’art féministe. Les deux femmes disparaissent de la scène après les années 1650, toutes deux ayant travaillé avec des proches (Wautier avec son frère, Gentileschi avec son père), et toutes deux ont été soutenues par des mécènes de haut rang. Mais c’est là que s’arrêtent les similitudes.

L’histoire personnelle violente de Gentileschi a souvent éclipsé les débats sur son talent la maîtrise de son art. Par exemple, des œuvres comme la Décapitation d’Holopherne (1612) sont fréquemment interprétées comme des réponses directes à son expérience de la violence sexuelle.

De la vie personnelle de Wautier, cependant, on ne sait pas grand-chose si ce n’est l’identité de ses parents, le fait qu’elle partageait un atelier avec son frère à Bruxelles et qu’elle ne s’est jamais mariée. Ce manque d’informations est en partie dû au fait que le testament de l’artiste a été détruit dans les flammes lors du bombardement français de Bruxelles en 1695.

Si dans le cas de Gentileschi, on a l’impression de ne pas pouvoir séparer l’art de la biographie, pour Wautier, nous ne disposons de rien d’autre que de son art. Un art merveilleux, d’ailleurs.

Wautier excellait dans le portrait, grâce à sa palette élégante et à sa maîtrise des textures, qu’il s’agisse de cheveux ou de tissus. Dans ses portraits, en particulier dans la représentation des enfants, elle se montre vivace et pleine de vie, et très attentive aux excentricités et aux petites manies. On le voit notamment dans sa série Les Cinq Sens (1650). Par exemple, « L’odorat » représente un petit garçon blond serrant un œuf pourri dans une main et se pinçant le nez de l’autre, repoussé par la puanteur de l’œuf.

Elle n’a cependant jamais signé ses portraits. Mais elle a signé deux grandes peintures religieuses, un Mariage mystique de sainte Catherine d’Alexandrie et un panneau intrigant et inhabituel représentant L’éducation de la Vierge. Ces deux panneaux mettent en scène des protagonistes féminines cultivées, sûres d’elles et élégantes, définies par leurs actions.

Ces peintures défient les idées contemporaines selon lesquelles les femmes artistes excellaient dans l’imitation mais n’avaient pas la capacité d’imaginer et de créer un sujet à partir de rien. Wautier signe ces tableaux « invenit et fecit », ce qui se traduit par « inventé et exécuté ». Elle revendique ainsi sa capacité à faire preuve d’imagination pour réaliser des œuvres importantes à grande échelle. Elle s’affirme en pleine maîtrise de son art, et cela n’est nulle part plus évident que dans la pièce maîtresse de l’exposition de la Royal Academy, son immense Triomphe de Bacchus.

Ici, Wautier s’attaque à la quintessence de la maîtrise artistique : un sujet mythologique à grande échelle qui figurait dans l’œuvre de ses contemporains les plus importants, tels qu’Andrea Mantegna, Titien et bien sûr l’artiste qui dominait le marché en Flandre et aux Pays-Bas, Peter Paul Rubens.

Le Triomphe de Bacchus de Wautier est plus imposant que celui de ses concurrents masculins, et elle parvient à y traiter le nu masculin central, très charnu, avec la grâce et l’élégance d’un Titien. Elle présente au spectateur l’image puissante d’un Bacchus alangui dans une brouette, entouré de ses disciples. Wautier peint une grande diversité de nus masculins dans des poses variées avec une aisance naturelle, et ce Bacchus la place définitivement dans l’histoire de l’art ; ce chef-d’œuvre semble conçu pour défier l’idée selon laquelle une femme ne peut pas peindre comme un homme.

Michaelina Wautier relève le défi d’un cran en y incluant de manière intrigante un autoportrait. Elle s’y représente comme une bacchante élégante aux seins nus, une disciple de Bacchus, vêtue d’une robe rose saumon, regardant le spectateur ; elle est la seule à le faire parmi la multitude de personnages représentés. La bacchante de Wautier se tient droite et fière, invitant le spectateur à la regarder. Mais c’est Wautier qui contrôle ce regard ; dans le tableau, un faune au teint jaunâtre tente d’attraper cette femme sûre d’elle, qui ignore son regard lubrique et ne prête pas attention à ses mains qui lui agrippent les cheveux. C’est elle qui mène la danse.


Michaelina Wautier est à l’affiche à la Royal Academy de Londres jusqu’au 21 juin 2026

The Conversation

Gabriele Neher 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. Michaelina Wautier : une peintre du baroque flamand au talent époustouflant – https://theconversation.com/michaelina-wautier-une-peintre-du-baroque-flamand-au-talent-epoustouflant-282185

Hantavirus is very different to COVID. Here’s why the ‘Andes virus’ won’t cause the next pandemic

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rhys Parry, Research Fellow, Virology, The University of Queensland

For many people, news of a virus outbreak on a cruise ship immediately brings back memories of COVID spreading when the Ruby Princess docked in Sydney in March 2020. Of the passengers and crew who disembarked, 575 had COVID. The virus then spread to the community.

So it’s understandable people are concerned that passengers from the MV Hondius need to be quarantined after potential exposure to Andes virus, a rodent-borne hantavirus.

However, the comparison with COVID only goes so far. Andes virus is serious and authorities are right to respond cautiously. But experts, including from the World Health Organization, note it doesn’t have the characteristics needed to become “the next COVID”.

As of May 11, European health authorities have reported nine cases linked to the cruise ship, including seven confirmed and two probable cases. Three deaths have been reported.

Five Australians and one New Zealander are being repatriated to Australia for quarantine and monitoring. The passengers will initially quarantine at the Centre for National Resilience near RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia.

Here’s what you need to know about Andes virus, the risk of transmission, and how it’s different to the virus that caused COVID.

How do hantaviruses spread?

Hantaviruses are a group of viruses usually carried by mice, rats and other rodents. People are most commonly infected after inhaling tiny particles of contaminated rodent urine, droppings or saliva.

Most hantaviruses are not known to spread between people. Andes virus is the exception. After the initial spillover from infected rodents, it is the only hantavirus with well-documented person-to-person transmission.

But that doesn’t mean it spreads easily between people. Further human-to-human spread is uncommon, but it can occur in close-contact settings such as households, among caregivers, during intimate contact, or after prolonged exposure in crowded or poorly ventilated indoor areas.

That is very different from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. SARS-CoV-2 spreads very efficiently through the air. People could infect others before they even realised they were sick.

Early estimates suggested each person infected with SARS-CoV-2 passed the virus to roughly two or more others, on average, in populations who had never encountered it before.

Andes virus can cause onward human-to-human transmission, but requires a perfect storm of conditions: symptomatic people in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces with close contact over time. This was the case on the MV Hondius.

This difference in transmission potential is why SARS-CoV-2 caused a pandemic and Andes virus has only produced contained outbreaks.

What are the symptoms of Andes virus?

Early symptoms of Andes virus infection can look like many other illnesses, including fever, headache, muscle aches, nausea and fatigue.

In some people, infection can progress to hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a life-threatening condition in which breathing becomes difficult.

How long after contact can you get symptoms?

The WHO recommends people exposed to Andes virus monitor for symptoms for 42 days after their last potential exposure.

This reflects the outer limit of the time between infection and symptom onset. It doesn’t mean people are infectious for 42 days.

Australian authorities have announced the returning passengers will initially spend three weeks in quarantine, with further monitoring arrangements to follow.

Melbourne’s Doherty Institute will undertake the testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which detects the virus’s genetic material and blood-based antibody testing, known as serology.

A negative test early after exposure is useful, but not always definitive. If the virus is still incubating, there may not yet be enough viral genetic material or antibody response to detect.

How does the virus progress?

The long incubation period reflects how Andes virus progresses, compared to SARS-CoV-2.

COVID symptoms typically appear within days because the virus replicates rapidly in the respiratory system.

Andes virus progresses differently. Severe disease is linked to blood-vessel dysfunction and inflammatory responses. The breathing problems associated with the complication hantavirus pulmonary syndrome aren’t caused by the virus directly destroying lung tissue, but by the immune system’s delayed response. This causes fluid to leak into the lungs and makes breathing difficult.

How deadly is it?

Fatality rates vary significantly between hantavirus species.

European and Asian hantaviruses typically cause death in less than 1–15% of cases, while hantavirus pulmonary syndrome from American strains, including Andes virus, can reach up to 50%.

For context, in 2025, eight countries across the Americas reported 229 hantavirus cases and 59 deaths. These are severe infections, but they remain rare events.

A virus doesn’t become a pandemic simply because it’s deadly.




Read more:
Hantavirus: here’s what you need to know about the infection that killed Gene Hackman’s wife, Betsy Arakawa


Can Andes virus be treated?

There is no specific antiviral drug for Andes virus. Health care for infected people focuses on close monitoring, supporting their breathing and managing complications to the heart and kidneys.

There is no licensed vaccine to prevent Andes virus.

However, there is also good news in how quickly the scientific response has come together after this outbreak started. Swiss laboratories collaborated quickly to sequence the complete genetic code of the virus from one patient and made it publicly available within days.

This gave researchers around the world a reference to compare other cases against. This can support faster confirmation of suspected cases, while helping public health teams identify which cases are linked to the outbreak and who needs monitoring or isolation.

Bottom line

The instinct to see another COVID in every viral outbreak is understandable but, in this case, misleading.

The Andes virus is dangerous to those infected, but it isn’t a good candidate for pandemic spread. It incubates slowly, typically spreads through close contact, and transmission appears most efficient when people are symptomatic.

It’s important to get the Andes virus under control but it’s not a pandemic threat like COVID.

The Conversation

Rhys Parry receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

ref. Hantavirus is very different to COVID. Here’s why the ‘Andes virus’ won’t cause the next pandemic – https://theconversation.com/hantavirus-is-very-different-to-covid-heres-why-the-andes-virus-wont-cause-the-next-pandemic-282595

In an ant colony, the queen isn’t in charge. So who is?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tanya Latty, Associate Professor in Entomology, University of Sydney

Photo by Prabir Kashyap on Unsplash

Imagine trying to build a house without a blueprint, find a shortcut through an unfamiliar city without a map, or govern a large organisation with no leaders and no meetings.

It sounds impossible. Yet tiny-brained ants, working without leaders or blueprints, have been solving problems like these for millions of years – and no, the queen isn’t the boss telling them what to do.

By almost any measure, ants are a wildly successful group of animals – there’s an estimated 20 quadrillion of them on Earth and they thrive on every continent but Antarctica.

How have these minuscule animals managed to take over the world (and our kitchens)? The answer is teamwork.

Bustling colonies

Ants are social animals that live in colonies ranging from a few individuals to vast continent-spanning supercolonies containing billions of ants.

Bustling ant colonies display many of the features we associate with human societies, including:

In humans, this level of social complexity usually involves clear governance hierarchies, with leaders and middle managers directing our activities.

But ants don’t work that way. So who is in charge in an ant colony?

The answer is simple: no one.

The queen isn’t in charge

Ant colonies are a classic example of a self-organised system, where complex behaviour emerges from the combined actions of many ants. Each follow relatively simple rules while communicating and interacting with each other.

The human brain works in a similar way: individual neurons have simple behaviours and cannot think on their own, but together they give rise to the full range of human thought and behaviour.

An ant climbs over a flower.
No boss, no problem.
Tanya Latty

The queen, whom many people assume is in charge, has little involvement in decision-making or leadership.

Instead, her role is to maintain the colony’s workforce by producing new ants.

In some ant species, workers will even kill their queens under particular conditions, such as declining productivity!

By working together, ant colonies are capable of complex behaviours and problem-solving skills far exceeding the abilities of an individual ant.

For example, some ant species run sophisticated transportation networks linking their colony to many food sources.

When a foraging worker finds a good source of food, such as some crumbs in your kitchen, she lays down drops of attractive chemicals called “pheromones” as she walks home.

Other ants in the colony are attracted to the trail, reinforcing it with more pheromones as they go. As a result, the colony can rapidly deploy large numbers of workers to quickly collect food.

While an individual ant is only aware of the foods she herself has visited, the trail network allows the colony as a whole to be “aware” of many foods.

Should a food source disappear or decline in quality, the colony can quickly refocus its efforts.

Ants can also optimise their trail networks by finding shortcuts.

Since pheromone trails evaporate over time, shorter paths that are traversed more quickly get reinforced more often. Longer paths, by contrast, receive less traffic and get reinforced less often, which in turn causes the pheromone trail to fade and become less attractive.

This simple feedback loop allows the colony to “discover” shorter routes that take less time to traverse while eliminating longer routes.

The resulting transportation network can be remarkably efficient.

Remarkable architects

Nest construction is another impressive example of the power of self-organisation.

Ant nests can be vast and intricately structured, with chambers for raising the young, food storage, and waste.

Yet no ant has a blueprint for the final nest design, nor is a boss ant in charge of directing construction activities.

Instead, ants use simple rules to create their remarkable nest architecture.

For example, in the black garden ant Lasius niger, nest building ants excavate soil and form it into small pellets.

These pellets carry chemical cues making other ants more likely to deposit their own pellets nearby.

Over time, this leads to the formation of structures such as pillars, walls, and eventually roofs, without any ant understanding the overall design.

This process, where individuals respond to cues left behind by other individuals, is called “stigmergy” and it underpins the construction of other insect-built structures such as termite mounds and honeycomb.

More humans, more problems – but not so for ants

The use of simple behavioural rules enables ants to coordinate remarkably effectively as a group.

In a study where groups were tasked with moving a T-shaped object through a tight space, human performance did not improve with group size.

When participants were instructed not to speak, performance actually declined as groups got bigger.

Similarly, it has long been known that as human group size increases, the performance of individual team members tends to decrease, a phenomenon known as the Ringelmann effect.

Ants, by contrast, showed the opposite pattern: as group size increased, their performance actually improved.

So next time you see a line of ants marching around your house, resist the urge to spray or whack them away.

Instead, take a moment to appreciate these tiny masters of teamwork.

The Conversation

Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the Education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia.

ref. In an ant colony, the queen isn’t in charge. So who is? – https://theconversation.com/in-an-ant-colony-the-queen-isnt-in-charge-so-who-is-278196

We found hundreds of huge ancient mass graves hidden in the Sahara desert

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julien Cooper, Lecturer, Department of History and Archaeology, Macquarie University

We have been on a years-long campaign of satellite remote sensing of the vast desert landscapes in Eastern Sudan.

This involved using satellite aerial imagery to systematically and painstakingly search for archaeological features in Atbai Desert of Eastern Sudan, a small part of the much larger Sahara.

Our team – which includes archaeologists from Macquarie University, France’s HiSoMA research unit, and the Polish Academy of Sciences – wanted to tell the story of this desert region between the Nile and the Red Sea, without having to excavate.

One mysterious archaeological feature stood out. We kept finding large, circular mass graves filled with the bones of people and animals, often carefully arranged around a key person at the centre.

Likely built around the fourth and third millennia BCE, all these “enclosure burial” monuments have a large round enclosure wall, some up to 80 metres in diameter, with humans and their cattle, sheep and goats buried inside.

Our new research, published in the journal African Archaeological Review, reveals how we found 260 previously unknown enclosure burials east of the Nile River, across almost 1,000km of desert.

Who built them?

Already known from a few excavated examples in the Egyptian and Sudanese deserts, these large circular burial monuments have long puzzled scholars.

What seemed once isolated examples emerge now as a consistent pattern. It is suggestive of a common nomadic culture stretching across a vast stretch of desert.

Most are within the borders of modern Sudan on the slopes of the Red Sea Hills. Unfortunately, satellite imagery alone cannot communicate the whole story of these enclosure burial builders.

The carbon dates and pottery from the few excavated monuments tell us these people lived roughly 4000–3000 BCE, just before Egyptians formed a territorial kingdom we know of as Pharaonic Egypt.

But these “enclosure burial” nomads had little to do with urbane and farming Egyptians.

Living in the desert and raising herds, these were Saharan desert nomads through and through.

A new elite?

Some enclosures show “secondary” burials arranged around a “primary” burial of a person at the centre – perhaps a chief or other important member of the community.

For archaeologists, this is important data for discerning class and hierarchy in prehistoric societies.

The question of when Saharan nomads became less egalitarian has plagued archaeologists for decades, but most agree it was around this time of the fourth millennium BCE that a distinctive “elite” class emerged.

This is still a far cry from the sort of huge divisions between ruler and ruled as seen in societies such as Egypt, with its pharaohs and farmers. However, it ushers in the first traces of inequality.

Animals held in high esteem

Cattle seem very important to these prehistoric nomads (a theory also supported by ancient local rock art in the area).

Burying themselves alongside their herd, these nomads show they held their animals in esteem.

Thousands of years later, local nomads chose to reuse these now “ancient” enclosures for their burial plots – sometimes almost 4,000 years after they were first built.

In other words, the prehistoric nomads created cemetery spaces that lasted for millennia.

What happened to these people?

No one can say for sure.

The few dates we have for these monuments cluster between 4000–3000 BCE, nearing the end of a period when the once-greener Sahara was drying, a phase scientists call the “African Humid Period”.

From north to south, the summer monsoon gradually retreated, reducing rainfall and shrinking pastures. This led nomads to abandon thirsty cattle, increase the mobility of their herds, migrate to the south or flee to the Nile.

The monuments are overwhelmingly located near what were then favourable watering spots; near rocky pools in valley floors, lakebeds and ephemeral rivers.

This tells us that when the monuments were being built, the desert was already quite challenging and dry.

At some point, as grass and bush made way for sand and rocks, keeping their prized cattle became unsustainable.

Having large herds of cattle in this desert, at this period, may have been a way of showing off an expensive and rare possession – a prehistoric nomad’s equivalent to having a Ferrari. This may help explain why cattle were frequently buried alongside their owners in enclosure burial monuments.

A bigger story

These enclosure burials are only one part of the greater story of human adaptation to climate change across North Africa.

From the Central Sahara, to Kenya and Arabia, keeping cattle, goats and sheep transformed societies. It changed the food they ate, the way they moved around, and community hierarchies.

It’s no coincidence communities changed how they buried their dead at the same time as they adopted herding lifestyles.

These burial enclosures tell us even scattered nomads were extremely well-organised people, and expert adapters.

Our discovery reshapes the story of the Sahara deserts and the prehistory of the Nile.

They provide a prologue for the monumentalism of the kingdoms of Egypt and Nubia, and an image of this region as more than pharaohs, pyramids and temples.

Sadly, many of these enclosure monuments are currently being destroyed or vandalised as a result of unregulated mining in the region. These unique burials have survived for millennia, but can disappear in less than a week.

Maria Gatto (Polish Academy of Sciences) was an author on our paper. We also want to acknowledge Alexander Carter, Tung Cheung, Kahn Emerson, Jessica Larkin, Stuart Hamilton and Ethan Simpson from Macquarie University for their contribution. We are also grateful to the National Corporation of Antiquities and Museums (Sudan).

The Conversation

Julien Cooper receives funding from the Australian Research Council, (Future Fellowship, FT230100067).

Maël Crépy receives funding from the CNRS (HiSoMA) and the Ifao (NOMADES research program).

Marie Bourgeois receives funding from Ifao (NOMADES research program).

ref. We found hundreds of huge ancient mass graves hidden in the Sahara desert – https://theconversation.com/we-found-hundreds-of-huge-ancient-mass-graves-hidden-in-the-sahara-desert-281978

Conspiracy theories: do 300,000 Kiwis really believe Canada is building an army of mutant super-raccoons?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John Kerr, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Public Health, University of Otago

Enn Li Photography/Getty Images

Four percent of Americans – roughly 12 million people – believe that “lizard people” secretly control the Earth. At least, that was the finding of an infamous 2013 public opinion survey.

Do so many people really believe such outlandish claims? Or do results like these partly reflect people giving silly answers or deliberately skewing surveys for fun?

US psychiatrist Alexander Scott believes the latter plays a significant role.

Using the survey as an example, he coined the term “the Lizardman constant” to describe the idea that a certain amount of noise and trolling will always exist in surveys about unusual beliefs.

As Scott warned: “Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehaviour – can easily overwhelm the signal.”

As researchers who study uncommon beliefs such as conspiracy theories, we wanted to investigate how this kind of cheeky trolling can muddy the waters.

Trolls and true believers

Building on earlier Australian research, we surveyed New Zealanders to test how common dishonest or joking responses were in conspiracy theory surveys.

We did this in two ways. First, we directly asked people a yes/no question at the end of the survey:

“Did you respond insincerely at any earlier point in this survey? In other words, did you give any responses that were actually just joking, trolling, or otherwise not indicating what you really think?”

Second, we included in the survey a “conspiracy theory” so ridiculous we could assume most, if not all, people who said they believed it were taking the mickey.

We asked them if they believed:

The Canadian Armed Forces have been secretly developing an elite army of genetically engineered, super intelligent, giant raccoons to invade nearby countries.

In our representative online sample of 810 New Zealanders, 8.3% of respondents confessed to being insincere in the survey.

Another 7.2% said they thought the Canadian raccoon army theory was probably or definitely true. That proportion – similar to findings from Australia – would equate to more than 300,000 adult New Zealanders.

To complicate things slightly, there was some overlap between those admitting to insincere answers and those claiming to believe the raccoon conspiracy. Combined, 13.3% of respondents fell into one or both groups – roughly one in eight people not appearing to take the survey seriously.

Importantly, these respondents were also much more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories, inflating estimates of how widespread those beliefs really are.

For instance, 6.5% of the full sample endorsed the claim that governments around the world are covering up the fact that 5G mobile networks spread coronavirus.

But once we removed the insincere responders, that figure dropped by more than half to 2.7%.

Across 13 different conspiracy theories, the estimated proportion of believers fell substantially once those respondents were excluded.



Another interesting insight from our study was that people endorsing contradictory conspiracy theories were much more likely to show signs of responding insincerely.

Previous studies have found some people appear to believe conspiracy theories that directly contradict each other. In our survey, for example, some participants agreed both that COVID-19 is a myth and that governments are covering up the fact that 5G networks spread the virus.

But nearly three-quarters of those respondents also showed signs of joking or dishonest answers.

This suggests genuinely believing contradictory conspiracy theories may be less common than previously thought.

Not every conspiracy believer is joking

Our findings add further weight to the idea that surveys may overestimate how many people truly believe some conspiracy theories – thanks, in part, to trolls.

But does that mean all conspiracy theory research is bunk?

Fortunately not. Most research in this area is not focused on counting conspiracy believers, but on understanding why people hold these beliefs and what effects they can have.

We tested several well-established findings from earlier conspiracy theory research to see whether they still held up once insincere respondents were removed from the data.

For example, previous studies have found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are more likely to see the world as a dangerous and threatening place.

We found the same pattern. In fact, removing insincere respondents made little difference to the broader relationships identified in earlier research.

Nevertheless, we recommend that future surveys include ways to gauge whether respondents are answering sincerely and account for this in the analysis. At the very least, researchers should acknowledge that trolls and joking responses can distort their results.

While our research suggests some people are taking the mickey in surveys, it also shows a significant minority genuinely appear to believe some of these claims.

In some cases – such as believing authorities are covering up the fact that the Earth is flat – this may be relatively harmless. But other conspiracy beliefs can lead to real-world harm.

Good-quality research is essential for understanding how sincere believers end up down these rabbit holes, and how those beliefs influence real-world behaviour.

Research into why people embrace conspiracy theories – and the real-world consequences of those beliefs – remains important.

But when surveys suggest millions may believe in lizard overlords or genetically engineered raccoon armies, it is also worth remembering the “Lizardman constant”: some respondents may simply be having us on.


The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rob Ross, Mathew Ling and Stephen Hill to this article.


The Conversation

John Kerr is supported by a Royal Society Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku Research Leader Fellowship.

This research was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Mathew Marques 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. Conspiracy theories: do 300,000 Kiwis really believe Canada is building an army of mutant super-raccoons? – https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-do-300-000-kiwis-really-believe-canada-is-building-an-army-of-mutant-super-raccoons-282478

Instagram can now read all users’ private messages. Will this make kids safer or just boost ad targeting?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joel Scanlan, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Law; Academic Co-Lead, CSAM Deterrence Centre, University of Tasmania

Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2019. Anthony Quintano, CC BY-NC

As of May 8 end-to-end encryption is no longer available on direct messages on Instagram.

Meta, in announcing the policy reversal, said it had done so because few people used the feature. But this has raised questions about its impact on user privacy and whether it will improve child safety on the platform.

Instagram has long been a focal point for discussion about online safety – whether in relation to body image concerns, cyberbullying or sexual extortion. This policy change by Meta directly affects how safety and moderation are implemented in private messages.

This is important considering research has found that perpetrators first contacted roughly 23% of Australian sexual extortion victims on Instagram, the second most frequent method of contact, behind Snapchat (at 50%).

What is end-to-end encryption?

End-to-end encryption is a way of scrambling a message so only the sender’s and recipient’s devices can read it. The platform carrying the message, in this case Instagram, can’t access it.

This same technology is present by default on WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, and (since late 2023) Facebook Messenger.

Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg first promised to bring end-to-end encryption across Meta’s messaging products back in 2019, under the slogan “the future is private”.

Instagram tested encrypted direct messages in 2021. It rolled them out as an opt-in feature in 2023.

End-to-end encrypted direct messages never became the default, and the low adoption rate of opting in to use the feature is Meta’s justification for removing it. As a spokesperson told The Guardian:

Very few people were opting in to end-to-end encrypted messaging in DMs, so we’re removing this option from Instagram.

There is a circular logic to this: Meta has killed off a feature it buried so deep that most users never knew it existed, then cited low usage as the reason for its removal.

What does this mean for Instagram users?

In practical terms, every message you send on Instagram now travels in a form Meta can read.

Meta’s privacy policy lists the content of messages users send and receive among the data it collects. In principle, this enables the company to use this data to personalise features, train artificial intelligence (AI) models, and deliver targeted advertising.

While Meta has publicly committed not to train its AI models on private messages unless users actively share them with Meta AI, it has made no equivalent public commitment about advertising.

That leaves open the possibility that Meta could use unencrypted Instagram direct messages for ad targeting. And without encryption, Meta’s AI commitment is now backed by policy alone, not by the technology itself.

A clear reversal

This reads as a clear reversal of Meta’s privacy-first posture which Zuckerberg announced seven years ago.

Meta has been under sustained pressure from law enforcement, regulators and child protection organisations who argue end-to-end encryption creates spaces where platforms can’t detect child sexual exploitation and grooming. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has been clear that the deployment of end-to-end encryption “does not absolve services of responsibility for hosting or facilitating online abuse or the sharing of illegal content”.

This argument deserves to be taken seriously. The harms are real and disproportionately fall on young people.

However, sexual extortion research shows perpetrators don’t tend to stay on the platform where they make first contact, with more than 50% of sexual extortion victims saying perpetrators asked them to switch platforms.

Meta still uses end-to-end encryption on its other platforms, such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, and it needs to apply a consistent approach to child safety. Predators routinely ask victims to switch platforms, so the company’s safety approach needs to work for Instagram and their end-to-end encrypted services.

A false choice

Meta and privacy advocates often frame this as a choice between end-to-end encryption or child safety. But that’s a false choice. It’s not an “either-or” situation, even if they make it sound like one.

The technology already exists to detect harmful content while keeping messages encrypted in transit. It just has to run in the right place: on the user’s device, before the device encrypts and sends the message, or after it receives and decrypts it.

On-device approaches have a contested history, and any deployment must be genuinely privacy-preserving by design. But technology companies must weigh the objection against the harms that continue to occur. A safety by design approach is needed.

On-device safety measures have been demonstrated at scale with Apple’s on-device nudity detection for images sent or received via Messages, AirDrop and FaceTime. A 2025 study demonstrated high-accuracy grooming detection using Meta’s AI model designed specifically for on-device deployment on mobile phones.

Recently, both Apple and Google have started to take measures towards app store–based age verification in some jurisdictions.

The highest-profile real-world deployment of these is Apple enabling device-level privacy-preserving age verification in the UK.

Social media and private messaging companies, along with operating system vendors (Microsoft, Apple, and Google), all have a role to play in ensuring harmful content is detected, whether or not end-to-end encryption is used. Progress has been slow. But we, as a community, need to demand more from these companies.

The Conversation

Joel Scanlan is the academic co-lead of the CSAM Deterrence Centre, which is a partnership between the University of Tasmania and Jesuit Social Services, who operate Stop It Now (Australia), a therapeutic service providing support to people who are concerned with their own, or someone else’s, feelings towards children. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, the eSafety Commissioner, Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation.

ref. Instagram can now read all users’ private messages. Will this make kids safer or just boost ad targeting? – https://theconversation.com/instagram-can-now-read-all-users-private-messages-will-this-make-kids-safer-or-just-boost-ad-targeting-282496