Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Oliver Wigmore, Senior Research Fellow, Antarctic Research Centre, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Thousands of slips in Tairāwhiti in January. The loss of eight lives in the Bay of Plenty later that month. And, days ago, landslides that damaged homes, forced evacuations and blocked roads across the North Island.

With each bout of extreme rainfall in New Zealand, landslides are becoming an increasingly familiar consequence.

They are already one of Aotearoa’s most costly and dangerous natural hazards, causing an estimated NZ$250–300 million in damage each year and, over the past 200 years, more deaths than volcanic eruptions and earthquakes combined.

In a warming world, the key challenge now facing scientists is understanding just where in New Zealand landslides are most likely to strike in the future.

New advances in technology are now helping us do this, with the potential to inform hazard planning – and ultimately save lives.

Why a warming climate means more landslides

New Zealand has always been highly exposed to landslides due to its steep terrain and weak sedimentary rocks. In many areas, this susceptibility has been increased by the removal of protective forest cover.

High rainfall has also long provided a trigger. As soils become saturated by heavy downpours, slopes weaken until they can no longer hold together – sometimes failing suddenly and catastrophically.

It is here where climate change is compounding the risk.

Climate projections show extreme rainfall events are likely to intensify as the atmosphere warms, particularly under higher emissions scenarios. Powerful storms once considered rare are expected to occur more often.

More vulnerable slopes are thus likely to be pushed closer to failure more frequently, endangering the communities and infrastructure below them.

To respond effectively, New Zealand needs a clearer, nationally consistent picture of potential hot-spots for these rainfall-triggered landslides, both today and in the decades ahead.

Assembling this picture has been made challenging by the sheer complexity involved in landslides. But today, scientists are far better placed to untangle the dynamics that cause them.

We can use powerful statistical methods known as machine learning, a subfield of artificial intelligence. By analysing observations of where landslides have occurred in past storms, alongside the underlying environmental conditions that increase landslide susceptibility.

The large datasets required to support machine learning are now widely available, thanks to the rapid growth of satellite imagery and derived products.

This technology has made it easier to map landslide damage immediately after a storm, and to measure the underlying environmental conditions topography, forest height and land cover and use across large areas.

Machine learning algorithms then learn relationships between these different datasets. This allows us to build models that help us to better understand and ultimately anticipate where rainfall-triggered landslides are more likely to occur.

Once models are developed, they can be combined with rainfall forecasts to generate on-demand landslide hazard maps, or be used to assess a region’s susceptibility under different climate scenarios.

A glimpse at future risk

My current research uses these very approaches to examine how extreme rainfall interacts with New Zealand’s slopes today, and how that relationship may shift under climate change.

Preliminary findings from this study suggest that, under higher-emissions climate scenarios with increases in rainfall intensity, the areas of New Zealand susceptible to rainfall-triggered landslides will expand.

Importantly, this relationship appears non-linear: because many slopes are already near critical thresholds, even modest increases in extreme rainfall can result in much larger increases in susceptible areas.

Tall, established forests can help buffer this risk by strengthening soils and intercepting rainfall.

Yet, under the more intense future storms modelled in these scenarios, even forested slopes will become more vulnerable. Limiting further warming therefore remains critical to reduce risk in the long-term.

These insights support more strategic land-use decisions, such as where to increase permanent forest cover and where to limit high-risk activities.

It can also help authorities understand the potential long-term costs of maintaining infrastructure in high-risk zones and support difficult but necessary conversations about which places may be too risky to inhabit at all.

New Zealand will always be prone to landslides. But being able to identify where risk is highest – and how it is changing – means better decisions about where and how we build.

For communities in the potential path of future landslides, acting on that information today could help reduce the harm of tomorrow’s storms.

– ref. Climate change means more landslides in NZ – but new tech can help reduce the risk – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-means-more-landslides-in-nz-but-new-tech-can-help-reduce-the-risk-278518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Quain, Senior Lecturer, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney

Overweight and obesity are among the most common conditions veterinarians see in both dogs and cats.

Yet weight-loss plans for pets are frequently unsuccessful, with a high drop-out rate. In one study, over half of participating dogs actually gained weight.

In a new study published in the journal Animals, we argue weight management in pets often fails because we view it too narrowly – as a nutritional problem that can be solved simply by feeding the animals less.

Yet evidence suggests to manage weight in pets, we also need to attend to animal behaviour, and human-animal interactions are a huge part of that.

How do I know if my pet is overweight or obese?

Body condition scoring is the most common method vets use to classify animals as underweight, ideal weight or overweight.

The Global Pet Obesity Initiative uses a scale of 1–9, with a body condition score of 5 representing ideal body weight.

Each category between 1–9 represents a 10% difference in weight. For example, an animal with a body condition score of 6 out of 9 is 10% overweight, while a score of 7 out of 9 means the pet is 20% overweight. Obesity is defined as having a body condition score of 8 out of 9 (30% overweight) or above.

How common are overweight and obesity in pets?

Globally, about half of the pet dog and cat population is overweight or obese, with middle-aged pets most commonly affected.

The largest study (conducted in the United States), comprising almost 5 million dogs and more than 1 million cats, reported excess weight and obesity in 50% and 13% of adult dogs respectively, and in 45% and 22% of cats. High rates of overweight and obesity have been reported in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and China.

Overweight and obesity are more common in animals who are highly motivated by food, those with reduced physical activity (including indoor-housed cats) and, in some studies, those who’ve been desexed. Some breeds, such as Labrador retrievers, have a genetic predisposition to obesity.

Owner activity levels, lifestyle and the nature of their bond with pets also influence the pets’ risk of obesity. When it comes to animals they love, many owners have “weight blindness” – they don’t even see their pets as overweight.

Why should we worry about overweight and obese pets?

Just like for humans, overweight and obesity in pets are associated with increased risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, skin disease, and cancer.

Excess weight exacerbates conditions like osteoarthritis, and increases the risk of heat stroke. Lifespan is reduced in obese dogs and cats.

Carrying excess weight can prevent animals from engaging in behaviours like exercise, play and interaction with other animals and people. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association describes obesity as the most important global animal welfare issue.

Why does traditional weight management fail?

The standard approach to help your pet lose weight involves calorie restriction, increased exercise and regular weighing. It sounds so simple. And yet this approach often fails.

Pets who are fed less show hunger and increase their food-seeking behaviour, making owners feel guilty. They eat their reduced portions quickly, using the additional time to look for or demand more food.

Animals accustomed to receiving treats or scraps from the family dinner table may protest their exclusion from familiar routines. Such behaviour is difficult to resist – many owners succumb and provide treats.

Caloric restriction alters metabolism, which can initially increase weight gain, and the lack of progress can be demotivating. Some dogs and cats are fearful in veterinary settings, and owners find regular weigh-ins too traumatic.

All these factors can put owners (and animals) off sticking with the weight-loss plan.

How to help your pet lose weight successfully

1. Use accurate information to formulate a weight management plan

All pets should be regularly weighed and scored on their body condition. Pet owners can use body condition scoring sheets for dogs and cats to do this at home.

Fearful pets who don’t like being weighed at the vet can be weighed on home scales. Importantly, take note of what your pet eats (including treats and scavenged foods) and share this information with your vet.

A complete dietary history helps in planning a diet compatible with your pet’s preferences. High-calorie foods could be substituted for ones with fewer calories, for example.

2. Diets should be low calorie, high satisfaction

Weight-loss diets should be nutritionally complete. The best diets are those that are reduced in calories, but still leave animals feeling satisfied after a meal.

Low-calorie treats can be factored into the daily ration so that animals don’t miss out.

3. Provide opportunities to hunt, find and forage food

Feeding the daily ration in multiple smaller meals can burn additional calories and increase time spent eating.

Allowing animals to “hunt” for food by providing food in puzzle feeders, scatter feeding or setting up “treasure hunts” allows them to express natural behaviours. Animals may use up more calories and experience more pleasure from foods they can chew. They may also spend less time “asking” owners for food.

4. Be prepared for begging

Animals used to receiving table scraps will dial up their attention-seeking behaviour in an increased effort to be rewarded. It can be hard to resist such antics, but rewarding begging with a food morsel will only encourage pets to intensify their efforts.

Instead, try to preempt them by providing a rewarding alternative activity (such as giving a dog a toy to chew on their bed) while you eat your meal in peace.

Non-food related activities, including sensory gardens and digging pits, climbing opportunities or interactive toys may also provide suitable distractions.

Weight loss in pets is about giving them more years of good-quality life. With the right tools – not just calorie counting – we can keep our pets happy and healthy.

– ref. Is your cat or dog overweight? Why simply feeding less doesn’t always help – https://theconversation.com/is-your-cat-or-dog-overweight-why-simply-feeding-less-doesnt-always-help-280807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Van Amber, Senior Lecturer in Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University

As the weather cools in the southern hemisphere and energy prices climb, many of us are trying to stay warm without cranking the heating.

The doona – or duvet, if you prefer – is central to that battle.

But with shelves stocked with everything from inexpensive polyester duvets to down doonas costing thousands, what’s actually worth your money?

Fortunately, there’s solid textile science to guide you – and it’s less complicated than the marketing suggests.

It’s mostly about thickness

Here’s what most doona advertising glosses over: all doonas of the same thickness provide roughly the same warmth, regardless of filling material.

That’s because a doona’s job is simply to trap air around your body – your own body does the heating.

So no, an expensive goose down doona is not automatically “warmer” than a cheaper polyester one from a discount retailer.

Thickness equals warmth – though in practice, determining how thick a doona actually is can be surprisingly difficult, as manufacturers often don’t provide this information.

But warmth isn’t the only thing that matters.

Down and feathers

Down is the soft, fluffy clusters that grow next to a bird’s skin for insulation – distinct from the tougher outer feathers, which are heavier and less effective at trapping air.

Down creates enormous loft (thickness) with very little weight, making it feel light and airy.

Down quilts are also marketed as being highly breathable. They allow moisture (sweat) to move through the quilt relatively freely, so you’re less likely to overheat.

Well-cared-for down doonas can last decades. However, they’re an animal product, and while most commercially available down is a byproduct of the meat industry, an unknown proportion globally still comes from live-plucked birds – a practice banned in many places but not eliminated.

Conscientious shoppers can look for products certified to the Responsible Down Standard.

Down doonas are generally the most expensive available, and not all downs are the same.

The most common types are duck and goose, with goose down generally considered superior (larger down cluster, higher loft). But both are marketed similarly.

For the best quality, look for higher “fill power”, meaning the down clusters are larger and trap more air. This results in a thicker and lighter weight doona.

For the truly committed, Icelandic eiderdown (ethically collected from the nests of Eider ducks without harming the birds) represents the gold standard – but they can cost upwards of $A30,000.

Wool is a strong contender

A wool quilt is the closest natural alternative to feathers.

It doesn’t quite match down for loft, but it’s not far behind – and it brings some unique extras.

Wool absorbs volatile organic compounds (a class of indoor air contaminants). Research suggests it has a meaningful “buffering” effect on moisture, moving sweat away from your body significantly better than polyester.

Like down, however, wool is another animal product. Depending on the source of the wool, it may be a byproduct of the meat industry.

While shearing sheep is essential for the animal’s health, farming practices such as tail docking and mulesing (where flesh is cut from the lamb’s buttock area, to reduce the risk of flystrike infection) may still spark concern.

What about cotton, polyester and bamboo?

Cotton is better at moving sweat away from your body than polyester, though not quite as effective as wool. It’s also generally the easiest to care for – a solid choice for budget-conscious shoppers who still want a natural fibre.

If you sleep hot, think carefully before choosing polyester. Synthetic fibres absorb very little moisture, meaning sweat has to travel through air spaces alone, and water vapour doesn’t move efficiently through polyester materials.

The result: that cosy warmth at bedtime can turn into sweaty discomfort by 2am.

Bamboo also deserves a mention, though mostly as a caution. Bamboo-derived fibres (almost always viscose or rayon) are produced by chemically dissolving raw bamboo down to its components, then extruding it as semi-synthetic fibres. Claims that bamboo products are inherently antibacterial or uniquely eco-friendly are generally unsubstantiated – a classic case of greenwashing.

What if I’m allergic to dust mites?

One 2002 New Zealand study found higher levels of dust mite allergens in synthetic doonas and pillows compared to natural alternatives such as down and wool.

Regardless of filling, practical steps – such as putting woven fabric dust mite covers on mattresses and pillows, regular washing in warm or hot water, and tumble drying – can help reduce allergens.

The bed as a system

Whatever you choose, always read and follow the care and laundry instructions.

Look for doonas with internal “baffles,” which create separate compartments that keep filling evenly distributed even through washing.

Air regularly, use a doona cover, spot clean as needed, and if you’re uncertain about washing, take it to a dry cleaner for deeper cleans.

Adding a wool blanket between your sheet and doona (or a wool underlay on top of the mattress) can boost warmth and breathability; keeping the wool layer closest to your body is where it does its best work absorbing moisture.

Similarly, two lighter doonas layered together will likely be as warm as one thick one.

In this way, it helps to think of your bed as a system rather than focusing on the doona alone.

– ref. The science of cosiness: a textiles expert explains feather down, bamboo, polyester duvets – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-cosiness-a-textiles-expert-explains-feather-down-bamboo-polyester-duvets-280450

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Romain Fathi, Associate Professor, School of History, ANU / Chercheur Associé at the Centre d’Histoire de Sciences Po, Australian National University

The United States under President Donald Trump and the European Union have a complicated relationship. On one hand, European countries and the US have built some of the strongest alliances since the end of the second world war. On the other, since the start of Trump’s second term in 2025, they have openly clashed on significant issues: tariffs, NATO contributions, Palestinian statehood, Israel’s interventionism, Ukraine support levels and Greenland’s sovereignty.

Trump’s sudden war on Iran is the latest of these clashes, but it is distinctive because it is shaking the world’s economy. The US war on Iran, alongside Israel’s war on Lebanon, is accelerating a notable reshaping of European alliances and strategic thinking about the union’s future.

The EU has more than 450 million inhabitants, and its GDP is nearly on par with that of the US or China. Despite its polymorphic nature, and in fact perhaps because of it, it is a world player that can exercise considerable sway over international affairs.

European leaders are now attempting to drive a lasting ceasefire, and perhaps even peace, between the US and Iran, with the aim of reopening the strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.

A non-UN/NATO sanctioned conflict

EU countries believe in the rules-based order and international institutions. This is not only because of their democratic constitution and values, but also because they offer them better protection than “might makes right”.

Trump’s unilateral war on Iran sits well beyond international conventions. It was neither sanctioned by a UN mandate or resolution, nor approved by NATO. As a result, European leaders have refused to contribute.

Spain and Italy have outwardly refused to allow US weapon-carrying planes bound for the Iran conflict to use their bases. Meanwhile, France is taking a more case-by-case approach in authorising or declining use of its airspace as part of operations linked to the conflict.

Spain, Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom have also refused to send direct military support to contribute to Trump’s war. However, France and the UK are willing to deploy within a peace or maritime security framework once the war is over.

Europe united, at last?

Trump’s war on Iran has accelerated a much deeper, more significant process: the coordination of European leaders on central issues such as European strategic independence in defence, diplomacy and energy.

Since Trump’s return to the Oval Office, there has been a subtle but important diversification of the EU’s diplomatic and military agreements with regional partners. Six such agreements have been signed by the EU, followed by a dozen more bilateral agreements of its member states with other countries.

This greater European coordination is being validated and reinforced by the war in Iran. The global disruption in the production and circulation of petro-based products generated by the near total closure of the Straight of Hormuz is prompting urgent European responses.

On April 17, in Paris, UK and French leaders Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, flanked by their German and Italian counterparts Friedrich Merz and Giorgia Meloni, co-presided over a conference on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. They were joined by 49 other countries, with more than half of the EU’s member states present alongside representatives of EU institutions and international organisations.

The meeting proposed the “full, immediate, and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz”. The leaders agreed to start planning, from London next week, a neutral mission to guarantee safety and free passage in the strait.

The war in Iran and Trump’s criticisms of the pope have ruptured Trump’s relationship with Meloni, whose electoral base has grown worried about the US president’s unpredictability.

A shifting tide

For a time, Trump and the MAGA movement had worked hard, and somewhat successfully, to drive a wedge between European leaders. They supported the far right in Germany, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Meloni in Italy.

But, just three days before Meloni arrived in Paris, Orbán faced an enormous electoral defeat. During the 16 years of his iron-fist rule in Hungary, the pro-Russian Orbán had been a critic of Europe, creating considerable headaches for the EU by blocking a range of initiatives and providing sensitive information to his friend Vladimir Putin. His replacement by a more moderate leader, Péter Magyar, has sparked significant hope in European chancelleries for greater unity.

Read more: What Viktor Orbán’s election loss means for Putin, Trump and the rise of right-wing populism

The internal divisions that Trump relied on to deal with Europe are eroding.

Furthermore, his threats to acquire Greenland only months ago were met by immediate European reactions such as putting a commercial agreement with the US on ice, launching operation “Arctic Endurance”, and affirming Danish and European sovereignty. The EU has once again shown its ability to resist Washington’s pressures and affirm its strategic autonomy.

Where now for Europe?

These episodes in national and international affairs have prepared the ground for a more united approach to the current crisis. European leaders, so often hampered by divisions exacerbated by Russia and the US, are now in a unique position to weigh in on the current Iran crisis and the shock it is delivering to the global economy.

This is because the concerns that unite them – energy security, potential inflation and unemployment – overrule any ideological affinity towards Moscow or Washington.

Besides greater diplomatic integration of European member states, the current crisis is also a catalyst for the European Commission to accelerate its efforts to limit consumption of fossil fuel, safeguard supply networks and accelerate the electrification of Europe’s economies through nuclear and renewables.

Paradoxically, the Iran and Hormuz crises have – as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did in 2022 – driven further European integration. This renewed faith in a European voice is happening both between member states and between European institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.

This rapprochement between European leaders is starting to yield outcomes beyond the Iranian crisis. Visiting Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on April 20, Macron declared he was “reasonably optimistic” for a “new era in Europe”, starting with more support for Ukraine, previously vetoed by the departed Orban.

The significant disruptions created by Trump’s attack on Iran may well have the side effect of a more autonomous and sovereign Europe. Despite the tensions between the US and European states, all have an interest in a peaceful Iran – and Ukraine.

For some in Europe, the war in Iran may be resolved amicably if further collaboration is achieved through US support in Ukraine.

– ref. How the war in Iran has brought European countries closer together – without Trump – https://theconversation.com/how-the-war-in-iran-has-brought-european-countries-closer-together-without-trump-281025

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duygu Yengin, Associate Professor of Economics, Adelaide University

Right now, courts across Australia are grappling with a difficult legal question. How do you put a dollar value on the cultural and spiritual harm done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples when their Country has been damaged or taken away?

In February, the Federal Court awarded the Gudanji, Yanyuwa, and Yanyuwa-Marra Traditional Owners A$54 million for “intergenerational and enduring” cultural and spiritual loss caused by the expansion of the McArthur River Mine in the Northern Territory.

This was only the second compensation award for cultural loss made by federal courts in Australian history, following a landmark 2019 case.

There are still major Native Title rulings where compensation is yet to be decided. These include the Gumatj/Yunupingu case in the Northern Territory and the Yindjibarndi Ngurra claim in Western Australia. Both are widely regarded as major tests of how both economic and cultural loss are assessed.

But perhaps surprisingly, unlike economic damages, there is no formal valuation method for cultural loss. Our research aims to address this need.

‘There is no algorithm’

It’s been more than three decades since the landmark 1992 Mabo decision overturned the myth of terra nullius (land belonging to no one) and recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have a legal claim to their traditional lands. This led to the establishment of the Native Title Act.

Since then, the legal system has largely been focused on questions of who owns traditional lands and addressing economic loss, not how to compensate for the cultural loss when land is damaged or has been taken away.

This changed in 2019 with the Timber Creek decision, when the High Court decided to award the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples about $2.5 million, including – for the first time – $1.3 million for cultural and spiritual harm.

This year’s McArthur River Mine ruling awarded $54 million for cultural and spiritual loss, as well as $743,408 for economic loss.

Currently, there is still no formal method to asses cultural losses. As Justice Katrina Banks-Smith noted in the McArthur River Mine case:

Where there is no algorithm, no tariff and little precedent, forming a reasoned view as to that figure is complex.

This stands in contrast to compensation for economic loss. This is assessed using established valuation principles drawn from compulsory acquisition law.

Read more: Landmark High Court decision guides how compensation for native title losses will be determined

Revealing what matters most

If we want to build a consistent, clear and fair framework for cultural loss compensation, we have to start with what Traditional Owners value most. Our research (which is yet to be peer-reviewed) asks those questions.

We worked with 30 people from two Aboriginal Nations using a discrete choice experiment, a method that helps reveal people’s priorities when market prices don’t exist.

Participants came from metropolitan, regional and remote areas. Roughly half had direct experience negotiating Native Title.

Each participant first spoke about their views on land. Then, they completed an experiment, making multiple choices between pairs of hypothetical land parcels described as significant for combinations of the following reasons:

• governance and control value
• cultural and spiritual value
• economic value
• community ties value
• environmental value.

What we found

Cultural and spiritual values dominated almost every comparison with other values attached to land. It emerged as the top priority in about 85% of cases.

When we look at the overall pattern of choices, these values were also far more influential than economic considerations – more than 30 times as important in shaping decisions.

Governance and control came next, showing the deep importance of self-determination. Community connections and environmental stewardship were in the middle, while economic benefits consistently ranked lowest.

However, participants still emphasised that economic outcomes matter. As National Native Title Council Chief Executive Jamie Lowe has pointed out, they represent lost economic development and investment that compounds over time.

A starting point

So, how could this work in practice? This kind of evidence could be used to bring more structure to compensation decisions.

In future rulings, a discrete choice experiment approach, like ours, could help estimate how much cultural loss matters in relative terms – translating that into a corresponding compensation amount.

Right now, courts rely on judicial judgement, anthropological evidence and competing claims to assess cultural loss. But there is no consistent way to convert those considerations into compensation figures.

Why getting it right matters for everyone

Valuing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land properly isn’t just about fairness – it matters for everyone. Globally, Indigenous Peoples manage at least a quarter of the world’s land. Much of it is central to renewable energy projects, conservation and other development plans.

In Australia, nearly half of all new renewable energy projects needed for the net-zero transition – from solar and wind to storage and transmission – sit on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land.

With pending Native Title claims, almost 80% of critical energy and minerals projects could require negotiation with these communities.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Country is more than just land; it’s lore, kin, ancestry and identity. It’s a nurturing mother that provides for social, spiritual, cultural and material needs.

Western systems see land very differently: as a commodity to buy, sell or trade, with a market price.

Without a clear way to measure cultural and spiritual values – and long-term harm – they can be overlooked or undervalued, leaving communities without fair outcomes.

– ref. Why Native Title rulings need a system to value cultural loss – https://theconversation.com/why-native-title-rulings-need-a-system-to-value-cultural-loss-279743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowan Light, Lecturer in History, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

In 1916, in the middle of the Great War, 2nd Lieutenant Leonard (Len) James Shaw of the 2nd Auckland Battalion sent a pressed Flanders poppy in folded paper to his niece Jessie Osborne in Waikato.

Shaw had picked the poppy at night from his trench on the Western Front. His sporadic correspondence with Jessie was a small but vital connection to his family and home.

“I thought you might like some little thing,” he wrote in an accompanying letter, “pieces of shells are too big to send, and I think flowers much nicer.”

Shaw was following a centuries-long practice of using material objects to make sense of calamitous violence. Today, the poppy reminds us of the role those objects play in how we remember war.

In my 2023 book Why Memory Matters, I explored different “languages of memory” – written stories of the past, but also the sites, images and practices we use to make sense of change.

I would add to this the objects that texture and configure our lives, and which we imbue with values and meanings over time. Academics call this “material history”.

Since the 19th century, soldiers have collected objects to make sense of their experience. In the New Zealand Wars, we know British soldiers looted battlefields and wāhi tapu (sacred sites) as part of the regimental prize system.

When Anzacs such as Shaw travelled to Egypt and London during the first world war, they sought out souvenirs as military tourists that would act as repositories of challenging memories.

In Shaw’s case, personal tokens became family memories and then cultural artefacts. In 2002, the descendants of Jessie Pearson (née Osborne) donated Shaw’s poppy to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Tāmaki Paenga Hira.

I’m interested in how objects travel through families and museums and change the meaning of war over time. A brief material history of the poppy suggests it’s one of the most potent examples of this process.

How the poppy spread

After 1918, the popularity of John McCrae’s famous poem In Flanders Fields saw the cultural spread and sale of poppies in Britain and France to bolster morale and raise funds to support the orphans and widows of soldiers.

This reflected the industrial scale of the war: poppies, like medals, were mass-produced by associations such as the British Legion factory, which produced an early type made from cloth. Poignantly, the factory employed ex-servicemen who had been severely disabled during the war.

The rise of the poppy as a postwar emblem also showed how materials were repurposed to remember the fallen, through commemorative practices that emerged in the 1920s, such as Poppy Day. As early as 1923, New Zealanders were trying to import poppy seeds from Flanders to grow and sell as mementos.

There was a quirk here: in Britain, the poppy was (and still is) associated with the remembrance of the Armistice on November 11, which New Zealanders also observed.

But the delay in shipping silk and cloth poppies from Europe meant the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (the RSA), repurposed them for April 25. Poppy Day has taken place in the lead up to Anzac Day every year since 1922 (other than 2020 because of COVID).

This connection created another quirk: New Zealanders now associate the original Flanders poppy with Gallipoli, transplanted both literally and figuratively.

Part of Poppy Day’s appeal lay in its imperial and international resonance, as the allied nations turned to protecting some semblance of global peace in institutions such as the League of Nations.

Crucially, as Anzac Day morphed into a solidly male veterans’ ritual, selling poppies was also something civilians, especially women’s groups, could lead. In photographic archives we see groups of women carefully pinning flowers to the chests of veterans.

Historians estimate that by the end of the second world war, one in every two New Zealanders wore the red flower of remembrance.

A fiercely protected symbol

I’ve written previously about the increasing public ownership of Anzac Day after 1965 as the original Anzacs passed away, a change symbolised by the 1978 plastic poppy.

It’s significant the WW100 commission, established to mark the 2015 centenary of the first world war in New Zealand, made the poppy its symbol.

In 2026, the RSA’s decision to produce a biodegradable, paper version is a return to old practices. Despite its imperial origins, the poppy is still seen as a national symbol today, one that is fiercely protected.

The Auckland War Memorial Museum introduced a Rainbow-friendly poppy alongside the traditional red flower in 2021, which provoked the ire of some conservative groups.

You can now leave a “virtual poppy” at the museum’s online cenotaph, which records those New Zealanders who have served and died in wartime. Len Shaw is remembered among them.

A month after sending the poppy home, he was killed at the Battle of Broodseinde in the third Ypres campaign, a devastating action that wiped out the officers of the 6th (Hauraki) Company.

Shaw was identified by his binoculars and pocketbook, and buried shortly after in a small village outside Cambrai. The poppy that recorded his war experience became a memento of his death for a grief-wracked Auckland family far from the ruins of the frontline.

Understanding this history allows us to glimpse the deeper significance of pinning a small poppy to our chests in 2026, and how we are wearing memories of war that echo down from the 20th century into our cultural life today.

– ref. Anzac Day 2026: how the poppy has endured as our symbol of war and remembrance – https://theconversation.com/anzac-day-2026-how-the-poppy-has-endured-as-our-symbol-of-war-and-remembrance-280911