Ecosystems and national security used not to be mentioned in the same breath all that often – unless environmental campaigners were doing the talking. For years, climate and nature experts have struggled to get across the message that species extinctions, dead rivers and deforestation are an existential threat to people as well as animals and plants. As George Monbiot wrote last week, the publication of a government report thought to have been authored by intelligence chiefs, about the threats to the UK’s national security from biodiversity collapse, should be viewed as a step forward. The risks have become too extreme to be ignored.
The document is a national security assessment, not a scientific report. The data that it relies on comes from other sources. But the warnings that it contains about the UK’s heavy dependence on food and fertiliser imports, and the probable consequences of nature depletion, must be heeded. Originally due to be published in the autumn, the review appears to have had some sections removed. An earlier version is reported to have included warnings about the risks of “eco-terrorism” and the growing likelihood of war between China, India and Pakistan due to competition over a shrinking water supply from the Himalayas.
The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, is one of the cabinet’s most experienced politicians. On carbon emissions targets, Labour has largely stuck to its guns and not allowed the siren voices of the populist right to undermine the UK’s green transition. By contrast, Kemi Badenoch’s pledge to repeal the Climate Change Act was arguably her most reckless decision since becoming Tory leader. But under this government, as under previous ones, the rest of the environment agenda is much lower-profile – with the arguable exception of the sewage crisis and failing water companies. The environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, has only been in her first cabinet job for five months.
The framing of nature loss as a national security issue should help to focus minds across government. Food and energy security are among areas where policy action is most urgently needed. But in our era of climate breakdown, no area of human activity is insulated.
In an interconnected world, adaptation and resilience strategies must also be outward-facing. This means recognising that risks are not evenly or justly distributed geographically, and accepting responsibility for helping the people and places that face the most acute threats. This imperative is all the stronger when looking at countries, including former British colonies, that are far poorer than the UK and for whom it is far harder to prepare and adapt.
The report cites large-scale tree-planting in Malawi as proof that nature restoration schemes can be effective. In Brazil, the environment minister, Marina Silva, has been a forceful advocate for protection of the Amazon. But overall, global progress on nature restoration is nowhere near where it needs to be, and the threat of ecosystem collapse in the world’s rainforests remains acute.
The 2022 Kunming-Montreal biodiversity pact was supposed to set a global process in train, running in parallel with the Cop climate talks. Due to the wrecking tactics of Donald Trump and others, the UN’s efforts in both areas are in an alarmingly weak state. But as this report spells out, nature loss cannot be ignored any more safely than global heating can. Its message – that “nature is a foundation of national security” – must be heard.
