The UK government recently issued a stark warning that global biodiversity loss and the accelerating collapse of critical ecosystems pose a direct threat to national security, food supplies, and economic stability. The new National Security Assessment on Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security, published by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, outlines a “reasonable worst-case scenario” in which the decline of the world’s most important ecosystems triggers geopolitical instability, supply chain shocks, and existential risks to the UK’s prosperity.

The report identifies six ecosystems of strategic importance—including the Amazon and Congo rainforests, boreal forests, the Himalayas, and South East Asia’s coral reefs and mangroves—and warns that all are on a pathway to collapse if current degradation continues. Severe depletion could drive water insecurity, reduced crop yields, fisheries collapse, and the spread of novel zoonotic diseases, with implications reaching UK shores through disrupted global markets and heightened competition for resources.

The assessment stops short of policy prescriptions, but its conclusions are unambiguous: without major intervention to halt ecosystem decline, cascading risks will intensify, threatening the UK’s food security and international stability. The document’s unusually plain language and security framing have attracted attention across the environmental and resilience communities.

Naomi Conway, Palladium’s UK Nature Director, says the clarity of the report is precisely what is needed. “It’s being applauded for being a plain, clearspeaking piece,” she says. “For the right reasons. We see the consequences of biodiversity loss every day, especially in food production. We work with farmers and estate managers in England and Scotland who are already experiencing increased levels of flooding, drought or wildfire that’s affecting their productivity,” she says.

“In my view, it is positive that these very real threats are now acknowledged at the highest level.”

The assessment echoes a growing shift in global thinking, treating nature not as a luxury but as vital infrastructure, a foundation of food, water, clean air, and economic stability. That framing has “picked up in the last year,” Conway notes, and reflects a “growing understanding of nature as critical infrastructure… something fundamental rather than nice to have. Because once it degrades, it affects our security.”

The government’s boldest line in the report: “countries best placed to adapt are those that invest in ecosystem protection and restoration,” lands as common sense to many in the natural capital sector. “For us, it’s heartening to see this statement,” Conway says. “It presents efforts to protect and restore nature as something that delivers an adaptation advantage, something that is an easy win.”

The report also introduces language more commonly found in sustainability circles than in national security strategy, referencing the concept of planetary boundaries, central to doughnut economics, and warning that current pressures on ecosystems are pushing humanity beyond safe operating limits.

“To see that terminology in a hard-edged national security document is surprising, in a good way,” Conway says.

“It’s not about degrowth; it’s about living within our means. These ideas have to date been outliers, and now they’re finding their way into official national reviews,” she adds.

Conway praises the assessment’s accessible design. “It’s short, not overly technical, and has a glossary. It speaks in a neutral, plain-speaking way.” That neutrality, she argues, may help break the polarisation that has long plagued environmental debates. “This moves away from environmental issues being framed in political terms, as something positioned in relation to ‘left’ or ‘right’. It speaks the unifying language of national security, which raises the stakes.”

Still, the report is only a starting point. “One document doesn’t change the world,” she says. “But a powerful document like this can influence more communication, future policy, and harmonious ideas can start to circulate. This thinking can move into the mainstream, leading to a greater chance of action.”

As for next steps, Conway is clear: the UK must accelerate investment in ecosystem resilience and protection. “We know what to do. We know where the catchment areas are that ensure clean, filtered water. The cost of restoring peatlands, for example, you can put a figure on it, and once it’s done, it’s done. It’s low-hanging fruit.”

Ultimately, she hopes the assessment empowers farmers, landowners, companies, and investors to act with confidence. “If this helps people feel that what they’re doing genuinely contributes to a national high priority area of work, then we’ll see more action and faster.”

And while the assessment focuses on global ecosystems rather than the UK itself, Conway stresses that no nation is insulated. “We are not disconnected. When something goes wrong in those regions, we all feel the impact. This is everyone’s problem.”