Nature Risk is Now a National Security Threat

Betsy Hickman

Global Lead for Nature

North America

Close

Betsy Hickman

Betsy specialises in nature-based strategy, helping organisations build resilience and deliver nature-positive outcomes aligned with global sustainability goals.

Contact Betsy Hickman View full profile

Table of contents

• Why this assessment matters
• What this means for business
• The economic signal
• Nature risk in the boardroom
• From awareness to ownership
• No-regrets actions
• In the direction of nature action
• From compliance to strategic advantage

Share this article

• Share via Linkedin
• Share via Facebook
• Share via X
• Share via Email

The UK Government’s new Nature Security Assessment on Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security marks a profound shift in how nature is being framed: not as an environmental concern, but as a core pillar of economic and strategic infrastructure.  

For business leaders, the implications are unequivocal: nature risk is no longer peripheral. It is now a material driver of supply chain resilience, geopolitical stability, asset valuation, and long-term growth. 

This moment represents a tipping point for how boards govern nature-related risk. Leaders who integrate nature into enterprise risk management and capital allocation now will build strategic advantage. Those who delay will inherit tightening constraints, rising volatility, and higher cost of capital. 

Why this assessment changes the category entirely 

The most important part of the UK Government’s publication is not buried in a technical annex. It is in the title: 

Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and national security 

This is not the language of an environmental NGO or campaigner. It is the language of national security professionals. It reframes nature loss as a core strategic risk – on equal footing with other national level security concerns such as energy reliability, cyber threats, and geopolitical volatility 

The report is explicit: 

• “Nature is a foundation of national security.” 
• “Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.” 
• “Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.” 

This framing matters because security assessments are designed to confront systemic vulnerabilities and stress test worst-case scenarios. Their core purpose is to examine how society functions when critical supporting systems begin to fail. 

They ask one simple question: what happens when the systems you rely on stop performing? 

Nature is one of those systems. 

What this means for business 

When ecosystems degrade, the consequences rarely arrive neatly. They arrive as: 

• Pricing volatility in key commodities 
• Operational shocks from supply chain disruptions
• Higher insurance costs and reduced underwriting appetite
• Logistics breakdowns and price shocks 
• Policy intervention and regulatory tightening 
• Workforce health and productivity risks 

This is why nature risk is now best understood as a business continuity concern. 

Boards understand how to address compounding risk. This assessment underscores that now is the time to apply that discipline to nature. 
 
Nature risk exposure is not confined neatly to the border of the UK. While this is one nation’s assessment, the findings are already ripping through supply chains, commodity markets, and ecological systems that keep powering our global economy. 

The UK Government is clear that biodiversity loss can affect the economy through: 

• Food supply and water security
• Trade disruption and commodity price shocks
• Health risks and disease dynamics 
• Wider geopolitical effects 

And crucially, this exposure does not sit politely inside national borders. It sits in supply chains, commodity markets, and ecological systems that keep commercial life functioning. 

The economic signal boards should not ignore 

The economic case is converging fast: 

• Global estimates place the annual value of ecosystem services at around US $33 trillion, far exceeding most national assessments and underscoring the materiality of nature as an economic asset. 
• The Dasgupta Review makes the case that the economy is embedded within nature, not external to it. If we treat the natural world as an endless warehouse, we will eventually find the shelves empty.
• The World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report names biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as one of the most severe global risks of the coming decade. 
• Our global economy is fundamentally dependent on nature, with an estimated US $58 trillion in global GDP – more than half of the world’s total – moderately or highly reliant on ecosystem services such as pollination, water regulation, soil fertility, and climate stability. 
• Nature loss already carries a steep financial price: the five key drivers of degradation – land/sea use change, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive species – pose an annual economic cost of up to USD $430 billion per year for eight major global sectors. 

You do not need to agree with every valuation assumption to take the message seriously: nature has material economic value, and degrading it carries material economic cost. 

Where nature risk actually shows up in the boardroom 

This is where the conversation often goes wrong. Leaders hear “biodiversity” and picture reputational risk, NGO demands, or an optional philanthropic programme. 

Yet once you understand nature risk, you can see its impacts across familiar business levers: 

• Revenue reliability: product unavailability, delivery delays, and customer penalties when inputs or logistics falter. 
• Cost profile: commodity swings, water and energy constraints, and compliance costs that erode margin. 
• Balance sheet: asset productivity and useful life where soil, water, or climate conditions deteriorate. 
• Risk transfer: premium increases, sub-limits, and exclusions as underwriters reprice location and systemic exposure.
• Financing: higher diligence thresholds and covenants where dependencies are not well understood or mitigated. 
• People: productivity impacts from heat, air quality, and disease dynamics affecting certain sites and roles. 

Where to look first: mapping exposure to your business model 

• Inputs: Which raw materials and intermediate goods are sensitive to water, soil, or ecosystem conditions? Which suppliers face the highest stress?
• Sites: Which facilities, warehouses, and logistics corridors are exposed to flood, drought, wildfire, or regulatory constraints on water use? 
• Customers & contracts: Which service levels, penalties, or revenue concentrations would amplify disruption from specific geographies or commodities? 
• Capital & insurance: Which lenders, investors, and carriers are asking for decision-grade evidence on nature-related dependencies? 

The hard part is not awareness – it’s ownership 

Although nature now appears in many corporate statements and even in some strategies, few organisations manage nature risk with the same seriousness as other enterprise threats such as cyber security. 

As with any enterprise risk, we must return to first principles to make ownership explicit: 

• Clear executive accountability: Which senior leader is explicitly responsible for governing nature-related exposure and ensuring it is managed with the same rigor as other enterprise risks? 
• Dedicated controls and investment: What formal processes, safeguards, and resourced budgets are in place to monitor, mitigate, and respond to nature driven disruptions? 
• Decision grade reporting: Which metrics reach the board on a regular schedule, and what predefined thresholds trigger management action?
• Exposure mapping across the value chain: Which inputs, suppliers, and geographies have the greatest vulnerability to nature-related events? 
• Preparedness for rapid deterioration: What operational and financial plans exist when these vulnerabilities suddenly intensify? 
• The value of a risk register depends entirely on what an organisation does with it. Listing a risk does not safeguard the business – acting on it does. 

The direction of travel for nature is clear 

The direction of travel for Nature is clear. Is your organisation ready? 

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets binding expectations to 2030, which is being codified in national biodiversity strategies and action plans. At the same time, market standards are converging around nature disclosure and due diligence. 

If we look into the crystal ball, this UK assessment may prove to be a tipping point that accelerates the integration of TNFD into ISSB-style standards. With ISSB signaling an exposure draft will be ready by October 2026, the question is not if, but how fast, regulatory scrutiny will tighten through procurement rules, finance conditions, and reporting requirements. 
 
And with increasing momentum of investors joining initiatives like Nature Action 100, UN PRI’s Spring and Finance for Biodiversity, it is only a matter of time for when capital will differentiate between businesses that can credibly manage ecological risk and those that cannot. 

The time for action is now. 

From compliance to strategic advantage 

The leaders in this next era will be those who move early to integrate nature into enterprise risk management and capital allocation – treating it as a strategic advantage, not a compliance exercise. 

At Anthesis Group, this is exactly what we are helping clients do: 

• Translate nature risk into financial and operational decision-making 
• Identify material nature dependencies and risk hotspots 
• Embed nature into governance, capital planning, and strategy 
• Align with TNFD in a way that supports real-world decisions, not just reporting