When biodiversity loss becomes a national security risk, business strategy changes.

fredrik ekstrom
26 jan.
5 min läsning

For years, biodiversity loss has been discussed primarily through environmental, ethical, or sustainability frameworks.

The latest National Security Assessment on global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse places it somewhere else entirely.

Not in the sustainability department. In the security domain. It is created with the lens of MI5 and MI6 in the UK. This is not a report about values. It is a risk intelligence document. And that shift fundamentally changes what nature loss means for business.

Executive Summary:

This text examines how the national security framing of biodiversity loss reframes nature from a sustainability issue to a stability issue. Drawing on the UK Government’s security assessment, it outlines why ecosystem collapse is no longer a distant environmental concern but an active systemic risk with direct consequences for food systems, geopolitics, economic resilience, and business continuity.

It then connects this security logic to The Business Case for Nature, a talk that Above The Clouds and EOCA regularly do at international trade shows and climate summits, and explains why brands that rely on nature must now treat ecosystem protection as a core strategic dependency rather than a reputational choice.

Dan Yates EOCA & Fredrik Ekström Above The Clouds. Ski Industry Climate Summit. Bolzano

Learn more about EOCA (European Outdoor Conservation Association) and their work. From environmental concern to systemic risk

The most important thing about the national security assessment is not the data itself.

It is the lens. Security assessments are not written to persuade. They are written to prepare states for instability, exposure, and system failure.

Through that lens, the report makes a clear statement:

Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are no longer environmental externalities. They are direct threats to national security, economic stability, and geopolitical order.

That reframing moves nature loss out of the moral debate and into strategic necessity.

Nature is a foundation of national security. Biodiversity loss is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which human societies depend, including water, food, clean air, and critical resources.

1. Ecosystem collapse is not a future scenario. It is an active risk.

The assessment states with high confidence that every critical global ecosystem is already degrading. Several are on pathways toward irreversible collapse. Some systems, including coral reefs and boreal forests, could begin collapsing as early as 2030.

This is not framed as a distant possibility. It is described as a likely outcome without significant intervention.

Why this matters

This removes the assumption that there is time to wait, optimize, or gradually adjust.
If collapse is already underway, delay itself becomes a risk multiplier. Incrementalism becomes exposure.
For business, this challenges the logic of slow sustainability transitions that are disconnected from real-world system thresholds.

2. Nature loss acts as a threat multiplier across systems

The report does not treat biodiversity loss as a single issue. It shows how ecosystem degradation cascades into multiple destabilizing forces at once:

food insecurity
water scarcity
migration pressure
geopolitical conflict
economic instability
increased disease risk
accelerated climate change through carbon release

This is compound risk.

Nature loss does not create one crisis. It destabilizes several systems simultaneously.

Why this matters

This aligns with a critical strategic insight: nature is infrastructure.
When infrastructure fails, markets do not adapt smoothly.They fragment.
Supply chains, pricing, insurance, regulation, and consumer confidence are all affected at the same time.

3. Food systems are identified as the frontline risk

One of the most concrete sections of the assessment focuses on food security.

The report states clearly that the UK cannot currently feed its population through domestic production alone. It is heavily dependent on imported food and fertilizers. Ecosystem collapse would intensify geopolitical competition for food, and countries with stronger ecological resilience will move first to secure supply.

This is where ecology meets geopolitics.

Why this matters

Food systems are the intersection of ecosystems, trade, politics, and social stability.
When food security weakens, inflation rises, political pressure increases, migration accelerates, and trust erodes.
For business, this reframes biodiversity loss from a reputational concern to an existential supply risk.

4. Some ecosystems matter more than others and they are global

The assessment identifies specific ecosystems as critical to national security, including the Amazon rainforest, the Congo Basin, boreal forests, Himalayan ecosystems, and coral reefs and mangroves in Southeast Asia.

These systems regulate rainfall, climate stability, food production, and carbon cycles.

Why this matters

National borders do not protect economies from planetary systems.
This reinforces an uncomfortable but necessary truth for brands: local action without global ecological awareness is insufficient.
Credible nature strategy must think systemically, not symbolically.

5. Nature investment is framed as a strategic asset

Perhaps the most important conclusion in the report is this:

Countries that invest in ecosystem protection, restoration, and resilient food systems are best positioned to adapt.

Nature is not framed as a moral choice. It is framed as a strategic asset.

Why this matters

This legitimizes what organizations like EOCA have long argued from environmental and brand perspectives, now from a hard power, risk-based standpoint.
Prevention is cheaper than repair. Resilience beats reaction.

Where this connects to The Business Case for Nature

This security framing directly reinforces the logic behind The Business Case for a Healthy Planet, developed together with EOCA and recently presented at the Ski Industry Climate Summit in Bolzano. Our argument is not that brands should just care more. It is that nature has shifted from a values discussion to a dependency discussion.

If governments now see ecosystem collapse as a national security risk, then brands that rely on nature must see ecosystem protection as a core business strategy, not a side initiative.

This is where security/risk logic and brand/business logic align.

Why nature-dependent brands feel this first

Outdoor, winter sports, tourism, and lifestyle brands experience these shifts earlier than most. Unstable seasons. Shrinking winters. Extreme heat. Heavy rainfall. Rising costs. Increasing scrutiny. This is not a coincidence. It is proximity to risk.

These brands do not just operate in nature. They build meaning, identity, and value on it.

Which leads to a simple strategic reality:

You cannot build brand and business relevance on nature while treating nature as external to your strategy.

Strategic conclusion

The national security framing of biodiversity loss does not radicalize the argument for nature protection. It formalizes it. This is not about activism; it is about realism.

Nature loss is no longer positioned as an environmental warning. It is positioned as a systemic stability risk. And stability is the foundation of functioning markets, trusted brands, and long-term business relevance.