Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026.

It is fantastic to see how many Members from across the House are here for this fundamental debate. Climate breakdown and nature security are the most immediate and severe national security threats of our age. The fundamentals of human existence—food, water, health—all depend on healthy, stable ecosystems.

If anyone still thinks that environmental breakdown is a distant concern, this year should dispel that notion. We have experienced the hottest year on record so far, with prolonged drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires, and we are likely to have the highest number of heat-related deaths ever, forcing Ministers to evaluate where our national resilience is falling short. As the National Heat Risk Commission report published today shows, the country’s leadership have failed to implement measures to protect lives from temperature rises that have been expected for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee has estimated that temperatures will increase further in the near term. Extremes are projected to become the new normal, and annual heat-related deaths may reach 10,000.

This year’s super El Niño will cause further chaos to seasonal weather systems. The breakdown not only is an immediate risk to life, but is rapidly destabilising our natural systems. We talk about tipping points, and there could be no clearer demonstration than the glacial collapse in the Himalayas last month, which unleashed a catastrophic torrent into the river system. Thousands were tragically killed or remain missing. Since then, glaciers vulnerable to collapse are being mapped out, with millions potentially impacted by violent shifts in landscape and the disastrous loss of vital fresh water supplies.

Today, we are debating a crucial national security assessment report that warns of the rapid depletion of global biodiversity, the collapse of critical ecosystems and the dismantling of major global food systems. The origins of the report are unclear. Indeed, the only document made public is a redacted summary of the assessment, published after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. What we do know is that the Joint Intelligence Committee co-ordinated that landmark work to measure the impact of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse on our national security. That Committee is the authority on profiling risks to the country and our society—a group not of environmental campaigners, but of top-ranking specialists and experts from across the intelligence community, responsible for monitoring and providing early warning of threats to Britain.

Not only have the Government refused to publish the full version of the report, despite requests from Members of Parliament across parties and from the Environmental Audit Committee—of which, I declare, I am a member—but expert witnesses giving testimony before the Committee, including Lieutenant General Richard Nugee and Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, have noted that the report has not had the official Government response that one would expect for any seminal piece of work, let alone such a stark warning from our intelligence authorities.

However, we do have a redacted version of the document, and that is stark enough. The assessment conclusively states that global ecosystem collapse and the loss of biodiversity threaten national security, human life and economic prosperity. The assessment presents a world where cascading risks from climate breakdown lead to crop failures, water scarcity, floods and novel diseases. That would mean billions of people facing likely food shortages, inflation, public health risks, supply chain disruption, loss of livelihoods, mass displacement and conflict.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

A record hot summer has spread bluetongue disease among animals across my constituency at record rates, doing enormous damage to farming across the west country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most alarming findings in the report is just how exposed the UK is to food insecurity?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about food security later in my speech, but he is absolutely right to draw that point to our attention.

On the scale of the risks that we face, if this is not one of the gravest prevailing national security risks of our time, I do not know what is. Without systemic change at national and international level, we are on a pathway to the total collapse of globally critical ecosystems. The trajectory of the collapse means that it will come as soon as 2030 for some and 2050 for others.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Biodiversity loss in my own constituency has happened with Thames Water dumping sewage into the River Brent. I am glad that the clean water Bill will bring an end to that, but does the hon. Member agree that we need greater assurance that vital ecosystems that have been ravaged will be built back?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I absolutely agree that the impact is seen at a local level in all of our communities and that nature restoration is fundamental. We have to step up the pace of that, as I will go on to set out further.

The Joint Intelligence Committee has identified several degrading ecosystems, the destruction of which could be so severe that our own national security and prosperity will be in peril. Those include the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo Basin, the major river systems of the Himalayas, the richly productive and abundant south-east Asian coral reefs, the aquatic nurseries of the mangrove habitats and the stabilising force of the Arctic boreal forests.

That is why our national security cannot only be understood within our own borders. We cannot build a secure island in an insecure world. We must keep to our international obligations, such as the actions detailed in the global biodiversity framework to be reviewed next month at COP17. We can also no longer obfuscate on contributing to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility investment fund that the UK so proudly helped to set up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Adrian Ramsay]

I give way to the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane).

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member. As a former journalist, I am acutely aware of the need to communicate the risks clearly, as do the many hundreds of my constituents who got in touch with me about this. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I highlight that the need to share knowledge and best practice within the devolved nations of the United Kingdom is incredibly important. Although we need to look at this as a worldwide endeavour, does the hon. Member agree that the way in which the devolved nations also share best practice and knowledge is important? If we do not get it right as the UK as a whole, we are already getting off on the wrong foot for getting it right across the world.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I agree that on nature, as on climate, leadership starts at home. The UK has a huge leadership role to play. That, of course, has to apply to devolved Government, regional government and local government. We need to make sure that governments at all levels are properly resourced, both for nature recovery and for climate resilience plans. The data that I have recently commissioned work on, and will be releasing soon, shows that we do not have the level of local resilience plans that are needed on this issue.

I think the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also wished to come in on the issue of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for taking the intervention. Is he aware that the Government have announced this morning a £400 million loan to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and will he join me in welcoming that investment?

[Adrian Ramsay]

Absolutely. I welcome positive action wherever it happens. I have no problem at all in welcoming positive steps from the Government. I want to see more of them. I welcome the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, to her place and look forward to her response to this debate. I want to be a constructive voice in this debate, and I very much welcome that news.

To some extent, countries with more resources like the UK can insulate citizens from the worst effects. Countries that are least able and most exposed to risks may not be able to do so, or to protect their communities from the full force of the impacts, which range from mass displacements to famine. For some of the most vulnerable countries, especially in the global south, water scarcity means famine, an impact on energy supplies and is likely to lead to the displacement and deaths of millions of people. Such instability is intensified further by competition for scarce resources and worsens cascading external risks to our own domestic national security.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the big importance of the Joint Intelligence Committee report and shedding light on it. Does he agree that citizens must be brought up to speed on what they are facing with climate change? Does he agree that we must have a televised national emergency briefing across the UK?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I completely agree. Like many Members in this Chamber, I signed the early-day motion calling for a national screening of the people’s emergency briefing. I know that a lot of Members will have hosted or attended screenings in their constituencies, as I have done. I have more coming up in my constituency in the coming weeks. It is incredibly powerful, even more powerful than the showing in November, because we can see how people are responding to that evidence. Of course, we need to look at the solutions as well as the problems, but I absolutely echo that call. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on the call for a national screening, so that we can be really clear on the scale of this challenge, which sadly does not get the same national profile as it did a few years ago. We need to increase that profile again.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I was with the hon. Gentleman at the national emergency briefing, and like him I have many constituents to whom I am grateful for organising local screenings. Does he agree that climate change is not only an emergency, but a public health emergency? That is clear not only from the heat deaths in the UK, but the global impact on public health of water scarcity and the spread of malaria to new regions. Does he also agree that we should continue to support the likes of the World Health Organisation in efforts to tackle what is both a climate and public health emergency?

[Adrian Ramsay]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this is a public health issue. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation are clear on that, and it is clear from Natural England’s oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday. It is clear not only that there will be risks to public health if action is not taken but that nature as national security infrastructure can help with positive health outcomes, and we really need to embrace that as a country.

Nature is a foundational element of national security, and nature depletion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown are not merely environmental problems. Collectively, they will lead to the ruin of critical systems on which lives and livelihoods depend. We are no longer confronted by individual isolated incidents, events or extinctions. What lies ahead is whole-system collapse. As nature provides essential services that protect people, food, water and the economy, it is infrastructure—our most critical infrastructure—and should be treated as such.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Labour rural research group has just done a report on the future of the rural economy. One chapter looked at nature markets, which are going to be really important for rural economies because of how we should think about and value nature. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for nature markets to work and evolve as quickly as is required, we need the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government to put in place a clearer framework so that people know how they can invest in nature and biodiversity in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency, Waveney Valley in East Anglia, where I have done a lot to support and promote local solutions, including natural flood management landscape-scale projects to re-naturalise rivers, which brings significant environmental benefits. I know that the wildlife trusts and others are looking at things such as nature markets as part of the answer to that. I do not think that market forces are going to be anything like the majority of the solution to this problem. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that was the case, but they could be part of the answer, as long as we are clear that the Government are setting out the direction and scale of ambition that is needed and the public funding goes in to make that possible. Crucially, companies must not be allowed to get away with trashing crucial ancient environments in one area by funding them in another. We need to be very careful about how we use those mechanisms in the right way. They could potentially be used as part of a wider mix.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are serious about tackling global biodiversity loss, we must ensure that commodities such as soya and palm oil entering the UK supply chain are not linked to deforestation and that UK trade and finance are not contributing to ecosystem destruction overseas?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right that to protect crucial ecosystems internationally, our trade has to be fair and sustainable and that has to be embedded into farming policy. I am sure the Minister will pick up on that point as well.

Landscapes where ecosystems are compromised are more prone to natural disasters, such as drought, wildfires and flash floods. I say natural disasters, but those are often the results of decades of destructive policies and practices. Natural systems that reduce exposure to climate hazards are therefore part of our national resilience. We need to invest in adaptation now. Sustainable land management, for example, or harvesting and conserving water supplies, has become absolutely essential. The Climate Change Committee’s 2026 assessment makes the wider point clearly:

“Although climate risks are intensifying, the resulting damages are not inevitable. Proven and cost-effective adaptation measures are available for immediate deployment…Their implementation will be critical to protecting lives, infrastructure, and economic prosperity”.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for his speech. Around Witney, 200 farmers are implementing a landscape recovery scheme. Only three such schemes have been implemented in the country. That one is on the Evenlode. Would it be helpful if the Minister said when the Government are going to bring forward the third round of landscape recovery schemes? We urgently need to be moving faster.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I absolutely agree. That is a strong example of one of the main points I want to make. The Minister will point to a number of welcome measures, but the question is whether the scale and pace of those measures are commensurate with the challenge. At the moment, they are a long way from being so. The funding that needs to be put in place for landscape recovery and the sustainable farming incentive is crucial. Farmers say to me all the time that they will get behind this as long as they can see a long-term funding framework for them to do so. One farmer in Suffolk said to me that he built a pond, which was crucial for natural flood management, in spite of the fact that it actually reduced his farm’s income. Most farmers are not going to be in a position to do that. That has to change.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One of the other recommendations in the report was ensuring that at least 60% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we will ensure that is by protecting our farmers from the changes we are seeing in our climate?

[Adrian Ramsay]

Yes, that is crucial. With all the shocks that farmers are facing, we have seen that more protection and support are needed. The ambition needs to be a lot higher than 60% if we are to be resilient to the scale of geopolitical and environmental challenges that the world will be facing.

We should begin to plan and fund natural infrastructure with the same seriousness as engineered infrastructure. The assessment makes it clear that there is still a chance for major interventions to slow the trend, protect communities and restore national security, but only if we act now—in this Parliament—and at the scale that the crisis demands.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous with his time. The Brit Valley Project in West Dorset is bringing together 43 landowners and will improve biodiversity over 4,000 acres. Every time I speak to community groups—I am sure other Members have examples of this—they want to see faster action. Does he share my frustration that politicians nationally and internationally are using the climate crisis and ignoring the science for their own political ends?

[Adrian Ramsay]

Yes, of course I share that frustration. I am pleased to see many Members, from lots of parties, in the Chamber for this debate. We need to increase those numbers and rebuild the national consensus we had on climate. I hope we can have such a consensus on nature restoration and climate adaptation. We all need to tackle the myths and make this debate less fractious and more about bringing people together than driving culture-war wedges. We can do that with how we put forward the solutions that are needed.

Nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than with regard to food security. This year, water scarcity and drought threaten food production. As all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK’s agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, and this year will almost certainly add to that record.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay]

I will. I am being generous with interventions, which will mean we wait longer before we get to more speeches, but I trust that those intervening are conscious of that.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous, and I thank him for that. On food security, like many hon. Members with rural constituencies, I met farmers over the summer. Many told me that they want to build their own reservoirs and extract water dynamically from rivers so they can use that water when it is needed. Does he agree that that is a very simple regulatory change that the Government could make, which would support our farmers in adapting to climate change challenges?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I agree with the hon. Member; that is something that farmers in my constituency have raised with me frequently. There must be solutions to the growing problem of far too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times. The solution he outlines is part of how we seriously step up our water management work.

The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over-reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food; it is about the resilience of the entire system of agricultural production, including soils, water, fertiliser, feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which they all depend. We also depend on international food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system, so protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice; it is an investment in our own food security. [Interruption.] I hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not been so, there would be a much longer list of speeches for later, so I will persist for now.

There is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat; it identifies remedies, as it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature not as an environmental policy sitting outside national security policy, but as delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy.

The Government have levers to begin this wide-scale transformation, including fully funding the national tree plan; expanding the sustainable farming incentive; investing in natural flood management schemes such as river renaturalisation and wetland restoration; regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production; restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience; restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management; establishing more broadleaf woodland to enhance habitat for biodiversity and landscape-scale resilience; and converting to nature-friendly and climate-resilient farming. All those measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend.

We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure and to establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation. That means recognising that healthy, natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure.

On the question of transparency, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency, to scrutinise the evidence and ensure that our response as a nation is commensurate with the threats. If the Government want the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts.

Historians will write about our decisions and future generations will judge us for them. They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top-tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There is a temptation in politics to address environmental policy as an optional extra. The Government no longer have the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty by everyone in the House to disregard these warnings.

We need a Minister responsible for co-ordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-Government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. The Prime Minister has created a No. 10 for the north, but we need a No. 10 for the future, in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public. Nature security is national security, and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

There will be a formal two-minute time limit on speeches.