The national security assessment on ecosystem collapse is a government wake-up call – Inside track

Last week, a freedom of information request I submitted helped to unlock the stalled publication of a government report on the national security implications of global ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss. 

The publication caught everyone by surprise, including me. It wasn’t flagged to journalists, meaning coverage was reactive. While information requests are designed to secure the release of information in the public interest, I wasn’t expecting this one to succeed, as the government had been very reluctant to release the report. Despite the lack of proactive government communication, journalists are continuing to follow it up, asking for reflections on the assessment. 

Its publication at this point suggests that those within government and the security community, who understand the systemic risks of climate breakdown and declining biodiversity, convinced their colleagues that this information should, rightly, not be kept from the public. This is an important win for transparency. 

Why does this report matter?
Arguably, the report’s framing is as significant as its content, as it treats ecological breakdown as a direct and escalating threat to national and international stability. It joins the dots between nature loss, security and society’s wellbeing. While some previous reports have commented on the complex interdependence of the threats, risks and drivers of insecurity in an increasingly interconnected world, this assessment is the first focused on the significance of ecosystems and nature. 

It warns that ecosystem collapse could have catastrophic implications, including the collapse of major food sources and fundamental changes to global weather patterns and the water cycle. And it makes clear that we could face multiple concurrent collapses. The assessment presents a compelling message: these risks are immediate, systemic and severe, and must be acted upon. 

One of the risks identified is migration pressure due to large scale displacement of people in response to failing food systems or water scarcity. Given the political sensitivity of migration, this may be a reason why the government was initially reluctant for the report to see the light of day. 

It’s our right to ask  
Anyone can request information about environmental issues from a public authority, including the government. In this case, the reported suppression of the assessment prompted me to ask the government to publish it, in the name of transparency. The request was initially refused, ironically citing reasons of national security. But I asked the government to think again and the deadline for the internal review of its decision was 20 January. 

In its response to me that day, the government said it had published the information requested. This avoided interrogation of whether the reasons it had given for not disclosing the report were fair and proportionate. 

Sometimes freedom of information requests can make governments hold on to information even more tightly. But, in this case, it appears my request enabled some within the government to make – and win – the case to publish. 

It’s been suggested in The Times that the published report is, in fact, just a summary of a much fuller internal version, which has more detail. For example, the journalist who said they’d seen this version revealed that it suggests the degradation of rainforests in the Congo and the drying up of rivers fed by the Himalayas could mean people flee to Europe, leading to “more polarised and populist politics in the UK” and putting “additional pressure on already strained national infrastructure”. 

I’ve asked the government to clarify whether the report published last week is, in fact, the version that existed at the time I made my initial request. This requires a new freedom of information request so is not a quick process. But I believe it is worth the effort. 

What should happen now?
Sometimes government documents end up in a dusty corner of Whitehall, especially when global politics are setting the agenda. But that should not be the fate of this report. It is known that we are already at worrying tipping points and we need to be prepared for what is happening and to come. Covid has taught us the error of not being ready for devastating economic and social impacts. 

This should be scheduled as a major item of business around the full Cabinet table, informed by advice from the COBR committee. That committee’s raison d’être is to handle matters of national emergency or major disruption. It’s vital the whole of government discusses and formulates a strategy for how to avoid, mitigate and manage the risks identified. 

It should also be a recurring item of business in international and sub-regional political and diplomatic events and networks, given the cross-boundary nature of many of the risks. 

Green MP Adrian Ramsay persuaded the Leader of the Commons that the assessment should the subject of a parliamentary debate at some point. Select committees should also consider its implications, with cross cutting committees like the Environmental Audit Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy potentially the best placed to lead scrutiny of UK government plans to respond. 

Above all, this can’t be a one off, as it is a live and evolving emergency. Further iterations should be planned and published, so the serious risks to the UK of global ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss are taken into account at all stages of government strategy and decision making.