Razed forests, collapsing fisheries and vanishing pollinators are rarely framed as national security threats. Yet recognition is growing that nature loss poses serious risks to political stability.

A recent assessment by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) draws a direct line between protecting critical ecosystems and a country’s future stability. Biodiversity loss threatens the water, food, clean air and raw materials human societies depend on. The report warns that six critical ecosystem regions — including the Amazon rainforest — could collapse by mid-century, with repercussions for the UK and other nations.

Collapse of distant ecosystems can unsettle global systems: it can displace millions, alter weather patterns, increase food and water scarcity, and intensify geopolitical competition for dwindling resources. One of the most immediate risks is food insecurity. Over a third of the world’s ocean fish stocks are already overfished, and more than three-quarters of global food crops rely on pollinators that are declining due to intensive agriculture. As ecosystems weaken, supply shocks and price spikes become more likely — and more politically destabilizing.

Some countries are particularly vulnerable. The UK imports about 40% of its food and lacks sufficient agricultural land to sustain current dietary patterns. In the US, 75–90% of seafood is imported. Disruptions abroad can therefore translate into domestic shortages and economic stress. Protecting and restoring ecosystems, DEFRA notes, improves food system and societal resilience to such shocks.

Financing nature protection is a major challenge. Economically vulnerable countries under heavy debt burdens may find short-term revenue from logging and resource extraction difficult to resist. Global spending patterns compound the problem: the world spends roughly US$7.3 trillion on activities that harm nature — about 30 times what is spent on protection, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Environmental advocates argue for a dramatic inversion in spending priorities.

Debt-for-nature swaps are an increasingly popular tool to unlock capital for conservation. The mechanism, dating to the 1980s, involves a creditor and a debtor country exchanging debt relief for commitments to fund and enforce conservation programs. Early swaps were small and often brokered by conservation NGOs or governments. The first took place in 1987 when Conservation International bought part of Bolivia’s debt so the country could invest in protecting the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the Amazon basin. More recent examples include a 2021 swap in Belize that eased debt burdens while directing savings into fisheries management and marine conservation.

Protecting marine areas can have spillover benefits for fish stocks elsewhere, acting as incubators that help sustain catches. With more than 3 billion people relying on seafood as a major protein source, such protections can be essential to global food security.

Private capital is entering the space. Large asset managers are attracted by the bond-like returns of some nature-based transactions. Legal & General pledged $1 billion toward new debt-for-nature swaps, citing an opportunity to support communities and ecosystems fundamental to economic resilience. When major financial institutions commit funds, it can mobilize additional support and give early-stage deals greater certainty. Debt swaps are only one option; initiatives like Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility aim to redirect investments from wealthier nations into countries that commit to protecting rainforests.

Protecting critical ecosystems also helps tackle cascading threats linked to nature loss. Forests and oceans are massive carbon sinks; preserving them limits greenhouse gas accumulation, helping prevent droughts, crop failures and extreme weather that can fuel instability. By mitigating climate impacts and reducing pressures that drive migration, ecosystem protection strengthens vulnerable economies and reduces the likelihood that crises will spill across borders.

The human cost is stark. By 2023, more than 90 million forcibly displaced people were living in countries or territories experiencing food crises, according to the International Organization for Migration. DEFRA warns that ecosystem collapse could trigger a chain of cascading risks: organized crime exploiting scarce resources, political polarization, and even military escalation. Investing in nature, experts argue, is a way for governments to “buy down” the probability that environmental shocks will escalate into security threats requiring costly responses.

Protecting and restoring ecosystems is thus framed not only as an environmental imperative but as a strategic investment in global stability: it secures food and water supplies, buffers climate impacts, supports livelihoods, and reduces the drivers of displacement and conflict. Redirecting financial flows — through debt swaps, public assistance, and private investment — could help nations preserve the natural foundations of security and prosperity.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker and Jennifer Collins

Razed forests, collapsing fisheries and vanishing pollinators rarely register as national security threats. Yet recognition is growing that nature loss poses serious risks to political stability.

“Nature is a foundation of national security,” write authors from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in a recent assessment that draws a direct line between protecting critical ecosystems and a country’s future stability.

Biodiversity loss threatens the water, food, clean air and critical materials on which societies depend. The report warns that six critical ecosystem regions — including the Amazon — could collapse by mid‑century, with knock‑on effects for the UK and other nations. Collapse of distant ecosystems can disturb systems that “drive displacement of millions, change global weather patterns, increase global food and water scarcity, and drive geopolitical competition for remaining resources,” the assessment says.

One of the most immediate dangers is food insecurity. More than a third of the world’s ocean fish stocks are overfished, and over three‑quarters of global food crops depend on pollinators declining under intensive agriculture. As ecosystems weaken, supply shocks become more likely and more politically destabilizing.

Countries that rely heavily on imports are especially exposed. The UK imports about 40% of its food and lacks sufficient agricultural land for current dietary patterns. In the United States, an estimated 75–90% of seafood is imported. Disruptions abroad therefore translate rapidly into domestic price spikes and shortages. “Protecting and restoring ecosystems improves food system and societal resilience to shocks,” DEFRA notes.

Swapping debt for conservation

Protecting nature is as much a financial challenge as an ecological one. For debt‑burdened countries, short‑term revenue from logging or extraction can be hard to resist. The world spends roughly US$7.3 trillion on activities that harm nature — about 30 times what it spends on protection — according to the UN Environment Programme. Advocates call for a dramatic reversal of that spending imbalance.

Debt‑for‑nature swaps are an increasingly popular tool to unlock capital for ecosystem protection. The model, which dates to the 1980s, exchanges a creditor’s or NGO’s purchase or restructuring of a country’s debt for commitments to fund conservation. The first deal, in 1987, saw Conservation International buy Bolivian debt so Bolivia could invest in protecting a biosphere reserve. More recent examples include a 2021 swap in Belize that eased debt pressures while directing funds into fisheries management and marine conservation.

Protected marine areas can serve as incubators for fish stocks, supporting wider fisheries. With seafood a major protein source for over 3 billion people, maintaining fish populations is crucial to food security.

A new era of private investment

Private investors increasingly view nature‑focused transactions as offering bond‑like returns alongside environmental and social benefits. Legal & General, the UK’s largest asset manager, pledged $1 billion to debt‑for‑nature swaps, calling such deals attractive for risk‑return and for supporting communities and ecosystems fundamental to economic resilience. When large institutions invest, they provide a signal that helps similar transactions move forward with greater certainty, say experts.

Debt swaps are only one option. Initiatives like Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility aim to redirect finance from wealthier nations into countries that commit to protecting rainforests. Foreign assistance and development finance are becoming more explicitly tied to national security considerations, reflecting recognition that supporting nature abroad can reduce risks at home.

Cascading threats from ecosystem loss

Beyond food, protecting ecosystems helps slow climate change, reduce drivers of migration and strengthen fragile economies. Forests and oceans act as major carbon sinks; preserving them limits warming and the associated increases in droughts, crop failures and extreme weather that fuel instability.

The human toll is large. By 2023, over 90 million forcibly displaced people were living in countries or territories experiencing food crises, according to the International Organization for Migration. The UK assessment outlines cascading risks from ecosystem collapse, including exploitation of scarce resources by organized crime, political polarization and even the potential for military escalation.

Investing in nature, experts argue, is a form of risk management: it reduces the likelihood that environmental shocks will spill over into emergencies requiring costly external intervention.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker and Jennifer Collins

Razed forests, collapsing fisheries and vanishing pollinators rarely register as national security threats. Yet recognition is growing that nature loss poses major risks to political stability.

“Nature is a foundation of national security,” authors from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) write in a recent assessment that links protection of critical ecosystems to a country’s long-term stability.

Biodiversity loss threatens the water, food, clean air and critical materials societies depend on. The report warns that six critical ecosystem regions — including the Amazon — could collapse by mid-century, with repercussions far beyond their borders. Such collapse can displace millions, alter global weather patterns, increase food and water scarcity, and intensify geopolitical competition for remaining resources.

One of the most immediate threats is food insecurity. Over a third of global ocean fish stocks are overfished, while more than three-quarters of crop production depends on pollinators harmed by intensive agriculture. Weakened ecosystems make supply shocks more likely and politically destabilizing.

Import dependence amplifies vulnerability. The UK imports roughly 40% of its food and lacks enough agricultural land to sustain current diets. In the US, between 75% and 90% of seafood is imported. Disruptions overseas can quickly translate into domestic price spikes and shortages. Protecting and restoring ecosystems, DEFRA notes, strengthens food systems and societal resilience to shocks.

Financing protection is as big a challenge as the ecological task. For countries burdened by debt, short-term revenue from logging, mining or other extraction can be hard to resist. Globally, around US$7.3 trillion is spent each year on activities that harm nature — roughly 30 times more than is spent on conservation. Advocates argue spending must be dramatically redirected.

Debt-for-nature swaps are one tool to unlock finance for conservation. In these deals, a creditor and a debtor country agree to restructure or cancel debt in exchange for commitments to fund protection or restoration of ecosystems. The mechanism dates to the 1980s, when Conservation International bought Bolivian debt in 1987 so Bolivia could invest in protecting the Beni Biosphere Reserve. More recent examples include a 2021 swap in Belize that eased debt pressure while channeling savings into fisheries management and marine conservation.

Such protections can boost fish stocks elsewhere by serving as incubators for marine life, helping secure food for the billions who rely on seafood. Private investors find these transactions attractive for their bond-like returns and environmental impact. Legal & General pledged $1 billion to debt-for-nature deals, viewing them as supportive of both returns and global economic resilience. Large institutional commitments can accelerate and de-risk these transactions, enabling more deals to take shape.

Beyond swaps, new mechanisms aim to redirect capital into forest protection. Initiatives like the Tropical Forest Forever Facility propose channeling funds from wealthier nations into countries that commit to conserving rainforests. Foreign assistance and development finance, advocates say, are increasingly recognized as integral to national security.

Protecting ecosystems yields cascading benefits. Forests and oceans are major carbon sinks; preserving them helps limit warming and reduce the likelihood of droughts, crop failures and extreme weather that can trigger instability. By mitigating climate impacts, safeguarding nature also reduces pressures that drive migration and weaken economies.

The human toll is already stark. By 2023, more than 90 million forcibly displaced people lived in places experiencing food crises. The UK assessment warns of cascading risks from ecosystem collapse, including exploitation of scarce resources by organized crime, rising political polarization and even military escalation.

“You want stable countries with an ability to maintain strong economies and act as effective players in the world,” says Gaia Larsen of the World Resources Institute. Investing in nature, Adam Tomasek of the Debt for Nature Coalition adds, is a way for governments to buy down the likelihood that distant risks will impact domestic security and require costly intervention later.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker and Jennifer Collins