A UK Government report on Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security published in early 2026 raises an important and timely issue: the security implications of accelerating ecological degradation [1]. Climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are undeniably profound global risks. Indeed the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Nexus Assessment [2] highlights the strong linkages between climate change, biodiversity, food and health and their common causes and synergistic solutions. The adoption of a security lens through which one views nature and biodiversity change (as encapsulated by the UK Government Global biodiversity loss report) is increasingly frequently deployed in academia, policy and the media. However, attempting to galvanise action by framing any environmental issue as a security threat in an instrumental manner to elicit positive action creates its own risks; relies on ethically questionable foundations; and is often based on overly deterministic models and simplified evidence.

We have been here before with the securitisation of climate change. Securitisation is a term referring to the framing of any contested political issue (from animal health to migration to trade policy) as requiring national security responses, often shifting authority towards border management and defence [3]. The appeal to security is commonly motivated by the wish to elevate the policy issue to the highest level of political discourse. Climate change has been framed as a security issue—from debates on climate change within the UN Security Council, through to the assertions of the potential for violent conflict and even inter-state wars. The security framing of climate change is widespread in every world region, and appeals to governments for many reasons—as documented by Vogler [4]. Yet Warner and Boas [5] and others show that the motivation of climate advocates for action through securitisation debates often backfire, leading less to positive climate action, and more often to political retrenchment.

We illustrate those points here by focussing on claims in the UK Government Global biodiversity loss report’s treatment of human mobility, particularly migration. We judge it to have significant conceptual, evidentiary, and methodological shortcomings that undermine both its analytical rigour and its policy relevance.