Food prices. Flooding. Energy security. Migration. Supply chains. They are often debated as separate policy challenges. However, new research from the Oxford Martin School's Agile Initiative suggests they are deeply interconnected, and that understanding how environmental change influences them is critical to the UK's future security.
National security is no longer defined solely by defence and geopolitical threats.
Climate change and biodiversity loss are reshaping the systems that societies depend on, with implications for food security, energy resilience, critical infrastructure, global trade, migration, public health and economic stability. The challenge for policymakers is no longer understanding each risk in isolation, but anticipating how they interact and cascade across sectors.
Against this backdrop, the first outputs from the Agile Initiative's Environment and National Security project were published as parliamentarians, senior civil servants, defence representatives and University of Oxford researchers met at the House of Lords. The event also marked the launch of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Climate, Nature and Security's inquiry report, Before the Border: Climate Migration and UK National Security.
The Agile Initiative project was a six-month collaboration between 35 Oxford researchers and over 40 policymakers from 15 government departments, public bodies and military services. Together, the reports identify that governments need better evidence to understand interconnected environmental risks before they become crises. Rather than asking researchers to work within disciplinary boundaries, the project started with the questions policymakers needed answered. Where is evidence already strong? Where are the critical gaps? What knowledge will decision-makers need as environmental pressures intensify?
Those questions became the basis for six Priority Policy Questions reports covering critical natural infrastructure, food and energy security, maritime shipping and trade, environment-driven migration, the weaponisation of nature, and societal resilience. Each brings together the available evidence, identifies where confidence is strong, highlights key uncertainties and points to the questions future research needs to answer.
The APPG inquiry report reaches a similar conclusion through the lens of migration. It argues that climate-related migration is not primarily a border issue, but the outcome of wider pressures on food systems, water security, livelihoods, governance and resilience. Its central recommendation calls on government to invest more heavily in anticipating climate-related risks before they develop into security crises.
Researchers share evidence to government departments, public bodies and military services at the House of Lords
Around 40 people attended the parliamentary session, chaired by Barry Gardiner MP, including representatives from the Cabinet Office, Climate Change Committee, Defra, the Environment Agency, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, HM Treasury, the Met Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Defence and UNHCR.
Discussion quickly shifted from diagnosis to action. Participants examined how the UK's food system depends on resilient energy systems, why resilience should focus on adapting to change rather than preserving the status quo, and how earlier warning of interconnected risks could help governments anticipate crises instead of reacting to them. They also explored the opportunities created by nature-based solutions and the value of sustained collaboration between researchers, policymakers and practitioners.
The project's next outputs, due in September, will include a Forward-Looking Research Agenda identifying the most urgent evidence gaps and research priorities needed to support future policy.
As climate change and biodiversity loss reshapes the UK's security landscape, it is also changing the relationship between research and policymaking. The evidence governments need will increasingly come from connecting disciplines, institutions and sectors that have traditionally worked apart. If the risks are interconnected, the response, and the research that underpins it, will need to be too. The aim is not simply better evidence. It is evidence that helps governments see further ahead, giving them the opportunity to shape events rather than simply respond to them.