Last month, the Center for Climate and Security (CCS) and its Ecological Security Program (ESP) had the opportunity to comment on the Zero Order Draft for the First National Nature Assessment (NNA1) prepared by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and is publishing its input here. Last year, CCS submitted public comments on the NNA1 Draft Prospectus and published a blog post about the input. As noted at the time, NNA1’s work to assess the status and trajectory of the US natural environment and the risks of its degradation marked an important step in evaluating broader ecological security issues in the US. This report will be similar in scope to National Climate Assessments published since 2000.
CCS continues to broadly support the themes and framework of the Zero Order Draft, and looks forward to NNA1’s completion in 2026. As indicated in the comments, the USGCRP has included the majority of the recommendations CCS made on the Draft Prospectus and incorporated them into the new outline. While all twelve of the anticipated chapters of the NNA1 have implications for domestic and international security, Chapter 9: Nature and Risk, Resilience, and Security in the U.S. and Chapter 10: Nature and Climate Change in the U.S. have the most direct relation to the work of CCS and ESP.
Overall, CCS’s comments emphasize the importance of expanding the geographic focus of the NNA1 beyond domestic, publicly owned lands and including analysis on potential risks of maladaptation to human security and U.S. national security. Below are CCS’s specific comments under the aforementioned chapters.
Chapter 9 Comments
- CCS applauds USGCRP for incorporating CCS’s public comments on last year’s NNA1 Draft Prospectus and including anthropogenic ecosystems, such as urban landscapes, in analysis as a part of potential risk reduction under Key Topic 2: “Reconciling human activities with nature to reduce risks and raise resilience.” CCS reiterates its recommendation that “in addition to constructed, protected, anthropogenic ecosystems or restored nature, USGCRP should also consider unprotected, but extant nature (e.g., privately owned forests or grasslands) as a source of potential hazard aversion. For example, in New England, about 80% of forests are privately owned, most are not protected through any legal instrument, and many of these forests regenerated naturally, rather than being actively restored. Anthropogenic ecosystems also provide services (e.g., water infiltration, thermal regulation), even if these are reduced.”
- CCS reiterates its recommendation that “when evaluating the potential for nature-based solutions to mitigate natural hazards and food and water insecurity, CCS recommends that USGCRP present example benefit-cost analyses that compare nature-based solutions with synthetic solutions (e.g., conserving a wetland and riparian buffers vs. constructing a waste treatment plant). Such analyses could include a comparison of different methods for valuing ecosystem services. These comparisons should help policymakers weigh the potential benefits of retaining ecosystems rather than relying on technology to replace services once they have been destroyed.”
- CCS applauds USGCRP for incorporating CCS’s public comments on last year’s NNA1 Draft Prospectus and including trends in biotic eruptions (e.g., introduced non-native invasive species and pests, algal blooms) that may impact both anthropogenic and natural ecosystems under the Environmental Security section of Key Topic 3: “The relationship between nature and security in the U.S.”
- CCS applauds USGCRP for incorporating CCS’s public comments on last year’s NNA1 Draft Prospectus and broadening its analysis to consider environmental stress and nature loss elsewhere in the world as a source of conflict and threat to U.S. security. This can be found in the Environmental Security section of Key Topic 3: “The relationship between nature and security in the U.S.”
- CCS applauds USGCRP for incorporating CCS’s public comments on last year’s NNA1 Draft Prospectus and analyzing both how changes in nature and climate might lead to human migration (both from and to), and exploring how this migration might impact nature and its associated benefits and risks in some of the probable receiving locations. This can be found in the migration section of the cross-cutting section “Environmental Justice and Equity Challenges and Opportunities.”
Chapter 10 Comments
- CCS recommends that USGCRP expand the section on “Avoiding unintended consequences of mitigation and adaptation” to include maladaptation risks to human security and U.S. national security in addition to risks to biodiversity, food security, and ocean ecosystems. Without robust community engagement and planning, U.S.-provided international climate finance has the potential to lead to maladaptation. In São Tomé and Príncipe, for example, some externally funded climate adaptation projects aimed at augmenting agricultural productivity did not take into account underlying social inequalities and ultimately led to further marginalization of the landless community and instability in the region. Another example is Vanuatu, where some adaptation projects, similarly, did not address systemic power dynamics, resulting in unsustainable change and higher levels of conflict.
Led by experts in academia, government, and civil society, the First National Nature Assessment is an important mechanism for understanding the ways in which the US natural environment impacts domestic and international economic, human health, security, biodiversity, and climate factors. With the conclusion of public engagements, spring 2025 will mark the interagency review of the first complete draft followed by author revisions in late 2025 and final publication a year later in late 2026.