A NATO for NATURE?

What if we took resource security seriously?

by Mathis Wackernagel and Peter Raven

Despite its many challenges and imperfections, NATO offers a remarkably effective architecture: it has teeth, and it delivers real, tangible benefits to its members. By pledging mutual assistance in the case of an attack, NATO allows member countries to achieve a much higher level of security while spending far less on individual military capabilities. No single member country needs to possess a military strong enough to counter all threats; the collective strength of the alliance takes on that burden. The result is simple but powerful: significantly enhanced security at a significantly lower cost.

What if we applied the same principle to planetary overuse? What if we could turn the challenge of ecological overshoot into an opportunity for strategic collaboration, where participation increases each member’s protection from future shocks while lowering the cost of building resilience?

Consider, as a thought-experiment a “NATO for NATURE,” or maybe more aptly called a "Biocapacity Bloc." This coalition of countries would build on the insight that ecological resource insecurity is turning into a growing and predictable threat to their economic and political stability. Membership of such an entity would be based not on military alignment, but on the shared recognition that resource security, particularly for biocapacity, needs to be at the heart of national economic strategy. Also, this organization (in contrast to the NATO example) could include any and all nations, as long as each member puts resource security at the core of its strategic development plans.

Members of this bloc would gain tangible benefits. They might include:

• Privileged trade relationships to prioritize flows of essential renewable resources.

• Technology, capacity building, and knowledge transfer to accelerate the transition to regenerative systems.

• Shared credit facilities and risk-pooling mechanisms to finance infrastructure for long-term resilience.

• Strategic cooperation on metrics, data, and forecasting to align national plans with biophysical realities.

Such an approach is grounded in the idea that in an era marked by resource constraints and ecological tipping points, sovereignty and resilience are best protected not through moral appeals to serve the common good,[1] but by preparing proactively for such a future and offering mutual assurance. This means, such an approach would align incentives and dispel the widespread misconception that countries are stuck in a “free-rider” dilemma, the belief that in the context of planetary depletion, individual interests are fundamentally at odds with collective well-being.[2] Free-rider traps are the classic scenario: everyone’s invited to chip in for the pizza, but many help themselves to a slice without paying. This mindset leads to inaction, as most sit back and hope others will bear the cost while they enjoy the benefits.

But the reality is, like with military threats, that we are not in a free-rider trap. It is not a pizza party. Because those who prepare themselves for the outfalls of ecological overshoot will be in a far better position to navigate the expected turbulences. And there are also economies of scale. Like with NATO. Just as no single country can defend itself militarily against all threats, no country can fully secure its resource base alone in the face of global ecological overshoot. But they can substantially reduce their risk, and do so more cost-effectively, through strategic collaboration.

The guiding principle for countries to engage in meaningful cooperation, whether as NATO for NATURE[3] or a Biocapacity Bloc, is straightforward: “participating in efforts to reduce ecological threats must lead to greater protection at a lower cost.” In contrast, the prevailing call to climate action, which boils down to “give up your benefits for the sake of humanity”, tends to inspire words rather than action.

Are we ready to let go of the belief that we’re stuck in a free-rider trap and begin to recognize that the real risk we face is much more similar to an existential military threat than a moral dilemma demanding noble self-sacrifice?

Notes

[1] Appealing to the moral high-ground implicitly implies being trapped in a free-rider dilemma. The moral imperative, as heartfelt as it may sound, can convey the exact opposite: asking the receiver to give up their privileges exactly at the time when everything gets tighter turns the appeal into an inconvenient burden. Many will react by resisting.

[2] We are not denying that there are free-rider aspects in the realm of environmental challenges. For instance in the examples of unregulated pollution or unregulated fishing. But here we argue that they are not the dominant dynamic. By recognizing overshoot as our overarching context and the need for resource security as a response, the free-rider dynamic is no longer the dominant force.

[3] Using NATO as an example is not about promoting aggression, militarizing the environmental challenge, or excluding countries. Rather, NATO serves as a model of an international organization that provides its members with benefits that clearly outweigh the member's costs. The same is true for other organizations, such as the WHO, where coordinated efforts to monitor pandemics are far more cost-effective than if each country acted alone.

In contrast, international climate commitments, currently those shaped by the UNFCCC, are framed as a response to a free-rider problem. In this structure, participation hardly yields direct benefits to individual countries that exceed the cost of their contributions. NATO is different: the benefits to each member state substantially outweigh their respective costs. And of course, there’s an added bonus to using NATO in this context: it alliterates nicely with Nature.