I have sent the following Freedom of Information request to see the uncensored report by the Joint Intelligence Committee about our national security. See Jonathon Fuller talking about this here.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CKT5hV7pB
Jonathon says, “If there was a grave threat to life, would you expect Government Ministers to keep it to themselves (and protect their own families), or would you expect the government to share knowledge with everyone so we can all make important life decisions?
That’s what the argument is about in connection with Defra’s decision to refuse a Freedom of Information request to see the full, uncensored report prepared by the Joint Intelligence Chiefs in connection with national security threats associated with climate and ecological breakdown.
If you haven’t submitted a Freedom of Information request, please do so. The more people who act on this, the greater the pressure on the government to release the full report.”
Dear Sir/Madam,
1. FoI request to see the original report produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee on the national security implications of climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and global ecosystem collapse.
I am making a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to see the original report produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee on the national security implications of climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and global ecosystem collapse.
A censored version of the report was published by Defra on 20 January: See:
https://www.gov.uk/…/nature-security-assessment-on…
I have also seen the additional information published on 2 February: –
https://www.gov.uk/…/national-security-assessment-on…
I understand a number of people have issued FoI requests to see the original report, but Defra is refusing to confirm or deny the existence of the report. I will explain in detail why Defra’s position is untenable, but will make these headline points: –
* The national media have reported on the existence of the original report, and The Times says it has seen it.
* The failure to release the original report is a national security threat. That’s because the UK is not preparing for, or adapting to, climate breakdown and, if the public does not understand the full scale of the risks, they will be denied the opportunity to demand dynamic action from government. Without dynamic action, many millions of British citizens could be killed. * Withholding the full report is not in the public interest. People need the full range of information so they can make important life choices. E.G. What to study at school/university, where to live/ work, and whether to have children.
* Withholding the full report distorts the political process, helping politicians who take a relaxed approach to action on climate, and limiting support for those politicians who seek dynamic action on climate.
* Fairness. It cannot be right that senior civil servants and government ministers know how best to protect their families, but this information is denied to the public.
2. Reasons for FoI request: In detail
2.1 Background
In October 2025, The Guardian newspaper alerted the public to a concern that the report was being suppressed by government ministers because it might cause public alarm. When the report was published in January 2026, the Guardian & Times newspapers, and the Express & BBC (online) reported that the most alarming aspects of the report had been censored. The Times said it had seen a copy of the full original report and briefly mentioned some of the deeply alarming points that had been removed from the version that was released to the public.
The public cannot be sure, but the uncensored report is believed to contain specific warnings about threats of nuclear war, mass migration into the UK and what may drive people to emigrate from the UK. People need to know if the risk of collapse of the AMOC ocean current (1) has been assessed and if the Joint Intelligence Committee agrees with the assessment by the National Preparedness Commission (2) that arable farming in the UK would be virtually over in the event of AMOC collapse (2).
This matter is unlike any other that civil servants, government ministers and the public have to consider. Climate and ecological breakdown will kill at least 1 billion people (3) may soon kill billions (4) and may kill the youngest members of most UK families (2). The risks are so extreme that it is vital that all people understand how the Joint Intelligence Committee views this matter.
3. Article 2 Human Rights Act 1998
The Defra refusal of the FoI request risks the right to life, which is enshrined in Article 2 of HRA 1998. That is because we now know there is a very real danger that agricultural production in the UK will come to an end due to AMOC collapse (2). The AMOC is an ocean current that brings warm water from the equator to Northern Europe; without it, the UK will be unable to grow food. If people are allowed access to all information shown on the security threats in the original Joint Intelligence Chiefs report, they can make certain decisions that may save their lives. For people under the age of 25, examples are: –
· * The subjects to study at school, college and university that might allow them a better chance to live abroad (if AMOC does collapse);
· * If the threat of nuclear war in South South/East Asia is significant, some UK citizens with family roots there may choose not to return;
· * People in the UK may consider the growing risk of AMOC collapse and choose to work in the South West of the country; and
· * People may decide that the risks are so extreme that they will not have children.
There is an associated precedent established by the European Court of Human Rights. In HE (2004) ‘CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY’ it was established that people have a right to information that impacts their lives (5).
4. Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Turning to the reasons I understand Defra is refusing the FoI, I would make the following points in relation to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) (6): –
* I understand that Defra has decided to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 12(6) of EIR to maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying whether the requested information is held. I am dissatisfied with this and do not consider that the application of these exceptions can be adequately or lawfully justified.
* While I accept that regulation 12(5)(a) provides for an exception in cases where disclosure would adversely affect international relations or national security, the explanation I understand to have been provided relies on broad, generic assertions rather than a specific, evidence-based assessment of the risks arising from disclosure of the requested information. The reasoning advanced appears speculative and does not demonstrate how disclosure of a risk assessment can be justified, particularly where a redacted version has already been published. It is believed that the government may have wanted to censor the point about the risks of nuclear war in Asia. It is understood that it is in the original report. However, other governments will have already seen the Times article and will now know the UK is considering this threat. If the UK government is embarrassed, the damage is already done.
* The public interest test required under regulation 12(1)(b) EIR does not appear to have been properly balanced. The subject matter of the request concerns large-scale environmental degradation and ecosystem collapse with acknowledged implications for public safety, resilience, and long-term national security. There is a strong and compelling public interest in transparency, informed public debate, and democratic scrutiny in relation to such risks. The public interest in seeing all information is not being given sufficient weight.
*I am also concerned by Defra’s reliance on regulation 12(6). Where the existence of an assessment has been widely reported and where Defra has itself published a redacted version of related material, the maintenance of a neither-confirm-nor-deny position risks undermining the purpose of the EIRs and preventing meaningful scrutiny of the decision-making process. If you refuse my FoI, you need to explain why confirming or denying whether the information is held would, of itself, cause the specific harms alleged.
*The Information Commissioner’s Office and Tribunal Authority have looked at a number of FoI requests relating to environmental impacts and made clear that exceptions under the EIRs must be interpreted restrictively. I understand that Defra’s decision to refuse this FoI relies on generalised claims relating to international relations and national security, without identifying a clear and specific causal link between disclosure of the requested environmental assessment and the prejudice claimed. In circumstances where a redacted version of related material has already been published, this justification cannot be adequately substantiated (See Regulation 12(5)(a).
5. Aarhus Convention (UNECE), Article 4
The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 give domestic effect to the UK’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which requires access to environmental information to be the rule and exceptions to be interpreted restrictively. The Convention places particular emphasis on disclosure where information relates to environmental harm and risks to human well-being. A refusal of my FoI request would not be consistent with these obligations.
6. The Paris COP 21 agreement requires openness
Article 12 of the COP21 Paris climate agreement, which was fully supported by the UK, states: “Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognising the importance of these steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.” The COP30 statement says: “The Declaration emphasises that mobilising all actors in society requires access to consistent, accurate and evidence-based information on climate change, which is indispensable for raising awareness, fostering public participation, enabling accountability and building public trust in urgent climate policies and action.”
7. Fairness
Many scientists warn of grave risks to life from certain climate feedbacks and climate tipping points. What little information the public has suggests there are some places in the UK, and around the world, where climate and ecological breakdown may be survivable. Why should government ministers, security chiefs and some Defra staff be allowed to know how to best protect the youngest members of their families, but this information be denied to the public?
8. Conclusion
In accordance with FoI legislation, I ask to see the original report prepared by the Joint Intelligence Committee. I understand Defra is currently refusing the FoI request, but believe I have shown why you should release this to me.
Yours faithfully,
Graham Wroe
References
1. AMOC collapse (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). Open letter by specialists in this field to the Nordic Council of Ministers:
2. National Preparedness Commission warning ‘Colder, drier conditions would largely wipe out crop growing in the British Isles’:
https://nationalpreparednesscommission.uk/…/blind…/
3. 1 billion people to be killed by 2 °C of global heating. Pearce and Parncutt:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
4. Risk 4 billion killed by 3 °C of global heating. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries:
5. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) The right to know: HE (2004) ‘CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY’:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng…
6. Environmental Information Regulations 2004
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/contents
If you want to send your own FOI request, email
informationrequests@defra.gov.uk
Discover more from Tell the Truth Sheffield
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
