Nature loss is being recast as an economic risk that governments and markets can no longer file under “later”. In a new Institute and Faculty of Actuaries report, co-authored by Government Actuary’s Department specialist Georgina Bedenham, the warning is blunt: if finance can price climate risk, it must also price damage to the living systems that keep economies working. Published through the IFoA’s Planetary Solvency series, ‘Tipping into the Wild Unknown’ argues that biodiversity decline belongs on the main risk register alongside inflation, credit exposure and energy security, not on the margins of financial planning.

The report treats nature as infrastructure. Food production, freshwater, public health, climate regulation and day-to-day economic activity all depend on soils, forests, wetlands, insects and stable seasons doing work that balance sheets often overlook. That framing matters because nature risk is still missing from many official scenarios and financial models. Climate has moved up the agenda, but biodiversity loss is too often treated as a background issue even when it is already feeding through to prices, credit assessments and supply security.

The near-term warning is especially sharp around food. The IFoA report points to soil degradation, water stress and pollinator decline as threats that are already weakening harvests and making supply chains more fragile. When major growing regions fail at the same time, the fallout does not stop at the farm gate. Breadbasket shocks and trade disruption can raise food bills, unsettle inflation and squeeze businesses that rely on dependable commodity flows.

It also links deforestation and wider land-use change to disease risk. As habitats are broken up and wildlife is pushed into closer contact with people and livestock, the chance of animal-to-human spillover rises, a lesson made painfully clear during COVID-19. That overlap matters because nature policy is also health policy and economic policy. Better forest protection and more careful land management can cut emissions, lower exposure to future disease shocks and support rural livelihoods in the same move.

Looking further ahead, the report warns about tipping points in natural systems that could prove effectively irreversible on human timescales. A collapse in coral reefs or pollinator populations would not be a niche environmental loss; it would damage fisheries, farming and coastal economies in ways standard models still struggle to capture. That is why the authors say climate-only modelling is no longer enough. Climate change and biodiversity decline intensify one another, and treating them as separate problems leaves governments, lenders and insurers with only a partial view of risk.

Bedenham’s contribution also points to how the actuarial profession can respond. The report encourages practitioners to use emerging biodiversity measures and quantification tools, while also making room for narrative stress testing when the data are incomplete. That is a practical shift, not a theoretical one. Waiting for perfect numbers can leave institutions exposed, whereas mixed methods can help boards and regulators ask better questions now about water dependence, land-use exposure, commodity sourcing and long-term resilience.

For policymakers and financial institutions, the immediate task is to stop treating nature loss as a secondary file. Risk assessments that ignore pollination, soil health, freshwater scarcity or deforestation-linked supply chains are likely to understate future costs. The more constructive message in the IFoA warning is that these risks can still be reduced. Better land management, stronger nature disclosures, supply-chain due diligence and public investment in restoration can make food systems, health systems and finance more shock-resistant. Bedenham is discussing the findings on The Actuary podcast, but the central point is already clear: nature belongs in mainstream economic decision-making.