Key facts
- The UK government's plan for nature restoration in England by 2030 relies on voluntary landowner participation.
- Critics argue the plan is insufficient and will not meet the international target of restoring 30% of nature by 2030.
- Currently, only 7% of land in England meets the criteria for the 30by30 goal.
- The Church of England faces a vote on a motion to rewild 30% of its land by 2030.
- A legal opinion indicates the Church of England can legally pursue the 30by30 target for its land holdings.
The UK government's newly published plan to restore nature in England by 2030 has been met with sharp criticism, with environmental advocates deeming it inadequate to address the escalating environmental crisis. The strategy, released on Monday, emphasizes voluntary participation from landowners to protect and enhance natural habitats, a departure from calls for more robust legal protections.
Ministers stated the plan aims to accelerate progress towards the international commitment, made by over 100 countries at Cop15 in 2022, to restore 30% of nature by 2030. This target is widely considered the minimum necessary to reverse the decline in biodiversity. However, with only four years remaining, England is significantly behind, with government analysis indicating only 7% of its land currently meets the required criteria. The new plan identifies approximately 32% of England's land as having the potential to contribute to the goal, but acknowledges that achieving it will necessitate a substantial increase in ambition, coordination, and delivery.
Amidst this, the Church of England is preparing to vote on a motion to rewild 30% of its own landholdings by 2030. Environment minister Mary Creagh described the government's strategy as a call to action for land managers, farmers, and communities. However, nature writer Guy Shrubsole criticized it as a continuation of past failed policies, arguing that ministers are outsourcing responsibility to private landowners who are unlikely to deliver. He called for a new government under Andy Burnham to scrap the plan and implement legally binding protections for more land, assign nature recovery duties to national parks and the Forestry Commission, and increase funding for landscape restoration projects.
The RSPB echoed these sentiments, calling the strategy "deeply disappointing and completely insufficient." While the plan notes that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) can be counted towards the target, critics point out the absence of plans or timelines for establishing new SSSIs. The strategy identifies protected landscape managers, such as national park authorities, as key partners, but acknowledges that success hinges on private landowners, given most land within these areas is privately owned.
The Church of England's internal debate over rewilding highlights the challenges of this voluntary approach. Rev Canon Val Plumb plans to introduce a motion to the General Synod urging the church to rewild 30% of its land by 2030, stating the land is "crying and dying out for liberation." However, William Nye, secretary general of the archbishops’ council, expressed concerns about the motion's consistency with the church's legal obligations for long-term capital growth. Veteran environmentalist Ben Goldsmith countered that revenues from nature-based solutions are increasingly available. Environmentalist Chris Packham attributed slow progress to land access issues, noting that 50% of land is owned by 1% of the population, and urged the church to rewild a portion of its tenanted land used for industrial farming.
Professor Mark Hill KC, in a legal opinion commissioned by the campaign group Wild Card, found that the Church of England is legally free to implement the 30by30 target. He expressed hope that the Church Commissioners would revisit their policies without the need for litigation, calling it both an ecological and doctrinal imperative. The Church Commissioners responded that while 30by30 is an important national target, their focus, due to the nature of their land, is primarily on sustainable farming, forestry, renewable energy, and community development, rather than conservation alone.