England’s Nature Crisis: A Plan That Falls Short

The government’s long-awaited plan to protect and restore nature in England by 2030 has been met with widespread criticism from environmentalists, who describe it as “completely insufficient” in the face of the spiraling environmental crisis. The plan relies heavily on voluntary efforts from landowners to opt into protecting and enhancing nature, rather than implementing legal protections for nature across more of England’s land.

The government’s approach is a far cry from what’s needed to address the scale of the problem. As the RSPB points out, the strategy is “deeply disappointing” because it fails to provide any new policies or timeline for creating protected areas. Instead, it relies on existing powers to drive action, which critics argue will only lead to more empty promises.

The plan’s reliance on landowners to do what’s right is particularly striking. While the government claims that managers of protected landscapes are powerful delivery partners for meeting the 30by30 target, this ignores the reality that most land in national parks and national landscapes is privately owned. Chris Packham has pointed out that access to land is a major barrier to progress on nature conservation, with 50% of the land owned by just 1% of the people.

The Church of England’s attempt to rewild 30% of its land by 2030 has been hailed as a beacon of hope. However, this effort also highlights the complexities and challenges involved in implementing such a plan. The motion to be voted on Tuesday is not without controversy, with some arguing that it would require significant changes to existing policies and practices.

This debate is not just about numbers or targets – it’s about fundamental values and principles. As Rev Canon Val Plumb noted, “the country’s land is crying and dying out for liberation.” The question is whether the Church of England is willing to take a stand and use its resources to support nature restoration.

Critics have argued that the government’s plan is too vague and lacks ambition. Guy Shrubsole has pointed out that it’s a desperate plea asking landowners to voluntarily protect nature, rather than taking radical action to legally protect more land for nature. The strategy suggests that protected natural landscapes are the gold standard, but fails to provide any clear plan or timeline for creating new ones.

The environmental community is not short of ideas and solutions – what’s lacking is the political will to act. As Ben Goldsmith noted, there are now a range of revenue streams available from nature that didn’t exist five or ten years ago. The question is whether policymakers are willing to think creatively and invest in nature restoration as a key driver of economic growth.

The Church Commissioners’ response to the 30by30 motion has been lukewarm at best, arguing that the current approach to managing the church’s farmland portfolio is consistent with its legal duties. However, this approach is out of step with the times – and with the values of the people who own the land.

In reality, the Church Commissioners would do well to revisit their policies and implement the 30by30 target without delay. As Prof Mark Hill KC pointed out, it’s both an ecological and a doctrinal imperative. The church has a unique opportunity to set an example and use its resources to support nature restoration – but will it seize it?

Looking ahead, one thing is clear: England’s nature crisis will not be solved by half-measures or empty promises. What’s needed is bold action, radical change, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. The government’s plan falls short of what’s required – but there are still those who believe that we can do better.