Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Church of England Rejects 30% Rewilding Target for Its Vast Land Holdings

The Church of England has voted against a motion to rewild 30% of its land by 2030, drawing criticism from environmental campaigners. The decision comes despite the UK's international commitment to the '30by30' target for nature restoration.

  • The Church of England (C of E) voted against a motion to restore 30% of its 425,000 hectares of land for nature by 2030.
  • Campaigners criticised the C of E for failing to show moral leadership, highlighting that it is one of England's largest landowners.
  • Instead of the '30by30' target, the General Synod passed an alternative amendment without measurable rewilding goals.
  • The C of E cited legal obligations and the need for 'long-term capital growth' as reasons for rejecting the specific target.
  • The UK government's own strategy to meet the 30by30 target has also faced criticism, with only 7% of English land currently meeting the criteria.

The Church of England's national assembly, the General Synod, has rejected a proposal to rewild 30% of its extensive landholdings by 2030, a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups. The C of E, which owns approximately 425,000 hectares (105,000 acres) of land, making it one of the largest landowners in England, currently dedicates only 3.5% of its estate to nature restoration.

The motion, introduced by the Rev Canon Val Plumb, an area dean in Oxford, aimed to align the Church with the international '30by30' commitment, a target adopted by over 100 countries, including the UK, to restore 30% of land for nature by the end of the decade. This target is widely regarded as the minimum necessary to halt and reverse the global decline in biodiversity. However, the private motion was blocked during Tuesday's vote.

Instead of committing to a measurable rewilding target, the Synod passed a separate amendment put forward by the Right Rev Graham Usher, the lead bishop for the environment. This alternative approach outlines six steps, including supporting nature restoration projects 'where appropriate' and engaging with tenants on sustainable farming, but notably lacks any specific, quantifiable goals for land restoration.

Prior to the vote, William Nye, the secretary general of the Archbishops' Council, stated that Canon Plumb's motion was inconsistent with the Church's legal obligations and its responsibility to ensure 'long-term capital growth'. The Church Commissioners, who manage the C of E's financial assets and land, welcomed the amended motion, emphasising a 'collaborative approach that balances further support for nature with our legal and fiduciary obligations'. They highlighted that around 90% of their farmland portfolio is productive agricultural land, and their focus lies on integrating nature recovery into working landscapes while supporting food production and rural businesses.

Claire Rogers, a campaigner at Wild Card, a citizens' movement advocating for major landowners to rewild their estates, expressed disappointment, stating that the Church had 'missed an opportunity to show moral leadership'. She added that 'at a time when wildlife is collapsing in our countryside, we need much greater action than has been committed to today'. The criticism comes as other significant landowners, such as the Crown Estate, have already committed to managing 36% of their land for nature by 2030. The government's own recently published strategy to meet its 30by30 target was also condemned as 'pathetic' and 'completely insufficient', with only 7% of land in England currently meeting the criteria.

Why this matters: The Church of England's decision impacts the UK's progress towards its international biodiversity commitments and raises questions about the role of large landowners in environmental conservation. It highlights the tension between ecological goals and financial responsibilities for major institutions.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This decision affects the pace and scale of nature recovery across England, potentially influencing biodiversity, local ecosystems, and the long-term health of the British countryside. It also reflects broader debates about land use, food production, and the balance between economic interests and environmental protection.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.