Why did we leave it so late? The United Kingdom is one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth, according to the latest State of Nature report, and was ranked by a Natural History Museum study in 2020 as the 189th out of 240 countries and territories for biodiversity. We can’t blame our geography—our neighbour, France, ranks 5th best for biodiversity—instead, this is the consequence of British choices. UK terrestrial and freshwater species have declined by 19 per cent, and more than 40m birds have disappeared from our skies, since 1970. And so in 2020, to turn this around, the UK government signed the UN “30by30” commitment to protect and restore 30 per cent of land for nature by 2030.
Land qualifies for the 30by30 target if it serves a clear conservation purpose, has safeguards lasting at least 20 years, and is actively managed to restore or create wildlife-rich habitats. In England (for this is a devolved issue), only 7 per cent of land meets the criteria: a share that has not improved since it was first stated in 2024 (and which is, according to Wildlife and Country Link, the largest environmental coalition in England, optimistic). In a last-ditch effort to add the remaining 23 per cent in the four years before the target deadline, like a 400-metre runner entering the finishing straight, the government this week released its “30by30 on Land: Delivery Plan” for England. Except, rather than beginning an urgent sprint, it appears to suggest a gentle jog.
I use the running track analogy because the 30by30 Plan talks of “a tiered approach”, in which land will be awarded a bronze, silver or gold label, according to how closely it meets the actual requirements of the target. Gold land will fully meet the 30by30 criteria; silver will be “progressing towards” them; bronze areas will fall further short, simply “delivering wider benefits for nature”.
There is only one competitor currently wearing gold: SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), the pinnacle of England’s nature conservation system, which account for 6.4 per cent of the 30by30 goal, almost all of the 7 per cent that’s earned the title. Public woodland and National Nature Reserves make up the remaining less than 1 per cent.
Together the silver and bronze tiers of land have “the potential” to bring 32 per cent of England’s land up to target, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says. However, much of that land is in private hands—even the majority of land within our national parks and national landscapes (what we used to call “areas of outstanding natural beauty”) are privately owned—and so “success depends on the actions of landowners, land managers and other organisations”.
The report only musters milquetoast suggestions for how these private interests should be encouraged to do better. “Everyone can play their part and support 30by30,” the final section enthuses. It optimistically and a tad embarrassingly asks landowners, “can you screen your land for potential to enter the 30by30 pipeline?” Ordinary folk with barely any hectares to our family name are encouraged to “volunteer time at an area that is meeting or working towards the 30by30 criteria”.
The idea that this will be sufficient to meet the target is laughable. If it was down to volunteerism and good will, we wouldn’t be in this mess. The National Trust, our leading landowner and conservation charity, has around 5.35m members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the UK’s largest wildlife charity, boasts 1.2m, the same as all UK political parties combined. Then there’s the Wildlife Trusts, the Rivers Trust, the Woodlands Trust… I could go on. The British public is highly engaged on this issue.
The problem is that the government has made no major funding commitment for public land. The report came with a promise of just £37m investment in national parks and national landscapes over the next three years—“only a fraction of what’s needed”, according to the Campaign for National Parks—and a paltry £10m for degraded peatland. According to Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, nature-related risks have the potential to cause losses to UK GDP of up to £300 billion by 2030 (see the currently raging wildfires as just one example). As Neil Ward, a professor of rural and regional development at the University of East Anglia, pithily put it, “The gap between the talk and action is so cavernous that if it was a geological feature it would surely qualify as a protected area”.
In short, the government’s plan to meekly ask landowners to voluntarily enhance nature “relies far too much on voluntary participation rather than statutory drive”, says Mark Lloyd, chief executive of the Rivers Trust. And one large landowner which actually put this to a vote this week proved his point.
The Church of England owns about 42,500 hectares (425 square kilometres), making it one of England’s biggest landowners. Currently just 3.5 per cent of its land is used for nature restoration. The Reverend Canon Valerie Plumb introduced a private motion to the General Synod—the Church’s governing body—to implement the 30by30 target. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams wrote that to reject the synod motion “would be a form of deep and long-term self-harm.” But the synod still voted “No” . William Nye, the secretary general of the archbishops’ council, said Plumb’s motion was inconsistent with the Church’s fiduciary duty to ensure “long-term capital growth”.
If you can’t even persuade the cream-teas-on-the-village-green CofE of the benefits of nature, what hope can we have for landowners with fewer ethical qualms?
This situation is arguably perfectly teed up for incoming prime minister Andy Burnham to score a win. The four years until 2030 would be a short period in most contexts, but it is longer than most modern prime ministerial lifetimes—and Burnham will face a general election by 2029 at the latest. Here is an issue that everyone is broadly agreed on, and which has a high level of public engagement (unlike climate change and fossil fuels, which have become politically polarised, nature conservation garners broad political support). Everyone, conservative and progressive alike, wants to (be seen to) protect England’s green and pleasant land. The government’s report has given us only platitudes, but Burnham could do better.
So here’s a checklist for him. Defra’s Landscape Recovery Projects—the perennially delayed and underfunded part of the post-EU farm payments scheme—should be brought into action, helping nature-friendly farmers deliver land that meets the gold standard. The government’s December 2024 announcement that it would update the statutory purpose of national parks and national landscapes to include nature recovery still requires primary legislation to do so; getting a bill through parliament would be progress. The Forestry Commission could do much more to make the forest under its management—some 18 per cent of the country’s total—meet 30by30 standards. That’s publicly owned land, so there’s no reason not to get cracking. Finally, since Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) make up the vast majority of the current 7 per cent, why not create more of them?
The strangest thing about the 30by30 plan is that it’s the opposite of a legacy project for Starmer, who could have gone out in a feel-good blaze of glory. But it can be one for the PM coming in.
