The Church of England Votes Against Plan to Rewild 30% of its Land by 2030

The Church of England’s General Synod has rejected a plan to rewild 30% of its land by 2030, a decision that will be seen as a missed opportunity for moral leadership on the environment. This vote comes at a time when the UK and over 190 other countries have committed to this target in an effort to reverse the global decline in nature.

The Church’s ownership of approximately 42,500 hectares (105,000 acres) makes it one of England’s largest landowners. Currently, only about 3.5% of its land is dedicated to nature restoration. This lack of ambition is striking given the growing body of research highlighting the importance of rewilding and conservation efforts.

The Rev Canon Val Plumb’s private motion called for a target of 30% rewilding by 2030, but it was blocked in favor of an amendment that does not include any measurable targets. Instead, the church will focus on integrating nature recovery into working landscapes, which means supporting food production and maintaining agricultural productivity. This approach is at odds with the spirit of the 30by30 target and ignores the consequences of inaction.

The UK’s commitment to the 30by30 goal has been met with criticism from environmental campaigners and government officials alike. The Church commissioners’ justification for rejecting Plumb’s motion – that it was inconsistent with their legal obligations – rings hollow given their fiduciary responsibilities to protect and preserve the environment.

In contrast, other large landowners have committed to more ambitious targets. For example, the Crown Estate has pledged to manage 36% of its land for nature by 2030. The government’s own strategy to reach the UK’s 30by30 target was widely condemned as “pathetic” and “completely insufficient.” The Church commissioners’ claim that they are pleased with Synod’s collaborative approach is little more than PR spin.

The real issue here is not just the Church of England’s failure to lead on environmental issues but also its refusal to acknowledge the impact of climate change. As we witness the devastating consequences of environmental degradation – from collapsing wildlife populations to rising temperatures – it becomes clear that business-as-usual will no longer suffice.

What this decision means for the Church of England is unclear, but one thing is certain: it has lost an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to social and environmental responsibility. Claire Rogers, a campaigner at Wild Card, noted, “At a time when wildlife is collapsing in our countryside, we need much greater action than has been committed to today.” The Church’s decision will be seen as a failure of moral leadership – one that will have far-reaching consequences for the environment and the communities it serves.

As the church continues to prioritize agricultural productivity over environmental protection, other organizations and individuals are stepping up to fill the gap. Community-led initiatives, citizen’s movements, and even some government agencies are working towards more ambitious targets – targets that the Church of England has chosen to reject.

The Church of England’s decision will not be forgotten. Its failure to lead on environmental issues will serve as a reminder of the critical need for moral leadership in the face of climate change.