Will the Government’s 30by30 plan deliver for nature?

Contact

Ellie Savage

What's in the delivery plan?

The delivery plan introduces a tiered approach to recognising progress towards 30by30, with land categorised as Bronze, Silver or Gold according to how closely it meets the criteria and its contribution to nature recovery. The goal is to set out different routes through which land can contribute towards the target, while encouraging land managers to improve the condition and management of their land over time.

It also sets out three delivery themes: clearer pathways to eligibility, easier routes to delivery, and inspiring participation and leadership. Alongside new commitments, the plan brings together a range of existing initiatives with a view to their combined contribution to meeting the 30by30 target.

Some of the most important new initiatives under each theme include:

1. Clearer pathways to delivery

Developing a 30by30 toolkit to provide practical guidance for delivery partners, land managers, and communities on the criteria, tiered approach, and routes to eligibility.
Establishing an assurance process to provide confidence that land counted towards 30by30 meets the criteria and that it is delivering outcomes for nature.
Creating a national 30by30 portal for England as a single access point for guidance, resources, and information on how to contribute to the target.

2. Easier routes to delivery

Better aligning existing public funding across the Defra group with 30by30, making it easier for land managers to access support that contributes to the target.
Supporting the growth of nature markets, including off-site biodiversity net gain.
Using the Nature Restoration Fund to pool developer contributions with a view to supporting strategic, large-scale conservation, with the first Environmental Delivery Plans due later this year.
Strengthening the long-term protection of habitats, including promoting wider use of conservation covenants and exploring changes to Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.
Publishing a Trees Action Plan and delivering at least 20 Protected Site Strategies.

3. Inspiring participation and leadership

Strengthening the role of Protected Landscapes in delivering 30by30, including through a refreshed vision for nature recovery and greater capacity for teams to deliver at scale.
Developing a national 30by30 delivery community, supported by improved communications and engagement.
Exploring a visible marker that land managers can use to demonstrate they are working towards the 30by30 criteria.
Working with local authorities to embed 30by30 into local plans and Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS).
Using the Nature Towns and Cities programme to support nature recovery in urban areas, including through regional parks, canal and riverside habitats, and neighbourhood green spaces.
Supporting wider participation from businesses, the public, and young people, including through partnerships with the National Education Nature Park and 30x30 UK.

Read the full 30by30 delivery plan for all the details.

Immediate insights

Two features of the plan stand out. Firstly, many of the measures in the plan rely heavily on voluntary action by landowners and land managers. While this reflects the reality that much of the land with the potential to contribute to 30by30 is not owned by government, it raises challenges for delivery in practice. Where the plan focuses heavily on participation, incentives, and private investment, it needs to be supported by action to ensure widespread uptake.

Secondly, the emphasis is largely on the ‘soft infrastructure’ of delivery: guidance, networks, partnerships, communications, and local coordination. For example, there is a commitment to a new vision for nature recovery in protected landscapes, where arguably a new legal duty is needed. Even where more substantive measures are included, particularly around private finance in the second theme, most public funding commitments referenced in the plan had already been announced. With that in mind, there is still a significant gap between the plan’s ambitions and the money needed to make it a reality.

Tom Raven, Member of the IES External Policy Advisory Committee, gave his perspective on the plan:

"The 30by30 delivery plan acknowledges the scale of the challenge but does not set out an adequate response. The Government says a step change in ambition is needed, yet the plan largely brings together existing initiatives, guidance and voluntary mechanisms rather than introducing major new measures to increase the area of land managed for nature.

The criteria for what counts towards 30by30 are rightly rigorous, but the missing piece is a credible and accountable plan for how England gets there within the time remaining – there is no clear year-by-year roadmap to 2030, little detail on how protected sites will be restored at scale, and few commitments that place obligations on government itself rather than encouraging action by others.”

How have experts responded to the delivery plan?

Reactions to the delivery plan from environmental organisations have been largely critical, while farming and landowning stakeholders have broadly welcomed its emphasis on voluntary participation and incentives.

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) welcomed the additional clarity and the identification of a substantial pool of land with potential to contribute, but it questioned whether the actions set out would deliver change “at the scale and pace needed”. It called for a “clearer and quantified pathway” from the current position to the target, including an indication of the contribution expected from each element of the plan.

Wildlife and Countryside Link said the plan “will not deliver 30by30”, arguing that the Government needs to urgently increase efforts to restore, expand, and connect protected sites and revitalise Protected Landscapes. The RSPB described the plan as “deeply disappointing and completely insufficient”, highlighting what it sees as a lack of focus on the condition of existing protected sites. The Wildlife Trusts argued that it offers “no credible plan” for bringing wildlife back, pointing to what the Wildlife Trusts see as insufficient regulation and incentives to restore nature at scale.

The elephant in the room: Is this really a delivery plan?

Even as the delivery plan sets out a framework for working towards 30by30, the question remains as to whether it will actually work as a delivery plan. One way to assess this is to look beyond the number of initiatives it contains and ask some basic implementation questions: what needs to happen, who is responsible, by when, with what resources, and what support is available to make it happen?

For more information on how to connect environmental targets with more credible outcomes, read our latest report, ‘The Golden Thread of Governance’.

Are there clear and measurable commitments?

The delivery plan contains no shortage of commitments, but the strength of those commitments varies considerably. Some have a clear output and deadline, such as publishing a Trees Action Plan in 2026 and delivering at least 20 Protected Site Strategies. Others are framed more as ongoing intentions, using language such as “explore”, “support”, and “work with”. For example, the commitment to “explore how existing and emerging funding streams can be aligned and optimised to contribute to 30by30” does not specify what will be done, by when, or what success would look like.

More importantly, there is little quantification of how individual actions will contribute to closing the gap between the 7% of land currently meeting the criteria and the 30% target. Without this, it is difficult to judge whether the individual initiatives are sufficient, or whether implementation is on track.

Is responsibility for delivery clear?

The plan identifies a wide range of organisations and partners involved in delivery, reflecting the collaborative nature of 30by30 and how much it relies on voluntary action by landowners and other organisations. However, the plan’s commitment to involving stakeholders is not consistently followed by clear lines of responsibility.

Many commitments refer to multiple organisations or use broad language such as “we will work with partners to explore”, making it difficult to identify who ultimately owns a particular action. A handful of commitments, such as “Defra will establish an assurance process”, provide a much clearer line of responsibility, though most of the plan’s commitments do not. The plan also gives insufficient clarity about what it expects organisations such as local authorities and National Park Authorities to actually deliver, beyond participating in or supporting the wider programme.

Accountability is even less clear. The plan does not consistently identify who is answerable if commitments are not delivered, how progress will be reported and publicly tracked, or what will happen if delivery falls behind.

Are there milestones and a credible pathway to 2030?

The plan sets out actions to be taken between now and 2030 but there are not enough details of the milestones needed to show that these actions will add up to the target. With only four years remaining, a truly credible pathway would need to show not only what will happen and when, but how much each intervention is expected to contribute towards the 30% target.

The OEP raised a similar concern, calling for a clearer, quantified pathway showing how the actions in the plan will collectively deliver the target. Without interim milestones and quantified contributions, it will be difficult to know whether implementation is on track, and how quickly we need to change course if it is not.

Are funding and other resources identified?

The plan identifies a range of existing funding streams and proposes to explore how these can be better aligned with 30by30, alongside efforts to mobilise private investment. However, relatively few new public funding commitments are attached to the plan, and it is not always clear how the resources identified relate to the scale of delivery required.

This is particularly important because the plan relies on voluntary action. Funding and incentives must do more than encourage participation: they need to support long-term management and restoration that moves land from having a potential contribution to actually meeting the 30by30 criteria.

Is sufficient support provided for implementation?

The plan contains several promising elements of implementation support, including a 30by30 toolkit, national portal, improved spatial data, an assurance process, and a proposed delivery community.

Despite those positive steps, it is less clear whether support extends beyond understanding and navigating the framework to the practical actions needed to deliver nature recovery on the ground. This includes giving delivery organisations access to advice, technical expertise, skills, and funding.

Taken as a whole, the plan provides many of the building blocks for delivery but does not yet provide enough detail to demonstrate that its actions will add up to 30by30. It creates a strong framework for participation but does not sufficiently set out a clear, quantified, and accountable route to protecting and improving 30% of England’s land for nature.

What does this mean for environmental professionals?

30by30 is more than another environmental target. The Government describes it as a “shared national effort” and puts it “at the heart” of England’s ambition for nature recovery, with expected contributions from initiatives including Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs), Protected Landscapes, and the National Estate for Nature.

This means 30by30 is likely to become an increasingly important framework for connecting existing work on nature recovery, rather than a separate programme sitting alongside it.

For practitioners, particularly in local government, planning, and land management, this will mean understanding how existing decisions and programmes can contribute to 30by30, and helping to translate national ambition into local action. The delivery plan explicitly calls for 30by30 to be embedded in local plans and LNRSs, while its proposed toolkit, portal, mapping, and assurance processes aim to make participation easier.

For 30by30 to become a shared national effort, rather than just another target, environmental professionals will be central to connecting the Government’s ambition with what happens on the ground. Since the delivery plan has not fully provided the tools, resources, and clarity to make that happen, environmental experts need to step up to the challenge of delivering environmental outcomes in practice.

Get involved

The IES will continue to work to support the experts who restore, create, and protect wildlife rich habitats across the UK. Working together, we can accelerate towards a country with thriving people, a healthy economy, and a flourishing environment.

If you want to support the work of the IES to stand up for science and nature, become an affiliate, or if you’re an environmental professional, join the IES.

Join our Environmental Policy Implementation Community (EPIC) to support effective policy in practice, including unlocking action for biodiversity at a local level.
Find out more about how to reconnect environmental targets like 30by30 with credible outcomes through the Golden Thread of Governance.
Sign up for our training course on ‘Understanding environmental policy’ and our new course on 'Influencing and engaging with environmental policy'.
Learn more about recent policy developments in our briefings on land and nature, clean air and water policy.
Catch up with the last two years of updates on nature recovery by reading our coverage in Essential Environment, including insights on the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment, why environmental targets fail, and our analysis on what’s next for the Land Use Framework.

If you want to learn more about environmental policy or the training we offer for members, please contact Joseph Lewis, Head of Policy (joseph@the-ies.org).