Well, that was….frustrating!

Yesterday at the Church of England’s General Synod gathering in York, the Reverend Canon Val Plumb put forward her Private Members Motion, calling for greater creation care in this time of ecological crisis.

Specifically, the motion called on the Church Commissioners –  who hold the land and other assets of the CoE’s investment portfolio – to commit to protecting nature on 30% of its 103,000 acres by 2030 (‘30by30’), a global commitment to which the UK has signed up. The Church is a member of the National Estates for Nature group (NEN), and many of its peers on that group have set measurable targets contributing towards 30by30 – for example the Crown Estates and the National Trust.

Rev Plumb gave a compelling and impassioned speech in support of the motion, explaining not only the financial and environmental benefits that could accrue, but also the theological call for the Church to deliver on its mission to safeguard the integrity of creation. She was backed up by several equally compelling speakers, who highlighted the urgency of the ecological crisis, the lack of legal constraints preventing the Commissioners from adopting the move, and the importance of showing moral leadership.

Disappointingly, though, an amendment to the motion was put forward and was voted to be adopted. This amendment removed the land-based measurability of any action to be taken, and thereby the transparency and accountability that so many people have called for. In fact it did little more than frame some rather self-congratulatory words around what the Church Commissioners is already doing – much of it commendable, but falling woefully short of what’s needed – and completely lacked the ambition and urgency needed in the light of the biodiversity and climate crisis. 

It’s deeply disheartening that the Bishop for the Environment Graham Usher proposed this amendment, when he and his fellow Church Commissioners should (and could) be showing other large landowners the way. In addition it was startling to hear misinformation being shared during the debate which implied that protecting nature is incompatible with food production (in fact it’s essential to our food security), and that it would more than likely use up top-grade farmland and incur unreasonable costs (neither of these is true – the motion focused on low productivity land and peatlands!). 

The amendment, once voted through on the basis of these misleading claims, meant that we’ll never know how many people would have voted in favour of the motion as originally drafted.

On a more positive note, though, the volume of support from Synod members and the general public showed that the British people DO care about restoring our once-‘green and pleasant land’; it’s raised considerable awareness of the issues at stake, and the absolute do-ability of the task; and it’s firmed up our resolve to press for more ambition, accountability and moral leadership from the Church.

So, what now? We know many people are feeling disappointed by the result yesterday, and want to know what we can do about it. Write to the Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally to share why you believe the Church Commissioners should set a measurable, land-based target to protect and restore nature on their land. As both spiritual leader and a Church Commissioner, Bishop Sarah Mullally has the opportunity to use her position to call for more action. Yet so far, she’s stayed silent – even after we delivered our 130,000+ strong petition right to her office.

But by publicly supporting a measurable, area-based target to protect and restore nature on the Commissioners’ land, Bishop Sarah would show that the Church practices what it preaches. The fight for nature continues, and the Church must step up to the challenge.