Here we’ve given you the answers to the questions most commonly asked about our Rewild the National Estate for Nature campaign. Can’t find an answer here to the question that you’re pondering? Please get in touch with our team: nationalestate@wildcard.land.

What is the National Estate for Nature?

In a nutshell: A group containing many of England’s largest landowners, that collectively own 10% of England.

The National Estate for Nature (NEN) is a group of some of England’s largest landowners, assembled by the UK Government last year to accelerate progress towards the UK’s climate and nature commitments, such as protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 (30by30), and those enshrined in the 2021 Environment Act. The group comprises private, public and third sector landowners who collectively own 10% of England. The full list of members and their objectives can be found on the Government webpage and via the NEN terms of reference. 

Why and how have we ranked The National Estate for Nature members?

In a nutshell:  We ranked the NEN members to encourage a friendly spirit of competition, and highlight the inefficacy of the existing NEN standards. 

Wild Card have chosen to rank the NEN members to evoke the spirit of friendly competition and encourage landowners to #StepUpYourGame for nature restoration. We have also done so to demonstrate that the current framework is difficult to operationalise at the speed and scale required to combat climate change, and therefore needs overhauling. Finally, we have created this ranking to raise public awareness of the National Estate for Nature’s activities. 

The ranking is based on the NEN Terms of Reference. Our full methodology can be found here.

Why is it important that large landowners protect land for nature?

In a nutshell:  In England, land is heavily concentrated – half of England is owned by just 1% of the population. Action by big landowners is therefore key to achieving nature restoration at scale. 

Landownership in the UK is heavily concentrated, with half of England being owned by just 1% of the population. This 1% consists of wealthy elites and institutions, many of which have a long history of accumulating land for profit and status. Therefore, when we talk about restoring land for nature, we must understand that the majority of that land is privately owned, and that nature restoration requires buy-in from those landowners. 

For example, the Government cannot achieve its climate and nature commitments on its own land. As laid out in the Government Estate Nature Plan (GENP), the Government’s total landholdings account for only 4% of England, despite being the largest landowner in England. Targets like 30by30 are therefore impossible without the contributions of large landowners. 

Furthermore, some large landowners engage in activities that are actively damaging the land. A pervasive example is grouse moor burning, which involves burning heather on upland moors to feed grouse populations which are then hunted for sport. The Duchy of Lancaster (King Charles III), a NEN member, has long supported the sport and its ecological damage through his estates in the Forest of Bowland and North York Moors. Other harmful activities attributed to large landowners include water pollution, peatland burning, and intensive agriculture. 

In short, large landowners, like those in the NEN, own a lot of land over which they have a lot of power. To restore nature at scale, we must see serious ambition – and the cessation of harmful activities – from these landowners. 

What does 30by30 mean and why does it matter?

In a nutshell:  A UN and UK Government commitment to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030.

30by30 refers to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s global target to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030, as outlined in Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As the CBD website states: 

“Well-governed, effectively managed and representative protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are a proven method for safeguarding both habitats and populations of species and for delivering important ecosystem services and multiple benefits to people. They are a central element of biodiversity conservation strategies at local, national and global levels. Protected areas and OECMs can take various forms, ranging from strictly protected areas to areas that allow sustainable use consistent with the protection of species, habitats and ecosystem processes.”

The importance of 30by30 has become increasingly apparent as biodiversity loss and climate change wreak havoc on the UK’s ecosystems, threatening energy, food, and broader national security. 

The UK Government has recognised this threat and enshrined their commitment to the 30by30 target in their 2023 Environmental Improvement Plan, highlighting the importance of working with landowners, communities and businesses.  In 2026 the Government published their 30by30 delivery plan for England. Furthermore, The National Estate for Nature terms of reference centre 30by30 as a primary motivation for the group’s activities. 30by30, therefore, is a target of significant social, political and ecological interest, with sufficient momentum behind it to deliver for nature provided relevant stakeholders (such as large landowners) are efficiently coordinated. 

Is 30by30 still possible?

In a nutshell:  According to the Government’s Land Use Framework, yes, but we need to see rapid action from the Government and landowners.

As a small nation, land in England must consider many competing uses such as farming, housing and nature. In 2026 the UK Government published its Land Use Framework (LUF) that lays out more effective ways to manage land for these competing uses, following a consultation that took place in 2025. 

Regarding 30by30, there are two main conclusions to be drawn from the LUF. Firstly, that the current state of land management in the UK is incredibly inefficient and, by improving this efficiency, we should in fact have enough land to meet our various needs – including to protect nature (p.9). Secondly, while it estimates that 7% of England is currently estimated to be protected for nature, the LUF suggests 32% of England has the potential to be protected for nature, keeping 30by30 within reach (p.26). 

Of course, while the LUF shows that the land is available, the speed at which we achieve 30by30 is contingent on the Government’s ability to implement policies, distribute funding and coordinate stakeholders effectively. Many NGOs, public bodies and activist groups have been vocal about the gap between ambition and progress regarding 30by30, including The Wildlife and Countryside Link, The Wildlife Trusts and Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England. The UN’s 2026 progress report on the Global Biodiversity Framework, released ahead of COP17, shows governments across the world falling short of almost every single target set under the framework, with the UK on track to meet only 3 targets of the total 23. 

Therefore, while 30by30 is theoretically still possible, the next three years demand unprecedented action from the UK Government to combat the worst impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change. The National Estate for Nature has the potential to deliver that action. For this reason, Wild Card is calling on the Government to overhaul and extend the mandate of the NEN to encompass all major landowners in the UK. It is only through the buy-in of major landowners that the UK can achieve 30by30.

What about food security?

In a nutshell: Biodiversity loss is a top threat to UK food security – we need land to be restored to safeguard the vital ecosystem services that keep our food system functioning.

It’s a false dichotomy to consider food security as incompatible with nature restoration; food security cannot exist without healthy ecosystems. This year, despite continuous attempts to bury it, the Government released the Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security which outlines the dire impacts we face as a result of biodiversity loss. This includes the significant likelihood that “ecosystem degradation or collapse will challenge the UK’s food security” (p.10).

Climate change-induced heatwaves are devastating farming productivity and livelihoods. Increasing severity of floods also poses huge risk to food security in the UK. Rewilding has been shown to dramatically reduce the worst impacts of climate change by improving ecological resilience to wildfires and flooding, as well as storing vast amounts of carbon that may mitigate further climate breakdown. In contrast, monocultural, extractive farm practices are less resilient to climate change. 

The current state of farming is entirely unsustainable, and if we are to ensure our national food security well into the future, we must manage nature and farming concurrently. The UK Government’s Land Use Framework shows that there is space for both, and flagship rewilding projects such as the Knepp estate have shown that land, when managed effectively, can provide benefits for both nature and food security. 

What about housing?

In a nutshell:  Housing is a fundamental human right and one that is not undermined by committing land for nature restoration. Nature and housing must work in harmony.

Housing has become a priority in the UK as the country’s population increases and housing costs continue to skyrocket. Ensuring every person has access to safe, warm shelter is absolutely essential; yet too often nature is scapegoated as a blocker to development. In 2025, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves sparked a debate about competing housing and nature priorities when she introduced controversial amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which scrapped many environmental protections in the hopes of accelerating development. Central to Reeves’ argument was the apparent nuisance caused by bats and newts, which were, frankly, bizarre enemies to choose. 

A positive outcome from this debate, despite the fact the amendments are now legally binding, was the renewed understanding that housing and nature priorities are not competing but complementary, following large-scale pushback from campaigners, politicians and ecologists. This is now recognised in the foreword of the Land Use Framework (p.4). Furthermore, from a purely spatial perspective, residential development only accounted for 1.3% of England’s land use in 2022. In contrast, according to the same report, 63% of England’s land use was agricultural. 

Protecting nature does not hinder housing development. Many initiatives have been introduced across the UK – Planning and Infrastructure Bill aside – that demonstrate this. In Scotland, swift bricks are to be installed on all new buildings, a concept that has been replicated by the UK Government-backed Homes for Nature initiative. Additionally, access to nature, especially in urban areas, has been proven to be incredibly beneficial for public health and wellbeing. 

In summary, ensuring 30% of land is protected for nature by 2030 should not impact the country’s need for housing. 

Why are area-based targets important?

In a nutshell:  Area-based targets are specific and measurable, making it easier to monitor progress. They also encourage a large-scale approach to wildlife conservation that restores entire interwoven ecosystems.

Area-based targets are important for two reasons. Firstly, area-based targets are specific and measurable, meaning progress towards them can be monitored and, very importantly, held to account. This is reflected in the NEN terms of reference which require members to provide SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) targets and trajectories to contribute to the Environment Act targets and the UK’s 30by30 commitment. Secondly, in the context of 30by30, area-based targets encourage landowners to consider nature restoration relative to their entire estate. This is important because, as the 2010 Lawton Review showed, wildlife cannot thrive without joined up landscapes of significant size, facilitating whole ecosystems to recover rather than the odd patch of land.

Why is it important that landowners publish their progress publicly?

In a nutshell:  Landownership in the UK is historically shrouded from public view, perpetuating injustice. Releasing reports publicly means that land use can be held to account for the public good.  

Landownership in the UK has been historically obscured to protect landowning elites, as Guy Shrubsole writes in his book Who Owns England. In fact, the UK Land Registry – the government body that records landownership titles – remains behind a paywall largely inaccessible to the public and local authorities, making it difficult to make planning decisions for farming, housing and nature. As a result, ownership of at least 10% of the UK remains unknown – even to Parliament. In the Government’s Land Use Framework, released this year, they announced the proposed opening of the Land Registry subject to a consultation which, at the time of writing, is open to the public. 

This secrecy is systematically designed to protect landowners from public accountability. It permits large landowners to continue harmful activities, such as polluting, shooting and burning, while masking their identity. It also acquits them of their responsibility to contribute to national targets like Net Zero and 30by30. 

Landowners publicly releasing reports of their land usage and, in the case of the NEN, nature protection strategies, directly combats historical injustice – releasing exhaustive maps of their landholdings, even more so! Transparency from landowners means those who rely on the land (which is all of us, in one way or another) are able to ensure they follow through on their promises, and act in ways that benefit the whole population – not just a few wealthy elites. 

How can I support the campaign?

Support the campaign by signing our petition, donating to Wild Card, or both!