Issues with funding were highlighted. Nature restoration requires significant investment, yet many projects must operate within short-term funding cycles tied to parliamentary terms and ongoing budget constraints. Effective nature restoration, however, depends on long-term planning and sustained funding. As a result, many projects spend considerable time balancing the expectations of multiple funders in order to deliver their work.  

For those working in the sector, it is clear that our society relies on healthy ecosystems in order to function, yet the scale of the nature crisis still rarely makes the news headlines. The apparent disconnect between nature and economic activity is clear, and a message heard throughout the conference was the need to reframe and reposition nature as “critical national infrastructure,” ensuring it receives the investment and attention needed.  

Examples such as the “Rest and be Thankful” road in Argyle highlight the critical dependence of our economic infrastructure on the state of our natural capital. The landslides which have caused the road to be subject to frequent closures may be averted by planting trees whose roots secure the unstable slope. This restoration of the degraded landscape not only has direct benefits to the road infrastructure, hopefully reducing the number of closures, but also has co-benefits of carbon sequestration and biodiversity improvement. Until recently, many issues related to landscape degradation, such as landslides and flooding, tended to be seen as problems only solved by hard engineering. Now we are beginning to understand how restoring degraded nature is central for a sustainable and resilient society. 

The symposium shed light on the challenges faced by those working within the environmental sector. Surveys of professionals working in nature indicate that optimism within the sector is relatively low. Many feel that their work is not fully recognised or valued by policymakers, government or the wider public. The problem of siloed working was also raised. An environmental lawyer speaking at the event noted that despite working on environmental issues, they had never previously spoken directly with an ecologist. This disconnection between professions that share common goals highlights the need to bring together disciplines which have historically operated separately. 

It was encouraging to hear how strongly the importance of community engagement resonates across many projects. One RSPB talk emphasised that landscape restoration cannot succeed without the support of the people who live and work within those landscapes. Not everyone shares the same views about nature, and a shared landscape inevitably involves navigating different values and priorities. Building trust therefore becomes an essential part of the process.  

Reflected in some projects was the temptation to move quickly to action, particularly when the ecological need is urgent. However, skipping the early stages of dialogue and relationship-building can create resistance and a push back.   

The value in taking the time to listen, understand local perspectives, and involve communities in shaping the future of their local landscapes was demonstrated through the success of several restoration projects. Diana Sandon from “Dialogue Matters” shared examples where restoration efforts succeeded, and where they struggled, depending on their engagement strategies. 

One project which focussed solely on environmental factors in a top-down approach received pushback because none of the measures would work with the current farming practises. In contrast, a project that implemented a co-design approach demonstrated the benefit of early community engagement and achieved desired outcomes. Time was spent developing an approach that incorporated multiple perspectives to ensure people could see individuals like themselves represented in decision-making process.  

The distinction between engagement and participation was also highlighted. Engagement involves building connections and dialogue, while participation requires sharing genuine decision-making power. This shift can be challenging, but it can also lead to wiser decisions by incorporating diverse forms of knowledge and experience, and it can reduce the risk of social or psychological shock when landscapes change.

There were several examples from the South of Scotland within Scotland’s “Natural Capital Innovation Zone”. Galloway & Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere discussed their work bringing people and nature together, introducing the organisation’s development goals. In a further example, the Solway Coast and Marine Project (SCAMP) introduced their work on coastal ecosystems, including seagrass and saltmarsh restoration, to foster sustainable connections between people and nature. 
Rather than relying solely on traditional community meetings, SCAMP has created opportunities for communities to reconnect with unique habitats, such as saltmarshes and mudflats, which were often historically associated with dangerous sinking muds. Work of this kind supports communities in being custodians of fragile ecosystems for society and nature. 

Reflecting on the symposium, several themes stand out. We need to break down silo working and think long-term when it comes to nature regeneration. Nature is critical infrastructure and must be recognised as such to achieve the long-term funding required for a sustainable future. The importance of engaging communities early and meaningfully is clear, but knowing the distinction between community engagement and participation is important to ensure local voices are included within decision making. 

If landscape restoration is to succeed at scale, collaboration, long-term thinking and genuine community participation is essential.