As any farmer will know, one of the simplest ways to assess the health of a soil is to disturb it.
Dig into it. Add some water. Stamp on the ground.
If the worms begin to emerge, it is usually a sign that something healthy exists beneath the surface. Life is present. Biological processes are functioning. The foundations for growth are there.
I found myself thinking about that during Future Countryside at Raby Castle last week.
Not because anybody spoke about earthworms….that ws merely the analogy my brain wondered to on the drive home as I composed my thoughts and tried to avoid car sickness!
In fact, the discussions ranged from biodiversity net gain and landscape recovery to food security, rural transport, housing, public health and the future role of artificial intelligence in land management. Yet throughout the day there was a persistent sense that beneath the surface of what can often appear to be a fragmented rural sector, there remains a surprisingly healthy ecosystem of people willing to engage with difficult questions.
The room brought together conservationists, farmers, landowners, researchers, local government leaders, charities, policymakers and businesses. In most public narratives these groups are portrayed as being in conflict with one another. Farmers versus environmentalists. Growth versus nature. Regulation versus enterprise.
That is not what I observed.
If anything, the striking feature of the day was the extent to which people agreed on the diagnosis.
There was broad recognition that Britain faces profound challenges around food security, water quality, biodiversity loss, rural economic resilience, housing and infrastructure. There was recognition that these issues are interconnected rather than separate. There was recognition that healthy ecosystems underpin healthy economies, and that neither environmental recovery nor food production can succeed if the other fails.
Craig Bennett, Chief Executive of The Wildlife Trusts, challenged the framing of nature as an obstacle to growth, arguing that the economy itself is dependent upon functioning natural systems. Natalie Prosser of the Office for Environmental Protection made a similar point through the practical realities of clean water, healthy soils and clean air. Later in the day, Minette Batters returned repeatedly to the importance of food production, arguing that agriculture must not become an afterthought within environmental policy.
Different perspectives. Different priorities. Yet not fundamentally different diagnoses.
And that is perhaps what makes the current moment so interesting.
For many years, discussions about the countryside have often been characterised by disagreement about what the problem is. Increasingly, it feels as though we understand the problems rather well. The challenge lies elsewhere.
The challenge is implementation.
Throughout the day I heard compelling arguments about landscape-scale nature recovery, natural capital markets, local leadership, regenerative farming, planning reform, transport connectivity and community resilience. I heard optimism about innovation and concern about institutional inertia. I heard calls for greater collaboration and frustration at fragmented delivery.
What I heard less of was a clear answer to a deceptively simple question.
Who does what next?
This is not a criticism of Future Countryside. In many ways it reflects a wider challenge facing the rural sector.
The countryside is rich in strategy, frameworks, reports, consultations, reviews and roadmaps. What often feels in shorter supply is the mechanism that converts shared understanding into collective action.
Many of the people in the room have genuine influence. They manage significant landholdings. They lead major organisations. They shape policy. They control investment. They commission research. They represent communities. If meaningful change cannot emerge from conversations involving this group, it is difficult to imagine where else it will come from.
This is particularly important because many of the issues under discussion operate on timescales far longer than political cycles…something frequently noted throughout the conversations. Nature recovery, soil restoration, water resilience and rural economic development are generational challenges. They require consistency of purpose over decades rather than years.
Several speakers touched on this directly. René Olivieri reflected on the difficulty of making long-term investments in natural systems when political and economic incentives often favour short-term returns. Others spoke about the need to move beyond departmental silos and recognise the countryside as a connected system rather than a collection of separate policy areas.
Again, there was little disagreement.
Future Countryside succeeds because it creates the conditions for important conversations. It surfaces ideas. It challenges assumptions. It builds relationships between people who might otherwise never meet. Yet if the event is to realise its full potential, perhaps the next stage is to place greater emphasis on what happens between one gathering and the next.
Not simply identifying challenges, but identifying ownership, discussing solutions, and then committing to them.
The countryside does not suffer from a shortage of expertise. Nor does it suffer from a shortage of people who care deeply about its future. What remains uncertain is whether we can create the structures, incentives and accountability required to translate that expertise into meaningful change.
The Question That Remains
If there was one question that seemed to sit behind every discussion, it was this:
How do we move from agreement to action?
The room contained an extraordinary concentration of expertise, influence and goodwill. The challenge for Future Countryside—and arguably for the wider rural sector—is ensuring that these conversations create measurable progress before delegates reconvene next year.
The countryside is not short of ideas.
The question is how we turn them into outcomes.
How do we turn healthy soil, with plenty of worms into a harvest?
Themes, Questions and Ideas from Future Countryside 2026 – AI generated themes from my uploaded notes, voicenotes and obervations taken thoughtout the day.
So I took many written notes and captured some voice notes in the car on the way home, I want to be transparent on where i have used AI so I input these into my prefered AI tool and asked it to summarise all of the thoughts, themes, quotes and notes into themes for the day…here is the output:
1. Nature and Growth Are Increasingly Being Viewed as the Same Conversation
One of the strongest themes throughout the day was a rejection of the idea that nature and economic prosperity sit in opposition to one another.
Craig Bennett of The Wildlife Trusts challenged the framing of nature as a blocker to growth, arguing that the economy itself depends upon functioning natural systems. Natalie Prosser from the Office for Environmental Protection reinforced this by highlighting that clean water, healthy soils and clean air are not environmental luxuries but essential infrastructure.
Quote:
“The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of nature.”
Craig Bennett, The Wildlife Trusts
The debate was not whether nature matters, but how environmental outcomes are delivered, funded and measured.
2. Food Production Is Returning to the Centre of the Debate
Perhaps the most notable shift compared with similar discussions a decade ago was the prominence of food.
Several speakers expressed concern that food production has become marginalised within environmental conversations.
Minette Batters argued strongly that food security must be considered alongside biodiversity, carbon and water outcomes, rather than being treated as a competing objective.
A recurring theme was that farmers should not simply be viewed as food producers or environmental managers, but as providers of multiple public goods simultaneously.
Key question:
How do we create systems that reward food production, environmental stewardship and rural economic resilience together rather than separately?
3. We Continue to Struggle With Long-Term Thinking
The countryside operates on long timescales.
Trees take decades to mature. Soil restoration takes years. Nature recovery is measured in generations rather than election cycles.
Several speakers highlighted the tension between long-term environmental outcomes and short-term political decision-making.
René Olivieri, Chair of the National Trust, reflected on the challenge of making long-term investments when political systems are designed around immediate returns.
Key insight:
Many of the countryside’s challenges are not technical problems. They are governance problems.
4. The Real Debate Is About Delivery, Not Direction
While the headlines often focus on conflict, the discussions revealed significant consensus.
Most delegates appeared to agree that:
- Nature recovery matters.
- Food production matters.
- Rural communities matter.
- Economic growth matters.
The disagreement lies in how those objectives are delivered.
Questions around regulation, private investment, natural capital markets, planning reform and public funding dominated much of the discussion.
Quote:
“The challenge is implementation.”
This phrase was never explicitly stated but underpinned much of the day.
5. Rural Britain Needs Better Stories About Itself
Several speakers discussed the growing disconnect between urban populations and the countryside.
The challenge is not simply one of understanding farming or conservation, but understanding how dependent modern life remains on the countryside.
Alexia Robinson of Love British Food highlighted the importance of reconnecting consumers with where food comes from.
Others spoke about the need to reconnect people with landscapes, rivers, forests and green spaces as part of a broader “natural health service”.
Key question:
How do we help people value systems they rarely see but depend upon every day?
6. Leadership Is Becoming More Local
The session on leadership suggested that some of the most significant rural change may come from local rather than national leadership.
David Skaith, Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, highlighted the opportunities created by devolution, particularly in transport, housing, skills and economic development.
The discussion suggested that future rural leadership may increasingly sit with local partnerships, landscape-scale collaborations and regional institutions rather than central government alone.
7. The Most Thought-Provoking Quote of the Day
Rupert Soames offered what was perhaps the most memorable line of the conference:
“The golden rule: he who holds the gold makes the rules.”
While delivered in the context of land ownership, investment and funding, it captured a wider tension running through the day: who ultimately shapes the future of the countryside?
The counterargument, expressed throughout many of the discussions, was that influence alone is insufficient. Durable change requires legitimacy, trust, collaboration and public consent.