We had an idea. But was it a good one?

Could Living Springs become an eco-sanctuary? Following the evidence, Part 1 

For years, restoration work has been changing the landscape at Living Springs. Former farmland is regenerating and native vegetation is returning. Predator control has expanded beyond Living Springs itself into the surrounding landscape. Thousands of native plants have gone into the ground and volunteers, staff, students, neighbours and conservation partners have become part of the work. 

As that work progressed, a much bigger idea began to take shape. Could Living Springs become an eco-sanctuary? 

Our vision was a camp within an eco-sanctuary: a place that brings together the wellbeing of people with the restoration of nature. It is an inspiring idea. But inspiring ideas are not necessarily good investments. 

Would Living Springs actually be a suitable place for an eco-sanctuary? What could realistically be restored here? Which species could return? Would our existing predator control programme be enough, or would a predator exclusion fence be needed? Could a fence even be built across this landscape? What would it cost? Could an eco-sanctuary work alongside a busy camp? And would the ecological and community benefits justify the scale of investment? 

We didn’t want to begin with an answer and then find evidence to support it. 

So the Living Springs Board commissioned James Lynch QSM, founder of Zealandia, to undertake an independent scoping and provisional feasibility assessment. 

 

Testing the idea

Over approximately six months, Jim worked through 20 questions covering ecology, restoration, pest control, fencing, species reintroductions, business viability, community engagement, risks, costs and benefits. This wasn’t simply one person’s opinion, though. Jim drew on published research, relevant case studies and industry standard costs.  

He consulted experts and suppliers and commissioned specialist work where it was needed. A reference group bringing together people with extensive knowledge of ecology, conservation and Living Springs was established, and Jim prepared 13 discussion papers which were reviewed and amended before their conclusions were brought together in the final report. 

And importantly, he was asked to consider the alternatives. One option was to build on what Living Springs is already doing: intensive predator control, restoration and planting. Another was much more ambitious: a predator exclusion fence creating a secure sanctuary of up to 220 hectares. Jim also considered a smaller fenced option. 

Each came with different costs, risks and ecological outcomes. His job wasn’t to tell us which one sounded most exciting. It was to determine what each could realistically achieve. 

 

Jim’s overall finding was encouraging, but it wasn’t an unqualified endorsement:  a sanctuary restoring indigenous flora and fauna to Living Springs is feasible but challenging financially and in the scale of the task.  

 

That sentence is the starting point for everything that comes next. Over the next 12 weeks, we’re going to open up Jim’s investigation and share what he found. 

We’ll look at what has been lost from Canterbury, what still survives at Living Springs, how much native forest could realistically return, which species might one day live here, what difference a fence would actually make, what it could cost, what could go wrong, and what the benefits could be for people as well as nature.  

Some of the findings surprised us. Others confirmed that this will not be quick, cheap or easy. We think both are important to share. 

Because if Living Springs is going to embark on something that could take decades to fully realise, we want our community to understand not only what we hope to do, but why.