Decision No.

[2018] NZEnvC 178

The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust

Board
(Applicants)
&
Auckland Council
(Respondents)

Matauranga Maori & Science

SCIEN305-19B

By Adrian Merake (ID: 1323255) with contributions from

Taylor Yarndley Jo Zeke, Eseese Moke,
Contents: Page

1. Introduction 2

2. Method 2

3. Main Body

i. What is 1080 3

ii. Respondent - Auckland Council 4

iii. Opposing - The Friends of Sherwood Ngati 5

Paoa Trust Board

4. Discussion 6

5. Conclusion 10

6. References 11

1
1. Introduction:

The Kohukohunui area covers the southern eastern area of the Auckland region.

Collectively it includes the Hunua Ranges Parklands, Whakatiwai and Waharau (The

Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board vs Auckland Council, 2018). On August

30th-31st the Auckland Council issued a notice of its intentions to undertake an aerial

drop of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison bait) in the Kohukohunui area which

included the catchment for the Auckland water supply. Opposition to this decision

forced the Friends of Sherwood (previously known as the Auckland Environment and

Peace Centre Trust) and the Ngati Paoa Trust Board to file for an interim enforcement

order under the rights of section 314 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). This

report is going to further outline both sides of the case in depth regarding the court's

decision to go ahead with the proposed 1080 drop in the Kohukohunui area (The

Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board vs Auckland Council, 2018).

2. Method:

This report was pieced together by Taylor Yarndley, Jo Zeke, Eseese Moke and

Adrian Merake using a collaborative effort through research, weekly meetings outside

of class time, discussing opinions, sharing relevant information/findings through a

group chat channel while doing independent research.

The main source of research was gathering information on the history of the

Kohukohunui area and its cultural and spiritual relevance as this was a big theme in

the court case. Maori matauranga was widely researched to obtain if the Friends of

Sherwood and Ngati Paoa Trust had any validity in their case against the Auckland

2
City Council as they did not provide any significant evidence as to why it was

culturally and spiritually offensive to do a 1080 drop in the area.

We also researched what 1080 is and what purpose it was made for. The Brook

Valley Court Case was a very similar case that had some essential findings to help us

define the substance 1080 and why it is beneficial to use it in the operation to

minimise pests.

3. Main Body:

i. What is 1080?

1080 or sodium fluoroacetate is the salt form of a naturally occurring toxin found in

several plants around the world. These plants developed these natural toxin as a

defence mechanism to defend themselves from browsing mammals or insects that try

to feed on them (Waikato Council). This toxin kills pests by starving calcium and

energy from the cells (Smart Pet). Disrupting the central nervous system leading to

unconsciousness and eventually stop breathing (Smart Pet).

The 1080 cereal pellets are usually about 12 grams each and the content of one 1080

pellet consists of 99.5% cereal and 0.15% biodegradable 1080 (Ospri). The pellets are

dyed green in colour and have added cinnamon for smell to attract rats and possums,

whereas the colour green is mainly to deter birds from eating it (Waikato Council).

Several studies show that 1080 is biodegradable in water and soil (Ospri). It is highly

soluble in water, especially in flowing water it will rapidly dilute and biodegrade by

microorganisms in the water to undetectable concentrations. We have a similar

situation uneaten pellets that are found on the ground or soil. It will quickly lose its

physical structure within a little as a few hours, especially when exposed to water.

3
The 1080 in the bait will dissolve in water and leech from the bait into the soil, where

it will be bio-degraded by microorganisms in the soil mostly to form hydroxyacetic

acid and carbon dioxide (Ospri).

ii. Respondent - Auckland Council:

The Kohukohunui area as described by Mr. Ward, (the General Manager within the

Operation Division of the Council) is a vast mainland forest in the Auckland region. It

is home to a naturally occurring population of kokako and contains a variety of rare

and endangered flora and fauna. The ecological value of native species of flora and

fauna of Kohukohunui is threatened by predator species such as rats, possums and

stoats. Auckland Council recognises the importance of pest control and its

controversial matter relating to 1080 (The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust

Board vs Auckland Council, 2018).

The operational area covers 30,501 ha of public and private land. There are four water

catchments that have to be split into two zones so that the area being treated with

1080 can be disconnected to the public water supply. The water supply is tested

thoroughly before being reconnected to minimise the risk of contamination for human

consumption. The Public Health Service has put a restriction as to when the drops can

be done, no public holidays or school holidays - when the area is more highly

populated - can a drop be carried out. Auckland council put up warning signs to alert

public to be cautionary when going through 1080 drop zones and also offered to

provide clean drinking water at the time of the operational drops.

Auckland has four protocols which are in place and they are similar to the ones used

in the 2015 1080 operation. There protocols are: A pre-1080 application water quality

testing plan, a source isolation recharge plan, a water sampling plan and a raw water

4
source return to service plan. These plans are purely in place to ensure that the water

quality is to a consumer consumption standard.

In 2014, monitoring of possums and rats indicated the decline of threatened species.

Until 2015, ground bait (brodifacoum and cyanide) was used in target areas, however

due to the results of the 2014 monitoring the Council decided on an aerial application

of 1080 would best fit the pest management programme. In 2015, Auckland Council

made its first aerial application in the area. The results of this proved successful.

iii. Opposing - The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board:

The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board are opposing Auckland Council’s

plan of pest control in the Kohukohunui area because it involves dropping 1080 into

catchments linked to public water supply and the land which they deem to be

culturally and spiritually significant. The area provides 65 percent of Auckland’s

drinking water from four large water reservoirs in the Hunua ranges. The applicants

believed that possible entry of 1080 into the catchments breached section 13 of the

Resource Management Act (RMA) in which it states: “no person may, in relation to

the bed of any lake or river, deposit any substance in, on or under the bed” (Resource

Management Act, 1991). The applicants maintained that 1080 would likely enter the

water ways and therefore affect animals who ingested the water.

Ms. Allies an Environmental Manager on behalf of the Trust Board expressed

concerns that the 1080 aerial drop was proposed to occur in a water catchment and

food collection area and considered it to be spiritually and culturally offensive,

affecting the Mauri (life force) of the land (The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa

Trust Board vs Auckland Council, 2018).

5
The environment holds cultural and spiritual values to Maori people and the locals in

the area through their ancestors and beliefs. The cultural concern in this case focus’

on the negative effects that the 1080 operation may have on the native species,

waterways, food collections areas and the ecosystem in general (Harmsworth &

Awatere). Kaitiakitanga (guardianship) is an important role played by the tangata

whenua, who looks over the ancestral land. The way in which the land is looked after

is a reflection on the health and wellbeing of the ecosystem.

4. Discussion

The battle between the Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board (Applicants) and

Auckland Council (Respondents) is one of the biggest courts fights ever heard in

Aotearoa. The Friends of Sherwood believed that the aerial dropping of 1080 as

planned by the respondents is illegally, culturally and spiritually offensive. As

described in the body, several studies show that 1080 is toxic and severe to our

environment. The applicants consider the risks of 1080 to drinking water or plant and

animal species when it is dropped in Kohukohunui area. However, there are also

strong shreds of evidence from respondents and other studies which show why 1080

should not be a health risk concern to the people and the environment. It has

beneficial uses in protecting endangered species such as cattle, deer and kōkako

which are discussed below.

Sodium fluoroacetate 1080 is known as a salt form of fluoroacetate. The toxic

component of 1080 is fluoroacetate which naturally found in some poisonous plant

species in some countries such as Africa, Australia and Brazil. A study from Green

6
(2004) argues that Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080 bait) has been tested via a genetic

toxicity test and the results depict that 1080 is not genotoxic and carcinogenic

(causing cancer). Another test (drink water contamination test) shows that the

microbial degradation of 1080 as fast as it can be digested by bacteria and fungi.

Green (2004) shows that 1080 is the most effective pest control ever to reduce the

incidence of Tb in cattle and deer herds.

Green (2004) also states that the follow-up 1080 operation has helped increase the

population of some native plants in New Zealand such as tawa, kohekohe and

mistletoe as to name some. Similarly, after the aerial dropping of 1080 in

kohukohunui liver last year, Hancock (2019) claims that the population of pests was

decreasing and the number of kōkako was increasing.

“The 1080 drop and intensive pest control have seen pest numbers drop and
kōkako numbers climb. The most recent census before last year's 1080 drop
counted 55 breeding pairs.” (para. 10)

Besides, there has been a nationwide debate on why New Zealand is currently using

1080 to protect its biodiversity – to save the endangered native plants and animals

species such as kōkako, while other countries such as the USA banned it. A response

to this as discussed by Green (2014) and (The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust

Board vs Auckland Council, 2018): New Zealand is different from other countries

such as America in term of the unique adaptation of its’ native plant and animal

species. These species are rarely found in some other countries. Significantly, New

Zealand has no native ground-dwelling mammals. The indigenous plant and animals

have evolved and been isolated from the rest of the world. Therefore, they are

7
vulnerable to predators such as Possums, rats and stoats as they are unable to protect

themselves from these named pests. Moreover, Green (2014) claims that these unique

species are influenced by introducing new species such as ship rat into New Zealand.

Although the applicant (Friends of Sherwood) provide evidence to the Environmental

court that their ancestors related to Mana Whenua of Kohukohunui, and have a right

to halt the 1080 operation due to its impact on drinking water in the area, the court

decision favours the respondent for the following major reasons:

There is not enough evidence provided by Friends of Sherwood to win their case.

Also, their arguments were poorly presented – the majority of their filed evidence

were just opinions rather than facts. The court also needed sufficient proof regarding

the historical event and spiritual practices associated with Kohukohunui in which they

lacked to present. In addition, the court considered the view of Friends of Sherwood

in serving concerns arose from other members of the community about the 1080

operation – however, it is just that -one view. For example, Neilson 2019 wrote:

“That view was "comprehensively met" by the evidence from the

council, DOC and the Public Health Service, who arguably also
represented the public interest. The arguments advanced by Friends of
Sherwood were "legally without substance and the evidence about
potentially adverse effects was evidentially problematic". (para 8 & 9)

Therefore, the court is not persuaded that there is likely to be serious harm to the

environment if the application proceeds.

8
On the other hand, the Auckland council are able to provide evidence and methods of

how they could stop waterway and food collection contamination. Also, they bring

forth expertise to provide strong evidence on why 1080 would be beneficial in the

area of concern. For example, sufficient evidence has been brought forward before the

Judge that the operation is vital to protect biodiversity in Kohukohunui, habitat of

various native species which are considered endangered due to the increasing number

of rats, possum and stoats. They argued that 1080 is a primary pest-control in

reducing the number of above bests. The court is also provided with evidence that the

council has negotiated with Mana Whenua of Kohukohunui and to strictly undertake

the operation according to the prescribed operational managements and water testing

protocols.

General speaking, I believe that the Friends of Sherwood halted the dropping

operation of 1080 is not because of the risks the native will suffer after the operation,

but it is more about authorities and land-owning. As reviewing the court case, it is

evident that the Auckland council has negotiated with landowners about the 1080

operation and its’ aftermath that there is no chance 1080 would risk them or the

environment. However, Friends of Sherwood were missed out in this negotiation, thus

I believed that this ‘the one’ can be the leading factor of opposing the 1080 operation.

This can be proved by the Friends of Sherwood when they presented evidence to the

court that their ancestors are related to the Kohukohunui iwi and seeking for answers

of why they are excluded from the negotiation. Therefore, from my perspective,

blocking the operation of 1080 in Kohukohunui can be an act of alternate revenge

from Friends of Sherwood for not being included in the negotiation. They are not

good at communication with the Auckland council. Also, as cited in (Hancock, 2019),

9
inside the court corridors, the opposition members photographed and threatened

workers of DOC and Auckland staff. “I’ve got your photo. Your face is on Facebook.

We will get you. Everybody will know you.” (Hancock, 2019, para 5). Halting the

1080 operation is not about environmental phenomenon and wealth or prosperity, but

it is all about the connection of owning the land, authorities and revenge.

5. Conclusion:

The 1080 or sodium fluoroacetate is the salt form of a naturally occurring toxin found

in several plants around the world. It is well known for its beneficial use in pest

control, but some countries such as the USA has banned it. Besides, New Zealand is

continuously using it to protect its unique species that are rarely seen in other

countries. Because of its’ effectiveness in killing Possum and other rats’ species,

Auckland Council uses it to protect the biodiversity of Kohukohunui area, especially

the endangered Kōkako. This is protested by The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa

Trust Board claiming that the aerial operation of dropping 1080 in the Kohukohunui

lake is culturally, spiritually and environmentally offensive. This is one of the longest

and threatening Environmental court cases ever occur in Aotearoa – Friends of

Sherwood (applicant) versus Auckland Council (respondent). The court is not

persuaded enough from the applicant due to the following issues: The evidence is just

opinions rather than facts, not well presented, and lack of evidence regarding the

historical event and spiritual practices associated with Kohukohunui lake. Therefore,

the Court officially decided to authorise the Auckland Council to proceed with 1080

aerial operation in Kohukohunui area.

10
6. References

Council, W. R. (n.d.). What is 1080. Retrieved from Waikato Regional Council:

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/services/regional-services/plant-and-animal-
pests/1080/what-is-1080/#

Fisher, P. (2008). The Science of how 1080 works. Retrieved from

http://www.1080facts.co.nz/the-science-of-how-1080-works.html

Green, W. (2004). The use of 1080 for Pest control. Retrieved from
https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/conservation/threats-and-impacts/animal-
pests/use-of-1080-04.pdf

Government, N. Z. (1991, July 22). Resource Management Act. New Zealand.

Hancock, F. (2019, Sept 19). Kōkako singing after 1080 court case. Nzherald. Retrieved from
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/09/18/813748/kkako-after-the-court-case#

Harmsworth, G., & Awatere, S. (n.d.). Indigenous Maori Knowledge and Perspectives of
Ecosystems. Retrieved from Landcare Research :
https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/77047/2_1_Harmswo
rth.pdf

Neilson M. (2019, July 29). 1080 challenge: $40k bill for Friends of Sherwood Trust after
Environment Court battle against Auckland Council, DOC. Nzherald. Retrieved from
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12253754

Ospri. (n.d.). How 1080 Breaks Down In Soil And Water . Retrieved from TB Free :
https://ospri.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/How-1080-Breaks-Down-in-Soil-
Water.pdf

Smart, P. (n.d.). 1080 poison baiting - the facts. Retrieved from Pet Smart :
https://www.pestsmart.org.au/1080-poison-baiting-facts/

The Friends of Sherwood Ngati Paoa Trust Board vs Auckland Council, [2018] NZEnvC 178
(Environmental Court September 21, 2018).

The Seal of the Environment Court New Zealand. (2018). Before the Environment Court I
mua te kooti taiao o Aotearoa. Retrieved from
https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/media/21900/2018-nzenvc-178-the-
friends-of-sherwood-trust-ngati-paoa-trust-board-v-the-chief-executive-of-the-
auckland-council.pdf

11