Links to related information
Fear of Pesticides Wafting Over Texas
Feedback received from Ecan (Environment Canterbury) after calling their pollution hotline
Rule AQL28 Outdoor burning of standing crop residue or vegetative stubble – permitted activity
|
Activity |
Conditions |
|
Subject to Rule AQL35, the discharge of contaminants into air from burning standing crop residue or vegetative stubble, is a permitted activity. |
1. The dispersal or deposition of particles shall not cause an objectionable or offensive effect beyond the boundary of the property where the discharge originates. 2. Only small quantities of petroleum products, up to 10 litres per hectare, may be used as accelerants. |
Note: Assessing compliance with Condition 1 is informed by Appendix AQL3 Criteria for assessing offensive or objectionable dispersal or deposition of smoke particles.
The commentary by Ecan's planners is as follows:
Rule AQL28 Outdoor burning of standing crop residue or vegetative stubble - permitted activity
Burning of crop residue (stubble) is significant in Canterbury because approximately 60% of New Zealand’s arable crops are grown in the region.
In terms of quantity of material burned, outdoor burning of residial crops in Canterbury is the dominant emission source. Approximately 1,000,000 tonnes per year of crop “stubble” is burned, compared to only approximately 10,000 tonnes per year of vegetation from horticultural and “lifestyle farming” properties.
Despite the large mass of material burned, the adverse effects of stubble burning generally occur during late summer and autumn when the material is dry, resulting in good combustion conditions and effective dispersal of contaminants. Further, because of the short term nature of stubble burning, it is considered that it can be undertaken in weather conditions that avoid significant adverse effects.
Adverse effects of stubble burning have never been quantified, although Environment Canterbury receives complaints about the adverse effects of stubble burning. Localised effects are highly likely and there is a potential for contribution to ambient air quality problems for Ashburton and some small rural towns in Canterbury. It is plausible that the use of good practice techniques will result in adverse health effects and nuisance effects being minmised. In the future, research may identify that tighter controls are necessary, especially if good practice does not occur. These regulatory controls may include distance limits as contained in Rule AQL 29 and signage posted on public roads to ensure adverse effects of the discharge are avoided.
The alternatives to stubble burning are limited and have not gained widespread favour as yet. Alternatives to stubble burning are limited and have not gained widespread favour by Environment Canterbury.