The Southeast Asian Haze Crisis
Summary
The September 2019 haze crisis in Southeast Asia reveals a set of complex inter-relationships that leads to a situation where it is next to impossible for various stakeholders to formulate workable solutions. Divergent self-interests are a major stumbling block to stakeholders coming together to resolve the crisis.
The Day the Sky Turned Blood Red
The sky over Jambi (a province in Sumatera, Indonesia) turned blood red on 21st September, 2019 not unlike a scene from an apocalyptic, Hollywood movie. This was a consequence of unchecked slash-and-burn land clearing practices that have now become an annual ritual for Indonesian farmers who clear land for palm oil plantations, and pulp and paper industries. Transboundary haze particles from the fires have affected air quality in many parts of Southeast Asia, reaching as far north as Southern Thailand. The public outcries in Malaysia and Singapore are both intense and emotional.
Figure 1. Red Skies over Jambi
Photo credit: todayonline.com
The haze has been a recurring problem for over 20 years now. Governments and regional organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been ineffective in tackling the problem. More than 320,000 hectares of forest land have burned in the first eight months of 2019 alone [1]. This is equivalent to approximately 450,000 soccer fields! Since August 2019, 360 million tonnes of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the forest fires in Indonesia — this exceeds Spain’s CO2 emission for the whole of 2018 [2].
The United Nations estimated that nearly 10 million children are at risk due to air pollution resulting from fires raging through forests and peat lands in Sumatera and Kalimantan [3]. Governments stood by helpless as children inhaled deadly, microscopic particles. The impact on their health will be unimaginable — many will eventually develop terminal respiratory diseases directly linked to the inhalation of these toxic particles. These children should not have to pay the price for our callous actions. Concerned individuals can only watch helplessly as the horror unfolds in the evening news. Others seem inured to the fiery spectacle that blazed across their eyes. We have to ask ourselves — the most intelligent species on Earth — how we allowed this tragedy to occur. Could we have done better? Is there truly no better way?
Figure 2. Children at Risk in Indonesia
Photo credit: Reuters
Government Hypocrisy on Display?
Western governments reproach palm-oil producing countries for environmental destruction. In 2018, the European Union (EU) decided to completely phase out the import of palm oil for transport fuels by 2030 because of forest devastation [4]. Malaysia and Indonesia (both leading palm oil exporters) countered that this action was instigated by the EU’s desire to protect its own rapeseed and sunflower oils industry. Environmental groups are also calling for the boycott of palm oil and lobbying global brands to distance themselves from palm oil.
Despite their protestations, these groups have yet to propose workable solutions to affected economies. Some critics assert that there are intimations of hypocrisy in the actions of anti-palm oil proponents. They raise the point that Europe too had cleared hectares of land in the past to cultivate grape vines.
It is all too easy to pontificate from the pulpit or pledge superficial financial assistance to dissuade countries from wanton destruction of forest land. The Amazon rainforest fires that occurred at around the same time as the Southeast Asian fires clearly illustrate this. About 7,000 square miles of pristine Amazon rainforest is ablaze. According to the National Geographic, the number of fires burning across the Amazon rainforest in 2019 is higher than at any point since 2010 [5].
Despite the severity of the situation, the G7 — comprising the seven richest economies in the world — pledged a paltry US$20 million to help fight the Amazon fires [6]. Most of us know that the copious amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere will affect every man, woman, and child on this planet and not only South Americans. This is why the parsimony displayed by the G7 is difficult to comprehend given the enormity of the problem. Moreover, this is an issue impacting all nations.
The key point here is that earnest regional/global political will and clear-sighted leadership to address environmental issues are sorely lacking today.
Societal Apathy and Divergent Interests
If the weather system in Southeast Asia had been different, haze particles from burning forests and peatlands would not have blown across porous international borders, and most people in Malaysia or Singapore would not have lost sleep over the forest fires in Indonesia. It would have been somebody else’s problem. In truth, we adopt an “out of sight, out of mind” stance to many such issues in this world (plastic pollution in the world’s oceans is one example). We are all too preoccupied with our families, social lives, and careers to pay heed to regional/global issues. As it is, the haze crisis has already begun to fade in our memories as the monsoon winds start to shift in October and the rainy season sets in. However, the shrill public outcries will be heard again next year should the haze return.
Figure 3. Wind Direction Causing the Regional Haze Crisis
Source: ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre
The haze starkly exposes the fact that we rarely assess our decisions and actions systematically. We lack the wisdom to comprehend that many of our decisions and actions are actually inter-related and may even be co-dependent. We pursue actions based on self-interests, ignorant of the fact that these actions do affect others indirectly. Our self-interests are usually divergent as well. This is the root cause of the current environmental problem. In reality, we are all responsible for the haze in one way or another. This is not unlike the theme of guilt in Dostoevsky’s magnum opus, “The Brothers Karamazov” — we are all guilty for everyone else!
Because of divergent interests and inter-relationships, there are no easy or quick solutions to this environmental problem. Below, we look at how major stakeholders are complicit in this haze crisis.
Consumers Want Their Cake and Eat It Too
Palm oil is the most efficient crop for vegetable oil in comparison to soya, coconut, sunflower, and rapeseed. It goes into our food (for example: instant noodles, biscuits, cookies, ice cream, and chocolates), personal care products, cosmetics, and shampoos among other things [7]. It has made its presence felt in our daily consumption activities [8]. Global demand for palm oil continues to grow but we have paid a price for it due to unsustainable agricultural practices [9]. It is easy to call for a boycott of palm oil but finding a replacement/alternative will likely create its own unanticipated issues and set of complications.
Consumers are now so used to low-cost consumer goods due to the widespread use of palm oil as ingredients. Many of us will not be willing to fork out more money just to purchase environmentally-friendly products. Some of us even exhibit a high degree of apathy to the consequences of land clearing for palm oil plantations and are blissfully ignorant of the fact that our own purchasing decisions have indirect influence on land clearing practices for palm oil plantations.
Consumers purchase newspapers and books, and use tissues and toilet rolls daily. Globally we use 4kg of toilet paper per capita [10]. Despite the digital economy, we simply cannot live without paper (for example, writing and packaging require the use of paper). Paper is supplied by the pulp industry that razes peatlands and replants them with acacia tree saplings [11]. It takes 24 trees to make 1 ton of standard office paper [12]. Global demand for pulp and paper is still growing despite the global trend towards digitalisation [13]. In the past four decades alone, use of paper has risen by 400% — deforestation, and air and water pollution are major issues associated with the paper industry [14]. In Indonesia, companies build canals to drain peatlands; this then creates a conducive environment for forest fires and the subsequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere [15].
As consumers, we seldom question where our palm oil and paper originate from. Many of us hardly spare a thought for the orang utans and other fauna that lose their homes or die due to indiscriminate land clearing [16]. We are either too busy enjoying life’s myriad pleasures or addressing our daily work challenges. To solve the haze crisis, we need to make sacrifices but how many of us are willing to change our consumption patterns?
Figure 4. Orang Utans Lost Their Homes
Photo credit: Getty Images
Poor Farmers Need to Eke Out a Living Too
The slash-and-burn method is the most efficient and cheapest way to clear land — Bloomberg cited that it is 20 times cheaper than employing machinery [17]. There is no need to handle the resulting bio mass from other forms of land clearing. A single hectare of land clearing can create 500 tonnes of bio mass which then takes 3 years for it to biodegrade before the land becomes usable for plantation [18].
For many poor, small farmers with wives and young children to feed and aging parents to care for, the slash-and-burn method is the only viable option to them. They simply cannot afford to adopt more expensive ways to clear land. They also need the land to be productive as soon as possible in order to supply palm oil kernels to large corporations. These farmers are literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
The Profit Motive Looms Large for Corporations
It can be suggested that palm oil companies lack the will and incentives to impose stricter governance on their small-farmer suppliers. To be cynical, sustainability can frequently be used as a byword or punchline by buttoned-down, corporate executives who are mainly motivated by their capitalist creed to pursue revenue growth and profits at all cost. Arguably, the use of cheap palm oil can bolster profit margins.
Creditors provide loans to large corporations while turning a blind eye to the actions of these corporations that may have irreversible impact on the environment. Moving forward, loans to palm oil, and pulp and paper companies should be linked to green/sustainable practices. Unfortunately, this is not standard practice today. Creditors should push for such green loans but they are unable to do so as there will always be competitors who are willing to hand out loans with no environmental conditions attached. This clearly shows that the free market on its own cannot offer solutions to the problem.
Not enough global brands disclose their procurement practices in public. To be socially responsible, they should only procure palm oil from plantations that adhere to sustainable practices. Global brands should also be transparent and ensure that their procurement practices are easily verifiable by independent third parties.
Governments and ASEAN: Are They Paper Tigers?
Corporations pay taxes to governments and employ a large number of workers. Governments in countries where agriculture and natural resources constitute a large part of their economies are in a dilemma because of this. They walk a tight-rope as penalising these corporations may impact tax revenue, the economy, and employment.
Making matters worse, many parts of Southeast Asia are blighted by endemic corruption [19]. They are common at the provincial level where central governments lack proper visibility and control. Poorly paid officials are susceptible to graft. These officials need the money badly to feed their families and make ends meet.
Indonesia does have a 1999 forestry law which prohibits the burning of forests [20]. Doing so is a criminal offence but this regulation appears to be relatively toothless. Enforcement is poor as it is difficult to monitor the numerous far-flung provinces and districts in the Indonesian archipelago. To be sure, some offenders are caught [21] but we believe there are also many that manage to slip through law enforcement. It is probably also fair to say that the central government lacks sufficient manpower and resources to strictly enforce the law.
Regional organisations such as ASEAN are ineffective in solving the haze problem because member countries frequently have divergent interests. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) was established in 2002 but it now appears to be a largely symbolic agreement [22]. While most ASEAN member countries ratified the agreement quickly, the Indonesian government only did so on 16th September, 2014 [23].
The right to sovereignty has been used before as a convenient excuse to block cross-border, multilateral initiatives. At other times, member countries refuse to accept outside help ostensibly because of national pride or to avoid being perceived as “weak” — for instance, in 2019 Indonesia has yet to accept offers from neighbouring countries to help put out the forest fires [24]. As there is no universal code of ethics that can empower countries to act on behalf of humanity, there is little that neighbouring countries can do the alleviate the haze situation. Doing what is morally right becomes an impossibility.
Conclusion
The discussion above serves to highlight the multiple threads associated with the haze crisis in Southeast Asia. These threads intertwine and interact with one another. This fact alone makes the problem so complicated and difficult to resolve. The various stakeholders — consumers, farmers, corporations, creditors, governments, and regional organisations — have their own self-interests which are usually divergent. Thus, it is very challenging for stakeholders to find common ground.
To get us onto the long road towards finding an effective resolution to the haze crisis, we need to first acknowledge and comprehend the motivations (and self-interests) of the various stakeholders involved. Only then can we hope to identify areas of shared interest from where we can embark on constructive dialogues. It will take substantial time and effort to drive consensus and reach a binding solution that is acceptable to all stakeholders.
In the meantime, Southeast Asian nations should expect and prepare for a recurrence of the haze next year.
**********
References
[1] Why It’s Another Bad Year for Indonesia Forest Fires, Bloomberg
[2] Indonesia forest fires have 'major impact' on climate, 360m tonnes of CO2 released since August: Masagos, Channel News Asia
[3] Toxic air from fires in Indonesia putting 10m kids at risk: UN, The Straits Times
[4] Palm oil: Indonesia and Malaysia push back as EU clamps down, Nikkei Asian Review
[5] See how much of the Amazon is burning, how it compares to other years, National Geographic
[6] G7 cash for Amazon fires is ‘chump change’, say campaigners, The Guardian
[7] Which Everyday Products Contain Palm Oil?, World Wildlife Fund
[8] How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil, The Guardian
[9] Palm Oil is Unavoidable. Can it be Sustainable?, National Geographic
[10] How Many Trees Does It Take To Make 1 Roll Of Toilet Paper?, WorldAtlas
[11] Paper and Pulp industry in Sumatra, Indonesia
[12] How Many Trees Does It Take To Make 1 Ton Of Paper?, WorldAtlas
[13] Market & Trends: The Pulp and Paper Sector is Not Dead Yet, Paper Industry World
[14] What Is The Environmental Impact Of Paper?, WorldAtlas
[15] WWF and Greenpeace break with Indonesia's pulp and paper giant, The Guardian
[16] The Reasons Why Palm Oil is So Controversial, Independent; Palm Oil Investigations
[17] It’s Another Bad Year for Indonesia Forest Fires, Bloomberg
[18] South East Asia Haze: What is Slash-and-Burn?, BBC
[19] Corruption Perceptions Index 2018, Transparency International
[20] Indonesian Province Moves to Curb Slash-and-Burn Clearances as Fires Rage. Channel News Asia
[21] Concern about Indonesia's Pulp & Paper Industry after Suspension Case, Indonesia Investments
[22] What happened to the Asean haze agreement? Experts say deal is toothless, Today
[23] ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, Wikipedia
[24] Malaysia ready to help Indonesia put out fires, says minister, The Straits Times
ADDENDUM (5th Aug 2020): Governments are critical stakeholders in the fight against trans-boundary haze caused by clearing of forests for palm oil plantations. According to this article -- see https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-law-combat-forest-fire-haze-smog-indonesia-12989926 -- the Malaysian government has decided to abandon plans to introduce legislation that would have punished its firms operating in Indonesia if they are found to have caused forest fires. This is very unfortunate. There is also no effective regional framework to address the haze issue in Southeast Asia.
Donald Cooper,?a mechanical engineer and inventor, recently shared with me that the Atmospheric Vortex Engine can be used to induce localised rainfall (which can help to put out the peat land fires). See?https://www.vortexengineer.com/atmospheric-vortex-engine.html
Addendum: Research by Greenpeace suggests that household brands such as Nestle, Unilever, and P&G are buying palm oil from suppliers deemed partly responsible for the forest fires in Indonesia. Greenpeace also claims that companies (including the world's largest palm oil traders) have created a facade of sustainability but they source from the very worst offenders across the board.? See?https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/indonesia-forest-fires-palm-oil-nestle-unilever-pg-desforestation-slash-burn-a9195716.html