Commentaries on the haze

Seeing through the haze to clear the air
Letter from Goh Si Guim Today Online 26 Oct 10;
I AM baffled that the annual haze has been described as a transnational problem. I think that there are two parts to this issue.

The uncontrolled fires in many parts of Indonesia are a national problem that needs to be tackled with its national resources. The smoke from these fires has crossed borders and has become a transboundary problem, adversely affecting both human and environmental health, as well as the economy of Indonesia and its neighbours.

The impact on the region's biological diversity is difficult to ascertain but can be no less severe.

The haze's country of origin needs to responsibly devote adequate and appropriate resources to control such fires.

The measures could include educating land users in alternative farming methods, improving and strengthening forestry regulations and implementing corporate environmental responsibility in conglomerates that tap natural, non-renewable resources.

The government could work with local non-government organisations (NGOs) and international organisations to explore better or benign ways for industries to harness the resources with minimal impact on the environment and people.

One immediate step, if not already implemented, could be to step up the fire control capacity in the country.

Indonesia has a sizeable population. A large civilian unit, backed by various agencies with the abovementioned roles, can be created to control fires at local levels.

They can be funded by the central government, Asean or international financial institutions.

A part of the military could, alternatively, be re-outfitted to accomplish the fire control role, with ground units and air-waterbombing capability.

The upgrading of military hardware beyond replacement or depreciation should take a backseat, with the resources diverted to extinguish the numerous fires.

Importers and manufacturers worldwide should establish a framework to determine the sources of their raw material as having originated from an environmentally and ecologically-sound production process.

On the other hand, the NGOs in various countries can act as watchdogs.

Overall, these proactive steps could help to ensure that the general direction we take, going forward, does more good than harm.

Every time, an issue such as this should spur us beyond convening another international meeting to talk about tackling the problem.

By now, the international community should already have effective measures to deal with the fires.

Where There’s Smoke
Aris Ananta Jakarta Globe 25 Oct 10;

Indonesia is again feeling the heat for being unable to stop forest fire haze over the Malacca Strait, this time originating from slash-and-burn farming in Riau province. Many solutions have been offered to extinguish the fires, but very little has been done to probe its root causes.

The most salient question is just why people continue to burn their own forest. Or in broader terms: Why do our citizens ignore the destruction of their own environments?

This is not only a question related to the haze, of course, but also to many environmental issues around the world.

Oftentimes people do not realize the cost of environment destruction, or they have been compensated (or bribed) by companies to make the destruction worthwhile.

In many cases few people are aware of the fact that there are other options, and other employment opportunities.

An example is found in a village near coal mining activities in Meratus Mountains, South Kalimantan.

Rivers in the region, which the population heavily depend on for daily activities, are polluted, while agricultural lands have been converted for mining activities.

Residents live within earshot of noise from the mining activities.

Where once they used to work as farmers, with the arrival of mining activities today the villagers work for the new companies and earn much higher incomes than they otherwise might.

The companies have also been good to locals, providing them with benefits in the form of educational, recreational and religious facilities.

The head of the village even helps the companies in recruiting villagers for employment.

People in the area are thus are thankful for the mining activities, though they know the boom times will not continue forever.

One day the abandoned mines will leave residents with infertile land and polluted rivers.

But for most, that day is far in the future, and the most important thing is their current ability to climb up the economic ladder.

There are many similar cases where people benefit from the destruction of their environment.

What this means for policy makers is that serious attention needs to be given to the people who live in endangered environments.

A mechanism for enforcing the rules against environmental destruction is of course important, but without support from locals, there will always be a black market to destroy the environment, and companies will continue providing handsome compensation to the people who support their activities.

What’s the solution?

Education is key. We need to be able to convince those most intimately connected to the environment that they do not benefit from its destruction.

We have to work from the demand side. For example, people in the United States are very aware of the health risks posed by smoking.

Demand for cigarettes in the US consequently is relatively low.

Cigarette companies in many cases have marketed more aggressively in other countries where people are not as aware of smoking risks.

They go to Indonesia to enjoy a market of consumers who are less health-conscious.

Similarly, companies in need of forest areas go to the countries where the people are not aware of the cost of destroying the environment — or to where they can be compensated to allow it.

Companies continue burning forests because this method gives them lucrative profit.

One way to convince them to adopt different methods is to cut into this profit. In the case of the haze, this would mean drawing attention to those products that result from slash-and-burn agriculture.

A conscientious consumer is part of the solution.

At the same time, we must support the local people.

We must create alternative employment, so that populations dwelling near forests know that there are other opportunities that can give them at least as good an income as those that are harmful for the environment.

A third step we can take is to create productive employment that depends directly on the healthy biodiversity of the local environment.

If these three policies are well implemented, companies will find burning forests a less attractive option because of lack of demand for their goods and a lack of compliance on the part of local populations.

The people in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia would no longer suffer from the haze of forest fires, and the people responsible for making them would no longer have special incentive to do so.


Aris Ananta is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.