Up to S$100,000 fine for every day of transboundary haze

Monica Kotwani Channel NewsAsia 7 Jul 14;

SINGAPORE: Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan tabled changes to Singapore's Transboundary Haze Pollution bill in Parliament on Monday (July 7). The amendments were made based on feedback from members of the public following a month-long consultation.

When it was first unveiled early this year, the draft Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill proposed a fine of up to S$300,000 for those found guilty. Following public feedback, penalties have increased to up to S$100,000 for every day that the haze occurs in Singapore.

For example, if the haze persists at an unhealthy level and evidence shows it is caused by three days of burning, culprits can be fined up to S$300,000.

"There was a sense that we needed to increase the overall level of deterrence and this was one way to do that, because otherwise you have the position where the guy says, 'Well since I've already caused the haze on one day, I might as well do more of it'," said Dr Balakrishnan.

"So we felt there was more of a need to send a clear signal. So first you should not do it, and if you do it, try and put it out as quickly as possible. Hence, pegging it to each day of the transboundary haze it has caused."

The fine for not complying with a notice to take preventive measures has also been amended - from a previous cap of S$450,000, including the S$300,000 penalty, to up to S$50,000 for every day of non-compliance. The maximum penalty for each offence is now S$2 million - including penalty and non-compliance.The bill also exposes guilty parties liable to civil action by affected individuals, companies or industries.

Should the foreign-based director of the errant company be in Singapore, for example, the court can now require him to remain in the country to give evidence or more information.

A narrow definition of "land-owner" in the draft bill also raised concerns, especially for countries where a third party may be operating a particular plantation.

In this case, the bill also now defines the owner of the land to include anyone with a valid licence or permit to carry out operations, or one who has an agreement with the landowner. However, the bill allows accused parties who have taken measures to stop or prevent the fires to use this as a defense.

"This bill cannot act in isolation. This is an ASEAN problem," noted Dr Balakrishnan. "We need effective collaboration, cooperation between governments. We need to share information, we need to share results of investigations."

Dr Balakrishnan says he hopes irresponsible behaviour that causes the yearly problem will be deterred with a network of agencies working together with existing legislation.

- CNA/ly

Stiffer fines proposed for firms that cause haze
Siau Ming En Today Online 8 Jul 14;

SINGAPORE — The Government has proposed stiffer fines of up to S$2 million for companies that cause unhealthy levels of haze, following feedback that suggested fines were too low.

Under proposed laws on transboundary haze pollution that were introduced in Parliament yesterday, a firm can be fined up to S$100,000 a day for every day of unhealthy haze that blankets Singapore — for a continuous period of 24 hours or more — at about the same time as the company’s haze-causing activities.

Also, companies that fail to comply with notices to take preventive measures during a period of haze could be fined up to an additional S$50,000 a day. The maximum penalty for each of the offences is capped at S$2 million.

Amendments to the draft legislation were made following a month-long public consultation earlier this year, in which respondents noted that the proposed fines were too low. The Government had initially proposed that errant firms be fined up to S$300,000 if they were found to have caused or contributed to the haze, or up to S$450,000 if they deliberately ignored requests to prevent, reduce or control the haze.

Some who provided feedback on the draft Bill also felt that non-landowning entities — which have agreements such as leases and licences with landowners — should also be held responsible for contributing to transboundary haze. Hence, the Government is proposing that an “owner” be defined as any person or entity that holds a valid lease, licence or permit to carry out farming or forestry operations, or one who has an arrangement with its landowner to do so. These persons or entities can also be held accountable for causing the haze.

Speaking to reporters last Friday, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said the penalties have been increased to send an “unequivocal signal” to deter companies from engaging in irresponsible behaviour.

However, he also reiterated that proving that parties are responsible for transboundary haze will be a challenge and that the Bill cannot act in isolation. “This is an ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) problem. We need effective collaboration and cooperation between governments. We need to share information and the results of our investigations,” he said.

To make enforcement more effective, officers will be empowered to serve a notice in writing to obtain documents and information that are relevant to investigations and prosecution. The court can also require people to remain in the country to ensure the parties comply with the notice.

The Bill tabled yesterday, which also allows for civil action for losses due to haze, does not stipulate the level of haze that Singapore has to experience before firms or other entities are found to have committed an offence. This is expected to be addressed in the second reading of the Bill. A spokesperson for the Ministry for the Environment and Water Resources said the “unhealthy level” of haze would be determined based on the Pollutant Standards Index framework.

Air pollutants and climate change expert Jason Blake Cohen of the National University of Singapore welcomed the stiffer proposed fines, noting that companies would choose the “polluting way” if penalties on environment-related issues were too low.

However, he added that the causes and timeline on when a piece of land has been burned are also issues that need to be considered, especially in instances in which a firm steps in to use the land only after it has been cleared and is thus not held responsible for causing transboundary haze.

Firms causing haze may be fined up to $2m
David Ee The Straits Times AsiaOne 8 Jul 14;

IF A new Bill to fight transboundary haze here is passed, errant firms can be fined up to $2 million, nearly seven times what was originally suggested.

It has also widened its net to target not only companies or entities that cause haze in Singapore by having fires on their land, but also those engaged by the firms to start fires.

Introduced in Parliament yesterday, the Transboundary Haze Pollution Bill was toughened after public feedback.

Those who commented on the draft Bill earlier this year said that the criminal penalties - previously a fine of up to $300,000 - were too low. They also wanted the duration of the haze to be taken into account.

Other changes to the draft Bill include requiring firms to prove that fires on their land are beyond their control and knowledge; and having the authority to prevent individuals from leaving Singapore if they have been served notice.

Singapore has been periodically blanketed by unhealthy haze in past years, caused by illegal clearing of land by burning in Indonesia to grow crops.

After the country experienced its worst haze in history last year, the Government proposed the Bill as a way to deter errant firms both abroad and here more strongly.

The new fines would mean that the longer the haze affects Singapore, the higher the penalty on the guilty parties.

They can be fined up to $100,000 for each day of haze, up to a maximum of $2 million for each unbroken stretch. This is as long as haze lingers here for 24 hours or more continuously, at a stipulated air-quality level yet to be decided by the authorities.

If a company ignores requests to prevent or control haze, it can be fined an additional $50,000 for each day it failed to take action. But first, satellite images, meteorological data and maps must show that the fires are on land owned or occupied by this company, and that the wind is blowing smoke from them towards Singapore. Those affected by haze can also bring civil suits against the culprits.

The Bill has raised some questions over how it would be enforced. If passed, it could take effect by October or November.

Last Friday, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said that the amended Bill is to send "an unequivocal signal" to deter firms from causing haze.

"I want to emphasise the need for cooperation, and for sharing of information. This is the way which I hope that we will be able to make progress. This is a regional problem. This is not only a Singapore problem," he said.

So far this year, smoke from fires in Sumatra, Indonesia, has been kept away from Singapore by favourable winds.

Increased fines for companies that cause unhealthy levels of haze proposed
Siau Ming En Today Online 7 Jun 14;

SINGAPORE — The Government has proposed stiffer fines of up to S$2 million for companies that cause unhealthy levels of haze, following feedback that the suggested fines were too low.

Under proposed laws on transboundary haze pollution that were introduced in Parliament yesterday, a firm can be fined up to S$100,000 a day for every day of haze that blankets Singapore — for a continuous period of 24 hours or more — at about the same time as the company’s haze-causing activities.

Also, companies that fail to comply with preventive measures during the haze episode could be fined up to an additional S$50,000 each day. The maximum penalty for each of the offences is capped at S$2 million.

Amendments to the draft legislation were made following a month-long public consultation earlier this year, where respondents noted that the proposed fines were too low. The Government had initially proposed that errant companies be fined up to S$300,000 if they were found to have caused or contributed to haze, or up to S$450,000 if they deliberately ignored requests to prevent, reduce or control the haze.

Some who provided feedback on the draft bill also felt that non-land-owning entities — who have agreements such as leases and licences with landowners — should also be held responsible for contributing to transboundary haze.

Hence, the Government is proposing an “owner” be defined as any person who holds a valid lease, licence or permit to carry out farming or forestry operations, or one who has an arrangement with the land owner to do so. These entities can also be held accountable for causing transboundary haze.

Speaking to reporters last Friday, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said the penalties have been increased to send an “unequivocal signal” to deter companies from engaging in irresponsible behaviour.

But he also reiterated that proving parties are responsible for transboundary haze will be a challenge, and the Bill cannot act in isolation. “This is an ASEAN problem. We need effective collaboration, cooperation between governments. We need to share information, we need to share results of investigations,” he said.

To make enforcement more effective, officers will be empowered to serve a notice in writing to obtain certain documents and information that are relevant to investigations and prosecution. The court can also require persons to remain in the country to ensure that the parties comply with the notice.

The Bill — which also allows for civil action for losses due to haze — tabled yesterday does not stipulate the prescribed level of haze Singapore has to experience before companies or other entities are found to have committed an offence. This is expected to be addressed in the second reading of the Bill. A MEWR spokesperson said the “unhealthy level” of haze will be determined based on the current Pollutant Standards Index framework.

Air pollutants and climate change expert Assistant Professor Jason Blake Cohen of the National University of Singapore welcomed the stiffer proposed penalties, noting that companies would choose the “polluting way” if penalties on environmentally-related issues were too low.

But he added that the causes and timeline on when the land has been burned are also issues that need to be considered, especially in instances where a company steps in to use the land only after the land has been cleared and is not held responsible for causing transboundary haze.