KL's decision to forgo transboundary haze law prioritises practicality and effectiveness over grand gestures

HAZE pollution is an ongoing environmental concern in Southeast Asia. It predominantly stems from forest and peatland fires, primarily in Indonesia, and is exacerbated by weather conditions.

The ramifications of haze are extensive, affecting air quality, public health, and the environment.

Historically, attempts to combat this issue have centred on holding those responsible accountable through legislative means.

The concept of a transboundary haze law is not new in Asean; Singapore introduced the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act in 2014. This legislation aimed to prosecute entities and individuals responsible for transboundary haze.

While it may seem a practical approach from a public perspective, the implementation of such a law is fraught with challenges. In the past seven years, even Singapore was able to prosecute just a small number of perpetrators — two to three — revealing the intricacies involved.

The primary hurdle lies in obtaining precise, on-the-ground information beyond satellite imagery to pinpoint those responsible for the fires. To legally hold any entity accountable, authorities would require access to data such as land use and concession maps, which fall under the sovereignty of the respective countries — in this case, Indonesia.

Furthermore, this information extends beyond fire incidents, encompassing sensitive land details, rendering it highly classified.

This challenge was evident during the Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) meetings since 2016, when Indonesia declined to provide any form of land use and concession maps for foreign entities. A similar challenge was faced by Malaysia and other Asean member states when Singapore requested for classified information to implement an operational system called the Haze Monitoring System (HMS) in 2011.

The HMS failed to produce substantial output due to limited access to land use and concession maps from Asean member states. Consequently, the demand for land information of any country in Asean remains an unresolved decade-old issue.

It's vital to appreciate that the transboundary haze issue in Southeast Asia is unique compared with other regions in the world. This uniqueness necessitates a distinct approach.

Unlike other forms of pollution, verifying the man-made origin of the haze, primarily stemming from forest and peatland fires, presents an imposing challenge. These fires often result from land-clearing practices, underscoring the need to focus on fire mitigation and land management strategies instead of punitive legislation.

Malaysia's decision to abstain from pursuing the transboundary haze law is a wise move, preserving both time and resources. It acknowledges the practical impediments in prosecuting entities without concrete evidence and access to sensitive information held by other nations.

In essence, it would be a futile endeavour if it fails to effectively quell the fires or lead to successful prosecutions.

The present government decision builds upon the ministry's policy desk advice to reject a similar political proposal in 2018-2019 by the then environment minister. I concurred with the rationale, understanding that while the enactment of a new law may captivate politicians and the public, the ultimate objective is to prevent and effectively combat the fires responsible for the haze.

If a law cannot fulfil these aims or provide the essential evidence for prosecution, it risks not serving its intended purpose.

The suggestion in 2018 and 2019, repeated by some members of parliament now, to follow in Singapore's footsteps in gazetting such a law, is without adequate factual representation of its implication.

Malaysia's decision not to proceed with the transboundary haze law recognises this and aims to address the issue more eeffectively through a nuanced and science-based approach.

Instead of focusing on legislation, two immediate suggestions merit consideration:

1. Domestically: Concentrate on researching Malaysian entities operating in Indonesia and evaluating their efforts to mitigate the impact of fires in their operating areas. This pragmatic approach can be achieved by assessing the land area investments of Malaysian companies in hotspot fire regions in Indonesia.

The introduction of mandatory Environmental, Social, and Governance reporting by companies listed on Bursa Malaysia in 2016 has provided opportunities to exert pressure on shareholders of Malaysian companies to contribute more to fire mitigation, land management, and fire control in the areas where they operate.

This approach is not only pragmatic but also represents a "low-hanging fruit" solution.

2. Regionally: Rather than concentrating on domestic legislation, Malaysia should redirect efforts to proposing a revamp of the AATHP meetings. An advantageous addition could be a scientific committee responsible for presenting evidence of burning areas, encompassing forward and backward trajectory modelling, and the impact of CO2 emissions resulting from these fires on various land types.

This scientific approach should involve an atmospheric scientific team from Asean member states and may consider including members from other regions worldwide to share their scientific knowledge.

A scientific committee is absent in the current framework of AATHP and AMME.

The present structure, featuring the Technical Working Group at AATHP, comprises environment department officials who share the bureaucratic mindset of their respective ministries but may lack the ability to substantiate decisions with sound scientific facts.

With this compelling evidence in hand, technical and policy working groups within AATHP and the Ministerial Steering Committee of AATHP could collaborate more effectively. Together, they could garner support to address fires in areas that predominantly contribute to the haze, such as peatland regions, which are known to be highly susceptible to ignition and challenging to control.

The transboundary haze issue is a complex and multifaceted problem that necessitates a nuanced response. Instead of becoming entangled in legislative processes, Malaysia is prudently opting for strategies that can yield tangible results.

By focusing on scientific evidence and leveraging existing reporting mechanisms, the country can play a more constructive role in mitigating the impact of haze pollution and ensuring a healthier and cleaner environment for all.

Malaysia's decision to forgo the transboundary haze law should be regarded as a step in the right direction. It's a choice that prioritises practicality and effectiveness over grand gestures.

By reorienting its efforts toward data-driven, evidence-based solutions, Malaysia can make a significant contribution to the region's battle against haze pollution, safeguarding the health and well-being of its citizens and the environment.