Across Southeast Asia, the haze has returned with a familiar cruelty. Malaysia has closed schools as air quality deteriorated, Singapore has experienced dangerous levels of air pollution, and even parts of the Philippines have been affected, underscoring how far the smoke has travelled. In Indonesia, meanwhile, forest and peatland fires, a major source of the region’s haze, have threatened communities and livelihoods, particularly in parts of Kalimantan. What begins as land burning in one country can become a public health emergency across an entire region.

The immediate response is predictable: extinguish fires, distribute masks and seek regional cooperation. All are necessary, but none explains why the emergency keeps returning. Malaysian children missing school, Singaporean residents breathing polluted air, Filipino communities exposed to drifting smoke and Indonesian families living near burning land all bear different costs from the same regional failure.

Dry weather and El Nino can intensify fires, but many are deliberately started to clear land for agriculture. The deeper question is why practices that create enormous public losses can remain attractive to those who benefit from them. When the gains from cheap land preparation are concentrated while the costs of smoke are dispersed across communities and national borders, the market signal is distorted and political responsibility becomes easier to evade.

The haze is therefore not merely an environmental emergency or a test of diplomatic goodwill. It disrupts ordinary life, strains public services and exposes how easily environmental costs can be shifted away from those who create them. It is a failure of economic accountability. Unless Southeast Asia changes who pays for the damage, how land-clearing decisions are monitored and what consequences follow proven violations, each dry season will bring another round of emergency measures followed by familiar arguments over blame.

The economics of cheap land clearing

Fire can be an inexpensive way to clear vegetation, especially where land governance is weak, alternative methods are costly and enforcement is uncertain. The private calculation is straightforward: spend less on land........

© Al Jazeera