Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eleifend tortor nec augue pretium
Toxic haze covered Bangkok earlier this year, sending PM2.5 levels in the capital soaring to 122 micrograms per cubic metre. The World Health Organization recommends that annual concentration of PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns), should not exceed 5 micrograms per cubic metre of air, while 24-hour exposure should not exceed 15 micrograms per cubic metre of air.
According to Greenpeace Southeast Asia, almost 30,000 deaths a year in Thailand are linked to PM2.5 air pollution. The main sources of PM2.5 pollution in Bangkok are from the burning of agricultural waste, and emissions from transport and industry.
Higher levels are expected during Bangkok’s winter season – November to March – when there is more open burning and bad meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion of the pollutants in the air, so the concentration is higher.
However, the significantly high PM2.5 levels in January this year resulted in city-wide health warnings, the temporary closure of schools, employees encouraged to work from home, a ban on crop burning and restrictions on heavy trucks in the city.
Ekbordin Winijkul, associate professor in the environmental engineering and management programme at the Asian Institute of Technology, develops knowledge to support science-based policy implementation to tackle air pollution in Thailand along with the Pollution Control Department. He also works with neighbouring country governments and international organisations to see how solutions can be transferred from one country to another. “We examine different sources and try to identify what their total contribution to PM2.5 is, then look at whether there are some solutions that can be used to help reduce emissions,” Winijkul says.
Citing one research project he’s worked on, he explains: “We looked at the emissions that come from boat transport along the canal and Chao Phraya River in Bangkok. We found that their contribution is actually smaller than vehicle emissions on the road, but using old engines in these boats created pollution that affects people on the piers and living along the canals and river. Despite this, there is some movement from both local government and international agencies in terms of working with the boat owners to switch to cleaner engines. On Chao Phraya River, there is already one public transport boat that runs on electricity.”
In terms of transport overall, Diane Archer, senior research fellow at Stockholm Environment Institute in Asia, says: “If there was a more walkable environment, then that would discourage people from using private transit as much. The worse the air quality, the less people are likely to walk or cycle. But if we don’t do anything to encourage walking and cycling or invest in mass transit, then we’re not going to improve traffic-related pollutants.
“A particular issue is last-mile connectivity, so ensuring that people can easily access the BTS Skytrain [Bangkok Mass Transit System] without having to drive there would go a long way in improving general transport-related traffic.”
But is this enough to create long-term change in Bangkok and beyond? “There are a lot of things that need to be done,” Winijkul says. “The public transport system needs to be better. In reality, Bangkok city doesn’t have the authority to implement some of the regulation that can help to reduce pollution. For example, the truck-banning policy can only be enforced during a period of high PM2.5 concentration because they need to be announced under the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act.”
Archer says: “Legislation is an important part of the solution, and having a key body that is in charge of air quality and has the remit to act on it. The necessary enforcement mechanisms also need to be in place – it’s all well and good having laws, but if they’re not being enforced, then it’s not going to make much of a difference.”
This includes community reporting to flag illegal burning or polluting vehicles. “What would be good is a source of funding,” she explains. “For example, if fines from polluters went into a pot specifically targeted at solving air pollution.”
In terms of open burning, Winijkul believes the best option is to find alternatives for farmers. “We could say if they don’t burn then people will come to their farm and collect the agricultural waste that has been produced, so it can be turned into something else,” he says. “The farmers would get money from it and the next day they could start a new crop.”
However, the logistics and economies of scale don’t exist, he warns. Agricultural waste is only available for three to four months but the industry may need it for the whole year, Winijkul says it needs to be stored safely so it doesn’t get too dry and burn easily, or too wet so that it decomposes and can’t be used.”
In terms of affordable alternatives, Archer says: “With sugarcane, the burning happens before the cane is cut – because the leaves are sharp, burning them off first makes harvesting the crop easier. If we have support for farmers to access the right machinery, then they wouldn’t need to burn off the leaves beforehand.”
For rice residue, she says: “There have been large-scale experiments or pilots, where farmers have been provided with bacterial solutions to put in the field to digest the rice stalks. Compared to buying a machine, using microbes is lower cost.”
The challenge, she believes, is scaling up these projects beyond small pilot schemes in local communities.
Ultimately, Winijkul says collaboration between different government and private-sector organisations in the country is needed. “Bangkok needs to work with a lot of partners to make different solutions happen,” he says. “It cannot work alone.”
Weenarin Lulitanonda (pictured) is the co-founder of the Thailand Clean Air Network (Thailand CAN), a citizen-led non-profit organisation working on policy that will support clean air in the country. Thailand CAN has developed the first citizen-driven Clean Air Bill, with support from more than 22,000 people, which has been submitted to the Thai parliament for consideration.
“There are some really critical factors in the legislation we tabled,” Lulitanonda says. “The first one is the endorsement of the right to breathe clean air. Although Thailand recognises the UN’s resolution for the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment, these things don’t mean much unless they are incorporated in national legislation.
“By doing so, it creates an obligation for the state to respect, protect and fulfil this right, and if the state does not abide by its duty, then the judicial process can kick in.”
The second is ensuring that the organisational structure of the agency that will be taking care of clean air is properly set up, she adds. “We have incorporated the concept of co-management between the state and civil society. It’s about having the representation of people who have the skills and knowledge in this space, because these issues are complicated.”
Creating the incentive structure to shape behaviour among different economic actors is also important, Lulitanonda says. “Within our proposed legislation, we have implemented the ‘polluter pays’ principle. The idea is that if you pollute, you pay for it. Polluting businesses will be subject to a clean air charge or have the option to transition their operations so they are no longer polluting. It’s a choice.
“The money will go into a fund that can be used for different purposes. One is to help businesses transition towards cleaner operations, while another is to help companies looking to provide solutions, such as leasing harvester machines as it’s not currently economical for them to do so.”
Time provisional subsidies will provide support until these solution-based operators are economically viable, which means they can be subject to market forces and sustainable.
“Another part of the legislation that is quite unique is that it pushes the responsibility back to the polluter,” says Lulitanonda. “If a polluting operation is happening outside the borders of Thailand and we can ascertain from satellite data and ground monitoring that it’s flowing into the country, then the culprits behind that point-source pollution need to be accountable.
“Everybody has to be responsible because we are all living under the same stratosphere. Although it’s a Thailand clean air movement right now, the passage of an effective Thai clean air act will have far-reaching implications for the region.”
Katie Smith is a freelance writer and editor
