Indonesia's Sickening Smog: What Causes It, Why Does It Persist, and What Should the Government Do?
Indonesia's smog problem is not simply a matter of bad weather or smoke drifting in from neighbouring countries. It is a combination of land-clearing fires, peatland destruction, industrial and transport emissions, weak enforcement, and difficult political-economic choices.
Your question raises an important issue of accountability: why can governments become vocal when neighbouring countries complain about cross-border pollution, yet struggle to eliminate the activities that produce the smoke?
The answer requires separating three things: what causes the pollution, what Indonesia's government has done, and why the problem remains difficult to solve.
What actually causes Indonesia's smog?
1. Forest and peatland fires
Fires are deliberately set in some areas to clear land, while others spread accidentally or escape control. Drained peatlands are especially dangerous because the underground organic material can smoulder for weeks or months, releasing enormous quantities of smoke and fine particles.
2. Land clearing for agriculture and plantations
Commercial plantations, smallholder farming and other land-use activities can create incentives to clear vegetation cheaply. Fire is sometimes used as a low-cost clearing method, although not all plantation development involves burning and not every fire is deliberately started.
3. Vehicles, factories and power generation
Traffic exhaust, industrial facilities, coal-fired power stations and construction dust contribute to unhealthy air, particularly around Jakarta and other urban centres. These sources can remain important even when there are no major forest fires.
4. Dry weather and atmospheric conditions
During the dry season, vegetation and peat become easier to ignite. Winds can carry smoke across islands and international borders, while stagnant air can trap pollution near populated areas. El Niño can intensify drought in some years, but it is not the underlying reason that land is cleared with fire.
The crucial distinction: weather can intensify a smog crisis, but land management, combustion practices and emissions determine much of the pollution that governments can prevent.
How serious is the current 2026 crisis?
This is not merely a historical problem. Reporting published in October 2026 describes an exceptionally severe fire season.
Firefighting deployment
69,000+
Personnel deployed, according to Indonesian officials reported by Reuters on 14 October.
Reported PM2.5 peak
284 µg/m³
Singapore's one-hour reading in the west of the island on 14 October.
Sources: Reuters, 14 October 2026; Reuters, 22 October 2026.
The fine particles known as PM2.5 are particularly dangerous because they penetrate deep into the lungs and can enter the bloodstream. Exposure increases the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular illness.
Reuters reported that respiratory illness cases across seven Indonesian provinces had reached 283,270 by 13 October. This is a reported case total, not necessarily a count of unique people whose illnesses were all independently confirmed as caused by smoke.
By 22 October, Reuters reported that high-confidence fire hotspots had declined from more than 1,200 on 14 October to 565. However, intermittent rainfall had not extinguished all the persistent fires, and Indonesia remained on high alert.
These developments reveal two realities: Indonesia is deploying substantial emergency resources, but the continuing health consequences and recurring fires raise questions about whether prevention and enforcement are sufficient.
Why isn't the government stopping it?
The answer is not simply that the government does nothing. It has taken action, but emergency firefighting and long-term prevention are two very different tasks.
A. The economic incentives are difficult to change
Palm oil is an important Indonesian export, supporting employment, farming and industrial activity. Other agricultural and land-development interests also have economic stakes in the use of forest and peatland.
Where burning offers a cheap way to clear land, strict enforcement imposes costs on those who benefit from the practice. Smallholders may lack affordable alternatives, while larger commercial operators can have substantial resources and influence.
This does not mean that the entire palm oil industry causes fires. It means that the government must distinguish lawful production from illegal burning and make compliance more economically attractive than violating the law.
B. Enforcement is harder than making announcements
To prosecute a responsible company, authorities may need to establish:
Where a fire began and how it spread.
Who controlled the land at the time.
Whether burning was deliberate, negligent or caused by another party.
Whether the available evidence connects the fire to a particular company or individual.
Satellite monitoring can identify hotspots and help investigators trace burned areas, but a hotspot alone does not establish criminal responsibility.
Indonesia has revoked permits belonging to companies suspected of ordering burning, according to CNA's September reporting. The important questions are whether investigations lead to effective penalties, whether the companies are held financially responsible for damage, and whether the same conduct recurs
C. Peatland fires are exceptionally difficult to extinguish
A fire in ordinary vegetation may be extinguished relatively quickly. A peat fire can burn underground, spread below the surface and reignite after appearing to have been put out.
Indonesia has responded with ground firefighting, aircraft, water bombing, weather-modification operations and additional personnel. It also experimented with dropping dry ice from aircraft in October in an effort to influence cloud formation. The effectiveness of such techniques against widespread haze remains uncertain.
The larger problem is that suppressing a fire does not repair a drained peatland, change land-use incentives or prevent someone from lighting another fire.
D. Responsibility is divided across institutions and regions
Forest management, environmental regulation, agricultural licensing, policing, disaster response and local administration involve different authorities.
If permits, land ownership, local enforcement and national policy are poorly coordinated, officials can respond to a fire without resolving the conditions that allowed it to start.
CNA's September analysis highlighted land-use governance, spatial planning, water management and community relationships as underlying issues requiring attention—not just firefighting and punishment after the event.
E. Political costs can be immediate, while reform costs are long-term
This is an analytical explanation rather than a proven claim about any particular official's motives.
Revoking permits, prosecuting powerful businesses, restricting land conversion or funding peatland restoration can create immediate economic and political costs. The benefits—cleaner air, fewer fires and lower healthcare burdens—often accumulate over years.
That creates a policy dilemma: a government can announce emergency measures immediately, but structural reform requires sustained enforcement, financing and willingness to confront vested interests.
Why does Indonesia appear to attack countries that complain about the smog?
This is the diplomatic heart of your question.
First, it is important to distinguish between Indonesia rejecting criticism, defending its sovereignty and actually attacking another country. Those are not the same thing.
In the current 2026 crisis, Al Jazeera reported on 22 October that Malaysia and Singapore had largely refrained from directly criticising Indonesia and had offered assistance with firefighting. Indonesian officials had sent mixed signals about accepting outside assistance, at times welcoming offers and at other times insisting the country could manage the fires itself.
Why might a government react defensively when neighbouring countries complain?
1. National sovereignty
Foreign criticism can be portrayed as interference in domestic affairs. A government may insist that it alone should control operations within its territory. But sovereignty does not erase the consequences of pollution that crosses international borders.
2. Domestic political pressure
Leaders may fear that accepting criticism makes them appear incapable of protecting their citizens or controlling their territory. Defending national dignity can become politically easier than publicly acknowledging enforcement failures.
3. Disputes over responsibility
Indonesia may question whether particular fires have been correctly attributed, whether foreign governments have offered sufficient assistance, or whether criticism overlooks local efforts to contain the blazes. Some questions of attribution are legitimate, but they should be resolved through evidence.
4. Regional diplomatic sensitivities
ASEAN traditionally emphasizes consultation, consensus and non-interference. That approach helps prevent diplomatic disputes from escalating, but it can also make it harder to impose consequences when a country's domestic environmental problems harm its neighbours.
There is a fundamental distinction here:
A government can be justified in rejecting inaccurate accusations while still being obligated to address pollution originating within its territory.
Neighbouring countries should not be expected to remain silent about unhealthy air simply to preserve diplomatic harmony. Equally, accusations should be supported by satellite data, fire investigations and other credible evidence.
The appropriate response is cooperation backed by accountability—not public humiliation, and not diplomatic defensiveness that substitutes for action.
What should Indonesia do to solve the problem?
The most effective approach would combine immediate fire suppression with reforms that reduce the likelihood of future fires.
Remedy 1 — Enforce a zero-illegal-burning policy
Investigate fires promptly, identify responsible landholders and prosecute proven violations. Suspend or revoke permits where legally justified, impose proportionate penalties and recover the costs of environmental damage.
Remedy 2 — Restore and rewet peatlands
Block drainage canals where appropriate, restore water levels and rehabilitate degraded peat ecosystems. Wet peat is much less susceptible to deep-burning fires than drained peat, although restoration must be tailored to local conditions.
Remedy 3 — Give farmers practical alternatives
Provide affordable machinery, technical assistance, financing and support for non-burning land preparation. Punishment alone is unlikely to work sustainably if farmers have no affordable alternative.
Remedy 4 — Publish transparent fire and enforcement data
Make satellite hotspots, burned-area maps, land concessions, investigation outcomes, penalties and permit suspensions publicly accessible. Independent monitoring would help establish whether announced actions produce measurable results.
Remedy 5 — Strengthen ASEAN cooperation
Establish joint fire-monitoring protocols, rapid cross-border information sharing, coordinated firefighting assistance and credible compliance reviews. Regional cooperation should include transparent procedures for addressing persistent non-compliance.
Remedy 6 — Protect people while addressing urban pollution
Publish reliable PM2.5 readings, issue health alerts, protect outdoor workers, provide clean-air shelters where needed and reduce vehicle and industrial emissions in cities. Forest-fire controls alone will not resolve all of Indonesia's air pollution.
These measures address both the immediate health emergency and the structural causes of recurring haze.
What can neighbouring countries legally do?
Indonesia and other ASEAN states have already established a regional framework: the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.
The agreement commits participating countries to cooperate on preventing and controlling cross-border haze. However, it does not provide a straightforward regional judicial enforcement mechanism. Disputes are largely handled through consultation and negotiation, and international court jurisdiction cannot simply be imposed without the necessary legal basis and consent.
Countries affected by the haze have several options:
Diplomatic pressure: Request formal investigations, measurable commitments and public progress reports.
Domestic legal action: Where applicable, use national laws to pursue companies responsible for cross-border pollution. Singapore, for example, has a Transboundary Haze Pollution Act.
Evidence sharing: Exchange satellite observations, land-concession information and corporate records to strengthen investigations.
Regional accountability: Press ASEAN to establish more transparent compliance reviews and more effective procedures for responding to repeated failures.
Practical assistance: Provide firefighting equipment, technical expertise and support for peatland restoration, without removing Indonesia's responsibility to enforce its own laws.
Legal action against a company or state depends on jurisdiction, evidence, applicable law and procedural requirements. It is not automatic merely because smoke crosses a border.
Notably, Al Jazeera's October 2026 reporting also described growing calls for stronger legal accountability and more independent monitoring.
How do we know whether the government is genuinely solving the problem?
Governments should be assessed by outcomes as well as announcements.
Measure | What meaningful progress would look like |
|---|---|
Fire prevention | Fewer new fires and a declining area burned over comparable seasons |
Law enforcement | Published investigations, successful prosecutions and effective sanctions |
Peatland protection | Rewetted degraded areas and fewer recurring peat fires |
Public health | Fewer days of hazardous air and declining smoke-related illness |
Corporate accountability | Traceable land ownership and financial responsibility for proven damage |
Regional cooperation | Timely data sharing, assistance and documented follow-through on commitments |
One bad fire season does not, by itself, prove that all government policies have failed: severe drought can overwhelm even substantial firefighting efforts. Conversely, a temporary improvement caused by rainfall does not prove that the underlying problem has been solved.
The stronger test is whether Indonesia reduces the risk of another severe season when the next drought arrives.
The deeper issue: who pays for the pollution?
There is an economic injustice at the centre of the crisis.
A landholder may benefit from cheap land clearing. A company may benefit from agricultural production. Yet the costs of the resulting smoke can be borne by millions of people who receive none of those profits: children missing school, workers losing income, families paying medical bills and neighbouring countries dealing with unhealthy air.
This is a classic case of a negative externality: the person or business generating a cost does not necessarily pay the full social and environmental cost of its activity.
The solution is not to abandon agriculture or palm oil production. It is to ensure that production is not made artificially cheap by shifting its pollution costs onto the public.
That requires effective enforcement, restoration funding, transparent supply chains and compensation where legal responsibility is established.
My conclusion
Indonesia is confronting a genuine environmental emergency, and its government has deployed substantial resources to fight the current fires. But the reported scale of the 2026 crisis, the recurring nature of the problem and the continued cross-border effects raise serious questions about prevention, land governance and corporate accountability.
Sovereignty comes with responsibility. Every country has the right to govern its territory, but it should also take reasonable measures to prevent serious cross-border environmental harm.
Emergency response is not structural reform. Aircraft, firefighting teams and cloud seeding can help manage a crisis; they cannot substitute for preventing fires, restoring peatlands and enforcing the law.
Diplomacy should produce results. Neighbouring countries should use credible evidence, legal mechanisms and regional cooperation to press for lasting improvements, rather than allowing diplomatic sensitivities to obscure the costs borne by ordinary people.
The central question is therefore not whether Indonesia deserves criticism or whether its neighbours should remain silent. It is whether the country can turn its considerable emergency response into a system that prevents the same disaster from recurring.
The ultimate measure of success is not how forcefully a government defends itself against criticism. It is how many people can breathe clean air when the next dry season arrives.
By Jugo Ikeji Uju
Content Sponsorship available-
Special "Documentary and Investigative" episodes sponsorships available with links on ubuntusafa.com
Contact admin:
sappertekinc@gmail.com
admin@ubuntusafa.com
No comments:
Post a Comment