As the rainy season washes away Thailand’s worst stretch of dangerous air quality on record, at times leading the world’s hazardous breathing indices, many fear this upcoming winter will be little better—and experts concur.
For years Kanyarat Chaksuwong, her husband and their three-year-old son have been commuting by motorcycle 60 kilometers round trip from their home in Samutsakorn province to their offices in Nakon Pathom.
“We’ve known that the dust and traffic fumes are toxic and getting worse, but we have to work every day,” Kanyarat said.She suggests that anyone who thinks the government was serious in its proclamations to immediately target some of the key sources, to consider joining the trio on their commute.
“It’s not just the thick exhaust we still have to breathe that’s pouring out of old cars, trucks and busses, but the black clouds coming out factories that is unchanged too. I feel burning sensations in my nostrils every time we pass through the area,” she laments.
Even if there was some initial attention to remove 'black smoke' vehicles from the road, there were no measures to limit the number of automobiles in Bangkok generally, allowing another 180,000 new vehicles registered with the Land Transport Department only within the period of 2 months from January to February this year.
Likewise, while local governments attempted to implement a ban on outdoor burning, the government continued the promotion of the monoculture agriculture practices that rely on it, encouraging the planting of corn totaling two million raise during November 2018 to February 2019.
Insufficient political will thwarts reform
Dr. Suwat Wangwongwattana, former director general of the Pollution Control Department says the case study of vehicle exhausts highlights the historical momentum impeding air quality reform towards the public’s benefit.
Vehicle exhaust from incomplete combustion has longtime been known to be the major source of PM2.5 pollutant in Bangkok. Stringent emission control standards have often been discussed as a major strategy to help cut the problem at its root.
Dr Suwat cites weak efforts to phasing down sulfur in transport fuels to not more than 10 mg/m3 (equal to EURO 5 emission standard) as just one example. “The implementation has been delayed for 13 years from our first scheduled date,” he says. “Some entrepreneurs didn’t want to make new investments, so they lobbied government units to postpone the plan till they were ready. Therefore, even the use of Euro 4 had been much delayed from the schedule.”
The implementation of EURO 5 emission standards, which have been in place in South Korea for a decade, remains a long and winding road here. Only last year, after three years of negotiation, did oil refiners agree to comply, and then it took granting them a five years grace period.
“Compliance should have started in 2022, however, as of now there is still no resolution from the National Environment Board acknowledging the mandatory upgrade,” he explains.
There have recent reports that implementation could be accelerated, but Dr Suwat has his doubts. “If we do not take it (pollution) seriously, it will come again at the end of this year, and also reoccur in every year. At the end of the day, it’s up to political will of those lawmakers. They have to bang at the table and send orders down to the operating levels to start doing something,” he stresses.
Delay, delay, delay
There is a consensus among many academics that the key weapon to reduce smog is to implement more stringent regulations on the discharge of noxious gases from their sources of origin.
“When you don’t tackle the problem at its root, it’s expensive to regulate, and too easy for polluters to dodge their responsibilities. Polluters must pay,” stresses Dr Suwat.
Therefore, the strengthening of Thailand’s allowable PM2.5 levels from cars, factories, refiners, open-field burning must be a top priority. Once, again, says Dr Suwat that complaints about investment costs and economic losses have prompted the National Environment Board to delay any changes.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that while there is no evidence of a safe level of air pollution exposure, nor a threshold below which adverse health effects won’t occur, it has established thresholds for six pollutants. Among those receiving the greatest attention in Thailand is PM2.5 - the concentration of particulates in the air of sizes greater than 2.5 microns. The WHO guidelines state that a person’s average annual PM2.5 exposure should not exceed 10 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), and that exposures during any 24 hour period should not exceed 25 mg/m3.
Presently, Thailand considers 50 mg/m3 an acceptable level of PM 2.5 during a 24 hour period, and 25 mg/m3 over the course of the year. The country’s average concentration of PM2.5 from 2011-2018 was 24 mg/m3, with Bangkok and the surrounding areas closer to 30 mg/m3.
Assoc Prof Dr Sirima Panyamethikul, Chulalongkorn University’s Department of Environmental Engineering, who leads the Thailand Network Center on Air Quality Management (TAQM) says the government must quickly adopt stricter standards.
“By now, the Pollution Control Department should reduce the allowable concentration of PM2.5. With Thailand’s average annual levels below 30 mg/m3, we should be able to tighten our standard from 50 mg/m3 down to 35, which is the same level as USA. And the next goal should be set at World Health Organization’s 25 mg/ cubic meter,” Dr Sirima said.
The National Environment Board insists this is unnecessary, as the nation’s “sustainable transportation system” should be in place and completed data should be gathered for another 6-7 years, with a hope that PM2.5 levels would fall close the required range before enforcing such (new) regulations, to prevent any effect to the country’s key economic sectors in the future.
This is unacceptable says Dr Sirima, as there has been no readjustment of the PM2.5 standard since it was set in 2010, even though the PCD is obligated to revise and improve the national air quality index every five years. Such revisions are consistent with WHO guidelines which also specify governments regularly pursue more stringent measures for National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Further, Dr Sirima recommends the need for cooperation between government units to set emission controlling standards from sources of origin and to better enforce regulations in cleaning the air. “We should pursue a common goal in protecting the health of Thais. It does not mean we must do everything at once right now, but we have to have a goal.”
Ignoring attention to environment and health
Early this year as hazardous haze over Bangkok hovered stagnant for weeks, the government used its weak air quality standards to allay public concerns about health risks says Assoc Prof Dr Witsanu Attavanich from Kasetsart University’s Economic Faculty. Official statements advised that PM2.5 should only be considered a problem at levels in excess of 90 mg/m3, and the government would not acknowledge a crisis until levels exceeded 100 mg/m3 for three consecutive days.
“The (budget) numbers clearly show that environment protection is not a government priority,” Dr Witsanu observes, “They focus only economic stability and growth. In the government’s expenditure budget from 2015 to 2019, economic-related expenditures rank second after administrative expenses, whereas the budget set aside for environmental protection is relatively small.”
For the 2019 fiscal year, the environmental expenditure budget is set at 10.9 billion baht, equivalent to only about 0.4 percent of Thailand’s total budget of 3.1 trillion baht. This is just 0.05 percent of Thailand’s GDP, 2 times less than that of South America, 12.8 times less than the People's Republic of China and 14 times less than the European Union.
"Air pollution levels have remained dangerously high in recent years, and do not seem to be improving. It is because we focus only on economic development and pay less attention to environment prevention and conservation. Certainly, the economy has clearly improved, but the question is, is it sustainable?” Dr Witsanu asks.
He points out that the economic costs associated with declining air quality is widely known. For example a 2017 World Bank study found that air pollution was factor in 1 in 10 deaths globally, and that for Thailand, the economic costs of air pollution had quadrupled from 211 billion baht in 1990 to 871 billion baht in 2013.
Air Quality Life Index ranks Thailand as the world’s seventh-most polluted country, with poor air quality reducing averages life expectancies here by two years. In around Chiang Mai local residents should expect about a four-year reduction.
In less than a generation, Thailand has moved from a low-income to an upper-income country. “So in economic terms, we must not only think about efficiency of resource management,” argues Dr Witsanu. “Shouldn’t we shift our attention to environment and not forget that our decisions today will effect to the next generation and also bring fairness into the equation every step of the way?”
Planners should listen to the people
Thailand’s current National Economic and Social Development Plan (2018 – 2022) contains phasing that suggests attention to environmental challenges: preserve and restore the natural resource base; clean up pollution; efficiently manage water resources and foster green growth. However, the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) has trouble integrating these issues into its longstanding culture focused on GDP growth. The agency’s focus largely remains advancing 20th century development strategies aimed at achieving a five percent annual growth in GDP with the hope of Thailand reaching an economic level consistent with the world’s high income countries.
This target, says Jinanggoon Rojananan, senior adivisor, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, “is to cope with the situation of Thailand being the aging society which the existing economic structure cannot support due to depleting number of young labor.”
She adds, “We should shift to green growth and not destroy the environment.” However, she concedes there is still a gap in the agencies incorporation of natural resources challenges into actions. A new unit has been set up on how to integrate the green economy concept into development projects, she notes.
Asst Prof Dr Surat Bualert, Dean of Environment Faculty at Kasetsart University fears the NESDC’s posturing does not reflect where Thailand needs to go. “The government pushing these GDP-only plans are really just for today’s benefit, because without incorporating the importance of the natural environment now, we will not be able to change the mind sets of both older and younger generation to think about the benefits for Thais in the long run.”
Mira Chaimahawong, a Bangkok educator and mother of two, agrees, and unless something changes, feels there’s little hope to expect air quality to improve.
“What we should do is preparing our kids to be ready for this era of toxic smog. We will face more pollutions as well as other environment problems, so our children must learn to protect and adapt themselves to be able to deal with the rising air pollution.”
She has taught her own children to use public transit to increase their awareness and minimize their own impacts. “I know commuting by mass transit is more difficult, however, my kids want to try. They understand the problem and want to make a difference.”
It’s precisely such views and attitudes that must be reflected in our development plans, adds Dr Surat, otherwise he fears future Bangkok residents will not be able to live in a clean, safe environment.
“Most of all, Thais must be able to take a part in determining their own future as it (national strategies) should not be in the hands of a few government agencies. When we realize this point, we can see the hope of better future,” concludes the environment lecturer Dr Surat.
Reporting for this story was supported by Mekong Eye, a geo-journalism website under Internews' Earth Journalism Network.
Comments