SHAH ALAM – Malaysia should continue seeking compensation for losses caused by recurring transboundary haze, but any claim must be backed by evidence and an agreed mechanism, says Universiti Putra Malaysia environmental expert Associate Professor Dr Haliza Abdul Rahman.
She said Malaysia should push for a legitimate, transparent and enforceable regional mechanism based on the polluter-pays principle, state due diligence and regional solidarity.
Under such an approach, companies or individuals proven to have caused the fires would bear the costs, while the Indonesian government would be responsible for ensuring adequate enforcement and prevention measures.
“In my view, Malaysia should continue pursuing the claim to ensure those responsible pay the costs and compensation. However, the approach should shift from simply saying ‘Indonesia must pay’ to ensuring ‘those responsible for causing the damage must pay based on evidence and an agreed mechanism’.
“This is an important distinction from a diplomatic perspective. Demanding that the Indonesian government directly pay for all losses suffered by a neighbouring country may be difficult because the Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) does not provide a clear compensation mechanism,” she told Sinar Harian.
Haliza was commenting on the worsening transboundary haze following fires in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said on Tuesday that the existing Asean mechanism for addressing transboundary haze needed to be strengthened to tackle the issue more effectively.
He said Aseanministers must take the matter seriously as haze affects people’s lives, particularly children and babies.
Claims for compensation over haze-related losses are not new. The issue was raised during the 1997 haze crisis, when calls were made for the government to calculate Malaysia’s economic, environmental, health and tourism losses.
It resurfaced in 2016, when the government was again urged to calculate the total cost of the haze and seek compensation from Indonesia.
Putting a value on haze
Haliza said any compensation claim must first be supported by an agreed mechanism for establishing evidence and calculating losses.
She said Malaysia’s case for compensation would be stronger if the losses could be scientifically quantified.
“Haze is not just about poor visibility or discomfort. It causes healthcare costs, school closures, flight disruptions, loss of productivity, tourism and business losses, as well as damage to ecosystems.
“The 2015 experience showed the scale of the economic impact. World Bank estimates put the losses and damage from fires in Indonesia at around US$16.1 billion, including economic and environmental costs. In Singapore, the 2015 haze was reportedly estimated to have caused around US$517 million in economic losses,” she said.
Haliza said such figures were important because they showed that the impact of haze could be measured in economic terms rather than treated solely as a political issue.
She said the 2026 haze also provided a clear case study for Malaysia, after Serian recorded an Air Pollutant Index (API) reading of 519 on Sept 4.
“As a result, the government declared an emergency after the haze was linked to fires in Indonesia on Borneo. Several schools were closed and cloud-seeding operations were carried out,” she added.
Haliza said Malaysia could also establish a national haze cost account to record school closure days, patients affected by respiratory problems, flight disruptions, lost productivity, cloud-seeding and monitoring costs, as well as losses to the tourism sector.