HAZE AND HOTSPOTS - WHAT TAKES TO CLEAR AIR

HAZE is an atmospheric phenomenon where dry dust, smoke, and other microscopic particles suspend in the air, reducing visibility and making the sky look opalescent, grey, or amber. Anyhow the causes of Haze fros Wildfires and Agricultural Burning in a large-scale forest or peatland fires release dense plumes of smoke and fine particles that drift across regions occurred in Indonesia the most and affected many ASEAN neighboring countries in months in 2026. The jungle and also plantation especially on peat land burning in Kalimantan and Sumatra with almost half million hectares reported by the Indonesian authority by October 2026 for the past 4 months. Other cause by the Industrial Emissions such as factories and power plants pump sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot into the atmosphere top-up the haze in Malaysia recently. Othe factors such as Vehicle Exhaust and taffic adds volume of carbon monoxide and particulate matter to the lower part of the atmosphere. There are also Natural Dust and Sand in which long dry weather, wind or dust storms lift fine soil and minerals into the air. Issues on health risks and impacts tu human such as Respiratory Strain whereby the fine particles like particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers can travel deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Actually the common symptoms include an irritated eyes, sore throats, coughing, chest tightness, and worsened asthma. The issue of 'Air Quality Tracking' in which the governments track pollution levels using metrics like Malaysia's Air Pollutant Index (API) or Singapore's Pollutant Standards Index (PSI). You can read safety steps on the Ministry of Health Malaysia Health Advisory. Actually, there is something this time amid a more severe regional fire and haze episode. However, in this article of "Anim Agriculture Technology" blog I write about the haze and hotspots and what takes to clear air.

A red dot on a satellite map may signal a thermal anomaly consistent with an active fire, but it should not become an instant verdict. Satellites can detect heat; they cannot, by themselves, establish the exact ignition point, cause or responsibility. Many claim no gift of prophecy. about the fire season simply follows a depressingly familiar script that was the smoke appears, satellite maps light up, NGOs press their case, names become associated with dots, companies defend themselves and governments investigate and social media adds its own combustible material. Meanwhile, somewhere on the ground, orsomebody still has to put out the fire. The satellite monitoring has transformed fire detection and rightly so (as diagram above). The it allows authorities, land managers, certification systems and civil society to identify thermal anomalies quickly. But reaching the site to investigate may itself be difficult across remote rural terrain with limited access. Technology can locate heat more easily than it can establish culpability. Actually the hotspot within a concession deserves immediate attention, but it does not automatically tell us where the fire began, who started it, whether it entered from outside, whether it was accidental or deliberate, or what people on the ground were doing when the satellite passed overhead. There are lost of public discussion does not always move at the speed of verification. A red dot makes an excellent graphic. Add a concession boundary and Malaysia have to recognisable geography and add a corporate identity and the story becomes easier still. But geography is not necessarily causality. A fire detected within a concession and a fire caused by the concession holder are different propositions. It however sometimes both may prove true and sometimes they may not whre the evidence still has to travel the remaining distance. Reported that even satellites have limits. On Oct 6, 2026 in which Singapore’s environmental authority reported moderate to dense smoke plumes from southern Sumatra and West Kalimantan drifting towards Singapore, where the 24-hour Pollutant Standards Index had entered the unhealthy range. Yet, extensive cloud cover meant the full extent of the hotspot and smoke-haze situation could not be determined. Due to dry ground, complicated fires due to the climatic backdrop makes the problem harder, not simpler. Indonesia’s meteorological agency known as BMKG reported prolonged dry conditions across much of the country in early October 2026. On Oct 4, it detected 261 hotspots in Sumatra, 212 in Kalimantan and 229 across Papua and Maluku and by the end of September 2026 it increased to 1,869 observation points were in its 'extremely long' dry-spell category. BMKG defines this as more than 60 consecutive days with no rain or virtually no rain, below one-mm a day. Weather is context, not an alibi. Severe dryness does not excuse deliberate burning, poor prevention or negligence, but it changes how fire behaves. Once vegetation and peat become tinder-dry, ignition, spread and reignition become much harder to separate neatly.

The tropical fires also emerge from landscapes in which more complicated than the annual blame game suggests. Some are deliberately set and where unlawful as a deserve firm action. Others involve escaped burns, dry peat, accidents, arson, land disputes or flames crossing property boundaries (see photo above for peat soil fires). This is not only an oil palm issue in which the hotspots and fires can occur across large forestry concessions, other agricultural land and area in community landscapes as well. Peat is especially troublesome because fire can smoulder below the surface and reignite after visible flames disappear. A falling hotspot count, therefore, does not necessarily mean the fire has conveniently packed its bags and gone home. Fire does not read land titles and smoke does not stop at property boundaries. Nuance, unfortunately it is often among the first casualties when the sky turns grey. There is an irony in modern sustainability. Operators in organised certification systems are often the easiest to identify, map and scrutinise precisely because their boundaries, policies and monitoring systems are more visible. Actually, the issue on transparency is desirable, but it creates a paradox where the are more visible you are, the easier it is to associate you with whatever happens within or near your boundary. Joining a sustainability system should not simply provide everyone with a better map on which to find you. That does not mean the certified operators deserve gentler scrutiny where their commitments should be tested but scrutiny must distinguish between detection, association and causation. Otherwise, the most transparent participants risk becoming the easiest targets while less visible actors fade into the haze. Numbers require the same discipline. A percentage can be technically correct yet misleading if the denominator stays hidden. Many still talking about all hotspots, selected concessions, one province or one company? One day, one month or an entire fire season? Change the boundary and the story can change without anyone technically stating a false number. In fairness, we should also recognise the physical reality of plantation management. An estate may stretch across thousands of hectares, not a few acres and certainly not a few square metres under one roof. No management team however diligent or well-equipped that can watch every patch of land every minute. During prolonged drought or strong El Niño conditions the guaranteeing that such a vast landscape will remain completely free of fire is unrealistic. The better test is whether management has taken proactive steps to prevent fires, detect them quickly, contain them, investigate their causes and reduce the risk of recurrence. For a grower, there is also no commercial logic in deliberately burning mature palms already producing crop and income. Growers should speak with greater solidarity and realism, not compete to appear fireproof across thousands of hectares. The industry is better served by acknowledging shared risks and showing collectively how fires are detected, verified and managed. What happens after a hotspot is detected is something satellite maps show poorly. Across affected plantation landscapes, prolonged drought can mean repeated reignition, dwindling water supplies and crews working under fatigue and safety pressures.

Fire response can require extra water, tankers, retention facilities, drone monitoring, ground patrols, firebreaks and prolonged mopping-up because yesterday’s fire can easily return tomorrow. Reported that none of this proves every criticism misplaced. Operational claims deserve verification too but fire management is also a human effort involving many hands, from government crews and plantation workers to villagers, smallholders, community fire groups and volunteers. The sustainability is debated in meeting rooms where fires are fought on the ground that somebody still has to hold the hose, drive the tanker, cut the firebreak, breathe the smoke and return when flames threaten again (See photo above). The wider response tells much the same story. On Oct 2, 2026 in which the Indonesia’s disaster-management dashboard listed 54,149 combined personnel across six priority provinces, alongside patrols, water bombing and weather- modification operations or even aircraft cannot do everything. Ultimately, fire control still depends heavily on people and equipment on the ground. When urgency outruns evidence There is an uncomfortable truth common to almost every crisis: attention creates opportunity, especially when public frustration is high and the governments want to show action or the companies protect reputations. The civil society advances causes and the politicians call for action also the media seek compelling stories and can turn allegations into headlines before the evidence catches up. The problem begins when urgency outruns verification where a hotspot becomes a corporate hotspot where thw geographical association becomes implied causation and several incidents become 'the industry'. A striking percentage travels halfway around the world while its denominator misses the flight and nor is this tendency confined to one side. Companies claim may highlight the favorable statistics and the governments choose convenient comparisons also the industry bodies become defensive, campaign groups simplify and journalists sharpen the story. None is automatically wrong but all can frame evidence selectively ad the balance and context matter. The public anger is understandable when haze lingers and health is at risk, especially when it crosses borders and people far from the fires bear the health and economic costs. Asean already has mechanisms for monitoring, prevention and joint response, while Malaysia is again considering a specific transboundary haze law. The stronger action is welcome, but responsibility for specific fires must still rest on credible evidence, cooperation and due process. What society need is traceability of the influence and if a claim can damage a reputation, affect buying decisions or shape regulation, the evidence and method behind it should withstand scrutiny. What was measured, where and over what period? Were hotspots verified on the ground? Was the fire’s origin established? What was included or excluded, and what uncertainty remained?. If later evidence changes the picture, does the correction travel with anything approaching the visibility of the original allegation?. These are not anti-environmental questions. They defend evidence, and the same standard should apply to every side.

A company cannot invoke drought where the neighboring fires or outsiders whenever smoke appears and consider the matter closed. If it says a fire came from elsewhere, substantiate it. If firefighting systems exist, demonstrate that they function when conditions turn dangerous. If deliberate burning or negligence is established, accountability should follow. A certification logo is not a certificate of sainthood and neither is an advocacy badge where nobody gets the halo, particularly when the sky is already smoky or beyond blame, prevent the next fire. The same balance is needed with smallholders and rural communities, where fire is entangled with a long-standing legacy of poverty and limited choices. Repoted that in parts of Indonesia, it has long been a cheap land-clearing tool for actors large and small. For poorer farmers with limited machinery, credit and extension support, alternatives can be especially hard to afford. Indonesia has also taken a firmer stance against land clearing by fire, while recognising that tougher enforcement must be matched by practical assistance for communities so burning is not left as the easiest option. If smaller farmers are expected to abandon burning, practical and affordable alternatives must follow. Communities need equipment, training, water infrastructure and support. About the enforcement matters but rules alone cannot solve a seroius problem rooted partly in limited choices. The Fire prevention is not sustainable if those with the fewest resources carry the biggest behavioural burden nd the more useful question is not who wins the argument after the haze arrives, but how fewer fires occur in the first place. That requires early detection, rapid ground verification, firm enforcement against deliberate burning, better peat and water management, practical alternatives to fire-based clearing, community engagement, adequate equipment and cooperation across boundaries. It also requires stamina for the firefighters may extinguish a blaze today only to return tomorrow when underground peat or dry vegetation reignites. Water runs short, equipment needs fuel and crews become exhausted long after the satellite image has left the news cycle. There is little room for complacency where the latest Asean seasonal outlook expects El Nino to strengthen through October and November, in 2026 with below-normal rainfall across much of the Maritime Continent and the regional hotspot and smoke-haze situation remaining elevated, although inter-monsoon showers later in October may offer some relief. Many must work harder on the ground and perhaps pray harder for rain. Actually, at the core, identifying those responsible matters but so does understanding the causes. Sustainability needs accountability where evidence leads, not convenient culprits, and fewer spectators pointing fingers than participants willing to solve the problem. issue on the investigate the hotspots where question plantation operators, regulators and some certification systems has to listen to communities, test campaign claims and hear the industry’s responses also to understand smallholder realities. If wrongdoing is proven, act firmly and if negligence contributed the accountability should follow and if allegations are overstated then correct them. And if people are risking their health and safety to contain fires, recognise that too. Sustainability loses credibility when issue on accountability and correction travel only one way. A satellite can show where unusual heat has appeared. It cannot, by itself to tell us who lit the fire or who failed to prevent it or who allowed it to spread or who inherited someone else’s flames or who spent the night trying to extinguish them. For those answers, we still need boots on the ground, evidence on the table and a little more humility around it. Otherwise, every fire season risks generating more heat than light. What South-East Asia needs is the reverse: less heat, more light. Thanks.

By,

M Anem,

Senior Aagronomist Expert,

Melaka,

Malaysia.

(October 2026).