Indonesia’s Transboundary Haze Crisis Is Testing ASEAN Solidarity

Southeast Asia is once again confronting a transboundary haze crisis as intensifying forest and land fires in Indonesia spread smoke across national borders. In October 2026, prolonged dry conditions associated with El Niño contributed to one of Indonesia’s most severe wildfire seasons in more than a decade. The consequences have extended far beyond the areas directly affected by the fires. On October 14, Singapore recorded a one-hour PM2.5 concentration of 284 micrograms per cubic metre in its western region, reaching the “very high” category. In Indonesia, air pollution levels in Central Kalimantan exceeded the hazardous threshold, while school closures and rising respiratory illnesses highlighted the wider public health consequences. Reuters reported that respiratory illness cases linked to the fires had reached 283,270 across seven Indonesian provinces by October 13, more than double the figure recorded in early September. These developments demonstrate that the haze is not merely a seasonal environmental problem, but a regional crisis with implications for public health, economic activity, and diplomatic relations.

The crisis has also renewed tensions between Indonesia and its neighbours, particularly Malaysia and Singapore. Both countries have been affected by deteriorating air quality, prompting renewed calls for stronger action against the fires. On October 12, Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan announced that he intended to raise the issue with regional counterparts ahead of the ASEAN summit in Manila the following month. Malaysian lawmakers have also called for a stronger diplomatic response, including coordinated pressure on companies linked to land burning. However, these calls should be distinguished from the Malaysian government’s official approach, which has continued to emphasise dialogue and regional cooperation. Singapore has likewise expressed its readiness to assist in containing the fires. The situation therefore reflects a tension between growing public frustration over recurring haze and the diplomatic need to maintain cooperation among neighbouring states.

Indonesia, meanwhile, has expanded its efforts to contain the fires. President Prabowo Subianto ordered the mobilisation of additional resources, with more than 69,000 firefighting personnel deployed by October 14. Authorities have also used aircraft for water bombing and weather modification operations, although peatland fires remain particularly difficult to extinguish because they can smoulder beneath the surface and re-emerge. On October 16, Indonesia’s foreign minister confirmed that Prabowo had approved the acceptance of assistance from neighbouring countries, with arrangements being discussed at the technical level. This marked an important development in regional cooperation after Malaysia and Singapore had expressed their willingness to help. Nevertheless, the scale of the response raises a broader question: should the effectiveness of Indonesia’s efforts be measured primarily by the resources deployed during an emergency, or by its ability to prevent fires and address the conditions that allow them to recur? While firefighting is essential, long-term solutions also depend on land management, early detection, enforcement against illegal burning, and accountability for parties found responsible.

At the regional level, the recurring haze crisis exposes the limitations of ASEAN’s approach to environmental cooperation. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, adopted in 2002, established a framework for cooperation in preventing and mitigating haze pollution. Yet the recurrence of severe episodes more than two decades later raises questions about the gap between regional commitments and their implementation. ASEAN’s emphasis on consensus, consultation, and respect for national sovereignty helps maintain diplomatic relations among its members. However, these principles can also complicate efforts to secure swift and consistent action when environmental damage in one country imposes costs on others. The challenge is not simply that ASEAN lacks a framework for cooperation, but that regional commitments must be translated into effective prevention, information sharing, and follow-up measures. The planned ministerial discussions in November therefore offer an opportunity to move beyond emergency coordination and examine how regional mechanisms can deliver more lasting results.

Ultimately, the haze crisis illustrates a fundamental dilemma in Southeast Asian environmental diplomacy: pollution crosses borders, but the authority to regulate its sources remains largely within individual states. Addressing this gap requires more reliable hotspot monitoring, transparent investigations, stronger peatland protection, coordinated emergency assistance, and consistent enforcement against illegal burning. It also requires recognising that regional cooperation and accountability are not competing objectives. Indonesia’s neighbours can support its firefighting efforts while continuing to call for effective prevention and greater transparency. For ASEAN, the task is to balance sovereignty with shared responsibility and ensure that environmental commitments produce tangible benefits for affected communities. As regional leaders prepare to discuss the issue, the question remains whether ASEAN can move beyond managing recurring emergencies and develop a more effective approach to preventing them. If the haze continues to return each dry season, the region must confront not only the fires themselves, but also the institutional and political challenges that have made the crisis so persistent.