Burning Season And The Tragedy Of The Commons

[chiangmaiexpat]

The burning season has begun in Chiang Mai. Alongside the three known seasons of Thailand, the burning season has recently established itself as a regular fourth season. It coincides with the end of the dry winter period and it is marked by extensive burning of fields and forests. These fires produce a haze consisting of dust and ash that envelopes the northern provinces from mid February until end of March. The fires are set for the most part by villagers who burn rice straw and vegetation to clear land for subsequent cultivation or construction. The topography of Northern Thailand traps the haze in the mountain valleys and lets it escape only slowly. Therefore high concentrations of particulate matter and other harmful substances are reached.

The situation worsened drastically during the past decade and has grown into a regional problem with serious consequences for public health and tourism. Although this is known to the authorities, there are hardly any initiatives to solve the problem. Until now, the administration has distinguished itself by inactivity and complacence. There are mild penalties for public burning which are rarely enforced. Hence, the villagers do what they always did: setting fire.

The "tragedy of the commons" is a game theoretical model for the use of freely available finite resources, which goes back to scientific articles by William Forster Lloyd and Garrett Hardin. According to this model, the use of a freely available but limited resource through individuals guided by self-interest inevitably leads to the destruction of the former, even though it is not in the interest of the community. The dynamics of the model are based on individual profit maximisation. Because the momentary profit for the participants is always higher than the long term cost, restraint is assessed as a strategic mistake. The model has high relevance for destructive processes caused by individual agents, such as the slash and burn agriculture in Northern Thailand.

A direct consequence of the tragedy of the commons is that the dynamics cannot be influenced for the better without external intervention by the community. A solution of the dilemma is achieved by introducing rights of disposal or respectively penalties through an institution that changes the profit equation for the participants in a way that the costs of damaging behaviour exceed individual profit. This can be implemented, for example, by laws and regulations enforced by local authorities, or respectively by public campaigns that increase problem awareness and let offenders appear in a bad light. There are many examples of such mechanisms in developed countries, from simple parking meters to the fishery department and emission trading.

The question I'd like to pose is why these mechanisms don't appear to work in Thailand. In this country one can find many examples where individual self-interest wins over common good and where destructive or non-cooperative behaviour ultimately harms all involved. The slash and burn agriculture in the north is therefore representative for a problem of larger dimensions. Where exactly lie the difficulties and challenges in Thailand? Are there any possible solutions? I am looking forward to your analysis and opinions.

Cheers, CMX

[mamborobert]

Am I missing something here...most farmers I have seen in the far north would be called poor and some only subsistence at best. I think they are motivated by food and profit rather than profit itself. To link Thai economics of an agrarian economy to a western industrial model does not make any sense.

If someone does not like smoke or pollution they should not live in a big city or an agricultural area that has intensive rice cultivation.

Feeding people is the interests of the community.

The community has a vested interest in keeping as many people on the land growing rice as possible. You don't see many people giving up semi well paid jobs in the cities to take up hard manual labour for (if you are very lucky) an uncertain third of the money in the rural areas.

A bigger population with less agricultural workers means that they have to burn off and have multiple crops to ensure enough food.

A decade ago the Philippines had its wonder rice that grew quickly and was going to feed Asia, no more burning, no more iffy harvests.

They got rid of the "old" ways and now they import, store, ration and subsidize the price of a basic staple. That has promoted greed, hoarding, smuggling, profiteering and corruption.

The Thai system works fine rice wise.

I can agree with the principal in some other areas (that self interest is a motivator) rather than common good. I can see that it appears more prevalent here. But by no means is a lack of altruism a solely Thai trait.

Lets not forget that recent minor hiccup, the Global Financial Crisis....unless we want to blame Thaksin for that as well

Edited February 24, 2010 by mamborobert

[alfieconn]

This is the way they have cleared their land for hundreds of years so do you think that they are going to change just because a few old farangs are not happy with the way they do things.

Where i come from we would just say "mind your own business" and i'm sure thats what the Thais are thinking if not saying, this is after all their country .

[isanbirder]

There is an alternative to burning the stubble: ploughing it back into the ground as fertiliser. This has to be done two or three times, and is viable if only two crops are planned. Many of the farmers in my area of Buriram seem to have done that this year... the ploughing, that is, not the second crop (not enough water this year for irrigation).

[chiangmaiexpat]

Mamborobert, there are several fallacies in your argument; therefore I find it impossible to agree with it. Let me address these points:

Am I missing something here...most farmers I have seen in the far north would be called poor and some only subsistence at best. I think they are motivated by food and profit rather than profit itself. To link Thai economics of an agrarian economy to a western industrial model does not make any sense.

The term profit in the context of the tragedy of the commons means material gain. In an economy, all participants work towards the goal of individual material gain, whether they are poor or rich. Economics in Thailand functions according to the same basic principles as economics everywhere on the planet.

Feeding people is the interests of the community.

Yes, but not at the expensive of making the community sick or damaging other industries, such as tourism. The statement is an oversimplification, because it neglects the negative effects.

A bigger population with less agricultural workers means that they have to burn off and have multiple crops to ensure enough food.

This would be so, if slash and burn was the only method of rice cultivation. The fact that it is neither the only method, nor the most efficient one refutes your argument. In fact, slash and burn has poor long-term efficacy, because it accelerates the soil nutrient depletion.

But by no means is a lack of altruism a solely Thai trait.

That has not been stated. What Thai society seems to lack is not altruism, but the capacity to adapt and implement change according to the requirements of a modern, more sophisticated society.

Cheers, CMX

[chiangmaiexpat]

This is the way they have cleared their land for hundreds of years so do you think that they are going to change just because a few old farangs are not happy with the way they do things. Where i come from we would just say "mind your own business" and i'm sure thats what the Thais are thinking if not saying, this is after all their country .

First, I am not old. Second, the ones being "unhappy" with the situation is the urbanised population of Chiang Mai. Third, the nature of the problem is independent of the person who expresses it. As foreigners, we have the advantage of a broader understanding of the problem. Slash and burn farming was once practiced in Europe as well, but it has been replaced by more sustainable and more efficient methods. It must be expected that the same will occur in Thailand, because of necessity, not because of us. The faster the better. It is the stubborn resistance to necessary change that brings deleterious results.

Cheers, CMX

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

The getting substantially worse part of your thesis is probably not accurate. If anything the city and immediate area has less agriculture and associated burning as land is redeveloped into subdivisions etc.

The wildcard is which way the wind blows and if it blows at all. When conditions are unfavorable then smoke can settle into inversion pocket of CM and stagnate. Extended air stagnation spells bad air quality periods. When bad air is blown in from heavy burning areas and then stagnates then its really noteworthy.

Has regional agriculture output increased over the last decade? I don't know that answer but my guess is probably not much change because most of the land has been cleared for agriculture for sometime. Anyone have any info or data on that?

Unfortunately agriculture has some downsides like blowing dirt and dust, burning, and pesticide chemical cancer clusters.

The downside of any particulate matter is that it carries the toxic residues of the area. Lead, Arsenic, Benzene, DDT. Whatever is around then it binds to the particals and the particulates from burning in this case are the carrier to your lungs and blood stream. Not a pretty thought at all.

I am going to stick it out this year in CM and just buy a fancy air cleaner and keep my fingers crossed. Hoping its not a bad year like in 06/07.

[gotlost]

I'm out in Doi Saket. Last year at this time the hills were on fire every night and visibility was about 1 km. my eyes were burning and the good old cough. It gotta be so bad that by the middle of March I took off for Phuket for a few weeks. This year very few fires can be seen if any, visibility on bad days about 5 km, no burning eyes or cough. I also know for a fact that farmers out hear are not burning as they have and the villages have busted down on secondary burning. To find out the cause of this pollution you are going to have to look afar not local.

Edited February 24, 2010 by gotlost

[Briggsy]

Posters here are confusing the terms "slash and burn agriculture" with "burning off". The two methods are very different. The former involves moving the plot every few years and is practised by few these days in Thailand since the introduction of the National Parks system over the last few decades.

There is also the burning of forest undergrowth to assist foragers particularly those focused on collecting bamboo and mushrooms. This is the most uncontrolled illegal activity which I expect causes the most pollution as whole mountain sides are set on fire.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Briggsy

[realthaideal]

I think I've missed a couple in the last week, but just for fun, I'm gonna call this thread #5 on the burning season this year. So excited to see how many separate threads we need !

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

isn't slash and burn the conversion of forest into farmland by cutting(slash) and burning?

from the wiki

Slash and burn consists of cutting and burning of forests or woodlands to create fields for agriculture or pasture for livestock, or for a variety of other purposes. It is sometimes part of shifting cultivation agriculture, and of transhumance livestock herding.

Historically, the practice of slash and burn has been widely practiced throughout most of the world, in grasslands as well as woodlands, and known by many names. In temperate regions, such as Europe and North America, the practice has been mostly abandoned over the past few centuries. Today the term is mainly associated with tropical rain forests. Slash and burn techniques are used by between 200 and 500 million people worldwide.[1]

Older English terms for slash and burn include assarting, swidden, and fire-fallow cultivation.

Slash and burn is a specific functional element of certain farming practices, often shifting cultivation systems. In some cases such as parts of Madagascar, slash and burn may have no cyclical aspects (e.g., some slash and burn activities can render soils incapable of further yields for generations), or may be practiced on its own as a single cycle farming activity with no follow on cropping cycle. Shifting cultivation normally implies the existence of a cropping cycle component, whereas slash-and-burn actions may or may not be followed by cropping

[chiangmaiexpat]

Briggsy, that's correct. The term "slash and burn agriculture" can mean anything where fire is used to cultivate land. However, the term "slash and burn rice cultivation" is more specific. It refers to burning rice straw to fertilise the soil with the ashes. The regional haze in Nothern Thailand, Burma, and Laos involves several different types of slash and burn agriculture, including rice cultivation, converting forest land into fields, burning undergrowth by foragers, or simply getting rid of organic matter and garbage on farms while it's dry. Apparently, fires are not yet recorded and catalogued by the authorities, so it's difficult to tell what type of fires are the main polluters. The satellite images are probably not sufficient for analysis.

Cheers, CMX

[swain]

Thank god for negative ion air filters. Which is great for watching tv, working on the computer etc... but really wasn't one of the reasons for coming to Thailand to experience the culture outside of your air cleaned bubble. Maybe we should be posting hotels and guest houses with air purifiers and portable oxygen tanks or masks.

Edited February 24, 2010 by swain

[kimincm]

Around Mae Rim all the paddy I see under cultervation is young rice still in water.A bit hard to burn.

Edited February 24, 2010 by kimincm

[chiangmaiexpat]

Around Mae Rim all the paddy I see under cultervation is young rice still in water.A bit hard to burn.

Of course, the burning happens on fields that lie fallow now and are readied for the next planting.

Cheers, CMX

[CMX]

I understand that I came to these forums later than most, but still, I am for the purposes of identity CMX.

Please divorce me from the views of chiangmaiexpat, who quite understandably abbreviates his signature. I am too new in any case in this nation to know the rights and wrongs of the situation, and have no understanding of farming at all.

I assume the burning that is done here and in neighboring countries saves time, energy, and expense (from the point of view, however short-sighted, of farmers)?

What financial incentives have been put in place by city folk or the commons to assist the poorest segment of society to change their practices in this regard?

Thanks,

Recent CMX

[gotlost]

Around Mae Rim all the paddy I see under cultervation is young rice still in water.A bit hard to burn.

Of course, the burning happens on fields that lie fallow now and are readied for the next planting.

Cheers, CMX

Do tell, except the fields that are planted at this time are green and those that are not mite be in June or July, if we have rain. Why are all the fields not green, because there is not enough water in the reservoirs simple as that and those fields that are still brown are not going to be planted until around June. The burning around Chiang Mai was minimal on the rice fields this year and that was about 6 weeks ago. So much for your theory. Try again. By the way there are blue skies and visibility is about 15 Kilometers in Doi Saket.

Edited February 24, 2010 by gotlost

[orang37]

Editorial in today's Nation focused on Chiang Mai : "Air quality will deteriorate without action now" [^]

"it is no coincidence that the proportion of lung cancer patients in Chiang Mai is higher than in all other provinces, including Bangkok. This should serve as an alarming warning."

We find the above editorial quite thoughtful, and indicative that many Thai people ... far beyond the narrowly defined group ChiangMaiExpat categorizes : "the ones being "unhappy" with the situation is the urbanised population of Chiang Mai" ... are very concerned about the situation.

Also like that the editorial focuses on the multiple factors involved here : "The problem is the result of many factors: The growing economy of the province, the rapid rise of vehicles, the burgeoning tourism industry, and the increase in production of cash crops over the past few years. Farmers apparently don't have a better alternative than to burn forests to make space for their crops."

It would be interesting to have some "solid" statistics about the types of fires : what percentages of fires involve rice-land; what percentage involve forested areas; what percentage related to burning for other reasons. We can be sure that mountain slopes are not being burned to create rice fields ! And of the types of fires : which contribute the most to which types of pollution ?

Are all fires equal in their impact ?

ChiangMaiExpat wrote :

The question I'd like to pose is why these mechanisms don't appear to work in Thailand. In this country one can find many examples where individual self-interest wins over common good and where destructive or non-cooperative behaviour ultimately harms all involved.

Are you implying that there's something unique about environmental pollution in Thailand ? That Thailand has some unique dysfunctionality that other nations do not have ?

Thanks to CobraSnakeNecktie for mentioning "wind" as a factor

best, ~o:37;

[anonymouse]

Around Mae Rim all the paddy I see under cultervation is young rice still in water.A bit hard to burn.

Of course, the burning happens on fields that lie fallow now and are readied for the next planting.

Cheers, CMX

By the way there are blue skies and visibility is about 15 Kilometers in Doi Saket.

shhh Gotlost or everyone will be moving here, I think your meant to say you can't see a foot in front of you and you can't stop coughing

[sendbaht]

This is the way they have cleared their land for hundreds of years so do you think that they are going to change just because a few old farangs are not happy with the way they do things.

Where i come from we would just say "mind your own business" and i'm sure thats what the Thais are thinking if not saying, this is after all their country .

It is was it is. I bet they do it next year also.))

[MESmith]

 The burning around Chiang Mai was minimal on the rice fields this year and that was about 6 weeks ago. So much for your theory. Try again. By the way there are blue skies and visibility is about 15 Kilometers in Doi Saket.

The rice burning south of San Kamphaeng began beginning of December.  It continues.  Clear skies today, but the burning continues, & there's a hel_l of a lot left to burn, which WILL be burned before the rains 

[chiangmaiexpat]

So much for your theory. Try again.

Your objection is somewhat pointless, since I already explained that the pollution is caused by several factors including but not limited to burning rice straw. It is difficult to say which factors contribute what percentages to the pollution since we do not have any reliable data. The absence of data suggests that authorities have not taken the problem seriously in the past. Rice cultivation is certainly a factor. If you live in a rural area, you can corroborate this simply by observing the villagers.

Are you implying that there's something unique about environmental pollution in Thailand ? That Thailand has some unique dysfunctionality that other nations do not have?

I am implying the latter, although I am not happy with the term "disfunctionality" because it sounds like something that is beyond fixing. I believe there are certain cultural elements that aggravate the problem, but I also believe that these can and must be fixed. This applies to many similar scenarios in Thailand that can be described by the tragedy of the commons, not only to the burning/pollution problem in the north.

Since I wish for the discussion to move into the direction of an analysis of the societal and cultural factors behind this, I will name some. Similar problems are land degradation in urban and rural areas, encroachment of protected areas, overfishing in the gulf of Thailand, Bangkok pollution, the apparent incapacity to enforce traffic regulations, the lacking ability of communities for self-management that can be observed at all societal levels from private property management to tambon administration to large scale city administration.

These problems are not specific to Thailand. They occur elsewhere, although they do occur in countries that are poorer and have lower levels of infrastructure development. One of the questions I am asking myself (and for which I don't have an ultimate answer) is why is there such a gap in Thailand between material and societal development?

Cheers, CMX

[MESmith]

There's a very big fire RIGHT NOW, live as I type, on the hills to the east of San Kamphaeng.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

it seems like corn is one of the increasing contributors. If you look at home much vegetative matter a corn crop puts out its really overwhelms the amount of rice straw per unit of land.

I suppose if people are burning their corn bits then its possible that net smoke from existing agriculture lands could be on the rise.

[mcgriffith]

This is an El Nino year.

According to the TMD, the hot season is going to start earlier this year (it already has) and will last longer before the rain season starts.

I read in several different places that the prediction for beginning of rainy season has been pushed up from late April/May to possibly June/July.

The rice farmers are facing a bit of a crisis. Drought conditions and low reservoir levels mean that there is a real issue with the second harvest, that has already started.

This is a largely agrarian society, with rice cultivation (and export) being a prime financial driver. Philippines and Iran and Nigeria holding off (big importers).

The govt has delayed selling of some of their stores, due to low market bids.

Much as I agree with the OP's points about pollution, I have to question some of his observations.

Thailand is (still) the world's largest exporter of rice. It is a huge and very lucrative part of the GDP of Thailand, along with disk drives (again Thailand number 1 I think), auto parts, and other products. Cassava, rubber (again Thailand at the top), palm oil (#2), etc.

The govt has to play a very fine balancing act with rice farmers.

It is a critical and very big part of the economy here. Along with being an important part of social, political and demographic trends in Thai rural society.

I don't think you are going to see any govt directives to Thai rice farmers to not burn off their fields.

Sure, they can plow them under, in 1 or 3 passes. With tractors running on diesel.

Will the OP volunteer the cost of the diesel, for a million rice farmers, to power their tractors, to accomplish same?

Just a rhetorical question...

[MESmith]

I don't think you are going to see any govt directives to Thai rice farmers to not burn off their fields.

Sure, they can plow them under, in 1 or 3 passes. With tractors running on diesel.

Will the OP volunteer the cost of the diesel, for a million rice farmers, to power their tractors, to accomplish same?

Just a rhetorical question...

They plough the burned or non burned fields the same, with a tractor running on diesel.  It may be harder to plough unburned fields with a buffalo compared with burned fields, but tractors cut through quite easily.

Edited February 24, 2010 by MESmith

[PeaceBlondie]

Every day I walk for several KM through my Thai-Chinese village. Every day they burn rubbish unrelated to rice fields. Our village has trash pickup.

[elektrified]

Every day I walk for several KM through my Thai-Chinese village. Every day they burn rubbish unrelated to rice fields. Our village has trash pickup.

Good point. Likewise where I live. They even trim the trees and shrubs and burn them along with bamboo, the leaves that have fallen, etc. So the problem is not only rice fields.

[mcgriffith]

Look, I don't want to get into a big back and forth on this issue.

To be honest, I woke up 2 days ago with a sore throat. That tasted of wood smoke.

I'm not denying that there is an air quality/pollution problem in Chiang Mai.

It's in the national newspapers, right now.

The point I was trying to make was that it is a very complex and multi-faceted issue.

Rice farmers, and burning off of chaff.

Burning in Thai forested areas (intentional or otherwise).

Thai people with no trash collection who pretty much have to burn their trash.

Neighboring countries (Burma, Laos) that have forest fires.

IMHO, there is no simple solution to any of these. And ranting about it on Thai Visa won't make it go away.

Someone posited above that Thai rice farmers already use diesel to plant and produce their crop.

I just read some economic survey numbers on the actual return for a Thai rice farmer.

1 rai cost about 5K baht, between seed, water, pesticides (or organic substitutes), fertiliser (or organic substitutes), fuel costs for harvesting, etc. I think this study did not include labour cost. The return was about 10K baht per rai.

Guy and gal do backbreaking labour, for months, to maybe see a 5K baht return per rai, when most farms are relatively small? As in under 50 rai? And you think he/she can afford to fire up the tractors to plow the chaff under, when making only a few thousand dollars a year, after debt to the loan sharks, and the equipment vendors, and the seed salesmen, etc. are paid off?

The only people who make money in the rice business are the millers, middlemen, and exporters. The farmers make squat. So you want them to fire up the tractors, to plow the chaff under?

I think maybe some understanding of the basic harsh reality of life as a Thai rice farmer might be in order here, to make folks understand why they burn their fields. Simple explanation: It's cheap, and they are poor, and work hard, and don't have much money.

I suspect most of the smoke/pollution is agricultural based, with seasonal forest fires contributing a large minority percentage.

(The locals burning trash, and vehicular pollution- that's background stuff, and constant. People drive, and burn trash, year round.

Only when the weather goes bad (inversion layer over the bowl) and it gets miserable here do we mention this piddly aspect).

Just my 25 satang.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Editorial in today's Nation focused on Chiang Mai : "Air quality will deteriorate without action now" [^]

"it is no coincidence that the proportion of lung cancer patients in Chiang Mai is higher than in all other provinces, including Bangkok. This should serve as an alarming warning."

We find the above editorial quite thoughtful

"We", however, don't believe it. There's no verifiable source for this claim. It also doesn't make sense, because other Northern provinces suffer as much or worse during the burning season.

Plus it's in The Nation.. you just can't take anything in there seriously, and especially not something that resembles a number or statistic.

Edited February 24, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai