A lasting solution to Southeast Asia's recurring haze crisis will require individual member governments to take direct responsibility and strengthen domestic legal frameworks — and cannot rest on ASEAN alone, according to a report published in Eurasia Review. The assessment, released on 31 October 2026, underscores a growing consensus that regional coordination mechanisms have repeatedly fallen short of delivering structural change.

ASEAN's Role and Its Limits

The report acknowledges that ASEAN can serve as a useful platform for coordinating regional responses and providing technical assistance. However, it warns that treating the bloc as the primary vehicle for solutions risks reducing it to what the report calls a 'feel-good factor' — a stage for visible action without meaningful reform.

'Every few years the same grey settles over the region, and almost identical script is repeated, where concerns are raised, and actions are promised, but impact has been scarce,' the report stated. It added that when domestic or bilateral action is limited, 'ASEAN is seen as the convenient platform to be seen where at least efforts are made to address the long-held conundrum.'

Scale of Past Crises

The report draws on two landmark episodes to illustrate the recurring and worsening nature of the crisis. During the 1997–98 fires, nearly 100,000 square kilometres of land were ravaged, causing estimated losses of around US$9 billion. The 2015 outbreak was even more severe — 2.6 million hectares burned, resulting in economic losses of US$16.1 billion. Despite the human and financial toll being well-documented, the underlying causes have gone unresolved.

Root Causes and Structural Failures

The report identifies the primary drivers of the crisis as land-clearing by burning, poor peatland management, plantation economic interests, and weak enforcement at the local level. Critically, it argues that El Niño — frequently cited as a trigger — 'cannot be singled out as the sole convenient reason to set aside human and institutional responsibility.'

Three structural weaknesses are highlighted. First, the root causes are embedded in economic structures and land use, with significant commercial interests at stake. Second, the capacity and political will to enforce laws vary considerably between central governments, local administrations, and enforcement agencies. Third, and most fundamentally, ASEAN itself has no enforcement power to penalise member states or compel compliance with regional rules.

Regional Agreements That Have Underdelivered

The report traces ASEAN's attempts to address the crisis through successive frameworks: the 2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, followed by haze-free roadmaps for 2016–2020 and 2023–2030. Progress in translating these agreements into effective ground-level action has, it says, been minimal.

'As long as the priority is confined to emergency response rather than structural reform and prevention, the problem will persist,' the report concluded. The assessment leaves little ambiguity: without genuine national accountability and institutional reform within member states, future haze seasons will follow the same familiar script.