08/04/2026
Transboundary Haze and PM2.5: A Brief Comparative Legal Perspective on Myanmar and Thailand from an Intern ‘s Perspective
⁕ Introduction: PM2.5 and Transboundary Haze in Southeast Asia
Air pollution from agricultural burning, particularly fine particulate matter (PM2.5), has become a recurring environmental and public health crisis across mainland Southeast Asia. While northern Thailand, particularly Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, has become emblematic of the PM2.5 crisis, the issue is deeply interconnected with Myanmar, both legally and in practice. Based on a review of official laws, government announcements, and institutional data, both countries have regulatory frameworks for environmental protection, but they differ significantly in their specificity, enforcement, and implementation.
⁕ Myanmar: Environmental Law and Implementation Context
In Myanmar, environmental regulation is primarily governed by the Environmental Conservation Law (2012), which empowers the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC) to establish environmental quality standards. The Environmental Conservation Rules (2014) provide mechanisms for compliance, including environmental impact assessments, while the Forest Law (2018) addresses fire prevention and forest protection, extending to uncontrolled burning.
In practice, MONREC and the Forest Department issue seasonal directives restricting open burning, particularly during the dry season. Myanmar also participates in the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2005), contributing to regional monitoring through the ASEAN Specialized Meteorological Centre (ASMC). Satellite data, including NASA FIRMS, indicate recurring fire hotspots during peak periods. While the legal framework is established, the development of comprehensive PM2.5 monitoring and enforcement systems remains in the process of further development, particularly in rural areas where slash-and-burn cultivation remains an economically necessary method of land management.
⁕ Thailand: Air Quality Regulation and Enforcement Mechanisms
Thailand adopts a more detailed regulatory approach. The Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535 (1992), as amended, mandates the Pollution Control Department (PCD) to establish national air quality standards, including PM2.5 limits published in the Royal Gazette. This framework is supported by the Public Health Act (1992) and the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act (2007), which empower authorities to regulate pollution sources and implement emergency measures.
In administrative practice, Thailand enforces seasonal burning restrictions, particularly in northern provinces, with penalties for non-compliance. The PCD provides real-time air quality monitoring, and official data indicate that PM2.5 levels periodically exceed national standards during peak haze periods, including the 2026 dry season. Thailand also actively participates in ASEAN initiatives and acknowledges the transboundary dimension of haze pollution. Notwithstanding Thailand’s established legal framework, burning restrictions evolve with agricultural economic conditions, with gradual adoption of alternatives, reflecting local implementation contexts, as similarly observed in Myanmar.
⁕ Comparative Legal Analysis and Transboundary Implications
From a comparative legal perspective, both jurisdictions demonstrate a shared recognition of air pollution as a regulatory concern, while reflecting different stages of institutional development. Myanmar maintains a foundational legal framework with ongoing enhancements, whereas Thailand has developed more detailed standards and enforcement mechanisms. In both contexts, environmental regulation intersects with socio-economic considerations, particularly in agricultural sectors. From a legal standpoint, this context emphasizes the importance of intergovernmental coordination, information sharing, and harmonization of regulatory approaches, alongside the continued refinement and effective implementation of domestic legal regimes.
While the legal frameworks are in place, their effectiveness depends on continued efforts to enhance public awareness, strengthen community engagement, and support practical compliance, particularly in relation to agricultural burning practices and urban air quality management. Accordingly, active public participation is encouraged to support and reinforce the effective implementation of these measures.
Author: Shar Le San Ni (Shar)
LL.M. in Business Law (International Program), Chulalongkorn University
Legal Intern, CSBC Law Offices
