VZCZCXRO2621
PP RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHCHI #0064 0950854
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 050854Z APR 06
FM AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0174
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK PRIORITY 0456
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 0020
RUEHCN/AMCONSUL CHENGDU PRIORITY 0024
RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI PRIORITY 0204

UNCLAS CHIANG MAI 000064 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV EAGR AMED TH
SUBJECT: BAD AIR BLANKETS NORTHERN THAILAND 
 
REF: 05 CHIANG MAI 68 
 
¶1. Summary:   Air quality in Chiang Mai, always poor during the 
February-April dry season, reached new heights of hazard on 
March 19 when air monitors recorded PM-10 particulate matter at 
double the Thai standard.   The pollution is caused by a 
combination of practices, including agricultural burning, 
construction, trash burning, forest fires, warming fires, 
barbecue vendors and vehicle exhaust.   The Consulate has made 
efforts to combat illegal burning in the area around our 
residential housing compound via appeals to local authorities. 
End summary 
 
¶2. Although daily statistics since February 1 show that Chiang 
Mai air quality in 2006 has been generally better than in 2005 
(reftel), an environmental air monitoring machine inside the old 
town and another 7 kilometers out both spiked into the "very 
unhealthy" levels on March 19.  A rare rain ten days later 
brought the numbers into the "good" range for a time. 
 
¶3. Chiang Mai's PM-10 level (the quantity of particle matter 
less than 10 micrometer in diameter) exceeded the Thai official 
standard of 120 on 13 days in March.  By way of comparison, the 
closest Bangkok monitoring station to the Embassy, at Din Daeng, 
recorded only one day over 120 in March.   Chiang Mai 
particulate levels climbed on March 19 to a high of 248, versus 
Din Daeng's high for the month of 149 on March 16. 
 
¶4. It what has now become an annual ritual, the Social Research 
Institute of Chiang Mai University organized a conference March 
27 to discuss air quality in Chiang Mai and Lamphun.  In the 
absence of any Thai government statements about the issue, two 
speakers sought to raise alarm about the effects of high 
pollution levels by citing U.S. Consulate discussions several 
years back about possible evacuation of employees.  One noted 
that U.S. Consulate officers receive extra pay (i.e. hardship 
differential) in compensation for the health impact of poor air 
quality. 
¶5. In another echo of previous years, Chiang Mai Governor Suwat 
Tantipat announced a call center for citizens to report illegal 
burning.  The call center in turn is to forward complaints to 
local administration offices, which are under instructions from 
the Governor to order anyone found lighting fires to stop 
immediately.   Although a similar hotline last year proved 
ineffective, callers to date report that the center, set up on 
March 1, has been available to take complaints. 
¶6. The Consulate's ongoing appeals for assistance from the local 
government to help stop illegal burning near our residential 
housing compound in Tambon Ban Waen in Hang Dong district have 
met mixed success.  After several tries we have received 
responses from both the Tambon Administrative Organization (TAO) 
and the District Officer (Nai Amphur).   These exchanges 
revealed, however, that the authorities are strongly disinclined 
to take action against anything perceived as agricultural 
burning. 
¶7. Ban Waen TAO President Somsak Kanta told the Consulate that 
the quantity of agricultural waste was too large for farmers to 
compost and claimed that this kind of burning is traditional and 
not illegal.   An officer from Hang Dong district, Nantawit 
Ngeonchaiyapom, said the only complaints have come from the 
Consulate.  Nevertheless, the Hang Dong District Officer told 
all local offices to take actions to prevent burning. 
 
¶8. Comment:  With only the two Chiang Mai monitoring machines 
and one in Lampang providing air quality data for the entire 
northern region of Thailand, specifics about the sources and 
sites of the worst pollution are hard to pin down.   Even 
without data, however, the extent of the problem is obvious; a 
recent flight from Yunnan to Chiang Mai showed a carpet of haze 
blanketing the mountains of southern China and the 
Burma-Thailand-Laos triangle.   Here in Chiang Mai, our eyes and 
respiratory systems confirm that the air is bad for health; 
local clean air advocates hope that public attention to the 
issue will lead to the realization that hazy skies are bad for a 
tourism-dependent economy as well. 
 
CAMP