Tackling pollution demands a multi-faceted strategy. Finding good solutions for agricultural waste is one aspect, writes Ibrahim Youssef* Transportation, manufacturing, thermal inversion, topography, man made and natural phenomena have coalesced together to form "the black cloud". The black cloud is present throughout the year as many of its causes are time independent. Rice straw burning only broke the camel's back. Since we usually ignore problems until they are inflated by shocks, rice straw burning has -- to this extent -- benefited us. Solving the problem, however, involves many challenges that are difficult to deal with collectively. We need to prioritise our actions. Besides near impossibility, combating natural causes would be casting too wide a net with limited gains. In their essence, most natural factors are intensifiers of pollution rather than direct causes of it. For example, thermal inversion -- a seasonal phenomenon in which black cloud pollution is trapped from ascending and diffusing -- does not add to the black cloud; it only intensifies it. Natural factors' share of adding or intensifying pollution is insignificant compared to man made factors. Vehicle emissions' share in black cloud pollution is 32 per cent, followed by open burning (30 per cent). However, in the autumn, open burning outweighs vehicle emissions by 30 per cent. This is attributed to the burning of rice straw in October, practised every year since 1999. Therefore, we can be assured that efforts to eliminate rice straw burning are worthwhile. Harvesting rice in October, farmers have no alternative to burning the straw to get the land ready for the winter cultivation cycle. In its attempts to circumvent open burning, the government has been working on two fronts: banning open burning and setting up alternative means for the disposal of straw. Banning has proved to be a palliative that, in the short run, is likely to cause more intense burning. Last year, farmers abided by the law only when enforcement was tight, but compliance translated into nothing but the accumulation of straw that had to be disposed of at some later point. Therefore, proscription increased the variation of burning, but did not eliminate it. Fortunately, we are not the sole rice cultivators on the planet: we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Major rice cultivators -- such as China, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan -- must have found feasible ways to utilise rice straw if they do not experience "the black cloud". Rice straw can be used in manufacturing compost, animal fodder, energy gases, and fibreboard. Recently, the government has set up pilot projects aiming to utilise rice straw. However, pilot projects are currently operational with minimal capacity compared to the stock available, and not without problems. In some cases, manufacturers have failed to source rice straw promptly, thus forcing farmers to burn it. Other projects are facing difficulties that can render them uneconomical. The economics of utilising rice straw for gasification projects, for example, is adversely affected by the high subsidy provided to liquefied petroleum and natural gas networks, which already cover most market demand. This leaves little room for the consumption of gas from straw, and raises the cost. The core ideas of utilising rice straw are thus available. The puzzle will only fit together, however, if successful pilot projects are allowed to surface and are enhanced to reach operational sustainability independent of government aid and regulation. Once an idea consistently proves profitable, a great leap in eliminating the problem would follow via increasing investments of the private sector. Current pilot models can be encouraged through the tapping of supporting revenue streams, such as carbon credits derived from so-called "Clean Development Mechanisms" (CDMs). The CDM scheme creates a market for carbon dioxide emissions through which industrialised countries -- which meet a certain limit of carbon emissions per year -- are induced to invest in projects that reduce carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries. Pilot models can also be enhanced through obtaining financing at concessional terms through such sources as the Clean Technology Fund (CTF). The Global Environment Facility provides such CTF financing at a low interest rate, including a grace period as an incentive to integrate low carbon strategies into sustainable development plans, to projects operating with environmentally friendly technologies. This type of funding helps in minimising financing costs, which leads to higher project profitability. The ultimate solution for eliminating open burning of straw is to turn it into a resource rather than simply waste. That is, rice straw should have a value so that farmers gain financially by selling it instead of burning it. Conditions that make waste products valueless include: supply that is much higher than demand; the need for prospective sellers to get rid of the waste in a timely manner; and a monopoly on demand (ie lack of competition in the purchase of waste). The propagation of successful pilot projects will attract private sector investments that will increase demand and create a market for rice straw. It will also increase the opportunity cost of burning to the farmer, who will want to maximise his profit by selling this valuable resource. For all our previous missteps and limited action, pessimism is not inevitable. The only thing sure thing is that the burning of rice straw will continue if private investors are not given incentives to take part in the solution. The rice straw problem, however, represents only one battle in the larger war against "the black cloud". While ending rice straw burning would be an important achievement, it would not be a decisive solution to the larger pollution problem. As long as vehicle emissions are not reduced, reaching a healthy level of air quality will remain elusive. * The writer is a management consultant and holds a bachelor degree in economics from the American University in Cairo.
