A recent report by NASA says that agricultural burning is a major cause of air pollution in Cambodia. Satellite images show that farmers burn agricultural waste on farmland and plantation areas. This usually happens during the dry season and is linked to worse air quality.
However, Khvay Atitya, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment, told Kiripost on Tuesday that NASA’s satellite images do not show the real situation in Cambodia. He added that air quality in the country is still acceptable.
At the center of this issue are two different questions.
For the ministry, the main question seems to be: “Are we breaking our rules?”
For the public, the question is simpler: “Is this air safe to breathe?”
According to Swiss air-quality monitoring firm IQAir, PM2.5 levels in Cambodia reached about 25 micrograms per cubic meter on several days in January. This level is often called “moderate,” but it is higher than the World Health Organization’s annual guideline of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. This guideline is based on long-term exposure and aims to reduce health risks. Although one day above this level does not mean the yearly average is too high, repeated exposure may still harm public health.
The Ministry of Environment has said that air quality remains “good,” based on Cambodia’s national PM2.5 limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter. From a legal point of view, this means the country is following its own rules. From a health point of view, WHO guidelines focus more on how pollution affects people’s bodies over time. Both views are reasonable, but they focus on different goals.
The communication gap became wider after NASA satellite data showed hundreds of fire hotspots across Cambodia. In response, the ministry rejected these findings, saying the images were misleading and did not show the real situation in the country.
This response shows a defensive way of communicating with international data. Instead of explaining how satellite images work, or why they might be different from ground-level measurements, the ministry chose to dismiss the data. Although the ministry also highlighted that it has 59 air-quality monitoring stations across the country, the main issue is not whether national data exists, but how it compares with international data.
Without clear comparison or explanation, the discussion may turn into a debate about authority versus evidence, rather than a scientific discussion.
In the future, clearer communication could help reduce confusion. This could include explaining the difference between health-based guidelines and legal standards, recognizing possible health risks even when pollution levels are within legal limits, explaining international satellite data more clearly, and giving specific advice to groups that are more vulnerable.
In the end, the air-quality debate in Cambodia is not only about which data source is correct, but about how environmental risks are explained to the public. Better communication that links regulations with public health concerns would help make official messages more useful and reassuring, especially for people who care most about their health and safety.