Myanmar’s disaster response is weak due to poor systems, political issues, and lack of coordination, affecting people, the economy, and the environment. At the same time, non-state and international groups bring both challenges and opportunities to improve disaster management.

Key Takeaways

• Disaster impacts are driven not only by hazards but by governance failures.

• Non-state actors are essential but face major constraints.

• Inclusive and effective governance is critical for improving disaster response.

The common classification of disasters as natural or man-made is misleading. The United Nations emphasises that a hazard becomes a disaster only when it affects vulnerable populations lacking protection due to poverty, exclusion, or social disadvantage.

Myanmar is highly exposed to disaster risks and is the most climate hazard–prone globally due to its geographical location and diverse topography. The country is also highly vulnerable, with weak coping capacity and limited ability to support long-term recovery.

Governance plays a key role in reducing disaster impacts. Evidence shows that higher government effectiveness is linked to lower disaster mortality. Understanding governance gaps is therefore essential to explain failures in disaster management and reduce future risks.

State-Driven Disaster Governance Gaps

1. Restrictions on Humanitarian Aid Delivery

The military regime imposes strict controls on humanitarian aid, especially in conflict-affected areas where needs are greatest. It restricts and monitors aid, limiting access for local and international actors and worsening conditions. After the 2025 Sagaing earthquake, rescue teams were denied immediate entry and required official approval despite urgent needs. Aid was confiscated, preventing delivery to areas most in need, particularly those controlled by the NUG and ethnic resistance groups. Curfews further delayed operations.

Restrictions also affect international organisations. The 2022 Registration Law requires disclosure of staff, funding, and operations, restricts engagement with local actors, and imposes penalties for non-compliance. Since the 2021 coup, hundreds have reportedly been arrested under these rules, while travel authorisations are frequently delayed or denied.

Information control further limits response. Internet shutdowns, media restrictions, and bans on digital platforms reduce public awareness. Similar patterns were observed during Cyclone Nargis (2008) and Cyclone Mocha (2023), where aid delivery was delayed and restricted.

2. State Negligence and Abuse During Disasters

The military regime has failed to fulfil its obligation to protect affected populations. During the 2025 earthquake, military involvement in relief was minimal, with limited troop deployment and reports of looting by soldiers. Support prioritised government and military groups, particularly in Naypyitaw, while vulnerable populations such as IDPs were neglected.

Despite announcing ceasefires, the military continued airstrikes in affected areas, causing civilian casualties and damaging shelters, including religious buildings. In one case, a monastery hosting medical teams was targeted. These actions have been widely criticised as inhumane and indicative of disregard for human rights. Similar patterns occurred during Typhoon Yagi and Cyclone Mocha. Rescue support was limited, evacuation efforts were inadequate, and aid was redirected to military-aligned areas. Entire communities, especially Rohingya and resistance-aligned groups, lacked food and shelter.

Overall, humanitarian aid has been politicised, used to reward loyalty and restrict opposition rather than to save lives.

3. Weak Disaster Preparedness

Despite high exposure to hazards, preparedness remains weak due to limited infrastructure and coordination. Disasters therefore cause greater damage and casualties than in comparable countries. This is evident in Typhoon Yagi (2024). Countries like Vietnam implemented early warnings, evacuations, and large-scale mobilisation, while Myanmar’s response was limited. Although affected only by storm remnants, Myanmar recorded a comparable death toll, highlighting governance failures.

Existing disaster frameworks are undermined by poor implementation, weak coordination, and limited community engagement. Although Myanmar has a formal disaster management structure, gaps persist due to centralised control, weak institutional capacity, and inadequate local resources. State priorities often focus on military operations rather than disaster response, increasing risks to civilians.

4. Fiscal Prioritisation and Underinvestment

Financial allocation remains a major challenge. Military spending far exceeds disaster investment, with defence expenditure nearly 200 times higher. The government relies on limited reserve funds covering less than 1% of disaster damage, while the National Natural Disaster Management Fund provides minimal support. Budget rigidity limits flexibility during emergencies. These issues have worsened. In 2022, disaster funds were diverted to economic support, reducing resources for emergency response. During the 2025 earthquake, shortages of equipment and support highlighted severe underinvestment.

5. Limited Manpower In Disaster Response

Myanmar faces significant human resource constraints. There is a shortage of trained rescue personnel, and state responders are often absent, with some reports of misconduct. Response efforts, therefore, rely heavily on local communities and volunteers.

The workforce has further declined due to arrests, killings, forced conscription, and the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM). Unlike past disasters with large-scale mobilisation, recent responses involve small, less coordinated volunteer groups. The healthcare workforce is also critically insufficient. Even before the crisis, workforce numbers have dropped below WHO standards, worsened by arrests and killings of health workers. During the 2025 earthquake, limited facilities were overwhelmed, particularly in Mandalay.

Weak institutional capacity and coordination further limit effective emergency response, increasing dependence on local networks.

Role of Political Opposition and International Actors

1. National Unity Government (NUG)

The NUG has emerged as a parallel governance actor since 2021. It provides humanitarian aid in areas under its influence, often working with EAOs, and coordinates through its Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, with local communities, CSOs, and international partners.

A key strength of the NUG is its ability to deliver structured and transparent responses despite limited resources. During Cyclone Mocha, it established coordination mechanisms, issued early warnings, supported evacuations, and allocated funds for relief and recovery. Engagement with international actors has also increased since 2024, with actors such as the United States, the European Union, and some UN agencies.

However, its reach is restricted by the SAC restrictions on access, as well as resource constraints, relying on domestic fundraising and diaspora support with limited international funding. Institutional challenges, including limited human resources, technical capacity, and administrative systems, further affect its ability to coordinate large-scale responses and deliver aid consistently.

2. Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs)

EAOs have become key service providers in many regions. Their strengths include local access, territorial control, and strong community trust. Organizations such as the Karen National Union (KNU), with established governance structures, have developed dedicated administrative systems to deliver social services and coordinate emergency response for local populations. During Cyclone Mocha, groups such as the Arakan Army conducted early warning, needs assessments, and relief operations. Their efforts are often supported by strong community trust and collaboration with CSOs and NGOs.

However, they face key limitations. Resource constraints limit large-scale response, while fragmentation and lack of recognition hinder coordination and engagement with international actors. Ongoing conflict further restricts operations, and some groups face concerns related to human rights and environmental practices, affecting credibility.

3. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and International Actors

CSOs, CBOs, NGOs, and international actors are primary humanitarian providers, especially in hard-to-reach areas. Local actors deliver frontline responses, while international actors provide funding and technical support.

However, effectiveness is constrained by access restrictions, funding limitations, and capacity gaps. Tensions between local priorities and international neutrality requirements also affect cooperation. Many INGOs are reluctant to partner with informal actors due to legal and donor constraints, and top-down funding systems reinforce unequal power dynamics and slow delivery. Finally, humanitarian funding has declined due to competing global crises and donor caution, compounded by military restrictions on banking transactions, which disrupt fund transfers and limit operational capacity.

Impacts of Disaster Governance Gaps

1. Social Impacts

Cyclone Nargis (2008) caused over 77,000 deaths. In 2024, Typhoon Yagi affected around 887,000 people, while the 2025 earthquake resulted in about 9,000 deaths and injuries. Health conditions worsen due to damaged water systems, leading to disease outbreaks. Displacement into temporary shelters increases risks of infection, while repeated shocks, conflict, and displacement create psychological trauma, especially for children. Disasters often cause shortages of food, clean water, shelter, medicine, and electricity. Education is also disrupted, with thousands of schools affected, and temporary learning spaces remain insufficient. Disasters have caused widespread destruction of homes, roads, bridges, and communication systems. Essential facilities as well as cultural heritage sites have been damaged. Human rights are often compromised due to restricted aid, delayed response, and attacks on civilian areas. Some communities lack adequate food, shelter, or evacuation support, increasing risks. Restrictions on information further limit access to life-saving assistance. Displacement remains severe, with millions internally displaced and increased migration.

2. Economic Impacts

Livelihoods are heavily affected, with damage to agriculture and fisheries reducing income. For example, Typhoon Yagi (2024) flooded farmland during a key planting season. The 2025 earthquake affected over 3.5 million workers, with losses up to US$36.8 million per day. Infrastructure damage disrupts economic activity and supply chains, increasing poverty rates. Recovery often exceeds initial damage estimates, placing long-term pressure on public finances.

3. Environmental Impacts

Disasters damage water systems, causing contamination and scarcity. Disasters contribute to soil degradation and land loss. Riverbank erosion is a major issue in regions such as Ayeyarwady. Floods and extreme weather damage crops, irrigation, and storage, reducing agricultural output. Disasters harm ecosystems and severely damage mangrove forests and surrounding ecosystems. Disasters alter landscapes through landfall, landslides, and ground fractures, as seen during Cyclone Nargis and the 2025 earthquake.

4. Governance Impacts

Repeated failures reduce public trust, weakening cooperation and policy implementation. Disasters strain already fragile public systems, limiting their ability to respond effectively. All the above impacts are intensified by limited preparedness, weak coordination, and constraints in response and recovery capacity.

Recommendations

Disasters cannot be prevented, but their impacts can be reduced through effective governance. Given Myanmar’s limited institutional capacity and reliance on external support, responsibility extends to the international community. As structural challenges are unlikely to be resolved in the short term, the following recommendations focus on strengthening non-state and international actors.

Disaster governance should be decentralised, inclusive, and effectively implemented at all levels, especially locally. Strong coordination among CSOs, EAOs, NUG, and NGOs/INGOs is key, with a focus on conflict sensitivity and vulnerable groups. Invest in resilient infrastructure, essential supplies, and community preparedness. Strengthen human capacity through training and support, improve early warning systems, and ensure flexible, well-prioritised disaster funding. Support local actors as primary responders and simplify funding access. Strengthen partnerships between local and international organisations to improve coordination and aid effectiveness.

Conclusion

Disaster governance in Myanmar is weak due to poor planning, limited resources, and restricted aid. Non-state actors try to help, but face political, financial, and coordination challenges. As a result, disasters have severe impacts. Improving this requires more inclusive, locally led efforts with stronger international support.

Dr. Jeslyn is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She holds a Master of Public Health and has experience in research analysis, remote healthcare services, and community outreach programs.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainability Support The Sabai

Water insecurity in Myanmar is a multifaceted crisis driven by environmental change, weak governance, economic decline, and social inequality, requiring coordinated infrastructure, community, and policy solutions to ensure sustainable access to safe water.

Key Takeaways

• Water insecurity in Myanmar is driven by environmental factors, governance failures, economic decline, and social inequalities.

• Limited access to safe water impacts on health, education, livelihoods, ecosystems, and institutional capacity.

• Addressing the crisis requires integrated solutions combining infrastructure investment, community capacity building, and stronger governance coordination.

Introduction

Although water covers 70% of the planet, only about 3% is freshwater that we can drink or use to irrigate our farm fields. In Myanmar, access to safely managed drinking water has improved over the past two decades, rising from 27.11% in 2000 to 58.83% in 2020, yet water insecurity remains a critical challenge. Water insecurity happens when water is insufficient for human daily needs. More than 60% of households still lack safely managed drinking water services, and over 3 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) require WASH assistance.

Drivers of Water Insecurity

1. Environmental Factors

According to meteorologist U Tun Lwin, rising temperatures and deforestation are two key environmental causes of water scarcity, with impacts further intensified by disasters. Climate change has contributed to increasingly erratic rainfall, shifting monsoon cycles, and prolonged dry seasons. In addition, over the past three decades, the Central Dry Zone has experienced an approximate 2.4°C increase in baseline temperature, contributing to prolonged dry seasons and more frequent droughts. These climatic shifts have reduced the reliability of surface water sources. For example, in Rakhine State, ponds and small lakes are drying up, limiting water available for drinking and cooking. Similarly, in Htoke Kaw Koe Village in Karen State, wells that traditionally sustained local communities now fail during peak dry months. Consequently, households have to rely on shallow, unprotected, and often contaminated water sources. Extreme weather events further intensify these vulnerabilities. For example, Cyclone Mocha in May 2023 caused storm surges that contaminated unprotected community ponds with saline water. Moreover, earthquakes can disrupt groundwater systems, causing fluctuations in groundwater levels and damage to wells. Following the 2025 Sagaing earthquake in Myanmar, many tubes and dug wells were displaced or damaged.

2. Governance Failures

Weak policy implementation, limited regulatory enforcement, and insufficient investment in water infrastructure have undermined water management systems and disaster preparedness. In some areas, poor oversight has contributed to declining water quality, including arsenic contamination in some areas. Institutional weaknesses also limit effective disaster response. Limited preparedness and coordination can delay recovery efforts, leaving affected communities without reliable access to safe water following disasters. For example, in April 2025, approximately 1.6 million people in Myanmar lost access to clean water following disaster-related disruptions.

Governance failures are further compounded by weak intersectoral coordination and restrictions on humanitarian assistance. Since the 2021 military takeover, access limitations have hindered the delivery of humanitarian assistance, particularly for IDPs. Conflict has also damaged critical water infrastructure. Reports indicate that wells, water tanks, and supply routes have been destroyed in some areas during armed confrontations. Such actions disrupt water supply systems and affect civilian populations who depend on these sources for daily survival.

Mass displacement represents another governance-linked driver of water insecurity. Ongoing political instability has displaced nearly 3.5 million people nationwide. Many displaced populations live in overcrowded camps where water supply systems are limited. In such environments, residents frequently rely on unsafe sources such as collected rainwater stored in temporary containers, highlighting the link between governance failures and water insecurity.

3. Economic Decline

Since the 2021 political crisis, the national economy has contracted while inflation has surged to approximately 28.6%, pushing the poverty rate to 32.1%, reducing both government capacity to invest in water infrastructure and household ability to secure safe water. At the structural level, economic decline limits public spending on water infrastructure, maintenance, and service delivery. Water utilities face shrinking operational budgets, constraining system expansion and repair. Economic shocks, including natural disasters, such as the, 2025 earthquake, have further damaged water systems and intensified supply disruptions. At the household level, declining incomes reduce the ability of families to afford safe water. Many low-income households have to depend on private water vendors. Although wholesale mineral water prices range between US$0.42 and US$1.64 per kilogram (minimum wage US$1.9 per day), these costs represent a significant burden for low-income families. As a result, 16.3% of households lack sufficient water for daily needs.

4. Social Inequalities

Rural–urban disparities remain significant. Urban populations benefit more frequently from piped water systems and municipal treatment facilities, while rural communities often rely on natural sources such as ponds, rivers, and shallow wells. With roughly two-thirds of Myanmar’s population living in rural areas, uneven infrastructure development creates structural disparities in water access.

Education and awareness also influence water practices. Limited knowledge of safe water storage and sanitation practices contributes to the use of untreated water and poor hygiene behaviours. Social marginalisation further intensifies vulnerability. Communities located in border regions, mountainous areas, and conflict-affected zones often face infrastructure neglect and barriers to humanitarian assistance. Government restrictions on aid delivery, together with regulatory pressures and operational risks, have constrained humanitarian operations and led many international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) to scale down or relocate their activities. As a result, communities that previously depended on externally supported WASH services face reduced assistance, while many displaced communities rely on temporary camps and aid-dependent water systems with limited storage capacity.

Impacts of Water Insecurity

1. Economic Impacts

At the household level, families often spend additional income purchasing water from vendors. Health risks associated with unsafe water can also increase medical expenses and reduce working time due to illness. In water-scarce areas, households may spend several hours per day collecting water, reducing opportunities for income-generating activities. At the national level, widespread water insecurity can affect workforce productivity and place additional pressure on healthcare systems. Reduced agricultural productivity and labor capacity can slow economic growth and lower overall economic performance.

2. Social Impacts

Unsafe water increases the spread of waterborne diseases. In late 2025, approximately 300 people were affected by a cholera outbreak in Myanmar, with several confirmed deaths. Displacement camps have reported widespread cases of diarrhea and other illnesses associated with contaminated water sources. These risks have been further exacerbated by the reduction of international humanitarian support following the withdrawal or relocation of many INGOs, which has disrupted WASH service provision and weakened disease prevention and response capacity in vulnerable communities. Children face particularly high vulnerability. In fragile contexts, children under five are significantly more likely to die from diarrheal diseases linked to unsafe water. Long-term exposure to contaminated groundwater also poses serious health threats, including arsenic contamination in regions such as the Ayeyarwady Delta. Beyond disease, the physical burden of carrying water over long distances contributes to musculoskeletal pain. Education outcomes are also affected. School attendance is closely linked to proximity to water sources, where collection requires long hours, and absenteeism and dropout rates increase. Water collection responsibilities also reinforce gender inequality. Women and girls are typically responsible for collecting water and may travel long distances to reach water sources. In conflict-affected areas, these journeys expose them to risks of harassment, assault, and violence.

3. Environmental Impacts

Reduced water availability disrupts plant physiological processes, limiting nutrient uptake, slowing photosynthesis, and restricting plant growth. Declining soil moisture reduces crop yields and agricultural productivity. Prolonged drought conditions can also degrade soil health by reducing microbial activity and weakening soil structure. Groundwater over-extraction can further accelerate environmental degradation. Excessive pumping lowers water tables and reduces groundwater discharge to connected rivers and streams, diminishing water availability in surrounding ecosystems. These pressures are evident in urban areas such as Yangon, where population growth and post-2021 displacement have increased water demand. More than half of the city’s population relies on groundwater, with widespread extraction through private wells. Studies indicate that actual groundwater abstraction far exceeds official estimates, placing severe stress on aquifer systems. Excessive extraction has been linked to declining groundwater levels, increased risk of land subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and broader environmental degradation.

4. Governance Impacts

Waterborne diseases, sanitation-related illnesses, and outbreaks linked to unsafe water significantly increase patient loads, stretching already limited medical resources. Water insecurity can place additional strain on existing water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) systems. Furthermore, inadequate water infrastructure in rural and displacement settings makes consistent service delivery difficult. These pressures extend beyond the health sector. Reduced productivity due to illness and time spent collecting water can influence economic performance and public sector functioning.

Recommendations

1. Infrastructure and Technical Solutions

Strengthening physical water infrastructure is essential to ensure a reliable and climate-resilient water supply in Myanmar. At the national and municipal levels, governments should invest in dual-purpose water infrastructure systems that provide reliable water services while enhancing resilience to natural hazards. This includes the protection and management of raw water sources, as well as investment in water treatment plants, storage facilities, pumping stations, and distribution networks, supported by robust monitoring, control, and maintenance systems.

In rural and drought-prone regions, decentralized technical solutions, often implemented through community initiatives or by NGOs, can play a key role. Solar-powered water systems are particularly suitable in these areas, where solar panels can power groundwater pumps while reducing dependence on fuel. Rehabilitation of dug wells, including roofing, aprons, and proper drainage, can improve water quality and reduce contamination risks. In upland areas, gravity-flow systems that channel water from higher elevation streams into village storage tanks offer a low-cost and low-maintenance solution.

At the community and household levels, smaller-scale interventions can further enhance water security. These include rainwater harvesting systems, basic water treatment technologies such as chlorination, pond rehabilitation, restoration of wells and boreholes, salinity barriers in coastal areas, emergency water tankering, and improved household water storage facilities.

2. Institutional and Community Capacity

Infrastructure alone is insufficient without institutional and community capacity. At the community level, WASH education programs should be implemented in villages and schools to improve hygiene practices and safe water storage. Training residents in the operation and maintenance of water systems can strengthen local ownership and ensure long-term sustainability. At the governance level, decentralized water management should be strengthened at village and township levels through the establishment or reinforcement of local water management committees with clear responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. Restoring damaged public water systems is particularly critical in conflict-affected areas. Integrating water management planning into broader climate adaptation and environmental policies will further enhance resilience.

In addition, the governance bodies have to facilitate humanitarian access to ensure emergency WASH assistance reaches internally displaced and vulnerable populations. At the same time, INGOs should maintain engagement in Myanmar by adopting more adaptive and locally grounded approaches despite ongoing regulatory constraints and security risks. In particular, they should strengthen collaboration with civil society organisations, which have access and contextual knowledge to reach hard-to-reach and conflict-affected areas. INGOs should also support and accelerate the 2023 UN-led localization strategy by expanding consultation and support for locally led aid operations, thereby improving the effectiveness and reach of humanitarian assistance.

3. Financial Support

The national government should prioritise budget allocation for water infrastructure development, system maintenance, and rural water supply programs. Targeted subsidies can help vulnerable households overcome affordability barriers to safe water access. Public–private partnerships may mobilize additional resources to support water system expansion and service delivery. At the same time, international financial assistance should be adapted to the current operational context in Myanmar. Given existing governance and access constraints, reliance on traditional delivery channels alone may limit the effectiveness of aid distribution. Thus, donors should expand direct and flexible funding to civil society organisations, such as increased risk-sharing, simplified compliance requirements, and the use of pooled funding mechanisms to ensure that financial resources reach vulnerable populations more efficiently.

Conclusion

​​Water insecurity in Myanmar is a complex problem caused by environmental changes, social inequalities, and weak institutional systems. Climate change, groundwater depletion, and disasters have made water sources less reliable, while unequal infrastructure and conflict have made access more difficult. The withdrawal or reduced presence of international actors and ongoing access restrictions have also limited the delivery of WASH services, especially for vulnerable communities.

To address this crisis, practical and coordinated actions are needed. Improving climate-resilient infrastructure, promoting community-based water systems, and supporting civil society organisations can help improve access to safe water. At the same time, more flexible and localised funding approaches are important to ensure that assistance reaches those most in need. Without sustained efforts, water insecurity will continue to affect human well-being and future development in Myanmar.

Dr. Jeslyn is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She holds a Master of Public Health and has experience in research analysis, remote healthcare services, and community outreach programs.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainability Support The Sabai

Strengthening community-based recycling and integrating the informal sector is key to improving waste management and advancing a circular economy in Myanmar.

Myanmar has been facing the challenge of solid waste management, especially plastic, which is flowing into landfills, waterways, and informal channels at a concerning pace. At the same time, in the current context of economic decline, political instability, and polycrisis, the practice of “repair, reuse, recycle” is familiar to many Myanmar households and communities.

These everyday practices, such as repairing old appliances, reusing containers, or selling recyclables to small junk shops, reflect long-standing cultural habits shaped by necessity. Because of weak national infrastructure and governance, community-level recycling systems can be a viable route for waste governance and circular economy growth. However, with limited infrastructure, heavy reliance on the informal sector, and a fragile institutional environment, building strong community recycling systems in Myanmar is urgent and necessary for sustainable development.

Current State of Community Recycling in Myanmar

Municipal waste collection in Myanmar remains inconsistent, particularly outside major cities, and many wastes end up in unmanaged dumps or open landfills. Recycling is mostly driven by the informal sector, and waste-pickers, scrap collectors, and small buyers dominate the system. For example, according to a survey in 2017 in Yangon, approximately 86 tonnes of recyclable materials were recovered daily from landfill sites, and 57% was glass, 15% paper/cardboard, 13% cardboard/paper, 7% plastic and 7% tin cans (Premakumara et al., 2017).

Neighbourhood drop-off points and small junk shops are common community-level practices, but there is no standardised recycling system applied across townships. Data on recycling volumes and source-segregation are scarce, making strategic planning difficult (Premakumara et al., 2017; Prevent Plastics Myanmar, 2021). Public awareness of waste sorting is low overall, although many households recognise high-value materials (such as aluminium cans, plastic bottles, cardboard) because they can be sold to informal collectors. This awareness of “value in waste” offers a foundation for community engagement.

Key Challenges

Weak infrastructure: Myanmar has very few dedicated materials-recovery facilities (MRFs) and limited municipal recycling services. Collection schedules are often unreliable, and transport vehicles and equipment are insufficient
Policy and enforcement gaps: Although some bans (for example, on thin plastic bags) exist in city areas, enforcement is weak, and incentives for households or communities are unclear. For example, the recycling value chain remains informal with little official policy integration (ECD & MONREC, 2018; Premakumara et al., 2017).

Informal sector vulnerabilities: While the informal waste-picker network is fundamental and contributes significantly to recycling, workers often face unsafe working conditions, unstable prices for recyclables, and a lack of social protections. A recent mapping in Yangon and Hpa-An found that waste-picker livelihoods depend heavily on fluctuating scrap values and minimal regulation (Win et al., 2024).

Social and behavioural barriers: Cultural habits such as dumping, burning or littering remain widespread in many communities. Convenience-driven disposal practices (throwing all waste into one bin) persist, and source separation is rarely practised. These habits hinder effective recycling at the community level.
Economic barriers: Community-led recycling projects receive limited financial support, and many recycling markets in Myanmar are low-profit, especially for plastic types with little resale value. For example, research notes that even though Myanmar’s informal sector achieves high rates of recovery for “valuable” materials, single-use plastics with low resale value often escape collection (Jeske, 2023).

Opportunities for Strengthening Community Systems

Integrate and recognise the informal sector: Recognising the role of informal actors is key. Policymakers should provide protective equipment, training programs, and partnerships between municipal authorities and waste-picker groups. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) highlights that recognising informal waste workers improves efficiency and inclusion of recycling systems (Chen, 2023).
Community-based collection models: Neighbourhood sorting centres, school or monastery-led recycling hubs, and incentive-based systems (points, rebates for recyclables) can encourage recycling locally. Because many households already resell high-value materials, a more formal collection network can build on this behaviour.
Improving public awareness: Campaigns targeted at the household and quarter level, and youth-led initiatives, can tap into Myanmar’s culture of reuse and repair (for example, repair shops for umbrellas or electronic appliances) and increase recycling habits. Since many communities already engage in reuse due to resource scarcity, this is an ideal environment for behaviour change.

Policy recommendations:
• Introduce local-level bylaws mandating separation at source, tailored to township realities.
• Offer financial incentives or subsidies to recycling SMEs to make community recycling viable.
• Provide subsidies for purchasing materials with recycled content, stimulating demand for recyclables and closing the loop.

Conclusion

Community-level recycling systems offer a strong entry point for Myanmar’s transition toward a circular economy and stronger waste governance in the current context of Myanmar. By establishing collection, sorting, and education in neighbourhoods and by integrating the informal sector into formal systems, Myanmar can build resilience despite its governance and infrastructure constraints. Strengthening these local systems also helps communities take ownership of environmental challenges at a time when national-level attention to waste management remains limited. Moreover, as economic pressures continue to shape household behaviour, community recycling can build on existing cultural practices of reuse and repair, making sustainability both practical and accessible. With inclusive policies, targeted investments, and local innovation, community recycling can scale up, offering a hopeful path forward for both people and the environment, even amid Myanmar’s ongoing uncertainties.

References:

Chen, S. (2023, December 28). Unsung Heroes: Four Things Policymakers Can Do to Empower Informal Waste Workers. UNDP. https://www.undp.org/blog/unsung-heroes-four-things-policymakers-can-do-empower-informal-waste-workers

ECD, & MONREC. (2018). National Waste Management Strategy and Master Plan for Myanmar (2018-2030). https://optoce.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Myanmar-National-Waste-Management-Strategy_Mar-2018.pdf

Jeske, F. (2023, March 10). Plastic Waste in Myanmar: How Poverty (Paradoxically) Can Drive Circularity. Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine Plastic Debris. https://rkcmpd-eria.org/zero-in-on-plastic/plastic-waste-in-myanmar-how-poverty-paradoxically-can-drive-circularity

Premakumara, D. G. J., Hengesbaugh, M., Onogawa, K., & Horizono, S. (2017). Waste Management in Myanmar: Current Status, Key Challenges and Recommendations for National and City Waste Management Strategies. United Nations Environment Programme.

Prevent Plastics Myanmar. (2021). Best Practices: Waste Management Systems in Myanmar. Prevent Plastic. https://preventplastics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Waste-management-best-practices.Eng-.pdf

Win, N. N., Thu, Y., Yee, H. L., & Jeske, F. (2024). Waste Picker mapping in Myanmar. Thant Myanmar.

Hsu Latt Phyu is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She holds a Master’s degree in Social Innovation and Sustainability from Thammasat University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainability Support The Sabai

This article explores Bangkok’s PM2.5 crisis, emphasising sustainable policies, clean transport, and community action to protect public health and urban resilience.

Background
The worldwide increase in urbanisation and industrial activity has made air pollution a major sustainability problem, endangering both environmental health and human health. The danger of PM2.5 arises because its tiny particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing severe respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Bangkok illustrates this problem through its ongoing violation of international PM2.5 safety limits due to rising vehicle traffic, industrial activity, and rapid urban growth. The high pollution levels in the city threaten human health while damaging its long-term sustainability. Sustainable urban development depends on PM2.5 pollution control through unified policy efforts, technological advancements, and public participation. The city of Bangkok can build a sustainable future with improved health and environmental quality by successfully reducing PM2.5 pollution.

Why Air Quality Matters
A sustainable city needs to maintain clean air because it serves as the base for residents to live, work and breathe safely. The health of public populations depends on clean air, while urban communities need it to build sustainable economic and social systems. The presence of poor air pollution reveals multiple problems in transportation systems, urban planning and environmental justice systems, which create disproportionate harm to vulnerable communities. The protection of air quality enables sustainable cities to reach their climate action targets through the promotion of clean transportation systems and efficient urban development. The protection of clean air serves as a sustainability duty because it guarantees future generations will receive a habitable world instead of dealing with rising health expenses and environmental deterioration from present-day pollution.

Analysis of Current Approaches
Bangkok demonstrates recognition of air pollution problems through its management efforts, yet these initiatives have not produced substantial decreases in PM2.5 concentrations. The main source of Bangkok's pollution stems from vehicle emissions, which generate 60% of the total pollution. The city has established Euro V/VI engine upgrade programs and expanded emission checkpoint networks and low-emission zones, but these initiatives have not produced substantial results. The process of implementing higher emission standards has encountered multiple delays because of insufficient personnel, excessive vehicle numbers, and non-compliant drivers. The majority of polluting vehicles operate without facing any enforcement actions.
The construction and industrial sectors have established rules to manage dust and emissions, but their monitoring systems are unreliable, and new environmentally friendly technologies have not gained widespread acceptance. The combination of construction activities and factory operations produces major PM2.5 pollution events throughout the year, but these events become more severe during dry months because of reduced atmospheric dispersion.
The city of Bangkok works to establish permanent solutions through its electric vehicle promotion program and public transportation system improvements. The current lack of sufficient charging stations and insufficient mass transit coverage in various city areas hinders electric vehicle adoption. The growing public interest in sustainable transportation faces a major obstacle because people lack access to practical alternative transportation options.

The success of Bangkok's air quality policies depends on better enforcement, more defined rules, additional infrastructure funding, and public participation instead of depending on regulations alone.

Solutions
The solution to Bangkok's air quality problems needs transportation solutions, urban planning solutions, and community participation to achieve lasting improvements. The city needs to transform its transportation system because this approach will deliver the most significant results. The combination of financial benefits with defined rules and a complete electric vehicle charging system will help Bangkok residents switch from fossil fuel-based transportation to electric vehicles. The public transportation system needs enhancement through better connectivity for underserved areas and the adoption of electric buses and motorcycles to reduce private vehicle usage. The combination of safer cycling lanes with pedestrian-friendly infrastructure will promote low-emission travel while improving public health.

Sustainable urban planning stands as an essential factor for success. The implementation of expanded low-emission zones together with enhanced pollution controls in areas with high air pollution levels will help control the movement of vehicles that produce significant emissions. The implementation of stronger buffer zones between industrial facilities and residential areas protects residential areas from particulate pollution exposure. The implementation of these measures throughout Bangkok's urban development plan will maintain air quality protection as a fundamental element of the city's growth path.

Conclusion
The success of long-term sustainability depends on active involvement from both the public and essential stakeholders. The combination of environmental NGO partnerships with health impact education and awareness programs will help people understand the benefits of using cleaner transportation methods. The combination of vehicle scrapping rebates and technology adoption subsidies for households and businesses creates positive behavioural change. The combination of these coordinated efforts will enhance Bangkok's ability to create a sustainable urban space that promotes environmental health and community wellness.

This article is based on my public policy and planning analysis titled ‘Better Policies, Cleaner Air: Strengthening Bangkok Metropolitan Area’s Pollution Control’ (2025).

Dr Jeslyn is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She holds a Master of Public Health and has experience in research analysis, remote healthcare services, and community outreach programs.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainability Support The Sabai

This article highlights the Yangon childhood, revealing how environmental hazards and structural inequalities create environmental injustice among local communities.

Growing up in Yangon, I witnessed firsthand how environmental harm is unequally experienced across communities. In my community, environmental issues were a constant part of my daily life: scarce water shortages during the hot season, frequent flooding in the rainy months, and ongoing air pollution and poor waste management in the neighbourhood. All of this was caused by nearby small manufacturing businesses such as garment printing, welding workshops, aluminium pots factories and shoe production, many of which discharged untreated waste directly into the surrounding environment. This small business began to develop more in my neighbourhood after 1988.

From early childhood until around the age of nine or ten, I was regularly exposed to air pollution and chemical fumes from the garment workshop next door to my home. They disposed of all their waste directly into a nearby ditch, where it accumulated due to poor water flow. At the same time, our entire neighbourhood relied on water drawn from driven and drilled wells, without awareness of potential contamination. These living conditions were part of a broader pattern of structural inequalities, in which communities striving to develop, such as the one where I live, faced ongoing harm due to weak environmental oversight, inadequate public infrastructure and limited access to safe and healthy environments.

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or income, in environmental decision-making, law enforcement, regulation, policies and protection from environmental harm. Environmental justice holds that no community should carry an unequal share of environmental degradation or be excluded from the benefits of a healthy environment. Originating from grassroots movements in the United States, the concept has since gained global relevance, drawing attention to the reality that marginalised communities often endure higher levels of pollution and ecological risks while lacking both political voice and legal protection.

Environmental Justice also emphasises equitable access to environmental benefits, including clean air, safe drinking water, and healthy ecosystems. This approach offers a useful perspective that allows me to examine the intersection of my personal experiences related to international human rights standards on health and water.

Environmental conditions in Yangon

Yangon is the most populous city in Myanmar, with a population of more than 5 million. It struggles with rapid urbanisation, inadequate infrastructure, and weak environmental regulations. There is ongoing exposure to environmental risks in many low-income neighbourhoods and suburbs due to the close integration of industrial and residential areas. While I was growing up in such an environment, I witnessed firsthand how poor urban design and inadequate safeguards resulted directly in health risks.

Air quality was a persistent worry, especially due to the nearby small-scale industries like garment printing workshop, welding stations and shoe manufacturing. Many operated informally, frequently avoiding environmental checks through payments to local administrators or connections with military officials. This business discharged fumes, particulates and chemical byproducts directly into the surrounding environment without any filtration. The garment printing workshop next to my home releases strong chemical odours that probably came from solvents, dyes and inks that permeated into our living space. According to the WHO, long-term exposure to these pollutants can cause respiratory problems, skin irritation, and other long-term health problems.

Access to water was another issue, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s. Most households relied on driven or drilled wells, particularly in the summer. These unregulated water sources were exposed to contamination from industrial wastewater, household waste, and septic leaks. During the rainy season, poor drainage and frequent flooding combined sewage with groundwater, while standing floodwater promoted mosquito breeding and the spread of diseases carried by vectors.

Before 2015, solid waste management was almost absent. Although the Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC) provided waste collection services, coverage was irregular in informal neighbourhoods (not residential areas under YCDC law) and the outskirts of the city, leaving many people without reliable support. Consequently, people often disposed of waste in vacant lots, open pits, drainage channels and burned it directly in some places until now. This practice not only blocked drainage systems and worsening flood but also produced foul odours, leachate contamination of nearby water, rodent infestation and increased infectious diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea.

Multiple environmental threats, polluted air, unsafe drinking water, unmanaged waste and frequent floods created an accumulated burden on public health and well-being. Such conditions were not coincidental; they resulted from structural inequalities, weak enforcement of regulation, and the exclusion of low-income suburban communities from environmental decision-making. As environmental justice theory highlights, marginalised communities with limited political and economic resources are disproportionately affected.

The combined effects of environmental degradation and entrenched socioeconomic inequalities in Yangon create serious risks for the protection of fundamental human rights for local communities, particularly threatening necessities such as access to clean and safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, and essential health services, while disproportionately impacting vulnerable and marginalised populations who have limited resources and political voice.

Khin Kyi Thar is a master’s student in the MA program in Human Rights, Peace, and Democratisation, an online program jointly offered by Yangon Cosmopolitan University and Mahidol University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainability Support The Sabai

Severe air pollution in Yangon, driven by traffic, coal power, and weak regulation, has become a major public-health and social-justice crisis, threatening lives, livelihoods, and Myanmar’s sustainable development.

In the bustling streets of Yangon, the city’s skyline is often hazy and filled with fog. It can be recognised as dangerously polluted air in the city. Therefore, breathing clean air has become a daily challenge for the residents. It is not just an environmental issue but also a public‑health and social‑justice concern, deeply connected with Myanmar’s path toward sustainable development.

It is observed that Yangon’s air quality often reaches levels categorised as “unhealthy”. Burmese News International (BNI) (2025) recorded the city as one of the most polluted cities globally, with an Air Quality Index (AQI) of 165, on 27 January 2025. In addition, another report noted that AQI values in Yangon vary between 50 and 200, with levels around 200 considered harmful to health1.

The main reasons that contribute to the rise in air pollution in Yangon are increasing vehicle traffic, industrial emissions, trash burning, reliance on diesel generators (especially during power outages), and coal‑based energy generation, together with urbanisation and a weak regulatory framework¹. According to the Greenpeace report (2019)2, six out of 14 monitored towns in Myanmar exceeded the World Health Organisation guideline for annual average PM₁₀ levels, and none met the standard.

Air pollution imposes tangible burdens on people’s lives. With air pollution, fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) and other airborne toxins seep into lungs, bloodstream and can trigger chronic diseases and complications. The 2019 Greenpeace report estimated that coal‑derived emissions alone could cause about 7,100 premature deaths per year in Myanmar if planned coal‑fired power plants go ahead. Furthermore, a report3 by Ohnmar from the University of Medicine 1, Yangon have found that exposure to dust, soot, lead and other pollutants reduces lung function, raises the prevalence of chronic bronchitis, and impairs cognitive or developmental health. Meanwhile, doctors in Yangon suggest that vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, and those with predisposed lung or heart conditions, stay indoors during high pollution periods and use masks when outdoors4.

Air pollution in Myanmar has impacts on the environmental, economic and social sectors. Firstly, polluted air degrades ecosystems, soils and water resources, especially when particulate matter settles, or when emissions come from coal‑plants that also affect nearby farmland and water supplies. Secondly, health impacts will result in lost productivity, higher healthcare costs and lower quality of life. Communities near polluting installations may lose livelihoods (e.g., farmers whose animals fall ill). Finally, pollution disproportionately affects the vulnerable group, those living in poorer districts or working in dusty jobs, deepening inequalities, as people with fewer resources have less ability to protect themselves (e.g., cannot avoid exposure or access care). Thus, addressing air pollution is not only about achieving cleaner air but also enabling healthier, fairer development.

Despite the urgency of the situation, Myanmar faces several significant obstacles, including a lack of regulatory standards for many coal‑fired power plants, making control of SO₂, NOₓ and multiple pollution sources. Because of resource constraints and infrastructure, investment for clean energy alternatives, improved waste management, air monitoring networks and health services are needed. To reduce the data gaps, reliable long‑term air quality data (especially PM₂.₅) and health‑impact studies, which are currently scarce in Myanmar, should be supported by the government and international networks, to make tracking progress and targeting interventions harder. As well as that, public awareness and behavioural change should be promoted in the community.

For Myanmar, the fight against air pollution is a critical chapter in sustainable development. It is not just an environmental challenge but a matter of public health, social justice and the future prosperity of cities like Yangon and beyond. By combining better data, stronger policy, cleaner energy, smarter transport, and active communities, Myanmar can move toward cleaner air, healthier people, stronger economies and more resilient societies.

Footnotes:

Myanmar is increasingly dealing with environmental challenges as a result of urbanisation, a poorly functioning government, and an inadequate waste management system. However, an informal community of garbage collectors and junk shop operators offers minimal support for Myanmar’s recycling sector. In this context, the article takes a look at informal garbage collectors in Myanmar in terms of the circular economy concepts they have already adopted, the obstacles they confront, and how they may be integrated into a country’s sustainability strategy. This is a call for an inclusive circular economy that balances sustainability and social equality.

Key Takeawys:

1. Myanmar faces a significant waste and plastic pollution crisis in metropolitan areas due to insufficient municipal capacity, poor infrastructure, and regulatory gaps.

2. Informal workers (collected, scrap dealers, junk shops) play a crucial role in recycling and material recovery, reducing landfill use, pollution, and poverty. However, they are not recognised or protected under official CE regulations.

3. An efficient circular economy in Myanmar requires social inclusion through recognition, formal integration, and targeted support for informal workers. Towards environmental sustainability, good employment, equity, and resilience, “A just transition approach” can lead to ecologically sustainable growth and development.

Introduction: Circular Economy in the Myanmar Context

A Circular Economy (CE) can be defined as a high-tech, advanced economy that is common in industrialised countries. In simple terms, it is about using resources efficiently, which includes reducing waste, recycling, and reusing materials so that nothing gets wasted unnecessarily. In a transitory nation like Myanmar, the Circular Economy takes on a whole different form.

Myanmar does not follow a ‘take, make, dispose’ model. In fact, they have to deal with informal structures. The country produces about 0.44 kg of garbage per person each day, which is lower than the global average. However, there is a major issue with managing their waste. A serious waste management issue develops in major cities such as Yangon and Mandalay, where traditional trash management systems are overworked, and dump sites are already full.

In developing countries, CE ideals are well-suited to local culture and informal work. In the Chatham House Briefing, Preston & Lehne argue that CE can help reduce the requirement for landfills, creating green jobs, particularly for low-income people, improving resource security if local production capability is restricted, and strengthening climate resilience through waste reduction and recycling.

According to international sources such as UNEP research on the circular economy in Asia and the Pacific, informal trash industries are a significant driver of recycling markets in low- and middle-income nations.

Myanmar’s waste management network has significant obstacles. There are major gaps in waste collection, with city authorities unable to provide waste management services properly. As a result, solid trash is left in streets and canals or burned, affecting both air and water quality. Plastic solid trash is becoming increasingly prevalent, accounting for 13% of total solid garbage. Plastic garbage in coastal areas accounts for up to 87% of sea waste. Because of a lack of proper recycling stations, most processed materials are exported or supplied to local small companies.

How Informal Workers Contribute to Circularity

A highly effective recycling network is formed by informal waste workers, such as street collectors, travelling buyers, scrap dealers, and junk shop owners. They gather, sort, and market recyclables like glass, paper, metals, and plastics in both domestic and international recycling markets.

Informal collectors keep garbage out of disposal sites by reusing goods that would otherwise end up there. Although this promotes material reuse and recycling, lowering demand for new materials and thus reducing garbage generation, it can also be perceived negatively because it leads to littering and pollution in areas where informal collectors dispose of waste. Informal recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need for new resources. In a fragile economy, informal recycling provides a source of income for those living in poverty.

Problems and Exclusion Experienced by Informal Wasteworkers

Although they perform an effective job, informal garbage collectors are occasionally ignored. Two significant challenges are:

1. Lack of Recognition and Policy Support.

They go unreported in formal waste policies and are viewed as a problem rather than a benefit. They cannot access waste streams or profit from national CE plans unless legally recognised.

2. Poor Working Conditions and Social Stigma.

Working circumstances for informal recycler groups are frequently unsafe, exposing them to potentially harmful substances without protective equipment and leaving them subject to exploitation. Criticised communities with waste-related jobs are less likely to get communal social services.

Social Inclusion: The Missing Link in Circularity

A circular economy will require social inclusion, with a focus on countries like Myanmar. When it comes to informal players like rubbish pickers who help keep cities clean, a significant issue in the present rules is disregarded. To achieve a just and sustainable conclusion, Myanmar can implement a “Just Transition” strategy, including the following elements:

1. Recognition: Waste pickers play an important role in city cleaning and recycling. As a result, individuals will be empowered rather than excluded and will play an essential role in trash management.

2. Integration: Provide a means for informal sector employees to be integrated into official waste management systems. It may involve reaching an agreement with cooperatives to employ rubbish pickers in a fair and controlled manner in a formal environment. It will increase employment certainty and make waste management a collective responsibility, leading to more favorable environmental outcomes.

3. Support: Providing specific assistance to ensure integration success. This consists of providing safety equipment, health insurance, and assistance in establishing equitable markets for recycled products. This will improve the quality of life for trash workers. With these approaches, Myanmar can start to shift to a more inclusive and sustainable circular economy in which all waste sector workers’ contributions are valued.

Barriers to Implementation

In Myanmar, several hurdles to an inclusive circular economy include legislative flaws, financial limits, and a lack of information. The existing regulation fails to handle the informal sector, which contributes significantly to the management of waste. The installation of infrastructure for processing hazardous waste is expensive, which serves as a constraint. Finally, information about waste and the informal sector is inaccurate, making it difficult to handle effectively.

Conclusion

Workers in Myanmar’s informal economy have intimate contact with the circular economy. The circular economy exists, but it faces numerous challenges. To enable this economic transition into the future, sustainability must be linked to social inclusion through measures such as formalising the informal economy, raising safety standards, and investing in community projects. Such approaches can help to maximise resource utilisation and recognise the vital role of waste pickers in building a sustainable future.

Pyae Phyoe Mon is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) and an M.A. Candidate in Social Sciences at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Myanmar, particularly more than half of the population dependent on the livestock and agriculture sector, is now struggling with the prolonged polycrisis: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing political conflict, severe economic downturn, severe human rights violations, and environmental degradation.

Key Takeaways:

1. The lack of technical and financial assistance from the government is a major challenge for rural livestock and agricultural farmers.

2. Circular feeding could be a significant agrarian change in the husbandry sector and help to improve sustainable development.

3. The ongoing civil war continues to hinder agricultural sector development, limiting market access and livelihood opportunities.

Already developed agricultural countries depend largely on machines and technology. However, least-developing and fragile countries like Myanmar rely heavily on conventional agriculture and traditional animal husbandry. According to the data from 2021, waste and by-products from the agriculture sectors around the world contribute approximately 11.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Since agriculture, including livestock farming, is the second largest source of GHG emissions worldwide, it is crucial to promote sustainable livestock farming practices that support long-term environmental sustainability and development.

Furthermore, agricultural practices in Myanmar are a major driver of climate change. An estimated 83 to 90% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions come from the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector. That is significantly higher than the global average, where AFOLU contributes roughly one-quarter of total emissions.

The Impact of Varieties of Disasters on Farmers in Myanmar

Climate change is one of the challenges in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across the globe. Even small changes in temperature, as well as extreme weather conditions, have severe impacts on crop growth and the yields. In addition, resilient crop varieties and sustainable farming practices are one of the adaptation strategies for farmers to cope with climate change.

In Myanmar, disasters driven by climate change, such as floods, storms and earthquakes, have already affected crop and livestock production severely. In addition, the consequences of the 2021 military coup caused socio-economic disaster, especially in disadvantaged rural areas. Many villages were displaced, leading to the loss of farmland and the unsustainable expansion of new farmland in another area. At the same time, farmers are experiencing biological threats such as Apple snail infestations, which have destroyed several acres of paddy fields. In some cases, farmers are unable to re-cultivate paddy after the fields have been damaged. Moreover, pesticides are often ineffective, as the snails have adapted and developed resistance to commonly used chemicals.

On top of that, during the ongoing civil war, farmers have no access to receive any technical assistance from the government in a politically unstable country like Myanmar. And internationally funded projects can only be found in relatively stable regions. However, most of these projects prioritise humanitarian aid and disaster response rather than long-term sustainable livelihood development. Following the recent Mandalay earthquake in March 2025, even the livelihood-focused organisations such as LIFT also shifted their attention to post-earthquake relief efforts. Additionally, many project areas now overlap because NGOs are unable to reach conflict-affected regions due to restrictions from the Myanmar military government.

Current Agricultural and Livestock Farming Practice

Most farmers in Myanmar continue to rely on traditional (conventional) agricultural methods and outdated post-harvest technologies. Livestock production is also extensive and traditional, with nearly all rural households raising animals, particularly poultry and swine, for home consumption or supplementary income. Practices such as burning crop residues, overusing chemical fertilisers, disposing of animal manure improperly, and over-relying on commercial feed contribute significantly to environmental degradation. Waste and by-products from farms release methane, ammonia and nitrous oxide, all potent greenhouse gases which intensify climate change and global warming.

More than 60% of Myanmar’s labour force is employed in the agriculture and livestock sectors. Livestock farmers heavily rely on commercial feed, which is often expensive. Farmers prepare their feed with no knowledge of the quality of feed formulation and nutritional value. They particularly use carbohydrate-rich broken rice, rice bran, paddy seeds and groundnut cake.

Additionally, feeding costs have become a major challenge for farmers due to severe inflation. As of March 2025, Myanmar’s inflation rate has reached 28.67%, a significant increase from 0.75% in December 2020, two months before the military coup. From then on, the country’s socio-economic situation has further deteriorated since the 2021 military coup. During this period, the prices of livestock feed, chemical fertilisers, and other essential farm inputs have skyrocketed, causing a financial burden on farmers. In contrast, the farm-gate prices of paddy have not increased properly, resulting in leaving farmers with very low profits. Hence, farmers depend more on livestock farming for supplementary income. However, many smallholders struggle to afford commercial feed, ultimately threatening both their livelihoods and the long-term sustainability of the husbandry sector. This widening gap between production costs and income threatens farmers’ livelihoods and undermines the long-term sustainability and resilience of Myanmar’s agriculture and livestock sectors.

On top of that, nearly 300 agricultural students graduate annually from Yezin Agricultural University, making the imbalance ratio of agricultural professionals to the 7 million farmers. It further hinders the development of the agricultural sector.

Feasible Solutions for Agrarian Change

Since approximately 70% of the population in Myanmar resides in rural areas, livelihoods heavily depend on livestock and agriculture. These subsectors provide both income opportunities and access to nutrient-rich food. However, they also contribute to resource depletion, overuse of biomass, and over-rely on commercial feed, chemical fertilisers, and pesticides, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation.

There are many potential solutions for sustainability in livestock farming, but one of the most effective approaches is circular feeding practice. Circular feeding not only reduces feeding costs but also contributes to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 8 (Economic Growth), SDG 12 (Sustainable Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Commercial feed can be partially replaced with high-protein, farm-made alternatives, such as banana or hyacinth silage, fodder plants like duckweed, azolla and wolffia, and protein-rich insects like mealworm and BSF larvae. Additionally, by-products from livestock farming, such as animal manure, can be composted, used to produce biogas, or fed to Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae as protein conversion. To implement this effectively, farmers need both financial assistance and technical assistance.

The main nutrients required for poultry and swine are protein, minerals, vitamins, and carbohydrates. High protein can be obtained from insects and from fodder plants such as azolla, duckweed, and Wolffia, which also provide minerals. Banana and water hyacinth silage supply not only protein but also fibre, while carbohydrates can be sourced from farm by-products such as rice bran, broken rice, and maize bran.

Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae are highly protein-rich insects, containing 30–35% crude protein. Fodder plants such as azolla and Wolffia provide at least 20% protein and 20-30% of other minerals and vitamins. The advantage of it is that it can be cultivated in small spaces, even in the household farmyard. In addition, water hyacinth and banana silage, very easy to find in our surroundings and simple to process, have a higher crude protein content and fibre content than the fresh. During fermentation, water and carbohydrates decrease, concentration of the crude protein and fibre increases.

In addition, feed, in the livestock sector, accounts for around 83 % of total energy consumption through raw material sourcing, feed production, packaging and transport. By reducing reliance on commercial feed and replacing it with circular feed, farmers can lower greenhouse gas emissions from production and transport, reduce farm waste, and improve the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and increase income, ultimately enhancing both environmental sustainability and farm efficiency.

Another feasible and sustainable approach for both livestock and agriculture is the practice of polycultural agriculture, such as rice-duck farming and rice-fish farming, which are suitable for Myanmar’s agro-climatic context. Both farming systems are environmentally friendly as they reduce the need for chemical fertilisers and pesticides, thereby improving natural pest control, enhancing overall productivity and providing farmers with an additional source of income. Additional benefits include enhanced food security for smallholder households during the crisis and, over the long term, a reduction in methane emissions. Therefore, these farming methods in lowland rice production are recommended as an effective climate adaptation and mitigation strategy and supporting economic resilience.

Conclusion

To conclude, the lack of agricultural and livestock technicians is also a significant challenge in Myanmar. Ongoing civil conflicts have further hindered the development of sustainable agricultural practices, as foreign-funded NGO projects often cannot reach the least developed and conflict-affected areas. Promoting sustainable changes in animal husbandry, such as circular feeding, offers a viable solution to reduce environmental degradation while enhancing economic resilience. By adopting these practices, farmers can achieve a balance between environmental responsibility and economic stability, strengthening their capacity to withstand socio-economic shocks during periods of crisis.

Hnin Eaindra Khine is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She is also currently interning at RecyGlo Myanmar, where she supports various environmental sustainability projects.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Myanmar is facing a growing waste-management crisis as rising urbanisation, increased consumption, and ongoing conflict strain a system already weakened by decades of neglect.

Key Takeaways:

• Myanmar had seen rapid booming in urbanisation, population, and consumption, which brought along waste management issues.

• The country is still using decade-old handling methods for its waste, although the previous elected government had tried to improve the system.

• Following the 2021 polycrisis, the system deteriorated, threatening the quality of life and demanding a solution; if not, the issues would become a chronic problem.

Combined with increased consumption, population growth in Myanmar has led to a gradual increase in waste generation across its major cities and rural areas, except in the major war-torn regions, where scarcity drives down consumption. But the country’s waste management is still heavily dependent on landfills, and even the transportation system of waste to the designated landfill area has collapsed after the coup.

Countries in the Southeast Asia region have adopted their own waste management policies, practices, and expertise to address their waste issues, while Myanmar is tackling its own problem, unable to care for the management of throw away. Even so, the waste problem is still vulnerable to being cleared up, as it may impact society, the economy, and the environment in the long run.

The status of waste in Myanmar

According to the 2017 data, Myanmar’s waste generation is 0.44 kg/capita/day, significantly below the global average of 0.74 kg/capita/day. But even before the 2021 crisis, the population of the country was roughly divided into 30% of urban residents and 70% residing in rural regions. The urban population is growing after many people fled to major cities due to the instabilities in their region. Thus, the waste generation in cities is soaring while the waste management is in a struggle.

The major city, Yangon, the economic capital of Myanmar, with a population of 5.8 million, has 6 landfill sites with a combined capacity of 2064 tons/day, and all of them are open dumping conditions. Upon domestic use, the importation of plastic waste is also considerable, unless the country totally bans the importation of plastic waste by all means. The second largest city, Mandalay, disposes of its waste in two active landfill sites with a combined capacity of 750 tons/day, and also has open dumping conditions. The majority of municipal solid waste is mainly composed of organic waste, roughly 60-70 % of municipal waste. This makes it challenging in waste management as the organic waste generates leachate, which may pollute the water resources, soil, and also demand complex waste treatment plants and facilities.

Background history of the waste problem

Myanmar had urbanised without a proper urban development plan, and waste management was neglected. The biggest city, Yangon, had been occupying nearby neighbourhoods to accommodate its growing population, but the sharp expansion had occurred after the political movement towards democratisation, when the country’s economy was on rise, establishing the industrial zones and property development plan, but without a suitable, standardised urban development plan, as the governing system was still operating on the military-shadowed bureaucracy. The population of the city also rose upon economic opportunity, but also added up from migrants from the cyclone ‘Nargis’ affected region. Even before democratisation, past governors failed to manage the simple transportation issue of waste in major cities, while the rural areas were totally neglected. The result of this led to a wastewater canal clogged with solid waste, with trash piling up, and waste being disposed of into a major waterway. During the past decades, Myanmar’s waste problem has gone round in circles with this problem.

During the 2016-2020 government, the country’s waste sector was improved through policies, technological investment, and economic means. The National Waste Management Strategy & Master Plan 2018-2030 was set in 2018 with 6 main goals, and most of them are set to start their mid-term phase in 2021. Much research, baseline data, and recommendations of the Myanmar solid waste sector were done through international organisations and individual researchers during these years. Also, an innovative approach, a waste-to-energy plant was established in Thanlyin Special Economic Zone(SEZ), which not only generates electricity from combustion of municipal solid waste but also reduces CO2 emission, planned to reduce 5820 tons of CO2 emission in 2025. The city authority of Yangon had tried to replace the incinerator with small open dump landfill sites, and plans to set up landfill gas-to-energy recovery systems in major landfill sites. The open dump landfill system had tried to improve with an engineered landfill in Mandalay through the Mandalay City Development Committee (MCDC). Additionally, pilot-scale organic waste composting was conducted in Mandalay to be applied in rural areas. The capital, Nay Pyi Taw, had no designated landfill site, with only six recent open dump sites as of 2016 data. The rural area of the country mainly practices open dump landfill or uncontrolled open-air incineration, with little to no access to proper waste disposal and treatment systems.

Drawbacks and weak points of the waste management effort

But since that time, Myanmar’s waste management sector has had many weak points and requirements. Although the master plan was set in 2018, aiming to standardise tools and plans for each waste type, there was no update or improvement of the existing laws; some were enacted in the colonial era, like the City of Yangon Municipal Act (1922). The different major cities were managed by different sets of laws and regulations on waste management demand. The 6 goals set by the master plan exclude how to reduce the landfill problem, but do mention how to improve waste collection and eliminate uncontrolled disposal. The economy of waste was not adequately mentioned, even though it includes improving the circular economy in the mission statement. It plans to utilise Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a regulatory tool, but does not mention a specific time to implement.

The waste management in Myanmar is facing challenges in the technological and economic sectors. The lack of skilled labour and ongoing open dump styles retard the effort to handle waste properly. And the initial investments in waste treatment facilities, and return-on-investment(ROI) are also considerable factors. Also, the inability to invite the private sector into waste treatment.

Current Situation

During the country’s polycrisis after 2021, the collapse of civil services caused the waste management system to be unusable, and even the collection of waste became unreliable, and some parts of cities lost access to the municipal waste collection system. An unstable waste management system led to inaccessibility to waste treatment facilities. The treatment facilities are still running on past civilian government projects. In a war-torn area, waste management is undermined, and hard to focus on these types of issues. But MNDAA (Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army) announced the waste collection tax in Lashio during their administration, but this was just following the municipal laws just a fee for collection service. In the NUG(National Unity Government) controlled area, where millions of internally displaced people and at risk of war, the waste management is unimaginable in those areas; the waste management and circular economy are not a priority in the Myanmar transition stage. In major cities, after the INGOs left due to the country’s system unreliability, imposition of strict rules to track and monitor practices, local NGOs tried to educate about waste management, but their activities are monitored and remotely controlled by the military government, unable to run publicly for mass participation due to the military government’s political unwillingness, limiting their effort.

As the majority of people are struggling with their livelihoods and are unable to think about their waste, the military government also ignores the issue. But the lack of systematic waste management in the country may lead to severe consequences like water pollution and resource depletion, degradation of life quality, and a threat to public health. Considering the above-mentioned issues, the waste problem is taken into account in shaping the future sustainable Myanmar. Although the country is in crisis, the issues should be highlighted through civic engagement activities and raising awareness about them, to prevent future man-made disasters and pollution.

Conclusion

Myanmar had long been practising the 20^th-century concept of waste management, while the booming, unsystematic urbanisation and population demand effective waste management, due to military dictatorship, poverty, and isolation. Although there was an effort in waste management during the previous elected government, the implementation was hindered due to many factors, and those efforts vanished after 2021. However, the issue is still going on and threatening the quality of life in Myanmar.

Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

The article exposes the harsh realities faced by Myanmar’s migrant fishermen, whose exploited labor sustains Southeast Asia’s thriving seafood industry.

Key Takeaways:

• Myanmar migrant fishermen play an important role in Southeast Asia’s seafood industry but face relentless exploitation through debt, abuse, and weak legal protection.

• Policies and conventions exist, yet poor enforcement, costly documentation, and flawed grievance systems deny them fair pay and safety.

• True reform demands shared accountability among governments, employers, and corporations to ensure ethical recruitment and humane conditions at sea.

Beneath the surface of Southeast Asia’s booming USD 50-billion fishing industry lies an ocean of exploitation and hardship. Thousands of Myanmar migrant fishermen sustain the region’s seafood supply chains under brutal conditions marked by debt bondage, withheld wages, and violence at sea. Drawn by desperation and trapped by systemic neglect, their labor fuels a global market that thrives on the very invisibility of those who make it possible.

1. The Fishing Industry Landscape in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia’s fishing industry is responsible for supplying around 20% of the world’s fish, contributing nearly one-fifth of the region’s GDP, with Indonesia, Vietnam, and Myanmar leading production. Supporting over nine million workers, fisheries sustain coastal livelihoods and serve as a vital protein source for millions. Yet beneath this thriving economy lies a dependency on migrant labor, particularly from Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, who take on the industry’s most grueling “3D jobs”: difficult, dirty, and dangerous.

2. Myanmar’s Migrant Fishermen: A Workforce Across Borders

Within Myanmar, fisheries employ over 3.2 million people, accounting for roughly 6% of the population. Many are internal migrants from regions like the Central Dry Zone, Rakhine, and Ayeyarwady, who move to coastal areas in search of better wages. However, the lack of formal registration leaves many unprotected and vulnerable to exploitation. Across borders, Myanmar migrants form the backbone of Southeast Asia’s seafood supply chain, particularly in Thailand, where they comprise nearly 70% of the fishing workforce. In Ranong province alone, Burmese migrants make up more than 90% of the labor force. While official records listed 13,500 registered Myanmar fishers in 2022, the real figure is likely far higher.

3. Who Are These Fishermen, and Why Do They Work There?

Most migrant fishers are young men from rural villages, often with limited education and job prospects. Poverty, debt, and a lack of opportunity drive them abroad. Many are lured by brokers offering advance salaries to pay debts or support families, only to find themselves trapped in debt bondage once aboard. Others choose the work for the free food and accommodation it offers. However, the “choice” is stolen from some, as the recruiters promise factory jobs but deliver workers into forced labor on distant fishing vessels. The blurred line between migration and trafficking continues to define this hidden workforce.

4. The Challenges Beneath the Waves

a. Legal Recognition and Documentation

Legal status is both essential and burdensome for migrant fishers. To work legally, they must obtain pink cards, work permits, sea books, passports, and health insurance, costing between 10,000 and 30,000 baht (USD 300–800). The process is complex and expensive, pushing many into informal recruitment channels controlled by brokers who exploit loopholes. Even those who enter through formal MOU systems face long processing delays. Once at sea, employers often confiscated documents, creating “document bondage” that traps workers in jobs they cannot leave. Without papers, they risk arrest or deportation and are deterred from reporting abuse.

b. Wages and Debt Bondage

Despite legal wage protections, many fishers earn far below minimum standards, sometimes as little as USD 30 to 150 per month. Employers frequently manipulate payroll systems, controlling workers’ ATM cards to simulate compliance. Some migrants wait months or even years for payment, while others lose wages for sick days or port work. Debt bondage remains at the heart of this exploitation. Many migrants borrow heavily to pay recruitment fees or travel costs, up to USD 800, which are inflated with hidden charges. Employers then withhold documents until debts are “repaid,” trapping workers in a cycle of dependency and coercion.

c. Working Hours and Conditions

At sea, exhaustion is the norm. One in four fishers reports working 17–24 hours a day, with nearly half having no fixed schedule. Many endure days without rest or overtime pay. This relentless fatigue, combined with hazardous conditions and poor safety gear, not only violates labor laws but also signals forced labor.

Vessels often lack toilets, clean bedding, and adequate food or water. Some fishers survive on rice and dried fish, even boiled seawater. Long-haul voyages can confine crews for months or years, with little contact with the outside world.

d. Human Rights Violations

The 2021 Myanmar military coup triggered a surge of out-migration to Thailand, and it expanded the pool of Burmese migrants entering the fishing sector, where forced labor, trafficking, and physical abuse remain widespread. One in five migrant fishers reports being unable to leave their job without punishment. Violence is routine: some are beaten with iron rods or wooden blocks; others are threatened, “sold” to other vessels, or even thrown overboard for falling ill. Psychological coercion and racial discrimination deepen their fear and silence. Weak legal protection and retaliation risks make justice elusive, allowing impunity to persist across fleets.

e. Social Factors: Life Beyond the Boat

Migrant fishers live in overcrowded and unsafe quarters, often without proper sanitation, healthcare, or social protection. Injuries at sea frequently go untreated, and families left behind face economic instability. With limited access to education and welfare systems, migrants remain marginalised even onshore. This social neglect reinforces their dependence on exploitative employers and brokers.

5. The Role of Corporations and Industry Owners

Corporate and vessel owners sit at the centre of this crisis. Many withhold ID cards or wages, perpetuating debt and dependency, despite such acts being illegal. Some refuse to compensate for injuries or deaths at sea, denying accountability. Brokers exploit “travel first, pay later” schemes, often in collusion with employers, that deepen workers’ debts.

Corporate buyers and processors in global seafood markets wield significant power to change this system. Yet, many prioritise profit over ethics, failing to demand fair labor practices across their supply chains. Without market pressure, abuses at sea remain hidden behind layers of subcontracting.

6. Policies, Interventions, and Support Networks

Reforms have emerged at national and regional levels. The ILO’s Work in Fishing Convention (C188) sets global standards for safety, living conditions, and labor rights at sea, and Thailand is the first and only Southeast Asian country to ratify C188 in 2019. The move followed the EU’s “yellow card” warning against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, prompting the Labour Protection in Fishing Work Act 2019.

At the ASEAN level, the 2023 Declaration and 2024 Guidelines on the Protection of Migrant Fishers introduced a rights-based framework emphasising ethical recruitment and access to justice. In Thailand, 32 Port-in-Port-out (PIPO) centres and the reorganisation of maritime enforcement (Thai-MECC) oversee compliance, while welfare committees provide grievance channels.

As a region deeply dependent on fisheries and aquaculture, ASEAN must move beyond declarations and guidelines to take decisive, region-wide action against labor exploitation and human trafficking. Protecting migrant fishermen’s rights cannot rest solely with labor ministries. It demands coordinated efforts across law enforcement, immigration, and workers’ associations.

Amplifying the voices of civil society organisations (CSOs) and migrant-led groups is crucial for meaningful progress in protecting migrant fishers’ rights. ASEAN must urge national governments to recognise and support workers’ freedom to organise. Only by empowering these associations can ASEAN expose the real challenges, strengthen advocacy, and drive sustainable, rights-based reforms within Southeast Asia’s fishing industry.

International agencies like the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, the Fishers’ Rights Network, and Migrant Workers Network, continue to build capacity, offer legal aid, and advocate for reform, forming a web of support amid fragmented enforcement.

7. The UNHCR Forum: Voices from the Deep

On September 16, 2025, the UNHCR convened a forum in Bangkok spotlighting migrant fishers’ human rights. The discussions exposed ongoing abuses, long hours, withheld pay, debt bondage, and discrimination, despite policy advances. Speakers underscored that progress has been driven more by unions and NGOs than by governments. Nearly half of the surveyed fishers still do not know where to seek help. Participants called for stronger corporate accountability, democratic grievance systems, and regional cooperation to make ASEAN’s declarations truly actionable.

8. Gaps, Challenges, and the Road Ahead

Despite multiple initiatives, major gaps remain. Inspections often focus on paperwork rather than worker welfare, with little confidentiality, leaving migrants afraid to report violations. Barriers such as high documentation fees, restrictions on union formation, and loopholes in labor agreements perpetuate exploitation.

Justice remains out of reach for most fishers since the legal processes are slow, evidence is scarce, and trust in institutions is low. To bridge these gaps, stakeholders recommend eliminating recruitment fees, simplifying documentation, ensuring confidential reporting, and sanctioning violators. Vessel certification and stronger oversight by Thai-MECC could enhance transparency.
Cross-border cooperation between Thailand and Myanmar, including digital data sharing and harmonised welfare systems, could help ensure compensation and social protection for migrant fishers.

Conclusion

Consequently, the plight of Myanmar’s migrant fishermen reveals the dark underside of Southeast Asia’s ocean wealth, highlighting prosperity built on invisible suffering. Though regional frameworks and international conventions promise reform, genuine progress demands accountability from governments, vessel owners, and corporate buyers. ASEAN must go beyond policy rhetoric by empowering and collaborating with civil society organisations (CSOs) that represent migrant fishers’ voices and drive real on-the-ground change. Until fair wages, safe work, and dignity are ensured, the region’s fishing triumph will remain shadowed by injustice and silent endurance.

Dr. Htet Khaing Min, a medical doctor, is a Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). He recently led Remote Health Projects, focusing on Community Health Worker programs in the border regions of Naga and Karen States.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Nationalism can inspire conservation through eco-nationalism, but it often weakens international cooperation needed to tackle ecological decline.

Key Takeaways:

• The ecosystem has been degrading rapidly in recent years, posing threats to sustainable development, and multilateralism is required to address these issues.

• The development is defined by the society that politics has shaped, while nationalism is on the rise, which prioritises national sovereignty over global cooperation, and can hinder multilateral efforts to preserve the ecosystem.

• Nationalism has led to mixed approaches, such as “eco-nationalism” to promote conservation as national pride, while others exploit resources for political and economic power.

The downgrade of the ecosystem and its services can be seen as a whole, which is evidence of the universal process of state failure. Our ecosystem has been degraded since the very first society. It has lost a significant amount of forest area, nonhuman lives, driven into the sixth mass extinction, sea level is rising, acidification is occurring, wetlands are shrinking, and there is an increase in natural disasters, global warming, and CO2 emissions. These crises cause severe impacts on ecosystem balance and challenge the vision of sustainable development. However, the term ”development” has been understood mistakenly, focusing only on economic growth. This understanding promotes resource extraction, utilisation, optimisation, and advancement, and sees the ecosystem as an asset.

Additionally, development is also influenced by the political system, which thus significantly impacts the ecosystem. Viewing the ecosystem through the lens of politics shapes our concept, missions, and vision of the ecosystem. At the same time, the attitude toward the ecosystem is in multilateral cooperation, not limited to one nation or one political ideology, under sustainability diplomacy.

The term ecology became popular in the 19th century and brought a movement to consider the ecosystem in mainstream development. But the consideration of the ecosystem is still bound by the body politic, which is the government bodies responsible for a specific geographical area. Still, the body politics approach the ecosystem in an anthropocentric way. Rawl, a liberal politician, defines “The environment as a territorial asset that the institution of property must protect from deterioration only because of its capacity to support them in perpetuity.”

In politics, right-wing populism has become popular worldwide, and there are strong reasons behind it. After the 2016 U.S election, the republican Party won against liberal Democrats, followed by the elected right-wing parties and the emergence of nationalists around the world from diverse countries, reflecting the global trend of right-wing populism. The situation became bold after the 2020 COVID pandemic, as many European countries see the pandemic as the result of globalisation and immigration. The supply chain was disrupted during the global outbreak, and demand for self-sufficiency for national security was disrupted. Moreover, nationalism can convince the public about poverty, job losses, and resource management in a much simpler way than others, as they prioritise only the nation, and each identity is subsumed within the state.

Nationalism is highly considered a right-oriented political ideology, which is, in most cases, generally interpreted as the opposite of environmental protection. Most of the green ideology is brought by left-wing groups, and they support coordination rather than isolation to hold sovereignty. But in the 21st-century trend of right-wing populism, when the global ecosystem and services are in crisis, nationalists show some bargaining in interpreting or handling environmental issues. At some point, nationalism does not stick to the right-wing in green concepts but can adopt some left-wing ecological ideas. Indeed, nationalism contains an embedded environmental spirit, considering the ecosystem as the nation’s pride, resources, and symbol of sovereignty.

And nationalism brings new approaches to the current ecosystem situation. At this point, their approach to the ecosystem is “eco-nationalism”. This approach ensures resource availability for future generations, maintaining the ecosystem as a national asset. However, the nationalist approach to the environment is not that simple; it tries to manipulate and shape the ecosystem to align with its mission and vision of superiority. Some named them as eco-fascism for their usage of environmentalism as a tool to exclude marginalised people, threatening the three foundational pillars: social, environmental, and economic of sustainable development. Nationalism emphasises sovereignty and admires self-sufficiency; in that case, its ground would be opposite to environmentalism. Still, in some cases, they hold environmental conservation as an oppressive tool to show off their ecosystem as a source of pride. In contrast, there is no clear ground for the environment held by nationalism.

Although nationalism is on the rise, there are many differences in background depending on the nation’s development status, and it affects the ecosystem differently. The nationalists from developed nations emphasise self-sufficiency, technology-driven economic development, and keeping a distance from global ecosystem issues relief efforts. In contrast, developing countries focus on the right to use resources and freedom from international adjudication. The common ground between the two types is that they consider the environment within their boundary to be separate from others and would like to gain complete control over it.

As society developed and nations race for resources, resource security became part of nation-building. Resource nationalism resides in a country with many critical mineral reserves. The host country tries to manipulate the market and build superiority within the state. Thus, resource nationalism is driven by “politico-economic” interaction, and prioritising conservation or sustainability is sent to the back. As nationalism is the selling point of populism, they try to convince the public about folk medicine related to the development. At some points, they may lead to severe degradation of the environment. Moreover, the most obvious threat to nationalism is its nation-centric approach, whereas the ecosystem must be considered as a whole; the dismissal of this perspective is the primary threat to nationalism from the environment. For example, the Trump administration’s installation of the wall on the Mexico border significantly impacts the ecosystem, prohibiting wildlife from crossing by 86%. Nationalism’s isolation from the international community is also a considerable factor. The nationalist groups view climate change and ecosystem problem efforts as a threat to their sovereignty, because of international intervention and guidance of countries’ development plans. In a demanding environment, coordination is vital, and thus, regardless of the political landscape, sustainable development diplomacy is essential to foster cooperation between nations. This nationalist narrative on the international effort has led to a hindrance to meeting the goal. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement will increase the chance of global warming escalating. China, the most significant greenhouse gas emitter, participates in international agreements like COP26. Still, its Belt & Road project is the largest financier of fossil fuel infrastructure, reflecting the complex nature of the nation-first concept on the environment.

Handling environmental issues within the territory, nationalist acts differ; they see the environment as the nation's pride, something to protect along with their culture and identity. They also try to stand out in environmental pros like energy security, green transition, and pride. And thus, they are less opposed to energy transition policies than climate change policies, but the intention is for the national interest, not the ecosystem. China set its own goals, and it is gradually meeting them. Green nationalists attempt to bring environmental development along with national security and the economy, and they still consider international agreements beneficial if they can help the country’s development. The fact is that these environmental values are emphasised based on a nation-first policy, while the global ecosystem degradation demands a fully committed global effort.

In contrast, the perspective of development is primarily influenced by the political ideology of that time, and it affects the ecosystem. The rise of right-wing populism greatly impacted the ongoing global ecosystem crisis. Their highly right-oriented, populist ideology threatens the continuing international effort to relieve the ecosystem. Whatever the political system is, understanding the global ecosystem problem has no borders and demands cooperation to address it, which is becoming vital for the upcoming society.

Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support to The Sabai Times

Mangroves play a crucial role as a guardian angel of coastal towns, for many communities, but the need to secure food is more important than saving the guardian.

Key Takeaways:

1. Mangroves provide environmental and community benefits, while also serving as one of the most effective natural systems for carbon sequestration in combating climate change.

2. In the Tanintharyi Region, charcoal production has accelerated mangrove deforestation, especially without effective governance and legal control following the 2021 military coup.

3. Although the SAC tries to meet the targets of the Forestry Master Plan (2001–2030), its efforts seem to be symbolic conservation designed for international recognition rather than genuine protection.

Mangrove: The Guardian Angel of Coastal Towns

Mangroves are one of the richest sources of blue carbon, offering environmental and community benefits. They act as natural barriers, protecting coastal villages from cyclones, storm surges, tsunamis, and erosion. At the same time, they provide vital habitats for marine biodiversity and shelter for birds, reptiles, and other wildlife. Their intricate root systems trap sediments and filter pollutants, improving water quality. Most importantly, mangroves absorb around 12.3 kg of CO₂ annually, 2 - 4 times more than most other tropical forests, and are crucial in mitigating climate change.

Mangroves support fisheries, tourism, aquaculture, and agriculture for community benefits. Many coastal communities depend on fish, prawns, and crabs that thrive within mangrove ecosystems. The leaf litter and nutrients mangroves release enrich coastal soils and waters, sustaining nearby agriculture and aquaculture. In addition, healthy mangrove forests attract ecotourism, creating opportunities to boost local livelihoods and strengthen community income.

Although mangroves comprise only about 1% of Myanmar’s total forest cover (42.92%), they play a crucial role in the country’s ecological and community well-being. Myanmar’s mangrove forests are the 3rd largest in Southeast Asia. In Myanmar, mangroves are found in Tanintharyi, Ayeyarwady, Yangon, Bago, Rakhine, and Mon States.

Killing the Guardian Angel for A living

Most people in Myanmar continue to rely heavily on nonrenewable fuels, particularly charcoal, as their primary source of cooking fuel. It is estimated that 90% of charcoal production in the country comes from coastal mangrove forests. Among the coastal regions where mangroves are found, Tanintharyi is the center of charcoal production, providing domestic markets and supplying cross-border trade with Thailand.

Even before the 2021 military coup, communities in the Tanintharyi Region had relied on cutting mangroves and trading charcoal illegally to Thailand as a source of livelihood. Villages in Myeik, Kyunsu, Boatpyin, and Kawthaung townships have already engaged in mass charcoal production since Thailand’s charcoal ban in the late 1990s. However, in the economic downturn following the coup, mangrove deforestation only intensified as more people turned to mangrove cutting and charcoal burning for their living. In particular, charcoal kilns have rapidly expanded in villages across Kyunsu and Boat Pyin townships.

Mrs. Htway Naing, a local villager who made a living from making charcoal, shared her experiences and insights into the culture of charcoal production. Mrs. Htway Naing and her husband did mangrove burning in Shwe Ge Nyo Village from Kyun Su Township, their main livelihood for nearly a decade. She said, “Nearly all households in those villages are involved in mangrove cutting. In Shwe Ge Nyo Village, where we once lived, there were two main charcoal producers, each owning about 12 large kilns and over a hundred small-scale burners across the village.”

She continued, “The owners hire men to cut mangroves using chainsaws. On average, they harvest 10 - 15 Pone San per day.” A Pone San is a local unit of measurement for firewood, referring to a stack of wood measuring approximately 5 feet in length by 6 feet in height. Each unit is valued at around 8 to 9 USD in the market.

“Some villagers cut and sell mangroves per trunk. During tidal days, they cut daily, filling boats with nearly 100 or 200 trees based on the size of the boats. Once the tide recedes, they focus on the charcoal-making process,” explained Mrs. Htway Naing. The charcoal kilns vary in size. A 7×7 ft kiln takes about 10 days to bake, a 12×12 ft kiln lasts around a month and a half, and a 16×16 ft kiln can take more than two months to produce charcoal.

There are over a hundred household-level charcoal-burning camps in larger villages such as Yay Aye and Shwe Ge Nyo. Following the economic downturn and rising inflation, grassroots communities have struggled to sustain their livelihoods from agriculture, fisheries, and rubber plantations. As a result, charcoal production has become one of the few remaining income sources; however, it also brings the added burden of unofficial payments to local administrators and SAC officials.

Community-led Conservation in Kaw Thaung Township, Tanintharyi Region

Even before the coup, community-led conservation efforts had taken root in Kawthaung Townships. In Kawthaung, Mr. Shwe Fun, a local environmental enthusiast, founded the Pakchan River Conservation Group in 2016, bringing together five villages from the upper part of the Pakchan River. “ Since 2017, some active villagers and I have been actively planting trees and raising awareness among local villagers about the importance of mangrove protection and community forests. Through these collective efforts, we have grown more than a hundred thousand trees together,” said Mr. Shwe Fun.

The Pakchan River, also known as the Kraburi River, forms the natural boundary between Myanmar and Thailand. Rising in the Tenasserim Hills flows into the Andaman Sea near Kawthaung (Myanmar) and Ranong (Thailand). It provides a wide range of benefits to both people and nature. Its extensive mangrove forests serve as critical habitats for marine life. Villages along the river from both sides rely on its resources daily.

Mangrove conservation in the southern coastal area is crucial since Irrawaddy dolphins can be found in the Myeik to Kawthaung coastal line. The Irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, one of the endangered species, is found in both freshwater and coastal environments in South and Southeast Asia, mainly in three rivers: the Ayeyarwady (Myanmar), the Mahakam (Indonesian Borneo), and the Mekong in Southeast Asia.

Hence, mangrove forests in Tanintharyi Region are important for Irrawaddy dolphins because they are crucial habitats that provide food, shelter, and nursery grounds for the dolphins and their prey. These coastal ecosystems support rich biodiversity, including various fish and invertebrates that form the dolphins' diet, and their interconnected waterways serve as vital areas for dolphin movement and survival in the Ayeyarwady's estuaries.

SAC’s Showpiece Conservation and Efforts

The Forestry Master Plan (2001–2030) sets targets: to increase reserved and protected public forests to 30% of the country’s land area, to establish 10% as protected areas, and to create 2.27 million acres (919,000 ha) of Community Forests. Under this framework, the State Administration Council (SAC), a council founded by the military junta following the February 2021 coup d'état, has designated more than 660,000 acres of reserved and protected public forests and 610,000 acres of protected areas during its tenure. However, no new community forests have been established.

According to the Community Forest Instruction (2019), community forest user groups have rights to be granted for at least 30 years for the first time, allowing them to benefit from and self-manage these forests. As of November 2021, there were 7,010 user groups with nearly 180,000 members, collectively managing 965,600 acres (390,761 ha) of community forests nationwide. Yet, since the SAC’s takeover, no additional community forests have been developed, only focusing on the reserved and protected public forests, which are meant to be under the state’s complete control and managed primarily to extract forest products.

In July 2025, the SAC designated 54,000 acres of six mangrove forests as protected public forests in Kyun Su Township, Tanintharyi Region, including two forests established in 2024. However, no additional conservation or monitoring measures have been implemented. Since before the 2010 political transition, and even under the civilian government (2015 - 2020), forestry inspectors regularly visited villages, and patrol boats monitored activities around coastal areas. But after the 2021 military coup, there were clashes between the Kyun Su People’s Defense Force (PDF) and SAC troops in coastal villages in late 2023. Following the ambushes and clashes with the Kyun Su PDF, patrol officials do not dare to patrol around, leaving these areas largely unmonitored. Despite this, SAC has kept designating two mangrove forests as protected public forests in 2024 and four in 2025 in Kyun Su Township, Tanintharyi Region. On the other hand, small-scale charcoal burners continue making charcoal by paying unofficial payments to village administrators and SAC forestry officials.

To conclude, while the SAC has declared new reserved forests and protected public forests nationwide, it is clear that it cannot effectively monitor or control them. Since the 2021 military coup, local people's defense forces have emerged across the country, and the SAC has lost control of roughly 42% of Myanmar’s territory, leaving vast forest areas beyond its reach. Hence, these designations seem aimed at gaining international recognition or projecting the image that the military regime can manage all sectors, including environmental sustainability, despite the ongoing civil war. In reality, such measures are for show, intended to make the country appear stable in international news, even as the SAC struggles to govern nearly half the nation.

Hnin Eaindra Khine is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She is also currently interning at RecyGlo Myanmar, where she supports various environmental sustainability projects.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Transboundary air pollution in Southeast Asia has become a serious issue for each country in the region, and the current efforts still cannot bring an obvious result to the area, threatening its goodwill.

Key Takeaways:

1. Transboundary air pollution became a major topic among the Southeast Asian countries, affecting the region's well-being.

2. Each nation has its source of air pollution while acting as both the contributor and the recipient of the transboundary haze.

3. Although the international conventions were done since the mid-90s, ASEAN adopted its own in the late 90s, but it still has a conflict of interest.

Air pollution has recently become an eye-catching topic in world news, especially among developing nations in Southeast Asia. Although the countries are divided geographically, the atmosphere has no boundary. Starting the transboundary haze problem in ASEAN almost 50 years ago, the peatland fire problems in Malaysia and Indonesia began. Thus, the pollutants from each country threaten the well-being of the people in the region, regardless of their nationality.

Air pollution, especially PM_2.5(Particulate Matter with a diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 μm in ambient air) pollution, has been linked to several million deaths yearly, along with other pollutants, like black carbon, that threaten different regions seasonally. Additionally, contaminants such as SOx, NOx, and VOCs can contribute to climate change and exacerbate ocean acidification, eutrophication, and ozone depletion.

As each nation in the region had expanded agricultural practice, both in quantity and quality, and industrialization to boost the economy, especially in a cost-effective way, along with intense climate phenomena like El Niño and increased bushfires, it brought the inevitable environmental issues, not only limited to each nation, but also threatened the region. Among them, air pollution became a challenging topic in most ASEAN countries.

Thailand

Thailand is one of the most heavily affected by air pollution in Southeast Asian countries. The Bangkok area and northern Thailand were the most affected during the summer months. Particulate matter during these months was mainly composed of biomass burning. Hitting the world's top-most polluted cities annually. In Bangkok, the primary cause of air pollution was transportation, as the ratio of car ownership increased, and the public transportation gap widened.

However, there is another story in northern Thailand: the reason for most pollution is biomass burning. In the summer of 2024, 6,897 hotspots were found in Thailand, while 14,828 hotspots were detected in Myanmar. The transboundary haze came to the country’s northern part, where the capital of Thailand north is located. Impacting the city's social and economic. The combined haze is caused by crop burning, especially the maize, used in the livestock industry. Additionally, cash crops like corn, sugarcane, and rice cultivation need seasonal burning, producing pollutants that cloud almost all of Thailand during the summer.

Myanmar

Myanmar also suffered from air pollution in its economic capital city, Yangon, which worsens during the summer. Also, in Shan state, it triggers transboundary air pollution in its neighbouring countries, especially Thailand. But on the other hand, after the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS) in 2003, foreign investments, especially from the CP group, the largest livestock feed producer, based in Thailand, came into the region to farm hectares of land to grow the maize under a contract farming style, to fulfill the growing demand for livestock food from China.

Indonesia

According to its geographical location, Indonesia contributes air pollutants to its neighboring countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and occasionally Thailand from its forest fires and agricultural biomass burning. But vice versa, it is also the recipient of pollutants. Indonesia’s diverse landscape and activities reflect its complex air pollution nature. In urban areas like Jakarta, the contaminants are from transportation and industry, while in regions like Sumatra and Kalimantan, the forest and agricultural fires generate pollutants. Anthropogenic fires are fueled by climate change, like El Niño or the Indian Ocean Dipole, which worsens the situation.

Vietnam

Vietnam is calm primarily from the transboundary pollution. However, it suffered from air pollutants, especially PM2.5, during 2013 and 2015. In the case of the first event, the pollutants came from East Asia anthropogenic sources, revealed by satellite imagery. In contrast, the second one was generated from the forest fire of Indonesia, and the contaminants were fed by the westward propagating stored wind resulting from the El Niño event. As climate change has reached an alarming point, the potential of the El Niño events is at high risk. The possibility of pollutants traveling transboundary will become frequent and threaten the country.

Malaysia

A southeast asian country, with haze issues mainly due to its power plant, accounting for up to 85% of pollutants, contributes to peatland fire that emits pollutants, and receives pollutants from other countries, with several air pollution episodes originating from Indonesia. And now the El Niño events exacerbate the issues, as the Malaysian geography is in the middle of the main pathway of the Southeast Asian pollution outflow.

Singapore

Singapore is one of the countries that has suffered a lot from its neighbor's transboundary pollutants. Especially during the monsoon months, ranging from August to October. The intense peatland and forest fire from Indonesia during October 2015, brought by the nocturnal low-level jet, significantly impacted the country's social and economic factors.

Current effort and issues

The transboundary haze problem has been affecting Southeast Asia since 1960. In Europe, scientists investigated the root causes of rain acidification, which disrupts the ecosystem in the northern hemisphere, and found the primary source was from thousands of miles away. To address this, the pan-European countries signed the “1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution’’ to prevent this issue. The convention shows distinct results, such as reducing 80% of harmful gas emissions. Apart from international efforts, regional development has been on its track since the 90s, like the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET).

However, ASEAN hasn’t adopted its dedicated convention or agreement, although the region has experienced it since the 1970s. As the region has suffered haze problems since 1990, citing 1991, 1994, and 1994 haze problems across the countries in the region, ASEAN ministers of environment agreed to co-operation on the transboundary haze problem in 1995. They adopted the 1997 REGIONAL HAZE ACTION PLAN in Singapore. But, in 5 years, after much effort, ASEAN's first legal agreement on the issues was in 2002 when it signed the “ASEAN AGREEMENT ON TRANSBOUNDARY HAZE POLLUTION-AAHTP”.

Although many efforts were made at the national and international levels, the transboundary problem and the region’s rising economic trend are still ongoing. And still, the AATHP is the only agreement on transboundary air pollution, without penalties.

Apart from the convention, each nation develops its law or acts as a voice to address its specific regional issues with relevant spatial countries. The most recent one is Thailand's lead joint plan, ‘CLEAN Sky strategy,' bringing Myanmar and Lao PDR to the table to address the mainland SEA air pollution issue. At the national level, Singapore is the first country in the region to adopt the ‘Transboundary Haze Pollution Act-2014', which adds extraterritorial liabilities for those who have caused the activity that creates haze pollution in Singapore. Rather than Singapore, other countries in the region haven’t seen distinct progress in addressing domestic law to prevent transboundary haze due to their internal affairs.

Still, the nations’ interests pose obstacles to addressing the issue. Even though Thailand faces severe pollution from transboundary haze, it still has unclear boundaries between the government and the private sector, making them gently avoid discussing during ministerial meetings in ASEAN. In Myanmar, the internal conflict is getting more intense and complex, and addressing the air pollution at the international level can be tricky. Some hotspots that generate haze in Thailand from Myanmar are controlled by EAOs(Ethnic Armed Organizations), pushing Thailand to work with responsible EAOs from Myanmar, highlighting Thailand’s unrealistic government-to-government approach in addressing the haze problem.

Although the countries accused Indonesia of its transboundary haze in maritime Southeast Asia, Indonesia has still firmly refused to allow any pollutants to pass through its territory. From another point of view, Singapore-based businesses are involved in those pollutant-generating agricultural businesses in Indonesia, making the affected countries a pull factor in handling the problem.

Conclusion

Transboundary air pollution had increased since 1970 and gradually grew at an alarming rate in the region as the nations improved their economy. Each country has witnessed the effect of transboundary haze pollution and has tried to address the issue since the 90s. However, the nation's interest is a pull factor in these efforts and still demands complete solidarity on this issue. Controlling factors like conventions with penalties and region-specific treaties would be a possible solution. And if not adequately addressed, the air pollution problem would remain and threaten the quality of life and the ecosystem in the region, regardless of the border.

Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

What role can Black Soldier Fly farming play in addressing organic waste challenges in a least developed country (LDC) like Myanmar?

Key Takeaways:

1. Solid waste management remains a significant challenge in heavily populated urban areas in developed and developing countries.

2. The decomposition of organic waste in landfills releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas that accelerates global warming.

3. An EU-funded Sein Lan project can lead to a sustainable waste solution, BSF farming in Myanmar.

As urban areas grow more congested, the solid waste crisis grows more severe. Developed and underdeveloped countries strive to tackle the solid waste problem and its consequences in their own ways. Do you know the severe consequences of the waste problem? When biodegradable organic and non-biodegradable waste are dumped in landfills, organic waste such as food scraps, garden trimmings, paper, manure, and other natural materials decompose anaerobically (without oxygen).

As a result, they produce methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than CO₂ that contributes to global warming, and food waste accounts for 8 to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Approximately 50% of landfill mass in many countries is organic waste. Organic waste seems natural, but it can be dangerous if not appropriately managed, and its consequences can be severe. Several countries have enacted laws and regulations to reduce organic waste, particularly food and kitchen waste, at the national level.

Law Enforcement on Food Waste Management

After the EU set ‘Fit For 55’, a set of laws to reduce 55% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, EU countries adopted new legislation to meet the goal. For example, Spain recently legislated its first law on preventing food loss and waste in March 2025. This law forces the entire supply chain to make food waste prevention plans and to sell the imperfect or misshapen food in supermarkets. On top of that, it forced mandatory food donations by large retailers to social organisations. Moreover, restaurants must offer takeaway containers for leftovers without charging.

The UK also enforced mandatory food waste segregation regulations in March 2025, targeting the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and education sectors, and aims to minimise waste generation. All businesses must separate food waste into designated bins for composting or anaerobic digestion, with mandatory weekly collections. Businesses will also cover recycling fees, promote accountability, and encourage more sustainable waste management practices.

In many developing and underdeveloped countries, implementing new legislation on organic waste management seems unfeasible. Despite this, these countries are finding innovative, localized solutions to address the issue. There are many ways of capturing methane from biodegradable organic waste and converting it into valuable resources such as biogas, electricity, and organic fertilizer. One particular promising solution is Black Soldier Fly (BSF) farming. BSF farming is well-suited for least developed countries due to its cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits for poultry farming and organic agriculture.

Black Soldier Fly Farming Global Pictures

The BSF, Hermetia illucens, does not resemble the common housefly and is, in fact, a completely different species with a unique ecological role. The BSF has a complex life cycle which includes five primary stages over 39–47 days: egg, larval, pre-pupal, pupal, and finally adult fly. Furthermore, Black Soldier Fly is a highly beneficial species to our ecosystem. They are rich in protein and thrive on organic waste, making them valuable for sustainable animal feed production and waste reduction.

Notably, Africa is leading in adopting BSF farming, and Southeast Asia comes second. Many African countries also have flexible regulations that allow various types of organic waste to feed BSF larvae. These larvae are then used to feed livestock, fish, and pets, and their by-products (known as frass) are used as organic fertilizer, contributing to a circular and resilient local economy.

In Southeast Asia, Black Soldier Fly (BSF) farming has already been introduced and scaled up to industrial levels through investments from international and local companies. One of the region’s largest insect protein producers is Entobel, a Singapore-based company that established operations in Vietnam in 2015. Other leading BSF companies in Southeast Asia include Nutrition Technologies from Malaysia, Biocycle from Indonesia, and FlyLab from Thailand. These companies are vital in transforming organic waste into sustainable protein, animal feed, and fertilizer.

Black Soldier Fly Farming: A Budding Innovation in Myanmar

Myanmar once experienced a massive landfill fire that broke out at the largest landfill site of Yangon in April 2018. During the heated summer, the fire, fueled by the methane gas, spread quickly and consumed more than half of the disposal site area. Smoke and a burning smell from the fire blanketed the surrounding area and affected nearly 150,000 people. Dozens of people, including children and the elderly, were hospitalized with respiratory problems at that time.

In Myanmar, organic fertilizer businesses could be pivotal in reducing organic waste since we do not have a sound waste management system. Nowadays, some environmental enthusiasts and forward-thinking animal farm owners have begun to innovate by establishing small-scale, household-level BSF farms. However, the number can be counted on one hand. While BSF farming is still in its early stages of innovation, momentum is growing. Additionally, I have observed that some individuals independently do their own small-scale BSF initiatives. For example, I visited Pioneer Agrobiz Natural Farm in Hmawbi Township, where they are breeding BSF as part of their commitment to sustainable agriculture.

A 65-year-old former medical doctor innovated a small household-scale Black Soldier Fly farm in his Pioneer Agrobiz Natural Farm. Today, he actively promotes post-harvest technology and modern sustainable farming practices, educating local farmers and encouraging them to adopt more resilient and sustainable methods to minimize harvesting losses and damages.

By 2050, the global population is projected to reach around 10 billion, significantly increasing the demand for sustainable sources of nutrition. Hence, Dr. Myo Aung Kyaw, a founder of Pioneer Natural Agrobiz Farm, shared his opinion. “Insects, particularly the Black Soldier Fly, are a solution to meet nutritional needs because BSF larvae are rich in protein, containing approximately 40–50%, making them a highly nutritious alternative. This makes BSF a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable protein source for the future,” said Dr. Kyaw.

His BSF farm is only 10 by 12 feet wide. However, this small-scale setup successfully stops approximately 15 visses of organic waste from ending up in landfills daily. “We feed the larvae 10 viss of food waste by mixing with five viss of higher quality waste byproducts such as rice bran and peanut or chickpea meal every day to ensure they receive enough protein and carbohydrate for larval growth," said Dr. Kyaw. While Black Soldier Fly larvae typically consume kitchen waste, food scraps, and animal manure, some farmers enhance their diet by combining lower-quality organic waste with nutrient-rich byproducts like rice bran and peanut meal.

He explained, “An adult female Black Soldier Fly can lay between 400 and 500 eggs before dying shortly afterward. To facilitate egg-laying, bundles of 2*8 inches wide wooden flats are placed inside the ‘love cage’ breeding nets where the flies can mate and lay their eggs. These eggs normally hatch within 3 to 5 days. Remarkably, just 1 gram of eggs can produce up to 5 kilograms of larvae. In the market, 1 kilogram of larvae is valued at approximately 20,000 MMK”.

During the pupal stage, from 14 to 18 days, larvae turn from white to brown or black. At this stage, they become inactive and instinctively burrow into dry and dark areas as they prepare to transform into adulthood. The optimal time to harvest and use the larvae as feed is during the prepupal stage, typically when they are 12 to 14 days old.

On top of that, frass, a byproduct of Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae rearing, is composed of larval excrement and leftover feed. This nutrient-rich material serves as an excellent organic fertilizer. He uses BSF frass in his organic farming and feeds the larvae to support his poultry farm of nearly 100 chickens. Since he has only started the farm almost 10 months ago, it remains at a household scale, producing for his chickens rather than for commercial sale.

Another initiative for BSF farming is the ‘Sein Lan’ BSF farming project. With the EU funding, in January 2025, Mercy Corps Myanmar launched a four-year project called the ‘Sein Lan’ project, collaborating with RecyGlo Myanmar and Village Link, to promote BSF farming and technologies in Myanmar. This initiative aims to reduce environmental degradation caused by Myanmar’s animal feed sector while improving economic outcomes through a more sustainable and resilient value chain.

To conclude, after introducing the ‘Sein Lan’ project to local livestock farmers, I wonder whether it will successfully attract local MSMEs and foreign investors to grasp potential business opportunities in BSF farming in Myanmar. While the four-year project emphasizes successful implementation, I wonder if providing access to modern technologies will strengthen and support household-scale BSF farms like Pioneer and other livestock farm owners across Myanmar. By doing so, could this project be a significant starting point and a revolutionary change for Myanmar's future organic waste recycling solution, Black Soldier fly farming?

Hnin Eaindra Khine is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She is also currently interning at RecyGlo Myanmar, where she supports various environmental sustainability projects.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Special Request for the Sustainability Literacy Survey in Myanmar

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

The Irrawaddy became home to frequent disastrous floods, exceeding its natural phenomena, and more likely due to human factors, threatening the residents.

Key Takeaways:

1. The Irrawaddy River is a critical geographic feature of Myanmar and is less favorable for floods. But the recent floods are much intense than the past.

2. Environmental degradation, climate change, governance practice, and infrastructure development patterns shape the current floods of the Irrawaddy.

3. Without adequately addressing these issues, this type of disaster has a considerable portion of human error and will broadly impact the likelihood of people in Myanmar.

Born in Kachin State by merging the N’Mai Hka and Mali Hka, running through from north to south, along central Myanmar, and merging with the Andaman Sea, where it forms the delta that is intruding 50m per year into the sea by depositing the sediments it carries. Irrawaddy has a centuries-long history and has been a vital bloodline of Myanmar for centuries. The waterway shapes the country’s history, culture, economy, and social structure.

Geography and the issue

The Irrawaddy is a through-flowing river, dating back to the late Oligocene, comprising upper, central, and lower parts that cover an area of up to 410,000 square kilometres. As the monsoons present, where 70% of its freshwater discharge occurs, which imposes floods on the river, it was less intense than it is nowadays as the topography is less prone to flooding due to vast floodplains, geological structure, and gentle slopes throughout its path, and dense vegetation in its vulnerable upper part.

Nonetheless, in recent years, the floods of the Irrawaddy have become more severe and frequent. Exceeding the natural factors, but the result of environmental degradation, governance errors, conflicts, and climate change, forcefully triggers the destructive floods of the Irrawaddy.

Ecosystem Disruption

The ecosystem balance is critical for a river, and the Irrawaddy was in good health for a long time. But between the late 20^th century and the early 21^st century, the upper portion of the river in the Kachin region has lost 379kha from 2001 to 2024, accounting for 69% of the total tree loss during these years, while the country deforestation rate was between 1% to 2.5% of its forest area annually. Remote-sensed data point out that most of the deforestation occurs at the banks and vicinity of the main inlets of the Irrawaddy due to the ease of transportation. Being the first state in the country to have a deforestation rate, it triggered topsoil erosion mechanisms, causing reduced absorbability of the soil and root system destruction, where a single tree can absorb up to 15 gallons of water. The soil erosion also boosts the silting rate, causing the river-bed to shallow and increasing the probability of floods.

Apart from it, the infamous mining activities exacerbate siltation rate, as the third largest exporter of rare-earth minerals, primary producer of jadeite, and also gold mining, with uncontrolled and unethical extraction methods, fuel the potential of Irrawaddy flooding by increasing siltation and indirectly by deforestation for mining practices. Moreover, urbanization, forced relocation, and poverty led residents to extract resources from forests, causing forest degradation. As the water catchment basin diminishes, combined with a high siltation rate, it causes flash floods in the upper part of the river, and reaches an alarming point just after the monsoon. As these factors play out, flash floods are not the only case; the region has been suffering from fluvial floods for weeks. After the water level had fallen, the silt was still problematic. The move-out water body eagerly came down along the river, establishing the mentioned flood mechanism throughout its way to the sea.

Climate change

Climate change, an unstoppable global phenomenon, contributes to devastating floods, especially in tropical regions. In the case of the Irrawaddy, three factors play a role: glacial melting, heavy rainfall, and tropical cyclones. The Irrawaddy is formed by merging two rivers from the Himalayan ranges fed by glaciers. As global warming intensifies, the rate of glacial melting accelerates, increasing runoff into the Irrawaddy and heightening flood risks. Global warming also raises sea levels and increases evaporation and precipitation rates, as hotter air holds more moisture, leading to heavier downpours and more intense cyclones, which are projected to grow from 2% to 11% by 2100.

Regarding tropical storms, the likelihood of their formation has increased by 0.19 per year over 42 years. Myanmar's topography makes it highly vulnerable to cyclones, which account for 12.35% of natural hazard threats. Flooding from cyclones affects the Andaman Sea and the South China Sea, bringing excessive rainfall. In 2024, the Typhoon “Yagi” caused widespread flooding as it approached land, with Myanmar suffering significant impacts due to heavy rains. The intense rainfall overwhelms catchment areas, causing backwater floods, fluvial floods, and flash floods.

Governance

Although the development of Myanmar has mainly relied on the Irrawaddy for centuries, the governments, especially in the post-independence era till now, when the use of the Irrawaddy and its ecosystem has changed, have failed to build a policy for the Irrawaddy. After independence, Myanmar’s governments, ethnic groups, and long-term civil war heavily shaped the river. During the colonial era, their forest conservation along the Irrawaddy was effective and practical, at least compared to after independence. After 1948, the civil war began, and all parties started exploiting resources from their territory to drive the war, causing much destruction to the river. Especially, after the military took over in 1990, when they boosted the jade production. The small-scale and artisanal mining practices were transformed into heavy machinery, exploring jade with uncontrolled mining techniques, which fed the silt into the Irrawaddy. Still, not limited to, also into the major tributaries of it, and that also caused abnormal residing in the forest area, contributing to deforestation.

On the other hand, the conservation of the Irrawaddy is nearly nonexistent; the headwaters, the river basin, tributaries, and delta region are almost uncontrolled, and agricultural practices along the river lead to sedimentation, point bar formation, riverbed shallowing, and increased potential for floods. The military junta regime's political isolation has made the country economically dependent on natural resource exports, preventing any consideration of conservation. The controversial, well-known Myit Sone Dam construction and other water resource management projects were solely aimed at resource extraction, not conservation. During the democratically elected NLD government era, the military and armed groups undermined efforts to limit resource extraction due to their interests. The situation has worsened after the coup, as the military and its allied militia, along with other ethnic armed groups, have their eyes on resource-rich areas. The expansion of rare earth elements (REE), valuable minerals, and timber production threatens the country's sustainability, including the Irrawaddy. A resource curse is inevitable if the military regime maintains control long-term and conflicts continue.

Infrastructure Development

Infrastructure development is critical to sustainable water use and waterway management. In this case, Myanmar is far behind. Although the Irrawaddy was used for irrigation, transportation, and trade, the infrastructure projects built on the waterway were primarily designed to collect and contribute water, rather than to prevent floods or mitigate possible natural disasters. Although hydropower plants are proposed, there is no proper sediment management system. For instance, in Mandalay, where Irrawaddy turns sharply to the west, the erosion rate is higher, and point bar formation disrupts the waterway, the river bank protection is inadequate, depending on the decade-old embankment, which is just compacted soil type and has found deformation and soil instability after the March 27 Earthquake. Thus, the city still faces and is prone to floods, worsened after the military coup. This phenomenon is the same throughout its passage and threatens the community residing on the riverbank. In the delta region, which is vulnerable to many climate-related disasters, the preventative measures are still lacking. However, there are 10 water-related ministries, and support is available from foreign agencies like JICA.

The National Natural Disaster Management Committee was formed under the National Disaster Management Law and boosted under the NLD government era. After the coup, the committee was ignored by the junta, and the allocated funds were unlawfully used to prop up the economic sanctions. Therefore, when floods have been frequent in recent years, the disaster relief program heavily relies on civil service organisations. Even the basic transportation network is sensitive to disasters, and combined with ongoing conflict, the relief aid is not easy to reach. The telecommunication ensures connection only in and around major cities, and barely reaches remote locations, reducing accessibility to the information. Rural and urban expansions are not considered flood risks due to the overloaded population density in urban areas and profit-oriented business style in rural regions, which puts the people who reside in those regions at risk of disasters, including floods.

Myanmar's major waterway has become prone to severe and frequent floods due to resource extraction, climate change, governance, and development; these floods are increasingly seen as man-made disasters rather than natural events. The situation calls for a sustainable solution from all stakeholders, or the river “Irrawaddy” will continue to cause destructive flooding for its people now and in the future.

Thuta Aung is a Research Assistant at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc), holds a B.Sc. in Geology, and is currently pursuing Environmental Science at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Flooding is one of the most serious consequences of Myanmar's rising climate disaster. Urban and rural people have been affected by the frequent and severe flooding caused by annual monsoons and storms that are becoming stronger.

The article discusses how flooding in Myanmar addresses the climate justice issue, highlighting inequalities in vulnerability and access to resources. The analysis takes a social sustainability approach, focusing on how communities may cope and recover from environmental emergencies.

Key Takeaways:

1. Flooding in Myanmar is an environmental concern and a climate justice issue that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable communities.

2. Climate disasters, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities due to poor governance, the country's limited ability to recover and adapt, and the exclusion of unprivileged voices from climate policy-making threaten social sustainability.

3. Inclusive, community-led, and rights-based initiatives are critical to building climate resilience and a sustainable future.

Understanding Climate Justice and Social Sustainability

The concept of climate justice acknowledges that not everyone is equally affected by the climate crisis. Vulnerable communities, such as low-income nations, indigenous people, people of color, women, ethnic and religious minorities, and people with disabilities who contribute the least to climate change, are disproportionately impacted by climate disasters like floods, droughts, wildfires, and rising sea levels. Additionally, these groups frequently lack institutional and financial resources to adapt or recover from the consequences of climate change, which exacerbates already-existing social and economic inequalities.

Social sustainability means creating resilient, inclusive, and equitable communities that can recover and adapt to challenging situations while ensuring that all people, especially marginalized communities, can access resources and meet their needs. It incorporates social well-being, environmental, and economic factors to promote sustainable development.

Indeed, climate change-related flooding and disasters disproportionately affect marginalised populations, such as rural communities, ethnic minorities, women, and children, who frequently lack adequate infrastructure, financial resources, and social support networks to respond and recover. Social sustainability implies specific efforts to reduce imbalances and ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind.

Climate Justice in Myanmar: Who Suffers the Most?

Myanmar has faced catastrophic flooding due to monsoon rainfall and climate change since September 2024. Recent floods have ruined several places, causing damage to infrastructure, housing, and agriculture. The impact is particularly severe in conflict-affected areas, including Kachin, Sagaing, and Magway. Rising floodwaters cause damage to houses, cut off towns, and restrict critical supply routes. Farmers have experienced significant losses due to flooding, threatening their food security and livelihoods. The combination of broad devastation and ongoing civil war worsens the challenges these people face, hindering relief and recovery efforts. As a result, the socioeconomic consequences are expected to be significant and long-lasting.

Flooding in Myanmar raises a concern for climate justice that threatens social sustainability, has an unequal impact on vulnerable groups, and indigenous communities. Generally, these communities lack the basic flood protection, early warning systems, and infrastructure required to manage or predict extreme weather conditions or environmental changes. This difficulty is worsened by limited disaster preparedness, continuous conflicts, political instability, weak governance, superstitious beliefs in local communities, and historical injustices that have affected specific communities for so long. Flooding can also create long-term health, education, and economic stability challenges, as well as immediate risks to safety and livelihoods. Therefore, promoting inclusive, rights-based solutions that empower local communities and address the root causes of vulnerability is critical.

Furthermore, cultural and religious beliefs shape how societies perceive and react to climate-related challenges. While these beliefs can sometimes strengthen resilience, they may also hinder effective adaptation. A Study in Africa indicates that various communities in South Africa have distinct responses to climatic disasters, influenced by their religious perspectives. Some individuals may adopt a passive approach, interpreting disasters as divine will or punishment rather than as environmental events. In contrast, others may proactively adapt when faith-based organizations offer practical assistance and promote community support.

These two considerations underscore the necessity of integrating disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies in Myanmar that reflect vulnerability's social and spiritual aspects, alongside providing financial aid and technical support. Understanding and collaborating with local religious leaders and their beliefs in Myanmar is essential. Acknowledging these concepts and involving the community improve the development of more effective strategies for anticipating and alleviating the impacts of flooding, ultimately strengthening community safety and resilience in the long run. Although limited studies specifically address this issue in Myanmar, global research findings highlight the importance of incorporating local values and social contexts into the country’s response initiatives.

Social Sustainability in Myanmar Under Threat

Myanmar has struggled with social sustainability challenges since the military gained control in 2021. This is due to a dramatic increase in poverty, harsh economic conditions, ongoing conflicts, and climate-related disasters. The continuous conflict has displaced 3.5 million people, about one-third of whom live in Myanmar's flood-prone southeast. Conflict and natural catastrophe events increase the cycle of displacement, undermining the coping strategies of already vulnerable populations. These communities also face greater unemployment rates and inadequate access to basic services such as healthcare and education. Meanwhile, weak disaster preparedness and poor governance create socioeconomic inequalities and weaken institutional trust from the public.

Traditional support networks collapse due to repeated shocks, including man-made and climate-related disasters, putting societal cohesion at risk. As these networks break down, communities experience disruptions that increase feelings of fear, distrust, and marginalization, threatening social stability and collective resilience.

Myanmar's social fabric will keep getting worse in the absence of inclusive policies and community-led resilience efforts as a result of long-term instability and hardship. Therefore, to ensure social sustainability, we must address these interconnected vulnerabilities through adequate climate action, enhanced local governance, and investment in people-centered recovery.

Silenced Stakeholders: Indigenous Peoples and the Climate Crisis in Myanmar

Indigenous communities in Myanmar, particularly in regions such as Kachin, Chin, Tanintharyi, and Rakhine, are at the forefront of the climate issue; however, they are excluded from national climate policy and land governance frameworks. Indigenous land management considerably improves ecological resilience, yet contemporary legal institutions typically neglect and undermine indigenous groups' rights. These communities employ traditional methods, such as terraced farming and forest conservation, which mitigate the effects of climate-related disasters, including floods. However, institutional interests' land acquisitions and exploitative projects frequently force people to shift, threatening their cultural heritage and means of livelihood.

Despite facing man-made disasters caused by large-scale development projects, deforestation, and mining operations that threaten their lands and ways of life, indigenous people are often left out of the consultation, planning, and decision-making process for climate policies and environmental governance in Myanmar. Ensuring their rights and meaningful involvement is vital to the future of Myanmar's just and sustainable climate. Without their voices, climate action is incomplete and unjust.

An Inclusive Path Forward: Recommendations for Climate Justice in Myanmar

Climate initiatives must prioritise fairness and inclusive, rights-based methods in Myanmar to achieve green security and social equity. This means identifying the disproportionate effects of floods on marginalised communities and addressing the underlying structural inequities that increase their vulnerability. Whether from foreign assistance or domestic investments, climate financing should prioritise community resilience-building activities while maintaining openness and accountability. Collaboration among government agencies, civil society, indigenous leaders, and global partners is critical. In addition, advancements in education, innovation, and the preservation of traditional ecological knowledge can all help to accelerate transformative development.

Creating the Loss and Damage fund, which was announced during COP27, holds hope or opportunity for Myanmar. This global fund is intended to provide finance and necessary assistance to countries most vulnerable to climate impacts, climate-related losses, and damages. Accessing the Loss and Damage fund could significantly impact Myanmar's efforts to support resilience and recovery in the areas most affected by climate change.

Conclusion

Flooding in Myanmar is more than just an environmental disaster; it provides an essential perspective on deeper climate justice issues, governance, and social sustainability. The combination of the country's socioeconomic inequality and geographic vulnerability exacerbates the impact of climate disasters on marginalised populations.

Good governance is also critical to effectively implementing climate strategies and transparent and inclusive systems that bridge the gap between national policies and local needs, especially for vulnerable groups. In contrast, weak governance marked by corruption, poor coordination, and exclusion leads to ineffective disaster response and deepens inequalities.

To address the complicated nature of this scenario, solutions must be as diverse as the problems they seek to solve. Aside from providing urgent disaster relief, mitigating climate-induced flooding requires long-term measures that promote better land-use policies, sustainable infrastructure, and increased community involvement.

The reason for this is apparent: social equity and climate justice should be mutually reinforcing. Vulnerable communities frequently experience the most serious consequences, so policymakers and local leaders must ensure they receive the support and opportunities needed to adapt and rebuild. Focusing on these components can create a more just and resilient society for all, ensuring no one is left out when the storms rise.

Pyae Phyoe Mon is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) and an M.A. Candidate in Social Sciences at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Special Request for the Impacts of the Polycrisis Survey in Myanmar

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Youth in Myanmar are addressing the worsening waste crisis through grassroots efforts and circular economy solutions despite political instability.

Key Takeaways:

1. Myanmar’s waste crisis is worsening due to weak governance, unsegregated waste in landfills, and over-reliance on short-term solutions instead of sustainable plans.

2. Youth-led initiatives, such as Yangon’s first Repair Café, are pioneering circular economy solutions and reviving sustainable practices.

3. To build long-term resilience, awareness campaigns must move beyond elite spaces and engage grassroots communities despite political instability.

How do people define waste? In the Oxford dictionary, waste is defined as materials that are no longer needed or used and are thrown away. If we no longer use or want the things, we easily discard them. However, the problem is that we never realize that we are the ones who are accountable for waste pollution.

The solid waste problem is a global issue that both developed and developing countries face severely. Why do you think the world is trying to take urgent actions to reduce the global waste generation rate? The reasons are, first, when waste, especially hazardous chemicals and non-biodegradable materials like plastic or e-waste, is dumped into landfills without proper treatment, it leeches harmful substances into the soil. Second, leachate that drains from waste can seep into groundwater or flow into rivers and lakes. Third, methane gas from decomposing organic waste in landfills contributes to global warming. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change and extreme weather. A poor waste management system weakens the balance of the entire ecosystem.

How developed countries address the waste issue

Developed countries find solutions in every possible way to reduce solid waste. Waste is generated at 0.74 Kg per person every day. On top of that, as cities become urbanized with rapid population growth, the World Bank estimates that waste generation will increase from 2.01 billion tonnes in 2016 to 3.40 billion tonnes in 2050. Styrofoam and plastic last at least 100 years and up to 1,000 years undecomposed. Since our world is limited in land management, imagine if single-use plastic and styrofoam containers cannot decompose for 1000 years, and we keep generating non-biodegradable waste, there will be no space in the world for us to set foot, eat microplastics, and live on the dumpsites.

A proper way to sort out the problem is to segregate waste into biodegradable, recyclable, non-recyclable, hazardous, etc. After adequate segregation, recyclables can be recycled, organic waste can be composted for organic fertilizer, and energy can be generated from incinerating non-recyclable waste. Recycling the recyclable waste can reduce pollution caused by incineration or landfill dumping. Composting organic waste, producing vermicompost, and worm tea enriches soil health. Another way is to implement black soldier fly (BSF) farms. BSF larvae can eat food scraps five times their body weight and be used as nutritious animal feed.

A Singapore-based biotechnology company named Entobel implemented the ASEAN’s largest BSF farm in Vietnam in 2015. Entobel saves 185,000 metric tons of food waste from the food industry and by-products from agriculture farms going to landfills every year. The Black Soldier Fly is the most beneficial insect in converting leftover food scraps, agricultural by-products, and animal manure into high-quality protein that can displace animal feed.

Waste Problem in An Urban City, Yangon

Yangon is the largest city of Myanmar, with a population of over 5 million people. As Yangon became the economic hub and more urbanized, students, workers, and migrants moved to Yangon for better education, job opportunities, and other reasons. Yangon produces over 4,000 tons of solid waste every day. All the solid waste disposed of by Yangon residents finally ends up in the six major landfill sites: Htein Bin, Dawei Chaung, Shwe Pyi Thar, Dala, Mingalardon, and Seik Gyi Khanaung-To. The most significant one is the Htein Bin Final Disposal Site, which was caused by the tragic fire in 2018, which lasted for three consecutive days. The Htein Bin fire was a wake-up call for Yangon's governing authorities and environmental activists, highlighting the severe consequences of poor waste management.

Both biodegradable organic waste and non-biodegradable waste materials, such as plastic, tin, and other waste, are dumped into the landfill without prior segregation. According to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, methane gas emitted from landfills significantly exacerbates global warming potential by 28 times more than carbon dioxide over 100 years. On top of that, the leachate drain from the bottom of the landfill contaminates the soil and the underground water, resulting in liver and kidney damage, cancer, and congenital disabilities.

All landfill sites in Yangon were managed by the anaerobic method; hence, organic matter cannot decompose easily without oxygen, enhancing the methane emission to the atmosphere. In the intense heat of summer, the risk of fire outbreaks increases. After a desperate fire occurred in Htein Bin landfill in 2018, the UN-Habitat implemented a 4-year project for urgent improvement of Solid waste management in Yangon city, with funding from the Japanese Government and technical support from Fukuoka University. The project installed the Fukuoka (Semi-aerobic landfill ) method to reduce methane gas emission by installing ventilation pipes, allowing oxygen to reach the inner part of the dumpsite, which helps organic matter compost in a shorter time. Additionally, pipes with holes were laid at the base of the dumpsite to drain out and treat the leachate.

However, the Fukuoka method is not the ultimate solution we aim for. It is only a temporary measure to solve the open dumpsite problem. Our long-term goal is to achieve zero waste, which requires proper waste segregation: separating materials such as plastic, paper, organic, tin, electronic, etc, for effective recycling and resource recovery.

The Battle of Youth

Environmentalists, youth activists, and sustainability advocates are battling to reduce solid waste, raising awareness to segregate waste, and encouraging businesses to adopt circular economy practices. Youth activists especially play a pivotal role in addressing Myanmar's waste management challenges through advocacy, education, and community engagement.

“As Yangon's population grows, the waste disposal rate also increases. That’s why we need more landfill space for disposal. We should pay more attention to waste management. To reduce waste generation, we have to avoid buying unnecessary things and using single-use plastic, and reuse the materials instead of discarding them.’’ Ko Zin Min Htut, a founder of the ME TO Me project, shared his opinions on the waste management problem in Yangon. Moreover, it was found that 13% of the total solid waste discarded in Yangon was plastic waste.

Ko Zin Min Htut is currently contributing to running the first Repair Cafe in Myanmar in collaboration with Impact Hub Yangon and the Prevent Plastic+ organization. He said, “Saya Ko Kyaw Myat Soe, a founder of Impact Hub Yangon, and I met at a community engagement event where we discussed that we would like to promote a circular economy. The concept: repair plays a main role in the circular economy. Although Burmese people used to repair things in the past, the repair culture is disappearing today. People rarely repair and reuse them; they easily buy new ones instead of repairing them. That’s why we decided to launch a Repair cafe in Yangon. Surprisingly, our initiative was successful from the very first time. People brought their old clothes, broken coffee machines, and rice cookers, and repaired them with the help of the volunteer technicians.”

He also stated that the challenges they faced while running a repair cafe were that they needed more volunteers to repair several broken items. They warmly welcomed new repair volunteers interested in their initiative to create a more sustainable and better future.

He introduced the repair cafe Yangon, which was Myanmar's first repair cafe. The world’s first repair cafe was started in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in October 2009. But now, the Repair Café movement has spread to 40 countries, with more than 3,000 Repair Cafés worldwide. Repairing things can reduce waste and save the raw materials, natural resources, and energy needed to make new products. Hence, it helps cut carbon emissions and move us towards a circular economy.

To conclude, as Myanmar is a war-torn developing country, poor governance slows down sustainable development measures and interventions. They have stalled because nationwide public movements were successfully held in public areas before the political instability. Foreign-funded NGOs, local CSOs, and youth independent organizations are still trying to raise public awareness and mitigate the solid waste problem in Yangon. However, there remains a knowledge gap between youths and elders, educated and uneducated, elite and grassroots, since awareness activities can be organized online or at exclusive venues like the American Center, Goethe Institute, which ordinary people are intimidated to participate in. Thus, activists should consider alternative ways of organizing more inclusive community-based events in the country’s unstable political situation.

Hnin Eaindra Khine is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc). She is also currently interning at RecyGlo Myanmar, where she supports various environmental sustainability projects.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Coral reefs are vital to the marine ecosystem and human life, but they’re under serious threat from climate change and human unsustainable actions.

Key Takeaways:

1. Coral reefs support 25% of marine life, act as natural storm barriers, and generate billions in tourism and fisheries, making them essential to the marine ecosystem and human survival.

2. Climate change, ocean acidification, pollution, and destructive fishing practices rapidly degrade coral reefs, pushing many to collapse.

3. Individual actions, like reducing carbon footprints, using reef-safe sunscreen, and supporting conservation, can make a difference in preserving these vital underwater ecosystems.

The coral reef, one of the most breathtaking marvels of the world, is situated beneath the shimmering surface of the ocean. Often called “rainforests of the sea,” these underwater ecosystems are vibrant marine life cities overflowing with color, mystery, and biological relevance. Over hundreds of years, these microscopic organisms have built extensive limestone that maintains 25% of all marine life, even occupying less than 1% of the ocean floor.

Their intricate structures serve as shelter, food, and breeding grounds for numerous marine organisms, from microscopic plankton to massive manta rays.

All reefs aren’t the same; depending on their location and the environment, different coral reefs form in various environmental conditions. Significantly, coral reefs come in three main types: Fringing, Barrier, and Atolls. Why are coral reefs so fascinating? Let's plunge in!

The Three Majestic Types of Coral Reefs

1. Fringing Reefs

Fringing Reefs are the most common type of coral reefs, forming directly along coastlines in tropical water, particularly on volcanic or rocky shores. These reefs grow near shore, usually separated from land by a shallow, narrow lagoon or no lagoon at all. The growing process occurs when free-swimming coral larvae connect themselves to hard surfaces like rocks or the submerged surroundings of islands. Gradually, as successive generations of polyps build on their ancestors’ skeletons, the reef spreads outward toward deeper water and upward toward the sunlight their symbiotic algae require.

Example: The reefs of Hawaii and the Red Sea.

2. Barrier Reef:

Barrier reefs are among the most spectacular natural structures found in the ocean. They form along coastlines, but are separated from the shore by deep, vast lagoons that could reach several kilometers. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is the most well-known example, with around 3,000 reefs and 900 islands spanning 2,300 kilometers.

So, how do these underwater giants form? It all starts with bordering reefs encircling volcanic islands’ shorelines. Over time, when sea levels rise or the land sinks, the coral grows upward at about 1-3 cm per year _ just enough to stay in sunlight. Meanwhile, the original island sinks further, forming a deep lagoon between the reef and the coast. This entire process, known as Darwin’s hypothesis of atoll formation, explains how massive and impressive barrier reefs grow.

It’s a slow-motion race between geology and biology, and corals are winning!

3. Atolls

Atolls are mysterious, distant, and breathtakingly gorgeous buried treasure rings. These round coral islands, with blue lagoons in the center, are located far out in the ocean, often hundreds of kilometers from the nearest mainland. But how exactly do these beautiful rings form? It's like Nature's slowest magic trick.

It all starts with a volcanic island surrounded by a fringing reef. Over millions of years, the island began sinking (thanks to subsidence), while the coral kept growing upward, fighting to stay near the sunlight. Eventually, the volcano disappears completely underwater, leaving just a ring of coral with a deep, blue lagoon where the mountain used to be.

With its 26 natural atolls, the Maldives is basically the poster child for these dreamy island hoops.

Why are coral reefs important?

Coral reefs are essentially the ultimate underwater city, hosting thousands of species, many of which can be found nowhere else on the planet! They're more than just attractive; they're essential for keeping oceans healthy and thriving.

Reefs save humans' lives. They operate as natural wavebreakers, absorbing 97% of storm energy, significant as storms worsen due to climate change. When calamity strikes, coastal cities with strong reefs fare much better.

They are also economically powerful. Reefs support billions of dollars in fishing and tourism annually; 100 million people in Southeast Asia rely only on reef fisheries. And don't forget about Instagram-worthy destinations like the Great Barrier Reef, which attracts millions of tourists while supporting local economies.

Oh, and they might be able to treat ailments, too! Scientists have already transformed reef organisms into cancer medications, pain relievers, and antivirals, with far more potential still to be revealed.

So losing reefs is more than simply an ocean issue; it's also a human issue. We need these ecosystems.

Threats To Coral Reefs: A Perfect Storm of Challenges

Coral reefs are in dire jeopardy, and climate change is the public enemy #1. When waters become too warm, corals panic and expel their food-producing algae (a process known as bleaching), leaving them frail and frequently doomed, such as the Great Barrier Reef, which lost 30% of its corals in just 9 months during the 2016 bleaching episode.

Another silent killer is acidification of the oceans. As the sea absorbs CO₂, it gets more acidic, making it difficult for corals to develop their skeletons. Imagine attempting to build a building while someone melts your bricks.

Humans aren't helping either. Runoff pollution smothers reefs with algae, garbage chokes marine life, and careless fishing (such as using dynamite!) destroys reefs. Even tourist sunscreen can damage corals in famous places.

Overfishing has a negative impact on everything. Reefs become overgrown and die when no fish can eat the algae. Without predators, the entire food chain collapses—fishing currently threatens 55% of reefs.

Reefs are being struck from all sides, and if we don't act quickly, they may not survive the century.

Saving the Rainforests of the Sea: How We Can Help

Saving coral reefs starts with fighting climate change, it’s priority #1. Cutting carbon emissions (using less energy, supporting renewables, and pushing for greener policies) can help stop oceans from overheating and turning acidic. Every little bit counts when we all pitch in!

Be smart about seafood. Choose sustainable options (look for MSC-certified fish!) and avoid species caught with destructive methods—it keeps reef food chains intact.

Tourists, don’t be that person. Use reef-safe sunscreen (skip oxybenzone!), never touch or step on coral, and pick eco-friendly tours. Anchors and careless snorkelers wreck reefs, so follow the rules.

Support marine protected areas & conservation groups. Organizations like the Coral Reef Alliance and coral nurseries are working hard to restore reefs, and back them up!

Spread the word! Most people don’t realize how extraordinary and endangered reefs are. The more folks know, the more they’ll help. Share, talk, and push for change. Reefs can’t save themselves.

Khun Zaw Hein recently completed a Diploma in Social and Development Studies. He is also a Fellow of the Myanmar Youth Empowerment Network (MYEN) Research Fellowship Program, supported by the British Council.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

The opinions expressed in this article do not represent the official stance of SRIc - Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre. The Sabai Times is committed to publishing a range of perspectives that may not align with editorial policy.

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Myanmar must urgently prioritize climate-smart agriculture to safeguard its food security and national resilience amid escalating climate disasters and systemic agricultural vulnerabilities.

Key Takeaways:

1. Climate change-driven disasters severely disrupt agriculture and threaten food security in key regions like Ayerawaddy and Bago.

2. Myanmar’s agriculture sector, relied on by over 70% of the population, lacks resilience and infrastructure to withstand climate shocks.

3. To ensure long-term food security and meet SDG targets, Myanmar must prioritize environmentally sustainable practices and integrate climate adaptation into its agricultural policies and development plans.

Environmental sustainability is no longer an abstract concept and a distant problem—it has become a critical issue for the survival of all humans worldwide. No other area is this more evident than in the struggle for food security. As the climate crisis intensifies, the sustainability of food systems is being tested like never before. Around 2.33 billion people globally faced moderate or severe food insecurity in 2023. Among those, over 864 million people experienced severe food insecurity, going without food for an entire day or more at times. A toxic mix of factors is causing this, although one particular reason, climate change, leaves no country on earth safe. Up to 40 percent of the world’s land is now degraded, leading to increasingly frequent and severe climate shocks, such as droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, and severe storms, causing a profound impact on agriculture and food production.

It is uncontested that agriculture, the backbone of livelihoods in many developing countries, is highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, water scarcity, and land degradation. About 80% of the global population is at risk from crop failures and hunger due to climate change, including the Southeast Asia region, home to many coastal and agricultural communities. Within the area, Myanmar stands as the most climate-vulnerable country and is ranked the second most-impacted country by extreme weather events in the past two decades; the country often faces extreme temperatures, drought, cyclones, flooding, storm surge, and heavy rainfall. Exacerbating the situation, over 70% of the population relies on agriculture, accounting for 32% of the country’s GDP.

All successive governments have thus pronounced that enhancing agricultural production, productivity, and rural livelihoods has been the main objective. However, the result is far from successful. For a country that uses a total of 53 million out of its 167 million acres of land for crop cultivation, the fundamental necessity, i.e., food security, remains a significant challenge for Myanmar. Recently, food security has reached unprecedented levels, affecting 15.2 million people and over 1 in 4 of the population. This condition is caused not only by the political crisis, economic downturn, and pre-existing poverty, but also by the increasing climate-related disasters. The disasters caused 40 to 60% of the crops produced seasonally to be lost, together with the lack of post-harvest technology and machinery.

One of the most devastating recent examples of how climate change affects agriculture and food security in Myanmar is the 2023 and 2024 floods in the Bago Region. In 2023, the region experienced its heaviest rainfall in almost 60 years—a record of 200 mm over just 24 hours. The Bago River, which flows through the city, rose to around 1.2 meters above its critical level, severely overflowing into urban, suburban, and agricultural zones. The flooding even reached up to about eight feet deep in low-lying areas. Reportedly, 27,300 people were displaced, 2,800 houses were destroyed, transportation was disrupted, and around 100,000 acres of monsoon paddy were damaged. Consequently, in 2024, Bago experienced a greater flood, exacerbated by Typhoon Gaemi and Typhoon Yagi. Taungoo, Kyaukkyi, and Shwegyin Townships were considerably impacted by the beginning of October. Three hundred sixty-four villages were flooded, at least four bridges collapsed, and farmland, railway routes, and infrastructure were extensively damaged, affecting over 316,000 people.

Bago is not just another region—it is Myanmar's second most productive rice region. Producing hundreds of thousands of tons of rice for the country, any threat to this region’s agriculture threatens the country’s food supply chain. Such vulnerability of the crucial region to the disasters two years in a row exposes the fragility of its climate resilience and agricultural-food system, as well as Myanmar’s. The events also warn of a worsening climate reality, highlighting that achieving food security is no longer possible without agricultural-climate adaptation strategies. Myanmar must make climate-smart agriculture a national priority and stop being blind to the increasing importance of environmental sustainability.

Tangible efforts towards SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 13: Climate Action - climate-smart and sustainable agriculture to ensure food security, must be emphasised, so that the country can sustain its 54 million people. The time to act is now - because without environmental sustainability, there is no resilience, food security, or future.

Yamone Aye is currently studying for a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and Development at Rangsit University, Thailand.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

The opinions expressed in this article do not represent the official stance of SRIc - Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre. The Sabai Times is committed to publishing a range of perspectives that may not align with editorial policy.

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times

Global climate skepticism, unequal climate policies, and Myanmar’s internal crises intersect to challenge the country’s environmental sustainability efforts.

Key Takeaways:

1. Growing global skepticism around climate change and unequal responsibility among nations hinders effective and fair climate action.

2. Climate adaptation policies in Myanmar often exacerbate inequality and vulnerability due to misallocation and elite dominance over resources.

3. Political instability and conflict in Myanmar severely disrupt environmental programs and prevent the implementation of international climate commitments.

Skeptical thoughts on climate change are growing. While the globe is sounding a wake-up call and ensuring no one is left behind, some scientists argue that people overreact to climate change issues. Almost all climate scientists agree that human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels, primarily cause global warming. However, some argue that climate change is also a natural phenomenon. Between the 2019 and 2022 surveys, the percentage of people who do not think that human actions, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing climate change rose from 31% to 37%. The number who ascribe it to human activities fell from 69% to 63%, according to the data from Climate Change: A Growing Skepticism by IPSOS.

Bjørn Lomborg, in False Alarm, argues that the climate policies make people experiencing poverty suffer more. This article will explore how an underdeveloped and war-torn countries like Myanmar address the environmental issues. Because, in some cases, inequality in climate change adaptation interventions intensifies the vulnerability. As elite control over marginalized people’s livelihoods and natural resource management, sustainable solutions create new sources of vulnerability. In some cases, funding was overly distributed to the least-affected regions, while regions with the most severe scarcity received less.

As pointed out by Eriksen, adaptation efforts can increase economic, social, and environmental costs or undermine existing local adaptation strategies: increased irrigation in agriculture may reduce water availability for domestic and other purposes, and some adaptation measures increase workloads and economic costs. Reducing the carbon footprint requires global action and the implementation of the Paris Agreement in all countries. However, developing countries argue that industrialized nations should bear more responsibility since they contributed the most to historical carbon emissions.

The Paris Agreement acknowledges countries' differing responsibilities and capabilities by encouraging inclusive, flexible, and progressive climate action while striving for fairness and equity in combating global warming and balanced emissions reductions between developed and developing countries. However, policies will require people and companies to use less carbon dioxide-emitting technologies and expensive fuels to achieve the promised carbon cuts. In False Alarm, it is said that a 2017 landmark article in Nature puts it bluntly: “All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Now, scientists and environmentalists are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt by developing strategies to live with and minimize the effects of climate change by performing both proactive and reactive actions and hard and soft adaptation measures. Proactive adaptation interventions are planned for future climate impacts (e.g., building flood defenses). Reactive adaptations occur in response to immediate climate events (e.g., rebuilding after a flood). Complex interventions involve physical infrastructure or technology (e.g., constructing seawalls or developing drought-resistant crops). Soft interventions focus on policies, knowledge, and capacity-building (e.g., public awareness campaigns and training farmers in sustainable practices).

Sometimes, environmental sustainability policies and interventions burden developing countries. While an underdeveloped country like Myanmar emits 0.1% of CO2, developed countries like China and the US emit over 32% and 12 % of the global share, according to the data from World Meter. While people in developed countries are encouraged to take personal responsibility, reducing carbon footprints by using public transport, carpooling, and practicing 5R strategies, surprisingly, only 14% of households in Myanmar own a car. Even in a metropolitan city like Yangon, most rely on public transport. Moreover, people in poor countries like Myanmar always reuse and repair their appliances even if they are broken, and most buy already used things because of their tight financial situation.

Additionally, mitigation of environmental sustainability can also occur, as exemplified by the Myitsone Dam project. Although hydropower is renewable and green energy, other consequences from hydropower dams were considered: flooding the neighboring villages, discharge of accumulated sediment, loss of farmland, and loss of spawning habitat. Migratory fish will swim upstream after the dam's completion. This would lead to lost income for fishermen. Hence, people were against the Myitsone dam project for social, environmental, economic, and cultural concerns.

Moreover, the polycrisis in Myanmar disrupts wildlife conservation programs and protected areas such as Hukaung Valley, one of the world’s richest biodiversity areas. Political conflicts have stalled investments in renewable energy and conservation programs: The Wind Turbine Project in Rakhine state and the solar power plant in Minbu have now stalled. Thereafter, large-scale displacement by the political clashes results in deforestation, soil degradation, and water pollution as refugees build temporary settlements with limited infrastructure (such as forests for firewood or overgrazing by livestock, etc).

To conclude, Myanmar’s current ruling government failed to fulfil the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and the Master Plan (2018-2030). Political instability weakens a country’s ability to retain already-set sustainability policies, contribute to international agreements, and implement carbon sequestration measures. Unsurprisingly, the distinction between SDGs and a nation’s socio-economic vulnerability becomes more polarized in Myanmar.

Hnin Eaindra Khine is an intern at RecyGlo Myanmar and volunteers in a youth-led non-profit environmental organisation, assisting with environmental projects.

“Advocating Sustainability, Shaping Our Future”

The opinions expressed in these articles do not represent the official stance of SRIc - Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre. The Sabai Times is committed to publishing a range of perspectives that may not align with editorial policy.

Help Sustain The Sabai Times - Myanmar’s Voice for Sustainable Development Support The Sabai Times