Book

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330384928
Myanmar: Environmental ,Political and Social Issues
Chapter · January 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 3,614
1 author:
Thiri Aung
Peking University
9 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of an EIA system for the Belt and Road Initiatives View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thiri Aung on 15 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Complimentary Contributor Copy
ASIAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES
MYANMAR
ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL ISSUES
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
ASIAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

ASIAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES
MYANMAR
ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL ISSUES
FILIP LESNIEWSKI
EDITOR

Copyright © 2019 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to
reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and
locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s
permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN,
or ISSN.
For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact:
Copyright Clearance Center
Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: info@copyright.com.
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is
assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts
of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the
extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this
book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons
or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this
publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject
matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the
services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS
JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A
COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: H%RRN
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS
Preface vii
Chapter 1 Learning Environments in Myanmar 1
Barry J. Fraser, Myint Swe Khine
and Nu Nu Khaing
Chapter 2 The Current Situation of Myanmar’s
Environmental and Natural Resources Governance 37
Thiri Shwesin Aung
Chapter 3 Towards Sustainable Waste Management
in Myanmar through Experiences of
Other Asian Countries: A Review 65
Maw Maw Tun and Dagmar Juchelková
Index 99

PREFACE
Myanmar: Environmental, Political and Social Issues presents edu-

cational, historical and social contexts in Myanmar strongly suggesting that,
after decades of educational neglect, the time has come for educational
reform in schools. The world’s most significant learning environment
questionnaire (What Is Happening In this Class?) is used to address how
practitioners can facilitate improvements in classrooms in Myanmar, as well
as how educational researchers in Myanmar can replicate past research in
other countries.
Next, the authors examine the current state of environmental and natural
resources governance in Myanmar for addressing priority needs, challenges
and opportunities, and identifies possible areas of improvement. Current
environmental laws, natural resources policy measures, and natural resource
governance frameworks are analyzed, and policy recommendations are put
forward.
The closing review highlights an approach for sustainable waste
management in Myanmar taking into account the successful waste
management practices in other Asian countries. Additionally, the authors
specify the current practices, issues and challenges of waste management
systems in Myanmar.
Chapter 1 - This chapter’s portrayal of educational, historical and social
contexts in Myanmar strongly suggests that, after decades of educational

viii Filip Lesniewski
neglect, the time now is ripe for implementing educational reform in schools
and for conducting educational research to guide reform and improvement.
In particular, it is desirable to apply in Myanmar concepts, assessment
methods and research approaches from the field of learning environments.
The chapter describes our careful translation into the Myanmar language and
subsequent rigorous validation of the world’s most frequently-used learning
environment questionnaire (the What Is Happening In this Class? WIHIC).
Numerous suggestions are made about how practitioners can use this
questionnaire to guide improvements in the learning environments of
classrooms in Myanmar, as well as how educational researchers in Myanmar
can use it to replicate many lines of past research in other countries into
determinants and effects of classroom learning environments.
Chapter 2 - This chapter examines the current state of environmental and
natural resources governance in Myanmar for addressing priority needs,
challenges and opportunities, and identifies possible areas of improvement.
Recently emerged from decades of political and economic isolation, the
country is actively integrating with the global economy and its economic
development is accelerating. Myanmar is endowed with an extensive array
of biodiversity and abundant natural resources, with almost 40% of forest
cover, pristine coastline and exclusive economic zones which is a home to
boundless fisheries and other marine resources. The country relies heavily
on natural resources to boost its economy and most of its foreign direct
investment (FDI) is directed toward extractive industries. On the other hand,
mismanagement, lack of responsible business conducts, poor governance
and poor transparency have left Myanmar with some of the worst
development indicators and environmental performance. At the absence of
effective environmental regulations and natural resource management,
environmental degradation and resource depletion are rising rapidly. The
chapter appraises current environmental laws, natural resources policy
measures, and natural resource governance frameworks, and put forward
policy recommendations.
Chapter 3 - Nowadays, along with growing population, increasing per
capita waste generation and improper waste collection and treatment system,
solid waste management in developing countries has a great impact on

Preface ix
environment and public health. Myanmar is a developing country in Asia.

Municipal solid waste generation rate in Myanmar amounted to 5,616 tons
per day in 2012, trending around 21,012 tons per day in 2025. Open dumping
is a major waste disposal method and recycling is at an early development
stage. Currently, the most immediate economic and environmental issues
related to the wastes have accelerated the need for a sustainable approach to
waste management in major cities of Myanmar. Therefore, the review
highlighted an approach to the sustainable waste management system in
Myanmar regarding the successful waste management practices in other
Asian countries. In this paper, the study specified the current practices,
issues and challenges of waste management systems in Myanmar. The study
also compared solid waste management practices between Myanmar and
other Asian countries. Finally, the study proposed a sustainable approach to
Integrated Solid Waste Management System in Myanmar.

In: Myanmar ISBN: 978-1-53614-866-4
Editor: Filip Lesniewski © 2019 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN MYANMAR
Barry J. Fraser1, Myint Swe Khine2 and Nu Nu Khaing3

1
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
2
Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates
3
Yangon University of Education, Yangon, Myanmar
ABSTRACT
This chapter’s portrayal of educational, historical and social contexts

in Myanmar strongly suggests that, after decades of educational neglect,
the time now is ripe for implementing educational reform in schools and
for conducting educational research to guide reform and improvement. In
particular, it is desirable to apply in Myanmar concepts, assessment
methods and research approaches from the field of learning environments.
The chapter describes our careful translation into the Myanmar language
and subsequent rigorous validation of the world’s most frequently-used
learning environment questionnaire (the What Is Happening In this Class?
WIHIC). Numerous suggestions are made about how practitioners can use
this questionnaire to guide improvements in the learning environments of
classrooms in Myanmar, as well as how educational researchers in
Myanmar can use it to replicate many lines of past research in other
countries into determinants and effects of classroom learning environ-
ments.

2 Barry J. Fraser, Myint Swe Khine and Nu Nu Khaing
Keywords: learning environment, Myanmar, questionnaire, university

classrooms, validation, What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC)
INTRODUCTION
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is the largest country in Southeast

Asia with a population of 53 million. The total land area is 676,576 square
kilometres and the country shares borders with Bangladesh, China, India,
Laos and Thailand. The culture and customs of Myanmar are entangled with
two of the world’s most-populous countries – China and India.
The history of Myanmar can be dated back to the 5th century AD with
the Pyu dynasty. Since then, a number of kingdoms have been established
and the country has been successively ruled by the different dynasties.
Notably, Mon kingdom, Arakanese kingdoms, Pagan kingdom and Saging
kingdoms were peaceful and prosperous in 16th and 17th centuries. In the
second half of 16th century, the Taungoo Dynasty reunified the county and
founded the largest empire in South East Asia. In the 18th century, Konboung
Dynasty ruled the country until 1855. That dynasty went to war with its
neighbours and fought the Anglo-Burmese wars. In 1824, British forces took
the country in different stages and colonised Myanmar in 1948. The British
rule brought several social, economic and educational changes that
transformed the completely agrarian society.
During the early days, people in Myanmar received education at
monasteries. Children who were never enrolled in secular schools could still
learn the 3Rs in monasteries, with that tradition that still existing even today
in certain parts of Myanmar. Monastic education contributed significantly to
the acquisition of literacy among Myanmar youth in rural areas. Myanmar
society has traditionally valued and stressed the importance of education
(Tin, 2000).
Under the British colonial rule, the school system and curriculum were
modernized. In 1878, Rangoon College was established as an affiliated
college of the University of Calcutta and, in 1920, the University of Rangoon
was founded, with the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford

Learning Environments in Myanmar 3
used as models. This university became one of the most prestigious

universities in Southeast Asia and it attracted students from across the region
(Rothenberg, 2002). UNESCO (2006) reported that, after independence in
1948, Myanmar’s education system was superior to those in other
neighbouring countries, especially its high literacy rate.
But, after the democratically-elected government was toppled by the
military dictatorship in 1962, the standard and quality of education
drastically declined relative to other ASEAN countries in terms of
educational enrolments, achievement and investment (UNESCO, 2015). The
situation started to change when the first nominal civilian-led government
took over in 2011. For the first time in 50 years, a multi-party election was
successfully conducted and there was a smooth transfer of power to the new
administration in 2015. Since the democratically-elected government took
over, drastic and ambitious educational reform programs have been initiated
because it was recognized that the national education system in Myanmar
needed to undergo major transformation to support socio-economic
development. In consultations with stakeholders, the Ministry of Education
(2017) formulated the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) (2016–
2021).
Tawil and Cougoureux (2013) stated that UNESCO’s four pillars of
learning are fundamental principles for reshaping education: learning to
know, learning to do, learning to be and learning to live together. However,
the Myanmar education system relies heavily on the first pillar involving
learning to know (UNESCO, 2006). There are key challenges that the
country needs to address to improve the standard and quality of the
education system.
Basic education in Myanmar currently consists of five years of primary
education, four years of lower-secondary education, and two years of upper-
secondary education. The current structure of the education system
involving 5–4–2 years is under review and will eventually be replaced by 6–
4–2 years. Preschool education is also available, but the preschool sector is
not effectively integrated with the rest of the education system and only
about one-fifth of all eligible children attend a preschool, with children in

rural areas being the least likely to participate. Primary-school education is

compulsory in Myanmar.
The data also show that, by the end of the primary-school years, only
about 70% of students who commenced in primary school five years earlier
remain enrolled, and that the transition from primary to secondary school is
associated with a further loss of students. By grade 6, only about 50% of
students who commenced in primary school six years earlier remain
enrolled. The loss continues and, by grade 10, only 23% of students who
commenced in primary school 10 years earlier remain enrolled. Between
grade 10 and grade 11, there is a further significant loss and, by the final
year of secondary school, only 10% of the students who commenced in
primary school 11 years earlier remain enrolled (UNICEF, 2011). While
some of the loss of students during the secondary years also can be attributed
to affordability and access, what mainly reduces retention during these years
is the increasingly selective nature of the examination system.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EDUCATION IN MYANMAR
Myanmar faced many challenges in reforming its education system that

had been neglected for the previous 50 years. These challenges include an
insufficient budget allocation, a shortage of well-trained and qualified
teachers, a lack of infrastructure, a rigid management system and inadequate
planning. Myanmar is introducing many reforms in both basic and higher
education (Weil, 2013).
Basic education structural reform was initiated in 2015–2016 academic
year. Before this time, basic education was comprised of five years of
primary education (Kindergarten to Grade 4), four years of lower-secondary
education and two years of upper-secondary education. It was also the first
school year of educational system reforms. The Ministry of Education and
Development Partners worked together for CESR (Comprehensive
Education Sector Review) for three years starting from 2012, and the NESP
(National Education Strategic Plan) five-year plan for 2016–2020 was
introduced based on studies by the CESR. The old (5-year primary school,

4-year middle school and 2-year high school) system has changed to the new
Kindergarten+5+4+3 system, which is similar to that in many developed
countries. In accordance with the new basic education system, the
curriculum is redesigned in line with the new Kindergarten+12 structure
with a focus on 21st century skills.
The new curriculum was introduced in 2016 for Kindergarten. Curricula
are changing in stages for students in recent academic years, with the
curricula for Grades 1 and 2 students changing in the 2017–2018 and 2018–
2019 academic year, respectively, while the curriculum of Grade 3 students
will be changed in the 2019–2020 academic year. For Grade 4 and Grade 5
students, the curriculum will change in the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022
academic years, respectively.
With the increased number of schools across the country, the number of
teachers needed in the basic education sector has also increased. Research
show that 33,681 new teachers are needed throughout the country, including
11,350 high-school teachers, 12,331 middle-school teachers and 10,000
elementary-school teachers. The plan is to appoint new teachers in stages
within the next three years.
In addition to formal schools, non-formal primary education (NFPE) is
offered as a second chance for education to the younger age group (10–14
years) who missed the opportunity of completing primary education or who
have never attended school. The implementing organizations of NFPE are
the Ministry of Education (MOE), Department of Basic Education (DBE),
Myanmar Literature Resource Center (MLRC) and UNICEF. NFPE was
initiated in 2000 by the MOE and later was reintroduced as an MOE\
UNICEF joint project in 2008/2009. The curriculum has been developed to
cover the most essential basic learning competencies of formal primary
education within two years of schooling. Level one completion is equivalent
to Grade 2 completion in formal schools and level 2 completion is
recognized as the completion of primary education. NFPE graduates are
eligible to join the secondary level of formal education.
The current education system is examination oriented. Until the 2016–
2017 academic year, tests were held in each semester and results were used
to determine if a student was ready to advance to a higher grade. For Grade

11, apart from end-of-chapter tests, tests are held three times a year. From
the 2016–2017 academic year, the number of end-of-chapter tests was
reduced to four. As curriculum changes are taking place, new assessment
procedures are also introduced. In the new education system, more formative
assessment is used instead of the former summative assessment.
According to an analysis of enrolments conducted by Muta (2015), the
number of students in each grade has been increasing in recent years.
According to the data, the increase in the number of students at the middle-
school and high-school levels was remarkable. This could be attributed to
the Ministry of Education’s abolition of all school fees and provision of free
textbooks to middle-school and high-school students. Such methods of
promoting enrolments appear to have worked well, and the motivation of
students to study up to the middle-school and high-school levels has
increased significantly (Muta, 2015).
To accommodate the demand for places in schools, 3,312 schools have
been upgraded from middle schools to high schools. The method of adding
upper grades to existing schools seemed effective in increasing the
promotion rate, while avoiding the problem of school access, and this system
has greatly contributed to an increase in the number of students at the
middle-school and high-school levels (Muta, 2015).
New Kindergarten classes were introduced in 2016 in selected schools.
According to the official view, Kindergarten is not compulsory, although it
is free and recommended. The Kindergarten curriculum is significantly
different from the former Grade 1. Children do not study subjects such as
mathematics or science, but they learn basic and general knowledge about
school life, such as how to respond to teachers, how to cooperate with each
other, and how to follow rules through games, plays and sport in order to
foster positive attitudes to study and become accustomed to school life.
Therefore, there is no end-of-term examination which children have to pass
to progress to the next grade. Kindergarten enrolments were examined to see
if the tendency was different from the previous Grade 1, but significant
changes were not found in the enrolment trend. Although the number of
school-age children is decreasing, based on the 2014 Census, the total
enrolment for Kindergarten was 1.28 million.

In every education system, teachers play a crucial role and are the most
important factor for providing effective education. It is natural to expect
teachers to be highly qualified and there to be a sufficient number of teachers
to maintain an adequate student-to-teacher ratio in schools. In Myanmar,
there are 24 Teachers' Colleges and 2 Universities of Education for
preservice teacher training, but the supply is insufficient to meet growing
demand (Borg, Clifford, & Htut, 2018; Ulla, 2017).
When the number of students increased rapidly, the demand for teachers
exceeded the supply, and daily-wage teachers were hired in the 2013 and
2014 academic year to meet this high demand (Borg, Clifford & Htut, 2018;
Tanaka,Spohr & D’Amico, 2015; Ulla, 2017 ). In addition, the promotion
system, in which a teacher was promoted from the primary-school level to
the middle-school level and then to the high-school level, decreases the
quality of education especially at the primary-school level. When the
increasing demand for teachers at the middle-school and high-school levels
attracts experienced teachers away from the primary-school level to the
upper levels, daily-wage teachers fill the vacancies in primary schools. This
creates a shortage of qualified and experienced teachers at the primary level.
Although these gaps were filled by temporary teachers, there are concerns
about the quality, continuity and lack of proper teacher training among
temporary teachers (Tanaka, Spohr, & D’Amico, 2015).
Myanmar has 171 higher-education institutions (HEIs) (colleges, degree
colleges and universities), which are mainly administered by the Ministry of
Education, but also are supervised by the other 12 Ministries such as Health,
Science and Technology, Defence, Culture, Environmental Conservation
and Forestry, Agriculture and Irrigation, Livestock Breeding and Fisheries,
Cooperatives, Union Civil Service Board, Religious Affairs, Border Affairs
and Transport.
The MOE is striving to develop higher education with the vision: “To
upgrade the education standard to the standard of ASEAN universities and
to transform the universities in Myanmar into Business Hubs that will play
an important role for the achievement of the Knowledge-based Economic
System.” To realize the vision, the Departments of Higher Education’s
mission is to produce the highly-qualified graduates and human resources

required for building a modern, developed and democratic nation. In

promoting higher education, they have set three targets: (a) to upgrade
universities in Myanmar and to strive to gain their international recognition;
(b) to offer degrees, diplomas and certificates which are accredited by
international universities and academic institutions; and (c) to nurture
graduates who have the necessary expertise, knowledge and skills for
practical application in workplaces.
To achieve this aim, the Ministry of Education formulated the Special
Four-Year Education Development Plan and also the 30-Year Long-Term
Basic Education Plan (financial year 2001–2002 to 2030–2031). In addition,
the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) provides an overall strategic
reform agenda for the period 2016–2021 for implementation in six phases,
each of five years duration. Especially for the higher-education sector, these
three plans focus mainly on the introduction of ICTs in education,
advancement of research, enhancement of international collaborations,
development of a lifelong learning society, introducing autonomy to
individual institutions, and reforms of the curriculum and pedagogical
practices.
A Quality Assurance System in Myanmar universities has been
developed recently. Educational authorities in Myanmar have started to open
its higher-education system by offering courses from international
universities while, at the same time, trying to raise their own higher-
education institutions to international standards. Until 2011, there was no
National Quality Assurance Agency/Authority to regulate and ensure the
quality of higher-education programs or institutions. Myanmar Maritime
University, which hosted the first Initiative for ASEAN Integration
workshop in August 2011, considered the Quality Assurance system to be a
very important step towards recognition at national, regional and
international levels. Myanmar Maritime University is the only university
that has established a Quality Management System and is certified to ISO
9001 standard in 2007–2010.
In 2015, some technical universities seemed to be at the forefront. The
Engineering Education Accreditation Committee published an accreditation
manual in October 2015 and is promoting accreditation with training and

initial accreditation exercises as supported by the Federation of Engineering

Institutions of Asia Pacific (FEIAP). In October 2015, eight programs at
Yangon Technological University (YTU) were accredited, with another five
or more program evaluations by the end of the year. Similar to the
engineering profession, there also have been Quality Assurance activities for
the medical profession involving the Ministry of Labour (MOL) and the
National Skills Standard Authority (NSSA).
Regarding policymaking, a new national education law was amended in
July 2015. A working group under the Ministry of Education is in charge of
setting up a committee for Quality Assurance and designing a qualification
framework. The law mandates the establishment of a top body for higher
education, namely, the National Education Policy Commission (NEPC).
This commission will form the National Quality Assurance Commission
(NAQAC), which will be the national EQA body and probably be
responsible for the whole higher education system. NAQAC will be an
independent body, financed by the MOE, with members from academia. The
new body for EQA will have to cooperate with the already-existing bodies
mentioned above. The new law further dictates that every institution must
have an IQA system and that the national QA body must assess every
institution. Once the NAQAC has been established, it will be responsible to
for setting standards and procedures. Currently, a working group for
NAQAC is starting to draft options for EQA and is also involved in drafting
the NQF.
To select qualified and capable students to the universities, admission
procedures have been streamlined. Currently, the selection process for most
university admissions depends on the Department of Higher Education,
which centralized the selection and admission process for universities based
on matriculation examination scores. But, for the 2018–2019 academic year,
11 universities in Yangon and Mandalay regions will implement these new
student admission systems. Under the pilot admission system, medical,
technological, computer, language and arts and science universities in
Yangon and Mandalay will implement these admission procedures. Each
university will independently undertake the selection process, which moves

away from a centralised selection system and gives universities freedom to

set their own standards for admission.
The importance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
is well recognised in the education system. Educational authorities give
priority to ICT development in universities. Until 1998, there had been only
two ICT universities, namely, the University of Computer Studies in Yangon
(UCSY) and the University of Computer Studies in Mandalay (UCSM). In
2003, there were 25 computer universities across the country. In 2012,
UCSY and UCSM were promoted as Centers of Excellence (COE) whose
aims were to recruit outstanding students and provide them with a better
learning environment. The objectives of these two COEs are to generate
highly-qualified ICT graduates and to conduct research in the ICT sector by
promoting international collaboration. In 2015, there were 27 ICT-
specialised universities.
Universities in Myanmar have been given e-libraries with hundreds of
thousands of digital books and academic journals to help them to catch up
after decades of isolation under military rule. The e-library project in
Myanmar began with just two institutions, the University of Mandalay and
the University of Yangon, in 2014 (Coughlan, 2014). Students and staff can
search databases and download books and articles onto computers in the
library. Participation has grown steadily and, by 2016, five more universities
had joined the project and gained access to the e-resources library: Dagon
University, Yadanabon University and the Yangon University of Economics
which joined late in 2014; and West Yangon University and East Yangon
University which joined in 2015. In 2017, EIFL signed an agreement with
the Department of Higher Education for the inclusion of six more
universities in 2018: Yangon Technological University, Mandalay
Technological University, University of Computer Studies in Yangon,
University of Computer Studies in Mandalay and two universities from
outside the major economic regions of Yangon and Mandalay (Sittwe
University in Rakhine State and Mawlamyine University in Mon State).
According to Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL, 2018), the e-
library project in Myanmar now reaches 13 universities and a total of

205,000 students. The project is funded by the Open Society Foundations’

Higher Education Support Programme (HESP).
The education system in Myanmar has been neglected for 50 years. As
Myanmar’s economy and society open up, more opportunities will become
available for a new generation of students and for restoring the education
system. Many international organizations and governments are providing
much-needed support with funding and expertise in an attempt to realize the
ambition. For example, the European Union considers that education is one
of the core areas of development cooperation and it provided financial
assistance to support to the education sector’s focus on structural reforms to
the educational system, modernisation of curricula, development and
upgrade of educational facilities, and training of academic staff and teachers.
Other capacity building projects are funded by Australian Aid and UN
organizations, such as UNICEF, to support educational reform and improve
the quality of education.
There has also been increased international collaboration between
universities in Myanmar and overseas universities. As the country opens up
to international collaboration, many universities have initiated student
exchange programs, scholar programs, and cultural exchange and excursion
programs. In addition, the British Council in Myanmar has been supporting
the exchange and mobility of students, academics and policy-makers both to
and from the UK and Myanmar. The British Council also has been
supporting collaboration and partnerships between UK universities and the
Myanmar government, international donors, universities and individuals.
The work in internationalizing higher education includes:
 harmonization of Myanmar’s higher education within the ASEAN

region
 global policy and education dialogues: working with partners,
government education reform programs to provide opportunities for
Burmese education leaders to participate in regional and global
dialogues on critical issues affecting higher education with
counterparts from around the world

 knowledge partnerships: inviting leading UK educational

institutions to Myanmar to initiate partnership opportunities with
universities in Myanmar and to facilitate Myanmar educators’ visits
to the UK.
The World Bank Group Global Partnership for Education (2018) noted
that the completion of the National Education Strategic Plan 2016-2021 is a
significant achievement and demonstrates a substantial commitment from
the government to accelerate the progress of the education sector and
provide a framework for giving an opportunity for learning to all the citizens
of the country. Because this involves large-scale reform, careful
consideration must be made to provide conducive learning environments for
all students in order to achieve multi-faceted goals. Therefore, it is both
appropriate and desirable to investigate the current state of the learning
environments in schools and educational institutions in order to provide
baseline data to guide further advancement of the educational system.
Carefully-designed learning environments will support teachers in
developing new visions of teaching at all levels of education.
The research on learning environment that was established over 50 years
ago is now an established field that involves international researchers from
many different countries in employing both qualitative and quantitative
methods in the measurement. Past research has helped to guide curriculum
innovations, teacher training, student assessment, school improvement and
teaching methods (Fraser, in press).
OPENING UP LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

RESEARCH IN MYANMAR
As noted above, the time is now ripe to apply in Myanmar concepts,

assessment methods and research approaches from the field of learning
environments. Although learning environment research has been extensive
and fruitful in many countries around the world (see reviews of Fraser, 2012,

2014, in press), this research tradition has not yet been born in Myanmar. In
order to motivate and facilitate learning environments research in Myanmar,
we developed and validated a widely-applicable Myanmar version of the
world’s most-frequently used learning environment questionnaire (namely,
What Is Happening In this Class? WIHIC).
Currently the WIHIC (Aldridge, Fraser & Huang, 1999; Fraser, Fisher
& McRobbie, 1996) is the most popular classroom environment instrument
internationally and has achieved almost bandwagon status according to
Dorman (2008). It was chosen for our study not only because of its proven
validity and reliability, but also for its relevance to university science
classrooms in Myanmar.
Description of WIHIC
The WIHIC brings together salient scales from existing questionnaires,

eliminates overlap, duplication and scales/items that are no longer relevant
to current classroom environments. Also the WIHIC includes scales relevant
to contemporary educational concerns such as equity and constructivism.
Although the WIHIC’s original version (Fraser, Fisher & McRobbie, 1996)
had 90 items and nine scales, it was refined after further input from students,
teachers and experts and statistical analyses to form the final 56-item 8-scale
version containing 56 items (Aldridge, Fraser & Huang, 1999). Five
alternative frequency responses (Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often
and Almost Always) are used to indicate how often a practice occurs in the
classroom.
Table 1 further clarifies the WIHIC by providing for each of its scales
(1) a classification according to Moos’ (1974) scheme, (2) a scale
description and (3) a sample item. An important scheme for classifying any
human environment consists of three dimensions (Moos, 1974; Moos &
Trickett, 1974): Relationship Dimensions identify the nature and intensity of
personal relationships within the environment and assess the extent to which
people are involved in the environment; Personal Development Dimensions
assess the basic direction along which personal growth and self-enhance-

ment occur; and System Maintenance and System Change Dimensions

involve the extent to which the environment is orderly, clear in expectations,
maintains control and is responsive to change.
Table 1. Scale Description, Sample Item and Moos (1974)

Classification for Each WIHIC Scale
WIHIC scale Moos Scale Description Sample Item

Category
Student R Extent to which students I make friends
Cohesiveness know, help and are among students in
supportive of one another. this class.
Teacher Support R Extent to which the teacher The teacher
helps, befriends, trusts and considers my
shows interest in students. feelings.
Involvement R Extent to which students have I give my
attentive interest, participate opinions during
in discussions, perform class discussions.
additional work and enjoy the
class.
Investigation P Extent to which the skills and I explain the
processes of inquiry and their meaning of
use in problem solving and statements,
investigation are emphasised. diagrams and
graphs.
Task Orientation P Extent to which it is I pay attention
important to complete during this class.
activities planned and to stay
on the subject matter.
Cooperation P Extent to which students When I work in
cooperate with one another groups in this
on learning tasks. class, there is
teamwork.
Equity S Extent to which the teacher I am treated the
treats students equitably. same as other
students in this
class.
Response alternatives are Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often and Almost Always.
R: Relationship dimension, P: Personal Development dimension, S: System Maintenance and System
Change dimension (Moos, 1974).
Based on Aldridge, Fraser and Huang (1999).

Past Studies Involving WIHIC
The WIHIC has been extensively validated and used in research at all
educational levels. For example, the WIHIC has been used:
 at the kindergarten level with 172 students and their parents

(Robinson & Fraser, 2013)
 at the primary-school level with 441 grade 6 students (Lim & Fraser,
2018) and two groups of 504 and 984 students (Charalampous &
Kokkinos, 2017)
 at the middle-school level with 665 students (den Brok, Levy,
Rodriguez & Wubbels, 2006) and 1,879 students (Aldridge &
Fraser, 2000)
 at the senior high-school level with 2,310 students (Chionh &
Fraser, 2009)
 at the higher-education level with 375 university students (Skordi &
Fraser, in press) and 352 college students (Afari, Aldridge, Fraser &
Khine, 2013).
Although the WIHIC was first used in science classrooms, it

subsequently has been found to be valid and useful in numerous different
subject areas:
 science with 1,434 students (Wolf & Fraser, 2008) and 525 students
(Martin-Dunlop & Fraser, 2008)
 mathematics with 661 students (Ogbuehi & Fraser, 2007) and 745
students (Taylor & Fraser, 2013)
 English with 441 students (Lim & Fraser, 2018) and 1,012 students
(Baek & Choi, 2002)
 geography with 2,310 students (Chionh & Fraser, 2009)
 university statistics with 375 students (Skordi & Fraser, in press)

 Spanish with 223 students (Adamski, Fraser & Peiro, 2013)

 computer education with 250 students (Khoo & Fraser, 2008).
The WIHIC has been cross-validated and applied in many different

countries:
 the USA with 1,097 students in New York (Cohn & Fraser, 2016)
and 925 students in Florida (Helding & Fraser, 2013)
 Australia with 1,081 student (Aldridge, Fraser & Huang, 1999) and
1,360 students Velayutham & Aldridge, 2013)
 Singapore with 485 students (Goh & Fraser, 2016) and 250 students
(Khoo & Fraser, 2008)
 China with 945 students (Liu & Fraser, 2018) and 1,235 students
(Bi, 2015)
 United Arab Emirates with 763 students (MacLeod & Fraser, 2010)
and 352 students (Afari, Aldridge, Fraser & Khine, 2013)
 Korea with 543 students (Kim, Fisher & Fraser, 2000)
 India with 1,021 students (Koul & Fisher, 2005)
 Taiwan with 1,879 students (Aldridge & Fraser, 2000)
 Indonesia with 594 students (Fraser, Aldridge & Adolphe, 2010)
and 1,400 students (Wahyudi & Treagust, 2004)
 South Africa with 1,077 students (Aldridge, Fraser & Ntuli, 2009)
 Jordan with 994 students (Alzubaida, Aldridge & Khine, 2016)
 Greece with 504 and 984 students (Charalampous & Kokkinos,
2017)
 Afghanistan with 1,619 students (Sayed, 2018).
Variety of Past Research Applications with WIHIC
The most common application of WIHIC scales in past research has

been as a source of criterion variables in the evaluation of educational

programs and innovations. For example, when Martin-Dunlop and Fraser

(2008) used the WIHIC in an evaluation of an innovative university science
course among 525 prospective female elementary teachers in California,
very large differences exceeding 1.5 standard deviations were found
between students’ perceptions of this course and their previous course.
When Cohn and Fraser (2016) evaluated the use of student response systems
among 1097 grade 7 and 8 science students in New York, very large
differences above one standard deviation were found between users and non-
users for all scales. Zaragoza and Fraser (2017) reported large differences
between classes at a field study centre and school classes for three WIHIC
scales (Investigation, Cooperation, Equity) for a sample of 765 grade 5
students in Florida; furthermore, field study classes were particularly
effective for students with limited English proficiency. Other applications of
WIHIC scales in evaluations have focused on the effectiveness of
mathematical games among college students in the United Arab Emirates
(Afari, Aldridge, Fraser & Khine, 2013), of inquiry-based laboratory
activities among middle-school science students in New York (Wolf &
Fraser, 2008), and of National Board Certified teachers in Florida (Helding
& Fraser, 2013).
In other studies, WIHIC scales have been used as dependent variables
to reveal interesting differences in classroom environments between
different countries, including Taiwan and Australia (Aldridge, Fraser &
Huang, 1999), Indonesia and Australia (Fraser, Aldridge & Adolphe, 2010)
and Korea and Thailand (Chang, Faikhamta, Na & Song, 2018). When
WIHIC scales have been used as dependent variables, revealing differences
in classroom environment perceptions have been reported between male and
female students in the USA (den Brok, Levy, Rodriguez & Wubbels, 2006)
and Korea (Kim, Fisher and Fraser, 2000), between students of different
cultural backgrounds in India (Koul & Fisher, 2005) and Singapore (Lim
and Fraser, 2018), and between geography and mathematics students in
Singapore (Chionh & Fraser, 2009). Recently, Deieso and Fraser (in press)

reported a deterioration in classroom environment when South Australian

students transitioned from elementary to middle school.
The WIHIC also has been used as a source of independent variables in
many past studies that have established consistent links between the nature
of the classroom environment and a range of student outcomes (Fraser,
2012). For example, positive bivariate and multivariate associations have
been reported between classroom environment perceptions on WIHIC scales
and: mathematical anxiety among 745 high-school students in California
(Taylor & Fraser, 2013); student motivation among 1,360 grade 8–10
students in Australia (Velayutham & Aldridge, 2013); motivation and self-
regulation among 994 university students in Jordan (Alzubaida, Aldridge &
Khine, 2016); and English language motivation among 945 students in
China (Liu & Fraser, 2013).
MYANMAR VERSION OF WIHIC
Translation, Back Translation and Pilot Testing of WIHIC
As noted above, the WIHIC was chosen for the present study because
its dimensions were considered salient and relevant by university lecturers
in Myanmar, as well as its extensive validation and use in prior research.
The English version of WIHIC was translated into the Myanmar language
by an expert translator. Then the Myanmar-language version was translated
back into English by an independent professional translator, as
recommended by Brislin (1970), to check that the translation process was
not literal, and that contextualised, colloquial and important meanings were
retained. The back translations were checked by native speakers fluent in
both languages. This process involved three iterations before finalising an
adequate Myanmar-language version.
A pilot test was carried out with 20 students and then10 of these students
were interviewed to find out whether they interpreted items in the ways
intended by the researchers. Insights from the interviews were considered,
discussed and incorporated into the revised final Burmese version of the
WIHIC used in our study.

A copy of both the English and Myanmar versions of the WIHIC are
provided in the Appendix.
Validation of Myanmar Version of WIHIC
In order to validate our Myanmar version of the WIHIC, we selected a

convenience sample of 251 first-year students enrolled in a variety of science
courses at a university in Myanmar. Ages ranged from 18 to 23 years. There
were 120 males and 131 females.
The factor structure of our version of the WIHIC was checked by Khine,
Fraser, Afari, Oo and Kyaw (2018) by conducting exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. First, it was confirmed that the
data were suitable for factor analysis by using the Kaiser-Myer-Olkin
(KMO) test of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s (1954) test
of sphericity.
Principal component analysis with varimax (orthogonal) rotation for the
56 WIHIC items for the sample of 251 students identified five items (Items
6 and 7 from Student Cohesiveness, Item 16 from Teacher Support, and
Items 18 and 19 from Involvement) for omission because they failed to meet
the minimum retention criteria of having a factor loading of at least 0.40 on
their own scale and less than 0.40 on the other WIHIC scales. When a final
principal component analysis with varimax and oblimin rotation was
conducted for these 51 WIHIC items, the seven scales together explained
49.19% of the variance and every item had a factor loading of over 0.60 on
its own scale.
For confirmatory factor analysis with WIHIC data, the fit was evaluated
using chi-square statistics and fit indices including the Comparative Fix
Index (CFI, Bentler 1990), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, Bentler & Bonett
1980), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root
mean square residual (SRMR) and the chi-squared statistics (χ2) Because all
cut-off criteria were satisfied, the confirmatory factor analysis supported the
51-item 7-scale Myanmar version of the WIHIC.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

RESEARCH IN MYANMAR
In this chapter, after reviewing recent and contemporary developments

in education in Myanmar, we concluded that now is an opportune time to
introduce in Myanmar concepts, measurement approaches and research
applications from the burgeoning field of classroom learning environments
that have been implemented successfully in so many other countries (Fraser,
2014, in press). In order to motivate and facilitate this research, we reported
in this chapter the development and validation of a Myanmar version of the
widely-used What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire
(Aldridge, Fraser & Huang, 1999). For the convenience of practitioners and
other researchers, a copy of this Myanmar version of the WIHIC is provided
in an Appendix to this chapter.
The scope for future research and practical applications involving
learning environment ideas in Myanmar is enormous. Whereas our study
provided impressive validation information for the Myanmar version of the
WIHIC when used with university students, there is a need to further cross-
validate this questionnaire with other samples in Myanmar at different
educational levels and with students studying different subject areas.
Furthermore, there is scope to translate, validate and use other classroom
learning environment questionnaires such as the Constructivist Learning
Survey (CLES) (Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997) or Technology-Rich
Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI) (Aldridge
& Fraser, 2008).
The literature reviewed in this chapter identified many research
applications that form desirable future directions involving the Myanmar
version of the WIHIC. These include using learning environment
dimensions as criteria of effectiveness in monitoring and evaluating
educational reforms, innovations or programs (e.g., Spinner & Fraser, 2005),
as independent variables in investigating the influence of the classroom

environment on student achievement or attitudes (e.g., Fraser & Butts,

1982), or as dependent variables in studies of some determinants of
classroom environment, such as student gender or cultural background (e.g.,
Lim & Fraser, 2018).
Additionally, there is scope for teachers and other practitioners to use
assessments of the learning environment to guide practical attempts to
improve classroom environments. This action research by practitioners
would require developing and using preferred forms, in addition to actual
forms, of learning environment questionnaires (Byrne, Hattie & Fraser,
1986) so that discrepancies between actual and preferred environment could
be used to guide classroom improvements using approaches suggested by
Fraser (1981) and Fraser and Aldridge (2017).
APPENDIX
English and Myanmar Versions of WIHIC
Scale Allocation
Items 1–8 Student Cohesiveness
Items 9–16 Teacher Support
Items 17–24 Involvement
Items 25–32 Investigation
Items 33–40 Task Orientation
Items 41–48 Cooperation
Items 49–56 Equity
Omitted Items
Based on factor analyses of data for our sample, we omitted Items 6 and
7 from Student Cohesiveness, Item 16 from Teacher Support and Items 18
and 19 from Involvement.







ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The English version of the WIHIC was developed by Fraser, Fisher and
McRobbie (1996) and Aldridge, Fraser and Huang (1999).
REFERENCES
Adamski, A., Fraser, B. J., & Peiro, M. M. (2013). Parental involvement in

schooling, classroom environment and student outcomes. Learning
Environments Research, 16,(3) 315-328.

Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Students’
perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based
mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 16, 131-
150.
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom
learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments
Research, 3, 101-134.
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focused learning
environments: Determinants and effects. Advances in Learning
Environments Research series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T.-C. (1999). Investigating
classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research
methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48-62.
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Ntuli, S. (2009). Utilising learning
environment assessments to improve teaching practices among in-
service teachers undertaking a distance education programme. South
African Journal of Education, 29, 147-170.
Alzubaidi, E., Aldridge, J. M., & Khine, M. S. (2016). Learning English as
a second language at the university level in Jordan: Motivation, self-
regulation and learning environment perceptions. Learning Environ-
ments Research, 19(1), 133-152.
Baek, S. G., & Choi, H. J. (2002). The relationship between students’
perceptions of classroom environment and their academic achievement
in Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 3(1), 125-135.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi
square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16
(Series B), 296–298.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238−246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of
fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
588−606.

Bi, X. (2015). Associations between psychosocial aspects of English

classroom environments and motivation types of Chinese tertiary-level
English majors. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 95-110.
Borg, S., Clifford, I., & Htut, K. P. (2018). Having an Effect: Professional
development for teacher educators in Myanmar. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 72, 75-86.
Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
Butts, W. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1982). Relationship between perceived levels
of classroom individualization and science-related attitudes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 143-154.
Byrne, D. B., Hattie, J. A., & Fraser, B. J. (1986). Student perceptions of
preferred classroom learning environment. The Journal of Educational
Research, 80(1), 10-18.
Chang, J., Faikhamta, C., Na, J., & Song, J. (2018). A comparison of science
classroom environments between Korea and Thailand with a focus on
their cultural features. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(11). https://
doi.org/10.1186/s41029-018-0028-1.
Charalampous, K., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2017). The Greek elementary “What
Is Happening In this Class?” (G-EWIHIC): A three-phase multi-sample
mixed methods study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 55-70.
Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement,
attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
18, 29-44.
Cohn, S. T., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Effectiveness of student response
systems in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement.
Learning Environments Research, 19, 153-167.
Coughlan, S. (2014). Instant e-libraries for Myanmar universities. Retrieved
from: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26823187 .
Deieso, D., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). Learning environment, attitudes and
anxiety across the transition from primary to secondary school
mathematics. Learning Environments Research.

den Brok, P. J., Levy, J., Rodriguez, R., & Wubbels, T. (2006). Perceptions
of Asian-American and Hispanic-American teachers and their students
on teacher interpersonal communication style. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18, 447-467.
Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait–multimethod modelling to validate
actual and preferred forms of the What Is Happening In this Class?
(WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 11, 179-193.
Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL). (2018). E-library Myanmar
Project. Retrieved from: http://www.eifl.net/eifl-in-action/elibrary-
myanmar-project.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Using environmental assessments to make better
classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(2), 131-144.
Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context
and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.),
Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239).
New York: Springer.
Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and
contemporary perspectives. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education volume II (pp. 104-119).
New York: Routledge.
Fraser, B. J. (in press). Milestones in the evolution of the learning
environments field over the past three decades. In D. B. Zandvliet and
B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Thirty years of learning environments research:
Looking back and looking forward. Leiden, The Netherlands: BRILL ‫׀‬
Sense.
Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2017). Improving classrooms through
assessment of learning environments. In J. P. Bakken (Ed.), Classrooms
Volume 1: Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement
strategies (pp. 91-107). New York: Nova.
Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M., & Adolphe, F. S. G. (2010). A cross-national
study of secondary science classroom environments in Australia and
Indonesia. Research in Science Education, 40, 551-571.
Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development,
validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom

environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New York.
Goh, S. F., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Learning environment in Singapore
primary school classrooms: The ideal and the real. In K. Wallace (Ed.),
Learning environments: Emerging theories, applications and future
directions (pp. 125-141). New York: Nova.
Helding, K. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Effectiveness of National Board
Certified (NBC) teachers in terms of classroom environment, attitudes
and achievement among secondary science students. Learning Environ-
ments Research, 16, 1-21.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-
36.
Khine, M. S., Fraser, B. J., Afari, E., Oo, Z., & Kyaw, T. T. (2018). Students’
perceptions of the learning environment in tertiary science classrooms
in Myanmar. Learning Environments Research, 21(1), 135-152.
Khoo, H. S., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Using classroom psychosocial
environment in the evaluation of adult computer application courses in
Singapore. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17, 67-81.
Kim, H.‐B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Classroom environment
and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary science classes in
Korea. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 3-22.
Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). Cultural background and students’
perceptions of science classroom learning environment and teacher
interpersonal behaviour in Jammu, India. Learning Environments
Research, 8, 195-211.
Lim, C.-T. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2018). Learning environments research in
English classrooms. Learning Environments Research.
Liu, L., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Development and validation of an English
classroom learning environment inventory and its application in China.
In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Application of structural equation modeling in
educational research and practice (pp. 75-89). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
MacLeod, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Development, validation and
application of a modified Arabic translation of the What Is Happening

In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments

Research, 13, 105-125.
Martin-Dunlop, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment and
attitudes associated with an innovative science course designed for
prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 6, 163-190.
Ministry of Education (2017). National Education Strategic Plan 2016-
2021. Nay Pyi Taw: Myanmar: Author
Moos, R. H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale
manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Muta, H. (2015). Regional disparity of educational conditions in townships
and the effect of the policy on daily wage temporary teachers –
Statistical analyses based on individual basic education school data.
Research Paper prepared for the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.
Ogbuehi, P. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and
conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-
school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 101-114.
Robinson, E., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Kindergarten students’ and parents’
perceptions of science classroom environments: Achievement and
attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 16 (2), 151-167.
Rothenberg, D. (2002). Towards a new modern developed nation. The
Journal of the International Institute. 10 (1). Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050506013104/ http://www.umich.edu/
~iinet/journal/vol10no1/rothenberg.htm
Sayed, A. S. W. (2018). Science classroom learning environments in
Afghanistan: Assessment, effects and determinants. Unpublished PhD
thesis, Curtin University, Australia.
Spinner, H., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of an innovative mathematics
program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and
conceptual development. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 3, 267-293.

Skordi, P., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). Assessment of the psychosocial

learning environment of university statistics classrooms. In S. Alterator
and C. Deed (Eds.), School space and its occupation: Conceptualising
and evaluating innovative learning environments. Advances in Learning
Environments Research series. Leiden, The Netherlands: BRILL ‫׀‬
Sense.
Tanaka, S., Spohr, C., & D’Amico, S. (2015). Myanmar human capital
development, employment, and labor markets. Manila, Philippines:
Asian Development Bank.
Tawil, S., & Cougoureux. (2013). Revisiting learning: The treasure within
(UNESCO Education Research and Foresight 4). Paris: UNESCO.
Taylor, B. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Relationships between learning
environment and mathematics anxiety. Learning Environments Re-
search, 16, 297-313.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist
classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational
Research, 27, 293-302.
Tin, U. H. (2000). Myanmar education: Status, issues and challenges.
Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 1 (1), 134-162.
Ulla, M. (2017). Teacher training in Myanmar: Teachers’ perceptions and
implications. International Journal of Instruction, 10 (2), 103-118.
UNESCO. (2006). Literacy for life. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2015). Education for all 2000–2015: Achievement and
challenges. Paris: UNSECO.
UNICEF (2011). Multiple indicator cluster survey 2009–10. Retrieved
from: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/MICS_Mya
nmar_Report_2009-10.pdf .
Velayutham, S., & Aldridge, J. M. (2013). Influence of psychosocial
classroom environment on students’ motivation and self-regulation in
science learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Research in
Science Education, 43, 507-527.
Wahyudi, & Treagust, D. F. (2004). The status of science classroom learning
environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning
Environments Research, 7, 43-63.

Weil, C. (2013). Investing in the future: Rebuilding higher education in

Myanmar. New York: Institute of International Education.
Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and
achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based
laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321-341.
World Bank Group Global Partnership for Education. (2018). Endorsement
of Myanmar’s National Education Strategic Plan 2016-2021. Retrieved
from https://www.globalpartnership.org/country/myanmar.
Zaragoza, J., & Fraser, B. J. (2017). Field-study science classrooms as
positive and enjoyable learning environments. Learning Environments
Research, 20(1), 1-20.

In: Myanmar ISBN: 978-1-53614-866-4
Chapter 2
THE CURRENT SITUATION OF MYANMAR’S

ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCES GOVERNANCE
Thiri Shwesin Aung*, PhD

School of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen
Graduate School, Shenzhen, China
ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the current state of environmental and natural

resources governance in Myanmar for addressing priority needs,
challenges and opportunities, and identifies possible areas of improvement.
Recently emerged from decades of political and economic isolation, the
country is actively integrating with the global economy and its economic
development is accelerating. Myanmar is endowed with an extensive array
of biodiversity and abundant natural resources, with almost 40% of forest
cover, pristine coastline and exclusive economic zones which is a home to
boundless fisheries and other marine resources. The country relies heavily
on natural resources to boost its economy and most of its foreign direct
investment (FDI) is directed toward extractive industries. On the other
*
Corresponding Author Email: thiri@pkusz.edu.cn.

38 Thiri Shwesin Aung
hand, mismanagement, lack of responsible business conducts, poor

governance and poor transparency have left Myanmar with some of the
worst development indicators and environmental performance. At the
absence of effective environmental regulations and natural resource
management, environmental degradation and resource depletion are rising
rapidly. The chapter appraises current environmental laws, natural
resources policy measures, and natural resource governance frameworks,
and put forward policy recommendations.
INTRODUCTION
Myanmar is in the midst of a crucial and expeditious transformation in

the path of its development and industrialization after more than five decades
of isolation and fragmentation economically, socially and politically.
Myanmar’s extraordinarily rich renewable and non-renewable natural
resources, fertile land, labor force, and strategic location create a unique set
of development opportunities. Despite these abundant endowments of
natural assets, the country remains one of the poorest nations in the world
due to its long history of segregation, militarization, large-scale resource
extraction and conflict. Myanmar’s GDP is ranked as amongst the lowest in
the world and its Human Development Index is ranked as 132 out of 169.
Rather than yielding the foundation for prosperity, these resources have
tended to reinforce authoritarian systems of government and prolonged
ethnic conflicts. Myanmar’s economic and political systems have long been
prioritized for the interest of ruling elites rather than country’s general
population. The country has recently embarked on an unprecedented array
of fundamental political, economic and social changes. It is embracing wide-
ranging reforms to improve monetary and fiscal benefits through trade and
foreign direct investment, primarily in extractive industry. Nevertheless, it
remains a high-risk nation for development failure and resource curse owing
to weak institutional capacity, poor governance, high level of corruption,
lack of necessary administrative and legal structures, transparency,
accountability and political will to protect people and environment.
Myanmar’s economy and livelihood have been heavily relied on natural
resources. If appropriately managed and regulated, the extractive sector has

The Current Situation of Myanmar’s Environmental … 39
tremendous potential to contribute to overall sustainable development of

Myanmar through revenues and employment. Myanmar needs to set national
strategies and policy agendas to harmonize economic growth with
environmental and social protection using transparent and accountable
processes. The chapter is necessitated by the immediate need for responsible
business conducts, enhanced due diligence, decentralization and revenue
transparency in the natural resources sector in Myanmar. Against this
backdrop, this chapter identifies the current state and challenges of natural
resource and environmental governance in Myanmar and provides
comprehensive policy recommendations for the sustainable transformation
of resource wealth into shared national benefits.
METHOD
Given the complexity and political sensitivity of Myanmar’s natural

resource sector, obtaining primary information is a major challenge. This
chapter is primarily based on the desk review of governmental documents,
reports and statements published by government and NGOs, academic and
media articles and books. To complement, consultation with key
stakeholders such as government officials and, representatives of
international and local NGOs were conducted. The chapter first reviewed
Myanmar’s overall status of natural resources and environment, and areas
of major concerns. It then appraised in greater detail to identify the natural
resources and environmental governance, and present and potential
challenges. In doing so, it focuses on regulatory performance, environmental
and social risks, and impacts, exploration and licensing arrangements,
revenue management, taxation and transparency issues in extractive
industries. Finally, the chapter identifies key problems and challenges in
Myanmar’s natural resource governance framework and makes policy
recommendations.

THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL

RESOURCES IN MYANMAR
Myanmar is endowed with rich natural resources and located within the
Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot which is one of the 34 world’s richest and
most endangered reservoirs of plants and animals. The country has the long
coast line and diverse marine habitats, such as coral reefs, seagrass beds and
mangroves. It also possesses abundant onshore and offshore oil and gas
resources, forest resources, mineral resources and fertile ecological zones
with extensive agricultural production. About 48% of mainland Myanmar is
covered by forests and it ranks 6 out of 11 among the Southeast Asian
countries in terms of percentage of land area covered by forest. The majority
of the country’s population and national economy relied on these resources
over many centuries. Local communities are critically dependent on natural
resources for their survival and a remarkable share of Myanmar’s national
income derives from selling off these resources. Consequently,
deforestation, illegal wildlife trade, and overexploitation of resources,
together with corruption and poor institutional quality have led to
widespread degradations of natural resources and environment. Pressures on
natural resources and biodiversity and conflicts over the use of resources are
mounting. The country’s growth pattern places tremendous pressure on the
environment, natural and energy resources (Raitzer et al., 2015). Despite
having some of the most unique biological, mineral and energy resources,
the rate of loss has been significant and is still ongoing. With systematic and
effective responsible business conduct, Myanmar can reduce extreme
property and boost shared prosperity through its resources. However, given
the poor governance, extreme corruption and misconducts, Myanmar is
highly vulnerable to the “resource curse” or “paradox of plenty” just like
many other resource -rich nations.
Energy Resources
Myanmar has abundant energy resources, particularly oil, natural gas,

and hydropower. The country is one of the five major energy exporters in

the Southeast Asia and a third of its FDI is in oil and gas sector. Recent FDI
in Myanmar has been concentrated in the oil, gas and hydropower sectors,
with mining coming in third position by value. In fiscal year 2014-2015,
only 1% of the FDI coming into Myanmar was outside the extractive sector
(Gotzmann, 2018). World Energy Council has estimated that Myanmar has
540 million tons coal reserve, 447.7 TCF of natural gas and 3.2 billion
barrels of oil (Asian Development Bank, 2016). Myanmar’s four main
rivers’ hydropower potential is estimated at 100,000 megawatts (MW) and
more than 90% of which has not been harnessed. Due to its strategic
location, positioned between two biggest and rapidly growing economies,
India and China, Myanmar has the advantage of exporting energy resources
to fulfilled high energy demands. As of 2013, energy sector accounted for
55% of export earnings and 86% of total FDI in Myanmar. As immediate
neighbors, India, China and Thailand are key importers of oil and gas from
Myanmar. The significant share of Myanmar’s national income come from
extractive sector, especially from oil and gas explorations. According to
Myanmar's first Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) report,
published in January 2016, oil and gas sector generates approximate 2.7
billion USD in 2014, contributing about 40.5% of Union government fiscal
revenues, excluding the payments from SEEs (State-owned economic
enterprises) active in the sector. The primary energy supply includes oil, gas,
coal, hydropower and biomass and almost 70% of the energy supply is from
biomass such as fuel woods and rice husks. Despite its abundant energy
resources, per capita, energy consumption in Myanmar is among the lowest
in Asia due to high poverty level and extremely low electrification rate. Only
26% of the total population has access to electricity and the inadequate
power supply is one of the most serious infrastructure constraints for the
country’s sustainable economic growth. 80% of Myanmar’s energy supply
is exported and it is documented as an example of extreme energy poverty
by International Energy Agency in 2012. In 2014, Myanmar explored 18.8
billion cubic meters of natural gas and three quarters was exported via
pipelines to China and Thailand. Myanmar’s energy sector has been
underdeveloped due to a lack of technical and financial capacity, human
capital and global isolation. After the new democratic government took

office in 2011, the government continues to undertake ventures and strategic

approaches to fully exploit energy resources and tap the huge potential by
increasing foreign investments in energy sector.
Myanmar’s hydrocarbon reserves are predominantly in the form of
natural gas and ranked as 34th position globally in terms of reserves. There
are 17 identified geological sedimentary offshore basins and fourteen
onshore basins and only three of each have been thoroughly explored.
Myanmar is one of the earliest countries to establish oil and gas industry in
the Southeast Asia and it exported the first barrel of oil in 1853. However,
production significantly declined from the early 1980s, owing to technical
limitation and political instability. The discovery of large offshore gas
deposits in the early 1990s led the government to extensively export natural
gas. Within the Southeast Asian region, Myanmar is second largest exporter
of natural gas after Indonesia. Myanmar’s offshore gas exploration started
from the Yadana and Yetagun gas fields in the year 1998 and 2000
respectively. After more than a decade, Shwe and Zawtika gas fields were
explored in 2013 and 2014. China is the sole buyer of Shwe gas reserves and
in mid-2009, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) built
parallel oil and gas pipelines running 2800 km from Rakhine state of
Myanmar to China’s Yunnan Province. In 2013, the pipelines were
completed and operational to transport African and Middle East crude oil
from storage tanks from Rakhine state to China, bypassing the Straits of
Malacca. Following the suspension of economic sanctions by EU and US in
2012, the sector opened the way to new external investments from the West.
There are 53 onshore and 48 offshore oil and gas operations in Myanmar.
Oil and natural gas activities are active in nearly every state and region in
Myanmar, with the most important offshore and onshore interests lying in
Central Burma, Tanintharyi, Mottama and Rakhine. Although the reformist
government has enhanced transparency in recent bid rounds, the criteria used
to allocate licenses and the ownership of the companies remains opaque.
Ministry of Energy (MoE) is responsible for carrying out exploration and
production of oil and gas, refining, manufacturing, transportation and
distribution of petroleum products. Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise
(MOGE) has the exclusive authority to undertake all oil and gas operations

and receive royalties and profits. Myanmar is drastically accelerating

investment in its oil and gas sector with the award of 16 onshore and 20
offshore new blocks within a year.
In terms of coal resources, proven coal reserves are existed in more than
565 places throughout Myanmar and most of them are low-quality and
subbituminous (Asian Development Bank, 2016). The most important
occurrence is in the Ayeyarwaddy and Chindwin river basins and Shan state.
Coal exploration is underdeveloped due to technological constraint, low
investment, and remoteness of the deposits. Previously, there were only
three active coal mines in the country, in Shan state and Sagaing. There are
57 additional private and public mines operating currently. The maximum
coal production rate is about 1400 thousand tons per year. As demand for
coal in the industry sector and thermal power plants increases, the
production rate is expected to increase up to 5 million tons per year by 2030
with the help of foreign investors. Nevertheless, environmental and social
issues from opencast mines are of a great concern. On the other hand,
Myanmar has abundant alternative energy resources, especially hydropower
and biomass. It is also endowed with rich renewable energy resources such
solar, wind, water, geothermal and ocean energy. Current installed capacity
for generation of renewable energy is only about 4.5% of total capacity and
mainly comprise of hydropower and biomass power. Wind and solar energy
are still at experimental and research phase in Myanmar.
Mineral Resources
Myanmar holds a diverse mix of mineral resources containing vast

deposits of precious stones gold, silver, tin, zinc, lead, tungsten, nickel, iron,
steel and copper. Table 1 below shows the summary of major minerals in
Myanmar. Based on the report of Geological Survey and Mineral
Exploration, Myanmar’s complex offers extensive mineral wealth with more
than 2000 occurrences of 62 different commodities (Oxford Business Group,
2016). Myanmar has a unique geology with Himalayas in the north,
Andaman Sea to the south, Indian Plate to the west and Indochina Plate to

the east. The country can be divided into four geographic belts, such as
Arkan Coastal Plain, the Eastern Highlands, Central Lowlands and Western
Ranges. Major proven mineral belts run from north to south with key mining
areas such as tin-tungsten in the Tanintharyi region, antimony, lead, zinc,
silver and barite in Shan state, copper in Monywa and Wuntho, nickle and
chromite in northern Chin Hill, gold and copper in Sagaing region, antimony
in Kayah and Mon states and gem stones in Kachin and Mogok regions.
Limestone deposits are present throughout the country. In 2014, the country
explored 10% of the world’s tin supply, making it the third largest tin
producer in the world. Myanmar is also world largest jade producer.
However, overall geological and mineral reserves remain unclear and the
data is extremely limited. It is also hard to quantify the amount of mineral
resources that have been explored as official reporting is believed to be
fraught with mismanagement and falsification.
Table 1. Summary of Myanmar’s Mineral Resources
Category Minerals
Precious stones jade, ruby, sapphire and other gems stones
Precious metals gold, silver and platinum
Metallic minerals titanium, tin, zinc, lead, tungsten, nickel, iron, steel, copper,
telluride, cobalt, chromite, molybdenum, manganese
Nonmetallic minerals barite, fluorite, quartz, feldspar, beryllium, heavy minerals,
zircon sand, glass sand, phosphate, bauxite, graphite
Industrial minerals Limestone, feldspar, clay, bentonite
Energy minerals Coal, oil shale
Myanmar’s official data indicate that approximately 15% of resource

revenues corresponds to the jade and gemstone and only 2% is accounted
for other minerals. Nevertheless, independent investigations stated that most
minerals are not taxed or captured by government statistics and mineral
smuggling is also a very serious issue in the country. United Nations trade
data show that the value of precious stone exports from Myanmar to China
was USD 12.3 billion in 2014 alone. Global Witness estimated that the value
of total jade production in 2014 was more than USD 30 billion. Under the

military government, all the minerals in Myanmar are deemed to be owned

by the state and the mining sector was directed by the Myanmar Ministry of
Mines. Under the Ministry of Mines, mining concessions were
predominantly granted to private sectors who have close relationships with
military government and military-affiliated enterprises (The Burma
Environmental Working Group, 2011). Since the democratic government
came to power in 2016, there has been significant decline in issuing mining
licences due to environmental concerns and new Mines rules. Despites
Foreign investment in the sector is highly restricted, many small and large
scale local operations are backed by Chinese companies (Myanmar Centre
for Responsible Business, 2018). As of 2017, only about US $3 billion in
cumulative FDI was approved for 71 foreign enterprises in the mining
sector, which represents less than 5% of total inward investments. Out of 13
foreign investments in mining sector, Chinese-led gold and copper
operations in Sagaing and Mandalay regions dominates. For instance,
Monywa copper project, which comprises the Sabetaung and Kyisintaung
and Letpadaung copper mines operated by Chinese state-owned military-
industrial conglomerate is a mega mining project with an annual production
target of 139,000 tonnes of copper. The nickel, silver, lead, zinc and tin
mining are also highly influenced by Chinese companies. Due to tin imports
from Myanmar, China’s tin production increased by 10% in 2014 and
became a net exporter of tin from being a net importer. Like oil and gas,
mineral investments are managed under production sharing contracts
(PSCs). Globally, PSCs are considered unsuitable in mining context. Mining
taxes and revenues are currently collected by the Internal Revenue
Department. With appropriate management, revenues from mining sector
can contribute significantly to economic development of the country.
Nonetheless, a number of issues such as lack of capacity and coherence of
taxation system, and inadequate resources in tax administration departments
have to be addressed. Transparency in fiscal arrangement of licensing
awards and revenues generated from mining sector is also particularly
important. As foreign investment in the sector rises, public financial
management, benefit and revenue sharing are also critical issues. Moreover,
there are significant environmental, social and human right impact

associated with mining sector and urgent steps need to be taken to improve
environmental impacts management, occupational safety, and health.
Forest Resources
About 45.04% of Myanmar’s total land area is covered with natural

forests and forest resources are one of the most vital and fundamental
sources of the livelihood of the local communities and also play a significant
role in national economy. The forest area in Myanmar was 47.6 percent of
the total land area in 2005. Myanmar has the third largest forest coverage in
terms of proportion in the Greater Mekong Sub-region and second largest in
ASEAN. However, the forest area in Myanmar had significantly declined
from 57.9 percent in 1990 to 45.04% currently. At present, over 70% of the
rural population in Myanmar depend heavily on natural forests to fulfil basic
needs. Some of Asia’s last remaining of natural forest can be found in
Myanmar and it is extremely important for balancing regional ecosystem.
Myanmar’s forests consists of diverse mix of forests such as tropical
evergreen, hill and temperate evergreen, swamp, tidal, beach and dune, dry,
mixed deciduous and deciduous dipterocarp (Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environmental Conservation, 2017). These diverse ecosystems
conserve wide range of biodiversity. As of 2011, 7000 species of vascular
plants including 1696 species of climbers, 65 species of rattans, and 841
species of orchids have been recorded by Ministry of forestry. FAO recorded
that more than 25000 species of animals, about 300 species of mammals,
360 species of reptiles and more than 1000 species of birds also inhabit
Myanmar.
Myanmar is also home to the best quality teak and hardwoods. Myanmar
is one of the top timber producer and exporter in the world and 10% of the
country’s total export earning is contributed by timber export alone. As an
agrarian country, agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry contributes
more than 50% of Myanmar’s GDP and 30% of export earnings. The timber
exports are dominated by the export of logs, and sawn wood to a much lesser
extent. Total export value of primary timber products was about 1780.6

million US dollars in 2014. China is the biggest importer of Myanmar’s

timber with 41% of total timber exports. All of Myanmar’s forest areas are
owned by the state and most of the timber is harvested and exported by
private sectors in cooperation with the state-owned Myanmar Timber
Enterprise. (MTE) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environmental Conservation (MONREC). However, illegal logging is
prevalent especially in border areas. Cross-border time trade between China
and Myanmar has long been an international concern due to alleged
smuggling, illegal logging and the use of revenue for financing internal
conflicts in the region. Cross border trade of woods also undercut the value
of legal timber. Apart from the expansion of agricultural fields and
infrastructure projects, both legal and illegal logging are the leading drivers
of deforestation in Myanmar. Despite the reformist government’s efforts to
protect the country’s remaining forests, Myanmar continues to loses its
forests at an astounding rate with a change of -10.3% of total forest during
1990-2005. Since 2010, Myanmar has lost more than 1.3 million acres of its
forest, 2% of total forest cover yearly. Myanmar ranked as third highest
annual deforestation in the world, just behind Brazil and Indonesia (Food
and Agriculture Organization, 2015). This serious deforestation can bring
devastating impact on the country’s ecosystem and exacerbate climate
change impacts on the country. As a climate-disaster prone nation, loss of
sizeable forest can also amplify the country’s vulnerability to extreme
weather events such as flooding and drought.
Marine Resources
Myanmar is blessed with long coastline to support tremendous marine

resources. The nation’s main coastline expands about 2400kms and it is
considered the most intact coastline among the Southeast Asia region.
Notwithstanding the presumed intact nature of marine biodiversity, the
marine resources are coming under pressure, owing to both land-based and
marine-based pollutions. The main coastal areas include Rakhine Coast,
Ayeyawady Delta region and the Taninthayi Coast. These water resources

harbor some of the world’s most vital and endangered biodiversity. The
country’s nearshore and offshore areas also accommodate globally
threatened marine turtles and mammals (Holmes et al., 2014). Vast seagrass
beds and mangrove forests offer crucial habitat for several species.
Extensive mangroves are found on the soft shores where major rivers, such
as Ayeyawady, Sittaung and Salween, meet the coast. Myanmar’s mangrove
forests have been considerably depleted and degraded over the past years
from many industrial, agricultural and fishery activities (Aye, 2012).
Mangroves are encountering extreme rates of habitat loss with 42% loss of
mangrove forests in Rakhine and 20% in the Ayeyawady region. Myeik
Archipelago in the Taninthayi region has diverse range of rich coral reefs.
The coral reefs of Myanmar are poorly studied and there is limited
information for species diversity and health of the reefs. Holmes et al. (2014)
reported that widespread bleached corals can be found near Myeik. It is also
reported that the reefs are threatened by blast fishing and trawling
operations. However, so far there are no protection measures specific to
coral reefs in Myanmar. Seagrass beds are located along the Rakhine and
Taninthayi coast and local experts have reported that they have been
severely disturbed by mining activities.
Coastal and marine resources are essential for Myanmar’s ecological,
economic and social services, and livelihood of local communities. Rocky
shorelines along the major coasts provide subsistence fisheries. Marine
fishes and other sea resources are extremely important for livelihood and
economy of Myanmar people. Fisheries and aquaculture sector provide 2.6
million of employment and vital for income generation. In 2010, fisheries
and livestock accounted for 7.6% of Myanmar’s total GDP. However, rapid
economic transition with drastically increased in foreign investments is
bringing rising demands on marine resources consequently deteriorating the
quality of marine environment in Myanmar. The Department of Fisheries
(DoF) is responsible for the management of Myanmar’s fisheries and coastal
resources. Out of 132 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA’s) of Myanmar which
are grouped into 15 conservation corridors, two marine conservation

corridors were identified: The Taninthayi Marine corridor and the Rakhine
Marine Corridor (Holmes et al., 2014).
Environment
In recent years, population growth, unsustainable extraction of mineral

and forest resources, over-utilization of soils and water and climate-related
hazards have combined to progressively undermine the natural resources and
ecosystem services on which Myanmar’s economy and society are
dependent (United Nations Development Program, 2015). Widespread
deforestation, large-scale mining, biodiversity and land degradation and
water resource depletion are placing tremendous pressure on the Myanmar’s
ecosystem that directly or indirectly supports most of the local communities.
Rapid environmental degradation exacerbates existing climate - related
disasters and extreme temperature variations. Decades of economic and
political isolation and conflict have left the country’s environment and
ecosystem in neglect. Myanmar has some of the lowest human development
and environmental performance indicators. Myanmar ranks 138 out of 180
countries in the 2018 Environment Performance Index (EPI) which
measures environmental trends and progress based on 24 performance
indicators covering environmental health and ecosystem vitality of a
country. Myanmar’s environmental health is ranked as 161 and ecosystem
vitality is 98 out of 180 countries. The principle environmental concerns in
Myanmar include loss of forest resources, water contamination, land
degradation, climate change, biodiversity depletion and waste management
(Raitzer et al., 2015). Increasing ecological footprint per capita and CO2
emission per capita is also observed.
As has been mentioned, Forest area in Myanmar declined from 39.7
million hectares in 1989 to 30.5 million hectares in 2010, with an average
loss of 438,000 hectares of forest annually. Annual decline of forest cover
accelerated to 1.9% in 2010 from 1.1% in 2006, the fastest degradation rate
among major countries in South and Southeast Asia. More importantly,

rapid loss of Myanmar’s forests has been concentrated in the densest and
biologically important forest areas (Raitzer et al., 2015). The major
underlying drivers of deforestation are identified as unsustainable
commercial logging, illegal logging, conversion of forests for agricultural
and plantation, extraction of fuel woods, infrastructure development and
construction of hydropower and dam. Most of Myanmar’s legal and illegal
logging comes from natural forests rather than planted forests. Clearing of
forests to make way for the expansion of agricultural fields and plantation is
also increasing and leading drivers of deforestation. It is reported that during
2012 and 2013, forestland area allocated for large -scale private agricultural
concession increased at unprecedented rate of 170%. Forests are also
primary source of energy for most of rural Myanmar and firewood is
essential for daily domestic energy use. Fuelwood extraction places notable
pressure on forest resources and over - extraction is increasing. Moreover,
forest clearance for mining activities also contributes significantly to the loss
of forest cover in the region. As a result, Myanmar’s forests’ carbon
sequestration capacity is declining become a major challenge for mitigating
climate risks. Total annual CO2 removal by natural forests are gradually
decreasing due to deforestation. Decreasing forest cover and deterioration of
its quality also reduce adaptive capacity and the absorption of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Myanmar is highly vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather
events and the climate in Myanmar is changing rapidly. Average
temperatures in Myanmar increased by 0.25°C between 1981 and 2010 and
daily maximum temperature is also rising. It is projected to have dramatic
climate shift, changes in rainfall patterns and sea level rise by the mid of 21st
century. Cyclone severity, frequency, and coastal flooding are also expected
to be worsening in the future (Horton et al., 2017). With rapid economic
development, ecosystem and biodiversity will be particularly vulnerable to
climate change and the way people respond to climate change. Climate
change also can amplify degradation and loss of natural resources and loss
of regulatory functions of natural resources can, in turn increase the impacts
of climate change. Hence, forest and other natural resources protection is
crucial to minimizing risks and building resilience to climate change.

THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

GOVERNANCE IN MYANMAR
Natural Resource Governance
Natural resource governance can be defined as the norms, institutions

and processes that regulate how responsibilities and control over natural
resources are exercised, how decisions are made, and how benefits are
shared among citizens and the state. Successful conservation of nature and
the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being are dependent on the
effectiveness and equity of governance processes. As a country with rich
natural resources and extensive extractive activities, natural resources could
support Myanmar’s economic, political and social transformation through
strengthened natural resource governance. To date, however, the natural
sector in Myanmar has primarily been associated with corruption, ecosystem
degradation, and internal conflicts. Most of the country’s natural resources
are in the ethnic minority areas where long-running conflicts and inter-
communal violence exists. Historically, Myanmar economy, especially in
the extractive industry, has been operated for the benefit of political elites
rather than providing any direct socio-economic benefit for general
population. There has also been a distinct lack of public revenue
transparency and public disclosure of information on financial interest,
activities, environmental and social impacts, role and responsibilities and
leadership structure. Despite the country’s newly elected quasi-civilian
government’s commitments for reform, the obstacle for successful transition
remains exceptionally difficult in the natural resource sector. A wide series
of political and economic reforms in the sector such as revision of outdated
laws governing oil, gas, and mining industries have been initiated.
Remarkable improvements in natural resource governance include new
standardized contract terms for oil and gas licenses, the establishment of
Ministry of Finance for saving of oil and gas revenue and the release of first
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) report. However, the
legal frameworks for extractives remain unclear and the capacity of the
institutions governing the sector is extremely limited. The country still lacks

a clear, comprehensive and updated national strategy for governing its

resources to optimize the benefits obtained from these resources. Public
participation and access to information on the natural resource sector are still
highly constrained. Notwithstanding the democratic government’s
consolidation of ministries, oversight exercised by ministries and their
control over state-owned enterprises is still weak in practice, in the presence
of military-affiliated companies operating in the sector (Bauer et al., 2018).
There is also lack of clarity about the role of subnational government in
natural resource management and in revenue flows. Given the significance
of the natural resources and the impacts the exploration process has on local
livelihood, distribution of resource revenue has been demanded by several
ethnic armed groups. Natural resource revenue and wealth sharing is an
important process of national reform and political agenda within the context
of ongoing peace negotiations between the government and ethnic armed
groups. Based on Section 37 of Myanmar’s 2008 constitution, the Union
government has centralized ownership and ultimate control of all the natural
resources and is responsible for enacting law to supervise extraction and
utilization of these resources. All forest areas are also under the ownership
of the union government and the management of forest resources are solely
done by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation
(MONREC). Forests are governed by the 1992 forest law and the 1995 forest
policy. Forestry remains deeply centralized and Myanmar Timber Enterprise
(MTE) is a monopoly on all timber extraction. Although Annual Allowable
Cut (ACC) under Myanmar Selection System (MSS) is set for sustainable
level quota for forest, current system sets quotas for timber extraction based
on revenues (The Burma Environmental Working Group, 2017). Like
forests, land resources are also owned by the state in Myanmar although the
citizens have the right to lease land from the union government. Currently,
there are 73 different laws governed the ownership, management, and
control of land. Besides the central government, ethnic armed groups
maintain control over large areas on lands in border areas. Land -related
conflicts and protests are on the rise and effective governance of land
resources remain a major challenge in Myanmar. In terms of water
resources, the greatest threat is regarded as the construction of massive

hydropower dams on major river basins in ethnic states. Large-scale

production and distribution of hydropower are managed by the Ministry of
Electric and Energy (MOEE) under the central government and the contracts
are singed without public inputs. The water resources are currently regulated
by Myanmar National Water Policy and National Water Law. As have been
mentioned, according to the constitution, Energy and mineral resources such
as coal, are owned and governed by The Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Conservation (MONREC). MONREC is solely
responsible for the implementation of mining legislation, energy policy,
production and distribution under Mines law. MONREC also managed jade
and other precious stones under Myanmar Gemstone law after Kachin
Independence Organization (KIO) signed ceasefire. Myanmar’s gemstone
sector scored poorly with 27th out of 100 points and ranked 83rd out of 89
assessments in the Resource Governance Index in 2017. Ministry of
Electricity and Energy (MOEE) takes charge of the formation of energy
policy and management of all fossil fuel resources, such as oil and gas. The
State-Owned Economic Enterprises Law managed the exploration,
extraction and sale of oil and gas. Oil and Gas sector’s Resource Governance
Index score was 35 out of 100 points.
The constitution also allocates the vast majority of energy and mineral
resources taxation rights to the Union government. Resource revenue
collection and decision making for revenue distribution are also highly
centralized and mostly done by military-affiliated companies and state-
owned economic enterprises (Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2016).
There is no mechanism for local communities to involve in the decision
making of managing resource revenue. Therefore, transformation of this
situation requires modifications to the 2008 constitutions that prevent local
populations from managing land and resources. Extremely centralized
investment law also has significant influence on natural resource governance
in Myanmar. The new government updated investment law to facilitate
foreign investment and Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) is in
charge of approving investments in the country. Currently, the investment
law does not require MIC to include a regional representative or public in
decision making.

Figure 1. Myanmar Natural Resources Governance Structure.

Environmental Law and Policies
Environmental and social safeguards are a cornerstone of inclusive

economic growth and environmentally sustainable development in
Myanmar. After a period of intense exploitation of natural resources during
the colonial and post-colonial period, Myanmar came to realize the urgent
need to conserve the environment and ecosystem. Myanmar has been a party
of various multinational environmental treaties and agreements. The nation
constituted its first National Environmental Policy in 1994 after the
establishment of National Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA)
in 1990 and enacted environmental rules on the utilization, conservation, and
prevention environmental natural resource degradations. Although the law
stipulated the requirement for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
the regulations and procedures were never developed and never been
implemented. In 1994, NCEA also drafted the Environmental Protection
Law and the Environmental Impact Assessment Rules which have not been
approved. Similarly in 1997 and 2000, the government drafted a number of
environmental provisions with the help of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). However, none has been passed as law. Following the
promulgation of environmental policy, Myanmar prepared the preliminary
Agenda 21 commitment in 1997 to execute environmental management plan
and to provide guidelines for sustainable use of natural resources. An
environmental provision, Article 45 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution
confirms that the union government shall protect and conserve the nation’s
natural environment. Nonetheless, the national legislature’s power to
regulate environmental protection and right to enact laws is unclear.
The right of civil society to participate in natural resource management
and customary land ownership is particularly vague, although Article 309
(b) of the constitution stated that citizens have the duty to assist the Union
Government in environmental conservation. In 2009, Myanmar launched
National Sustainable Development Strategy to integrate environmental
consideration into national development plans. The strategy put forwards
Myanmar’s mission for sustainable management of forest, mineral, energy,
land and freshwater resources, and conservation of biodiversity. In 2012,

NCEA was merged with Ministry of Forest to form Ministry of

Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF). In the same year, the
Environmental conservation law was passed and the Environmental
conservation rule was formulated to enable implementation of the Myanmar
National Environmental Policy. In 2016, under the new government,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation
(MONREC) was formed by combining the Ministry of Mine and Ministry
of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF). Since then,
environmental policies and laws are revised and Myanmar formulated
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure and Environmental Quality
Emission Guidelines. However, the country still lacks the necessary
adequate administrative and legal structures, financial capacity, human
resources, and political will to enforce such provisions. Thus, the actual
implementation of environmental regulations and guidelines has lagged
behind the proclamations of improved policies and government
commitments to environmental conservation is still low (Raitzer et al.,
2016).
KEY PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES IN MYANMAR’S

NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE
Weak Governance and Institutional Capacity
Navigating the challenges of sustainable exploration, right fiscal policy,

and distribution of resource revenues are some of the issues a resource-rich
country like Myanmar must face in order to successfully translate the natural
endowments into development and economic prosperity. However, the
country’s weak institutional setups can lead to poor resource governance
thereby failing to create the desired results on poverty reduction. Poor
institutional capacity can even lead to counterproductive results such as
overheating of the economy or negative impact on local businesses. While
Myanmar has taken significant steps towards transitioning its economy, it is

still considered a high-risk nation with weak governance and administrative

capacity (Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, 2018). Over five
decades of military government and isolation have resulted in notable
challenges in addressing issues associated with extractive sector. State
legitimacy, social cohesion and trust are extremely low due to decades-long
widespread corruption, elite interests and lack of institutional capacity and
comprehensive social policies. At the same time, the detrimental economic,
social and political impacts from irresponsible investments can worsen the
existing problems. Currently, the technical and human resources capacity of
both government and businesses to effectively monitor and address
environmental, social and human right impacts of natural resource extraction
is limited in Myanmar. Systematic management system for environmental,
health and safety, labor standard, taxation and revenue sharing are seriously
lacking. Coordination among the governmental department is also weak and
often lead to weak implementation and enforcement of laws and regulations.
The responsible ministries are generally insufficiently resourced to
undertake their mandates.
Ethnic Conflicts
Myanmar’s complex economic and political reform process faces

simultaneous challenges from increased violent conflicts, such as ethnic
armed groups, opposition to resource exploitation and communal violence.
Despite the government’s efforts to resolve ethnic conflicts and national
reconciliation through nation-wide ceasefire, open conflicts between ethnic
armed groups and military are still prevalent. Historically, Myanmar’s ethnic
conflicts have been intimately entwined with natural resource extraction and
resources sustain violence in areas where the exploitation and trade in
natural resources fund several armed groups. Over 60% of the nation’s
natural resources are found in ethnic areas and ethnic minorities have been
demanding for greater resource revenue transparency and sharing. Ethnic
armed organizations have also called for greater autonomy and regional
government involvement in natural resources management and wealth

sharing. Recent Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) report

is expected to contribute to changing opaque practices around the sector.
Accountability
The publicly accountable government system is extremely important in

natural resource governance to attain sustained prosperity. The large amount
of wealth generated from natural resource sector often contribute to
corruption, patronage, rent-seeking and inequitable investment. Corruption
can occur at every stage of the extractive value chain, from awarding of
exploration rights, law enforcement for operations, taxation, revenue
collection, and distribution, to public spending (OECD, 2016). Transparency
and accountability of government and investors are therefore among the
important pillars of natural resource governance. Accountability safeguards
that diverse stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the sector can
justify their actions. Accountability also encourages effective management
of extractive resources by deterring corruption (Beuer, 2018). With recent
economic and political reform in Myanmar, progress has been made in terms
of revenue and contract transparency through EITI and Open Government
Partnership (OGP). However, the impact of such approaches on increased
accountability in the sector remain largely uncertain. Though encouraging
improvements have been made for anti-corruption under Anti-Corruption
law 2013, the actual enforcement and monitoring are unknown. Public
disclosure of contracts and financial arrangements are also extremely weak
in Myanmar. The country’s current laws do not require disclosure of contract
terms and natural resources revenues, and the information in natural resource
contracts is protected by confidentiality clauses.
Discovery and Exploration
Another fundamental step in natural resource management is the

identification of the magnitude, quality and geological distribution of the

resource. Precise and accurate geological information helps to make

appropriate decision for extraction and allocation of licenses. The diagnostic
report of the cartographic and geodetic basis of Myanmar has stated that the
topographic maps used for licensing are outdated and are not accurate
(Ortega, 2018). Myanmar needs an immediate update of the country’s
cadastral maps to facilitate the positioning of the mineral and energy
licenses. It is also important to make geological data and maps readily
accessible for investors. Moreover, the decision for extraction of resources
should be based on the value of resources and, potential environmental and
social consequences. Recent reform in the regulatory framework and
environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure should assist in the
decision to extract. It is also reported that the current cadastral management
of natural resources right in Myanmar does not reach the international
standard due to the inadequate instructional organization, the ambiguous
regulatory framework, the complexity of the process and the lack of
technical facilities (Ortega, 2018).
Taxation
As a country with abundant natural resources, Myanmar benefit

significantly from the revenue generated by the extractive sector especially
from oil and gas projects. The new government expects to collect tax
revenue of 10% of GDP by 2018, increasing 5.6%. However, a systematic
fiscal regime is prerequisite for optimizing the benefits of the country’s
resource wealth. Effective fiscal regimens of natural resources must include
royalty or other tax which offers a minimum flow of revenue for the state
from production and a mechanism for capturing profit share and rents
(Beuer, 2018). In Myanmar, the tax regime for an extractive sector is
unstandardized. Myanmar’s natural resources are taxed by the union
government through line ministries and the state-owned enterprises (SOEs)
(Lynn and Oye, 2014). Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) draft the fiscal
terms in extractive sector. Tax regime for foreign investors in the mining
and energy industries is different from the criteria applied to state-owned

enterprises and companies affiliated with military. Historically, direct and

indirect tax payments of natural resource sector are not publicly reported in
Myanmar.
Environmental and Social Impacts
Without doubt, Myanmar’s natural sector has the potential to make

tremendous contribution its economic development. However, extractive
operations, both mineral and energy sector, inevitably exert significant and
deleterious pressures on the ecosystem and society, such as air, water, soil,
biodiversity and flora and fauna, and human health due to their compositions
and complex operations. Myanmar’s local community, especially in rural
and coastal areas, are highly vulnerable to social and environmental impacts
given their overwhelming dependence on natural ecosystem services. It is
manifested that there are notable environmental form extractive activities in
Myanmar that consequently impacts livelihood of local communities
(Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business, 2018). Despite the rapid
expansion of extractive operations and investment in the sector, there is no
available data or scientific research done to access the extent of health and
environmental impacts of the extractive industry. Public disclosure of EIA
and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is almost non-existent.
Revenue Transparency
One of the major challenges for Myanmar’s national reform is to revise

its current system of management of revenue from extractive industries and
to ensure improved oversight and transparency. Resource revenue sharing is
also one of the most key components of the country’s fiscal decentralization,
high-quality public investment, and peace process. In Myanmar, mineral, oil
and natural gas revenues are generated in almost every regions. Livelihood
and local environment are significantly impacted by extractive industry with
little direct benefits (Bauer et al., 2016). As noted, according to the 2008

Constitution, all tax and non-tax revenues are collected directly by the union
government. Several ethnic armed groups demand distribution and equitable
share of natural resource revenue as a main concern. At present, Myanmar
does not have systematic revenue sharing formula and it is, therefore,
revenue allocations are made based on political rather than efficiency and
equity considerations. There is also no comprehensive data on the extractive
industry revenue flow by state and region because of the inadequacy of
public financial data and sector oversight. Payment, royalties, and fees
collected by line ministries and sub-national governments are not
consistently recorded and publicly disclosed.
Foreign Direct Investment
Political and economic reforms have reconnected Myanmar with the

global market and led to a boom in FDI. An important share of foreign
investment projects in Myanmar is likely to be based on extractive industries
that exploit the nation's large-scale natural resources. Nearly a third of
Myanmar’s FDI is in oil and gas exploration, followed by mining,
hydropower dams and forestry operations, most of which result in adverse
environmental and social impacts. Myanmar is eager to attract greater
foreign investment in the country’s extractive sector with the expectation of
addressing poverty and underdevelopment. Nevertheless, to date, foreign
companies are highly criticized for poor social and environmental
performance and human right abuses. Myanmar’s gaps in law and its
enforcement, absence of transparency and accountability and lack of
mechanisms to address community grievances create substantial challenges.
CONCLUSION
Myanmar’s natural resource sector is crucial to drive economic

development and to help close the development gap between regions.
Nonetheless, the management of non-renewable natural resources, fossil

fuel, minerals, and precious stones, is a complex and multifaceted job.

Governments must implement comprehensive laws and regulations in order
to maximize their contribution to sustainable development, for local
communities as well as the broader national economy. Myanmar is one of
the many countries where natural resources sector has long been
synonymous with adverse environmental and socio-economic consequence,
instead of contributing to the prosperity of the country and lifting the
population out of poverty. Despite taking remarkable steps toward reform,
Myanmar still faces tremendous challenges in sustainable management of
its resources. Aforementioned issues are complex policy challenges for
which comprehensive strategies need to be developed and tailor-made for
Myanmar.
First and foremost, Myanmar is urgently in need of a comprehensive
national strategy for oil, gas and mineral exploration with clear policies for
energy security and resource use. Clear legal framework and quality
institutions are crucial for effective resource governance. It is also vital to
ensure legislative and administrative frameworks are appropriately
implemented in contracts, licensing and monitoring of entire extractive
sector. Institutional role and responsibility of line ministries need to be clear
and sufficiently resourced to avoid miscommunication among the
organizations. To improve transparency and accountability mechanisms,
contracts, licenses, ownership and revenue information must be publicly
disclosed. Natural resource revenues sharing and decentralization of
revenues and expenditure responsibilities should be the priorities for
Myanmar’s reform agenda. Most importantly, the revenue sharing system
must be efficient, fair and transparent. Myanmar needs to have accurate and
accessible geographical data to make informed decision about exploration
and production of natural resources. The country needs to strengthen the
financial and human capacity for data collection, storage and analysis of the
extend and quality of natural resources. Moreover, taxation system in
Myanmar should be more uniform, explicit and consistent to mitigate
potential corruption and audit tax collection. The regulations and guidelines
for EIA and SIA have to be in place to mitigate negative environmental and
social impacts of extraction. The process of EIA should be transparent with

enhanced public participation throughout the impact assessment and

decision-making processes.
REFERENCES
Asian Development Bank. (2016). Myanmar: Energy sector Assessment,

Strategy, and Road map. Malina, Philippines: Asian Development
Bank.
Aye, M. M. (2012). Study on the mangrove community of Kedut Greek,
Lamaing Township, Mon State. Mawlamyine: Myanmar: University of
Mawlamyine.
Beuer, A., Kirk, N. & Sahla, S. (2016). Natural Resource Federalism:
Considerations for Myanmar. Yangon, Myanmar: Natural Resource
Governance Institute.
Beuer, A., Heing, A., Htay, K. S. Hamilton, M. & Shortell, P. (2018). State-
Owned economic enterprise reform in Myanmar: The case of natural
resource enterprises. Yangon, Myanmar: Natural Resource Governance
Institute.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2015). Global Forest Resource
Assessment. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Gotzmann, N., Wrzoncki, E and Krog, J. (2018). Sector-wide impact
assessment of limestone, gold and tin mining in Myanmar. Yangon,
Myanmar: Myanmar Center for Responsible Business.
Holmes, K. E., Tun, T. Latt, K. T., Subedee, M., Khadke, S. V., Hostetler,
A.E. (2014). Marine Conservation in Myanmar: Current knowledge and
research recommendation. Yangon, Myanmar: Wildlife Conservation
Society.
Horton, R., Mel, M. D., Peters, D., Lesk, C., Barlett, R., Helsingen, H.,
Barder, D., Capizzi, P. Martin, S. & Rosenweig, C. (2017). Assessing
Climate Risk in Myanmar: summary for policymakers and planners.
New York, USA: Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia
University, WWF.

Lynn, T. A., Oye, M. (2014). Natural Resources and Subnational

Governments in Myanmar: Key considerations for wealth sharing.
Yangon, Myanmar: International Growth Centre.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation. (2017).
Sustainable management of natural resources for healthy ecosystems.
Yangon, Myanmar: United Nations Environment Program.
Natural Resource Governance Institute. (2016). Myanmar and the Natural
Resource Charter. Yangon, Myanmar: Natural Resource Governance
Institute.
Oretega, E. (2018). Myanmar mineral and gemstones cadastre system
conceptual design. Yangon, Myanmar: Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative.
OECD. (2016). Corruption in the Extractive Value Chain: Typology of
Risks, Mitigation Measures and Incentives. Paris: OECD Development
Policy Tools, OECD Publishing.
Oxford Business Group. (2018). The Report: Myanmar. London: United
Kingdom: Oxford Business Group.
Raitzer, D. A., Samson, J. N. G. and Nam, K. Y. (2015). Achieving
Environmental Sustainability in Myanmar. Malina, Philippines: Asian
Development Bank.
The Burma Environmental Working Group. (2011). Burma’s Environment:
People, Problems, Policies. Chiang Mai, Thailand: The Burma
Environmental Working Group.
United Nations Development Program. (2015). Annual Report: UNDP
Myanmar. Yangon, Myanmar: UNDP.

In: Myanmar ISBN: 978-1-53614-866-4
Chapter 3
TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE WASTE

MANAGEMENT IN MYANMAR
THROUGH EXPERIENCES OF OTHER ASIAN
COUNTRIES: A REVIEW
Maw Maw Tun1,2,* and Dagmar Juchelková1

1
Department of Energy Engineering,
VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Government Technical Institute (Mawlamyine),
Mawlamyine, Mon State, Myanmar
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, along with growing population, increasing per capita
waste generation and improper waste collection and treatment system,
solid waste management in developing countries has a great impact on
environment and public health. Myanmar is a developing country in Asia.
Municipal solid waste generation rate in Myanmar amounted to 5,616 tons
*
Corresponding Author Email: maw.maw.tun.st@vsb.cz.

66 Maw Maw Tun and Dagmar Juchelková
per day in 2012, trending around 21,012 tons per day in 2025. Open
dumping is a major waste disposal method and recycling is at an early
development stage. Currently, the most immediate economic and
environmental issues related to the wastes have accelerated the need for a
sustainable approach to waste management in major cities of Myanmar.
Therefore, the review highlighted an approach to the sustainable waste
management system in Myanmar regarding the successful waste
management practices in other Asian countries. In this paper, the study
specified the current practices, issues and challenges of waste management
systems in Myanmar. The study also compared solid waste management
practices between Myanmar and other Asian countries. Finally, the study
proposed a sustainable approach to Integrated Solid Waste Management
System in Myanmar.
Keywords: Solid waste generation, Waste disposal, Recycling,

Environmental impact, Integrated Solid Waste Management System
1. INTRODUCTION
Growing population, rapid urbanization, booming economy and

improving living standards have greatly accelerated the municipal solid
waste (MSW) generation rates (Minghua et al., 2009) as well as complex
waste composition in MSW in developing countries (Khajuria et al., 2010).
Most developing countries are currently experiencing serious development
challenges related to MSW management due to inadequate MSW
management in their city administrations (Gutberlet, 2003) and their
persistent old traditional development plans (Khatib, 2011). Without an
effective and efficient solid waste management program, the waste
generated from various human activities, both industrial and domestic, can
result in health hazards and have a negative impact on the environment
(Organisation, 2007). Therefore, managing MSW effectively is to ensure the
effective waste collection system, transportation system, waste-treatment
system, environmental conservation (Tun and Juchelková, 2018), resource
and energy recovery and public health improvement (The World Bank,
2016).

Towards Sustainable Waste Management in Myanmar … 67
Currently, due to the increasing population and economic growth, the

economic and environmental issues related to the wastes have accelerated a
sustainable approach to waste management in major cities of Myanmar.
Therefore, the review highlighted an approach to the sustainable waste
management system in Myanmar regarding the successful waste
management practices in other Asian countries.
2. METHODOLOGY
The data about waste generation, waste composition, waste disposal

methods, cost for waste disposal and environmental impacts of MSW in this
study were collated from the research papers, municipal reports and reports
conducted by non-governmental organizations. The study specified the
current practices, issues and challenges of waste management system in
Myanmar and made a comparison of solid waste management practices
between Myanmar and other Asian countries. Then, the study proposed a
sustainable approach to Integrated Solid Waste Management System in
Myanmar, regarding the successful waste management practices in other
Asian countries.
3. AN OVERVIEW OF THE COUNTRY
Myanmar is one of the developing countries in Southeast Asia, with the

total land area of 676,756 square kilometres (261,228 square miles) (Khaing,
2012). It is composed of 7 states and 7 divisions – 3 cities and 331 towns
(Mann and Myint, 2017). Myanmar had a total population of 51,486,253
residents according to the 2014 census (DPMIP, 2015). The average
population density is about 80.6 people per square kilometer
(Countrymeters, 2017). The annual population growth rate accounts for
about 1.62% and approximately 30% of the total population resides in urban
area (Mann and Myint, 2017). The population of Myanmar is expected to
reach 53.9 million by the end of this quarter and in the long-term, the

population is projected towards 56.32 million in 2020 (Trading Economics,

2017).
Naypyidaw is the capital city, while Yangon and Mandalay are the
largest cities with the most important commercial centers in Myanmar
(Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016). The population of Yangon has over
5 million residents, with population density of 19500 persons per square
mile whereas the population of Mandalay has over 1.0 million, with 7600
persons per square mile (Myanmar, 2010; Premakumara and Hengesbaugh,
2016). However, compared to the major cities, the average population
density of the whole country is comparatively low, with 222 persons per
square mile (Myanmar, 2010).
Figure 1 shows the urban population growth with per capita gross
domestic product (GDP) in the major cities and Myanmar. The urban
population in Mandalay and Yangon had increased gradually from 167,000
and 1,302,000 residents in 1950 to 1,319,452 and 5,160,512 residents in
2014 respectively. The urban population of Myanmar is expected to reach
approximately 23 million in 2025, with a dramatic increase in per capita
GDP, ranging from 221 United States dollar (USD) in 2000 to 1275 USD in
2014.
Source: Myanmar Census Report (2014); United Nations World Urbanization Prospects,
2007 revision; Worldometers (www.Worldometers.info); UN Estimates (1970-
1990); IMF Estimates (2000-2020).
Figure 1. Urban Population and Per Capita GDP in Major Cities and Myanmar.

Generally, solid waste management in Myanmar presents a mixed

picture of clear improvements in the country’s two premier cities (Yangon
and Mandalay) combined with stagnating or deteriorating collection and
disposal in other States and Divisions (EPA, 2017). Nowadays, the annual
MSW generation rates in the major cities of Myanmar are increasing
significantly with the population growth, economic development, rapid
urbanization and industrialization.
4. MSW MANAGEMENT IN MYANMAR
In Myanmar, the provision of waste collection services, management

activities and initiation of 3Rs [reduce, reuse and recycle] practices are
extensively undertaken by responsible organizations independently (Mann
and Myint, 2017). In Mandalay and Yangon, autonomous City Development
Committees and their Pollution Control and Cleansing Departments
(PCCDs) with a network of branches and sub-units are tasked with solid
waste management within their municipal areas (Aung, 2013). In other parts
of the country, township development committees under the local
government manage municipal waste collection and disposal (Aung, 2013).
General responsibilities of a local municipal organization, particularly
cleansing department, regarding solid waste management include
supervising, controlling and inspecting storage, collection, transportation
and disposal of solid wastes (Aung, 2013).
4.1. Waste Collection System
There are various waste collection methods in Myanmar. The methods

may vary among the cities. Regarding the research studies (IGES, 2014;
Menikpura, 2013; Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016), waste collection
methods in Mandalay included door to door waste collection, bell ringing
collection, block collection to the household, collection of waste from the
kerb side bins and sweeping the waste on the road, whereas the methods in

Yangon were daily collection system, bell ringing collection system,

collection at street dump yards and collection at temporary storage system.
4.2. MSW Generation and Collection Efficiency
According to the World Bank 2012 report (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata,

2012), MSW generation rate in Myanmar amounted to 5,616 tons per day
with 0.44 kg per capita per day in 2012. This rate was expected to trend
around 21,012 tons per day with 0.85 kg per capita per day in 2025.
Meanwhile, MSW generation rates in Mandalay and Yangon in 2012
accounted for 551 tons per day (MCDC, 2015) and 1690 tons per day
(YCDC, 2012) respectively, representing around 40% of total generated
wastes of the whole country. Per capita waste generation in Mandalay and
Yangon amounted to 0.6 kg per capita per day in 2015 and 0.4 kg per capita
per day in 2015 respectively (Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016;
YCDC, 2012). However, compared to other Asian countries, Myanmar still
had low per capita waste generation, with about 0.44 kg per capita per day
(Figure 2). It was because of low economic development of the country,
being in the similar situation of Nepal, India and Bangladesh.
180000 MSW Generation and Per Capita Waste Generation 2.5

kg per capita per day
150000 2
Tonnes per day
120000
1.5
90000
1
60000
30000 0.5
0 0
Total Waste Generation Per Capita Waste Generation
Source: World Bank (2012).
Figure 2. MSW Generation and Per Capita Waste Generation in Selected Asian
Countries.

Source: Aung (2015); MCDC (2015); MCDC (2016); YCDC (2012); YCDC (2016).
Figure 3. Waste Generation and Collection Efficiency in Major Cities of Myanmar:

Mandalay_SWG: Solid Waste Generation in Mandalay; Yangon_SWG: Solid Waste
Generation in Yangon; Mandalay_CE: Collection efficiency in Mandalay;
Yangon_CE: Collection efficiency in Yangon.
Figure 3 describes waste generation and collection efficiency in major

cities of Myanmar. The waste generation rate in Mandalay had increased
gradually from 260 tons per day in 2005 to 955 tons per day in 2015, with
92% of collection efficiency. The waste generation rate in Yangon had also
increased from 1231 tons per day in 2005 to 1981 tons per day in 2015, with
92% of collection efficiency. Therefore, it could be said that Mandalay and
Yangon are leading to sound waste management systems since the increase
in waste collection efficiency reflects the improvement of MSWM system
of a city.
However, the average collection efficiency of Myanmar in 2012 had less
than 60% of the collection efficiency due to the inefficient fee collection
system and insufficient budget on MSW management similar to the other
low-income countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.; however, Singapore,
Japan and Hong Kong as the high income countries had 100% of the
collection efficiency (Beck, 2017; Ejaz et al., 2010; Glawe et al., 2005;
Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012; Jungrungrueng, 2017; Kaushal et al.,
2012, Manaf, 2009; Nguyen, 2006; Sisoulath, 2010; Waste Concern, 2009).

4.3. Waste Composition and Contribution of MSW
MSW in Myanmar was mainly composed of households (60%),

followed by markets (15%), commercial producers (10%), others (8%),
gardens (5%) and hotels (2%) (Myanmar, 2010). The major composition of
MSW in two major cities and Myanmar was found to be organic waste
(Figure 4). Out of such MSW composition, the organic waste of Yangon
significantly contributed up to 77%; Mandalay, 64% and Myanmar, 54%.
Source: MCDC (2016); YCDC (2016); World Bank (2012).
Figure 4. Comparison of Waste Composition in Myanmar.
4.4. 3-Rs Activities
In low income countries, there are no organized programs, but reuse and
low per capita waste generation rates are common while organized education
programs emphasize the three ‘R’s’ — reduce, reuse, and recycle
(Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). With the increasing cost of raw
materials, recycling provides a cheaper source of raw materials for
manufacturing industries (Henry et al., 2006). Recycling rates of Asian
countries depend significantly on waste management practices, educational
and economic development, and living standards. Though recycling is well-

practiced in most high-income Asian countries, the recycling practices of

low-income Asian countries remain in an early development. Briefly,
according to the Word Bank 2012 (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012),
recycling rates accounted for 47% in Singapore, 49% in South Korea but
14% in Thailand.
Currently, 3-Rs activities have been adopted in Myanmar, especially in
Mandalay and Yangon. Regarding the study report (Mann and Myint, 2017),
waste minimization or waste reduction is carried out by two types— demand
side and supply side. On the demand side, waste minimization is carried out
by using economy, durable and reusable sized products, by choosing the
appropriate amount and sizes of the products, by repairing, refurbishing, and
furnishing appliances and electronics utensils, and by donating the unwanted
items which remain in a good condition to the poor or charity groups. On the
supply side, waste minimization is carried out by offering reusable
alternatives such as paper, leaves for packaging or shipping, by asking the
consumers whether they really need plastic bags for small purchases and by
guiding the staffs or shop-helpers to pack items in a way that can minimize
the usage of plastic bags. Some recycle operations have been set up in
Myanmar and bottles, cans, papers, plastic bottles and metals are sold to
them (MRSP, 2012). Plastic bottles are cut into flakes and sold in China
(MRSP, 2012). Currently, approximately 86 tons of recyclables
(Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016) are daily collected in Yangon,
representing approximately 5% of the total generated wastes.
4.5. Composting
Whilst small-scale composting of organic waste is widespread in the

Asian region, attempts to introduce large-scale composting as a means of
reducing the quantities of municipal solid waste requiring disposal, or with
the intention of creating a revenue stream from the sale of compost, have
been met with limited success (UNESCAP, 2017). According to the World
Bank 2012 report (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012), it could be seen that
the contribution of organic wastes in waste composition ranges

approximately from 46% to 80% in the low-income Asian counties. As a

result, composting of vegetables, garden trimmings, grass, etc. from the
organic wastes has a potential of compost as waste resource recovery from
MSW. As the examples of Asian developing countries, Philippine (IGES;
2009a), Thailand (IGES; 2009b), Indonesia (Zurbrügg et al., 2012) and
Bangladesh (Menon, 2002) have successfully implemented composting
facilities from their organic wastes to reduce waste disposal at landfills and
open dumpsites. In China, a pilot scale case study on on-site composting of
food waste has been conducted to treat excessive amount of food waste (Guo
et al., 2018).
In Myanmar, composting was introduced since 1999 (Lwin, 2017).
Compost plant located in Padamyar Myothit, Mingladon Township in
Yangon was operated under the control of Ministry of Agriculture and
Irrigation and produced approximately 200,000 bags (25 kg per bag) of
compost during the 15 months (Lwin, 2017). However, the composting
project has discontinued due to absence of technical know-how, lack of
monitoring instrument and challenges associated with the sorting process
(Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016). Therefore, some knowledge and
experiences could be gained from the Asian countries like Thailand,
Indonesia, Bangladesh and Philippines where have implemented the
composting process successfully.
4.6. Anaerobic Digestion
Vögeli (2014) pointed out that there were three main types of digesters
implemented in developing countries — fixed-dome type, floating-drum
type and tubular type. Another potential biogas technology suitable for
developing countries could be garage-type digester, operated as a dry
digestion system in batch-mode (Vögeli, 2014). Langerak et al., (2015)
estimated that there were approximately nine billion cubic meters and eight
billion cubic meters of bio-methane potential from MSW in Indonesia and
Malaysia, respectively. In Mandalay, the second largest city of Myanmar,

30 tons of organic wastes are currently treated by anaerobic digestion

process daily (Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016), representing
approximately 3% of the total generated wastes of the city. Moreover, there
have been a total of 867 floating type biogas plants, with a capacity of 5-50
m3 and 174 fixed-dome type biogas plants, with a capacity of 5-100 m3 for
utilization of the manure of livestock and poultry around Myanmar (ADB,
2012; GEGG, 2017; Khaing, 2013). Hence, small-scale and medium scale
bio-gas technologies have been already adopted in Myanmar, leading to the
large-scale bio-gas production potential in the future.
4.7. Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
Despite being a greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, MSW incineration can

be considered as a net GHG reducer, if GHG reductions, achieved by
accounting for waste-to-energy, exceed GHG emissions (Tabata, 2013).
When incinerated, the waste is reduced by 80-85% by weight and by 95-
96% by volume (RenoSam and Rambøll, 2006). However, if the municipal
solid waste composition in the city has an excess of 50% of organic wastes
(i.e., food, vegetation, or other putrescible), and greater than 15% of inert
waste (construction waste, debris, sand, silt, etc.), thermal waste treatment
will probably not be the right choice (Collaborative Working Group, 2016).
In Myanmar, since the composition of organic wastes amounted to 54% in
2012, despite an unknown composition of inert wastes, thermal waste
treatment or waste-to-energy (WtE) such as incineration process would not
probably be a good choice for energy recovery. However, if the moisture
content of bulk wastes could be reduced by different dying methods (Ab Jalil
et al., 2015; Evangelou, 2016; Shirinbakhsh and Amidpour, 2017; Tom et
al., 2016), before combustion or waste transportation, the quality of the
waste fuel could be improved. Meanwhile, there could be high possibility of
effective thermal waste treatment. Currently, a waste-to-energy (WtE)
power plant (Messenger, 2017), with a capacity of 60 tons per day is being
set up in Yangon city to generate approximately 700 kW of electrical power.

4.8. Landfill
While the population densities in urbanized areas and per capita waste
generation increased, the available land for waste disposal decreased
proportionately (Puopiel, 2010). However, due to the lowest waste disposal
cost, open dumping and uncontrolled landfilling are common in developing
countries as their major waste disposal methods (Babel and Vilaysouk, 2016;
Chin et al., 2011; Glawe et al., 2005; Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012;
Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009; UNEP, 2004; UNESCAP, 2017). Myanmar
disposes of around 80% of the total generated wastes at open dumpsites
(Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). By upgrading open dumpsites to
controlled landfills, landfill gas recovery from the controlled landfills can
mitigate GHG and enhance the financial benefits of the landfill gas recovery
projects (IGES, 2014; UNESCAP, 2017). However, since landfills can
potentially affect society and environment negatively (UNEP, 2004;
UNESCAP, 2017), landfilling needs to be reduced steadily in a controlled
way (Tun and Juchelková, 2018) with other possible means of MSW
management systems such as 3-Rs activities in the future of developing
countries.
4.9. Waste Disposal Methods
The selection and implementation of waste treatment systems are the

most important factors in determining the environmental impact of waste
management (Chin et al., 2011). Land, air and water pollution differ vastly
depending on whether the waste is incinerated, composted or simply dumped
(Chin et al., 2011). Open dumping was majorly practiced in low-income
countries (Figure 5). Myanmar used open dumping, with around 80% of total
waste disposal methods, because of the low economic development, and low
budget of waste management of the country like Bangladesh and Cambodia,
in which costly resource-and-energy recovery technologies were not
affordable to be set up. On the other hand, waste incineration technologies
were majorly applied in high-income countries such as Japan and Singapore.

Major Waste Disposal Methods in Selected Asian Coutries

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Others Opend Dumping Landfill WtE Compost
Source: Chin et al., (2011); Ngoc and Schnitzer (2009); Work Bank (2012).
Figure 5. Major Waste Disposal Methods in the Selected Asian Countries.
5. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All landfills in Myanmar including Yangon and Mandalay are open

dumping sites and therefore remain a source of odorous gas emissions, water
contamination and spontaneous combustion (CDM Feasibility Study, 2012).
Landfill fires are common and generate dense smoke and noxious fumes
(Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016). In addition to offensive odours,
uncontrolled dumps pose a number of health hazards including from
pathogenic organisms, insects, rodents as well as air pollution from dust,
accidental burning, and ground and surface water pollution from issues of
unaddressed leachate (Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016). Further, river
and lake pollution from sewage, industrial waste and solid waste disposal in
particular are serious problems in Myanmar (Soe and Yin, 2009). Therefore,
solid waste management is currently regarded as one of the most immediate
environmental issues due to rapid urbanization, accelerating population
growth and economic growth, changes in public consumption patterns and
public unawareness (Mann and Myint, 2017). The potential of annual
methane emission from solid waste disposal at open dumpsites in Myanmar

is shown in Figure 6. In regard to the research studies (Hoornweg and Bhada-

Tata, 2012; Thein, 2014; Tun and Juchelková, 2018), the total methane
emission potential from solid waste disposal in Myanmar amounted to 165
Giga gram (Gg) per year, with a total solid waste generation rate of 5,616
tons per day in 2012. That might be projecting to trend around 186 Gg per
year, with a total solid waste generation rate of 15,000 tons per day in 2020.
The share of methane emissions from solid waste disposal in Yangon, the
major commercial city of Myanmar, might also increase from 15% of the
total methane emissions of Myanmar in 2015 to 20% in 2020, representing
a major portion of GHG emission potential from solid waste disposal among
the cities of Myanmar in the years to come.
Potential of Solid Waste Generation (SWG) and Annual

Methane (CH4) Emission from Solid Waste Disposal in
200 16000
Tons of wastes per day

Myanmar
Gg of CH4 per year
160 12000
120
8000
80
40 4000
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Yangon _CH4 Other Cities_CH4 Myanmar_CH4
Yangon_SWG Other Cities_SWG Myanmar_SWG
Source: Thein (2014); Tun and Juchelková (2018); World Bank (2012).
Figure 6. Potential of Solid Waste Generation (SWG) and Annual Methane (CH 4)
Emission from Solid Waste Disposal in Myanmar.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND

POLICIES PREVAILING IN MYANMAR
The environmental regulations which came into effect includes the

Yangon Water-Work Act in 1885, the City of Yangon Municipal Act in
1922, the Water Power Act in 1927, the Underground Water Act in 1930,

the City of Yangon Development Law in 1990, the Development

Committees Law in 1993 and the City of Mandalay Development Law in
2002 (Mann and Myint, 2017). Besides, the city development committees
promulgated the solid waste disposal and collection by law as its measure
for legal basis at local level (Mann and Myint, 2017). However, a common
essence of the policies is “to develop systematic waste disposal and
collection system in order for the city to be free of repulsive dumpsites”
(Mann and Myint, 2017). These policies are also called for cooperation and
involvement of local authorities and communities (Mann and Myint, 2017)
as well as private sector and educational institutions.
7. CHALLENGES OF MSW MANAGEMENT IN MYANMAR
Although MSW management is the most important service that a city

must provide, MSW is the largest budget item for the cities of the developing
countries (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Unless a city has a proper
MSW management system, it cannot effectively manage the complex
services, waste treatment and social wellbeing such as health, education,
waste collection, waste transportation, waste resource and energy recovery,
environmental conservation and climate change (The World Bank, 2016;
Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). At present, recycling of municipal solid
waste is not fully developed yet in Myanmar and the budget allocation
covers only for routine works (Myanmar, 2010). Additional financial
supports are needed to fulfill advanced and sufficient facilities (Myanmar,
2010). Moreover, City Development Committees and Township
Development Committees are struggling against dumping waste disposal
amongst constraints of inadequate vehicles, workers and scarce funds
(Myanmar, 2010). Further, the challenge of mitigating GHG emissions from
waste lies in the lack of existing incentives, as the proper handling of waste
does not present an opportunity to generate revenue for the stakeholders
(RISØ, 2013). As a result, the most immediate economic and environmental
issues related to MSW have accelerated the need for a sustainable approach
to the waste management in the major cities of Myanmar.

8. A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO WASTE

MANAGEMENT IN MYANMAR
The developing countries have no alternative but have to plan the

sustainable development processes for MSW management (Khatib, 2011).
The best approach for dealing with MSW in the developing countries is to
implement an integrated and sustainable approach to ISWMS because
ISWMS can cover a wide range of MSW management system of a city from
technological systems and facilities related to MSW to socio-economic
conditions, public demands and the environment (Khatib, 2011). Regarding
the scholars (Aung, 2013; IGES, 2014; Menikpura, 2013; Myanmar, 2010;
Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016; Tun and Juchelková, 2018), MSW
management in Myanmar is only employed by the conventional waste
management system. Even in the major cities like Yangon and Mandalay, it
has been observed that a quantity of the recyclable materials is around 5%
per day and anaerobic digestion with a pilot unit can treat 30 tons of organic
wastes per day respectively. The majority of the generated wastes are
disposed at open dumpsites while the minority goes to illegal dumping by
self-disposal. In the other aspects, the active participation of society in 3Rs
activities is insufficient in Myanmar and the involvement of private sector
in MSW management remains significantly weak to promote financial
sustainability. Hence, MSW management in Myanmar should be regarded
as one of the most immediate issues to handle and needs to be promoted
towards ISWMS to ensure the social, economic and environmental benefits
from MSW.
As illustrated in Figure 7, the stakeholders including local government,
private sector, society, educational institutions, non-government organ-
izations (NGOs), donor agencies and community-based organizations
(CBOs) are playing a key role in taking a sustainable approach to ISWMS
in Myanmar, regarding a successful sustainable approach and practices
about MSW management in developing countries (Africa, 2010; Glawe et
al., 2005; Guerrero et al., 2013; Khatib, 2011; Marshall and Farahbakhsh,

2013; Modak et al., 2010; Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016; YCDC,

2012).
Source: Africa (2010); Glawe et al., (2005); Guerrero et al., (2013); Khatib, (2011);
Marshall and Farahbakhsh (2013); Modak et al., (2010); Premakumara and
Hengesbaugh (2016); YCDC (2012).
Figure 7. A Sustainable Approach to Waste Management in Myanmar, regarding

a Successful Sustainable Approach and Practices about MSW management
in Developing Countries.
Local governments are the major pillars of a sustainable waste

management system in Myanmar. Although local governments are
responsible for MSW management, they could not deliver on that
responsibility for planning and implementation of MSW management on
their own (Africa, 2010). They need to ensure the involvement of all the
stakeholders in development of MSW management system with a strong
legal and institutional framework. To have financial sustainability in MSW
management, private sector involvement will play a crucial role. They could

help MSW management system work efficiently with waste service and
treatment (Chen, 2010) such as waste collection, transportation, recycling,
waste-to-energy and disposal at landfills. As a result, local governments
could focus more on administration, monitoring, public education, and
planning (Chen, 2010).
The efficiency of waste separation and resource recovery would depend
strongly on public awareness, social acceptability and inclusivity of local
residents in 3-Rs activities (Glawe et al., 2005; Guerrero et al., 2013).
Therefore, local governments could educate the youths and the residents
about environmental educations and public health related to MSW in schools
or through training programs. Some developing countries have already seen
the positive effects of investing in education and research by having cleaner
cities and citizens of the responsibilities and the higher status of solid waste
workers (Guerrero et al., 2013). Like NGOs, international non-government
organizations (INGOs) and donor agencies are generally interested in
environmental conservation and public health. Thus, local governments
could cooperate closely with them in order for educating and training the
local citizens to have more awareness of proper handling of wastes,
improvement of public health and environmental conservation concerning
with wastes. Besides, NGOs, INGOs and donor agencies could offer an
immense help to local governments with strong technical and financial
support for the enhancements of current MSW management system and
development of MSW strategy and environmental quality standard
guidelines.
Similarly, educational institutions become a phenomenal part of the
sustainable waste management system in the cities that local governments
should not overlook. Their research and surveys could greatly affect the
improvement of MSW management system. They could innovate the
locally-based solutions which are cost-effective and well-suited to local
conditions. Their locally-based solutions might be adapted from the recently
developed technologies, and locally developed green technologies which
could potentially offer a part of financial sustainability for local
governments in MSW management systems as well as green jobs for local
residents. Likewise, informal sectors handled by scavengers could boost the

potential opportunities of increasing their daily household income and

reducing their poverty (Guerrero et al., 2013; Troschinetz and Mihelcic,
2009; UNEP, 2004). Those sectors should be considered as one of the
important factors in improvement of MSW management system in the
developing countries (Burcea, 2015; Ezeah et al., 2013; Gunsillius, 2011;
Medina, 2004; Medina, 2008; Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009; Wilson et al.,
2006) like Myanmar, to handle source separation and recover more
recyclable materials from MSW (UNEP, 2004). Therefore, involvement of
private sectors, educational institutions, NGOs and international agencies as
well as participation of society and informal sectors in local government’s
MSW management system could ensure the improvement of the overall
MSW management system in Myanmar.
9. THE IMPORTANCE OF ISWMS

AND THE WAY FORWARD
MSW management is an expensive undertaking if it is conducted in an

environmentally sound manner (Chen, 2010). However, ISWMS considers
MSW management not just a technological system with infrastructure and
facilities that facilitate handling and disposal of MSW, but it is a
management system that consider and deals with many other elements
including the socio-economic settings, the physical environment and growth
in public demands and management scenarios (Khatib, 2011). The
importance of viewing solid waste management from an integrated approach
includes that some problems can be solved more easily in combination with
other aspects of the waste system than individually (Hoornweg and Thomas,
1999). Therefore, a sustainable approach to ISWMS is at a crucial stage for
sustainable waste management in Myanmar to ensure the financial
sustainability of MSW management, the effective implementation of
resource and energy recovery plans, the environmental conservation and
improvement of public health.

Recently, Environmental Conservation Department (ECD) reported that

Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF) had been
currently implementing the enhancements of current waste management
system in Myanmar with the cooperation of international agencies like
United Nations Environment Programmee (UNEP) and the European Union
(EU) (ECD, 2017). Among the enhancements included the development of
national and city level waste management strategy and environmental
quality standard guidelines. Further, regarding the study report
(Premakumara and Hengesbaugh, 2016), the major cities have entered into
partnerships with both local and international partners including NGOs,
private sectors, international agencies to improve community awareness,
waste collection system, recycling activities, treatment and final disposal
facilities.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding MSW management in Asian region, while the high-income

Asian countries have adopted the means of resource and energy recovery as
the major disposal options, the low- and lower middle-income Asian
countries generally shift from open dumpsites to controlled landfills as their
cost-effective disposal options. Since landfills can potentially affect the
environment and society (UNESCAP, 2017; UNEP, 2004), it is necessary to
steadily reduce waste disposal at landfills in a controlled way (Tun and
Juchelková, 2018). Hence, the major steps to 3-Rs activities, composting and
waste-to-energy could be taken in Myanmar to reduce waste disposal at the
landfills, recover more resources from MSW, conserve the environment and
improve the public health.
Since Myanmar remains among the low-income Asian countries,
reduce-and-reuse activities are fully developed around the country like the
similar status of other low-income countries around the world. However,
recycling activities are not fully developed in the country, including the
major city of Myanmar, Yangon, with a recycling rate of around 5% from
the total daily generated wastes. No data about recycling rates have been

found in other major cities of Myanmar. Therefore, it suggests that recycling

is still at the early development stage in Myanmar. As the proper segregation
of wastes could yield the higher recycling rates from MSW, it might play a
crucial role in the development of recycling activities in Myanmar. Proper
segregation for 3-Rs activities could be achieved by public awareness and
participation through educations at schools and training programs by local
governments and NGOs. Besides, private sectors and community-based
organizations (CBO) could also boost the effectiveness of segregation work
in residential areas (Tun and Juchelková, 2018). Further, formal recycling
sector with a strong integration of informal sector could also increase the
recycling rates since most of the developing countries (Burcea, 2015; Ezeah
et al., 2013; Gunsillius, 2011; Medina, 2008; Wilson et al., 2006) have taken
advantages of informal sector to recover more recyclable materials from
MSW.
Since the contribution of organic wastes in waste composition amounts
to approximately 55% in Myanmar, composting of vegetables, garden
trimmings, grass, etc. from the organic wastes has a potential of compost as
waste resource recovery from MSW. Philippine (IGES, 2009a), Thailand
(IGES, 2009b), Indonesia (Zurbrügg et al., 2012) and Bangladesh (Menon,
2002) have successfully implemented the composting facilities from their
organic wastes to reduce waste disposal at landfills and open dump-sites.
Some knowledge and experience could be gained from their effective
practices and experiences. Besides, anaerobic digesters for the biogas
production of organic wastes through anaerobic digestion could be
potentially established but these technologies are still costly for low-income
countries like Myanmar. Another potential way to treat a high organic
fraction in MSW composition is that reduction of moisture content from the
bulk wastes could be conducted by solar drying or other drying processes.
The reason is because of the fact that drying of bulk MSW might offer
several benefits such as reduction of volume and weight of bulky wastes
(Ferreira et al., 2014; Quina et al., 2014), reduction of transportation and
disposal cost (Ferreira et al., 2014; Hii et al., 2012), safer disposal at disposal
sites and higher calorific values of waste fuel for thermal waste treatment
(Ragazzi, 2007), etc. The private sector and international agencies could also

help improve waste services, treatment, and technical and financial support
while educational institutions could help develop innovative green
technologies which are suitable for local conditions.
Therefore, the cooperation of private sectors, society, educational
institutions, NGOs, and international agencies with local government could
enable the major cities to successfully take a sustainable approach to
ISWMS by overcoming the challenges of MSW management and opening
opportunities of MSW management in the future of Myanmar. However, it
suggests that “all developed countries have evolved their current systems in
a series of steps; developing countries can benefit from that experience, but
to expect to move from uncontrolled dumping to a ‘modern’ waste
management system in one great leap is just not realistic” (Wilson, 2007).
Likewise, the evolution of the sustainable development of the MSW
management system in the major cities of Myanmar would greatly require
the systematic institutional framework, cooperation of all stakeholders,
trainings and education, research, planning, monitoring and evaluation as
well as time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of

the Czech Republic for the sustainable development in Myanmar.
REFERENCES
Ab Jalil, N., Basri, H. A. S. S. A. N., Basri, N. A., & Abushammala, M. F.

(2015). The Potential of Biodrying as Pre-treatment for Municipal Solid
Waste in Malaysia. Journal of Advanced Review on Scientific Research,
7(7), 1-13.
Africa, P. S., (2010). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water
and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010, p. 30.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), (2012). Myanmar: Energy Sector Initial

Assessment, October 2012.
Aung, T., (2013). Ministry of Industry, The Republic of the Union of
Myanmar, Country Analysis Paper on 3R Practice in Myanmar, Fourth
Regional 3R Forum in Asia.
Babel, S., & Vilaysouk, X. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from
municipal solid waste management in Vientiane, Lao PDR. Waste
Management & Research, 34(1), 30-37. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X
15615425.
Beck, M., Vice President & General Manager, European Chamber of
Commerce of the Philippines, Energy Production from Municipal
Waste: Business Potential and Project Opportunities, Energy from
Municipal Waste in the Philippines. https://www.giz.de/fachexpertise/
downloads/2014-en-beck2-pep-infoveranstaltung-biogas-biomasse-phi
lippinen-thailand.pdf (accessed 14 March 2017).
Burcea, Ş. G. (2015). The Economical, Social and Environmental
Implications of Informal Waste Collection and Recycling. Theoretical
and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 10(3), 14-24.
Chin, J., Carmody, L. and Le Breton, S., 2011. Waste in Asia. Responsible
Research Pte. Ltd, Singapore, pp. 4-88.
Chen, X., Geng, Y. and Fujita, T., 2010. An overview of municipal solid
waste management in China. Waste management, 30(4), pp. 716-724.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Feasibility Study, 2012. Final
Report: Landfill Gas (LFG) Recovery and Utilization for Electric Power
Generation, Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd.
Collaborative Working Group, Solid Waste Management in Low- and
Middle-Income Countries, Waste to Energy Rapid Assessment Tool,
2016.
Countrymeters. Myanmar Population: Population Density, 2017. http://cou
ntrymeters.info/en/Myanmar/#population_density (accessed 8 July
2017).
Department of Population Ministry of Immigration and Population
(DPMIP), 2015. Census Report Volume 2 – A.

Ejaz, N., Akhtar, N., Hashmi, H. N., & Naeem, U. A. (2010). Environmental
impacts of improper solid waste management in developing countries:
A case study of Rawalpindi city. The sustainable world, 379-388.
Environmental Conservation Department (ECD), 2017. Industrial Pollution
Prevention and Control Policies and Laws in Myanmar. Retrieved: 24
March 2017. www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/country_report_myanm
ar.pdf .
Evangelou, A., Gerassimidou, S., Mavrakis, N., & Komilis, D. (2016).
Monitoring the performances of a real scale municipal solid waste
composting and a biodrying facility using respiration activity indices.
Environmental monitoring and assessment, 188(5), 302.
Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, J. A., & Roberts, C. L. (2013). Emerging trends in
informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste
management, 33(11), 2509-2519.
Ferreira, A. G., Gonçalves, L. M., & Maia, C. B. (2014). Solar drying of a
solid waste from steel wire industry. Applied Thermal Engineering,
73(1), 104-110.
Glawe, U., Visvanathan, C. and Alamgir, M., 2005, July. Solid waste
management in least developed Asian countries–. In International
Conference on Integrated Solid Waste Management in Southeast Asian
Cities (pp. 5-7).
Green Economy Green Group (GEGG), 2017. Green Economy and Green
Growth in Myanmar. http://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/Coun
try%20Analysis%20Paper_Myanmar.pdf (accessed 16 June 2017).
Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management
challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste management, 33(1),
220-232.
Gunsillius, E., Chaturvedi, B., & Scheinberg, A. (2011). The Economics of
the Informal Sector in Solid Waste Management. CWG Publication
Series no 5.
Guo, W., Zhou, Y., Zhu, N., Hu, H., Shen, W., Huang, X., & Li, Z. (2018).
On site composting of food waste: A pilot scale case study in China.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 132, 130-138.

Gutberlet, Jutta. “Cities, consumption, and the generation of waste.” Aviso

11.12 (2003): e20.
Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z. and Jun, D., 2006. Municipal solid waste
management challenges in developing countries–Kenyan case study.
Waste management, 26(1), pp. 92-100.
Hii, C. L., Jangam, S. V., Ong, S. P., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2012). Solar
drying: Fundamentals, applications and innovations. TPR Group
Publication, Singapore.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a waste: a global review of
solid waste management. Urban development series knowledge papers,
15, pp. 1-98.
Hoornweg, D. and Thomas, L., 1999. What a waste: solid waste
management in Asia. The World Bank.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (2009a), Replications
in Other Cities and Countries: Replication in the Philippines.
https://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/publication/Takakura/11%20Philippines.p
df (accessed 19 December 2017).
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (2009b), Replications
in Other Cities and Countries: Replication in Thailand.
https://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/publication/Takakura/12%20Thailand.pdf
(accessed 19 December 2017).
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (2014). Commission
Report: Supporting low-carbon Yangon city through Joint Crediting
Mechanism (JCM) project formulation, March 2014.
Jungrungrueng, S., Director of Air Quality and Noise Management Division
Department of Environment Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
Solid Waste Management in Bangkok. http://office.bangkok.go.th/
environment (accessed 14 March 2017).
Khaing, W., (2012). “Myanmar’s Future Potentials in Low Carbon Energy.”
Myanmar 2nd Forum, Green Economy Green Growth, MICC, Nay Pyi
Taw, 13th - 15th November 2012.
Khaing, W., (2013). Opportunities of clean energy solutions in Myanmar
and in the Region. GECC 3rd Forum, Nay Pyi Taw-Yangon, 22 to 23
November 2013.

Khatib, I. A., (2011). Municipal solid waste management in developing

countries: Future challenges and possible opportunities. INTECH Open
Access Publisher.
Khajuria, Anupam, Yugo Yamamoto, and Tohru Morioka. Estimation of
municipal solid waste generation and landfill area in Asian developing
countries. (2010).
Kaushal, R. K., Varghese, G. K., & Chabukdhara, M. (2012). Municipal
solid waste management in India-current state and future challenges: a
review. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,
4(4), 1473-1489.
Langerak, J., Dekker, H. and Dirkse, E. H. M. (2015). POME as a Source of
Biomethane. Bioenergy Consult, Powering Clean Energy Future.
https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/tag/southeast-asia/ (accessed 19
December 2017).
Lwin, H., (2017). Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC), Current
Status of Solid Waste Management. http://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/docs/
mtgs/seminars/theme/swm/presentation/3%20Yangon%20(Paper).doc
(accessed 3 March 2017).
Mann, U., and Myint, O., 2017. Myanmar Participants. Community-based
3 Rs Practices in Myanmar. (accessed 31 March 2017).
Menikpura, N. (2013). Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)
Group Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Integrated
Solid Waste Management: Towards Low-carbon Waste Management in
Yangon – Myanmar. International workshop on sustainable waste
management in Yangon.
Mandalay City Development Committee (MCDC) 2015. Mandalay City
Report on Solid Waste Management. http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/
kcap/activities/egm/2014/pdf/egm03_en.pdf (accessed 14 March 2017).
Myanmar Recycle System Project (MRSP), 2012. ASEAN-Japan Center and
Embassy of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in Japan, Yangon,
Myanmar.
Menon, M. H. (2002). Solid waste management in Dhaka Bangladesh,
Innovation in community driven composting. Analysis of community
based initiative for solid waste management.

Messenger B (2017) JFE engineering to build first waste to energy plant

Myanmar. https://waste-management-world.com/a/jfe-engineering-to-
build-first-waste-to-energy-plant-myanmar. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
Manaf, L. A., Samah, M. A. A., & Zukki, N. I. M. (2009). Municipal solid
waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste
management, 29(11), 2902-2906.
Marshall, R. E. and Farahbakhsh, K., (2013). Systems approaches to
integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste
Management, 33(4), pp. 988-1003.
Medina, M., (2004). Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America.
Global Development Network.
Medina M (2008). The informal recycling sector in developing countries:
organizing waste pickers to enhance their impact. Gridlines, no. 44.
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Minghua, Z., Xiumin, F., Rovetta, A., Qichang, H., Vicentini, F., Bingkai,
L., Giusti, A., Yi, L. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in
Pudong New Area, China. Journal of Waste Management 29, 1227–
1233.
Quina, M. J., Bordado, J. M. and Quinta-Ferreira, R. M., 2014. Recycling of
air pollution control residues from municipal solid waste incineration
into lightweight aggregates. Waste management, 34(2), pp. 430-438.
Modak, P., Jiemian, Y., Hongyuan, Y. and Mohanty, C. R., 2010. Municipal
Solid Waste Management: Turning waste into resources. Shanghai
Manual-A Guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st
Century.
Myanmar, 2010. Country Presentation for 2nd Meeting of the Regional 3R
Forum, 4-6 October 2010.
Myanmar National Environmental Performance assessment (EPA) Report,
2017. National Performance Assessment and Subregional Strategic
Environment Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion TA No.
6069. http://www.gms-eoc.org/uploads/resources/22/attachment/Myan
mar%20EPA%20Report.pdf (accessed 24 March 2017).

Ngoc, U.N. and Schnitzer, H., 2009. Sustainable solutions for solid waste
management in Southeast Asian countries. Waste management, 29(6),
pp.1982-1995.
Nguyen, T. (2006). Solid waste management in Vietnam-An industrial
ecology study, 2006.
Organisation, A. P., 2007. Solid Waste Management, Issues and Challenges
in Asia.
Premakumara, D. G. J. and Hengesbaugh, M. 2016. Quick Study on Waste
Management in Myanmar: Current Situation and Key Challenges.
Puopiel, F., 2010. Solid waste management in Ghana: the case of Tamale
Metropolitan Area. Master of Science in Development Policy and
Planning. Kumasi: Kwame Krumah University of Science and
Technology.
Ragazzi, M., Rada, E. C., Panaitescu, V., & Apostol, T. (2007). Municipal
solid waste pre-treatment: A comparison between two dewatering
options. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 102.
RenoSam and Rambøll, (2006). The most efficient waste management
system in Europe: Waste-to-energy in Denmark, published by RenoSam
Vesterbrogade 24, 2. sal tv. DK-1620 Copenhagen V. https://stateof
green.com/files/download/275 (accessed 14 March 2017).
RISØ, U., 2013. Emissions Reduction Profile Myanmar. Denmark: UNEP
RISØ CENTRE.
Sisoulath, Solid Waste Management in Lao PDR, Second Meeting of the
Regional 3R Forum in Asia Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 4-6 October 2010.
Shirinbakhsh, M., & Amidpour, M. (2017). Design and optimization of
solar-assisted conveyer-belt dryer for biomass. Energy Equipment and
Systems, 5(2), 1-10.
Soe, K., T., and Yin, M., M., 2009. “Environmental Management in
Myanmar” Yangon University of Distance Education Research Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 1., pg. 264.
Tabata, T. (2013). Waste-to-energy incineration plants as greenhouse gas
reducers: A case study of seven Japanese metropolises. Waste
Management & Research, 31(11), 1110-1117. DOI: 10.1177/073424
2X13502385.

The World Bank, 2016. Waste Not, Want Not – Solid Waste at the Heart of
Sustainable Development. March 3, 2016 http://www.worldbank.org/en
/news/feature/2016/03/03/waste-not-want-not---solid-waste-at-the-hear
t-of-sustainable-development (Access 2 January 2017).
Thein, M., 2014. Member of GHG inventory and Mitigation group, Initial
National Communication Project for UNFCCC, Myanmar: GHG
emissions from waste sector of INC of Myanmar. The 8th Workshop on
GHG inventories in Asia (WGIA8), Vientiane, Laos PDR.
Trading Economics, (2017). Myanmar Population Forecast 2016-2020.
Troschinetz, A. M. and Mihelcic, J. R., 2009. Sustainable recycling of
municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste management,
29(2), pp. 915-923.
Tom, A. P., Haridas, A., & Pawels, R. (2016). Biodrying Process
Efficiency:-Significance of Reactor Matrix Height. Procedia
Technology, 25, 130-137.
Tun, M. M. and Juchelková, D., 2018. Assessment of solid waste generation
and greenhouse gas emission potential in Yangon city, Myanmar.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 20(3), pp. 1397-
1408.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP), 2017. Introduction Types of Wastes. www.unescap.org/
sites/default/files/CH08.PDF (accessed 27 March 2017).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2004. State of Waste
Management in South East Asia. First Edition. ISBN 92-807-2272-7.
Vögeli, Y. (2014). Anaerobic digestion of biowaste in developing countries:
Practical information and case studies. Eawag-Sandec.
Waste Concern (2009), Waste Data Base of Bangladesh. http://www.
wasteconcern.org/documents/Waste%20Data%20Base_2009.pdf
(accessed 14 March 2017)
Wilson, D. C., 2007. Development drivers for waste management. Waste
Management & Research 25 (3), 198–207.

Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector
recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat
international, 30(4), 797-808.
Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC), (2012). Current Situation
of Solid Waste Management in Yangon City, 2012.
Zurbrügg, C., Gfrerer, M., Ashadi, H., Brenner, W., & Küper, D. (2012).
Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management–The Gianyar
Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia. Waste management, 32(11),
2126-2133.
Reviewed by:
Prof. Ing. Helena Raclavská, CSC.

Department of Geological Engineering
Faculty of Mining and Geology
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Ostrava, Czech Republic
helena.raclavska@vsb.cz
Prof. Ing. Jiřina Jílková, CSC.

Prorektorka, zakladatelka poradenské firmy
Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem
Czech Republic
jirina.jilkova@ujep.cz
Associate Prof. Aung Myat Thu, PhD

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Mandalay Technological University
Mandalay, Myanmar
laymyathnar@gmail.com

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Maw Maw Tun
Affiliation: Department of Energy Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical

Engineering, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Education: PhD Candidate
Research and Professional Experience: Renewable Energy Sources,

Renewable Energy Utilization, biomass utilization, waste management,
waste-to-energy and environmental conservation
Professional Appointments: Researcher and Administration in

Department of Technical and Vocational Education, Ministry of Education
Publications from the Last 3 Years:
1) Maw Maw Tun, Dagmar Juchelková, “Estimation of Waste Resource

Recovery from the Daily Collected Wastes in Yangon,” Conference
Paper, published by 7th International Conference on Science and
Engineering (7th ICSE 2016), Yangon Technological University,
Yangon, Myanmar, December 10-11, 2016. Abstract Volume-7, p-261
2) Maw Maw Tun, and Dagmar Juchelková. “Assessment of solid waste
generation and greenhouse gas emission potential in Yangon city,
Myanmar.” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
(2017): 1-12.
3) Maw Maw Tun, Estimation of solid waste quality for thermal waste
treatment in Yangon, Waste Management 72 (2018) I–III, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0956-053X(17)30985-6.

Ing. Dagmar Juchelková
Affiliation: Department of Energy Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical

Engineering, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Education: PhD
Research and Professional Experience: Combustion of Biomass,

biomass utilization, waste management, waste-to-energy, alternative energy
process and environment
Professional Appointments: Researcher in VSB-Technical University

of Ostrava from 1993 to 1995; Lecturer in VSB-Technical University of
Ostrava since 1995; Consultant for Ministry of Environment of the Czech
Republic in 1995; Professor in VSB-Technical University of Ostrava up to
now
Publications from the Last 3 Years:
1) Juchelková, Dagmar; Corsaro, Agnieszka; Hlavsová, Adéla;

Raclavská, Helena. Effect of composting on the production of syngas
during pyrolysis of perennial grasses (Fuel. 2015, vol. 154, p. 380-
390).
2) Maw Maw Tun, Dagmar Juchelková, “Estimation of Waste Resource
Recovery from the Daily Collected Wastes in Yangon,” Conference
Paper, published by 7th International Conference on Science and
Engineering (7th ICSE 2016), Yangon Technological University,
Yangon, Myanmar, December 10-11, 2016. Abstract Volume-7, p-261
3) Tun, Maw Maw, and Dagmar Juchelková. “Assessment of solid waste
generation and greenhouse gas emission potential in Yangon city,
Myanmar.” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
(2017): 1-12.
4) Raclavská, H., Růžičková, J., Škrobánková, H., Koval, S., Kucbel, M.,
Raclavský, K., Švédová, B., Pavlík, P. and Juchelková, D., 2018.

Possibilities of the utilization of char from the pyrolysis of tetrapak.

Journal of environmental management, 219, pp. 231-238.
5) Kucbel, M., Svedova, B., Raclavska, H., Raclavsky, K., Ruzickova, J.
and Juchelkova, D., 2017, October. The influence of the inverse
character of the weather on concentrations of black carbon. In IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 92, No. 1,
p. 012033). IOP Publishing.
6) Růžičková, Jana, Marek Kucbel, Helena Raclavská, Hana
Škrobánková, Konstantin Raclavský, Barbora Švédová, Petr Pavlík,
Veronika Sassmanová, and Dagmar Juchelková. “The influence of
pyrolysis temperature on the chemical composition and the energy
properties of char from tetrapak.” In Environment and Electrical
Engineering and 2017 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), 2017 IEEE International
Conference on, pp. 1-4. IEEE, 2017.
7) Kucbel, M., Corsaro, A., Švédová, B., Raclavská, H., Raclavský, K.
and Juchelková, D., 2017. Temporal and seasonal variations of black
carbon in a highly polluted European city: Apportionment of potential
sources and the effect of meteorological conditions. Journal of
environmental management, 203, pp. 1178-1189.
8) Raclavská, H., Corsaro, A., Hartmann-Koval, S. and Juchelková, D.,
2017. Enrichment and distribution of 24 elements within the sub-sieve
particle size distribution ranges of fly ash from wastes incinerator
plants. Journal of environmental management, 203, pp. 1169-1177.
9) Raclavská, H., Kucbel, M., Raclavský, K., Škrobánková, H. and
Juchelková, D., 2016, June. Possibilities thermal utilization of solid
char from pyrolysis of municipal solid waste. In Environment and
Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), 2016 IEEE 16th International
Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
10) Corsaro, A., Raclavská, H., Hlavsová, A., Frydrych, J. and Juchelková,
D., 2016. Perennial grasses as prospective energy sources. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects,
38(9), pp. 1206-1211.

INDEX
A E
anaerobic digestion, 74, 80, 85, 95, 96 economic development, viii, 3, 37, 45, 50,
Asia, ix, 9, 29, 30, 41, 46, 65, 87, 89, 91, 92, 60, 61, 69, 70, 72, 76
93 economic growth, 39, 55, 67, 77
Asian countries, vii, ix, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, economic reform, 51, 61
84, 88 ecosystem, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 60
education, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,
19, 31, 34, 72, 79, 82, 86
B
educational institutions, 12, 79, 80, 82, 86
educational research, vii, viii, 1, 32
biodiversity, viii, 37, 40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 55,
educational system, 4, 11, 12
60
environment, viii, ix, 1, 12, 13, 17, 20, 30,
Burma, 2, 40, 42, 45, 52, 64
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 49, 55, 60,
65, 66, 76, 80, 84, 89, 96
C environmental degradation, viii, 38, 49
environmental governance, 39
climate, 47, 49, 50, 79 environmental impact, 46, 55, 56, 59, 60,
climate change, 47, 49, 50, 79 67, 76, 77
composting, 73, 74, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 95, environmental issues, ix, 66, 67, 77, 79
96 environmental management, 55, 97
curriculum, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 environmental quality, 82, 84
environmental regulations, viii, 38, 56, 78

100 Index
MSW management system, 76, 79, 80, 81,

G
82, 86
municipal solid waste, 66, 73, 75, 79, 87,
geography, 15, 17, 30
88, 90, 91, 93, 97
global economy, viii, 37
Myanmar, v, vii, viii, ix, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
greenhouse, 50, 75, 76, 78, 79,, 92, 93, 95,
10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32,
96
33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46,
greenhouse gas, 50, 75, 92, 93, 95, 96
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,
greenhouse gas emission, 50, 77, 93, 95, 96
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,78, 79, 80,
H 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93, 94, 95, 96
health, 46, 48, 49, 57, 60, 66, 77, 79, 82
high school, 5, 6
higher education, 4, 7, 9, 11, 35 N
natural gas, 40, 42, 60

I natural resource management, viii, 38, 52,
55, 58
inclusivity, 82 natural resources, v, vii, viii, 37, 38, 39, 40,
India, 2, 16, 17, 32, 41, 70, 90 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
industrialization, 38, 69 59, 61, 62, 64
institutions, 7, 8, 10, 51, 62, 83
integrated solid waste management system,
ix, 66, 67 P
policy, vii, viii, 11, 33, 38, 39, 52, 62

L population, viii, 2, 38, 40, 41, 49, 51, 62, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 87
landfill, 76, 77, 87, 90, 95, 96 population density, 67, 68
laws, vii, viii, 38, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62 population growth, 49, 67, 68, 69, 77
learning, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, poverty, 41, 56, 61, 62, 83
19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 primary school, 4, 7, 32
learning environment, v, vii, viii, 1, 10, 12, public awareness, 82, 85
19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 public education, 82
local government, 69, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86 public health, ix, 65, 66, 82, 83, 84
M Q
military, 3, 10, 45, 52, 53, 57, 60 questionnaire, vii, viii, 1, 2, 13, 20, 31, 33
military government, 45, 57
MSW generation rates, 69, 70

Index 101
transparency, viii, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 51, 57,

R
58, 60, 61, 62, 64
transportation, 42, 66, 69, 75, 79, 82, 85, 95,
recycling, ix, 66, 72, 79, 82, 84, 87, 88, 89,
96
91, 93, 94, 95, 96
resource curse, 38, 40
resource recovery, 82, 95, 96 U
resources, vii, viii, 10, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40,
43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, universities, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 30
57, 58, 59, 62, 84, 91, 92 university classrooms, 2
urban, 67, 68
urban population, 68
S
urbanization, 66, 68, 69, 77
school, vii, viii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 17,
30, 33, 35, 82, 85 V
secondary education, 3, 4
social acceptability, 82 validation, viii, 1, 2, 18, 20, 31, 32
social change, 38
social consequences, 59
W
social context, vii, 1
social services, 48 waste, vii, viii, ix, 49, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71,
society, 2, 8, 11, 49, 60, 76, 80, 83, 84, 86
72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
solid waste, viii, 65, 66, 67, 69, 77, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
waste disposal, ix, 66, 67, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79,
solid waste generation, ix, 65, 66, 78, 90, 84, 85, 95, 96
93, 95, 96
waste management, vii, ix, 49, 66, 67, 69,
Southeast Asia, 2, 3, 34, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 71, 72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86,
67, 88, 92
88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
sustainability, 64, 80, 81, 82, 83, 94 waste resource recovery, 74, 85, 95, 96
sustainable development, 39, 55, 62, 80, 86,
waste separation, 82
93 waste treatment, 75, 76, 79, 85, 95
sustainable waste management system, ix,
waste-to-energy, 75, 82, 84, 91, 95, 96
66, 67, 81, 82 What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC),
2, 20, 31, 33
T
Y
taxation, 39, 45, 53, 57, 58, 62
teacher training, 7, 12
Yangon, 1, 9, 10, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
teachers, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 29, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 84, 89, 90, 92, 93,
31, 32, 33
94, 95, 96
translation, viii, 1, 18, 30, 32

View publication stats

Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Myanmar: Environmental ,Political and Social Issues

Chapter · January 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

NOTICE TO THE READER

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN:  H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Myanmar: Environmental, Political and Social Issues presents edu-

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

environment and public health. Myanmar is a developing country in Asia.

Complimentary Contributor Copy

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN MYANMAR

Barry J. Fraser1, Myint Swe Khine2 and Nu Nu Khaing3

This chapter’s portrayal of educational, historical and social contexts

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Keywords: learning environment, Myanmar, questionnaire, university

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is the largest country in Southeast

Complimentary Contributor Copy

used as models. This university became one of the most prestigious

Complimentary Contributor Copy

rural areas being the least likely to participate. Primary-school education is

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EDUCATION IN MYANMAR

Myanmar faced many challenges in reforming its education system that

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

required for building a modern, developed and democratic nation. In

Complimentary Contributor Copy

initial accreditation exercises as supported by the Federation of Engineering

Complimentary Contributor Copy

away from a centralised selection system and gives universities freedom to

Complimentary Contributor Copy

205,000 students. The project is funded by the Open Society Foundations’

 harmonization of Myanmar’s higher education within the ASEAN

Complimentary Contributor Copy

 knowledge partnerships: inviting leading UK educational

OPENING UP LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

As noted above, the time is now ripe to apply in Myanmar concepts,

Complimentary Contributor Copy

The WIHIC brings together salient scales from existing questionnaires,

Complimentary Contributor Copy

ment occur; and System Maintenance and System Change Dimensions

Table 1. Scale Description, Sample Item and Moos (1974)

WIHIC scale Moos Scale Description Sample Item

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Past Studies Involving WIHIC

 at the kindergarten level with 172 students and their parents

Although the WIHIC was first used in science classrooms, it

Complimentary Contributor Copy

 Spanish with 223 students (Adamski, Fraser & Peiro, 2013)

The WIHIC has been cross-validated and applied in many different

Variety of Past Research Applications with WIHIC

The most common application of WIHIC scales in past research has

Complimentary Contributor Copy

programs and innovations. For example, when Martin-Dunlop and Fraser

Complimentary Contributor Copy

ISBN: H%RRN