When the ground shakes in a fractured state: why integrated data matters in Myanmar

Myanmar’s governance challenges have made it hard to tally the impacts of the recent earthquakes. To rebuild Myanmar’s broken foundations, the humanitarian community must ensure that the data informing recovery efforts looks beyond visible earthquake impacts. A conflict-sensitive approach to data is needed to capture cumulative realities to ensure aid is impartial and humanitarian efforts address root vulnerabilities.

The strongest earthquake in over a century

On 28 March, a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar, with the epicentre near Mandalay, the country’s second-largest city. It was the strongest quake to hit the country in over a century.

Reporting has the death toll at more than 3,800 people, and food, water, medicine and shelter needs are dire. Smaller aftershocks have left Myanmar’s population deeply fearful.

The recent earthquake sent buildings crumbling, but Myanmar’s foundations were already broken. What Myanmar is experiencing is not an isolated crisis but one of compounded causes.

The earthquake may have been the immediate trigger, but the scale of devastation and the complexity of the response are deeply rooted in Myanmar’s systemic fragilities. Years of fragmented governance and protracted conflict have left the country acutely vulnerable.

Myanmar’s layered vulnerabilities before the quake

Long before the recent earthquake, Myanmar had been teetering on the edge. Since gaining independence from British colonial rule in 1948, Myanmar (formerly Burma) has failed in building an inclusive and stable political system for its multiethnic society. Decades of poor governance, crackdowns on democracy efforts, and extreme violence directed at resistance groups slowed for a short, bright spell in the 2010s, when the country turned briefly toward political reform.

The military coup in February 2021 ignited a new phase of civil war between the junta and a patchwork of armed resistance groups. Today, vast territories of the country are contested by non-state armed groups, while the central government continues to grapple with a shrinking sphere of political influence.

This has shaped multiple overlapping crises, with nearly half of Myanmar’s population living in poverty and the economy left in disarray. Before the recent earthquakes, nearly 20 million people were estimated to need humanitarian assistance – over a third of the population.

Divides in data reporting

As of mid-November 2024, Myanmar’s government only had control over 21% of the country’s territory, while ethnic armed organisations and rebel groups controlled up to 42%, and the remaining areas highly contested and volatile.

What happens when aid is delivered in a divided map? Studies show that humanitarian access and data reporting often reflect political divisions. This significantly undermines the effectiveness of humanitarian aid.

When disaster response happens against the backdrop of ongoing conflict, it becomes incredibly challenging to assess needs, allocate aid and plan recovery in an impartial and effective manner. There is a risk that aid will flow only where access and visibility allow it, not necessarily where it is most needed.

In such a context, even the act of counting those in need becomes political. The figures we see in media reports and updates reflect what is most visible, while many others remain unseen and unaccounted for.

Yet, data also presents an opportunity to generate the evidence needed to tackle systemic vulnerabilities.

The politics of aid access in a divided state

Myanmar’s military junta made a rare public appeal for international humanitarian assistance on the second day of the quake aftermath.

However, effective aid delivery often relies on government leadership and established coordination mechanisms. In Myanmar’s current context, marked by competing authorities, territorial disputes and widespread mistrust, international aid must navigate extremely complicated and fragile terrain.

Further exacerbating the dire situation are reports of continued military operations in areas impacted by the earthquake. Despite the ongoing humanitarian crisis, the junta has persisted with airstrikes and blocked aid from areas where it does not have full control. This pattern is not new. In the aftermath of Cyclone Mocha in 2023, military authorities were widely accused of obstructing the delivery of lifesaving aid.

Without confidence that aid will reach those most in need, the credibility and impact of humanitarian response are at serious risk.

Ensuring integrated data informs impartial recovery plans

We call on organisations and governments to prioritise data collection that captures the root causes of the current crisis. Building damage assessments are vital, but we must couple this with data on the ongoing conflict and recent disasters for a more complete picture of needs.

This calls for a fundamental shift in how humanitarian data is conceptualised and documented. We must move away from treating the earthquake events as isolated disasters. Instead, assessments should systematically capture communities’ previous experiences with conflict and disaster, alongside current needs.

A starting point could be integrating questions about past displacement and disaster experiences into current needs assessments and recovery plans. Recording whether individuals have faced conflict-related displacement, secondary or repeated displacement, or long-term, protracted displacement would enable a more comprehensive understanding of overlapping vulnerabilities.

Beyond displacement histories, past crises’ impacts on housing, livelihoods, education and health should also be documented to better understand the compounded risks that affected communities face. For example, more than 36,000 homes and buildings were destroyed amid armed conflict between 2021 and 2022 after the coup. While these families may not have lost homes to the earthquake, their needs are no less important.

Layering earthquake data on information from the ongoing conflict and previous disasters can help expose gaps. For example, Typhoon Yagi brought on the worst flooding central Myanmar had seen in 60 years last September – and many communities are still recovering. Overlaying recent earthquake and cyclone data with existing conflict datasets – for example, ACLED – could deepen understanding of the current crisis. Data must account for these prior conditions if recovery efforts are to be effective.

The way we collect data now will shape not only the immediate response but the trajectory of recovery. Viewing the earthquake as a standalone event misses the complex web of drivers that led to and aggravated this disaster.

A more holistic, conflict-aware approach is needed – one that recognises Myanmar’s complex and overlapping crises – and responds accordingly.

The situation in Myanmar today is a stark reminder of why that shift is urgently needed.

Sheryn See is a Master of Philosophy candidate at the University of Sydney. Her research examines humanitarian response to complex displacement at the intersection of climate change, disasters and conflict in the Philippines. Her research explores how organisations contextualise and respond to overlapping displacement crises, and how data and reporting can be enhanced to better inform future responses.

Dr Aaron Opdyke is a Senior Lecturer in Humanitarian Engineering at the University of Sydney. His research focuses on the interface of infrastructure and social systems, examining this nexus in humanitarian response, disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation. His work examines disasters across social and engineering boundaries, developing new methods and tools to assess disaster risk that integrate scientific, local and indigenous knowledge.

Dr Susan Banki is an Associate Professor in the Discipline of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Sydney. She directs the university’s Master of Social Justice. Her book about Bhutan’s refugee diaspora, The Ecosystem of Exile Politics, was published by Cornell University Press in 2024.