Foreword Like its neighbors in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), Myanmar has been trying to reconcile the demands of economic growth with the integrity of its physical environment. Despite its great natural resources and progress made at reversing some decline in forest cover, there remain many challenges for the country’s environmental stability, from soil degradation to water quality. This environmental performance assessment (EPA) encompasses seven key environmental concerns: forest resources, biodiversity, land degradation, management of water resources, waste management, air pollution from mobile sources, and climate change. The prime purpose of the second Strategic Environmental Framework (SEF II), initiated in 2003, is to promote sustainable development in the GMS through the creation of a national and subregional environmental performance assessment system and the building of capacity to implement such a system. Supported by a detailed and transparent database, the EPA report draws a picture of principal environmental trends, assesses the degree of success in achieving specific targets, and makes key recommendations. In this way, EPA assists the process of policy adjustment and becomes a tool for public accountability, as well as a device for the wider GMS to implement on a subregional picture. This national EPA was prepared under the guidance of a national coordination committee. Like all assessments of performance, assessment of environmental performance demands a retrospective look at what has happened, not what might happen in the future. Here, the present EPA draws on the “P-S-R” model pioneered by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the model, indicators are chosen to capture the state of the concern being studied, the underlying pressures, and the responses, to counter the pressures and improve the state. The report is vital in highlighting gaps and weaknesses in current policy, by illustrating Myanmar’s current record, and then showing ways forward. The EPA report is vital not just as a national marker, but also as a tool for the whole GMS to incorporate. Myanmar was able to carry out SEF II with guidance of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) teams. The report is written in four parts. After an introduction in Part I, Part II is an assessment of performance under principal environmental concerns. Part III of the report deals with the factors that affect performance. Part IV draws conclusions and gives recommendations. As well as in national application, this report will also be of great use for future planning and improvement of environmental management in Myanmar. Dr. San Win National Commission for Environmental Affairs Union of Myanmar i Acknowledgment The completion of the National Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) Report for Myanmar would not have been possible without the valuable inputs and assistance of many individuals. A core team of international and national consultants prepared the initial and final draft of the report under the aegis of the National Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA). Daw Yin Yin Lay, NCEA Joint Secretary and Daw Htwe Nyo Nyo, NCEA Deputy Director, served as the National Focal Point and National Coordinator, respectively, for the project. We wish to thank international consultants Ivan Ruzicka, Kumar Mohit, and Mike Comeau and national consultants Win Myo Thu and Maung Maung Than for their very significant work on the report. Acknowledgement is also given to the many people and institutions that participated in the various consultations and workshops organized during the preparation of the report and provided feedback. This includes an EPA technical review team consisting of representatives from NCEA, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Transport, Yangon City Development Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, and Ministry of Health. The project was made possible through financial and technical support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES) of Japan, and the National Institute for Environmental Strategies (NIES) of Japan. A note of thanks is given to Masami Tsuji and Herath Gutanilake, both ADB staffs, who provided valuable insight and support throughout the process of preparing this report. Finally, kudos to the team from UNEP who ably coordinated the management of the entire project on Strategic Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion (SEF II): Yuwaree In-na and Tin Aung Moe.Acknowledgment The completion of the National Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) Report for Myanmar would not have been possible without the valuable inputs and assistance of many individuals. A core team of international and national consultants prepared the initial and final draft of the report under the aegis of the National Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA). Daw Yin Yin Lay, NCEA Joint Secretary and Daw Htwe Nyo Nyo, NCEA Deputy Director, served as the National Focal Point and National Coordinator, respectively, for the project. We wish to thank international consultants Ivan Ruzicka, Kumar Mohit, and Mike Comeau and national consultants Win Myo Thu and Maung Maung Than for their very significant work on the report. Acknowledgement is also given to the many people and institutions that participated in the various consultations and workshops organized during the preparation of the report and provided feedback. This includes an EPA technical review team consisting of representatives from NCEA, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Transport, Yangon City Development Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, and Ministry of Health. The project was made possible through financial and technical support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Institute for Global Environmental Studies (IGES) of Japan, and the National Institute for Environmental Strategies (NIES) of Japan. A note of thanks is given to Masami Tsuji and Herath Gutanilake, both ADB staffs, who provided valuable insight and support throughout the process of preparing this report. Finally, kudos to the team from UNEP who ably coordinated the management of the entire project on Strategic Environmental Framework for the Greater Mekong Subregion (SEF II): Yuwaree In-na and Tin Aung Moe. Regional Director and Representatives United Nations Environment Programme for Asia and the Pacific Executive Summary Like its Greater Mekong Subregion neighbors, My- Myanmar is perceived as a low water stress country. anmar has been trying to reconcile the demands of Nonetheless, the dominant role of rice in the crop- economic growth with the integrity of its physical ping systems and several other factors has made environment and the long-term health of its citizens. irrigation a priority concern. The volume of irrigation This Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) water storage capacity has increased 27 times since report evaluates the degree of success that national 1988. Given the continued policy and strategic pref- stakeholders have had in achieving this objective, ex- erence for more paddies, the pressure on supplying pressed in a number of different ways in official pol- more water for irrigated farming is set to remain icy documents. The assessment is confined to seven high in the foreseeable future. Sustained funding of key environmental concerns, viz., forest resources, the irrigation water storage capacity and irrigation biodiversity, land degradation, management of water management has made it possible to improve the resources, waste management, air pollution from percentage of total lands effectively irrigated. mobile sources and climate change. The assessment uses a structure of performance indicators and is The country has achieved substantial progress in supported by detailed statistical information. providing its population with safe drinking water and Myanmar scores well in comparison to other GMS Reinforced by policy and institutional support, countries. In rural areas, access increased from 50% progress has been made towards safeguarding the in 1995 to 74% in 2003. In urban areas the increase forest resources despite evidence of increased pres- was from 78% in 1995 to 92% in 2003. sure on them during the last three decades. Follow- ing a period of rapid loss between 1975 and 1995, Solid waste management in Myanmar presents a the forest cover stabilized around 51 per cent at the mixed picture of clear improvements in the country’s turn of the last decade. The expansion of the Perma- two premier cities (Yangon and Mandalay) nent Forest Estate is a strong positive feature. It is combined with stagnating or deteriorating collection and too early to say what the effect of recent disposal in other States and Divisions. In Yangon, a re-orientation of forest management towards reduced volume of waste per capita has resulted in community management and greater attention to an overall decline in the volume of waste generated. reducing fuelwood consumption has been. The authorities’ greater efforts at collecting the waste disposal fees are believed to be largely responsible Myanmar’s exceptionally rich biodiversity could not for this outcome. escape the effect of the pressure on habitats dur- ing the last two decades, in particular the rapid loss Unsystematic and insufficient information