Content uploaded by Josiah Bowles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josiah Bowles on Jul 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Ayeyarwaddy, The River Endangered
By: Josiah Bowles
Myanmar Development Research Institute (MDRI)
October, 2013.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Zaw Oo and Dr. U Myint for initiating the water
quality study of the Ayeyarwaddy River. Words cannot convey enough credits especially to Dr.
Zaw Oo for his interest, support, and facilitation for the study. All concerned government
ministries and departments should be given due credit for all the help and the data provided. I am
very grateful to the fishermen, ship operators, and river bank farmers for their willingness to
contribute in the study and for their candid answers to the questions. Finally, I would like to thank
MCDC director, DWRI director, and their teams for sharing their valuable time and the
information.
3
Executive Summary
Ayeyarwaddy River is the lifeline of Myanmar and majority of the country’s population is
dependent on the river for their survival. The water quality of Ayeyarwaddy River has been in
decline for many years and the failure to deal urgently with various critical issues can lead the river
to a point of no return. Siltation with the rate of 360 million tons annually ranking the third highest
in the world (Robinson, 2007) especially from mining operations, the result of deforestation, and
lack of soil protection or over exploitation of land poses as a major threat the river has been facing.
High levels of arsenic 30 ppb and cyanide 0.14 mg/L can be traced seasonally in the river. A
number of government agencies are responsible for monitoring and protecting the river but lack of
coordination, incapacity, and minimal support do not help those agencies to achieve their goals.
Scientific studies to assess realistic situation and then, formulating conservation matters will make
a difference to reclaim Ayeyarwaddy River.
4
Table of Contents
Title Page
Acknowledgements 2
Executive Summary 3
Table of Contents 4
List of Figures 5
List of Abbreviations 6
Introduction 7
Background 7
Background Issues 8
Objectives 9
Methodologies 10
Findings 11
Discussion 14
Conclusion and Recommendations for future action and research 27
References 33
Appendixes 35
5
List of figures Page
Figure (1) Ships on Ayeyarwaddy 7
Figure (2) Ayeyarwaddy River bank at risk 15
Figure (3) May Kha River before the mining operation and after the mine 16
Figure (4) Close-up view of the site 17
Figure (5) A large scale mine beside the Maykha River near Samra 17
Figure (6) A mine beside May Kha River near Damphet 18
Figure (7) Mining impacts on Maylikha River near Yunrang 18
Figure (8) Latpandaung Copper Mine 19
Figure (9) Aerial view of Hpakant Mine 19
Figure (10) Dumping wastewater into the river 21
Figure (11) Extensive sandbars 22
Figure (12) A tug boat pushing a barge stranded on a sandbar (near Mandalay) 22
Figure (13) Monks, nuns, and peoples bathing in the river in Sagaing 23
Figure (14) Toilet on the river 25
6
List of Abbreviation
DOF Myanmar Department of Fisheries
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GOUM The Government of Union of Myanmar
ID Irrigation Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MDRI Myanmar Development Resources Institute
MOT Ministry of Transportation
NCEA National Commission for Environmental Affairs
NWRMC Myanmar National Water Resources Management Committee (NWRMC)
NWRM National Water Resources Management Committee
UNREDD United Nation – Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation
US-EPA The United States – Environmental Protection Agency
WHO World Health Organization
DWRIRS Directorate of Water Resources and Improvement of River System under
the Ministry of Transportation
WRUD Water Resources Utilization Department under the Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation
WWF World Wildlife Fund
7
Introduction
The Ayeryarwaddy is an economic and ecological lifeline for Myanmar. It is also symbolically
extremely important water way that links the country north to south. Its importance was vividly
demonstrated by the public outcry over the planned Myitsone Dam near the headwaters of the
Ayeryarwaddy. Recognizing the potentially devastating environmental, social, and economic
impacts of the 6,000 Megawatt dam and the strength of public sentiment opposing its construction,
President Thein Sein suspended construction on the dam. In complete reversal from the previous
government’s stance on environmental context, President Thein Sein laid out the reform minded
government’s priority for river conservation, water supply, and irrigation water management on
August, 19, 2013. As a part of the priority, National Water Resources Management Committee
(NWRM) was established in July 2013 to emphasize national attention to river conservation and
to enhance coordination. In the absence of credible baseline data, this study is conducted to assist
as a baseline for the government agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in river
conservation.
Background
Figure (1) depicts the heavy transportation use of the Ayeyarwaddy.
Figure (1) Ships on Ayeyarwaddy River
Ayeryarwaddy serves as the major river transportation route connecting north to south, provides
water supply for both the majority of the population in the country, and being the major contributor
for most of the country’s irrigation water need. Playing various major roles in providing livelihood
8
for millions of peoples, it would be a mere understatement to define as an important river, but in
fact it is the undeniable lifeline of Myanmar. Agriculture is a very important sector for Myanmar’s
foreign income and therefore, its dependence on river water for irrigation is irrefutable. The
irrigation department under the Ministry of Agriculture estimated that around 1082 Km3 of surface
water would be available in 2011. 312 Km3 out of the total estimate was from a single river, the
Ayeyarwaddy. The river flow varies from 2,300 m3/s in the summer to 32,600 m3/s flow in the
monsoon season (EB, 2000). The single most important river providing water supplies for the
majority of the population, serving as the main source for irrigation waters, and being the backbone
of river transport in Myanmar, Ayeyarwaddy River, stretches some1300 miles from very north of
the country to the Indian Ocean. Aside from a few exceptions like Shwe-Da-Gon Pagoda, nothing
in the country surpasses overwhelming popularity of the Ayeyarwaddy River. Whilst the river is
deemed as a national identity and is well cherished, this force has never been mobilized to become
a momentum for broader conservation of the river and of its natural beauty.
Growing demand for development enhances the drive to generate hydro power in the rivers. With
increasing numbers of dams in conjunction with rising water contaminations, the river hydrology
and ecology are interrupted if not damaged. In general, dams shift river hydrology by weakening
the flow rate and by lessening the flow depth. Moreover, the impacts on marine ecology can be
very severe both by the threats from dams and contaminations. While not denying the requirement
for converting the rivers to economic potentials for the development of the country, achieving
sustainability and minimizing environmental impacts should be seriously taken into account in all
future development programs.
Background Issues:
Decades of neglect, over-exploitation, and extensive pollution associated with deforestation,
urbanization, and industrialization have led to increasing pollution and sedimentary deposits in the
Ayeyarwaddy River. Specific issues affecting the river include:
Siltation– Excessive sediment loading from mining activities and soil erosion along the
river is a significant factor. The increase in sediment concentration leads to siltation. The
Ayeyarwaddy River deposits around 360 million tons of sediment annually (Robinson,
2007). According to data from 2005 data and experiments, the Ayeyarwaddy sediment load
is the third highest in the world (Robinson, 2007). The siltation creates frequent and rapid
shifts in the course of Ayeyarwaddy with numerous sandbars, which have a major impact
on river navigation, especially in the summer months. Deforestation also contributes to
sedimentation and subsequent siltation. MacKinnon (1997) estimated that almost 75% of
Myanmar’s forest ecosystem was lost by the early 1990s. Despite the significance of
siltation impacting the river, no recent studies could be found. More studies will be
necessary to address siltation.
Arsenic and other pollutants from mining operations - A study by the WHO in 2005 found
at least 3.4 million people were exposed to high levels of arsenic level along the
9
Ayeyarwaddy River (Fredericks, 2005). The actual extent of exposure can likely be higher
than that of the WHO study, but the reliable data is difficult to obtain due to lack of regular
water quality monitoring and in the absence of reliable background public health data on
water related health issues. With the observation of high phosphate concentration, nutrient
loading and pesticide contamination from the agricultural excess fertilizers and pesticides
are also possible, especially in the delta (BOBLME, 2011). Myanmar used 352,698 tons
of chemical fertilizers and 4940 metric tons of pesticides in 2009-10 (BOBLME, 2011). In
addition agricultural chemicals, communities and cities along the river directly dispose of
untreated raw sewage, municipal wastes, and medical wastes in the river (BOBLME,
2011).
Ecology - Ecology of the river is under serious threat. The population of Ayeyarwaddy
River dolphins, an indicator of the health of the ecosystem, has noticeably declined.
Sighting of the dolphins has become very rare in the lower part of the river. Estuarine
crocodiles (Crocodylus porous) and river terrapin (Botagur baska) are also on the verge of
extinction in accordance with the World Wildlife Conservation’s prediction.
Lack of institutional clarity – Conventionally the Government of Union of Myanmar
(GOUM) has assigned multiple agencies for river water quality and quantity management
(See Appendix II). This has created duplications and confusions stemming from
overlapping tasks and a lack of clear mandates among the agencies involved. Absence of a
designated focal point and shortfalls in coordination and information sharing have
undermined the efficiency and productivity of these agencies. Over the years, a number of
laws and regulations have been adopted but these lack specificity, clear designation of
responsibilities and authority among agencies, and well-articulated enforcement
mechanisms, rendering them somewhat ineffective. The coordination capacity and the
effectiveness of the new body, NWRM, to tackle present issues remain to be seen.
Objectives
This study aims to provide an overall description of the present state of the Ayeyarwaddy River to
help inform current policy efforts to improve river management, and to serve as a baseline for
further studies. It is based on research into the water quality of the Ayeyarwaddy River, conducted
between March and July 2013. The research aimed to provide a first snapshot of water quality,
upon which larger studies could be based. As such it is not intended to provide an in-depth look.
A full-scale study of the river’s ecology will be necessary in order to gain a comprehensive, in-
depth view of the river’s present state.
10
Methodology
The methodology was designed to respond to the needs of Myanmar’s current policy environment.
Improved management and reclamation of the Ayeyarwaddy is a stated priority of the GOUM, as
the establishment of the Myanmar National Water Resources Management Committee (NWRMC)
in July 2013 has demonstrated. This effort is inherently long-term and will require in-depth, large-
scale studies.
The present study was designed to be relatively quick, low-cost, and simple. The study set out to
examine the state of the river’s water quality and provide a systematic, if necessarily
geographically limited baseline for water quality in the Ayeyarwaddy. The study was conducted
between March and July 2013, and included sampling in Sint Ku and Mandalay in Mandalay
Region, Pyi in Bago Region, and Hinthada and Nyaung Done in Ayeryarwaddy Region, in the
Ayeryarwaddy Delta. Water samples were collected along the Ayeyarwaddy River in Sint Ku,
Mandalay, Pyi, Hinthada, and Nyaung Done two consecutive days each in May and July and
analyzed immediately. The timing in May and July provided comparative data on water quality
during both dry and monsoon season. Sint Ku was the northernmost research site. Sampling in
northernmost reaches of the river, in Kachin State, was not possible.
The study tested physical, chemical, and biological parameters. The physical parameters included
temperature, turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, total dissolved solids,
conductivity, and electrical conductivity. Chemical parameters included arsenic, ammonia
nitrogen, salinity, alkalinity, nitrate nitrogen, sulfate, hardness as calcium carbonate, iron, zinc,
lead, and cyanide, and biological parameters included coliforms and E.coli were monitored. The
results were then compared with the results of the Ministry of Transportation (MOT) annual water
quality tests for the last three years. However the two test series are not completely comparable as
the current study covered a wider set of parameters than the routine MOT tests. (See Annex I for
complete results)
Given constraints of time and resources, the study did not test for mercury, phosphate, and
pesticides. Sediment loading, hydrology such as flow and hydrographs, and river ecology also
could not be included, given the time, cost, and specialized equipment needed for such studies.
Because of travel restrictions to the areas of intensive mining operations, lack of necessary
equipment to measure the patterns of change by siltation at the bottom of the river and the siltation
rate, and limited time and resources, the study relies on turbidity levels of the river, the images
from Google Earth, physical appearance of the river.
There is no repository of comprehensive longitudinal data on the river. In order to deal with this
gap and gain an understanding of historical trends of change in river depth, water quality, and
ecological health of the river, the study included qualitative research among fishermen, ship
operators, and river bank farmers. A total of 48 interviews were conducted. While no substitute
for longitudinal monitoring and quantitative studies, these interviews provided useful and
generally consistent qualitative data from the river’s primary users.
11
Further studies on the river’s ecosystem, heavy metal concentration in the specimen of common
marine organisms in the river, hydrology, and soil erosion along the river will be needed to obtain
more accurate information of the river.
Findings:
I. Data from Water Quality Tests:
Highest variation of dissolved oxygen has been observed in Mandalay ranging from
9.21 to 4.88 mg/L. SintKu and Mandalay saw the highest turbidity of up to 142 NTU
in summer but found lower turbidity up to 5 NTU in the rainy season. Unlike Mandalay
and SintKu, downstream Pyi, Hinthada, and Nyaung Done received elevated turbidity
around 700 NTU, where Hinthada saw the highest turbidity level of 721 NTU. pH
levels in the whole river escalated in the rainy season and Mandalay found the highest
pH, 10.53. The levels of nitrate nitrogen, sulfate, hardness, zinc, and lead along the
river both in the summer and the rainy season did not show any alarming numbers.
Iron levels along the river were generally high and were much higher in the rainy
season. Salinity levels along the river exceed the maximum concentration limit for
irrigation water.
Elevated arsenic levels in the upper study area -
Consistent arsenic levels of 30 ppb were found in SintKu and in Mandalay in summer
months but the levels dropped to 10 ppb in the rainy season. In Pyi, Hinthada, and Nyaung
Done, 10 ppb levels of arsenic were found in the summer but the trace of arsenic
concentration disappeared to zero ppb in the rainy season.
Cyanide levels in the study area –
Serious levels of cyanide were tested in SintKu, Mandalay, and Nyaung Done throughout
the study period. WHO sets maximum acceptable level 0.07 mg/L for cyanide and the
highest trace of cyanide in SintKu was 0.14 mg/L in the summer.
High levels of ammonia nitrogen in rainy season -
Ammonia nitrogen levels along the river were noticeably lower in summer period but they
all escalated in the rainy season. Highest ammonia nitrogen tests were in the Ayeyarwaddy
region, meaning Hinthada and Nyaung Done, in the rainy season around 3 mg/L.
High levels of pathogens
All tests in every sites along the river gave positive for coliforms and E.coli. Wash rooms
and toilets were observed on river banks and directly on the river as well. Ships and
12
floating dwellings have direct discharge toilets. Sewage discharges were seen flowing into
the river in every site.
(See Annex I for complete list of the water quality test results)
II. Results of Qualitative Interviews with Boat Operators, Farmers, and Fishermen:
Interviews with 16 boat operators, 16 farmers, and 16 fishermen from the study sites
were conducted totally in the study period. Regarding the changes in the river, all boat
operators noticed that the river has become shallower and narrower than before. In
response to the effects on their operations and their lives, all from every site expressed
economic impacts from the requirement for more fuel consumption in dodging
sandbars, less carrying capacity, and opportunity losses in operation time. All ship
operators agreed that their ships’ fuel consumption has been higher over the last decade.
Previously, ships could navigate straight down river, now they need to navigate around
numerous sandbars. They also need to expend more fuel for getting off of sandbars
when they run aground. The ships also have to wait for certain areas of the river to
become navigable and even take turns to operate in the now narrowed and shallow
shipping lanes, leading to increased costs and loss of income due to waiting. In many
places ships could previously two or even three abreast, but can now only proceed in
single file. Furthermore, ship operators are also forced to reduce their loads so that the
boats will ride higher in the water, reducing their already small margins. All those ship
operators who have been operating a long time on the river expressed that decades ago
they could operate ships with ease and carry heavier loads, with higher earnings. They
were worried about the situation growing even worse.
With regards to management of solid wastes and wastewaters, all ship operators stated
the practice of direct disposal into the river. No one seemed to understand the impacts
caused by fuel and oil spills on the river. Majority of the ship operators blamed on the
government’s policies and deforestation for the causes. Only two of the operators
acknowledged that they were also responsible for the causes. Everyone saw Irrawaddy
dolphins one time or another but everyone said that sighting became much less. The
respondents from Ayeyarwaddy region rarely saw the dolphins in last decades except
one sighting of a dolphin in Hinthada in July 2013. No respondent was offered any
environmental education as a part of licensing requirement and no one could respond
about the question of endangered species in the river. Every interviewee did not seem
to grasp the fact that some species are on the verge of extinction or are already extinct.
Majority of farmers responded that they could not help noticing the shifts in the river
because those directly affected them. Those shifts threaten their farming properties. 11
out of the 16 farmers interviewed had lost a part or a whole of their farm lands located
on the river bank. All farmers thought that chemical fertilizers were better and more
13
efficient and more uses of chemical fertilizers and pesticides were necessary. Every
farmer said that collapses of river banks are frequent. Shifting river means farther
private irrigation cost, everyone said. All disposed trashes into the river and except 5
respondents, the rest practiced open defecation. No one knew about treating farming
runoff before discharging into the river. All thought that what is happening in the river
is caused by the nature. Only one respondent thought that he was also responsible for
pollution in the river. No one was aware of any environmental education programs.
Only 3 out of the 16 saw the dolphins but all agreed that they are very rare. All have
no knowledge of endangered species in the area.
All fishermen noticed that the river became shallow and narrow and as a result, their
daily catch became less. They all complained economic loss as it took longer to fish
and cost more fuel. All said wastes are dumped into the water. Only 3 respondents
heard about the ban on cast-net fishing. The rest thought police were just harassing
them to get money. All sighted Irrawaddy dolphins one time or another but the
fishermen from the Ayeyarwaddy region did not see the dolphins for a long time except
the news about reported sighting in Hinthada in July 2013. Fishermen from Mandalay
and SintKu sighted more often but they also said that it became harder to see them. No
one wanted to catch and kill dolphins but neither of them understood endangered
species. No one was ever presented environmental education even when they were in
school. All fishermen blamed the government policies and their luck for the present
state of the river. All fishermen in the interview expressed no regret for disappearing
crocodile population but heart felt sorry for the river dolphins.
III. Institutional Analysis - Review of Agencies, Laws, and Interviews with Agency
Personnel
Multiple departments from different ministry were involved in river management.
Meetings with a few director generals, deputies, engineers, and technicians from
several government agencies took place to seek information. Cooperation between
ministries and agencies and in some cases different departments within a ministry is
not apparent. Many government officers expressed that obtaining information from
other departments involved going through layers of heavily bureaucratic procedures
and therefore, it was almost impossible. When absolutely necessary, informal sharing
through junior level was the only way to get around the system, they explained. Many
agencies conducted typical water quality tests annually but data were not reported,
published, and shared. Data contesting across agencies was unheard off. Competitive
rivalries instead of partnership (as every department’s survival depends on tight
resources) produced limited outcome. As the scarce resources have been widely
diversified, proper and efficient utilization can hardly be achieved. Hence, sufficient
support and funds could not be directed to where it is needed the most.
14
Despite the government’s reform processes, top-down style administration is heavily
exercised. Many senior and junior level staffs understood and wanted fundamental
areas to change but they were discouraged to do so without directives from the
ministers. Therefore, innovative approaches could not be expected. A long serving
government laboratory technician expressed that she was fired up with new ideas and
plans when coming back from an oversea training. However, her enthusiasm was
crushed by repeated rejections for changes, by frequent harassments to reduce the size
of the workforce, and by lack commitments from the superiors to improve the
operations. With those experiences, she decided to change her attitude to go with the
flow.
In addition, mandates were not clearly defined and delegation of responsibilities were
not specified. One director who has regularly been sent to meetings for a regional
commission stated that in all those meetings, he was busy praying not to be asked even
for a smallest commitment. It was because on the spot, Thai participants can usually
make a decision with a phone call for any commitments they were asked to and plan
arrangements for the commitment on their own. The participants from Myanmar need
to get approval for a decision from a various layers of the government. That may take
months if not days.
In addition to the institutional set up the relevant legislative framework is incomplete
and seriously outdated, for example, the Rangoon Water Works Act dates from 1885
and the Burma’s Municipal Act from 1898. (see Annex III for complete list of relevant
laws) The only relevant recent legislation is the Myanmar Environment Law, but this
is quite vague and does not reference clear standards. There is a significant disconnect
between the laws and implementing institutions. The laws pre-date the institutions, so
clear specifications and definitions, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and
clear assignment of responsibilities of different agencies are not consistently embedded
in laws and regulations. For example standards for what constitutes pollution is not
clearly defined.
Discussion:
Siltation
Generally, turbidity and suspended solid levels in the quality tests showed high concentration of
sediments in the river. Ranking the third on the world, siltation is a crucial issue for the river. High
sediment loads leading to siltation can be caused by a variety of reasons. Logging is a major cause
of siltation in the Ayeyarwaddy and Myanmar’s other rivers. The pace of deforestation in
Myanmar, among the highest in the world, has been rapid and the magnitude of the decline in
forest coverage is alarming. UN-REDD (2011) concluded that agriculture, logging, and fuel wood
15
collection were main causes of deforestation in Myanmar. “According to the government, forest
coverage in Myanmar declined from 61% in 1975 to 59% in 1989, 52% in 1998 and 47% in 2010
” (MyanmarTimes, 2011). This rapid deforestation contributes to siltation in water bodies,
landslide risks, and soil degradation. IRIN (2011) report, “Deforestation threatens breadbasket”,
linked deforestation to the soil erosion and the loss of soil fertility in the dry zone. At the same
time logging is an important contribution to the Myanmar economy and is projected to earn 149
billion Kyats from official logging sector in 2013-14 fiscal year (The Daily Eleven, 2013). Mining
also contributes to soil degradation and siltation, from run off.
There are very little or no soil erosion controls along the Ayeyarwaddy River. This lack of
preventive action also contributes to the high sediment loading. In general, combination of higher
magnitude of deforestation, soil degradation caused by mining and agricultural activities, and lack
of soil erosion prevention mechanisms will result in worrying level of sediments in the river. With
the record of the world’s third highest sediment loading, siltation has been the very significant
concern for the river’s health.
Landslides along the Ayeyarwaddy River’s bank are very common. The river bank collapsed near
Pakokku in July and forced 2 villages to relocate while 2 more villages were at imminent risk (The
Street View, 2013). Similarly, Labutta township experienced the loss of a major road on the bank
in a landslide (The Daily Eleven, 2013). All river bank farmers interviewed for the study cited
these landslides as damaging to their livelihoods and a source of community conflict. The
landslides result in additional transportation costs and lost time loss, according to farmers.
Following figure (2) shows the river bank at risk of collapsing.
Figure (2) Ayeyarwaddy River bank at risk
16
Environmental destructions incurred by the mining activities is a significant source of damage to
the Ayeyarwaddy and other rivers. Conventionally there have been few systematic attempts to
mitigate environmental damage during mining operations or rehabilitate land following mine
closure. This is beginning to change, but decades of neglect of environmental impacts has resulted
in significant damage to rivers. These are likely to endure for years unless concerted clean-up
efforts are made. Even in the short term, sediment loading in the river as a result of mining
operations can cause dramatic effects.
Soil deterioration from mining activities can be seen clearly in Google Earth images. The
difference in water color upstream and downstream from mining activities vividly demonstrates
soil degradation and pollution. Mining disturbs vegetation, forests, and the top layers of soil
damaging soil cover and reducing the ability of the soil to absorb water, leading to higher rates of
erosion in rainy season. Following images from Google Earth were observed while looking at
some mining locations in Myanmar.
The immediate impacts of mining on the river can be seen on the following figures. Figure (3)
illustrates mining activities on May Kha River near Man Main in Kachin State and figure (4) shows
the extent of impact.
Figure (3) May Kha River before the mining operation and after the mine
17
Figure (4) Close-up view of the site
The images indicate that the mining operations right beside the May Kha River disrupt the river
water. The complete change of water color before the mining operation and after the mine could
be compared at the site. The lesser quantity of water volume can be observed after the mining
operations. Following figures further affirm the mining impacts on the May Kha River. It is not
an isolated incident and similar effects by mining operations can be found along Maykha River,
Maylikha River, main Ayeyarwaddy River, and Chindwin River as well. Figure 5 and 6 show
mining operations beside Maykha River.
Figure (5) A large scale mine beside the Maykha River near Samra
18
Figure (6) A mine beside May Kha River near Damphet
Mining operations are found on Maylikha River as well. Similar impacts could be seen at a mine
beside Maylikha River near Yunrang in Kachin State in the following figure. Irrefutable impacts
from mining operation can be seen on figure 7.
Figure (7) Mining impacts on Maylikha River near Yunrang
19
These conjoining tributaries with very high level of sediment from mining operations can cause
immediate shift in the river water’s turbidity. Mining operations are not isolated only on tributaries
but they can be found beside the Ayeryaddy River as well.
With the apparent evidences of mining impacts on rivers, the extent of damage to the river in the
vicinity of Latpandaung Copper Mine and Hpakant Mine, both located beside Chindwin River
which flows into the Ayeyarwaddy can be undeniable. Tests on river water or ground water near
the mines were not part of this study, however given the visible damage, groundwater
contamination is likely and can have serious health impacts. Following Google Earth images,
figure (8) and figure (9) show Latpandaung Copper Mine and Hpakant Mine.
Figure (8) Latpandaung Copper Mine
Figure (9) Aerial view of Hpakant Mine
20
Chindwin River flows into the Ayeyarwaddy River as one of its major tributaries and therefore, it
should be included in the future studies.
It was not possible in the course of the study to undertake systematic testing of water upstream,
downstream, and adjacent to mining operations. Such tests would provide conclusive evidence as
to the contribution of mining operations to sedimentation and quality. However in the absence of
such tests, Google Earth images show discoloration of water downstream from mine sites,
indicating high levels of turbidity and the presence of extensive concentration of sediment.
Rivers will naturally treat pollutants, until the levels exceed the rivers capacity to absorb them.
Images of the Ayeyarwaddy clearly show this effect. In the upper reaches, close to the headwaters,
the water is visibly clear. Discoloration of the river with sediment load from the mining operations
is evident in the above figures.
The change in water color indicates increased turbidity, which is in turn indicative of high sediment
loading. The turbidity has multiple causes, but mining appears to be a major contributor and more
exact study is needed to state with greater confidence the contribution of mining operations to river
turbidity and contamination.
The Google Earth do not necessarily have the level of scientific accuracy as other means of
research. However the high level of turbidity shown in the pictures are consistent with the results
of the water tests carried out as part of this study. Water quality analysis in this study indicated
that the river near Sint Ku and Mandalay, both located fairly close to mining operations, had higher
turbidity level in drier months (112 NTU and 142 NTU respectively). However, the turbidity level
was less in both places in the monsoon measurements (73 NTU and 18 NTU respectively). The
pattern is at odds with the country’s general river pattern of lower turbidity in dry season and much
higher turbidity in monsoon because heavy rain in the rainy season brings high sediment loads into
the river. The lower turbidity in the monsoon season for the SintKu and Mandalay areas indicates
that the monsoon is diluting the turbidity of the water in the areas near mining sites.
By contrast in lower part of the river, farther from the discharge are consistent with the general
pattern of higher turbidity in rainy season. The turbidity levels in Pyi, Hinthada, and Nyaung Done
were lower in the dry season (24 NTU, 47 NTU, and 25 NTU respectively) and were higher in the
rainy (720, 721, and 672 NTU respectively).
21
Figure (10) Dumping wastewater into the river
Dumping wastes into the river is not unusual. In the figure 10 above, the truck disposed wastewater
from fish processing into the river. For cities along the river, it is a common practice to dispose
solid wastes and raw sewage directly into the river. BOBLME (2011) stated that populated
municipalities such as Mandalay, Pathein, and Yangon, dump solid wastes and raw sewage.
Garbage dumped in rivers leads to the formation of sandbars, as silt builds up around solid objects.
Hence, high levels of sediment loads together with disposed municipal garbage can be a major
concern. As a result of the high magnitude of sediment, sandbars are formed along the river. These
sandbars clog the water flow and reduce navigable depth and width of the river. As an immediate
consequence, clogging of the water flow by sandbars can potentially lead to floods by disrupting
the flow in rainy season. Imminent threat of floods has been reported for the delta area for 2013
(the Daily Eleven, 2013). The river’s water level reached to 2 centimeters above the dangerous
level (of 1342 centimeters) in Hinthada on August 23
rd
, 2013 (The Daily Eleven, 2013). Following
figure (11) depicts sandbar forming along the length of the river.
22
Figure (11) Extensive sandbars
In addition mining activities, dams can also have numerous impacts on the river. Dam generally
causes disruption in the flow and reduces the velocity. With the slower velocity, it increases the
rate of sediment deposit and subsequently gives higher siltation. Currently there are no dams on
the Ayeyarwaddy itself but there are several dams on its tributaries. Mitigation measures are not
implemented in the existing dams to minimize the impacts.
Figure (12) A tug boat pushing a barge stranded on a sandbar (near Mandalay)
23
Excessive sediment deposits make river shallower and less navigable, limiting river transportation.
Ship operators interviewed for this study consistently reported increased operating costs and losses
in profit. As shown in figure 12, many barges and ships had to be rescued from sandbars by tug
boats. Overall economic cost alone for siltation may be a fortune and hence, it is unwarranted to
set idle for conducting further studies and deploying immediate measures to counter the siltation.
Water quality
Many cities and millions of people in Myanmar heavily rely on the Ayeyarwaddy for their water
supply. Towns pump the river water and distribute it with minimal or no treatment. Following
figure (13) shows people’s daily use of the river water.
Figure (13) Monks, nuns, and peoples bathing in the river in Sagaing
The Ayeyarwaddy River’s water is the primary water supply for the millions of peoples for their
all daily water uses. Millions of peoples consume it straight from the river as their drinking water
as well. Hence, water quality of the river has immediate effects on the peoples’ health. Drawing
on data that is now ten years old, a 2004 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization stated
“Salinity intrusion has been reported in the inland areas along the tidal reaches of the
Ayeyarwaddy river system, and monitoring of the Ayeyarwaddy in the dry zone shows excessive
pollution, particularly in summer” (FAO, 2004).
The current study found high arsenic levels, up to 30 ppb (parts per billion) in Sint Ku and
Mandalay in dry season while the downstream sites observations at Pyi, Hinthada, and Nyaung
Done were only 10 ppb. Monsoon arsenic levels were lower to 10 ppb in Sintku and Mandalay
while the downstream observations showed negative results. Both WHO and US-EPA set
maximum contaminant level of arsenic in drinking water at 10 ppb. In accordance with US-EPA,
long term exposure to high arsenic can cause cancer of lungs, skin, prostate, kidney, and liver.
Arsenic contamination stems from disturbance of soil layers below the surface or as a by-product
from copper, gold, silver, and meal ores mining operations, arsenic can be released into the water
bodies, Mineral Education Coalition stated. Arsenic is not used in mining operations, but arsenic
24
dust is released from the soil by the soil disturbance during mining operations. Testing showed
that arsenic levels in the river vary from place to place. This suggests that the arsenic levels are
not naturally occurring, because if they were naturally occurring the level will be consistent along
the river. Further analysis and monitoring should be conducted in the upstream and near the mining
operations to detect the exact causes of periodically high arsenic levels in the river.
In addition to high arsenic presence, higher cyanide levels than WHO guideline level of 0.07 mg/L
were found in Sint Ku, Mandalay, and Nyaung Done. According to WHO standards, cyanide levels
of greater than 0.07 are deemed unsafe. The levels range from 0.08 to 0.14 mg/L and high
concentrations were observed in both dry and monsoon season. The highest level, 0.14 mg/L, was
observed in Sint Ku.
Industrial activities and mining operations for extracting nickel, copper, and gold are generally the
major sources of cyanide into water. Cyanide level at a dug well for consumption in a gold mine
near Sint Ku was 0.26 mg/L in late July.
Long term exposure to high cyanide concentration can lead to thyroid and nerve damages. These
high cyanide concentrations in the river can pose health hazard to the millions of peoples in those
particular towns.
Seasonal and regional variations in arsenic and cyanide levels may suggest that natural cause is
not the underlying factor but, intensive mining activities in upper Mandalay and some private gold
mining activities near Nyaung Done may well be the sources to look at for the answer.
Not only mining sector, but also agricultural sector contribute to have impacts on the river water
quality. High ammonia nitrogen levels were also observed especially in the monsoon season along
the river. It coincides with high growing season along the river. Uncontrolled use of fertilizers
and lacking runoff treatment mechanisms in agricultural areas may have contributed in this specific
increase.
Despite causing low risks to human health, ammonia nitrogen can pose harm to the health of the
river and to the ecosystem. Direct sewage disposal, leaching from landfills which are not properly
sealed, organic wastes and manure are associated with high ammonia nitrogen concentration in
rivers (WHO, 2003). With the practice of dumping solid wastes and of discharging raw sewage
directly into the river, one can expect to see high concentration of ammonia nitrogen in the river.
In addition to high ammonia nitrogen level, significant levels of coliforms and E.coli are observed
consistently in the river. It confirms raw sewage and leachate pollutions from municipalities and
shipping operations. Coliform counts in 100 mL of water range from 240 to over 2000 while
E.coli counts range from 40 to 3200. These counts are very high. According to WHO standards,
water for consumption, including drinking, cooking, and bathing should have a 0 E.coli and
coliform level. E.coli and coliform were found in most of the water samples throughout the study
period. Direct discharge of all wastes from ships, pit-less toilets on the river banks or in some
cases right on the river, release of untreated sewage from towns, and runoff from animal and
agricultural firms on the river banks are responsible for the presence of these pathogens in the
river. This is important because the towns and cities along the river derive their water supply from
25
the river, often with minimal or no treatment. In order to minimize health hazards from pathogenic
bacteria, sanitation, education, and government support programs are necessary. Figure (14)
vividly shows a toilet on the river just beside the Mandalay City’s water intake.
Figure (14) Toilet on the river
The river’s ecological health
In accordance with the World Wildlife Foundation, Myit Sone area is one of the world’s last great
wilderness areas. Dedicated conservation programs are required to maintain the integrity of the
Ayeyarwaddy’s natural beauty. Baseline data needs to be obtained through scientific studies in
order to implement efficient conservation programs.
As with all waterways, the state of the fish habitat is good indicator of the state of the river’s health.
According to all fishermen interviewed, fish stocks have decreased. The fisherman complained
that net income from fishing has been in decline for decades and the amount of fish they catch
each days is barely enough for their survival. Fishermen attributed the decline in fish stocks to
pollution, however overfishing and fishing methods also likely contribute to stock depletion. While
the fishermen focused on the role of pollution, a thorough study should also be made of fishing
patterns and methods to determine how much these contribute to depletion.
In addition to pollution, fishing patterns also have an impact on population stocks. For example,
the Hilsa fish (Nga Tha Laugh in Myanmar language) lays eggs in the river. According to 7 Day
News, February 9, 2013, with the high demand both within and outside of the country, Hilsa fish
population has been seriously threatened by fishing for eggs. The government of Myanmar is
planning to adopt a law prohibiting fishing in breeding time, the news reported.
26
According to a 1999 survey, it was estimated that less than 100 estuarine crocodiles (Crocodylus
porosus), once abundant in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, were left in Myanmar (Thorbjarnarson, 2000).
The river terrapin (Botagur baska) is on the brink of extinction while the Ayeyarwaddy dolphin,
flagship species for measuring the health of the river, remains on the list of critically endangered
species (Arceo and Cheung, 2002). The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) revealed that 3 out of the 5
dead Ayeyarwaddy dolphins found on the river bank in the mid 2010 were killed by entanglement
in the fishing net. It was reported that the dolphin population has stabilized after Myanmar
Department of Fisheries (DOF) prohibited the use of cast-net fishing and set up the dolphin
sanctuary upstream of Mandalay in December 2005. However, not enough measures have been
taken to protect the dolphin habitat yet because despite the ban, the use of cast-net-fishing is still
used by fishermen because of its greater efficiency than other forms of fishing.
The Ayeyarwaddy dolphins were frequently sighted along the Ayeyarwaddy River decades ago,
noted in interviews by the fishermen and ship operators from Sint Ku to the delta. Nowadays, only
very few can be spotted in the very upper part of the river but nowhere else. Even though the
interviewees’ speculations for possible causes of forcing the dolphins out of the lower
Ayeyarwaddy vary to a certain degree, all fishermen unanimously agreed that the dolphin
population has noticeably declined over the years. The reported disappearance of the
Ayeyarwaddy dolphin from the lower reaches of the river has multiple cause. It is likely that human
activity, in the form of fishing and pollution leading to destruction of habitat, is a contributing
factor but further study is necessary to determine to what extent. Like the responses from majority
of ship operators and farmers, the answers from all the fishermen also did not include reflection
on their own roles in the current state of the river’s ecology, but instead laid the blame only on the
authorities and big fishing industries. There is a strong disconnect in acknowledging each party’s
contribution to the river’s health.
Degraded water quality could be in part responsible for the reported decline in fish stocks, however
overfishing and exploitations cannot be overlooked. Additional research is required in order to
determine the role and magnitude of the different contributing factors. The noticeable decrease in
fish populations and the disappearance of particular species over the years should have been cause
for serious concern as to the state of the river’s health. However, not proactive but only reactive
approaches by relevant agencies to counterbalance the issues, responses not based on scientific
studies, inadequate measures imposed, and lack of implementation strategies for cohesive action
plans negate all the efforts so far.
Institutional Context and Water management
Even though the country is blessed with abundant water, rapid expansion of urban settlements,
agricultural operations, and industrial estates have led to dramatic increase in water demand,
putting strains on freshwater availability.
In order to meet the demands for water and energy, 280 dams and reservoirs were constructed
between and early 2003 but less than half of those are functioning (FAO, 2004). These are mostly
on the smaller tributaries of the major rivers, but dams are planned for the Salween, Ayeyarwaddy,
27
and Chindwin. These dams increase the rate of environmental degradation and water resources
depletion in the river system.
Finding of salinity intrusion and serious level of contamination in Ayeyarwaddy River were the
call for prompt attention in water conservation and integrated water source management (FAO,
2004). The same FAO report stated that the Government of Myanmar has not defined and
endorsed policies for water rights and environmental impact assessment yet.
Despite the mounting concerns about the health of Ayeyarwaddy, Myanmar’s institutional context
has not been conducive to sound policy, good management, and coherent approaches to addressing
the degradation in the health of the river. Over the decades, GOUM has established numerous
agencies charged with different aspects of water management, but with overlapping scopes of
work. With respect to monitoring of water quality alone, several agencies have overlapping
mandates, for example, both Irrigation Department (ID) and Water Resources Utilization
Department (WRUD) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation have been tasked with
irrigation water supply and water quality monitoring for rivers. Directorate of Water Resources
and Improvement of River System (DWRIRS) under the Ministry of Transportation is also
responsible for water quality monitoring of rivers as well. All these agencies have their own
independent laboratories for monitoring water quality in varying capacity.
More broadly, at least seventeen agencies for water resources management were listed in
publications of both Irrigation Department and FAO. However there is no clear cut mechanism
for information sharing among all those agencies. In addition accountability is fragmented across
the different agencies. All of these factors render planning and implementing sustained,
coordinated activities to address the river’s many problems very difficult. An attempt was made
in 1990, with the establishment of the National Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA)
(FAO, 2004). However under the previous government, the NCEA was undermined in its effort
to create harmony across different agencies by lack of proper assessments aimed at identifying
root issues, insufficient resources, and an unclear mandate.
The government of Myanmar recognizes the magnitude of the multiple threats to the health of the
Ayeyarwaddy and other waterways and to the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend
on them, and the clear inadequacy of current institutional and legislative arrangements. To this end
the government has established the National Water Resources Management Committee (NWRM)
to oversee river conservation programs, as mentioned above.
Conclusion and Recommendations for future action and research:
The Ayeyarwaddy River is one of Myanmar’s economic and ecological lifelines. Once a readily
navigable waterway, critical water source, home to diverse species, and source of food and
livelihood, and with it the contribution to Myanmar’s economy and the health of the communities
which depend on it, the river is seriously endangered. It is not navigable at certain times and places,
its water is to varying degrees contaminated, and its ecosystem and the fish life it sustains under
serious threat. The problems facing have complex, multiple origins - deforestation, trash and
28
wastewater disposal, disruption of soil and contamination from mining operations. All of these are
compounded by lack of environmental awareness at all levels. These problems will only grow with
planned dams and other development activities.
As noted in the introduction, the Myanmar government has recognized the magnitude of the
challenge it faces in reclaiming the Ayeyarwaddy. Recognizing the impact of decades of neglect
and that inaction is not an option, the government has created the NRWM. The NWRM’s over-
arching mandate for coordination across all stakeholders, reform, and rational use of resources
offers the best hope since Myanmar’s independence for addressing the Ayeyarwaddy’s problem.
Additionally international aid donors have come forward to offer funding and technical assistance
in the interests of improving river management. Addressing the health of the river is not about one-
off clean up and reclamation but requires a fundamental shift in approach to river management
which will be necessary. Future development projects in the chain of events for economic growth
should be carefully scrutinized under stringent environmental impact assessment programs. Only
then, it will balance the economic growth and environmental conservation for the future
generations to come.
This study aimed to provide a first look at health of the Ayeyarwaddy River. It was conducted with
very limited resources by MDRI over the period of a few months in 2013. The study raises as many
questions as it answers. However it can be stated conclusively that the Ayerwaddy is endangered
and with it the health and livelihoods of human populations who depend on it, as well as the
numerous animal species which depend on the river’s ecosystem. A well-resourced, well-
coordinated, and sustained program of policy actions, interventions, and research will be necessary
to restore the river to health. Unless the government of Myanmar dedicates itself to take immediate
measures with bold commitment to address the issues, the Irrawaddy River may be getting closer
to a point of no return.
The following are a set of preliminary recommendations. These should be considered a starting
point for the NWRM, aid donors, non-governmental agencies, and other interested parties to draw
on as they consider efforts to restore the river.
I. Addressing the biggest threats – siltation and contamination:
Siltation
1. Mining operations, deforestation, soil erosion, extensive use of land in agricultural
cultivation, dredging activities, and land clearing for urbanization all contribute to siltation.
Reducing siltation will require work across logging operations, mining companies, experts,
local communities, and regulators to develop and implement programs to minimize loading
rate.
2. Review policies on logging and forestry - land clearance leads to higher soil erosion and
significantly contributes to siltation in rivers. Reforestation will help, but not in proportion
to current rates of forest lost. A review of logging policies is also necessary to combat
siltation.
29
3. Strengthen environmental standards and compliance for mining operations, while offering
technical assistance and staggered implementation schedules for small-scale operators.
This must include robust environmental impact assessment, operating standards, discharge
treatment, and the development of mine-closure regulation which requires operations to
restore areas used for extractive operations.
4. Improve garbage collection and management, starting in major cities to reduce siltation
and sand bar formation. This should include introduction of better sanitary landfills,
improved collection mechanisms, and education efforts to stop direct trash disposal into
the river.
Contamination
5. Introduce and enforce better regulation of the use of hazardous compounds such as arsenic,
mercury, and cyanide in mining operations, including banning direct disposal into rivers,
which cause the river water contamination. Introduce improved mine safety standards and
spill cleanup procedures to assure environmental health.
6. Improve wastewater treatment, including the introduction of sewage treatment for urban
areas, promotion of education programs and the use of sanitary latrines in rural riverbank
communities and shipboard toilets. Municipalities need to employ sanitary landfills to deal
with solid wastes and wastewater treatment facilities to reclaim the water before
discharging to the river. The union government can play supporting roles in technically
and financially assisting small municipalities to get in compliance with the new
environmental requirements. Better urban planning and restructuring existing
municipalities with advanced waste management facilities will also help to curb the river
pollution.
7. Monitor pesticide and fertilizer use in farms near the river, and encourage alternatives to
chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
8. Gradually introduce environmental standards for transport, including discharge and
emissions from boats. These must be accompanied by education measures for boat crews.
9. II. Institutional measures: Prioritize Leadership of NWRM and Conduct Institutional
Review
Currently the various agencies involved in river and waterway management labor under poor
coordination, little information sharing, vaguely defined mandates, lack of focal points, and
institutional rivalry. This situation undermines the effectiveness of all agencies. Only with
clear mandate and full backing from the administration, the agency’s strong and persistent
leadership in setting out frameworks for all departments involved, delegating their
30
responsibilities, coordinating every aspects of the operation can help to prevail the layers of
predominating barriers.
The leadership of NWRM as the agency tasked with coordinating efforts to manage the
country’s water resources will be vital. This leadership must be given the political and financial
resources necessary to become an effective body for managing the country’s water resources.
As a first step the NWRM should consider an institutional review of all agencies involved in
water management. This must also include the review of agency staffing, structures, and
budgets, and inter-agency coordination mechanism.
Based on this review the NWRM should have the power to re-define the roles of or if necessary,
eliminate some agencies involved in water management, and re-deploy skilled staff to other
agencies, in order to consolidate precious human resources.
In addition, the NWRM should recommend and implement steps for information sharing,
regular communication, and cooperation across agencies. This could take the form of creating
new mechanisms – such as monthly inter-agency meetings – or reinvigorating an appropriate
existing mechanism.
Thirdly, the NWRM should recommend steps for creating a culture of transparency,
accountability, and delivery within agencies, in accordance not only with its own mandate but
also President Thein Sein’s call for improved administrative effectiveness, under the third
wave of reforms. This could take the form of setting performance standards and annual
milestones.
Finally, the NWRM should establish a unified plan for annual monitoring and evaluation
across different agencies, which can be used to hold agencies accountable and also report to
the President and the public.
10. Rationalize Data Collection
The exercise of inventing statistics has been very common in the country and many plans
stemmed out of the questionable data have failed to produce desired goals and wasted the
country’s limited resources. The problem with data quality and availability due to the pas
practices are well documented. The Myanmar government has recognized the general problem
of poor quality data and therefore, made the quality of statistics one of the four national
objectives under the framework for economic and social reform. In the case of river
conservation, foremost emphasis should be given to acquiring realistic and practical data. In
place of once a year multi-agencies’ uncoordinated water quality tests, one or two agencies
should be made responsible for comprehensive, ongoing, water quality testing and analysis.
And it should be adequately resourced with funding, personnel, equipment, and materials.
These tests should be conducted on a monthly or at least quarterly basis, depending on
resources. This agency should then have responsibility for reporting the tests results to NWRM
and ensuring they are shared on a timely basis with other agencies to be used for developing
31
appropriate working plans. The consolidating of water quality testing under one agency would
ultimately lead to lower costs and better use of scarce human resources. In addition to the
government’s allocation of resources, letting departments seek necessary trainings, raise funds,
and request technical assistance from international institutions directly will further strengthen
their roles and confidence.
Systematic data collection should also include frequent monitoring of changes in the river bed,
different siltation rates in different locations by varying causes, rates and patterns of sandbar
formations, and major contributions to the siltation in the river. Providing necessary
equipment, funds, and the other supports to a couple designated laboratories will ensure the
outcomes’ quality. These laboratories should be able to obtain required materials and supports
to carry out analysis. The findings from these laboratories should also be made readily
available to any interested party or department. Ecological indicators for the river should be
defined and research studies should be conducted to obtain scientific data and actual count of
endangered species.
11. Program of Research
In addition to ongoing testing and monitoring, a program of research is indeed to provide
an in-depth look at specific issues. These could include, but are not limited to:
i) A study of the ecology of the Ayeryarwaddy, including an in-depth look at sentinel
populations such as Ayeyarwaddy dolphins and river crocodiles;
ii) A sociological and economic study of farmers, fishermen, and boat operators and their
livelihoods. This should include gender sensitive methodologies as well. Consideration
could be given to approaching the Qualitative Economic and Social Monitoring program
under the LIFT Fund to carry out this research. This research should be aimed at developing
policies and programs to improve livelihoods, while mitigating threats to river health (i.e.
promoting use of pit latrines, alternative fishing gear, or creating guidelines for fertilizer
and pesticide use on river side farms).
iii) A study of the mining industry and practices along and near the river, to determine the
number of mines, mining practices, and recommend steps to improve management of
discharge.
iv) A hydrological survey to determine trend of changes in river profile.
12. Capacity Building
Officials from many agencies expressed a need for capacity building. Responding to the
requests is critical to the leadership and institutional strengthening discussed above. These
should include exposure programs to show participants how other countries have dealt with
similar situations. Additionally, staff of Myanmar agencies should be encouraged to
32
participate actively in international and regional technical cooperation, which will leverage
their own capacity, increase access to knowledge and information, and boost morale.
Capacity building should encompass activities and training aimed at changing institutional
culture of top-down directions to fostering innovation, initiative, and productivity. These will
need to be complemented by changes in institutional incentives. However capacity building
efforts will only be effective in combination with improved inter-agency coordination, clearer
institutional mandates, and a relaxing of center-top controls. Creating the environment for the
skilled staffs to make decisions and to take more responsibilities will encourage the staffs to
be more creative and productive.
13. Modernizing laws affecting water management and improved enforcement
A thorough review and changes to the laws regulating water use and outlining institutional
responsibilities is necessary. The NWRM should consider undertaking a review to determine
what laws need to be changed, how and whether laws can be amended or a new legal
framework created.
An improved legal framework and improvements in environmental protection will be most
effective if based on realities on the ground. While it is important to seek ways for
environmental improvements, a gradual approach to enforcing new standards will be
fundamental step to success. Overly ambitious standards will not be feasible with the current
socio and economic situations. Getting short of effective monitoring and enforcement
mechanisms will prove that the laws have very little meaning. Instead long term strategies for
gradual implementation of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms should be formulated.
Consultation with relevant sectors or industries, civil society organizations, technocrats or
specialists, and citizens in every step of the legislative developments will be essential to create
ownership and improve compliance Involvement of all these stakeholders will also foster local
efforts to combat river pollution. In this process, how other nations are balancing economic
growth with environmental protection should be studied.
14. All stakeholders’ participation and employment of education tools
Most of the farmers, fishermen, and boat operators failed to recognize that they are also
responsible for the present state of the river. The culture of shifting a blame on someone else
needs to be changed. The government alone is not responsible for the river health but every
stakeholder needs to contribute for conservation of the river. The role of government in
promoting all stakeholders’ participation is critical and it serves as the fundamental key to the
success. While the government’s role in saving the river plays vital component, the roles of
citizens should not be underestimated. If and only if all stakeholders share ownership in the
issue, the remedy processes will be fulfilled from every aspects. The administrations can work
together with civil society, educational institutions, and media as partners in raising
33
environmental awareness and in scrutinizing and reviewing its processes. The culture of
cooperation instead of rivalry among government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
and civil society groups should be nurtured for the cause.
Education campaign is a critical tool to shore up awareness, ownership, and conscientious
contributions by every stakeholder. In addition to promoting better processing methods and
the use of less harmful chemicals, persistent environmental education and awareness
campaigns should be launched with the participation of all stakeholders. Basic and easy to
understand environmental education programs should also be offered to schools and
communities and moreover, programs to increase citizen participation in environmental
management should also be promoted.
Kids from every level of education institutions could be given a role to play in the conservation
programs. Providing environmental education to the kids with the aim to disseminating their
knowledge in their communities and to conduct basic preliminary assessments of their area
will be useful to make them the first defenders. More advanced students from technical
institutions can be employed to initiate clean up campaigns, to get involved in monitoring, to
reinforce younger kids’ programs, and to play any necessary roles to facilitate public
participation. Their knowledge and participation will in return enhance involvement of their
parents and communities.
Reference:
7 Day News, (2013). “Legislation for Hilsa fish conservation in sight”. 7 Day News Journal, vol.
9, no. 47, February 9, 2013, Myanmar.
Ammann, C., (2010). “Five critically endangered Irrawaddy dolphins found dead”. World
Wildlife Fund, July 6, 2010.
Arceo, H., and Cheung, C., (2002). “Marine protected areas inSoutheast Asia”. ASEAN Regional
Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Los
Baños, Philippines. 142 pp.
BOBLME (2011). “Country report on pollution – Myanmar”. BOBLME-2011-Ecology-13
EB, 2000, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Southeast Asia: Drainage,
http://www.britannica.com/
Food and Agriculture Organization, (2004). “Report on the formulation of a national water vision
to action into the Union of Myanmar”. FAO regional office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Fredericks, D., (2005). “Promotion of household level mitigation for arsenic and fluoride removal;
Summary of Mission to Myanmar”. World Health Organization, Country Office for Myanmar.
34
IRIN News, (2011). “Myanmar: Deforestation threatens breadbasket”. IRIN News, November 14,
2011. http://www.irinnews.org/report/94201/myanmar-deforestation-threatens-breadbasket
MacKinnon J., (1997). “Protected areas systems review of the Indo-Malayan
Realm”. Canterbury (UK): Asian Bureau for Conservation and World Conservation
Monitoring Centre/World Bank publication.
Minerals Education Coalition, (2013). “Arsenic”. Minerals Education Coalition, CO, USA.
http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/arsenic
MyanmarTimes. (2011). “Deforestation causing landslides”. MyanmarTimes, August 22-28,
2011. http://www.mmtimes.com/2011/news/589/news58908.html
Robinson, R., Bird, M., Nay Win Oo., Hoey, T., Maung Maung Aye., Higgitt, D., X, Lu., Aune
Swe., Tin Tun., and Swe Lhaing Win., (2007). “The Irrawaddy River sediment flux to the indian
ocean: The original nineteenth-century data revisited”. The Jorunal of Geology, 2007, volume
115, p. 629-640 by the University of Chicago.
Smedley, P., and Kinniburgh, D., (2003). “Source and behavior of arsenic in natural waters”.
British Geological Survey, UK.
The Daily-Eleven, (2013). “High risk of flood in the delta”. The Daily-Eleven news, August 8,
2013, Myanmar.
The Daily-Eleven, (2013). “Irrawaddy River above the dangerous water level in Hinthada and
Zalun”. The Daily-Eleven news, August 24, 2013, Myanmar.
The Daily Eleven, (2013). “Myanmar projects to earn 149 billion Kyats from logging sector”. The
Daily Eleven, August 4, 2013. www.news-eleven.com
The Street View. (2013). “The Irrawaddy River bank collapse causes difficulties for villages in
Pakokku”. The Street View Journal, volume 2, no. 29, July15, 2013.
Thorbjarnarson, J., Platt, S., and Saw Tun Khaing., (2000). “A population survey of the estuarine
crocodile in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, Myanmar”. Oryx, October 2000, volume 34, Issue 4, p. 317-
324.
United Nation – collaborative programme on Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD), (2011). “Myanmar country report”.
http://www.un-redd.org/AsiaPacific_Myanmar/tabid/104264/Default.aspx
US-EPA, (2012). “Arsenic in drinking water”. Environmental Protection Agency, US.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm
WHO, (1996). “Ammonia in drinking water”. World Health Organization, Geneva.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/ammonia.pdf
35
Annex I: Water quality test results
Date 27/05/2013 28/05/2013 20/07/2013 WHO Units
Location
SintKu
(22.5451
N,
95.98701
E)
SintKu
(22.5451
N,
95.98701
E)
SintKu
(22.5451
N,
95.98701
E)
Guideline
values
(for
drinking
water)
Dissolved
Oxygen 6.05 6.32 5.53 mg/L
Arsenic 30 30 10 10 ppb
Ammonia
Nitrogen 0.5 0.9 2.9 1.5 mg/L
Turbidity 109 112 73 5 NTU
Suspended
Solids 79 56 55 mg/L
Total
Dissolved
Solids 30 30 26 600 ppm
Temperature
(degree C) 21.4 26 26.1 Degree
C
pH 8.59 8.39 9.15 6.5 - 8.5
Electrical
Conductivity 60.8 62 51.9 µs
Salinity 0.03 0.02 0.02 <
0.00015for
irrigation ppt
Conductivity 206 197 229 µs
Alkalinity 0.46 0.42 0.56 meq/L
Nitrate
Nitrogen 4.1 3.9 4.3 50 mg/L
Sulphate 2 2.8 1 250 mg/L
Hardness 42 38 44 200 mg/L
as
CaCO3
Iron 0.83 0.8 1.36 0.3 mg/L
Zinc 0.18 0.18 0.03 3 mg/L
Lead 0 0 0 10 ppb
Cyanide 0.14 0.1 0.08 0.07 mg/L
Coliforms 580 660 3500 0 in 100
mL
E.Coli 620 740 100 0 in 100
mL
Chloride mg/L
Fluoride 1.5 mg/L
Nitrite mg/L
36
37
Date 20/03/2010
(MOT's
DWR)
10/03/201
2 (MOT's
DWR)
Jan 2013
(MOT's
DWR)
10/05/20
13
(06:00)
11/05/2
013
(06:30)
6/7/201
3 (9:30) 7/7/2013
(8:30) WHO Units
Location Pyi Pyi Pyi
Pyi
(18.8197
3N,
95.21497
E)
Pyi
(18.819
73N,
95.2149
7E)
Pyi
(18.819
73N,
95.2149
7E)
Pyi
(18.8197
3N,
95.21497
E)
Guideline
values (for
drinking
water)
Dissolve
dOxygen 4.3 9.98 11.94
6.01 5.63 5.98 5.34 mg/L
Arsenic 10 10 0 0 10 ppb
Ammoni
a
Nitrogen 1 1 0.21
1.5 1.3 1.8 2 1.5 mg/L
Turbidit
y 14 80 300
29 24 720 696 5 NTU
Suspend
ed Solids 14 9 542 524 mg/L
Total
Dissolve
dSolids 98 101 50 75 600 ppm
Temper
ature
(C) 26.4 25.5 26.3
27.5 26.8 27.8 26.7 Degree
C
pH 7.26 9.06 7.2
8.31 8.47 8.33 8.71 6.5 - 8.5
Electrica
lConduc
tivity 183 190 193 141 µs
Salinity 0.1 0.09 0.04 0.03 <
0.00015for
irrigation ppt
Conduct
ivity 204 801 792 533 µs
Alkalinit
y 1.58 1.6 0.52 0.66 meq/L
Nitrate
Nitrogen 130 mg/L 220 mg/L 252 mg/L 4.1 4.8 18.7 35 50 mg/L
Sulphate 0.8 0.9 0.14
5 4 8 5 250 mg/L
Hardnes
s 52 56 95
70 68 61 63 200 mg/L as Ca
C
Iron 0.02 0.48 1.31
0.39 0.44 3.3 3.31 0.3 mg/L
Zinc 0.02 0 0.11 0.08 3 mg/L
Lead 0 0 0 0 10 ppb
Cyanide 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.07 mg/L
Colifor
ms 240 180 1460 1680 0 in 100 m
L
E.Coli 1040 3200 260 660 0 in 100 m
L
Chloride 115 450 500 mg/L
Fluoride 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 mg/L
Nitrite 0 20 - mg/L
38
Date 20/03/2010
(MOT's DWR)
10/03/201
2 (MOT's
DWR)
Jan 2013
(MOT's
DWR)
12/05/20
13 (9:45)
13/05/2
013
(9:00)
08/07/2
013
(10:45)
09/07/20
13 (8:00) WHO Units
Location Hinthada Hinthada Hinthada
Hinthada
(17.6490
2N,
95.52573
E)
Hinthad
a
(17.649
02N,
95.5257
3E)
Hinthad
a
(17.649
02N,
95.5257
3E)
Hinthada
(17.6490
2N,
95.52573
E)
Guideline
values (for
drinking
water)
Dissolve
d
Oxygen 6.75 6.08 6.9 5.61 5.74 6.14 5.33 mg/L
Arsenic 10 10 0 0 10 ppb
Ammoni
a
Nitrogen > 1 > 1 0.45 2 2.2 2.9 2.7 1.5 mg/L
Turbidit
y 25 150 55 47 32 721 612
5 NTU
Suspend
ed Solids 21 17 535 456 mg/L
Total
Dissolve
d Solids 103 98 66 43 600 ppm
Temper
ature
(degree
C)
32 28.8 26.8 26.8 27.2 27.3 25.3
Degree
C
pH 7.18 8.23 8 8.67 8.52 8.85 8.96
6.5 - 8.5
Electrica
l
Conduct
ivity
160 143 124 79.2 µs
Salinity 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.03 <
0.00015for
irrigation ppt
Conduct
ivity 382 349 447 356 µs
Alkalinit
y 150 mg/L 214 mg/L 145 mg/L 0.84 0.58 0.62 0.64 meq/L
Nitrate
Nitrogen 0.7 0.9 0.15 6.2 6.8 35 35
50 mg/L
Sulphate 0 0 0 0 250 mg/L
Hardnes
s 65 122 85 76 69 27 31
200 mg/L as Ca
C
Iron 0.59 0.15 0.9 0.79 0.91 3.34 3.29
0.3 mg/L
Zinc 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 3 mg/L
Lead 0 0 0 0 10 ppb
Cyanide 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 mg/L
Colifor
ms 2100 1100 1680 420 0 in 100 m
L
E.Coli 220 360 1260 560 0 in 100 m
L
Chloride 355 335 500 mg/L
Fluoride > 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.5 mg/L
Nitrite 5 40 - mg/L
39
40
Annex II:
Agencies and Departments
Agency/Department Ministry/City/Other Duty and function
1.Irrigation Department Agriculture & Irrigation Provision of irrigation
water to farmland
2.Water Resources Utilization
Department Agriculture & Irrigation Pump irrigation and rural
water supply
3.Directorate of Water Resources
and Improvement of River
System
Transport River training and
navigation
4.Myanmar Electric Power
Enterprise Electric Power Electric power generation
5.Department of Hydroelectric
Power Electric Power Hydropower generation
6.Factories under the Ministry of
Industry Industry (1) and Industry (2) Industrial use
7.Myanmar Fishery Enterprise Livestock, Breeding & Fishery Fishery works
8.City Development Committee Yangon/Mandalay City water supply and
sanitation
9.Department of Development
Affairs Progress of Border Areas &
National Races and Development
Affairs
Domestic and rural water
supply and sanitation
10. Private users UN agencies, NGOs & private
entrepreneurs Domestic water supply
navigation & fisheries
11. Department of Meteorology
and Hydrology Transport Water assessment of main
rivers
12. Forest Department Forestry Reforestation and
conservation of forest
13. Public Works Construction Domestic & industrial
water supply and
sanitation
41
14. Department of Human
Settlement and Housing
Development
Construction Domestic water supply
15. Department of Health Health Environmental health,
water quality assessment
and control
16. Central Health Education
Bureau Dept. of Health
Planning
Health Social mobilization,
health promotion,
behaviour research
17. Yangon Technological
University Science and Technology Training and research
Source: the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
Annex III:
Water Laws in Myanmar
(a) For urban water utilization
The Rangoon Water Works Act (1885)
The Burma Municipal Act (1898)
The Burma Canal Act, 1905, as amended by the Burma Act of 1914, 1924, 1928 and 1934
The Burma Embankment Act, 1909, as amended by the Burma Act of 1923 and 1931
The City of Rangoon Municipal Act (1922)
The Underground Water Act (1930), (Burma Act IV 1930) 21 June 1930
The Burma Water Power Rules (1932)
The Rangoon Municipal Act (1941)
Section 114: Water supply
Section 115: General powers for supplying the city with water
Section 116: Power of access to municipal waterworks
Section 117: Prohibition of erection of any building which damages sources of water supply
Section 118: Prohibition of bathing in or polluting water
Section 119: Occupiers of premises to be primarily liable for certain offences against the Act
The City of Yangon Development Law, 14 May 1990 (Law No. 11/90)
(10) The City of Yangon Development Law, 17 December 1999 (Law No. 6/99)
Most of the above laws are related to urban water supply. For groundwater use, the laws are still
being processed, and some may
introduce new concepts.
(b) For water supply for irrigation
Canal Act, 1905 (Amendment Canal Act in 1998)
Myanmar Embankment Act, 1909 (Amendment Embankment Act in 1998)
Myanmar Irrigation Manual, 1945 (Revised: Edit)
