10 April 2025: Myanmar Earthquake Overview and Update

A Devastating Earthquake in Central Myanmar

 On 28 March 2025 at 12:50 pm local time, a powerful M 7.7 earthquake struck central Myanmar, centered near Sagaing Region just north of Mandalay​ (en.wikipedia.org). The quake ruptured along the active Sagaing Fault, a north–south oriented strike-slip fault that cuts through Myanmar’s heartland (​en.wikipedia.org). It was shallow (about 10 km deep) and produced violent shaking up to Intensity X (Extreme) on the Modified Mercalli scale (​en.wikipedia.org). This was the strongest earthquake Myanmar had experienced in over a century, and one of the deadliest in the country’s modern history (​en.wikipedia.org). A large M6.7 aftershock struck just 12 minutes after the main shock, and in total hundreds of aftershocks (dozens above M5) were recorded in the following days (​themimu.info, ​ahacentre.org). The seismic waves were felt well beyond Myanmar: Bangkok, 1,000 km away, saw buildings sway and ultimately counted dozens of fatalities from a collapsed construction site (​en.wikipedia.org), and tremors were felt as far as Yunnan in China and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam (​en.wikipedia.org). The tectonic setting of Myanmar – squeezed between the Indian, Eurasian, Sunda, and Burma plates – makes it highly prone to earthquakes. This event indeed confirmed the region’s vulnerability, releasing the stress on the Sagaing Fault in an exceptionally energetic rupture.

Scale of Impact and Humanitarian Needs

The human and physical toll of the earthquake was catastrophic. In Myanmar, entire towns and villages suffered severe destruction. Official reports in the first week indicated over 3,500 people killed, 4,800+ injured, and around 210 missing due to the quake (​ahacentre.org). (By mid-April, some estimates placed the death toll even higher, above 5,300 fatalities in Myanmar​(en.wikipedia.org), though final numbers are still being reconciled.) An estimated 69,000 people were initially displaced from their homes, with over 16,000 sheltering in temporary camps by April 6 (​ahacentre.org). Tragically, in addition to the Myanmar casualties, neighboring Thailand lost at least 36 lives (mostly in Bangkok’s building collapse) and one fatality was reported in Vietnam​(en.wikipedia.org). The earthquake’s overall impact zone encompassed 57 townships in Myanmar – home to roughly 17–18 million people – spread across Sagaing, Mandalay, Magway, Shan, Naypyidaw, Bago and adjacent regions (​ifrc.org​ifrc.org). Many of these areas had been already fragile before the disaster; for example, Sagaing Region alone had over 1.2 million internally displaced people (IDPs) prior to the quake due to ongoing conflict (​go-api.ifrc.org). Nationwide, nearly 20 million people were in need of humanitarian assistance even before this disaster struck (​go-api.ifrc.org). The earthquake compounded these pre-existing vulnerabilities, hitting communities that were already struggling with displacement, conflict, and poverty.

Physical destruction was widespread. According to rapid assessments by April 5, an estimated 47,000 homes had been damaged, including about 11,900 houses completely collapsed and 35,000 more partially ruined (​ahacentre.org, ​ahacentre.org). Entire residential neighborhoods were flattened, and even many buildings left standing are now unsafe to inhabit. Critical infrastructure was hard-hit: at least 161 roads and 94 bridges were damaged (including major highway overpasses), impeding access to several hard-hit rural areas​ (ahacentre.org, ahacentre.org). Power lines and communication networks were knocked out across much of the disaster zone.

Telecommunications were severely disrupted in the worst affected regions – Sagaing, Mandalay, and Shan – leaving no internet service and only patchy phone connectivity in the immediate aftermath​ (ifrc.org). Public facilities suffered heavy losses as well. Preliminary data tallied over 2,000 schools wrecked​ (ahacentre.org) and more than 3,400 religious buildings (pagodas, monasteries, churches, mosques) destroyed or badly damaged (​ahacentre.org) – a devastating blow in a country where monasteries often double as community shelters. Hospitals and clinics did not escape harm: 3 hospitals collapsed entirely and 22 others were partially damaged in the affected regions (​go-api.ifrc.org), drastically reducing healthcare capacity at a time of dire need. The Mandalay and Naypyidaw general hospitals were among those badly hit, and many smaller rural health centers were also damaged or cut off (​go-api.ifrc.org).

Amid this destruction, the priority humanitarian needs have been immense. In the first days after the quake, survivors’ most urgent needs were emergency shelter, safe drinking water, food, and medical care (​go-api.ifrc.org). Thousands of families slept outdoors under improvised tarps, exposed to Myanmar’s intense heat and occasional spring rains. Assessments by the Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) and partners indicated critical shortages of clean water and sanitation, raising alarm about disease risk (​go-api.ifrc.org). Sanitation infrastructure was heavily affected – nearly 17,000 latrines were destroyed by the quake (​go-api.ifrc.org) – leaving many communities without toilets or waste disposal, and heightening the threat of waterborne illnesses. Healthcare needs were acute: with hospitals overwhelmed or out of service, injured patients were being treated in open-air triage tents and makeshift field clinics. There were urgent pleas for trauma care supplies, surgical kits, and medicines to treat the thousands of injured (​go-api.ifrc.org). Mental health and psychosocial support also emerged as a priority, as many survivors experienced severe trauma from the event; MRCS teams began providing psychological first aid to help people cope (​ifrc.org). In summary, the quake created life-threatening humanitarian gaps across shelter, water and sanitation, healthcare, food security, and protection – all on top of Myanmar’s existing crisis conditions. Humanitarian responders quickly identified these needs and started mobilizing a massive emergency response to save lives and support the affected millions.

Domestic Emergency Response in the Immediate Aftermath

Myanmar Red Cross and local emergency services search for survivors in the rubble of a collapsed building soon after the earthquake. The earthquake struck a country already grappling with civil conflict and limited disaster response capacity, yet the domestic response swung into action immediately within Myanmar’s constraints. On the day of the quake (28 March), the National Disaster Management Committee declared a state of emergency in six regions and states – Sagaing, Mandalay, Naypyidaw, Magway, Southern Shan, and Bago – which were the worst affected (​ifrc.org). This declaration activated official emergency mechanisms and prompted Myanmar’s authorities to appeal for international assistance, including a request for ASEAN’s disaster response coordination support (​ifrc.org). Locally, as buildings crumbled and people were trapped, first responders and citizens undertook heroic rescue efforts. Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) volunteers, who are present in communities nationwide, immediately mobilized. The MRCS activated its Emergency Operations Centre and, together with local branch volunteers, launched search-and-rescue operations in all affected townships within hours of the quake​(themimu.info). Wearing their red and white uniforms, these volunteers fanned out to help pull survivors from collapsed structures, provide first aid to the injured, and transport the most seriously wounded to whatever functional clinics remained (​themimu.info​ifrc.org). Local firefighters, police, and community groups also joined rescue efforts, often working with bare hands and basic tools in the critical first 24–48 hours.

Despite extremely challenging conditions, these national responders saved many lives. In numerous instances, neighbors and Red Cross teams rescued people trapped under rubble, using makeshift stretchers and commandeering trucks to ferry victims to care. Within the first week, the Myanmar Red Cross had mobilized hundreds of volunteers from unaffected regions to reinforce the response in Sagaing, Mandalay, and other hard-hit areas (​ifrc.org, ​ifrc.org). They set up mobile health clinics, ambulance services, and water purification units to begin addressing urgent needs (​ifrc.org). For example, MRCS mobile medical teams treated patients in Mandalay and Sagaing with an average of 130 patients per day seen in the field​ (go-api.ifrc.org).

Emergency distributions of relief supplies that were pre-positioned for disasters (such as tarpaulins, blankets, jerrycans, and hygiene kits) began in the first 48 hours, although the quantities on hand were limited. The Myanmar military authorities, in parallel, deployed soldiers and medics for search and rescue in accessible areas and used military helicopters to survey the devastation and ferry some supplies. However, the scale of needs far exceeded domestic capacity. The disaster struck amid Myanmar’s ongoing civil unrest – communications and transportation in many affected areas were hampered not only by quake damage but also by active conflict, especially in parts of Sagaing and Shan that are contested in the civil war (​theguardian.com​, go-api.ifrc.org). Nonetheless, Myanmar’s domestic responders did as much as possible in those crucial early days, laying the groundwork for incoming international help.

Recognizing the enormity of the crisis, Myanmar’s leadership sought external support quickly. On 29 March, just one day after the quake, a high-level “Movement coordination mini-summit” was convened with MRCS, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (​themimu.info). In this meeting – conducted under the “Seville” coordination framework – the Red Cross Movement partners coordinated roles and messaging, ensuring the MRCS would lead local action with IFRC and ICRC backing it. The IFRC immediately released 2 million Swiss francs from its Disaster Relief Emergency Fund to jump-start relief operations​ (ifrc.org). By 30 March, the IFRC had launched a global Emergency Appeal for 100 million CHF to support the response​(themimu.info, ​themimu.info). This appeal aimed to fund life-saving aid for 100,000 of the most affected people over an initial 24-month operation (​ifrc.org, ​ifrc.org). The scale of the funding request – the largest ever by IFRC for Myanmar – reflected the “red level” disaster categorization of this earthquake, indicating the highest priority for mobilizing assistance across the Red Cross Red Crescent network​ (ifrc.org). Over the next several days, surge teams from the IFRC and partner National Societies began arriving or preparing deployment to Myanmar. Within a week, at least 15 IFRC surge personnel (specialists in logistics, health, shelter, etc.) were en route or on the ground to reinforce the MRCS teams (​themimu.info).

Meanwhile, Myanmar’s government coordinated bilateral assistance from neighboring countries. The government reopened Mandalay and Naypyidaw airports by April 1 (having briefly closed them to assess runway damage) to allow relief flights (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). The Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement and the military’s National Disaster Management Center worked to facilitate visas and customs clearance for incoming aid – though bureaucratic hurdles still caused some delays​ (go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). The ruling authorities, facing international sanctions and internal conflict, were somewhat selective about foreign aid personnel; they welcomed assistance from ASEAN countries and neighbors first. By the end of the first week, domestic efforts had stabilized some of the immediate life-saving response: most injured had received at least initial medical attention, survivors had basic emergency shelter, and food and water distributions were underway in accessible communities. However, it was clear that Myanmar’s capacity alone was insufficient for an emergency of this magnitude – robust international support and coordination would be critical to scale up the response.

Regional and International Emergency Assistance

Given Myanmar’s request for help, a surge of international aid began in the days following the earthquake, coordinated through regional mechanisms and the United Nations. Foremost was the response from Myanmar’s neighbors and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) activated its highest level of emergency response. As of 6 April, the AHA Centre’s Emergency Operations Center was at “Red Alert” status (Day 10), coordinating regional support to Myanmar​(ahacentre.org). ASEAN’s Secretary-General, acting as the Humanitarian Assistance Coordinator, mobilized resources from member states in solidarity with Myanmar (​ifrc.org). The AHA Centre dispatched its In-Country Liaison Team (ICLT) to work closely with Myanmar’s Emergency Operations Centre and the national Department of Disaster Management (DDM)​ (ahacentre.org).

In addition, a team of 24 ASEAN Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ERAT) members from all 10 ASEAN nations was deployed to the affected areas (focusing on Sagaing, Mandalay, and Naypyidaw) to conduct joint needs assessments and help coordinate incoming relief (​ahacentre.org). These ASEAN teams provided crucial human resources on the ground, augmenting information management, search-and-rescue coordination, and logistics facilitation for the response.

ASEAN member countries generously sent emergency aid and specialized teams to Myanmar. By 5–6 April, the AHA Centre had facilitated the delivery of relief supplies valued at approximately USD 240,000 from the ASEAN regional stockpile in Subang, Malaysia, including family tents, tarpaulins, hygiene kits, and medical supplies (​ahacentre.org). Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Laos, and Vietnam all contributed personnel or equipment through bilateral and ASEAN channels. Notably, Malaysia – as the ASEAN Chair in 2025 – took a leadership role: Malaysia’s Foreign Minister visited Naypyidaw on 5 April along with Thailand’s Foreign Minister to meet Myanmar officials and express ASEAN’s solidarity (​ahacentre.org). Malaysia’s elite SMART team (Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team) was deployed to Sagaing to assist with urban search and rescue operations (​ahacentre.org). Singapore sent its Civil Defence Force “Operation Lionheart” urban search-and-rescue team, which carried out search operations in the Naypyidaw area, and also deployed a 34-member Singapore Emergency Medical Team (SG-EMT) to provide healthcare to injured survivors (​ahacentre.org, ​ahacentre.org). From the Philippines, a 33-person inter-agency contingent (including Air Force, health, and firefighting personnel) arrived to support relief efforts (​ahacentre.org). The Royal Thai Armed Forces teams operated in Naypyidaw, setting up a mobile field clinic to treat victims, even as Thailand was managing its own quake impacts in Bangkok (​ahacentre.org). Vietnam dispatched military engineers and medics who helped with debris clearing, medical aid, and establishing temporary shelters in affected communities (​ahacentre.org). Smaller contributions came from Brunei, Cambodia, and Myanmar’s other ASEAN neighbors, often in the form of donations or ERAT experts. By having all ten ASEAN nations involved, the regional response was highly coordinated, leveraging each country’s strengths under the AHA Centre’s one-ASEAN framework​(ahacentre.org, ​ahacentre.org). ASEAN’s motto of “One ASEAN, One Response” was visibly put into practice, marking a significant example of regional cooperation in disaster response.

Beyond ASEAN, the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations also scaled up assistance rapidly. The UN Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator for Myanmar triggered a humanitarian system-wide emergency response. At the request of the UN in Myanmar, a UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team was deployed by 2 April to support field coordination​ (ahacentre.org). By 4 April, UNDAC personnel were on the ground in Yangon, Naypyidaw, and Mandalay, working under UN OCHA’s leadership to assess needs and help manage the influx of relief operations (​ahacentre.org). UN agencies began rushing supplies into Myanmar: for example, the World Health Organization (WHO) flew in 34.5 tons of emergency medical supplies from its logistics hub in Dubai to Yangon, including dozens of Interagency Emergency Health Kits, trauma surgery kits, medicines, and even body bags for managing the dead (​reuters.com, ​ahacentre.org). WHO also prepared to deploy additional international medical teams to backstop Myanmar’s health services (​go-api.ifrc.org). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) distributed thousands of core relief item kits to affected families, initially targeting 5,000 households in the worst-hit areas (​ahacentre.org). These kits included tarpaulins (many of which were immediately used to erect makeshift shelters and field hospital wards), blankets, jerry cans for water, and kitchen sets. In addition, UNHCR provided large tents to be used at health facilities in places like Naypyidaw so that doctors could treat patients under shelter​(ahacentre.org). UNICEF led efforts to restore water and sanitation, deploying water purification units and emergency latrine materials, and it co-chaired coordination of the WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) response with the government (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). Other UN agencies and NGOs addressed food security – for instance, the World Food Programme (WFP) delivered initial high-energy biscuits and started planning general food distributions once access improved.

The Red Cross Red Crescent Movement’s international network played a central role as well. As mentioned, IFRC launched a major appeal and sent surge teams. Dozens of Red Cross national societies (from the Asia-Pacific region and globally) contributed personnel or donations through the IFRC appeal. Specialized Emergency Response Units from the IFRC Network – such as field hospitals, water purification units, and logistics teams – were put on standby, with some departing for Myanmar by the second week​ (ifrc.org, ​ifrc.org). The ICRC, already present in Myanmar due to the conflict, retooled some of its operations to support earthquake relief, especially in insecure areas where it has access. For example, ICRC helped transport relief supplies into conflict-affected zones of Shan and Sagaing and provided emergency cash assistance to displaced families. International NGOs already in Myanmar (and those able to operate cross-border) also ramped up relief efforts. Plan International and World Vision conducted rapid needs assessments in affected townships and began distributing emergency shelter materials and child protection support (​ahacentre.org, ​ahacentre.org). Oxfam and local partners delivered hygiene kits and clean water in some camps, reaching thousands of people within the first two weeks​(ahacentre.org). A consortium of local NGOs, civil society groups, and ethnic humanitarian organizations were instrumental in reaching remote villages, often trucking in supplies donated by the Myanmar diaspora or private donors. Offers of aid came from around the world – governments like Japan, India, China, the United States, and the EU pledged funds or in-kind relief. However, the acceptance and coordination of bilateral aid were managed carefully by Myanmar’s authorities. In some cases, geopolitics complicated the picture (for example, a Taiwanese rescue team’s offer was not taken up amid political sensitivities (​theguardian.com), but overall the international community’s support was significant and growing. By mid-April 2025, the humanitarian response in Myanmar had become a truly multinational effort, with coordination hubs established in Yangon and Mandalay to align the myriad of responding entities.

Meeting Urgent Needs: Health, Shelter, and Essential Services

Two weeks into the disaster, responders were focused on addressing a spectrum of critical humanitarian needs. Shelter was a top priority. With tens of thousands of homes destroyed, many families were living under tarps, in tent camps, or crowded into surviving public buildings. Humanitarian agencies distributed emergency tents, tarpaulins, and shelter toolkits (with items like ropes, nails, and basic tools) to help households erect temporary shelters (​ahacentre.org). By 5 April, over 36 temporary camps had been established to host displaced people, though conditions in these camps were rudimentary (​ahacentre.org). Emergency shelter efforts also included supporting those staying in partially damaged homes – providing plastic sheets, repairing cracks, and shoring up structures where possible before the monsoon rains. The need for more durable shelter was evident; as IFRC noted, transitional shelters and housing repairs would be required soon, since over 41,000 houses are no longer safe to inhabit (​go-api.ifrc.org). In the interim, agencies are supplying blankets, sleeping mats, and mosquito nets to make outdoor living safer and more bearable (​ahacentre.org). Community facilities like monasteries, which often serve as refuges, had also been wrecked, so alternative safe spaces (large tents, communal bamboo shelters) were being set up to accommodate those homeless who could not stay near their original homes (​go-api.ifrc.org).

Health care needs remained critical. The earthquake’s impact on health infrastructure was severe – three hospitals (two in Bago Region and one in Naypyidaw) were completely destroyed, and 22 others were left structurally damaged (​go-api.ifrc.org). Many local clinics and rural health posts were likewise damaged or cut off. As a result, healthcare provision had to improvise: field hospitals and mobile clinics took the place of collapsed health centers. International EMTs (Emergency Medical Teams) from Russia, Japan, and other countries teamed up with Myanmar doctors to run these mobile clinics in the hardest-hit areas (​go-api.ifrc.org). The World Health Organization coordinated the health cluster response, focusing on trauma care, injury rehab, and disease prevention. A major concern was preventing outbreaks of communicable diseases. The combination of crowded camps and disrupted water supply created fertile ground for illnesses like cholera, acute diarrhea, dengue, malaria, and COVID-19. WHO experts warned of a high risk of cholera in particular, given that the quake hit shortly after a cholera uptick in Mandalay the previous year (​reuters.com, ​go-api.ifrc.org). Vaccines, rehydration salts, and cholera testing kits were pre-positioned in case an outbreak emerged. Health officials also noted a surge in patients with respiratory infections and heat-related illness, which was unsurprising in the sweltering conditions. To bolster healthcare delivery, responders brought in supplies to cover both emergency trauma needs and routine care – items ranging from surgical tools and anesthetics to chronic disease medications and maternal health kits. Blood banks in Yangon and Mandalay ran blood drives to supply hospitals treating quake victims, and the response included establishing referral systems to send complex cases (e.g. severe crush injuries) to better-equipped facilities either within Myanmar or in neighboring countries if needed. Mental health and psychosocial support was integrated into health services as well: counselors and trained volunteers offered psychological first aid in camps and clinics, helping people process the trauma and grief, and pay respect to the deceased in dignified ways (​ifrc.org​, ifrc.org).

Ensuring access to clean water and sanitation (WASH) was equally vital. The quake and aftershocks had damaged pipelines, wells, and water treatment units across the affected townships. In many places, people resorted to using river water or stagnant pools, raising contamination risks. Humanitarian WASH teams prioritized restoring safe water supply by installing water purification units and bladder tanks and trucking in water where necessary. They also worked to set up emergency latrines and bathing facilities in the larger displacement camps. As noted, nearly 17,000 household latrines were destroyed (​go-api.ifrc.org), leaving tens of thousands without proper sanitation. In the absence of facilities, some communities were defecating in the open or using streams, which threatened to pollute drinking sources. Aid agencies responded by delivering latrine slabs, plastic sheeting, and digging tools to construct pit latrines in villages and camps. By the second week, WASH partners had conducted assessments in dozens of villages and identified safe water access as a “priority need”, especially in makeshift camps dependent on water trucking (​go-api.ifrc.org). Hygiene promotion campaigns were launched, encouraging handwashing and the safe handling of water. The risk of waterborne disease was taken very seriously – UNICEF and the Ministry of Health distributed water purification tablets, soaps, and hygiene kits (with items like buckets, chlorine solution, and menstrual hygiene supplies) to thousands of families (​ahacentre.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). If cholera or diarrhea cases emerged, response plans included setting up oral rehydration points and possibly cholera treatment centers. So far, thanks to preventive efforts, no large outbreaks had been reported in the first two weeks, but surveillance was heightened.

Other critical needs being addressed included food security and nutrition. In the immediate term, emergency food distributions were initiated by local groups and the World Food Programme, focusing on rice, instant noodles, cooking oil, and high-energy biscuits for those who lost their food stocks. Markets in many affected towns were closed or destroyed, so food aid was a lifeline. By one week in, over 66,500 people (about 13,300 households) had received food assistance via the Red Cross and WFP in the most impacted regions (​themimu.info). Looking ahead, concerns loomed about longer-term food supply: the quake damaged some irrigation dams and canals (for instance, cracks were reported in the Sinthay dam in Naypyidaw) which could jeopardize the upcoming planting season (​ahacentre.org). Humanitarian agencies planned to support farmers with repairs and possibly provide seeds and tools, to prevent the disaster from causing a secondary food crisis in the coming months. Logistics and access for all these relief efforts were continually improving but still challenging – engineers had cleared major debris from key roads like the Yangon–Mandalay highway, though many rural roads remained blocked or in disrepair (​go-api.ifrc.org). The Myanmar military deployed heavy equipment to help clear roads and erected temporary bridges where bridges had collapsed, enabling aid convoys to reach more remote villages by the second week.

Lastly, protection and psychosocial support formed an important pillar of the response. The quake struck at a time when communities were already vulnerable; women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities faced heightened risks in the disaster’s aftermath. The breakdown of normal community structures and displacement into crowded shelters increased the risk of gender-based violence, exploitation, and family separation (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). Protection teams from local NGOs and UNFPA worked to establish safe spaces for women and children in the larger camps and encouraged community watch systems. Efforts were made to reunify separated children with relatives, and to provide extra care to orphans or unaccompanied elders. Several humanitarian organizations distributed dignity kits (which include clothing, menstrual hygiene items, and flashlights) to women and girls, and set up privacy screens for bathing areas (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). Psychological first aid and counseling were provided, as mentioned, recognizing that emotional “scars of the earthquake” may linger even after physical wounds heal (​ifrc.org, ​ifrc.org). Overall, while the initial emergency phase was focused on life-saving aid, responders also kept sight of these broader needs to uphold dignity and rights, aiming to ensure the most vulnerable are not left behind in the response.

Operational Challenges and Constraints

Responding to a disaster of this magnitude in Myanmar has presented formidable operational challenges. One major obstacle has been the geography and infrastructure of the affected area: damaged roads, bridges, and airports significantly slowed the delivery of aid in the early days (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). Key routes linking the capital and hard-hit regions were impaired – for example, parts of the highway from Yangon to Naypyidaw were buckled, and authorities warned that a major bridge in Sagaing Region had sustained structural damage and might be unsafe​(themimu.info). This forced relief convoys to take long detours or transfer goods between trucks at broken bridge points, losing precious time. Some remote villages in mountainous areas of Southern Shan and Sagaing could initially only be reached by helicopter or on foot because landslides and collapsed roads cut off vehicle access. The logistics cluster led by WFP worked to open up corridors, but as of two weeks post-quake, some communities were still waiting for substantial aid deliveries due to these access issues. In the first week, Mandalay International Airport and Naypyidaw Airport were intermittently closed for safety inspections (​go-api.ifrc.org), meaning most international relief flights had to land in Yangon (which is hundreds of kilometers from the quake zone). This bottlenecked incoming aid and required overland transport upcountry under difficult conditions. Continuous aftershocks also posed a risk, sometimes forcing the temporary suspension of search operations and causing further damage to already weakened infrastructure.

A second grave challenge has been the extreme weather and environmental conditions prevailing in Myanmar. The earthquake struck at the end of March, on the cusp of Myanmar’s hottest season. In the disaster’s aftermath, the region endured a severe heatwave, with daily highs exceeding 40°C (104°F) and even reaching 44°C (111°F) in exposed areas (​ifrc.org). Thousands of displaced people camped out under tarps or in crowded tents had to endure this blistering heat, which not only causes dehydration and heat stroke but also degrades stored medical supplies and food. Aid workers on the ground struggled to keep themselves cool and hydrated while providing services – many distribution activities had to be paused during the peak afternoon heat for safety. The intense heat has posed additional health risks, especially for the elderly and children, and made basic living conditions extremely harsh for survivors (​ifrc.org). As if the heat were not enough, meteorological agencies warned of unseasonal rains in early April. Indeed, intermittent heavy showers fell on some affected townships around April 10th​ (reuters.com). While rain brought slight relief to the heat, it also turned tent settlements into muddy quagmires and threatened to increase the spread of waterborne diseases. The approaching cyclone and monsoon season (typically starting by May/June) hangs over responders as a looming challenge – if robust shelter and drainage are not in place by then, camps could flood and already vulnerable people would face a new disaster on top of the earthquake. Aid groups are racing against time to pre-position monsoon-resistant shelter materials and reinforce infrastructure, mindful that Myanmar’s climate will not wait.

Perhaps the most complex challenge has been the security and access constraints due to Myanmar’s political situation and ongoing conflicts. Large swathes of the severely affected area – notably in Sagaing Region and parts of Shan State – are embroiled in Myanmar’s civil conflict (a post-coup armed uprising). In these areas, there is an active presence of armed groups and ongoing hostilities, which dramatically complicates humanitarian operations (​go-api.ifrc.org). Some hard-hit villages in Sagaing were in zones that Myanmar’s military does not fully control. Humanitarian organizations have had to negotiate access with multiple actors or rely on local community networks to deliver aid, as formal international teams cannot freely move in conflict areas. The “shrinking humanitarian space” in Myanmar (due to political restrictions since the 2021 coup) has also posed bureaucratic hurdles (​go-api.ifrc.org). Travel authorizations and curfews imposed by authorities limited the movement of aid workers initially. Customs clearance delays affected the arrival of relief supplies – for instance, overseas shipments of medical equipment faced lengthy inspections in Yangon (​go-api.ifrc.org). Visas for foreign humanitarian personnel were expedited in many cases, but some organizations still reported waiting for official permissions to access the worst-affected rural zones. Insecurity on the ground is a real risk – relief convoys have to be careful traveling through areas with a recent history of clashes, and there were reports that some aid shipments were briefly held up due to mine contamination or checkpoints on certain routes (though no serious incidents were reported involving aid workers as of two weeks in). Communication with communities in need has also been difficult because the combination of conflict-related telecom blackouts and quake damage left many affected communities virtually cut off – making it hard to conduct needs assessments or give residents information about incoming aid​ (theguardian.com). These access challenges mean that some severely affected villages, especially those in contested or very remote areas, may not yet have received sufficient assistance – an urgent gap that responders acknowledge and are working to close through creative means (such as partnering with local religious networks and using porters to carry supplies where trucks can’t reach).

Despite these hurdles, the humanitarian operation is adapting and expanding. The MRCS and IFRC are leveraging the Red Cross’s neutral status to negotiate access where others cannot, ensuring relief reaches communities on both sides of conflict lines (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). To tackle logistics constraints, agencies have brought in helicopters and small aircraft for targeted airlifts of aid to isolated areas. They are also utilizing boats along the Irrawaddy River to reach riverine villages. Daily coordination meetings focus on solving bottlenecks – for example, arranging military escorts or security assurances to send convoys into sensitive zones when needed, and pressing authorities to simplify administrative procedures during this emergency (​go-api.ifrc.org, ​go-api.ifrc.org). There is also a push for better information management: establishing communication networks (like satellite phones and radio systems) in the field to reconnect isolated response teams and communities. While the challenges are daunting, each day has seen improvements – roads cleared, more aid arriving, more field teams fanning out. All actors are aware that overcoming these constraints is essential to save lives. As the IFRC Head of Delegation in Myanmar put it, “our response must match the sheer scale of the disaster,” (​ifrc.org) and that means innovating to work around obstacles, whether natural or man-made. There is a strong commitment among the humanitarian community to stay and deliver, despite heat, rain, conflict, and complexity.

Coordination of the Ongoing Relief Effort

Coordinating a multi-faceted relief effort for a disaster of this scale requires a unified approach, and steps have been taken to strengthen coordination among all responders. The Government of Myanmar is ostensibly leading the response through its Emergency Management Committee and relevant ministries, and it convenes regular coordination meetings with U.N., Red Cross, ASEAN, and NGO representatives in Yangon and Naypyidaw. In practice, much of the on-ground coordination in heavily affected areas has been delegated to clusters and the Myanmar Red Cross due to the government’s limited reach in some locales. The IFRC and MRCS have established a joint coordination mechanism for the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement response, ensuring that the IFRC-led international support aligns with MRCS local efforts and with government plans​(themimu.info). This includes a single operational plan (the IFRC Emergency Appeal Operational Strategy published on 8 April) that outlines who will do what, where (​themimu.info). Within the U.N. system, the cluster approach has been activated: clusters for health, shelter, water/sanitation, food security, and protection are chaired by the relevant U.N. agencies (e.g. WHO for health, UNICEF for WASH, WFP for logistics, etc.) in partnership with Myanmar government departments. These clusters meet frequently to share information, map out coverage, and avoid duplication of aid. For example, in the health cluster, WHO, the Ministry of Health, and Red Cross coordinators discuss patient referral systems and ensure that field hospitals are deployed to complement (not duplicate) each other’s services (​go-api.ifrc.org). In the shelter cluster, IFRC and UNHCR co-lead and have divided geographic areas of responsibility for delivering tents and tarps.

Crucially, ASEAN’s presence via the AHA Centre has enhanced coordination by bridging Myanmar’s authorities and international aid actors. The AHA Centre serves as a liaison feeding ASEAN’s information (like AHA situation updates with government-verified figures) into the broader coordination structure, and it supports the DDM in convening multi-stakeholder coordination forums​ (ahacentre.org, ​ahacentre.org). AHA’s ERAT members are embedded in various teams to facilitate cooperation – for instance, working alongside U.N. and Red Cross staff in assessment missions. This layered coordination (national, ASEAN, international) is somewhat complex, but all parties recognize the need for a cohesive strategy given the immense needs. Joint operational hubs have been set up in Mandalay and Sagaing towns, where representatives from the government, MRCS, ASEAN, U.N., and NGOs co-locate to coordinate daily relief operations for those regions. These hubs improve communication and allow for rapid troubleshooting – if, say, a certain township has not received food yet, the issue can be raised and resolved on the spot by the logisticians and coordinators present.

Mobilizing sufficient funding and resources is another aspect requiring coordination. The IFRC’s Emergency Appeal (MDRMM023) for CHF 100 million​ (ifrc.org) is coordinating donations from dozens of donors (governments and Red Cross societies) into one pot to support the Red Cross-led response. Separately, U.N. OCHA has issued a Flash Appeal to the international community (expected to request on the order of $150 million for immediate response, covering U.N. and NGO projects – this was still being finalized in early April). WHO’s urgent appeal for $8 million for health response was one component of that (​theguardian.com). There is close coordination to ensure these appeals and funding mechanisms complement each other rather than compete.

The Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (a country-based pooled fund managed by OCHA) has also been activated to channel money quickly to frontline NGOs, especially local Myanmar organizations that can access areas international actors might not. Countries like the United States, UK, EU, Japan, Australia, and others have announced emergency grants, and these are being allocated across the appeals and organizations based on identified gaps. For instance, Finland contributed €1 million specifically to the IFRC appeal to support Red Cross operations​(ahacentre.org). Such contributions are being tracked and coordinated so that critical sectors (health, shelter, etc.) are all funded adequately. As of mid-April, significant funds had been mobilized, but the funding gap remained large given the scale of destruction; humanitarian leaders continued to urge more international support, emphasizing that this disaster is among the worst in decades in Asia and will require sustained assistance well beyond the initial emergency phase​ (ifrc.org).

Another coordination focus is on community engagement and communication. Reaching affected communities with timely, accurate information – about where to get aid, health precautions, and what assistance is coming – is vital. The MRCS and community-based organizations have been broadcasting messages on local radio (where functioning) and through town criers and social media. Humanitarian teams coordinate these messages to ensure consistency and to counter any misinformation that might arise (for example, dispelling rumors that more big quakes were imminent, which caused panic). Feedback mechanisms (like hotline numbers and help desks at aid distribution points) are being stood up so survivors can voice their needs or complaints, which are then relayed into coordination meetings to adjust the response. This two-way communication is essential in a context like Myanmar’s, where trust in authorities can be low; leveraging the trust in the Red Cross and local civil society helps ensure communities are truly part of the response planning.

Despite the multitude of actors involved, by the second week the relief effort in Myanmar showed signs of increasing organization and reach. Urgent life-saving needs were gradually being met in accessible areas – there were no longer reports of large pockets of completely unreached survivors, as initial air assessments had feared. Emergency medical care, food, water, and basic shelter have been provided to many tens of thousands of people (​themimu.info, ​ifrc.org), and ongoing assessments continue to identify any remaining gaps. Challenges persist in the more remote and insecure locations, but plans are in place to address those through joint operations and possibly cross-line humanitarian deliveries (with cooperation from ethnic armed groups where necessary). All responders are keenly aware that this is not a short-term crisis: the relief phase will transition into early recovery and reconstruction, which will take years. Thus, coordination is also forward-looking – discussions have started on recovery planning, such as rebuilding homes to safer standards and rehabilitating infrastructure, with coordination between humanitarian and development actors. The spirit of solidarity, both within Myanmar and from the international community, has been a strong positive force driving the response. As one ASEAN official noted, the region came together in this disaster “in the spirit of a unified humanitarian front” (​ahacentre.org), and this unity will continue to be crucial.

Looking Ahead: Toward Recovery and Resilience

Two weeks after the devastating Myanmar earthquake, the situation is evolving from the initial emergency chaos toward a more stabilized relief operation, though enormous needs remain. Thanks to concerted efforts domestically, regionally, and internationally, many lives have been saved and a significant amount of relief has reached those in need. Search-and-rescue operations have transitioned to recovery of remains, given the diminishing chances of finding survivors. The focus now is on providing ongoing care for the injured (including amputations and rehabilitation for those with crush injuries) and improving living conditions for displaced survivors. Aid continues to pour in – for example, additional shipments of relief goods from ASEAN and neighboring countries are scheduled, and international medical teams are rotating in to relieve the first wave of responders. The humanitarian community is also vigilant about emerging issues, such as the potential for disease outbreaks, the need for temporary learning spaces for children (since so many schools were destroyed), and the protection of women and girls in displacement sites. Plans are underway to vaccinate against measles and other infectious diseases in the camps as a preventive measure, and mobile clinics are now expanding services to include maternal health and treatment of chronic illnesses interrupted by the quake.

There have been some early successes in the response worth noting. Within 10 days, power was restored to most urban areas of Mandalay and Naypyidaw, and banks and markets began reopening in those cities, allowing for cash assistance programs to start (cash grants help survivors buy what they specifically need from local markets, boosting both dignity and the local economy). Some critical road connections have been temporarily fixed, improving the flow of aid. The solidarity shown by civil society in Myanmar has been remarkable – local volunteer networks, including Buddhist monk organizations and youth groups, organized themselves to deliver food and water to neighbors in need, exemplifying community resilience. Internationally, the swift ASEAN response and the significant Red Cross effort have demonstrated how leveraging existing frameworks can speed up aid to disaster victims. The coordination between the Myanmar Red Cross, ASEAN, U.N., and NGOs, though complicated at times, has largely prevented duplication of efforts and ensured that most major needs are being addressed in a coordinated manner.

However, major challenges and gaps remain as Myanmar moves toward the next phase of this disaster response. Shelter is still inadequate for many; the temporary solutions will not hold up long under heavy rain, and hundreds of thousands of people may be facing months without a home. Scaling up the construction of durable transitional shelters and repairing partially damaged houses (where possible) is a pressing priority before the monsoon. Healthcare capacity is still stretched thin – outside help will be needed for some time to support Myanmar’s health system in the affected regions, and rebuilding permanent health facilities will take considerable investment and time. Mental health support will need to continue and expand, as the trauma of this disaster could manifest in long-term psycho-social issues for survivors (including children who lost parents or people who lost their entire livelihoods). Another concern is the risk of aid shortfalls if the crisis falls off the global radar. Humanitarians are urging that Myanmar’s earthquake not be forgotten amid other world events; the funding needs for the response and recovery are immense, and a protracted emergency in a conflict-affected country is always in danger of underfunding. Additionally, access to all communities must be maintained. Negotiations will be required to keep humanitarian corridors open into conflict areas, and all parties will need to respect the neutrality of aid. There is cautious optimism that the cooperation seen so far (even Myanmar’s military allowing foreign aid workers and ASEAN teams in) could be built upon to improve humanitarian access in the long run, but this will require persistent diplomacy.

In the coming weeks, the operation will likely transition into an early recovery phase: debris removal, restoring basic services, and helping people rebuild livelihoods. Agencies like UNDP and the Red Cross will look at cash-for-work programs to clear rubble and begin reconstruction, and initiatives to rebuild schools and health centers with quake-resistant designs. Importantly, there is a push to “build back safer”, learning from this tragedy. Myanmar lies in a high-risk seismic zone – strengthening community preparedness and infrastructure resilience will be key to reducing future earthquake impacts(​en.wikipedia.org, ​en.wikipedia.org). The government and experts are discussing how to incorporate better building codes, early warning systems (the quake struck without warning, and criticisms in Thailand about the lack of an alert have arisen​(theguardian.com), and public awareness on earthquake response. The response to this disaster is far from over, but the groundwork being laid now – through effective coordination, addressing immediate needs, and planning for recovery – will shape how quickly Myanmar can recover from this calamity.

In conclusion, the response to the 2025 Myanmar earthquake has been a massive, multi-dimensional effort involving heroes on the ground and assistance from around the world. The earthquake dealt a tremendous blow to a country already facing hardship, but it also mobilized an unprecedented wave of humanitarian solidarity. While the death and suffering it caused are heartbreaking, the ongoing relief operations have saved countless lives and brought hope to survivors that they will not be left alone in their time of greatest need. Much work lies ahead to fully recover and rebuild safer communities, yet the progress in the first weeks – from emergency rescues to the delivery of life-sustaining aid – demonstrates what can be achieved when the national and international community come together. Responders and officials alike emphasize that the crisis is not over, and they urge sustained support for Myanmar’s long road to recovery. But amid the tragedy, the resilience of the Myanmar people and the commitment of those aiding them stand out. As relief efforts continue and transition toward rehabilitation, the lessons learned and the coordination achieved in this response will be invaluable in strengthening Myanmar’s capacity to handle future disasters, ultimately building a more resilient nation in the face of natural hazards.

Sources: The information in this report is drawn from official and humanitarian sources, including the Wikipedia overview of the earthquake’s characteristics (​en.wikipedia.org, ​en.wikipedia.org, situation reports by the ASEAN AHA Centre (​ahacentre.org​ahacentre.org) and WHO (​go-api.ifrc.org​go-api.ifrc.org), and operational updates from the IFRC and Myanmar Red Cross (ifrc.org, ​themimu.info). These sources provide the factual basis for the earthquake’s impact and the multi-faceted response described.