Background

In October 2022, this analytical unit reported several State Administration Council (SAC) orders to close IDP camps in Rakhine, Chin, and Shan States, with most deadlines given as the end of that month.^[1] Responses to the SAC’s closure orders, some of which were detailed in a November 2022 follow-up report, varied widely depending on context.^[2] In February, this analytical unit spoke to IDP camp leaders, residents, and other sources near IDPs about the status of several specific camps in Kachin State, who described mounting pressure from General Administration Department (GAD) staff to close IDP camps there. IDPs, camp leaders, and communities living in these four states proposed diverse theories about the SAC’s orders, including that the SAC wanted to cut off the potential flow of aid through IDP camps to the Arakan Army in Rakhine and (southern) Chin States; that the SAC wanted to disperse IDPs in order to undermine both the ability of Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) to fight in Northern Shan State, and community support for those same EAOs; and that the SAC was moving IDPs as a tactic in negotiations about territorial control with certain EAOs in Southern Shan State. The SAC may also be attempting to reduce the official number of IDPs in order to posture to international observers that the situation in Myanmar is improving under the leadership of Min Aung Hlaing, and that the military is successfully consolidating control.

In areas with current or potential camp closures — Rakhine, southern Chin, Northern Shan, Southern Shan, and Kachin States — key concerns reported by IDPs remain the continued tensions between armed actors in IDPs’ areas of origin or locations to which they might feasibly relocate. These tensions have persisted, posing the same challenges to returning or resettlement now as they have in the past, and in many cases perpetuating conditions that caused initial displacement — in some cases, over a decade ago. Over the course of discussions between this analytical unit and camp stakeholders since September 2022, tensions have remained high in Rakhine State, fighting is still ongoing between the SAC and Kachin forces in the Kachin State townships with the most IDPs, the SAC (sometimes alongside the Pa-O National Army) has continued to clash with Karenni forces near Southern Shan State’s border with Karenni State, and a medley of armed actors (including the SAC) have intermittently fought in Northern Shan State, where a diverse array EAOs jostle over areas of control. Other concerns reported by IDPs include unexploded ordnance (UXO) contamination, presence of armed forces near return or relocation sites, lack of arable land and other livelihood opportunities, destroyed homes and land, and a lack of support to rebuild lives.

This update is based on a small set of the camps in Rakhine, Chin, Shan, and Kachin States, and findings should not be assumed to be comprehensive or representative. The value of the qualitative approach is in the context-specific knowledge it provides; this snapshot illustrates perceptions of community members from a broad cross section of the local context, and the range of responses taken by displaced communities to the developing situation.

For further analysis, detailed response implications, and recommendations for humanitarian responders regarding the SAC’s push to close formal IDP camps across Myanmar, please refer to the first report in this series: Situation Update: Camp Closure Crisis

Current Situation

Rakhine State

Camps in Rakhine State can generally fall into two broad categories: (1) camps hosting predominantly Rohingya people who were displaced as a result of intercommunal violence in 2012, and (2) camps hosting primarily people displaced by fighting between the Arakan Army (AA) and the SAC in 2018-2020. Efforts to ‘close’ the 2012-era camps have been ongoing since before the coup. However, the closure process is often a reclassification by name only, wherein the populations are neither meaningfully consulted nor offered an opportunity to move elsewhere, remain subject to onerous movement restrictions and lack of access to basic services and rights, are surrounded by SAC checkpoints, and are heavily reliant on international aid — essentially, facing long-term internment. By contrast, efforts to close the 2018-era camps are more recent, and more likely to result in camp inhabitants reintegrating into broader Rakhine society. This update focuses on camps in the second category, as these are more directly affected by the current SAC push to close IDP camps in Rakhine State and elsewhere. Like IDPs elsewhere, this population has expressed concerns regarding security, the presence of armed actors and likelihood of renewed armed violence, and the proliferation of explosive contamination.

This update is based on a small set of the camps in Rakhine State, and findings should not be assumed to be comprehensive or representative. Data is taken from interviews with one respondent per camp and has not been independently verified by this analytical unit. The value of the qualitative approach is in the context-specific knowledge it provides; this report is intended to illustrate perceptions of community members from a broad cross section of the local context, and the range of responses taken by displaced communities to the developing situation.

Buthidaung Township

Yan Aung Myay camp 

Camp Data:^[3]

Population: 503

Households: 153

Area(s) of origin: Nwar Yon Taung, Sha Sha Taung, San Gone Taung, Sa Pa Htar, and Kwan Taung villages, Buthidaung Township

Displaced since: 2018

According to a camp resident, the SAC has made efforts to shut down the four camps around Buthidaung town, which host over 10,000 people, and relocate their residents; however, it has not forced anybody to leave yet. The resident claims that last year the GAD and other authorities, including military personnel, ordered all IDPs here to return to their villages; more recently, however, the SAC just asked for a list of IDPs who want to return. She said that on 31 March 2023, the township GAD called camp leaders to a meeting and asked them to submit a list of IDPs who want to return to their villages of origin. She said that a total of roughly 30 IDP households from the other three camps were listed, but that the SAC has not yet responded about when it will send these IDPs to their villages of origin, or how it will support them. She reported hearing that the SAC will give 600,000 Myanmar Kyat (~285.77 USD) and three months’ worth of food supplies to each household willing to return. According to the respondent, none of the other 10,000 IDPs (except these 30 IDP households) are willing to return to their villages of origin due to concerns about landmines, the proximity of SAC military camps and bases to these villages, the potential for fighting between the AA and the SAC, and the possibility of being displaced again as a result.^[4]

According to a camp resident, IDPs in Yay Aung Myay camp are currently facing challenges accessing food and clean water, and some IDPs there need to repair their shelters before the monsoon season begins. The SAC reportedly provides no support for these IDPs, and restricts humanitarian assistance from others, but camp residents are able to receive some food through informal channels, such as through parahita groups. The respondent said that many young people from camps in Buthidaung Township have gone elsewhere to find work, including Thailand and Malaysia, and others look for work in nearby areas outside the camps.^[5]

Kyauktaw Township

Wa Taung camp

Camp Data:^[6]

Population: 893

Households: 154

Area(s) of origin: Thein Chaung, Gin Bi, Pyin Nyar Gyi, Kyauk Tan, Kha Maung, and Tay Wa villages, Kyauktaw Township

Displaced since: 2018

A resident of Wa Taung camp said that in November 2022 the SAC told all the camp residents to return to their villages of origin by the end of 2022, and that the SAC shut down three other camps in Kyauktaw Township (Thein Kyaung, Shan Ywar, and Maharmuni) on 31 March 2023, with all residents of those camps returning to their villages of origin. In March 2023, the resident said, the SAC held a meeting and again asked each camp in the township to submit a list of residents who wanted to return to their villages of origin, and promised to give 600,000 Myanmar Kyat (~285.77 USD) and NFIs per household willing to return.^[7]

According to the list, in Wa Taung, 377 IDPs from 71 households were willing to return to their villages of origin, citing difficulties living in the camp, especially food shortages due to a lack of humanitarian assistance from both local and international agencies. According to a resident of Wa Taung, residents are facing shortages of food supplies, water and sanitation, healthcare services, and adequate shelter. The SAC has reportedly not yet provided the promised assistance to IDPs who want to return, or responded to questions about landmine clearance around their villages of origin.^[8]

The rest of the camp’s residents are reportedly not willing to return due to landmines and potential fighting between the SAC and AA, as well as loss of livelihoods and destroyed villages; these people reportedly plan to continue living in Wa Taung camp. However, the respondent said that, ultimately, if the SAC shuts down the camp, residents will return to their villages of origin.^[9]

Ponnagyun Township

Ray Phyu Kan camp

Camp Data:^[10]

Population: 542

Households: 100

Area(s) of origin: Na Ma Dar village, Paletwa Township; Thar Si and Kyauk Seik villages, Ponnagyun Township

Displaced since: 2018

According to an interviewee in Ponnagyun Township, on 3 March 2023 the SAC shut down Ray Phyu Kan camp and forced all residents to leave. The SAC reportedly tried to push IDPs back to their places of origin, and provided 600,000 Myanmar Kyat (~285.77 USD) and three months’ worth of rice per household. While households originally from Ponnagyun Township were reportedly willing to return to their villages, those from Paletwa Township moved to Set Mue Zone camp, near Ponnagyun town, due to potential fighting between the AA and SAC near their areas of origin.^[11]

Mrauk-U Township

Let Kauk Zey camp

Camp Data:^[12]

Population: ~500

Households: 139

Area(s) of origin: Pauktaw Pyin village, Mrauk-U Township

Displaced since: 2019

A camp resident who spoke to this analytical unit reported not having heard of SAC plans to close the camp and relocate IDPs. However, on 4 March 2023, about 31 IDPs from eight households reportedly returned to their villages, facilitated by SAC township authorities, and the SAC provided them with clothing and other NFIs; the respondent was unaware of cash having been provided. The rest of the camp residents reportedly remained and were not willing to return to their areas of origin, due to potential fighting between the SAC and AA, the presence of SAC camps and bases near their villages, landmines, loss of livelihoods, and their houses having been destroyed. Also in early March, SAC township authorities came to the camp and told IDPs to produce a list of people who want to return to their villages of origin. According to the respondent, while camp residents have no plan to return, they will do so if the SAC forces them.^[13]

According to another camp resident, residents of Let Kauk Zey camp are reportedly in need of food supplies, clean water, and support to repair shelters and toilets in the camp. While they receive cash assistance from an international agency for food, the support is not consistent because of the SAC’s delays in travel authorisations. Thus, residents mainly rely on local CSOs, parahita groups, and other township-based associations for food supplies, water, education, and healthcare services.^[14]

Rathedaung Township

Zay Di Taung camp

Camp Data:^[15]

Population: 593

Households: 161

Area(s) of origin: Sauk Khan, Ma Nyin Taung, Ah Mya Taung, Aung Thar Si, and Htee Swae villages, Rathedaung Township

Displaced since: 2018

A camp resident who spoke to this analytical unit claimed the SAC’s Rakhine State minister visited the camp in late February amid a pause in armed violence, pressured IDPs to return home, and reportedly said “all IDPs must return to their homes; there will be no more IDPs, and IDPs can’t continue to live in the camps here”.^[16] The minister also reportedly said that the SAC would build roads and provide electricity, water, and cash to those who return to their villages of origin. In early March, GAD authorities told camp leaders to return all IDPs in the urban area of Rathedaung to their villages, but no one has returned yet due to potential fighting between the SAC and the AA, presence of SAC camps and bases in or near villages, landmines, and loss of livelihoods. The respondent said that camp residents want to return to their villages but think the time is not right because SAC forces remain near the villages; they are reportedly concerned about potentially being forced to return without any guarantees about safety and security, landmine clearance, and the removal of armed forces.^[17]

Chin State

This update is based on a small set of interviews with local stakeholders familiar with the situation facing camps in Chin State, and findings should not be assumed to be comprehensive or representative. The value of the qualitative approach is in the context-specific knowledge it provides; this report is intended to illustrate perceptions of community members from a broad cross section of the local context, and the range of responses taken by displaced communities to the developing situation.

Paletwa Township

Paletwa Town

IDP Camps in Paletwa Town and Surrounding Area[18]
Win Tu Dwe Monastery camp	Roman Catholic Campus camp	Football Field camp	High School camp
Population: 107 Households: 25 Area(s) of origin: Yu Wa, Che Ok Wa, and Upper Mi Let Wa villages Displaced since: 2019	Population: 60 Households: 14 Area(s) of origin: Taphe Gone, Taka Chaung, and Ta Yet Taung villages Displaced since: 2018, 2019, 2022	Population: 742 Households: 173 Area(s) of origin: Upper Mi Let Wa, Taphe Gone, Lay Hla, Tayeh Taung, Taka Chaung, Namada, Nan Chaung Wa, Nan Chaung Htay, and Abaungthar villages Displaced since: 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022	Population: 262 Households: 61 Area(s) of origin: Lay Hla, Taphe Gone, and Taka Chaung villages Displaced since: 2019-2022
Department of Agriculture Campus camp	Shing Shin village camp	Nga Buai village camp
Population: 508 Households: 118 Area(s) of origin: Upper Mi Let Wa, Lay Hla, Taphe Gone, Yu Wa, and Ke Ta villages Displaced since: 2019-2022	Population: 146 Households: 34 Area(s) of origin: Lay Hla and Taphe Gone villages Displaced since: 2018-2020	Population: 112 Households: 26 Area(s) of origin: Nan Chaung village Displaced since: 2018-2020

The most recent order of forced returns reportedly came from the GAD in January 2023, calling for all IDPs in Paletwa to return by September 2023 (following orders in June and November 2022). Many IDPs around Paletwa reportedly remain reluctant to return home, either because they have lost their residences, or because they have concerns about security and the continued presence of landmines near their villages of origin. The SAC has also reportedly not provided financial support to people willing to return home; in general, those who have returned are people who have been able to generate income through livelihood activities or who have received money from relatives abroad.^[19]

At present, these IDPs are wholly reliant on international agency assistance, which includes rice, beans, cooking oil, and salt.^[20] A stakeholder told this analytical unit that an additional challenge is shelter, as temporary makeshift camps are ageing and deteriorating, with no support for repairs; IDPs are reportedly very concerned about the onset of the heavy rainy season.^[21]

Samee Town

IDP Camps in Samee Town and Surrounding Area[22]
Municipal Area camp	Total population: 1,988 Total households: 458 Area(s) of origin: Wat Ma, Pyan Tin, Misa 1, Misa 2, Misa 3, Nga Min Taung East, Nga Min Taung West, Shwe Chaung, and Radin villages Displaced since: 2018-2022
Pyan Kyak Market camp
Town camp
Outside Town camp

According to a Samee IDP Committee member and an aid worker, an SAC tactical commander told all IDPs in Samee on 17 March 2023 to return home before the end of March. Respondents said a total of 68 IDP households in Samee returned home and the SAC’s Department of Disaster Management provided 100,000 Myanmar Kyat to each household; returnees were reportedly limited to those who could afford to rebuild their houses and were willing to take the risk. For the remaining IDPs, the camp leaders, in collaboration with the Samee IDP Committee, reportedly wrote a letter of appeal to the SAC through the GAD, and the SAC agreed verbally to let them stay until December 2023. According to the camp leader, concerns around returning to their places of origin include landmines, potential for fighting to resume, and lack of livelihood opportunities and capacity to rebuild their houses. ^[23]

According to a respondent, IDPs in Samee, like elsewhere in Paletwa Township, are wholly reliant on international agency assistance; they typically receive nutrition assistance including 56 kg of rice, one litre of cooking oil, seven packages of beans (kalape), and 10-gram packages of salt. Their reported challenges relate to shelter, healthcare, and sanitation; reportedly, neither the SAC nor international responders address these issues at present. The respondent said camps are deteriorating and need repairs before the monsoon season. He said there is no clinic at or near the camp, and the only way to access medical treatment is at Samee General Hospital, which does not have enough doctors and medical staff. He said most of the toilets at the camps are full, as each toilet is shared at least by 10 families.^[24]

Northern Shan State

This update is based on a small set of the camps in Northern Shan State, and findings should not be assumed to be comprehensive or representative. Data is taken from interviews with one respondent per camp and has not been independently verified by this analytical unit. The value of the qualitative approach is in the context-specific knowledge it provides; this report is intended to illustrate perceptions of community members from a broad cross section of the local context, and the range of responses taken by displaced communities to the developing situation.

Kutkai Township

Kachin Baptist Church (KBC) 1 camp

Camp Data:^[25]

Population: 250

Households: 39

Area(s) of origin: Nam Mai village (50 km from Kutkai town)

Displaced since: 2012

The SAC reportedly called the camp leader on 14 March 2023 to order the removal of the camp.^[26] According to a camp committee member who spoke to this analytical unit, the Shan State SAC and district administrators agreed to the removal of the camp by the end of April, without the consent of IDPs.^[27] She said the SAC Department of Social Welfare promised to give 100,000 Myanmar Kyat (~47.63 USD) for general use, NFIs, and two million Myanmar Kyat (~952.55 USD) for housing per household, as stipulated in a contract from the SAC. She said that UNOCHA also met with IDPs and told them it has no choice but to go along with the SAC’s closure orders, but said it will coordinate with INGOs to address the issue.^[28]

According to the respondent, all of the IDPs in this camp decided to buy land near an old cemetery outside of Kutkai town to build homes, because their area of origin is now controlled by EAOs; however, most have no money, and only a few families could contribute. Thus, they have taken on considerable debt to purchase and prepare the land for construction, but no shelters or other structures have been completed yet. The children of some families reportedly work in town to repay the family debts.^[29]

KBC 2 camp

Camp Data:^[30]

Population: 260

Households: 35-40

Area(s) of origin: Northern Kutkai town

Displaced since: 2012

According to a camp committee member, IDPs in KBC 2 are in a similar situation to those in KBC 1, but rather than buying land they will move back to an area near their place of origin. While they do not need to buy land there, according to the committee member, the new land is harsh and needs improvement. She said they are building small huts there, which cost 500,000 Myanmar Kyat (~238.14 USD), but feel like they are displaced again because they have no support; they are building and surviving by themselves. She said they hope to get help from a humanitarian organisation in the new area. She said they live near a small stream (and therefore can access water), but health care and sanitation are huge problems in the new place. These IDPs also reportedly that malaria could break out in the coming rainy season.^[31]

Galeng camp

Camp Data:^[32]

Population: 439

Households: 76

Area(s) of origin: Kutkai Township

Displaced since: 2012 onward

The SAC reportedly called the camp leader on 14 March 2023 and ordered that the camp close by the end of April; the SAC is reportedly trying to turn Galeng into a village.^[33] However, people have not followed the SAC’s order or demands yet, according to the one person who spoke to this analytical unit. The respondent also said that Galeng has not received humanitarian support recently, though a local donor has provided education and a small amount of support to new mothers and children. The source said that this is the poorest of the Ta’ang IDP camps;^[34] it is far from Kutkai town and residents have little access to livelihoods. Some families have reportedly gone back to their former villages to farm, but because of greater EAO presence, not everyone can access their farms. Furthermore, farming can only be done during one season.^[35]

New Pang Ku camp

Camp Data:^[36]

Population: 701

Households: 125

Area(s) of origin: Pang Ku village

Displaced since: 2015

According to a local who spoke to this analytical unit, the New Pang Ku camp has already been reclassified as a village, rather than a camp; as a result, residents face difficulties because they have no access to aid. The interviewee said that the SAC only has eight IDP camps in Kutkai in its records, and only four IDP camps are receiving assistance. While this camp is nearer to Kutkai town than some others, residents still face many difficulties related to healthcare and support for mothers and children.^[37]

Ho Hko camp

Camp Data:^[38]

Population: 134

Households: 31

Area(s) of origin: Northern Shan State

Displaced since: 2015

A source who spoke to this analytical unit said that Ho Hko camp is under pressure from the SAC to close, and IDP support there has been reduced. He said that the camp will continue to receive some support from an international organisation beginning in July, and a local organisation is supporting peanut farmers in the camp with access to markets.^[39]

Mine Yu Lay camp

Camp Data:^[40]

Population: 420

Households: 75

Area(s) of origin: Northern Shan State

Displaced since: 2015

According to a source who spoke to this analytical unit, SAC staff called the Mine Yu Lay camp on 14 March 2023 and told residents that the camp would be reclassified as a village. Residents plan to resist this change. As with Ho Hko camp, Mine Yu Lay camp will reportedly receive international humanitarian support beginning in July.^[41]

Mine Yu Lay is far from Kutkai town, between Kutkai and Namphat Kar. According to a source, like other Ta’ang IDP camps, Mine Yu Lay receives little aid; camp residents have some access to income through the Mine Yu Lay weekly market, but this is very limited. Some IDPs here reportedly work as daily labourers on sugar cane farms.^[42]

Loi Mone Sar camp

Camp Data:^[43]

Population: 256

Households: 66

Area(s) of origin: Kutkai Township

Displaced since: 2015

According to a source who spoke to this analytical unit, this camp was among those the SAC called on 14 March 2023 and ordered to close. However, he said, IDPs there are not willing to change the camp into a village. Residents of the camp do not receive assistance from any organisations; as their livelihoods are not stable and there is no farmland, they cannot work around the camp area outside the farming season.^[44]

Aung Tha Pyae (Palaung) camp – Namphat Kar village tract

Camp Data:^[45]

Population: 159

Households: 35

Area(s) of origin: Northern Shan State

Displaced since: 2015

According to a source who spoke to this analytical unit, the SAC will demolish the Aung Tha Pyae (Palaung) camp soon. IDPs there reportedly bought land in downtown Namphat Kar by coordinating and saving money, but remain concerned about livelihood issues. They reportedly expect to receive support from an international organisation starting in July.^[46]

Muse Township

Kachin Baptist Church camp, Monekoe

Camp Data:^[47]

Population: 700

Households: 180

Area(s) of origin: Muse Township

Displaced since: August 2021

According to a camp leader, a GAD officer called the IDP Committee Chairman in early September 2022 and ordered him to close all camps in Monekoe town; the GAD officer reportedly came to the camp in late October and instructed IDPs to leave, but has not been back since then.^[48] According to a source who spoke to this analytical unit, while camp residents have not received a notice to move, it is impossible to stay any longer since they received a camp closure order. Sixty-eight households reportedly became a village next to the camp, while the remainder are still in the camp without any plans to relocate.^[49] The respondent said that while the GAD has agreed to provide assistance to those in the village, it has given no support yet except to help level the ground in the village; camp residents reportedly still need building materials, and cannot afford them because they cannot work. Camp residents reportedly do receive some food support from an international organisation.^[50]

“Nothing has really changed from before. We [the camp committee] said Monekoe camp was abolished, but there are still IDPs.” — male, 45, Muse Township

Namhkan Township

Mong Wee camp

Camp Data:^[51]

Population: >300

Households: 60

Area(s) of origin: Ho pang village, Namhkan Township

Displaced since: 2015

According to the camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the GAD told residents of Mong Wee to move in 2018 and they did in 2019; they abolished the camp and established a village called Wan Pang Long Waing Kham, about a 15 minutes’ drive out of Mong Wee village.^[52]

“We haven’t gotten any help this year. We need food. [One organisation] told us that they will support us with rice seeds but until now they haven’t come. [Another organisation] also told us that they can’t support us now, they will come in July, but we are not sure if they will really come. Please let us know if you have contacts who would like to help us.” — female, 34, Namhkan Township

 

Nay Win Ni camp

Camp Data:^[53]

Population: 404

Households: 85

Area(s) of origin: Shan & Kachin States

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp support person who spoke to this analytical unit, some IDPs have left this Ta’ang IDP camp after purchasing land in Marn Wain Gyi, Mansi Township, Kachin State. However, a majority of the camp’s residents reportedly remain in the camp. The camp support person said that the camp reportedly has not received a closure order from the GAD, but claims an international organisation said that it surveyed land purchased by IDPs in April 2023 and would give 100,000 Myanmar Kyat (~47.63 USD) per household to IDPs if they are ordered to leave the camp.^[54] Camp residents have additionally come under pressure from other actors; 13 residents were reportedly detained last month by the Ta’ang National Liberation Army.^[55]

Camp Data:^[56]

Population: 358

Households: 72

Area(s) of origin: Kachin State; 14 villages in Namhkan Township

Displaced since: 2011

According to the camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, 21 households who had lived in this camp returned to their villages of origin on 15 March 2023. The remaining 51 households reportedly have no plans to leave, as they claim they do not feel they can return to their villages; the SAC is reportedly setting up a base near their villages. The camp leader said that these 51 households continue to receive food support from an international organisation.^[57]

There was previously a KBC Jaw Wang 2 camp, hosting IDPs from six villages in Namhkan Township who were displaced in 2014. According to the KBC Jaw Wang 1 camp leader, when KBC Jaw Wang 2 was closed in 2021, 21 households returned to their places of origin; the other six joined KBC Jaw Wang 1.

St. Thomas camp

Camp Data:^[58]

Population: >200

Households: 44

Area(s) of origin: Mansi Township

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp support person who spoke to this analytical unit, in October 2022 the GAD told residents of this camp — and others in Namhkan Township — to move out by April 2023, and claimed it would help build homes for 25 households in April, and the rest at a later date. However, the source who spoke to this analytical unit reports that none of those houses have yet been built. Some households have reportedly bought land, but the remainder claim to have no plan to leave.^[59]

Namtu Township

Kyu Hsawt camp

Camp Data:^[60]

Population: >200

Households: >60

Area(s) of origin: 18 villages in Mang Tong Township

Displaced since: 2016

According to the former camp clerk who spoke to this analytical unit, this camp no longer exists; some former residents returned to their villages of origin, and some remain in and around Kyu Hsawt village, where they have purchased land.^[61]

According to the respondent, the GAD distributed hygiene assistance in February 2023; it also gave 100,000 Myanmar Kyat in cash (~47.63 USD) to only 30 households. In addition, an international organisation has reportedly provided food assistance, and a local organisation has promised shelter support that has not yet materialised. Both those who remain and those who went back to their areas of origin reportedly need help building shelters.^[62]

“They left their homes in 2016. Houses are built with bamboo, so those who went back home also need help.” — female, 25, Shan State

Nam Tu Baptist camp

Camp Data:^[63]

Population: 127

Households: 29

Area(s) of origin: 9 villages in Mang Tong Township

Displaced since: 2012, 2016

According to a camp support team member who spoke to this analytical unit, the GAD and the camp leader submitted a report saying all camp residents had left by 1 March 2023, but in reality the GAD knows a move-out cannot be completed that quickly. The team member said that after residents got the camp closure order in October 2022, they started preparing land in November and planned to move after all the houses were built. She said 19 households are still in the camp and plan to move out in May, while the rest moved to villages around Namtu town; for those remaining 19 households, only two houses are left to build, and then they will all move out, hopefully in May. The team member  said that in the new villages, they would need WASH and electricity support.^[64]

“In the process of moving, building homes, and buying land, nobody comes and helps us. We just make it happen ourselves.” — female, 32, Shan State (Namtu Township)

Southern Shan State

Karenni State and bordering townships of Southern Shan State have witnessed high intensity armed violence following the coup, beginning at the end of 2021 and continuing through the present.^[65] Violence has displaced tens of thousands from Karenni into Southern Shan State, with UNHCR’s most recent data placing that number at 66,800 IDPs (although local estimates are frequently higher).^[66] The SAC ordered IDPs living in displacement sites in Southern Shan State to return to their places of origin by the end of October, according to a member of the Southern Shan IDP Committee who was cited in local media reports on 10 September.^[67] IDPs who spoke to the media outlet that carried this story said they could not return due to ongoing armed violence, insecurity, and explosive contamination.

The camp closure orders are likely to further obscure displacement numbers in Southern Shan State as IDPs and local responders are likely to avoid organising formal displacement sites as a result. Already, the best available numbers for the area are unlikely to capture the full scope of the displacement crisis; reports to this analytical unit from January to September 2022 suggested any IDPs who could do so moved directly into relatives’ homes, while others with the financial means rented private houses upon arrival in Southern Shan State.^[68] Many of the displaced reportedly consider seeking refuge in monasteries, churches, or IDP camps to be a measure of last resort; this is largely due to concerns about weather, lack of available food and support, risk of exposure to COVID-19 and other illnesses, the crowded nature of displacement sites, and harassment by armed groups. Thus, while those in displacement camps (who have been ordered by the SAC to return home) certainly do not constitute the total number of displaced people in Southern Shan State, they are likely among the most vulnerable. Following the camp closure orders, after which IDPs and responders may be attempting to reduce visibility, it is likely to become even more difficult to understand the challenges and needs of IDPs.

According to recent interviews with community members, there are approximately 100,000 IDPs spread across Southern Shan State. Many of these IDPs appear now to be staying at monasteries, churches, and orphanages, and there were no newly-established official IDP camps reported to this analytical unit. While local CSOs reportedly know of these IDPs, their displacement status has not been formalised and the CSOs have not established any official IDP camps, which may prevent them from receiving greater humanitarian assistance — especially from international humanitarian organisations.^[69] While these people have been displaced more recently, their displacement situation may be tied, in part, to the SAC’s camp closure orders elsewhere; it is possible that formal IDP camps have not been established for them in Southern Shan State because the SAC is trying to shut down displacement camps nationwide. However, this analytical unit’s sample size of interviewees and displacement sites is not exhaustive; it must be understood as a snapshot of specific local circumstances.

According to an abbot in Nyaung Shwe Township, the GAD has ordered that IDP camps are not allowed, and thus IDPs cannot be categorised as such there; at the same time, they cannot go back to their villages, so over 1,000 IDPs remain in Nyaung Shwe from eight villages in Demoso Township, Karenni State. The abbot did not want to share too much information about the situation because of possible security threats to the IDPs. These people are newly displaced and staying temporarily at the monastery, where the abbot provides support for them.^[70]

According to a camp support CSO volunteer, over 3,000 IDPs in Moe Bye town and elsewhere in Pekon Township (originally from Karenni State or other parts of Pekon Township) have been staying in monasteries and churches in this area, but have been redisplaced by continued shelling, making it difficult for international humanitarian organisations to reach them with assistance.^[71]

According to an IDP at Nam Ho Monastery, Pinlaung Township, there have been 132 IDPs at this monastery for over two months, displaced from Pin Pone village in 2023 by fighting between the SAC and Karenni PDF. She said that while they receive assistance from an international organisation, they still need food, firewood, and diapers for children. She said the SAC has told them not to go back to their villages because it has not cleared landmines there (though it reportedly plans to); in fact, the IDPs claim they do not dare go back as long as there are SAC forces in Pinlaung. The GAD has reportedly not given any instructions to move from or close this ‘camp’.^[72]

“We are cooking rice for all 132 [people] in a large pot. We need firewood and vegetables.” — female, 42, Pinlaung Township

According to the abbot at the Wat San Tay Monastery, also in Pinlaung Township, 134 IDPs (34 households) are staying in the monastery, about five miles from the nearest village. He said they cannot go back to Loikaw, Karenni State — from where they were displaced in 2022 — because SAC forces are stationed in their village. Some of the IDPs have reportedly left for Thailand or Laukkai, Shan State.  Despite receiving some assistance from local organisations, those waiting to return reportedly face challenges as, according to the abbot, the SAC prohibits rice, oil, and other food support from getting to the IDPs, stopping shipments at checkpoints in Kalaw and Aung Pan.^[73]

“The locals can’t even transport fertiliser, let alone food. It’s better to support [through] cash because then IDPs can buy what they really need. Sometimes donations come that are what they already have. The best way is to contribute to them directly. Big name organisations can’t come.” — male, 35, Pinlaung Township

According to a camp support CSO volunteer, the SAC declared all camps in Taunggyi Township to be closed in October 2022; thus, families are spread around the township — especially those with youth, because SAC soldiers reportedly check IDP locations for young people. The volunteer claimed there are 35 child and 35 adult IDPs from Karenni State staying in the Roman Catholic Kan Gyi Orphanage in Taunggyi. The orphanage holds mostly IDP children, but some IDP family members — mainly women and elderly people — also stay there and reportedly pretend to be cooks and guardians of the children. The orphanage receives some assistance from local donations and local organisations, but struggles to get support from larger INGOs for fear of the SAC noticing.^[74] The camp support CSO volunteer noted that there are 65 households in Tatar Mee Laung village and 15 in Nar Baung village who need food, hygiene kits, and other supplies.^[75]

The camp support CSO volunteer also said that IDPs in Hsihseng Township, displaced from Karenni State and Pekon Township after the coup, are recognised and able to be supported in this area, though not as IDP camps.^[76] She said most of the IDPs are living in Hsihseng ward, and mostly in orphanages and monasteries. She claimed there are no international humanitarian organisations supporting them and, while local organisations have brought a small amount of assistance, these IDPs need food, water, hygiene kits, and vitamins and educational support for children; there are also concerns about fires and water access in the dry summer months. She provided the following data:^[77]

IDP Sites in Hsihseng Township:

Camp/Location	Population
Salung (1 & 2) camp	488 IDPs
LaEi Church camp	239 IDPs
Hle Taw (1) camp	338 IDPs
Loi Nam Pha camp	392 IDPs
Bei Thu Htet village camp	76 IDPs
Yaung Chi Oo camp, Tayat Taw village	173 IDPs
Kyun Taw village	226 IDPs (children)
Phar Hlaing War Ri Khu village camp	3,000 IDPs (100 disabled)
An Po village	31 IDPs
Yay Aye Kwin village	143 IDPs
Hla Tein village	214 IDPs
Kaw Yan village	93 IDPs

 

Kachin State

This update is based on a small set of the camps in Kachin State, and findings should not be assumed to be comprehensive or representative. Data is taken from interviews with one respondent per camp and has not been independently verified by this analytical unit. The value of the qualitative approach is in the context-specific knowledge it provides; this report is intended to illustrate perceptions of community members from a broad cross section of the local context, and the range of responses taken by displaced communities to the developing situation.

Many of the community sources in Kachin State who spoke to this analytical unit described the GAD asking IDPs to choose their preference for relocation from among the following list:   Return to their places of origin Relocate on their own Accept government/SAC resettlement   In Myitkyina Township, the list included a fourth option:   4.   Stay at the camp permanently

Myitkyina Township

Pa Dauk Myaing (Pa La Na) camp

Camp Data:^[78]

Population: 922

Households: 151

Area(s) of origin: Puta-O and Sumprabum townships

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the GAD asked residents of Pa Dauk Myaing camp to select their preference of four options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ). All residents reportedly chose the government resettlement option; however, though the GAD had previously promised to relocate them to a resettlement site called Ngwi Pyaw San Pya village in Myitkyina, it has reportedly made no further statement since the IDPs made their choice. In fact, according to the respondent, most IDPs do not want to resettle there because of security concerns, as it is located between SAC and Kachin Independence Army (KIA) outposts; they saw choosing “government resettlement” as a means of buying time, as they do not expect the SAC to actually arrange their resettlement. Camp residents reportedly feel they cannot return to their villages of origin because of continued fighting or tension, and have made no plans for relocation. They reportedly continue to receive support from local and international humanitarian groups, but continue to face uncertainty about when their camp will be closed and where they will go if it is.^[79]

Trinity camp

Camp Data:^[80]

Population: 980

Households: 168

Area(s) of origin: Injangyang Township

Displaced since: 2018

Like in Pa Dauk Myaing, Trinity camp residents were asked to choose from four options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), but according to a camp leader, they do not know whether the camp will actually be closed. Camp residents reportedly all chose the option to return to areas of origin because they cannot yet afford to purchase land and do not trust the SAC resettlement program; they are reportedly still saving to buy land while waiting for political stability.^[81]

According to the camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, camp residents continue to receive assistance from local and international agencies, but this has decreased; other concerns include uncertainty about the camp’s future and livelihood, infrastructure, and other assistance if they choose to return to their areas of origin.^[82]

“I am surprised that the GAD is pushing to close the camps during this political crisis instead of keeping the IDPs in a safer place than before. I think it’s just making our lives more difficult.” — male, 34, Myitkyina Township

Shwe Zet Baptist Church camp

Camp Data:^[83]

Population: 640

Households: 118

Area(s) of origin: Waingmaw, Sumprabum, Injangyang, and Tanai townships

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the GAD sent a letter in 2022 explaining the camp closure policy and calling for Shwe Zet Baptist Church camp residents to choose from the four options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ); most selected either returning to areas of origin or managing their own resettlement.^[84]

In 2020, the KBC built housing with funding from the Nippon Foundation for some IDPs who applied to relocate to Dabak, Kazuyang, and Garrayang villages, in Waingmaw Township, but camp residents only settled there after the GAD began to push for camp closure in 2023. According to the camp leader, in late February 2023, some IDPs who had built houses in relocation sites started moving there with the help of their host church. However, he said, due to the high cost of transportation, most IDPs who had opted for relocation are still in the camp, though they reportedly plan to move before the rainy season with the assistance of a local humanitarian organisation. Others who want to relocate have not had housing built; they are therefore in need of housing assistance. The camp leader said the IDPs who moved to the relocation site are still facing difficulties with livelihoods, basic needs, and water in the new location. According to the camp leader, relocated IDPs will need food and healthcare services for at least six months at the new site. He said that for the IDPs who want to return to their places of origin, ongoing fighting remains their greatest challenge; they will remain at the camp until the political situation stabilises more in the future.^[85]

“Some of the IDPs who remain in the camp fear that it will be more difficult for them to make a living if they return to their homes or other places, so some are even afraid to leave the camp.” — male, 45, Kachin State

Shwegu Township

Shwe Gu Baptist Church camp

Camp Data:^[86]

Population: 324 (60 new)

Households: 61 (15 new)

Area(s) of origin: Shwegu Township

Displaced since: 2011, 2023

A camp leader told this analytical unit that he received a letter from the GAD in October 2022 saying that the camp would be shut down, IDPs must choose one of three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), and the camp leader needed to submit a timely report on their choices. The residents of this camp are reportedly from the border of the township, where fighting continues, so they cannot return home; thus, all of them reportedly chose to be resettled through the government program and the list was submitted to the GAD. They have not made any preparations for camp closure, and no further orders have been received from the GAD.^[87]

According to the camp leader, camp residents urgently need repairs to shelters built in 2011 and to build housing for more IDPs who arrived in early April 2023. He said they currently receive cash support for food from an international organisation, but they do not receive healthcare, WASH, or shelter assistance, and they face challenges regarding security and livelihoods.^[88]

Mansi Township

Man Wing Baptist Church camp

Camp Data:^[89]

Population: 631

Households: 136

Area(s) of origin: Mansi Township

Displaced since: 2011

According to the camp secretary who spoke to this analytical unit, just 20 IDP households were able to purchase land and build houses around Man Wing village in 2022; everybody else remains in the camp and is under pressure from their host church to close the camp and resettle. She said that church leaders formed a resettlement committee, which announced that IDPs who have bought land outside the camp must vacate by 2024 and all others must leave by 2025, and the committee will help arrange land for those who cannot find it. According to the camp secretary, residents of Man Wing Baptist Church camp never received an order or notice about camp closure, but the GAD asked the secretary to submit information about the camp population. Residents of this camp have received food, WASH, and healthcare assistance from local and international organisations, but they still need food, as well as repairs to camp shelters.^[90]

Man Wing Catholic Church camp

Camp Data:^[91]

Population: 3,399

Households: 471

Area(s) of origin: Northern Shan State; Mansi Township

Displaced since: 2011, 2014

According to the camp leader, neither he nor other residents there have received closure orders, but they saw on social media that the SAC planned to close all camps in Kachin State. There have been no preparations made for camp closure. Reportedly, 115 households from the camp have purchased low-cost land around Man Wing village, but cannot afford the seven million Myanmar Kyat (~3,300 USD) required to build each house. According to the camp leader, if assistance organisations could provide shelter to the 115 households who bought land, then the rest of the IDPs would be able to live comfortably and would even have land to grow crops. He claimed that for another 100 IDP households, the land owner demanded the rented land (elsewhere in Man Wing village) back, saying the price was too low; these IDPs currently have no other solution and remain in the camp. According to the camp leader, camp residents have received food and healthcare assistance from local and international organisations, but their main challenges are overcrowding, rising land rental costs, and water shortages.^[92]

Bhamo Township

Lisu Boarding-Housing camp

Camp Data:^[93]

Population: 767

Households: 135

Area(s) of origin: Momauk, Waingmaw, and Mansi Townships

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the SAC sent letters in May and September 2022 asking IDPs to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), but the camp residents did not choose any of them. They reportedly said return was not possible because the SAC and KIA are stationed near their places of origin, there is often fighting, and IDPs who have returned have been injured by landmines; they also claimed they could not rely on government resettlement, as they have applied for it since 2014 but nothing has happened. The camp leader explained that 33 households who wanted to plan their own departure relocated to around Bhamo town in 2019; the rest of the IDPs have no plan and are waiting for the GAD resettlement plan. She said that when the Kachin State Minister came earlier this year, he said that the SAC would prioritise assisting own-relocation IDPs, then return IDPs, and lastly government resettlement applicants. However, it has reportedly not provided assistance yet, and it remains unclear what this assistance will be. According to the camp leader, camp residents have received food, healthcare, shelter, and WASH assistance from local and international organisations, but they face challenges because aid has decreased and commodity prices have risen.^[94]

Robert Church camp

Camp Data:^[95]

Population: 3,387

Households: 565

Area(s) of origin: Bhamo, Mansi, Shwegu, Momauk, Myitkyina, Hpakant, and Mongmit townships

Displaced since: 2012

In 2022, the GAD asked camp residents to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), according to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit. Over 300 households reportedly chose relocation on their own, 200 chose to return to areas of origin, and six chose the government resettlement plan. In December 2022, 20 households reportedly returned to their area of origin. Others are reportedly still trying to do so and want relief organisations to arrange a new relocation site and housing.^[96]

“Some people accuse us of clinging to the IDP camp to get free food.” — male, 43, Myitkyina Township

According to the camp leader, camp residents have received food, healthcare, sanitation, and vocational training assistance from local and international organisations, but they feel pressure to leave from the GAD and their host church. At the same time, the leader said, residents face challenges to either relocating or returning to their areas of origin because fighting in Bhamo Township has intensified; they have reportedly made no preparations or plans to return or relocate.^[97]

AD-2000 Tharthana Compound camp

Camp Data:^[98]

Population: 671

Households: 115

Area(s) of origin: Mansi, Bhamo, Hpakant, and Momauk townships

Displaced since: 201

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the GAD asked them to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), and all the IDPs chose to resettle on their own. He said most of them had already purchased low-cost land in rural areas where there were no armed clashes, but they have not yet built houses there; they have applied for shelter, water, and sanitation support for the new relocation site from local organisations, but they remain in the camp, waiting for that assistance. The leader said residents do not want to apply for government resettlement because in the past, when some IDPs have applied for this, the GAD planned to give them only 200,000 Myanmar Kyat (~95.26 USD), a bag of rice, and a tarpaulin sheet, without any housing arrangements. According to the camp leader, these IDPs receive monthly assistance with food, healthcare, shelter, and vocational training from local and international organisations, but their challenges include lack of access to livelihoods and education.^[99]

Hpakant Township

AG Church, Hmaw Si Sa camp

Camp Data:^[100]

Population: 950

Households: 96

Area(s) of origin: Hpakant Township

Displaced since: 2013

According to the camp leader, in October 2022, the Hpakant Township GAD informed him that IDPs would have to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), and that he needed to say what kind of assistance they need most in order to be prioritised in the government’s budget for IDP resettlement in the government’s 2024 fiscal year. So far in 2023, there has reportedly been no further order or notification from the GAD, and camp residents remain. The camp leader said residents do not have a resettlement plan because fighting continues in their places of origin, and it is impossible to follow the GAD’s plan under the overlapping administrations of the SAC and KIA. According to the camp leader, camp residents still receive food, shelter repairs, healthcare services, and vocational training for women’s empowerment from international humanitarian organisations, but all of this is not enough to meet their needs.^[101]

Momauk Township

Nyaung Na Pin camp

Camp Data:^[102]

Population: 293

Households: 48

Area(s) of origin: Momauk and Mansi townships

Displaced since: 2012

According to the camp leader, in 2022 all IDPs in the camp had to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), and all chose to return to areas of origin. However, he said, in late 2022, as they prepared to return (with facilitation by their church), the SAC attacked a KIA camp on the side of Lung Ja Bum, near their villages of origin, where armed violence continued for 20 days; SAC troops remain in this area, putting return plans on hold. According to the camp leader, camp residents receive food, healthcare, and sanitation assistance from local organisations, but they face challenges including overcrowding and security concerns.^[103]

Loi Je Baptist Church camp

Camp Data:^[104]

Population: 255

Households: 43

Area(s) of origin: Momauk Township

Displaced since: 2012

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, this camp has never received any letter or order from the GAD. According to the camp leader, all residents of Loi Je Baptist Church camp remain in the camp. She said they are able to return to their area of origin to grow crops, but cannot move there permanently because of continued fighting on the Lwegel-Myitkyina road nearby. They reportedly receive food, healthcare, shelter, and WASH assistance from local and international organisations, but still face challenges in the camp due to a lack of livelihood opportunities.^[105]

Loi Je Catholic Church camp

Camp Data:^[106]

Population: 448

Households: 102

Area(s) of origin: Momauk and Mansi townships

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, the SAC sent letters in May and September 2022 asking IDPs to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ); following each letter, camp residents responded to the SAC that they all planned to return to their places of origin once the situation stabilised. After the September letter, the church bishop reportedly urged the IDPs to return quickly, so they borrowed money and bought low-cost plots around Momauk Township. The camp leader said that in January 2023, camp residents sent a proposal to a local organisation asking for shelter assistance on the land they bought, but they have not yet received a reply; thus, all remain in the camp and are saving money to build low-cost houses. In addition to shelter, they will reportedly need food, sanitation, and electricity wherever they move.^[107]

According to the camp leader, camp residents receive food assistance, and to a lesser degree healthcare and WASH assistance, from local and international organisations. She said their primary challenge is that the land they occupy has been leased since 2011 and the landowners asked for it to be returned last year.^[108]

Waingmaw Township

Waingmaw Baptist Zonal Office 2 camp

Camp Data:^[109]

Population: 202

Households: 37

Area(s) of origin: Northern Shan State; Waingmaw Township

Displaced since: 2017

According to the camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, in September 2022 the township administrator came to the camp and told residents that the SAC had already established the camp closure policy for the whole nation, so there was a plan to abolish all camps from Kachin State in the near future.^[110]

Following the visit, the GAD reportedly sent a letter asking camp residents to choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ), and they all chose relocation on their own. Now, according to the camp leader, almost all of the IDP households have bought low-cost land (500,000 Myanmar Kyat, or ~238 USD, for 50² ft) in Nawng Tar Law village, Waingmaw Township. The camp leader reportedly made a proposal to a local organisation for shelter assistance, but did not receive a response yet; thus, camp residents’ main challenge is that they are under pressure to leave the camp but cannot yet afford to build shelter elsewhere. At present, they reportedly receive only food support from an international organisation.^[111]

Hkat Cho camp

Camp Data:^[112]

Population: 298

Households: 59

Area(s) of origin: Waingmaw Township

Displaced since: 2011

According to a camp leader who spoke to this analytical unit, at the end of 2022 she received a notice letter from the GAD stating that the SAC had set a policy to close all camps in Kachin State, and that residents should choose among the three options for resettlement (see text box, pg # ). She said all remaining camp residents are unable to return to their villages on the Myitkyina-Laiza road, so some chose government resettlement and some chose resettlement on their own. They reportedly have made no special preparations for camp closure, but some are trying to earn extra money to purchase land. Three years ago, 27 IDP households were reportedly able to purchase land by themselves and relocate to around Hkat Cho village with support from local and international organisations.^[113]

The main challenge for camp residents, according to the camp leader, is that the GAD is planning to move IDPs to places where they do not want to live. She said that all the IDPs want to resettle to the government’s Myitkyina resettlement site, called Palana Ngwi Pyaw San Pya village; however, this is only for IDPs from Myitkyina Township.^[114]

 

^[1] “Situation Update: Camp Closure Crisis,” 18 October 2022, https://cass-mm.org/situation-update-camp-closure-crisis/.

^[2] “Camp Closures: Current Status,” 9 November 2022, https://cass-mm.org/camp-closures-current-status-november-2022/.

^[3] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 26, Rakhine State (Buthidaung Township), 12 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[4] Interview on file, female, 26, Rakhine State (Buthidaung Township), 12 April 2023.

^[5] Interview on file, female, 26, Rakhine State (Buthidaung Township), 12 April 2023.

^[6] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Kyauktaw Township), 9 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[7] Interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Kyauktaw Township), 9 April 2023.

^[8] Interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Kyauktaw Township), 9 April 2023.

^[9] Interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Kyauktaw Township), 9 April 2023.

^[10] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 30, Rakhine State (Ponnagyun Township), 7 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[11] Interview on file, female, 30, Rakhine State (Ponnagyun Township), 7 April 2023.

^[12] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 40, Rakhine State (Mrauk-U Township), 5 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[13] Interview on file, male, 40, Rakhine State (Mrauk-U Township), 5 April 2023.

^[14] Interview on file, male, 40, Rakhine State (Mrauk-U Township), 5 April 2023.

^[15] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Rathedaung Township), 4 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[16] Interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Rathedaung Township), 4 April 2023.

^[17] Interview on file, male, 30, Rakhine State (Rathedaung Township), 4 April 2023.

^[18] Camp details taken from interviews on file with camp committee member, male, 59, Chin State, 14 and 18 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[19] Interviews on file with camp committee member, male, 59, Chin State, 14 and 18 April 2023.

^[20] Interviews on file with camp committee member, male, 59, Chin State, 14 and 18 April 2023.

^[21] Interviews on file with camp committee member, male, 59, Chin State, 14 and 18 April 2023.

^[22] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 30, Chin State, 10 April 2023; interview on file, male, 49, Chin State, 10 April 2023.

^[23] Interview on file, male, 30, Chin State, 10 April 2023; interview on file, male, 49, Chin State, 10 April 2023.

^[24] Interview on file, male, 30, Chin State, 10 April 2023; interview on file, male, 49, Chin State, 10 April 2023.

^[25] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 45, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[26] ကွတ်ခိုင် စစ်ရှောင်များကို နာမည်ဖျက်သိမ်းပြီး ကျေးရွာအဖြစ်ပြောင်းလဲနေထိုင်ကြရန် စစ်ကောင်စီ ပြောဆို, Kachin News Group, 21 March 2023, https://burmese.kachinnews.com/2023/03/21/ld1-22/.

^[27] Interview on file, female, 45, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023.

^[28] Interview on file, female, 45, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023.

^[29] Interview on file, female, 45, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023.

^[30] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 48, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[31] Interview on file, female, 48, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 18 April 2023.

^[32] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[33] ကွတ်ခိုင် စစ်ရှောင်များကို နာမည်ဖျက်သိမ်းပြီး ကျေးရွာအဖြစ်ပြောင်းလဲနေထိုင်ကြရန် စစ်ကောင်စီ ပြောဆို, Kachin News Group, 21 March 2023, https://burmese.kachinnews.com/2023/03/21/ld1-22/.

^[34] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[35] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[36] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[37] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[38] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[39] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[40] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[41] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[42] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[43] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[44] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[45] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[46] Interview on file, male, 23, Shan State (Kutkai Township), 1 April 2023.

^[47] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 45, Shan State (Muse Township), 5 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[48] Interview on file, male, 45, Shan State (Muse Township), 5 April 2023.

^[49] Interview on file, male, 45, Shan State (Muse Township), 5 April 2023.

^[50] Interview on file, male, 45, Shan State (Muse Township), 5 April 2023.

^[51] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 34, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 5 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[52] Interview on file, female, 34, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 5 April 2023.

^[53] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 26, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 4 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[54] Interview on file, female, 26, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 4 April 2023.

^[55] နမ့်ခမ်း နေဝန်းနီ စစ်ရှောင်စခန်းက သက်ကြီးရွယ်အိုအပါအဝင် လူထု (၁၃)ဦးကို TNLA က စစ်မှုထမ်းဖို့ ခေါ်ဆောင်သွား, Shwe Phee Myay News Agency, 3 April 2023, https://web.facebook.com/shwepheemyaynews/posts/pfbid0qxUvBzV8vLSqG4BsKpUGsuJDrqmLW2fwKVzBAHF1QVNtjGD4B9oEAU1E3VZrRMqml?_rdc=1&_rdr

^[56] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 42, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 3 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[57] Interview on file, female, 26, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 4 April 2023.

^[58] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 37, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 6 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[59] Interview on file, female, 37, Shan State (Namhkan Township), 6 April 2023.

^[60] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 25, Shan State (Namtu Township), 4 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[61] Interview on file, female, 25, Shan State (Namtu Township), 4 April 2023.

^[62] Interview on file, female, 25, Shan State (Namtu Township), 4 April 2023.

^[63] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 32, Shan State (Namtu Township), 5 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[64] Interview on file, female, 32, Shan State (Namtu Township), 5 April 2023.

^[65] “Situation Update: Crisis in Karenni State”, 21 January 2022, https://cass-mm.org/situation-update-crisis-in-karenni-state/.

^[66] “Myanmar UNHCR displacement overview”, UNHCR, 26 April 2023, https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/100265.

^[67] “သျှမ်းတောင် စစ်ရှောင်များ နေရပ်ပြန်ပို့ရန် စစ်ကောင်စီ ညွှန်ကြား”, Shan News, 10 September 2022, https://burmese.shannews.org/archives/30232?fbclid=IwAR187m50hDWIQtJ65N0ISPjIJEXny3cI29hDuaH8Mv9a62VmmPoZw07dHXY.

^[68] Interviews on file, Southern Shan State, January – September 2022.

^[69] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[70] Interview on file, male, 48, Shan State (Nyaungshwe Township), 1 April 2023.

^[71] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[72] Interview on file, female, 42, Shan State (Pinlaung Township), 6 April 2023.

^[73] Interview on file, male, 35, Shan State (Pinlaung Township), 6 April 2023.

^[74] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[75] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[76] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[77] Interview on file, female, 35, Shan State (Taunggyi Township), 17 April 2023.

^[78] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 42, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[79] Interview on file, male, 42, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 1 April 2023.

^[80] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 34, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[81] Interview on file, male, 34, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 1 April 2023.

^[82] Interview on file, male, 34, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 1 April 2023.

^[83] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 45, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 5 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[84] Interview on file, male, 45, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 5 April 2023.

^[85] Interview on file, male, 45, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 5 April 2023.

^[86] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 32, Kachin State (Shwegu Township), 8 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[87] Interview on file, male, 32, Kachin State (Shwegu Township), 8 April 2023.

^[88] Interview on file, male, 32, Kachin State (Shwegu Township), 8 April 2023.

^[89] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 33, Kachin State (Mansi Township), 1 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[90] Interview on file, female, 33, Kachin State (Mansi Township), 1 April 2023.

^[91] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 39, Kachin State (Mansi Township), 11 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[92] Interview on file, male, 39, Kachin State (Mansi Township), 11 April 2023.

^[93] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 51, Kachin State (Bhamo Township), 12 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[94] Interview on file, female, 51, Kachin State (Bhamo Township), 12 April 2023.

^[95] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 43, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 12 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[96] Interview on file, male, 43, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 12 April 2023.

^[97] Interview on file, male, 43, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 12 April 2023.

^[98] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 28, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 13 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[99] Interview on file, female, 28, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 13 April 2023.

^[100] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 46, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 13 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[101] Interview on file, male, 46, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 13 April 2023.

^[102] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 50, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[103] Interview on file, male, 50, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023.

^[104] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 53, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[105] Interview on file, female, 53, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township).

^[106] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 39, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[107] Interview on file, female, 39, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023.

^[108] Interview on file, female, 39, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 14 April 2023.

^[109] Camp details taken from interview on file, male, 28, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 April 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[110] Interview on file, male, 28, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 April 2023.

^[111] Interview on file, male, 28, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 April 2023.

^[112] Camp details taken from interview on file, female, 32, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 February 2023. This data has not been independently verified by this analytical unit.

^[113] Interview on file, female, 32, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 February 2023.

^[114] Interview on file, female, 32, Kachin State (Myitkyina Township), 19 February 2023.