Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) Report Myanmar Earthquake - March 28, 2025 (report as of April 18, 2025) ______________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions. This work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution. Please cite this work as follows: World Bank. Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) report – Myanmar Earthquake March 28, 2025. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Credits: The World Bank Group. Translations. If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations. If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content. The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringements rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org Cover photo: Zaw Winn Naing/World Bank 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgements This report was prepared by a team led by Rashmin Gunasekera (World Bank’s Disaster Climate Risk Management, IDURM and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, GFDRR). The team comprises James Daniell, Antonios Pomonis, Harriette Stone, Andreas Schaefer, Mikhail Sirenko, Bijan Khazai, Annika Maier, Bramka Jafino, Guillermo Toyos, Johannes Brand, Roberth Romero, Diana Cubas, and Kerri Cox of the IDURM’s Global Pro gram for Disaster Risk Analytics (GPDRA) team and the World Bank’s Infrastructure Damage and Disaster Resilience (IDUDR) Disaster Resilience Analytics and Solutions (D-RAS) team. Contributions on the nexus between the Disaster Risk Management and Fragility, Conflict and Violence (DRM-FCV) contexts are from Karima Ben Bih, Hiromi Akiyama, and Katie Peters (IDURM, GFDRR/World Bank). Contributions on gender are from Zoe Trohanis, Mirtha Escobar and Keiko Saito (IDURM, GFDRR/World Bank) and the map clearance process was supported by the World Bank’s Map Clearance team. GRADE is supported generously by GFDRR and the Ministry of Finance, Japan through the Japan- World Bank program for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries. The team gratefully acknowledges the contribution and guidance of peer reviewers Ronette Jordan (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist) and Philipp Petermann (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist). We also acknowledge the advice, support, and information shared by the World Bank, ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management, United Nations Women; as well as the data and information shared by the Myanmar Information Management Unit and the Global Earthquake Model. The team also acknowledges the support, contributions, and guidance from the World Bank’s Thailand and Myanmar Country Management Unit and the Urban, Resilience and Land unit in the East Asia And Pacific Region, including Melinda Good, Anne Tully, Ulrich Schmitt, Shigeyuki Sakaki, Bjorn Philipp, Eric Dickson, Jian Vun, Khin Aye Yee; Kim Alan Edwards, Kyaw Soe Lynn, Thida Aung, May Oo Mon, May Zun Thiri Aung and Geetanjali Chopra. The team also acknowledges the inputs from the Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment (MTI) team including from Kemoh Mansaray and Thi Da Myint and inputs from Sutirtha Sinha Roy in the Poverty Team. 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Abbreviations, Glossary and Key statistics Abbreviations ADRC Asian Disaster Reduction Center AHA ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management D-RAS Disaster-Resilience Analytics & Solutions, World Bank Group GBV Gender-Based Violence GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GPURL Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Practice GRADE Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation ICT Information and Communication Technology MMI Modified Mercalli Index MMT Myanmar Standard Time Mw Moment Magnitude OSM Open Street Map PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment SAC State Administration Council TEV Total Exposure Value UCC Unit Cost of Construction UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services USD United States Dollars USGS United States Geological Survey WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization Glossary The classification of buildings based on their characteristics, such as their function, structure, Building typology style, age or other defined characteristics. Damage The destruction of physical assets. The people, property, and systems that could be affected by a disaster including the value of Exposure these assets. Losses The value of lost production or income. Needs The short, medium, and long-term needs for reconstruction and recovery. The cost to construct or replace an asset with equal quality and construction to its pre- Replacement cost disaster state. Reconstruction The cost to replicate the asset, at current construction prices, to current construction cost standards and quality. Key Statistics for Myanmar Statistic Value Source Gross Domestic Product (GDP) US$77.02 billion World Bank (financial year 2024/25 value) Population 51,316,756 Provision results – Census 20241 1 https://dop.gov.mm/sites/dop.gov.mm/files/publication_docs/2024_provisional_result_eng.pdf 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents Disclaimer........................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 2 Abbreviations, Glossary and Key statistics ........................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 7 1.1. Context ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Summary of Historical Damaging Earthquakes on the Sagaing Fault ................................ 8 1.3. Earthquake Characteristics and Description .................................................................... 10 1.4. Reported Impacts of the Earthquake .............................................................................. 11 2.0 Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation Methodology ...................................................... 14 2.1. Hazard analysis................................................................................................................. 15 2.2. Exposure modeling .......................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Estimation of Direct Damage to Physical Assets ................................................................. 18 4.0 Interpretation of results ....................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Comparison of the results ................................................................................................ 21 4.2. Uncertainty ...................................................................................................................... 21 4.3. Social Vulnerability........................................................................................................... 21 4.4. The Disaster-Fragility, Conflict, Violence Nexus .............................................................. 25 4.5. Impacts on women .......................................................................................................... 25 5.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 27 6.0 Key References ..................................................................................................................... 28 Annex A. Datasets Used ................................................................................................................... 29 Annex B. Significant Historical Earthquakes in Myanmar ............................................................... 32 Annex C: Hazard analysis ................................................................................................................. 39 Annex D: Sectoral damage maps ..................................................................................................... 41 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary This Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) report summarizes the direct economic damage2 to buildings and infrastructure caused by the March 28, 2025, magnitude 7.7 earthquake in Myanmar. This report provides critical insights to support response, recovery planning, and strategic discussions on risk reduction. The assessment does not consider the losses3 or needs4 of the event. The earthquake caused significant destruction to buildings and infrastructure across central Myanmar, impacting over 17 million people. As of April 14, 2025, the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA) reported 3,655 fatalities, although these numbers are expected to increase5. The earthquake is one of Myanmar’s most impactful seismic events since 1912, or maybe even 1839. It occurred in the context of internal conflict and a recent history of natural hazard-related disasters, including Tropical Cyclone Mocha in 2023 and Typhoon Yagi in September 2024. The GRADE methodology6 is a well-established rapid, remote damage estimation approach that estimates direct economic damage to physical assets through a mix of earthquake damage modelling, catastrophe risk modelling, and an assessment of capital stock value of different assets and sectors. It draws on catastrophe modelling techniques and publicly available data – in the case of this earthquake, this includes local seismic data, preliminary satellite damage assessments, building exposure models and information, and available reports from humanitarian agencies and development partners. Overall, the availability of quality data has been limited. The analysis was completed as of April 18, 2025. Key findings of the GRADE assessment include the following: • Total direct economic damage is estimated at US$10.97 billion, equivalent to about 14 percent of Myanmar’s GDP for financial year (FY) 2024/257 (see Table ES1). This is the best estimate. However, due to considerable uncertainty as explained in the report, damage can range between US$6.24 billion and US$15.82 billion. • Residential buildings suffered the highest damage, accounting for US$4.97 billion (45 percent of total damage). Non-residential buildings incurred damage valued at of US$2.63 billion (24 percent), and infrastructure damage totaled US$3.36 billion (31 percent). • Mandalay, Sagaing, and Bago were the most severely impacted regions in terms of total damage, accounting for 82 percent of total damage (US$5.27 billion, US$2.26 billion, and 2 Economic damage is defined as the physical damage caused to building and infrastructure assets in US$ terms. 3 The value of lost production or income. 4 The short, medium, and long-term needs for reconstruction and recovery. 5 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/situation-update-no-9-m77-mandalay-earthquake-monday-14-april-2025-2000-hrs-utc7 6 World Bank. (2018). Methodology Note on the Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) approach. Washington D.C. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/en/publication/global-rapid-post-disaster-damage-estimation-grade-approach 7 The financial year in Myanmar runs from April to March. 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ US$1.27 billion, respectively). Substantial damage also occurred in the Nay Pyi Taw Union Territory and Magway Region. Infrastructure systems, including roads, bridges, and dams, faced extensive damage, severely disrupting essential services such as water, sanitation, electricity, and telecoms. The earthquake also heavily impacted Myanmar’s cultural heritage, damaging many historical and religious sites. These are included in the non- residential damage estimates. • Affected households in the most impacted administrative divisions could experience consumption losses of up to 25 percent, as suggested by a preliminary household microsimulation impact analysis based on the GRADE assessment results. Households experience differential impacts, with those that are more socioeconomically vulnerable (such as those without access to improved sanitation or water supply, and in the bottom expenditure quintile) expected to be adversely impacted compared to average households. • Recovery and reconstruction costs are expected to significantly exceed direct damage estimates. Recovery strategies need to be well targeted and sensitive to the context given additional humanitarian needs, conflict dynamics, gender considerations, and socioeconomic disruptions. Table ES1: Damage estimated by GRADE by sector and by administrative division, in US$ millions. 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 Introduction This Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) report presents a rapid estimate of the direct economic damage to physical assets (building and infrastructure) from the moment magnitude (Mw)8 7.7 earthquake that struck central Myanmar on March 28, 2025. The assessment does not consider the losses9 or needs10 of the event. It is intended to support response planning, inform recovery strategies, and guide future risk reduction interventions. This event is Myanmar’s most impactful earthquake since the 1912 Maymyo earthquake, or even the 1839 Ava earthquake, which had a magnitude11 estimated between 7.9 to 8.3. It is also likely to be the deadliest in the country’s recorded history. The earthquake caused intense ground shaking across the densely populated central corridor, resulting in building failures, widespread fatalities, destruction of critical infrastructure, and major disruptions to social and economic systems. The situation is further complicated by the country’s political instability. This report includes (i) a characterization of the seismic event, (ii) the development of an updated exposure model of Myanmar’s built environment, (iii) an estimation of economic damage to buildings and infrastructure, and (iv) a high-level discussion on the potential socio-economic and recovery implications of the disaster. It draws on seismic data, preliminary satellite damage assessments, building exposure models and information, and available reports from humanitarian agencies and development partners. 1.1. Context Myanmar’s Ministry of Immigration and Population reports that the population in 2023 was just over 54 million12 and that most of the population (approximately 69 percent) lived in rural areas13,14. The area impacted by the March 28, 2025, earthquake includes Nay Pyi Taw, the administrative capital city of Myanmar; the major transport corridor between Yangon and Mandalay; and Mandalay Region15 including its capital Mandalay city which is Myanmar's second biggest city and a major economic hub. The earthquake struck during a period of ongoing internal conflict and humanitarian crisis. Since the 2021 military takeover, Myanmar has experienced political instability, economic disruption, widespread displacement, and strained public service delivery, exacerbated by the significant 8 https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/moment-magnitude-richter-scale-what-are-different-magnitude-scales-and-why-are-there-so-many 9 The value of lost production or income. 10 The short, medium, and long-term needs for reconstruction and recovery. 11 All references to the magnitude of an earthquake can be assumed to be moment magnitude. The magnitude of earthquakes prior to the development of the moment magnitude (Mw) scale are estimated, given available data. 12 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=MM 13 Although the counting or non-counting of internally displaced persons may skew results. 14 Ministry of Immigration and Population. (2024) The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2024 Population and Housing Census – Preliminary Results. https://dop.gov.mm/sites/dop.gov.mm/files/publication_docs/2024_provisional_result_eng.pdf 15 For the purposes of this report, we have assumed that Myanmar is comprised of 15 administrative divisions, including states, regions, and a union territory. 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ impacts of Tropical Cyclone Mocha in May 2023 and Typhoon Yagi in 2024. These conditions are likely to have significantly weakened the country’s capacity to prepare for and respond to large - scale disaster events. Myanmar’s vulnerability to seismic events is compounded by urban growth, informal construction practices, and varying enforcement of building codes. This section provides a synopsis of past impactful seismic events, describes the event characteristics, and presents a summary of the reported impacts. 1.2. Summary of Historical Damaging Earthquakes on the Sagaing Fault Myanmar has a long history of seismic activity, due to its position at the complex convergence of tectonic plates. Myanmar sits between the Indian, Eurasian, Sunda and Burma tectonic plates. The Sagaing Fault, from which the March 28, 2025 earthquake was generated, is a transform fault at the boundary of the Sunda and Burma plates, that runs 1,400 km north to south between 15°N and 27°N, bisecting Myanmar. It is a very active fault divided into several segments that have previously produced several destructive earthquakes of magnitudes between Mw 7.0 and 8.0 (Table 1). Historical records and assessments of past earthquakes reveal recurring destructive events with significant impacts on lives, heritage structures, and the built environment Table 1. Annex B has a more detailed summary of past earthquake events that have struck throughout Myanmar, including the 1912 Maymyo earthquake that occurred on a different fault from Sagaing fault but was one of the most significant events of the 20th century. The March 28 earthquake triggered a rupture that propagated over a total length of approximately 460 km, extending from Singu in the Mandalay Region to Pyu in the Bago Region. Satellite imagery and remote sensing analysis confirmed a continuous surface rupture of approximately 500 km, making it one of the longest strike-slip16 ruptures recorded globally in recent decades (see Figure 1). Horizontal displacements of up to 6 meters were observed along certain segments of the fault. The rupture primarily affected the Meiktila and Sagaing fault segments, which had previously been identified as part of a seismic gap17. More than 390 aftershocks were recorded by April 8, 2025, including a notable Mw 6.7 event just 12 minutes after the mainshock, with an epicenter located near Mandalay International Airport. Like the main event, this aftershock displayed a strike-slip mechanism and contributed to further damage in already affected areas. Given the length of the rupture, the earthquake produced ground shaking in a widespread area (see Figure 1). Ground shaking was categorized as violent to extreme, or intensity level IX to X on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale18 in Mandalay and Sagaing. The earthquake was felt throughout Myanmar and caused significant damage in Bangkok, over 1000 km away. 16 Strike-slip faults are characterized by lateral (horizontal) movements within the earthquake crust. For more information see: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-a-fault-and-what-are-different-types 17 A seismic gap is a length of a known fault line that has not moved in an unusually long time, compared with other segments along the same fault. Available at: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4_315 18 https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Table 1: Earthquakes on the Sagaing Fault since 1839. Each color represents the rupture of different segments of the fault. Ruptured Max. Year Location Magnitude Deaths Remarks segment MMI It is possible that part or all of the combined 400 Inwa, Meiktila & 1839 7.9 to 8.3 XI 500+ km long Meiktila and Sagaing segments of the Mandalay Sagaing Sagaing Fault ruptured. 1906 Kachin State Kamaing 6.4 - - 1908 Kachin State Kamaing 7.2 VII - Taungoo Nay Pyi The 1929 event could have contributed to 1929 district (Nay 6.5 VII - Taw triggering the 1930 earthquake series. Pyi Taw) Ruptured 100 to 130 km of the Bago segment. Reoccurrence of the 1930 event along the Bago May Pegu, segment is likely to be >160 years, but Bago 7.4 IX 558+ 1930 Rangoon recurrence of any earthquake close to Bago (i.e. including both the Pyu and Bago segments) is likely to between 90 and 115 years. Propagated northward from the proposed northern termination of the 1930 Bago rupture Dec. and ruptured a further 120 km of the Sagaing Pyu Pyu 7.3 VII-IX 36 1930 Fault. Stress changes in the fault resulting from the 1930 Bago event may have triggered the 1930 Pyu event. Kachin State 1931 (Myitkyina, Kamaing 7.6 IX - Ruptured ~180 km of the Kamaing segment. Karming) Ruptured at least 80 km of the Indaw segment to 1946 Tagaung Ban Mauk 7.1 VII - the north and possibly up to 155 km, towards the southern tip of the 1931 Kachin rupture. Near complete rupture of the Sagaing segment. 1946 Tagaung Sagaing 7.6 - - May have propagated 185 km northwards towards Thabeikkyin and Tagaung. May have re-ruptured a ~60 km long segment of Sagaing, 1956 Sagaing 6.8 VIII 38 the Sagaing Fault immediately south of the 1946 Mandalay Mw 7.7 rupture. May have re-ruptured 49 km of the 1946 slip Thabeikkyin, 1991 Ban Mauk 7.0 VII+ 2 segments, up to the location of the June 1992 Mandalay Mw 6.3 aftershock near Indaw. Shwebo, Ruptured a ~45 km long part of the Sagaing 2012 Sagaing 6.8 VII 26+ Thabeikkyin segment between Singu and Sabeanago. Mandalay, Meiktila & The rupture propagated over a total length of 2025 Sagain, Nay Nay Pyi 7.7 IX 3,500+ ~460 km, extending from Singu (Mandalay Pyi, Taw Taw Region) to Pyu (Bago Region). In the 19th century there were several devastating earthquakes. In 1839, a magnitude ~7.9-8.3 earthquake destroyed the capital city Inwa (Ava), which led to the relocation of the capital city to 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Amarapura near Mandalay. In the 20th century, destructive events continued, with some large earthquakes occurring in close succession. Starting in August 1929, a sequence of four earthquakes struck along the Sagaing Fault including a magnitude 7.4 earthquake in Pegu (Bago) in May 1930 that caused at least 550 fatalities and significant destruction; and a magnitude 7.6 event in January 1931. Each event ruptured different parts of the Sagaing Fault. A decade later, in September 1946, two earthquakes of magnitudes 7.1 and 7.6 occurred within minutes of each other, rupturing remaining parts of the Sagaing Fault. Thabeikkyin, a town in the Mandalay Region, was struck by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 1991 which ruptured the Ban Mauk segment of the fault again (last ruptured in 1946). The 21st century showed continued seismic activity, with 12 earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher impacting Myanmar overall. On the Sagaing Fault, a damaging event occurred in 2012 when 45 km of the Sagaing segment ruptured causing a magnitude 6.8 earthquake. Beyond the Sagaing Fault, Myanmar has faced many major earthquakes, including the destructive 2011 Tarlay earthquake in Shan State, causing up to 150 deaths and extensive damage, and the magnitude 6.8 Chauk earthquake in 2016, severely impacting historical sites in Bagan. For a detailed record of large earthquakes to impact Myanmar since 1839, see Annex B. 1.3. Earthquake Characteristics and Description On March 28, 2025, at 12:50:54 Myanmar Standard Time (MMT), a powerful M w 7.7 earthquake struck the Sagaing Region of central Myanmar, with the epicenter located between Sagaing city and Mandalay city. The earthquake occurred at a shallow depth of 10 km and is estimated to be the strongest recorded seismic event to affect Myanmar since the 1912 or even 1839 earthquake. 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Figure 1: United States Geological Society ShakeMap. Version 20 (last updated: 2025-04-09 06:16:11 (UTC)). Accessed from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000pn9s/shakemap/intensity on April 9, 2024. 1.4. Reported Impacts of the Earthquake Reported impacts are a critical element of the GRADE approach, enabling the modelled estimations to be calibrated and validated against ground data. This section gives a summary of the reported impacts from Myanmar as of April 18, 2025. Overall, the reported impact information and official, comprehensive damage datasets have been limited. 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ The earthquake had a major impact across five administrative divisions of Myanmar, with reported damage and impacts in Mandalay Region, Sagaing Region, Bago Region, Nay Pyi Taw Union Territory and Magway Region. These areas are facing widespread damage to infrastructure, houses, and essential services19. In response to the widespread damage and destruction, the State Administration Council (SAC)— Myanmar military authorities —declared a state of emergency in all affected areas20. The damage and impact reports below only provide a partial overview of the effects of the earthquake, with many areas still inaccessible due to damaged infrastructure and disrupted telecommunications, making it difficult to fully assess the full extent of the devastation. Millions of people are affected by the earthquake. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) estimates that the earthquake has impacted over 17 million people across 57 of Myanmar’s 330 townships, with more than nine million severely affected by the strongest tremors21. These figures are largely consistent with, though slightly lower than, earlier estimates from the Pacific Disaster Center’s Joint Analysis of Disaster Exposure, which reported 19.5 million people living in affected areas, including 10.4 million in the most severely impacted zones22. As of April 14, the AHA Centre had reported 3,655 fatalities, with 134 missing, and over 198,000 displaced, although these figures are expected to continue to rise23. UNICEF reports that the final toll is likely significantly higher, as preliminary findings from over 700 Rapid Needs Assessments conducted across 40 townships indicate a much greater number of injuries and people reported missing24. Buildings and infrastructure have been severely impacted throughout the areas of strong seismic shaking. As of April 14, the AHA center reported that over 13,000 buildings are totally damaged (or destroyed), and nearly 40,000 partially damaged. Media reports suggest that more houses (over 52,000) are damaged to some degree25. The Microsoft AI for Good Lab damage assessments for buildings in key urban centers, including Mandalay26 and Nay Pyi Taw27, found that the vast majority of buildings (over 98 percent) have a damage level of 0-20 percent. The number of buildings reported to have a damage fraction of over 80 percent is reported as 515 in Mandalay, and 70 in Nay Pyi Taw. The AHA Centre also reported that 2,661 schools and 640 health facilities are impacted (as of April 14) while the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a much lower number of damaged health facilities from satellite analysis, at just 19028. Verified health cluster 19 https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/searo/whe/him/phsa-mmr-eq0325.pdf?sfvrsn=75144f42_3 20 https://cincds.gov.mm/node/28710 21 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-earthquake-flash-update-3-3-april-2025 22 https://x.com/PDC_Global/status/1905729510626254992 23 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/situation-update-no-9-m77-mandalay-earthquake-monday-14-april-2025-2000-hrs-utc7 24 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/unicef-myanmar-flash-update-no-8-earthquake-16-april-2025 25 https://www.ludunwayoo.com/news-mm/2025/04/17/118200/ 26 https://data.humdata.org/dataset/myanmar-earthquake-building-damage-assessment-from-3-28-2025 27 https://data.humdata.org/dataset/myanmar-earthquake-naypyidaw-building-damage-assessment-from-03-31-2025 28 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-health-cluster-sagaing-earthquake-situation-report-4-11-april- 2025?_gl=1*2bub02*_ga*MTg3MTU4NDg1OS4xNzMyODY4MjQ2*_ga_E60ZNX2F68*MTc0NDc4NjY3MS4xMDkuMS4xNzQ0Nzg3O TQwLjE3LjAuMA 12 ______________________________________________________________________________ data as of April 629, shows five fully damaged health facilities (two in Bago, one each in Nay Pyi Taw, Sagaing, and Southern Shan) and 61 partially damaged (35 in Southern Shan, 20 in Bago, and six in Nay Pyi Taw). Data for Mandalay is not yet available. The earthquake in Myanmar has caused extensive damage to the nation’s cultural and religious heritage. As reported on April 13 by the Ministry of Religion and Culture, 9,643 religious structures have been affected across seven administrative divisions. Among the damaged sites are a reported 5,402 pagodas, 3,841 monasteries, 187 nunneries, 50 Christian churches, 136 mosques, 26 Hindu temples, and 1 Chinese temple. The destruction spans culturally rich areas including Nay Pyi Taw, Mandalay, Sagaing, Bago, Magway, Shan, and Kayin, posing a significant loss to Myanmar’s historical architecture.30 Many forms of infrastructure are badly affected. Situation updates from the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) 10 days after the event stated that electricity and water services have not been restored in the worst hit areas, with telecommunications networks remaining severely disrupted. 31 The Myanmar Red Cross reported challenges with blocked transport routes and damaged bridges, particularly impacting transportation to rural and remote areas.32,33 There have been a number of critical bridge failures hampering access, including the Old Inwa Bridge over the Ayeyarwaddy River34 and the Dokhtawaddy Bridge crossing the Myitnge River on the Yangon – Mandalay Expressway near Inwa35. The Sinthay River Dam was damaged, along with 198 irrigation dams, including minor damage to four of the 12 dams in Nay Pyi Taw36,37. The earthquake caused extensive damage to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure including the destruction of boreholes and disruption of piped networks, leaving many without access to clean water. Additionally, over 76,000 latrines collapsed, creating serious sanitation and public health risks in affected communities.38 29 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-health-cluster-sagaing-earthquake-situation-report-3-6-april-2025 30 https://bur.mizzima.com/2025/04/13/53010 31 Situation report #2: Earthquake in Central Myanmar 2025. UNOPS. https://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Situation_Report_2_Earthquake_in_Central_Myanmar_UNOPS_04Apr 2025.pdf 32 Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) Emergency Operation Centre: 2025-Earthquake Situation Report, 7th April, 2025 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-red-cross-society-mrcs-emergency-operation-centre-2025-earthquake-situation- report-7th-april-2025 33 WFP, Logistics Cluster. Situation update, 08 April 2025: Myanmar Earthquake Response. https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-earthquake-response-situation-update-08-april-2025 34 https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/colonial-era-ava-bridge-over-irrawaddy-river-collapses-during-earthquake.html 35 https://yktnews.com/2025/03/209262/ 36 https://bur.mizzima.com/2025/04/13/53050, https://news-eleven.com/article/302027 37 https://www.myanmaritv.com/news/inspecting-damages-dams-moali-um-inspected-damages-dams 38 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/unicef-myanmar-flash-update-no-8-earthquake-16-april-2025 13 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2.0 Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation Methodology The assessment follows the World Bank (2018) GRADE methodology. It provides a fast first-order approximation of the direct economic impact and so provides a rapid high-level estimate of damage to physical assets which can be used to inform decisions in a timely fashion. Damage to residential and non-residential buildings and their contents, and infrastructure, are estimated. Losses and needs are not estimated. In the past 10 years, the World Bank’s Disaster-Resilience Analytics and Solutions (D-RAS) team has produced 14 earthquake-related GRADE assessments (World Bank, 2025a). The most recent was for the December 2024 Port Vila, Vanuatu Earthquake (World Bank, 2025b). The GRADE methodology estimates damage in three stages: 1. Data collection, monitoring, and checking. 2. Comparison with damage estimates for historical events. 3. Calibration, modelling, cross-checking, and validation. This GRADE assessment provides an estimation of the direct damage caused by the 2025 Myanmar Earthquake, through an approach that utilizes a mix of earthquake damage modelling, catastrophe risk modelling, and an assessment of capital stock value of different assets and sectors. This rapid and remote assessment used a range of datasets to assess damage, including historical data, scientific data such as ground motion, information on the built environment and population, engineering information on vulnerability, as well as available data through local sources, and reports on the ground (Figure 2). A full list of data sources used is given in Annex A. Overall, data for this event has been limited, particularly as it relates to comprehensive official estimates of damage. Figure 2: Example of some of the methods and datasets used for the analysis. 14 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2.1. Hazard analysis The GRADE team developed a hazard model of the earthquake event using ground shaking datasets, damage patterns, scientific research on the Sagaing Fault line, seismic hazard models for Myanmar, and other hazard assessments (e.g. United States Geological Survey (USGS) ShakeMap in Figure 1). The resulting GRADE ShakeMap is given in Figure 3. More detail is given on the hazard analysis in Annex C. Figure 3: GRADE ShakeMap for the 2025 Myanmar Earthquake 2.2. Exposure modeling The analysis included updating Myanmar’s building and contents exposure model, building upon previous GRADE assessments. The most recent model used was initially developed in 2019, based on data from the 2014 Myanmar census and additional township profiles. This model was subsequently updated in June 2023 for the Tropical Cyclone Mocha GRADE assessment. The exposure model distinguishes between residential and non-residential buildings—the latter including industrial, commercial, public, religious, and other structures, and infrastructure. Financial valuations of these buildings were determined using unit costs of construction (UCCs) tailored to specific building typologies, accounting for factors such as (but not limited to) construction materials and number of stories. 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ The exposure model developed for this assessment integrates the latest building footprint datasets derived from Open Street Map (OSM) and Microsoft AI. These were validated against data from the Ministry of Immigration and Population (Ministry of Immigration and Population, 2024). Building footprints, along with township census data, provided detailed insights into building sizes and heights, crucial for accurate exposure characterization. Building typologies were mapped using the Global Earthquake Model's classification system39 to consistently categorize residential and non-residential structures. Infrastructure modelling was undertaken using, among others, OSM and local data on roads, bridges, electricity, water, sanitation, information and communication technology (ICT) and other infrastructure. In addition, for current infrastructure exposure, the 2023 model was updated and expanded to include more assets, such as irrigation infrastructure. The total exposure for Myanmar is estimated to be US$248.4 billion, including US$110 billion in residential buildings and contents (44 percent), US$54.6 billion in non-residential buildings and contents (23 percent), and US$83.4 billion in infrastructure assets (34 percent). The full exposure model results by sector and state are presented in Table 2 and Figure 4. Yangon Region represents the highest concentration of assets with 26 percent of the gross capital stock. US$32.6 billion of the country’s exposure is estimated in Shan State, while Mandalay and Sagaing contain US$30.4 billion and US$20.9 billion, respectively. Table 2: Exposure for Myanmar by sector and administrative division. Economic exposure refers to the sum of the buildings and infrastructure exposure. 39https://cloud-storage.globalquakemodel.org/public/wix-new-website/pdf-collections- wix/publications/GEM%20Building%20Taxonomy%20Version%202.0.pdf 16 ______________________________________________________________________________ Figure 4: Exposure map for Myanmar by administrative division and exposure component/sector. 17 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3.0 Estimation of Direct Damage to Physical Assets Direct damage from the earthquakes is estimated at US$10.97 billion, equivalent to 14 percent of Myanmar’s 2024/5 GDP. The direct damage is dominated by damage to residential buildings (US$4.97 billion or 45 percent of total), followed by non-residential buildings (US$2.63 billion or 24 percent of total), while effects on infrastructure account for the remaining 31 percent (US$3.36 billion). The GRADE report only considers direct damage, however, there will also be significant losses40 due to the event. The most extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure occurred in Mandalay, Sagaing, and Bago, which are home to around 16.8 million people (around 33 percent of the population). Of the total damage, 50 percent occurred in Mandalay, followed by 21 percent in Sagaing, and 12 percent in Bago (see Table 3 and Figure 5). There is negligible damage in Kachin, Chin, Tanintharyi, and Rakhine (the latter severely affected by Tropical Cyclone Mocha in 2023). See Annex D for maps of sectoral damage. Table 3: Damage estimated by GRADE by sector and by administrative region, in US$ millions. 40 The value of lost production or income. 18 ______________________________________________________________________________ Figure 5: Map of the estimated damage by administrative division in absolute values (in US$ billions). Damage as a proportion of total exposure is highest in Nay Pyi Taw, Mandalay, and Sagaing, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 6. In Nay Pyi Taw, damage is estimated at 15.7 percent of the residential exposure value, 20.2 percent of non-residential exposure value, and almost 23.8 percent of infrastructure exposure. In Mandalay, damage is estimated at 16.6 percent of residential buildings exposure, 18.2 percent of non-residential buildings exposure, and 20.1 percent of the infrastructure exposure value. In Sagaing, damage is estimated to be 11.7 percent of residential building’s exposure value, 11.7 percent of non-residential building’s exposure, and 8.8 percent of infrastructure exposure value. 19 ______________________________________________________________________________ Table 4: Damage estimated by GRADE by sector and by administrative division, as a proportion of total exposed value (TEV). Figure 6: Map of the estimated damage by administrative division as a proportion of exposed asset. 20 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4.0 Interpretation of results 4.1. Comparison of the results Validation and checking of results are a critical part of the GRADE process. To highlight a key example for this event, the GRADE results are similar to the Global Earthquake Model which estimates US$6.4 billion in damage (for buildings and contents only) (Crowley and Silva, 2025) vs. US$7.61 billion from the GRADE assessment (buildings and contents only). The Ghorka Earthquake in Nepal in 2015 was a similar order of magnitude event (M w 7.8) to the 2025 Myanmar Earthquake, with both affecting some densely populated areas. The GRADE damage estimates for Myanmar are over double the damage from the 2015 Ghorka Earthquake, Nepal (which was US$4.66 billion41,42)43; however, this difference reduces when inflation is accounted for44. The damage-to-GDP ratios are 14 percent for Myanmar, compared to 23 percent for the Ghorka Earthquake. Although GRADE does not calculate losses or needs, they could be between 50 to 200 percent of the damage in such earthquakes (Daniell et al., 2012). For Nepal, the losses were estimated at US$1.89 billion (or 36.5 percent of the damage estimate). However, the estimate for needs after the earthquake in Nepal was US$6.695 billion (or 129 percent of damage). 4.2. Uncertainty The GRADE best estimate of damage, given all uncertainty considerations, is US$10.97 billion. The uncertainty range for this event is estimated to span from about US$6.24 billion to US$15.82 billion. Uncertainty in GRADE assessments and risk modeling always exists, however, in this assessment, it is amplified due to the significant: • amount of religious cultural heritage assets damage, for which their vulnerability is difficult to assess as they cannot be grouped in with other masonry structures (such as housing) and their replacement value is difficult to estimate; and • uncertainty in seismic intensity estimated and modelled by USGS and other institutions, which resulted in the team developing its own seismic intensity maps (see section 2). 4.3. Social Vulnerability Disasters do not impact people equally; marginalized and vulnerable populations often suffer disproportionately. Vulnerable groups lack the resources necessary to prepare for, respond to, and 41 https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SAR/nepalPDNA%20Volume%20A%20Final.pdf 42 On a like for like basis 2015 Nepal PDNΑ results are US$4.66 bn (when excl. US$0.52 bn in the cross-cutting sectors, not considered by this GRADE) 43 This difference is due to a combination of factors, including the extensive scale of shaking in Myanmar due to the long fault rupture, and differences in the assets that were impacted. 44 Adjusted to 2025 US$, the Ghorka Earthquake in 2015 results in estimated damage of US$7.3 billion. 21 ______________________________________________________________________________ recover from disasters, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities. To better understand the potential distributional impacts of the earthquake on households with different demographic and socioeconomic profiles in Myanmar, a data-driven and model-based approach was used as part of this assessment, utilizing the microsimulation model “Unbreakable” (Hallegatte et al. 2016). The model integrates household-level data with national household survey from the global micro database45 with exposure models and disaster damage data. The microsimulation model converts physical asset damage to household-level consumption losses46. Two complementary indicators of annual consumption loss per capita for each administrative division (State/Region/Union Territory) in Myanmar were computed. These include: 1. Consumption losses across all population − Definition: Total annual consumption losses by disaster‑affected households divided by the total annual consumption of all households in each province, expressed as a percentage. − Interpretation: Captures how much the total household consumption in each administrative division is dragged down by disaster impacts, smoothing the effect over the entire population. This indicates the breadth of the disaster impacts. This indicator is correlated with the total direct asset damage (Section 3) and number of households exposed. The larger the total direct asset damage, the higher the consumption losses across all population. 2. Consumption losses for affected households only − Definition: The same aggregate consumption losses of affected households, divided by the annual consumption of only those households who were affected, expressed as a percentage. − Interpretation: Measures the severity of the shock of the directly impacted households only. This indicates the depth of the disaster impacts, i.e., the severity of the impacts to those who were impacted. This indicator is not necessarily related to the total direct asset damage, but more related to the socioeconomic resilience of the population. An administrative division can be only marginally impacted, but if the population in that area 45 The main household survey dataset used was the 2017 harmonized survey from the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Database portal. The World Bank Myanmar Phone Survey 2022 to infer information about dwelling ownership and wall materials. Since the dataset does not allow to pinpoint exactly which households are affected, all households in each administrative division are assumed to be equally affected. 46 Consumption losses are derived from the reconstruction cost of the effective capital stock (including dwellings, productive assets, etc) that households need to spend as well as foregone income due to damaged productive assets. The analysis assumes that households would reconstruct their effective capital stock to the pre-earthquake conditions (i.e., not upgrading the assets). Foregone income is assumed to be linearly correlated with the progress of the effective capital stock’s reconstruction. For detailed methodology, see https://unbreakable.gfdrr.org/, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-019-00047-x, or https://hdl.handle.net/10986/31227 22 ______________________________________________________________________________ is relatively worse-off to cope with disaster impacts, then the consumption losses for affected households only may be high. This is the case, for instance, for Magway and Ayeyarwady (see below). Figure 7: Left panel: Percentage loss in annual household consumption, computed as the total consumption foregone by disaster‑affected households divided by the aggregate consumption of all households in each province. Right panel: Percentage loss for affected households only, computed as the same foregone consumption divided by the total consumption of just the affected households. Across the 15 administrative divisions, per capita annual consumption loss averaged 1 – 8 percent47 (Figure 7, left panel). Losses were modest in Yangon, Kayin, Mon, Kayah and Shan (less than 0.5 percent), but rose sharply in the central regions. For instance, Mandalay’s overall household consumption was reduced by roughly 7.6 percent. When focusing exclusively on households directly hit by disasters (Figure 7, right), consumption losses rise to 17 – 36 percent. The consumption losses for affected populations in lower‑impact provinces (e.g. Kayin, Mon, Kayah, Shan) still exceed 17% (Figure 7, right). This implies that, even though only a small fraction of these administrative divisions’ population in those provinces was affected, the depth of the impacts to those affected is still significant. Affected households in the most severely hit provinces, i.e., Mandalay, Nay Pyi Taw, and Sagaing, experience consumption losses of 31.7 percent, 24.7 percent, and 28.7 percent, respectively. Some households with certain socio-economic-demographic characteristics are more adversely impacted, compared to an average population. To uncover which types of households experience disproportionate impacts, this assessment extended the analysis to population subgroups with different characteristics, defined by access to sanitation, access to water, education, expenditure quintile and industry of the primary occupation (Figure 8). For each population subgroup, we then 47Note that this is the annual average consumption loss. In the microsimulation model, consumption losses are calculated over a 10-year recovery period, though some households would be able to recover much faster. 23 ______________________________________________________________________________ compared the relative difference (percent) and the absolute gap (percentage point difference) of their consumption losses with an average household, to understand whether they are more (or less) severely impacted compared to the average. Figure 8: Left panel: Relative difference in group‑specific loss rates versus the average household. Right panel: Absolute gap in percentage points between each group’s loss rate and the overall average. Households without access to improved basic water and sanitation services, no formal education, and in the poorest expenditure quintiles, suffer 18–43 percent higher losses than average, equivalent to an extra 5–11 percentage points of consumption lost. In contrast, households whose members are employed in public utilities and financial services, those living in urban areas, and tertiary‑educated households incur 13–49 percent lower losses (around 3– 12 percentage points less) than the average population. This distributional analysis highlights the disproportional burdens experienced across the population, showing that households who are less well-off socioeconomically experience higher impacts. The findings could also help design recovery or support programs, so that such programs can be better targeted towards the most vulnerable segments of the population. These results highlight the devastating impact of the earthquake. However, the results should be considered as preliminary. They are also conducted at the administrative division of State/Region/Union Territory and not at township level where household impacts could be more heterogeneous. Further information and analysis are needed to include the other social vulnerability variables and different factors into the microsimulation utilized here. 24 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4.4. The Disaster-Fragility, Conflict, Violence Nexus The interaction of the earthquake damage with the impact of ongoing conflict in the country may disproportionately impact the population, further amplifying needs and losses. Prior to the March 2025 earthquake, southern Sagaing, Magway, and Mandalay were significantly affected by armed conflict. Sagaing alone has experienced nearly 5,000 military incidents48 since the 2021 military takeover, severely impacting social cohesion and humanitarian conditions. The conflict contributed to Sagaing region having the highest internally displaced populations (IDPs) in the country, numbering approximately 1.25 million.49 Hence, the 2025 Myanmar Earthquake has exacerbated an already severe humanitarian crisis, affecting approximately 1.6 million people who were previously displaced by conflict.50 Infrastructure essential for effective disaster response, including healthcare 51 and information systems, were compromised due to ongoing hostilities. Conflict-induced damage to healthcare infrastructure, health workers leaving the profession, and targeted violence against health workers prior to the earthquake52 severely weakened health sector capabilities, impacting the immediate earthquake response. This, coupled with disruption of medical supply chains, exacerbate public health risks and contribute to outbreaks of previously controlled diseases such as measles and diphtheria,53 particularly under the extreme heat in the region at the time of the earthquake. Additionally, extensive internet censorship and conflict-induced digital infrastructure damage have impeded timely information collection and dissemination, further complicating relief efforts.54 The compounded impacts of prolonged conflict, existing humanitarian vulnerabilities, and new disaster challenges lead to a complex set of requirements for effective comprehensive disaster response, including shelter, healthcare, WASH, and livelihoods restoration. 4.5. Impacts on women Women are often disproportionately more affected by the impacts of disasters than men, especially those who live in vulnerable situations. In Myanmar, women and girls, already 48 Based on ACLED data, as cited in ACAPS (2025), Myanmar Earthquake: Sagaing pre-crisis profile, Thematic Report, April 1, 2025. https://www.acaps.org/en/countries/archives/detail/myanmar-earthquake-sagaing-pre-crisis-profile 49 UNHCR. Myanmar Emergency Overview Map: Number of people displaced since Feb 2021 and remain displaced (as of 24 March 2025). https://reliefweb.int/map/myanmar/myanmar-emergency-overview-map-number-people-displaced-feb-2021-and-remain- displaced-24-march-2025 50 Finn Church Aid. ‘More than a week after the earthquake, the needs are enormous – FCA expands its aid operation in Myannar.’ April 9, 2025. https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/more-week-after-earthquake-needs-are-enormous-fca-expands-its-aid- operation-myanmar 51 https://healthpolicy-watch.news/myanmars-collapsing-health-system-crushed-beneath-earthquake-and-civil-war 52 World Bank. 2024. Analysis of Access to Essential Health Services in Myanmar 2021-2023. 53 Jonathon Foster and Thinn Thinn Hlaing. ‘Earthquake pushes Myanmar’s health system to verge of collapse.’ Think Global Health, April 8. 2025. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/earthquake-pushes-myanmars-health-system-verge-collapse 54 https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-earthquake-flash-update-3-3-april-2025 25 ______________________________________________________________________________ vulnerable due to years of conflict, displacement, and economic instability, face heightened risks and unique challenges in the aftermath of the 2025 Myanmar Earthquake55. Even before the earthquake, more than a third of Myanmar’s people— including 10.4 million women and girls—needed urgent humanitarian aid56. The multi-layered crisis in the country has led to a notable backslide in progress on gender equality and women's empowerment, with Myanmar ranking 123 out of 146 countries with a score of 0.65 in the Global Gender Gap Index 202357, revealing the substantial challenges the nation faces in achieving gender parity. The earthquake has intensified the challenges for Myanmar’s women living in poverty, with women-headed households struggling to access emergency relief and financial assistance and needing income sources to cope with the disaster58. Data on attitudes indicate the presence of prevailing discriminatory social norms that confine women to the household in Myanmar 59. During disasters, women’s caregiving responsibilities for children, the ill, and the elderly, can make it difficult for them to promptly seek safety, access shelter and adequate sanitation facilities and or obtain necessary healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health services. In addition, violence against women and child marriage, primarily affecting girls, remain a concern. 60 Data on gender violence severely underreports sexual violence due to lack of primary reporting.61 Following the earthquake, women and girls are facing even greater risks of gender-based violence and exploitation, especially girls separated from their families62. Recognizing these differentiated impacts in the context of disasters enables the design and implementation of post-disaster policies and interventions, specifically tailored to ensuring that the needs of women and other vulnerable groups are considered in recovery and rebuilding efforts. 55 UN Women 2025. Myanmar Earthquake 2025. What it means for women and girls. https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/myanmar-earthquake-2025-what-it-means-for-women-and-girls 56 Ibid. 57 World Economic Forum. (2023). Global Gender Gap Report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report- 2023 58 UN Women 2025. Myanmar Earthquake 2025. What it means for women and girls. https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/myanmar-earthquake-2025-what-it-means-for-women-and-girls 59 OECD. SIGI Country Profile Myanmar. https://webfs.oecd.org/devsigi/SIGI%202023%20Country%20Profiles/country_profile_MMR_Myanmar.pdf 60 OECD. SIGI Country Profile Myanmar. https://webfs.oecd.org/devsigi/SIGI%202023%20Country%20Profiles/country_profile_MMR_Myanmar.pdf 61 International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). n.d. ‘Methodology.’ Myanmar Conflict Map. https://myanmar.iiss.org/methodology 62 Gender in Humanitarian Action Working Group (GiHa WG) Myanmar, April 2nd 2025. “Gender-impact flash update: Myanmar Earthquake”. https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/04/gender-impact-flash-update-myanmar- earthquake-01 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ 5.0 Conclusions This GRADE assessment provides a synopsis of direct economic damage to physical assets from the March 28, 2025, M7.7 earthquake in Myanmar. Damage was most severe in the central corridor where ground shaking was the most intense, causing damage to buildings and infrastructure. This was the most impactful earthquake in Myanmar in at least over 100 years. The direct economic damage to physical assets is estimated to be US$10.97 billion or approximately equivalent to 14 percent of Myanmar’s 2024/25 GDP, including residential buildings and their contents, non-residential buildings and their contents, and infrastructure. In total, damage to buildings and their contents accounts for over 69 percent of the total damage. The residential sector is estimated to have sustained US$4.97 billion in damage, non-residential buildings sustained US$2.63 billion in damage and Infrastructure estimated at US$3.63 billion in damage. This highlights the large impact on the buildings sector, particularly residential buildings and contents. This will likely have a lasting impact on those who have lost their homes. There is notable uncertainty in the results given several factors, including the limited reported damage data from the ground and the extensive damage to cultural heritage sites. The uncertainty range in the total damage estimations is about US$6.24 billion to US$15.82 billion for this event; however, the best estimate of damage is assessed with confidence. This is a very significant disaster for Myanmar and the region, in both scale and reach. The damage estimate for this earthquake is almost five times larger than for Cyclone Mocha in Myanmar in 2023 and the impact is the same order of magnitude as the Ghorka Earthquake in Nepal in 2015. The reconstruction costs associated with this disaster are likely to be greater than the estimated damage. The damage estimate also does not consider significant negative impact on economic activity, the constraints of rebuilding in a conflict setting, and additional costs for repairing or rebuilding damaged or destroyed cultural heritage assets. The wider social and gender impacts of the event are concerning. Meanwhile, poor and vulnerable households are disproportionally impacted, which could exacerbate existing poverty. Households with unimproved water sources and no education, for instance, may experience 27.3 percent and 20.8 percent higher impacts, respectively, compared to the average population. Earthquake- affected households in the most severely hit administrative divisions, Mandalay, Nay Pyi Taw, and Sagaing, could experience average per capita consumption losses of 31.7 percent, 24.7 percent, and 28.7 percent, respectively, with the vulnerable population in these administrative divisions experiencing even larger impacts. Future conflict-sensitive interventions focused on increasing resilience to earthquakes are needed in Myanmar which has a long history of damaging seismic events. This could include strengthening the resilience of assets and communities to future disasters including capacity building. 27 ______________________________________________________________________________ 6.0 Key References Crowley, H. and Silva, V. (2025). Email communication to Rashmin Gunasekera. 23 April. Daniell, J., Khazai, B., Wenzel, F. & Vervaeck, A. (2012). The worldwide economic impact of historical earthquakes. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon. https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_2038.pdf Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Bangalore, M., & Rozenberg, J. (2016). Unbreakable: building the resilience of the poor in the face of natural disasters. World Bank Publications. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/25335 Hurukawa, N. and Maung Maung, P. (2011). Two seismic gaps on the Sagaing Fault, Myanmar, derived from relocation of historical earthquakes since 1918. Geophysical Research Letters. 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046099 Tun, S. T. and Watkinson, I. (2016). The Sagaing Fault. In: Barber, A. J., Ridd, M. F., Khin Zaw and Rangin, C. (eds.) Myanmar: Geology, Resources and Tectonics. Geological Society, London, Memoir. Wang, Y., Sieh, K., Tun, S. T., Lai, K.-Y. and Myint, T. (2014), Active tectonics and earthquake potential of the Myanmar region, Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 119, 3767–3822, doi:10.1002/2013JB0 World Bank. (2018). Methodology Note on the Global Rapid post-disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) approach. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/DRAS_web_04172018.pdf World Bank. (2025a). A Review of the Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) Assessments: A frontier in Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimations for Developing Countries 2015-2024. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/en/publication/review-global-rapid-post- disaster-damage-estimation-grade-assessments World Bank (2025b). Global Rapid Post-Disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE) Report: The December 17, 2024, Mw 7.3 Earthquake in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/79d7fb82-9170-46a0-96f9- fee10b9530c3 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Annex A. Datasets Used The main data sources used in the GRADE assessment are summarized below: Damage Data • Agency and development partner reports • Social media reports from X, Facebook and other sources to corroborate damage data. • Global Earthquake Model data and reports • ReliefWeb Updates • MSR • AHA • OCHA • NUG-MOHADM • IFRC • MRCS • DIEM • MOSWRR • Tokyo University damage statistics Exposure Data 1. Admin data • MIMU admin boundaries for the purposes of analysis (Township, Village etc.) • geoBoundaries 2. Population data • The General Administration Department (GAD), and Ministry of Home Affairs townships survey (2017 and 2019) • Department of Population (DoP), Ministry of Labor, Immigration and Population 2014 census + 2019 Intercensal Survey + 2024 census • WorldPop • GHS-POP • HRSL checks 3. Building Exposure • Myanmar Statistical Yearbooks • 2014 Census + 2019 Intercensal Survey • General Administration Department 2017 data • CATDAT • METEOR OED database for Myanmar • GEM database 29 ______________________________________________________________________________ • Microsoft AI Driven Building Footprints • GHS BUILT-C, BUILT-V, BUILT-H, BUILT-S products • MIMU Township data (Township Profiles) • 2009-10 Integrated Myanmar Household Living Conditions Survey • World Bank (2019). Myanmar’s Urbanization: Creating Opportunities for All • Myanmar Post-Disaster Needs Assessment of Floods and Landslides, July–September 2015, December 2015 • GRADE 2019 Floods Assessment. • GRADE 2023 Cyclone Assessment 4. Infrastructure • Myanmar National Accounts • State accounts and other datasets from IMF and World Bank • OSM roads, waterways and other datasets • MIMU airport data, railway and road data • CATDAT • Various OpenData portals (OpenDevelopment, OSM, OpenInfraMap, Gridfinder, etc.) • MIMU Baseline datasets 5. Agriculture • State and District Agriculture sections of local Websites • Myanmar Statistical Yearbook quoting Agricultural censuses • MOALI • Myanmar: Analysis of Farm Production Economics - World Bank • Agricultural Census 2010 • FAO • ESA 10m WorldCover Product Hazard Data 1. Ground Motion Data and Shakemaps • USGS • GEOFON • IRIS • EMSC • CEDIM 2. Fault data and InSAR through Zixin Lee: Bradley, K., Hubbard, J., 2025. Surface ruptures of the Myanmar M7.7 earthquake mapped from space. Earthquake Insights, https://doi.org/10.62481/51b7df8c 3. Satellite Imagery (Flood and Storm Surge) 30 ______________________________________________________________________________ ▪ COPERNICUS ▪ UNOSAT ▪ WFP-ADAM ▪ GDACS ▪ MAXAR 4. Historic Myanmar Earthquake DATA ▪ GHEA ▪ CATDAT ▪ USAID ▪ Utsu Microsimulation modelling data 1. Myanmar 2017 harmonized household survey from the World Bank’s Global Monitoring Database portal. 2. World Bank Myanmar Phone Survey 2022. 3. Penn World Table version 10. 31 Annex B. Significant Historical Earthquakes in Myanmar N.B. The sources used to collate this table are listed in Annex A. Destroyed (#) Damaged (#) Focal Depth Damage (M MMI (Max) Magnitude Injuries (#) Deaths (#) Houses Houses USD) (km) Date Location Notes & Comments - Former capital city Inwa destroyed and abandoned. 101 - $5.0 - - Queen Mae Nu’s brick monastery in Inwa, was heavily damaged. March 23, 1839 Mandalay ~8.1 XI 15 500+ - - 1,000 $25.0 - The 27m high Palace Watch Tower in Inwa, was tilted. - The Mingun Pagoda was severely damaged. - Buildings damaged January 3, 1848 Kyaukpyu 7.0 - - - - - - - - Houses and of the tops of pagodas at Pyay, Henzada and Thayetmyo collapsed August 24, 1858 Pyay 7.7 - - - - - - - - Some damage in Inna, Sittway, Kyaukpyu and Yangon June 24, 1906 Coco Islands 7.3 - 60 - - - - - - Near the Sunda megathrust June 24, 1906 Magway Region 6.7 - 35 - - - - - - 36 km northeast of Magway August 31, 1906 Kachin 6.4 - 15 - - - - - - On the northern extremities of the Sagaing fault December 12, 1908 Kachin 7.2 VII 15 - - - - - - On the northern section of the Sagaing fault - Epicenter near Taunggyi and Pyin Oo Lwin in Shan State; it was felt over 375,000 square miles in Myanmar and adjoining Thailand, Yunnan (China), and northeastern India. - Pyin Oo Lwin: brick masonry buildings suffered serious structural damage; many bungalows were damaged and some were unsafe for people; wooden beams, bricks, and plaster fell from the Governor's House; two chimneys fell off a station hospital and the roof of a Mandalay, Mogok, $5.0 - family hospital collapsed; Burma Railway between Nawnghkio and May 23, 1912 7.9 IX 25 1 - 50 - - - Maymyo $25.0 Hsum-hsai disrupted by major rockslide.; every pagoda in the city was obliterated. - Mandalay: 75 percent of brick buildings and nearly all pagodas and monasteries were damaged; the cathedral suffered extensive cracking; the Wesleyan School's masonry building suffered major damage; five buildings suffered total collapse, 31 were severely damaged and 75 more or less cracked. - Taunggyi: nearly all chimneys fell, and military buildings were in 32 critical condition. - Mogok: cracks in brick buildings and several pagodas collapsed; water pipelines damaged, and power cut off by landslides for two nights. - Hsipaw: several masonry buildings suffered heavy damage, and several chimneys collapsed. - Toungoo: old pagodas have had part of their tops carried away; cracks inside several buildings and a few fallen brick panels. March 6, 1913 Bago - - - - - - - - - Sbwemawdaw Pagoda lost its finial July 5, 1917 Bago - - - - - - - - - Shwemawdaw Pagoda fell May 2, 1922 Shan 6.7 VII 35 - - - - - - Near the Myanmar-Thailand border June 22, 1923 Shan 7.3 VII 25 - - - - - - 25 km southwest of Mongmao - Epicenter would have been somewhere west and northwest of December 17, 1927 Yangon 7.0 - - - - - - - Yangon. Damage in Yangon. Felt in Dedaye. - Severest shock ever felt in Htawgaw. No reports of damage in $1.0 - Myanmar January 19, 1929 Htawgaw 5.5 IX - - - - - $5.0 - All stone masonry buildings at Htawgaw were considered no longer fit for human habitation June 4, 1929 Myitkyina - - - - - - - - - - A meter-gauge railway was severely damaged; - In places the track twisted and bent, fishplates and bolts snapped, Swa (Toungoo bridges and culverts collapsed, the sides of cuttings fell in August 8, 1929 district), Nay Pyi 6.5 VII 15 - - - - - - Loaded trucks were turned upside down and cooly huts were Taw shaken to pieces. - This event was reported from Yamethin, Pyinmana, Yenangyaung and Tharrawaddy. 33 - The southern part of the country was affected, i.e. Bago (formerly Pegu) and Yangon; Pegu was almost completely destroyed. A tsunami and fires followed. Cracks in the ground appeared in several places. Subsidence occurred. - All types of structures were damaged or destroyed including almost all pucca buildings, concrete residences and large shops and commercial buildings. The Pegu Co-operative Central Bank, a court and police buildings were destroyed; municipal buildings and 101 - 101 - $5.0 - May 5, 1930 Pegu, Yangon 7.4 IX 35 558+ 2,500 schools suffered severe damage. 1,000 1,000 $25.0 - Many pagodas were destroyed. The remains of the Thonpaya Buddhist temple including the Buddha image suffered considerable damage; mosques and minarets collapsed; a Roman Catholic Church was also heavily damaged. - The pipe that brought water into the town running along the Moulmein bridge collapsed and stopped the water supply; the reservoir and power plant were damaged; railway and telegraphic communication were disrupted. - A severe earthquake in Tharrawaddy District was reported to have Tharrawaddy, $1.0 - July 18, 1930 - - - 50 - - caused much damage to property. Fifty persons were reported killed Yangon $5.0 or injured. China: Yunnan - Epicenter in Tengchong, China just East of the border with September 21, $1.0 - Province and 6.7 VIII 15 3 - 51 - 100 - Myanmar, where damage was significant. 1930 $5.0 affected Myanmar - Impacts in Myanmar unknown. - Destroyed the town of Pyu; the earthquake’s epicenter lies a few miles to its west. 101 - 51 - $1.0 - December 3, 1930 Pyu 7.3 VIII-IX 10 36 51 - 100 - Most of the buildings were destroyed; they were of flimsy 1,000 100 $5.0 construction. - Local railway line severely damaged Myitkyina - Numerous fissures, cracks and sand blows. Damage caused in January 27, 1931 (Kamaing) 7.6 IX 35 - - - - - Karming earthquake Myanmar; India: $1.0 - - Semi-destructive near the epicentral region and some damage over August 14, 1932 7.0 - 120 - - - - Assam $5.0 eastern part of northern Assam 31 km southeast of August 16, 1938 7.0 VII 75 - No reports about damage in Myanmar Falam Myanmar (Shan - Impacts in Nanqiao, Dongluan, Mengman (China). No reports about December 26, 1941 state) - China 7.2 VIII 10 15 - - - - damage in Myanmar. border region 34 - Epicentre in Tagaung town, Thabeikkyin township (North of September 12, Mandalay). Tagaung 7.1 VII 15 - - - - - 1946 - Rupture length of approximately 80 km, and possibly as long as 155 km along the Indaw segment of the Sagaing fault. - Doublet earthquake three minutes later; ruptured south of the first September 12, Tagaung 7.6 15 - - - - - event for a length of 185 kilometers, through the villages of Tagaung 1946 and Thabeikkyin. - Destructive earthquake in upper Burma; it ruptured a 60 km Myanmar (Sagaing > $1.0 - segment south of the 1946 rupture July 16, 1956 6.8 VIII 34 38 50 - Region) 10,000 $5.0 - 80 percent of houses damaged; several pagodas including the Mingun Pagoda and several masonry buildings ruined. - Caused by reverse faulting within the Indian plate, subducting underneath the Burma plate, at a depth of 107 km - The strongest earthquake to have been felt in this area in the last 900 years. July 8, 1975 Mandalay, Bagan 7.0 VIII 107 2 15 - - $0.5 - Severe damage was done to many large temples and pagodas of great archaeological interest, on the eastern bank of the Irrawady (the archaeological area extends for 16 square miles). - Among the 500 principal monuments in Bagan, more than half were damaged or destroyed. - Epicenter location in a remote and sparsely populated area of Myanmar Myanmar (Sagaing); - Minor damage in Myanmar in small settlements that were in India: Gauhati, $1.0 - proximity: Homalin, Maungkan, Hta Man Thi and Kawya August 6, 1988 7.3 VIII 98 35 42 - - Sibsagar, Imphal; $5.0 - Widespread damage at Jorhat, Golaghat, Dirugarh & Manipur, Bangladesh India. Considerable damage and landslides in the Gauhati-Sibsagar- Imphal area, India. - About 30 people injured and some damage in Bangladesh. - 32 Buildings and 380 hectares of farmland damaged in the Thabeikkyin, January 5, 1991 7.0 VII+ 20 2 - - 32 < $1.0 Thabeikkyin area Mandalay - Some landslides were also reported - Two earthquakes of M 6.1 and M 6.2 within 78 minutes Panhsang (Shan - Slight damage in Yunnan Province. No reports about damage in April 23, 1992 6.2 VII 10 4 48 - - - State) Myanmar. - Felt in northern Thailand and by people in tall buildings in Bangkok. - Earthquake prediction in China mitigated loss of life: 11 people 60 km S of died in a town with a population of 600,000 July 11, 1995 Panhsang (Shan 7.2 VIII 13 11 147 100,000 42,000 $36.1 - Some buildings also damaged in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai State) Provinces, Thailand; no reports of damage in Myanmar 35 51 - - Many buildings damaged at Liuku, China. June 7, 2000 Kachin State 6.3 - 15 - - 51 - 100 < $1.0 100 - Felt in northern Myanmar. - Two houses, two monasteries, one school and one bridge were September 21, Taungdwingyi 6.6 VII 37 10 43 - 180 < $1.0 destroyed in Taungdwingyi. 2003 (Magway Region) - Three ancient pagodas and over 180 ritual houses destroyed. Kawthoung, - 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami. Pyapon, Pathein - In Kawthoung, 12 villages were affected, where 8 died, 44 fishing districts boats destroyed, 83 houses damaged, and 2 wooden bridges about (Ayeyawaddy 650 m long were broken. province), - In the southern part of the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, Pyinsalu in Labutta December 26, 2004 9.1 - 21.5 71 - - - $500.0 Kawthoung district township was reportedly the most severely affected area in the (Taninthayi delta. 15 villages were affected, with 32 deaths, 50 injuries, 550 province), Sittwe damaged houses, and 130 destroyed boats. district (Rakhine - Along the Rakhine coastal area, reportedly, 21 people died on a province) newly exposed beach. - Moderate earthquake in Shan State 30 minutes after the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (2004 Indian Ocean tsunami). - Several buildings collapsed and a pagoda near the Namzang Airfield was also damaged. Namzang (Shan - Damage to buildings was also reported from Langkhur to the south December 26, 2004 5.8 - 33 13 - - - - State) of Namzang. - Strong tremors were experienced at Loilem and Panglong; the shock was also felt in the surrounding region including at Kunhing, Mongnai, Langkher, Mawkmai and Mongpan; tremors were also perceptible as far as Chiang Mai in northern Thailand. - A series of earthquakes struck on the Myanmar-China border Myanmar-China affecting Yingjiang county, Yunnan province (China), between Aug. August 21, 2008 border in Kachin 6.0 VII 10 5 130 20 and Sept. 3. The strongest was on Aug. 21 (M 6). State - No reports about damage in Myanmar. August 10, 2009 Andaman Islands 7.5 VII 24 - A tsunami warning was issued that was later lifted. - One person was killed, and several buildings and bridges were February 4, 2011 Monywa 6.4 VI 89 1 - 51 - 100 - < $1.0 damaged in Monywa. - Slight damage in Assam, Manipur and Nagaland, India. 36 - Occurred northwest of the border between Myanmar, Thailand and Laos; strike-slip faulting along the Nan Ma Fault was identified as the cause (rupture on a 30 km segment at the west end of the fault). - 74 or up to 150 killed in Myanmar and 1 in Thailand. - Houses, schools, religious buildings were damaged or destroyed in Tarlay area Myanmar. (Tachileik district, - The Tarlay Sub-Township Relief Committee estimated the cost of March 24, 2011 6.9 VIII 8 75+ 123+ 10,393 $475.0 Shan State); damage to be approximately MMK 3 billion (approx. USD 475 Thailand; China million) - The Tarlay bridge linking Tachileik and Keng Tung collapsed. The 16-bed Tarlay hospital was damaged. The collapse of a church caused the loss of 20 lives, at least 17 soldiers and family members were killed in Tachilek when a barracks building collapsed. - In China's Yunnan province, 9,691 houses, 136 reservoirs and 35 roads damaged - Many buildings including monasteries, pagodas, a hospital, a North of Shwebo school, a bridge as well as a gold mine collapsed. November 11, 2012 on the Sagaing 6.8 VII 14 26+ 231 251 207 $1.17 - The most serious damage occurred in Male and neighboring Fault villages, Kyaukmyaung, Thabeikyin, Sintku township. - Damage was also reported in Schwebo and Mogok. North of Shwebo September 20, on the Sagaing 5.7 VII 4 - - - - - - 2013 Fault India: Assam; - No reports of major damage or loss of life in Myanmar $1.0 - April 13, 2016 Bangladesh; 6.9 VI 136 2 247 - 4 - 70 injured in Assam (India), 100 in Chittagong, Dhaka and Sylhet $5.0 Myanmar (Sagaing) (Bangladesh) - Out of 425 listed pagodas in the Bagan Ancient Cultural Area, 414 were damaged of which 89 severely damaged as of Sept. 22 Magway, - Damage to houses, other buildings, pagodas and some casualties August 24, 2016 Mandalay, Rakhine, 6.8 V 82 4 20 - 230 $10.0 were reported in Yenangyaung Township (2 deaths), Pwint Phyu Sagaing provinces Township, Saku Township, Salin Township, Pakokku Township (1 death), Min Hla Township, Nga Phe Township, Chauk Township, Mrauk U Township, Sittwe Township and Kyaukphyu Township. 37 - The epicenter was 35.4 km northwest of Yangon and 8.04 km southwest of Taikkyi township. The earthquake was also felt in Taikkyi township Insein, Hlaingtharyar, South Dagon and Bahan of Yangon region and March 13, 2017 (Yangon region); 5.1 VI 10 2 36 1 - 50 1 - 50 < $1.0 in Maubin township of Ayeyawaddy region Tharrawaddy - Some religious buildings in Taikkyi were damaged and some residential quarters of township police station and civilian houses collapsed. - Epicentre between Taungoo and Pyay west of the Sagaing fault; no January 11, 2018 Bago region 6.0 VII 10 - - - - - reported impacts Ri Khor Dar, Chin June 21, 2020 5.6 VII 11 - - - - - - Minor damage to some houses and public buildings. State November 26, 2021 Hakha (Chin State) 6.2 VIII 43 - 1 - - - - A temple damaged at Hakha - Damage in Keng Tung July 21, 2022 Keng Tung 5.9 VII 5 - - - - - - Also felt in China, Thailand, and Laos. - It occurred 35 km northwest of Hopin Township, Moehnyin District, Kachin State. - Damaged some houses, walkways and donated property inside the Indawgyi River Pagoda in Hopin. - Ground cracks and liquefaction occurred at Indawgyi area of Inn Taw Gyi Area, Mohnyin Township; cracks in some parts of the Hopin-Whelong May 31, 2023 Mohnyin Township, 5.8 VIII 10 - - - - - road, causing water to flow out; the ground on Hepu Beach cracked. Kachin State - In Nantmaukkan village, the crematorium chimney and the ceiling and walls of a middle school collapsed. The brick wall of Lep Phon Lay Monastery collapsed. The floor tiles of the Shwe Maungzhu Pagoda in the Indawgyi Lake area cracked, as did the ceiling and windows of the monastery. The ceiling and walls of the Nant Maokkan Village Middle School collapsed. - Deaths produced by the collapse of stucco of a wall of the Shwe Maubin, Boon Myint Pagoda; some buildings destroyed and several more June 7, 2023 4.8 VI 19 3 1 - 1 - 50 < $1.0 Ayeyarwady buildings damaged (incl. Maupin University of Technology) including a school and a pagoda. 38 Annex C: Hazard analysis The latest USGS ShakeMap (v20) (see Figure 1) considered a 460 km long fault model, which describes the earthquake rupture starting about north of Mandalay and ending just south of Pyu. This ShakeMap was modeled after satellite imagery became available along the whole rupture area and included data from USGS’ Did-you-Felt-It reports and scarce seismic station data. The GRADE team had some concerns with the initial USGS ShakeMap related to the modelling techniques used and the correlation between mapped intensities and the initial reports of damage, so decided to develop their own hazard model, drawing directly on seismic datasets, historical events, remote sensing imagery and data, damage patterns, and complex seismological modelling techniques. The GRADE ShakeMap (see Figure 3) shares a lot of similarities with the v20 USGS ShakeMap but the biggest differences are an increase in intensities in some locations away from the fault rupture, including in the mountainous regions to the east of the earthquake; and calibration of the seismic intensities along the rupture based on the assumed slip which acted to reduce the GRADE ShakeMap’s near-fault intensities in places of less slip, i.e. to the south. In addition, to better account for damage reports in some places, intensities are slightly higher, for example in parts of Yangon. The GRADE ShakeMap is presented in Figure 3 and the differences between the GRADE ShakeMap and the v20 USGS ShakeMap (seen in Figure 1) are given in Figure 9 where blue indicates areas where the GRADE ShakeMap gives higher intensities than the USGS ShakeMap; while red indicates the opposite. 39 Figure 9: The differences between the GRADE ShakeMap (see Figure 3), and the USGS ShakeMap version 20 (see Figure 1). Blue indicates areas where the GRADE ShakeMap gives higher intensities than the USGS ShakeMap while red indicates the opposite. 40 Annex D: Sectoral damage maps 41 42 43