Conflict clusters: Acute deprivation concentrated in high-severity states Within the high-severity states/regions identified in Section 2.3, township-level estimates show that extreme deprivation is not evenly distributed but concentrated in specific localities where conflict exposure, displacement, and restricted mobility are most acute. In Kayah, which records the secondhighest state MPI nationally, headcount reaches 89.9 percent in Hpasawng, compared to 29.4 percent in Bawlake, a range of over 55 percentage points within a single state. In Chin, Mindat records 89.6 percent and Paletwa 61.9 percent, while other townships record considerably lower levels. In Kachin, Hpakant (80.4%) contrasts sharply with Mohnyin (11.5%), two townships in the same state separated by nearly 70 percentage points. These contrasts confirm that state-level MPI scores, even when high, aggregate over localities with different poverty conditions. Where services have collapsed and mobility is restricted, poverty clusters sharply. The conflict-affected townships with the highest MPI headcounts, particularly in Rakhine, Kayah, Kachin and Chin, broadly correspond to areas classified at Level 3 (highest access constraints) in OCHA’s October 2025 access severity monitoring, though the two frameworks measure different phenomena: MPI captures household deprivation outcomes while access severity reflects operational constraints faced by humanitarian actors.7 Structurally depressed localities: Uneven distribution within large-scale rural regions In the large-scale regions of the lower-left and lower-right quadrants (Figure 2), such as Ayeyarwady, Magway, Bago, and parts of Mandalay, township variation reflects structural household vulnerabilities interacting with local economic and geographic conditions rather than acute conflict exposure. In Ayeyarwady, township MPI headcount ranges from 10.7 percent in Danubyu to 72.8 percent in Mawlamyinegyun, with Wakema (70.2%) and Dedaye (69.3%) also among the highest in the region. Despite belonging to the same delta region, these townships differ markedly in their exposure to flooding, access to markets, and livelihood diversification. In Magway, headcount ranges from 44.6 percent in Myaing to 14.0 percent in Salin. In Bago (East), from 14.9 percent in Taungoo to more than 50 percent in Kawa. This internal dispersion explains why regions with moderate state-level MPI scores, placing them in the lower-severity quadrants, nonetheless contain townships with deprivation levels approaching those seen in the highest-severity states/regions. Peri-urban pockets: Latent vulnerability in Yangon and other urban centres Yangon’s position in the low-severity, large-scale quadrant reflects region-level In peri-urban Yangon, MPI headcounts in aggregation that obscures sharp spatial townships such as Hlaingtharya (East) reach differentiation within the urban area. In the urban core, MPI headcounts remain 40 percent, higher than many rural townships below five percent in townships such as elsewhere, exposing a hidden poverty Kyauktada and Pabedan. In contrast, periconcentrated among migrants and informal urban townships such as Hlaingtharya workers at the city’s edge. (East) (39.9%), Thaketa (36.4%), Dagon Myothit (South) (36.3%), and Thanlyin (35.2%) exhibit substantially higher deprivation, levels that exceed those recorded in many rural townships elsewhere. These peri-urban zones combine informal settlements, high concentrations of migrant and displaced populations, insecure and informal employment, and limited access to public services or social protection. The result is that urban poverty in Myanmar manifests less as widespread city-level deprivation and more as localized clusters of vulnerability at the urban periphery, areas highly sensitive to economic 7 16 OCHA (2025). Myanmar Humanitarian Access Severity Overview, October 2025. LAYERS OF DEP RIVATION : Mu ltid im e n s io n a l Pov er t y i n M y a n m a r