Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area and Case Selection
- (1)
- LUT 1, near Village A: Conversion of forest, shifting cultivation for subsistence, and some cash crop plantations to an oil palm concession managed by a military company.
- (2)
- LUT 2, near Village B: In 2005, conversion of the inconsistently enforced Reserved Forest into a more rigorously enforced Nature Reserve (LUT 2a); 12 years later, establishment of a community forest in the buffer zone of the Nature Reserve, making the use of some forest products possible again (LUT 2b).
- (3)
- LUT 3, in and around both villages: Expansion of private-sector commercial agriculture—predominantly cultivation of rubber and areca (betel) nut by various actors—at the expense of forest and shifting cultivation.
2.2. Conceptual Framework for Analysing Actors’ Actions and Reactions
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Actors and Their (Re)Actions Shaping Land Use Trajectories
3.1.1. LUT 1: Conversion to Military Oil Palm Concession in Village A
Actors and Their Activities
Actors’ Agency
3.1.2. LUT 2: Conversion to Nature Reserve and Later Community Forestry near Village B
Actors and Their Activities
Actors’ Agency
3.1.3. LUT 3: Expansion of Private-Sector Commercial Agriculture in Both Villages
Actors and Their Activities
Actors’ Agency
3.2. Comparative Analysis: Whose Agency Counted in Land Use Decision-Making and Why
3.2.1. Role of Meaning
3.2.2. Role of Means
3.3. Inclusion of Smallholders’ Agency in Land Use Decision-Making
4. Discussion
4.1. A Framework for Analysing Actors’ Actions and Reactions Based on Their Agency
4.2. Leverage Points for Transforming Myanmar’s Land Governance Towards Sustainable Development
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CF | community forestry |
CSO | civil society organisation |
GPS | global positioning system |
KNU | Karen National Union |
LUT | land use trajectory |
NGO | nongovernmental organisation |
NRP | Nature Reserve Project |
REDD+ | Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation |
VFV | vacant, fallow, and virgin (land) |
Appendix A. Institutional Complexity in Myanmar
Field | Law or Policy | Implications |
---|---|---|
Land zones | The multitude of laws and policies since 1850 generated an array of different land categorisations | There are 22 different land zones (land categories defined by the government) in Myanmar [6]. Depending on the land zone, a specific law or policy is binding and a government department is responsible for administering the land. Legal land use purposes are stated in the respective laws and policies. In some land zones, dwellers can be forcibly evicted [78]. |
Forest | Forest Law (1992) and Forest Policy (1995) | The law and policy define rules for governing the country’s so far overexploited forests with a greater focus on conservation, sustainable use, and community participation [44]. However, the law still permits logging by specific actors to a certain degree [79]. |
Community Forestry Instructions (1995, reformulated in 2016) | Local communities can apply for community forests to fulfil basic livelihood needs and reforest degraded forests [5,44]. | |
Land acquisitions | “Wasteland Instructions” (1991) 1 | These instructions encouraged large-scale export-oriented plantations on “wasteland” [4] and provided agribusinesses with easier access it [5]. 2 |
Self-Sufficiency Plan (1990s) | The cultivation of oil palms and other food and industrial crops were strongly encouraged to reduce Myanmar’s dependency on imports [2,3]. | |
2000–2030 Master Plan for the Agriculture Sector (2002) | The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation prioritised large-scale agriculture for industrial production, especially rubber, oil palm, and other strategic crops [2]. | |
Rubber boosting policies (2005/06) | In 2005, government quotas for rubber (45% of private harvest was reserved for government) were entirely abolished [15,16,17]. Moreover, with China’s Opium Substitution Program in 2006, Chinese agribusinesses received financial incentives and enjoyed eased bureaucratic procedures in Northern Myanmar [5]. | |
Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law (2012) | Similar to the Wasteland Instructions (see above), this law made it possible to allocate any “vacant”, “fallow”, or “virgin” land to domestic or foreign investors [6]. 2 | |
Land use certificates | Farmland Law (2012) | The law created a (quasi) 3 private land use property right, providing official land use certificates to farmers [4]. However, the Farmland Law is not valid for “forest land” administered by the Department of Forestry, such as Reserved Forests. |
Forest Law (1992) | On some (but not all) “forest land” administered by the Department of Forestry, any person or company can apply for a permit to implement an economic project such as an agribusiness, but must then strictly adhere to the exact contents of the approval [80]. | |
Land Use Certificates of the Karen National Union (KNU) | Over the past few years, KNU’s Agriculture Department has measured Karen people’s agricultural land and issued land use certificates to provide more land tenure security to Karen people [81]. However, according to our interview partners, so far these certificates are not recognised by the Myanmar government. | |
Ethnic minority policy | KNU Land Policy (1974, amended in 2005 and 2014) | KNU’s land policy of 2014 aims at promoting social progress, security, and justice in the management of land ownership. It claims to be in line with human rights standards, prioritizing the occupation and use rights of marginalised and vulnerable people and village communities. Moreover, it emphasizes the social and ecological functions of land, forests, fisheries, water, and related natural resources [81,82]. |
Appendix B. Overview of Agency Components in the Actor (Re) Action Framework
Meaning | Means (Own or Have Access to Material and Immaterial Means) 1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural Means | Human Means | Physical Means | Financial Means | Social Means | Institutional Means | |
Goals or interests actors pursue with their (re)action | Land, crops, forest, animals, etc. | Labour, knowledge, skills, etc. | Built infrastructure, machines, communication, transportation, etc. | Turnover, funding, remittances, credits, etc. | Social network, relationships, type of interaction, etc. | Land tenure (formal and informal), political status, cultural identity, etc. |
Appendix C. Overview of Main Actors and Their Agency
Actors | Meanings (Goals, Interests) | Material and Immaterial Means (That Actors Own or Have Access to) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural Means | Human Means | Physical Means | Financial Means | Social Means | Institutional Means | ||
Locally involved actors before the studied LUTs evolved | |||||||
Smallholders before LUTs evolved | To have enough food and survive the civil war; some Karen fled to Thai refugee camps | Land for shifting cultivation of rice, sesame (for oil), and other subsistence crops, some cattle, few cash crops, very little mining, full access to forest | Help each other with cultivation, never hire labour, traditional knowledge (cultivation and other), almost no access to other knowledge | Road in bad condition, only bullock carts, no telephones, no electricity; road and vehicles improved in early 2000s | Very little income (approx. 20% of today’s), no remittances, no credits; some were able to pawn gold | Social contacts outside nearby villages very limited, relationship to government officials almost inexistent | No formal land titles (only crop tax receipts at most) 1; customary practices, almost no political representation; Karen (Village A) and Dawei-Burmese (Village B) ethnicity |
Locally involved actors during and after the evolution of the LUTs | |||||||
Landless immigrants and migrant workers (LUT 1 and LUT 3) | To generate income for their basic livelihood, return home, and/or buy land | Usually no land apart from vegetable garden (0.2 ha), limited access to forest | Never hire labour, learn by doing, through instructions from peers or supervisors | Company employees: access to some resources via the company; Casual labourers in village: very few physical means | Income of USD 440 to 2200 per year and person 2; no access to credits, but advance payment of salary possible; sending but no receiving of remittances | Access to employment only through social contacts (relatives and friends) at place of origin and destination, usually limited to personal network | Company employees: some have contract, some oral agreement; others: oral agreement; “outsider” status among villagers |
Military agro-industrial company, production branch of military conglomerate (LUT 1) | Operational: to produce palm oil for soap manufacturing serving domestic market and military camps in Myanmar; strategic: follow objectives of conglomerate 3 | 2748 ha of oil palm plantations confirmed in current contract, totally 3720 ha managed (incl. mill, roads, waterways, etc.); original concession covered 12,140 ha | 13 permanent service staff, 160 plantation labourers (migrant workers) with contract, 25 casual labourers (locals); managers access cultivation knowledge via the government 4, Facebook, and other companies | Mill for raw palm oil production (10 t per hour), water pumps, machine-aided tools, electricity from 10 generators, internet via personal smartphone, relatively good transportation vehicles | Annual turnover of approx. USD 420,300, but no profit, therefore rather dissatisfied; access to funds from mother company, no need for access to credits | Top management closely connected to national and regional military elite and other influential national and regional actors | At first concession permit from central Department of Forestry, since 2011 30-year land lease contract; proximity to military, with military forces’ reputation among Karen people of being intimidating and violent |
Nature Reserve Project (NRP) (semi-governmental organisation) (LUT 2) | To conserve biodiversity and protect endangered species in collaboration with local communities | The Nature Reserve encompasses approx. 170,000 ha of forest (ranging from primary forest to heavily degraded forest and villages with their cropland) | Approx. 80 staff, of which 50% local project staff, 50% government staff; access to most types of knowledge when needed, receive technical support when needed | Good transportation vehicles, full communication equipment (incl. computer and internet), electricity at headquarters, access to generators for some local offices | International funding: USD 450,000 annually from three international oil and gas companies 5 | Close collaboration with departments of forestry at all levels, some collaboration with international NGOs, researchers, KNU, and local population, support from oil and gas companies | Land officially designated “Protected Public Forest” (under 1992 Forest Law), formal mandate from central Department of Forestry to implement the Nature Reserve |
After 2015: International NGO (LUT 2) | To empower local people for sustainable forest landscapes in the Asia-Pacific region (under REDD+ programme) | Does not use forest; has facilitated 94 Community Forestry (CF) permissions covering a total of 20,234 ha in Myanmar (Jan 2018) | Myanmar office: 13 permanent, seven volunteer staff; Tanintharyi office: three staff; access to most types of knowledge when needed, skills of employees improved | Good transportation vehicles, full communication equipment (incl. computer and internet), electricity | International funding: USD 85,000 annually for the national CF programme; approx. USD 970,000 annually for all programmes | Close collaboration with departments of forestry at all levels, with other national and international NGOs, civil society organisations (CSOs), researchers, and local population | Nationally registered international NGO, viewed by local population as professional supporter |
After 2016: Village B CF group (LUT 2) | To maintain and use natural resources over the long term | 57 ha of community forest in the Nature Reserve buffer zone | 25 member households; access to information and capacity development via the NGO | No physical infrastructure apart from personal resources, access to CF is difficult (no good paths) | USD 1390 seed money from NGO | Close collaboration with NGO; in exchange with Department of Forestry, NRP, and other CF groups in the region, elsewhere in Myanmar, and abroad (via NGO) | 30-year CF certificate from district Department of Forestry; internal constitution (board, members, procedures etc.) |
Smallholders today (LUT 3) | To generate income for their basic livelihood and children’s education | Land for mostly cash crops only, some mixed cropping, approx. 50% less land accessible today than before, on average 7.4 ha (2–15 ha) 6, very limited access to forest | Some hire few labourers 2–3 times a year, some do not; cultivation knowledge from parents, peers, some training; access to market price (via traders); some training from CSOs and NGOs | Roads are reasonable, access to motorbikes and cars; telephones, but usually no use of internet; limited electricity from generators or solar panels | Annual household turnover (not profit) approx. USD 1400 from cash crops and casual labour 7, some access to informal credits with high interest rates, some people receive remittances | Contacts mostly through personal network, some loose contacts to government officials, CSOs and NGOs, traders, middle(wo)men, entrepreneurs, etc. | Village A: no change in land title situation; Village B: change in 2013 from weak land use recognition (crop tax receipts) to “Form Seven” land use certificate from township government; in both villages: increased political representation (incl. CSOs) |
Regional entrepreneurs (do not live in the villages but use land there) (LUT 3) | To generate income and keep their land in order to maintain their established livelihood and offer their children a good future | Rubber plantations in different locations, small to medium scale (8–120 ha), some fallow land | Usually do not work on the plantations, hire permanent and/or casual labour; access to relevant knowledge (in Myanmar language), satisfactory (but not excellent) own and employee skills | Most have a car and motorbikes, and machines to aid cultivation; some have a water pump, internet via smartphone, and electricity at their headquarters | Annual turnover from rubber approx. USD 18,800 (USD 2600–44,300), unclear whether profitable or deficient; some have additional sources of income, all have access to credits | Well-connected among regional elite and traders, access to government officials, usually members of business-oriented rubber association, rather good relationship with local population | “Form Seven” from township government for all sites around Village B, but none around village A (Reserved Forest land); viewed by local population as innovators |
Agribusiness (private company) (LUT 3) | Short-term: to generate income and improve produce quality; long-term: regional social and economic development | Owns over 400 ha, cultivates 384 ha (oil palm, rubber, areca palm, and others); started with 105 ha, continuously expanded; would prefer to cultivate more land to improve returns to scale | 22 permanent staff, 48 seasonal or temporary staff; mostly migrant workers, some locals; access to relevant knowledge (in Myanmar language), satisfactory (but not excellent) own and employee skills | Small mill for raw palm oil production (3 t per 5 h), rubber processing (for air-dried sheets), machine-aided tools, water pumps, electricity from two generators, internet via personal smartphone, relatively good transportation vehicles | Annual turnover approx. USD 119,900; apparently not profitable, therefore dissatisfied; company owners have additional sources of income; no credits needed | Owners closely connected to regional elite and traders, high position in regional rubber association, politically active, good access to government, good relationship with local population | 30-year land lease permit from regional government from the outset (applied in 1998, received in 2000); later additional land under “Form Seven”; viewed by local population as innovator and agribusiness expert |
Appendix D. The Nature Reserve and Karen Villages
References
- Prescott, G.W.; Sutherland, W.J.; Aguirre, D.; Baird, M.; Bowman, V.; Brunner, J.; Connette, G.M.; Cosier, M.; Dapice, D.; Alban, J.D.T.; et al. Political transition and emergent forest-conservation issues in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 1257–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Woods, K. Commercial Agriculture Expansion in Myanmar: Links to Deforestation, Conversion Timber, and Land Conflicts; Forest Trends Report Series; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 1–78. [Google Scholar]
- Fujita, K.; Okamoto, I. Agricultural Policies and Development of Myanmar’s Agricultural Sector: An Overview. Inst. Dev. Econ. Discuss. Pap. 2006, 63, 48. [Google Scholar]
- Oberndorf, R.B. Legal Review of Recently Enacted Farmland Law and Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Management Law; Food Security Working Group: Yangon, Myanmar, 2012; pp. 1–41. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney-Lazar, M. Assessment of governance mechanisms, livelihood outcomes and incentive instruments for green rubber in Myanmar. Cent. Int. For. Res. 2016, 207, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thein, U.S.; Diepart, J.-C.; Moe, U.H.; Allaverdian, C. Large-Scale Land Acquisitions for Agricultural Development in Myanmar: A Review of Past and Current Processes; MRLG Thematic Study Series; Mekong Region Land Governance: Vientiane, Laos, 2018; pp. 1–80. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, K. Ceasefire capitalism: Military–private partnerships, resource concessions and military–state building in the Burma–China borderlands. J. Peasant Stud. 2011, 38, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gum Ja Htung, L. Land Grabbing as A Process of State-Building in Kachin Areas, North Shan State, Myanmar; University Academic Service Centre (UNISERV): Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 2014; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, C.L.; Prescott, G.W.; Alban, J.D.T.D.; Ziegler, A.D.; Webb, E.L. Untangling the proximate causes and underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 1362–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Conservation Alliance of Tanawthari. Our Forest, Our Life: Protected Areas in Tanintharyi Region Must Respect the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Conservation Alliance of Tanawthari (CAT): Tanintharyi Region, Myanmar, 2018; pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- Boutry, M.; Allaverdian, C.; Mellac, M.; Huard, S.; Thein, U.S.; Win, T.M.; Sone, K.P. Land Tenure in Rural Lowland Myanmar: From Historical Perspectives to Contemporary Realities in the Dry Zone and the Delta; GRET: Yangon, Myanmar, 2017; pp. 1–302. [Google Scholar]
- Franco, J.; Kramer, T.; Fradejas, A.A.; Twomey, H.; Vervest, P. The Challenge of Democratic and Inclusive Land Policymaking in Myanmar: A Response to the Draft National Land Use Policy; Transnational Institute (TNI): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–72. [Google Scholar]
- Karen Human Rights Group. Losing Ground: Land Conflicts and Collective Action in Eastern Myanmar; Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG): Mae Sot, Thailand, 2013; pp. 1–92. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, K. Intersections of Land Grabs and Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in Myanmar as a (Post-) War State of Conflict; MOSAIC Working Paper Series; International Institute of Social Studies and RCSD: Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 2015; pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, K. The Political Ecology of Rubber Production in Myanmar: An Overview; Global Witness: Yangon, Myanmar, 2012; pp. 1–66. [Google Scholar]
- Myint, H. Overview of Rubber Planting Industry in Myanmar; Kochi: Kerala, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney-Lazar, M.; Wong, G.; Baral, H.; Russell, A.J.M. Greening rubber? Political ecologies of plantation sustainability in Laos and Myanmar. Geoforum 2018, 92, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mark, S. Are the Odds of Justice “Stacked” Against Them? Challenges and Opportunities for Securing Land Claims by Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar. Crit. Asian Stud. 2016, 48, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Myanmar Development Institute. Myanmar Economic Bulletin 2018; Myanmar Development Institute (MDI): Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, 2018; pp. 1–156. [Google Scholar]
- Scoones, I.; Leach, M.; Newell, P. The Politics of Green Transformations; Routledge: Oxon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-317-60112-8. [Google Scholar]
- Wiesmann, U.; Ott, C.; Ifejika Speranza, C.; Müller-Boeker, U.; Messerli, P.; Zinstag, J.A. Human Actor Model as a Conceptual Orientation in Interdisciplinary Research for Sustainable Development. In Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives; Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., Eds.; Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, University of Bern; Geographica Bernensia: Bern, Switzerland, 2011; Volume 6, pp. 231–256. ISBN 978-3-905835-31-1. [Google Scholar]
- Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, K.-H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Global Land Programme. Science Plan and Implementation Strategy 2016–2021; Global Land Programme (GLP): Taipei, Taiwan, 2016; pp. 1–49. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, J.; Amos, B.; Plumptre, T.W. Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century; Institute on Governance, Governance Principles for Protected Areas: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Jessop, B.; Brenner, N.; Jones, M. Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environ. Plan. Soc. Space 2008, 26, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biermann, F.; Betsill, M.M.; Gupta, J.; Kanie, N.; Lebel, L.; Liverman, D.; Schroeder, H.; Siebenhüner, B. Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project; IHDP: Delhi, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ribot, J.C.; Peluso, N.L.A. Theory of Access. Rural Sociol. 2003, 68, 153–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikor, T.; Lund, C. Access and Property: A Question of Power and Authority. Dev. Chang. 2009, 40, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verburg, P.H.; van Berkel, D.B.; van Doorn, A.M.; van Eupen, M.; van den Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: A model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eakin, H.; DeFries, R.; Kerr, S.; Lambin, E.F.; Liu, J.; Marcotullio, P.; Messerli, P.; Reenberg, A.; Rueda, X.; Swaffield, S.; et al. Significance of Telecoupling for Exploration of Land-Use Change. In Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era; Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Eds.; Ernst Strungmann Forum: Frankfurt, Germany; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Friis, C.; Nielsen, J.Ø.; Otero, I.; Haberl, H.; Niewöhner, J.; Hostert, P. From teleconnection to telecoupling: Taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science. J. Land Use Sci. 2015, 11, 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friis, C.; Nielsen, J.Ø. On the System. Boundary Choices, Implications, and Solutions in Telecoupling Land Use Change Research. Sustainability 2017, 9, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niewöhner, J.; Bruns, A.; Haberl, H.; Hostert, P.; Krueger, T.; Lauk, C.; Lutz, J.; Müller, D.; Nielsen, J.Ø. Land Use Competition: Ecological, Economic and Social Perspectives. In Land Use Competition: Ecological, Economic and Social Perspectives; Niewöhner, J., Bruns, A., Hostert, P., Krueger, T., Nielsen, J.Ø., Haberl, H., Lauk, C., Lutz, J., Müller, D., Eds.; Human-Environment Interactions; Springer Nature: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-3-319-33626-8. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Smith, A.; Stirling, A.; Berkhout, F. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1491–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seto, K.C.; Reenberg, A. Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era. In Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era; Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Eds.; Strüngmann Forum Reports; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-0-262-02690-1. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu, P. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1990; ISBN 978-0-8047-1725-0. [Google Scholar]
- Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; van der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLaughlin, P.; Dietz, T. Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated perspective on vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency. Perspectives of Transitions to Sustainability; European Environment Agency (EEA): Luxembourg, 2017; pp. 1–164. [Google Scholar]
- Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society; Polity Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Meadows, D.H. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System; The Sustainability Institute: Hong Kong, China, 1999; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager, N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bennett, N.; Lemelin, R.H.; Koster, R.; Budke, I. A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 752–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Resources Institute Myanmar. Forest Legality Initiative. Available online: https://forestlegality.org/risk-tool/country/myanmar (accessed on 30 August 2018).
- Flick, U. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung, 3rd ed.; Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag: Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Verkoren, W.; Ngin, C. Organizing against Land Grabbing in Cambodia: Exploring Missing Links. Dev. Chang. 2017, 48, 1336–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngin, C.; Verkoren, W. Understanding Power in Hybrid Political Orders: Applying Stakeholder Analysis to Land Conflicts in Cambodia. J. Peacebuild. Dev. 2015, 10, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beekman, W.; Veldwisch, G.J. The evolution of the land struggle for smallholder irrigated rice production in Nante, Mozambique. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts ABC 2012, 50–52, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oberlack, C.; Tejada, L.; Messerli, P.; Rist, S.; Giger, M. Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 41, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Johansson, K. Trust-building, Knowledge Generation and Organizational Innovations: The Role of a Bridging Organization for Adaptive Comanagement of a Wetland Landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum. Ecol. 2006, 34, 573–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1692–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crona, B.; Parker, J. Learning in Support of Governance: Theories, Methods, and a Framework to Assess How Bridging Organizations Contribute to Adaptive Resource Governance. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guest, D.; Bowman, V.; Wachenfeld, M. Land; Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business (MCRB): Yangon, Myanmar; Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB): London, UK; Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR): Copenhagen, Danmark, 2015; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- Springate-Baginski, O. Rethinking Swidden Cultivation in Myanmar—Policies for Sustainable Upland Livelihoods and Food Security. In Shifting Cultivation Policies: Balancing Environmental and Social Sustainability; Cairns, M., Ed.; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 226–241. ISBN 978-1-78639-179-7. [Google Scholar]
- Land Core Group. Briefing Paper: Formalising Land, Marginalising Women? Norms and Customary Practices Regarding Land Rights in Dawei; LFTSF: Great Falls, MT, USA, 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, M.B. The formalization fix? Land titling, land concessions and the politics of spatial transparency in Cambodia. J. Peasant Stud. 2015, 42, 903–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansoms, A.; Wagemakers, I.; Madison Walker, M.; Murison, J. Land Contestation at the Micro Scale: Struggles for Space in the African Marshes. World Dev. 2014, 54, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinimann, A.; Messerli, P. Global Change; International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP): Stockholm, Sweden, 2013; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Unruh, J. Postwar land dispute resolution: Land tenure and the peace process in Mozambique. Int. J. World Peace 2001, 18, 3–30. [Google Scholar]
- Unruh, J.D. Land Tenure and Legal Pluralism in the Peace Process. Peace Chang. 2003, 28, 352–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodin, Ö.; Prell, C. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 501–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eakin, H.; Rueda, X.; Mahanti, A. Transforming governance in telecoupled food systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charli-Joseph, L.; Siqueiros-García, J.; Eakin, H.; Manuel-Navarrete, D.; Shelton, R. Promoting agency for social-ecological transformation: A transformation-lab in the Xochimilco social-ecological system. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, I.G. Resistance and Contingent Contestations to Large-Scale Land Concessions in Southern Laos and Northeastern Cambodia. Land 2017, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodin, Ö.; Crona, B.I.; Ernstson, H. Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodin, Ö.; Crona, B.I. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pielke, R.A. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-521-69481-0. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OXFAM. Making the Impossible, Possible: An Overview of Governance Programming in Fragile Contexts; Governance and Fragility; OXFAM: Hong Kong, China, 2014; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Laws, E. Political Settlements, Elite Pacts, and Governments of National Unity: A Conceptual Study; Developmental Leadership Program: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2012; pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Power, M.; Newell, P.; Baker, L.; Bulkeley, H.; Kirshner, J.; Smith, A. The political economy of energy transitions in Mozambique and South Africa: The role of the Rising Powers. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 17, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choudhury, M.U.I.; Haque, E. “We are more scared of the power elites than the floods”: Adaptive capacity and resilience of wetland community to flash flood disasters in Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbaru, E.K.; Barnes, M.L. Key players in conservation diffusion: Using social network analysis to identify critical injection points. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 210, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamonova, N. Resistance or adaptation? Ukrainian peasants’ responses to large-scale land acquisitions. J. Peasant Stud. 2015, 42, 607–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarado, G.; Hong, K.T.; Douglas, Z.; Van Anh, N.T.; Phuong Thao, N.T.; Mukasa, S.; Ngoc Diep, T.T.; Thai, V.X. Women, Land and Law in Vietnam; Vietnam Land Access for Women (LAW) Program; International Center for Research on Women (ICRW): Washington, DC, USA; Institute for Social Development Studies (ISDS): Bedford, UK, 2015; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Realizing Women’s Rights to Land and Other Productive Resources; United Nations Human Rights: Geneva, Switzerland; United Nations Women: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–68. [Google Scholar]
- Leckie, S.; Simperingham, E. Housing, Land and Property Rights in Burma: The Current Legal Framework, 1st ed.; Displacement Solutions: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; ISBN 978-2-8399-0578-7. [Google Scholar]
- Springate-Baginski, O.; Thein, A.K.; Neil, A.; Thu, W.M.; Doherty, F. Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar’s emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 48, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NEPCon. Myanmar Forest Sector Legality Analysis; NEPCon: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 2013; pp. 1–57. [Google Scholar]
- Isue, S. KNU Agricultural Department Decide to Prioritize Measuring Land, Solving Land Disputes. Karen News, 4 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Office of the Supreme Headquarters Karen National Union Kawthoolei. Karen National Union—KNU Land Policy; Office of the Supreme Headquarters Karen National Union Kawthoolei: Kawthoolei, Myanmar, 2015; pp. 1–70. [Google Scholar]
- The World Bank. Towards a Sustainable Land Administration and Management System in Myanmar; Land Sector Needs Assessment; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, J.M. The scramble for the Waste Lands: Tracking colonial legacies, counterinsurgency and international investment through the lens of land laws in Burma/Myanmar. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2014, 35, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anonymous. Development Work Coordinated for Taninthayi Division. New Light Myanmar, 6 November 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Vagneron, I.; Chambon, B.; Myo Aung, N.; Min Aung, S. Rubber Production in Tanintharyi Region; WWF: Yangon, Myanmar, 2017; pp. 1–80. [Google Scholar]
- Khin, A.; Aung, N.W. Land for The Refugees. VOA News, 9 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990, 13, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land Zone 1 | Time | Actors Using the Land | Land Use | Spatiotemporal Dynamics | Territorial Claims and Consequences |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reserved Forest | Before the conversions, until late 1990s/2000 2 | Smallholders in a customary land use and land tenure system 3 | Use of forest products, shifting cultivation, some cash crop plantations | Top-down abrupt change in land use decision-making, gradual change of land use due to large spatial scale | Previous and new actors both claimed the same land (company claimed larger area). Smallholders had to withdraw. Conflicts and resentments arose between the two actors. |
From approx. 2000 to today | Military company (first company approx. 2000–2002, second company 2003–today) | Large-scale oil palm concession, gradual clearing of forest and conversion of smallholders’ shifting cultivation and plantations from approx. 2000 until 2010 |
Land Zone 1 | Time | Actors Using the Land | Land Use | Spatiotemporal Dynamics | Territorial Claims and Consequences |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hills further away from main road: Reserved Forest, upgraded to Nature Reserve (legal land category: Protected Public Forest) in 2005 2 | Before the conversions, until 2005 1 | Smallholders in a customary land use and land tenure system 3 | Use of forest products, hunting, shifting cultivation, few cash crop plantations | Top-down abrupt change in land use decision-making, gradual change of land use due to large spatial scale | Previous and new actors both claimed the same land (NRP claimed larger area). Smallholders along the Nature Reserve boundary had to give up forest use. This led to resentments among smallholders, but no violent conflict. |
2005–2015 (LUT 2a) | The newly created Nature Reserve Project (NRP) | Nature Reserve as large-scale protected forest, use of forest products and forest encroachment no longer allowed 4 | |||
Since 2015 (LUT 2b) | Community Forestry (CF) group (comprised of smallholders and other villagers), supported by an international NGO and NRP | Establishment of a medium-scale CF area in the buffer zone of the Nature Reserve for communal use of forest | Abrupt but previously negotiated change of land use decision-making and land use | The CF group claimed a specific area within the territory controlled by NRP. Collaboration developed among all actors. |
Land Zone 1 | Time | Actors Using the Land | Land Use | Spatiotemporal Dynamics | Territorial Claims and Consequences |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Village A: Reserved Forest; Village B: Agricultural land, garden land, vacant and fallow land 2 | Before the conversions | Smallholders in a customary land use and land tenure system | Forest, use of forest products, shifting cultivation, some cash crop plantations | Gradual and patchy change of land use decision-making and land use | Previous and new actors both claimed land in the same area, but not the same plots. No major conflicts or resentments. |
From 1998 to today (in waves occurring around 1998, 2006, and 2011) | Smallholders (both villages), agribusiness (Village B), regional entrepreneurs (both villages) | Gradual and patchy expansion of private-sector commercial agriculture |
LUT 1: Conversion to Oil Palm Concession | LUT 2: Conversion of Forest Use | LUT 3: Expansion of Private-Sector Commercial Agriculture | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
LUT 2a: Conversion to Nature Reserve | LUT 2b: Partial Conversion to Community Forestry (CF) | |||
Actor relations in land use decision-making: Whose agency counted? | Predominance of military company, smallholders excluded | Predominance of Nature Reserve Project (NRP), smallholders excluded | Peaceful coexistence among all actors, all actors included | Peaceful coexistence among all actors, all actors included |
Characteristics of land use decision-making process | Top-down intervention; actors claimed same land | Top-down intervention; actors claimed same land | Consultations and negotiations held; actors claimed same land | No interference, some consultations, actors claimed different plots of land |
Meanings behind actors’ (re)actions | Diverging: industrial production versus securing of livelihood | Diverging: conservation versus securing of livelihood | Compatible: community-based sustainable management of forest | Compatible: income generation, economic development |
Means available for actors’ (re)actions | Strong asymmetry, company used its means to establish oil palm plantations | Strong asymmetry, NRP used means to reduce smallholders’ forest use | Strong asymmetry, NGO used means to facilitate increased access to means for CF group-to-be | Graded asymmetry, each actor used means without interfering with others’ land |
Main means that brought about the change in land use decision-making | (1) National-level formal land use permit (institutional means), achieved through social network (social means) (2) Financial means to ensure the other means (3) Intimidating reputation of military (company’s institutional means) | (1) National-level formal mandate to implement the Nature Reserve (institutional means), achieved through social network (social means) (2) Financial means to ensure the other means for implementation, achieved through social means (NRP very close to oil and gas companies) | (1) District-level formal land use certificate (institutional means), achieved through social means (connection to NGO) (2) Human (knowledge) and financial means, achieved through social means (support from NGO) | (1) All means are similarly important; but access to financial means can help to ensure other necessary means |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lundsgaard-Hansen, L.M.; Schneider, F.; Zaehringer, J.G.; Oberlack, C.; Myint, W.; Messerli, P. Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103823
Lundsgaard-Hansen LM, Schneider F, Zaehringer JG, Oberlack C, Myint W, Messerli P. Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103823
Chicago/Turabian StyleLundsgaard-Hansen, Lara M., Flurina Schneider, Julie G. Zaehringer, Christoph Oberlack, Win Myint, and Peter Messerli. 2018. "Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103823
APA StyleLundsgaard-Hansen, L. M., Schneider, F., Zaehringer, J. G., Oberlack, C., Myint, W., & Messerli, P. (2018). Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability, 10(10), 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103823