Executive summary

Prior to the military coup d’état on February 1, 2021, land reform was an important concern for a broad range of civil society and political actors in Myanmar. In the immediate aftermath of the coup, however, interest in land issues declined precipitously due to more pressing political and humanitarian concerns. Since then, as it has become apparent that the political struggle will be long and drawn out, it has been recognized that enduring political-economic issues, including land, will need to be addressed in the current moment. However, there has been little public discussion of how to work on land issues, due to security concerns and other priorities. Recognizing this lack of public discussion, our team of researchers affiliated with the Center for Research, Policy, and Innovation (CRPI) of the Burmese American Community Institute (BACI) carried out research aimed at identifying and analyzing different perspectives on how to address land issues in Myanmar in the current conjuncture as well as in the context of a potential future political transition.

Research was conducted using qualitative methods, with data collected almost exclusively through online, semi-structured interviews. We interviewed a range of “policy stakeholders”, actors who have played a significant role in land governance reform and are likely continue doing so in the future. We also interviewed “key informants” – individuals who, through their positions, relationships, and experience, could provide valuable information to address the research questions.

In discussions about the pre-coup land governance system, we found that interviewees were highly critical of the Government of Myanmar (GoM) system, with their critiques potentially sharpened by the new political context. Additionally, they expressed appreciation of the approaches taken in ethnic land policies. One prevalent criticism of the GoM system was its excessive centralization, indicating a lack of devolution of powers to the states, regions, and ultimately, the people. Many interviewees objected to the Union being the ultimate owner of all land and highlighted the absence of recognition of customary tenure. Interviewees explained that the GoM system facilitated investment in land and natural resources, leading to land grabbing and the dispossession of local communities without their consent. Displaced people lost their land, crony companies acquired land without using it productively, and those attempting to protect their land rights were criminalized. Many past land grabs had not been resolved and attempts to address land-related issues through the legal system had often led to further losses. Additionally, concerns were raised about the inadequate protection of forests. Critiques extended to the complexity of the GoM land governance system, which made protecting land rights even more challenging. Interviewees complained about the land cadaster and raised concerns about corruption in land management. Several interviewees criticized the influential role of the military in the land sector, noting that it possessed large areas of land confiscated under previous regimes.

There were significant variations in perspectives on the political changes taking place, visions for a future system of land governance, and ideas about specific ways in which laws and institutions should be changed, alongside some areas of convergence. There was agreement among interviewees that the military junta must be overthrown

and that a new political system must be instituted. There was a general consensus that federal democracy is the desired outcome of a political transition, although there were disagreements on the specific features of this envisioned system. Interviewees conveyed uncertainty regarding the timing and nature of any potential transition.

Interviewees generally expressed the view that a future land governance system should be federal, in line with their visions for the political future of Myanmar. They agreed that there will need to be laws and institutions at the federal level but disagreed on how extensive they should be. Many interviewees expressed support for broad principles that a future system should embody, emphasizing a people- and community-centered approach. They felt it should protect Indigenous Peoples’ land rights (especially their customary tenure systems), institutionalize the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and follow international standards. It was noted that existing ethnic land policies served as visions for future land governance, but interviewees generally did not articulate specific visions for land governance in Bamar-majority regions where similar policies are absent.

For the most part, interviewees advocated for a significant transformation of the existing system to dispense with the problematic laws and institutions that have robbed people of their rights and access to land. However, there was some disagreement regarding how much of a break from the past is necessary. Some interviewees wanted to create a completely new legal system, seeking to either completely replace the current GoM system of laws or radically transform it. On the other hand, a smaller number of interviewees believed that the current GoM legal system could be effectively reformed. The latter highlighted potential risks associated with abolishing it altogether and emphasized the considerable effort invested in constructing the current system. There were contrasting views on the future of land- related institutions. Some interviewees asserted the need for their complete redesign, especially at the state level, and some suggested that the current institutional components could be reorganized into new structures rather than creating entirely new institutions.

Almost all interviewees shared a common view that specific actions can be taken in the current moment concerning policy and on-the-ground initiatives, even amidst numerous pressing political and humanitarian issues. However, diverse perspectives on policy development emerged among interviewees, highlighting the challenges associated with crafting forward-looking policies. Some interviewees expressed reservations about policy work on land, believing that the current moment might not be opportune for initiating it. On the contrary, many others emphasized the importance of commencing policy work now and were eager to participate.

Despite diverse perspectives on the timing of policy development, active efforts are already underway. Land is included in four articles within the Federal Democracy Charter and the National Unity Government (NUG) has established institutions and formulated policies for the governance and management of natural resources which partially address land issues. Interviewees held varying opinions regarding the potential for engaging with NUG on land policy work, with some expressing concerns about the nature of NUG’s engagement with civil society. However, there was a general

consensus that the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) is a legitimate space where land issues could potentially be addressed, although it is not currently playing such a role. Work on drafting a Transitional Constitution is also moving forward, and it is anticipated to include provisions related to land. However, as of now, there have reportedly been no discussions regarding such provisions. Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs, also called Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs)), state-level consultative councils, and civil society organizations (CSOs) continue to work on ethnic land policies. One interviewee said that land should be addressed in state-level charters and constitutions, and several interviewees mentioned that they expected new state-level bodies to begin work on land administration in the near future. There is no similar work on land policy development being done in the Bamar-majority regions.

Regarding work on land on the ground, some interviewees felt that it was possible in People’s Defense Force (PDF)-controlled areas and even in some State Administration Council (SAC)-controlled areas. As interim administrative bodies form at the local level, it is likely that they will need to take on some land management functions. Two interviewees described bottom-up land use planning as key to development of a future land governance system. Some interviewees highlighted the immediate need to deal with ongoing cases of land grabbing and mining, which have increased in many areas following the coup. Some said that documentation of customary tenure and land governance practice on the ground should be undertaken. Others highlighted the importance of addressing immediate needs, such as by providing humanitarian support, but they generally felt that this could happen alongside land-related work.

Various other proposed short-term measures fall within the scope of dialogue and capacity building. Many interviewees expressed the view that dialogue would be a useful next step; one specific area where some interviewees saw the need for dialogue is on responsible investment and alternative models of development that do not require a role for big business. Learning from other countries to help with policy development for Myanmar was also seen as a good idea. While the ability of CSOs to operate varies across the country, many continue to be active, often at considerable security risk. Many interviewees talked about CSOs playing an important role in short- term initiatives.

Based upon the insights from interviewees and our own analysis and perspectives, we offer six recommendations:

1. Transform the current land governance system: The existing GoM governance system must be replaced with one that is federal and democratic and builds on existing ethnic land policies, to align with the objectives of a diverse range of actors. This is an ideal moment to pursue such action, in line with the broader
2. Prioritize land policy development: It is crucial to pursue land policy development at this juncture to establish a foundational framework for alternative land governance systems in the
3. Support local-level action: Encourage and support actions at the local level to safeguard and manage land. Consider the feasibility of such actions within the prevailing security
4. Promote dialogue: Despite challenges, dialogue should be actively promoted among various actors interested in and working on land governance. Open communication channels can foster understanding and
5. Consider federal land governance in Bamar-majority regions: Extend considerations for the future of federal land governance beyond ethnic states to include Bamar-majority regions. Address the challenges posed by the entrenched centralized system of the
6. Build capacities: Provide support for the capacities of key actors at different levels involved in land management and governance, which is essential for effective and sustainable land