Tag: TNI

“First they grabbed our land with guns; now they are using the law”

A Commentary by TNI on the Right to Land of People Displaced by War and Militarization

26 August 2019

Growing up in an IDP camp, Kachin State / Photo credit Tom Kramer
Growing up in an IDP camp, Kachin State / Photo credit Tom Kramer

Displaced people in Myanmar have been suffering layer upon layer of injustice over the past decades. Today the situation is as bad as ever.

“In Myanmar, people are suffering from the fighting, while the government is also trying to manipulate and divide the displaced people. Some people go back, some remain in the IDP camps. It’s like a hell in the country.” (Internally Displaced Person (IDP) meeting, 13 August 2019, Myitkyina)This is how one IDP, displaced since 2011, recently described the current situation in the north of the country. In both the north and the east of Myanmar, displaced people have been suffering layer upon layer of injustice over the past decades. Today the situation is as bad as ever. Ongoing conflict, militarization and business-oriented mega-projects continue to drive fresh displacements, while keeping those displaced previously from returning to their homes, farms, forests and villages.  Since 2010, a raft of national laws and policies has been enacted regarding land, forests, conservation and investment. They do not, however, reflect the needs or the rights of people who have been displaced. There is currently no law that properly addresses the terrible situation confronting displaced people by recognising the right of IDPs and refugees to restitution based on their right to land. Instead, current government policy seems to be encouraging re-allocation of the lands of IDPs and refugees to business interests. Key areas include agriculture, mining, industry, infrastructure and even ecotourism, whether in the pristine islands in the far south or the majestic mountains in the far north. In particular, the 2012 Vacant, Fallow and Virgin (VFV) Land Management Law – and its 2018 Amendment – pose a major threat to IDP-refugee lands and to the moral obligation to guarantee and ensure the right to return and restitution of displaced people,1 and to peace.2 The VFV law and its amendment are currently being used by unscrupulous individuals and business actors to claim and register IDP and refugee lands. The failure of the government and other key actors to put displaced people first has led to lengthy displacements, an additional trauma on top of the original trauma caused by conflict and loss of homes and livelihood.  Meanwhile the nationwide peace process, which has never really picked up momentum under the National League for Democracy (NLD) government, is now badly faltering. Fighting and militarized conditions continue in many parts of the north and the east as well as Rakhine State in the west. Intense skirmishes continue to regularly erupt. People living across the border in refugee camps, particularly in Thailand, are increasingly under pressure from authorities on both sides to return to Myanmar regardless of the many risks, while the international community is reducing humanitarian support to the population in these camps. At the same time, the Myanmar government is planning to close down IDP camps across the country, including in areas still affected by armed conflict and militarization. It is no wonder that displaced people liken parts of Myanmar at present to a kind of hell on Earth. 

IDPs and refugees uniting around their right to land 

Amidst growing pressures on local communities and their lands, the Border Consortium and Transnational Institute have been helping displaced people (mainly IDPs and refugees from armed conflict) and the frontline organisations that support them to come together to build advocacy to defend and claim their right to land. Since 2016 several joint meetings have been organised, in Yangon and in Myitkyina, bringing together IDPs and refugees from five nationality states – Kachin, Shan, Kayah (Karenni), Karen and Mon – to share their experiences and aspirations, to analyse these according to human rights principles, conventions and agreements, and to build a joint position on their right to land.3 Now, the new land law amendments, especially VFV, and government plans to close all IDP camps in the country are really compelling people to try to speak louder to gain recognition and defend their rights. Displaced people – both IDPs and refugees – are realizing that they have no choice but to face up to the situation. Many increasingly are turning to their own resources and to each other to find common ground in their experiences and work together to build a united front and undertake advocacy in partnership.  Recently, displaced people from the five states decided to make a joint position paper and launch it at a public event in Yangon. The group held separate briefings with the LIFT Fund Board and with the United Nationalities Alliance (UNA) of political parties before holding a public event to introduce their joint position paper. At each event, a panel of speakers shared the trauma of displacement and the struggle for peace, recognition and justice, with five different people speaking each time from the five different areas. More than 130 people attended the public event at the Summit Park View Hotel in Yangon, coming from various embassies, UN agencies, international non-governmental organisations, political parties, civil society groups and the media. This public event demonstrated the extraordinary situation of displaced people: ordinary people who have been victimized by war and land-grabbing, trying to make good from destitute situations that are not of their own making but which they find themselves in nonetheless.

During the briefings the delegation told how, after they had been displaced by fighting, their lands were taken over either by the armed forces for encampments or by government authorities who reallocated their lands to companies for so-called “investment” or “development” projects. This was the pattern across all five states, whether the displacement occurred long ago or more recently.   Replying to questions about what they want, the delegates were clear in stating that the lands from which they were displaced should be returned to them, but that there should be no return until their safety and security are guaranteed and their land and livelihoods can be restored. They also said that the VFV Law should be abolished; that their customary rights of ownership should be recognised; and that land should be recognised as owned by the people who live and work on the land. To ensure this, they said that a new law should be developed through an inclusive, bottom-up process that truly involves IDPs and refugees and recognises their right to land. This new law also needs to recognise that ethnic nationality peoples have long had their own customary systems of land ownership and management. The land law in Myanmar should therefore aspire to serve the poor and obtain the consent of all the people – not just the handful whose business interests are currently being served. 

Quotes from the IDP-refugee briefings:

“Some IDPs are recent, others are from a long time ago. It started in 1974 with the Myanmar Army “Four Cuts” Strategy. Maybe people in the city do not know about this, but we will never forget. Since 1984 there are refugee camps in Thailand.” (Karen refugee, 21 August 2019) “In 2012 the VFV law was adopted. We are very worried about that. In our village of origin many businessmen have registered our land. We have no legal documents; we have our customary system. The government keeps saying it is a black area, and they refuse to come and demarcate our land, so we cannot get Form 7. They ask us to protect them if they would come and visit, but who should protect who?” (Kachin IDP from northern Shan State, 21 August 2019) “After the VFV law amendment, over 50 acres of land in Pruso were registered under the name of a Burma Army commander. These laws should be for the people, but now they benefit only a small group of people.” (Karenni IDP-refugee right to land defender, 21 August 2019)

‘’The main issue we now face is our land. Tissue banana plantations are threatening our land and our village. The Forest Department now designated our land as forest-land. These signboards only appeared after the banana companies came in; before that we had never seen them. The government also is very active with the VFV Law and is conducting a land survey. We have already lost our human rights and are living in displacement. Now we are facing additional problems with our land.” (Kachin IDP from Kachin State) “Land is important to secure our life and to feed ourselves. The Mon region has no active fighting but many landgrabbing issues and impacts from the VFV law. We have no VFV land in Mon area, but the government keeps on enforcing this law on us. Many government projects are planned in the villages of origin of Mon IDPs. Our key demand is that we cannot accept this VFV law. We do not have VFV land in our area.” (Mon IDP-refugee right to land defender, 21 August 2019) “In 2012 the government and the Karen National Union signed a ceasefire. From that time many international organisations said that it is already peaceful so IDPs and refugees can go home. There are many pressures on us to go back, and support to refugees is reducing. If we decided to go back: where to live? There are secondary occupants and Burma Army outposts. The government housing for returnees is too small and no land and no economic opportunities. If IDPs and refugees return, the Burma army should withdraw their outposts, landmines should be cleared and livelihoods provided.” (Karen IDP, 21 August 2019) “The authorities want us to go back. The Myanmar army outposts are still in our village. Who will guarantee fighting will not break out again? There is no durable solution yet reached in political dialogue.”(Kachin IDP, 21 August 2019) 

Canary in the coal mine

One of the key demands of the IDP-refugee delegation is the following:“All authorities (Government and EAOs) should prioritize the restitution of IDPs’ and Refugees’ displaced lands in their villages of origin and take any and all necessary steps to ensure their safe, dignified and voluntary return and meaningful restitution, including access to decent and sustainable livelihoods and the basic physical, social and economic conditions necessary for them to reconstruct dignified lives in peace and in safety.”Almost certainly anyone in the country (or indeed in the world), who finds themselves trapped in the same situation, would make this very same demand and would be motivated by the same desire for real peace with justice and democracy from which their demand springs.  It is possible that both government and business actors have been hoping that, over time, the IDPs and refugees in Myanmar will just disappear. But this is manifestly not happening. Instead, those displaced from their lands are becoming better organised and clearer and stronger in their advocacy. All they have ever wanted is to be fully and meaningfully recognised as having the right to fundamental human rights, including the right to land through restorative justice. IDPs and refugees should not be written off as unfortunate people who just happen to be on the wrong side of history and whose day will never come. On the contrary: they are the canaries in the coal mine – what happens to them is a signal to the rest of society of what possible fate lies ahead for all. If human rights cannot be guaranteed for the most marginalized and impoverished in society, it is a terrible indictment on the direction of political change in the country.

Endnotes

  1. See, https://www.tni.org/en/article/a-declaration-of-war-on-us
  2. https://www.tni.org/en/article/implementation-of-burmas-vacant-fallow-and-virgin-land-management-law
  3. See e.g. https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/civil-society-groups-demand-national-land-restitution-policy-for-displaced-communities.html; and, https://www.tni.org/en/publication/re-asserting-control-voluntary-return-restitution-and-the-right-to-land-for-idps-and

Position Paper: The right to land for IDPs and Refugees (21 August 2019) (English) (Burmese)

[Primer] There is no Vacant Land

A primer on defending Myanmar’s customary tenure systems

This Primer promotes a deeper understanding and appreciation of Myanmar’s customary tenure systems, which are under threat from the government’s new land policies. It looks at the nature and origin of traditional land and resource use customs and the functions these fulfill in Mayanmar’s rural communities.

Summary

Across the world, the livelihoods and well-being of rural communities have, since time immemorial, been assured through their customary land and resource management systems. Myanmar is no exception, and these systems have been especially valued in ethnic upland areas. Although increasingly under pressure, these systems still widely continue more or less intact, and continue to retain social legitimacy.

Customary tenure systems involve rural communities asserting authority over their local land and resources within their village areas, allocating rights and regulating access and use according to traditional cultural norms. At the simplest these institutions are codified social norms around resource access, and as such have existed across just about every inhabited landscape in the world.

They often involve the coordination of farming activities like planting, harvesting and grazing. They are based on a strong local identification with place and ecological landscape, and have evolved dynamically over the long term, giving rise to unique cultural landscapes. They tend to be sophisticated, flexible, and practical in terms of combining common and private rights and responsibilities across diverse resources. Beyond individual villages, they can play a key role in agreeing to inter-village boundaries, and regulating across clusters of villages who gets access to what resources, when and how. They can manage disputes both within and between villages in ways which have cultural legitimacy and embody principles of social justice. Their effectiveness is reflected in how highly valued they are by the communities who rely on them, and they evolve as the social composition and economic needs of the communities evolve and change over time.

There is increasing recognition of the prevalence of these systems and the importance to rural communities who rely on them. A recent study estimated that as much as 65% of the world’s land areas is managed under customary systems (RRI 2015). Across rural areas of Asia, Europe the Americas, and Africa, a wide diversity of customary land governance systems have been documented and continue to function effectively, with varying levels of state recognition. There are a wide diversity of customary systems across Myanmar, which go by a range of different local terms.

The recognition, understanding and study of common property and customary systems has been enjoying a remarkable renaissance around the world in recent decades. Academic research has demonstrated that customary systems are highly effective in enabling land and resource use that supports social well-being of ethnic communities. This is partly for economic reasons – because it can be highly efficient in delivering land and resource governance and management at relatively low cost with little conflict – and partly for social reasons – that they reflect reciprocal social relations over material resources.

However these systems are almost always misunderstood by outsiders, who without direct experience of them rarely seem to grasp the now all too unfamiliar concepts of local self-management, shared property (land and resources held in common) and social reciprocity (for instance labour exchange, and collective cropping). Negative judgements are frequently indulged in (‘unequal’, ‘anti-women’, ‘feudalistic’, ‘outdated’) with little basis in evidence, or time being taken to understand them properly.In fact, most of the criticisms levelled against customary systems are more applicable to state-based private land systems: where land ownership tends to be unequal, where few if any women have land titles in their names, where control is remote and inaccessible and bribe-seeking common, where taxation and input costs can drive farmers into debt bondage, landlessness, even suicide, and lastly where the systems tend to be static and inflexible over time.

In fact, most of the criticisms levelled against customary systems are more applicable to state-based private land systems: where land ownership tends to be unequal, where few if any women have land titles in their names, where control is remote and inaccessible and bribe-seeking common, where taxation and input costs can drive farmers into debt bondage, landlessness, even suicide, and lastly where the systems tend to be static and inflexible over time.

Misunderstanding can have serious consequences – policies commonly fail to represent these systems correctly, recognise their value, or protect their key elements. Misrepresentation has been common around the world, as customary systems have been over-ruled by colonial land administration centralisation:

How far these [mis]conceptions arose from ignorance or were deliberate has long been debated, every decade of persistence favouring the latter.

Alden Willy, 2006a

In Myanmar, these systems have begun to be eroded and undermined in recent decades, and many customary villages and village clusters are now either in crisis or feeling profoundly threatened. War, militarization and land and natural resource grabbing have already displaced many villagers and communities from their customary lands. Myanmar’s long-running military dictatorship ignored communities’ rights and treated community land and resources as ‘land at government disposal’, and in 2012 the government officially re-labelled them as ‘Virgin, Fallow and Vacant’. The Tatmadaw (Myanmar national army), as well as some other armed groups in the country, have summarily appropriated land and resources for themselves or their business partners, overriding village authority using menace or actual violence.

Although many customary systems have been able to persist, they are often hanging on by a thread. And as the country struggles towards democracy, economic development, and peace, new threats to customary lands and resource systems loom even larger. At the moment there is not yet even any statutory category through which to acknowledge customary systems and village land and resources held in common, and key influential actors appear to be preventing such recognition from attaining legal status.

At the same time urban-based administrators seem to be envisioning large scale ‘modern’ economic enterprises across Myanmar’s lands, in plans and visions that seem to imply that customary village resource management systems are either an impediment to ‘development’ or don’t even exist.

In reality, most of the land being labelled ‘vacant’ or ‘virgin’ land is actually customary village property, so implementing this law amounts to unjust appropriation of village property without acknowledgement of pre-existing rights or claims and thus violates several international norms and conventions. The third category – ‘fallow’ lands – at least recognises that the land is under use, but then reallocation of an already utilised resource seems all the more blatantly unjust.

Reallocating land and related natural resources without recognising and settling the pre-existing rights according to a due process is widely understood as intrinsically unjust and it particularly goes against the norms agreed to by many of the world’s governments in the 2012 FAO Tenure Guidelines (FAO 2012), to which Myanmar is a signatory. Indeed, much of Part 3 of these FAO Guidelines – especially section 9 in its entirety – is devoted particularly to spelling out when and how the rights of indigenous peoples and communities with customary tenure systems must be fully recognized and protected from reallocation, eviction and any legislative or administrative initiatives that would facilitate these. Yet this is happening widely, particularly in ongoing conflict zones and promoted by powerful military and commercial interests in the Myanmar government. The inescapable conclusion must be that it is part of a hostile economic, political and military strategy, and along with other recent notorious actions of the Tatmadaw, infringes the Geneva Conventions 1949, which states:

… Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Geneva Convention IV Article 33

In January 2019 seven United Nations special Rapporteurs for protection of a range of human rights addressed their concerns over the VFV Amendment to the Government of Myanmar:

‘we are concerned that this law may be used to illegally dispossess land users of their land without due process or adequate notice, undermine their human rights, and have a dispropoirtionate impact on poor, rural and minority communiteis, ethnic nationalities and indigenous peoples’ 

Internationally there is increasing emphasis across multilateral organisations and fora on the fundamental importance of proper protection and recognition of rights and tenure, and the adherence to basic norms of good land and resource governance (FAO 2012), as a basis for development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals, to which Myanmar is a signatory, state:

Sustainable development goal 1 – End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

  • Target 1.4 by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, …

Sustainable development goal 2 – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

  • Target 3 –By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.

Sustainable development goal 5 – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

  • Target 7 – give women equal access to economy resources as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property.

In most customary tenure systems the ownership and control referred to in the UN SDGs is already assured, and it is assured collectively.

Where a local system is working reasonably well and is not subject to significant outside pressures that stress the system beyond its ability to adapt and mediate conflicts, outsiders should not interfere.

Freudenberger 2013

Despite all these norms and principles Myanmar’s Government has been interfering in and undermining these systems, and therefore undermining its own international commitments as well as the achievement of these development goals. A new amendment to the VFV law 2012 passed in September 2018, making continued occupation, without official permission, of land which is not municipal, private or state (i.e. land which is de facto customary) a criminal offence.

Yet there still remains no provision to clarify the pre-existing and as yet unrecognised, mainly customary, community rights. Customary systems and the wellbeing of those who depend on them are now gravely threatened by this law.

Few outside of ethnic areas fully appreciate what the customary tenure systems actually are, how they work, and how centralised authorities, statutory policies and jurisdictions undermine them in practice. It is time to recognise customary resource systems in law, and acknowledge these systems as the foundation of wellbeing in many rural areas. But in order to protect ethnic well-being and ensure post-conflict recovery, it is essential that these customary tenure systems are understood. This primer seeks to clarify the issues, improve understanding of customary land tenure systems and explore what should be done.

The non-recognition of the customary tenure systems of Myanmar’s ethnic groups is one of the key drivers of ethnic conflict in the country. It is related not only to respect and support of socio-economic and political systems of ethnic groups, but also closely related to the right to land for IDPs and refugees. Without addressing these issues, the prospects for national peace and development are grim.

The primer is divided into 6 sections. First, it examines the key elements of these systems and how they function. Second, it considers their prevalence and continuity around the world. Third, it considers their characteristics, importance, and relative pros and cons. Fourth, it look at the changing conditions and fifth at current policy dynamics affecting customary systems. Last, it offers some recommendations.

Download Full Primer (English).

TNI’s Commentary on VFV in Myanmar

A Commentary by TNI (Transnational Institute)

The recently adopted amendment by parliament to the 2012 Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Management Law (VFV Law) has immediate, deep and far-reaching implications for many millions of rural working people in Myanmar, especially in ethnic nationality regions. The new law has also serious, negative consequences for the country’s development and the transition towards democracy, and ultimately for the prospects for a lasting peace in Myanmar. Read full commentary here.