VFV Campaign Report

“There is no VFV in our area”: Compilation of Different Movements at National Level

March 2020 | Version-2

A Vinyl saying “Chin State doesn’t have VFV” is posted publicly in a village from Chin State. | Photo Credit: CLAN


The Vacant-Fallow-Virgin Land Management Law originated from the vacant-fallow-virgin land management notification issued in 1991 by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Military government) for the purpose of commoditizing land and to attract investments both for local & international businesses. It is also the notification set-up for facilitating land grabbing.

The government after 2010 general election continued to legitimize the previous land grabbing and human rights violations by transforming that notification into law in 2012. The law come out by direct order of MOALI Minister and without involvement of civil societies and land rights expertise. The Vacant-Fallow-Virgin Land Management Law 2012 (VFVL) meant to ease land grabbing under economic development and to be a tool for expanding land grabbing towards ethnic peoples’ area where armed conflicts are making difficult for confiscation.

Implications of VFV Law

The companies those are willing to invest, according to VFVL, can get the land up to 30,000 acres for 30 years (Section 10). The VFVL can be used to sue the farmers under encroachment (Section 27) and under disturbance (Section 28) which also enables the use of police forces for suppression.

Vacant-fallow-virgin land can be transformed into farmland (Section 34), allowing the land as collateral and commodity for leasing, mortgaging & selling (Farmland Law Section 9). That is challenging and undermining the livelihoods and live making of farmers however favoring the local & foreign business owners.

VFVL & the Farmland Law pressures individual land titling (to apply for land use certificate) that threatens rural agrarian societies where the peoples’ lives, cultural & customary practices, cropping patterns and ecologies are interconnected and inter-dependent. It challenges the presence of communal areas, culturally heritage areas and customary land management systems. And it makes permanent land loss for IDPs.

Amendments to VFV (2018)

VFVL amendments were proposed during 2017 and adopted on 11 September 2018. The amendments criminalize both farmers and people who are helping farmers defending their lands. It even sets the short deadline for individual land titling – anyone using the so-called-VFV land without permission is liable for penalties either fine or imprisonment or both.

So-called VFV land, according to Land Statistics Department, are mostly from ethnic areas and 45 million acres of them (out of 50 million acres) remains unregistered. It’s not practical to grant land titling for such a huge amount of land within short period of time and there are many experiences of farmers who never get reply and traceable for their application status since many years ago. Though, the credibility of the land use certificate (legally granted) is also questionable according to previous researches. Nevertheless, uncountable farmers become criminals by the law since 11 March 2019.


LIOH believes self-determination, federal land governance and the peoples’ rights to land are the only means for peace and social justice. Good management practices are already existed amongst communities and indigenous peoples. Ethnic land policies, customary land tenure systems and community-led & managed projects have been in place – and yet to be recognized. There is a need of federal land law that is processed democratically and safeguards the rights of land of smallholder farmers, small scale land users, ethnic peoples, landless peoples an IDPs. The transition to federal land law needs to freeze the implementation of existing land-related laws; to avoid land intensive mega projects (including agri-businesses); to ensure resolution of land conflicts; and to abolish the most dangerous VFVL.

A group of Chin peoples holding “Chin State doesn’t have VFV. Chin State only has ancestral land” and posing for a photo. | Photo credit: CLAN

Download the full report in English and Burmese.

VFV Campaign Report – March 2020 (Version-2). A5-sized Booklet is available in Bilingual (English/Burmese).

An Analysis of the VFV Land Management Law

How the Myanmar Government’s Repressive Land Laws are Catalyzing Conflict and Insecurity:
An Analysis of the Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law

By Saw Alex Htoo and Frank Scott

Burma’s (Myanmar since the junta changed the country’s name in 1989) generals continue to hold sway over key areas of government, and though direct military rule has transitioned into ‘democracy’, political power remains concentrated in the hands of the army or Tatmadaw. The army, and effectively the government, which was established through the controversial 2008 constitution, have long been in pursuit of absolute control over land and natural resources. Such situation has long been a key catalyst for the country’s protracted civil war, which has driven millions of civilians from their land and homes in the past decades. Widespread armed conflict has been accompanied by oppressive laws aiding in the dispossession of smallholder-farmers of their land and livelihoods, particularly in ethnic nationality areas.

On 11 September 2018, in the latest push of government to consolidate control over the country, the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (Parliament) passed amendments to the 2012 Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law (VFV Law), imposing criminal penalties on rural people for continuing to use land that the government has deemed vacant and fallow or virgin. According to the amendments, after 11th March 2019, farmers will face up to two years in prison and a 500,000 kyats ($300) fine if they continue to use the land, even if it has not yet been leased to anyone else.

The 2012 VFV Law, and 2018 amendments, provide a legal mechanism for the Myanmar Government to confiscate land in rural areas across the country, constituting a massive statutory land grab. The most pervasive impacts of this legislation will be in ethnic areas where, according to government statistics, there are about 35 million acres, or 75 percent, of the country’s vacant, fallow and virgin lands.

Civil society organizations across the country are calling for the VFV Law to be abolished, and for a democratic federal land law to be drafted and passed as part of an inclusive and participatory legislative process. Endorsed by ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), ethnic political parties,and local communities, these calls spearheaded by Burma’s ethnic civil society networks form part of a longstanding campaign for the legal recognition and protection of diverse customary land tenure systems administered by ethnic communities across the country. It is argued that the full recognition of customary land tenure rights will be a crucial foundation upon which genuine, federal peace can be built.

Read full article here.

New Challenges and Strategies – In the Defense of Land and Territory (LRAN Briefing Paper Series No. 4); Accessible here.

[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.


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).

CLAN Statement on VFVL

Chin Land Affairs Network (CLAN) released a statement on the Vacant, Fallow & Virgin Land Management Law (VFVL) after its executive members’ meeting and land law review workshop happened during 12-13 of February, 2019.

The statement is available in Burmese and has raised 4 points:

  • Chin people are original owners of all land & related resources thus this status must not be altered without the consent of Chin peoples
  • VFVL makes more conflicts to Chin peoples’ livelihoods, live makings, histories & cultures and is also undermining federal system, thus to be abolished.
  • VFVL facilitates land grabbing from ethnic peoples and specifies the original owner of the land as criminals, thus to stop the land grabbing & large-scale projects under VFV label.
  • Denounce the quote of U Shwe Htee Yo, Minister for Road & Transport, saying there’s no ancestral land in Chin State; because there are only ancestral land handed over generations in Chin State.

Letter from UN Special Rapporteur to Myanmar Government on VFV

On 21 January 2019, UN Special Rapporteur communicated to Myanmar Government regarding the Vacant, Fallow & Virgin Land Management Law. The letter was composed from the mandates of:

  • the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar;
  • the Special Rapporteur on the right to food;
  • the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; 
  • the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons; 
  • the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights

Read the full letter HERE.

LIOH’s Additional Questions on LIFT’s “REAL DEV” Programme

LIFT (Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund) has launched a REAL DEV programme that invites partner agencies to work with the Government on land reclamation and reallocation in Magway, to develop a replicable approach and framework for reallocating State land reclaimed from concessionary holders to the rural poor, landless, and others; according to its website and Facebook page; on 14 December 2018.

Land in Our Hands (LIOH) and Myanmar Alliance for Transparency & Accountability (MATA) jointly send the open letter to LIFT regarding its recently launched call for proposal “REAL DEV Programme”; in 24 December 2018. LIFT responded to the open letter on (28 January 2019) with its safeguarding measures and additional steps based on the concerns raised by LIOH and MATA.

Based on the response of LIFT, the concerns have been come out and raised in addition to previous letter. The following is the letter sent to LIFT on 6 February 2019.

6 February 2019

Dear Katy Webley,

Thank you for your clear and detailed response. We appreciate that LIFT has taken our concerns into account, and has taken steps to change the programme to reflect this. Despite the changes, we still have several concerns and questions. Please see our concerns and questions below; 

There is no clear indication that LIFT intends to change their strategy for implementing the programme. The programme will still use the VFV law, and through doing this will strengthen the capacity of department to implement the VFV law through building their technical capacity.  The alterations to the programme made after our discussion, instead of improving it will only strengthen and legitimise the VFV implementation process via the introduction of conflict sensitivity, transparency, and accountability protocols and procedures. We are concerned that although LIFT does not endorse all aspects of the VFV law, your actions in the programme continue to legitimise it. 

Point 1: Stop-go mechanism

  • How will the open, transparent, and participatory process lead to secure land tenure? The tenure is being granted under the VFV law which offers very little tenure security?
  • The establishment of a dispute mechanism is a good step, but it is important to work on the details. Who will be in charge of the process should a dispute arise (GAD, MoALI, DALMS, LARC)? How will a rightful claim to the land be assessed? Under the current land legislation, it is very difficult to prove land ownership, especially in cases where land was confiscated prior to 2012, and where it has been granted as a concession under the VFV law as VFV land.

Point 2: Conflict Sensitivity

  • We very much appreciate that LIFT has taken our concerns seriously around conflict sensitivity, and is taking swift actions to remedy this.
  • We are somewhat concerned about the independent monitoring mechanism, critical friends, and conflict sensitive advisory group. It is important that LIFT contact civil society working in conflict areas who have experience in and knowledge on the conflict context when looking for advice, rather than relying only on larger more centrally established expert peace groups. This will lead to more reliable and context relevant information to support conflict sensitive programme planning and implementation.

Could you share the results of LIFT’s meeting with MoALI on January 14th 2019? Did you raise the concerns of civil society about the VFV law that we shared with you with Ministers, and if so what was their response?

In response to specific questions:

Question 2.

In your response, you state that LIFT has ensured that this implementation will not impact on larger states and regions because you are encouraging MoALI to view this as a unique case, rather than a replicable process. In your response you highlight that the land is State land, returned after the concession recipients broke their agreement with the government. Our concern is that LIFT does not take into account the history of the land concessions, looking at how the land became State land in the first place, who the landowners were before and whether they received compensation, and how the the companies it was granted to were selected.

In response to Question 2 about programme governance and implementation.

Question 2.

In the implementation Committee, what processes will be in place around decision making, especially to ensure that the final decision making powers are not vested in one stakeholder? Considering Myanmar’s political history, we are concerned that the chosen Chairperson will hold disproportionate sway in the Committee, and will be able to make all final decisions without much resistance.

We welcome LIFT’s motivations to improve the attitudes, behaviours, approaches, and to build the competency of those charged with land allocation and registration. This is key to pushing equitable reform in the country, and LIFT is strongly positioned to have a positive impact here. Taking this into consideration we encourage LIFT to establish a clear policy on Myanmar’s land reforms that contributing to peace, sustainability, and equitable reform. This could be achieved through facilitating open and robust dialogue between stakeholders involved in land use and governance, especially the GAD, MoALI, LARC, civil society, smallholder farmers and Ethnic Governance representatives. We also encourage LIFT to recognise the Ethnic Land Governance administrative structures already in place across the country and their associated policies when approaching future programming. By promoting dialogue between those who work with and rely on land across the country, and all of the systems currently in place to govern this, LIFT will much better positioned to promote actual secure land tenure, and programmes that support peace in Myanmar.

With best regards,

Secretariat Team | Land in Our Hands (LIOH)

LIFT’s Response to Open Letter of LIOH and MATA

LIFT’s response to Open Letter of LIOH and MATA

Land in Our Hands (LIOH) and Myanmar Alliance for Transparency & Accountability (MATA) jointly send the open letter to LIFT regarding its recently launched call for proposal “REAL DEV Programme”; in 24 December 2018. LIFT responded to the open letter that it has added safeguards in the development of the project:

  1. Stop-go mechanism: A key element in ensuring that there is progress towards securing land title to beneficiaries, is the inclusion of a ‘stop go’ point in the design of the project. Without an open, transparent and participatory process that leads to secure land tenure, the agriculture development component of the project will not be implement.
  2. There are clear principles outlined in the documentation associated with the call that will guide the process of land reallocation that include an inclusive, participatory and transparent approach that is in line with LIFT’s principle of do no harm. Further, noting the contentious nature of land, the project will develop a dispute mechanism to support those who may have a rightful claim or grievance to voice.
  3. A Conflict sensitive advisor: LIFT is in the process of retaining the services of a conflict sensitive advisor to support its programming.
  4. A call for proposals for Support to Strengthen Conflict-sensitivity: LIFT and Access to Health, both multi-donor funds, have published a call for proposals for technical assistance focused on three key areas: 1) Promoting conflict sensitivity capacity across the funds; 2) Providing best tailored assistance to implementing partners (IPs); and 3) Adherence with NCA and Bilateral Ceasefire Agreements.

In response to the concerns of LIOH and MATA, LIFT has decided on the following additional steps.

  1. An independent monitoring mechanism: we plan to elaborate and request for assistance with such an accountability mechanism for the land projects. This will be actioned as soon as possible.
  2. Critical friends: a small group of specialists working on conflict issues and with particular expertise on the peace process with whom LIFT, as a fund, can consult.
  3. Conflict sensitive advisory group: we anticipate these to be either groups or regular meetings in order to appropriately convene and consult with stakeholders in ethnic states concerning LIFT programming in conflict affected areas.

Read the full LIFT’s response in English and Burmese.

Civil Society Organizations’ Open Letter to LIFT for its call for proposal “REAL DEV”

Land in Our Hands (LIOH) and Myanmar Alliance for Transparency & Accountability (MATA) jointly send the open letter to LIFT regarding its recently launched call for proposal “REAL DEV Programme”; today in 24 December 2018.

24 December 2018

Land in Our Hands (LIOH) and Myanmar Alliance for Transparency & Accountability (MATA) jointly send the open letter to LIFT regarding its recently launched call for proposal “REAL DEV Programme”; today in 24 December 2018.

On 14 December 2018, LIFT (Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund) has launched a REAL DEV programme that invites partner agencies to work with the Government on land reclamation and reallocation in Magway, to develop a replicable approach and framework for reallocating State land reclaimed from concessionary holders to the rural poor, landless, and others; according to its website and facebook page.

Since the government adopted the Vacant, Fallow & Virgin Land Management Law (VFV law) in 2012, peoples from ethnic areas declared that they don’t have vacant, fallow & virgin land but the ancestral lands they have been living, using & managing for centuries. And many civil society organizations asked the government to abolish the VFV law. Although NLD government initiated to amend this law in 2017, it becomes worse – criminalizing the peoples defending their lands and setting the time for registering the lands. Land in Our Hands is continuously supporting for federal land government and customary practices; thus calling to abolish the VFV law. During May, LIOH released a statement at national level reckoning the voices from different states & regions. That workshop and statement is representing over 1,600 peoples and over 400 civil society organizations across the country.

Despite these continuous public oppositions, the Government adopted the amendments to VFV in September 2018. Thus, LIOH launched the campaign against VFV law and also released a joint statement. The statement is endorsed by 346 local organizations. The international community is also supporting the movement of LIOH and issued the concern letter recently.

At this fragile moment, LIFT called proposals for its programme above-mentioned. Although LIFT says “LIFT’s programme is relevant and responsible – perhaps even more so at this time than before”, it is lacking the political sensitivity around land rights and peace building process as wider impacts. In this regards, LIOH & MATA prepared and sent an open letter to LIFT calling to suspend the call for proposals and reassess its operations in Myanmar in accordance with its 12 conflict sensitivity principles.

Open letter to LIFT: (English) (Burmese)

International Community Issued Statement of Concern on VFV

In December 2018, international community issued the statement of concern to express solidarity with grassroots campaign against VFV in Myanmar and called for petition.

Please visit the official petition site or see the letter here.

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.