Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads: - Displacement Solutions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7Myanmar at the HLP CrossroadsThe HLP legal framework does not adequately recognise the customary rights held by millions of farmers andland labourers and ‘contract farmers’, including shifting cultivators and pastoralists. As a result, these groups areparticularly vulnerable. Though methods for registering land are included within the new Farmland Law of 2012,the obligation to register one’s land under the new law may result in practice in reductions rather than strengthenedsecurity of tenure rights. This is so because farmers are likely to continue to be unaware of the requirementto register land prior to receiving a land certificate and because the bodies to which one must turn to register land(the farmland management committees) are generally staffed by government officials rather than independentpersons. Without or even with land certificates, farmers can all too easily (and under prevailing law), be legallyremoved from the land, which is in turn often given in concessions to national and increasingly international businesses.And of additional concern, even when such certificates are held, they can now be sold under the new2012 law with no assurance that the long-term HLP rights of the current residents are protected. This will inevitablyresult in displacement and increased landlessness as market forces tempt or coerce poor farmers to relinquishtheir landholdings for short-term gain.As an indication of just how large future land grabbing and consequent displacement may become, it is estimatedthat some 28 million acres of land classified as cultivatable or arable could be put to tender for investors,including foreign investors which are already pouring into the country to exploit what is largely seen as anuntapped market. (7) Because most of this land is already home to people and communities, the prospect of largerscaledispossession looms ominously large, particularly given the fact that farmers threatened with displacementhave effectively no judicial recourse to resist. Though judicial remedies are increasingly seen as a theoreticalmeans for redressing land disputes and alleged land grabs, such as the well-known case of Shwe Na Thar villagein Yangon’s Mingalardon township (See Box 3), it is clear that such measures are unlikely to provide the remediesrequired to secure residential justice for those affected. There is effectively no meaningful recourse to thecourts authorized under law and no national legal aid programme to assist people in gaining access to the justicesystem. These conditions, combined with prohibitive filing fees and questionable independence of the judiciaryvirtually assure that, without a change in law and policy, the already sizable portion of the population classifiedas landless (estimated by many experts to numbers in the many millions) will grow rapidly in coming months andyears, setting the stage for mass deprivation and social tumult.Photo byAndrew Scherer/ DisplacementSolutions(7) See, Roy Prosterman and Darryl Vhugen, ‘Land to the Tillers of Myanmar’, NY Times (13 June 2012) and TNI, Financing Dispossession: China’sOpium Substitution Programme in Northern Burma, Transnational Institute, February 2012.
Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 8BOX 3:Company lied about project for industrial zone: farmersDispossessed farmers in a rural partof Yangon’s Mingalardon township arepreparing to take their fight againstone of the country’s largest firms tothe courts.The farmers from Shwe Na Tharvillage say they only want theirland back and are not seeking anycompensation from the Zaykabarcompany, which acquired the landto construct Yangon Industrial Zone4. Starting from February 2010, thecompany acquired 845 acres from71 households with the help of twogovernment officials in the village.About 100 acres remain in the handsof residents. Some of the farmersalready received K300,000 eachin compensation but they told TheMyanmar Times on February 21 thatthey were tricked into accepting themoney by the two officials.“At first we were told that our landwas being taken for a governmentproject. All this farmland is owned bygovernment and if the governmentwants it, we know we have to give itback. So we gave it to them withoutcomplaint,” said farmer Daw Tin Sein.“I am still keeping my other five acres.I didn’t give it to them and didn’ttake any compensation,” she added.Others have been left with nothing,however. “I gave my 16 acres of farmlandto them. The future of our familydepends on that land. I don’t wantanything from [Zaykabar] except myfarm,” said Daw Tin Yi, 48. Ma HninNandar, 38, said that the companybought her farmland, which was fullof toddy palms, for K5000 a tree.“The company cut down my plantsbut I still haven’t got my money,” shesaid. “For my children’s education andhealth we need money and we canget money only from our farms. I can’tdo anything except farming. I wantmy land back. Unless this happensmy children will have many difficultiesfor their education.” In mid-2011,the company began breaking downembankments, blocking canals andlaying concrete roads. Farmers saidthe company told them on January18 to move out by January 24 andthat some of their land had alreadybeen sold to unknown buyers fromoutside Mingalardon township. U NayMyo Wai, chairman of the Peace andDiversity Party, which is based inMingalardon township and has beenhelping the farmers raise awarenessabout their plight, said existing lawsprohibited the company from sellingthe land. “According to section fourof the Act of Nationalisation of Farmlands(1953), farmland is not allowedto be bought or sold between civilians.And also the Law of RentalLands for Cultivation (1963) statesthat civilians are not allowed to doother things with farmland besidesagriculture,” U Nay Myo Wai told TheMyanmar Times. “If the company hassold the farmland to others, this is notlegal under the law,” he added. U NayMyo Wai said the farmers had initiallytold him that their land was acquiredby the government. “But later I cameto understand that it was not thegovernment – just a private companythat took advantage of their lackof knowledge. So I decided to getinvolved,” he said.The notice the company distributedto farmers on January 18 gave someclues about the situation, he said.“According to the papers attachedto the notice, the government didn’tgive the farmland to Zaykabarfor an industrial zone. Secondly, Inoticed that the government told thecompany to run an agriculture businessif they got the farmland andthirdly the company was told to giveback the land to farmers if they don’tdo agriculture on this farmland. And Inoticed that the company reported tothe government that the farmers donot want to farm anymore becausethey want to do another businessand that’s why they gave up theirfarmland. But that’s totally wrong,” UNay Myo Wai said. The farmers arenow preparing to take legal actionagainst the company but said theywould drop the case if the companyreturns the land.“We are lost. Unless we don’t getback our farmland, we will starve,”one Mingalardon farmer said. Thefarmers said that it appeared asthough Zaykabar had suspended itsproject. Officials from Zaykabar tookthe unusual step of holding a pressconference to deny the farmers’allegations. The company’s generalmanager, Daw Mi Mi Thein Tan, toldreporters on February 14 that theindustrial zone project had governmentsupport. “After March 2011 wecontinued our project with the permissionof the government. And we gotthat permission through the governmentprocedure,” Daw Mi Mi TheinTan said. Another company officialsaid it was not possible for Zaykabarto do the industrial zone on its own.“We got this agreement and allowanceafter reporting step by step toauthorised people in the government.This is a joint project between Zaykabar,the Ministry of Construction andthe Department of Human Settlementand Housing Development,” he said.The official said the company wasfollowing the orders of the YangonRegion government. (8)(8) Source: Noe Noe Aung in The MyanmarTimes, February 27 - March 4, 2012)
Page 1 and 2: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads:Propo
Page 3: Having thoroughly examined the de f
Page 6 and 7: 1Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads1 Int
Page 8 and 9: 3Myanmar at the HLP CrossroadsBOX 1
Page 11: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 6lati
Page 15 and 16: Photo byAndrew Scherer/ Displacemen
Page 17 and 18: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 12Som
Page 19 and 20: Photo by Andrew Scherer / Displacem
Page 21 and 22: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 164.2
Page 23 and 24: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 185 C
Page 25 and 26: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 20The
Page 29 and 30: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 24pro
Page 31 and 32: Photo by Andrew Scherer/ Displaceme
Page 33 and 34: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 28Thr
Page 35 and 36: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 30as
Page 39 and 40: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 346.
Page 41 and 42: Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads 36lar

Myanmar at the HLP Crossroads: - Displacement Solutions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?