Myanmar under reform: Emerging pressures on water,energy and food security

Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis

Abstract

Myanmar’s water-related sectors are subject to intensive changes, as the country’s abundant land and water resourcesprovide substantial scope for development. Recent steps towards economic reform in Myanmar have led to a surge of foreigninvestment directed towards intensified natural resource extraction. Both the agricultural and the energy sector areincreasingly affected by foreign investments that will impact the status of water, energy and food security in the country. Withthese on-going developments, Myanmar’s future is largely dependent on how its natural resources are managed and how thebenefits from the resource extraction are shared. With various institutional changes and new actors welcomed to the sectors,existing livelihoods and ecosystems dependent on the land and water resources are to face increasing competition for theshared resources, while lacking secured access to them. There are increasing concerns that this sectoral development isoccurring at the expense of environmental and social sustainability. As one way to tackle these challenges, the water-energy-food nexus approach could help in finding synergies and co-benefits across sectors by addressing the imbalances along thenexus and externalities derived from the on-going intensification.

Keywords: Myanmar; reform; water resources; hydropower; agriculture; water-energy-food nexus.

1. Introduction

Myanmar is emerging from decades of isolation vianumerous political and economic reforms which haveimproved external relations and renewed economicopportunity (cf. IISS, 2011; ADB, 2012a; Bremmer, 2012;Robinson, 2012; Singh, 2013). Whereas debate existswhether the on-going political transition is lasting orpositive (e.g., Bhatia, 2013; Lall, 2013; Lintner, 2013;Yhome, 2013), the economic impacts are already visible inincreased foreign direct investment (FDI). Myanmar hasmajor growth potential through its rich natural resourcesand convenient geographic position between South andSoutheast Asia as well as between China and India(Figure 1; ADB, 2012a).

Two sectors facing major changes are agriculture andhydropower, both premised on abundant land and waterresources. These two sectors are significant in Myanmar’seconomy with agriculture contributing the most to GDP andhydropower supplying the majority of the electricity exports

with support from foreign investment (Tables 1 and 2)(Turnell, 2011; ADB, 2012b). Although the FDI hasconcentrated largely on energy and other extractiveindustries (Turnell, 2011), agriculture has started to followthe economic trends with the introduction of privatedomestic and foreign investments (Woods, 2011). Bilateralagreements between China and Myanmar (BBC News,2010) and plans for large-scale industrial and agriculturaldevelopment further accelerate the rate of regionalinvestment in Myanmar (Webb et al., 2012). Concurrently,new land and investment legislation (Robinson, 2012)and the involvement of large companies in developmentprojects have created concerns of land confiscation and lossof livelihoods among locals (e.g., Hiebert and Nguyen,2012; Szep, 2012; Talbott et al., 2012; KHRG, 2013).

The economic reforms have increased pressure onMyanmar’s natural resources, posing many social andecological threats (Schmidt, 2012). Myanmar’s ability tobuild on recent positive political developments isinextricably linked to the allocation and use of naturalresources (Talbott et al., 2012). Achieving appropriatemanagement of natural resources depends on goodgovernance, which should be built on equity, transparency,accountability, the rule of law and public participation(Myint, 2007). Appropriate planning and management

Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varisare at the Aalto University School of Engineering, Water andDevelopment Research Group, Finland. E-mails: mirja.kattelus@aalto.fi;rahamanmm@gmail.com; olli.varis@aalto.fi

Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98 DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12032

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

Figure 1. Location of Myanmar and its neighbouring countries.Source: Kattelus et al. (forthcoming).

Table 1. Myanmar’s water resources

Precipitation (mm/year)* 2,091Surface water produced internally (km3/year)* 992Groundwater produced internally (km3/year)* 454Total internal renewable water resourcesa (km3/year)* 1,003Total internal renewable water resources per capita (m3/year)* 20,912Dry season (Nov-April) surface runoff (km3/year)** 95Dry season (Nov-April) groundwater recharge (km3/year)** 1.8Wet season (May-Oct) surface runoff (km3/year)** 787Wet season (May-Oct) groundwater recharge (km3/year)** 26.5Dependency ratiob (%)* 14.13Water withdrawals of renewable resources (%) (in year 2000)* 2.85Agricultural water withdrawal of total withdrawals (in year

2000) (%)*88.99

Note: a Overlaps between ground and surface water removed.b Dependence on external water resources of total water resources.Source: * FAO AQUASTAT (2012). ** as estimated by MOAI(2003).

Table 2. Indicators on development in agriculture in 1988 and 2011

1988 2011

Agriculture, value added to GDP (%)* 57 38Employment in agriculture (% of total)* 65 —Agricultural area as % of total area** 15.9 19.2Irrigated area as % of agricultural land area** 9.6 18.3Rice production (106 tonnes)** 13.2 32.8Rice harvested area (106 ha)** 4.5 8.0Pulses production (106 tonnes)** 0.6 5.3Pulses harvested area (106 ha)** 0.6 4.0Rice export (103 tonnes)** 47.8 121.9 (2010)Pulses export (103 tonnes)** 17.1 518.6 (2010)Rice export (mil $)** 8.3 42.4 (2010)Pulses export (mil$)** 8.1 469.8 (2010)

Source: * World Bank (2013). ** FAOSTAT (2013).

86 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

coupled with analysis of social and environmental impactswould assist in adapting to the new political and economicconditions and ensure that development is premised onshared benefits and sustainability.

The rapid changes illustrated in this paper requirecoordination and holistic analysis that could be guided bythe emerging concept of the water-energy-food (WEF)nexus. It is an approach that integrates management andgovernance across sectors and scales (Hoff, 2011) and seeksimproved understanding of the linkages between water,energy and food, both on the level of resource use as wellas in the institutional, legal and policy dimensions (Scottet al., 2011; Granit et al., 2012). The agricultural andenergy sectors are critical to Myanmar’s economy andtheir management presents a pressing interconnectedchallenge. A reduction of negative economic, social andenvironmental externalities may increase resource useefficiency, provide additional benefits and secure the humanrights to water and food (Hoff, 2011). Treating the WEFnexus holistically would — in an ideal situation — lead tomore optimal allocation of resources, improved economicefficiency, lower environmental and health impacts andbetter economic development conditions (Bazilian et al.,2011).

Our objective is to review the current status and futuredevelopments of the three sectors along the WEF nexus.We aim to identify the reform-induced challenges theyare facing, including new actors, governance changes andtrade-offs resulting from intensification. Finally we discussthe possibilities of enhancing policy coherence andinstitutional capacity through the WEF nexus approach forachieving sustainable development. As no such analysisexists to the best of our knowledge, this paper offers across-cutting review of the key actors and upcomingchallenges along the WEF nexus during the first steps ofMyanmar’s economic and political reform. Since the topicis closely related to recent political and economic changes,and considering the lack of academic research in English onMyanmar’s environmental and water governance, this paperpartially relies on news agencies, NGOs and consultationreports for the most up-to-date information.

2. Overview of Myanmar’s water resources,agriculture and hydropower

Myanmar has abundant water resources, of which only asmall percentage is withdrawn annually, with agriculturebeing the largest user (Table 1). The two largest rivers arethe Irrawaddy and the Salween (Figure 2); both have theirheadwaters in mountainous areas, have a vast deltaic area,and then empty into the Andaman Sea. The Irrawaddy basincovers the central plains and the vast southern delta areawhich represent the most important croplands and the mostintensively populated areas (FAO, 2002). Ninety per cent ofthe total drainage area is situated in Myanmar, covering

about three-fifths of Myanmar’s surface area, which has apopulation of around 37.2 million (Varis et al., 2012). TheSalween provides very little riverine flat land for cultivationbut has tremendous hydropower potential (Magee andKelley, 2009). It is one of Asia’s principal rivers and asource of livelihood for an estimated 6 million people(Magee and Kelley, 2009). The 244,100 km2 river basinis shared by China (52.43%), Myanmar (43.85%) andThailand (3.71%) (Affeltranger, 2008). According to astudy by Salmivaara et al. (2013), the ecological state of thedelta areas of the Irrawaddy and the Salween is threateneddue to aggregate anthropogenic pressures resulting frompopulation growth and land use changes.

Figure 2. Planned hydropower dams in Myanmar.Source: Authors’ elaboration.

87Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

2.1. Agriculture

Agriculture exerts substantial influence on Myanmar’seconomic development, with its contribution to GDP andits share of the total labour force (Table 2). Myanmar hasgone from being the world’s largest exporter of rice duringcolonial rule (1824-1948) to having a severely restrictedagricultural sector with a compulsory paddy procurementsystem and monopolised rice exports during the militaryand socialist regime (1962-1988) (Kyi et al., 2000; UNDP,2002; Fujita and Okamoto, 2006). Due to its politicalimportance, rice has long been the centre of Myanmar’sagricultural policy (UNDP, 2002). It covers over half oftotal agricultural area and is cultivated largely underirrigation in the delta region and in the central dry zone(Table 2; UNDP, 2002). Growth in rice production(presented in Table 2) has resulted mostly from increasedcultivation intensity, as the government has beenpromoting multiple cropping. Despite considerable effortto increase rice production, the production and exportgrowth have not been sustained and have experiencedmajor fluctuations. Rice exports have been hampered byseveral issues, including on and off prohibitions againstprivate sector exports, lack of access to trade finance andpoor level of infrastructure (Turnell, 2011), whereas pulseshave become a major export product for Myanmar(Table 2). The recent liberalisation of agriculture has endedmost production controls and relaxed the ban on riceexports (ADB, 2009). However, the importance ofagricultural exports in the overall export portfolio hasdiminished (ADB, 2012b).

According to Soe (2004), overemphasising riceproduction has prevented crop diversification and deprivedthe economy of broad-based agricultural growth. Thenational priority has been crop production growth andmeeting productivity targets, instead of improving farmincomes and alleviating poverty (Hudson-Rodd and Nyunt,2001; UNDP, 2002). While the agricultural entrepreneursare heavily subsidised with taxation and the guarantee ofloans, individual farmers lack equal opportunities forprosperity (Hudson-Rodd and Nyunt, 2001). Credit to thefarm sector remains inadequate, although the MyanmarAgriculture Development Bank has doubled its funding forfarmers twice in the past two years (ADB, 2012b). As partof an agricultural reform, a microfinance law was approvedin November 2011 to expand microcredit to farmers and aland law was passed giving farmers the right to own, sell,and mortgage their land (ADB, 2012b). These reformscould potentially improve the status of small-scale farmers,while also causing numerous other changes, presented inmore detail in Sections 3 and 4.

2.2. Energy and hydropower

Myanmar has the tremendous hydropower potential of39,720 MW, of which only 5.9% has been developed

(Table 3; WEC, 2010; Irrigation Department, 2011;Kattelus et al., forthcoming). The energy sector isincreasingly interested in hydropower development to gainthe much needed foreign capital from electricity exports.The new legislation and free trade agreements offereconomic opportunities for foreign investors who areinvited to help finance and construct hydropower projects(Robinson, 2012; Webb et al., 2012). Consequently,Myanmar has experienced a rapid growth of hydropowercapacity in recent years; and hydropower has become theprimary electricity producer in Myanmar and a majorexport earner (Table 3).

Numerous hydropower projects are under way, with anestimated capacity between 12,710-38,000 MW (WEC,2010; Urban et al., 2013b; Figure 2). The estimates offuture capacity vary, as it remains uncertain which ofthe planned dams will eventually be commissioned.Hydropower development is moving from the tributaries tothe main streams of the rivers and to more remote areasclose to the borders, with the development plans primarilytargeting to the Salween and the Upper Irrawaddy (Figure 2;Kattelus et al., forthcoming).

The neighbouring countries, India, Bangladesh, Chinaand Thailand, are involved in many of the schemes, and willbe the future importers of this new hydropower capacity.Both India and China, though investing heavily on domestichydropower, are also interested in importing to their largepower market where demand growth constantly exceeds thesupply growth (Rahaman and Varis, 2009). China and Indiaalso want to secure strong bilateral relations with Myanmarto ensure continuous access to resources and to maintain amajor role in the region’s energy market (Yahya, 2005).Furthermore, many of Myanmar’s neighbours haveambitious electrification targets. For instance, theGovernment of Bangladesh has set a target to electrify thewhole country by 2020 (Srivastava and Misra, 2007).Thailand’s interest in Myanmar’s resources is a combinedresult of the depletion of domestic resources, pressure to

Table 3. Indicators on development in energy and hydropower in1988 and 2009

1988 2009

Hydropower potential (MW)* — 39,720Hydropower capacity (MW)* 252 2,351 (2013)Hydroelectric generation (GWh)** 935 4,181Hydropower planned capacity (MW)*** — 12,710-32,000Access to electricity %** — 13Electric power consumption (kWh per capita)** 40 104Electricity production (GWh)** 2,226 5,850Electricity production from hydroelectric

sources (% of total)**42 71

Electricity production from natural gas sources(% of total)**

43 20

Source: * WEC (2010). ** World Bank (2013). *** WEC (2010);Irrigation Department (2011).

88 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

diversify electricity sources, electricity demand growth,resource availability in Myanmar, and rising environmentalawareness in Thailand (Hirsch, 1995; Nakawiro andBhattacharyya, 2007; Affeltranger, 2008).

Currently China is Myanmar’s most importantcooperation partner on investment and technical support indam building, with investments into Myanmar adding up toa planned capacity of 30,000 MW (Burma Rivers Network,2008). Both Thai and Chinese hydropower developers areinvolved in the hydropower projects on the Salween River,including: the Hutgyi of 1,360 MW, the Upper Thanlwin of1,400 MW and the Tasang of 7,110 MW (Figure 2; Mageeand Kelley, 2009). Furthermore, seven hydropower projectswere reportedly planned by Chinese developers at theconfluence of the Irrawaddy River and the Maykha andMalikha Rivers with a combined capacity of 13,360 MW(China View, 2008). The first two dams to be implementedwere the Myitsone dam of 3,600 MW and the Chibwe damof 2,000 MW (Energy Tribune, 2007), but the Myitsonedam project was unexpectedly suspended in 2011, possiblydue to public pressure (The New York Times, 2011; BBCNews, 2011); the future of the project remains unclear. Themost recently completed hydropower projects include theShweli (1) of 600 MW in northeast Myanmar, China’sfirst build-operate-transfer hydropower project with theGovernment of Myanmar, and the Yeywa of 592-790 MWon the Myitnge River, completed in 2010 (Reuters, 2007;Irrigation Department, 2011).

Neighbouring countries’ increasing interest anddependence on imported energy and Myanmar’sconvenient geographical location provide a viable setup forenergy trade (World Bank, 2008; Rahaman, 2009; 2012;Rahaman and Varis, 2009; ADB, 2012a). Increasedcooperation between China and South and Southeast Asiancountries can result in enhanced economic and politicalopportunities (Urban et al., 2013b). Regional power sectorintegration and grid extensions can also increase economicintegration and trade, as well as mutual trust andunderstanding (Hoff, 2011). The existence of the regionalcooperation initiatives, the Greater Mekong Subregion(GMS), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-SectoralTechnical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and theAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), furtherboosts the regional cooperation, as they all emphasiseenergy as one of the priority areas of cooperation (Katteluset al., forthcoming). Through such initiatives, businessand development projects in many border regions arebeginning to accelerate (Smith, 2005). With this increasingenergy cooperation, Myanmar’s role in the regionalhydroelectricity trade is going to grow more important (cf.Bartle, 2002; Yu, 2003; ASEAN, 2004; Karki et al., 2005;World Bank, 2008; Rahaman and Varis, 2009; Rahaman,2012). Meanwhile, this development has created multiplegovernance changes as well as social and ecologicalthreats, presented in more detail in the followingsections.

3. Institutional setting in Myanmar’s water, energyand food sectors

The on-going reforms have created a shift in local andnational actors in Myanmar’s natural resource managementand development. As described above, the traditionalgovernmental actors are increasingly accompanied bydomestic and foreign businesses. Civil society and NGOsare also starting to take a more vocal role in developmentissues. This section briefly reviews the actors, their roles,and the related legislation in the water, energy and foodsectors.

3.1. Governmental institutions and relatedlegislative framework

Currently several governmental institutions are involved invarious interlinking activities related to environment,agriculture and energy. The Ministry of Agriculture andIrrigation is central in management and policy issuesrelated to land tenure and land-use reform, whereas theseactivities could be in conflict with those of the Ministry ofEnvironmental Conservation and Forestry with respect tothe management of forest resources and land-use policy(James, 2005). The departments under the Ministry ofElectric Power look after the provision of water forhydropower and oversee the planning, constructing andoperating of hydropower dams (MOEP, 2013). TheDepartment of Meteorology and Hydrology, under theMinistry of Transport, takes measurements and conductsassessments of rivers (DMH, 2013). These ministries andtheir departments are in a central role in making decisionsrelated to the practical issues of achieving a balancebetween economic development and good environmentalmanagement (James, 2005).

The Ministry of National Planning and EconomicDevelopment plays a major role in executing the plannedagricultural reform (Szep, 2012). The new FarmlandAdministration Body under the Ministry of Agriculture andIrrigation is in charge of implementing new land legislationby reviewing and approving usage rights for farmland(Hiebert and Nguyen, 2012; Oberndorf, 2012). The recentlyestablished Central Committee for the Management ofVacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands monitors usage rights oversuch lands and grants large-scale land and resourceconcessions to the private sector for agricultural and otheruses (Oberndorf, 2012).

The National Commission for Environmental Affairs(NCEA) is Myanmar’s main agency for environmentalgovernance. The NCEA was formed by the Ministry ofForeign Affairs in February 1990 and, until 2005, the NCEAChairman was the Minister of Foreign Affairs (UNESCAP,2005). Since 2005, the NCEA has been under the Ministryof Environmental Conservation and Forestry, which nowplays the chairperson role (Nyunt, 2008). The NCEA’sresponsibilities are ensuring the sustainable use of

89Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

environmental resources, promoting environmentally soundpractices in economic activities, nature and environmentalconservation, offering guidance in environmentalmanagement and collaborating with internationalorganisations (Tan, 1997). It coordinates between thegovernment agencies concerned with various aspectsof environmental management, assists in formulatingenvironmental policies, issues guidelines for implementingenvironmental policies and advises on legislation andregulations (UN, 2002).

Though the establishment of the NCEA held the promiseof greater capacity to deal with sectoral limitations inenvironmental issues (Aung, 2007), the decision-makingstill does not incorporate environmental matters, andenvironmental protection efforts continue to be undertakenprimarily on a sectoral basis (Nyunt, 2008). Acuteenvironmental issues such as forest degradation, waterresources management and the sustainability of agriculturecome under the authority of the respective departmentsand ministries which are statutorily separate from theNCEA; this hinders the development of the NCEA asan implementation body (Myint, 2007). Without a legalmandate and authority, the NCEA only has limitedenforcement capacity (Habito and Antonio, 2007). Aninstitutional and policy foundation is thus lacking to ensureequitable distribution of benefits from natural resourcesthroughout the society (James, 2010).

3.1.1. Legal framework

Legislation affecting agricultural development includesseveral land laws. The Land Acquisition Act (1894), still ineffect today, gives the government the right to take over anyland, but with compensation to its original owners (Leckieand Simperingham, 2009; BEWG, 2011). Prior to 2011,foreign companies and investors were not allowed to ownland or lease land for longer than one year unlessspecifically permitted by the government (Myanmar Legal,2012). Only very recently the government beganencouraging foreigners to invest in land development byleasing 100% foreign-owned land concessions (BEWG,2011). The new Foreign Investment Law (2012) allowsforeign investors to lease private land with an initialinvestment term of 30 years, twice extendible for periods of15 years (ADB, 2012b; Myanmar Legal, 2012). It alsooffers tax breaks to investors and enables them to establishbusinesses without the need for local partners (ADB,2012b; Robinson, 2012).

The recently enacted Farmland Law (2012) secures landtenure through a land use certificate and registration system,operated by the Farmland Administration Body (Oberndorf,2012). The law defines the right to sell, exchange, accesscredit, inherit and lease land. It also defines theclassifications for farmland, such as paddy land, perennialplant land and others. The classification does not recogniseupland cultivation practices, which is a rotational fallow

cultivation system used by many communities. Despitethese new land rights, the government retains ultimateownership of land and can rescind land use rights ifconditions of use are not met (Oberndorf, 2012). Throughthe Vacant, Fallow, Virgin Lands Management Law (2012),citizens, private sector investors, government entities andNGOs can submit an application to the Central Committeefor the Management of Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands tolease these lands for agricultural development or otherpurposes (Oberndorf, 2012). The Committee can allocate20 km2 of land classified as fallow to a cumulativemaximum of 200 km2 for up to 30 years (Oberndorf, 2012).

The two new bills already face criticism from farmactivists for creating more opportunities for the state to takeover land (Szep, 2012). They are also claimed to have beenwritten in haste and without proper consultation with keystakeholders including land experts, failing to provideadequate guarantees for millions of small farmers(Robinson, 2012; Buchanan et al., 2013). Under the newlaws, farmers still lack land tenure security, as landdemarcated as wastelands by the Ministry of Agricultureand Irrigation can be confiscated from subsistence farmerswithout compensation (Woods, 2011; Hiebert and Nguyen,2012). The land can be classified as vacant even thoughfarmers are cultivating according to their customarysystems, which cover almost all uplands (Woods, 2011;Buchanan et al., 2013).

The Environmental Law was promulgated on 1 April2012. It defines “the rights and responsibilities of theMinistry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry,environmental standards, environmental conservation,management in urban areas, conservation of natural andcultural resources, process for businesses to apply forpermission to engage in an enterprise that has the potentialto damage the environment, prohibitions, offences andpunishments” (Myanmar Times, 2012). The first unified lawcovering all aspects of conservation of water resources inMyanmar is the Conservation of Water Resources andRivers Law, enacted in 2006. It aims to conserve and protectthe water resources and river systems to benefit the publicusers and to prevent serious environmental impacts (Nyunt,2008).

Reducing the negative effects of dams and increasingtheir sustainability requires strong national legislation(Urban et al., 2013b). The new Environmental Law (2012)is considered too weak to affect local and foreign businessactivities, due to very small fines in comparison to the sizeof the investment in large projects (Myanmar Times, 2012).Though several major projects with severe environmentalimpacts are under way, Myanmar’s laws do not requireenvironmental impact assessments (EIAs) and the NCEAdoes not have the authority to commission them (BurmaRivers Network, 2008). Moreover, even if the neighbouringcountries’ law requires EIAs for domestic hydropowerdevelopment, it does not cover cross-border projects(Magee and Kelley, 2009). Considering the intense

90 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

development in agriculture and hydropower, the importanceof EIAs cannot be overemphasised. Environmental andsocial impact assessments using internationally recognisedstandards would bring local community concerns into thedecision-making process (Talbott et al., 2012). Lack offormal institutions or a comprehensive plan in Myanmar’swater sector increases the likelihood of conflicts as thehydropower-led development schemes fail to consider thelivelihood and ecological demands on the river, especiallysince the watersheds are largely populated by ethnicminorities lacking political or economic clout (McNallyet al., 2009).

3.2. International and private actors

With the changing legal and institutional setting, newinternational and private actors have an increasing influenceon the development of the agricultural and energy sectors.The new land laws are designed for the agricultural sector toshift towards an export-led, large-scale agro-industrialsector in which land-use rights are allocated to domesticand foreign agribusiness (Buchanan et al., 2013).According to Woods (2011), power has shifted from localvillage elite to regional and national Myanmar militaryofficials and Chinese business people in the newagricultural investments in the contested ethnic borderareas.

These agribusiness investors, primarily from China,India, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, are almost entirelyinterested in producing and processing palm oil and rubber(Buchanan et al., 2013). China is a major player in therubber sector in the uplands of northern Myanmar in termsof financing and overland imports (Woods, 2011), and theKachin and Shan states have the country’s highest increasein concessions (Buchanan et al., 2013). The Vietnamesegovernment signed a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) in April 2010 for a 500 km2 rubber concessionlocated in southern Rakhine state (BEWG, 2011).Malaysian companies (e.g., Felda Global VenturesHoldings) and Thai companies (e.g., Sri Trang Co. and ThaiHua Rubber Co.) are interested in obtaining large-scalerubber concessions in the Tanintharyi Region in southernMyanmar, where over 1,000 km2 were allocated by 2011to 36 companies’ production of palm oil and rubber(Buchanan et al., 2013). Furthermore, by officialgovernment numbers, 216 private domestic businesses hadbeen allocated a total of nearly 7,000 km2 by 2010; in theKachin state nearly 1,600 km2 were allocated to 11companies and in the Shan state 400 km2 were allocated to21 companies (BEWG, 2011).

The neighbouring countries and their state-owned andprivate companies are closely involved in the on-goinghydropower development activities, with Chineseconstruction companies and state enterprises holding asubstantial role. According to International Rivers (2011),at least 45 Chinese companies currently invest in over

60 dams in Myanmar, including some related substationand transmission line projects. Plans for dams on theSalween, Irrawaddy and Shweli Rivers with financial andconstruction support from China are by some estimationsalmost 40,000 MW (McDonald et al., 2009; Urban et al.,2013b). Hydropower development in Myanmar includeslarger players, such as the Chinese Sinohydro Corporationand the China Export Import (Exim) Bank (InternationalRivers, 2011; Urban et al., 2013b) and numerous smaller,lesser known ones, listed by International Rivers (2011),McDonald et al. (2009) and Urban et al. (2013b). Thesemultiple actors have various roles, making it difficult toclearly identify all the institutions involved with theirspecific responsibilities.

3.2.1. The role of international and private actors inenvironmental governance

Rapid changes such as development projects outpacinginstitutional capacity to absorb them can create stress onsocio-economic and geopolitical systems (McNally et al.,2009). Thakkar (2008) states that the responsibility of theforeign investors and financiers needs to be emphasised incountries like Myanmar lacking their own institutionalstrength to address these issues. Although the increasingprivate sector involvement adds to the complexity ofenvironmental and social concerns, it also providesopportunities for improved water resources andenvironmental management (Middleton, 2008). Lebel(2009) mentions that what were once thought of as just localproblems may now have transboundary causes andconsequences. The management of natural resources couldbe strengthened through increased competence and budgetfor installing environmental safeguards. With theencouragement of the international community, the privatesector should become more aware of the necessity ofseeking sustainable investments to improve theircompetitive position in international trade (Gugler and Shi,2009), to secure access to resources and to maintainpolitical stability.

Chinese institutions have a strong influence on theenvironmental and social standards and practices in thehost countries (Urban et al., 2013a). The sheer numberof Chinese hydropower projects in Myanmar andother countries shows the relevance of internationalenvironmental norms in Chinese hydropower investment(Hensengerth, 2013). According to Hensengerth (2013), therole of international norms in Chinese investment isdependent on two factors: the political institutions of thehost countries and the contractual agreements under whichChinese companies operate abroad, determining the natureand scope of the company’s involvement. Equitablecontracts and MOUs should play an important rolein ensuring appropriate sharing of benefits andresponsibilities. According to the guidelines by WCD(2000), during hydropower project preparation, the

91Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

agreements should be verified to have mechanisms in placefor benefit-sharing, mitigation, compensation, developmentand compliance measures.

McDonald et al. (2009) acknowledge that the Chinesegovernment is becoming increasingly aware of thechallenge and the necessity of promoting environmentallyand socially sound investments. Chinese domestic lawclearly lays out procedures for environmental and socialimpact assessment for assessing the existing projects(McDonald et al., 2009). The weakness of the Chinesedomestic EIA Law passed in 2003 is that it does not containprovisions for requiring that unavoidable impacts aremitigated by project developers (Urban et al., 2013b). Thus,China’s strengthened environmental legislation is onlypartially effective with companies acting at a distance fromthe government (Urban et al., 2013b).

The Global Environmental Institute (GEI), a ChineseNGO, initiated an Integrated Policy Package Program (GEI,2013) establishing a set of norms for environmentalbehaviour by overseas Chinese enterprises. These were laterissued as the Guidelines for Environmental Protectionin Foreign Investment and Cooperation by the Ministry ofCommerce and the Ministry of Environmental Protection ofChina (MOFCOM, 2013). The guidelines cover key issuessuch as environmental policies, environmental managementplans, mitigation measures and community relations.Though not binding, they are a government policy and auseful tool for civil society to engage Chinese companiesabroad (International Rivers, 2013).

Some Chinese corporations have also started to produceand publish their own corporate environmental and socialresponsibility standards. In 2011, Sinohydro adoptedcompany-wide environmental and social standards,prepared in dialogue with International Rivers, andcommitted to a constructive relationship with localcommunities (Bosshard, 2010). Financers are also taking aninterest in international norms as Chinese banks have beenurged to adopt international standards, particularly theEquator Principles (Hensengerth, 2013), the most well-known industry-level norms relating to sustainable banking(Matisoff and Chan, 2008). China Exim Bank published anenvironmental policy in 2007, which requires an EIA inforeign projects, and deals with issues before, during andafter project implementation (McDonald et al., 2009). Thehost country’s environmental legislation forms the basisfor the impact evaluation, though if the host countrylacks adequate environmental regulations, Chinese orinternational regulations can be used (Matisoff and Chan,2008).

Some of the hydropower investors and developers inMyanmar have adopted their own environmental and socialstandards, but it is difficult to detect what kind ofenvironmental and social policies the various smallerhydropower developers follow, if any. According toMcDonald et al. (2009) and Bosshard (2013), many majorChinese investors, financers and equipment suppliers

developing dams abroad continue to lack environmental orhuman rights policies or they have developed policies thatare not in line with international standards. Urban et al.(2013b) mentions that Chinese companies conductingfeasibility studies for dams simultaneously serve asfinanciers, builders and regulators of hydropower projectsresulting in a blurring of lines between these roles. Thesheer number of public and private actors involved inMyanmar’s hydropower industry raises transparency andaccountability issues due to the multiplicity of playersinvolved (Urban et al., 2013b).

3.3. Role of civil society and NGOs inenvironmental governance

NGOs and independent associations, including aburgeoning number of small, local groups, religious andprofessional associations, social groups and ethnicallybased associations, have an important role in tending thehumanitarian needs of the Myanmar population (James,2006). Environmental issues in Myanmar are closely linkedto issues of human rights, and commonly the civilorganisations and NGOs focus on these themes inconnection with each other (Doyle and Simpson, 2006).They aim to enhance social and political space and to creategreater opportunity to participate in the country’s economicand social life (James, 2006).

According to James (2006), civil society plays a key rolein achieving greater human security and in alleviating theimpact of policies that put vulnerable populations at risk. Inrecent years public pressure and civil activity has grownagainst the on-going large-scale development projects(Buchanan et al., 2013). The improved media environment(Campbell, 2013) has created new space for reportingcritically on the projects. The contested ethnic border landshave become important locales for environmentalmovements, which have developed expertise andinternational networks for communicating the social andenvironmental impacts of hydropower projects (Simpson,2013).

NGOs have been reporting on the proposed dams andother environmental and social threats (cf. Karen RiversWatch, 2004; KDRG, 2006; BEWG, 2011; KHRG, 2013).International Rivers, Salween Watch and Burma RiversNetwork have comprehensive websites that compileinformation on the dam projects and their impacts. Many ofthe organisations focus specifically on ethnic regionssubject to severe ecological threats. In the Kayin State,also known as Karen, there are several organisationscampaigning against the Salween dams, such as the KarenniDevelopment Research Group. They highlight the potentialecological impacts of the dams in the context of humanrights abuses faced by the Karenni. The Karen RiversWatch, a coalition of Karen organisations, campaigns bydisseminating knowledge to empower and mobilise thecommunities (Simpson, 2013). The Karen Environmental

92 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

and Social Action Network specifically focuses on socialand environmental issues together by reflecting thepriorities of the locals and encouraging participatorymanagement of local resources using traditional wisdom,experience and institutions (Doyle and Simpson, 2006). TheShan Sapawa Environmental Organisation is the first Shanorganisation dedicated to preserving the environment in theShan State and campaigning especially on the Tasangproject (Simpson, 2013).

Civil society and NGOs continuously have turned to thecompanies involved to get them to adopt appropriatemeasures to mitigate the adverse social and environmentaleffects and to stop cooperating with the government on thedevelopment schemes (Simpson, 2013). Public displays andgrowing opposition were followed by the unprecedenteddecision to suspend the Myitsone dam (Simpson, 2013).Despite this emergent promise of more responsivegovernance, there are still no formalised processes for thepublic consultation of community or civil society concernsrelated to the large-scale projects, while other controversialprojects remain unchanged (Simpson, 2013).

4. Challenges to water, energy and food

Both the agricultural and energy sectors are facing majorchanges. With the new land and investment legislation, thegovernment aims to expand exports and exploit naturalresources by increasing private sector involvement. Aspreviously described, the new land legislation has createdthe legal conditions for the commercialisation ofagricultural and foreign purchase of land-use titles(Buchanan et al., 2013). The new private actors and thecommercialised agriculture are likely to impact the status ofsubsistence farmers and their resource security. Thetraditional rubber growing areas are located in southernMyanmar, where rubber plantations are mostly owned andoperated by smallholders contributing to local livelihoods,whereas rubber plantation establishment in the northerntargeted areas is by regional military authorities grantinglarge-scale private concessions (Woods, 2011). Accordingto BEWG (2011), the increased numbers of large-scalemonoculture plantations threaten human security,ecological integrity, land tenure, livelihoods of localfarmers and food security. International NGOs say thatthere are already ecological problems, reduction of localbiodiversity and overuse of water resources related to therubber plantations (Buchanan et al., 2013). The number oflandless farmers is claimed to be on the rise, as the loss ofcultivation rights leads to rural landlessness, poverty andrapid rural-urban migration (Szep, 2012; Buchanan et al.,2013). Local ethnic people are not hired in the plantations,but instead, Chinese and Burmese from the south arebrought in for labour force (Woods, 2011).

The rubber and palm oil plantations not only threatenother agriculture-based livelihoods, they also create conflict

and unrest. The border areas include the most isolated andimpoverished areas in Myanmar, which have experienceddecades of civil war (Buchanan et al., 2013). Recently, theethnic ceasefires in the border areas have created stateterritorial control giving the Ministry of Agriculture andIrrigation jurisdiction over the land, enabling it to grantagricultural land concessions to private companies (Woods,2011). This push for commercialised agriculture couldthreaten overall national and local economic developmentas well as affect national and local food security (Buchananet al., 2013).

Concerns have been raised by different environmentaland human rights groups on the environmental, social andpolitical impacts of the hydropower projects. The dams areopposed for many reasons: the common use of local ethnicminority communities as forced labour; the submersionof villages as well as large areas of forests and arable lands;the adverse effects on food security and fisheries; theenvironmental degradation and; the loss of ethnicsovereignty over natural resources (Simpson, 2013). Manypeople are directly dependant on land and water resourcesfor their livelihoods, with impacts on natural systemsdirectly linking to their social and economic wellbeing (Yu,2003).

A preliminary EIA by BANCA (2009) on the damcascade in the upper Irrawaddy basin finds that potentialmultiple impacts from dam building on biodiversity,wildlife species, aquatic ecology, subsistence fishing, ricecultivation and local livelihoods can be anticipated. Theyalso point out that the dam sites cover some strictbiodiversity conservation areas identified by Davies et al.(1995). The dam construction projects on the Salween Riverare expected to seriously affect the ecological conditions byflooding vast areas and changing the river flows in thedownstream reaches, including the delta, causing saltintrusion (Foundation of Ecological Recovery, 2003). Theextensive damming scheme will also affect the futuresediment flux (Robinson et al., 2007), which could impactthe densely populated delta regions and Yangon, wheresedimentation and seasonal flooding are important for ricegrowing (Than, 2006; Hedley et al., 2010). Undoubtedlythe construction of mainstream dams will affect fishbiodiversity, with cumulative fish loss and reduction ofcapture fisheries (Allen et al., 2012). Fisheries are the fifthlargest earner of foreign exchange and fish is also a majorpart of the diet in Myanmar (James, 2005).

The cross-border hydropower development mayexacerbate regional inequality regarding environmental,economic and social impacts, as Myanmar could end up“importing” the adverse social and environmental impactswithout receiving the associated economic benefits (Yu,2003). Affeltranger (2008) states that foreign-ownedhydropower development potentially threatens nationalsovereignty over water resources, such as when allocatingwater between hydropower and irrigation. Theoreticallyhydropower infrastructure can improve flood control in the

93Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

wet season and benefit irrigation during the dry season, yeta hydropower operator’s first priority is to produceelectricity, not to prevent floods or irrigate dry season crops(Smith, 2011). Communities living in the vicinity of thehydropower site may remain without electricity and haveother elements of their security, such as food, water orlivelihood, undermined (Simpson, 2007). Based on theguidelines by the World Commission on Dams (WCD,2000), when assessing the needs for water and energyservices, the plans for water and energy development needto reflect the local and national needs adequately as well asthe needs and priorities between and within sectors. Yu(2003) thus states that a better balance should be obtainedbetween the power trade and local energy needs.

Hydropower development can also lead to conflictsbetween ethnic minorities and the military (Buchanan et al.,2013; Simpson, 2013). According to Cook (2011),development projects tend to support the security policiesof the military, and play a significant role in thedisplacement of ethnic minorities and human rights abusesin Myanmar. International Rivers (2011) has compiled anddocumented some of the alleged social ramifications ofthe dam projects in Myanmar including, inter alia, forcedseizures of land, displacements, inappropriate resettlement,forced labour, disregard for local people’s rights.Furthermore, the investments rely little on local institutionswith few benefits received by the locals, for example, interms of work or not creating a good foundation for futuregrowth (Turnell, 2011).

As many of the hydropower deals are sensitive in nature,information is kept confidential and many of the damsremain non-researched or under-researched, making itparticularly difficult to assess the exact impacts of theprojects (Urban et al., 2013b). Another complicating factorin estimating the impacts of the dams is the uncertainty overwhich dams will be built and their configuration andconstruction sequence (Allen et al., 2012).

5. The water-energy-food nexus: A way forward?

In many developing countries, where institutional capacityfor managing the environmental and socio-economic effectsof pressures on water, energy and food is developing muchslower, FDI is a major driver of change. This posessignificant challenges to local people’s livelihoods andaccess to land as well as water and food security (Hoff,2011). Sustainable improvement of water, food and energysecurity requires institutional and policy coherence as wellas appropriate environmental and social norms. In thissection we discuss the WEF nexus approach and itspotential in tackling these challenges.

It is important to not only strengthen institutionaleffectiveness, but to review the linkage and coordinationmechanisms in and within the agencies related to ruraldevelopment, agriculture, irrigation, hydropower and

environmental protection, among others (James, 2005). TheWEF nexus aims to integrate management and governanceacross sectors and scales through improved understandingof the interconnectedness between the sectors (Hoff, 2011).The nexus thinking aims to highlight the interdependence ofwater, energy and food security and the natural resourcesthat underpin that security — water, soil and land (Hoff,2011). It also seeks to determine synergies and identifypossibilities for increasing resource productivity, greaterpolicy coherence and integrated natural resourcemanagement. With improved understanding of theinterconnectedness between the sectors, co-benefits acrosssectors and scales could be enhanced to further mutual trustand goals.

Our analysis illustrates that hydropower, energy access,land ownership and food security are elements of thecurrent development challenges in Myanmar that areclosely interlinked but not governed holistically by thedifferent actors involved. To fully address the WEF nexus,further analysis of the policy and institutional environmentwould be required. The key idea behind the nexus concept isto better understand the interconnecting activities in thesectors related to water, energy and food. Very littlecooperation occurs between Myanmar’s focal agenciesalong the WEF nexus in terms of finding synergies inpolicies and practical issues of environmental governance;effective implementation of the nexus related to resourceuse as well as those related to the institutional, legal andpolicy dimensions requires higher quality data and furtherresearch to deeper examine these interlinkages. Thenumerous private actors introduced to the sectors furtherincrease the level of complexity in the highly dynamicsetting of Myanmar’s natural resources governance.

The nexus is not traded-off equally, as indicated by: theinstitutional disconnections and power imbalances, thefragmentation of closely connected responsibilities todifferent ministries, and energy having a stronger voicethan water (Hoff, 2011). In this paper we haveidentified imbalances along the nexus, which include theoveremphasis on regional economic needs at the expense oflocal and domestic needs, and the prioritisation of somesectors over others. These issues create and maintainconflicting interests and tensions between sectors andscales. We have also determined the trade-offs resultingfrom current economic activities, such as environmentaldegradation, resource insecurity, competition overresources and increasing poverty, inequality and instability.The sectors along the nexus face similar challengesrelated to securing resource access, sharing benefitsand responsibilities, mitigating trade-offs, strengtheninginstitutional capacity and ensuring good practices ininvestments and development schemes.

Holistic thinking offered by the nexus approach couldhelp address the above-mentioned imbalances and trade-offs. However, similarly to other integrated approaches thathave been criticised for being too broad and vague, the WEF

94 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

nexus lacks practical guidelines for building synergiesacross sectors as well as guiding investments that take intoaccount the prevailing natural and social systems. It is notclear how to deal with the increasing level of complexityand broader concepts that come with higher levels ofintegration (Hoff, 2011). Furthermore, the WEF nexus doesnot include many other key aspects and sectors, since waterespecially relates to society and development in countlessways (Rahaman and Varis, 2005).

6. Conclusions

This paper reviewed the on-going economic and politicalreforms and their implications on water, energy and foodsecurity in Myanmar. The reforms, supported by new landand investment legislation, are resulting in an intensificationof foreign investments in energy and agriculture. TheGovernment is actively seeking policies which embrace thisquick economic development, extraction of resources andstrong involvement of the private sector. This developmentresults in various changes as new actors are welcomed to thesectors. Meanwhile, existing livelihoods and ecosystemsdependent on the land and water resources face increasingcompetition for the shared resources, while lacking securedaccess to them. There are increasing concerns that sectoraldevelopment is occurring at the expense of environmentaland social sustainability, as benefits and risks from thedevelopment schemes are not shared equally.

Legislation and institutional capacity is currently not inplace to reduce trade-offs, to secure local livelihoods and tohelp avoid sectoral conflicts. Coordination and cooperationis necessary to ensure that all sectors can contribute to thecountry’s overall socio-economic development withoutlimiting one another’s potential. The new actors from theprivate sector have an important and increasingly visiblerole in seeking sustainable investments. Their activitiesshould be guided by contractual agreements andenvironmental and social norms that take into account theprevailing natural and social conditions. Increasedeconomic cooperation and private sector involvement has apotential to bring a stronger agenda and more resources tosustainable development if land and water investments areguided with broader social, environmental and economicobjectives. Civil society and NGOs should be given a morevocal role in development projects, and their environmentaland social expertise should be employed in understandingand mitigating the adverse effects resulting fromdevelopment projects.

With the close links between the agricultural and energysectors through land and water resources, the emergingWEF nexus approach could help in finding synergies andcoherence in reform-induced policies and legislation.Meanwhile, the WEF nexus is also a very generalframework — much like other integrated approaches — forguiding policies, legislation and investments. By definition

the WEF nexus does not include many other aspects andsectors that need to be integrated to achieve a balanced andsustainable policy environment. In Myanmar’s case, thelack of good quality data also hinders a deeper analysis ofthe interconnections between the related sectors, whichis important for fully addressing the nexus approach.However, it can be a very useful framework for identifyingtrade-offs and imbalances along the nexus as well as thosespecific linkages that would benefit from a holisticviewpoint. With further analysis into the interlinkagesbetween the related sectors, the WEF nexus could assistMyanmar in guiding the on-going development so thatimbalances between local and regional needs can bemitigated and externalities, such as environmentaldegradation and resource insecurity, can be addressed.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for theirconstructive and useful comments. Sincere thanks are dueto Marko Keskinen for valuable suggestions and to all themembers of Aalto University’s Water and DevelopmentResearch Group for their instruction and support. MirjaKattelus received funding from the Doctoral Programme inthe Built Environment (RYM-TO). The work was alsopartially funded by the Land and Water TechnologyFoundation (MVTT), Finland and the Academy of Finland(# 13133748).

References

ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2009. Asian development outlook 2009.Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ADO/2009/MYA.pdf (accessed 14 August 2012).

ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2012a. Myanmar in transition —opportunities and challenges. Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2012/myanmar-in-transition.pdf (accessed 14 August2012).

ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2012b. Asian development outlook 2012.Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ado2012-mya.pdf (accessed 14 August 2012).

Affeltranger, B., 2008. Inter-basin water transfers as a technico-politicaloption: Thai-Burmese projects on the Salween River. In: Pachova, N.I.,Nakayama, M., Jansky, L. (Eds.), International Water Security,Domestic Threats and Opportunities. United Nations University Press,Tokyo, pp. 161–179.

Allen, D.J., Smith, K.G., Darwall, W.R.T., 2012. The Status andDistribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Indo-Burma. InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).Cambridge.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), 2004. Plan of action forenergy cooperation (APAEC) 2004–2009. The Twenty-Second ASEANMinisters on Energy Meeting, 9 June 2004, Makati City.

Aung, M.U., 2007. Policy and practice in Myanmar’s protected areasystem. Journal of Environmental Management 84(2): 188–203.

BANCA (Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association), 2009.Environmental impact assessment (special investigation) onhydropower development of Ayeyawady river basin above Myitkyina,Kachin state, Myanmar. October 2009, Yangon, Myanmar.

95Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

Bartle, A., 2002. Hydropower potential and development activities. EnergyPolicy, 30(14): 1231–1239.

Bazilian, M., Rogner, H., Howells, M., Hermann, S., Arent, D., Gielen, D.,Steduto, P., Mueller, A., Komor, P., Tol, R.S.J., Yumkella, K.K., 2011.Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integratedmodelling approach. Energy Policy, 39(12): 7896–7906.

BBC News, 2010. China Premier Wen Jiabao boosts ties in Burma visit.3 June 2010. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10225072(accessed 28 June 2013).

BBC News, 2011. Burma dam: Why Myitsone plan is being halted.30 September 2011. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15123833 (accessed 14 August 2012).

BEWG (Burma Environmental Working Group), 2011. Burma’sEnvironment: People, Problems, Policies. Wanida Press, Chiang Mai.

Bhatia, R., 2013. Contours of change in Myanmar — and future prospects.Strategic Analysis, 37(1): 110–112.

Bosshard, P., 2010. China: Not the rogue dam builder we feared it tobe? International Rivers, 31 March. Available at: http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/227/china-not-the-rogue-dam-builder-we-feared-it-would-be (accessed 1 June 2013).

Bosshard, P., 2013. Holding Chinese investors to account. InternationalRivers, 23 April. Available at: http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/227/holding-chinese-investors-to-account (accessed 5 July 2013).

Bremmer, I., 2012. Economic reforms solidify the political opening inBurma. Foreign Policy, 20 March 2012. Available at: http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/20/economic_reforms_to_solidify_political_opening_in_burma (accessed 14 August 2012).

Buchanan, J., Kramer, T., Woods, K., 2013. Developing disparity —Regional investment in Burma’s borderlands. Transnational Institute(TNI) and Burma Center Netherlands (BCN), Amsterdam.

Burma Rivers Network, 2008. Standards for hydropower development —A Burmese perspective. In: Bosshard, P., Brewer, N. (Eds.), NewFinanciers and the Environment: Ten Perspectives on How FinancialInstitutions Can Protect the Environment. International Rivers,Berkeley, CA, pp. 16–19.

Campbell, C., 2013. In Burma, media reform tests the limits of free speech.Time, 30 January 2013. Available at: http://world.time.com/2013/01/30/in-burma-media-reform-tests-the-limits-of-free-speech/ (accessed29 October 2013).

China View, 2008. Myanmar emphasizes on development of hydropower.17 November. Available at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/17/content_10370732.htm (accessed 29 October 2013).

Cook, A.D.B., 2011. The role of external actors in development-induceddisplacement in Myanmar. In: Withana, N. (Ed.), Ending theDisplacement Cycle: Finding Durable Solutions through Return andResettlement. Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, Colombo,pp. 83–96.

Davies, S.D., Heywood, V.H., Hamilton, A.C. (Eds.), 1995. Centres ofPlant Diversity. A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation. Volume 2.Asia, Australia and the Pacific. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature),IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Cambridge

DMH (Department of Meteorology and Hydrology), 2013. Officialwebsite. Available at: http://www.dmh.gov.mm/ (accessed 19September 2013).

Doyle, T., Simpson, A., 2006. Traversing more than speed bumps: Greenpolitics under authoritarian regimes in Burma and Iran. EnvironmentalPolitics, 15(5): 750–767.

Energy Tribune, 2007. Myanmar’s Push for Hydropower. 23February.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2002.Myanmar agricultural atlas. Available at: http://dwms.fao.org/atlases/myanmar/overview_en.htm (accessed 14 August 2012).

FAO AQUASTAT, 2012. AQUASTAT country database. Available at:http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm (accessed 7 July2012).

FAOSTAT, 2013. Food and agricultural data. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed 29 May 2013).

Foundation of Ecological Recovery, 2003. Briefing paper: Salweenhydropower project (Thai-Burma border). Available at: www.terraper.org/articles/BriefingSalweenThai-BurmaJune03.pdf (accessed 9 July2013).

Fujita, K., Okamoto, I., 2006. Agricultural policies and development ofMyanmar’s agricultural sector: An overview. IDE Discussion PaperSeries No.63, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO.

GEI (Global Environmental Institute), 2013. Integrated policy package:Environmental and social sustainability of China’s overseasinvestments. Available at: http://www.geichina.org/?controller=Articles&action=View&aid=103 (accessed 5 July 2013).

Granit, J., Jägerskog, A., Lindström, A., Björklund, G., Bullock, A.,Löfgren, R., de Gooijer, G., Pettigrew, S., 2012. Regional options foraddressing the water, energy and food nexus in Central Asia and theAral Sea Basin. Water Resources Development, 28(3): 419–432.

Gugler, P., Shi, J.Y.J., 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility fordeveloping country multinational corporations: Lost war in pertainingglobal competitiveness? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1): 3–24.

Habito, C., Antonio, E., 2007. Sustainable development strategies in theGreater Mekong subregion: Status, needs and directions. Capacitybuilding on promoting sustainable development in the GMS, RETA6198, United Nations Development Programme.

Hedley, P.J., Bird, M.I., Robinson, R.A.J., 2010. Evolution of theIrrawaddy delta region since 1850. The Geographical Journal, 176(2):138–149.

Hensengerth, O., 2013. Chinese hydropower companies and environmentalnorms in countries of the global south: The involvement of theSinohydro in Ghana’s Bui Dam. Environment, Development andSustainability, 15(2): 285–300.

Hiebert, M., Nguyen, P., 2012. Land reform: A critical test for Myanmar’sgovernment. Newsletter: Southeast Asia from the Corner of 18th & KStreets, Volume 3, Issue 21, 9 November 2012. Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS), Washington. Available at: http://csis.org/publication/land-reform-critical-test-myanmars-government (accessed29 Oct 2013).

Hirsch, P., 1995. Thailand and the new geopolitics of Southeast Asia:Resource and environmental issues. In: Rigg, J. (Ed.), Counting theCosts: Economic Growth and Environmental Change in Thailand.Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Hoff, H., 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Nexus. StockholmEnvironment Institute, Stockholm.

Hudson-Rodd, N., Nyunt, M., 2001. Control of land and life in Burma.Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, MI.

Irrigation Department, 2011. Presentation at Training workshop on smallhydropower technology for developing countries. 23–24 June 2011.HRC, Hangzhou.

IISS (The International Institute of Strategic Studies), 2011. Myanmar’syear of hopeful change. IISS Strategic Comments, Volume 17,Comment 41. Available at: http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic%20comments/sections/2011-a174/myanmars-year-of-hopeful-change-cb12 (accessed 29 October 2013).

International Rivers, 2011. Database of China’s dam building projects inSoutheast Asia. Available at: www.internationalrivers.org/node/3110(accessed 15 July 2013).

International Rivers, 2013. Chinese Government Guidelines for Over-seas Investment. Available at: http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/chinese-government-guidelines-for-overseas-investment-7934 (accessed 5 July 2013).

James, H., 2005. Environment policy, sustainable development, and policyalleviation. In: James, H. (Ed.), Governance and Civil Society inMyanmar — education, health and environment. Routledge,Abingdon, pp. 112–152.

James, H., 2006. Civil society and the political ecology of sustainabledevelopment — empowerment, opportunity and participation. In:James, H. (Ed.), Security and Sustainable Development in Myanmar.Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 141–164.

96 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

James, H., 2010. Resources, rent-seeking and reform in Thailand andMyanmar (Burma): The economics-politics nexus. Asian Survey,50(2): 426–448.

Karen Rivers Watch, 2004. Damming at gunpoint. Kawthoolei, Myanmar.Available at: http://www.freewebs.com/krw_reports/Dam%20english.pdf (accessed 17 May 2013).

Karki, S.K., Mann, M.D., Salehfar, H., 2005. Energy and environment inthe ASEAN: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 33 (4):499–509.

Kattelus, M., Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O., forthcoming. Hydropowerdevelopment in Myanmar and its implications on regional energycooperation. International Journal of Sustainable Society.

KDRG (Karenni Development Research Group), 2006. Dammed byBurma’s generals. Available at: http://www.salweenwatch.org/images/stories/downloads/publications/dammed-eng.pdf (accessed 17 May2013).

KHRG (the Karen Human Rights Group), 2013. Losing ground:Land conflicts and collective action in eastern Myanmar. Availableat: http://www.khrg.org/khrg2013/LosingGroundKHRG-March2013-FullText.pdf (accessed 8 May 2013).

Kyi, K.M., Findlay, R., Sundrum, R.M., Maung, Mya, Nyunt, Myo, Oo,Zaw, 2000. Economic development of Burma, a vision and strategy.Olof Palme International Center, Stockholm.

Lall, M., 2013. Do the changes in Myanmar signify a real transition? — acritique/response. Strategic Analysis, 37(1): 105–107.

Lebel, L., 2009. The global environmental change and development nexusin Southeast Asia. In: Lebel, L., Snidvongs, A., Chen, A. C-T., Daniel,R. (Eds.), Critical States — Environmental Challenges to Developmentin Monsoon Southeast Asia. Unit for Social and EnvironmentalResearch (USER), Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, pp. 3–20.

Leckie, S., Simperingham, E., 2009. Housing, Land and Property Rights inBurma: The Current Legal Framework. Displacement Solutions & TheHLP Institute, Geneva.

Lintner, B., 2013. Response to Udai Bhanu Singh’s essay, Do the changesin Myanmar signify a real transition? Strategic Analysis, 37(1):108–109.

Magee, D., Kelley, S., 2009. Damming the Salween River. In: Molle, F.,Foran, T., Käkönen, M. (Eds.), Contested Waterscapes in the MekongRegion: Hydropower, Livelihoods and Governance. Earthscan,London, pp. 115–142.

Matisoff, A., Chan, M., 2008. The green evolution: Environmental policiesand practice in China’s banking sector. Friends of the Earth and BankTrack. Available at: http://www.banktrack.org/download/the_green_evolution_environmental_policies_and_practice_in_the_chinese_banking_sector/green_evolution_2008_foe_final.pdf (accessed 29October 2013).

McDonald, K., Bosshard, P., Brewer, N., 2009. Exporting dams: China’shydropower industry goes global. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 90(3): S294–S302.

McNally, A., Magee, D., Wolf, A.T., 2009. Hydropower and sustainability:Resilience and vulnerability in China’s powersheds. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90(3): S286–S293.

Middleton, C., 2008. Perspective from the Mekong region: New financiersand familiar problems. In: Bosshard, P., Brewer, N. (Eds.), NewFinanciers and the Environment: Ten Perspectives on How FinancialInstitutions Can Protect the Environment. International Rivers,Berkeley, CA, pp. 12–15.

MOAI (Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation), 2003. Agriculture sectorreview project — agricultural water resources study in Myanmar.Available at: Myanmar Information Management Unit, officialwebsite, http://themimu.info/ (accessed 7 July 2012).

MOEP (Ministry of Electric Power), 2013. Present and future power sectordevelopment in Myanmar. Presentation by Myanmar Ministry ofElectric Power. Available at: http://www.uschamber.com/international/asia/southeastasia/burma (accessed 15 August 2013).

MOFCOM (Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China), 2013.Guidelines for environmental protection in foreign investment

and cooperation. Available at: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/bbb/201303/20130300043226.shtml (accessed 5 July2013).

Myanmar Legal, 2012. Doing business in Myanmar. Available at: http://www.myanmarlegalservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Doing-Business-in-Myanmar-300712_708953_1.pdf (accessed 15 August2012).

Myanmar Times, 2012. Environment law deterrents not strong enough:Activists. 30 April–6 May 2012. Available at: http://www.mmtimes.com/2012/news/624/news62411.html (accessed 15 August 2012).

Myint, T., 2007. Environmental governance in the SPDC’s Myanmar.In: Skidmore, M., Wilson, T. (Eds.), Myanmar, the State, Communityand the Environment. Asia Pacific Press, The Australian NationalUniversity.

Nakawiro, T., Bhattacharyya, S.C., 2007. High gas dependence for powergeneration in Thailand: The vulnerability analysis. Energy Policy,35(6): 3335–3346.

Nyunt, M., 2008. Development of environmental management mechanismin Myanmar. Asia Europe Journal 6(2): 293–306.

Oberndorf, R.B., 2012. Legal review of recently enacted Farmland Lawand Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Management Law — Improvingthe legal & policy frameworks relating to land management inMyanmar. Food Security Working Group, Forest Trends Association,Washington DC.

Rahaman, M.M., 2009. Integrated Ganges basin management: Con-flicts and hope for regional development. Water Policy, 11(2): 168–190.

Rahaman, M.M., 2012. Hydropower ambitions of South Asian nations andChina: Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers basins. International Journalof Sustainable Society, 4(1/2): 131–157.

Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O., 2005. Integrated water resources management:Evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science,Practice and Policy, 1(1): 15–21.

Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O., 2009. Integrated water management of theBrahmaputra basin: Perspectives and hope for regional development.Natural Resources Forum, 33(1): 60–75.

Reuters, 2007. China dam project a boost for Myanmar junta: report. 3December. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/03/us-myanmar-china-idUSPEK30787820071203 (accessed 29 October2013).

Robinson, G., 2012. Myanmar pushes reform to woo investors. FinancialTimes, 19 March. Available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/168baaee-71b6-11e1-b853-00144feab49a.html#axzz23bsfaXRa(accessed 15 August 2012).

Robinson, R.A.J., Bird, M.I., Win Oo, N., Hoey, T.B., Maung Aye, M.,Higgitt, D.L., 2007. The Irrawaddy River sediment flux to the IndianOcean: The original nineteenth-century data revisited. Journal ofGeology, 115(6): 629–640.

Salmivaara, A., Kummu, M., Varis, O., Keskinen, M., 2013. Using globaldatasets to create environmental profiles for data-poor regions: A casefrom the Irrawaddy and Salween river basins. EnvironmentalManagement 51(4): 897–911.

Schmidt, C., 2012. An isolation ends, Myanmar faces new ecological risks.Science, 337(6096): 796–797.

Scott, C.A., Pierce, S.A., Pasqualetti, M.J., Jones, A.L., Montz, B.E.,Hoover, J.H., 2011. Policy and institutional dimensions ofwater-energy nexus. Energy Policy, 39(10): 6622–6630.

Simpson, A., 2007. The environment — energy security nexus: Criticalanalysis of an energy ‘love triangle in Southeast Asia’. Third WorldQuarterly, 28(3): 539–554.

Simpson, A., 2013. Challenging hydropower development in Myanmar(Burma): Cross-border activism under a regime in transition. ThePacific Review, 26(2): 129–152.

Singh, U.B., 2013. Do the changes in Myanmar signify a real transition?Strategic Analysis, 37(1): 101–104.

Smith, J., 2011. Two rivers: The chance to export power divides SoutheastAsia. National Geographic News. 25 October. Available at: http://news

97Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations

.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/10/111026-mekong-irrawaddyhydropower-dams/ (accessed 26 September 2012).

Smith, M.T., 2005. Ethnic politics and regional development in Myanmar,the need for new approaches. In: Hlaing, K.Y., Taylor, R.H., Than,T.M.M. (Eds.), Myanmar: Beyond Politics to Societal Imperatives.ISEAS Publications, Singapore, pp. 56–85.

Soe, T., 2004. Myanmar in economic transition: Constraints and relatedissues affecting the agriculture sector. Asian Journal of Agriculture andDevelopment, 1(2): 57–68.

Srivastava, L., Misra, N., 2007. Promoting regional energy co-operation inSouth Asia. Energy Policy, 35(6): 3360–3368.

Szep, J., 2012. Special report — as Myanmar reforms, discontent gripscountryside. Reuters, 9 August. Available at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/uk-myanmar-farms-idUKBRE87801120120809(accessed 2 May 2013).

Talbott, K., Waugh, J., Batson, D., 2012. Sharing the wealth: Burma’spost-military rule and natural resource governance. Small WarsJournal, 26 October 2012. Available at: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/sharing-the-wealth-burma%E2%80%99s-post-military-rule-and-natural-resource-governance (accessed 1 April 2013).

Tan, A.K.J., 1997. Preliminary Assessment of Myanmar’s EnvironmentalLaw. Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law, Singapore.

Thakkar, H., 2008. India’s dam building abroad: Lessons from theexperience at home? In: Bosshard, P., Brewer, N. (Eds.), NewFinanciers and the Environment: Ten Perspectives on How FinancialInstitutions Can Protect the Environment. International Rivers,Berkeley, CA, pp. 9–11.

Than, M., 2006. Changing faces of the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) Delta(1850–2000). Paper presented at the Chao Phraya Delta: HistoricalDevelopment, Dynamics, and Challenges of Thailand’s Rice Bowl,Bangkok.

The New York Times, 2011. Myanmar backs down, suspending damproject. 30 September. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/asia/myanmar-suspends-construction-of-controversial-dam.html (accessed 15 August 2012).

Turnell, S., 2011. Fundamentals of Myanmar’s macroeconomy: A politicaleconomy perspective. Asian Economic Policy Review, 6(1): 136–153.

UN (United Nations), 2002. Johannesburg Summit 2002: MyanmarCountry Profile. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/myanmar.pdf (accessed 15 August 2012).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2002. MyanmarAgricultural Sector Review Investment Strategy, Volume 1 —Sector Review. http://www.mm.undp.org/UNDP_Publication_PDF/ASR%20Vol.1%20Sector%20Review.pdf (accessed 29 October2013).

UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asiaand the Pacific), 2005. Good Practices on Strategic Planning andManagement of Water Resources Development in Asia and the Pacific.Water Resources Series No. 85, United Nations, New York.

Urban, F., Mohan, G., Cook, S., 2013a. China as a new shaperof international development: The environmental implications.Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15: 257–263.

Urban, F., Nordensvärd, J., Khatri, D., Wang, Y., 2013b. An analysis ofChina’s investment in the hydropower sector in the Greater MekongSub-Region. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15:301–324.

Varis, O., Kummu, M., Salmivaara, A., 2012. Ten major river basinsin monsoon Asia-Pacific: An assessment of vulnerability. AppliedGeography, 32(2): 441–454.

WCD (World Commission on Dams), 2000. Dams and Development: ANew Framework for Decision-making. The Report of the WorldCommission on Dams. Earthscan Publications, London.

Webb, E.L., Phelps, J., Friess, D.A., Rao, M., Ziegler, A.D., 2012.Environment-friendly reform in Myanmar. Science, 336(6079): 295.

WEC (World Energy Council), 2010. Survey of Energy Resources 2010.London, United Kingdom.

Woods, K., 2011. Ceasefire capitalism: Military-private partnerships,resource concessions and military-state building in the Burma-Chinaborderlands. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4): 747–770.

World Bank, 2008. Potential and Prospects for Regional Energy Trade inthe South Asia Region. World Bank, Washington.

World Bank, 2013. The data catalog. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog (accessed 29 May 2013).

Yahya, F., 2005. BIMSTEC and emerging patterns of Asian regional andinterregional cooperation. Australian Journal of Political Science,40(3): 391–410.

Yhome, K., 2013. Myanmar’s transition: A comment. Strategic Analysis,37(1): 113–114.

Yu, X., 2003. Regional cooperation and energy development in the GreaterMekong sub-region. Energy Policy, 31(12): 1221–1234.

98 Mirja Kattelus, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman and Olli Varis / Natural Resources Forum 38 (2014) 85–98

© 2013 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2013 United Nations