The Search for Win-Win Solutions to the Natural Resource Issues in the Kachin Conflict

Sep 25, 2014 | Dr. Evan Hoffman, Assistant Professor of Conflict Resolution at Nova Southeastern University

Located in the northern part of Myanmar and sharing borders with China and India, Kachin state is rich in numerous different types of natural resources including gold, rubies, jade and amber. The Kachin Independence Organization and its armed wing have been waging one of the world’s longest-running struggles against the central government. Aside from the political and military issues that are fueling the conflict, natural resource issues are one of the biggest drivers of this conflict. 

Profits from the extraction of natural resources are not always distributed fairly to local communities, and sometimes the communities are bypassed altogether. In other cases, the planning and control of some projects does not involve local input, yet the locals are left to deal with the pollution and other negative impacts.

The Myitsone dam project is illustrative of this issue. The construction of this new dam was negotiated between China and the central government, yet nearly 12,000 people from Kachin state would be forced off their land in order to allow for the construction to occur. Additionally, the dam would supply power to China so the locals would not reap any benefits from it.

Photo: View of Ayeyarwady river from the foot of the Myitsone dam, currently under development, which has been a source of controversy since its proposal in 2001.(Source: Colegota, Wikipedia Commons)

This raises the question, what are the different possibilities for negotiating fair and equitable revenue sharing stemming from the natural resources in Kachin state?

Perhaps the most obvious approach to this type of negotiation would be to divide everything on a proportional basis. For example, natural resource revenues could be evenly divided between central government and Kachin state on a 50/50 basis, or perhaps on a 60/40 basis if the government invests in infrastructure, funds further exploration, and undertakes environmental remediation work resulting from resource extractions. [The example given of a 50/50 division is not based on earlier precedents but simply represents an equal division between the two parties.]

However, aside from this type of distributional negotiation, there are other ways to approach such negotiations. Most notably, there are interest based negotiation approaches that are often the preferred way because they allow for mutually-agreeable solutions to be found.

What are the interests of both parties? The government and the locals would both like to derive some financial benefit from the resources located in Kachin state. Also, the Kachin people would like to ensure that they and their resources aren’t unfairly taken advantage of. The shared interests, perhaps, are to have both parties gain as much as possible from the resources without depleting the environment and this can become a starting point for exploring new, win-win solutions. For example, based on this approach, a number of specific options can be identified:

• Draft new guidelines (for example, the guidelines should specify the need to hold community consultations first, undertake environmental impact studies, make major decisions by consensus, and follow internationally-recognized standards and best practices).

• While mining operations could be owned and operated by the central government, the local government could get its share of revenues via taxes and by issuing permits for mining.

• An arrangement could be made for the government to buy raw materials from Kachin state at a special low rate with the view that they will refine them and then sell them for a higher price on the international market. Jade and gold from Kachin state are two commodities that the central government might be able to refine in Yangon (assuming they have capacity to do so). However, as has been noted, the current regulatory framework in Myanmar concerning gold mining is very restrictive at the moment and in need of further reforms.

• A commitment could be made to creating new federal parks and conservation areas to help offset the damage from mining operations. Depending on how this is undertaken, there is also a possibility that this would be seen by the locals as just another land grab in disguise.

• Guarantees that a certain percentage of local people would be employed in the new projects could also be explored.

Given the violent history of the parties, another important issue to consider is restrictions on how the revenues can be spent: both sides should agree to refrain from spending any money on military equipment or other defense spending. A joint commission could be formed to monitor and enforce such restrictions.

In sum, there are numerous ways for win-win solutions to be reached if creative thinking is employed.

By Dr. Evan Hoffman, Assistant Professor of Conflict Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, ehoffman1@nova.edu