Community forest business in Myanmar: Pathway to peace and prosperity?

Full text

www.iied.org
Community forest business in Myanmar:
Pathway to peace and prosperity?
Report of an advisory mission
Duncan Macqueen
10 December -18 December 2015

www.iied.org 1
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Contents
Executive summary 2
Acknowledgements 5
Acronyms 6
1. Introduction to the forest sector in Myanmar 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Myanmar’s market-led approach to community forestry 11
2. Support to community forestry enterprise development and market led
approach in Myanmar 14
2.1 Review on-going market-led community forest enterprise support in Myanmar 14
2.2 Options to strengthen synergies between community forestry support initiatives 16
3. Support to community forestry enterprise development in Kachin 22
3.1 Review on-going CF Enterprise development support in Kachin 22
3.2 Identification of new opportunities and develop a strategy and plan to strengthen
on going initiatives that will be incorporated in Shalom’s new program 29
4. Summary conclusions and recommendations 32
References 35
Annex 1. Persons consulted in the course of consultancy 37
Annex 2 – Terms of Reference 39
Annex 3 – Proposed draft Terms of Reference for community forest business
specialist 41

www.iied.org 2
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Executive summary
This report summarises a short consultancy mission to Myanmar from 10-18 December 2015
to provide inputs to Pyoe Pin’s programme of work on a market led approach to community
forestry. Over the past two years there have been significant changes, both in the forest
sector where exposés of illegal logging have gone hand in hand with growing momentum
behind community forestry, and in the political landscape generally, with a landslide victory by
the National League for Democracy. The main thrust of recommendations within this report is
to try and ensure that within that dynamic context, community forestry can be seen as an
important platform for building peace and achieving a peace dividend in the wake of a long-
hoped for peace agreement.
Community forestry is now backed by a Community Forestry National Working Group
(CFNWG), and a Community Forestry Unit within the Forest Department. The Forest
Department have named community forestry as one of its sixteen major themes, such that
community forestry focal points have been appointed in each township and meet on the 28th of
each month to discuss progress against set area targets for community forest delimitation.
These institutional developments have been accompanied by a revision of the 1995
Community Forestry Instructions which is in final draft stage and upon approval (hopefully in
early 2016) will grant communities full commercial rights over timber within their community
forests, but commercialising teak will require revision of the Forest Law. Those rights are a
significant advance over the previously ambiguous situation (in which teak harvesting was
explicitly prohibited). The new CFIs should further motivate communities to apply for
community forests – which continue to form one of the only secure tenure arrangements in
ethnic areas. Reform to the forest law to back these advances is anticipated in 2016 but the
process of revision has been a little more opaque.
Even without commercial rights over timber, communities have established community forest
areas for a variety of other benefits – notably watershed protection, tenure security, coastal
protection, subsistence needs for fuel and medicine etc. But with the 2014 log export ban
triggered by fears over revenue loss, unsustainable or illegal harvesting and commercial
exhaustion of Myanmar’s natural forests – there is now a new appetite to involve communities
in the production of timber.
Over the last 5 years, a market led approach to community forestry has received support, not
only from the government but also from civil society organisations and ethnic groups
themselves. The agreed approach aims to restore forest landscapes and is founded on four
main pillars: (i) securing commercial tenure (ii) improving technical know-how; (iii) building
business skills and (iv) strengthening producer organisation. Strong forest-farm producer
organisations are a critical conduit for channelling pro-poor REDD+ finance towards forest
restoration. They are also a central foundation for the legal and sustainable supply of timber
for programmes such as FLEGT. But at this critical moment in history, their most important
role might be in mobilising local people behind constructive peace building efforts that put
resources back in local hands and equip them to generate incomes that will serve as a peace
dividend to those that participate.
All across the country, Government and NGO attempts to establish and scale-up community
forestry are now in full flow – with notable efforts by the Forest Department, NGOs within the
MERN network and major new projects such as the Norwegian funded SuComFor through
RECOFTC. One minor issue is that the positive food security implications of expanding forest-
farm producer control over forest landscapes has not yet been adequately grasped by major
in-country programmes. The approval of the new Community Forest Instructions and the

www.iied.org 3
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
revision of the Forest Law are key next steps in the support of this process, and there are still
major political and institutional issues that need careful attention in the latter reform.
Within Kachin new models of forest business are emerging through the collective efforts of
several community forest user groups clustered through the Kachin Forest Users Association.
The La Myang Community Forest Rattan and Bamboo Group business is one more developed
example. Ideas for a sawn timber processing business and an integrated bamboo processing
business are also being actively explored. As these emerge, they need to be nurtured, and
separated out from the representative association structures, and used as a basis for
replicating and scaling up such income generating option. As income generating options
expand, it is to be expected that the interest in establishing, registering and restoring
community forest areas will likewise expand. A number of more generic recommendation are
complemented by some specific recommendations for the development of the existing Kachin
community forest business opportunities below:
1. Continue to support the evolution of a Community Forestry Practitioners Network
through Pyoe Pin, in collaboration with RECOFTC and FFF, and as a complement to
the Community Forestry National Working Group (CFNWG). The network would
involve both NGO support organisations and representatives from the growing number
of township level Community Forest Product Producers Associations (CFPPAs) – and
might attract additional support by developing a potential thematic focus on how a
market-led approach to community forestry could provide a platform for peace-building
in ethnic areas.
2. Convene through Pyoe Pin and perhaps through MERN, a specific meeting to discuss
advocacy messaging for the reform of the forest law plus broader desired changes to
legislation and institutions under the new Government
3. Partner with RECOFTC and FFF programmes in providing useful exchange visits for
community forestry leaders, support NGO staff and government community forestry
focal points – especially where these involve exposure to detailed cases of community
forestry business. This could further complement the work of the Community Forestry
Practitioners Network.
4. Contract early in 2016 a short term consultant with regional experience in developing
community forestry timber businesses to conduct, together with ECODEV and Shalom
both a market assessment and feasibility analysis of the proposed Kachin State
sawmilling and processing enterprise, plus potential bamboo enterprise options, and
provide suggested next steps to materialise that idea if it looks promising.
5. Provide financial support through MERN members to further support the emergence of
community forestry product producer associations (CFPPAs) at township and state
level, and encourage further exploration of how these might be commercially viability in
their own right through marketing of FUG products or services to members, and broker
meetings to allow discussion of whether and how a national federation might be set up.
This might involve underwriting the costs of association leaders meeting together to
discuss financial strategies and prospects for higher level federation.
6. In Kachin, support local forest user groups through Pyoe Pin / Shalom to enrichment
plant using rattan, conducting research about the volumes produced in particular
spacings, and to explore the possibility / need for a rattan nursery to enhance the scale
at which rattan can be planted.

www.iied.org 4
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
7. As the Kachin rattan business matures, use a consultant to undertake a financial profit
and loss analysis for each of the component parts of the rattan business to assess
where future efforts should be focused.
8. In Kachin, work with the Myanmar Rattan and Bamboo Entrepreneurs Association to
assess and prioritise which of the options (for bamboo flooring or charcoal) appears
most promising, using which species, and at which location – and then offer loan
funding at a concessional rate to pump prime the investment.
9. Investigate and begin to implement through Pyoe Pin a thematic support group on how
a market led approach to community forestry could support the peace process and
possibilities for reform that will deliver a peace dividend– drawing on existing initiatives
such as EITI, and civil society networks such as MATA and TANK.
10. Support through Pyoe Pin the programmatic work of Shalom to strengthen rattan,
bamboo and timber businesses linked to and financially supportive of the Kachin
Forest Users Association as further detailed in this report.
The result of a diverse spectrum of Pyoe Pin interventions has been to establish a business
environment in which the Forestry Department and civil society are aligned behind a push for
commercial community forestry, just as the transition to the new Government is taking place.
With peace building as the central priority of the new Government, there is huge opportunity to
scale-up a transfer of forest resources to communities, develop their livelihood option through
business development, and thereby support a peace dividend that will strengthen democratic
reforms. It may be worth trying to document more carefully the jigsaw of flexible interventions
that brought about this opportunity through the Pyoe Pin programme. It may also be timely to
design any follow on to the Pyoe Pin programme with at least some deliberate resourcing of
follow up to consolidate community forestry within peace-building efforts.

www.iied.org 5
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Acknowledgements
I would like to express particular thanks to the Pyoe Pin team for organizing the many
meetings and the field trip associated with this advisory mission. In particular thanks go to
Salai Cung Lian Thawng and Gerry Fox who set up the terms of reference and accompanied
my visit in detail. Special thanks also to War War Hlaing for all of the administrative support in
getting me to Myanmar and organizing accommodation during the tourist season.
Finally I would like to thank The UK Government’s Department for International Development
(DFID) for the financial support for this mission channelled through the Pyoe Pin Programme.
The views expressed here are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of DFID.
Thanks to the assessment team with whom I travelled for the good company and insightful
discussions throughout – namely Aung Tsen and Peter Brang Shawng, Shalom; Gerry Fox
and Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz Paterson DFID, and Kyaw Thu, Myanmar Bamboo and
Rattan Association.
Thanks to all those who gave of their time to discuss the fascinating issues of how best to
develop a market led approach to community forestry that will contribute to the peace building
efforts within Myanmar.

www.iied.org 6
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Acronyms
CBO Community Based Organization
CF Community Forestry
CFI Community Forestry Instructions
CFNWG Community Forestry National Working Group, Myanmar
CFPPA Community Forestry Product Producers Association
CFU Community Forestry Unit, Myanmar Forest Department
DFID UK Government’s Department for International Development
DFO District Forest Officer, Myanmar
ECCDI Ecosystem Conservation and Community Development Initiative
ECODEV Economically Progressive Ecosystem Development
EIA Environmental Investigation Agency
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FD Forest Department
FFF Forest and Farm Facility
FFI Flora and Fauna International
FLEGT EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Action Plan
FUG Forest User Group
FSWG Food Security Working Group
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
KCWG Kachin Conservation Working Group
KIO Kachin Independence Organisation
LIFT Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund
MATA Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability
MERN Myanmar Environmental Rehabilitation-conservation Network
MOECAF Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry
MTE Myanmar Timber Enterprise
MTMA Myanmar Timber Merchants Association
NCCT Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team, Myanmar
NGO Non-Government Organization
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
RECOFTC Centre for People and Forests
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
SHALOM Nyein (Shalom) Foundation
SIDA Swedish International Development Agency
TANK Transparency and Accountability Network of Kachin
TAT Technical Advisory Team, Myanmar
TFO Township Forest Officer
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNFC United Nationalities Federal Council, Myanmar
UNREDD United Nations programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
forest Degradation
VPA Voluntary Partnerships Agreement under FLEGT
WGEC Working Group for Ethnic Coordination, Myanmar

www.iied.org 7
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
1. Introduction to the forest sector in Myanmar
1.1 Background
Control over the timber trade
Myanmar’s forests have, in both colonial and more recent
governments, served as a source of revenue and power. As
Myanmar transitions to a more democratic future, there is a
growing momentum to put forests and forest revenues back
into community hands. As noted in previous reports
(Macqueen 2012, 2013a, 2013b) forests in Myanmar cover
31,773,000 ha or 47% of total land area. Some 70% of
Burma’s 51 million people live off the land and 17 million are
classified as ‘forest dependent’ (DFID, 2014). While perhaps
not as remunerative as some other sectors (e.g. Jade mining) the economic contribution of the
forest sector is particularly important because of the geographically extensive nature of the
resource – how forests are used affects almost everybody in direct ways. Historic patterns of
forest land use, revenue distribution, and decision-making, have contributed significantly to
grievances and conflicts within Myanmar. The new emphasis on community forestry, built
upon a market-led approach, therefore offers a means of reconciliation within peace building
efforts. This deliberate effort to share forest revenue generation more broadly is in some ways
a litmus test of broader government intentions, and one that will be felt by many rural people.
Under recent Governments, forest management in Myanmar has been controlled by the
Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF) and its two subsidiary
bodies, the Forests Department (FD) and Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE). It is possible
that the new Government will revisit the Ministerial structures, but for now that situation
remains in place. Since 2013 there have been advances in knowledge about how the forest
sector functions within Myanmar. For example, Woods (2013) usefully described five different
origins of timber within the Myanmar system (See Figure 1), each of which has its own issues
and balance between legality and illegality:
a. State-managed (MTE) forests, largely consisting of teak;
b. Logging concessions in natural forests, mostly in ethnic conflict areas;
c. Land conversion in natural forests, predominately driven by agribusiness
concessions, mostly (but not exclusively) in ethnic areas, and also known as
“conversion timber”;
d. Tree plantations, which are very limited in extent so far due to a host of political and
economic factors; and
e. Community forests, which have historically not been allowed to conduct commercial
harvesting.
As can be seen from Woods representation in Figure 1, the lucrative market for timber has
been captured almost entirely by the military government and crony companies. Communities
have historically been denied access to the market – one of the many grievances that exist
between the Government and the 21 armed groups (only 8 of which have signed the national
ceasefire agreement).

www.iied.org 8
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Figure 1. Timber flows and actors within Myanmar (Source: Woods, 2013)
The broader benefits accruing from forests
As noted above, commercial rights of community forest user groups have been ambiguous.
Nevertheless, many communities have still pursued the establishment of community forest
areas (one of the only ways of securing legal land tenure for marginalised groups). But in
addition to the securing of land tenure, since 2013 it has also become clear that in terms of
value, income from timber (~US$ 1.5 billion in 2013) and Non-Timber Forest Products
(NTFPs) together make up only a small (~15%) share of the total value contributed by forest
ecosystem services to Myanmar’s local and national economy (see Figure 2 from Emerton
and Aung, 2013).
Many of these additional ecosystem service functions are particularly important for forest-farm
communities within Myanmar. For example, in the Waing Maw Township area of Kachin
interviews with community tree planters revealed that watershed protection (for their rice
paddy system) was one key motivation for establishing community forests. In the Ayeyawardy
Delta interviews with community tree planters revealed that mangrove coastal protection was
a key driver of afforestation (providing protection from storms such as cyclone Nargis that
struck Myanmar in 2008)

www.iied.org 9
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Figure 2. Contributions towards a total estimated annual value of US$ 7.3 billion from forest
ecosystem services within Myanmar (Source: Emerton and Aung, 2013)
Deforestation through agricultural conversion and forest degradation through logging
Despite the significant and diverse economic contribution of forests to the Myanmar economy,
deforestation rates have risen from 0.3% between 1990 and 2000 (Leimgruber, et al. 2005) to
0.9% between 2000 and 2010 (WWF, 2010). Forest loss has accelerated still further in recent
years, doubling from an average 97,000 hectares a year pre-2009 to an average of 185,000
hectares a year since (Hansen et al. 2014). There are particular hotspots in the densely
populated regions of the Ayeyarwady, Mandalay, Yangon, Rachine and Shan States – plus
emerging areas in Tanintharyi and Kachin. The marginalisation of people from the commercial
benefits of forests is believed to be one of the key drivers of this trend. It is because of this
high deforestation that efforts to involve communities in forest management have risen on the
political agenda.
As elsewhere in the Mekong region, the primary driver of deforestation has been agricultural
expansion. And since 2010 the land area allocated for large-scale private agriculture
concessions increased by an unprecedented 170 percent. This was especially the case in
Tanintharyi and Kachin, although only a small fraction of this was actually planted, and
motives may include both land speculation, and / or conversion logging without need for a
more complex concession license (Woods, 2015). Degazetting of forest reserves often
anticipates agricultural land concessions.
Although less significant in absolute terms, continued unsustainable logging has been
responsible for considerable forest loss and degradation across Myanmar. Logging has
continued unabated until 2014 (see Figure 3) when continuing national and international
concern triggered a log export ban.

www.iied.org 10
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Figure 3. Myanmar timber products exports by volume (Source: Woods 2015)
The main destinations for timber exports up to 2014 have been to India and China (Figure 4 –
sourced from Woods 2013). With little market demand for sustainable forest management
from those two destination markets and little market share for regions which have strong
procurement legislation in place (e.g. the EU FLEGT Action Plan and EU Timber Regulation) it
is questionable what pressure can be brought to bear to rein in illegal logging. It certainly
makes more challenging any progress linked to the FLEGT process.
Figure 4. Myanmar timber exports by value by country, 2000-2012 (Source: James Hewitt,
European Forestry Institute, cited in Woods, 2013)

www.iied.org 11
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
The impact of the log export ban, introduced on 1 April (Ferrie, 2014) has been some
reduction in the log export trade. The ban has met with some success in terms of log seizures
(DFID, 2014) although not apparently stemming an illegal cross border trade with China (EIA,
2015).
Ongoing reforms of forest legislation in favour of greater community control
In terms of legislation, in 1992 the Forest Law – followed by the 1995 Myanmar Forest Policy
– laid out targets for expanding the permanent forest estate. They also introduced notions of
community participation in forest management, which is further elaborated in the 1995
Community Forestry Instructions (CFI) (Tint et al. 2011). Under the CFI, a community Forest
Users’ Group (FUG) can identify a suitable area and apply to the Township Forest Officers
(TFOs) for support in community forest establishment, under the jurisdiction of District Forest
Officers (DFOs) who oversee Forest Department activities in the 62 Forest Districts across
Myanmar (Springate-Baginski and Than, 2011).
The government’s 2001 Forest Master Plan target was to establish 918,000 ha under
community forest management by 2030. The new emphasis on community forestry came
about due to the fears over future timber supply and the consequent need to create incentives
for forest restoration. Recommendations have been made to expand the ambition of
community forestry within the ongoing revision of the Community Forestry Instructions (Tint et
al, 2014) as part of a process of deepening democracy over forest land use (Macqueen,
2014). New community forest instructions will enable FUGs to make commercial use of timber
and NTFPs thereby incentivising forest management and restoration.
The revision of the 1992 forest law has been anticipated since 2013 – but seems to have
stalled, and it may be that further revision is best left to the new Government when it
convenes in 2016. No draft texts have been circulated although a set of civil society
recommendations on community forestry have been made (MERN, 2012). The ideas put
forward include the commercial use by communities of their forests – and these
recommendations may be taken up soon under the revised CFI.
In 2013 there were 739 FUGs have been registered in Myanmar covering 44,065 ha (at an
average demarcation rate of 2,180 ha per year). To meet the government Master Plan this
rate would need to increase to about 20,000 ha per year (a tenfold increase). Even if this were
to be achieved, the extent of community forestry would only be a tiny 2.8% of the forest estate
(Tint et al. 2014).
1.2 Myanmar’s market-led approach to community forestry
The origin of the market led approach to community forestry in Myanmar
The approach began in 2009 when a stakeholder workshop on community forestry - its
experiences and future in Myanmar - was organized by FAO, UNDP, FSWG and MoECAF. In
2011, Pyoe Pin supported a review on Community Forestry which involved a national design
workshop in 2010 and was undertaken by ECCDI and University of East Anglia (see Tint et
al., 2011).
In 2012 a second national workshop on a ‘market led approach’ to community forestry was
organized by Pyoe Pin in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and
Development (see Macqueen, 2012). At that workshop participants endorsed the use of a
market led approach as a means of incentivizing communities to delimit, restore and

www.iied.org 12
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
sustainably use forests. A vision for a market led approach to community forestry in Myanmar
was proposed based on participant priorities:
“Enhanced income and revenue generation, through entrepreneurship and fulfilling
jobs within community forest user groups, in order to incentivise forest restoration,
reduce poverty, and strengthen social networks that together will contribute to
integrated rural development that mitigates and adapts to climate change, conserves
biodiversity and strengthens the rule of law”
Participants also proposed a series of desired changes, tactics to achieve them, and
responsibilities for doing so under four key pillars of this new market based approach:
 Securing commercial forest rights
 Strengthening business capacity
 Scaling-up enterprise oriented organisation
 Securing the necessary financial investment
On the back of these developments, in early 2013, the Steering Committee of the new FAO-
hosted Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) elected Myanmar as one of six pilot countries in which
it aims to strengthen forest-farm producer organisation and their engagement with more
coordinated cross-sectorial policy processes. A launch mission (see Macqueen, 2013a) was
followed by grant programmes to strengthen business development within community forest
user groups, develop marketing associations at township levels in Chin, Rakhine and Shan
States and linking these to national policy processes.
Also in 2013, RECOFTC have worked with the Government of Myanmar to help establish a
Community Forestry National Working Group (CFNWG) with financial support also coming
from the FFF. Sitting under the Director General of the Forest Department, and with an explicit
mandate for a ‘market-led approach to community forestry’ it is hoped this working group will
help to give much needed formal momentum to the pursuit of community forestry enterprise.
Particularly encouraging is the emergence of a Community Forestry Unit within the Forest
Department to spearhead such developments I with community forestry focal points in each
township.
Relevance of community forestry to FLEGT, REDD+ and peace building processes
The FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) process may prove highly useful in
renegotiating what constitutes legality in terms of timber production, and the role of
communities within it – if there is to be further revision of the Forest Law. Any renegotiation of
legality and development of legality assurance systems offers an opportunity for those wishing
to secure greater local control over forest resource rights amongst Myanmar’s forest farmers.
The NGO Economically Progressive Ecosystem Development (EcoDev) organised in 2015 an
initial training for civil society groups on FLEGT with input from Environmental Investigation
Agency and the EU FLEGT Facility. This is the first step towards engaging with civil society
stakeholders as they consider whether a VPA would benefit Myanmar and how this might
integrate with the market led approach to community forestry.
There is a strong convergence between the aims of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation (REDD+) and the mobilisation of community forestry expansion
through a market led approach. It is difficult to see quite how deforestation and degradation
will be achieved without involving, empowering and incentivising forest conservation and
reforestation by the 35 million forest farms dispersed across Myanmar. Representative
institutional structures of those forest farmers will be particularly important for building
awareness over REDD+ and finding ways of channelling REDD+ finance for activities that
support the aims of REDD+.

www.iied.org 13
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Myanmar joined the UN-REDD Programme in November 2011. Discussions on how the UN-
REDD Programme could support Myanmar had already begun in 2010, and Myanmar had
attended several UN-REDD regional meetings. In collaboration with RECOFTC, UN-REDD is
developing a REDD+ Readiness Roadmap and will be seeking to mobilize resources for its
implementation. Linked with this, RECOFTC is also expanding its work in scaling up of
community forestry with support beginning in 2015 from the Norwegian Government (see
below).
After 60 years of debilitating conflict involving Government forces and some 21 ethnic armed
groups, a National Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) still appears elusive. But there is also cautious
optimism about the potential for progress under the new Government. Currently, only 8 of the
21 armed groups have signed the NCA. Overcoming internal tensions over how the full suite
of ethnic armed groups might be represented has been problematic with the United
Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) umbrella and Working Group for Ethnic Coordination
(WGEC) both representing different faction to different extents. The emergence of the
Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) which represented 16 armed groups has
led to a series of constructive engagements but without fully resolving some key sticking
points (International Crisis Group, 2015). In January 2016 Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi said
that the country's peace process will be the first priority of her new government that will take
power later this year, following the landslide victory of the National League for Democracy in
the November 2015 election.
In the aftermath of any ceasefire agreement or peace deal, there will be pressure to bring
economic development into areas hard hit by conflict. The forest sector is one of the
geographically extensive sectors that has been historically appropriate by the Governing elite,
yet it is one from which new income generating opportunities might be created. With the new
CFI set to hand commercial rights over forests to communities, there is a historic opportunity
to use the expansion of community forestry as a peace building platform that helps to restore
trust between Government and ethnic groups – improve livelihood prospects following the
peace deal and forms a constructive example of sharing the national wealth under the new
Government.

www.iied.org 14
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
2. Support to community forestry enterprise
development and market led approach in Myanmar
2.1 Review on-going market-led community forest enterprise support in
Myanmar
Government developments
Meetings were held with Prof. Kyaw Tint (ECCDI) and
Aung Than Zint (MERN) on 11 December 2015. Through
MERN, the FFF has been supporting the regular
meetings of the Community Forestry National Working
Group (CFNWG) which has now had six meetings (one of
which is shown left) and draws participation from both the
Government Forestry Department (led by the Deputy
Director General of MOECAF) and civil society (including
RECOFTC, MERN and ECCDI among others).
The ultimate aim of the CFNWG is to include a representative of organised community
forestry at the national level in these discussions. A key focus of discussion within the
CFNWG has been the revision of the Community Forest Instructions (CFI) which has now
reached final draft stage and will be put for final approval in the seventh meeting.
The new CFI will afford communities full commercial rights over both timber and Non-Timber
Forest Products (NTFPs). This will include the growing and selling of teak which will open a
major new opportunity for community forestry.
In addition, the work with Government has led to the creation of a formal Community Forest
Unit within the Forestry Department led by U Myo Min. The creation of this unit has been
strengthened by the introduction of community forestry as a new core activity of the Forestry
Department with associated targets for Forest Department staff (e.g. the re-designation of
800,000 ha of shifting cultivation as community forestry with the establishment in 2015 of
100,000 hectares of community forest – equivalent to the entire existing stock of community
forestry). The Community Forestry Unit has appointed staff at sub-national level to oversee
these developments and targets (which include the provision of seedlings and technical
advice by the Forestry Department).
Civil society efforts
At the regional level, FFF support to ECCDI has built on
earlier work to establish one township level association
(comprising 6 Community Forest User Groups at village
level) in Southern Shan state (with one of their meetings
shown left).. The existing township level association has
been expanded to 16 Community Forest User Groups.
An addition 4 township level associations have also been
established with an initial 5 Community Forestry User
Groups in each. Together the leaders of these township-
level association have formed a Shan State Community
Forestry Product Producers Association (CFPPA).
Training has been given in added valuing processing for rattan products and broom
production to strengthen the commercial viability of these township level associations. One of

www.iied.org 15
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
the issues has been the slow recognition by the Forestry Department of new Community
Forests, especially when these fall outside of the existing permanent forest estate, but this
issue is being actively pursued now that the new Community Forest Unit is in place.
Also at the regional level, FFF support through MERN has led to the grouping of 42 existing
Community Forest User Groups into a Rakhine State Community Forestry Product Producers
Association (CFPPA). Once again, there have been market analysis and development
trainings that have involved training trainers in enterprise development to help the Community
Forest User Groups diversify and commercialise their forest production possibilities. ECCDI
and MERN have developed a new partnership with ICRAF to develop agroforestry techniques
for alternatives to shifting cultivation to provide technical assistance alongside the business
support offered through the FFF.
Pyoe Pin support has been primarily focused on Ar Yone Oo (Chin State) and ECODEV /
Shalom (Kachin State). Meetings were held with Salai Thawng on 11 – 18 December 2015.
Pyoe Pin has been a central supporter of the development of a market-led approach to
community forestry and has been instrumental in seeing that approach woven into new
developments such as the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement process and the
UNREDD approach. Pyoe Pin has also supported the establishment or further development of
township level Community Forest Users Associations in both Kachin and Chin states through
Shalom / ECODEV and Ar Yone Oo respectively. One of the aims of Pyoe Pin is to support
the development of Community Forestry Practitioners Network in association with the
CFNWG.
ECODEV continues to work at various levels to further a market-led approach to community
forestry. A meeting was held with Win Myo Thu on 17 December 2015. ECODEV has been
working in Kachin to undertake forest inventories of three community forest areas as part of
an exercise to calculate the possible sustainable production yields for commercial tree
harvesting. The inventory results from the three forests show quite a high stocking of Gmelina
arborea. Initial discussions have been held about establishing a sawn timber facility in the
Wiang Maw Township – with a construction site already identified and secured. The
developments are also being linked to ECODEV’s civil society leadership of the FLEGT
process within Myanmar. The sawn timber facility might provide a test case for legality
assurance from community forest areas to be included in any Voluntary Partnership
Agreement (VPA)
RECOFTC is a leading partner in efforts to scale up community forestry. A meeting was held
with Maung Maung Than on 17 December 2015. With support from the Norwegian
Government, RECOFTC has developed a project known as SUCOMFOR (Scaling Up
Community Forestry). This has a focus in seven states (Ayeyarwady, Bago, Chin, Magwe,
Rakhaing, Tanintharyi and Shan) and will establish a community forestry training and learning
network, expanded forest user groups on the ground, monitoring and evaluation research,
networking between forest user groups and inputs to the policy review process. This
complements other RECOFTC work relating to REDD+ grass root capacity development, work
with the Asian Social Forestry Network, and work under the Responsible Asia Forest and
Trade programme (RAFT 3).
FAO FLEGT Facility support to Flora and Fauna International. Fauna & Flora International
(FFI) has secured EU funding for a new long-term partnership programme to strengthen the
capacity of local civil society organisations in northern Myanmar (Chin and Kachin States) to
protect biodiversity through collaborative protected area management and community forestry.
The programme is jointly implemented with our local NGO partner, the Biodiversity and Nature
Conservation Association (BANCA), and the People Resources and Conservation Foundation

www.iied.org 16
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
(PRCF). Some issues have been raised about requests to expand conservation areas within
conflict zones that require further discussion between partners in Myanmar
WWF is also moving into Myanmar, particularly in Tanintharyi. A phone conversation with
Amalia Maling on 17 December 2015 confirmed their intention to research potential value
chains in the region and develop analysis of the main actors involved within Myanmar.
Through this consultancy WWF were put into contact with the various other key players in
community forestry with whom they will continue to coordinate their activities.
Multiple other NGO led initiatives to support community forestry are also ongoing, for example
under the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT). It was not possible in this short
mission to meet and discuss progress with all of them, but notable examples do of course
include FREDA in the Ayeyarwady Delta region, Wildlife Action Group (WAG) in Rakhine and
Chin and ongoing community forest work by Social Vision Services (SVS); Myanmar Hearth
Development Organization (MHDO); Swanyee Development Foundation (SDF); Friends of
Wildlife (FOW); Myanmar Ceramic Society (MCS) in Ayeyarwady, Rakhine and Shan states.
Given the wide range of organisations working at least partially on community forestry, it
would seem that Pyoe Pin should continue to have a role in its last year of this phase of work
in ensuring that a practitioners network on community forestry continues to function through
regular exchanges of experience. It might for example, be possible to invite participants to see
the rattan enterprise developments in the Waing Maw township. The thematic content of the
meeting might be focused on how community forestry development could provide a useful
platform for peace building across many of the upland areas where conflicts with the
Government still exist.
2.2 Options to strengthen synergies between community forestry support
initiatives
Synergies in advocacy strategies for legislative and institutional reform
Communities have established substantial areas of forest
since 1995 even without commercial motivation (as illustrated
by the forest scale and tree diameters in Kachin – shown left).
But in various in-country meetings since 2009, community
forestry enterprise development has been seen as having
huge potential for incentivising and thereby scaling-up
afforestation efforts, reducing poverty and increasing food
security and rural livelihoods resilience within Myanmar. If fully
supported it could offer livelihood diversification and additional
off-farm income to an estimated 6 million rural people in Myanmar (Tint et al., 2014). However,
Recommendation 1
Continue to support the evolution of a Community Forestry Practitioners Network through Pyoe Pin,
in collaboration with RECOFTC and FFF, and as a complement to the Community Forestry National
Working Group (CFNWG). The network would involve both NGO support organisations and
representatives from the growing number of township level Community Forest Product Producers
Associations (CFPPAs) – and might attract additional support by developing a potential thematic
focus on how a market-led approach to community forestry could provide a platform for peace-
building in ethnic areas.

www.iied.org 17
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
this potential is currently largely unmet due to limited past success in scaling up community
forestry and farm enterprise development and making linkages with strong existing markets.
Conflict has been an important constraining factor, as has the existence of weak tenure and
commercial rights under the old Community Forest Instructions, and lack of political will.
Limited awareness of the commercial potential of community forestry has also been a
constraining factor , not just among government but also among community forest user groups
themselves who so far have been reluctant to take up forest management responsibilities due
to the ‘subsistence oriented’ mentality of community forestry.
The participatory approach to the reform of the Community Forestry Instructions (CFI), not
least in recent meetings of the Community Forestry National Working Group (CFNWG) has
now led to the development of a game-changing text that, if ratified, grants full commercial
rights to communities over both timber and NTFPs including teak. This has been
complemented by institutional reform within the Forestry Department such that a new
Community Forestry Unit pursues community forestry as a core area of FD activity and with
associated numerical targets and focal points in each township.
What is now needed is for further effort to open up and engage with the reform of the forest
law that will cement these community forestry provisions within strong legal text. There are still
a number of issues that require further negotiation in reforming such law – given the rapidly
changing dynamics in international agreements on sustainable development (the ratification of
the sustainable development goals or SDGs) and on climate change (the Paris Agreement).
At present my own opinion as to ten forest-relevant priorities for legislative and institutional
reform would include:
(i) The merger of MOECAF and MOAI such that forest landscapes spanning a
continuum from natural forest through to intensive agriculture be governed by one
single institution (so as to avoid inter-ministerial conflicts concerning the
designation of community forest land)
(ii) The expansion of the ‘community forestry’ land concept to include shifting
cultivation areas, agroforestry planting arrangements, trees on farm, woodlots,
other tree crop plantations, alongside natural forest production and conservation
areas. This would greatly consolidate the rightful claims of forest-farm communities
over their land and help incentivise commercial tree planting.
(iii) While fighting for the above, simplified procedures for the registration of community
forestry on land not belonging to the national forest estate.
(iv) A much more ambitious target for the transfer of (significant production) forest land
towards local community groups (e.g. roughly in the order of 50%).
(v) Clarification of the legality assurance system (within FLEGT) through which
product arising from community forest areas is registered (and hopefully favoured
in licensing and tax procedures) such that product from outside the confines of that
jurisdiction cannot be laundered through it.
(vi) Clear provisions and incentives for appropriate sawmilling and other processing
activities in areas adjacent to forests to reduce unnecessary transport costs and
improve local value-added.
(vii) Clarification of the legal status of Community Forestry User Groups (hopefully in
favour of for-profit activities) such that community forest businesses need not
double register.
(viii) Simplification of the processes for registration of Township, State and National
level Community Forest Product Producer Associations for community forestry
groups, again with the possibility of commercial activity.
(ix) Explicit recognition of the role of local Community Forest User Groups and
township and State level Community Forestry Product Producer Associations in
channelling REDD+ finance for afforestation activities.

www.iied.org 18
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
(x) The development of the Community Forest Unit within the Forestry Department
into an active enterprise extension service through appropriate skill development.
Synergies in scaling up community forestry enterprise development models
Over the last three years, considerable progress has
been made in advancing community forest user group
progression towards the establishment of business (such
as the rattan splitting business in Waing Maw pictured
left). Representatives in Myanmar have also participated
in international meetings of the Forest Connect alliance
at which case studies of successful locally controlled
forestry from beyond Myanmar were showcased. Several
participants from Myanmar have been included in
regional ‘training-of-trainers’ approaches to Market
Analysis and Development (MA&D) in Vietnam.
In 2015 a compendium was published of successful locally controlled forestry business
models (Macqueen et al. 2015). No examples from Myanmar were included in that
compendium, in part due to the early stage of business development of most community
forestry groups within Myanmar. At the same time, recent exchanges organised by the Forest
and Farm Facility both within and beyond Myanmar (to Nepal and Vietnam) have proved
useful in stimulating ideas about enterprise development. RECOFTC now has funds within
SUCOMFOR to further develop
Pyoe Pin might continue to partner with FFF and RECOFTC programmes in providing useful
exchange visits for community forestry leaders, support NGO staff and government
community forestry focal points – especially where these involve exposure to detailed cases of
community forestry business. There are already examples of community forestry groups
directly acquiring technology and business ideas (e.g. the transfer of charcoal briquette
making techniques from Nepal to Myanmar).
The pattern of recent exchange visits both within and beyond Myanmar has involve pairing
community forest user groups with the NGO support staff with whom they work and the
township level forestry officers tasked with supporting them. By engaging all three parties in
exchange visits, momentum can be built that begins to resolve issues to do with technical
support and administrative barriers.
Recommendation 2
Pyoe Pin might convene, perhaps through the Community Forestry Practitioners Network, a specific
meeting to discuss advocacy messaging for the reform of the forest law plus broader desired
changes to legislation and institutions under the new Government
Recommendation 3
Pyoe Pin should continue to partner with FFF and RECOFTC programmes in providing useful
exchange visits for community forestry leaders, support NGO staff and government community
forestry focal points – especially where these involve exposure to detailed cases of community
forestry business. This could further complement the work of the Community Forestry Practitioners
Network.

www.iied.org 19
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Synergies in technical support for product specific community forest enterprise
clusters
The emergence of some shared enterprise options in the rattan
(shown left) and charcoal sectors, with emerging options for
bamboo and timber might be further consolidated by: (i) trying to
expand the numbers of FUGs in a particular area that are served
by a township or state level association and can get access to
technical training within the association (such as the skilled
weavers required for rattan); (ii) continue to link these emerging
enterprises with key private sector buyers with whom they might
trade – for example by sponsoring visits to Yangon and other markets where a more
diversified range of buyers might be found. This has already proved highly effective in the
case of the rattan sector where participation by the Chair of the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan
Association helped both to improve the quality of technical advice offered, but also assist with
necessary investments and offer guaranteed purchasing agreements.
As the number of community forest business in particular sectors develops, it might be helpful
therefore to broker specific field based technical missions to discuss those specific emerging
value chains and how to further strengthen them. Participants might include Government
Forestry Department Staff, relevant private sector actors, interested NGO actors with a vision
for supporting community enterprise development in the sector described, and technical
experts from within the country or region (e.g. from INBAR in the case of Bamboo).
As timber is likely to prove the most valuable forest resource, and the political context now
seems to be moving towards allowing community commercial timber rights – it would be timely
to try and ensure that at least one sawmilling and processing centre emerges to pilot
community timber production. Similarly, the widespread availability of commercial stocks of
bamboo in community areas should encourage progression towards a pilot community forest
bamboo enterprise.
At this stage, getting in someone with experience in marketing community timber would be a
necessary next step – and specific consultant suggestions have been made verbally and by
email to the Pyoe Pin Programme. Ensuring that several interested support NGOs might be
able to meet and discuss with that consultant the key issues that need to be thought through
could help build synergies across the country and speed up the replication of success – for
example with the proposed Wing Maw township sawmilling and processing centre. A
proposed ToR for such a consultant is supplied in Annex 3.
Synergies in consolidating representative structures of community forestry
A range of different programmes are now working towards a shared vision organising
community forestry. This involves grouping community forest user groups into township level
and state level associations with the ultimate aim of some form of national federation that
would represent the interests of community forestry practitioners. The justification is that this
Recommendation 4
Contract early in 2016 a short term consultant with regional experience in developing community
forestry timber businesses to conduct, together with ECODEV and Shalom both a market
assessment and feasibility analysis of the proposed Kachin State sawmilling and processing
enterprise, plus potential bamboo enterprise options, and provide suggested next steps to
materialise that idea if it looks promising.

www.iied.org 20
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
approach will achieve scale efficiencies and reduce costs for community forest-farm
businesses, help them access diversified markets and services, and allow them to speak with
one voice to promote an enabling environment.
Building synergies between NGOs who are facilitating the emergence of Community Forest
Product Producers Associations (CFPPAs) would make great sense. Already there are
associations of community forestry emerging in Chin (around Elephant Foot Yam), Kachin
(around rattan, bamboo and timber) Shan (charcoal and bamboo) Rakhine (rattan and
charcoal). As these representative structures emerge, it might be useful for the leaders of
each to meet together to discuss issues of financial sustainability, services to member FUGs,
prospects for higher level federation etc. It might also be useful for supporting NGOs to meet
to discuss the tactics they have been using to facilitate the emergence of these representative
groups – and how best to continue and expand that work (see Figure 5).
In countries where national federations of locally controlled forestry have emerged (e.g.
Guatemala, Nepal, Sweden etc.) these have invariably been able to shape policy so as both
to consolidate the resource rights of their own members, improve their access to markets, and
streamline and improve the business environment. Achieving strong sectoral representation
(through the federation of community forest user groups) that spans ethnic groups and deals
with a key resource sharing issue, could very much contribute to peacebuilding efforts in any
post ceasefire and peace settlement period.
Figure 5. Representation of the emerging organisations of community forestry within Myanmar
– Source: J. Zapata, Forest Farm Facility
Coordinator
CFNWG
Community Forestry National
Working Group(CFNWG)
CFPA
Rep.
CF Unit
FD Chair
National Federation of Community Forest Producers Association (CFPA)
Membership
officer
MERN
South Shan State
CFPA – ECCDI
catalyzed but then
direct support
South Rakhine State
CFPA –RCA & MERN
catalyzed but then
direct support
Chin State CFPA – Ar
Yone Oo catalyzed but
then direct support
Bago State CFPA –
FDI catalyzed but then
direct support
Township
CFPA
Township
CFPA
Township
CFPA
Township
CFPA
Township
CFPA
Kachin State CFPA –
Shalom catalyzed but
then direct support
Township
CFPA
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G
F
U
G

www.iied.org 21
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Recommendation 5
Continue to support the emergence of community forestry product producer associations (CFPPAs)
at township and state level, and encourage further exploration of how these might be commercially
viability in their own right through marketing of FUG products or services to members, and broker
meetings to allow discussion of whether and how a national federation might be set up. This might
involve underwriting the costs of association leaders meeting together to discuss financial strategies
and prospects for higher level federation.

www.iied.org 22
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
3. Support to community forestry enterprise
development in Kachin
3.1 Review on-going CF Enterprise development support in Kachin
Background. Meeting were held with Aung Tsen (Shalom),
Peter Brang Shawng (Shalom), Gerry Fox (Pyoe Pin), Liz
Paterson (DFID British Embassy) and Kyaw Thu (Myanmar
Bamboo and Rattan Association) on 13 December 2015. Since
a consultancy meeting in which I was involved two years ago,
Shalom has been working with funding from Pyoe Pin, and in
association with the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association
to develop a community-based rattan business. This involves 7
community forest areas within Waing Maw township, Shalom
has been supporting communities in Kachin for a decade. Their first work on community
forestry started in 2006 following an application for registration of a community forest in 2004.
The process took 3 years – and eventually title was granted in 2007.
Within Kachin, there are now more than 100 villages in which community forest applications
have been made, but only approximately 20 of these have been formally registered. A Kachin
Forest Users Association has also been established and registered (within the Waing Maw
Township) but it only provides a formal network for registered Forest User Groups (FUGs).
Shalom’s work spans both government held territory and in KIO held territory. The peace
process is very much central to the work of Shalom, especially in the post-election transition to
the new government. Indeed the future of community forestry in Kachin is at least partially
dependent on a ceasefire.
Timber, bamboo and rattan were identified as possible business development possibilities
within Kachin in previous consultancy reports. The move to develop rattan emerged more
strongly because of the interest of the Chair of the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association
(Kyaw Thu) who with support from Pyoe Pin and Shalom engaged with the 7 communities,
provided training, established basic processing machinery, and guaranteed a market.
Although daily labour costs in Kachin are high (Kyat 5000) in comparison with other rattan
weaving centres (e.g. the Delta), the raw material in Kachin is abundant. While only present in
any volume in one of the seven FUGs (who harvested 10-20 tonnes last year), there is a
possibility of re-establishing red cane and water cane in some spots in several other FUGs.
Water cane is more exacting and requires wet (swampy) growing conditions but red cane is
easier to enrichment plant. Rattan takes 3-4 years to mature or regrow. And while no weaving
skills existed before the project, two master weavers were assigned to train weavers in each
of the seven FUGs.
The rattan trade in Myanmar. The market for rattan within
Myanmar is strong. Myanmar as a whole exports more than
10,000 metric tonnes per year (second only to Indonesia with
60,000 metric tonnes). Most exports go to China, in the form
of raw material (at approximately US$ 600 per tonne). But the
Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association also export
finished product to a range of countries. Volumes of finished
product from the whole association are in the order of 3000-
4000 metric tonnes per year (at a value of approximately US$

www.iied.org 23
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
2500 per tonne) making the industry worth roughly US$ 10,000,000 per year. Different
markets require slightly different product designs, for example the Japanese market prefers
unlacquered rattan which has been naturally smoked.
A major market challenge for any product originating in Kachin is the distance from markets
and associated transport costs. Multiple check points at which formal and informal payments
must be made are a significant obstacle. The preferred transport method is currently trucks (at
roughly US$ 1500 per 20 tonne load).
Origin and structure of the La Myang Community
Forest Rattan and Bamboo Group Business (‘La
Myang Rattan Business’ for short). Rattan harvesting,
processing and weaving within communities in Kachin fits
well with the conservation ethic of the community FUGs –
as it grows under mature forest and can be harvested
without disturbing the canopy layer (Rattan is show to the
right of a local forest user group member and the Chair of
the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association). In Kachin,
many communities pursued community forestry primarily
for land tenure security (protecting themselves against loss of land) and watershed
conservation (to maintain dry season waters flows). Two years previous few communities had
contemplated commercial sales of forest products, although some were selling small volumes
of bamboo (for construction), some charcoal (especially on the Chinese border where deals
have been struck with traders (electricity for charcoal production) and some firewood locally.
But once they had been introduced to the idea that commercial production could be based on
sustainable harvesting, the market-led approach to community forestry began to receive more
support.
To explore these developments, a meeting was held between the assessment team (Aung
Tsen and Peter Brang Shawng, Shalom; Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz
Paterson DFID, Kyaw Thu, Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association and Duncan
Macqueen, IIED) and forest user group leaders of the Kachin Forest Users Association (Maw
She, Yamnaw (Hpauyam Naw), Kaung Dad(Hkawng Dau), Kam Shaung (Kam Shawng)) on
14 December 2015. A follow-up meeting was held with the same group on 16 December
2015.
The La Myang Community Forest Rattan and Bamboo group was established in 2014 but has
not yet been formally registered as a business. Discussions between members of Shalom
and Pyoe Pin, the Kachin Forest Users Association and the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan
Association led to early plans to establish a rattan splitting and weaving business in La Myang
community. Two master weavers were sent by the Classic Home Craft business to train 285
members in 7 communities in how to weave rattan. In addition, two splitting machines were
introduced to allow semi-processing of rattan prior to shipment to Yangon and connected first
to a generator and later to mains electricity. A rattan store was built that can accommodate up
to 30 tonnes of raw material. There are essentially four component elements to the rattan
business, and the Wing Maw communities are now involved in the first three:
 Harvesting of raw material
 Primary processing (skinning, splitting, and grading)
 Secondary processing (weaving)
 Distribution (retail and export)
Figure 6 illustrates how some of the value chain operates. It fails to capture, however, the key
role of the private sector retailers in brokering the supply of raw materials from wholesalers to
the La Myang Rattan Business, in providing technical and investment inputs to the

www.iied.org 24
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
establishment of that business, and to mediating the transport of semi-processed product from
La Myang Rattan Business to its own organised weavers groups in elsewhere prior to
aggregation in Yangon. As the La Myang Rattan business evolves, it may wish both to take on
some of these functions and to diversify its buyers – but this is unlikely to be encouraged by
the current Classic Home Craft business link.
It can quickly be seen from Figure 6 that there is some considerable overlap (and potential
confusion) between the La Myang Rattan Business and the Kachin Forest Users Association
(that has members both within and outside that business).
Figure 6. Structure of the rattan value chain
CF
Buyers
Kachin
Agents
CF
CF
CF
Kachin Forest
User Association
Natural Forest Concessions
Govt. Survey
Dept.
Forest Dept.
Township
Authority
Rattan
enrichment /
nursery /
technical
advice
Abundant
raw material
/ Additional
local CF
suppliers
Skills
training
/ tech.
advice
Reliable volumes /
High quality / low
cost
Shalom
Pyoe Pin / Private sector
The enabling environment – policies and laws
Market needs / suppliers
Transport check
posts
Export
authority
CF
CF
CF
Kachin
Whole-
salers
Weaver
groups
Export /
retail
agents
La Myang CF Rattan and
Bamboo Group Business
Splitting unit
Weaver groups
Parallel KIO
authority
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
Cash to
buy in
extra
raw
material
Main value chain actors

www.iied.org 25
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
At the present time, the secretary of the Kachin Forest Users Association keeps separate
ledgers for both the Association (which is supported through members ship fees paid by its
constituent FUGs) and the La Myang Rattan business (which has had some investment costs,
and some project inputs and sales) but within the same bank account. It might be expected
that the business may soon outgrow this arrangement and may need to establish its own bank
account and management structure, even if some of the individuals in the Association and La
Myang Rattan business overlap. Separating out and maintain careful financial records will be
especially important once the business begins to break even (estimates for the year 2015
suggested that the business was some US$ 700 in deficit owing to the investment in facilities
and machinery). Once the business becomes profitable, it will be necessary to agree some
formulae for distributing benefits to members, establishing a reserve for running costs,
building up an investment fund for upgrading, market research and development. It may also
be necessary to formalise a management structure for the business – separating out the roles
of Managing Director, Resource manager, Production Manager, Weaving Coordinators,
Marketing Manager and Accountant. The issue of whether and how these roles become
salaried or not also needs further discussion.
Rattan cultivation and harvesting. In terms of rattan harvesting, only La Myang community
forest user group has considerable stocks of both water cane and red cane and harvested 10-
20 tonnes this year. The general form of
‘Calamus’ rattans is shown by the illustration
by Franz Eugen Köhler (left).
Each forest user group member has rights
over and area of 5-10 acres of cane and
accrues profit individually during the
harvesting and sae of cane to the business.
Each of the other forest user groups is
currently considering how to enrichment plant
red cane within their community forest area –
with some already well established in that
practice. The current practice is to divide the
plants suckers or rhizomes or to collect and
then replant wildlings collected in the forest.
Suckers with intact roots are the best
propagules in clump forming species. This
traditional method is very effective at enriching
the understorey of community forest with
rattan. An alternative would be to collect rattan
fruit / seeds when they start to fall naturally
and grow rattan plants in a community
nursery. The red / orange fruit can be crushed gently to release the seeds. Fruit can be
gathered by climbing or by using long poles to pull them down. Seed can then be sown in
seed beds at a depth roughly double the width of the seed itself. Seeds need to be covered
with a thin layer of garden soil and palm leaves spread on bamboo slats about 1 foot above
the bed will protect the latter from the direct impact of rain and intense sunlight. Beds need to
be watered occasionally and can then develop seedlings about two months after planting.
Transplanting can then be done into 10x20cm bags using the same soil as the nursery beds
with a little sand to improve drainage.
In terms of planting out wildlings or seedlings in the forest, the advised spacing for clump
forming species is 5 m while single stemmed species require 2-5 m spacing. In the secondary

www.iied.org 26
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
forest, planting lines are prepared by clearing 1-1.5 m wide grooves at a distance of 5 m
interval and 9-12 months old seedlings are planted out in pits of 30 x 30 x 30 cm or 50 x 50
x50 cm at 5 m interval in the planting lines before the onset of monsoon. At the time of site
clearing it is important to keep some trees to provide shade to the seedlings and also to serve
as support for the seedlings to grow and climb. Once the plants are established, very little
attention is necessary beyond occasional loosening of the soil around the clumps for 2 –3
years. Rattan takes 3-4 years before the plants are ready to harvest for cane.
It is recommended that Pyoe Pin continues, through Shalom to support local community forest
users groups to enrichment plant using rattan and to explore the possibility / need for a rattan
nursery to enhance the scale at which rattan can be planted. It is recommended that research
is carried out to ascertain the volumes of different canes that can be produced through more
concerted effort to re-establish the resource base.
A useful guide to rattan production and processing can be found on the internet (Ngo-
Samnick, 2012) at: http://publications.cta.int/media/publications/downloads/1714_PDF.pdf
Primary processing of rattan. Since many of the local community forest user groups do not
yet have substantial stocks of rattan in their community forests, both primary and secondary
processing options require bought supplies of rattan from local wholesalers. The La Myang
business has now purchased two splitting machines which can convert hand-peeled rattan
cane into split rattan for use by weavers. Each piece of rattan is purchased for approximately
80 Kyat and can be sold peeled and split for 160-180 Kyat (with a processing cost of
approximately 20 Kyat per piece). It is quickly apparent that this part of the business is
relatively lucrative, and has been the main source of income for the La Myang Rattan
business to date.
In order to learn more about the convention rattan value chain from which raw material can be
sourced, a meeting was held between the assessment team (Aung Tsen and Peter Brang
Shawng, Shalom; Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz Paterson DFID, Kyaw
Thu, Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association and Duncan Macqueen, IIED) and members
of a local rattan wholesaler (Yin Yin, Manager; Ma Lu, Agent; Zaw Kwan (Zau Hkun), Former
Trader) on 15 December 2015. Ms Yin Yin had been in the rattan trade for 40 years with her
husband (who had died 3-4 years ago) and runs the biggest wholesaler in the region –
handling about 500 tonnes of rattan per year.
Forty years ago, a bundle of rattan was purchased for 1 Kyat. It now costs 500-800 Kyat per
bundle – and is sold on after grading and sorting for 800-1000 Kyat per bundle. The
harvesting rights are obtained through a license from the Forestry Department (which costs
about 10% of the commercial value of each bundle). The Forestry Department allocates a
quota for each state based on past harvesting records (and Government royalty targets). The
sustainability of the resource is not routinely assessed Ms Yin Yin’s central business in
Myitkyina then forward finances agents (roughly US$ 20,000 each) in each surrounding
township. They then contract group leaders with a team of 20-30 people to cut rattan at an
agreed price – having had all the license paperwork arranged by the central business. Conflict
sometimes prevents collection in which case the agents hold money over and collect the
following year. The financing system is trust based, without contractual paperwork.
Recommendation 6
Continue to support local forest user groups through Pyoe Pin / Shalom to enrichment plant using
rattan, conduct research about the volumes produced in particular spacings, and to explore the
possibility / need for a rattan nursery to enhance the scale at which rattan can be planted.

www.iied.org 27
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
In recent years the number of Chinese buyers has declined sharply (due to wage rises that
have harmed the competitiveness of the Chinese weaving trade).
One issue that became apparent in the La Myang Rattan business was that the electricity
supply, both through the generator and the mains connection, was insufficient at times to run
the splitting machines. It is recommended that the business assign someone to familiarise
themselves with the machinery, spare parts and energy supply in order to resolve these
issues in the future.
Rattan weaving. To date two master weavers have been brought to Kachin to train members
of the 7 FUGs in contemporary rattan weaving designs and techniques. The rate at which
newly trained weavers can produce pieces is not yet sufficiently fast to make the work
economically attractive, but the communities are pressing ahead to familiarise themselves
with the new skills so as to be able to improve on the economic returns over time. Wages are
higher in Kachin than in the traditional weaving centres in the Delta, but the costs of transport
are much less (as Kachin is one of the supply centres for rattan). For this reason, it is hoped
that weaving in Kachin will be able to compete with the other centres within Myanmar.
Other community forest business options. In addition to the field trip into a local
community forest area, a meeting to discuss possible additional community forest business
options was held between the assessment team (Aung Tsen and Peter Brang Shawng,
Shalom; Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz Paterson DFID, Kyaw Thu,
Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association and Duncan Macqueen, IIED) and members of the
Kachin Conservation Working Group (Nhkum Brang Aung, FC; Zau Bawk; Rev. Kareng Htoi
Dan, Myanmar Kachin Baptist Association (Myitkyina Zone Kachin Baptist Association); Peter
Seng Hkum, Anglican Development Department; Kada Zau Lawn, KURM Director; Soe Win
Naing, KCWG Training Coordinator; Saga Yaw San, Director of KCWG; and Wanna, KCWG
Mobilizer) on 14 December 2015.
It was clear from the meeting that the staff amongst the Kachin Conservation Working Group
are primarily focused on both peacebuilding and resource rights. The topic of major concern
was the very slow pace at which community forest certificates were being processed by the
Kachin Forestry Department and Chief Minister. Particular problems had surfaced around
community forestry applications that were made for land outside the authority of the Forestry
Department and which therefore had to be made through the Land Record Department.
Notwithstanding these difficulties in registration, many communities had pushed ahead with
forest planting and mobilisation.
In terms of enterprise development, there was an established revolving loan fund that could
grant up to US$ 2000 and this had primarily been used to support small scale loans for
agricultural equipment. There did appear to be interest in further developing timber, bamboo
and rattan businesses (indeed many production activities already occur on a small scale). It
was felt that the Chinese market for dry bamboo was strong and that there was potential to
explore the Japanese bamboo charcoal market (the subject of several approaches to the
Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association). Discussion with the latter, clarified that to make
bamboo processing profitable it would probably be necessary to combine a primary product
Recommendation 7
As the rattan business matures, use a consultant to undertake a financial profit and loss analysis for
each of the component parts of the rattan business to assess where future efforts should be
focused.

www.iied.org 28
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
(such as bamboo flooring or bamboo charcoal) with secondary processing options such as the
production of chopsticks or toothpicks to make use of waste products. The investments
needed to establish such an integrated business were not huge. For example, a charcoal kiln,
chopstick and tooth pick machinery could be acquired for in the region of US$ 50,000.
The improving enabling environment for community
forest business. A Meeting was held between the
assessment team (Aung Tsen and Peter Brang Shawng
Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz Paterson
DFID, Kyaw Thu, Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association
and Duncan Macqueen, IIED) and the Community Forestry
focal point for Kachin within the Forestry Department (Thein
Win) on 16 December 2015. The introduction of Community
Forestry as one of 16 major tasks in the Forestry Department
and the emergence of the Community Forestry Unit and focal points at each township are
major developments. On the 28th of each month there is a meeting of all the focal points to
check on progress.
A remaining challenge is to ratify the new Community Forestry Instructions which helps clarify
the new commercial nature of community forestry. In addition there is a need to streamline
procedures for community forestry applications that are submitted through the land records
department. More generally, staff at the Forestry Department need greater awareness of and
exposure to working examples of community forestry and particularly to community forestry
business. Forestry is a relatively long term business, and so a more integrated approach that
combines forestry and agricultural crops needs further development within the community
context.
How a thematic support group on a market led approach to community forestry might
contribute to the peace process. A meeting was held between the assessment team (Aung
Tsen and Peter Brang Shawng, Shalom; Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz
Paterson DFID, Kyaw Thu, Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association and Duncan
Macqueen, IIED) and three Kachin representatives of the National League for Democracy
(NLD) from Kachin State (Ze Jung, Li Naw Li (Naw Li) and Ze Hhawng (Ze Hawng)) on 14
December 2015, one member of the Civilian Ceasefire Monitoring Group (My Tsaw)(Myu
Tsaw), three members of the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) to the Kachin Independence
Organisation (Gawlu La Awng, KIO; Minzai and Dau Hka) and three members of the Kachin
State Democracy Party (KSDP) from Kachin (Zau Mu Naw, Minister (Vice Chair); Brang Li,
Party Secretary and Pan Naw, Party Committee Member)on 15 December 2015. A meeting
was held between the assessment team (Gerry Fox; Pyoe Pin; Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin; Liz
Paterson DFID and Duncan Macqueen, IIED) and members of the Myanmar Alliance for
Accountability and Transparency (MATA) at the Humanities Institute (Peter Seng Hkum) on 15
December 2015.
The peace process has been announced as the top priority of the incoming Government. With
only 8 of 21 armed groups signed up to the National Ceasefire Agreement, the armed groups
are waiting for Government to agree to discuss some of the outstanding issues, and with all
parties. Many of the key actors listed above are open to the idea that thematic support groups
Recommendation 8
Work with the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association to assess and prioritise which of the
options (for bamboo flooring or charcoal) appears most promising, using which species, and at
which location – and then offer loan funding at a concessional rate to pump prime the investment.

www.iied.org 29
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
(for example in areas such as fishing, forestry etc.) might help to negotiate between
Government and ethnic groups, specific advances in those thematic areas that will strengthen
prospects for a peace dividend if a national ceasefire can be agreed. The issue of community
access to commercial forestry is already far advanced, and would be a good candidate for
such a group given the dispersed geographical nature of forest resources. Some thematic
areas are already the subject of (or could be linked to) initiatives to bring about greater
transparency and accountability (for example with in the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI), the Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability (MATA), the
Transparency and Accountability Network of Kachin (TANK). Budgetary scrutiny will be an
important component of efforts to track how resources within different thematic areas are
being appropriated and used.
The relocation of Internally Displaced Peoples and how they might gain access to land,
agricultural and forest resources is one critical area that might be discussed in a thematic
forum relating to forests. Such issues are currently necessarily subsidiary to the more
important peace discussions, but will assume much greater importance, and become the
focus of both the National League for Democracy and ethnic parties such as the Kachin State
Democracy Party in the event of a peace agreement. All side wish to build a strong local
economy in the wake of a peace deal – which will involve further transfer of rights to local
communities – as currently envisaged by the Community Forestry Instructions and related
targets.
3.2 Identification of new opportunities and develop a strategy and plan to
strengthen on going initiatives that will be incorporated in Shalom’s new
program
Further consolidation needed. It is certainly the case that
Shalom’s work (funded by Pyoe Pin) to support the La Myang
rattan business in association with the Chair of the Myanmar
Bamboo and Rattan Association (Pictured left) has resulted in
major income generating opportunities for the 7 community forest
user groups involved – even if the investment they have had to
assume has deferred profits to date. These potential livelihood
gains are still at a fragile stage however, and much needs to
continue to be done to consolidate the La Myang rattan business
so that its success will encourage a scaling up of the rattan
business across community forestry in Kachin State.
There are a number of elements that might be woven into a new
Pyoe Pin agreement with Shalom to help that process of consolidation, and indeed to explore
further new opportunities that might be developed. Among these I would suggest that there
are eight main sets of activities that might be the basis for an ongoing agreement (in addition
to any other areas of Shalom’s work outside the forestry sector):
1. Consolidating the rattan business structure. Shalom might help the La Myang Rattan
business to consolidate its management structure, separate out its accounts, develop
Recommendation 9
Support through Pyoe Pin thematic support group on how a market led approach to community
forestry could support the peace process and possibilities for reform that will deliver a peace
dividend– drawing on existing networks such as EITI, MATA and TANK.

www.iied.org 30
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
protocols to deal with profits, and articulate a proper business plan. It might also help
to register the business as a separate or sub-entity of the Kachin Forest Users
Association. I am unaware of the degree to which Shalom may need bookkeeping and
business management training in order to achieve this but such assistance might be
possible through short term consultancy work.
2. Invest in forest enrichment research. Shalom could take the lead in catalyzing further
establishment of, and research around, the productivity of enrichment plantings of
rattan through the development of a nursery and pilot research sites. Collaborative
experiments with farmers about the best way to cultivate and plant different types of
rattan to improve yields would be in the long term interests of the La Myang Rattan
Business.
3. Broaden market understanding. Shalom could help run an exchange visit to Yangon
rattan processing centres to familiarize the La Myang Rattan Business staff with
market issues, design, contacts and investment possibilities. Ultimately the business
will need to diversify its buyers and develop ideas of how to upgrade its operations and
compete over time. The more exposure and contacts the members of the business
have, the better future prospects will be.
4. Expand the rattan business idea to another township. Shalom should be funded to
continue to pursue community forestry registration but also seek to expand commercial
rattan production from Waing Maw to Moe Kaung township (where 6 FUGs are already
working with Shalom and a further 15 community forest users groups exist)
5. Facilitate cross learning between communities and Forest Department staff. Shalom
could broker a Kachin-level learning event between CFUG leaders and Forestry
Department staff at La Myang Rattan business to showcase progress, spread
awareness, and press for Government support.
6. Explore another commercial option, namely bamboo. Shalom could explore with
Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association the commercial profitability of, best location
and species for, and investment needs to bring about a bamboo processing enterprise
7. Accompany the development of community timber production. Shalom should
definitely participate alongside ECODEV in a consultancy to further elaborate a Waing
Maw township sawmilling and processing centre and develop better understanding of
the skillsets that will be needed to run such a business within Shalom – for
dissemination across Kachin.
8. Bring in a consultant to explore other tree crop options. In other Mekong countries,
farmers cultivate a wide range of trees to product species (e.g. cinnamon, star anise,
cloves etc. ) fruit (e.g. rambutan, mangosteen etc.) and medicinal products (for
example see the existing book on Myanmar’s medicinal plants (Ministry of Health,
undated) available at:
http://www.moh.gov.mm/file/Medicinal%20Plants%20of%20Myanmar.pdf)
Recommendation 10
Continue to support through Pyoe Pin the programmatic work of Shalom to strengthen rattan,
bamboo and timber businesses linked to and financially supportive of the Kachin Forest Users
Association as further detailed in this report.

www.iied.org 31
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,

www.iied.org 32
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
4. Summary conclusions and recommendations
The Pyoe Pin programme has, through a kaleidoscope of different
interventions, helped to create the conditions under which
community forestry can make a telling contribution to peace building,
poverty reduction and forest restoration (with associated benefits in
terms of resilience to and mitigation of climate change). It is no small
achievement. It has been possible through many interlocking areas
of work:
 Framing the issue: ‘a market led approach to community forestry’ – through
sponsorship of public meetings to generate ownership of and buy-in to the idea, which
now has broad acceptance by both Government and NGOs
 Building alliances: notably with community producer groups themselves, MERN
members, Government Forestry Staff and Private sector actors.
 Catalysing institutional innovation: working with RECOFTC to see the emergence of
the new Community Forestry National Working Group, the associated Community
Forestry Unit within the Forestry Department and regional community forestry focal
points.
 Piloting workable business models: for example the rattan business in Kachin with
Shalom, the Elephant Foot Yam business in Chin with Ar Yone Oo.
 Private sector market linking: For example linking Kachin producers with the Myanmar
Bamboo and Rattan Association and the Chin producers with the Myanmar Konjac
Cultivator Processors and Exporters Association.
 Arranging trainings in group business development: for example with the IIED and FFF
teams.
 Facilitating exchanges of experience: making sure that good experiences can be
copied and scaled up, for example by co-financing an internal exchange on community
forestry amongst Myanmar Community Forestry User Groups, NGO supporters and
FD staff – and two international exchanges with Nepal and Vietnam.
 Underwriting strategic networking: ensuring that key Forest Department and Myanmar
NGO staff participated in regional meetings such as the Chinese Guilin meeting on
forest-farm producer organisations ‘Strength in numbers’ and the Vietnam Forest
Connect workshop and training on Market Analysis and Development (MA&D).
 Making telling inputs to legislative revision: finding strategic ways to make inputs to the
revision of the Community Forestry Instructions towards full commercial control by
communities, and pushing for reform of the forest law as well.
The result of all this work is an environment in which the Forestry Department and civil society
are aligned behind a push for community forestry, just as the transition to the new
Government is taking place. With peace building as the central priority of the new
Government, there is huge opportunity to scale-up a transfer of forest resources to
communities, develop their livelihood option through business development, and thereby
support a peace dividend that will strengthen democratic reforms. It may be worth trying to
document more carefully the jigsaw of flexible interventions that brought about this opportunity
through the Pyoe Pin programme. It may also be timely to design any follow on to the Pyoe
Pin programme with at least some deliberate resourcing of follow up to consolidate community
forestry within peace-building efforts.
As noted above, there are also a few specific recommendations that have been made in
response to what I have seen in the field. Pyoe Pin has been very responsive to past
recommendations and so I humbly submit the following recommendations for consideration:

www.iied.org 33
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
 Continue to support the evolution of a Community Forestry Practitioners Network
through Pyoe Pin, in collaboration with RECOFTC and FFF, and as a complement to
the Community Forestry National Working Group (CFNWG). The network would
involve both NGO support organisations and representatives from the growing number
of township level Community Forest Product Producers Associations (CFPPAs) – and
might attract additional support by developing a potential thematic focus on how a
market-led approach to community forestry could provide a platform for peace-building
in ethnic areas.
 Convene through Pyoe Pin and perhaps through MERN, a specific meeting to discuss
advocacy messaging for the reform of the forest law plus broader desired changes to
legislation and institutions under the new Government
 Partner with RECOFTC and FFF programmes in providing useful exchange visits for
community forestry leaders, support NGO staff and government community forestry
focal points – especially where these involve exposure to detailed cases of community
forestry business. This could further complement the work of the Community Forestry
Practitioners Network.
 Contract early in 2016 a short term consultant with regional experience in developing
community forestry timber businesses to conduct, together with ECODEV and Shalom
both a market assessment and feasibility analysis of the proposed Kachin State
sawmilling and processing enterprise, plus potential bamboo enterprise options, and
provide suggested next steps to materialise that idea if it looks promising.
 Provide financial support through MERN members to further support the emergence of
community forestry product producer associations (CFPPAs) at township and state
level, and encourage further exploration of how these might be commercially viability in
their own right through marketing of FUG products or services to members, and broker
meetings to allow discussion of whether and how a national federation might be set up.
This might involve underwriting the costs of association leaders meeting together to
discuss financial strategies and prospects for higher level federation.
 In Kachin, support local forest user groups through Pyoe Pin / Shalom to enrichment
plant using rattan, conducting research about the volumes produced in particular
spacings, and to explore the possibility / need for a rattan nursery to enhance the scale
at which rattan can be planted.
 As the Kachin rattan business matures, use a consultant to undertake a financial profit
and loss analysis for each of the component parts of the rattan business to assess
where future efforts should be focused.
 In Kachin, work with the Myanmar Rattan and Bamboo Entrepreneurs Association to
assess and prioritise which of the options (for bamboo flooring or charcoal) appears
most promising, using which species, and at which location - and then offer loan
funding at a concessional rate to pump prime the investment.
 Investigate and begin to implement through Pyoe Pin a thematic support group on how
a market led approach to community forestry could support the peace process and
possibilities for reform that will deliver a peace dividend- drawing on existing initiatives
such as EITI, and civil society networks such as MATA and TANK.

www.iied.org 34
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
 Support through Pyoe Pin the programmatic work of Shalom to strengthen rattan,
bamboo and timber businesses linked to and financially supportive of the Kachin
Forest Users Association as further detailed in this report.

www.iied.org 35
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
References
DFID (2014) Burma Forests: Research and Analysis, DFID, FCO and UKT&I Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/burma-forests/burma-forests
EIA (2015) Organised chaos. The illicit overland timber trade between Myanmar and China.
Environmental Investigation Agency, London, UK.
Emerton, L. and Aung, Y.M. (2013) The economic value of forest ecosystem services in
Myanmar and options for sustainable financing. International Management Group, Yangon,
Myanmar.
Ferrie, J. (2014) Myanmar's log export ban to hurt businessmen but help forests. Reuters.
International Crisis Group (2015) Myanmar’s Peace Process: A Nationwide Ceasefire
Remains Elusive. Crisis Group Asia Report No. 146.
Lecup, I. And Nicholsen, K. (2000) Community-based tree and forest product enterprises:
market analysis and development (MA&D) field manual. Books A-F. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D.S., Steininger, M.K., Brunner, J., Muller, T. and Songer, M. (2005)
Forest cover change patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990-2000. Environmental Conservation
32 (4): 356-364
Macqueen, D.J. (2012) Recommendations for a market-led approach to community forestry in
Myanmar. IIED, Edinburgh, UK.
Macqueen, D.J. (2013a) Advancing forest-farm producer groups for market led community
forestry and enterprise development. IIED, Edinburgh, UK
Macqueen, D.J. (2013b) Models of business organization for a market-led approach to
community forestry in Myanmar. IIED, Edinburgh, UK
Macqueen, D. (2014) Stronger forest and farm producers’ groups can help deepen Myanmar
democracy. IIED briefing paper, London, UK.
Macqueen, D.J. (Ed.), Baral, S., Chakrabarti, L., Dangal, S., du Plessis, P., Griffiths, A.,
Grouwels, S., Gyawali, S., Heney, J., Hewitt, D., Kamara, Y., Katwal, P., Magotra, R.
Pandey, S.S., Panta, N., Subedi, B. and Vermeulen, S. (2012a) Supporting small forest
enterprises: a facilitators toolkit. Pocket guidance not rocket science! IIED Small and Medium
Forestry Enterprise Series No. 29. IIED, Edinburgh, UK.
Macqueen, D.J., Bolin, A. and Greijmans, M. (2015) Democratising forest business – a
compendium of successful locally controlled forestry business organisation. IIED, London, UK.
MERN (2012) A Review of the Forest Law 1992 - Civil Society Perspectives. Myanmar
Environmental Rehabilitation-conservation Network, Yangon, Myanmar.
Ministry of Health (undated). Medicinal plants of Myanmar. Ministry of Health, Naypyitaw,
Myanmar. Available at:
http://www.moh.gov.mm/file/Medicinal%20Plants%20of%20Myanmar.pdf

www.iied.org 36
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Myanmar Times (2014) Ministry-FFI to overhaul community forestry scheme. Available at:
http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/10548-ministry-ffi-to-overhaul-community-
forestry-scheme.html
Ngo-Samnick, E. (2012) Rattan production and processing. Available online at:
http://publications.cta.int/media/publications/downloads/1714_PDF.pdf
Springate-Baginski, O. and Than, M.M. (2011) Community forestry in Myanmar: some field
realities. University of East Anglia, Pyoe Pin Programme and Ecosystem Conservation and
Community Development Initiative, Yangon, Myanmar.
Tint, K., Springate-Baginski, O. and Gyi, M.K.K. (2011) Community forestry in Myanmar:
progress and potential.
Tint, K., Springate-Baginski, O., Macqueen, D.J., and Mehm Ko Ko Gyi (2014) Unleashing the
potential of community forest enterprises in Myanmar. Ecosystem Conservation and Community
Development Initiative (ECCDI), University of East Anglia (UEA) and International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK.
Woods, K. (2013) Timber trade flows and actors in Myanmar – the political economy of
Myanmar’s timber trade. Forest Trends, USA.
Woods, K. (2015) Commercial agriculture expansion in Myanmar: links to deforestation,
conversion timber and land conflict. Forest trends report series, Forest Trends, USA.
WWF, (2013) Ecosystems in the greater Mekong. Past trends, current status, possible futures.
WWF, Greater Mekong.

www.iied.org 37
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Annex 1. Persons consulted in the course of consultancy
*Nhkum Brang Aung (FC)
Gawlu La Awng, Technical Advisory Team and KIO Central Committee Member
Zau Bawk, Kachin Conservation Working Group
Kaung Dad, FUG leader, Waing Maw Township
Dau Hka, Technical Advisory Team
Rev. Kareng Htoi Dan, Myanmar Kachin Baptist Association (KCWG)
Mehm Ko Ko Gyi, ECCDI, Vice Chairman
Ze Hhawng, Member of Kachin State Parliament, National League for Democracy
Peter Seng Hkum, Anglican Development Department (KCWG)
Ze Jung, Member of Union Parliament, National League for Democracy
*Kada Zau Lawn, KURM Director (also KCWG and MATA)
Brang Li, Secreatry of Kachin State Democracy Party
Li Naw Li, Member of Kachin State Parliament, National League for Democracy
Amy Maling, WWF
Minzai, Technical Advisory Team
Soe Win Naing, Training Coordinator, KCWG
Pan Naw, Committee Member of Kachin State Democracy Party
Zau Mu Naw, Kachin Minister of Parliament, Kachin State Democracy Party
Saga Yaw San, Kachin Conservation Working Group, Director
Kam Shaung, FUG leader, Waing Maw Township
Peter Brang Shaung, Shalom
Maw She, Chair of Kachin Forest Users Association, Waing Maw Township
Maung Maung Than, Country Program Coordinator, RECOFTC
Salai Thawng, Pyoe Pin
Kyaw Thu – Chair of Rattan and Bamboo Association
Win Myo Thu, Managing Director, ECODEV

www.iied.org 38
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Kyaw Tint, ECCDI, Chairman
Aung Tsen, Shalom,
Wanna, Mobilizer KCWG
Thein Win, Community Forest Unit Focal Point for Kachin Forest Department
Haw Yamnaw, FUG leader, Waing Maw Township
Aung Thant Zin, MERN

www.iied.org 39
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Annex 2 – Terms of Reference
Market-led Community Forestry (CF) and Community Enterprise Development
Introduction to Pyoe Pin
The British Council has been working in partnership with the UK’s Department for International
Development (DFID) to deliver a Programme that aims to strengthen the potential of civil
society to participate in decision making.
The Programme was designed to select topical issues, around which collections of different
social and economic interests are expected to gather. By working on these issues the
programme engages with coalitions of civil society groups, individuals, and the private sector
to identify, commission, and implement activities that contribute to furthering the future basis
for democratic and accountable governance within Myanmar.
The selection of issues to work on (an Issues-Based Project is developed to support the range
of interests around each issue) is determined by a number of factors, but includes an
assessment of the current political economy.
Phase 1 of Pyoe Pin commenced in 2008 and was concluded in September 2011. The
programme has now entered a new phase which is expected to run until December 2015.
Background
Under Pyoe Pin Phase 1 (PP1) there were two related forestry IBPs – one supporting
community forestry in Kachin, and the other the development of the Mangrove Environment
and Rehabilitation Network (MERN) a local trust fund and network that had both the skills to
demonstrate good practice through the delivery of projects and the gravitias and legitimacy
with government to influence policy and practice. While the project in Kachin achieved good
success in building community partnerships and social capital, the actual achievement of
approval of Community Forestry Certificates (CFCs) was poor. We believe there are a number
of reasons for this. These include:
 a lack of resources and priority placed by the authorities in the potential of community
forestry to both protect forests and provide commercial benefits;
 weak and inadequate legislation and competition between forestry and agricultural
jurisdictions resulting in a lack of trust and confidence of communities and private sector to
invest both human and financial resources in CF; and
 that shared commercial interests between Forestry Department Officials, some politicians,
and large companies exploiting the forest resources have been too well aligned.
For these reasons a major proposed evolution of the project is to focus upon measures aimed
at achieving alterations to the CFI legislation, pursuing better land tenure rights for
communities, and allowing the commercial development of community forest areas.
The consultant work will contribute to community forestry commercialization, developing
options for micro and small forestry enterprises and community based enterprises.
Key Tasks
1. For support to CF enterprise development in Kachin
a) Review on-going CF Enterprise development support to Shalom
b) Consult with Shalom, MERN, ECODEV, FUGs , private sector and other key
stakeholders
c) Conduct field visit to Kachin together with Pyoe Pin and Shalom team

www.iied.org 40
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
d) Identify new opportunities - different products, areas etc and provide elaborated
e) Develop a strategy and plan to strengthen on going initiative that will be
incorporated in Shalom’s new program
2. For support to CF enterprise development and market led approach in Myanmar
f) Review on-going CF enterprise and market led supports in Myanmar by ECCDI,
MERN, etc
g) Consult with MERN, ECCDI, RECOFTC, private sector and other key stakeholders
h) Explore options to strengthen synergies between community forestry support
initiatives such as RECOFTC, Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) and help to design in-
country engagement strategy that is mutually beneficial to Pyoe Pin and other
supporters
i) Recommendations to Pyoe Pin and its partners on CF enterprise development and
market led approach
Outputs
A final report, structured to address the above points.
Work Arrangement
The consultant will report to Strategic Advisor in Pyoe Pin in collaboration with the Team
Leader.

www.iied.org 41
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
Annex 3 – Proposed draft Terms of Reference for community forest
business specialist
Market-led Community Forestry (CF) and Community Enterprise Development
Introduction to Pyoe Pin
The British Council has been working in partnership with the UK’s Department for International
Development (DFID) to deliver a Programme that aims to strengthen the potential of civil
society to participate in decision making.
The Programme was designed to select topical issues, around which collections of different
social and economic interests are expected to gather. By working on these issues the
programme engages with coalitions of civil society groups, individuals, and the private sector
to identify, commission, and implement activities that contribute to furthering the future basis
for democratic and accountable governance within Myanmar.
The selection of issues to work on (an Issues-Based Project is developed to support the range
of interests around each issue) is determined by a number of factors, but includes an
assessment of the current political economy.
Phase 1 of Pyoe Pin commenced in 2008 and was concluded in September 2011. The
programme has now entered a new phase which is expected to run until December 2016.
Background
Under Pyoe Pin Phase 1 (PP1) there were two related forestry IBPs – one supporting
community forestry in Kachin, and the other the development of the Mangrove Environment
and Rehabilitation Network (MERN) a local trust fund and network that had both the skills to
demonstrate good practice through the delivery of projects and the gravitias and legitimacy
with government to influence policy and practice. While the project in Kachin achieved good
success in building community partnerships and social capital, the actual achievement of
approval of Community Forestry Certificates (CFCs) was poor. We believe there are a number
of reasons for this. These include:
 a lack of resources and priority placed by the authorities in the potential of community
forestry to both protect forests and provide commercial benefits;
 weak and inadequate legislation and competition between forestry and agricultural
jurisdictions resulting in a lack of trust and confidence of communities and private sector to
invest both human and financial resources in CF; and
 that shared commercial interests between Forestry Department Officials, some politicians,
and large companies exploiting the forest resources have been too well aligned.
For these reasons a major proposed evolution of the project is to focus upon measures aimed
at achieving alterations to the CFI legislation, pursuing better land tenure rights for
communities, and allowing the commercial development of community forest areas.
The consultant work will contribute to community forestry commercialization, developing
options for micro and small forestry enterprises and community based enterprises.
Key Tasks
The consultant will be expected to make publically available an assessment of, and inputs to,
three potential business cases in Kachin, the first relating to a proposed timber processing
enterprise, the second to an existing rattan production, splitting and weaving enterprise, and
the third to a proposed bamboo enterprise.

www.iied.org 42
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
1. To conduct a feasibility assessment of, and provide advisory inputs to, community forestry
timber enterprise development in Kachin
a) Conduct field visit to Kachin together with Pyoe Pin and ECODEV / Shalom team
b) Explore with ECODEV and Waing Maw township cluster of seven community
forestry enterprises the vision for a community forestry timber processing enterprise –
and develop that vision with the Kachin Forest Users Association
c) Undertake with ECODEV price assessments for possible buyers of community
timber and processed product (and particularly for the species known to be abundant
in community forests such as Gmelina arborea, but also additional possibilities such as
Tectona grandis, Xylia dolarbriformis, Chukraria tabularis, Cedrela multijuga, Amoora
wallichii and even Aquilaria molaccensis).
d) Draw on knowledge of appropriate sawmilling technology and assess with local
experts recommended options for, and up-front costs of, such technology. – including
possibilities for both primary processing and secondary processing (e.g. local
carpentry development)
e) Using existing preliminary inventory data from three community forest areas and
price / cost information from ECODEV / local assessments, make the following three
assessments to the extent possible: (i) a preliminary profit / loss assessment of the
proposed business; (ii) total likely up-front capital investment needs and (iii) cash flow
analysis that sheds some light on likely working capital needs – to present a case for
required ‘enabling investment’ and the likely local returns from it.
f) Provide detailed advisory inputs on the main risks associated with establishing and
running a community forest timber business and how to mitigate such risks – including
risks associated with (i) the management and development of the forest resource; (ii)
business management structures, staff roles and expertise; (iii) financial security and
transparency; (iv) market linkages and market development; (v) human resource
issues and training needs (vi) branding and reputation.
g) Provide a set of practical next steps that could be undertaken in the next year to
realise the vision of a Kachin Community Forest Timber processing enterprise.
2. Review on-going community forestry enterprise development support to Shalom for the
establishment of a rattan production, splitting and weaving enterprise.
a) Consult with Shalom, forest user group representatives, private sector buyers /
supporters and other key stakeholders regarding the history of and current operations
of the Kachin Forest Users Association rattan business
b) Make an assessment of the profitability of the three different elements of the
business (rattan growing / harvesting; rattan splitting for the Yangon market; rattan
weaving)
c) Provide recommendations about how to strengthen the ongoing initiative that will be
incorporated in Shalom’s new program
3. Make a preliminary assessment of possible options for a multiple product bamboo
enterprise in Kachin with Shalom and members of the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan
Association.
a) Consult with the chair of the Myanmar Bamboo and Rattan Association about
possible enterprise options and sites within Kachin for the establishment of a bamboo
processing enterprise.
b) Assess with local experts up-front capital investment needs of such an enterprise.
c) Provide advisory inputs on the steps that might be required to further materialise
such a business

www.iied.org 43
COMMUNITY FOREST BUSINES IN MYANMAR: PATHWAY TO PEACE AND PROSPERITY?,
d) In the light of the three case studies above, provide recommendations to Pyoe Pin
and its partners on a market-led approach to Community Forestry enterprise
development
Outputs
A final report, structured to address the above points.
Work Arrangement
The consultant will report to Strategic Advisor in Pyoe Pin in collaboration with the Team
Leader.