www.mcrb.org.mm

အမွတ္ ၁၅၊ ရွမ္းရိပ္သာလမ္း

(ဆာကူရာ ေဆးရုံအနီး)

စမ္းေခ်ာင္းၿမိ ႔ဳနယ္၊ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕

ဖုန္း / ဖက္(စ္) ၀၁ ၅၁၀၀၆၉

Wai Phyo Myint, Regional Outreach Manager, Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business (MCRB)

Hotel Zones in MyanmarClarifying terms “Zone” and “Zoning”Problems with “Hotel Zones” in MyanmarSummary of recent MCRB research on hotel zones

Started emerging in 2012 Hotel zones established in all 14 regions

of the country with 2 zones in Ayeyarwady Region and 4 more zones planned for 2015. (According to Chairman of MTF told the Myanmar Times in January 2015)

Our research/media reports show◦ Bagan: 5 Zones◦ Naypyidaw: 3 Zones◦ Inle: 1 Zone◦ TadaOo (‘Mandalay’): 1 Zone

Media reports mention plans to establish zones near Golden Rock, and in MyeikArchipelago, and elsewhere

No information on Ministry website/from government sources

Unclear status in law, policy or practice

Vocabulary Confusion Some organisations like

Myanmar Hotelier Association are using ‘Zone’ instead of ‘Destination’ which others use

Confusion between ‘Zone’ and ‘Zoning’ ◦ Zoning: a legal process to

demarcate what may/may notbe done in an area. Essential to protect culture and the environment

The Myanmar practice of ‘Hotel Zones’ is:◦ taking land from other uses – e.g farming◦ defining where only hotels must be built◦ not connected to the market

This is problematic because:◦ It has negative impacts on local livelihoods: land grabs,

loss of farmland/land rights, land speculation◦ Lack of community participation in decision making; no

grievance mechanisms and government officials involved in negotiations on behalf of companies

◦ “Exclusive”: Reduces opportunities for community involvement in tourism (small guesthouses, B&B),

◦ Environmental impacts ◦ Transparency (who receives the land?)◦ Tourists do not want to stay in ‘ghettos’

Inle, Mandalay/Tada-Oo, Bagan(March and August 2015)

Key Objective 3.3: Improve Zoning in Tourism Destinations pg. 48Activity 3.3.1 Review the status of hotel zone development (e.g.,Mandalay, Bagan, and Inle): review progress and issues with hotelzone development within context of Myanmar’s responsibletourism policy; develop a planning framework that harmonizeshotel zone planning with national objectives to protect naturaland cultural heritage and promote the well-being of localresidents.

A reminder:Tourism Master Plan, 2013

Currently ~40 hotels near Inle Lake, 1000 rooms, peak occupancy >90%

Hotel Zone: 620 acres near Ingyin Kone. MoHT 30 year lease from the government. Villages affected include Kanbe, Chaungpar, Thaphaykone, Phayarphyu, Watthakin and Nyaunswun.

Zone development by Shan State Government Road construction by Phyu Zin Group (no open

tender) which owns three hotels in Shan State

• Each subdivided block on the map is a hotel site

• No evidence of sewerage, waste disposal, water management etc in the ‘Master Plan’

• No published EIA or Environmental Management Plan

• Problems over classification of land - Forestry Land being used by farmers, and now by the Zone

Mixed views about HZ heard from locals: ◦ hope for jobs◦ disputes over

compensation◦ anger over lack of

transparency and benefits for well-connected companies

◦ Environmental and livelihoods impacts

Negative Reaction from tourists and international investors◦ Environment and visual

amenity

Inadequate ‘impact assessment’ on the zone. No public and genuine community consultation took place

Water shortage (caused by deforestation) already affecting villagers (wells drying up). Likely to impact hotel zone viability

Hotel zone has further removed forest cover, and impacted firewood collection

Hotel zone wants to dam Nant Li creek used by villages for hydro and agriculture

Conflict and arrests relating to compensation disputes

Township administrators act as mediators to broker land acquisition for the hotel zone

Lack of trust following arbitrary arrests of farmers who refused to sell their land or protested; failure to supply promised access to water and electricity

Field interviews with affected villages showed: ◦ Dissatisfaction with the processes, particularly land acquisition

and compensation for agricultural land and crops. ◦ In some cases compensation not paid for land, only crops,

because forest land◦ Claims that not fully compensated for crops such as bamboo,

banana and coconut trees, lack of compensation for firewood in many cases

◦ Compensation insufficient for continuation of agricultural livelihood. Villagers made reliant on tourism related employment

◦ Company in some cases topped up compensation◦ Resentment that farmers received e.g. 3 million kyats per acre for

groundnut/sesame; yet hotel investors are paying the Development Company 150 million kyats per acre in Zone A, 120 million kyats Zone B, 90 million kyats per acre Zone C.

Located 14 miles south west of Mandalay next to Tada-Oo City. West of ancient city of Inwa(Ava) .The area slated for the hotel zone includes several villages, including Gatoeseik, Thinpan, Gaungkwe, Letsaungyou, Kyeebin and Ngaryarpyar.

Myanmar Tourism Development Company, (Chair U Yan Win, A1 company and Chair of Myanmar Tourism Federation); Zone chair is U Myint Aung.

Early plans for 5422-acre (2012) seem to have been halved to about 2180 acres; original mention of 192 hotels –now 20 according to media reports

When announced in 2012, total cost estimated at about US$560 million. Public company has sold shares; so far raised about K50 billion (U$48.5 million).

Issues raised by local communities are similar to Inle Lake hotel zone:◦ Local leaders and brokers have been appointed to

members of Hotel Zone Development Committees, convincing local farmers to sell their land while collecting commission fees of 0.3 million kyats peracre sold.

◦ Different prices offered to local farmers from initially 3 million kyat per acre up to 10 million kyats; created resentment amongst early sellers.

◦ Farmers with fertile land less willing to sell◦ Farmers don’t receive enough to buy cultivable

land elsewhere◦ Protests and complaints have been met with police

harassment◦ Farmers felt forced to sell at low prices, fearing

confiscation of the land. Again, mixed views: some distrust the project, some

believe it will bring employment, electricity, infrastructure and reliable water supply.

No public EIA conducted Promises made by MTDC to employ locals on a range

of construction-related projects including carpentry, stonemasonry and even as golf caddies or landscaping gardeners.

Local CSOs feel MTDC has no plan to ensure local communities benefit.

Being a long way from any tourist destination and the airport, it is questionable whether the zone will attract any investment in the foreseeable future.Farmers may have sold their land and livelihoods into hands of speculators, and not see jobs materialise

Currently 2500 rooms in Bagan, occupancy high (80-100% high season).

‘Hotel Zones’ are different in Bagan compared to Inle and Tada Oo; consequence of the market, not central planning (and cultural heritage protection rules not enforced)

Locals generally refer to Three ‘ Zones’ located in or near the archaeological zone of Old

Bagan. Hotels constructed over several decades A new Zone 4 located 10 km south of New Bagan, away from cultural

heritage areas. A ‘Zone 5’ was mentioned by President Thein Sein in 2014, said to be

close to the Nyaung Oo Airport and the Tuyin Taung Pagoda. Unclear status and lack of information

Main concerns of local tourism stakeholders:◦ Lack of consultation, information or transparency concerning

who (if anyone) receives permits to expand existing hotels projects inside protected areas or develop of new tourism projects

◦ Perception of uneven playing field: Bagan residents cannot establish guesthouses, inns and small hotels which could benefit locals; but well-connected outsiders are above the law

◦ Particular concern about one large new hotel which is still under construction in the archaeological zone, without archaeological supervision

◦ Communities worried about risk of further relocation as a consequence of World Heritage Listing (following 1990 experience)

Absence of Strategic Environmental Assessment or EIA Lack of transparency and public participation in decision

making Inappropriate involvement of public officials in

negotiating compensation and sale Loss of livelihood/land without replacement jobs Inconsistent rates of compensation; those who

bargained harder got more Intimidation: farmers feared expropriation if they did

not ‘agree’ Subsequent land price rise and speculation has

increased local resentment Zone concept not connected to tourism market –

different from Bagan.

Thank you