Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar's emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process

Amidst Myanmar (Burma)'s political reform process the forest sector remains an important area awaiting democratisation. Forests historically covered over 50% of the countries' land area, and have been of major importance for both local livelihoods, the national economy and ‘ecosystem services’ such as biodiversity and catchment hydrology. The export timber trade has however played a decisive role in determining forest sector policy and indeed has exerted a significant influence on overall national politics since the colonial era began and continuing to the present day. Under the post-independence military dictatorship the timber trade involved ever more unsustainable plunder, particularly from the 1970s, rapidly degrading forests. But now reform of Myanmar's timber trade is on the national political agenda, reform which will be crucial for the Nation's transition towards an equitable and sustainable development trajectory.New legislative measures within consuming countries, including the EU, to challenge illegally sourced timber and wood product supplies have begun to exert a catalytic influence on Myanmar's forest policies, and converging with domestic civil society pressures have led in 2013 to the initiation of a formal ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (or FLEGT) bilateral process between the European Union and the Government of Myanmar.This paper presents an analysis of the nature of Myanmar's current timber trade and of the challenges and opportunities for reform, particularly in relation to the emerging FLEGT process. We argue that there are eight key aspects of Myanmar's timber trade overdue for democratic reform, which the FLEGT process puts into sharp relief: 1) resolution of ethnic conflicts primarily in upland forested areas, 2) reform of forest tenures; 3) a review of overall forest sector policies and the appropriate place of timber production; 4) reform of military era state timber institutions, 5) a return to silviculturally based sustainable forest management; 6) restructuring of the timber industry away from ‘crony’ domination; 7) measures to combat illegal logging and assure the rule of law; and 8) citizen participation in policy development and implementation.This ‘shopping list’ of democratic reforms implies a major and undoubtedly difficult process ahead, and success is far from certain. From 2013 promising initial progress has already begun on several of these areas. However, although the Government of Myanmar may give the international audience the impression that it is rapidly democratising, on the ground only limited substantive changes are yet experienced in rural areas, and resistance to reform persists amongst the military and their commercial partners. A spectrum of possible outcomes for forest sector reform may be foreseen, from mere token improvements on the dictatorship-era ‘business as usual’ to a thorough realisation of democratic aspirations. The outcome will be determined by the balance of power between civil society, public representatives, timber merchants particularly the powerful so-called ‘crony’ and proxy military business interests, and the intermediating powers of Government (including a significant rent-seeking ‘shadow state’), the EU, and the international markets that drive the demand for Burmese timber. The extent to which the FLEGT process can reinforce the wider democratisation process may be a decisive factor.