A/HRC/45/5 new law includes positive policy objectives, a definitive list of “public purpose” categories for land expropriations, and requirements for surveys to identify some potentially affected populations, for environmental and social impact assessments, and for resettlement and rehabilitation plans, it still falls far short of the obligations of Myanmar under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Certain public purpose categories are overly broad, risking prioritization of commercial interests over individual rights and social costs. Additionally, the law is silent on numerous categories of persons who would be affected by it – such as those displaced by conflict who have restitution rights, and those who use land communally – which runs counter to the Covenant’s nondiscrimination obligation. 45. In February 2020, Parliament passed amendments to the Farmland Law of 2012, which essentially had established a legal land market through formalization of rural land tenure via a land use certificate and registration system. Despite some positive elements, the amendments, overall, appear to exacerbate the deficiencies of the 2012 law. In particular, the law now criminalizes non-performance of a bureaucratic requirement to apply for and obtain land use certificates. Furthermore, the original stipulation that unused expropriated land must be returned has now been removed, thereby heightening risks of excessive land seizures. The amendments have also broadened the definition of “farmland” to include more customary land use, which has the effect of commodifying land as an economic resource owned by the State, rather than recognizing cultural understandings of land by ethnic communities. 46. In parallel, in August 2018 the Government launched the Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan, and in early 2019 launched the Myanmar Project Bank, which together provide a policy framework and publicly accessible repository of investment projects. Roughly over the same period, the Government also committed to the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor – a framework for large-scale infrastructure, trade and transportation projects forming part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. 47. Details under the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor scheme remain scarce, challenging promises of transparency and stakeholder consultation. For Myanmar to fulfil its procedural obligations under the Covenant, all relevant information needs to be made available to those affected, such that genuine consultations may be undertaken prior to any interference with rights protected by the Covenant. According to public reports, main projects under the Economic Corridor include a high-speed railway – with a parallel expressway – running from Ruili in Yunnan Province, China, via Muse in northern Shan State, and terminating in Kyaukphyu, Rakhine State, and forking southwards at Mandalay to Yangon; three new economic cooperation zones at the Economic Corridor’s eastern end; and a fourth new economic cooperation zone in the west – Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone – that includes a deep sea port. At both ends of the Economic Corridor, armed conflict between the Tatmadaw and ethnic armed organizations has escalated dramatically over the past two years. Without appropriate consultation with the affected communities, assurances of economic, social and other benefits for members of those communities, and specific protections for specific cultural, religious and other practices, such regional economic development may fall far short of its vision of contributing materially to peacebuilding. 48. Undoubtedly, sustainable development is critical if Myanmar is to continue lifting its population out of poverty and to ensure that rights articulated under the Covenant are progressively and continuously realized. The Government’s response to the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic goes some way to fulfilling its Covenant obligations. However, the laws described above exert tremendous pressure on rural land in Myanmar. Together, they permit the rapacious expropriation of land and other natural resources in favour of a vision of large-scale land-related development at the expense of individual farmers and communities and their rights to maintain their land, livelihoods and cultural life. Legalization of the land market without strong public safeguards – including an independent judiciary, a free media, and a comprehensive social security system – may exacerbate conflicts and engender new disputes. 11