3.8 Article

Paradoxical issues in eradicating opium cultivation in Myanmar: A perspective from local farmers' voices

Journal

POVERTY & PUBLIC POLICY
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 96-116

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pop4.335

Keywords

alternative development; alternative livelihoods; drug control; human rights; land access; Myanmar Opium Farmers' Forum (MOFF); opium cultivation; poppy eradication

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper analyzes the reasons and practical concerns for opium cultivation in Myanmar and calls for support to local farmers in drug policy reform.
Supporting drug-producing communities in alternative livelihoods from harm reduction activists is a common practice in Myanmar and other drug-producing countries. And yet, the voices of opium farmers are rarely heard. This paper assesses why Myanmar farmers continue to grow opium poppy and analyzes their current concerns and the practical challenges in eradicating opium cultivation in Myanmar. This analysis combines field observations and secondary data from the Myanmar Opium Farmers' Forum (2013-2019) statements. The findings show five main reasons to cultivate poppy, as well as eight practical concerns of farmers relating to (1) rights to access land, (2) threats of insurgency groups, (3) forced eradication without alternative plans, (4) unsustainability in alternative developments, and (5) limitations of farmers' rights to be involved in drug policy changes. The paper calls for further attention of policymakers and stakeholders to clarify these paradoxical issues with relevant proposals to support local farmers while implementing drug policy reform in Myanmar. The author argues for a balance of the national drug control strategies (supply, demand, and harm reduction) with opium farmers' rights to encourage a harmonious relationship between both sides should be the new roadmap for drug reform in Myanmar.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available