Knowing the Salween River: Resource Politics of a Contested Transboundary River

Front matter

The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science

Carl Middleton Vanessa Lamb

Fditors

Foreword

A Reflection on the Role of Researchers and Research on the Salween River: Past, Present and Future

What we highlight in this edited volume are the ecological, social, cultural and political facets of the Salween River Basin. I say “we” because, as I detail below, I have been involved in supporting the important work of organizing and sharing knowledge about the Salween, also known as Thanlwin in Myanmar, for many years alongside this excellent group of contributors.

In this and in previous work, we as scholars and civil society actors have considered the various tools that can be used for research and learning about the Salween River. There are multiple approaches to research the Salween River, and multifaceted systems of governance in this River Basin. This is the time to consider the insights of our research, the tools we use, and the systems operating in the context of development of the river basin, and the region more broadly. It is a time when the world is turning to look at Myanmar and the Salween River as one of the major river systems in the region.

At present, there are 20 proposed hydropower projects along the Salween River. These have the potential to transform agrarian livelihoods, fisheries, migration, and to change political and economic relationships of the Salween River Basin. Of these projects, up to seven are proposed in Myanmar or along the Thai-Myanmar border. But, the majority of the electricity produced would not be for domestic consumption, which is urgently required, but would be sold to Thailand and China.

During the 2016 Salween Studies Network Meeting, held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, it became apparent that the Salween River Basin has only recently attracted the attention of international academic researchers. This can be seen, for instance, in the number of academic publications on the Lower Salween River since 2010. This work on the Lower Salween River is related to a greater focus on Myanmar through the economic opening up of country. Yet, while academic research has only begun to emerge, civil society research has been pursued for decades. This includes work by organizations such as KESAN, International vi Foreword

Rivers, Salween Watch, Southeast Asia Rivers Network, Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliances (TERRA), and Mekong Energy and Ecological Network (MEE Net). This research is important to recognize and use alongside academic work to reinforce and improve the quality of research being conducted now.

The increased attention to the Salween River Basin would not have been possible without the work that has been done over the past ten years, mainly by civil society groups, to raise awareness on these issues. Indeed, this book would not be possible without the sustained effort and collaborations across academic and civil society researchers.

The 2016 Salween Studies Network Meeting, or Salween University Network (SUN), I mentioned above is a good example of one such collaborative effort. The meeting, as evidenced in the title, was focused on moving ‘Towards a Shared Vision for the Salween-Thanlwin-Nu’. A wide variety of active participants from many sectors in the Salween-Thanlwin-Nu River Basin region gave presentations over two days. The meeting was an opportunity to review the research that came out of the 2014 Salween Studies Conference and to discuss what research can be done in the future, including a book like this edited volume. More than fifty participants attended the meeting, including professors, researchers, experts, community supported organizations (CSO) and non-government organization (NGO) representatives, and journalists from a range of countries — not limited to the Salween River Basin countries of Thailand, Myanmar, and China.

The 2016 SUN meeting, however, is only one in a long line of conferences and meetings. There are too many to list all here, but some of the additional meetings include, for instance, an October 2012 meeting where there were twelve people — six of whom are also part of this book (Pai Deetes, Dr. Lamb, Prof. Saw Win, Prof. Chayan, Dr. Middleton and Dr. Yu Xiaogang) — who met to discuss the future of the Salween River Basin, supported by International Rivers and Chiang Mai University. Concerns revolved around the mega projects planned for the Upper Salween River and the downstream impacts of these projects as well as logging and mining in the river basin.

The year 2014 saw two significant Salween Meetings organized. This was indeed a rare event. The first, held in Myanmar, was the workshop, Socio-economics and Ecosystem Values of the Salween River: Towards Transboundary Management Framework and Research Collaboration Network jointly coordinated by REAM, TERRA, and MEE Net at the Mawlamyine University, Mon State on 2-3 September. About twenty-five presentations were presented by both national and international scholars, researchers, and CSOs during the two-day workshop with special emphasis upon topics, such as: Ecosystems and Socio-economics, Inhabitant People and Resource-Based Livelihoods, Hydropower and River Resources of the Salween River Basin, Upstream Salween River and Sino-Asian Affairs, and Community Research Approach. During the workshop, I presented ‘A Geographical Evaluation on the Natural and Human Resources of the Salween Drainage Basin’. On the final day of the workshop, participants had the

Foreword Vii opportunity of paying a field visit to some river mouth islands and villages in the Salween Estuarine Region near Mawlamyine City.

Later that year, in November 2014, the First International Conference on Salween/Thanlwin/Nu_ Studies: State of Knowledge: Environmental Change, Livelihoods and Development was hosted by the Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development (RCSD), Faculty of Social Science, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, organized by the Salween-Thanlwin-Nu (STN) Studies Group. With support of the Heinrich Böll Foundation and RCSD at the Chiang Mai University, the First International Salween Studies Conference was a significant conference for the Salween River Basin region and brought together over two hundred participants, not limited to local communities, NGOs, CSOs, universities, researchers, academics, and youth. The conference highlighted that ‘universities, and others, can work together to conduct academic research and collect information to support the Salween River Basin’. The presentations at the conference raised important questions about who can create the knowledge used for decision-making in the Salween River Basin. The biggest take-away from the conference was that there is a need to link researchers to broaden decision-making processes. To allow for effective collaboration, everyone must work together to inform each other of existing research. About sixty-three research papers were presented to the Conference. Fifteen major topics were discussed during this event. During this International Conference, I personally contributed, at the kind request of the event organizers, three presentations, including the keynote titled ‘Earthquake Hazards: A Brief Analysis of Seismo-tectonic Activities in Myanmar’.

Prior to the 2014 Salween Studies Conference, there were concerns over how little attention was being paid to the Salween River Basin compared with the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) and Mekong River Basins. But, due to successful mobilization efforts and collaborations in the region, the 2014 Salween Studies Conference was a big success. The biggest achievement of the conference was the knowledge sharing between international experts and local people. For civil society members from Myanmar, it was a wakeup call. The Network’s success was shown in how it was working to share knowledge instead of restricting knowledge to a small group of experts. The Network is important for the region and has provided new opportunities for Myanmar academics and civil society members to work internationally. One of the biggest strengths of the Network right now is that it is composed primarily of people from the Salween River Basin region. The Salween University Network (SUN) as a network primarily of non-state actors differs then from the inter-governmental Mekong River Commission (MRC). While the MRC produces important research, much is produced internally and/or by government agencies rather than directly together with local universities. Even as the MRC hosts various public consultations, this risks a perception that the MRC is distant from the region’s researchers, as well as more broadly the people who live in the basin. Another challenge for the MRC is that the China and Myanmar governments are not full members of the MRC, but rather hold observer status. For SUN, viii Foreword researchers have sought to bridge across countries; for example, RCSD of Chiang Mai University now works with universities in Myanmar to bring people together.

The importance of these relationships should be highlighted by noting the majority of Myanmar scholars are working on natural science, geology, geography, geomorphology, geobiology, and marine sciences. In contrast, scholars generally specialize in social science and highlands research at Chiang Mai University. This is one area where different universities can collaborate and bring together unique expertise to share with policymakers within Myanmar and throughout the Salween River Basin region as a whole.

We must collaborate so that we can save the Salween River for the future. One problem which academics want to tackle in Myanmar is the deep divide between academia and civil society. This should be attributed to not listening to the voices of people in the Salween River Basin. Research needs to think about people’s needs and, in the case of energy demands, provide alternative energy options. Listening and paying attention to needs should be accompanied by scientific knowledge. This is another potential implication of the Network: providing the opportunity for scientific knowledge and community-oriented research to come, taking it together to inform national policies. The SUN meeting proved effective in bringing together academics and creating a space for collaboration through various group work sessions. Following a full day of presentations, participants broke out in groups to identify knowledge gaps, current research, collaborations and priorities for future work. Four areas were identified for possible future collaborations: the environment, law and policy, economics, and society and culture. With a diverse collection of participants, it came as no surprise that each group conducted very different sets of analysis. Through collaborative efforts, each group came up with thorough and comprehensive examinations of gaps, opportunities, and ways forward in the research.

Many of the presentations, and much of the work in this book, focused on challenges faced by local communities and methods used to promote community empowerment and traditional knowledge research. The many forms and values of traditional knowledge is being highlighted by some researchers. Their work shows the importance of complementing social sciences with natural sciences research. All these discussions have emphasized how more focus needs to be placed on this type of research in the future. Collaborative studies linking local to scientific knowledge allows for community members to become researchers themselves. Beyond being useful for future data collection, collaborative research can work to build the confidence of local community members to work side-by-side with academic researchers.

On the topic of sharing knowledge, it is also clear that knowledge links to responsibility in decision-making. At these conferences, there were also presentations examining the environmental impacts on the river’s diverse ecosystems. Hopefully, the network members who have experience linking research with the communities and knowledge with policy continue to share their ideas. Reflecting on their own experiences, one researcher remarked that “policy gaps are more a result

Foreword ix of poor ears than poor policies.” This statement resonated with the meeting participants and acted as a lasting takeaway message.

Moreover, in this volume we see Thai Scholars (Hengsuwan, Chap. 11, and Bundidterdsakul, Chap. 9, this volume) speak to the importance of prioritizing research that looks at economic and social dimensions of the Salween due to the limited information available on those living there. Others have noted that when it comes to the Salween, there is a need for investigation, particularly in Myanmar, in relation to domestic energy supplies, but there is still a lack of baseline data on “everything’—including water levels.

Looking towards how data is released through the media, scholars from Myanmar have stressed how there is a gap on sharing information between academia and other communities that needs to be filled. For example, the proposed Hatgyi Dam in Kayin State also sits on a fault line, and a reservoir in this area could create a higher earthquake risk, but we do not have the full information.

Overall, it is important to think outside the box and to pursue new paths that could lead to more cooperation and collaboration between many different levels— international, regional, national, and local. It is imperative to include the local community perspective in all policy processes. When local communities gain inclusion into policy processes, other gaps existing between the local and the national levels will become obvious.

My brother-like-friend, and colleague Prof. Chayan, once reflected on the first meeting (and in this book’s concluding commentary, see Sect. 16.1) on the “Geography of Knowing and Geography of Ignorance.” Hopefully, all readers of this volume will agree that this makes an excellent contribution to knowledge, but in “Knowing the Salween” there is still much work to do for its communities, understanding its place, geography and history.

Yangon, Myanmar Maung Maung Aye February 2019 Professor and Rector-in-Charge (Ret.), Yangon University Distance Education

maungaye3246 @ gmail.com

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this edited volume reflects a long journey to which many have contributed. First, we would like to express our greatest thanks to all the contributors and collaborators working together on “Salween Studies” for the past ten years. The list is a long one and continues to grow. We thank Pai Deetes and International Rivers for catalysing a meeting of Salween experts in 2012 at Chiang Mai University. We also thank the participants of the conferences and workshops organized over the past five years, and all those who helped organize these milestones. They include the Salween Studies Conference in 2014 and the Salween Studies Network meeting in 2016 at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, with particular thanks to Kanchana Kulpisithicharoen, Chanida Puranapun and Ajarn Chayan Vaddhanaphuti of the Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development (RCSD). The Heinrich-Béll-Stiftung and International Rivers provided partial support for these events, for which we are grateful. We thank colleagues who helped organized the Salween Studies Research Workshop at Yangon University in 2018, in particular Prof. Htun Ko from the Department of Geography and Tay Zar Myo Win. There have been many people who although not authoring chapters in the book project, have helped shape the groups wider thinking about “Salween Studies” or supported the ongoing work including Witoon Permpongsacharoen, Montree Chantavong, Luntharimar (Tidtee) Longcharoen, Philip Hirsch and Sarah Allen.

We want to acknowledge and sincerely appreciate the teams at our own universities. At the Center for Social Development Studies (CSDS), Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, this includes Orapan Pratomlek, Bobby Irven, Claudine Claridad and Anisa Widyasari, and our colleagues in the Faculty of Political Science including Dean Ake Tangsupvattana and Ajarn Naruemon Thabchumpon. Orapan in particular has been central to coordinating our research and fellowship programme on the Salween. Park Rojanachotikul also collaborated with CSDS to produce the excellent short films at www. SalweenStories.org.

xi xii Acknowledgements

At York University, York Center for Asian Research, we appreciate the support of Directors Philip Kelly and Abidin Kusno, and of course, Alicia Filipowich, in particular, for managing so many of the fun aspects of administration. At the University of Melbourne, the School of Geography offered support and the kind and generous cartographer Chandra Jayasuriya created the superb maps for this book.

A large part of the impetus for many of the chapters presented in this volume was the generous support from the Salween Water Governance Project under the CGIAR Research Programme on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) in the Greater Mekong with support from CGIAR Fund Donors and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). They supported two research for development projects fondly referred to as “MK21” or Matching Policies, Institutions and Practices of Water Governance in the Salween River Basin: Towards Inclusive, Informed, and Accountable Water Governance, and the “MK31” Professional Development of Water Governance and Regional Development Practitioners in the Salween Basin which ran from 2015-2018. We thank in particular: Kim Geheb, David Clayton, Stew Motta, Rattamanee Laohapensang (Ruby) and Mayvong Sayatham at WLE-Greater Mekong, and John Dore, and Ounheuan Saiyasith at DFAT.

Key partners for the “MK21” research project included the aforementioned York Centre for Asian Research, York University, and the Centre for Social Development Studies (CSDS), Chulalongkorn University. In addition, the project included colleagues and friends at the Karen Environment and Social Action Network (KESAN), in particular Saw John Bright, Jeff Rutherford, Saw Tha Phoe, and Naw Aye Aye Myaing; Nang Shining at Weaving Bonds Across Borders/Mong Pan Youth Association; Nang Aye Tin, Nang Hom Kham, Nang Sam Paung Hom, and Sai Aum Khay at Mong Pan Youth Association; Prof. Saw Win of the Renewable Energy Association Myanmar (REAM); Diana Suhardiman at the International Water Management Institute; and Prof. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti at the Regional Center for Sustainable Development (RCSD), Chiang Mai University, Thailand. We also thank Paung Ku and in particular Sayar Kyaw Thu, Myint Zaw, and Shwe Sin, for their continued support. We also appreciate the work done by independent researcher April Kyu Kyu, for his research and organizing support at crucial moments, and Tay Zar Myo Win, for his ongoing logistics assistance. There are other close collaborators who cannot be named, but who know who they are.

Key partners for the “MK31” Salween Fellowship programme include the mentors, many of whom also doubled up as workshop trainers, namely: Naruemon Thabchumpon, Stew Motta, Diana Suhardiman, Chantana Banpasirichote Wungaeo, Lyu Xing, John Dore, Prof. Saw Win, Jakkrit Sangkamanee, Jeff Rutherford, and Michael Medley. Others include our partner fellowship programmes on the Mekong and Red Rivers, with whom we co-organized trainings and field visits. These include Ajarn Kanokwan Manorom and Chawirakan Nomai (Ploy) from Ubon Ratchathani University, and Nguyen Tung Phong, Ha Hai Duong, and their team at Vietnam Academy of Water Resources.

Acknowledgements xiii

General project support, for both the academic and civil society networks for the two MK projects above, was provided by Prof. Saw Win, who has been an amazing facilitator, and we have been very happy to know since that 2012 meeting. Thank you, Sayar-gyi!

Finally, with regard to this book, it would not have been possible without the assistance (research and copyediting support) from K. B. Roberts and her ‘mobile mentorship’, and from Sabrina Gyorvary and her mellifluous prose. Elena Tjandra transcribed talks and offered referencing assistance at very important times. The book’s two anonymous peer reviewers also worked tirelessly to provide constructive and critical feedback to the book’s contributors. We also thank Michael Cook for the use of his photograph on this book cover, and appreciate his unparalleled photographic ability to capture the banal moments of everyday river life in visual art.

We also very much appreciate the team at Springer for their patient support, and in particular the independent series editor, Dr. Hans Günter Brauch as well as Dr. Johanna Schwarz and Dr. Christian Witschel in Heidelberg (Germany) and the book producers Ms. Aurelia Heumader (Heidelberg) and Mr. Arulmurugan Venkatasalam (Chennai) and their team of typesetters, graphic designers, webmasters and many others that have made it possible that our research results are now available to a global audience.

Bangkok, Thailand Carl Middleton Melbourne, Australia Vanessa Lamb February 2019

Endorsements for Knowing the Salween

“A fascinating and detailed analysis of how development decisions about a river impact on local people’s lives and pose important challenges for politics. Strongly recommended. A must-read for anyone interested in transboundary water politics and the urgent environmental challenges now facing Southeast Asia.” — Professor Tim Forsyth, Professor of Environment and Development, Department of International Development, London School of Economics, UK.

“This book shares detailed and diverse knowledge and experience about the people of the Salween basin and their river. It reveals what is at stake if plans for large dams go ahead, especially for the communities who would be directly affected by them.” — Associate Professor Kanokwan Manorom, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand.

“This important collection of essays on the Salween (also known as Gyalmo Ngulchu — Nu Jiang — Nam Khone — Thanlwin) demonstrates how important it is to understand a watercourse, and its meaning for those who depend on it, well before ill-conceived development plans become etched into the river’s future pathways. The knowledge behind such understanding is produced through science, experience and socio-political analysis. In this book, an impressive range of authors articulate their research-based visions for a different kind of future for the Salween and provide grounds for optimism — despite the severe challenges that lie ahead for this transboundary river system.” — Emeritus Professor Philip Hirsch, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Australia.

XV

Contents

1 Introduction: Resources Politics and Knowing the Salween

DOE sk eco PR ana, oh GH) Dae uk Re a A HARARE DERE 1 Vanessa Lamb, Carl Middleton and Saw Win

Vanessa Lamb

Chapter 1 A Introduction: Resources Politics Cheek tor and Knowing the Salween River Vanessa Lamb, Carl Middleton and Saw Win

The Salween is a transboundary river connecting the people, ecosystems, and nation-states of China, Myanmar (Burma), and Thailand. Over its 2,820 kilometer course, it flows from the Tibetan Plateau to Yunnan Province in China, then connecting to Myanmar via Shan State. The river continues, through Karenni and Karen States, also forming the border with Thailand, before joining Mon State and coming together with the Andaman Sea.' Over 10 million people live throughout the basin, comprising at least 16 ethnic groups, many of whom depend on river resources for livelihood and food (Johnston et al. 2017). These livelihoods are diverse; they range from fishing-based livelihoods practiced by communities in the Salween estuary in Myanmar, to farmers who practice swidden agriculture and paddy rice cultivation in Myanmar and Thailand, to herders who raise livestock and manage the rangelands at the very start of the river on the Tibetan Plateau. There is also remarkable biodiversity within the basin. It is these livelihoods, peoples, and the river itself that are the focus of this edited volume.

The Salween Basin covers 283,500 km’, of which 48% is in China, 7% is in Thailand and 44% is in Myanmar (Johnston et al. 2017).

Dr. Vanessa Lamb, Lecturer, School of Geography, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Email: vanessa.lamb @ unimelb.edu.au.

Dr. Carl Middleton, Director, Center of Excellence for Resource Politics in Social Development, Center for Social Development Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand; Email: carl.chulalongkorn @ gmail.com.

Dr. Saw Win, Senior Research Associate, Center for Social Development Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand; Email: prfswwin@ gmail.com.

© The Author(s) 2019 1 C. Middleton and V. Lamb (eds.), Knowing the Salween River: Resource Politics

of a Contested Transboundary River, The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics— Society—Science 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77440-4_1

While some areas of the basin are undergoing dramatic transformations, other areas appear to be almost at an impasse. This is due to a combination of factors, including the transformations within the basin, and in the context of the broader political, economic and social changes in the region (e.g., Simpson 2016; Egreteau 2016; Farrelly/Gabusi 2015). There is also a long-standing call to “know more” about this understudied basin, often associated with a whole range of development plans and visions for enhancing economic integration, nationally, regionally, and globally (Johnston et al. 2017).

In this context, we see this edited volume as the first to consider and link these concerns across the basin. With a focus on the contested politics of water and associated resources in the Salween basin, this book offers a collection of empirical case studies highlighting local, regional, and international knowledge and perspectives. Given the paucity of grounded social science studies in this contested basin, this book provides conceptual insights at the intersection of resource governance, development, and politics relevant to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners at a time when rapid change is underway. It also offers something more: a call to study, collaborate, and appreciate the range of efforts and actors necessary to do this. As such, we also present a proposal to study the Salween as an ‘area’ for continued critical engagement.

We recognize that the present state of the Salween Basin is informed by both contemporary transformations and historical dynamics. It has been shaped by— although, we note, not determined by—histories of colonial resource extraction. For instance, particularly in present-day Myanmar (formerly, British Burma), an emphasis on timber production, not for the improvement of the Salween Basin, but for support of the colonial center is evident (Bryant 1997). This constituted, as well, the associated establishment of the Salween as a ‘periphery’ or ‘frontier’ (Leach 1960; Scott 2009).

More contemporary policies and processes of regional economic integration also play a role in delimiting and creating the Salween as part of, if not constitutive of, an area or region. For example, as discussed by Middleton, Scott, and Lamb in Chap. 3, this volume, the 1990s saw the Asian Development Bank work with regional governments to shape and link the Greater Mekong Subregion (ADB 2012). In addition, since the mid-2010s, it now seems that China’s Belt and Road initiative is building momentum, and building a vision for a global ‘belt’ of interconnection. These, and multiple other regionalization initiatives, represent new planned connections for the Salween, connections to and from distant sites, territories, and markets, via new infrastructures, both hard and soft. Yet, as these plans are promoted and pursued by their proponents, there is a limited understanding of what precisely these new connections and developments would mean for the people, ecologies, and localities that they ‘intersect’ with in the Salween basin. There is also, it seems at least in some senses, a lack of appreciation that this would be something that is valuable to know.

We see these as pressing concerns in the current context of a basin and a region that is experiencing often precipitous political, economic, and ecological change. How can this accumulated work to construct the Salween, often framed to be at the

‘margins’ (Scott 2009), be transformed or even overcome—-so that scholars, and the broader public might consider more diverse collaborations and ways of knowing the Salween, which also take into account the change and dynamism of people, states, and ecologies?

van Schendel and others (e.g., Scott 2009; Michaud 2010; Turner 2010) have attempted to overcome what they refer to as “geographies of ignorance” produced as a result of studies focused on centers, heartlands, and academic narrowness of field, by developing a new concept of region and a novel way to approach the study of an ‘area’: Zomia.~ As Michaud explains, Zomia is a neglected—an invisible—transnational area, which overlapped segments of all four sub-regions without truly belonging to any of them. It is an area marked by a sparse population, historical isolation, political domination by powerful surrounding states, marginality of all kinds, and huge linguistic and religious diversity. (2010: 187—188)

van Schendel underlines that, “In order to overcome the resulting geographies of ignorance, we need to study spatial configurations from other perspectives as well” (2002: 664). He proposes three alternatives, in what was seen as a moment of opportunity post-WWII, as the globe and its territories were being transformed. We also re-consider these three propositions here for our own purposes, in the contemporary moment, for the Salween.

First, van Schendel considers suggestions to construct “regions crosscutting the conventional ones” but notes that this is unlikely to enact lasting change, and likely to reinforce new margins and centers (2002: 665). Appreciating this point of critique, he (and we) more seriously consider, the second alternative, studying regions in a way that highlights new spatial arrangements or networks. This invokes not discrete, bounded territories in the traditional sense, but instead, continuous, connected spaces with no particular center. The third alternative proposed “goes further” to develop the study of region via flows and their resulting architectures and infrastructures, which cross (and shape) conventional territories and borders, and which van Schendel characterizes as “more ephemeral” and emergent (2002: 665).

This is an intentional shift, then, by scholars to move beyond areas or territories as static spatial configurations, and beyond regions as depicted in, any of the colonial maps of Southeast Asia, or the development planning devices of regional and world development agencies. It is a shift to study the processes, flows, and connections as way to “develop new concepts of regional space” (van Schendel 2002: 665) as dynamic and changing.

This book builds upon the opportunity presented by van Schendel and related scholars’ insights. As scholars and individuals who have also spent large parts of

*Michaud (2010: 187-188) helpfully identifies that Zomia includes “the highlands of Asia, from the western Himalayan Range through the Tibetan Plateau and all the way to the lower end of the peninsular Southeast Asian highlands, as a political and historical entity significantly distinct from the usual area divisions of Asia: Central (Inner), South, East, and Southeast.” But also, that this has also undergone a shift in 2007 to include areas further west and north, “including southern Qinghai and Xinjiang within China, as well as a fair portion of Central Asia, encompassing the highlands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan.”

our careers outside academia working with civil society organizations, we (the co-authors of this introduction to the book and editors of this book) have been working over the past 10 years under a broader and shifting set of ideas, and among a cohort of concerned individuals, towards an understanding of what “Salween Studies” (or Nu-Thanlwin-Salween Studies) could be. This is part conscious and conceptual, but also, partly practical. Indeed, practically, there is a need for some sort of organizing principle as even the various names of the river and its cartographies have been disconnected and fragmented through time (see Lamb, Chap. 2, this volume), with the academic literature, for instance, on China’s Nu Jiang almost entirely distinct from research on Myanmar’s ‘Thanlwin’ River.

Of course, we recognize that an area of study is not made by maps, names, or words alone.” Conceptually, we have been thinking about collaborations, while simultaneously practicing the work of collaboration, to consider what a “Salween Studies” might include, follow, connect, and entail. Areas of study or interest, we argue, should be understood as inherently transdisciplinary, and require collaborators including civil society groups and researchers, academic experts (and generalists), interdisciplinary experts, language interpreters and knowledge interlocutors, as well as interested friends, coalitions, and at times, governments and their representatives, who see enough value in understanding an ‘area’ (as a set of processes, not necessarily geographically fixed) that they can come together and emerge with new understandings of the world and our place within it.