"State-owned enterprise CITIC, in charge of the proposed US$1.3 billion Kyaukphyu port, kick-started the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) and preliminary geological survey this month. The company said Canadian firm Hatch was hired as project manager to supervise the process and recruit the ESIA project consultants and contractors. On July 2, CITIC held the first stakeholder meetings at the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Management Committee office in Yangon, and made site visits to the Madae Island. It said it would “develop participation mechanisms for all stakeholders of the project in order to take extensive and adequate consultation” as part of the ESIA process. The preparation work will be carried out “in a rigorous, open and transparent manner.” The idea of building a port and an industrial park in Kyaukphyu was mooted by the U Thein Sein government in 2015, which greenlighted the consortium led by CITIC to come up with a plan to establish a $7.5 billion SEZ in central Rakhine. A corporate promotional video suggests the scheme will create an investment and logistics hub akin to Hong Kong and Singapore. The government last November signed a “framework agreement” with CITIC. Myanmar will own 30 percent of the stake and the project will cost $1.3 billion. European and Japanese investors are unlikely to set up shop in the port or the industrial park, Yangon-based sources said. However, confusion arises over the legal framework currently adopted by the developers. Myanmar’s environmental law demands a site-wide environmental impact assessment for a project of this size and scope, which should include an assessment of both environmental and social impacts. CITIC’s latest press statement suggests that its current ESIA process is specifically for the port and not an SEZ. If there’s to be an SEZ, that must be incorporated in the site-wise assessment, according to ICJ legal adviser Sean Bain. If the SEZ plan is scrapped and only a port project is planned, then it’s likely CITIC is operating under the wrong legal framework because the Investment Law would apply instead of the SEZ Law..."