Executive summary: "The attention on business concessions and economic development in peace negotiations is a highly controversial issue that many believe compromises the core question of political and national identity issues. However it is important to recognise that major grievances that fuel conflict are related to economics, namely negative impacts of development projects on local communities and competition over control of economic resources between local ethnic groups and the central government. Moreover, Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs) themselves realise that fighting for the rights of their people cannot avoid the question of economics as money and power are inextricably linked. This report explores the economic roots of conflict in an attempt to identify peaceful solutions. It observes six main economic grievances that drive conflict in Myanmar, and tries to analyse the different measures being taken to address each of them. These grievances include increased militarisation of economic projects, lack of ownership and management power over natural resources, land confiscation, environmental and social impact of economic projects, poverty and underdevelopment in ethnic nationality areas. The reformist government has tried to respond to each of these grievances by initiating a multitude of bills, policies, development plans, commissions and committees under the existing constitution. NSAGs have tried to address these issues, sometimes independently, but more often through demands in peace negotiations with the government. Civil society groups also play an active role in voicing local needs and grievances that are important in informing sound decision making for policy solutions. International aid supports these different actors and reforms through financial and technical assistance. Analysing the wide-ranging attempts to address economic grievances reveals an important discovery that the key hindrance to ongoing reforms and implementation of peace agreements is the continued power of the military over the economy and government administrative structure. Its own economic interests and ideologies in dealing with NSAGs inevitably put them in opposition to the government?s plans to change existing power structures. The centralisation of key ownership and management power over natural resources stipulated in the 2008 Constitution also mean that the government?s enthusiasm for decentralisation reforms will not solve the ethnic struggle. The military?s legacy may explain why - despite the many attempted solutions - conflict has not abated and locals have yet to witness major improvements in their lives. Ensuring that these solutions can succeed in achieving real change and sustainable peace will not only rely on great skill but reforming the old powers of the military and transforming it into a professional defence army. Understanding the underlying economic interests of competing groups in Myanmar is therefore critical in achieving the much desired peace and stability."