Rewilding kick-off meeting: some refelections

There are many definitions of rewilding. A simple one is: “Rewilding is a progressive approach to ecological restoration that focuses on recovering natural processes and increasing biodiversity with minimal human intervention.” 

The focus on recovery and restoration resonates in Viet Nam, where decades of intensive hunting have emptied the forests, including many protected areas, of all commercially valuable wildlife. Most of the forest estate typifies the “empty forest syndrome”, an ecosystem that appears structurally intact with lush trees and dense vegetation but is devoid of wildlife larger than a civet.  

A patch of degraded forest in Quảng Trị Province © IUCN Viet Nam

40 years ago, Viet Nam embarked on a series of massive reforestation programs that have increased forest cover to 43% of its land area—a major achievement. The challenge now is to move from regreening to rewilding, which means restoring wildlife populations and improving forest quality. 

The links between wildlife and forest quality are clear: between 50% and 80% of all tropical plants depend entirely on wildlife for seed dispersal. The importance of forest quality—rather than pure biomass—has been made clear by a series of recent storms that have triggered landslides that have destroyed whole villages. The acacia monocultures that have characterized most of Viet Nam’s forest recovery cannot stabilize the soil nearly as well as natural forest. 

The Covid-19 pandemic brought into sharp focus the risks of zoonotic diseases, which are passed from animals to humans. 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, and 70% of these originate in wildlife (not domesticated animals). Consequently, the most effective and cheapest way to reduce pandemic risk is to keep wildlife in the wild by eliminating poaching and reducing deforestation and forest degradation. In other words, rewilding not only improves forest ecosystem health but also reduces the risk of zoonotic disease spillover. 

There’s a third substantial benefit from rewilding. Since the Criminal Code was revised in 2018 to make wildlife trafficking a criminal offense (rather than just subject to administrative fines), huge volumes of wildlife have been confiscated and transferred to rescue centers. This increases risks of zoonotic spillover as stressed wildlife shed more pathogens. Moreover, if poaching is eliminated or substantially reduced, it will reduce the huge downstream costs that the state is currently bearing in terms of transporting, screening, housing, and caring for confiscated wildlife, some of which will need to be kept in captivity for life. And these costs don’t include the reputational damage. 

Staff at the Hanoi Wildlife Rescue Center caring for confiscated wildlife © IUCN Viet Nam

Some rescue centers have literally run out of space and are forced to release wildlife into the wild with no disease screening. During the workshop, the director of a national park said that they need to build facilities to house confiscated wildlife and to hire staff to run them. Replicated across the country, this is a huge cost, consuming human and financial resources that would be better spent protecting wildlife in the wild. 

Protecting wildlife is therefore the top priority from a nature conservation, public health, and government budget perspective. The main reason that it is so hard is that most poaching is carried out using bike wire snares laid out in long lines parallel to water courses. These are cheap and lethally effective.  

Camera-trapping in 21 protected areas in the Annamites done under USAID Biodiversity Conservation Activity (BCA) showed that almost all four-legged ground-based wildlife had been extirpated. International projects have invested heavily in snare removal but this unsustainable: a snare costs $1 to produce and $20 to remove.  

Because the law is ambiguous, there have been no arrests let alone convictions for snaring. And because there’s no deterrent, it continues unabated.  

At the workshop, IUCN presented a 3-part framework for a rewilding strategy. The first and most important part is threat reduction because if poaching, particularly snaring, isn’t reduced, there’s no point releasing wildlife. The key step is to operationalize the MOU that was recently signed between MAE and the Ministry of Public Security. Unlike rangers, the police have the mandate and the investigative skills to counter the professional gangs that organize the poaching and sell wildlife to restaurants and other consumers. 

Forest rangers in Cat Tien National Park on patrol removing snares in the forest © IUCN Viet Nam

The second part is systematic camera-trapping. Thanks to USAID BCA, Viet Nam has the largest camera trap database in ASEAN and a team of specialists that can train others to deploy camera traps and process the data to produce statistically significant estimates of wildlife status and trends. This capacity should be institutionalized within state research centers or universities, which would be contracted by protected areas to conduct camera trapping in Viet Nam’s major protected areas every five years. This approach recognises the fact that with ODA declining sharply, there is unlikely to be another USAID BCA-type project. 

These data would not only allow Viet Nam to report accurately on the new Global Biodiversity Framework as part of its commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity but could also be used to assess protected area management performance, which is currently restricted to forest cover and forest fires. Since you can’t manage what you can’t measure, these data would for the first time support a performance evaluation system that incentivises wildlife conservation rather than just forest protection. This would also help Viet Nam attract international financing for biodiversity credits, which are tradeable, verifiable units representing measurable positive outcomes for nature, such as habitat restoration or species protection. 

The third part is wildlife reintroduction. The major challenge here is to establish a national conservation breeding program that separates rescue centers from conservation breeding. There are 24 rescue centers in Viet Nam, a number that has grown rapidly to handle the surge in confiscated wildlife. If poaching is suppressed, the number of rescue centers should decline and there can be greater investment in conservation breeding in collaboration with international zoos and wildlife research centers. Whereas rescue enters should be located on major transport links, conservation breeding centers should be in or close to protected areas.  

Based on the workshop discussion, several conclusions can be drawn. 

First, the concept and logic of rewilding is well understood by VNFOREST. What was new was the links between rewilding and pandemic risk reduction. MAE coordinates the Viet Nam One Health Partnership (OHP), which has strengthened downstream response to zoonotic disease outbreaks, primarily focused on disease spillover from livestock to humans. However, OHP’s new 2026-2030 framework includes a much greater emphasis on wildlife to prevent upstream zoonoses, particularly through the implementation of Nature for Health (N4H) in Viet Nam, which is being led by IUCN and UNDP and co-funded this workshop. There is therefore strong complementarity between rewilding and OH in Viet Nam. 

Second, there is a long experience of wildlife reintroductions in Viet Nam starting with the release of 60 Siamese crocodiles into Bau Sau Lake in Cat Tien in 2004. The population is now almost 300. SVW has released over 40 civets and pangolins in Pu Mat and Cuc Phuong. The Hanoi Wildlife Rescue Center has released hornbills into Phong Nha-Ke Bang. Under USAID BCA, Re:wild prepared guidelines on the reintroduction of 14 ungulates, pheasants, rabbits, and tortoises and turtles that are native to the Annamites. Several species action plans have been prepared that include both strict protection and reintroductions.  

A pangolin released in January 2026 by Save Vietnam’s Wildlife © SVW

Cuc Phuong is about to embark on a large state-funded wildlife reintroduction. What was impressive was how sophisticated their understanding of the problem is: if the park can remove threats, nature will recover naturally. As a first step, the park has negotiated wildlife protection agreements with villages around the border of the park, some of which were relocated from inside the park in the 1980s. 

Third, there was agreement that priority must be given to stopping poaching, especially snaring. Simply put, if snaring isn’t eliminated or substantially reduced, rewilding won’t work. For rewilding to work, VNFOREST will need to cooperate with the police and with the provinces to secure their political backing for strong action against the illegal wildlife trade.  

The importance of threat reduction was highlighted by a report on raptor reintroduction programs, which concluded that success depends on adherence to regulatory frameworks, comprehensive feasibility studies, removal or minimisation of threats, effective stakeholder collaboration, and long-term financial and technical support. In all cases, habitat suitability, threat mitigation and sustained post-release monitoring were foundational to the program’s success. 

Fourth, if rewilding is to succeed, it will require strong VNFOREST leadership. As part of the broader decentralisation process, management of Cuc Phuong, Bach Ma, and Cat Tien is being transferred to Ninh Binh, Hue, and Dong Nai, respectively. VNFOREST will need to strengthen its technical and political skills to provide effective oversight of Viet Nam’s protected areas and ensure that they are managed for wildlife and ecosystem health, not just tree cover.  

Dr. Doan Hoai Nam, Vice Director of VNFOREST (left) and Mr. Jake Brunner, Head of IUCN LMS (right), co-chairing the meeting © MAE newspaper

Finally, there is a need and opportunity to frame rewilding as part of Viet Nam’s sustainable development. Rewilding offers significant long-term economic benefits, including improved forest quality, ecosystem services from forests, enhanced tourism and local livelihoods for communities living adjacent to forests. Much of Viet Nam’s growth since the economic reforms of the late 1980s has depended on high volume/low quality production, particularly of agricultural commodities. As Viet Nam moves up the value chain, its international image will become increasingly important for branding and marketing. By investing in rewilding, Viet Nam can enhance its international image as a safe, clean, and green country.  

At the workshop, three working groups were formed to work on threat reduction, wildlife monitoring, and reintroductions. These groups will be supported by two consultants that IUCN has hired to maximize stakeholder input to the rewilding plan. We aim to complete a draft by September 2026 and a final version by December 2026.