Addressing key challenges in shaping Viet Nam's first National Rewilding Plan
Over 50 representatives from government agencies, national parks, protected areas, research institutions, universities, and conservation organisations met in Ninh Binh on 23-24 July 2026 to identify the technical priorities for Viet Nam's first National Rewilding Plan (NRP) for 2027-2035 with a vision to 2050.
Photo: Group photo at the TWG meeting © Kieu Chi/MAE
Photo: Dr. Doan Hoai Nam - Deputy DG of VNFOREST/MAE - delivered an opening remark at the meeting © Kieu Chi/MAE
Photo: Mr. Nguyen Manh Hiep - IUCN biodiversity coordinator - discussed at the meeting © IUCN Viet Nam
Photo: A representative from VNFOREST/MAE discussed at the meeting © IUCN Viet Nam
Photo: Participants joined the TWG meeting © Kieu Chi/MAE
The meeting was co-organised by the Vietnam Administration of Forestry (VNFOREST) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAE) and IUCN with financial support from Re:wild, in partnership with the Center for Nature Conservation and Development (CCD), Save Vietnam's Wildlife (SVW), and WWF. Building on the national kick-off meeting held in May 2026, three TWGs were set up and gathered to develop recommendations for the draft NRP.
The discussions focused on: strengthening policy framework, improving biodiversity monitoring systems, and identifying priority landscapes, species and conservation facilities for future rewilding actions.
One of the meeting outcomes was a shared understanding of what rewilding means in the Vietnamese context. Rewilding goes beyond species release. Participants agreed that rewilding should be defined as restoring ecological processes, habitats and native species populations, particularly keystone species, so ecosystems can gradually regain their natural ability to function with minimal human intervention.
Experts distinguished rewilding from related conservation measures such as ecological restoration, species reintroduction, reinforcement/supplementation, conservation translocation and wildlife release. This common definition provides an important foundation for integrating rewilding into future legislation and national conservation policies.
Experts stressed that habitat restoration alone will not achieve successful rewilding if the deadly impacts of snaring in protected areas persist. Experiences shared by SNW demonstrated that while thousands of snares have been removed by patrols, preventing snaring is much more cost-effective than removing them. It has been calculated that a snare takes $1 to set and $20 to remove. Participants emphasised that effective rewilding must combine habitat restoration, wildlife recovery, stronger law enforcement, long-term monitoring, and meaningful engagement with local communities.
It was suggested that the plan’s scope be confined to the forestry sector instead of framing it as a national rewilding plan, since the current plan does not cover other sectors, including marine ecosystems.
The policy and governance working group identified several institutional barriers that limit rewilding efforts in Viet Nam. These include complex administrative procedures for receiving and releasing wildlife, the absence of technical standards and operational guidelines, insufficient financial resources, fragmented coordination among stakeholders, and limited incentives for private-sector participation.
To address these challenges, The TWG recommended eight priority areas for inclusion in the NRP: (1) strengthening the legal and policy framework; (2) developing technical regulations, standards and economic–technical norms; (3) establishing technical protocols and guidance; (4) simplifying administrative procedures; (5) enhancing cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms; (6) strengthening data management, monitoring and evaluation of habitat restoration and post-release population recovery; (7) establishing standards for wildlife rescue centres and habitat restoration; and (8) developing sustainable financing mechanisms and resource mobilisation including non-state actors.
Participants also recommended reviewing relevant legal documents, including Circular No. 85/2025/TT-BNNMT, which currently addresses wildlife release but does not recognise the broader concept of rewilding.
The biodiversity monitoring working group highlighted that effective rewilding requires robust scientific evidence and long-term monitoring. Experts presented a range of technologies already being applied in Viet Nam, including camera trapping, environmental DNA (eDNA), autonomous acoustic monitoring, GPS telemetry, drones, GIS and satellite imagery, AI-assisted species identification, and SMART patrol systems.
However, participants identified significant gaps, including limited data sharing, the absence of standardised monitoring protocols, insufficient post-release monitoring of wildlife, and the lack of national indicators for evaluating rewilding outcomes.
To address these gaps, the TWG proposed developing a national biodiversity monitoring framework covering ecosystem recovery, species population trends, habitat quality and connectivity, management effectiveness, and reduction of threats such as snaring, grazing in protected areas and forest fires.
For species recovery programmes, experts recommended establishing standard protocols covering pre-release assessments, disease risk analysis, post-release monitoring, genetic monitoring, community engagement, and adaptive management.
The meeting identified the need for major investments in biodiversity monitoring teams, wildlife veterinarians and equipment such as camera traps, SMART patrol systems, UAV, GPS tracking devices, GIS databases, and a national rewilding database.
The species recovery working group reviewed conservation experiences in Viet Nam and identified priority rewilding landscapes based on criteria such as size, habitat quality, biodiversity value (species richness), conservation significance (presence of endemic, rare and threatened species), security from threats (low levels of human disturbance and other threats), human resource capacity, infrastructure and facility readiness, local community support, ecological connectivity, etc.
Accordingly, experts identified eleven priority landscapes representing the country's major ecosystems, including some of the largest national parks: Cat Tien/Dong Nai Nature and Cultural Reserve, Pu Mat, Phong Nha-Ke Bang, Yok Don, Bi Doup-Binh Phuoc, U Minh Thuong, Nui Chua, Cuc Phuong-Van Long karst landscapes, Ba Be-Xuan Lac-Na Hang-Lam Binh, Kon Ha Nung Biosphere Reserve, and the Central Annamites conservation landscapes connecting Hue-Quang Nam-Quang Ngai-Gia Lai Provinces.
The group developed science-based criteria for prioritising conservation translocation and captive breeding programmes. Twelve priority species for translocation and 19 priority species for conservation breeding/release were identified. For the list of priority species, see Annex XII and IX in the meeting report.
The experts proposed six criteria for selecting future national conservation centres and identified four priority institutions with strong technical capacity and long-term conservation experience: the Hanoi Wildlife Rescue Centre, Cat Tien, Phong Nha-Ke Bang, and Cuc Phuong’s Conservation and Species Development Centre.
The meeting’s ecommendations will feed into the draft NRP. VNFOREST and UCN will continue consultations with national and international stakeholders before submitting the plan to MAE for approval later this year.
Once adopted, the NRP will provide Viet Nam with its first coordinated framework for restoring ecosystems, recovering wildlife populations and strengthening biodiversity conservation while supporting sustainable socio-economic development.
