VZCZCXRO6099
RR RUEHAST RUEHCHI RUEHDH RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHNH RUEHPB
RUEHPOD RUEHSL RUEHTM RUEHTRO
DE RUEHHI #0741/01 2180929
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 060929Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY HANOI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0006
INFO RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH 6062
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHINGTON DC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 000741 
 
STATE FOR OES/ENRC (SCASWELL AND HSUMMERS) 
JUSTICE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (JWEBB) 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV SOCI EAGR VM
SUBJECT: VIETNAM'S NEW BIODIVERSITY LAW:  A GOOD IDEA, BUT TOO FEW 
DETAILS 
 
HANOI 00000741  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: On July 1, 2009, the Government of Vietnam (GVN) 
announced the implementation of its new Biodiversity Law, which had 
been ratified by the National Assembly in November 2008.  The 
Vietnamese biodiversity law is the first of its kind in Southeast 
Asia.  While biodiversity advocates praise the GVN intent to raise 
awareness and protect Vietnam's threatened biodiversity, few are 
confident that the GVN can successfully enforce the law.  Critics 
note potential jurisdictional conflicts between ministries and a 
general lack of capacity within the GVN.  To flesh out the 
provisions of the law, GVN officials expect to draft fifteen 
implementing regulations by the end of 2014, although none have yet 
been issued.  These regulatory decrees will be critical in defining 
the ultimate content and specificity of the Biodiversity Law.  The 
law also presents additional concerns, both for its allowance of 
commercial breeding, captivity, and potential exploitation of 
endangered animals, and for its lack of clarity regarding access to 
genetic materials. End Summary. 
 
A NEW BIODIVERSITY LAW FOR VIETNAM 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Vietnam's new Biodiversity Law became effective on July 1, 
¶2009.  The GVN mandated the Ministry of Natural Resources and 
Environment (MONRE) to develop the law in 2003, in line with 
Vietnam's status as a signatory to the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and pursuant to the GVN poverty reduction strategy, which 
emphasized strategies to support poor communities living near 
protected areas.  MONRE began drafting the law in early 2006, with 
input from several non-governmental and international organizations. 
 In November 2008, the National Assembly ratified the law, which 
became effective July 1, 2009.  Vietnam is the first country in 
Southeast Asia to implement such a law, joining India as the only 
other country in Asia to do so. 
 
¶3.  (U) The drafters envisioned the Biodiversity Law as a means of 
curbing threats to Vietnam's rich biodiversity, which has been 
declining in recent years.  According to the Red Data Book, a list 
of rare and endangered species native to Vietnam, the number of 
endangered species in Vietnam has increased considerably in the past 
decade.  This biodiversity loss is primarily attributed to 
over-exploitation of forests, shifting agricultural cultivation, 
water pollution and degradation of coastal areas.  If successfully 
implemented, the Biodiversity Law would create a national standard 
for protected area and ecosystem management.  It would also mandate 
a more systematic process for biodiversity conservation, and would 
provide incentives for poor local communities to conserve natural 
resources.  MONRE estimates that full implementation of the law will 
require approximately 600 billion Vietnamese Dong (approximately 
USD33 million) per year. 
 
¶4. (SBU) On July 20 and July 21, 2009, EmbOffs met with GVN 
officials at the Institute of Strategy and Policy on Natural 
Resources and Environment (ISPONRE) and the Biodiversity 
Conservation Agency, both within MONRE and both of which played 
important roles in the drafting and planning of the new law.  The 
GVN sought a single law to serve as a high-level legal document to 
govern all biodiversity-related issues.  Representatives from both 
agencies asserted that international experts and organizations 
provided input and assistance to the GVN as it developed the law. 
However, an ISPONRE official noted that government drafters had 
dramatically simplified the law during the final days of the 
drafting process to provide only a framework for biodiversity 
protection.  Individuals at MONRE and the National Assembly decided 
not to include in the legislation much of the specificity provided 
by expert consultation as they felt that the GVN implementing 
agencies did not possess adequate understanding of the subject 
matter.  Per ISPONRE, the GVN will draft approximately fifteen 
decrees by 2014 to provide necessary detail and appropriate 
sanctions for formal implementation of the law.  No decrees have yet 
been issued, though several are presently being drafted.  As the 
final version of the Biodiversity Law is so vague, the implementing 
decrees will be particularly important in defining the scope and 
enforcement of the law. 
 
A GOOD IDEA, BUT NOT ENOUGH 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Despite appreciation for GVN efforts to raise the national 
profile of biodiversity, non-GVN environmental experts, whose input 
was solicited during drafting, criticized the final Biodiversity 
Law.  The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 
 
HANOI 00000741  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and UNDP all stated that the final law was 
too simplistic and failed to incorporate their input.  Of particular 
concern was the lack of detail regarding biodiversity corridors and 
pro-poor principles, both of which had been initial drivers in the 
creation of the new law and which were perceived as critical to 
environmental organizations.  Jake Brunner, Vietnam Country 
Coordinator at IUCN, noted that "it is hard to know if this law is 
moving things forward [with respect to biodiversity], or pushing 
them backward".  UNPD's Dao Xuan Lai noted that his organization has 
withdrawn support for the drafting of implementing decrees.  "It is 
simply not worth our time," he said. Lai also noted that the 
Biodiversity Law changed considerably in the final days prior to 
implementation, becoming too simplistic and vague.  The GVN has yet 
to solicit input from non-governmental organizations on the drafting 
of implementing regulations, despite a stated intention to do so. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Individuals at IUCN, WWF and UNDP all expressed doubt that 
the MONRE will be able to enforce the new Biodiversity Law, noting a 
lack of human resources, experience and technical expertise. 
Individuals at the three organizations asserted that only the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) had the 
capacity and expertise necessary to implement the Biodiversity Law. 
While MARD previously held jurisdiction over issues covered by the 
Biodiversity Law, much of this authority was transitioned to MONRE 
with the law's implementation.  Apparently, the GVN assigned 
responsibility to MONRE as that agency is the GVN's signatory on 
international conventions pertaining to the environment and 
biodiversity.  All highlighted the potential for conflict among MARD 
and MONRE, which presents a worrisome roadblock to successful 
implementation.  Of additional concern to IUCN, in particular, is 
the notion that the new law does not definitively state whether and 
when it will supersede existing legislation.  Thus, conflict among 
laws and ministries may allow individuals to selectively follow the 
laws that they like and wait until something better comes along. 
 
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 
------------------- 
 
¶7.  While Vietnam's efforts to raise biodiversity as a national 
issue represent an attempt to protect vital natural resources, the 
Biodiversity Law presents some additional concerns.  Most of 
Vietnam's biodiversity exists in less developed and poverty-stricken 
areas of the country, particularly around national parks, such as 
Cat Tien in the south and Ba Be in the north.  As many of the 
pro-poor principles initially envisioned for the law were not 
ultimately incorporated, there is nothing to improve the living 
standards of those living near protected areas and nothing to remove 
the incentive to illegally exploit animals and plants from those 
areas.  The Biodiversity Law also allows for commercial breeding and 
captivity of endangered species, which may lead to overexploitation, 
particularly with Vietnam's history of poor management of breeding 
farms.  Of particular worry is that the Biodiversity Law may further 
legitimize the tiger trade that is already problematic in Vietnam. 
Additionally, because the law lacks sufficient specificity, we do 
not yet know how the GVN will regulate access to valuable genetic 
resources and treat issues related to biotechnology, both of which 
may be governed by this law. 
 
MICHALAK 
 
2