VietNamNet Bridge – The problem of lacking money to develop special use forests (SUF) has been partially settled since the Prime Minister has approved a program on developing SUF worth 5.5 trillion dong.

At many working sessions and workshops, the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) repeatedly said that the lack of money remains the biggest problem that hinders the development of SUF.

However, the worry about the lack of money has been lifted when a budget of 5.5 trillion dong has been allocated to the SUF development.

Where’s the money for SUF protection from?

The SUF network in Vietnam has been taking shape and developing for the last 50 years. The total SUF area has reached 2.2 million hectares with forests located in 164 areas, including 30 national parks, 58 natural sanctuaries, 10 species and habitat conservation areas, 46 landscape protection parks and 20 forests for scientific research.

To date, the SUF preservation has been funded by the state budget. Besides, Vietnam has also successfully called for the sponsor from foreign institutions, funds and the income from tourism services or fines for violations.

A research work by Ha Thi Mung and Tuyet Hoa in 2008 conducted at 53 national parks found out that 80-90 percent of the total expenses in SUF protection and development came from the State budget.

The budget for SUF protection programs has been allocated every year by the central agencies or local authorities. However, the budgets are just enough to pay to workers and maintain the management apparatus. Meanwhile, very little money has been spent on extra activities to preserve the forests.

The limited financial capability plus the unstable budgeting both have led to the low effects of the SUF protection projects. Meanwhile, the deforestation activities have been increasing rapidly.

Analysts have pointed out that there always exists a big difference in the budget allocation to the national parks put under the management of MARD and the parks under the management of local authorities.

In general, the latter meets more difficulties in seeking capital sources because of their limited capability to access sponsor sources.

In fact, local SUF management boards cannot take initiative in drawing their yearly conservation plans, because the budget would still depend on the local budget’s capability.

As a result, some poor provinces have to reserve big sum of money to protect their SUF. Ha Giang province, for example, has to control six SUF areas, which explains why the locality cannot arrange the investment capital and expenses for the forest protection activities.

Developing eco-tourism not yet a perfect solution

Local authorities have been encouraged to develop eco-tourism to get money for the SUF protection instead of totally relying on the state budget.

However, the reports show that the income from the source remains modest, which only can satisfy a small part of the investment capital needed.

At the Tam Dao National Park, for example, the income from eco-tourism just accounts for 1.66 percent of the total investment capital needed. The figures are 1.38 percent at Cuc Phuong and 0.62 percent at Yok Don.

Meanwhile, other national parks have reported that they only wish to obtain the revenue high enough to cover expenses, while they dare not expect profits.

All the national parks under the management of MARD all have enjoyed benefits from the foreign sponsored projects. However, the capital from foreign sources has not reached out to local parks, especially the small ones with the area of less than 15,000 hectares.

Thien Nhien