Seminar on Environment and Development in Vietnam
Friday and Saturday, December 6-7, 1996
Common Room, University House,
BACK TO INDEX
Biodiversity and Biodiversity Loss
Mr Vu Ngoc Thanh
Department of Vertebrate Zoology
Faculty of Biology
National University of Ha Noi
90 Nguyen Trai
Dong Da - Ha Noi
Tel: +84 (4) 85-82331w 85-11389h
Fax: +84 (4) 85-82069
Vietnam is ecologically both diverse and unique. Many plants and animals, endemic to Vietnam's northern and central highlands, are in danger of extinction from environmental destruction. The variety of Vietnam's biology complicates the problem both in necessary research and in law enforcement.
The number of illegal residents in forested provinces has increased in recent years, adding to destruction. Management of nature reserves and parks is inadequate. Of the now 90 parks and reserves, only 47 have a management board. And even these managed reserves are poorly equipped. Rangers often are unpaid so their actions may be ineffective - or worse.
Wildlife poaching is a serious problem. In spite of legislation to the contrary, weapons remain largely uncontrolled. Local people can collect forest products without difficulty. Wildlife trade occurs openly hamlets as well as cities, in disregard of Forest Protection Department and police. Few resources exist to care for confiscated animals or prepare them for re-release. Most parks and zoos can no longer accept the large number of confiscated animals coming to them. Diseased or severely weakened animals are unacceptable for return to the forest - ecologically speaking, they are already dead. So these animals often are returned to dealers who need pay only a small fine. Generally, only insignificant rewards can be offered for information leading to the capture of wildlife exploiters or illegal loggers. Traders may barter with poor, ethnic minority people to collect forest products inexpensively.
Some 70% of animal trade in Vietnam, including animals from Laos and Cambodia, is illegally exported. Most of this trade is through Vietnam's porous northern borders. The remainder become food, medicines or other products within Vietnam.
Solutions are not easy. Law enforcement needs better resources and education, and methods should be modified to address inadequacies at the local level. Local people need better environment awareness education. The illegal export of wildlife, and in particular any access to air transport, must be controlled.
We can define biodiversity as the variety and inter-relatedness of living species and their natural environment. Biodiversity, often discussed as a 'web of life' is important for maintaining life support systems of this planet. Put simply, the more extensive the interactions among of living things, the more stable are ecological systems.
Much of this diversity is the result of local isolation producing a patchwork of endemic species (BAP, 1996). For example, the areas of the greatest plant endemism are the Hoang Lien Son range, the Central Highlands and Da Lat Plateau. These correspond to endemism of vertebrate species such as birds, fresh water fish and mammals. According to the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP, 1996), Vietnam has a higher proportion of endemic species than any of its neighbouring countries.
People in Vietnam depend heavily on this biodiversity. They depend in the first instance on the stability of the forest environment. But poor local people seem to have no choice except to exploit and so degrade forest resources.
Until the middle of this century, the principal occupants of Vietnam's upland forests were the some 60 ethnic minority tribes. Many of these people used sustainable swidden farming techniques, made possible given their low population densities. Today, over 30% of Vietnamese people - predominantly the ethnic majority 'Kinh' people - depend on forest products. Population density in these regions has increased dramatically, most of all in the last 15 years. People lacking jobs and even a good education migrate to forests (and when they return to visit relatives in Hanoi, they bring malaria and other diseases).
In 1945, about 43% of the country was covered with forest. By 1978, after the end of war, this proportion was 23%. Areas of the North which were not greatly affected by the war were among the most disturbed. By 1990 the amount of remaining forest cover was 9%, all of this caused by unreasonable exploitation - unreasonable, even if done with the best of intentions.
With a population of 75 million people by 1996, and a still-high birth rate, Vietnam's population will double by the year 2025. Even allowing for an expected reduction of this growth, it is clear that a priority will be to house and feed people. How then do we conserve biodiversity, yet care for this growing population?
What is the fate of this precious biodiversity in today's Vietnam? A few examples will help outsiders understand the complexity of these problems.
First, the knowledge of important individuals of biodiversity.
Jok Don in Dak Lak Province is one of the most important national Parks in Vietnam. After a recent survey, the Park Director invited us to eat wild meat at a local restaurant. At Cat Ba National Park, while riding in the back of a truck, I heard a quacking sound. Lifting a tarpolin, I saw a bamboo cage holding a number of ducks to go to the market for sale. When I asked my a park official about this, he replied that this was okey because they were not Vietnamese birds - were 'European' migratory birds. So for him foreign birds were not important to Vietnam's biodiversity. These birds had a one way ticket.
Second, the values of ordinary people living and working in forests.
Taking a even more basic example, last year at Bach Ma National Park, I witnessed four men working hard sawing open an old artillery shell. They were after the explosive inside the shell. For this very dangerous work they would be paid only $9 for the entire load of high explosive. These people felt it was worth risking their lives for tso little money. We also saw other people working in the forests in Quang Binh. The area is infested with falciparum malaria and peppered with unexploded ordinance. These men were harvesting the scrap metal, again, at great risk to themselves.
If people are driven by poverty to value their own lives so cheaply, what value do you think they would give to biodiversity?
Third, the extent of illegal and unreasonable forest exploitation.
In the district town inside Tam Dao National Park, wildlife meat is sold openly for as little as US$2 a meal (Kinh Bac, 1996) and there is a thriving trade in forest animals as pets. In T.D. restaurant in Gia Luan Town (next to Cat Ba National Park), wild meat is on sale. The menu includes: serow ($3/kg) monkey meat ($2/kg) monkey brain ($3/kg), live monkeys ($8/kg) and squirrels at 30 cents each (Nguyen Trong, 1996). Forest products are often sold to the many of Vietnamese tourists now visiting these and other parks. Foreign tourists generally have better habits.
Over 40,000 people live in the Vu Quang Forest area of Ha Tinh Province in central Vietnam. A government survey (WWF, 1996, unpublished) estimates that these people place over 400 traps in Vu Quang forest every day. While it is often difficult to for poachers to cut and remove logs in protected forests such as these, it is far easier to extract non-timber forest products by trapping and hunting. Two new species of large mammal were discovered recently in Vu Quang forest reserve. They are highly endangered but many hunters believe this all the more reason to hunt them.
In the adjoining province of Nghe An , police operating under a Prime Ministerial decree (47-CP on the management of weapons and explosives) confiscated over 10,000 weapons, including over 3800 military rifles, as well as more than 24,000 kg of explosives during October and November of 1996 (Thanh Phong, 1996). Explosives are used illegally both in hunting and fishing.
Among many other examples from newspapers in Vietnam: Bird trapping in Dak Lak is now becoming a major commercial activity, with some trappers making $10 per day (DBT, 1996). The deputy-police chief of a commune in Kon Tum Province is reported (Vo Nang Nhan, 1995) to have secretly hunted rare bear to sell for meat and medicine. We collect about 50 such articles from Vietnamese-language newspapers each year and the number is increasing.
We discovered that in some areas of the Central Highlands, ethnic 'Kinh' dealers live with their families in each main Minority village - near or even within reserves. These dealers may own a general store, a television, kareoke and a generator. Local people exchange forest products for cheap goods, alcohol and the chance to see a few videos. These dealers process some materials themselves, for example they may boil down monkeys and other animals for a medicinal balm or 'animal wine'. These dealers trade wildlife and other products to dealers in larger towns.
In the face of such entrenched animal trade, we must ask if it possible to promote a philosophy of sustainable environment management?
The fact that these newspaper articles appear is a very good sign. The press is very much in support of environmental protection. Newspaper readership is poor in forest villages, but the Government is extending radio and television coverage to each village.
National legal documents such as Decree 18 (1992) and Government Order 130-TTG on management and protection of rare and precious wildlife and flora and in particular the Law on Environmental Protection (1993). Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet recently decreed even stronger wildife protection (359/TTg of 29 May 1996) "on emergency methods to protect and multiply wildlife".
The decision of the Hanoi People's Committee in October 1996 to protect a group of migratory birds landing on a small island in a park in Central Hanoi. This quick action saved the birds from interference over the week or more of their stay in Hanoi. The Hanoi People's Committee decided (Decision 2031 QD-UB; 13 June 1996) to build and staff a rescue centre for endangered wildlife. This facility, comprising more than 100 hectares in the north of the city, depends in part on foreign investment.
The national government and provinces are placing a great deal of effort on setting up a legal framework for environment protection, for enforcement laws against illegal trade, and for environmental awareness. Unfortunately, the funding available for this is modest. The problems are enormous.
We are still seeking funds in order to train our people protect their what remains of their natural environment.
In this paper I will concentrate on the wildlife trade. However illegal logging is also a serious problem. I give just one example. In 1995, the Hanoi Forest Protection Department (FPD Hanoi, 1996) discovered 151 separate incidents of illegal transportation of logs. The estimated volume of these logs totalled 277,018 m3. Of this, protected tree species accounted for roughly two-thirds, or 198,211 m3.
Concerning vertebrates, a report on the first two years' operation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which Vietnam signed in 1994, lists 403 incidents involving animal trade in 13 selected provinces during that time (Tables 1a and 1b). In some provinces, animals are re-released to the forest.
However, in other provinces, for example Dak Lak (an area of very rich biodiversity), the majority of animals are returned to dealers who are required to pay only a small fine. One reason for this is that FPD staff still have poor knowledge of what are endangered wildlife. And even if they do know this, they cannot keep and feed animals to strengthen them for re-release. Staff are poorly trained in the proper methods for releasing animals.
The list in Table 1a, 1b is limited because few statistical data are available for animal trafficking. Existing data also probably under-report the number of investigations actually commenced. The number of incidents that are not investigated is may be substantial. Quoc Khanh (1996) suggests that only 10 to 15% of cases are actually recorded.
FPD Hanoi (1996) intercepted traffickers 22 in separate incidents in 1995. The breakdown of these cases is listed in Table 3. This list includes a variety of pangolins, civets, monkeys, tortoises, geckos and snakes.
Bich Ha (1995) reported that almost all of the approximately 60 wildlife species regularly marketed in Vietnam are forbidden from exploitation and trade by government decree. There exist many ways for wild meat to enter Hanoi, most of them very difficult to monitor. Nguyen Viet Chien (1996) researched animal trade by aircraft. Chien estimates about 3.5 ton of wildlife is brought by air to Hanoi every week. Flights are every 2-3 days, carrying as much as 2 tons of live animals from HCMC to Hanoi. Chien reported an incident in which an airplane on route to China via Hanoi, returned to HCMC to avoid capture by Hanoi authorities. This indicates the existence of a significant coordination in the transport of live wild animals.
In June 1996, 2 tons of live animals including 200 macaque monkeys from a dealer in Dong Nai were confiscated at Noi Bai Airport in Hanoi (Nguyen Viet Chien, 1996). The animals were on the way to China for sale. The fine for this offence was only US$500.
According to Nguyen Viet Chien (1996) some 70% of this air traffic in wildlife is illegally exported. We are investigating reports that macaque monkeys have been laundered through China and sold on the international laboratory animal market. Most trade is through Vietnam's northern borders Le Dien Duc (1993) identified the main destinations for wildlife export as China, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. The remaining 30% of trade becomes food, medicine or other products within Vietnam.
Confiscation may be an important means of stopping animal trade, but it is not very good on animals. Captivity is usually stressful to animals, particularly forest birds and mammals. Re-releasing animals to the forest may present many problems. For example: diseased animals can infect natural communities, animals can be released outside their natural range or otherwise interfere with existing biota, animals are weak or stressed when released and cannot breed properly. If these questions remain uncertainties, then perhaps most animals released will most surely die.
We have oftern heard the suggestion that if these animals are too weak to be re-released, perhaps they should be returned to dealers. Fines are small so dealers can treat fines as a kind of license. They may be issued a receipt which allows them to resell and even transport animals with less risk of being re-arrested. Animals are returned to the market-place, and thus only continue the demand for rare species (with slightly increased price).
Government policy in the first instance is to prohibit exploitation of rare species. But it also allows (Ministry of Forestry Circular: 551 LN/KL) that rare species may be bred after they are captured. Vietnam has very little scientific expertise in conservation breeding. Our experience is that zoos, national reserves and parks, and the one existing 'rescue centre' for endangered wildlife are now so full that they can not accept further confiscated animals. Most forest reserves contain a small 'zoo'.
Most breeding of rare animals is primary economic (for example, family-based snake and turtle farms, deer or bear farms). Such trade is legal for animals which have been in captivity for two generations, or F2. Determining whether animals are F2 presents many problems for monitoring and law enforcement. Within this context, however, commercial captive breeding does provide a mechanism to fund the breeding of rare species, albeit as a by-product of commercial use. Figures on Table 1a indicate that captive breeding is at present less common than release in forest or return to dealer.
In practical terms, Forest Protection Department officers have very few choices. There are no funds to keep animals or properly release them. Considerable international anger would ensue if these animals were killed (eg. Highley, 1993).
Two important moral values are in apparent conflict: 1) saving and protecting rare, endangered wildlife, and 2) eliminating the trade in wildlife products (which could even mean destroying wildlife rather than returning it to dealers).
Would increasing penalties reduce the wildlife exploitation, or just drive the market underground? In any case, I find it difficult to understand why animals should be returned to dealers whose business is created by continued hunting.
There also exists a major business in the exploitation of animals that are not listed in CITES or in the Council of Ministers Decree 18, which protects Vietnam's most rare and precious flora and fauna. CITES Vietnam (1996) inspected many farms in the southern part of Vietnam (Nafobird, Naforimex 3, Vinafor Saigon, Nafovanny, and other farms in Dong Nai, Minh Hai, Can Tho, etc.). Farms for reptiles, birds and the like were capable only to cage animals before export. No farm could be seen to have bred successfully a second generation for export. The source for these animals was from dealers who collected from the wild in the Mekong Delta, Central Highlands, the Southern Central provinces, provinces bordering Cambodia or Cambodia itself (taken illegally across the Vietnam border).
Table 2 shows the certificates granted in 1994-5 (CITES Vietnam, 1996) for export of a range of rare birds and animals. Apparently, some farms - none of those listed above and in the CITES report - have reached this standard. Boa skins are collected mainly from breeders but also from "sources along the Cambodian border" (CITES Vietnam, 1996). These "sources" are probably hunters.
With a national labour force increasing by almost one million people each year, the lack of jobs can drive people to lesser populated, less controlled forested areas or the Northwest or Central Highlands. These people rarely have many belongings. Hunting requires only the capital outlay of a gun, explosives, traps or nets. Though many of these materials are illegal they are readily available. Collecting non-timber forest products, including illegal hunting, trapping or fishing, is usually the better option for income generation since it requires simple tools and an abundance of spare time. One consequence is that some forests may have escaped damage due to logging, yet the biodiversity of those forests is diminished by uncontrolled extraction of non-timber forest products. For example, primary forests remain in several nature reserves in Vietnam's Central Highlands. Yet our surveys find poor evidence of fauna in these forests. Traces such as tracks and scat are rare, indicating reduced biodiversity, but also any remaining animals stay well away from humans.
The apparently large number of unregulates small-scale non-timber forest product exploiters degrades resources in several ways. Although common species may form the bulk of exploitation, this never the less reduces biodiversity and changes ecological balance in these regions. It encourages still more people to become involved in harvesting wildlife in what is effectively common land without consideration to sustainability. Prior land users face uncontrolled migrating into their homelands which adds to their economic uncertainties. Local law enforcement staff are further burdened but increasingly they as well fall behind in accessing resources to do their duty.
The legal basis for Vietnam's environmental protection needs continued strengthening.
Law enforcement agencies need better resources and improved training, particularly of local staff. FPD salaries should be increased due to their difficult and sometimes dangerous duties.
The national environmental education and awareness program needs strengthening. As producers, rural people must appreciate the damage they can do to their ecosystems. The education of children is crucial. Since parks are now an important destination for Vietnamese tourists, and wild meat and wildlife pets are popular in town, it is vital theat there be an education program to encourage more affluent Vietnamese people to stop buying forest products.
The illegal export of rare and endangered wildlife, and in particular any access to air transport, must be controlled. But also, the apparently heavy exploitation of a range of more common species should be monitored closely.
These are very complex problems that require an understanding of Vietnam's society. Outside funding, advice and encouragement are vital, but we Vietnamese must resolve these problems mainly through our own efforts. Our future is at stake.
Bich Ha. 1995. [Many wild mammals still hunted]. Khoa Hoc va Doi Song (Science and Life) 50(1094): 1,2. 12-18 Dec.1995.
Biodiversity Action Planning Team (BAP). 1996. Biodiversity Action Plan for Vietnam. Ministry of Science Technology and Environment, Hanoi.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Vietnam 1996. [Report of two years carrying out CITES] (20/4/1994 - 20/4/1996). CITES Office, National Forestry Protection Department, Hanoi. 13 pp.
DBT. 1996. [Dac Lac: raising the 'campaign' of bird trapping]. Lao Dong [Labor] 127/96. 24 September 1996.
Forestry Protection Department of Hanoi (FPD Hanoi) 1996. [Summary report of working results of 1995 for the Forestry Protection Force of Hanoi City]. Hanoi City Forestry Protection Department, Hanoi.
Highley, Keith. 1993. Taiwan bungles 'repatriation' of smuggled lorises. International Primate Protection League Newsletter 20(3):3-4.
Kinh Bac. 1996. [Tam Dao - Snow White is still sleeping.] Phu Nu Thu Do [Women of the Capital] 27(290) 3 July 1996.
Le Dien Duc. 1993. Final Report on the Vietnam Wildlife Trade Monitoring Project. Centre for Natural Resources Management and Environmental Studies (CRES), Hanoi. 75 pp.
Nguyen Trong. 1996. [Bitter lament] Dai Duan Ket [Great Unity] No. 42:1, 3. 24 May 1996.
Nguyen Viet Chien. 1996. [Warning about the transportation situation of rare mammals by airplane] Thanh Nien [Youth] 117(905):7-8; 23 July 1996.
Quoc Khanh. 1996. [The bad situation of hunting and illegal trading of wildlife needs to be stopped] Phap Luat [Law] 47(598):1, 2; 11 June 1996.
Thanh Phong. 1996. [More than 10,000 guns confiscated in Nghe An] Nhan Dan [People] No.15150. 14 December 1996.
Vo Nang Nhan. 1996. [Deputy sheriff of commune secretly hunting, rare animals] Thoi Bao Kinh Te Viet Nam [Vietnam Economic Weekly] 34. 24-30 August 1995.
Table 1a. Animal trafficking incidents related to the implementation of the CITES in 13 provinces of Vietnam from 1994-1996.
method of dealing with incident province or city number of animals animals animals dealer incidents released given to confiscated fined and recorded to forest husbandry animals returned to dealer Ho Chi Minh City 47 2 16 12 27 Song Be 82 62 4 16 2 Lam Dong 52 21 1 26 4 Dak Lak 118 6 0 5 107 Da Nang City 17 11 2 0 4 Hue City 10 10 0 0 0 Nghe An 15 11 3 1 0 Ninh Binh 16 4 0 9 3 Ha Noi City 28 22 2 22 6 Hai Phong City 2 1 0 missing 0 Quang Ninh 6 1 0 0 5 Lang Son 4 4 0 0 0 Son La 6 0 0 4 2 Totals 403 155 28 95 160Source: Corrected from CITES Vietnam April, 1996.
Table 1b. Animal trafficking incidents related to the implementation of the CITES in 13 provinces of Vietnam from 1994-1996.
location English name Vietnamese name # weight year (kg) Mui Tau (Song Be) pig, muntjak, lo+.n ru+`ng, 8181 1224 1994 porcupine, etc. hoa(~ng, nai, nhi'm, ... wild meat thi.t ru+`ng 4460 1045 1995 Buon Ma Thuot -- -- -- 1571 1994 (Dak Lak) -- -- -- 1037 1995 Quang Nam - Da Nang civet cho^`n 368 -- 1995 monkey khi? 20 -- " " pangolin te^ te^ 47 -- " " southern grackle chim ye^?ng 208 -- " " crested argus tri~ sao+ 4 -- " " monitor lizard ky` dda` 169 -- " " tortoise ru`a 151 -- " " snake ra('n 10 -- " " Nghe An monitor lizard ky` dda` 89 -- 1994-1995 monkey khi? 96 -- " " pangolin te^ te^ 10 -- " " tortoise ru`a 740 -- " " brown squirrel so'c na^u 290 -- " " civet cho^`n 65 -- " " boa and other tra(n va` ra('n 520 -- " " snake southern grackle chim ye^?ng 270 -- " " Lang Son pangolin te^ te^ 83 -- 10-12-1995 monkey khi? 39 -- " " civet ca^y vo`i 10 -- " " loris cu li 13 -- " " monitor lizard ky` dda` 5 -- " " boa tra(n 3 -- " " tortoise ru`a -- 1826 " " Quang Ninh total fines: 56,800,000 dong Ninh Binh Town monitor lizard ky` dda` 458 -- 1994-1996 boa tra(n 36 -- -- pangolin te^ te^ 201 -- -- tortoise ru`a 724 -- -- monkey khi? 10 -- -- porcupine nhi'm 16 -- -- etc. to Total 2665 4431 -- Ho Chi Minh City monkey khi? 62 -- 29-03-1995 pangolin te^ te^ 17 -- 18-12-1994 porcupine nhi'm 10 -- " " leopard beo 2 -- 28-10-1995 pangolin te^ te^ 36 -- 25-08-1995 Thua Thien - Hue pangolin te^ te^ 111 -- 1994-1995 monitor lizard ky` dda` 236 -- " " civet cho^`n 161 -- " " etc. to Total 999 -- " " Ha Noi toal value: 1,276,224,000 dong; total fines:56,500,000 dong loris cu li 5 -- 1994-1996 palm civet ca^`y hu+o+ng 17 -- " " civet ca^`y va` cho^`n 29 -- " " otter ra'i ca' 2 -- " " forest cat me`o ru+`ng 4 -- " " species gecko ta('c ke` 533 -- " " pangolin te^ te^ 310 2072 " " monitor lizard ky` dda` 236 1099 " " tortoise ru`a 3417 2426 " " boa tra(n -- 197 " " snake ra('n 454 238 " " monkey khi? 25 -- " " etc. to Total -- 6381 " "Source: CITES Vietnam April, 1996.
Table 2. Export/import permits granted by CITES office Vietnam 1994 and 1995.
1994 (120 trading certificates and 4 exchange certificates) # cert- type quantity and taxon notes ificates issued 2 import 2 Komodo dragons 10 Lophura to Hanoi and HCMC zoos exwardsi (Edwards' Pheasant) 2 exchange 2 leopards 2 elephants from Hanoi and HCMC zoos 3 export 200 macaques -- 49 export 10,070 wild parrots -- 17 export 4,388 boa (F2 generation) -- 35 export 11,191 meter boa skin -- 13 export 520 monitor lizards 30 -- tortoise (Testudo) 3 export 120 ton coral sand -- 1995 (142 trading certificates) # cert- type quantity and taxon notes ificates issued 1 import 2 tamarin monkeys -- 7 export bear, elephant and monkey circus animals for performance in Thailand and Taiwan 2 export 200 macaques (F2 generation) from 18-4 company to China 29 export 3990 parrots -- 36 export 12,395 baby boas (F2 -- generation) 41 export 107,157 meter boa skin -- 14 export 490 monitor lizards -- 16 export 385 tortoises -- 2 export 19.1 ton frog legs -- 4 export 30,000 kg. Dendrobium sp. -- 5 export 1190 orchard trees --Source: CITES Vietnam April, 1996.
Table 3. Animals confiscated by Hanoi Forestry Protection Department during 1995.
number taxon Vietnamese name English name 5 Nycticebus sp. cu li loris 25 Macaca fascicularis khi? dduo^i da`i crab-eating macaque 17 Viverricula indica thai ca^`y hu+o+ng small Indian civet 1 Arctitis binturong albifrons ca^`y mu+.c binturong 21 Mustela kathiah trie^'t na'n yellow bellied weasel 7 Paradoxurus ca^`y vo`i mu+o+'p common palm civet hermaphroditus laotum dduo^i dden 310 Manis pentadactyla aurita te^ te^ Chinese pangolin 2 Lutra lutra chinensis ra'i ca' ho.ng tra('ng Eurasian otter 4 several species of Felinae me`o ru+`ng ca'c loa.i forest cat 533 Lacerta gecko ta('c ke` gecko 236 Monitor nebulosis ki` dda` va^n monitor lizard 3417 several tortoise species ru`a ca'c lo'i tortoises 1 (29kg) Pelochelys cantoris ba ba Ho Guom turtle 197kg Boa reticulatus tra(n ga^'m boa 454 severeal snake species ra('n ca'c loa.i snake 75kg Psittacula alexandri ve.t ngu+.c ddo? moustached parrot 135 Streptopelia tranquebarica cu ngo'i red collared dove
6381 Total kg
1,276,224,000 dong estimated farm gate value (roughtly US$120,000.00)
Source: FPD Hanoi,1996