VIETNAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Liên Đoàn Thương Mại Và Công Nghiệp Việt Nam
Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 09:48:00
Re: Response to Official Letter No. 1318/GM-UBKTTC15 from the National Assembly Economic - Financial Committee requesting participation in the meeting on the Draft Resolution Stipulating a Number of Mechanisms and Policies to Remove Difficulties and Obstacles in the Organization and Implementation of the Land Law (hereinafter referred to as the Draft), the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) submits the following comments on the Draft:
Point b, Clause 2, Article 3 of the Draft stipulates: "In case land is used for project implementation through an agreement on receiving land use rights, where the mandatory agreement completion deadline or the extended agreement completion deadline has passed, and an agreement has been reached on over 75% of the land area and over 75% of the number of land users, the Provincial People's Council shall consider and approve the recovery of the remaining land area for allocation or lease to the investor."
This is one of the difficulties that enterprises have been reflecting on for a long time. The Draft's addition of a solution for this case will contribute to removing obstacles for enterprises when implementing investment projects. According to the above regulation, the State will proceed with the recovery of the remaining land area that the investor could not agree upon with the people. The basis for calculating compensation will be based on the land price in the land price list and the land price adjustment coefficient stipulated in Clause 3, Article 5 of the Draft. This may result in a significant disparity between the agreed-upon price offered by the enterprise to the people (which is the market price) and the land price in the land price list. This could lead to complaints from the people, affecting and prolonging the project implementation.
This is a rather "special" case of land recovery compared to other cases stipulated in the Land Law and will impact the person whose land is recovered. To limit complaints from the people, which prolongs the implementation of investment projects, and ensure a balance of interests among the parties, recommendation: Consider adjusting the above provision as follows:
For this case, a separate mechanism and procedure for land recovery must be defined, whereby the State will act as an intermediary for the two parties to proceed with price negotiation. If an agreement is still not reached, the State will proceed with land recovery.
To have a basis for determining the percentage as 75% or another rate, statistical data is needed on investment projects implemented through agreement on receiving land use rights that were stalled due to failure to reach an agreement, including the exact percentage of disagreements. This data should be available as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (now the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment) has conducted an assessment summarizing the implementation of the 2013 Land Law.
Regarding the agreement deadline: According to the above regulation, enterprises must reach an agreement with land users within the mandatory completion deadline (36 months). However, before the effective date of Decree No. 148/2020/ND-CP (January 8, 2021), cases of agreement on receiving land use rights for investment project implementation did not stipulate a deadline for the enterprise to complete the agreement. Therefore, if the Draft does not include a transitional provision for this case, it will be very difficult to implement in practice.
Point a, Clause 3, Article 3 of the Draft stipulates: "Land recovery in cases where the compensation, support, and resettlement plan does not include resettlement arrangement, has been publicly posted but has not yet been approved, applies to national key projects, urgent public investment projects as prescribed by the law on public investment; for other projects, if over 75% of land users agree to land recovery before the compensation, support, and resettlement plan is approved." This is considered an exceptional case, not requiring compliance with the usual land recovery procedure stipulated in the 2024 Land Law. However, to ensure convenient implementation, recommendation: Stipulate more clearly the steps of land recovery to be implemented in this case (e.g., Will the compensation, support, and resettlement plan be approved? How will the compensation, support, and resettlement plan be implemented?...).
– Point d: "For investment projects that had a written approval of investment policy or selection of investor/project owner according to legal regulations before July 1, 2014, but land has not yet been recovered, allocated, or leased to the investor/project owner, and now conform to the land use master plan/plan, and are reviewed and confirmed by the Provincial People's Committee to have been implemented correctly according to the laws at the time of issuing those documents, and the delay in land allocation/lease is not the fault of the investor/project owner, the land use rights auction or investor selection bidding for the land-using project shall not be organized as stipulated by the 2024 Land Law; the procedures, authority, and time frame shall be implemented according to the 2024 Land Law."
The above provision should be reviewed on the following points:
The phrase "investment projects that had a written approval of investment policy or selection of investor/project owner according to legal regulations before July 1, 2014" is unclear regarding the specific type of document or transitional case. Recommendation: Adjust the regulation to read: "for investment projects that have selected an investor/project owner...".
The requirement that the investor selection must be confirmed by the Provincial People's Committee as having been implemented correctly according to regulations is an unclear form of administrative procedure and may prolong and complicate the implementation of the investment project. Furthermore, regarding reasonableness, the fact that the investment project has received investment policy approval and the investor has been selected according to law means the project and investor have already been confirmed and permitted by the State to implement the project. What is the basis for re-evaluating this procedural process? If, upon review, the investor is no longer approved, will the project that received investment policy approval be considered a case for project withdrawal? This needs to be assessed for conformity with investment law regulations. Recommendation: Adjust the regulation so that in cases where an investor/project owner has been selected, it is only necessary to confirm conformity with the land use master plan/plan, and that the delay in land allocation/lease is not the fault of the investor/project owner, in which case the land use rights auction or investor selection bidding for the land-using project shall not be organized.
– Point đ stipulates: "For investment projects that fall under the case of land allocation or land lease without land use rights auction as prescribed by the Land Law No. 45/2013/QH13, relevant laws, and conform to the land use master plan/plan, but land has not yet been recovered, allocated, or leased, they may continue with the subsequent steps in the procedures stipulated in the Land Law if they fall into one of the following cases." This provision leads to the understanding that investment projects falling under the case of land allocation or lease without land use rights auction must simultaneously meet the conditions: 1) land has not yet been recovered, and 2) land has not yet been allocated or leased. However, in reality, there are projects where land has been recovered but not yet allocated, and according to this provision, they would not be allowed to continue the project. To cover all cases, recommendation: Remove the phrase "land has not yet been recovered" from the above provision.
Clause 4, Article 7 of the Draft stipulates: "4. For cases applying specific land prices stipulated in Article 160 of the Land Law, but as of the effective date of this Resolution, the competent authority has not yet issued a decision on the specific land price, the land price shall be determined according to the provisions of this Resolution. If, upon the effective date of this Resolution, there are insufficient grounds to calculate land use fees, land rent, or compensation for land as stipulated in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Article 5 of this Resolution, the specific land price shall be determined according to the provisions of the Land Law."
This provision is unclear as to what constitutes "insufficient grounds" to calculate land use fees, land rent, or compensation for land as stipulated in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Article 5 of this Resolution. In cases where the Resolution cannot be applied, and application reverts to the Land Law, will the competent authority still determine specific land prices according to the Land Law after this Resolution takes effect? This provision could lead to ambiguity about which cases apply the land price stipulated in the Resolution and which determine the specific land price under the Land Law, and thus, the obstacles will not be removed. Recommendation: These cases should be applied according to the provisions of the Resolution and not revert to applying the specific land price under the Land Law. Therefore, recommendation: Remove the provision "If, upon the effective date of this Resolution, there are insufficient grounds to calculate land use fees, land rent, or compensation for land as stipulated in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Article 5 of this Resolution, the specific land price shall be determined according to the provisions of the Land Law."
These are some comments from the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the Draft Resolution Stipulating a Number of Mechanisms and Policies to Remove Difficulties and Obstacles in the Organization and Implementation of the Land Law. We hope that the distinguished Agency will consider them for amendment and completion.
Thank you sincerely for your cooperation.
