Land recovery when reaching 75% of agreement and the problem of balancing interests

In the draft released for comments, a provision that has attracted great attention from the business community is: when the project has reached an agreement to transfer land use rights for more than 75% of the area and more than 75% of the households, but the deadline or extension period has not yet completed the agreement, the Provincial People's Council can consider reclaiming the remaining land to hand over to the investor to continue implementing the project.

The “agreement” mechanism is an important step to marketize land relations: enterprises negotiate with people themselves, the State does not intervene administratively. It helps many projects to be implemented faster, reflecting the real value of land in the market. However, in reality, many projects only reach 70-80% agreement, the rest is “stuck” with a few households who do not agree, causing the project to stagnate and social costs to increase.

Therefore, the regulation allowing the reclamation of the remaining area when reaching over 75% of the area is seen as an intermediate step between two mechanisms: the market self-negotiating and the State reclamation according to planning. It opens up opportunities for hundreds of infrastructure projects, industrial parks, and urban areas to be restarted - something the economy urgently needs to realize the double-digit growth target in the coming years.

However, like any breakthrough policy, this provision both opens up opportunities and contains risks. According to the draft Resolution, when the State reclaims the remaining land area, the basis for calculating compensation is based on the land price of the land price list and the land price adjustment coefficient. Thus, a situation may arise: the agreed price offered by the enterprise to the people is the market price, so there will be a large difference from the land price in the land price list. This may lead to complaints from the people, causing the project implementation to be affected and prolonged.

A more reasonable solution proposed by the Vietnam Federation of Commerce and Industry is to place the State in the role of intermediary between enterprises and people to negotiate prices. If an agreement is still not reached, the State will proceed to reclaim the land.

This is an approach that both maintains transparency and ensures the legitimate rights of both people and investors. And for the “State as an intermediary” model to operate effectively, there needs to be a clear legal framework, defining the agency in charge of negotiations, the process, the number of negotiation rounds and the deadline, avoiding formalities or prolonging procedures. The State can also organize tripartite negotiations, with the participation of independent valuation organizations and representatives of local authorities. Thus, there needs to be an independent, professional land valuation system to ensure objectivity and prevent group interests. In addition, a monitoring mechanism with the participation of elected bodies, the Fatherland Front , etc. also plays a very important role.

Land recovery when reaching 75% of the agreement can help resolve the problems that businesses have been reflecting on for a long time, but it also affects the people whose land is recovered. Therefore, the agency drafting the Resolution needs to continue to carefully calculate policy options to ensure a balance of interests between the parties, helping land to be used more effectively, contributing to the development of the country.

Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/thu-hoi-dat-khi-dat-75-thoa-thuan-va-bai-toan-can-bang-loi-ich-10394004.html