In the draft amendment to the Land Law, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAE) proposed revising Article 158 on the principles, basis, and methods for land pricing.

In theory, land pricing must adhere to four principles: ensuring the state’s role as the representative owner and decision-maker on land prices; using land pricing results as reference material for the state; following proper pricing procedures; and aligning with state management needs and local realities.

As such, the draft has removed the principle of market-based land pricing.

Regarding land price tables, MAE proposed amending Article 159, offering two options:

Option 1: Provincial People’s Committees would release land price tables once every five years, effective from January 1 of the first year of periods. If necessary, provincial committees can adjust the table within the year. Land price tables would be based on areas and locations. For areas with digital cadastral maps and land price databases, tables can be set for individual land parcels.

Option 2: The land price table would be applied to calculate land use fees and land rent when the State allocates land, leases land, permits change of land use purpose, recognizes land use rights, calculates taxes and fees related to land use, exercises rights and obligations of land users, and compensates when the State reclaims land. The Government will specify in detail the cases in which the land price table is applied.

Thus, local land price tables will be issued every five years with annual adjustment coefficients, a significant change from the 2024 Land Law’s annual issuance.

Nguyen Quang Huy from Nguyen Trai University told VietNamNet that issuing land price tables every five years with annual adjustments reflects flexible thinking, balancing legal stability and market adaptability.

Huy noted that five-year cycles help businesses plan long-term, reduce local authorities’ annual update burdens, and ensure consistent policies, minimizing legal risks.

Meanwhile, annual adjustment coefficients allow timely reflection of land price trends, adapting to socio-economic conditions and avoiding fixed prices detached from reality.

“However, building adjustment coefficients must rely on transparent, continuously updated market data with stakeholder involvement. Coefficients and calculation methods should be made public, with a transparent complaint mechanism to avoid prolonged disputes,” Huy said.

Huy stressed that affirming the role of the State in deciding primary land prices is consistent with the nature of public ownership of land. In many cases, especially in areas with unusual fluctuations in land prices or signs of speculation, the State needs strong tools to guide the market, avoiding long-term social consequences.

Incorporating land clearance in amendments

Nguyen Quoc Hiep, chair of GP.Invest and the Vietnam Contractors Association, said separating primary and secondary land use rights markets is a sound policy. However, to make the law effective, additional provisions, especially on land clearance—a major economic bottleneck—are needed.

Hiep stated that state-regulated land price tables are appropriate, but they must be thoroughly researched and practical.

“For land price tables to be feasible, input materials from experts and businesses—those directly affected—is essential to avoid overly high or low pricing,” Hiep said.

He emphasized reviewing shortcomings in Decree 71 (on land pricing) and the 2024 Land Law to ensure effective amendments.

Hiep highlighted that land clearance, a long-standing issue for many projects, is absent from the draft.

“As land is a national asset owned by the people and managed by the state, it’s a valuable resource that must be utilized effectively. This requires resolving land clearance bottlenecks,” he said.

Currently, only comprehensive urban projects receive state support for land recovery. Other economic projects face similar challenges but are excluded.

“The state should expand conditions for land recovery. For projects where businesses have secured about 70 percent of the land, the state should assist with the remaining clearance,” Hiep said.

“It is necessary to expand the conditions for cases where the State comes forward and takes over land. For projects where businesses have agreed on about 70 percent of the area, the State will support the recovery and site clearance of the remaining area,” he added.

The GP.Invest chair urged the National Assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment to include land clearance as a specific amendment. “Only then will the law be thorough and effective in practice,” Hiep said.

Nguyen Le