In a recent National Assembly session, lawmakers described land valuation as “the biggest bottleneck” in the implementation of Vietnam’s 2024 Land Law.

Representative Nguyen Van Loi, Head of the Ho Chi Minh City parliamentary delegation, pointed to the injustice of charging citizens 100% of the official land price when converting agricultural land to residential use - regardless of whether it is within or beyond the allocated quota.

He explained: “The state says it manages the land, but in reality, it was left by their ancestors. People feel like they’re buying their own land all over again.”

This sentiment reveals the flawed nature of current land valuation: even when people hold land passed down through generations, they are still at a disadvantage. Compensation in cases of land recovery also fails to reflect real-life or market value.

But it doesn’t stop there. Many families who want to convert farmland to housing - a legitimate need tied to livelihood and shelter - face even heavier financial burdens.

The requirement to pay 70% to 100% of land use fees based on the official price is pushing many into difficulty - especially since those prices were set during periods of market overheating. Today’s cooler market conditions are not reflected, yet the financial obligations remain unchanged.

MP Hoang Van Cuong noted that some families have used land stably for decades, but when they apply for land use certificates, they are slapped with fees that exceed their entire life savings.

Land valuation is, again, cited by MPs as the “greatest bottleneck” in land law enforcement.

The reasons are clear: the process of determining specific land values is time-consuming and layered with multiple levels of appraisal. Land price tables are often outdated and disconnected from real market activity due to a lack of transactional data. Without detailed guidance, new mechanisms risk creating legal voids, leaving local authorities confused and businesses hesitant to act.

MP Le Thanh Phong pointed out a clear paradox: people are charged high rates when converting land use, but market prices have actually declined. Declared prices are inflated, while real market values have fallen.

These seemingly unrelated problems share a common root: Vietnam’s land market remains underdeveloped, while its pricing mechanisms are still heavily administrative.

The three-tier pricing structure - official price tables, adjustment coefficients, and specific valuations - lacks a solid foundation of transparent, reliable market data.

When the input information is unreliable, financial obligations, compensation, and land recovery decisions can greatly diverge from actual value.

As a result, land users' property rights - central to any modern economy - are placed at risk.

This isn’t a new issue. It was clearly flagged in Resolution 18-NQ/TW, which defines land use rights as a unique form of property and commodity, protected by law. The resolution also calls for abolishing the rigid price ceiling, replacing it with market-based mechanisms under state regulation.

This core principle aims to build a fair, transparent, and sustainable land environment.

However, the gap between that forward-looking vision and today’s harsh realities remains wide - especially when land price tables are still based on past market peaks and fail to reflect rapid social and economic changes.

The result: citizens feel short-changed when compensation is low, but financial obligations are high. Investors hesitate because land-related costs fluctuate unpredictably. Local officials avoid responsibility out of fear of mistakes.

The state loses potential revenue when land prices are too low, while citizens suffer when they’re too high.

True fairness for land users requires a clear separation between compensation value in state land recovery and financial obligations when formalizing or converting land use.

Compensation must be enough for people to rebuild their lives. Financial obligations should reflect real market transactions and match people’s ability to pay.

A more flexible pricing mechanism, updated more frequently and based on real transaction data, would reduce long-term inconsistencies and protect people from market shifts beyond their control.

Key technical improvements - like full transparency in land transactions, faster valuation procedures, and streamlined authority over land recovery, resettlement, and compensation - are essential to making the system work.

Land justice lies in how the state designs the system - ensuring that those numbers don’t become barriers, don’t push citizens to the margins, and don’t deter businesses with unpredictable costs.

Tu Giang