The current status of compensation, support, and resettlement when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes

Under Article 54 of the 2013 Constitution, only in case of extreme necessity, the State shall acquire land from land users for socio-economic development in the national and public interests as prescribed by law. When land acquisition is inevitable, the method of implementation, as well as the determination of damage, should be considered carefully, absolutely not abusing power to deprive people of their lawful property. To do this, the corresponding legal grounds must meet the actual requirements set out. However, the provisions of the law on compensation, support, and resettlement upon land acquisition for socio-economic development still contain many inadequacies that need to be improved.

To clarify the research problems, the author uses the methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism of Marxism-Leninism to study the problem in the State of movement, constant change and place in the overall relationship, and the interaction between the phenomenon to be studied with other phenomena. Moreover, the subject of study is considered and evaluated in the State of “moving…”, making the research problem rich, diverse, traditional, and modern.

In addition, the author also applies the following research methodologies:

Doctrinal legal research methodology: This method is applied by the author to understand doctrines and theories directly related to the research topic, from which to build a solid foundation in building a theoretical framework for the research problem.

Analytical legal research methodology: The method is applied to clarify regulations related to land acquisition, specifically analyzing legal provisions related to land acquisition, determining the purpose of land acquisition, balancing and regulating interests between subjects when the land acquisition process takes place, thereby pointing out the inadequacies and limitations from a legislative perspective within the scope of the research topic.

Statistical methodology: This method is applied by the author to collect statistics and synthesize essential data directly related to the research scope of the topic, e.g., statistics related to the level of satisfaction of people whose land is acquired regarding compensation land prices, life and production support mechanisms, the data on complaints and lawsuits related to the compensation, support, and resettlement mechanism.

Comparative legal research methodology: The author applies it when there is a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of legal provisions between the laws of Vietnam and some countries in the world, thereby having the most objective view when providing timely solutions to problems that have been set out in the scope of the research topic.

In the legal aspect, based on the concept of land acquisition, the interpretation of the concept of land acquisition for socio-economic development in the national and public interests is as follows:

“Land acquisition for socio-economic development in the national and public interests is the State’s decision to acquire the land use rights of persons who are granted land use rights by the State or acquire land of land users who violate the land law to serve the needs of socio-economic development based on maintaining a peaceful and stable environment for the implementation of national industrialization and modernization along the socialist orientation, ensuring that all people and society enjoy the land values brought about after the acquisition.”

Many research opinions believe that “Land acquisition for socio-economic development for national and public benefits” needs to have its “intent” clarified. In the long term, it is necessary to replace the term “The State acquires land for socio-economic development” with “The State acquires land use rights.” In essence, this will help change perspectives towards an increasingly progressive society.

Accordingly, “Towards unification between the Constitution and the Land Law, it is necessary to limit the State’s authority to acquire land to cases where it is necessary to use the land to serve national interests, public interests, and national defense and security interests” (Vo, 2013, p. 11).

Also, Son (2018) argues that because some projects bring benefits to businesses, but in order to reduce compensation costs, they often take advantage of gaps in regulations and assign State land acquisition mechanisms. In this case, there is no harmony between the interests of the State, the interests of investors, and the people whose land is acquired. The lack of transparency is a premise for violations by state management agencies in the land.

3.1 Compensation when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes.

According to nationwide statistics, 63/63 provinces and centrally-run cities have issued specific regulations on compensation, support, and resettlement levels according to the decentralization of the Land Law and Government Decrees to be applied locally. In particular, regulations clearly define the responsibilities of departments, agencies, units, and organizations involved in implementing compensation, support, and resettlement. However, when considering the compensation mechanism, many aspects remain inconsistent.

Specifically, regarding compensation for moving costs when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes, there is no uniformity across localities. For example, 7/63 provinces and cities compensate travel expenses based on distance; 6/63 provinces compensate according to actual costs; 8/63 compensate based on house type or construction area; 32/63 compensate according to administrative unit levels, ranging from 2,000,000 VND to 15,000,000 VND; and 10/63 provinces have no regulations on travel expense compensation at all (Nhan, 2022).

In general, according to Hien and Thang (2021), land valuation as a basis for calculating compensation is highly sensitive because conflicts of interest may arise. Clause 3, Article 112 of the 2013 Land Law stipulates that when the State acquires land for socio-economic development, the land price used for compensation “must be consistent with the prevailing land price on the market.” However, this requirement is challenging to implement because specific land prices tend to be lower than market prices (Thai, 2016, p.11). As noted, “maybe it is only relative because the market price has many fluctuations” (Hien, 2017, p.98–99).

The determination of compensation value is based solely on the current land use status, without considering the increase in land value after the State acquires land and investors develop the project. The State’s land price frame is only about 20–30% of market land prices, and the provincial land price range is only 30–60% of local market values. Consequently, compensation amounts are often significantly lower than actual market prices (Huyen & Ha, 2022, p.165).

A notable example from Da Nang involved land parcels A2 and A3 in the Son Tra–Dien Ngoc Resettlement Area. The compensation price was set at 2,570,000 VND/m², resulting in compensation totals of 25 billion VND for parcel A2 and 63 billion VND for parcel A3 (Than, 2020). However, just one month after the land allocation, the enterprise transferred the project to a new investor for 133 billion VND—107 billion VND higher than the original valuation.

Survey results from 540 households whose land was acquired in 2020—188 in Ha Noi, 177 in Ho Chi Minh City, and 175 in Da Nang—showed low satisfaction levels. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the overall satisfaction score was 2.54; the perceived fairness of land compensation price was 2.32; and the change in life after land acquisition was rated 2.45 (Phuong, 2021).

In a developing economy, exercising the right to reclaim land can create surplus value that benefits only the final property owner, not the original owner. When surplus exceeds the cost of land acquisition, organizations receiving land use rights gain incentives to persuade the government to acquire land on their behalf—even when acquisition serves private interests.

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2012, pp. 19–20), market value is the amount for which an asset can be voluntarily and readily sold at a specific time. Hien (2017, pp. 98–99), citing Section 5(2) of the UK Land Compensation Act 1961, notes that in developed countries, the valuation date is legally fixed to determine asset values...

In Taiwan, under the Land Occupation Law (2000), real estate valuation distinguishes between land value and the value of assets created on land. Land compensation is based on the land value at the time of allocation, while compensation for construction works is based on replacement cost. Some countries even calculate compensation above market price because compulsory acquisition may contradict the land user’s wishes.

Unlike British law, Vietnam does not widely recognize compensation for damages when land is not acquired. Damages arising before or after the acquisition process, including invisible or unanticipated harms, are not included due to legal limitations.

While Taiwan and Vietnam share similarities in their annual land valuation and public-purpose land seizure mechanisms, the key difference lies in Taiwan’s valuation committee system. Committees—not administrative agencies—determine land prices and compensation levels, ensuring independence and transparency. Vietnam could adopt a similar model to resolve disputes and improve compensation fairness (Vo, 2012).

Therefore, laws in developed countries such as the UK and the US require courts to carefully evaluate compulsory land requisition for public purposes when “one or a few people will capture the surplus value” (Gallagher, 2005, p.77).

Scholars explain that land compensation prices fail to match market prices for several reasons, including uncertainty about the timing of land price determination. Clause 2, Article 74 of the 2013 Land Law assigns the Provincial People’s Committee to decide specific land prices at the time of the land acquisition decision, but no guidance clarifies when the decision occurs (Hien, 2017, p.98–99).

In India, under Article 22, Part 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation for economic development purposes is calculated according to market value, with the Court able to add 30% due to compulsory acquisition (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2012, p.19).

Australia, under Article 55 of the WA Land Management Act 1997, determines compensation based on the principle of “value to the owner,” which allows compensation to exceed market value. This value includes market value, exceptional damage due to loss of land, and other related damages.

style="text-align:center">Support when the State acquires land for socioeconomic development purposes

The 2013 Land Law, Clause 14, Article 3, defines support when the State acquires land as the State’s assistance to affected persons to help them stabilize their lives, production, and development. Support amounts are understood as the added value provided when the State considers compensation payments; this additional value derives not from the land user’s investment but from the State’s regulatory framework.

There are three primary forms of support provided when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes.

Support for training, career transition, and job search represents the State’s long-term vision, recognizing that land acquisition can disrupt livelihoods. By providing such support, the State aims to minimize social instability arising from compulsory land recovery. To implement this, the Government issued Decision 63/2015/QD-TTg on vocational training and job creation measures for workers following land acquisition. Local governments have also institutionalized these provisions, such as Decision 24/2017/QD-UBND of the Hanoi People’s Committee, Ho Chi Minh City’s implementation plans for Decision 63/2015/QD-TTg, and Decision 08/2015/QD-UBND of Nam Dinh Province.

However, the support mechanism when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes requires clarification on several issues.

Firstly, the policy on support for training, career change, and job search does not specify a minimum land area required to qualify for assistance. This results in cases where even a few square meters of agricultural land being acquired still entitles individuals to support, despite such losses not actually affecting employment opportunities.

Secondly, Point a, Clause 1, Article 20 of Decree 47/2014/ND-CP provides that monetary support shall not exceed five times the agricultural land price for the area acquired and that the supported area cannot exceed the agricultural land allocation limit. However, only a maximum is specified; there is no minimum support level. This leads to disparities among localities (Hien & Thang, 2014, pp. 389–390).

Thirdly, although land is a means of production (Hien, 2019), the nature of support often does not help affected people re-establish their livelihoods. There is no systematic guidance on the proper use of compensation and support funds. Statistics from southern provinces show that 57.5% of households used compensation/support funds to build new houses, 8.72% used them to buy living utensils, and only 2.55% invested in career change or job seeking. As a result, when compensation funds were spent and no productive means remained, many households quickly fell back into poverty (Minh, 2010, p. g5).

style="text-align:center">3.2 Support when the State acquires land for socioeconomic development purposes

The 2013 Land Law, Clause 14, Article 3, defines support when the State acquires land as the State’s assistance to affected persons to help them stabilize their lives, production, and development. Support amounts are understood as the added value provided when the State considers compensation payments; this additional value derives not from the land user’s investment but from the State’s regulatory framework.

There are three primary forms of support provided when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes.

Support for training, career transition, and job search represents the State’s long-term vision, recognizing that land acquisition can disrupt livelihoods. By providing such support, the State aims to minimize social instability arising from compulsory land recovery. To implement this, the Government issued Decision 63/2015/QD-TTg on vocational training and job creation measures for workers following land acquisition. Local governments have also institutionalized these provisions, such as Decision 24/2017/QD-UBND of the Hanoi People’s Committee, Ho Chi Minh City’s implementation plans for Decision 63/2015/QD-TTg, and Decision 08/2015/QD-UBND of Nam Dinh Province.

However, the support mechanism when the State acquires land for socio-economic development purposes requires clarification on several issues.

Firstly, the policy on support for training, career change, and job search does not specify a minimum land area required to qualify for assistance. This results in cases where even a few square meters of agricultural land being acquired still entitles individuals to support, despite such losses not actually affecting employment opportunities.

Secondly, Point a, Clause 1, Article 20 of Decree 47/2014/ND-CP provides that monetary support shall not exceed five times the agricultural land price for the area acquired and that the supported area cannot exceed the agricultural land allocation limit. However, only a maximum is specified; there is no minimum support level. This leads to disparities among localities (Hien & Thang, 2014, pp. 389–390).

Thirdly, although land is a means of production (Hien, 2019), the nature of support often does not help affected people re-establish their livelihoods. There is no systematic guidance on the proper use of compensation and support funds. Statistics from southern provinces show that 57.5% of households used compensation/support funds to build new houses, 8.72% used them to buy living utensils, and only 2.55% invested in career change or job seeking. As a result, when compensation funds were spent and no productive means remained, many households quickly fell back into poverty (Minh, 2010, p. g5).

style="text-align:center">3.3. Support to stabilize life and production when the

State acquires land for socio-economic development

purposes

Compared to the past, the 2013 Land Law has clearly defined the conditions and beneficiaries of policies related to support when the State recovers land as households and individuals directly engaged in agricultural production. Accordingly, in Clause 3, Article 19 of Decree 47/2014/ND-CP, the support for life stabilization is as follows:

a) Acquire from 30% to 70% of the currently used agricultural land area, receive support for six months in case of not relocating, and 12 months in case of having to relocate. If moving to areas with challenging socio-economic conditions, the maximum support period is 24 months.

In cases where more than 70% of the agricultural land area in use is acquired, support will be provided for 12 months if there is no need to relocate and for 24 months if there is a period of relocation; in cases of having to move to areas with difficult socio-economic conditions or poor socio-economic conditions.

b) The prescribed land acquisition area is determined according to each land acquisition decision of the competent People’s Committee. For challenging situations, the maximum support period is 36 months.

From the regulations on conditions to determine the amount of life support when the State acquires agricultural land, the following observations can be drawn:

Firstly, Decree 47/2014/ND-CP defines many limits on land to be acquired to ensure fairness for land users. However, this change is only partially comprehensive and meets social requirements. Because a household may have a small amount of land acquired but still benefits from the support policy (for example, losing 100m²/200m² will be converted to 50% of existing agricultural land). On the contrary, subjects whose land area to be acquired is many times larger may not be considered for support (for example, losing 3,000m²/20,000m² currently). This shows that there will be a case of losing a large land area, but the percentage conversion on the existing land area is relatively small. Therefore, this issue needs to be considered and corrected promptly.

Secondly, as noted in Hien (2021), the regulations to support life stabilization are determined according to each acquisition decision, showing that there will be cases affected by many different acquisition decisions. However, with each decision to acquire lost land being fragmented, although the total lost land area may be quite large, each decision will need a separate support consideration ratio.

Thirdly, the assistance was calculated at the price of rice, which was then converted into money, which proved illogical. If this is determined from the beginning according to the regional minimum wage, it will appear more reasonable and fair among subjects, given that rice prices vary significantly (Vo, 2015). Phuong (2019) argues that a “stable life” must include comprehensive values such as food, accommodation, travel, and entertainment. Valuing support based on rice prices does not accurately reflect the essence of livelihood stability.

style="text-align:center">3.4 Resettlement when the State acquires land for

socio-economic development purposes

Land acquisition/expropriation, forcible evictions, forcible displacement of people from their homes for development projects, and business projects (roads, plants, hydropower, industrial parks, urban areas, and others) occur in many countries. Eviction risks harming the right to housing and many other social rights (education, health care, employment) of the population. The seriousness of forced evictions from the place of residence has long been of concern to the international community. In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Settlements noted that countries must pay special attention to eviction and that “eviction activities are carried out only when conservation and restoration are not possible, and resettlement measures have been taken.”

Each resettlement rate, 16 provinces do not stipulate a minimum resettlement rate in money. Resettlement arrangements in localities are carried out by allocating residential land or houses with a total residential land area for resettlement of 567.40 hectares for 25,770 households and individuals (an average of 220.18 m2/household) and the house area for resettlement is 29,745 m2 for 347 households and individuals deployed in Quang Ninh province. For households and individuals who care for their accommodation, the State will support them with money to find accommodation and resettlement in the amount of 1,218 million VND. Localities generally carry out resettlement using residential land, and resettlement housing areas are mainly carried out in cities with limited residential land funds (Nhan, 2022).

Based on Article 86 of the 2013 Land Law, inheriting and supplementing the principles of resettlement in case of land acquisition that requires relocation as follows: (i) The resettlement plan must be made public; (ii) People whose land is acquired will be given priority for on-site resettlement if there is a resettlement project or resettlement conditions in the land acquisition area; (iii) Prioritize convenient locations for people whose land is acquired to hand over the site early; (iv) Priority will be given to those whose land is acquired and who have contributed to the revolution; (v) Receive enough financial support from the State to buy a minimum resettlement rate if compensation is lacking, support if not enough to buy a minimum resettlement rate. In this case, the land use fee calculation will be based on the specific land price at the resettlement place, and the Provincial People’s Committee will decide the selling price of the house in the resettlement place. However, central legal documents need to mention the issue of guidance on determining land prices and land use fees that people must pay when receiving resettlement grounds.

Based on research from local documents. In addition, Clause 4, Article 86 of the 2013 Land Law stipulates: “If compensation and support money are not enough to buy a minimum resettlement rate, the State will support money enough to buy a minimum resettlement rate.” However, with Clause 1, Article 22 of Decree 47/2014/ND-CP, this issue is stipulated as follows: “Vietnamese households and individuals residing abroad receive residential land and houses. Resettlement, where the amount of compensation for land is less than the value of a minimum resettlement rate, will be subsidized by the difference between the value of the minimum resettlement rate and the amount of compensation for land.” From the above issue, it can be seen that the conditions for support in the two regulations mentioned above are contradictory; if the Land Law is based on calculating total compensation and support (compensation for land, assets attached to land, and other supports, if any), the Decree only considers calculating compensation related to land (Hien & Trang, 2013).

In addition, the time for handing over residential land and houses is determined based on Clause 3, Article 85 of the 2013 Land Law, which stipulates: “Residential land acquisition will only be carried out after completing the construction of housing or infrastructure of the resettlement area.” In general, the completion of construction is different from the resettled people who will be handed over land and resettlement houses soon. Through the study, the authors found that there still need to be documents specifying the time of handing over land and resettlement houses (Than, 2017).

Besides, there is still no close attention related to the post-resettlement process; the case of resettlement in Ha Noi is a typical example when 173 resettlement apartment buildings were handed over. At that time, there were 103 buildings without community houses, only 119 buildings with service business areas, and 54 buildings without parking spaces; the number of established management boards needed to be more significant. According to the data reported by Ha Noi Housing Management and Development Company, by the end of 2018, out of more than 100 resettlement apartment projects, there were over 700 resettlement apartments for ground clearance. However, people have yet to come to carry out procedures for handover, and the number of vacant apartments accounts for a relatively large proportion, with more than 370 apartments. Therefore, it is necessary to set up management boards in resettlement areas to receive and handle relevant issues in the resettlement area.

In addition, the 2013 Land Law does not stipulate a “policy for dealing with temporary accommodation (temporary residence).” However, it can be understood as still containing “policy for dealing with temporary accommodation (temporary residence).” However, this leads to the understanding of some localities that do not regulate “policy for dealing with temporary accommodation (temporary residence).” Clause 3, Article 6 of the 2014 Housing Law on resettlement housing arrangement stipulates: “In case the State invests in renovating or rebuilding an apartment building, the project investor must provide temporary accommodation or pay for resettled people to take care of their accommodation during the renovation and reconstruction period; In case a real estate business and the owner agree to invest in renovating and rebuilding an apartment building, the parties shall agree on the temporary accommodation of the owner during the renovation and rebuilding period.”

Proposal to amend and supplement clause 2, Article 83 of the Land Law with the content: “Support for temporary accommodation (temporary residence) for cases where households, individuals, and Vietnamese residing abroad have to relocate” in order to ensure the consistency of the legal system, making it easy for localities to implement and satisfactorily address people’s temporary residence needs while waiting for resettlement (Dang, 2021).

In the process of national economic development, land acquisition is an inevitable and objective issue, serving the common goal of socio-economic development. Although, the law on land acquisition has changed many times from time to time in order to suit the social context. However, there still exist “gaps” in legal provisions when the issue of regulating the harmonious balance between the interests of subjects such as the State, investors, and people whose land is recovered in the process of compulsory land transfer and use of land for socio-economic development objectives has not yet been addressed.

Accordingly, the compensation, support, and resettlement when the State recovers land for socioeconomic development should be built on the following theoretical foundations: (i) towards the management and coordination of land in a scientific manner, helpful for life, society and people, (ii) towards ensuring fairness and equality in the process of the State conducting compensation, support and resettlement when recovering a land area, (iii) to heighten the responsibility of the State, the relevant subjects in the process of land recovery, towards the goal of sustainable development.