THỦ TỤC CHẤP THUẬN CHỦ TRƯƠNG ĐẦU TƯ: KHÔNG THỂ BỎ, NHƯNG PHẢI "ĐẠI PHẪU" ĐỂ XÓA BỎ CƠ CHẾ "XIN - CH

Hundreds of projects remain “on hold” due to entanglements with the investment policy approval procedure, a highly bureaucratic bottleneck marked by the “ask - give” mechanism, lengthy detours, and unnecessary delays. This has disrupted capital flows and eroded the competitiveness of enterprises. Yet, experts stress that this procedure still functions as an essential “filter” at the entry stage, and thus cannot be abolished; the real issue lies in its implementation. Therefore, a comprehensive “major surgery” is needed to simplify and ensure transparency in this process.

The investment policy approval procedure is weighed down by the “ask - give” mechanism

On 4 August, Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính signed Official Telegram No. 127/CĐ-TTg, requesting ministries, sectors, and local authorities to focus on completing the reduction and simplification of administrative procedures and business conditions, in line with the tasks assigned under Government Resolution No. 66/NQ-CP dated 26 March 2025.

The Prime Minister required ministries and sectors to urgently finalise plans to reduce administrative procedures, ensuring at least a 30% reduction in time, costs, and business conditions, with the deadline set for 15 August 2025. The results of these reductions must be made public on the National Database on Administrative Procedures.

Earlier, at a meeting on 24 May with ministries, sectors, associations, and enterprises regarding the real estate market, the Prime Minister also emphasised the requirement to cut administrative procedures, resolutely abolish unnecessary and cumbersome regulations, eliminate unreasonable standards and norms; while directing the Ministry of Construction to coordinate with localities to review and remove obstacles for real estate projects, and to study the integration of investment procedure regulations into a single decree.

These strong and continuous directives in recent times show that the Government has clearly identified administrative procedures as one of the biggest “bottlenecks” hindering the development of enterprises, particularly in the real estate sector. In this context, many have proposed boldly cutting the investment policy approval procedure, a bottleneck that has left hundreds of projects stagnant, capital flows clogged, investment costs increasing, and the competitiveness of enterprises eroded.

Experts’ opinions: cumbersome, yet indispensable

Commenting on this issue, lawyer Nguyễn Thanh Hà, Chairman of SBLAW Law Firm, admitted that the investment policy approval procedure has become overly bureaucratised, turning into a “technical barrier” that forces enterprises into an “ask - give” spiral right from the very first step, especially for projects related to land, natural resources, or planning.

According to Mr. Hà, the current appraisal process relies excessively on coordination among various departments and sectors. If only one agency delays its response or issues a dissenting opinion, the application may be “suspended” indefinitely. In some cases, conflicting opinions among departments prevent the lead agency from compiling a report to submit to the competent authority. “Not a few large-scale urban projects have lost an entire year merely waiting for appraisal, despite enterprises having submitted complete dossiers from the outset,” Mr. Hà noted.

Another pressing issue troubling investors is sudden changes in local planning. Some projects, after being introduced to a site, conducting full feasibility studies, and even receiving preliminary approval, have been removed from appropriate planning when applying for investment policy approval, leaving investors “empty-handed” after years of preparation.

Ambiguous and excessive requirements for supplementary documents are also widespread. “Enterprises are repeatedly asked to provide explanations or submit documents not clearly stipulated by law, sometimes even resembling a ‘puzzle’, each round of supplementation adding further waiting time and unjustifiably prolonging the appraisal process,” lawyer Hà shared.

Not only procedural hurdles but also conflicts between sectoral and local planning remain a stubborn bottleneck. For example, a wind power project, though already approved in the national power sector plan, still encounters obstacles at the local level as it has not been updated into provincial land-use or construction planning. As a result, the project faces delays, putting enterprises in an awkward situation.

In addition, the existence of “nameless sub-licenses” has become a nightmare for many investors. Although not required by law, in reality, to complete the investment policy approval procedure, enterprises still have to overcome “hurdles” such as letters of “consent” or “preliminary approval” from different agencies and departments, unofficial procedures that nonetheless consume significant time and cost.

Sharing the same view, lawyer Lê Cao, Managing Partner of FDVN Law Firm, argued that the investment policy approval procedure has created numerous obstacles for the investment and implementation process of real estate enterprises.

“Not a few projects are ‘suspended’ merely due to internal procedural entanglements among management agencies. Meanwhile, enterprises still have to shoulder the burden of land, personnel, and financial costs without knowing when they can commence their projects,” lawyer Lê Cao said.

… but should not be abolished

Although heavily influenced by the “ask–give” mechanism and creating many obstacles for enterprises, experts assert that completely abolishing the investment policy approval procedure is unadvisable and unsuitable in the current governance context of Việt Nam.

Lawyer Lê Cao emphasised that, in essence, investment policy approval is an important entry-level control mechanism by competent state authorities to determine the key elements of a project, such as: objectives, location, scale, schedule, duration, investor selection method, and any special mechanisms or policies (if applicable). These are necessary to ensure that projects align with planning, overall development orientation, and feasibility for implementation.

With such contents, skipping the entire investment policy approval process would lead to loosened state management, especially for large-scale projects with extensive socio-economic impacts or significant land and resource use.

More importantly, under current regulations, particularly important projects fall under the investment policy approval authority of the National Assembly or the Prime Minister. If this procedure were abolished, the question arises: “who would have the authority to replace the approval of such core factors?” This risks creating an “equalisation” between large and small projects, between national key projects and ordinary ones, thereby reducing the effectiveness of macro-level investment oversight and management.

“The essence of the investment policy approval procedure is an entry-level filtering mechanism, allowing the State to effectively control fundamental elements of projects, particularly in the context where national and sectoral master plans have been established. If control is loosened, and enterprises are allowed to register indiscriminately, devising investment plans without a standardised appraisal system, deviations from orientation, market distortions, and planning disruptions will be almost inevitable,” lawyer Lê Cao stressed.

Therefore, selecting investors, determining location, scale, duration, and special policies for projects remain necessary, but should be conducted through a streamlined, transparent process with clearly defined responsibilities at each level and sector, rather than allowing “nameless sub-licenses” or “puzzling” requirements to persist.

Lawyer Nguyễn Thanh Hà also argued that completely abolishing the investment policy approval procedure is not advisable, as despite its shortcomings, for certain special projects—such as those related to national defence and security, using large areas of land, outside the approved planning, or with sensitive environmental and social implications—the approval mechanism still plays a critical control role. Above all, if this procedure is entirely removed without a sufficiently robust replacement system for post-implementation monitoring, publicised planning, and investment management data, the risk of omissions or exploitation would be substantial.

Presenting his perspective, Mr. Đậu Anh Tuấn, Deputy Secretary General and Head of the Legal Department of the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), stated that investment policy approval is the initial step in project assessment, aimed at selecting investors and serving as the basis for subsequent procedures. The appraisal of investment policy approval primarily examines whether a project aligns with different types of planning, socio-economic development programmes, housing development plans, land-use planning, or whether it is located within land designated for social housing (if applicable); as well as assessing factors such as cultural heritage preservation or technology (if subject to mandatory appraisal).

However, approval of investment policy does not mean a project has been given the “green light” for implementation. He emphasised that this is only a preliminary assessment, not a substitute for specialised procedures such as environmental impact assessment, technology appraisal, or cultural heritage review. These requirements must still be carried out separately, fully, and independently after the project is approved in principle. In other words, this procedure neither substitutes nor exempts other appraisal steps.

A “major surgery” is needed to simplify investment procedures

According to experts, the core issue is not whether to abolish or retain the investment policy approval procedure, but how to make it genuinely simple, transparent, and risk-management based, avoiding the “ask - give” mechanism, convolutions, and bottlenecks for enterprises.

“Rather than abolishing or retaining, reform is the most reasonable and feasible approach, aligning with the goals of administrative reform while ensuring the effectiveness of state management,” lawyer Nguyễn Thanh Hà remarked.

Accordingly, the investment policy approval procedure should be revised to narrow its scope of application, limiting it only to special projects such as: those involving rice land, forest land, defence–security land; those requesting incentives beyond prescribed frameworks; those with major environmental impacts; or those involving large-scale planning adjustments.

At the same time, it should be integrated with other procedures, reducing the number of appraisal rounds, and promoting electronic interconnection among agencies. Public and transparent criteria and appraisal processes are also essential to prevent the “ask - give” mechanism.

In addition, post-check mechanisms should be strengthened instead of pre-checks, alongside clear sanctions for violations.

“We should neither stubbornly retain an outdated procedure, nor abolish it entirely when the legal and supervisory infrastructure is not yet strong enough. Targeted and prioritised reform is the most appropriate path for Việt Nam’s current context,” emphasised the Chairman of SBLAW.

Lawyer Lê Cao also suggested that only genuinely large and important projects should be subject to investment policy approval, and such approval should fall solely under the authority of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister.

For projects under the authority of provincial People’s Committees, investment licensing conditions and procedures should be systematised, including investor selection through bidding, in order to ensure effective control and minimise overlapping procedures.

Moreover, a transparent, synchronised data system on land resources, planning, and investment conditions should be developed, providing public information on policies and specific requirements of each locality so that enterprises do not have to “grope in the dark.”

Another issue highlighted is the large gap between legal provisions and actual practice, where many procedures stipulated to take only one or two months in law actually force enterprises to wait one to two years. Therefore, administrative reform must not stop at reducing procedures on paper but must be accompanied by solutions to ensure regulations are genuinely enforced in practice. Regulatory agencies need to change their mindset, playing a supportive, encouraging, and cooperative role with enterprises, treating investment attraction as a responsibility of local authorities, instead of perpetuating a “dispensing procedures” mentality.

“It is proclaimed that development is to be facilitated, yet enterprises continue to struggle in the labyrinth of the ‘ask–give’ mechanism, under such circumstances, breakthroughs cannot be expected,” lawyer Cao concluded.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------