Ground clearance: Factors influencing affected land users and solutions in vietnam

Nội dung text: Ground clearance: Factors influencing affected land users and solutions in vietnam

1. GROUND CLEARANCE: FACTORS INFLUENCING AFFECTED LAND USERS AND SOLUTIONS IN VIETNAM Le Nguyen Hong Phuong (MBA) hphuongtuan123@gmail.com Real Estate Research & Development Institute Abstract This research analizes factors which influence land users whose land is acquired for public purposes, therefore, proposes a number of solutions to improve compulsory land acquisition (CLA) in Vietnam. The supposed factors include legal basis on CLA, the attitude of affected land users towards projects, the knowledge level of land users in law, Disagreement between the Government and the land users (price and other factors). The solutions include both longterm and shorterms ones to better land acquisition progress. Key words: Compulsory land acquisition, ground clearance, compensation 1. Introduction Vietnam is growing rapidly, to catch up with this growing speed, it is essential that roads, schools and other facilities should be developed. However, when broadening roads or requiring land for other developing purposes, in many cases, the government has lots of difficulties in ground clearance. People whose land is located in clearance areas react and protest drastically. These leads to class action petitions and complaints, directly creates bad public opinion. Moreover, it is the main reason for slowing down the project progress. This report research what is the reason for this conflict and what is the suitable method to implement ground clearance, how to balance public needs and private interests. 2. Method Based on the combination of available materials and interviews of land users, this study researches and evaluates factors influencing the reacts of people to the government’s decision of ground clearance together with providing examples. Thanks to quick interviews with some affected land users, the author proposes some factors to research, one of them is the gap in compensation and market price. To have information, I contacted Tuan 123 joint stock company - the leading one in transactions of residential land in Vietnam. I ask for accessing to their statistic of houses sold on Dai La street (Hai Ba Trung district), based on price of 100 houses 1168
2. sold from 2014 until now to get the average to compare to the government price and compensation price. Therefore, the author proposes a number of solutions to better clearance progress. 3. Results 3.1. Factors influencing reacts of affected land users a. Unclear Legal basis on Compulsory Land Acquisition According to Article 53, 54 of the Constitution 2013 and Article 4 Land Law 2013, Land belongs to the entire people, is represented by the State and unified to manage the land. Section 1 of Chapter 6 Land Law 2013 indicates that the State may recover land for national defense or security purpose, for socio- economic development in the national or public interests and Section 2 regulates principals for compenstionas. These principals are offering properties of the same use value rights as the recovered land, in case there are no available land, the land users are offered compensation in money. However, the definition of “the same use value” is not clarified which causes the conflicts between the land users and the State. A typical example is the project of ring road 1, Hoang Cau – Voi Phuc. Information from interviews of 139 families on De La Thanh street, whose land is acquised for ground clearance. 139 families deny to move to the new resettlement areas. According to the decision of Hanoi People’s Committee, people in Ba Dinh district are offered resettlement land in Xuan La (Tay Ho district), Nghia Do, Nam Trung Yen (Dong Da), people in Dong Da street are offered land in Co Nhue 2 (Bac Tu Liem district), Nam Trung Yen, Trung Hoa (Cau Giay district). It is clear that Ba Dinh and Dong Da districts are located in the more central areas than Cau Giay and Bac Tu Liem districts. Their houses now locate at very high value positions which are called “street houses” which can be rent with high price or they can do business by themselves. In the new places, they are offered apartments in high buildings or less central areas. This change leads them to get familiar to the new life, many families have to change their careers. For those people, this change is not “the same value use rights”. Another example is Ho Chi Minh road project. Mr Nguyen Thanh Thien, Dong Tien, Dong Vai, Xuan Mai, Chuong My, Ha Noi said the land users agree to move to the resettlement area in Ao Khoai, next to road 21. However, the resettlement area was changed to Dong Vai, Cay Va without full facilities for living. Land users did not agree to this change. Article 74 Land Law 2013 shows that the compensation is based on the principal of allocating new land with the same land use purpose with the recovered 1169
3. land. However the same land use purpose in different positions are different in value use rights. Is essential that Vietnam law clarify the definition of “land with the same land use purpose”? Should the State add the definition of “the same value use rights” as a principal in compensation? Article 67 Land Law 2013 indicates that the competent authorities before officially issuing a decision on land recovery have to notify the land users at least 90 days prior to the recovery of agricultural land and 180 days prior to the recovery of non-agricultural land. Is the period of 90 days and 180 days long enough for land users to fully understand the projects? Do the land users have enough time to clarify all the problems and have answers to all questions? To have agreement from land users, it is essential that they have full understanding of the meanings of the projects and the competent state agencies should spend more time explaining and convincing land users. b. The attitude of affected land users towards projects: Land users do not agree with the changes in project In some cases, there are changes in the project compared to the project announced, these changes lead to benefits of land users are affacted. For example, in Voi Phuc – Hoang Cau project, the land users believe that the recovered land is not in Plan 1999. The investors suppose this area is jamed land and propose this area is for parking and parks. Opposed to the investors, land users believe they live there for many years, from 1975, have lawful documents on land use rights (according to Mrs Pham Thi Nga at 369 De La Thanh). This is a question of to balance public and private interests. These land users feel surprised with the change in plan compared to plan 1999 and refuse to move. Until now, the problem of ground clearance of 139 families here is still in progress. De La Thanh street is now still full of banners protesting ground clearance. c. The knowledge level of land users in law: The confusion between land use rights and land ownership rights The Constitution 2013 indicates that land is owned by the entire people, not any individuals. However, due to the low understanding of many people, they think they hold the “red books”, they own land. This is confusing, what they own is the land use rights, not land. In many interviews with these families, they are not able to distinguish these definitions. This links to the fact that they think they “sell” land to the State, therefore, they demand a high price. d. Disagreement between the Government and the land users In a number of countries in the world, their laws admit 2 kinds of compensation: compensation for tangible and intangible benefits. Article 14.28 UK Land Compensation Act 1973 admits compensation for physical and unphysical factors. 1170
4. Tangible benefits include land and properties attached to land. Intangible benefits mean benefits deprived from land recovered and land users such as mental damage, air pollution, noise pollution, etc. Land Law 2013 and other legal documents admits most tangible benefits which can be measured in money but intangible benefits. Land law 2013 mention government supports on career change, training, job seeking, however, this is “supports” that means it is not a kind of compulsory compensation. Moreover, these support activities are not implemented in a effective ways, most land users have difficulties in benefiting. In many projects, land users refuse the compensation, they demand to keep using the land because of vocational issues, especially families in street houses where they live on their shops. A gap between compensation price and market price The main reason for conflicts in most projects is the gap between compensation price and market price. Land users demand market price for compensation instead of price offered by government. From 2015 until now, the State has increased the price for compensation however, it is still lower than market price. Ring road 2 project, in area of Dong Tam ward, Hai Ba Trung district is a typical example. This graph below shows the increase in government price for residential land in Dong Tam ward. Location 1, Location 2, Location 3, Location 4 definitions are detailed in 63/2013/QĐ-UBND and 96/2014/QĐ-UBND decisions (No change in 19/2017/QĐ- UBND decision) Table 1: Government Residential Land Price 2014 and 2015 – now Dai La street (Hai Ba Trung District) Source: 63/2013/QĐ-UBND and 96/2014/QĐ-UBND decisions 1171
5. This graph below shows the increase in government price for non-agricultural land in Dong Tam ward: Table 2: Government Non-agricultural Land Price 2014 and 2015 – now Dai La street (Hai Ba Trung District) Source: 63/2013/QĐ-UBND and 96/2014/QĐ-UBND decisions According to decision 96/2014/QĐ-UBND, land price adjustment coefficient k = 2,1384 leads to the difference in government price and compensation price. Despite the efforts of government, there is still gap between compensation price and market price. The market price is based on the statistic of Tuan 123 Joint Stock company. The market price is calculated by the average price of 100 houses sold by the company from 2014 until now. Source: Tuan 123 Joint stock company 1172
6. It is easily seen that, the land users here feel loss when compare compensation price to market price. 3.2. Solutions a. Raise awareness of land users about land law It is indicated clearly in Constitution 2013 and Land Law 2013 that “Land belongs to the entire people with the State acting as the owner’s representative and uniformly managing land. The State shall hand over land use rights to land users”. The land users have the rights to use land, not land. Therefore, they should cooperate with the State in recovering land for public works. A number of provinces have experience in ground clearance, for example Vinh Phuc. This province have a large number of staff come to every family to communicate with them and understand why they disagree as well as explain fully the meaning of the projects Noi Bai – Lao Cai highway project, 2012. Almost all conflicts come from the misunderstanding, increasing communication with land users is the main solution to solve this problem. b. Remove gaps between compensation price and market price According to Phan Thi Thanh Huyen (2018), finance factors have the biggest influence on ground clearance progress with 27 percent. Therefore, solving this problem may bring a good result. c. Other solutions Besides, to simplify the order and procedures for compensation, support and resettlement when the state recovers land, providing land users more transparant information, building plans for longer periods while considering to balance public and private interests are other methods to improve ground clearance progress. 4. Discussion and conclusion By examing factors affecting reacts of land users to decisions on land recovery, this report propose some solutions for ground clearance. The most important and easiest way is to increase communication between competent agencies and the land users who are directly affected. Finance factors are the main reason in many cases, therefore an improvement in compensation which considers both tangible and intangible benefits should be effective. Ground clearance is a difficult question that needs cooperation between the State and competent agencies together with raising awareness of land users. 1173
7. 5. References 1. Aliefendioğlu, Y. & Tanrıvermiş, H. (2016). Evaluation of Land Acquisition and Expropriation for Investment Projects in Turkey within the Framework the Turkish Laws and International Standards: The Case of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Crude Oil Pipeline Project. Royal Agricultural University Working Paper, UK. 2. Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation. (2008). Retrieved from 3. Correspondent, N. (2019). Cabinet clears land bill despite protests. Retrieved from protests-466734 4. Khan, M.I. (2014). Some Observations on Compensation and Productive Capital Base Depreciation of Land Acquisition Affected Farmers, Excellence International Journal of Scientific Research: 5. Phan, T., Pham, Q., Nguyen, L., Xuan, T., & Phung, M. (2018). Factors affecting the compensation, ground clearance in Ha Tinh City, Ha Tinh Province. 6. Phan Trung Hien (2003), Compensation and Ground clearance, Can Tho University 7. Phan Trung Hien (2008), Law on compensation and Ground clearance in Vietnam – balance public and private interests, Science Magazine 8. The New Land Acquisition Act to come into effect from 2014 (2019). Retrieved from new-land-acquisition-act-to-come-into-effect-from- 2014/articleshow/24218491.cms 9. Tanrivermiş, H., & Aliefendioğlu, Y. (2017). Principles of land acquisition, expropriation, and compensation calculation for infrastructure projects in Turkey and an analysis of key issues. “2017 World bank conference on land and poverty” the world bank - washington dc, march 20-24, 2017 10. The World Bank. (2002). World Bank Policy on Involuntary Resettlement Policy Directive (OD 4.30), Washington DC., USA 11. Viitanen K., Falkenbach, H. & Nuuja, K. (2010). Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Recommendations for Good Practice, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), FIG Commission 9-Valuation and the Management of Real Estate, November 2010, Denmark. 12. Wallace, J. (2009). Land Acquisition in Developing Economies. 7th FIG Regional Conference, 19– 22 October 2009, Hanoi, Vietnam; FIG Article of the Month, February 2010. e. html. 1174