There is no procedure called “renewing a policy approval”. An approval document has no licence-style expiry of its own; it lives by the implementation schedule written inside it. When that schedule passes with the project unimplemented, the right question is not “extend or reapply” but: does the project still exist to be adjusted, or has it been terminated to the point where only a brand-new project remains. The two situations produce entirely different outcomes.
Situation one: the project still lives — adjust the schedule
If the competent authority has not decided to terminate the project operation, and the delay has provable objective causes (slow State connecting infrastructure, prolonged site-clearance compensation, force majeure, State-driven planning change), the investor files a project adjustment — including schedule adjustment and, at approval level, amendment of the schedule-related approval contents — before the approving level under current devolution. The file must carry a truthful implementation report, capital actually deployed, and a credible new schedule commitment, often with security mechanisms such as escrow or financial undertakings as the authority requires.
Timing decides outcomes: an adjustment sought when the project is mildly late and partially implemented reads as normal management; an adjustment sought after an inspection has concluded years of non-implementation reads as evasion, and the authority may refuse adjustment and move to termination handling instead.
Situation two: the project has been terminated — only a new project remains
Once the competent authority has issued a decision terminating project operation under Investment Law 143/2025/QH15 — for non-implementation, unjustified delay or other termination cases — there is nothing left to extend or adjust: the legal subject called “the project” under the old approval is dead. Project land (if State-allocated or leased) is recovered under land law. An investor wanting to redo the same site must establish a new project, through current investor-selection mechanics (auction or bidding where applicable) and a fresh policy approval at the currently competent level — under todays conditions, incentive lists and planning.
A middle variant: a termination decision exists but the investor believes it unlawful — the route is complaint and administrative litigation against that decision within statutory limitation periods, not filing for a nonexistent renewal. Mistaking the procedural route in this variant burns the litigation limitation period while waiting for a procedure that does not exist.
The price few compute: committed incentives and conditions
An old approval usually travels with the incentive frame of its issuance lists: preferential tax rates, land-rent relief, sector conditions of that time. A successful schedule adjustment preserves that frame. A new project, by contrast, takes the incentive lists, sector conditions and planning of the new filing date — many land and energy projects that enjoyed looser conditions of an earlier period will face tighter environmental, planning and access standards. Deciding to abandon and refile “for speed” is sometimes a decision to burn the project largest intangible asset.
Before choosing a route, the investor needs a three-column comparison: conditions and incentives under the current approval; the frame that would apply if filed new today; and termination risk if the project is kept but still cannot proceed. Only where column two is not materially worse than column one and column three is high is the new-project route the economically rational choice.
A policy approval does not expire like a licence — it dies when the project is terminated. Before that point, every schedule problem is solved by proactive adjustment; after it, only a new project under new rules remains. The whole art lies in acting before the point. This draft is pending review by the QA Council.
Frequently asked questions
How long is a policy approval valid?
There is no single fixed term. The approval records an implementation schedule, and its life is tied to that schedule and the follow-on procedural milestones (land, investment registration). A lapsed schedule does not make the approval expire automatically like a licence, but a project not implemented on schedule faces explanation demands, adjustment, or termination of operation under Investment Law 143/2025/QH15 — which is the approval true end point.
Past the schedule without implementation — can it be extended?
There is no standalone approval-extension procedure. If the project has not been terminated, the investor proceeds by schedule adjustment and amendment of schedule-related approval contents, with objective-cause explanations and a feasible new schedule. If the project has already been terminated by decision, there is no subject left to adjust — only a new project, or a complaint and lawsuit against the termination decision if believed unlawful.
What conditions must an extension (adjustment) meet?
Three substantive conditions: the project is not already in a terminated state; the delay causes are objective and document-provable (compensation progress, State infrastructure, force majeure, planning changes); and the newly committed schedule is credible — usually evidenced by financial capacity and a concrete implementation plan. The earlier the adjustment is filed, while the project still shows real implementation signs, the higher the acceptance odds.
Does reapplying from scratch lose committed incentives?
The risk is real. A new project takes the incentive lists, sector conditions and planning of the new filing date; incentives attached to the old approval (tax rates, land-rent relief, locked conditions) do not automatically carry over. That is why the value of current incentives must be compared against the new frame before abandoning an old project — a schedule adjustment preserving the old frame is almost always the cheaper route where still feasible.
Is there a limit on how many times a schedule can be extended?
Investment law sets no universal number of schedule adjustments for all projects, but every adjustment needs reasons and the competent level consent, and authorities assess the accumulated implementation history. A chain of adjustments with no physical progress between them is the classic signal leading to a project termination decision. In other words, the limit is not a count on paper but the evidence of real implementation between adjustments.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council