An FDI project stalls on site clearance, a zoning plan changes mid-way, or a state agency sits on paperwork — where does the investor turn? Vietnam’s 2025 Investment Law (Law 143/2025/QH15, effective 01/03/2026) gives a three-tier answer rather than a single “difficulty hotline”: (A) a reporting channel plus the accountability of state agencies to resolve obstacles, with an early-warning mechanism for international investment disputes; (B) concrete legal tools for schedule delays and term adjustments; (C) an administrative steering mechanism outside the Law. Knowing which tier you stand on matters — because “the right to report under the Law” and “a government steering committee” are two entirely different things.
Tier A — Reporting channel and state accountability
The foundation is Article 44 of Law 143/2025, which assigns state management responsibilities for investment:
- Ministry of Finance (Clause 2(g), Article 44): formulates and submits to competent authorities the mechanism for resolving investors’ difficulties and preventing disputes between the State and investors.
- Ministries and ministerial-level agencies (Clause 3(g), Article 44): resolve difficulties and obstacles within their management domains.
- Provincial People’s Committees and investment registration agencies (Clause 4(d), Article 44): resolve difficulties within their competence or refer them to competent authorities.
- Investment inspection and supervision also carry the duty to propose measures for handling obstacles (Clause 4, Article 45).
Decree 96/2026/ND-CP (issued and effective 31/03/2026) details this in Article 9 (six clauses) — the provision every FDI investor should know by heart:
- Investors have the right to report obstacles and make recommendations on the application and enforcement of the law (Clause 1).
- State agencies are responsible for resolving investors’ reports and recommendations in accordance with the law (Clause 2).
- Investors have the right to complain, denounce, and initiate administrative lawsuits (Clause 3).
- Early-warning mechanism (Clause 4) — the most valuable innovation: where an obstacle risks developing into an international investment dispute, the discovering agency must promptly notify the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in writing for coordinated prevention.
- Where an international investment dispute has already arisen, coordination follows the Prime Minister’s coordination regulation (Clause 5).
- Provincial People’s Committees resolve investors’ difficulties locally (Clause 3(b), Article 91); the Ministry of Finance guides the reporting regime for obstacle reports (Clause 6).
Practical note: report first to the authority competent for the stage where the obstacle arose (the investment registration agency, the provincial People’s Committee, or the line ministry) instead of sending petitions in circles. Note that the Law and the Decree impose an obligation to resolve but set no general deadline for responding to obstacle reports — there is no “X-day reply rule” in the 2025 Investment Law.
When obstacles escalate into disputes
The administrative channel and the dispute channel are different tiers — do not confuse them. Where obstacles cannot be resolved and become disputes, Article 13 of Law 143/2025 provides: negotiation and conciliation first; failing that, arbitration or courts. For disputes between foreign investors and state agencies: Vietnamese arbitration or Vietnamese courts, unless the contract or an applicable international treaty provides otherwise.
Because an international investment dispute is extremely costly, the early-warning mechanism in Clause 4, Article 9 of Decree 96 exists so that obstacles are handled while they are still “obstacles” — the earlier the report, the better the chance of stopping at the administrative tier.
Tier B — Concrete legal tools in the Law
Beyond the reporting channel, the Law provides tools for the specific situations investors commonly face:
Delay periods excluded from project schedules (Article 31.3)
Periods of delayed project implementation or operating terms are excluded from the project’s schedule and term in the cases listed in points a, b, c, d and g of Clause 4, Article 33, including: remedying force majeure consequences; delayed land allocation, land lease, or land-use purpose conversion approval by the State; project adjustments at the request of a state management agency or delayed administrative procedures by state agencies; state agencies changing zoning plans; and other cases prescribed by the Government. The cap on schedule adjustment is 24 months from the initial schedule — but the above cases do not count toward this cap.
Practical example: a project delayed 8 months because land was not allocated — those 8 months do not count toward the committed schedule.
Re-determining the term when acquiring an old project (Article 52.6)
Transitional rule: an investor acquiring a project implemented before 01/03/2026, already granted a land use right certificate, having fulfilled financial obligations on land, and not subject to termination (Article 36), but whose remaining term does not fit the financial and business plan → the competent authority considers re-determining the term when approving/adjusting the investment policy or granting/adjusting the Investment Registration Certificate. Term caps: 70 years in economic zones, 50 years outside economic zones, up to 70 years in special cases.
Streamlined procedures and term adjustments
- Article 28 — special investment procedures: cutting administrative procedures at the root for qualifying projects.
- Articles 31.4–31.5 — adjusting (increasing or decreasing) project operating terms and considering extensions; except for projects using obsolete technology, at risk of environmental pollution, resource-intensive projects, and projects subject to uncompensated transfer.
Important: every schedule adjustment or term extension requires a procedure (investment policy approval/adjustment or Investment Registration Certificate grant/adjustment) — there is no “automatic extension” for delayed projects. Article 31.3 only excludes delay periods from the schedule and term calculation.
Tier C — Steering Committee 751: an administrative mechanism OUTSIDE the Law
The Steering Committee for resolving difficulties and obstacles of backlogged projects (commonly called Steering Committee 751) is an administrative steering mechanism of the Government — not a provision of the 2025 Investment Law. The Law provides the mechanism (reporting rights, resolution duties, early warning) but establishes no steering board or task force. Head of the Committee: Standing Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Tuc; standing agency: the Ministry of Finance.
Figures from the meeting on 30/09/2026: 5,012 projects recorded (total capital of about VND 3.69 quadrillion); 71% (3,557 projects, about VND 2.49 quadrillion) resolved with no remaining obstacles; 1,131 projects still being handled; 158 projects under central authority. These figures change continuously with handling progress — always check the latest updates and do not treat them as fixed statutory numbers.
FAQs
Where do I report land-related obstacles?
The investment registration agency or the provincial People’s Committee (Clause 4(d), Article 44); if the matter falls under a ministry’s domain, that ministry must resolve it (Clause 3(g), Article 44); provincial People’s Committees also resolve investors’ difficulties locally (Clause 3(b), Article 91 of Decree 96).
Do delays caused by a state agency’s slow paperwork count toward the project term?
No — under Article 31.3 combined with point c, Clause 4, Article 33 of Law 143/2025.
What if I acquire an old project whose remaining term is too short for my business plan?
Article 52.6 allows the competent authority to consider re-determining the term during the investment policy approval/adjustment or Investment Registration Certificate grant/adjustment — provided the project was implemented before 01/03/2026, holds a land use right certificate, has fulfilled land financial obligations, and is not subject to termination.
Does the Law set a deadline for state agencies to respond to obstacle reports?
No. The Law and Decree 96 impose a duty to resolve in accordance with the law, without a general response deadline.
Is your project facing obstacles and need to identify the right reporting channel and competent authority? Contact FLAT Law Firm via our Contact page for support.
The above is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Citations follow the instruments in force at the time of writing (October 2026); please verify against the original texts before applying.
Transparency note: This article was drafted by the AI content production system of FLAT Law Firm and will be reviewed by the internal review council (AI Legal Council) before publication; it has not been reviewed by a human lawyer.
