An FDI project in a border province is not simply a project in a distant province: when the site touches the border belt, an island or a sensitive coastal area, the investment file must pass an additional opinion layer from defence and public security authorities. This is a real procedure in the law, and it adds real time to the project schedule.
The basis of the security procedure layer
Investment law sets an opinion-seeking mechanism with the Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of Public Security for foreign investor projects involving land on islands and in border and coastal communes, wards and townships — reflected in the capital contribution registration and project appraisal rules of the Law on Investment 143/2025/QH15 and its guiding Decree 96/2026/ND-CP. In parallel, the Land Law 31/2024/QH15 restricts allocating and leasing land in border areas to foreign-invested organisations at positions affecting national defence and security. This layer checks the location, not the investor’s capability, so it applies by site and project nature (ports, logistics, telecoms and energy near the border are examined more closely than ordinary commercial projects).
Which extra steps actually arise
In file practice, the investment registration agency sends an opinion request to the competent defence and public security authorities for the project location; the investor may have to supplement a detailed location map, plot coordinates, an explanation of activities at the site and investor information for security screening. A project entirely inside a border gate economic zone or a border industrial park with approved planning usually passes this layer more lightly, because the zone’s planning was already appraised for defence factors at establishment. By contrast, a scattered outside-zone project right against the border line, or one with major port and warehousing infrastructure, should budget for the full opinion round.
Schedule impact and how to manage it proactively
The inter-agency opinion round does not sit neatly inside the statutory IRC timeline as investors usually understand it, so a border project’s real schedule should add a buffer over an equivalent inland project — the buffer depends on location and sector, with no published common figure. Effective management: ask the registration agency at the very first meeting whether the intended site falls into the defence and public security opinion category; if yes, build the milestone into the master plan and the land lease (IRC conditions precedent, deposit deadline extension rights), and avoid committing schedules to customers on inland-project assumptions.
Siting principle in a border province
Prefer positions inside a border gate economic zone or border industrial park with approved planning, inheriting the completed planning appraisal layer; confirm in writing with the registration agency whether a security opinion is required for the specific site before paying a deposit; and add a proportionate schedule buffer to every external commitment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is investing in a border province harder?
Harder by one procedural layer: projects involving land in border, coastal or island areas must pass an opinion round with defence and public security authorities under the Law on Investment 143/2025/QH15 and Decree 96/2026/ND-CP, plus border land limits in the Land Law 31/2024/QH15.
What extra procedures apply versus other provinces?
An inter-agency opinion round on the project location, possibly with supplements: coordinate maps, explanations of on-site activities and investor security screening. Projects inside a border gate economic zone or border park with approved planning usually pass more lightly than scattered outside-zone sites.
How much extra time does it take?
There is no published fixed figure: the extra time depends on location and project nature. The right method is to confirm with the registration agency at the start whether the project falls into the opinion category, then add a matching buffer to the plan and the land lease.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council