2010年-世界发展银行全球_Survey_Report_on_Information_Disclosure_of_Land_Management_Regulations_88页_2mb

Summary of the Survey Report on Information Disclosure of Land Management Regulations

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of the disclosure of land management regulations in Vietnam, focusing on both web-based and non-web-based information accessibility at the provincial, district, and commune levels. The study was conducted by the Development and Policies Research Center (DEPOCEN) in collaboration with the World Bank and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through the GAPAP trust fund. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of transparency provisions in the legal framework governing land management and to identify areas for improvement.

Main Findings

Web-Based Information Disclosure

The report investigated five categories of land-related information:

1. Land-Related Administrative Procedures
   • Mandatory on-line: 89.39% of websites published this information.
   • Contact information for feedback: 33.33% of websites provided this.
   • Feedback and recommendations: 34.85% of websites published this.
   • Solutions to feedback: 27.27% of websites published this.
   • Documents regulating fees: 50% of websites published this, though it is not mandatory.
   • Online services for certificates: 13.64% of websites provided this.

The results show a mixed picture. While some mandatory information is widely available, others are not. For instance, although 89.39% of websites published procedures and forms related to land use rights certificates, only 27.27% published the solutions to feedback on administrative procedures.

Information on Land Use Planning

• Reports on detailed land use planning: 51.51% of websites published this.
• Maps of current land-use situations: 9.09% of websites published this.
• Maps of approved detailed land use plans: 22.73% of websites published this.

Only a small percentage of websites provided maps of current land use situations, even though this is a mandatory requirement. However, the availability of reports is relatively high, suggesting some progress in transparency.

Information on Urban Planning

• Drafts of urban planning: 12.12% of websites published this.
• Approved urban planning: 31.82% of websites published this.

The frequency of publication for urban planning information is low, but the accessibility of approved urban planning documents is significantly better than that of draft versions.

Information Concerning Compensation and Resettlement

• Decisions on compensation, support, and resettlement: 39.39% of websites published this.
• Drafts of compensation and resettlement plans: 4.55% of websites published this.

Although these items are not mandatory for online publication, they are still accessible on a number of websites, indicating some voluntary transparency.

Information on Land Allocation

• Criteria for land allocation: 21.21% of websites published this.
• Decisions regarding land allocation: 10.61% of websites published this.

These items are not mandatory for online publication, yet they are available on several websites, suggesting that some local authorities may be proactive in sharing information.

Non-Web-Based Information Disclosure

The study also assessed the accessibility of land-related information at the provincial, district, and commune levels through field observations.

Provincial Level

• Detailed land use planning and plans: 50% of locations had this information available.
• Urban planning: 66.7% of locations had this available.
• Draft urban planning: 16.7% of locations had this available, often requiring a fee.
• Land allocation: 66.7% of locations had this available, mostly with easy access.
• Investment site maps: 16.7% of locations had this available, but access was difficult.
• Agreed consultation minutes on urban planning: Not accessible in any location.

District Level

• Procedure for issuing land use certificates: 87.5% of locations had this information available.
• Land use planning and detailed plans: 41.7% of locations had this available, with free access at most locations.
• Urban planning: 45.8% of locations had this available, with some requiring a fee.
• Draft urban planning: 4.2% of locations had this available, but access was difficult.
• Compensation and resettlement plans: 8.3% of locations had this available, with limited access.
• Agreed consultation minutes on draft plans: 0% of locations had this available.

Commune Level

• Administrative procedures for land use certificates: 79.5% of locations had this information available, with most rated as easy to access.
• List of qualified and unqualified applicants: 29.9% of locations had this available, with most rated as easy to access.
• Decisions on compensation and resettlement: 20.5% of locations had this available, with mostly easy access.
• Draft compensation and resettlement plans: 4.27% of locations had this available, but access was difficult.
• Detailed land use plans: 51.3% of locations had this available, with most rated as easy to access.
• Urban planning (drawings and models): 23.1% of locations had this available, with some rated as easy to access.
• Draft urban planning: 3.4% of locations had this available, but access was difficult.
• Agreed consultation minutes on draft compensation and resettlement plans: 3.4% of locations had this available, but access was difficult.
• Agreed consultation minutes on draft urban planning: 0% of locations had this available.

Performance Analysis

Performance scores were calculated for the 12 provinces based on the accessibility of land-related information at different levels:

• Commune Level: HCMC (4.22), Khanh Hoa (4.08), Ha Noi (3.11), Hung Yen (3.11), Da Nang (2.56), Quang Nam (2.56), Tien Giang (1.89), Thai Binh (2.22), Can Tho (2.00), Bac Ninh (1.67), Ben Tre (1.48), Ha Tinh (1.22).
• District Level: Da Nang (5.00), HCMC (4.17), Khanh Hoa (5.00), Ha Noi (5.00), Can Tho (5.00), Tien Giang (2.50), Thai Binh (1.67), Quang Nam (3.33), Hung Yen (2.50), Ben Tre (1.67), Ha Tinh (1.67), Bac Ninh (0.00).
• Province Level: Da Nang (6.67), HCMC (5.00), Can Tho (5.00), Tien Giang (5.00), Thai Binh (5.00), Quang Nam (3.33), Ha Noi (1.67), Hung Yen (5.00), Khanh Hoa (3.33), Ben Tre (5.00), Ha Tinh (1.67), Bac Ninh (0.00).

The results indicate that higher-income provinces tend to perform better in terms of information accessibility, but some lower-income provinces, such as Quang Nam and Hung Yen, also demonstrated good performance. Overall, the accessibility of information is still limited, especially for non-mandatory items like draft plans and consultation minutes.

Key Issues and Recommendations

Key Issues Identified

• Implementation Capacity: Lack of physical and human resources hinders effective information disclosure.
• Record Management: Poor record-keeping practices, including the absence of archival systems, are a problem.
• Organizational Culture: A non-service-oriented culture and a tendency to require approval from superiors delay information sharing.
• Awareness: Both public officials and citizens often lack awareness of their rights to access land-related information.

Main Viewpoints

• The current legal framework provides a good basis for transparency, but implementation remains inconsistent.
• While some information is available online, the majority of land-related information is still not accessible through the web.
• The accessibility of non-mandatory information is generally low, suggesting that transparency is not always voluntary.
• There is a need for a more comprehensive approach to improve information accessibility and transparency in land management.

Conclusion

Despite the existence of relatively strong laws and regulations, the implementation and enforcement of transparency provisions in land management remain inadequate. Improving the accessibility of land information is crucial for enhancing the efficiency of the land administration system and promoting economic growth. The study highlights the importance of both web-based and non-web-based information disclosure, and recommends a more integrated and systematic approach to ensure that all land-related information is made available in a timely, cost-effective, and transparent manner.