Even though the Prime Minister’s decision number 3308 for year 2022 with regard to the immediate allotment of the industrial lands of the investors in applying the principle of usufruct, the decision included some important points that require modification:

• The decision of the H.E Prime Minister no. 3308 for year 2022 with regard to the industrial land in most of the decreed rulings, especially concerning the rules and established prices, have been already issued from the Industrial Development Authority and the responsible commission with the decision no. 2100 for year 2021.
• There was no discussion held with the Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI) about the prices of the lands included in the decree which are overpriced and not attracting any investment/investors.
• The decision did not include the required documents, even though the FEI had its reservations and objected several times about the documents required from the industrial investors after formulating committee 2100 for year 2021 such as providing detailed feasibility studies that include a technical,  economic, and fiscal studies. Also, infrastructure studies, capital investment, proposed fund, schedule of outdated products, production cost list, and a 5-year prospective income list starting from the project’s initiation date. Furthermore, referencing the procedures and pricing for the established committee according to the PM’s decision no. 2100 for year 2021, in contrast to what the decree no.95 for 2018 included.
• The decision did not include the timeframe/period installments shall be paid through.
• The decision included that the proposed prices are for guidance.
• The decision did not elaborate on what the investors should do in case the piece of land was not delivered and this is a common situation that happened with most investors.
• In the first clause, chapter no.5 ‘’In case the investor does not pay for two consecutive installments, the ownership entity has the right to terminate the contract’’.
• In the first clause, chapter no.6 ‘’The land is given to, including what is established/built on it, to its protectorate after the usufruct period is over’’
• In all cases, that who is assigned shall comply with all the assignments’ requirements, which include implementing the project and starting the initiation process in three-years’ time maximum starting from the date of receiving the land, in addition to complying with the specified scheduled period of time, otherwise, the piece of land is withdrawn/taken with usufruct during the time of having the piece of land. These are the rules that are applied presently which have many disadvantages such as:
  • The contracts that are formulated with the investor are compliance contracts meaning that s/he do not have the right to object to any clause and it also includes what was mentioned in the abovementioned chapter no.6 according to the PM’s decision.
  • The existence of natural obstacles, in the lands being delivered, is not taken into consideration. Such as the existence of a hill or other obstacles which shall take a period of time from the investor to remove, in addition to the increasing burden of the construction costs. Also, the delay fines are doubled on a monthly basis and also standard costs
  •  The attached lands are not delivered with the specified given piece of land whether at the starting date of land receival or during the implementation/execution of the process. The owning entity does not comply with the aforementioned and delay fines are applied on the investor in case a delay takes place for the scheduled period.
  • The Industrial Development Authority sets the execution program for a time limit of three years, without taking into account any obstacles or impediments that impede the process.
•  What was mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 3 of the PM’s decision which states ‘’Paying the price of the land after reevaluating its commercial price while deducting what has been paid as usufruct’’
   

• The period of installment should be a 15-year period.
• The prevailing notion about the lands issue is that industrial development and supporting manufacturers to reduce construction costs for factories to expand industrial production instead of land trading.
• Simplify the documents that are required from the industrial investors after establishing the committee 2100 for year 2021 such as providing a detailed feasibility study.
• The importance of clarifying other options for the investors in case the attached lands are not delivered.
• The existence of grace periods in case of occurrence of out-of-control circumstances that affects the investor such as what took place in the case of COVID19 pandemic or the Russian-Ukrainian war or any critical occurrences that may affect the investor’s income and their ability to pay their debts steadily. Hence, a grace period must be included, and a first notice should be sent, and a second notice should be sent in a specified period of time that would allow them to utilize their resources to pay the belated debt especially since delay interest are applied according to the interest value issued in the bank.
• To activate paragraph no.5, clause no.35, rule no.95 with regard to Industrial Development Authority and the noncompliance of the person of concern of the requested schedule; ‘’meaning that the investors must establish the executive time schedule themselves’’.
• To validate the rights of the investor as the law did not specify the three-years established by the Industrial Development Authority without giving due consideration to the obstacles that might hinder the process during that time.
• To specify a value that the investor gets by the end of the usufruct period in return to what have been established such as buildings or production lines in case the factory is not completely sold.
• Changing the notion of the commercial price evaluation of the lands once owned, as the investor is the one that raised the commercial prices with the established investments since beginning the project. This has been objected by the FEI several times as the mindset of land trade still is dominated by the notion of selling the lands with the highest prices instead of maximizing production and industrial development.
• In case of agreement on buying the land and owning it in a period of 5 years, the price of the land should be the same in the agreement as during usufruct period while deducting what has been paid during the latter period from the price value of the land.