The economic land scoring grid: how your project is rated out of 1,500 points
📌 In short: Allocating economic land is not a matter of judgement: it rests on a quantified scoring grid, published as Annex I to Executive Decree no. 26-154 of 14 April 2026. Eight criteria, coefficients ranging from 1 to 7, and a maximum score of 1,500 points. Applications are processed digitally, ranked in descending order of score, and only projects falling within the top three score levels are pre-selected. Understanding the real weight of each criterion means knowing where an application is actually decided.
Keywords in this article
1. Digital scoring, a ranking, and three levels retained
Executive Decree no. 26-154 of 14 April 2026, published in Official Gazette no. 31 of 28 April 2026, rewrites Article 7 of Decree no. 23-487. Processing of an economic land application "is carried out digitally, by means of the project evaluation grid, the model for which appears in Annex (I) attached to this decree, cross-referenced against the property targeted by the applicant".
Three procedural points are worth noting before even looking at the criteria.
Ranking is automatic
It is carried out "digitally, in descending order of the score obtained". No human judgement intervenes at this stage.
Only three score levels are pre-selected
The Agency draws up a list of projects ranked in the top three score levels, whose declared information has been examined and found consistent with the required documents. A single level may contain several projects with the same score.
The board decides anonymously
The list is submitted anonymously by the director general, together with the examination and evaluation sheets. The board decides "taking into account, in particular, the score obtained, the coefficient of each criterion, the parameters, the importance of the project and its impact on the national economy".
📌 What this implies. The score does not decide alone, but it decides access to the decision: outside the top three levels, the file never reaches the board. The first objective is therefore not to be the best, but to enter the zone where you are examined at all.
2. The full grid: eight criteria, coefficients and scores
Here is the Annex I grid, reproduced in full. The "score" column is the parameter value multiplied by the criterion's coefficient.
| Criterion | Coef. | Parameter | Value | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of the activity | 7 | Priority 1 | 60 | 420 |
| Priority 2 | 40 | 280 | ||
| Priority 3 | 20 | 140 | ||
| Investment amount | 6 | ≥ 100 billion DA | 60 | 360 |
| 50 ≤ amount < 100 billion DA | 55 | 330 | ||
| 10 ≤ amount < 50 billion DA | 50 | 300 | ||
| 7 ≤ amount < 10 billion DA | 40 | 240 | ||
| 5 ≤ amount < 7 billion DA | 35 | 210 | ||
| 2 ≤ amount < 5 billion DA | 30 | 180 | ||
| 1 ≤ amount < 2 billion DA | 20 | 120 | ||
| 0.5 ≤ amount < 1 billion DA | 15 | 90 | ||
| 0.1 ≤ amount < 0.5 billion DA | 10 | 60 | ||
| < 0.1 billion DA | 5 | 30 | ||
| Own funds contribution | 4 | Contribution ≥ 70% | 50 | 200 |
| 50% ≤ contribution < 70% | 40 | 160 | ||
| 30% ≤ contribution < 50% | 30 | 120 | ||
| Contribution < 30% | 20 | 80 | ||
| Employment | 5 | ≥ 500 jobs | 60 | 300 |
| 250 ≤ jobs < 500 | 50 | 250 | ||
| 100 ≤ jobs < 250 | 40 | 200 | ||
| 50 ≤ jobs < 100 | 30 | 150 | ||
| 10 ≤ jobs < 50 | 20 | 100 | ||
| < 10 jobs | 10 | 50 | ||
| Job sustainability | 1 | Fixed-term contracts < 20% | 60 | 60 |
| 20% ≤ fixed-term share < 30% | 40 | 40 | ||
| Fixed-term share ≥ 30% | 10 | 10 | ||
| Investment extension | 1 | Adjoining property | 70 | 70 |
| Other property | 35 | 35 | ||
| Contribution to export diversification | 1 | Share > 50% | 30 | 30 |
| 25% ≤ share ≤ 50% | 20 | 20 | ||
| Share < 25% | 10 | 10 | ||
| Share = 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Local content (integration rate) | 2 | Rate > 50% | 30 | 60 |
| 25% ≤ rate ≤ 50% | 20 | 40 | ||
| Rate < 25% | 10 | 20 | ||
| Rate = 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Maximum score | 1,500 | |||
3. The real weight of each criterion: four lines make 85% of the score
Read line by line, the grid suggests the eight criteria carry similar weight. Set against the maximum of 1,500 points, it tells a different story.
| Criterion | Maximum score | Share of total |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the activity | 420 | 28% |
| Investment amount | 360 | 24% |
| Employment | 300 | 20% |
| Own funds contribution | 200 | 13.3% |
| Investment extension | 70 | 4.7% |
| Job sustainability | 60 | 4% |
| Local content | 60 | 4% |
| Export diversification | 30 | 2% |
The first four criteria represent 1,280 points out of 1,500, or 85% of the score. The last four combined cap out at 220 points — less than the employment criterion alone.
The decisive criterion: nature of the activity
With a coefficient of 7 and a spread from 420 to 140 points depending on priority, this is the heaviest and most discriminating criterion. Yet it does not depend on the project's financial structure: priorities "are determined by the Agency, in consultation with the sectors concerned and the walis, on the basis of a study of investment intentions expressed by project sponsors, and settled after deliberation by the board".
The text adds a decisive detail: the property on offer is accompanied, when displayed on the digital platform, "by a technical sheet specifying the criterion relating to the activity specific to the property concerned".
⚠️ Practical consequence. The priority 1, 2 or 3 classification is read on the technical sheet of the plot you are targeting, before applying. Applying for a property whose technical sheet does not match your activity means accepting a 280-point gap out of 1,500 from the outset — rarely recoverable through the other criteria.
What score would your project achieve?
We simulate your score across the eight criteria of the grid, identify the recoverable points, and align the techno-economic study with the figures you declare.
Simulate my project's score →4. The financial criteria: amount and contribution are read together
The grid carries an explicit reading note for criteria 2 and 3: "The correlation between the two criteria allows an assessment of the investor's capacity to raise the financing needed to carry out the project."
In other words, these two criteria are not independent. Announcing a large investment to capture the 360 points for amount while declaring a contribution below 30% produces a readable combination: 360 + 80 = 440 points, but above all an apparent inconsistency between stated ambition and demonstrated means.
Three combinations, at the same investment amount
A worked reading, for a 3 billion DA project — 180 points for the amount:
| Declared contribution | "Contribution" score | Total of the two criteria |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 70% | 200 | 380 |
| 50% to 70% | 160 | 340 |
| 30% to 50% | 120 | 300 |
| < 30% | 80 | 260 |
The gap between the best and worst contribution scenario is 120 points — equivalent to two investment amount brackets. A more modest but strongly self-financed project can therefore outrank a more ambitious but thinly capitalised one.
Remember that the declared contribution must be evidenced: the decree requires proof of financial capacity, including a bank statement or financial statements. We cover this in our article on the techno-economic study template, and its link with bank financing in the one on the own contribution banks actually require.
5. The secondary criteria: few points, but easy to win
The last four criteria total only 220 points. They are nonetheless the most neglected — even though they turn on project design choices rather than additional resources.
- Investment extension (70 points). An adjoining property is worth 70 points, against 35 for any other. The reading note specifies that this criterion "takes into account experience in the field concerned". An investor already established therefore has an interest in targeting an extension rather than a new site.
- Job sustainability (60 points). The parameter is the share of fixed-term contracts: under 20% is worth 60 points, 30% or more only 10. A 50-point gap obtained through a single contracting-structure choice.
- Local content (60 points). The integration rate is calculated as "the value of locally produced inputs relative to total inputs of the manufactured product". Exceeding 50% doubles the score compared with a rate below 25%.
- Export diversification (30 points). Calculated as "the share of exports in projected output". It is the lightest criterion, but costs nothing to document where the project has an export purpose.
🔎 Field observation (our engagements, not a regulatory text). In the files we are asked to rework, these four criteria are rarely quantified: the integration rate and export share are often left blank or filled in by guesswork. Yet they are the only points on the grid obtainable without increasing either investment or headcount — provided they are calculated and documented in the study.
6. Preparing your application: the order of decisions
Observations from our advisory practice, not regulatory provisions.
- Read the property's technical sheet first. It sets the expected activity, and therefore the 420-point criterion. That choice precedes all others.
- Simulate the score before filing. All eight criteria are public and quantified: a simulation table takes an hour to build and avoids a wasted application.
- Arbitrate between amount and contribution, don't just maximise the amount. The two are read together; unfunded ambition shows.
- Quantify the four secondary criteria in the study. Integration rate, export share, fixed-term share, adjacency: these are figures to calculate, not intentions to declare.
- Check consistency between the grid and the techno-economic study. Headcount, amount and contribution declared in the application must match those in the study. A divergence between the two documents is the leading ground for non-conformity.
This article reproduces the evaluation grid published as Annex I to Executive Decree no. 26-154; it constitutes neither legal advice nor a guarantee of obtaining economic land. The text may be amended: verify it with AAPI or in the Official Gazette before filing.
FAQ — Frequently asked questions
🔎 Sources and references
- Executive Decree no. 26-154 of 14 April 2026 amending and supplementing Executive Decree no. 23-487 of 28 December 2023 — Art. 2 (rewriting Article 7) and Annex I: investment project evaluation grid — Official Gazette of the Algerian Republic no. 31 of 28 April 2026 · Verified on 01/08/2026
- Executive Decree no. 26-153 of 14 April 2026 on the reorganisation of the Algerian Investment Promotion Agency — Official Gazette of the Algerian Republic no. 31 of 28 April 2026 · Verified on 01/08/2026
- Law no. 22-18 of 24 July 2022 on investment — Official Gazette of the Algerian Republic · Verified on 01/08/2026
📚 Related articles on ProfitPilot
