Report

182 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFITS FROM ECONOMIC COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA
Development of disciplines for professional
services,
• Effective operationalisation of Article VI: 6 of
GATS by establishing guidelines for recognition of
qualification, and
• Possibility of undertaking additional commitments
under Article XVIII of GATS for verifying a foreign
service provider’s competence to provide the service
with a view to laying out a transparent procedure
for recognition and to reduce the burdensomeness
of domestic regulation on this score.
Once again, India along with Pakistan and others
suggested elements for disciplines on qualification
requirements and procedures (India and others 2005).
The paper discusses five types of problems arising on
qualification requirements and procedures:
• Equivalence and recognition of qualification
requirements – in the absence of any mechanism
to establish the equivalence of foreign qualifications,
education, training, and experience to these
requirements, market access could be impaired.
• Different levels of governments – in view of multiple
and varying sets of such requirements at different
levels of governments, meeting requirements in one
jurisdiction does not in any way guarantee that the
service supplier is entitled to practice in other
jurisdictions within the territory of the member.
• Examination requirements – various preconditions
may exist for sitting for such examinations including
host country language, residency and experience
in host country. Further scope and frequency of
such examinations can be of some concern.
• Education, training and experience requirements –
these requirements could become unduly complex
and burdensome including by being tied only to
host country systems and institutions, thus impairing
a service supplier’s capacity to meet them.
• Lack of international standards – in most services,
there are no internationally accepted benchmarks
of qualifications required to practice a particular
profession. Even where such standards exist, some
members may insist on much higher standards without
adequate justification thereof.
As regards the issue of equivalence, the study
suggests that apart from providing transparency to any
qualification requirements, mechanisms for taking
account of foreign qualifications should be established.
Equivalent criteria/standards as applied to domestic
recognition of qualifications may be applied to recognition
of foreign qualifications. This does not imply
harmonisation of standards but that unduly burdensome
requirements should not be applied to verify
foreign qualifications which could result in impaired
market access. Where educational systems are found
to be practically comparable, either the foreign qualifications
could be recognised or a procedure should be
established, for example, through an examination to
verify whether the educational qualifications prescribed
have been met. Further, a mechanism for verification
of professional competence must be established
containing features like work experience; holding a
common professional examination to test educational
qualifications, work experience, training; membership
of professional associations/institutions in the home
country to check the bona fides of the service supplier
and his registration in home country.
However, approaches to mutual recognition and
MRAs’ coverage may vary to a great extent. Zarrilli
suggests that two basic approaches have been singled
out as the basis for mutual recognition. According to
the so-called vertical approach, recognition is provided
on a profession-by-profession basis, and as a result of
the harmonisation or coordination among the parties
to an MRA of the education and training required by
each profession (harmonisation-based approach)
(Zarrilli 2005). In the case of a horizontal approach,
on the other hand, mutual recognition is provided
without prior harmonisation of curricula and training
requirements, on the basis of a broad equivalence of
qualifications (equivalence-based approach). While the
vertical approach normally leads to unconditional
market access, Zarrilli argues that the process is a long
and laborious one and usually requires significant time
and efforts. On the other hand, the horizontal approach
leads to much faster and concrete results than the
vertical approach and is the main reason why countries
are relying on it as the basis for their MRAs. As the
establishment of equivalence with respect to qualification,
licensing and standard requirements vary from
country to country, in the South Asian context it would
be a wise idea to follow the horizontal approach which
is also the essence of the Indian proposal.
Chanda suggests that any progress on the issue of
recognition requires initiatives to be taken simultaneously
at three levels (Chanda 2005). The first is to
improve the framework for MRAs. The second is to
address more broadly the entire concept of recognition,
such as the assessment of competence and