in vizag, kerala, uttaranchal pl note, revised offer
includes:
p48: CPC 61 hotels & other lodging
(6419 other lodging services has children camps, mtn
shelters, camping, etc)
p50: CPC 964** sporting and other recreational
services
(9649 other recreation services has 96491 recreation
park and beach services)
permit renewal and notice problems of past year and
substitution concerns raised at investor meet of 14
july and certification issues at FICCI meet of 03 aug
and land pickings by big foundations and firms need to
be seen also from this. (infrastructures-heritage
alliance is esp sharp. idfc and intach partnership
with forest deptt uttranchal sitting pretty on
PPP/PPCP framework is case in point; also the
trees-give-oxygen based large tract acquisitions
amidst infra boom in kerala; and ofc metro amusement
on yamuna).
demands for frameworks, especially post 14 july and
metro tender, MoEF response to wildrift and iapro /
ufo current situation do provide basis for
representation re CPC 6419 and 96491; those on state
or PC ecoT/adventureT committees could take up
straight.
CPC code is at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=9&Lg=1
revised offer is at:
http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
and also at:
http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/tns-oind-01.pdf
--- AZplan <plan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> for urban planning services (CPC prov #86741; CPC
> ver1.1 #83221) the
> following are the sort of things that strike me.
> just a ring-side view. no
> idea if they are relevant to practice.
>
> (1) the proposed limitations are problematic, as
> follows:
>
> * In Horizontal Commitments for mode 3 Limitation on
> National Treatment
> (there are no Limitations on Market Access) of
> "preference in access ...to
> foreign service suppliers / entities which offer the
> best terms for
> transfer of technology" could well be
> counter-productive, as technology
> transfer requirement in the sector is perhaps better
> addressed through
> targeted capacity building rather than incidentally
> (and possibly with
> output efficiency trade-offs) through commercial
> services.
>
> * Horizontal Commitments for mode 4 have Limitations
> on National Treatment
> in terms of, besides visa, etc, 'requisite
> educational and professional
> qualifications'. Limitations on Market access also
> refer to 'appropriate'
> and 'necessary' qualifications and registration with
> accredited
> professional bodies. These are illusory, as no
> mechanism for registering
> planners / verifying appropriateness or adequacy of
> their qualifications
> is in place in India.
>
> * Sub-sector specific Limitation, specified only for
> mode 3, as "None
> except that the establishment would be only through
> incorporation as
> partnership firm constituted by Architects..." is
> inexplicable. Urban
> Planning Services do overlap with certain
> Architectural Services (or, for
> that matter, Engineering, Construction and Real
> Estate services and even
> Environment, Health and Tourism related services)
> but are not coterminous.
> The Limitation defies the distinction made in CPC
> itself.
>
>
> (2) Commitments on offer are, in effect, for
> veritably unfettered trade in
> services that are not amenable to purely or even
> primarily commercial
> perspective. Inevitably, they are in conflict with
> legal / institutional
> regimes, such as follows:
>
> * '...programmes concerning land use... control and
> utilization... of
> land' (based on 'feasibility studies', 'environment
> and economic
> assessments', etc), are primarily statutory
> frameworks in form of
> city-region / city / sub-city plans prepared /
> revised once in 15-20 years
> public authorities. Since these are statutory,
> professional services
> relating to them cannot be viewed in terms of just
> commercial private
> practice and, indeed, involvement in them of
> practicing professionals is
> restricted by laws. Substantive legal /
> institutional adjustments are
> needed first.
>
> * '...programmes concerning? road systems and
> servicing of land' are
> essentially layout plans by which statutory plans
> are operationalised (for
> 'creating and maintaining systematic, coordinated
> urban development', in
> accordance with statutory plan frameworks). These
> are what mainly occupy
> planning staff in public authorities. Implications
> of consequent
> redundancy need to be assessed first.
>
> * '...environmental impact... assessments' of urban
> development projects
> come under the purview of EIA notification under the
> (central)
> Environmental Protection Act, as amended in July
> 2004, and extending the
> same to metro rail projects, besides specific EIA
> guidelines for urban
> projects as well as for Public-Private Partnership
> projects in protected
> areas, are under formulation by MoEF. These are
> likely to throw up
> imperatives for sector-specific limitations that
> must be clear first.
> (This also has a bearing on certain Tourism-related
> services in which
> commitments are on offer, with 'eco-tourism zones'
> also under
> consideration).
>
> * Similarly the model municipal law under
> consideration by states (and
> more so the objectives of 74th constitutional
> amendment from which it, and
> indeed the constitutional basis for decentralized
> including private
> participation in planning, arises) would throw up
> imperatives for
> sector-specific limitations for layout level
> planning for 'creating and
> maintaining systematic, coordinated urban
> development'. (This also has a
> bearing on Environmental and Health related services
> in which commitments
> are on offer; and the USAID sponsored legislative
> amendments to MCD Act
> provide a not very encouraging preview of both
> process and output of mode
> 3 urban planning services)
>
> etc etc
>
>
> (3) The basis on which Commerce Ministry has arrived
> at the commitments on
> offer is not known. What is known for a fact is that
> representations
> (2003) generally raising these issues and request
> for details of offer
> (August 2005) returned no response. What can be
> reasonably surmised is
> that serious discussion with other ministries /
> authorities have not taken
> place, also because the underlying issues are
> subject of court matters.
> (The same is true for the USAID sponsored
> legislative amendments)
>
>
> (4) FDI decisions for real estate and construction
> may have led to the
> haste (one of the justifications for those was
> global professional
> practice), in which case I would suggest FDI-linked
> limited opening, as
> test case for aligning both with sector and practice
> objectives.
>
>
> etc
> ---
>
>
>
> Anand wrote:
>
> > gita says:
> >
> > > oops, was only joking. i understand at least
> some of the larger
> > > issues. just thought that the patently stupid
> sector specific
> > > commitment on planning via architecture firms,
> defying CPC distinction
> > > itself, was a good place to start, also since
> all limitations are also
> > > illusory for plg, to get to saying whole 867
> needs re-look.
> >
> > i don't think this is an issue. is this the best
> we can do? IIA has
> > fuddled for a few years on GATS, and CoA has
> fiddled a committee (i'll
> > publish the names of committee members, with their
> inane comments, soon
> > as they come into the public domain). and now a
> planner is only joking!
> > what else is new?
> >
> > 867## looks quite alright to me. the
> classification is very good (i ran
> > an algernon test or two on it in the afternoon),
> very consistent, very
> > upper-merged. i think the only questions are...
> >
> > * how much of 867## fall under commerce ministry,
> where they can decide
> > quite by themselves (i think a lot, and for the
> good. globalization
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
includes:
p48: CPC 61 hotels & other lodging
(6419 other lodging services has children camps, mtn
shelters, camping, etc)
p50: CPC 964** sporting and other recreational
services
(9649 other recreation services has 96491 recreation
park and beach services)
permit renewal and notice problems of past year and
substitution concerns raised at investor meet of 14
july and certification issues at FICCI meet of 03 aug
and land pickings by big foundations and firms need to
be seen also from this. (infrastructures-heritage
alliance is esp sharp. idfc and intach partnership
with forest deptt uttranchal sitting pretty on
PPP/PPCP framework is case in point; also the
trees-give-oxygen based large tract acquisitions
amidst infra boom in kerala; and ofc metro amusement
on yamuna).
demands for frameworks, especially post 14 july and
metro tender, MoEF response to wildrift and iapro /
ufo current situation do provide basis for
representation re CPC 6419 and 96491; those on state
or PC ecoT/adventureT committees could take up
straight.
CPC code is at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=9&Lg=1
revised offer is at:
http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/SPECIAL%20SESSION/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
and also at:
http://www.architexturez.net/FILES/archive/document.profession/wto-gats/tns-oind-01.pdf
--- AZplan <plan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> for urban planning services (CPC prov #86741; CPC
> ver1.1 #83221) the
> following are the sort of things that strike me.
> just a ring-side view. no
> idea if they are relevant to practice.
>
> (1) the proposed limitations are problematic, as
> follows:
>
> * In Horizontal Commitments for mode 3 Limitation on
> National Treatment
> (there are no Limitations on Market Access) of
> "preference in access ...to
> foreign service suppliers / entities which offer the
> best terms for
> transfer of technology" could well be
> counter-productive, as technology
> transfer requirement in the sector is perhaps better
> addressed through
> targeted capacity building rather than incidentally
> (and possibly with
> output efficiency trade-offs) through commercial
> services.
>
> * Horizontal Commitments for mode 4 have Limitations
> on National Treatment
> in terms of, besides visa, etc, 'requisite
> educational and professional
> qualifications'. Limitations on Market access also
> refer to 'appropriate'
> and 'necessary' qualifications and registration with
> accredited
> professional bodies. These are illusory, as no
> mechanism for registering
> planners / verifying appropriateness or adequacy of
> their qualifications
> is in place in India.
>
> * Sub-sector specific Limitation, specified only for
> mode 3, as "None
> except that the establishment would be only through
> incorporation as
> partnership firm constituted by Architects..." is
> inexplicable. Urban
> Planning Services do overlap with certain
> Architectural Services (or, for
> that matter, Engineering, Construction and Real
> Estate services and even
> Environment, Health and Tourism related services)
> but are not coterminous.
> The Limitation defies the distinction made in CPC
> itself.
>
>
> (2) Commitments on offer are, in effect, for
> veritably unfettered trade in
> services that are not amenable to purely or even
> primarily commercial
> perspective. Inevitably, they are in conflict with
> legal / institutional
> regimes, such as follows:
>
> * '...programmes concerning land use... control and
> utilization... of
> land' (based on 'feasibility studies', 'environment
> and economic
> assessments', etc), are primarily statutory
> frameworks in form of
> city-region / city / sub-city plans prepared /
> revised once in 15-20 years
> public authorities. Since these are statutory,
> professional services
> relating to them cannot be viewed in terms of just
> commercial private
> practice and, indeed, involvement in them of
> practicing professionals is
> restricted by laws. Substantive legal /
> institutional adjustments are
> needed first.
>
> * '...programmes concerning? road systems and
> servicing of land' are
> essentially layout plans by which statutory plans
> are operationalised (for
> 'creating and maintaining systematic, coordinated
> urban development', in
> accordance with statutory plan frameworks). These
> are what mainly occupy
> planning staff in public authorities. Implications
> of consequent
> redundancy need to be assessed first.
>
> * '...environmental impact... assessments' of urban
> development projects
> come under the purview of EIA notification under the
> (central)
> Environmental Protection Act, as amended in July
> 2004, and extending the
> same to metro rail projects, besides specific EIA
> guidelines for urban
> projects as well as for Public-Private Partnership
> projects in protected
> areas, are under formulation by MoEF. These are
> likely to throw up
> imperatives for sector-specific limitations that
> must be clear first.
> (This also has a bearing on certain Tourism-related
> services in which
> commitments are on offer, with 'eco-tourism zones'
> also under
> consideration).
>
> * Similarly the model municipal law under
> consideration by states (and
> more so the objectives of 74th constitutional
> amendment from which it, and
> indeed the constitutional basis for decentralized
> including private
> participation in planning, arises) would throw up
> imperatives for
> sector-specific limitations for layout level
> planning for 'creating and
> maintaining systematic, coordinated urban
> development'. (This also has a
> bearing on Environmental and Health related services
> in which commitments
> are on offer; and the USAID sponsored legislative
> amendments to MCD Act
> provide a not very encouraging preview of both
> process and output of mode
> 3 urban planning services)
>
> etc etc
>
>
> (3) The basis on which Commerce Ministry has arrived
> at the commitments on
> offer is not known. What is known for a fact is that
> representations
> (2003) generally raising these issues and request
> for details of offer
> (August 2005) returned no response. What can be
> reasonably surmised is
> that serious discussion with other ministries /
> authorities have not taken
> place, also because the underlying issues are
> subject of court matters.
> (The same is true for the USAID sponsored
> legislative amendments)
>
>
> (4) FDI decisions for real estate and construction
> may have led to the
> haste (one of the justifications for those was
> global professional
> practice), in which case I would suggest FDI-linked
> limited opening, as
> test case for aligning both with sector and practice
> objectives.
>
>
> etc
> ---
>
>
>
> Anand wrote:
>
> > gita says:
> >
> > > oops, was only joking. i understand at least
> some of the larger
> > > issues. just thought that the patently stupid
> sector specific
> > > commitment on planning via architecture firms,
> defying CPC distinction
> > > itself, was a good place to start, also since
> all limitations are also
> > > illusory for plg, to get to saying whole 867
> needs re-look.
> >
> > i don't think this is an issue. is this the best
> we can do? IIA has
> > fuddled for a few years on GATS, and CoA has
> fiddled a committee (i'll
> > publish the names of committee members, with their
> inane comments, soon
> > as they come into the public domain). and now a
> planner is only joking!
> > what else is new?
> >
> > 867## looks quite alright to me. the
> classification is very good (i ran
> > an algernon test or two on it in the afternoon),
> very consistent, very
> > upper-merged. i think the only questions are...
> >
> > * how much of 867## fall under commerce ministry,
> where they can decide
> > quite by themselves (i think a lot, and for the
> good. globalization
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com