On 8-9 August 2005 UNCTAD held pre-ministerial consultation on GATS to which
COA and IIA were invited. ITPI has sent written observations.
On 14 September FICCI held an 'industry consultation meeting on WTO
negotiations in General Agreement on Trade in Services)Focus of the meeting
was on mode-1.
A letter from the COA was sent to Chairman, All India Board of Architecture
and Town Planning Education.
----- Original Message -----
From: "AZplan" <plan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Architexturez: Enaction-L" <in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Enaction-L" <in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] [in-enaction] the whole 867##
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
> will stimulate the profession, addle some hormones, soften some teeth
> and destroy the monopoly of some 3-4 'city and media' and 'humane
> sustainable environments' types who access global capital right now.
> also, lotsa young guys want a crack at foreign markets, so good)...
>
> * how much of 867## fall under multiple agencies within the government.
> are they all consulted? is everybody satisfied with the MinCom
> position on 86711/12/13 especially? (i don't think so. the MinCom
> approach doesn't even satisfy the UN/Unesco aspects of the
> classification, either architectural practices stands for culture,
> in which case they are placeful; or they do not, in which case they
> are placeless -- MinCom thinks they are placeless, half the GoI
> would disagree. i think almost everybody in practice, barring perhaps
> the aforementioned foreign-funded NGO would disagree)
>
> so, anyway, i'll go by myself and make a couple representations. hope to
> localize the 'placeful' elements of architectural practice,
> here-and-there. let's see.
>
> - anand.
>
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
>
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/05
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.4/109 - Release Date: 9/21/05
COA and IIA were invited. ITPI has sent written observations.
On 14 September FICCI held an 'industry consultation meeting on WTO
negotiations in General Agreement on Trade in Services)Focus of the meeting
was on mode-1.
A letter from the COA was sent to Chairman, All India Board of Architecture
and Town Planning Education.
----- Original Message -----
From: "AZplan" <plan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Architexturez: Enaction-L" <in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Enaction-L" <in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] [in-enaction] the whole 867##
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
> will stimulate the profession, addle some hormones, soften some teeth
> and destroy the monopoly of some 3-4 'city and media' and 'humane
> sustainable environments' types who access global capital right now.
> also, lotsa young guys want a crack at foreign markets, so good)...
>
> * how much of 867## fall under multiple agencies within the government.
> are they all consulted? is everybody satisfied with the MinCom
> position on 86711/12/13 especially? (i don't think so. the MinCom
> approach doesn't even satisfy the UN/Unesco aspects of the
> classification, either architectural practices stands for culture,
> in which case they are placeful; or they do not, in which case they
> are placeless -- MinCom thinks they are placeless, half the GoI
> would disagree. i think almost everybody in practice, barring perhaps
> the aforementioned foreign-funded NGO would disagree)
>
> so, anyway, i'll go by myself and make a couple representations. hope to
> localize the 'placeful' elements of architectural practice,
> here-and-there. let's see.
>
> - anand.
>
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
>
_______________________________________________
mpisgmedia mailing list
mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/05
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.4/109 - Release Date: 9/21/05