Читать книгу Open Windows, Closed Doors - Guntur Sugiyarto - Страница 5

Between 2003 and 2014, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)¹ signed Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) in the tourism sector and in six regulated occupations: accountancy, architecture, dentistry, engineering, medicine, and nursing. A further arrangement, in the surveying field, is being developed but is still in the framework stage. By jointly setting standardized rules for mutual recognition and renouncing, in part or in full, their national discretion to assess foreign qualifications, ASEAN Member States have potentially made it easier for professionals to have their qualifications recognized across the region. If fully implemented, the MRAs would also directly support the ASEAN goal of facilitating skill mobility.

Although these MRAs share nearly identical objectives, they diverge significantly in terms of institutional structures, requirements, and procedures. Not all MRAs are created equal. Globally, they come in various shapes and forms with some more open to foreign professionals, others more restrictive. ASEAN MRAs can be categorized into three different frameworks, with varying levels of openness to foreign professionals.

Open, comprehensive framework with minimal restrictions to ASEAN professionals. The MRA on Tourism Professionals provides the greatest opportunity for mutual recognition among the seven ASEAN MRAs. It is the only MRA in the region that adopts a fully automatic recognition process, where tourism competency certificates issued in the country of origin are automatically recognized at destination. It also has the broadest scope, covering 32 occupations ranging from high-skilled jobs (such as hotel managers and executive chefs) to low-skilled occupations (such as maids and bellboys). The tourism MRA has a wide institutional footprint that mandates the creation of the largest number of regulatory and implementing offices at both the national and regional levels, and includes the participation of nongovernmental stakeholders at the national level, particularly businesses and industry associations. The tourism MRA is the only one among the seven that has institutionalized the training component through harmonization.

Partially open, regional-driven frameworks with major restrictions. At the middle of the spectrum are the MRAs on accountancy, architecture, and engineering, which adopt a semiautomatic recognition process where ASEAN professionals still have to get their credentials recognized at destination based on the eligibility requirements negotiated in the MRAs. Central to this process are ASEAN-level committees that certify qualifications and experiences at the regional level and accord ASEAN-level professional titles: ASEAN Chartered Professional Engineer (ACPE), ASEAN Architect (AA), and ASEAN Chartered Professional Accountant (ACPA). The MRAs have safeguard provisions, however, that allow destination countries to impose additional rules that could make it very difficult for ASEAN professionals to receive recognition in practice.

Virtually closed, destination country-led frameworks with minimal opportunities for recognition. The dental, medical, and nursing MRAs are the least open of the ASEAN MRAs. Similar to the accountancy, architecture, and engineering MRAs, they adopt a semiautomatic recognition process. However, there are no ASEAN-level professional titles and committees to certify credentials. Instead, the destination country issues recognition and licensing certificates to ASEAN professionals. Health professionals who meet the MRA eligibility requirements apply directly to the regulatory bodies at destination. The MRAs include strong stipulations that allow destination countries to impose additional assessments or refuse recognition based on various considerations, including public safety, language, culture, and customs.

There is no “ideal” MRA. The level of openness to foreign professionals in any given arrangement is a reflection of national and regional contexts during the negotiation phase. In the ASEAN region, the presence of existing standards and availability of financial and technical resources to government officials and other relevant stakeholders during negotiation led to a more open recognition framework, while strong concerns over differences in regulatory standards and protectionist leanings increased the level of restrictions. The following examples illustrate some of the ways in which these factors affected negotiations and the resulting MRAs:

Presence of existing standards. The tourism sector’s open framework can be traced to a process of harmonization training modules and professional competences that started a full decade before the signing of the MRA. In contrast, the absence of prior agreements or cooperation on dental, medical, and nursing services, and the vastly different education and training curricula across countries, led to a virtually closed framework.

Availability of financial and technical resources. The MRA on Tourism Professionals has benefitted significantly from financial and technical contributions from the private sector, and, most especially, from international development agencies. In contrast, the negotiations on accountancy, architecture, and engineering, as well as the health-sector MRAs, were primarily dependent on the resources provided to the ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Services (ASEAN CCS) within the ASEAN Secretariat.

Public safeguards. The wide diversity in professional regulatory standards in the six occupations (excluding the tourism sector, which is unregulated) heightened concerns over the qualifications of ASEAN professionals trained in different national contexts.

Protectionist leanings. The high degree of international mobility and the prospect of employment for tourism professionals within and beyond the ASEAN region drove interest in signing an open MRA framework. In contrast, professionals in regulated occupations threatened by competition, particularly in the health field, were less likely to negotiate such open MRAs, which could potentially exacerbate already saturated, competitive markets.

The open, comprehensive framework of the tourism MRA presents tremendous promise in maximizing opportunities for recognition of ASEAN tourism professionals in the region. However, the approach also has its downsides. It is a huge undertaking to fully implement the tourism MRA, and requires an infusion of resources and capacity building at both national and regional levels. Many of the MRA’s working parts have yet to be completed. At the national level, it is important to complete the alignment of national standards to the ASEAN standards, improve training, and increase buy-in from the private sector. At the regional level, more has to be done to complete the MRA’s grand implementing structure.

The benefits of fully implementing the seven ASEAN MRAs extend above and beyond the actual mutual recognition of qualifications.

Given the concerns over the wide diversity of professional regulatory standards in the regulated occupations, the partially open, regional driven approach taken by the accountancy, architecture, and engineering MRAs could be seen as a practical way to achieve real progress on mutual recognition, albeit incrementally. The drawbacks, however, are clear. The semiautomatic recognition process still leaves room for arbitrary recognition outcomes since considerable power to determine the equivalency of qualifications remains with the intended destination country. The elaborate regional structure envisioned in these partially open MRAs plays an important role in shifting the power dynamics more equitably between origin and destination countries. Thus, it is critical to strengthen the regional infrastructure through a serious infusion of resources, financial and otherwise. Making compensatory measures² more transparent and gradually increasing the scope of the MRAs could also increase opportunities for recognition while addressing valid concerns regarding qualifications in the regulated occupations.

The closed, destination country-led approach of the health-related MRAs is not surprising given that globally the professional regulations in the health sector are some of the most stringent. The limited harmonization of training standards and curricula for health professionals among ASEAN countries has resulted in a significant lack of trust among regulatory bodies in the region. Moving forward, there is value in developing and implementing initiatives that increase trust among ASEAN Member States, such as by creating regional umbrella associations and supporting regional efforts to improve competency standards at the national level. These are small yet important steps that policymakers could consider to lay the groundwork for improved mutual recognition much later. Given the central role that destination-country regulatory authorities play in MRA implementation, it is important to ensure that they represent the evolving needs of the health sector.

The benefits of fully implementing the seven ASEAN MRAs extend above and beyond the actual mutual recognition of qualifications. Indeed, the greatest achievement of the ASEAN MRAs so far is rather indirect: The signing of these agreements has inspired a significant capacity-building effort in the less-advanced ASEAN Member States to upgrade professional regulation and training standards. And there are many ways to further maximize the benefits MRAs can bring to the region, including creating synergies with related developments such as the ASEAN Qualification Regional Framework (AQRF) and existing mobility arrangements in the region, and exploring how approaches and practices adopted in the current batch of ASEAN MRAs can be replicated in other sectors and occupations in the region.

Box 1: About This Research Project

This report is one in a series of four produced through a research partnership between the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Migration Policy Institute (MPI). The project aims to improve understanding of the barriers to the free movement of professionals within the ASEAN region and to support the development of strategies to overcome these hurdles.

The reports in this series draw on the insights of 387 regional and international experts and practitioners through their participation in focus group discussions, meetings, and surveys. Contributors include ASEAN Member States officials directly responsible for Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) implementation, as well as private-sector employers, academics, training directors, MRA monitoring committee members, and current and former ASEAN Secretariat officials.

ADB and MPI convened 12 days of focus group discussions and meetings between May and September 2015 that were attended by more than 100 regional stakeholders. Additionally, ADB and MPI administered an extensive qualitative survey on the development and implementation of MRAs that was completed by more than 300 individuals directly involved in or affected by the MRAs. See the Appendices of this report for more on the methodology of the study and for a complete list of stakeholders involved.