APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
Towards Mutual Recognition of Transport
Professional Qualifications
- Report on Survey Outcomes
October 2000
Prepared by Barbara Bloch, Vocational Education and Assessment Centre
for Austraining International
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Austraining and the Vocational Education and Assessment Centre (TAFE NSW)
would like to extend their thanks and appreciation to the following individuals
and organisations for assisting in various capacities in the research for and
writing of this report.

Initial discussion in Australia with industry stakeholders on issues affecting the
six transport professions in this project:
- Dick Reynoldson, Joe Tully, Brian Day, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
- Per Nielson, Air Services Australia
- Malcolm Bush, NSW Sea and Air Freight Council
- Professor Ross Robinson, Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University,
Sydney
- Gerard Langes, Transport and Distribution Training Australia
- Paul Porteous, Department of Transport and Regional Services
- Athol Yates, Institute of Engineers Australia
- Barry Grear and Ted Whitehead, APEC HRD Engineer Project
- Craig Stanfield, NSW Branch APEASMA
- Ian Hall, Vic Roads
- Paul Brady, TAFE NSW

Hannele Hentula, Senior Librarian Education and Training Information Service,
TAFE NSW, Australia – for responsive and impecable electronic literature searches
Robin Booth, Vocational Education and Assessment Centre, TAFE NSW – for
on-going support, editing and analysis of data


Particularly to all respondents to the surveys from most APEC economies who
took the time and thought to complete them
1
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
CONTENTS
3
ABBREVIATIONS
5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT
7
2.1
PROJECT AIMS
7
2.2
STAGE 1 - IDENTIFICATION OF KEY TRANSPORT PROFESSIONS
7
3 METHODOLOGY
10
3.1
STAGE TWO – DESIGN OF RESEARCH SURVEY
10
3.2
STAGE THREE – PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA
10
4 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON RECOGNITION
12
4.1
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES/CURRENT APPROACHES TO RECOGNITION
182
4.2
IN-COUNTRY/ECONOMY RECOGNITION MECHANISMS
204
4.3
INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS’ ROLE IN RECOGNITION
215
4.4
MODELS OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION
237
4.5
BARRIERS, OBSTACLES, ISSUES – EXPERIENCES FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 248
4.6
CONCLUSION
248
5 SURVEY RESULTS
19
5.1
TABLE OF RESPONDENTS
19
5.2
SUMMARIES OF INDIVIDUAL SURVEYS
19
6 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
19
6.1
19
BARRIERS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO MUTUAL RECOGNITION
6.2 FACTORS IN EACH PROFESSION RELEVANT TO THE SCOPE FOR A PRACTICAL
MODEL OF BEST PRACTICE
6.3
BENEFITS OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION
6.4 BEST PRACTICE IN ACCREDITATION, RECOGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
20
595
597
2
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
7 ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE FOR A PRACTICAL MODEL FOR BEST
PRACTICE IN MUTUAL RECOGNITION
31
7.1
INTRODUCTION
631
7.2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR GOOD PRACTICE IN (MUTUAL) RECOGNITION
642
ATTACHMENTS
A:
FULL RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS
Air Traffic Controllers (ATC)
Flight Crew (FC)
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAME)
Professional Railway Engineers (PRE)
Commercial Vehicle Operators (trucks/heavy rig) (CVO)
Intermodal/Logistics Managers (IM/LM)
B:
SURVEY RESPONDENTS – NETWORK OF EXPERTS
C:
PROJECT STEERING
COMMITTEE
3
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Abbreviations
AAMVANET
American Motor Vehicle Administrators Electronic NET
ACT
Australian Capital Territory
AME
Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
AMT
Aircraft Maintenance Technician
AN(OT)
Air Navigation (Overseas Territories)
ANTA
Australian National Training Authority
AOT
Aircraft Overhaul Technician
APEC
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
ASEAN
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATA
Australian Trucking Association
ATC
Air Traffic Controller
ATIT
Land International Transport Agreement
ATP
Advanced Training Programme
BCAR
British Civil Airworthiness Requirements
BS
Bachelor of Science
CAA
Civil Aviation Authority
CALM
Canadian Association of Logistics Management
CASA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia)
CEDEFOP
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
CER
Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations and Trade
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CICIC
Canadian Centre for International Credentials
CITT
Canadian Institute of Traffic and Transportation
CPLI
Canadian Professional Logistics Institute
CVO
Commercial Vehicle Operators (trucks/heavy rigs)
4
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
C’wealth
Commonwealth (Australia)
DCA
Department of Civil Aviation
DGAC
Director General of Civil Aviation
EU
European Union
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration (USA)
FC
Flight Crew
FIG
International Federation of Surveyors
GFT
General Flight Test
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
IEAust
Institution of Engineers, Australia
IM/LM
Intermodal/Logistics Managers
IMO
International Maritime Organisation
IPRE
Interprovincial Record Exchange
IT
Information Technology
IWT
Inland Waterway Bureau
JAA
Joint Aviation Authority (EU)
LAME
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
LTR
License Type Rating
LWTR
License Without Type Rating
MBA
Masters of Business Administration
MOT
Minister of Transport
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NARIC
National Academic Recognition Information Centres (EU)
NFT
Navigation Flight Test
NOOSR
National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (Australia)
NT
Northern Territory (Australia)
NVOCC
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier
NZ
New Zealand
5
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
NZCAA
New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority
NZQA
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
OJT
On-Job-Training
OH&S
Occupational Health and Safety
PCERQ Permanent Committee on Evaluation and Recognition of Qualifications (Malaysia)
Ph.D.
Doctor of Philosophy
PNG
Papua New Guinea
PRE
Professional Railway Engineers
QLD
Queensland (Australia)
Qu
Question
RAP
Peruvian Aviation Regulations
RMIT
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (Australia)
RPL
Recognition of Prior Learning
SA
South Australia (Australia)
SCT
Mexican Ministry of Communications and Transport
SEAMO
Southeast Asian Ministers of Educational Organisation
TAFE
Technical and Further Education
TAS
Tasmania (Australia)
TPT-WG
Transportation Working Group
TTRMA
Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement
TWU
Transport Workers Union
UK
United Kingdom
UN-ECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Agreement
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
US
United States (of America)
USA
United States of America
VIC
Victoria (Australia)
VFR
Visual Flight Rules
6
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
VTET
Vocational and Technical Education and Training
7
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
1
Executive Summary
The APEC Transportation Working Group project Towards Mutual Recognition of
Transport Professional Qualifications aimed to identify best practice and develop
mechanisms for mutual recognition of selected transport professional qualifications
between APEC economies. The selected professions were air traffic controller, flight
crew, aircraft maintenance engineer, professional railway engineer,
intermodal/logistics systems manager and commercial vehicle operator (truck
driver).This report details the process and outcomes of stages two and three of the
project.
Stage 2 consisted of design and development of six surveys which were sent to
appropriate representatives of each of the designated professions of each APEC
economy. The surveys, although customised for the needs of individual professions,
generally covered the areas of an economy’s licensing systems, professional
organisations, training and qualifications, recognition of foreign licenses, training
and/or experience and recognition arrangements or agreements made between
economies. It also sought responses on barriers to and benefits from mutual
recognition and ways of overcoming the barriers. Response rates to the six surveys
varied (average of 10 economies per survey), as did the quality and quantity of
information provided by individual economies.
Stage 3 comprised an analysis of the results collected from economies with a view to
identifying the relevant factors in the selected professions to establish scope for a
practical model of recommended practices. Analysis of the data was achieved through
discussion and synthesis of:

the survey responses from each economy and each profession

international perspectives, models and frameworks

other relevant known factors about each profession

outcomes of previous related surveys conducted by APEC and

input and feedback from the APEC TPT-WG, the Steering Committee for this
project and industry representatives in Australia.
Project outcomes
Barriers to Mutual Recognition
Despite the differences between some of the professions in this project, the barriers
and impediments identified by respondents to mutual recognition arrangements were
remarkably similar. The most commonly noted barriers across the professions,
concerned the lack of internationally-recognised and/or agreed to standards and
difficulties in verifying foreign licences, training, qualifications and registration
8
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
requirements. An additional general barrier was mentioned concerning lack of
communication and contact between APEC economies.
Establishing the Scope for a Practical Model for Best Practice in Mutual
Recognition
The research found that there were many factors affecting the need and motivation for
recognition. They vary between economies and professions and include major
considerations such as individual economies’ immigration and work permit laws.
These are partially affected by supply and demand and skill shortages in particular
domestic labour markets which in turn affect an economy or profession’s willingness
to encourage the recognition of foreign licences and qualifications.
Common land borders and trade routes have been key factors in economies'
motivation to streamline recognition arrangements of commercial vehicle operators'
licences, these agreements are negotiated on a regional basis. On the other hand,
economies have been motivated by the concern that other economies may not be able
to match their own safety and other standards, and to date have not recognised foreign
licences, qualifications and experience. This was evident from the responses to the air
traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers’ surveys.
The results from the surveys found very few examples of cooperative practices in
mutual recognition. However, the final questions in the surveys concerning factors
that may persuade an economy or profession to consider negotiating mutual
recognition arrangements, could suggest ways forward. For the three professions
representing the aviation industry in this project, factors mainly revolved around the
need for verifiably similar training, testing and a consensus on international standards,
which may be occurring through the further harmonisation of ICAO contracting states
and ICAO’s process of auditing their licensing systems. A further motivation could be
present within the aircraft maintenance engineers profession in relation to there being
a world-wide shortage, as Australia indicated in its survey response.
Professional railway engineers also suggested the ability to verify other economies’
qualifications, familiarity with local regulations and opportunities for exchange
programs to be persuading factors. The intermodal/logistics managers’ responses
were more ‘market driven’ (meeting supply and demand, lack of experienced local
employees in this area) but there was also concern for more national standards and
qualifications in other APEC economies.
This project also identified a few interesting examples of recognition models within
the European Union, within economies (for example Canada, Malaysia and Australia)
and within professions (for example, engineers and surveyors). One of the lessons
from these examples is the importance of the establishment of transparent systems
and procedures of accreditation (of programs and institutions), licensing and
registration within each economy. In addition, successful recognition arrangements
have often applied to one profession and within that profession between two
economies only.
Stage 4 of this APEC project will seek to establish a framework of recommended
practices and a mechanism to facilitate recognition. As a foundation for this, the final
9
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
chapter provides Guiding Principles for Good Practice in Recognition, considered
relevant and necessary regardless of whether the recognition is between economies,
regions, professional organisations or licensing bodies.
10
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
2
Background to the Project
It has been recognised that regional trade is being hampered by differing requirements
between APEC economies for accreditation and licensing of professional skills. An
issue that has not yet been fully addressed is how to recognise mutually the various
transportation qualifications among APEC economies, in order to facilitate the
movement of transport personnel within the region. Thus, in June 1997, APEC
Transportation Ministers directed the Transportation Working Group (TPT-WG) to
give consideration to measures that would promote transparency in regulations,
resolve differences in conformity assessment and facilitate the mobility of transport
personnel by encouraging mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
At the 15th APEC TPT-WG meeting in April 1999 in Santiago, Chile, the project
proposal Towards Mutual Recognition of Transport Professional Qualifications was
endorsed for funding from the APEC Operational Account for the year 2000.
2.1
Project Aims
The project aimed to identify best practice and develop mechanisms for mutual
recognition of transport professional qualifications between APEC economies, with
 Stage One: identification of priority areas for attention and clarification of
information required on entry standards in the priority areas;
 Stage Two: preparation of a survey questionnaire to achieve consistency and
comparability of the information to be collected from each economy on the list of
professions, with emphasis on entry requirements, examples of co-operative practices
with other economies, barriers/impediments and reasons;
 Stage Three: analysis of the results collected from economies with a view to
identifying relevant factors in the selected occupations to establish scope for a
practical model of recommended practices; and
 Stage Four: establishment of a framework for recommended practices focusing on
particular job characteristics in demand or where there is a high degree of mobility
and mechanisms to facilitate recognition (transparency; consistency; quality
assurances in accreditation and recognition system).
2.2
Stage 1 - Identification of key transport professions
The Steering Committee for this project (see Attachment C for membership) was
mindful that key transport professions could be identified from transport-related
professions ranging from specialist professions of certain transport modes (such as air
traffic controllers, flight crew, maritime architects, logistics managers) to transport
occupations of a general nature such as architects and engineers with transport
specialisations (such as marine/naval architects, aeronautical/ aerospace engineers,
maritime engineers, rail engineers).
11
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Land Transport
In land transport, it was suggested that railway engineering be identified as a key
profession in that there has been a shortage of railway engineers in Australia and this
trend was likely to continue for some time. The most affected areas of railway
engineers were in signaling and communications, rolling stock, track and structures.
Australia was also experiencing shortages in train control, data handling and on-board
electronics, noise and vibration, overhead line design and logistics.
In addition to the shortage, Railway engineering was also considered to have a mutual
recognition potential in that standard engineering qualifications (eg civil, electrical,
mechanical) which are a basic requirement for a railway engineering profession
already have recognition arrangements in place, through an Engineer Register and a
model for mutual recognition.
Based on the North American situation, projections showed that in the foreseeable
future there would be a significant shortage of qualified commercial vehicle operators
(licensed truck drivers) for on road transportation of goods. Recognising the severity
of this problem, and the need to hire qualified drivers from other economies, basic
requirements for the licensing of truck drivers in respective economies would be
identified, including the type and duration of experience necessary and the inclusion
of apprenticeships and training programs available.
Air Transport
In air transport, it was considered useful to include major aviation professions such as
air traffic controllers, flight crew and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.
This would enable the Committee to utilise information from the Transportation
Working Group project in 1996 ‘Aviation Personnel Licensing’, which examined
licensing requirements of APEC member economies for these professions.
Outcomes of the surveys of the Aviation Personnel Licensing project indicated that
there was a high degree of commonality in licensing requirements across the region,
based principally on International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. On
this basis, there seemed to be scope for this current project to explore avenues to
foster an environment which would encourage individual economies to enter into
bilateral discussions aimed at achieving mutual recognition of licensing requirements
as they considered appropriate. The scope of this survey would be limited to
determining the actual requirements for obtaining the licences.
The US and Canada expressed concerns about the inclusion of these aviation
specialist professions. Transport Canada (Aviation) argued that multilateral
recognition of professions in aviation may pose problems and that promotion of
mutual recognition through bilateral means was likely to be more appropriate.
However, it was agreed that their inclusion would give the Committee the opportunity
to determine whether it would be feasible to continue work on these aviation
occupations or to concentrate on other occupations at a later stage.
The Committee noted there was an emerging trend involving the contracting of
services such as air traffic services from one economy to another. It would therefore
12
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
be appropriate to take account of such a trend in any strategy on professional
recognition.
Sea Transport
In the maritime sector, the Committee acknowledged that the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) had procedures in place for the recognition of overseas marine
qualifications under the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
Convention. In 1995, the Convention was revised to include the introduction of strict
new controls enabling IMO to validate the training and certification procedures of
Parties to the Convention to ensure that the qualifications issued to seafarers met IMO
standards.
Parties to the Convention have access to the list of member countries whose seafarer
competency certificates are ‘IMO-compliant’. Those signatories not on the list may
not have their certificates accepted by other countries, which could limit their trade
and employment prospects. Most APEC economies are parties to this Convention.
Therefore it was considered not to be useful to include maritime professions in this
project as it would duplicate an existing well established recognition framework.
However, the project would draw on the merits of international standards under this
Convention.
Intermodal/Logistics Systems Managers
The Committee noted that there was an emerging trend away from a single mode
approach to transport policy and administration. The trend was toward a cross modal
focus integrating modal operations. This would provide seamless, end-to-end
movements that allowed firms to capture and sustain competitive advantage in
national and international markets.
As a result, the management of intermodal/logistics transport systems was gaining
momentum in global trade with freight being moved on increasingly integrated supply
chain systems and distribution networks. Producers were turning to logistics services
for their distribution needs to take advantage of efficiencies in transport, inventory
management, handling, damage control to reduce logistics costs and improve quality
service. Such services may include multimodal transport systems, warehousing and
final assembly to suit various markets. Transport organisations need to become
intermodal/logistics orientated to compete effectively.
As customers are demanding flexible, connected and continuous journeys from point
to point, new technologies (such as electronic commerce and electronic data
interchange systems) are required to develop efficient intermodalism through better
planning, tracking and auditing of intermodal moves as well as better road and rail
access to and from sea and air ports.
Given the increasing important logistics role in global trade, it was considered
appropriate to include intermodal/logistics systems managers as another priority
profession i.e.: managers who may be responsible for all or some aspects of logistics
chain management.
13
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Although the intermodal/logistics systems profession seemed to require no specific
entry licensing like aviation specialist professions, it would be necessary for this
profession to have the necessary understanding and knowledge available from
relevant training institutions and university courses, combined with the appropriate
prior experience.
14
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
3
Methodology
3.1
Stage Two – design of research survey
The following steps were taken in developing and designing a survey for this project:
3.1.1 Initial consultation was established via telephone with industry/professional
representatives in Australia from the six selected transport professions, in order to
identify key issues pertaining to their profession in relation to mutual recognition of
qualifications and licenses.
3.1.2 As a result of these consultations, it was decided to design six surveys, rather
than one, since the issues that arose were, in many instances, diverse and specific to
that profession. It was also considered that separate surveys would assist the
distribution process in the member economies.
3.1.3 Six draft surveys were designed and sent to the above industry specialists for
comment and feedback on their content and applicability.
3.1.4 Following this feedback, the surveys were amended and prepared for
presentation and endorsement at the 17th APEC Transportation Working Group
Meeting in Singapore, March 27-31, 2000.
3.1.5 Surveys were endorsed by TPT-WP after further amendments were made.
3.1.6 Surveys were then sent to member economies (April); via each economy’s
Head of Delegation, for response by appropriate industry personnel. In some
instances, economies’ responses were coordinated centrally and in other instances
individual responses were received from industry or government representatives
nominated by the Heads of Delegation.
3.1.7 June – August: Surveys returned to Australia; for compilation and analysis of
data (Stage Three). Several stages of follow-up were undertaken to maximise the
number of responses; difficulty had been encountered in obtaining a significant
response initially..
The questions in the surveys were divided into three sections. The first section sought
contact information as a basis for establishing a network of experts for further
exploration of mutual recognition. The second section was designed to collect data
about existing accreditation, licensing and registration systems, training and
qualifications for each profession and each economy. The rationale for this collection
was to identify the clarity of requirements and any trends, common or standard
approaches which could form the basis of recognition. The final section was intended
to elicit experiences from each economy on any existing recognition arrangements
and views on the benefits of and barriers to pursuing recognition.
3.2
Stage Three – Presentation and Analysis of Survey Data
The survey data have been presented in three places in this report:
15
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

Chapter 5 provides a summary and overview of each survey. It includes some
statistical calculations where appropriate, states trends where identifiable and
describes the breadth of responses to each question.

Chapters 6 and 7 uses some of that data in the analysis as described in 3.2.3.

Attachment A provides all responses to each question, in a table form, per
survey and economy.
The following points need to be made in relation to the survey responses, their
interpretation and analysis:
3.2.1 Considering the nature of APEC (vast geographical spread, cultural diversity
and limited organisational resources), a written survey is the most efficient, costeffective method for collecting information. However, in a complex project such as
this, the written survey method has limitations, which in this research include:

the capacity of the respondent to access the range of information sought (for
example, on licensing, training and qualifications, recognition agreements) in the
time provided

the complexity of responses resulting from some questions

the complexity of each industry/profession being researched and, in the case of
logistics managers, the uneven development of qualifications and any national
regulatory bodies for consultation

the reality that for most economies in APEC, English is not their first language,
even though it is the ‘language’ of APEC and thus the language used in the
surveys.
3.2.2 As can be seen from responses compiled from each survey, some whole
sections or individual questions were left blank (that is, no response given). However,
it would be unwise to interpret that lack of response in any particular way; that is to
make an assumption that the situation in question is not operating in the responding
economy. In some cases, the information was difficult to obtain by only one
respondent from the economy.
3.2.3 The collated survey responses presented here provide a partial picture of the
situation. Some economies and some professions have provided a fuller picture than
others. Thus, in the final two chapters (6 and 7) of this report, the interpretation and
analysis has utilised a range of inputs:

survey responses from each economy and each profession

international perspectives, models, frameworks outlined in chapter 4

other relevant known factors about each profession

outcomes from previous surveys conducted by APEC
16
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

input and feedback from the APEC TPT WG, the Steering Committee
for this project and industry representatives in Australia.
17
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
4
International Perspectives on Recognition
One of the outcomes of this APEC project is to ‘establish scope for a practical model
of recommended practices’ in recognition of qualifications. In order to do so, it was
thought useful to ‘set the scene’, to provide a few brief examples, internationally, of
models, systems and agreements that have been/are being implemented. Also included
are some specific examples developed within individual economies and individual
professions to streamline recognition mechanisms. This chapter focuses primarily on
the European Union which has put considerable effort into mutual recognition of
qualifications across its borders.
4.1
International Experiences/Current Approaches to Recognition
4.1.1 European Union (EU)
It is acknowledged at the outset that the European Union has evolved a structure
between its members very different to that of APEC. One of the most obvious and
significant differences is the removal of immigration restrictions to enter into and
work in an EU state. However, it is suggested that they share a common goal of
‘reducing barriers to trade and investment .. by promoting the free flow of goods,
services and capital among their respective economies/[states]’1 To this end of
increasing the mobility of people seeking work and recognition for their qualifications
within the EU, it has pursued a series of policies, directives and strategies related to
the mutual recognition of qualifications across their member states, and some
reflection on their experiences may be instructive.
According to Bjornavold and Sellin2:
the concepts of “recognition of vocational qualifications” and “comparability of
vocational qualifications” have gradually been replaced by the somewhat less clear
concept of “transparency of qualifications”…..Recognition implies the introduction of
“supra-national” criteria potentially conflicting with the principle of national control
over vocational education and training. “Transparency” on the other hand, points to
the need to make national qualifications more visible and understandable to
outsiders; the introduction of common standards is an unnecessary implication (p. 7).
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) coordinated a project on the comparability of
vocational qualifications on behalf of the European Commission. The project analysed
and compared the job descriptions and diplomas of over 200 professions. Finally in
1992, the European Commission decided to abandon this approach of comparing each
occupation. As alternatives to this approach, a wide range of measures has been
introduced.3
In 1989 and 1992, two general directives were formulated to cover ‘regulated
professions’, that is, those professions ‘which are restricted by law to those
individuals holding certain national professional qualifications’.4 This General System
18
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
is based on the premise that a qualified professional in their home Member State is
qualified to exercise the same regulated profession in another Member State without
having to totally requalify.
The structure of professional activities may differ in Member States, so it is important
to note that the General System only applies in relation to the same profession. It is
not enough for the name of the profession to be the same; the profile of professional
activities must broadly correspond.
Where there are substantial differences between the education and training to which
the qualification attests and that required in the host Member State, compensation
measures [for example, additional training] for these differences may be required.5
As well as these two General Directives relating to a range of occupations and
professions at university and post-secondary school levels, the EU has formulated a
large number of directives to cover specific industry sectors and professions. For
example, for the transport professions there were two Council Directives in 1991 and
1996 ‘on mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil
aviation and on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator [or commercial
vehicle operator or truck driver] and road passenger transport operator and mutual
recognition of diplomas, certificates of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for
these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international
transport operations.’ 6
A ‘Report from the [European] Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the application of Directive 92/51/EEC in accordance with Article 18
of Directive 92/51/EEC’ stated that the professional sector for which the largest
number of diplomas have been recognised for the period 1995-98 is that of maritime
transport ‘where there has been significant free movement amongst the Northern
European countries’7 It is probably no coincidence that the International Maritime
Organisation has in place strict procedures for the recognition of overseas maritime
qualifications of all countries/economies who are signatories to the Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention.
It also needs to be noted that the above EU Directive of 1992 applies only to
“corresponding professions”:
that is, a profession in another member state which includes a substantial number of
the professional activities comprised in the profession in the host member state. Thus
[there needs to be] a substantial degree of commonality between the professional
activities of any “profession” if the terms of the Directive are to achieve mutual
recognition.8
Another document makes comment on the above report from the European
Commission which is relevant to the success of mutual recognition within APEC
economies and states that:
migration occurs for one or more of the following reasons: the high concentration of
a particular profession in one or more Member States (seafarers in Nordic countries);
equivalent levels of qualification (specialised nurses); geographical and/or cultural
19
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
similarities (Dutch speech therapists moving to Germany, British engineers to
Ireland, Belgian dispensing opticians moving to France etc).9
4.1.2 Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement (TTRMA)
The TTRMA is an arrangement between the Commonwealth, State and Territory
Governments of Australia and the Government of New Zealand. It allows goods to be
traded freely between New Zealand and Australia and enhances the freedom of
individuals to work in both countries.
For more details about the TTMRA, see Chapter 6.4.
4.2
In-Country/Economy Recognition Mechanisms
4.2.1 National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC)
It is only each Member State in the European Union that can give comprehensive
information about whether a qualification is recognised. Hence, Member States have
each established a NARIC which offers specific advice and guidance on a specific
qualification gained from another Member State. However, ‘this can only be done
with adequate background information about the qualification in question. At present,
no formalised mechanisms exist to provide transparency of information on
qualifications’.10 This is surely a fundamental issue for APEC as well, concerning
mutual recognition between member economies, particularly in non-regulated
professions, for example the Intermodal or logistics manager.
4.2.2 Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials
The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) collects,
organizes, and distributes information, and acts as a national clearing house and
referral service to support the recognition and portability of Canadian and
international educational and occupational qualifications.
CICIC was established after Canada ratified the UNESCO Convention in 1990 on the
Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the
States belonging to the Europe Region. This was to assist Canada in carrying out its
obligations under the terms of this convention. The convention promotes international
mobility by advocating wider recognition of higher education and professional
qualifications.
CICIC advises individuals, in Canada's official languages (English and French), on
what they need to do to have their credentials assessed and recognized in Canada.
They are referred to appropriate institutions and organizations for specific assistance.
CICIC does not itself grant equivalencies or assess credentials, nor does it intervene on
behalf of applicants or participate in appeals.
Only the college or university to which a person applies, or, for professional
qualifications, the appropriate licensing body, may recognize overseas programs or
degrees. In some provinces, credential evaluation services have been established to
provide expert opinion regarding the value of foreign credentials mainly for general
20
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
employment purposes. Although these evaluations are not binding, they do provide
useful comparison with credentials obtained in a Canadian province. 11
4.2.3 Australian National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition
The National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR) was established in 1989. It
is the national expert and coordinating body on overseas skills assessments and
recognition. Its mission is to help overseas trained people to work and study in
Australia. It provides information, advice and assistance in relation to the recognition
of overseas qualifications and skills, and encourages improved international
arrangements for the recognition of qualifications and skills.
NOOSR provides assessment services and works with other bodies involved in skills
assessment and recognition to ensure that assessment processes, both within NOOSR
and elsewhere, are efficient and equitable. It also provides information and advice on
skills assessments and recognition to individuals and organisations. It has a role in the
development of Government policy on the recognition of overseas qualifications and
the integration of people with overseas qualifications into the workforce.
NOOSR also promotes enhanced international arrangements for the recognition of
skills and qualifications. It is pursuing arrangements both on a bilateral and
multilateral basis in a number of form for the improved portability of qualifications.12
4.2.4 The Permanent Committee on Evaluation and Recognition of
Qualifications (PCERQ)
Malaysia is the only SEAMO (Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation)
country that has an organisation to recognise qualifications in various fields from
institutions of higher learning locally or abroad. Recognition under the PCERQ is
guided by the following principles:

the evaluation and recognition of qualifications is for the purpose of satisfying
specific needs in the public service

priority is given to qualifications awarded by local institutions of higher learning

qualifications that are associated with recognition and practice need to be
coordinated between the government and the professional bodies

qualifications are assessed against the standards of similar academic programs
from the local institutions of higher learning

4.3
assessment is not based on institutions but on academic programs.13
International Professional Associations’ Role in Recognition
It is useful to examine the methods by which a highly regulated profession can
organise mutual recognition processes through development of procedures which are
agreed to by individual states, economies or institutions of that profession.
21
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
4.3.1 APEC Engineer Project
The APEC Engineer Coordinating Committee has developed The APEC Engineer
Manual: the Identification of Substantial Equivalence for publication in each member
economy by November 2000. This manual is the culmination of three years work by
the APEC Engineer Project (part of the APEC Human Resources Development
Working Group) which has aimed to identify practical ways of reducing barriers and
managing the processes by which engineers gain access to practice rights.
The project has identified best practices in accreditation, recognition and development
of professional engineering qualifications based on the following approach:

a Substantial Equivalence Framework agreed by professional engineer bodies,
underpinning

a Register of APEC Professional Engineers in each member economy, overseen
by an APEC Coordinating Committee, and linked to

partial or total exemption from further assessment for the purposes of the right to
practice in the form of a Mutual Exemption Framework between statutory bodies
controlling the right to practice in member economies.
It is anticipated that each participating economy should have a clear understanding of
how to incorporate the APEC Engineer Framework into their existing regulatory
arrangements.14
4.3.2 Taskforce on Mutual Recognition of Surveyors’ Qualifications
The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) was founded in 1878 in Paris. It is a
federation of national associations of surveyors, based in Denmark and is the only
international body that represents all surveying disciplines. It is a UN-recognised non
government organisation and its aim is to ensure that the disciplines of surveying and
all who practise them meet the needs of the markets and communities that they serve.
It realises its aim by promoting the practice of the profession and encouraging the
development of professional standards.15
Through FIG, work is being undertaken to develop a framework for the introduction
of standards of global professional competence. The FIG taskforce is in the process
of:

undertaking regional studies to investigate existing agreements of mutual
recognition and reciprocity, for example bi-lateral agreements between institutes
of surveys.

developing guidelines for assuring competence for entering the surveying
profession, for example, educational requirements for professional practice.

developing guidelines for the establishment of agreements for mutual recognition
and reciprocity.
22
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

developing a concept and a framework for implementation of threshold standards
of global professional competence in surveying.
This project has a completion date of 2002.16
4.4
Models of Mutual Recognition
The following information presents a discussion of three ‘models’ of recognition in
relation to enabling surveyors to practice their profession in other countries. The
paper17 from which the information was extracted, was written in the context of the
European Union but also analyses recognition as a global possibility (for surveyors),
hence its relevance to APEC economies. These models are:
1.
Reciprocity Agreements
These are agreements reached between professional organisations in different
countries or between economies under which the appropriately qualified professional
can have their qualifications recognised in another country/economy.
Advantages: This model demonstrates that free movement can be achieved to a
limited extent when like-minded professional organisations (or universities) have an
incentive to provide access to each other’s professional qualifications for their
members.
Disadvantages: Tends to only operate between two countries where the professions
are very similar. As a model for providing free movement of labour, it is restricted.
2.
Harmonisation of Qualifications
This is perhaps an ideal solution in that it aims to ensure that all of the profession, in
the example given, surveyors, have the same qualifications.
Advantages: Entry to work would be via a single qualification, subject to standard
requirements for codes of conduct, monitoring of professional conduct, continuing
professional development and so on; undertaken in a uniform manner by each
economy’s professional representative body. For a discipline which has a large
technical base, harmonisation is particularly attractive.
Disadvantages: In practice, a complex and lengthy procedure ‘if the European
Union’s experience is anything to go by’. Harmonisation requires that the rules which
apply in one country/economy apply in all the others. The arrangement can only be
based on the nature of the pre-qualification (under-graduate) professional education
and training at one point in time. Thus, any changes to the pre-qualification process
proposed after the initial agreements were made, must also be the subject of
renegotiation between countries.
3.
Mutual Recognition of Qualifications
This is the model adopted by the European Union. It is based on two principles:
a) Comparability of post-secondary qualifications between member states.
b) Mutual trust between member states.
Unlike harmonisation, mutual recognition does not mean that all rules are the same in
all member states. It does mean accepting the standards which are the norm in all the
23
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
other member states in the [European] union. The principle relies heavily on the
political willingness of member states to respect the principle of free movement
across technical barriers.
Advantages: Allows each economy to retain its own kind of professional education
and training because it is based not on the process of qualification, but on the outcome
of that process. In other words, it does not matter how individuals become qualified in
their own economies, the important fact is that they are qualified.
Disadvantage: Difficulty in obtaining ‘mutual trust’ from such a diverse group of
economies as APEC - an organisation which has no legislative powers, unlike the
European Union (see next section 4.5).
4.5 Barriers, Obstacles, Issues – experiences from the European
Union
A wealth of literature surrounds the European Union’s implementation of the General
and other Directives on Mutual Recognition of Qualifications across the Union. Some
of their experiences and issues that have arisen are instructive for APEC. For
example:
1. Qualifications (standards) in a given country are viewed as superior to “foreign
qualifications” in terms of quality and/or national/cultural relevance.
2. Qualifications may be linked to wage mechanisms and social benefit systems
which may be threatened if supra-national standards are introduced and accepted
[although this is not a direction that APEC is planning to take]18
3. The ‘White Paper on Education’ describes three “significant obstacles” to the free
movement of professionals within the EU. 'These obstacles are the practice of
recognising professional qualifications; establishing proof of good health, good
repute and sound financial standing; securing membership in professional
organisations, and complying with codes of conduct.19
4. Following on from this previous point then, there is within the EU, a gap between
the theory and the practice. In reality, relatively small numbers of people have
secured recognition of their qualifications in another Member State and the
process can be ‘costly, time-consuming and very complex’.20
At the same time however, the EU, through its ability to legislate, has secured ‘the
principal of mutual trust that has proved critical to the success of applicants
seeking recognition of their professional qualifications’.21 “Mutual trust” is the
foundation stone in that it means that training and education from one Member
State should automatically be recognised in another Member State. If significant
differences exist, individuals may be asked to compensate for this.22
4.6
Conclusion
The above descriptions of international and in-country recognition systems and
models is by no means exhaustive. However, it is important to examine what is in
24
APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
place, what strategies have been rejected and why (for example, the EU abandoned
the approach of comparing occupations within its Member States) and in the light of
what we know, construct a ‘model’ within APEC that is politically, economically and
culturally viable. This discussion will be taken up again in Chapters 6 and 7.
25
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
5
Survey Results
5.1
Table of respondents
ECONOMIES
Air Traffic
Controllers
Flight
Crew
Licensed Aircraft
Maintenance Engineers
Intermodal/Logistics
Systems Managers
Railway Engineer
Australia
No railways in Brunei
Brunei Darussalam
Canada
Chile
China
Hong Kong (China)
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
9/03/2016
26
Commercial Vehicle
Operator/ Truck
Driver
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
No railways in PNG
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Philippines
Russia
Industry not regulated
Singapore
Industry not regulated
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
USA
Vietnam
Total
9/03/2016
12
10
12
8
7
27
10
5.2
Summaries of Individual Surveys
The following provide, in summary form, key areas of agreement, disagreement or
non-response within each section of each survey. The varying lengths reflect the
amount of information in each survey that was provided, as well as the number of
economies which responded.
5.2.1 Air Traffic Controllers (ATC)
The following twelve economies responded to this survey: Australia; Canada; Hong
Kong (China); Indonesia; Japan; Mexico; New Zealand; Peru; Singapore, Chinese
Taipei; Thailand; USA.
Licensing System
Responses to questions 2, 3, and 4 on government department, civil aviation
regulations and licensing authority responses are specific to each economy and can be
found at Attachment A, page ATC 1 and 2. There was considerable commonality on
the general requirements needed to gain an ATC licence (Qu. 5). Citizenship,
(mentioned by Canada, Chinese Taipei, Peru and USA, in qu. 27 by Japan), current
and valid medical certificate, an age minimum (most commonly, 20 years), English
proficiency, written and oral examinations and performance assessments were
required and stated by most economies.
Licence expiry (qu. 6) responses varied considerably from lifetime but with
validation/currency requirements (NZ), no expiry but site-specific (USA), valid unless
withdrawn (Canada, Japan), to 90 days expiry (Hong Kong, China), one year (Chinese
Taipei); 1-2 years, depending on age (Indonesia; Singapore; Thailand), about to be
varied to ‘lifetime’ of holder with conditions such as valid medical certificate, ratings,
endorsements applying (Australia).
Requirements to keep the licence current and valid (qu. 7) varied. Features included
the need for:

valid medical certificate (Australia; Canada; Indonesia; Mexico; Peru; Singapore)

maintenance of expertise and proficiency checks varied in frequency and type of
rating appropriate to privileges being exercised (eg Hong Kong, China: a rating
remains valid for 90 days from date controller last provided ATC service appropriate
to that rating)

six monthly performance assessment pertaining to each endorsement of like-type
endorsement (Australia)
demonstration of recent experience in exercising license’s privileges (Australia;
Peru)


maintenance of currency on position/s certified in facility assigned (USA).
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
All economies linked their licence, endorsement or validation to a specific facility
(qu. 8) – no response from Mexico. Recency and currency requirements (qu. 10)
varied in the duration required before testing was required, for example:
Recency

knowledge verification test once every 12 months, or more often if deemed
necessary (Canada, Chinese Taipei)

rating remains valid for 90 days from date holder of licence last provided service
appropriate to that rating (Hong Kong, China)

work 40 hours during 6 months (non-radar), 40 hours during 3 months (radar)
(Indonesia)

if ATC away from position for 6 months or more, training and testing needed
(Japan)

current operating is 28 days, validation is 6 months (New Zealand).
Currency

for each Rating maintained, 100% pass in written exam within preceding 12
months and for each Endorsement, 100% pass in a written exam and a
‘Competent’ practical assessment within the preceding 6 months (Australia)

every 3 months for performance assessment (Chinese Taipei)

minimum of 6 hours practice per rating per month

periodical exams as required (Mexico)

complete recurrent course every 2 years (Indonesia; Peru)

no limit unless the rating is withdrawn (Singapore).
Qualification Requirements
Only civil aviation authorities in Australia; Indonesia; New Zealand; Peru and USA
certified individuals and/or training organisations to provide ATC training (qu.11, 13).
(USA – individuals only).
It is necessary to examine specific responses from each economy in full to appreciate
the differences in basic training requirements (qu. 15 – Attachment A, page ATC 10
for details): Length of basic training appeared to vary between 6 and 18 months,
depending on the training stream. Site-specific training (eg USA) meant that duration
varied according to size and complexity of the facility. Only Peru required completion
of university studies prior to enrolment. Australia, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, China
and Indonesia noted training programs based on ICAO related programs (and FAA in
the case of Chinese Taipei).
29
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Recognition of Foreign Licences
This section asked three questions (16, 17 and 18) related to the recognition of foreign
ATC licences, qualifications and experience, as a basis for the granting of a licence.
New Zealand and Australia were the only economies which recognised all three.
However they stated conditions that ‘certain exams were passed and credit given for
an ICAO qualification’ (NZ) and that the applicant also meets Australian minimum
requirements (Australia). The procedures required (qu. 19) by NZ for this recognition
included sighting the foreign licence, verifying its authenticity and person’s
qualifications and demonstration of practical skills and knowledge. In the case of
Australia, the procedure followed is to ‘undertake a “gap” analysis to determine what,
if any, gaps in knowledge and/or skills exist or are likely to exist…then training will
be undertaken and the candidate submits to a normal assessment regime’.23
Recognition Arrangements or Agreements
The only mutual recognition or bilateral agreement reported by any of the responding
economies (qu. 20) was the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement (see
Attachment A, page ATC 10 for details) between New Zealand and Australia. In
relation to its benefit, New Zealand considered it of limited application as not many
controllers have applied for it. The Australian response stated that no particular
benefits had been identified as far as air traffic controllers are concerned. (qu. 24).
Hong Kong, China commented that foreign ATCs would still have to go through a
training process, albeit shorter.
Despite the overwhelming negative responses about current recognition arrangements,
economies did suggest some benefits to having mutual recognition arrangements of
ATC licences (qu. 26). Responses included:

reduces basic training requirements

ability to staff operational positions more rapidly

able to exchange controller positions when other economies in staffing deficits

helps establish and standardize the rule for issuance of an ATC licence

helps improve performance in region

employs personnel more easily

exchange of experiences

personnel are more readily available for contingency situations

provides transportable qualification

reduces licensing costs.
30
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Barriers to these arrangements (qu. 27) included most significantly:

difficulties in verifying other economies’ standards, licences, training and
qualifications

ATC procedures and training unique to individual economy

requirement for nationality

absence of operational requirements and proficiency, contained in agreements
about ATC personnel

domestic legislation

language difficulties

each economy has unique requirements with regard to training, operations and
procedures

more contact needed with APEC economies.
Ideas for how to overcome these barriers (qu. 28) included:

adoption of global basic ATC training standard and syllabus

ICAO specifications are limited and would have to be expanded to be acceptable
from one economy to another

more prescription from ICAO and ICAO State Audits to confirm standardisation

introduction of governing rules for assessment of standards of different economies

standardisation requirements for licensing, medical certification, procedures and
equipment used

validation of licence by qualified examiners who could check knowledge and
skills of individual controllers prior to exercising privileges of licence

technical arrangements.
The main restriction to the employment of foreign air traffic controllers (qu. 29) was
the necessity for citizenship/nationality and permanent residency. This was the reason
given by all respondents except for New Zealand (meet requirements of Rule Part 65
regarding foreign licences) and Hong Kong, China (need for a shortage in local
ATCs).
Those that responded to qu. 30, concerning the factors that might persuade each
economy to consider negotiating mutual recognition arrangements included:

Australia – could look at question within context of the Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreements with other economies
31
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

Canada – acceptance by another economy of similar training program

Hong Kong, China – if there is a large shortage in supply of local ATCs,
if arrangement improved the general safety standard in the region

Japan – possible in body of ATCs was privatised

Mexico – principle of reciprocity needs to be effective

New Zealand – economic benefits

Peru – case by case basis

USA – none at this time, have sufficient applicants that meet existing legal
qualifications.
Economies were asked if it would be beneficial to consider mutual recognition with
specific economies (qu. 31). Only Canada (with USA, Britain, Australia, France);
Mexico (maybe with USA) and New Zealand (many) responded ‘yes’.
5.2.2 Flight Crew (Cockpit)
The following ten economies responded to this survey: Australia; Brunei Darussalam;
Canada; Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong China; Indonesia; Japan; Peru; Singapore;
Thailand.
Licensing System
Responses to questions 2, 3, and 4 on government department, civil aviation
regulations and licensing authority are specific to each economy. Full responses can
be found on in Attachment 1 section FC.
Six of the ten respondents did not use a designee of the government to issue licences
(qu. 5). Australia’s designees (or delegates) have restricted delegations for the
licences they can issue. Questions 6 and 7, dealing with licence type, category or class
rating, associated privileges and requirements for initial licence receipt are best
viewed in full, at Attachment A, page FC 3. In general, the requirements for licence
types included a valid medical certificate, flight test, English proficiency, written and
oral exams, employment experience, credit for military experience and age limits.
Expiry dates for licences varied from twelve months to a lifetime and depended on
licence type and age of recipient. All medical certificates had to be renewed, validity
depended upon the age of the pilot and the type of licence (qu. 8).
Requirements to keep the licence current and valid (qu. 9) included most commonly a
valid medical certificate and recency and currency requirements as per question 11
(see Attachment A, page FC 11). Six out of the ten economies (Australia; Canada;
Hong Kong, China; Japan;Peru and Thailand) had registered differences under Article
38 to the Convention from the ICAO licensing standard specified in Annex 1 (Qu.
12). See Attachment A, page FC 12 for details of the differences. Australia
32
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
commented that ‘in many cases these [52] differences relate to a higher Australian
standard than that required by ICAO’.
Qualification Requirements
Economies were asked whether their civil aviation authority certifies individuals (qu
14) and/or organisations (qu.16) to provide flight training. Responses varied. Six
responded ‘yes’ to certification of individuals (Australia; Canada; Hong Kong, China;
Indonesia; Peru and Singapore). Almost all economies responded ‘yes’ to the
certification of organisations.
In regard to basic training requirements (qu. 18), respondents answered in varying
detail about the length, types of training (depending on licence), hours of flight
training required and in the cases of Brunei, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia; Thailand;
Singapore and Japan, mention was made that the training was based on ICAO Annex
1 requirements/standards. See Attachment A, page FC 13 for detailed responses.
Australia’s Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) syllabus is based on national competency
standards for pilots of fixed wing airplanes operating under the Day VFR. It details
the skills that must be demonstrated by pilots in order to obtain the private and
commercial pilots licences qualifications.
Conversion, Validation and Recognition of Foreign Licences
Economies were asked whether they recognise foreign flight crew licences,
qualifications and experience (qus. 19, 20, 21), as a basis for the granting of a licence.
All respondents except Chinese Taipei answered ‘yes’; Canada had conditions for
recognition of different types of licences.
The kinds of procedures each economy would follow to recognise foreign licences,
qualifications and experience (qu. 22) included:

verification/validation of licence, qualifications and flying log book (all)

letter of recommendation from previous company (Thailand)

some training required (Brunei; Singapore)

valid medical certificate (most)

written test required on economies’ air rules and legislation (most economies)

flight test ( most economies).
Recognition Arrangements or Agreements
Only Australia had entered into any mutual recognition or bi-lateral agreements for
the recognition of flight crew licences (qu. 23). This is the Trans-Tasman Mutual
Recognition Agreement (TTMRA) with New Zealand. In relation to flight crew, some
conditions apply concerning applicability of various licences but in practice these
have little effect on the mutual recognition. Each economy reserves the right to have
an applicant attend a specific ‘air law’ exam before issuing a licence. (See Attachment
33
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
A, page FC 17 for detailed discussion about the operation of the TTMRA). Australia
considered that the agreement had benefited both economies and that it would be
beneficial to expand it to other economies, on a bi-lateral, rather than a multi-lateral
basis.
Australia considered it a benefit to having any such agreements (qu. 29); namely to
‘provide greater opportunity for individuals to pursue flying careers in another
economy’. Indonesia noted the benefit of a reduction in initial training required.
Some barriers however were noted by five economies (qu. 30). These were given as
difficulties in verifying foreign licences and training, the over-riding safety
requirement needing to be assured and lack of knowledge of others’ standards.
Brunei’s suggestion for how the barriers might be overcome (qu. 31) was to
harmonise ‘requirements with regulatory authorities pressing their governments to
adopt a common requirement’ and from Japan ‘mutual understanding of each
economy’s standards and practices’. Singapore and Australia suggested developing or
agreeing on internationally recognised common standards and greater knowledge of
national standards that can be used for discussion on bilateral arrangements.
Restrictions to the employment of foreign flight crew (qu. 32) included:

need to be citizen or resident (Peru)

authorisations issued for short periods only (Peru, Chinese Taipei)

restrictions minimal provided that person can secure employment and complete
licensing requirements (Hong Kong, China, Singapore)

labour law restriction for foreign flight crew operating domestic aircraft
(Thailand)

restrictions concerning number of hours flight experience (Japan)

visa that permits work – only available if there are no appropriately qualified
aircrew (Australia; Indonesia).
Brunei and Singapore responded to the final two questions (33 and 34) concerning the
factors that might persuade each economy to consider negotiating mutual recognition
arrangements. They both suggested ‘common standards, based on regulatory authority
approval and monitoring of training school/examinations, similar training and testing
standards’. Australia considered ‘a willingness for other states to enter discussions’ to
be a persuading factor. Brunei and Australia were interested in agreements with the
Joint Aviation Authority (Europe) as well as the USA and Canada (Australia)..
34
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
5.2.3 Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME)
The following twelve economies responded to this survey: Australia; Brunei
Darussalam; Canada; Hong Kong China; Indonesia; Japan; New Zealand;
Papua New Guinea; Peru; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand Licensing
System
Responses to questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 on government department, civil aviation
regulations, licensing authorities and types of maintenance licences are specific to
each economy. Full responses can be found at Attachment A, page LAME 1. In most
instances, the civil aviation authority was the only licence-issuing organisation (qu.
6).
Six economies registered differences under Article 38 to the Convention from the
ICAO licensing standard specified in Annex 1 (qu. 7). They were:

Canada (4.2.11, Chapter 4)

Australia (52 differences, mostly relating to various classes of medical licensing)

Japan (4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3)

Indonesia (higher age eligibility for gaining licence than Annex1)

New Zealand (no references given, minimum age 21, practical experience
requirements extended to 5 years for people not in formal training).
Question 9 deals with requirements for initial receipt of each type of licence. Again,
responses were specific to the economy, depended upon licence type and can be found
in full at Attachment A, page LAME 4. In general, the requirements included a
minimum age, prior documented practical experience of varying length depending on
type/category of licence, a qualification including written theory and practical skills
tests, medical fitness and in most cases, English proficiency.
Japan and New Zealand had no expiry dates on their AME licences (qu. 10). Other
respondents varied from between 2 and 6 years.
Requirements to keep the licence current and valid (qu. 11) included:

confirmed experience over 2 year period (Brunei, Canada)

performed or supervised aircraft maintenance, or provided instruction or
supervised delivery of such instruction for previous 6 month period (Canada)

performed maintenance at least 6 months within previous 12 (Hong Kong, China,
Peru) and within previous 24 months (Australia; New Zealand; Papua New
Guinea)

engaged in work considered comparable to the duties and privileges of an AME
licence (Australia)
35
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

employed by an organisation that operates or services Singapore aircraft
(Singapore)

Certificate of Employment and working experience (Chinese Taipei).
Japan required that no conditions be met.
Most economies did not link the AME licences to proficiency at a specific facility or
airspace (qu. 12) although Canada and Papua New Guinea had conditions attached
(see Attachment A, page LAME 7). Each economy (except Canada – no response)
listed references to the compliance and enforcement responsibilities of their CAA to
ensure that the requirements of the licence are being met after issue (qu. 13). See
Attachment A, page LAME 7 for details.
Qualification Requirements
Economies were asked if their CAA certifies individuals to provide AME training (qu.
14). Canada; Hong Kong China; Japan and Singapore replied that they did not, while
the other economies had conditions attached to the ‘certification’ or ‘approval’. In
relation to certification of training organisations (qu. 17) and basic requirements for
issuing AME licences (qu. 18) it is worth while viewing the complete responses at
Attachment A, page LAME 9 as they are detailed in some cases and varied. Sources
for training curriculum include CASA (Australia; Papua New Guinea); CAR Section
L (Brunei); CAR (Canada); ICAO (Japan); JAA/ICAO (New Zealand – syllabus
being redeveloped); RAP 65 (Peru); ICAO and Singapore Airworthiness Requirement
Section 7 (Singapore); ICAO-based Standards (Thailand).
Recognition of Foreign Licences
Economies were asked if they convert or validate foreign AME licences (qu. 19).
Brunei; Hong Kong, China; Japan and Peru replied that they did. New Zealand does
but only in the case of the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement with
Australia. Thailand and Indonesia do convert or validate foreign AME licences; Papua
New Guinea stated that they do so only for Australian licences.
Economies were asked if they recognise foreign AME licences, qualifications and
experience (qus. 20, 21 and 22) as a basis for the granting of their own licence.
Canada; Indonesia; Singapore and Chinese Taipei stated that they did not. Australia
recognises a foreign licence but not foreign qualifications. Papua New Guinea
recognises Australian only.
Procedures followed by those economies who recognise licences and qualifications
(qu. 23) included:

completion of form detailing evidence of experience, claims certified by employer
Brunei; Hong Kong, China)

verification/authenticity requests from foreign aviation authority of licence and
qualifications (all)
36
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

some training (eg: on regulations)

written and oral testing (Australia; Brunei; Japan; Peru), none for validation,
theory and practical for conversion (Thailand)

valid practical experience logbooks (New Zealand)

introduction by local commercial operator (Peru).
In response to question 24, which asked if an economy required that repairs to its
registered aircraft, conducted in another economy, be done by AMEs licensed by its
own government, Indonesia, PNG; Thailand; Singapore; Peru and Japan (could be
done by a maintenance organisation approved by Japan) replied that they did have to
be licenced by their own governments.
Recognition Arrangements or Agreements
Australia; Canada and New Zealand stated that they had entered into agreements with
one or more APEC or other economies (qu.25) although Canada did not state with
whom those agreements were made. Papua New Guinea have an arrangement
whereby PNG uses and adapts the Australian AME licensing system These
economies considered that the agreements had benefited their economy (qu. 29).
Benefits to having mutual recognition arrangements (qu. 31) stated included:

economic and convenience advantage for private and commercial operators

prevents multiple testing of previously qualified persons

provides a global workplace

sponsors free movement of qualified personnel between economies

facilitates repairs recognition.
Views about barriers however (qu. 32) were more numerous than the benefits listed
and included:

administrative issues

some contracting states are difficult to contact regarding licence verification

unknown standards, especially relating to people who have come from economies
with less regulatory frameworks

concerns that safety could be threatened if certification standards are reduced
through lower regulatory or operator control standards

unfair economic advantage to foreign operators
37
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

the difficulty in determining validity of other economies’ licences as training and
skill requirements vary

variation in the licensing systems used by other economies

variety of AME licences of each economy

non-recognition of non-ICAO state licences or certificates issued by ICAO states
that do not comply with ICAO licence standards

more contact needed with other APEC economies.
Respondents suggested the following to overcome the barriers (qu.33):

harmonise requirements with regulatory authorities pressing their governments to
adopt a common requirement (use FAA/JAA harmonisation effort and ICAO
Annex 1 as basis for development)

remove the ICAO provision for economies to lodge differences to the standards

bring minimum requirements up to industry acceptable standard that deals with all
aspects of certification privileges

introduce a unilateral description of licence model minimum requirements

more channels of communication needed

aviation authorities to promote their licencing systems and standards to each other

Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements between economies

if the state is an ICAO contracting state there are no barriers.
In relation to any restrictions to the employment of foreign AMEs (qu. 34), the
following comments were made:

none, as there is a world wide shortage of AMEs (Australia)

obtain a work permit after an offer of employment has been made (Brunei)

foreign licence not required to perform maintenance on aircraft (Canada)

prior approval by labour department (Thailand)

secure employment, fulfil licence requirements (Hong Kong, China)

none apart from normal immigration requirements (New Zealand) and meeting
applicable licensing requirements (Singapore)

licences issued only to citizens or residents (Peru)
38
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

only Australian licences recognised; other foreign AMEs must complete exams
(PNG)

foreign AME licences permitted (Indonesia; Chinese Taipei).
Question 35 provided further opportunity for respondents to discuss factors that would
persuade their economies to consider negotiating mutual recognition arrangements for
AME licensing. These included:

common standard, issue of ICAO Type 11 recognised licences

participation on international panel designed to establish high safety oriented
standards, consensus agreement on international standards

commitment and support from senior management in government

similar training, experience level and examination standards

shortage of maintenance personnel and expansion of industry beyond normal
training capability

further harmonisation with ICAO contracting states.
Four economies named specific economies or states with which it would be beneficial
to consider mutual recognition (qu 36): Australia (with Canada and JAA); Brunei
(with JAA); Canada (with Hong Kong, China; Korea; Japan; Thailand); New Zealand
(with Singapore and JAA). PNG stated that it would recognise those economies/states
that Australia has already recognised.
5.2.4 Professional Railway Engineer
The following seven economies responded to this survey: Australia; Canada;
Indonesia; Japan; New Zealand; Singapore; Viet Nam.
Brunei Darussalam and Papua New Guinea stated that they could not respond as they
do not have rail systems.
Membership
According to all respondents, membership requirements for joining an Engineering
institution (qu. 3) are no different for railway engineers than for engineers from other
disciplines.
Registration
Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 relate to registration requirements for railway engineers. No
economies have a national registration body specifically for railway engineers. The
issue of whether registration is required by gaining employment as a railway engineer
(qu. 6) is more complex: For Singapore, registration is not mandatory; for Japan and
New Zealand, registration occurs after qualification in one or more of the main
engineering disciplines (may include railway-specific subjects – Japan). Australia
39
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
stated that some railway organisations may require membership of the National
Professional Engineer’s Register.
Railway Engineer Standards
There were no national or international standards or benchmarks for the designation
railway engineer (qu. 10) reported by respondents. Australia reported (qu. 13) that the
Railway Technical Society of Australia has published two booklets entitled ‘Railway
Engineering Competency Profiles’ and ‘Railway Professional Formation and
Development’. The former booklet could be used as a basis for developing courses on
specific aspects of railway engineering work.
Qualifications
For those economies who responded to the question (14) on minimum entry level
requirements to work as a railway engineer (New Zealand, Singapore, Viet Nam), the
following can be summarised:

undergraduate degree in engineering or

chartered engineer through a UK institution (Singapore) or alternatively

certificate level from a technical training institution (New Zealand).
Economies were asked to outline railway engineering specialisations and related
competence (qu. 15). Responses are detailed and can be read at Attachment A, page
PRE 3. The main specialisations include:

civil and infrastructure

signaling and communication

rolling stock

electric traction

tracks and structures

transport.
Recognition of Foreign Qualifications
There were no responses to the question (16) concerning a process for granting
recognition of foreign qualifications particularly for railway engineers except for
Singapore who stated that its ‘Professional Engineers Board’ (registration body)
accredits civil, structural, electrical and mechanical degrees awarded by various
universities in 15 countries (see Attachment A, page PRE 5 for details).
Recognition Arrangements and Agreements
40
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Viet Nam and Indonesia stated that they were aware of and accepted the APEC
Substantial Equivalence Framework for professional engineers (qu. 18) (see
Attachment A, page PRE 5). Canada, Japan and New Zealand did not respond
although these economies have been involved in the on-going meetings of the APEC
Engineer Project. Singapore stated that it had not yet evaluated the Framework.
No responding economies to date have been involved in any mutual recognition
arrangements or agreements (qus. 20-24). No benefits or costs were listed in relation
to any such arrangements (qu. 25) although a few barriers were named (qu. 26):

qualification of ‘railway engineer’ not recognised in New Zealand

difficulty of verifying other economies’ qualifications and registration

no standards to compare, no nationally accredited qualifications, too much
diversity within the profession (Indonesia)

none if work does not involve structures design (Singapore).
Indonesia considered that a way to overcome these barriers (qu. 27) was to ‘set the
qualifications and conditions including pre-requisites, have standard training
programs and work experience on Intermodal transport.’
Respondents were more forthcoming about the factors which might persuade an
economy or profession to consider negotiating mutual recognition arrangements (qu.
29). Those given were:

the need to study detail of content and outcomes of tertiary training

opportunity to send own engineers to another economy and receive foreign
railway engineers to instruct own engineers

railways development (construction?)

ability to verify other economies’ qualifications

familiarity with local regulations and requirements.
New Zealand named Australia, Europe and Canada as countries/economies with
whom it would be considered beneficial to negotiate mutual recognition (qu. 30).
5.2.5
Truck Driver / Commercial Vehicle Operator (CVO)
This questionnaire was responded to by ten economies: the Commonwealth of
Australia (that is, the national government) as well as by three Australian states
(Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania)one territory (Australian Capital Territory);
Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Mexico; New
Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru.
In the case of Australia, where the Commonwealth and state responses agreed, only
one response is given; where they differed the differences are identified.
41
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
CVO Organisations and Licensing Bodies
Almost all respondents had a national body to determine and specify requirements for
gaining a CVO licence. (qu. 2). However, in response to qus. 4 and 5, relating to the
testing (system and conduct) of CVOs, 50% of the economies had a national system
for testing CVOs and 50% did not.
For those economies administering CVO tests at a ‘local’ (qu. 7 and 8) or nonnational level, the kinds of organisations included:

private road freighting companies

state/provincial/territory governments

contracted and authorised private companies/providers/colleges

local police office
Licensing Requirements
Despite tests and licenses being conducted and issued by a range of organisations;
almost all (6 out of 8) respondents stated that their economy had a list of national
performance requirements clearly identified and available to the general public (qu.
10). Only Canada and Mexico reported variations in licence requirements in its
different regions (qu. 11). Australia reported a reduction in the number of variations
as national uniformity in driver licensing is being implemented.
Qu. 12 deals with CVO classifications and requirements. The classifications, vehicle
descriptions and requirements for gaining a licence for each responding economy are
very detailed and can be found at Attachment A, page CVO 5. Qu. 13 provides some
general information on requirements for gaining a CVO licence. In all cases of those
who responded, there was a requirement to hold a ‘lower level’ of licence for a period
that varied from 12 months to 5 years. The need to complete a training course was not
wide-spread and mostly occurred for specialised skills, for example, for dangerous
goods transportation (Canada) or for a ‘multi-combination’ truck licence (Queensland
and Victoria). Brunei stated inclusion of a driving school training course. Mexico
stated that the need for completing a training course depended on the type of licence
being sought. Completion of training would substitute for a written test.
A majority of economies used a written knowledge test (computer-based in some
cases). All included a practical driving test. Again there was a variety of responses as
to whether there was a requirement for the truck to be loaded (that is 50% load, 75%
load), one included night-driving as part of the test. Medical certificates and vision
tests were mostly required. Indonesia required a ‘psychology test’ to be taken.
Economies were divided (60%) as to those who required a probationary period after
gaining a CVO licence and those who didn’t. Even within Australia, there was no
agreement (qu. 14). A majority of economies (80%) did not require a person to be a
permanent resident before being able to obtain a CVO licence (qu. 16). However,
there were usually conditions attached (for example, Canada: can only hold a licence
42
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
from one jurisdiction; New Zealand: driver must have a current car licence for at least
2 years; Papua New Guinea: driver held class 3 licence for over 3 years). Mexico
stated that licences were only granted to Mexican citizens.
Verification of Licences
Almost all economies have developed, or are in the process of doing so, a national
computer data base for holders of licences (qu. 18). All licences were at least
laminated plastic; with one economy (Brunei) using a paper licence but with a
proposal to develop a smart card. Mexico is developing new federal licences with
‘retro-reflect images and ultraviolet light, hologram and bi-dimensional bar-code’ (qu.
19). A variety of proof of identity is required (qu. 20), for example birth certificate,
photographic licence, passport, proof of age, national identity card, record of driving
test result, employer’s identification, national military service booklet.
Licensing Renewal and Retesting
Renewal period for the CVO licence (qu. 22) varied from between 1, 3, 5 to 10 years.
Retesting is mostly not required on this renewal (qu. 23), although it is required if the
licence-holder has been disqualified or allowed the licence to lapse for a period, for
example Brunei; Canada; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea.
For those economies (Mexico; Australia and Canada) who have a federal structure
with states or provinces, there is automatic recognition of the licence given if a person
moves regions and applies for an equivalent licence (qu. 24). In Canada’s case, there
was the proviso that the ‘requirements in the new jurisdiction are not higher than in
the old jurisdiction’.
Qualifications
Very few economies offered any training programs for drivers (qu. 28). Those that did
(Victoria and Tasmania in Australia, Brunei, New Zealand), varied in almost every
aspect: Whether they were compulsory or voluntary; whether they were for all drivers
or hazardous conditions eg driving in snow (Victoria) and duration (NZ: depends on
training provider). Mexico is developing ‘Training Official Centres’ for training in
general freight and passenger driving skills.
Professional/Industry Association
Most (80%) respondents stated that for their economy there was one or more
associations to represent the interests of truck-drivers (qu. 29), mostly acting as lobby
groups and representation on national consultations.
Recognition of Foreign Licences
Each economy has a range of procedures for the recognition of foreign licences (qu.
31). They include:

Stipulation that driver holds equivalent licence class and its requirements (eg age,
experience).
43
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

Verification of licence required eg an accurate official translation or letter from
foreign driver licence issuing authority or consulate. New Zealand has two levels
of verification, depending on whether the driver’s country is ‘recognized’ by NZ
authorities, or not, or with whom there is a ‘reciprocal arrangement (Canada) (See
next section for details).

Training not generally required for getting the licence recognised or for driving.

Testing: Usually was a knowledge and practical driving test (that is, as a new
driver).
Recognition Arrangements or Agreements
Six economies responded in the affirmative to the questions (32-37) about recognition
arrangements or agreements:
1. Australia – New Zealand have developed the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition
Agreement (see Section 5 for more details). In the case of CVO licences there is
mutual recognition of each other’s licences, converted to equivalent
NZ/Australian licence after theory test and payment of fee. No requirement for
any other form of approval (eg work permit) is necessary.
2. Brunei stated that it had an agreement between Government bodies but no details
were given.
3. Canada- has reciprocal agreements with USA and Mexico so that a driver with a
valid commercial licence in one jurisdiction can operate in the other but they must
follow all rules of the jurisdiction they are driving in. For example, the US has
random drug tests for drivers, Canada does not. If a Canadian driver is to operate
in the US, he/she must be part of a random drug test program.
4. Peru – an agreement was entered into with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and
Venezuela (the Land International Transportation Agreement). These countries
recognize the CVO professional licence issued by the country of the driver.
5. Tasmania (Australian state) recorded an agreement being entered into between it
and Indonesia. However, details are not finalised at time of writing).
6. Indonesia thought (respondent was not sure) it had mutual recognition
arrangement with ASEAN countries and Australia, that is ‘a licence issued by
Indonesia is applied in those countries’.
7. As part of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico reported
on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Mexico and USA and
44
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Mexico and Canada which mutually recognised commercial and federal licenses.
The MOU was signed basically to facilitate international freight trade (54% of
freight is carried by road) and eliminate the ‘double licence procedures’. It
includes:
- processes for checking the licence
- minimum age (21 years)
- previous driving experience
- language proficiency
Respondents listed the benefits of entering into recognition agreements or
arrangements (qu. 38) as:

improved relations and better understandings between economies/countries

facilitation of international transportation by road, especially at border crossings

more business for individual drivers, lower costs, easier transition to new
economy

enhanced trade routes

enhanced road safety; reduction in truck accidents

reduced work load of government licensing agencies

more common business practices.

in the long term, could achieve uniform business rules

assurance of driving ability and appropriate standards

recognition of CVO profession
Overwhelmingly, the barrier most mentioned (qu. 39) concerned the difficulties in
verifying or authenticating other economies’ licences and standards. Other barriers
listed included:

driving and licencing standards disparity with other economies

difficulty in translating licence classes

standards not high enough

many economies do not have training centres

integrity of overseas licensing systems

language for road use

testing and training across international boundaries
45
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Suggestions for overcoming barriers (qu. 40) listed by responding economies were:

exchange of information between economies through electronic means

better harmonisation of standards, testing and training requirements between
APEC economies

licensing of recognised training institutions to train CVOs

standard examinations and tests

consultation

standardisation of licences and licensing classes
There was a range of restrictions to employment of foreign CVOs (qu. 41), for
example:

Queensland (Australia): To drive vehicles carrying passengers or dangerous goods
the person must obtain a licence issued in the state in which they want
employment as well as meeting other specified requirements

Canada: Cabotage requirement – Canadian driver cannot both pick up and deliver
within the US

Hong Kong, China: Must hold a full Hong Kong driving licence

New Zealand: Must be a resident or have appropriate work permit

Papua New Guinea: Must be a national (however foreign CVOs can be employed
as trainers).
Most economies did not respond to the question (42) on the factors/conditions that
would persuade them to consider negotiating mutual recognition arrangements.
Queensland (Australia) mentioned the need to develop a ‘clear understanding of their
licensing processes, regulatory measures and testing standards’. Indonesia noted ‘job
opportunities, lower cost in freight transport, delivery process more efficient and
effective’. Papua New Guinea noted the ‘acquisition of skills and technology’ and
‘efficiency and safety’ as being persuading factors.
The latter economy named Australia, Singapore, Japan and New Zealand as
economies with whom it would be beneficial to consider mutual recognition.
Indonesia mentioned a number: ASEAN, Middle East countries and Australia.
Mexico named Central and South American economies. (qu. 44).
5.2.6 Intermodal/Logistics Systems Managers
The following eight economies responded to this survey: Australia (Australian Capital
Territory [ACT], Northern Territory, Western Australia, Harris Scarfe Limited);
Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Indonesia; Japan; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Viet Nam.
46
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
General Information about the Profession
The job titles used to designate the work of an Intermodal/logistics manager (qu. 2)
included:

Australia: Logistics Manager; Dispatch Manager; Operations Manager;
Warehouse and Distribution Manager, IT Supply Chain Solution, Supply Chain
Manager)

Canada: Intermodal Business/Facilities/Operations Planner; Travel Agent; Supply
Chain Manager; E-Logistics Officer; Intermodal Manager

Chinese Taipei: Logistics Integration Engineer; Operation Department Manager
(Intermodal)

Indonesia: Logistics Manager, transport management specialist, freight transport
expert

Japan: Logistics, International Enterprises, Overseas Operations and International
Sales Administration Divisions

Thailand: Managers of Logistics; Distribution; Traffic; Logistics Planning; Supply
Chain.
The following general descriptions of work roles carried out by jobs under the various
titles attributed to the Intermodal/logistics area (qu. 3) and offered by four economies
(Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei and Thailand) included:

identifying total system requirements

end-to-end delivery solutions that deliver cost efficient, timely and risk-controlled
outcomes to their respective consumers

overall planning, processing and monitoring of all logistics aspects concerning
material management, storage and physical distribution

planning transportation network

freight administration – supervision on overall outbound finished goods and
procedures

undertaking systems planning, integration and forecasting

analysing Intermodal processes and operations

dealing with internal management systems focussing on efficient movement of
product within company systems

ordering material and physical distribution

dealing with information flow, product flow, cash flow.
47
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
No entry requirements (qu. 4) were named to work in any of the above positions
except for that of Logistics Integration Engineer who has to pass a licence
examination (Chinese Taipei) and Thailand for whom the jobs listed in question 2
required between 3 and 10 years experience in the field. The length of time depended
on the complexity of the job (eg Logistics Manager – over 10 years experience
required).
Professional Bodies
All economies except for Japan listed a number of bodies which represent the interests
of intermodal/logistics managers (qu. 6). (Thailand presented a very full response as
to the roles and functions of these bodies, see Attachment A, page IM/LM 2). There
were no registration requirements to work in the area (qu. 7), nor mention of any
national standards developed to describe the work of logistics managers (qu. 9).
(However, Australia, as part of its National Training Framework, has developed
competency-based standards in logistics/intermodal management skills, details of
which are provided at Attachment A, page IM/LM 4).
Qualification Requirements
Responses to questions 12, 13 and 14 concerning structured training programs in
place for entry into the occupation were variable. Brunei and Viet Nam currently offer
no specific training, Canada has three levels of training, Chinese Taipei named a half
year course for the position of Logistics Integration Engineer and Japan named a
course, although not at entry-level, for anyone who has worked in international
logistics for over two years. The Northern Territory University is currently
developing a 2 year course (no details provided). Thailand named two courses, both
gaining a certificate but at very different levels of detail. Indonesia did not name any
programs but stated that it was ‘imperative to develop such training programs’.
Economies responded to the question concerning future skill needs of the occupations
and industry (qu. 15), with training needs that cover most of the work involved in
intermodal/logistics management. For example:

transport management

warehouse and logistics management

just-in-time management

supply chain management (in vertically integrated company and/or alliance with
chain partner

systems analysis and IT skills

knowledge of different transport modes

e-commerce

export-import administration
48
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

cost-benefit concepts of Intermodal transportation

trade and transport linkages.
Australia (Harris Scarfe Ltd.) recommended for senior management a commitment to
an advanced diploma, degree or logistics-related MBA.
Recognition Arrangements or Agreements
No economy responded affirmatively concerning any mutual recognition arrangement
being made between economies or educational institutions in relation to
intermodal/logistics management training (qu. 16). Indonesia considered that
qualifications, work experience, knowledge of national and international laws and
regulations on shipping, knowledge of national transport infrastructure characteristics
were important factors in recognising a person’s foreign experience in logistics
management or a related field for employment purposes (qu. 18).
Benefits to such possible arrangements (qu. 19) were suggested by Brunei; Indonesia
and Viet Nam, and concerned the possibility of sharing experience with the
profession, raising standards within the profession and increased work efficiency and
cost saving.
Barriers (qu. 20) to such arrangements occurring included:

difficulty in verifying other economies’ qualifications

the lack of national standards, qualifications and/or accreditation agencies

no appreciation of logistics in a comprehensive demand-supply chain environment

no specific laws and regulations to monitor and regulate Intermodal/logistics
business

no standard of terminologies and codes used in transportation

huge areas of diversity within the profession

other economies’ struggle with Australian OH&S standards and with the linehaul
distances in Australia (single lane)

compliance with Australian road/rail/sea legal loading/ capacity regulations

restrictions on competition on entry.
Ways of overcoming these barriers (qu. 21) included:

studying other economies’ qualifications

focussing on core competency levels required
49
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

cooperative efforts and lobbying by institutions and associations already providing
training and education in the field

international traineeships / exchange programs

greater interaction and sharing of data between like businesses

create international standards that cater for the diversity of the Australian
economy

setting qualifications and conditions including pre-requisites

standard training programs

change of mindset/culture by domestic companies

intervention of overseas companies

authorisiation of qualifications by the nation .
Factors which might persuade an economy / profession to consider negotiating mutual
recognition arrangements (qu. 22) included:

unavailability of qualified and experienced local employees

more national standards and qualifications in APEC economies

where there is an intense trading relation between two economies

demand of market for standardisation

need for intermodal/logistics operators in one economy to expand their operations
into other APEC economies

lower costs of intermodal transport systems

increased job opportunities

need to reach common understandings among APEC economies in this field

ability to cope with international professional standards.
The Northern Territory (Australia) and Indonesia noted specific economies with
which it would be beneficial to consider mutual recognition (qus. 23 and 24). They
were for Northern Territory, Chinese Taipei; PRC and Hong Kong, China –
particularly for food exports; also Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines.
Indonesia named the ASEAN and Middle East countries, Europe, North America,
Japan and Australia. Thailand was interested in pursuing arrangements with all APEC
economies.
50
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
6
Discussion and Analysis
This chapter presents via discussion and analysis, a synthesis of the data, gathered
from:

the survey responses from each economy and each profession

international perspectives, models and frameworks outlined in chapter 4

other relevant known factors about each profession

outcomes of previous related surveys conducted by APEC

input and feedback from the APEC TPT WG, the Steering Committee for this
project and industry representatives in Australia
6.1
Barriers and Impediments to Mutual Recognition
Despite the differences between some of the professions in this project, the barriers
and impediments identified by respondents to mutual recognition arrangements were
remarkably similar, particularly considering that respondents were answering an
open-ended question. They are represented in the following table, which provides a
qualitative indication of the most common ‘barriers’ cited in the surveys in order to
identify trends. The barriers presented below do not comprise the complete list of
those cited. They were selected because they were noted by two or more respondents
in a profession and because they most directly related to the issues concerning this
project.
It should be noted that within each survey, approximately 50 per cent of respondents
did not answer the section on recognition of foreign licences, qualifications and so on
and the related questions concerning benefits, barriers and ways of overcoming them.
Barrier/Impediment
ATC
LAME
FC
 Lack of internationally-recognised
and/or agreed standards



PRE
CVO


 Lack of laws and regulations, national
standards, qualifications and/or accreditation
agencies

Difficulty of verifying foreign licences
 Difficulty of verifying foreign
training/qualifications
IM/
LM









51
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

 Difficulty of verifying foreign
registration
 (Lack of) integrity of foreign licence
systems



Disparity in driving standards
 Procedures, training and varieties of
licences unique to individual economies



Lack of contact with APEC economies



Requirement for nationality


Legend:
ATC: Air Traffic Controller
FC: Flight Crew
CVO: Commercial Vehicle Operator
LAME: Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer
PRE: Professional Railway Engineer
IM/LM: Intermodal/Logistics Manager
Consideration of these perceived and/or actual barriers to mutual recognition within
APEC economies is critical to making progress in this area. Of particular note is the
difficulty identified in verification of foreign licences and qualifications and lack of
recognised international standards that emerged from the three Aviation Surveys.
These results may not be surprising to people within the Aviation Industry. However,
in general terms, they do highlight the difficulties associated with having international
standards accepted and trusted, even given the role played by ICAO. All APEC
economies except Chinese Taipei are signatories to the Chicago Convention.
The lack of trust in another economy’s training, qualifications and possibly licensing
procedures is born out even within the most ‘watertight’ of all international
agreements in this area; the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
Convention, negotiated at great length by members of the International Maritime
Organization. There are strict, internationally-agreed competency standards and
procedures in place regulating the training and recognition of a number of seafaring
occupations.
The first step in the maritime procedure requires that there is a written agreement
between the economy/country seeking to recognise another’s qualifications. However,
this is NOT a mutual recognition agreement. Therefore, each country/economy will
elect to have written agreements only with those whose training and qualification
systems it knows and has confidence in. It is only after this written agreement is
made, that an individual can apply for a Certificate of Recognition in order to work on
a foreign economy’s ship.24
52
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Thus, no multi-lateral international agreement can prevent individual economies
making decisions about whom they wish to ‘do business’ with; nor does it displace
the reality of the overall discrepancy in living standards/gross national product within
the APEC region and elsewhere in the world. It is of course this discrepancy that
enables some economies to meet more easily and even surpass agreed-to international
regulations as for example, laid down within ICAO Annex 1 – ‘Standards and
Recommended Practices’.
6.2 Factors in Each Profession Relevant to the Scope for a Practical
Model of Best Practice
Each profession discussed in this project offers challenges and opportunities in
considering the possible scope for a model of recognition. The following provides
some indications of where that scope may lie, based on the survey questions on
benefits and barriers to mutual recognition and other data,
6.2.1 Aviation
The three aviation professions would appear to be in an advantageous position in
relation to mutual recognition. These professions are highly regulated, both
domestically and internationally. The three professions were surveyed within APEC
in 1996 and the current project sought to focus on those areas where most variation
was indicated in the previous surveys. It also expanded the questions relating to
initial training, the recognition of foreign licenses and recognition arrangements
between economies.
The 1996 APEC aviation surveys, in brief, had the following results25:
Air Traffic Controllers
Most of the responding economies based their ATC licensing systems on ICAO
Annex 1. Considerable commonality existed in the licensing requirements and
procedures for the recognition of foreign licences. The most variations existed in the
period of validity, renewals, currency requirements and licence formats.
Flight Crew
All respondents based aviation licensing standards on ICAO Annex 1 and there was
much commonality between economies, for example in the type ratings, endorsements
and recognition requirements. Variations existed in periods of validity, licence
renewals, currency requirements and licence/medical certificate formats. It was
considered that bilateral negotiations could minimise these discrepancies.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
Of the member economies that responded, all complied with ICAO Annex 1 in their
own way (except Chinese Taipei). Some issued type 1 licences, some type II licences,
some issued both. The requirements for the granting, renewal and also for the methods
adopted for the recognition of the qualifications of foreign licences varied greatly
between member economies although all broadly complied with ICAO requirements.
53
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
In the 2000 surveys, the only specified mutual recognition agreements or
arrangements by respondents to the three aviation surveys, was the Trans-Tasman
Mutual Recognition Agreement between Australia and New Zealand. This agreement
is not specific to the aviation industry. Canada’s response to the AME survey
indicated that an agreement has been entered into with unspecified parties. The issue
of a preference for making bilateral agreements which was raised by several member
economies in Stage One of this project, remains ‘on the table’. There were no
indications from any responding economy to these three surveys that there was
interest in multilateral agreements.
Suggestions for overcoming the kinds of barriers identified in 6.1 are noted below.
Clearly any model of recognition must use as its basis the international standards and
regulations already in existence, that is, primarily through ICAO but also the Joint
Aviation Authorities (Europe) and within the US – the FAA, as some respondents
acknowledged.
Air Traffic Controllers
Some of the areas of variation between economies found in the 1996 aviation survey
are still variable: for example in the areas of requirements to keep the licence current
and valid, expiry dates of licences and medical certificates, recency and currency
requirements.
Suggestions for overcoming barriers to mutual recognition again focussed on how to
work with and expand the international standards in existence, for example Canada
stated that the ‘ICAO specification was quite limited and would have to be expanded
to be acceptable from one economy to another’. Hong Kong, China felt that ‘each
economy had unique ATC procedures and training that were not possible to
overcome’. It should also be noted that NO economy apart from New Zealand had any
processes in place for the recognition of individual air traffic controllers’ licences and
qualifications. It has been suggested to the researcher that the high degree of local
knowledge of air space architecture, the vastly different types and sophistication of
equipment in use means that the profession of air traffic controller does not lend itself
easily to mutual recognition procedures.26
Flight Crew
Similarly for Flight Crew, the current survey found many of the variations from the
previous survey still in existence, for example expiry dates of licences and medical
certificates (also for some economies, medical certificate duration depended on the
type of licence held), registration of differences under ICAO licensing standard
specified in Annex 1. About half the respondents stated that they based their training
on ICAO Annex 1 requirements.
Responses were minimal in the area of consideration of mutual recognition, apart
from Brunei which is interested in harmonising its requirements with the JAR. Never
the less, all economies (apart from Chinese Taipei) recognised, on an individual basis,
foreign licences, qualifications and experience and have set up processes to do so.
These processes in general terms consist of a combination of verifying the
54
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
authenticity of licences and qualifications; examining the flight log book; and written
and oral testing in most cases.
Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
A number of economies registered differences under ICAO’s Annex 1, related to
requirements of the licence, (minimum age) the format of the licence and practical
experience requirements to gain the licence, particularly for those not undertaking a
formal course. Requirements to keep the licence current and valid did not vary
enormously.
New Zealand’s point of view was that ‘if the state is an ICAO contracting state there
are no barriers’ to recognising an AME licence and qualifications from another
economy (apart from immigration requirements). Singapore commented similarly and
also stressed the ‘FAA/JAA harmonisation effort...that can be used as the basis for
agreed to internationally recognised standards’.
Although not mentioned by other economies apart from New Zealand, the fact that
ICAO has begun a lengthy process of auditing ICAO states’ licensing and training
arrangements, should result in other states having (more) confidence in accepting
foreign licences subject to acceptable ICAO audit results. Canada suggested
providing a ‘unilateral description of the licence model minimum requirements as
‘essential in recognising equivalency between models’. Hong Kong, China noted the
need for ‘aviation authorities of economies to promote their licencing systems and
standards to each other, enhancing mutual understanding’. Japan suggested a process
of ‘harmonising the AME licence of each economy’.
Australia noted that there is a world wide shortage of aircraft maintenance engineers.
For this reason, it is suggested that this occupation could be selected for Stage 4 of
this project which aims to establish a framework for best practices in Recognition
Procedures; focusing on particular characteristics of transport jobs in demand or with
a high degree of mobility.
In summary: The issue for APEC in the area of aviation would appear to be whether
there is sufficient motivation among member economies to spend the resources on
agreeing on a ‘minimum standard’ in the training and gaining of a licence (including
its annotations and conditions, privileges, types, categories and endorsements) for
ATCs, AMEs and Flight Crew – if the regulations in ICAO’s Annex 1 are not
considered an adequate minimum. Alternatively, bi-lateral agreements can be entered
into, where the motivation and need exists between two parties and the above issues
of standards can more readily be resolved.
6.2.2 Professional Railway Engineers
Professional railway engineers were prioritised for inclusion in this project because, at
least from the viewpoint of Australia, there is an on-going shortage. In addition, the
profession was considered to have mutual recognition potential in that it could be
included in the APEC Engineer Project and its ‘Substantial Equivalence Framework’.
55
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
As has been stated, there was a paucity of responses to this survey. Additionally,
many of those who did respond, did not provide a great deal of information on which
to base any analysis. The fact that in many economies, there is no entry level
qualification for ‘professional railway engineer’, should not be a deterrent for railway
engineering specialisations becoming part of the general APEC Engineer Equivalence
Framework, some details of which are provided on page INSERT PLEASE. The
Substantial Equivalence Framework provides for inclusion on the Register of APEC
Professional Engineers. That Register is open to engineers in participating economies
who have:

completed an accredited or recognised engineering program

been assessed within their own jurisdiction as eligible for independent practice

gained a minimum of seven years practical experience since graduation

spent at least two years in responsible charge of significant engineering work and

maintained their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level.27
In order for individual economies to implement the APEC Engineer register, they
have to fulfill certain criteria. The following economies were authorised (July 2000)
to implement the registers: Australia; Canada; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea;
Malaysia and New Zealand.28 It will be advantageous for engineers wanting to work
in another APEC economy to be on the Register as it will reduce the licensing and
registration barriers to work in the new economy.
This model of recognition provides scope for engineers working within one or more
of the railway specialisations, to register in one of the disciplines agreed to by two or
more of the participating APEC economies. They are civil, structural, geotechnical,
environmental, mechanical, electrical, industrial, mining and chemical engineering.
However, there was no indication from the surveys that it is desired. The model
utilises each economy’s engineer registration bodies and professional bodies,
including their involvement in accrediting engineering courses, within their own
economies and in others (see for example the Singapore Professional Engineers
Board, page 48). CHECK PAGE NO PLEASE
6.2.3 Commercial Vehicle Operators
Outcomes from this survey indicate that there is the basis for recognition procedures
using performance statements that most economies have, as well as the possibility for
comparing licence requirements per licence class. Peru provided an example of an
agreement made between neighbouring countries of the Andean Community which
recognises the licences of commercial vehicle operators. Additionally, there is a
Memorandum of Understanding between Mexico, Canada and the USA (bilateral
MOUs) concerning commercial vehicle operators. Within the TTMRA (Trans Tasman
Mutual Recognition Agreement), there is scope for mutual recognition of New
Zealand and Australian licences (as long as a payment is made and a theory test
done). Canada has reciprocal agreements with the USA and Mexico so that a driver
56
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
with a valid licence in one jurisdiction can operate in another but must follow all the
rules of the jurisdiction they are driving in.
The examples provided by Canada, Mexico and Peru illustrate the fundamental aspect
driving all mutual recognition agreements – motivation. In this case, the motivational
factors are shared land borders and the desire to facilitate international road transport.
More generally, economies suggested exploiting electronic means to facilitate the
exchange of information between them and to verify foreign licences. This latter
seems increasingly feasible as evidence from the survey stated that all economies
have developed, (or are in the process of doing so), a national computer data base for
licence holders.
Using either of the above agreements already established as models, it would seem
feasible to establish other, possibly regional agreements between economies if such a
need arises. This could include a data base (with its management to be negotiated)
whereby equivalencies of and requirements for each licence class could be
determined.
6.2.4 Intermodal/Logistics Systems Managers
The intermodal/logistics profession was prioritised by the TPT-WG in Stage 1 of this
project as being critical to the efficient movement of global trade, with increasing
emphasis placed on intermodalism, operating between and within transport modes,
domestically and/or internationally. The survey was designed to focus on the needs of
a ‘manager’ position which in this industry, covers many roles, skills and knowledges
as respondents to the survey attested.
This project was conducted concurrently with a larger one, ‘Identification of Needed
Intermodal Skills and Development of Required Training’29 also funded by the TPTWG. It was designed to identify needed Intermodal skills and to analyze the degree to
which educational and training programs were supplying such skills to the workforce
within APEC’s member economies. The small amount of evidence from the mutual
recognition survey confirms that a wide range of training at different levels is needed
to cover both current and future skill needs in the areas of intermodalism and logistics.
Respondents did not specify about which levels of the profession they were referring
to when they suggested for example more training was needed in ‘trade and transport
linkages’, ‘knowledge of different transport modes’ or ‘e-commerce’.
The Intermodal skills project provides an extensive and specific inquiry into
intermodalism which incorporated a variety of data collection methods. Thus, in its
analysis, it was able to disaggregate (to an extent) the data concerning training needs
in relation to:

skill category definitions (foundational, analytical, technical and interpersonal)

training opportunities related to those skill categories within four APEC regions –
defined for the purposes of the project as North America, Latin America, Oceania,
Asia-Developed and Asia-Emerging
57
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
type of training available for individuals working at various levels or positions within
an organisation (Phd, MA, BS, diploma, certificate, short courses, distance learning)
per economy and per APEC region.
Needless to say, the research found considerable disparity in training opportunities
between the APEC regions. It also concluded that ‘a gap exists in the availability of
education and training opportunities between entry and upper level positions’ in
inverse proportion to where most positions are held. Thus, ‘40% of the course
offerings and programs containing those offerings are targeted towards persons who
already have a bachelor’s degree…It seems that the preponderance of Intermodal
skills training is targeted towards middle and upper middle management level
employees, not the entry level professional’ (pp. 59-60).
One of the conclusions of this report was that ‘even in economies with the largest
number of training opportunities, few programs provide students with the integrated
and coherent experience needed to develop the skills required by what has been called
“the new science of intermodalism” ‘(p. 64). The authors of the report suggest that
APEC could convene an international meeting of groups representing all the
dimensions of intermodalism, to produce a template or master document ‘that outlines
an integrated and sequential set of experiences’ (p. 66) as the basis for the
development of future training opportunities.
This project concludes with a number of draft recommendations designed to enhance
future training and educational opportunities in intermodalism among APEC
economies. The first three draft recommendations (p. 67) for example suggest piloting
a number of projects in one or more APEC economies to:
1. assess in detail the degree to which existing educational and training institutions
are providing the economy(ies) with the four skill categories that have been
identified as being integral to Intermodal competence;
2. analyse the potential of alternative delivery mechanisms in terms of the needs of
particular Intermodal stakeholders
3. identify curriculum content, pedagogical practices and course distribution
mechanisms most suitable for the pilot project.
Returning to the recognition project, respondents to the intermodal/logistics
managers’ survey identified a number of ways of overcoming barriers to recognition
arrangements that could be incorporated into the above recommendations for a pilot
project. For example, respondents noted the need to study other economies’
qualifications, focus on core competency levels required, encourage cooperative
efforts and lobbying by institutions and associations already providing training and
education in the field and change the mindset/culture of domestic companies. Within
the proposed pilot project, it would be possible to also test the feasibility of these
factors.
In addition, it would be possible to map skill levels and qualifications in use by
economies or educational institutions. For example, as part of Australia’s vocational
education and training qualification framework, the national industry training body
58
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
‘Transport and Distribution Training Australia’ has developed competency-based
industry standards at 3 qualification levels in the area of logistics – covering transport,
distribution, freight forwarding and purchasing as well as lower levels in
warehousing, road transport, stevedoring and rail. These standards and accompanying
documentation are available for use by companies, the industry and training
organisations in Australia as benchmarks for qualifications.
6.3
Benefits of Mutual Recognition
Benefits to mutual recognition were not as easily identified by respondents as the
barriers. Respondents to the Flight Crew and Professional Railway Engineer surveys
did not identify any benefits. For the other four professions, the most frequently
mentioned benefit was the possibility for a reduction of basic training, testing and
licensing requirements and related cost-saving.
Other reported benefits by CVO and ATC respondents concerned the potential for
mutual recognition to assist in establishing and standardising rules for issuing a
licence and improve the performance (of controllers) and road safety and driving
ability (of CVOs). Air traffic controller respondents reported a benefit as being the
ability to staff operational positions more rapidly and more readily in contingencies.
Apart from the above mentioned, CVOs also considered that recognition of CVO
licences could, in general terms, improve relations and better understandings between
economies, achieve uniform business rules in the long term and achieve better
recognition (status) for the profession.
6.4 Best Practice in Accreditation, Recognition and Development of
Professional Qualifications
The survey responses did not provide many examples of good practice in the above
areas. Those that were mentioned are included here:
The Land International Transportation Agreement (ATIT)
An agreement was entered into between Peru and other members of the Andean
Community - Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela (the Land International
Transportation Agreement). These countries recognize the Commercial Vehicle
Operator’s professional licence issued by the country of the driver.
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement (TTMRA)
The TTRMA is an arrangement between the Commonwealth, State and Territory
Governments of Australia and the Government of New Zealand. The TTMRA
provides for each economy to recognise regulatory standards adopted in the other in
respect of goods and occupations. The scheme commenced operation in May 1998.
The TTMRA covers all occupations for which some form of legislation-based
registration, certification, licensing, approval, admission or any other form of
authorisation is required in order to legally practice the occupation. (The only
exception applies to medical practitioners).
59
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Recognition under the TTMRA focuses on the fact of a person’s registration in their
original jurisdiction rather than on the requirements for registration (eg possession of
a qualification). This means that requirements for initial registration cannot be
imposed on practitioners from other jurisdictions as a condition of obtaining
registration under the TTMRA.
It should be noted that the mutual recognition principle applies to occupations that are
‘equivalent’. Two occupations are taken to be equivalent if the activities authorised to
be carried out under registration are substantially the same.30 (Note that this is the
same principle underlying mutual recognition in the European Union, described in
Chapter 4 of this report).
Each of the transport modes in this project is affected differently by the TTMRA.31 In
respect of aviation, personnel certification only is covered. However, the Single
Aviation Market Arrangements include provision for the two safety authorities to
establish a timeframe to achieve mutual recognition of all aviation-related
certification not covered by the TTMRA. The New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority
(NZCAA) contains its procedures for Australian pilots seeking to use their
qualifications in New Zealand and advice to New Zealanders intending to fly in
Australia.
NZCAA advises that, generally speaking, there are no problems with regard to
recognising Australian licences. Australian pilots are required to register with the
NZCAA after which they can use their Australian qualification there. New Zealand
pilots going to Australia are issued with an equivalent Australian licence.
If there is an operational ‘hitch’ in the application of TTMRA, it is with regard to the
issue of ‘currency’. Pilots are required to maintain currency of instrument ratings for
example. Because it is a requirement of the Australian legislation that the pilot of an
Australian registered aircraft must hold an Australian licence, they are also obliged to
maintain Australian ratings. A New Zealand pilot returning to New Zealand may be
current in terms of an Australian rating attached to his Australian licence, and is
entitled to operate on that Australian licence within New Zealand, but would have to
re-establish his/her currency in order to operate with his/hers New Zealand licence
again. Australian pilots operating in New Zealand with an Australian licence have no
option but to return to Australia periodically to renew their Australian ratings in order
to maintain currency on that licence to comply with their legislation.
Australia commented that New Zealand professional flight crew, aircraft maintenance
engineer and air traffic control licences may be considered under the TTMRA and not
under the Civil Aviation Regulations.
In respect of land transport, regulatory requirements for road vehicles have been
included in an Annex to the TTMRA establishing a Co-operation Programme. This
Co-operation Programme is aimed, where appropriate, at harmonising Australian and
New Zealand standards with the internationally recognised United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) standards, or those national or regional
standards that are agreed by the parties, and at developing consistent conformance
assessment and certification requirements in both countries.
60
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
TTMRA has possibly had an effect in making it easier for New Zealanders and
Australians to cross the Tasman in order to work and it may also have encouraged
greater integration of the two economies, but it is still too early to draw any firm
conclusions. In the view of the NZ Transport Department, there are other important
factors, which may be greater, such as:

The high level of integration of the Australian and New Zealand economies that
has been a direct consequence of the 1983 Australia New Zealand Closer
Economic Relations and Trade Agreement (‘CER’).

Immigration requirements. For many years there have been no requirements for
New Zealanders and Australians to hold work visas to work in the other country
and this obviously encourages mobility of people.

Comparative economic climate and the opportunities provided by a stronger
economy. This would be a significant motivating factor to explain the increasing
number of New Zealanders that have left for Australia over recent years.

Advances in technology and communication, encouraging greater centralisation of
business activities.

Close social, cultural, and family links between New Zealand and Australia, all of
which encourage a high degree of mobility in people.
Professional Engineers Board, Singapore
An Accreditation Committee assists the Board in assessing and accrediting
civil, structural, electrical and mechanical engineering degrees that are of acceptable
standard. Members of the Accreditation Committee include the Deans or Heads of
the Schools/Departments of Engineering from the local universities and members
from the industry. Degrees obtained through full-time attendance as internal
candidates are considered for accreditation. The Bachelor of Engineering degrees
from the local universities are used as a benchmark.
Overseas engineering degrees are assessed on the basis of the entry requirements,
quality of teaching staff, teaching and research facilities, and the quality of the
graduates. Wherever possible, accreditation by the national accreditation body will
also be used as a guide. The Board gazettes those degrees that are acceptable in the
Professional Engineers (Approved Qualifications) Notification.
The Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust)
The Institute of Engineers, Australia (IEAust) is the relevant authority in Australia
with responsibility for assessing foreign qualifications in engineering for recognition
to practice in Australia in one of the three occupational categories of either
professional engineer or engineering technologist or engineering associate. Overseas
qualifications in engineering are assessed to establish their equivalence with an
Australian engineering qualification. The outcome of the assessment will determine
the grade and level of membership for which an applicant is eligible to apply.
61
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
The assessment process consists firstly of a self-assessment to determine the
applicant’s engineering competencies, which may lead to the formal assessment
process which comprises preparation of a Competency Demonstration Report (CDR)
for the applicant to demonstrate how he/she has applied his/her engineering
knowledge in the workplace to gain a number of core competencies. The CDR also
includes assessment of qualifications, curriculum vitae, evidence of continuing
professional development and professional work experience.
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation (SEAMO)
Recent research has been conducted on the VTET (Vocational and Technical
Education and Training) accreditation and certification systems in SEAMO (Southeast
Asian Ministers of Education Organisation). Members of SEAMO include Brunei
Darussalam; Burma; Cambodia; Indonesia; Lao People’s Democratic Republic;
Malaysia; Philippines; Singapore; Thailand and Viet Nam.
The report of this research Training Systems in South-East Asia stated that ‘all
member countries in the region have arrangements for accrediting vocational and
educational programs, with levels in a national qualifications framework in some
instances providing an overall structure. What varies among the countries is the nature
of the programs which are accredited. For example, Singapore, Malaysia and the
Philippines are three examples of countries which have a VTET system of nationally
recognised qualifications of skills attainment and skill standards covering a range of
levels within a qualification framework.32
These same countries and Thailand (to a lesser extent) have implemented or are in the
process of implementing occupational skills maps and skills standards as the basis for
their VTET programs and qualifications. Indonesia, Cambodia and Viet Nam are
heading in the direction of adopting occupational skills maps and skills standards and
competency-based approaches to training, for some industries and occupations.
However it appears that formal recognition of overseas qualifications are not a feature
of SEAMO member-country VTET systems, even those countries which have welldefined and developed qualification frameworks.33
62
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
7
Establishing the Scope for a Practical Model for Best
Practice in Mutual Recognition
7.1 Introduction
In the light of the data presented in this report, this chapter will propose a set of
guiding principles as the basis for a way forward for the APEC Transportation
Working Group Mutual Recognition Project.
The preceding chapter (6.1) examined the ‘scope’ for mutual recognition as it applies
to each of the professions in this project, informed by results from the surveys and
other data. As is clear, the story is a complex one.
There are many factors affecting the need and motivation for recognition. They vary
between economies and professions and include major considerations such as
individual economies’ immigration and work permit laws. These are partially affected
by supply and demand and skill shortages in particular domestic labour markets which
in turn affect an economy or profession’s willingness to encourage the recognition of
foreign licences and qualifications. This is illustrated by Thailand’s response in the
intermodal/logistics managers survey to the question ‘what factors/conditions would
persuade your profession to consider negotiating mutual recognition arrangements?’.
The answer: ‘The need of Intermodal/logistics operators in one economy to expand
their operations into other APEC economies’.
Common land borders and trade routes have been key factors in economies'
motivation to streamline recognition arrangements of commercial vehicle operators'
licences, negotiated on a regional basis. On the other hand, economies have been
motivated by the concern that other economies may not be able to match their own
safety and other standards, and to date have not recognised foreign licences,
qualifications and experience. This was evident from the responses to the air traffic
controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers’ surveys.
The results from the surveys found very few examples of cooperative practices in
mutual recognition. However, the final questions in the surveys concerning factors
that may persuade an economy or profession to consider negotiating mutual
recognition arrangements, could suggest ways forward. For the three professions
representing the aviation industry in this project, factors mainly revolved around the
issues of needing verifiably similar training, testing and a consensus on international
standards, which may be occurring through the further harmonisation of ICAO
contracting states and ICAO’s process of auditing their licensing systems . A further
motivation could be present within the aircraft maintenance engineers profession in
relation to there being a world-wide shortage, as Australia indicated in its survey
response.
Professional railway engineers also suggested the ability to verify other economies’
qualifications, familiarity with local regulations and opportunities for exchange
programs to be persuading factors. The intermodal/logistics managers’ responses were
more ‘market driven’ (meeting supply and demand, lack of experienced local
63
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
employees in this area) but there was also concern for more national standards and
qualifications in other APEC economies.
This project also identified a few interesting examples of recognition models within
the European Union, within economies (for example Canada, Malaysia and Australia)
and within professions (for example, engineers and surveyors). One of the lessons
from these examples is the importance of the establishment of transparent systems
and procedures of accreditation (of programs and institutions), licensing and
registration within each economy. In addition, successful recognition arrangements
have often applied to one profession and within that profession between two
economies only.
Stage 4 of this APEC project will seek to establish a framework of recommended
practices and a mechanism to facilitate recognition. There are key requirements for a
model or framework for mutual recognition, regardless of whether this is between
economies, regions, professional organisations or licensing bodies. In order to
establish a framework of international mutual recognition (either bi-lateral or multilateral), it is considered necessary for each party firstly to implement these principles.
7.2
Guiding Principles for Good Practice in (Mutual) Recognition
The following provides a summary of guiding principles concerning good practice in
the recognition of foreign qualifications and licences, for discussion by member
economies. They are based on the premise that for recognition (mutual or not, within
an agreement/arrangement or not) to occur, one or more of the following conditions
must be in place, within an economy:

comparable entry-level qualifications – that is, clear statements of knowledge and
skills required to achieve the qualification are available

job description/s including clear statements of qualifications, skills, knowledge
and experience required to perform the job

a regulatory environment (possibly international) which requires a licence to work
in an industry or

registration requirements attached to working in the field.
The inclusion of guidelines and principles is based on the experiences of Canada and
the Council of Europe. Both found there was a need to establish guiding principles for
good practice in the recognition of foreign qualifications (and licences) (see endnote
34
). The Canadian and European principles have been adapted for this project, for
discussion by APEC member economies.
The audiences for these guiding principles may include:

APEC Transportation Working Group

Individual economies’ education and training bureaucracies
64
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications

Universities and other relevant educational and training institutions (public and
private)

National or regional accreditation agencies

National centres or organisations for recognition of foreign qualifications

National or regional regulatory or registration bodies
1.2.1 Guidelines for Recognition Procedures for Qualifications and
Licences
General Procedures
1.
The recognition of a foreign qualification or licence should:
a) situate the qualification or licence within the framework of the education, training
or licensing system to which it belongs, taking into account its relative place and
function compared to other qualifications or licences in the same system;
b) identify the level and type of qualification/licence in the system of the economy in
which recognition is sought that is most comparable to the foreign
qualification/licence, taking into account the purpose for which recognition is sought;
and
c) determine whether similarities between foreign and domestic
qualifications/licences are sufficient for recognition to be granted.
2.
The recognition should take into account past practices in similar cases in
order to ensure consistency in recognition practice. Past practice should be recorded
so that it can be used as a guideline for making consistent decisions. Substantial
changes of practice should be justified and recorded.
Information Requirements
3.
The recognition process should provide standardised information on the
procedures and criteria for the assessment of foreign qualifications/licences. This
information should automatically be given to all applicants as well as to persons
making preliminary inquiries about the recognition of their qualification/licence,
including the following:
a) the documentation required and requirements related to the authentication and
translation of relevant documents (including licences)
b) the role of professional associations, licensing bodies and educational institutions
in the recognition process
c) the status of the recognition statement
d) the approximate time needed to process an application
e) the fees charged
f) the process for appealing decisions.
4.
The responsibility for providing information is shared by the applicant, the
educational institutions and/or licensing or registration bodies where the qualification
or licence were gained.
65
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
Translation
5.
Translation should be limited to key documents.
6.
Original documents, including the titles and details of foreign
qualifications or licences, should be provided in the original language.
Document Requirements
7.
Original/official documents or certified copies of documents are normally
required for a recognition process. If photocopies are accepted, this should be clearly
indicated on the recognition statement.
8.
The presence of fraudulent or altered documents should lead to refusal to
issue a recognition report. A verification by the issuing institution or authority in the
economy of origin should be conducted if it is suspected that documents have been
altered or falsified.
Criteria for Evaluation of Educational Institutions and Programs
9.
In view of the wide diversity of educational institutions, the status of a
qualification should not be established without taking account of the status of the
program and institution at which the qualification was earned.
10.
Recognition should only be considered for education attained through
recognised institutions. A recognised institution is one that has been formally
recognised by an accreditation agency or professional body in an economy and/or that
is widely accepted by other institutions and agencies inside or outside the economy.
11.
A qualification should be recognised only if the related program is also
recognised by the accreditation agency or professional body. Recognition of an
educational institution does not guarantee the recognition of all qualifications issued
by that institution.
12.
Sample criteria to be applied to determine the outcomes of an educational
or training course include:
a) entry requirements (eg: what are the normal admission requirements for entry to
the program? What is the level of studies in the home economy? Are there
prerequisites for entry to the program?
b) does the economy have skill standards and/or a qualification framework in which
to place the level of the program?
c) are there international standards on which the program is based? (how closely is
the course aligned with those standards?)
c) full-time duration of study program
d) structure of the program (eg: how is the program structured? What type is it, such
as vocational, academic?
e) teaching and learning facilities (eg: are these adequate to meet the needs of the
curriculum and industry?)
66
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
f) contents of the program (eg: are there clear statements on the knowledge and skills
required?)
g) assessment requirements (eg: are there grades? What is the proportion of practical
and theory assessment?)
General Guidelines/Requirements for Recognition of a Foreign Licence
13.
The following may need to be in place, depending upon the licence to be
recognised:
a) procedures for verifying the authenticity of the licence
b) procedures for assessing equivalencies in, for example, different types or classes of
a particular licence
c) procedures for determining equivalence in standards (home economy with foreign
economy and possibly including international standards)
d) clarification to the applicant of the additional testing that may be required
(practical, oral and/or written)
e) clarification to the applicant of the types (if any) of prior experience that may be
deemed acceptable
f) criteria for determining recognition of related training/qualifications as in point 12
above.
7.2.2 Basic Principles for Implementing Recognition
1
Recognition should be performed without any form of racial, religious,
political or sexual discrimination.
2
Holders of foreign qualifications/licences should have adequate access, upon
request, to their assessment for purposes of recognition.
3
The procedures and criteria used in the recognition of foreign qualifications
and licences should be transparent, coherent and reliable, so that all applicants receive
a fair consideration of their application.
4
The general approach to foreign qualifications and how they are compared to a
particular system should take into account the diversity of educational and training
traditions and systems among APEC economies.
5
The same basic methodology should apply whether the statement of
recognition is for:
a) general employment purposes
b) entry into post-secondary education institutions
c) entry into a regulated profession.
6
In the first instance, the responsibility for providing adequate information rests
with the applicant.
7
Institutions having issued the qualification have a duty to provide, upon
request of the applicant and within reasonable time limits, relevant information to the
67
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
holder of the qualification, to the institution or to the Recognition Authority of the
economy in which recognition is sought.
Endnotes
1
Towards a Strategic Direction Paper for the APEC Transportation Working Group, September 1999,
http://www.apectptwg.org.au/TPT/tp…aper/strategic-direction-paper.htm, p1.
2
Bjornavold, J and Sellin, B, 1997, Recognition and Transparency of Vocational Qualifications: The
Way Forward. Discussion Paper, CEDEFOP:Thessaloniki
3
Certification and Qualification – Introduction,
http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/library/certification/main.asp, p 1
4
Europe Open for Professions, http://www.dfee.gov.uk/europeopen/06.htm, p 1.
5
Ibid.
6
Report from the [European] Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the
application of Directive 92/51/EEC in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 92/51/EEC,
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/com2000_0017en01.pdf, pp 43-44.
7
Ibid, p 43.
8
Plimmer, F 1999, ‘Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications within a Global Marketplace for
the Services of Surveyors’, paper presented at the FIG Commission 3rd Annual Meeting, Budapest,
Hungary, 21-23 October. Found on http://www.ddl.org.figtree/tf/mut-recog/plimmer.htm, p. 7.
9
Application of Directive 92/51/EEC, 29/01/00,
http://www.heanet.ie/hea_eurodocs/euro_reports/feb00/0200econ.html, p. 9.
10 10
Certification and Qualification – Introduction,
http://www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/library/certification/main.asp, p 2.
11
Information from CICIC website, http://www.cmec.ca/cicic/about.stm p. 1
12
Information from NOOSR website, http://www.deetya.gov.au/noosr p 1-2
13
Alto, R, Isaacs, I, Knight, G and Polestico, R 2000, Training Systems in South-East Asia, NCVER
and SEAMO VOCTECH, Adelaide, p. 121
14
Information from APEC HRD Working Group, Towards Mutual Recognition of Qualifications:
Engineering Project (Stage 3), Outcomes of Discussions, Sydney, 5 November 1999.
15
Information from http://www.fig.net/figtree/about fig
16
Information from http://www.ddl.org/figtree/tf/mut-recog/ pp1-2
17
Plimmer, op. cit. pp 5-8.
18
Bjornavold, J and Sellin, B, op.cit., p.7.
19
Blitz, B 1999, ‘Professional mobility and the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in the European
Union:Two Institutional Approaches’, Comparative Educational Review, August, p 314
20
ibid., p. 329.
21
Ibid., p. 330.
22
Certification and Qualification – Introduction, op cit, p. 1.
23
It should be noted that ICAO Annex 1 requires all air traffic controllers to undergo some level of
training that is location-specific. It does allow individual economies/states to reduce the minimum time
(usually 3 months) of final field training provided the controller has held another rating. (Information
from Licensing Standards, Airservices Australia).
24
Information from telephone interview with officer at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
25
This information was taken from TPT/WG9/PLEN/8.1A, Tabling of Reports on Initiatives of the 8th
TPT-WG Meeting, Aviation Personnel Licensing Project, Vancouver,15-19 April 1996.
26
Telephone interview with air traffic services specialist from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,
Australia.
27
APEC HRD Working Group, op.cit, p. 1.
28
APEC Engineer Coordinating Committee 2nd Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 13 June 2000, p. 1.
29
Sherry, P, Szyliowicz, Perl, A et al, 2000, Identification of Needed Intermodal Skills and
Development of Required Training Programs, Final Report Unpublished, APEC.
30
Council of Australian Governments Committee on Regulatory Reform, 1998, A User’s Guide to the
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 13-14.
31
Information in the following paragraphs has been provided by the New Zealand Department of
Transport for this report.
32
Ibid, p. 232.
68
DRAFT APEC REPORT– Towards mutual recognition of transport professional qualifications
33
Ibid, pp. 233-4.
Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, General Guiding Principles for Good
Practice in the Assessment of Foreign Credentials, April 1998, sourced at:
http://www.cmec.ca/cicic/PUBS/prncpen.stm
Convention on the Recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region,
April 1997, http://culture.coe.fr/Infocentre/txt/eng/esucon.165.html
34
69