Thulas+Nxesi,+President,+Education+International,+statement



=Statement by Thulas Nxesi, President of Education International= Welcome and introductions: Thulas Nxesi, president of Education International representing 29 million teachers and education workers worldwide; Carolyn Allport, president of the National Tertiary Education Union in Australia; and David Robinson, associate executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. There is a strong representation of education unions and associations here in Hong Kong: we are joined by colleagues from France, Sweden, the United States, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, As educators from around the world, we believe strongly that the principles of GATS are, at root, in conflict with educational values. GATS is a commercial agreement aimed at expanding business opportunities for investors. By contrast, the goal of education is to serve the public interest. Education is developmental --- it advances human understanding, preserves and promotes cultures, and strengthens civil society and democratic institutions. We are deeply troubled by recent proposals here in Hong Kong from developed countries for a “benchmarking” or “complementarity” approach to negotiations. This approach threatens to take away what limited flexibility there is in the GATS. It would coerce Member Countries into making commitments in areas, such as education and other public services, in which they were not prepared to do so. This is an urgent matter as we are aware that there is already a plurilateral group in education services being formed. We are also deeply troubled by the draft Ministerial text which proposes to develop a “domestic regulation” discipline under GATS. This could also adversely affect education. This would apply a necessity test to technical standards, licensing and qualifications requirements to ensure that these regulatory measures are not “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.” If applied to education services, domestic regulation rules could well mean that the ability of domestic authorities to control the quality and accreditation of overseas institutions may be hampered. Let us be clear: we strongly support the internationalization of education. However, this should not be done through the GATS. We recognize the need for capacity building initiatives to expand education opportunities in developing countries, in particular for higher education. This may occur through financial assistance to the governments of developing countries to create more student places, or agreements between those governments and education institutions from other countries. The key point is that capacity building should occur at the request and initiative of the government of a developing country without that country reducing its policy options by making binding commitments on education services under GATS. Recognizing the risks outlined above, we strongly encourage Member States to adopt a precautionary approach by not making or seeking any further commitments in education services, or other service sectors that may affect education such as research and development services. In addition, proposals to develop benchmarking and plurilateral approaches to GATS negotiations will unduly coerce countries into making commitments in sensitive sectors like education and other public services. This would seriously reduce the flexibility of Member States, particularly those from the developing world. We strongly recommend that Member States reject benchmarking and the use of plurilateral groups to bring undue pressure on Members. Finally, changes to the GATS’ Domestic Regulation disciplines, as proposed, could seriously limit the ability of governments to regulate their education systems. The existing provisions already raise concerns. For this reason, we recommend that Member States reject proposals to further constrain domestic regulation. Thank you.
 * December 16 2005 – Hong Kong**

=Briefing Note on Domestic Regulation=
 * Annex C (paragraph 5) of the draft Ministerial Declaration calls on members to “develop disciplines on domestic regulation” under GATS. This would deepen and expand the coverage of existing rules in Article VI:4 of GATS.
 * Many countries are concerned that the expansion of domestic regulation rules may intrude upon their sovereignty with respect to regulatory policy.
 * These rules would apply to non-discriminatory measures and regulations governing services, including education. That is, even if a measure – such as accreditation requirements – is applied equally to domestic and overseas providers, it would still be subject to domestic regulation rules if commitments have been taken in education services.
 * Current proposals in domestic regulation would apply a “necessity test” to technical standards, licensing and qualifications requirements. This would require that regulatory measures are not “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.” In areas in which they have made commitments, member countries would be forced to demonstrate the necessity of the regulation and to show that the same policy objectives could not be met in a manner less burdensome to offshore providers. If applied to education services, this rule would seriously compromise the ability of domestic authorities to control the quality and accreditation of overseas institutions.
 * In addition to a “necessity test”, rules on transparency and relevance are also being considered as domestic regulation disciplines. Transparency would require Members to not only ensure that regulations are publicly available, but also to engage in prior consultation with WTO member states on any planned changes in regulations. This could restrict the ability of governments to respond quickly to emerging regulatory concerns at national and local levels. Relevance would require members to justify any professional and licensing requirements as being appropriate to the activities for which authorization is sought to practice or operate.
 * Adopting new domestic regulation disciplines would trigger an immediate review and expose to challenge government regulations affecting trade in services in all sub-sectors to which a member has made a commitment. In this way, existing GATS commitments would be deepened. Where education commitments have been made, regulations affecting everything from governance and ownership of institutions to accreditation and recognition of qualifications could be exposed.
 * Changes to the GATS’ Domestic Regulation disciplines, as proposed, could seriously limit the ability of governments to regulate their education systems. The existing provisions already raise concerns. For this reason, Education International recommends that Member States reject proposals to further constrain domestic regulation.