RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS –
Developing a Concept Tailored for the Surveying Profession
Prof. Stig ENEMARK, Chair of FIG Task Force on
Mutual Recognition on Qualifications and
Dr. Frances PLIMMER, Secretary of FIG Task Force on
Mutual Recognition on Qualifications
Key words: Mutual recognition, Surveying
Profession, Professional Competence, FIG.
The paper aims to develop a general understanding
of the nature of Mutual Recognition, the challenges we are facing, and
the benefits for the world wide surveying community by adopting a FIG
policy in this area. The FIG Task Force on Mutual Recognition should
be seen as a respond to the globalisation of surveying services, and
to the pressures being generated by the WTO agenda which provides a
framework for free trade in professional services.
The paper presents a methodology for assessment of
professional competence tailored for the surveying profession. The
principles and responsibilities are identified and the role of the
national surveying organisations is highlighted as the key driver in
the process. The final report of the Task Force on Mutual Recognition
of Professional Competence will be presented for adoption at the FIG
Congress in Washington 2001. This paper presents the key issues to
form the FIG approach is this area.
Mutual recognition is perceived by the European
Commission as a device for securing the free movement of professionals
within the single market place of the EU. For the WTO, the aim is the
global marketplace for services, using the process of mutual
recognition of qualifications. With these external pressures on
surveying professional organisations, it is important that information
is available to understand, firstly, how surveyors in different
countries acquire their professional qualifications and secondly, the
process by which their professional competence is assessed.
The paper will present the approach taken by the
Task Force to develop a FIG concept on Mutual Recognition tailored for
the surveying profession. The approach is in line with the pressures
generated by the WTO, which provides a general framework for free
trade in professional services.
The suggested approach is, however, pragmatic by
nature. It draws from the common professional identity of the
surveying community. Also, it allows each country to retain its own
kind of professional education and training because it is based not on
the process of achieving professional qualifications but on the nature
and quality of the outcome of that process.
THE NATURE OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION
Mutual recognition is a device which allows a
qualified surveyor who seeks to work in another country to acquire the
same title as that held by surveyors who have qualified in that
country, without having to re-qualify.
Mutual recognition is, therefore, a process which
allows the qualifications gained in one country (the home country)
to be recognised in another country (the host country).
To understand the nature of mutual recognition it
is useful to look at the different working situations:
- Recognition does not relate to the situation of "getting a
job". In general, employment is a matter between the employer
and the employee. Getting a work permit in another country may be
restricted by national regulations of immigration, but that has
nothing to do with recognition of professional qualifications.
- Recognition may, however, relate to the situation where a
foreign employee wants to become a member of the professional
organisation in the host country, and thereby enjoy the benefits
of being recognised as an equal professional and sharing the same
rights e.g. with regard to salary agreements, etc.
- Recognition becomes even more important when a professional
wants to practise – e.g. setting up a company – in the host
country. Recognition of professional competence may then represent
a vital competitive element in terms of marketing services to the
- Finally, recognition becomes crucial when a professional wants
to practise within a licensed area (typically cadastral surveys)
in the host country. The license may be granted by a state agency
or by a professional body. In any case, however, the recognition
will represent the key itself for working in the regulated area.
Mutual Recognition this way is a device for
facilitating an efficient global working place for surveying services.
It is a device that WTO has approved to secure globalisation. There
are various models currently in use by the surveying organisations to
achieve this, including bilateral reciprocity agreement and, as in the
EU, a legislative framework.
With these external pressures on surveying
professional organisations, it is important that information is
available to understand, firstly, how surveyors in different countries
acquire their professional qualifications and secondly, the process by
which their professional competence is assessed.
The principle has been established and we have the
chance to develop a framework that suits the surveying profession. We
should take it.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Globalisation of services is a topical issue and it
is on the very top of the international agenda. We need to respond to
this challenge and devise the means to ensure global free movement, so
that the process reflects the requirements of the surveyor. However,
in order to work anywhere in the world, we need to be sure that our
professional qualifications will be recognised globally and, to date,
that is not happening. Until we have total freedom to practice world
wide, and that means recognition of our qualifications by other
governments, professional bodies and by international clients,
surveyors are not going to be in a position to respond to the global
There is no doubt that the market for the services
of surveyors is worldwide. There is no human activity, which does not
involve the use of land, in its broadest sense, and, increasingly, our
clients have international interests. Pressure is also being generated
by the WTO, which provides the framework for free trade in
professional services and surveying, as a profession needs to respond.
The FIG task force on Mutual Recognition of Qualifications should be
seen as such a respond to globalisation of surveying services.
It is argued that mutual recognition of
qualifications is the best process to be adopted if the free movement
of professionals is to be achieved efficiently and effectively. This
should be undertaken at the level of professional institutions. It
should not be introduced with the force of government. The whole
process should be underpinned by efficient communication between
organisations which recognise both the areas of professional
activities undertaken by their members and the quality of the output
of each of these organisations’ professional qualifications.
The task force aims to review the concept of mutual
recognition of qualifications within the world wide surveying
community and to develop a framework for introduction of standards of
global professional competence in this area.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
The principle of mutual recognition of professional
qualifications requires certain pre-conditions as described by WTO
when introducing the disciplines applied for the accountancy sector (WTO,
- degree-level entry to the profession in both countries;
- appropriate regulation of the profession in the "host"
- a corresponding profession i.e. where a substantial number of
professional activities practised in the "home" country
comprise the profession as practised in the "host"
- an adaptation mechanism to make up for any deficiencies in the
content and scope of the professional education and training of
- A willingness on the part of the host country and its bodies
which award professional qualifications/licenses to accept the
principle of mutual recognition, to respect the quality of
professional education and training in other countries and to
trust the professionalism of migrants.
These principles may be seen as an implementation
of the GATS (Article VI: 4) that seek to ensure:….. That measures
relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical
standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary
barriers to trade in services…" and, to this end, the Council
for Trade in Services shall develop ‘disciplines’ "…. to
ensure that such requirements are:
- based on objective and transparent criteria, such as competence
and the ability to supply the service;
- not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the
- In the case of licensing procedures, not in themselves a
restriction on the supply of the service". (Honeck, 1999 pp.
Mutual recognition agreements are identified as the
most common way to achieve mutual recognition of qualifications,
allowing for the reconciliation of ". . . differences in
education, examination standards, experience requirements, regulatory
influence and various other matters, all of which make implementing
recognition on a multilateral basis extremely difficult." (WTO,
1997). Bi-lateral mutual recognition agreements are perceived as
interim devices until a global system of mutual recognition of
qualifications based on the above Article can be achieved by the
imposition by law of a series of ‘disciplines’ which will apply to
ADVANTAGES OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES
There is value in creating regulatory disciplines
in professional services because they help ensure greater
transparency, predictability and irreversibility of policies both for
trading partners and domestic producers. By providing greater
opportunity for domestic users to obtain world-class services at
internationally competitive prices, regulatory disciplines have the
potential for enhancing domestic productivity and efficiency, as well
as increasing the scope and quality of services locally available.
For small- and medium-sized firms in both
developing and developed countries, regulatory disciplines would help
to ease and expand their cross-border trade, they will be able to form
regional networks and thereby expand their activities and improve
their ability to compete locally with larger international firms. The
creation of disciplines will accelerate international regulatory
In turn, the concept of mutual recognition should
lead to enhancement of professional competence based on the need for
adapting to professional standards and codes of conduct adopted in
THE FIG APPROACH
There is an attraction in developing and extending
the principle of mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
Mutual recognition allows each country to retain its own kind of
professional education and training because it is based, not on the
process of achieving professional qualifications, but on the nature
and quality of the outcome of that process.
Mutual recognition assumes an appropriate process
of pre-qualification education and training and encourages dialogue
between professional organisations in each country in order to
investigate the nature of the professional activities, the
professional qualifications, and the details of pre- and
post-qualification education and training. It therefore concentrates,
not on the process of qualification, but on the outcome of that
In principle, it does not matter how individuals
become qualified in their own country; the important fact is that they
ARE qualified. It is suggested that this concentration, not on the
process of qualification, but on the outcome of the process of
qualification is one, which should be emulated by surveyors in the
system, which they adopt. In turn, this should lead to an enhancement
of the global professional competence of the surveying profession.
The Task Force recommends that this rather
pragmatic approach be applied as a general principle for developing a
methodology suitable for the surveying profession.
A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
The applicant is of course a fully qualified
professional in the home country where the professional qualification
was gained. However, it is that individual's competence to work in
another country (the host country) which needs to be assessed.
Thus, for the purposes of facilitating professional
mobility, it is necessary to recognise and accept the professional
status and the competence of the applicant in the home country. For
the professional organisation in the host country it is necessary
merely to ensure that the applicant is competent to undertake
surveying, as practised in that host country. It must be ensured that
the applicant is fully aware of and has adapted to the nature and
practice of the surveying profession in the host country.
It is therefore necessary for the professional
organisation in the host country to establish the nature and level of
professional competencies within a range of surveying activities
required of a fully-qualified professional in the host country and to
assess the applicant against that content and standard of professional
The pre-conditions for managing this process of
mutual recognition are as follows:
- An individual must be professional qualified in the home country
- A similar profession must exist in the host country
- A representing organisation must exist in the host country
- Political will must be available to support the process
The process of assessment of professional
competence must reflect:
- The nature of the profession in the host country (threshold
standards of professional competence)
- The nature of the professional education and training of the
surveyor (applicant) up to the point of application
- The professional status of the surveyor (applicant) up to point
A concept tailored for the surveying profession
should of course be based on the common professional identity of the
surveying community. The surveying profession is sharing a
"common culture" and a common educational base. The problems
that the programmes are designed to solve are basically the same even
if the solutions may be different responding to national societal
needs. This "surveying culture" should then be reflected
when identifying the threshold standards of professional competence to
be fulfilled by the applicant. Once such threshold standards are
established, the process of assessing the professional status and
competence of an applicant is basically administrative.
SURVEYING ACTIVITIES AND SURVEYING PROFESSIONS
Surveying, as a profession, has developed in
different ways and encompassing different surveying activities in
different countries, in order to reflect the national needs, which
have developed over time. The universal definition of
"surveyor" (FIG 1991) is capable of being up-dated to
reflect changes in the evolving nature of our professional practices
and skills. While a similar range of surveying activities may be
undertaken in different countries, there may be differences between
the way these activities are grouped as a recognised
In general, the professional activities are diverse
and some activities, which are performed by surveyors in some
countries, are denied to surveyors in other countries. Also, some
surveying activities are regulated in some countries while not
regulated in other countries. Furthermore, there may be a greater need
for particular kinds of surveying skills in some countries compared to
others. This is proved e.g. in the report on "Enhancing
Professional Competencies of the European Surveyors" where major
differences where demonstrated in the content and structure of the
surveying programmes as well as the professions throughout Europe (Enemark
and Prendergast 2001).
The implications of the EU directive and the WTO
proposals are, however, that it does not matter how individuals
achieve professional status, the important point is that they have
achieved professional status. The only reason to investigate the
nature and content of their pre-qualification process is to identify
any discrepancy between the professional education and training of the
"migrant" with that required of a newly-qualified surveyor
in the host country and therefore to establish an adaptation mechanism
to make good the deficiency.
In the light of the terms of the EU directive and
the implications of the WTO proposals, the ability of surveying
professionals to work in other countries must depend on:
- The existence of a "corresponding profession" i.e. the
extent to which the academic education and professional training
and experience gained in their "home" country matches
the surveying activities comprised in the surveying profession in
the "host" country to which they seek access; and
- The amount of additional academic and/or professional education,
training and experience which they require to demonstrate
competence in the range of surveying activities comprised in the
surveying profession in the "host" country to which they
On this basis, it is necessary for the surveying
professional organisations in each country to identify which surveying
activities are comprised within their surveying professions. By
comparing such a list of surveying activities with those of which the
surveying applicant is qualified and experienced, any lacking
competence of the applicant can be identified. Such deficiencies can
(e.g. as stated in the EU Directive) be remedied by either by an
aptitude test (examination) or a period of supervised work experience.
Effectively, what is required by the WTO
disciplines as well the EU directive is an assessment of the
professional competence of an applicant (called a "migrant"
in the EU Directive). According to the current interpretation of the
Directive, the standard against which that professional competence
should be assessed is that required of a newly qualified surveyor in
the host member country. This, however, may cause great difficulties.
The Task Force recommends that this interpretation be changed to
follow the more pragmatic approach as presented in this paper.
Despite the fact that professional competence of
the surveyor is fundamental to the ability to practice freely across
national boundaries, it is interesting to consider certain
characteristics of the surveyor as an individual. It should also be
noted that the definition of a surveyor (FIG, 1991) starts by
identifying the surveyors as " ….. A professional person
with the academic qualifications and technical expertise to practise
the science of measurement; to assemble and assess land and geographic
related information; to use that information for the purpose of…"
"Professional competence" is, however,
extremely hard to define, although it is something with which all
surveyors are familiar. It is suggested (Kennie et. al., 2000)
that for newly-qualified surveyors "professional competence"
combines knowledge competence, cognitive competence and business
competence with a central core of ethical and/or personal behaviour
defined as "the possession of
appropriate technical and/or business knowledge and the ability to
apply this in practice";
cognitive competence: defined as "the abilities to solve
using high level thinking skills technical and/or business related
problems effectively to produce specific outcomes;
business competence: defined as "the abilities to
understand the wider business context within which the candidate is
practising and to manage client expectations in a pro-active
Ethical and/or personal behavioural competence: which is the
core to the other three parts; defined as "the possession of
appropriate personal and professional values and behaviours and the
ability to make sound judgements when confronted with ethical dilemmas
in a professional context.
The model above recognises that different areas of
surveying practice tend to place different weighting on these
elements, thus for some areas of surveying practice, business
competence may be a larger or smaller component of the whole. However,
the ethical and/or personal behavioural competence is identified as a
vital component, which can also be defined as the defining
characteristic of a true "professional" with all that
What is ignored within the current interpretation
of the EU Directive is the fact that the individual being assessed for
this purpose is both a professional in the country which awarded the
original surveying qualification and a practitioner. The Directive
does not recognise the elements of specialisation or expertise, which
an applicant may have developed over a number of years practice. It
is, therefore, suggested that a pragmatic approach should be taken
which ensures that the applicant can demonstrate the adaptation of
existing surveying skills to a new working environment. This should
include adaptation of new ethics and codes of practice, together with
a broad understanding of the other surveying activities that affect
the profession in the host country.
It is suggested that it should be for the
professional organisation in the home country to assure other
professional organisations of the professional standing of applicants
(migrants). This should include such matters as the nature of the
surveying profession pursued by the applicant and their component
activities, and the level of the applicant's professional
qualification in the home country.
Once this has been done, it is not for the
professional organisation in the host country to challenge the status
and professional integrity of the applicant. Their role is merely to
assess that professional status against an objective list of threshold
standards for the home country, including that the individual
presumably is prepared to observe the professional ethics and codes of
practice it requires.
THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS
There is a major role for the professional
organisations, which award surveyors their surveying qualifications in
the process of mutual recognition. It is recognised that there are
different roles undertaken by professional organisations. For the
purposes of this Task Force, the term "professional organisations"
is defined by their functions rather than by their names.
"Professional organisations" then means organisations at
country or sub-state level which:
- award professional qualifications; and/or
- award practising licenses; and/or
- regulate the conduct and competence of surveyors; and/or
- Represent surveyors and their interests to external bodies
including national governments.
By using this definition, some countries may have
more than one "professional organisation". For example, in
Denmark, cadastral surveying can only be undertaken by surveyors who
have a masters-level diploma (bac + 5), who have undertaken three
years of relevant professional work experience and who have then been
granted a license by the National Survey and Cadastre (under the
Ministry of Housing) (Enemark, 2001). In the United Kingdom (UK), The
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) assesses the quality
of academic education through its system of accrediting diplomas (bac
+ 3), and implements a system of assessing relevant professional work
experience (there is no licensing system for surveyors in the UK).
In order to achieve the free movement of
professionals, judgements need to be made on the nature of the
individual's professional qualification and experience which is gained
in the home country in the light of the nature of the profession as
practised in the host country.
The organisation to which the individual applies
for recognition in the host country needs sufficient information,
firstly, to recognise the nature, scope and quality of the
professional qualification held by the individual and, secondly, to
verify its accuracy. This requires a high level of effective and
efficient communication from the professional organisation in the home
country to the professional organisation in the host country, which
- details of the professional qualification held;
- details of the nature of the particular surveying profession to
which the individual's professional qualification gives access;
- Confirmation of the status of the individual's qualification
(e.g. membership level, outstanding fees, expulsion from the
Ideally, this could be based on a simple
questionnaire. Each professional organisation should also have a
procedure which requests and deals with request for the above
information as a basis for processing applicant's request for mutual
recognition, in an efficient and effective manner.
Ultimately, it will be for the professional
organisation to establish what, if any, additional professional
education and/or training is necessary before a particular applicant
is able to practice within the host country in the light of the
threshold standards applied.
The role of professional organisations is vital if
free movement of professionals through the mutual recognition of
qualifications is to be achieved.
BARRIERS AND HURDLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are major issues of principle (not the least
of which is that of mutual recognition itself) which professional
organisations on behalf of their own countries need to embrace and
embrace with commitment. However, professional associations are
frequently held back by bureaucracy and by potential conflict of views
between ministry rules with which professional organisations do not
always agree. Thus appropriate ministries should be included in any
discussions on mutual recognition processes.
There are, however, a number of principles which
should be observed, and these include the absence of any form of
discrimination against any individual surveyor simply because
qualification has been earned in another country. Indeed, this is
stated within the WTO disciplines proposed (WTO, 1997 and 1998a).
Assuming that the professional organisations which represent surveyors
and which monitor their qualifications fulfil their responsibilities
fairly and professionally, there should be little problem in
administering the process of mutual recognition of qualifications.
Similarly, it will be necessary to ensure that
practising licenses, are awarded solely on the basis of professional
competence to practice in that country and not on any basis which
discriminates against those who are professionally training and
experienced in another country.
However, it is recognised that we are all products
(to a greater or lesser extent) of our national and professional
backgrounds and the various cultural influences, which affect how we
work and why we undertake our professional activities in the way we
do. In order to achieve any kind of dialogue, these differences,
particularly those in professional practice, and those which affect
inter-personal relationships, need to be investigated, understood and
The most obvious barrier to the free movement of
surveyors is language. However, this is a barrier, which can be
overcome. Access to learning different languages is normally dependent
on individual efforts, and, initially, on the national primary and
secondary education systems, which can provide either a very positive
or rather negative lead. Language skills are of course vitally
important to permit international communication and genuine
understanding of the rich variety of professional and personal
However, there is also the matter of culture which
permeates our national or regional societies and which comprises a
series of unwritten and often unconscious rules of conduct,
professional practice and of perceiving relationships. Failure to
understand and observe the cultural norms of other people can result
in confusion, hurt and, at worse, perceived insult. There is evidence
that culture divides us, both as individuals (as the products of our
nation’s upbringing) and also as surveyors (as the products of our
In order to ensure the mutual recognition of
professional qualifications, cultural differences need to be
recognised in order to understand and accept that surveyors in
different countries have different perceptions as to the nature of
professional practice and the routes to professional qualifications.
Overall, ignorance and fear are of course the main
barriers, which may hinder mutual recognition at a worldwide scale.
However, with improved communication and understanding these barriers
FIG POLICY STATEMENT
The Task Force recommends that the Bureau at its
meeting in Seoul 2001 adopt a policy statement on Mutual Recognition
to be included in the final report. A draft for the contents of the
final report is presented in the appendix to this paper. The final
report will be presented for adoption at the FIG Congress in
Washington, 2002. The draft for a FIG Policy Statement on Mutual
recognition reads as follows:
"The International Federation of Surveyors
(FIG) recognises the importance of free movement of surveyors in a
global marketplace. The mutual recognition of professional
qualifications provides a means whereby professional qualifications
held by individual surveyors can be recognised by individual
professional organisations as comparable to those acquired by their
own national surveyors.
FIG will promote the principle of mutual
recognition of professional qualifications by:
- Encouraging communication between professional organisations to
ensure a better understanding of how surveyors acquire their
professional qualifications in different countries;
- Developing with professional organisations a methodology for
implementing mutual recognition for surveyors;
- Supporting professional organisations where difficulties are
identified in achieving mutual recognition, and encouraging debate
at national government level in order to remove such difficulties;
- Working with external organisations (such as the WTO) in order
to achieve mutual recognition in both principle and practice of
professional qualifications for surveyors world-wide."
Mutual recognition does not require any country to
change the way its surveyors become qualified - either in terms of the
process or the standards, which should be achieved. It does, however,
require that we recognise qualifications gained from other countries
using other processes.
It is not the process, which is tested, nor should
it be. It is the quality of the outcome of the process, measured
against objective national criteria (threshold standards) which
determines whether a surveyor has achieved the appropriate
professional education and experience in the "home country"
to be recognised in the "host country".
There are a number of barriers, which hinder mutual
recognition at a worldwide scale. Language, national customs and
cultures are, however, not true barriers to mutual recognition.
Ignorance and fear are the main barriers and yet with improved
communication and understanding, these should disappear.
Surveyors have professional skills which are vital
for the success of the global marketplace. We need to communicate
effectively in order to develop an understanding of the processes and
benefits on which mutual recognition can be based. The work of the
Task Force has contributed to and furthered the debate.
The principle of mutual recognition has been
established and we have the chance to adopt a framework that suits the
surveying profession. We should take it.
Enemark, S. and Plimmer, F. (2000): Mutual Recognition of
Professional Qualifications in the Surveying Profession.
Proceedings of the FIG Working Week, Prague,
Enemark, S. and Prendergast, P. (Ed.), (2001): Enhancing
Professional Competence Surveyors in Europe. Joint FIG and CLGE
publication. FIG Office, Copenhagen.
European Council, (1989): European Council’s
Directive on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training
of at least three years’ duration. European Council 89/48/EEC.
FIG, (1991): Definitions of a Surveyor. FIG
Publications No. 2, FIG Office, Copenhagen.
FIG, (1999): FIG Task Force on Mutual
Recognition of Qualifications. Report for the 22nd
General Assembly, Sun City, South Africa, 30 May – 4 June, 1999.
International Federation of Surveyors, FIG Office, Copenhagen.
FIG, (2000): FIG Task Force on Mutual
Recognition of Qualifications Report for the 23rd
General Assembly. Prague, 22 – 26 May 2000. International Federation
of Surveyors, FIG Office, Copenhagen.
Gronow, S., Plimmer, F., (1992): Education and
Training of Valuers in Europe, The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors. RICS Research Papers Series, Paper No. 23, ISBN
Honeck, Dale, B., (1999): "Developing
Regulatory Disciplines in Professional Services: The Role of the World
Trade Organisation". World Trade Organisation. 08 September 1999.
Kennie, T., Green, M., Sayce, S., (2000): Assessment
of Professional Competence. A draft framework for assuring competence
of assessment. Prepared for The Royal Institution of Chartered
Plimmer, Frances, (1991): Education and Training
of Valuers in Europe, Unpublished MPhil Thesis, CNAA, Polytechnic
of Wales, UK.
Plimmer Frances, (2001): Professional Competence
Models in Europe. In Enemark, S. and Prendergast, P. (Ed.):
Enhancing Professional Competence of Surveyors in Europe. Joint FIG
and CLGE publication. FIG Office, Copenhagen.
WTO, 1997. Guidelines for Mutual Recognition
Agreements or Arrangements in the Accountancy Sector S/L/38 (May,
1997) World Trade Organisation.
WTO, 1998a. Disciplines on Domestic Regulation
in the Accountancy Sector S/L/64 (December, 1998) World Trade
WTO, 1998b. Accountancy Services. Background
Note by the Secretariat. S/C/W/73 (4 December, 1998) World Trade
APPENDIX: DRAFT CONTENTS OF THE TASK
1. Mutual recognition – what is it and why is it important
- The nature of Mutual recognition
- Enhancing professional competence
- Facilitating exchange of professional
- Improving educational and professional standards
2. The principles; How does it work
- Bilateral agreements
- Directives (EU)
3. The role of WTO
- Globalisation; GATS
- Guidelines and Disciplines
4. Advantages of Regulatory Disciplines
- Enhancing domestic productivity
- Easing cross-border trade and services
5. The role of FIG
6. The FIG Way - A Pragmatic Approach
- The surveying culture
- The principle of a corresponding profession
- The steps to be followed
7. Surveying Activities and Surveying Professions
8. Professional Competence
9. The Role of the Professional Organisations
- Representing surveyors; Regulating code of conduct
- Awarding professional Qualifications and/or practising licenses
- Providing information for the purpose of Mutual Recognition
10. Barriers and Hurdles to Implementation
- Fear and Protectionism
- Language and culture
11. FIG Policy Statement on Mutual Recognition
APPENDIX : Five regional case studies of problems
and best practice.
Structured around six questions:
- How can a surveyor get qualified in another state/country ?
- How is the process organised ?
- What is the criteria used to assess applications ?
- What are the problems in both the process and the principle MR ?
- Are there any policy implications of going from one
country/state to another ?
- Is the issue of MR recognised politically – What are the
Prof. Stig Enemark is Chair of the FIG Task
Force on Mutual recognition.
He is Head and Managing Director of the Surveying and Planning School
at Aalborg University, where he is Reader in Cadastral Science and
Land Management. He is Master of Science in Surveying, Planning and
Land Management and he obtained his license for cadastral surveying in
1970. He worked for ten years as a consultant surveyor in private
practice. He is Vice-President of the Danish Association of Chartered
Surveyors and Invited Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, UK. He was awarded the Danish Real Estate Prize in 1991,
and in 1994 he was appointed National Expert to the European Union
within the areas of land management and spatial planning. He was
Chairman (1994-98) of FIG Commission 2 (Professional Education) and he
is an Honorary Member of FIG. His teaching and research interests are
in the area of land administration systems and the application of
cadastral systems for land management and spatial planning. Another
research area is within project-organised educational and the
interaction between education, research and professional practice. He
has consulted and published widely within these topics, and presented
invited papers at more than 40 international conferences.
Dr. Frances Plimmer is Professional
Secretary of the fig Task Force on Mutual Recognition.
She id Reader in Applied Valuation at the University of Glamorgan,
Wales, UK and head of the University’s Real Estate Appraisal
Research Unit. She is a Fellow of The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyor and an inaugural member of the Delphi advisory group to the
RICS’s Research Foundation. She is the RICS’s delegate to FIG’s
Commission 2 (Professional Education) and the official secretary to
FIG’s Task Force on Mutual Recognition. She has been researching
into the EU’s Directive on the mutual recognition of professional
qualifications since 1988 and has had several paper published on this
subject. She is the editor of Property Management and a Faculty
Associate of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Massachusetts, USA,
and is part of an international research team investigating issues of
equity and fairness in land taxation.
Prof. Stig Enemark
Chair of the FIG Task Force on Mutual Recognition
Aalborg University, Fibigerstrede 11
DK 9220 Aalborg
Tel: +45 9940 8344
Fax: +45 9815 6541
Dr. Frances Plimmer
Secretary of the FIG Task Force on Mutual Recognition
University of Glamorgan
Tel + 44 1443 482125
Fax + 44 1443 482169
25 March 2001
This page is maintained by the
FIG Office. Last revised on 15-03-16.