A Change for the Worse

Is the longstanding, invaluable role of Canadian universities in international development disappearing?

In the last decade, Canadian universities have played an invaluable role as part of Canada’s development community. Through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), projects managed under the University Partnerships and Cooperation in Development (UPCD) program have allowed Canadian universities to provide training, capacity building, and knowledge transfer to university-affiliated institutions in the developing world. Through a variety of projects managed by AUCC’s Technical Cooperation Division (TCD), Canadian universities also partnered on justice programming in Latvia, Russia, the Philippines, and India, and modeled new participatory approaches to university-based education in Africa, the Middle East, and throughout Asia.

The longstanding role of universities in development in Canada is today in flux. Change is not always a good thing. After almost a decade of designing, developing, and delivering international projects, AUCC announced last month that it was closing TCD. This decision is “a reflection of our member institutions’ capacity to design and compete for development projects” according to AUCC president Paul Davidson. Yet major obstacles exist for individual universities seeking to vie for projects in an increasingly complex and competitive marketplace.

Canadian universities have long been skeptical of AUCC’s role as a central coordinating unit in development. Indeed, some believe the decision to close TCD will provide more freedom for individual institutions to work on development initiatives, allow each to retain overhead costs, and exert more control over their participation. The irony of course is that the world of overseas development aid is a far more complex place than Canadian universities may imagine.

The Paris Declaration has fundamentally altered international development policy. Increasingly, Canadian development dollars are used as part of large multi-lateral strategies in the name of aid effectiveness and are not available to Canadian bidders. Projects that are put out to tender are highly sought after and the competition is fierce. By dismantling TCD, Canadian universities now must not only compete against the professional for-profit development firms, but against each other.

As in the past, however, the projects of the future will be awarded to those who demonstrate regional understanding, subject matter expertise, and project management experience. While Canadian universities have much to offer, few have the kind of institutional profile they would need to even be invited to submit a proposal to CIDA, let alone other development agencies. Those that have enough experience on paper will need to immediately hire or train staff capable of identifying development opportunities, developing detailed proposals, and recruiting competitive consultants. After all that, universities must then be able to undertake complex negotiations with CIDA, and then actually manage complex international projects, including multi-country logistics, reporting, finances, and monitoring. Based on my own experience, this is no mean feat and not for amateurs.

Without a significant investment by Canadian universities in experienced contract managers, new business development staff, and the development of internal recruitment strategies, individual professors may simply decide to work with private consulting firms who, with more project experience, will have a better chance at winning. Were this to be the new face of Canadian development, universities would relinquish the important role they have previously enjoyed as an active voice in development.

While AUCC may retain some sort of advocacy role, the potential for on the ground interaction, research linkages, and international profile gained through project participation will be lost. By coordinating Canadian university resources, AUCC not only put together competitive bids with leading academic experts, but also contributed to a climate of information sharing and transparency that befits the best traditions of higher education. During my Ph.D dissertation I personally benefitted from this cooperative approach to evidence-based development through access to the AUCC library and project documents and resources.

Through TCD’s affiliation with member universities, pragmatic project needs were balanced with, and by, the goals of academic inquiry. What will the relationship be toward data access if university staff were to partner with private development firms? Will organizational cultures clash around approaches to development, roles of research, and access to data? While I do not mean to demonize my friends and colleagues in the private development sector, it is not clear to me how universities could defend their interests in academic freedom, information sharing, and evidence-based policy as the junior partner in a for-profit development enterprise.

Canadian universities should think long and hard about the nature of their development contract management capacities and consider carefully their role in technical cooperation going forward. The changed aid landscape in Canada, the requirements for significant project management experience, and the important role of research to guide development dialogue may make the decision to jettison TCD, upon reflection, appear foolhardy. Universities serious about competing in this complex playing field and tackling the obstacles presented above would do well to seek out TCD members, and hope the private sector hasn’t gotten them first.