The Lisbon Recognition Convention – An AUCC memo to ARUCC for Discussion
Purpose of Memo
This year, nearly ten years after having signed it, the federal government is taking steps to ratify the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention.).
The focus of this memo is:
· To inform and update ARUCC members on the latest developments related to the Lisbon Recognition Convention; and
· To seek ARUCC members’ thoughts on any key issues or implications of the convention from a Canadian university perspective to feed into the pre-ratification process being undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Background
In 1997, Canada signed the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention), an agreement that seeks to ensure that holders of a qualification from a signatory country will have that qualification recognised in another and facilitate information sharing regarding each country’s higher education system. The convention was adopted by the countries of the Council of Europe and the UNESCO Europe Region (which includes Canada) in order to update the objectives and clarify the obligations of ratifying states in a similar 1979 Convention.
With a view to fostering improved mobility, the new convention commits to the principles of fair practice and non-discrimination in credential assessment and recognition procedures; the effective collection and dissemination of information on higher education in each country through stronger links among national information centres mandated by the agreement; and collaboration with UNESCO and the Council of Europe on matters concerning mobility and recognition.
The convention stipulates that mutual recognition of qualifications must be granted by contracting states unless significant difference can be proved. Unlike the situation with the 1979 Convention, the burden of proof of significant difference now lies with the competent authorities of the receiving country. Implementation of the convention is carried out in full recognition of the existing autonomy of competent regulatory bodies and institutions of higher education.
By signing the Lisbon Convention, Canada has signalled its commitment to collaborating with its European partners and others on enhancing academic and professional mobility and promoting fair practice in assessment and recognition of qualifications. Canada’s participation can also be seen in the light of quality assurance in so far as fulfilling the obligations of the convention is seen as a mark of having the highest global standard in education.
The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) – which 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 – was established after Canada ratified the first recognition convention in 1990. It assists 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. Its existence already fulfills the main obligation of the Lisbon convention. It was co-funded by both CMEC and HRSDC up until 2003 when the federal government ceased funding. The federal government is now taking this occasion of ratification as a possible point to re-consider the resourcing and responsibilities related to ensuring Canada’s compliance and the obligations involved.
Ratification Process for Canada
Although Canada is a signatory to the accord, it has been, up until now, one of the few remaining countries that have not yet ratified it (See Appendix A for list of signatory countries.). In terms of non-European signatory countries, Australia and New Zealand have ratified. Canada and the United States have not.
This year, however, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada which had been given the task to obtain the consent of all provinces and territories for ratification has finally reached consensus on the acceptance of the agreement. This has now paved the way for official ratification by the federal government.
CMEC went through a lengthy process for consulting the provincial and territorial governments in order to obtain consensus among the Ministers of Education although they put no parameters on the nature or scope of consultations with post-secondary institutions in each province. In early 2008, the process was complete and all 13 jurisdictions had given approval. This allowed the federal government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) to begin steps towards official ratification. DFAIT must put ratification through Cabinet and Parliament prior to depositing ratification at UNESCO in Paris.
CMEC is currently focusing on raising awareness of the Convention and explaining its contents to various audiences in the coming months.
DFAIT officials have indicated that the Convention is currently being examined by the department’s legal officials as they prepare the memorandum to cabinet outlining the recommendation for ratification. As part of this process in advance of taking the steps toward ratification, while not wanting to duplicate the process undertaken by CMEC, DFAIT has indicated that it also wishes to obtain feedback from key education sector stakeholders at the national level – such as AUCC – on perspectives on the convention. Officials are also in discussion with other federal departments, namely HRSDC and CIC. The scope and nature of the consultation is still being determined.
Canada’s Obligations as a Signatory Country
At its most basic level, as a fully ratified signatory to the Convention, it can be expected that Canada has three basic obligations to be carried out:
1) to transmit the text of the convention;
2) to collect and make available official information on higher education in Canada; and
3) to establish an information centre to perform these tasks and to assist in applying the principles of the convention.
In Canada, the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) established in 1991 as a result of signing the convention can fulfill these three obligations. CICIC meets the requirements of the convention within its existing structures.
In terms of universities and colleges, it is important to note that the principle of institutional autonomy is recognized in Article II.1 of the convention which states that "Where competence to make decisions in recognition matters lies with individual higher education institutions or other entities, each party according to its constitutional structure shall transmit the text of this convention to these institutions or entities and shall take all possible steps to encourage the favourable consideration and application of its provisions."
Moreover, the autonomy of institutions is noted in the ratification declaration that was approved by all provincial and territorial governments. This declaration, which will be included in the deposition of the ratification instrument to UNESCO, states:
"Canada’s constitution provides for a federal system in which legislative powers are allocated between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures.
In compliance with the exclusive legislative powers in the field of education granted to the provinces by the Canadian Constitution and with the similar responsibilities given to the territories by delegation from the federal government, the implementation of the Convention in Canada will be ensured by the provinces and territories. In accordance with article IX.2, provincial and territorial governments have jointly determined that the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) will serve as the national information centre.
Each postsecondary institution in Canada determines what qualifications it will accept for admission to various levels of study. Legislation also confers some autonomy on professional governing bodies in setting the content of regulations under which credentials and training are recognized. Professions therefore enjoy broad autonomy in recognizing credentials, whether obtained in Canada or abroad, for the purposes of registration or permission to practise a profession in Canada.
This declaration is not a reservation."
There thus appears to be no legal obligations for postsecondary institutions. Good faith implies they will apply the principles of fairness and non-discrimination and provide adequate and clear information on assessment requirements; use transparent, coherent, reliable criteria and procedures in assessment; give mutual recognition of qualifications unless substantial difference in requirements can be demonstrated; and justify refusal of recognition.
Substantial Difference: A Key Concept of the Convention
Substantial difference is a key concept in the Lisbon Convention and has been the subject of significant debate within the higher education community and in the work of the European Network of Information Centres and the National Academic Recognition Information Centres (ENIC-NARIC network). Discussions have centred on an effort to determine how best to define the concept so that it is universally understood and accepted. Currently, it is defined through practice rather than through legal texts and according to some in the ENIC-NARIC network, with a strong element of common sense.
The basic provision in the convention is that foreign qualifications shall be recognized unless the competent recognition authority is able to demonstrate that there is a substantial difference between the qualification for which recognition is sought and the corresponding qualification of the country (properly speaking: education system) in which recognition is sought.
The substantial difference must be demonstrated by a competent authority, and not by the applicant. The substantial difference has to apply to a difference in one or more of the elements of a qualification such as: level, workload, quality, profile, and learning outcomes and the difference has to be substantial in relation to function and purpose. Difference in formal terms only is an insufficient argument.
To summarize: when students with academic qualifications from outside Canada seek admission to one of Canada's universities, the competent admissions authority is required to apply fair and non-discriminatory evaluation procedures in determining the equivalency of the applicant's qualifications. The convention does not require the university or college to grant admission to applicants claiming equivalent qualifications; rather, it requires the university or college to demonstrate that it has applied fair and non-discriminatory procedures in its assessment of the applicant's qualifications. Therefore, the autonomy and independence of universities and colleges with respect to admissions procedures appears to be in no way affected by the convention's terms.
Possible Implications for Canadian Universities
AUCC is assessing the possible implications of the coming into force of the convention in Canada. Opinions are varied as to whether the convention carries any concrete obligations or implications beyond sending a signal of respecting the spirit of mutual recognition in general in international academic relations. We will want to explore the issue further with university registrars and graduate deans - the segment of the university community most likely to be aware of the convention and potentially affected by it.
In spite of this assessment of the primacy of institutional autonomy, with the adoption of the Lisbon Convention there is some concern around the fact that the burden of proof shifts from the individual seeking recognition of his/her qualifications onto the institution. While institutions by the letter of the convention are deemed to be responsible for proving it has applied fair and non-discriminatory procedures in its assessment of the applicant's qualifications, it is unclear as to whether this will have concrete implications in the day-to day work of admissions officials. To date however, there seems to be no evidence that this has been the case in other countries.
There may be implications on the work of the Canadian university graduate deans and registrars, as they may need to be more systematic in providing clear reasons and rationale for admission decisions in order to eventually prove due diligence. The implication seems to be that registrars will need to take the time to review competencies, establish differences and make well documented decisions. It does not appear that there would be a need to have a public, codified, standard approach or template to prove due diligence or provide a decision to student. There already exist CICIC guidelines and UNESCO guidelines with respect to credential assessment.
There may be a need to enhance the knowledge base and understanding of these key actors and building greater capacity within this group to ensure due diligence.
For Discussion with ARUCC
AUCC would like to have an initial discussion on this issue with the Association of Registrars of the Universities of Canada (ARUCC) and the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies (CAGS) in order to ascertain their perspective. The issue has not yet been given a thorough review by these organizations.
One question that arises with respect to this area of university activities is: might there be additional costs to processing applications (i.e. special training for administrative staff, translation of any original documents etc.)?
Another issue relates to possible increased expectations for the use of “transparency tools” such as the European Credit Transfer System and Diploma Supplements, the use of which has increased among signatory countries. The diploma supplement, for example, is explicitly recommended in the convention and once ratified, there may be increased expectations for it to be used by Canadian institutions in order to live up to the spirit of the Lisbon Convention. However, according to various sources, it appears that Canada’s system of transcripts and use of academic calendars fulfills the requirement of the use of the diploma supplement tool.
Lastly, in a more extreme possibility, there may be liability issues to making a decision on an application. What might the consequences be for an institution refusing admission to a potential international student? In discussion with ENIC-NARIC contacts, there appear to be no cases to date of liability for admission decisions.
AUCC wishes to have this initial discussion with ARUCC to inform our next steps in gathering as much information on possible implications (if any) for the ratification of the Lisbon Convention. This discussion and AUCC’s coming internal consultations with other experts and members of the Canadian university community will serve as the basis of AUCC’s input into the federal government’s on-going consultation process as it proceeds with developing the Memorandum to Cabinet to recommend ratification.
Some Key Questions for Discussion
For the list of signatory countries please click on the following link:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=165&CM=8&DF=19/03/04&CL=ENG