MOU renewal and termination are two topics no one wants to think about when preparing to sign. Precisely for that reason, they are often drafted carelessly, and the consequences surface years later, when no one remembers why they were written that way.
This article sets out the clauses that need to be in place from the start, the criteria for deciding whether to renew, and how to handle unfinished business when an agreement ends.
Why an indefinite-term MOU is a poor choice
Many memoranda of understanding do not state a term, or state that they remain in effect until one party terminates them. This sounds friendly but creates three problems.
No one ever reviews it. An agreement with no expiry date will never be reviewed, and the list of MOUs only grows year after year.
There is no natural opportunity to adjust it. The needs of both parties change over time. A renewal milestone is a natural opportunity to update the content to match.
Termination becomes a heavy matter. Without a natural milestone, one party proactively ending the agreement is seen as a negative act, even though it is really just the conclusion of a relationship that is no longer active.
By contrast, an agreement with a three-to-five-year term creates a natural review rhythm, and letting it lapse carries no negative connotation.
Term and renewal clauses
Four elements that should be included.
A specific term. Three years is the right length for most cases. Long enough to carry out activities, short enough to review before the relationship becomes stale.
A renewal mechanism. Two options, each with its own advantage.
Automatic renewal if neither party objects within a set period before expiry. The advantage is simplicity; the drawback is that it still leads to no one ever reviewing it.
Renewal requiring re-signing. The advantage is that it forces both parties to genuinely reconsider; the drawback is the added procedure.
A balanced approach: automatic renewal paired with an obligation to review through a meeting before expiry.
Advance notice period. If one party does not wish to renew, how far in advance must they notify. Three to six months is reasonable.
Whether renewal conditions are tied to results. For agreements with specific content, renewal can be tied to which activities have actually been carried out.
Criteria for deciding on renewal
When the milestone arrives, the question to answer is not whether the relationship is good but whether it has produced anything.
Four specific questions.
Has any joint activity actually been completed during the past period? This is the most important question. A three-year agreement that has produced no activity has no reason to be renewed.
Do both parties still have an active point of contact? If the person in charge on one side has moved on and no one has replaced them, the relationship has effectively already stopped.
Is the content of the agreement still relevant? The training program, direction, or capacity of either party may have changed.
Should the scope be expanded or narrowed? If only one of three cooperation areas has actually been carried out, it is better to focus on that area rather than keep a broad scope on paper.
Answering these four questions requires an activity-tracking record kept throughout the period. Without it, the review will rely on memory and will usually conclude that renewing is the safe choice.
Three possible outcomes of a review
Renew as is. When the relationship is working well and the content is still relevant.
Renew with adjustments. Narrow or expand the scope, update the contacts, add new content. This is usually the most fitting outcome, since few relationships keep the same needs after three years.
Let it lapse. When the relationship is no longer active. This is a perfectly normal outcome and should not be seen as a failure.
The third outcome deserves to be stated plainly, since many institutions are wary of it. But a long list of MOUs, most of them inactive, causes harm in two ways: it dilutes resources and it reduces credibility when a new partner looks it up.
Letting an agreement lapse amicably does not close the door to the future. Both parties can always sign again when a new need arises.
MOU renewal and termination when there is unfinished business
This is the most important section from an accountability standpoint and the one most often left incomplete.
Three situations that need a plan in place.
Students currently on an exchange program. They must be allowed to complete their term under the original conditions, regardless of what happens to the agreement between the two institutions.
Academic results not yet recognized. If a student has completed coursework at the partner institution but the recognition process is not yet finished, that obligation must continue.
A joint activity in progress. A research project or a joint course that is midway through needs an agreed way to be wound down.
The overarching principle: obligations to students exist independently of the relationship between the two institutions. This should be written as a clear, standalone sentence in the agreement.
For matters related to recognizing academic results during a transition period, the framework of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a reference point when the two sides need to agree on how to handle it.
Matters that survive termination
Certain obligations do not end along with the agreement, and need to be stated explicitly.
Confidentiality. Information exchanged during the cooperation must still be kept, usually for a defined period after termination.
Data handling. Student data exchanged between the two parties must be handled as agreed, not retained indefinitely.
Ownership of joint outputs. For products created during the cooperation, the right to use them after termination needs to be clear.
Use of name and branding. After termination, both parties stop referencing each other in promotional materials. Continuing to cite a relationship that has ended is a form of misrepresentation that is easily caught.
This last point is the one most often forgotten and the most awkward when a former partner points it out. There should be a step to review materials after every termination.
Record-keeping throughout the term
The quality of the review period depends entirely on whether data exists.
A simple tracking table is enough, with columns for: activity, time, number of participants, outcome, and notes.
It should be updated right after each activity rather than compiled at the end of the period. Data reconstructed from memory after three years is almost always incomplete and inaccurate.
Besides the activity log, minutes of periodic meetings and all important correspondence should be kept. When the person in charge changes, this is what helps their successor understand where the relationship stands.
When the outcomes of a partnership need to be placed in broader context, policy reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provide a reference for the typical level of activity seen in other systems.
Moving from an MOU to a specific agreement
An option rarely considered at the renewal milestone: instead of renewing the framework memorandum, switch to an agreement covering a specific activity.
The reasoning is worth considering. If after three years the two parties have clearly identified what they are cooperating on, a specific agreement is far more valuable than a general framework.
A specific agreement spells out the activity, scale, timeline, division of responsibilities, and costs. It forces both parties to be explicit, and that explicitness is exactly what turns intent into results.
A framework memorandum still has its place when both parties want to keep open the possibility of expanding into multiple areas. But if after three years only one area is actually active, keeping a broad framework only creates an impression of scale without adding any value.
How to communicate a decision not to renew
How it is communicated affects the long-term relationship, even once the agreement ends.
Notify early and directly. Do not let the partner discover it through the agreement quietly lapsing.
State the reason honestly but without assigning blame. Most cases are due to circumstances changing on both sides, not because either party did something wrong.
Acknowledge what was accomplished. Even when the results were modest.
Leave the door open to cooperating again. Many relationships are revived after a few years when circumstances change, and how it ended determines whether that can happen.
For partners the institution still wants to keep a professional connection with, a lighter form can be proposed instead of full termination: keeping contact between the two academic units without a formal agreement.
Who takes part in the renewal decision
This decision should not rest with the international cooperation office alone.
A representative of the academic unit knows whether the joint activity actually produces academic value, a question the administrative office cannot answer.
The person who runs the relationship day to day knows how much actual effort the relationship takes relative to the results it produces.
Senior leadership makes the final call and weighs it within the broader strategic context.
The review should be short, about thirty minutes per agreement, based on an activity-tracking record that already exists. If it takes hours to figure out what a partnership has accomplished, that alone is the answer.
Summary
MOU renewal and termination should be drafted right at signing, with a specific three-to-five-year term rather than being left indefinite.
The decisive question at the review point is not whether the relationship is good but what joint activity it has produced, and letting an inactive agreement lapse is a normal outcome, not a failure.
And the most important clause from an accountability standpoint is the principle that obligations to students exist independently of the relationship between the two institutions.
Next Steps
Draw up a table of all your institution’s current MOUs with four columns: partner, expiry date, joint activity carried out in the past two years, and whether both sides’ contacts are still active.
This table usually shows that the number of agreements genuinely still alive is far lower than the number in the report, and that is the information needed to reallocate resources.
