Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
400699690
label
UN [United Nations] RI Paper [1995-1998]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
400699690
contentType
document
title
UN [United Nations] RI Paper [1995-1998]
citationUrl
collections
Lex Frieden Collection: Records on Disability Rights
International Records
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
400699690
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e26533ee955e2b01
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection: Donated Historical Materials
Collection/Office of Origin: Frieden, Lex, Collection
Series:
International
Subseries:
Organizations
OA/ID Number:
52041
Folder ID Number:
52041-003
Folder Title:
UN [United Nations] RI Paper [1995-1998]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
5
2
6
6
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Speech on the Standard Rules
by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, Former M.P. and Cabinet Minister, Sweden
IPWH Conference, Kyoto, 5-7 November 1997
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Participants,
I am both honoured and delighted to have this possibility to speak to you on the
philosophy and contents of the new United Nations instrument in the disability field,
entitled the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities. Before I do this, I would like to briefly comment on the events which led to
the adoption of these Rules.
As you remember, 1981 was the International Year of Disabled Persons. This was an
event of historical importance. The greatest contribution of this event was, in my
opinion, the theme of the Year: Full Participation and Equality. This must be considered
as a recognition on the highest possible political level of the rights of persons with
disabilities to full participation and equal opportunities in the society they belong to. This
important achievement was followed by the adoption of the World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons, which outlines the policies in harmony with the theme of
the Year.
As you know the idea was that these policies should be implemented during the
subsequent Decade of Disabled Persons, 1983 - 1992. Some important achievements
were made during this period, but already in the middle of the decade it was obvious that
too little happened. The international disability community therefore requested that the
United Nations should assume a stronger leadership role in the development of better
living conditions for persons with disabilities. The response to this request was the
elaboration of the Standard Rules, which took place between 1990 -1993, when they
were adopted.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing persons with disabilities
from exercising their rights and freedoms and making it difficult for them to participate
fully in the activities of their societies. It is the responsibility of States to take appropriate
action to remove such obstacles." This is probably the two most important sentences in
the whole Standard Rules document. You find them in the Introduction, paragraph 15.
The process outlined in the Rules is to identify and remove obstacles to full participation.
The Rules indicate that this should be done both by empowering persons with disabilities
and by creating an accessible society. Governments of countries are responsible for
taking action to remove such remaining obstacles.
Well, as you see, we now already know three important things about the Standard Rules.
The objective is to achieve full participation and equal opportunities. The method to use
is to identify and remove remaining obstacles and governments are responsible for the
necessary measures.
The Standard Rules instrument summarizes the contents of the World Programme and
also takes into account some new aspects, which were emphasized during the decade.
Above all the stronger emphasis on the human rights perspective, which developed
during the decade, has been incorporated. In comparison with the World Programme
there are mainly three features which distinguish the Rules document. The language of
the Rules is more concentrated in form. The message of the Rules is directly addressed
to member states, i.e. the governments of countries. The third characteristic is that the
Standard Rules will be monitored through a separate monitoring system.
The Standard Rules include an introduction, a preamble, 22 different Rules and a
description of the monitoring system. The actual Rules are divided into three sections:
preconditions for participation, target areas for equal participation and implementation
measures.
The first section, dealing with the preconditions for participation, mainly presents Rules
on different forms of support to the individual, medical care, rehabilitation and various
forms of support services. The purpose of these services is to reduce the functional
limitations and increase the independence of the individual.
The section on target areas deals with sectors of society, which are of general
importance for the quality of life. There is an initial Rule on accessibility, which deals
with all the various aspects of access to physical environment and activities and services
generally available to non-disabled persons. There are Rules on how to make sectors like
education, employment, social security, culture and recreation accessible. The Rule on
family life and personal integrity is new and has no corresponding chapter in the World
Programme. It reflects an area, which has attracted considerable attention during the
decade.
The third section of the Rules, the implementation measures, presents a number of
important measures, which are well-known in social engineering. I should here like to
draw your attention to three of these Rules. In the Rule on legislation (Rule 15) the
2
message is that states should create a legal base for measures to achieve full participation
and equality for persons with disabilities. Legislative action may also be needed to
remove conditions which may adversely affect the lives of persons with disabilities.
In Rule 18 it is said that states should recognize the right of the organizations of persons
with disabilities to represent their groups at all levels. States should encourage and
support the formation and strengthening of such organizations.
The third measure I should like to point to concerns coordination (Rule 17). Disability
involves all spheres of society and therefore it is necessary to use a: multisectorial
approach. This also means that there is a constant need for coordination. It is therefore
stated in the Rule that states are responsible for the establishment and strengthening of
national coordinating committees or similar bodies.
The chapter on monitoring among other things contains the following:
"The purpose of the monitoring mechanism is to further the effective implementation of
the Standard Rules. It will assist each State in assessing its level of implementation of the
Standard Rules and in measuring its progress. The monitoring should identify obstacles
and suggest suitable measures that would contribute to the successful implementation of
the Rules."
"The Rules shall be monitored within the framework of the sessions of the Commission
for Social Development. A Special Rapporteur
shall be appointed
for three years
to monitor the implementation of the Rules."
"International organizations of persons with disabilities having consultative status with
the Economic and Social Council
should be invited to create among themselves a
panel of experts, on which organizations of persons with disabilities shall have a majority
to be consulted by the Special Rapporteur and, when appropriate, by the Secretariat."
Ladies and gentlemen,
I think we are all aware that access to employment and income earning opportunities is
necessary both for the realization of the goal of full participation and in our struggle
against poverty, inequality and social exclusion. Therefore, a strategy to provide
employment opportunities for different groups of persons with disabilities must be part
of any national plan to create better living conditions for these groups.
The commitment to full employment was given new life at the World Summit for Social
Development in Copenhagen, 1995. The world's leaders stated: "We commit ourselves to
promoting the goal of full employment as a basic priority of our economic and social
3
policies, and to enabling all men and women to attain secure and sustainable livelihoods
through freely chosen productive employment and work."
"Enabling all men and women to attain secure and sustainable employment" is a far-
reaching goal, set by the world's leaders. Naturally this goal is also highly relevant for
our discussion. What are the methods through which people with disabilities will get
jobs? Well, we know a lot about the policies and programmes which have been tried and
which are still in use in the world. We know that they are partly different and take
different points of departure. After having studied statistics and reports on the situation
during my monitoring of the Standard Rules, I found that I had reason to say, in my
report to the UN Commission for Social Development: As long as the employment rates
for persons with different disabilities are dramatically lower than for the population in
general, we have reason to speak about failure globally in finding effective labour market
policies for persons with disabilities, which would lead to employment rates, resembling
those for the general population. In other words, one could say that we know a lot about
how to fail in this field and little about how to succeed.
Against this background it is interesting to study the contents of Rule 7 on employment,
which is the most recent attempt by the world community to formulate a disability
policy, based on available experience. The contents of Rule 7 has been elaborated in
close consultation with the International Labour Office - ILO.
The essence of Rule 7 on employment is that persons with disabilities should be
empowered to exercise their right to gainful employment and that it is the responsibility
of States, i.e. governments of countries, to remove all remaining obstacles to
employment. As far as possible, and it is possible to a far greater extent than today,
persons with disabilities should have jobs in the regular labor market. When this, despite
all efforts, does not seem to be possible, jobs should be offered in more protected forms.
Let me quote the following paragraphs from the text:
"Laws and regulations in the employment field must not discriminate against persons
with disabilities and must not raise obstacles to their employment
"States should actively support the integration of persons with disabilities into open
employment"
"States, worker's organizations and employers should cooperate with organizations of
persons with disabilities concerning all measures to create training and employment
opportunities "
4
The text also contains a list of various technical measures, which could be taken by
governments, in order to obtain these objectives.
In the related area of income maintenance and social security it is, of course, difficult to
establish global guidelines due to the fundamental differences in economic conditions
existing in the world today. Still it has been possible for the UN General Assembly to
agree on some universal principles, which should be observed by all. Because of the
close link between employment, income maintenance and social security I also want to
introduce to you the contents of Rule 8 on that subject. I should here like to quote the
following parts of this Rule, which outline the basic responsibility of governments:
"States are responsible for the provision of social security and income maintenance for
persons with disabilities
"States should ensure the provision of adequate income support to persons with
disabilities who, owing to disability or disability-related factors, have temporarily lost or
received a reduction in their income or have been denied employment opportunities"
"In countries where social security, social insurance or other social welfare schemes exist
or are being developed for the general population, states should ensure that such systems
do not exclude or discriminate against persons with disabilities
"Social security systems should include incentives to restore the income-earning capacity
of persons with disabilities"
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would now like to make a few comments on Rule 7 on employment. In the initial
statement, which is an indication of an overall goal for labour market policies, the
emphasis is on providing opportunities for gainful employment. Governments are
requested to remove all remaining obstacles to open employment. We all know that there
are obstacles of many different kinds. They vary from group to group. They are different
in different societies and on different levels of economic and social development. And,
also very important, they vary from individual to individual. Therefore, naturally, global
guidelines must be broad and flexible.
However, certain things are in common. Above all, this is obvious concerning the role of
Governments. A national policy to create job opportunities for persons with disabilities
must build on a certain quantity of Government intervention. Usually this is taking the
form of a combination of legislation and different kinds of economic arrangements.
5
In some cases, for some groups or individuals, it is sufficient to provide initial support -
adequate training, adapted tools and equipment and/or an accessible work place. In other
cases, a reduced productivity will inevitably accompany the individual and then some
additional arrangement has to be made. This might be in the form of a wage subsidy or
some similar arrangement, which could encourage the employer.
Another general measure would be to consider some form of quota system, which would
put the same duty on all employers, both private and public. As we are all aware, there
are both pros and cons in connection with quota systems and they have to be combined
with other measures anyway
Ladies and Gentlemen,
One thing is clear. In all countries there is a group of people with disabilities, who have
extreme difficulties in getting jobs in the open labour market. They are mainly severely
disabled persons but also persons with disabilities which are especially difficult to handle
on the regular labour market. The goal of full participation and equality does not exclude
anyone. It therefore makes it necessary to bother about this group, too. Hence the
formulation in Rule 7, para 7: "For persons with disabilities whose needs cannot be met
in open employment, small units of sheltered or supported employment may be an
alternative." In other words, it is necessary for all nations to include programmes for this
group of persons with disabilities. However, in my opinion, one might add that the better
the open market functions, the smaller this group will be. There is nothing static about
this, and this is important to remember.
Keeping the goal of full participation in mind, all arrangements with sheltered or
specially provided jobs should include two important features. One is that only those
who are really in need of sheltered employment, should be offered this possibility.
Sheltered work opportunities must never grow into an excuse for doing less in the open
market. The other thing is that there should always be a function to assist those in
sheltered work in trying to get employment in the open market.
Finally I should like to add that sheltered or supported employment in small units can be
organized in modern work units with a good environment and with meaningful jobs in
the context of industry, administration or service production. Over a period of years I
have witnessed this transformation in the Swedish system, SAMHALL, and I am sure
you can find it in other countries, too. It is important to get rid of the stigma that different
forms of specially provided job opportunities must take place in poor social settings and
must contain less meaningful production.
6
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before I close, I should like to inform you about the great ILO project, which is running
this and next year. ILO is dedicating its biennial General Survey to labour market
policies and Disability. In a world-wide investigation ILO is compiling information on
the implementation of both Convention 159 and Recommendation 168. The results will
be reported at the ILO Conference in June next year. Obviously we all have reasons to
study the outcome and look for new and inspiring experiences, which could lead us to
find more effective instruments for the attainment of our goals.
One thing is quite clear: We will not be in a position to say that we are approaching the
goal of full participation and equal opportunities without considerable improvements in
the employment situation of persons with disabilities. Until this happens social
exclusion and poverty will reflect our failure. However, with the enormous and exciting
development of new technology and with the summary of world policies from the global
community, it looks as if the next few years will be very exciting. It is up to us to use this
opportunity.
Thank you for your attention!
7
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
SHIA Seminar on the Standard Rules and Gender Aspects
22-24 August 1997
Speech by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, UN Special Rapporteur on Disability
Dear Participants,
May I first of all tell you how delighted I am to have this opportunity to meet
you. I consider this seminar of great importance for me as Special Rapporteur
and for the UN disability programme. I am sure you will understand why during
my presentation.
Another thing I want to say initially is that all the documents, which have come
out as a result of your activities as a delegation, are of great value and quality. I
have studied them and they have informed, enlightened and inspired me.
At this seminar I will give you a general presentation of the Standard Rules and
of the activities in the monitoring project, which has now run for three years.
For your information I will use this opportunity to give you a general
presentation of the Rules and my final report on my monitoring task to the UN
Commission for Social Development, which I delivered in February this year.
The last pages of this report contain my recommendations for future monitoring
exercises, which to a large extent were picked up by the Commission in a
special resolution.
I also want to give my answers to a number of questions, which seem relevant
to ask, when I now for the first time as Rapporteur have the opportunity to
analyze the implications of the Rules from a gender perspective together with a
group of advocates for the long neglected rights of disabled women.
Throughout the day I am sure that we will have a lot of exchange of views and
hopefully also formulate a few ideas and initiatives together.
What are the Standard Rules?
Well, there are many answers to this question. The Rules are not an
international convention and are therefore not legally binding for governments
of Member States. Formally the Rules must be characterized as just another
declaration. However, there is much more to be said in this matter. For
instance, if you compare the Rules with the World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons, adopted after the International Year, three things
characterize the Rules:
- a. The Rules are much shorter and more concentrated in form (closer to legal
language),
- b: The Rules directly and systematically address Governments, and
- c: As part of the adoption of the Rules, it was decided that there should be an
independent monitoring mechanism attached to the Rules. These three features
make the Rules more distinct and powerful than is usually the case with
declarations.
Another circumstance which renders the Rules special importance is the reason
why they were elaborated. Towards the end of the 80's there was much
dissatisfaction concerning the very meager results achieved on the basis of the
World Programme and the Decade. The UN was asked to play a more active
role in making Member States actually implement the modern, human rights
based policy that was born in connection with the International Year. This was
the main reason for elaborating the Rules. In this sense the Rules were built on
the often negative experiences made during the Decade. This explains why the
role of Governments is so very clearly defined and why SO much importance is
attached to the monitoring mechanism under UN leadership.
Another thing, which naturally makes the Rules document stronger, is that there
was a wide interest to participate in the drafting process. The fact that they were
elaborated at three large conferences, where about 75 Government delegations
and all major international disability organizations participated, and then
unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly, makes this document
extremely strong both politically and morally.
Finally, it should be taken into account that all the six world conferences,
organized by the UN system between 1993-1996, include strong support of
the implementation of the Rules.
In summary, all these different circumstances make the Rules far more than just
another UN declaration. The Rules are now the dominating and most widely
recognized international policy document in the disability field.
Do the Rules convey a gender perspective?
There are four things I want to say in reply to this question. First of all, the
general presentation is done with the understanding that the suggested
guidelines and policies concern all people with disabilities, irrespective of race,
gender, age etc. This interpretation follows the tradition from the field of human
rights. Secondly, there are a few direct references to the gender dimension. The
most general one is the sentence in para. 15 in the Introduction, where the
following is said: "The purpose of the Rules is that girls, boys, women and men
with disabilities, as members of their societies, may exercise the same rights
and obligations as others."
The gender perspective is mentioned in some other instances in the
Introduction. In the Preamble we find support for the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, particularly the
sections on disabled women. In Rules 4 on Individual Support, Rule 6 on
Education and Rule 9 on Family Life and Personal Integrity special attention is
drawn to the needs of girls and women with disabilities.
Thirdly, the Rules must always be related to the concrete situation in a country.
In doing so, there is a need for interpretation and for putting the emphasis or
focus on certain conditions or circumstances. It is, for instance, necessary in
many cases to emphasize the need to include special measures for disabled
women in adult education, medical care, rehabilitation and the provision of
technical aids. This kind of exemplifying and concretization must also be used
much more in future monitoring.
Fourthly, it is very important to combine the provisions of the Standard Rules
and those contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women. This possibility must be further developed
through cooperation between the appropriate bodies within the UN, the special
agencies, international NGOs and all concerned entities on the national level. I
hope we can begin this work here.
Finally, in reply to this question, of course, one would have wished for a more
clearly spelt out gender dimension in the Rules document. However, by using
all these different means, which I have pointed to, I am sure that we can make it
a strong and useful tool also in the struggle for empowerment and full
participation by disabled women in their societies.
How can we use the Rules in our struggle?
First of all, there are a few things that you must never forget about the Rules.
They were worked out and adopted unanimously by Governments in close
cooperation with your organizations. Governments have committed themselves
to implement these Rules.
Also remember that the main purpose of these Rules is to make Governments
accept the responsibility for measures which will lead to the realization of the
goal of full participation and equality. The Rules contain lots of things that
Governments must do to move towards this goal - adopt a legal base for this
work, recognize the role of the organizations of disabled people, supply the
necessary support to the individual, create access to education, employment and
other crucial sectors of society. These things are all clearly indicated in the
Rules. However, again, there is a need to interpret and concretize many things
in every Rule area. This is something that you people in the organizations must
do.
As you, of course, know, the representatives of disabled people and
Governments often have very different opinions concerning what needs to be
done. Therefore, do not wait for the Government opinion! Make your own
interpretations and agenda, built on the Rules and make it known to the
Government! When the organizations do this, it is-naturally important to
include gender aspects in all relevant areas.
May I also add that it is important to use the Rules in the discussions on
cooperation and assistance project with international funders. With very few
exceptions, both funders and Governments of developing countries forget or
neglect the many disability dimensions of their development projects. The
inclusion of disability measures in mainstream development will be a key area
for the monitoring of the Rules in the time to come.
We can also learn from the past. In my monitoring I have found that there are a
number of main ways, in which the Rules have been used. A considerable
number of countries have used the Rules as a basis for new legislation. In some
countries plans of action have been formed, based on the Rules. A third way
has been to use the Rules as a basis for a national evaluation of the situation in
the disability field. In improving the structure for cooperation between the
Government and the organizations of persons with disabilities many countries
have built on the guidelines of the Rules.
All these ways are commendable and have proved to be useful. In addition to
this, of course, the contents of different Rules have been used to improve
conditions. Employment, education, the provision of technical aids,
rehabilitation, constructing a national monitoring system, measures to increase
research are all examples of such areas. Finally, there is no doubt that the Rule
on recognition and support of organizations of persons with disabilities (Rule
18) has played a significant role in strengthening the position of many national
organizations. These many different ways must be used and developed further
in the future.
May I finally point to one possibility, which has been tried with some success.
When the movement of disabled people wanted to obtain certain changes in
policies or programmes, it would sometimes be effective to invite The UN
Rapporteur or a member of the UN Panel of Experts to assist in the advocacy.
As you know, some things will be more acceptable, if they come from
international representatives than if maintained by people from the national
organizations in the country. In strategically important instances this possibility
should be used also in future.
How can we cooperate in future?
As you know, we are now right between two monitoring periods. We have
drafts of a work plan and a budget, but these have not yet been decided on
within the UN system. According to these plans the Rapporteur will give
priority to talks with individual governments, participation at regional and
national seminars with both Government and organization representatives,
cooperation with UN agencies in their field of responsibility and policy
discussions on human rights and development cooperation. According to the
instruction from the UN Commission for Social Development emphasis must be
given to gender issues, disabled children and people having disabilities from
mental illness. How these special dimensions should be dealt with, is still an
open question.
In my opinion there are mainly two ways to proceed. In all presentations, talks,
discussions, surveys we consciously select examples from these areas. The
other way is to create special activities. It is obviously not a question of either
or. We must do both. The fact is, however, that up to now no preparations have
been made. This is why I am so pleased with this meeting. It has already made
me learn and think a lot, but there is certainly room for more. I hope that much
will come out of our discussions.
When I met the Panel of Experts earlier this year, we decided that I should
contact the UN Commission on the Status of Women to explore the possibilities
of cooperation. I will take this initiative after this seminar.
As you know, half the number of the Panel members are women. Should they
be mobilized as a group to prepare initiatives and improve our messages from a
gender point of view? Perhaps. We have not discussed this in our group. Will
you continue to be a group and could you then play an advisory role in this
process? Well, let's discuss these many issues.
Finally, may I add a few words in general.
The 1990's have turned out to be important for the process towards a final
recognition of the human rights and dignity of people with disabilities. New
legislation in many countries, a re-orientation of disability policy towards the
goal of full participation in a great number of countries, the establishment of a
pattern of cooperation between Governments and organizations in all regions of
the world, these are important indications of progress. Several initiatives in the
area of monitoring human rights mean a break-through, which we have been
waiting for.
All these achievements and many others are the result of our own efforts. We
can be proud of what we have achieved but more remains to be done. We are on
the move and nothing will stop us now. I look forward to our discussions and
take this opportunity to wish you success in your future struggle.
Thank you for your attention!
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability
Swedish Parliament, S-100 12 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. (46-8) 786 4735
Fax. (46-8) 211 524
Tel. (46-8) 786 4828
Fax. (46-8) 248 847
UNESCO
General Conference
Twenty-eight session
Paris 1995
Statement by Bengt Lindqvist on agenda item 5.13
Mme/Mr. President,
Permit me first of all to express my sincere appreciation for having been given this
opportunity to speak on the subject of special needs education before the UNESCO General
Conference. I do this in my capacity as the Special Rapporteur on disability, appointed in
1994 by the UN Secretary-General, for monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules
on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
The Standard Rules were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993 in order to encourage
and facilitate the implementation by Governments of the philosophy and policies developed
since the International Year of Disabled Persons. This modern philosophy is based on a
human rights perspective. It could be summarized as "the right to full participation and equal
opportunities for persons with disabilities". As we are all aware, there are still many obstacles
making it difficult for persons with disabilities to participate in their societies.
As a matter of fact we live in an exclusive society, where persons with disabilities are often
excluded from family life, social relationships, mainstream services and employment. This has
certainly marked persons with disabilities and perpetuated negative attitudes, which have
influenced policies and practice. This is particularly true for developing countries, where often
the majority of children and adults with disabilities live in isolation and do not receive any
support at all. According to the Standard Rules "it is the responsibility of Governments to take
appropriate action to remove such obstacles". This should mainly be done by empowering the
individual with a disability to cope better with his or her situation and by making the
surrounding society accessible. In the 22 Rules measures along these two lines are
recommended. As the ultimate goal of this process is full participation in the society, where
the individual lives, the whole approach could be described as integrated and inclusive.
One of the 22 Rules is on education (Rule 6). It has been elaborated in close cooperation with
the experts within UNESCO. It goes without saying that access to education is of fundamental
importance for the whole process towards full participation. In agreement with the special
Panel of Experts belonging to the monitoring mechanism, I have decided to concentrate, for
the remaining two years of this first monitoring period, on education and five other Rule
areas, including employment. In this context I will, to a large extent, depend on the close
cooperation with the expertise within UNESCO.
Mme/Mr. President,
Permit me to congratulate UNESCO and the Government of Spain on the excellent outcome
of the World Conference on Special Needs Education, held in Salamanca in June 1994. The
Salamanca Statement is a powerful document, proclaiming inclusive education as the leading
principle in special needs education. This principle is outlined in the following way:
*
"Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given the opportunity to
achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning,
*
every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs,
* education systems should be designed and educational programmes implemented to take
into account the wide diversity of these characteristics and needs,
*
those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should
accommodate them within a childcentred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs.
* regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating
discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and
achieving education for all."
In its clarity and determination to accept exceptions to this main principle only if there are
compelling reasons for them, this statement represents a historical step forward in realizing
the goal of Education for All.
A comparison between Rule 6 on education and the Salamanca Statement shows that the goals
and directions of the two documents are very similar. The Salamanca Statement, however, is
clearer and for the first time launches the concept of "inclusive education". Where the
Salamanca Statement talks about inclusive education, the Standard Rules uses the phrase
"education in integrated settings". The text of Rule 6 further states that "education for persons
with disabilities should form an integral part of national educational planning, curriculum
development and school organization Adequate accessibility and support services, designed
to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, should be provided."
In other words, there is good harmony in principle between the two documents. It will
therefore be easy and natural to cooperate in realizing our common goals. The framework for
Action attached to the Salamanca Statement forms an excellent basis for common action.
Mme/Mr. President,
Another important contribution in emphasizing the significance of education in all human
development, was made by the World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen
in March 1995. In the World Summit Declaration, commitment 6, our attention is drawn to
the educational needs of persons with disabilities in the following way:
"We will ensure equal educational opportunities at all levels for children, youth and adults
with disabilities, in integrated settings, taking full account of individual differences and
situations."
Through these three major international documents, the Standard Rules, the Salamanca
Statement and the World Summit Declaration, we have been made aware of the important task
before us and of how it should be performed. We must make room for change, for inclusion
and integration. We must stop feeding parallel and marginal systems for certain groups. The
main responsibility lies with Governments to move towards inclusion and thereby towards a
community living in harmony, wholeness and integration.
To make this change a success UNESCO must continue its leading role in special needs
education. May I remind you that UNESCO's role in pursuing the principle of inclusion goes
far beyond education. It concerns UNESCO responsibility in sectors like culture,
communication and social science. Also in these sectors we expect UNESCO to include the
concerns and interests of all persons, including persons with disabilities. Also other
international organizations like the United Nations, UNICEF, ILO and WHO, and funding
agencies like UNDP and the World Bank have an important role to play in this process of
inclusion.
It is time for us all to move from words to concrete action in order to include children, youth
and adults with disabilities in our efforts to develop educational opportunities and other
spheres of society.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen: A school, good for children with special needs is a better
school for all. Indeed, the principle of inclusion is the only way to realize the noble goal of
Education for All.
I thank you for your attention.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Nordic cooperation in disability research more than welcome
Statement by Bengt Lindqvist
Distinguished Participants, Dear Friends,
The International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981 was an event of historical
importance. Through the adoption of the theme of the Year "full Participation
and Equality" and the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled
Persons, the global community through the United Nations recognized the
rights of every disabled person to participate on equal terms in the activities of
the society they belong to. During the Decade of Disabled Persons, which
followed the Year, it unfortunately turned out that the nations of the world were
slow in implementing these goals and guidelines. Therefore, to facilitate and
speed up the implementation, a new international instrument in the disability
field was elaborated.
This new implementation tool is entitled the Standard Rules on the Equalization
of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. One prominent feature of this
UN document is that the implementation will be actively monitored. Since I
was made responsible for this monitoring exercise in 1994, I have been working
with this task for three years. My work has resulted in a number of reports,
which could be made available upon request. One observation I can make after
this period is that the Standard Rules document is by now recognized and used
as guidelines for development in a great number of countries.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
What do these Rules then say about research and other forms of knowledge
accumulation? Before I answer this question, I should like to quote the
following, to give you a notion of what approach the Rules apply:
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing persons with
disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms and making it difficult for
them to participate fully in the activities of their societies. It is the responsibility
of States to take appropriate action to remove such obstacles."
This is probably the two most important sentences in the whole Standard Rules
document. You find them in the Introduction, paragraph 15. The process
outlined in the Rules is to identify and remove obstacles to full participation.
Governments of countries are responsible for taking action to remove such
remaining obstacles.
In this process knowledge is naturally a key element. In the Standard Rules this
has been strongly emphasized in two main ways. First of all it is necessary to
involve disabled people themselves in the development of policies and
programmes which concern them. This is why there is such strong emphasis
throughout the document on cooperation with disabled people and their
organizations. Among the 22 Rules, one (Rule 18) is dealing solely with the
position and role of such organizations. Among other things it recommends that
States (i.e. governments of countries) should support the formation and
strengthening of organizations of persons with disabilities. States should also
recognize the right of such organizations to represent their groups in all matters
concerning them. In the Nordic countries we have a long tradition in this area
and we know that we need the contributions from disabled people and those
who represent them to be able to develop good and functioning measures. The
close and constructive cooperation between them and decision-makers in
society is one of the most efficient ways to secure relevant knowledge.
The other way, in which emphasis has been given to the need for knowledge,
naturally concerns research in many different forms. Without statistical
knowledge of causes, kinds and numbers in the disability field our planning will
be defect, or even paralyzed. Without knowledge of actual living conditions we
can not know what is needed. Without knowledge about the effectiveness of
various measures, services and programmes we can not improve conditions.
Good disability programmes must therefore be built on knowledge and they
should include mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation. The Standard Rules
recognize the need for constant accumulation of knowledge as a basis for
planning.
To illustrate more concretely how the Rules deal with the issue of research and
cooperation in research I have taken a closer look at three of the 22 Rules. Rule
13 "Information and Research" obviously deals directly with this matter. In this
Rule it is said that the State has the ultimate responsibility for the collection and
dissemination of information on the living conditions of persons with
disabilities. States should promote comprehensive research on all aspects,
including obstacles that affect the lives of persons with disabilities. At regular
intervals States should collect gender-specific statistics on the living conditions.
In doing this States should cooperate with universities, research institutions,
organizations of persons with disabilities etc. States are also recommended to
develop and adopt terminology and criteria for the conduct of national surveys.
Finally States should support the exchange of research findings and
experiences.
Rule 20 deals with "Monitoring and Evaluation". The general recommendation
is that States are responsible for the continuous monitoring and evaluation of
the implementation of programmes and services in the disability field.
Evaluation should occur regularly and systematically. States should participate
in international cooperation in order to develop common standards for national
evaluation.
In the last Rule, Rule 22 on "International Cooperation" States are strongly
recommended to participate generally in the international exchange of
information and experiences. Particularly, States should encourage and support
the exchange of knowledge and experiences in specific areas - research being
one such mentioned area.
Ladies and gentlemen,
What I have been trying to say is the following: In our efforts to create better
living conditions for people, who happen to be disabled, we can not do without
knowledge and we can not do without cooperation. Therefore I, as a
representative of the international community outside the Nordic countries, am
delighted to welcome this initiative to establish a Nordic forum for people
active in disability research. Based on the recommendations in the Standard
Rules it would be appropriate for the Nordic Governments to find ways to
support this excellent initiative. I take this opportunity to wish you success with
this initiative and in your future research efforts. Of course, I look forward to
cooperating with you in all ways possible.
Thank you for your attention!
Preliminary Travel Plans August - December 1997
for Bengt Lindqvist, UN Special Rapporteur on Disability
Aug 14-15: Nordic Conference on Cooperation in Disability Research, Fredrikshamn,
Denmark
September 8: Informal Inter-agency Meeting at UNESCO, Paris, France
September 17-28: Roundtrip including participation at Regional Seminar on the Standard
Rules, Amman, 18-19 sept, Visit at ESCAP Office in Bankok, 23-24 Sept, Participation at
1997 International Seoul Conference on Disability, 27-28 sept.
October 6: Participation at the meeting of the Committee monitoring the Child
Convention, Geneva, Switzerland
October 13-16: Participation at meeting concerning the funding of a second monitoring
period and meetings with the UN Secretariat, New York
Nov 6-7: Participation at international meeting concerning employment opportunities,
Kyoto, Japan
November 15: Participation at activities concerning employment of the disabled, Sevilla,
Spain
November 18: Participation at a one day conference on disability policy, Dublin, Ireland
November 24-28: Participation at national seminar on the Standard Rules, Santiago,
Chile
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARD RULES AS SEEN
BY THE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL (RI)
©
Dimitris Michailakis 1997
1
CONTENTS
PART I - SUMMARY
Introduction
General policy
Legislation
Accessibility
OrganiZations of persons with disabilities
Co-ordination of work
Conclusion
Industrialized countries
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, DENMARK (22)
REHABILITATION FOUNDATION, FINLAND (30)
HELLENIC SOCIETY FOR DISABLED CHILDREN, GREECE (53)
THE ORGANIZATION OF HANDICAPPED IN ICELAND AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
FOR THE AID OF THE HANDICAPPED, ICELAND (153)
NATIONAL REHABILITATION BOARD, IRELAND (8)
JAPANESE SOCIETY FOR REHABILITATION OF DISABLED PERSONS, AND THE JAPAN
ASSOCIATION FOR EMPLOYMENT OF THE DISABLED, JAPAN (162)
Middle East and North Africa
KUWAIT SOCIETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED, KUWAIT (18)
Countries in transition
ASSOCIATION OF DISABLED PERSONS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC, RI, CZECH REPUBLIC
(62)
INSTITUT REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE ZA REHABILITACIJO, SLOVENIA (135)
Latin America and the Caribbean
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, ARGENTINA (39)
ASOCIACION DOMINICANA DE REHABILITATION, RI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (73)
South, East Asia and the Pacific
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, HONG KONG (87)
MALAYSIAN LEPROSY RELIEF ASSOCIATION, MALAYSIA (46)
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE, SINGAPORE (170)
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WELFARE OF THAILAND, THAILAND (160)
2
INTRODUCTION
This report analyses the replies to the questionnaire sent not only to the governments of
the UN Member States, but also to 600 national NGO's within the disability field. The
number of responses from the NGO's was not as high as from the governments of
Member States. However, it represents a very interesting material. In this report I will
separate, among the total of 163 replies from NGO's, the 15 replies from Rehabilitation
International (RI).
Part I of this report presents and analyses the results from the NGO's belonging to RI,
which have answered the questionnaire. Each table corresponds to a specific question in
the questionnaire (the number of the question is marked). For each question, after the
presentation of the results, comparisons are made between a) the results from the
organization in question and the results from the total of NGO's responding to the
questionnaire, and b) the results from the organization in question and the replies from
the governments. In this way we can locate issues where convergence, or divergence, of
views exists, between the particular NGO's and all the NGO's having responded to the
questionnaire, and between the particular NGO's and the governments.
The information in Part II is presented in a rather detailed form, in order to expose the
collected data of the responding NGO's.
The decision to send the questionnaire, not only to governments of the Member States,
but also to NGO's of these states within the disability field, proved to be worthwhile.
The different perspectives and views indicate a more complex picture of the degree of
achievement each country as to the implementing of the Standard Rules. When the
government and one, or many, NGO's give the same answers there is a guarantee for the
reliability of the received data, but when, on the other hand, the answers differ many
questions arise. For instance: Who knows what about whom? Does the organization for
the blind know the conditions for the mentally disabled? Is there a trend that
governments give an idealizing description, while NGO's give a pessimistic one? The
comparisons in this report are not aiming at indicating the greatest possible differences,
but to find out the greatest possible achievements with the standards, set out by the
Rules. Yet, attention has to be paid to cases where the answers from one and the same
country are not concordant. For several questions, the difference between the
percentages reported by RI organizations and governments, is ten percent or more. What
do such differences tell us?
The answers differ, now and then, on specific details on very essential issues, like what
kind of services that are available, and what persons with disabilities are entitled to.
That the answers differ, on issues such as the role of the co-ordinating committee, is
rather evident, since it is a question of assessing, of evaluating a process between two or
more parties. But in case of divergent answers about social and economic rights
questions arise. Is there an information gap even among the most prominent spokesmen
for persons with disabilities? Do organizations have too small resources in order to keep
themselves well-informed? Or do the disability organizations work rather separately
from each other; concentrating on their own, specific disability group, due to the
complexity of the matter, that is 'disability' is it a too big an issue to keep record of?
3
The divergence is of course in many cases the result of a different perspective due to
different roles: The government is the actor implementing policies within a wide range
of issues, while NGO's are expert actors in a specific field, who therefore very well
know what is happening in a limited area. The answer from the NGO's can thus
sometimes be the verification, or falsification, of the answer from the government. The
government answer giving a more optimistic view than the answer from the NGO's
could depend on the fact that - being the responsible part for the implementation of
policies, conventions and rules such as the Standard Rules - the government wants to
demonstrate that it has carried out its obligations.
By elaborating the specific replies of different NGO's, comparing the answers with the
NGO's as a whole - a rather common procedure - and with the governments, one trait
has emerged, rather unexpectedly: that specific NGO's diverge on one or many issues
with the NGO's in general but converge with the answer from the government. In order
to explain this, and other interesting findings, further monitoring is needed.
Distribution of NGOs belonging to RI according to regions
Regions
Frequency
Percent
South, East Asia and the Pacific
4
26,7
Industrialized countries
6
40,0
Latin America and the Caribbean
2
13,3
The Middle East and North Africa
1
6,7
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
0,0
Countries in transition
2
13,3
Total
15
100,0
The region with most respondents among RI organizations is the one of industrialized
countries. No replies were received from RI organisations from Sub-Saharan Africa.
GENERAL POLICY
Table 1 (Question No. 1)
Number of RI organzsations reporting on officially recognized disability policy:
Disability policy expressed in:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Having an officially recognized policy
12
92,3
Not having an officially recognized policy
1
7,7
Law
8
61,5
Guidelines adopted by the Government
7
53,8
Guidelines adopted by a disability council
7
53,8
Policy adopted by political parties
4
30,8
Policy adopted by NGOs
6
46,2
Total 13, No answer 2
As Table 1 shows the majority of RI organizations are reporting that there is an
officially recognized disability policy. The majority of RI organizations are reporting
that the disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted by the
government. The replies from the NGOs generally. exhibit the same pattern. There are
4
no clear differences regarding the percentages, except for the guidelines adopted by the
National Disability Council, the percentages reported by RI organizations being higher
when compared with the percent reported by NGOs in general. There are great
differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI
organizations report a lower percentage regarding the disability policy expressed in law,
but a higher percentage regarding the policy expressed in guidelines adopted by a
disability council, the policy adopted by political parties and the policy adopted by
NGOs.
Table 2 (Question No. 2)
The emphasis of disability policy
Emphasis in national policy
Number of RI org. indicating respective emphasis
1
2
3
4
5
Prevention
2
1
3
3
2
Rehabilitation
4
6
2
-
-
Individual support
6
1
1
3
-
Accessibility measures
-
3
6
3
-
Anti-discrimination law
-
1
-
2
6
1 = very strong emphasis
5 = very weak emphasis
According to RI organizations, the strongest emphasis is on rehabilitation, while the
weakest emphasis is on anti-discrimination law and accessibility measures. The same
pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general. The same pattern also emerges, when
compared with government responses.
Table 3 (Question No. 3)
Government action to convey the message of full participation
Conveying the message of full participation
Frequency
Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting Gvt. action
7
58,3
RI organizations reporting no Gvt. action
5
41,7
Total 12, No answer 3
As Table 3 shows, almost 42% of the organizations are reporting that the governments
have not done anything to initiate or support information campaigns conveying the
message of full participation, since the adoption of the Rules. More RI organizations
report a government action than NGOs generally do. There are clear differences, when
compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a
lower percentage regarding government action for conveying the message of full
participation than the governments themselves.
5
LEGISLATION
Table 4 (Question No. 4)
Types of legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities
Types of legislation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Special legislation
1
6,7
General legislation
6
40,0
Special and general legislation
8
53,3
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 4 shows, the most common type of legislation, according to RI organizations
is to use a combination of special legislation and general legislation. The second most
frequent type of legislation is general legislation, applicable to all citizens, while the
least common type is special legislation, specifically referring to disabled persons'
rights. There is, however, a high percentage of countries, where the rights of persons
with disabilities are protected only by general legislation. Though the pattern is the
same compared with the NGOs in general, there is a clear difference regarding the
percentage of countries having only special legislation. The valid percentage for the
NGOs in general is 23,6%. There are clear differences, when compared with the
percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage
concerning countries using only general legislation and a lower percentage for countries
using a combination of special and general legislation.
Table 5 (Question No. 5)
Mechanisms to protect citizenship rights
Judicial/no-judicial mechanisms
Frequency
Valid Percent
Due process
7
58,3
Recourse procedure
3
25,0
Ombudsman
4
33,3
Governmental body (administrative)
10
83,3
Expert bodies
3
25,0
Arbitration/conciliation body
2
16,7
Total 12, No answer 3
As Table 5 shows, the majority of RI organizations are reporting that mechanisms have
been adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most frequent judicial
mechanism adopted is legal remedy through the courts, while the most frequent non-
judicial mechanism is a governmental body (administrative). There is a clear difference,
compared with the NGO's in general, as regards the percentage of countries reporting
due process and a governmental body (administrative). The percentages reported by RI
organizations concerning due process are lower but the percentage concerning the
existence of a governmental body (administrative) is much higher than the percentage
reported by NGOs in general. There are also clear differences, when compared with the
percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a lower percentage of
countries, where disabled persons can defend their rights through courts, but a higher
percentage of countries using recourse procedure by a special agency as well as a
government body (administrative), than the governments.
6
Table 6 (Question 6)
Civil and political rights of persons with disabilities
RI organizations reporting that general legislation
Frequency
Valid Percent
does not apply with respect to:
Education
0
0,0
Employment
0
0,0
The right to marriage
4
30,8
The right to parenthood/family
4
30,8
Political rights
3
23,1
Access to court-of-law
4
30,8
Right to privacy
4
30,8
Property rights
4
30,8
Total 13, No answer 2
As Table 6 shows, there is a considerable number of RI organizations reporting that
general legislation does not apply to persons with disabilities with respect to: the right to
marriage; parenthood/family; political rights; access to court-of-law; the right to privacy
and property rights. General legislation is in all countries applicable with respect to the
right to education and the right to employment. It is interesting to note that general
legislation applies with respect to the right of employment in all countries. The same
pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general, but with differences in the percentages
reported, concerning the right to parenthood/family and political rights where the
percentages reported by RI organizations are lower than the NGO's in general. When
compared with the percentages reported by governments there are clear differences only
regarding two of the rights listed above, namely r the right to education and the right to
employment. The governments do not have as low a percentage as the RI organizations
(0%).
Table 7 (Question No. 7)
Economic and social rights of persons with disabilities
RI organisations reporting that the following
Frequency
Valid Percent
benefits are not guaranteed by law:
Health/medical care
5
33,3
Rehabilitation
3
20,0
Financial security
5
33,3
Employment
9
60,0
Independent living
10
66,7
Participation in decisions affecting themselves
9
60,0
Total 15, No answer 0
According to RI organizations, the following rights are less often guaranteed by law to
persons with disabilities: independent living; employment and participation in decisions
affecting themselves. The right most frequently guaranteed by law is the right to
rehabilitation. Regarding the right to employment, it is interesting to make a comparison
with question no. 6, enabling an inference that general legislation is not a sufficient
guarantee for disabled persons' rights. For instance, though there are no legal
hindrances for disabled persons in any of the countries with regard to the right to
7
employment, only in 40% of the countries this right is guaranteed by law. Obviously,
this makes a difference. Compared with the NGOs in general, there are no clear
differences, except regarding the right to financial security. The percentage reported by
the NGOs in general is 60%, to be compared with the 33%, reported by RI
organizations. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported
by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries where the
following benefits are not guaranteed by law: health/medical care, employment,
independent living and participation in decisions affecting themselves.
Table 8 (Question No. 8)
New legislation concerning disability since the adoption of the Rules
Legislation on disability
Frequency
Valid Percent
RI reporting enactment of new legislation
7
50,0
RI reporting no enactment of new legislation
7
50,0
Total 14, No answer 1
As Table 8 shows, 50% of RI organizations are reporting that no new legislation
concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules. There are clear
differences, compared with the percentages reported by the NGOs in general, the
enactment of new legislation reported being 37%. There are no clear differences, when
compared with the percentages reported by governments.
8
ACCESSIBILITY
Table 9 (Question No. 9)
Regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment
RI organisations reporting that:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Accessibility standards exist
15
100,0
Accessibility standards do not exist
0
0.0
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 9 indicates, none of the RI organizations are reporting that no accessibility
standards exist. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general though there are
clear differences in the percentages. The percentage reported by NGOs in general,
regarding the existence of accessibility standards, is 67%. There are also clear
differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI
organizations report a higher percentage of countries where accessibility standards exist.
Table 10 (Question No. 10)
Accessibility of the built environment
RI organizations reporting accessibility in:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Public places
15
100,0
Outdoor environment
10
66,7
Transportation
7
46,7
Housing
8
53,3
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 10 indicates, all the RI organizations are reporting that accessibility standards
concerning public places exist, but that accessibility standards concerning means of
public transportation exist to a lesser extent. The same pattern, with the NGOs in
general, with no clear differences in the percentages reported. There are, however, clear
differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI
organizations report a lower percentage regarding accessibility standards in the outdoor
environment and in transportation, than the government.
Table 11 (Question No. 11)
Supervision of the accessibility in the built environment
Accessibility in the built environment is
Frequency
Valid Percent
observed by:
National authority
9
60,0
Local Governments
8
53,3
The constructor
2
13,3
The organizers/providers of the activities
4
26,7
No responsible body exists
1
6,7
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 11 shows, 7% of RI organizations are reporting that no responsible body exists
to observe the accessibility in the built environment. Accessibility in the built
environment, when existing, is most frequently observed by a national authority and by
local governments. The same pattern prevails in replies compared with the NGOs in
9
general. There are, however, clear differences in percentages reported. RI organizations
report a higher percentage regarding supervision by a national authority and by the
organizers/providers of the activities, but a lower percentage regarding the existence of a
responsible body. When compared with the percentages reported by governments, there
are differences concerning the supervision of the accessibility in the built environment
by the organizers/providers of the activities, RI organizations reporting a higher
percentage regarding the existence of a responsible body and fewer RI organizations
reporting that such a body does not exist.
Table 12 (Question No. 12)
Measures to facilitate accessibility of the built environment
Government measures promoted:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Levelling off pavements
12
80,0
Marking parking areas
13
86,7
Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets
12
80,0
Ensure accessibility in public places
12
80,0
Improving accessibility in housing
8
53,3
Financial/incentives support for accessibility measures
7
46,7
Special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired
5
33,3
Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles
9
60,0
Total 15, No answer 0
According to RI organizations, the following measures to facilitate accessibility in the
built environment are the most frequently promoted: marking parking areas, levelling
off pavements, installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets and ensuring
accessibility in public places. The measure being the least of all promoted is special
lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired. There are great differences in the
percentage reported, when compared with the NGOs in general. RI organizations report
a higher percentage regarding all the listed measures. There are also clear differences in
almost all of the above mentioned measures, when compared with the percentages
reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage on the following
measures: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing automatic doors,
lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring accessibility in public places, improving
accessibility in housing and provding specially adapted motor vehicles.
Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system
Special transport is available for:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Medical treatment
12
92,3
Education
12
92,3
Work
9
69,2
Recreational purpose
12
92,3
No special transport system exists
2
13,3
Special transport exists
13
86,7
Total 15, No answer 0
There are 13% of the RI organizations reporting that no special transport system exists.
When a special legislation exists, it is available, in most countries, for education and
10
medical treatment. There are clear differences in the percentages, when compared with
the NGOs in general, regarding the existence of special transport system. The
percentage reported by the NGOs is higher. When compared with the percentages
reported by governments, there are clear differences. RI organizations report a lower
percentage for the availability of special transport for work but a higher one for
recreational purpose. The RI organizations also report a higher percentage of countries,
where special transport exist.
Table 14 (Question No. 1+)
Adaptation of the built environment
Obstacles reported by RI when building
Frequency
Valid Percent
accessible environments:
Attitudinal factors
12
80,0
Economic/budgetary factors
11
73,3
Technical factors
0
0,0
Geographical and climatic factors
1
6.7
Lack of legislation and regulations
2
13,3
Lack of planning and design capacity
5
33,3
Lack of knowledge, research and information
3
20,0
Lack of user participation
4
26,7
Lack of co-operation from other organizations
4
26,7
Lack of enforcement mechanism
11
73.3
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 14 shows, there are three main obstacles according to RI organizations, when
building accessible environments, namely attitudinal factors, economic/budgetary
factors and lack of enforcement mechanism. It is remarkable that 80% of the RI
organizations are reporting attitudinal factors as the main obstacle when building
accessible environments. There are clear differences compared with the NGOs in
general. RI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding attitudinal factors
and lack of enforcement mechanism but a lower percentage regarding lack of legislation
and regulations, and lack of knowledge, research and information. There are differences
in the percentages reported by governments in almost all of the above mentioned
obstacles. RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning the following
obstacles: attitudinal factors, lack of user participation, lack of enforcement mechanism,
a lower percentage concerning technical factors, geographical and climatic factors, lack
of legislation and regulations and lack of knowledge, research and information.
Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component
Disability awareness in the training:
Frequency
Valid Percent
There is a disability awareness component
7
53,8
There is not a disability awareness component
6
46,2
Total 13, No answer 2
The majority of RI organizations are reporting that a disability awareness component is
incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers. There is a
different pattern compared with the NGOs in general. There are also clear differences in
11
the percentage reported. There are no clear differences, when compared with the
percentages reported by governments.
Table 16 (Question No. 16)
Status of sign language
The status of sign language as reported by RI
Frequency
Valid Percent
organizations:
Recognized as the official language
6
42,9
As the first language in education
2
14,3
As the main means of communication
3
21,4
No officially recognized status
3
21,4
Total 14, No answer 1
As Table 16 indicates, 21% of RI organizations are reporting that sign language has no
officially recognized status, while also 43% of the RI organizations are reporting that
sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. There is no clear
difference, compared with the NGOs in general. There are clear differences, when
compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations report a
higher percentage of countries, where sign language has an officially recognized status,
but a lower percentage of countries, where sign language has no officially recognized
status.
Table 17 (Question No. 17)
Accessibility measures in media
Accessibility measures in media
Frequency
Valid Percent
Reporting accessibility measures
10
66,7
Reporting no accessibility measures
5
33,3
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 17 shows, the majority of the RI organizations are reporting that there are
accessibility measures to encourage media to make their information services accessible
for persons with disabilities. The percentage reported here, regarding the existence of
accessibility measures, is higher compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in
general. When compared with the percentages reported by governments, the RI
organizations report a higher percentage of countries that have taken measures to
encourage accessibility measures in media.
Table 18 (Question No. 18)
Accessibility measures in public information services
Public information services
Frequency
Valid Percent
Accessibility measures in information
7
58,3
No accessibility measures in information
5
41,7
Total 12, No answer 3
The majority of the RI organizations are also reporting that there are government
measures to make other forms of public information services accessible for persons with
disabilities. A clear difference appears compared with the percentage reported by the
12
NGOs in general. There are no clear differences. when compared with the percentages
reported by the governments.
Table 19 (Question No. 19)
Access to information and communication
Services to facilitate information/communication
Frequency
Valid Percent
Literature in Braille/tape
13
92,9
News magazines on tape/Braille
7
50,0
Sign language interpretation for any purpose
8
57,1
Sign language interpretation for major events
5
35.7
Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities
3
21,4
None
0
0,0
Total 14, No answer 1
As Table 19 indicates, none of the RI organizations report there being no services at all
to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and
persons without. This is a clear difference with the percentage reported by NGOs in
general. The services most frequently provided, according to the RI organizations are
literature in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation for any purpose, whereas less
frequently services such as easy readers for persons with disabilities are provided. The
main difference appearing here, is that RI organizations are reporting a higher
percentage regarding the provision of literature in Braille/tape and sign language
interpretation for any purpose than NGO's in general. There are clear differences
regarding two of the above listed services, when compared with the percentages
reported by governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries,
where sign language interpretation is provided for any purpose, but a lower percentage
concerning easy readers for persons with mental disabilities.
13
ORGANIZATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Table 20 (Question No. 20)
National umbrella organization
National umbrella organization
Frequency
Valid Percent
There is umbrella organization
11
73.3
There is no umbrella organization
4
26,7
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 20 shows, the majority of the RI organizations are reporting that there is an
umbrella organization of organizations of persons with disabilities. Minor differences
appear in the percentage reported, compared with those reported by the NGOs in
general. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by
governments.
Table 21 (Question 21)
Participation in policy making
Participation in policy-making
Frequency
Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting participation
7
46,7
RI organizations reporting no participation
8
53,3
Total 15, No answer 0
As Table 21 shows, 53% of the RI organizations are reporting that no legal provisions
exist mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-
making or to work with governmental institutions. There are only minor differences,
compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. There are clear
differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI
organizations report a lower percentage regarding participation in policy-making.
Table 22 (Question 22)
Consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities
Organizations are consulted:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Never
0
0,0
Sometimes
3
20,0
Often
6
40,0
Always
6
40,0
Total 15, No answer 0
Table 22 shows that a majority of the organizations reports that consultations
often/always take place, while the percentage is 0 for the RI organizations reporting that
consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities never take place when laws,
regulations and/or guidelines with a disability aspect are being prepared. There are main
differences in the percentages compared with NGOs in general. The RI organizations
are reporting a higher percentage when consultations are often and always taking place.
There are clear differences in the percentages reported by governments. The RI
organizations report a higher percentage when consultations often take place.
14
Table 23 (Question 23)
Level of consultations
Level of consultations
Frequency
Valid Percent
National
15
100,0
Regional
8
53,3
Local
8
53,3
Total 15, No answer 0
Table 23 shows that consultations, when taking place always occur at the national level.
Great differences appear in the percentage reported concerning the regional and local
levels, when compared with the NGO's in general. The percentage reported by NGOs in
general are lower. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages
reported by the governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage
concerning consultations on the national and regional level.
Table 24 (Question 24)
Support to organizations of disabled people
Kind of support
Frequency
Valid Percent
Financial
12
92,3
Organizational/logistic
2
15,4
No support at all
0
0,0
Total 13, No answer 2
The majority of the RI organizations are reporting that the government gives financial
support to organizations of persons with disabilities. There are no RI organizations
reporting that no support at all is given to organizations of persons with disabilities.
None of the RI organizations report that support is not given to organizations of persons
with disabilities. The pattern is the same, but there are differences, when compared with
the percentage reported by the NGOs in general, namely regarding financial and
organizational/logistic support, the RI organizations report higher percentages for the
former and lower for the later. There are clear differences, when compared with the
percentages reported by the governments. The RI organizations report higher
percentages concerning financial support but lower ones concerning
organizational/logistic support.
Table 25 (Question 25)
Participation in political and public life
Areas of political and public life
Number of countries reporting participation
Limited
Some
Great
Government
6
5
4
Legislatures
5
3
5
Judiciary
9
3
0
Political parties
6
6
0
NGOs
1
2
12
1 and 2 = limited extent. 3 = some extent, 4 and 5 = great extent
15
Table 25 shows, that the majority of the RI organizations are reporting that persons with
disabilities to a very limited extent participate in government, legislatures, judicial
authorities and political parties, but to a great extent in NGOs. The same pattern prevails
as that reported by the NGOs in general; no significant difference in the percentage. The
same pattern emerges when compared with the responses from the governments.
Table 26 (Question 26)
The role of organizations
Areas in which organizations are involved
Frequency
Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services
14
93,3
Mobilize persons with disabilities
12
80,0
Identify needs and priorities
10
66,7
Participate in the planning, implementation
10
66,7
Contribute to public awareness
14
93,3
Provide services
14
93,3
Promote/organize income generating
10
66,7
activities
Total 15, No answer 0
Table 26 shows, that according to the RI organizations, the organizations for persons
with disabilities are foremost involved in: advocating rights and improved services,
contributing to public awareness, providing services and mobilizing persons with
disabilities. The RI organizations are reporting that the areas, in which these
organizations are least involved, is: identifying needs and priorities, participating in the
planning, implementing and evaluating services and measures concerning the lives of
persons with disabilities, and promoting/organizing income generating activities.
Nonetheless, the rates in all areas concerning organizations, the involvement are high
implying that this group of NGO's apprehend their role to involve in a wide range of
tasks. The pattern is the same as with NGOs in general. Although there are differences
in the percentage reported concerning the role of organizations to identify needs and
priorities and to promote/organize income generating activities. The percentages
reported by the RI organizations concerning the former is lower, but concerning the
latter higher. There are clear differences in two areas, when the percentages reported by
governments are compared to those reported by the RI organizations. The RI
organizations report a lower percentage regarding involvement to identify needs and
priorities but a higher percentage concerning provision of services.
16
CO-ORDINATION OF WORK
Table 27 (Question 27)
Co-ordinating committee
Co-ordinating committee
Frequency
Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee
12
85,7
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14,3
Total 14, No answer 1
Table 27 shows that the majority of the RI organizations are reporting the existence of a
co-ordinating committee. Only 14% are reporting that there is no committee. There are
differences in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. The RI
organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding the existence of a co-
ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails when compared to governments. The
RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries with a co-ordinating committee
than the governments.
Table 28 (Question 28)
Where the co-ordinating committee is reporting to
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to:
Frequency
Valid Percent
A particular Ministry
7
58,3
The Prime Minister's office
3
25,0
Other
2
16,7
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14,3
Total 14, No answer 1
According to the RI organizations, the authority to which the co-ordinating committee is
usually reporting, is the Ministry of Social Affairs or any other Ministry. There are
differences in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. The RI
organizations report a lower percentage regarding reports to Ministries and higher
regarding reports to the Prime Minister's office. There is a clear difference in the
percentages reported. when compared with governments. The RI organizations report a
lower percentage regarding co-ordinating committees' reports to a particular Ministry.
Table 29 (Question 29)
Representation in the co-ordinating committee
Representatives of:
Frequency
Valid Percent
Ministries
12
100,0
Organizations of persons with disabilities
10
83,3
Other NGOs
7
58,3
Private sector
5
41,7
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14,3
Total 14, No answer 1
According to the RI organizations, the co-ordinating committee usually includes
representatives from Ministries and from organizations of persons with disabilities.
Representatives from other NGOs and from the private sector are not so often included
in the co-ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails, when compared with the
17
NGOs in general, but there are differences in the percentage reported concerning the
representation of other NGOs and from the private sector. There is only one difference,
when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations
report a higher percentage concerning the representation of Ministries in the co-
ordinating committees.
Table 30 (Question 30)
Participation in policy-development
Involvement of the co-ordinating committee
Frequency
Valid Percent
Participation in policy-development
10
90,9
No participation in policy-development
1
9,1
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14,3
Total 13, No answer 2
Table 30 shows that 91% of the RI organizations are reporting that the co-ordinating
committee is expected to participate in policy development. There are only minor
differences in the percentage reported, when compared with those reported by the NGOs
in general. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported
by the governments.
Table 31 (Question 31)
Participation in performance of other tasks
Involvement of the co-ordinating committee
Frequency
Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks
6
50,0
Reporting no performance of other tasks
6
50,0
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14,3
Total 14, No answer 1
50% of the NGOs are reporting that the committee is expected to perform other tasks.
The percentage reported by the NGOs in general is 57. There are clear differences, when
compared with the percentages reported by the governments concerning involvement of
the co-ordinating committees in other tasks. The RI organizations report considerably
lower percentage.
Table 32 (Question 32)
Effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee
Effects
Frequency
Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes
10
83,3
Improved legislation
9
75,0
Improved integration of responsibility
7
58,3
Better dialogue in the disability field
10
83,3
More accurate planning
8
66,7
More effective use of resources
5
41,7
Improved promotion of public awareness
8
66,7
Too early for assessment
1
8.3
There is no co-ordinating committee
2
14.3
Total 14, No answer I
18
According to the RI organizations, the establishment of the co-ordinating committee has
had the following effects: improved co-ordination of programmes and a better dialogue
in the disability field. 8% of the RI organizations report that it is too early for an
assessment regarding the effects of the co-ordinating committee. There are differences
in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general for all the effects
listed above. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported
by the governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning the
involvement of the co-ordinating committees in improvement of legislation and in the
more accurate planning but a lower percentage regarding the more effective use of
resources.
Table 33 (Question 33)
Effects of the adoption of the Standard Rules
The effects of the Standard Rules
Frequency
Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting rethinking
7.
58.3
RI organizations reporting no rethinking
4
33,3
Total 12, No answer 3
Table 33 shows that 58% of the RI organizations are reporting that the adoption of the
Standard Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy whereas 33%
are reporting that it has not lead to a rethinking. The percentage reported by the RI
organizations on the issue that the adoption of the Standard Rules has not led to a
rethinking is much lower than that reported by the NGOs in general. There is a
considerably lower percentage of RI organizations reporting a rethinking as an effect of
the adoption of the Standard Rules than from the governments.
CONCLUSION
There are four questions in which a broad convergence of views exists between RI
organizations, the NGOs in general and the governments, namely questions No 2, 20, 25
and 30. In none of the issues explored in these questions are there any divergent views
between RI organizations, NGOs in general and governments.
There are a number of areas, where divergent views exist between RI organizations and
governments. It is interesting to observe that the divergence in views is higher between
RI organizations and NGOs in general than between RI organizations and governments.
There are also a number of areas, where divergent views exist between RI organizations,
NGOs in general and governments. Divergence does not occur over the whole range of
issues in these areas, but in most of them. The areas, where the divergence in views is
most apparent, include the civil and political rights of persons with disabilities, the
economic and social rights of persons with disabilities, the measures taken by the
governments in order to facilitate accessibility in the built environment, the obstacles
reported to facilitate accessibility in the built environment, the participation in political
and public life, the effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee and the
effects of the adoption of the Standard Rules.
19
Industrialized countries
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, DENMARK (22)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law, in guidelines adopted by
a national disability council, in policy adopted by political parties and in policy adopted
by NGOs. According to the Government, disability policy is not expressed in law but in
guidelines, adopted by the Government. The emphasis in this policy is on rehabilitation,
individual support and accessibility measures.
Since the adoption of the Standard Rules, the government has done nothing to convey
the message of full participation. According to the Government, the following measures
have been taken to convey the message of full participation: The Minister of Social
Affairs has held a press meeting, in December 1994, the national council on disability
has distributed material concerning the Standard Rules and an interministerial
committee has been appointed in order to work out a plan of action, concerning
accessibility and awareness raising.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities is recourse procedure by a special agency, dealing with anti-
discrimination issues. Non-judicial mechanisms include: an Ombudsman, and a
governmental body (administrative). According to the Government, the judicial
mechanisms include due process (legal remedy through the courts), the non-judicial
including an ombudsman and an independent expert body.
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court-of-law, the right to privacy and to property rights. The following
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical care,
training, rehabilitation and counselling, financial security, employment, independent
living and participation in decisions affecting themselves. According to the
Government, the benefits of employment and participation in decisions affecting
themselves are not guaranteed by law.
No new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the
Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure the accessibility in the built environment requiring that public
places, the outdoor environment, means of public transportation and housing are made
accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is observed by local governments. The
Government states that accessibility in the built environment is also observed by a
national authority. The following measures have been promoted by the government in
order to facilitate accessibility in the built environment: levelling off pavements,
marking parking areas, installing automatic doors. lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring
20
access to public places, improving accessibility in housing, providing financial
incentives/support for accessibility measures in housing, installing special lighting and
using contrast colours for visually impaired and providing specially adapted motor
vehicles. There are special transport arrangements for persons with disabilities, available
for medical treatment, education, work and recreational purpose. The most difficult
obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments are attitudinal factors,
economic/budgetary factors, lack of planning and design-capacity and lack of
enforcement mechanism.
Sign language for deaf people is recognized as the main means of communication
between deaf persons and others. According to the Government, sign language for deaf
people is also recognized as the official language for deaf people and is used as the first
language in education of deaf people. There are government measures to encourage
media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons
with disabilities. According to the Government, there are no measures to encourage
media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible. The
following services are provided in order to facilitate information and communication
between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape, sign language
interpretation, being available for any purpose and easy readers for persons with mental
disabilities.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization in which all different organizations are
represented. There are legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons with
disabilities to participate in policy making and to work with governmental institutions.
Organizations of persons with disabilities are always consulted, when laws and
regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at both the
national, regional and local level. The government financially supports existing or new
organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to some
extent in judicial authorities and political parties but to a great extent in government,
legislatures and NGOs. The role of organizations of persons with disabilities is to
advocate rights and improved services, mobilize persons with disabilities, identify needs
and priorities, participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and
measures concerning the lives of persons with disabilities, contribute to public
awareness, provide services and promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Parliament. The committee includes
representatives of the Ministries of Health and Social Affairs, as well as Education and
of organizations of persons with disabilities. The government expects the co-ordinating
committee to participate in policy development but not to perform other tasks.
According to the Government, the council is also expected to perform other tasks. The
establishment of the committee has had the following effects: improved co-ordination of
measures/programmes, improved legislation, improved integration of responsibility, a
better dialogue in the disability field and more accurate planning. The establishment of
the committee has not led to a more effective use of resources or improved promotion of
public awareness.
21
The adoption of the Rules has not led to a rethinking of the approach to disability
policy. According to the Government, the adoption of the Rules has provided a new
instrument to carry out the disability policy.
22
REHABILITATION FOUNDATION, FINLAND (30)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy in Finland is, according to the Rehabilitation
Foundation, expressed in law and in guidelines adopted by a National Disability
Council. According to the Government, the disability policy is also expressed in policy
adopted by political parties and by NGOs. The emphasis in this policy - in descending
scale - is on individual support, rehabilitation, accessibility measures, anti-
discrimination law and prevention.
Since the adoption of the Standard Rules, the government has not done anything to
initiate or support information campaigns, conveying the message of full participation.
The Government states that the National Council on Disability, in co-operation with the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, has published an easy reader version of the
Standard Rules in Finnish and Swedish.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation, applicable to
all citizens. According to the Government, the rights of disabled people are protected by
a combination of special legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism
adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy
through courts), while administrative and other non-judicial bodies include an
Ombudsman and a governmental body (administrative).
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court-of-law, the right to privacy and property rights. The following
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical care,
training, rehabilitation and counselling and financial security. According to the
Government, even the benefits of independent living and of participation in decisions
affecting themselves are guaranteed by law.
No new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the
Standard Rules. The Government states that, since the adoption of the Rules, the
Constitution has been amended (1995). The clause on equality was included in the
Constitution Act (section 5 §2) and the clause (section 14 §3) according to persons
using sign language and persons in need of interpretation and translation services
because of disability, will be protected by law.
Accessibility
There are laws and regulations to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring
that public places, the outdoor environment and land, sea and air transportation are
made accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is observed by local
governments. The following measures have been promoted by the government in order
to facilitate accessibility in the built environment: levelling off pavements, marking
parking areas, installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring access to
public places, improving accessibility in housing, providing financial support for the
costs of adapting private buildings to the needs of persons with disabilities and
providing specially adapted motor vehicles. According to the Government, even special
23
lighting and contrast colours for visually impaired are provided. The special transport
arrangements include low floor buses. This special transport is available for medical
treatment, education, work and for recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles,
when planning to build accessible environments, are attitudinal factors, lack of
knowledge, research and information, lack of user participation and lack of enforcement
mechanism. A disability awareness component is not incorporated in the training of
planners, architects and construction engineers. According to the Government, there is a
disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers, but the issue, whether this is taken into account, depends on the
professors at the Architectural Universities.
Sign language for deaf people is recognized as the official language of deaf people and
is used as the first language in education of deaf people. There are government measures
to encourage media (The Broadcasting Corporation) to make their services accessible to
persons with disabilities, The following measures are provided in order to facilitate
information and communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature
in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation being available for any purpose. A sign
language news bulletin is also being provided on television. According to the
Government, even easy readers for persons with mental disabilities are provided.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization in which practically all organizations are
represented. There are no legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons with
disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work with governmental institutions.
According to the Government, there are legal provisions mandating the representatives
of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making and to work with
governmental institutions. Disability organizations are often consulted, when laws and
regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at both the
national, regional and local levels. The government financially supports the existing and
new organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a
very limited extent in legislatures and judiciary, to some extent in government and
political parties and to a great extent in NGOs. The role of disabled persons'
organizations is to advocate rights and improved services, mobilize needs and priorities,
contribute to public awareness and to provide services. According to the Government,
organizations also participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services
and measures concerning disabled persons,
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Health and Social
Security. The committee includes representatives of the Ministries of Health and Social
Affairs, of Employment, of Transport, of Housing, of Education, of Culture and of
Planning, and of other NGOs. The co-ordinating committee is expected to participate in
the planning and policy development. The establishment of the co-ordinating committee
has had the following effects: improved co-ordination of measures/programmes in the
disability field, improved legislation, a better dialogue in the disability field, more
accurate planning and improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the Standard Rules has not yet led to a rethinking of the approach to
disability policy.
24
HELLENIC SOCIETY FOR DISABLED CHILDREN, GREECE (53)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law, in guidelines adopted by
the government, in policy adopted by political parties and in policy adopted by NGOs.
In addition, Article 21 of the Constitution makes reference to disability and constitutes a
mandate for legislative and administrative action. The emphasis in this policy - in
descending scale - is on individual support, rehabilitation. prevention, accessibility
measures and anti-discrimination law.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the following has been made in order to convey the
message of full participation: relevant spots on T.V. and various events relating to the
International Day of Disabled Persons. A recent Law (1995) prescribes T.V. and radio
time to be allocated to awareness raising messages. Proposed legislation recognizes the
International Day of the Disabled.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy through courts). The non-
judicial mechanism is a governmental body (administrative).
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court of law, the right to privacy and to property rights. However, the
right of privacy is constrained by accessibility barriers and the resultant
overprotection/dependency. The following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons
with disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counselling and
financial security. According to the Government, even the benefits of employment,
independent living and participation in decisions affecting themselves are guaranteed by
law.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the Law for raising time in the mass media has been
enacted as well as a special law, dealing with the conditions and overseeing the
mechanisms for the provision of organized welfare services, some of which apply to
facilities and services for disabled persons.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment which establish national
design standards requiring that public places and the outdoor environment are made
accessible. According to the Government, there are rules to ensure the accessibility in
the means of public transportation. No responsible body exists to ensure accessibility in
the built environment. The following measures have been promoted to ensure
accessibility in the built environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas,
installing lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring access to public places and providing
specially adapted motor vehicles. Special transport arrangements include accessible
buses, urban transportation being free for commuters. and discounts, existing for long
distance travel. Special transport is available for medical treatment. education and for
recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles. when planning to build accessible
25
environments, are economic/budgetary factors, lack of planning and design-capacity,
lack of user participation, lack of co-operation from other organizations/institutions and
lack of enforcement mechanism. The Government does not regard economic/budgetary
factors as an obstacle for building accessible environments. There is no disability
awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language for deaf people has no officially recognized status, is not used as the first
language in education of deaf people and is not recognized as the main means of
communication between deaf persons and others. There are government measures to
encourage media to make their information services accessible to persons with
disabilities, but no government measures to encourage other forms of public information
to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities. The following services are
provided in order to facilitate information and communication between persons with
disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille and
sign language interpretation being available for major events only.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization. There are legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making and to work
with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons with disabilities are often
consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared.
Consultations occur at both the national, regional and local level. The government gives
financial support to existing or new organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons
with disabilities participate to some extent in government, political parties and NGOs.
The role of organisations of persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and improved
services, mobilize persons with disabilities, identify needs and priorities, participate in
the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures concerning the
lives of persons with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide services and
promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
There is no national co-ordinating committee or any similar body.
The Standard rules have been helpful when organizing new services and are taken into
account when preparing new legislation. The Rules have certainly strengthened
demands of the organizations concerned.
26
NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR THE AID OF THE HANDICAPPED,
ICELAND (153)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law, in guidelines adopted by
a national disability council and in policy adopted by NGOs. The emphasis in this
policy is on individual support, accessibility measures, rehabilitation, prevention and
anti-discrimination law.
In order to convey the message of full participation the Ministry of Social Affairs has
translated the Rules to Icelandic.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities is recourse procedure by a special agency, dealing with anti-
discrimination issues. The non-judicial mechanism is a government body
(administrative). According to the Government, no judicial mechanisms have been
adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities, but there is an Ombudsman for
that purpose.
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education and employment. According to the Government general legislation also
applies with respect to the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family and to
political rights. The following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with
disabilities: training, rehabilitation and counselling, financial security, employment,
independent living, participation in decisions affecting themselves. According to the
Government, even the benefit of health and medical care is guaranteed by law.
No new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the
Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment which establish national
design standards requiring that public places, means of public transportation and
housing are made accessible. According to the Government, there are no rules to ensure
accessibility in the means of public transportation. Accessibility in the built
environment is observed by a national authority and by local governments. The
following measures have been promoted to facilitate accessibility in the built
environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing automatic
doors, lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring access to public places, improving
accessibility in housing, providing financial incentives/support for accessibility
measures in housing, using contrast colours for visually impaired and providing
specially adapted motor vehicles. Special lighting for visually impaired has not been
promoted. Special transport arrangements include specially adapted cars, run and
controlled by the local authorities. Special transport is available for medical treatment,
education, work, recreational purpose. According to the Government special transport is
not available for medical treatment or for recreational purpose. The most difficult
obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments, are economic/budgetary
27
factors, lack of planning and design-capacity and lack of enforcement mechanism. There
is no disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects
and construction engineers.
Sign language for deaf people has no officially recognized status, but is used as the
official language in education of deaf people and is recognized as the main means of
communication between deaf persons and others. There are government measures to
encourage media to make their information services accessible to persons with
disabilities, but no government measures to make other forms of public information
services accessible to persons with disabilities. The government states that there are
measures to encourage media and other forms of public information to make their
services accessible. The only service provided in order to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and other persons is sign language
interpretation for major events. According to the Government, even literature in
Braille/tape and news magazines on tape/Braille are provided.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization of persons with disabilities. There are legal
provisions mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in
policy-making and to work with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons
with disabilities are often consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect
are being prepared. Consultations occur at the national, regional and local level. The
government gives financial support to organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons
with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in government, judicial authorities,
political parties and to a great extent in legislatures and NGOs. The role of organizations
of persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and improved services, mobilize
persons with disabilities, identify needs and priorities, participate in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of services and measures concerning the lives of persons
with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide services and promote/organize
income generating activities. According to the Government, organizations do not
advocate rights or improved services, nor do they promote/organize income generating
activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Social Affairs. The
committee includes representatives of the Ministries of Social Affairs, of Employment,
and of Housing, of organizations of persons with disabilities, of local authorities and of
the budget committee. According to the Government, the committee includes
representatives from the Ministry of Finance only. The government expects the national
co-ordinating committee to participate in policy development and to perform other
tasks. The establishment of the co-ordinating committee has had the following effects:
improved co-ordination of measures/programmes, improved integration of
responsibility, a better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate planning, more
effective use of resources and improved promotion of public awareness. It is too early
for an assessment whether the establishment of the co-ordinating committee has led to a
rethinking of the approach to disability policy.
28
NATIONAL REHABILITATION BOARD, IRELAND (8)
No reply was received from the Government of Ireland.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation. The
following benefits are guaranteed, though only partially, by law to persons with
disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counselling and
financial security. No new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the
adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring that public
places - only new buildings and major extensions in existing buildings - are made
accessible. There are no standards requiring that the outdoor environment, means of
public transportation or, housing are made accessible. Accessibility in the built
environment is observed by a national authority, by local governments and by the
constructor. No measures have been promoted by the government in order to facilitate
accessibility in the built environment. There are special transports for persons with
disabilities, available for medical treatment and education. The most difficult factors,
when planning to build accessible environments, are attitudinal factors,
economic/budgetary factors, lack of planning and design-capacity, lack of co-operation
from other organizations/institutions and lack of enforcement mechanism. There is no
disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language for deaf people has no officially recognized status, is not used as the first
language of deaf people and is not recognized as the main means of communication
between deaf persons and others. There are no government measures to encourage
media to make their information services accessible to persons with disabilities. The
following services are provided in order to facilitate information and communication
between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape and sign language
interpretation, being available for major events.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is no national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons with disabilities are sometimes
consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared.
Consultations occur at both the national, regional and local level. The government gives
financial support to existing or new organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons
with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in government, legislatures, judicial
authorities, political parties and to a great extent in NGOs. The role of organizations of
persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and improved services, mobilize persons
with disabilities, identify needs and priorities, contribute to public awareness and to
provide services.
Co-ordination of work
There is no national co-ordinating committee or any similar body.
29
JAPANESE SOCIETY FOR REHABILITATION OF DISABLED PERSONS,
AND THE JAPAN ASSOCIATION FOR EMPLOYMENT OF THE DISABLED,
JAPAN (162)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law, in guidelines adopted by
the government, in guidelines adopted by the national disability council, in policy
adopted by political parties and in policy adopted by NGOs. According to the
Government disability policy is not expressed in policy adopted by political parties or in
policy adopted by NGOs. The emphasis in this policy is on individual support,
rehabilitation, accessibility measures, prevention and anti-discrimination law.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has conveyed the message of full
participation through education programmes and other action.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism available to protect the
rights of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy though the courts). The
non-judicial mechanisms include: a governmental body (administrative), independent
expert bodies and a special arbitration/conciliation body. According to the Government,
there are no judicial mechanisms to protect the rights of persons with disabilities while
the non-judicial including only a governmental body (administrative).
General legislation applies with respect to persons with different disabilities to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, the right to privacy and access to court of law and property rights. The following
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical care,
training, rehabilitation and counselling, employment, financial security, independent
living and participation in decisions affecting themselves.
New legislation concerning disability has been enacted since the adoption of the Rules.
1. Enactment of Disabled Persons' Fundamental Law (1993/12).
2. Enactment of the Act. on Buildings Accessible and Usable for the Elderly and
Physically Disabled (1994/4).
3. Amendment to the Law Concerning Mental Health and Welfare for the Mentally
Disabled (1995/7).
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment which establish national
design standards requiring that public places, the outdoor environment, means of public
transport and housing are made accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is
observed by a national authority, by local governments and by the organizers/providers
of services. The following measures have been promoted by the government to ensure
accessibility in the built environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas,
installing automatic doors, installing lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring access to
public places, improving accessibility in housing, providing financial incentives/support
for accessibility measures in housing, using contrast colours for visually impaired and
providing specially adapted motor vehicles. In addition, measures such as providing
30
traffic sound signals for persons with visual disability, laying embossed titles for
persons with visual disability have also been promoted. There are special transport
arrangements for persons with disabilities, available for medical treatment, education,
employment, for recreational purpose and personal purpose. The most difficult
obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments, are attitudinal factors and
economic/budgetary factors. The Government does not regard attitudinal factors to be
an obstacle, when building accessible environments. There is a disability awareness
component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction
engineers.
Sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. According to the
Government, sign language is recognized as the main means of communication between
deaf persons and others. There are government measures to encourage media and other
forms of public information to make their services accessible for persons with
disabilities, The following services are provided in order to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape,
news magazines on tape/Braille, sign language interpretation for any purpose and easy
readers for persons with mental disabilities. According to the Government, easy readers
for persons with mental disabilities are not provided.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization. There are legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making and to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organisations are always consulted, when
laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at
the national, regional and local level. The government gives financial and
organizational/logistic support to existing or new organizations of persons with
disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to some extent in legislatures, judicial
authorities and political parties and to a great extent in government and NGOs. The role
of organizations of persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and improved services,
mobilize persons with disabilities, identify needs and priorities, participate in the
planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures concerning the lives
of persons with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide services and to
promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Health and Welfare
and to the Prime Minister's office. It includes representatives of many Ministries, of
organizations of persons with disabilities, of other NGOs, of the private sector and of
scholars and experts.
The government expects the committee to participate in policy development but not to
perform other tasks. The establishment of the co-ordinating committee has led to:
improved co-ordination of measures/programmes. improved legislation, improved
integration of responsibility, a better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate
planning and improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the Rules, to a certain extent. has led to a rethinking of the approach to
disability policy.
31
The Middle East and North Africa
KUWAIT SOCIETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED, KUWAIT (18)
No reply was received from the Government of Kuwait.
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in guidelines adopted by the
national disability council and in policy adopted by NGOs. The emphasis in this policy
is on rehabilitation, prevention, accessibility measures, individual support and anti-
discrimination law.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has not done anything to convey the
message of full participation.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation. The judicial
mechanism available to protect the rights of persons with disabilities is due process
(legal remedy though the courts). The non-judicial mechanism include a governmental
body (administrative) and independent expert bodies.
General legislation applies with respect to persons with different disabilities with
respect to education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family,
political rights and the right to privacy. The following benefits are guaranteed by law to
persons with disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and
counselling, financial security, and participation in decisions affecting themselves.
No new legislation has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment which establish national
design standards requiring that public places, the outdoor environment and means of
public transport are made accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is observed
by a national authority and by local governments. The only measures promoted in order
to ensure accessibility in the built environment are marking parking areas, installing
automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring access to public places, providing
financial incentive/support for accessibility measures in housing and providing
specially adapted motor vehicles. There are special transport arrangements available for
medical treatment, education, and for recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles,
when planning to build accessible environments are attitudinal factors, geographical and
climatic factors, lack of legislation and regulations, lack of knowledge, research and
information, lack of user participation, and lack of enforcement mechanism. There is a
disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people, is used as the first
language in education of deaf people and is recognized as the main means of
communication between deaf persons and others. There are government measures to
encourage media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible
32
for persons with disabilities. The following services are provided in order to facilitate
information and communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature
in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille, sign language interpretation for any
purpose and easy readers for persons with mental disabilities.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is no national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organizations are always consulted, when
laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at
the national level. The government gives financial support to existing or new
organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a great
extent in government, legislatures and NGOs. The role of organisations of persons with
disabilities is to advocate rights and improved services, identify needs and priorities,
participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures
concerning the lives of persons with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide
services and to promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Social Affairs. It
includes representatives of many Ministries, of organizations of persons with
disabilities, of other NGOs and from the private sector. The government does not
expect the committee to participate in policy development or to perform other tasks. The
establishment of the co-ordinating committee has led to improved co-ordination of
measures/programmes, improved legislation, improved integration of responsibility, a
better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate planning, more effective use of
resources and improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the rules has, to a certain extent, led to a rethinking of the approach to
disability policy.
33
Countries in transition
ASSOCIATION OF DISABLED PERSONS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC, RI,
CZECH REPUBLIC (62)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in guidelines adopted by the
government and in guidelines adopted by a national disability council. According to the
Government, disability policy is also expressed in law and in policy adopted by NGOs.
The emphasis in this policy is on rehabilitation, accessibility measures, individual
support and prevention.
The government has conveyed the message of full participation, through information in
TV and other media.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation. According to
the Government, the rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of
special and general legislation. There is no judicial mechanism available to protect the
rights of persons with disabilities. The non-judicial mechanism available is a
government body (administrative). According to the Government, the judicial
mechanism available for that purpose is due process (legal remedy through the courts).
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education and employment. According to the Government, general legislation also
applies with respect to political rights, access to court-of-law, the right to privacy and
property rights. The following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with
disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counselling and
financial security. According to the Government, even the benefits of employment and
of participation in decisions affecting themselves are guaranteed by law.
The Pension Insurance law has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility in the built environment requiring that public
places, the outdoor environment and housing are made accessible. According to the
Government, there are no rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment.
Accessibility in the built environment is observed by a national authority and by the
organization of persons with disability. According to the Government, local
governments are reviewing the accessibility in the built environment. The following
measures have been promoted to facilitate accessibility in the built environment:
levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing lifts and accessible toilets,
ensuring access to public places, improving accessibility in housing and providing
specially adapted motor vehicles. Special transports include free public transport for
persons with severe disability and a limited number of buses and trains adapted for
wheelchairs. Special transport is available for medical treatment, education, work and
for recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles when planning to build accessible
environments are economic/budgetary factors, lack of co-operation from other
organizations/institutions and lack of enforcement mechanism. There is a disability
34
awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language for deaf people is recognized as the official language for deaf people.
According to the Government, the right of deaf children to be educated by means of sign
language is guaranteed by the law. There are government measures to encourage media
and other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons with
disabilities. The Government states that there are no measures to encourage media and
other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons with
disabilities. The following services are provided to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape,
news magazines on tape/Braille and sign language interpretation being available for
major events.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There are three umbrella organizations, collaborating, in which organizations
representing all kinds of disabilities are represented. There are legal provisions
mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-
making and to work with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons with
disabilities are always consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect are
being prepared. Consultations occur at the national level. Organizations prepare
projects, the larger part of the expenses being covered by the government. Persons with
disabilities participate to some extent in government, legislatures, judicial authorities
and to a great extent in NGOs. The role of organisations of persons with disabilities is to
advocate rights and improved services, mobilize persons with disabilities, participate in
the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures, contribute to
public awareness and provide services.
Co-ordination of work
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to a government committee for persons with
disabilities, chaired by the Prime Minister. The committee includes representatives of
many Ministries and of organizations of persons with disabilities. The co-ordinating
committee also includes representatives from the private sector, according to the
Government. The government expects the committee to participate in policy
development and to perform other tasks, e.g. to co-ordinate activities of NGOs and
spread information. The establishment of the co-ordinating committee has had the
following effects: improved co-ordination of measures/programmes, improved
legislation and improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy.
According to the Government, the adoption of the Standard rules has not led to a
rethinking of the approach to disability policy, due to the fact that the disability policy
started one year before the adoption of the Rules, as a new attitude in this field. All
aspects concerning full participation of disabled people were involved in the
Resolutions of the Czech Government.
35
INSTITUT REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE ZA REHABILITACIJO, SLOVENIA
(135)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law, in guidelines adopted by
the government, in guidelines adopted by a national disability council, in policy adopted
by political parties and in a national policy adopted by the parliament. According to the
Government disability policy is not expressed in guidelines adopted by a national
disability council or in policy adopted by political parties. The emphasis in this policy is
on individual support, accessibility measures, rehabilitation, anti-discrimination law and
prevention.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has not done anything to initiate or
support information campaigns conveying the message of full participation. The
Government states that it has initiated and supported information campaigns, conveying
the message of full participation.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy through courts). Administrative
and other non-judicial bodies include an Ombudsman, a governmental body
(administrative), and independent expert bodies. According to the Government there are
no administrative or other non-judicial bodies available for that purpose.
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court of law, the right to privacy and property rights. The following
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical care,
training, rehabilitation and counselling, financial security, employment, independent
living, participation in decisions affecting themselves. According to the Government,
the benefits of independent living and of participation in decisions affecting themselves
are not guaranteed by law.
New legislation concerning disability has been enacted since the adoption of the Rules.
According to the Government, no new legislation concerning disability has been
enacted since the adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are laws and regulations to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring
that public places, the outdoor environment and housing are made accessible. According
to the Government, there are rules to ensure accessibility only for public places.
Accessibility in the built environment is observed by the constructor and by the
organizers/providers of the activity. The following measures have been promoted by the
government in order to facilitate accessibility in the built environment: levelling off
pavements, marking parking areas, installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible
toilets, ensuring access to public places, improving accessibility in housing, providing
financial support for accessibility measures in housing, installing special lighting for
visually impaired and providing specially adapted motor vehicles. According to the
36
Government, the only measures promoted to facilitate accessibility in the built
environment are marking parking areas, installing automatic doors and installing special
lighting for visually impaired. Special transport arrangements include free transport,
special services and adapted buses. Special transport is available for medical treatment,
education, work and for recreational purpose. According to the Government, special
transport is not available for recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles, when
planning to built accessible environments, are attitudinal factors, technical factors, lack
of planning and design-capacity, lack of knowledge, research and information, lack of
user participation, lack of co-operation from other organizations/institutions and lack of
enforcement mechanism. According to the Government, economic/budgetary factors is
also a main obstacle for building accessible environments. There is a disability
awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language for deaf people is recognized as the official language of deaf people and
is recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others.
According to the Government, sign language for deaf people is not recognized as the
official language of deaf people, but used as the first language in education of deaf
people. There are no government measures to encourage media to make their services
accessible to persons with disabilities, but government measures to encourage other
forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons with
disabilities, e.g. informational services for the deaf and the blind. According to the
Government, there are not even measures to encourage other forms of public
information to make their services accessible. The following services are provided in
order to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and
others: literature in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille and sign language
interpretation being available for any purpose. According to the Government, even easy
readers for persons with mental disabilities are provided.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization in which 11 organizations are represented.
There are legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to
participate in policy-making and to work with governmental institutions. According to
the Government, there are no legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons
with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work with governmental
institutions. Organizations of persons with disabilities are often consulted, when laws
and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at the
national, regional and local level. According to the Government, consultations occur
only at the national level. The government financially supports existing or new
organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a very
limited extent in judicial authorities, to some extent in political parties, and to a great
extent in government, legislatures and NGOs. The role of disabled persons
organizations is to advocate rights and improved services, mobilize persons with
disabilities, identify needs and priorities, participate in the planning. implementation
and evaluation of services and measures, contribute to public awareness, provide
services and promote/organize income generating activities.
The adoption of the Rules has not yet led to a rethinking of the approach to disability
policy.
37
Latin America and the Caribbean
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, ARGENTINA (39)
No reply was received from the Government of Argentina.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by special legislation, applicable to
all citizens. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights of persons with
disabilities is recourse procedure by a special agency, dealing with anti-discrimination
issues. The non-judicial mechanisms include an ombudsman and a governmental body
(administrative).
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court of law, the right to privacy and property rights. The following
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical care,
training, rehabilitation and counselling.
No new legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the
Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment which establish national
design standards requiring that public places, the outdoor environment, means of public
transport and housing are made accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is
observed by a national authority and by local governments. The following measures
have been promoted by the government in order to facilitate accessibility in the built
environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing automatic doors
and providing specially adapted motor vehicles. Special transport is available for
medical treatment, education, work and for recreational purpose. The most difficult
obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments, are attitudinal factors,
economic/budgetary factors, and lack of enforcement mechanism. There is a disability
awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and
construction engineers.
Sign language is recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons
and others. There are no government measures to encourage media and other forms of
public information services to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities.
The following services are provided in order to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape
and news magazines on tape/Braille.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons with disabilities are often
consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared.
Consultations occur at both the national, regional and local level. The government gives
38-
organizational/logistic support to organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons
with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in judicial authorities and political
parties, to some extent in government and legislatures and to a great extent in NGOs.
The role of organizations of persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and improved
services, and to contribute to public awareness. Organizations, however, do not mobilize
persons with disabilities, identify needs and priorities, participate in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of services and measures, provide services or
promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Prime Minister's office. The committee
includes representatives of many Ministries and of organizations of persons with
disabilities. The government expects the co-ordinating committee to participate in
policy development and to perform other tasks. The establishment of the co-ordinating
committee has led to improved co-ordination of measures/programmes and a better
dialogue in the disability field. It has not led to improved legislation, improved
integration of responsibility, more accurate planning, more effective use of resources or
to improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the Rules has not led to a rethinking of the approach to disability
policy.
39
ASOCIACION DOMINICANA DE REHABILITATION, RI, DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC (73)
No reply was received from the Government of the Dominican Republic.
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in policy, adopted by NGOs.
The emphasis in this policy is on prevention, rehabilitation, accessibility measures and
individual support.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has not done anything to convey the
message of full participation.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. There is no judicial mechanism to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities. However, there is a special body to defend the rights of
persons with mental disabilities.
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education and employment. The following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons
with disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counselling and
employment.
New legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring that public
places, the outdoor environment, and housing are made accessible. Accessibility in the
built environment is observed by a national authority. The following measures have
been promoted by the government in order to facilitate accessibility in the built
environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas and ensuring access to
public places. There are no special transport arrangements for persons with disabilities.
The most difficult obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments, are
attitudinal factors, economic/budgetary factors and lack of enforcement mechanism.
There is no disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners,
architects and construction engineers. There are no government measures to encourage
media or other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons
with disabilities.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is no umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Organizations of persons with disabilities are sometimes
consulted, when laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared.
Consultations occur at the national level. Persons with disabilities participate to a very
limited extent in government, legislatures, judicial authorities, political parties and
NGOs. The role of organizations of persons with disabilities is to mobilize persons with
disabilities, provide services and to promote/organize income generating activities.
40
Co-ordination of work
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.
The committee includes representatives of Ministries, of organizations of persons with
disabilities and of other NGOs. The co-ordinating committee is expected to participate
in policy development but not to perform other tasks. It is too early for and assessment
about the effects of the co-ordinating committee.
The adoption of the Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy.
41
South, East Asia and the Pacific
REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL, HONG KONG (87)
No reply was received from the Government of Hong Kong.
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines adopted
by the government. The emphasis in this policy is on rehabilitation, anti-discrimination
law, prevention and accessibility measures.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has conveyed the message of full
participation, through education programmes and other action.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism available to protect the
rights of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy though the courts). The
non-judicial mechanisms include: a governmental body (administrative), and a special
arbitration/conciliation body (equal opportunities commission).
General legislation applies with respect to persons with different disabilities with
respect to education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family,
political rights, the right to privacy, access to court of law and property rights. No
benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities.
New legislation concerning disability has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules.
(Disability Discrimination Ordinance and Amendments to the Mental Health
Ordinance.)
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring that public
places, the outdoor environment, means of public transport and housing are made
accessible. Accessibility in the built environment is observed by a national authority.
The following measures have been promoted by the government to ensure accessibility
in the built environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing lifts
and accessible toilets, ensuring access to public places, improving accessibility in
housing, installing special lighting and using contrast colours for visually impaired.
There are special transport arrangements for persons with disabilities available for
medical treatment, education, employment and for recreational purpose. The most
difficult obstacles, when planning to build accessible environments are attitudinal
factors, economic/budgetary factors, lack of legislation and regulations and lack of
enforcement mechanism. There is no disability awareness component incorporated in
the training of planners, architects and construction engineers.
Sign language is recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons
and others. There are government measures to encourage media and other forms of
public information to make their services accessible for persons with disabilities. The
following services are provided in order to facilitate information and communication
42
between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape, news magazines
on tape/Braille and sign language interpretation for major events.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is no national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organizations are often consulted, when laws
and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at the
national level. The government gives financial support to existing or new organizations
of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a very limited extent
in government, legislatures, judicial authorities and political parties and to some extent
in NGOs. The role of organizations of persons with disabilities is to advocate rights and
improved services, mobilize persons with disabilities, identify needs and priorities,
participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures
concerning the lives of persons with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide
services and promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the secretary of Health and
Welfare. It includes representatives of the Ministries of Health and Social Affairs, and
of Education, of organizations of persons with disabilities, of other NGOs, and from the
private sector. The government expects the committee to participate in policy
development and to perform other tasks. The establishment of the co-ordinating
committee has led to improved co-ordination of measures/programmes, improved
legislation, improved integration of responsibility, a better dialogue in the disability
field, more accurate planning, more effective use of resources and improved promotion
of public awareness.
The adoption of the Rules has implicitly but not directly, led to a rethinking of the
approach to disability policy.
43
MALAYSIAN LEPROSY RELIEF ASSOCIATION 46
No reply was received from the Government of Malaysia.
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy in Malaysia is expressed in guidelines,
adopted by the government. The emphasis in the disability policy - in descending scale -
is on individual support, rehabilitation, prevention, accessibility measures and anti-
discrimination law.
The Association states that the government has initiated and supported information
campaigns, conveying the message of full participation, failing, however, to specify
what these campaigns included.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation.
None of the following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health
and medical care, training, rehabilitation, and counselling, financial security,
independent living or participation in decisions affecting themselves. Regarding the
benefit of employment, 1% of persons with disabilities is being guaranteed employment
in the public sector.
Accessibility
There are laws and regulation to ensure the accessibility of the built environment
requiring that public places are made accessible. Accessibility in the built environment
is observed by local governments. The following measures have been promoted by the
government to facilitate accessibility in the built environment: levelling off pavements,
installing automatic doors, lifts, accessible toilets, ensuring access to public places,
improving accessibility in housing and installing special lighting for the visually
impaired. There are special transport arrangements - no specification is provided - for
persons with disabilities available for recreational purpose. Special transport is not
available for medical treatment, education or work. The most difficult obstacles, when
planning to build accessible environments, are attitudinal factors and
economic/budgetary factors.
Sign language for deaf people has no officially recognized status, is not used as the first
language in education of deaf people or recognized as the main means of
communication between deaf persons and others. There are government measures to
encourage media to make their information services accessible for persons with
disabilities. The following services are provided in order to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and other persons: literature in
Braille/tape and sign language being available for any purpose.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organizations are often consulted, when laws
and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at the
44
national level. Persons with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in
government but to a great extent in NGOs. The role of organizations of persons with
disabilities is to advocate rights and improved services, mobilize persons with
disabilities, contribute to public awareness and provide services.
Co-ordination of work
The co-ordinating committee is reporting to a particular Ministry. No specification is
given. The committee includes representatives of the Ministries of Employment, and
Education, as well as of organizations of persons with disabilities, of other NGOs and
from the private sector. The co-ordinating committee is expected to perform other tasks,
for instance, to organize seminars, exhibitions etc. The establishment of the co-
ordinating committee has had the following effects: improved co-ordination of
measures/programmes, improved legislation, a better dialogue in the disability field and
improved promotion of public awareness.
45
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE, SINGAPORE (170)
No reply was received from the Government of Singapore.
General policy
There is no officially recognized disability policy.
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by general legislation.
General legislation applies to persons with different disabilities with respect to
education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political
rights, access to court of law, the right to privacy and property rights. In the case of
marriage and parenthood/family, the guardian has the right, not the individual, in
making such decisions None of the following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons
with disabilities: health and medical care, training, rehabilitation and counselling,
financial security, employment, independent living or participation in decisions
affecting themselves.
No new legislation has been enacted, since the adoption of the Rules.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure accessibility of the built environment requiring that public
places are made accessible. There are no standards requiring that the outdoor
environment, means of public transportation or housing are made accessible.
Accessibility in the built environment is observed by a national authority. The following
measures have been promoted by the government in order to facilitate accessibility in
the built environment: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing
automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets and ensuring accessibility in public places.
There are special transport arrangements available for medical treatment, education, for
work and recreational purpose. The most difficult obstacles, when planning to build
accessible environments are attitudinal factors. There is a disability awareness
component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction
engineers.
Sign language is used as the first language in education of deaf people and is also
recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others.
There are no government measures to encourage media or other forms of public
information to make their services accessible for persons with disabilities. The
following services are provided in order to facilitate information and communication
between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille, and sign language
interpretation being available for any purpose.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is a national umbrella organization. There are no legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organizations are always consulted, when
laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at
the national level. The government gives financial support to existing or new
46
organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a very
limited extent in government, legislatures, judiciary, political parties but to a great
extent in NGOs. The role of disabled persons organizations is to advocate rights and
improved services, identify needs and priorities, participate in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of services and measures concerning the lives of persons
with disabilities, contribute to public awareness, provide services and to
promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Education. It
includes representatives of the Ministries of Health and Social Affairs, of organizations
of persons with disabilities and from the private sector. The government expects the co-
ordinating committee to participate in policy development but not to perform other
tasks. The establishment of the committee has led to improved co-ordination of
measures/programmes, improved legislation, improved integration of responsibility.
a
better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate planning and more effective use of
resources.
The adoption of the rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy.
47
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WELFARE OF THAILAND, THAILAND
(160)
General policy
The officially recognized disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted
by the government. The emphasis in this policy is on prevention, rehabilitation,
accessibility measures, individual support, and anti-discrimination law.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the government has conveyed the message of full
participation, through various actions (mass media, posters, brochures etc.).
Legislation
The rights of persons with disabilities are protected by a combination of special
legislation and general legislation. The judicial mechanism adopted to protect the rights
of persons with disabilities is due process (legal remedy through the courts). There are
no administrative or other non-judicial bodies.
General legislation applies with respect to persons with different disabilities with
respect to education, employment, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family,
political rights, access to court of law, the right to privacy and property rights. The
following benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: health and medical
care, training, rehabilitation and counselling, financial security, employment,
independent living and participation in decisions affecting themselves.
Since the adoption of the Rules, the "Rehabilitation and Disabled Persons Act" has been
enacted.
Accessibility
There are rules to ensure the accessibility of the built environment which establish
national design standards, requiring that public places are made accessible. Accessibility
in the built environment is observed by a "sub-committee for rehabilitation of disabled
persons on accessibility". The only measures promoted in order to ensure the
accessibility in the built environment marking parking areas and providing financial
support for accessibility measures in housing. There are no special transport
arrangements. The most difficult obstacles, when planning to build accessible
environments are attitudinal factors. There is a disability awareness component
incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers.
Sign language has no officially recognized status. There are government measures to
encourage media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible
for persons with disabilities. The following services are provided in order to facilitate
information and communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature
in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation being available for any purpose.
Organizations of persons with disabilities
There is national umbrella organization. There are legal provisions mandating the
representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making and to work
with governmental institutions. Disability organizations are always consulted, when
laws and regulations with a disability aspect are being prepared. Consultations occur at
48
the national level. The government gives financial support to existing or new
organizations of persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities participate to a very
limited extent in judiciary, to some extent in government and political parties and to a
great extent in legislatures and NGOs. The role of disabled persons organizations is to
advocate rights and improved services, identify needs and priorities, mobilize persons
with disabilities, participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services
and measures concerning the lives of persons with disabilities, contribute to public
awareness, provide services and promote/organize income generating activities.
Co-ordination of work
The national co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Health Highways
and Social Services. It includes representatives of many Ministries, of organizations of
persons with disabilities and of other NGOs. The government expects the co-ordinating
committee to participate in policy development and to perform other tasks. The
establishment of the committee has led to improved legislation, improved integration of
responsibility, a better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate planning, more
effective use of resources and improved promotion of public awareness.
The adoption of the Rules has confirmed that "our policy is on the right track".
The reply sent by the Government of Thailand is identical with that of the National
Council of Social Welfare of Thailand.
49
CONFIDENTIAL VERSION - BEFORE EDITING
Determined NOT to be
National Security Classified Marking
By MB (NLGB) on 7/28/16
Monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules
on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities
Final report on the three-year mission, 1994-1997
by
Bengt Lindqvist
Special Rapporteur on the Commission for Social Development
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing
persons with disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms
and making it difficult for them to participate fully in the activities of
their societies. It is the responsibility of States to take appropriate
action to remove such obstacles."
(Standard Rules, Introduction, para. 15)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
I.
BACKGROUND AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ACTIVITY
1.
Background
2.
The monitoring mechanism
3.
Meetings of the Panel of Experts
4.
Guidelines by the Commission for Social Development
II.
ACCOUNT OF THE UN AGENCIES
1.
UN Disability Statistics Programme
2.
UNICEF
3.
ILO
4:
UNESCO
5.
WHO
6.
Human Rights Entities
III.
ACCOUNT OF NGO'S ACTIVITIES
1.
Activities by the NGO's
IV.
ACCOUNT OF RAPPORTEUR'S ACTIVITIES
1.
Promoting the implementation of the Standard Rules
1.1.
Meetings with Governments
1.2.
Conferences
1.3.
Correspondence
2.
Surveying the progress
2.1.
First survey
2.2.
Second survey
2.2.1
General policy questions
2.2.2
Questions on legislation
2.2.3
Questions on accessibility
2.2.4 Questions on organizations of persons with disabilities
2.2.5 Questions on coordination of work
3.
Rule 6 on education
3.1.
Legal regulation of the right to special education
3.2
Parents' role
3.3.
Education forms and the issue of integration
3.4.
Special education legislation
4.
Rule 7 on employment
4.1.
Summary of Rule 7
4.2.
ILO Convention 159
V.
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
2
PREFACE
In my capacity as Special Rapporteur for monitoring of the implementation of the Standard
Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities I have the honour to
deliver my final report to this Commission. It has been a privilege and a stimulating task to
act as Special Rapporteur in this area. I want to express my sincere appreciation to the UN
Secretary-General for showing confidence in me by appointing me to this important task. I
also would like to thank all those Governments, which have contributed financially to this
project, including the Swedish Government, which has provided me with office resources
throughout the whole exercise.
From the beginning and during the whole monitoring activity I have enjoyed full support by
Undersecretary-General, Mr. Nitin Desai, and excellent professional advice by Mr. A.
Krassowski and his group at the UN Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable
Development I also want to express my appreciation for the excellent work performed by my
colleagues in my Swedish office.
One key element in this monitoring exercise has been the Panel of Experts, established by six
major international NGO's in the disability field. The Panel members, five men and five
women with different experiences of disability, have provided valuable guidance. They have
also been very understanding, when limited resources have made it impossible to pursue all
good ideas and initiatives.
Finally I want to thank all those Governments and NGO's who have provided information to
my work.
I have chosen to describe the whole monitoring exercise, but, as I have delivered an interim
report to the Commission for Social Development already to its 34th session, I summarize
activities during the first year. To illustrate how widely spread the Standard Rules have
become, I have included brief information about activities undertaken by UN Specialized
Agencies and NGO's in the disability field. The main emphasis in the report is on recent
activities and on the second and large survey, which has been a main activity during 1996. In
the final section of the report - General Discussion and Conclusions - I have presented the
observations, which I have made during the work with this most stimulating task.
I. BACKGROUND AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ACTIVITY
1. Background
To fully understand the importance of the Standard Rules it is necessary to go back to the
events, which started with the proclamation of 1981 as the International Year of Disabled
Persons (IYDP). Of particular importance in this context was the adoption by the UN General
Assembly of the theme of the year - "full participation and equality". This meant a recognition
on the highest possible political level of the right to full participation of disabled people in the
societies they belong to.
During the 15 years which have passed since the IYDP, "full participation and equality" has
been widely accepted as the overall goal of all development efforts in the disability field. The
World Programme of Action concerning disabled persons, which was adopted in 1982 by the
3
UN General Assembly, also made significant contributions to the clarification and
understanding of policies, programmes and measures necessary to undertake, in order to
obtain this goal. One such great contribution is the new chapter on equalization of
opportunities, which brings a third dimension into the field of disability.
During the subsequent decade of disabled persons, 1983-1992, when the policies and
programmes, outlined in the World Programme of Action should be implemented, some
significant development was made. Generally, however, too little happened. This was the
major concern of the group of experts who in 1987 evaluated the outcome of the first half of
the decade.
Because of this the international disability community requested that the UN should assume a
strong leadership role and give more concrete guidelines for development. In response to this
request the Standard Rules were elaborated and unanimously adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1993 (Resolution 48/96).
There are mainly three things, which distinguish the Standard Rules in comparison with the
World Programme of Action. The Rules are more concentrated and concrete in form; they
directly address the issue of Member States responsibility and they include an independent
and active monitoring mechanism.
2. The monitoring mechanism
One of the most significant features of the Standard Rules is that their implementation should
be actively monitored. In chapter four of the Standard Rules document there is a fairly
detailed description of the monitoring mechanism. The purpose of it is: "to further the
effective implementation of the Rules. It will assist each State in assessing its level of
implementation of the Rules and in measuring its progress. The monitoring should identify
obstacles and suggest suitable measures that would contribute to the successful
implementation of the Rules."
There are three actors involved in this monitoring task. The monitoring should take place
within the framework of the sessions of the Commission for Social Development. A Special
Rapporteur should do the actual monitoring work and report to the Commission. Finally, the
non-governmental organizations in the disability field should be invited to establish among
themselves a Panel of Experts, which should be consulted by the Special Rapporteur.
In March 1994 the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, appointed me as Special
Rapporteur. In September 1994 a Panel of ten Experts, five men and five women, all with
personal experience of different disabilities and coming from different parts of the world, was
established by the following six international organizations; Disabled Peoples' International,
Inclusion International, Rehabilitation International, World Blind Union, World Federation of
the Deaf, and World Federation of Psychiatric Users.
A precondition for the whole monitoring exercise was that extra-budgetary funding could be
raised for the major part of the activities. Altogether eleven Governments have contributed
financially to the project. The total amount of these contributions is estimated at USD
650,000. A special service agreement between the UN secretariat and the Special Rapporteur
was signed in August 1994 for the period 1994 - 1997. It was agreed that the Special
4
Rapporteur should run his work from a small office in Sweden and that the UN secretariat
would assist with advice and administrative services.
3. Meetings of the Panel of Experts
The Panel of Experts has held two meetings, in February 1995 and in June 1996. Both
meetings were held at UN headquarters in New York. Through correspondence members of
the Panel have continuously been informed and consulted by the Special Rapporteur.
During the first meeting in February 1995 all members of the Panel were present. The main
purpose of the meeting was to give general advice concerning the monitoring task during the
remaining two years. The Panel agreed on a set of concrete recommendations, which have
been very useful for the Rapporteur.
Among the recommendations the following are of a more general importance:
The Panel felt it necessary to clarify the relation between existing UN documents in the
disability field: "In the global effort to implement the overall goal of full participation and
equality the Panel of Experts considers it the most important task during the next few years to
implement the Standard Rules. Panel considers the World Program of Action Concerning
disabled persons providing an important framework for action in the fields of prevention,
rehabilitation and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. The long-term
strategy, adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in 1994, should be regarded as a useful
tool in the implementation of the Standard Rules."
*
"The monitoring of the Standard Rules should be carried out in the spirit of cooperation and
partnership on the international level between the UN and the international NGO's
participating in the Panel of Experts and on the national level between Governments, the
national NGO's and the UN."
"Although the overall goal of the monitoring activity will be to fully implement all the 22
Rules, the Panel recommends that the monitoring efforts should be concentrated on the
following six areas; legislation (Rule 15), coordination of work (Rule 17), organizations of
persons with disabilities (Rule 18), accessibility (Rule 5), education (Rule 6), employment
(Rule 7)."
"Efforts should be made by the UN secretariat and the Rapporteur to involve the specialized
agencies and the regional commissions in the implementation of the Rules."
*
"The Panel considers it necessary to take further action to increase awareness in
Governments, NGO's and the UN system."
The second Panel meeting was held in June 1996. Nine Panel members attended. During the
preceding months the Special Rapporteur had distributed a comprehensive questionnaire to all
UN Member States and to national NGO's in the disability field. One major task for the Panel
this time was therefore to discuss the outcome of this survey. Despite the fact that the final
date for replies had expired ten weeks earlier, replies were still coming in at the time of the
panel meeting. A broad analysis of the results had therefore not yet been started.
5
The Panel gave advice on issues of special interest for the analysis and concerning the
structure of the report. It noted with great satisfaction the high response rate in this
questionnaire, which should provide the UN with extensive information in essential policy
areas.
In view of the fact that only one year remained of the monitoring period the Panel started to
discuss what should follow after 1997. Panel members were of the opinion that three years is a
very short time for a worldwide monitoring of the implementation of such extensive policy
guidelines as the Standard Rules. The Panel therefore decided to recommend to its
organizations that they should advocate a prolongation of the monitoring task.
The Panel of Experts also discussed how the disability component could be integrated into the
implementation of the five year follow-up plan to the World Summit for Social Development,
recommended by the Commission for Social Development to the Economic and Social
Council. It is in this context urgent to raise the issue of how disability measures can be
included into such programmes. With reference to the Commission resolution the Panel
decided to make the following statement: "The Panel noted with some alarm the tendency to
disregard the specific needs of individuals with disabilities within Governments, the UN, and
professional groups. This signifies the continued low priority status assigned to the
individuals with disabilities on the ladder of progress. It is necessary to build the disability
dimension into the existing models of Government and the UN in order to make laws and
policies specific to the needs of individuals with disabilities."
4. Guidelines by the Commission for Social Development
At its 34th session in April 1995 the Commission for Social Development received a first
report by the Special Rapporteur. In a resolution, 34/2, the Commission expressed its support
for the approach to monitoring by the Special Rapporteur to place emphasis on advice and
support to States concerning implementation of the Standard Rules. Furthermore the
Commission;
* encouraged the Special Rapporteur to focus his monitoring efforts in the forthcoming two
years on an appropriate number of priority areas, bearing in mind that the overall goal of the
monitoring activity is to implement the Rules in their entirety;
*
called upon the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the
Secretariat, as the UN focal point on disability issues, the UN development programme and
other entities of the UN system, such as the regional commissions, the specialized agencies
and inter-agency mechanisms, to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in the implementation
and monitoring of the Rules;
*
strongly urged States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to
continue to cooperate closely with the Special Rapporteur and respond to his second
questionnaire on the implementation of the Rules;
* called upon States to participate actively in international cooperation concerning policies for
equalization of opportunities and for improvement of living conditions of persons with
disabilities in developing countries.
6
II. ACCOUNT OF THE UN AGENCIES
In paragraph seven of chapter IV in the Standard Rules the Specialized Agencies and other
UN entities are requested to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in implementing the
Rules. The following agencies have responded positively to this request and taken special
initiatives in connection with the monitoring of the Rules.
1. UN disability statistics programme
The Standard Rules draw attention to the importance of statistical data on the living
conditions of persons with disabilities and that such data collection should be undertaken at
regular intervals as part of the official statistical system of countries.
The work is concentrated on three main issues:
1) Together with States and others, improve the methodology for collection of data by
standardizing concepts of disability and by establishing new and more effective procedures
for the collection of data
2) the compilation of already existing data into a database (Distat)
3) cooperation with the growing numbers of users of data on disability, such as planning
agencies, research institutes and NGO's.
2. UNICEF
UNICEF headquarters took an active role in dissemination of copies of the Standard Rules to
over 150 UNICEF regional and country offices in English and other available languages. In
addition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Unicef policy paper on "Children in
Need of Special Protection Measures" UNICEF officials have also used the Standard Rules in
their promotion of Human Rights and improved conditions for the children of the world.
3. ILO
As the Special Rapporteur, in consultation with the Panel of Experts, had decided to study
employment policies as one of six selected Rule areas and as it was considered important to
bring up the issue of employment in the final report of the monitoring, ILO offered to make
available the data on the monitoring of the ILO Convention 159, ratified by 56 countries.
The material contains Government reports and communication between Governments and
ILO experts concerning the practical application of the various articles of the convention. For
our analysis, 6 articles in the Convention were selected, which all have corresponding sections
in Rule 7 on employment. For a summary of results see III, 4, in this report. In addition, the
ILO will carry out beginning in 1996, a general survey of the law and practice of member
States which have not ratified Convention 159. The results of this extensive survey will be
presented to the International Labour Conference in 1998.
4. UNESCO
Since 1980, UNESCO has collected information on practice in special education. The latest
Review concerns 1993-1994 and was published in 1995. A great deal of the collected
information is highly relevant for the monitoring of Rule 6 on education. According to
UNESCO, this study is to be seen as a UNESCO contribution to the monitoring of the Standard
Rules.
7
Furthermore, UNESCO carried out a study on Legislation Pertaining to Special Needs
Education, the information was compiled in 1994 and was published in 1996. It represents
information from fifty-two countries.
In 1994 UNESCO organized a World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca,
Spain. More than 90 countries were represented. The conference adopted The Salamanca
Statement and Framework for Action, which builds on and develops the guidelines in Rule 6 of
the Standard Rules.
In 1995 the issue of special needs education was on the agenda of the UNESCO General
Conference. In my capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on Disability I had the opportunity to
address the Conference. In my statement I emphasized the importance of implementing the
guidelines presented in the Standard Rules and the Salamanca Statement, which in all essential
areas are in harmony with each other.
5. WHO
As a WHO contribution to the monitoring of the Standard Rules, the Special Rapporteur and
the members of the panel of experts, coming from developing countries were invited to
participate in the meeting of WHO regional advisers for rehabilitation, which took place in
Geneva in January 1996. The meeting discussed the role of WHO towards the implementation
of the UN Standard Rules. Among the recommendations made at the meeting, the following
can be mentioned:
*
That WHO should promote the general sprit and direction towards human rights as stated in
the United Nations Standard Rules, taking responsibility for surveying Rules 2, 3 and partially
Rule 4
*
That WHO should promote a multi-sectoral approach for the analysis of the disability
situation in the developing countries so that appropriate national policies to guide programme
planning can be developed
*
That WHO should promote the inclusion of organizations of persons with disabilities in the
development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of CBR programmes
*
That there should be increased collaboration at the national, regional and international levels
to intensify the fight and to end discrimination against persons with disabilities
*
That a media campaign about disability issues and the Standard Rules should be promoted
with the collaboration of different public sectors, NGO's and organizations of persons with
disabilities
6. Human Rights Entities
Since the publication in 1992 of the report, entitled Human Rights and Disabled Persons, by
Special Rapporteur Leandro Despouy, several activities have been initiated within the UN
Human Rights Administration. Among these the following might be mentioned.
The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1994, in its Vienna Declaration
and Program of Action stated that "special attention need to be paid to ensuring non-
8
discrimination, and the equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by
disabled persons, including their active participation in all aspects of society."
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in
resolution 1995/17 requested the Secretary-General to report in 1996 to the Sub-Commission
regarding coordination endeavours, which affect persons with disabilities, with emphasis on
activities by other UN organizations and bodies that deal with alleged violations of human
rights.
In May 1996 the following three committees had reported activities in the field of human
rights and disability: Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights and Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
In all these areas the analysis concerning the protection of the human rights of persons with
disabilities has been started. Of particular interest, in my opinion, is the General Comment
No. 5 (1994) issued by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In its
analysis the Committee also relates the situation of disabled people to the general trends of
development and discusses necessary means for the protection of the rights of persons with
disabilities.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution
1996/27, entitled "Human Rights of persons with disabilities" urged all Governments to
implement, with the cooperation and assistance of organizations, the Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
III. ACCOUNT OF NGO'S ACTIVITIES
The major international non-governmental organizations in the disability field were, from the
very beginning, actively involved in the elaboration of the Standard Rules. Even though some
parts of the Rules were agreed upon through compromise it is important to note that the
international NGO's fully supported the adoption of the Rules.
The unique form of cooperation, where NGO's upon the invitation by UN established a panel
of experts to serve as part of the monitoring exercise, meant a direct involvement of these
organizations in the actual monitoring process.
The six international NGO's, represented in the panel and a considerable number of other
organizations have organized many different activities to support the implementation of the
Rules. Many organizations have made users' guides and information kits to assist member
organizations in the utilization of the Rules. These materials are being extensively used both
on a national and regional level.
The Rules have been presented in articles in many of the organization magazines. In some
cases series of articles have been published.
At practically all important events organized by the major NGO's, the issue of implementing
the Standard Rules has been part of the programme.
9
The major NGO's have worked together at all the recent world conferences, organized by the
UN, including the Social Summit, to ensure that the implementation of the Standard Rules
was included in declarations and reports from these conferences.
The following quotation from para 75, section k, in the report from the Social Summit, may
serve as an example of what was obtained through these activities: "Promoting the United
Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities and
developing strategies for implementing the Rules. Governments, in collaboration with
organizations of people with disabilities and the private sector, should work towards the
equalization of opportunities so that people with disabilities can contribute to and benefit from
full participation in society. Policies concerning people with disabilities should focus on their
abilities rather than their disabilities and should ensure their dignity as citizens."
The NGO's have brought up the issue of integrating the disability component, built on the
Standard Rules, into the mainstream activities of the various UN agencies
IV.
ACCOUNT OF RAPPORTEUR'S ACTIVITIES
1. Promoting the implementation of the Standard Rules
In accordance with the purpose of the monitoring - "to further the effective implementation of
the Rules" - I have endeavoured to use all available opportunities to present the Rules, their
background, message and function. During the 30 months of monitoring, since I started in
August 1994, I have had discussions with 20 individual Governments, of which 15 are
developing countries or countries in transition. On all these occasions I have also involved the
national organizations of disabled people. I have participated in about 35 international
conferences. I have had meetings with all the major UN agencies with responsibilities in the
disability field. During the whole monitoring exercise I have had extensive correspondence
and communication with a great number of people, who in different ways have been involved
in my monitoring task.
1.1. Meetings with Governments
Meetings with individual Governments have been initiated mainly in two ways. In many cases
I have been directly invited by Governments, who have been interested in discussing various
aspects of the implementation of the Rules. In some cases I have suggested to Governments
that we should meet as I have been attending a conference in the country or in a neighbouring
one.
The talks have had different character due to the situation in the country. In some cases
Governments wished to present their new initiatives in the disability field with me and discuss
various aspects in the implementation - Japan, China, Mexico, India. Other visits have been to
countries in transition, where Governments have wanted to discuss how the disability issue
could be integrated in the reconstruction or reorientation of Government policy - South
Africa, the Palestinian Authority, Estonia, Macedonia, the Czech Republic.
In some cases my visit has resulted in written recommendations for future measures -
Macedonia, the Czech Republic.
10
During all these visits I have established contacts with existing organizations of disabled
people and also tried to involve other organizations and agencies in the disability field. The
representatives of organizations of disabled people have, in some cases, been invited by their
Governments to participate in my deliberations with various Ministries. My general
impression is that my visits often have vitalized the dialogue between Governments and
organizations. In some cases I have been able to suggest new initiatives to the organizations,
in a few cases I have functioned as a mediator suggesting a compromise. As then often
concerned the establishment of a coordinating council, the composition and function of such a
body.
1.2 Conferences
In view of the great importance of the NGO's in the disability field in advocating the
implementation of the Standard Rules, I have given high priority to my participation in
important events organized by such organizations. In fact I have attended almost all world
congresses and assemblies arranged by the six organizations constituting the Panel of Experts.
I have also attended a great number of other international conferences. Some of these
conferences have been jointly organized by Governments, specialized agencies and NGO's.
One very useful form of conference for promoting the implementation of the Standard Rules
has been regional conferences with participation from both Governments and organizations.
One such regional conference, organized in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, was of particular interest
as it was organized jointly by the three specialized agencies, ILO, UNESCO and WHO, in
collaboration with UNDP. Participants came from Governments, organizations and these
agencies.
My participation has usually consisted in a general presentation of the Standard Rules, often
followed by a workshop or a seminar where various aspects in the implementation work have
been discussed. Through my participation at such a great number of international meetings, I
have reached a great number of persons with different functions from a large number of
countries with my message. At some of the world congresses organized by the international
NGO's more than 100 countries have been represented. Finally, I have also been invited to
speak at universities, county councils, research seminars and seminars on development
cooperation.
1.3. Correspondence and communication
The correspondence in connection with my various activities has been extensive. I have been
asked to send written statements, which have been used in various texts. I have written a
number of articles for magazines for the international NGO's, WHO and EU. I have provided
advice concerning various implementation aspects and in some cases people have raised
individual issues with me. Due to the extensive network of contacts we have developed during
this monitoring task, we have often handled requests for speakers on the Standard Rules for
various meetings and conferences.
2. Surveying the progress
2.1. First survey
11
In November 1994 a first letter from the Rapporteur to Governments was distributed to
member states. The letter contained four general questions concerning the reception of the
Rules by Governments and other interested entities in the countries.
A summary country by country of all the replies was made and attached to the first report to
the Commission. The following information might be noted as highlights.
*
Most Governments indicated either that they already acted in the spirit of the Rules or that
they are drafting new policies in accordance with the Rules.
*
Many countries had translated the Rules into the native language even in countries with
more than one language.
*
Many countries already had National Coordination Committees. In others such a body was
being created. Throughout the replies there was strong emphasis on the active participation by
organizations of disabled persons in forming policies and programmes in the disability field.
*
Many countries expressed the wish to receive more information, especially about the
activities in the disability field in other countries.
*
Some countries already had adopted, or were drafting, legislation or other documents using
the principles of the Rules.
*
In some countries the Rules were used in awareness-raising campaigns.
*
One country was planning to develop an E-mail forum for the Rules.
*
Several new bodies or institutions were created with various functions but with the common
purpose of supporting the implementation of the Rules. Examples of such new bodies were:
A High Commissioner on Disability (Morocco), a Disability Ombudsman (Sweden), an Equal
Opportunities Centre (Denmark), a Special Committee of State Secretaries (Norway) and a
Foundation to promote the development in the disability field (with an income from taxation
on gambling, Estonia).
The first letter was distributed through the regular UN channels. Member states were asked to
reply before February 15, 1995. A reminder to Governments was sent out by the Secretariat
shortly before the final date for replies. In addition to this the international non-governmental
organizations, constituting the Panel of Experts, were asked by the Rapporteur to distribute
the letter to their national members. A total number of 38 replies was received from
Governments. Only 4 replies came from NGO's.
38 replies only is of course a very disappointing result. The questions were of such a kind that
it would not take much time to formulate a reply. Such a low response rate seems, however, to
correspond well with earlier experience within the Secretariat concerning questionnaires to
Member States on disability matters. Bearing this experience in mind, we decided to extend
the efforts to make Governments and NGO's reply, by using reminders to all concerned and
by using the contacts we already had. As can be seen from the response rate in connection
with the second survey, the efforts were successful.
12
2.1. Second survey
In order to move towards a more accurate assessment of the world-wide implementation of the
Standard Rules I decided, in consultation with the Panel of Experts, to make a second survey
among the Member States and national NGO's in the disability field. The purpose of the survey
was threefold: a) to assess the level of implementation; b) to identify main changes and
accomplishments in the field of disability; c) to identify major problems and obstacles
encountered during the implementation process.
The preparations started in August 1995 and the report on the survey was completed in
December 1996. A questionnaire was elaborated, which requested information on five areas:
general policy, legislation (Rule 15), accessibility (Rule 5), organizations of persons with
disabilities (Rule 18) and coordination of work (Rule 17) (questionnaire, Annex I). Given the
variations that exist between Member States in economic, political and cultural conditions, it
was a rather complicated task to make the questionnaire and it is hardly surprising that certain
questions require a broad interpretation.
The questionnaire was delivered in December 1995 to all Governments and to the approximately
600 national member organizations of the six internationals, constituting the Panel of Experts.
Information was enclosed that the objective was to identify the official policy of the country. It
was pointed out that the questionnaire "focuses specifically on the nature and scope of the
implementation of the Rules undertaken principally through legislative action, administrative
rules or regulatory measures".
By August 1996 the survey had resulted in 83 responses from Governments which might be
considered as a high score of replies.
Replies
Number
Response rate per cent
Governments
83
45
NGO's: Total
163
27
Countries
96
n/a
It may be noted that replies were received from the Government of 30 countries from which
there was no NGO response. Conversely, NGO replies were received from 43 countries whose
Governments did not reply. In total, 126 countries are covered by the survey.
It is encouraging to note that our survey has resulted in extensive and essential disability data,
which will be of great importance to understand the progress in the area of disability policy. In
the following we present some selected findings from the analysis of Government replies. Due
to a constant flow of incoming replies, the analyses of the data could not be started until late
August 1996. Therefore, time has not permitted us to analyze the material in its entirety. We
intend to continue the work and to publish a report including both Government and NGO replies
and comparative studies between them.
2.2.1. General policy questions
An officially recognized disability policy is essential for the attainment of equality of
opportunity. The aim of this part of the questionnaire was to identify the existence of such policy
13
and its form. The existence of a disability policy can be measured by the extent to which
relevant legislation has been enacted, information campaigns undertaken etc.
In the first question the respondents were asked to indicate whether there is an officially
recognized disability policy. In the majority of countries, i.e. 70 of 82 providing information on
this issue, there is an officially recognized disability policy. Only 11 Governments reported that
they do not have an officially recognized disability policy. Ten of them are developing countries
In ten countries the officially recognized disability policy is not expressed in law but in
guidelines and/or in different policy documents.
In question two the respondents were asked to indicate where the emphasis in the national
disability policy lies. The aim was to find out whether disability policy focuses on a welfare
approach, on accessibility or on anti-discrimination measures. When individual support is given
more emphasis, our interpretation is that the disability policy is of a more traditional welfare-
oriented type. When accessibility or anti-discrimination law gets the main emphasis, we
consider the disability policy more human rights oriented. As our survey indicates, the highest
ranking among countries, was on rehabilitation and prevention (i.e. a welfare approach), while
less emphasis was on accessibility measures and anti-discrimination law. This could be
considered an indication that many countries have not yet implemented the Standard Rules. It
could also be explained by greater difficulty to organize and finance this kind of measures.
Unquestionably, it is clear that the more traditional welfare approach to disability is still very
widely spread.
In the third question on general policy, respondents were asked to indicate, if the Government
since the adoption of the Rules, has done anything to initiate and support information
campaigns, conveying the message of full participation for persons with disabilities: 64
Governments of 79 providing information reported that they through various methods have
conveyed this message.
Of course, the actions taken by the Governments vary. The most frequent measures mentioned
are translation of the Rules, translation and publication into an easy reader version, development
of educational materials in order to raise the awareness of the public, television and radio
programmes conveying the message of full participation, support to research projects, support to
NGO's advocating the message of full participation, advertisements in newspapers, donations in
order to support the work of the Special Rapporteur. As much as 15 Governments reported that
they have not done anything in this area since the adoption of the Rules. This is rather
astonishing three years after the adoption of the Rules. To make the Rules known is after all the
easiest and the least costly measure of all.
2.2.2. Questions on legislation
In order to present a broad picture of national legislation concerning the rights of persons with
disabilities, the present survey reviewed general aspects of legislation. Question 4 aimed at
finding out whether the Government has enacted rights legislation to protect individuals and
groups from discrimination on the basis of disability. This can be done either by general
legislation, special legislation or a combination of these two types. The provisions in general
legislation are intended to apply equally to all persons, regardless of disability. Special
legislation draws the attention to the particular needs of persons with disabilities and creates
14
specific protections. Special legislation is often advocated, when general legislation fails to
provide sufficient protection. It can be maintained that special legislation is a stronger piece of
legislation, since it specifically refers to the needs and rights of persons with disabilities.
As the results indicate, the most common type of legislation is to use both special and general
legislation or a combination of these two types. 56 Governments replied that there are specific
amendments, referring to disabled persons rights within general legislation. 10 Governments
reported that the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by special legislation and
17 Governments that these rights are protected only by general legislation. The great diversity
among these countries indicates that the level of social and economic development or law
tradition cannot play an essential role in the choice of legislation.
In question 5 the aim was to find out, whether there are mechanisms to protect disabled people's
citizenship rights. Judicial mechanisms as well as administrative and other non-judicial bodies
are the institutional arrangements, through which citizenship is protected. The protection of the
rights of disabled people depends, to a large extent, on the enforcement mechanism built into the
legislation. Unless objections can be raised through judicial mechanisms or non-judicial bodies,
laws remain ineffective. As the results show, the status of persons with disabilities in relation to
the enforcement mechanisms is not always clear.
In the majority of the 81 Governments providing information, mechanisms have been adopted
to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most common judicial mechanism is legal
remedy through the courts, while the most common non-judicial mechanism is a Governmental
body (administrative). 16 Governments reported that they do not have any judicial mechanism.
In two countries there is neither any judicial nor any non-judicial mechanism/arrangement to
protect the rights of disabled people. This is a serious infringement of their human rights. (See
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 2, §3, and Articles 16 and 26)
In question six the aim was to find out, whether general legislation applies to persons with
disabilities and their right to equal protection under the law, or if disability is a cause for
differential treatment. The result showed that in 27 countries of 80 providing information,
persons with disabilities are not considered as fully fledged citizens in a number of areas within
the general legislation, i.e. the right to vote, the right to property, right to privacy etc. In 55
countries disability is not used as a basis for differential treatment.
The results indicated that disabled people in 10 countries of 80 providing information are not
guaranteed by law the right to education and the right to employment. In 17 countries the right
to marriage is not guaranteed by law; in 16 countries the rights to parenthood/family, access to
court-of-law, privacy, property are not guaranteed by law, and in 14 countries persons with
disabilities have no political rights. As regards exclusion from the right to marriage, to
parenthood/family, access to court-of-law, property and political rights, they are all examples of
the factual discrimination, which occurs through legislation and regulations. Legislation may
actually prevent disabled people (in particular those with mental disabilities) from exercising
these rights. For instance, in some countries laws governing property exclude disabled persons
from owning property. There may also be legal provisions which prevent disabled persons from
entering into contracts in their own names. This seems to be a legally sanctioned discrimination,
which these Governments have established in their legislation. (See Article 23, §12, Articles 17
and 25 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
15
In question 7 the aim was to study the existence of legislation concerning a number of benefits,
such as health services, social security, rehabilitation, and employment. In 4 countries of 82
providing information, no benefits at all are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities. In 33
countries all of the mentioned benefits are guaranteed by law, while for the remaining 49
countries one or more of these benefits are not guaranteed by law. In 10 countries the right to
health/medical care is not guaranteed. In 14 the right to training, rehabilitation and counseling is
not guaranteed by law. In 24 the right to financial security, in 27 the right to employment, in 34
the right to independent living and the right to participation in decision-making are not
guaranteed by law. Thus, in most countries one or more of these social security and welfare
services are not within the legal framework, guaranteed to all citizens.
When comparing the information in questions 6 and 7, it can be noted that Governments are
more advanced in establishing laws which guarantee civil and political rights than social and
economic rights. Persons with disabilities are significantly disadvantaged in many societies.
Many of the social and economic conditions they experience, reflect a basic lack of equality
which can be traced back to a weak legal basis.
When comparing questions 6 and 7 with question 4, it can be concluded that a correlation exists
between general legislation and a weaker protection of citizenship rights for persons with
disabilities. When the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by general legislation
there are several citizenship rights (political rights, the right to marriage, the right to
parenthood/family) as well as several social and economic rights (financial security,
employment, independent living), which are not guaranteed by law. This tendency could be
found in 13 countries of a total of 17, reporting only general legislation. Only in four countries
exceptions could be noticed from the tendency that general legislation is sufficient to protect the
citizenship rights of persons with disabilities.
In question 8 the aim was to find, whether new legislation concerning disability has been
enacted since the adoption of the Rules. In the majority of the countries - 44 of 83 providing
information - no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted since the adoption of the
Rules. However, several Governments (47%) have recently adopted legislation, which protects
persons with disabilities against discrimination and other forms of unjust treatment.
2.2.3 Questions on accessibility
In the area of accessibility, two major aspects must be considered - access to the physical
environment and access to information and communication. Accessibility is taken for granted by
the general population in areas such as housing, transportation, education, work and culture.
Without an accessible physical environment and access to information, it becomes difficult to
exercise both political and social rights. Accessibility is therefore a prerequisite for achieving the
goal of full participation for persons with disabilities.
Questions 9 and 10 aim at finding out, whether there are laws and/or regulations concerning the
built environment. 23 of 83 Governments providing information reported that there are no
standards which require accessibility to the built environment.
In most countries there are standards which ensure accessibility in public places. But, only in
42% of the countries there are means of public transportation, accessible to persons with
16
disabilities. Thus, the accessibility to public places is in practice much lower, since without
transportation it is difficult to utilize the accessibility of buildings.
In question 12 the aim was to determine what measures have been promoted by Governments in
order to facilitate accessibility in the built environment. As our study shows, providing special
parking lots and installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets for persons with physical
disabilities are the most frequently promoted measures. The measures least frequent are the use
of special lighting and contrast colours for visually impaired. 18 Governments of 81 providing
information reported no measures at all facilitating accessibility in the built environment.
In question 13 the aim was to see if there are any special transport arrangements for persons with
disabilities and for what purposes special transport is available. In 26 countries of 82 providing
information, there are no special transport arrangements, not even reduced prices in public
transport in urban areas. Special transport arrangements vary to a great extent. Our survey
indicated that special transport, when available, is most often provided for the purpose of
education, while less frequent for recreational purposes.
Question 14 aimed at determining impediments, when planning to build accessible
environments. A number of obstacles were listed and Governments were asked to rate the most
difficult ones. The results indicate that the three main obstacles to an adaptation of the built
environment to the needs of disabled people are; economic/budgetary factors, attitudinal factors
and the lack of enforcement mechanism. Surprisingly, attitudinal factors are considered by many
as a major obstacle to accessibility measures.
Question 15 aimed at determining, whether there is a disability awareness component
incorporated in the training of planners, architects and/or construction engineers. The findings
indicated, that in the majority of the countries - in 42 of 78 providing information - there is no
such awareness component incorporated in training programmes.
The information and communication rights of persons with disabilities are addressed specifically
by the questions 16, 17, 19. Of particular importance is to create measures which make
information and communication accessible to deaf, deaf-blind and visually impaired people.
In question 16 the aim was to find out the status of the sign language in Member States. Our
survey indicated that in 26 countries of 80 providing information, sign language is neither used
in education of deaf people nor as the main means of communication between deaf people and
others. In 15 countries it is used as the first language in education of deaf people and in 15
countries it is used as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others, but
not used as the first language in education of deaf people.
Questions 17 and 18 concerned measures taken by Governments to encourage media and other
public information providers to make their services accessible for persons with disabilities. Such
services include text on TV, news in sign language, interpretation in sign language of other
programmes, newspapers in easy reading language, text telephones for deaf people,
interpretation of theatre plays in sign language, etc. The findings indicated that about 50% of the
countries providing information, have not taken any measures to encourage media to make their
services accessible. Likewise ca 50% of the countries reported that no measure had been taken in
order to encourage other public information providers to make their services accessible.
17
Question 19 should determine which services are provided in order to facilitate information and
communication between persons with disabilities and others. The results showed that 71
countries of 81 providing information provide literature in Braille/tape and 45 countries provide
news magazines on tape/Braille. 34 countries provide sign language interpretation for any
purpose and 25 countries provide easy readers. It is noticeable that services vary considerably to
different groups of persons with disabilities. Services to blind and visually impaired people get
the most attention, while services to deaf and persons with mental disabilities are more limited.
2.2.4 Questions on organizations of persons with disabilities
According to Rule 18 the activities concerning the implementation of the Standard Rules should
be carried out in cooperation between national authorities and organizations of persons with
disabilities. It is an important principle of democracy that individuals should be involved in
decision-making concerning themselves. In this context organizations of persons with
disabilities represent the experiences and aspirations of their members. Such organizations can
provide decision-makers with insight into and knowledge of the problems, needs and
requirements of people with disabilities.
Question 20 concerned the existence of an umbrella organization, i.e. a joint organization of
different organizations of persons with disabilities. 63 countries of 81 providing information
reported that a national umbrella organization exists. 18 countries reported that there is no
umbrella organization. In the countries where the umbrella exists, most organizations of persons
with disabilities are represented.
Regarding the existence of legal provisions, which mandate the representatives of these
organizations to participate in policy-making and to work with Governmental institutions
(question 21) the results were as follows: In 31 countries (39%) of 80 countries providing
information, there are no legal provisions. In 49 countries (61%) there are such legal provisions.
Question 22 aimed at finding out, if and how often the views of organizations of persons with
disabilities are taken into account. In 37 countries of 80 providing information, organizations are
always consulted when preparing laws, regulations and/or guidelines with a disability aspect. In
24 countries, their views are often taken into account. In 18 countries, their views are sometimes
taken into account and in one country the views of the organizations are never taken into
account.
As the results of question 23 showed, consultations take place most often at the national level,
less often at the local level and least often at the regional level.
Question 24 aimed to find out, whether the Government gives any support and what kind of
support is given. In 65 countries of 80 providing information, organizations of persons with
disabilities receive financial support from their Governments. In 9 countries organizations
receive only organizational/logistic support, while in 5 countries organizations do not receive
any support at all.
Question 25 tried to measure the extent, to which persons with disabilities participate in political
and public life. Respondents were asked to evaluate in a scale, ranging from 1 to 5, the extent to
which, persons with disabilities participate in five different areas of public life: Government.
18
legislatures, judicial authorities, political parties and NGO's. The level of participation could be
evaluated on a scale ranging from very limited extent to great extent.
The results showed that persons with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in
Government, legislatures and judicial authorities, but to a great extent in NGO's. It is interesting
to note that participation in political parties scored next after NGO's.
Question 26 aimed at pointing out what role the organizations of persons with disabilities have.
The organizations most often contribute to public awareness, to mobilize persons with
disabilities and to advocate rights and improved services. Least often their role is to
promote/organize income generating activities.
2.2.5. Questions on coordination of work
Disability is a multidisciplinary and multidimensional issue, which concerns all spheres of
society There is therefore a constant need for coordination between all parties concerned in
developing disability policy and programmes.
In questions 27 and 28 the aim was to find out, whether there is a national coordinating
committee or similar body and to whom it is reporting. 62 countries of 84 providing
information, reported that a coordinating committee or similar body has been established, while
22 countries (26%) report that they do not have a national coordinating committee or a similar
body.
Regarding the authority to which the coordinating committee is reporting, 39 of 57 providing
information, the coordinating committee is reporting to the Ministry of Social Affairs or other
Ministry. In 12 countries the coordinating committee is reporting to the Prime Minister's Office,
while in 6 countries the coordinating committee is reporting to other authorities.
In question 29 the aim was to find, what organizations and/or authorities are represented in the
coordinating committee. Organizations of persons with disabilities are represented in the
coordinating committees in a majority of the countries. Less common is that representatives of
the private sector are included in the coordinating committees.
With questions 30 and 31 the aim was to find, whether the coordinating committee is expected
by the Government to participate in policy development and to perform other tasks, for instance
to be involved in evaluation, provide services etc. In 51 of 55 providing information, the
coordinating committee is expected to participate in policy-development. In 42 of 53 countries
providing information, the coordinating committee is expected to perform other tasks. In only
11 countries of 53 providing information, the coordinating committee is not expected to perform
other tasks.
Question 32 asked for the effects of the establishment of the coordinating committee. It has had
great effects in; improving coordination of measures/programmes and an improved dialogue.
The establishment of a coordinating committee has not, according to the results, led to more
accurate planning or more effective use of resources. 8 countries of 59 providing information on
this issue reported that it is too early for assessment.
19
The last question asked for the effects of the Rules on the approach to disability policy. 50
countries of 59 providing information (i.e. 85%), reported that the adoption of the Rules has lead
to rethinking in disability policy. 9 Governments reported that the adoption of the Rules has not
led to any rethinking. 23 countries did not answer the question and 3 countries reported that it is
too early for an assessment of the effects of the Standard Rules.
When a Government answers that the adoption of the Rules has not led to rethinking, this does
not necessarily mean that the approach to disability is in conflict with the philosophy expressed
in the Rules. It can also mean that the guidelines in the Standard Rules are very similar to the
guidelines in the country's disability policy.
3. Rule 6 on education
The fact that persons with disabilities live a more or less segregated life depends to a major
extent on the shortcomings of social systems. One of the most important of these is the
education system. There is a close relationship between the level of education and integration
into society. Education lightens the burden of various forms of social disadvantage and opens
the door towards better living conditions. Education of persons with disabilities is consequently
one of the most essential target areas of the Standard Rules.
To understand the contents of the Rule on education it is necessary to consider it in the context
of three other important documents, which preceded the Standard Rules and the one which
followed after the adoption of the Rules. These other documents are: The UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989), The World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons
(1982), World Declaration on Education for All (1990), and the Salamanca Statement and
Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (1994).
The Salamanca Statement, the most recent of these documents, builds upon and develops further
the ideas formulated in Rule 6 and makes them more precise. The Salamanca Statement is a
powerful instrument proclaiming inclusive education as the leading principle in special needs
education. It states that: "those with special educational needs must have access to regular
schools which should accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting
these needs". Inclusive education is regarded as the most effective means of combating
discriminatory attitudes and moreover to "provide an effective education to the majority of
children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost effectiveness of the entire education
system."
Many countries are now taking steps to implement the guidelines in the Standard Rules. One
major problem, is the maintenance of a segregated system of education; one "regular" education
system for the non-disabled and one separate system of special education for persons with
disabilities.
UNESCO has, since 1980, collected global information on practice in the field of special
education. In 1993-1994 the latest UNESCO review was presented, entitled Review of the
Present Situation of Special Education. This review covers issues on policies, legislation,
administration, organization, teacher training, financing and provisions for special needs
education. The material is very useful in measuring the implementation of Rule 6 on education
in the Standard Rules. In our monitoring of Rule 6 on education we have studied the findings of
20
this Review. We have also had access to a previous UNESCO review on special education
legislation (1991). In the following we have selected some results and observations based on
these two Reviews, which are of importance to understand the situation in the field of education.
The 1993-1994 Review is built on information, collected through a questionnaire, which was
sent to 90 governments. 63 countries responded. (In the case of Australia and Canada two
separate replies were received. This explains the total of sixty-five.)
3.1. Legal regulation of the right to special education
The right to education is denied millions of children with special educational needs, who either
are receiving inadequate and inappropriate public education, or are being excluded from the
public school systems. Although many developing countries have recognized the right to
education, it has in many cases not been applied to persons with special educational needs.
65 countries provided information on legislation. 44 countries reported that general legislation
applies to the children with special educational needs. 34 countries reported that children with
severe disabilities were excluded from education. In 18 of the 34 countries reporting exclusion,
these children were by law excluded from the public education system. In 16 countries the
exclusion was the result of other, non-legal factors. The most common reason given for
excluding some children from the public education system was the severity of the disability, lack
of facilities and trained staff, long distances to schools, and that regular schools did not accept
pupils with special educational needs. Ten countries reported that no legislation on special
education exists.
3.2. Parents' role
One question in the UNESCO questionnaire tried to find out what formal rights parents have in
assessment procedures and decision-making with respect to placement of children with special
educational needs. In 22 of the 53 countries providing information, the parents' role is fully
recognized in decision-making concerning placement. In seven countries parents only have the
right to appeal against decisions concerning their child's placement. In 24 countries, however,
parents' involvement in decision-making and their right to choose placement in special
education is severely limited.
3.3. Education forms and the issue of integration
From the information collected by the Review our tentative conclusion is that schooling for the
children with special educational needs is still predominantly provided in a segregated
educational system and that the rates of attendance in schools of persons with special
educational needs is very low in a great number of countries. It was found, for instance, that
thirty-three countries of forty-eight supplying information have fewer than one per cent of pupils
enrolled in special educational programmes. Thus, in most countries integration represents an
aspiration for the future. The UNESCO Review indicates, when compared to a Review made in
1986-1987 that some progress towards the goal of integration into regular education has been
achieved.
3.4. Special education legislation
In 1991 UNESCO requested governments to report on the position of their law concerning
special education. The request for information for this study, was sent to 70 countries, of which
52 responded.
21
The aim was to identify the kind of existing special education legislation and what it covers. We
have here selected a few important findings from this study.
*
In sixteen out of fifty-two countries providing information, special education is financed
totally by the state and/or local authorities.
*
Only in ten countries of fifty-two, disabled children in regular schools are expected to follow
the regular school curriculum, using the learning methods suitable for their individual needs.
*
In the majority of the countries, the Ministry of Education is responsible for the organization
of special education services
In an increasing number of countries, the Ministry of Education is responsible for the
organization of the special education. while the responsibility for the implementation and
evaluation is borne by Federal States or local authorities. In some countries the responsibility for
the organization is shared between several Ministries. In one country, there is a division of
responsibility between the Ministry of Education, for children with moderate disabilities, and the
Ministry of Welfare, for those with severe disabilities.
4. Rule 7 on employment
4.1. Summary of Rule 7
One of the most important fields for action in disability policy is to create equal job
opportunities. Without success in this area it will not be possible to obtain the overall goal of full
participation. The essence of Rule 7 on employment is that persons with disabilities should be
empowered to exercise their right to gainful employment and that it is the responsibility of
States, to remove all remaining obstacles to employment. "The aim should always be for persons
with disabilities to obtain employment in the open labour market. For persons with disabilities
whose needs cannot be met in open employment, small units of sheltered or supported
employment may be an alternative."
To further illustrate the contents of Rule 7, the following quotations should be mentioned:
"Laws and regulations in the employment field must not discriminate against persons with
disabilities and must not raise obstacles to their employment
"States should actively support the integration of persons with disabilities into open
employment"
"States, worker's organizations and employers should cooperate with organizations of persons
with disabilities concerning all measures to create training and employment opportunities "
The text also contains several examples of various technical measures, which could be taken by
Governments, in order to obtain these objectives.
22
Equal opportunities and the integration of disabled people into the community is also the
objective of the Convention adopted by ILO in 1983. It complies with the provisions of Rule 7
on employment in the Standard Rules. In fact, Rule 7 is created on the basis of this Convention.
4.2. ILO Convention 159
The Convention provides for vocational rehabilitation measures for all categories of disabled
persons and for promotion of employment opportunities and equal treatment of disabled men
and women. The Convention also requires that member countries, when formulating and
implementing policies should consult organizations of disabled persons.
When the survey was made, at the beginning of 1996, 54 countries had ratified the Convention.
The regional distribution of these countries is as follows:
14 industrialized countries
5 Middle East and North African countries
11 countries in transition
13 in the Latin American and the Caribbean region
8 from Sub-Saharan Africa
3 countries in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific
In accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution the ratifying Member State must supply
the International Labour Office with an annual report. In this report the Member State must give
information about all the measures it has taken for the purpose of giving effect to the
Convention.
A Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is appointed
by the Governing Body of ILO. The Committee's main task consists of examining the reports
supplied by Governments. ILO, may write to Governments and request them to supply
additional information.
In order to assist me in monitoring Rule 7 on employment, ILO made country reports and
communication between Governments and the Committee of Experts available for our analysis.
We have studied six articles of the Convention which are close to the contents of Rule 7 on
employment. We will in this report only present some general observations concerning the
compliance with requirements in some articles by ratifying countries.
- 11 of the 54 countries have not yet supplied any Government report
- 11 countries, mainly industrialized countries have given effect to the Convention by various
measures based on legislation. In these countries the Convention is considered by the ILO to be
applied in its entirety.
- In 7 countries measures concerning consultations and co-operation with representative
organizations of disabled persons have not been ensured.
- In 3 countries there were no measures to enable disabled persons to gain and maintain
employment
23
- In 10 countries measures concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment services in rural
areas and remote communities have not been ensured
- In 8 countries measures to provide qualified vocational rehabilitation staff, have not been taken
yet
In 16 countries the legislation is insufficient to guarantee the full application of the Convention,
or the Convention is deemed to be applied to a very limited extent. In 1 country the Convention
is deemed not to be applied. In 1 country the information supplied is insufficient to assess the
compliance of national policy and practice with the requirements of the Convention. In 1
country the existing legislation is insufficient to serve as a framework for national policy.
To sum up, the measures which are less implemented are vocational rehabilitation in rural areas,
cooperation with organizations of persons with disabilities and availability of qualified staff.
This implies that a great number of disabled people do not receive appropriate training. The role
of organizations of persons with disabilities to represent their groups in an advisory capacity has
not yet been recognized in many countries. The lack of training of staff in vocational
rehabilitation is a serious short-coming in many countries. This leads to less quality in training
programmes.
The measure which is implemented in almost every country is anti-discrimination provisions in
the employment field i.e. the same principles apply relating to equal treatment of disabled
workers and workers generally.
V. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the UN Standard Rules is to provide guidance to Member States concerning
policies and measures to achieve the goal of "full participation and equality". This goal
brought a new dimension into disability policy, when it was launched 15 years ago. It drew
the attention towards the surrounding society and it inevitably brought up the human rights
aspect of disability policy.
The recommendations in the Standard Rules document are very progressive and in my
opinion there is no country, not even among the most advanced, which has fully implemented
the Rules. On the other hand there is no doubt that the Rules, in the short time since their
adoption, have been widely accepted and are being used as the main policy guidelines in the
disability field both by Governments and NGO's.
I have seen mainly three ways, in which the Rules have been used by Governments - as a
basis for new legislation, as guidelines to national plans of action, and for evaluation of
policies and programmes. One important and encouraging signal concerning the use of the
Rules is the fact that so many Governments (83) and NGO's (163) replied to our second
survey.
Our survey shows that a majority of Governments (85% of those providing information)
indicate that the Rules have led to rethinking of policies. We must not forget that the majority
of Governments in Member States, as far as we know, may not yet have started to use the
24
Rules. Among the International NGO's the Rules are being widely used for advocacy, for new
initiatives and in training programmes. On the national level the use of the Rules varies to a
great extent among organizations.
In summary this indicates that measures to make the Rules known must continue and be
strengthened both on the national and international level.
On the international level it is obvious that those specialized agencies with involvement in the
disability field are familiar with the Standard Rules. ILO, UNESCO and WHO have
cooperated with me in my monitoring task. These specialized agencies, however, have their
own guidelines in the disability field, which of course play a more visible role in their
development work. Generally, it can be said that there are no conflicting ideas or approaches
between the Standard Rules and these other documents. The role of the UN Secretariat as
focal point in support of the implementation of the Standard Rules should be further
developed. The cooperation between the UN Secretariat and the specialized agencies in:
efforts to guide Member States in their policy development should be better coordinated.
A form of inter-agency mechanism should be established, which could improve
coordination and identify areas for cooperation and joint action.
In the area of development cooperation I find the situation less satisfactory. I have not found
any serious effort, neither in UNDP nor in inter-governmental institutions for development
cooperation, to integrate disability measures into their mainstream activities. This is also true
concerning international financial institutions like the World Bank, Regional Banks etc. Due
to this lack of commitment, there is a great risk that disability measures ones again will be left
out or marginalized in those development programmes, launched in response to the UN
follow-up plan to the Social Summit. It would, for instance, be extremely discouraging, if
programmes for poverty eradication now are being launched without measures to support
persons with disabilities. To strengthen and integrate disability measures into the
mainstream of technical cooperation - including UNDP, the World Bank, and other
financial institutions - is one of the most urgent measures of all in the future
implementation of the Standard Rules.
My talks with Governments and organizations and my participation in international
conferences together with the extensive information received through our second survey,
makes it possible for me to make a number of observations concerning how far the
implementation of the Rules have advanced. According to our second survey 85 % of
Governments providing information, state that they have an officially recognized policy. A
majority of countries put the main emphasis on rehabilitation and prevention. This seems to
indicate that in most countries, having an officially recognized policy, the Standard Rules
have not yet led to broadening of their policies to also include accessibility and participation
measures. Advisory services and support to Governments in their efforts to develop
disability policies, based on the Standard Rules should be strengthened. This should be
done both through the specialized agencies within their mandates and the UN
Secretariat.
One striking result is the weak protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities that
occurs in many countries. Our results indicate that violations of these rights on account of
disability occur in a number of human rights areas. The situation seems somewhat better in
25
the area of civil and political rights than concerning economic, social and cultural rights.
Therefore, the activities initiated by different entities within the UN human rights sector,
and the cooperation between them and the NGO's in the disability field should be
continued and developed further.
In the field of education, UNESCO has adopted the Salamanca Statement and Framework for
Action, after the adoption of the Standard Rules. This document together with Rule 6 on
education provides excellent guidance for educational policies in the disability field. The
major thrust in UNESCO's action continues to be in the area of policy development and
teacher education. One main reason for the marginalization of persons with disabilities is lack
of or inappropriate education. UNESCO studies show that in many countries less than one per
cent of children with special educational needs receive education. In nearly 50 % of the
countries providing information, these children were excluded from education, either by law
or for other reasons. Such other reasons were severity of disability, lack of facilities, long
distances and refusal by the regular schools to accept children with special educational needs.
When children with special educational needs receive education, they most often get it
through a separate system of special education. An integrated approach, providing adequate
support and accessibility in regular schools, seems far away in many countries. As the right
to education is a fundamental human right, it is necessary for all Governments to
provide appropriate education for children and adults with special educational needs.
Conditions should be created for UNESCO to give more vigorous support to
Governments in this area.
The most telling confirmation of success in disability policy would be to reach employment
rates, similar to those for the general population. This does not occur in any country in the
world. On the contrary, also States with advanced welfare systems report employment rates
for persons with disabilities far below those for the labour force generally.
Rule 7 on employment and ILO Convention 159, adopted already in 1983, give clear guidance
for measures to create job opportunities. It is a disheartening fact that only 56 countries (End
of 1996) SO far have ratified the ILO Convention, adopted 13 years ago. Our study
unfortunately also shows that many Governments, having ratified the Convention, fail to
comply with important parts of the requirements. Governments, which have not yet ratified
the ILO Convention, should do so in order to strengthen their policies and get
professional assistance from the ILO. Governments, which have ratified the Convention,
should make further efforts to reflect the provisions of the Convention in their national
law and practice.
In 1996-1997, the ILO is dedicating its biennial general survey to disability and labour market
policies. The results will be reported in 1998. This ILO survey could provide a basis for a new
and more effective labour market policy in the disability field. The situation in employment
indicates that the present policies throughout the world fail to create equal job opportunities.
ILO should in cooperation with Governments and inter-governmental bodies like
OECD, EU etc., take the lead in assisting member States to formulate national policies
and strategies which could work towards equal job opportunities.
26
One important dimension of disability policy, which cuts right across all spheres of society, is
accessibility. In our second survey we have studied this aspect. Most countries have adopted
some standards for access to the physical environment. 23% of countries providing
information, have no such standards at all. In 32% of the countries there are no kind of special
transport arrangements. Only about 54% of the countries providing information, have
included a disability component in the training of architects and building engineers.
In the area of access to information and communication much remains to be done. The most
established form here is obviously providing Braille and talking books to visually impaired
people. Sign language for the deaf is gaining ground. In 19% of countries providing
information, sign language is the first language in education. In an equal number of countries
sign language is the main language used in communication between deaf people.
In order to achieve the goal of full participation it is necessary for all Governments to
continue the development of all kinds of accessibility measures. As some industrialized
countries have considerable experience in this area, international exchange of
information and concrete cooperation should be encouraged.
The Standard Rules clearly recognize the advisory role of organizations of persons with
disabilities. A strong and cooperating movement of persons with disabilities is probably the
best possible guarantee for progress. In our second survey we found that 78% of countries
providing information, have so called umbrella organizations of persons with disabilities,
through which the various disability groups cooperate. In 62 % of countries these
organizations have a legal mandate to cooperate with Governments.
In 74% of countries providing information, there are national coordinating
committees/councils, through which Governments, organizations of persons with disabilities
and often others, cooperate. In almost all cases these coordinating bodies are expected to
participate in policy making.
In many countries there is a pattern of cooperation between Governments and organizations,
which is of great importance for the development in the disability field. Governments should
develop further this pattern of cooperation at all levels. They should also strengthen
their support to the work of organizations of persons with disabilities.
One obvious weakness in Government handling of disability matters is the common lack of
monitoring and evaluation procedures (Rule 20). This also is the situation in many
industrialized countries. The UN should, as part of the follow-up activities to this
monitoring exercise, take measures to assist Governments to build their own monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms. This could be done as a task for the national coordinating
councils or through separate bodies. It is important, however, that it is done in cooperation
with the organizations of persons with disabilities.
Finally, I should like to make some general observations about the Standard Rules as an
instrument for development and change. There is no doubt that the UN Standard Rules have
proved to be a useful tool in international efforts towards full participation and equality. It is
true that the Rules are not legally binding, but the way they were elaborated in close
cooperation between a great number of Governments and the major international NGO
27
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
met
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
FAX TRANSMISSION (6 pages)
to:
Monica Bartley/1 809 926 4859
Joshua Malinga/263 9 74398
William Rowland/ 27 12 346 1177
Penny Hartin/1 514 529 4662
Garé de Zaldo/ 525 683 0309
Victor Wahlström/46 8 678 8133
John Stott/64 3 323 6685
Leonie Manns/612 9810 8145
Mohamed S. Shaari/603 222 6536
Liisa Kauppinen/358 9 580 3770
Date: 27 November 1997
Dear Panel Members,
Let me first of all tell you that from now on my letters to you will be copied to
the secretariats of your six organizations. It has been a busy few months since I
last wrote to you. This letter will be a mixture of information about activities we
have had and planning new initiatives for the future.
1) Contract for second period signed
In the middle of October I visited the UN secretariat in New York. We
discussed our draft work programme and the draft budget and were able to
finalize the contract for the second period. My contract runs from August 1997
to July 2000. This also means that this is the time of mandate for the panel. So
far we have not heard from any of the INGO's about changes in the
composition of the Panel. I know, however, that at least one organization, the
newly formed World Deaf Blind Union, will approach us to discuss how they
could be involved in the monitoring of the Standard Rules.
2) UN announcement of second period
The decision to continue the monitoring for another three years was taken in
July this year by ECOSOC (res. 1997/19). As you know the whole monitoring
activity has to be funded through extra-budgetary means. Therefore the UN
must write formally to Member States and announce that this decision has been
taken and that Member States are invited to support the activity financially.
Unfortunately, and for reasons I do not know, this letter has not yet been
circulated. This is, of course, causing problems as there are Governments who
are interested and as we know of Governments which should be approached
concerning their support. It seems therefore, that the next step has to be to
approach Under-Secretary Nitin Desai, who in my opinion is the one who
should make the announcement, to urge him to take this initiative immediately.
The letter from the UN is a prerequisite for funding and therefore we will have
no money until this letter has been circulated and also approaches to
Governments must have this letter as a formal basis to have any chance of
success.
3) Activities September - November 1997
The last few months have been full of activities. In September I participated in a
pan-Arab symposium on the Standard Rules, organized in Jordan together with
ESCWA. More than a hundred representatives of Governments and NGO's
from 12 Arab countries participated in the symposium. At the end a statement
was adopted. (Under separate cover I send you the English translation which
does not do full justice to the original text.) The conference was a great success
but as usual it must be followed up. 39 national NGO's participated from the 12
countries and especially among them (most of them members of your
organizations) the enthusiasm was great.
Later on I made a stop-over in Thailand where I paid a visit to the ESCAP
office to discuss how the Standard Rules could be a tool of support in
implementing the ESCAP agenda for action. We also prepared my participation
in the high-level ESCAP meeting, which was to take place in Seoul a few days
later. The organizations of disabled people of Thailand had invited to a
conference on the Standard Rules, while I was there. It turned out that there was
a great interest in this initiative. The conference was attended by more than 100
people, mainly from the organizations, but also from four different Ministries.
At the conference a permanent secretary promised that there will be a
Government seminar on disability policy based on the Standard Rules.
The '97 Seoul International Conference on Disability, organized by RI, Korean
Government and ESCAP turned out to be a large and important event for the
region. I delivered papers at the conference and at the special ESCAP meeting
to evaluate the second decade. I made a lot of new and interesting contacts
during my stay in Seoul. I also got the impression that the Korean Government
may be interested in supporting our monitoring efforts.
On the 6th of October the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had invited
to an open meeting on the situation of disabled children. I was invited to speak
2
on the subject. I will mail you a copy of my statement. Hopefully, all the many
interesting interventions will be summarized a report. The Committee will
consider the various suggestions for follow up activities. In my statement I
clearly expressed my wish to cooperate closely with the Committee in
monitoring the situation of disabled children. I anticipate an interesting
discussion on how this could be arranged. Just recently I have been informed
that the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its next meeting will consider a
proposal to set up a special working group for following up all the suggestions
put forward at the conference.
Recently the IPWH - "the International organization for the provision of work
for people with disabilities and who are occupationally handicapped" - which is
an association of employers in various forms of sheltered and supported
employment, held a conference in Kyoto, Japan. I was invited to speak on the
Standard Rules and especially on Rule 7 on employment. 34 countries were
represented and the discussions which followed my statement and other
contributions were interesting. I told them that the world needs their experience
and that they should play a more active role in the debate on employment of
persons with disabilities.
Last week I participated in a national conference in Dublin, Ireland. The main
reason for holding the conference was that one year had passed since the
presentation of a very important report from the Commission on the Status of
Disabled Persons. It was encouraging to learn that this report was to a large
extent built on the UN Standard Rules. This Commission report has created a
lot of activity in Ireland. Several new laws are on the way based on a clear
human rights perspective. If Ireland adopts these new laws this country will be
in the forefront when it comes to this kind of legislation. At a meeting with the
responsible Minister I got the impression that Ireland could be prepared to
support our monitoring.
4) Further activities during 1997
Before the end of this year I will participate at another three activities. On 4
December, the ILO Committee of Experts will meet to analyze the outcome of
the general survey on labour market policies and disability. I will participate as
an observer and I am just now preparing for that. During the period 8-11
December I will visit Iceland on the invitation by the Icelandic Government.
The purpose is to analyze the Icelandic disability policy and to give lectures on
3
the Standard Rules. Finally, I have been invited by the national council on
disability in Finland to take part in a discussion on the Finnish situation.
If you study all these activities during the latest months you see that there are
very few activities directly concerning developing countries. A serious problem
is that I get very few invitations from that part of the world. On the other hand I
want to add that practically all activities of which I have given an account here,
have been funded from other sources than the UN budget.
4) Human Rights Commission
As you know I have been invited to speak at the meeting of the UN
Commission on Human Rights next year. The meeting will take place 23 March
- 18 April 1998. So far I have not had any definite information about the time of
my appearance at the Commission. One representative of the Human Rights
Center made the guess that it would be during the 3rd or 4th week of the
meeting. As soon as I know more about this important meeting I will inform
you. It would be very good if your organizations used their NGO status to
participate in this meeting in order to emphasize the great importance that we
all attach to this event. Also for this reason it is highly desirable to know more
definitely about times.
I have started a dialogue with the Irish delegation which will be chairing next
years meeting and with the Danish delegation, where Holger Kallehauge is
active. We will discuss about the possibility to have a resolution passed on
human rights and disability and about the contents of such a resolution. Of
course I will involve you in this discussion when I get more information from
the parties concerned.
5) NGO reports on survey
As you remember we have drafts of five different reports (based on the five
INGO's). Due mainly to lack of funds we have not been able to process this
material further, but now things are moving. We will have finalized drafts in
January 1998, and the question is how to handle the printing. My original plan
has been to hand the originals over to the respective INGO's and to ask them to
use the material in the way they find suitable. On the other hand there is a
general interest in reading these reports and therefore I am now looking for a
solution where the reports could be printed in a small number which could be
distributed to the UN family, all interested INGO's etc. After that each report
4
could be handed over to each organization for further printing and distribution. I
welcome all views on this matter from you.
6) World Disability Report
As you may know already, the International Disability Foundation has plans for
the issuing of a "World Disability Report", which would be distributed in
July/August next year. The whole project seems well organized and the funding
of it is already there. In my contacts with IDF and the project manager, George
Reid, I have emphasized that the six organizations of our panel should be
directly involved in this project. Concretely I have suggested that there should
be a group of editorial advisors, which I think the IDF have received
favourably. The report will profile the work to implement the Standard Rules
and will bring up many interesting issues in connection with modern disability
policy. Provided that we can create an active relation between the organizations
and this project, I now think that the world disability report is a worthwhile and
promising project. As the basic subject is Standard Rules I hope you will keep
informed about your organizations involvement and contributions. If you want
the already existing documents please contact the IDF.
7) Cooperation with Disability Awareness in Action, DAA
As you know DAA is issuing a magazine with a lot of short and interesting stuff
on the disability field. I and Victor have met Rachel Hurst and discussed the
idea of using DAA as a vehicle to inform more directly about our efforts to
make States implement the Standard Rules in various ways. Rachel is interested
but also says that if we want a guaranteed space in every issue we have to find a
financial arrangement for it. We have only had preliminary discussions on this,
but I have the impression that we are not talking about big sums of money. On
my behalf Victor will continue the discussion with Rachel during December.
8) Next Panel meeting
As we have discussed, it would be highly desirable that the Panel could meet in
connection with the meeting of the Human Rights Commission and its
discussion on human rights and disability. However, there are two reasons for
not choosing this option. One is that it has up to now been impossible to get
definite information about when the disability item will be treated by the
Commission. The other is that in March/April 1998 we may not yet have
received money enough for a Panel meeting. This, as you understand, is due to
the fact that we have not yet been able to start this fund-raising activity. My
proposal therefore is that we do what we can to make your organizations send
5
observers to the Human Rights Commission and that we choose another time
for the Panel.
There are certain things we should discuss and decide on as early as possible.
Let me only remind you that we have not yet decided definitely in what areas
we will make global surveys during this second period. Such a decision must be
taken as soon as possible during 1998. I would from this perspective like to
have a Panel meeting in May or June. From my point of view, the following
three weeks would be possible; 11-14 May, 25-28 May and 8-11 June 1998
Concerning venue I would choose either New York or Geneva but I am open to
other suggestions. One possibility we have discussed is to meet in Bangkok at
ESCAP headquarters in order to get more information about activities there.
Please give me your advice concerning next panel meeting before 15 January
1998.
Well, friends, this is all for now. I am very much looking forward to hearing
from you on the various matters above. Eva and I would also like to use this
opportunity to convey Seasonal Greetings to all of you and to wish you a happy
and prosperous 1998!
Yours sincerely,
B.L.
Bengt Lindqvist
By mail:
- Statement from pan-Arab seminar
- Speech on children
- Speech on labour market policy
- Speech on human rights issues
6
Rehabilitation International
a worldwide network of people with disabilities, service providers and government
agencies working to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities
Activity on UN Standard Rules for Equalisation of Opportunities
for People with Disabilities
Introduction
Rehabilitation International's (RI) internal and external work in the implementation of the Rules began early
in 1994, first at the international and then the national levels. Preceding all activity was the ratification of
RI's first strategic plan in October, 1993, (RI 2000 The Way Forward). Goal 7 "Equalization of
Opportunities" has as its objective (p. 16) "Promote the UN Standard Rules on Equalization of
Opportunity for People with Disabilities."
The RI Executive identified Goal 7 (above) as a high priority objective. RI's new Secretary General's first
significant international meeting was participation in the UN's first Preparatory Committee to the World
Summit for Social Development (WSSD), convened on January 31, 1994. This was a meeting of all UN
Member States to create strong policy statements able to lead to viable action by Member States after the
March, 1995, WSSD. The WSSD's three goals: (1) lessening of poverty; (2) reduction in unemployment;
and (3) inclusion of marginalized populations into the economic mainstream, all highly relevant to global
disability policy and programme implementation, generated interest from RI Members who were able to call
their governments' attention to the need for implementation of the Rules.
Accordingly, from January, 1994, onwards, RI used UN events - (1) the WSSD (March '95) and (2) the
Commission on Social Development (April '95) and our own scheduled Regional Conferences (Budapest,
September '94, Jakarta, September '95) and the quadrennial World Congress (Auckland '96) as
opportunities to promote the implementation of the Standard Rules.
RI has one representative on the Panel of Experts advising the Special Rapporteur on Disability of the UN's
Commission for Social Development - RI President (1992-1996) John Stott of New Zealand.
United Nations Collateral Events
As mentioned above, the UN's WSSD preparatory meetings provided the chance to reference the Rules in the
draft texts being created by UN Member States. We also developed draft language for insertion into the
working documents. This was accomplished in two ways: (1) suggested language was faxed to the about 20
RI Members willing and able to work with their governments to develop policy positions; and (2) submission
for the formal UN record RI Statements made on behalf of the organization and its president. Statements
were made as an officially registered WSSD NGO in 1994 (February, October, and August) and in 1995
(January and March). RI voluntarily took on the task during the period of the WSSD policy preparation the
dissemination to her sister NGOs of key policy language. In January, 1995, we convened representatives of
five of the six NGOs on the Panel of Experts for the purpose of uniting and speaking with a single voice at
the final PREPCOM prior to the March Summit. Together we ensured that the references to the Rules held,
as did several dozen references to disability which now appear in the duly ratified Copenhagen Declaration.
RI Member Countries involved in the UN WSSD and the UN Commission on Social Development include:
Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Iceland, Norway, Saudi
Arabia, Sweden, and the USA. The organizational base built during the 1994-1995 period is still in use as
the Special Rapporteur ends the first three year phase of work and is now being utilised in the "Call to
Action" mentioned below.
25 E. 21st St., New York, NY 10010 USA / Phone: (212) 420-1500 / Fax: (212) 505-0871
TDD: (212) 420-1752 / Telex: 446412
Country Level, 1994, 1995, and 1996
With the September, 1994, Budapest Regional European meeting, RI began vigorous circulation of the Rules
document. The Special Rapporteur delivered a plenary address at the Budapest Conference to over 600
people, the majority from Europe, including a significant representation in attendance from the Newly
Independent States of Eastern Europe.
In September, 1995 (Jakarta) RI Members were requested to lobby their respective governments with regard
to the implementation of the Standard Rules, also to facilitate their countries' contribution of funds towards
the work of the Special Rapporteur and the Panel of Experts. Building upon the collaborative UN WSSD
work with the USA, RI was able to facilitate that country's financial contribution. At both the Jakarta and
Auckland Assemblies, RI Members reported their country-level Standard Rules' promotional activities.
Members had also been asked to coordinate their country activities with the other NGO members of the Panel
of Experts.
In September, 1995, the countries reported out as follows: (1) Netherlands: lobbying Government; (2)
Australia: development of disability strategy based on Standard Rules and standard for compliance; (3)
Sweden: information and education budget set aside; (4) Germany: German version of the Rules made
widely available; (5) Norway: tasking their Government to give implementation of the Rules to Council for
Disabled; (6) New Zealand: introduction of strategic plan for Government agencies based on Standard
Rules; (7) Indonesia: comprehensive legislation introduced; (8) Japan: promotion of rights through Asia
Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons; (9) India: disability rights legislation to be adopted by December, 1995.
The Auckland RI 18th World Congress provided the Special Rapporteur the chance to present a Keynote
Address on his vision of the future for disabled people to achieve quality to participants from 75 countries.
He also delivered the critical "Summary Comments" to the Congress' "Vision Track" on the final day.
Several of the Members on the Panel of Experts addressed a special workshop of the Standard Rules.
Congress organizers raised funds assisting the Special Rapporteur and some of the Panel Members to travel
to New Zealand.
Summary
In October and November, 1996, RI's leadership issued a "Call to Action" to its global membership, asking
that each member contact its government, calling for support for the work of the Special Rapporteur to
continue.
In response to the "Call," the USA on October 18th in a UN General Assembly meeting, indicated its support
for continuation of the important work of the Special Rapporteur and the Panel of Experts. RI is convinced
that the effects of the Special Rapporteur's and the Panel of Experts' work are just beginning to be felt at the
country level. Accordingly, the first three year term should be extended for at least another three year term
beyond 1997.
John W. Stott
Immediate Past President
Rehabilitation International
Member, Panel of Experts
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
UN Commission on Human Rights, 54th session
agenda item 15
Statement by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission for
Social Development
Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished Delegates,
It is a great honour for me as UN Special Rapporteur, monitoring the Standard Rules,
to have the opportunity to speak before this Commission. May I begin with a
quotation, which is a contribution by the disability community to the ongoing debate
concerning the concept of equality.
"The principle of equal rights for the disabled and non-disabled implies that the needs
of each and every individual are of equal importance, that these needs must be made
the basis for the planning of societies, and that resources must be employed in such a
way as to ensure, for every individual, equal opportunities for participation."
You find this statement both in the World Programme of Action (adopted in 1982) and
in the Standard Rules (adopted in 1993). When we relate this statement to the situation
of disabled people around the world, it becomes extremely relevant. The needs of
disabled people are not taken into account in the "planning of societies" and the
resources are not employed to ensure "equal opportunities for participation".
Mr. Chairman,
If I, after thirty years of work in the international disability field, were to choose one
word to describe the situation of disabled people, I would without any hesitation say
"exclusion". By international standards of classification there are at least 500 million
disabled people in the world. Due to several factors, the number is expected to rise.
Millions and millions of disabled people in developing countries lack access to
education, have poor health conditions, are poverty stricken and socially isolated. It is
a well-known fact that there is a close link between disability and poverty. Disability
leads to poverty; poverty leads to disability.
What is being done is often achieved by voluntary organizations, while Governments
in many cases fail to assume their responsibilities. Concerning countries in transition
the situation is similar. One great problem in many of these countries is that it has been
an accepted public policy throughout the years to put disabled people - children and
adults - in institutions, where they spend their whole lives. Of course, there is a link
between the general economic situation of the country and the living conditions of
disabled people. Exclusion also seriously limits progress and development.
Even though the situation of persons with disabilities in industrialized countries is
much better, the goal of full participation will not be possible to attain without a
considerable improvement of the situation. It is clear that economic progress alone is
not a guarantee for the equalization of opportunities. Especially, I would like to point
to the area of employment, where the employment rates for the different groups of
disabled people are dramatically lower than for those of the general population. In
most industrialized countries, access to programmes, services and activities, generally
available to non-disabled people, is still limited.
Mr. Chairman,
The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. They were elaborated on the basis
of the World Programme of Action and the experiences gained during the UN Decade
of disabled persons (1983-1992). The purpose of the Rules is to provide guidance for
Member States in their efforts to work towards full participation and equal
opportunities for persons with disabilities. To illustrate the core message of the
Standard Rules, let me quote the following two sentences from the Introduction:
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing persons with
disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms and making it difficult for them
to participate fully in the activities of their societies. It is the responsibility of States to
take appropriate action to remove such obstacles."
As is made clear in this statement, the Standard Rules apply a human rights perspective
as a basis for its recommendations. In addition, the Standard Rules document could be
described both as a code of conduct for Governments and as an implementation tool.
The Standard Rules document contains a rather detailed description of the monitoring
mechanism. The purpose of the monitoring is to "further the effective implementation
of the Standard Rules". There are three actors within the monitoring mechanism. The
results of the monitoring shall be reported to the UN Commission for Social
Development. A Special Rapporteur has the responsibility for the actual monitoring. A
panel of experts serves in a consultative capacity. This panel has been formed by six
2
international organizations, representing the interests of disabled people, having a
powerful network of national affiliates in more than 160 States.
I have reported twice to the Commission for Social Development. Both my reports
have been circulated as documents before the General Assembly (A/50/374 and
A/52/56). Our collection of information has been done by extensive traveling and
through two global surveys which have been reported. In a highly condensed form I
should here like to summarize our findings.
The adoption of the Standard Rules and the activities within the monitoring mechanism
have created a momentum, which is very important to keep alive. In our second survey
85% of the responding Governments stated that the Rules have led to rethinking or
strengthening of their disability policies. A considerable number of Governments have
adopted new legislation, made plans of action or otherwise initiated a further
development of their policies, based on the Standard Rules. There are good examples
of such initiatives in all regions of the world. The Economic and Social Council of the
Asian and Pacific Region (ESCAP) has formed an "Agenda for Action" for a second
decade (1993-2002), which in spirit comes very close to the Standard Rules. All the
UN agencies with key-roles for disability policy have taken new and interesting
initiatives during the 1990's. There is an obvious need for more effective co-ordination
and co-operation between these agencies and the UN secretariat. I have suggested that
the previously used inter-agency mechanism should be re-established to meet this
need.
To approach the goal of full participation, nations must learn how to integrate
disability measures into all kinds of development and to do this at an early stage. One
obvious area, where we up to now have failed to do this, concerns development co-
operation. Unfortunately, we in this way waste a lot of opportunities to include the
needs of disabled people in programmes and services, which would have a decisive
effect on the living conditions of disabled people. This neglect or omission is not in
harmony with the Standard Rules and in serious cases must be considered as
discrimination. We should give top priority in future to finding effective ways to
eliminate this discriminatory behaviour.
Several studies show that education is an area where the exclusion of disabled girls and
boys in general school programmes is a very serious problem. Still a lot of large
development programmes in the education field, launched by both national and
international funding agencies, are run without paying any attention to the needs of
disabled children. Like many others we found that employment is another problematic
area. Without considerable improvement in the field of employment and other forms of
income-earning activities it is impossible to approach the goal of full participation.
3
The description above may seem negative and pessimistic. The rule of exclusion
prevails. There is little compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We have, however, noticed growing awareness among Governments and there are
good initiatives which will be of importance for the future. As is emphasized in the
Standard Rules, a pre-requisite for development is that disabled people themselves and
their organizations have an opportunity to influence the development on the basis of
their experience. Governments should develop their co-operation with organizations of
disabled people and other organizations in the disability field. One encouraging result
of our surveys is that we found a "pattern of co-operation" between Governments and
organizations, which is spreading and gaining importance. We found that 74% of the
responding Governments have national councils on disability and that in 62% of
countries, organizations of disabled people have a legal mandate to influence public
disability policy.
Mr. Chairman,
As you know, my mandate as Special Rapporteur concerns the promotion and
monitoring of policy development in the disability field. My observations are, of
course, also relevant for the discussion of the human rights of disabled people. As I
said initially, a state of "exclusion" prevails in the disability field. This is the result
either of lack of access to important parts of the community or through sending
disabled people away to live in institutions.
In the institutional environment it is, of course, impossible to create opportunities for
social integration. We also know that many forms of degrading treatment, sexual abuse
and various forms of violence occur in such secluded places.
The exclusion of disabled people in the open society has its routes in lack of
knowledge and attitudinal barriers. It mainly leads to neglect of the needs of disabled
people when designing and constructing environment, services and programmes,
available to non-disabled people.
In our second survey we included a number of questions concerning legal provisions
for participation and access. We also asked about various forms of enforcement
mechanisms. Generally, we found that the protection of the rights and freedoms of
disabled people is weak in many countries and in many areas. To our surprise we
found that there were a number of legal provisions, Government regulations and
practical routines, explicitly excluding various groups of disabled people from such
fundamental rights as access to court-of-law, political rights, property rights and the
right to parenthood and marriage. During the 1990's the international NGO's in the
disability field have started to involve more directly in the human rights area. They
have established committees on human rights and started to collect information on
4
problems and alleged violations. Their available information to a high degree confirms
the findings of our survey.
Mr. Chairman,
During the drafting of the World Programme of Action the issue of human rights for
disabled people was discussed. A section on human rights was included in the World
Programme. On the basis of this analysis, Mr. Leandro Despouy was appointed Special
Rapporteur to make a study on human rights and disabled people. His report (Human
Rights and Disabled Persons, Study Series No. 6), published at the beginning of the
1990's, has stimulated a series of other activities within the human rights area, which
are very encouraging. In particular, I should like to mention the General Comment No.
5 from 1994 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the increased
attention to the situation of disabled children, given by the Committee on the Rights of
the Child; the recently commenced work concerning disabled women by the
Commission on the Status of Women, and the resolution 1996/27, adopted by this
Commission. Together these initiatives signify important progress.
In addition to the above mentioned formal initiatives, a number of well-known
specialists in the human rights area have written papers on various aspects of human
rights and disability. I have studied these documents and I notice that human rights
specialists have developed a deeper understanding of the problems involved and about
how they relate to the protection and monitoring of the human rights.
During the 1990's some countries have adopted anti-discrimination legislation in the
disability field. The concept of "reasonable accommodation" is obviously becoming
the tool through which the different obstacles to participation for disabled people can
be handled. After the presentation of the above mentioned General Comment No 5, I
am convinced that more countries will consider taking new legislative initiatives. In
my opinion - and I have not consulted with my panel in this - we should accept the
concept of "reasonable accommodation" for the time being. It seems to be a politically
and economically manageable approach. Let us see how far we can come on the basis
of this method. Principally, however, it is important to emphasize that the human rights
of disabled people must not be compromised.
Mr. Chairman,
Our monitoring of the Standard Rules indicates that the two areas of social
development and human rights are communicating vessels. The more successful we are
in removing structural barriers in social development, the more opportunities for
persons with disabilities to enjoy their rights and freedoms. A stronger protection of
the rights of disabled persons will also increase the pressure for social change. Let us
5
pursue this dual approach as the best way to meet the challenges of the next century.
This means that we have to work both through social development channels and
through the human rights entities of the United Nations. As the second period of the
special monitoring mechanism in connection with the Standard Rules ends during the
year 2000, the Commission for Social Development will have to find new forms for
the promotion both of the Standard Rules and of other international guidelines.
Mr. Chairman,
Permit me also to comment on the future methods for the protection and monitoring of
the human rights of disabled people. As you might know, it was suggested, ten years
ago, that a convention on the rights of disabled people should be elaborated. This
proposal was turned down by the UN General Assembly. However, this matter might
be brought up again. My present position in this is that the further discussion on a
special convention should be postponed for the next few years. Let us see how far we
can get through already existing channels. What results will the further implementation
of the Standard Rules bring? What can we achieve through a strengthened and more
elaborate monitoring of the rights of disabled persons via the already existing
instruments? My forecast, however, is that the request for a special convention will be
brought back to the UN with much more force than ten years ago, if we do not obtain
tangible results within the next few years.
To conclude I should like to make a few recommendations, the purpose of which
would be to develop awareness, to increase efficiency and to create a closer co-
operation between the UN human rights entities, the Standard Rules monitoring
mechanism and the NGO's in the disability field.
1. A more distinct disability component should be elaborated to be included in all
monitoring activities of the UN human rights entities.
2. Some of the international organizations of disabled people have for some years
collected information on human rights issues. In my second survey I also got some
information about discriminatory legislation and practice. I suggest that these various
pieces of information should be compiled in a report, which I am sure would increase
awareness and knowledge.
3. International disability NGO's, to whom the human rights field is new, should be
invited to participate in the assistance and training, offered by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights.
4. More efficient forms for communication and co-operation between the international
NGO's in the disability field and the human rights entities should be developed.
6
5. Subject to finding a hosting country and funding, an international conference on
human rights and disability should be organized. The purpose should be to stimulate
the further development of ideas and methods and promote the exchange of
information between human rights experts and representatives of the organizations in
the disability field.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7
Rehabilitation International
a worldwide network of people with disabilities, service providers and government
agencies working to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities
Date: June 12, 1998
To:
Members, RI Executive Committee
From: Susan Parker, Secretary General
Subject: Proceedings of the Rio de Janeiro Meeting, April 16 and 17, 1998
Dear Colleagues,
Enclosed are the Proceedings from our April meeting. This is the first time we have compiled
Proceedings from an Executive Committee meeting; usually the format is to summarize decisions
made. Due to the importance of the issues, we have decided to take the step of presenting the
tone and content of the meeting to the maximum extent possible. Summaries of Decisions will
also be done and distributed, as is the custom, to the Assembly Members.
Enclosures
Accompanying the Proceedings are the written reports of the four (4) Vice Presidents, the RI
1998 Personnel Policies as revised, the Proposal from JSRD through Mr. Matsui, an offer made
during the April meeting, to establish an RI Home Page within established websites.
Latest RI/UNICEF Publications
You are also being sent one of the publications from the RI/UNICEF Collaboration, now in its
18th year. Volume 17 (English, French, and Spanish) of One in Ten and the Video Catalogue
Are the last two products from the contract just ending (October '96 through May '98). We have
agreed to compile, publish, and distribute Volumes 18 and 19 between July 1 and December 31,
1998, also in English, French, and Spanish. We are concerned about the distribution of these
products - please suggest how to better place these field-relevant tools in the hands of those of
could make the best use of them.
RI Un Activity: Human Rights and ILO
You heard in Rio about RI UN activity, including that done in collaboration with the UN Special
Rapporteur on Disability. The Special Rapporteur's presentation is enclosed, along with the
historic Resolution on Disability presented to the Member States of the Human Rights
Commission. Ireland and Denmark co-chaired these meetings; as such, Ireland was responsible
for the initial drafting of the above mentioned Resolution which drew 42 countries as co-sponsors.
25 E. 21st St., New York, NY 10010 USA / Phone: (212) 420-1500 / Fax: (212) 505-0871
TDD: (212) 420-1752 / Telex: 446412
RI collaborated with a sister international NGO, Inclusion International, to submit and deliver a
strong Joint Statement on 5 June in Geneva. We are calling on the ILO's decision-makers to
include disability in the all important Core Labor Standard named "Convention 111," linking the
Convention to another Convention named '159" which suggests to member states that countries
establish vocational rehabilitation and training. The Joint Statement is enclosed.
RI Members on E-mail
Please note that six (6) of you are on E-mail; accordingly, you have been placed on the RI address
book, along with other members of the RI family. You have also received the above mentioned
Joint Statement over the E-mail. Please advise if that transmittal did not arrive to you.
I look forward to working with you in Jerusalem. With best regards to all,
Susan
Susan
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
TO PANEL MEMBERS
Monica Bartley
Joshua Malinga
William Rowland
Penny Hartin
Garé Fabila de Zaldo
Victor Wahlström
Liisa Kauppinen
Eiichi Takada
Leonie Manns
Lex Frieden
For information: Headquarters of DPI, RI, Inclusion
International, WFD, WBU, WFPU, UN/Mr. Krassowski
Stockholm, 25 May 1998
Dear Panel Members,
This letter from me will include both information about some new
developments and items where I would like to have your input. I apologize for
writing a long letter this time, but this has to do with the fact that we meet rather
seldom at present.
1)
New Panel Member for RI
A short time ago I received information from RI headquarters that the new
member of the Panel for RI will be Mr. Lex Frieden, whom I am sure many of
you already know. For your information we attach the updated list of Panel
Members with relevant addresses. May we use this opportunity to ask you to
check your own address on the list and to add your e-mail address when
appropriate.
2)
Next panel meeting
As you remember I informed you in my. previous letter that the funding
situation does not permit a meeting in June. I therefore suggested two
alternative in October and November this year. It turns out that there is more
support for 20-22 October and I therefore suggest that we fix this date as the
date of the next panel meeting. Still one reservation has to be that we must solve
the funding problem.
In my previous letter I also asked you to hold the days in June for a possible
tele-conference. Those who have reacted to this suggestion have been rather
negative to this form of communication within the panel. I therefore suggest
that we skip the tele-conference and that we instead, on the basis of this letter,
start to communicate on a number of subjects. One purpose of this
communication would be to prepare for the panel meeting in October.
Among items that should be on the agenda in October, I can already identify the
following:
follow-up of human rights resolution by the UN Commission on Human
Rights
WHO involvement in the monitoring of the Standard Rules
World Bank development concerning disability policy
follow-up of ILO deliberations. on the report of labour market policies in the
disability field
IDF Standard Rules project
IDF World Disability Report
Concerning external participation there are indications that both the WHO and
the World Bank would like to participate in items concerning them. Also IDF
representatives have indicated a similar interest.
Please, consider carefully the items above. If you have comments and
especially if you have additions, please, let me know. Even if many of the
items have the character of reports, I am sure that we already have a full agenda.
We will also have to consider if three days (20-21-22) is enough.
3)
Panel presentation
It seems that the emphasis in my activities is moving from visits to countries
and over to collaborating with the UN agencies. Both with regard to the World
Bank, WHO and ILO, I think that the Panel of Experts could play a significant
role in the future. It is true that the Panel was set up to be a consultative body
within the monitoring of the Standard Rules. However, the mere fact that there
is an expert group composed of these six international organizations is of great
interest. The Panel could serve as an advisory body in relation to UN agencies
on a more general basis.
I therefore think that there is a need to present the Panel of Experts in writing. It
could be a very simple paper with the basic facts about the participating
organizations and personal data on the participating experts. If such paper is to
be prepared I need your cooperation. First of all I would like to have your
reactions concerning the idea as such. When you consider this I ask you to
bring the reports below concerning UN agencies into account.
4)
Disability Awareness in Action - DAA
As I am sure you know, DAA has a newsletter including a lot of valuable
information and with a fairly wide distribution. Together with Victor
Wahlström I have discussed with Rachel Hurst to find a form for more regular
reporting through DAA on the progress in our monitoring. This has now started,
which I hope you have noticed in the latest editions. I am sure that DAA would
welcome input from you concerning both developments in your regions and in
your organizations. If you consider this possibility you may either distribute
your information through our office or directly to DAA in London (fax: +44
171 821 9539).
5)
IDF matters
a) World Disability Report
Two weeks ago George Reid sent me the first draft of a lead article which is
to be signed by me. We have, in other words, now started the process of
dealing with texts for the World Disability Report. George told me that the
volume of work has turned out to be much bigger than he originally thought.
This is the main cause of delay. According to the present time schedule, the
Report will appear in connection with the International Disability Day in
December. This, of course, gives us much more time to complete a good job
in this important project. As the Panel should be involved in the consultation
process, I hope that you by now have heard from Mr. Reid and that you are in
communication with him.
b) Report on IDF Standard Rules project
A few weeks ago I received a report from IDF to Danida, which is a
presentation of the IDF activities during the first project year. I just want to
inform you that this report exists and I hope that you also have received it. If
not, I think it would be good if you ask for a copy from IDF in Geneva. The
report gives a good summary of the activities during the first year and
includes some useful information on which we can build.
6. Travel plan
I include a separate paper with a list of the travel activities which I will do
from now until the end of this year. Some of the indicated events are
preliminary, and in some cases there are additional ones which I have not
mentioned at all, as I consider them rather uncertain. As you can see from the
list, there is a clear dominance for visits to Eastern European countries.
Unfortunately, I must repeat the fact that I get very few invitations from
developing countries. Please, help me to change this.
7)
Development within WHO
As you remember, Dr. Pupulin of WHO, at our panel meeting last year
informed us that he would apply for fund for a number of projects in the
disability field. He has been quite successful in this and therefore a number of
projects are now being started from his rehabilitation unit. Two of these projects
concern us directly. I would therefore like to give you the following
information, which is based on a visit I made to Geneva about a week ago.
a) Assistance in monitoring the Standard Rules
WHO has now received resources in order to assist us in monitoring the
progress in the areas of Rules 2, 3, 4, and partially 19. This is exactly what
we wanted to happen, when we discussed WHO involvement in Geneva.
Dr. Pupulin has employed Ms. Eva Sandborg, who will have this project as
one of her main tasks. Eva is Swedish. Professionally she is a social
counselor and administrator. She was for six years president of the Swedish
National Association of Psoriasis. For some years she was an administrator at
the Ministry for Social Affairs and she has now, for nearly four years, been
the international relations officer at the Swedish handicap ombudsman. For
those of you who participated in the drafting of the Standard Rules, she may
be known as one of the participating delegates of the Swedish government.
Together with me, Eva will now prepare to make a survey on the situation in
the above mentioned rule areas. The survey will concern both governments
and NGOs. In this project she will work closely with me and with you in the
panel. The WHO survey will be a major item on the agenda of our next panel
meeting. Eva has just started to prepare for a questionnaire and she may
contact you even before our meeting in October. If you on your side have
ideas or comments you would like to pass on to her, you may, of course,
contact her directly. In that case I would appreciate a copy of your letter. Her
address is as follows: WHO, rehab. unit. CH-1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
b) Re-visiting CBR
I suppose you remember that we also discussed CBR at our meeting last year.
As a result of our discussion it was concluded that a new evaluation of CBR
should be made from a user perspective. WHO has now received money to
enter into such a project. The focus of this project will be to study the impact
of CBR on the living conditions of disabled people. Also this project will be
conducted in close cooperation with organizations of disabled people and
other NGOs involved in CBR.
At our discussions a few days ago, Dr. Pupulin, Eva Sandborg and I agreed that
priority should be given to the Standard Rules project during 1998. To be able
to summarize the results in time for my final report to the UN, it is necessary to
distribute the questionnaire during 1998. The CBR project will be prepared
during 1998, but mainly carried out in the next year. A number of other projects
are also being started now by Dr. Pupulin. I will ask him to prepare information
about these for the panel meeting in October.
8)
Human Rights and disabled persons
As I have stated before, I think that the discussion within the Commission on
Human Rights in March/April this year, will prove to be an event of historical
importance. I attach the final result of the deliberations, which is a rich and
powerful resolution on the issue. I hope that you will all carefully study the
contents and reflect on the possibilities that this resolution creates. One
important issue for your organizations to decide will be; should the six panel
organizations work together to follow up this resolution? My opinion is that
such a cooperation would be most useful. If the organizations decide to work
together, of course, the panel is a natural tool for this cooperation.
I suggest that you discuss this matter of responsibility for the follow up of
the human rights resolution within your organizations. But, at the same time
it would be bad to loose time. I therefore suggest that we within our group start
thinking about what could be done. What activities should be created? One
suggestion which was made among your representatives in Geneva, was that the
organizations should develop common understanding both of the basic issue of
human rights and disability, and of the implications of this resolution. It was
suggested that one special seminar could be arranged to work towards such
common understanding. In my speech I suggested a number of things, among
which were training activities for officials within the international organizations
of disabled people. My idea is that all members of your boards should have
basic knowledge about how the UN system works with human rights, and what
are our opportunities for influencing this system.
Of course all international activities must be based on what happens in the
countries. I therefore also think that the national affiliates should take up the
issue of human rights and plan for more systematic work in this field. Again
this means building up competence, where this is needed. It also means a need
to approach organizations working in the human rights area to seek cooperation
and common action. Internationally there is certainly also a need for closer
relations between your internationals and the main organizations working in the
human rights area. There are many actors, but there is also a network and a kind
of loosely composed forum to prepare major meetings within the United
Nations system. All these things are matters that should be studied further. As
we go along I will try to obtain more information which I will share with you. I
would suggest that important things you find out, are also circulated within the
panel. I hope you will find a way to bring this matter at your next executive
meeting.
Again, let me repeat that there is a need for us to communicate on this matter, as
it does not follow automatically that work in the human rights area is a natural
duty for me as Special Rapporteur serving another Commission and for you as
the panel of experts in the same are. As you can see in the resolution, the
Human Rights Commission has decided to cooperate with me and with its sister
Commission in the area of human rights of disabled people, and I think this is a
wise decision for the moment.
9)
Future promotion of disability matters within the UN system
Finally, in this long panel letter, I should like to bring up the question
concerning what should happen when our mandate terminates in the year 2000.
In my opinion there is a need both for the UN and for the responsible
international organizations in the disability field to start this discussion now. As
we, I as Rapporteur and you as panel members, have major role in the present
system, I think we have the duty to start this discussion. I therefore make an
attempt now and hope that you will respond and develop your views. Later on,
when we have penetrated the matter a little further, we should approach our
respective organizations for further deliberations. To start us off, here are some
initial reflections:
After six years of monitoring we will be able to look back on a period which
has offered more progress than previous periods. A considerable number of
countries will have reviewed their legislation towards a greater harmony with
international guidelines as in the Standard Rules. The position of
organizations of disabled people will have grown stronger in a number of
countries through their participation in national councils on disability and
through a clearer mandate to represent their groups. We will see some
indications of progress in our endeavour to include disability needs in
development cooperation. The World Bank will in all probability play an
important role in this development. UN Human Rights entities will start to
develop a monitoring of the situation of disabled people and disability will
have become a more established item on the agenda for them. Hopefully, this
will also mean that questions and indicators will be included in requests for
information from countries. These are examples of progress.
However, as we all know most things will remain to be done. There will be a
clearly noticeable gap in countries between adopted new laws and the
implementation of them in reality. There will also be a great need to transfer
new policies into concrete programmes which can really change the conditions
of life of disabled people. Our analyses of human rights will reveal conditions
which cannot be accepted and which have to be dealt with.
In one way, the situation on the international level will change. It will be
necessary to work both in the social development area and in the human rights
area within the UN system. Another conclusion is that it will be necessary to
continue the cooperation between international NGOs. Perhaps you will have to
consider including a number of other organizations in your cooperation, but if
this is done in a sensible way, it could only strengthen the cooperation.
Finally, I would like to reflect a little on the crucial issue on how to make sure
that disability stays on the agenda in the world community. By what method or
methods could we ensure that this will happen? To start our discussion I would
here just like to mention some actions that may be of interest in this context.
a) A separate monitoring mechanism continues in a way similar to what we
have today
b) The disability programme within the UN secretariat takes the full
responsibility for the future monitoring of the Rules and for the promotion
and coordination of development. This could perhaps be combined with an
NGO participation in the same way as now.
c) A function as international disability ombudsman is established. Such an
ombudsman would be within the human rights sphere, but could also have a
monitoring role within social development.
d) A convention on the rights of disabled people is elaborated. It will have a
monitoring mechanism attached to it in the same way as other conventions
have it now. There are pros and cons with this solution. What would be the
actual contents of an agreed convention? Another issue concerns the time
during which a convention is elaborated. It took ten years with the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. What happens in the meantime?
e) An interagency mechanism on disability is created within the UN system.
This could, of course, include an NGO participation. It could have a
secretariat of its own and it could be developed into an equivalent on the
international level of national disability councils.
Well, dear panel members, these were some concrete ideas on how to proceed
after the year 2000. I would welcome your comments and suggestions in this
area and I could make sure that your contributions will be circulated to all panel
members. I think it is important to start this discussion now, so that we can have
a really constructive session on this topic when we meet in October.
10)
Economic situation
I will end this long panel letter with information on our economic situation. As
far as I know, no new contributions have arrived after Mr. Desai's letter to
government. It is still early, but I must say that the situation frightens me a bit.
According to my calculation we have less than USD 30 000 now, which is all
for the whole three-year period. With my travel arrangements this sum will
diminish quickly, even if I have the possibility to use other sources in many of
the travel arrangements during this year. I appeal to each one of you to assist
in obtaining government contributions. You can do it by acting directly
towards your own governments, but you can also provide me with more ideas
on how we could operate this matter. I have written to a large number of
contacts and hope that there are activities going on just now around the globe.
However, the silence is more or less complete.
Well, panel members, this is the end of my letter. I hope I will hear from you in
all the different issues I have raised. Let us stay in touch!
Yours sincerely,
BL
Bengt Lindqvist
Panel of experts - updated list of April 1998
DPI
Monica Bartley, c/o Combined Disabilities Association
P.O. Box 220, Liguanea
Kingston 6, Jamaica, West Indies
Fax: + 1 809 926 4859
Joshua Malinga, SAFOD
130 Herbert Chitepo Street, 12th Avenue
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Fax: +263 9 74398
WBU
William Rowland, South African National Council for the Blind
PO Box 11149, Brooklyn
Pretoria 0011, South Africa
Fax: +27 12 346 1177, phone: +27 12 346 1171
Penny Hartin, CNIB, Quebec Division
3622 Rue Hochelaga,
Montreal Quebec H1W 1/1
Canada
Fax: +1 514 529 4662, phone: +1 514 529 2040
ILSMH
Gabriela Fabila de Zaldo, CONFE
Guadalupe 42, Lomas de San Angelinn
CP 01060 Mexico City, Mexico
Fax and phone +525 683 03 09
Victor Wahlström, FUB
Box 55615
S-102 14 Stockholm, Sweden
Fax: +46 8 678 8133, phone: +46-8 678 8131
WFD
Liisa Kauppinen, World Federation of the Deaf
P.O. Box 65
SF-00401, Helsinki, Finland
Fax: +358 9 580 3770, phone +358 9 58031
Eiichi Takada, WFD Regional Secretariat in Asia and the Pacific
SK Bldg. 8F
130 Yamabuki-cho
Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 162, JAPAN
Fax: +81 3 3267 3445, phone: +81 3 3268 8847
RI
Lex Frieden (RI Vice President for North America and Senior Vice President=
The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR)
1333 Moursund
Houston, Texas 77030 USA
Fax +713 799 7095, phone +713 797 5283, fax
E-mail: [email protected]
WFPU
Leonie Manns, WFPU
P.O. Box 668, Rozelle 2039
AUSTRALIA
Fax: +61 2 9810 8145, phone: +61 2 9555 8388
E-mail: [email protected]
Transcription of Resolution adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, fifty-fourth
session
Agenda item 15
1998 Human rights of persons with disabilities
The Commission on Human Rights,
Mindful of the pledge made by States, under the Charter of the United Nations, to take action
jointly and separately, in cooperation with the United Nations, in order to promote a better
quality of life, full employment, and conditions for economic and social progress and
development,
Recalling that all persons with disabilities have the right to protection against discrimination
and to full and equal enjoyment of their human rights, as laid down inter alia in the provisions
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women and of the International Labour Organization Convention No.
159,
Recalling also the report of the Secretary-General, to the General Assembly on the third
review and appraisal of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons
(A52/351).
Reaffirming the continuing validity and value of the World Programme of Action concerning
Disabled Persons, adopted by the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session, which
provides a firm and innovative framework for promoting and protecting the human rights of
persons with disabilities,
Mindful of the unreserved reaffirmation in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,
and by the Fourth World Conference on Women of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms of persons with disabilities, as well as the recognition in the programme of Action
of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Programme of Action
of the World Summit for Social Development of a pressing need for, inter alia, the realization
of the goals of full participation and equality for persons with disabilities,
Reaffirming its resolution 1996/27 of 19 April 1996 on the human rights of persons with
disabilities,
Noting the report of the special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for
Persons with Disabilities (A/52/56. annex),
Reaffirming Economic and Social Council resolutions 1997/19 on equalization of
opportunities for persons with disabilities and 1997/20 on children with disabilities,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993, by which the Assembly
adopted the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities,
Recalling also General Assembly resolution 52/107 of 12 December 1997, in which the
Assembly called for the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms by children with disabilities,
Welcoming initiatives to hold international conferences relating to persons with disabilities,
particularly the holding of the Fifth World Assembly of Disabled People's International at
Mexico City in December 1998, on the theme "Towards an inclusive twenty-first century",
Re-emphasizing the responsibility of Governments for removing or facilitating the removal of
barriers and obstacles to the full integration and participation of persons with disabilities in
society, and supporting their efforts to develop national policies to reach specific objectives,
Recognizing the contribution of non-governmental organizations, especially organizations of
persons with disabilities, in the global effort to bring about full participation and equality for
persons with disabilities and to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with
disabilities,
Noting the reports of Mr. Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights publication Human Rights and Disabled Persons, in which
international mechanisms for the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons
with disabilities, such as an ombudsman, are proposed,
Noting also the International Labour Organization survey of the law and practice of States
parties to Convention No. 159,
Concerned at the extent of disabilities caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel
mines, particularly among civilian populations,
1. Recognizes that any violation of the fundamental principle of equality and any
discrimination or other negative differential treatment of persons with disabilities inconsistent
with the United Nations Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities is an infringement of the human rights of persons with disabilities;
2. Calls upon the Secretary-General to maintain the integrity of programmes within the United
Nations system relating to persons with disabilities, including the United Nations Voluntary
Fund on Disability, in order to promote the rights and the equalization of opportunities and
full inclusion within societies of persons with disabilities;
3. Welcomes the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on disability of the
Commission for Social Development, and thanks him for addressing the Commission on
Human Rights in the year of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights;
4. Invites the Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development to address the
Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-sixth session;
5. Takes note of the global survey of government action on disability policy published in 1997
by the Office of the Special Rapporteur on disability;
6. Calls upon States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, to meet his requests for
information and to provide relevant data to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights;
7. Encourages non-governmental organizations active in the protection and promotion of the
human rights of persons with disabilities to cooperate closely with each other, and to provide
relevant information to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;
8. Also encourages such non-governmental organizations to avail themselves of the technical
assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist them to
function effectively in the human rights sphere;
9. Encourages Governments to support non-governmental organizations active in the
promotion and protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities;
10. Recognizes the right of persons with disabilities, individually and collectively, to form
and become members of organizations of persons with disabilities and the right of such
organizations to speak for and act as legitimate representatives of their members;
11. Encourages all the human rights treaty monitoring bodies to respond positively to its
invitation to monitor the compliance of States with their commitments under the relevant
human rights instruments in order to ensure full enjoyment of those rights by persons with
disabilities, and urges Governments to cover fully the question of the human rights of persons
with disabilities in complying with reporting obligations under the relevant United Nations
human rights instruments;
12. Invites all special rapporteurs, in the course of carrying out their mandates, to take into
account the situation and human rights of persons with disabilities;
13. Urges Governments to implement, with the cooperation and assistance of relevant
organizations, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities, having particular regard for the needs of women, children and persons with
developmental and psychiatric disabilities in order to guarantee their human dignity and
integrity;
14. Invites Governments and the private sector to contribute to the United Nations Voluntary
Fund on Disability, with a view to providing additional support for the implementation of the
Standard Rules, within the context of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled
Persons;
15. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure appropriate support for the effective
functioning of the Long-Term Strategy to Implement the World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons to the Year 2000 and Beyond;
16. Expresses grave concern that situations of armed conflict have especially devastating
consequences for the human rights of persons with disabilities;
17. Welcomes increased international efforts in various forums with respect to anti-personnel
mines, and in this regard takes due note of the conclusion of the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction and its implementation by those States that become parties to it, as well as
of the amended Mines Protocol of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use
of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to
have Indiscriminate Effects
18. Calls upon all States and relevant United Nations bodies, including the United Nations
Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Clearance, to contribute on an ongoing basis to
international mine clearance efforts, and urges States to take further action to promote gender-
and age-appropriate mine-awareness programmes and rehabilitation, thereby reducing the
number and the plight of victims;
19. Encourages the development of programmes for persons with disabilities to enable them
to develop their potential to fully participate in all aspects of society;
20. Requests the Secretary-General to report biennially to the General Assembly on the
progress of efforts to ensure the full recognition and enjoyment of the human rights of persons
with disabilities;
21. Also requests the Secretary-General to make available to the Commission at its fifty-fifth
session the latest report of the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission for Social
Development on his monitoring of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunity for
Persons with Disabilities;
22. Calls upon the United Nations Development Programme and all intergovernmental
institutions for development cooperation to integrate disability measures into their mainstream
activities;
23. Requests that all United Nations organizations and specialized agencies address the
problem that exist in creating equal opportunities for persons with disabilities at all levels;
24. Encourages Governments to work towards developing appropriate education policies and
practices for children and adults with disabilities, to include persons with disabilities in
strategies and plans aimed at eradicating poverty, promoting education and enhancing
employment, and to take account of the right to persons with disabilities to housing, shelter,
transport and supportive equipment;
25. Invites the International Labour Organization, in cooperation with governments and
intergovernmental bodies, to take the lead internationally in formulating policies and
strategies that will lead to equal job opportunities;
26. Invites Governments and non-governmental organizations to collect and collate
appropriate information and data on persons with disabilities, to assist in the formulation of
effective policies to address issues of equality;
27. Recommends that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights take account of
information on legislation affecting the human rights of persons with disabilities which has
been collected by the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission for Social
Development;
28. Reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that the human rights of persons with disabilities
and their concerns for full participation in all aspects of society continue to be addressed in all
of its work;
29. Decides to continue to consider the question at its fifty-sixth session under the agenda
item entitled "Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities".
TRAVEL PLAN for Special Rapporteur
end of May - 15 December 1998
26-31 May Japan, participation in seminar concerning elderly and meeting of
DPI Japan
9-11 June Russia, planning of national seminar on disability policy to take
place in 1999
16-20 Aug. Armenia, participation at conference on disability policy and visits
to government and organizations
26-27 Aug. The Netherlands, participation at Inclusion International World
Assembly
5-10 Oct. Bulgaria, participation at seminar and talks with government
20-22 Oct. Panel meeting, either in New York or Geneva
26-30 Oct. Rumania, participation at a conference on disabled children and
talks with government
2-6 Nov. South Africa, preliminary date for human rights conference
4-12 Dec. Mexico and Costa Rica, participation at DPI congress and at
seminar on disability policy in Costa Rica
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Mr. Lex Frieden
TIRR
1333 Moursund
Houston, Texas 77030
USA
Date: 22 May 1998
Dear Lex,
Some weeks ago I received the pleasant information that you have been
appointed member of my panel of experts, monitoring the Standard Rules.
Naturally, I am delighted about this news.
For your information I attach a list of the panel members and the minutes from
our meeting in May 1997. Of course, you are welcome to put questions and
make comments in order to bring you update with what we are doing.
Once again, I am delighted to have you in the panel and I hope you will find the
necessary time for participating actively.
Yours sincerely,
in
Bengt Lindqvist
UN Standard Rules Monitoring Project
MINUTES
from meeting between UN Special Rapporteur on Disability and Panel of
Experts, at International Disability Centre, Ferney-Voltaire, France
22-25 May 1997
Present: See attachment 1.
§1. Opening
In his opening remarks, Mr. Bengt Lindqvist wished all panel members
welcome to the meeting. In particular Mr. Lindqvist addressed Ms. Leonie
Manns and Ms. Carol-lee Aquiline, who were both deputized to participate in
the panel meeting by their organizations. He also welcomed attending observers
from three of the six panel organizations.
Mr. Lindqvist reminded the panel members that this meeting constituted the last
meeting of the first period. It was therefore important to use the meeting for
reflections and discussions concerning experiences by panel members during
this first period. As the UN Commission for Social Development has
recommended to ECOSOC a continuation of the monitoring mechanism, Mr.
Lindqvist emphasized that considerable time during this meeting should also be
used for making plans and preparations for a second monitoring period.
Mr. Hans Hoegh from the International Disability Foundation, IDF, warmly
welcomed the participants to the International Disability Centre and emphasized
that he was looking forward to the joint discussion to be held during the
meeting and to future fruitful cooperation.
§2. Procedural matters
Under this heading the panel decided to consider the following three different
items:
a) The chairing function of the meeting
The panel decided to have one person chairing each of the four days of the
meeting. The following panel members were elected to chair:
Joshua Malinga - Thursday, 22 May
William Rowland - Friday, 23 May
Garé Fabila de Zaldo - Saturday, 24 May
Leonie Manns - Sunday, 25 May
b) Secretary of the meeting
Ms. Eva Sagström was elected to take minutes of the meeting.
In this context panel members expressed their appreciation to Ms. Sayeed for
having taken minutes during previous meetings.
c) Approval of agenda
The draft agenda, circulated by Mr. Lindqvist, was adopted with the following
additions;
- Follow-up of meetings in New York in February 1997
- The issue of providing good examples
- How to approach governments in countries with extreme poverty
d) Programme for the four days
The panel approved the suggested programme for the four days of meeting.
Thursday should be dedicated to a meeting with WHO, Friday to meetings with
ILO, the Human Rights Centre and the IDF, Saturday and Sunday used for the
actual panel deliberations.
§3. Report by Rapporteur on present situation
Mr. Lindqvist started by summarizing the recommendations in the minutes from
the previous panel meetings. He continued by pointing to the recommendations
he had made to the Commission for Social Development in his final report.
Finally he presented the Commission resolution (E/CN.5/1997/L.59), in which
the Commission among other things recommends a continuation of the
monitoring mechanism. The actual decision concerning a future monitoring
activity will be taken by ECOSOC, holding its meeting in June/July this year. A
draft of Mr. Lindqvist's report to the Commission had been circulated in
November to panel members. The official, finalized report by Mr. Lindqvist
together with the Commission resolution was handed out to panel members. It
was found that most of the recommendations made by Mr. Lindqvist had been
taken up and adopted by the Commission for Social Development.
Mr. Lindqvist reported that the Swedish government was initiating an activity
to consider funding a second monitoring period in connection with the
ECOSOC meeting in July.
Mr. Lindqvist reported on the situation concerning the publication of results
from the large, second survey. The Rapporteur has applied for approval by the
UN Publications Board to publish a book with government replies. In addition
to this he intends to issue five reports on NGO replies and comparisons between
government and NGO replies. The Swedish government has promised to fund
these publications. Mr. Lindqvist hoped that the permission from the
Publications Board will be obtained in time to publish the book before the
ECOSOC meeting in July.
After some discussion on various items the panel approved the report.
§4. Experiences of the first monitoring period
Both the Rapporteur, all panel members and observers reported on their
experiences during the first monitoring period 1994-1997. Many valuable
observations were made, of which the following may be noted as of a more
general interest:
*
One difficulty during the first period had been to obtain invitations for
discussions from individual governments
*
The cooperation with NGOs in connection with Rapporteur's activities should
be further strengthened
*
An evaluative component for the whole process of monitoring should be
established
*
The second resolution passed by the Commission for Social Development on
disabled children should be observed and used during a second period
The integration of the Standard Rules guidelines into the ESCAP (Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) agenda for action should be
obtained
*
The World Federation of Psychiatric Users must be given more resources to
be able to actively participate in a second monitoring period. A letter to the
Australian government was drafted during the meeting.
*
In Africa further efforts should be made to establish disability policies on the
agenda. Activities should build on cooperation with OAU (Organisation of
African Unity) and ARI (African Rehabilitation Institute).
*
Rapporteur should write a position paper with reflections on experiences
during the first period
Panel members must assume the duty to keep the Standard Rules on the
agenda of their organizations
*
Generally, panel members should be utilized more in monitoring activities
*
Results of the second survey should be used as launching pad for initiatives
during a second period
*
We must better learn how to capitalize on the powerful networks of the six
organizations and their grassroots movements
*
It is important to take into account that we know very little about more than
50% of UN Member States
*
It is necessary to make both gender and child aspects more visible in future
monitoring
Perhaps Disability Awareness in Action (DAA) and its information channels
could be involved in future monitoring activities
*
The possibilities of using Internet for communication and information
exchange should be considered
§5. Guidelines for work relations within the monitoring mechanism
Mr. Lindqvist handed out a second draft proposal for guidelines concerning
work relations between Special Rapporteur, panel members and their
organizations. All views and suggestions presented by panel members before
the meeting had been incorporated. After a short discussion John Stott and
Victor Wahlström were asked to edit the second draft and to incorporate the
new suggestions.
The draft suggested by Stott and Wahlström was adopted by the panel (see
attachment 2). It was decided that the guidelines concerning the Rapporteur and
the panel members would be put into practice immediately on a provisional
basis. The guidelines as a whole should be sent to the headquarters of the six
organizations for their approval before the first of November.
§6. Draft work programme for 1997-2000
The panel considered the draft work programme made by the Special
Rapporteur and decided to make the following recommendations for changes
and additions:
*
References should be made to relevant documents like the Habitat 2 report,
the Beijing report, resolutions by the Commission for Social Development at
the appropriate places in the work programme
Under the item of special issues, items of special interest to different groups
should be mentioned, like literature in Braille, sign language, easy reading
versions, clear print and devices for speech impaired
Attitudes as an obstacle to participation should be considered
The area of housing and shelter should be brought into the monitoring. A
good basis for guidelines will be found in the report from Habitat 2
The fact that there is no Rule on transport should be considered
*
As new items on the work programme access within the UN system and
employment of disabled people within the UN should be added
§7. Draft cost plan for activities 1997-2000
The panel considered the proposal by the Rapporteur for a cost plan concerning
activities during a second monitoring period. It was decided to recommend:
*
The honorarium for the Rapporteur should be increased and be USD 50 000
annually
*
Funding for three panel meetings should be included in the cost plan
*
Additional funding for regional seminars should be applied for through the
UN Voluntary Trust Fund
§8. Selecting subject areas for future surveys
After an introduction by the Rapporteur, the panel discussed at length various
alternative strategies for selecting subject areas. It was noted that the ILO
general survey on disability policy in employment is of great interest and covers
Rule 7 on employment, partly Rules 8, 15, 19 and 4. The planned joint activities
with WHO will bring further information on Rules 2, 3, 4 and 19. The panel
was of the opinion that UNESCO in addition to working with education should
take increased responsibility for disability policy in the area of culture and
information. Concerning the situation of children with disabilities the
Rapporteur should cooperate both with the Committee monitoring the
convention on the rights of the child and with UNICEF. Concerning the gender
aspect cooperation should be initiated with the Commission on the Status of
Women. It was agreed that the Rapporteur should send a letter to the
Commission on the Status of Women asking for cooperation. Kicki Nordström
should assist in drafting this letter. In addition to this it was agreed within the
panel to make the following recommendations:
*
Rule 9 on family life and personal integrity should be considered for more in
depth analysis
*
Culture and information (Rules 5 and 10) should be included in future surveys
One strategically important area is the position of organizations of persons
with disabilities. It should be considered in future surveys
*
The outcome of human rights findings from the second survey should be
followed up. The Rapporteur will make a paper with a summary of the findings
from the second survey
*
Employment and CBR activities will be considered again after the final report
by the ILO and the outcome of the evaluation of CBR by the WHO
*
The panel agreed to come back to the discussion on selecting subject areas for
further surveys when having had access to the full report from the second
survey
*
A number of "burning issues" were raised in connection with this discussion:
- eugenics, euthanasia and cochlea implants for deaf people are examples of
such areas. Mainly these areas were identified as possible future areas for
cooperation between the INGOs.
The panel further discussed the establishment of an evaluative component. It
was agreed that such a component could be built on two dimensions: The
establishment and strength of organizations of disabled people and the
establishment of necessary government policies in the disability field.
§9. Rapporteur activities during 1997
The Rapporteur had presented a list of his travel activities during 1997. The
panel discussed further activities to be put into this schedule. Visits to South
Africa, the Caribbean and ESCAP were mentioned.
§10. Cooperation with the IDF Standard Rules project
As the panel of experts together with the Special Rapporteur serve as advisory
board for the IDF Standard Rules project it was of particular importance for the
panel to discuss issues of cooperation with Hans Hoegh and his colleagues. The
results are recorded in attachment 3.
§11. Panel and NGO activities in support of the UN monitoring
Discussions related to this was referred to item 6: Draft work programme for
1997-2000. Consequently, the agenda item 11 was considered already dealt
with.
§12. Other business
a) Follow-up of activities in New York in February 1997
The notes and minutes from the meetings held by INGOs in connection with the
meeting of the Commission for Social Development were studied and
discussed. It was noted that on the whole these activities by the INGOs had
been highly successful. The highlight of these activities was the meeting with
the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan. Correspondence following this
meeting was found to be of great value.
William Rowland reported that a new ECOSOC resolution will solve the
problem of obtaining consultative status within the UN system. All the
international NGOs in the disability field will be organizations in special status
with the UN system.
b) Good examples
It was agreed that there is a great need to distribute information about good
examples and good practice around the world. The difficult question is to
establish an activity of this kind and to find resources for it. It was agreed that
the matter should be discussed with Rachel Hurst at the Disability Awareness in
Action. Perhaps the network of this organization could be utilized in this
context.
c) How to approach governments of countries with extreme poverty
After some discussion the panel expressed the view that there is no available
good approach, especially designed for this situation. To a large extent the
approach has to be formed from case to case. It was emphasized that the
reception by governments to a large extent depends on how they perceive the
role and importance of the representative.
§13. Next panel meeting
The panel discussed the time and venue of next panel meeting. No definite
recommendations were made, but it was felt that a meeting should be held early
1998. One attractive possibility would be to hold the meeting in connection
with the meeting of the Commission for Human Rights, at which the Special
Rapporteur will be invited to speak. Another idea is to hold a forthcoming
meeting in connection with one of the regional seminars.
§14. Closing
The Rapporteur thanked the panel members and observers for their very active
participation during the four days of the meeting. He also thanked the
interpreters and the staff of the IDF for providing excellent meeting facilities for
the panel. After having promised that he and Eva Sagström will do their best to
issue the minutes and all relevant documents as soon as possible, the
Rapporteur declared the meeting closed.
June 1997
Eva Sagström / Bengt Lindqvist
Attachment 1.
Present at panel meeting in Ferney Voltairer, 22-25 May 1997
UN Special Rapporteur's office
Bengt Lindqvist
Eva Sagström
Panel of Experts
Monica Bartley, DPI
Joshua Malinga, DPI
Garé Fabila de Zaldo, Inclusion International
Victor Wahlström, Inclusion International
John Stott, RI
Penny Hartin, WBU
William Rowland, WBU
Carol-Lee Aquiline (deputized), WFD
Mohamad Sazali Shaari, WFD
Leonie Manns (deputized) WFPU
Sign language interpreters
Wan Zuraidah Abu
Amanda Lyons
Mindy Brown-Wagenaar
Observers
Kicki Nordström, WBU
Susan Parker, RI
Zuhy Sayeed, Inclusion International
Attachment 2.
Monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules
Second period - 1997-2000
Guidelines for work relations between the Special Rapporteur, Panel Members
and their organizations
Adopted by the panel in Ferney Voltaire, 22-25 May 1997
A - The Special Rapporteur will:
1) At the beginning of the period draft a work programme and a cost plan for
the activities during the second monitoring period. Panel members will be
consulted before adoption.
2) Consult with panel members before decisions are made in major issues.
3) Be responsible for the preparation of panel meetings. Panel members will be
consulted about time, venue and items on the agenda for each panel meeting.
4) Send copies of his communication with the panel to the headquarters of the
six internationals.
5) Use fax as the main channel of communication, until all panel members have
access to e-mail.
6) Will cooperate on a regional basis with panel members in the promotion of
the Standard Rules.
7) Will cooperate with NGO's when making visits to countries.
8) Will continously keep panel members informed about his traveling and about
the progress of the monitoring project.
9) Will consult panel members in his reporting on progress to the UN system.
B - Panel members will:
1) Represent their organizations in panel consultations.
2) Give advice to the Special Rapporteur and, when appropriate, to the UN
Secretariat on various aspects of the monitoring project.
3) Inform their organizations of the work in the monitoring project.
4) As far as possible take initiatives to promote the implementation of the
Standard Rules within their regions and their organizations.
5) Assist the Special Rapporteur in selecting countries for visits and in
obtaining invitations from the governments concerned.
6) Send copies of their communication with the Special Rapporteur to their
organizations.
7) Be in active communication with the Special Rapporteur and respond within
given time-frames to requests for information.
8) On specific occasions represent the monitoring project at the invitation of the
Special Rapporteur and when travel authorization has been obtained from the
UN Secretariat.
C - International NGO's will:
1) Use available opportunities to promote the Standard Rules in their work, by
providing opportunities within their meetings and conferences for discussion
and information on the Standard Rules project and by supporting their member
associations in influencing their governments nationally, regionally, and on the
global level.
2) Involve their respective panel members in the promotion activities of the
Standard Rules.
3) Support panel members with information and advice in their work as
members of the panel.
4) Collaborate between the six INGOs, where possible, in promoting the
implementation of the Standard Rules.
5) Facilitate monitoring activities by providing contacts with their national and
regional affiliates.
6) Improve the communication between the INGO's by:
- Exchanging work programmes for the second monitoring period,
- Exchanging magazines and other information of interest
Attachment 3.
Notes from meetings between the Panel of Experts, UN agencies, and the
International Disability Foundation
Discussions with WHO
Representative of WHO: Dr. Enrico Pupulin, Rehab Unit
Three items were discussed during this session:
1 - Participation at WHO regional workshops
2 - CBR evaluation
3 - Rethinking care
1. Participation at WHO regional workshops
*
Dr. Pupulin will send dates for the different workshops to the Special
Rapporteur's office, and the Rapporteur will try to find panel members,
preferrably in the respective regions. As decided by the meeting, the Rapporteur
will ask Dr. Pupulin if Ms. Garé Fabila de Zaldo can be given the opportunity to
participate in the first workshop in Venezuela in June 1997.
*
Dr. Pupulin will send copies of the 4 workshop programmes to the Special
Rapporteur's office.
*
William Rowland and Monica Bartley will prepare questions to address the
countries participating in the workshops and send the material to the
Rapporteur's office before 15 June 1997.
*
Victor Wahlström and Susan Parker will prepare a statement to be used as a
basis for participation at the workshops. The material will be sent to the
Rapporteur's office before the end of June, circulated for views to panel
members and finalized before the end of August.
*
The Rapporteur will send a letter to the Director-General of WHO, requesting
cooperation in the implementation of the Rules of concern for WHO.
2. CBR evaluation
*
Dr. Pupulin will circulate a draft evaluation design through the Rapporteur's
office to the panel members.
* The panel members will give views before the end of September.
* Dr. Pupulin will circulate reports to panel members through the Rapporteur's
office on the joint multisectorial CBR conference in Abidjan.
3. "Rethinking care"
* Dr. Pupulin will circulate a draft programme on a world conference on
rethinking care.
* The panel members will give views on the programme and suggest
background studies, titel of study and name of performer/writer before 15 June
1997.
* The INGOs will be invited by Dr. Pupulin to present background papers with
their philosophies and observed trends before the end of October.
* Dr. Pupulin will invite to a small working group (November 1997) preparing
a background document before the conference on rethinking care, built on the
background papers.
*
Dr.Pupulin will invite the INGOs to suggest countries to organize preparatory
seminars on rethinking care, provided that the countries can fund the activity.
There will be two preparatory seminars in each region.
Discussions with ILO
Representatives of ILO: Gerd Jung and Marc Dupont
* ILO has distributed a questionnaire to all member governments on labour
market policy and disability. The questions cover areas in rule 4, 7, 8, 15 and
19. 80 governments have replied up to now. More government replies are
expected in connection with the ILO conference in June this year. A committee
of experts will consider the first draft survey report in November 1997.
*
ILO representatives will consider a proposal to involve the Rapporteur in the
drafting of their survey report.
ILO representatives will study the idea of holding an NGO seminar on the
outcome of the survey during the drafting process.
The INGOs holding consultative status with ILO can participate in the ILO
conference in 1998, which will consider the survey report.
*
ILO is holding an annual meeting with regional representatives. One person
representing the Standard Rules project will be invited to participate in the
forthcoming meeting.
ILO representatives presented reseach and technical cooperation projects.
GLADNET (Global Applied Disability Research Network) will become an
independent association this year. Also NGOs can become members.
ILO representatives will circulate a list of Gladnet activities.
*
It was noted that the ILO (and UNESCO) should be involved in the WHO
evaluation of CBR, as earlier discussed with the panel.
*
Conference on return to work: ILO together with some governments is
preparing a world conference on "Return to work" to be held in Washington in
1998. ILO will circulate information to panel members.
Meetings with representatives of the Human Rights Centre
*
Mr. Ovsiouk, responsible for disability issues within the Human Rights
Centre, informed the meeting about ongoing activities. Disability is integrated
in general activities as there is no special mechanism for monitoring the human
rights of disabled people.
*
Mr. Ovsiouk drew the attention of the meeting to two instruments of
particular interest - the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The General Comment No. 5, from
November 1994, issued by the Committee monitoring the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, contains an interesting analysis on
disability rights.
The Committee monitoring the Child Convention has decided to make the
rights of disabled children the theme of this year's meeting. The meeting will
take place 6 October 1997.
The Commission on Human Rights (main UN commission in the human
rights area) has decided to invite the Special Rapporteur on monitoring the
Standard Rules to speak at its meeting in 1998.
The Commission on Human Rights has requested the Secretary General of the
UN to report biennially to the General Assembly on human rights and
disability.
*
To get access to information and reports on the situation of disabled children,
the Rapporteur will write to the Human Rights Centre and request permission to
study the reports of the committee on the Child Convention.
The organizations holding consultative status with ECOSOC may attend
meetings of the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Ovsiouk indicated the following two major ways for NGOs in the
disability field to feed the Human Rights Centre with information on the
situation of disabled people; a) to participate actively in the meetings of the
Commissions, b) to send written statements on the situation to the Human
Rights Centre.
Mr. Ovsiouk offered to make a fact sheet on human rights and disabled
persons. The panel appreciated and welcomed the offer.
It would be valuable if national affiliates of the six INGOs requested their
governments to report on the human rights situation of disabled people to the
various monitoring committees.
Meeting with acting High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mr. Ralph
Zacklin
* Mr. Zacklin expressed his satisfaction that disability is finally on the human
rights agenda of the UN. The task now is to elaborate this issue. The
responsibility of the Human Rights Centre is to serve governments. However, if
it gets the mandate from the Commission it may perform activities in the NGO
field. Thus the Centre could involve in human rights activities in cooperation
with INGOs in the disability field. The participation by the Rapporteur in the
next year's meeting of the Human Rights Commission is, according to Mr.
Zacklin, of tremendous importance.
Mr. Zacklin emphasized that this event should be followed up by a resolution.
*
The Centre will distribute, through the office of the Rapporteur, a draft plan of
activities to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration.
There will be opportunities for NGOs to participate.
*
Finally, Mr. Zacklin advised the organizations involved in human rights
activities to develop relations with the various monitoring and controlling
mechanisms.
Discussions with the International Disability Foundation, IDF
Mr. Hans Hoegh and Ms. Ingrid Sickler presented the IDF Centre and the IDF
Standard Rules programme entitled "Towards awareness and action". This
project will create national structures in twelve countries in Africa and Asia to
promote the implementation of the Standard Rules. The "TAA" project should
in all countries be supplementary to government activities. The ultimate goal of
the project is to make governments implement national policies and
programmes built on the Standard Rules.
*
It was pointed out that creating separate projects with a life of their own must
be avoided.
*
Concern was expressed about what will happen after the two years of the
project.
*
Concern was expressed that the project is an enormous task to be undertaken
in two years.
*
It is important that panel members in a region, involved in the project
activities, should have equal status.
*
The role of the panel as a whole will be to deliver views on general policies.
*
Panel members in Africa and the Asia/Pacific region respectively will
participate more directly in the "TAA" activities.
*
The IDF will make a newsletter regularly on the progress of the project.
*
Task force reports should be circulated as information to all panel members.
*
It was emphasized that an evaluation mechanism should be established.
*
Findings and observations from the UN monitoring of the Standard Rules
should be made available for use in the IDF Standard Rules project.
Panel of experts - updated list of April 1998
DPI
Monica Bartley, c/o Combined Disabilities Association
P.O. Box 220, Liguanea
Kingston 6, Jamaica, West Indies
Fax: + 1 809 926 4859
Joshua Malinga, SAFOD
130 Herbert Chitepo Street, 12th Avenue
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Fax: +263 9 74398
WBU
William Rowland, South African National Council for the Blind
PO Box 11149, Brooklyn
Pretoria 0011, South Africa
Fax: +27 12 346 1177, phone: +27 12 346 1171
Penny Hartin, CNIB, Quebec Division
3622 Rue Hochelaga,
Montreal Quebec H1W 1/1
Canada
Fax: +1 514 529 4662, phone: +1 514 529 2040
ILSMH
Gabriela Fabila de Zaldo, CONFE
Guadalupe 42, Lomas de San Angelinn
CP 01060 Mexico City, Mexico
Fax and phone +525 683 03 09
Victor Wahlström, FUB
Box 55615
S-102 14 Stockholm, Sweden
Fax: +46 8 678 8133, phone: +46-8 678 8131
WFD
Liisa Kauppinen, World Federation of the Deaf
P.O. Box 65
SF-00401, Helsinki, Finland
Fax: +358 9 580 3770, phone +358 9 58031
Eiichi Takada, WFD Regional Secretariat in Asia and the Pacific
SK Bldg. 8F
130 Yamabuki-cho
Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 162, JAPAN
Fax: +81 3 3267 3445, phone: +81 3 3268 8847
RI
Lex Frieden (RI Vice President for North America and Senior Vice President=
The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR)
1333 Moursund
Houston, Texas 77030 USA
Fax +713 799 7095, phone +713 797 5283, fax
E-mail: [email protected]
WFPU
Leonie Manns, WFPU
P.O. Box 668, Rozelle 2039
AUSTRALIA
Fax: +61 2 9810 8145, phone: +61 2 9555 8388
E-mail: [email protected]
713P
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Child Convention and the Standard Rules
Speech by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist at the 6 October 1997 discussion day of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child
Distinguished Participants,
"Not until the creation and maintenance of decent conditions of life for all men
has been recognized and accepted as a common obligation of all men and all
countries, not until then shall we, with a certain degree of justification, be able
to speak about mankind as civilized." This was said by Albert Einstein in 1945,
when the world was waking up from the nightmare of the second world war.
Today is 1997 and more than 50 years have passed. The world as a whole has
become much richer in material resources, and we have scientific knowledge
and technical means, which humanity could not even dream of 50 years ago.
Still we can not speak about mankind as civilized, not with this absurd inequity
in wealth distribution, not with the existing poverty and social deprivation in
large parts of the world, not with this mad waste of both human and material
resources on instruments of war and destruction.
One of the most urgent needs in the area of social development concerns our
children. The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child means a
significant increase in awareness and a decisive reinforcement of tools and
resources in the struggle for better conditions. In our efforts to improve the
conditions of children generally, we must not forget those children with
disabilities. We who are here today know, however, that this often happens. It
is a sad fact that millions of disabled children are Excluded from development
and progress.
For this reason I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to focus on the
situation of disabled children, provided by the Committee on the Rights of the
Child and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is our duty to use this
important event for finding new ways of cooperation.
In my capacity as Special Rapporteur on disability, responsible for monitoring
the implementation of the UN Standard Rules, I will use the time available for
two things. I want to share with you some observations concerning similarities
and differences in the approach used in the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and the Standard Rules. I also want to suggest a few areas, where we
could, and actually also should, cooperate.
To make my presentation understandable, I want to start by explaining the
goals and main components of modern disability policy, such as it is outlined in
recent UN documents.
The theme adopted for the International Year of disabled persons - Full
Participation and Equality - has been established and recognized as the overall
goal of disability policy. Throughout the years it has become more and more
evident that we, to achieve this goal, must deal with obstacles to participation,
"preventing persons with disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms
and making it difficult for them to participate fully in the activities of their
societies" (Standard Rules, Introduction para 15). In other words it is apparent
that we, in disability policy, deal with issues of fundamental human rights.
This is, of course, extremely important, as it draws our attention to the
responsibility and conduct of governing institutions in Member States.
It has also become evident that measures to combat exclusion and bad
conditions, to be effective, must be taken in two main areas - support to the
individual and measures to create accessibility in the surrounding society. To
concentrate efforts in only one of these two areas will never lead to the
realization of full participation. I will use an example to illustrate what I mean.
To make it possible for a physically disabled child to participate in the activities
at school, the child will need some special training and technical equipment,
maybe a wheelchair. This in our terminology would be part of the "support to
the individual". To make this meaningful, the building and playground of the
school must be made accessible for the wheelchair user. Otherwise his or her
participation at school will be very limited or even impossible. Both approaches
must be used!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Standard Rules on the Equalization of opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. Basically the
2
philosophy is the same as in the World Programme of Action, which was
adopted in connection with the International Year. The Rules, however also
build on the experiences made during the Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-
1992). Generally one could say that the Standard Rules document is a more
elaborated tool for implementation. In addition it should, however, be
emphasized that the Rules put more weight on the human rights aspects and
that, consequently, the role of the State is addressed more emphatically.
The Standard Rules document contains chapters on both various ways to
support and empower the individual (Preconditions for Participation) and
measures to create accessibility and availability in all main areas of society.
(Target Areas for Participation). A third chapter deals with Implementation
Measures, which are all necessary to create real and sustainable progress in the
disability field. In a fourth chapter detailed guidelines for the monitoring of the
implementation of the Rules are presented. One important feature of the Rules
generally and in the monitoring mechanism is the close cooperation with the
organizations of persons with disabilities. In the monitoring exercise. six
International NGOs serve on a Panel of Experts, which is consultative to the
Special Rapporteur and the UN Secretariat.
So far the Standard Rules. Let us now look at the Child Convention from a
disability point of view. The adoption and broad acceptance of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child means an enormous step forward in the struggle for
better conditions for all children. All the general and main principles of the
Convention - non-discrimination, the best interest of the child, the right to
survival and development and participation in the decisions affecting
themselves - are all highly relevant in the work for disabled children. When we
relate the meaning of these high principles to the actual situation of disabled
children, we see, with shocking clarity, how far we are from complying with
them. I am convinced that the organizations, representing disabled children at
this conference, will develop this observation further.
The most obvious article for our discussion is, of course, article 23, which
deals with the special needs of disabled children. It contains four paragraphs. In
para 1 the State recognizes that disabled children are entitled to a full and
decent life. Dignity, self-reliance and active participation should be ensured. In
para 2 States recognize the right of disabled children to receive special care and
assistance. According to para 3 such assistance should, under certain
3
circumstances, be provided free of charge and designed to ensure effective
access to education, training, health care, rehabilitation, preparation for
employment and recreation. In the final 4th paragraph it is stated that the
exchange of appropriate information shall be promoted by States in the above
mentioned areas.
Naturally, there are many similarities in the contents of the Standard Rules and
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As far as I can see, there are no
conflicting principles in the two documents, There are, however, significant
differences. For obvious reasons the Rules, which is a whole document on
disability policy, contain a much higher degree of specification and give more
guidance concerning what should be done and how it should be done. This
naturally also has to do with the fact that the two documents have different legal
status and general purpose.
My most important observation concerns the difference in general approach to
disability between the two documents. As I have said before, Disability policy
must contain both programmes to support the individual and measures to make
the surrounding society accessible. According to article 4 of the Convention,
States Parties are called upon to undertake all appropriate legislative,
administrative and other measures for the implementation of The rights
contained in the Convention. However, the Convention indicates only one
concrete remedy in article 23 - care and assistance to the disabled child and its
parents. Indeed, this is important, but, at the same time, it is not enough. There
is a general provision that access to education should be ensured, but there is no
further indication how this should be done:
The principles of non-discrimination and the best interest of the child speak
strongly in support of integration and mainstreaming, to make it possible for
the disabled child to stay in the social context which is natural to him or her.
To make this possible, the surrounding society must take the needs of that child
into account. It means, among many other things, to adapt programmes in
preschools and schools, to make playgrounds, toys, books and communication
facilities accessible and available for disabled children.
Unfortunately, these things will not come automatically. The state must assume
the responsibility for indicating and sustaining programmes and measures of
various kinds, staff training, the development and production of aids, norms for
accessibility etc.
4
I am not sure, what the absence of concrete support for accessibility measures
in the Child Convention really means for the work of the Committee on the
Rights of the Child. One obvious conclusion is, however, that there are strong
motives for combining provisions given in these two UN documents, in order to
create strong and effective programmes for disabled children.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The entity within the UN system, which is responsible for the monitoring of the
Standard Rules, is the Commission for Social Development. At its meeting
earlier this year the Commission adopted two resolutions concerning disability
issues. One of them deals solely with matters concerning children with
disabilities. It contains a number of recommendations for measures, which
would increase the level of international involvement. The final paragraph,
para 12, requests the Special Rapporteur, monitoring the Standard Rules, to pay
special attention to the situation of children with disabilities. In doing this, the
Rapporteur should "pursue close work relations with the Committee on the
Rights of the child". The Rapporteur should report his activities to the
Commission. In my opinion this conference is an excellent opportunity to start
our discussions on cooperation.
I want to end this presentation by suggesting a few areas, where we could start
to work together.
1. The Committee must by now have collected a considerable number of reports
from governments on their progress in implementing the Convention.
Hopefully, these reports also include information on disabled children. Let us
together make an analysis of this material to find out where we stand and to
discuss further action.
2. As a first step in the continuous exchange of information between us, I will
make sure that the Committee and its secretariat will have access to all my
reports from the first monitoring exercise concerning the Standard Rules.
3. In consultation with the Panel of Experts I have decided to make further
surveys on the situation with regard to the implementation of the Rules in
certain areas. I should add that this is all provided that we get funds for our
activities.
5
There are several alarming findings in our second survey concerning legislation
and basic human rights. It is necessary to follow up this information with
further studies. We also want to look into the conditions concerning Rule 9 on
Family Life and Personal Integrity. In both these areas there are a number of
child aspects, which should be included in our analysis. Naturally I should like
to perform these activities in cooperation with the Committee.
4. One important commitment I have made, is to pursue the principle of
inclusion in all forms of development cooperation. With great satisfaction I note
that many projects within UN agencies like UNESCO, ILO, UNICEF and
WHO work along the same lines. If we are really to achieve progress in this
area, both the governments of developing countries and major funding
institutions must learn how to integrate disability measures into mainstream
programmes. To exclude measures to meet the needs of disabled children, when
it would be possible to do the opposite, must be seen as an act of discrimination.
5. In our monitoring we have all come across the need to describe and
disseminate information about good practice. At the same time it is my
experience that this is a rather resource demanding activity, for which it can be
difficult to find money. Perhaps this is an area where we could cooperate.
6. In the monitoring of the Standard Rules The major international NGOs in the
disability field play an active role. The following six organizations Disabled
peoples International, Inclusion International, Rehabilitation International,
World Blind Union, World Federation of the Deaf and the World Federation of
Psychiatric Users - have established a Panel of Experts, five men and five
women from different parts of the world, all with personal experience of
disability. The Panel constitutes an enormous resource in our monitoring, both
as a consultative body and because of the gigantic network of national
disability organizations it provides. Maybe this Panel would be willing to serve
also in cooperation with other entities within the UN system and why not as
partner in our cooperation concerning disabled children?
7. In August, 1998, the UN will organize an International Youth Forum in
Portugal. So far we have not discovered any sign of bringing the attention to
youth with disabilities. Let us cooperate to ensure the active participation by
young disabled persons. We must also obtain some visibility for matters
6
concerning young disabled people on the agenda and in the background
material.
Well, these are some concrete suggestions for cooperation, which we could
discuss. I am sure that more good suggestions will come during the day,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes fundamental rights of all
children. It gives us all tremendous support in our struggle. The way the world
looks, it will, however, take very long, before we will see full compliance with
all its provisions in all countries. No group could illustrate this better than
children with disabilities. If we are ever to succeed in providing decent
conditions of life for all disabled children, their needs (both general and special)
must be respected and taken into account in the mainstream of development in
all countries. The recognition of the principle of inclusion and its consequences
for resource allocation is our greatest challenge in the disability field. Let us
begin with the children!
Thank you for your attention!
7
Recommendations
We, the participants in the Pan Arab symposium on the Standard Rules of the
U.N. regarding achieving equal opportunities for the handicapped held in
Amman on 18 and 19 October 1997, representing government and non-
government organizations in the Arab countries, confirm our unanimous
agreement on the following recommendations, which we present to our
governments and the organizations active with the handicapped in the Arab
world in order to work on implementing them.
1. We appeal to the governments to proclaim their commitments to achieving
the two principles of complete participation and equality for the handicapped
since these two participants constitute the main goal that seeks to improve the
living conditions of the handicapped. This will lead to achieving our desired
final goal of equal opportunities.
2. Governments should adopt national, procedural work plans that result in
implementing the standard rules through the ministries concerned and
organizations that work with the handicapped, and experts. These plans will
have a positive impact on all citizens and not only on the handicapped.
3. A legal umbrella must be established in each country that acknowledges the
rights of the handicapped to complete participation and equal opportunities in
all sectors of society. This will be in accordance with the constitution of the
countries concerned or derived from their legislative corpus.
4. In order to activate the legislation, it must be linked to appropriate
mechanism such as the formation of by-laws and regulations in different
spheres.
Spreading awareness among the different stratums of society about equal
opportunities for the handicapped.
Allocating financial resources that will help to activate this legislation.
Strengthening awareness.
Broadening the medical care umbrella for the handicapped.
Rehabilitating the handicapped.
Providing them with compensatory assistance and equipment.
Seeking to increase their independence in their daily life, and upholding their
rights.
All the above are pre-requisite measures to the implementation of the Standard
Rules of the U.N.
5. Governments must recognize the right of organizations and institutions that
work with the handicapped to be represented whenever issues related to the
handicapped are discussed, in accordance with the provisions of the Standard
Rules.
6. A national Council for the handicapped must be established in each country.
This council will draw up policies, coordinate national efforts and monitor the
implementation of plans by the bodies concerned. This will guarantee
improving the condition of the handicapped, increasing their participation in
their communities and exchanging experiences with similar councils across the
Arab world.
7. In order to guarantee the proper function of the National Council for the
handicapped, it must be chaired by the Prime Minister or the minister
responsible for the coordination of the handicapped programs. The Council
should include the ministries concerned, representatives of the institutions that
are active with the handicapped and experts.
8. Governments should adopt the creation of a Central National Register for the
handicapped. This register will provide an essential data base in order to plan
services offered to the handicapped and to carry out studies and researches
according to actual needs.
9. Governments and national organizations should recognize the Community
Based Rehabilitation Program (CBR), adopt its plans, and support it since it
will be of strategic importance to involve the local community in raising the
standard of the handicapped, and expanding areas of social participation. This
will guarantee equal rights and opportunities and the rehabilitation of the
handicapped. All of the above will result in the activation of the Standard Rules.
10. The Community Based Rehabilitation Program in each country concerned
must focus on educating the handicapped on their rights and their varied
opportunities for participation, and on sustaining their capacities to manage
their own daily affairs.
The participants in the Forum affirm that the implementation of these
recommendations must take place through close coordination between the Arab
governments represented in their national councils, through the Arab League
and the United Nations organizations that focus on the Arab region according to
their specialties.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Speech on the Standard Rules by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, Former M.P. and Cabinet
Minister, Sweden
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Participants,
I am both honoured and delighted to have this possibility to speak to you on the
philosophy and contents of the new United Nations instrument in the disability
field, entitled Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons
with Disabilities. Before I do this, I would like to briefly comment on the events
which led to the adoption of these Rules.
As you remember, 1981 was the International Year of Disabled Persons. This was
an event of historical importance. The greatest contribution of this event was, in
my opinion, the theme of the Year: Full Participation and Equality. This must be
considered as a recognition on the highest possible political level of the right of
persons with disabilities to full participation and equal opportunities in the
society they belong to. This important achievement was followed by the adoption
of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, which outlines
the policies in harmony with the theme of the Year.
As you know the idea was that these policies should be implemented during the
subsequent Decade of Disabled Persons, 1983 - 1992. Some important
achievements were made during this period, but already in the middle of the
decade it was obvious that too little happened. The international disability
community therefore requested that the United Nations should assume a stronger
leadership role in the development of better living conditions for persons with
disabilities. The response to this request was the elaboration of the Standard
Rules, which took place between 1990 -1993, when they were adopted.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing persons with
disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms and making it difficult for
them to participate fully in the activities of their societies. It is the responsibility
of States to take appropriate action to remove such obstacles. "This is probably
the two most important sentences in the whole Standard Rules document. You
find them in the Introduction, paragraph 15. The process outlined in the Rules is
to identify and remove obstacles to full participation. The Rules indicate that this
should be done both by empowering persons with disabilities and by creating an
accessible society. Governments of countries are responsible for taking action to
remove such remaining obstacles.
Well, as you see, we now already know three important things about the Standard
Rules. The objective is to achieve full participation and equal opportunities. The
method to use is to identify and remove remaining obstacles and governments are
responsible for the necessary measures.
The Standard Rules instrument summarizes the contents of the World Programme
and also takes into account some new aspects, which were emphasized during the
decade. Above all the stronger emphasis on the human rights perspective, which
developed during the decade, has been incorporated. In comparison with the
World Programme there are mainly three features which distinguish the Rules
document. The language of the Rules is more concentrated in form. The message
of the Rules is directly addressed to member states, i.e. the governments of
countries. The third characteristic is that the Standard Rules will be monitored
through a separate monitoring system.
The Standard Rules include an introduction, a preamble, 22 different Rules and a
description of the monitoring system. The actual Rules are divided into three
sections: preconditions for participation, target areas for equal participation and
implementation measures.
The first section, dealing with the preconditions for participation, mainly presents
Rules on different forms of support to the individual, medical care, rehabilitation
and various forms of support services. The purpose of these services is to reduce
the functional limitations and increase the independence of the individual.
The section on target areas deals with sectors of society, which are of general
importance for the quality of life. There is an initial Rule on accessibility, which
deals with all the various aspects of access to physical environment and activities
and services generally available to non-disabled persons. There are Rules on how
to make sectors like education, employment, social security, culture and
recreation accessible. The Rule on family life and personal integrity is new and
has no corresponding chapter in the World Programme. It reflects an area, which
has attracted considerable attention during the decade.
The third section of the Rules, the implementation measures, presents a number
of important measures, which are well-known in social engineering. I should
here like to draw your attention to three of these Rules. In the Rule on legislation
(Rule 15) the message is that states should create a legal base for measures to
achieve full participation and equality for persons with disabilities. Legislative
action may also be needed to remove conditions which may adversely affect the
lives of persons with disabilities.
In Rule 18 it is said that states should recognize the right of the organizations of
persons with disabilities to represent their groups at all levels. States should
encourage and support the formation and strengthening of such organizations.
The third measure I should like to point to concerns coordination (Rule 17).
Disability involves all spheres of society and therefore it is necessary to use a
multisectorial approach. This also means that there is a constant need for
coordination. It is therefore stated in the Rule that states are responsible for the
establishment and strengthening of national coordinating committees or similar
bodies.
The chapter on monitoring among other things contains the following:
"The purpose of the monitoring mechanism is to further the effective
implementation of the Standard Rules. It will assist each state to assess its level of
implementation of the Standard Rules and to measure its progress. The
monitoring should identify obstacles and suggest suitable measures which would
contribute to the successful implementation of the Rules.
The Rules shall be monitored within the framework of the sessions of the
Commission for Social Development. A Special Rapporteur. shall be appointed
for three years to monitor the implementation of the Rules. International
organizations of persons with disabilities having consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council should be invited to create among themselves a
panel of experts, on which organizations of persons with disabilities shall have a
majority to be consulted by the Special Rapporteur and, when appropriate, the
secretariat."
Ladies and gentlemen,
In the following I should like to present more in detail a few Rules as examples. I
choose some Rules, which are of more general interest.
One key element in disability policy is accessibility. Rule 5 deals with this issue.
The main principle is that "States should recognize the overall importance of
accessibility in the process of the equalization of opportunities in all spheres of
society. The Rule deals with both the physical environment and access to
information and communication. States are requested to make programmes of
action to make the physical environment accessible and to provide access to
information and communication.
In the area of physical environment standards and norms should be developed
and the enactment of legislation should be considered. Such norms could concern
buildings, means of transportation, streets and other outdoor environment.
Accessibility measures should be introduced at the earliest possible stage of
designing and Groups like architects, town planners and construction engineers
should in their professional training have access to information about disability
measures.
States should make information services and documentation accessible to
different groups of persons with disabilities. Appropriate technologies, braille,
sign language interpretation, easy language versions etc, should be used to make
information available. States should encourage media to make their programmes
accessible. States should also ensure that new computerized information and
service systems are either made initially accessible or are adapted to be made
accessible.
In Rule 6 on education it is stated that Member States should recognize the
principle of equal educational opportunities for persons with disabilities, in
integrated settings. States should ensure that the education of persons with
disabilities is an integral part of the educational system. Adequate accessibility
and support services, designed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities
should be provided. In States where education is compulsory, it should be
provided to girls and boys with all kinds and all levels of disabilities, including
the most severe. Integrated education and community based programs should be
seen as complementary approaches in providing cost-effective education and
training. In situations where the general school system does not yet adequately
meet the needs of all persons with disabilities, special education may be
considered. It should be aimed at preparing students for education in the general
school system. The quality of such education should reflect the same standards
and ambitions as general education and should be closely linked to it.
The essence of Rule 7 on employment is that persons with disabilities should be
empowered to exercise their right to gainful employment and that it is the
responsibility of states, i.e. governments of countries, to remove all remaining
obstacles to employment. As far as possible, and it is possible to a far greater
extent than today, persons with disabilities should have jobs in the regular labor
market. When this, despite all efforts, does not seem to be possible, jobs should
be offered in more protected forms.
Let me quote the following paragraphs from the text:
"Laws and regulations in the employment field must not discriminate against
persons with disabilities and must not raise obstacles to their employment"
"States should actively support the integration of persons with disabilities into
open employment"
"States, worker's organizations and employers should cooperate with
organizations of persons with disabilities concerning all measures to create
training and employment opportunities "
The text also contains a list of various technical measures, which could be taken
by governments, in order to obtain these objectives.
In the related area of income maintenance and social security it is, of course,
difficult to establish global guidelines due to the fundamental differences in
economic conditions existing in the world today. Still it has been possible for the
UN General Assembly to agree on some universal principles, which should be
observed by all. I should here like to quote the following parts of Rule 8, which
outline the basic responsibility of governments:
"States are responsible for the provision of social security and income
maintenance for persons with disabilities"
"States should ensure the provision of adequate income support to persons with
disabilities who, owing to disability or disability related factors, have temporarily
lost or received a reduction in their income or have been denied employment
opportunities
"In countries where social security, social insurance or other social welfare
schemes exist or are being developed for the general population, states should
ensure that such systems do not exclude or discriminate against persons with
disabilities
"Social security systems should include incentives to restore the income-earning
capacity of persons with disabilities.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
One question I often get concerns the Standard Rules and the gender dimension.
I have four different comments to make in this context.
First of all, the general presentation is done with the understanding that the
suggested guidelines and policies concern all people with disabilities, irrespective
of race, gender, age etc. This interpretation follows the tradition from the field of
human rights.
Secondly, there are a few direct references to the gender dimension. The most
general one is the sentence in para. 15 in the Introduction, where the following is
said: "The purpose of the Rules is that girls, boys, women and men with
disabilities, as members of their societies, may exercise the same rights and
obligations as others."
The gender perspective is mentioned in some other instances in the Introduction.
In the Preamble we find support for the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women, particularly the sections on disabled
women. In Rules 4 on Individual Support, Rule 6 on Education and Rule 9 on
Family Life and Personal Integrity special attention is drawn to the needs of girls
and women with disabilities.
Thirdly, the Rules must always be related to the concrete situation in a country. In
doing so, there is a need for interpretation and for putting the emphasis or focus
on certain conditions or circumstances. It is, for instance, often necessary to
emphasize the need to include special measures for disabled women in adult
education, medical care, rehabilitation and the provision of technical aids. This
kind of exemplifying and concretization must also be used much more in future
monitoring.
Fourthly, it is very important to combine the provisions of the Standard Rules and
those contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women. This possibility must be further developed
through cooperation between the appropriate bodies within the UN, the special
agencies, international NGOs and all concerned entities on the national level.
Finally, in reply to the question on the gender dimension, of course, one would
have wished for a more clearly spelt out gender dimension in the Rules
document. However, by using all these different means, which I have pointed to, I
am sure that we can make it a strong and useful tool also in the struggle for
empowerment and full participation by disabled women in their societies.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Standard Rules document is not an international convention. Consequently it
is not legally binding for member states. Formally the Rules are a UN declaration
with some special features, which I pointed out earlier. How important and
committing are the Rules then? Well, the mere fact that they have been
unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly after extensive preparations
and as the consequence of the UN Decade of Disabled Persons, makes them a
strong international document. However, more has been done to increase the
strength of the Rules. At all five major World Conferences, organized by the
United Nations from 1993-1996, on human rights in Vienna 1993, on population
issues in Cairo 1994, on social development in Copenhagen 1995, on the
situation of women in Beijing 1995 and on housing and shelter in Istanbul 1996,
Strong statements have been adopted in support of the implementation of the UN
Standard Rules. This remarkable achievement has been made thanks to the
untiring efforts and determination by many representatives of the organized
movement of persons with disabilities to make the most of this document and to
convince governments to move from words to concrete action to improve the
living conditions of persons with disabilities.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I should now like to use the rest of my time to give you an account of what we
have been doing during these three years of monitoring. If you study the purpose
of the monitoring, indicated in chapter IV, para 1 of the Rules document, you find
that there are two main tasks to be performed - to promote the implementation of
the Rules and to monitor the progress made by Member States. In our work we
have tried to take both these tasks into account.
It all started in 1994. I was appointed by the Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-
Ghali, in March that year. A large international conference was organized in
cooperation between the Icelandic government and the UN secretariat, the
purpose of which was to launch the monitoring activity. I started my work in
August. A Panel of Experts was established in September by the following six
organizations: Disabled Peoples' International, Inclusion International,
Rehabilitation International, World Blind Union, World Federation of the Deaf,
and World Federation of Psychiatric Users. The Panel has consisted of 10
persons, five men and five women, all with personal experience of disability and
coming from different parts of the world. In September I also opened my small
office in Stockholm.
To promote the implementation of the Rules I have traveled extensively during
these three years. I have participated at more than 35 international conferences. I
have held meetings with governments and NGO's in 21 countries, mostly
developing countries, but also some countries in transition. I have attended four
regional seminars in Africa and Central America with representatives of both
governments and NGO's. The Panel of Experts has held three meetings to
provide advice on important aspects of the monitoring. One of the most important
contributions by the Panel was to reach an agreement with me to concentrate the
monitoring effort on certain Rules, in order to get a more in-depth understanding
of the situation in these areas. The Rules areas, selected for analyses, were the
following: Accessibility (rule 5), education (rule 6), employment (rule 7),
legislation (rule 15), coordination of work (rule 17), and organizations of persons
with disabilities (rule 18).
In the areas of education and employment we have cooperated with UNESCO
and ILO. In the other four areas we have made a comprehensive survey, built on a
questionnaire with more than 30 questions.
During the third meeting of the Panel the experiences of the first three-year
period were discussed. The Panel also started a discussion of future tasks, built on
the assumption that the Economic and Social Council would decide to continue-
the monitoring for a second three-year period.
The Commission for Social Development has dealt with our monitoring activity
twice. It has given strong support to our work and agreed with us to limit our
more profound analyses to some selected areas. One important recommendation
from the Commission is that I should mainly concentrate my monitoring
activities to assisting developing countries.
During these three years we have circulated two global surveys. The first study
consisted of a letter to all governments, asking them how they had received the
Rules, what their plans were and if they had already taken any new initiatives
based on the Rules. We got only 38 replies from the totally 185 Member States,
which, of course, was a disappointment. The second survey consisted of a
comprehensive questionnaire dealing with general policy, legislation,
accessibility, the position of organizations and coordination issues. This time we
also invited the national member organizations of the international NGO's in the
panel. Even if the final date for replies was the end of March 1996, replies have
kept coming in ever since. We have now (March 1997) received 88 replies from
governments and 165 replies from NGO's. Totally we have received information
from 130 countries. This time the response rate from governments is considered
to be high by UN standards. We started our analysis of government replies in
August 1996, when 83 government replies had arrived. A report on the results of
this analyses will be published during the first half of 1997. The analysis of NGO
replies started in January 1997 and will be reported during this year.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let us now proceed to deal with the substance of our monitoring. What are our
findings? Did the Rules during this period have any effect on the conditions of
life for disabled people? Let me first of all emphasize one thing: People with
disabilities around the world are still being marginalized. Their needs are often
not being taken into account in a proper way. There is no country in the whole
world which has fully implemented the Standard Rules. In developing countries
millions of disabled people live in extreme poverty, under bad health conditions
and lack access to education and income earning activities. It will take a long
time to change these bad conditions.
The UN Standard Rules is a policy document, a "code of conduct" for
governments in the disability field. The most it can do is to change the thinking
and acting of governments, to make them adopt an inclusive approach to
disability, and in the end, to inspire them to launch new legislation and
programmes to improve living conditions. When we promote the implementation
of the Rules we try to obtain this change in behaviour. When we monitor the
Rules we try to find out to what extent government measures exist and if they are
oriented towards the philosophy of the Rules.
Well, let us come to our findings The first thing I want to tell you is that there is
a noticeable change in the behaviour of governments. A considerable number of
countries have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, new legislation in the
spirit of the Standard Rules. Such countries can be found in all regions of the
world. There are also countries which have adopted plans of action, built on the
Rules. In our second survey we found that 85% of governments, providing
information, state that the Rules have led to rethinking. Another observation of
great importance is that the "pattern of cooperation between governments and
NGO's is getting established. In 74% of countries, providing information, there
are national councils on disability or similar bodies. In the vast majority of these
councils organizations of persons with disabilities are represented. These
organizations have a legal mandate to influence policy making in the disability
field in 62% of countries.
In the area of accessibility much remains to be done in most countries. However,
there are some good signs. In 54% of countries, providing information, a
disability component has been included in the training of architects, community
planners etc. Strong legislation to create accessibility has been adopted in some
countries, including USA, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. These new
laws demonstrate that it is possible to maintain tough regulations on accessibility
also in the most liberal economies.
Sign language for deaf people is definitely gaining ground. In a number of
countries sign language has been recognized as the first language of deaf people
in education. In a greater number of countries sign language is recognized as the
main means of communication between deaf and hearing people.
In the crucial area of education the situation is very bad. Unfortunately, we have
evidence that the needs of disabled children continue to be neglected or
marginalized in most developing countries, due to lack of interest from both
governments in developing countries and foreign funders.
In the employment field there is not one single country in the whole world, which
can report real success. The employment rates for disabled people are generally
dramatically lower than for the working age population. The situation in
employment calls for new and strong initiatives and a much more active
government intervention. In my opinion the situation will remain basically the
same, until this happens.
One result of our studies, on which many have reacted strongly, is that a number
of countries obviously have legislation, which violates fundamental human rights
of certain groups of disabled people. This for instance concerns areas like the
right to marriage, access to law courts, property rights and political rights. In
some cases up to 25% of countries, providing information, exclude certain groups
of disabled people from such rights. Generally, it seems that many basic human
rights of disabled people are badly protected in many countries.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I could go on and on telling you about the
observations we have made. Unfortunately, time does not allow this. Our work
has been summarized in two reports to the Commission for Social Development,
in 1995 and in 1997. Furthermore, it is our intention to publish one book on the
analysis of government replies to our second survey and a number of reports on
NGO replies, including some comparative analyses also including government
replies from the same countries.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Commission for Social Development has recommended that the special
monitoring activity, attached to the Standard Rules, should continue for another
three-year period. A second monitoring period will offer new opportunities,
opportunities for new initiatives in legislation and programmes, opportunities for
improved cooperation between governments and NGO's and opportunities for
bringing the disability component into the large programmes for development
cooperation. My hope is that we, in the years to come, will be able to move away
from the present exclusive behaviour towards a human rights based approach.
Measures to achieve full participation for persons with disabilities must become
an integral part of government responsibility. These principles must govern the
behaviour of actors in both the public and the private sectors.
In the past we have proved that we can achieve a lot through cooperation.
Together we are able to change the world into a society, designed and constructed
for all citizens - a society for all! And remember: A society good for disabled
people, is a better society for all!
Thank you.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on
Disability
Postal address: Box 16363, S-103 26 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel. +46-8 453 4022 Bengt Lindqvist / +46-8 453 4021 Secretary
Fax. +46-8 248 847 (or +46-8 453 4050)
Speech on the Standard Rules by Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, Former M.P. and Cabinet
Minister, Sweden
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Participants,
First of all I want to thank the organizers for the opportunity to participate at this
important conference. I am also delighted to be back in Dublin, which I visited
some fourteen years ago as secretary of the newly formed Disabled Peoples
International. Through Liam Maguire, representing the movement of disabled
people in Ireland, we were all inspired and challenged at the same time. His
contribution to the development of international disability policy was
outstanding.
I am going to speak about disability and human rights. As my point of departure I
will use the UN Standard Rules and some observations I have made during my
monitoring of these Rules.
As you remember, 1981 was the International Year of Disabled Persons. This was
an event of historical importance. The greatest contribution of this event was, in
my opinion, the theme of the Year: Full Participation and Equality. This must be
considered as a recognition on the highest possible political level of the right of
persons with disabilities to full participation and equal opportunities in the
society they belong to. This important achievement was followed by the adoption
of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, which outlines
the policies in harmony with the theme of the Year.
The idea was that these policies should be implemented during the subsequent
Decade of Disabled Persons, 1983 - 1992. Some important achievements were
made during this period, but already in the middle of the decade it was obvious
that too little happened. The international disability community therefore
requested that the United Nations should assume a stronger leadership role in the
development of better living conditions for persons with disabilities. The
response to this request was the elaboration of the Standard Rules, which took
place between 1990 -1993, when they were adopted.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
"In all societies of the world there are still obstacles preventing persons with
disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms and making it difficult for
them to participate fully in the activities of their societies. It is the responsibility
of States to take appropriate action to remove such obstacles." This is probably
the two most important sentences in the whole Standard Rules document. You
find them in the Introduction, paragraph 15. The process outlined in the Rules is
to identify and remove obstacles to full participation. The Rules indicate that this
should be done both by empowering persons with disabilities and by creating an
accessible society. Governments of countries are responsible for taking action to
remove such remaining obstacles.
Well, as you see, we now already know three important things about the Standard
Rules. The objective is to achieve full participation and equal opportunities. The
method to use is to identify and remove remaining obstacles and governments are
responsible for the necessary measures.
The Standard Rules instrument summarizes the contents of the World Programme
and also takes into account some new aspects, which were emphasized during the
decade. Above all the stronger emphasis on the human rights perspective, which
developed during the decade, has been incorporated. In comparison with the
World Programme there are mainly three features which distinguish the Rules
document. The language of the Rules is more concentrated in form. The message
of the Rules is directly addressed to member states, i.e. the governments of
countries. The third characteristic is that the Standard Rules will be monitored
through a separate monitoring system.
The Standard Rules include an introduction, a preamble, 22 different Rules and a
description of the monitoring system. The actual Rules are divided into three
sections: preconditions for participation, target areas for equal participation and
implementation measures.
The first section, dealing with the preconditions for participation, mainly presents
Rules on different forms of support to the individual, medical care, rehabilitation
2
and various forms of support services. The purpose of these services is to reduce
the functional limitations and increase the independence of the individual.
The section on target areas deals with sectors of society, which are of general
importance for the quality of life. There is an initial Rule on accessibility, which
deals with all the various aspects of access to physical environment and activities
and services generally available to non-disabled persons. There are Rules on how
to make sectors like education, employment, social security, culture and
recreation accessible. The main principle here is that such measures should be
taken as a natural part of the sector concerned mainstreaming. Regular schools,
public and private employers generally, cultural and recreational institutions etc.
should all be responsible for making their activities and environment accessible
and available for persons with disabilities.
The Rule on family life and personal integrity is new and has no corresponding
chapter in the World Programme. It reflects an area, which has attracted
considerable attention during the decade.
The third section of the Rules, the implementation measures, presents a number
of important measures, which are well-known in social engineering. I should
here like to draw your attention to three of these Rules. In the Rule on legislation
(Rule 15) the message is that states should create a legal base for measures to
achieve full participation and equality for persons with disabilities. Legislative
action may also be needed to remove conditions which may adversely affect the
lives of persons with disabilities.
In Rule 18 it is said that states should recognize the right of the organizations of
persons with disabilities to represent their groups at all levels. States should
encourage and support the formation and strengthening of such organizations.
The third measure I should like to point to concerns coordination (Rule 17).
Disability involves all spheres of society and therefore it is necessary to use a
multisectorial approach. This also means that there is a constant need for
coordination. It is therefore stated in the Rule that states are responsible for the
establishment and strengthening of national coordinating committees or similar
bodies.
The chapter on monitoring among other things contains the following:
3
"The purpose of the monitoring mechanism is to further the effective
implementation of the Standard Rules. It will assist each state to assess its level of
implementation of the Standard Rules and to measure its progress. The
monitoring should identify obstacles and suggest suitable measures which would
contribute to the successful implementation of the Rules.
The Rules shall be monitored within the framework of the sessions of the
Commission for Social Development. A Special Rapporteur shall be appointed
for three years to monitor the implementation of the Rules. International
organizations of persons with disabilities having consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council should be invited to create among themselves a
panel of experts, on which organizations of persons with disabilities shall have a
majority to be consulted by the Special Rapporteur and, when appropriate, the
secretariat."
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As is mentioned in the Standard Rules, there are still lots of obstacles, which
prevent persons with disabilities from participating in the society they belong to.
To remove these obstacles we must work in two main areas. We must do
everything we can to empower persons who happen to be disabled to take their
own decisions and to be as independent as possible. At the same time we must
take the needs of disabled people into account when we design and build our
society. These two areas are like communicating vessels. We have to work in
both to obtain the goals we have set. From this perspective disability policy.
becomes an issue of social development. It is necessary, and also quite realistic,
to identify such obstacles to participation. When we have found them, we must
find or construct appropriate measures, through which we can remove or reduce
the effects of these obstacles.
One obvious strength of the Standard Rules is that they suggest a number of
principles and requirements, to which any nation can relate its own policies and
programmes, or perhaps lack of policies and programmes. The Rules become an
evaluative instrument, through which we may assess our situation and initiate
new and appropriate measures, a classical approach in social development.
During the four years the Rules have existed, they have proved to be a useful tool
in promoting the philosophy of full participation. In our global survey, 85% of
4
responding Governments indicate that the Rules have led to rethinking in the
disability field. Generally the Rules have been used in the three following ways;
to make new legislation, to elaborate national plans of action and to evaluate the
situation. It is encouraging that a considerable number of countries already have
adopted new "equal opportunities" legislation in the spirit of the Rules.
Another encouraging fact is that the position of organizations of persons with
disabilities as representatives of their groups has become stronger in many
countries. Governments are also cooperating more systematically with such
organizations through national coordinating committees or councils.
However, the goal of full participation has more dimensions than social
development. Again, according to the text of the Standard Rules there are
"obstacles preventing persons with disabilities from exercising their rights and
freedoms". As long as there are obstacles of such a nature, disability policy
evidently is a human rights issue. If we study the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the two Covenants, supporting the Declaration, it is obvious
that each fundamental human right, enshrined in these documents, has a disability
dimension.
Let me illustrate this by giving you some examples from our second survey.
The right to education is crucial in all human development. Still we find in many
developing countries that the level of participation by disabled children in
compulsory education is dramatically lower than for children in general. In some
countries this is due to the fact that regular schools have not been made accessible
and have not been provided with facilities to support disabled children. In other
cases there are legal regulations, excluding groups of disabled children from
education. One really challenging fact we found in a number of countries is that
large development programmes in education, often supported by organizations
like the UNDP, the World Bank Group and governmental funders, have not
included any measures whatsoever for the integration of disabled children.
Consequently I maintain that the right to education of disabled children is
seriously violated in many different ways.
In our second survey, to which totally 83 governments responded, we put some
questions directly dealing with the protection of the rights of persons with
disabilities. The outcome is alarming. In a considerable number of countries we
found infringements in several fundamental human rights. In about 20% of the
5
countries, providing information, there were limitations in the right to marriage
and parenthood. In a number of countries there were limitations in the right to
privacy, the right to property and access to law courts. In 14 countries there were
infringements in the right to vote and stand for election. Our analysis showed that
persons with mental disabilities were the most afflicted by this kind of
discrimination.
Concerning economic and social rights our study indicates that 33 countries out
of 82 make no exceptions concerning disabled people, while 49 countries make
one or more exclusions in the rights to areas like health care, financial security,
employment, training and rehabilitation. A comparison between different areas of
legislation, indicates that the rights of disabled people seem to be somewhat
better protected in the area of civil and political rights than concerning economic,
social and cultural rights. Another general observation we can make is that both
the judicial and administrative enforcement mechanisms in the area of disability
rights seem to be weak or non-existent in many countries.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The outcome of the first three years of monitoring the Standard Rules reveals that
we have a tremendous task ahead of us. We must increase our efforts in all areas.
We must improve the way in which we practice the principle of mainstreaming.
The needs of persons with disabilities must be included in their natural context of
development. In general development programmes in education, health, training
and employment, physical planning etc., disability measures must be included as
a matter of course. This is actually the only way to make real progress towards
full participation. It is also the only way to ensure that the needs of disabled
people are not being neglected and that disabled citizens are not being
discriminated against.
As you may know, the special monitoring exercise in connection with the
Standard Rules will continue for a second period - 1997-2000. I can assure you
that the two areas of mainstreaming and human rights will really be in focus in
our work. This second period of monitoring offers a real challenge to the
Governments of the world and to the disability community to ensure progress in
the promotion of the goal of full participation and equal opportunities. I hope you
will join us in accepting this challenge.
Thank you for your attention!
6
Ri
C.M.
Rehabilitation
Baschr
trease
for (01) 6089450
International
Fax (01-6801105
6th European Congress on Research in Rehabilitation
May 31-June 4 1998, Berlin, Germany
European Lecture
Dr Arthur O'Reilly
President
Rehabilitation International
It is a great honour for me to have been invited to deliver the
European Lecture at the 6th European Congress on Research in
Rehabilitation. It is a particular privilege to have been asked to
speak in this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I was in Geneva a few weeks ago when the UN Commission on
Human Rights was beginning its latest session. Speaking with one
of the delegates concerning a draft Resolution on the Human Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (which was subsequently adopted by the
Commission), I was somewhat surprised when he remarked that, in
his opinion, it was unlikely that the Universal Declaration would be
adopted by the UN General Assembly if it was proposed today.
A second surprise came a week or so later, when I was asked to
comment on a draft paper which an expert on international disability
legislation was preparing for an important conference. Outlining the
historical development of the rights-based perspective on disability in
international law, the lawyer referred to the World Programme of
Action Concerning Disabled Persons proclaimed by the UN General
Assembly in 1992 and commented: 'The first two parts of the World
Programme of Action looked backwards and reflected the traditional
policy themes of prevention and rehabilitation
,
1
Perhaps I should not have been surprised at the implication that
rehabilitation and prevention were dated policies. Rehabilitation
International (RI) which was founded in 1922 as the first international
effort to stimulate services for what were then known as crippled
children has as its mission
'to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities
throughout the world through rehabilitation, the
prevention of disability and the equalisation of
opportunities within society'.
RI does not see either rehabilitation or prevention as policies which
are 'backwards' or out-of-date. On the contrary, advances in
prevention and rehabilitation have significantly increased our
potential as a society to safeguard and enhance the dignity and
rights of people throughout the developed and developing world.
Prevention
The most common enemies of the world's children include five
diseases that today kill over 8m children a year and malnutrition
which holds back the mental and physical development of one child
in three in the developing world1. These five diseases - pneumonia,
diarrhoea, measles, tetanus, whooping cough - are progressively
being defeated. Deaths from measles, for example, dropped from
1
UNICEF: The State of the World's Children
2
2.5m in 1980 to 1m in 1994. And the number of non-fatal cases of
measles, a major cause of disability and malnutrition in children, fell
over the same period from 75m to 25m. It is estimated that the
increase in immunisation has so far prevented disability from polio in
more than 3m children.
Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) is now saving 1m young lives a year.
(ORT means increased fluid intake and continued feeding when a
child has diarrhoea.) Yet more than 2m under-fives still die
needlessly every year of diarrhoeal dehydration. And it remains a
primary cause of malnutrition, which stunts the mental and physical
growth of one in three children in the developing world.
Nearly 45m people in the world are blind, four out of five of them
living in developing countries. About 80% of this blindness is
treatable or preventable, but those affected remain blind for want of
access to affordable eye care.
It is now estimated that nearly 1.6 billion people in over 110
countries are at risk from iodine deficiency and that some 300m have
an intellectual disability as a result. Because their mothers lack
iodine, at least 30,000 babies are stillborn every year, and over
120,000 are born with an intellectual and physical disability. The
solution - iodising all salt supplies - is relatively simple and costs
about 5 U.S. cents per person per year.
3
In the last decade alone, over 1.5m children have been killed in
armed conflicts. A further 4m have been disabled, and uncounted
millions are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders.
These are but a very small sample of the reasons why prevention
policy, practice and research should remain high on the agenda.
Group 1 diseases², which cause one-third of all deaths and a quarter
of all disabilities, are largely avoidable and can be prevented.
Poverty, which creates the conditions which give rise to many of the
causes of death and disability, can be eradicated. Winning this
struggle is no longer an aspiration: it is a practical possibility. Of
course there are, and will continue to be, obstacles of vested
interests, and opposition. But, as the UNDP says, scepticism and
disbelief are just as disabling. Why, when all of these prevention
goals are practical, and affordable, are we allowing many children
and adults to die or acquire a disability? UNICEF, in its 1994 report
'The State of the World's Children', did not mince its words: I quote:
'When so much could be done for so many and at so
little cost, then one central, shameful fact becomes
unavoidable: the reason that these problems are not
being rapidly overcome is not because the task is too
2
Communicable diseases, maternal conditions arising during the perinatal period, and nutritional
deficiencies.
4
large, or too difficult, or too expensive. It is because the
job is not being given sufficient priority because those
most severely affected are almost exclusively the
poorest and least politically influential people on earth'.
At the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen - the
largest summit ever, with 117 heads of State present and 185
governments represented - countries made, for the first time, clear
commitments to eradicate poverty, not simply alleviate it:
'We commit ourselves to the goal of eradicating poverty
in the world, through decisive national actions and
international cooperation, as an ethical, social, political
and economic imperative of humankind.'
Specific commitments were made, with quantified and time-bound
goals.
Goals set at UN conferences are often greeted with scepticism. But
the goals set at the World Summit for Children in 1990 are well on
their way to being achieved³. So there is good reason to hope, and
every reason to keep the pressure on, to ensure there is no
weakening of commitment. Where progress has been slow - for
3 See UNICEF, World Summit for Children Follow-up: Mid Decade Review
1996. Secretary General's Report, New York
5
example, in improving access to clean water and in reducing the
prevalence of malnutrition - the problem has been lack of political
commitment and a failure to develop a strategy to get the job done.
In the year 2000, governments will meet again to evaluate the action
taken since the Copenhagen Summit and to agree on new initiatives.
The UN General Assembly recently decided that this evaluation will
be a special process through the Social Development Commission.
Failure to prevent preventable diseases, failure to treat treatable
conditions should no longer be acceptable. As individuals, as
organisations, we need to re-examine our values and speak out - to
the media, to governments. The ultimate responsibility rests with
governments: we must work to ensure that they do not shirk that
responsibility and we must work to strengthen the political
commitment that is so vital for success.
Rehabilitation
Increasingly I hear speakers at disability conferences decry the
'rehabilitation model' - which many equate with the so-called
'medical model' - of disability in favour of the social or rights model.
The Universal Declaration states that all human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights: it is the responsibility of all to promote
respect for those rights and to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance. But is it not simplistic, or at least
6
counter-productive, to assume that there is one model, one right
way, to achieve this? 'Rehabilitation bad, rights good' smacks of the
maxim adopted by Orwell's ill-fated four-legged revolutionaries.
In the context of research, I am reminded of a paper written by
Gerben De Jong⁴ some years ago in which the independent living
paradigm is contrasted with the rehabilitation paradigm which has, in
the author's words, 'dominated disability research'. De Jong borrows
the concept of paradigm from Kuhn⁵, who observed that scientific
facts do not emerge by simple accumulation or evolution, but are the
products of new ways of thinking - new scientific paradigms.
Paradigms provide the framework by which problems are identified
and solved. De Jong also reminds us of two other concepts which
are important in Kuhn's analytic frame of reference. The first is the
concept of an anomaly - an event or observation which cannot be
adequately explained by the dominant paradigm of the times. The
second is the concept of paradigm shift - when one paradigm is
replaced by another. A paradigm shift does not occur unless there is
a new paradigm to replace the old.
At the time of writing, De Jong argued that the dominant paradigm in
disability policy is the rehabilitation paradigm in which
4 The Movement for Independent Living: Origins, Ideology and Implications for Disability Research.
Michigan State University: University Centres for International Rehabilitation, 1979
5 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1970
7
'problems are generally defined in terms of inadequate
performance in activities of daily living or in terms of
inadequate preparation for gainful employment. In both
instances, the problem is assumed to reside in the
individual.
According to the independent living paradigm, on the other hand, the
problem does not reside in the individual but often in the solution
offered by the rehabilitation paradigm, which De Jong describes as
'the dependency inducing features of the physician - patient or
professional - client relationship.' Rehabilitation is perceived, in
other words, to be part of the problem, not the solution.
Paradigms, in defining problems and the range of appropriate
interventions, largely determine what is relevant for the purposes of
research. If, as Kuhn suggests, there is no such thing as research in
the absence of any paradigm, it is important that we critically and
objectively appraise the political, ideological, social and professional
frameworks in which we and our organisations fund, manage,
publish or carry out disability research.
There are still many questions to be asked about the usefulness or
utilisation of some of the research being conducted, questions which
suggest that those whom the research is presumably intending to
benefit have little or no involvement in identifying the issues to be
8
addressed or in the way in which the project is carried out. All of the
parties to a research contract, including funders, researchers and
subjects, have obligations and rights. There is an old saying:
'Whoever pays the piper calls the tune'. Perhaps those who fund
research are in the best position to re-assess the basis on which
research proposals should be made and to require, inter alia, that
those submitting proposals at least consult with people with
disabilities and/or their organisations on what issues are most
important and how research might be of benefit.
Rehabilitation research has made, and has the continuing capacity
to make in the future, a significant contribution to the effectiveness
and improvement of rehabilitation. But there are good reasons why
people with disabilities may be sceptical of the value of research,
because of their lack of control over or involvement in research
undertaken 'on their behalf' and the remoteness of much research
from their immediate concerns.
The Politics of Evaluation
There are, I imagine, few people here today who believe that
rehabilitation research programmes are adequately funded. While it
would be a mistake to assume that research funding decisions are
always made on some rational or scientific basis, one might
nevertheless expect - at least insofar as research funding from
9
government or government agencies is concerned - that, all other
things being equal, programmes which can be shown to produce
savings in public expenditure should be accorded a higher priority for
funding than programmes which fail to do SO. Yet few rehabilitation
programmes appear to have produced evaluations or cost-benefit
analyses which could be used to support a case for better funding.
There is no argument about the need for evaluation. Any form of
decision-making entails choice between alternatives. And choice
implies evaluation, in two stages
weighing the advantages (or benefits) of taking any course of
action against the disadvantages (or costs) of that action
comparing the relative outcomes of that process to choose the
course of action which produces the result most favourable to the
decision-maker.
The general need for better evaluative data has been reinforced by
growing and competing demands on public expenditure.
Competition for resources exists not only within the overall context of
national and international economic and social policies, but also
between disability policies (prevention versus rehabilitation versus
equal opportunity, for example) and within the rehabilitation policy
area itself. For instance, should available resources be allocated to
10
train all those who are disabled, concentrated on skill training for
those most likely to get jobs, or devoted to those most in need?
Disability programmes operate in a political context. In their design
and implementation they are open to pressures from numerous
interest groups. They are often caught up in inter-agency and intra-
agency manoeuvring for influence and advantage. Let me give
some examples of the kind of political issues which can arise in
evaluation work.
Evaluations should start with programme goals. These should be
clear, unambiguous and measurable. They tend, on the contrary,
to be global, diffuse and diverse: this may be because the goals
represent a coalition of different values and interests. It may also
be because administrators prefer goal statements that inhibit
evaluation.
A further difficulty with goals is that, where programmes have
multiple objectives, they may appear to be in conflict or
inconsistent with each other. For example, a common practice in
trying to cope with the difficulty of conflicting objectives in
vocational rehabilitation is 'creaming'. Selecting or 'creaming' the
more able to enhance placement outcomes is a recognised - if not
always admitted - phenomenon in many countries.
11
'Defensive evaluation' by an agency of its own programmes may
be carried out to pre-empt a less controlled evaluation by
unfriendly outsiders.
Funding agencies may impose an external evaluation in order to
confirm their preconceptions. Such evaluations may even be
carried out using methodologies (and/or evaluators) which fall
short of generally accepted professional standards, but to
question the process or results runs the risk of lessening future
funding prospects.
Evaluations, even where well carried out, may produce politically
unpopular results. Such an exercise might, for example, establish
as scientifically proven the proposition that children learn as well
in large classes, as in small; yet few if any school principals would
be willing to act on such a conclusive finding in assessing
teaching staff requirements, or in advising parents on the
educational needs of their children.
Evaluations can be effectively used as a political tool to kill or
delay innovative programmes, or programmes whose outcomes
raise questions about funding policy.
In reality, evaluation studies appear to have little impact on agency
policy making. If the results are positive, they reinforce the status
12
quo; if negative, the findings may be selectively ignored, refuted or
rationalised.
Difficult though evaluation is , however, the easy solution of 'do not
evaluate' implies an almost total disregard for the effective and
efficient use of public funds. The current situation of growing public
resource scarcity is producing a climate in which it is easier to make
unpopular political decisions. This, allied to improvements in
evaluation techniques, could improve the usefulness of evaluation
studies. But we also need a greater understanding by policy makers
and programme managers of the role of evaluation and how it might
be used to improve their decision-making: one reason that negative
evaluation results have such little impact is because those involved
never seriously entertain the possibility that the results could come
out negatively.
The imprecision inherent in any evaluation of rehabilitation
programmes does not mean that evaluations should not be carried
out or used as a guide to policy. There is no alternative, if policy
affecting the future is to be based on a reasonable assessment of
the problems with which that policy must deal.
13
The Challenge for Research, and Researchers
There are, some say, three certainties in this world - death, taxes
and change. There is little one can do about the inevitability of the
first and, apparently, the second. But does research not have a role
in influencing the shape, direction and pace of change? Why, when
economic difficulties arise, does research tend to be one of the
sectors to suffer reduced funding, at the very time when more rather
than less creativity and innovation is needed?
Let me mention three areas in which I believe problems lie.
The first is the public perception of science and scientists.
I
remember in my college days (the sexist language will tell you that
was not yesterday) the maxim:
'He who can, does.
He who can't do, teaches.
And he who can't teach does educational research.'
The boffin in the ivory tower, the remoteness of the academic from
real life, are perceptions which are still more widely held than we
might like to believe. Public confidence in the scientific
establishment has not been helped by disagreements over 'mad COW
14
disease' (BSE) and genetic engineering in agriculture, to take but
two examples.
The population of Europe is ageing. The emerging age-structure
represents a major threat to the future financial sustainability of
European public pension systems. The rapid growth of the
dependent population (by 2020 25% of the European population will
be over 60 years old) is creating new healthcare and rehabilitation
needs. Although most older people are not disabled, the majority of
disabled people are elderly. Policy makers are under pressure not
only to reform and adapt social protection systems but to improve
the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health systems. Here is a
challenge, and an opportunity, for research. Notwithstanding the
difficulties facing policy makers, this is not, I suggest, the time to
reduce spending on medical and public health research.
The second problem area is the apparent lack of relevance of some
rehabilitation research. I have already commented on the fact that
research problems and designs are often developed with little input
from consumers. Rehabilitation practitioners too should have a
voice in determining research priorities, to enhance the relevance
and eventual usefulness of the research⁶. President John F
Kennedy, in an address to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
twenty five years ago, said
6 See, for example, Rubin S.E. and Rice J.M. Quality and Relevance of Rehabilitation Research: A
Critique and Recommendations. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, September 1986, 33-42
15
'Scientists alone can establish the objectives of their
research, but society, in extending support to science,
must take account of its own needs'.
The European Commission is of the same view: as Commissioner
Cresson⁷ says:
Research must be considered as fundamentally serving
people, matching their expectations and needs. It is in
this spirit that the Commission has conceived the next -
the fifth - European Union framework programme for
research, technological development and demonstration
activities'.
The third problem area is that of communication between scientists
and policy makers/bureaucrats. This could, of itself, provide a
sufficient subject for a conference, but I will mention just two points.
First, each party tends to speak and write to the other in a language
which the other does not fully understand, and to be annoyed and
frustrated when misunderstanding takes place. Secondly, each
party seems to fail to appreciate the particular culture and structure
within which the other is operating. In the absence of such an
7 responsible for science, research and development, education, training and youth. Quoted in EU
Biomedical and Health Research Newsletter December 1997, Vol 8, No 1.
16
understanding, failure to communicate is almost inevitable. At the
risk of alienating the majority of my audience, let me give you a quick
example of what I mean by quoting from very different sources.
In looking at explanations which have been offered for bureaucratic
problems, one could focus on three parts of the government system:
the personal traits of the bureaucrats or fonctionnaires, the structural
arrangements of public bureaucracy, and the political system which
has ultimate authority over the bureaucracy.
Merton, writing of bureaucratic structure and personality, says:
'Public bureaucrats are often described as being lazier,
less competent, more power hungry than people in
comparable jobs in profit making or non profit
organisations. Sometimes it is suggested that public
offices attract such people; it is often suggested that the
structure and traditions of public bureaucracies turn
otherwise decent people into 'bureaucratic personalities'
characterised by negativism, complacency, rigidity and
arrogance".
8 Barton, A.H. A Diagnosis of Bureaucratic Maladies, Amer. Behav. Scientist, 22,5, 1979.
9 Merton, R.K. Bureaucratic Structure and Personality, in Social Theory and Social Structure. New
York: Free Press, 1968.
17
It has been argued that the structure of public bureaucracy is said to
make it impossible even for well-motivated people to do a good job:
'Red tape - rigid rules and lack of managerial discretion -
prevents efficient and innovative action by public
officials, in contrast to the flexibility of action in the
private sector. Civil service rules designed to prevent
political purges and patronage make it impossible to fire
the incompetent, or to hire and reward the competent
and productive. The reward system is heavily biased
against the risks of innovation compared with that of
profit-making enterprises - the bureaucratic innovator
who fails is crucified, while successful innovation has
little payoff. Public agencies can only act within legally
authorised jurisdictions and these are fragmented both in
terms of subject matter and geographical area, so that
effective problem-solving is impossible. Still worse, the
incentive system for bureaucrats is perverse: they are
rewarded with power and privileges for expanding their
budgets and staff, regardless of costs and benefits to the
public'¹⁰.
10 Barton, op cit
18
What of our friend, the scientist? A character in one of Arthur
Koestler's books, which is about people like us attending
conferences like this, says with tongue in cheek, that
'scientists pose as dispassionate servants of Truth, free
from all emotional bias each of them possesses a
small fragment of the Truth which he believes to be the
whole Truth, which he carries around in his pocket like a
tarnished bubble-gum There is no such thing (as
interdisciplinary dialogue) except on the printed
programme. When the dialogue is supposed to start,
each gets his own bubble-gum out and blows it into the
others' faces. Then they repair, satisfied, to the cocktail
room'.
Exactly one hundred years ago, Otto von Bismarck said: 'Die Politik
ist keine exakte Wissenschaft. It is precisely because politics is not
an exact science that scientists sometimes have difficulty accepting
political decisions with regard to funding of research.
With such differences in cultures, traditions, structures and
language, it is hardly surprising that communication is not as good
as it should be.
19
Research awareness training, including the skills required to critically
read research literature, should be an essential part of the education
of policymakers and bureaucrats. And those intending to work in
research should likewise learn the principles underlying the
development and implementation of policy. Nothing, as Goethe
remarked, is more terrible than to see ignorance in action.
Conclusion
There are three points I would like to make in concluding.
Those who have a disability because the world failed in its duty to
prevent the disease which caused it, did not have a choice. In
committing ourselves to ending this affront to humanity, neither do
we.
We should continue to pursue the goals of equal opportunity, full
participation and social inclusion but we must also continue our
efforts to develop and implement cost-effective policies of prevention
and rehabilitation.
20
If politics is the art of the possible, and science the art of the soluble,
then science and society working together can make things happen.
This historic city has given an example to the world of how barriers
can be dismantled: in the disability field, it is surely time to stop
erecting barriers which divide, and to start building bridges which
unite.
- End -
21
Worldwide
pp
tions
Visions and Resources
for the 21st Century
This project, Community Based Rehabilitation: Worldwide Applications, has
been carried out by Rehabilitation International with the support of the United
Nations. This Resource kit consists of:
1) a video compilation of clips from selected CBR films & videos concentrat-
ing on early intervention, integration and attitude change; and
2) this booklet, containing: a viewer's guide on how to use the video compila-
tion; a series of vision statements by CBR specialists and practitioners; and
a selected annotated bibliography of 80 books, periodicals, studies, videos
and training packages on CBR implementation.
A description of contributors to this Resource Kit appears on the inside back
cover of this booklet.
Community
Based
Rehabilitation:
Worldwide
Applications
Visions and Resources
for the 21st Century
Produced by Rehabilitation International
with the generous support of
the Arab Gulf Programme for
United Nations Development Organizations (AGFUND)
through the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability
1998
Table of Contents
Part 1-A Viewer's Guide
1
Part 2-Introduction to Vision Statements
7
Building Partnerships through CBR
9
CBR: Target for the 21st Century
13
CBR: Dynamic Concept Requiring Strategy,
Research and Vision
18
Empowerment of People with Disabilities:
Primary Goal of CBR
22
Part 3-A Selection of CBR Resources
25
A. Newsletters/Journals
25
B.
Selected Recent CBR Publications
30
Books
30
Manuals/Guides
35
Papers
37
United Nations Publications
39
C.
Video Training Packages
42
D.
Additional Resources
44
Part 1
Glimpses of Global Efforts in
CBR for People with Disabilities:
A Video Viewer's Guide
The accompanying video is a compilation of selections from numerous
CBR videos from around the world. Rehabilitation International and
its media consultant, Barbara Kolucki, screened over 100 videos in the
preparation of this work. The selections represent most areas of the
world and a variety of disabilities. Some of the videos produced were
of high professional standard and others used non-professional and
lesser quality equipment. However, it is the content that is most
important. Portrayed are examples of simple, practical and effec-
tive techniques to improve the lives of children and adults with
disabilities.
The video is divided into three segments. The first includes selections
from CBR videos stressing the important of early intervention with
disabled infants and young children. The second concentrates on inte-
gration of older children and adults into all aspects of community life,
emphasizing school and employment. The third segment includes a
selection of more innovative media designed to change attitudes about
persons who are disabled, presenting sensitive topics like prevention in
a positive way or integrating disability into mainstream media. The
video ends with sound bites from women leaders who are disabled and
who sum up the potential that can be realized by CBR or any rehabili-
tation intervention.
Video Use
Please feel free to use the video to suit your needs. It has been designed
to be flexible and can be viewed in its entirety or in segments. There
are several potential audiences for the video. These include:
policy makers and local leaders with whom you are advocating CBR
community development workers who are not currently involved with
2
disability but who you would like to interest in including children and
adults who are disabled in their regular community development work
participants in any type of CBR course
trainer of trainers for grassroots CBR
disability groups or other NGOs which are exploring how to develop
their own media
national or local media who you would like to have produce a video
that is practical and innovative for your own purposes.
We would like to make one
note at this point with regard
to this last potential audience-
media producers. Most organi-
zations of and for persons with
disability, as well as interna-
tional and national NGOs
have produced documenta-
ries and/or training films
on their projects. These are
undoubtedly very useful and
important. However, it is
most likely that documenta-
ries do not reach the wider
audience of the general public
who need the same practical
information about options
available if there is a disabled
child or adult in their family,
or if they are disabled them-
selves. The common phrase
used for documentaries is that
they "preach to the converted".
Proposal
We would like to propose that you explore additional ways that media
can be used to support or sell the messages of CBR to improve the qual-
ity of life of persons with disability. Some methods are portrayed in the
last segment of this video. But we strongly encourage you to explore
ways that disability information can be integrated into mainstream
media-soap operas, children's programming, advertisements, regular
news programmes-and the wide selection of live media indigenous in
many countries.
3
Examples of use in mainstream media
For example, if there is a programme on child development and indig-
enous practices such as infant massage, be sure to include children who
are disabled and reinforce the message that it is of the same or
greater importance to massage children who are disabled as it is for
the non-disabled child. If there is a soap opera that features characters
who are developing their own business, include someone who is disabled
as the employer-as well as employee. What is important is that people
with disabilities are seen in as varied situations as non-disabled
persons. Parents of a newborn with disability must see that there are
other children like theirs who go to school and participate in play activi-
ties. Research shows that if parents don't see role models for what
their child can accomplish, they may not pursue education or training
opportunities for them. Adults who are disabled must see that they
too, are part of community life, work life, family life, etc. Our media
must present positive role models that demonstrate that disability is
just one more way of being different, not a tragedy.
Exercise
What follows are
a few key ques-
tions and com-
ments that you
can use to facili-
tate a discussion
and a better
understanding of
the video. It is
suggested that
after each
segment, you
ask the viewers
to discuss:
what they did/did not like
why they did/did not like a particular selection
what they learned
if they could they use this information and activities in their own work
how they would change or adapt what they saw
After viewing each segment, it might be important to have the group list
the key messages. Suggestions can be general or specific. For ex-
4
ample, the first
segment is about
the importance of
Early Interven-
tion with chil-
dren. Some of
the key mes-
sages that are
presented are:
play equals
learning, simple
activities are best,
it is important
that fathers
nurture and
stimulate chil-
dren as well as mothers, rehab activities can be part of the activities of
daily living of a family, etc.
1. Divide the viewers into smaller groups and have them discuss
how what they saw could be adapted to your local situation. What is
needed to begin? (Always include persons who are disabled and
parents in all aspects of planning and implementation). For ex-
ample, in the second segment there is a selection where agricultural
workers are being trained to work with persons who are blind. Per-
haps your community concentrates on arts & crafts products. How
can you adapt what is shown in this video to train local artisans to
work with blind persons?
2. Ask the small groups to write a simple Handout for parents or
community workers based on what they saw in each segment. If you
have an illustrator in the group, have her or him draw pictures of the
practical activities and suggestions depicted in each selection of the
video. For example, write a one page Handout for parents on how
they can stimulate their child who is disabled through massage,
games, music, local material of various colors to stimulate a child's
vision, etc. Use as few words as possible and have your pictures
tell the story.
3. Have each small group write a radio script, simple storybook/
flipchart, short puppet show that presents the messages depicted in the
video but uses people and customs from your own community. For
5
example, write a short six page children's book that shows how all
girls should be proud of who they are, disabled and not, rich or
poor, from majority or minority groups, etc.
4. Have each group list all the local customs and traditions that have
been used in their community and that are appropriate and useful to
persons who are disabled. Have them create a story about all that has
been happening that they can be proud of with regard to the care of
children and adults with disability. Make a list of case studies of fami-
lies who worked hard to integrate their children into schools, of women
and men who are disabled who can be role models for others, etc. Share
this list with your local media and suggest that these be developed into
story lines for production of electronic or print media.
Feedback on use
Rehabilitation International encourages feedback from you on how you
have used this video. We also would like to hear from you with regard to
what types of videos and other media can be of assistance in your CBR
work. If your group has produced innovative videos, we would be grate-
ful to receive a copy.
RI would like to thank all of the producers and organizations who
shared their videos with us throughout the development of this product.
We were limited in the numbers of selections we could include and hope
that there will be sequels to this compilation. RI would like to acknowl-
edge the following persons or organizations whose work is depicted in
this compilation video. The original and full length cassette of each can
be obtained by writing to the producers/distributors.
Pakistan Public Service Announcements: UNICEF-Pakistan, c/o 3
UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017 USA
3D Projects, 14 Monk Street, Spanish Town, St. Catherine, JAMAICA
Therapy Skill Builders, (Infant Massage for Children with Special
Needs), 555 Academic Court, San Antonio, TX 78204, USA
Learning to Move/Step by Step, c/o Cheshire Homes, Far Eastern
Region, No. 1, Jalan Berjaya, Palau Tikus, Penang, MALAYSIA
"It's A Challenge", Save the Children, P.O. Box 472, Mbabane,
SWAZILAND
6
Ghana CBR, The Norwegian Association of the Disabled, P.O. Box
9217 Gronland 0134 Oslo, NORWAY
"Training Agricultural Workers", ILO Publications, International
Labor Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, SWITZERLAND
"Business As Usual", Fanlight Productions, 47 Halifax St., Boston,
MA 02130, USA
"Puppets with a Purpose", UNICEF, Division of Communications, 3
UN Plaza, New York, NY, 10017 USA
Nepal Public Service Announcements on Polio Prevention and the
Right to Education, UNICEF-Nepal, c/o UNICEF, 3 UN Plaza, New
York, NY, 10017 USA
"The Silent Shout", UNICEF, 3 UN Plaza, New York, NY, 10017 USA
"Women with Disabilities Get the Work Done", ILO Publications,
International Labor Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, SWITZERLAND
"Issues and Insights: A World Forum on Women with Disabilities"
and "As We Are: From a Woman's Perspective", Third Millennium
Events, 711 Brent Road. Rockville, MD 20850, USA; Fax: 301-838-3029, e-
mail: [email protected]
Part 2
Introduction to Vision
Statements
Nearly 30 years ago, Rehabilitation International organized a World
Congress and some associated small meetings of experts in Ireland. One
of these "invited only" conclaves set out to deliberate a harmless sound-
ing topic," Development of Rehabilitation Services in Relation to Avail-
able Resources." In essence, this was the first international meeting to
recognize and attempt to resolve the dilemma that decades of expensive
efforts to replicate the rehabilitation services of industrialized nations in
developing countries had little or no measurable effect, for a complex of
reasons. The consensus of this meeting of mostly health-related profes-
sionals (rehabilitation medicine, occupational & physical therapy, pros-
thetics & orthotics, etc.) was that a modified or distilled version of their
arts & sciences would be required to reach a significant proportion of the
disabled population of developing countries. The meeting reached what
sounded like a halfhearted conclusion that some sort of a paraprofes-
sional with a crosshatch of skills might be needed.
Those who recall this seminal meeting agree that it constituted the birth
of what became known as Community Based Rehabilitation, later given
its first conceptual outline by the World Health Organization in plan-
ning papers published in 1975/6. (We can only guess that the apparent
silence or gap between the 1969 meeting in Killarney and the 1975
WHO papers might best be explained by the reluctance of the various
professions to promote diminished or "dumbed down" versions of them-
selves for work in Africa, Asia & Latin America.) In any case, RI has
remained integrally involved in the development, testing, experimenta-
tion and research into CBR services from 1969 to the present through
its regional meetings, publications, world congresses, projects and
advocacy.
8
Historical understanding provides context for today's realities concern-
ing the world's disabled persons. In 30 years demography mapping has
evolved to show that 80% of disabled people live in the world's rural
areas. It is known that the rural areas are often at the outer reaches of
the supply lines distributing goods and services, including program
technology. Effectively applying the lessons learned to date about CBR
presumes that program design must adapt to the local environment, not
the other way around.
More to the point, if local programs are to attain the state of grace called
"sustainability", living on after initial creation, local people who have
the greatest investment in the program must be involved from the
beginning. Francine Arsenault (Canada) and Carmen Reyes Zubiaga
(The Philippines) write their "Vision Statements" from personal experi-
ence-"empowerment" is not a gauzy concept. CBR as a crucible for
systems change begins with consciously setting up situations in which
disabled people are given the opportunity to make choices.
Linking resources to local CBR programming is today's challenge. Close
enough attention has not been paid to the social and resultant economic
gains possible to communities who host a dynamic CBR approach. Mike
Miles and Penny Price write their "Vision Statements" from the perspec-
tive of seasoned workers at the field level.
Together, the four "Vision Statements" take us forward into what CBR
can become in the 21st Century. Each is unique in its insights into the
possible demands and responses, pitfalls and opportunities. They do
agree on a few basics, however: we should not be unduly disturbed by
the lack of universal definitions of what a CBR project or service is-it is
dynamic and prone to the protective coloration of each community. The
writers also agree that for CBR projects to bring about real and lasting
changes in attitudes & behaviors, they must embrace: partnerships of
mutual respect between rehabilitation and disability leadership, egali-
tarian information sharing, research into best practices, and a deep
commitment to leadership development of people with disabilities. In
fact, one of the authors states that the elusive sustainability of CBR
actually lies in engaging leaders with disabilities in its implementation.
We look forward to your comments, reactions and additions.
Susan B. Parker
Secretary General
9
Building Partnerships through CBR
by Francine Arsenault
Following are some examples of part-
nership building projects I have ob-
served or participated in as the Chair
of the International Center for the
Advancement of Community Based
Rehabilitation (ICACBR) or on behalf
of the Council of Canadians with
Disabilities.
Latin America
In Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, or Panama, as in
many other countries, persons with
disabilities are the poorest of the poor.
Take for an example, my friend Hector,
who has in the past, gone on his hands
and knees over one mile to get to the
location of an extremely low paying job
so he could hold his head up and say, "I
work to support my family." To be
employed and be a paraplegic in his
homeland is a miracle. The meager
wage he earns barely keeps his wife and
two sons fed and clothed SO there are no dollars left to cover the extra costs
of disability, such as medicine, equipment or accessible housing.
When an exchange program with other persons with disabilities pro-
vided an opportunity for Hector to get training to learn how to repair
damaged wheelchairs and prepare them to be given or sold to his people,
he jumped at the chance and was one of the first recipients in the pro-
gram. Now, Hector not only supports his family with pride and dignity,
but helps provide an essential, previously lacking service to his commu-
nity. This is a working partnership.
Many countries engage in civil wars that add significantly to disability.
Hector was working in his garden before sunset when he got caught in
the crossfire between guerillas and the government forces. Many quad-
10
riplegics and paraplegics in developing and war torn countries do not
survive, because even if they get sufficient medical care at the onset of
the disability, there seldom is follow-up care, proper hygiene or nutrition
for continued good health. Nor is there rehabilitation, or necessary
equipment such as leg bags or catheters and of course, very few wheel-
chairs. Unless rigorous routines are developed by the individual and his
or her self-worth emphasized, many become weakened by infections and
pressure sores, give up and die.
We need to help establish effective partnerships in these countries
which will use CBR methods in spreading information about proven
"survive and thrive" approaches.
Caribbean
Almost worldwide, people with disabilities are SO busy finding the essen-
tials to survive that they don't have much time or energy left for other
pursuits. Let's look at the Caribbean. I've been working with self-help
groups of persons with disabilities in twelve countries there: Bahamas,
Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts/
Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago
and recently the USA. Every country had its unique characteristics and
own special splendor.
Again, those with disabilities are usually the poorest of the poor, but
during the United Nations Decade of the Disabled each country began to
develop self-help groups. In every place I visited as a consultant with a
disability, the self-help groups were beginning to get the necessary skills
to participate in existing services or to propose services of their own that
would supplement those in the community.
The self-help groups are learning to work with their governments,
educators, health specialists and linking partners in other parts of the
world to start community based rehabilitation programs to train persons
with disabilities SO that they become capable of giving actual rehabilita-
tion and training to more disabled persons in their local communities.
Asia
Here is another example of true CBR in action: In Indonesia, "Pikat" and
"Nunning" are two rare disabled women with university degrees. Their
families broke with tradition and did not hide them or apologize for their
shortened legs caused by polio. Their adaptation to using crutches took a
11
giant leap when
they both learned
to ride three
wheeled motor-
cycles to go to 18
villages. In the
mountains in Java
they carried the
concept of CBR
from the Solo CBR
Training Center
and after living
with the commu-
nity for a month
convinced the
villages to give
their support to the other disabled people in those communities. Their
parents can now rest assured that they can support themselves, and
they have become effective role models for the many disabled children
and adults of those villages.
Bosnia
In Bosnia in November, I met many people struggling to adjust to their
disability after they became injured from the war. Aida lost her husband
after M.S. slurred her speech and made it SO difficult to walk. Her ability to
be a caregiver to her son (who now cares for her), went next. Her job is
continued only through her sheer willpower and determination. Lack of
vital medicines, which she could not afford even if they were available, will
soon make it impossible for her to maintain her very life.
Cehic was lucky. His wife stayed with him after he became a paraplegic
when he was shot near Bihac. He already had an education SO continued to
work to support his children. He directs the wheelchair basketball team
and has regained some of the assertiveness and self-esteem he had lost.
But what of the others around the world? If we do not provide adequate
rehabilitation services and support, both moral and financial, for self-
help organizations of persons with disabilities how will the next genera-
tion of persons with disabilities not only survive but thrive?
It is imperative globally that we put the major issue of disability on the
table to be dealt with realistically, sensitively and immediately.
12
Creating Partnerships for CBR
After the Year of the Disabled in 1981, I was asked to join a newly
formed advocacy organization for persons with disabilities. In the next
ten years I had chaired local, regional, provincial, national and interna-
tional boards of directors. The rules of partnership I had learned in the
past served me well here. We learned to empathize with all disabilities
and our organizations did not do things for disabled people but taught
them to do those things for themselves.
Partnership Principles
I believe it is important for us to connect on a personal level but also to
try and demonstrate the tremendous impact positive partnerships can
have on our understanding of ourselves and on our ability to grow and
prosper in the communities in which we live. However, for partnerships
to be positive they must be governed by the following principles:
Partnerships must be open, willing to make adjustments and be based
on trust. They must truly be a coming together to make things work
and remove the barriers that prohibit participation and growth.
Positive partnership must focus on abilities. Yes, recognize the dis-
ability but focus on the ability.
For partnerships to grow we must be willing to take chances, not fear
taking risks.
Partnerships must be truly equal, expectations must be shared as well
as the responsibility for making things happen.
Listening is the key to a healthy partnership.
Respect for each other's ability is critical.
Partnerships change, to remain static means to remain in the same
place. Be prepared for partnership separation or cancellation. Be open
to the formation of new partnerships.
Partnerships take many forms and may include multidisciplinary ap-
proaches including people with disabilities, non-governmental organiza-
tions, health professionals, governments, families and the community.
Partners must be included in planning, research, implementation and
evaluation of projects.
Good role models help partners to achieve their goals.
Our world is far from perfect for persons with disabilities. There is much
work yet to be done. The most productive technique for creating positive
change is not new. Critical to our success is the development of creative,
inspiring partnerships.
13
CBR: Target for the 21st Century
by M. Miles
The western
'discovery of
CBR' since the
1960s is still in
its infancy,
when one
considers the
past 300 to 3000
years of formal
disability ser-
vice develop-
ment in Asia
and Africa. Knowledge of specialised treatment and education, and of
disability prevention, has grown rapidly in western urban centres; and
has been exported, usually with inadequate cultural and conceptual
adaptation, to urban counterparts worldwide. Awareness has been
raised about the negative economic, social and psychological pressures
experienced by the majority of disabled people in every society. Yet
public knowledge about how disabled adults actually live their daily
lives, how families raise disabled children, how ordinary schoolteachers
manage when they notice disabled children in their classrooms, how
disabled people make a formal or informal contribution to their
neighbourhood communities - in other words, the nitty-gritty of what
ordinary people do, day by day, as they live with disability - such knowl-
edge remains seriously inadequate, especially in countries with weak
economies and poor information structures.
From private knowledge to public awareness
Of course, the ordinary people living their daily lives with disability
know how they themselves do it: what obstacles they face, what suc-
cesses they achieve, what would be the first steps that would help them
forward, and what they can offer to other people. But that private
knowledge has seldom been formulated and expressed, seldom aggre-
gated across large numbers of people, and hardly ever communicated
publicly SO as to affect government policies or social consciences. In a
few countries, ordinary people's knowledge and feedback have begun to
be noticed by formal service providers such as special teachers, physio-
14
therapists, orthopaedic surgeons, equipment designers. These profes-
sionals have become more aware that their services are flawed if the
results do not give satisfaction to users in everyday life. Yet such impact
and awareness are exceptional and usually confined to countries with
stable economies and high education levels, where substantial parts of the
population feel some confidence in their ability to shape their own future.
In most countries, where socio-economic changes are experienced as rapid,
threatening and beyond personal control, it is harder to awaken the mag-
nanimity that can result if powerful groups make resources available to
develop the vast poorer groups, and to rescue those who have lost or never
had the capacity to raise themselves.
Developing new roles
'CBR', a blanket term now covering a range of uneasy bedfellows, has
described or facilitated some interesting new movement, communica-
tion and roles. Some rehabilitation professionals have moved towards
people in their own homes, acting as enablers rather than instructors.
Some disabled people have moved onto professional ground and won a
place as trainers of young professionals, to whom they communicate
their `daily living' message. Some planners have begun to design envi-
ronments that are easier for everyone to live in. Many associations have
formed to promote their members' interests, whether of people in vari-
ous `disability categories', or their relatives, or professionals. Next,
faced with the vast challenges of educating the general public and
changing negative attitudes and practices of society, some parents,
professionals and disabled people have dropped their mutual battles
and begun to develop partnerships of mutual respect and support.
There is an increasing recognition that no single group - whether par-
ents, disabled adults, voluntary agencies, senior professionals,
children's rights advocates, government planners, or grandmothers
meeting under a tree -has `the solution'. If several billion individuals in
their local and national communities are to change patterns of thought
and behaviour that have accumulated and solidified over centuries, it
will require the united and sustained efforts of all the parties aiming for
change.
Dreams VS. nightmares
On the positive side, studies of social history indicate that the 20th century
is the first period during which humankind has seriously formulated the
global target of developing a more positive life and status for all disabled
people. This is a notable advance. During three millennia a recurrent
15
dream has been recorded, of a 'better world' from which disabilities have
been eliminated - or disabled people excluded. Efforts to realise this dream
- or nightmare - have continued to the present. In the nobler version,
knowledge has been developed and applied to eliminate or control dis-
abling diseases such as smallpox, polio, trachoma. In the nightmare ver-
sion, people with disabilities have been judged 'worthless' and killed en
masse by official order. Somewhere between these versions, and with
impassioned ethical
debates, foetuses
expected to have
disabling conditions
continue to be aborted,
or allowed to die soon
after birth. Neverthe-
less, as debates con-
tinue, the globally-
agreed target has
become firmer: that
people with disabili-
ties should enjoy the
same rights and
benefits as anyone
else, and should be
enabled to live as full
and satisfying a life as
possible within the
usual range of choices
and customs available
in their community
and society. This
'target' is hard to put
into words without enraging one group or another and without it being SO
idealistic as to remain a distant dream. Yet even though it is understood
differently in various regions and languages, there is a growing consensus
that humankind can, and must, move towards the broad goal. Govern-
ments must provide planning and finance to do so, local communities must
use all possible resources, disabled people must-make input to plans and
must take up the opportunities. Positive change must take place.
Problems with definitions
And CBR? The term can be understood as the sum of all these efforts.
As such, it is of course vague. Concerned people will continue to pull it
16
in this or that direction. It is a feature of modern global communication,
that the meanings of general terms very quickly diversify as people
with different languages receive them and make sense of them in their
own conceptual world. It is important to understand this- but we do not
have to view it as a problem.
Community Based Rehabilitation can usefully be looked at as an 'infor-
mation system', using various aspects of information as they are under-
stood in whatever community and lan-
guage group. It is obvious that "knowl-
edge, skills and design" are needed in
CBR, whether we think of a mother at
home with a disabled baby, a politician
drafting a law about access to public
transport, or some elderly deaf people
learning new income-generating skills
along with other elderly people in the
local mosque. Underlying the necessary
knowledge and skills, there are many
deep, local "concepts" of how life is lived,
how family members relate to one an-
other, the behaviour expected of chil-
dren, what sort of things are seen as
disabilities, how disabilities affect living,
what differences there are in the roles of
men and of women. These concepts are
much less obvious on the surface, but
are of the utmost importance. Because
the underlying concepts vary from
region to region, and from one religion or
philosophy to another, 'CBR' and the target of CBR cannot be defined
globally once and for all. To some extent, CBR has to be discovered and
practised by the people themselves, in each country, each town, each
village.
Scaffolding and construction
Self-discovery does not mean that the knowledge, skills and design
developed in one place cannot be used in another. What it means is
that 'imported' knowledge and skills should be seen as a sort of
scaffolding, and to some extent building material, that enables
people to construct a building based on their own conceptual founda-
tions, with roots in their own country, their own history, their own
17
way of living and being. Such a construction cannot be imported
from northern countries to southern. It cannot be imported from big
city institutions to rural villages, or even to urban slums. Yet it can
very seldom be constructed by villagers or slum-dwellers entirely by
their own efforts. Partnership is needed. There is an absolute re-
quirement of mutual listening and learning. Some of those with one
sort of knowledge and skills (e.g. modern, urban, maybe educational
or biomedical) must listen and learn from people with another sort
(e.g. rural, survival-based, maybe religious). People within a tradi-
tional conceptual world must delve into their own folklore, art and
drama, to uncover the positive and the ambivalent views of disabil-
ity, and decide which are the authentic and valuable parts on which
they will build. They are likely to do this only if they understand
that the offer of help from the city or foreign CBR advocate includes
a genuine respect for their culture and concepts.
Learning from the past and present
People with disabilities must offer their knowledge and experience - with a
real awareness that traditional views cannot be changed overnight. Dis-
ability activists inspired by high ideals may lecture civil servants - but
should also be prepared to listen to the constraints under which they work.
The Director of Social Affairs, for example, seeks improvements that can
be introduced and practised at least with moderate effectiveness by the
average and below average staff constituting 90% of her workforce; costing
no more than the present system; producing results measurable by ordi-
nary means; that will not inflame religious teachers or other influential
constituencies; that will not reinforce corruption and nepotism in staff
postings; and that might deliver, within two or three years, benefits sub-
stantially outweighing the disruption involved in implementing the
scheme. If no proposal meets these criteria, the Director prefers to con-
tinue the present system, whatever its flaws. Activists wishing to change
the Director's mind should first learn how she sees the situation; and what
happened to earlier attempts to change the system. This is more difficult
than shouting slogans in the street; but in the long run, probably more
effective.
None of the listening and learning will be easy. The development fields of
agriculture, health and education have travelled this road for several
decades, during which mutual understanding has grown with painful
slowness. However, the disability and CBR field is not obliged to make
exactly the same mistakes, or to take quite SO long. We can learn from
history.
18
CBR: Dynamic Concept Requiring Strategy,
Research and Vision
by Penny Price
If the past decades can be interpreted as an initial establishment phase,
then the second consolidation phase may require a more systematic
approach in order to harness what has already been learned, and to
translate it into action. This process will lead towards a third phase
where universal acknowledgment of the rights of people with disabilities
becomes inevitably linked to development of communities committed to
meeting fully the needs of all community members. The seeds for the
achievement of the third phase are visible in many of the activities of
the first. Key aspects include acknowledgment of the complexity of the
CBR concept, systematic information sharing, the generation of research
based knowledge, continued advocacy and resource development, and
applications of CBR to an increasingly diverse range of settings.
CBR--a dynamic concept
Experience from past decades has taught
us that CBR will never be a 'tidy' concept,
neatly defined, but dynamic and con-
stantly growing and changing in response
to both evolving philosophical and ethical
frameworks, and the diverse social,
political, economic, demographic and
physical conditions to which it is applied.
Currently conceived dichotomies will be
reinterpreted as continua, at different
points on which varied adaptations of the
CBR concept will be seen to be specifi-
cally appropriate for different reasons at
any particular point in time. Some of
these dimensions might include the top-
down/grass roots issue, the whole coun-
try/local community approach, the pre-
dominantly health focus and the disabil-
ity within community development
framework, leadership roles of profes-
sionals and people with disabilities, and the applicability of CBR to devel-
oped as well as developing countries.
19
They will encourage the
sharing of expertise and
problem solving experi-
ences, and will provide a
source of continual
encouragement in a
shared endeavor for
people often working in
physically isolated
situations.
Asia-Pacific
strategies
Current examples
within the Asia and
Pacific region include groups such as ActionAid in India, the Solo Forum
on Human Resource Development in CBR, based in Indonesia, and the
recently formed Pacific Network of Disability Workers. The sharing of
detailed information and ideas Informs and inspires others to try new
strategies and approaches. Internet communication facilitates network
linking but alternative strategies must be kept in place to ensure effec-
tive and mutually supportive linking for people in less technologically
advanced settings.
Strategies to involve Government and provide links at inter-Governmen-
tal level must be further.encouraged. Considerable success has been
achieved by the implementation of regional strategies such as the UN
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Decade of
Disabled Persons, 1993-2002, established to mandate Government
activity and to guide policy and action by mean of specific targets set for
achievement within a specific time-frame, and monitored annually. The
strength of this initiative lies in its clearly stated mandates which
provide the information base needed for action. Progress in small coun-
tries such as Fiji, currently investigating the viability of a nationwide
CBR strategy, indicate clearly that previous failure to undertake effec-
tive action was due to lack of appropriate knowledge rather than lack of
will. The imperative, is to develop the means and strategies to link non-
participating countries into existing networks.
CBR and action research
A practical action-based CBR research agenda will help to build a sys-
tematic body of knowledge that can inform future practice and assist in
20
developing a series of 'best practice' guidelines, capable of preventing
repetition of previous mistakes and lessons already learned. This may
include descriptive, comparative and evaluative methodologies. At its
simplest this will involve the documentation of any CBR initiative, a
step-by-step description detailing the rationale, context, scale, resources,
format, content and length of training, outcomes, and problems encoun-
tered, exemplified in the recent work of McConkey and O'Toole in
Guyana. Comparative research may facilitate the identification of spe-
cific factors that act as catalysts for change, and enable them to be
applied in other settings. This research would be relevant to the identifi-
cation of factors which give rise to leadership of people with disabilities
in community activities, SO that other communities may learn how to
promote this outcome. Evaluative research is the measure of maturity of
the CBR approach, and enables both positive and negative outcomes to
be turned into constructive guidance for the future CBR activities. More
complex, and to some extent revolutionary, is the social policy change-
agency research undertaken by the Partnerships in Community Living
Project (Roeher Institute, 1997). The purpose of this research is to
develop an achievable vision of community development based on a
human rights perspective, by means of providing research based infor-
mation on both the barriers to human rights and the necessary steps to
achieve social change.
Advocacy and resource development
Although it is an ideal that CBR activities will be generated entirely at
local levels, many are still reliant to a greater or lesser degree on fund-
ing and expertise from aid donor, government or other national or inter-
national agencies. The role of these agencies then becomes critical in
maintaining the momentum for increased support and extension of
current activity. Within the Asian and Pacific region there is a need for
ESCAP to maintain an active role in education, awareness raising and
training, and to promote leadership skills in people with disabilities to
that their voice is heard in finding solutions to the problems which they
face in their communities and countries, as well as persuading Govern-
ments to proclaim their commitment to the Asia and Pacific Decade
Agenda for Action.
CBR in an increasingly diverse range of settings
Developed initially as a response to need in communities where conven-
tional rehabilitation services were not available, CBR has developed into
a model with applicability to an increasingly diverse range of settings, in
21
both more
developed and
less developed
countries. A
continuation of
this trend may
lead to a situa-
tion where CBR
is an integral
part of commu-
nity and service
development
throughout the
world. It has the
capacity to meet
the needs of
people at all
stages of the life
span, and
intersects with early intervention, inclusive education, vocational train-
ing and income generation, full community participation, and the care of
the aging and elderly.
CBR and Human Rights
Changes in the conceptualization of CBR are consonant with changes in
the wider conceptualization of disability. The shift from a medical to a
social model, within a human right framework, has been accompanied
by the development and dissemination of the United Nations Standard
Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.
People with disabilities are increasingly partners in all endeavors affect-
ing their lives. Where this is not the case then it is an area for focused
attention to achieve the changes which will ensure that the voices of
persons with disabilities are heard in all research and implementation
processes--truly participatory--if more than lip service is to be paid to
the adoption of a human rights framework for all CBR activity. The
achievement of societies and communities whose every decision is based
on, and framed in terms of, human rights, is perhaps a state that will be
achieved in the third phase of CBR development.
Reference
Roeher Institute (1997). "Policy, Practice and Partnerships: Children are
Us", Roeher Institute: York University, Toronto.
22
Empowerment of People with Disabilities:
Primary Goal of CBR
by Carmen Reyes-Zubiaga
It is not true that CBR is cost effective Volunteers will never stay
forever
in your program You have to think doubly hard on how the
community will adopt your program To have a holistic approach, you
should be a jane or jack-of -all trades in rehabilitation
My Story:
When I had my first
CBR sensitization
activity in one com-
munity, folks focused
all eyes on me. Dis-
abled people who
were present looked
at me seeming some-
what embarrassed.
Mothers were point-
ing me out to their
children while I was
talking to the town
mayor, who seemed to be very impressed with me. Among the audi-
ence were village captains, municipal officials and volunteer health
workers, mostly older women. I later learned that it was the first
time that a person with disability had talked in front of such a group
about the possible contribution of people with disabilities to commu-
nity development. I was happy with the audience response and they
seemed ready to take some actions and accept my challenge.
Then the town mayor gave his response. Very supportive and encourag-
ing, but I felt SO disgusted at how he addressed people with disabilities.
All I could do was give him a sour face every time he called people with
disabilities with "names" such as cripple or damaged - which does not
sound good in the Filipino language. In closing his speech, he wanted to
show proof that he was supportive to disabled people SO he told a story of
one man whom he is helping by providing him a job at the municipality.
Then he called the man to come upstage, saying "Where is Cripple?
Cripple! Come up here." Then a man with a slight disability caused by
23
polio hesitantly approached the stage while people were laughing as the
mayor pulled him forward.
I just shook my head and told myself: This is the community. What
can CBR does to change this? If anyone of you encounter this situation,
go over this resource kit and find solutions. If you cannot find any, feel
free to write to me.
About this Resource Kit
It is globally relevant! As community based rehabilitation is fast be-
coming a by word in every developing country and now recognized as an
effective strategy to reach the maximum number of people with disabili-
ties, this resource kit is indeed very useful for planners, implementors
and evaluators. But, do not rely on everything they say. There are a lot
of myths about CBR and an implementor should always look into the
realities of life in the community before trying to build a world of dreams
through CBR.
Patience & principles
To achieve success in CBR is like reaching for a perfect world for people
with disabilities. It is a long term endeavor that requires patience and
commitment to its principles. Results will not be visible overnight but
there are some indicators as to its impact the community. Success in
some communities may not be seen as such in another because of differ-
ences in cultures and beliefs. But there is one universal factor that
rehabilitation workers all over the world should work for: integration of
people with disabilities within the community system and encouraging
their participation in building a better society. This universal factor
always makes a CBR implementor try to be a jack-of-all-trades in reha-
bilitation. Sometimes he is a physical therapist who tries to teach small
business management to a disabled person who just learned how to walk
with an artificial leg, or a special education teacher sourcing funds to
buy a wheelchair for a disabled child. But the best CBR Implementor is
the one who has the ability to pull resources together to develop a holis-
tic approach for program and does not try to be everything in one.
Sustainability = empowerment
The idea of a community adopting the programs, using their own re-
sources and achieving sustainability will only be possible if the target
group, people with disabilities themselves are sensitized, involved and
participating in the decision making process. Empowerment of the
people with disabilities should be the primary component of any CBR
24
program. CBR implementors should see to it that people with disabili-
ties are being involved and should avoid making them feel like benefi-
ciaries but rather, develop them as a partners. To empower people
with disabilities may involve a lot money, time and resources and it will
show that CBR is not really a low-cost program in the beginning, but
empowerment is an effective way to achieve sustainability for CBR.
Government as partner
Do not forget the government. It might be an irony but a good CBR
program should have a strong collaboration with the local government.
Having government support is one factor for sustainability. An NGO
may not always be there but the government is always present. The
need for CBR to be integrated in local development plans should be
given strong emphasis. This will only be achieved if the government
staff concerned with disability issues are sensitized and have internal-
ized the commitment to improve the lives of people with disabilities in
their communities. Make them feel that they are important but show
them that you can go ahead without them and they are "missing the
boat" if they ignore your CBR Program.
Community volunteers
Follow-up is important as a successful CBR program does not develop
overnight, but takes time to mature and instill commitment to its foun-
dation. The foundation of a strong CBR program is the disabled people
and their families who will carry on the program. And do not forget the
volunteers. They work for the program because they want to help. Most
of them are poor people who have nothing but goodwill and willingness
to help, so do not abuse them by ignoring their need for resources to
move around the community. When you develop a proposal for a CBR
Program, allocate sufficient amount for travel expenses and training of
community volunteers. They may never stay forever but they will
always remember and advertise the experiences they gained.
Role models
The success of any CBR Program relies heavily on the commitment of
the leaders towards achieving its goals. I will always say that the best
leaders are people with disabilities who can always act as a role mod-
els. Therefore, it is always important to develop leadership among the
target groups as they will portray what CBR wants to achieve for people
with disabilities. And that is living their lives to the fullest as contrib-
uting members of their community.
The truth is It can be done!
Part 3
A Selection of CBR Resources
A. Newsletters/Journals
Giving
ActionAid Disability News is the newsletter of the Dis-
People
Choices
ability Division of ActionAid-INDIA. Topics range from the
integration of CBR information into the curriculum for
medical doctors, information on new training courses and
materials to the relationship between prevention of disabil-
ity and early detection as part of child survival and mater-
INDIA
TM
nal care interventions. The newsletter is bi-annual and
ACTIONAID
free upon request. Address: ActionAid-India, P.B. No. 5406,
No. 3, Rest House Road, Bangalore, 560 001 INDIA. Fax: 91 80 558
6284, e-mail: [email protected]
African Journal of Special Needs Education is published bi-
annually at the Uganda National Institute of Special Education. It
covers topics related to CBR, inclusion, culture and disability, health/
poverty/disability as well as related research. Consulting Editors
come from the entire African region. Address: Uganda National
Institute of Special Education, P.O. Box. 6478. Kampala, UGANDA.
Fax: 256 41 222961
Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal. This bi-annual
journal, which was started in 1990 in a simpler format, was reader-
ship in 72 countries. The focus of the Journal is to promote the field
of disability rehabilitation within the Asian region, but the quality of
the research articles is such that it is of value to academics, adminis-
trators, policy makers and implementers and is internationally
indexed. The Journal covers theoretical and practical aspects of CBR
in a wide range of contexts, extending beyond its Asian origins.
26
Address: Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, c/o Dr Maya
Thomas, Editor, J-124, Ushas Apartments, 16th Main, IV Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 011, Karnataka, India. Fax: 91-80-
6638045.
Asia & Pacific Journal on Disability is a bi-annual publication
sponsored by the Asia and Pacific Regional Committee of Rehabilitation
International (RI) and the Regional NGO Network (RNN) for the pro-
motion of the Asia and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002.
The emphasis is on publishing articles or research papers that have
significant impact on policy and practice concerning people with disabili-
ties and their families. The Journal covers many aspects of rural and
urban CBR. Address: Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, c/o Karen
Ngai, Executive Editor, City University of Hong Kong, Division of Social
Studies, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Fax: 852 2788 7709,
e-mail: [email protected]
CBR NEWS is an international newsletter
AHRTAG
on community-based rehabilitation and the
concerns of disabled people. It is published
by the Appropriate Health Resources &
Technology Action Group Ltd. (AHRTAG), published three times a year
in English, including braille and cassette versions. This newsletter is
also available in Hindi, "Indian English", Indian braille, and French. It
is free to readers in developing countries. AHRTAG also has a wide
range of media materials on CBR and primary health care. Address:
AHRTAG, Farringdon Point, 29-35 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M
3JB, UK. Fax: 44 171 242 0041; e-mail: [email protected]; web site:
http://www.poptel.org.uk/ahrtag/
CBR Update is the newsletter of the Interna-
tional Centre for the Advancement of Commu-
nity-Based Rehabilitation (ICACBR) based at
Queen's University in Canada. The newsletter
publishes information about its collaborative
CBR projects in developing countries, an-
nouncements of the most recent CBR research,
networking opportunities and related confer-
ences. Address: ICACBR, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. Fax: 1 613 545 6882; e-mail:
[email protected]
27
Child Health Dialogue is an international newsletter on child health
and disease prevention published by AHRTAG. It often covers topics
related to CBR as well as other issues concerning disability such as
prevention, malnutrition and disability, resource lists, etc. Available in
Chinese, French, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, Tamil, Urdu and
Vietnamese. Address: AHRTAG, Farringdon Point, 29-35 Farringdon
Road, London EC1M 3JB, UK. Fax: 44 171 242 0041, e-mail:
*[email protected]
Deepshikha is the journal of the Spastics Society of Eastern India. It
often covers topics of special interest to women with disabilities as well
as information about early intervention for very young disabled children.
Address: Spastics Society of Eastern India, P-35/1, Taratolla Road,
Calcutta 700 088 INDIA.
Disability Awareness in Action is an international information network
on disability and human rights for disabled people, their organisations and
their allies. DAA publishes a monthly newsletter and occasional resource
kits and is building a worldwide information resource on disability policy
and human rights issues. One copy of each kit and each newsletter is free.
Address: DAA, 11, Belgrave Road, London SW1V 1RB, U.K. Tel.: +44 171
834 0477; Fax: +44 171 821 9539; e-mail: [email protected];
website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DAA_ORG
Disability International is the official publica-
PEOPLES'
tion of Disabled Peoples' International (DPI) and
was formerly called "Vox Nostra". It is available
quarterly in English, French and Spanish and
includes articles on a variety of issues of concern
DISABLED
INTERNATIONA
to people with disability, including CBR. Ad-
dress: Disability International, 309 -175
Hargrave, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3R8.
ton
NOSTRA
Disability Frontline is the quarterly newsletter of the Southern
Africa Federation of the Disabled, and covers projects in numerous
southern Africa countries in both English and Portuguese. Address:
P.O. Box 2247, 130 Herbert Chitepo St., Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Tel.:
263 9 69356; Fax: 263 9 74398.
Families and Disability Newsletter is published three times a
year by the Beach Center on Families and Disability at the Univer-
sity of Kansas in the USA. The newsletter focuses on family-cen-
28
tered services, policies and practices. The information is meant for
both parents and professionals but with the aim of professionals
facilitating the empowerment of families. It includes practical infor-
mation on how to build on a family's strengths, quality indicators of
family-centered work as well as unique resources. Addresses:
Beach Center on Families and Disability, 3111 Haworth, The Univer-
sity of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 USA. Fax: 1 785 864 7605; e-
mail: [email protected]; Website: http://
www.lsi.ukans.edu/beach/beachhp.htm
FORWARD is the newsletter of COMBRA CBR Centre in Kampala,
Uganda. It includes information on legislation with regard to disability,
CBR courses in the region and case studies about individuals who are
part of the CBR projects. Address: FORWARD, c/o COMBRA CBR,
P.O. Box 708, Kampala, UGANDA.
the Hesperian Foundation
Hesperian Foundation
News is the newsletter of the
Foundation dedicated to im-
proving the health of people in
poor communities throughout
the world by providing resource for informed self-care. The newslet-
ter provides an update on these resources as well as practical inserts
on specific health issues, most recently on issues relating to women.
Community-based projects are the focus of much of their work. Ad-
dress: Hesperian Foundation, 1919 Addison St., Suite 304, Berkeley,
CA 94704-1144, USA. Tel.: 1 510 845 1447; Fax: 1 510 845 9141;
e-mail: [email protected]
Hopeful Steps CBR Newsletter is published by the Guyana CBR
Programme. It includes CBR information from the Guyana Region,
particularly on training, employment projects and resources. Ad-
dress: CBR News, 120 Parade Street, Kingston, Georgetown,
GUYANA.
Inclusion - News from Inclusion International.
This journal is the annual publication of Inclusion
International, the organization formerly known as
the International League of Societies for Persons
with Mental Handicap (ILSMH). The Journal ad-
dresses the main concerns of the organization--human rights, advo-
cacy and self-advocacy for its grass roots membership of 50 million
29
people with mental handicap and their families worldwide. The
findings of specialized Project Groups are reported in a bi-annual
publication called Getting There, and inclusive education, inclusive
communities and CBR issues, approaches and projects are reported.
Address: Inclusion International, Galleries de la Towson d'Or, 29
Chaussee d'Ixelles, # 393/32, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. Fax: 32-2
502 2846; e-mail: [email protected]
International Rehabilitation Review (IRR) is
the official publication of Rehabilitation Interna-
tional (RI) and includes in-depth coverage of key
issues relating to CBR and other aspects of disabil-
ity, media developments, news from around the
world and highlights of RI activities. There are two issues of IRR each
year which cost $45.00. Complimentary subscriptions are available to
editors of other disability periodicals (on an exchange basis) and to
selected individuals and organizations in developing countries. Address:
Rehabilitation International, 25 East 21 Street, New York, N.Y. 10010
USA, Fax: 1 212 505 0871; e-mail: [email protected]
Newsletter of the Sierra Madre is put out by Health Wrights, a
workgroup for people's health and rights. This newsletter highlights
disability projects in developing countries with regular updates on
Project PROJIMO, a program run by and for disabled young people in
western Mexico. Available from Health Wrights, P.O. Box 1344, Palo
Alto, CA 94302 USA. Fax: 1 650 325 1080; e-mail:
[email protected]; Website: www.healthwrights.org
ДОП
One in Ten is a joint newsletter of Rehabilita-
tion International and UNICEF on the topic of
childhood disability. It often covers topics
VVV
relating to CBR as well as prevention, the girl
child, protection of children in especially diffi-
cult circumstances, etc. Available in English, French, and Spanish.
Address: UNICEF House, 3 U.N. Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10017 USA.
Fax: 1 212 824 6483 or from Rehabilitation International, 25 East 21
Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10010 USA. Fax: 1 212 505 0871; e-mail:
[email protected]
Pacific Network of Disability Workers is a new publication
designed to keep disability workers who have undertaken the dis-
tance learning Certificate in Disability Studies from the University
30
of the South Pacific in contact with developments in the Pacific and
on the global scene. The participating countries include Cook Islands,
Fiji, Nauru, Niue, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and
Western Samoa. The publication contains current local developments
and very practical information for practitioners in disability services.
Address: Secretariat, Pacific Network of Disability Workers, Univer-
sity Extension, USP, P.O.Box 1168, Suva, Fiji Islands. e-mail:
[email protected]
REHAB Today is the newsletter of the CBR Programme in Bacolod
City in the Philippines. As one of the earliest CBR projects, many
international visitors have been welcomed and this newsletter brings
information about such visits as well as on-going CBR training and
new efforts such as the 1996 "Village based Appropriate AIDS Store".
It is published quarterly. Address: Negros Occidental Rehabilitation
Center, Cor. Lacson Street-Cottage Road, Bacolod City 6100 Philip-
pines. Fax: 63 34 81322.
Together is the CBR Newsletter of an ILO/UNDP project based in Iraq.
Although the newsletter is printed only in Arabic, there is an English
translation of the contents on the inside cover. In addition, if English
translation of any of the articles is needed it will be sent on request.
Address: Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled People Project IRQ/95/
002/ILO - UNDP Baghdad, P.O. Box 3606, P. Code 12902, Iraq. Tel.: 964
1 542 1674; Fax: 964 1 886 2523.
B. Selected Recent CBR Publications
Books
Beyond Basic Care: Special Education and Community Rehabili-
tation in Low Income Countries, edited by Roy Brown, David Baine
and Aldred Neufeldt. The focus is on describing a variety of ideas and
techniques used to solve rehabilitation and special education problems
in various countries around the world, with the intent that this sharing
may lead to the adoption and trialing of appropriate strategies previ-
ously untried. The issue of change-agency is addressed, with the
strengths and problems of providing consultancy and technical assis-
tance across cultural boundaries. Address: Captus Press, York Univer-
sity Campus, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3.
Fax: 1 416 736 5793; e-mail: [email protected]
31
Community Based Rehabilitation is written by Malcolm Peat, Ex-
ecutive Director of ICACBR and professor at the Queen's University
School of Rehabilitation Therapy. Published in 1998, this book reflects
the view that there is no single approach that represents CBR, that it
must be viewed as continuum. The book examines the development of
CBR and the factors influencing its design and implementation, and is
applicable to CBR planning and practice in developed and developing
countries. Canadian $65. Address: W.B. Saunders Co. Ltd., c/o ICACBR,
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Fax: 613-545-
6882; e-mail: [email protected]
Community-Based Rehabilitation: Existing Approach and
Chakoria CBR: A Case Study of Rural CBR of Bangladesh is a
review of CBR in Bangladesh by Shahidul Haque and Shahnas Begum.
It focuses on CBR in remote villages that are often ignored by aid and
relief organizations. Address: Sarpv-Bangladesh, GPO Box 4208, Dhaka
1000 Bangladesh. Cost is US $ 10.00. Fax: 880 2 81 9774.
Critical Resources for Realizing a Human Rights
Agenda for People with Disabilities. These publica-
tions were developed as part of a project called Partner-
ships in Community Living: Toward Making the Human
ROEHER
Rights Agenda for People with Disabilities a Reality. The
project focused on promoting the inclusion of children
and youths with disabilities in their communities, by means of achieving
a consensual human rights declaration to guide all activity and service
development within the 36 participating countries from the Americas.
The Managua Declaration focuses on community-based research as a
means towards participatory goal and vision setting and problem solv-
ing. It is a revolutionary document that may pave the way for new
solutions to many of the problems currently addressed by CBR. Address:
The Roeher Institute Publications, Kinsmen Building, York University,
4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. Fax: 1-416
661 5701; e-mail : [email protected]
Daily Management of CBR Fieldworkers and Supervisors. In-
cluding Proposals for Internal Regulations and Monitoring
Documents for CBR Programmes (Draft Version) This is the first
CBR related publication that evaluates the success and failures of the
CBR movement since the early 1980s. In it, the author Geert Vanneste
challenges CBR managers to both question the ideas put forth in the
book, as well as their own management practices in light of the fact that
32
often, time, energy and resources have been wasted to the detriment of
many people with disabilities and their families. Chapters explore some
of the myths of CBR, management styles or lack thereof, what a compre-
hensive CBR programme might look like, training and variety of moni-
toring and evaluation tools. This is a much needed resource in the field.
Purchases can be made directly from the author. CCBRT Library, P.O.
Box 23.310 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Fax: 255 811 321 1135.
Disability and Rehabilitation in Rural Jamaica: an ethnographic
study by Ronnie Linda Leavitt, 249 pages, published 1992 by Associated
University Press, 440 Forsgate Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512 USA; 25
Sicilian Ave., London WC1A 2QH England; and P.O. Box 39, Clarkson
Pstl. Stn., Mississauga, Ontario L5J 3X9, Canada. This book by a U.S.
medical anthropologist is an in-depth analysis of a CBR project in Ja-
maica, known as the 3D Project, based on research undertaken by the
author. The eight chapers cover: introduction to concepts; description of
the 3D project; Jamaica-the nation and its people; health in Jamaica-
the delivery system and present status of the people; methods of re-
search; disabled children and their families-a quantitative and qualita-
tive perrpective; disabled children and their families-case histories;
and a discussion, followed by recommendations and conclusions. Unusu-
ally comprehensive appendices cover: disability & rehabilitation in the
third world; and theoretical constructs-a review of the literature.
Disabled Children and Developing Countries is edited by Pam
Zinkin and Helen McConachie. It is a 1995 book covering most of the
topics that are important to those concerned with children, ranging from
the political arena to community based solutions. An international list
of authors contributes their experiences working in developing countries
and shares both successes and constraints. Emphasis is on early detec-
tion and intervention as well as the work of several landmark CBR
programmes. The book is highly referenced and is particularly useful
in academic and training situations. Address: Cambridge University
Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge
CB22RU, UK or in North America, 40 West 20th Street, N.Y., N.Y.
10011 USA. Fax: 1 914 937 4712.
Gender and Disability: Women's Experiences in the Middle East
by Lina Abu-Habib, provides an overview of the neglect of disabled
women by both the feminist and disability movements. A review by
Disability Awareness in Action stated that the publication documents
both examples of the desperate situation of disabled women in the
33
region and examples of positive actions by and for disabled women.
Available for £7.95 from Oxfam, c/o BEBC, PO Box 1496 Parkstone,
Dorset BH12 3YD, UK or from $9.95 from Oxfam, c/o Humanities Press,
165 First Ave., Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716-1289, USA. Fax: 1 732 872
0717.
Inclusive Education, written by Ture Jonsson
and published by the UNDP Inter-regional
Programme for Disabled People, this book was
prepared for all those involved in implementing
the UNESCO Education for All Policy, in devel-
oping countries, at national, regional, district
and community levels. The book makes explicit
the connection between the concept of Inclusive
Education and CBR. Concrete examples in the
form of case studies form the basis for theoreti-
cal understanding. It is an invaluable resource
book for educational managers, teacher trainers and teachers. Address:
UNDP, Interregional Programme for Disabled People, Palais des Na-
tions, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Fax: 41 22 979 9001.
Innovations in Developing Countries for People with Disabilities
is edited by Dr. Brian O"Toole and Dr. Roy McConkey, both of whom
have spent over a decade working in developing countries on CBR and
other aspects of disability awareness and rehabilitation. This book
starts with a practical vision for the new millennium, never under-
estimating the difficulties but carefully documenting the issues and
experiences of leading people who have been working in diverse loca-
tions in all parts of the world to develop the talents of, and create oppor-
tunities for, people with disabilities. The book emphasizes the key role
played by disabled people themselves in developing enabling communi-
ties, and the importance of integrating services for people with disabili-
ties into generic community development. The book is divided into three
sections encompassing foundations, ways of meeting needs and of
developing services. It covers empowerment, attitude change, mobilizing
communities, parents and indigenous peoples, national planning and
paths to economic independence in low income countries, diverse pat-
terns of human resource selection, development and deployment, fund-
ing, evaluation and its vital link to program modification and improve-
ment. Country program examples include Mexico, India, Guyana,
Tanzania, the Philippines, Jamaica, Norway, Lesotho, Canada, Vietnam,
Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia. The diversity is a testament to the
34
strength of the CBR concept, and the book contains more distilled wis-
dom, hard won through trial and error in field experience, than any
other document published to date - an invaluable resource for anyone
working or contemplating working in a 'disability within community'
framework, anywhere in the world. Contact: Lisieux Hall Publishers,
Lisieux Hall, Whittle--le Woods, Chorley, Lancashire PR6 7DX, U.K.
Fax: 44 12572 65671
Listening for Health - Better Health Communication through
Better Listening is a publication of the International Catholic
Child Bureau and the Child-to-Child Trust, UK. It is designed for
adults who want to help children to become good listeners as well as
better agents of change in their community. CBR is one of the many
Child-to-Child activities in countries around the world. Address:
ICCB, 62 rue de Lausanne, CH-1202, Geneva, Switzerland. Fax: 41
22 731 9377.
New Life in the Neighborhood is one of several books by au-
thor Robert Perske and beautifully illustrated by Martha Perske.
The book is about "how persons with retardation and other dis-
abilities can help make a good community better". Although the
book provides examples from North America, its philosophy,
process and practical solutions are adaptable to anywhere in the
world. It is an easily readable book which presents through
illustration and text information ranging from the common preju-
dices of non-disabled people to the economic and ethical benefits
of all community members participating in life in the neighbor-
hood. The author and illustrator have published several other
books on disability that could easily be adapted in other coun-
tries. Address: Abingdon Press, 201 8th Avenue South, Nash-
ville, TN 37202 USA. Fax: 1 615 749 6172.
Nothing About Us Without Us:
Developing Innovative Technolo-
NOTHING ABOUT US
gies For, By and With Disabled
WITHOUT US
Persons is a book by David Werner,
author of Disabled Village Chil-
dren and Where There is No
Doctor. It is published by
Health Wrights, a workgroup for
people's health and rights committed
to advancing the health, rights, social equality and self determination of
35
disadvantaged persons and groups. The 350 page heavily illustrated
book is "an idea book about problem solving" and includes numerous
case studies which document the process of creative solutions which
empower children and adults with disabilities--many of these solutions
coming from the grassroots. It provides literally hundreds of practical
suggestions which the author and publisher hope will serve as a spring-
board for similar approaches to problem solving for individuals and
projects around the world. A Spanish edition is planned for 1998.
Health Wrights also distributes other publications as well as their News-
letter from the Sierra Madre. They also publish Disabled Village
Children, one of the best and most practical texts for working with
children with disabilities in developing countries. Address:
Wrights, P.O. Box 1344, Palo Alto, CA 94302 USA. Fax: 1 650
325 1080; e-mail: [email protected]; website: www.healthwrights.org
Rehabilitation Technology in Community Based
Rehabilitation: A Compendium is a document provid-
ing information on rehabilitation technology as well as a
literature review. CBR was the governing principle in
defining the scope of the Compendium. Only English
language references have been included. Address: The
Compendium, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's
University, Kingston, Ontario, CANADA K7L 3N6, Fax: 1 613 545 6776,
E-mail: [email protected]
Volver a Viver/Return to Life is based on the experiences of members
of Project PROJIMO, a rehabilitation programme run by people with
disabilities in Mexico. The book outlines several case studies of indi-
viduals who go through the process of adjusting to a disability to living a
full life again. It is a highly illustrated and easy to read book for anyone
working in a CBR or other rehabilitation project. The publisher,
Hesperian Foundation, has several other books available both in Span-
ish and English, their newest being Where Women Have No Doctor.
Address: Hesperian Foundation, 1919 Addison street, Suite 304, Berke-
ley, CA 94704 USA. Fax: 1 510 845 0539; e-mail:
[email protected]
Manuals/Guides
"Community-Based Rehabilitation" and "CBR of Children with
Disabilities in Morocco" are two slide shows to assist CBR implementors
from Teaching Aids at Low Cost (TALC). Each includes 24 slides, a script,
36
some questions and answers for discussion. An Arabic script is available
on request. TALC has many additional multi-media materials on CBR and
other aspects on disability. Address: TALC, P.O. Box 49, St. Albans, Herts,
AL15TX, UK, Fax: 44 1727 846852.
Community-Based Rehabilitation of
HELEN KELLER
the Rural Blind is a publication of
INTERNATIONAL
Helen Keller International, Inc. It is a
training guide for field workers and grew out of HKI's work in Indone-
sia and other developing countries. It includes practical information
about blindness, orientation and mobility, activities of daily living, basic
education and vocational skills. It is very practical, simply illustrated
and can be adapted into work with children and adults with a variety of
disabilities. Address: Helen Keller International, 90 Washington St.,
N.Y., N.Y. 10006, USA. Tel.: 1 212 943 0890; Fax: 1 212 943 1220.
Finding Out if Your Program Works: Evaluation and Monitoring.
Developed at the Solo CBR Development and Training Centre in Indone-
sia, with extensive input from Dr. Laura Krefting, this Manual has wide
applicability. In simple language it spells out the different purposes and
processes of evaluation, and the importance of participatory evaluation
of CBR programs. Simple steps, forms and instructions are provided. Of
use in both training and CBR program implementation. Address: Prof.
Dr. Soeharso, CBR DTC, Jalan Adisucipto, KM 7, Colomadu, Solo 57176
Indonesia. Fax: 62-271-780976. E-mail: [email protected]
Manual: Community Based Rehabilitation for the Visually Im-
paired. Written by S. Punani, D. Bhushan and Rawal Nandini on behalf of
the National Association for the Blind, this manual was published in 1996
with the support of DANIDA and the Royal Danish Embassy in India. It
documents 14 years of implementation of CBR projects in 111 locations
across India. Also included in the 267 page manual are: descriptions of an
itinerant system of integrated education, a detailed course curricula for
training of trainers and field staff, and an annotated bibliography of CBR
publications. Available free from Rural Activities Committee, National
Association for the Blind, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015 India.
Special Education for Mentally Handicapped Pupils is a teaching
manual by Christine Miles who worked for 12 years in Peshawar, Paki-
stan with the Mental Health Centre. The manual is based on the
culture and educational conditions of people living in the Middle Eastern
and Asian countries and is appropriate for anyone who is working with
37
children with mental handicaps. It is clear, simply illustrated, practical
and covers numerous activities for a wide range of ability levels. The
manual would be useful for persons working with children who are not
disabled as well as those with other disabilities. Address: Mental
Health Centre, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Training Materials for Community-Based Rehabilitation
Workers is a very practical and user-friendly series of manuals
developed by the CBR Development and Training Centre in Solo,
Indonesia. The series includes manuals on topics like: Helping
Prevent Disability, Detection of Childhood Disability, Helping Chil-
dren who have Difficulty Talking and Communicating, Finding Out
About a Person and Her Problems, Finding Out if Your Programme
Works, Evaluation and Monitoring. It also includes posters for
training and community education. A variety of articles by Dr.
Tjandrakusuma Handojo and colleagues are also available, including
recent ones on Participatory Rural Appraisal in CBR by Drs. Heny
Soelistyowati and Emmillianus Elip. Address: Prof. Dr. Soeharso
Community Based Rehabilitation Development and Training Centre,
Jalan Adisucipto, KM.7, Colomadu, Solo 57176 INDONESIA, Fax:
62 271 780976; e-mail: [email protected]
Papers
A Training Strategy for Personnel Working in Developing Coun-
tries is a paper by Brian O"Toole and Roy McConkey of the Guyana
Community Based Rehabilitation Programme. Both doctors have been
involved in CBR programmes since the earliest days and have consulted,
produced videos and training materials on a variety of aspects of CBR.
This paper describes the training strategy used at the CBR Programme
in Guyana, South America. As of mid 1997, over 7,000 CBR volunteers,
health workers and teachers in mainstream schools, families and villag-
ers have gained access to information and skills on CBR. Additional
CBR articles are available as well. Address: School of Health Sciences,
University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QB, N. Ireland, UK. Fax:
44 1232 368202.
Community Based Rehabilitation: A Peace Building Opportunity
is a research paper produced by the International Centre for the Ad-
vancement of Community Based Rehabilitation (ICACBR) at Queen's
University in Canada. The authors are Malcolm Peat, Lorna Jean
38
Edmonds, Will Boyce, Sandra Ballantyne, Jennifer Smith and Michael
Koros. The publication addresses the benefits of CBR as an element of
the peace building process and covers experience in and case studies
from Bosnia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Croatia, Lebanon, Mozambique,
Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) and Sri Lanka. A Symposium entitled
"Post-Conflict Integration of Persons with Disabilities", roundtable
discussions and a vast literature search is the basis for much of this
paper. This publication may be downloaded from the ICACBR webside:
meds.queensu.ca/icacbr/ It can be ordered from ICACBR, Queen's Uni-
versity, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
Canada. Fax: 1 613 545 6776.
Community-Based Rehabilitation: Information Accumulation &
Exchange by Mike Miles is one of numerous papers about a variety of
aspects of CBR written by the author who for 12 years directed the Mental
Health Centre in Peshawar, Pakistan and now consults with numerous
organizations working in CBR around the world. This particular mono-
graph reviews the cultural background of disability information in South
Asia as well as attempts to introduce CBR in this region. He reviews
indigenous practices and compares them with the more western commu-
nity responses to disability often proposed by aid organizations. There are
also 247 references cited including a most comprehensive list from indi-
viduals and organizations in developing countries. Available from: M.
Miles, 4 Princethorpe Rd., Birmingham B29 5PX, UK.
"Disabled Learners in South Asia: lessons from the past for educa-
tional exporters" and "Community, Individual or Information
Development: Dilemmas of concept and culture in South Asia
disability planning" are two articles by Mike Miles. The first includes a
thorough look at the wealth of ideas and practices for educating children
with special needs that were indigenous to South Asia for centuries and
most of these contain the same educational principles that the west uses in
its disability education work. In the second article, published in Disability
& Society, the author argues that the wealth of disability information is
still not reaching persons in most need. Yet often the 'info poor' are equal
or superior in terms of commitment and practical skill base. All people,
especially those labeled as recipients, need to be part of the information
and skills exchange which are the basis for community development.
Address: Mike Miles, 4 Princethorpe Rd., Birmingham B29 5PX, U.K.
"Strengthening Community-Based Rehabilitation in China" is a
paper by Sheila Purves, the director of the WHO Collaborative Project
39
based in Wuhan, China and in Hong Kong. The paper offers unique
insights into rehabilitation in the Chinese context and the successes and
constraints inherent in the project. Although China now reports more
than 300 CBR projects (or activities) in action throughout the country,
these still adhere to a top-down approach which has not succeeded in
sustainability or ownership by persons with disability. The paper iden-
tifies some possible solutions to this dilemma which would ultimately
benefit more persons in need and become part of the Primary Health
Care System reaching everyone in China. CBR videos from the Sun Yat
Sen University in Guangzhou, China are also available. Address: WHO
Collaborating Centre/ CBR Project, Hong Kong Society for Rehabilita-
tion, 7 Sha Wan Drive, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Fax: 852 2855 1947
Towards Inclusion: SCF UK's Experi-
ence in Integrated Education is a dis-
Save the Children Y
cussion paper based on Save the Children
Fund's Global Seminar on Disability where. people working both in CBR
and more traditional education of children shared experiences and
learned from each other. Emphasis was on SCF's educational pro-
grammes in Asia and Southern Africa. Case studies from several coun-
tries are included along with a discussion about Integrated Education's
relationship with CBR. Address: Save the Children, Publication Sales,
17 Grove Lane, London SE5 8RD, UK. Tel.: 44 171 703 5400; Fax: 44 171
708 2508; e-mail: [email protected]
United Nations Publications
Mandates for Action is a key document of the United Nations ESCAP
initiative, Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002.
Rehabilitation services are included as one of twelve major target areas
for action during the decade, with specific targets set for achievement on
a year by year basis. Requirements are explicit and are detailed in
another ESCAP document Implementation of the Agenda for Action for
the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons: Targets by Area.
Address: Project Expert on Disability, UN ESCAP, Social Development
Division, UN Building, Rajdammern Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.
Fax: 662-288 1030 e-mail: [email protected]
OMAR in Rehabilitation: A Guide on Operations Monitoring and
Analysis of Results. Written by Ture Jonsson and published by the
UNDP Inter-regional Programme for Disabled People, this Guide is a
serious attempt to address the need for a comprehensive, simple, user-
40
friendly monitoring and evaluation instrument, universally applicable,
assessing program progress and change in relation to relevance, effec-
tiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. In Part 1 the Guide
provides a case study to illustrate the application of the procedures. In
Part 2 model forms are provided which constitute the substance of any
CBR program data collection and record keeping system. These include
modified forms adapted from Training in the Community for People
with Disabilities (WHO 1989), covering individual assessment and
progress, as well as additional information on the overall aspects of a
program which are of essential interest to policy and decision makers,
persons in charge at the national, regional and local level, to rehabilita-
tion committees, NGOs and donor agencies. A software diskette which
contains the entire second set of forms is included. The Guide will serve
as a resource book in staff training, as well as a handbook for use in
programme implementation. Address: United Nations Development
Program, 304 East 45th Street, Room FF92, New York, NY 10017, USA.
Fax: 1 212 906 6350/6336.
Prejudice and Dignity, An Introduction to Community-Based
Rehabilitation is a 1992 book by E. Helander, then consultant for the
International Programme for Disabled People, United Nations Develop-
ment Programme. The author introduces the concepts and practices of
CBR and advocates for fundamental changes in rehabilitation systems
to make them sustainable from national resources. He maintains that
governments should take responsibility for providing CBR systems.
Available from United Nations Development Programme, 304 E. 45th
St., Rm. FF982, New York, NY 10017, USA. Fax: 1 212 906 6336;
website: http://www.undp.org/hiv
Sharing Opportunities, A Guide to Disabled People's Participation
in Sustainable Human Development is a publication by E. Helander,
focusing on the need for participation and leadership of people with dis-
abilities in community initiatives in order to achieve sustainable human
development. Address: UNDP, Interregional Programme for Disabled
People, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Fax: 41 22 979
9001.
Training the Disabled in the Community, Version 2, is a series of
manuals for use by grass-roots organizations wishing to implement
CBR in their communities by E. Helander, P. Mendis, G. Nelson.. Ad-
dress: WHO, Rehabilitation Unit, Avenue Appia, CH 1211 Geneva 27,
Switzerland. Fax: 41 22 791 0746.
41
Understanding Community-Based Rehabilitation is the formal
document of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific Document Number-ST/ESCAP/1761. The state-
ment does not attempt further definition of the term CBR, but rather
clarification and component description. It emphasizes the multi-
sectoral nature of CBR as a community development program with
seven components, requiring the collaboration and cooperation of seven
relevant sectors. Address: UN ESCAP, Social Development Division,
UN Building, Rajdammern Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand. Fax: 662
288 1030 e-mail: [email protected]
ILO
UNESCO
The following publications are available from either the ILO, WHO
or UNESCO. The addresses are: ILO (see below) / WHO, Rehab
Unit, Avenue Appia, CH 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. Fax: 41 22
791 0746 / UNESCO, Place de Fontenoy, Paris 75700 France. Fax: 33
1 45 67 16 90
"Community-Based Rehabilitation for and with People with
Disabilities: a joint position paper" published in 1994 jointly by the
ILO/UNESCO/WHO. Available from either of the three organizations in
English, French, Spanish and Arabic. No cost.
Multisectoral Collaboration for the Equalization of Opportuni-
ties for People with Disabilities, published 1996. No cost.
The following are publications related to CBR available from the Interna-
tional Labour Organization (ILO). The address is: ILO Publications,
Vocational Rehabilitation Branch, ILO, CH 1211, Geneva 22 Switzerland.
Fax: 41 22 798 8685
Challenging Disability: a guide for frontline social workers in
Africa by Helen Jackson, 1993, Set of 11 modules. Price 50 SFR, 25
SFR for organizations in developing countries.
Guide for Community-Based Vocational Rehabilitation of Dis-
abled People: the case of the Philippines, 1994. No cost.
42
How to Start a Small Business: a manual for community workers
assisting persons with disability by Lena Karlsson, 1992 (also
available in Portuguese). Price: 50 SFR, 25 SFR in developing countries.
Training for Integration and Participation: a manual for con-
ducting a sensitization course on integration and disability,
1992, set of 17 booklets (also available in French) Price: 50 SFR, 25 SFR
for organizations in developing countries.
Listen to the People: a guide for planners of disability
programmes, 1994. No cost
Working Together with the Media: a practical guide for people
with disabilities by Barbara Kolucki and Barbara Duncan, 1994. No
cost. Also available from: Rehabilitation International, 25 E. 21 Street,
New York, N.Y. 10010 USA. Fax: 1 212 505 0871.
C. Video Training Packages
3 D Projects in Jamaica, under the direction of Dr. Molly
Thornburn, has produced a series of training manuals and videos.
The topics include: Parent Training, The Work Experience Project,
Income Generating Projects, Stroke Rehabilitation for Community
Workers, Teacher Orientation to early Childhood Disability, Con-
ducting Disability Surveys, Early Detection and Intervention in
Childhood Disability, Assessment of Children with Disabilities,
Orientation on Disability, Child Rearing Skills, Parent-to-Parent
Counseling and Drama in Community Education. Address: 3D
Projects, 14 Monk Street, Spanish Town, St. Catherine, JAMAICA.
Fax: 1 809 984 7808.
Video courses: A New Concept in Training Courses for Dis-
ability Services in Africa is an eight part package that was video-
taped in eight African locations and is designed to provide training
opportunities to people with disabilities, their families, community
workers and rehabilitation personnel. They were developed by Roy
McConkey, Sarah Holloway and Liz Lee with partners in each of the
African countries. It illustrates the development of children with
physical and mental disabilities and how parents and communities
members can support their growth and development. A Tutor's
Guide accompanies the videos, together with developmental check-
43
lists and activity suggestions. A video programme is also available
on Moving On: Preparing African Teenagers with a Disability
for Living in the Community. Address: Penny Mharapara,
Training Programme Co-ordinator, P.O. Box 1198, Avondale, Harare,
Zimbabwe.
Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education is a video-based
training package for use in teacher training courses. It is based on the
SCF-UK's projects in Lesotho where they have attempted to integrate
children with disabilities into local schools. It includes 13 video
programmes along with guides. Part 1 deals with inclusive education,
attitudes toward disability, and screening for disability. Part 2 is about
good classroom practices for children with specific disabilities and Part 3
is about adapting the curriculum. Part 4 includes classroom practice,
changing behavior and teaching strategies. The series was developed by
Lineo Phacaka, Lillian Mariga and Roy McConkey. Address: Lineo
Phacaka, Special Education Unit, Ministry of Education, P.O. Box 47,
Constitution Road, Maseru, Lesotho.
Hopeful Steps: Guyana Community-Based Rehabilitation
Programme is a vide training series which includes: 1. Hopeful
Steps - - six programmes examining learning to move, talk, think and
be independent. 2. Community Action on Disability -- eight
programmes including parent/community involvement, working with
teachers, community networks and motivating volunteers. 3. Identi-
fication of Disabilities one video for Primary Health and CBR
workers. 4. Facts for Life one video analyzing the major challenges
in developing healthy lives. 5. A New Tomorrow -- a series of eight
programmes that examine the development of native Amerindian
peoples of Guyana. 6. Educating Communities about Disability
presents a series of short puppet shows on attitudes toward disabil-
ity. 7. When There is No Nursery School seven programmes offer-
ing ideas to parents and teachers for stimulating the growth and
development of the preschool child. 8. Introducing Children with
Disabilities into Mainstream Schools -- eight programmes on enroll-
ing children with disabilities into ordinary schools. 9. Steps to Read-
ing -- six programmes providing an introduction to reading. 10. CBR
in the Rupununi, Guyana -- one video analyzing CBR with native
Amerindian people of Guyana. 11. Baha'i Community Health Part-
nership is one video tracing the development of Primary Health Care
in Guyana run by the Baha'i community. Many in the series are
accompanied by a manual. Address: for NTSC copies, Dr. Brian
44
O'Toole, CBR Programme, EEC, PO Box 10847, Georgetown, Guyana,
South America, Fax: 592 2 62615; for PAL copies, Dr. Roy
McConkey, St. Aidans, Gattonside, Melrose, Roxburgshire, Scotland,
TD6 9NN, UK, Fax: 44 89 682 2159.
A Better Life: for People with Mental Handicap, Living and
Learning, Teaching Skills: for use when teaching People who
have a Mental Handicap, Community-Based Services, Com-
munity-based Education, Disability and Community and
Training for Work: Increasing employment opportunities for
people with disabilities are all Video courses developed by Dr.
Roy McConkey, Alice Bradley and Sarah Holloway with support from
the Far Eastern Region Cheshire Homes. They are all appropriate
for use in CBR projects and many are available in English, Manda-
rin, Bahasa Malaysia. Practical manuals accompany many of the
series and represent the work in Malaysia, Philippines, Guyana, Sri
Lanka and Morocco. Address: Diana E. Khoo, Cheshire Homes Far
Eastern Region, 515 Q, Jalan Hashim, 11200 Tanjung Bungah,
Penang, Malaysia.
D. Additional Resources
The Institute of Child Health publishes numerous publications
updates, fact sheets and material on the topics related to CBR and other
aspects of disability. The Institute was the pioneers of the first courses
in CBR and have continued to expand their programmes to include a
Masters Course in Community Disability Studies, Research Degrees and
Attachments as well as provide consultation in both industrialized and
low income countries. Most of the coursework now takes place in devel-
oping countries. Address: Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond
Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, University College London
Medical School, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, U.K. Fax: 44
171 404 2062; e-mail: [email protected]
The Enabling Education Network (EENET) is an information-
sharing network aimed at supporting the inclusion of marginalized
groups in education around the world. It was initiated by Save the
Children UK and is in partnership with UK and international NGOs
and research institutions. It disseminates information to teachers,
disabled people, parents, children, policy-makers and practitioners
as well as promoting action research training. It also supports
45
South-South and South-North initiatives. They are currently produc-
ing videotapes on Integrated Education. Address: EENET, Centre
for Educational Needs, School of Education, The University of
Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Fax: 44 161
275 3548; e-mail: [email protected]
ICACBR Research: One of the biggest changes in the last five plus
years in CBR is that there is now a body of research on various aspects
of CBR. Much of this is emanating from the International Centre for the
Advancement of CBR based at Queen's University in Canada. The
ICACBR research programme covers a variety of disability issues from
psycho-social attitudes to policy issues. The primary area of research
include the role of women in CBR, community organizations, policy
studies, skill and knowledge transfer, and psycho-social issues. Collabo-
ration is made with partner organizations in developing countries,
particularly those in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Address:
ICACBR, c/o Dr. Will Boyce, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario,
K7L 3N6 CANADA. Fax: 1 613 545 6776
Training in Planning and Management of CBR is a course based in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. It is unique in that it concentrates on a
comprehensive, cross disability CBR management with full time local
staff and a formal management structure. The course runs for 6 weeks
and covers much of what is usually introduced in CBR training. How-
ever, it concentrates on planning and management issues for the 21st
Century. This approach hopes to offer an alternative to the often donor-
driven isolated CBR projects that are not sustainable in the long run.
Thus far over 100 CBR managers from 28 countries have attended these
courses. They are sponsored by Chirstoffel Blind Mission. Address:
Dr. Geert Vanneste, CBR Programmes (CBM/UNDP), PO Box 23.310,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Fax: 255 811 321135; e-mail:
[email protected]
Training Programmes for CBR in Developing Countries is orga-
nized by Seva-in-Action of India. It includes a Diploma for teachers,
planners and coordinators of CBR, a Diploma in integrated education
and CBR and a Certificate Course in CBR. Address: SEVA-in-ACTION,
2487 17th Main, 25th Cross, Banashankari II Stag, Bangalore 560 070,
Karnataka, INDIA
CBR Web Page is an effort by Gene Rodgers of the USA to compile and
share CBR research and other material. His address is 1941 Gaston
46
Place, Apt. 122, Austin, TX 78723 USA. The Website is : http://
www.onr.com/user/geno
Planning and Management of CBR Programs in Developing
Countries is a course run by the International Institute for Rehabilita-
tion Management, in cooperation with the UN Development Program.
This course was run twice in 1997, and has been used by managers of
CBR projects in a variety of Asian countries, including Indonesia,
Bhutan, the Phillippines. The course focuses on sustainable planning
and management practices, with a strong emphasis on monitoring and
evaluation. Address: Course Director, International Institute for Reha-
bilitation Management, F-45230 Chatillon-Coligny, France. Ph: 33
38925571.
Skills for Working within the Community is Module 3 of a Certifi-
cate in Disability Studies offered as a Continuing Education course at
the University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. The course covers commu-
nity education and public awareness, rehabilitation in the community,
developing a CBR program, vocational training and advocacy skills,
towards equalization of opportunities and community service planning.
Address: Laisani Radio, Course Coordinator, Certificate in Disability
Studies, Continuing Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva,
Fiji. e-mail: [email protected]
Community Based Rehabilitation Development and Training
Centre, Solo, Indonesia runs courses for training trainers who will be
involved in implementing CBR programs in their own countries, and has
plans in 1998 to run leadership training courses for people with disabili-
ties. Address: Prof. Dr. Soeharso, CBR DTC, Jalan Adisucipto, KM 7,
Colomadu, Solo 57176 Indonesia. Fax: 62-271-780976; e-mail:
[email protected]
About the Contributors
Author/Project Coordinator:
Barbara Kolucki is an international media consultant, not only to Rehabili-
tation International but also to several United Nations agencies, such as
UNICEF, the ILO, and UNDP. Kolucki began her work on media and disabil-
ity when she became the Program Director, Special Education, at Children's
Television Workshop, the producers of Sesame Street. In recent years she
has trained people in several developing countries to become producers of
media for, about and with children.
"Vision Statement" Authors:
Francine Arsenault, well-known Canadian activist, works with the Council
of Canadians with Disabilities and is the Chair of the International Center for
the Advancement of Community Based Rehabilitation (ICACBR). Most
recently she has consulted in Bosnia and the Caribbean to support expan-
sion of disability services in these countries.
M. Miles of the U.K. worked in Pakistan for more than a decade to establish
community-based and other services for children with disabilities. He has
carried out consultancies on disability service development in Asia and Africa
and collaborates with Inclusion International to increase its effectiveness in
developing countries. Miles is best known for his voluminous writings and
research.
Penny Price (Australia) lectures on Disability Studies at MacQuarrie Univer-
sity, Sydney. Price spent several years implementing CBR in Fiji and the
Cook Islands. She is a member of the newly-established RI CBR Group
which met in Korea in September 1997 to elaborate strategies to promote
CBR development in the Asia/Pacific region.
Carmen Reyes Zubiaga of the Philippines is now serving as the Executive
Director of the National Center of Disabled Persons, Phnom Penh, Cambo-
dia. In both countries she has worked to establish CBR services and to
expand the participation of disabled people in program design and imple-
mentation.
Editor: Barbara Duncan
Layout and Design: Kathy Marchael
Rehabilitation International is a federation of national and international
organizations and agencies working for the prevention of disability, the
rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and the equalization of
oppportunities within society on behalf of persons with disabilities and their
families throughout the world. RI is currently composed of some 200 organi-
zations involved in disability prevention and rehabilitation service develop-
ment in nearly 100 nations in all of the world's regions.
Rehabilitation International maintains official relations with the United Na-
tions Economic and Social Council, the World Health Organization, the
International Labor Office, UNESCO, UNICEF, the Organization of Ameri-
can States, the Commission of European Communities and the Council of
Europe.
For information, contact:
Rehabilitation International
25 E. 21st Street
New York, NY 10010, USA
Tel.: 212 420 1500 / Fax: 212 505 0871 / e-mail: [email protected]