Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

4 March 2011

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive panel dialogue on the human rights of persons with disabilities.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel discussion, commended the ever-increasing number of ratifications to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and said that although governments bore the primary responsibility to implement the Convention, giving full effect to this instrument was a task that involved also the private sector, national institutions and civil society. She welcomed today’s debate as a way to expand the international community’s understanding of what this principle involved and what more needed to be done. The Council had the study of her Office that examined the role of international cooperation under the Convention. The study was not merely a snapshot of existing initiatives but it also identified persisting challenges which had to be addressed.
The panellists were Shaub Chalken, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development; Monthian Buntan, Senator of Thailand; Theresia Degener, Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Maria Veronica Reina, Member of the Global Partnership on Disability and Development; and Nathalie Herlemont, Head of the Strategic Policy Unit of Handicap International.
Mr. Chalken said that the focus so far had been mostly on the transfer of skills through capacity building and economic assistance and the transfer of scientific and technical knowledge while the generation of much needed data was lacking and many best practices examples were not shared between countries leading to duplication of challenges. Developing countries should be encouraged to prioritise technical and scientific cooperation to ensure that the articles of the Convention were implemented with the appropriate technology for local conditions.
Mr. Buntan said that in order to start turning the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into real actions, there should be ongoing and effective forms of international cooperation which should be inclusive of and accessible to people with disabilities on an equal basis with others without discrimination. As the meaning of disability in the Convention was moved away from the medical model toward the social and human rights model, persons with disabilities and all matters related to their livelihood should be of common global concern like other development and human rights issues.
Ms. Degener said that the last decades had brought significant changes on how the international community thought about international cooperation and similar changes had taken place with regard to disability policy. International cooperation was no longer seen as just a social or welfare policy but as an important aspect of human rights policy. Several articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities directly related to international cooperation. Donor countries as well as partner countries needed to develop guidelines on how to mainstream disability into international cooperation and fix the objectives for disability-specific programmes.
Ms. Reina said that several international cooperation agencies had employed different practices to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities through their aid efforts. Still, disability mainstreaming into development cooperation was rarely implemented and there was a lack of reliable data and evidence-based resources to guide countries and agencies in order to make all development programming across all sectors fully inclusive.
Ms. Herlemont said that each person, including persons with disabilities should have an equal right to be included in emergency preparedness and benefit from full access to relief services. International cooperation on disability access was based on the cluster system where disabilities were taken into account either in a health or protection cluster though this resulted in some gaps with a sliced approach.

In the interactive discussion, the following countries spoke: Mexico, New Zealand, Iraq on behalf of the Arab Group, European Union, Morocco, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Austria, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Germany, Cuba, Paraguay on behalf of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), Indonesia, Peru, Honduras, Algeria, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, Thailand, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Qatar, Norway, Australia, Argentina, Kuwait and Spain. The United Nations Children’s Fund also spoke.
The following national human rights institutions and non-governmental organisations also spoke: International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, International League for Societies for Persons with Mental Handicaps, Conectas, World Blind Union and APLC-ISU.

During the interactive dialogue speakers said that although the thematic studies on the role of international cooperation in support of national efforts to implement the Convention were very useful, there was a need for more assistance for mobility at an affordable price and to promote the cross-cutting issues of disability among various bodies and organizations in terms of knowledge transfer, technical assistance and examination of best practices. Speakers underlined the importance to share and exchange best practices and positive experiences and stressed that although persons with disabilities represented key target groups in all the Millennium Development Goals, disabilities and the concerns of persons with disabilities had yet to be included in the Millennium Development Goals’ processes and mechanisms. The mainstreaming of the disability agenda in the international cooperation framework and the creation of an inclusive development policy were considered as some of the main challenges to improve the standards of persons with disabilities. Speakers regretted that international cooperation efforts did not sufficiently take into account the rights of persons with disabilities and that some States and their respective national institutions lacked experience with regard to issues such as the duty of reasonable accommodation or the implementation of disability rights. The entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 presented a profound shift in perceptions of disability and internationally agreed development goals could not be met without full inclusion of persons with disabilities.
The next meeting of the Council will be on Monday, 7 March 2010, at 9 a.m., when the Council will hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on torture. The Council will then proceed with the clustered interactive dialogues with the Chairs of the Working Group on enforced disappearances and the Working Group on arbitrary detention as well as the Special Rapporteur on internally displaced persons.
Opening Statements

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW, President of the Human Rights Council, introducing the panel on the rights of persons with disabilities, said that this interactive debate would focus on the role played by the international community in support of national efforts for the realisation of the purpose and objectives of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The panel today should be an opportunity to discuss the modalities of mainstreaming disability issues into international development cooperation, analyze mechanisms to align international cooperation with the Convention, reflect on ways to ensure that all thematic areas stipulated in article 32 of the Convention were considered in international cooperation, ensure the mainstreaming of the rights of persons with disabilities into humanitarian action, and discuss international cooperation in the context of the Convention from the perspective of a developing country.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she was pleased to open this third Human Rights Council debate on the rights of persons with disabilities. The High Commissioner commended the ever-increasing number of ratifications of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ninety-eight States had ratified the Convention while sixty had ratified its Optional Protocol. This was impressive and in this context, the High Commissioner reiterated her call for universal ratification of the fundamental human rights instruments. The High Commissioner was pleased to note that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities now had 18 members rather than 12. The expanded Committee would hold its fifth session from 11 to 15 April 2011. She encouraged the Committee in its work as it began reviewing initial reports of States parties. The successful operation of the Committee was key to translating international standards into national laws and practice.

Although Governments bore the primarily responsibility to implement the Convention, giving full effect to this instrument was a task that involved also the private sector, national institutions and civil society. However, the Convention clearly recognized the role of international cooperation as being complementary to, and supportive of, national action. She welcomed today’s debate as a way to expand the international community’s understanding of what this principle involved and what more needed to be done. The High Commissioner said that the Council had the study of her Office that examined the role of international cooperation under the Convention. The study was not merely a snapshot of existing initiatives but it also identified persisting challenges which had to be addressed.

Ms. Pillay highlighted three of those challenges today. First the international community should not forget that international cooperation under article 32 was not about maintaining the status quo or about repackaging old ways of doing things. It was about facilitating the move from a charity or medical approach to disabilities to a social model. In this sense, international cooperation should assist States to meet their obligations under the Convention, build the capacity of persons with disabilities to realize their rights, dismantle the barriers and negative attitudes in society that prevent full implementation of disability rights, and build the institutions necessary for the promotion, protection and monitoring of the Convention. A second challenge related to the need to mainstream disability rights more systematically in development efforts and humanitarian work. The third issue raised by the High Commissioner was ensuring that all persons with disabilities benefited equally from international cooperation. This issue remained a challenge. The Convention indentified disability as an evolving concept that included physical, sensory, mental and intellectual disabilities.

Statements by Panellists

SHAUB CHALKEN, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development, said that the focus so far had been mostly on the transfer of skills through capacity building and economic assistance, and the transfer of scientific and technical knowledge; the generation of much needed data had been lacking. This state of affairs was understandable given that the demand had always been for economic assistance and capacity building to ensure local participation in the development process. With the challenge of implementation of the disability policy and compliance with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it was becoming increasingly urgent to gather data and to research different approaches to the articles of the Convention and to implement a disability policy in general. Because of resource constraints not much research was conducted in developing countries. Many best practices examples were not shared between countries leading to duplication of challenges. The paucity of data on persons with disabilities was a concern that became apparent during the reports on the Millennium Development Goals. Data gathering must become a national priority, not only for persons with disabilities, but for all of the development process since no development could commence without data.

Concerning scientific knowledge, Mr. Chalken said one of the few areas of cooperation in this field was on the community-based rehabilitation approach which was supported by the World Health Organization. Untapped areas remained in transport, education, law, health, income generation and others. The challenge was in finding the mechanisms to ensure the regular dissemination of scientific knowledge and sharing of best practices. This could happen through ensuring mainstreaming of disability in development. A number of disability forums that already existed could play an important role in cooperative agreements for the gathering of data, research and the dissemination of findings. The regional forums could also facilitate technical cooperation between universities and other research institutes. Developing countries should be encouraged to prioritise technical and scientific cooperation to ensure that the articles of the Convention were implemented with the appropriate technology for local conditions. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur said that it was important to note that the full implementation of Article 32 would not be possible without inclusive development and that mainstreaming of disability in development should be prioritised.

MONTHIAN BUNTAN, Senator of Thailand, said that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was the first disability-specific human rights convention and was an example of international cooperation. The Convention, within less than five years after its adoption, already enjoyed 140 signatures and 89 States parties. In order to start turning the Convention into real actions, there should be ongoing and effective forms of international cooperation which should be inclusive of and accessible to people with disabilities on an equal basis with others without discrimination. Although a disability-specific approach to international cooperation had been in existence for a long while, it was not proven to be widely recognized outside the disability field. Thailand, during the work of the ADHOC Committee was inclined to put more emphasis on so-called `disability-inclusive international cooperation.’

As the meaning of disability in the Convention was moved away from the medical model towards the social and human rights model, persons with disabilities and all matters related to their livelihood should be of common global concern like other development and human rights issues. The international community omitted disability in the entire text of the Millennium Development Goals even though the document was adopted in 2000. There were positive achievements such as the Beijing Declaration that called for an international mandate to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Disability and poverty should include a disability perspective and there should be an encouragement of accessibility because an inaccessible built environment in public transportation, information and communication systems and services created disabling conditions upon individuals with diverse characteristics and impairments.

THERESIA DEGENER, Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said that her subject today was “ensuring alignment of international cooperation with the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities”, and she drew the Council’s attention to two speaking points. Her first speaking point concerned international cooperation and the international disability policy. The last decades had brought significant changes on how the international community thought about international cooperation and similar changes had taken place with regard to the disability policy. International cooperation was no longer seen as just a social or welfare policy but as an important aspect of human rights policy. Similarly, the disability policy had shifted from welfare to human rights policy. People with disabilities were not to be seen as problems or mere welfare recipients but as subjects of human rights.

The second speaking point was related to international cooperation in light of some specific articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Several articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities directly related to international cooperation. Art. 32 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was the first to be mentioned. It demanded that international cooperation support national efforts for the realization of the purposes and objectives of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In order to achieve international cooperation in alignment with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, donor countries as well as partner countries needed to develop guidelines on how to mainstream disability into international cooperation and fix the objectives for disability-specific programmes. It was important that all stakeholders of international cooperation, Member States, donor organizations, disabled persons organizations, regional and international organizations were included in the process of developing guidelines for mainstreaming disability. In this area inconsistency and fragmentation still persisted. Finally, Member States had to ensure that mainstreaming disability into international cooperation was included in their Millennium Development Goals reports as well as in their National Action Plans for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

MARIA VERONICA REINA, Member of the Global Partnership on Disability and Development, said that several international cooperation agencies were employing different practices to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities through their aid efforts. Agencies combined several approaches which could include human rights, participation, and development. Implementation was done through disability-specific programmes, disability-specific components added to mainstream programmes, or by addressing disability within the framework of mainstream programming and across sectors. Still, disability mainstreaming into development cooperation was rarely implemented. There was a lack of reliable data and evidence-based resources to guide countries and agencies in order to make all development programming across all sectors fully inclusive. A major obstacle to programme formulation, planning and implementation was the absence of reliable disability data, and this particularly impacted the achievement of Millennium Development Goals as each Goal was associated with measurable targets. Raising awareness and creating demand among recipient countries for disability inclusive programmes was an urgent need. Demand-driven development and community-driven development approaches must be supplemented with human rights and social protection mechanisms to effectively include the specific needs of persons with disabilities that were often not considered as partners in development processes.

Feedback from disabled peoples’ organizations and other civil society actors suggested the need for a means to connect increased donor support with governmental and non-governmental organizations implementing inclusive development projects. Although the funding dedicated to disability was still insufficient, coordination among key actors was needed. Lack of the capacity of disabled peoples’ organizations to engage in inclusive development was an important challenge. Capacity development to advance disability mainstreaming went beyond training sessions and tools focusing on the rights of persons with disabilities. Advocates with disabilities need to be well-prepared to scale-up their participation from micro and grassroots project level to macro and policy influencing level. In conclusion, Ms. Reina said that the Global Partnership supported the no-gap policy and recognised that no entity could achieve the goal of equality for persons with disabilities on its own, but rather an interconnected network of actors was required to reach the goal.

NATHALIE HERLEMONT, Head of the Strategic Policy Unit of Handicap International said that each person, including persons with disabilities should have an equal right to be included in emergency preparedness and benefit from a full access to relief services. Persons with disabilities in emergencies should include a wider definition to cover those with injuries and chronic disease. International cooperation was based on the cluster system where disabilities were taken into account either in a health or protection cluster. There were opportunities with this approach because it should allow an access to other stakeholders but there were gaps too because disability should have a local approach and no individual cluster would be sufficient to cover the debate resulting in a sliced approach. Facts from the field indicated there was no disability provision in response designs, response projects and in the global response. Persons with disabilities were ignored in disasters and the coverage of their basic needs was not reached and those responding did not understand the needs of persons with disabilities.

There existed a gap in international funding because the focus on global humanitarian coverage was not on specific, individual groups. Disability was not an official area of responsibility for clusters. The value of money trend did not allow for attention to groups with specific needs. There should be a better understanding of what disability meant in the field and there should be a direct implementation of the Convention in emergency situations.

Questions and Comments

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, speakers said that the thematic studies of the Office of the High Commissioner on the role of international cooperation in support of national efforts to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons of Disabilities were very useful. However, speakers wished to go to greater steps and to have more assistance for mobility at an affordable price and said that it was important to promote the cross-cutting issues of disability among various bodies and organizations in terms of knowledge transfer, technical assistance, and examination of best practices. Genuine international cooperation in term of technology transfer was regarded as key in support of national efforts to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. According to many speakers, international cooperation should not be restricted only among north and south but should include also north-north and south-south cooperation on disability. The need for a partnership approach to solving the problems of social development and strengthen the respect for international resolutions and texts about persons with disabilities had to be reiterated.

Speakers underlined the importance of sharing and exchanging best practices and positive experiences that could then be widely spread as well as shortcomings and gaps for the full realization of the Convention. In addition, many delegations stressed that disability was a human rights issue and that the principle of equality and non-discrimination should be at the foundation of their activity to change the mindset concerning persons with disabilities and allow their rehabilitation.

However, some States underlined that although many commitments had been made by the international community to include persons with disabilities in all aspects of development, many efforts remained to be done and the gap between policy and practice continued to exist. Persons with disabilities represented key target groups in all the Millennium Development Goals, yet disabilities and the concerns of persons with disabilities still remained to be included in the Millennium Development Goals processes and mechanisms. The mainstreaming of the disability agenda in their international cooperation framework and the creation of an inclusive development policy were considered as some of the main challenges to improve the standards of persons with disabilities.

Non-governmental organizations regretted the fact that too many international cooperation efforts did not sufficiently take into account the rights of persons with disabilities and that some States and their respective national institutions lacked experience with regard to issues such as the duty of reasonable accommodation or the implementation of disability rights. Other national institutions, instead, had considerable experience in these fields that they could share with their counterparts.

Response from Panellists

SHAUB CHALKEN, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development, responding to the questions asked by the delegations, said that in order to identify key areas for development for persons with disabilities there were opportunities to do so at the country level. The challenge was in the lack of participation of persons with disabilities in the definition of country programmes, as therefore priorities could not be identified. Concerning the accessibility of infrastructure for persons with disabilities, the Special Rapporteur said that if disability was mainstreamed in donor policies, then development funding for infrastructure would always be sensitive to persons with disabilities and the accessibility question would be included from the planning phase.

MONTHIAN BUNTAN, Senator of Thailand, said that concerning accessibility and assistive technologies, there were several initiatives developing accessibility standards and through joining those efforts many countries would be able to get the transfer of knowhow and knowledge to participate in international accessibility standards. Good examples were a web-based standard or the transfer of accessible electronic publishing. Mr. Buntan drew the attention of the Council to the currently ongoing and evolving World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty focusing on copyright aspects, which was particularly important for developing countries as it would enable transfer and use of new technologies.

THERESIA DEGENER, Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, responding to the questions asked by the delegations, said that good practices should come from examples such as universities with established centres for disability law and policy research units on how to implement the Convention. Some Member States had hired senior disabled advisers and some had started to cooperate with representative organizations with people with disabilities. The European Union, a large donor partner, had moved into the direction of updating guidelines for mainstreaming disability to formulate comprehensive disability sensitivity and accessibility policies.

MARIA VERONICA REINA, Member of the Global Partnership on Disability and Development, responding to the questions asked by the delegations, said there should be the establishment of the legal framework first so there would not be problems with technology transfer. Technology was available in developing countries but was not integrated with persons with disabilities. Best practices and concepts should be transferred between States through conferences of States parties of the Convention in candid exchanges of challenges and through informal networks that worked with other United Nations agencies.

NATHALIE HERLEMONT, Head of the Strategic Policy Unit of Handicap International, responding to the questions asked by the delegations, came back to the idea of what was mainstreaming disability. Ms. Herlemont thought that it was necessary to understand disability better and direct involvement of participation of persons with disability. The international community should model those targets and specific actions and inclusion in global development and emergencies cooperation. In addition, the international community needed to develop both inclusive actions and specific targets actions. Regarding the third point about mainstreaming disability, Ms. Herlemont said that there was a need to fill the gap between policies and practices and law was only one step and enforcement of rights was the objective. Mainstreaming disability was also about taking the time to try to change perceptions regarding disability and reinforcing the knowledge of persons with disabilities about their own rights. Concerning the ability of persons with disabilities, the international community needed to talk more and develop more vocational trainings, and capacity building had be freely involved and had to target persons with disabilities themselves and non-governmental organizations.

Questions and Comments

In the second part of questions and comments, speakers said that the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 presented a profound shift in perceptions of disability and agreed that internationally agreed development goals could not be met without the full inclusion of persons with disabilities. Speakers also recognised that achieving respect for disability in practice was a challenging task. Countries recognised the importance of international cooperation and the working together of international, regional and national partners for the enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities. International cooperation should include not only North-South dimension, but also South-South cooperation. Also, it must include the twin-track approach to international cooperation. There was still insufficient awareness about disability mainstreaming, but incentives and political commitments could assist in taking forward this agenda.

There was a real gap in terms of access to scientific and technical knowledge and therefore the proposals aimed at greater cooperation in this field were welcomed. Greater national ownership was needed in international cooperation and the receiving country must be put in the driver’s seat, a speaker noted. The World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on copyrights would add a real impetus to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through freeing up of huge knowledge resources, while the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund was seen as the first step to resourcing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This debate should benefit from sharing of experience and best practices, so that countries could introduce them in their programmes for persons with disabilities.

Speakers wished to hear more from the panellists on the integration of persons with disabilities into society while still meeting their specific needs, additional proposals on the eradication of discrimination against persons with disabilities, best practices and specific challenges related to different groups of persons with disabilities, and most efficient measures in combating discrimination against women and children with disabilities. Since the knowledge about disability mainstreaming was scattered between different institutions, organizations and agencies, was there a need for clear institutional responsibilities on international cooperation, a speaker asked.

Concluding Remarks

MARIA VERONICA REINA, Member of the Global Partnership on Disability and Development, said that international coordination between donors and agencies should be complemented by departmental and ministerial cooperation within countries. The topic of responsibility was important to understand and avoid confusion about who should implement the measures at the national level, state level and provincial level.

THERESIA DEGENER, Member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said that about the question of prevention and impairments, the right to be protected was an important aspect and protection measures for persons with disabilities had to benefit from specific budgetary resources.

NATHALIE HERLEMONT, Head of the Strategic Policy Unit of Handicap International, said that on the practical modalities to manage the issue of mental disabilities there were certain social activities that could be addressed toward persons with mental disabilities and the international community did not always consider these enough. In answer to a question from Norway, Ms. Herlemont said that there were some experiences of disability in vulnerable focal points in emergency situations and there were many examples of community groups that gave many solutions at community levels.

MONTHIAN BUNTAN, Senator of Thailand, said the specific needs of different groups of persons with disabilities depended on how inclusive disability was. One size fits all solutions did not work and inclusion must embrace the concept of diversity and specific requirements of people. Disability-inclusive development or cooperation meant that no measures could be excluded at the outset. Participation of various groups of persons with disabilities must be ensured at all levels. One person with a specific impairment might not know enough about impairments of people with different impairments. The Convention was a product of international cooperation and could only exist through international cooperation. It could not be implemented without serious international cooperation inclusive of people with disabilities.

SHAUB CHALKEN, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission on Social Development, said that one challenge was in finding a platform or mechanism to share information. The Special Rapporteur reiterated the point made earlier about the participation of persons with disabilities at the local level. The participation of persons with disabilities was a principle in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and needed to be part of everything done to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities. Another challenge was monitoring international cooperation and finding indicators to monitor the implementation of Article 32.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record