Materials : Basic Document

Reconsidering the Disability Dimension in Development Cooperation Activities; building national capacities for full participation and equality*

I. Introduction

This paper considers the role of development cooperation in building national capacities and institutions for equalization of opportunities by, for and with persons with disabilities. Special attention is directed to reinforcing the disability dimension in mainstream development cooperation.[1]

The discussion is based upon activities of the United Nations system for development cooperation, although many points raised would apply to the “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” (PRSP) process of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as well as to activities of bilateral donor agencies.

The decision of the United Nations General Assembly to elaborate a “comprehensive and integral” convention to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities, contained in Assembly resolution 56/168 of 19 December 2001,[2] placed advancement of persons with disabilities on the development agenda of the twenty-first century. The decision to initiate the elaboration of a new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities reflects concerns that social progress and development in the twenty-first century must be inclusive. If these processes are to be just, equitable and sustainable, they must involve all citizens as stakeholders and exclude none.[3]

Progress in the elaboration of a new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and promotion of its implementation and systematic monitoring and evaluation - once a text is adopted by the General Assembly and that document is signed and ratified by Governments - will require new and improved national capacities and institutions to address its comprehensive and integral nature.

It is important to recall that improving reporting procedures of human rights treaty bodies is among the reform proposals submitted by the Secretary-General to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly (A/57/387). At a “brainstorming” meeting on treaty body reform, organized jointly by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Government of Liechtenstein at Malbun (5-7 May 2003), capacity building was one of eight themes identified by participants in the reform of human rights treaty body processes and procedures.[4]

II. Basic concepts and issues

A. Development cooperation

Development cooperation activities are undertakings of Governments assisted on request by the United Nations to build national capacities and institutions for self-reliant development. Development cooperation is based on the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,[5] in which the Organization is committed to work with member States to promote social progress and better standards of living in larger freedom, human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person and equal rights between men and women. Improved coherence and effectiveness of development cooperation is a key objective of the reform of the United Nations, which includes simplification and harmonization of procedures and greater involvement of both civil society and the private sector in achieving priority development goals, the development goals of the Millennium Declaration[6] in particular.

B. Disability perspective on development

The disability perspective on development is based on one of the basic concepts of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons,[7] which defines equality for persons with disabilities on par with opportunities available to society as a whole. This approach focuses on the situation of persons with disabilities in terms of opportunities for participation on the basis of equality as development agents and beneficiaries rather than as “vulnerable” subjects requiring special care, protection or services. A basic concern of development approaches to advancement of persons with disabilities is promotion of accessible environments, which includes physical environments, information and communications environments, and policy making and decision making environments.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has identified accessibility as a central concern in furthering equalization of opportunities.[8] Removing barriers and promoting accessible environments are key considerations in the formulation of plans and programmes from the disability perspective. Participants in a United Nations Expert Meeting on Sustainable Livelihoods for All, hosted by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia at Jakarta (15-17 January 2002),[9] identified three types of environmental barriers that can influence realization of sustainable livelihoods and effective safety nets and social services by, for and with persons with disabilities: (a) a need to adapt to a disabling condition and to maximize functional capacities, (b) the need to interact with the community and with society, and (c) the need to gain access to social and economic activities, which give meaning and purpose to life. From the disability perspective, addressing these barriers will involve (a) rehabilitation strategies that maximize the functional (and social) capabilities of people with disabilities; (b) formulation of social inclusion and empowerment strategies to facilitate the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in their communities, societies and economies; and (c) promotion of architectural, engineering and design strategies that facilitate reasonable accommodation and remove handicapping conditions in the environment, which includes the physical environment, transportation systems, workplaces, and information and communication technologies.[10]

III. Policy basis for the disability perspective on development cooperation

Technical and economic cooperation are identified in the World Programme of Action as key tools of international action to further its goals and objectives,[11] although the focus is on establishment of programmes related to the specific needs of persons with disabilities than on reinforcing disability-related concerns in mainstream technical cooperation activities.

The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (General Assembly resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993, annex,[12] also address development cooperation as an implementation measure to further equalization of opportunities. Rule 21 (Technical and economic cooperation) focuses on measures to improve living conditions of persons with disabilities in countries. The rule notes the importance of integrating such measures in all forms of technical and economic cooperation; priorities identified in rule 21 include human resources development, development and dissemination of disability-relevant technologies, and development of disability-related institutions.

The development goals of the “Millennium Declaration” are the principal source of policy guidance in the design and evaluation of development cooperation activities of the United Nations system in the twenty-first century. These eight goals provide a framework for action to achieve a more peaceful, prosperous and just world and include quantifiable indicators to measure progress and outcomes.

Priority is accorded to poverty alleviation with a goal of reducing by one-half by 2015 the number of persons living in extreme poverty (defined as the equivalent of less than US$1.00 per day). Other goals address peace and security issues; human rights, democracy and good governance; and activities of multilateral institutions.[13]

Progress in implementing the development goals of the Millennium Declaration is also considered at the annual meetings of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. At its April 2003 meeting the Committee identified three areas in which there was a need for significant improvement:

Improving the enabling environment for private sector activity. Needed tasks include upgrading regulatory and institutional environments and strengthening physical and financial infrastructure; shortcomings identified include property rights and rules-based governance.
Improving public sector management. Needed tasks include accelerated reforms and capacity building in public expenditure and financial management and urgent improvements in transparency, accountability and corruption control.
Improving human resources development. Recommended actions include increased spending on education and health care and improved delivery of services to the poor, water, sanitation in particular; gender issues are central to improved human resources development.[14]

However, the PRSPs of the World Bank identify persons with disabilities as members of a vulnerable group, while there is no reference to advancement of persons with disabilities among the eight development goals of the Millennium Declaration.[15] Reinforcing the disability dimension in mainstream development cooperation assumes special urgency if persons with disabilities are to be empowered to participate as agents and beneficiaries of planned outcomes related to poverty eradication, peace and security, human rights, democracy and governance.

Another important source of policy guidance for development cooperation activities in the twenty-first century is the “Monterrey Consensus” adopted at the “International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, Mexico, 11-22 March 2002).”[16] The “Consensus” sets forth a number of “leading actions” in support of development, which include mobilizing resources for development, trade, financial and technical cooperation, debt and systemic issues. While the Conference outcome document does not specifically address the situation of persons with disabilities, it does provide guidance on the importance of policy commitments to mainstreaming and equity, including gender equity, respect for human rights and investments in people as important factors in the pursuit of growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development. These are all important considerations associated with development approaches to advancement of persons with disabilities.

In the Asia and Pacific Region the “Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific”[17] presents a number of strategies for regional cooperation involving Governments, the United Nations system as well as the non-governmental community to further the goals and associated targets related to “an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society for persons with disabilities.” Strategy 15 of the “Biwako Millennium Framework” addresses the United Nations system, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in particular, which is urged to assist in establishment and development of “a network of centres of excellence” that would address priority disability-related issues and concerns and further cooperation and collaboration and empowerment of persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific.

IV. Key factors in design and evaluation of development cooperation activities

The third review and appraisal of the World Programme of Action[18] identified three factor complexes that are central to effective - and inclusive - design, implementation and evaluation of outcomes of development cooperation activities: the policy framework; institutional framework, including coordination mechanisms; and resources and national capacities. Resources include both financial and technical resources and technical skills and knowledge, all of which are critical to production of outcomes but which also require appropriate policies, institutions and national capacities for effective, efficient and transparent planning, allocation, implementation management and evaluation.[19]

A. Policy issues complex

Development cooperation activities are undertakings of Governments. The national policy setting exercises a major influence in the design, planning and evaluation of development cooperation programmes. Reinforcing the disability dimension in development cooperation activities will involve a review and evaluation of both scope and content of governmental policies in the light of international instruments and priorities identified for advancement of persons with disabilities and development.

Major United Nations conferences and summits in the social and economic fields provide important evidence of the role of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, in the formulation and evaluation of policy options as well as their contributions to follow up and production of outcomes.[20] Reviews of national policy frameworks should therefore include opportunities for input from organizations of persons with disabilities and civil society so their interests, knowledge and aspirations can be appropriately reflected in mainstream development cooperation activities.

These points will be considered with reference to policy content, determination of priorities and means to achieve policy intent from the disability perspective.

1. Policy content

There is an observed tendency for policy statements on development cooperation and persons with disabilities to be formulated with reference to disability-specific measures, such as provision of medical and social services, rather than in terms of disability-sensitive issues in the context of mainstream development cooperation in both the economic and social sectors.

This was considered at a Ministerial Meeting on “Nordic Development Cooperation and the Disability Dimension, Good Practices - Challenges of Inclusion (Copenhagen, 13-15 November 2000).”[21] The meeting took note of research that found in many organizations and institutions disability work concentrates on specific projects instead of integrating the disability dimension into overall policy work; often no units are charged with mainstreaming the disability dimension. The Meeting recommended that efforts to integrate the disability dimension in designing development cooperation activities and formulating long-term disability-sensitive policy options obtain urgent attention.

Suggestions on disability-sensitive content in the formulation of mainstream policy options were considered at the Jakarta Expert Meeting on Sustainable Livelihoods (15-17 January 2002), which submitted recommendations on an appropriate balance between investments in social services, social protection, accessibility and employment.[22] The Meeting also had for its consideration a comprehensive review of the sustainability of development cooperation activities in the field of disability – community-based rehabilitation, which had been carried out by the Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia (DEPSOS) and a private research foundation, the Institute for Social Development Studies (Jakarta).[23] The study reviewed the role of community based rehabilitation (CBR) in Indonesia and its contribution to implementation of objectives related to ensuring that persons with disabilities can maximise their physical and mental abilities and can access mainstream services and opportunities to achieve social integration and build capacities to participate in the development of their communities and societies. In terms of project design and policy formulation, the findings suggest a need (a) to incorporate top-down, policy concerns with local and area-level considerations, (b) to address CBR plans in the context of a spatial development framework so that these are better integrated with other sectoral activities and (c) to promote participation of persons with disabilities as part of a broad human rights framework on development.

The importance of national policy content is evident in recent research by the United Nations on integration of gender perspectives and empowerment of women in development cooperation activities. Studies found that when gender equality goals are explicit in national strategies and plans, these are more likely to be addressed in the preparation of development cooperation situation analyses (the Common Country Assessment) and strategic planning frameworks (the United Nations Development Assistance Framework) that are central to the United Nations development cooperation process.[24]

Suggested actions on policy content:

Governments, which have not already done so, are urged to formulate a firm statement of policy intent on the role of development cooperation activities in furthering equalization of opportunities and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, with emphasis directed to building national capacities and institutions for full and effective participation of persons with disabilities as agents and beneficiaries of mainstream development.

National policies on development cooperation should include specific references to the disability dimension in mainstream development objectives and priorities so that development cooperation activities involving persons with disabilities do not remain a peripheral development consideration. Policy options should focus on measures to empower persons with disabilities so that they are able to participate, on the basis of equality, as agents and beneficiaries of development. This could include measures to strengthen and improve the supporting institutional frameworks for full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in social life and development.

Among donors it is important that policies on development cooperation related to advancement of persons with disabilities respond to their needs and aspirations in the context of mainstream development and provide opportunities for full and effective presentation of their views on issues that could affect their well being and livelihoods.

Effective and participatory implementation of development cooperation activities requires a sustained consensus on the disability perspective on development. In the absence of a consensus it is possible that suspicion and prejudice could adversely affect efforts to plan and implement disability-sensitive development cooperation activities, since such efforts may be criticized as special justifications or added costs “to accommodate” persons with disabilities. The focus should be on inclusive measures and options for follow-up and replication of outcomes for all.

In the process of elaborating a comprehensive and integral convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, there is an evident need for dialogue between users and donors of development cooperation on policy options, instruments and measures to reinforce the disability perspective in mainstream operational activities for development so that they would contribute to empowerment of persons with disabilities for full participation and equality. Such dialogue should address the possible role of development cooperation in both implementation and evaluation of the new international convention - once a text is adopted by the General Assembly and signed and ratified by Governments.

2. Priorities

Operational activities for development of the United Nations system are undertaken with reference to national policies, objectives and priorities. Policy priorities from the disability perspective should include measures for building national capacities for effective, participatory and transparent decision making for development.[25] This could be reflected in policies on developing national capacities and institutions on the basis of full participation and equality for all and the importance of effective mobilization of the skills, knowledge and resources of persons with disabilities in these processes.[26] The critical role of capacity building, investing in the social sectors and institutional development for poverty eradication in the context of economic reform is evident from recent studies on several Latin American countries. The studies indicate that the key innovation in improving income distribution – and alleviating poverty – came from empowering the poor by giving them assets that enable them to work their way out of poverty; these include education to increase (and improve) human capacities, titling reform to allow micro-enterprises to operate in the formal sector, micro-credit to allow the poor to acquire physical capital and agrarian reform to provide documented access to land.[27]

3. Achieving policy intent

Translating policy intent into practical benefits for advancement of persons with disabilities in mainstream development requires action at policy and planning levels, budgeting and development administration levels, and the field implementation level. Development cooperation activities can contribute to the advancement of persons with disabilities by assisting Governments to improve methods and procedures to plan, organize, implement and evaluate development cooperation activities so that they are participatory, inclusive and transparent. Areas of focus would include:

Preparing procedural guidelines on formulating, implementing and evaluating disability-sensitive policies and programmes;
designing and conducting public information and training activities to promote awareness and understanding of the disability perspective on development and its contribution to development and to building a society for all;
strengthening national capacities and institutions to design, implement and evaluate disability-sensitive development cooperation activities, including possibilities for participation by non-governmental organizations to these efforts;
monitoring and evaluating outcomes of development cooperation activities, with emphasis on self-evaluation of outcomes by project beneficiaries; and
identifying, instituting and assessing the role of incentives to promote effective and systematic implementation and appropriate follow-up of development cooperation undertaken by, for and with persons with disabilities.

�Suggested action on achieving policy intent:

Governments are urged to take necessary action and make commitments to continuous improvements in methods and procedures to translate development cooperation policy intent, from the disability perspective, so that these activities contribute to empowerment of persons with disabilities in mainstream development and enable them to participate on the basis of equality in action for social progress and development.

B. Institutional and coordination issues complex

A key lesson of the new economics of development is the critical role of institutions – and institutional reform - in economic and social performance.[28] A recent study on economic reform notes “the state of institutional development furnishes the only variable that reliably predicts how developed a country is.”[29]

Two types of institutional mechanisms are central to effective, efficient and sustainable development cooperation:

mechanisms to plan, organize and deliver development cooperation inputs, and;
mechanisms to receive, use and monitor and evaluate these inputs, which can include policy and technical advice, training and technical exchanges, technology and other resource transfers.

1. Institutional arrangements

Institutional arrangements for development cooperation activities involve three, complementary levels: (1) policy level, where the national ministry, board or agency for planning and development is the key unit and may also be responsible for consultations with potential donors, including the United Nations system; (2) advocacy and linkages level between policies and operations, which would be the national machinery concerned with advancement of persons with disabilities (such as national committee or council for persons with disabilities) and (3) operational level where development cooperation inputs are delivered and used by intended beneficiaries.

Suggested actions on institutional arrangements:

Governments, which have not already done so, are urged to establish and develop institutional arrangements for development cooperation that provide both flexibility and responsiveness to issues and trends related to equalization of opportunities by, for and with persons with disabilities in mainstream development. Such arrangements would provide effective linkages between national and local-level organizations of persons with disabilities and concerned bodies and organizations for development cooperation activities.

Governments are further urged to strengthen and improve institutional capacities so that translation of development cooperation policy intent is disability sensitive and involves local-level institutions.

Governments are urged to include as appropriate non-governmental organizations when establishing and strengthening institutional arrangements for development cooperation activities, which would provide opportunities for effective involvement of programme beneficiaries, incorporate local knowledge and aspirations and empower persons with disabilities for participatory planning, implementation and evaluation of outcomes of development cooperation activities.

2. Coordination issues

Three types of coordination are essential for effective and sustainable development cooperation activities: (1) policy coordination, (2) sectoral coordination and (3) procedural coordination.

a. Policy coordination

Policy intent provides guidance on the normative scope, orientation and priorities for planning and design of mainstream technical cooperation.

Development cooperation policies and activities of the United Nations system are considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council[30] and its concerned subsidiary bodies.

The Development Committee is the ministerial-level body that advises the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund on development issues and trends.

Governments may wish to consider using such fora to review and discuss options to reinforce the disability dimension in mainstream development cooperation policies and activities.

Meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 56/168, represent a new intergovernmental forum at which to consider the role of development cooperation in the elaboration of the new international convention, its implementation and evaluation of outcomes.

b. Sectoral coordination

Full and effective participation of persons with disabilities involves both the full range of sectoral development concerns and their full and effective participation in civil and political life.

In the context of assessing and planning development cooperation needs, Governments are urged to identify key sectors that would contribute to equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities in the context of mainstream development. Sectoral investment priorities could include skill development and leadership training, employment promotion, health and education, and essential social services and safety nets. Such an assessment would provide concerned ministries and departments with a policy and planning framework to support consultations with donor agencies on options for translating national policy intent into action for advancement of persons with disabilities. Sectoral and ministerial/departmental approaches would contribute to improved analysis, planning and implementation efficiencies, reduced duplication and dissipation of effort and enhanced sustainability.

c. Procedural coordination

Development cooperation activities are country driven and use national development policies and priorities as their frame of reference for analysis and planning. Governments are responsible for coordination of their development cooperation activities.

Simplification and harmonization of development cooperation procedures of the United Nations system is a long-standing concern of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, which dates from 1977.[31]

In a practical sense there is a need to distinguish between the interests and needs for simplification and harmonization of procedures for donors and for the constituencies (“programme” countries) for development cooperation activities.

Constituencies for development cooperation include Governments as well as non-governmental organizations, civil society and the private sector. Often several governmental units may be involved in the analysis of needs, planning, coordination and management of development cooperation activities. Introduction of advancement of persons with disabilities to mainstream development cooperation initially may result in a more complex division of labour between traditional technical cooperation units and those concerned with issues related to disability. Efforts to promote inclusive approaches to planning and implementation of development cooperation activities may thus be preceded by information and training in new concepts and procedures concerned with equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Identification of the various actors in technical cooperation activities would also contribute to development of networks among interested parties to carry out dialogue on options, approaches, joint planning procedures and lessons of field applications.

Among donors – both intergovernmental and bilateral - it is important that the scope and area for operational concern are clearly identified and that project purposes are communicated to the parties involved in the design and implementation of development cooperation activities. There is a need for an agreed division of responsibilities between those who are to organize and deliver development cooperation inputs and those who are responsible for administrative and financial support services. There also is a need for agreed concepts and approaches to monitoring project implementation and evaluating results achieved and outcomes.[32] A basic question is whether project monitoring and evaluation is to be within the purview of the concerned development cooperation implementing agency or an external body. In either case there is a need to ensure effective beneficiary involvement in both monitoring and evaluation activities and to identify roles and responsibilities for measuring progress and obstacles, for analysis and interpretation of data, for identification and initiation of corrective action and follow-up.

Among United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies there has been significant progress in simplification and harmonization of procedures related to operational activities for development and their better integration with national development efforts. Three instruments for collaboration and consultation are central to this process: the Common Country Assessment (CCA), the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), and the Country Programme Document (CPD). Governments and the United Nations system are now engaged in the harmonization of development cooperation planning and programming with national development plans, which will take several years to achieve with all concerned Governments.

Another important document for improving coordination of development cooperation activities is the “Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper” (PRSP), which is carried out in “heavily-indebted poor countries” with the assistance of staff of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Simplification and harmonization of procedures of the United Nations system for development cooperation is based on the use of common frameworks for analysis of development conditions, for strategic planning and for programming of assistance available from the United Nations.

(1) Common Country Assessment (CCA)

The CCA is the common instrument by which the United Nations system prepares a comprehensive analysis of the national development situation and identifies and assesses key development issues and trends. The document is prepared under the leadership of Government with the assistance of the United Nations Country Team as well as civil society and the non-governmental community. Formulation of a CCA is dynamic and results focused. A key function of the CCA is support for formulating national plans and strategies, which may include the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in cooperation with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The CCA can also contribute to – or benefit from – monitoring of progress in implementing the development goals of the Millennium Declaration.

The CCA has five parts ands an executive summary, which synthesizes major findings:

Section 1.Brief introduction to the CCA preparation process, nature, and scope of the analysis, including key expectations, partners, results and proposals for follow-up;

Section 2. Strategic analysis of causes and differentiated impacts of poverty based on an assessment of the key national development issues and trends in relation to progress made towards national priorities, with a focus on the development goals of the Millennium Declaration (MDGs) and other commitments, goals and targets of the Millennium Declaration and international conferences, summits and conventions;

Section 3.Identification of proposed areas of cooperationamong the Government and other development partners, in response to the identified challenges;

Section 4 Indicator framework, for purposes of monitoring and evaluation, based on established CCA indicators, which are based on MDG and related conference indicators and other indicators agreed upon at country level;[33]

Section 5. Sources of data.

(2) United Nations Development Assistance Framework

The UNDAF is the common strategic planning document for operational activities of the United Nations system; it is a product of the CCA. The UNDAF links United Nations system support to national priorities and provides a framework by which members of the United Nations system for development cooperation can prepare the respective Country Programme Document.

The UNDAF complements the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) of the World Bank, the Country Strategy Paper (CSP) of the European Commission, and cooperation programme documents of other multilateral and bilateral institutions.

UNDAF documents contain the following elements:

Executive summary, of the process, findings and recommendations;

Signature page, which underscores the commitment of the United Nations agencies to the UNDAF;

Section 1. Introduction and background on preparation of the UNDAF;

Section 2. Results Section, which describes outcomes expected from the UNDAF and Country Programmes and projects, choices made and role of United Nations agencies and development partners; it presents the agreement of UN agencies and national partners on the strategic focus and expected outcomes of UN system cooperation in support of country-led efforts to achieve specific national priorities and goals within the context of the MDGs and the commitments, goals and targets of the Millennium Declaration and international conferences, summits, conventions and human rights instruments of the UN system; these are elaborated in the “UNDAF Results Matrix”;

Section 3. Estimated Resource Requirements, which are presented for each expected outcome in the UNDAF;

Section 4. Implementation, whichoutlines coordination, management and partnership arrangements for each UNDAF outcome;and

Section 5. Monitoring and Evaluation, which describes mechanisms and indicators to monitor, assess and evaluate progress towards the attainment of UNDAF outcomes, which is presented in three sections: (a) Monitoring and evaluation narrative, which describes how the United Nations Country team will organize and carry out monitoring of the UNDAF; (b) Monitoring and evaluation framework, which lists for each UNDAF outcome and related Country Programme outcome, one or more indicators to monitor progress, including baseline data and sources for verification and associated risks and assumption; and (c) Monitoring and evaluation programme cycle calendar.

(3) Country Programme Document (CPD)

The CPD is the third product of the harmonized programming procedures of the United Nations system. It is based upon the common assessment of development issues, trends and needs and the results matrix of the UNDAF. A CPD is prepared by the concerned members of the United Nations system – the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP) – and considered for support by the respective Executive Board. CPD outcomes describe how intended results will contribute to UNDAF outcomes while the CPD outputs describe the specific products or services for which the respective United Nations agencies are accountable and which will contribute to expected outcomes of the country programme/project and to UNDAF outcomes as well.

Significant by their absence is any reference to advancement of persons with disabilities in the simplification and harmonization processes of the United Nations system, either in the “key aspects of the causality analysis” of the CCA or as a strategic element in the UNDAF “Results Matrix”.

However, the International Labour Organization has prepared a “discussion paper”[34] on integration of persons with disabilities in the employment promotion activities associated with the “Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper” approach to poverty alleviation in low-income countries of the World Bank and IMF. The ILO paper notes that the PRSP Sourcebook[35] addresses persons with disabilities as vulnerable. The ILO discussion paper focuses on options for empowerment of persons with disabilities living in poverty to complement to the social protection approach of the Sourcebook.

C. Resources issues complex

Resources often are identified as the principal factor complex influencing development cooperation activities. They are, rather, an enabling factor - a means and not a sufficient condition - for development cooperation. "Resources&quo5; is used as a collective term; three resource categories are central to development cooperation activities:

material support, which includes finances, equipment and fellowships;
technical guidance, which includes expert assistance, policy-level advisory services and training; and
information both from the technical and scientific fields and on marketing and production possibilities.

Resource allocations are determined by priorities, which derive from political will as reflected in statements of policy intent. When policy intent is linked with binding instruments, such as promoting of gender perspectives, resource allocations normally follow, which is not always the case with non-binding instruments such as the proclamation of the international community to achieve a “Society for all” by the year 2010.[36] The data available suggest that much progress remains in realizing this commitment and achieving significant increases in resources for advancement of persons with disabilities in mainstream development cooperation activities.

Suggested actions on enhancing resources for equalization of opportunities:

Governments, which are in a position to do, so are urged to consider making a commitment to real and sustained increases in resources for disability-sensitive development cooperation activities to support empowerment of persons with disabilities and further their human rights and to contribute thereby to realization of the goal of a “Society for all in the twenty-first century”.

Suggested action introduces three resources mobilization and management issues:

Greater burden sharing of the costs of development cooperation activities, follow-up and replication of outcomes will be required of both donors and users. Special attention will need to be directed to means to promote increased mobilization of domestic resources, particularly as this relates to recurrent financing of disability-sensitive development operations, which could also involve the non-governmental and private sectors. Local level resources are especially important to effective and sustainable development cooperation activities in terms of providing detailed knowledge required for project design and material support for operation and maintenance of project outcomes and follow up.
Improved management capacities of development cooperation activities will be required of donors and users in the light of changes that may occur in terms of scale and complexity of disability-sensitive development cooperation, particularly as these are formulated as integral components of mainstream development.
Increased and predictable flows of resources for disability sensitive development cooperation activities in the twenty-first century are essential to support both measures aimed at promoting a society for all and efforts related to elaboration of a comprehensive and integral convention to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

V. Next steps

Progress in reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation activities as well as the PRSP process of the World Bank and IMF will require new policy commitments to equalization of opportunities and managerial commitments to reforms in development cooperation processes and procedures, which are best characterized as development cooperation “next practices”.[37]

A key finding of the fourth review and appraisal of the World Programme of Action (A/58/61 - E/2003/5) is the critical role of the disability perspective in the design and effective implementation of sustainable, rights-based approaches to development.[38] The fourth review concludes that action to further equalization of opportunities requires progress in the elaboration of a comprehensive and integral convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Once a text is elaborated and adopted by the General Assembly, Governments will have policy and instrumental guidance on promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in mainstream development.

The fourth review also addresses the question of progress in reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation activities and concludes that in the context of promoting greater coherence, efficiency and sustainability in development cooperation activities of the United Nations, the General Assembly may wish to examine policy options and target areas to be used by United Nations funds and programmes better to incorporate the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation.[39] Governments may also wish to consider the question of reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation activities in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, established by General Assembly resolution 56/168, in connection with promoting rights based approaches to development and to provide thereby disability-sensitive policy guidance to concerned United Nations funds and programmes.

The task of reinforcing the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation activities would not necessarily be furthered by the commitment of resources to produce “guidance notes” on disability-sensitive development cooperation in the absence of significant increases in overall resources for development cooperation activities. The more cost-effective approach would be to focus on training in practical approaches to disability-sensitive monitoring of progress and evaluating of outcomes in the implementation of County programmes and projects to assess their contributions to planned UNDAF outcomes in terms of empowering persons with disabilities as development agents and beneficiaries. Beneficiary based self-evaluation of outputs and outcomes not only would contribute to improved understanding of planning and implementing disability sensitive development cooperation activities but could document costs and benefits associated with incorporating the disability perspective in mainstream development cooperation and not as an ancillary concern.

Self-evaluation of results-based development cooperation activities could produce considerable cognitive effects among programme beneficiaries and contribute as well to an expanded range of data for disability sensitive policy design, planning and decision making. Self-evaluation can promote a greater sense of ownership of development cooperation activities and contribute to their sustainability and effective replication. Cognitive effects would result from ways in which monitoring and evaluation instruments were formulated and data collection and analysis procedures employed. Self-evaluation can also contribute to improved managerial decisions on development cooperation activities, since resources rarely are sufficient to carry out external evaluations on each programme activity, on progress in achieving planned outputs and effects of outcomes produced.

Notes

* Prepared by Clinton E. Rapley, Director of Planning Services, Associates for International Management Services (Box 255, Mt. Tremper NY 12457-0245, USA); rapley@intlmgt.com.

[1] By way of background, in his first monitoring report Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, Special Rapporteur on Disability of the Commission for Social Development, which covered the period 1994-1997, stated that in the area of development cooperation and disability he had “not found any serious effort, either in UNDP [United Nations Development Programme} or in inter-governmental institutions for development cooperation, to integrate disability measures into their mainstream activities.” He found this “also true concerning such international financial institutions as the World Bank and regional development banks, among others. Owing to this lack of commitment, there is a great risk that disability measures once again will be left out or marginalized in those development programmes launched in response to … United Nations follow-up plans [related] to the World Summit for Social Development” as well as other major United Nations conferences and summits. Mr. Lindqvist observed that it “would … be extremely discouraging if programmes for poverty eradication were to be 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.” In “Monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities; note by the Secretary General”; annex, “Final 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” (A52/82/) - http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dismsre9.htm.

[2] http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disA56168e1.htm.

[3] Statement of President Vincente Fox of Mexico at the General Debate of the fifth-sxith session of the United Nations General Assembly, 10 November 2001 - http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/56/statements/011110mexicoS.htm.

[4] “Ways and means of expediting the work of the Committee [on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women]; report of the Secretariat” (C/2003/II/4) paras 12-16.

[5] http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html.

[6] The “United Nations Millennium Declaration” (General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000), sets forth eight development goals that provide a framework to translate the shared values considered essential for international relations in the twenty-first century - freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility - into actions to achieve a more peaceful, prosperous and just world < http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ >.

[7] http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/diswpa00.htm

[8] “Implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons: Towards a Society for All in the Twenty-first Century (General Assembly resolution 52/82 of 12 December 1993)” <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disimpe0.htm>.

[9] http://www.worldenable.net/livelihoods/default.htm.

[10] See “Recommendations; Interregional Consultative Expert Meeting on Disability-Sensitive Policy Design and Evaluation for Sustainable Livelihoods for All (Jakarta, Indonesia, January 15-17, 2002)” <http://www.worldenable.net/livelihoods/recommendations.htm>.

[11] World Programme, op.cit, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/diswpa09.htm#Technical%20coop.

[12] http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm.

[13] “Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration; report of the Secretary-General” (A/58/323); available only in Adobe PDF� at United Nations Millennium Development Goals home page < http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/>.

[14] Boughton, James and Zia Qureshi, (2003). “Staying on track; a framework for monitoring progress toward the Millennium Development Goals,” Finance and Development, Vol. 40 (September) pp. 46-47.

[15] See “Progress in equalization of opportunities by, for and with persons with disabilities; report of the Secretary-General” (A/AC.256/2003/3) < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/a_ac265_2003_3e.htm>.

[16] Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.02.II.A.7), chap. I, resolution 1, annex; available only in Adobe PDF � at Financing for Development home page <http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/>.

[17] http://www.unescap.org/sps/BMF.htm.

[18] “Review and appraisal of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons; report of the Secretary-General” (A/52/351) <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disrawp0.htm>.

[19] “Development effectiveness is primarily a function of national capacity” in United Nations Development Programme, “Second multi-year funding framework, 2004-2007” (DP/2003/32) para 55.

[20] “Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic and social fields”, General Assembly resolution 57/270 of 23 June 2004.

[21] Report of the Conference - http://www.handicap.dk/development/conf2000/uk-indx.htm.

[22] “Recommendations” - http://www.worldenable.net/livelihoods/recommendations.htm.

[23] Markus, Sudibyo, MD (2002). “Evaluation of community based rehabilitation for the disabled in Indonesia”; paper presented to the “Expert meeting on sustainable livelihoods for all (Jakarta, 15-17 January 2002)” - http://www.worldenable.net/livelihoods/paperindonesia.htm.

[24] “The empowerment of women and integration of gender perspectives in the promotion of economic growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development; report of the Secretary-General” (A/58/135) paras 46-50.

[25] The importance of capacity building as a priority of development cooperation is reflected in the recent evaluation by the Evaluation Office of the United Nations Development Programme on country-level action related to the development goals of the Millennium Declaration (MDGs), which found that “Effective participation in [Millennium Development Goals Reporting] MDGR preparatory process is often constrained by the capacity within a country.” Two dimensions of capacity were examined: statistical capacity and organizational capacity within a country to support preparation of MDGRs and attainment of the MDGs. In United Nations Development Programme (2003). “Report on the assessment of the MDG reports; executive summary” (DP/2003/34) para 11.

[26] Contributing to development effectiveness at the country level, and building organizational capacity for development effectiveness are the top organizational strategies for the second multi-year funding framework period, 2003-2007, of UNDP (DP/2003/32) pp. 14-18.

[27] Willaimson, John (2003). “From reform agenda to damaged brand name; a short history of the Washington Consensus and suggestions for what to do next,” Finance and Development, Vol. 40 (September).

[28] See Naim, Moises (1994). “Economic reform and democracy – Latin America: the second stage of reform,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5 (October).

[29] Kuczjnski, Pedro and John Williamson, eds. (2003). After the Washington Consensus: restarting growth and reform in Latin America (Washington, Institute for International Economics).

[30] The General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council consider comprehensive reviews of operational activities for development of the United Nations system on a triennial basis; the next comprehensive review is scheduled for 2004. Major concerns of the reviews are “simplification and harmonization of procedures” and “evaluation of operational activities”; see General Assembly resolution 56/201 of 21 December 2001 and Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/29 of 25 July 2002.

[31] General Assembly resolution 32/197 of 20 December 1977, annex.

[32] Options to improve programme monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes from the disability perspective are discussed in Scott Campbell Brown, “Programme monitoring and evaluation; the disability perspective in the context of development” (1999) < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/monitor/index.html >.

[33] The primary purposes of the indicator framework are to (a) provide a means to focus on national and international development goals; (b) provide a quantitative focus for measuring results achieved in progressing towards the major development goals and objectives of the MDGs, United Nations conferences, summits and in realizing rights stated in United Nations human rights treaties; (c) identify key development issues covered by United Nations agency mandates; and (d) help to identify data gaps and constraints in the capacity of the national statistical systems; source: United Nations. Common Country Assessment and United Nations Development Assistance Framework; integrated guidelines (New York, 22 May 2002; revised June 2003).

[34] International Labour Organization, “Disability and poverty reduction strategies; how to ensure that access of persons with disabilities to decent and productive work is part of the PRSP process”, Discussion Paper (Geneva, November 2002); available at the ILO’s Disability and the world of work home page, only in Adobe PDF� - http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/download/discpaper.pdf.

[35] http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/strategies/sourcons.htm.

[36] General Assembly resolution 48/99 of 20 December 1993.

[37] Best practices build upon the status quo, while “next practices” focus on knowledge creation to move beyond current approaches to development cooperation for the purpose of seeking new and improved concepts, processes and procedures to reinforce the disability dimension in mainstream development cooperation activities. “Best practice is backward-looking, "next practice" is forward looking. Transfer of best practice is knowledge management, inventing "next practices" is knowledge creation,” Sarafin D. Talisayon, “Knowledge creation,” IT matters.(Manila, 21 April 2003) - http://itmatters.com.ph/column/talisayon_04212003.html.

[38] A/58/61 - E/2003/5, para 5 - http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disa5881e1.htm#II.

[39] Ibid., para 12.

Return to top

Main	Programme	Materials	Online	Bangkok

	Regional Workshop towards a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities Bangkok, Thailand, 14-17 October 2003