Regional Workshop on Monitoring the Implementation of the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (BMF)
Bangkok, Thailand, 13-15 October 2004

GENERAL
ENGLISH ONLY
UNITED NATIONS
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Regional Workshop on Monitoring the Implementation of the Biwako Millennium
Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based
Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (BMF)
13-15 October 2004
Bangkok

WORKING DOCUMENT 2

Review of National Progress in the Implementation of Targets and Strategies of the
Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free
and Rights-based Society for Persons with Disabilities
in Asia and the Pacific (BMF) 2004 *

INTRODUCTION

This papers reviews replies to the questionnaire circulated by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) to Governments as well as the non-governmental community to obtain information on progress in implementing the seven BMF priorities for action “to promote the goals of an inclusive, barrier-free and rights based society for persons with disabilities in the Asia and Pacific region”.[1]

This paper is in three sections. The first section reviews and analyzes replies submitted by Governments and the second deals with replies from the non-governmental community. Conclusions and implications for further action are presented in the third section.

By resolution 58/4 of 22 May 2002 the ESCAP Commission proclaimed “the extension of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002, for another decade, 2003-2012, with a view to giving further impetus to the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons[2]and the ‘Agenda for Action’ for the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002[3] in the ESCAP region beyond 2002;” and urged “all [ESCAP] members and associate members to participate actively in the High-level Intergovernmental Meeting to Conclude the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002 [hosted by the Government of Japan and the Shiga Prefecture Government at Otsu City, Shiga, Japan, from 25 to 28 October 2002].” The outcome of the High-level Intergovernmental Meeting was a regional framework for action to further the goals of an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society for persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific, the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF). To achieve these goals the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) identifies seven priority areas for action,[4] 21 targets and 17 strategies to achieve these targets of which 10 strategies relate to national level action,[5] six focus on sub-regional and regional cooperation and one on interregional cooperation. ESCAP Commission resolution 59/3 of 4 September took note of the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) and requested all [ESCAP] members and associate members to support its implementation “at the national level through public awareness activities, appropriate policies, other measures and the allocation of resources in keeping with national capacities, and through international cooperation and partnership, including the transfer of resources and technologies, as appropriate.”

I. ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OF GOVERNMENTS

Twenty-three Governments submitted replies to the ESCAP questionnaire on progress in implementing the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF), which include 21 ESCAP members[6] – 19 developing countries of which 7 are classified as least-developed countries - and 2 associate members.[7] This represents a response rate of 40 per cent for ESCAP members (21/53) and 22 per cent for the associate members (2/9). However, the response rate is 50 per cent for Governments that have signed the “Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region” (23/46). Replies were received from Governments of all ESCAP sub-regions.

A. National commitment to disability action

1. National mechanism. Replies indicate the strong commitment by responding Governments to disability action. Twenty of the 23 responding Governments reported the existence of a national coordinating mechanism;[8] one Government – Solomon Islands- reported that a mechanism was under development, and one – Kiribati - reported that a focal point on disability had been established in the Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs.

The year of establishment of the national mechanism ranges from 1978 (Philippines) to 2001 (Timor-Leste, the newest ESCAP member). Most national coordination mechanisms were established during the 1990s (12 of the 20 mechanisms established). The size of the national coordination mechanisms reported range from 1 person (Cook Islands) to 149 members (Turkey). Most national coordination mechanisms are of modest scale. Sixteen of the 20 mechanisms report having 30 members or less, and 50 per cent report less than 20 members.

The title of the national coordination mechanism varies, but most involve a special-purpose council or committee comprised of governmental as well as non-governmental organizations. Four Governments report that established governmental units in line agencies (Singapore, and the Cook Islands) or at executive level (Japan and Turkey) address promotion and coordination of disability action. Australia reported that the “Commonwealth State and Territory Disability Agreement” provides the mechanism for promotion and coordination of disability action.

Nine Governments reported that the mechanism receives a specific budget allocation, while other replies suggest that support is from existing budget allocations.

2. National plan. Formulation of a national plan of action concerning disability by 2004 is the first strategic action identified in BMF. Good progress is being realized in this area. Fifteen Governments report that a national plan for implementing the BMF exists (8) or is under development (7).

Data are available for the year of plan enactment from six Governments: two report initiating BMF national plans in 2002, three in 2003 and two in 2004 (as of June 2004). One plan appears to be a continuation of the national plan for the first Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, since it has a 1999 year of enactment.

Three Governments that have enacted a national plan to further implement BMF report that specific budgets have been identified for plan implementation – Mongolia, Philippines and Vietnam. Other replies suggest that support for plan implementation is incorporated in an existing allocation.

Japan prepared a national plan on disability to run for 10 years from 2003-2012, in parallel to the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons. For more effective implementation, they cut the period into two 5-year plans; the first running from 2003-2007 and the second from 2008-2012, containing more short-term concrete targets to be achieved within each 5-year period.[9]

National plan priorities respond to priorities for action identified in BMF. All plans enacted to date cover the seven BMF priority areas. Data on four of the seven plans under development indicate that they also respond to BMF priorities.

3. National actions to further implement BMF. Eleven Government report that BMF has been translated into a local language: Australia, Cambodia, China, Japan, Mongolia, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam; and Hong Kong, China. Bangladesh and Indonesia report that translations are underway.

What is not evident from questionnaire replies is whether efforts are being made to publish BMF in accessible formats. ESCAP have published the full English and summary texts of BMF on the Internet in accessible Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) <http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/bmf/bmf.html>.

The most frequently cited action to promote and further implement BMF concerns public information and special events (17 of the 19 responding Governments); establishment of a sub-regional mechanism for BMF is the second-most reported action (8 reporting Governments). The least common action, to date, is to increase governmental personnel responsible for disability matters.

Table 1.

Actions taken to promote and implement BMF targets and strategies

The principal “other” actions reported relate to organization of seminars and workshops for governmental personnel on BMF targets and strategies.

Governments report a range of activities carried out during the period under review to further implement BMF. First, there has been a 12 per cent increase in the number of Governments that have signed the “Proclamation on Full Participation and Equality of Persons with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region”, from 41 governmental signatories at end-2001 to 46 as at 31 January 2004.[10]

Government activities in support of BMF follow closely its strategic areas for national action. Outreach and training on BMF priorities and targets for governmental personnel were carried out by Bangladesh and the Philippines. The Chinese version of BMF was circulated to the State Council of the People’s Republic of China – the highest executive organ of the State - and to its branch organizations with guidance on implementation measures. India reported that a national consultation on BMF was completed in October 2003 and that legislation was in place by 2003 to address selected BMF targets. Australia promotes public awareness of BMF at State and Territorial levels as part of its “Commonwealth Disability Strategy (CDS)” - a planning framework to assist Australian Government organizations meet obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. This is carried out in connection with Australia’s annual “Prime Minister’s Employer of the Year Awards”, which recognize Australian businesses that effectively employ people with disabilities, and the annual observance of the International Day of Disabled Persons as well as in cooperation with non-governmental organizations and community sectors.

Several Governments reported on national planning and policy development from the disability perspective. Both Indonesia and Nepal reported on their formulation of national action plans; Nepal also reported on the institution of disability-related issues in budget plans by concerned ministries and agencies. The Philippines aligned the National Plan for the Philippine Decade of Persons with Disabilities (2003-2012)[11] better to address BMF targets and priorities. Singapore reported that actions to achieve BMF targets are being carried out by the concerned governmental sectors. The Solomon Islands initiated elaboration of a national policy on disability. Vietnam reported that concerned ministries formulated work programmes better to address BMF targets and priorities.

Action related to specific BMF priorities was reported by several Governments. Australia, Fiji and Hong Kong, China report that special attention is being directed to promote improved accessibility in buildings and facilities by persons with disabilities through reviews of building codes and updating of standards. Australia also reported that its Government Online Strategy [12] requires all Australian Government agencies to comply with a set of online standards, including accessibility. The National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons of the Philippines uses the “Manila Accessible ICT Design Recommendations”[13] for guidance on promoting accessible information and communication technologies. Employment promotion among persons with disabilities and poverty reduction efforts were reported by Mongolia and Timor-Leste. Mongolia reported on measures to promote increased involvement of organizations of persons with disabilities in selected State functions, which include social welfare and services, and employment promotion, with the assistance of Asian Development Bank and financial support of the Japan Poverty Reduction Fund.[14]

B. Mainstreaming of disability in national policies

The seven BMF priorities are well-represented in replies of Governments on mainstreaming of disability concerns in national policy. Responding Governments identified medical, rehabilitation and early intervention as the principal subjects being covered in the mainstreaming of disability concerns in national policies, followed closely education and training, and employment promotion. Gender, women with disabilities – a BMF priority – is the subject least identified in connection with mainstreaming of disability concerns in national policies.

Table 2.

Subjects identified in connection with mainstreaming disability concerns in national policies

Indonesia reported that political rights of persons with disabilities, especially in the electoral system, are recently-identified subjects for mainstreaming in national policies.

C. Legislation

1. Ad Hoc Committee on new international convention on rights of persons with disabilities. Eighteen of the 23 responding Governments reported support for the work of the Ad Hoc and participation in its activities; three Governments reported “no position” on the Ad Hoc Committee, whose activities are open to all member States.

2. Constitutional article(s) on disability. Thirteen Governments reported[15] that their national constitution included one or more articles related to persons with disabilities; four of the constitutions cited were enacted during the 1980s and seven date from the 1990s. Two Governments – Cambodia and Indonesia - reported on amendments to an existing constitution better to reflect disability concern. Disability was incorporated in the constitution of Timor-Leste, enacted in 2002.

While variations exist among these basic instruments, the general pattern is for the respective constitution to identify rights of persons with disabilities and obligations of the State. The Constitution of Turkey approaches rights of persons of disabilities in terms of “equal protection” provisions. The Constitution of the Philippines identifies establishment of a specific agency – the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons – to address the rehabilitation, development and promotion of self-reliance of persons with disabilities.

Obligations of Governments identified in the respective convention generally relate to the traditional social sectors – health, education, culture, and social welfare. Some include promotion of opportunities to participate in economic life and employment promotion. The 1997 Constitution of Thailand includes provisions related to promotion of opportunities for persons with disabilities to participate in political life.

Bangladesh and the Cook Island reported that constitutional articles on persons with disability were under development.

3. Integration of disability concerns in generic national law. The question focuses on the extent to which national laws (and administrative guidance) are disability sensitive in treatment of subject matter addressed.

Fifteen Governments[16] identified one or more subject areas in which disability concerns were incorporated in generic national law. The most frequently cited area was social security and social protection, which are followed closely by education, employment and “poverty alleviation”.

Table 3.

Generic law subject areas in which disability concerns are mainstreamed

Indonesia cited the integration of disability concerns in its 2003 “General Election Act No. 12”; and Australia reported that education and transportation standards are under development.

4. Disability-specific sectoral laws. Fifteen Governments provided information on sectoral laws that relate specifically to persons with disabilities. However, these are not always the same Governments that reported on integration of disability concerns in generic national laws.

Employment promotion is t most frequently cited subject area for disability-specific sectoral law, followed by building codes and accessibility standards, and social security. All are BMF priorities.

Table 4.

Subject areas for disability-specific sectoral law

The fifteen reporting Governments replied that most all areas of disabilities are covered by their sectoral laws. The somewhat lower score for the category “persons with psychiatric disabilities” may be related to definitional issues, or simply a reporting anomaly.

Table 5.

Areas of disabilities covered by disability-specific sectoral law

Indonesia reported that people who experience chronic disease, or leprosy, are also covered by disability-specific sectoral laws.

Sectoral laws generally focus on social services and social protection, health, education and employment (including rehabilitation). Both Australia and Turkey reported that all types of disabilities are covered in relevant sectoral laws. Several Governments reported on the emphasis accorded to education of a child with disabilities in sectoral law, which include China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Republic of Korea. Employment promotion, including identification of quotas and provision of tax relief is covered in several sectoral laws, which include India (with the provision that employment in the public sector is available only to persons with 40 per cent or greater locomotor, visual or hearing disability), Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines (in connection with the 1975 “Employees Compensation Program”), Republic of Korea, Singapore (which provides tax relief for both persons with disabilities and their families, and enterprises which hire workers with a disability), Thailand and Vietnam (which has set quotas for hiring persons with disabilities in enterprises). The “Mental Health Ordinance” of Hong Kong, China provides legal safeguards for the rights and well-being of mentally-disabled and mentally-handicapped persons.

5. Comprehensive law related to persons with disabilities. Twelve Governments[17] reported on the existence of a comprehensive disability law, and two[18] said that this is currently under development. Most comprehensive laws were enacted during the 1990s, two in the period 1981-1982, and two after 2000; several Governments reported on amendments and updates. The scope of comprehensive laws cited respond to BMF priorities, the decided emphasis in these laws is promotion of self-reliance of persons with disabilities. The most frequently cited area covered is training and employment promotion, including self-employment; and the second-most frequently cited areas are early detection/early intervention, environmental access, human rights of persons with disabilities, and public awareness. In August 2004, Japan passed a more rights-based amendment of its comprehensive law, the “Fundamental Law on Disability”.[19]

Table 6.

Areas covered in comprehensive law related to persons with disabilities

6. Disability-specific anti-discrimination law. Four Governments[20] reported on the existence of disability-specific anti-discrimination law and two[21] said that the question is under development. All four of the anti-discrimination legislation was enacted during the 1990s.

The “Disability Discrimination Act” (DDA) of Australia[22] makes it generally unlawful to discriminate against people because of a disability. DDA has three objectives: (1) to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of a disability, (2) t o ensure equality before the law for people with disabilities and (3) to promote community acceptance of the rights of people with disabilities. DDA is comprehensive in coverage and makes it unlawful to discriminate against persons with disabilities in the following areas: employment; education; access to premises used by the public (including public transport); provision of goods, services and facilities; applications for accommodation (including renting); disposal of land; activities of clubs and associations; sport; administration of Commonwealth law and programmes; and requests for information.

The “Disability Discrimination Ordnance of Hong Kong, China[23] (DDO) provides a set of legal safeguards similar to Australia’s DDA with the aim of facilitating full and effective integration of persons in social life and development. The Equal Opportunity Commission, an independent statutory body, is responsible for enforcing DDO.

The 1997 Constitution of Fiji (reaffirmed March 2001), provides in Chapter 4, “Bill of Rights” under Section 38, “Equality” for right of every person for equality before the law, for the basic rights of persons with disabilities and prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability.[24]

India’s comprehensive “Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995” (Act 1 of 1996) aims to: (1) spell out the State's responsibility towards prevention of impairments and protection of disabled people's rights in health, education, training, employment and rehabilitation; (2) create a barrier-free environment for disabled people; (3) remove discrimination in the sharing of development benefits; (4) counteract any abuse or exploitation of disabled people; (5) lay down strategies for a comprehensive development of programmes and services and for equalization of opportunities for disabled people; and (6) integrate disabled people into the social mainstream. Enforcement of these provisions is left to the Courts of Law without specifying summary procedures to be followed in the event of proceedings under the respective legislations.[25]

7 Enforcement mechanisms. Reporting Governments indicate few preferences among established mechanisms to enforce the disability-provisions of both comprehensive and sectoral laws. Anti-discrimination investigations receive slightly lower marks than other enforcement mechanisms.

Table 7.

Enforcement mechanisms available in comprehensive and sectoral law

8. Participation of persons with disabilities in legislative matters. Eighteen of the 23 reporting Governments state that mechanisms are in place to facilitate participation of persons with disabilities in the formulation or monitoring of comprehensive and sectoral laws.

Nine Governments report having established a mechanism for consultation with persons with disabilities on the new international convention to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

An explanation for this finding is that national legislation normally will include provision for consultation and comment by the affected constituencies directly, through governmental representatives or the law courts as well as informal mechanism. In contrast, the elaboration of the new international convention – an important development – is a work-in-progress. Moreover, opportunities are available to organizations of persons with disabilities to provide input through the mechanism of the “Non-governmental forum” to the Ad Hoc Committee.[26]

D. Disability statistics

Disability statistics, global indicators on disability and progress in common definitions of disability for purposes of planning and evaluation have long been a concern of the international community. These are also key strategic concerns of BMF. Information on mechanisms to collect data and statistics on disability was provided by 17 of the 23 reporting Governments; most Governments use one of more of the mechanisms listed to collect data related to disability and prepare statistics on disability.

Table 8.

Mechanism to collect data related to disability

Most Governments report that data collection is the responsibility of a national institute, department or bureau for statistics (13 Governments) or the statistical unit of the national planning ministry (2 Governments). Four Governments reported that disability data collection is done solely by a line agency, such as the ministry of home affairs, social affairs, health, and community development or similar organization, and five report that disability data collection are collected by both a national statistical service and a line agency. India presents an interesting case in the organization of data collection: the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for the population census while the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation assist with sample surveys.

All 17 reporting Governments indicate that data are available on categories of disability among men and women and 15 report that data area also available by age and residence. Other categories of data on persons with disability currently are somewhat limited.

Table 9.

Categories of disability data available

Twelve Governments report that disability data are available for the period 2000 to June 2004. In terms of longitudinal data, three Governments reported that disability data have been collected since 1981, and seven have been collecting disability data from the 1990s.

1. Technical guidelines on collection and compilation of statistics on persons with disabilities. The questionnaire asks Governments about their use of the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization[27] in the planning, organization and collection of data and statistics on disability. ICF, which was endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2001, presents a standard language and framework for the description of health and health-related states and represents the WHO framework for health and disability. ICF provides a conceptual basis for definition, measurement and policy formulation for health and disability. ICF is so-termed because the focus is on health and functioning, rather than on disability.

Twenty-two Governments replied to the question: One stated that ICF is being used; seven stated that ICF is used for some applications; and 14 reported that ICF is not currently being used.

The questionnaire also asked about use of the United Nations Guidelines and Principles for the Development of Disability Statistics.[28] The Guidelines, which are oriented to statisticians, provide guidance on methods and discuss principles for collecting, compiling and disseminating statistics related to persons with disabilities.

Twenty Governments replied to the question: One stated that the Guidelines were being used; seven stated that they were used in some applications; and 12 reported that they are not currently being used.

2. Prevalence of disability. Seventeen Governments provided information on the prevalence of disability in their country. All but one Governments reported that incidence of disability was based upon a sample survey; the Philippines reported that prevalence of disability was based on data from its year 2000 population census.

The reported prevalence ranged from 0.69 per cent to 19.9 per cent. The average rate of disability in the population reported was 4.41 per cent, with a median of 3.41 per cent and a mode of 5.00 per cent.

The World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons used the figure of 10 per cent to estimate the prevalence of disability in populations. This 10 per cent figure continues to find frequent application to date, although studies report observed variance among categories of disability in countries. The range of prevalence of disability reported in the current questionnaire can be attributed to differences in conceptual approaches, methods and definitions of the population with disabilities.

It is also important to take note of contributions made by regional[29] and international cooperation on concepts and methods related to disability statistics and improvements in many national statistical services that together have contributed to more precise reporting on disability in populations.

Thus, this particular finding underscores the critical importance – as reflected in BMF strategies 8 and 9 - of capacity building and institutional development to strengthen and improve collection and dissemination of population and vital statistics from the disability perspective for purposes of more effective disability-sensitive policy design, planning and evaluation of outcomes.

3. National definition(s) of disability. Fourteen Governments provided information on the current definition of disability. Most definitions are technical standards developed for purposes of programme management or collection of survey or registry data; four Governments – Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam - reported that definitions on disability were derived from a national law.

A recurrent theme in the definitions of disability is use of the term “limitation” in terms of ability to perform daily functions, which include work, personal and family life and study, as a result of a physical, sensory, mental or intellectual impairment, which may involve sight, hearing, physical and locomotor abilities, communication abilities, mental and intellectual capacities and behavour. Most definitions include disability from birth or from accident – although none refer to war, conflict or natural disaster – or illness, mental illness in particular.

Both Nepal and Hong Kong, China provided information on comprehensive frameworks to define disability in the population for statistical purposes. The registry system of the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau of Hong Kong, China uses the following categories of disability:

• Persons with physical handicap: people who have disabilities of orthopaedic, musculoskeletal or neurological origin, which mainly affect locomotor functions and constitute a disadvantage or restriction on one or more aspects of daily activities.
• Persons with autism: people who have been diagnosed as being autistic under the criteria provided in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10^th edition) (ICD 10).[30]
• Persons with visceral disabilities: people who have disabilities resulting from diseases or the respective treatment; the disability, not being limited to locomotor functions in nature, constitutes disadvantages or restrictions in one or more aspect of daily life.
• Persons with hearing impairment: people who have been diagnosed as having a hearing loss of 26dB or greater.
• Persons with mental handicap: people who have been diagnosed as have significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, i.e. IQ of 70 or below, and concurrent deficits or impairments in meeting standards expected for their age by their cultural group in certain skill areas.
• Persons with mental illness: people who suffer from a range of disorders due to their predisposition and/or psychological and social factors, which [may] lead to acute or chronic disturbances which are emotional, intellectual and/or behavoural and are accompanied, when the illness is serious, by distortions of personality and social relationships.
• Persons with visual impairment: people who have a visual acuity of 6/18 (0.33) or less for the better eye with corrective lenses, or have a constricted visual field in which the widest field diameter subtends an angular subtense of 20 degrees or less, irrespective of visual acuity.
• Persons with speech difficulty: people who cannot communicate effectively with others, or whose speck difficulty draws undue attention to their speech acts to such an extent that it affects their academic, emotional or social development.[31]

Chronic and recurring pain, which limit performance of normal daily functions, is included in the definition on disability in the “Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers” in Australia.[32]

E. Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF): priority areas for action

The seven BMF priorities aim to further the goals of an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society in Asia and the Pacific through complementary and reinforcing actions to build capacities and strengthen institutions. BMF directs special attention to women with disabilities in the light of their documented lower levels of participation as agents and beneficiaries of development, and to children with disabilities, through the special attention to be accorded to early detection and early intervention. A decided focus is on actions to further self-reliance by, for and with persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific through the emphasis directed to environmental accessibility, in terms of information and communications technologies, buildings and facilities, and transportation services, investments in people, in terms of training and education with emphasis on employment promotion, and of action to reduce poverty through capacity building and allied social services and safety nets.

The questionnaire to Governments requested information on progress in each priority area for action

1. Self-help organizations of persons with disabilities and related and family and parent associations. Sixteen of the 23 responding Governments reported on the existence of one or more national cross-disability self-help organizations.[33] The year of establishment ranges from 1965 – Hong Kong, China – to 2004 - Australia, which involved an additional cross-disability organization. Most cross-disability organizations were established during the 1990s (11 organizations in 10 countries); five organizations (five countries) were established during the 1980s, and three were established in three countries from the year 2000 to date.

Financial assistance is the most frequently cited support to self-help organizations, reported by 13 of the 16 Governments responding to the question, which is followed closely by provision of in-kind (non-cash) assistance. The role of tax exemption may change as there are further developments in national financial management among Governments in the Asia and Pacific region.

Table 10.

Categories of governmental support provided self-help organizations (SHOs)

2. Women with disabilities. Thirteen of the 23 responding Governments reported on activities related to women with disabilities. The most frequently cited activities was to include women with disabilities in consultative mechanisms, while there were only three examples of specific affirmative actions taken – in China, Fiji [IGA] and Nepal [micro credit], respectively.

China reported that women are guaranteed equality with men in all sectors. Fiji reported that special attention is accorded to promoting income-generating activities among women with disabilities, and Nepal cited the provision of micro-credit to further their participation in development.

Table 11.

Categories of governmental support provided to mainstream and develop women with disabilities

3. Early detection, early intervention and education. All 23 Governments provided information on approaches to addressing disability in the context of overall health programmes. Twenty of the 23 Governments reported that early detection and early intervention services were available.[34]. Eighteen Governments provided further information on early detection, the majority (15 of 18 replies) stated that both early detection and intervention services are provided; two said that only early intervention services are available, and one said that only early detection services are provided.

(a) Rehabilitation services. Nineteen of the 22 responding Governments reported that they provide rehabilitation services; and one – Timor-Leste -reported that rehabilitation services are under development.

Twenty-one Governments provided information on community-based rehabilitation (CBR): 16 reported that they provide CBR; two – Bangladesh and Timor-Lest - reported that CBR is under development.

(b) Educational services provided children with disabilities. Twenty-one of the 23 reporting Governments provided information on services provided to children with disabilities, with the most frequent response (16 of 21 Governments) being provision of both inclusive education and education in separate, specialized institutions for children with disabilities; and one reported that the combined educational services were currently under development.

Kiribati reported that a special needs school, privately managed by a parents committee, had been established during the period under review and that it received some financial support from the Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs. Philippines reported that some day care centres now provide pre-school services for young children with disabilities.

4. Training and employment promotion, including self-employment. All 23 responding Governments provided information on vocational rehabilitation and employment promotion for persons with disabilities.

(a) Vocational rehabilitation. Eighteen Governments reported the availability of vocational rehabilitation, with the majority providing these services in specialized institutions (14 of 18 Governments). Seven Governments reported that rehabilitation services were provided in the mainstream as well as in specialized institutions (6 of the 14 Governments). One Government – Timor-Leste -reported that rehabilitation services were under development, and four reported that rehabilitation services are not currently available from Government.

(b) Employment promotion. Open employment and self-employment are the most frequently cited areas for promotional effort, while sheltered employment is the least frequently cited area.

Table 12.

Employment promotion for persons with disabilities

In addition to the above categories, Thailand reported on the use of “community-based” employment promotion among persons with disabilities in the Kingdom.

(c) Promotional measures. Governments reported on a range of measures to promote employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. The most frequently cited measures are quota schemes and tax exemption – both of which usually involve new or amended legislation to implement. What is interesting to note is that while many report on the use of quotas to promote employment of persons with disabilities, there is less reported use of preferential access to specific jobs or to subsidies, whether these are direct cash subsidies for costs of personal supports, for wages and trial employment, or indirect subsidies in the form of tax exemption. Japan’s quota scheme (1.8 per cent for private sector and 2.1 per cent for public sector) is unique as it is combined with effective enforcement measures such as strict imposition of a levy for non-compliance (US$413 per person per month for the number of workers short of the stipulated quota), tax concessions, allowances, grants, and other incentives. [35] The statistics of compliance (and/or non-compliance) were made available to the public, with a separate list of companies with good record. The overall compliance rate in 2003 was 42 per cent for private sector and 100 per cent for public sector, and the actual rate of employment of disabled workers (private sector) was 1.48 per cent. To expand employment opportunities, Japan revised its law for employment promotion of persons with disabilities, and made five positive changes that took effect in 2003, including introducing job-coaching scheme.

Use of preferential contracts for the provision of goods and services by or with persons with disabilities is the least cited promotional measure.

Table 13.

Governmental measures to promote employment of persons with disabilities

For the 15 Governments that reported on use of quota schemes to promote employment of persons with disabilities, the most common enforcement measure is reliance on incentives, which may include tax credits. This is an interesting finding in the light of the preceding table which notes a somewhat limited reliance on tax exemptions – which has the effect of reducing the cost of capital for enterprises - to promote employment opportunities among persons with disabilities. Also interesting is the limited use of public information to promote awareness and support of employment of persons with disabilities.

Table 14.

Measures to implement quota schemes for promotion of employment of persons with disabilities

(d) Ratification of ILO C159: Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983. ILO Convention 159 was adopted in 1983 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization and came into force on 20 June 1985.[36] Seven of the responding Governments have ratified ILO Convention 159: Australia (1990), China (1988), Japan (1992), Mongolia (1998), Philippines (1991), Republic of Korea (1999) and Turkey (1990).

5. Access to built environments and public transport. All 23 responding Governments provided information on actions taken in this priority area.

Fourteen Governments reported that accessibility standards existed for buildings, facilities or public transportation services; several reported that environmental accessibility standards existed for all of these area. Five reported that environmental accessibility standards were under development, and four stated that these had not yet been prepared or provided no reply in the matter.

The year of enactment of one or more accessibility standard ranged from 1979 – Fiji - to 2004 - Mongolia. Most standards were enacted during the 1990s (9 enacted or amended); five standards have been enacted (or amended) since 2000 and four were enacted (or amended) during the 1980s.

Accessibility standards have been implemented by specific legislation – a law or ministerial decree - by five of the reporting Governments: Indonesia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Turkey.[37] Five Governments promote environmental accessibility by means of a national building code – Cook Islands and Fiji – or by a specific code on accessibility and barrier-free design – China, Singapore and Vietnam.[38] Kazakhstan reports that environmental accessibility is implemented in the context of the “State programme for providing equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities (1999)”. Three Governments reported on preparation of technical guidelines and accessibility standards on environmental accessibility: India and Mongolia, Hong Kong, China.[39]

Most of the standards address accessibility in public building, facilities and open spaces, and transportation; from the data available it appears that coverage is for new buildings and facilities. Data provided by India and Turkey indicate that barrier-free design and accessibility standards are for the benefit of both persons with disabilities and older persons. Data provided by Vietnam suggests that its Code on barrier-free access applies to “all investors” in roads built environments.

Governments report that education and training of engineers and design professionals is the principal means by which they promote environmental accessibility. There is limited reported use of subsidies to promote retrofitting of existing buildings and facilities to improve accessibility for all. The Republic of Korea and Thailand reported on their use of tax incentives to promote barrier-free designs.

Table 15.

Measures to promote environmental accessibility

6. Access to information and communications, including information, communication and assistive technologies. Fourteen Governments provided information on accessible information and communication technologies (ICT).

Seven Governments reported that a national law, guidelines or technical standards had been enacted during the period under review.[40] The principal means reported to promote awareness and support for action for accessible ICT is through training and capacity building (13 of 14 responding Governments), followed by dissemination of public information in accessible formats, and promotion of Unified Braille code at national level (9 of 14 responding Governments. Providing closed or open captioning on television services was also identified as an important measure to further information accessibility.

Establishment of an accessible ICT “focal point” was identified as a low priority action.

Table 16

Governmental measures to promote accessible information and communication technologies

7. Poverty alleviation through capacity building, social security and sustainable livelihood programmes. By way of background it is important to recall that eradication of extreme poverty and hunger is the priority development goal of the Millennium Declaration.[41]

(a) Poverty alleviation. Eighteen of the 23 responding Governments provided information on action to address the poverty alleviation strategy of BMF.

Thirteen Governments[42] reported on establishment – or the existence – of programmes directed at poverty reduction and persons with disabilities in rural areas, and on programmes aimed at establishment of self-help organizations of persons with disabilities in both rural and urban areas. Although there would be implications for national budgets, implementation – or expansion of - social protection schemes, and employment promotion were the second-most frequently cited programme areas.

Table 17.

Programmes directed to poverty alleviation and persons with disabilities

(b) Community-oriented approaches to rehabilitation, training and employment promotion. Seventeen of the 23 responding Governments provided information on community approaches to poverty alleviation among persons with disabilities. Fourteen Governments[43] reported that community approaches existed, and three reported that these were under development.

F. Technical cooperation activities

Technical cooperation is one the means by which the United Nations further implements, on request, the goals and objectives of the Charter,[44] for instance“…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” Technical cooperation is an undertaking of Governments, which may request the advice and assistance of the United Nations system of Organizations to design, plan and implement and evaluate time-bound activities. The purpose of technical cooperation is to build national capacities.

The Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) discusses options to strengthen cooperation and collaboration at sub-regional, regional and interregional levels in seven specific strategies. Options for governmental cooperation with the non-governmental community, civil society as well as the private sector to further implement the BMF goals are set forth in five of the seven strategies. Two strategies discuss cooperation with the United Nations system, including the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; one presents options for cooperation with the Asia-Pacific Development Center on Disability;[45] and one discusses interregional cooperation with a view to strengthened cooperation with the Africa and Western Asia regions, which both have proclaimed decades concerned with advancement of persons with disabilities.

The questionnaire requests information on both the types and the areas of technical cooperation activities that Governments may wish to provide or receive to further implement the BMF goals. Eighteen Governments – all of which are developing countries - provided information on the question.[46]

Table 18.

Types of technical cooperation activity to provide and to receive related to BMF

Table 19.

Areas of technical cooperation activity to provide and to receive related to BMF

There are several implications of these summary findings with regard to cooperation at all levels to further implement the BMF goals:

1. The interest of several Governments to provide human resources and expertise, on request, to further implement the BMF goals and to make training and capacity building activities.
2. Training and capacity building and advice and assistance with disability “impact assessments” are the principal areas in which interested Governments are seeking technical cooperation. Both are important to strengthening the disability perspective in national planning and programming.
3. Several express an interest in obtaining grant assistance for action to further implement the BMF goals, although more indicate an interest in direct technology transfers.
4. Advice and assistance on education from the disability perspective is the principal subject area cited by Governments interested in obtaining technical cooperation closely followed by rehabilitation, information and communications.
5. Rehabilitation, and policy formulation (and evaluation) are the principal subject areas for which interested Governments (4 of the 18 responding) indicate that they could provide technical cooperation, on request.

Except for the one sub-question on grant assistance, questionnaire replies provide few insights to financial implications of technical cooperation activities in support of the BMF goals, including options better to reflect BMF targets and strategies in the planning of technical cooperation activities of the United Nations system through preparation of Common Country Assessments (CCA)[47] and formulation and periodic evaluation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF).[48]

Mainstreaming disability in a major development agency means that all policies, programmes and projects should include disability as a key issue, and that planning, monitoring and evaluation should incorporate disability impact assessment, disability sensitivity and disability budgeting. A twin-track approach (adopted with respect to gender issues) and a policy for “disability and development” started enjoying a growing interest and attention by some development agencies, such as the World Bank, Scandinavian bilateral donor agencies, USAID, DFID and other Western agencies. However, recently the Asian Development Bank and Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica) have turned their attention increasingly towards disability mainstreaming.[49]

G. Summary of open-ended comments

Several Governments commented on actions taken to implement BMF targets and strategies. A principal means employed during the period under review was organization of national consultations or conduct of BMF-related seminars and workshops, which included Cook Islands, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Thailand. Findings and recommendations of national consultations in India, completed by October 2003, have been incorporated as appropriate by concerned ministries and agencies. The consultation process in Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines contributed to the formulation of the respective National Action Plan on Disability; and in Cook Island and Solomon Islands, BMF consultations are reflected in respective National Policy on Disability; Solomon Islands made special reference to the contributions of ESCAP to the development of its disability policy.

Cambodia commented on the role of regional and international cooperation to further implement the BMF targets and strategies and directed special attention to the importance of effective coordination between governmental offices, the United Nations system, and the non-governmental community and organizations of persons with disabilities given the observed decline in donor resources.

Hong Kong, China provided information on efforts taken to further the accessible ICT priority of BMF, which included wide dissemination of its Web accessibility standards and the development of the Hong Kong, China “Supplementary Character Set” (HKSCS) to facilitate use of Chinese characters in electronic communications.[50]

Kiribati reported on its national disability survey, which is being conducted to assess the nature and extent of physical and learning disabilities and mental health status; the national disability survey is being assisted by the Asia-Pacific regional office of Inclusion International, a non-governmental organizations, which has offices in New Zealand

Singapore reported on initiatives taken to further implement the education, early detection and early intervention priority of BMF. This included increase reliance on multi-pronged approaches to provide special education services for children with disabilities, and promoting greater parental involvement in screening and early detection. Singapore has budgeted for retrofitting its Mass Rapid Transport Corporation Stations to provide accessibility in accordance with current building codes. Singapore has also instituted a means-test “Assistive Technology Fund’ to support acquisition of assistive devices needed for mainstream employment or education.

II. ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Replies were submitted by 18 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from 11 ESCAP members and one associate member.[51] Three of the responding NGOs are regional representative offices of international NGOs in the field of disability: Disabled Peoples’ International, Inclusion International and World Blind Union. More than 60 per cent of the responding NGOs are member organizations of the Asia- Pacific Disability Forum (APDF), which was established in 2003 with the aim of promoting implementation of the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) and is comprised of organizations of or concerned with persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific.[52]

Replies were also received from two National Human Rights Commissions: Fiji and Thailand, respectively. Their responses are commingled, as appropriate, with those of the non-governmental community in the light of their concern with promotion and advocacy of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

The focus in the analysis of this set of replies is on progress, obstacles encountered and emerging issues related to implementation of BMF priority areas.

The analysis of NGO replies does not generally re-examine information already submitted by Governments on national mechanisms, legislation and statistics, with the exception of a brief review of information provided by NGOs in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka since no reply to the questionnaires was received from the respective Government.

The analysis of NGO replies does include a review their responses on technical cooperation and implementation of BMF in the light of their recognized knowledge and experience of implications of technical cooperation activities for their specialized constituencies and their frequent partnership with Governments to organize and conduct action to build capacities of persons with disabilities for full participation and development.

A. National commitment to disability action

This section reviews information on disability action in the four countries that were not among the set of replies from Governments to the ESCAP questionnaire: Lao People’s Democratic Republic, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The analysis is based on materials provided by NGOs responding to the questionnaire in the respective country. The data are considered to be reliable but details should be confirmed with the concerned Government.

1. National mechanism. NGOs reported the existence of a national coordinating mechanism in the field of disability in all four counties. In three countries this was special-purpose committee or council, and one country established a coordinating office within a line ministry:

• Lao People’s Democratic Republic: National Commission for Disabled persons (1995);
• New Zealand: Office for Disability Issues, Ministry of Social Affairs (2002) <http://www.odi.govt.nz/>;
• Pakistan: National Council for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons (1982) <http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/women-development-division/informationandservices/sw-ncr-rehabilitation.html>;
• Sri Lanka: National Council for Persons with Disabilities (1998).

2. National plan of action. On the basis of the information available to respective NGO, one Government reportedly has prepared a National Plan of Action related to BMF implementation – New Zealand; one Government is currently formulating a National Plan of Action – Pakistan; one has drafted a National Policy on Disability that awaits Cabinet approval – Sri Lanka; and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has not yet undertaken preparation of a national action plan.

3. Action to implement BMF. One country – New Zealand – has prepared a translation of BMF in a local language, since English and Maori are both official languages. No translations of BMF in a local language are reportedly available in Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan or Sri Lanka.

Actions cited to implement BMF include public information concerning BMF targets and priorities in Pakistan, and establishment of a sub-regional mechanism on BMF in New Zealand.

B. Mainstreaming disability issues in national policy

Information is available for three countries – Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - on policy areas in which the disability issues are mainstreamed. All three countries reportedly have mainstreamed disability issues in three BMF priority areas: (1) economic and social development, (2) education and training, and (3) poverty reduction. Three other areas are cited at least twice: (1) information and communication technologies, (2) medical treatment, and (3) gender.

C. Legislation

1. Constitution. Constitutions of two of the four countries are reported to include specific articles on disability:

• Article 12 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, enacted in 1972, provides equal protection for all before the law; and
• Article 28 of the Constitution of Pakistan, enacted in 2003, addresses the situation of veterans with disabilities.

2. Integration of disability concerns in generic national law. Information is available only for Pakistan, which reportedly has integrated disability concerns in four categories of generic law: (1) education, (2) employment, (3) building and housing and (4) transportation.

3. Disability-specific sectoral laws. Information is available for Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both of which cite employment (including quota schemes) as a concern of disability-specific sectoral law. Other categories cited include education and rehabilitation – Pakistan – and social security – Sri Lanka.

4. Comprehensive law related to persons with disabilities. A comprehensive disability law has been enacted in Pakistan – “Training and Employment Act, 1981” (amended 1997; and a “Disability rights act” has been drafted in Sri Lanka.

The draft “Disability rights act” of Sri Lanka reportedly would include anti-discrimination provisions.

5. Participation of persons with disabilities in legislative matters. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka reportedly have established mechanisms to facilitate participation of persons with disabilities in the formulation or monitoring of national law.

No information is submitted on mechanisms to facilitate input of persons with disabilities on the elaboration of a new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

D. Disability statistics

Information on disabilities statistics is provided for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both countries have conducted surveys on disability. The surveys were carried out in Sri Lanka by the Department of Census and Statistics and in Pakistan by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education. The view was expressed on the need for training and institutional development to improve statistics on disability.

E. Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF): priority areas for action

This section both reviews information provided on the four countries not represented among the replies submitted by Governments and summarizes all NGO replies incorporating, as appropriate, views submitted by the respective Human Rights Commission, which involves a total of 20 replies..

1. Self-help organizations of persons with disabilities and related and family and parent associations. Information on national cross-disability organizations was submitted for three counties:

• Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Lao Peoples’ Association (2001);
• Pakistan: Disabled People International Pakistan (1986);
• Sri Lanka: Disability Organization Joint Front (2000).

National organizations in Pakistan and in Sri Lanka reportedly obtain financial assistance from Government to support their activities while policy support is provided the Lao Peoples’ Association.

There is strong recognition of national cross-disability self-help organizations among all replies submitted. Only New Zealand and Timor-Leste provided no information on a national organization.

2. Women with disabilities. Support for mainstreaming and development of women with disabilities reportedly is provided in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Pakistan; no information was submitted concerning New Zealand or Sri Lanka. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic provides policy support to the question, while Pakistan reportedly provides support that focuses on promotion of women with disabilities in national women’s organizations.

Only seven NGO replies, including the above-referenced replies from Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Pakistan, addressed the question of mainstreaming and development of women with disability

Table 20.

Categories of governmental support provided to mainstream and develop women with disabilities

3. Early detection, early intervention and education. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka reportedly all provide services aimed at preventing potentially disabling conditions in the national health services. Both early detection and early intervention services are available in Pakistan and Sri Lanka and are under development in the Lao People’ s Democratic Republic.

Of the 15 replies submitted, nine NGOs reported that early detection and early intervention are provided as combined services, and three stated that these were under development; four replies stated that only early intervention services are provided at present.

(a) Rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation services reportedly are provided by Government in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The replies suggest wide availability of rehabilitation services: 18 of the 20 replies refer to their existence; these services are reported to be under development in Timor-Leste; no information was submitted on the question in the other two replies.

A somewhat different picture emerges with regard to community-based rehabilitation (CBR). Both the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sri Lanka report that Government provide CBR, while Pakistan does not yet provide the service.

Of the 20 replies, nine referred to the availability of CBR and one – Timor-Leste – stated that the service was under development.

(b) Educational services provided children with disabilities. Both inclusive education and education separately provided in specialized institutions are available in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

All replies indicate strong support for educational services for children with disabilities. The norm is provision of both inclusive education and specialized educational services – 11 of the 20 replies; five referred to the availability only of educational services separately provided in specialized institutions.

4. Training and employment promotion, including self-employment. Vocational rehabilitation and employment promotion services reportedly are provided in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Similar areas for employment promotion are reported for Pakistan and Sri Lanka: both reportedly are promoting (1) open employment, (2) sheltered employment and (3) self-employment. No information is available for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

Strong support for employment promotion and vocational rehabilitation is evident from the replies: 17 of 20 report that vocational rehabilitation services are available or are under development (Timor-Leste).

In terms of promotional focus, the data indicate a preference for open employment and self-employment both receiving over other sheltered workshops and related measures, which suggests the importance of focusing on building capacities for participation of people with disabilities in mainstream development .

Table 21.

Employment promotion for persons with disabilities

Information on promotional measures is available only for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both reportedly provide micro-credit or grants to support self-employment and have quota schemes; Pakistan also provides vocational guidance and tax exemption, and Sri Lanka provides subsidies to support employer networks on disability.

Similar findings emerge when all replies are considered. The principal promotional measures identified by NGOs are quota schemes and provision of micro-credits or grants for self-employment., which are followed closely by vocational guidance and support with employment searches.

Table 22.

Governmental measures to promote employment of persons with disabilities

Among the replies citing the use of quota schemes to promote employment opportunities among persons with disabilities, the principal enforcement measure cited was a reliance on employer incentives, which was followed closely by imposition of a levy when not meeting a specified quota.

5. Access to built environments and public transport. Information on accessibility standards for buildings and facilities was only provided for Sri Lanka, where “accessibility guidelines” reportedly are under development.

While environmental accessibility is a BMF priority, information provided in all replies suggests a need for action in this area: only 7 of the 20 responses reported on the existence of accessibility guidelines and five stated that these are under development.

Limited information was provided on environmental accessibility promotional measures: Among the four responses, the most frequently cited measures are (1) subsidies and (2) inclusion in professional training, which are followed closely by provision of awards for accessible designs.

6. Access to information and communications, including information, communication and assistive technologies. Information on promotion of ICT accessibility was provided for Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both reported on efforts in support of unified Braille Code at national level. Pakistan also has undertaken computer literacy training and capacity building for persons with disabilities, dissemination of information in accessible formats and establishment of an ICT accessibility focal point.

Nine responses were received to the question. The most frequently cited measure to promote accessible ICT was training and capacity building while unified Braille Code at national level was least cited.

Table 23.

Governmental measures to promote accessible information and communication technologies

7. Poverty alleviation through capacity building, social security and sustainable livelihood programmes. Pakistan and Sri Lanka reportedly have implemented programmes on poverty alleviation among persons with disabilities in rural areas, while the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has programmes that target all in poverty.

Poverty alleviation is a BMF priority, and 17 responses provided information on the question. The principal finding is that the emphasis is being accorded to programmes that target poverty among persons with disabilities in rural areas (7 replies); six responses cite employment promotion schemes, and five refer to introduction of social protection schemes.

Table 24.

Programmes directed to poverty alleviation and persons with disabilities

Community approaches to rehabilitation, training and empowerment of persons with disabilities reportedly are being carried out in Sri Lanka; no information is available for Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Taking all 17 responses into account, eight replies (from Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, and Hong Kong, China) indicate that Government have instituted community approaches, and three replies (from Bangladesh and Timor-Leste, respectively) stated that community approaches are under development.

F. Technical cooperation activities

As noted in the preceding chapter, technical cooperation activities are undertakings of Governments, which is reflected in the wording of this set of questions on technical cooperation and implementation of BMF priority areas and strategies..

In practice Governments frequently involve non-governmental organizations as project partners or implementing agents to gain from their specialized knowledge and expertise and networks among their constituencies. Policies and procedures of the United Nations system for development cooperation provide for participation of non-governmental organizations in technical cooperation activities with appropriate governmental endorsement.[53]

Eleven responses (from seven countries, including a developed economy), were submitted for this question. For the purposes of the analysis, the replies are examined from the perspective of what NGOs view as priority technical cooperation needs to further implement BMF priorities and strategies and the substantive areas for technical cooperation activities. For the purposes of the analysis NGO replies from the developed economy dealt only with the supply side of technical cooperation activities, which is reflected in the number of replies submitted for each question category.

The most frequently cited area for the provision of technical cooperation inputs is rehabilitation, which is understood from its fundamental role in implementing disability policies and programmes.

What is significant is the decided emphasis accorded to technical cooperation activities and inputs that will contribute to national capacity building and institutional development and to building skills for full and effective participation in the open economy, the global knowledge-based economy in particular in the light of the frequent reference to ICT as a subject area for technical cooperation.

Programme and project management skills and abilities are also cited as important areas for technical cooperation as reflected in the references to disability budgeting and mainstreaming on the supply side and disability impact assessments on the demand side.

Table 25.