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 3

Review of Regional 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 who are members of the Thematic Working Group on Disability on Disability-related Concerns (TWG-DC)[1] on progress in implementing the Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) targets and strategies[2] in the context of the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012.

Members of the TWG-DC include representatives of ESCAP member and associate member Governments, concerned members of the United Nations system of Organizations as well as semi-autonomous organizations of persons with disabilities and non-governmental organizations. TWG-DC is chaired by UN ESCAP. It was established during the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002, and its activities have continued with the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disable Persons, 2003-2012. The aims of TWG-DC include promotion of multi-sectoral collaborative action to reinforce disability concerns in mainstream development strategies, policies and programmes, and to strengthen inter-organizational collaboration and operational linkages and promote thereby participation of persons with disabilities as development agents and beneficiaries.

Responses to the questionnaire will assist UN ESCAP to identify activities that are contributing to achievement of BMF targets strategies and will further the goals of an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society for persons with disabilities in Asia and Pacific in the context of development.

The paper is in two sections. The first section reviews and analyzes responses of Governments and the non-governmental community. The second section presents conclusions and discusses implications of questionnaire findings for action to further implement BMF targets and strategies in the context of the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012.

By way of background ESCAP Commission resolution 58/4 of 22 May 2002 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[3]and the ‘Agenda for Action’ for the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002[4] in the ESCAP region beyond 2002.” ESCAP Commission resolution 58/4 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). 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.”[5]

I. ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OF GOVERNMENTS AND OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Ten Governments[6] submitted replies to the TWG-DC questionnaire, which included nine ESCAP members (all are developing ESCAP members, three of which are classified as least-developed) and one associate member. Responses were also submitted by the Asia-Pacific Development Center on Disability (APCD), a joint project of the Royal Thai Government and the Government of Japan with the aim of promoting empowerment of people with disabilities and a barrier-free society in developing countries in the Asia and Pacific Region,[7] Replies were submitted by the Regional Offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Seventeen non-governmental organizations,[8] from 11 ESCAP members and one ESCAP associate member, submitted replies to the questionnaire. Responses were submitted from all sub-regions of ESCAP.

The questionnaire has three parts: (1) review of effectiveness of UN ESCAP activities in support of the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012; (2) review of effectiveness of UN ESCAP activities in support of implementation of Biwako Millennium Declaration (BMF) targets and strategies; and (3) views on priorities among BMF targets and strategies for further action by UN ESCAP.

A. Effectiveness of selected UN ESCAP activities in support of the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012

The question seeks the views of members of TWG-DC on the effectiveness of selected activities performed by UN ESCAP in response to the mandates of the ESCAP Commission on the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012. The question uses an interval scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 excellent) to assess performance of the selected secretariat functions. As presented in the tables below, the activities involve institutional support, substantive activities and promotional functions. Not all activities listed below produce a final output, so assessment is based on perceived efficiencies in carrying out the particular task.

Responding Governments gave good marks to UN ESCAP for its performance of activities in support of the Decade during the period under review, which resulted in an overall effectiveness score of 3.3.

Government ratings for UN ESCAP performance were high for most all activities: the modal score (most frequently occurring score) for nine of the 11 activities is “4” (“very satisfactory”); and the median score (mid-point of all scores) for eight of the 11 selected activities is “4”. Somewhat lower mean (“average”) scores are assigned to “technical assistance” and “resource mobilization”, which are both activities that UN ESCAP carries out in cooperation with interested Governments and concerned members of the United Nations system. UN ESCAP can therefore exercise only limited influence on performance in these areas.

Table 1.

Governments rate UN ESCAP activities in support of Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012

Non-governmental organizations gave slightly higher overall marks to UN ESCAP efforts in support of the Decade, and they directed special attention to its “advocacy” efforts, and planning and management activities, which resulted in an overall effectiveness score of 3.6. NGOs also identified “resources mobilization” as the activity with lowest average score. Median scores of NGO ratings are particularly high: nine of the 11 activities have a median score of “4”.

Table 2.

NGOs rate UN ESCAP activities in support of Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012

Responses from the Asia-Pacific regional offices of UNHCR and FAO did not assess all activities. Calculation of their assessment of UN ESCAP performance is therefore based on data provided for seven[9] of the 11 activities, which yields an overall effectiveness score of 3.4.

B. Effectiveness of UN ESCAP activities in support of implementation of Biwako Millennium Declaration (BMF) targets and strategies

The questionnaire seeks the views of Governments and the non-governmental community concerning UN ESCAP support to further implement six of the seven BMF priority actions – no information was sought on the “Training and employment” priority area for action, since the International Labour Organization (ILO) has a recognized competence - and the four BMF strategies.

Both Governments as well as the non-governmental community give very good marks to UN ESCAP for its support to action to further implement BMF targets and strategies, with an overall effectiveness score of 3.2.

Responding Governments give generally high marks to UN ESCAP support of efforts to further implemental all six of the BMF targets cited. NGOs are somewhat more critical of UN ESCAP performance, particularly as this pertains to the early intervention and education, and the poverty alleviation targets.

In terms of support for the four BMF strategies, both Governments and NGOs give very good marks to UN ESCAP efforts related to the new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities – the area which receives the highest average ranking among all responses from both Governments and NGOs.

It is also clear that both Governments and NGOs are of the view that urgent action is needed with respects to the disability statistics strategy, and for the community approaches / CBR strategy. Action in these areas will require strengthened collaboration among concerned members of the United Nations system, which could be effected by UN ESCAP, represented by its Emerging Social Issues Division in the light of its substantive responsibilities for the persons with disabilities programme. Action is premised on the availability of appropriate resource allocations on a predictable and sustained basis to produce the results envisaged in the respective BMF strategy.

Table 3.

Governments rate UN ESCAP support of Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) targets and strategies

Table 4.

NGOs rate UN ESCAP support of Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) targets and strategies

Only the Bangkok Regional Office of UNHCR responded to the question – and gave good marks to UN ESCAP efforts, so it is not possible to calculate an overall score reflecting views of the selected UN system Organizations.

C. Views on BMF targets and actions in priority areas, and strategies

Governments and NGOs were asked to identify the “top three priorities” among BMF priority areas and strategies in the table below. Their views are important for purposes of further planning and identification of areas in which greater collaboration and joint action would contribute to implementation of BMF targets and strategies.

An analysis of replies is complicated due to the small number of responses, which tend to distort measures of central tendency (mean, median and mode). Consequently, one needs to temper any one high mark with an examination of the number of responses associated with the respective target or strategy. For instance, Government replies would suggest that “women with disabilities” – an important BMF priority – should be the principal area for UN ESCAP efforts; but its high average rank – 1.3 - is associated with only three citations. The most frequently cited area is “disability statistics” – seven citations and an average rank of 1.6, which is followed closely by “national policy – six citations and the average rank is 2.0, and “CBR” – five citations but an average rank is 2.8. Only three citations identified the “international convention” as a priority but its average rank is 1.7.

Another way to gain insights to the views of Governments is to consider rankings in terms of nominal rather than interval measures. Consequently, a simple frequency count of rankings assigned by responding Governments would indicate that “disability statistics” is the top priority and “CBR is the third priority. The second priority area is less easy to distinguish, since there is no clear preference evident among the replies submitted: “women with disabilities”, “poverty alleviation”, “international convention” and “national policy” all received the same number of second rank scores.

Table 5.

Governments identify priorities among BMF targets and strategies (n = 13)

In terms of both interval and nominal measures, NGOs clearly accord high priorities to “self-help organizations” – a predictable finding – and to the “international convention”. The distribution of responses suggests that “early intervention and education” and “poverty alleviation” are both third-priority area from the point of view of the responding non-governmental organizations.

Table 6.

NGOs identify priorities among BMF targets and strategies

Views on priorities were submitted by the Asia-Pacific regional offices of UNHCR and FAO. The only clear priority, from their point of view, is support for “national policy”. Other areas cited were; self-help organizations, early intervention and education, disability statistics, and the international convention.

D. Summary of open-ended comments

Both Governments and non-governmental organizations submitted comments on efforts to further implement BMF targets and strategies. Comments were submitted by seven[10] of the 10 Governments that replied to the questionnaire; comments were submitted by representatives of the Asia-Pacific Development Center on Disability (APCD) as well. Twelve NGOs[11] from eight countries also submitted comments.

Several Governments commented favourably on efforts by UN ESCAP to promote greater awareness of disability issues in Asia and the Pacific. Some remarked on the way in which UN ESCAP promotional and information activities have contributed to better cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations. Others made special reference to the effective way in which UN ESCAP had been promoting awareness and providing information on the new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. One Government commented on the way in which promotion of awareness of BMF targets and priorities by UN ESCAP had contributed to their being reflected in the national five-year plan on disability.

All Governments commented on the importance of technical cooperation activities in the implementation of BMF targets and strategies. Recommended issues for technical cooperation activities included: policy development; developing and implementing national legislation concerning persons with disabilities; poverty alleviation, with special attention to persons with disabilities in rural areas; data and statistics on disability; and planning and development of community approaches, including CBR. Some noted that UN ESCAP could play an especially useful role in promoting consultation and increased collaboration among concerned donors and United Nations programmes with a view to increasing resources available to support implementation of BMF. Representatives of APCD commented on the importance advocacy in support of regional networking and technical exchanges related to BMF targets and strategies. They suggested that monitoring and evaluation from the disability perspective should obtain greater attention.

Many NGOs commented on the effective way in which UN ESCAP had promoted awareness of disability and “equality” of persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific. Reference frequently was made to UN ESCAP support of the process of elaborating a new international convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. One NGO remarked that UN ESCAP activities in support of the convention were “outstanding” and had enabled Asia and Pacific to contribute effectively and positively to that process.

Recommendations on improving the promotional and information activities of UN ESCAP included a need to develop information materials on the situation of persons with intellectual disabilities to promote awareness and their positive inclusion in the region; to develop information materials on disability and on the convention process aimed at policy makers, which would contribute to expanded support for the convention, the Decade and BMF; to plan for increased sub-regional exchanges on disability issues, the convention and the Decade, particularly in the Pacific and in Central Asia.

Several NGOs commented on the critical need for resources to support action to implement BMF targets and strategies, which involved timely information, technical and financial resources. Some commented on the importance of resource provisions to enable representatives of organizations of or concerned with persons with disabilities from developing ESCAP members to participate in technical exchanges and expert meetings organized by UN ESCAP. Several commented on options to mobilize resource for expanded technical cooperation activities in the field of disability. Some remarked that UN ESCAP “should mobilize more resources” without specifying means or possible partners, whether these would be donors, United Nations programmes (such as UNDP, UNICEF or UNFPA) or other regional institutions. Two NGOs did present options for mobilizing resources through joint consultations that UN ESCAP might with to consider organizing in cooperation with potential donor agencies and concerned United Nations programmes as well as regional non-governmental organizations with technical knowledge and expertise relevant to implementation of BMF targets and strategies. Another NGO remarked on the need for a regional mechanism to promote greater exchanges of skills and knowledge among organizations of or concerned with persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific; the view was expressed that UN ESCAP could play a useful promotional and coordinating role in this process.

Several NGOs identified specific areas for substantive development as well as increased technical cooperation activities in support of BMF targets and strategies, which include education – identified as a critical area to the success of BMF; capacity building and institutional development for disability statistics; policy development from the disability perspective; education and training – human resources development of persons with disabilities and training of families with disabled children and young adults, the intellectually disabled in particular; establishment and development of self-help organizations and community approaches to disability action.

One NGO commented on the useful role that a “task force on child rights” could play in support of the early detection, early intervention and education priority area of BMF. However, this suggestion begs the question of ways and means for better coordination between the national mechanism concerned with BMF targets and strategies and the Decade and those concerned with implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[12]

II. Concluding remarks

The review and analysis of the UN ESCAP questionnaire on regional action in support of BMF targets and strategies is based upon replies from 10 Governments and 17 non-governmental organizations (from 11 ESCAP members and one ESCAP associate member).

A. Effectiveness ratings

UN ESCAP received high marks in the replies from Governments and the non-governmental community for its efforts in support of the renewed Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 2003-2012, and of implementation of BMF targets and strategies:

• UN ESCAP activities in support of the Decade obtained an overall effectiveness rating of 3.3 from Governments and 3.6 – from non-governmental organizations; and
• UN ESCAP activities in support of BMF targets and strategies obtained an overall effectiveness rating of 3.2 from both Governments and non-governmental organizations.

B. Priorities for further action

Governments and non-governmental organizations submitted views on the top three priorities for further action to implement BMF targets and strategies. Replies from Governments reflect a functional approach to further implement BMF targets and strategies, while non-governmental organizations suggest that priority be accorded to both institutional aspects of implementing BMF targets and strategies and selected substantive areas.

Government replies resulted in the identification of two clear priorities among the selected BMF targets and strategies presented in the questionnaire:

• first priority is accorded to disability statistics; and
• third priority is accorded to community approaches, including CBR.

There are several ties among second-ranked priorities identified by Governments, which, are listed in the order presented on the questionnaire:

• women with disabilities;
• early intervention and education; and
• national policy development.

The international convention was identified as first or second priority in three of the replies of Governments.

Non-governmental replies identified three clear priorities:

• first priority is accorded to the international convention process;
• second priority is assigned to self-help organizations;
• and third priorities – equal rankings - are early intervention and education, and poverty alleviation.

Disability statistics, and environmental accessibility (both built environment, and information and communication technologies) were low ranked in the NGO replies.

C. Implications

The findings suggest a need to direct special attention to both the normative and substantive aspects of promoting and supporting implementation of BMF targets and strategies. Progress in the elaboration of the new international convention will contribute to a strengthened policy environment for BMF. However, BMF implementation will also require strengthened and improved capacities and institutions for planning and evaluation of action, and mechanisms to facilitate participation by persons with disabilities as agents and beneficiaries.

An urgent priority is development of data and statistics on disability if there is to be improved policy development, planning and evaluation from the disability perspective in Asia and the Pacific. One way to promote awareness of the importance of timely and accurate disability statistics among the non-governmental community could be achieved by expanded coverage of the topic in the outreach and communications activities of UN ESCAP. A related approach would be by means of technical exchanges and training workshops – resources permitting – on self-evaluation and its role in enhancing participation of persons with disabilities in the implementation of BMF targets and strategies. Increased knowledge of data and statistics on disability and strengthened capacities to collect, organize and present data on progress in realizing BMF targets would contribute to improved advocacy and negotiating capabilities of organizations of or concerned with persons with disabilities in the context of national development.

Establishing and developing participatory institutions are widely recognized as supportive of national development. The priority that non-governmental organizations attach to self-help organizations and Governments attach to community approaches, including CBR, are complementary and reinforcing. Both relate to BMF priorities and would facilitate participation of persons with disabilities as agents and beneficiaries.

Investment in people, with emphasis accorded to women with disabilities, is an essential pre-condition for effective and sustained empowerment strategies. Both Governments and non-governmental organizations attach priority to early intervention and education.; and Governments identified women with disabilities as a priority.

Empowerment to participate as agents and beneficiaries in both the social, economic and cultural realms, and the civil and political realms would contribute to improved well being and livelihoods among persons with disabilities and result thereby to real – not relative – reductions in poverty among persons with disabilities and their families.

Action on all priorities identified is premised on the availability of resources at appropriate levels and on a predictable and sustained basis to support the actions required to realize BMF targets and strategies.

Notes

* Prepared by Clinton E. Rapley, Director of Planning Services, Associates for International Management Services (AIMS), Mt. Tremper NY 12457 (USA) / version: 17e.09.2004 © AIMS 2004

[1] < http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/decade/twgdg.asp>.

[2] Biwako Millennium Framework (BMF) towards an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (E/ESCAP/APDDP/4/Rev.1) <http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/bmf/bmf.html>.

[3] Document A/37/351/Add.1 and Corr.1, annex, sect. VIII, recommendation I (IV), adopted by General Assembly resolution 37/52 of 3 December 1982 <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/diswpa00.htm>.

[4] < http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability/decade/publications/agenda/index.asp>.

[5] <http://www.unescap.org/esid/socialaction/Dec2003/art5.asp>.

[6] Cambodia, China, Fiji, Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey; Hong Kong, China.

[7] < http://www.apcdproject.org/>.

[8]Australia – Rehabilitation International (RI), Chairperson, Education Commission; and consultant on disability rights, development and education; Bangladesh – National Forum of Organisations Working with the Disabled (NFOWD); Centre for Disability in Development (CDD); Centre for Services and Information on Disability (CSID); Jesh Foundation; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – Korean Association for Supporting the Disabled; Fiji - Fiji Disabled Persons Association; India – Action Aid India; Japan – Asia and Pacific Disability Forum; Japan Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (JSEDP); World Federation of the Deaf (Japan); Malaysia – Christoffel Blindenmission {Asia-Pacific regional offices of Christian Blind Mission (CBM) and International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment (ICEVI); New Zealand – Inclusion International (II), Asia and Pacific regional office; Pakistan – Asian Blind Union; Thailand – Parents’ Association of the Intellectually Impaired; Timor-Leste - Klibur Aleizadus Timor Loro Sa’e (KATILOSA) [organization of persons with disabilities in Timor-Leste]; Hong Kong, China – Rehabilitation International (RI), Vice-chairperson, Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific; and Vice-chairperson, Joint Council for the Physically and Mentally Disabled.

[9] Planning; Management and organization, Programmes and implementation, Coordination and collaboration (regional), Reporting, Publications, Advocacy. The range in scores for all seven activities is 3 to 4.

[10] Cambodia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey; Hong Kong, China.

[11] Australia - Rehabilitation International; Bangladesh - National Forum of Organisations Working with the Disabled (NFOWD); Centre for Disability in Development (CDD); Centre for Services and Information on Disability (CSID); Jesh Foundation; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – Korean Association for Supporting the Disabled; Fiji - Fiji Disabled Persons Association; Japan – Asia and Pacific Disability Forum; World Federation of the Deaf (Japan);New Zealand – Inclusion International (II), Asia and Pacific regional office; Thailand – Parents’ Association of the Intellectually Impaired; Timor-Leste - Klibur Aleizadus Timor Loro Sa’e (KATILOSA).

[12] General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989; entry into force 2 September 1990 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm>.

Return to top

Copyright (c) 2004 Vision Office.
Last updated 09/29/04. Contact: info @ visionoffice.com