COSP3 - side event on Art. 33

MDAC is co-hosting a side session at 4.30pm in collaboration with the Office of Disability Issues in the UK and the Independent Monitoring Committee for the Implementation of the CRPD in Austria on ‘Ensuring meaningful participation of people with intellectual disabilities and psycho-social disabilities in implementing Article 33 of the CRPD’. You can also read a policy paper on Article 33 which we have produced.

 

There are 30 people participating and four speakers. Here are my notes of the speakers' presentations.

 

Innovation is national level monitoring. This instrument is not a piece of paper, but it can change the world. Other HR treaties changed the world but too slowly. One of the reasons beyond imperfect and incomplete implementation of HR norms is that there is only one level of monitoring – international. With CRPD there is national implementation with clear guidance on involvement of pwd and their organisations. It’s in the interest of everyone to focus on how the national level monitoring is implemented. If we have a working national level monitoring then it can save energy and time for the ComRPD to focus on the most controversial parts of the CRPD implementation. Participation is crucial – CRPD will remain a piece of paper without it.

 

Huge power differences between different disability groups. In some countries pws-pd are not covered by disability law, not part of structures, they are covered by mh law and nothing more – not yet seen as pwd. Likely they are the newest member in the disability family. PWID tend to be dominated by parents and other family members whose views are important and relevant but they are not the same as pwid – self-advocacy movements is a newborn baby or not yet in existence.

 

Removal of physical barriers is difficult but attitudinal barriers more challenging. People with psycho-social disabilities are seen as crazy, mad, delusional, influenced by our mental health symptoms. Challenges include the history and power differentials, and the other comes from attitudinal barriers.

 

 

International cooperation has a role to play in implementing Art. 33. States have to push for implementation of Art 12 to allow people to make their own decisions, including participating in domestic monitoring. States can partner with national human rights organisations. Self advocates need to have sufficient resources – knowledge skills and finances. Sharing information is a value added. We should look with caution, because a lack of international cooperation should not be used as a justification for not implementing the Convention. Likewise it should not be used to impose certain standards, but there are principles which apply universally. It would not be wise to criticise States too soon or too harshly. International donors should pay attention at Art. 33(2) monitoring bodies to ensure that they have resources and can do their work at the domestic level.

 

 

James is the lead person on CRPD at the Office for Disability Issues in the UK Government.

 

We are looking inwards to coordinate and improve, and trying to look outwards to DPOs and organisations to connect up views. A challenge is how to bring these two exercises together.

 

Two thoughts: First, the marketplace is crowded. We care deeply about this Convention and there are other people who have other competing agendas and disability competes with other policy areas. The CRPD is a useful tool in getting that attention as it is a rights-based framework. Second, the challenging financial climate. How to secure rights when many Governments are making cuts. One approach is to drive the human rights point, and one approach is making the argument for the economic approach for implementation of the CRPD.

 

In UK, the headings in terms of Art. 33(1) are mainstreaming and capability-building.

Mainstreaming disability across government, and making sure that civil servants are trained. Capability training for new civil servants, accessible policy development, how to co-produce policy with people with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities.

 

With regard to the outward-facing role, what are the practical methods and whom do we consult. There’s an assumption in the Convention that there are always national level bodies with reach – this is not the case. To what extent should government seek to shape whom we talk to, or do DPOs lead? This is a big tension – the risk is that Government creates a hierarchy of whom we do or don’t talk to. We need a dialogue to get the coverage we need. In UK there is the UK Disabled People’s Council. I want to be convinced that they are reaching people with intellectual disabilities and psycho-social disabilities, because if they are not, we need to directly reach out to them.

 

A final issue is how NGOs work with governments, or lobby for implementation. By working with government on policy it does not mean that you lose the right to lobby and campaign. Governments need to make clear that we are comfortable to work with organisations who make some uncomfortable views known.

 

3 key challenges – (1) Who ensures that we are seeking views? (2) How is this process resourced in the current climate without compromising NGOs’ independence? (3) How can the focal point win hearts and minds in government?

 

Marianne is chair of the Austria Art. 33(2) independent monitoring body.

 

The composition is of the monitoring body is complex! There is no national human rights institution in Austria which is accredited with A-status. An advisory board was set up – one from academic, one from a corporation, and a representative from a human rights NGO. There are seven members each with a deputy. There are 23,000 EUR to finance a person within the ministry of social affairs which is the office of the monitoring body! As of yesterday the chairperson of the monitoring body will receive money for the work on the body. Over the last 19 months we have held 20 meetings since 10 December 2008, with two public meetings. There was a broad discussion in Parliament with 200 participants, including persons with intellectual disabilities. There were minutes of the meeting and we reflected the views of every person who took the floor during that meeting. In preparation we provided an easy-to-read version.

 

The riles of procedure try to push hard on the Paris Principles according to Art. 33(2) of the CRPD. In practice we are challenged to ensure there is participation of people with disabilities with all sorts of impairments. There is however room for improvement – in an area where people have been marginalised it is hugely challenging to work pro bono. There is a huge onus on government to provide resources. It has been enormously helpful to point out the general obligation under Art. 4(3) on participation in policy and legislative reform.

 

A few challenges: (1) don’t be too hard and harsh too soon! Timing is critical and how long can you hold off. (2) Changing the mindset is crucial: this is bilateral, it means dialogue and time. (3) Fear management – of Gov and DPOs. (4) Get behind the representatives – especially for parents of people with intellectual disabilities. (5) Accessibility issues.