NGO Comments on the draft text
Draft article 20

INTERVENTION BY REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL

Article 20. Personal Mobility

Rehabilitation International is joined in this intervention by European Disability Forum, Inclusion International, Disabled People International, World Federation of the Deaf, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Landmine Survivors Network, World Blind Union.

We reiterate our position under draft Article 19 with respect to the term ‘universal design’.

Our Operating Philosophy – Personal Mobility Enhances Choice and Independence

We view the right of personal mobility as crucial in enabling persons with disabilities to assume power over their own lives. There isn’t much point in rendering buildings, transport and other publicly available services accessible unless they can be reached by persons with disabilities in the first place. That is why we strongly support the inclusion of draft Article 20.

Propose Using the Term ‘Appropriate Assistive Technology’

We would prefer the use of the term ‘appropriate assistive technology’ in place of ‘aids, devices and assistive technologies’ as used in paragraph (a) and throughout. We believe that the word ‘appropriate’ denotes greater cultural sensitivity and also acknowledges that the relevant assistive technology will vary by country as well as within age groups.

Need to Highlight Creative Ways of Making Technology Affordable

We appreciate the sentiment contained in paragraph (e) concerning ‘affordable cost. We believe that a range of interventions are required to render such technology more affordable. This would include supply-side intervention in the form of supporting companies in their research and development and in reducing barriers in bringing their products to a broader market. The emergence of a mass market will, in time reduce the overall cost of the relevant products to everyone’s advantage. It therefore makes sense to require States to take steps to nurture this market. It would also include demand-side interventions in subsidizing persons with disabilities in order to bring appropriate assistive technology within their financial reach. We believe that both supply-side and demand side interventions should be required. We therefore propose the following language:

(x) States Parties shall support the emergence and development of assistive technology production through incentives and other measures to support innovation and to reduce barriers between product design and the placing of such products on the market. States Parties shall also take steps to ensure the affordability of such assistive technology for persons with disabilities.

Intervention by (Australian) National Association of Community Legal Centres, People with Disability Australia Incorporated, Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

Mr Chairman:

We intervene briefly to strongly applaud the terms of this article.

Personal mobility is crucial to the independence, dignity, and positive self-concept of people with disability. It is also essential to our social and economic participation.

It is important to fully appreciate that the issue of personal mobility is critical to a number of impairment groups, not just people with physical impairments who rely on mobility devices, such as scooters and wheelchairs, for mobility. For example, people who are blind require orientation technology, audible announcements, tactile indicators, and Braille signage in order to successfully navigate the community. People with intellectual impairment also require audible announcements and signage in plain-language if they are to do so. The article must be amended to ensure that it explicitly encompasses the mobility needs of people from all relevant impairment groups.

We are concerned about the reference to the universal design in sub-paragraph (b). The principles of universal design apply to the built environment and generic goods, services, and facilities etc. It aims to create artifacts that are accessible to the largest number of people without the need for specific adjustments. In this respect it would be applicable to audible announcements and signage. However, this article largely deals with devices that are designed to meet the specific requirements of people with disability. Many of these devices are highly individualized. They cannot be universally designed.

In relation to the second part of subparagraph (b) we propose that the word “encouraging” is replaced with the word “ensure.” Non-state actors are the principal producers of mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, and it is essential that States require them to comply with the terms of this convention.

We urge delegates to amend sub-paragraph (e) to require the development, on the basis of international cooperation where applicable, of international design standards for mobility aids.

We draw attention to sub-paragraph (c) of the equivalent article in the Bangkok draft and urge delegates to include it in this article. It requires that “the built environment is designed or adapted to facilitate the mobility of persons with disabilities with the greatest possible independence.” While some aspects of these requirements are dealt with under draft article 19 (2), the requirements set out there currently apply only to buildings and facilities, rather than to the built environment more generally.

We also seek the addition to two new sub-paragraphs –

(a) which should require States to take effective measures to ensure the timely availability of affordable maintenance and emergency repair services for mobility devices and appliances; and

(b) which would require states to allow the portability of personal mobility aids and devices purchased or granted through public subsidy across internal and international borders without cost.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this intervention.