Daily Summary related to Draft Article 19- ACCESSIBILITY

Volume 3, #5
January 9, 2004

Afternoon session
Commenced: 3:10pm
Recessed: 1pm

ACCESSIBILITY

Mexico explored the possibility of reshaping this article by linking it with Article 22 on the right to mobility and Article 28 on the right to universal/inclusive design.

Regarding Article 21 (2), Ireland drew attention to Article 6 (d) and Article 8 (a) of the EU draft. Ireland preferred an approach identifying and eliminating obstacles, rather than talking about new rights

Regarding combining the three articles, Thailand noted that universal design and assistive technology do constitute accessibility and mobility. If the WG can develop language that is precise without confusion and that encapsulates all these issues, this is acceptable. Thailand suggested inserting the following language in Article 21 (1) of the Chair’s draft after “national standards” –“ “Following existing internationally recognized accessibility standards where possible” It is important not to encourage many standards, as the goal is to have one universal standard.

WFD affirmed that this article could be divided in two parts—one dealing with buildings, roads and traffic and the other addressing communication which is only treated in Article 21 (f) at the moment. WFD regretted that the article did not mention interpreter services.

II flagged the problems experienced by people with intellectual disabilities in public buildings. As thy often lose their way, there have been efforts to simplify navigation of these buildings using color indicators and even music. II suggested adding the words “guidance through” in the first paragraph of Article 21.

Korea proposed including the issue of technology in the General Obligations of states so that it covers all aspects of life.

DAL asserted that the right to mobility is very specific and hoped to separate it from other issues and avoid creating new rights. DAL proposed addressing information, communication and accessibility issues under the Article on Freedom of Information and Expression.

WFDB asserted that it would be confusing to combine the articles, because mobility is not only a technical question, but also one of personal assistance. It is often said that the “best technical aid for a deaf-blind person is often a person-with ears and eyes.” WFDB suggested including a sentence on traveling in the article on mobility.

Japan preferred dealing with the Articles 21 and 22 together.

WNUSP agreed with II and pointed out many people with a psycho-social disability would also benefit from accessible guidance in buildings. There is a dimension of accessibility that is about simplifying information about the environment. It would be useful to include language that is not strictly about the physical or informational or communicational environment. It might be about the social environment with respect to whether interactions are happening that are respectful and easy to navigate. Some work is being done, in countries like New Zealand, to flesh out the meaning of accessibility for people with psycho-social disabilities. WNUSP would like to flag this issue for work at the AHC and the WNUSP would like to present information on that at the AHC. WNUSP agreed with WFDB, that for people with psycho-social disabilities as well, personal assistance is more helpful than technology. Regarding mobility, people with psycho-social disability have difficulty traveling freely. There is a lot of discrimination in relation to immigration and citizenship, as well as travel, based on disability.

India affirmed that Articles Articles 21 and 28 may go together, but Article 22 right to mobility could be could be reworded to reflect technology, personal assistance devices etc and treated as a separate article.

Regarding reference to guidance by II, Jamaica explored whether accessibility by definition includes the elements that were outlined.

Ecuador refers to Article 22 (b) suggested referencing the need to eliminate tariff barriers on assistive devices.

Thailand noted that when addressing access to information and communications there is an overlap between Articles 15 and 21, yet when addressing access to the physical environment and transportation there is an overlap between Articles 21 and 22.

LSN clarified that accessibility is about the external environment - the removal of the barriers that are external to persons with disabilities. In contrast, the right to mobility is person-centered - focusing on the individual person’s requirements to move in society. Removing the external barriers is not enough to ensure that persons with disabilities can move in society.

Korea concurred that treatment of accessibility needs to be separate from mobility.

China did not have difficulty with merging Articles 21 and 22. Columbia did not think it complicated to tackle both issues in same article.

Lebanon stressed that the trend toward privatization limited states’ powers in the private domain to enact measures favorable to PWD such as making private buildings accessible and ensuring equal access to loans. In addition, Lebanon suggested moving paragraph 2 of Article 21 to the general obligations of states.

Thailand cautioned against combining mobility and accessibility.

Regarding the amalgamation of Articles 21 and 22, the Coordinator concluded that a distinction between these concepts should be retained.

Volume 3, #6
January 12, 2004

Morning Session
Commenced: 10:19 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM

ACCESSIBILITY, RIGHT TO MOBILITY, RIGHT TO UNIVERSAL/INCLUSIVE DESIGN

InterAmerican Institute on Disability - Articles 21, 22, 28 are linked but should not be combined into a single article. On accessibility, the world is not fully accessible to people with disabilities and this inhibits the rights to free movement and other rights. For example, the delegate’s hotel is accessible, but only through a side entrance which is not always open. Thus, his freedom of movement is restricted and is dependent on other people to provide assistance when this door is not open. Lack of physical accessibility and transportation services not only inhibit civil rights but also limit the exercise of social rights such as health, education and employment. Decision-makers who affect the built environment and transportation services need to be made aware of accessibility needs. They must consult PWD and their organizations on this. Buildings and transportation services need to be completely accessible according to international standards or norms, which States would have to incorporate in national legislation. Another concept that must be included in these international standards is that of universal design, applying to equipment, services, software and hardware. Universal design will benefit not only PWD but others as well. Convention should also include a point on technical assistance, which is especially important in developing world. IID suggested adding the following text: “the provision of technical assistance for mobilization and communication for those who cannot acquire it by their own means.”

The Coordinator noted that he perceived, from previous discussions, a general view that the three articles should be separate, though they are linked thematically.

Thailand noted that accessibility is a means to fulfil existing rights. For example, accessibility of the built environment is necessary to fulfil the right of freedom of movement and accessible communications is necessary to fulfil the right to freedom of information. However, these issues sometimes cross over: for some impairment groups, access to information is necessary also for freedom of movement. Therefore, we should first look at the overlap between accessibility and the rights it affects. This is addressed somewhat in article 15 (freedom of expression), but needs to be elaborated upon. Then, we have to make the link between access to the built environment in the provision on freedom of movement. These concepts should be considered State obligations.

Canada stated that it is comfortable having three separate articles for the three subjects. Regarding accessibility, Canada is comfortable with the text as written as basis for further discussion, but offered a caveat about listing items as such lists can never be exhaustive and the list itself often becomes the focus instead of the right. The delegate suggested adding language to indicate that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Canada supports the suggestion by Thailand regarding framing the right to mobility as the right to freedom of movement. Canada expressed concern about the language in the chapeau of Article 22 requiring States to take “all necessary measures”, because of the later requirement that States provide mobility aids, etc. at “no or low cost”. There is a need to adjust the level of prescriptiveness when dealing with cost issues. This could be done either by generalizing sub-item b., regarding how States are to make these aids available, or adjusting the text in chapeau to make it less obligatory. Regarding universal design as it relates to obligations in the private sector, it seems more appropriate to frame this in terms of encouragement and awareness raising [by governments] than as a requirement for compliance by the private sector.

Jamaica stated that it would like to see accessibility, mobility, and universal design linked to the concept of international cooperation. To achieve these goals in developing countries there will need to be outside support and, indeed, outside support is already involved. For example, in Jamaica, the EU is currently involved in road building, which should be done accessibly. Therefore, international cooperation is intimately linked to accessibility, mobility and universal design and should be considered in negotiations for this kind of development aid.

World Federation of the Deaf suggested that, given this discussion, there may be a need to revisit some other issues already covered as they relate to accessibility. In the article on accessibility, it is important to mention interpretive services in 21(f). The current narrow view of accessibility needs to be broadened as accessibility does relate to other issues such as participation in political life, legal issues, etc. Regarding universal design, WFD is satisfied with the text except that it would like to see accessibility in the area of information society included as well.

Uganda noted that Article 21 should mention the goal of a barrier free environment, which is an important objective in this convention. The requirement for only for public buildings to be access Article 1(c), is limiting and the requirement for the private sector to achieve a barrier free environment should be strengthened. Regarding accessibility in the broader sense, the concept of access to opportunity, especially in terms of business opportunity (access to bank loans and financial credit) should be incorporated. There could even be a new article providing for states to ensure that PWD are afforded opportunity for economic empowerment. On the question of provision of mobility aids, the requirement should be at “no cost or affordable” instead of “no or low cost”. “Low cost” is too subjective internationally. With respect to rehabilitation and health, sensitizing health care workers/givers to the needs of PWD should also be included. The Convention should also include a provision on interventions to prevent or minimize disability in children.

South Africa stated that it feels very strongly about the right to accessibility but that items included in Chairs draft referring mobility would be more appropriate in article 23 on health and rehabilitiation and certain other items should be moved to the section on right to information and communication. The right to mobility as stated cannot be provided as a right. The State can provide mobility aids, but not mobility, per se. Regarding Article 22 on the built environment, this should be addressed under an article on the right to live independently or under the auspices of universal design. The provision of assistive devices, such as wheelchairs and hearing aids, belongs in the domain of health and rehabilitation. However, Braille, computer aids, etc. belongs under access to information and communication. South Africa would support article 21 if it is extended to include other forms of access (personal assistants, interpretive services). South Africa noted that the principle of universal design is a means to an end, and should thus be dealt with in article on general provisions. Finally, the issue of reduction of tariff taxes should be included as these create major barriers to access.

DPI noted that accessibility has not been addressed in other human rights treaties. It is not clear from Chair’s text how the right to accessibility is linked to other rights such as freedom of movement and the right to educational opportunities. The article on accessibility should ensure access to both the built environment and information.

The Republic of Korea supported the separation of access and mobility into two separate articles. This section should also address issue of the extra costs created by disability, which create hardships for PWD. Article 22 has some wording issues, related to financial costs that need to be solved.

The World Federation of the Deaf-Blind noted that universal design is the key starting place for ensuring accessibility. Even with all of the new technological developments, deaf-blind persons do not have access to most devices from computers to kitchen appliances. With this in mind, universal design should be mentioned before accessibility. WFDB concurred with WFD that interpretive services should added to 21(f) and also called for the addition of the concept of guide services in Article 22 on mobility. The delegate articulated the unique struggle of the deaf-blind who are living in a society built for seeing and hearing people. Besides being inaccessible, it is often also unsafe and, as a result, leads to deaf-blind persons being isolated in their homes.

The European Disability Forum noted that accessibility can not be enforced through a voluntary approach and that the chapeau of article 21 is too weak to ensure compliance. There is a need not only for international standards on accessibility, but also legislation on to enforce those standards. Although we cannot change existing problems overnight we can prevent the establishment of new barriers - which is also more cost-effective than retrofitting poorly designed and inaccessible structures. This needs to apply to both public and the private sector. In addition, there should be a provision for ensuring that States eliminate existing barriers in a reasonable time frame. Building on Canada’s point regarding Article 28 that States should encourage the private sector to promote universal design, EDF noted that the Canadian and American models on public authorities’ use of procurement policies is a helpful model for promoting accessible design. The article on accessibility should also be linked to the concept of international cooperation in order to end the practice of using international development/corporation funds for inaccessible structures and programs.

Landmine Survivors Network proposed that “with the greatest independence” be added after “necessary measures” in the chapeau of article 22 in order to reinforce the concept of autonomy. LSN proposed that 22(c) be transferred to the section on access to facilities because it pertains to the outside environment, while mobility issues should be person-centered. Regarding the South African comment, the right to freedom of movement is generally considered a negative right (as reflected in Article 12 of the ICCPR which relates to the obligation of a State to not interfere with a person’s free movement within a country or outside a country). The right to mobility, as in the Chair’s text, is a positive right in the sense that it requires States to take action to guarantee a person’s right to mobility.

Lebanon noted that encouraging the private sector is not enough to ensure accessibility and, to this end, proposed the addition to 21(c) of “and given specific incentives” after the word “encouraged”. Because society tends to think only of physically disabled people with regard to accessibility, the chapeau of Article 21 should directly acknowledge diversity of disability by incorporating after the phrase “in all aspects of life” the words “and addressing all kinds of disabilities” or other language to guarantee non-discrimination between disabled people themselves. Lebanon supported Ireland’s view that the Article 21 be clarified as a non-exhaustive list and also supported EDF that the issue of cost had to be addressed in Article 22, and to this end, suggested retaining “low or no cost”.

Thailand noted that the matter of accessibility is not addressed in existing human rights instruments and should be addressed as a disability-specific issue. Thailand proposed that the following new paragraph 3 be added to Article 21: “States shall promulgate legislation to ensure and promote accessibility through the use of universal design, assistive technologies, and all other necessary means.”

The World Blind Union affirmed the need to widen the text to accommodate more groups of PWD than is reflected in the Chair’s text. The issue of access to information for the blind, deaf, deaf-blind and should be reflected in the text. WBU proposed merging Articles 22 and 28 here. Universal design should be included before accessibility in the structure of the Convention. The WBU stated its support for the proposals to add the words “all kinds of disability” and to retain the words “no or low cost”.

Serbia and Montenegro supported Canada and Thailand regarding accessibility as a means and not a right. Accessibility is a means to fulfil the rights to freedom of expression and movement. Reference to mobility aids would be more appropriate in article on health and rehabilitation than in the article on mobility. Paragrapsh 1(c) of article 21 should be broadened to allow that all buildings meant for public use, not just public buildings, should be accessible, which would be enforced through legislative measures. Interpretive and guide services should be included in article 21 and 22, respectively.

Slovenia commented that Articles 15, 21, 22, 28 were different sides of the same issue of accessibility and referenced the need for centers of excellence to support efforts to provide accessibility.

Morocco noted that accessibility is in the same area as non-discrimination, with a goal to ensuring that PWD are afforded the same opportunities of access to all services. The principle of sign language should be included in Article 21 by encouraging States Parties to work together to make sign language universal. Some work has already been done on this by the League of Arab States but more needs to be done to develop a universal sign language.

Inclusion International emphasized the need for access to information in an easy to read/understand format for people with intellectual disabilities and indicated its support for the WBU, WFD, and WFDB with regard to the need for the article on accessibility to address the specific needs of people with sensory disabilities. Forms of sign language used by people with intellectual disabilities should also be encouraged.

The Republic of Korea emphasized the need to accelerate research and development in accessible technology and proposed the addition of wording to Article 21 encouraging governments to give preference to accessible items and technologies and thus encourage their development.

The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry supported Inclusion International on the point that universal design means that services should be provided in easy to understand and easy to read formats. A similar kind of accessibility would also benefit people with psycho-social disabilities as well as the general population, this wide impact being one of the great benefits of universal design. WNUSP supported Uganda’s point of accessibility perhaps going beyond the physical and information environments and encompassing economic opportunities for PWD. This may not seem like the appropriate place to discuss that but it does not clearly fit in the right to work or any of the other articles. For people with psycho-social disabilities, the right to have economic opportunities is very important in both developed and developing countries. With regard to freedom of mobility and movement, both the positive and negative components need to be addressed: the positive component of providing aides, assistive devices, etc. as well as the negative component of preventing States from interfering with the right of PWD to go where they choose, to leave their homes, etc. which touches on right of liberty and freedom of movement. States also have the obligation to ensure that private actors, such as families, do not interfere with these rights.

The World Federation of the Deaf supported the Inclusion Internationa point regarding the use of signs by people with intellectual disabilities as a method of support to communication. The need for access to information cannot be overstated. Even in this situation here, there is a need for sign language interpretation, real time captioning, etc. and there is no system to do this without using interpreters. Morocco’s point regarding the idea of universal sign language is appreciated, but this has never been successful and will not work. The convention should guarantee the right to use one’s own national language by using the term “national sign languages” (in the plural to cover countries that may have more than one sign language just as many have more than one spoken language.)

The Coordinator noted the number of comments on structure of the convention and on specific articles and recommended that substance and content are a higher priority for the moment. There may, in fact, not be adequate time to address the structural issues, especially in terms of shifting topics from one article to another, although there will be some opportunity to discuss structure at the end of week. WNUSP and Uganda had referred to economic opportunity which is not dealt with in the Chair’s draft. It might be best to look at that topic in through a broadening of the article on the right to work to encompass elements beyond simply the right for people to work for someone else.

Volume 3, #8
January 14, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:14
Adjourned: 6:08

ACCESSIBILITY

Thailand said that this article is well drafted. However, clarification is required in paragraph 2 (a). The accessibility requirement here seems limited to public facilities and services. Does public mean publicly funded or for public use, which would include privately owned or funded? In addition, wording should be added to the final paragraph regarding research and development of assistive technologies to ensure that products are reasonably priced.

The Coordinator said that his interpretation of “public buildings” in 2 (a) is that it refers to those owned by public entities and excludes private buildings which may be used by the public. Those are dealt with in 2 (c) which encourages States to “encourage private entities which provide public facilities and services to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities.” Therefore, the text reflects an immediate and absolute obligation on States regarding public entities, but for private entities, the obligation is for States to encourage accessibility.

WNUSP called attention to the wording in paragraph 1 which could be interpreted to mean that PWD should have access to services for people with disabilities but not necessarily to all services available to the general public. In addition, we should be clear here, and in the convention as a whole, that these points apply to people with all kinds of disabilities and WNUSP may introduce language at another time to ensure that this is reflected. The Coordinator clarified that the intent of the paragraph is to ensure accessibility of all services and this might be resolved with a simple punctuation adjustment in the sentence.

IID stated that there are public places and private places that provide services. In some cases, public services are provided by the private sector and the State has a regulatory role to play in such instances. For example, in Costa Rica public transportation is provided by the private sector while the government regulations govern the issuance of licenses, accessibility, safety, etc. Similarly, all buildings that provide public services must be accessible regardless of whether the service itself is provided by the private sector.

Ireland said that the objectives of the article are acceptable but the chapeau requires clarity regarding the undertaking and commitment that States are entering into. In paragraph 2 there is a reference to progressive measures for the obligations enumerated, however the obligations in paragraph 1 are even more far-reaching than those in paragraph 2 and thus we should consider including the concept of progressive measures there as well

Morocco offered the suggestion that, in order to cover as many buildings as possible, the text read “public buildings, semi-public buildings and private buildings open to the public”. “Encouraging” the private sector to make buildings and services accessible will create confusion regarding the financial implications for the private sector. Communications which originate in the private sector should also be explored in terms of ensuring accessibility.

Uganda pointed out that the question of encouraging private entities had been discussed consensus reached that standards of access should apply to everyone including the private sector. It is surprising that this idea of standards for everyone is being watered down by this notion of encouragement in the text. This concept should be eliminated and all standards and guidelines should be applied to everyone. With respect to the paragraph 2(f), relating to research and development of assistive devices, this to relates more to mobility than accessibility and should be included in the article on mobility.

Sierra Leone expressed that “the built environment” is a confusing term and should be clarified. Regarding public and private buildings, it may be helpful to refer to ownership in qualifying these terms. Uganda’s suggestion to eliminate the notion of encouragement of the private sector is a good one. However, if this is done, the text should talk about “minimum national standards” (such as building codes) which governments must develop to require accessibility.

DPI suggested that paragraph 2(e) include language to ensure that disabled peoples organizations are consulting during the evaluation of standards and guidelines and not only during their development.

EDF stated that this topic requires the use of very concrete and practical terms. The State should guarantee the full and immediate accessibility of all new buildings. For existing buildings, the State should provide a timeframe for making them accessible. Some buildings and services are owned and offered by the public. Other services are contracted by the government to private entities and these must be offered from accessible places. This article should be drafted to create the foundation for legislation at the national level that creates real conditions for access: immediate access for new buildings and a timeline for accessibility for old buildings. Finally, rather than adding the notion of progressive realization to paragraph 1, it should be eliminated from paragraph 2.

South Africa recommended, as noted in footnote 1(a), including the concept of international cooperation in the paragraphs discussing national standards and guidelines for accessibility and research and development for new assistive technologies. In addition, the concept of provision of development cooperation in new assistive technologies should be added to the paragraphs on national standards and guidelines and universal design. Development cooperation could also be in chapeau of paragraph 2. Finally, the convention should provide for accessibility for all buildings, not just public buildings, in order to achieve the barrier-free environment we envision.

Canada supported the Irish suggestion to extend the limitation to progressive measures to paragraph 1, noting that some the items in that paragraph are challenges which governments will need time and resources to tackle. Also, the distinction between the public and private sector should be retained in the text.

Thailand suggested that term “public buildings and services” be changed to “buildings and services intended for public use”. “Progressive measures” should be replaced with “legislative and policy measures”. Assistive technologies belong in this article as well as in the article on mobility, since not all assistive devices are mobility related. The cost issues that have raised so much concern could be solved if the concept of universal design takes hold.

LSN stated that in developing countries and countries emerging from armed conflict, development financing is used for rebuilding the infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.) and countries and must take account of how this financing is used. The following language should be added: “Ensure that development funding provided individually or jointly is subject to a review of its impact on people with disabilities and their rights under this convention.”

Columbia suggested that: the word “obstacles” be replaced by “physical barriers and attitudinal obstacles”; the addition of “for all stakeholders in contact with PWD about their needs”; the addition of the word “all” before “public buildings”; and replacing “roads” with “public space”.

Ireland noted that, with regard the application of progressive measures in paragraph 2, consultation with DPOs should not be subject to progressive measures and thus this element (sub-paragraph (e)) might need to be moved from this paragraph to protect it from the progressive implementation application. Ireland has grave reservations about LSN’s suggestion on international cooperation as it might impose obligations on non-State Parties who are involved in international cooperative relationships.

China made several editing suggestions to resolve redundancy problems it perceived in the Accessibility article.

The Coordinator confirmed that further work is clearly needed, especially regarding clarification between the public and private buildings.

Volume 3, #8
January 14, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:14
Adjourned: 6:08

UNIVERSAL/INCLUSIVE DESIGN

The Coordinator remarked that the article presents the problem flagged by Ireland, with regard to precedents in international law around the use of the backward slash symbol. The Coordinator invited comment on the Article’s note to the WG concerning whether or not this article should be moved to the section on general obligations of States Parties.

India strongly supported including this article in the general obligations of States Parties. The concept of universal or inclusive design should be one of the basic principles guiding the convention.

Jamaica flagged the concept of “minimum possible adaptation” required of “universally/inclusively designed goods, services, equipment and facilities” and explored the linkages between this concept and the discussion of Article 16 on accessibility, Article 17 on mobility, and the nature of the role of the public and private sector. If this concept is included in the general principles then perhaps “encouraging private entities” should be replaced with stronger language. States should seek to put in place, with respect to building codes for example, some minimum standards to ensure accessibility. Lastly, if this is to be in the general principles it will apply not only to the article on accessibility, but also to the one addressing mobility.

WFDB underlined that universal design implicated not only adaptation of a product or service, but also its design. In other words all devices should be designed from the beginning for all. This is a broad principle and should be included in the general obligations.

EDF pointed to US and EU laws, noting that when public entities purchase equipment from the private sector, the goods or services purchased are required to meet certain standards. The principle of accessibility in public procurement policy could be included the convention.

WNUSP noted that the language in this article to the effect that States parties should “promote” the “development…of universally/inclusively designed goods…” does not appear to constitute a very strong obligation. Therefore, India’s proposal to move this article to the general obligations section of the treaty is supported.

Uganda proposed that the backward slash in the title be replaced by “and”, and supported retaining this topic in a separate provision, stating that it may not be receive its due attention if included under general obligations.

WFD asserted that when addressing the concept of universal design, the issue of information dissemination should be taken into account. With new technology it is now possible to produce information that can be easily made available in all formats. However, even with this capability it is still necessary to rely on the “good will” of those involved carry out the alternative formats. Web pages should automatically be designed to be used by blind people. In addition, information services based on voice interaction should be available also in visual formats. WFD noted that that certain mobile phone models can easily be used by both blind and deaf people, which is an example of universal design.

China expressed doubts about whether this should be considered a general principle of the convention. Currently, the meaning is not very clear and the wording is rather technical. The AHC should decide whether to include this concept under general obligations or retain the separate provision.

Thailand supported the idea of including universal design in the general obligations. However, the current drafting is confusing. The first part refers to promoting universal design and the second part deals with the quality of universally designed goods and services. Once things are based on universal design, they require less cost and adaptation. This is strongest argument for this concept and should be reflected in the general obligations.

Lebanon supported moving the article to the general obligations section of the convention and asserted that States should not only be required to promote the “availability” of universally designed goods and services, but that they should also be obliged to promote their “use.”

Back to Draft Article