Standard Rules, Japan, and Asian & Pacific Decade's "Agenda for Action"

Hisao Sato
Vice Chair, RI Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and Professor, Japan College of Social Work


Abstract The Danish Council has developed a National Disability Index to collect information on inplementation of Standard Rules from the viewpoint of people with disabilities. Taking the opportunity, the author attempts to draw comparisons between the Standard Rules and the Asian and Pacific Decade's Agenda for Action.

Forty-five Percent Implemented ---- Japanese Disability Organizations Evaluated This Year

In 1997 an umbrella organization named the Promotional Council for the New Decade collected 29 completed questionnaires from national and local organizations of persons with disabilities. This is one part of an international survey to review the implementation of the Standard Rules from the viewpoint of representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities coordinated enthusiastically by the Danish Council of Organizations of Disabled Persons. The Danish Council developed a National Disability Index for this purpose which consists of a questionnaire and a rating scale.
The questionnaire has 25 questions. The 25 areas are listed at Table 1. Although the Standard Rules consists of 22 rules, the Danish Council included two questions on each of Rule 5 (Accessibility), Rule 6 (Education) and Rule 7 (Employment), because of the importance of these areas. Each question is rated from 0 to 6 , in which the lowest "0" means "no measures taken", and the highest "6" means "the measures in the area in question have been fully or nearly fully implemented". The rating scale is shown below.

A paper for a symposium on the Implementation of the UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities,' 97 Seoul International Conference on Disability, 27 September, Korea.

Rating Scale

0 point: No measures taken.
1 point: Plans exist for some areas, but very few measures have been taken.
2 points: Some measures have been taken. Plans have been drafted for further work in several areas.
3 points: Several measures have been taken. Plans exist for further work. The country is on the half way.
4 points: Many measures have been taken. However, some areas are still neglected. Plans for further work in most areas exist.
5 points: Many measures have been taken. Full implementation is in sight.
6 points: The measures in the area in question have been fully or nearly fully implemented.

In the 29 organizations answered, 18 were organizations of persons with hearing impairment, six were with orthopaedic impairment and the other five were with visual impairment, speech impairment, and internal impairment. The Danish Council asked for each country at least ten responses and indicated 25 as the optimum number from a statistical viewpoint. The Danish Council also suggested to cover different kinds of disabilities including mental. At this point, we have to keep in mind that the sample is not correctly representing the Japanese disability organizations.

As shown in Table 2, Japanese disability organizations evaluated and estimated the rate of implementation of the Standard Rules in Japan as 45 percent in average. This value varies with disability types, from the highest of 62 percent among organizations with orthopaedic impairment to the lowest of 38 percent among those with hearing impairment. The results say Japanese with disabilities have less than half of the opportunities as compared with Japanese without disabilities are offered by the community.

The values indicating the implementation rate varies with areas. Among the lowest groups are "Personnel Training", "National Monitoring", "Awareness-raising" and "Employment", etc. Among "more than half" implemented groups, there are "Social Security" (52 percent), "Policy Making" (52 percent) and "Disability Organizations" (55 percent).

The implementation rate of "Social Security" would decrease when persons with mental disorder, intellectual disabilities and disabilities due to chronic diseases could take part in the survey. Because they seem to be facing with difficulties to receive disability pension in Japan.

The question 17 (Policy Making) asks "Have disability aspects been included in the general planning and development strategies of the country?" This was rated 52 percent. This reflects the efforts of the national government in developing "the Government Action Plan for Persons with Disabilities --- a Seven Year Normalization Strategy 1996-2002 in December 1995." In this plan numerical long term targets were set for the first time in the history of Japanese disability policy. The targets include fourfold increase of group-homes (from 5,000 to 20,000 persons or beds) and twofold increase of day-service centers (from 500 to 1,000 centers) .

Question number 21 mainly concerns with the rights of the organizations of persons with disabilities to take part in the policy making process. The amendment of the Disabled Persons' Fundamental Law stipulated that the national government shall, and local governments shall endeavor to, establish the Council for the Promotion of Measures for Disabled Persons. The members of the Council shall include representatives from organizations of disabled persons. This is the first legislation of Japan which recognizes the rights of the organizations of persons with disabilities to take part in the policy making process. The rate of 55 percent reflects these recent developments. However, Standard Rules require more. It says, "States should encourage and support economically and in other ways the formation and strengthening of organizations of persons with disabilities, family members and/or advocates." In this connection we have to recall the UN World Program of Action emphasizes the importance to support the organizations of persons with mental disabilities.

In general we have a long way to go for the equalization of opportunities for Japanese with disabilities. For example, more than 300,000 patients are staying in mental hospitals of which at least 30 percent is hospitalized due to "social reason", most of the railway stations are not wheelchair accessible today and these is no realistic plan to make them all accessible, and most of the university students with deafness have substantially no sign language interpretation service provided by the government. Although the Disability Index is not sensitive enough to evaluate progress in detailed sub-areas as mentioned above, it seems very useful to evaluate general situation and progress and more importantly, it ensures the opportunity to take part in the national and international monitoring process to the organizations of persons with disabilities.

Monitoring Mechanism ---- Comparing Standard Rules (SRs) with Agenda for Action for Asian & Pacific Decade (AAAP)

SRs was adopted in 1993 and AAAP in 1992. SRs has 22 rules and AAAP has 12 major policy categories. SRs is focusing on equalization of opportunities and AAAP covers all areas of full participation and equality, i.e., prevention, rehabilitation and equalization of opportunities. Therefore, there is no item for "prevention" in SRs.

AAAP has no detailed category on the area of "equalization of opportunities" or items for "culture", "recreation and sports". "Religion" is lacking too. However, most policy areas are covered by both documents. Because, both documents have the common mother: the World Programme of Action concerning Persons with Disabilities in 1982, which had been used during the UN Decade. AAAP itself clearly states that it "translates the World Programme of Action concerning Persons with Disabilities into the agenda for the Asian and Pacific region, in response to the review and appraisal of the achievements of the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons, 1983-1992,......"

Needless to say, responsibility of implementation and responsibility of monitoring it rest mainly with national governments. But now regional or international level will be focused.

SRs stipulates "Special Rapporteur" to be appointed to monitor the implementation. Special Rapporteur is expected to send questions to government of each country and also to NGOs, to talk directly with governments and NGOs, to provide advisory services to them, and to submit a report to the UN Commission for Social Development. Another important aspect of SRs Implementation Mechanism is the Panel of Experts, which consists of representatives of the international NGOs concerning disability. The Panel supports the activities of Special Rapporteur.

An implementation mechanism for the AAAP has similarities and differences. Based on the AAAP, an advisory panel has been established to monitor and review the implementation. It is called the Regional Interagency Committee for Asia and the Pacific (RICAP) Subcommittee on Disability and consists of UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific), other regional GOs and NGOs. The UNESCAP, with the support of the RICAP, has been taking an initiative to promote projects, such as "Promotion of National Coordination Committee", "Regional Cooperation for the Local Production of Assistive Devices", "Non-handicapping Environments", etc. There is no "Regional Special Rapporteur", but the leadership of UNESCAP headquarters itself is positive and energetic.

UNESCAP is required to convene biennial meetings of national coordinating committee and governments to review achievements and to identify actions that may be required to maintain the momentum of the Decade. At these review meetings, participants are invited to present country papers. Representatives of regional, national and NGOs can attend the meeting as observers and also address their opinions. The first review meeting was held in Thailand in 1995 and the second was in Korea. The main fruits of the 1995 review meeting was the "72 Time Bound Targets", including "Identify five most prevalent preventable causes of disability by the end of 1997", "Issue commemorative stamps by the end of 1997", "Establish a national policy to support organizations of persons with disabilities by the end of 1998", "Exempt duties on the import of assistive devices by the end of 1999", "Enact anti-discrimination law by the end of 2000", "Standardize national sign language by 2002", etc.

Another important feature is active participation of NGOs. The Regional NGO Network for the Promotion of AP Decade (RNN) was established in 1993 and has been enthusiastically organizing annual campaign meetings: 93 Japan, 94 Philippines, 95 Indonesia, 96 New Zealand, 97 Korea, 98 Hong Kong, 99 Malaysia....every year in different countries till the end of the Decade, 2002. RNN also held campaign contests, such as Decade's theme song, logo mark, and this year, poster design. Other NGOs such as Disabled People International(DPI), World Federation of the Deaf(WFD), World Blind Union(WBU), Rehabilitation International(RI) are also very active in this region as independent players as well as members of RNN.

The monitoring of SRs is somewhat research or survey oriented, while AAAP emphasizes "sharing experience and expertise". Compared with international level, distance is shorter in regional level between "headquarters" and countries as well as between countries, geographically and culturally. In the regional level it is easier to have "a fellow feeling", to hold a meeting and, in a word, to participate.

As a conclusion, international implementation of SRs and regional implementation of AAAP are not confronted with each other. They are not even two things. SRs shall be implemented through the pursuit of AAAP. Global and common guidelines should be and could be implemented regionally. This may be the most efficient way to achieve full implementation of SRs. Because participation is inevitable for implementation and is easily facilitated in regional level. This would also be the case for other UN regions.

Table 2: National Disability Index Value Rate of implementation of UN Standard Rules (Answers from 29 disability organizations of Japan in 1997)

ASIA & PACIFIC JOUNAL ON DISABILITY

Vol. 1, No. 2, March 1998

Published by the Asia and Pacific Regional Committee of Rehabilitation International (RI) and the Regional NGO Network (RNN)