CHAPTER I

OVERVIEW OF ACCESS LEGISLATION
IN THE ESCAP REGION ⁽¹⁾

A. Introduction

People with disabilities and elderly persons are two major disadvantaged social groups. According to United Nations estimates, the Asian and Pacific region has about 300 million people with disabilities. Likewise, demographic trends in the region indicate that due to increasing life expectancy, several developed countries have already experienced a phenomenal increase in an ageing population and the developing countries are on the threshold of facing the same.

During the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1983-1992), it was recognized that people with disabilities, particularly those in developing countries, were not considered as potentially contributing to the workforce for social and economic development. Similarly, the wisdom and skills of elderly persons also remained a neglected human resource.

All initial policies and programmes relating to persons with disabilities and elderly persons were based on the approach of institutionalization and passive community care which encouraged their dependence. Such policies and programmes also resulted in the creation of built environments full of barriers hindering persons with disabilities and elderly persons from participating in community life.

With the recognition of rights to full participation and equality of both these groups by the United Nations, there is a visible shift in the programmes and policies from institutionalization to integration, bringing persons with disabilities and the elderly into the mainstream of social life. In the case of people with disabilities, the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, advocated, inter alia, the realization of their full participation and equality in development. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) at its 48th session in April 1992 at Beijing adopted Resolution 48/3 declaring the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002, whereby the member and associate member governments of ESCAP reinforced their commitment to the full participation and equality of disabled persons.

Similarly, the right to independence, dignity, self-fulfilment and participation of elderly persons in society was fully recognized by the United Nations through General Assembly Resolution 46/91 of 16 December 1991 and titled Implementation of the International Plan of Action on Ageing and related activities".

A major concern of the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002 is the removal of all kinds of barriers in the built environment which prevent people with disabilities from participating fully in community life.

In view of the fact that disability increases with ageing as has been revealed from recent research published by the United Nations Statistical Office at New York, access issues are alike for both the groups in question. ESCAP, therefore, with a view to addressing this concern, undertook a project entitled The Promotion of Non-Handicapping Environments for Disabled and Elderly Persons in the Asia and Pacific Region. Recognizing the critical importance of legislative support to promote barrier-free environments, the Secretariat conducted a survey by questionnaire to obtain information on the following:

1. Access legislation;
2. The role of professional associations and bodies (architects, urban planners and rehabilitation personnel); and
3. The role of educational institutions in the promotion of non-handicapping environments.

The Secretariat despatched a total of 479 questionnaires to government agencies, non-governmental organizations, professional associations and bodies, and educational institutions in 29 ESCAP member and associate member countries and territories. In all, 121 responses were received from 21 countries and territories.

The Secretariat also convened an Expert Group Meeting on the Promotion of Non-Handicapping Environments at Bangkok from 6 to 10 June 1994. During the meeting, case-studies on six different topics were presented which contained valuable information.

The present paper is also designed to provide inputs for the formulation, implementation, enforcement and monitoring of access legislation by member and associate member Governments of the region.

This study is mainly based on the responses to the survey received by the Secretariat as well as the information provided in the previously-mentioned Expert Group Meeting.

B. The Current Accessibility Situation in the ESCAP Region

The ESCAP region is undergoing rapid economic change. The necessary consequence of such a change is rapid urbanization and industrialization. There is a great pressure on the civic amenities in urban areas due to the inward population migration.

The incorporation of access needs of people with disabilities and elderly persons in all development plans concerning distinct features of built environments is a comparatively new issue and, as such, has not figured as an area of priority attention in development plans at different levels. However, some countries in the region have made a modest beginning to improve access for people with disabilities and elderly persons to the built environment.

Two main trends may be discerned concerning the programmes and policies to provide for the access requirements of these social groups. One trend is the incorporation of access needs of persons with disabilities and the elderly in the whole built environment, while the other trend is the development of specialized areas and services to meet the requirements of the groups in question.

Countries like Australia, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Viet Nam exemplify the first trend, as these countries targeted their policies and legislation to improve accessibility in the whole built environment. In contrast to these countries, respondents from Japan reported that their access policy provisions and legislation are initially targeted at the development of designated cities and specialized services to suit the access needs of persons with disabilities and the elderly. In the beginning, ten cities were designated as model and safe cities for these disadvantaged groups. It was reported that these designated cities in Japan had developed around some important railway stations identified accessible areas for these persons. However, national-level access legislation has been enacted and is now in force in Japan for promoting access to public buildings and facilities.

The barriers for different disability groups varied greatly. Access concerns for persons with orthopaedic disabilities were in relation to physical and structural barriers. In the case of persons with sensory and/or intellectual disabilities, the concern related to barriers involving communication and information services. For example, persons with orthopaedic disabilities needed easy ingress to and egress from buildings, while persons with sensory and intellectual disabilities required audio-visual signs and tactile guide-blocks.

It is against this background that the accessibility situation in the ESCAP region is reviewed from the perspective of the following four main features of the built environment:

1. Buildings (all types, new and old, public and privately owned);
2. Public facilities (including educational, cultural, religious, and recreational facilities);
3. Roads and inland waterways; and
4. Transport systems, communication, and information.

1. Buildings

Respondents from 13 countries reported that building codes and access legislation in some form had been formulated in their countries to improve access for people with disabilities and elderly persons. These building codes and legislation had been instrumental in the provision of better access to new public buildings. In addition to Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Viet Nam had included minimum access requirements in public buildings that had been constructed after the adoption of appropriate building codes or access legislation. These improvements were mainly focused on the access requirements of people with orthopaedic disabilities. Regarding existing buildings, respondents from Singapore reported that currently the majority of existing public buildings were undergoing substantial renovation. Consequently, the access requirements of people with orthopaedic disabilities and elderly persons in these buildings had to be included in accordance with the relevant building regulations.

Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam reported that municipal service buildings were, to a great extent, barrier-free for those with orthopaedic disabilities, while law courts, police stations, post offices and libraries were, to some extent, barrier-free for the same disability group. Almost all the respondents reported that health care centres, clinics and hospitals were barrier-free in their respective countries and territories.

Shops and other commercial places were reported to be partially barrier-free in Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam.

Most of the respondents also indicated that adequate housing options were not available to persons with disabilities. In this regard, however, responses from Japan, Singapore and Viet Nam were comparatively encouraging.

2. Public facilities

A majority of respondents indicated that public places, such as sports facilities and camping grounds, were not barrier-free. With the exception of Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Viet Nam, persons with disabilities have limited access to banks and other financial institutions. Responses from Australia indicated that banks and financial institutions were providing statements of accounts in Braille to make them usable by persons with visual impairments.

Similarly, public telephones have not been installed in a manner usable by and convenient to the social groups in question. However, the situation in this regard was reported to be better for persons with orthopaedic disabilities in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam. In most cases, it was reported that public telephones had not been amplified for use by persons with hearing impairments. An exception was Japan, where it was reported that about 20 per cent of public telephones had been amplified.

3. Roads and inland waterways

From the responses received, it appeared that in much of the ESCAP region, efforts were yet to be made to improve the accessibility of roads and inland waterways. Most of the respondents indicated that accessibility to roads was generally uneven and did not meet the access requirements of the social groups in question. However, responses from Singapore and Australia in this respect were encouraging. It was reported that in Singapore, as a part of a massive ongoing project by the Public Works Department, footpaths and walkways in the central business district were being upgraded to remove barriers such as kerbs and steep ramps. Likewise, in Australia, footpaths, walkways were being adapted to suit the access requirements of people with disabilities.

Respondents from Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam reported that efforts had been made to provide adequate ramps for the use of people with orthopaedic disabilities and elderly persons. Similarly, only these respondents reported that sidewalks and footpaths or pavements could be negotiated easily and safely by wheelchair users while, to some extent, kerb cuts or dropped kerbs at road crossings were safe for persons with visual impairment as well as wheelchair users.

With the exception of Australia, respondents from all others countries reported that efforts to improve access to inland waterways were yet to be made. However, respondents from Australia reported that ferries had roll-on, roll-off ramps and hoists to improve access.

4. Transport systems, communications, and information

From the responses received, it appeared that efforts to provide for better accessibility for persons with disabilities in different means of transport were at the preliminary stages. Most of the respondents indicated that buses, trains and taxis were not generally barrier-free to persons with disabilities. The approach in this area was to develop specialized limited transport services for persons with disabilities. Australia was a fine example of such an approach where key railway stations were being made accessible with lifts, ramps, a tactile network of maps, clear signs and accessible phones. Public and private bus companies were currently replacing high-bodied buses with low bodied-buses.

In Japan, special buses were being operated for persons with disabilities on limited specified routes in the designated, safe and model cities for persons with disabilities. Efforts had also been initiated to provide for accessibility for persons with disabilities in some cars of identified trains.

Respondents from Hong Kong and Singapore reported that the introduction of London-type taxis made the travel of wheelchair users comparatively easier.

With respect to traffic signals, excepting Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and the Republic of Korea, where auditory traffic signals were reported to have been installed for the safety of visually-impaired pedestrians, it was indicated for the other countries and territories of the region that no efforts had yet been made to incorporate the access requirements of persons with disabilities and elderly persons in traffic regulations. In Australia, Hong Kong and Japan, visual signals, to some extent, had been installed as a part of a public information system for the benefit of hearing-impaired persons. Similarly, large and clear public signals had been provided for the benefit of people with intellectual disabilities.

Access to information was an area which had not yet been addressed. However, respondents from Australia indicated that a visually-impaired person could get information in Braille or on audio cassettes. Respondents from India indicated that special news bulletins on television were being telecast through sign language for the benefit of hearing-impaired persons.

C. The Status of Access Legislation

Almost all the constitutions of countries and territories in the Asian and Pacific region guaranteed their respective citizens equality of opportunity in matters of education, training, employment, rehabilitation and recreation, as well as the rights to equal access to public facilities. Similarly, freedom of movement and choice of residence was also guaranteed by the constitutions in the region.

The constitutions of some countries like India, Myanmar and Pakistan stipulated specific policies and programmes concerning people with disabilities and elderly persons to promote their integration into the society.

In order to remove barriers in the built environment which interfere in the enjoyment of these constitutional rights and other related freedoms by these social groups, respondents from the following countries and territories reported the existence of documents on accessibility which are either judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in character:

1. Australia: The Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which came into force in March, 1993, Australian Standard (AS 1428 and AS 1428.1 to 1428.4); AS 1428 Part 1, General Requirements for Access-Buildings must, by law be complied with for all new buildings, other than private residences, under the Building Code of Australia. Existing premises do not have to be made accessible until they are renovated, or have a change in use, at which time they are required to comply with AS 1428 Part.⁽²⁾ which was incorporated into current Building Code (B.C.83) of 1992.
2. Hong Kong: Rules and regulations, design guidelines, legislation.
3. India: Building codes.
4. Islamic Republic of Iran: Urban and architectural design criteria as approved by Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
5. Japan: The Fundamental Law for Disabled Persons (Law No. 84 of 1970 most recently amended through Law No. 94 of 1993). The Act on Buildings Accessible and Usable for the Elderly and Physically Disabled No. 44 of 1994 and its enforcement regulations, housing and infrastructure improvement aim at the promotion of healthy and fulfilling lifestyles, guidelines for the creation of living space based on citizens welfare and also local design guidelines for the improvement of access to the urban environment, in addition to supplementary local design guidelines for improvement of access to the urban environment.
6. Lao PDR: Codes of practice, rules and regulations, building codes, planning regulations, design guidelines and legislation.
7. Malaysia: Local-level access legislation through (a) Building (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Amendment) Laws of 1992, (b) Code of Practice for Access of Disabled People to Public Buildings approved by relevant statutory authority in July 1991, (c) Malaysian Standards for Access for Disabled People outside Buildings, approved by relevant statutory authorities.
8. New Zealand: Standards, rules and regulations, and building codes.
9. The People's Republic of China: the Law of the People's Republic of China for the Protection of Disabled Persons adopted on 28 December 1990, and the Design Code for the Accessibility of People with Disabilities to Urban Roads and Buildings.
10. The Philippines: National-level access legislation through "BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 344" (Act No. 344) and its implementing rules and regulations, which came into force on 25 February 1983 after receiving presidential approval.
11. The Republic of Korea: Disabled Persons Welfare Laws as well as standards for barrier-free facilities and building codes.
12. Singapore: National-level access legislation through Part 4 of Design and Construction Regulations 36.
13. Viet Nam: Building codes, legislation.

D. Access Legislation: Formulation, Scope, Implementation,
Enforcement and Evaluation

1. Formulation

Almost all the countries and territories in the region which had access legislation in any form, embarked on the enactment of such legislation after preparing access standards and design guidelines and allowing for their voluntary observance for a certain period. Similarly, all these countries and territories introduced access standards and access legislation on the basis of the identification of barriers in the built environment that precluded people with disabilities and elderly persons from fully participating in community life.

In spite of the these common features in the process of formulation among these region's countries and territories, the latter differed in their approach towards the formulation of related legislation. Some countries had opted for a separate approach by formulating access legislation distinct from existing relevant laws, by-laws, codes, rules and regulations. Countries and territories like China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam provided examples of such a separate approach in the formulation of their respective access legislation.

In contrast to these countries and territories, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore adopted an integrated approach in the formulation of their respective access legislation by incorporating access standards for disabled persons into relevant existing building regulations.

The countries and territories of the region also differed in the kind of information used and the agencies or groups involved in the process.

In the process of the formulation of its access legislation, Australia referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedom. All concerned agencies and NGOs working with people with disabilities were actively involved in this process. Australian access legislation aimed at prohibiting discrimination on the ground of disability and ensuring access to education, employment, public services and the participation of people with disabilities in all walks of life.

Similarly, the access legislation of Singapore was the result of a consultative process among professionals, involving the Ministry of National Development, particularly members and associates of the Singapore Institute of Architects, and disability groups under the Singapore Council of Social Services, as well as builders (through the Real Estate Owners Association). The unique feature of the development of access legislation in Singapore was the active participation of professionals, especially architects, under the aegis of the Singapore Institute of Architects. During this process, the Ministry of National Development constituted various committees to suggest measures for the promotion of barrier-free environments for people with disabilities and elderly persons. Based on the recommendations of these committees, the Ministry of National Development formulated design guidelines for disabled persons. Initially, these design guidelines were left for voluntary compliance but ultimately, due to slow progress in compliance, the Ministry, in consultation with the Singapore Council for Social Services, incorporated these design criteria into relevant existing building codes.

Malaysia had local-level legislation which gave local sanction to the above-mentioned Malaysian Standards and Code of Practice. In the process of its formulation, reference was made to Australian Access Standards 1428, British Standards and Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled Buildings (BS 5810) and an International Standardizations Organization publication relating to the needs of disabled people in building design guidelines. Adequate representation was given to the non-governmental organizations dealing with disabled people on technical sub-committees which were mainly responsible for developing standards.

In devising its access legislation, the Islamic Republic of Iran relied on the result of investigation and studies conducted by the Building and Housing Research Centre which is a government agency. This agency studied the problems faced by people with disabilities from an urban planning and architectural viewpoint. The design criteria for disabled persons were formulated on the basis of conclusions of the study. In this process, organizations of social welfare and the Foundation of War Disabled (Mostazafan and Janbazan Foundation) were also consulted.

In contrast to these countries, city governments in Japan were actively involved in the process of formulation of access legislation. Ten cities had been designated as model and safe cities for disabled people. Those city governments evolved their respective design guidelines for the disabled persons, deriving powers from the Fundamental Law of Japan. This process started with the aim of reviewing the pattern of social welfare services in the past and exploring new modes of such services. Respective design guidelines for barrier-free environments for disabled persons were formulated, based on consideration of the behaviour and activity patterns of disabled and elderly persons. Surveys of identified areas were used as a tool for developing design criteria for the disabled. Observation of these local design guidelines for some time culminated in the enactment of national-level access legislation in order to promote a barrier-free built environment in an uniform manner throughout the country.

Viet Nam reported that it involved political parties in the process of formulation of related legislation. Countries with a single party political system depended on party cadres to identify the access needs of people with disabilities and elderly persons.

China provided an example of active participation and involvement of persons with disabilities in the process of formulation of access legislation. The China Disabled Persons' Federation was actively associated with the work of devising access legislation and design codes.

Respondents from India indicated that a national-level access committee had been constituted to suggest measures for promoting barrier-free environments. One of the tasks of this committee was to advise the Government on the legislative measures. Adequate representation on this committee had been given to disabled individuals and organizations working with disabled persons, besides different government agencies.

Respondents from Japan also indicated that city governments of designated model cities for disabled persons had recommended the formulation of national-level access legislation to replace the different design guidelines formulated by these cities in order to have uniform patterns and standards. Subsequent to the survey, the Act on Buildings Accessible and Usable for the Elderly and Physically Disabled (Law No. 44 of 1994) was adopted as national law.

Respondents from Thailand reported that the process of formulating access legislation had already been initiated. It was indicated that national- level legislation was being evolved through active consultation with non-governmental organizations representing people with disabilities.

2. Scope

1. Application. The application of the access legislation outlined above in the ESCAP region is reviewed here with reference to the different features of the built environment.
   1. Buildings. This feature of the built environment had been the prime subject matter of all access legislation under review. All those countries and territories which had legal instruments on accessibility had the common feature of applying the legislation to buildings. However, existing access legislation cited in the survey responses applied to different types of buildings. While access legislation of Malaysia and Singapore applied to all types of buildings, including domestic buildings, legal instruments of other countries and territories applied to public buildings only.
      While legal instruments of all the countries and territories in question applied to all new buildings which were to be constructed after the enactment of respective legal instruments, countries and territories differed in the matter of application of their respective access legislation to the buildings in existence before such enactments. With the exception of Malaysia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the existing buildings in all other respondent countries and territories were required to be made accessible at the time of their renovation. However, in Malaysia, existing buildings were required to be made accessible in accordance with the access legislation within a period of three years from the date of its enactment. In the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the time within which and the extent to which the existing buildings were required to be modified had been left to the discretion of a commission appointed for monitoring the observance of the design criteria.
   2. Public Facilities. Access legislation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines included the access requirements of persons with disabilities to public facilities. All these legal instruments covered places of work, commercial complexes, places of public entertainment, cultural and religious buildings, public health care clinics, hospitals, hotels, hostels and sports complexes.
      In addition to these public facilities, the Japanese Fundamental Law for Disabled Persons includes the access of persons with disabilities to telecommunications and information services. Article 22 (3) of the relevant legislation required the state and local bodies to take the necessary measures to facilitate the use of telecommunications and broadcasting services by disabled persons and to improve facilities providing information for them.
   3. Roads and inland waterways. Necessary standards and design criteria with respect to footpaths, streets, overhangs, pedestrian bridges, road dividers and kerbs to promote accessibility to persons with disabilities has been incorporated into the legal instruments of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea.
   4. Transportation. The access legislation of the Philippines covered all means of land, water and air transport systems. Japanese local design guidelines on barrier-free environments covered only surface transport. The design criteria of the Islamic Republic of Iran stipulated that vehicles should be equipped with mechanical lifts to make them accessible to disabled persons. Further, a special section of the vehicles should also be allocated to disabled people.
2. Coverage. Countries and territories having access legislation in the region differed in the coverage of diverse disability groups. In most cases, access legislation was directed at giving legislative support to the access needs of people with orthopaedic disabilities only. However, the access legislation of Australia, China, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea provided for the access needs of all disability groups, i.e., the people with orthopaedic disabilities, sensory disabilities and intellectual disabilities.

3. Implementation

Since in most cases access legislation was applicable to buildings only, the ministry in charge of housing and public works and various authorities at different levels under it were responsible for the implementation of the access legislation.

However, for access legislation which was applicable to other features of the built environment, diverse ministries and authorities were responsible for implementing that legislation.

In the Philippines, the Ministry of Works and Highways and the Ministry of Transportation and Communication were responsible for the administration of its access legislation. Various agencies were designated to assist those ministries in implementing rules and regulations. The designated agencies included the Building Research Development, the Staff Bureau of Land Transportation, the Philippine National Railway and Light Rail Transit Authority, and the Bureau of Air Transportation. All the above mentioned agencies were responsible for the administration of the "BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 344."

With the exception of Australia, Japan and Viet Nam, personnel specially designated to promote access (e.g., access officers) were not provided for. In Australia, local-level access committees were formed for the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act and access standards.

Similarly, with the exception of Singapore and Japan, no effort had been made to create awareness about the access legislation.

In Singapore, the Singapore Council for Social Services, in collaboration with the Tourist Promotion Board, published a pamphlet called `Access Singapore' which was directed at giving advice on accessibility. In addition to this, the Singapore Institute of Architects also prepared an access manual for creating awareness about accessibility-related issues among professionals. Both of these documents contributed greatly to sensitizing the public at large about access concerns.

4. Enforcement

(a) General provisions

Countries and territories differed in the mechanisms that were established for enforcing access legislation. Some of the countries designated an enforcement authority distinct from the implementing authority, while others designated a common authority for implementation as well as enforcement.

Australia, the Philippines, and the Islamic Republic of Iran provided examples of having a separate mechanism for the enforcement of their respective access legislation.

The Australian Disability Discrimination Act has provision for a Disability Discrimination Commissioner who is responsible for enforcing the Act and who is empowered to investigate complaints regarding its non-observance. Similarly, the Philippines has entrusted the responsibility of enforcement of its respective access legislation to regular courts of law. The Islamic Republic of Iran has constituted a commission in its design criteria consisting of representatives of the Organization of Social Welfare, the Foundation of the War Damaged Disabled, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development charged with the responsibility of monitoring the observance of the design criteria.

Other countries and territories have designated a common authority for the implementation and enforcement of such legislation. For example, in Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Singapore, the authorities in building departments were responsible both for implementation and enforcement of respective access legislation.

Countries and territories also differed in the procedure of enforcement of their respective legal instruments. While those countries having an enforcement mechanism distinct from an implementation mechanism have stipulated separate procedures for enforcement, countries having a common implementation and enforcement mechanism did not stipulate different procedures for enforcement.

The countries and territories under review also differed in the strategy for ensuring observance of their respective legislation. The Philippines has made provisions for penalties and imprisonment in the event of breach of access legislation. Access legislation of Japan is a fine example of a combination of the incentive and disincentive approaches. On one hand, there are provisions in the legislation stipulating preferential treatment in the event of its voluntary observance, i.e., government funding, or additional floor area. On the other hand, there are provisions to punish any breach of the law by imposing fines. In the remaining cases, administrative actions like withholding permission to construct or occupy a constructed building, etc., has been envisaged.

Countries and territories also differed in the nature of their access legislation. While the access legislation of Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea was reported to be mandatory and enforceable, legislation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Singapore and Viet Nam was reported to be mandatory but not enforceable. The legal instruments of India and New Zealand were reported to be recommendatory only.

(b) Exemptions

Generally exemptions from the enforcement of access legislation were permissible on the basis of physical constraints imposed by the structure of existing buildings as also the historical significance of such buildings.

In addition, in Japan, some design guidelines have exempted buildings having area less than 1,000 sq m. Similarly, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all residential complexes having less than 1,000 sq m. area or having less than 10 units, have been exempted from providing vertical and horizontal circulation in public places for the use of disabled persons.

Malaysian local access legislation in Kuala Lumpur has exempted the detached, semi-detached, terrace or link or town house residential buildings from the purview of the Act. It has also exempted inspection, maintenance and repair areas of a building from the preview of Act.

5. Evaluation

The above-mentioned access standards, design criteria, building codes, rules and regulations and access legislation have undergone revision from time to time. However, in most cases, access legislation has not stipulated any time interval for evaluation nor the methodology and mechanism for evaluating the impact of the legal instruments in question. The Islamic Republic of Iran was an exception where the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development was obliged to review and revise the code requirements and adapt them to suit the identified access needs of people with disabilities every five years.

The criteria for reviewing the sufficiency of access legislation might include the qualitative elimination of barriers in different features of the built environment. In addition, new technological advances in the area of independent mobility and the use of communication and information services might also be another important factor for evaluation.

While Japan reviewed the efficiency of its local design guidelines on the basis of improvements in the accessibility of disabled persons in the built environment in identified areas, Singapore evaluated the sufficiency of its access legislation by keeping in view the quantitative improvement in the accessibility of disabled persons to buildings.

The methods employed for review included surveys (Japan), the appointment of access committees (Australia) and consultations with NGOs in disability field (Singapore).

In Australia, during a review conducted in 1988, it was found that many local authorities were not clear about access requirements and were not enforcing compliance. To remedy the situation, a National Access Awareness Campaign was launched with the aim of identifying and recognizing excellent or innovative access programmes. Further, an awards procedure was set up and the eligibility for awards was conditional on the establishment by local governments of access committees. After the 1988 review and subsequent launching of the campaign, over 200 local authorities out of a total of 900 established access committees.

In Japan, a recent review revealed that proper incentives for the observance of access legislation were required to be incorporated. It was also noted that a national level access standard in the form of national access legislation was essential to achieve uniformity of standards, better and effective implementation and enforcement. It was on the basis of this evaluation that the national-level access legislation was enacted in October 1994.

Generally, the responses to the ESCAP survey indicated that there has been an overall improvement in accessibility to buildings but much remained to be done with respect to other features of the built environment.

It was also found that there was a need for involvement of professionals (architects, urban planners, civil engineers and automobile engineers) in the formulation and implementation of access legislation.

E. Critical Appraisal of Access Legislation

The following conclusions emerged from a critical study of legal instruments described in the preceding section.

Countries and territories vary greatly in the participation of agencies and groups in the process of formulation of access legislation. Very few countries have involved both the professionals and disability groups in this process, resulting in a lack of objectivity and feasibility.

Almost all the countries and territories in the region under review have not yet made the access requirements of people with disabilities and elderly persons an integral part of development plans relating to different features of the built environment. Consequently, the access needs of the groups in question have not been reflected in the present and future urban and rural development projects. This has created a gap between access legislation and relevant guiding policies with regard to the built environment.

Very few countries have established linkages of access legislation with existing relevant laws, by-laws, ordinances and codes. Even those countries which have incorporated access legislation into existing relevant laws have not also established proper linkages between the part of such legislation concerning the access of people with disabilities and the other parts.

While formulating access legislation, the access needs of all disability groups have not been incorporated. Generally, access needs of orthopaedically disabled only have been addressed in such legislation. The access needs of other disability groups are not adequately addressed, even in such access legislation as has covered these disability groups as well.

Most of the access legislation identified in the ESCAP survey applied to buildings only. Access legislation which applied to other features of the built environment in addition to buildings did not deal with all aspects of these areas adequately. Further, the provisions of such legislation could also not establish linkages with relevant legislation in these areas.

In most cases, implementation of access legislation was the responsibility of building authorities. These authorities were not assisted by specially trained staff for the purpose.

Another major unresolved issue regarding the implementation of access legislation was procedural strategy. No access legislation in the ESCAP survey either had modified its application format for obtaining permission to construct new buildings so as to obtain information on accessibility or had modified the relevant procedures in this respect.

The implementation of access legislation has also not been backed up with required human and material resources. No access legislation under study has made it mandatory for the officials involved in the implementation process to obtain training on accessibility. Similarly, no separate financial allocations have been made to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of access legislation.

The weakest aspect of the access legislation under review is the enforcement mechanism and procedures. In the case of most of the ESCAP survey respondents, implementing and enforcing authorities are one and the same (i.e., the administrative authorities). The enforcement of such legislation is weak. Very few countries and territories have identified regular courts of law as the main enforcement mechanism for their respective access legislation.

In most cases there has been no provision either for preferential treatment for voluntary observance of such legislation, or punitive action in the event of any breach. With the exception of Japan, there is no legal provision for declaration of non-observance as a `civil wrong', which would entitle the affected party to compensation.

Similarly, apart from the access legislation of Japan and the Philippines, no other legislation attracted criminal liability in case of the breach of its provisions.

Generally, all existing relevant legislation with respect to different features of built environment were quasi-judicial in nature. As such, the access legislation under review depended for its implementation and enforcement on the respective administrative authorities. Persons with disabilities and their organizations were not generally entitled to initiate action for implementation and enforcement of such legislation. This has adversely affected the impact of such legislation.

Except in the case of one piece of access legislation, no legal instrument under review has incorporated criteria, mechanisms and a period for evaluation of the legislation. Since access legislation in most of the countries and territories in the region is in the process of being evolved and adapted, it is of prime importance to develop adequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and procedures.

New scientific and architectural innovations would continue to influence the formulation, implementation and adaptation of access legislation. The development of access legislation is a continuous process and the present study reveals that a slow but steady beginning had been made by the countries in the ESCAP region by taking positive steps to embark on the long-term process of improving accessibility to persons with disabilities and elderly persons through legislative support.

F. Promoting Access Legislation in the ESCAP Region -
Proposals for Action

ESCAP could assist member and associate member countries in the region to devise and strengthen their access legislation in the following ways:

1. The present study has identified the area of exchange of information on access legislation among the countries and territories of the region as one of a prime importance. The ESCAP project, the Promotion of Non-Handicapping Environments, under which the present review has been prepared, is a significant step in this direction.
2. Another area is the facilitation of technical cooperation among the developing countries (TCDC) on the formulation, implementation, enforcement, evaluation and updating of access legislation. As the present survey has indicated that some countries have developed innovative strategies in this area, such countries could assist other countries and territories in the region suitably to adapt these strategies to their own legislative framework.
3. Yet another area is the promotion of ongoing research on various legal and architectural issues concerning access legislation. ESCAP could consider collaboration with concerned institutions working in these areas. The results of such research would be useful not only for these countries and territories associated with the research but for all other countries and territories in the region as well.
4. Lastly, the promotion of linkages between access policy and legislation and basic urban and rural development planning and regulations is also a potential area for the contributions of ESCAP. Through inter-divisional collaboration involving the Social Development Division, the ESCAP-UNCHS Joint Section on Human Settlements, Rural and Urban Development Division, and the Transport, Communications and Tourism Division, ESCAP could endeavour to integrate the access needs of the social groups in question into regional and national development plans.

1. Based on a paper by Santosh K. Rungta, General Secretary, National Federation of the Blind, New Delhi, India, with inputs from the Secretariat.

2. Based on Communication from Mr. Richard Pratt, Disability Access Adviser, Department for Building Management, South Australia.

Go back to the Contents

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Promotion of Non-Handicapping Physical Environments for Disabled Persons: Case Studies
- Chapter 1 -

UNITED NATIONS
New York, 1995