virtual environment

EU Ratification of UN Disability Convention – EFC Legal Study

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-02-05:  Further to my post, dated 15 January 2011 …

Many people directly or indirectly involved with Disability-Related Issues in Europe … may not yet know that, a few weeks ago, the European Union ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).  They may not even know that their own country, as a Member State of the European Union, had perhaps already ratified the UN Convention one or two years earlier.

At this time, the majority of Member States have proceeded, voluntarily, to ratify the Convention … with some of those, inexplicably, declining/refusing to ratify the Convention’s Optional Protocol.

Human & Social Rights can be a difficult subject area !

Ireland has not ratified the UN Convention … and, unfortunately, the attitude of many policy-makers and decision-makers within our Irish Institutions of State, large and small, is that it’s business as usual … no need to worry or fuss, or give a damn … until this country does actually sign on the Convention’s bottom line … an attitude which displays a magnificent ignorance of the changed reality, post Lisbon Treaty, which is the European Union’s Current Legal Environment !!

Please examine carefully, for yourselves, the findings of this Legal Study, recently approved for publication by the European Commission …

European Foundation Centre (EFC)

Brussels, October 2010

Study on Challenges and Good Practices in the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (1.46 Mb)

.

EU RATIFICATION OF THE UN CRPD – ASPECTS OF EU LAW

The following are selected extracts from the EFC Study … my selection (!) … to answer specific issues relating to UN CRPD Implementation within the European Union.  Typographical errors in the Study have also been corrected … and, post Lisbon Treaty, references to the EU Treaties have been properly updated …

The legal basis for the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) signals the appropriate legal basis for its implementation within the European Union (EU).  In this respect, and in line with Article 4 of the UN Convention, implementation implies that instruments may be adopted or modified by the Union in order to comply with the Convention and give effect to its provisions and principles.  Although the choice of the legal basis for the decision concluding an international agreement is very important, it is not decisive for implementation.  In European Court of Justice Case C-178/0345, which concerned the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on International Trade in Hazardous Chemicals, the Court stated that ” the fact that one or more provisions of the Treaty have been chosen as legal bases for the approval of an international agreement is not sufficient to show that those same provisions must also be used as legal bases for the adoption of measures intended to implement that agreement at Community level “.   The latter statement means that EU Treaty provisions other than those mentioned in EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC to conclude the UN CRPD can be used as legal bases to implement UN CRPD obligations in specific fields.

.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) is an international human rights agreement where both the European Union (EU) and its Member States are contracting parties.  The UN Convention is thus a Mixed Agreement.  Mixed Agreements involve a Shared Contractual Relationship between the EU, its Member States and one or more third countries and/or international organisations.  As a Mixed Agreement, the UN CRPD covers fields that fall in part within the competence of the EU, in part within that of the Member States and in part within the shared competence of the EU and its Member States.  It is therefore essential for the EU and the Member States to closely co-operate, in order to implement legislation stemming from the Convention in a coherent manner and ensure unity in the international representation of the Union.

EU Member States, when participating in Mixed Agreements, do not act as entirely autonomous subjects of international law; they are subject to a Duty of Loyal Co-Operation between one another and the EU.  This duty extends to each of the negotiation, conclusion and implementation phases.  In this sense, there is a collective management of the obligations under international law.  The duty of loyal co-operation, deriving from Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), embraces two sets of obligations: first, Member States shall take appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the EU Institutions;  and second: Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives … which are set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Treaty on European Union (TEU) – Consolidated Version, as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon

Article 4.3

Pursuant to the principle of sincere mutual co-operation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.

.

In relation to EU Member States‘ Compliance with a Mixed Agreement concluded by the EU … the European Court of Justice has inferred that for matters falling within EU competence … the Member States fulfil, within the EU system, an obligation in relation to the Union which has assumed responsibility for due performance of the agreement.  In other words, if a Member State fails to take all appropriate measures to implement provisions of the Mixed Agreement that fall within the competence of the EU … it not only fails to fulfil its international obligation, but is also acting in breach of EU Law.  The European Commission may thus bring an infringement case against a Member State that has not properly fulfilled its duty.  The principle underpinning such mechanisms is the ‘duty of loyal co-operation’, which provides the foundation for managing shared competence within Mixed Agreements.

The line dividing international responsibility for implementation of the International Mixed Agreement between the EU and its Member States depends on the obligations respectively assumed.  The UN CRPD contains a clause setting out ‘separate’ responsibility.  According to Article 44.1, Regional Integration Organisations acceding to the Convention shall declare, in their instruments of formal confirmation or accession, the extent of their competence.  This division of responsibility for implementation implies that the European Union only bears responsibility for the breach of those obligations it has assumed.

EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC on the conclusion of the UN CRPD refers to EU competence in respect of those matters governed by the UN CRPD, and lists EU Instruments which demonstrate such competence.

.

STRUCTURE OF THE EFC REPORT

The main objective of the Study was to analyse the obligations set out in the UN CRPD and, in particular, to gather information about the various practices of the EU Member States and the European Union in implementing the UN CRPD.

The work was carried out by the European Foundation Centre (EFC), representing the European Consortium of Foundations on Human Rights and Disability … under Contract No. VC/2008/1214 … for the European Commission‘s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion.

Section 1 of this Report sets the appropriate background for the analysis that will follow.

Section 2 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of the social model of disability, and core obligations deriving from Article 1 and Preamble Paragraph (e) of the UN CRPD.

Section 3 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of Article 3 (General Principles), Article 4 (General Obligations), Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination), and Article 9 (Accessibility) of the UN CRPD.  The section also reviews UN CRPD articles on Inter-Sectionality, namely Articles 6 (Women with Disabilities) and Article 7 (Children with Disabilities).  It is worth noting that the articles addressed in this section are articles of general and crosscutting application, and therefore their application is relevant for the implementation of all articles of the Convention.

Section 4 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of selected substantive provisions of the UN CRPD which apply existing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights within the context of disability.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Articles 16 (Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse) and 17 (Protecting the Integrity of the Person), which are seeking to assert protections that underscore the humanity of all persons with disabilities.  The section also considers the implementation of Articles 12 (Equal Recognition before the Law) and 19 (Living Independently and Being Included in the Community), both of which aim at maintaining and safeguarding the autonomy of the person.  Furthermore, articles on specific accessibility rights, namely Article 13 (Access to Justice) and Article 29 (Participation in Political and Public Life), are likewise addressed.  Finally, the section considers the implementation of Articles 24 (Education) and 27 (Work and Employment).

Section 5 of the Report contains an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of articles which outline steps that are necessary to support reforms.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Article 31 (Statistics and Data Collection), Article 32 (International Co-Operation), and Article 33 (National Implementation and Monitoring).

Section 6 of the Report suggests good practices for the EU and national policy-makers for the future and overall implementation of the Convention, and the effective achievement of its objectives.

It is worth noting that, while it is hard to be definitive, given that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is still in its infancy and has yet to pronounce on the obligations of the UN CRPD … it is nevertheless possible on the basis of the general principles of the Convention and interpretative tools, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to identify illustrative challenges to the implementation of the UN CRPD.  For the purposes of this Study, the review of EU and Member States policies and legal instruments is based on the analysis of the UN CRPD and checklists that were produced from this Study to measure progress.

Finally, for the purposes of the Study, a challenge is defined as a ‘difficulty’ posed by existing national or EU practice which may potentially hamper the full and effective implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU Member States and/or the European Union.  In order to meet such challenges, it will be necessary, inter alia, for the EU (as appropriate) and/or its Member States to review legislation and/or policy with a view to full compliance.  On the other hand, a practice is defined as good if it fulfils certain requirements of the Convention or mainstreams the general principles, consistent with Article 3 of the UN CRPD, and has an awareness-raising impact.

.

.

END

EU Accessibility & Ratification of UN Disability Rights Convention

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-01-15:  Recently, I was waiting … and waiting … for the first mention of this important news to pop up on any of the European Disability Networks … the Formal Ratification by the European Union (EU) of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … on 23 December 2010 last.

History in the making !!

This U.N. Convention was adopted on 13 December 2006 (2006-12-13), at the United Nations Headquarters in New York … and was opened for signature on 30 March 2007.  It entered into force, i.e. became an International Legal Instrument, on 3 May 2008 (2008-05-03).  A copy of the Convention can be downloaded, here, on this Site … in my post, dated 31 October 2009.

Finally, on Monday 10 January 2011 … via ICTA-Europe, EDeAN, and the EU Press Release below … it was announced …

EU Press Release IP/11/4 – Brussels, 5 January 2011

EU Ratifies UN Convention on Disability Rights

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (25kb)

So much for instant communication in our much-vaunted Information / Knowledge / Smart Society !!

.

Ordinarily, this news would be nothing to get excited about.

BUT … since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 January 2009 … the European Union now has a legal personality all of its own, separate from those of the individual EU Member States.  See Article 47 in Title VI – Final Provisions – of the Treaty on European Union (consolidated version).

This is the first time that the EU has become a party to an international treaty.

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is now part of the European Union’s Acquis Communautaire, i.e. the extensive body of EU Law.

.

The consequential impacts flowing, therefore, from the EU’s Ratification of the U.N. Convention … at both European and Member State (National) levels … will be very, very interesting to observe during the immediate short term.  [A note of caution … be patient, and allow for a short period of ‘bedding-in’ at the start.  See below.]

The European Commission, for example, must now take full account of the Convention in the drafting and implementation of any new legislation, policies and programmes … in fact, all of its activities.

The European Court of Justice must also take full account of the Convention in all of its work.

This will, inevitably, heavily influence what is … or is not … happening with regard to social and other policies at national level in the Member States.  Many Member States (16) have already ratified the Convention … and more power to them !   BUT among these 16 … the Czech Republic and Denmark have not yet ratified the UN Convention’s Optional Protocol … how strange … and unacceptable !!

Some Member States … and I am thinking specifically of Ireland … will have to be dragged, screaming, to the point of ratification.  And even when that position has been reached … proper implementation will always be an issue.  Just consider, for a moment, Ireland’s uncaring and ham-fisted approach to implementation of the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child … which it did actually ratify way back on 28 September 1992 !   See my post, dated 30 November 2009.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – A Harmonized EU Understanding !

As far as the European Union must now be concerned … and all of the EU Member States … Preamble Paragraph (g) and Articles 9, 10 & 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – form the basis of a harmonized understanding for Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ … which includes the Built Environment, the Social Environment, the Economic Environment, and the Virtual Environment … concepts which I have defined, here, many times before.

Preamble Paragraph (g)

Emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development,

Article 9 – Accessibility

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

     (a)  Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces ;

     (b)  Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

     (a)  To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public ;

     (b)  To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities ;

     (c)  To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities ;

     (d)  To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms ;

     (e)  To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public ;

     (f)  To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information ;

     (g)  To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet ;

     (h)  To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

Article 10 – Right to Life

States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

[My Note: An outbreak of fire in a building would be a situation of serious risk.]

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – Competent & Effective EU Implementation !

Within the European Union as a whole, because it is a party to the Convention in its own right … and also within the individual EU Member States … Articles 31 & 33 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – mandate that implementation is taken seriously … that it is competent and effective … and, most importantly, that independent monitoring and verification is a fundamental part of the process.

Article 31 – Statistics & Data Collection

1.  States Parties undertake to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the present Convention.  The process of collecting and maintaining this information shall:

     (a)  Comply with legally established safeguards, including legislation on data protection, to ensure confidentiality and respect for the privacy of persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Comply with internationally accepted norms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and ethical principles in the collection and use of statistics.

2.  The information collected in accordance with this article shall be disaggregated, as appropriate, and used to help assess the implementation of States Parties’ obligations under the present Convention and to identify and address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their rights.

3.  States Parties shall assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others.

Article 32 – International Co-Operation

1.  States Parties recognize the importance of international co-operation and its promotion, in support of national efforts for the realization of the purpose and objectives of the present Convention, and will undertake appropriate and effective measures in this regard, between and among States and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society, in particular organizations of persons with disabilities.  Such measures could include, inter alia:

     (a)  Ensuring that international co-operation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Facilitating and supporting capacity-building, including through the exchange and sharing of information, experiences, training programmes and best practices ;

     (c)  Facilitating co-operation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge ;

     (d)  Providing, as appropriate, technical and economic assistance, including by facilitating access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, and through the transfer of technologies.

2.  The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the obligations of each State Party to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention.

Article 33 – National Implementation & Monitoring

1.  States Parties, in accordance with their system of organization, shall designate one or more focal points within government for matters relating to the implementation of the present Convention, and shall give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a co-ordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels.

2.  States Parties shall, in accordance with their legal and administrative systems, maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including one or more independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.  When designating or establishing such a mechanism, States Parties shall take into account the principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights.

3.  Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.

.

The European Union’s Disability Strategy 2010-2020 [COM(2010) 636 final]

The general approach to, and the quality of, Accessibility Implementation in Europe … when compared, for example, with Japan … is pathetically inadequate.

It is quite amazing, therefore, that the texts which deal with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ in the EU’s Disability Strategy Document 2010-2020 … are weak and far too vague … basically, meaningless claptrap drafted by desk jockeys / ‘suits who do not know’ !   We did not achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2010 (see below) … do you see it ??   And … at the current rate of progress, neither will we achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2020 !

The European Union’s Accessibility Strategy, related Policies and Programmes … and the monitoring, targeting and independent verification of Accessibility Implementation … all require a radical overhaul !

All those Officials in the European Commission who are involved, in any way, shape or form, with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ would do well to RE-READ AND MEDITATE DEEPLY on the contents of the 2003 Final Report from the Group of Accessibility Experts, which was established by the European Commission itself …

EU 2003 (EYPD) Expert Group on Accessibility

October 2003

2010: A Europe Accessible For All

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (294kb)

I was a Member of that Expert Group !

.

AND SOME WIDER CONCERNS …

1.  The European Union HAS NOT RATIFIED the UN Disability Rights Convention’s Optional Protocol.  If the Union is so Open and Transparent … and so committed to Human and Social Rights for All EU Citizens … somebody, somewhere, has to scream out loud “Why is the EU Not Ratifying this Optional Protocol ???”.   And … we demand an honest answer !!!

Optional Protocol – Article 1

1.  A State Party to the present Protocol (‘State Party’) recognizes the competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Committee’) to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

2.  No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention that is not a party to the present Protocol.

2.  The EU Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Above, I talked about a short period of ‘bedding-in’.   BUT … get your teeth into the ‘meat’ of this document … which indicates that it might be a much longer and more difficult process !?!

Official Journal of the European Union (15 December 2010) – 2010/C 340/08

EU Council – UN Disability Rights Convention – 2010 Internal Code of Conduct

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (729kb)

3.  At EU Council … How Important is this Issue Considered ?   In the 37 Page Report on the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting, which was held in Brussels from 2-3 December 2010 … the adoption of the above Internal Code of Conduct rated just a very brief mention on the last page.  It was not mentioned, at all, among the Main Results of the Meeting !

4.  Will Disability Networks, at both European and Member State (National) levels, have the stamina … and be sufficiently competent and focused … to rigorously monitor European Union Implementation of the UN Disability Rights Convention ??   And … will these Networks be courageous in challenging the EU Institutions … if Implementation is found to be Inadequate ???   I’m not so sure !

.

.

END

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – Acceptable Accessibility ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

A few weeks ago … in a post dated 20 October 2010 … Japan in April & May 2010 – Accessibility-for-All ! … I discussed some of the many aspects which, together, facilitate a high level of quality in ‘real’, or actually realized, Built Environment Accessibility Performance in Japan … and I illustrated that quality with a number of photographs.

In time, I will add more photographs from my valuable ‘Accessibility in Japan’ Collection !

Note:  Built Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, roads, bridges, tunnels, transport systems, service utilities, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, seas, etc. … including the Virtual Environment.

Note:  Social Environment … The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

Note:  Virtual Environment … A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the Built Environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

However … many of these aspects are missing in European Approaches to Accessibility-for-All … and, typically, the level of Accessibility Performance which we are used to experiencing, and accepting, is inadequate, sloppy, poor … and to be direct and honest … BRUTAL !!

.

As far back as 2001 … in an Introduction to a Page on our Corporate WebSite illustrating the Inaccessibility of European Union Institutional Buildings … specifically, the European Parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg … I wrote …

‘ Many times each year, our work takes us to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.

In spite of all the rhetoric from European politicians, and the extensive body of European legislation actually in force at national and regional levels in every Member State … the inaccessibility of Institutional Buildings is shockingly and unacceptably bad … in some cases, dangerously so !

Yet, these buildings should represent, in built form, the ideals, values and aspirations of the peoples of Europe – as expressed in the EU Treaties.

What a bitter disappointment ! ‘

.

Today … France, in particular, continues to be a depressing experience … where Talk is far, far too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance is still all too rare !!

Last Thursday, 25 November 2010 … I attended a Paris Meeting of the Editorial Team for the CIB W108 Report: ‘Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in the Built Environment’.  My airline flights from Dublin brought me in and out through Terminal 1 of Roissy Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport in Paris.

A spanking new automatically operated Métro (shuttle) … CDGVAL … connects Terminals 1, 2 & 3, various Multi-Storey Car Parks and Train Stations within the Airport Complex …

Colour image showing the Airport Complex Plan of Roissy Charles De Gaulle in Paris. Note the New CDGVAL Métro ... an important interconnecting transportation system. Click to enlarge.
Colour image showing the Airport Complex Plan of Roissy Charles De Gaulle in Paris. Note the New CDGVAL Métro ... an important interconnecting transportation system. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. Yet another magnificent example of Sloppy French Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. Yet another magnificent example of Sloppy French Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.

.

IF … you search hard enough on the CDG Airport WebSite, you will find these three highlighted short sentences under content with the title ‘Personne à Mobilité Réduite’ … total rubbish and complete bullshit when you actually see the airport’s buildings and many facilities.  And … as usual, in French, the disability-related terminology is evil … and sucks !

‘Aéroports de Paris assure l’assistance des passagers handicapés et à mobilité réduite dés leur arrivée, et tout au long de leur parcours dans le terminal.

Aéroports de Paris a depuis longtemps entamé une démarche d’équipement et d’adaptation de ses terminaux pour faciliter les déplacements de tous.

Aujourd’hui, les problématiques d’accessibilités sont systématiquement prises en compte dans l’aménagement de nos infrastructures.’

Colour photograph showing the Door Threshold Detail of the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. In totally new construction ... an unacceptably huge difference between platform height and the shuttle's floor ! This is also now a trip hazard for everyone !! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing the Door Threshold Detail of the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. In totally new construction ... an unacceptably huge difference between platform height and the shuttle's floor ! This is also now a trip hazard for everyone !! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.

.

Why is this relevant for us now … here in Ireland ?

The new scheme of Disability Access Certification, closely modelled on the existing highly problematic scheme of Fire Safety Certification … is undergoing a normal, introductory ‘teething’ process within this jurisdiction … and many questions about interpretation of the law and its operation are being asked.

Important Clarification:  The Guidance Text contained in Technical Guidance Document M … is not Law … is not Prescriptive Regulation … is not ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ … and … because the guidance is so incomplete, incoherent and inadequate … does not even indicate Minimum Accessibility Performance !

Part M Functional Requirements – Access for People with Disabilities     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations, 2000 – Statutory Instrument No.179 of 2000

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made to enable people with disabilities to safely and independently access and use a building.

Sanitary Conveniences     M2     If sanitary conveniences are provided in a building, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Audience or Spectator Facilities     M3     If a building contains fixed seating for audience or spectators, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Definition for This Part     M4     In this Part, ‘people with disabilities’ means people who have an impairment of hearing or sight or an impairment which limits their ability to walk, or which restricts them to a wheelchair.

Application of This Part     M5     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and the material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create a new dwelling.

.

Today in Ireland … Talk IS too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance IS almost non-existent !!!   Yes … and that even includes the work of those mighty superheroes in the Office of Public Works (OPW).

Furthermore … the big fun will really start when the New Part M Requirements come into operation on 1 January 2012 … and we will enter a surreal Alice’s Wonderland of Accessibility Ambiguity …

Part M Functional Requirements – Access and Use     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Part M Amendment) Regulations, 2010 – Statutory Instrument No.513 of 2010

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and use a building, its facilities and its environs.

Application of The Part     M2     Adequate provision shall be made for people to approach and access an extension to a building.

M3     If sanitary facilities are provided in a building that is to be extended, adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided for people within the extension.

M4     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create anew dwelling.

.

.

END

EU Sustainable vs. Green Public Procurement – Beware !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-11-02:  For a long, long time … too long … I have been bleating on about the major and substantial difference between Sustainable Design and Green Design … or ‘Sustainability’ and ‘Green-ness’.  See my previous Posts.

This bores me no end !

HOWEVER … there are some serious implications if this difference is not properly understood … particularly by individuals, groups or organizations attempting to advance the Application of Criteria which address Social and/or Ethical Concerns within, for example, the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework … or the EU’s Construction Product Framework.

The following is a nice little example of exactly what I am talking about … explained by no less an authority than the Directorate General for Environment in the European Commission itself … on its very own Public Procurement WebPage at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm … as viewed, by me, on 2010-09-12 …

[ For a moment, let’s just overlook the simplistic and crude ‘three pillars’ understanding of Sustainable Development.  See my previous Posts.]

Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) … means that public authorities seek to achieve the appropriate balance between the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – when procuring goods, services or works at all stages of the project.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) … means that public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured.

Practical Differences Between SPP & GPP !

GPP is often more easily accommodated than SPP within the existing legal and practical framework of procurement.  Green requirements can be included in technical or performance-based specifications for products, services and works.  Provided the conditions set out in the ‘Helsinki Bus’ and ‘Wienstrom’ Cases, and Evropaïki Dynamiki vs. European Environment Agency (EEA) … are met, green award criteria can also be applied (further information on these cases is available at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/case_law_en.htm).

The application of Criteria aimed at addressing Social or Ethical Concerns can be more difficult in the context of regulated public procurement procedures.  Public authorities are specifically empowered to include social requirements in their conditions for the performance of contracts or to reserve certain contracts for performance by sheltered workshops or employment programmes (Articles 26 and 19 of Directive 2004/18/EC respectively).

.

My Note:  DIRECTIVE 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

[ For another moment, let’s just overlook the unfortunate use of disability-related language … which fails, utterly, to take account of the 2001 World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF).  See my previous Posts.]

Article 19 – Reserved Contracts

Member States may reserve the right to participate in public contract award procedures to sheltered workshops or provide for such contracts to be performed in the context of sheltered employment programmes where most of the employees concerned are handicapped persons who, by reason of the nature or the seriousness of their disabilities, cannot carry on occupations under normal conditions.

The contract notice shall make reference to this provision.

Article 26 – Conditions for Performance of Contracts

Contracting authorities may lay down special conditions relating to the performance of a contract, provided that these are compatible with Community law and are indicated in the contract notice or in the specifications.  The conditions governing the performance of a contract may, in particular, concern social and environmental considerations.

ANNEX VI – Definition of Certain Technical Specifications

For the purposes of this Directive:

1. (a)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public works contracts, means the totality of the technical prescriptions contained in particular in the tender documents, defining the characteristics required of a material, product or supply, which permits a material, a product or a supply to be described in a manner such that it fulfils the use for which it is intended by the contracting authority.  These characteristics shall include levels of environmental performance, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, safety or dimensions, including the procedures concerning quality assurance, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling and production processes and methods.  They shall also include rules relating to design and costing, the test, inspection and acceptance conditions for works and methods or techniques of construction and all other technical conditions which the contracting authority is in a position to prescribe, under general or specific regulations, in relation to the finished works and to the materials or parts which they involve ;

    (b)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public supply or service contracts, means a specification in a document defining the required characteristics of a product or a service, such as quality levels, environmental performance levels, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, use of the product, safety or dimensions, including requirements relevant to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling, user instructions, production processes and methods and conformity assessment procedures ;

2.  ‘standard’ means a technical specification approved by a recognised standardising body for repeated or continuous application, compliance with which is not compulsory and which falls into one of the following categories:

–  International Standard: a standard adopted by an international standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

–  European Standard: a standard adopted by a European standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

–  National Standard: a standard adopted by a national standards organisation and made available to the general public.

.

In order for a Criterion … any Criterion … to be acceptable within the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework, it should be expressly linked to the subject matter of the Contract … should be specific … and should be capable of objective verification.

Beware !!

.

.

END

Japan in April and May 2010 … Accessibility-for-All !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2010-10-20:  In Europe … we are experts at talking about an Accessible Built Environment … and hopeless when it comes to effective implementation …

Built Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, roads, bridges, tunnels, transport systems, service utilities, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, seas, etc. … including the Virtual Environment.

Virtual Environment:  A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the Built Environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

However, I would like to share not just one single moment in Japan, but a Series of Special Moments … where I was observing and studying, up close and personal, the ‘real’ implementation of Accessibility-for-All in Public Places … including some discrete detailing at the Main Gate to Kanazawa Castle … Ishikawa-mon.

When I say Accessibility-for-All … I mean Accessibility Design, with all of the rambling philosophical bullshit removed.  The emphasis can then properly be placed on a high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance provided for users of the built environment … all users, because many of the details shown in the photographs below make movement in and around public places safer and more convenient for everybody.

Some of the many Aspects in Japan which, together, facilitate this high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance …

  • A robust legal base mandating the provision of Accessibility-for-All ;
  • Determined political will ;
  • Sufficient financial resources ;
  • A compassionate and understanding bureaucracy – at all levels in society ;
  • Competence, i.e. education, training and experience, of spatial planners, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, etc … and members of construction organizations ;
  • Innovative, well-designed accessibility-related products which can be shown to be ‘fit for their intended use’.

The following European Guideline Framework … which I drafted in 2003, and later incorporated into the 2004 Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Sustainable Social Development, Disability & Ageing … is useful …

C.J. Walsh

Guideline Framework on EU Equal Opportunity & Social Inclusion for All

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (82kb)

.

Much of the Accessibility Detailing in Japan far exceeds, in quality of performance, what is described in the Proposed International Standards Organization (ISO) Accessibility-for-All Standard … to be published, hopefully(!), in 2011 … and here is a small taste …

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

It is important to link one activity/task/function with the next … (please ignore the awkward step up at the entrance to the train carriage … instead, look at the wonderful entrance detail in the next photograph below) …

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Nara, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-23. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Nara, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-23. Click to enlarge.

.

What a beauty !

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-24. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kyoto, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-24. Click to enlarge.

.

Common everywhere … a closer look at the information which can very easily be provided on all handrails …

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Osafune, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-21. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Osafune, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-21. Click to enlarge.

.

The Main Gate to Kanazawa Castle … Ishikawa-mon …

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kanazawa, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kanazawa, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kanazawa, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing Accessibility-for-All in Kanazawa, Japan. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-04-27. Click to enlarge.

.

.

END

ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Flawed ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

International Guidance Document … ISO/IEC Guide 71 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities was issued in November 2001.

European Guidance Document … CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities … a similar document … was issued a little later, in January 2002.

These Guides provide basic guidance to people drafting International & European Standards on how to take into account the needs of people with activity limitations, particularly older persons and people with disabilities.  While recognizing that some people with very extensive and complex impairments may have requirements beyond the level addressed in these documents, a very large number of people have minor impairments which can easily be addressed with a very small change of approach by people writing the Standards.  Typically, the problem is solely a lack of awareness.

Unfortunately, few Standards Developers … in either organization … are paying the slightest bit of attention to these Guides.

People with Activity Limitations:  Those people, of all ages, who are unable to perform, independently and without aid, basic human activities or tasks – because of a health condition or physical/mental/cognitive/psychological impairment of a permanent or temporary nature.

.

1.  A full six months before the appearance of ISO/IEC Guide 71 … all of the 191 Member States of the World Health Organization endorsed, and officially adopted, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF) on 22nd May 2001 … which replaced the earlier International Classification of Impairment, Disability & Handicap (ICIDH), dating from 1980.

While the previous health indicators had been based on the mortality (i.e. death) rates of populations … the new 2001 WHO ICF dramatically shifted the focus to ‘life’ and ‘living’ … in other words, how everyone is living with his/her health condition(s) and how improvements can be made to ensure a productive, fulfilling life in society.

This had important implications for medical practice; for legal, social, economic, institutional, design and spatial planning policies to improve accessibility, equal opportunity for all and inclusion; and for the protection of the rights of all individuals and groups.

Of special interest for people involved in any of the technical fields mentioned above … the 2001 WHO ICF also introduced a new disability-related language and terminology.

BUT … But … but … ISO/IEC Guide 71 and CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 do not use the 2001 WHO ICF’s innovative language and terminology.  Consequently, these International & European Guides are flawed.

For a very good example of WHAT MUST BE AVOIDED (!) in the drafting of International & European Standards … please examine the following text …

ISO DIS (Draft International Standard) 21542 : Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment … dated November 2009 …

Section 3   Terms & Definitions

‘ #3.36  Impairment

Limitation in body function or structure such as a significant deviation or loss which can be temporary due, for example, to injury, or permanent, slight or severe and can fluctuate over time, in particular, deterioration due to ageing.

[ISO/TR 22411:2008]

NOTE 1   Body function can be a physiological or psychological function of a body system; body structure refers to an anatomic part of the body such as organs, limbs and their components (as defined in ICIDH-2 of July 1999).

NOTE 2   This definition differs from that in ISO 9999:2002 and, slightly, from ICIDH-2/ICF: May 2001, WHO: ‘any loss or abnormality of a body function, or body structure’.

NOTE 3   The word ‘abnormality’ is strictly used here to refer to a significant deviation from an established population mean, within measured statistical norms. Impairments can be physical, mental, cognitive or psychological.’

As clear as mud … what a mess !   This does nothing only sow needless confusion in the mind of a reader.

Unless and Until … we properly harmonize, at a technical level, disability-related language and terminology … in order to improve communication … we will all continue to run around in circles and make little forward progress !!!

[ At the level of the individual, people should always be free to use whatever language they wish. ]

Our Guidance to All Standards Developers is … whether working within the International Standards Organizations (ISO & IEC) or the European Standards Organizations (CEN & CENELEC) … or both …

‘ People with Activity Limitations must be properly considered at all stages in the development of a Standard … and any disability-related terminology used … should be fully consistent with the World Health Organization’s 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF).  Confusing and contradictory texts should be avoided.’

.

2.  In relation to ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Table 7 (Page 13 in both Guides) … #8.23 Fire Resistance requires a complete re-assessment.  On Page 21 of ISO/IEC Guide 71 and Page 22 of CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 … the supporting text for #8.23 has the different heading of ‘Fire Safety of Materials’ ?!?   Confusing, isn’t it ?

The Revised Title in Table 7 and the supporting text should read … Fire Safety.  ‘Fire Resistance’ is but one of many passive fire protection concepts … a very small sub-set in the wide technical field of ‘fire safety’ in buildings.  ‘Fire Resistance’ is not used in connection with the ignition and fire development behaviour of materials or fabrics.

Relevant Factors for #8.23 are not properly indicated, in Table 7, under Columns #9.2, #9.3, #9.4 (a glaring omission !) & #9.5.

.

3.  Pertinent to ‘fire safety’ in buildings … this text was removed from ISO CD (Committee Draft) 21542 … the previous version of the ISO Standard, dating from December 2008 …

ISO CD 21542 – Annex A.1.2 – 2nd Paragraph

‘ Building users should be skilled for evacuation to a place, or places, of safety remote from the building.  In the case of people with a mental or cognitive impairment, there is a particular need to encourage, foster and regularly practice the adaptive thinking which will be necessary during a ‘real’ fire evacuation.’

The Definition for the Term Skill (#3.60) is still retained in the later ISO DIS 21542 version of the Standard …

‘ The ability of a person – resulting from training and regular practice – to carry out complex, well-organized patterns of behaviour efficiently and adaptively, in order to achieve some end or goal.’

.

4.  While there are eight references to ‘Cognitive Impairment’ in both Guides … nowhere is this term defined … or distinguished from ‘Mental Impairment’ …

Cognitive Impairment:  A deficiency of neuropsychological function which can be related to injury or degeneration in specific area(s) of the brain.

Mental Impairment:  A general term describing a slower than normal rate in a person’s cognitive developmental maturation, or where the cognitive processes themselves appear to be slower than normal – with an associated implication of reduced, overall mental potential. 

A deeper understanding, at a technical level, of the many different types of health conditions and impairments (physical/mental/cognitive/psychological) … can only result in a better designed, more facilitating Human Environment.

One final important term … when considering Fire Safety in Buildings …

Panic Attack:  A momentary period of intense fear or discomfort, accompanied by various symptoms which may include shortness of breath, dizziness, palpitations, trembling, sweating, nausea, and often a fear by a person that he/she is going mad.

I have long held the view that, in Fire Engineering, dramatic breakthroughs will result from a closer study of Cognitive Psychology.

.

.

END

Sustainable Development – International Law & Personal Ethics

Posted by CJ Walsh

At the level of the Individual … ‘sustainability’ urgently requires a revolution in professional and personal ethics.

However, at levels above or beyond the Individual … reference must be made to a common understanding of Sustainable Human & Social Development which has a foundation in a robust Framework of International Law.  It is this approach which continues to facilitate, at Sustainable Design International, our development of the theory of ‘sustainability’ … and its more effective application to frontline design practice.

Sustainable Human and Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human and Social Rights1, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children … their children … and the next five generations of children.

[1]  As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).

Inspired by the Culture of the North American Indigenous Peoples … this definition also incorporates the concept of ‘7 Generation Thinking’.

.

Sustainable Design2:  The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

[2]  Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural/Engineering/Interior/Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.

.

Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate change, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc.

Our Ultimate Goal, however, must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a Sustainable Human Environment (including the social, built, virtual and economic environments …) and a flourishing, not just a surviving, Natural Environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving Social Wellbeing for All.

Please see previous Posts on this Technical Blog … www.cjwalsh.ie … for supporting definitions to the above text.

.

.

END

Sustainable Cities – The Driver to Forge a ‘Creative’ Society ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

Dr. Craig Barrett, Chair (2005-2009) of Intel Corporation’s Board, recently dropped some sharp home truths onto our frail and sensitive Irish laps … concerning national competitiveness in the Global Economic Environment.  It was like a breath of fresh air !   And … how right he was !!

Today, however, I want to focus on just one of his themes …

Quality Education + Quality Research & Development + Facilitating and Fostering Creativity & Innovation in Society

Since the 1990’s … we have had to listen to endless amounts of bullshit and hot air … until we are blue in the face … about the Information Society, the Knowledge Society, the Smart Society, the Green Society [what is ‘Green’ anyway ?], etc., etc., etc … and the biggest anti-climax of them all … the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy … boring, boring, boring !!!!

.

When you hit the bottom of the barrel, there is only one place to look … and that’s up … with an engaged mind feverishly picturing what’s around outside !   So … for one wild moment, let’s join together some nice ideas …

Could Sustainable Cities be that essential driving force which forges a ‘Creative’ Society ???

What is the Sustainable Urban Environment (City) ?   A geographical region, with open and flexible boundaries, consisting of:

  • An interwoven, densely constructed core (built environment) ;
  • A large resident population of more than 500,000 people (social environment) ;
  • A supporting hinterland of lands, waters and other natural resources (cultivated or ‘wrought’ landscape) ;

And together functioning as …

  1. A complex living system (analogous to, yet different from, other living systems such as ecosystems and organisms) ;    and
  2. A synergetic community capable of providing a high level of individual welfare and social wellbeing for all of its inhabitants.

Our Ultimate Goal must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a sustainable ‘human’ environment and a flourishing, not just a surviving, ‘natural’ environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving social wellbeing for all.

Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate changes, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s).

.

Supporting Definitions

Human Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the ‘natural’ environment.

Built Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the ‘natural’ environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, services, transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, and seas, etc … including the ‘virtual’ environment.

Social Environment:  The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

The ‘social’ environment shapes, binds together, and directs the future development of, the ‘built’ (including ‘virtual’) environment.

Economic Environment:  The intricate web of real and virtual human commercial activity – operating at micro and macro-economic levels – which facilitates, supports, but sometimes hampers or disrupts, human interaction in the ‘social’ environment.

Virtual Environment:  A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the ‘built’ environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

Human Health:  A state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.  (World Health Organization)

Individual Welfare:  A person’s general feeling of health, happiness and fulfilment.

Social Wellbeing:  A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, happiness, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.

Sustainable Human & Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children … and their children.

*As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).

Sustainable Design*:  The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

*Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Interior / Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.

.

. 

END

French Term ‘Développement Durable’ – A Critical Error

Posted by CJ Walsh

Happy New Year (2010) !   Buona Fortuna a Tutti e Tutte !!

Time to get serious again.  Does anything about this next little anecdote sound familiar ?

The country is France … a critical error is discovered … there follows much beating of breasts, many tears are shed, apologies all over the place … but …. everyone keeps going forward, exactly as before.  No … not the infamous Thierry Henry Handball Incident.  Something different … something technical … something which continues, day after day, to add to the international confusion about the meaning of Sustainable Development, or to be more precise Sustainable Human & Social Development !

.

In January 2009, the French Sénat considered a Proposed Amendment to the Grenelle de l’Environnement Legislation …

From the Official Record (No 631 – 22 Janvier 2009) … Article 1ER …

I.   A la deuxième phrase du premier alinéa de cet article, remplacer les mots:

développement durable

par les mots:

développement soutenable

II.  En conséquence, procéder à la même substitution dans l’ensemble de ce projet de loi.

The purpose of this Amendment … Objet …

Cet amendement a pour but de revenir aux sources du concept de développement soutenable telles qu’énoncées dans le Rapport Brundtland de 1987 et par le Sommet de Rio de 1992.  C’est «un modèle de développement qui satisfait aux besoins de la génération présente, a commencé par ceux des plus démunis, sans compromettre la capacité des générations suivantes à satisfaire les leurs».  Cette définition de la soutenabilité du développement s’oppose radicalement à celle de la durabilité du développement qui peut être prônée par toutes et tous, notamment les grands groupes industriels et financiers, sans que soit pour autant mise en œuvre une réelle politique de protection de l’environnement.

The Proposed Amendment was defeated.

.

What happened was later explained by Yann Cohignac … on the French WebSite www.developpementdurable.com (!!!) …

Le «développement durable» est un oxymore: un développement perpétuel ne peut en aucun cas être durable.  Il vaudrait donc mieux parler de «développement soutenable».  Cette opinion, défendue par certains sénateurs, a agité les premiers débats autour de l’examen de la Loi 1 du Grenelle de l’Environnement.  Mm Muller et Desessard, ainsi que Mmes Blandin, Boumediene-Thiery et Voynet avaient ainsi déposé un amendement pour opérer un changement sémantique dans l’ensemble du texte.

Objectif: rétablir le sens des mots.  Car, selon Jacques Muller (PS, Haut-Rhin), «notre modèle de civilisation est insoutenable au sens physique et biologique, car nous n’avons pas de planète de rechange, mais également au plan éthique.  Le développement industriel productiviste, qui n’est ni durable, ni généraliste, est la négation de la solidarité avec les générations futures et entre les habitants du village planétaire».  Et de dénoncer les entreprises qui pratiquent le greenwashing, «se contentant de spots publicitaires et de campagnes de communication mâtinés de développement durable sans rien changer à leur politique exclusivement orientée vers le profit à courts termes».

Ce qui fait dire au sénateur que «dans un monde aux ressources limitées, c’est une aberration de parler de croissance durable du PIB.  Par respect pour ceux qui aspirent simplement au développement, nous préférons parler de développement soutenable, écologiquement et éthiquement».

Trop Tard Pour Changer

Au Sénat, on a reconnu que l’expression «développement durable», tirée de l’anglais «sustainable development», était très mal traduite.  «Toutefois, l’article 6 de la Charte de l’environnement, adossé à la Constitution, fait référence au développement durable», répond Bruno Sido, rapporteur de la Commission des affaires économiques du Sénat (sans parler du ministère même du «développement durable»).

Et surtout: «les Français se sont appropriés l’expression, quelque fausse qu’elle soit.  Comme la bataille contre l’usage incorrect de l’expression “bien achalandé”, c’est une cause perdue.  Mettons plutôt notre énergie à défendre les idées qu’à changer les termes.  Avis défavorable».  Amendement refusé, donc.  La traduction impropre de l’expression sera ainsi durablement utilisée dans l’Hexagone.  Une exception culturelle française de plus.

Les Raisons de la Confusion Sémantique

En 1992 a lieu le second Sommet de la Terre, à Rio de Janeiro (Brésil).  L’expression «sustainable development» est alors concrétisée grâce au Rapport Brundtland: elle est largement médiatisée auprès du grand public, et traduite en français «développement durable».  Dans une première traduction des travaux de la Commission Mondiale sur l’Environnement et le Développement, c’est en effet le terme «développement durable» qui est retenu.  Une seconde traduction, par les Editions du Fleuve, préférera «développement soutenable», adaptation littérale de l’anglais «sustainable development».  Mais il est trop tard: l’expression est entrée dans les mœurs et déjà défendue par les tenants de la «durabilité».

Toutefois, certains relèvent régulièrement l’erreur de traduction.  De nombreuses ONG utilisent ainsi de préférence le terme de «développement soutenable» pour insister sur les dangers qui pèsent sur la biosphère face aux activités humaines.  Les adeptes de la décroissance, eux, considèrent que l’expression «développement durable» est un oxymore: les deux mots révèleraient une contradiction, puisque les ressources naturelles sont finies et non infinies.

 

 

END