Sustainable Human & Social Development

Accessibility-for-All at the Brussels European Parliament ?!?!

Last Wednesday (2010-02-24), I was very pleased to be in Brussels to attend the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup for the New Parliamentary Term.  Being very curious, however, there was no way … no way at all … that I could enter the Parliament Building without checking on a specific part of the Early Parliamentary Complex on Rue Wiertz … for any improvements to its past, woeful ‘accessibility’ performance.  Please note that I am not referring, here, to transport issues … but to ‘accessibility’ for people with activity limitations.

.

Colour photograph showing the same dangerous public ramp/stair combination near the Main Public Entrance to the European Parliament Building, on Rue Wiertz, in Brussels. During rush hour periods of the working day, this external ramp/stair combination is a very busy public pedestrian route. Click to enlarge. This photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24. For more photographs of this architectural gem, dating from 2000-2001, see SDI's Corporate WebSite.
Colour photograph showing the same dangerous external ramp/stair combination near the Main Public Entrance to the European Parliament Building, on Rue Wiertz, in Brussels. During rush hour periods of the working day, this ramp/stair combination is a very busy public pedestrian route. Click to enlarge. This photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24. For more photographs of this architectural 'gem', dating from 2000-2001, see SDI's Corporate WebSite.

.

Since the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities became an International Legal Instrument on 3rd May 2008 … people with activity limitations now have a clearly defined right, under international law, to be able to access and use the Built Environment.  They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building.  The language of the Convention is unusually strong.

Once upon a time … 9 or 10 years ago … at the beginning of this decade/century/millennium … a Properly Accessible Built Environment could only be wishful thinking.  Yes, there was some legislation … usually very weak … at national level in the E.U. Member States … but nobody paid much attention to implementation.  The least that could be expected, however, was that Iconic Buildings purposefully intended and designed for occupation by Institutions of the European Union would be examples of ‘good accessibility’ … as so much emphasis has always been placed in the E.U. Treaties, including the New Lisbon Treaty … on the foundation of the European Union being robustly rooted in Human and Social Rights for All … not just a privileged few, or a self-contented majority.

At this Page on Sustainable Design International’s Corporate WebSitewww.sustainable-design.ie/arch/inaccesseubuildings.htm … I recorded the dismal and depressing evidence on the ‘inaccessibility’ of both the Brussels and Strasbourg Parliament Buildings at that time.

.

Colour photograph showing the 'special' entrance reserved for 'personnes a mobilite reduite' in another part of the Brussels European Parliamentary Complex. It's too bad if someone who must use this facility cannot understand the incorrectly printed French ! Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
Colour photograph showing the 'special' entrance reserved for 'personnes a mobilite reduite' in another part of the Brussels European Parliamentary Complex. It's too bad if someone who must use this facility cannot understand the incorrectly printed French ! Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.

.

So … what has changed in the intervening years ?   Have there been any improvements to a situation which I originally described as being ‘stupid and ridiculous’ ?   [I won’t bore you with all of the reasons why.]   Or, are things worse ?   Have we, in fact, entered into some unknown region of The Twilight Zone ?   Arise again GUBU (Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented) !!

.

Colour photograph showing the Main Entrances associated with the 'special' entrance in the photograph above. They are located approximately 10 metres around the corner on a different side of the building. If the nosings of those steps have been highlighted in yellow, does that mean that these clumsy entrances are 'safe' ?? Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
Colour photograph showing the Main Entrances associated with the 'special' entrance in the photograph above. They are located approximately 10 metres around the corner on a different side of the building. If the nosings of those steps have been highlighted in yellow, does that mean that these clumsy entrances are 'safe' ?? Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.

.

Pinch yourselves, a few times, as you examine the photographs closely !  Try to remember that these buildings are not renovated or refurbished existing buildings.  They were all designed and constructed, as ‘new’, on cleared sites within the city !!

.

Although Architects, the Brussels Local Authorities and the E.U. Institutions are primarily responsible for ‘inaccessibility’ of the Brussels European Parliament Building … we cannot afford to be smug or complacent in Ireland.  Just look around you !

Again, once upon a time … towards the end of the 1980’s this time … I submitted the following Proposal for a Resolution on Accessibility-for-All to the Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) … please forgive the pre 2001 WHO ICF use of language and terminology …

Preamble

The elimination of architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled is an essential and preliminary condition for successful implementation of the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life.

Resolution

Celebrating the 150th year of its establishment, Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland asks all Members:-

(i)   to note the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life ;

(ii)  to eliminate as far as reasonably practicable, in the design of buildings, architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled.

Was this Resolution passed ?   I’ll give you one guess !   The reason given, at the time, was that the Profession might be viewed as being culpable … which it was … and remains to this day.  The source of this culpability, however, is most definitely the Schools of Architecture.

.

.

END

Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN

How did the Developed Countries get everything so wrong in Copenhagen during December 2009 ?   Why was the European Union irrelevant to what was taking place ?   Were there no obvious signals … no straws in the wind … well in advance of the Climate Summit ?

Yes, there definitely were !   Almost two years beforehand !!   Take a deep breath … and suck this up …

Colour image showing the logo of the Group of 77 (G-77)Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 & China by Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Nations, at the Thematic Debate of the General Assembly on ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’  (New York, 12th February 2008)

Introduction

1.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China thank you for convening this debate in the General Assembly on the theme ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’.  It provides the Assembly with an additional opportunity to exchange views among Member States and with other partners on one of the important issues on the development agenda of the UN.

2.  At the outset, the Group of 77 & China reiterates that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is, and should remain, the primary comprehensive framework for addressing climate change.  Therefore, this thematic debate should be recognized as an opportunity for Member States to dialogue on ways of increasing support for the Framework and on meeting the urgent need for immediate action to fully implement commitments under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol; supporting the Bali Action Plan and other mechanisms of the Convention.

3.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that there should not be a parallel process of debates that would detract from the negotiation process under the Convention.  The Group of 77 & China believes that multilateral action to address climate change should remain firmly rooted in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

4.  Furthermore, this thematic debate, as well as the Secretary General’s report on the Overview of UN activities in relation to Climate Change should not attempt to influence any other processes such as the system wide coherence debate or the discussions on international environmental governance.

*** Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge ***

5.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development.  It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development, highlighting the three pillars – economic development, social development and environmental protection – and the need to promote all three in an integrated, co-ordinated and balanced manner.

6.  We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge.  As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio Principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.  We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries.  Hence, we must ensure that the discussion on climate change is placed in its proper context so that it does not undermine the overall discourse on sustainable development.

7.  Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries, in particular the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADG’s), including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).

8.  Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Land-Locked Developing Countries (LLDC’s), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and disaster prone developing countries.  The G-77 & China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.

9.  Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.

Scaling-Up Financing, Technology Transfer and Capacity Building Support

10.  While the UN can support the efforts of developing countries in formulating policies for attracting climate change related investment flows, adaptation and nationally appropriate mitigation actions will have to be enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building that are commensurate with the magnitude of the tasks ahead of us, that is, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner, as agreed in the Bali Action Plan.  The provision of financial resources is a binding commitment of developed country Parties.  Clear guidance should be given to facilitate access to financial resources and investments without conditionalities.  It is essential that such financial resources not be considered as Official Development Assistance (ODA), but additional, and in compliance with existing binding commitments under the Convention.  Further, financing for adaptation to climate change and the impact of response measures should not be a reallocation or realignment of existing development financing.

11.  Developing countries should be provided with greater access to cost-effective, efficient and affordable advanced clean technologies.  The Group of 77 & China has repeatedly led calls for developing countries to have greater access to climate-friendly technologies.  Efforts in this regard need to be scaled up.  Furthermore, the UN can play an important role through the promotion of an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Regime that facilitates the transfer of such technologies.

12.  The Group of 77 & China reiterates its call for increased support for capacity building in developing countries to enhance national efforts to promote an integrated approach to climate change response measures and sustainable development planning.

Greater Support by the UN System for Developing Countries to Address the Climate Change Challenge

13.  The UN’s efforts in supporting national adaptation activities must be strengthened, so that developing countries can achieve their sustainable development goals while responding to the challenges of climate change.  The role of the UN in supporting the overall development efforts is vital.  However, the G-77 & China finds that technology transfer and financing, have not been addressed adequately in the background documents made available in preparation for today’s debate.

14.  On the issue of partnerships, Mr. President, the G-77 & China is of the view that multi-stakeholder partnerships have an important role to play in addressing climate change.  The UN system should assist in fostering and promoting partnerships in support of national efforts.  However, partnerships should not replace ODA or international co-operation.

15.  Additionally, South-South co-operation is useful in the area of adaptation efforts, and greater support for South-South co-operation can also help developing countries better respond to the challenges of climate change.  However, South-South co-operation should not be considered within the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships.  Further, South-South co-operation on climate change should complement North-South co-operation.

Report on the Overview of UN Activities in Relation to Climate Change

16.  Mr. President, in General Assembly Resolution 62/8 Member States requested a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the UN system in relation to climate change.  Based on this mandate the G-77 & China anticipated a factual report that takes stock of current UN system activities in this regard.  As such, there is no mandate with regard to ‘an indication of the way forward’, and ‘co-ordination of the UN system action on climate change’.  This remains the purview of the Member States to decide on.  Work on co-ordination mechanisms, and structures or frameworks, including clusters of activity or lead agencies, must be subject of inter-governmental consideration and decision prior to implementation.

17.  In general, the UN system entities should assist in the effective implementation of the provisions, commitments and action plans of the UNFCCC.  Co-ordination of UN system activities to enhance its role in meeting the challenge of climate change requires inter-governmental consideration, agreement and oversight by Member States.

18.  The G-77 & China recognizes the primacy of the UN in directing and supporting global efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change, and in supporting its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The General Assembly, given its universality, should unequivocally urge Parties to undertake urgent action now to meet their commitments under the Convention, provide clear policy direction in this regard and to support to the Bali Plan of Action.

19.  Mr. President, the G-77 & China believes that the road to Copenhagen, where the concluding talks on the current process on the Bali Roadmap will be held in 2009, will be a difficult one, particularly for developing countries and the poorest and most vulnerable.  Leadership will therefore be critical if our response is to reflect the scale of the challenge.  We need an effective and comprehensive global response, within the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, to cover adaptation, technology transfer and financing, as well as mitigation.  Without rapid and tangible efforts by developed countries in this regard, climate change will lead to increased poverty and will negate our efforts at achieving sustainable development.

Thank you, Mr. President.

.

NOTE:  The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15th June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries – signatories of the ‘Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries’, issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva.  Beginning with the first Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 in Algiers (Algeria), from 10-25 October 1967, which adopted the ‘Charter of Algiers, a permanent institutional structure gradually developed which led to the creation of Chapters of the Group of 77, with Liaison Offices in Geneva (UNCTAD), Nairobi (UNEP), Paris (UNESCO), Rome (FAO/IFAD), Vienna (UNIDO), and the Group of 24 (G-24) in Washington, D.C. (IMF and World Bank).  Although the Members of the G-77 have increased to 130 Countries, the original name was retained because of its historic significance.

Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) are all Members of G-77.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and the Caribbean island states of Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica (ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) are also all Members of G-77.

The Group of 77 (G-77) WebSite is located at … www.g77.org

.

.

END

2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India – 8th & 9th January

It was a great pleasure to be invited to speak on the subject of Sustainable Fire Engineering at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India.  This ground breaking conference in Asia took place at the India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, Delhi … on the 8th & 9th January last.  Back during August (2009) in Bengaluru … the ACRECONF Chairman, Mr. Ashish Rakheja, told me that he expected an attendance of somewhere between 500-600 people at the Delhi Conference.  Over the two days of the actual conference, approximately 1800 delegates participated … an enormous response by architects, civil and service engineers, developers, client and construction organizations, etc., etc., from right across the country … and from the deep south.

Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.
Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.

For me … refreshing, extremely impressive, and certainly the highlight of the conference … was a multi-media presentation … on the second morning, just after the coffee break … by Mr. Karan Grover, the renowned Indian Architect.  He is quite an individual !

Before the break, delegates had been treated to an elaboration of the Environmental Design Innovations incorporated into the 71 storey Pearl River Tower (Guangzhou, China), by Mr. Varun Kohli of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in New York.  Construction of the Tower is now well under way.  Afterwards, however, an important discussion took place concerning the issue of fire safety, and fire engineering generally, in Sustainable Buildings.  It became clear to all of the participants that this issue is a major oversight … an intentional gap … in the design of these buildings.  I made the point, forcibly, that Sustainable Fire Engineering is open to innovation and design creativity. There will be an important follow-up to this discussion.

Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.
Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.

Unfortunately, the conference was peppered with references to ‘Green’ Buildings … an outdated marketing concept (!) … which, within its limited world-view, gives people the false comfort of not having to deal with thorny issues such as ‘social justice, solidarity & inclusion for all’.  I have discussed this issue many times in previous posts.

Even more unfortunately, where the Brundtland Definition of ‘Sustainable Development’ was actually presented in one session … as usual, it was only the first half of the definition which made any appearance.  The second, and more important, half of the definition had mysteriously vanished without trace … which made the whole effort a meaningless exercise !   What a waste !!   No wonder there is such confusion over the concept … at all levels … in most countries !!!

It was not surprising, therefore, that what was not stressed enough, during the entire conference, was that Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc.  The LEED Building Rating System (USA), for example, is not being properly adapted to local conditions in India !

A final issue … another major oversight … another intentional gap … in the design of buildings … Accessibility-for-All !   Even though India ratified the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1st October 2007 … this essential aspect of design … certainly in Sustainable Buildings … received no mention whatever during the conference … except by yours truly, in my presentation.

Overall … a magnificent achievement for the organizers !

END

Yesterday’s Burj Dubai Inauguration – The Tallest ?? How ?

Yesterday (2010-01-04), the Burj Dubai … recently renamed the Burj Khalifa, in honour of Abu Dhabi’s Ruler … was inaugurated.  Dubayy, as it is known locally, is situated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  Contrary to most reports, this building has a height of approximately 550 metres !

Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ?
Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ? Click to enlarge.

Every single metre counts in the race of the ‘tallest’ !   So, the timing of the following CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, back in November 2009, was most fortunate.  In my opinion, the most meaningful height criterion is … Height to Occupied Floor.  But, what do you think ?   See below.

However … purposefully tripping you up as you race to read all about the height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings … we should all know and understand, I hope, that comparing the ‘size’ of structural members is a silly schoolboy’s game.  So, I would like to pose Some Important Questions (discussed, ad nauseam, in previous posts) about the Burj Khalifa Tower …

  1. Dubayy (Dubai) is a crude reproduction of the nightmare that is the 20th Century North American City, i.e. it is on the opposite end of the scale from being ‘sustainable’ !   ‘Greenwashing’ aside … How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?
  2. There is no effective system, in Dubayy, of Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction by Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) or Competent Technical Controllers … 

How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower … for All of the large population, including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), who will undoubtedly be using/occupying the building during its long life cycle ?

Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?   ‘Robustness’ and ‘Disproportionate Damage’ are separate, but related, structural concepts.

During my next visit to Dubayy … I will enjoy looking at, and photographing, the completed building.  But, I will not be entering the Burj Khalifa Tower !

Chicago, 2009-11-17:  The Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) – the international body which arbitrates on tall building height and determines the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ – has announced a change to its height criteria, as a reflection of recent developments with several super-tall buildings.

The new criteria wording – ‘Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance to …’ allows for the recognition of the increasing numbers of multi-use tall buildings with often several different entrances at different levels, whilst also accommodating buildings constructed in non-traditional urban or suburban locations.  The CTBUH Height Committee has determined that the previous description of where to measure tall building height from – ‘Height is measured from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to …’ is now no longer sufficient.

This will have an impact on both the height of tall buildings and their relative international height rankings.  Burj Dubai, set to open as the world’s tallest building in January 2010, will now be measured from the lowest of its three main entrances (which opens into the entrance lobby for the tower’s corporate suite office function), while the recently completed Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago will be measured from the lower, publicly accessible Chicago Riverwalk.  In the case of Trump, this additional 9 metres (approx.) means that it will surpass the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai to occupy the rank of 6th tallest on the current list of completed buildings.

“Beginning in 2007, with the knowledge that Burj Dubai would be significantly taller than any structure ever built, the CTBUH Height Committee met to review the criteria by which we recognize and rank the height of buildings”, said Peter Weismantle, Chair of the CTBUH Height Committee and Director of Supertall Building Technology at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture in Chicago.  “As one might guess, with the committee being made up of architects, engineers, contractors, developers, building owners and academics, a variety of opinions and views were expressed.  The resulting revisions, almost two years later, reflect a general consensus of the committee in recognizing the most recent trends in tall building development around the world.”

Also in response to the changing designs and forms of tall buildings, the Height Committee has elected to discard its previous ‘Height to Roof’ Category.  “The roof category just doesn’t make sense anymore”, said CTBUH Executive Director Antony Wood.  “In the era of the flat-topped modernist tower, a clearly defined roof could usually be identified, but in today’s tall building world – which is increasingly adopting elaborate forms, spires, parapets and other features at the top of the building – it is becoming difficult to determine a ‘roof’ at all, even less so to measure to it.”

Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010.
Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010. Click to enlarge.

The Revised CTBUH Height Criteria and Diagrams of the Tallest 10 Buildings in the World as of November 2009 can be found here, ranked according to the three height categories now recognized by CTBUH.  These are: (i) Height to Architectural Top, measured to the topmost architectural feature of the building including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment;  (ii) Height to Highest Occupied Floor, measured to the level of the highest, consistently occupied floor in the building (thus not including service or mechanical areas which experience occasional maintenance access);  and (iii) Height to Tip, measured to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element.

.

.

END

French Term ‘Développement Durable’ – A Critical Error

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

FCCC COP-15: Historical Responsibility & Poverty Reduction ?

2009-12-16:  ‘Chaotic’ is not the only word to describe what is happening right now in Copenhagen !   A few additional parliamentary expletives are required.  Is it just me … or is it obvious to everyone … that the Danes could not organize an orgy at an International Golf Tournament ?

What the world urgently needed was an ambitious, legally binding agreement … a Kyoto II Protocol, for want of a better title … to slot into place when the 1st Commitment Period ends in 2012.  What we may end up with is an ambiguous ‘political’ agreement … which will be worth approximately 1 cent more than the paper on which it will be scrawled.

There is something definitely rotten in the State of Denmark !   Multiple drafts of the same working document circulating at the same time … backroom meetings away from public scrutiny … greedy developed countries trying to avoid responsibility and action … strutting, self-important NGO’s thinking that they know all the answers … etc., etc … kill any confidence in the process stone dead.  These are not the ways of Sustainable Social Partnership.

However … at a far distance from the hustle and bustle … it can be observed that Interesting Side Events are taking place … and Thought Provoking Reports are being presented … before, during and after the main gatherings between the 7th and 18th December 2009:

  • 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ;
  • 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP-5) to the Kyoto Protocol.

.

African Countries are not the only Group having difficulty with what is/is not happening in Copenhagen …

Two recent Discussion Papers from The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI), in India, are worth bringing to your attention.  Both raise issues which are not very popular in this part of the world.  And … it so happens that Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri – Director-General of TERI … is also Chairman of the WMO-UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) !

  1. Right to Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach to Climate Change (December 2009), by Leena Srivastava, Neha Pahuja, Manish Shrivastava & Prabhat Upadhyay.  PDF File, 228 Kb.  Click link to read and/or download.  Discusses ideas such as: ‘equity’, ‘fairness’, ‘historical responsibility’ (of UNFCCC Annex I Countries), ‘climate justice’, etc.
  2. Linking Climate Action & Poverty Alleviation – An Approach to Informed Decision-Making (December 2009), by Atul Kumar.  PDF File, 488 Kb.  Click link to read and/or download.

Notes:

To gain worldwide acceptance – across developed, developing and least developed regions of the world – and to have a reasonable chance of reliable implementation in those disparate regions … mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, including variability and extremes, must be fully compatible with the concept of Sustainable Human & Social Development.  This is clearly elaborated in both the 1992 UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

To be clear among ourselves on this island … Ireland is specifically named (without any qualification), among other Developed Countries … in Annex I and Annex II of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) … and in Annex B of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is legally binding.  The European Union is not mentioned, at all, in either document.

It is of concern to note that although India ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in October 2007 – TERI (India) has very recently placed a Document (No.1 above) in the public domain, at Copenhagen, which actively forbids content extraction by people with activity limitations for the purposes of equitable accessibility !   Joined-up thinking !?!?

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Emergency Planning For ALL & Special Needs Populations ?

On 15th August 2008, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in association with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, published Comprehensive Preparedness Guide #301: ‘Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations’.

What follows are important extracts from CPG #301.  As you slowly read along … consider the chaotic, clapped-out and ramshackle response, at national level, to the Flood Emergency in Ireland

Throughout the history of Emergency Management Planning, considerations for Special Needs Populations have often been inadequate.  From the 1930’s, when disaster response was ad hoc and largely focused on the repair of damaged infrastructure, through to the present day, emergency management culture of ‘readiness’, special needs populations were often given insufficient consideration.  This fact was evident in 2003 during the California wildfires and when Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005.  During these events, some individuals with special needs did not receive appropriate warning, were unable to access shelters, or went without medical intervention.  During the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review, a sample of emergency management plans was reviewed by subject-matter experts on disability and ageing.  The review confirmed that emergency plans from various regions in the United States continue to overlook these populations.  The Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report concluded that “substantial improvement is necessary to integrate people with disabilities into emergency planning and readiness”.

Numerous ‘lessons learned’ reports that followed Hurricane Katrina also pointed out that there is a large segment of the U.S. population who may not be able to successfully plan for, and respond to, an emergency with resources typically accessible to the general population.  The current general population is one that is diverse, ageing, and focused on maintaining independence as long as possible.  The popularity of living situations that provide an ‘as needed’ level of care in the least restrictive manner is fast becoming the norm.  Consideration should therefore be given to people who may be able to function independently under normal situations, but who may need assistance in an emergency situation.

For example, it is estimated that about 13 million individuals aged 50 years or older in the United States will need evacuation assistance, and about half of these individuals will require such assistance from someone outside of their household.  There are well over 1 million people in the United States receiving home healthcare according to 2000 data cited by the National Center for Health Care Statistics.  Populations such as these should be considered when emergency plans are developed to accurately assess the resources needed to adequately respond when a disaster strikes.  The 2000 Census reported that 18% of those surveyed speak a language other than English at home.  This highlights the need to ensure the effectiveness of emergency communications.  Populations described as ‘transportation disadvantaged’ – those who do not have access to a personal vehicle or are precluded from driving – may also require assistance during emergencies.  The 2000 Census reports that in the top ten car-less cities, between 29% and 56% of the households are without a vehicle.  These examples serve to demonstrate community emergency planning should go beyond traditional considerations.

During the Nationwide Plan Review, Emergency Managers consistently requested technical assistance in identifying and incorporating special needs populations into emergency planning.  As described later, defining the term ‘special needs’ is a critical initial step in the planning process.  The Federal Government introduced, within the National Response Framework (NRF), a definition of special needs populations that State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local governments may adopt for use in their Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) development.  It is important to note that though this terminology may appear ambiguous, it is well established in the Emergency Management Vocabulary and when clearly defined, strengthens the planning process.

Although it is recognized that significant emergency planning should be done for incarcerated populations, these groups cannot be integrated into general population planning.  Individuals in correctional settings are institutionalized to protect other members of society; people who are institutionalized in health related settings are there for their own protection and wellbeing.  Emergency management planning for incarcerated populations requires additional consideration such as law enforcement and co-ordination between emergency managers, the Department of Corrections, and prison superintendents to ensure safety of the prisoners and the public.  For these reasons, incarcerated populations are not included in the NRF definition of ‘special needs’, which is the same definition used in this Planning Guide.

 

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) CPG #301

Date: 15 August 2008.  PDF File, 301kb.

Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations

Click the link above to read and/or download CPG #301

 

Emergency Management takes into consideration planning for the safety of every person in the community during and following a disaster.  Taking into consideration populations historically considered ‘vulnerable’, ‘at risk’, or ‘special needs’, ultimately improves the overall community’s post-disaster sustainability.

Before drafting Emergency Plans, it is recommended that a state-wide definition for the term ‘special needs’ be developed and used to guide State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local jurisdictions in the planning process.  A consistent use of terminology will result in improved communication and co-ordination of resources across State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local entities.

The NRF Definition for ‘special needs’ provides a function-based approach for planning and seeks to establish a flexible framework that addresses a broad set of common function-based needs, irrespective of specific diagnosis, statuses, or labels (e.g. children, older people, transportation disadvantaged, etc.).  In other words, this function-based definition reflects the capabilities of the individual, not the condition or label.  Governments that choose to align their language to the NRF definition will improve inter-government communication during an incident.

The Definition of Special Needs Populations, as it appears in the U.S. National Response Framework (NRF) is as follows:

Populations whose members may have additional needs before, during, and after an incident in functional areas, including but not limited to:

–   Maintaining Independence ;

–   Communication ;

–   Transportation ;

–   Supervision ;

–   Medical Care.

Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities; who live in institutionalized settings; who are elderly; who are children; who are from diverse cultures; who have limited English proficiency; or who are non-English speaking; or who are transportation disadvantaged.

[The concept of a function-based approach to defining special needs populations has been developed by June Isaacson Kailes.  See Kailes, J. and Enders, A. in “Moving Beyond ‘Special Needs’: A Function-Based Framework for Emergency Management Planning”.  Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol./No. 44/2007.  Pages 230-237.]

At first glance, it may appear that each of the above groups (and a disproportionately large percentage of the population) is automatically classified as having special needs, but this is not the case.  The definition indicates these groups may often include individuals who have special needs and, in the event of an emergency, may need additional assistance or specialized resources.  For example, in a city like New York where less than half of all households own a car, transportation-dependence is not necessarily a ‘special need’.  A special need in this instance is an inability to access the transportation alternatives defined by the Emergency Operation Plan (EOP).  It is important to remember that special needs populations have needs that extend beyond those of the general population.

The definition focuses on the following function-based aspects:

  • Maintaining Independence – Individuals requiring support to be independent in daily activities may lose this support during an emergency or a disaster.  Such support may include consumable medical supplies (baby diapers, formula, bandages, continence supplies, etc.), durable medical equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc.), service animals, and/or attendants or caregivers.  Supplying needed support to these individuals will enable them to maintain their pre-disaster level of independence.
  • Communication – Individuals who have limitations which interfere with the receipt of and response to information will need that information provided in format they can understand and use.  They may not be able to hear verbal announcements, see directional signs, or understand how to get assistance due to hearing, vision, speech, cognitive, or intellectual limitations, and/or limited English proficiency.
  • Transportation – Individuals who cannot drive or who do not have a vehicle may require transportation support for successful evacuation.  This support may include accessible vehicles (e.g., lift-equipped or vehicles suitable for transporting individuals who use oxygen) or information about how and where to access mass transportation during an evacuation.
  • Supervision – Before, during, and after an emergency individuals may lose the support of caregivers, family, or friends or may be unable to cope in a new environment (particularly if they have dementia, Alzheimer’s or psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia or intense anxiety).  If separated from their caregivers, young children may be unable to identify themselves; and when in danger, they may lack the cognitive ability to assess the situation and react appropriately.
  • Medical Care – Individuals who are not self-sufficient or who do not have adequate support from caregivers, family, or friends may need assistance with: managing unstable, terminal or contagious conditions which require observation and ongoing treatment;  managing intravenous therapy, tube feeding, and vital signs;  receiving dialysis, oxygen, and suction administration;  managing wounds;  and operating power-dependent equipment to sustain life.  These individuals require support of trained medical professionals.

 The above examples illustrate function-based needs that may exist within the community.

 

Important Conclusions for Ireland & Europe Generally:

1.  The innovative approach taken to Special Needs Populations in U.S. FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide #301 is entirely consistent with European concepts of ‘mainstreaming’, ‘accessibility for all’, ‘fire safety, protection and evacuation for all’, etc … and the widespread, standardized and consistent use of the language and terminology in the 2001 World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF) … an approach which I have long advocated across Europe.

2.  Fragmentation of the Irish Special Needs Population, dissention between different groups within that population or a lack of willingness to work with other groups … the use of far too many ad-hoc labels … and the anarchic abuse of disability-related language and terminology … pose a grave risk to the Safety, Health and Wellbeing of all these groups in Emergencies, whether large or small scale … and create unnecessary, and sometimes insurmountable, barriers to effective communication and the proper co-ordination of emergency response resources.  This problem is deep-rooted and endemic throughout Europe.

3.  French use of the words, e.g. ‘les handicapés’, ‘les invalides’, is both outdated and barbaric.  Similarly, German use of the word ‘die behinderten’ is unacceptable.  A concerted effort, at European level, must be made to modernize and harmonize the use of disability-related terminology in our many different languages.  Large Scale Emergencies in Europe, involving 2, 3 or more E.U. Member States, require … as a priority … effective communication and the proper co-ordination of emergency response resources.

 

 

END

Older People in Emergencies – Action & Policy Development (II)

2009-11-25:  In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) Report: ‘Older People in Emergencies – Considerations for Action & Policy Development’ was published.

The following are short extracts from that Report …

Older People

Until recently, older peoples’ needs in disasters and conflicts were addressed only by broader adult health and humanitarian programmes.  This has changed, as several recent emergencies highlighted this population’s vulnerabilities.  Of the 14,800 deaths in France during the 2003 heat wave, 70% were people over 75 years of age.  Of the estimated 1,330 people who died in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, most were older people.  In Louisiana, 71% of those who died were older than 60 years;  47% of this group were over 77 years old.  Worldwide, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has estimated that older people make up 8.5% of the overall refugee population, and in some cases comprise more than 30% of caseloads.  In 2005, approximately 2.7 million people over the age of 60 were living as refugees or internally displaced persons.

Globally, the proportion of older people is growing faster than any other age group.  In 2000 one in ten, or about 600 million, people were 60 years of age or older.  By 2025, this figure is expected to reach 1.2 billion people, and in 2050 around 1.9 billion.  In developing countries, where 80% of older people live, the proportion of those over 60 years old in 2025 will increase from 7% to 12%.  Moreover, life expectancy at birth has increased globally from 48 years in 1955 to 65 in 1995, and is projected to reach 73 in 2025.  By 2050, people over 80 years old are expected to account for 4% of the world’s population, up from 1% today.

Disability & Older People

Worldwide, it is estimated that more than 80% of the disabled population lives in developing countries, where the prevalence of disability is approximately 20%.  That rate is expected to increase dramatically as populations age.  By 2050 in India, the incidence of disability is expected to jump by 120%, in China by 70% and in sub-Saharan Africa by 257%.

Emergency Planners must consider these trends, because poor health and reduced mobility increase the risk of serious injury and illness in disasters.  Older people have sustained more injuries in disasters than other groups because of functional limitations such as poor balance, muscle weakness and exhaustion.  Older people have higher rates of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, respiratory diseases and rheumatism.  A study in China found that 74% of those over 80 years old had chronic diseases, 1.5% were physically disabled, and 3.46% had Alzheimer’s disease.  In Iraq, more than half of 340 older people surveyed by HelpAge International had chronic joint and bone problems, hypertension, heart problems, diabetes and reduced eyesight and hearing.  In West Darfur, Sudan, 34% of surveyed refugees 50 years of age and over were disabled, 27% could not move without help and 19% had severely impaired vision; while 61% reported chronic diseases that required specialized treatment and/or medicines that were not available.

Objective 1:   Increase Visibility and Raise Awareness among Health Agencies and Humanitarian Organizations about Older Peoples’ Needs and Priorities in Emergencies.

  • Mainstream and integrate issues related to older people and emergencies into existing policies and guidelines (i.e. emergency medicine, nutrition, protection, gender-based violence, participatory assessments and programming).  Include plans for older people in national policy and guideline documents.
  • Highlight the need to assist and protect older people as well as their capacities and contributions in rebuilding affected communities.
  • Develop inter-agency efforts to identify gaps, develop practice guidelines and provide training and education.
  • Promote better practice policies and documents among all stakeholders.
  • Collaborate with funders to increase humanitarian assistance to older people based on needs assessments and reflect these in funding proposal criteria.
  • Involve older people in developing emergency management activities to increase their visibility and ensure their needs are taken into account, for example, in shelter plans and locations.

Objective 2:   Develop Essential Medical and Health Resources for Older People in Emergency Practices.

  • Identify and include essential medicines for older people in emergency kits.  Include medicines for chronic diseases and other illnesses common among this social group.
  • Develop disability aid packages with equipment such as eyeglasses and walking sticks.
  • Develop education modules for health professionals on diseases common among older people, including HIV/AIDS.
  • Develop and disseminate guidelines for geriatric medicine in emergencies and humanitarian crises.
  • Within the health care system, ensure that conditions and needs common to older people are integrated into patient triage, clinical evaluation, treatment, the emergency medical response system and access to specialty care.
  • Ensure that nutritional guidelines for food distribution suitable for older people are integrated into health planning and response plans.
  • Ensure local development of guidelines for feeding older people, using locally available foods to the extent this is possible where populations depend on external food aid.
  • Implement gender-based analyses in planning and programme design to account for differences between older men and women in terms of both health needs and access issues.

Objective 3:   Develop Emergency Management Policies and Tools to Address Older Peoples’ Health-Related Vulnerabilities.

  • Integrate older peoples’ health needs and related issues into assessment tools and practices.
  • Develop community-based tools using disaggregated data to identify vulnerable older people.  Include formats to identify chronic health conditions, disabilities and nutritional needs.
  • Develop procedures to identify hidden and stay-behind older people.
  • Develop standardized tools to assess support needs of older people, including inter-generational and community care options.
  • Develop age-friendly standards and guidelines so that service and care environments are accessible to older people with disabilities.
  • In collaboration with older people, their families and communities, develop personal and household preparedness kits in areas of predictable disasters.
  • Collaborate with communities in identifying and implementing community-based home care and support strategies which may reduce older peoples’ isolation and vulnerability during crises.
  • Develop guidelines and evacuation plans that include mechanisms to identify and transport frail, disabled and older people with special medical conditions.  Identify procedures to ensure adequate care and treatment as necessary.
  • Develop guidelines to ensure safe and adequate treatment of older people in evacuation centres and refugee camps.
  • Ensure that health facilities have feasible plans to care for older people during disasters and humanitarian crises.
  • Develop monitoring and evaluation tools to measure the performance of health care services and humanitarian interventions targeting older people.  These measures should be integrated into existing monitoring and evaluation procedures where possible.

Objective 4:   Ensure that Older People are Aware of and Have Access to Essential Emergency Health Care Services.

  • Use established assessment tools to identify and locate frail and disabled older people and those with chronic diseases and special medical conditions, as well as older caretakers of orphaned children.
  • Ensure that assessments are participatory and target all older populations.  Assessments should include information on health conditions, social support needs, caretaking responsibilities and available means to meet basic living needs, including access to food and health services, treatment and medicines.
  • Ensure that assessments are coordinated across primary health care, rehabilitation, long term care and social services to meet the needs of older people.
  • Implement outreach services and referral mechanisms to identify and ensure care for hidden or stay-behind older people.
  • Coordinate primary health care, rehabilitation, long-term care and social services to establish system referral mechanisms that older clients may require.
  • Assess and organize training for health staff to ensure knowledge of geriatric nutritional, health and medical care needs.
  • Establish information programmes to educate older people, families and caregivers about nutritional needs, medical conditions and health care options.
  • Use disaggregated data to assess services by age and gender.

Objective 5:   Provide Age-Sensitive and Appropriate Health and Humanitarian Services to Maintain Older Peoples’ Health.

  • Ensure that equitable access to shelter, clothing, food and sanitation prevent deterioration of health through integrated individual assessments and referrals to health and humanitarian agencies.
  • Ensure that age-friendly practices are used to promote services to older people with disabilities.
  • Provide access to appropriate health care, including medicines for chronic diseases and disability/restorative aids.
  • Collaborate with communities in identifying community-based home care and support options for frail and disabled older people.
  • When appropriate and feasible, develop mobile clinics to extend health services to older people living in remote locations.
  • Implement mechanisms to assess nutritional balance and ensure access to supplementary food programmes when appropriate, taking into account that many older people also care for children.  Provide education on food preparation using supplementary or locally available foods.
  • Ensure that protection needs of older people are integrated into programming (e.g. social welfare or community services) to identify persons at risk and prevent abuse and exploitation.
  • Undertake monitoring to assess continuing effectiveness of services to older people.
  • Use disaggregated data to assess efficiency of implemented activities by age and gender.

Objective 6:   Promote Cross-Sectoral Planning and Co-Ordination to Raise Awareness of Older Peoples’ Needs in Crises and Reduce Their Risk of Marginalization and Deteriorating Health in Emergencies.

  • Raise awareness among agencies and organizations concerning physical and health issues specific to older people and of ways to adapt basic need support to their requirements (e.g. supplementary food rations, livelihood needs and impacts of protection issues on older peoples’ physical and psychological health).
  • Where possible, include older people in planning and programming committees to increase their visibility and ensure their needs and priorities are integrated.
  • In coordination with appropriate partners, establish community self-help groups to facilitate community care for more vulnerable older people.
  • Recognize self-sufficiency as key to maintaining health and encourage the inclusion of older people in training programmes, income-generation schemes, and community development projects.
  • Establish older peoples’ committees to facilitate self-advocacy and communication with authorities and ministries of health to increase access to existing services and entitlements.

Objective 7:   Build Institutional Capacity and Commitment towards Ensuring the Health and Safety of Older People in Emergencies.

  • Integrate cross-cutting health emergency management issues into global/regional/country strategic plans.
  • Promote inter-agency and cross-sectoral consultation on cross-cutting policy and programming issues to build consensus, commitment and capacity to respond to older peoples’ needs in disasters and humanitarian crises.
  • Collaborate with ministries of health to establish mandates and legislation ensuring the provision of care to older people; apply a human rights framework to these issues.
  • Collaborate with ministries of health to develop options to increase older peoples’ access to affordable health care services, including the implementation of subsidized medical and medicine programmes.
  • Advocate for enhanced funding and humanitarian assistance to older people in emergencies and conflicts.  Encourage funding agencies to recognize older people as a priority.
  • Develop frameworks to promote participatory, transparent and accountable processes to advance the needs of older people.
  • Develop sustainable mechanisms to maintain advocacy and consultation of older people within the health care-system.  Establish and involve advocacy committees in the planning, implementation and evaluation of emergency management practices when appropriate, for example regarding the design of community shelters that may be accessed by older disabled people.

Objective 8:   Strengthen the Capacity of Ministries of Health and Health Care Systems to Meet the Needs of Older People in Emergencies.

  • As required, integrate the medical and nutritional needs of older people into local public health and emergency preparedness and response strategies.
  • Develop strategies to ensure that existing health care systems develop capacity (infrastructure and knowledge) to meet the increasing proportion of older people who will be impacted by disasters in the future, taking into account medical, disability and mental health needs, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
  • Collaborate with communities in identifying community-based home care and support strategies for older people as an option to reduce older peoples’ isolation and vulnerability to disasters.
  • Collaborate with communities to develop and maintain disaster reduction committees.  Assist in the implementation of strategies to strengthen community support to older people and reduce their levels of risk during disasters (e.g. development of community emergency response teams or mutual assistance groups among more vulnerable older people).
  • Integrate older peoples’ needs into exercise designs and facilitate the dissemination of lessons learned.
  • Develop performance frameworks and monitoring mechanisms to assess medical response systems and older peoples’ access to specialty care in emergencies.

Objective 9:   Develop Mechanisms to Ensure Continuing Development and Exchange of Expertise as these Relate to Older People in Emergencies.

  • Develop and provide ongoing training and education to staff on the needs and priorities of older people, including responsibility to include this population in planning and policy development.
  • Integrate issues related to older people in emergencies into relevant university curricula.
  • Undertake comparative research to assess the health status (including access to assistance) of older people in emergencies vis-à-vis other age groups.
  • Undertake research to address demographic shifts and the increasing proportion of older people in disasters as this relates to health care and infrastructure/facility development.
  • Ensure emergency preparedness and response considerations are integrated into relevant services and institutions (e.g. facilities caring for frail and disabled older people are required to develop and practice evacuation and emergency care plans).

Objective 10:   Promote Active Ageing as a Strategy to Reduce Vulnerability and Develop Resiliency to Disasters.

  • Promote a wider understanding among ministries of health and humanitarian organizations of the economic and social factors contributing to the vulnerability of older people, including issues related to livelihoods, inter-generational dependence and social pension.
  • Develop policies that recognize active ageing and resiliency as facilitating older peoples’ capacity to prepare for, cope with and respond to the affects of disasters and conflicts.
  • Include a life course perspective that recognizes health promotion and prevention of disease and disability.
  • Support cross-sectoral forums and activities which link the risks of older people in emergencies to frameworks for livelihoods, protection and gender-based equality, health promotion and social pension.
  • Collaborate with relevant organizations to mainstream the health needs of older people into existing humanitarian programmes addressing shelter, nutrition, livelihoods, protection and gender-based violence.
  • Develop information campaigns and encourage media to highlight both the needs and capacities of older people and to increase their visibility.
  • Collaborate with funding bodies to integrate active ageing as a criterion in funding proposals targeting older people.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – A Time to Worry ? (I)

2009-10-17:  Some of you are already hitting the Internet Search Engines … with fierce intent altogether … about  Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) !

Is it Time to Panic ?   No.

For a simple and direct hit, the 2 most relevant Irish Legal Instruments are:

1.  Statutory Instrument No. 352 of 2009 – Building Control Act 2007 (Commencement) Order 2009.

This states …

” The 30 September 2009 is appointed as the day on which the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Building Control Act 2007 shall come into operation.”

Section 5 covers the Amendment of Section 6 (Building Control Regulations) of the Building Control Act 1990.

Section 6 covers the Amendment of Section 7 (Appeals) of the Building Control Act 1990.

2.  Statutory Instrument No. 351 of 2009 – Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2009.

This states …

” These Regulations shall come into effect on 1 October 2009, except for the provisions of Article 8 which shall come into effect on 1 January 2009.”

Article 8 covers Disability Access Certificates and Revised Disability Access Certificates.

For you, yourself, to properly examine all of the ‘ins and outs’ of this New Certification Scheme … download the PDF File below … and then search the document (making sure that it is not case-sensitive !) using the phrase ‘Disability Access Certificate’.  You will find 99 instances where the phrase is used.

Enjoy !

Ireland: Statutory Instrument No. 351 of 2009 – Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Click the Link above to read/download PDF File (223 Kb)

In order to make full sense of all that is happening, and is intended to happen in the not too distant future … there are a few other Legal Instruments, related to the two listed, which also need to be consulted … but that is an exercise meant for masochists !

In comparison, the European Union Lisbon Treaty was a sweet bedtime story !   Seriously !!

.

Is it Time to Worry ?   Yes.

Here are just a few random ideas for your cogitation …

  • If the Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) pays little heed to Submissions made during and after this summer’s ‘consultation’ process … the proposed New Technical Guidance Document M: ‘Access & Use’ will end up looking like a real dog’s dinner of an absolute mess !   FUBAR.

Years were spent in the preparation of the New TGD M.  When it does eventually appear, it will be an accurate reflection of technical capacities within both the Department and the National Disability Authority (NDA).

Deeply regretted is the absence of Mr. Kevin Spencer … a gentle soul … from the DEHLG.  Things have not been the same since his departure.  He knew what he was talking about.

  • Who will deal, at a technical level, with Applications for Disability Access Certificates in the Local Authorities ?   Will they be competent to do so ?   Will their interpretation of the Part M Legal Requirements be harmonized … not just with other/different Authorities … but even with other technical personnel in the same Authority ???
  • In order to make this new certification scheme work, will the Guidance Text in Technical Guidance Document M (whatever version appears !) be operated as if it were Prescriptive Regulation … which will be totally illegal ?

This has been exactly the story … for many years … with the Guidance Text in Technical Guidance Document B … in the course of operation of the Fire Safety Certification Scheme.  FUBAR.

  • If, as I hinted above, the proposed New Technical Guidance Document M: ‘Access & Use’ will be a real dog’s dinner of a mess … falling far short of what can now be reasonably described as minimal accessibility performance (see the Draft International Accessibility-for-All Standard ISO 21542) … this will certainly open Building Owners/Managers of newly completed buildings to Complaints under Irish Equality Legislation.  Why is the Disability Sector so inactive with regard to making complaints ?

and finally …

  • Are the relevant Irish Decision Makers, as I suggested might happen in a previous post, in the process of actually sleepwalking into an unquestioned acceptance of the inadequate British Standards BS 9999 : 2008 and BS 8300 : 2009 ???   Do they know how to do anything else ?

 

For some sublime moments of meditation, however, please chew on the information provided at these Pages on the SDI Support WebSite

Disability Rights & Removing Physical Restrictions on Participation in Society ;

Towards a Sustainable Social Environment, Accessibility-for-All & Facilitation Design (2001 WHO ICF) ;

Fire Evacuation-for-All & Principles of Fire Engineering.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta