If the state has signed, or ratified, the Convention, has it designated ‘focal points’ within government to address matters relating to the Convention’s implementation?

Explanation

For those states that have ratified the Convention, in line with Article 33, Paragraph 1, ‘State Parties’ need to designate one or more ‘focal points’ within government ‘for matters relating to the implementation’ of the Convention. In addition, in line with the other two paragraphs in this article, there need not only to be ‘independent mechanisms’ to ‘promote, protect and monitor’ its implementation, but also ‘civil society’ needs to be involved and participate ‘fully’ in the monitoring process. A ‘Yes’ means both that ‘focal points’ have been designated and meet regularly, and that civil society is involved and participates ‘fully’ in the process of monitoring the state’s implementation of the convention. A ‘Qualified/Partial’ response means that some, but not all, focal points may be in place, or that they do not meet regularly or have not met in the last 12 months. Or that they may exist, but that civil society may not yet be involved. A ‘No’ means that there are neither any focal points nor is there any involvement by civil society.

In detail

41% of respondents claimed that there are focal points, but civil society does not participate fully in monitoring the state’s implementation of the convention. Respondents highlighted the following concerns:

  • Lack of activity monitoring or biased governmentally monitoring
  • Lack of transparency and engagement with communities on Action Strategies’ development or implementation in consultation with PWDs communities
  • Segregated strategies for the design of focal points, or regional disparities
  • Lack of mechanisms and strategies for implementation