Making PRSP Inclusive
CBM Logo and link to homepage
Handicap International Logo and link to homepage

4.1.5 Constraints

The main constraint is the general lack of capacity: although apparently much has been achieved, the organisations involved in this process faced several challenges. CIARH has had available only extremely limited human resources, as capacities were already required to meet other important obligations. In addition, CIARH did not have any access to the donor community, although Handicap International compensated by at least meeting CIARH’s financial requirements. In the beginning this contributed to the ambivalence of Handicap International’s role as an INGO: Handicap International, as a foreign organisation, was able to influence and drive the process forward, but at the same time sought to leave the ownership of activities to CIARH. Unfortunately, CIARH’s members are mainly service providers with only a few DPOs, and this added to the difficulties and problems concerning the legitimacy and credibility of both organisations within the Honduran disability movement. Additionally, on some issues, for example budgetary questions, both Handicap International and CIARH lacked expertise and were not able to give satisfactory answers. Limits in terms of capacity and knowledge are also a main problem with regard to the monitoring and evaluation system of the PRS implementation process, which in Honduras is generally weak. In addition to the lack of capacity, the lack of collective problem analysis within the disability networks, no common prioritisation and a weak feedback and communication system between the PRS representatives and disability coordination bodies has led the Honduran PRS process to be effectively on standby. The grassroots organisations are not demanding the process to yield any concrete results, and thus there has been no systematic follow-up, nor a systematic inclusion of disability at the political level. A range of fairly disparate persons participate in the sector meetings – bureaucrats and ministers on the one hand, and civil society representatives on the other. Not all participants are able to follow the discussions and understand the documents concerning the budget or macroeconomic issues, or to participate actively in the national decision-making processes; people with disabilities moreover face specific difficulties. For this reason, some (I)NGOs and donors created a civil society support programme with specific training courses. Some DPOs have applied for funds from this support programme, but there is no unified proposal to empower and train persons with disabilities to understand the PRS process better. The project applications continue to be individual projects.
 
In 2003 CIARH was not invited to discuss the progress report, leading the organisation to write a position paper about the report. As a result, some of its arguments were included. Of course, not all promises have been realised, and in the 2004 progress report, civil society members were still calling for more participation of people with disabilities and requesting programmes in contrast to social welfare measures.

^ to top

 

Choose Style