4.2.3 Disability and PRSP
In the beginning, only a few organisations (e.g. ActionAid and WaterAid) were involved in the PRS process. In early 2002 an NGO meeting took place, where these organisations presented the PRS process and the issues that needed to be addressed. The way the I-PRSP treated disability shocked participants: only one part dealt with people with disabilities, and this simply read “we will take care of difficult social cases, such as people with disabilities”. The perception that people with disabilities are “social cases” prompted Handicap International and NFOWD to publish a joint position paper taking the ILO paper (ILO, 2002) as a main source. The team added sections on human rights and an analysis of the national I-PRSP, selected the sections that mentioned the term “disability”, and proposed improvements. NFOWD then made it possible to present the paper – and especially a three-page summary in the national language, Bangla (the original was written in English) – to key persons in the Planning Commission, within the government and to donors. This summary was extremely useful as it made it possible for a large number of people to read it. The most valuable side-effect was its impact as an eye-opener, making more persons understand that the inclusion of disability is an issue that is not only important for the PRS, but for development in general.
In 2003 NFOWD was not able to participate in the large consultations organised by the government, but instead initiated a consultation on disability on its own. The meeting was headed by the Minister of Social Welfare; other participants included representatives of NGOs working in the disability sector, DPOs, journalists, lawyers, educationalists, parents of disabled children and officials from other ministries (health, education, employment, etc.), as well as a member from the Planning Commission. During the meeting the position paper was presented and discussed. This received considerable attention from the Planning Commission representative, who wanted to pay more attention to the concerns of people with disabilities in the future. In 2004 the government organised one national and six regional consultations. NFOWD pushed its member organisations to participate in the regional consultations. All of them used the translated version of the position document as a reference, and advocated the same issues at the regional level. Due to this broad involvement, it became impossible to ignore the issue of disability after the six regional consultations. However, NFOWD had to make a substantial effort to get itself invited to the national consultation. This was quite large (with more than 200 participants), and there was little time to present the issue. The government had planned 13 thematic sections, with one joint section for ethnic minorities and people with disabilities under the label of marginalised groups. However, both groups soon realised that their needs and requirements were not compatible, so they tried – successfully, as it proved – to separate these issues. Parallel to the efforts of NFOWD, other organisations also worked on including disability in the national PRSP. Action on Disability and Development (ADD) hired an economist who interviewed disabled people, collected their points of view and organised a consultation on the basis of the results.
