Contextualizing Article 33 in the Arab Region: Current Context and Potential Challenges

Support for the Convention is strong in the Arab world. Out of the 18 ESCWA member countries, 17 have ratified or acceded to the Convention and eight have ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol (see Table 2). In short, almost every country in the region has an obligation under international human rights law to abide by and implement the provisions of the CRPD, including Article 33. It is also noteworthy that many Arab countries have commenced the initial State reporting process to the CRPD Committee, with eight countries – Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates – having fully completed their first reporting cycle.[1]

Source: United Nations Treaty Collection, 2019a and b.

According to the CRPD, States are given significant leeway in shaping and adapting their Article 33 frameworks to fit national contexts and state structures. In order to undertake a comparative analysis of the implementation of Article 33 of the CRPD in the Arab region, ESCWA invited all of its member States to complete a questionnaire on four main topics:

1. Article 33 (1): Focal points
2. Article 33 (1): Coordination mechanisms 
3. Article 33 (2): Institutional setups for monitoring CRPD implementation
4. Reporting mechanisms to the CRPD Committee

The questionnaire received responses from 16 out of 18 ESCWA member States, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Qatar. Tunisia did not complete the questionnaire but provided some information about its institutional setup. Libya was not included in the analysis. Out of the 17 countries, only Lebanon has not yet ratified or acceded to the CRPD. However, mechanisms for promoting and monitoring the rights of persons with disabilities are provided for under Lebanon’s disability law 220/2000.The following sections will review the results of the questionnaire.

Designation and structure of focal points in the Arab region

Article 33 (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.

As discussed previously, focal points are the central actors which ensure the full, effective and coordinated implementation of the CRPD. All 17 member States have designated focal points to carry out this task, thus fulfilling their focal point obligations as required by Article 33 (1) (see Annex 1 for a list of focal points by country).

Member States have generally followed Committee guidelines in their selection of entities to serve as focal points. Bahrain, Mauritania, Morocco, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen have designated their ministries of social affairs or development as focal points, dually fulfilling recommendations to designate focal points at highest level of government and from bodies that have pre-existing jurisdiction over disability-related issues. Qatar has nominated the National Committee for Human Rights as the main focal point, as well as additional focal points in various ministries. The UAE has designated its Ministry of Community Development as its focal point, thus also meeting these recommendations, as social issues fall under this ministry’s purview.

Eight States have designated national disability councils as their focal points (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Sudan and Tunisia). While national disability councils have relevant expertise and existing relationships with domestic actors, the ability of disability councils to successfully execute the duties required of the focal point may depend on the authority designated to them by their country’s leadership, and their proximity to the executive branch of Government. 

Seven countries have appointed multiple focal points in addition to their lead focal point (Bahrain, Mauritania, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar and the UAE). Additional focal points include disability councils, human rights commissions, state or local level bodies, and OPDs. While designating multiple focal points is thought to be particularly helpful in coordinating CRPD implementation efforts in countries with large territories or decentralized systems of governance, in the Arab region, the States Parties that have chosen to utilize multi-focal point set-ups encompass a range of sizes and governance structures.

In the seven countries that designated multiple focal points, distribution of focal points was predominantly horizontal, across national bodies.  Egypt, Iraq and Sudan have single focal points, but include regional subgroups within their coordination mechanism. Such vertical set-ups may be useful in supporting wide-ranging implementation efforts. 

Lines of reporting within focal point set-ups vary throughout the Arab region. In seven countries, the lead focal point reports to the President or Prime Minister (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria), and in six countries the lead focal point reports to a minister or council of ministers (Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, the UAE and Yemen) (see Chart 1).Direct reporting of focal points to senior level government officials can be quite valuable when it results in improved political influence and the human and financial resources required to carry out their responsibilities. 

Chart 1. Entity to which national focal points report (by number of countries)

Source: ESCWA on the basis of questionnaires (see annex)

Capacity and funding of focal points

Eleven countries have focal points with over 15 staff members, as well as dedicated budgets to execute their mandates. Respondents from Palestine, Lebanon, and the UAE reported that their focal points did not have dedicated budgets to carry out focal point functions, though they receive funds for their general activities from state budgets. Additionally, the representative from Saudi Arabia noted that the budget for its focal points was unspecified, and the representative from Syria stated that the funding allocated to its focal points was dependent on upcoming projects. In countries that provided the specific budgets of their focal points, funding varied greatly. Focal points have critical responsibilities in the process of overseeing CRPD implementation and must be funded accordingly.

Functions of focal points in the Arab region

As stated, the primary tasks of focal points are overseeing the overall implementation of the CRPD. This includes and guiding / preparing and revising the relevant policies and legal frameworks, build relevant capacity within Governments, ensure relevant data collection, and coordinating the state reports to the CRPD Committee. Focal points are the main interlocutor for the CRPD Committee.

Overseeing the implementation of the Convention naturally also includes administrative monitoring of implementation progress. Such administrative monitoring is an original function of focal points and coordination mechanisms (see below), but needs to be distinguished from independent monitoring frameworks which are requested in Article 33 (3).

Oversight of and guidance for implementation can entail certain conflicts of interest if the oversight body (focal point) is at the same time a direct service provider. Focal points should set the rules and guidelines, which service providers should implement. 

If focal points are at the same time service providers, these specific roles can be blurred. For the Arab region, this is the case to a certain extent in Iraq, Kuwait and Sudan. Bahrain’s focal point is the Ministry of Labour and Social Development, but this ministry also directly provides diagnostic testing, accommodation, vocational training, and employment support to persons with disabilities. In Kuwait, PADA is the focal point but also the main service provider for persons with disabilities. 

For the reason of a clearer separation of functions, the new Disability Law in Jordan (2018) has relieved the focal point, the National Council, of service provision functions and shifted them to the relevant Ministries. It is advisable that focal points focus on developing and coordinating national policies to guide and inform government implementation and are careful not to compromise this role through the provision of service delivery.

Designation and structure of coordination mechanisms in the Arab region

Article 33 (1)

States Parties […] shall give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels.

As reflected in the second part of Article 33 (1), coordination mechanisms are not required, but states should give “due consideration” to their designation and establishment since they contribute towards mainstreaming disability policies and ensuring a coordinated and coherent approach to CRPD implementation. Despite being optional, all 17 ESCWA member States have designated or established a coordination mechanism via legislation, decree, act or government decision (see Annex 2 for a complete list).

The composition of coordination mechanisms differs by country, but mostly consist of the various government ministries that deal with disability affairs, e.g. social affairs, labour, health, education, finance, etc. Many Arab States have also included ministries that are not traditionally linked to disability: for example, Morocco’s coordination mechanism includes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Tourism, and the General Committee for the Management of Prisons, and Iraq’s coordination mechanism includes the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Defense. Diverse ministerial representation has the potential to strengthen coordination mechanisms. The challenge lies in building consistent capacity and understanding of policy implications for persons with disabilities across relevant ministries.

Fourteen countries have also included non-governmental entities on their coordination mechanisms, such as persons with disabilities, civil society organizations, OPDs, private sector businesses and/or charitable organizations. In addition, though gender diversity is not stipulated in the Convention, fifteen countries responded that they have female members on the coordination mechanisms, ranging from between one and nine members.

Roles and functions of focal points and coordination mechanisms should also be clearly identified and delineated. In Kuwait, the State party has designated the Public Authority for the Disabled (PADA) as its focal point as the single coordination body within the Government on issues relating to disabilities, governed by the Supreme Council of the Public Authority of the Disabled.[2]

Capacity and funding of focal points

As with focal points, coordination mechanisms should have sufficient resources to carry out their work. In eight member States, coordination mechanisms have more than fifteen staff members. Half of respondents indicated that their coordination mechanisms have dedicated budgets to execute mandates. Like focal points, the majority of coordination mechanism entities receive funding for their general activities through state budgets. Reported budgets for coordination mechanisms varied greatly. In the cases of Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan, budgets for focal points and coordination mechanisms are the same because they are the same entity.

Functions of coordination mechanisms in the Arab region

In regard to their functioning, most countries’ coordination mechanisms meet once a month (5) or every three months (5). In eight countries, coordination mechanisms have sub-committees at the sub-national level (4), thematic level (3) or both (1). The coordination mechanisms in ten countries have a secretariat, consisting primarily of members of national disability councils or ministries. The majority of coordination mechanism chairs consist of ministers of social affairs or presidents/prime ministers (see Chart 2), with their seniority being a promising indicator of their ability to successfully carry out the coordination role.

Chart 2. Coordination mechanism chair (by number of countries)

It is important that the focal point and the coordination mechanism work together closely in the implementation of the Convention and drafting of state reports to the CRPD Committee. As mentioned, the relationship between the lead focal point and the coordination mechanism is variable, and this is diversity is reflected across ESCWA member States. Six countries (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Sudan, Tunisia) noted that their lead focal point is the same entity as the coordination mechanism. Four countries (Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria) have their lead focal point as the chair of the coordination mechanism, while three other countries (Mauritania, UAE, Yemen) have their lead focal point as a member of the coordination mechanism. Two countries (Bahrain, Morocco) have focal points that are the secretariat of the coordination mechanism while Qatar’s lead focal point and coordination mechanism are structurally separate but have established channels for cooperation.  One country (Kuwait) designated another relationship (see Chart 3).

Chart 3: Relationship between lead focal point and coordination mechanism (by number of countries)

Egypt, Sudan and Iraq have also formed sub-regional branches within its coordination mechanism structure. This may be a helpful step to ensure national coherency on policy in a country that is highly populous and has a large rural citizenry spread throughout the State.

Finally, like focal points, coordination mechanisms should actively involve persons with disabilities as they ensure the coherency of CRPD implementation. The majority of ESCWA member States reported that persons with disabilities were directly involved in coordination activities in their own capacity through serving as representatives on coordination mechanisms. The number of persons with disabilities represented on coordination councils varied, ranging from one in Saudi Arabia to 12 in Sudan. However, it is worth noting that having only one person with a disability on the coordination mechanism may impede its work, as that individual’s knowledge and views may not be representative of the country’s disability community as a whole.

Designation and structure of independent monitoring frameworks in the Arab region

Article 33 (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.

As mentioned above, independent monitoring frameworks should be distinguished from administrative monitoring of implementation, which is a continuous function of focal points and coordination mechanisms. Independent monitoring frameworks should ensure that human rights principles regarding availability, adequacy and affordability of services to persons with disabilities are observed. Fourteen countries in the region have established a framework to promote, protect and monitor the CRPD under Article 33 (2) via legislation, decree or administrative decision (see Annex 3 for a full list). The countries that did not report having a monitoring framework included Kuwait, Lebanon and Palestine.

Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar and Tunisia have designated a human rights body to be in their monitoring frameworks. The rest of the countries’ have frameworks made up primarily of national disability councils or government ministries. As discussed on pages 10 and 11, at least one mechanism within the monitoring framework should be categorized as “independent”. However, only seven countries (Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sudan) identified having at least one independent mechanism.

Article 33 (2) directs states to consider the Paris Principles when establishing their independent mechanisms. As discussed previously, the Paris Principles outline that national institutions that promote and protect human rights should be independent, pluralistic, with a broad mandate, powers of investigation, and be adequately funded and accessible. In the questionnaire, ten countries responded that their independent mechanisms abide by the Paris Principles. Since there are only six countries which identified as having at least one independent mechanism, out of which only three have fully compliant NHRIs according to the Global Alliance of Human Rights Institutions (Jordan, Morocco and Mauritania), there is likely some confusion among countries what exactly the Paris Principles are or what qualifies as an independent mechanism.

In regard to the relationship between the members of monitoring frameworks, aside from one country that distinguished between voting members and observer members (Mauritania), eleven countries responded that all monitoring framework members have equal status. The monitoring frameworks in eight countries receive dedicated budgets from the government to execute their mandates.  As mentioned previously, there is room for flexibility regarding the structure of monitoring frameworks, and states should feel free to adapt them to their national contexts. However, it is advisable that there is a clear distinction between the focal point and the monitoring framework, as the latter is responsible for overseeing the work of the former.[3]

In the Arab region, a number of countries have designated the same entity to be both the focal point and a member of the monitoring framework, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Yemen. While focal points may play a valuable role in providing information on implementation, within the monitoring framework, the process of results monitoring should be entrusted to an independent body such as an NHRI to ensure objectivity. 

Similarly, while representatives of government ministries can play an advisory role on the monitoring framework, countries should be cautious of giving government officials the primary responsibility for monitoring activities, as it could compromise the independent nature of the framework. This appears to be of particular relevance in the Arab region, as Iraq, Morocco, Sudan, Syria and the UAE all reported that more than 15 government officials are part of their designated monitoring frameworks.  Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia reported that 10 to 15 government officials are involved with their monitoring frameworks; Egypt and Mauritania reported six to ten.

Functions of independent monitoring frameworks in the Arab region

As stated previously, under Article 33 (2), independent monitoring frameworks are responsible for the promotion, protection, and monitoring of the Convention. While promotion activities are mainly related to raising awareness and may not be directly impacted by noncompliance with the Paris Principles, a lack of substantive and functional independence in Arab States’ monitoring frameworks has the potential to blur responsibilities throughout the monitoring process.

Still, while completely independent monitoring frameworks should be strived for, monitoring frameworks in the region appear able to engage in some protection and monitoring functions without Paris Principle compliance. Handling complaints regarding CRPD violations is a key responsibility under the umbrella of protection activities: though only three Arab countries reported monitoring frameworks that are fully compliant NHRIs, 12 countries confirmed that their monitoring frameworks have the legal capacity to hear and investigate individual or group complaints. 

Like protection functions, the successful monitoring of the Convention in the Arab region is likely hindered by the presence of multiple States Parties that do not have a monitoring set-up that is fully separate from the government. It is difficult to imagine that monitoring frameworks with ties to government bodies are able to critically review the State Party’s legal compliance with CRPD obligations or spearhead inquiries into potential violations of CRPD protocol. Challenges may also be faced by non-independent monitoring frameworks in the process of reporting to the CRPD Committee, as discussed below. 

Finally, there may be some confusion among Arab countries about what monitoring actually entails. Many may think monitoring means examining the implementation of disability-related activities by various government ministries. However, as outlined in the guidance from the CRPD Committee, monitoring includes identifying and analyzing the State’s implementation gaps in the Convention, as well as the impact of State policies and programmes on persons with disabilities and disability-specific policies.[4] By understanding this important difference, Arab countries can both clarify and enhance the role, and possibly composition of, national monitoring frameworks.

Reporting mechanisms to the CRPD in the Arab region

The entity that maintains primary responsibility for drafting the State’s initial and periodic reports to the CRPD Committee varies by country (see Annex 4 for a full list). As discussed previously, it is generally considered to be the role of the focal point to coordinate the preparation of state reports in cooperation with the coordination mechanism, but in practice this is not necessarily the case. Some countries responded that their focal points maintain primary responsibility for drafting the state reports (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Yemen), while others have designated various other entities to take on this role (Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar and Saudi Arabia).However, it is worth noting that the majority of countries do send their focal points to represent them at Committee sessions.

Eleven countries noted that their monitoring frameworks participate in constructive dialogue with the CRPD Committee, though only nine countries noted that monitoring frameworks carry out regular reporting with regard to CRPD implementation. This task is coordinated in a variety of ways, e.g. through periodic reports and meetings (some experts advise that independent mechanisms should not contribute to the preparation of state reports because their role is to monitor, not implement, states’ obligations under the CRPD[5]). Other entities that cooperate in the preparation of reports to the Committee include UN agencies, civil society, federal and local authorities and the private sector.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) encourages civil society to participate in drafting reports and attending Committee sessions. In 2016, the Committee released updated and simplified reporting procedures to assist the involvement of OPDs and other civil society organizations in submitting reports.[6]

Participation of persons with disabilities under Article 33 (3) in the Arab region

As called for in Article 33 (3), persons with disabilities, their representative organizations, and other civil society organizations should be involved in the monitoring process. Though Article 33 (3) only mentions monitoring, participation of persons with disabilities should also extend to the coordination activities discussed under Article 33 (1).

In 13 countries, monitoring frameworks involve and consult with persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in a variety of ways, as illustrated in Chart 4. In specifying how (more than one answer was allowed), 11 countries include them through direct participation of persons with disabilities as board members or committee experts (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Yemen). Eleven include OPDs in the framework (Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) and twelve include them through public consultations and meetings (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Qatar and Yemen). Ten countries include persons with disabilities through their participation in the drafting of reports to the CRPD Committee (Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen) and four counties include them through individual or informal channels (Egypt, Iraq, Oman and Sudan).

While there is no set pathway for States Parties to involve persons with disabilities in monitoring efforts, to effectively ensure participation, countries should seek to facilitate the engagement of persons with disabilities through multiple means. In its effort to promote the rights of persons with disabilities, Saudi Arabia has established the Authority for the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities in February 2018. The body acts as a planning and coordinating body and 2 persons with disabilities in its board of directors. Without consultation, it is unclear whether the direct involvement of persons with disabilities in the monitoring framework is enough to guarantee a fully participatory monitoring process.

Chart 4: Consultative relationship between monitoring framework and persons with disabilities or OPDs

Concluding observations

States have significant leeway in shaping and adapting their Article 33 frameworks to fit national contexts and state structures. This is no less the case among Arab States, which have established institutional frameworks of different shapes and sizes to implement and monitor the Convention. Though most countries are meeting their Article 33 obligations, there are a number of areas which may make it difficult for the relevant institutions to carry out these responsibilities. These include sufficient political authority to affect real change in government disability policy; a lack of adequate human and financial resources for frameworks to operate broadly and effectively; a lack of sub-focal points or sub-national coordination mechanisms to help implement the Convention across entire countries, particularly those with large rural populations; and a blurring of the lines between implementation, coordination and monitoring roles.

The capacity of “independent” monitoring frameworks in some countries is a particular point of concern as it could mean states may not capture the real situation of persons with disabilities in their country. Independent monitoring is particularly important in identifying potential human rights violations and establishing methods to prevent them, so ineffective monitoring frameworks may miss a large number of violations occurring in their countries. Setting up fully compliant NHRIs and designating them as the independent members of the monitoring framework can be an effective way for states to be in compliance with Article 33 (2).

Despite these challenges, Arab countries are progressing in their fulfilment of Article 33 (3).  The involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the implementation, coordination, and monitoring of the Convention in all countries is noteworthy. Being one of the most important elements of the CRPD, full participation will ensure that persons with disabilities have the greatest impact on disability policy in their countries. 

This section has reviewed in detail the specific setups of ESCWA’s member States in relation to Article 33. In addition to these elements, there are a number of other opportunities and challenges that cut across the Arab region that may affect countries’ implementation of Article 33. The next section will briefly review three examples of common themes which warrant further examination and strengthened cooperation, namely: disability data, civil society engagement and governance structures.