Coordination Mechanisms

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.

The second part of Article 33 (1) requests States Parties to consider setting up a coordination mechanism to facilitate CRPD implementation. While not a requirement, this provision can make a significant contribution towards mainstreaming disability across government institutions and ensuring a coordinated and coherent approach to CRPD implementation. As with the focal points, Article 33 does not prescribe the composition or mandate of coordination mechanisms, so they may take many different forms and have many different functions. 

Structure and composition

Coordination mechanisms are often conceived of as councils or committees, composed of representatives of various ministries and other government bodies. In some cases, representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs) and other civil society organizations are also members of the mechanism.[1]Coordination mechanisms often have a secretariat, which in many instances is located in ministries of social affairs.[2]A number of coordination mechanisms have sub-committees that coordinate CRPD efforts either in certain thematic areas or at the state, provincial or regional levels. For example, this is the case in Mauritius, where the National Committee on the Implementation and Monitoring of the Convention has a number of sub-committees that focus on issues such as education, training, employment and accessibility.[3]

Ideally, coordination mechanisms should have wide ministerial representation, including not only those more traditionally linked to disability (such as ministries of social affairs, education and health), but also others that play a major role in public policymaking (like ministries of finance, planning and culture). It is equally crucial that representatives appointed to the coordination mechanism have sufficient technical expertise on disability issues, are of high enough level to promote change within their respective ministries and have some form of continuous appointment to the mechanism. These conditions are especially applicable to the chair of the coordination mechanism, given that they must actively coordinate the work of the coordination mechanism and the actions of various ministries.

Linking focal points and coordination mechanisms

One major question left open by Article 33 (1) relates to the relationship between focal points and coordination mechanisms. While the details vary between countries, States have three broad options in this regard. First, coordination mechanisms and lead focal points can be the same entity (United Kingdom[4], Italy[5]). Second, the two mechanisms can be inter-related; for example, the focal point may chair a coordination mechanism (Denmark[6]) or a focal point may serve on a country’s coordination mechanism (Thailand[7]). Finally, some countries may choose to keep the lead focal point and coordination mechanism separate, splitting responsibilities and tasks between the two (Germany[8]).

Functions

The tasks attributed to a given coordination mechanism will, to a certain extent, depend on its relationship to the lead focal point. If the coordination mechanism is also the country’s lead focal point, then the responsibilities will be combined. While such a centralization of tasks has its advantages, this set-up means that the coordination mechanism will have responsibility for an extensive mandate, which in turn requires significant human, technical and financial resources. On the other hand, if the coordination mechanism and lead focal point are inter-related or separate, States are able to divide the mandates between the two. In these cases, lead focal points acts as the “brain” by focusing more on setting and driving the disability policy agenda, while the coordination mechanism acts as the “body” by ensuring that government ministries have a coordinated and coherent approach to CRPD implementation. As stated by de Beco and Hoefmans:

“…in State systems where, overall coordination is not attributed to a lead focal point, a distinct coordination mechanism would not take part in the actual development of disability rights policies and may therefore easily act as a neutral platform to unite the various policy-making factions…The distinction is subtle but important in order to safeguard a clear distinction in roles of the various CRPD mechanisms.”[9]

Even where there is a clear separation of tasks between the lead focal point and coordination mechanism, it is essential that they have solid channels for cooperation. In particular, the two should work closely together in the preparation of the State’s initial and periodic reports to the CRPD Committee, as well as in other areas such as the collection of data and statistics.