European Economic and Social Committee Public hearing on the

  CIVIL SOCIETY PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN CRPD Thursday 2 October 2014, Brussels

Session III - Implementation of disability provisions in the structural funds

Is the EU putting its money where its mouth is?Is the EU putting its money where its mouth is?The use of Structural Funds to perpetuate the segregation of disabled peopleThe use of Structural Funds to perpetuate the segregation of disabled people

Peter Lambreghts, ENIL Regional Coordinator

Overview

• About ENIL & ECCL

• Definitions

• Monitoring the use of Structural Funds in Central and Eastern Europe

• What are the alternatives to institutional care?

About ENIL & ECCL• ENIL (European Network on Independent Living) established in

1989• Brings together grassroots organisations run by disabled people,

and individuals• Members in 25 countries across Europe• Advocates for control and choice for disabled people through

personal assistance, peer support, barrier-free environment, housing options and technical aids

• ECCL (European Coalition for Community Living) – ENIL’s initiative established in 2005 focused on promoting community-based alternatives to institutional care

• Member of the European Expert Group on the transition from institutional to Community Based care

• EDF Board Member

Definitions

• Disabled people

• Institution

• De-institutionalisation (DI)

• Independent living

• Community-based services

• Personal assistance

Monitoring the use of SF• 2007: Initial reports of using SF for the renovation and building of

new institutions in Romania• 2007: EC – such use of SF is justified and up to the Member States • 2009: Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Transition from

Institutional to Community-based Care (now European Expert Group - EEG)

• 2010: ECCL’s Report Wasted Time, Wasted Money, Wasted Lives… A Wasted Opportunity?

• 2010 – 2011: SF/IPA diverted from large long-stay institutions in Bulgaria and Serbia

• 2012: Toolkit on the Use of EU Funding (EEG)• 2012: Open Society Institute Petition to the European Parliament• 2013: ENIL-ECCL Briefing on the Use of SF in CEE• 2013: New SF Regulations with references to DI

Main findings 2007 - 2013• Lack of governments’ vision for the transition to

community living• Focus on poor physical conditions, resulting in

renovation of institutions– Min. 150 mil Euro “wasted” in Bulgaria, Hungary,

Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic

• Lack of co-ordination of different EU funds• Other systemic barriers to community living

– Exclusion of NGOs– Restrictions on how services are provided– Unintended incentives created by SF

Horizontal issues

• Lack of monitoring

• Lack of transparency

• Lack of meaningful involvement of the civil society

Recommendations

• Clarity of vision

• Commitment to change

• Needs assessment

• Clear and precise definitions

• Co-ordination of Operational Programmes

• Meaningful involvement of NGOs

What should SF support?

“Though governments increasingly recognise the inevitability of deinstitutionalisation, there is less clarity with regard to the mechanisms that replace institutionalisation and what would constitute a human rights-based response.”

(CoE Human Rights Commissioner, The right of people with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community, 2012)

What does Article 19 say?• Choice of where and with whom to live, without

being obliged to live in a particular living arrangement

• Having access to a range of services, including personal assistance, which facilitate inclusion in the community and prevent isolation or segregation

• Having access to services and facilities available to general population, which are responsive to the needs of people with disabilities

Institutionalisation vs. ILHow SF are commonly used How SF should be used

Renovating/modernising institutions

Developing alternatives in the community that facilitate IL (infrastructure and support, such as personal assistance)

Building new institutions Developing alternatives in the community that facilitate IL (infrastructure and support, such as personal assistance)

Building group homes or living centres

Increasing the social housing stock, purchasing regular apartments and houses in the community, making apartments and houses in the community accessible

Funding special/parallel services (day centres, sheltered employment, special schools)

Making mainstream services accessible and available to disabled people (employment, education, childcare, health, transport etc.)

Advocacy opportunities 2014 - 2020

Useful resources• ENIL Wasted Lives Report & SF Briefing• ENIL Fact sheets and Definitions on

Independent Living• European Expert Group, Common European

Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care & Toolkit on the Use of EU Funding, 2012

• UN OHCHR, Getting a Life: Living Independently and Being Included in the Community, 2012

• OSF, The EU and the Right to Live in the Community, 2012

Contact informationPeter Lambreghts, Regional Coordinator

peter@independentliving.be

Ines Bulic, Policy Officer & ECCL Coordinator

ines.bulic@enil.eu

www.enil.eu

www.community-living.info

www.deinstitutionalisationguide.eu

Thank you for your attention!