human and social rights

Public Procurement & ‘Design for All’ – It’s Crunch Time, Folks !

2011-10-12 & 2011-10-17:  Close your eyes … and imagine, for a split second, the value and material extent of all the Public Procurement Contracts being tendered for and awarded each week, throughout Europe.  ‘Enormous’ is the only appropriate word which must spring to your mind !   If you don’t believe me, check out the statistics for yourself !!   And that value is going to keep increasing !!!

The European Commission has recently proposed that suitable instruments be developed which will permit the operation of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements in EU Public Procurement Directives to commence, with full effect.  This process is proving to be problematic … and it is certainly not as open and transparent as it should be.

Leaving aside the utilities sectors (water, energy, transport and postal services) … recall that EU Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, on the Co-Ordination of Procedures for the Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts had to be implemented, at national level in all of the EU Member States, no later than 31 January 2006.  This Directive was amended, in a minor way, by Directives 2005/51/EC and 2005/75/EC.  In spite of these amendments, 31 January 2006 remained the target date for national implementation.

[ Ireland's national implementing legislation ... European Communities (Award of Public Authorities' Contracts) Regulations 2006 ... came into operation on 22 June 2006.]

In addition, each Member State had to ensure that Directive 2004/18/EC was properly implemented by using effective, available and transparent Monitoring Mechanisms.

With regard to specific rules governing specifications and contract documents … Article 23.1 of Directive 2004/18/EC stated, and still does state …

‘ The technical specifications as defined in point 1 of Annex VI shall be set out in the contract documentation, such as contract notices, contract documents or additional documents.  Whenever possible these technical specifications should be defined so as to take into account accessibility criteria for people with disabilities or design for all users.’

Not the strongest possible language to encourage ‘accessibility’ … there’s nothing quite like a shall to concentrate minds !

[ However, in Ireland ... with regard to the same specific rules governing specifications and contract documents ... Section 23 (2) of the European Communities (Award of Public Authorities' Contracts) Regulations 2006 states ...

' In awarding a public contract, a contracting authority shall, as far as practicable, ensure that the technical specifications for the contract take account of the need to prescribe accessibility criteria for all persons who are likely to use the relevant works, products or service, particularly those who have disabilities.' ]

As already discussed in my post, dated 2 November 2010 … many people in the European Union Institutions would prefer to steer completely away from the Social Aspects of Sustainable Human and Social Development … fuzzy areas, not capable of easy quantification … leaving small, peripheral groups in the Institutions (neither well connected to the mainstream, nor fully aware of the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of that mainstream) to look after the Social Aspects.

.

Public Procurement in the European Union (EU)

The Award of Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts concluded in the EU Member States on behalf of State, Regional or Local Authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of Principles enshrined in the EU Treaties and, in particular, to …

  • the principle of freedom of movement of goods ;
  • the principle of freedom of establishment ;
  • the principle of freedom to provide services ;   and
  • the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency.

For Public Contracts Above A Certain Value … it has been deemed necessary to draw up provisions of Community Co-Ordination of National Procedures for the award of such contracts, which are based on these principles so as to ensure the effects of them and to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition.

- Adapted from Preamble Paragraph #2, EU Directive 2004/18/EC

.

Is Europe Serious about Implementing the Public Procurement Accessibility / Design for All Requirements ?

Before looking at how Accessibility / Design for All is being handled within the fast evolving European Public Procurement Framework … it is sobering to compare and contrast how DG Environment (ENV), in the European Commission, is promoting and actively supporting Green Public Procurement, i.e. Public Procurement which is environment-friendly … http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm … no messing about there !

If we (speaking as a European) are serious, therefore, about the ‘real’ implementation of Accessibility for All / Design for All / Inclusive Design / Universal Design / Barrier-Free Design in the Built Environment … it is of fundamental importance that an easily assimilated Standard (as defined in Paragraph #2, ANNEX VI of Directive 2004/18/EC) be produced ‘on the table’ for reference by Public Contracting Authorities … NOW !!!

Built Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, service utilities, transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, and seas, etc … including the Virtual Environment.

Virtual Environment:  A designed environment, electronically generated from within the built environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the  person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

The Built and Virtual Environments continue to merge into a new Augmented Reality.

A comprehensive document capable of answering a major portion of Europe’s current needs in this area is on the verge of being published as a full International Standard … ISO 21542: ‘Building Construction – Accessibility & Usability of the Built Environment’.  And … as is the case with hundreds of ISO Standards in other sectors, this standard could easily be approved by CEN, one of Europe’s Standards Organisations, as an EN (European Standard) … under the Vienna Agreement on Technical Co-Operation between ISO and CEN, which was confirmed by both organizations in 2001 … and the period to practical application of ISO 21542 on the ground would be relatively swift.

Every delay represents not only a precious opportunity missed to improve the Accessibility of the Built Environment … but another blatant Denial of Human and Social Rights to vulnerable groups of people in all our communities !

Yes, this document was badly managed at the beginning of its very long gestation period, and its contents were a bit of a mess for the first few years … AND European countries were indignant, then, at the prospect of it becoming a European Standard.  However, walking around any major city in any country in Europe today, and witnessing the universally appalling and miserable efforts at Accessibility Implementation … you would have to be outraged at the level of hypocrisy and blatant self-delusion practiced by Europeans !

BUT NOW … ISO FDIS 21542 … the Final Draft of the International Standard which was issued for voting, beginning on 22 September 2011 … is a very respectable looking document altogether.  It makes important statements about ‘creating a sustainable built environment which is accessible’.  Its purpose is ‘to define how the built environment should be designed, constructed and managed to enable people to approach, enter, use, egress from and evacuate a building independently, in an equitable and dignified manner and to the greatest extent possible’ … ‘principles which are supported by Preamble (g) and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’.  I could go on, and on … but I will resist the temptation, since I was heavily involved in the development of this ISO Standard !

The point is … there is no longer any reason for European countries to complain about the inadequacy of this International Standard … and it should be the preferred instrument of choice to facilitate the immediate operation of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements in EU Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC.

Unfortunately, this may not happen !

.

Years too late, near the end of 2007 … DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (EMPL), in the European Commission, issued the following Mandate …

M/420 EN – Brussels, 21 December 2007

Standardization Mandate 420 to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in Support of European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement in the Built Environment

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (67.4 kb)

.

This Mandate covers 2 Phases of Work.  Phase I deals with compiling an inventory of existing accessibility-related standards and an analysis of any gaps … as well as with issues of accessibility implementation monitoring and conformity assessment.  Phase II is the actual accessibility standard(s) development phase.

However … Mandate M/420 EN is a flawed document, and it should have received much closer scrutiny from the European Standards Organizations named in the document title … before any work in Phase I commenced.  Failing that … the first work item on the Phase I Agenda should certainly have been a critical examination of the mandate.

In a post, dated 15 January 2011 … I wrote …

The European Union’s Accessibility Strategy, related Policies and Programmes … and the monitoring, targeting and independent verification of Accessibility Implementation … all require a radical overhaul !

All those Officials in the European Commission who are involved, in any way, shape or form, with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ would do well to RE-READ AND MEDITATE DEEPLY on the contents of the 2003 Final Report from the Group of Accessibility Experts, which was established by the European Commission itself … “

The Final Report from the 2003 EU Group of Accessibility Experts, of which I was a Member, can be downloaded towards the end of that post.

The Officials who drafted Commission Mandate M/420 EN paid little, if any, attention to that 2003 Expert Group Report.

.

At the end of Phase I … in response to the European Commission’s Mandate M/420 EN … a long, rambling CEN Joint Report (document ref. CEN/BT/WG 207 N 29) of 425 Pages was issued, dated 8 August 2011, for general discussion and comment.

Some Comments on the CEN Joint Report …

1.  Terminology

CEN Joint Report – CEN/BT/WG 207 N 29

3.4     Conclusions View, Findings and Recommendations

3.4.1  Overview

Terms such as ‘procurement’, ‘inclusion’, ‘accessibility’ and ‘compliance’ are difficult to define precisely, and they are often not fully understood by those responsible for managing or providing the products or environments people use.  They are also not readily understood by those administrating and triggering the procurement process.

It is strange, therefore … and unacceptable … that this Report does not attempt to reduce and/or remove the ambiguity surrounding these terms … by providing a clear definition, with a supporting explanatory text, for each of the terms listed above.

I’m not even sure that the large numbers of people who helped to draft the CEN Joint Report fully understand those terms !

Most importantly, the Report is not at all precise about … and in fact appears to be completely confused by … the clear distinction which must be made between ‘accessibility’ and ‘access’.

2.  ‘Accessibility’ & UN CRPD

Accessibility does not begin and end with Article 9 of the United Nations 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) !!!   See my post, dated 15 January 2011 … and #6 below.

3.  EU Ratification of UN CRPD

The full implications arising from European Union (EU) Ratification, on 23 December 2010, of the United Nations 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) … for both EU Institutions, and the EU Member States (whether or not they have individually ratified the UN Convention) … have not been properly examined in the CEN Joint Report.

See my post, dated 5 February 2011 .

4.  Mainstreaming ‘Accessibility’

For the majority of people involved in the spatial planning, design and development of the European Built Environment, Accessibility is all about transport issues … for example, how far a proposed new building is from a transportation node.

We are communicating such a confused message (is it Accessibility for All, Design for All, Inclusive Design, Universal Design, or Barrier-Free Design ?) … that many policy and decision makers just could not be bothered.  And who, in Europe, is really concerned with the quality of Accessibility Implementation ???

In addition … the CEN Joint Report neglected to deal adequately … or at all … with a major body of EU Legislation which has been implemented at national level, in the Member States, many years ago … Safety at Work Legislation !   All of the EU Directives require that workplaces be accessible.  Yet, I know for a fact that, in Ireland, the Health & Safety Authority (HSA) is doing absolutely nothing to check whether this requirement is being complied with or not.

A Sustainable Built Environment is Accessible for All !   So many different types of International/European/National Legislation mandate that the Built Environment shall be Accessible for All !!   Good Design demands that the Built Environment is Accessible for All !!!

So why is Accessibility not being properly integrated into the operation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Legislation ?

Environmental Impact:  Any effect caused by a given activity on the environment, including human health, safety and welfare, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, climate, landscape and historical monuments or other physical structures, or the interactions among these factors; it also includes effects on accessibility, cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors.

No case need be made for the integration of Accessibility into Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) … it self-evidently must be !

Sustainability Impact Assessment:  A continual evaluation and optimization process – informing initial decision-making, or design, and shaping activity/product/service realization, useful life and termination, or final disposal – of the interrelated positive and negative social, environmental, economic, institutional, political and legal impacts on balanced and equitable implementation of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

5.  What Is The Overriding European Social Priority ?

The overriding European Social Priority is to commence operation, with full effect, of the Accessibility / Design for All Requirements within the fast evolving European Public Procurement Framework … as quickly as possible.

Do we have to wait another 2 or 3 years, at least, for the production of an ‘acceptable’ European Accessibility Standard ??   Instead, why not approve ISO 21542 as the European Standard when it is published as a full standard … which will be very soon ?   ISO 21542 is already being used as the benchmark in the CEN Joint Report !

AND … do we have to wait, for who knows how long … before Effective Monitoring Procedures … and Independent Verification Procedures … are put in place at European and National/Regional/Local Levels ???

Quality of European Accessibility Implementation … is critical !

.

2011-10-17 …

6.  Post UN CRPD – A More Demanding Scope & Quality of Implementation

Not unexpected … but it has still been a most enlightening experience to read the recent UN CRPD Committee Report on Spain … selected extracts from which are reproduced below.  The language used by the Committee is strong and direct … finally !

This is not a good report and, in places, it makes for unpleasant reading … a concrete example of the ‘hypocrisy and blatant self-delusion practiced by Europeans’, which I talked about earlier.

In accordance with Article 36.3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) … the UN Secretary-General will be making this Report available to all States Parties.

.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Sixth Session – 19 to 23 September 2011

Concluding Observations on Initial Report of Spain

(Article 35 of UN CRPD)

The Committee considered the initial report of Spain (CRPD/C/ESP/1) at its 56th and 57th meetings, held on 20 September 2011, and adopted the following concluding observations at its 62nd meeting, held on 23 September 2011.

. 

III.  Principal Areas of Concern & Recommendations

A.  General Principles & Obligations (Articles 1 & 4)

11.  The Committee takes note of the adoption of Act 26/2011 which introduces the concept of ‘person with disabilities’ as defined in the Convention and expands the protection of persons with disabilities.  However, it is concerned that not all persons with disabilities are covered by the law.

12.  The Committee urges the State Party to ensure that all persons with disabilities enjoy protection against discrimination and have access to equal opportunities irrespective of their level of disability.

13.  The Committee welcomes Act 49/2007, dated 26 December 2007, establishing the Permanent Specialized Office to deal with offences and sanctions in equal opportunities, non-discrimination and universal accessibility by persons with disabilities.  However, it is concerned by the slow development and lack of promotion of this arbitration system at the regional government level; by the lack of information on the number of sanctions submitted and resolved; and by the failure of the State Party to report on actions undertaken to implement this law.  The Committee is concerned about the overall effectiveness of the system.

14.  The Committee recommends that the State Party raise awareness among persons with disabilities about the system of arbitration; increase the level of free legal aid; and ensure the regulation of offences and sanctions at the regional government level.

15.  The Committee regrets the lack of information on the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations at the regional level in designing, and evaluating the implementation of legislation, policy and decision-making processes; and the participation of children with disabilities at all levels.

16.  The Committee recommends that the State Party take specific measures to: ensure the active participation of persons with disabilities in public decision-making processes at the regional level; and to include children with disabilities at all levels.

17.  The Committee takes note of Act 2/2010 of 3 March 2010 on sexual and reproductive health decriminalizing voluntary termination of pregnancy, allowing  pregnancy to be terminated up to 14 weeks and including two specific cases in which abortion is allowed for longer time limits due to the fact that the foetus has a disability:  until 22 weeks of gestation, provided there is ‘a risk of serious anomalies in the foetus’, and beyond week 22 when, inter alia, ‘an extremely serious and incurable illness is detected in the foetus’.  It also notes the explanations provided by the State Party for maintaining this distinction.

18.  The Committee recommends that the State Party abolish the distinction made in Act 2/2010 in the period allowed under law within which a pregnancy can be terminated, based solely on disability.

B. Specific Rights (Articles 5-30)

Equality and non-discrimination (Article 5)

19.  The Committee welcomes the adoption of Act 26/2011 amending regulations which will abolish the need to have a disability certificate to bring a discrimination claim before a judicial body.  However, it regrets the lack of information on cases of discrimination, and it is concerned that persons with disabilities will still be marginalized.  The Committee is further concerned by the lack of information on reasonable accommodation.  It is also concerned that in practice disability affects parents’ guardianship or custody of their children and that legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability is not enforceable in cases of discrimination due to perceived disability or association with a person with a disability.

20.  The Committee urges the State Party to expand the protection of discrimination on the grounds of disability to explicitly cover multiple disability, perceived disability and association with a person with a disability, and to ensure the protection from denial of reasonable accommodation, as a form of discrimination, regardless of the level of disability.  Moreover guidance, awareness raising and training should be given to ensure a better comprehension by all stakeholders, including persons with disabilities, of the concept of reasonable accommodation and prevention of discrimination.

Article 8 – Awareness-Raising

25.  The Committee commends the many initiatives taken by the State Party to implement the Convention.  However, it notes that more needs to be done to increase awareness in society, in the media and amongst persons with disabilities themselves of the right of persons with disabilities.

26.  The Committee calls upon the State Party to take proactive measures to enhance awareness of the Convention and its Optional Protocol at all levels, in particular among the judiciary and the legal profession, political parties, Parliament and Government officials, civil society, media, persons with disabilities, as well as the general public.

Article 9 – Accessibility

27.  The Committee takes note that Act 26/2011 amends regulations which will shorten the timelines for meeting accessibility requirements in public facilities; and goods and services available to the public.  However, it remains concerned at the low level of compliance with these requirements, in particular, at regional and local levels, in the private sector, and in relation to existing facilities.  The Committee is aware of situations of discrimination faced by air passengers with disabilities, including situations of denial of boarding.  The Committee reminds the State Party that Article 9 of the Convention also demands access to information and communication.

28.  The Committee recommends that sufficient financial and human resources be allocated as soon as possible to implement, promote and monitor compliance with accessibility legislation through national measures as well as through international cooperation.

Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

31.  The Committee is concerned at the insufficiency of specific protocols for persons with disabilities in emergency situations.

32.  The Committee calls upon the State Party to review its laws and policies related to emergency situations with a view to including provisions guaranteeing the security and protection of persons with disabilities.

[ My Comment:  This is a gross understatement of a serious problem which continues to fester not only in Spain but, more generally, in Europe ! ]

Article 19 – Living Independently & Being Included in the Community

39.  The Committee is concerned at the lack of resources and services to guarantee the right to live independently and to be included in the community, in particular in rural areas.  It is further concerned that the choice of residence of persons with disabilities is limited by the availability of the necessary services, and that those living in residential institutions are reported to have no alternative to institutionalization.  Finally, the Committee is concerned about linking eligibility of social services to a specific grade of disability.

40.  The Committee encourages the State Party to ensure that an adequate level of funding is made available to effectively enable persons with disabilities to: enjoy the freedom to choose their residence on an equal basis with others; access a full range of in-home, residential and other community services for daily life, including personal assistance; and to enjoy reasonable accommodation so as to better integrate into their communities.

41.  The Committee is concerned that the law for the promotion of autonomy limits the resources to hire personal assistants only to those persons who have level 3 disabilities and only for education and work.

42.  The Committee encourages the State Party to expand resources for personal assistants for all persons with disabilities in accordance with their requirements.

Article 24 – Education

43.  The Committee welcomes the fact that the principle of inclusion governs the schooling of pupils with special educational needs; that discrimination in education is prohibited; and that most children with disabilities are included in the regular education system.  It commends the enactment of Organic Act 2/2006 on Education, which obliges the education authorities to provide specialist teachers, qualified professionals and the necessary materials and resources, as well as the laws that oblige schools to make necessary curricular adjustments and diversifications for pupils with disabilities.  However, the Committee is concerned by the implementation of these laws in practice, in view of reported cases of failure to provide reasonable accommodation, of continued segregation and exclusion, of financial arguments used as justification for discrimination, and of the cases of children enrolled in special education against their parents’ will.  The Committee notes with concern that parents challenging the placement of their children with disabilities in special education have no possibility of appeal and that their only alternative is to educate them at their own expense or pay for the reasonable accommodation of their child in the regular education system.

44.  The Committee reiterates that denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination and the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is immediately applicable and not subject to progressive realisation.  It recommends the State Party to:

     (a)  Increase its efforts to provide reasonable accommodation in education, allocating sufficient financial and human resources to implement the right to inclusive education; paying particular attention to assessing the availability of teachers with specialist qualifications; and ensuring that educational departments of local governments understand their obligations under the Convention and act in conformity with its provisions ;

     (b)  Ensure that the decisions to place children with a disability in a special school or in special classes, or to offer them solely a reduced standard curriculum, are taken in consultation with the parents ;

     (c)  Ensure that the parents of children with disabilities are not obliged to pay for the education or for the measures of reasonable accommodation in mainstream schools ;

     (d)  Ensure that decisions on placing children in segregated settings can be appealed swiftly and effectively.

C.  Specific Obligations (Articles 31-33)

Statistics and data collection (Article 31)

49.  The Committee regrets the low level of disaggregated data on persons with disabilities.  The Committee recalls that such information is indispensable to: understanding the situations of specific groups of persons with disabilities in the State Party who may be subject to varying degrees of vulnerability; developing laws, policies and programmes adapted to their situations; and assessing the implementation of the Convention.

50.  The Committee recommends that the State party systematize the collection, analysis and dissemination of data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability; enhance capacity building in this regard; and develop gender-sensitive indicators to support legislative developments, policymaking and institutional strengthening for monitoring and reporting on progress made with regard to the implementation of the various provisions of the Convention.

51.  The Committee regrets that the situation of children with disabilities is not reflected in the data on the protection of children.

52.  The Committee recommends that the State Party systematically collect, analyse and disseminate data, disaggregated by sex, age and disability, on abuse and violence against children.

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New EU Construction Product Regulation 305/2011 – Halleluiah !

2011-09-13:  Closely related to our current discussions about the 10th Anniversary of the 9-11 WTC Incident in New York …

For more years than I care to remember … I have been involved, directly and/or indirectly, with piecing together the edifice that is European Union (EU) Council Directive 89/106/EEC Interpretation … a lumbering giant which has failed, miserably, to bring about the necessary conditions for the efficient operation of an effective European Economic Area (EEA) Single Market for Construction Products.

Proper Implementation has always been the fatal weakness of this ‘system’ … because on the ground, in Europe, no such Single Market exists in reality.  Politicians, at both European and national levels and typically lacking a competence on technical issues, believe otherwise.  Bureaucrats, at both European and national levels and always lacking a working familiarity with the full scope of EU Treaties, do not want to recognise this fundamental truth.

To refresh your memories … the full title of the now Repealed EU Directive 89/106/EEC was …

Council Directive, of 21 December 1988, on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States relating to Construction Products

ANNEX I of that Directive described 6 ‘Essential Requirements’ …

  1. Mechanical Resistance & Stability
  2. Safety in Case of Fire
  3. Hygiene, Health & the Environment
  4. Safety in Use
  5. Protection against Noise
  6. Energy Economy & Heat Retention

The unusual feature of this particular New Approach Directive was that the ‘suitable’ construction products, i.e. products which could be shown to be fit for their intended use, had to facilitate the construction works in satisfying all of the 6 Essential Requirements, taken together as a whole … not just some of the Requirements.

Down through the years, however, it has been deeply frustrating … to have to pressure the TÜV Organization in Germany, for example, to issue proper Test Reports to their German Clients … or, as recently as last July, to have to explain basic information about CE Marking to Manufacturers.  And there appears to be no proper infrastructure in any EU Member State to check and control CE Marks on industrial products generally, never mind construction products.

Further up the chain, there were also problems.  In developing a family of 6 Separate Interpretative Documents for each of the Essential Requirements … important cross linking concepts between Requirements, e.g. Fire-Induced Progressive Building Collapse, fell into a deep void, almost never to be heard from again.  And concepts explicitly referenced in ANNEX I, such as the Safety of Rescue Teams (i.e. firefighters), received little or no attention in those Interpretative Documents … which then had a serious knock-on effect when Harmonized European Standards, European Technical Approvals (ETA’s) and EuroCodes were being drafted, based on the guidelines in Interpretative Documents.

.

Lucca, Italy - Early Morning on 21 August 2011. Photograph by CJ Walsh. Click to enlarge.

Lucca, Italy - Early Morning on 21 August 2011. Photograph by CJ Walsh. Click to enlarge.

.

Halleluiah !   At Long Last … published on 4th April 2011, in the Official Journal of the European Union … the new EU Construction Product Regulation 305/2011 … the full title of which is …

Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 9 March 2011, laying down Harmonized Conditions for the Marketing of Construction Products and Repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC

ANNEX I of these New Regulations now describe 7 ‘Basic Requirements for Construction Works’ … requirements which are appropriate to the needs of our time.  Please note the newly revised/additional texts, highlighted in red …

Construction works as a whole and in their separate parts must be fit for their intended use, taking into account in particular the health and safety of persons involved throughout the life cycle of the works.  Subject to normal maintenance, construction works must satisfy these basic requirements for construction works for an economically reasonable working life.

     1. Mechanical Resistance and Stability

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that the loadings that are liable to act on them during their construction and use will not lead to any of the following:

(a)   collapse of the whole or part of the works ;

(b)   major deformations to an inadmissible degree ;

(c)   damage to other parts of the construction works or to fittings or installed equipment as a result of major deformation of the load-bearing construction ;

(d)   damage by an event to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.

     2. Safety in Case of Fire

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire:

(a)   the load-bearing capacity of the construction works can be assumed for a specific period of time ;

(b)   the generation and spread of fire and smoke within the construction works are limited ;

(c)   the spread of fire to neighbouring construction works is limited ;

(d)   occupants can leave the construction works or be rescued by other means ;

(e)   the safety of rescue teams is taken into consideration.

     3. Hygiene, Health and the Environment

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that they will, throughout their life cycle, not be a threat to the hygiene or health and safety of workers, occupants or neighbours, nor have an exceedingly high impact, over their entire life cycle, on the environmental quality or on the climate during their construction, use and demolition, in particular as a result of any of the following:

(a)   the giving-off of toxic gas ;

(b)   the emission of dangerous substances, volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), greenhouse gases or dangerous particles into indoor or outdoor air ;

(c)   the emission of dangerous radiation ;

(d)   the release of dangerous substances into ground water, marine waters, surface waters or soil ;

(e)   the release of dangerous substances into drinking water, or substances which have an otherwise negative impact on drinking water ;

(f)    faulty discharge of waste water, emission of flue gases or faulty disposal of solid or liquid waste ;

(g)   dampness in parts of the construction works or on surfaces within the construction works.

     4. Safety and Accessibility in Use

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that they do not present unacceptable risks of accidents or damage in service or in operation such as slipping, falling, collision, burns, electrocution, injury from explosion and burglariesIn particular, construction works must be designed and built taking into consideration accessibility and use for disabled persons.

     5. Protection against Noise

The construction works must be designed and built in such a way that noise perceived by the occupants or people nearby is kept to a level that will not threaten their health and will allow them to sleep, rest and work in satisfactory conditions.

     6. Energy Economy and Heat Retention

The construction works and their heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation installations must be designed and built in such a way that the amount of energy they require in use shall be low, when account is taken of the occupants and of the climatic conditions of the location.  Construction works must also be energy-efficient, using as little energy as possible during their construction and dismantling.

     7. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

The construction works must be designed, built and demolished in such a way that the use of natural resources is sustainable and in particular ensure the following:

(a)   re-use or recyclability of the construction works, their materials and parts after demolition ;

(b)   durability of the construction works ;

(c)   use of environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials in the construction works.

.

I will be anxious to see if the full intent of these ‘Basic Requirements for Construction Works’ is properly transposed into the new interpretative framework (comprising Delegated Acts, Harmonized Standards, etc., etc.) of EU Regulation 305/2011 …

and …

I will be even more anxious to see how and when specific output (Harmonized Standards, European Technical Approvals (ETA’s) and EuroCodes) from the obsolete interpretative framework of the Repealed Directive 89/106/EEC is revised and updated !

and, finally …

When will we ever see the vital Infrastructure of Implementation operating successfully in the EU Member States … so that Manufacturers can reap the enormous benefits of an effective EEA Single Market for Construction Products ??

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A More Balanced Presentation of Recent UN Gaza Flotilla Report

2011-09-05:  Something is seriously wrong when it is stated in an official United Nations (UN) Report that any aspect of the Gaza Blockade by Israel is legal, under International Law.

Colour photograph showing the MV Mavi Marmara aid-carrying ship leaving the port of Antalya, in Southern Turkey ... on 22 May 2010 ... for Gaza, in Palestine.

Colour photograph showing the MV Mavi Marmara aid-carrying ship leaving the port of Antalya, in Southern Turkey ... on 22 May 2010 ... for Gaza, in Palestine.

.

On 2 August 2010 … UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, established a Panel of Inquiry to report on the 31 May 2010 Gaza Flotilla Incident in the International Waters of the Mediterranean Sea.  The Panel Team consisted of 4 Members …

  • Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Chair ;
  • President Álvaro Uribe, Vice-Chair ;
  • Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar ;   and
  • Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk.

The Panel’s Report was released by the United Nations last Friday, 2 September 2011 … and can be downloaded from the following address … http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

The Findings and Recommendations contained in the Panel’s Report have been widely covered since then, at national and international levels, in the various news media.

Colour photograph showing the 2010 Gaza Flotilla Panel of Inquiry Team ... Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President Álvaro Uribe and Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar ... with UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, in the centre. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Colour photograph showing the 2010 Gaza Flotilla Panel of Inquiry Team ... Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President Álvaro Uribe and Mr. Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar ... with UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, in the centre. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

.

For a More Balanced Presentation of the Recent UN Gaza Flotilla Report, however, the following short statement by Mr. Sanberk, a graduate of the Law Faculty at Istanbul University and former Turkish Ambassador, must be reproduced – in full – and widely circulated.

Mr. Sanberk’s Statement can be viewed on Page 105 (the last page !) of the Report …

” I hereby register my disagreement with the Chairmanship on the following issues contained in the report:

  • The question of the legality of the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel ;
  • The actions of the flotilla ;
  • Naval blockades in general ;
  • Appendix: The applicable International legal principles.

This, for the following reasons:

-  On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments.  International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification.  However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the International Community.  Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful.

-  Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful.  The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission received widespread approval from the member states.

-  Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally accepted rule of international law.  There can be no exception from this long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of views.

-  The intentions of the participants in the International Humanitarian Convoy were humanitarian, reflecting the concerns of the vast majority of the International Community.  They came under attack in international waters.  They resisted for their own protection.  Nine civilians were killed and many others were injured by the Israeli soldiers.  One of the victims is still in a coma.  The evidence confirms that at least some of the victims had been killed deliberately.

-  The wording in the report is not satisfactory in describing the actual extent of the atrocities that the victims have been subjected to.  This includes the scope of the maltreatment suffered by the passengers in the hands of Israeli soldiers and officials.

In view of the above, I reject and dissociate myself from the relevant parts and paragraphs of the report, as reflected in paragraphs ii, iv, v, vii of the findings contained in the summary of the report and paragraphs ii, iv, v, vii, viii and ix of the recommendations contained in the same text.”

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2011 IFE International Fire Conference & AGM in Cardiff, Wales

2011-07-17:  On 6th & 7th July last … in Cardiff, the Capital City of Wales … the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) held its Annual General Meeting (AGM), followed by a very well attended 1½ Day International Fire Conference.  Participants came from as far away as Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong (in China), Canada, U.S.A., Nigeria and Switzerland.  A large, vocal group of delegates from The Netherlands also attended … and of course, there were many people from these islands … Ireland and Great Britain … the Irish Isles !

For me, it was an enjoyable few days in Cardiff.

The Immediate Past President of the IFE, Mr John Woodcock, had initiated an important programme of activities during his 2010/2011 Term of Office on the theme of ‘Fire Engineering & Sustainability’.  The New IFE President for 2011/2012, Mr. H.G. (Hao-Giang) Tay, has stated that he will continue this work with enthusiasm.

This brings me very neatly to the reason for my attendance at the Cardiff ‘Gig’.  I had been invited by HG Tay to make a presentation on ‘Sustainable Fire Engineering’.  This, I was very pleased and honoured to do.

.

” The audience found the conference extremely valuable and I had many delegates who spoke to me specifically about how good the conference was and the high standard of the presentations.  The number of questions on each presentation was a testament to the interest of the audience.

The subject is of such importance that we really need to make sure the voice of the profession is firmly planted in all decision-making on design, protection and management of buildings.”

[Short Extract, Letter from HG Tay, International IFE President, dated 27 July 2011]

.

Tremendous Injury was caused to the Local Environment in Buncefield ... but Our Planet can no longer suffer these Criminal Human Acts !

Tremendous Injury was caused to the Local Environment in Buncefield ... but Our Planet can no longer suffer these Criminal Human Acts !

 

2011 IFE Cardiff Overhead Presentation

CJ Walsh: “Sustainable Fire Engineering IS THE FUTURE !”

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.98 Mb)

.

In order to properly protect the interests of Society and our Clients/Client Organizations … and to effectively realize a Safe and Sustainable Built Environment in the 21st Century … it is necessary, in designing a building for fire and its immediate aftermath, for the Fire Engineer to develop Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives … which must never be confused with the minimal Fire Safety Objectives mandated in Building and Fire Regulations and Codes.

Sustainable Fire Engineering is concerned with far more than compliance with Legislation !   For this reason, a Fire Engineering Code of Ethics is essential.

.

Ethically Based Sustainable Fire Engineering must also consider the following issues, which are relevant to Today’s Human Environment :

  1. Sustainable Human & Social Development.
  2. Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather Events … not less than a recurrence interval of 100 years should be used in design, always bearing in mind that the minimum Building Life Cycle for a Sustainable Building is 100 years.
  3. Resistance to Fire-Induced Progressive Building Collapse and Disproportionate Damage.
  4. Sufficient attention and care for Vulnerable Building Users in ‘situations of risk’ – refer to Article 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  5. Safety of Firefighters & Rescue Teams – refer to Essential Requirement 2 of the European Union’s Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC.

.

In this Overhead Presentation …

  • Clearly outlined is a Holistic Perspective of the much wider scope for Sustainable Fire Engineering in the Future … Fire Engineering which has an empirical and scientifically robust foundation … Fire Engineering which is not afraid to confront and absorb the lessons of the 9-11 WTC Incident (2001) in New York, or the 2008 Mumbai ‘Hive Attacks’ … Fire Engineering which discards its outrageously shameful disregard for People with Activity Limitations … Fire Engineering which understands Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse and Disproportionate Damage in Buildings and, most importantly, understands the difference between these two related structural concepts … Fire Engineering which is capable of full integration with the Mainstream Construction Sector ;
  • Sustainable Human & Social Development is clearly defined, and the current widespread confusion about the far more limited concept of ‘Green’ is removed ;
  • The UNESCO WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, updated by CJ Walsh in 2011, is proposed as a suitable and very necessary template for the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) ;
  • As Sustainable Design Solutions are appropriate to Local Geography, Culture, Climate (and Climate Change), Economy, Social Need, Language/Dialect, etc … it is strongly recommended that the IFE should develop Global Regional Guidance Documents on Sustainable Fire Engineering, i.e. separate documents for Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, etc ;
  • Finally … this Presentation initiates a fresh and entirely new dialogue within the International Fire Science and Engineering Community.

.

What are your views and comments ?

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fantasy Climate Change Policies, Landfill Gases & Water ?!?

2011-07-15:  The recent failure by European Union Environment Ministers to increase, unconditionally, the EU 2020 GHG Emission Reduction Target from 20% below 1990 levels to 30% … and the even more recent vote in the European Parliament against such an unconditional increase … leaves a stench in the nostrils.  Something stinks … and it’s the EU’s Climate Change Policy.  Too many alterations to the European Lifestyle … too many sacrifices … are required to effectively implement a ‘real’ climate change policy !

Taken as a whole … this is also a reliable indicator with regard to what is not happening in a strongly related policy area … the implementation of EU Sustainability Policy.

.

The next BIG United Nations International Climate Change Conference in 2011COP 17 – will take place from 28 November to 9 December, 2011 … in Durban, South Africa.  Let’s not get our hopes up for the long-awaited, very necessary and urgent Global, Legally Binding Consensus Agreement on Climate Change Mitigation to be finalized there … but let’s not be too negative either !

And how are the UNFCCC Annex I Countries doing so far ?   For an answer, please follow the link below to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite …

Official UNFCCC Map – All Annex I Countries

I wrote ‘an answer’ … as this is not ‘the answer’ … because the Climate Change Numbers produced by each country are not yet sufficiently accurate, precise and reliable.  In fact, there is so much massaging of numbers that it might be better just to imagine this whole process as the Climate Change Red Light District !

BUT … we do know enough to be able to identify the worst offenders:

  • 34 – IRELAND !
  • 35 – Iceland
  • 36 – Greece
  • 37 – Portugal
  • 38 – New Zealand
  • 39 – Spain
  • 40 – Canada
  • 41 – Australia
  • 42 – Malta
  • 43 – Turkey

.

Looking back to when the Climate Change ‘Train’ began to come off the rails … the 2009 Copenhagen Accord was a political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation from Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA … who attended the UNFCCC Climate Change Summit in December 2009.  Many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Accord.

A general overview of the submissions made by the Developed Economies, however, reveals the following about the emissions targets being undertaken …

     -   they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;

     -   they are very disappointing … being far below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ;   and

     -   there is no consistent emission base year … varying, for example, from 1990, 1992, 2000 to 2005.

This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from these countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities.  It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult.  The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is fraught with difficulty … and is going absolutely nowhere at present !

Some Conclusions about Copenhagen and Since:

  1. The Danish Organizers were entirely responsible for the 2009 Climate Change Train Wreck !   And … this incompetent bungling continues to contaminate events since then.
  2. All Sectors of Europe’s Social Environment must now take seriously, i.e. pro-actively engage with, the Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … and prepare for a planetary temperature rise of at least 3-4 degrees Celsius before the end of this century !!

. 

Meanwhile, at national level in Ireland … and further to my post, dated 23 February 2011 … the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the following Press Release on 4 July 2011 …

‘ Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project – Community Update Number No. 4

Gas flares at the Kerdiffstown Landfill are now installed and fully operational.  The flares burn off odorous gas that is collected by gas wells in two areas at the site – the lined landfill cell, and the North-West corner.

The lined landfill cell has now been fully covered with a heavy plastic membrane that will prevent gas escaping into the air.  This membrane will also stop rainwater getting into the waste and creating ‘leachate’ – the residual liquid that seeps through waste after rainfall.

These temporary gas control measures should result in a reduction in odour coming from the site.  Odour will continue to be encountered on occasion until the full remediation is completed and, in particular, there is a risk of odour during work phases where wastes will be disturbed.

The next major remedial works to occur on site will be the demolition of a number of unsafe buildings. The buildings are scheduled to be demolished in August, and the EPA will communicate the specific dates before the works commence.

On Friday, 1 July 2011, the EPA welcomed a number of TDs, councillors, council officials and members of the local community to the site for a briefing, and tour of the site works done to date.  The EPA would like to thank deputies Emmet Stagg, Anthony Lawlor, and Catherine Murphy, and Councillors Anne Breen, Emer McDaid, and Ger Dunne, for attending.

The EPA then met with members of the Local Community for the first Community Liaison Group meeting.  This group was formed to ensure that those people affected by the site can communicate directly with the people who will clean the site.  The Liaison Group includes EPA staff, Kildare County Council officials, members of CAN (Clean Air Naas), a representative from Kerdiffstown House, and local residents and business people.  The group took a tour of the site to review ongoing remedial works.

The EPA will continue to issue Community Updates as remedial works on the site take place.  For information about works at the site, go to … www.kerdiffstowncleanup.ie .’

.

Please read, again, that first paragraph of the Press Release above … and pinch yourself !

Ireland’s EPA has an onerous legal responsibility with regard to the development and implementation of this country’s National Climate Change Policy.  Furthermore … the EPA, on its own WebSite ( http://www.epa.ie/ ) states the following …

‘ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aims to be a leader in the climate change debate in Ireland, and to be the first port of call for information on climate change.  We hope that the information we provide on these WebPages will keep you informed on the latest news, research and events in the climate change area, not only in Ireland but internationally.’

.

I ask: “Why are those Landfill Gases at Kerdiffstown being burned off ???”

Because Ireland’s National Climate Change Policy is a ‘paper’ policy … an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ policy … a policy not intended for ‘real’ implementation.  Surely we have a right to expect that, within the same national organization … somebody, somewhere … is able to think laterally ?

Climate Change Time is running out … and there is an immediate and desperate need for simple, direct and honest talk, consultation, awareness raising, training and education … across all sectors of our Social Environment !

. 

At European level … an example, to follow below, of the continuing weak and feeble Climate Change Language still being used by EU Institutions and Official Organizations … where individual employees, of all ranks, are more fearful of offending national and/or EU politicians than they are in doing their jobs properly and protecting EU Citizens and the Environment …

A recently published European Environment Agency (EEA) Technical Report 7: ‘Safe Water & Healthy Water Services in a Changing Environment’ … summarises existing knowledge of Climate Change Impacts on water services and health; the nature and effectiveness of the policy responses; and the coverage and gaps in existing assessments of these themes.

To download the Full Technical Report, go to the EEA’s WebSite … http://www.eea.europa.eu/ .

.

‘ Climate Change, Water & Health

Millennium Development Goal 7 (MDG7) is to halve the proportion of the global population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015.  A World Health Organization (WHO) assessment in 2010 finds that access to improved water sources, sanitation and wastewater treatment has increased over the past two decades.  In many countries in the Eastern European Region, however, progress is slow.  More than 50% of the rural population in ten countries have no access to improved water, giving rise to important health inequalities.

• It is important to understand how Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events will affect the achievement of MDG7.  Drinking water supplies and sanitation systems will have to be made resilient to Climate Change, and drinking water and sanitation must be fully incorporated into integrated water resource management.

Climate Change is projected to cause major changes in yearly and seasonal precipitation and water flow, flooding and coastal erosion risks, water quality, and the distribution of species and ecosystems.

Climate Change will impact all areas of water services – the quality and availability of water sources, infrastructure, and the type of treatment needed to meet quality standards.  We will also see more frequent and severe droughts, flooding and weather events.

• Countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia face the greatest threats to safe water.  The infrastructure in many towns and rural areas is in poor condition, and water provision is erratic and of unsatisfactory quality.

• Heavy rainfall events may also lead to flooding, especially in urban areas, and this can have serious impacts on the performance and efficiency of water supply and wastewater treatment systems, which may potentially lead to health risks.  Waterborne diseases arise predominantly from contamination of water supplies after heavy rainfall and flooding.

• Low river flows and increased temperatures during droughts reduce dilution of wastewater effluent, and drinking water quality could be compromised, increasing the need for extra treatment of both effluent and water supplies.

Water Management Policies & Extreme Weather Events

• Water management policies at European and EU Levels are being made increasingly adaptable to Climate Change, which should help safeguard public health and ecosystem services in the future.

• There are numerous guidelines for the design of water and human health policies across Europe (e.g. WHO Guidelines on drinking water quality, Protocol on Water and Health, and draft guidance on water supply and sanitation in extreme weather).  Recently, such Guidance has focused on how policy design and implementation might be affected by and adapted to Climate Change Events.

The WHO Vision 2030 Study assesses how and where Climate Change will affect drinking water and sanitation in the medium term, and what can be done to maximise the resilience of drinking water and sanitation systems.

• Several existing EU Policies address water management issues (the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the EU Water Scarcity and Droughts Strategy) and others deal more directly with potential water-related impacts on human health (e.g. the Drinking Water Directive, and Bathing Water Directive).

• There is a clear recognition that Climate Change creates a need for coherent, sustainable, cross-sectoral policy and regulation; sharing of available tools; facilitating mechanisms for partnerships and financing; and readiness to optimise across sectors during implementation.

• The water utility sector faces a unique set of challenges.  A primary challenge will be enhancing its capacity to cope with Climate Change Impacts and Other Human Pressures on water systems, while fostering greater resiliency to extreme hydrological events.

• With more frequent higher-intensity storms projected, utilities face the need to update infrastructure design practices.  This necessitates investments – not necessarily only in larger structures but also smarter (using better process control technologies) or local measures on storm water run-off.

Assessment Knowledge Base

• At international, national and local levels … much information is produced for assessments of the state of water and related health impacts.  Overall, both the current international and national water and health assessments have limited focus on extreme weather events and their effects on water services.

• In national assessments and programmes, countries appear to be aware of the adverse consequences of Climate Change on water and health.  However, sometimes assessments appear to be based on ‘expert knowledge’, largely qualitative in scope, and not going further than identifying likely scenarios.  The evidence‑base is lacking to make reliable estimates of the health effects of Climate Change resulting from impacts on water resources.

• Much effort is now focused on the impact of Climate Change on water and the environment, including health-related impacts.  Many international and European organisations have mapped out future Climate Change Impacts on water-related issues, identifying vulnerable groups and vulnerable sub-regions.

• The vast majority of the assessments of drought and water scarcity have focused on the impact of water scarcity, water use by sectors and strategies for meeting demand.  Very little consideration has been given to the health effects or consequences of future extreme weather events.

• The health effects of flooding do not feature significantly in national assessments.  The main focus is identifying regions most at risk of flooding and preparing plans for responding and mitigating the main consequences.

• Sufficient public health competences exist to cope with the health effects of Climate Change.  However, no (comprehensive) assessment has been undertaken to predict the severity or extent of future health risks related to the impact of Climate Change on water services.

• Irrespective of an assessment of the disease burden, actions being taken on the wider scale to respond to water scarcity, drought and flooding will help to reduce the health effects associated with Climate Change and water.’

.

If you were a Key Decision-Maker … would this language spur you into action … or make you yawn, and put you to sleep ???

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“April in Paris !” – Recent Meeting of CIB W14: Fire Safety

2011-04-29:  A Meeting of  CIB Working Commission 14: ‘Fire Safety’  took place at the Headquarters of Groupe AFNOR … Association Française de NORmalisation … which is located just outside the centre of Paris, France … on Monday, 11 April 2011.

These meetings are typically, though not always, co-ordinated with a long series of  ISO Technical Committee 92: ‘Fire Safety’ Meetings at the same venue.  Both technical bodies have a very good working relationship, and there is a strong interchange of membership between the two.  The recent revision to the description and scope of CIB W14 will be of enormous benefit to all.

Colour photograph showing the CIB W14: 'Fire Safety' Meeting in Paris, on 11 April 2011, at the Groupe AFNOR Headquarters. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-11. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing the CIB W14: 'Fire Safety' Meeting in Paris, on 11 April 2011, at the Groupe AFNOR Headquarters. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-11. Click to enlarge.

.

Some Matters of Interest at the CIB W14: ‘Fire Safety’ Meeting – Presentations & Discussions about Two of the Current Pre-Normative Innovation & Research Projects …

1.  CIB W14 Working Group IV: ‘Structural Reliability & Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse’

See the Dedicated Page on this Technical Web Log (Tech-BLOG) Sitehttp://www.cjwalsh.ie/progressive-collapse-fire/ … for the latest update on the Research Project … which has proposed the following, as a Rational Route Forward

     A.  Mainstream the Language, Practices, Procedures and Design Methodologies of Fire Science & Engineering … so that other design disciplines can appreciate that Ethical Fire Science & Engineering also has a sound, modern, rational and empirical basis.   [Task for CIB W14]

     B.  Raise awareness about the primacy, and encourage the wide acceptance, of Fire Serviceability Limit States in Structural Fire Engineering … and the universal requirement that buildings must resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse and, in addition, also resist Disproportionate Damage.   [Task for CIB W14 Working Group IV]

     C.  Indicate the need for, and foster the development of, innovative Structural Thermal Insulation Fire Protection Systems which are durable, can resist mechanical damage in ambient and fire conditions, and can be properly shown to be ‘fit for their intended life-cycle use’.   [Task for the Fire Industry]

     D.  In steel construction … depending on its location in a building and having designed sufficiently robust connections for fire conditions … show why, where and how Thermal Insulation must now be used to maintain a Lower Temperature in the Steel … in order to ensure that its deformations (+/- deflection, expansion and distortion, etc.) remain within design parameters … both during the fire and, for a minimum period afterwards, during the ‘cooling phase’.   [Task for CIB W14 Working Group IV]

     E.  Encourage the development of Fire Engineering Design Guidelines for new and existing buildings, along with the Decision Support Tools needed for their use in practice … to support #2 and #4 above.  And propose how Existing Code/Regulation Provisions and Standards should be suitably updated and revised.   [Task for the International Fire Science & Engineering Community]

During the discussion which followed my presentation, and having reviewed progress … it was generally felt that the time was now ripe to prepare a Discussion Document for Comment.  This will be circulated about a month before the next meeting of CIB W14 … to be held in October 2011.

2.  CIB W14 Working Group 5: ‘Fire Incident Human Behaviour & Abilities’

The photograph above was actually taken during the presentation of this Research Project … at the time being given by Project Leader, Douglas Hillhouse, Organizer of the Fire Risk Engineering Programme at Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland.

Prior to the Paris Meeting, Douglas had circulated a Project Discussion Document for Comment … which was focused mainly on people with disabilities.  The Co-Ordinator of CIB W14, Prof. Dr. George Hadjisophocleous, was pleased to see this Research Project develop and gather momentum.

During the discussion which followed the Presentation, I made the following points …

  • The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted on 13 December 2006; it came into force, i.e. became an International Legal Instrument, on 3 May 2008; and it was ratified by a European Union (E.U.) having, for the first time after the Lisbon Treaty, its own separate legal personality … on 23 December 2010.

In February 2011 … the 2010 European Foundation Centre (EFC) Report: ‘Study on Challenges and Good Practices in the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’, was approved for publication by the European Commission.  Under a duty of loyal co-operation, which derives from Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), each E.U. Member State is now obliged to properly implement the critical accessibility-related provisions of the UN CRPD, i.e. Preamble (g) and Articles 4.3, 9, 10, 11, with 31 & 33.

  • The Final Draft of International Standard … ISO FDIS 21542: ‘Building Construction – Accessibility & Usability of the Built Environment’ … was registered with ISO Central Secretariat on 17 March 2011.  In spite of the technically flawed submission from ISO Technical Committee 92 to ISO Technical Committee 59, which is responsible for the production of ISO 21542 … we had successfully managed to retain a substantive, and meaningful, body of text relating to Fire Safety for People with Activity Limitations.
  • Our concern, throughout this CIB W14 Research Project, would be Fire Safety for All … including people with a wide range of behavioural responses and physical/mental/cognitive/psychological abilities during a fire incident … including people with activity limitations, not just people with disabilities … and firefighters.  The user profile in a ‘real’ building must be viewed as a continuum.
  • In attempting to provide better Fire Engineering Design Solutions for people with cognitive impairments, I had realized … many years ago … that the field of Cognitive Psychology offered huge potential for a paradigm shift in Fire Engineering Research.  This potential will be identified in the Project.
  • Amongst the International Fire Science and Engineering Community, there is widespread ignorance about Panic and Panic Attacks … this may help to explain the irrational fear about dealing with this important issue … a fear which the WG 5 Project will confront !

.

Of Unrelated Interest ?

During visits to Paris, I regularly ‘pop-in’ to Père Lachaise Cemetery … in the east of the city.  Access is very convenient … the Père Lachaise Métro Station being directly served by Lines 2 & 3.  Here are the last resting places (?) of Some Interesting Personalities

A.  Camille Pissarro (1830-1903) – Impressionist Painter

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-12. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04- 12. Click to enlarge.

.

B.  Jim Morrison (1943-1971) of ‘The DOORS’ – Lead Singer, Songwriter & Poet

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-12. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-12. Click to enlarge.

.

C.  Maria Callas (1923-1977) – Opera Singer & Diva

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-12. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph by CJ Walsh. 2011-04-12. Click to enlarge.

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2011 Dublin ‘Girón 50′ Victory Symposium – Final Declaration !

2011-04-23:  Never do I cease to be amazed at the number of highly vocal ‘experts’ who pontificate about the small Caribbean island state of Cuba … which has a population of approximately 11 million people, with about 2.5 million of those living in the capital city of Havana … and not once have these ‘experts’ set foot on this beautiful island.  What a pity !

A certain fascination with the 1959 Cuban Revolution and its Leaders … and a large dose of curiosity about the countryside and its people … were the principal drivers behind an extensive Family Tour in April 2007 … before Fidel Castro departed the scene.  At the time, he was seriously ill.

Straight away, therefore, let me clarify that I do not consider the Tourist Resort of Varadero to be an accurate representation of everyday life and living in Cuba.  And I mean that in the worst possible way !   Similarly, the illegally occupied U.S. Military Base at Guantánamo Bay must be excluded as a valid island experience … the annexation of the bay area remains, to this day, an international act of piracy – see the  1901 Platt Amendment  and later Treaties with Cuba procured by the threat or use of force.

Getting back to those ‘experts’ … sometimes, they might be rabid, Older Generation Cuban Exiles now living in Miami (USA) … the privileged island classes of the 1950′s … who either left hurriedly or were booted out after the success of the Castro Revolution.  At other times, the ‘experts’ might be Criminal Ex-Members of Dictator Fulgencio Batista’s Military and Police Forces who are still working for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.  For some unknown reason, however, both groups continue to hold the United States Political System – at Florida State and Federal Levels – by the balls !   Sad, but true !!

In its early days, Castro’s Revolutionary Government abolished racial discrimination, reduced rents and the cost of electricity, nationalized American and British commercial firms, and permanently ‘evicted’ the American Mafia.  The new government, however, was far from being firmly rooted, confident and stable … but all of that changed, utterly, after events in April 1961 …

.

On Saturday last, 16 April 2011 … I attended a day long ‘Girón 50′ Symposium and Victory Celebration, which was held in Liberty Hall, Dublin.  This special occasion commemorated the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Victory at the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) … scene of the ill-fated 1961 U.S. Inspired, Financed and Resourced Counter-Revolutionary Invasion of Cuba.

Colour photograph showing a roadside hoarding near Playa Girón, in the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) area of Cuba. In Spanish ... telling it like it really was, and still is ... "The First Defeat of Yankee Imperialism in Latin America". Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing a roadside hoarding near Playa Girón, in the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) area of Cuba. In Spanish ... telling it like it really was, and still is ... "The First Defeat of Yankee Imperialism in Latin America". Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing the entrance to the small Museum near Playa Girón, in the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) area of Cuba. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing the entrance to the small Museum near Playa Girón, in the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) area of Cuba. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

.

The route taken by the 1961 U.S. Invasion Force was elaborate and circuitous …

Colour photograph showing the elaborate and circuitous route taken by the 1961 U.S. Invasion Force from Florida to the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos), in Cuba. From a display at Girón Museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing the elaborate and circuitous route taken by the 1961 U.S. Invasion Force from Florida to the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos), in Cuba. From a display at Girón Museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

 .

Playa Girón was one of the landing points in the 1961 U.S. Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos) Invasion

Colour photograph showing the deployment and movement of forces during the attempted U.S. Invasion of the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos), in April 1961. Playa Girón is the lower of the two coastal landing points in view ... Playa Larga, the other. From a display at Girón Museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing the deployment and movement of forces during the attempted U.S. Invasion of the Bay of Pigs (Bahia de Cochinos), in April 1961. Playa Girón is the lower of the two coastal landing points in view ... Playa Larga, the other. From a display at Girón Museum. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-13. Click to enlarge.

.

2011 Dublin ‘Girón 50′ Victory Symposium – Liberty Hall

FINAL DECLARATION

We, the participants in the ‘Girón 50′ Conference commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Victory at the Bay of Pigs:

1.  Express our firm solidarity with the Cuban Revolution and Its People in their struggle for the defence of their independence, sovereignty and right to build a social and political system of their own choice, with no outside interference.

2.  Salute the process of comprehensive and popular debate in Cuban Society which led to the set of guidelines to be discussed and approved during the next few days by the 6th Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, which is aimed at renewing and updating its economic policy in accordance with the current domestic, regional and international situation.

3.  Condemn the illegal and criminal U.S. Economic, Financial and Trade Blockade, which Cuba has suffered for over five decades and which continues to be a flagrant violation of the right of an entire nation to self-determination and the main obstacle to Cuba’s development.

4.  Call on the European Union (E.U.) to unconditionally rescind the 1996 E.U. Common Position 96/697/CFSP on Cuba, and to seriously engage in a process of normalization of relations with the island, based on mutual respect and non-interference in their internal affairs.

5.  Condemn the ongoing U.S. Sponsored Subversion and Terrorist Actions aimed at overthrowing the Cuban Revolution, and U.S. Double Standards in its War on Terror … once again illustrated by the recent acquittal of Luis Posada Carilles, self-confessed instigator of the Bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight CU-455, which killed all 73 people on board, as it travelled from Venezuela to Cuba, via Barbados, on 6 October 1976.

6.  Extend our support for the International Campaign of Freedom & Exoneration for the Miami Five – Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, René González and Fernando González – the Five Cubans illegally and unjustly imprisoned in the U.S. for fighting terrorism … and join the growing international call on President Obama, including that of Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, to release them immediately.

7.  Call on the Irish Government to continue the development of Bilateral Relations with Cuba, and Ireland’s support for the lifting of the U.S. Blockade and the rescinding of the E.U. Common Position on Cuba.

8.  Commit ourselves to undertake the relevant Solidarity Actions in support of Cuba.

Liberty Hall, Dublin.

16 April 2011.

.

AS WE approach Easter Sunday, 2011 … let us remember the Miami Five who have been unjustly incarcerated for much too long …

Colour photograph showing a Miami Five Freedom Campaign Hoarding on the top of a building in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-14. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing a Miami Five Freedom Campaign Hoarding on the top of a building in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Photograph by CJ Walsh. 2007-04-14. Click to enlarge.

.

AND … after the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, many countries in Central & South America, Iraq and Afghanistan … let us ponder, at length, on the question of when, if ever, the United States of America will learn to join the International Community of Nations … as an equal !

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Dublin Criminal Courts Building – Denying Human Rights !

2011-04-07:  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is an issue, right here and now, for Architects in Ireland … and the Irish Built Environment, whoever designs, constructs, operates or manages it … not because this country has, or has not, ratified the Convention … but because the European Union has ratified this Convention !   And as we have all witnessed, on countless times since the early 1970′s … it has required a big stick from Europe to drag Ireland’s social legislation into the modern era.

UN CRPD Article 13 – Access to Justice

1.  States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages.

2.  In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.

Last week … from Monday, 28 March 2011 … until Thursday, 31 March 2011 … I attended as a Juror at the  New Criminal Courts of Justice Building, which is located at the Main Gate to the Phoenix Park in Dublin … near the junction between Parkgate Street and Infirmary Road.

I was very curious to experience this new building as an ordinary user.  However, I was not at all happy at the outcome … the accessibility performance was so inadequate.

In the case of this new building, it is clear that the Irish State has failed – is failing – to comply with Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … and is thus denying a basic human right to many people in our society.

Colour photograph showing the Main Entrance to the New Criminal Courts of Justice Building in Dublin, with entrance steps in the foreground. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2011-03-30. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing the Main Entrance to the New Criminal Courts of Justice Building in Dublin, with entrance steps in the foreground. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2011-03-30. Click to enlarge.

.

Post Occupation Evaluation (POE) is not a well-known architectural concept among architects … and even when it is known, it is not the most favoured.  This subject has, in my direct experience, been treated with light-hearted frivolity in 8 Merrion Square, Dublin !   Afterall, who wants to meet the failures of their cherished designs head-on … up-front and in their faces ??   To some architects, successes never seem to count as being of equal, or more, importance.  But, they are both a vital tool in continuous learning.

POE, however, is a crucial part of work as a practicing architect.  It is essential to feed previous design failures and successes … and ‘real’ information about building user/occupant behaviour … back into new projects !   This is ‘real’ CPD (Continuing Professional Development) in action … and a serious issue which is completely overlooked in the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland’s current approach to CPD !!

The reason so much of the built environment … so many buildings … is/are so inaccessible for many people … is not because designers have something against people with activity limitations … it is because designers just do not want human beings … anybody … to enter and use their buildings.  People are so messy … and they always want to do silly things with a building which were never planned … or they want to change things around, spoiling ‘the design’ … etc., etc., etc.

This problem begins back in the architectural schools, and becomes a deeper problem on the professional practice courses organized by professional institutes … here, and in other countries.  POE and building user/occupant behaviour is not covered … at all !   Can you believe that ??   I still can’t.

Tyranny of the Plan is another architectural concept.  I will try to explain it this way.  Take the photograph above.  Why, for example, are there no handrails on the right hand side … the major part … of those steps ?   Because of that Tyranny of the Plan Drawing !   It looked ‘right’ … beautiful, almost sexy … just to have handrails on that part of the steps leading from the main front doors … design movement was continued and controlled.  This is not the same as people movement.

On Sunday morning last, I measured those steps myself … (riser) 150 mm in height x (going) 300 mm in depth … (2 x riser) + (1 x going) = 600 mm … ideal dimensions for steps inside a building … but not the most convenient, comfortable or safe dimensions for steps outside a building.

Handrails are definitely required throughout the full extent of the steps !   But, that would have looked very sloppy on the plan drawing.  Now, however, take a closer look at those steps … looking down from above … and just imagine that you are a frail, older person and your sight may not be the greatest … that you are visually impaired in some manner …

Colour photograph showing details of the steps, handrails and tactile ground surface indicators at the Main Entrance to the New Criminal Courts of Justice Building in Dublin, Ireland. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2011-03-30. Click to enlarge.

Colour photograph showing details of the steps, handrails and tactile ground surface indicators at the Main Entrance to the New Criminal Courts of Justice Building in Dublin, Ireland. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2011-03-30. Click to enlarge.

The wrong type of tactile ground surface information is being given at the top and bottom of the steps … we would like to warn users of the hazard they are approaching, i.e. the steps, by using a ‘blister’ surface indicator … not direct them to turn left or right when they perceive those continuous ‘corduroy’ ridges.  The horizontal handrail extensions at the top and bottom of the short flight of steps are insufficiently long.  There is inadequate visual contrast at all of the step nosings (i.e. the leading top edges) which would have helped people to accurately locate those edges.  And, as already referred to above, the step dimensions could have been greatly improved with a slight adjustment … for example, (riser) 125 mm in height x (going) 350 mm in depth … (2 x riser) + (1 x going) = 600 mm … much better altogether for steps outside a building !   Compare and contrast with the many Japanese photographs shown in earlier posts.  There is no comparison !   This is sloppy work in Dublin.

Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969), the Master German Architect, is often quoted as having said: “God is in the details”.  Right on, Ludwig … ride ‘em cowboy !!!

.

For security reasons, it was not possible to take any photographs inside the building.  However, it was abundantly clear that accessibility for people with activity limitations, generally, was inadequate.  While some small account had been taken of the needs of people using wheelchairs … people with a visual impairment would have a very difficult time using this building.  Furthermore, when it came to the ‘swearing-in’ of Jurors at Court No.7, circulation was incredibly confined and restricted … I was having to squeeze myself forward in order to be ‘processed’.  What a mess !

This was an unacceptable and very disappointing example of poor, misguided and minimalist accessibility implementation … making an ironclad case for effective independent verification of Accessibility Performance, as required by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … at the end of the design stage in a project, and especially during the actual process of construction … to ensure that an ‘informed’ design intention becomes reality.

UN CRPD Article 33 – National Implementation & Monitoring

1.  States Parties, in accordance with their system of organization, shall designate one or more focal points within government for matters relating to the implementation of the present Convention, and shall give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a co-ordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels.

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.

3.  Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.

.

And that is not the end of the story !   When construction of a building has been completed and it is then occupied, Competent Building Management  is critical in maintaining an initial level of good accessibility performance throughout the life cycle of that building.  Once again, however, the management of this building was sloppy … take a bow, the  Courts Service of Ireland !

Symptoms of Larger Problems … Two Short Little Anecdotes …

a) Unheeded Building Evacuation Warning

In the middle of Roll Call, on the first morning that I attended as a Juror, a Voiced Stand-By Building Evacuation Warning was announced over the building’s public address system.  It was explained that there had been ‘an incident’.  That’s all … no other information was given.  This announcement was repeated again, and again, and again.  It then stopped, momentarily, and then started again.  It finally ended.

During the announcements … we all looked around … there were at least 150 people in the room … then looked at each other, shrugged our shoulders and smiled.  We at least thought that the person in charge of the Roll Call would be in a position to quickly find out what was going on … but no, she also shrugged her shoulders and carried on calling out names.

Afterwards, I asked one of the many ushers what had happened … was it a serious incident ?   He didn’t know, and just stated that ushers are generally told nothing.

This is entirely unacceptable !   Are clowns managing the New Criminal Courts of Justice Building in Dublin ??

b) Disrespectful ‘Swearing-In’ of Jurors

An Information Leaflet, produced by the Courts Service back in January 2010, entitled: ‘Attending for Jury Service’ … contains the following Introduction …

Jury Service is an important civic duty.  It is a vital part of our criminal justice system.  You must arrive on time to ensure trials are not delayed.  To assist you we have prepared this leaflet which includes a map to guide you to (the) jury assembly area of the Criminal Courts of Justice.

Concerning ‘Swearing-In a Jury’ … it is stated in the Leaflet …

The court registrar calls out your name and asks you to take an oath on the Holy Book of your choice, or you may affirm.

From the beginning, nobody was informed about these options.  On the final morning, when I was selected to be a Juror, the only Holy Book which was placed in front of Jurors was the Christian Bible.  No other Holy Book was visible.  Everyone was being processed in one way … without any consideration or respect for their dignity as an individual person.

With all of the stress of these occasions, and the formalities involved … the ‘Swearing-In’ Judge was even wearing a wig (I thought that those days were long gone !) … it would be all too easy for people … ‘automatically’, almost by reflex action, and not wanting to make a fuss … to go through a ‘standard’ processing procedure, which for them had little or no meaning.  Is that the intended purpose of ‘Swearing-In’ ??

It may have escaped the attention of the Courts Service that Ireland is now a pluralist and richly varied multi-cultural society.  Some people are religious, others are not … some people are Christians, others are Moslems, Jews or Buddhists, etc., etc … whatever !

A range of Holy Books must be visible to all Jurors … and they must all be informed about the option of ‘Affirming’ … before ‘Swearing-In’ commences !

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Accessibility-for-All’ – Post EU Ratification of the 2006 UN CRPD

2011-02-28:  Further to my posts, dated  15 January 2011  and  5 February 2011

There is an easy way to understand the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was ratified by the European Union (EU) just before Christmas Day 2010:

For a sizeable group of vulnerable people in all of our societies, the sole route of access to many, if not most, of the Human and Social Rights set down in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) … is the UN CRPD … which only became an International Legal Instrument on 3 May 2008 … just short of 60 Years after the UDHR was adopted on 10 December 1948 !

That is precisely why Accessibility is such a critical component of the 2006 UN Convention … which has already been described, here, as a ‘Mixed Agreement’ (see the post of 5 February 2011).

Accessibility is the principal, common ingredient in ‘fields that fall in part within the competence of the European Union, in part within that of the Member States and in part within the shared competence of the EU and its Member States’.  Accessibility has an impact … and always will have an impact … on all of these fields.

Policy and Decision Makers at every level within the European Union and the EU Member States would need to become accustomed to this new concept very, very quickly.

It is also essential, therefore, for the EU and the Member States to closely co-operate in implementing legislation which stems from the UN CRPD in a coherent manner … and to ensure unity in the international representation of the Union.

.

APPROACHING THE TASK OF ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION

1.  Establishing an Initial Framework …

Exactly how should we make sense of … bring order and assign priorities to … the Accessibility-related Articles in the UN Convention … using the different terms ‘Accessibility’ and ‘Accessibility-for-All’ … ‘People/Persons with Disabilities’ and ‘People with Activity Limitations’ (2001 WHO ICF) … in relation to the different components of the Human Environment, i.e. the Built, Social, Virtual and Economic Environments ???

Our recommendation … SDI’s Recommendation … is to refer, in the first instance, to this ‘Accessibility-for-All’ Matrix … which we developed a few years ago … in preparation for this crucial period of implementation …

Colour image showing Sustainable Design International's 'Accessibility-for-All' Matrix. The Goal is a Sustainable Human Environment which is Accessible-for-All. Click to enlarge.

Colour image showing Sustainable Design International's 'Accessibility-for-All' Matrix. The Goal is a Sustainable Human Environment which is Accessible-for-All. Click to enlarge.

.

If we then drill down … in order to fully understand ‘Accessibility of a Building’, for example … this then comprises:

  • Approach to the building ;
  • Entry through principal entrance(s) ;
  • Health, Safety, Convenience & Comfort in Use, including thermal comfort, indoor air quality, protection from fire, etc ;
  • Egress from the building (during normal conditions) ;
  • Removal from the vicinity of the building (during normal conditions) ;

and

  • Evacuation from the building (during, for example, a fire emergency) ;
  • Safe Movement to a ‘place of safety’ (during, for example, a fire emergency), which is remote from the building ;

and

  • Each stage of a Work Process, at every level, in places of work ;
  • Use of Electronic, Information & Communication Technologies (EICT’s) ;

and

  • Management, Services, and Attitudes of People in the building ;
  • Recruitment, Employment, Training & Promotion Practices.

.

2.  Overlaying UN CRPD Article 9 – Accessibility …

Onto the Initial Framework outlined above … overlay Article 9 … and crosscheck in detail.  Note well the strong language used … ‘States Parties shall’ … and do not forget that this is not a Wish List … but a clear delineation of the Scope of an Important Human and Social Right which now has a proper basis in both International and European Union Law !

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

(a)  Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces ;

(b)  Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

(a)  To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public ;

(b)  To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities ;

(c)  To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities ;

(d)  To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms ;

(e)  To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public ;

(f)  To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information ;

(g)  To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet ;

(h)  To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

.

So … what is the situation in the Member States of the European Union ?

In an upcoming post … let’s take Ireland as a case in point, just for the hell of it … and discuss some of the consequences … stemming from the EU’s ratification of the UN CRPD … on the operation of the Building Regulations and Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s).

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Personal Ethics – The Heart of Sustainability Implementation !

2011-02-15 …

Regular visitors, here, will have very little doubt about my understanding of Sustainable Human & Social Development … which is an intricate, open, dynamic and continuously evolving concept.  And about my firm conviction that Sustainable Design involves far more than merely substituting the word ‘sustainable’ … for ‘green’, ‘ecological’ or ‘environment-friendly’ … or any number of insipid alternatives which still regularly appear in the popular and/or academic media !   Who, in their right minds, wouldn’t be confused ?!?

‘Sustainability’ is Not … and Cannot … be just another graft onto Conventional Design Practice … whether that be Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Industrial Design or e-Design !

Sustainable Design & Construction … is the ethical response, in built or wrought (worked) form, to the concept of ‘Sustainable Human & Social Development’.

.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLEMENTATION

Opinion:  At the Heart of Implementation which is Authentically ‘Sustainable’ … (a colleague of mine is very fond of using that word ‘authentic’) … must lie a Personal Code of Ethics.  By that, I do Not mean … and I am Not referring to … a Professional Code of Conduct … which is mainly about the self-protection and self-preservation of a professional class !

Everyday Reality:  If we examine, for a moment, two interesting examples … Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation or the 9-11(2001) Collapses of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 & 7 in New York … such is the great timelag between general societal recognition of a critical design challenge … and then, the passing of relevant national legislation which can really only demarcate a minimal threshold of performance … and next, the associated production of standardized design guidelines … and finally, the imposition of effective monitoring and verification procedures … that the only practical approach is to base Sustainability Implementation on a robust Personal Code of Ethics … with an overt emphasis on Continuing Personal Development (CPD).

I hasten to add that this is not how we (society) are currently educating the design disciplines … and this is not how the professional institutes are operating.

.

PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS

For many years, in my presentations around Europe, the Arab Gulf Region, India and South America … I have been actively promoting the WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO) Model Code of Ethics as a suitable template for use by all of the design-related disciplines.  Recently, however, our Organization … Sustainable Design International … has undertaken a major review of this 2001 Code, and produced a 2011 Update which tackles the following matters of major concern in our world of shameful waste and socially inequality:

  • Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
  • Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation ;
  • Strengthening the Voice of Vulnerable Social Groups, particularly People with Activity Limitations.

.

WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO)

World Federation of Engineering Organizations – Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d’Ingénieurs

MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

Since 1990, WFEO/FMOI has worked to prepare a Code of Ethics under the supervision of Donald Laplante (Canada), David Thom (New Zealand), Bud Carroll (USA), and others.  It is expected that the Model Code, adopted in 2001, will be used to define and support the creation of codes in member and related professional institutions.  This version of the Model Code was updated by C.J. Walsh (Ireland) in 2011.

CONTENTS

                   I.            BROAD PRINCIPLES

                  II.            PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

                 III.            ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

                IV.           CONCLUSION

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE

  • Sustainable Development & Climate Change
  • Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment
  • Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers
  • Competence & Knowledge
  • Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace
  • Professional Accountability & Leadership

.

WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

I.  BROAD PRINCIPLES

Ethics is generally understood as the discipline or field of study dealing with moral duty or obligation.  This typically gives rise to a set of governing principles or values, which in turn are used to judge the appropriateness of a particular conduct or behaviour.  These principles are usually presented either as broad guiding principles of an idealistic or inspirational nature or, alternatively, as a detailed and specific set of rules couched in legalistic or imperative terms to make them more enforceable.  Professions which have been given the privilege and responsibility of self regulation, including the engineering professions, have tended to opt for the first alternative, espousing sets of underlying principles as codes of professional ethics which form the basis and framework for responsible professional practice.  Arising from this context, professional codes of ethics have sometimes been incorrectly interpreted as a set of ‘rules’ of conduct intended for passive observance.  A more appropriate use by practicing professionals is to interpret the essence of the underlying principles within their daily decision-making situations in a dynamic manner, responsive to the needs of the situation.  As a consequence, a code of professional ethics is more than a minimum standard of conduct ;  rather, it is a set of principles which should guide professionals in their daily work.

In summary, the Model Code presented herein elaborates the expectations of engineers and society in discriminating engineers’ professional responsibilities.  The Code is based on broad principles of truth, honesty and trustworthiness, respect for human life and social wellbeing, fairness, openness, competence and accountability.  Some of these broader ethical principles or issues deemed more universally applicable are not specifically defined in the Code, although they are understood to be applicable as well.  Only those tenets deemed to be particularly applicable to the practice of professional engineering are specified.  Nevertheless, certain ethical principles or issues not commonly considered to be part of professional ethics should be implicitly accepted to judge the engineer’s professional performance.

Issues regarding protection of the natural environment, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable development know no geographical boundaries.  The engineers and citizens of all nations should know and respect the ethics of sustainability.  It is desirable, therefore, that engineers in each nation continue to observe the philosophy of the Principles of Sustainable Ethics, as delineated in Section III of this code.

II.  PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

Professional engineers shall:

  • hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, particularly people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and the protection of both the natural and the built environments in accordance with the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
  • promote health and safety within the workplace ;
  • offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence, and practice in a careful and diligent manner ;
  • act as faithful agents of their clients or employers, maintain confidentially and disclose conflicts of interest ;
  • keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their subordinates and fellow practitioners ;
  • conduct themselves with fairness, and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional criticism ;
  • be aware of and ensure that clients and employers are made aware of the environmental and socio-economic consequences of actions or projects, and endeavour to interpret engineering issues to the public in an objective and truthful manner ;
  • present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences of overruling or disregarding engineering decisions or judgment ;
  • report to their association and/or appropriate agencies any illegal or unethical engineering decisions or practices of engineers or others.

III.  ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

Engineers, as they develop any professional activity, shall:

  • try with the best of their ability, courage, enthusiasm and dedication, to obtain a superior technical achievement, which will contribute to and promote a healthy and agreeable surrounding for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups, in open spaces as well as indoors ;
  • strive to accomplish the beneficial objectives of their work with the lowest possible consumption of raw materials and energy and the lowest production of wastes and any kind of pollution ;
  • discuss in particular the consequences of their proposals and actions, direct or indirect, immediate or long term, upon human health, social equity and the local culture and system of values ;
  • study thoroughly the environment that will be affected, assess all the impacts that might arise in the structure, dynamics and aesthetics of the eco-systems involved, urbanized or natural, as well as in the pertinent socio-economic systems … and select the best alternative for development which is environmentally sound, resilient to climate change and sustainable ;
  • promote a clear understanding of the actions required to restore and, if possible, to improve the environment that may be disturbed, and include them in their proposals ;
  • reject any kind of commitment that involves unfair damages for human surroundings and nature, and aim for the best possible technical, socio-economic, and political solution ;
  • be aware that the principles of eco-system interdependence, biodiversity maintenance, resource recovery and inter-relational harmony form the basis of humankind’s continued existence and that each of these bases poses a threshold of sustainability that should not be exceeded.

IV. CONCLUSION

Always remember that war, greed, misery and ignorance, plus natural disasters and human-induced pollution, climate change and destruction of resources, are the main causes for the progressive impairment of the environment and that engineers, as active members of society, deeply involved in the promotion of development, must use our talent, knowledge and imagination to assist society in removing those evils and improving the quality of life for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.


.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE

The interpretive articles which follow expand on and discuss some of the more difficult and inter-related components of the Code, especially with regard to the Practice Provisions.  No attempt is made to expand on all clauses of the Code, nor is the elaboration presented on a clause-by-clause basis.  The objective of this approach is to broaden the interpretation, rather than narrow its focus.  The ethics of professional engineering is an integrated whole and cannot be reduced to fixed ‘rules’.  Therefore, the issues and questions arising from the Code are discussed in a general framework, drawing on any and all portions of the Code to demonstrate their inter-relationship and to expand on the basic intent of the Code.

Sustainable Development & Climate Change

Engineers shall strive to enhance the quality, durability and climate change resilience of the Human Environment (including the built, social, economic and virtual environments), and to promote the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development.

Engineers shall seek opportunities to work for the enhancement of safety, health, and the social wellbeing of both their local community and the global community through the practice of sustainable development.

Engineers whose recommendations are overruled or ignored on issues of safety, health, social wellbeing, or sustainable development, shall inform their contractor or employer of the possible consequences.

Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment

Professional Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and protection of the natural environment.  This obligation to the safety, health and wellbeing of the general public, which includes his/her own work environment, is often dependent upon engineering judgments, risk assessments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.  Therefore, engineers must control and ensure that what they are involved with is in conformity with accepted engineering practices, standards and applicable codes, and would be considered safe based on peer adjudication.  This responsibility extends to include all and any situations which an engineer encounters, and includes an obligation to advise the appropriate authority if there is reason to believe that any engineering activity, or its products, processes, etc., do not conform with the above stated conditions.

The meaning of paramount in this basic tenet is that all other requirements of the Code are subordinate, if protection of public safety, the natural environment or other substantive public interests are involved.

Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers

Engineers shall act as faithful agents or trustees of their clients and employers with objectivity, fairness and justice to all parties.  With respect to the handling of confidential or proprietary information, the concept of ownership of the information and protecting that party’s rights is appropriate.  Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information obtained in a professional capacity without the prior consent of its owner.  The only exception to respecting confidentially and maintaining a trustee’s position is in instances where the public interest or the natural environment is at risk, as discussed in the preceding section ;  but even in these circumstances, the engineer should endeavour to have the client and/or employer appropriately redress the situation, or at least, in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, should make every reasonable effort to contact them and explain clearly the potential risks, prior to informing the appropriate authority.

Professional Engineers shall avoid conflict of interest situations with employers and clients but, should such conflict arise, it is the engineer’s responsibility to fully disclose, without delay, the nature of the conflict to the party/parties with whom the conflict exists.  In those circumstances where full disclosure is insufficient, or seen to be insufficient, to protect all parties’ interests, as well as the public, the engineer shall withdraw totally from the issue or use extraordinary means, involving independent parties if possible, to monitor the situation.  For example, it is inappropriate to act simultaneously as agent for both the provider and the recipient of professional services.  If a client’s and an employer’s interests are at odds, the engineer shall attempt to deal fairly with both.  If the conflict of interest is between the intent of a corporate employer and a regulatory standard, the engineer must attempt to reconcile the difference, and if that is unsuccessful, it may become necessary to inform his/her association and the appropriate regulatory agency.

Being a faithful agent or trustee includes the obligation of engaging, or advising to engage, experts or specialists when such services are deemed to be in the client’s or employer’s best interests.  It also means being accurate, objective and truthful in making public statements on behalf of the client or employer when required to do so, while respecting the client’s and employer’s rights of confidentiality and proprietary information.

Being a faithful agent includes not using a previous employer’s or client’s specific privileged or proprietary information and trade practices or process information, without the owner’s knowledge and consent.  However, general technical knowledge, experience and expertise gained by the engineer through involvement with the previous work may be freely used without consent or subsequent undertakings.

Competence & Knowledge

Professional Engineers shall offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence by virtue of their training and experience.  This includes exercising care and communicating clearly in accepting or interpreting assignments, and in setting expected outcomes.  It also includes the responsibility to obtain the services of an expert if required or, if the knowledge is unknown, to proceed only with full disclosure of the circumstances and, if necessary, of the experimental nature of the activity to all parties involved.  Hence, this requirement is more than simply duty to a standard of care, it also involves acting with honesty and integrity with one’s client or employer, and one’s self.  Professional Engineers have the responsibility to remain abreast of developments and knowledge in their area of expertise, that is, to maintain their own competence.  Should there be a technologically driven or individually motivated shift in the area of technical activity, it is the engineer’s duty to attain and maintain competence in all areas of involvement including being knowledgeable with the technical and legal framework and regulations governing their work.  In effect, it requires a personal commitment to ongoing professional development, continuing education and self-testing.

In addition to maintaining their own competence, Professional Engineers have an obligation to strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge within which they practice, and to the profession in general.  Moreover, within the framework of the practice of their profession, they are expected to participate in providing opportunities to further the professional development of their colleagues.

This competence requirement of the Code extends to include an obligation to the public, the profession and one’s peers, that opinions on engineering issues are expressed honestly and only in areas of one’s competence.  It applies equally to reporting or advising on professional matters and to issuing public statements.  This requires honesty with one’s self to present issues fairly, accurately and with appropriate qualifiers and disclaimers, and to avoid personal, political and other non-technical biases.  The latter is particularly important for public statements or when involved in a technical forum.

Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace

Honesty, integrity, continuously updated competence, devotion to service and dedication to enhancing the life quality of society are cornerstones of professional responsibility.  Within this framework, engineers shall be objective and truthful and include all known and pertinent information in professional reports, statements and testimony.  They shall accurately and objectively represent their clients, employers, associates and themselves, consistent with their academic experience and professional qualifications.  This tenet is more than ‘not misrepresenting’ ;  it also implies disclosure of all relevant information and issues, especially when serving in an advisory capacity or as an expert witness.  Similarly, fairness, honesty and accuracy in advertising are expected.

If called upon to verify another engineer’s work, there is an obligation to inform (or make every effort to inform) the other engineer, whether the other engineer is still actively involved or not.  In this situation, and in any circumstance, engineers shall give proper recognition and credit where credit is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair criticism on professional matters, all the while maintaining dignity and respect for everyone involved.

Engineers shall not accept, nor offer covert payment or other considerations for the purpose of securing, or as remuneration for, engineering assignments.  Engineers should prevent their personal or political involvement from influencing or compromising their professional role or responsibility.

Consistent with the Code, and having attempted to remedy any situation within their organization, engineers are obligated to report to their association or other appropriate agency any illegal or unethical engineering decisions by engineers or others.  Care must be taken not to enter into legal arrangements which compromise this obligation.

Professional Accountability & Leadership

Engineers have a duty to practice in a careful and diligent manner, and accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions.  This duty is not limited to design, or its supervision and management, but applies to all areas of practice.  For example, it includes construction supervision and management, preparation of drawings, engineering reports, feasibility studies, sustainability impact assessments, engineering developmental work, etc.

The signing and sealing of engineering documents indicates the taking of responsibility for the work.  This practice is required for all types of engineering endeavour, regardless of where or for whom the work is done, including but not limited to, privately and publicly owned firms, large corporations, and government agencies or departments.  There are no exceptions ;  signing and sealing documents is appropriate whenever engineering principles have been used and public wellbeing may be at risk.

Taking responsibility for engineering activity includes being accountable for one’s own work and, in the case of a senior engineer, accepting responsibility for the work of a team.  The latter implies responsible supervision where the engineer is actually in a position to review, modify and direct the entirety of the engineering work.  This concept requires setting reasonable limits on the extent of activities, and the number of engineers and others, whose work can be supervised by the responsible engineer.  The practice of a ‘symbolic’ responsibility or supervision is the situation where an engineer, say with the title of Chief Engineer, takes full responsibility for all engineering on behalf of a large corporation, utility or governmental agency, even though the engineer may not be aware of many of the engineering activities or decisions being made daily throughout the firm or agency.  The essence of this approach is that the firm is taking the responsibility by default, whether engineering supervision or direction is applied or not.

Engineers have a duty to advise their employer and, if necessary, their clients and even their professional association, in that order, in situations when the overturning of an engineering decision may result in breaching their duty to safeguard the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups.  The initial action is to discuss the problem with the supervisor/employer.  If the employer does not adequately respond to the engineer’s concern, then the client must be advised in the case of a consultancy situation, or the most senior officer should be informed in the case of a manufacturing process plant or government agency.  Failing this attempt to rectify the situation, the engineer must advise in confidence his/her professional association of his/her concerns.

In the same order as mentioned above, the engineer must report unethical engineering activity undertaken by other engineers, or by non-engineers.  This extends to include, for example, situations in which senior officials of a firm make ‘executive’ decisions which clearly and substantially alter the engineering aspects of the work, or protection of public wellbeing or the natural environment arising from that work.

Because of developments in technology and the increasing ability of engineering activities to impact on the environment, engineers have an obligation to be mindful of the effect that their decisions will have on the environment and the wellbeing of society, and to report any concerns of this nature in the same manner as previously mentioned.  Further to the above, with the rapid advancement of technology in today’s world and the possible social impacts on large populations of people, engineers must endeavour to foster the public’s understanding of technical issues and the role of Engineering more than ever before.

Sustainable development is the challenge of meeting current human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and, if possible enhancing, the Earth’s environmental quality, natural resources, ethical, intellectual, working and affectionate capabilities of people and the socio-economic bases essential for the human needs of future generations.  The proper observance of these principles will considerably help to eradicate world poverty.

.

WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, Adopted 2001.

This Version, Updated 2011 & Communicated to UNESCO.

[Footnote to the Code]

Sustainable Human & Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children, their children, and the next five generations of children.

*As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

.

.

END

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Search

 

 

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Links