‘A Gentle Whisper in Your Ear’

EU Accessibility & Ratification of UN Disability Rights Convention

2011-01-15:  Recently, I was waiting … and waiting … for the first mention of this important news to pop up on any of the European Disability Networks … the Formal Ratification by the European Union (EU) of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … on 23 December 2010 last.

History in the making !!

This U.N. Convention was adopted on 13 December 2006 (2006-12-13), at the United Nations Headquarters in New York … and was opened for signature on 30 March 2007.  It entered into force, i.e. became an International Legal Instrument, on 3 May 2008 (2008-05-03).  A copy of the Convention can be downloaded, here, on this Site … in my post, dated 31 October 2009.

Finally, on Monday 10 January 2011 … via ICTA-Europe, EDeAN, and the EU Press Release below … it was announced …

EU Press Release IP/11/4 – Brussels, 5 January 2011

EU Ratifies UN Convention on Disability Rights

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (25kb)

So much for instant communication in our much-vaunted Information / Knowledge / Smart Society !!

.

Ordinarily, this news would be nothing to get excited about.

BUT … since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 January 2009 … the European Union now has a legal personality all of its own, separate from those of the individual EU Member States.  See Article 47 in Title VI – Final Provisions – of the Treaty on European Union (consolidated version).

This is the first time that the EU has become a party to an international treaty.

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is now part of the European Union’s Acquis Communautaire, i.e. the extensive body of EU Law.

.

The consequential impacts flowing, therefore, from the EU’s Ratification of the U.N. Convention … at both European and Member State (National) levels … will be very, very interesting to observe during the immediate short term.  [A note of caution ... be patient, and allow for a short period of 'bedding-in' at the start.  See below.]

The European Commission, for example, must now take full account of the Convention in the drafting and implementation of any new legislation, policies and programmes … in fact, all of its activities.

The European Court of Justice must also take full account of the Convention in all of its work.

This will, inevitably, heavily influence what is … or is not … happening with regard to social and other policies at national level in the Member States.  Many Member States (16) have already ratified the Convention … and more power to them !   BUT among these 16 … the Czech Republic and Denmark have not yet ratified the UN Convention’s Optional Protocol … how strange … and unacceptable !!

Some Member States … and I am thinking specifically of Ireland … will have to be dragged, screaming, to the point of ratification.  And even when that position has been reached … proper implementation will always be an issue.  Just consider, for a moment, Ireland’s uncaring and ham-fisted approach to implementation of the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child … which it did actually ratify way back on 28 September 1992 !   See my post, dated 30 November 2009.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – A Harmonized EU Understanding !

As far as the European Union must now be concerned … and all of the EU Member States … Preamble Paragraph (g) and Articles 9, 10 & 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – form the basis of a harmonized understanding for Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ … which includes the Built Environment, the Social Environment, the Economic Environment, and the Virtual Environment … concepts which I have defined, here, many times before.

Preamble Paragraph (g)

Emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development,

Article 9 – Accessibility

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.

Article 10 – Right to Life

States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

[My Note: An outbreak of fire in a building would be a situation of serious risk.]

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – Competent & Effective EU Implementation !

Within the European Union as a whole, because it is a party to the Convention in its own right … and also within the individual EU Member States … Articles 31 & 33 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – mandate that implementation is taken seriously … that it is competent and effective … and, most importantly, that independent monitoring and verification is a fundamental part of the process.

Article 31 – Statistics & Data Collection

1.  States Parties undertake to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the present Convention.  The process of collecting and maintaining this information shall:

     (a)  Comply with legally established safeguards, including legislation on data protection, to ensure confidentiality and respect for the privacy of persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Comply with internationally accepted norms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and ethical principles in the collection and use of statistics.

2.  The information collected in accordance with this article shall be disaggregated, as appropriate, and used to help assess the implementation of States Parties’ obligations under the present Convention and to identify and address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their rights.

3.  States Parties shall assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others.

Article 32 – International Co-Operation

1.  States Parties recognize the importance of international co-operation and its promotion, in support of national efforts for the realization of the purpose and objectives of the present Convention, and will undertake appropriate and effective measures in this regard, between and among States and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society, in particular organizations of persons with disabilities.  Such measures could include, inter alia:

     (a)  Ensuring that international co-operation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Facilitating and supporting capacity-building, including through the exchange and sharing of information, experiences, training programmes and best practices ;

     (c)  Facilitating co-operation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge ;

     (d)  Providing, as appropriate, technical and economic assistance, including by facilitating access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, and through the transfer of technologies.

2.  The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the obligations of each State Party to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention.

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.

.

The European Union’s Disability Strategy 2010-2020 [COM(2010) 636 final]

The general approach to, and the quality of, Accessibility Implementation in Europe … when compared, for example, with Japan … is pathetically inadequate.

It is quite amazing, therefore, that the texts which deal with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ in the EU’s Disability Strategy Document 2010-2020 … are weak and far too vague … basically, meaningless claptrap drafted by desk jockeys / ‘suits who do not know’ !   We did not achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2010 (see below) … do you see it ??   And … at the current rate of progress, neither will we achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2020 !

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 …

EU 2003 (EYPD) Expert Group on Accessibility

October 2003

2010: A Europe Accessible For All

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (294kb)

I was a Member of that Expert Group !

.

AND SOME WIDER CONCERNS …

1.  The European Union HAS NOT RATIFIED the UN Disability Rights Convention’s Optional Protocol.  If the Union is so Open and Transparent … and so committed to Human and Social Rights for All EU Citizens … somebody, somewhere, has to scream out loud “Why is the EU Not Ratifying this Optional Protocol ???”.   And … we demand an honest answer !!!

Optional Protocol – Article 1

1.  A State Party to the present Protocol (‘State Party’) recognizes the competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Committee’) to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

2.  No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention that is not a party to the present Protocol.

2.  The EU Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Above, I talked about a short period of ‘bedding-in’.   BUT … get your teeth into the ‘meat’ of this document … which indicates that it might be a much longer and more difficult process !?!

Official Journal of the European Union (15 December 2010) - 2010/C 340/08

EU Council – UN Disability Rights Convention – 2010 Internal Code of Conduct

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (729kb)

3.  At EU Council … How Important is this Issue Considered ?   In the 37 Page Report on the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting, which was held in Brussels from 2-3 December 2010 … the adoption of the above Internal Code of Conduct rated just a very brief mention on the last page.  It was not mentioned, at all, among the Main Results of the Meeting !

4.  Will Disability Networks, at both European and Member State (National) levels, have the stamina … and be sufficiently competent and focused … to rigorously monitor European Union Implementation of the UN Disability Rights Convention ??   And … will these Networks be courageous in challenging the EU Institutions … if Implementation is found to be Inadequate ???   I’m not so sure !

.

.

END

Tags: 'suits who do not know', 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2010: A Europe Accessible For All, 37 Page Report on the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting which was held in Brussels from 2-3 December 2010, A Harmonized EU Understanding, access to scientific and technical knowledge, Accessibility Implementation in Europe ... when compared with Japan, Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities, Accessibility of the 'Human Environment', Accessibility-for-All, Accessible Fire Engineering, all require a radical overhaul, An outbreak of fire in a building, And ... I was a Member of that Expert Group, Article 10 - Right to Life, Article 11 - Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies, Article 31 - Statistics & Data Collection, Article 32 (International Co-Operation), Article 33 - National Implementation and Monitoring, Article 47 in Title VI - Final Provisions - of the Treaty on European Union (consolidated version), Article 9 - Accessibility, at both European and Member State (National) levels, Built Environment, CJ Walsh, Client Organizations, Competent & Effective EU Implementation, Czech Republic, Denmark, drafting and implementation of any new legislation - policies - programmes, EDeAN, electronic services and emergency services, Ensuring that international co-operation is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities, EU 2003 (EYPD) Expert Group on Accessibility, EU Code of Conduct between the Council the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United, EU Press Release IP/11/4 - Brussels 5 January 2011, EU Ratifies UN Convention on Disability Rights, European Commission, European Court of Justice, European Disability Networks, facilitating access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, Facilitating and supporting capacity-building, Facilitating co-operation in research, first time that the EU has become a party to an international treaty, Formal Ratification by the European Union (EU), human and social rights, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters, ICTA-Europe, If the Union is so Open and Transparent, implementation is taken seriously, independent monitoring and verification is a fundamental part of the process, instant communication in our much-vaunted Information / Knowledge / Smart Society, International Legal Instrument, Ireland, Ireland ... will have to be dragged screaming to the point of ratification, mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development, meaningless claptrap drafted by desk jockeys, now part of the European Union's Acquis Communautaire, Optional Protocol - Article 1, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), Preamble Paragraph (g), proper implementation will always be an issue, Providing technical and economic assistance, RE-READ AND MEDITATE DEEPLY, situations of armed conflict, so committed to Human and Social Rights for All EU Citizens, somebody somewhere has to scream out loud "Why is the EU Not Ratifying this Optional Protocol ???", States Parties recognize the importance of international co-operation, States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Fire Engineering, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, The consequential impacts flowing from the EU's Ratification of the U.N. Convention, the European Union now has a legal personality all of its own, The European Union's Disability Strategy 2010-2020 [COM(2010) 636 final], the exchange and sharing of information experiences training programmes and best practices, the individual EU Member States, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 January 2009, transfer of technologies, UN Convention's Optional Protocol, very interesting to observe during the immediate short term, we demand an honest answer, Will Disability Networks at both European and Member State (National) levels have the stamina ... and be sufficiently competent and focused ... to rigorously monitor European Union Implementation of t, will these Networks be courageous in challenging the EU Institutions ... if Implementation is found to be Inadequate

2010 UNFCCC Climate Summit in Cancún – Smell The Coffee !

The hype is less this year … and I bet that not too many politicians will be appearing in front of the cameras at the end of this 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Summit … which is being held in Cancún, Mexico … from Monday, 29 November until Friday, 10 December 2010.

If you want to follow what’s happening closely … go to the Official UNFCCC WebSite … and check out the Daily Conference Programme, here, at this address … http://unfccc.int/conference_programme/items/5769.php

.

Let us not forget that the result of last year’s debacle … the 2009 Copenhagen Accord … was an unofficial, political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA – who attended the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, which concluded on Saturday, 19th December 2009.  Since then, many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. they are not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Copenhagen Accord.

An initial overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, however, revealed the following about the voluntary emissions targets being undertaken …

• they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;
• they are disappointing, being well below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ;   and
• there is no consistent emission base year … varying from 1990 and 1992, up to 2000 and 2005.

This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed 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, to put it mildly, fraught with problems … and has an unclear future in the short term.

.

HOWEVER … Back In The ‘Real’ World … GHG Emissions Continue To Rise !

On 24 November 2010 … the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No.6: ‘The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2009′.

The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme coordinates systematic observations and analysis of atmospheric composition, including Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and other trace species.  Measurement data are reported by participating countries and archived and distributed by the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) at the Japan Meteorological Agency.

Even here … it is clearly stated that there are still uncertainties …

2009 Global Observations of Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s) in the Atmosphere

24 November 2010

UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No.6

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.37 Mb)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch Programme shows that the globally averaged mixing ratios of Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH₄) and Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) reached new highs in 2009, with CO₂ at 386.8 parts per million, CH₄ at 1803 ppb and N₂O at 322.5 ppb.  These values are greater than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 158% and 19%, respectively.

Atmospheric growth rates of CO₂ and N₂O in 2009 are consistent with recent years, but are lower than in 2008.

After nearly a decade of no growth, Atmospheric CH₄ has increased during the past three years.  The reasons for renewed growth of Atmospheric Methane are not fully understood, but emissions from natural sources (from northern latitudes and the tropics) are considered potential causes.

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2009, radiative forcing by all long-lived greenhouse gases increased by 27.5%, with CO₂ accounting for nearly 80% of this increase.

The combined radiative forcing by Halocarbons is nearly double that of N₂O.

.

Help with the Technical Terms of Climate Change ?

Give it a lash !   Try out the Encyclopaedia of Earth WebSite … an electronic reference about the Earth, its natural environments, and their interaction with society.  The Encyclopaedia is a free, fully searchable collection of articles written by scholars, professionals, educators, and experts who collaborate and review each other’s work.  The articles are written in non-technical language and are useful to students, educators, scholars, professionals, as well as to the general public.

.

To Mitigate or Adapt ? – Prioritizing a Strategy for the Built Environment

We are already experiencing the adverse impacts of Climate Change !   And even if sufficient and appropriate Climate Mitigation Measures were succeeding … which they patently are not … the timelag between their implementation and any resulting beneficial environmental impacts is too great … half a century, at least … and full of uncertainty.

BUT … since the minimum period for a Sustainable Building in Use is 100 Years, and nothing less than a Recurrence Interval of 100 years should now be used in design calculations for events such as severe storms and flooding, or deluge rainfalls, etc … anyone involved in the design, construction, management or operation of the Built Environment must think ‘long-term’ … today !

In Dublin … buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, and are well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city.  ‘Politically’ and ‘technically’, therefore, it would be more appropriate for the Built Environment if we were concerned with the Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … rather than a problematic, Short-Term Mitigation Agenda.

In terms of a building … is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation ?   For example, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, will serve to mitigate CO₂ Emissions … but the same measures will also serve to adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels.

The long-term perspective exerts pressure for more radical, but necessary, actions in the short-term.

BUT … should we not already be undertaking these sorts of measures as part of the Mainstream Sustainability Agenda … in order to improve built environment resilience, prolong life cycles … and achieve social wellbeing for all ?

Generally … Climate Change Adaptation encompasses urgent and immediate short, near and long-term actions at local, national, regional and international levels to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the local threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.

More specifically … Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation means reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.

Wake Up And Smell The Coffee … It’s Time To Get Serious !!!!

.

.

END

Tags: 2009 Global Observations of Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s) in the Atmosphere, 2010 UNFCCC Climate Summit in Cancún - Smell The Coffee, 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Summit, adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels, An initial overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, anyone involved in the design construction or operation of the Built Environment must think 'long-term', Atmospheric Methane, Back In The 'Real' World ... GHG Emissions Continue To Rise, Brazil - South Africa - India - China (BASIC) and the USA, buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, Built Environment, Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - Methane (CH4) - Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.37 Mb), Climate Change Adaptation, Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, events such as severe storms and flooding ... or deluge rainfalls etc, from 1990 to 2009 radiative forcing by all long-lived greenhouse gases increased, Help with the Technical Terms of Climate Change, highly conditional on the performance of other countries, human and social rights, human environment, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, International Legal Instrument, Ireland, is not ... in any way or manner ... an acceptance of historical responsibilities, is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation, Japan Meteorological Agency, Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda, Mainstream Sustainability Agenda, many countries have made voluntary submissions to Appendices I and II of the Copenhagen Accord, Measurement data are reported by participating countries, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, no consistent emission base year, nothing less than a Recurrence Interval of 100 years should now be used in design calculations, Official UNFCCC WebSite ... and check out the Daily Conference Programme, Prioritizing a Strategy for the Built Environment, Short-Term Mitigation Agenda, Social Wellbeing for All, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Human & Social Development, the 2009 Copenhagen Accord ... was an unofficial political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is fraught with problems, The combined radiative forcing by Halocarbons is nearly double that of N2O, The long-term perspective exerts pressure for more radical actions in the short-term, the minimum period for a Sustainable Building in Use is 100 Years, These values are greater than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38% - 158% - 19% respectively, to improve built environment resilience - prolong life cycles - achieve social wellbeing for all, To Mitigate or Adapt, Try out the Encyclopaedia of Earth WebSite ... an electronic reference about the Earth its natural environments and their interaction with society, United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO), United States of America, very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed Countries, Wake Up And Smell The Coffee ... It's Time To Get Serious, We are already experiencing the adverse impacts of Climate Change, well below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius, well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city, WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme, World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG)

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – Acceptable Accessibility ?

A few weeks ago … in a post dated 20 October 2010 … Japan in April & May 2010 – Accessibility-for-All ! … I discussed some of the many aspects which, together, facilitate a high level of quality in ‘real’, or actually realized, Built Environment Accessibility Performance in Japan … and I illustrated that quality with a number of photographs.

In time, I will add more photographs from my valuable ‘Accessibility in Japan’ Collection !

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

Note:  Social Environment … The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

Note:  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.

However … many of these aspects are missing in European Approaches to Accessibility-for-All … and, typically, the level of Accessibility Performance which we are used to experiencing, and accepting, is inadequate, sloppy, poor … and to be direct and honest … BRUTAL !!

.

As far back as 2001 … in an Introduction to a Page on our Corporate WebSite illustrating the Inaccessibility of European Union Institutional Buildings … specifically, the European Parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg … I wrote …

‘ Many times each year, our work takes us to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.

In spite of all the rhetoric from European politicians, and the extensive body of European legislation actually in force at national and regional levels in every Member State … the inaccessibility of Institutional Buildings is shockingly and unacceptably bad … in some cases, dangerously so !

Yet, these buildings should represent, in built form, the ideals, values and aspirations of the peoples of Europe – as expressed in the EU Treaties.

What a bitter disappointment ! ‘

.

Today … France, in particular, continues to be a depressing experience … where Talk is far, far too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance is still all too rare !!

Last Thursday, 25 November 2010 … I attended a Paris Meeting of the Editorial Team for the CIB W108 Report: ‘Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in the Built Environment’.  My airline flights from Dublin brought me in and out through Terminal 1 of Roissy Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport in Paris.

A spanking new automatically operated Métro (shuttle) … CDGVAL … connects Terminals 1, 2 & 3, various Multi-Storey Car Parks and Train Stations within the Airport Complex …

.

.

IF … you search hard enough on the CDG Airport WebSite, you will find these three highlighted short sentences under content with the title ‘Personne à Mobilité Réduite’ … total rubbish and complete bullshit when you actually see the airport’s buildings and many facilities.  And … as usual, in French, the disability-related terminology is evil … and sucks !

‘Aéroports de Paris assure l’assistance des passagers handicapés et à mobilité réduite dés leur arrivée, et tout au long de leur parcours dans le terminal.

Aéroports de Paris a depuis longtemps entamé une démarche d’équipement et d’adaptation de ses terminaux pour faciliter les déplacements de tous.

Aujourd’hui, les problématiques d’accessibilités sont systématiquement prises en compte dans l’aménagement de nos infrastructures.’

.

Why is this relevant for us now … here in Ireland ?

The new scheme of Disability Access Certification, closely modelled on the existing highly problematic scheme of Fire Safety Certification … is undergoing a normal, introductory ‘teething’ process within this jurisdiction … and many questions about interpretation of the law and its operation are being asked.

Important Clarification:  The Guidance Text contained in Technical Guidance Document M … is not Law … is not Prescriptive Regulation … is not ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ … and … because the guidance is so incomplete, incoherent and inadequate … does not even indicate Minimum Accessibility Performance !

Part M Functional Requirements – Access for People with Disabilities     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations, 2000 – Statutory Instrument No.179 of 2000

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made to enable people with disabilities to safely and independently access and use a building.

Sanitary Conveniences     M2     If sanitary conveniences are provided in a building, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Audience or Spectator Facilities     M3     If a building contains fixed seating for audience or spectators, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Definition for This Part     M4     In this Part, ‘people with disabilities’ means people who have an impairment of hearing or sight or an impairment which limits their ability to walk, or which restricts them to a wheelchair.

Application of This Part     M5     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and the material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create a new dwelling.

.

Today in Ireland … Talk IS too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance IS almost non-existent !!!   Yes … and that even includes the work of those mighty superheroes in the Office of Public Works (OPW).

Furthermore … the big fun will really start when the New Part M Requirements come into operation on 1 January 2012 … and we will enter a surreal Alice’s Wonderland of Accessibility Ambiguity …

Part M Functional Requirements – Access and Use     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Part M Amendment) Regulations, 2010 – Statutory Instrument No.513 of 2010

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and use a building, its facilities and its environs.

Application of The Part     M2     Adequate provision shall be made for people to approach and access an extension to a building.

M3     If sanitary facilities are provided in a building that is to be extended, adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided for people within the extension.

M4     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create anew dwelling.

.

.

END

Tags: 'Personne à Mobilité Réduite', A spanking new automatically operated Métro (shuttle) ... CDGVAL, Access and Use - M1, Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities, Accessibility-for-All, Alice's Wonderland of Accessibility Ambiguity, an important interconnecting transportation system, an unacceptably huge difference between platform height and the shuttle's floor, Application of This Part - M5, Audience or Spectator Facilities - M3, Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2000 - Statutory Instrument No.179 of 2000, Building Regulations (Part M Amendment) Regulations 2010 - Statutory Instrument No.513 of 2010, Built Environment, Built Environment Accessibility Performance in Japan, CDG Airport WebSite, CJ Walsh, Client Organizations, closely modelled on the existing highly problematic scheme of Fire Safety Certification, Definition for This Part - M4, Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), Disability Access Certificates (DAC's) - Acceptable Accessibility, Disability Access Certification, does not even indicate Minimum Accessibility Performance, France, France continues to be a depressing experience ... where Talk is far far too cheap and Good Accessibility Performance is still all too rare, human and social rights, human environment, Important Clarification, in French the disability-related terminology is evil ... and sucks, Inaccessibility of European Union Institutional Buildings, Ireland, Japan in April & May 2010 – Accessibility-for-All, level of accessibility performance which we are used to experiencing is inadequate and sloppy, many of these aspects are missing in European Approaches to Accessibility-for-All, many questions about interpretation of the law and its operation are being asked, New Part M Requirements come into operation on 1 January 2012, Paris Meeting of the Editorial Team for the CIB W108 Report: 'Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in the Built Environment', Part M Functional Requirements - Access for People with Disabilities, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), Sanitary Conveniences - M2, Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, Terminal 1 of Roissy Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport in Paris, the European Parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg, The Guidance Text contained in Technical Guidance Document M, the inaccessibility of Institutional Buildings is shockingly and unacceptably bad, the work of those mighty superheroes in the Office of Public Works (OPW), these buildings should represent in built form the ideals and values of the peoples of Europe - as expressed in the EU Treaties, This is also now a trip hazard for everyone, three highlighted short sentences, Today in Ireland ... Talk is far too cheap ... and Good Accessibility Performance is almost non-existent, total rubbish and complete bullshit when you actually see the airport's buildings and many facilities, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Yet another magnificent example of Sloppy French Accessibility Implementation

EU Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup – SDI An Official Partner

2010-11-23:  By e-mail from Brussels, dated 2010-11-04 … we have received some good news !

Sustainable Design International (SDI)  has been registered … amongst a small number, relatively speaking, of diverse European Organizations having an interest in Urban Planning & Development … as an Official Partner of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup ( http://urban-intergroup.eu/ ).

The URBAN InterGroup focuses on topics related to the Sustainable Development of Urban Areas … and consists of 70 Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s), representing most E.U. Member States.

Check out the InterGroup’s New Newsletter …

Issue No.1 – October 2010

EU Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup Newsletter 1

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (2.78 Mb)

.

.

END

Tags: Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities, Accessibility-for-All, Building Energy Rating, Built Environment, CJ Walsh, Client Organizations, Climate Change Adaptation, consists of 70 Members of the European Parliament (MEP's), Energy Performance of Buildings, EU, EU Parliament's URBAN InterGroup - SDI An Official Partner, European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup's New Newsletter - Issue 1 October 2010, european union, Official Partner of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), representing most E.U. Member States, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Design International (SDI), Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, topics related to the Sustainable Development of Urban Areas, Urban Planning and Development

EU Sustainable vs. Green Public Procurement – Beware !

2010-11-02:  For a long, long time … too long … I have been bleating on about the major and substantial difference between Sustainable Design and Green Design … or ‘Sustainability’ and ‘Green-ness’.  See my previous Posts.

This bores me no end !

HOWEVER … there are some serious implications if this difference is not properly understood … particularly by individuals, groups or organizations attempting to advance the Application of Criteria which address Social and/or Ethical Concerns within, for example, the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework … or the EU’s Construction Product Framework.

The following is a nice little example of exactly what I am talking about … explained by no less an authority than the Directorate General for Environment in the European Commission itself … on its very own Public Procurement WebPage at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm … as viewed, by me, on 2010-09-12 …

[ For a moment, let's just overlook the simplistic and crude 'three pillars' understanding of Sustainable Development.  See my previous Posts.]

Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) … means that public authorities seek to achieve the appropriate balance between the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – when procuring goods, services or works at all stages of the project.

Green Public Procurement (GPP) … means that public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured.

Practical Differences Between SPP & GPP !

GPP is often more easily accommodated than SPP within the existing legal and practical framework of procurement.  Green requirements can be included in technical or performance-based specifications for products, services and works.  Provided the conditions set out in the ‘Helsinki Bus’ and ‘Wienstrom’ Cases, and Evropaïki Dynamiki vs. European Environment Agency (EEA) … are met, green award criteria can also be applied (further information on these cases is available at  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/case_law_en.htm).

The application of Criteria aimed at addressing Social or Ethical Concerns can be more difficult in the context of regulated public procurement procedures.  Public authorities are specifically empowered to include social requirements in their conditions for the performance of contracts or to reserve certain contracts for performance by sheltered workshops or employment programmes (Articles 26 and 19 of Directive 2004/18/EC respectively).

.

My Note:  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.

[ For another moment, let's just overlook the unfortunate use of disability-related language ... which fails, utterly, to take account of the 2001 World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF).  See my previous Posts.]

Article 19 – Reserved Contracts

Member States may reserve the right to participate in public contract award procedures to sheltered workshops or provide for such contracts to be performed in the context of sheltered employment programmes where most of the employees concerned are handicapped persons who, by reason of the nature or the seriousness of their disabilities, cannot carry on occupations under normal conditions.

The contract notice shall make reference to this provision.

Article 26 – Conditions for Performance of Contracts

Contracting authorities may lay down special conditions relating to the performance of a contract, provided that these are compatible with Community law and are indicated in the contract notice or in the specifications.  The conditions governing the performance of a contract may, in particular, concern social and environmental considerations.

ANNEX VI – Definition of Certain Technical Specifications

For the purposes of this Directive:

1. (a)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public works contracts, means the totality of the technical prescriptions contained in particular in the tender documents, defining the characteristics required of a material, product or supply, which permits a material, a product or a supply to be described in a manner such that it fulfils the use for which it is intended by the contracting authority.  These characteristics shall include levels of environmental performance, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, safety or dimensions, including the procedures concerning quality assurance, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling and production processes and methods.  They shall also include rules relating to design and costing, the test, inspection and acceptance conditions for works and methods or techniques of construction and all other technical conditions which the contracting authority is in a position to prescribe, under general or specific regulations, in relation to the finished works and to the materials or parts which they involve ;

    (b)  ‘technical specification’, in the case of public supply or service contracts, means a specification in a document defining the required characteristics of a product or a service, such as quality levels, environmental performance levels, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons) and conformity assessment, performance, use of the product, safety or dimensions, including requirements relevant to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling, user instructions, production processes and methods and conformity assessment procedures ;

2.  ‘standard’ means a technical specification approved by a recognised standardising body for repeated or continuous application, compliance with which is not compulsory and which falls into one of the following categories:

-  International Standard: a standard adopted by an international standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

-  European Standard: a standard adopted by a European standards organisation and made available to the general public ;

-  National Standard: a standard adopted by a national standards organisation and made available to the general public.

.

In order for a Criterion … any Criterion … to be acceptable within the European Union’s Public Procurement Framework, it should be expressly linked to the subject matter of the Contract … should be specific … and should be capable of objective verification.

Beware !!

.

.

END

Tags: 'Helsinki Bus' and 'Wienstrom' Cases, 2001 World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities, Accessibility-for-All, Accessible Fire Engineering, ANNEX VI - Definition of Certain Technical Specifications, Area of Rescue Assistance in a Building, Article 19 - Reserved Contracts, Article 26 - Conditions for Performance of Contracts, Articles 26 and 19 of EU Directive 2004/18/EC, Built Environment, Client Organizations, design for all requirements (including accessibility for disabled persons), design-for-all, 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 se, Directorate General for Environment in the European Commission, EU, EU Sustainable vs. Green Public Procurement - Beware, EU's Construction Product Framework, European Standard, european union, European Union's Public Procurement Framework, Evropaïki Dynamiki vs. European Environment Agency (EEA), Green Public Procurement (GPP), human and social rights, In order for a Criterion ... any Criterion ... to be acceptable within the European Union's Public Procurement Framework, individuals - groups - organizations attempting to advance the Application of Criteria which address Social and/or Ethical Concerns, International Standard, it should be expressly linked to the subject matter of the Contract ... should be specific ... and should be capable of objective verification, let's just overlook the simplistic and crude 'three pillars' understanding of Sustainable Development, major and substantial difference between Sustainable Design and Green Design, National Standard, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), Practical Differences Between SPP and GPP, Public authorities are specifically empowered to include social requirements in their conditions for the performance of contracts, some serious implications if this difference is not properly understood, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP), Technical Control of Construction, The application of Criteria aimed at addressing Social or Ethical Concerns can be more difficult, The conditions governing the performance of a contract may concern social and environmental considerations, the context of regulated public procurement procedures, The following is a nice little example of exactly what I am talking about ..., the unfortunate use of disability-related language, to reserve certain contracts for performance by sheltered workshops or employment programmes, ‘standard’ means a technical specification approved by a recognised standardising body for repeated or continuous application, ‘technical specification’ in the case of public supply or service contracts, ‘technical specification’ in the case of public works contracts

Japan in April and May 2010 … Accessibility-for-All !

2010-10-20:  In Europe … we are experts at talking about an Accessible Built Environment … and hopeless when it comes to effective implementation …

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

However, I would like to share not just one single moment in Japan, but a Series of Special Moments … where I was observing and studying, up close and personal, the ‘real’ implementation of Accessibility-for-All in Public Places … including some discrete detailing at the Main Gate to Kanazawa Castle … Ishikawa-mon.

When I say Accessibility-for-All … I mean Accessibility Design, with all of the rambling philosophical bullshit removed.  The emphasis can then properly be placed on a high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance provided for users of the built environment … all users, because many of the details shown in the photographs below make movement in and around public places safer and more convenient for everybody.

Some of the many Aspects in Japan which, together, facilitate this high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance …

• A robust legal base mandating the provision of Accessibility-for-All ;
• Determined political will ;
• Sufficient financial resources ;
• A compassionate and understanding bureaucracy – at all levels in society ;
• Competence, i.e. education, training and experience, of spatial planners, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, etc … and members of construction organizations ;
• Innovative, well-designed accessibility-related products which can be shown to be ‘fit for their intended use’.

The following European Guideline Framework … which I drafted in 2003, and later incorporated into the 2004 Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Sustainable Social Development, Disability & Ageing … is useful …

C.J. Walsh

Guideline Framework on EU Equal Opportunity & Social Inclusion for All

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (82kb)

.

Much of the Accessibility Detailing in Japan far exceeds, in quality of performance, what is described in the Proposed International Standards Organization (ISO) Accessibility-for-All Standard … to be published, hopefully(!), in 2011 … and here is a small taste …

.

.

.

.

It is important to link one activity/task/function with the next … (please ignore the awkward step up at the entrance to the train carriage … instead, look at the wonderful entrance detail in the next photograph below) …

.

What a beauty !

.

Common everywhere … a closer look at the information which can very easily be provided on all handrails …

.

The Main Gate to Kanazawa Castle … Ishikawa-mon …

.

.

.

END

Tags: 2004 Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Sustainable Social Development Disability and Ageing, Accessibility Design with all of the rambling philosophical bullshit removed, Accessibility Detailing in Japan, Accessibility-for-All, Built Environment, Built Environment ... Anywhere there is - or has been - a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, CJ Walsh, Client Organizations, compassionate and understanding bureaucracy - at all levels in society, Competence of spatial planners - architects - engineers - quantity surveyors - etc ... and members of construction organizations, Determined political will, emphasis can then properly be placed on a high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance, EU, european union, Guideline Framework on EU Equal Opportunity and Social Inclusion, hopeless when it comes to effective implementation, human and social rights, I would like to share not just one single moment in Japan but a Series of Special Moments, In Europe ... we are experts at talking about an Accessible Built Environment, Innovative well-designed accessibility-related products which can be shown to be 'fit for their intended use', It is important to link one activity/task/function with the next, Japan in April & May 2010 - Accessibility-for-All, many of the details shown in the photographs below make movement in and around public places safer and more convenient for everybody, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), photograph, Proposed International Standards Organization (ISO) Accessibility-for-All Standard, provided for all users of the built environment, robust legal base mandating the provision of Accessibility-for-All, some discrete detailing at the Main Gate to Kanazawa Castle ... Ishikawa-mon, Some of the many Aspects in Japan which - together - facilitate this high level of quality in Actual Accessibility Performance, Sufficient financial resources, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Human & Social Development, the 'real' implementation of Accessibility-for-All in Public Places

How ‘Sustainable’ are Built Environment Adaptation Projects ?

2010-04-01:  The Inter-Basin Water Transfer Project from Lough Ree, on the River Shannon, to Dublin City, in Ireland, has been described as a Pilot Adaptation Project on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite Database relating to the Nairobi Work Programme (2005-2010).

I did not imagine this … please check out the listing, for yourselves, on this WebPage … www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/4555.php?sort=focus_sort&dirc=DESC&seite=1&anf=0&type=&region=&focus=&means=

Detailed information concerning the Project can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address:  www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie   It will cost approximately €600 million (probably much more !) … devour many material resources and have an adverse environmental impact … the objective being to divert water from the Shannon, a large river in the mid-west of the country … to Dublin, the capital city, which is located over 100 kilometres away on the east coast … in order to deal with the expected shortage of water which will be caused, among other relevant factors, by future climate change.

.

.

BUT … just how Sustainable is this Climate Change Adaptation Project … if the following other relevant factors are considered ?????

1.  Since the 1960′s … a dysfunctional and corrupt Spatial Planning System in the Dublin City Region has actively encouraged an uncontrolled, urban and suburban horizontal sprawl to take place.  Today, this pattern of development remains unchecked.

2.  At this time, there are still no Residential Water Charges in Dublin.  The concept of water conservation is, therefore, almost unknown among householders.  National and local politicians are terrified by any prospect of having to vote in favour of imposing these necessary charges.

3.  There are enormous un-intended losses, i.e. Leaks, from the public mains potable/drinking water distribution system … approximately 40% even in the good times, and recently, well in excess of 60% following the National Snow Emergency in Ireland.

4.  Potable/drinking water supplied to houses in the Dublin City Region is not yet Metered.  There is no urgency, therefore, in locating and repairing water leaks which occur between the private property boundary of a house and the house itself.

5.  There is no existing legal requirement in Ireland’s National Building Regulations to Harvest Rainwater in any buildings, or on any hard surfaces in the vicinity of those buildings.  A current proposal to amend Technical Guidance Document H: ‘Drainage & Waste Water Disposal’ will merely present relevant guidance text to building designers concerning this option.

Furthermore, there is no effective System of Technical Control operated by the Local Authorities in the City Region … to enforce a legal requirement concerning rainwater harvesting … even if such a legal requirement were to be introduced !

6.  In 2005-2006, at the height of the Celtic Tiger Economic Boom … the existing Foul and Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure in the City Region was already stretched to keep pace with the ‘wild’ demands for new development land.  Detailed information concerning the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address:  www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Drainage/GreaterDublinStrategicDrainageStudy/Pages/RegionalDrainagePolicies-OverallPolicyDocument.aspx

Overloading of the existing drainage systems was evident from a marked deterioration in water quality, increased risks of flooding and pollution, and concerns that the drainage system and sewage treatment plants had insufficient capacity to cater for future development.

7.  Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) …

‘ a continual evaluation and optimization assessment – 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, economic, environmental, institutional, political and legal impacts on balanced and equitable implementation of Sustainable Human & Social Development ‘

… is not yet a standard procedure, at any level, within national, regional and local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s).  If it were, the most glaring flaw in this project would rapidly be identified.  There is no comprehension at all, in the minds of Dublin City’s decision-makers, that water is a very valuable, but limited, resource !

.

Although today is 1st April 2010 … far too many people in senior policy and decision-making roles are giving solemn, unquestioning consideration to this Project.

To be successful, however, National Adaptation Strategies, Programmes and Projects must be informed, in a meaningful way, by the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development … and, prior to implementation, must be filtered through the lens of a comprehensive Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) !

.

.

POSTSCRIPT

2011-09-29:  Relevant extract from the 2010 Annual Report of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General - Volume 2 …

WATER SERVICES EFFECTIVENESS

22.11  Funding for the provision of infrastructure for the supply of drinking water is provided by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government under two programmes.  Major water supply schemes are included in the rolling three-year Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP).  These schemes focus on the larger concentrations of population in urban areas.  Annual Rural Water Programmes (RWP) provide the bulk of funding for the construction of group water schemes and small public schemes in rural areas.

22.12  Over the period 2000-2010, €5.2 Billion of Exchequer resources have been invested in the upgrading and provision of new water services infrastructure, of which €4.2 Billion was spent on WSIP and €0.99 Billion was spent on RWP.  Overall expenditure includes investment of over €1 Billion on public water supply and networks and €168 Million on water conservation.  [The WSIP expenditure also includes €889 million relating mainly to the group water sector under the rural water programme.]  There are two key indicators of the effectiveness of expenditure on water supply and conservation:

• the quality of drinking water;
• the extent to which treated water reaches the consumer.

.

Effectiveness of Water Supply System

22.17  Loss of output is a feature of all water distribution systems.  Unaccounted for Water (UFW) is a measure that is used to track this loss.  It is the difference between ‘net production’ which is the volume of water delivered into a network and ‘consumption’ measured in terms of the volume of water that can be accounted for by legitimate consumption.

22.18  Figure 109 shows UFW as a percentage of the net volume of water supplied for 2008 and 2009.  It sets out the national average performance and the range across local authorities.  Annex A contains the data on UFW for these two years for all county and city councils.

.

.

.

22.19  Overall, the average percentage of UFW was approximately 41.48% in 2009, which showed a marginal increase over 2008 (41.20%).  Some 17 of the 34 authorities have seen an improvement in 2009, the most noticeable being a reduction in the percentage of water lost in Monaghan which was down by 27%, Cavan by 18% and Kilkenny by 15%.  The other 17 local authorities reported a disimprovement in the amount of UFW for 2009, with Limerick County Council reporting losses of 35%, up from 17% in 2008.  Fingal County Council, Limerick City Council, and Dublin City Council reported substantial increased leakage in 2009 over 2008 at 27%, 22% and 20% respectively.

Cost of Unaccounted for Water (UFW)

22.20  The cost of UFW is considerable for local authorities.  However, since the LGMSB does not collate information on water production and associated costs the data is not available in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.  As a result, it is not possible in this report to provide an up-to-date estimate of the cost of UFW being experienced.

22.21  A value for money examination carried out in the mid-1990’s on water production and distribution showed that the cost per cubic metre of water produced varied between €0.14 to €0.39.  The study found that overall water leakage level in the authorities surveyed at that time ranged from 27% to 40% of total water produced.

22.22  The results of the study were based on estimates since none of the authorities that were the subject of the value for money examination had the means to measure accurately the level of overall leakage.

22.23  Based on its results, the examination reported that, for five local authorities reviewed at that time, the estimated annual production cost of the water lost due to leakages was in the order of €3.5 million.  Applying the Consumer Price Index to this value brings the cost to approximately €5.3 million in present-day terms.

22.24  As leakage is just one factor contributing to UFW, it appears from the losses now being recorded by local authorities that there has been little, if any, improvement in the situation despite the considerable State investment in water services in the interim.

Views of the Accounting Officer

22.25  The Accounting Officer informed me that under the National Water Conservation Sub-Programme, which commenced in 1996, the National Water Study undertook a comprehensive national water audit of all urban centres with populations exceeding 5,000 to determine the extent of UFW and leakage problems nationally.  The National Water Study examined the reasons for UFW and set out recommendations to reduce the levels of UFW.

22.26  Arising from the findings of the National Water Study and pilot water conservation schemes undertaken in the main urban centres of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick, water conservation strategies and operational programmes were adopted which have been rolled out nationally since 2003.

22.27  The Dublin Region Water Conservation Programme, which was carried out between 1998 and 2002 as one of the pilot schemes under the National Water Conservation Sub-Programme, reduced regional leakage from 47% to 28%.  UFW in the Dublin region now averages 30% which is amongst the lowest in the country.

22.28  Since the commencement of the water conservation sub-programme, substantial investment has been made in the fundamental infrastructure for water management, including the metering of supply input.  Also, the methodology has been standardised.  Arising from this, the reported figures now have an accuracy that the figures from earlier times could not have had.

22.29  By way of example, the Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study (1996) estimated losses of 44% of total input, of which 39% was allocated to distribution losses and 5% allocated to customer losses.  When the metering infrastructure was checked and upgraded during the water conservation project (around 2000), it was found that the original meter readings for flow into supply were incorrect, and that losses were actually higher than originally thought (giving the corrected estimate for that time of 42% distribution losses and 47% in total).  Notwithstanding that the Dublin Region bulk metering infrastructure was considered reliable at the time, it was found to have inaccuracies that were subsequently corrected.

22.30  In terms of comparisons, the Accounting Officer pointed out that the Dublin supply is hugely significant, serving approximately one third of the population of the country.  Consequently, the Dublin supply region reduction of distribution loss from 42% to 30% currently must reflect positively on the national average (and it is the corrected Dublin Region figure from 1995/96 that is most reliably reflective of the situation at that time).

22.31  A further observation by the Accounting Officer was that without investment the leakage situation will deteriorate as assets age.  It follows that a certain level of investment is required even just to maintain the status quo.

22.32  The Accounting Officer stated that, outside of Dublin, most of the investment had been in water management systems, which while they had made a contribution to tackling leakage, were really the platform for the more intensive investment being rolled out for mains rehabilitation in the WSIP 2010-2012.  She said that this investment in water management systems had contributed to greater efficiency in the supply system, which had been demonstrated during the two severe winters and flooding in Cork, when authorities had been better able to manage the rationing of supply and restoration of supply than they would have been a decade ago.

22.33  Finally, the Accounting Officer said that the need to focus on water conservation had been demonstrated through the development of service indicators, training in water conservation, development of guidance and work with the County and City Managers Association to streamline the approaches and accelerate work in this area.

CONCLUSION – Effectiveness of Water Supply System

UFW arises from factors such as leakage, poor service connections and metering errors.  Average UFW levels in Ireland appear to be at levels twice the OECD average of 20%.  While some caution needs to be applied in interpreting the results of a limited examination of water leakage carried out over 15 years ago, present-day losses may be, in many local authorities, as high as those found in the mid-1990’s, notwithstanding an investment of over €1 Billion in water supply and conservation in the last ten years.

In the light of the potential cost of UFW it is necessary that the factors that give rise to UFW be reviewed and strategies and operational programmes to address the underlying issues contributing to the problem be re-evaluated.

.

.

END

Tags: 2010 Annual Report of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General - Volume 2, A current proposal to amend Technical Guidance Document H: 'Drainage & Waste Water Disposal', a dysfunctional and corrupt Spatial Planning System in the Dublin City Region, a marked deterioration in water quality, actively encouraged an uncontrolled urban and suburban horizontal sprawl, Annex A: 'Unaccounted for Water (UFW) as a Percentage of Total Volume of Water Supplied 2008 and 2009', Annual Rural Water Programmes (RWP), Average UFW levels in Ireland appear to be at levels twice the OECD average of 20%, Built Environment, Climate Change Adaptation, concerns that the drainage system and sewage treatment plants had insufficient capacity to cater for future development, CONCLUSION – Effectiveness of Water Supply System, cost approximately €600 million (probably much more !), Cost of Unaccounted for Water (UFW), Department of the Environment Community and Local Government, Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), devour many material resources and have an adverse environmental impact, Effectiveness of Water Supply System, enormous un-intended losses from the public mains potable/drinking water distribution system, expected shortage of water which will be caused among other relevant factors by future climate change, far too many people in senior policy and decision-making roles, Figure 109: 'Unaccounted for Water (UFW) as a Percentage of Water Supplied 2008-2009', Foul and Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure in the City Region, Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study, How 'Sustainable' are Built Environment Adaptation Projects, increased risks of flooding and pollution, Inter-Basin Water Transfer Project from Lough Ree on the River Shannon to Dublin City, Ireland, Nairobi Work Programme (2005-2010), national - regional - local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ's), National Adaptation Strategies Programmes and Projects, National and local politicians are terrified by any prospect of having to vote in favour, National Water Study, no effective System of Technical Control operated by the Local Authorities in the City Region, no existing legal requirement in Ireland's National Building Regulations to Harvest Rainwater in any buildings, no urgency in locating and repairing water leaks, Overloading of the existing drainage systems, Pilot Adaptation Project, Potable/drinking water supplied to houses in the Dublin City Region is not yet Metered, Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA), Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, The cost of UFW is considerable for local authorities, The Dublin Region Water Conservation Programme which was carried out between 1998 and 2002, the extent to which treated water reaches the consumer, the National Water Conservation Sub-Programme which commenced in 1996, there are still no Residential Water Charges in Dublin, UFW in the Dublin region now averages 30%, Unaccounted for Water (UFW), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite Database, Views of the Accounting Officer, WATER SERVICES EFFECTIVENESS, Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP)

Sustainable Cities – The Driver to Forge a ‘Creative’ Society ?

Dr. Craig Barrett, Chair (2005-2009) of Intel Corporation’s Board, recently dropped some sharp home truths onto our frail and sensitive Irish laps … concerning national competitiveness in the Global Economic Environment.  It was like a breath of fresh air !   And … how right he was !!

Today, however, I want to focus on just one of his themes …

Quality Education + Quality Research & Development + Facilitating and Fostering Creativity & Innovation in Society

Since the 1990′s … we have had to listen to endless amounts of bullshit and hot air … until we are blue in the face … about the Information Society, the Knowledge Society, the Smart Society, the Green Society [what is 'Green' anyway ?], etc., etc., etc … and the biggest anti-climax of them all … the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy … boring, boring, boring !!!!

.

When you hit the bottom of the barrel, there is only one place to look … and that’s up … with an engaged mind feverishly picturing what’s around outside !   So … for one wild moment, let’s join together some nice ideas …

Could Sustainable Cities be that essential driving force which forges a ‘Creative’ Society ???

What is the Sustainable Urban Environment (City) ?   A geographical region, with open and flexible boundaries, consisting of:

• An interwoven, densely constructed core (built environment) ;
• A large resident population of more than 500,000 people (social environment) ;
• A supporting hinterland of lands, waters and other natural resources (cultivated or ‘wrought’ landscape) ;

And together functioning as …

1. A complex living system (analogous to, yet different from, other living systems such as ecosystems and organisms) ;    and
2. A synergetic community capable of providing a high level of individual welfare and social wellbeing for all of its inhabitants.

Our Ultimate Goal must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a sustainable ‘human’ environment and a flourishing, not just a surviving, ‘natural’ environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving social wellbeing for all.

Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate changes, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s).

.

Supporting Definitions

Human Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the ‘natural’ environment.

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

Social Environment:  The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

The ‘social’ environment shapes, binds together, and directs the future development of, the ‘built’ (including ‘virtual’) environment.

Economic Environment:  The intricate web of real and virtual human commercial activity – operating at micro and macro-economic levels – which facilitates, supports, but sometimes hampers or disrupts, human interaction in the ‘social’ 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.

Human Health:  A state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.  (World Health Organization)

Individual Welfare:  A person’s general feeling of health, happiness and fulfilment.

Social Wellbeing:  A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, happiness, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.

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 … and their children.

*As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).

Sustainable Design*:  The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

*Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Interior / Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.

.

. 

END

Tags: 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR), a complex living system, a dynamic and harmonious balance between a sustainable 'human' environment and a flourishing 'natural' environment, a large resident population, a supporting hinterland of lands, a synergetic community capable of providing a high level of social wellbeing for all of its inhabitants, an interwoven densely constructed core, Built Environment, Could Sustainable Cities be that essential driving force which forges a 'Creative' Society, cultivated or 'wrought' landscape, Dr. Craig Barrett - Chair (2005-2009) of Intel Corporation's Board, Economic Environment, endless amounts of bullshit and hot air, European Union (E.U.), human health & safety, Individual Welfare, Information Society - Knowledge Society - Smart Society - Green Society - European Union's Lisbon Strategy, international law, Ireland, national competitiveness in the Global Economic Environment, Our Ultimate Goal, Overall Aim, Social Environment, Supporting Definitions, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Cities - The Driver to Forge a 'Creative' Society, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Design Solutions, The ethical design response - in built or wrought form - to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development, until we are blue in the face, virtual environment, waters and other natural resources, What is the Sustainable Urban Environment (City), When you hit the bottom of the barrel

Accessibility-for-All at the Brussels European Parliament ?!?!

Last Wednesday (2010-02-24), I was very pleased to be in Brussels to attend the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup for the New Parliamentary Term.  Being very curious, however, there was no way … no way at all … that I could enter the Parliament Building without checking on a specific part of the Early Parliamentary Complex on Rue Wiertz … for any improvements to its past, woeful ‘accessibility’ performance.  Please note that I am not referring, here, to transport issues … but to ‘accessibility’ for people with activity limitations.

.

.

Since the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities became an International Legal Instrument on 3rd May 2008 … people with activity limitations now have a clearly defined right, under international law, to be able to access and use the Built Environment.  They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building.  The language of the Convention is unusually strong.

Once upon a time … 9 or 10 years ago … at the beginning of this decade/century/millennium … a Properly Accessible Built Environment could only be wishful thinking.  Yes, there was some legislation … usually very weak … at national level in the E.U. Member States … but nobody paid much attention to implementation.  The least that could be expected, however, was that Iconic Buildings purposefully intended and designed for occupation by Institutions of the European Union would be examples of ‘good accessibility’ … as so much emphasis has always been placed in the E.U. Treaties, including the New Lisbon Treaty … on the foundation of the European Union being robustly rooted in Human and Social Rights for All … not just a privileged few, or a self-contented majority.

At this Page on Sustainable Design International’s Corporate WebSite … www.sustainable-design.ie/arch/inaccesseubuildings.htm … I recorded the dismal and depressing evidence on the ‘inaccessibility’ of both the Brussels and Strasbourg Parliament Buildings at that time.

.

.

So … what has changed in the intervening years ?   Have there been any improvements to a situation which I originally described as being ‘stupid and ridiculous’ ?   [I won't bore you with all of the reasons why.]   Or, are things worse ?   Have we, in fact, entered into some unknown region of The Twilight Zone ?   Arise again GUBU (Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented) !!

.

.

Pinch yourselves, a few times, as you examine the photographs closely !  Try to remember that these buildings are not renovated or refurbished existing buildings.  They were all designed and constructed, as ‘new’, on cleared sites within the city !!

.

Although Architects, the Brussels Local Authorities and the E.U. Institutions are primarily responsible for ‘inaccessibility’ of the Brussels European Parliament Building … we cannot afford to be smug or complacent in Ireland.  Just look around you !

Again, once upon a time … towards the end of the 1980′s this time … I submitted the following Proposal for a Resolution on Accessibility-for-All to the Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) … please forgive the pre 2001 WHO ICF use of language and terminology …

Preamble

The elimination of architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled is an essential and preliminary condition for successful implementation of the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life.

Resolution

Celebrating the 150th year of its establishment, Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland asks all Members:-

(i)   to note the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life ;

(ii)  to eliminate as far as reasonably practicable, in the design of buildings, architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled.

Was this Resolution passed ?   I’ll give you one guess !   The reason given, at the time, was that the Profession might be viewed as being culpable … which it was … and remains to this day.  The source of this culpability, however, is most definitely the Schools of Architecture.

.

.

END

Tags: 'inaccessibility' of both the Brussels and Strasbourg Parliament Buildings, a clearly defined right under international law, a Properly Accessible Built Environment could only be wishful thinking, Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities, Accessibility-for-All at the Brussels European Parliament, Architects - the Brussels Local Authorities - the European Union (E.U.) Institutions, CJ Walsh, Client Organizations, Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), Early Parliamentary Complex on Rue Wiertz - Brussels - Belgium, European Union (E.U.) Member States, European Union (E.U.) Treaties - including the New Lisbon Treaty, GUBU (Grotesque - Unbelievable - Bizarre - Unprecedented), human environment, Iconic Buildings purposefully intended and designed for occupation by Institutions of the European Union, Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, International Legal Instrument, People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), photograph, Proposal for a Resolution on Accessibility-for-All, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Design International's Corporate WebSite, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, the foundation of the European Union being robustly rooted in Human and Social Rights for All, The source of this culpability is most definitely the Schools of Architecture, The Twilight Zone, to be able to access and use the Built Environment, to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we cannot afford to be smug or complacent in Ireland, when there is a fire in a building

Yesterday’s Burj Dubai Inauguration – The Tallest ?? How ?

Yesterday (2010-01-04), the Burj Dubai … recently renamed the Burj Khalifa, in honour of Abu Dhabi’s Ruler … was inaugurated.  Dubayy, as it is known locally, is situated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  Contrary to most reports, this building has a height of approximately 550 metres !

Every single metre counts in the race of the ‘tallest’ !   So, the timing of the following CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, back in November 2009, was most fortunate.  In my opinion, the most meaningful height criterion is … Height to Occupied Floor.  But, what do you think ?   See below.

However … purposefully tripping you up as you race to read all about the height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings … we should all know and understand, I hope, that comparing the ‘size’ of structural members is a silly schoolboy’s game.  So, I would like to pose Some Important Questions (discussed, ad nauseam, in previous posts) about the Burj Khalifa Tower …

1. Dubayy (Dubai) is a crude reproduction of the nightmare that is the 20th Century North American City, i.e. it is on the opposite end of the scale from being ‘sustainable’ !   ’Greenwashing’ aside … How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?
2. There is no effective system, in Dubayy, of Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction by Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) or Competent Technical Controllers … 

How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower … for All of the large population, including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), who will undoubtedly be using/occupying the building during its long life cycle ?

Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?   ’Robustness’ and ‘Disproportionate Damage’ are separate, but related, structural concepts.

During my next visit to Dubayy … I will enjoy looking at, and photographing, the completed building.  But, I will not be entering the Burj Khalifa Tower !

. 

Chicago, 2009-11-17:  The Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) – the international body which arbitrates on tall building height and determines the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ – has announced a change to its height criteria, as a reflection of recent developments with several super-tall buildings.

The new criteria wording – ‘Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance to …’ allows for the recognition of the increasing numbers of multi-use tall buildings with often several different entrances at different levels, whilst also accommodating buildings constructed in non-traditional urban or suburban locations.  The CTBUH Height Committee has determined that the previous description of where to measure tall building height from – ‘Height is measured from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to …’ is now no longer sufficient.

This will have an impact on both the height of tall buildings and their relative international height rankings.  Burj Dubai, set to open as the world’s tallest building in January 2010, will now be measured from the lowest of its three main entrances (which opens into the entrance lobby for the tower’s corporate suite office function), while the recently completed Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago will be measured from the lower, publicly accessible Chicago Riverwalk.  In the case of Trump, this additional 9 metres (approx.) means that it will surpass the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai to occupy the rank of 6th tallest on the current list of completed buildings.

“Beginning in 2007, with the knowledge that Burj Dubai would be significantly taller than any structure ever built, the CTBUH Height Committee met to review the criteria by which we recognize and rank the height of buildings”, said Peter Weismantle, Chair of the CTBUH Height Committee and Director of Supertall Building Technology at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture in Chicago.  “As one might guess, with the committee being made up of architects, engineers, contractors, developers, building owners and academics, a variety of opinions and views were expressed.  The resulting revisions, almost two years later, reflect a general consensus of the committee in recognizing the most recent trends in tall building development around the world.”

Also in response to the changing designs and forms of tall buildings, the Height Committee has elected to discard its previous ‘Height to Roof’ Category.  “The roof category just doesn’t make sense anymore”, said CTBUH Executive Director Antony Wood.  “In the era of the flat-topped modernist tower, a clearly defined roof could usually be identified, but in today’s tall building world – which is increasingly adopting elaborate forms, spires, parapets and other features at the top of the building – it is becoming difficult to determine a ‘roof’ at all, even less so to measure to it.”

The Revised CTBUH Height Criteria and Diagrams of the Tallest 10 Buildings in the World as of November 2009 can be found here, ranked according to the three height categories now recognized by CTBUH.  These are: (i) Height to Architectural Top, measured to the topmost architectural feature of the building including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment;  (ii) Height to Highest Occupied Floor, measured to the level of the highest, consistently occupied floor in the building (thus not including service or mechanical areas which experience occasional maintenance access);  and (iii) Height to Tip, measured to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element.

.

.

END

Tags: 'Greenwashing' aside ... How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?, 'Robustness' and 'Disproportionate Damage' are separate - but related - structural concepts, Accessibility-for-All, Accessible Fire Engineering, Built Environment, Climate Change Adaptation, comparing the 'size' of structural members is a silly schoolboy's game, Competent Technical Controllers, Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), CTBUH Height Committee, CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, Dubayy, Fire Safety, fire-induced progressive collapse, Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?, height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings, Height to Architectural Top, Height to Occupied Floor, Height to Tip, How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?, human and social rights, human environment, in honour of Abu Dhabi's Ruler, Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction, Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai, Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ's), People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), Personnes à Performances Réduites (2001 WHO ICF), renamed the Burj Khalifa, Some Important Questions about the Burj Khalifa Tower, Sustainability Implementation, Sustainable Design, Sustainable Fire Engineering, Sustainable Human & Social Development, Technical Control of Construction, The World’s Tallest Building, Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Yesterday's Burj Dubai Inauguration - The Tallest ?? How ?