International Development Committee

Inquiry on FCDO and disability-inclusive development

Protection Approaches Written Evidence

1. Executive Summary

1.1.    The FCDO’s Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy (DIR) presents a rights-based approach to policy rooted in the UK’s legal and treaty based commitments. This is to be applauded, and we recognise the tireless work of dedicated staff and disability rights movements worldwide in its creation. However, in order to effectively identify, address and respond to identity-based violence against people with disabilities and marginalised communities, this strategy and its commitments on its priority areas of human rights, freedom and democracy and humanitarian action must be joined up and effectively integrated with the UK’s commitments, structures and expertise on violence reduction, conflict prevention, and mass atrocity prevention. This means integrating commitments to disability inclusion more fully in country strategies, the work of the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation, and in the newly created Atrocity Prevention Hub.

1.2.    The FCDO’s DIR Strategy acknowledges that people with disabilities are more likely to be impacted by ongoing shocks such as “conflict, climate change and COVID-19 that are driving a rising tide of humanitarian need”.[1] Without integrating a joined up approach to the prevention of identity-based violence, including mass atrocity crimes, that leverages the cross-cutting commitments of the FCDO’s DIR strategy, opportunities to identify, mitigate and prevent harm to disabled and other marginalised communities will continue to be missed.

1.3.    This submission focuses on assessing the adequacy of FCDO’s new disability and inclusion rights strategy as a framework for approaching disability-inclusive development, aims to bring together FCDO’s learning from its approach to violence prevention, human rights and atrocity prevention, and seeks to draw attention to the following recommendations that would strengthen both the commitments in the FCDO’s Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy and the UK’s response to human rights deficits, identity-based violence, armed conflict, mass atrocity crimes:

1.3.1.            Ensure the Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy and its commitments on its priority areas of human rights, freedom and democracy and humanitarian action are joined up and effectively integrated with the UK’s new commitments, developing structures and emerging expertise on identity-based violence and mass atrocity prevention;

1.3.2.            Bring in skills and expertise from civil society and impacted communities on the intersection between disability rights and atrocity prevention through formal, regularised avenues for engagement, communication and consultation, ensuring meaningful participation and representation of disabled communities in policy development efforts;

1.3.3.            Provide access to specialised training for FCDO inclusion teams, country desks and embassies on the intersection between disability rights and atrocity prevention that identifies and assesses risks to people with disabilities. This will ensure that the needs, risks and expertise of persons with disabilities is embedded across FCDO teams and deployed effectively across FCDO teams and embassy staff when dealing with situations of risk and acute or mass violence;

1.3.4.            Leverage opportunities to make the Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy’s commitment to “shape multilateral architecture and international rules to embed disability rights” and ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk meaningful through:

1.3.4.1.    UK support of the inclusion of persons with disabilities and other traditionally excluded communities in ongoing negotiations for the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty

1.3.4.2.    Ensuring inclusion of perspectives of persons with disabilities in assessing progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, including Goal 16 to promote peace and inclusive societies

1.3.4.3.    Leveraging the upcoming 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a benchmark moment to consider not only progress, but also gaps in the uptake and implementation of human rights for individuals in all their diversity.

2. About

2.1.    This submission comes from Protection Approaches. Protection Approaches works to confront and prevent identity-based violence by developing and implementing innovative programmes that address all forms of hate. From Newham in East London to Bangui in the Central African Republic, we work with local communities, civil society organisations, policymakers, governments, academics and multilateral institutions to develop strategies that predict, prevent and protect people from identity-based violence. Protection Approaches convenes the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group: a group of 25 NGOs based in the UK who collaborate on atrocity prevention policy and advocacy.

2.2.    Protection Approaches works with Her Majesty’s Government towards strengthening the UK’s approach to preventing mass atrocity crimes. This involves delivering bespoke trainings, briefings, and capacity building activities.

2.3.    This preparation of this submission was led by Aditi Gupta, Director of Policy at Protection Approaches where she jointly leads the development of research portfolios and policy strategies focussing on the prevention of identity-based violence and mass atrocities. She is an Executive Board Member at Airwars and co-Founder of the Minorities in Peace and Security network. Aditi is former co-Director of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones and Modern Conflict where she jointly led the Group's strategy and activities to improve the accountability, transparency and oversight of the UK's use of force and security partnerships.

2.4.    Contact information: aditi.gupta@protectionapproaches.org

3. Rising identity-based violence in a changing global context

3.1.    The FCDO’s DIR Strategy warns “the world is at a watershed moment. Conflict, climate change, and COVID-19 are driving a rising tide of humanitarian need, forced displacement, and decline in global freedom and democracy”.[2] At this juncture, drivers of identity-based violence are also gaining momentum. Identity-based violence is any act of violence motivated by the perpetrator's conceptualisation of their victim's identity, for example their race, gender, ability, sexuality, religion or political affiliation.  From the Holocaust to Yemen, those with disabilities or perceived to be disabled have been subject to discrimination, violence and at times destruction.[3]

3.2.    Identity-based violence is any act of violence motivated by the perpetrator's conceptualisation of their victim's identity, for example their race, gender, ability, sexuality, religion or political affiliation. [4] Identity-based violence against people with disabilities has a long history, from marginalisation and persecution to attempted destruction. As disability scholars Lord et al. outline, “for individuals with disabilities this lurid history, includes mass murder, and targeted killing; forced sterilization; involuntary medical and scientific experimentation; use of persons with disabilities as human shields, suicide bombers and booby-traps; institutionalization, sexual violence, human trafficking and forced disappearance; and attacks against buildings dedicated to the education, health care and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities”.[5] Indeed, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reminds us that “the most extreme form of marginalization is elimination. It should never be forgotten that people with disabilities were one of the main – and earliest – victims of the Nazi concentration camps”[6], with an estimated 250,000 disabled people murdered under the Nazi regime.[7] The DIR Strategy currently fails to take into account this trajectory of identity-based violence as a precursor to mass violence. This type of violence stems from discrimination, human rights deficits and political inequity – systemic inequalities and challenges the DIR aims to challenge head on – but when left unchecked can result in structural and physical violence against, greater humanitarian needs for, and chronic exclusion of those with disabilities.

3.3.    In addition to greater emphasis upon preventing identity-based violence against those perceived to have disabilities, any development strategy must integrate the cross-cutting commitment to prioritise the needs of disabled people in humanitarian crises, conflicts and mass atrocity situations, recognising the additional risks that they will face.

4. The need to integrate the FCDO’s Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy

4.1.    The FCDO’s Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy (DIR) presents a rights-based approach to policy rooted in the UK’s legal and treaty based commitments. This is to be applauded, recognising the tireless work of dedicated FCDO staff and disability rights movements worldwide in its creation. Drawing upon UK “development and diplomacy expertise to advance rights and freedoms of people with disabilities”,[8] the FCDO’s DIR Strategy emphasises the need to “build societies that are more resilient to humanitarian crises and fully inclusive and accessible for all people with disabilities, including people with intellectual disabilities, people with psychosocial disabilities and other marginalised groups”. Reflective of the broader mandate of the integrated FCDO, the strategy states this commitment is “inclusive of peace and stability, human safety and security, conflict resolution and poverty reduction”.[9] Similarly, UK commitments to mass atrocity prevention cut across domestic, diplomatic, development and foreign policy levers, providing vital opportunities to operationalise these commitments in a holistic and meaningful way.

4.2.    As a global leader on disability rights and inclusion, the UK is well placed to progress international efforts and work together with partners to make these commitments a reality. It is clear that the UK has made considerable progress working with partners in raising the profile of disability internationally since hosting the first Global Disability Summit and launching its Disability Inclusion Strategy in 2018. The new DIR Strategy acknowledges that “progress on disability rights has been too slow and exclusion is still built into our collective systems and processes”[10], and so centres a rights-based approach underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) that ensures “respect for universal human rights and democratic freedoms is at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy”.[11] This rights-based approach will be fundamental to the FCDO’s stated aims of “removing stigma, discriminatory and exclusionary beliefs, practices, laws and structures that prevent the full and equal participation of people with disabilities in society”, and provide an important entry point for the monitoring and addressing of root causes of inequity and political marginalisation that have driven identity-based violence against disabled communities in the past.[12] In addition, the integration of a domestic policy focus through inclusion of the National Disability Strategy within the DIR Strategy demonstrates understanding that marginalisation of disabled communities can happen anywhere. This emphasises that the responsibility to address and prevent these identity-based harms is a shared global challenge – an understanding that should underpin the DIR Strategy’s commitment to “shape multilateral architecture and international rules to embed disability rights”.[13]

4.3.    The DIR Strategy’s commitments on delivering inclusive humanitarian action are to be commended. These include ensuring all people with disabilities affected by crises have equitable access to essential services, in safety and dignity and without discrimination; with unrestricted opportunities to hold humanitarian actors accountable for adequately responding to their diverse needs; and an active role in the planning, delivery and monitoring of crisis anticipation, response and recovery.[14] Its related commitments to “promote the routine, systematic collection and use of data on the impact of crises and humanitarian action on people with disabilities to inform humanitarian programme and policy” and “build the capacity of humanitarian actors to incorporate disability data into the humanitarian programme cycle” are vital in ensuring accurate and systematic data on needs, risks and vulnerabilities facing disabled people are centred in effective policy responses.[15]

4.4.    Importantly, these commitments are predicated on a rights-based approach adhering to guidance under Article 11 of the UN CRPD which DIR establishes “commits states to 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 natural disasters”[16]. As emphasised during the 2018 UN Security Council Arria-Formula Meeting on the situation of persons with disabilities in armed conflict, “a shift from medical and charity approaches to an active and human rights-based approach is crucial for the implementation of well-tailored policies and reactions to crisis management, especially regarding persons with disabilities.”[17] This approach goes beyond solely physical impacts, aimed at meeting the distinct needs of people with disabilities, including protection from physical and psychological violence. Progress towards these commitments have been demonstrated in the UK’s leadership in ensuring the inclusion of psychosocial support in the Global Compact on Refugees and in UNHCR updated guidance; leadership on the psychosocial needs of victims of sexual violence in conflict; and in co-leading the first ever UN Security Council Resolution on disability inclusion in armed conflict with the Government of Poland in 2019 which acknowledged the distinct spectrum of physical and psychological harm individuals with disabilities face in situations of conflict.

4.5.    The breadth and ambition of these commitments are welcome. However, the scope of the DIR Strategy and the UK’s related commitments “to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk”[18] only acknowledges situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters, missing out situations of mass violence that fall outside traditional responses to conflict. The FCDO, however, needs to ensure that its emerging approach to mass atrocity crimes (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes) is compatible with its DIR strategy. Mass atrocities are a pathology of violence that is frequently identity-based based and where groups or populations that have been made more vulnerable or minoritised often face compounded risks. As explained by the United States Institute of Peace, “they are the culmination of processes of marginalisation and discrimination against vulnerable communities that create an enabling environment for mass violence”. Vulnerable communities – including disabled communities – “typically exist in environments of increasing marginalisation for years, if not decades, before large-scale violence is committed against them”.[19]

4.6.    In order to make its commitments for disability inclusion in “planning, delivery and monitoring of crisis anticipation”[20] – as well as response and recovery – meaningful, it is vital that the DIR Strategy is effectively joined up with the UK’s approach to preventing mass atrocities. This will enable the stated disability inclusion and data collection and analysis efforts to monitor atrocity risks and feed into the Office for Conflict Stabilisation and Mediation’s ongoing horizon-scanning and risk assessment systems, enabling planning coherent planning on violence prevention that leverages the specialist skills, expertise and tools being developed by the UK’s new Atrocity Prevention Hub. This joining up will enable teams to bring in skills and expertise from civil society, including disability rights organisations, academics, activists and practitioners, and should include access to specialised training for FCDO inclusion teams, country desks and embassies. This will ensure that the needs, risks and expertise of persons with disabilities is embedded across FCDO teams and deployed effectively across FCDO teams and embassy staff when dealing with situations of risk.

4.7.    Violence against people perceived to be disabled is not yet fully integrated in the UK’s emerging approach to atrocity prevention – though efforts to strengthen FCDO approaches to inclusion are ongoing and gathering pace. The FCDO has made strides in sharpening the UK’s commitments and expertise on identity-based violence and atrocity prevention, however there is still some way to go to ensure this emerging approach is inclusive, intersectional and is able to adequately deal with the implications of repeated climate, health, economic and political shocks to the international system. Both the DIR Strategy and atrocity prevention efforts must account for the overlapping identity factors that affect and compound risks to individuals. Those factors include not only disability, but gender, ethnicity, sexuality, indigeneity, refugee status, religion, political opinion, and others.[21] The DIR Strategy provides a strong start on this, with sections looking at women and girls, LGBTQI+ people and older people with disabilities. However, this is too narrow, leaving out many compounding identity factors including race, indigeneity and refugee status. Without integrating a holistic and intersectional approach to the prevention of identity-based violence and mass atrocities that leverages the cross-cutting commitments of the FCDO’s DIR Strategy, opportunities to identify, mitigate and prevent harm to disabled and other marginalised communities will continue to be missed.

4.8.    Finally, there are ongoing opportunities at the international level that the UK should leverage to make the DIR Strategy’s commitment to “shape multilateral architecture and international rules to embed disability rights”[22] and ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk meaningful. One important example is through UK support of the inclusion of persons with disabilities in ongoing negotiations for the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty as part of a progressive right-based effort to delineate persecution broadly to include those communities traditionally excluded from the existing protections in the Rome Statute. This includes “persecution on grounds of language, social origin, age, disability, health sexual protection, gender identity, sex characteristics and indigenous, refugee, statelessness or migration status”.[23] This is particularly relevant considering the centrality of the UN CRPD’s commitments within the DIR Strategy and its protection obligations on state parties, ensuring that the needs of persons with disabilities who face multiple compounding forms of marginalisation and erasure are adequately taken into account. For example, those who suffer life-changing injuries or trauma as a result of conflict, those forcibly displaced or made stateless, and those whose sexual orientation or gender identity exacerbate the risks they face.

4.9.    In addition, this year’s UN General Assembly session, focused on accelerating action on the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals towards “peace, prosperity, progress and sustainability for all” creates an opportunity to the necessity of including perspectives of persons with disabilities in assessing progress towards the SDGs, including Goal 16 to promote peace and inclusive societies; and the upcoming 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a benchmark moment to consider not only progress, but also gaps in the uptake and implementation of human rights for individuals in all their diversity.

5. Recommendations

5.1.    Protection Approaches therefore draws attention to the following recommendations that would strengthen both the commitments in the FCDO’s Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy and the UK’s response to mass atrocity crimes:

5.1.1.            Ensure the Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy and its commitments on its priority areas of human rights, freedom and democracy and humanitarian action are joined up and effectively integrated with the UK’s new commitments, developing structures and emerging expertise on identity-based violence and mass atrocity prevention;

5.1.2.            Bring in skills and expertise from civil society and impacted communities on the intersection between disability rights and atrocity prevention through formal, regularised avenues for engagement, communication and consultation, ensuring meaningful participation and representation of disabled communities in policy development efforts;

5.1.3.            Provide access to specialised training for FCDO inclusion teams, country desks and embassies on the intersection between disability rights and atrocity prevention that identifies and assesses risks to people with disabilities. This will ensure that the needs, risks and expertise of persons with disabilities is embedded across FCDO teams and deployed effectively across FCDO teams and embassy staff when dealing with situations of risk and acute or mass violence;

5.1.4.            Leverage opportunities to make the Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy’s commitment to “shape multilateral architecture and international rules to embed disability rights” and ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk meaningful through:

5.1.4.1.    UK support of the inclusion of persons with disabilities and other traditionally excluded communities in ongoing negotiations for the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty

5.1.4.2.    Ensuring inclusion of perspectives of persons with disabilities in assessing progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, including Goal 16 to promote peace and inclusive societies

5.1.4.3.    Leveraging the upcoming 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a benchmark moment to consider not only progress, but also gaps in the uptake and implementation of human rights for individuals in all their diversity.