Civil Society, Rights and Welfare: Exploring the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Commonwealth of Independent States

Figures & data

TABLE 1 CIS Countries and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

	CRPD signed	CRPD ratified	Number of disabled people*	CSO Sustainability Index score^†
Armenia	30 March 2007	22 September 2010	186,384	3.8
Azerbaijan	9 January 2008	28 January 2009	520,793	5.8
Belarus	28 September 2015	29 November 2016	516,000	5.6
Kazakhstan	11 December 2008	21 April 2015	627,000	4.1
Kyrgyzstan	21 September 2011	16 May 2019	155,893	4.1
Moldova	30 March 2007	21 September 2010	171,000	3.9
Russian Federation	24 September 2008	25 September 2012	12,500,000	4.7
Tajikistan	22 March 2018	Due 2021	146,000	4.8
Uzbekistan	27 February 2009	–	740,000	–

Sources: *World Health Organization data, available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/CIS/Documents/Events/Regional%20Initiatives/RI2%20ICT%20access%20for%20dispabled/Implementation%20of%20RI%20CIS2.pdf, accessed 23 December 2020; ‘Disability in Armenia’, Global Disability Rights Now!, 2020, available at: http://www.globaldisabilityrightsnow.org/infographics/disability-armenia, accessed 23 December 2020; The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2020, available at: http://stat.gov.az/, accessed 23 December 2020; European Commission Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2010).

Notes: ^†The CSO Sustainability Index measures the strength and overall viability of civil society sectors. In a given country, the index evaluates the overall level of development of the CSO sector as a whole. Seven different dimensions of the CSO sector are analysed to create the index: legal environment, organisational capacity, financial viability, advocacy, service provision, infrastructure and public image. The index’s methodology relies on CSO practitioners and researchers, who in each country form an expert panel to assess and rate these dimensions of CSO sustainability. The panel agrees on a score for each dimension, which can range from 1 (most developed) to 7 (most challenged). All of the scores are then averaged to produce an overall sustainability score for the country. Internationally, these scores are clustered into three general stages: Sustainability Enhanced (1–3), Sustainability Evolving (3.1–5) and Sustainability Impeded (5.1–7) (USAID 2017, p. 262).

TABLE 2 Comparative Framing in State and Civil Society Organisations’ UPR Discourse (N = 1,299)

	State	CSO	State	CSO
	%	%	Rank	Rank
Rights	16.6	24.8	2	1
Access/overcome barriers	3	14.9	8	2
Exclusion	9.1	13	5	3
Protection	24.3	10.2	1	4
Anti-discrimination/exploitation	1.1	9.5	11	5
Financial support (non-means-tested and non-contributory) for overcoming barriers to participation	2.1	5.9	10	6
Participation in public decision-making	2.5	4.9	9	7
Needs	16.6	4.2	3	8
‘In-kind’ support (social model)	2.3	4	7	9
Representation	1.1	3.2	12	10
Independence	0.6	2.5	13	11
Justice	0.3	2.1	14	12
Basic needs income substitution (means-tested and contribution-related)	11.7	0.8	4	13
‘In-kind’ support (medical model)	8.7	0	6	14

TABLE 3 Comparative Attention to Policy Areas/Issues in State and Civil Society Discourse in the Second Cycle UPR (N = 944)

	CSOs	State	CSOs	State
	%	%	Rank	Rank
Law	26	11	1	5
Work/employment	23	28	2	1
Education	13	11	3	6
Public services/welfare	10	19	4	2
Monitoring, data*	9	3	5	7
Health	9	12	6	4
Social care	7	14	7	3
Poverty/income	2	1	8	8
Transport	2	1	9	9

Note: *Monitoring/data refers to the generic policy issue of the need for: adequate data to underpin effective policy-making and/or appropriate monitoring of policy implementation.

USAID (2017) The 2016 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia (New York, NY, United States Agency for International Development), available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/CSOSI_Report_7-28-17.pdf, accessed 14 February 2021.

 Google Scholar