Handicap International and the Cambodian Disabled People’s

Organization (CDPO)with some photos from the field…

Community Awareness

Cambodian Context

Positive Factors

The National Law on the Protection and the Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in 2009.

The UNCRPD has been signed but not ratified. However, the government has made consistent public statements that they will ratify in 2011.

The Cambodian National Plan of Action for Persons with Disabilities, Including Landmine/UXO Survivors 2009-2011 is currently being updated until 2013.

Negative Factors

Persons with disabilities still face disparities in access to services and income generating opportunities.

The national law is not clearly developed, which results in difficulty in implementing and/or monitoring.

For example, the national disability classification system, which has been updated in 2011, relies heavily on medical diagnosis for identifying persons with disabilities and classifying their level of impairment, which determines benefits to be received.

Individual Empowerment

History of the Partnership

• HIB formally developed a partnership with CDPO in 2008 with a 3 year MoU (currently extended until 2013).

• The primary focus of the partnership was to support CDPO to develop its sub-national membership.

• HIB also supports CDPO to conduct annual researches to assist the organization to have a more evidence based advocacy platform.

Social Relationships

Self Help Groups

Capacity Building for Research has been a primary Challenge of the Partnership

• In the beginning of the partnership (2008), CDPOs experience in conducting research was very limited.

• There was little clarification of the desired scope and objective of the research.

- The logical framework stated that CDPO would create annual Human Rights Monitoring Reports. This type of research report was not clearly understood. In fact, this was much too high an expectation at that stage.

Women with Disability Forums

Learning Lessons the Hard Way

• In 2008, CDPO was not able to develop a human rights monitoring report. HI did not provide adequate technical support (in fact very little support was provided). The task was completed by an expatriate advisor inside of CDPO.

• In 2009, the scale of the research was changed. CDPO would produce a simple baseline study following the passage of a new policy on the education of children with disabilities.

- HI provided a part-time consultant to assist in capacity building CDPOs project staff. HI’s disability advisor also became directly involved in the development of the research. CDPO’s expatriate advisor remained involved.

- The process of developing the 2009 research was difficult and nearly not completed. This time there was too many technical supports. The roles of the various supporters was not clarified. CDPO’s staff were not able to properly manage the varying input.

Sub-National Federations

Community Based Trainings

Learning Lessons the Hard Way

• In 2010, the scope of the research remained limited and the roles of the various contributors were clearly defined. The research paper was developed with little difficulty.

- CDPO’s Research and Advocacy Senior Program Manager expressed great satisfaction and confidence for the first time in three years.

• In 2011, CDPO has adopted the Making it Work Strategy. The technical advisor(s) from previous years have been replaced by a national advisory committee (with the exception of the HI Disability Advisor, whose role is limited to editing and validation of key milestones within the process).

Recommendations

• When entering new partnerships, the capacity of the partner DPO to conduct research must be thoroughly analyzed and the scope of research outputs must be

clearly defined in the original agreement.

- Simple researches are valuable both as food for advocacy and for providing basic research skills to partner staff who may lack research experience.

- Researches can always be scaled up, but it is very difficult to scale down a research if the initial scope or research question is too broad.

• More technical support is not always better. Where multiple advisors are involved in supporting project outputs, each must have clear roles and

responsibilities.

Thank You for Your Attention