Inclusive Transport - roads are obviously not enough
Some of the outcomes of a panel discussion on the subject that I facilitated at the Asian Transport Forum at the Asian Development Bank in Manila on the 11th September, interspersed with some thoughts of my own...
What is inclusive transport?
The World Bank discusses the issues relating to inclusive transport as
" the availability of transport services for the poor, women, persons with disability and the elderly has emerged as an important issue in the context of a number of transport policies. It requires the removal of institutional and physical barriers and the enhancement of incentives to increase the accessibility of diverse individuals and groups to transport opportunities" (see : http://go.worldbank.org/61NANCE7X0)
The ADB looks at the need to pay special attention to mobility and accessibility especially of low-income households as differentiated by their gender, age and ability. They aim to ensure equitable and affordable transport and ensure access to the resources and opportunities needed for development. In this sense they link transport to the MDGs, and also discuss how transport safeguards must apply rigorously to projects that have an impact on the poor.
If we try to combine the above approaches we will need to consider inclusive transport as
- transport that enhances accessibility and mobility of particularly vulnerable groups (e.g. poor, women, people with disability, older people, people in conflict areas, people in isolated parts of countries, riparian communities)
- transport interventions that brings benefit to these groups
- transport interventions that do not have negative impacts on particularly vulnerable groups.
The presentations that formed the first part of the session on Social development and Inclusive transport at the recently concluded Asia Transport Forum organized by the ADB, gTKP and SEACAP in Manila, focused on HIV AIDS, gender and trafficking – topics that are very much related to the idea of enhancing the accessibility and mobility of particularly vulnerable groups, while at the same time ensuring that these interventions do not have negative impacts on the same groups (and others) that they are expecting to benefit. It was followed by a panel discussion that I facilitated, and which aimed to take these ideas further, and use the experience of the panelists and the audience to develop a greater understanding of how the transport sector could be more inclusive. The aim was to use examples from best practice and to facilitate a dialogue, rather than develop definitive conclusions or recommendations.
The discussion that t was structured around three questions:
- Who should be included in transport planning and implementation, and what are the constraints to their inclusion?
- What best practices of inclusivity exist within the transport sector
- What are the implications of all this for transport policy and practice?
The Panel comprised, Richard Arceno from Leonard Cheshire International of the Philippines, John Cooney, Senior Transport specialist in the ADB, Binjwala Shrestha from the Nepal Forum for Rural Transport and Development, a health professional who has worked on mobility and maternal health issues, and Paul Starkey, independent consultant, who was invited to be a panel member because of his involvement with remote communities in Papua New Guinea.
Who should be included?
The obvious answer is everyone. However, not everyone is included, and the session aimed to explore who was excluded and why.
The panelists high lighted the difficulties that people in remote communities, people with disabilities and pregnant mothers face as a result of being excluded from transport provision. Paul Starkey talked about communities that had to walk for two days to reach the road network in Papua New Guinea, usually with large loads, and how the difficulties were exacerbated by the lack of any form of animal or wheeled transport. He proposed that while building roads maybe a long term solutions, providing viable means of wheeled transport or animals, could possibly be an interim solution. The terrain in Nepal was equally if not more arduous than Papua New Guinea, and Binjwala Shrestha indicated that high maternal and infant mortality is often the result of lack of access to transport services for pregnant mothers. Richard Arceno made a strong case for the need to include provision for people with disabilities when designing transport systems.
In addition, participants suggested that the following groups are not usually considered in transport planning and should also be included:
- communities in natural disaster prone areas
- riparian communities
- communities in conflict affected areas
- children
Reasons for exclusion are many. The land bias of transport infrastructure and service development works against communities for whom access is mainly by water, and children’s specific needs are often ignored (though they are now being highlighted by researchers and activists). Mainly, the problem is that isolated and marginalized communities and groups (e.g. children) do not have a voice, especially a voice in forums where transport decisions are made. The focus on infrastructure mitigates against a more wholistic view that could result in the provision of interim, less costly solutions for access before network improvement can take place or new roads constructed.
A contrary view regarding exclusion was also expressed by a participant who asked the group to seriously consider the negative impacts of ‘inclusion’, such as the destruction of indigenous knowledge and way of life. Some of Kate Molesworth’s work on mobility and health in Nepal comes to mind in this context - .
“….the road has contributed to social change relating to intimate behaviour. In the absence of access to appropriate contraceptive technologies and information, however, this is a cause for concern in an area with high maternal and infant mortality indices and a high population growth rate.While the road has enabled family planning outreach services to access the region, concentration on sterilization has been wholly inappropriate to the needs of the Tamang who rely on children to renew the household labour force and provide security on old age. A number of factors were found to inhibit Tamang use of more appropriate temporary forms of contraception including poor physical access and social exclusion from services.
Increasing importation of manufactured goods along the road has depressed the local handcraft industry and women’s traditional sources of cash income. This combined with the emergence of new economic hubs and a demand for transactional sex at stopping points along the road corridor, places women and girls at high risk of sexually transmitted infections, particularly HIV/AIDS.”
(http://ifrtd.gn.apc.org/mobilityandhealth/ed/uploads/KateMolesworthPosterGenevaForum.pdf)
Possible solutions
Participants agreed that road construction is usually a long term solution. Where road access has been provided, the importance of maintenance cannot be overemphasized. While road access is being developed it’s important also to look at improving transport services – particularly transport services that are provided through intermediate means of transport.
The development and introduction of new technologies that can help the excluded such as low floor buses that can help people traveling in wheelchairs, but also women and older people; or trail bridges that can help reduce isolation in mountainous terrain were also discussed, as were other more institutional/regulatory methods for reducing exclusion. For example -
o Reserving seats in public transport for particularly vulnerable groups (e.g. pregnant women, women with children, older people, the disabled)
o Introducing travel concessions that would make public transport more affordable
o Providing accessible bus shelters (Delhi)
o Designing para transits and metros with full access
o Creating separate pedestrian and bicycle spaces
It was suggested that exclusion could be safeguarded against, in the same way as the impact on indigenous people are part of lending institutions’ safeguard policies. Effective legislation (e.g. for provision of disabled access for instance) and changes to standards strengthened the possibility of a change to more inclusive infrastructure and services.
In Nepal women’s groups campaigned for improvements in transport provision that was more friendly to pregnant mothers. It was a means of stimulating a collective voice for change. Participants encouraged transport providers to work in collaboration with NGOs and civil society organizations at a practical level to better understand the travel patterns of the more disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
So what should we do next?
• We should create greater awareness of the issues of exclusion
• We should aim at allocating a certain percentage of our investment in infrastructure to resolving social exclusion
• The transport planners among us, should look at the second best/intermediate solutions – so that excluded groups do not have to wait for the final, perfect solution to be implemented
• We should be more participative in our planning processes. It is important when infrastructure is being designed, urban spaces are being planned and road networks and service routes are being identified, to include in the planning process people who have very different needs from the average, mainstream road user. These will be women and children as well as men, women, men and children with disabilities, women, men and children in isolated locations or who live in riparian communities, communities affected by conflict, communities affected by natural disasters, elderly persons.
• We should recognize that roads are not enough.
• We should share universal engineering designs more widely and create a groundswell of support to these designs.
• We should create a positive image of intermediate means of transport and promote them more effectively
• We should work on developing policy and regulatory measures for greater inclusion.
What is inclusive transport?
The World Bank discusses the issues relating to inclusive transport as
" the availability of transport services for the poor, women, persons with disability and the elderly has emerged as an important issue in the context of a number of transport policies. It requires the removal of institutional and physical barriers and the enhancement of incentives to increase the accessibility of diverse individuals and groups to transport opportunities" (see : http://go.worldbank.org/61NANCE7X0)
The ADB looks at the need to pay special attention to mobility and accessibility especially of low-income households as differentiated by their gender, age and ability. They aim to ensure equitable and affordable transport and ensure access to the resources and opportunities needed for development. In this sense they link transport to the MDGs, and also discuss how transport safeguards must apply rigorously to projects that have an impact on the poor.
If we try to combine the above approaches we will need to consider inclusive transport as
- transport that enhances accessibility and mobility of particularly vulnerable groups (e.g. poor, women, people with disability, older people, people in conflict areas, people in isolated parts of countries, riparian communities)
- transport interventions that brings benefit to these groups
- transport interventions that do not have negative impacts on particularly vulnerable groups.
The presentations that formed the first part of the session on Social development and Inclusive transport at the recently concluded Asia Transport Forum organized by the ADB, gTKP and SEACAP in Manila, focused on HIV AIDS, gender and trafficking – topics that are very much related to the idea of enhancing the accessibility and mobility of particularly vulnerable groups, while at the same time ensuring that these interventions do not have negative impacts on the same groups (and others) that they are expecting to benefit. It was followed by a panel discussion that I facilitated, and which aimed to take these ideas further, and use the experience of the panelists and the audience to develop a greater understanding of how the transport sector could be more inclusive. The aim was to use examples from best practice and to facilitate a dialogue, rather than develop definitive conclusions or recommendations.
The discussion that t was structured around three questions:
- Who should be included in transport planning and implementation, and what are the constraints to their inclusion?
- What best practices of inclusivity exist within the transport sector
- What are the implications of all this for transport policy and practice?
The Panel comprised, Richard Arceno from Leonard Cheshire International of the Philippines, John Cooney, Senior Transport specialist in the ADB, Binjwala Shrestha from the Nepal Forum for Rural Transport and Development, a health professional who has worked on mobility and maternal health issues, and Paul Starkey, independent consultant, who was invited to be a panel member because of his involvement with remote communities in Papua New Guinea.
Who should be included?
The obvious answer is everyone. However, not everyone is included, and the session aimed to explore who was excluded and why.
The panelists high lighted the difficulties that people in remote communities, people with disabilities and pregnant mothers face as a result of being excluded from transport provision. Paul Starkey talked about communities that had to walk for two days to reach the road network in Papua New Guinea, usually with large loads, and how the difficulties were exacerbated by the lack of any form of animal or wheeled transport. He proposed that while building roads maybe a long term solutions, providing viable means of wheeled transport or animals, could possibly be an interim solution. The terrain in Nepal was equally if not more arduous than Papua New Guinea, and Binjwala Shrestha indicated that high maternal and infant mortality is often the result of lack of access to transport services for pregnant mothers. Richard Arceno made a strong case for the need to include provision for people with disabilities when designing transport systems.
In addition, participants suggested that the following groups are not usually considered in transport planning and should also be included:
- communities in natural disaster prone areas
- riparian communities
- communities in conflict affected areas
- children
Reasons for exclusion are many. The land bias of transport infrastructure and service development works against communities for whom access is mainly by water, and children’s specific needs are often ignored (though they are now being highlighted by researchers and activists). Mainly, the problem is that isolated and marginalized communities and groups (e.g. children) do not have a voice, especially a voice in forums where transport decisions are made. The focus on infrastructure mitigates against a more wholistic view that could result in the provision of interim, less costly solutions for access before network improvement can take place or new roads constructed.
A contrary view regarding exclusion was also expressed by a participant who asked the group to seriously consider the negative impacts of ‘inclusion’, such as the destruction of indigenous knowledge and way of life. Some of Kate Molesworth’s work on mobility and health in Nepal comes to mind in this context - .
“….the road has contributed to social change relating to intimate behaviour. In the absence of access to appropriate contraceptive technologies and information, however, this is a cause for concern in an area with high maternal and infant mortality indices and a high population growth rate.While the road has enabled family planning outreach services to access the region, concentration on sterilization has been wholly inappropriate to the needs of the Tamang who rely on children to renew the household labour force and provide security on old age. A number of factors were found to inhibit Tamang use of more appropriate temporary forms of contraception including poor physical access and social exclusion from services.
Increasing importation of manufactured goods along the road has depressed the local handcraft industry and women’s traditional sources of cash income. This combined with the emergence of new economic hubs and a demand for transactional sex at stopping points along the road corridor, places women and girls at high risk of sexually transmitted infections, particularly HIV/AIDS.”
(http://ifrtd.gn.apc.org/mobilityandhealth/ed/uploads/KateMolesworthPosterGenevaForum.pdf)
Possible solutions
Participants agreed that road construction is usually a long term solution. Where road access has been provided, the importance of maintenance cannot be overemphasized. While road access is being developed it’s important also to look at improving transport services – particularly transport services that are provided through intermediate means of transport.
The development and introduction of new technologies that can help the excluded such as low floor buses that can help people traveling in wheelchairs, but also women and older people; or trail bridges that can help reduce isolation in mountainous terrain were also discussed, as were other more institutional/regulatory methods for reducing exclusion. For example -
o Reserving seats in public transport for particularly vulnerable groups (e.g. pregnant women, women with children, older people, the disabled)
o Introducing travel concessions that would make public transport more affordable
o Providing accessible bus shelters (Delhi)
o Designing para transits and metros with full access
o Creating separate pedestrian and bicycle spaces
It was suggested that exclusion could be safeguarded against, in the same way as the impact on indigenous people are part of lending institutions’ safeguard policies. Effective legislation (e.g. for provision of disabled access for instance) and changes to standards strengthened the possibility of a change to more inclusive infrastructure and services.
In Nepal women’s groups campaigned for improvements in transport provision that was more friendly to pregnant mothers. It was a means of stimulating a collective voice for change. Participants encouraged transport providers to work in collaboration with NGOs and civil society organizations at a practical level to better understand the travel patterns of the more disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
So what should we do next?
• We should create greater awareness of the issues of exclusion
• We should aim at allocating a certain percentage of our investment in infrastructure to resolving social exclusion
• The transport planners among us, should look at the second best/intermediate solutions – so that excluded groups do not have to wait for the final, perfect solution to be implemented
• We should be more participative in our planning processes. It is important when infrastructure is being designed, urban spaces are being planned and road networks and service routes are being identified, to include in the planning process people who have very different needs from the average, mainstream road user. These will be women and children as well as men, women, men and children with disabilities, women, men and children in isolated locations or who live in riparian communities, communities affected by conflict, communities affected by natural disasters, elderly persons.
• We should recognize that roads are not enough.
• We should share universal engineering designs more widely and create a groundswell of support to these designs.
• We should create a positive image of intermediate means of transport and promote them more effectively
• We should work on developing policy and regulatory measures for greater inclusion.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment