
Report of the CIB Expert Seminar on Building Non-Handicapping Environments,
Harare 1992
Accessibility in South Africa
Neville Cohen, Chairman Industries, South Africa
Contents
Access
The term is a very broad and all-embracing word. It can refer to access to:
- Education
- Employment
- Leisure
- Sports
- Transport
- Buildings and public spaces (barrier-free design)
Barrier-free design
Again, this term covers a wide range of architectural hazards encountered by people with disabilities. There are three types of disabilities:
1. Intellectual disability
2. Sensory disability:
- blind and partially sighted
- deaf and hearing impaired
3. Mobility impaired:
- mothers - pram pushers
- elderly and senior citizens
- amputees (lower limb injuries)
- crutch and cane users
- wheelchair users
Legislation
Before attempting to apply for legislation, there
are three important pre-requisites:
1. Define requirements which suit the country in which the legislation
will be introduced.
Requirements differ for:
- developing countries
- highly developed countries
- combination of both (applies to Zimbabwe and the Republic of South
Africa)
Legislation in countries such as United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Germany, and
Holland is very comprehensive and prescribed in great detail, covering every
aspect of barrier-free design to the extent that it becomes not only onerous
on developers but also expensive. (Refer Americans with Disabilities Act).
It is, therefore, not convenient to take overseas legislation and apply
it piecemeal to the requirements of countries such as the Republic of SA
and Zimbabwe. We need to carefully select the critical items which, with
relatively low capital expenditure, will offer the greatest improvement
to accessibility. Examples:
- Ramps, stairs
- Width of doorways
- Provision of enlarged toilet cubicles
- Size of elevators
- Parking facilities
- Hazards to blind and partially sighted people
2. Formation of an Access Task Force of knowledgeable people and experts
(including people with disabilities) to research the design criteria and
prepare draft legislation. (Legislation of this nature is often drafted
by architects, engineers, well-wishers, and welfare bodies, who have not
got the vaguest idea of the accessibility needs for people with disabilities
- utmost importance to include such people who face architectural barriers
every day of their lives and are very familiar with their requirements).
3. Locate highly regarded, powerful, aware people in the community who
recognize the problem and who can be effective in State, Province and Municipal
authorities. Locating and lobbying such people is of prime importance for
the introduction of effective legislation.
Designing of barrier-free facilities should be undertaken when the very
first conceptual draft plans are produced. If barrier-free design is an
accepted concept, the additional costs are negligible. The costs of altering
and redesigning inaccessible buildings are sometimes horrific.
History of SA building regulations
Prior to 1986, various Provinces and Municipalities
all had their own regulations which, although similar, differed to varying
extents throughout the country. In 1986 the National Building Regulations
were promulgated. Over a period of years a Committee of Experts, including
architects, builders, developers, and the Bureau of Standards researched
and compiled this draft legislation. This was then sent out to numerous
interested parties throughout the country for comment.
The comments were meticulously examined and alterations to the draft were
made where necessary. Disabled people were not invited to submit their comments.
However, Disabled People South Africa (DPSA) offered the Australian Building
Regulations and Code of Practice for consideration by the National Building
Regulation Committee. This Committee decided to omit the section dealing
with the requirements for people with disabilities. When this omission came
to the attention of the DPSA Executive, an immediate approach was made to
the Minister concerned. Within one week he had instructed the SABS to convene
a special subcommittee, including people with disabilities, to research
and prepare an addendum to the National Building Regulations. This was achieved
within a period of three months and was eventually included as a special
section of these Regulations.
Five years have elapsed since the original promulgation and, as is usual
with any legislation of this type, improvements and additions have resulted
in a simpler and more meaningful version.
DPSA has now undertaken an extension of the building regulations, known
as a Code of Practice, which will further enhance the application of the
regulations by providing guidelines, including drawings and sketches of
suggested layouts. Architects, Developers and Municipalities have welcomed
this approach and it is hoped that the Code of Practice will be published
during 1992.
The inclusion of people with disabilities in any body concerned with the
introduction of barrier-free design cannot be over-stressed and I recommend
that the formation of such a body is of prime importance in Zimbabwe.
Questions and comments
Q: We all have our biases and as a wheelchair user myself the needs of
wheelchair users come to my mind first when I think of accessibility. We
often forget other groups. In our country, for the past 10 - 15 years, we
have become more and more conscious of people who are sensitive to chemical
substances. It is quite a hot topic in the U. S. where they call it Multiple
Chemical Sensitivities (MCS).
A: We feel quite strong about noxious fumes and we recognize that if we
had to go it alone, we would get nowhere until the general legislation goes
in on it. It is far easier to get recognition of your needs when there is
already a total awareness in the country of what is required.
To go back to the building regulations, as in most developing countries,
I assume we went the route of local legislation where each municipality
or local authority brought out their own little codes of practice and they
were known as bylaws. As these were local, they applied only within the
bounds of that local authority. They were all similar in that they differed;
in some cases there were omissions and in other cases there were inclusions.
And we were just lucky that when we decided to go for barrier-free design
in a big way all these legislations of the different provinces and of the
different local authorities were being put together as a national building
regulation. And that made our life a lot easier - or we thought it did.
In actual fact, barrier-free design was left out of the very first draft
of the national building regulations. What we did was to phone up the minister
concerned and said, "We're coming, six of us in wheelchairs, and we're
going to camp on your doorstep". He said, "No need. I know what's
happened and they are going to put it right." I believe it is easier
for us to tag onto general legislature than to go look for little pieces
of our own.
Mr. Bhandari mentioned this morning that he hoped to introduce barrier-free
legislation prior to general legislation on building regulations. Our experience
has been when we tried to do that we got nowhere, but every time legislation
has been introduced in some other sphere as general legislation in the country
we can tag on and add on our bit.
C: The same standpoint is taken in Sweden regarding this. The question
of materials and poisons and such things is a general problem for the general
authorities. I would like to raise a principal question of compromises.
There are compromises in everything and on different levels. International
standardization is a compromise; the standardization going on in Europe
now is a compromise. When we saw this European Manual, which Mr. Biswas
mentioned, made by some people from Holland for the European Community,
some of us, at least from Scandinavia, were very disappointed because we
thought that standard was too low for us. It raised the question if there
is any point to make a standard like that if there are different levels
of development or money or awareness or whatever. I have no answer myself,
the answer given there by the French was to show not one single solution
but different levels where some were more ideal and others somewhat primitive.
We also met some cultural differences. The people from Holland said in a
private home you do not need to close the door to the toilet which was for
us, from Sweden and those from Britain, a little shocking. So there are
also, of course, cultural differences to take care of, even in a small area
like Europe.
C: There may not only be cultural differences involved in setting up standards.
There is also another dimension. Who were the people who suggested the standard
of sitting on the toilet without being able to close the door? They were
non-disabled experts, whereas the people who protested were wheelchair users
themselves.
C: On the subject of international standards, I think there is one area
where international standards can be detrimental in the area of disability
legislation: South Africa has been isolated from the international world
for some time and the manufacturers of various items in South Africa produce
items to their own standards.
There is a bureau of standards which has produced standards not totally
in isolation from the ISO standards but there certainly are contradictions.
When those contradictions generate additional cost, for example if we were
to adopt international standards and international standards were out 50
mm in terms of the size of a WC pan, then I do have some problems with international
standards. Those are the sort of costs that are unnecessary. One probably
has to compromise under these circumstances and try and achieve the best
that you can with the standard equipment and the standard materials you
have in your country.
C: This question can be raised in other ways. We can say that there will
be international standards on nearly everything, sooner or later, and then
the question is if those standards are in accordance with what we want or
if they are just what the manufacturers want from a technical point of view.
So sometimes we have to be into the international standardization work even
if we do not want it or need it or think it's worthwhile from our point
of view. I think elevators are such an area. Elevators have become an international
market.
A: With international trade opening up right across the world as it is,
those people who do not adhere to international standards will find they
cannot export their goods. So I think it will come, not because we want
it to come, but because economic circumstances will force it. Economic circumstances
are far stronger than any lobbying we as disabled people can achieve.
C: Just a short comment on what was said about accepting an international
standard. The Austrians are not happy about the European Manual either and
so they suggested that it should be translated and on every page there should
be, printed in red, an additional note saying that in this way the Austrian
standard is higher. Other people said it should just be mentioned at the
beginning that these are the minimum standards and it could refer to an
appendix at the end. But in some cases feelings were so strong that people
refused to accept the International Accessibility Symbol because it has
been used for all kinds of things that are not accessible. Whereas we use
our own symbol for places that really are accessible. Others say that if
Austria wants to join the European Community in the end there is going to
be a great deal of international standardization. One has to accept it even
if it is a minimum standard.
C: The same discussion is going on in Sweden. We are on the way into the
European Community as Austria is and there are questions connected with
the standards and which freedom we will have in this case. But I do not
think it is only a question of editing this document, a more principal question
is what is good or bad, what is minimum, and if there is a general minimum
or if it's a cultural and economic compromise.
Q: My question regards elevators and Braille and raised tiles, the issue
of voice synthesizer on elevator - can it not be a solution to illiteracy?
A: In South Africa it worked the other way. We have nine ethnic languages
plus English and Afrikaans and we have not yet found someone who is multilingual
and can produce all those noises within the short space of time that an
elevator is going between those floors. So in actual fact, it makes the
question far worse.
Harare
CIB Report Contents | About
CIB