[sustran] FW: [gatnet] Mobility as a human right

Paul Barter paulbarter at nus.edu.sg
Fri Feb 18 20:00:51 JST 2005


Sorry for cross-posting but to be fair to Priyanthi i feel i should
share her response, which went to gatnet, in sustran-discuss too. 


  _____  

	From: Priyanthi [mailto:priyanthi.fernando at ifrtd.org] 
	Sent: Friday, 18 February 2005 6:57 PM
	To: Gender and Transport
	Subject: [gatnet] Mobility as a human right
	
	

	Dear Paul, Carlos and gatnet members

	 

	It's interesting, this revisit to the debate on mobility and
access. The way I understand the rural transport discourse on mobility
is that  there is a growing emphasis on  the provision of rural
transport services, not just 'infrastructure' - and also a realisation
that providing basic services  and reducing the need to travel, is not
always the most feasible option, especially in low density areas. 

	 

	The concept of mobility as a human right however, moves beyond
the debate on access to goods and services and argues that without the
means and the freedom to be mobile, women and men cannot exercise the
other widely accepted human rights. It focuses on people and the
obstacles that prevent their movement, it talks about people having the
power to be autonomous and taking control over their own lives.  In this
wider sense improving mobility is not just about developing transport
infrastructure and services but also about overcoming the social,
economic, political and physical constraints to movement that women and
men face.  These constraints are influenced by class, gender relations,
poverty, physical disabilities, affordability, public policy, etc.
Mobility is about removing these obstacles.

	 

	The concept also takes into account the rights of women as
recognized in the international human rights instruments.  The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights guarantees women's right to personal freedom
of movement.  However, gender relations and the unequal status of women
results in gender discrimination and restricts women's ability to enjoy
this right. From our experiences in rural areas, we can say that this is
more so where whole communities are isolated and their rights to
mobility are not recognised.   

	 

	In the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) women are ensured equal
participation in political life, and the right to education, employment,
health and economic and social activities.  Several studies as well as
the Platform for Action show that the lack of access to transport and
gender discrimination on women's mobility, severely constrain women's
ability to attend school, access health services or participate in
political, social and economic activities.  In our concept note, Codou
Bop and I were arguing that without ensuring women's right to mobility
their ability to enjoy these other rights will be impossible.  

	 

	The full concept note was shared with gatnet on the 2nd of
August 2004.

	 

	Best wishes

	 

	Priyanthi

	 

	 

	
  _____  


	From: bounce-gatnet-161226 at dgroups.org
[mailto:bounce-gatnet-161226 at dgroups.org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter
	Sent: 17 February 2005 02:24
	To: Gender and Transport
	Subject: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share your
Beijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda

	 

	Dear gatnet folks

	 

	This concept of mobility as a human right is very interesting
but slightly troubling. I think i would agree that some notion of
transport as a human right could be a powerful argument. However may i
beg to differ on the terminology. Can i suggest instead 'basic
accessibility' as a human right? (or just 'accessibility' as a human
right), NOT 'mobility'.

	 

	The distinction between accessibility and mobility is important.
I am following some of Todd Litman's ideas here. He identifies three
perspectives on "defining success" in transport policy:

	 

	1.  'Traffic': in this perspective vehicle movement and speed
are beneficial; congestion or inadequate roads are seen as the problem.
The old roads-focussed approaches in rural transport could be seen as
analogous to a traffic focus.

	 

	2.  'Mobility': in this perspective it is the efficient movement
of people and goods that is seen as beneficial or as they key aim of
policy. This is much wiser than a traffic focus because at least it
helps move attention to more efficient ways of moving people and goods.
This would put a high priority on collective modes of transport (eg
buses, rail).

	 

	3. 'Accessibility' or an 'access focus': In this perspective it
is the ability to REACH opportunities that is beneficial, not movement
itself. In remote rural contexts gaining access to services, goods and
contacts will often require a lot of mobility. However, in many urban
contexts accessibility might involve very short trips. And in places
like suburban USA policy to enhance accessibility might actually require
that we reduce traffic or even reduce the need to travel (or reduce
mobility). 

	 

	In the rural transport context, an example would be
non-transport interventions such as efforts to bring water supply and
fuel supply to houses (instead of forcing people - especially women - to
walk long distances for them). This is an excellent example of an effort
to increase accessibility of services without the need to increase
mobility.

	 

	With an accessibility perspective, both traffic and mobility are
obviously still important. But they are seen as 'means' not 'ends in
themselves'. Other ways to enhance accessibility would include planning
for proximity, improved communications systems, bringing services
closer, etc.  

	 

	So maybe we could instead push for a 'right to accessibility' of
goods, services and contacts. I would strongly oppose any suggestion
that we have a 'right to mobility'. 

	 

	Unfortunately part of the problem is confusion over the
terminology. I notice that some people mean the same thing as my
'accessibility' when they say 'mobility'. In Europe especially,
'mobility' seems to often be used in a way that suggests it includes
accessibility thinking.  I think it important to make the distinction.

	 

	Please note that I am not saying that it is bad to increase
mobility for low-income people, especially low-income women. What I am
saying is that mobility is only one of the means for people to achieve
the more fundamental end of gaining access to things. In many cases it
is an important means, and we certainly should be helping people living
in poverty to increase their mobility, in order to increase their
accessibility. In rural contexts this will indeed be the main way to do
so. 

	 

	Sorry to be so long-winded and argumentative on my veryfirst
posting to the list. A wonderful list by the way!!

	 

	 

	All the best,

	 

	 

	Paul

	 

	Dr Paul A. Barter 
	Assistant Professor, LKY School of Public Policy
	National University of Singapore, 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace,
Singapore 119620
	Tel: +65-6874 3324;  Fax: +65-6778 1020
	Email:  paulbarter at nus.edu.sg 
	I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. 

	Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries?
Then consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, an email discussion and
announcements list devoted to people-centred, equitable and sustainable
transport with a focus on developing countries. Visit
http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join or
http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ for more background information.

	 

		
  _____  


		From: Kate Czuczman [mailto:p3_22981 at ifrtd.org] 
		Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:52 PM
		To: Gender and Transport
		Subject: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share
your Beijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda

		It would be good to submit a piece on mobility as a
human right.  Coudou and Pri wrote something for the IFRTD website which
could be adapted. 

		
		 
		Kate Czuczman
		Editor & Communications Coordinator
		IFRTD Secretariat
		Web: www.ifrtd.org and www.ruralwaterways.org
		Email: kate.czuczman at ifrtd.org
		
		"The IFRTD is a global network of individuals and
organisations working together towards improved access and mobility for
the rural poor in developing countries"

	Dgroups is a joint initiative of Bellanet, DFID, Hivos, ICA,
IICD, OneWorld, UNAIDS 
	--- You are currently subscribed to gatnet as:
priyanthi.fernando at ifrtd.org 
	To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-gatnet-181967L at dgroups.org 

	Dgroups is a joint initiative of Bellanet, DFID, Hivos, ICA,
IICD, OneWorld, UNAIDS 
	--- You are currently subscribed to gatnet as:
paulbarter at nus.edu.sg 
	To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-gatnet-181967L at dgroups.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050218/d84763cc/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list