A/HRC/16/38 body of good practice, it is relevant to note that efforts to date have faced challenges and shortcomings. 47. First, submissions focused predominantly on disability-specific cooperation and there was less information related to the mainstreaming of disability into other areas of international cooperation. The shortcomings related to mainstreaming are sometimes due to a lack of relevant policies and guidelines, in spite of some good examples in this regard. Moreover, according to the International Disability Alliance submission, where guidelines and policies on mainstreaming disability into development cooperation exist, they are often not fully implemented for various reasons: submissions revealed that States as well as international organizations often have limited or no dedicated staff and programmes to promote the Convention, which has directly affected capacity to implement not only specific programmes on persons with disabilities but also to mainstream disability into cooperation efforts. Further, according to the Special Rapporteur on Disability, there is still insufficient awareness of disability mainstreaming and of inclusive development. The Special Rapporteur indicated the need to monitor systematically the implementation of guidelines and policies on mainstreaming disability into development cooperation constitutes an additional challenge. 48. Second, submissions highlight that international cooperation in the disability field is not always consistent with the norms and standards of the CPRD. Some civil society submissions indicated that a “charity” approach to disability continues to be applied in development cooperation instead of the rights-based approach promoted by the CPRD. Further, development programmes are often negotiated bilaterally between governments, without direct participation of civil society actors such as DPOs, indicating a lack of inclusiveness and accessibility with the result that State structures are strengthened but the effects are not necessarily so positive for persons with disabilities or their representative organizations. The International Disability Alliance notes that international cooperation projects continue to finance public transport and buildings, communication infrastructure, employment and vocational training services that are not designed in an accessible or inclusive way, thus excluding most people with disabilities. In the area of education, submissions indicate that certain development agencies continue to fund segregated education programmes in contravention of the principle of inclusive education in the Convention. 49. Third, in spite of the many positive examples of international cooperation, submissions indicated a lack of coordination between and among actors involved in development projects57. At times this has led to fragmented and unsustainable cooperation efforts. Furthermore, insufficient national ownership in several projects implemented within the framework of international cooperation has been noted, with a consequence that in several projects implemented in Eastern Europe, for example, “the international community has failed to effectively influence national authorities in the process of transition from institutional to community-based care, allowing preservation of institutional systems and replication of its culture into the new services58. 57 58 16 See, for example, submission of DRI at www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/docs/study/SERBIA_Investments_Gone_Wrong_Internatio nal.pdf. Idem. IDA is equally critical of the fact that financial support is still too often provided for the establishment or refurbishment of institutions, instead of using this funding to establish services to support independent living in the community as provided in art. 19 of the CRPD (see www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/docs/study/International_Disability_Alliance.doc).