01 February 2015
Consultative Roundtable on the Humanitarian Dimension and Protection Aspects of Trafficking in Persons
Executive Summary
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) is a global phenomenon but its exact scale is difficult to quantify. TIP estimates range from the International Organization for Migration’s 800,000 people to the United States TIP Report’s 27 million people who were subjected to this crime in the last year alone. At the regional level, the Asia-Pacific has also been recognised “as a significant source of trafficking in persons” , due inter alia to high levels of irregular migration, its porous land borders and disparities in economic, employment and education opportunities.
To address the problem, the countries in the Asia Pacific region have engaged in a number of initiatives over the last decade, but often from a “security”, “immigration”, “law enforcement” perspective. While effective law enforcement will continue to play a crucial role in combating the crime of trafficking in persons in the region, just as much attention is required to ensure that victims of trafficking in persons receive the necessary protection and care. According to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), protection is defined as “… all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. HR law, IHL, refugee law).
Various states in the Asia-Pacific have taken a range of measures to provide appropriate protection and care to victims of trafficking. A number of national and international organisations are also engaged in such efforts with the respective authorities. Although there are various regional instruments in the Asia-Pacific, such as the ASEAN Declaration on Transnational Crime, most are not legally enforceable and their operationalisation has been slow with many states often failing to live up to them. Track II institutions are also developing policy recommendations to governments on issues related to TIP, including aspects concerning the protection and care of victims. At the same time, it is important to continue to constantly strengthen an understanding of the humanitarian/protection-related problems of trafficking in persons, in order to be able to respond in a more effective manner, where responses are holistic, promote human security and migrant rights.
Against this backdrop, the Consultative Roundtable on the Humanitarian Dimension and Protection Aspects of Trafficking in Persons was held in June 2014. The Roundtable was organised by the RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It brought together experts, academics, practitioners and government representatives to: (1) develop a better understanding of the roles of various actors involved in the protection of victims of trafficking, including but not limited to governments, multilateral organisations, civil society organisations, international non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations; (2) identify the unmet protection needs of victims of trafficking and discuss possible responses; (3) discuss and highlight country experiences, approaches and best practices to respond to the protection needs of victims of trafficking in a “protection checklist”; and (4) contribute to the regional thinking that will in turn influence national and regional policies that focus on the protection of victims of trafficking.
The Roundtable offered three policy pointers:
- Standardise the definitions and the language of the legal frameworks that aim to address trafficking in persons, from prevention to prosecution to protection.
- Expand the protection of trafficking victims so that governments open up to greater collaboration with non-government agencies. This is based on the need for a differentiated approach regarding the protection needs of victims of trafficking. The protection needs of victims of trafficking are oftentimes secondary concerns to other priorities such as prosecution, deterrence, or facility security to name a few. Government agencies, while retaining primary responsibility, must be mandated to cooperate with non-government organizations, international humanitarian organizations and grassroots organizations that are engaged in the protection of victims of trafficking in order to complement and support services to assist trafficking victims and to promote a victim-centred approach.
- A specialised and dedicated case manager or victim support unit trained to assist trafficking victims from identification to protection to reintegration is imperative. This would allow for concrete monitoring, care arrangements and follow-up process on the status of victims of trafficking.
Victims of trafficking have special needs and the different nature and purpose of the crime, suggests that victims of trafficking will also have specific and often differentiated needs. Despite the often complicated healthcare and legal assistance needs of trafficking victims, victims often refuse to seek help due to fear of stigma. For example, there is much sensitivity needed in providing legal assistance because of biased perceptions and the stigma associated with victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Gaining the trust of victims to voluntarily cooperate with authorities is often a challenge and providing a safe environment where victims can regain hold of any dignity left from their experience is difficult in itself. Case managers or victim support units must ensure that victims have the right to legal representation and the entire investigation process should be age and gender-sensitive. Moreover, an inclusive evaluation process would require providing a venue for victims of trafficking to be able to freely discuss their concerns about support services, protection and the specific repatriation or re-integration programmes offered to them. The outputs of such evaluations can further aid the formulation of better protection and assistance policies for victims of trafficking.
Moreover, devising a (re)integration policy for TIP victims presents its own set of accountabilities. It would mean revisiting, changing or updating existing laws concerning immigration and foreign employment, and other regulations which might be relevant. This would be necessary in order to grant victims some form of legal status and protection while also allowing for the possibility to voluntarily return or emigration from the country. The special T-Visa currently offered in the US to victims of trafficking, which sets out a clear pathway towards permanent residency and even full citizenship in the long-run, serves as a good example that shows how such a system or framework could be possible. Even for cases where victim repatriation might be necessary for procedural/legal reasons, special provisions that allow for the victim to re-migrate back into the country of destination through legal channels need to be put in place. This would work well in the case of labour trafficking victims, especially if there is already an employer who is willing to hire/re-hire the originally trafficked person. This entails that reintegration or any other alternative strategies to address the long term needs of victims of trafficking will only be successful when it is focused on the needs and rights of the victims themselves.
Conclusion
Given the above, TIP therefore needs to be addressed from the multilateral to the local levels and must be in tune with the needs and rights of victims of trafficking, taking account of age and gender. Involving other actors, especially nongovernmental and humanitarian organisations can help supplement and complement government anti-trafficking initiatives. Efforts at criminalising and penalising trafficking in persons must be made without raising the risk of persecuting or adding to the distress of victims. There is a need for stricter enforcement of existing anti-trafficking legislation. This report, however, emphasises that protection initiatives should continuously be implemented in parallel with efforts at preventing trafficking, including policies and activities that aim to address the psychological and socioeconomic difficulties and cultural dogmas that impact on victims.
Executive Summary
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) is a global phenomenon but its exact scale is difficult to quantify. TIP estimates range from the International Organization for Migration’s 800,000 people to the United States TIP Report’s 27 million people who were subjected to this crime in the last year alone. At the regional level, the Asia-Pacific has also been recognised “as a significant source of trafficking in persons” , due inter alia to high levels of irregular migration, its porous land borders and disparities in economic, employment and education opportunities.
To address the problem, the countries in the Asia Pacific region have engaged in a number of initiatives over the last decade, but often from a “security”, “immigration”, “law enforcement” perspective. While effective law enforcement will continue to play a crucial role in combating the crime of trafficking in persons in the region, just as much attention is required to ensure that victims of trafficking in persons receive the necessary protection and care. According to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), protection is defined as “… all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. HR law, IHL, refugee law).
Various states in the Asia-Pacific have taken a range of measures to provide appropriate protection and care to victims of trafficking. A number of national and international organisations are also engaged in such efforts with the respective authorities. Although there are various regional instruments in the Asia-Pacific, such as the ASEAN Declaration on Transnational Crime, most are not legally enforceable and their operationalisation has been slow with many states often failing to live up to them. Track II institutions are also developing policy recommendations to governments on issues related to TIP, including aspects concerning the protection and care of victims. At the same time, it is important to continue to constantly strengthen an understanding of the humanitarian/protection-related problems of trafficking in persons, in order to be able to respond in a more effective manner, where responses are holistic, promote human security and migrant rights.
Against this backdrop, the Consultative Roundtable on the Humanitarian Dimension and Protection Aspects of Trafficking in Persons was held in June 2014. The Roundtable was organised by the RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It brought together experts, academics, practitioners and government representatives to: (1) develop a better understanding of the roles of various actors involved in the protection of victims of trafficking, including but not limited to governments, multilateral organisations, civil society organisations, international non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations; (2) identify the unmet protection needs of victims of trafficking and discuss possible responses; (3) discuss and highlight country experiences, approaches and best practices to respond to the protection needs of victims of trafficking in a “protection checklist”; and (4) contribute to the regional thinking that will in turn influence national and regional policies that focus on the protection of victims of trafficking.
The Roundtable offered three policy pointers:
- Standardise the definitions and the language of the legal frameworks that aim to address trafficking in persons, from prevention to prosecution to protection.
- Expand the protection of trafficking victims so that governments open up to greater collaboration with non-government agencies. This is based on the need for a differentiated approach regarding the protection needs of victims of trafficking. The protection needs of victims of trafficking are oftentimes secondary concerns to other priorities such as prosecution, deterrence, or facility security to name a few. Government agencies, while retaining primary responsibility, must be mandated to cooperate with non-government organizations, international humanitarian organizations and grassroots organizations that are engaged in the protection of victims of trafficking in order to complement and support services to assist trafficking victims and to promote a victim-centred approach.
- A specialised and dedicated case manager or victim support unit trained to assist trafficking victims from identification to protection to reintegration is imperative. This would allow for concrete monitoring, care arrangements and follow-up process on the status of victims of trafficking.
Victims of trafficking have special needs and the different nature and purpose of the crime, suggests that victims of trafficking will also have specific and often differentiated needs. Despite the often complicated healthcare and legal assistance needs of trafficking victims, victims often refuse to seek help due to fear of stigma. For example, there is much sensitivity needed in providing legal assistance because of biased perceptions and the stigma associated with victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Gaining the trust of victims to voluntarily cooperate with authorities is often a challenge and providing a safe environment where victims can regain hold of any dignity left from their experience is difficult in itself. Case managers or victim support units must ensure that victims have the right to legal representation and the entire investigation process should be age and gender-sensitive. Moreover, an inclusive evaluation process would require providing a venue for victims of trafficking to be able to freely discuss their concerns about support services, protection and the specific repatriation or re-integration programmes offered to them. The outputs of such evaluations can further aid the formulation of better protection and assistance policies for victims of trafficking.
Moreover, devising a (re)integration policy for TIP victims presents its own set of accountabilities. It would mean revisiting, changing or updating existing laws concerning immigration and foreign employment, and other regulations which might be relevant. This would be necessary in order to grant victims some form of legal status and protection while also allowing for the possibility to voluntarily return or emigration from the country. The special T-Visa currently offered in the US to victims of trafficking, which sets out a clear pathway towards permanent residency and even full citizenship in the long-run, serves as a good example that shows how such a system or framework could be possible. Even for cases where victim repatriation might be necessary for procedural/legal reasons, special provisions that allow for the victim to re-migrate back into the country of destination through legal channels need to be put in place. This would work well in the case of labour trafficking victims, especially if there is already an employer who is willing to hire/re-hire the originally trafficked person. This entails that reintegration or any other alternative strategies to address the long term needs of victims of trafficking will only be successful when it is focused on the needs and rights of the victims themselves.
Conclusion
Given the above, TIP therefore needs to be addressed from the multilateral to the local levels and must be in tune with the needs and rights of victims of trafficking, taking account of age and gender. Involving other actors, especially nongovernmental and humanitarian organisations can help supplement and complement government anti-trafficking initiatives. Efforts at criminalising and penalising trafficking in persons must be made without raising the risk of persecuting or adding to the distress of victims. There is a need for stricter enforcement of existing anti-trafficking legislation. This report, however, emphasises that protection initiatives should continuously be implemented in parallel with efforts at preventing trafficking, including policies and activities that aim to address the psychological and socioeconomic difficulties and cultural dogmas that impact on victims.
