Migration, Deportation and Recovery:
An Analysis with TdH-Supported Shelters in Southeast Asia
Authors: Siriporn Skrobanek and Sebastian Boll
Commissioned by: Terre des Hommes Netherlands
December 2011
Table of Contents
i. List of Abbreviations
ii. Executive Summary
I.Introduction
II.Scope and Methodology
III.Migration Patterns and Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong
Sub-Region
a.An Introduction: Overview of Migration Patterns in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region
b.In Focus: Policies and Patterns of Formal and Informal Migration in the Four Countries
Concerned
c. International, Regional and Sub-Regional Initiatives to Combat Human Trafficking
d.National Trends and Policies in the Four Countries Concerned...... 21
e.Current Forms of Assistance and Cross-Border Cooperation...... 31
IV. The Way Forward: Proposals to Improve Programs and Services to Help
Those in Need...... 51
Level of Action 1: Work with Authorities and Policies...... 51
Level of Action 2: Work to Improve Shelters/Services...... 53
Level of Action 3: Work with the Victim/Family/Community...... 59
iii.Bibliography...... 65
i. List of Abbreviations
AATAlliance against Trafficking
ATDAnti-Trafficking Division
ATUAnti-Trafficking Unit
AWARDAssociation for Human Rights and Women’s Rights in Development
BIGCBorder Issue Group on Children
BTMCBanteay Meancheay
CBOCommunity Based Organisation
CBTIP Central Body for Suppression of Trafficking in Persons
CHOCambodia Hope Organisation
CWCCCambodian Women’s Crisis Centre
DICDrop-In Centre
DKBADemocratic Karen Buddhist Army
DSIDepartment of Special Investigation, Ministry of Justice
DWA Department of Women’s Affairs
FFW Foundation for Women
GEGoutte d’Eau
GMSGreater Mekong Sub-region
IUInvestigation Unit, Immigration Bureau
KANBKaren Action Network in Burma
Lao P.D.R./LaosLao People’s Democratic Republic
MLSWMinistry of Labour and Social Welfare
MoPMinistry of Public Security
MSDHCMinistry of Social Development and Human Security
MSVYMinistry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation
PRCPeople’s Republic of China
PTCPoipet Transit Centre
TdHTerre des Hommes
THBThai Baht (US$1 is equivalent to 30 Baht)
VFIVillage Focus International
VRCVangtao Reception Centre
VTEVientiane Transit Centre
WUWomen’s Union
WVWorld Vision
ii. Executive Summary
The Greater Mekong Sub-region is home to some 260 million people, including an estimated 3.5 million cross-border migrants. Intra sub-regional labour migration has become a viable source of livelihood, often for socially excluded groups in their respective countries. Alongside voluntary patterns of labour migration, severe forms of exploitation and human trafficking have manifested themselves, which negatively affect thousands of adults’ and children’s lives across the region. They fall victim to unscrupulous agents and traffickers at places of origin, transit and destination. Mechanisms to deal with the abuse and exploitation have been developed at many levels in the GMS countries, from recognising theUN’s global definition of human trafficking to establishing regional initiatives and formulating national tools and legislation. Despite such steps, however, the problem remains persistent, with new forms of exploitation regularly developing that often go beyond the developedinstruments and legal frameworks.
The cross-border dimension of human trafficking in the GMSrequires more coordinated bi- and multilateral actions at all levels to suppress one of the most financially voluminous forms of international crime; one that is often referred to as “modern-day slavery”. Beyond politics, civil society organisations also play crucial roles in fighting human trafficking. Amongst other things, they are most often the ones providing essential medical, psychosocial and educational services to victims, which are fundamental in helping the latter recover from their traumatising experiences and re-integrate back into society. Moreover, such organisations pool a tremendous amount of knowledge on trafficking through their day-to-day work with victims of various types of exploitation.
Unfortunately, anti-trafficking efforts at many levels are still often based on assumptions that have never actually been verified. In the absence of a proper understanding of why and how adults and children get trafficked in the first place, however, it is difficult to develop adequate strategies that help prevent people from getting exploitedor successfully assist those already affected.Terre des Hommes Netherlands, through its support to three NGOs – CWCC in Cambodia, FFW in Thailand serving Burmese people, and VFI in Laos – operating border shelters for trafficking victims in their respective countries, is in a unique position to pool the abovementioned knowledge of the concerned organisations, which has the potential to help significantly in better understanding trafficking experiences and, as result, tailor more adequate response mechanisms. It was partly with this aspiration that the study was commissioned.
At the same time, many more victims of exploitation will undergo the recovery programs of the mentioned NGOs, which is why the report also serves the purpose of determining, with the involvement of beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders engaged with the organisations, lessons learned and best practices for their operations, proposing practical recommendations on how to further improve assistance to trafficking victims, so as to help them re-integrate successfully into society without a danger of relapse. Bearing all this in mind, the analysis has thus beenconducted with the objective to describe and analyse (a) patternsof cross-border migration and trafficking in the four statesconcerned (Cambodia, LaoPDR, Burma/Myanmar, Thailand), with Thailand largely serving as destination country for people from the other three; (b) deportation processes of alleged illegal migrants – many of who experienced various forms of exploitation and even human trafficking without being identified as victims; (c) current forms of cross-border cooperation and assistance to help deportees and trafficking victims; as well as (d) services provided in the three shelters operated by Terre des Hommes’ partner organisations.
The findings show that both parents and agents play crucial roles in decision-making processes on whether or not a person migrates out of their community. Once the decision is taken in favour of out-migration – most often for economic reasons – the concerned states have thus far failed to make regularmigration for employment a viable alternative to irregular mechanisms; the latter frequently through long-established migration networks and/or with the assistance of brokers. Both costs and time involved in legal employment channels abroad practically push people into such informal practices as they are so readily found between the four countries of this analysis. Without necessary papers and legal status, migrants are significantly more vulnerable to exploitation, both on their way and at destination. Yet, these experiences of abuse are often not identified by authorities;they commonly treat irregular migrants without proper documents as criminals instead of granting them the protective services, which they would be entitled to if identified as victims of trafficking. Victim identification procedures, the subsequent study has found, are still vastly inadequate and need urgent improvement.
On the other hand, there are also significant numbers of trafficking victims that themselves choose not be identified as such. Reasons for this include lengthy and uncomfortable court processes, during which victims usually have to remain far away from their families and without access to employment possibilities, in combination with little hope for adequate compensation at the end. Instead, they regularly prefer to be deported back home, after which many re-migrate for another chance to make a better living and help their families. In the case of deportation, irregular migrants from Cambodia, Laos and Burma/Myanmar in Thailand are usually sent through the following border crossings: Aranyaprathet in Sra Kaew Province for Cambodia; Chong Mek in Ubon Rachathani Province as well as Mukdahan Province for Laos (since April 2011, the central Immigration Detention Centre(IDC) in Bangkok has shifted its deportation policy from the former to Mukdahan Province); as well as Mae Sod in Tak Province and Mae Sai in Chiangrai Province for Burma/Myanmar. Official statistics suggest that many – in fact often the majority – of these vulnerable or victimised people are men, who are regularly less protected by national laws than their female counterparts and for who significantly fewer services are available both through governmental and non-governmental channels. TdH partner organisations should work towards overcoming these gaps in their respective national contexts.
There are transit centres and recoveryshelters in Poipet, Pakse and Mae Sod, operated by CWCC, VFI and FFW. These provide crucial assistance particularly to vulnerable and victimised women and children,who are “pushed back” to their countries via the mentioned deportation borders. While state agencies in the countries concerned play important roles in the repatriation and re-integration of the comparably small numbers of officially identified trafficking victims through government-to-government channels, the three organisations have committed themselves to dealing with the hundreds of deportees that are returned to their home countries on a daily basis. The TdH partners also cooperate with each other on such cases for the purposes of tracing people and families, case reception in border areas, as well as immediate care and safe passage home. State agencies, however, often remain hesitant to fully engage with civil society organisations and to accept the latter as equal partners in a joint fight to help people in need. Organisations in the four countries need to intensify efforts to assert themselves as legitimate and equivalent service providers, with the authority to freely conduct – on their own and in partnership with others– their extremely important work to protect returnees and prevent human trafficking from occurring. For the latter to happen, regular domestic and cross-border mechanisms of cooperation both with governmental and non-governmental agencies need to be enhanced and institutionalised. Pilot projects of GO-NGO partnerships exist and should be expanded and promoted effectively, so as to contribute to more initiatives of this type to follow suit.
Evidently, the focus of the analysis and the recommendations produced lies on service providers at civil society level. Terre des Hommes is a civil society organisation and supports NGOs around the world. That’s what its commitment and engagement centres around globally; and that’s the perspective from which its partner organisations engage with their environments. It appears obvious then that the study seeks to first provide inspiration to those TdH-supported agencies, which have formed part of this assignment. Such recommendations relate to three core constituencies that the partner organisations both influence and are influenced by, as has already become apparent from the above deliberations: (1) authorities; (2) beneficiaries; (3) the latters’ families and/or communities. The proposals put forward are meant to be concrete enough to allow for their practical implementation and yet sufficiently broad to be interpreted differently, depending on the respective national contexts. Without any specific order of priority, these recommendations are:
Level of Action 1: Work with Authorities and Policies:
Establish and improve involvement and cooperation on pushback cases, to avoid vulnerabilities at border points through e.g. agents, taxi drivers or corrupt officials;
Push towards more training for officials in victim identification procedures, ethics in dealing with potential trafficking victims, etc., with a view to the development of common sub-regional checklists and systems for such actions;
Seek to supplement GO-GO cooperation with NGO involvement wherever necessary and advisable, especially in social affairs, victim identification, legal protection, repatriation processes, case follow-up, etc.;
Push for the removal of bureaucratic and other burdens on cross-border movement to make regular migration processes faster and less costly;
Seek to collaborate with the private sector and work out a system of best practices and a list of employers with a proven record for migrant workers.
Level of Action 2: Work to Improve Shelters/Services:
Involve the children – and most often their families – as much as possible in questions around their own future as they have a right to be in control of their fate;
Find out if the child really wants to stay at the shelter or if it was a purely parental decision;
Allow contact with the family as much as possible/wanted;
Provide for regular opportunities to leave the shelter and see different environments;
Prepare the victim for testifying in courts – if they voluntarily agree on such proceedings with their involvement – and ensure that legal cases include compensation and remain as short and as appropriate as possible for the victim;
Consider other forms of reintegration into society that go beyond merely focusing on family-child relations if need be;
Take family and needs assessment not only as a study of the family, but particularly also of what the child needs for their human security;
Consider the feasibility to open a social enterprise for the generation of income for both the organisation and the residents;
Carefully re-asses the needs of residents for future employment, and consider ways of providing a wider and more tailored range of programs, e.g. by cooperating with other educational/professional stakeholders;
Establish working relations with a number of key companies/organisations with a proven record for training and potential employment;
Pay regular follow-up visits to ensure that residents are well off and have decent work;
Consider ways to broaden the target audience to also serve the many vulnerable and victimised men especially in the deportee populations with residential facilities and other comprehensive services;
Seek to cooperate with other partners in the country and the region to learn from each other and improve performance and collaboration on case assistance;
Try to introduce and improve elements of psychosocial support in every way possible, including through cross border collaboration;
Advocate for more courses of psychosocial support in the educational system with the authorities;
Develop and apply standardised, in-built monitoring and evaluation mechanisms with a focus on beneficiaries’ interests to ensure that program aspirations and realities match.
Level of Action 3: Work with the Victim/Family/Community
Consider mechanisms at village level in form of watchdog entities or contact points that can monitor migration tendencies, identify agents, provide advise and contacts for safe migration and potential alternatives, etc.;
Look into counselling services for families with problems at village level as identified by watchdog entities and make timely and appropriate interventions;
Consider the involvement of (former) shelter residentsin awareness-raising campaigns, especially with volunteer groups; be careful with this and ask cautiously in what form and under what conditions the person concerned may want to get involved;
Collaborate with all stakeholders to review contents and methods of advocacy campaigns, and develop a comprehensive, rights-based curriculum on migration and trafficking as well as life skills building for awareness raising activities in schools and at community levels.
I.Introduction
1. The Greater Mekong Sub-region is hometo some 260 million people, including an estimated 3.5 million cross-border migrants. Intra-regional labour migration has become a viable source of livelihood, often for socially excluded groups in their respective countries. Alongside voluntary patterns of labour migration, severe forms of exploitation and human trafficking have manifested themselves, whichnegatively affect thousands of adults’ and children’s life across the region. They fall victim to unscrupulous agents and traffickers at places of origin, transit and destination.
2. Human trafficking has developed into one of the most profitable forms of international crime. It is thus of utmost importanceto intensify international action and collaboration to deal with this grave form of human rights violations. There are a number of international instruments, which cover the criminal dimension of trafficking in human beings, most notably the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons especially Women and Children. However, there are no binding international mechanisms for the human rights protection of victims of human trafficking. The latter is largely left to national policies and the will of relevant state actors to provide assistance and redress for trafficked persons. Sadly, victim identification procedures are vastly inadequate, causing many trafficking victims to be criminalized and sent back to their home country as irregular migrants. This practice aggravates their vulnerable situation and denies them the right to justice and protection/assistance.
3. Being aware of this, Terre des Homes Netherlands has supported three partner organizations in the GMS countries, namely the Cambodian Women’s Crisis Centre (CWCC), the Foundation for Women (FFW) in Thailand, and Lao-based Village Focus International (VFI) to operate recovery shelters in border areas to receive and provide assistance to victims of cross border trafficking and deportees from Thailand. Knowing the magnitude of border crossings to and deportations from Thailand as well as the experiences of migrants during these processes can help service providers to develop more tailored assistance programs for vulnerable women and children. With this in mind, the study has been conducted with three main objectives: (1) gaining knowledge on the magnitude of cross border movement and deportation; (2) documenting the current forms of cross border collaboration and assistance provided in the three shelters; (3) determining areas for improving services and preventing relapse.
II.Scope and Methodology
4. The study was conducted in Thailand, Lao P.D.R. and Cambodia in the shelters, at border areas and in communities. The research team applied qualitative research methods with a participatory approach. Interviews as the primary source of information were organized with concerned authorities, service providers, shelter residents and reintegrated trafficking victims, as well as key staff of relevant NGOs in the three countries. Pre-designed checklists guided individual interviews and focus group meetings in Thailand (Bangkok, Mukdahan, Mae Sod and Aranyaprathet); Lao P.D.R.(Savannakhet and Champasak); and Cambodia (Poipet and BanteayMeanchey). The field trips also involved visits to families, workplaces of re-integrated shelter residents, border transit and reception centres for women and children, as well as detention centres.