European Red Cross and Red Crescent Cooperation in Response to Trafficking in Human Beings

8/3/2019 European Red Cross and Red Crescent Cooperation in Response to Trafficking in Human Beings

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/european-red-cross-and-red-crescent-cooperation-in-response-to-trafficking 1/12

European Red Cross and Red Crescent Cooperation inResponse to Trafficking in Human Beings

Evaluation Report

June 2006



2

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 3

Background ................................................................................................................................. 4

Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 8

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9

Annex .......................................................................................................................................... 12



3

Executive Summary

The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on questionnaire repliesfrom National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and interviews with selected Red Cross andRed Crescent staff and external stakeholders. While it does not claim to offer any ready-madesolutions, it is hoped that the report’s recommendations will provide some guidance and

stimulate further discussion about the future of the Network.

The Network has contributed to capacity-building of National Societies engaged in anti-trafficking work. This has been achieved through sharing of information and experience and learning fromother National Societies. The Facilitator has provided support in designing projects and applying for international funding. Still, more capacity-building is needed in order to increase the scope of activities and to initiate projects/activities in National Societies which are not yet actively engaged, but wishes to be so.

As this evaluation examines the Network as such and not the impact of National Society projectsand activities, it cannot offer any independent judgement on whether vulnerability has been

reduced among victims and potential victims of trafficking in Europe. It should be noted,however, that external stakeholders praise the results of some projects; the impact of otherprojects are yet to be assessed.

The Network is not yet sustainable without the continued support of the Facilitator. The level of commitment varies among National Societies and the collective ownership of the Network seemsto be weak. Its horizontal links (National Society-National Society) need to be strengthened.

The main worry expressed in relation to the sustainability of projects is the insecure long-termfunding situation. National Societies engaged are still largely dependent on international donors.So far few attempts have been made to secure national funding. The results of ongoing and

finalized projects should be communicated with a view to attract funding for new and extendedprojects/activities. There should be joint efforts in each country by National Societies and othernational stakeholders to advocate for government funding of anti-trafficking activities.

The Network has proved effective in that it has, in a short time, contributed to an increasedunderstanding of the issue of human trafficking in many National Societies across Europe and,ultimately, resulted in the initiation and implementation of new projects and activities. As regardsproject effectiveness, it is important to continue to ensure that National Societies do notduplicate efforts already made by other actors and/or detract government responsibility by theirengagement.

Advocacy efforts have facilitated the engagement of National Societies. The Facilitator’s work hashelped to position the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the European/internationallevel, as well as in individual countries vis-à-vis governments, international organisations andNGO:s. Overall, National Society advocacy in this field appears so far to be less developed. Moreadvocacy by National Societies will be needed in order to ensure greater government ownership,including advocating for government funding of anti-trafficking activities.

The report’s recommendations for the future of the Network include the adoption of a two-stageapproach:

The current model with a Facilitator hosted by the Danish Red Cross should be maintained for

another one and a half to two years. Within this period the Network should be strengthened andpolicies/strategies on anti-trafficking work adopted by the Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement. This should lead to increased ownership by National Societies as well as paving the



4

way for greater ownership and engagement by the Federation Secretariat.

Thereafter – beyond 2007 – the role of the Network Facilitator should be down-scaled and,based on adopted Movement policies, the Federation Secretariat should assume full responsibility for policy development, advocacy, coordination and liaison with external stakeholders on theEuropean/international level.

Background

This evaluation of the European Red Cross and Red Crescent Cooperation in Response to Trafficking in Human Beings (“the Network”) has been commissioned by the Danish Red Cross(Terms of Reference available at www.redcross.dk/trafficking ).

It is based on questionnaire replies from National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies andinterviews with selected Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and external stakeholders (see Annex).

Country visits has been undertaken to Denmark, Ukraine and Serbia, with logistical support

provided by the Danish Red Cross, the Ukraine Red Cross Society and the Serbia andMontenegro Red Cross Society.

While the present report does not claim to offer any ready-made solutions, it is hoped that itsrecommendations will provide some guidance and stimulate further discussion about the futureof the Network.

Findings

This section provides an overview of some key findings. Findings related to the Danish RedCross general evaluation criteria are examined in the next section.

Red Cross and Red Crescent strengths and weaknesses

The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and in particular National Societies, has many strengths which are recognised by external stakeholders working in response to trafficking inhuman beings. These include its: humanitarian mandate; international/European network;advocacy work; country-wide network of local branches and volunteers in each country; potentialfor long-term commitment and partnership through well-established national structures; focus onbuilding its own local capacity by raising awareness of local branches and anchoring projects atgrass-root level; good relations with national authorities and knowledge of local conditions; work

with people in vulnerable situations (such as asylum seekers, refugees and IDP:s), who may alsobe victims of human trafficking or frequently targeted by traffickers as potential victims; contact

with victims through tracing activities; extensive experience from other work in the broader fieldof migration.

Weaknesses expressly mentioned by external stakeholders are fewer. Nevertheless, somecomplain about a lack of transparency in relation to activities and that the role of the Red Crossand Red Crescent Movement in response to human trafficking is unclear and makes it difficult tojudge in what way National Societies can contribute to the overall anti-trafficking work. Acomplex, bureaucratic structure and considerable variations in knowledge and capacity fromcountry to country are other concerns.

Concurrently, National Societies themselves have differing views on what the Red Cross and RedCrescent role is or should be in response to trafficking in human beings.

http://www.redcross.dk/trafficking






5

The Network ’s impact on National Society engagement – achievements andopportunities for further development

Trafficking in human beings has been placed on the agenda of the Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement. The Network has contributed to the sharing of information, experiences, goodpractice and training and dissemination materials between European National Societies, and has

promoted anti-trafficking work within the Movement. It has inspired the development of new activities.

The Network has contributed to an increased understanding of issue of human trafficking inmany National Societies across Europe, not least through the sharing of experiences of already engaged National Societies. It has also generated awareness of the situations in other countries. Ithas often, but not always, helped to shed light on the potential role of National Societies.

While some European National Societies were already active in the field of human trafficking before the launch of the Network, the work of the Facilitator has resulted in an increased numberof National Societies initiating projects/activities responding to trafficking in human beings.

Concerned National Societies and external stakeholders alike recognize the central role of theFacilitator in generating interest and facilitating the design and start of new projects/activities,including assistance in applying for international funding. In some cases it has even been decisive.

The availability of international funding has helped to create interest, but at the same time many of those involved in anti-trafficking work consider it extremely important. Nevertheless, the fearhas been raised that the main motivation behind the start of new projects has been the availability of international/PNS funding, rather than a prior identification of needs.

Currently, National Societies are mainly engaged in prevention activities, such as peer-education.

Still, there are examples of National Societies also working on identification of victims andprovision of assistance and protection. Depending on local needs and capacities, there may thusbe ample room for further development of activities (and to learn from other National Societies),addressing additional issues covered by the “4 P” themes: Prevention, Provision ( of assistance),Protection and Public support. Several external actors also call for more comprehensive NationalSociety engagement in the different stages of the human trafficking chain – from prevention andidentification/referral to re-integration support – citing gaps in the current national systems as

well as Red Cross and Red Crescent strengths, as mentioned above.

National Society ownership of projects is still at varying levels. Some are taking new initiativesbuilding on already successful projects; others are in the early stages of implementing initial

projects. Only a few appear to, so far, have incorporated anti-trafficking activities in NationalSociety plans and strategy documents

At this stage, based on the information received, it appears that few Western European NationalSociety have initiated specific projects in response to human trafficking. Reasons cited includethat needs are already covered by other actors or that other situations of vulnerability areprioritized, including migration related. Nevertheless, several National Societies in WesternEurope consider it essential to stay informed as they come into contact with the issue of humantrafficking and meets victims through other activities, such as work with refugees and asylumseekers. It is also seen as important to take part in information-sharing on the national level, evenif not operationally engaged.

In this context it should be noted that some external stakeholders consider the overall responseto trafficking in human beings to be very weak in several Western European countries, primarily



6

in the Mediterranean region, and therefore call for more Red Cross and Red Crescentinvolvement.

Many point to the importance of national networking and coordination. This also seems to behappening. National Society activities are focused were there are gaps in the local responsesystems. Where engaged, National Societies are and should remain strong partners on the national

level, working in coordination with other local and international stakeholders and avoiding overlap/duplication of activities. In addition, there are opportunities to learn from others.

Several comments point out that trafficking in human beings should not be viewed in isolationfrom other issues related to (irregular) migration and that, therefore, close coordination withPERCO is essential. Moreover, the development of anti-trafficking activities can benefit fromexperience gained through other migration related projects.

It has also been noted that the needs of irregular migrants in general may be greater due to lessattention by other actors and that National Societies should put more focus on theirhumanitarian needs. Another case in point is the situation of increasing numbers of vulnerable

rejected asylum seekers. In any event, it is essential that all migration issues, including humantrafficking, are examined holistically and that policies are developed accordingly.

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that internal trafficking is a growing problem insome countries, which may require specific interventions.

Despite considerable progress, as evidenced above, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movementis only in the beginning of engaging National Societies and developing activities in response tohuman trafficking. There are hopes for closer and more practical cooperation in the years tocome.

Need for a stronger Network

The positive impact of the Network on National Society engagement in response to trafficking inhuman beings and the central role of the Facilitator in this achievement is undeniable. At thesame time, with so much depending on one person driving the process, the Network itself becomes vulnerable.

Many call for a stronger Network with more active participation by National Societies.

It appears that, so far, it has to a considerable extent taken the shape of a vertical PNS-ONS network, primarily supporting the initiation of projects in Central and Eastern Europe. This may

have led to a lack of ownership among the wider Network constituency. In comparison, PERCOis a horizontal network, owned collectively by its members.

To increase ownership, the Network ’s horizontal links (NS-NS) need to be strengthened throughmore direct interaction between National Societies (sub-regionally and Europe-wide). This couldinclude promoting National Society “peer-to-peer” support, appointing “experts” on differentissues within the Network and organising workshops where practical experience is shared andjoint projects are developed.

There are also requests for operational cooperation between National Societies, i.e. involving information-sharing/cooperation in individual cases between National Societies in countries of

destination and origin. This could help to ensure proper assistance and protection.

In this context, it has been noted that lack of cooperation between countries of destination and



7

origin is a general problem in Europe. Here, the Network could take the lead through getting more Western European National Societies aboard and initiating operational partnershipsbetween, e.g., National Societies in South Western and Eastern Europe. The “InformationNetwork” model could serve as inspiration (developed by the Swedish Red Cross and the RedCross Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina to facilitate the return of rejected asylum seekers).

Closer cooperation between National Societies in countries of destination and origin could alsolead to a better understanding of issues related to trafficking in human beings and irregularmigration.

It has furthermore been suggested that the cooperation between National Societies could beextended in scope to cover irregular migrants whose well-being is threatened by lack of access to,e.g., health care, temporary accommodation or means to return to their home country.

Another issue raised is membership. While there seems to be broad agreement that the Network should stay informal and flexible, there are concerns that the present flexibility in terms of National Society commitment is too great. As the Network is growing, conditions for

membership should be clarified. It should be considered if some level of commitment could berequired, actively expressed through a formal communication. A “stronger” membership couldalso help to increase ownership, especially by National Society leaderships

The Network and the Movement

There are calls for greater engagement of the Federation Secretariat and ICRC in policy mattersand for the 2007 European Conference, the Council of Delegates and the InternationalConference to adopt policies/strategies on the Movement’s anti-trafficking work.

Moreover, the Federation Secretariat has an important role in bringing together the experiences

and thinking of all networks and National Societies working with migration issues.

While human trafficking and irregular migration raises some specific questions/issues in relationto tracing, the modalities of tracing essentially remain the same. National Society tracing servicesneed to be closely involved in the development of guidelines/recommended practices,coordinated by ICRC.

As the main European network dealing with migration, PERCO closely follows developments inthe field of human trafficking through members of the Network, and in this way informationfrom the Network is also channelled through PERCO. There is broad agreement on theimportance of coordinating the Network ’s work with PERCO, in order to link human trafficking

to other migration issues and to avoid duplication. However, in addition to the difference in“network models”, the geographical limitation of PERCO and the lack of financial support so farshown by its members impede its potential of integrating the Network.

The role of the Network Facilitator – raising awareness among National Societies and generating interest and facilitating the design and start of new activities – could be used as a model whenRed Cross and Red Crescent engagement is needed in other “new” areas (e.g. return of rejectedasylum seekers and irregular migrants).

Continued European level support?

There is Network-wide agreement that the current Facilitator model has worked very well andthat it is still needed in order to sustain and further build on the achievements of the Network.



8

The Network is not yet sustainable “on its own”; it needs continued Facilitator support to gainstrength. The fear has been expressed, that to withdraw the Facilitator’s support at the presentstage would lead to the collapse of the Network and impede continued international funding of National Society projects. Several people have asked the question: Provided necessary funding can be ensured, why change a model that works well?

The role of National Societies in response to human trafficking needs to be further defined andaccepted within the Movement. It is perceived as unclear by some external stakeholders andopinions on its scope vary between National Societies. Although the level and scope of NationalSociety engagement invariably will differ from country to country, in line with differing localneeds and capacities, there appears to be a need to increase the awareness/understanding of whatroles National Societies should (or should not) take on. In this context it should also berecognised that choices made by one National Society can create expectations among governments and other external stakeholders on National Societies in other countries.

As shown above, there is ample opportunity for the further development of activities and toexpand the number of actively engaged National Societies.

Could the funding base of the Network be broadened? To get more National Societiesoperationally involved would be one way. It is also argued that it should be a commonresponsibility of all members to fund the Network, putting them on a more “equal footing” andincreasing their ownership of the Network.

Conclusions

This section examines findings in relation to general evaluation criteria used by the Danish RedCross: capacity-building, vulnerability, sustainability, effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness)and advocacy.

The Network has contributed to capacity-building of National Societies engaged in anti-trafficking work. This has been achieved through sharing of information and experience and learning fromother National Societies. The Facilitator has provided support in designing projects and applying for international funding. Many volunteers and local branch staff have been made aware and/ortrained, and training materials have been developed by several National Societies.

It should also be noted that National Societies already have considerable (potential) capacity toengage in response to human trafficking through their established work with youth, localcommunities, asylum seekers, refugees, IDP:s, irregular migrants, etc. Thus anti-trafficking activities could benefit from work in these other “areas” and should not be treated as stand-alone

projects.

Still, more capacity-building is needed in order to increase the scope of activities and to initiateprojects/activities in National Societies which are not yet actively engaged, but wishes to be so.

Another issue that should be looked at is capacity for local fund-raising (see below).

As this evaluation examines the Network as such and not the impact of National Society projectsand activities, it cannot offer any independent judgement on whether vulnerability has beenreduced among victims and potential victims of trafficking in Europe as a consequence of theengagement of National Societies. It should be noted, however, that external stakeholders praisethe results of some projects; the impact of other projects are yet to be assessed.

As already noted, the Network is not yet sustainable without the continued support of theFacilitator. The level of commitment varies among National Societies and the collective



9

ownership of the Network appears to be weak. Its horizontal links (National Society-NationalSociety) need to be strengthened.

The continued development of the Network as well as of National Society activities would alsobenefit from the adoption of Movement policies/strategies on anti-trafficking work.

Anti-trafficking activities appear to be already well established in some National Societies. Themain worry expressed in relation to the sustainability of projects is the insecure long-term funding situation. National Societies engaged are still largely dependent on international donors. So farfew attempts have been made to secure national funding. However, while international funding seems to have been necessary in order to start new activities, there is an understanding among National Societies that longer-term funding should be sought from their respectivegovernments/national authorities.

Efforts to diversify funding should run parallel to the implementation of projects. The results of ongoing and finalized projects should be communicated with a view to attract funding for new and extended projects/activities. There should be joint efforts in each country by National

Societies and other national stakeholders to advocate for government funding of anti-trafficking activities.

In addition, investment in local branch level capacity-building is important for sustainability.

The Network has proved effective in that it has, in a short time, contributed to an increasedunderstanding of the issue of human trafficking in many National Societies across Europe and,ultimately, resulted in the initiation and implementation of new projects and activities. As regardsproject effectiveness, it is important to continue to ensure that National Societies do notduplicate efforts already made by other actors and/or detract government responsibility by theirengagement.

The issue of cost-effectiveness should be further looked at; it has not been examined within theframework of the present evaluation exercise.

Advocacy efforts have facilitated the engagement of National Societies. The Facilitator’s work,including participating in various international forums addressing human trafficking and directcontacts with international organisations, has helped to position the Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement on the European/international level, as well as in individual countries vis-à-visgovernments, international organisations and NGO:s, and to gain support from externalstakeholders for National Society engagement. This has facilitated National Society contacts/cooperation with other national stakeholders and strengthened already established

national partnerships.

Overall, National Society advocacy in this field appears so far to be less developed (althoughmuch is being done on other migration issues), even though efforts are made in some countries.More advocacy by National Societies will be needed in order to ensure greater governmentownership, including advocating for government funding of anti-trafficking activities.

Recommendations

This section sets out recommendations for the future of the Network.

2006-2007 – a transition phase

The current model with a Facilitator hosted by the Danish Red Cross should be maintained for



10

another one and a half to two years. Within this period the Network should be strengthened andpolicies/strategies adopted by the Movement. This should lead to increased ownership by National Societies as well as paving the way for greater ownership and engagement by theFederation Secretariat.

The experience of the Network should be presented to the Federation Governing Board in order

to influence policies on migration adopted by the 2007 European Conference, the Council of Delegates and the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

This will require concerted efforts by National Societies at leadership level – including the DanishRed Cross and, in particular, members of the Network who are also members of the FederationGoverning Board (see www.ifrc.org/who/governance/board.asp ) – in coordination withPERCO and supported by the Facilitator.

Through this process the role of National Societies in response to human trafficking should befurther defined, recognising that one model does not fit all countries/situations.

Taking into account the findings and conclusions of the present evaluation, National Society activities should be further developed and the number of actively engaged National Societiesexpanded.

Efforts should be made to strengthen the Network, as outlined above, including throughencouraging direct contact and information and experience sharing between National Societiesand operational cooperation between with National Societies in countries of destination andorigin.

Moreover, it should be considered if it would be useful to form a reference group of NationalSocieties to support the work of the Facilitator. The members of this group could also serve as

sub-regional focal-points and/or Network “experts” on different issues.

Funding of the Network and National Society projects should be diversified by seeking broaderfunding support within the Network and advocating for government funding of anti-trafficking activities as well as funding through EU programmes. Any support to National Societies by Federation country/sub-regional delegations should be closely coordinated with the Facilitator.

The Network ’s links to PERCO should be strengthened. Initiatives of the Network should becoordinated with the Co-chairs of PERCO.

The focus of the Network should remain on Europe during the transition phase.

Beyond 2007 – the way forward

The role of the Network Facilitator should be down-scaled and, based on adopted Movementpolicies, the Federation Secretariat should assume full responsibility for policy development,advocacy, coordination and liaison with external stakeholders on the European/internationallevel.

The function of the Facilitator could be rotated between National Societies, with sub-regionalfocal-points assuming the role for a limited period, say one to two years.

The main role of the Facilitator would include liaising with the Federation Secretariat andPERCO, facilitating contacts between Network members, supporting the organisation of workshops and maintaining the Network ’s website as an efficient tool for exchange of

http://www.ifrc.org/who/governance/board.asp






11

information, experiences, good practise and training and dissemination material.

As the Network is informal, resources currently devoted to the holding of annual meetings couldinstead be used for sub-regional and Europe-wide workshops where National Societies andexternal stakeholders could share practical experience and learn from each other.

Based on the Federation’s global outreach, it could be considered to extend the Network toNational Societies in other parts of the world. To initiate such as process, the FederationSecretariat, supported by the Network, could invite interested National Societies and externalstakeholders to a global anti-trafficking/migration conference. The Federation’s extranet“FedNet” could also be used as a tool to share experiences more widely.

Done at Kiev, Belgrade, Copenhagen and Stockholm, 6-21 June 2006

Rickard Olseke



12

Annex

Interviews with...

Marija Andjelkovic, Coordinator, ASTRA, Serbia Ann-Sofie Bech, Legal Adviser, Asylum Department, Danish Red Cross

Mitar Djuraskovic, Assistant to the National Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, SerbiaZsolt Dudas, Facilitator/Adviser, International Dept., Danish Red CrossMettine Due, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red CrossKnut Felberg, Head of Delegation, IFRC Delegation for Serbia and Montenegro

Aleksandra Galonja, Project Coordinator, IOM Mission in Serbia and MontenegroNatalia Guzun, Senior Assistant, Counter Trafficking Program, IOM Mission in UkraineBetina Hansen, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red CrossMalene Hedlund, Head of Section for the Neighbourhood Programme, Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of Denmark Jyothi Kanics, Programme Manager, Separated Children in Europe Programme, Save theChildren Denmark

Alla N. Khabarova, Executive Director, Ukrainian Red Cross Society Dragan Knezevic, IHL and Migration Senior Adviser, Serbia and Montenegro Red Cross Society Lene Krogh, Head of Policy and Strategy Unit, International Dept., Danish Red Cross

Anders Ladekarl, Head of International Dept., Danish Red CrossFredric Larsson, Counter Trafficking Coordinator, IOM Mission in UkraineNikolay Nagorny, Programme Coordinator, IFRC Kiev Representative OfficeSolveig Nielsen, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red Cross

Andjela Papic, Program Manager, Red Cross of Vojvodina, Serbia and Montenegro Red CrossSociety Ruza Petrovic, Anti-trafficking Program Coordinator, Serbia and Montenegro Red Cross Society

Valeriy Sergonovsky, Head of International Dept., Ukrainian Red Cross Society

Jovana Skrnjug, Counter Trafficking Focal Point, IOM Mission in Serbia and MontenegroSinjka Somer, Secretary General, Red Cross of Vojvodina, Serbia and Montenegro Red CrossSociety Kristin Tandberg, Relief Coordinator, International Dept., Norwegian Red CrossMadis Vainomaa, Anti-trafficking Program Officer, OSCE Mission to Serbia and Montenegro

Tamara Vukasovic, Coordinator, ASTRA, Serbia

Telephone interviews with...

Richard Danziger, Head of Counter Trafficking Service, IOM Geneva Anelise Gomes de Araujo, Adviser, Anti-Trafficking Assistance Unit, OSCE Secretariat

Helené Lackenbauer, Population Movement Officer, IFRC SecretariatChristopher Lamb, Special Adviser International Relations, IFRC SecretariatHelén Nilsson, Counter Trafficking Service, IOM GenevaMichaela Told, Europe Department/Acting Head, Principles and Values Dept., IFRC SecretariatRenée Zellweger, Deputy Head, Central Tracing Agency and Protection Division, ICRC

Questionnaire replies received from...

Albanian Red Cross, Belarus Red Cross, Belgian Red Cross/Flanders, British Red Cross,Bulgarian Red Cross, Croatian Red Cross, Danish Red Cross, Finnish Red Cross, Egyptian RedCrescent, Luxembourg Red Cross, Macedonian Red Cross, Netherlands Red Cross, Romanian

Red Cross, Russian Red Cross, Serbia and Montenegro Red Cross Society, Swedish Red Cross,Ukrainian Red Cross Society and the Federation’s Regional Delegation in Bangkok.

Documents

European Red Cross and Red Crescent Cooperation in Response to Trafficking in Human Beings