You are on page 1of 12

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

Evaluation Report

June 2006

Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Background ................................................................................................................................. 4 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 8 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9 Annex .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Executive Summary
The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on questionnaire replies from National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and interviews with selected Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and external stakeholders. While it does not claim to offer any ready-made solutions, it is hoped that the reports 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 from other 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 projects and 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 other projects 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 seems to 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-term funding 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 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. The Network has proved effective in that it has, in a short time, contributed to an increased understanding 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 regards project effectiveness, it is important to continue to ensure that National Societies do not duplicate efforts already made by other actors and/or detract government responsibility by their engagement. Advocacy efforts have facilitated the engagement of National Societies. The Facilitators work has helped to position the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the European/international level, as well as in individual countries vis--vis governments, international organisations and NGO:s. Overall, National Society advocacy in this field appears so far to be less developed. More advocacy by National Societies will be needed in order to ensure greater government ownership, including advocating for government funding of anti-trafficking activities. The reports recommendations for the future of the Network include the adoption of a two-stage approach: 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 and policies/strategies on anti-trafficking work adopted by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This should lead to increased ownership by National Societies as well as paving the 3

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 the European/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 and interviews 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 and Montenegro Red Cross Society. While the present report does not claim to offer any ready-made solutions, it is hoped that its recommendations will provide some guidance and stimulate further discussion about the future of the Network.

Findings
This section provides an overview of some key findings. Findings related to the Danish Red Cross 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 in human beings. These include its: humanitarian mandate; international/European network; advocacy work; country-wide network of local branches and volunteers in each country; potential for long-term commitment and partnership through well-established national structures; focus on building its own local capacity by raising awareness of local branches and anchoring projects at grass-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 also be 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 field of migration. Weaknesses expressly mentioned by external stakeholders are fewer. Nevertheless, some complain about a lack of transparency in relation to activities and that the role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in response to human trafficking is unclear and makes it difficult to judge in what way National Societies can contribute to the overall anti-trafficking work. A complex, bureaucratic structure and considerable variations in knowledge and capacity from country to country are other concerns. Concurrently, National Societies themselves have differing views on what the Red Cross and Red Crescent role is or should be in response to trafficking in human beings. 4

The Networks impact on National Society engagement achievements and opportunities for further development Trafficking in human beings has been placed on the agenda of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The Network has contributed to the sharing of information, experiences, good practice 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 in many 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. It has 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 number of National Societies initiating projects/activities responding to trafficking in human beings. Concerned National Societies and external stakeholders alike recognize the central role of the Facilitator 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 fear has 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 and provision of assistance and protection. Depending on local needs and capacities, there may thus be 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 National Society engagement in the different stages of the human trafficking chain from prevention and identification/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 initiatives building 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 National Society plans and strategy documents At this stage, based on the information received, it appears that few Western European National Society have initiated specific projects in response to human trafficking. Reasons cited include that needs are already covered by other actors or that other situations of vulnerability are prioritized, including migration related. Nevertheless, several National Societies in Western Europe consider it essential to stay informed as they come into contact with the issue of human trafficking and meets victims through other activities, such as work with refugees and asylum seekers. It is also seen as important to take part in information-sharing on the national level, even if not operationally engaged. In this context it should be noted that some external stakeholders consider the overall response to trafficking in human beings to be very weak in several Western European countries, primarily 5

in the Mediterranean region, and therefore call for more Red Cross and Red Crescent involvement. Many point to the importance of national networking and coordination. This also seems to be happening. National Society activities are focused were there are gaps in the local response systems. 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 isolation from other issues related to (irregular) migration and that, therefore, close coordination with PERCO is essential. Moreover, the development of anti-trafficking activities can benefit from experience gained through other migration related projects. It has also been noted that the needs of irregular migrants in general may be greater due to less attention by other actors and that National Societies should put more focus on their humanitarian 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 human trafficking, 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 in some countries, which may require specific interventions. Despite considerable progress, as evidenced above, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is only in the beginning of engaging National Societies and developing activities in response to human trafficking. There are hopes for closer and more practical cooperation in the years to come. Need for a stronger Network The positive impact of the Network on National Society engagement in response to trafficking in human beings and the central role of the Facilitator in this achievement is undeniable. At the same 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, PERCO is a horizontal network, owned collectively by its members. To increase ownership, the Networks horizontal links (NS-NS) need to be strengthened through more direct interaction between National Societies (sub-regionally and Europe-wide). This could include promoting National Society peer-to-peer support, appointing experts on different issues within the Network and organising workshops where practical experience is shared and joint 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 6

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 partnerships between, e.g., National Societies in South Western and Eastern Europe. The Information Network model could serve as inspiration (developed by the Swedish Red Cross and the Red Cross 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 also lead to a better understanding of issues related to trafficking in human beings and irregular migration. It has furthermore been suggested that the cooperation between National Societies could be extended 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 be required, actively expressed through a formal communication. A stronger membership could also 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 matters and for the 2007 European Conference, the Council of Delegates and the International Conference to adopt policies/strategies on the Movements 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 relation to tracing, the modalities of tracing essentially remain the same. National Society tracing services need 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 in the field of human trafficking through members of the Network, and in this way information from the Network is also channelled through PERCO. There is broad agreement on the importance of coordinating the Networks 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 far shown 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 when Red Cross and Red Crescent engagement is needed in other new areas (e.g. return of rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants). Continued European level support? There is Network-wide agreement that the current Facilitator model has worked very well and that it is still needed in order to sustain and further build on the achievements of the Network.

The Network is not yet sustainable on its own; it needs continued Facilitator support to gain strength. The fear has been expressed, that to withdraw the Facilitators support at the present stage 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 and accepted within the Movement. It is perceived as unclear by some external stakeholders and opinions on its scope vary between National Societies. Although the level and scope of National Society engagement invariably will differ from country to country, in line with differing local needs and capacities, there appears to be a need to increase the awareness/understanding of what roles National Societies should (or should not) take on. In this context it should also be recognised 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 to expand the number of actively engaged National Societies. Could the funding base of the Network be broadened? To get more National Societies operationally involved would be one way. It is also argued that it should be a common responsibility of all members to fund the Network, putting them on a more equal footing and increasing their ownership of the Network.

Conclusions
This section examines findings in relation to general evaluation criteria used by the Danish Red Cross: 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 from other 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/or trained, and training materials have been developed by several National Societies. It should also be noted that National Societies already have considerable (potential) capacity to engage in response to human trafficking through their established work with youth, local communities, 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 initiate projects/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 projects and activities, it cannot offer any independent judgement on whether vulnerability has been reduced among victims and potential victims of trafficking in Europe as a consequence of the engagement of National Societies. It should be noted, however, that external stakeholders praise the 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 the Facilitator. The level of commitment varies among National Societies and the collective 8

ownership of the Network appears to be weak. Its horizontal links (National Society-National Society) need to be strengthened. The continued development of the Network as well as of National Society activities would also benefit from the adoption of Movement policies/strategies on anti-trafficking work. Anti-trafficking activities appear to be already well established in some National Societies. The main 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 far few 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 respective governments/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 increased understanding 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 regards project effectiveness, it is important to continue to ensure that National Societies do not duplicate efforts already made by other actors and/or detract government responsibility by their engagement. The issue of cost-effectiveness should be further looked at; it has not been examined within the framework of the present evaluation exercise. Advocacy efforts have facilitated the engagement of National Societies. The Facilitators work, including participating in various international forums addressing human trafficking and direct contacts with international organisations, has helped to position the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the European/international level, as well as in individual countries vis--vis governments, international organisations and NGO:s, and to gain support from external stakeholders 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 (although much 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 government ownership, 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 9

another one and a half to two years. Within this period the Network should be strengthened and policies/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 the Federation 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 Danish Red Cross and, in particular, members of the Network who are also members of the Federation Governing Board (see www.ifrc.org/who/governance/board.asp) in coordination with PERCO and supported by the Facilitator. Through this process the role of National Societies in response to human trafficking should be further 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 Societies expanded. Efforts should be made to strengthen the Network, as outlined above, including through encouraging direct contact and information and experience sharing between National Societies and operational cooperation between with National Societies in countries of destination and origin. Moreover, it should be considered if it would be useful to form a reference group of National Societies 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 broader funding 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 Networks links to PERCO should be strengthened. Initiatives of the Network should be coordinated 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 Movement policies, the Federation Secretariat should assume full responsibility for policy development, advocacy, coordination and liaison with external stakeholders on the European/international level. The function of the Facilitator could be rotated between National Societies, with sub-regional focal-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 and PERCO, facilitating contacts between Network members, supporting the organisation of workshops and maintaining the Networks website as an efficient tool for exchange of 10

information, experiences, good practise and training and dissemination material. As the Network is informal, resources currently devoted to the holding of annual meetings could instead be used for sub-regional and Europe-wide workshops where National Societies and external stakeholders could share practical experience and learn from each other. Based on the Federations global outreach, it could be considered to extend the Network to National Societies in other parts of the world. To initiate such as process, the Federation Secretariat, supported by the Network, could invite interested National Societies and external stakeholders to a global anti-trafficking/migration conference. The Federations 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

11

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, Serbia Zsolt Dudas, Facilitator/Adviser, International Dept., Danish Red Cross Mettine Due, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red Cross Knut Felberg, Head of Delegation, IFRC Delegation for Serbia and Montenegro Aleksandra Galonja, Project Coordinator, IOM Mission in Serbia and Montenegro Natalia Guzun, Senior Assistant, Counter Trafficking Program, IOM Mission in Ukraine Betina Hansen, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red Cross Malene Hedlund, Head of Section for the Neighbourhood Programme, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark Jyothi Kanics, Programme Manager, Separated Children in Europe Programme, Save the Children 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 Cross Fredric Larsson, Counter Trafficking Coordinator, IOM Mission in Ukraine Nikolay Nagorny, Programme Coordinator, IFRC Kiev Representative Office Solveig Nielsen, Programme Coordinator, International Dept., Danish Red Cross Andjela Papic, Program Manager, Red Cross of Vojvodina, Serbia and Montenegro Red Cross Society 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 Montenegro Sinjka Somer, Secretary General, Red Cross of Vojvodina, Serbia and Montenegro Red Cross Society Kristin Tandberg, Relief Coordinator, International Dept., Norwegian Red Cross Madis 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 Helen Lackenbauer, Population Movement Officer, IFRC Secretariat Christopher Lamb, Special Adviser International Relations, IFRC Secretariat Heln Nilsson, Counter Trafficking Service, IOM Geneva Michaela Told, Europe Department/Acting Head, Principles and Values Dept., IFRC Secretariat Rene 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 Red Crescent, 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 Federations Regional Delegation in Bangkok.

12