|
|
 |
|
Partnership
Against Trafficking in Human Beings
** PATH ** Recommendations for
Contact: The first monitoring report shows that more than one third of all activities under the KPA Prevention Pillar are completed or well underway. There is great progress in the areas of research and standard setting and awareness raising & campaigns. A little more than 20 percent are pending activity (meaning no activity occurred through 30 June), specifically those that pertain to economic livelihoods of high risk groups victims of trafficking (VOT) in particular and to changes of labor legislation to protect working children. Approximately one quarter of all activities under the protection pillar are completed or well underway. There is great progress in Research and Standard setting. Pending activities comprise one third of this robust pillar, however. These are evident primarily in the objective of institution building and implementation, wherein are lacking: funds for repatriation and witness protection, as well as mechanism for third country resettlement; security for professionals working with VOT; court systems for confidential case storage and securing evidence of VOT all require action. Eighty percent of legislative activities to meet the Legislative Review objective are pending action as of 30 June. Approximately 10 percent of all activities under the protection pillar are well underway. The majority have seen some activity. There is relatively more progress in training and institution building & implementation objective. Pending activities comprise one quarter of this pillar evident both in the legislative review objective and in the coordination objective. Recommendations from Kosovo Roundtables were many. Approximately 100 distinct comments and recommendations emerged from these events, they merge into approximately 20 categories of recommendation. Most recommendations related to the prevention and protection pillars, as well as plenty of recommendation related to general coordination and the planning and budgeting of the next plan of action. There were fewest recommendations in the area of the prosecution pillar, although many roundtable participants highlighted light sentencing in addition to the reintegration of victims (protection) and funding of NGO shelters (protection) among key gaps in the implementation of the current KPA. The report concludes with recommendations assembled by technical staff and consultants working on PATH, based inside and outside of Kosovo. Comments relate to sustainability; e.g., that in the plan itself as well as in its monitoring donor funding cannot be used as a precondition for planning; i.e., the responsibility lies ultimately with the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) to implement the plan. Based on monitoring data, there are comments about general themes of activity, such as mixing different target groups in awareness raising campaigns. Finally the report presents recommendations that emerged from comparison of the KPA with similar plans in Macedonia and Albania. Recommendations still require prioritization and further refinement; however this document presents them in their preliminary form to communicate to a range of stakeholders in the development of the new Kosovo Plan of Action, slated to begin in 2008. Immediately after the publication of the abovementioned report, CRS, Kosovo Law Centre (KLC) and the Advocacy Training and Resource Center organized six regional roundtables throughout Kosovo with NGOs, municipal government officials, law enforcement, Victims Advocates, and other stakeholders. Roundtables occurred from 4 through 12 September 2007 in the major city of each region (1) Peje/Pec, (2) Prizren, (3) Gjilan/Gnjilane, (4) Mitrovice/a, (5) Pristina, and (6) Ferizaj/Urosevac. The primary aim of the roundtable was learning about and commenting on the KPA monitoring; a secondary aim was making contact with NGO interested in longer term participation in a PATH Alliance. The roundtables generated recommendations from participants to submit to the Kosovo Anti-Trafficking Coordinator and Secretariat towards the effort in the development of the 2008-2010 Kosovo Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings. Another result of the roundtables was that more than close to 80 NGO representatives from 48 NGO expressed their interest to play an active part in the PATH Alliance, a nascent advocacy and networking group that will bring together service providers and NGOs implementing awareness raising and other prevention activities. All together, 120 community leaders (civil society and local officials) participated around Kosovo. Seventy percent of the participants responded positively to the following questions in the roundtable evaluation: Is the information you received at this workshop going to change your attitude or behavior toward human trafficking phenomenon? The document herewith summarizes the first monitoring report findings, documents the compiled recommendations from all roundtables, and includes recommendations from CRS technical staff and consultants formulated about the Kosovo Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings. Tabulation and Preliminary Analysis of Monitoring
Report A total of 67 activities exist in the plan. PATH gauged each activity against the following scale: 1. Activity Completed – Actions to accomplish
the indicator(s) are finalized by 30 June 2007. Prevention Pillar Summary: More than 1/3 of all activities under the prevention pillar are completed or well underway. There is great progress in the areas of research and standard setting and awareness raising & campaigns. A little more than 20 percent are pending activity, specifically those that pertain to economic livelihoods of high risk and VOT and to changes of labor legislation to protect working children. Rating • 100% of Actions to accomplish the Research
& Standard Setting objective are finalized by 30 June Protection Pillar Summary: Approximately ¼ of all activities under the protection pillar are completed or well underway. There is great progress in Research and Standard setting. Pending activities comprise 1/3 of this robust pillar, however. These are evident primarily in the objective of institution building & implementation, wherein funds for repatriation and witness protection, as well as mechanism for third country resettlement; security for professionals working with VOT; court systems for confidential case storage and securing evidence of VOT all require action. 80% of legislative activities to meet the Legislative Review objective are pending action as of 30 June. Rating • Over 80 percent of actions to accomplish
the Research & Standard Setting objective are completed or well
underway by 30 June Prosecution Pillar Summary: Approximately 10% of all activities under the protection pillar are well underway. The majority have seen some activity. There is relatively more progress in training and institution building & implementation objective. Pending activities comprise 1/4 of this pillar evident both in the legislative review objective coordination objective. Rating • Limited actions to accomplish the prosecution
monitoring objective by 30 June 2007. Recommendations from Kosovo Roundtables This section compiles the recommendations coming directly from NGO representatives and government officials who participated in the six roundtables. Recommendations were generated through moderated discussion. In order to compile them for ease of reference against the current plan, they are herein tabulated by pillar and objective (each pillar is supported by a number of objectives). A number of recommendations, and some comments, were general in character but are listed under the most appropriate pillar. Finally, there were a good number of comments and recommendations pertaining to general coordination as well as for the planning and budgeting process for the next Plan of Action. The recommendations are presented below by pillar, then by general coordination, and budgeting and planning. Pillar I: Prevention Under the Prevention: Awareness Raising & Campaigns objective there were numerous calls that the action plan should target rural areas more, not just the large towns (underlined as a need in Ferizaj, Gjilan, Peja roundtables). Speaking in Pristina, representative of the Islamic Community feels that the faith-based communities were somewhat left behind in the current Plan of Action. He stressed the rural out-reach and values-based dimension that provide faith communities with better access to some communities, left behind by mainstream outreach efforts. Under the Prevention: Institution Building & Implementation objective, participants voiced various gaps and needs with a concentration on the school as social institution. In Ferizaj, communications investments needed in schools for better monitoring of truancy and related school absence and following up with parents of students not attending school. All school teacher proctors to have phone numbers of students in order to have better control if they are missing from the classes. There were calls for changes in the curriculum, such as the comment that training in school is too diffuse and the idea to use physical education (sports) classes as a forum to discuss human trafficking presented in Peja. Likewise in Prizren participants called for better security at schools, for keeping strangers out of schools. In the same town, participants called for more work on developing the relations between the school authorities and the parents, so that they can develop a supportive school community together. In a similar vein Ferizaj participants called for work to establish better parenting skills (parent/child contact) such as to discuss with children social changes and risks of trafficking. Youth centers were also seen as bodies to build up upon when it comes to prevention of trafficking. Recommendation emerged in Gjilane to have professional counselors in youth centers, as well as information on the risks of human trafficking disseminated through youth centers. Within the Prevention: Training objective there were specific calls for training to youth center staff so that they can better outreach to youth using the centers. Participants felt that more workshops and roundtables targeting youth, presenting an array of expertise but with age-appropriate materials, would help prevent trafficking. There was applause for the KOPF youth peer educator approach and calls for more of the same to reach youth. Other ideas shared included incidence of begging, and the need for a begging eradication program, noting the link between child begging and human trafficking (Ferizaj). The Objective Prevention: Legislative Review saw calls in Ferizaj for an administrative instruction to bring children back to school and a law to prevent alcohol-serving bars working close to schools. Similarly, in Prizren, underage drinking and especially going to bars was voiced as a concern and actually became a major tangential discussion. Evidence for the causal link between underage drinking and trafficking is unclear, however the recommendation was calling for better enforcement of extant laws on drinking age since developing drinking habits at a young age makes minors more vulnerable to being recruited. Towards better prevention, in Gjilane there was a call for more economic support to families in need. The specific recommendation was that the Law on Social Services should be amended so that families can qualify for assistance even if they do not have “under 5s”. Although much has been done under the objective of Prevention: Training, participants presented many ideas for training for key groups; some of these fall better within the category of awareness-raising, however they are grouped for the purposes of this report. • Within schools – there was a desire
to see every teacher receive training. (Ferizaj) Many of the calls for prevention training concentrated on the media. In Gjilane, there were complaints about media’s approach, given their essential role informing public opinion. There were calls for more media space for this problem in Mitrovica. According to participants in Peja, regarding media, there is the opinion that human trafficking is not reported on with goodwill. On the other hand, stressed participants, the NGO sector must craft issues to garner the interest of media and to bring them to public events. (Meaning that NGOs should learn to “produce news” and develop attractive press-releases delivering strong and clear messages). One participant in Pristina voiced frustration with media performance [in the morning press conference]; the press conference and monitoring report gave good opportunity for analysis of what was missed and why in the KPA, but media only asked one question. Media seems more interested in salacious stories attacking government baselessly, not a measured, objective view. Finally in Prizren, there was criticism of journalist’s approach and the tendency towards “spectacular reporting.” The recommendation stemming from the comment hinges around code of ethics for journalists. In terms of Prevention Research & Standard Setting, agencies working against trafficking require more information about relationship of trafficker to victim. Participants feel that this information is needed to improve prevention efforts, and that more facts are required in order for stakeholders to develop appropriate responses. One participant commented that Trafficking in Human Beings Section of the Kosovo Police has the information but does not share it broadly enough. Members of PATH Alliance also pointed out that
more work on regional exchange around prevention (within South-Eastern
Europe) would share good practice and may increase the effectiveness
of prevention efforts. Related to the Protection pillar objective Institution Building & Implementation and the entire coordination structure more broadly, there were calls to create a collective database for all activities of fighting trafficking, available for governmental organizations, NGO and all other institutions that deal with this phenomenon. One participant noted and many agreed this would make better cooperation among institutions fighting trafficking. Lack of funding for public and private agencies on the front line of protection was a recurring theme affecting implementation. Regarding the objective Protection: Institution Building & Implementation, CSWs called for specific fund/line item to support victims of trafficking and their families in Ferizaj. In Gjilane, CSW spoke about limitations (financial) that mean that although they are to provide victims with psychosocial support they have no psychologist on staff. In Peja, one participant pointed out the common call: Shelters require a stable budget. The next plan of action should look more closely at Kosovo Consolidated Budget support for shelters in order to have sustainable shelters providing consistent, high quality care to VOT. In Prizren, one participant pointed out that VAAU is out of budget for translators so their ability to assist foreign victims is undermined. Recommendation for this might link to a larger recommendation about the level of financing to provide care to foreign victims, channeled via VAAU but also shelters. In many of the sites, we heard the commonly acknowledged fact that reintegration is one of the biggest challenges for all actors working on protection. Reintegration remains a large concern. Instances or risk of re-trafficking are pressing. More attention is needed in the new plan of action on reintegration. There were calls in Ferizaj that in terms of reintegration assistance, VOT should have preferential option for employment. Fair employment is a necessity to decrease re-trafficking. In a similar thread, a Gjilane participants called for special care of past-school age reintegration cases; they need vocational training, something to help them find a job or launch a small enterprise. These recommendations dovetail with prevention efforts that engage business and potential employers. For those instances when victims cannot return home, there was the suggestion in Peja that CSW have drafted in advance a plan about recourse when a victim cannot return home. Within good practice, a participant in Gjilane spoke about an MOU with hospitals to cover cases (from a shelter) pro bono. This partnership between state and NGO shelters was helps manage costs while assuring victims care. Within the same objective, witness protection was underlined as an ongoing need, “girls are afraid to testify because of security of her family.” A special category of recommendations related to Protection: Institution Building & Implementation arose from NGO shelters specialized in the area. According to Kosovo laws and good practice, mixing VOT and domestic violence survivors is not an accepted practice. “If we know it is a VOT, we cannot shelter her.” Shelters working with domestic violence cases have limitations accommodating VOT. There was heard the call for a shelter serving only for Kosovar VOT (NB one exists for international VOT, nothing solely for Kosovar VOT) in order not to be forced to mix human trafficking victims and domestic violence victims in the same shelter as currently is the practice. The Protection Objective Legislative Review and legal enforcement drew certain comments. In Ferizaj, a participant called for a complete prohibition on all child labor. Further to the existing plan, participants would like to see confiscated assets funding protection work (Ferizaj). Again in Ferizaj, there was a call for the development of ab administrative order that would financially support CSW for reintegration of cases, especially children. Training was covered fairly well within the current
plan of action. This may be why in the area of Protection: Training
only one recommendation emerged, in Ferizaj: To provide more training
on trafficking for school principals and parents in order to avoid
stigma for VoT and ease reintegration. Roundtable participants in both Ferizaj and Peja called respectively for a national security strategy and strengthened border points. There was some discussion at several roundtables (police participated in all but Mitrovica roundtable) about increasing citizen trust of police and more communication from police to citizens (Ferizaj, Pristina). Participants in Pristina spoke to the need for socially responsible citizen--police cooperation and the need to overcome the sentiment that citizens who report suspicious activities to the police are perceived as “spies”. In Ferizaj calls were made for KPS to provide more reporting about what is done at the local level – actions taken, arrests made, etc. The police reciprocated this call to action: “Now it is a democracy, and [police] need facts [to prosecute]” -- calling citizens to speak up about suspicious activity that they see. There was much comment on the well-known fact that sentencing of traffickers is very light in Kosovo and unanimous statements that this crime requires tougher punishment (Gjilane, Pristina, Prizren). Sadly, one participant commented that ,“It is a national shame how the courts of Kosovo function.” With respect to the specific objective Prosecution: Coordination Structure, there were repeated calls for more cooperation between courts and public prosecutors in the fight against trafficking. Some participants were quite outspoken that prosecutors (invited to all roundtables) did not attend any of them. One participant in Pristina commented, that “At all of such [counter trafficking sector] events, in spite their having been invited, absence of prosecutors and representatives of the courts is noteworthy. Is this due to their lack of activities? They should be participating in these dialogues, and reporting their actions.” General Coordination • Institutions of government should call
fora and invite NGO community, not just vice versa. Frustration
expressed that it is always the NGO community reaching out the hand
to institutions. (Ferizaj) Planning and Budgeting In Mitrovica, participants called for increased grants for NGOs dealing with [the trafficking] problem. One participant in Pristina commented that, “Regulations are adopted but not implemented due to lack of funds; shelters as well as each responsible ministry require line item specifically for human trafficking.” Specifically the Plan of Action should ensure adequate activities to government to NGO grant-making mechanisms within this sector. Base plan upon available budgets will provide better ground for sustainability. Participants in Pristina pointed to the shortcoming in policy implementation in that Administrative Instruction 2005/3 calls for a coordinator of funding (appointed by SRSG), especially to use assets recovered from convicted traffickers. The government failed in the respect of coordination of funding for anti-trafficking activities. Furthermore, with transfer of competencies it should be determined who shall in future appoint such coordinator. Regarding budgeting as well as future monitoring or the implementation of the plan, participants pointed out that there is a, “lack of budget tracking. The plan provides necessary allocations (that come from KCB and donors).” There is a recommendation for expenditure tracking in the monitoring of the implementation of the plan.” There was a direct call for public discussions related to the new plan of action, such as the recommendation for the drafted Plan of Action to be discussed in all cities – via schools, media and focus groups (Ferizaj). In Pristina, one participant forwarded the suggestion for greater decentralization in the forthcoming KPA as “the current plan didn’t touch enough the regional and municipal levels of responsibility” with the recommendation for sub-plans at these lower administrative levels. NGO also need to plan fundraising to align themselves around the plan, as one participated in Peja noted. When reviewing the activities that are pending or have not seen any action, participants in Peja underlined the need throughout the action plan formulation to not include activities pro forma, but to plan activities that would be implemented (feasibility testing). In a similar vein, a participant in Pristina pointed towards the need for, “the action plan to have concrete activity and/or underlying activity plan in support of the larger actions” – that is, greater specificity on details. This may be an important role for Thematic Working Groups covering the three pillars.
A general comment on the monitoring data of the plan by one advisor was that the support of donors can not be identified as a pre-condition for a national plan of action to be achieved. The plan is designed under the authority of the state and is a part of its overall strategic plan for development. Donors can only complement the efforts of the government and add international experience, consultancy and additional funds, but by no way can be held responsible for any deficit of funds or delay in the implementation of the planned activities. Any failure of the state to follow its own plan of action is a sign of weak planning and/or inadequate budgeting. Regarding key monitoring data submitted related to awareness-raising, one advisor stressed that one should not target victims of trafficking and traffickers with one and the same campaign as some agencies reported had occurred. Usually a campaign reaches out to potential victims via raising their awareness about the risks of trafficking, the possible patterns of recruitment and traps to watch out for in possible “promises for better life abroad” whereas traffickers are targeted in two major ways: 1) by raising their awareness about the repressive measures enforced by the relevant government in its efforts to combat this modern day slavery and 2) by emotionally provocative real-life stories about the devastating effect of their evil business over socially disadvantaged youth and their families In commentary on the plan, one advisor noted that while reintegration (in this case when a child victim is placed back within her or his family, presuming that this is a safe environment) – is covered by the plan, there appears a gap in terms of “integration” of minors, for whom it’s not safe to be returned to their family. Such integration requires careful planning and oversight, and the necessary acknowledgement that for some children whose home is not a safe environment there may be no reintegration process. Recommendations based on Comparison with Other
Plans • A distinct and separate ‘coordination’ pillar Both the Strategy to Fight Against Trafficking in Human Beings and Illegal Migration in the Republic of Macedonia, March 2006 (MSF 2006) and Albanian National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings: Strategic Framework and National Action Plan 2005-2007 (ANS 2005-7) have a distinct and separate ‘Coordination’ pillar which outlines the main structures or coordination among counter-trafficking agencies. In contrast, KPA has coordination as sub-goals under each pillar. By setting out the role of the coordinating structures as a part of the overall action plan, it clarifies the role of key organizations at the highest level and can strengthen governmental accountability in relation to counter-trafficking activities. That would be a major step towards a clear and functioning referral mechanism that’s an integral part of the national Referral System (Institutional Framework + Legal framework + clear lines of subordination, roles and responsibilities) of any state. For example, the next KPA could set out the activities required of the Inter-Institutional Working Group (IIWG) and clarify the chain of reporting to and by the IIWG. Similarly, the anticipated Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Children will have a more prominent role if it is set out as a centralized coordinating body under a coordination pillar. The KPA could also include a clarification of the role of the Advisory Office of Good Governance and set out clear reporting requirements of other agencies to it; for example: bi-annual reports from leading agencies. In addition, similar to ANS 2005-7 and MSF 2006, the coordination pillar of the KPA could include agencies tasked to establish the legal framework within which counter-trafficking operates in Kosovo. This would ensure that while detailed work is set out under the other relevant pillars, that there is an oversight role played by coordinating structures and that such a role is highlighted in the KPA itself. • Detailed reporting requirements for each activity The ANS 2005-7 have detailed statistical reporting requirements set out for each strategic objective. These requirements clarify the frequency of reporting, the chain of reporting, and the type of data required. Future action plans in Kosovo should also set out such detailed reporting requirements. This will help agencies to understand the type of data that is required and begin to collate relevant information. Detailed reporting requirements can have the effect of guiding agencies on how to report efficiently and can also direct the type of information that is gathered. Clarification on the frequency of reporting and chain of responsibility for reporting will help to ensure that reporting occurs, and to give lead agencies that are supposed to receive reports the authority to ask for them when they are due. • Detailed and disaggregated timeline for each activity / performance indicator While the KPA does include a timeline, the times designated are often vague – for example, ‘continuous’. In contrast, the Albanian document has timelines that are broken-down and chronological, and provide a clearer indication of the tasks required and the deadlines. Such clear indicators of deadlines are related to the way performance indicators and tasks (including reporting requirements) are also broken down into steps. Future KPAs should try to incorporate such levels of detail in both tasking and deadlines. While KPA is not enforceable, a clear indicator of what should be done and when will help agencies to focus their efforts and clarify expectations. This, together with a strengthened role in oversight / coordinating bodies and reporting requirements (see preceding recommendations) should help to ensure the implementation of action plans. • Requiring detailed documentation to set out relationship between agencies The ANS 2005-7 includes a plan to establish and implement a national referral mechanism, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be drafted to define the respective responsibilities and competencies of all relevant agencies. It is recommended that this concept of documenting relationships between agencies be adopted and applied to future KPAs – not just in the area of referral of VoTs, but also in other circumstances where agencies must cooperation: for example, police and prosecution cooperation should be documented, including information sharing and communication procedures. This documentation of relationship (including procedures for communication and information sharing) will enhance the cooperation between agencies; furthermore, the process of negotiating these documents will give agencies a sense of ownership for their respective responsibilities and competencies. • Centralized referral mechanism Although KPA does include a standard operating procedure (SOPs) for identifying and referring domestic and foreign VoTs, the SOPs do not specify respective responsibilities, competencies of each agency involved in the process. Again, there seem to be no oversight body that can take charge of ensuring that each VoT goes through the system from identification to reintegration / repatriation. A centralized referral mechanism can sets out in detail – among other things – the responsibilities of each agency, the procedurals of referral at each step of the process, and a standardized set of questions addressed to VoTs for the purposes of gathering information and evidence (and to reduce re-traumatization). • Centralized VoT reception centre In the context of Kosovo, although there are a few shelters which operate as accommodation for VoTs, there is no centralized reception centre to provide initial safe shelter (crisis centre or first point of reference after identification), psychological and medical care to VoTs when they are first identified and rescued. Using existing resources, a currently operational shelter (for example, the ISF) may be designated as a multidisciplinary centre for VoT reception. This will ensure a consistent approach to VoTs in the crucial initial stages and will also help to build institutional knowledge and expertise in relation to VoT reception. A centralized reception centre where information can be collected from the VoT will help to reduce re-traumatization and ensure that a rights-based approach towards the VoT is adopted from the outset.
|