ПУБЛИКАЦИИ

СИТУАЦИОНЕН АНАЛИЗ - ДЕЦА В ДВИЖЕНИЕ В БЪЛГАРИЯ И КАПАЦИТЕТА НА СИСТЕМАТА ЗА ЗАКРИЛА НА ДЕЦАТА ЗА ПРЕДОСТАВЯНЕ НА СОЦИАЛНИ УСЛУГИ ЗА ТЯХ

Ситуационният анализ е изготвен от ЕСРАТ България – Сдружение „Пренебрегнати деца“ в рамките на проект “Марио 2 – Съвместни усилия за защита на децата от злоупотреби, трафик и експлоатация в Европа”, финансиран по програма Дафне на ЕС и съ-финансиран от Фондация ОАК

 Ситуационният анализ цели да информира партньорите от проект „Марио“ и специалистите, работещи с деца в риск относно функциите на Системата за закрила на децата в България. Докладът сьщо цели да анализира капацитета на Системата за закрила на децата за идентифициране и отговор на нуждите на българските деца в движение – жертви на трафик, злоупотреби и експлоатация вътре в страната и вън от границите на България – в други страни от Европейския съюз.

Ситуационният анализ предлага следното:

– Описание на всички институции и социални услуги;

– Информация за категориите български деца в движение и потенциалните възможности на Системата за закрила на децата да предоставя и осигурява социални грижи и усуги;

– Статистически данни за българските деца в движение вътре и извън страната ни, както и за децата – жертви на трафик в чужбина;

– Профил на децата в движение, основан на резултати от изследвания сред експерти и деца;

– Информация за ситуацията с децата – бежанци и съществуващите проблеми с децата в движение – бежанци, които пристигат в България от трети страни;

– Критичен анализ на Кризисните центрове за деца – жертви на трафик и специфични препоръки за оптимизиране на техния статус и социалните грижи, предоствяни за тях;

– Основни изводи и препоръки за българските деца в движение и капацитета на Системата за закрила на децата за тяхната защита и анализ на рисковите фактори, които оказват влияние вурху тях.

Ситуационният анализ е публикуван на български и английски език.

Презентация на Селин Верхейен по време на междуинституционална среща в ДАЗД по проект „Don’t look away!“ на 6 юли 2014 г.

The Sixth meeting of the EU Civil Society Platform against Trafficking in Human Beings took place in Brussels on 21 October 2015 and gathered representatives of civil society organizations from EU Member States (MSs) and neighbouring priority non-EU countries working at national, European and international levels. On 20 October 2015 the Platform attended a conference marking the Ninth EU Anti-Trafficking Day.
Parallel Workshops
The participants split into three workshops. The conclusions of the workshop discussions were presented by the rapporteurs during the end plenary session.

Workshop I: Children as a high risk group of trafficking

Commission/Office of EU ATC opened the meeting and presented the aim of the workshop, as well as relevant updates to child trafficking:
a) the Study on children as high-risk groups for trafficking in human beings,
b) translated versions of the Guardianship Handbook in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (hereafter „FRA“),
c) the report of FRA on guardianship systems across the EU and
d) the first online discussion in the electronic platform of the EU Civil Society Platform against THB.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights informed about the new report Guardianship systems for children deprived of parental care in the European Union and about the translation of the handbook Guardianship for children deprived of parental care into all official EU languages. Both documents highlight the diversity of guardianship practises across the EU. Participants noted that the handbook has been used in some countries and expressed the wish that more countries will follow in the same direction. Generally, FRA noted that migration status prevails to child care. FRA further informed on the current project on return and transfer of children EU nationals, a deliverable under the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of THB 2012-2016. FRA is through the project looking into national practices in EU regarding decisions to return or transfer unaccompanied children who are EU nationals to the country of their nationality and how these decisions take the best interest of the child into consideration. Participants raised the questions as to whether child protection services are involved in such procedures and what is the role but also capacities. The results of the research findings can provide input for a practical guidance to enhance transnational cooperation regarding return and transfers of children who are EU nationals.
The second part of the discussion focused on unaccompanied children in the current refugee crisis and broader migration situation. Many participants stressed the heightened risk in which unaccompanied children are for trafficking in the current circumstances. At risk are not only unaccompanied children, but also accompanied. They called for mainstreaming child protection authorities in the measures taken by the EU to manage the migration crisis. Participants highlighted that reception capacities are overstretched (or inappropriate for children, i.e. children placed in accommodation together with adults, or children are institutionalised) and cannot cater for the needs of children amidst this unprecedented situation. Participants further noted that apart from final destination countries, it is key that the EU considers how to protect children in countries of transit and origin. Such responses should be devised around vulnerability and not migration status.
There are anecdotal reports of children drowning every day trying to cross the Aegean sea and reports that half a million people arriving only by sea in Greece until October of which one third estimated to be children. There are anecdotal reports of thousands of children at the Western Balkan borders and many children going missing.
Participants expressed concerned that children and vulnerable groups „are just a footnote in the European Agenda on Migration“ (reference to the new Action Plan for unaccompanied and missing children) and not addressed at all in the European Agenda on Security.
They called for the Commission to take action and translate the „footnote“ into action. They further stressed that currently it is the Anti-Trafficking strategy that promotes and keeps the children in the migration (and not only) discourse. They stressed the need to ensure that child protection systems should be part of the migration discourse and the measures to address the refugee crisis, and ensure that funding is also allocated to child protection authorities, noting that almost one third of new arrivals are children. They highlighted that apart from humanitarian assistance, it is of equal importance to ensure a child protection and rights of the child approach. They also suggested the creation of an EU Child Protection Agency. A coalition of children’s charities presented a statement to the Commission regarding the need for a child protection response to the refugee crisis.
Finally participants inquired about the future of the working group on children requesting the focus on children to continue being on the agenda and to be addressed separately. Participants further asked for more joint meetings with the NREMs and to share information on the working group in advance.

Workshop II: Emerging concerns
Commission/EU ATC Office welcomed the participants, highlighted some of the recent developments at EU level in relation to the implementation of the EU legal and policy framework addressing trafficking in human beings (THB) and referred to the fruitful discussions that took place in at the previous meeting of the Platform followed by the clear request from the participants to continue discussion on this topic.
COM stressed the important role of the civil society in this field. The participants were also thanked for their participation in the e-platform online discussions and strongly encouraged to continue contributing and use the e-platform to share new publications, information and events with the other civil society organisations.
COM further explained that the workshop will be divided in two parts:
1) Discussion on the links between THB and Internet/cybercrime followed by
2) General discussion on emerging concerns as per the agenda.
For the Organised Crime Unit, DG HOME gave a presentation, “Fighting THB in a digital age: challenges and opportunities from a „cybercrime point of view”, on the role of the internet in trafficking in human beings and the tools available. Officials from DG HOME.Unit.D.2 referred to recruitment and advertising of services of trafficking victims that take place online and presented some recently developed investigative techniques. She also highlighted the opportunities for the civil society to create partnerships with actors working in the area of cybercrime and security, for example by making use of open source intelligence, and partnerships between the civil society, public and private sectors. It was noted that secondary victimisation of trafficking victims through the internet is a problem. It is important to protect victims online after identification, for example by using new software available to remove images of identified victims and raising victims’ awareness of the relevant online dangers. The need for more training for authorities and civil society on the role of internet in trafficking in human beings was also highlighted.
The participants discussed the situation concerning trafficking in human beings and noted a wide range of new, emerging concerns and developments. Amongst others, the position of trafficked women with children in their countries of origin was viewed as particularly problematic. Some participants also draw attention to the lack of right to family reunification for victims of trafficking in human beings which means that victims often want to return to their country of origin where their children and family are. The lack of adequate protection mechanisms in place in countries of origins during and after their return might lead to re-trafficking and further victimisation.
Increased internal trafficking was reported, especially concerning vulnerable groups such as girls in institutional care and people with intellectual disabilities. The case of trafficking ofyoung male football players was also noted. The approach of different MS relating to this form of exploitation varies.The issue of sham marriages was discussed. It was agreed that we need a clearer definition and better understanding of the phenomenon and the links between sham marriages and trafficking in human beings.The participants highlighted that often different forms of exploitation overlap and people become victims of multiple exploitation. The case of girls being trafficked by criminal gangs and used for sexual exploitation and forced criminal activities was given as an example of a case where different forms of exploitation occur simultaneously. The participants also raised the issue of exploitation of domestic workers and the need to share experiences and good practices in relation to the detection and protection of victims in this area.The participants expressed their concern regarding the current situation of asylum seekers and the fact that the increasing numbers of arrivals and lack of adequate means are also increasing the difficulty in identifying victims of trafficking. The increased focus on fighting smuggling was also perceived as making the identification of victims of trafficking more challenging.The issue of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of begging was raised. In addition, several participants reported discriminatory practices and discourse towards the Roma community; it was mentioned that authorities sometimes do not identify specific situations as trafficking, claiming that they are in fact cultural issues. Other concerns included the lack of implementation of the non-punishment provisions regarding crimes committed by victims of trafficking.The participants expressed the need for full implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive. They suggested that all forms of exploitation should also be included in national Action Plans. The participants also recommended the inclusion of the issues of trafficking in human beings in conflict and post-conflict situations in the new post-2016 EU Strategy.The participants expressed the willingness to continue the discussion on emerging concerns also in the next meeting of the Platform.

Workshop III – Prevention of Trafficking in Human Beings

The discussion was a follow up from the previous meeting on how to best ensure successful prevention in relation to demand reduction, especially as this relates to Article 18 of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive 2011/36/EU. So far we have only limited examples on prevention initiatives that have managed to effectively prevent this crime from happening and/or to reduce the demand that fosters trafficking in human beings.

Article 18 of the Directive (Prevention) states that Member States have a legal obligation to discourage and reduce demand. It obliges Member States to take appropriate actions to raise awareness around the issue of demand, promote regular training on identification for officials who are likely to come in contact with victims or potential victims and reduce the risk of people becoming victims of THB. The Directive also asks Member States to, at the very least, consider making it a crime to use the services of victims of trafficking, with the knowledge that the person is a victim.
In 2016 the Commission will produce a report assessing the legal measures some Member States have taken to criminalise the use of services of victims of trafficking in human beings and if necessary accompanied by adequate proposals.
In this context, and in order to guide the discussion the participants were asked to consider the following questions
a) Some Member States have chosen to criminalise those who knowingly use the services of victims of trafficking as per art. 18.4 of the Directive. What is your opinion on that?
b) How do we ensure consistency with all forms of exploitation?
c) How do we ensure consistency between the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive and the 2009/52/EC Directive (so-called Employers Sanction Directive)?
The EU ATC asked the participants the extent to which legislation is necessary for efficient prevention of this crime. The following questions were raised: What would be the alternative to criminalising those who knowingly use services of victims? And more over what does the use of services mean? Can we draw a line between direct and indirect use of services? How long can we stretch the responsibility of buyers, customers and users in the chain of demand?
It was put forward by participants that we cannot compare sexual exploitation with the other forms of exploitation. It is different to buying products or goods such as picked blueberries or clothing produced by victims of labour exploitation as it is a service you are buying directly from the exploited person. It was argued that the closest or most comparable other exploitation form in this sense would be trafficking for the purpose of organ removal and there it is clear that the demand side is criminalised as it is illegal to buy human organs.
Critique was raised that this group focuses too much on prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation. The Commission underlined that the Commission does not have competence to regulate prostitution policies as such but only on the exploitation of the prostitution of others. The Commission recognises prostitution as a high risk sector for trafficking in human beings, like other sectors such as agriculture, construction and the tourist industry. This is in line with intelligence from Europol and statistical data of Eurostat according to which 69 % of all the victims identified in the EU 2010-2012 were identified for sexual exploitation. The Commission further underlined that it is very important to address all forms of exploitation and welcomed more examples.
The Commission also asked for examples on what criminalising the demand could look like when addressing labour exploitation. The employer who directly and intentionally hires victims of trafficking and is involved in the crime can and should of course be convicted for trafficking. The Employers Sanctions Directive is applicable when it is third-country nationals and it states that it is illegal to hire third country nationals who are victims of trafficking, even if the employers is not involved in the trafficking crime as such. But what if this is done unintentionally and due to neglect or ignorance? Does a costumer have responsibility to ensure that the person he or she hires via a cleaning company is not a victim of trafficking? Arguments were raised that this could make it more difficult for immigrants, that people will be hesitant to hire third country nationals and that it can feed racism. The other argument would be that customers would be more responsible and could not claim not to have known. One argument that was raised was that it will not be insufficient to criminalize the use of service of victims of trafficking when the user knows that the person is a victim, because it will be impossible to prove.
In this context, the discussion focused on the criminalisation of the use of victim’s services. Many participants focused especially on sexual exploitation as they argued it is the widest form of exploitation according to data. The discussion produced many arguments, often with contrasting points of view. Some highlighted examples from a Member States where the use of victim’s services is actually criminalised but they were all very critical regarding this kind of crime because in their opinion this crime is not put into effect by the Courts. Others gave examples of Member States where the Courts criminalise the use of victims’ services as rape. It was argued that this was not the appropriate solution as each illegal behaviour needs to be criminalised as an independent crime in order to avoid any discretional judgement from the Courts.
It was raised that recruitment practices for all forms of trafficking in human beings are very important to address and target properly in prevention strategies. There is also a need to address the role of the internet in recruitment and develop better prevention strategies. The role of the state is equally important as it was argued that certain visa regimes for example for domestic workers can potentially facilitate THB.
It was underlined that prevention and the demand that fosters trafficking in human beings need to be addressed in a consistent manner for all the different forms of exploitation. However, various forms of exploitation need to be addressed differently, due to the very varied experiences and traumas of the victims, the different target groups as well as forms of demand to tackle. Recent initiatives from Member States to address trafficking for labour exploitation and the private sector were elaborated.

A clear majority of the group underlined that legislation is the most important measure that MSs must take in order to ensure prevention and demand reduction. It was widely put forward and accepted that the law can have a deterrent and normative effect for different forms of trafficking and actors including perpetrators, procurers, companies, clients and users. Active investigations in factories, farms, brothels and other high risk areas were further indicated as prevention and deterrent measures against THB.

Plenary Session/Update from the European Commission

The EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator thanked the participants for their active participation and discussions during the parallel workshops. She noted that for the 6th Civil Society Platform meeting the format of discussions was different than in previous meetings. The participants had more time for in depth discussions and exchange of information during the parallel workshops, while they also had an opportunity to attend the EU Anti-Trafficking Day event the previous day and build upon the conclusions and points raised during those discussions.

EU ATC noted that the European Commission will prepare a post-2016 EU Strategy in 2016 and suggested that the participants would be consulted as appropriate.
Commission/Office of EU ATC provided a comprehensive update on the most recent developments at EU level on trafficking in human beings. The participants were informed amongst others on the state of transposition of the Anti-Trafficking Directive 2011/36/EU and the progress in the implementation of the EU Strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings 2012-2016. Furthermore, officials form the EU ATC Office referred to the three studies launched on the occasion of the 9th EU ATD as deliverables of the EU Strategy and the upcoming Commission reports, including the reports as per Articles 20 and 23 of the Directive.

After the presentations by the Workshop Rapporteurs, the EU ATC Office concluded by thanking the participants again for their active engagement during this meeting, referred to the recent online discussions in the E-platform and encouraged the participants to use this tool more actively.