11

E-NOTES E-NOTES European NGOs European NGOs Observatory on Observatory on

Trafficking, Trafficking, Exploitation and Exploitation and

SlaverySlavery

22

Implementation of Implementation of anti-trafficking anti-trafficking

policies and policies and interventions in interventions in European Union European Union Member States Member States

(2008 and 2009)(2008 and 2009)Mike DottridgeMike Dottridge

Independent consultantIndependent consultant

33

PRESENTATION PRESENTATION INCLUDESINCLUDES

• What our monitoring exercise What our monitoring exercise involvedinvolved

• A brief word about the method A brief word about the method we usedwe used

• A summary of some of our results A summary of some of our results

• Focusing on patterns across the Focusing on patterns across the EU’s 27 Member States EU’s 27 Member States

44

A MONITORING EXERCISE A MONITORING EXERCISE IN 2010 TO MEASURE IN 2010 TO MEASURE STATES’ RESPONSES STATES’ RESPONSES • In implementing the minimum In implementing the minimum

standards set out in:standards set out in:• The Council of Europe’s Convention The Council of Europe’s Convention

on Action against Trafficking in on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (2005)Human Beings (2005)

• Ratified by 19 EU StatesRatified by 19 EU States• Signed by 7 othersSigned by 7 others• Only 1 State has not adhered (Czech Only 1 State has not adhered (Czech

Republic)Republic)

55

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION IS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BY EU STATES PROVIDED BY EU STATES ABOUT THEIR ANTI-ABOUT THEIR ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSESTRAFFICKING RESPONSES• E.g., that by 2006, 500 E.g., that by 2006, 500

trafficking cases had been trafficking cases had been investigated in 23 Member investigated in 23 Member States in the course of a yearStates in the course of a year

• Most EU Member States had Most EU Member States had introduced a reflection period introduced a reflection period

• But only 5 reported granting one But only 5 reported granting one – to a total of 26 individuals!– to a total of 26 individuals!

66

MONITORING METHODMONITORING METHOD

•By NGOs and researchers they By NGOs and researchers they identifiedidentified

•One in each of 27 StatesOne in each of 27 States•Using a 60-page research Using a 60-page research

protocolprotocol•Trying to answer more than 200 Trying to answer more than 200

questionsquestions•And writing a ‘profile’ of each And writing a ‘profile’ of each

of the Statesof the States

77

RESULTSRESULTS

•No League Table or ‘Tiers’ No League Table or ‘Tiers’ for EU States for EU States

•Some general conclusions Some general conclusions and weaknesses identifiedand weaknesses identified

•E.g. on 5 key points for E.g. on 5 key points for anti-trafficking responsesanti-trafficking responses

88

1. 1. COORDINATION OF ANTI-COORDINATION OF ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSES AT TRAFFICKING RESPONSES AT

NATIONAL LEVELNATIONAL LEVEL

•A national coordination A national coordination structure in 23 out of the structure in 23 out of the 27 EU States27 EU States

•None reported in France, None reported in France, Germany, Greece or MaltaGermany, Greece or Malta

99

2. 2. IDENTIFICATIONIDENTIFICATION

•11 out of 27 States have a 11 out of 27 States have a single government agency/ single government agency/ structure responsible for structure responsible for formally identifying trafficked formally identifying trafficked personspersons

•6 of those without this have no 6 of those without this have no standardised procedurestandardised procedure (Austria, Bulgaria, France, (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Malta)Germany, Italy, Malta)

1010

3. A REFLECTION PERIOD 3. A REFLECTION PERIOD OF AT LEAST 30 DAYSOF AT LEAST 30 DAYS

•Reflection period in 23 out Reflection period in 23 out of 27 Statesof 27 States

•In 2008, 11 States granted In 2008, 11 States granted reflection to 207 peoplereflection to 207 people

•In 2009, 18 States granted In 2009, 18 States granted reflection to 1,150 peoplereflection to 1,150 people

1111

4. PROCEDURES 4. PROCEDURES CONCERNING RETURNSCONCERNING RETURNS

•6 countries have formal return 6 countries have formal return agreementsagreements

•In only 3 of 17 States In only 3 of 17 States providing information were providing information were RISK ASSESSMENTSRISK ASSESSMENTS reportedly reportedly routine prior to returns (Italy, routine prior to returns (Italy, Portugal and Romania)Portugal and Romania)

1212

5. REMEDIES, REDRESS 5. REMEDIES, REDRESS AND COMPENSATIONAND COMPENSATION

• In 2008 trafficked persons In 2008 trafficked persons received payments as damages received payments as damages or compensation in 12 countries or compensation in 12 countries (information from 22) (information from 22)

• In 2009, also 12 (out of 20)In 2009, also 12 (out of 20)• 9 made payments both years 9 made payments both years

((Austria, Denmark, France, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UKSpain, Sweden and UK) )

1313

PROSECUTIONSPROSECUTIONS

• We learned of 858 convictions in We learned of 858 convictions in 22 countries for trafficking during 22 countries for trafficking during 2008 2008

• A total of 2,871 people were A total of 2,871 people were reportedly investigated in relation reportedly investigated in relation to trafficking offences in 17 to trafficking offences in 17 countries during 2008countries during 2008

• We learned of 692 convictions in We learned of 692 convictions in 21 countries during 200921 countries during 2009

1414

TRAFFICKED PERSONS TRAFFICKED PERSONS IDENTIFIEDIDENTIFIED

•2008 + 2009: 3,800 2008 + 2009: 3,800 ‘presumed trafficked persons’ ‘presumed trafficked persons’ in 15 Statesin 15 States

•c. 58% confirmed (c. 2,200)c. 58% confirmed (c. 2,200)

•In 2009, 3,800 reportedly the In 2009, 3,800 reportedly the subject of referrals in 16 subject of referrals in 16 StatesStates

1515

TRAFFICKED WITHIN THE TRAFFICKED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNIONEUROPEAN UNION

• In 2008 & 2009, nationals from EU In 2008 & 2009, nationals from EU States who were trafficked had the States who were trafficked had the same entitlement to protection and same entitlement to protection and assistance as ‘third country’ nationals assistance as ‘third country’ nationals in 18 EU Statesin 18 EU States

• In 14 EU countries (out of 25), EU In 14 EU countries (out of 25), EU citizens were identified and assisted citizens were identified and assisted in 2008 and 2009 on the same basis as in 2008 and 2009 on the same basis as trafficked persons from outside the EUtrafficked persons from outside the EU

1616

ASSISTANCEASSISTANCE

• In 20 out of 23 countries In 20 out of 23 countries emergency medical treatment was emergency medical treatment was reported to be available in 2009 reported to be available in 2009 for presumed trafficked persons for presumed trafficked persons

• in some countries assistance was in some countries assistance was still conditional on trafficked still conditional on trafficked persons being willing to provide persons being willing to provide information to law enforcement information to law enforcement officialsofficials

1717

PROTECTION FOR VICTIM PROTECTION FOR VICTIM WITNESSESWITNESSES

• In-court protection was available to In-court protection was available to trafficked adults or children who trafficked adults or children who were victim witnesses in about half were victim witnesses in about half EUEU

• But there were reports from 5 But there were reports from 5 countries that victim witnesses had countries that victim witnesses had their identity revealed during trials, their identity revealed during trials, despite promises of confidentialitydespite promises of confidentiality

1818

Austria, Netherlands,Austria, Netherlands,Poland, U.K. Portugal & Poland, U.K. Portugal & SpainSpain 8

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark & HungaryDenmark & Hungary 6

Germany & BelgiumGermany & Belgium 5

Luxembourg, Slovakia,Luxembourg, Slovakia,Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Sweden & RomaniaSweden & Romania 4

Finland & GreeceFinland & Greece 3

France & SloveniaFrance & Slovenia 2

IrelandIreland 1

LatviaLatvia 0

Scorecard for availability of in-court protection measures in 2009: 8 (best) to 0 (worst)

1919

NATIONAL NATIONAL RAPPORTEURSRAPPORTEURS

• 9 countries had a National 9 countries had a National Rapporteur on trafficking Rapporteur on trafficking (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden)Portugal, Romania, and Sweden)

• 16 did not16 did not

• The 9 are not all independentThe 9 are not all independent

2020

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS• Further monitoring is necessary Further monitoring is necessary

• Both by governments themselves Both by governments themselves and by civil societyand by civil society

• Much more standardisation is Much more standardisation is needed on relevant terminology, needed on relevant terminology, statistics and ways of measuring statistics and ways of measuring (e.g., numbers of individuals (e.g., numbers of individuals prosecuted for trafficking)prosecuted for trafficking)

• More learning and transfer of good More learning and transfer of good practice by EU States from one practice by EU States from one anotheranother

2121

mikedottridge@btopenworld.comTel. +44 1763 242 902Royston SG8 5BY, United Kingdom

THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!YOUR ATTENTION!