Irregular Migrant People Smuggling Public Information ... · Public Information Campaign (PIC) Market Research Report IOM Market Research conducted by: IOM Indonesia Irregular Migrant

IOM IndonesiaIrregular Migrant People SmugglingPublic Information Campaign (PIC)

Market Research Report

IOM

Market Research conducted by:

IOM

IndonesiaIrregular M

igrant People S

muggling

Public Inform

ation Cam

paign (PIC

) M

arket Research R

eport

FOI Document #8

RELEASED UNDER THE FOI ACT 1982

International Organization for Migration (IOM) IndonesiaSampoerna Strategic Square, North Tower 12A flJl. Jend Sudirman Kav. 45-46Jakarta Selatan 12930,

Draft 1 PDF version delivered February 22, 2010

All photographs copyright IOM Indonesia

'IOM Indonesia People Smuggling Information Campaign: Market Research Report' is a product ofPT Pieroelie Indo Klirkom (referred to as klirkom) under the guidance and authorization of IOM Indonesia.The findings, interpretations, recommendations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflectthe views of IOM International, IOM Indonesia, or any IOM affiliates.

IOM Indonesia does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. For any questionsregarding this report, please contact s47F

FOI Document #8


1

THE IRREGULAR MIGRANT SMUGGLING PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGNFIVE AREAS OF FOCUS

Kupang, NTT

Kualuh Leidong, North SumatraSukabumi, West Java

Lampung Province

Manggarai Barat, NTT

s47F

s47F

FOI Document #8


The klirkom research team headed by Dr. Andre Tanoe is extremely grateful to all the individuals andorganizations whose support made the research a success and the development of this market-researchreport possible.

The IOM team at both the national and district levels deserve much recognition. Thank you Steve Hamiltonand Roni Bala (Balahironimus) at the national office for your in-depth knowledge and insight into the issueof irregular migrant smuggling in Indonesia. Thank you IOM team members from the local offices whosepersonal networks, understanding of local conditions, and unlimited energy accompanying the klirkomteam played a key role in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the research work. The key playersare (and forgive us if we miss any names),

. Last, but not least, the teamis ever thankful to the IOM dynamic duo Paul Dillon and Aries Nugroho who provided their advice andguidance from start to finish and in all aspects of the market research.

It is without a doubt that equal, if not greater, recognition go to the government teams at both the nationaland local levels. The Department of Immigration in Jakarta paved the way for the successful implementationof the program. The assistance of the teams from the Department of Immigration local offices (in TanjungBalai Asahan, Lampung, Sukabumi, Kupang, and Maumere) was invaluable. Finally, we thank the followingfor their cooperation, future commitments, and confidence in encouraging the public information campaignforward:

The Local Police (Kepolisian Daerah)The Indonesian Ferry Association Bakauheni (Angkutan Sungai Danau dan Pulau)The Harbour Police (Kesatuan Pelaksana Pengamanan Pelabuhan)The Navy (Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Laut)The Water Police (Kepolisian Air dan Udara)Harbour Administration (Administrasi Pelabuhan)

Unfortunately we understand that with so many people helping us at many critical points of this researchwe are bound to have forgotten some names and organizations, and for that we are truly sorry. In short,we thank all the people who helped us, whether you are listed in this acknowledgement or not, for all yourkindnesses,

klirkom Market-Research Team Leader

2

cknowledgementsA

The United Country, Politics, and People Protection Unit (Kesbangpol-Linmas: Kesatuan Bangsa, Politikdan Perlindungan Masyarakat)

s47F

s47F

FOI Document #8


3

FGD Focus Group DiscussionGoI Government of IndonesiaIM Irregular MigrantIOM International Organization for MigrationKOFI Key Opinion Former InterviewLQAS Lot Quality Assurance SampleNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNTT Nusa Tenggara Timor: East Nusa Tenggara ProvinceOPP Organisasi Partai Politik: Organization of Political PartiesPIC Public Information CampaignTBC To Be ConfirmedUNHCR UN High Commissioner for Refugees

cronymsA

FOI Document #8


4

ableof ContentsTTable of ContentsIntroduction 5Research Objective 6Target Locations: A Description 7

- Kualuh Leidong 7- Sukabumi 8- Manggarai Barat 9- Kupang 10- Lampung 11

Methodology 12- Lot Quality Assurance Sample(LQAS) 12- Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 14

Research 1 Results 15- Identification of PIC Target Audiences 15- Target Audience Demographic Profile 16- Knowledge of People Smuggling Activities 18- People Smuggling: What Target Audience Wants to Know 21- Motivations Behind Support for People Smuggling 22- Deterrents to Support for People Smuggling 23- Target Audience Psychographic Analysis 24- General Message Themes 25- Information channels 26

Research 1: Summary Recommendations 27Research 2 Results 32Research 2: Summary Recommendations 38APPENDICES 39- Appendix A: Identification of PIC Target Audiences" 40- Appendix B: Knowledge of People Smuggling Activities 41- Appendix C: Motivations Behind Support for People Smuggling" 42- Appendix D: Deterrents to Support People Smuggling 43- Appendix E: Information Channels 44- Appendix F: Lot Quality Assurance Sample (LQAS) Survey 45- Appendix G: Focus Group Discussion Semi-structured Guide 48- Appendix H: KOFI One-On-one Structured Interview Questions 51- Appendix I: One-on-One Structured Interview Questions for Research 2 52- Appendix J: LQAS Research 1: Summary Results per Location 53

FOI Document #8


Indonesia has remerged as a transit country for irregular migrants (IM) traveling to Australia from acrossAsia, in particular Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Myanmar. Part of Indonesia’s East Nusa Tenggara(NTT) province are less than 200 kilometers from Ashmore Reef, while stretches of West Java are only400 km from Christmas Island. People smuggling through Indonesia poses a host of economic, political,social, and security challenges.

Indonesia and Australia are working together closely to address these issues with the technical assistanceand support of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The two nations co-chair the Bali Process,a ministerial conference on people smuggling and trafficking. Launched in 2002, the Bali Process sees42 member countries working together to prevent and deter people smuggling activities. Efforts have beenmade to forge strong cooperative relationships between governments and their institutions, particularlylaw enforcement agencies.

However, little attention has been paid to informing and educating Indonesian citizens and/or key Indonesianstakeholder groups like local political and religious leadership, port operators, and boat owners and buildersabout people smuggling.

Introduction

5

FOI Document #8


A vulnerable and often overlooked player in the people smuggling paradigm are the ordinary Indonesianswho often unwittingly support the criminal syndicates behind these enterprises by providing boats, crewsand logistics. As a result, dozens of Indonesian nationals have been sentenced to prison terms in Australiafor the supporting roles they play. At particular risk are fishermen, boat builders, boat owners, and othercoastal industry workers.

A second key group that remains relatively uninformed about people smuggling are the archipelagonation’s many port- and ferry operators, and supporting government and law enforcement agencies whodeal with port traffic at transit points across Indonesia.

IOM is developing a two prong Public Information Campaign (see table 1) on behalf of the AustralianCustoms and Border Protection Service, to raise awareness of people smuggling in Indonesia in fivetarget locations (covering 14 villages and two national ports) identified by the Indonesian ImmigrationDirector General’s office and IOM in consultation with Australian Customs. The first PIC prong (referredto as Category 1) targets fisherman, boat owners, boat builders, and coastal industry workers in fourlocations (Kualuh Leidong, North Sumatra; Sukabumi, West Java; Manggarai Barat, NTT; and Kupang,NTT). These areas were identified by Indonesian officials and IOM as being key entry and exit pointsfor IMs. The second prong (referred to as Category 2) of the PIC targets port authorities, ferry operations,law enforcement agencies and government institutions who oversee the high volumes of port trafficthrough Bakauheni port (passenger traffic) and Panjang port (container traffic) in Lampung province.These areas were identified by Indonesian officials and IOM as being key people smuggling entry, exit,and crossover points.

In order to develop and implement an effective and well targeted PIC, market research will produce/identify:- PIC key target audiences- A demographic profile of each target area- Target audience understanding of people smuggling- The principle motivations to assist/facilitate people smugglers- The principle deterrents to assist/facilitate people smugglers- A Psychographic analysis of PIC key target audiences- General message themes- Information channels- Key stakeholders and contact details in each area

6

Table 1. Summary of Public Information Campaign (PIC)

esearchObjectivesR

FOI Document #8


7

arget Locations:TA Description

Kualuh Leidong

- Recognized as an IM ‘entry point' where IM are smuggled into Indonesia. From entry pointsIM are smuggled to other parts of Indonesia (to exit points) from where they attempt departureto Australia.

- Villages in Kualuh Leidong are the first sign of inhabitants for ships which come across theStraits of Malacca having disembarked from the area in and around Klang port, Malaysia.

- A black market ferry system in Malaysia transports illegal Indonesian workers in Malaysia toIndonesia and may be open to people smuggling.

- At writing of this report the most recently reported people smuggling incident occurred onMay 2009 when a boat dropped off 40 Afghans on the Simandulang village shoreline.

Focal Points

* All villages are located in Kualuh Leidong subdistrict, Pelabuhanbatu Utara regency, North Sumatraprovince

FOI Document #8


8

Sukabumi

- Sukabumi is an ‘exit point' for people smuggling.- Straight 430km boat ride to Christmas Island.- Well developed fishing industry - easy access to materials, ship crew, and other logistics.- Many tourists in this area (local and international) which allows easier mobility for IM.- At the writing of this report the most recent reported people smuggling incident occurred

September 2009 when 19 Afghans were arrested in a village in Cisolok. They were suspected of planning to travel to Australia illegally.

Focal Points

*All subdistricts are located in Sukabumi regency, West Java province

Target Locations:A Description

FOI Document #8


9

Manggarai Barat

- A well established fishing industry provides access to a wide variety of ships and crews.- Easy access to Sumba island, Suwa island, or Rote island for final preparations and

provisioning before leaving for Ashmore Reef, Australia. The distance to Ashmore Reef fromSumba island is 315 kilometers, from Suwa island is 200 kilometers, and from thesouthernmost tip of Rote island, 125 kilometers

- Residents are familiar with smugglers. Several high profile cases have occurred in the area.(On December 27, 2009, 70 Afghan IMs were arrested in Labuan Bajo on their way toAustralia illegally.)

- International tourists use Manggarai Barat as a crossover point to other sightseeingdestinations. This heavy foreigner traffic facilitates easier travel for IMs.

Focal Points

* all subdistricts located in Manggarai Barat regency, NTT province


FOI Document #8


10

- This area is an ‘exit point' for IMs- Most developed and urban city in NTT province with a history of high profile people

smuggling cases. Smugglers typically route though Kupang to Rote and on to Australia.- Communities are familiar with IM and supporting people smuggling activities.- Big city culture where people ‘mind their own business' and IM have easier mobility.- Extensive choice of hotels, inns, and other accommodation.

Focal Points

*Note: Due to local administrative requirements it can take up to six weeks for research in Tablolong to be authorized.The team was unable to conduct research prior to publication. Sufficient data has been gathered in the vicinity forklirkom researchers to be confident the research conclusions are applicable in Tablolong.

Kupang

*all subdistricts located in Kupang regency, NTT province


FOI Document #8


11

Lampung

- ‘Crossover point', `entry point', and possible `exit point'- Main crossover point for land travel from island of Sumatra to Java (through Bakauheni port)- Entry point into Indonesia from boats coming in from South China sea (through Java sea)

and Indian Ocean- Possible exit point for people smugglers although it is a less arduous journey to first travel to

Sukabumi by land then depart to Australia.- Lampung is the only area where the study will not focus on coastal workers and instead

focus on port authorities, ferry operations, and government institutions who deal withport traffic.

Focal Points

*Regencies are in Lampung province


FOI Document #8


12

Lot Quality Assurance Sample(LQAS)

Lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS) is rooted in factories where managers use the tool to test for thepresence of defects in batches (or lots) of their final products. By testing a fixed number (sample size) ofrandomly selected products out of each lot, quality control managers use the ‘decision value/decision rule’to determine whether the lot is sent out to customers or not. Today the LQAS has been found to be a simpleand practical tool in the field of social research and is used in this study to test whether fishermen andcoastal workers (the lots) in selected villages are knowledgeable of and/or susceptible to people smuggling.

The LQAS, in it’s simplest form, is a binary I/O results based quality control measurement system. Thatis either the lot is rejected (I) or accepted (O). Two possible errors can occur using the LQAS which instandard research are referred to as the alpha (a) and beta (ß) errors. An alpha error will occur if a targetgroup that supports people smuggling is labeled as one that does not support people smuggling. A betaerror will occur if a target group that does not support people smuggling is labeled as one that does supportpeople smuggling.

As part of the LQAS process the research has identified two thresholds. The first threshold is the coveragebenchmark, which is the percentage of coastal workers in a specific lot who reject the idea to supportpeople smuggling. If the PIC program is effective this coverage benchmark should increase over the periodof the program. The lower threshold indicates a level of uncertainty or pro-people smuggling responsesfrom coastal worker respondents.

With these analyses available through the LQAS survey, the research has established a research benchmarkto conduct future monitoring and evaluation.

Two research methodologies were created to accommodate the two prong PIC. see Table 2.

Table 2. Two Research Methodologies

Research Methodology Location(s)

Research 1 A mixed methodology approach using quantitative • Kualuh Leidong(Lot Quality Assurance Sample (LQAS)) and • Sukabumiqualitative (observation, FGD, one-on-one • Manggarai Baratinterviews) to: • Kupang1.Allow comparative analysis of research results

and strengthen interpretation.2.Cross-verify research results to increase

validity.3.Ensure integrity of variables are more easily

measured.4.Use LQAS tool both as comparison and to form

key baseline to support Monitoring andEvaluation component

Research 2 A one on one interview qualitative approach with • Lampungkey with government agency leaders and privatesector leaders who deal with port traffic.The researchers take an open approach to interviewsubjects, using information from one interview tolead them to other interviews.

Methodology

FOI Document #8


13

In terms of assessing knowledge and attitude of people smuggling, the question sets have been developedto accept a range of answers analyzed to the I/O binary, with the decision value calculated on the followingparameters:

1. Weight value of each question.2. Accepted result of findings (example: If ‘I’ does it mean the lot (target participants) will definitely

support people smuggling? Or does it mean they know about people smuggling but may not support it?)

3. Consequence of erroneous analysis (with a higher negative consequence of errors requiring a higher decision value.)

4. Villages with high rates of pro-people smuggling responses being accepted as low in awareness of peoplesmuggling issues and villages with low rates of pro-people smuggling responses being rejected as sufficiently aware of people smuggling issues. The larger the difference between the level of pro-peoplesmuggler responses defined to be unacceptable and the level where villages are deemed not to be supportive of people smuggling, the smaller the sample size required (which in turn affects precision)’

Table 3. LQAS Research Conducted

.

The LQAS survey provides additional benefit in that the data can be extrapolated. The PIC is a pilot projectwith the possibility of future larger scale coverage. By taking into account sample populations and usingthe mean of the PIC program area to weight the results, the LQAS data collected from the villages canbe combined to result in an aggregate estimate of the program area.

Kualuh Leidong Simandulang 19Teluk Pulai Luar 19KelurahanTanjung Leidong 19

Sukabumi Loji 19Cikahuripan 19Pasir Baru 19Citarik 19

Manggarai Barat Gorontalo 19Labuan Bajo 19Nangalili 18

Kupang Namosain 19Oesapa 19Fatubesi 19

Village Sample Total

Total (frequency) 247

*Where data was available a stratified randomsample method was used to select LQASparticipants. When data was not available acluster random sample method was used. Ifthe selected participant was not at home, thehome closest to the selected participant wasapproached.

Methodology

FOI Document #8


14

FGD in this research are semi-structured informal discussions with 30 research target participants in eachvillage. To take into account possible gender issues, FGD were held separately for male and femaleparticipants. Female FGD participants consisted of five wives of fisherman, five females working in thecoastal industry, and five females who have family members who are fishermen. Male FGD participantsconsisted of five fishermen, five males working in the coastal industry, and five males who own a fishingboat.

A discussion guide with six open-ended questions was developed. Field tests indicate the discussions lastapproximately four hours. Two researchers assigned to each FGD facilitate the discussions and take notesof responses and observations. Researchers concentrate on creating an open environment, resetting chairsand tables into an all-inclusive circular pattern, and conduct simple games as a discussion warm-up.

To develop a Psychographic segmentation researchers regularly thread AIO (Activity, Interests, Opinion)type questions into each of the six FGD categories through attitude questions, personal value questions,and lifestyle questions.

See Appendix G for FGD semi-structured guide used in this research.

Key Opinion Former Interview (KOFI)

In Research 1, eight one-on-one KOFI based on a structured questionnaire were conducted in each of the13 villages. Key opinion formers include religious leaders, community leaders, village heads, educationalleaders, health professionals (not because they are aware of people smuggling issues but because healthprofessionals are very close to the community and are aware of community concerns), fisherman unionleaders, and government authorities.

See Appendix H for structured question list used in this research.

In Research 2, eight in depth one-on-one interviews were conducted over a period of three days.

See Appendix I for one-on-one structured interview questions used in this research.

Random Observation

In each of the villages the research teams are assigned to walk through the village, randomly strike upconversations with villagers and make observations. The ‘ice-breaking’ tool used is a digital camera, whereparticipants are asked to have their picture taken and the result is shown to them in digital format on thecamera screen viewer. While the participant is looking at their picture the researcher has an opportunityto explain what they are doing in the village and ask a few questions. Quite often the researcher will offerto send the picture to the village. (This promise is taken as a serious responsibility by the researcher asit creates a trust issue).

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Methodology

FOI Document #8


15

Identification of PIC Target Audiences

Decisions related to people smuggling are made at the household and village level. FGD identified keydecision makers at both levels. See Table 4.

Table 4. PIC Target Audience

Tier 1 (the primary focus of the PIC) target audiences at the household level are the father and the wife.All 26 FGD indicated the father as the key decision maker of the household. While the father has keydecision maker status, FGD revealed the actual decision making capacity varies from location to location.In Kualuh Leidong all participants agree that the husband makes the final decision, whether the wife agreesor not. In Sukabumi, Kupang, and Manggarai Barat (except in the village of Nangalili) key decisions aremade by both husband and wife. 24/26 FGD indicate the wife as secondary decision maker to the husband,with some participants hinting that despite the status of decision maker going to the father, the real decisionmakers are the wives. Interestingly male FGD in Teluk Pulai Luar village and Nangalili village did not rankthe wife in the top four of decision makers.

At the village level 26/26 FGD indicate the key decision maker is the village/township head. Seven femaleFGD did not know how the village decision making system ran but agreed that since the village headrepresents the village, they are the decision maker.

Tier 2 (the secondary focus of the PIC) target audiences at the household level are religious leaders,parents/parents-in-law, oldest child, father’s friends, and neighbors. At the village level, target audiencesare the Local People’s Representative Body (BPD) (Made up of representatives from youth groups, religiousgroups, and community groups), local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and the head of thesubdistrict.

Tier 3 (the tertiary focus of the PIC) target audiences at the household level are cultural leaders, communityleaders, and father’s work friends. At the village level Tier 3 target audiences are the organization of politicalparties (OPP), the village head’s wife, the people’s development agency (babinmas), the village developmentagency (babinsa), hamlet government leaders, and local government representatives.

See Appendix A for additional discussion.

ResultsR esearch 1

FOI Document #8


16

Target Audience Demographic Profile

Village data, FGD results, LQAS results, and random observation have been compiled to create a demographicprofile of the target audience, a key guide for PIC content development. Village data which was availablein Sukabumi was not available in other areas. See table 5.

Table 5. Socio-economic Demographic of Target Audience

Research 1Results

Kualuh Ethnic Melayu Islam Indonesian, Melayu, TBCLeidong – majority Asahan,Bahasa Kampung,

in coastal Bahasa Kualuh Leidongareas

Sukabumi Sunda Islam Sunda TBC Strongestreligiousobserversamongsttargetlocations.

Manggarai Multi ethnic: Islam Indonesian, Ende, 2.300.000 StrongBarat Bugis, Bone, Buton, Flores Manggarai, Bajo, Bugis, (2006) patrilineal

Timur, Bima, Catholic Bima, Selayar customs,Sumbawa, bajo, Christian/ where clanManggarai protestant leaders have

Hindu considerablepower

Kupang Multi- ethnic: Catholic Indonesian, Rote, Bahasa 2.938.157Timor, Bugis, Christian/ Kupang, Bugis, Solor, (2004)Rote, Flores, protestant Buton, Bone, Sabu, SoeSabu, Islam

Hindu

Location Cultural Religion Languages Income PICEthnicity per capita (IDR) sensitive

information

Strongpatrilinealcustoms,where clanleaders haveconsiderablepower

FOI Document #8


17

Except for Kupang, which has a high school completion rate of 29.8%, LQAS data (see Table 6.) indicatea low education level. In Sukabumi and Kualuh Leidong 73.7% and 71.9% (respectively) have at most agrade six education. In Manggarai Barat those with at most a grade six education reaches 82.2%.

An LQAS economic data indicator is measured by calculating the number of times villagers need to borrowmoney to meet their most basic needs. (see Table 7.) Households are considered to be poor if they havehad to borrow money at least six times in three months (average of once every two weeks) to meet basicconsumption needs. (A poverty indicator measurement used by the World Bank Urban Management andPoverty Reduction sector with variables adjusted to local conditions.)

Table 6. Education Levels of Target Audience.

In Kualuh Leidong 39% target audience is poor. The lowest poverty rate amongst the target population isin Manggarai Barat at 13%.

Table 7. Village Economic Levels

Borrowed money at least six 39% 24% 13% 26%times in three months topurchase food

Kualuh Sukabumi Manggarai KupangLeidong Barat

The LQAS provides a statistical representation of target audience education levels. See Table 6.

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


18

Knowledge of People Smuggling Activities

Target audience awareness of people smuggling vary significantly among the fourlocations. LQAS results in Manggarai Barat and Sukabumi indicate only 1.8% and10.5% of the target population have knowledge of people smuggling, respectively. Thisis in sharp contrast with Kupang and Kualuh Leidong, where 28.1% and 38.6% of thetarget audiences have knowledge about people smuggling, respectively. See Table 8.

LQAS tested for target audience perception of economic and social impact of peoplesmuggling on their village (See Table 9 and Table 10). Only in Kupang did targetaudiences perceive people smuggling of having a greater negative impact than a positiveimpact, at 19.3% versus 14%, respectively. In Kualuh Leidong 38.6% of the targetpopulation feel people smuggling supports the economy. Percentages of target audiencepopulations who did not feel there was a noticeable impact ranges from a low of 25%in Manggarai Barat to a high of 45.6% in Kualuh Leidong.

Table 8. Personal Knowledge of People Smuggling Activities

Table 9. Economic Impact on Village

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


19

In terms of social impact at least 56% of the population in each target location either do not know aboutthe social impact of people smuggling or do not feel that it has a noticeable impact. In Kupang the samepercentage of target audiences feel there is a positive social impact of people smuggling (17.50%) asthere is a negative impact (17.50%). In Sukabumi nearly the same percentage of target audiences feelthere is a positive social impact of people smuggling (21.10%) as there is a negative impact (22.80%).

Table 10. Social Impact on Village

The FGD across locations support the findings of low people smuggling awareness levels in target audiences.In Sukabumi, when prodded, participants discussed a people smuggling incident that happened morethan10 years ago.

In general participants know that people smuggling activities are about people moving from one countryto another illegally. FGD state IM involved in peoples smuggling are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran,Sri Lanka, and many years ago, Vietnamese.

Negative associations with people smuggling include: The IM being smuggled carry narcotics, are fugitivesfrom their home countries, have an incompatible culture, are connected to terrorism, are involved intrafficking, and carry diseases.

Positive associations with people smugglinginclude: The IM being smuggled share the samereligion (Sukabumi, female FGD participant),people smuggling is a humanitarian endeavor,the IM are kind and friendly (FGD participantin Simandulang village), people smugglers willpay good money for a boat, people smugglingbrings in profits and will support economicgrowth. There is familiarity with people smugglingand it’s not a bit deal.

FGD participant 12 “Yes, I remember there was an incident with IM many years ago.”FGD participant 3 “I remember too, it was 1997 or 1998”FGD participant 12 “Yes right during the monetary crisis so 1997-1998”FGD participant 8 “Oh you mean the one where the boat crashed on the shoreline and

there were Iraqi’s on board?”FGD participant 12 “No, these were Australians. They had paid a crew to bring them to Australia”FGD participant 3 “No, I don’t remember that, then. If it’s Australians I remember

an Australian IM got caught for bringing over a whole boat load of garlichere illegally.”

*Three male FGD in Loji village trying to recall when they remember the last IM relatedincident happening in their area. The conversation is an interesting example of how little the target audience in Sukabumi know about people smuggling cases.

“In the 1980s and 1990s it was normal forforeigners to come here and openly ask us tobring them to Australia by boat. It was not illegaland it was additional income for the village.”*A male participant in Oesapa, Kupang

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


20

The LQAS measured target audience knowledge of Indonesian and Australian regulations related to IM/people smuggling (see Table 11).

Interestingly the rank of locations which had the most percentage of target audiences familiar with peoplesmuggling (Table 8.) mirrors the rank of locations which had the most percentage of target audiencesfamiliar with Indonesian laws pertaining to IM/people smuggling. The mirror effect is not prevalent whenmeasuring knowledge of Australian regulations pertaining to IM/people smuggling.

“IM bring money. When the IM came through here they were willing to pay IDR50.000*for a bottle of water. IM will raise the price of fish, will be good for our markets.”*A man in Simandulang village explains his impression of IM. Note: A bottle of water isusually IDR5.000.

Table 11. Familiarity of Target Audience with Indonesian and Australian Laws Pertaining to IM

Kupang 31.6% 10.5%Manggarai Barat 5.4% 0%Tanjung Leidong 36.9% 12.3%Sukabumi 18.4% 14.5%

Location Familiarity with Indonesian Law Familiarity with Australian LawRelated to IM/People Smuggling related to IM/People Smuggling

Research 1Results

See Appendix B for additional discussion.

FOI Document #8


21

People Smuggling: What Target Audience Wants to Know

FGD participant questions can be categorized in the following:

Participants in all locations were eager to ask questions. Many participants felt disappointed when theyfound out the researchers were only going to record their questions and not answer them. In the legalcategory, while punishment/legal ramifications are important to respondents, informal discussion hasrevealed they are not too interested in specific laws.

Questions related to authority honesty were raised in several FGD sessions across locations.

Are the IM carrying disease? Carrying narcotics? Associated with terrorists?Are they trying to spread their religion?

Background

Process

Legal

Rumor

Other

Why Indonesia?How did they become IM?Why Australia?

What steps to take if come across people smuggling?How can we be sure IM are protected from abuse if we report peoplesmuggling?How do we distinguish between regular tourists and IM?Do we get compensated if we stop people smuggling and must bear somecosts?

What are the Indonesian laws related to people smuggling? What are theinternational regulations?What protections do the IM have?How do you define IM?Are there any rewards for the people who report people smuggling activities?Where does the law draw the line? If we give food to a hungry IM is thatbreaking the law?What agency is responsible for people smuggling?What happens if IM pose as tourists and hijack me and my ship when weare out at sea? Am I responsible?

“If we report them to the police, the police willinterrogate them and take all their valuables.”Male FGD participant Teluk Pulai Luar village.*similar comment made by male participant inOesapa village.

“(some official)... will probably make a dealwith them. It’s better to let me make thedeal with them so we get the money. If ourofficials are corrupt, who do we report thatto?” *male FGD participant, Simandulangvillage.

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


22

Motivations Behind Support for People Smuggling

Many reasons were given for supporting people smuggling. Flow charts were developed with participantsto find the root cause behind their willingness to become involved in people smuggling. In all cases, theroot motivations were Dignity/Self Worth and Spiritual rewards. See Table 12.

Table 12. Motivating Factors to Support People Smuggling

Research 1Results

See Appendix C for additional discussion.

FOI Document #8


23

Deterrents to Support People Smuggling

A summary discussion of the reasons why individuals will be unwilling to support people smuggling isattached in Appendix D. In the FGD, participants developed flow charts to find the root deterrent to peoplesmuggling. A key finding indicates that similar to people smuggling motivators, dignity and religion alsoplay a role in deterring support for people smuggling. Table 13 represents the aggregate summary flowchart.

Table 13. Deterrents to Support People Smuggling

Research 1Results

See Appendix D for additional discussion.

FOI Document #8


24

Target Audience Psychographic Analysis

Based on the FGD results, below is the Psychographic analysis of the target audience propensity to engagein people smuggling activities. Each of the clusters is described in Table 14.

Table 14. Psychographic Analysis

Psychographic Description FGD ExampleProfile

This group is risk averse (both to legalramifications and physical dangers of travelto Australia) and head strong. Are willingto support people smuggling activitieswithout hesitation.

Opportunist Risk? There is no risk. We regularly fishfor teripang only a few kilometers fromthe Australian border. We know we havegone too far when the helicopters starthovering overhead.(Male FGD participant in Oesapa village.)

This group will support people smugglingbecause they are in a difficult financialposition and feel that the only way they canget out of it is by engaging in this activity.

Cornered To run my ships it costs a few million Rupiahper day. Nowadays there is not enough fishto even pay for the operational costs. I amnot sure I would reject an offer to assistpeople smuggling.(Male FGD participant in Loji village)

This group will support people smugglingwhen the rewards are high enough. While‘high enough’ is a subjective response, thesocio-economic demographic should helpindicate which locations may have a higherfrequency of target audiences in this category.

The only reason I haven’t agreed to engagein people smuggling is because they haven’toffered me the right price.(Male FGD participant in Tanjung Leidong)

Price is Right

This group will support people smuggling ifa friend is involved, they are encouraged bysomeone they trust, or a close family memberinvites them to join.

With FamilialSupport

It is a syndicate here, and it’s a closed circle.I will only do it if someone I know invites meinto the inner circle.(Male FGD participant from Oesapa village)

It is in our culture to help people who are inneed. If I see someone in need I will helpthem, then someday someone will help me.(Male FGD participant in Nangalili village.)

Sympathizers This group will support people smugglingbased on humanitarian/religious reasons.

It is against the law and I do not want to goto jail. I will not do it, not for anything.(Female FGD in Citarik village, adamant thatshe will not support IM activities.)

No Way This group will not support peoplesmuggling under any circumstances.

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


25

People helping people- honoring God within

the law

Raise your dignity andtheirs by doing the

right thing

I only transport fish.Proud to be a fisherman

-is it ok to give IM food when they are hungry and thirsty? - what are the Indonesian laws? - what arethe Australian laws? Are IM terrorists? Are they disease ridden? Is it true I will be paid lots of moneyto bring them to Australia? Why do they want to go to Australia? Why are they here? What is legal andwhat is not? What should I do if I see an IM? Will I get compensated for the money I spend on givingthem initial food/shelter? Who is responsible for IM? Where do IM come from? Why have they turnedinto IM? Are they selling drugs? Are they smuggling arms? How do I know people smugglers are involved?What if it is just the IM asking for help, with no syndicate? Is it true they must wait for years to beprocessed? What are the social impacts of IM being here for years to get processed? What are the risksinvolved in helping IM get to Australia?

General Message Themes

Table 15 below is referred to in the Public Relations industry as a Key Message House. The floor of thehouse are full of numerous facts (which need to be filled in based on the questions raised in the research).The three pillars of the house represent the three campaign key messages, and the roof of the houserepresents the overall theme of the campaign.

In a public awareness raising campaign, the messages are created to fill in a lack of knowledge which hasbeen identified during the research.

Table 15. Message House (untested)

FGD results in all villages provide the same root causes of dignity and spiritual reward (Pahala) as bothmotivator and deterrent to involvement in people smuggling. These two root causes are encompassed inthe key messages which in turn must address the issues/questions at hand.

GLOBAL THEME“rejecting offers to support

people smugglers is the rightchoice”

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


26

Information channels

The FGD results supported by LQAS data provide a multi-dimensional look into both possible PIC locations(see Table 16.) and possible PIC media tools (see Table 17). Media tools results were derived by askingtarget audiences the source of the last information they had received.

Table 16. Locations to Reach Key Influencers

At home At home At village head officeAt work At neighbor’s/friends house At private meetingAt the local coffee/food stand At mosque Community meetingAt ‘watering hole’ (warung tuak) At school At homeAt the Motorbike stand At market Community gatheringAt special occasions where At regular religious gathering At the Mosquewhole communities comeFriend’s house At women’s social event (arisan)Outside somewhere At Posyandu

Special community occasion

Husbands and Key Influencers Wives and Key Influencers Village head

Table 17. Source of Information

Radio 0% 19.7% 7.1% 36.8%TV 75.4% 78.9% 69.6% 87.7%Newspaper/Magazine 7% 5.3% 3.6% 14%Poster 5.3% 2.6% 5.4% 8.8%Community meeting 14% 9.2% 41.1% 52.6%Community leader 10.5% 17.1% 12.5% 17.5%Awareness campaign 5.3% 7.9% 0% 15.8%Information from neighbor 56.1% 30.3% 32.1% 43.9%Religious institution 17.5% 23.7% 37.5% 56.1%

Source of Information Kualuh Sukabumi Manggarai KupangLeidong Barat

See Appendix E for additional discussion.

Research 1Results

FOI Document #8


27

Target To raise awareness about people smuggling in focus areas, key target audiences Audience must be identified. The research has identified two sets of key target audiences

at the household and village level. The target audience have been categorized into Tier 1,Tier 2, and Tier 3 representing primary, secondary, and tertiary PIC focus. The target audiences are:

Tier 1 household level Tier 1 Village levelfather, wife village/township head.

Tier 2 household level Tier 2 Village levelreligious leaders Local People’s Representativeparents/parents-in-law Body (BPD)oldest child Subdistrict headfather’s friends local NGOsneighbors

Tier 3 household level Tier 3 Village levelfather’s work friends hamlet leaders/local governmentcultural leaders political party organizations (OPP)community leaders babinmas/babinsa

village head’s wife ]

While it is readily accepted the father has status of key decision maker in the target locations, his capacity from location to location varies. In Sukabumi and Manggarai Barat (except in the village of Nangalili) when the wife disagrees with her husband’s decision they will undergo a multistage process to find a solution which includes meeting sessions with the father’s parents, parents in law, and if no agreement is reached a religious leader. In Kualuh Leidong Nangalili village, participants (male and female) agree that the husband makes the final decision, whether the wife agrees or not.Surprisingly the two male FGD sessions in Teluk Pulai Luar, and Nangalili village did noteven position the wives in the top 4 rank of decision makers. The previous findings are in sharp contrast with the remaining villages who stated that with the husband away forlong periods of time the person who runs the household and is in fact the ‘de facto’ decision maker is the wife.

FGD discussions revealed while religious leaders and cultural leaders were important, cultural leaders were not prevalent in Kualuh Leidong or Sukabumi, and overall religious leaders have more influence. Interestingly, in Teluk Pulai Luar village both male and female FGD agreed one key influencer to the husband was the village head.

Summary RecommendationsResearch 1:

FOI Document #8


28

Research 1:Summary Recommendations

TargetAudienceDemographicProfile

Knowledgeof PeopleSmuggling

Motivatorto PeopleSmuggling

Deterrentto PeopleSmuggling

It is clear from the FGD discussions that while the PIC target audience are mostly allcapable of a second language, there is common understanding of Indonesian amongsteveryone. The FGD reasoned the ability to speak Indonesian (instead of only the locallanguage) was based on the nature of the coastal worker industry. Says one FGD femaleparticipant in Oesapa, “we live in the fishing industry and everyday we must deal withpeople from different regions. We need to speak Indonesian to fish, to sell our goods, tolive.”The diversity of languages in some locations make it difficult to localize languages unlessthere was a specific reason to only reach one segment of the key target audience. The onlylocation where materials developed could safely include the local language without alienatingany target audiences is in Sukabumi, where 100% of the key stakeholders speak Indonesianand Sundanese.The education LQAS statistics, which show many of the target audience has limitededucation, highlights the need to create content which is easy to read and not too complex.Economic LQAS data indicate there are percentages of the target population that may beprepared to support people smuggling activities as a means to meet their subsistencerequirements.

Knowledge about people smuggling is still very low in the locations. A possibly misleadingresearch finding is that Kualuh Leidong has a large percentage of target audience whohave direct or indirect experience with people smuggling. While this is true it does notmean that the target population there is also highly knowledgeable about people smuggling.FGD revealed that less than 6 months before this research was conducted a group of 40Afghans had been dumped on Simandulang village’s shore. Stories of the incident circulatedthroughout Kualuh Leidong (and beyond) and raised awareness, including positive perceptionsof IM and people smuggling - created because of that incident.A key indicator of how low awareness of people smuggling is amongst target audiencesis reflected in the responses to questions on social and economic impact of peoplesmuggling. Many participants stated people smuggling has a positive effect on the economyand there are limited negative social effects.Participants in Kupang and Kualuh Leidong stated they have good knowledge of Indonesianlaws relating to IM/people smuggling. All groups however, had very little - or no - knowledgeof Australian laws.

The many answers provided during the FGD to support people smuggling activities boilsdown to two key motivators - that is spiritual rewards and dignity/self-worth.

Very unique results found that the root deterrents to people smuggling were the same asthe root motivators to support people smuggling . That is spiritual rewards and dignity/selfworth. These two elements must form the core of the key messages.

FOI Document #8


29

The many answers provided during the FGD to support people smuggling activities boilsdown to two key motivators - that is spiritual rewards, and dignity/self worth.

PsychographicAnalysis

KeyMessaging

InformationChannels

Six categories have been identified measuring the propensity of the target audience toengage in people smuggling activities. These are:OpportunistCorneredPrice is RightWith Familial SupportSympathizersNo Way

Three untested key messages have been developed.People helping people - honoring God within the lawSupports the basic message that ‘yes, we can help people and do good humanitariandeeds but it must be within the law. Once you are breaking the law you are dishonoringGod.’

Raise your dignity and theirs by doing the right thing.Focuses on dignity but not only the dignity of the target audience but also the dignityof their friends, their family, etc. To reach the “opportunist” the PIC must go beyondthe individual and reach them through their connection with others.

I only transport fish.Proud to be a fishermanA potentially humorous but serious message which reminds fishermen that they are partof a noble and honorable trade and they should not ruin that all by transporting IM.


FOI Document #8


30

Location SpecificInformation

Kualuh Leidong Unlike Sukabumi, Kupang, and Manggarai Barat, IM do not leave from KualuhLeidong to Australia as this area is not a people smuggling exit point. KualuhLeidong is an ‘entry point’, whereby IM will come into the area through the Straitsof Malacca (usually from Malaysia) and then travel by land to Java (destinationoften Jakarta) to seek departure to Australia.For people smugglers the process to obtain transportation is not much differentat entry points or exit points. The first goal is to get someone to bring them to theirnext location. Whether the transportation provided is a car going from KualuhLeidong to Jakarta, or a boat going from Sukabumi to Christmas Island, both casesare people smuggling and against the law. While messaging may have to be tweaked,the PIC activities implemented in Kualuh Leidong can be similar to the otherlocations.The target audience in Kualuh Leidong are the most economically challenged group(see Table 7). In terms of the Psychographic profile, the economic conditionscombined with comments made during the FGD, put a large number of KualuhLeidong target audiences in the “Cornered” risk .The village of Simandulang, which is in the same bay area as Teluk Pulai Luarvillage and Tanjung Leidong, is isolated during the rainy season due to terrible roadconditions. Transport between Simandulang village and the larger township ofTanjung Leidong is most easily accomplished by a one hour boat ride on a smalldiesel powered boat. Entertainment options are limited and random observationnoted the high level of alcohol consumption in this location.Conditions which support the PIC include regular special events where the wholevillage gathers. Regularly held social gatherings and religious gatherings for women,and a near ‘captive audience’ when fishermen are not out to sea, as there is nowhere else to go and nothing else to do.


Manggarai Barat Evidenced by the LQAS, knowledge of people smuggling in this area is the lowestacross all locations (see Table 9). Manggarai Barat has many locations with aninternational flare that attract tourists from around the world - diving schools,Internet cafes, restaurants, hotels, etc, which is a (large) part of the reason targetaudiences can not distinguish between IM and regular tourists, and thereby havea hard time noticing people smuggling activities. One of the most prevalentbusinesses in the area is inter-island travel services run by local crews - a servicethat can be targeted by people smugglers.

The target audience are made up of people who have come to Manggarai fromdifferent areas in Indonesia, Sulawesi, Bima, Flores Timur, Sumbawa and theheterogeneous cultures make mobility of IM easier. Religiously, the target audienceis a mixture of Christian and Muslim.

Unlike other locations, community meetings and regular gatherings are rare here(this includes ‘pengajian’ and ‘arisan’.) Communities gather when there aregovernment held events. FGD participants claim the community does not have theskills or know-how to organize their own events. Men are mostly at sea and womenstay in their homes.

There is no entertainment other than the TV. Radio listeners are rare largely dueto the hilly area making radio reception difficult. As the local languages spokenin Manggarai Barat vary widely, everyone speaks Indonesian and the PIC materialsshould also be in Indonesian. In the remote village of Nangalili, community meetingsare even more rare. FGD participants across Manggarai Barat noted they are lookingforward to the PIC campaign, for at least it will give them something to do andsomething new to learn.


FOI Document #8


31


Sukabumi Fishermen throughout Sukabumi go great distances out to sea and are familiarwith Christmas Island and the Australian border, yet a significant portion of thetarget audience here are still under-informed and mis-informed about the peoplesmuggling issues.For fishermen there is confusion in differentiating IM with legitimate tourists. ‘Howdo I know if there are people smuggling activities going on if I don’t even knowwho the IM are?’In several villages FGD participants stated they had heard of people smugglingcases: The cases mentioned all occurred in 1997 or 1998 and involved a groupof Iraqis, a family of Vietnamese, and several other cases whose details are notclear.

The PIC must take into account that the participants in Sukabumi placed highimportance of their religious leaders as key opinion influencers. In Sukabumi themain religion is Islam. The main language spoken at home is Sundanese, althougheveryone is also able to speak Indonesian.

FGD participants stated that the most common form of gatherings/meetingsconducted in the villages are regular religious gatherings for women (calledpengajian/majlis ta’lim). The target audience of fishermen were most commonlyfound in an informal social environment in the company of friends/neighbors.

It was in Sukabumi where the one-on-one interview was conducted with Islamicreligious leader – who was arrested and held for supporting peoplesmuggling to Australia a little over 10 years ago. Today, when discussing peoplesmuggling, he discourages people from bringing IM to Australia. On the other hand,Sukabumi is also where the one-on-one interview met another religious leader whoclaims it is part of a religious duty to help the IM.

Some key events the PIC may consider ‘piggy backing’ are the fisherman festivalsheld at different times of the year in many of the villages. The festivals are sponsoredby the local government and include various cultural activities and local fishermenrituals.


Kupang Kupang has the most IM aware target audience in all of the PIC target locations.Participants agreed that IM issues are publicly discussed. Many FGD participantsstated that Rote island was the key exit point to Australia and that ships leavingwith IM for Australia from Kupang would go through Rote island.Participants stated that people smuggling in Kupang is isolated to the “inner IMcircle”. That is, people smuggling does not affect anyone that is not in the innerIM circle. The lodging, boats, and crew are insulated from the community.In terms of media, participants agreed direct awareness raising meetings with thecommunity/target audiences were the most effective approach to the PIC. Participantsstressed the need for open dialogue and a questions and answer session whichaddressed the many questions they have about IM and people smuggling.Some valuable input from the participants is that the PIC needs to conduct similaractivities at two different times. This is because there are fishermen who leave at5 o’clock in the afternoon and come back in the morning, and there are fishermenwho leave in the morning and come back in the early evening.


s47F

FOI Document #8


32

Research 2 was conducted in Lampung. Research 2 consists of one-on-one interviews with key stakeholderson a variety of people smuggling related topics to strengthen the PIC in that area.

The following information was obtained:

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

The PIC can not solely focus on Bakauheni port. A few years ago Bakauheni port switchedfrom a multi-purpose port to a passenger/vehicle only port. There are many more wayspeople smugglers will operate in Lampung than Bakauheni. A PIC needs to coverBakauheni port, Panjang port (which is the container terminal), also villages located onthe shoreline.

Lampung is getting recognized as a key destination point for IM. Last year (2009) therewere five or six cases of IM being caught. Lampung is close to Jakarta, Lampung is alsoclose to Australia. IM can enter into Lampung and they can exit to Australia from here.IM can come by land/air from Medan/Riau or by boat on the Sunda Strait. In fact IMhave stopped coming by bus because I have spoken to my family who have bustransportation connections in Medan and I have told them specifically, if there are anyIM who come by bus, there will be trouble from me.

(no input)

The PIC has to work with the Department of Transportation (water division) as they dealwith all the ships coming in, licensing, cargo, passengers, etc. They also have hundredsof ships which patrol the water - these crew need to know about IM. There is a lot tocover. You have to work directly with the head of the harbor (Syah bandar). The PICneed to deal with the owners of the small ships (kapal pongpong) who are eager to makemoney any way they can. But the key place IM rent/buy ships is in Dumai (Riau) - fromthere they come here.

Head of the Lampung Immigration office

ResultsR esearch 2

s33(a)(iii)

s47F

FOI Document #8


33

Research 2Results

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

PIC needs to go beyond government level. Reach local people living on the coastline.One example is in the Kalianda area. An important point is that you can not go intothese areas alone, you will need us to accompany you. If you want to make it simplein the districts you can also leave brochures in front of standing banner at village headoffice. The best place to start is in South Lampung.

Our government agency,in 2008-2009, conducted a local government awarenesscampaign on IM at the sub-regional level in Lampung. Our division focuses on earlydetection - what to look for, what to do.The participants reached were limited because the budget was limited. Our divisionneeds IM awareness training, especially at the sub-regional level. There are 14 sub-regional office but not all of them need the training, our office will select 7 or 8 coastlinesub-regional offices that should get the training. In those regions most people don’tknow about IM issues. At the provincial and regency level the government is beginningto be aware about IM, but at the local level it is very low. The areas that will be chosenare particularly attractive to IM because they are known for calm waters.

In partnership with Immigration, our agency works closely with IOM in handling IM/peoplesmuggling cases. Our team at the provincial level has a high level of understanding ofthe issues but this does not translate to local divisions.

Use of PowerPoint and photocopied hand outs were okay but a film is needed, a cleardocumentary outlining IM issues and key information. If possible make the film a drama.Like a soap opera type production. If it is placed on national television stations Indosiaror SCTV it will reach everyone.The PIC team leaders can come to our regular government coordination meeting toupdate on plans and progress. There are eight of these meetings per year. The next oneis in March 2010. There is also a regional intelligence meeting held regularly (possiblyquarterly) that PIC can explore.

A possible PIC partner is the Department of Home Affairs, they will have an interest inIM.

Head of United People, Politics, and Protection Agency IriantoManager at United People, Politics, and Protection Agency s47F

FOI Document #8


34

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

To strengthen the PIC you may want to also focus activities on Merak (which has morepeople coming in as it is a bigger port) and also Bengkulu.

To my knowledge I believe the IM in Lampung will more often pass by land and beheaded to Java/Jakarta. We rarely get people smuggling cases in Lampung where theyare caught on the water or where they are trying to reach Australia from here. Even ifyou take a walk on the shoreline you will see that the boats here used by fishermen aresmall - too small to reach Australia. I remember a story a few years ago a boat of Afghanswashed ashore by Pasir Putih but that is rare. It happens more often in places likeBengkulu. The usual route would be Malaysia - Bengkulu. Note, if you want to work withthe Indonesian Navy you have to go through the proper channels and the proper channelsfor IM related issues is the Lampung Navy Headquarters (MAMPESAL)

Here at the Indonesian Navy not many people know about people smuggling. Trainingwould be good for the people here to understand what they have to look for. There are300 members of the Indonesian Navy here. members mainly have to deal with piracyissues. Some people here are lazy so they wait for fisherman to make their catch andthey will go out to sea and rob the fisherman. These fishermen are from different areas,they come all this way, then they get robbed.(Are the pirates possible people smugglers?) I don’t know. The pirates are lazy and theydon’t go too far off of shore to rob other boats. I don’t know if they are potential peoplesmugglers. Maybe the IM would not trust them.

(no input)

So I would say the PIC contacts people in Organda (which is the Land transportationorganization) as they deal with modes of transportation (busses, etc) which could betargeted by IM coming into Lampung and wanting to cross to Merak through Bakauheni.

Indonesian Navy in Lampung,

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

Panjang Port can be a people smuggling target as it is very difficult to monitor who ison the ships.

The harbor administration has very little understanding about people smuggling issues.The harbor administration is responsible for all administrative issues in the harbor andit will be helpful if we know about people smuggling issues. Our office includes customsand excise - this team often has close knowledge of harbor activity.

It is impossible for us to walk inside and inspect each ship. The best is for us to trainAdpel staff to detect IM if they come across IM so they know what to do.

In terms of people smuggling, the current focus of our department is ensuring shipquality. The issue with a focus on people smuggling is that knowing exactly who is oneach ship is very difficult. There are passenger lists but they are often inaccurate.

Adpel is willing to work with the PIC on the people smuggling issue.

Panjang Harbour Administration Agency (Adpel)

Research 2Results

s47F

s47F

FOI Document #8


35

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

You will also want to focus on the Lempasing area, Labuan Marigai which is an hourand a half from Lampung city, and Ujung Bom, which is close. You may want to alsodo this in some of the surrounding islands - Sepesi, Lagundi, Rimau.

Smuggling people from Lampung to get to Australia may be difficult. It will take mostof the boats at least one month to get to Australia, that is a long time. One month meansthey have to pack a lot of food, the water police will get suspicious - ‘why are you carryingso much food?’. If the IM wanted to go to Australia from here they would target the boatowners, the fishermen for the crews, and they would focus on the Pasir Putih area - thewater is calmer there and it is easy to disembark.

One case was remembered, occurring in 2008 or 2009, where more than 20 PakistaniIM were arrested. They had purchased their own ship and hired an Indonesian crew totake them to Australia. The Indonesian crew fled when we ( ) came. Thelocal police are getting training for IM awareness, this is what the water police need.

Why are we worried about IM? Whatare the impacts? What are the regulations?

It is easy times to target fisherman because they are facing difficulties with catchnumbers and rising costs. Any additional income is welcome. The only issue is theclimate - is it ‘West’ season, or ‘East’ season.The syndicates are smart and they will even build their own ship. If you want to go tothe ship builders you have to go to Arnas. The water police patrol near there and if theyare making a ship we will ask who it is for, what is the purpose.The best way to get information from the villages is to use an informant. We haveinformants. We can use the informants to tell us if there are any IM in the neighborhoodand what their plans are. They will tell us the information.If you want to reach the fishermen through awareness campaign the best idea is to makea film or wayang show. You can also set up a medicine stand for a day - give outimmunizations or something. Or provide a group circumcision day for the fishermen kids- that is appreciated and remembered.

(No input)

,

Research 2Results

s47F

s47F

s33(a)(iii)

s33(a)(iii)

s33(a)(iii)

s33(a)(iii)

FOI Document #8


36

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

We can use the support of the PIC to make our work easier. Bakauheni port is a busyand large port and the more awareness created about IM/people smuggling the betterit is for us.

Basically there are only two ways to cross over to Java from Bakauheni port.

The first is if you go by vehicle. When you go by vehicle you must pass the harborcheckpoint before entering the harbor. At the harbor checkpoint we have bomb andnarcotics sniffing dogs and each vehicle is thoroughly searched. If a bus is stopped atthe checkpoint a KP3 officer will walk onto the bus and look at the passengers. Passengersfrom vehicles will be randomly asked to exit their cars so the KP3 officers can morethoroughly check the vehicle. Once the car is inside the harbor they are still constantlyobserved for suspicious activity.

The second way to enter the port is by foot (that is passengers are dropped off at parkinglot). These passengers must first buy ferry tickets to cross over. When they enter thebuilding to buy the tickets there is standby security observing the passengers. Once thepassengers pay for the ticket they must pass individually guarded turn stiles. All securityare trained to look for suspicious activity including IM.

The are aware of the people smuggling issue and we also have peoplesmuggling posters on the walls of the harbor.The security at the harbor is very tight and we watch for any type of suspicious activity.The harbor police is made up of contract security guards and full time police workingin three 8 hour shifts. In total there are 40 contract employees and 56 police employeesat the harbor.

A PIC here at the harbor needs very large posters. Not billboards but the kind of flexibleposters you see for campaigns and advertisements. Also stand alone banners are usefulnear the turn stiles inside the harbor.

Is it possible to have an IOM office located here at the harbor? That will make thingseasier also in terms of process, creating awareness amongst all staff.

(no input)

Research 2Results

s33(a)(iii)

s33(a)(iii)

s47F

s47F

FOI Document #8


37

TargetLocation

Background

Experience

PIC

Partners

It will also be good if the PIC goes beyond Bakauheni harbor. One possible location isin Kalianda where there are many fisherman using pongpong (small boats) who may bewilling to support people smuggling.

The harbor is 76 hectares so there is a lot of land. Two years ago Bakauheni harborswitched from a harbor which did both passengers and containers to only passengers.Many containers are handled at Panjang harbor.

Only those ‘on the front lines’ are aware of IM (in ticket booths, at front doors, on ferries).

The Indonesian Ferry Association fully supports people smuggling awareness raising andwe will do what we can to help.There are 20 roro (Roll on, Roll off) ferries which operate from Bakauheni to Merak 24hours a day. The ferries leave from the harbour ever 15 minutes. Possible PIC activitiesinclude dispensing pamphlets or posting posters on the ferries. The members of theassociation, which includes ship owners, are always willing to be supportive and PICactivities will only require a letter from the Ferry Association requesting approval.The PIC can also place TVs with IM information on them. Another idea is to make apermanent sign. PIC can work with us to see where a sign like that can be placed.It would be good if the IOM had an office here at the harbor to help us deal directlywith people smuggling issues.

(no input)

Research 2Results

s33(a)(iii)

s33(a)(iii)

s47F

s47F

FOI Document #8


38

TargetAudience

TargetLocation

InformationChannels

One-on-one interviews have indicated the following key partners for the PIC in Lampung:Lampung Immigration officeHead of United People, Politics, and Protection AgencyIndonesian Navy in LampungPanjang Harbour Administration AgencyIndonesian Water PoliceIndonesian Harbor Police (KP3)Indonesian Ferry Association

additional recommended partners (not yet interviewed) are:Indonesian Police (already a close IOM partner)Department of Home AffairsLand Transportation Organization (ORGANDA)

The key target locations are:Bakauheni Port (passenger traffic)Panjang Port (container traffic)

Additional locations (reaching local populations directly) have been suggested by thepartners.

One-on-one interview results indicate Lampung target audiences respond well to awarenessraising message through workshop/training activities. The large number of partneragencies require regular discussion and face to face interaction. Scheduled round tablemeetings or networking type functions will support cooperation and team building.To develop prestige and political will for the people smuggling issue, exposure on massmedia, TV for example, will be offered to key partners. Radio is an alternative but notas prestigious.

The dearth of knowledge in relation to people smuggling amongst range of one on oneinterview participants reflects the need for an easily accessible information package.

esearch 2:RSummary Recommendations

s33(a)(iii) s33(a)(iii)

FOI Document #8


39

Appendices

FOI Document #8


ppendixAFGD discussion of household decision maker notes:

- It seemed like a natural reaction for participants to automatically indicate the husband/father was the key decision maker. Questioning further, the father has the status of keydecision maker but in practice his role varies from location to location. In Sukabumi andManggarai Barat (except in the village of Nangalili village) key decisions are in fact madeby both the husband and the wife. When a wife disagrees with a husband's decision theywill undergo a multistage process to find a solution which includes meeting sessions withthe father's parents, parents in law, and if no agreement is reached a religious leader.

- In Kualuh Leidong and the village of Nangalili village, participants (male and female) agreethat the husband makes the final decision, whether the wife agrees or not.

- Two male FGD sessions in Teluk Pulai Luar village (Kualuh Leidong), and Nangalili village(Labuan Flores) did place wives in the top 4 rank of decision maker influencers.

- cultural leaders were not prevalent in Kualuh Leidong or Sukabumi- in Teluk Pulai Luar village both male and female FGD agreed one key influencer to the

husband was the village head.

FGD discussion of household decision maker notes:- Possibly indicative of a strong government system, participants were unanimous (26/26

FGD) that the key decision maker at the village/township level are the village and townshipheads. This means that the PIC must closely involve the village head in the PIC activities.In 7 female FGD the majority of participants did not know how the village decision makingsystem ran but agreed that since the village head represents the village, they are thedecision maker. This may occur because the role of women in the village system is stilllimited.

- The FGD did not reveal lobbying efforts or special considerations to private businesses,was not discussed. Participants stated that the government mechanism currently in place(town meetings are held on a regular basis) is an effective mechanism for decision makingat the village level.

- FGD revealed that while in most villages, villagers are welcome to go straight to the villagehead to express their input and complaints, the most common way to express individual

Appendix A: Identification of PIC Target Audiences

40

FOI Document #8


41

Appendix B: Knowledge of People Smuggling Activities

FGD researcher notes:- Nearly all of the FGD required clarification for this topic. (IM people smuggling is not at top

of mind when people smuggling is mentioned).- The following dialogue, which occurred in Citarik village, is typical of the FGD in Sukabumi

and Manggarai Barat locations.

- Initially when discussing people smuggling and IM, participants understanding of IM is notalways clear. In Sukabumi and Manggarai Barat, participants understand IM to be touristswho overstayed their visas or tourists who have decided to illegally stay in Indonesia toopen up a business. In Kualuh Leidong, FGD participants understand IM to be Chinese,Malaysian, and Singaporean traders who come to the area illegally to sell their goods. Thefacilitator agreed that the examples provided by the participants were examples of irregular migrantsimmigrants but then explained that the focus of this research are irregular migrants whoare being smuggled.

- In Manggarai Barat and Sukabumi, which are both tourism destinations, participants statedthey could not tell, and they had no idea, of the differences between an IM and a legal orirregular migrants immigrant, and the difference between a tourist and an IM.

- In Simandulang the FGD participants shared the following anecdote:

Facilitator: People smuggling is a growing issue in Indonesia, can you tell us what youknow about people smuggling.

participant 3: It is when women are brought to other countries with the promise of jobs butinstead they are used for prostitution

Facilitator: Yes, that is trafficking, a form of people smuggling, what else do you knowabout people smuggling?

participant 5: Or when children are brought from one place and they have to work eventhough they are underage.

Facilitator: Yes, that is child trafficking another form of people smuggling. But there isalso another type of people smuggling that is becoming more and morefrequent in Indonesia. What else do you think of when you think people smuggling?(silence from participants, prodding from facilitator)

Facilitator: How about people smuggling of IM?participants: Oh yes, people from other countries. Afghan people (another participant at

the same time says Iraq)(once the participants reach this understanding FGD asked questions about the definition of irregularmigrants).

“In May 2009, one day after the sub-district head was sworn in, a boat load of 40 Afghanswere dropped off on the muddy shoreline of Simandulang village. Making their way throughthe mud the Afghans met up with a villager and not being able to speak Indonesian, couldnot communicate and the village head was called. FGD participants recall the IM as friendlyand smiling. Another impression the IM made is their purchase of a bottle of water (regularlyIDR5.000) for IDR50.000. From the village head they were transported to the sub-districthead in Tanjung Leidong where they stayed for three days before a ferry was chartered andthe water police escorted the ferry to Tanjung Balai, where they were processed byimmigration. FGD participants do not know what happened to the IM after that. FGDparticipants stated the villagers who first met the IM suffered losses because they had tospend time filling out reports, they had to travel to Tanjung Balai to answer police questions,and they had to spend many hours on administrative tasks - all without compensation.”*Summarized and compiled anecdote made by male FGD in Simandulang village.

Appendix

FOI Document #8


42

Appendix C: Motivations Behind Support for People Smuggling

FGD researcher notes:- The most common example provided by FGD participants as to why some will support

people smuggling is because of the money and chance to increase income. Many FGDparticipants stated that any additional income was necessary because this year was a yearwhen catches were low and many fishermen are having difficulties to make ends meet.(Sukabumi, Labuan Bajo, Kualuh Luar).

- Religious reasons were noted:

“As good Muslims we must support the IM. I encourage people to support IM.”*Comments made by religious leader during one on one interview in Citarik village. The village leaderwas arrested a decade ago for supporting IM travel to Australia.

“There was one guy, he was not healthy and he agreed to support the IM. When in Australia hegot himself arrested on purpose so he could be treated in Australia” *Comments made by maleFGD participant in Namosain village. A similar comment was made by a female FGD in Oesapavillage.

- In Oesapa village the fishermen stated they would be willing to help if their family or friendswere involved in the activities and invited them to come along. One fisherman in TanjungLeidong stated that he would like to meet IM for the chance to meet a foreign wife. Anotherfisherman from the same group says he would be doing the village a service by helping theIM be to Australia you do not subject the village to disease. InFatubesi village the participants stated their support would be limited to immediate needs(food, shelter, clothing), not transporting the IM to Australia.

- In Labuan Bajo village the participants have expectations from the IM, hoping they canprovide financial aid and support to the economy.

- The following is a flow chart developed during the FGD sessions which illustrates a typicalresult of why individuals are willing to support IM people smuggling.

- and also interesting, unexpected reasons:

Appendix

FOI Document #8


Appendix D: Deterrents to Support People Smuggling

FGD researcher notes:- The number deterrent to support people smuggling was the fear of legal ramifications.- Additional reasons included public culture of a village not to engage in suspicious activity.

43

- The male FGD in Sukabumi said people should not support IM people smuggling becausethere could be religious issues as IM were not of the same type of Islam as locals. TheKupang and Labuan Bajo FGD went deeper in the ramifications of being caught – beingseparated from family, having the family suffer with no bread winner, and getting a badreputation.

- Interestingly only the female FGDs mentioned death by drowning as a negative impact.- The following is a flow chart developed during the FGD sessions which illustrates a typical

result of why individuals are not willing to support IM people smuggling.

“The local people have to be aware that they can not get involved in IM people smugglingactivities. These people are dangerous. They carry narcotics, they have diseases, and thereare those who are also linked to terrorism. Even if we look at this from another angle,imagine if we allowed the IM to freely associate and live in our villages... in a few years downthe line you won’t even recognize the children as Indonesians anymore.”*Comments made by government agency head in Tanjung Balai during one on one interview.

The people here will not engage in any activity that they are not familiar with. Theculture in this area is that if the community suspects something strange or out oforder,they will report it directly to the head of the hamlet ”'94

- A one-on-one interview with a government official, included commonly heard argumentswhy people should not support IM people smuggling activities:

Appendix

FOI Document #8


Appendix E: Information Channels

FGD researcher notes:- The research strongly indicates that the most effective approach to disseminating a message is through

media tools which are based on community-level interpersonal communication. These are events in which target audiences are in a comfortable and familiar interactive group setting receiving informationfrom a trusted source.

- Examples of these events include weekly prayer group meetings (pengajian), monthly social lottery gatherings (arisan), and regularly scheduled community meetings (Rapat Desa) which are already in place, in various forms, in each of the villages.

- A key target audience to initially engage in the PIC are community and religious leaders. The PIC canuse their interpersonal communication skills to promote awareness of people smuggling. The leaders will be given training on raising people smuggling awareness.

- Additional activities ?outside the norm' can be effectively be implemented to take advantage of a captiveaudience. All FGD participants agreed a lack of entertainment was one challenge in the villages and an effective PIC tactic would be to conduct an entertaining but also educational event.

- Random observation indicates that the level of drinking (alcohol) is high in many of the villages in Kualuh Leidong. As researchers walked through the villages after 9pm they often met up with FGD participants who were having a (alcoholic) drink with their friends. On several occasions the researcherssuspected inebriation. The high rate of drinking may be related to the lack of things to do in the villages.

- Examples of extra-curricular activities include sports leagues including volleyball, soccer,and badminton conducted in Teluk Pulai Luar village. These leagues lead up to August 17th Independenceday celebration finals.

- To support the findings of PIC target audience and PIC activity locations, the LQAS measured where the villagers received their latest information. These information sources can be used as a guide for effective information mediums. See table 6.

- The PIC will use print, WOM (word of mouth), and electronic media. Tools include:1. simple, easy to understand, interesting presentation material in print (flip chart, handout) and electronic

(powerpoint, film) format2. pocketbook of information / pamphlet3. flier/stickers4. poster5. baliho (a type of banner/billboard)6. brochure/bulletin/a information sheet which can be slipped into the religious institution materials7. a film8. a mobile car center (possibly in coordination with the health department who has the vehicles available)9. The PIC will have to consider broadcasting rights but interesting Indonesian movies which can accompany

the IM awareness films include Laskar Pelangi, Denias Senandung Awan, Merantau,Garuda di Dadaku, etc

44

Appendix

FOI Document #8


Appendix F: Lot Quality Assurance Sample (LQAS) Survey

Name of respondent: …………………………………………Address: …………………………………………………………..

1.What is your gender?a. Femaleb. Male

2. How old are you?……………………… years old

3.What is your level of education?a. No schoolingb. Did not complete elementaryc. completed elementaryd. completed junior high schoole. completed high schoolf. completed Universityg. Other education, explain ……………………………………………

4.We have some questions about people smuggling. Are you aware of people smuggling?a. Yes, I have witnessed it personallyb. Yes, but I have not witnessed it personallyc. Never go to question 7d. I don’t’ know go to question 7

5.Have the people in this village ever been involved in people smuggling?a. Yes, (provide description if possible)b. No go to question 7c. I don’t know go to question 76. How many villagers in total were involved?a. <5b. 5 – 10c. >10d. I don’t know

7. If necessary give examples. ‘by transporting IM to Australia’ or ‘by providing the ships to bring IM onthe water’, etc.)

a. Really helpsb. Helpsc. You would not be able to tell the differenced. Negativee. Very negativef. I don’t know

8. What are the social impacts from being involved in people smuggling? (are the local people smugglersseen as heroes? Are they talked about? What is the social response to local people smugglers?)a. Very positiveb. Positivec. There is no impact/influenced. Negativee. Very negative

9. Do you know the Indonesian regulations related to Irregular Migrants / people smuggling?a. Yes, and I can give you some specific examplesb. Yes, but I do not know any specific examplesc. I don’t know

10. Have you ever received any information regarding the Indonesian regulations related toIrregular Migrants / people smuggling?a. Yesb. No ? go to 12

FOI Document #8


46

11. Where did you get the information?1. At a community meeting2. On a billboard / poster3. From other village members4. From some sort of campaign, (explain as much as possible)…………………5. Another type of gathering (explain as much as possible)……………………6. From the radio………………………………….7. From a non-government organization (do you remember which one?)……………..

8. Others (please explain) ………………………………………………

12. Do you know the Australian regulations related to Irregular Migrants / people smuggling?a. Yes, and I can give you some specific examplesb. Yes, but I do not know any specific examplesc. I don’t know

13.Have you ever received any information regarding the Australian regulations related to Irregular Migrantspeople smuggling?

a. Yesb. No go to 15

14. Where did you get the information?1. At a community meeting2. On a billboard / poster3. From other village members4. From some sort of campaign, (explain as much as possible)…………………5. Another type of gathering (explain as much as possible)……………………6. From the radio………………………………….7. From a non-government organization (do you remember which one?)……………..8. Others (please explain) ………………………………………………

15. What do you think of those villagers who help IM get to their target countries like Australia(people smuggling).

(1) gives them additional income(2) provides assistance as the IM are in need(3) others are doing it (so it is okay)(4) it is not an issue because the IM are going to another country(5) it is breaking the law(6) it is not breaking any laws(7) it is a dangerous journey (you can die)(8) they were probably ordered by the owner of the boat(9) the risk being caught(10)if they get caught, they were just not lucky(11) I don’t know(12)Other perceptions, explain…………………………………………………..

16. What is your work?(1) Boat owner(2) Work on boat(3) Work at harbor(4) Sell fish(5) Farmer(6) Laborer(7) other, explain ……………………………………………(8) Do not work

17. Do both husband and wife work?(1) Yes(2) No

18. Does your income meet your daily needs? (For food, clothes, shelter, schooling, healthcare)a. More than enoughb. Enoughc. Not enoughd. Far from enough

Appendix

FOI Document #8


19. In the last three months have you ever had to borrow money to meet your basic needs? How many times, please think carefully about this. (Take your time, let them think)

a.Yes. ....... timesb.No go to 22

20. From the following list, which of your two basic needs did you need to borrow money for the most?(1) Food(2) Clothing(3) Shelter(4) School(5) Healthcare(6) Others (please explain)…………………………………………

21. Are there any of the basic needs on this list that you never need to borrow money?(1) Food(2) Clothing(3) Shelter(4) School(5) Healthcare(6) Others (please explain)…………………………………………

22. Where do you get new information from in this village? Please agree or disagree from the following list, and if possible give examples.

(1) Radio …….. what station? what time?……………………..(2) TV ………… what station? what time?…………………..(3) Newspaper/Magazines ……………Name of publication?………………….(4) Posters ……………………Do you remember last poster?………………..(5) Community meetings ………………………Where was it held? What purpose?………(6) From a community leader ………………………Who?………………(7) Awareness campaign ………………………Who was holding it? What topic? ……(8) From a neighbor …………………………………………………….(9) From an religious organization ……………………………………………………(10)Other, please explain ……………………………………………………….

23. Please list what languages you speak on an every day basis.(1) Indonesian YES...... NO .....(2) Other language (please state which language (s) ………………………………….

24. According to you, what needs to be done to make this village better?a.(respondent explanation) ………………………………………

47

Appendix

FOI Document #8


48

Appendix G: Focus Group Discussion Semi-structured Guide

Segment 1:(attempt to identify the decision maker at the household level when it deals with peoplesmuggling. Do not mention people smuggling at this stage). Invite the participants to discussabout decisions being made at the household level. Discuss the process. Let the discussionflow. Facilitator should only get involved if conversation stalls.Discuss decision makers. Who help in the decision making process? Ask participants to writedown as many people as possible who are involved in the decision making process at thehousehold level. Facilitator writes down the decision makers.

Give each participant three stickers. Ask them to put a sticker besides the person(s) they feelhave the biggest role as decision makers in the household. When all stickers are placed, countthe stickers and rewrite the three top decision makers. Ask participants to agree/disagree withthe list. Ask the participants to determine the rank in terms of decision making ability of the threepeople.

Once the three have been identified, ask which parties influence the top two decision makers.Who has influence on the decisions these two people make? (Provide examples if necessary tostimulate flow of discussion). Use arrows to indicate influencers.

Now ask where the household decision makers meet their influencers. Under whatcircumstance (where? when? why?).

Before you move to the next segment ensure that you have the following inputs:

• Top decision makers at the household level• Key influencers of those top decision makers• Where these decision makers meet with the key influencers and under what

circumstances do they meet.

Segment 2:(dealing with people smuggling requires bureaucratic support at the Regency and Subdistrictlevel. At the village level the people smuggling issue requires buy in from communityleadership.)At Segment 2 we are trying to locate the decision maker at the village level when it deals withpeople smuggling. Do not mention people smuggling at this stage). Invite the participants tomove from household to the village and discuss about decisions being made at the village level.Facilitator should only get involved if conversation stalls.Facilitator writes down the decision makers. Give each participant three stickers. Ask them toput a sticker besides the person(s) they feel have the biggest role as decision makers in thevillage. When all stickers are placed, count the stickers and rewrite the three top decisionmakers. Ask participants to agree/disagree with the list. Ask the participants to determine therank in terms of decision making ability of the three people.Once the three have been identified, ask which parties influence the top decision maker. Whohas influence on the decisions this person makes? (Provide examples if necessary to stimulateflow of discussion). Use arrows to indicate influencers.Now ask where the village decision makers meet their influencers. Under what circumstance(where? when? why?).Similar to the household decision maker process, you should have the following inputs beforemoving to Segment 3:

• Top decision maker at the village level• Key influencers of the top decision maker• Where the decision maker meets with the key influencers and under what circumstances

do they meet.

Appendix

FOI Document #8


49

Segment 3:(gauge participant understanding of people smuggling). Participants should be warmed up andcomfortable with FGD sticker tool. Begin by explaining that the reason the research team isconducting the FGD and other research tools in the village is to find out about attitudes andknowledge about people smuggling. Start this discussion by asking “what is people smuggling?according to you what does it mean?” Facilitator remind participants there are not right andwrong answers.Facilitator write down all the answers on a flip chart under the title “what we know about peoplesmuggling”. Facilitate until there are no more inputs.

On a clean flip-chart write a new title “what we want to know about people smuggling”. Facilitatethe conversation. Ask participants what they want to know about people smuggling, what theyhave ever wondered, what they have heard that they thought might not be true.

Once the participants have no more inputs, and the facilitator has given them enough time toprovide all their questions, facilitator distributes five stickers per participant. The facilitatorinstructs ?please place a sticker beside the questions you most want to know about peoplesmuggling.'

Discuss the choices made by the participants, comment how interesting the choices are. Nowdevelop the following scenario with the participants: You are running an information campaignabout people smuggling and you have answers for many of the questions that people want toknow about people smuggling. How do we get these answers to reach the people in this village?What is the best way? Facilitator encourage answers from participants, clarify as necessary.

Before proceeding to Segment 4 ensure that you have the following inputs:• Information (right or wrong) that the participants know about people smuggling• Information which the participants want to know about people smuggling• Input from participants on the best way to disseminate information in their village

Segment 4:Discussion of motivation/deterrents to people smuggling. Facilitator do not mention peoplesmuggling in the specific village unless the participants bring it up first.Prepare the participants with an scenario: ?There are some people who are support peoplesmuggling. In fact they have made it into a business.' Facilitator takes out a new flip chart andon top of the flip chart writes ?Supports People Smuggling'. Prepare the participants with asecond scenario: ?There are some villagers who have been asked several times to supportpeople smuggling activities. But the refuse over and over again.' Facilitator takes out a newflip-chart and on top of this writes ?Does not Support People Smuggling'.Facilitator turns to participants and says. These two groups, same village, same economicbackground, but one supports people smuggling, the other doesn't. My question is ?why?'. Tellme why this group supports people smuggling and I will write your response down on this flipchart. Tell me why the other group doesn't support people smuggling and I will write it down onthat flip chart.Work with participants to find out as many reasons on both sides of the flip chart. If the groupruns out of ideas on one side, move back to the other side and vice versa.Once the participants have exhausted their answers, ask one more question to stimulateanswers, “What types of myths and legends (related or not to people smuggling) are there inthis village? Are there any local myths or legends that would deter people from peoplesmuggling? After participants have no more inputs hand out five stickers to each participant.Ask them to place a sticker beside the top five reasons some people will support peoplesmuggling. Once they are finished hand out another five stickers and ask participants to place asticker beside the top five reasons some people will not support people smuggling.

(Investigate the core roots of motivating and deterring factors). Facilitator takes two flip chartsand writes down the motivating and deterring factors to people smuggling as chosen by theparticipants.Ask the participants what is behind the motivating factors to support people smuggling. Examplefor facilitator “You have stated that money is a motivating factor to people smuggling, what is themoney used for? Why is that important?” Facilitator, every time participants give a new answeryou can use the same line of questions ?Why is that important”.

Appendix

FOI Document #8


50

Facilitator can put up a new flip chart once some answers are provided. Tell the participants youwill work on two flip charts at same time. Tell participants second flip chart seeks to discusswhat is behind the deterring factors to support people smuggling. Example for facilitator “Youhave stated that going to jail is a deterrent to people smuggling, why is it a deterrent? Why isthat important?” Facilitator, every time participants give a new answer you can use the sameline of questions ?Why is that important”.Before moving to Step 5 ensure the following inputs are provided

• Motivating factors for people to support people smuggling, including the top ranked reasons.• Deterrents for people to support people smuggling, including the top ranked reasons.• List of local legends• Core roots of motivation/deterrents

Step 5.(Impact of people smuggling on village). Discuss with participants the overall impact, on avillage level, of people smuggling. Place two new flip-chart sheets on the wall and on one write“Positives” and on the other “Negatives”. Ask participants to write down all the positives they canthink about people smuggling and all the negatives.Once the participants can provide no more answers, give each participant five stickers and askthem to choose which positive impacts are the most positive. Then ask the participants to placeanother five stickers on the responses which they think are the most negative.This material will help gauge additional perception and understanding of people smugglingamong participants.Before moving to Segment 6, ensure the following inputs are provided:

- List of positive impacts on village from people smuggling.- List of negative impacts on village from people smuggling.- List of most positive and negative impacts according to participants.

Segment 6:(Alternative incomes). People smuggling is considered to be an alternative income for somepeople. What are some alternative ways to earn an income in this village?Are there any programs (government/private) that encourage the alternative incomes mentionedby the participants?Give two stickers to the participants and ask them to choose which two alternatives on their listis the most viable and the most attractive.On completion of the sticker placement, do a tally and share results.Wind down FGD with debrief and question and answer session.

Appendix

FOI Document #8


Appendix H: KOFI One-On-one Structured Interview Questions

1. What do you know about people smuggling? (does it occur in any of these areas? Where? Who is involved?)2. What is your opinion of people smuggling?3. Have you ever heard about a campaign that discussed people smuggling?4. What do you think the people here would do if they were asked to support people smuggling activities?

What is the main motivator/deterrent?5. Who are the agencies/people responsible to deal with people smuggling activities?6. If you heard about a plan to people smuggle in this village what would you do? What can you do?7. If you had to give advice to a campaign that aimed to deal with people smuggling issues, what would

you offer? How would you encourage the community not to support people smuggling? What would yourrole be in such a campaign?

8. In the campaign what media tools would you use to get the message across? Have you had experiencewith those tools? Can you share your experience?

9. According to you, what community partners would the campaign have to work with in order to be effectiveand reach the community?

10. What are some of the local legends people in this village believe? (give examples to elicit response). Are there any that would deter people smuggling activities?

51

Appendix

FOI Document #8


52

Appendix I: One-on-One Structured Interview Questions for Research 2

1. What is your experience with/ understanding of people smuggling?2. What is your organization's experience with people smuggling?3. Do you see people smuggling as an issue in Lampung? Why/Why not?4. Do you see people smuggling affecting your work? How?5. What areas in Lampung are susceptible to people smuggling/people smugglers?6. What groups of people are susceptible to helping people smugglers?7. What agency's/departments are responsible of handling the issue of people smuggling here in Lampung?

IOM has plans to conduct a PIC to raise awareness about people smuggling, there are several questions related to this PIC that we would like to get your advice on.

8. What areas in Lampung do you think need this PIC?9. OM will need partners to make the PIC work effectively. Is your organization a potential partner? In

what capacity?10. What types of media tools have you found to work well to reach target audiences?11. Can you suggest other partners that IOM should consider? Why do you mention them?

Appendix

FOI Document #8


53

Appendix

FOI Document #8


54

Appendix

FOI Document #8


55

Appendix

FOI Document #8


56

Appendix

FOI Document #8


57

Appendix

FOI Document #8


58

Appendix

FOI Document #8


59

Appendix

FOI Document #8


60

Appendix

FOI Document #8


61

Appendix

FOI Document #8


62

Appendix

FOI Document #8


63

Appendix

FOI Document #8


64

Appendix

FOI Document #8


International Organization for Migration (IOM) IndonesiaSampoerna Strategic Square, North Tower 12A flJl. Jend Sudirman Kav. 45-46Jakarta Selatan 12930

* This report is part 1 of a 2 part series

FOI Document #8


Documents

Irregular Migrant People Smuggling Public Information ... · Public Information Campaign (PIC) Market Research Report IOM Market Research conducted by: IOM Indonesia Irregular Migrant