1 / 32

CHILDREN ON THE MOVE MAKING MIGRATION LESS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN

CHILDREN ON THE MOVE MAKING MIGRATION LESS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN. Mike Dottridge Consultant November 2010. PRESENTION INCLUDES:. Part 1 reviews which children we are talking about Part 2 looks at programming for children on the move Part 3 looks at challenges and enigmas

john
Download Presentation

CHILDREN ON THE MOVE MAKING MIGRATION LESS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CHILDREN ON THE MOVE MAKING MIGRATION LESS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN Mike Dottridge Consultant November 2010

  2. PRESENTION INCLUDES: • Part 1 reviews which children we are talking about • Part 2 looks at programming for children on the move • Part 3 looks at challenges and enigmas • & Part 4 looks at the actions needed

  3. PART 1WHICH CHILDREN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

  4. WHO ARE THESE CHILDREN? • Kids who leave home to earn a living or who run away from home • Young people sent away by their parents • Refugees and IDPs • i.e., children who leave home for quite different reasons • Travelling within own country or abroad • Some accompanied, some unaccompanied or separated

  5. A HETEROGENEOUS GROUP THAT SHARES SOME CARACTERISTICS • Seen as ‘outsiders’ or ‘foreigners’ • So not entitled to the same rights or services as local children • Perceived to be more ‘exploitable’ than other children (i.e., less risk of anyone standing up for them) • Generally they have difficulty getting access to services available for ‘local’ children (education, health, protection by the police, etc.)

  6. AT PRESENT LABELLED AS: • Street children • Trafficked children • Separated and Unaccompanied children (UAMs), , Children without parental care • Some working children, e.g. live-in child domestics or others working away from home

  7. WHY CONSIDER ALL SEPARATED CHILDREN AS ONE GROUP – OR ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE ON THE MOVE ? • Common characteristics • NOT covered (adequately) by local protection systems • So many children migrate in search of a better future • Shortcomings of focusing on specific groups, e.g. (recently) ‘child trafficking’

  8. 1st WORKING HYOPTHESIS • Children who are without parental care are generally less well protected (and more vulnerable to abuse), particularly those who have moved away from the protective environment of a community where they are known to others

  9. DEFINITION OFFERED OF ‘CHILDREN ON THE MOVE’ IN BARCELONA • ”Those children moving for a variety of reasons, voluntarily or involuntarily, with or between countries, with or without their parents or other primary caregivers, and whose movement might place them at risk (or at an increased risk) of economic or sexual exploitation, abuse, neglect and violence”.

  10. SEPARATED AND UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN ON THE MOVE END UP IN ALL SORTS OF SITUATIONS • Some are trafficked for sexual purposes • Some resort to commercial sex as a survival tactic • Many work full-time before the age of 14 • Many escape from difficulties at home (e.g. domestic violence, early marriage) • Many think they are better off than before

  11. SO IT’S NOT ALWAYS OBVIOUS WHO HAS BEEN TRAFFICKED OR EXPLOITED! Boys returning to Mali after working in neighbouring Côte d’Ivoire Photo credit: Terre des Hommes

  12. AND… • It would be incorrect to assume that it is not in the best interests of some children to leave home and migrate, whether aged 17, 15, 13 or even younger

  13. PART 2PROGRAMMING FOR CHILDREN ON THE MOVE

  14. 2nd HYPOTHESIS - WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING • Rather than generating programmes with conventional objectives and strategies – to stop a specific form of abuse such as child trafficking – we should analyse the protection available to children on the move, along with sources of harm/abuse, and adjust our programmes to meet the needs

  15. THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING ARE: • We look at protection techniques as a means of prevention (of the range of abuse reported to be occurring), rather than focusing narrowly on preventing only one abuse, such as recruitment for sexual exploitation or military exploitation • And we work to integrate a set of relevant protection techniques into a protection system

  16. PROTECTION TECHNIQUES TO… • Enhance the capacity of individual children to protect themselves (via advice on precautions, etc) • Enable children to organise collectively to protect themselves, once away from home • Techniques to enable families to protect their children more effectively (both at home and after they leave) • Techniques which mobilise the community as a whole

  17. PROTECTION TECHNIQUES DELIVERED AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND DIFFERENT PLACES IN A COORDINATED WAY • Targeting children before they leave home to help them later on; • While they are in transit • To keep them in contact with relatives or others concerned about their welfare • When they arrive at a new destination • And once they start earning a living

  18. AND (OF COURSE) WE GO ON INSISTING THAT GOVERNMENTS SHOULD CARRY OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES • Governments have a legal responsibility to protect separated children, but often duck this responsibility by doing nothing or sending children back home • And failing to take other action to protect separated children

  19. PART 3CHALLENGES

  20. CONTRADICTIONS AND ENIGMAS • Policy-makers and organisations who want to protect children on the move face contradictions and enigmas • There is a divide between a ‘normative’ approach (“children are entitled to stay at home and attend school”) and a ‘pragmatic’ one that gives priority to protecting children wherever they are in practice

  21. ENIGMAS FOR NGOS • Is acting in the best interests of the child always a priority for NGOs, international organisations and government agencies? • Do they/you have a method for determining what is the best interests of a child whom you assist or affect by your activities?

  22. EXAMPLE OF ENIGMAS • Some organisations think children should be pressed to stay at home (or not migrate) until 15, 16 or 18 • Some ‘rescue’ children in transit, without checking on what the children want • Have they carried out a best interests determination (‘BID’)? • Some are unwilling to give young people advice on precautions to take when migrating for fear that their organisation might subsequently be criticised (e.g. for encouraging children to migrate or if precautions prove ineffective)

  23. DANGER! • That the interests of organisations sometimes take precedence over the interests of children • That governments in Europe & North America subordinate children’s best interests to issues of national security (i.e., policies on immigration)

  24. PART 4ACTION

  25. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE • Invest in finding out what risks chldren on the move face • What gaps in protection systems their experience shows • What informal forms of protection (as well as formal) are available to them, which could be strengthened • So (as usual) LISTEN TO CHILDREN! And implement last year’s General Comment by the CRC (on the child’s right to be heard)

  26. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (2) • Talk to children along the routes they travel, rather than only in one place • E.g. children who are preparing to leave and those who have returned home & also those in transit or at their destination • Make an effort to reach children who are invisible or inaccessible (in transit or while working)

  27. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (3) • Are there ways that protection activities in two places (origin and destination) can be ‘joined up’ or coordinated? • E.g. in Yunnan (Daluo & Jinghong), China, a child protection system for children on the move • It often means building an alliance with an organisation in the ‘other’ place…difficult for some NGOs, but potentially easier for INGOs like TDH!

  28. SO…THERE IS A BALANCE TO ESTABLISH & DECISIONS TO MAKE… • Between giving priority to protection and other children’s rights • About the specific role of your NGO, which can’t do everything • What activities can you organise that will reduce the likelihood that children experience abuse and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome (from moving) from the child’s point of view?

  29. IDENTIFY CONVENTIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACTORS AND ALSO OTHERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES HAVE SOME PROTECTIVE BENEFIT • Assistance given by NGOs • Protection and assistance from government services • And explore the role of actors in the informal sector – who have not generally been taken into account (or have been regarded as «traffickers» and part of the problem)

  30. ALSO IDENTIFY ACTORS WHO ARE RESPONSABLE FOR ABUSE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT CHILDREN • For example, soldiers, border guards and police who extort money or sexual favours from children • And policy-makers who base “protection” policies on immigration and national security concerns (e.g. in EU)

  31. THE IDEAL – INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE COORDINATED IN SEVERAL PLACES AT THE SAME TIME • TDH’S Albania-Greece model • Save the Children in China (Yunnan) • A protection system that covers 2 places and the space in between

  32. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Mike Dottridge Independent consultant E-mail: mikedottridge@btopenworld.com

More Related