Draft version (21.07.2011)
Draft Strategy - TDHIF Campaign on Children on the Move in the Southeast Asia Region 1. Who are children on the move in the region and who do we target with our interventions? As an umbrella definition, the term ‘children on the move’ brings together various categories in which children who move have traditionally been divided. Within TdH, the working definition of children on the move used is the following: Children on the move refers to those children who have left their place of habitual residence and are either on the way towards a new destination, or have already reached such destination. A child can move across State borders, or within the country. (S)he can be on the move alone, or in group with family members, other adults and/or children, known or unknown previously to the child. Moreover, a distinction can be done among the various children on the move, based on the reasons behind such movement. The concept of children on the move stems from a change of paradigm within organizations which have experienced the limits of a fragmented approach (i.e., categorizing children depending on the form of abuse they experience) and propose to build child protection systems which are designed to protect children, in all settings, from all forms of abuse. In Southeast Asia, the phenomenon of children on the move is very common. Children may migrate across the region for a variety of reasons, which include: - Pursuing better life opportunities: children might migrate internally from rural to urban areas or cross-border to more developed countries for work or school. - Being trafficked and subjected to subsequent exploitation for the benefit of others: this includes at a minimum sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. - Seeking a safer place, refuge or asylum: for instance, this might be the case for Burmese children crossing border to neighboring countries such as Thailand and China. Due to the strict population control in refugee camps along the border of Thailand and Myanmar, children might first go to the towns along the border for work before moving on to other destinations, adding to the growing population of illegal migrants in a country like Thailand. It is thus reported that 80% of street children in big cities of Thailand (e.g., Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Kanchanaburi) are Burmese. - Being displaced by conflict and natural disasters: some countries in SEA are prone to conflicts and natural disasters, which has led to a large number of children joining the flow of internally displaced persons (IDPs). As to the regional patterns of migration, there isn’t much empirical evidence concerning specifically children’s migration. While the study of children and migration seems to be more advanced in the Philippines and Thailand, there is still a lack of consensus on the numbers of children involved in migration1. Thus the trends known mostly draw from adult-focused research on migration. Nonetheless, what is apparent is the diversity of the causes of migration and
Regional Thematic Working Group on International Migration including Human Trafficking (2008) Situation Report on International Migration in East and South-East Asia, 256 pages 1
1 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
opportunities for moving, concerning both general migration and children’s migration, whether across the region or even within one country.2 Based on the current portfolio of projects supported by TdH-NL in SEA, as well as on other interventions implemented by its partners, the categories of CoM which are primarily targeted at the time being are: - trafficked children; - and child migrants, (i.e., mostly in the context of Burmese in Thailand). Other categories – i.e., internally displaced persons, asylum-seekers and refugees – are currently not targeted in many ongoing projects yet in some. According to some TdH-NL partners, other categories of children could to be considered as part of the wider concept of CoM in SEA, particularly: - street children, being among those who leave their place of habitual residence, whether voluntarily or not, and may never return to their homes. They spend most of their time on the streets to work and may live alone, with their families or with other companions. For instance, in the Philippines, street children are rescued under the guise of child protection. However, studies have shown that behind rescuing street children, the aim of the government is “cleaning up” or city beautification and street children might be arrested and detained, without any explanation being given to their families. - children left behind in their home country, though they are actually not among those who leave their place of habitual residence, but may yet suffer from the consequences of the movement of their family members.3 2. Where to focus our work: rationale for GMS as starting point? Why Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) as a starting point Although TDH-NL will be active in the entire SEA region on the issue of Children on the Move, it will focus first on the GMS. The core of activities will be initially implemented in four countries in the region (i.e., Thailand, Burma, Lao PDR, Cambodia) and limited to few concentration areas, based on previous interventions with partners which TdH-NL can build on, on the relevance of CoM issues, on gaps identified in service provision and on research on patterns of movement between sending, transit and receiving areas. Drawing general migration trends, it seems that Thailand plays a central role in the GMS as a transit country and a recent major destination country, yet also still as a sending country. For instance, Singapore and Malaysia are destination countries for migrants (including from Burma) transiting from Thailand.
Andy West (2008) Children on the Move in South-East Asia: Why child protection systems are needed, Save the Children UK, p. 3 3 Yet, according to the Regional Thematic Working Group on International Migration including Human Trafficking, in its Situation Report on International Migration in East and South-East Asia published in 2008: “The migration of millions of adults has an impact on their dependants, particularly children who are usually left behind in their home country, but also who sometimes migrate with their parents. It is those who migrate with their parents that are the most vulnerable and the most seriously affected, even though they constitute a smaller group than the children left behind. Children who migrate internationally as well as children born to irregular migrants often have great difficulty accessing social services or securing a legal identity. Understanding the difficulties faced by child migrants is the first step towards taking action to assist them. However, even with the best of intentions, policies to assist child migrants are difficult to implement, often because of the children’s irregular status in the host country.” p. 20 (emphasis added) 2
2 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
In the whole region, whether at national or regional level (e.g., towards the ASEAN structure), activities shall still be considered, particularly for the sake of policy influencing in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. It is still relevant to advocate for the provision of adequate services to trafficked or migrant children throughout the region, including in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei or in the archipelagos of Indonesia and the Philippines. Understanding the situation of Burmese children on the move as a focus area Specific attention will be given to the routes that children from Myanmar take considering the major migration flows coming from this country. In the SEA region, the largest cross-border movements from Myanmar have been to China and Thailand, particularly from those areas close to the borders4. Tak Province and Mae Hong Son are the major entry points for Burmese migrants, whether voluntary or forced. In the Mae Sot area only, some 400 factories operate with between 300.000 and 800.000 people working in them. 99% of them are migrant workers from Myanmar, most of them being illegal and partly unofficial residents of border camps for displaced persons from Myanmar5. The situation of Burmese children on the move is further complicated by the number of camps in Thailand where a large number of refugees and displaced persons live. Thus, Burmese children are not only vulnerable when moving to the Myanmar-Thai border, further in-land or even to any other country in the region (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore), whether alone or with their parents. They are also vulnerable when they were born6 or live in such camps or in other large settled communities of people from Myanmar, whether officially or unofficially. Children of Burmese ‘migrants’, as an umbrella term often used in this case to also include refugees or IDPs, are considered a priority in TdH-NL current interventions due to their high vulnerability to exploitation. In fact, in western and north-western Thailand, along the ThaiMyanmar border, there is a high proportion of children, and particularly Burmese children, in the migrant population (around 15%) compared with the average in the rest of the country, which is seldom over 5%. The reason for the high proportion of children among Myanmar migrants is due to the fact that many of them cannot safely return home and thus tend to settle more in Thailand, if compared with the situation of Cambodian or Lao migrants7. Currently, through its interventions, TdH-NL supports primarily awareness-raising and service delivery (i.e., shelter, health, education in Burmese schools and community-based child protection mechanisms) along the routes that some Burmese children may take when moving from the Myanmar-Thai border to other areas. In Mae Sot particularly, TdH-NL supports 6 partners working with children on the move. At the national level in Thailand, FFW works with the immigration authorities to improve the situation of migrant women and girls. The information they have at hand from the Thai immigration detention would be very useful to analyze further in order to better understand the possible migration routes and risks faced by children on the move.
Andy West (2008) Children on the Move in South-East Asia: Why child protection systems are needed, Save the Children UK, p. 5 5 Figures provided by Burma ACT, 2011 (source tbc) 6 Children born in Thailand to foreign parents do not generally qualify for Thai citizenship. 7 Regional Thematic Working Group on International Migration including Human Trafficking (2008) Situation Report on International Migration in East and South-East Asia, p. 185 4
3 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
Yet still, throughout our interventions, more evidence needs to be collected regarding the migration routes taken by Burmese children, particularly their reasons for moving, the risks they face and the opportunities associated with the different phases of movement in the trajectory of a child on the move. Target areas identified in order to improve the knowledge of routes taken by children on the move are Chiang Mai, Bangkok and Ranong. As a preliminary step, TdH-NL has asked HREIB to come up with a research proposal in order to map and measure the problems for Burmese children. 3. What are the main problems identified regarding children on the move in SEA? At the Southeast Asia Conference on Children on the Move, conducted in Bangkok in November 2010, participants drew flow diagrams to identify the risks and benefits associated with specific phases in the trajectory of a child on the move. This enabled to identify some problems and gaps in the actions required to protect children on the move, along the corridors of migration.8 To start with, one gap identified concerns research, and especially: - the lack of empirical evidence about children’s internal and cross-border migration, and the related invisibility of many children on the move; - the lack of understanding about the factors which influence the degree of vulnerability of a child during movement. Another issue relates to the lack of awareness about children on the move in SEA, and especially: - the lack of awareness on this wider concept, with awareness being generally based on specific categories of CoM; - the lack of ownership on this concept also within local NGOs themselves, and the need to bring it down more to them; - the lack of awareness on duties of governments for all children, not only for those children who are nationals of one’s country, in line with the UNCRC (i.e., non-discrimination). In general, the main problems faced by children on the move in SEA in terms of child protection and related services they have access to in response to child rights violations include: - the lack of protection or access to adequate child protection services for children on the move while in transit or at destination, as well as the general lack of protection services even for non-migrant children; - the lack of strong child protection networks at local level, and when in place the too often ineffective implementation of referral systems; - the lack of standards for risk assessment and best interest determination; - the inadequate level of child participation as a fundamental element to be taken into account in service provision, which remains a challenge in the interventions of many stakeholders, including NGOs; - the inadequate handling of certain cases of exploitation or abuse, whereby the violation of immigration law is at times used as a justification to swiftly manage cases; - the lack of access to justice and compensation, with a judicial system for handling cases of trafficking or other forms of abuse which is complicated, lengthy and not enough childfriendly.
Asia ACTs (2011) Executive summary of the Southeast Asia Conference on children on the move, unpublished, see Workshop 4 results pp. 39-40 8
4 / 15
Opmerking [C1]: THE PROBLEMS ANALYSIS BELOW IS STILL VERY GENERAL AS IT WAS DRAFTED FOR THE REGION AS A WHOLE. THE AIM IS TO MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC, HIGHLIGHTING THE MAIN PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY PER COUNTRY.
Draft version (21.07.2011)
General legislative and policy gaps identified in countries of the region include: - the lack of child protection laws or their ineffective implementation; - the inadequate budget allocation to implement current laws, prevention and protection measures; - the inadequate implementation of human rights standards for the protection of children victims of trafficking, including for children from other States; - the lack of protection and care for service providers; - the lack of specific laws or measures regulating the management of migrant children within the wider migration management system in almost every country in SEA, with a lack of acknowledgment of child rights in immigration law; - the lack of policy allowing foreign migrant children (i.e., above a certain age) to work in certain jobs, which is an issue in a country such a Thailand with migrant children thus being largely employed illegally in order to make a living; - the insufficient procedures or capacity within the migration management system to identify children on the move and particularly victims of exploitation; - the insufficient protection measures regarding children in the deportation or return management from immigration detention centers. At regional level, the main legislative and policy gaps identified include: - the lack of coordination and collaboration of law enforcers for impartial investigation and prosecution; - the lack of or ineffective implementation of bilateral or multilateral agreements with countries of origin and destination, including transit countries; - the insufficient diplomatic ties between countries of origin, transit and destination, in addition to the lack of appropriate human resources in some cases (e.g., social welfare attachĂŠ assigned in the embassies of common countries of destination for migrants or victims of trafficking); - the lack of collaboration with regional bodies (e.g., ACWC, COMMIT) in order to reinforce the work of partners and contribute to policy influencing in ASEAN member states. 4. How to address some of these problems: proposed regional campaign strategy? 4.1 Research and learning as starting point Organizations have had a tendency for years in their programming to categorize children and focus at times on different categories of children to be protected (e.g., street children, trafficked children), providing category-specific responses aiming either at preventing children from being exploited or at protecting and contributing to the rehabilitation of those who had been exploited. Yet, with children being subjected to a range of forms of abuse, this approach has revealed its weaknesses in protecting children in general. In order to improve their interventions, organizations which have gained experience in trying to protect children from exploitation or other forms of abuse should undertake an assessment of the methods they have traditionally used. When planning interventions to protect and support children on the move, at any given phase in the trajectory of a child on the move, TdH-NL and its partners should therefore make use of the handbook developed by Mike Dottridge, from which some practical exercises were piloted with participants of the Bangkok workshop in November
5 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
2010. The objective is to enable organizations to determine the best course of action, reviewing and adapting what they do to prevent children being exploited.9 Furthermore, improving the level of empirical evidence and our understanding of the issue is key in order to determine what policy responses and protection measures are needed to increase the safety for children on the move. Comprehensive research on children in the context of migration thus needs to be conducted in order to gather data on their situation and learn more about and from children on the move. This is as a necessary step for organizations to identify alternative or additional methods to protect children. Finally, prior to designing interventions, gaps in existing child protection systems ought to be identified in targeted areas, whether the systems are run by the government (e.g., police, immigration service, local government child protection committees), community-based or put in place by other organizations (e.g., NGOs, IGOs). 4.2 1st component: awareness-raising As per the global campaign strategy, the expected result is that: by the end of 2016, the awareness of different target groups is raised about the lack of protection and services for children on the move, by demonstrating concrete problems experienced by them and solutions/results of constructive interventions. For Southeast Asia, the proposed expected result is that: by the end of 2016, the general public, target communities, their leaders and local governments recognize the protection needs and the rights of children on the move, and actively participate in efforts to improve child protection In Southeast Asia, the main messages to be fostered by the campaign are that: - Children are not only moving across the border but also within their country, in order to improve the understanding of and give visibility to internal migration of children. All children that are moving have the right to be protected, also within their own borders. - Prevention is key and needs to be community-based, i.e., building on a community’s indigenous protective practices10. While community-based child protection groups can play a key role in prevention (e.g., raising awareness about the risks to children’s protection, mobilizing communities to prevent those risks), it is important to systematize their protection work within the wider child protection system11. - Children can take action and make decisions about their lives, based on the concept of children’s agency. In terms of activities, the following could be considered: - Setting-up of community-based child protection groups and follow-up; - Case studies conducted in communities to assess the effectiveness of community-based child protection groups and building on indigenous practices;
Mike Dottridge (April 2011) Exploring methods to protect children on the move: A handbook for organisations wanting to prevent child trafficking, exploitation and the worst forms of child labour, working draft, TdHIF 10 Mike Dottridge and Olivier Feneyrol (May 2007) Action to strengthen indigenous child protection mechanisms in West Africa to prevent migrant children from being subjected to abuse 11 Save the children (2009) What are we learning about protecting children in the community? An Inter-Agency Review of evidence on community-based child protection mechanisms 9
6 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
- Community education about the rights and problems experienced by CoM, whereby methods used build on local wisdom and resources (e.g., community theatre); - Public events, appeals or other campaign actions to government agencies to get them involved in protection of children on the move; - Activities specifically for children to support empowerment. 4.3 2nd component: policy influencing/advocacy As per the global campaign strategy, the objective is that: by the end of 2016, targeted stakeholders change paradigm in the way they look at children on the move and accordingly provide adapted services, fill legal gaps, and enforce existing laws. For Southeast Asia, the proposed expected result is that: by the end of 2016, ASEAN stakeholders put protection measures at the center of all actions taken on behalf of children on the move. In Southeast Asia, the main advocacy and policy demands identified and to be addressed by the campaign are that: - The specific rights to protection of children on the move should be better acknowledged in a country’s migration management system, and policies related to child migrants should generally be improved. - Migrant children shouldn’t face deportation and detention. They should be able to access services, such as schooling or health care, without running the risk for themselves or for their parents to be detained or deported. - SEA countries have obligations under the UNCRC and should act in the best interest of the child. Best Interest Determination (BID) procedure12 needs to be promoted and acknowledged as a key protection measure in the practice of targeted stakeholders at national and regional levels. - As to children victims of trafficking and other forms of abuse, mechanisms need to be developed and improved to ensure their access to justice and to implement an effective referral system, notably for their recovery and social integration. In terms of activities, the following could be considered at local, national and/or regional levels: - Study the possibility of developing a declaration or guidelines for protection, setting minimum standards of care for minor migrant workers in ASEAN. Existing standards should be reflected in this document, such as the ASEAN Guidelines for the Protection of the Rights of Trafficked Children, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, or the UNCRC; - Capacity-building of partners on policy advocacy to better influence policy formulation and implementation of protection mechanisms for children on the move, including trafficked children; - Review ASEAN’s bilateral and regional (migrant) labor policies; - Advocate towards ASEAN using various methods: forge cooperation with other coalitions in ASEAN working on the rights of migrants, such as the Women Caucus and CRC Asia; work through dependable contacts in the governments; liaise with AICHR, ACWC and ACMW; - Generate a debate on the minimum age children can or are allowed to move (by themselves); 12
Building on already existing initiatives (such as SCEP and UNHCR)
7 / 15
Opmerking [C2]: THIS NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED STILL WITH PARTNERS. Is our target group: a/ only some ASEAN member states, or b/ ASEAN as a whole? What alliance strategy is needed to achieve wider targets as a result of regional advocacy? Opmerking [C3]: THE AIM IS TO MAKE THIS MORE SPECIFIC STILL, IN LINE WITH THE OVERVIEW OF GAPS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROBLEMS ANALYSIS UNDER SECTION 3. Which solutions to which gaps/problems, refined per country/partner?
Draft version (21.07.2011)
- Child consultations or other forms of participation, to empower children to voice out their concern and include the children’s views in policies; - Research on use of BID procedures in targeted ASEAN countries; - Based on the partners’ experiences in service-delivery, identify what elements are needed for a workable and applicable BID procedure; promote it among stakeholders and adjust to the context for local practitioners; - Policy influencing (i.e., advocacy, lobbying, advising) to strengthen the child protection system at all levels of governance (inc. budget allocation) and to improve the migration management in line with minimum child protection standards, including BID in case management of children on the move. 4.4 3rd component: service delivery As per the global campaign strategy, the objective is that: by the end of 2016, children access linked basic services along five intra-regional movement routes due to TdH and partners’ interventions, as well as benefit from psycho-social support contributing to their empowerment. For Southeast Asia, the proposed expected result is that: by the end of 2016, children on the move access adequate and interconnected services along two specific intra-regional movement routes13. As TdH-NL is already supporting a considerable amount of service providers in the GMS, strengthening the individual partners and their projects, as well as stimulating networking and complementarity among them will be a major area of work. In line with the UNCRC, it is important to ensure that the best interest of children is taken into account in case management, particularly by starting to build the capacity of the partners which are part of the campaign. Capacity-building related to children on the move (e.g., identification, best interest determination in case management) should also target other service-providers, in order to improve their knowledge, skills and attitude. Activities related to capacity-building will be supported, such as: - Trainings for service providers and duty-bearers (incl. local authorities): o as a start, to level off on the concept of COM among partners and towards other stakeholders; o to educate them on comprehensive case management and on BID in case management (incl. awareness on local culture); o to educate them on child protection, incl. the obligation of State duty bearers to account for all children, including undocumented migrant children. - Coaching and other follow-up measures. In terms of service-delivery, our strategy should be in line with the concept of supporting children by working alongside them (in French: accompagnement protecteur), elaborated upon in chapter 8 of Mike Dottridge’s handbook. Thus, based on an identification of the gaps along the route of migration, it is necessary to define in which specific areas services need to be set up or improved. Activities related to service delivery will be supported at least in the following phases of a child’s movement:
13
Proposal: one route from Burma-Thailand-Malaysia/Singapore and another route within the GMS region
8 / 15
Draft version (21.07.2011)
- At the place of origin: e.g., supporting basic education, basic health care; addressing safe migration as part of curriculum; - In transit: e.g., providing temporary safe sheltering and vocational skills training; improving active community watch/referral system; - At destination: e.g., providing formal and informal education for migrant children; vocational skills training; safe sheltering, birth registration and documentation for children. - Psycho-social care should be provided to COM, whether in transit or at destination. - Referral systems should be in place in all phases of movement, in communities and in link with existing local/national/cross-border protection mechanisms. In addition, the following activities are to be considered in order to improve service provision: - Research on specific movement routes (e.g., for Burmese children) to identify the conditions which increase the vulnerabilities of the child and existing protection gaps and to recommend responses on how to address them: o Identify which categories of children are to be targeted by the study (e.g., stateless, undocumented migrant children, refugees) and where to collect data; o Conduct participatory research along the movement route; o Get first hand data, including from Immigration Detention Centres (IDC) in Thailand, UNHCR, TDH project partners (i.e., individual organizations and networks, such as child protection groups). - Advocacy/networking to improve case management along identified routes (e.g., coordination meetings, procedures or transnatinal referral mechanisms). 5. Draft SEA regionalcampaign strategy logframe Refer to the draft logframe below.
9 / 15
Strategy of the TDHIF 2012-2016 Campaign on “Children on the Move” DRAFT REGIONAL CAMPAIGN LOGFRAME –SOUTHEAST ASIA Name of project: TDHIF Campaign on “Children on the Move” Region of intervention: Southeast Asia
Duration of cycle: January 2012 – December 2016
Responsible Member Organisation: TdH Netherlands
Date initial logframe: Draft of 21.07.2011
Target population: Children on the move14, Regional stakeholders15, Campaign partners
Draft responsible persons : Claire Rouffineau, Menno Gibson, Leny Kling
Partner(s):
Version: 2
Intervention logic
Indicators
Geographic focus areas: To be determined
Project partners (organizations to be identified) TDHIF MOs (organizations to be identified) Means of verification
External assumptions
Overall objective: Children on the move access minimum standards of services at national and ASEAN levels and governments as well as regional intergovernmental organizations foster their protection in and outside ASEAN. Project purpose:
- National and regional - Laws, regulations, declarations, strategic recognition of the protection documents, documented practices and publications By the end of 2016, ASEAN stakeholders need of children on the move reflecting Campaign partners recommendations have shifted from a security paradigm16 is anchored in States and IOs 17 to a protection paradigm in their policies and practice. policies and practices aiming at the protection of all children on the move
14
- All partners actively contribute to the regional campaign - Political environment is supportive - Funding is available
In the framework of this campaign, the term “children on the move” will refer to those children who have left their place of habitual residence and are either on the way towards a new destination, or have already reached such destination. These include: 1) asylum seekers and refugees, 2) Internally displaced children, 3) Migrants (often for economic reasons, both internally and across borders), 4) Trafficked children. 15 By regional stakeholders we understand intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), government authorities and non-government organisations (NGOs) having a stake in the child protection field 16 A security paradigm consists of laws, policies and practices that tend to consider migrants as a threat to national or regional security (be it on public order basis or for economic reasons) rather than as rights holders.
Draft version (21.07.2011)
Intervention logic
Indicators
Means of verification
Assumptions
Expected result 1:
- Increased awareness about the rights and problems experienced by children on the move - Community-based child protection groups are in place in target communities - At least 50% of target communities demonstrate improved protection mechanisms - At least 30% of appeals or other campaign actions to government agencies are successful in getting them involved in protection of children on the move
- Surveys - List of active communitybased child protection groups Case studies in communities - List of appeals or other campaign actions, and follow-up on actions taken
- All partners actively participate in awarenessraising and campaigning actions
- BID procedure/ other tools for handling CoM are acknowledged as key protection measures in the practice of targeted stakeholders at national and regional levels. - Recommendations of campaign partners, based on their experiences of promoting community-based protection practices and working along specific movement routes, are integrated into the practices of targeted stakeholders.
- Procedures, documented practices and publications including reference to BID or other protection procedures, as promoted by campaign partners - Case studies
- Active involvement of other stakeholders that develop programmes in other ASEAN countries than the ones targeted by the campaign
- Improved understanding of the conditions which increase a child’s vulnerability and protection gaps - Increase in services for children, whether provided directly under the project or as a result of increased linkages with local or national stakeholders - BID procedure applied by partners in case management
- Case studies - Political environment is - Project evaluations supportive Partners’ capacity - Funding is available assessment
By the end of 2016, the general public, target communities their leaders and local governments recognize the protection needs and the rights of children on the move, and actively participate in efforts to improve child protection Expected result 2: By the end of 2016, ASEAN stakeholders put protection measures at the center of all actions taken on behalf of children on the move Expected result 3: By the end of 2016, children on the move access adequate and interconnected services along 2 specific intra-regional movement routes
17
A protection paradigm, which the campaign will embrace, consists of laws, policies and practices that put the rights and protection needs of children on the move at the centre of any decision that may impact their life, regardless of their origin.
11
Draft version (21.07.2011)
â–ş Expected result 1 (Awareness-raising): Being aware of the protection needs and the rights of children on the move, the general public, target communities, their leaders and local governments actively participate in improving local child protection systems. Intervention logic
Indicators
Means of verification
Assumptions
1.1. Interim result:
- Availability of clear baseline data on target groups (e.g., migrant children and trafficked children) from different sources (village level, district level, organization and other sources) - Number of awareness raising actions organized - Increased awareness about the rights and problems experienced by children on the move - Number of actual cases that were referred or reported in these communities - Different approaches of raising awareness used (testimony of children survivors, service providers, theater as a form of raising public awareness) - Number of activities held with media attendance; number of media representatives as partners
Number of public events Number of participants to public events List of strategies used Documentation of cases
- Funds are available
The awareness of the general public18 target communities their leaders and local governments on the protection needs of children on the move is increased through targeted actions
18
Including: business establishments, employers, recruitment agencies
12
Draft version (21.07.2011)
1.2. Interim result:
- Number of community-based child - Lists of groups protection groups in place and organized with - Codes of conducts of groups The active participation of the the support of partners - Framework referral systems set up target communities to the - Number of cases handled (e.g., migrant and establishment of child trafficked children, stateless children, protection systems is internally displaced children) facilitated by Campaign - Number of children representatives partners (including former survivors) in the community-based child protection groups - Referral systems mapped - Reporting mechanisms established from community to national level - Number of meetings on experience sharing held and documented - Number of children’s organizations formed
- Communities/ general public is receptive to the problems faced by children on the move - Public debate does not further stigmatize migration and migrants
13
Draft version (21.07.2011)
► Expected result 2 (Advocacy): By the end of 2016, stakeholders in targeted countries – and in the wider ASEAN region – put protection measures at the center of all actions taken on behalf of children on the move. Intervention logic
Indicators
Means of verification
Assumptions
2.1 Interim result: National authorities19 validate harmonized best interests determination (BID) tools and procedure20 in the case management of children on the move 2.2 Interim result: Regional organizations promote harmonized best interests determination (BID) tools and procedures as part of case management of children on the move 2.3 Interim result: Migration status is acknowledged by national authorities and regional organizations as an illegitimate ground for detaining children
- Harmonized and contextualized BID procedure and tools are promoted by Campaign partners - Policies and legislation of national authorities reflect the BID procedures promoted by Campaign partners
- BID procedure - Tools (including psychosocial - Laws, regulations, background reports to legislative or administrative proposals, official declarations - Court decisions
- Support of partners to generalizing BID procedure
- Harmonized and contextualized BID procedure and tools are promoted by Campaign partners - Policies and legislation of regional authorities reflect the BID procedures promoted by Campaign partners
- Press releases - Public statements - Directives, decisions, recommendations and resolutions from IOs - Annual working agenda of IOs
- Conducive environment for advocacy
- Public statements of national and ASEAN authorities - Laws and regulations forbidding detention of minors on migration grounds - Funding programmes allocated to the decrease or alternatives to detention of migrant minors
- Public statements - Laws, regulations
- Political environment is supportive - Sufficient number of partners take part in projects aiming at banning detention
19 20
In countries where campaign partners operate Building on already existing initiatives (such as SCEP and UNHCR)
14
Opmerking [C4]: THE SCOPE FOR ADVOCACY STILL NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED: a/ the whole ASEAN region, b/ or only some SEA countries, based on alliances with relevant stakeholders?
Draft version (21.07.2011)
â–ş Expected result 3 (Service delivery): By the end of 2016, children on the move access adequate and interconnected services along two identified movement routes. Intervention logic
Indicator
Means of verification
Assumptions
- ToR - Research reports
- Funding is made available
- Capacity building or direct service delivery projects aiming at the protection of children on the move are completed - Evaluations of the projects are positive
- Approved project proposals - Project Evaluation/ capitalization
- Strategic priorities of donors include protection of children on the move
- Coordination meetings, procedures or referral mechanisms in place to improve case management along identified routes
- Minutes of meetings and follow-up of actions - Procedures
- Authorities are willing to collaborate on issues of common concern
3.1 Interim result: - Studies are conducted on two By the end of 2016, two movements routes21 are different routes studied identifying a/ main patterns for children moving, b/ conditions which increase the vulnerabilities of the child but also factors which contribute to the positive outcome of movement for the child, and c/ the protection gaps as well recommending responses on how to address them. 3.2 Interim result: In targeted countries/areas, adequate services are provided along two movement routes, either directly or in support of national and local stakeholders, as well as relevant stakeholders in the case of cross-border movement. 3.3 Interim result: Local and intra-regional exchanges and coordination between relevant authorities and service providers occur to ensure that the best interests of children on the move are upheld.
21
E.g., one route from Burma-Thailand-Malaysia/Singapore and another route within the GMS region.
15