Most media stories, politicians’ speeches and NGO campaigns typically focus on the horrors of life in trafficking and dramatic rescues and escapes. The only thing we usually hear about what happens next is something like “she was reunited with her family and loved ones” or “now he is helping others like him”.

But after trafficking, most trafficked persons don’t simply go on to live happily ever after. They have different needs, and have to go through a number of bureaucratic hurdles to access support and be able to move on. These include identification, short and long-term assistance, residence permits, compensation and family reunification.

And all of this occurs in a context where countries of destination, in particular, are hostile towards migrants and reluctant to provide assistance to foreigners, including victims of trafficking.

These were some of the concerns that prompted us to focus the latest issue of the Anti-Trafficking Review on “life after trafficking”.

The papers in this issue cover a wide range of countries that are considered both origin and destination: Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Azerbaijan, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Nigeria, United Kingdom and United States. Below are some of the main issues highlighted in the articles. 

 Identification

First of all, victims of trafficking may be reluctant to go to the authorities, for example, the police, for fear of being deported as irregular migrants. This is pointed out in the paper from Denmark, written by an NGO working with migrant sex workers and victims of trafficking.

Those who are identified as victims of trafficking are granted a one-month recovery and reflection period, which can be extended to three months, if they cooperate with the authorities. After that, they’ll be deported. But these women came to Denmark to earn and remit money and, if deportation is the only outcome, what incentive do they have to either identify themselves to the police or to cooperate with the investigation?

The issue of identification is also addressed in the paper from Thailand, based on the work of the Thai NGO Labour Rights Promotion Network (LPN) with assisting returned trafficked fishermen. The author points to the complex definition of trafficking which requires a whole lot of box-ticking – was there coercion or force, was there consent, what were the working conditions; is this person an irregular migrant, a smuggled migrant, an exploited worker or a victim of trafficking?  The paper highlights the case of a young man, who at the age of 14 was forced to work 18 hours a day and endure physical and psychological abuse on a fishing boat. But after rescue, his case was classified as labour exploitation because he had agreed to go on the fishing boat and had no visible signs of violence. As such, he received only 50,000 Thai baht (USD 1,450) for three years of exploitation.

But what happens when trafficked persons are identified as such?

This is perhaps best exemplified in the paper from Switzerland, which is an interview with a counsellor from GAATW member FIZ – Support and Advocacy for Migrant and Trafficked Women. She refers to life after trafficking as survivors having to navigate “construction sites and mine fields”. Construction sites refers to the struggle to rebuild one’s life, while mine fields refers to the many personal and procedural obstacles that trafficked persons face.

The paper from the UK, written also by an anti-trafficking NGO, points to the fact that people for whom there are indications that they may be victims, but they are not confirmed as such, lose assistance after 48 hours. Those who are confirmed to be victims lose their right to support after 45 days. There is no system to follow up with them after they leave the government’s care and many actually end up being exploited again. Fortunately, this is recognised by the UK government and there is a bill at the moment to increase support to one year and we are yet to see if the bill will pass. But this treatment of survivors is shameful, given the UK’s claim that it’s a leader in the fight against “modern slavery”.

Assistance

Still, many trafficked persons do receive assistance, such as safe accommodation, legal, medical and psychological aid, and different vocational trainings.

The paper from Azerbaijan, based on in-depth interviews with 22 survivors, shows that Azerbaijan has been relatively successful in providing short-term assistance. Almost all the survivors report being satisfied with the support they received and assess their situation now as better than before they were trafficked.

At the same time, the paper from Thailand points to the fact that some asssitance programmes are overly paternalistic and disregard victims’ individual needs and ambitions. Some shelters restrict trafficked persons’ freedom, mobility, and employment opportunities.

This echoes the findings of the paper from Bangladesh, which presents an ethnographic observation of a reintegration shelter.

The author describes how in their public and media appearances, the shelter staff talk about empowerment, agency, the right of women to safe migration, and the rights of sex workers, but in practice treat the survivors in their care as both vulnerable, child-like victims, and deviants. For example, the social workers lock the shelter at night, for fear that the women will go out and engage in promiscuous behaviour, because “they are addicted to sex”. When women work at the shelter and earn money, the social workers keep their income because the women would spend it on silly things like beauty products and owning brand shampoos or make up would just send them back on the path to prostitution. At the same time, the skills trainings that the shelter provides, such as sewing or knitting, practically guarantee these women a life of low-wage work in the garment industry.

In Azerbaijan, some of the women had managed to find steady, long-term jobs, with the support of the NGO, while others had only received job counselling. But as a whole, the paper stresses that long-term assistance in the country has been less successful than short-term assistance. This is related to the high-levels of unemployment, gender inequality and social stigma towards women who’ve been involved in sex work. As a result, several of the women said they might return to the Middle East to engage in sex work again but reported that now they would be able to do it safely and would know how to avoid being exploited.

Remigrating, but this time safely, was also mentioned by the women in the shelter in Bangladesh, who felt that they now had more information about how to protect themselves.  

Compensation

Several of the papers also discuss compensation for survivors of trafficking. In Thailand, none of the exploited fishermen supported by LPN had received compensation as a victim of trafficking, even those who were officially identified as such. The paper points to further obstacles in claiming compensation, such as victims having to pay court fees when applying through civil courts. In Azerbaijan, victims are eligible to receive a one-time lump sum of around 230 US dollars and most seem to be receiving it. But this amount is wholly inadequate compared to the victimisation and the needs of survivors.

The paper from India highlights that the law provides the possibility for trafficked children and their families to receive compensation from the traffickers and from the state, but this rarely happens. The paper is based on interviews with government officials and NGOs tasked with the reintegration of children trafficked for labour exploitation. The respondents point to technical and administrative failures in receiving compensation, rather than a lack of funds.

Return and family reunification

All the papers that touch on the topic of return and family reunification in the country of origin or destination highlight the fact that trafficked persons often return to the same conditions that actually prompted their migration.

In India, children are returned to their families, who in most cases sent the child to work in the first place. But upon rescue and return, there is little, if any, support to the families, or to the child to continue their education, in order to ensure that the child is not sent to work again. The paper points to the need for an increased focus on prevention.

The paper from Indonesia, based on interviews with 49 returned trafficked men, focuses on the challenges with reintegration in the family and community that these men face. In the family, extended family, and community, they are often blamed for their “failed migration”. They return home without money, often in bad health, with a high migration debt and very limited economic opportunities. This results in tensions with wives, children, parents, in-laws and neighbours, and impedes the men’s recovery.

“Failed migration” is also an issue for Nigerian women returning from Norway, as presented in a paper based on in-depth interviews with Nigerian women and service providers in both Norway and Nigeria. Although they receive different forms of assistance from IOM after return, including cash grants and in-kind assitance for healthcare, training or starting a small business, this assistance is often not administered efficiently by IOM in Nigeria, which can lead to missed opportunities or the closure of the women’s business. The paper concludes that while the Nigerian women are vulnerable in Norway because of the trafficking, in Nigeria they are vulnerable because of the return and all the complications that come with it.

The paper from the US, written by staff at a service providing NGO, looks at family reunification in the US as a country of destination. The paper presents the case study of a Filipino man trafficked to the US who received his T-visa as a victim of trafficking and was able to bring his family to the US. But this reunification was not without its challenges because of the symptomos of the trauma, and his erratic behaviour as a result of it, which affects his family. The authors highlight the need for psychosocial support for both the survivor and his family so they can overcome the trauma and achieve family cohesion again.

Market-based anti-trafficking NGOs

Finally, the first paper in this issue tackles a more conceptual, rather than practical, aspectof life after trafficking. The paper is based on an ethnographic observation of what the author terms a market-based anti-trafficking NGO, which sells products made by survivors or women at risk of trafficking in Cambodia and India to consumers in New York City. She unpacks issues such as consumption, investments and markets, which are generally seen as conducive to trafficking, but at the same time are marketed by such NGOs as an anti-trafficking strategy that can support people’s life after trafficking. Such practices create new consumer identities and business opportunities detached from the actual victims of human trafficking.

In their own words…

The final paper in this issue is a collection of quotes from trafficked persons and abused migrant workers assited by members of GAATW. These quotes echo the findings of the papers. Survivors talk about debt, family relations, and residence and work permits, but also their short and long-term ambitions and goals.

All in all, the issue shows that despite all the difficulties trafficked persons face, the support offered by government structures and NGOs helps them move forward and rebuild their lives.