The need to explore nuance to advance CTIP efforts

In a three-day virtual summit, Asia region CTIP professionals gathered to share experiences and insights, and several conversations highlighted the need for even more nuanced understanding.

Early this month, USAID Asia CTIP, Winrock International, and Freedom Collaborative hosted a virtual summit covering topics ranging from survivor engagement, emerging trends in Cambodia, cyberslavery and cybersecurity, to trafficker perspectives, displacement due to conflict and climate change, and monitoring and evaluation. Close to 400 professionals gathered for the summit, representing at least 100 different organizations in at least 50 countries. Having the active engagement of such a large group with diverse experiences produced many great discussions that helped strengthen collective knowledge.

A theme that emerged across multiple conversations was the need to drill down even further in our collective understanding of a variety of issues. Bringing a more nuanced perspective to bear could advance efforts to meet migrants and survivors of exploitation where they are and thus improve effectiveness. The importance of nuance in CTIP efforts is a key reason why engaging survivor perspectives and leadership has gained traction as a value: their experience adds depth and precision to understanding what migrants and survivors need and how to meet those needs.

While that value is oft repeated, it is unclear why survivors continue to struggle to be included and heard. A potentially fruitful next step would be to pose the question: what are the barriers to increased survivor inclusion? It’s possible to imagine various reasons: for example, a mismatch between the number of survivors who want to be engaged in CTIP work and potential positions or roles they could fill, survivors not wishing to identify as such, a need for additional or different support structures than other staff, a lack of concerted effort to put the value into action, or concerns about pushing responsibility back on survivors to advocate for rights when employers need to step up compliance with basic labor laws. It’s potentially a controversial topic, but in practice there may be many considerations to weigh. Shedding light on the barriers to inclusion could help advance efforts to address the problem and find promising solutions.

One very clear example of a challenge to inclusion emerged in the session on seafood supply chains in Taiwan and China. It was asked why, in a session about the exploitation of fishermen, no actual fishermen were included in the discussion about labor rights so that they could speak for themselves. Naturally, the reason is because they are at sea. It was argued that internet access should be improved for fishermen at sea so that they can better communicate with family or support services on land, as well as participate in labor rights advocacy efforts. In this case, efforts need to be made to literally meet workers where they are.

Another way nuance is needed was brought to light in the session on gender equality and social inclusion (or GESI). While there has been a major push to address the issue that LGBTQIA+ people are among those most vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation, a blanket, uniform effort to do so may unintentionally cause harm. In many communities in the Asia region, identification as LGBTQIA+ is illegal. It is therefore a challenge in those areas to identify those who are at risk and survivors who need gender/sexuality sensitive services, and doing so may inadvertently put them at risk of further harm. More sensitivity is needed to identify ways to meet these needs without putting people at risk.

The session on the role of conflict in trafficking also demonstrated a way a truism has the potential to break down into further nuance. It is generally understood that conflict puts people at enormous risk of trafficking and exploitation. However, comparing the experiences of Ukraine and Myanmar shows mixed results. The conflict in Ukraine is, in many ways, a much bigger shock to global systems with a more massive displacement of people in a shorter period of time. It was widely anticipated that it would lead to a marked increase in trafficking. However, thus far, the numbers have not borne that out as much as expected. It’s possible that a lot of trafficking has gone unreported or that the situation will change as the conflict drags on, challenges continue to wear on people’s resources, and support services peter out. In the meantime, more research is needed to explain the differences between the Ukraine and Myanmar contexts. There was some speculation that governments and existing volunteer networks responding quickly to share information about rights and safe points of passage had a dampening effect on trafficking; however the true reasons are not yet clear.

Finally, further sensitivity is needed in ethical journalism and coverage on trafficking. A key point raised was the need to frame victims of trafficking and exploitation as more than victims, but as heroes with agency in their stories, to better understand their common humanity as well as how rational decisions and important values can lead to exploitation. Another key point was the importance of considering the implications of shedding light on trafficking in a region–there can be unintended consequences, such as politicians calling for border controls that push migrants toward irregular channels and increase their risk or inadvertently push trafficking into other countries or areas.

Drilling down into nuance helps improve effectiveness as we’re cautioned against the tendency to dwell in stereotypes or becoming too comfortable with overarching “truths” in the anti-trafficking sphere. Bringing more sensitivity to the ways in which certain cases may differ from what’s generally true and sharing experience about what to do to meet needs in those cases may help ensure fewer people fall through the cracks in the systems and help avoid unintended harm.

Have You Considered…?

At the summit, in the session on monitoring and evaluation, the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab shared a toolkit they’ve been developing with Winrock International that is full of resources to help improve methodology and data collection. Having a common resource can help move organizations closer to agreed-upon definitions and measures, improve the validity of measures as the field continually develops tested and proven methods, and improve efficiency as organizations need not reinvent the wheel, but rather use definitions and indicators already widely adopted. The toolkit is currently available online, though do check back in January, for the launch of an updated version.