News

In the chequered world of cross-border crime, few issues are more emotive than the trafficking of children. Cracking down on Trafficking in Human Beings (THB), and especially in women and children, has long been an EU priority. But in border control there remains much to be done. Now a new Frontex initiative hopes to tighten the net.

The first comprehensive statistical report on THB in the EU, by Eurostat and released in April, stated that 23,632 people were identified or presumed victims of trafficking in the EU over the period 2008-2010, of which around 15% were under 18.

Even though those figures are considered a conservative estimate, they would mean that over a thousand children are trafficked into or within the EU every year. And while all seem to agree that child trafficking is the most horrendous of crimes, there are remarkably few tools available to border guards to tackle the phenomenon. Even the Schengen Borders Code contains only one paragraph on dealing with children at the border. Those policing the borders of some Member States do not even have the right to talk to children, much less to separate or interview them.

While specific gaps in procedures for the detection and prevention of trafficking and smuggling of children vary between Member States, there is clear consensus that most border officials could be better trained and better equipped to close the gaps. For this reason a group of Member State representatives gathered in Dublin, Ireland, in April to discuss ways forward. Specifically, the workshop set about creating a border guard manual — Vega Children — to equip officials at air borders with the tools they need to tackle the crime. The project takes its name from the existing Vega Handbook; a practical guide for border guards on the detection and disruption of human trafficking at air borders. But while Vega outlines common modi operandi, signs to look for, measures for first- and second-line border control as well as for follow-up and investigation, it has no provisions specifically for the phenomenon of child trafficking. Hence the need for a specialised version for minors — Vega Children.

Identifying needs

Being the first step in a potentially far-reaching project, questions were more prevalent than answers. The daunting task of creating a pan-European document for practical use started with the need to identify the biggest deficiencies in the current state of play and to highlight common areas that can be addressed through operational rather than legislative changes. Here there was no shortage of input.

Ireland is in the advantageous position of having had an operation — code-named Snow — that has been monitoring the smuggling and trafficking of children since 2008. One of the clearest conclusions of its findings was that invariably children have already travelled through at least one other Member State before reaching Ireland, without being identified as being at risk; or at least without any transfer of information to the destination country. This at least is consistent with a general truth, which is that smugglers and traffickers target large hub airports like Heathrow and Frankfurt as the passenger flow is greater and their chances of being detected are lower. All agreed that earlier detection would always be preferable and that greater information exchange between airports would constitute an important weapon in the fight.

Another commonality was the perception that the asylum system represents one of the commonest gateways for moving children into the EU. Here, part of the modus operandi (MO) is that once a claim is filed for protection, the child is no longer under the control of the border authorities but of other civil service departments such as the interior ministry or a social welfare body. From there they are often placed in open centres — a common MO identified in a 2010 Frontex report on undocumented minors. This opens a wider debate on the need to protect children versus calls to not detain them and what the difference is between the two in practical terms. Another problem with this MO is that by the time a child is interviewed, the trafficker or smuggler has long gone and any criminal investigation is severely hindered.

Another fact, and one confirmed in April’s Eurostat report, is that most trafficking occurs within the EU rather than into it. Here different Member States have different priorities. Romania and Bulgaria, both considered high-risk countries for trafficking, have stringent rules on children leaving with people who are not their parents. Other Member States, being destination countries, are more focused on detecting trafficking on entry. Again, greater coordination of efforts at the two opposing ends was unanimously seen as a necessity, as was more coherence in the type of documentation required.

Another potential weak point was identified as e-gates. Although the general guidelines are for minors not to use them, there are regional variations. In some countries the minimum age is fifteen while in others the age is twelve though there is a height restriction. It was generally thought that children should be exempt from the advantages of automated border crossing technology though how this would work in practice remained open for discussion.

A clear area of concern was unaccompanied minors, which at air borders means either under-18s travelling unattended (some airlines accept passengers at 15 or 16 though, again, there is little consistency in the rules) or children travelling in the care of airline staff and “handling companies” at airports, which accompany the child through the airport. In this regard it was uniformly felt that procedures could and should be improved, including in advance information and the pre-vet-ting of the adult collecting the child and confirmation of that person’s identity by an officer at handover. Again, the practicalities of how to achieve this, particularly at large hub airports, would require much work at individual air borders. 

Perhaps the biggest single blockage in identifying potential victims however was seen as the possibility to talk to children at the border. Some Member States allow no contact with the child while others allow only limited interaction and others have effectively unlimited powers. It was uniformly agreed that some interaction was essential if potential victims are to be identified and crimes prevented. And herein lies one of the great frustrations of detecting THB at any border: The crime doesn’t occur at the border. The exploitation typically comes later and often victims are unwitting collaborators in their own trafficking, believing they are being smuggled for a better life and only finding out the truth when it is too late. As one participant put it, “Trafficking always starts with smuggling.”